Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

More footage of UFOs over Denver. Baffles aviation experts.

page: 18
207
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 





That's why you need as much info as possible to work things out or an understanding of the basic principles of photography!


I'm sorry but that's just nonsense. I don't need to have basic understanding of photography to see when something is in focus.



That my friend, is in focus. Telling me otherwise is just flat out contradiction.
edit on 10-11-2012 by FlySolo because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlySolo




Bugs. Highly reflective bugs.

Seriously guys? Gortex, Phage, Chad?

Care to take a stab at this?


I wonder why they don't reply you 00'



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlySolo
reply to post by wmd_2008
 





That's why you need as much info as possible to work things out or an understanding of the basic principles of photography!


I'm sorry but that's just nonsense. I don't need to have basic understanding of photography to see when something is in focus.



That my friend, is in focus. Telling me otherwise is just flat out contradiction.
edit on 10-11-2012 by FlySolo because: (no reason given)


wow


still a reflecting bug sazbot!

kay-o?



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 08:47 PM
link   
touche :
:



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 08:52 PM
link   
reply to post by MorkandMindy
 


Because either A) they think I'm a dick. B) I'm right or C) all of the above.

Except Chad of course. We have an understanding



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 08:58 PM
link   
reply to post by FlySolo
 


The landing thing is significant to me.

I'd expect to hear more from people in the area if anything was going on as described...



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 09:05 PM
link   
Drone almost collides with plane

While E.T.s are far more exciting, I do believe it is either a legitimate drone used by local law enforcement or someones home brew. I posted a link earlier (page 14) with another news release from Denver stating they were going to start using drones for surveillance.

I would say they are not "bugs", as it appears that in one video, at the 2:28 minute mark, the object dissappears behind a tree line.



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 09:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


Let's assume it's some anti grav device some guy has been working on in his garage. Maybe about 2-3 feet in diameter. The ability to take off and return in a flash with no sound and no witnesses. Would that satisfy?



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 09:28 PM
link   
couldn't find any reference of estimated speed ...as far as i'm aware the fastest rc's are around 300 plus mph



the object in the op's post looks way faster (to fast to remote control in my opinion )

videos to compare with op's post




for it to be seen taking off and landing over a residential area around the same time the object must be toy like in size ...

i honestly thought it was flying garbage,but the odds of it happening regularly at the same time are pretty remote
not saying its ET or anything ...in truth i don't know



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 09:33 PM
link   
I would think that even if this was someone's personal toy then someone, a neighbor, would have come forward with a story of their own by now. Great story!



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 09:51 PM
link   
The camera does not have any telephoto lens attached.

So, assuming the camera was focused at infinity, the depth of field in daytime (set on 'auto') would go from about 30-50 ft (rough estimate, probably less, like 25 ft) to infinity. That means objects further than 25 - 50 ft would be in focus.

This means that the object could have been as close as 25 - 50 ft and still be in focus.

The fact that we also see unfocused moving objects in the foreground (closer than the beginning of the DoF, 0 ft to 25 to 50 ft) means there were bugs close to the camera. I didn't notice any bugs in the fox cameraman's video.



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by VekTorVik
 


I see what you're referring to, however, enhancing the vid shows it going in FRONT of the tree line as the guy follows its path with the camera. (Using VLC , Tools, Effects and Filters).



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 10:20 PM
link   
Filming a potentially amazing piece of UFO footage over Denver is so easy...that yes...even a caveman can do it.



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 10:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by FlySolo
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


My bad. But you are in the bug camp, are you not?



Look at the video, he claims the objects were a mile high it's obvious they are not


Call me crazy, but can his reference be about the object's distance from sea level, not necessarily distance from the deck? Denver's nickname is afterall The Mile High City. Hence, the title of the news story Mile High Mystery. Just sayin.



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 11:13 PM
link   
Before I was able to watch the video, I thought balloon boys dad might have perfected his ship, lol. After watching though, the percieved speed at which those objects move is amazing. I wonder if he would get the same results from a different vantage point?



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 11:21 PM
link   
I think NORAD is lying, I think they've tracked the target, with all the sophisticated technology the US has, I highly doubt they didn't track this object...It's weird what it could be, is these UFO's trying to tell us something??



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 11:47 PM
link   
We have two eyes - that gives us depth perception. A camera has one eye. With one eye there is no depth perception. The object could be two feet away or 20 miles away. These CCD cameras seem prone to rogue charges migrating around the CCD. So, in order to eliminate these issues, there need to be two cameras placed a short distance from each other and have them both record video of the same place at the same time. That's such a simple solution that it makes you question why no one does it. The possible answer is it is to perpetuate the myth.



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 02:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by jaws1975

Originally posted by humphreysjim

Originally posted by EdwynaGolden
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


If a bug that big was flying around my face or anywhere near me, I would definitely see it!


They didn't see bugs because bugs don't make a good news story.

It's funny how untrusting people are of the media here until they imply something truly far fetched like alien craft, then suddenly Fox is trustworthy.


So let me get this straight, you think they trumped up some bugs to make a good ufo story? You guys are out of your freaking minds!


I think they wanted to a great story, so didn't even bother looking for anything mundane. If they found a mundane explanation, the story would be a useless waste of time to them, and they wouldn't want that.

It reminds me of when I play golf and I lose my ball. I always find myself looking where I would like the ball to be, rather than bringing myself to peek into the horrible mass of long grass where I truly suspect it has gone.

As for smart people being fooled by trivial things, someone mentioned Rods, and they are a great example. So many people were stumped, intelligent people, and the explanation was...bugs. Simple bugs and a lack of understanding of photography and a sensation was borne.

It has been mentioned before that an aviation expert is no better qualified at spotting a bug than you or I, remember that.

Finally, if you're going to respond to my quote personally, don't complain about comments regarding the guy's arm hair, or where the objects are landing, because I haven't mentioned any of those things. I'm still seeing a lot of handwaving and little more in favor of this not being bugs.



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 02:52 AM
link   
reply to post by RoyBatty
 


Great, I am really looking forward to hear from you about your findings !

If it is not to much to ask, could you give me a heads up via PM when you post your findings?



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 03:39 AM
link   
Sir`s, please forgive me, but I am somewhat simple minded, I took these UFO pictures, etc, and was wondering if perhaps someone versed in photography could tell me what they are in the two articles. My simpleness does not allow me to post a hyper link, so if someone could kindly help with that also, that would be sincerely appreciated.

[Snip]

These are freeze frames from video using a CanonSX210 set to automatic, what are those things sir`s ?

Thank you for helping me find out. I look forward to your analysis.




 

Mod Edit: Content removed. Please see Terms and Conditions of Use section 15h.) Spamming. Thank you - Jak
edit on 12/11/12 by JAK because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
207
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join