Still no undeniable photos/video

page: 2
3
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by anomalie
The second video with concord i heard was internal lens reflection of a light source possibly the sun..the 'UFO' never goes behind the aircraft as it appears in the video nor did anyone see it.

Thanks, point taken and appreciated! I've wondered about the Concorde footage, I do admit. Nor am I arguing for either the Nellis nor the Montana footage. Just giving the OP food for thought.

However, as a longtime news and entertainment videographer, I'm fairly accustomed to various refractions and as such can't recall ever seeing any like that in the Concorde footage. Especially as it moves along the fuselage and doesn't dissipate.

I do admit that the initial appearance of it moving behind the plane could be tricky, but, given the low resolution it is hard to tell. Your explanation would be Ocacm's razor of course. I'll google that theory.




posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 09:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Nephilimsreturn
 


It wouldn't even matter if you got a crystal clear photo of a disc with a alien waving out the window and debunkers would still call it "chinese lanterns", "bug", "bird", "swamp gas" ect ect.

-SAP-



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 09:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by SloAnPainful
reply to post by Nephilimsreturn
 


It wouldn't even matter if you got a crystal clear photo of a disc with a alien waving out the window and debunkers would still call it "chinese lanterns", "bug", "bird", "swamp gas" ect ect.

-SAP-
if you had an actual crystal clear photo of disc with a alien waving out the window that wasn't an obvious lantern, bird or swamp gas, you would have a crystal clear photo of something that could be analyzed by anyone, not just debunkers. I'm not sure what your point is.



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 10:03 PM
link   
reply to post by ZetaRediculian
 


My point is that it would still be dubunked no matter how compelling the photo looks.

Plus I was kind of being a smart#.


-SAP-



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 10:34 PM
link   
reply to post by SloAnPainful
 


I guess I don't get the whole "debunking" thing. If something is explained as being what it is, to me, that's "debunking". A debunking would also have verifiable evidence to back up the explanation. If you have a rock solid crystal clear picture of something that's not on your list of common things mistaken for UFOs, then that is what you have.

A crystal clear photo would certainly help strengthen the believers point of view which is built on some pretty fuzzy information currently.



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by The GUT

Originally posted by anomalie
The second video with concord i heard was internal lens reflection of a light source possibly the sun..the 'UFO' never goes behind the aircraft as it appears in the video nor did anyone see it.

However, as a longtime news and entertainment videographer, I'm fairly accustomed to various refractions and as such can't recall ever seeing any like that in the Concorde footage. Especially as it moves along the fuselage and doesn't dissipate.


I agree it does not look like your regular internal lens refraction/reflection that you would might expect to see but then again im no optics expert. The theory put forward is what i read or heard somewhere apparently it was suggested by the camera operator but i really cant say for sure.


Originally posted by The GUT
I do admit that the initial appearance of it moving behind the plane could be tricky, but, given the low resolution it hard to tell. Your explanation would be Ocacm's razor of course. I'll google that theory.


If you watch this video below you can see whatever it is..it moves in front and not behind Concorde


I'm just repeating what others have said i dont remember it ever been properly debunked as this would require the same camera and reproducing exact same conditions which is almost impossible.

Still the concorde UFO video is pretty bad ass i never get bored of watching it
edit on 28-8-2013 by anomalie because: (no reason given)
edit on 28-8-2013 by anomalie because: the usual bad english..lol



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 11:52 PM
link   
The only undeniable photo, or video, is the one you capture yourself.

Personally, I've seen what seems like thousands, and not one has ever proven a thing, and it's not likely to change, ever... That's not to say I'm a non believer though, on the contrary.

I do believe someone has technology they just arent sharing with somebody else.
It's only logical to start with a terrestrial origin, but nothing, and I mean nothing, can be conclusively ruled out... here's why.

If you go outside, and look up into the sky, you have two possible options to consider.

It either:

A) Ends
or
B) Does Not End

Think about that.. the perfect example of impossible.

Now... with that said, I'm almost 50, and until last October, I had never seen, what one might consider, a classic U.F.O. sighting. Yep, It was a red orb to the eye, but in the video it looks like a disc.

I captured nearly nine minutes of terribly embarassing footage that would be second to none, if I were trying to document the failure to find the dot.

It was just too unpredictable, and only after watching it "return" to an area three times, did I guess right and get a few seconds good enough to take with me to my grave knowing what I had witnessed.

Trust me, the video wouldn't mean the same to you, and the couple times I wanted to share, I saw someone post a picture and practically get laughed off ATS. I wouldn't blame them if they never came back... *dru, that was just mean, shame on you*

Again, wanted to share, but not willing to have some grouch look down their nose at me like some kind of authority, talk to me like a child, and get their jollies.

Obviously, someone posting a picture might want to know what it is, there's still no need to tell them so, like a five year old, that's just insulting!

Validation isn't something you're going to find here, either. You will, however find someone willing to explain to you that it's all you want. Again... totally demeaning.

Now.. just because I've typed so much, and this post could be given its own title, and tossed into the rant can, I'll share one frame.




Yeah... keep looking up, and keep that camera handy, it could be the only proof you'll ever get a chance to believe.


Peace



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 12:44 AM
link   
Yeah, I completely agree, now that the whole world has mobile phones with a camera, you would think that more evidence/photo's of unidentified craft would have been taken. The problem I have now is the fact that due to today's technology and how easy it is to place an object into a photo, you never know whether what you are looking at is the real deal or a fake. Somebody could shoot a real authentic, perfectly detailed photo of an alien craft and stick it on the net, but folks would still say that it was a fake/hoax. So at the end of the day, even if we had the proof via a photo of an alien craft staring at you in the face, people would still deny it even if they really want to see the real thing..........



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 01:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by The GUT

Originally posted by Nephilimsreturn
Care to point me in the direction of some must read threads?

I have about 12 hours a night to kill....for the next 3 months.

I like you, don't get me wrong. I starred your introductory thread. But, yeah, after I cook dinner for the family and clean up, I'll try and make a list.

Although, it would be much easier, and much more personally educational and not dependent on me, if you just went to the proper forum category and started clicking on thread titles that sounded interesting to you.

Doing that will DEFINITELY help you kill all that extra time at work you keep mentioning and, as an added bonus, should kill your boredom whilst at the same time taking your mind off MIBs stalking you and such.

Seriously, with all my heart, no offense, k?

Aliens & UFO Forum

edit on 28-8-2013 by The GUT because: (no reason given)






Point the man in the right direction. Follow through with what you suggest. You want to bring him to your side? Point him to threads you'd suggest or cases you believe are legit. Otherwise,you're just talking out your ass.

The OP raises a valid point. With all that crap around,why is there no solid proof?



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 04:40 AM
link   
what i find to be very interesting is that there are thousands of shaky videos and pictures taken with bad devices like cell phones by people with no background in astronomy showing a dot of light in the sky and claiming that this has to be a ufo.

on the other hand there are thousands of astronomers worldwide watching the night sky using high-tech optical devices like telescopes on stable mounts and they never report any ufos. in fact, when you dive into astronomy, buy a good telescope and start to join some message boards to talk with other astronomers, there is usually not even a ufo or unexplained objects section in those message boards.

if there would be so many unexplained flying objects in the night sky, why are those not seen by the people with a good equipment? or are they seen but could easy be explained using the right equipment and know-how about astronomy?



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by siemis
if there would be so many unexplained flying objects in the night sky, why are those not seen by the people with a good equipment? or are they seen but could easy be explained using the right equipment and know-how about astronomy?


It's an interesting observation, no doubt.

However... if you're ever able to find even one of the many, you speak of, that can actually explain where the sky ends, please contact me immediately, unless, of course, you have the answer already. Either way, I'd like to hear it. The human brain can't even imagine such an absurdity, try it.

Also, a telescope would have been 100% useless had I tried to find, let alone follow, the "thing" I watched drop out of the sky.

Again, you don't see claims of origin, just the fact that it had been observed, yet some of you have trouble even believing that. Two headed snakes also exist, but I've never seen one of those.

Anyone can have a vast understanding of many things, and still not be able to answer the question in my signature. Where the hell does the sky end? Stop passing up the question people.

Speaking of that, Here's about 50 hours of classroom lectures on the subjects of physics and astro-physics, linked in the opening post of a thread from long ago.

... and the circle continues!

Your turn!


ETA: How much of this energy is in the "visible" range?



What about a time component, and how familiar are we with that?

edit on 29-8-2013 by lernmore because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by siemis
what i find to be very interesting is that there are thousands of shaky videos and pictures taken with bad devices like cell phones by people with no background in astronomy showing a dot of light in the sky and claiming that this has to be a ufo.

on the other hand there are thousands of astronomers worldwide watching the night sky using high-tech optical devices like telescopes on stable mounts and they never report any ufos. in fact, when you dive into astronomy, buy a good telescope and start to join some message boards to talk with other astronomers, there is usually not even a ufo or unexplained objects section in those message boards.

if there would be so many unexplained flying objects in the night sky, why are those not seen by the people with a good equipment? or are they seen but could easy be explained using the right equipment and know-how about astronomy?


I spend a lot of nights here where I live out in the country with my telescopes and cameras taking pictures of the sky.

I've been doing it since I was a kid back in the 1970s. I've spent a lot of time learning about what it is I'm seeing when I look up or when I look through my telescope.
I have to know when a certain planet will be up in the sky and where it is if I want to look at it through my telescope. Same goes for asteroids, comets, stars, nebula and other galaxies.

While out there, I some times see something go streaking by at unbelievable speeds. Sometimes faint, some times very bright and learned a very long time ago that those are meteors I'm seeing.

I see points of light moving in the sky. Sometimes they are flashing....with a strobe light....and have green and red lights. Those are aircraft traversing the skies at night.
Sometimes there is no strobe of light, but just a constant movement of a point of light. Sometimes faint, sometimes bright. I had to learn that those are satellites orbiting the Earth,

I'm not the only one that has done this. Millions of amateur astronomers like me have done this, so that we know what it is we are seeing the the sky.

People not familiar with what is up in the sky at night can mistake many of these things as a UFO. One of my brother-in-laws did that with me standing next to him. He was freaked out......until I took him inside and showed him how what we just saw was the ISS passing overhead, as it was scheduled to do so, would be bright and then suddenly fade out as it passed into the Earth's shadow.

However, in all this time, I've never once seen something that I could not explain up in the sky. And I'm ready for it with both a DSLR camera and a video camera mounted on tripods.

But they just don't seem to want to visit me, even after decades of hoping to see something I can't explain in the sky.

Camera's can fool you. Take a picture of the moon with your cell phone, and you're just going to see a white dot. It's because the moon covers only about 1/2 a degree in the sky when full. Here is a shot of it with my DSLR camera with a 210mm telephoto lens. This is as much as I can zoom in with it:



My video camera on the other hand can zoom in a lot better. Here is a frame grab:



But it only looks good because it's mounted on a tripod and not held on by my hands, else the moon would be shaking around very badly.

If an object is small and zipping around, it's going to be hard for anyone to capture, especially on a cell phone camera. As big as the moon looks to our eyes, it's actually quite small in a camera's frame. Zooming in doesn't help. Try holding a pair of binoculars steady while looking at the moon to give you and idea.

I'd love to capture something like a UFO. In the mean time, I'll still be out there every night that I can taking pictures like this:



Oh....and not EVERYONE has a cell phone. I don't. Nor does my wife.

Having worked with radar systems for 2 decades and knowing what RF energy can do to the human body, I'm not about to hold a RF transmitter up against my head for extended periods......



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Nephilimsreturn
 



What about the Mexican UFO sightings that over a million people clearly saw or hundreds of other reports with multiple witnesses and video. There is no denying UFO's are real....people always relate the term "UFO" to "Aliens or extraterrestrial" which is why there is so much ridicule in the field of study because that is not true as of now.

The real question is what is everyone seeing, our own secret government projects or aliens, or inter dimensional humans, who knows. Cell pics, Cameras, Telescopes, Satellite images or yada yad, you wouldn't believe them no matter what so called evidence is produced because you didn't have the experience yourself to actually know for sure. That is the key missing element in the discussion.

It is almost impossible on a site like this to have anything close to proof, it's all peoples opinions and claims and that's it. Half believe and half don't and that's the way it will always be no matter what evidence you believe to be true to the issue.

I believe the "Law of One" makes the most sense to me in my mind and heart. That said I believe that not everybody can experience certain things in this world like "UFO's, Aliens, Ghosts, Shadow People, and so on and so on because they are not at that stage of consciousness and understanding. If you go through hundreds or thousands of lives to learn the lessons you need in order to get back to the true creator and love/light then to me this makes sense.

This is why certain people never have experiences because they chose not to... think about that.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Nephilimsreturn
 


I'll help you get started, whilst The GUT cooks dinner.

Start with this one where ATS senior members give opinions on their best cases.........

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Then, get your teeth into these threads.................

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The "UFO & Aliens" forum, if you hit "most flagged" and make your way through, you will get a good picture as to the mindset of membership and the validity of the UFO phenomenon.

I would also recommend reading The GUTs The Men In Black (OPs), The Aviary & UFO's thread...........a real eye opener.
edit on 29-8-2013 by Sublimecraft because: added link for The GUT's thread



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by nightstalker78
You want to bring him to your side? Point him to threads you'd suggest or cases you believe are legit. Otherwise,you're just talking out your ass.

The OP raises a valid point. With all that crap around,why is there no solid proof?

My arse--admittedly--is fluent in a few different languages. No secret there. Once one hits the "post" button here, it's recorded history that can't be denied.


However, I wasn't trying to push my viewpoint on the OP, not at all. Only trying to make the point that it's a very complex subject that deserves some study, and that our ATS forum is a good place to start. Especially before making minimal threads about something most of us know and have discussed here often. Such as pics and videos are never going to be the end-all-be-all.

I like Nephilimsreturn, and his enthusiasm, but It might behoove him to consider a little more study if he wants to be taken seriously here.

For example, his thread worrying that he was being watched by MIB because of his new interest in ufology. I personally wouldn't want THAT one on my thread record, and I was sincerely trying to be helpful in a tough-love kind of way.

This thread has turned up a few jewels though, so maybe I'll just muffle my arse by sitting on it. For example:

eriktheawful provided a very excellent post explaining and detailing why smartphones aren't very likely to ever provide much in the way of evidence even if you have a really good sighting of an airborne anomaly. That would have made a GREAT thread on the subject. Still would. Nicely done.


Sublimecraft supplied some superior threads--like only ATS can provide--that will jumpstart one's mind and ufological education and shows how some boring hours at work for the OP can be utilized in line with his new interest. Some, I'll reread myself.


Some other good posts here, too, so I guess, in a way, I stand corrected. But I bet our new brother's overall experience here at ATS will be much more gratifying if he took some of the suggestions to heart.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 11:26 AM
link   
Funny, I just was thinking of a thread titled;

" TONS of Undeniable UFO Photos Videos and Military/Civilian Pilot testimonials abound,
what else do we need?"



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alundra
www.ufocasebook.com...

There are certainly some clear ones in that list , but then the question remains.. real or fake ?

But you are right, there should be more "evidence" by now.

Not sure why, maybe people don't look up at the sky anymore as it used to be (you know , people have 'busy' lives these days)

edit on 28-8-2013 by Alundra because: (no reason given)


Really


That all depends on your definition of a CLEAR image.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jaxsprat
reply to post by NoRulesAllowed
 


I agree with you to some degree except where you talk about orbs and a plausible alternative... Whats plausible to someone who has not seen an orb would not be plausible to someone who has seen one.
It seems the majority of sightings at the moment are these orbs/ lights. I don't like to call them orbs because to me it makes it seem they are like the orbs you see in ghost footage. The sky orbs look nothing like them. The plausible explanation for them is a lantern , helicopter, plane, meteor blah blah... The ones i saw are NOT any of those.

To me a drone is not plausible because I am yet to see any proof that there are drones that look like orange lights or can move at the speeds these things do. If they were drones the govt are obviously not trying to keep them secret due to the multiple sightings and so therefor should have some photographic proof of them.

I recently saw a report of the foo fighters, orange orbs , their explanation is living plasma balls. It got me really thinking this IS plausible. But their words were something like we don't know enough about it yet. As in they have no clue if plasma could make these formations, keep these formations at high speed or move the way they do , but possibly it could. Therefor I don't accept that as a plausible explanation until they can prove that.

So all in all whats plausible to one may not be plausible to another ;0)



You are correct, I actually *referred* to orbs as the "ghost orbs" in ghost pictures, but forgot the UFO "orbs", eg. lights which also have this name.

Here is a very good example in regards to this topic (missing proof) and the "orbs", I just finished this book "Hunt for the Skinwalker" by George Knapp (recommended!) where an alleged SCIENTIFIC TEAM (read again!!) with multi-million dollar equipment spent months investigating this so called "Skinwalker ranch" in UTAH where there were also multiple and detailed sightings of Orbs, some even close-up, allegedly only feet away from those who saw them.

This scientific team (which included capacities like J. Vallee etc.) did (here it comes!) not manage to produce ONE SINGLE CONVINCING bit of evidence, despite their multimillion $$$ equipment, despite IR cameras and whatnot other high-tech gadget.

All they got after months of spending time researching the phenomenon scientifically is a handful of blurry images "with some dots"....and the rest is 3rd-hand witness accounts like "he said that his friend's cousin's brother Joe saw something like week".

Of course, they now say it is all intentional, that "the phenomenon" played cats and mouse with them and very knowingly evaded them and played trick on them so they couldn't capture anything...but again..here we are facing a situation where all we can do is BELIEVE.
edit on 29-8-2013 by NoRulesAllowed because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jaxsprat
IMO a photo, no matter how clear it is will NEVER be accepted as proof .a photo without the photographers story behind it means nothing, same with video.

the old saying ... 'In this day with all the smart phones etc etc etc ' . To answer it for yourself go out tonight and take a pic of something in the sky with your smartphone, just see how clear it turns out. ( Ive been trying to get a nice clear shot of a full moon with DSLR camera , not having much luck due to my lack of knowledge )


Here you go

A simple shot of our nearest neighbour



1/400th of a second f8 iso 400, taken with a 300mm lens (heavy crop)
Go to this thread for tips & help.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

As for pictures/video youtube is a prime example of the problem tiny dots of light at night in the distance with claims of being a ufo and even when it happens over a city nobody closer seems to video the objects but is that because people closer can see what the objects are


Then we have the morphing ufo's well they are not really that just autofocus trying to lock on to the objects for example the picture of the Moon above was manual focus although my camera has autofocus.

Many members here jump to all sorts of conclusions regarding videos/pictures but we are lucky that we have a great many members that know a bit about the subject being semi-pro, professional or long time hobby photographers like myself.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 11:51 AM
link   
Digital Cameras Pro: Convenient since you can take it every where. Picture can be viewed right after. Cheap too.

Cons: Not as sharp, or as clear, also can't take picture of moving targets. Distance becomes a problem too.

Old Skool Camera Pros: Captures full out detail if the shot was taken right, also can take pictures of moving targets if done right as well.

Cons: Bulky and big, and pictures have to be developed. Also can be quite expensive for better lenses.

You watched the new Diablo 3 Expansion trailer, didn't you?
edit on 29-8-2013 by Specimen because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
3
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join