It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

100+ Orb Armada over my house in Taylors Hill.

page: 2
12
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 28 2013 @ 11:02 PM
link   

Urantia1111
ETA again, NOT a hoax. legitimate sighting of hundreds of ufos.
edit on 28-11-2013 by Urantia1111 because: (no reason given)



But only one witness?




posted on Nov, 28 2013 @ 11:03 PM
link   

alfa1
Looks like a nice sunny day after brightening it back up again...


Nice. How obvious is that? Definitely daytime. That's the handful of dirt before the gravediggers come in with the backhoe.

I might cry foul here and there but I've never cried: HOAX...but there ya' go. This member has tried to pull one on us. Great ATS detective work, y'all!



posted on Nov, 28 2013 @ 11:11 PM
link   
reply to post by alfa1
 


Not to mention the time up in the right-hand corner also shows the time of day. This is a HOAX no matter how many times a certain person or two claim it's not, and that it's "real alien UFO's!!!"

This video is of birds or insects that keep flying close enough to the camera to become enlarged and blurred.



posted on Nov, 28 2013 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Urantia1111
id say from the amount of pissing and moaning going on (from the usual suspects) that the footage is likely legit and not hoaxed. the pre-edited version is better. clouds being visible definitely boosts credibility.

ETA again, NOT a hoax. legitimate sighting of hundreds of ufos.

Don't get me wrong, I believe an anomalous phenomenon exists--whether earthlight or something more--that exhibits the basic characteristics seen here, but this vid is not an example of that particular enigma.

OP: Please explain & detail your experience? Maybe that will help? Otherwise: Definite hoax, beware poster.



posted on Nov, 28 2013 @ 11:19 PM
link   
Maybe me tinfoil's a bit too tight, maybe it ain't...but take a look at this account. See if anything jumps out at ya'.

gortex!, you gonna tag in or what!

edit on 28-11-2013 by The GUT because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2013 @ 11:32 PM
link   

intrptr
From the YuTube channel heres the "Pre" edited version…
Guess that one revealed too much information.

At @ 2:10 theres a brief horizon to give the view some context.
Looks like someone filmed a brush fire and those are sparks rising. Isn't there smoke in the foreground in some sections of the video?



posted on Nov, 29 2013 @ 12:17 AM
link   
Nice try David...



posted on Nov, 29 2013 @ 12:26 AM
link   
seabhac-rua,

I can see how you would think that, but with all due respect, i don't get to choose how particular sightings come about. I would love to be able to place something in the background as a point of reference however its really luck of the draw. The day was pretty cloud-free but then I didn't really have my mind on the clouds when I started filming. I have been skywatching for about a year so far, and i've personally never seen a swarm of insects in formation like this that stayed in view so clearly for the entire recording duration. Most insects i've seen generally zoom by the camera too fast as they are very close and my digital monocular generally isn't that powerful to see bugs further out than about 40-50m and even then they tend to flicker according to their direction as the rays of light from the sun reflect off their surfaces.

Deadcalm,

Yes that was a re-edit from the original that i posted beforehand, i used sony vegas to darken the background and increase luminance. I am curious to know, if it is impossible to know what you're looking at how would you arrive at a conclusion that would cause you to say "better luck next time?" What is it about the footage that makes you so sure it isn't as claimed?

FraternitasSaturni,

cheers i thought i'd add a little extra kick to the title, seems to be the norm (within reason of course) on youtube these days to invite views.

Mrcasas,

That's impossible, because i'm using an infra-red 950nm filter on the lens of my monocular which blocks visible light. the only strong infrared light sources would be from the sun and the ir illuminator which i never use during the day and because of the very fact that close-up objects such as bugs will reflect ir light back to the camera and interfere with long-range observations.

unity_99,

cheers, unfortunately these were not visible with the naked eye. Then again, it all happened so quickly that there was no chance i was going to take my eye off the scope, i opened my left eye while scanning but the afternoon glare from the sun was too intense for me even while squinting so im not sure if they truly would have been visible or not, if it had of been a twilight setting maybe so. I'm not sure how balloons would behave but some of the objects in the
footage drop down at pace, something balloons should not be doing on a sunny day especially with little to no wind.

ThinkingCap,

cheers and you're welcome. as i've mentioned, i believe these objects were too far out to be detected by my monocular as bugs, anything closer than 40-50m would appear blurry due to the focus setting. This would cause a lighter transparent bubble to show up around a brighter centre. i feel the luminosity is too consistent for it to be tubular-shaped bugs or anything with wings. If you like i can upload what bugs look like through the scope and it is nothing like this, just the odd individual bug that zooms past the camera, and with a 30fps scope they are generally too close to be captured in every frame. throughout the entire time i've been filming i've only ever seen white butterflies reflect any decent light from the sun, due to the fact that they are white and even then, it can be seen clearly flapping its wings. I estimate a range of 600-1000m (2000m is pushing it), they were not travelling very fast but i did still have to pan considerably to keep up, so this is the major factor that makes me feel as though they were very close, most of what i've seen at cloud level doesn't require me to pan so much. Apologies for the shakiness, i caught this within 30 seconds when i went outside, i usually do a quick scan before mounting the camera to the tripod but I wasn't going to miss a second of footage if I could help it.

gemineye,

I am using a pulsar recon x550 digital ccd monocular, i purchased this as a day/night solution while i wait for gen3 nv to be approved in australia (and pigs might fly). the occasional flashes is due to the monocular's auto gain function. Due to it being a sunny day, there are instances where more light hits the ccd and this causes a slight flash as it adjusts- max luminance is 30,000. Yes that was a patch of cloud near the end, although there are sections of the sky that had very thin cloud cover that didnt't show up very well, i believe due to the characteristics of infra-red imaging and time of day.

alfa1,

I'm not a spammer if you see some of my other posts today i actually do try to heighten people's perceptions by sharing things that may be of interest. As i recall, i did not recieve a very warm welcome the first few times i posted, so i decided to show respect by only posting things that were genuinely anomalous in nature. Excuse my eagerness to fit in... I won't make excuses for anybody else using my account or make up lies to save face, but I will ask for forgiveness- we all make silly mistakes and I hope we can make the start of a better forum relationship with this post.

intrptr
perhaps you need to ask more questions before drawing conclusions. I don't spam to advertise, simply to share. If the footage wasn't that great fair enough, but to judge someone repeatedly on the past is a little harsh. I'm sure nobody is perfect. if nobody likes it they don't have to waste any further time by posting. is that fair enough? can we "try" to remain on topic here?

The GUT

even if i was a spammer, how does that discredit the footage? either im a spammer or im a forger that makes fake videos. which is it? Why would i waste my time spamming for a hoax? are you serious? I'm eager to see your arguments that pertain to this video being a fraud... ill upload the raw footage, if you're certain its fake I would love for you to explain how I faked it.

primelight,

you're welcome its always nice to be appreciated.

Urantia1111,

cheers buddy thank you for viewing i hope you enjoyed it.

rickymouse,

the resolution is 50 lp/mm @ 720x480. I then convert to 1080 using vegas. I believe what you're referring to towards the end is a patch of cloud (take into consideration the use of an infra-red 950nm filter)

alfa1,

cheers, i kinda stink at using vegas. what exactly did you do to edit this? thanks a lot.

David



posted on Nov, 29 2013 @ 12:34 AM
link   
What surprises me is the eagerness of some people to discredit the footage simply because of the perception that I'm a spammer. what's that got to do with anything? I'm not here to convince anybody, they will have their opinions regardless, I am here to share my personal findings because I can validate it as my personal truth/fact. I was under the impression that this was meant to be a place of open discussion to get to the bottom of what it might be, assuming that they really aren't Orbs. It's the job of every scrutinizing member to list the reasons why they believe it is fake, not to dismiss the footage (and evidence) because they didn't like the person who presented it.

would the above statement be fair among ladies and gentlemen?

David



posted on Nov, 29 2013 @ 12:45 AM
link   
Also, here's a video taken several years ago in Mexico which appears to be almost identical in nature to the video I posted.

Cheers.



David.
edit on 29-11-2013 by hazchem because: (forgot to link)

edit on 29-11-2013 by hazchem because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2013 @ 12:47 AM
link   
Argh what's wrong with the link?

www.youtube.com...



posted on Nov, 29 2013 @ 01:01 AM
link   
_BoneZ_

thanks bonez here's a high res photo just for your convenience... you can clearly see my pocket dvr and the timestamp... and your message in the background.

mediafire:
mediafireDOTcom/?yaog3qiggwvuc6x

sorry the link doesn't seem to want to work properly... can someone fix this? cheers
thanks.

David

edit on 29-11-2013 by hazchem because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-11-2013 by hazchem because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2013 @ 01:08 AM
link   

hazchem
I would love to be able to place something in the background as a point of reference

You did have something in the background as a point of reference called clouds. You decided to edit those out and make the background completely black. Thus, making people think they're looking at a nighttime shot with lighted "objects" flying around.



hazchem
The day was pretty cloud-free but then I didn't really have my mind on the clouds when I started filming.

I see a sky filled with plenty of clouds in the unedited video.




hazchem
Most insects i've seen generally zoom by the camera too fast as they are very close and my digital monocular generally isn't that powerful to see bugs further out than about 40-50m

I don't know if we're watching the same videos, but I can clearly see these birds/insects zooming close enough to the camera to become blurred and enlarged, indicating that they are, in fact, zooming close to the camera.



hazchem
Yes that was a re-edit from the original that i posted beforehand, i used sony vegas to darken the background and increase luminance.

I'm baffled as to why you would do something like that, except only to deceive others. The original was just fine in the fact that there were clouds as reference points, and it was better obvious that these "objects" were birds or insects.

Blackening the background makes viewers think they're looking at a night sky with lighted "objects" flying around. Blackening the background was also deliberately deceptive to what was actually recorded.



hazchem
unfortunately these were not visible with the naked eye.

Since it is clearly obvious that these "objects" kept flying close to the camera, I don't see how this statement is possible.



hazchem
Also, here's a video taken several years ago in Mexico which appears to be almost identical in nature to the video I posted.

Seriously? That video is nothing like your video. That video is clearly balloons. Even most of the commentors can see they're balloons. You can also see by how they are flying that they are balloons.

Your video has objects flying around rapidly like birds/insects, and many of them appear to be dive-bombing the camera. Nothing like the balloon video you posted.



hazchem
i thought i'd add a little extra kick to the title, seems to be the norm (within reason of course) on youtube these days to invite views.

Ah, so we're not about finding out the truth of what these "objects" are, we're about adding "kick" to the title, and editing videos to get views.

That's not how legitimate UFO research works. Deceptive editing of videos, and deceptive titles are the opposite of UFO research. It's called hoaxing (deceiving) others.



posted on Nov, 29 2013 @ 01:12 AM
link   
thesaneone,

there was only one witness because I was filming alone. I live with one other person who wasn't home. UFOLou captured similar days in advance but that's about it... look for his "cluster" sighting... sometimes I wish I was more psychic so I could organize a crowd in advance...

Thanks..

David
edit on 29-11-2013 by hazchem because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2013 @ 01:23 AM
link   
_BoneZ_

"You did have something in the background as a point of reference called clouds. You decided to edit those out and make the background completely black. Thus, making people think they're looking at a nighttime shot with lighted "objects" flying around."

Does that mean I INTENTIONALLY blocked It out? you still haven't provided hard evidence, despite your eagerness to judge, just how the white balls have been faked... if you bothered to read the description on my youtube page you will clearly see the reason why I edited it... to make the white stand out more from the lighter background in order to see the edges of the objects more clearly.. duh.

"I see a sky filled with plenty of clouds in the unedited video."

try looking through an infrared camera sometimes on a sunny day and tell me if you're going to notice thin cloud cover...

"I don't know if we're watching the same videos, but I can clearly see these birds/insects zooming close enough to the camera to become blurred and enlarged, indicating that they are, in fact, zooming close to the camera. "

WOW you're thick and acting like an idiot.

"I'm baffled as to why you would do something like that, except only to deceive others. The original was just fine in the fact that there were clouds as reference points, and it was better obvious that these "objects" were birds or insects.
Blackening the background makes viewers think they're looking at a night sky with lighted "objects" flying around. Blackening the background was also deliberately deceptive to what was actually recorded."

The only person trying to deceive anybody is you. If I had of noticed the clouds don't you think I would have included it? First its a hoax because there WAS NO frame of reference, now its a fake because THERE IS a frame of reference. whats wrong with you? like I said I will gladly upload the raw footage. I would love to see you run your mouth then.

"Since it is clearly obvious that these "objects" kept flying close to the camera, I don't see how this statement is possible."

LOL how do you know the objects were close to the camera? you're basing your statements upon my ESTIMATION. I don't even know how close they were to the camera. next.

"Even most of the commentors can see they're balloons."

now you're basing your opinion on someone elses account on a completely separate video. bravo!

"Ah, so we're not about finding out the truth of what these "objects" are, we're about adding "kick" to the title, and editing videos to get views.
that's not how legitimate UFO research works. Deceptive editing of videos, and deceptive titles are the opposite of UFO research. It's called hoaxing (deceiving) others."

Figure of speech. are the objects not in sufficient numbers to call an Armada or Fleet?

there has been no deception and you obviously know NOTHING about how UFO research occurs because nothing you have said holds any weight whatsoever.

how much are they paying you for this propaganda campaign? 2 cents per post? seriously...

David.




edit on 29-11-2013 by hazchem because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2013 @ 01:27 AM
link   
reply to post by hazchem
 


So on a nice sunny afternoon in a town of 12000 (give or take a few hundred) people only one person looked up and saw hundreds of orbs?



posted on Nov, 29 2013 @ 01:50 AM
link   

thesaneone
So on a nice sunny afternoon in a town of 12000 (give or take a few hundred) people only one person looked up and saw hundreds of orbs?



If he means this location, the the audience is much bigger.
Melbourne is the second largest city in Australia.



Potential audience for these UFO's could potentially be half a million people.
Air traffic control at Melbourne Airport only a few miles away might have noticed too.

But no.
Just the spammer.
Nobody else.



posted on Nov, 29 2013 @ 02:14 AM
link   

thesaneone
reply to post by hazchem
 


So on a nice sunny afternoon in a town of 12000 (give or take a few hundred) people only one person looked up and saw hundreds of orbs?


I think David said they were only visible through the IR filter. Pretty sure there weren't many people walking around with infrared cams on an average day.

I'm not convinced it's a hoax.



posted on Nov, 29 2013 @ 03:20 AM
link   

alfa1

thesaneone
So on a nice sunny afternoon in a town of 12000 (give or take a few hundred) people only one person looked up and saw hundreds of orbs?



If he means this location, the the audience is much bigger.
Melbourne is the second largest city in Australia.



Potential audience for these UFO's could potentially be half a million people.
Air traffic control at Melbourne Airport only a few miles away might have noticed too.

But no.
Just the spammer.
Nobody else.


Yeah again, even if I was a spammer, how does the possibility that nobody else saw them affect the credibility of the video? Do I have control over people turning their heads up to the sky? Do I have control over how many people are interested in UFO's enough to own a hand-held infrared camera? and what are the chances that out of all the people in my area, that the few that are skywatchers and believe in ufo phenomena happened to be pointing their cameras at the same location, on the same day and at the same time? lol...

If you were paying attention you'd have noticed that I estimated them to be fairly close. Not cloud level, but close. they may not have been visible across the entire suburb, even if they were visible with the naked eye. That's not something I can confirm 100% because I was too concerned with maintaining a visual through the camera.

So what are you, just a hater or something more?

According to a sceptics philosophy, either I'm a spammer that is posting legitimate footage or I'm a faker that is posting fraudulent footage. To claim that I am both is a separate incrimination altogether. Too bad you can't change your plea now.

Oh, did I mention that Orbs have no solid mass and therefore will go undetected by radar? lol...

And lastly, spammer's don't stop to have a conversation. they post and leave. another gap in your logic.

Thank you to those that have the common sense to see truth in what I had to share. You made this post truly worth it.

David.
edit on 29-11-2013 by hazchem because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2013 @ 03:42 AM
link   
reply to post by hazchem
 





Yeah again, even if I was a spammer, how does the possibility that nobody else saw them affect the credibility of the video?


What affects the credibility of the video is that you intentionally tried to to pass off a daytime video as being filmed at night.

That alone is grounds to consider this a hoax.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join