Great new UFO Video site

skyeagle409 · Feb 25, 2005

Pizza---You never fail to have the fuzzy, unwatchable videos at the ready, do you? Sky---LOL!! Apparently, investigators were able to watch the videos and make a determination what they were not and you are forgetting that with today's technology, "fuzzy photos" make no difference. What did the investigators state in regards to the Nellis UFO video, or did you somehow overlooked their comments. Typical of closed-minded skeptics. The CIA used distortion and deception tactics on UFOlogist as well, Pizza. Apparently, the videos are clear enough to see the UFOs are not aircraft nor balloons. Other closed-minded skeptics took notice they are not aircraft and probably will claim that they are Venus. After all, that is what they have claimed in regards to Jimmy Carter's UFO sightings eventhough his description says otherwise. Typical response of skeptics who can't take reality for what it is. I should also point out that similar objects of the type that are depicted in the photos were claimed to have been the planet Venus by the closed-minded skeptics. Seems that you don't have much faith in today's technology, Pizza. No wonder you are still living in the "stone age" when it comes to advanced technology. In regards to your past statements on the UFO enigma, your logical 'thinking cup' isn't half-full nor half-empty because it doesn't have a bottom.

arit · Feb 26, 2005

sky I would like to watch the videos, but I don't want to install realplayer for them. Do you have anything in another format? And another question: If UFOs are real, I really don't understand why we don't have any clear videos of them. We have clear videos of everything else. But when I look at stuff like the site at the beginning of the thread, it really doesn't show anything. Always a blur, shaky.... It doesn't advance the UFO cause, on the contrary. (knowing you, sky, I know that the ONE thing you regret in life, the thought that doesn't fade, is that you didn't have a professional-quality camera when you had your sight. Am I wrong?) Regards arit <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "We will either find a way, or make one!" - Hannibal </div>

skyeagle409 · Feb 26, 2005

arit, I don't have anything in another format but I will look. arit---And another question: If UFOs are real, I really don't understand why we don't have any clear videos of them. We have clear videos of everything else. But when I look at stuff like the site at the beginning of the thread, it really doesn't show anything. Always a blur, shaky.... arit, The Nellis video is clear enough to see the UFO change its shape. In regards to the Belgian UFO, a video of the UFO was taken from across the street from the object as it hovered above a building. The video was fairly clear in that instance as well and I've seen the video twice but I can't find it on the internet. arit---It doesn't advance the UFO cause, on the contrary. Sky---I can understand what yo u mean. Besides the videos and photos, I am just as interested in radar and ELINT system data on UFOs. They are remarkable at detecting and tracking UFOs. Videos and photos of UFOs have been taken by Air Force crews and those videos unfortunately, they are still classified with the exception of one, and I will be checking the internet from time to time to see if it shows up. arit---(knowing you, sky, I know that the ONE thing you regret in life, the thought that doesn't fade, is that you didn't have a professional-quality camera when you had your sight. Am I wrong?) Sky---You are right but the thing appeared from over the South China sea suddenly and at first we thought it was just another aircraft approaching the base in full afterburner. If I had the camera in hand, the images would have come out fuzzy because I don't think that I would had the time to focus and click but then again, I might have forgotten I had a camera after what I saw. Sometimes, the guys at Cam Rahn Bay would show off in their F-4s by flying in afterburner at low altitude over the runway because we were still flying the old F-100's, in effect, they

nhufohunter · Feb 26, 2005

Watch the first video on the 04 page, July 29th the one right on top where the object is next to the moon, Then tell me it's a plane

kmarinas86 · Feb 26, 2005

Unfortunately process of elimination cannot rule out mudane psuedo-explanations - even if they are ruled out. It's entirely dependent upon the task of the observer - and its thus subjective and awk-scientific. Science can rule something out even if the majority of ______ says its not. But since the majority does not rule it out for themselves - "everyone says" that its not ruled out and says at the same time that, "More than one explanation for a single event can be true, even if they are diametrically opposite explanations." Only ONE may be true. For example, the craft of the lights could be a blimp according to ________ and a plane according to ________. Most people would make no distinction (oh, yes, they could be this or that but you can't know). Wrong, it can only be either one or the other - or some other thing. unfortunately, just because someone debunks a mudane psuedo-explanation (or multiple ones) doesn't means its (they) debunked... I know this is ironic, but that pretty much the logic of debunking. Just because you're right doesn't make you "right" for pop culture's sake. You have to have proof, in the form of artifacts... but that's not enough. People have to agree that it debunks something. Tastes, opinions, and all that are pathologically tied to determine what can be ruled out and what cannot. Even if it's a helicopter, you cannot rule out the possibility that it's a plane, since some will believe that its a plane.

nhufohunter · Feb 26, 2005

I had this thought about SETI after watching the ABC show. They are going through an awfully lot of work building they huge dishes all over the world looking for et? We already know beyond a doubt that this rock can't be the only intelligent baring world and any serious astronomer knows that including the people involved I think it could be a cover up and these antennas aren't' only receiving, they are sending something, too many millions of dollars spent for somebody to sit around waiting for a click or two, If they where looking what would the say when they found it, Break open the bottle, we found a signal? Maybe ET has something to do with it, the government washing there hands of it yet the effort continuing could be an effort to exonerate government involvement if the truth ever came out, just a theory, so many possibilities if you really look at it the real joke is sites like NUFORC, the black hole of UFO reports

skyeagle409 · Feb 26, 2005

nhufohunter, The government has ways of covering up what they don't want you to know. Yes, the government has ways of diverting public attention away from something they don't want you to know and SETI is no exception. SETI's, Frank Drake, also admitted during an interview that he could be part of a coverup. I believe he is. Also, I think someone took notice of this report. http://taskboy.com/lectures/UFOlogy/04_Psychadelic_Sixties/slide_04.html The official government position is that ET is not here, never was, but SETI is listening for ET anyway! It is all a charade to make it look like they are looking for something when they know full well they are here already. ET contact has been made and the public has a right to know! ****The OCEAN is a very big place and the MOON is not far away and NORAD's DSP satellites have been tracking "Fast Walkers" in space.**** Now, more and more governement intelligence and military officials are finally coming out into the open and admitting that ET is here and has been all of these years and to add, commercial and miltary pilots have been forthcoming with their own aerial encounters with UFOs as well and their testimonies are backed by ATC peronnel and radar operators. Can't forget police officials worldwide who have been reporting UFOs as well. Nations are beginning to release their own "X-Files" and the COMETA report is something you should read about along with accounts from the Disclosure project witnesses. The time is not that far off when the government finally throws in the ET towel. Just before his death, Provost Marshall, Edwin Easley, who was in charge of security at the Roswell crash sites, had finally admitted after years of the honoring the military's "code of silience" on Roswell, that the incident involved extraterrestrial beings, which s

nhufohunter · Feb 26, 2005

Cheers SKY! As I said the truth is there for anyone willing to look. Very interesting, on topic post. Knowing that ET is here and that our government has been anything but truthfull about it really brings out many open possibilities on the both our governments and the Alien agenda. It seems to me that both do not want the truth to come out yet, I hope that you are right and I agree that the process is now speeding up. Even though the evidence is over whelming now I still think that there is underlying deceit by both ends. We are still uncertain about ever other topic concerning visitation. It seem like we are going through the next cycle of UFO docs and TV specials and it is all because people are getting to close. ABC proved the underlying deceit by pumping up a show that's going to bring you more than you've ever seen before and it was garbage. Nothing new, no comments on what they think, or Jennings, it's on the shelf and nobody will talk about it I Felt at one time that disclosure was right around the corner and that distance may be thousands of years to a million year old civilization. I think these displays are happening to keep us wondering, questioning, fighting, Although it seems it is all about control disclosure is inevitable

skyeagle409 · Feb 26, 2005

nhufohunter, The clues have been staring us right in the face for decades and the truth has been around us since then. I admit that I go further out on a limb than some UFOlogist are willilng to go in regards to the UFO enigma but I am not afraid to tell it like it is. Eventually, the truth will be revealed by the very government that for decades, deceived the public on the truth and thank goodness for the Disclosure project, and the COMETA report for bringing the facts out into the open. Now, we have this. ****************************************************************************************** FireFighters UFO Manual (UFO) Subject: Firefighters FEMA UFO training manual WARNING "Near approaches of UFOs can be harmful to human beings. Do not stand under a UFO that is hovering at low altitude. Do not touch or attempt to touch a UFO that has landed. In either case the safe thing to do is to get away from there very quickly and let the military take over. There is a possibility of radiation danger and there are known cases where persons have been burned by rays emanating from UFOs. Don't take chances with UFOs!" http://www.ufos-unbound.com/ufos/firefighters.htm

dgm1 · Feb 27, 2005

Actually man will thin the herd himself and is already well into the effort How? By being more populous than ever before? By having life spans longer than any time in history? By having better medicine than ever before? By understanding more than we ever have? That is "thinning the herd"? Do you even think these things through or just decide that they sound right so they must be? We will more that likely be dust before the truth comes out and thats easy to prove by looking at how easily manipulated man can be, and how hard the powers that be try to keep it secet, or they keep it secret, who really knows Well assuming your sweeping statement about "...how easily man can be manipulated" (which I presume does not include the enlightened such as yourself) is true how does that make it "easy to prove"? "Easy to assume" is maybe a wee bit more fitting but at any rate your original premise is dubious to begin with so the rest of your hypothesis is thrown into a poor light. And who are "the powers that be"? Please list just how the cover-up hierarchy is structured and what organizations and agencies are involved. "Powers that be" sounds ominous and all but it is also pretty vague and makes me think you have no clue how a cover-up would even work so you assign the possiblity to a generic yet threatening "powers that be". Who qualifies as "powers that aren't"? Like I said earlier you should do your homework on the subject before you start spewing your opinion. Do not assume that I haven't. You have no clue. You would like that to be the case because I do not accept your special priveledged info and have openly challenged you on it. Your best defense is not to offer facts but to question the critic. Debate class 101 style error. It indicates a weakness in a material that does not stand up to sc <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

dragon04 · Feb 28, 2005

The 1st and 3rd videos are intriguing. The 2nd one is just plain cheesy. ET playing peek-a-boo? So we have 2 intriguing but fuzzy videos with no way to reference scale. You'd think Nellis would have higher quality video cameras for tracking. A couple guys darkened out with distorted voices really doesn't lend to the credibility of the video. If anything, it's a melodramatic detriment. Think about it. If they were afraid of retribution by the Government, making them shadowed out and altering their voices would offer no assurance of anonymity. That's JUST the kind of stuff that takes an intriguing video and makes it smell like deep fried hoax IMHO. I'm a hopeful skeptic but when I see a crsip, close up video that also provides undeniable scale, I'll be more inclined to believe what I see. I'll grant you this. What I can't make out on the 1st and 3rd video do not resemble conventional aircraft. Unfortunately, that only excludes conventional aircraft. And offers no real proof that they are specifically exotic space/aircraft. BTW.. I used to watch Sightings. In fact, I watch every show that is aired about UFO's and related subjects. And time after time, I'm disappointed by low quality video "proof" and these anyonymous voice altered "witnesses". But I'll keep watching. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!". </div>

kmarinas86 · Feb 28, 2005

I'm a hopeful skeptic but when I see a crsip, close up video that also provides undeniable scale, I'll be more inclined to believe what I see. Wait until UFO witnesses start using 70mm film. Then ask for proof. Until then, only you cannot know for sure what just happened. In actuality, the video quality is good enough. You looked for yourself ... but you didn't see anything.

skyeagle409 · Feb 28, 2005

Dragon04---That's JUST the kind of stuff that takes an intriguing video and makes it smell like deep fried hoax IMHO. Sky---A hoax?! Understand what the 'Nellis' investigation revealed. Dragon04---I'm a hopeful skeptic but when I see a crsip, close up video that also provides undeniable scale, I'll be more inclined to believe what I see. Sky---I can understand that. After all, seeing is what turned millions of people around the world into UFO believers, including myself. Being an experienced pilot for over 35 years, I can definitely tell you that the UFO I saw in Vietnam was not an aircraft nor a balloon and some of my compartriots are believers as well based on their own experiences. J. Allen Hynek was once a skeptic until his investigations revealed that UFOs are in fact, very real. Seems that was all that was needed to turn his view around. The military knew as far back as the 1940's that some UFOs were not only real, but interplanetary spaceships as well. During the course of its investgations over the years, the military was painting one picture for the public and another for its own people. Two completely different sets of UFO 'paintings' on hand. To elaborate, the Air Force told the public that UFOs presented no threat to national security while ordering its own pilots to shoot down those very same UFOs. During that general timeframe, AFR-200-2 was written and placed into service, commercial airline pilots were tagged with JANAP-146, the U.S. Army's Interplanetary Phenomenon Unit, (IPU) Project Moon Dust and Operation Blue Fly--the latter three specifically dealt in the recovery of artificially space vehicles--became operational. To further add, when the IPU, Project Moon Dust and Operation Blue Fly became operational, mankind had no space vehicles in orbit, which was still years away, which means that the initial purpose of the IPU, Project Moon Dust and Operation Blue Fly was for the recovery of

5stone10 · Feb 28, 2005

So the focus on your recorder was set to infinity. At 2 seconds into the video - there is a commercial airplane clearly visible. Somehow, mysteriously the camera loses focus. At which point - blurred sunlight shining against the commercial airplane left side gives the appearance of several 'moving in formation' balls of light. Then again at 12 seconds - the video 'mysteriously' goes back in focus. Once again - you then can clearly see, not a UFO - but just a plain, vanilla commercial air plane !

kmarinas86 · Feb 28, 2005

Why it always just "this" video or "that" video? Why don't you put a link to all of the videos and say that all of them are the same object? Because they are not the same objects. Each video has differents objects in it. Look at any another video, which is different, then try to say the same thing. Look at a video besides this one http://www.jerrypippin.com/video/Franklin%20NH%20Daytime%20footage.WMV Notice how the craft disappears (Play it at slow motion)! Stop ignoring the videos, forget the screenshots. They don't tell you nothin'... the video tells you. The colors change in this video too. Planes that reflect blue light only - do not reflect red light. Planes that reflect red light only - reflect only red. The only way this can be a plane is if it has chameleon paint on it. However, chameleon paint is very expensive and is rarely used on planes, if ever. Actually there is alternative to chamelon paint and that is colored lights. But you rarely see individual bulbs on planes change color. Planes can have flashing colors on them, but different colors on normal planes usually are just seperate lamps. In the case of the object in the video, the individual bulbs themselves change in color. What kind individual bulb on a plane can change in colors, and specifically, the colors seen in the video? It appears that this video is slow mo already - is that right Paul?

dgm1 · Feb 28, 2005

It is a craft all right. The craft is called an airplane. So kmar, please list your credentials that enable you to conduct studies into the origin/type/availability of suck things as lights. And what about reflected sunlight? It would appear that your failure to recognize the reflection of sunlight would cast doubts on your ability to determine anything about lights in this video. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

kmarinas86 · Feb 28, 2005

It would appear that your failure to recognize the reflection of sunlight would cast doubts on your ability to determine anything about lights in this video. What you do not know is the time of day of this video was taken. Here's the answer. http://mysite.verizon.net/vzeomxpk/id4.html It was a beautiful warm day and as I sat looking up at the sky I thought to myself that it would be a great day for a sighting. It appears that sun was up during this video in New Hamshire (High Altitude) on Fall September 21, 2003. Does that mean what we are seeing are not the lights on during day but planes reflection from the shining sun? You already made a conclusion, but you totally ignored the time of day and the angle of the sun. You say that the sun is shining of the plane. Ok, if it shines, which "shine" on the video can you call a wing? Which "shine" is the tail? Which "shine" is the fusalage? Is the video too blurry to show the fuselage, tail section, and wings? For crying out loud, have you even seen the fuselage and tail section in this blurry video? If you can't find it, it doesn't mean its there.

5stone10 · Feb 28, 2005

Why it always just "this" video or "that" video? Because its the link to the video that is advertised most prominently on this web site's home page. Imagine the first link you click on - and it is totally bogus. A reasonable person would quickly become suspicious [believer or not] !!

kmarinas86 · Feb 28, 2005

A reasonable person would quickly become suspicious [believer or not] !! So? So if someone who is 99% success and 1% failure, happens to fail on front of you, a reasonable conclusion would be to say that the person is just about all failure! That is a called the fallacy of false precedent. Just because you miss one answer does not mean you miss most answers. Who's testing who anyway? It's obvious that the colors change, and the color changes shouldn't be taken for granted - as if it suggested nothing. It does suggest something - simply that the colors change per bulb! Or that the reflections change in color! How many reflections do you know change color? Ok, what kind of reflections do change colors? Do planes have to change colors in order to change the color of their reflection - of course! Do planes change color? No, absoultely not. Are the colors of these lights/reflections changing color? You bet. Refractions can result in a prism of colors. The fuselage of planes does not refract light in flashing colors!

dgm1 · Feb 28, 2005

Well angle of the sun would not be too important for two reasons. 1) The fuselage is a cylinder and could reflect light from any nearly any angle. And the wings are not flat one dimesional objects but rather they have many surfaces that could also reflect light from any angle. You are trying too hard to make it mysterious. 2) The object is reflecting light regardless of what you think it is doing. Does it not strike you as odd that the only "flares" from these color-changing lights you see only happens during the times the entire image is out of focus. Have you never seen the blooming effects of lights when the source is out of focus? That is precisely what this is. No big mystery to solve K, just a gleaming aircraft streaking across the sky while some dork with a video camera and an imagination bigger than his intellect films it while sitting in his yard wishing it were a UFO. And when he plays it back guess what? His ineptitude with the camera has produced something that is not quite clear but to those wishing for it...it is film of an alien craft. Please Kmar. Think. Oh and btw, you forgot to list your credentials or training. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

kmarinas86 · Feb 28, 2005

Does it not strike you as odd that the only "flares" from these color-changing lights you see only happens during the times the entire image is out of focus. It's out of what now? Sorry, but even though the video is not as sharp as our vision, it certainly is not blurred enough to change the hues of the light. Even hot baking air creates distortions in lights, but hot air itself does not change the hue of the colors behind it - at least not a well as water since its refractive index is similar to cold air. Dispersion could change the colors, but you need a medium through which to disperse the light. If it was hot air or what not dispersing the light of the craft into different colors, then the air itself would be changing colors. Therefore, its not weather pheonomenon that is causing the change of colors. The light cannot be a reflection unless if chameleon paint or some other light-dispersing material was used on the plane (could it be aluminum?). When deterimining how the colors of the lights were generated, you have to think of these things.

dgm1 · Feb 28, 2005

Kmar I used to think you were a pretty smart kid. I even said that in this thread. But i have to admit i was wrong. You are a dense idiot. You have potential but you are as misguided and un-scientific as any wannabe i have ever seen on here. You actually make earth-sister look normal. I am done discussing this with you. You do not know what you are talking about and cannot apply common sense when viewing something as clearly mundane as this half assed video of a plane in flight. You have determined it to be a UFO based on 12 seconds of info and the word of a starved-for-attention, uneducated, lame-with-a-camera nutjob. The two of you would be mesmerized by a streetlight if it were filmed right. Get a grip on reality sometime soon k, while you are still young enough to regain credibility. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

kmarinas86 · Feb 28, 2005

common sense If common sense is judging based on fallacy of false precendent - then I choose not to apply it. You actually make earth-sister look normal. The fact is that no one can ever make Earth Sister look normal. Are you to say that her claims of talking to aliens is more normal than my belief that I can say that these lights in the video are different in colors? And you never acknowledged that the colors really do change - never! You have determined it to be a UFO based on 12 seconds of info So what? You're begging the question. word of a starved-for-attention, uneducated, lame-with-a-camera nutjob. The two of you would be mesmerized by a streetlight if it were filmed right. These are your feelings, but they are no means related to everything that the video is about. Look, the colors of the lights can be attributable to the very properties of light. It's not that the individual hues of the light would change in hue, because gravitational redshift is minimal. If the colored light is the result of dispersion, the where do the other wavelengths go? Not in the camera lens. But why the quick flicker from red to blue and back again? Maybe its just the movement of the camera, but then why would the dispersion of the light be so narrow? Given the distance, it can't be that narrow, therefore the colored light is emitted rather than refracted. What about reflections? Again, the reflections take the color of the reflecting surface. Most reflecting (i.e. not refracting) surfaces do not change in colors. This applies especially to planes. Now, I don't claim UFO just yet. There could be plain and ordinary propeller or jet planes that have lights with color changing properties - I just haven't found one yet.

5stone10 · Feb 28, 2005

That is a called the fallacy of false precedent. I'm not sure about this - that's a double negative. But I do know about false advertising. And that is what this web site presents. It is false advertising to claim on your home page that the link you present is a potential UFO. That you just happened to be smoking a cigarette looking out your window, when by golly a UFO flew by. Then to find out its only a plane. This is the definition of false advertising. Plus you advance some type of 99 to 1 success odds. Even if you were applying fundamental probability, the best odds you could get on this web site could be 50/50, not 99 to 1. In other words, if I'm taking bets that the next video is that of an actual UFO - I could do no better than 50/50. That's because the first link did not represent a UFO, so the odds then go down [fundamentally] to 50/50 not 99/1. The next coin flip, at best, calculating odds of 50/50 would be tails [or conversely the odds that the next link would be of an actual UFO are at best 50/50].

dgm1 · Feb 28, 2005

OOps 5stone, we are wrong. I just found this http://www.profindpages.com/news/2005/02/26/MN791.htm so it looks like we spoke too soon. This article explains it better than kmar or NHufokook. Check it out and start drafting the apologies. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

Great new UFO Video site

skyeagle409

Guest

arit

Guest

skyeagle409

Guest

nhufohunter

Guest

kmarinas86

Guest

nhufohunter

Guest

skyeagle409

Guest

nhufohunter

Guest

skyeagle409

Guest

dgm1

Guest

dragon04

Guest

kmarinas86

Guest

skyeagle409

Guest

5stone10

Guest

kmarinas86

Guest

dgm1

Guest

kmarinas86

Guest

5stone10

Guest

kmarinas86

Guest

dgm1

Guest

kmarinas86

Guest

dgm1

Guest

kmarinas86

Guest

5stone10

Guest

dgm1

Guest

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page