2 UFO's filmed over water on News (NEW)

For the record: The Phoenix incident is actually on my list of the genuine UFOs. That doesnt mean its ET though. I want to believe its ET but the triangle shape screams human

Originally posted by Orkojoker
reply to post by superluminal11

 

Yet even then you would only have 80,000 witnesses, with about six billion other people who didn't see it and think the witnesses are idiots. All you need is one reasonable explanation like a plane or a Chinese lantern, seen under "unusual circumstances" of course, and the public at large will be more than happy to accept it, especially when the media stops talking about it within a week. Just look at the incident in Arizona in 1997 - the Phoenix "lights" - or the Hudson Valley sightings in the mid-80s. Thousands of witnesses to both sets of sightings. Traffic backed up on the Taconic Parkway with people out of their cars staring in awe at this huge thing hovering silently directly over their heads. In the Arizona incident, calls started pouring in to police stations and the local Air Force base at 8:30 p.m., yet nearly everyone who did not witness this event is completely satisfied with the official explanation that what these people were reporting as a huge, low flying triangular or V-shaped object at 8:30 was really nothing more than a set of military flares that were not even dropped until between 9:30 and 10:00 that night. Of course it helps that every time this story was in discussed in the media it was accompanied by footage of those flares and assurances that this is what everyone was looking at and reporting.

Originally posted by vinunleaded
For the record: The Phoenix incident is actually on my list of the genuine UFOs. That doesnt mean its ET though. I want to believe its ET but the triangle shape screams human

Show me a triangle shaped "human" aircraft? Oh and that is massively huge as the B2 is too small nor does it "hover"...

Ok. So you actually are just saying "It FEELS human" based on your FEELINGS. That's not logical. Especially to claim it "screams" anything. From what the witnesses said, it was perfectly quiet and didn't make any noise at all.

Just saying, this is the type of debunking we have to deal with. Feelings passed off as fact which lack any concrete foundation at all. Here we have a perfectly quiet object, and you describe it as "screaming". Hilarity.

To me its screaming Foo Fighter , Crop Circle Maker , Like the Montana Ufo of 1950 Footage
as you see many on youtube and Ufos Sites Around the Net but these are dark Spherical shapes

Question is as it been posted here on ATS of almost the same Spheres Hovering around body's of water
In America as mostly seen in the Great Lakes

Well here is ONE video of that

when you first glance your think its a dam Helicopter Until at the 1:45 Mark The Guy Puts the Night Time Vison on
his Vid CAm and find out 2 Spherical Shapes..
UFOs FILMED AT GREAT LAKES U.S.


UFO at Erie lake II


1052 UFO over Lake Erie Ohio. Airport and NASA have no answers

Wait tell me again how I was 'debunking' anything. Those were obviously presented as my opinions only and I want people to read it with a grain of salt. Hardly making a claim or 'debunking' at all. Try looking at this subject as a scientific study, not an argument where you have to win. It will make life much easier

Based on your logic, the B-2 bomber must have been ET before it was revealed because no such aircraft was known to man. Just because you werent aware of it doesnt mean everyone was not aware of it either (im talking about the people who were testing it). Most people who believe in UFO are suffering from the symptoms of a person who is ignorant and assumes everyone else as ignorant as he is

I guess it could a fun puzzle for ATSers to play "guess what the Unidentified object is". There are a thousand threads on just that. For those who are tired of playing that game and I'm one of them I only have to ask one question. What is it in this video that makes you think it can possibly be something from another world? The answer for this video and 99.9999999 % of the rest is ... absolutely nothing.

what in the heck is this video Blurry I know degrading quality would be the cause of Youtube
but the Guy that Videoed this is Using a High Definition Cam (HDD) !!!!!
well the one he is using in the interview as i assume it the same one he Used while filming ! Right ?

is this the cam or similar to it ?
www.informationengineer.org...
maybe it just me ...

Hey folks
I have to say it is nice to come back to this thread after work and see what you have done to it. Interesting to say the least!
I feel as I am the OP., I guess I should comment on the comments.

First of all, now that I have been on ATS for awhile, I would like to think I would present something more then a little light in the distance. If I actually bring something to the table now, it is because I find it a bit questionable. I have been learning as I go along like many others of us have.
Hence, this video. I liked it because it wasn't a little light in the sky to become a flare. I liked it because it was over water and a tad different. I liked it because it was done at sunrise and not in the dark. I liked it because the witness seemed credible. I liked it because the news, even though they presented it a bit tacky, also tried to rule out a few things as well.

Now as far as the witness being a hoaxers, I think that is just inane. Im guessing the wife got him a new camera she thought was fancy for their cruise. Yes, to some of us it appears to have lots of bells and whistles, but that doesn't really mean a thing. I have a camera as well with bells and whistles, but I really have never taken the time to learn how to blow them. I am happy to just point and click. When I do want to try and do something special with it, I usually just hand it over to my daughter and ask her to set it up, just like I did with the vcr, the cell phone, and the remote.If I had been this witness, I would have just aimed and shot what I was seeing, and yes it probably would be shaky no matter how hard I tried to keep it still. I mean seriously, look at this guy, he has to be in his 60's Im guessing. Im sure he just isnt as steady as he used to be. Im tickled he at least had the presence of mind to actually TRY and tape it.

Another thing I think that is being seriously overlooked here by some, (not all), is the distance the witness estimates it was away from him. He clearly stated a guess at 1.5 kilometers. Now tell me, just how good is the zoom on that camera to actually get a clear shot of something a MILE away from it, and have it be clear? Seriously....I would think, windsurfers might actually look kind of tiny at that distance. I mean how well can you read a billboard down the road a mile away even if you use a zoom on a camera like that? Im pretty sure a billboard it a bit bigger then a windsurfers sail.

Yes, granted, I do believe some of you know or are experienced in windsurfing just as some are experienced with Flares.Somehow I feel one has been replaced with the new one. Obviously not flares so lets call it kite surfers and join the band... Is this what Ats is really all about?

I am not claiming it is anything from out of this world. I am finding it a curiosity to be studied. I am happy to know some of you have given that a honest attempt. Saddened some have just skipped through...

So maybe now we can try to skip through the bs, and try and take some of the facts we know for sure and work from there.

We know whatever it is, is about a mile away. We have a barge to compare it to. Any guesses on just how big these might be now? How fast they are actually moving?

Let us not moan about what we dont have to work with, but what we DO HAVE and make us ATS proud.

Thanks for all the responses btw... yig~

reply to post by yigsstarhouse


Actually a digital zoom on a camera can get quite close and it can be clear, but you would have to be able to hold the camera quite still, which can be a feat as my story below demonstrates.

Back in 2008 I was at a cousins wedding in Ohio, so my aunt rented a boat to have the reception in on the Ohio River.

As you passed by the baseball (not sure about the distance, but I am guessing a mile, you could see the lights from the scoreboard but you couldn’t make out anything with the naked eye, I zoomed in with my digital zoom and could see the score quite easily, at the times when I was able to hold the thing still. We did not record it, just using it to view the scores, or you would have been able to see that it was out of focus more than it was in, and the only reason we were able to get good focus was because of good lighting from the scoreboard.

This was just to offer an example of what can happen if a digital zoom was used in the video.
_______________________________

Now I have only seen the stills, still at work so can’t see video, and judging by the stills taken from the video, I would have to wager a guess that there was poor lighting conditions that would just compound the out of focus issues.

I am going to be also guessing that he most likely had the lowest resolution setting as well, in order so he could take much more video of his trip, and most likely would not change it to record something he thought was unusual.

He is probably not as steady as he was in his youth as well (I have problems at 36), this would compound the image issues as well.

Just taking these things into consideration with out even seeing the video, I would expect a shaky out of focus video; if it is better than this when I finally see it I will be surprised.

This is why if ever able to capture anything unidentified on any media, it will be on a standard digital or film camera, not a video camera; I take much better stills than I do video.

reply to post by AlienCarnage



Thank you your response. If I were to guess, you were pretty familiar with your camera? Kind of knew what buttons to push to make happen what you needed it to do? You say you zoomed on a Lite scoreboard. I am guessing that is something that would stand out in a dark background, such as the night? From a mile or so away, where the scores huge in the frame?

I understand what you are trying to say here, don't get me wrong, but how clearly would you have seen the same scoreboard in just the breaking of the dawns light, without the light illumination? Dark numbers against a grey background?

reply to post by yigsstarhouse


That is exactly what I was getting at, that even with the illuminated scoreboard80% of the time the thing was out of focus and in the dark it would have been much more so. And if you figure that in with the age of the person taking the film and that he was using most likely the lowest resolution, because he was trying to increase the length of how much of his trip could be taken on the media he was using, it does not surprise me the condition of the video.

There is no reason for someone to complain about the quality given these things stated above, which is the point I was trying to make. Just deal with the quality and try to figure out the best we can from the video that the person felt was interesting enough to record.

They do seem to show most of the footage near the very end of the news report. The reporter does also comment on the size of the objects in comparison to the barge. I take it that the reporter is seeing a much better image than what is available to us, to be able to do that.

Looks like some0ne tried to stabilize the video here:



It lost a lot of quality, and it is still pretty shaky. And I still can't tell what it is. I could swear I see a water wake below it now and then though.

reply to post by Wolfenz


Wolfenz.....

Those great lakes videos were shown unequivocally to be planes on approach to an airport.

If you "ATS Search" you will find a lot of material pertaining to that.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

reply to post by yigsstarhouse


G'day again Yiggy!

I've just had time to have a look at the video again.

You know what?

I'm leaning towards the "kite surfing" option......sorry!

I think I can see the "crescent shape" as the object turns.

I also think the speed & size are a not unreasonable match for that.

I shall keep looking at the video & watching your interesting discussion unfold.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

Originally posted by Silver Star
reply to post by packinupngoin

 

I noticed that we got the obligatory X-Files music with that T.V report, as well as the usual smirks from the reporters treating the subject like a joke.

And that's why I don't even bother with the volume most times anymore on vids like this. I just want to see the clip and decide for myself, I could care less what some smug, self important talking head thinks about a subject he probably has no business commenting on in the first place. Interesting vid, I have no idea what they could be, I'll read the rest of the thread now to see if anyone's figured it out.

It reminds me of the Hiller Flying Platform..enclosed version,
www.youtube.com...

Maybe they are still messing about with it in Australia.

this is a newer film,

www.youtube.com...

You may also be interested in this declassified RAN defense pdf 2001,

dspace.dsto.defence.gov.au...

Look down to section 2,3,6.

reply to post by smurfy



You know, I might almost believe the flying platforms before I would the kite surfers. I sitll just can't wrap my mind around that with as many times I have watched and tried to figure it out. Thanks for those link.

My guess: Military hovercraft doing night time training operations.

Here's the problem with the "kite" theory: The other object isn't moving.

If the other object were a kite, it wouldn't be stationary. So there goes that theory.

We have two objects that appear to be about 15 to 20 ft or so across, on the water, in dark lighting, quite far away. One object is moving at about 20-25 knots, and the other object doesn't move at all.

Taking into consideration that these objects are on water, and not flying, then they must be some sort of boat. We automatically think they can't be boats because they should have navigation lights on at night.

The problem with the boat theory, is that the moving object doesn't appear to make a wake. This could be because they are so far away, we just don't see the wake. Or it could be because it's a hover craft.

Also the color is weird because they are black, most boats are white or light in color. Again, this leads to a hovercraft - the shrouds are usually dark in color.

Or something we've never heard of before:
www.techcraving.com...

When you look at that Hiller device, you have to reflect on how useful it would be in a marine environment ship to shore, and as an emergency vehicle in just about any environment, never mind as personal transport. I don't have all the "Gen" on it but, when you see how "Jetpacks" have vastly increased a flying time to make them a viable, (within limitations) form of transport, the Hiller device should be even more viable. Funny enough, in that first link, although seemingly old, the narrators voice sounds Australian/ Australien

I finally got to watch the video in the OP one question came to mind what is the referenced part in this still shot of the video I included below?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6e148dc96c5e.jpg[/atsimg]

Is this reflection, shadow, or water disturbance? Identifying this will help in my analysis of the video.