Guy is catching many weird objects in the atmosphere with high-tech set-up

a reply to: ufoflicks

This:


Is this:


Pitful and desperate measures going on here.

PlanetXishere is here has been noticeably absent since he posted this...could he be the owner of this youtube channel? Just a thought, since it's unlike him to sit back and allow his post to be torn to shreds...

originally posted by: 3danimator2014
PlanetXishere is here has been noticeably absent since he posted this...could he be the owner of this youtube channel? Just a thought, since it's unlike him to sit back and allow his post to be torn to shreds...

I think I made a few posts on page two or three..........though I'm not sure if a lack of preponderance of posts should constitute evidence of anything.......

I think you can see in my title and my OP I'm genuinely curious.........like a true scientist.....this is not my youtube channel and I do not have one, but I'm thinking of getting one. I have to work long hours during the week and do not have the luxury of being able to post whenever I want (I don't like posting over my iphone as I often need to embed, link, etc - too much of a pain), and my real work is on the weekend raising kids....

Sure some of these look like balloons but some do not. The tumbling pyramids in this one have me stumped, I do not see how balloons or kites could tumble end over end. Also, I will find it later, I saw one with what appeared to be a string..........yet the string was sizzling and floating?

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: ufoflicks

Firstly, you need to stop promoting your own YT channel. Secondly, your argument and the second video link disregards context. We need a context to frame whatever imagery is within a video. Your IR footage might show lights in the sky, but it doesn't share the 'context' of satellite/ISS flyovers or iridium flares.

Similarly, your YT channel in the OP has a collection of videos that don't offer any context. We can't see a scale, we don't see you zooming in or tracking an object. You don't provide a 'context' to explain how you can say with certainty the objects aren't balloons. You don't say that the footage is taken from (for example) a NNE direction and that the local weather station is away in the East and couldn't be accountable. Can you understand why these details are important?

Your objects look like Mylar or something similar. Could you be releasing helium-filled balloons and then filming them? In context, it's happened before; there are a lot of precedents for using balloons to hoax UFO footage. Should we forget all that? Should we gaze in amnesiac awe and accept every YT video as *proof?*

Another context is history. We've had years of footage without any smoking guns and, currently, thousands of hoax videos and dozens of hugely popular hoax channels. With your IR examples, are you aware of the historical context of Ed Grimsley? He used the same technique and claimed he was filming space battles.

For all I know, you are devoted to the pursuit of UFOs and truly believe in what you are doing. On the other hand, I don't know you and have to do my thinking through 'context.'

Great points Kandinsky.

We need more info, more context. Altitude, distance and more as mentioned above.

Why doesn't the cameraman release and shoot some video of the mylar balloons mentioned as a comparison?

Sure, there are some outright debunkers here who will never believe anything out of their own little slice of experience, but others are genuinely curious, but we need much more info before we can get past the point that this is just some sort of man-made phenomenon.

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8
a reply to: ufoflicks

This:

Is this:

Pitful and desperate measures going on here.

I don't know.............do know the difference between a dumbbell (shape) and a cylinder? I guess you don't....

So a passing resemblance is what constitutes proof that something is identical these days? Did you ever participate a science class past high-school?

Using your logic because these things are vaguely similar they must be the same as well:

FWIW, while I think that all or at least most of these are balloons, I do not outright dismiss the idea of unknown airborne organisms in our upper atmosphere. Nothing too highly intelligent or anything, probably more like giant amoebas or some such thing.

All i know is that i really really really want that long ballon that kid is holding

For some people the number of "flags" in a given thread is an indication of how "un-popular" are the views expressed in the given thread, and many associate that popularity to the "truth" or "certainty" of it. People that do that have a very weak knowledge of history in general and of the history of Science in particular: It is almost a mathematical theorem that in questions of knowledge or science the majority is almost always wrong, that majority had been wrong in the past and it is now wrong regarding the reality of anomalies.
Actually the number of "flags" in this thread in this site is an indirect"validation" of its contents, not that I need any validation from sites like this one.
The people that frequently is seen in sites like this one are blindeed by the "obfuscation" that they had build around the simple truth. They had build an imaginary wall between themselves and that truth, their inaction is a feedback loop reinforcing and securing that wall.
As I already had mentioned many times you do not need to take on faith any of this, you can observe these amorphous/polymorphic autonomous objects by yourself, but you need to unglued yourself from your keyboard, the only thing between yourself and that truth is an imaginary wall that is inside your mind: the only cover-up is in people's minds nothing more nothing else.
Get a second hand Canon sx50 or sx60, or a Nikon p600 or p900 and do consistent observations of the sky in daylight, that is the only thing that you need to do. Do not take on faith anything: the things that the debunkers/experts on this site are saying or what people like me are saying, do independent observations by yourself, nothing can replace direct experience.

a reply to: PlanetXisHERE

Is there a difference between a shooting star and a firecracker?


Wait...... you're right PlanetXisHERE! I'll be damned if those aren't shape-shifting anomalous polymorphic hybrid dynamic morphing high altitude peculiarities captured using a dual optical system. Holy crap, your critical thinking skills are simply amazing and off the charts!

a reply to: ufoflicks

It's hard to work out what exactly you are trying to accomplish. Dozens of videos on your channel show that you have a work ethic and an enthusiasm for what you do. You mentioned James E. McDonald somewhere and that suggests you have an awareness of the names in ufology.

You keep coming back to this thread and that's a positive too.

At the same time you don't acknowledge the obvious balloons in some of the videos. You deflect and say, 'But look at this one.' Why not concede the point that members have identified the objects in some of your videos? McDonald arrived at his 'best cases' by ruling out the vast majority of reports. He didn't hide behind his credentials or bamfoozle people with technical jargon.

WMD knows his stuff and you haven't addressed his posts. PlanetX is being a stalwart defender of your videos and will appreciate you giving him something to justify his loyalty.

When you present a reflective object and say, 'it's NOT sunlight,' it invites viewers to ask how you determined that conclusion. They aren't being 'blinded by obfuscation.' You have the opportunity to win them over by offering a convincing argument. Why don't you?

a reply to: ufoflicks

So I will ask again when will you use a DSLR instead of an IP camera

a reply to: Kandinsky

Great post again Kandinsky............you are the paragon of a classy post, I for one will try to emulate you and try not to lower myself to the level of those who cannot seem to post without scorn and sarcasm.

However I would not say I am "defending" these videos, I would say I am just open minded about some of them which definitely do not look like balloons.

UFOFLICKS - as Kandinsky posted above, we need more info on these objects before we announce to the world we have found some kind of alien intelligence playing in our atmosphere!

We need to know what the approximate altitude is of the objects, the approximate distance away you are from them, maybe approximate their size (if we can demonstrate they are either much larger or smaller than mylar balloons then we can rule those out), direction so we can determine whether any apparent lighting is just a reflection of the Sun or generated by these objects (again, if we can show any apparent lights are not reflections of the Sun we can rule out balloons), and why don't you send some regular mylar balloons up and video those to show the comparison?

Sorry but if you cannot go about this in a scientific manner then we have no choice but to conclude these are balloons. You have started with some very scientific documentation of your work - I commend you for that, but you must take if further. We are busy and have kids and jobs and don't have time to copy your work - sorry. But you are right in saying we should do this work for ourselves - I also commend you for that.

originally posted by: PlanetXisHERE
a reply to: Kandinsky

Great post again Kandinsky............you are the paragon of a classy post, I for one will try to emulate you and try not to lower myself to the level of those who cannot seem to post without scorn and sarcasm.

However I would not say I am "defending" these videos, I would say I am just open minded about some of them which definitely do not look like balloons.

UFOFLICKS - as Kandinsky posted above, we need more info on these objects before we announce to the world we have found some kind of alien intelligence playing in our atmosphere!

We need to know what the approximate altitude is of the objects, the approximate distance away you are from them, maybe approximate their size (if we can demonstrate they are either much larger or smaller than mylar balloons then we can rule those out), direction so we can determine whether any apparent lighting is just a reflection of the Sun or generated by these objects (again, if we can show any apparent lights are not reflections of the Sun we can rule out balloons), and why don't you send some regular mylar balloons up and video those to show the comparison?

Sorry but if you cannot go about this in a scientific manner then we have no choice but to conclude these are balloons. You have started with some very scientific documentation of your work - I commend you for that, but you must take if further. We are busy and have kids and jobs and don't have time to copy your work - sorry. But you are right in saying we should do this work for ourselves - I also commend you for that.

First of all. Dont lower science to this level. There is nothing scientific about you or anyone "researching" these videos. They are balloons. Everyone other than you and the guy who posted them can see that. How, exactly, are you approaching this "scientifically?"
Keeping an open mind is just that..its you haveing an open mind. It does not equate to you being scientific in your thinking, If you were sceintific in the slightest you would not arge with people about the presence of PlanetX in our inner solar system. Because you would understand that SCIENCE has shown without a doubt that we would all be f*cked.

Second...keeping an open mind about EVERYTHING isnt a good thing. Would you call someone who says that hes keeping an open mind that we dont breathe O2 smart? No. There is no benefit about keeping an open mind about idiotic videos like this other than to make one look stupid.

Thirdly, the guy who posted the videos clearly knows they are balloons, otherwise he would not be putting those effects on the videos or at the very least he would focus the camera properly. (But then that would show that they are ballooons).

Fourth...yeah, im not polite. I dont care. I say what i see.

The role of "obfuscation" in "murking the waters".

When you really know something that is very "clear" in your mind, things that are less precisely known are murkier, like a fog that do not allow you to see very far.

Visiting any UFO site on the net is like entering the "obfuscation planet": nobody really knows anything in a precise manner, each person, each Ufologist will have his own version or theory, nothing is really clear in there. Fantasy, fiction, reality, dreams, half truths are all mixed in a soup that nobody is really able to digest.

Obfuscation is a known desinformation technique, where you present the facts in such a baroque and convoluted way that extracting any "actionable insight" from that will be almost impossible. Code obfuscation is used frequently in software development as a way to protect the code from being easily understood by untrained professionals.

But obfuscation is the "natural" state of being of these UFO sites, where its members get entangled with that lack of clear information and they will get lost in that world as in a real maze.

But by being inside the forest they will only be able to see trees and almost never will be fully aware of the trap that they had set for themselves.

I say: To get out of that sorry state of affairs reject and ignore anything ever said by any so call Ufologist or all the noise that you can find in sites like this one, start from zero, do direct atmospheric observations using any of the mentioned cameras or similar, or even better a dual optical system, direct observations is the simple first step in any scientific approach to this problem, observe by yourself and make your own conclusions based on these observations, do not take on faith anything from any experts or any "high priest of science".
If you do that you will find the same anomalies that had been observed all over the world, but it appears that the members of this site do not have enough "security clearance" to have access to reality, reality is beyond their "access level":

a reply to: ufoflicks
It's been much longer than 4 hours. According to the commercials you should seek medical attention for that.

a reply to: DenyObfuscation

I think he's denied you Mr obfuscation

Nice to see another balloon video added.

originally posted by: ufoflicks
The role of "obfuscation" in "murking the waters".

With regards to your video above around the 1:00 mark and your claimed bi-dimensional creatures one is OBVIOUSLY A BIRD

Well I found this snippet on the forum of the software YOU use.

vids created by iSpy: video jumping in time and movement causing unrecognizable ghosting in the image. I have only noticed the ghosting when the camera is using IR, but the jumping happens frequently in any lighting mode

That describes your videos 100%

So once again I will ask will you film with a DSLR instead of that piece of cr4p you currently use the other advantage is you wouldn't need to use that buggy software !

YOUR lack of response to this repeated question TELLS the members a great deal.

originally posted by: wmd_2008

originally posted by: ufoflicks
The role of "obfuscation" in "murking the waters".

With regards to your video above around the 1:00 mark and your claimed bi-dimensional creatures one is OBVIOUSLY A BIRD

Well I found this snippet on the forum of the software YOU use.

vids created by iSpy: video jumping in time and movement causing unrecognizable ghosting in the image. I have only noticed the ghosting when the camera is using IR, but the jumping happens frequently in any lighting mode

That describes your videos 100%

So once again I will ask will you film with a DSLR instead of that piece of cr4p you currently use the other advantage is you wouldn't need to use that buggy software !

YOUR lack of response to this repeated question TELLS the members a great deal.

Wait...hes using i-spy?

And i didnt see that bird. Now i KNOW hes trolling us.

a reply to: 3danimator2014

Wait...hes using i-spy?

Well it is a feature...

www.ispyconnect.com...

Uses
-Home Security
-Office Surveillance
-Work Monitoring
-Nanny Cam
-Ghost and UFO Spotting
-Pet Monitoring
-Neighborhood Watch
-Staff Monitoring
-Machinery Monitoring
-Wildlife Watching
-Theft Protection
-Baby Monitoring

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: 3danimator2014

Wait...hes using i-spy?

Well it is a feature...

www.ispyconnect.com...

Uses
-Home Security
-Office Surveillance
-Work Monitoring
-Nanny Cam
-Ghost and UFO Spotting
-Pet Monitoring
-Neighborhood Watch
-Staff Monitoring
-Machinery Monitoring
-Wildlife Watching
-Theft Protection
-Baby Monitoring

I saw that on their web site it's good for filming ghosts because it creates them