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.
originally posted by: klassless
...I estimate its size to be approx. 25 feet plus or minus.
originally posted by: purpleivan
Do you mean that the object, which has to be at most, only very slightly further from the camera than the base of the tree
originally posted by: purpleivan
originally posted by: klassless
...I estimate its size to be approx. 25 feet plus or minus.
Er, what?
Do you mean that the object, which has to be at most, only very slightly further from the camera than the base of the tree (either than or it can somehow be seen through the ground which it would be beneath if much further than the tree) is 25 feet across.
If so then the base of that tree would be at least 100 feet in diameter, as it's at least 4x the width in the images than the moving object.
Additionally a 25 foot object at a distance of1 150 - 200 feet would be appear large in the frame and not as a tiny spec.
originally posted by: GBP/JPY
there is more crazy unexplainable goings=on in this world I gotta say....
out in the middle of nowhere it has reflection on the top......too big to be a bug.....
originally posted by: klassless
originally posted by: purpleivan
originally posted by: klassless
...I estimate its size to be approx. 25 feet plus or minus.
Er, what?
Do you mean that the object, which has to be at most, only very slightly further from the camera than the base of the tree (either than or it can somehow be seen through the ground which it would be beneath if much further than the tree) is 25 feet across.
If so then the base of that tree would be at least 100 feet in diameter, as it's at least 4x the width in the images than the moving object.
Additionally a 25 foot object at a distance of1 150 - 200 feet would be appear large in the frame and not as a tiny spec.
I don't know what you and the other nay-sayers have been smokin' but it seems to have affected your vision. Look at my screen capture below and you'll see that the object has to be a couple of hundred feet away from the camera. The object doesn't pop into view from the leaning tree, it's first seen where I show it and you can see that it is at quite a distance. My 25 feet diameter is just a blind guess but it's gotta be approximate for the distance.
LOOK AT IT!
originally posted by: schuyler
Oh, come on. You're not seriously suggesting UFO for this thing! It's a bird.
originally posted by: micpsi
originally posted by: schuyler
Oh, come on. You're not seriously suggesting UFO for this thing! It's a bird.
But your fellow debunkers are sure it is a bug. How can you both be so sure yet contradict each other?
Because you are all just guessing and trying hard to avoid admitting that it just could be "alien". Especially when it's too fast for a bird and too large for a bug at the distance the OP reported. And ESPECIALLY, when it looks like a typical UFO oval disc.
originally posted by: klassless
originally posted by: purpleivan
originally posted by: klassless
...I estimate its size to be approx. 25 feet plus or minus.
Er, what?
Do you mean that the object, which has to be at most, only very slightly further from the camera than the base of the tree (either than or it can somehow be seen through the ground which it would be beneath if much further than the tree) is 25 feet across.
If so then the base of that tree would be at least 100 feet in diameter, as it's at least 4x the width in the images than the moving object.
Additionally a 25 foot object at a distance of1 150 - 200 feet would be appear large in the frame and not as a tiny spec.
I don't know what you and the other nay-sayers have been smokin' but it seems to have affected your vision. Look at my screen capture below and you'll see that the object has to be a couple of hundred feet away from the camera. The object doesn't pop into view from the leaning tree, it's first seen where I show it and you can see that it is at quite a distance. My 25 feet diameter is just a blind guess but it's gotta be approximate for the distance.
LOOK AT IT!
originally posted by: seattlerat
a reply to: klassless
Unfortunately, it is impossible to determine the angle/direction that the OBJECT is travelling. From the screen caps in the OP that include white circles surrounding the initial starting position of the OBJECT at the base of a tree in a clump of grass/weeds (no I'm not smokin' either), the object looks very small... in some of the following images it appears larger. This MAY be due to the fact that the OBJECT could/might be moving TOWARDS the camera. Perspective is a tricky thing and our human eyes/brains are not infallible. I'm curious, Klassless, what do you think is the most likely explanation for the OBJECT?
Thanks for your input.
originally posted by: wmd_2008
originally posted by: klassless
originally posted by: purpleivan
originally posted by: klassless
...I estimate its size to be approx. 25 feet plus or minus.
Er, what?
Do you mean that the object, which has to be at most, only very slightly further from the camera than the base of the tree (either than or it can somehow be seen through the ground which it would be beneath if much further than the tree) is 25 feet across.
If so then the base of that tree would be at least 100 feet in diameter, as it's at least 4x the width in the images than the moving object.
Additionally a 25 foot object at a distance of1 150 - 200 feet would be appear large in the frame and not as a tiny spec.
I don't know what you and the other nay-sayers have been smokin' but it seems to have affected your vision. Look at my screen capture below and you'll see that the object has to be a couple of hundred feet away from the camera. The object doesn't pop into view from the leaning tree, it's first seen where I show it and you can see that it is at quite a distance. My 25 feet diameter is just a blind guess but it's gotta be approximate for the distance.
LOOK AT IT!
REALLY klassless have a look at these 2 pictures below
snip
Those images are taken with 2 different lenses at a distance to keep the statue approximately the same size in both images now did the STATUE or CHURCH move between images
Of course not we know they couldn't
This is to show without the required information guesstimates like yours are worthless
But hey they give people with a little common sense or an understanding of photography or both a
originally posted by: fleabit
Looks like a bug, and it's laughable to even argue otherwise. It's completely black.. so even though quite sunny, no reflection. It moves just like a bug moving close and fast near the camera. Please don't make this stupid video into another like the ridiculous 100+ page video about a white umbrella in someone's back yard. There is nothing there to suggest it's far from the camera, is metallic, or is NOT a bug. Without a point of reference, saying it is 25 feet or whatever is laughable.
It's.. a... bug.