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 Frozenthought
you are on a roll, And to my filming Airport traffic for money? That is just your opinion now isn't it?
Originally posted by Frozenthought
Are there Airplanes with only one huge ball of plasma, I think not.
Originally posted by defcon5
Originally posted by Frozenthought
you are on a roll, And to my filming Airport traffic for money? That is just your opinion now isn't it?
Others besides me have shown that you were filming into a traffic pattern and facing an airport. I fail to see how you could not realize you were doing this; I also fail to see how you could not have known it when you saw the first aircraft make a landing. Perhaps the most telling fact is that you are proceeding with your attempt to get media coverage for this footage, after such a “reasonable doubt” has been cast upon the authenticity of the footage.
So to me, this leaves only two options on this footage, from my perspective:
First,
You got involved in a venture to release a UFO video on the great lakes UFO’s, hot on the heels of the Chicago O’Hare sighting while the market for such a film is good, and needed to get never before seen footage for that DVD. You intentionally went to a location where you knew there would be aircraft lights visible unobstructed from a great distance with no sound. You filmed aircraft landing at the airport across this distance in visual light to show the effects of heat causing a mirage on the aircraft lights. You intentionally left the camera in zoomed in visible light mode so that the lights would seem to move and flash more erratically. You accidentally made the mistake of switching to low light mode which caused the film to zoom back out showing nothing more then two aircraft stacked into an airport. It’s very telling that you had a camera capable of low light mode, yet you use visible light, the reason is because in low light mode the shoreline becomes visible as reference and thus you cannot zoom and shake the camera without it being detected. You switch back out of that mode rapidly then concentrate on the second aircraft as the first was making its landing by claiming that the second one was getting close, while it’s obviously getting further. You then shut off the video. The whole time yelling, very unprofessionally, about how they cannot be planes and such so it sounds like some amateur seeing something amazing for the first time, when you have stated you see these often. You put the video up here and got caught with your pants down and now are backpedaling and ignoring facts, while continuing to try and save the project.
Obviously saving the project and getting media coverage is foremost on your mind, and thus makes this theory the most probable.
Second,
You really thought you were seeing something out of the ordinary, but ended up being mistaken and now perhaps it requires further investigation as there is a “reasonable doubt” to the identity of what has been filmed.
The reason that I doubt this to be the case, is you have yet to show the slightest interest in possibility this video might have just been explained and should be further peer reviewed before being released. Even though it has been clearly shown that you were filming into a flight pattern, your focus at the moment is doing damage control, and continuing to attempt and garner media coverage for it. To any logical person this shows a lack of objectivity, and the true agenda of the footage: To make money, or get your 15 seconds of fame connected to the O’Hare sighting.
Your first objective does not seem to be to the truth here, and thus it’s apparent to me what the motive is. If you do market this footage, I suggest you do it under the Science Fiction section, to do otherwise at this point would be fraud.
Oh, and by the way aircraft turn on their landing lights anytime they proceed under 10K feet, not at a specific distance from the airport.
Originally posted by Frozenthought
You haven't prooved jack either so you know, Not one thing that has been presenting here trying to proove they are planes have made any sense if you actauuly just look at the video
Originally posted by Frozenthought
They are not sending planes 30 miles East over Lake Erie 50 to 100 feet above the lake.
Originally posted by Frozenthought
Are there Airplanes with only one huge ball of plasma, I think not.
Originally posted by defcon5
Originally posted by Frozenthought
You haven't prooved jack either so you know, Not one thing that has been presenting here trying to proove they are planes have made any sense if you actauuly just look at the video
Actually if you have read the thread it seems that a pretty good number of folks here agree with my assessment of the footage. Perhaps you should review your objectivity on the topic.
Originally posted by Frozenthought
They are not sending planes 30 miles East over Lake Erie 50 to 100 feet above the lake.
We both know that at 30 miles they only appear to be at that altitude. Even looking at your section of the video that is in low light mode it is apparent to anyone that knows jack about aircraft that those flights are thousands of feet up. Both distance, and curve of the earth make them appear lower then they actually are. It should also be noted that any large body of water swells or bulges at night, this is called a tide.
You missed this bit, as it was an edit on my part, so I guess so ill repeat it here for you:
Originally posted by Frozenthought
Are there Airplanes with only one huge ball of plasma, I think not.
Yes there are several aircraft with only one visible landing light until they put down their landing gear. Often these are more along the line of a 757, or 767 where it’s a light at the wing root. The second light is obscured by the body if the aircraft is off center with you by even just a few degrees. The red and green nav lights are not visible at great range as they are not very bright to begin with.
Oh, and by the way, aircraft turn on their landing lights anytime they proceed under 10K feet, not at a specific distance from the airport.
As to your quoting orb watch, I don’t know anything about orb watch, but I would say that it is possible that they are connected with your video in some way, or perhaps they also are making some cash off advertising sold for web hits. Again unless they want to film these with an open laptop set to “flight tracker” in front of the camera to show that they are not aircraft, at this point all these lake Erie orbs are questionable as explainable events.
[edit on 2/12/2007 by defcon5]
Originally posted by Frozenthought
Uhmmm, Ya, You got us, Orbwatch is in on it too, are you freaken out of your mind? You attacked the guy who asked me some abduction related questions, Now your onto Orbwatch who have been filming these objects since the late 90's, I guess they knew we would be putting out this film and that I would film the same things here over Lake Erie in 2006?
Do you know what you sound like? do you just go around hating?
Originally posted by defcon5
Originally posted by Frozenthought
Uhmmm, Ya, You got us, Orbwatch is in on it too, are you freaken out of your mind? You attacked the guy who asked me some abduction related questions, Now your onto Orbwatch who have been filming these objects since the late 90's, I guess they knew we would be putting out this film and that I would film the same things here over Lake Erie in 2006?
Do you know what you sound like? do you just go around hating?
As I said I don’t know anything about OrbWatch, but if they are also showing orbs over the lake in this area, then their video is also highly questionable. You know when you make extraordinary claims the claimer is required to show extraordinary proof, not the skeptic.
So far you have shown no proof that these are anything but aircraft. Calling me names is not going to provide your proof for you, nor legitimize your claims. It’s blatantly obvious though that a bunch of you have resorted to name calling to try and discredit my legitimate claims and questions. Show me once in this thread where I have name called, you cannot because it has not happened. I can show repeatedly others calling me names however, everything from government agent to a hater. So continue with the name calling, all its really doing is casting further doubt on the legitimacy of your claims as you cannot provide tangible proof that these are not aircraft, nor can you stand up to serious scrutiny...
If you don’t like the message, you try and discredit the messenger, this seems to be SOP in the ufo community.
Originally posted by Southpaw11
DEFCON5 is right here, folks.
I, personally, believe D5 is a little off... but there are those that are going to believe the truth is off too... Remember Einstein's quote... there's a bunch of strife to go through before ANYTHING is accepted as "obvious".
DEFCON wrote:
As I said I don’t know anything about OrbWatch, but if they are also showing orbs over the lake in this area, then their video is also highly questionable. You know when you make extraordinary claims the claimer is required to show extraordinary proof, not the skeptic.
So far you have shown no proof that these are anything but aircraft. Calling me names is not going to provide your proof for you, nor legitimize your claims. It’s blatantly obvious though that a bunch of you have resorted to name calling to try and discredit my legitimate claims and questions.
He's right. It IS the claimant's job to provide extraordinary evidence. We just have to all remember not to SLAM each other. Whether we realize it or not... we are on the cutting edge of humanity's existance out here in these conversations. Let's make certain we demonstrate humility, respect, tolerance, compassion, and understanding while we try to DISPROVE EVERYTHING under the sun
I'm not joking about any of that. If WE fight... the ones vigilant for truth... then WHO is going be guarian over the fight for the same truth? That entity has GOT to be people like you all...
STAND TOGETHER.
DO NOT FORSAKE EACH OTHER.
LISTEN. LISTEN VERY WELL TO EACH OTHER.
Take in ALL the criticisms... because in the end... truth WILL be known. Our patience MUST be extreme... If ANYTHING about US has got to be "extreme"... it IS patience.
Be excellent to each other...
SPout
Originally posted by Southpaw11
NO. Sleep Apnea does not wake them up. But you ARE correct in stating this is the time when DEEP sleep occurs... the REM period. It's the point of the night, consequently, when YOU are most vulnerable.
Hate to say it, but, in the instant case, you are thinking TOO MUCH. If 2000 people all come in and tell you the events are happening around 3am... you, as an investigator, would start watching 3am as a trigger hour, no?
Originally posted by Southpaw11
Do you wake up at 3... or 3:30 in the morning ever? You will also find MANY people that tell you there are noises on their roofs at about 3am... then they wake up with puncture wounds and red splotches... and florescence... etc.
As an investigator... I'll tell you this... 0300 IS the witching hour. I understand and appreciate your explanation.
Originally posted by Southpaw11
L5/S1 or the T3
Originally posted by Southpaw11
Tell me why completely unrelated people describe the same events... and they are NOT quoting ANYTHING YOU nor anybody else if gonna find on the internet ANYWHERE?
Originally posted by Southpaw11
And guess what... 0300 is the witching hour.
Originally posted by Southpaw11
So 3am IS significant. Think about it this way. If YOU were the adversary, and you were going to implement unconditional methods to overtake your prey... LIKE THEY DO... You would look for their points of vulnerability.
Originally posted by Southpaw11
Yes, but what about the abductees who are NOT suffering from sleep apnea, yet demonstrate the same trait? What then?
Originally posted by Southpaw11
So, in summary, your arguments are NOT invalid. Not at all. But what you've done is found a "comfort zone" that explains ONE possible explanation about that to which I refer. I think you've done well... but even though those explanations are plausible...
Originally posted by Southpaw11
These are not aircraft. Denial is not a safe place to live either... LOL... I see your point...
Originally posted by Southpaw11
and whomever brought in the ATC graphic... VERY WELL DONE! I want to know where you obtained that data...
Originally posted by Southpaw11
We do NOT know what they are... but we DO know they show up when the scent of sulfur does... and when noises on the roof show up... and when LOCKED doors somehow just pop open... and little orbs of light show up in the living room... red marks appear on chests... puncture wounds appear inside elbows... vivid dreams of aliens and other crazy stuff occur... And, last but certainly not least...
THEY ALL REPORT WAKING BETWEEN 0300 and 0400.
Originally posted by Southpaw11
Be excellent to each other...
Originally posted by lagos
Originally posted by Frozenthought
Check out this UFO photo taken over Lake Ontario in 2004, look familiar?
[edit on 12-2-2007 by Frozenthought]
Yes, it does; it looks like an airliner.
Originally posted by Southpaw11
was there a "heavy" in this area at this time?
Originally posted by Southpaw11
what type of traffic does it support?
Originally posted by Southpaw11
Aircraft do NOT stack themselves upon each other...
Originally posted by Southpaw11
and florescence...
Originally posted by Southpaw11
then they wake up with puncture wounds and red splotches...
red marks appear on chests... puncture wounds appear inside elbows...
Originally posted by Southpaw11
but what about the abductees who are NOT suffering from sleep apnea, yet demonstrate the same trait?