Mothership over MO? With vid!!

It might be possible that that in the daytime image that the camera op was not standing in the exact same location as it appears that the shot is captured further back and to the left of the pole. And internos does make a point in that the daytime photo may have been taken way after the vid was captured.Also that tree is in the daytime image it is just not exactly where it is in the vid (as stated above)

[edit on 20-11-2008 by alyosha1981]

But I can clearly see mts in the contrasted picture that are much closer than in picture no 2, or i'd agree.

I live in Az, the mts in the color pic are at least 5 miles distant from the location

While the line of the mts in the contrasted pic as seen by the differentiation of sky and ground is clearly within 1 Mile -1.5 Miles, I know the rough sizes of these mts and how close you need to be for the line to be that high in perspective

Originally posted by MaMaa
It's interesting, but why is it that all UFO videos and pics seem to be grainy and blury and so difficult to make out what the heck it is. It leaves so much up to the viewer. 10 different people could see 10 different things.

It would be nice to see a totally clear video or picture that is so obvious without a doubt what it is.

But then you'd have people saying the footage was "too perfect" to be genuine
You can't win on this, either it's grainy and bad quality, or it's perfect and the assumption is going to be that it was faked.

I'd be more inclined to accept this as evidence if there was some witness collaboration, numerous reports and video interviews.

It's a standard streetlight, probably one of millions, there is no clear evidence that this daylight shot is the right location, therefore it could easily be a hilltop fire.

My gut tells me it isn't a fire, because I see no evidence of the smoke or fire having movement that I would expect to see. It certainly looks like a solid shape with lights beneath.

reply to post by mopusvindictus


I understand but the red "lights" do not resemble a fire(s) within that range they would be connected and as the vis shows they are not they seem to be concentrated.

I'd also add...

City uses the same light posts everywhere, it's not exactly a good indicator of location, it could be any of 20,000 identical light posts

also it never moves, the "object" and you can see when enhanced that the "light'gets cut by the more forward mountain in the image

If it was a ufo and this was a matter of angle that leaves it hovering in a space between small mts running into each other... by size, in MO or AZ... it would certainly be no mother ship to fit in that space

and

If it was real and your equipment was on hand you would... show an indication of location, a street sign something to verify it and even if you didn't think of it... why cut the film without watching it take off?

reply to post by alyosha1981


It's az desert, that's what fires in the mts look like...

it's scrub brush, theres little material to burn in between, it spreads through small plants and hit large small trees and bushes making that sort of image, i've see it a dozen times at least, fires will be in pockets and the spread lasts minutes before burning out but the pockets burn for hrs sometimes

Originally posted by SiONiX
Mothership? LMFAO

Fire on a distant Hill.

LMFAO. Fire in the sky more like it.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Kinda looks like a battle ship from star wars or something.

Well, if it's real, it's probably more correct to say that the battle ships in Star Wars look like it.

Well we don't know what it did as far as take off or disappear or what so good point on that but a hovering object wouldnt have to move as it is doing just that hovering I do wish that there was more to the video as you said an ending.My gut tells me this is a winner though

Originally posted by SiONiX
Mothership? LMFAO

Fire on a distant Hill.

Huh? Which is this so called hill in Minneapolis? I thought there were none!

Cheers!

I'll check the fire records during the week...

Main thing I know living here is that, a large UFO sighting wouldn't have escaped my notice

This is right in the middle of monsoon season, regular lightning strikes, the visual and the type of fire are common place...

Could also be, flares on mtn side for a rescue (about 1,000 people a year have to be taken down from mtn when they get stuck after dark)

In Fact when I zoom in, they look more like the flares they use for the ground, I can see smoke creating the red haze when i zoom in, but flares are often used on the ground if they need to extract someone with a broken leg or whatever too

A genuine major sighting wouldn't have escaped my notice in the valley though...

I'm way too much of a nut job on the subject and there is no where in the valley something like this wouldn't be seen by 10's of thousands of people...

Fires happen all the time and are glanced at and ignored

Ufo's cause a big hoopla

This is a camera game and a hoax for sure...

not debunking for the sake of debunking a ufo sighting either, I still have no explanation for the phx lights, just saying... if it was a ufo it would have been a big deal, let alone escape my prying eyes

reply to post by mopusvindictus


I'm not completly dismissing your claim, I just think that the "structure" around the red "lights" does not look loke smoke does not look photoshoped in and the distance that the shot would have had to have been taken had it been a fire would have revealed more"flame" I live near the rocky mountains as well and have seen forest fires this does not bring any of those memories to mind.Thanks for the input I appreciate it as that was the reason for this post I like seeing diferant opinions converge

Originally posted by mopusvindictus
not debunking for the sake of debunking a ufo sighting either, I still have no explanation for the phx lights, just saying... if it was a ufo it would have been a big deal, let alone escape my prying eyes

You are doing some excellent work on this, mate: all i'm trying to say is that we must be 100% sure before calling the hoax, especially when someone's first and last name are involved: let's just be a lil careful
This makes the work much harder, but not impossible. Do you know what in my opinion is needed in order to debunk this one?
To PROVE that that hill was burning that day
OR
to PROVE that something else produced that effect, that day
Unlike many YouTube videos, this one has its own background, so we have the chance to make our assessments: in the other hand, we shouldn't ignore any possible corroborating evidence, for example some newspaper's article and more in general any news coverage: to contact someone involved in media at the time would be a giant step. And hopefully, the author of the video will join this discussion, and will share more details.

I have seen this video before. I still think there is some lights on the ground. "Ufo" and ground below is same gray stuff.

Daytime image is not same angle.

I checked out NUFORC and there does seem to be multiple sightings reported in both AZ and ST.Paul on that date here's the link

www.nuforc.org...

They can't get the location right because it's OBVIOUS the nighttime lightpole, and the daytime pole have two completeley different lamps on them.

The night time photo shoul show a very small light, nearly a slit (if were are to believe it's the same as the daytime light), with light shining down Only.

However in the video what we see is a circular lamp which could be the daytime streetlight if the guy was standing near to or directly beneth it.

Angle, and lengths are all different too.

If you compare the daytime photo, you can see, the filming would have to have been done way to the right of that shot, and much closer, and perhaps a bit higher. Haveing said that I would like a day time photo of what is to the extreme left of that post. I wouldn't be suprised if there's a very tall mountain.

Well actually I'd be a little suprised, because I still contend the light posts in the film and the daytime photo are not the same.

In any case they are defenitely not shot from the same perspective. Why didn't the filmaker (who convienently has dissapeared?) stand at the very spot he was that night, and take his day time photo? There's only one reason for that, and that is that he is hiding something.

So I have to call hoax 3 ways from sunday on this moutain fire, most likely filmed in Cali.

The mountainrage debunking theory is squishy to say the least. If you take a look at the footage (original), you see that as the camera zooms out there is a sudden change in brightness where the so called 'mountainrange' appears at the top. Now this change happens so sudden that it just can't be because of simply zooming out. The change happens because as the user zooms out, there's probably another light above him, which as it zooms out bleeds into the picture above it, which causes this effect. If the one who shot this could just give the exact location of shooting it would be a lot easier. Tried to clean it a bit, when you look at the 'mountainrange' at the end, it 'morphs' and moves with the camera...

Here is something strange. There is small "box" close street light. Red colours is there too and they change same sync like ufolights. When red colour is strong in ufo, colour in box is strong too. Why?



44 frames gif:

Sorry, Gif is too small. You should check from orginal video..

While the video is cool, I am more on the fire side then the giant craft. I would need to see a pics/video much better then the one provided. To many holes in this one my friends.