Mothership over MO? With vid!!

reply to post by internos


When I seen the video, which on most accounts is of a better quality than most footage, My hair literally stood on end remembering the experience I had in AZ, and when something that profound happens to someone, and they have no validation for the evidences to prove it, and then some 20+ years later to see basically the same thing again with pictures or video from another individual?

"Twist of fate, or validation of self experiences?"

And I'll be the judge of that, for it was me who would of never guessed I would've seen it again.

Thanks Internos...

Well, I am personally not saying he is a hoaxer, perhaps he thought the fire was indeed something other than what it was. But I do believe it's a fire. You can clearly see the silhouette of the hills in the darkness, in that constrast-lightened version. I have no idea who this guy is, if he lives there, knows there are hills there, has seen fires in the hills before, etc. Just saying.. does look like fire aned smoke.

Here's a similar kind of video. Just imagine it as a much smaller fire, not as bright or smoky. And, obviously, without all the fire engines and stuff around it. The shape is very similar, and pretty common to hillside fires.

reply to post by fleabit


What I think you are describing is the "Silhouette" of the upper part of the craft/UFO/, I don't think it resembles anything close to a brush fire, especially with the cemetery of each radiant area and the failure of the radiant areas becoming connected as a fire would advance either up or out from it's flash point position.

One thing I would like to know is "Is there longer footage than what was shown?"

reply to post by Nohup


Kind of hung yourself there NoHup.
Where are the fire trucks/police cars/flashing red lights from emergency vehicles etc.?
The guy who had taken the footage was smart to zoom out and catch lower level traffic coming towards him and actually use land marks for size and position comparison.
And if you look at your footage you had posted, "It is quite a bit closer and larger than the OP's Video."
I am almost certain that if it were a fire, it would of been in some kind of newspaper or news footage report for the local area.

Not sure if it's been mentioned...

I had the impression it was a few cars semi circle on a hill.. with their headlights pointing away and we can see their break lights.. the red light that comes on later is another car stepping on their breaks..

If I saw something this huge and impressive.. I'd put my hazard lights on and stop the car to take better shots.

Originally posted by Allred5923
I am almost certain that if it were a fire, it would of been in some kind of newspaper or news footage report for the local area.

Not necessarily. Like I said, if it was a small fire that had just started, or maybe even a controlled burn, there wouldn't necessarily be firefighters in the area. I've seen plenty of small fires burning away without a fireman to be seen.

You have to admit, though, the shape is almost identical.

[edit on 20-11-2008 by Nohup]

Originally posted by Allred5923
reply to post by fleabit

 

What I think you are describing is the "Silhouette" of the upper part of the craft/UFO/, I don't think it resembles anything close to a brush fire, especially with the cemetery of each radiant area and the failure of the radiant areas becoming connected as a fire would advance either up or out from it's flash point position.

One thing I would like to know is "Is there longer footage than what was shown?"

I was talking about the lightened image on page 4 of this thread. There, you can see three rounded hilltops. I lived in northern PA (which is hilly as anywhere), and that's exactly what they look like. And it does appear that the hill on the right is cutting off some of the fire. At least, that's what it looks like to me.

The hills extend the entire frame of the camera, which makes sense. If you look on page four, look about an inch over the top of the 'craft' for the line of the hills.

I was curiuos who this was, so I looked him up, there is entire interviews with him on the Pippin pages, very interesting and quite respectful guy.
I had seen that there was a poster, I think Nohup, that had said these videos/pictures are known hoaxes? "Show me the Money!!" lol

Rob Kritkausky, resident of Phoenix, Arizona has had numerous sightings near his home. His home is located on the very northern edge of the city, just below a mountainous area that contains a pre-Columbian Native American ceremonial site and what appears to be a portal or energy vortex that UFOs may make use of. Rob has had numerous sightings, which began in June 2004 and continue to this day. He has videotaped many of these incidents.

Jerry and Roberta Scott, our remote producer, visited Rob in Phoenix on November 13, 2004 as he was on his way home from the UFO Crash Retrieval Conference in Las Vegas. Jerry saw his first UFO (photo image below), as he and Roberta taped this interview with Rob at the foot of the mountain near his home. Was Jerry excited? Yes, he was, although as a seasoned professional, you would never know it.

www.jerrypippin.com...

Contact Numbers and websites for Rob:
Rob Kritkausky Phone: (602) 334-0367. 25641 N. Singbush Loop e-mail: rob@ worldblend.net. Glendale, AZ, 85310 www.worldblend.net

Great insight i n this website, don't know if it has been posted yet, but here it is anyway.

I for one, believe this guy is the real deal, and if there are proofs of this being a verifiable hoax, "Enlighten me folks!"



[edit on 013030p://4474 by Allred5923]

I actually believe that it is possible that the daytime shot is in the same area as the film. Have another look at the day shot:



Notice the tree directly below the street light? That is roughly at the same height as the night shot, then there's the tree to the right of the streetlight. What if that tree is further back than it appears?

So to get the shots to match you need to go to the right and back, that will swing the street light's angle around to the left.

Night time shot for reference:



what does it mean in the context of things? maybe nothing but the mountain tends to drop away over to the left which may assist with ruling out the fire on the mountain theory.

Originally posted by Allred5923
I had seen that there was a poster, I think Nohup, that had said these videos/pictures are known hoaxes? "Show me the Money!!" lol

No, that wasn't me. I don't think that in this case it's a purposeful hoax, just a misinterpretation. A lot of people post stuff here and other places on the Intraweb that they think is "OMG! undebunkable smoking gun proof of aliens" when it's just an odd video of something maybe a little unusual but hardly extraterrestrial or even paranormal.

reply to post by Chadwickus



I think you are right, there are a lot of similarities of both, just that the daytime shot looks a bit more upwards of the night time still.
If you look at the night time still, you can see the smaller shrub/tree closer to the light post and the larger tree to the back round position is a bit harder to see, but it's there, may be a slight variance of locations between the two, but pretty sure it is the same vantage point with somewhat of a different angel of view.
Good point Chadwickus!!

reply to post by Nohup


I see NoHup, "Sorry for the 'misinterpretation or misidentifications' of someone who had stated that , "Apologies."

And I do understand about the hype situation, just that I had seen this thing before and seeing it again has my full attention, kind of lets me know I was not crazy for thinking I seen what I saw that day.
So, I guess I am a bit hyped over it, but not giddy by no means. LOL

Thanks for your civility, Takes an ATSer to know one!! LOL

I don't think the daytime and video shots are even close to being in the same location. How many street lights are there in that location? I would imagine LOADS.


In this daytime photo, we see two palm-trees, and smaller sized elongated tree in the middle, and the tall tree next to the street light.


Now, here in the nighttime photo, we don't have any palm-trees, and only one tall tree in the middle of the street light. We don't see the elongated, smaller sized tree that was in the middle of the daytime photo. To me, this tells us that his isn't the same location of the nighttime footage, or possibly, even the same area, although, I don't know for sure.


As for the video itself, it looks like a fire that was started on a hill, before the fire department got there. If this was such a huge "mother ship", then why don't we see it taking off? We only see a minute of it, then they stop with the footage. Why? If this was a real UFO, I would imagine we would get to see it actually maneuvering, and/or leaving from its location. And on top of it, these "lights" aren't in a pattern. They're just spaced out in no formation, letting me assume that it isn't anything advanced or man-made. It looks like a natural sporadic fire on a hill to me.

Day and nighttime footage isn't the same.

No intelligent maneuverability or patterns/designs.

Looks to be something natural. Where is the rest of the footage?

[edit on 20-11-2008 by TravisT]

reply to post by internos


Wonderful, just wonderful. Always those sceptics with nearly the same findings and arguments. Now you have made m smell your stinky arsehole :role:. Splendid, well done!

Originally posted by Allred5923
Thanks for your civility, Takes an ATSer to know one!! LOL

You're welcome. The only time I really get hostile (well, snarky, maybe) is when somebody is just going nuts about something and won't consider any reasonable argument. I mean, this is UFOs. Until the saucers show up so that everybody can see them, it's not life-or-death.

reply to post by alyosha1981


maybe if there is a redundant database on the back-end and the synchronisation between the two was net performed or finished yet.

just an suggestion. sometimes you have this with active directory services and multiple domain controllers.

but in a while the post should be visible again. not vanished, that, would be really strange

[edit on 20/11/2008 by digalog]

OK, if im going to film a UFO...which would be HUGE news.... im pretty sure i would take my daytime photo standing on the EXACT same spot i took the picture of the UFO.


how can some of you people believe this garbage? its like youre so blind to the facts that you feel the need to ignore the simple facts and contradictions.


im from CA, inland empire. HUGE wind and fire area. a 30 MPH wind would have a tree swaying back and forth. and yet i would still be able to keep a steady hand, its not going to blow you over. even at 50 MPH, it shouldnt be that shaky


the before pic (UFO) looks exactly like a fire on a hillside, and YES they do just JUMP out of nowhere.


the 2nd picture is obviously not the same location.