NORWAY - Uknown Shooter of amazing UFO footage!

www.youtube.com...


This looks cool hope you enjoy, not too sure what to make of it, hope you guys can help.

reply to post by orby1976


If thats not CGI then its very strange footage.

Good find

Sadly this is what I think it is.










I was with you on this until I saw the flares.

wow, very strange footage indeed! Are you sure its real?

reply to post by orby1976



Thanks for the post,I have not seen that before and like yourself don't know what to make of it .A wild guess would be aircraft display or some sort of military flares. Very interesting cheers.

reply to post by DaMod


For those who haven't seen it yet, turn down your volume.....you'll thank me later.

I have to go with Damod, that makes the most sense definetly over a alien spacecraft.

reply to post by orby1976

Very interesting footage. Looks like ufo orbs in the sky, typical activity too.

Originally posted by DaMod
Sadly this is what I think it is.










I was with you on this until I saw the flares.

They disapeared and came back.........With no Jet / plane in sight.

Also there was no noise from the aircraft you think did this.

Since when does any country have a silent aircraft?

Your explanation is a failure.

Honest effort and I'm not trying to be mean but that is impossible considering there was sound in the video and you would have heard the craft or at least seen it.


fighter Jets don't just go invisible when they drop flares.

reply to post by Pokémon


Not sure if it's real or not, the people in the background seem to be excited enough though. Maybe they're seeing a millitary exercise involving flares like someone mentioned in an earlier reply, Or maybe they're excited because they're seeing something unknown to this world.

This is supposedly what they are saying.

This amazing footage shows balls of light in formation moving around and popping in and out of view, the camerman and girl are saying:
Someone yells: Take a picture!.
Boy: Holy #... I`m shooting it. I caught it on tape. I`ve got it... right here....Oh #!!!
Girl: A lot of rainbows...
Boy: Oh #, it just burned out...!
Girls screaming: Oh my god!
Boy: I zoomed and it just split into several....(he stops talking)
Girl: Did you shoot it..?
Boy: Yeah, i got it.. i got it

they definitely appear to at least be part of the scene - not added in post...

i do think they look like meteorites entering the atmosphere though.

Originally posted by Republican08
I have to go with Damod, that makes the most sense definetly over a alien spacecraft.

Here is the defintion of a UFO:

"The reported perception of an object or light seen in the sky or upon the land the appearance, trajectory, and general dynamic and luminescent behavior of which do not suggest a logical, conventional explanation and which is not only mystifying to the original percipients but remains unidentified after close scrutiny of all available evidence by persons who are technically capable of making a common sense identification, if one is possible."
The UFO Experience: A Scientific Inquiry by J. Allen Hynek, Henry Regnery, Chicago, 1972, p. 10.

And heres not what to do with Occam's razor:

The UFO skeptics don't understand Occam's Razor, and they abuse it regularly. They think they understand it, but they don't. What it means is that when several hypotheses of varying complexity can explain a set of observations with equal ability, the first one to be tested should be the one that invokes the fewest number of uncorroborated assumptions. If this simplest hypothesis is proven incorrect, the next simplest is chosen, and so forth.

But the skeptics forget two parts: the part regarding the test of the simpler hypotheses, and the part regarding explaining all of the observations. What a debunker will do is mutilate and butcher
the observations until it can be "explained" by one of the simpler hypotheses, which is the inverse of the proper approach. The proper approach is to alter the hypothesis to accommodate the
observations.
One should never alter the observations to conform with a hypothesis by saying "if we assume the object was not physical, despite the level of evidence that would imply the solidity of a conventional aircraft with near-certainty, then we can also assume the object was not moving, was not exhibiting the color orange, was not 50 feet in diameter as described, and
then declare that it was really Venus."

But that's okay for the skeptics to do because it's an "extraordinary claim" being made that deserves to be explained away in a Machiavellian fashion as rapidly as possible with the urgent zeal of a religious missionary. Now, to alter observations to force conformance with the preferred hypothesis -- is that science? Or is that dogma?
The answer, of course, is dogma. This practice is extremely poor science, and the approach undermines the very spirit of scientific inquiry. It is simply unacceptable to alter the observations that refuse to conform with the predetermined, favored explanation.

www.nicap.org...

reply to post by DaMod


Argh, shame. I was loving it all the way until belief was shattered by the string of lights, and my brain shouted 'flares!'. As I imagine was the case with you.

But. I gotta ask a couple of questions.

The first few lights appear to blink on and off around a circular-ish route in quick succession. What aircraft would do that?

The things we're calling flares at the moment burn out very quickly. Aren't the flares typically used on aircraft designed as decoys against missile attack, and so would burn longer to keep a high heat signature?

Someone said aircraft display. Why so high up?

Lastly, the people were going crazy over it! I wouldn't react like that to conventional planes, so I think there's more to this than we think...

I have found a High Quality version of it posted in November 08

reply to post by tarifa37


Here is a paper on the subject of the sightings in the Hessdalen valley EMBLA 2007 .www.scientificexploration.org...

Be patient as it takes a few seconds to load







[edit on 19-5-2009 by tarifa37]

reply to post by karl 12


I know what a UFO is, but on here ATS I think the main point is lookin for alien spacecraft or advanced classified army spacecraft.

Thats why I go ahead and presume thats what were talkin about.

Nothing unusual here for Norway, a country blessed by the Hessalden lights, ufo orbs are normal business. I'm going with real ufo orbs here................

Very interesting footage, but I do have one question. Does anyone know what the last image in the video is supposed to be? Is it perhaps a still from the video and enhanced (lightened and what not?) otherwise I'm kind of wondering if it's significant to the video.

In the video something stuck out for me though, just as the video is about to begin and it appears very grainy at first; but does it look to anyone else like perhaps it is a ball at first? I went through the video and pointed out what I saw which can be seen below. I'm sorry for the quality but I only have paint to deal with, but here is what I saw:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/146572fb6698.jpg[/atsimg]

The ball formation then goes to this:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/87ff097a3a7c.jpg[/atsimg]

Then it goes right into the starting formation of the three lights:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/bffbf0fceb0e.jpg[/atsimg]

Then becomes the three lights:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/270e92cf42b5.jpg[/atsimg]

For one thing I've noticed is that the thing doesn't seem consistent so in my book it would still be U.F.O, but yet I don't know what to make of it considering it's "starting formation" of the ball which I think might be at the beginning. It's as if the U.F.O is a clay ball and slowly starts to flatten itself out. Again sorry about only having paint, but I thought it might work well enough to point out what I saw.

I have seen the same thing South East of Mesa Arizona. At first I thought they were flares from a military plane. Then I realized "What plane?". Just like in the video there was no plane for the flares to shoot out of. I think this is genuine.

So far the only explanation a few have cropped up with are flares. Ok i can buy in to that.... to an extent.
Wasn't the Pheonix lights said to be flares??? if thats the case then in the pheonix incident and this one, both sets of "FLARES" are acting in different ways. I thought flares were designed to burn long and stay hot, not blink in and out split in two and make strange manouvers.
In the pheonix incident they hung there a while, so which are flares and which are not?