UFO Video 1952

If this has been posted do what you must if not, well enjoy.






Does man possess UFO Technology ? The answer is Yes





[edit on 22-6-2009 by tristar]

reply to post by tristar


sweet

nice to see videos of UFO's before CGI or SFX

Good find. Very interesting. I've seen a lot of similar footage, but very recent. Could they be ball lightning traveling in formation?

I doubt there ball lighting, But here is another as a member mentioned NO CGI

reply to post by tristar

Thanks for posting this, I like watching this type of film and then trying to figure out what it is or could be.

The 2 lights look like a reflection. They said they had ruled out "airplane reflection" but wonder what other kind of reflection it could be? I'm not sure those objects are even in the sky, though they appear to be, if it is a reflection the lights could actually be behind the camera.

The 2nd film looks like birds. I know they ruled that out too, but I'm just saying that's what it looks like to me. I don't see wings flapping etc due to the distance and poor resolution but that would be expected. Maybe if I had more details about why they ruled birds out it would convince me it's not birds.

When you say "Man has UFO technology" I know a lot of the F117 sightings before it was declassified were reported as flying saucers since it looked a little like a flying saucer from certain angles. Look at this:

www.codeonemagazine.com...

And imagine it with the landing gear up. sort of looks like a flying saucer to me, if I saw it in the distance when it's not as clear as this photo..

I'm sure there are other black projects not yet declassified that people get glimpses of that make people scratch their head and report UFOs.

But isn't it possible some UFOs might not be controlled by man? Some people think some of them are controlled by aliens, don't you think that's a possibility?



[edit on 22-6-2009 by Arbitrageur]

reply to post by KEMIK


they show no characteristics of Ball lightning
en.wikipedia.org...

ball lightning does not hover or travel at slow speed

ball lightning is usually over before you know what you saw
and it usually has a tell tale "tail" of lightning

assuming of course that ball lightning is even a real phenomena and not some made up excuse to explain UFO's...



[edit on 22-6-2009 by warrenb]

Originally posted by warrenb
reply to post by KEMIK

 

they show no characteristics of Ball lightning
en.wikipedia.org...

ball lightning does not hover or travel at slow speed

ball lightning is usually over before you know what you saw
and it usually has a tell tale "tail" of lightning

assuming of course that ball lightning is even a real phenomena and not some made up excuse to explain UFO's...

[edit on 22-6-2009 by warrenb]

I was being sarcastic.

reply to post by tristar


the two ufo's in the beginning of the video are from the 1950 Great Falls Montana incident.

www.ufologie.net...

interesting to note, after the Air Force examined the video footage and returned it to the owner, there was supposedly some of the film cut out and missing. so we might not be seeing all the video evidence.

When the film was finally returned to Mariana by the US Air Force, after a newspaper reported that Mariana complained about this confiscation, more than 30 images out of the 290 had been removed. According to Mariana, the first 30 images showed the objects more closely at the time when they were stationary, and a rotary ring around them could be distinguished. It is obvious, according to Mariana, that these first frames show neither birds nor jet fighters.

www.ufologie.net...



the second part of the video is the 1952 Newhouse UFO incident ,Utah


supposedly the ufo's flew right over the witnesses and Newhouse got the camera out and filmed them after they had got some distance away. the debunkers will say they are birds but i think Newhouse and his family seen them close enough to know they weren't birds. not to mention they don't look like birds to me.

here is a thread on the case and coincidently, the 1952 "Washington Merry go round" was the same year.

www.abovetopsecret.com...





[edit on 22-6-2009 by easynow]

This little video just gave me a kick up the pants. It looks like modern-day balloon footage that's been edited to add 'authenticity.' 'Another damn fake,' I began to think. It still might be a fake for all I know, but it looks the same as the original. Some of the footage was taken on August 15, 1950. It's a very interesting story with a good provenance. The Condon Report concluded it was unidentified...

What is the meaning of this footage? For Captain Edward Ruppelt, head of USAF's Project Blue Book, the film shows two unidentified flying objects. They are not birds, they are not meteors, they are not aircraft, they are not clouds, they are not balloons. They are Unidentified Flying Objects. They qualify as "unknowns", which means in the Blue Book classification, that they are "true" UFOs. All experts that analyzed the video agree, except that they are not 100% sure that they were not aircraft. The Condon Report agrees. Moreover, the Condon Report's analysis adds that the discs are true elliptical shaped objects, disk shaped objects. More than 50 years later, the footage has kept its credibility, and that could not have been possible if it was faked or showing airplanes. It could be detected with today's technologies. Is it necessary here to recall that the Condon Report barely qualifies has a UFO promotion effort?

The Great Falls, Montana UFO Color Film August 15, 1950:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7e54a33fc6cf.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/930d9a309fbf.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/97e14d6956bc.gif[/atsimg]

There was a question that the footage had been tampered with to conceal the possibility that the two objects were airplanes. The footage had indeed been tampered with. The question was had Mariana spliced the film before the USAF analyzed it...or was it returned from the USAF with a section removed? If ever two words can summon certain members to this thread 'notched discs' are the ones...

Mariana claimed that the missing footage showed that the objects were 'notched.' He made this claim 17 years after the event and way before the STS-75 footage

The footage is as inconclusive as ever. It's grainy, scratched and has a poor f/ps rate. How it was analyzed for speed, distance, size of object etc I'm not sure. The main point is that some of the major players of the 50s and early 60s have studied the film and marked it 'unidentified.' It'd be dismissed in a modern context, but remains interesting as a historical document of the infant UFO fascination.

S&F because it deserves some attention

Swamp Gas any one???? oh yes does babys facinates me, done ebfore CGI, i claim that is an FIO=Flying inteligent Object

Great footage, have not seen these videos before. The 2nd one reminds me of the recent Chinese-lantern phenomenon. Not to mention the recent video footage by police in Slovakia, linked below:

www.youtube.com...

Edit: My inability to imbed a video. Idiot.

[edit on 22-6-2009 by Elepheagle]

The two objects in the Montana film are smoking. 600 mph? Looks conservative to me.

There are two great threads on the Tremonton case, easynow's thread from last year here: The Newhouse UFO Incident 1952 Utah

And my newest one here: The 1952 Tremonton, Utah UFO Fleet

Both contain some great information about the Tremonton Case, which was one of the most analysed cases ever, the Montana footage is heavily covered at the nicap Montana film directory

[edit on 6/22/2009 by jkrog08]

reply to post by jkrog08


The video in your thread is just an extension of what i have posted with the sauce still applied to the meat before being digestion.

Why did i choose NOT to include that fake interview, well lets take a step back:

The interview of a sighting is conducted in fornt of a camera and person sitting on a chair in an eviroemnt which resembles a lounge room. I ask you, can you not see how staged this interview is..?.
If you are trying to supply information regarding sightings or rare footage you should review what you are about to post with an open mind.

Aren't you aware that in 1952 there was a Cold War that only peeked several years later. Can you not see that it must have been a National Security Issue at the highest level and there was no chance in hell a camera crew let alone a single interviewer who belongs to the Army as we all know that the Airforce was directly in charge of all sightings and conducted interview with a panel of Navy,Army and C.I.A. military personal who never wore uniform.

P.S. If you study the speech pattern of the person reporting the sighting you will notice the answers and question are from a question answer script.

In closing, i rarely expand on topics as i am not here to spoon feed people information which could be compromised as is the case with this interview, this is why i only chose to present the footage. Duly noted was a comment made by a member that how relieved it is to view videos which are not CGI orientated this is why i posted the consecutive video of the reporter in the plane who captured on film another ufo. Also, you could have posted that video link which you have chosen on your thread within here without providing a link to your thread, that would have been a most courteous gesture . I myself do not need a site or public videos to stress the validity of ufo or technology which is now known and applied by several armed forces across the world. Perhaps a closer look at my avatar and sig should confirm what im saying here.


Does man possess UFO Technology ? The answer is Yes

reply to post by tristar


WHAT???


I was just trying to compliment your thread. If you would read my thread you would see that I specified the interview was rehearsed, I do my research, my threads take days to make, let alone the research. I really do not understand you attitude dude. We are all in this together, it is not a competition. You presented a video, I presented two threads with further research into one of the videos in your OP. What would you have me do? My thread and easynow's is better than any online reference to the Tremonton case. By the way, the video in my thread was only a small part of the whole, and actually FYI I submitted that to ATS Premium 2 weeks ago, so I did not copy your thread if that is what you think. I was actually worried when I saw your post, I thought there might be some issue but there wasn't, well except for your statement, that was way out of line IMO. I really think you misunderstand my meaning here on ATS, but since you said "maybe I should look at your avatar", maybe you should have a look at my profile to see exactly what I am about and what I contribute. Again, this is not about me, you, or anyone; It is about all of us joining in unity to uncover the truth. So I am sorry if I offend you or whatever but I think you are blowing this out of proportion BIG TIME. I will not comment further on your thread.

[edit on 6/22/2009 by jkrog08]

typical stuff to me.

Does anyone know where the video of these object - foofighters imo - actually busted an aircraft up. I can't for the life of me remember where i saw it, but it was WWII footage and the right wing was sheared off from a plain and it was caught on video..

b

reply to post by tristar


question for you tristar,

why did you post this link in the Op of this thread ?

"Does man possess UFO Technology ? The answer is Yes"

are you implying that the ufo videos in your Op are man made tech or we have copied that tech shown in the videos

Originally posted by jkrog08
reply to post by tristar

 

WHAT???

I was just trying to compliment your thread. If you would read my thread you would see that I specified the interview was rehearsed, I do my research, my threads take days to make, let alone the research. I really do not understand you attitude dude. We are all in this together, it is not a competition. You presented a video, I presented two threads with further research into one of the videos in your OP. What would you have me do? My thread and easynow's is better than any online reference to the Tremonton case. By the way, the video in my thread was only a small part of the whole, and actually FYI I submitted that to ATS Premium 2 weeks ago, so I did not copy your thread if that is what you think. I was actually worried when I saw your post, I thought there might be some issue but there wasn't, well except for your statement, that was way out of line IMO. I really think you misunderstand my meaning here on ATS, but since you said "maybe I should look at your avatar", maybe you should have a look at my profile to see exactly what I am about and what I contribute. Again, this is not about me, you, or anyone; It is about all of us joining in unity to uncover the truth. So I am sorry if I offend you or whatever but I think you are blowing this out of proportion BIG TIME. I will not comment further on your thread.

[edit on 6/22/2009 by jkrog08]

My deepest and sincere APOLOGY, as i received an email alert from subscribing and i was in transit thus making it near impossible to read carefully your thread.

I guess you just earned a S&F

Mental Note: Never read threads while in transit

It's good to see something so similar to what we're seeing today confusing people just as much, 60 years ago.

reply to post by easynow


We have reversed engineered that technology, when did we first successfully apply this technology, well only a handful of people know. At some point regardless of our age or our exposure to technology he/she must understand that we are living in 2009 and we have advanced beyond what is commercially known.

To openly discuss interplanetary travel and mining is a small flash light as to how far we have progressed. Those symposiums who deal with these topics and oppurtunity's that derive from such technology, have and accepted that this level of engineering as a fact. When you notice that conglomerates are engaged in investment's of trillions of dollars with a ten to twenty year business model, it is as close to public disclosure as you will most likely hear from any unilateral body of representative authority.