white ufo filmed in HD

Originally posted by greeneyedleo
Why on earth would you suggest he goes somewhere else when there are people posting on this very thread who are more than capable of analyzing legitimate footage and have over and over said they would do so if provided the unedited raw footage? Sending an edited video off to other sites does nobody any good.

Because they are both obvious hoaxers, and they deserve each other.

Originally posted by maxxsee

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth
OK guys, Maxxsee has agreed to send me the full raw footage, unedited and with sound. I will have it analyzed and will post the results in thread.

True. And you have agreed not to post original sound or video for anyone.

I'm looking forward to the analysis. Maybe it will shut some ppl up who has screamed fake a bit too many times.

If the mod says your video checks out you will get a full, online apology from me.

Fair enough??

reply to post by TallWhites

Okey sure.
Pluppiplupp has also promised this I think.

Originally posted by maxxsee

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth
OK guys, Maxxsee has agreed to send me the full raw footage, unedited and with sound. I will have it analyzed and will post the results in thread.

True. And you have agreed not to post original sound or video for anyone.

I'm looking forward to the analysis. Maybe it will shut some ppl up who has screamed fake a bit too many times.

That is correct. I will post nothing but the results of the analysis.

Trust that it will be an honest analysis everybody.You all know me well enough to trust my word. I will tell the truth no matter what it is.

And maxxsee, you can upload your video right now on this site for free:

www.2shared.com

Should take no more than 30 minutes.
You are online right now, so there's no reason for you to wait a day, a week or a month. Let the mod see it right now, please

reply to post by BigfootNZ

It IS infront of the bush. You don't know what you are talking about. Why would someone put an umbrella without a pole there. Your idea is ridiculous.

edit:reply to post by TallWhites

It has already been sent to mod.


[edit on 22-11-2009 by maxxsee]

Originally posted by greeneyedleo

See, this is the point. Once you add that text - it is not longer legitimate.

[edit on November 22nd 2009 by greeneyedleo]

I'm afraid that's a wrong statement. If you are a professional in Ufology you should
know that. The videographer uploaded an edited copy with zoomings to the object as
well as some titles, copyrights etc. BUT he still has the original raw footage and may
provide it for analysis as you request in the understanding that you also provide
professional credentials to justify your request and avoid the usual $$$ runaway we
know happens all the time in the ufologic field. But also to be sure your analysis will
be a state of the art top professional with high tech equipment, this process cost money
and resources as we have learned through the years. If you are willing to pay for
that then your request is absolutely justified and may proceed.

Now to the point you mentioned. If the raw footage provided proves after analysis it's
legitimate meaning not tampered then it will be validated as not CGI. Then the titles
and edits made to that copy didn't invalidated the footage, didn't made it no longer
legitimate right? You see how easy is to be wrong in our judgement?

However the analysis once it proves the footage isn't doctored won't prove without a
reasonable doubt what this white saucer shaped object is, it could be a lamp, an
umbrella, parasol or any other mundane thing right there but will be just interpretations
not a fact. Then your analysis will be inconclusive right? The only thing it will prove if
any is that the footage is not a CGI and here I ask what will be the final veredict?

So far I have seen here maxxsee has been patient and brave enough to hold a lot of
insults from people and he is still sustaining his story. I have seen here maxxsee
answered a lot of questions and provided links to download versions of the footage
despite if these versions have audio or whatever BUT the attitude has been of a
cooperative person however the insults have increased and escalated to a very
personal levels against him wich in my opinion may have been enough to quit any
forum or discussion site.

Now, if maxxsee is actually a CGI creator who uploaded this footage and posted this
thread as a challenge to the ATS members to see the reactions and who is the real
expert that can debunk his creation by legitimate and professional procedures then
the challenge is really interesting and should be taken seriously not with eccentric
responses and statements but with real research work. I love these challenges and
this case certainly awakened interest to discover the trick OR to be sure this is a
real piece of UFO evidence. The cards are still on the table, who's gonna win?

[edit on 22-11-2009 by free_spirit]

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth
Trust that it will be an honest analysis everybody.You all know me well enough to trust my word. I will tell the truth no matter what it is.

I don't know you at all, I don't suspect you would post anything except your honest opinion, but what sort of experience do you have in video editing/production?

If you're going to be the lucky winner who is selected to receive the original footage, and have the final say on whether it's legit or not, then I'd hope you would have a little more experience than playing around with Windows Movie Maker in your free time.

That is off course IF maxxsee actually sends you the original footage... how many times has he already claimed he would do so and then uploaded something completely different?

reply to post by freelance_zenarchist

None. I've said I would post original quality/bitrate, which I did. I never typed anywhere I will post raw data in this forum.

Originally posted by free_spirit

Originally posted by greeneyedleo
See, this is the point. Once you add that text - it is not longer legitimate.

I'm afraid that's a wrong statement. If you are a professional in Ufology you should know that.

Sorry free_spirit but that's a ridiculous thing to say, if you were a professional video editor you would know the difference between ORIGINAL footage and EDITED footage, and what that means when trying to determine if the video has been tampered with in any way.

Originally posted by maxxsee
reply to post by BigfootNZ

 

It IS infront of the bush. You don't know what you are talking about. Why would someone put an umbrella without a pole there. Your idea is ridiculous.

[edit on 22-11-2009 by maxxsee]

What? the fact its being taken at just after sunset, you cant see the pole, its poor lighting on a noisy background due to the lighting conditions, any dark or shadowed metal or wooden support pole would be almost invisible in that video.

Why dont we see the 'object' depart? (others already brought that up) ... and as for it being in front of the bush, I said flag pole, not bush...

The flag pole is behind the bush/s therefore... the objects go from from furthest from camera man to closest... 'object', Flag pole, bush... hence the 'object' is BEHIND the bush, since its behind the flag pole... and that aint a bush its a bleeding tree well infront of the flag pole (at a guess id say that 'bush' is a good 12 feet or high)... cant tell completely since we dont know how far away the ridge the bush/tree is on, is from the house and flag poles.

As to why the flag pole is in front of the 'object'... in the up closest frames you can see the flag poles grey covering the object in a vertical line between the points where the two objects intersect.

Also if you look at 1:01 to 1:04 you'll notice even with the noise of the film, the objects furthest right point, alters its shape a heck of a lot more than the left sides end point which while blurry still retains its overall shape pretty much exactly, while the right hand point appears to get shorter which would indicate to me the changes are caused by the edge of the bush/tree moving slightly over it in frame, which would mean the bush is in front of the object, not the reverse.

Also ill apologize for my comment about not panning zooming in on the object quick enough... just realized your vid on youtube is not the actual footage, ie the pan zoom was added after wards.

Still its just a patio umbrella.

Im always dubious with the 'i spotted this UFO after filming' accounts... since it detachs the event from time, and allows far to many good questions to go unanswered, and allows to many poor excuses to be used.

But hey im a UFO believer so dont think im some super skeptic attempting to slam and debunk your 'find' ... but you have to use some common sense and logic, first attempt to discount everything that it isnt, rather than espouse what you want it to be without evidence. Once your able to say it isnt any of these things with complete assurance, then you can say its a UFO.

Edit:- Heres the best frame 1:04 that shows that the flag pole is in front of the 'Object'

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0f68e04de256.jpg[/atsimg]

And another of the area in question from that frame at 800% resize, with 'nearest neighbor' resampling to make sure the AA doesnt alter any of the details. The Poles most definitely in front of the 'object'.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/bc360545d647.jpg[/atsimg]

[edit on 22-11-2009 by BigfootNZ]

reply to post by free_spirit

Very good post!
One thing I hope the analysis might show is that the objects seems to emit some sort of light or other clues that might proove that it can't be a normal umbrella or whatever (apart from it being infront the pole and bush clearly).


[edit on 22-11-2009 by maxxsee]

[edit on 22-11-2009 by maxxsee]

Just to clarify what I mean I made this.
so you understand what I mean. Was kinda hard to explain.



Bah...this all could be solved in an instant really. get their phone number and tell them straight out what people are discussing. Show them your picture. They might have the answer. If they say..."Uhmm, we have no idea what that is" then I will seriously consider it to be infront of the pole.

[edit on 22-11-2009 by Akezzon]

Originally posted by maxxsee
Very good post!
One thing I hope the analysis might show is that the objects seems to emit some sort of light or other clues that might proove that it can't be a normal umbrella or whatever (apart from it being infront the pole and bush clearly).

Where in the screenshots or video that you posted do you see this thing emitting light? If it was it would be illuminating the pole, ground, leaves and everything else around it, but it's not. What are these "other clues" you speak of?

Originally posted by tristar
Sorry but this is not a Unidentified Flying Object since its not even flying, secondly the scale is wrong in comparison to the house . Those are the evident faults with what your presenting here.

No matter what this "light" ship is, and its either an out and out fraud or a true lightship saucer, because its very clear, UFOs HOVER ALOT. One of the ones we saw hoverered for 5 minutes. The second craft that hovered was a TR3B black triangle with muliticolored rows of lights, and it was hovering behind a clump of evergreen trees monitoring us. I share my experiences, and have for some time, and spend alot of time talking things over with other experiencers. No mistaking the hovering and mistaking the crafts. The first ones were nordic, the last nefarious nefariou and even once more, nefarious!!!!!

Originally posted by maxxsee
Very good post!
One thing I hope the analysis might show is that the objects seems to emit some sort of light or other clues that might proove that it can't be a normal umbrella or whatever (apart from it being infront the pole and bush clearly).


[edit on 22-11-2009 by maxxsee]

[edit on 22-11-2009 by maxxsee]

Not trying to insult you or anything.
But it do sounds more like you want this to be true and already decided that this IS a genuine alien craft rather then trying to figure out what it might be that you have caught on that video.

reply to post by freelance_zenarchist

I don't know if it is emitting some sort of light or anything else that would be odd. I hope the analysis will show something like this though. Since I am sure it is infront of the bush and pole.


[edit on 22-11-2009 by maxxsee]

Originally posted by maxxsee
reply to post by freelance_zenarchist

 

None. I've said I would post original quality/bitrate, which I did. I never typed anywhere I will post raw data in this forum.

Just the fact that you wont post the data, is dodgy in itself.
What exactly is your problem with posting it?


What do you think will happen?

Originally posted by maxxsee
reply to post by freelance_zenarchist

 

I don't know if it is emitting some sort of light or anything else that would be odd. I hope the analysis will show something like this though. Since I am sure it is infront of the bush and pole.


[edit on 22-11-2009 by maxxsee]

If the analysis comes back as a hoax....you either

A) Apologise for wasting everyones time and ask that your video gets moved to the hoax forum

or

B) Get banned

Im confident that either one of those will occur, or maybe both

[edit on 22/11/2009 by OzWeatherman]

reply to post by Akezzon

It is very hard to see exactely how the plant is shaped. You might have a point about there being 2 bushes, one smaller infront of the bigger one. Hard to say.
From the previous gif overlay from no ufo and ufo picture you can see it looks to be infront. Even the red arrow picture shows 2 very similar edges on both sides with an inward angle. The inward angle to the right of ufo would have been blocked like I showed in my screens, in my oppionion, if it would have indeed been behind the bush.

edit:
reply to post by OzWeatherman

Since I know I haven't tried to hoax anyone it would be kind of silly for me to apologise that I should have hoaxed it. But sure if it prooves to be a hoax, without me being aware of the hoax, I will apologise.

[edit on 22-11-2009 by maxxsee]