fast ufos in the sky over Niagra falls Canada April 13th, 2010

WOW..... I'm no expert but thats pretty damn impressive footage to suggest a higher technology that were capable of (or led to believe).

Stars dont move and those 3 things are hauling ass in every direction but strait!!!

Those first few comments still have me cracking up...

S&F OP.. Props to you!

reply to post by Drexon


he's a a fellow canadian that lives just down the highway from me...
don't bother trying to get anything out of him. he blocked me from his youtube channel and deleted all my posts on his vids when I made a comment about the music we was using.

he's overly sensitive and would get ripped to shreds on this board.

Originally posted by Mathius
reply to post by Drexon

 

he's a a fellow canadian that lives just down the highway from me...
don't bother trying to get anything out of him. he blocked me from his youtube channel and deleted all my posts on his vids when I made a comment about the music we was using.

he's overly sensitive and would get ripped to shreds on this board.

Oh you're that close? The other day I was thinking how exciting it would be to be there. I'd be out every night trying to catch these things with my bare eyes (if that's possible). Given it any thought?

Originally posted by jclmavg
What you're saying is that science - or at best your shallow interpretation and understanding of it - demands that unknowns are explained in terms of known knowledge. You are in fact suggesting an epistemological loop where nothing new can enter or be considered!

No, what you describe is not even close. Just a bad attempt at making what he said look wrong.

In science, things that can not be observed don't officially exist. When I say observed, that includes effects.

The force of gravity can not be visually observed but it's effects can, so it officially exists.

Monopole magnets have not been visually observed, so it does NOT officially exist yet, but several theories and calculations support the possibility.

Parallel universes have not been visually observed, so it does NOT officially exist yet, however there are indications in equations that support the possibility.

ALIENS have NEVER before ever been observed. So they don't officially exist. UFO's have been observed, yes, but nobody has EVER observed who or what was flying the UFO, so you can't call it alien. Sure theories support the existence of aliens, but until it is observed it still doesn't officially exist.

Basically, calling the OP's video an Alien UFO before you even try to investigate mundane Earthly explanations is like a scientist saying the sky is blue because God made it that way.

In science, God hasn't officially been observed (depending on your religion), so he doesn't officially exist to most scientists and people. Aliens are the SAME. They have never been officially observed so they don't officially exist. It doesn't matter if some calculations and logical reasoning support the existence of alien beings, they still haven't been observed.


Analyzing videos is much like a detective analyzing a crime scene. When a detective analyzes a crime scene, he looks for the best possible explanation for what he is observing. If the detective is observing something he can't explain, he doesn't jump to conclusions which have never been observed before. He most likely starts with the most mundane explanation and checks to see if the explanation matches what he is observing.

To jump to an "alien" or "advanced tech." conclusion before you have exhausted every other earthly explanation is NOT a logical process for analyzing something which is hard to explain. You first should eliminate earthly explanations completely by deductive reasoning, then you can move on to something unknown. That is more logical.

As of right now, the "bat" explanation is fitting like a glove when you understand the science behind it. No other explanation fits better than "bats". That means "bats" wont ever be eliminated until someone comes up with a valid explanation which disqualifies it. Nobody has done that yet. Because of that, "bats" are more plausible than "aliens", because "aliens" doesn't explain anything like "bats" do. "Aliens" just raise more questions, and because they have never been observed before, it really isn't an explanation at all, it's a scape goat.

It's a very complex issue that most "believers" have a very hard time accepting. There has NEVER been a confirmed alien observation EVER. To this day, "aliens" are still a human invention, and not a discovery. Statistically, "aliens" have just as much possibility of existing as a "tooth fairy" does. Who is to say tooth fairies don't exist out there? You've got no observational proof, just like aliens. You only got possibility, no reality, yet.


[edit on 20-4-2010 by ALLis0NE]

I've seen these same things flying around above a lake at night in North carolina. I was laying on a boat around midnight on a really clear night and saw 3 or 4 of these same things. They were way to high and going way to fast to be anything human. I know it sounds like im jumping to conclusions but my mind saw something moving so fast and taking 90 degree turns in the blink of an eye, i just dont know how really to react. It seemed like the stars were someones mouse cursor. There were 8 of us on the boat that night all of us laying down to get out of the wind as we came home, we all looked up at the stars and saw the flying things for around 5 mins. So this video is exactly whay i saw, if you guys saw this how would you feel? i mean if you saw this like i did, it almost proves aliens or a hidden technology.

im excited to show this video to some of the people that saw it with me, my wife was there but shes asleep. Its cool having the footage now. Funny thing is i think like 4 of us had camaras on us. So amazing just never thought to take video, i guess we had each other to verify what we saw.

I dont know why everyone is so concentrated on it being bats.

Gee, maybe because it is the best candidate explanation?

Its hard to tell in the video since he never zooms out

Funny, that. Actually I think it is the nature of the imager, but you would think he could use a little camcorder at the same time to verify it, given the frequency that he claims to see them..

but I see bats almost every evening and they rarely fly that like (altho sometimes yes) but good luck trying to film that, its usually eratic...

Are the bats you are familiar with, insect eaters? Scientific name and location, please. If they are insect eaters, at the times you have watched them, were they feeding? How do you know?

Do you know why I ask those questions?

I lament the tragically small amount of lateral, open-minded thinking that goes on in these forums..
(Oh, sorry, just thinking out loud...)

Originally posted by ALLis0NE

Originally posted by jclmavg
What you're saying is that science - or at best your shallow interpretation and understanding of it - demands that unknowns are explained in terms of known knowledge. You are in fact suggesting an epistemological loop where nothing new can enter or be considered!

No, what you describe is not even close. Just a bad attempt at making what he said look wrong.

That's your opinion, and I think you are doing pretty bad at damage control. I find it amusing that critics talk about sciency stuff and all that, but I wonder how many of them here ever have seen the inside of a university. It's an apt description of what he said as far as I am concerned.

[snip]

ALIENS have NEVER before ever been observed.
So they don't officially exist. UFO's have been observed, yes, but nobody has EVER observed who or what was flying the UFO, so you can't call it alien. Sure theories support the existence of aliens, but until it is observed it still doesn't officially exist.

And right here you show that you do not understand one bit of how science works.

You say you need to observe who or what was flying the UFO, and lacking that one could not possibly call it alien. This is questionable for the simple fact that you have proclaimed - without good reason - a fallacious threshold of evidence by stating what only you believe would be acceptable evidence for an extraterrestrial origin. It would be like asking SETI to demand pictures or a movie of the aliens who sent the message and declaring that regardless of the content of the radio message and its source it could not be alien. For none of us have seen who sent the message.

So you did not resolve my criticism of Cripmeister's argument, you merely repeated the same nonsense. You presume with much pooha that only one type of evidence is permissible, while there is no good scientific reason backing that up. Other types of evidence can easily be imagined. Suppose we have a detection grid and scientists record UFOs leaving and entering earth's atmosphere. I think this would be very compelling evidence in favor of the extraterrestrial hypothesis.

Your argument is just a variant of the theme "show me the dead alien and then I will believe".

Basically, calling the OP's video an Alien UFO before you even try to investigate mundane Earthly explanations is like a scientist saying the sky is blue because God made it that way.

More fallacious misrepresentation, where did I call the OP's video an alien UFO? Neither did I argue that mundane causes need not be investigated.

In science, God hasn't officially been observed (depending on your religion), so he doesn't officially exist to most scientists and people.

No, it's a working presumption called methodological naturalism. Probably the first time you heard of it, eh?

To jump to an "alien" or "advanced tech." conclusion before you have exhausted every other earthly explanation is NOT a logical process for analyzing something which is hard to explain. You first should eliminate earthly explanations completely by deductive reasoning, then you can move on to something unknown. That is more logical.

It seems AllisOne is rather oblivious to the fact that my response to Cripmeister was not directed at the OP movie, but hey what gives. Heh.

As of right now, the "bat" explanation is fitting like a glove when you understand the science behind it.

If the "science" behind it can be summarized by the phrase "it sorta looks like a bat", then it is not science. It's guesswork.

No other explanation fits better than "bats".

You can tell the people who think it shows birds, kite, insects, etc!

That means "bats" wont ever be eliminated until someone comes up with a valid explanation which disqualifies it. Nobody has done that yet. Because of that, "bats" are more plausible than "aliens", because "aliens" doesn't explain anything like "bats" do. "Aliens" just raise more questions, and because they have never been observed before, it really isn't an explanation at all, it's a scape goat.

This is again more fallacious nonsense. Bats could equally raise new questions, depending on what sort of behavior is observed or at what altitude they are observed foraging. But that's the whole point isn't it? Wether data fits into a conventional explanatory framework. If it does not and the data is not flawed and remains anomalous then the necessity arises to introduce something new.

As for aliens not explaining anything, this is merely another silly argument by proclamation. You seem to be in fact arguing against science here. New discoveries open up new avenues of research and more questions all the time. The genome is for example turning out to be more and more complex the more we learn about it. Does this mean the explanatory value of currently understood evolutionary mechanisms is a "scape goat"?

And wether aliens have been observed is the bone of contention. You claim only one type of evidence is admissible. But your threshold is fallacious for it would even throw out just about anything SETI finds.

Statistically, "aliens" have just as much possibility of existing as a "tooth fairy" does. Who is to say tooth fairies don't exist out there? You've got no observational proof, just like aliens. You only got possibility, no reality, yet.

And here you just show what kind of an irrational skeptic you are. This is seriously disturbing, folks.

The likelihood of extraterrestrial life compares to tooth fairies? Perhaps in your dreams it does. There is no scientific - in terms of physical or biological - evidence might possibly suggest that tooth fairies are real or could be real. They are a fantasy concept made up by humans. Extraterrestrial life on the other hand has its premise in the biological and physical sciences and we know that intelligent life can evolve and exist on a ball of mud in the universe. Intelligent extraterrestrial life is seriously debated in the scientific literature, tooth fairies are not. Are you seriously suggesting that the plausibility factor of both is equal?

For someone who pretends to be all sciency, there is very little science in your post, like none whatsoever.

most obvious night vision footage of insects I have ever seen. What on earth possesses people to think 'UFO' when viewing this?

came on here excited at the prospect of seeing something worthwhile, from the heading.

Left very disappointed at peoples general gullibility and desperation




[edit on 20-4-2010 by waynos]

Originally posted by jclmavg
That's your opinion, and I think you are doing pretty bad at damage control.

Damage control?

The only damage being done is damage to the credibility of UFOlogy when people think BATS are UFOS. In that case, yes damage control, I am trying to help the confused people with my video analysis skills. Something I do on ATS all the time successfully, I have a very good track record.

The video in the OP is COMMON, I have seen this before with my own eyes. It has happened before in other places of the world, and I even showed multiple videos of exact, and nearly exact matches. They are BATS. It has already been confirmed. Sorry you missed it.

Originally posted by jclmavg
I find it amusing that critics talk about sciency stuff and all that, but I wonder how many of them here ever have seen the inside of a university.

Is this some type of veiled insult? You failed. Your first mistake was making an assumption, then disguising that assumption as a question.

Originally posted by jclmavg
It's an apt description of what he said as far as I am concerned.

No it's not. Science is based on theories which are tested and scrutinized. They are not tested and scrutinized by things that don't exist, they are scrutinized with the information that is already known.

If you approach this video scientifically, you have to test and scrutinize the video with known objects first, not objects that don't exist!

You just don't get it.

Originally posted by jclmavg
And right here you show that you do not understand one bit of how science works.

Oh really, what part of the scientific process did I miss? Please do tell.

So you are aware, I am a scientist.

Originally posted by jclmavg
You say you need to observe who or what was flying the UFO, and lacking that one could not possibly call it alien. This is questionable for the simple fact that you have proclaimed - without good reason - a fallacious threshold of evidence by stating what only you believe would be acceptable evidence for an extraterrestrial origin.

No, YOU have a fallacious threshold of evidence.

My threshold is based on absolute proof. Not speculation and opinion.

You can't tell if an object is "alien" just by looking at it. Even if you saw it come from another planet and land on Earth, that still doesn't prove the pilots are, or are not, human.

Obviously you do not understand the full scope of possibilities which could disprove the evidence. This means you are lacking in the ability to see each point of criticism in a certain hypothesis.

Originally posted by jclmavg
It would be like asking SETI to demand pictures or a movie of the aliens who sent the message and declaring that regardless of the content of the radio message and its source it could not be alien. For none of us have seen who sent the message.

Your example is wrong, exaggerated, and lacking. There is no comparison, at all.

You are making a huge mistake by implying that I ONLY accept pictures and or movies (observation) as valid evidence. Also, you are forgetting the unique challenge of identifying the origin of an object such as a UFO. It can not be compared to identifying a signal from space, not even close. I don't even see how you can make such an illogical jump.

A UFO can NOT be confirmed "alien" just by observation. No matter how much it defies physics, or if we watch it fly from another star to earth. Those factors alone do not prove the object is "alien". All that proves is that it is highly capable. It doesn't prove who is piloting the craft, or where the craft was made, etc.. This is because there are too many alternate possibilities that equally have the same chances of being true.

A signal from space detected by SETI has less alternate possibilities, but still has alternates. Even if SETI gets an intelligent signal that seemingly comes from lightyears away, SETI can NOT prove it is alien until it does other tests. That is when SETI does demand more evidence regarding the signal, to prove it isn't interference, or manipulation, or any of the other alternates that are possible. They will even probably demand images and videos of the location the signal came from to see if that helps or hurts the validness of the signal.

They are not going to jump on every signal they get and call it alien until they confirmed it. If they don't know where the message is coming from, then they don't know who sent it. So therefor it is not proven to be alien. We are talking about PROOF, not supporting evidence.

In a world of unlimited possibilities, it is still possible that humans in the past were able to travel to the stars, and it is possible for them to send messages back to Earth. That theory is just as plausible as aliens sending messages. There for, until you confirm the sender is alien, it's not proven to be alien. It's a harsh truth.

Until a signal is proven to be alien, it will aways be a THEORY that it is alien.

Originally posted by jclmavg
So you did not resolve my criticism of Cripmeister's argument, you merely repeated the same nonsense. You presume with much pooha that only one type of evidence is permissible, while there is no good scientific reason backing that up.

It must be a lack of insight on your behalf. It's obvious you don't know what you are talking about.

I never said ANYTHING about one type of evidence, so you are making a major mistake.

However, I did tell you that the only way to prove a UFO is alien, is to see who the pilots are. When I said "see", I didn't just mean a picture of the pilot. I also meant talking to the pilot, and asking the pilot where it came from, and other things...

After all, in a world of unlimited possibilities it is still possible that the pilots could be alien but only look like humans (disqualifying visual evidence they are human), and they could even lie and talk like humans if they studied humans (disqualifying verbal evidence they are human). The only supporting evidence then that they are alien would be that they have advanced technology, but even that is disqualified by the possibility of private human inventors making the craft secretly, and secret human government tech., etc. So the next step would be to do an autopsy on the craft and the pilots... and so on...

The point is, you CAN NOT prove a UFO is alien by just by looking at it. It is more involved than that. This is a subject of which I have spent MANY years contemplating and studying. Simply because of the possibility of a false alien attack occurring to fool the masses.

Originally posted by jclmavg
Other types of evidence can easily be imagined. Suppose we have a detection grid and scientists record UFOs leaving and entering earth's atmosphere. I think this would be very compelling evidence in favor of the extraterrestrial hypothesis.

Supporting evidence is not proof. We are talking about absolute proof. Watching a UFO leaving and entering earth's atmosphere does not prove the UFO is alien. It could STILL be human. This is one of the possibilities that you lack the ability to see which disqualifies your "evidence".

Originally posted by jclmavg
Your argument is just a variant of the theme "show me the dead alien and then I will believe".

No, it's not. The theme is, "prove to me it is alien, and not something else". I already believe aliens exist, but if you show me something and tell me it is alien I will demand that you prove it. Just looking at it would not be nearly enough. I don't know if you are hoaxer or liar, I didn't see where the atoms that make up the alien originated from, I don't know if it is some monster created in a lab on earth, there is a billion possibilities other than it being alien.

I don't know why that is hard for you to understand.

....to be continued.

[edit on 20-4-2010 by ALLis0NE]

Originally posted by jclmavg
That's your opinion, and I think you are doing pretty bad at damage control.

It's mine too.

I find it amusing that critics talk about sciency stuff and all that, but I wonder how many of them here ever have seen the inside of a university.

Ad Hominem. SHAME on you. FTR (I'll happily prove this to a mod) I have spent some years managing a large research centre operated by a university. What's YOUR background, and would you prove it to a mod?

ALIENS have NEVER before ever been observed.
So they don't officially exist. UFO's have been observed, yes, but nobody has EVER observed who or what was flying the UFO, so you can't call it alien. Sure theories support the existence of aliens, but until it is observed it still doesn't officially exist.

And right here you show that you do not understand one bit of how science works.

Actually, it's you that shows that. He is correct.

You say you need to observe who or what was flying the UFO, and lacking that one could not possibly call it alien.

Absolutely correct. By the way, you do understand that observation can be direct or indirect, don't you? Read on...

This is questionable for the simple fact that you have proclaimed - without good reason - a fallacious threshold of evidence by stating what only you believe would be acceptable evidence for an extraterrestrial origin.

Lovely bowl of word salad!!!

It would be like asking SETI to demand pictures or a movie of the aliens who sent the message and declaring that regardless of the content of the radio message and its source it could not be alien. For none of us have seen who sent the message.

And there you show that you don't understand the term 'observation'. Let's go through what SETI does/will do for any signal indicating intelligence. They will go through a complex series of techniques that will entirely rule out earth-based transmission. Then they will use parallax and other techniques, to determine the distance/direction and thereby ensure that the signal is from beyond the solar system - that may take a half-year (for reasons you might be able to figure out).

Once that is done, about the only possible explanation for those OBSERVATIONS is that the signal is not of terrestrial origin. And anyone, you included, would be most welcome to examine those observations and techniques used, and see if you can come up with an alternative theory that fits the observations. If it explains all the observations, then it is a valid alternative. THAT is how science works.

So you did not resolve my criticism of Cripmeister's argument

Your 'criticism' revolved around the fantasy supposition that SETI had received alien signals, and your misunderstanding of the term 'confirmation'.

You presume with much pooha

Mmm. Clearly a science background, with those technical terms and that sort of considered debating.

Suppose we have a detection grid and scientists record UFOs leaving and entering earth's atmosphere. I think this would be very compelling evidence in favor of the extraterrestrial hypothesis.

And that happened when, exactly? Oh, right - another made up scenario...

More fallacious misrepresentation, where did I call the OP's video an alien UFO? Neither did I argue that mundane causes need not be investigated.

Well, apart from what appears below, here are your words:

If the UFO skeptic suggests it is a kite, or bat, the burden of proof for this explanation rests solely on the skeptic.

You completely turned around the burden of proof there, and conveniently excluded aliens from your burden of proof. Interesting, perhaps you need to watch your words...

it's a working presumption called methodological naturalism. Probably the first time you heard of it, eh?

More word salad? Instead of using phrases intended to impress, make a point.

As of right now, the "bat" explanation is fitting like a glove when you understand the science behind it.

If the "science" behind it can be summarized by the phrase "it sorta looks like a bat", then it is not science. It's guesswork.

Very educated guesswork, and you have offered NOTHING to dispute it - not a SINGLE citation in any of your posts. Do you think no-one noticed?

.."bats" wont ever be eliminated until someone comes up with a valid explanation which disqualifies it..

This is again more fallacious nonsense. Bats could equally raise new questions

There you go AGAIN. If you have some information to add, then GIVE IT, cited.

And here you just show what kind of an irrational skeptic you are. This is seriously disturbing, folks.

Ad Hominem again...

The likelihood of extraterrestrial life compares to tooth fairies? Perhaps in your dreams it does.

In terms of LIKELIHOOD? Well, we can speculate all we like - I'll happily concede that the *likelihood* of aliens is a bit higher than that of tooth fairies... but in terms of EVIDENCE, there is no difference. None proven for either.

Do you seriously not understand this? That there might be a reason why we speculate about the possibility of alien life, but do not spend an equal time on tooth fairies.. even though the *evidence* is equally absent?

The *likelihood* of bats/birds/insects is MANY orders of magnitude greater, and the evidence is right before you. Neither you or anyone else has even offered an attempt at rebuttal of the earthly explanation.

Extraterrestrial life on the other hand has its premise in the biological and physical sciences and we know that intelligent life can evolve and exist .. Intelligent extraterrestrial life is seriously debated .. in the scientific literature, tooth fairies are not. Are you seriously suggesting that the plausibility factor of both is equal?

But I thought you *weren't* arguing for the alien explanation? What happened, did you forget? And yes, it's seriously debated, because there is a chance that somewhere out there, alien life exists. And maybe they look like tooth fairies - that would explain EVERYTHING!!!

For someone who pretends to be all sciency, there is very little science in your post, like none whatsoever.

Check mirror... a long hard look.

Originally posted by jclmavg

Basically, calling the OP's video an Alien UFO before you even try to investigate mundane Earthly explanations is like a scientist saying the sky is blue because God made it that way.

More fallacious misrepresentation, where did I call the OP's video an alien UFO?

More failure at reading... where did I say that YOU called the OP's video an alien UFO?

I was simply stating that ANYONE who jumps to conclusions and calls it alien is like a scientist blaming things on God.

If you don't fit into that category, then I am obviously not talking to you.

However, what you just did is a famous move done by most "believers". They will support the idea of a craft being alien for an entire topic, but when you confront them in the end they will say the magical line they all say, "i never said it was alien"... It's classic.

Originally posted by jclmavg

In science, God hasn't officially been observed (depending on your religion), so he doesn't officially exist to most scientists and people.

No, it's a working presumption called methodological naturalism. Probably the first time you heard of it, eh?

No, it's not the first time I've heard of that. Believe it or not, Ive studied that subject for years as well. Religion is another favorite topic of mine.

B.t.w. when was the last time you used a dictionary? You should look up the word "presumption". It is the action of "presuming", which means to "take for granted as being true in the absence of proof to the contrary".

To some people, not me, God has not been proven to exist because they haven't observed him. Most people only presume God exists, and that is not proof God exists.

That is the point I was trying to point out to you.

Originally posted by jclmavg
It seems AllisOne is rather oblivious to the fact that my response to Cripmeister was not directed at the OP movie, but hey what gives. Heh.

It seems jclmavg is rather oblivious to the fact that my response was not directed at any one person, but to a group of people who react the way I described. If you do not react the way I described, then obviously I was not talking about you.

When I say things like, "You should do it like this", sometimes YOU is not directed at just you, but everyone who is reading.

Originally posted by jclmavg

As of right now, the "bat" explanation is fitting like a glove when you understand the science behind it.

If the "science" behind it can be summarized by the phrase "it sorta looks like a bat", then it is not science. It's guesswork.

You obviously are ignoring all the major points that have been discussed and it is quite sickening that you summarize all the evidence that points to this being bats into one idiotic sentence.

The science I was talking about is the explanations that were given to the various questions created by the video.

Q: People asked how a bat could hover.
A: The science of perspective explains that when a far away object is moving towards or away from you, it will appear to be stationary.

Q: People asked how a bat could accelerate as fast as the video.
A: The science behind that is simple physics and a little aerodynamics. Birds and bats constantly dive towards the ground and use gravity to accelerate themselves very quickly. Because of the science of perspective you can't really tell the bat is diving and climbing continuously to help keep momentum.

I also pointed to a scientific article that describes the size and ratio of certain bat wings which allow it to fly high and fast.

Q: People asked why a bat would be out there.
A: The science behind that was explained by Phage, and why these are coming out earlier each year. I also posted a link that explains it. It involves their need to eat. Also, it involves the science of how bats use echolocation to hunt, and that high altitudes are free from echo interference, and bats like that. It also explains how some insects run for their lives and bats chase them up there.

Q: People asked about the size and speed of the bat.
A: I told them how to take the average size of a bat, and calculate its altitude based on laws of perspective. I told them how they can do it in a 3D simulation software. I then explained that if you did this you would find out that the size/speed ratio of the bat is a 100% match to a bat.

You could simply compare the size/speed ratio with other videos, which is why I posted links to videos of bats in thermal vision which show identical size/speed ratios.

Q: People asked why the OPs video can keep the object in frame, but bat videos have trouble keeping the bat in the frame.
A: This was already answered by the laws of perspective. The further something is, the easier it is to keep in the frame.

Q: People were in awe of the erratic movement of the object in the OP's video.
A: It was answered by the erratic movements of bats while hunting. Yet people still found a way to ignore that by mentioning the object flies seemingly straight at times, and that was answered to by showing videos of bats flying straight.

There is much more...

A: As a video analyst I confirmed that the object in the video is pulsating and it's not completely caused by compression artifacts. This pulsating is consistent with wing flapping.

A: I also found another 100% identical video of the OP's video. It too shows flapping wings. It too has people suggesting it is a bat. It too is in an area with high flying bats. It too shows this event is NOT unique.

All of this adds up.... it all fits like a glove too...

It's sad that people lack the ability to see similarities in things. I have personally seen objects identical to this, so I KNOW what it is.

Originally posted by jclmavg

No other explanation fits better than "bats".

You can tell the people who think it shows birds, kite, insects, etc!

'

Keyword, BETTER.

Birds, kites, and insects, do NOT fit BETTER than bats.

Originally posted by jclmavg
This is again more fallacious nonsense. Bats could equally raise new questions, depending on what sort of behavior is observed or at what altitude they are observed foraging. But that's the whole point isn't it? Wether data fits into a conventional explanatory framework. If it does not and the data is not flawed and remains anomalous then the necessity arises to introduce something new.

No, you are fallacious nonsense. You didn't even understand what I said correctly.

Bats explain away the questions created by the video.

Aliens and advanced tech. is the cheaters way to explain away the video. It's cheating because you can make up any b.s. to fit your belief since aliens and advanced tech. is "unknown". Heck you can even bend the laws of physics when b.s.ing about aliens and advanced tech. This only adds to questions, not answers them...

Originally posted by jclmavg
As for aliens not explaining anything, this is merely another silly argument by proclamation. You seem to be in fact arguing against science here.

Once again, an issue with your reading. When I said aliens "don't explain anything", I was talking about the VIDEO. It's doesn't explain anything in the VIDEO.

Sure, it is an explanation, "those objects could be aliens in UFOs", but it doesn't explain anything!! It doesn't explain why they are there, where they came from, why they are moving as they are, how, etc.. However bats explain all that nicely.

It was more of a philosophical thing, not a literal thing.

Originally posted by jclmavg
New discoveries open up new avenues of research and more questions all the time. The genome is for example turning out to be more and more complex the more we learn about it. Does this mean the explanatory value of currently understood evolutionary mechanisms is a "scape goat"?

No, what I mean by "scape goat" is that the subject of aliens and advanced technology could be used to explain almost everything if you were imaginative enough, because those fields deal with the "unknown" and "unlimited possibilities".

Ex: God is a "scape goat" to someone trying to explain why a magnet attracts and repels.

Aliens are a "scape goat" to someone trying to explain something they see in the sky.

Because aliens are unknown, and because of unlimited possibilities, you can make up lame science fiction answers every time, without fail, to explain something unexplained.

Originally posted by jclmavg
And wether aliens have been observed is the bone of contention. You claim only one type of evidence is admissible. But your threshold is fallacious for it would even throw out just about anything SETI finds.

Wrong. I never EVER claimed "one type of evidence". Learn how to read first before you reply.

[edit on 20-4-2010 by ALLis0NE]

Originally posted by jclmavg

Statistically, "aliens" have just as much possibility of existing as a "tooth fairy" does. Who is to say tooth fairies don't exist out there? You've got no observational proof, just like aliens. You only got possibility, no reality, yet.

And here you just show what kind of an irrational skeptic you are. This is seriously disturbing, folks.

No YOU are being the irrational skeptic in this case.

What is disturbing is that you don't understand what unlimited possibilities means.

A fairy has the same exact possibility of existing as an "alien". Heck the "aliens" themselves could possibly be fairies. Who are you to say not? What proof do you have they are, or are not?

It is even possible that these alien fairies collect teeth. Who is to say they don't? Not you..... Certainly there can be a creature out in the universe which collects teeth, and could be considered a fairy. There is nothing hinting at it being impossible.

YOU are disturbing... simply because you can't fathom such a possibility.

Originally posted by jclmavg
The likelihood of extraterrestrial life compares to tooth fairies? Perhaps in your dreams it does. There is no scientific - in terms of physical or biological - evidence might possibly suggest that tooth fairies are real or could be real.

Very wrong on many levels.

They compare in two main ways:
1: They both have not been proven to exist.
2: They both have a possibility of existing.

A tooth fairy could exist. There is NOTHING that says it couldn't. It is 100% possible for there to exist a creature that collects teeth, and which resembles a fairy.

In this super huge universe, anything is possible. To deny the possibility of a tooth fairy, is the same as denying the possibility of aliens.

Because your mind is brainwashed to imagine a "tooth fairy" a certain way, it helps you deny the possibility of one existing. However, a tooth fairy could be many things.. could look many different ways, and act many different ways.

It's much like aliens... people are brainwashed to imagine "aliens" a certain way, and it helps them support or deny the possibility of one existing. Aliens could be many things...and could look many different ways... and act many different ways.

Originally posted by jclmavg
They are a fantasy concept made up by humans.

Did you know "aliens" are a fantasy concept made up by humans? You shouldn't forget that. You should educated yourself about the history of "aliens".

Originally posted by jclmavg
Extraterrestrial life on the other hand has its premise in the biological and physical sciences and we know that intelligent life can evolve and exist on a ball of mud in the universe. Intelligent extraterrestrial life is seriously debated in the scientific literature, tooth fairies are not. Are you seriously suggesting that the plausibility factor of both is equal?

I don't think you understand....

The definition of the word "alien", what is it? In context, the simple definition is "a creature from outer space".

So when science is debating the existence of "aliens", what type of creatures are they debating could exist? Any type right? Unlimited possibilities right?

Just looking at earth you can see there is no shortage of different types of creatures, and designs. This to me means it is possible for "aliens" to be many different types and designs. Including designs which resemble "fairies".

So, in reality, "fairies" have the same exact chances of existing as "aliens" because "aliens" could be "fairies".

.and who is to say these alien fairies don't collect teeth?

Originally posted by jclmavg
For someone who pretends to be all sciency, there is very little science in your post, like none whatsoever.

Look again.

[edit on 20-4-2010 by ALLis0NE]

reply to post by Phage


Thanks Phage,I was never aware bats became active so early.

100% this is a bat. Next!

reply to post by waynos


Some of the replies in this thread, along with your comment make me seriously wonder about the level of ignorance some of you have.

To me, and I would assume most others who actually study the video and are willing to accept "other worldly" possibilities if nothing else fits, can rule out several factors that still leave you scratching your head for answers.

When you take into account the hight these things have to be at, the speed they must be traveling and the menovours(sp) they make, I think insects can be ruled out as well as the bats theory. I dont even want to make a comment on the guys who claim a kite?

I think that many of you folks are scared to accept what might very well be one of the strongest pieces of evidence of an ET presence above our planet.

Originally posted by ls1cameric
Some of the replies in this thread, along with your comment make me seriously wonder about the level of ignorance some of you have.

When you take into account the hight these things have to be at, the speed they must be traveling and the menovours(sp) they make, I think insects can be ruled out as well as the bats theory.

So show us your level of ignorance by telling us exact how high you think those objects are, and how fast you think they are moving.



I believe I am the only one that came to a conclusion that the size/speed ratio of the object in the video is similar to that of bats.

Let me explain further..

Take two screen shots from the video that are one second apart and measure how far the object traveled using its own size. Like this:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ae3c70349e66.gif[/atsimg]

This shows the object can travel it's own length multiplied by 15 in 1 second of time.

So if we take the average size of a bat, we can calculate how fast it was moving.

The smallest microbat, the Pipistrellus nanus of Central Africa, is only 4 cm (1.5 in) long and has a wingspan of only 12.5 cm (about 5 in). The biggest of the bats is called the Pteropus vampyrus, comes from Java and achieves a wingspan of 1.4 m (nearly 5 ft) and a body length of 42 cm (16.7 in)!

source

The smallest bat has a body length of 1.5 inches. And the largest bat has a body length of 16.7 inches. In the middle would be 8 inches.

The reason I am using the body measurement is because that is the back to front measurement which is the direction bats fly.

So lets do the math for each size...

1.5 x 15 = 22.5 inches a sec. = 1.27840909 mph

8 x 15 = 120 inches a sec. = 6.81818182 mph

16.7 x 15 = 250.5 inches a sec. = 14.2329545 mph

So how fast can bats fly?

The speed a bat flies is somewhat dictated by where it feeds and what its prey is. Bats that fly in and around the treetops are necessarily slower in flight, with those that feed in open areas such as Miniopterus bassanii fly at speeds of 50 kph (31.0685596 mph).

source

The average top speed of a bat is 31 mph.

So, IF the object in the video is a bat, it IS flying within the speed limits of bats. No matter what part of the video you measure, the object is never going faster than a normal bat. That is why I said the size/speed ratio is similar to bats.


[edit on 21-4-2010 by ALLis0NE]

Originally posted by ls1cameric
When you take into account the hight these things have to be at, the speed they must be traveling and the menovours(sp) they make, I think insects can be ruled out as well as the bats theory.

Why do you say "the hight these things have to be at"? What height is that? And why they have to be at that height?

I think that many of you folks are scared to accept what might very well be one of the strongest pieces of evidence of an ET presence above our planet.

I am not scared of any possible evidence of the existence of ET life on Earth, and I often wonder why those that accept inconclusive videos like this as "one of the strongest pieces of evidence of an ET presence above our planet" think that those that think in a different way must be scared of that possibility.

I understand that some people may be scared, but why think that is the reason for presenting different possibilities? It's the same thing as if the "non-believers" said that the believers consider those videos as strong pieces of evidence because they are afraid of being alone in the Universe. That may apply to some people, but assuming those are the majority is an error.

PS: In my opinion this video is evidence of nothing, those things can be insects, birds, bats, secret Earth ships, alien ships, souls of braves, anything, there's not enough information to reach any conclusion.

^ We're not scared. It's simply a matter of applying everything you know about the world to this video and coming up blank. As for evidence of alien being visiting us but not wanting to show themselves this is about as good a video you'll get.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, it's either CGI or alien crafts.

Edit: God, what an ass that guy who taped this is. I asked for a source and mentioned that, yes, it'd be easier to prove it wasn't CGI with a source and I get this:

"Uh huh, CGI...right, I spent almost 2 grand on viewing gear, plus GAS and TIME going to see it to make fake CG video's.

There are HUNDREDS of witnesses and the DOZEN or so people who see this regularly in the area.

If people don't believe it they can eat me. I don't have any more time to debate this with people like that.

They can come down here and spend their own money and see it for themselves, instead of accusing me after I release this stuff for FREE for everyone."

[edit on 21-4-2010 by Drexon]

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
So, IF the object in the video is a bat, it IS flying within the speed limits of bats. No matter what part of the video you measure

Out of interest I checked the parts where the UFO appears to accelerate in speed. I don't think your statement is accurate.

You copy/pasted the "UFO" and surrounding pixels a few times to see how many times it would fit in there. I think it is far more accurate to take an average pixelsize for the object, then determine the pixels of the path between two points, and use that information to calculate traversed distance and speeds.

In this part of the video the UFO has a pixel size of roughly three pixels. I measured the time it takes for the object to cross the distance d several times. Average time it takes for the UFO is 1.5 seconds.

Distance d has about 404 pixels (correction: I just noticed that this value should be higher, more like about 435 pixels, so speed should even be higher), the object is about three pixels wide so that means the UFO fits about 134 times in there. Now, assuming that the bat involved is about 20cm long this gives a distance of 26.8 meters per 1.5 seconds, is 17.9 meters per second. This works out to about 64.3 km/h (about 40 miles per hour).

I also measured a part of the video at 1:48 with basically similar results.

I'm also pretty sure that the night vision bloom obfuscates the real size of the object, which thus might be smaller than three pixels (which means the calculated speeds would be too low. With a pixel size of two accounting for the bloom effect calculated speed would be close to 100 km/h).

It would be interesting to know which kind of bats are in that particular area and their top speeds and average bodysize.

[edit on 21-4-2010 by jclmavg]