It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Please, STOP trying to find UFOs with web cams!

page: 2
13
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 13 2010 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


Do you seriously not understand this topic? Please, learn to understand this topic.

Look at yourself.... you think a web cam video is unexplained. Do you know why it is unexplained to you? It is because YOU WERE NOT THERE TO FILM IT. That is what my topic is about.

You don't know they are not jets, you don't know it is not Jupiter. You have even claimed your self that you don't know what they are. This is because YOU WERE NOT THERE TO SEE IT WITH YOUR OWN EYES.

This is why it is not a good idea to search with web cams. Jet's become UFOs. Jupiter becomes a UFO. RC aircraft become UFO's.... all of these are false alarms, and we sit here and debate endlessly about something none of us saw with our own eyes. We all are working with the same inconclusive material. It's a waste of time.

Again, those objects are jets, and that one object is Jupiter. This is the most plausible explanation and is backed by supporting evidence. This is as far as you can go with crappy web cam videos...



posted on Nov, 13 2010 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by neonitus
That describes just about every ufo pic or vid.


Sadly, I know.. Every UFO pic or vid is very bad and inconclusive. This is because real UFOs are actually very rare. All that is ever seen are semi UFO which are just out of focus and blurry objects that could be anything. Semi UFOs are only UFOs because they are out of focus and blurry and inconclusive.


Originally posted by neonitus
I agree that live cams arent a good place to look for ufo's, but i dont think a blanket dismissal of everything they show is right, just because someone thought lights on a hill were aliens.


It's not just about someone thinking lights on a hill were aliens.

You see this?



Someone actually thought these were UFO to the point where they let it support their beliefs in a prediction, and was spread around the internet as truth...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

It turns out, it is just dirt on the lens or protective cover:



More examples.




Someone had to go out of their way to research and figure out what the objects were. In the end, it turns out to be a giant waste of time, resources, and effort, all because someone used a web cam as evidence and misidentified dirt as a UFO. That time and research could have gone to better places.

If it wasn't a web cam, and someone owned the camera personally, they could have checked if there was dirt on the lens. They could have seen if there was objects in the sky or not. They could confirm all of this.... but when you are looking through a web cam that is miles away from your location it just sets you up to fail. This is what my topic is about.

edit on 13-11-2010 by gift0fpr0phecy because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2010 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecy


Originally posted by crowdedskies
Secondly, who are the experts and experienced researchers that you are referring to? You should realise that any witness is actually as good as, if not better than, the so-called experienced researcher (especially if the researchers themselves have had no encounters and are just theorising)


ME.




I can see that your intentions are good. However you have to be careful not too become too arrogant. I consider myself to be a UFO enthusiast too. I cannot say expert because there is no expertise when nobody yet knows what UFOs are.

On a lighter note, I have started to draw cartoons on Ufology. I have been using them as avatars. The purpose is to draw attention to the fact that I believe Ufology is too limited. I really feel it should embrace some abstract notions whilst keeping the focus on analysing evidence. I realise you will not agree but everyone makes their own progress in solving some of the world's mysteries.



posted on Nov, 13 2010 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecy
1: You are not there to personally witness it.


So if I am say watching the web cam at Yellowstone park waiting for the geysers to erupt...
and say a big foot strolls by and gets caught on that camera...
You mean that would not have any value?



But seriously people sitting for hours staring at stationary lights on a hill top that flicker when a cloud drifts by.... those people need to get out more



posted on Nov, 13 2010 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecy
Sadly, I know.. Every UFO pic or vid is very bad and inconclusive. This is because real UFOs are actually very rare. All that is ever seen are semi UFO which are just out of focus and blurry objects that could be anything. Semi UFOs are only UFOs because they are out of focus and blurry and inconclusive.


Ummm okay flawed logic here "every UFO pic is inconclusive" Well if it was conclusive it wouldn't be a real UFO picture... it would be an IFO

Anything that moves in the sky that is not identified is a real UFO until it is conclusively identified as a balloon or bird or even alien spacecraft.

But your crusade won't work... your trying to reach those with no life other than sitting staring at web cams




posted on Nov, 13 2010 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecy
1: You are not there to personally witness it.


So if I am say watching the web cam at Yellowstone park waiting for the geysers to erupt...
and say a big foot strolls by and gets caught on that camera...
You mean that would not have any value?




How do you know it was big foot and not some guy in a suit? You don't, you were not there. The video would be useless and only cause endless debate. Sure entertainment wise it would be great, but it would be useless none the less. If you were there, you could at lease have more information about it being a guy in a suit or not, how big it was, how far it was, what noises it made, etc...

edit on 13-11-2010 by gift0fpr0phecy because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2010 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecy
Sadly, I know.. Every UFO pic or vid is very bad and inconclusive. This is because real UFOs are actually very rare. All that is ever seen are semi UFO which are just out of focus and blurry objects that could be anything. Semi UFOs are only UFOs because they are out of focus and blurry and inconclusive.


Ummm okay flawed logic here "every UFO pic is inconclusive" Well if it was conclusive it wouldn't be a real UFO picture... it would be an IFO


Wrong... I already talked about this. My example was the stealth bomber before it was classified. If someone saw it before it was classified, it would be a real UFO. You can take clear pictures of it, see that it is a craft of some sort, you wouldn't be able to see who is piloting it, or know where it came from... it would be a real UFO. It would be conclusive that it is a real UFO of unknown origin.

However, if you took a blurry picture of it, you can't even tell how big it is or if it is even a real object, or see it's full shape in detail, then it is a semi UFO. It is inconclusive. It would be a useless picture because it would probably look like a bird, a kite, etc..



Originally posted by zorgon
Anything that moves in the sky that is not identified is a real UFO until it is conclusively identified as a balloon or bird or even alien spacecraft.


It is only subjectively a UFO, not objectively a UFO.

What I was trying to point out is two different types of UFO.

1) UFO that is only unidentified because it is lacking detail, and you can't identify it based on visual data. (billions of those exist)

2) UFO that is clearly visible and has much detail, but you just have never seen it before and therefor can't identify exactly what it is, where it came from, etc. (very rare)



Originally posted by zorgon
But your crusade won't work... your trying to reach those with no life other than sitting staring at web cams



I see this as being possibly true.



posted on Nov, 13 2010 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecy
1) UFO that is only unidentified because it is lacking detail, and you can't identify it based on visual data. (billions of those exist)


Hmmmm well that would include;
1) Stealth airplanes that are virtually invisible
2) Alien (or black ops) ships using a plasma envelope around the craft as part of the propulsion system, hence making them appear blurry and fuzzy and glowing at night
3) Plasma critters.. a life form that flits about our skies playing tag with airplanes. Since they are basically balls of energy they too would appear fuzzy


So by your criteria... all the really good UFO's fall into you 'almost' category



posted on Nov, 13 2010 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecy
How do you know it was big foot and not some guy in a suit? You don't, you were not there. The video would be useless and only cause endless debate.


Well if I was there and used my cell phone cam... and posted that would the debate be any different? S8h well all just turn off the computer and go outside and do something.

edit on 13-11-2010 by zorgon because: Classified



posted on Nov, 13 2010 @ 08:00 PM
link   


well all just turn off the computer and go outside and do something




posted on Nov, 13 2010 @ 09:07 PM
link   
I agree and disagree respectfully. Yes most webcams suck in all the reasons you gave but SOMEDAY they will be better than anything we have now professorially.
If anything, more HD cams should be pointed at the sky's. It might give a baseline so that every mountain swap gas powered CGI balloon on 240 res YouTube does not make headlines. Some say forget the visible spectrum altogether and look at the other frequencies. Apparently optics is old hat if you have mastered antigrav Tech.



posted on Nov, 13 2010 @ 10:56 PM
link   
I think the use of webcams to look for UFOs leads to too many misleading and subsequently damaging reports. By damaging I mean to the UFO community at large. However, once a UFO has been spotted then using a webcam to assist with recording it is a good idea, especially if that same footage is captured on an independant camera as well. If it can provide another piece of the puzzle I am all for it, but to use it as the only means of locating and recording UFOs I think is wrong.



posted on Nov, 13 2010 @ 11:35 PM
link   
Or at least use a tripod it makes me sick to my stomach



posted on Nov, 14 2010 @ 03:37 AM
link   
reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy
 


mmmm....and here I was about to embark on an experiment using them. I've got land in the middle of nowhere in Northern Spain with the north and south boundaries 50km apart. I was going to set up camera sites between those boundaries to see what shows up, given the old local legends bang on about weird lights, demons, people "getting lost" and more recently UFOs, abductions, temporal "issues" and aliens.

I was then going to freeze my butt off sleeping in a van, 700m up a hillside for 6 weeks in Jan, Feb, basically acting as bait for the impending hordes of darkness, but what you're telling me is that I'll just muddy the waters for UFO research and it'll be a waste of time.

Why bother! Cheers for the tip, I'll stay in London and watch UFOs on youtube then.



posted on Nov, 14 2010 @ 12:30 PM
link   
Here is a very good thread that touches on both the NYC CAMS and the CHINA UFO HOAX.
Read it all the way through and you will see that EARTH CAMS are crap in the quality of the images that they capture.

www.disclose.tv...



posted on Nov, 14 2010 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by nomadros
 


Obviously you didn't read my first post clearly enough.

I am talking about WEB (internet) cameras that people watch on the internet. For example:

www.earthcam.com...

People are searching for UFOs from their arm chairs over the internet in places that are not even near their location. They can't verify what they are looking at by going outside, and they can't see if there is dirt on the lens, or see how far away the object is, or what it is... they know nothing but what they see in a 2D pixelated bad image taken hundreds of miles away. The camera will fool them.

If you own the cameras, and you live near or on the land they are set up, then I am not talking to you. I am not saying "don't set up cameras and use them to record". Actually I was trying to say if you are going to set up cameras please be near them so you can confirm what you record with your eyes.

If you are not there, in person, next to your camera, MANY MUNDANE THINGS will suddenly become "UFOs".

A bird or insect flying across your camera will easily become a "UFO" if you were not there next to your camera to see if it was a bird or insect with your own eyes.

I can set up a camera right now and let it film for 2 hours unattended. When I watch the video there is no doubt going to be "unidentified" objects flying across the screen. They will be blurry out of focus dots flying around. In reality they will be bugs, but since I wasn't there to see it with my own eyes I wouldn't be able to confirm that. This is a problem. If I was sitting next to the camera and watching the area, I can confirm that there was only bugs, and no craft in the sky.

My post was a call to get your own camera and sit next to it or be near it when you are filming. Leaving a camera running unattended is not a good idea when hunting for UFOs because then MANY things will become "UFOs"..... Dust, insects, birds, aircraft, all these things can easily be mistaken for UFO if you were not there.

It's the same with internet cameras, you just can't confirm what you are seeing if you are not there. Internet cameras will create many false alarms.

Get a camera, go out side and film stuff that you see with your eyes. Don't film things you don't see with your own eyes. That is all I am asking.

As for you your youtube comment....


---- edit----

I just reread your comment. You are talking about setting up cameras in Spain, and watching them from London. (I think) I am going to warn you now... you are going to film things you can't identify. This is because you are not personally there to see what you are filming. You will film insects, birds, dust, debris, etc.... and they will appear like "UFOs" because you were not there to see it your self and verify what it is you are filming. This is a huge problem with UFOlogy. Creating false alarms because you were not there to see it with your own eyes and confirm what it is you are seeing.


edit on 14-11-2010 by gift0fpr0phecy because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2010 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


Zorgon, you are completely missing the point. It's ok, I don't expect everyone to be able to understand such a simple point.



posted on Nov, 14 2010 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy
 


I'm setting in them up in Spain and sleeping in a van in Spain. The 50km stretch is (hopefully) for any "incoming" tracking purposes, so I shouldn't be more than 25km from any action. My "base camp" is also where most of the "rumours" regarding the area come from. If I do get pics I won't be posting unless I can see the rivets on the sucker as the tractor beam yanks me up and all that. As I say the web cams will be just to give me a heads up.

Personally, I'm sh****ng it about this, given the uncorroberated stories I've heard, but hell (no pun intended), it would be so cool to actually film something good.

If they do find a couple of cameras and an abandoned truck on a Spanish hill in about a year...that was me (!)... or I could be about to spend 6 weeks freezing my nuts off for no apparent reason.

Oh...I'm not doing this for any purpose other than for the hell of it.



posted on Nov, 14 2010 @ 04:50 PM
link   
Please, STOP trying to find UFOs with web cams!

Please, STOP trying to find UFOs with web.

Please, STOP trying to find UFOs.

Please, STOP trying.

Please, STOP.

Please.

No.
edit on 14-11-2010 by Sam Vimes because: the no bit.....



posted on Nov, 14 2010 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Sam Vimes
 


What useless pointless post. Thanks for completely ignoring the point of this topic and posting complete rubbish.

I am not asking people to stop trying to find UFOs. I am asking them to find a better method. Using internet cameras that are miles away from your location is pretty much a very dumb idea. Just go outside and get your own camera so you can stop mistaking identifiable objects as unidentifiable.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join