Puerto Rico UFO Video. AUG 4th, 2012.

Originally posted by W3RLIED2
reply to post by The Coward

 

There's pretty much no reason to believe a for profit youtube channel has legit material. Most of those guys like to make an easy buck off of yanking your chain.

Dude, not all YouTube material is faked. And not all YouTube material is being used to make money by the videographer. Yes, there are a lot of people who do, but not all. Don't generalize, please. And if some do make money off of it, that means nothing. Cause I could say that ATS makes tones of money off of UFOs and anything said here is not legit. But that would not be right, and would not necessarily be true.

Originally posted by W3RLIED2
IMO that video is junk. I've seen way better on ATS. This certainly isn't the end all, beall of UFO vids.

On another note... The point of this forum is to determine if videos like this are real and viable, or if they are fake, therefore worthless. This falls into the latter category.

Eyes on the sky

The only reason you say that is because you are in defensive mode, you say it is "worthless" junk? Prove it!

Easier said than done. Oh, and bring me any "better video" out there and I will bring you the ATS thread that debunks it. So please, ease off the harsh feelings, deal with them!

And as for the mod, she is a big girl and I think she does not need people like you to "defend" her. She made her peace and I respect that. So chill out!

Peace out!

reply to post by The Coward


Your projecting feelings on my post that aren't there. Simple opinion, ,my friend.

YouTube is bunk, 90 percent of the time. I never said all YouTube videos were bunk.

Look up mike singhes channel, look up project camelot. They have some worthwhile material.

The video you posted looks crap, IMO only.

Oh, and another thing. Lot's of YouTube videos are easily copied by scam masters. Maybe this video does not belong originally to the YouTube account I posted here. There are at least three people with the same vid. So, maybe the original owner just posted it for sharing the vid, and a dirty rat YouTube scammer duplicated it to make quick cash? There is always that possibility. Or vise versa, but to say this is what is the case 100% would not make it right.

Never the less the video seems legit, and is from an apparent UFO.

Originally posted by W3RLIED2
reply to post by The Coward

 

The video you posted looks crap, IMO only.

Of course it is "your opinion", but why? Why is does it look crap? What does not look "good" about it? Is it faked? CGI? What?

Prove this video is "crap"! Don't just say it!

Not to be rude, but I have launched (2) Chinese lanterns this 4th of July that perfectly replicate this. I wish people could actually familiarize themselves with Chinese lanterns, prior to stating "chinese lanterns = debunker"

Originally posted by FX44rice
Not to be rude, but I have launched (2) Chinese lanterns this 4th of July that perfectly replicate this. I wish people could actually familiarize themselves with Chinese lanterns, prior to stating "chinese lanterns = debunker"

Dude, don't even go there.

This does not move like no Chinese lantern.


Plus, I know what lanterns look like, I see them every new years eve.

reply to post by The Coward


I will tell you exactly what it is

Another cr4p youtube night time camera phone video!

reply to post by The Coward


If you think these videos are good then you are very easy to please thats all I can say, these nightime youtube videos are 99.999999% crap and we have still to see the 0.000001% that might be good.

We have a light in the sky SO WHAT as has been said thousands of legit terrestrial reasons could explain that, these videos tend to have no detail and the classic shot were they zoom in with autofocus and the light appears to change shape.

Anyone who is SERIOUS about taking pictures at night would use manual focus, autofocus is to easily fooled even on top of the range DSLR's.

reply to post by The Coward


I totally agree with much of what you have said in this thread, things get a bit silly and there is no harm whatsoever in making less than a penny (US) per view, who cares? It isn't coming out of viewer pocket. Sure there's channels that are set up strictly for that but really it's as easy as clicking an X to be done with it. All too often I get the image of Comic book Guy from the Simpsons when reading UFO threads. Nerd rage... Haha.

All that said, I do think this is some kind of RC toy.

To me it looks like a white moth that is just flying around, just can't see the wings flap.

A video with such low quality is hardly "legit" evidence of anything. Just another shotty youtube video, I'm willing to bet that if further investigation of this video were to take place a very simple and very stupid explanation would be found.

NEXT.

EDIT.

Originally posted by wmd_2008
Anyone who is SERIOUS about taking pictures at night would use manual focus, autofocus is to easily fooled even on top of the range DSLR's.

Couldn't agree more, if someone really wanted to capture something without it being contaminated the auto focus would be shut off right away. Having filmed countless hours of action sports with my camcorder, my auto focus was NEVER on. Reason being, it would distort everything into unrecognizable shapes.

Well said bud.

"What do you guys think? Oh, wait... It's ATS, I know exactly how this will end up."

These were the first words I posted just at the top of the video. I do not expect anything positive from most ATS members. They are contaminated.


This video goes for the researchers. Say all you want. But first, start by opening the video directly from YouTube, maximize the window, and tell me that the object is not interesting. Wait, again, this is ATS, im probably dealing with lots of teen trolls. Never mind.


Enjoy!

Originally posted by MmmPie
A video with such low quality is hardly "legit" evidence of anything.

Most UFO videos are grainy, blurry, low quality videos. Bring me a "high Quality" UFO video, and I will bring you the ATS thread that debunks it!

Originally posted by MmmPie
A video with such low quality is hardly "legit" evidence of anything. Just another shotty youtube video, I'm willing to bet that if further investigation of this video were to take place a very simple and very stupid explanation would be found.

NEXT.

EDIT.

Originally posted by wmd_2008
Anyone who is SERIOUS about taking pictures at night would use manual focus, autofocus is to easily fooled even on top of the range DSLR's.

Couldn't agree more, if someone really wanted to capture something without it being contaminated the auto focus would be shut off right away. Having filmed countless hours of action sports with my camcorder, my auto focus was NEVER on. Reason being, it would distort everything into unrecognizable shapes.

Well said bud.

edit on 8-8-2012 by MmmPie because: addition of information

Thats what you do when you KNOW what to do with the equipment I have been a keen hobby photographer for 30+ yrs that helps a little when looking at these BS youtube videos people think are worth looking at

Looks like an RC plane with some funky LED lighting to me. I agree with the "circling" idea, meaning it's probably staying in close proximity to the controller. But right at the end it looks like it's about to go out of its comfort zone and off into the distance, but the video ends, so it's hard to tell. Still, not a bad video at all, even if it is a perfectly normal man-made object

reply to post by The Coward

Most UFO videos are grainy, blurry, low quality videos. Bring me a "high Quality" UFO video, and I will bring you the ATS thread that debunks it!

While not exactly "high quality" these are better quality than the video you posted and show objects that have not been explained , they have been thoroughly examined by experts and are still considered UFOs .

Although a complete, frame-by-frame analysis has not been done, probably because a few of the frames are obscured by the water tower, long sequences of the film have been closely examined. None of the studies produced any data to show the film had been faked.
Data indicated, as mentioned earlier, that the objects were disk-shaped and the images on the film are consistent with high-polished metal surfaces on disks. The hard data on the film indicates that the aircraft explanation is not possible, but it does not prove that the objects are spacecraft. It leaves the film depicting unidentified flying objects
www.nicap.org...

What Newhouse and his wife saw BEFORE he was able to get the camera out and running, reportedly, were structured objects, described as "gunmetal-colored objects shaped like two saucers, one inverted on top of the other." (*) The Air Force and the Navy, considering Newhouse's credibility, spent considerable time and money on the analyses and to classify the Utah Film as "Secret". Also noted by the analysts was the absence of any evidence to indicate birds such as fluttering. Air Force & Navy analysis: "Birds and balloons immediately eliminated, within a five mile radius, aircraft could have easily been determined. In excess of five miles the objects were moving faster than aircraft could achieve, except in straightline speed runs.
www.nicap.org...

And neither of them are blighted by AdSense .

reply to post by gortex


"High Quality" being the magic word here. If you don't bring a "High Quality", why should I bother?

Nuff Said!

Plus, that was said to be high flying birds. The quality is Soooo bad, that who can argue with that statement?

Originally posted by W3RLIED2
reply to post by The Coward

 

There's pretty much no reason to believe a for profit youtube channel has legit material. Most of those guys like to make an easy buck off of yanking your chain.

And does that logic extend to profit making websites that display such material? lol, I watched it here, well I did and I didn't

Although I tend to agree that someone making or trying to make money of UFO videos as being a little dubious indeed.

reply to post by The Coward

If you don't bring a "High Quality", why should I bother?
Nuff Said!
Plus, that was said to be high flying birds.

Obviously you couldn't even be bothered to read the external quotes I provided stating that " Air Force & Navy analysis: "Birds and balloons immediately eliminated, within a five mile radius, aircraft could have easily been determined."

So yeah ... Nuff said

looks something like my neighbor shot - only his was a multi color laser on the otherside of a dyed black sheet.
on video it looked convincing. but this video sort of looks like a helocopter to me.