Excellent New Footage for UFO Buffs [Archive]

moementum7

10-11-08, 06:58 PM

This isn't the exact one I had in mind but still interesting to say the least...this guy has caught quite a few of these strange objects up in the night sky with his Meade LX90 12" telescope and cam corder.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hP13WPwFwY

Here's a few other shots he has taken...
Strange to say the least
http://www.youtube.com/johnlenardwalson

EndLightEnd

10-12-08, 01:04 AM

Hmm what I dont get in that first video it has cut off scenes to the close ups that show the detail instead of showing the zooming that happens. To me that is a bit suspicious.

voodoochile

10-12-08, 06:55 PM

If you had code and mathematics travelling at C you could make one of those things.

Oli

10-13-08, 06:45 AM

Or if you were completely out of your tree you could talk about code and mathematics actually travelling.

phlogistician

10-13-08, 08:26 AM

Hmm what I dont get in that first video it has cut off scenes to the close ups that show the detail instead of showing the zooming that happens. To me that is a bit suspicious.

And the quality of the footage of the close up is better than the quality of the wide shots, implying it's from a different source.

So it's a fake.

electrafixtion

10-13-08, 10:37 AM

And the quality of the footage of the close up is better than the quality of the wide shots, implying it's from a different source.

So it's a fake.

Do you honestly think that so little to go on constitutes a "fake"? It doesn't take any wind out of my sails one way or another, but that in and of itself is certainly not enough to make me lean one way or another either.

phlogistician

10-13-08, 11:36 AM

Do you honestly think that so little to go on constitutes a "fake"? It doesn't take any wind out of my sails one way or another, but that in and of itself is certainly not enough to make me lean one way or another either.

The quality changes at the close up, and the camera shake suddenly diminishes. Also, the zoom is edited out, why?

Your 'excellent' footage is clearly a fake, and this doesn't bother you?

Please, show some critical thinking.

electrafixtion

10-13-08, 12:12 PM

The quality changes at the close up, and the camera shake suddenly diminishes. Also, the zoom is edited out, why?

Your 'excellent' footage is clearly a fake, and this doesn't bother you?

Please, show some critical thinking.

rotflol!!!You are fun-E The great and powerful Oz has spoken huh?

electrafixtion

10-13-08, 12:20 PM

phlogistician

10-14-08, 03:53 AM

rotflol!!!You are fun-E The great and powerful Oz has spoken huh?

You mean you didn't notice those things? Continuity errors in films pass you by too I bet.

The truth is consistent, fakes rarely perfect. That is a huge clue. Now, watch the clip again, and question each cut, edit and change of shot. Ask, 'why am I being shown this?', use critical thinking.

EndLightEnd

10-14-08, 10:28 AM

The truth is consistent...

The truth is what it is.
The truth is not always consistent with everything, as we all know.

phlogistician

10-14-08, 11:12 AM

The truth is what it is.
The truth is not always consistent with everything, as we all know.

The truth is always consistent. It's just not always obvious. This is why some people jump to strange conclusions when witnessing mundane things.

EndLightEnd

10-14-08, 11:36 AM

The truth is always consistent. It's just not always obvious.

That is a concept of your mind. The truth is what it is. You cannot place boundaries on what it may or may not be, all options must be open.

phlogistician

10-14-08, 11:52 AM

That is a concept of your mind. The truth is what it is. You cannot place boundaries on what it may or may not be, all options must be open.

That is just not true. The truth is always consistent, because it is true. All we are debating here is your flawed perception of it!

Stop being a hippy, eh?

EndLightEnd

10-14-08, 12:09 PM

Stop being a hippy, eh?

Quick to place labels, eh? Theres no arguing this point, there are several times throughout history where science reveals a truth directly contradicting currently held beliefs. The truth is upsetting, revolutionary, ANYTHING but consistent.

electrafixtion

10-14-08, 12:46 PM

That is just not true. The truth is always consistent, because it is true. All we are debating here is your flawed perception of it!

Stop being a hippy, eh?

Hippy? (do you mean Hippie?) What in the name of general psychosis are you talking about?

This post is BEYOND anything you have posted so far. I am not stating that you are a flawed human being or anything derogatory whatsoever, but rather making a reference to the incredulous nature of your understanding and thereby, your subsequent posting's content.

Do you even have a clue what the term perception defines? There are NO absolutes. None. Perception is based on the individual cognitive interpretation via a past and present impact on human sensory mechanisms to receive information. The idea that an individual's perception is flawed is one that you are in no way scientifically capable of accessing. Let alone when one is considering an unexplained phenomenon.

Please do not attempt to represent what you do not understand. The most die hard unexplained phenomenon enthusiast presents what they are considering as a question for others to ponder. They are honestly much better than most skeptics when it comes to NOT jumping to conclusions like you have here.

Get real.

voodoochile

10-14-08, 09:25 PM

Originally Posted by phlogistician
I like Nuts.

voodoochile
Prove it.

Perhaps, the funniest thing I have ever read or written.

phlogistician

10-15-08, 05:13 AM

Quick to place labels, eh? Theres no arguing this point, there are several times throughout history where science reveals a truth directly contradicting currently held beliefs. The truth is upsetting, revolutionary, ANYTHING but consistent.

Listen to yourself. Your prose is about perception of the truth, and people having misconceptions. That is exactly what I have said, but you are so determined to pick a fight you can't see that.

The truth is what it is, irrespective of people's opinions. People's opinions are often wrong.

phlogistician

10-15-08, 05:18 AM

Do you even have a clue what the term perception defines? There are NO absolutes. None.

Oh, there are absolutes. Gravity will always pull you back towards Earth after you jump. That is absolute. You can have the opinion that it won't, and that you can fly, but that is self deception. Your perception of gravity does not affect the absolute truth of gravity.

phlogistician

10-15-08, 05:36 AM

Originally Posted by phlogistician
I like Nuts.

voodoochile
Prove it.

Perhaps, the funniest thing I have ever read or written.

And you mention it in this thread because?

I preferred your witless 'fuck you' contribution on that thread.

electrafixtion

10-15-08, 09:28 AM

Oh, there are absolutes. Gravity will always pull you back towards Earth after you jump. That is absolute. You can have the opinion that it won't, and that you can fly, but that is self deception. Your perception of gravity does not affect the absolute truth of gravity.

What you describe here is most assuredly not a perception per definition. Gravity is not open to individual interpretation any more than the weather is. What you are describing is the act of being mentally ill or delusional.

If anything, the basic contention minus real scientific analysis, that the video is a hoax, is based on delusion or prejudice rather than non impulsive rational observation.

phlogistician

10-15-08, 09:50 AM

What you describe here is most assuredly not a perception per definition. Gravity is not open to individual interpretation any more than the weather is. What you are describing is the act of being mentally ill or delusional.

Yet 'yogic flying' is claimed to be real by the practitioners. Some people want to believe something so much, they deny an absolute like gravity. See how far the human mind can twist itself?

If anything, the basic contention minus real scientific analysis, that the video is a hoax, is based on delusion or prejudice rather than non impulsive rational observation.

The camera shake changes in the close up, as does the quality of the footage. The close ups clearly aren't from the same source, so it's been edited from multiple sources. That does not agree with the claimed events, so it is a fake.

I'm not prejudiced, btw. I'd love to see some evidence of Aliens visiting the Earth, I firmly believe the odds dictate that there will be intelligent life all over the Universe. I just doubt the alleged sightings and the circumstances that they have occurred in.

GeoffP

10-15-08, 09:53 AM

Agreed. Quite a lot of them, though. What do you say to the whole "Phoenix Lights" thing?

electrafixtion

10-15-08, 11:24 AM

Agreed. Quite a lot of them, though. What do you say to the whole "Phoenix Lights" thing?

Not sure what you are replying to here. What is the context of your response more or less?

electrafixtion

10-15-08, 11:27 AM

The camera shake changes in the close up, as does the quality of the footage. The close ups clearly aren't from the same source, so it's been edited from multiple sources. That does not agree with the claimed events, so it is a fake.

I say this is a snap judgment, although I do not say that this video is genuine or not. I just don;t believe that either one of us is REALLY qualified to make a valuable judgment based on your observations. BTW, where is the "claimed events" part you are referring to?

phlogistician

10-15-08, 11:52 AM

I BTW, where is the "claimed events" part you are referring to?

The preamble to the video, and on the web site it's hosted on. It says who captured the video, when, and how.

BTW, did you notice that the time stamp jumps forwards, and then backwards during the cuts and zooms? The footage isn't even in chronological order, so it;s certainly not showing us an accurate representation of how events took place.

electrafixtion

10-15-08, 12:52 PM

The preamble to the video, and on the web site it's hosted on. It says who captured the video, when, and how.

BTW, did you notice that the time stamp jumps forwards, and then backwards during the cuts and zooms? The footage isn't even in chronological order, so it;s certainly not showing us an accurate representation of how events took place.

Again, I am not saying this is absolute proof of anything, just rather excellent with respect to it's clarity. I did find this on the page where the video was located and it makes clear that the organization that initially scrutinized the video, edited it with respect to it's original length and also added close ups that they themselves provided taken from the submitted video.

"We, as Sirius UFO Space Science Research Center firstly, spoke with all the witnesses separetly then did the detailed analysis of the full footage of 2 hours 30 mn. long videos with the participation of our members of science board... We have enlarged the video images of the footages, did all the detailed analysis and checked their pixels and went through the all footage frame by frame. After doing all the necessary analysis which went on for several weeks, we came to a definite conclusion with no doubts that these are “100% genuine footages”!..."

I have been attempting to look into CGI detection with respect to the basic exterior examination of video content. This video is fairly intense with respect to what normally typifies CGI.

EndLightEnd

10-15-08, 03:04 PM

That is a concept of your mind. The truth is what it is.

That is just not true. The truth is always consistent, because it is true. All we are debating here is your flawed perception of it!

Stop being a hippy, eh?

Listen to yourself. Your prose is about perception of the truth, and people having misconceptions. That is exactly what I have said, but you are so determined to pick a fight you can't see that.

The truth is what it is, irrespective of people's opinions. People's opinions are often wrong.

So you refute me, and a few posts later say exactly what started the argument in the first place. In the process telling me I should watch what I post, riiiiight.

GeoffP

10-15-08, 03:15 PM

Not sure what you are replying to here. What is the context of your response more or less?

That: "the film is probably a hoax, but wouldn't it be nice if it weren't?"

I also asked an open-ended question about the Phoenix Lights, for which it could be argued there are more independent observers.

electrafixtion

10-15-08, 04:31 PM

That: "the film is probably a hoax, but wouldn't it be nice if it weren't?"

I also asked an open-ended question about the Phoenix Lights, for which it could be argued there are more independent observers.

Well Geoff, I'll tell you this much concerning reality. They sure as hell weren't flares. But that doesn't mean I believe them to have been what Miss Goodbottom (Blossom Goodchild) has been preaching was arriving yesterday. LOTZA possibilities. Thanks to a poster right here in the pseudo section, we know that the former Governor has come way forward and admitted seeing what he believed "something not of this world" (or something very close to that)

There are really one or two possibilities for the Phoenix Lights.

1) human technology

2) non human technology

right now to the best of my knowledge, there is no way to know which.

The military denies it was theirs, but I don't believe that for a minute. That "organization" is anything but. The right hand never knows what the left is doing.

It's important to make clear for the record that those "lights" have been seen before and since. It's a HUGE object, but we don't know what it is.

just don't believe any moron that states it was flares

EndLightEnd

10-15-08, 08:51 PM

See how far the human mind can twist itself?

Yes, youve shown us admirably with your ideas about truth.

phlogistician

10-16-08, 04:07 AM

So you refute me, and a few posts later say exactly what started the argument in the first place. In the process telling me I should watch what I post, riiiiight.

What a cheap shot, I was correcting your assertion;

The truth is not always consistent with everything, as we all know.

Your perception of it, and your word twisting don't change the truth.

electrafixtion

10-16-08, 09:51 AM

If anything, the advancement of science itself has proved that "truth" is a flawed concept. Truth evolves as our understanding of reality's fabric expands and grows. Otherwise, we would not have what was proved to be law yesterday, being corrected via new laws today. Because we can revise truth scientifically, it cannot remain a constant. Of course one could argue that what was once considered truth, was in fact never truth to begin with, but then we would have to re-examine everything that has been proved thus far within science. As such, there would be no such thing as reality. Whether we view reality or truth as a constant, one of the two has to be flawed because of the revisionary nature of progress. The concept of progress of course brings us to the consideration for what is linearity, time and space itself.

phlogistician

10-16-08, 11:43 AM

If anything, the advancement of science itself has proved that "truth" is a flawed concept. Truth evolves as our understanding of reality's fabric expands and

Typical UFO believer standpoint. There is what is occurring, and there is your perception of it. Deciding what the object is based on your subjective view of how 'advanced' we are leads to all kinds of problems, like thinking that what you see cannot be of terrestrial origin. That I'm afraid is an extrapolation, and incredibly flawed.

A real scientist just records what is observed, and looks for matches of that behaviour. They do not leap to conclusions, or abandon their senses.

electrafixtion

10-16-08, 12:14 PM

Typical UFO believer standpoint. There is what is occurring, and there is your perception of it. Deciding what the object is based on your subjective view of how 'advanced' we are leads to all kinds of problems, like thinking that what you see cannot be of terrestrial origin. That I'm afraid is an extrapolation, and incredibly flawed.

A real scientist just records what is observed, and looks for matches of that behaviour. They do not leap to conclusions, or abandon their senses.

What a load of crap. My post had NOTHING to do with UFOs, perception or extrapolation. WTF are you talking about????

According to you, a "scientist" is an imaginationless machine much likened to a cross between a video camera and a computer immagery identification program. Where do people come up with this stuff?

phlogistician

10-17-08, 04:33 AM

What a load of crap. My post had NOTHING to do with UFOs, perception or extrapolation. WTF are you talking about????

I'm trying to keep the discussion within the context of the thread. The thread is about UFOs. Try to stay focussed.

According to you, a "scientist" is an imaginationless machine much likened to a cross between a video camera and a computer immagery identification program. Where do people come up with this stuff?

I haven't said that at all. Clearly you are so keen to pick a fight you've stopped trying to comprehend.

EndLightEnd

10-17-08, 11:04 AM

I haven't said that at all. Clearly you are so keen to pick a fight you've stopped trying to comprehend.

Hmm, where have I heard that before... oh yea!

Your prose is about perception of the truth, and people having misconceptions. That is exactly what I have said, but you are so determined to pick a fight you can't see that.

The truth is what it is, irrespective of people's opinions. People's opinions are often wrong.

You said the exact same thing to me (about picking a fight), and then after a bit of misleading misconception BS you ended up saying exactly what I said in the first place (The truth is what it is), which coincidentally is what started the "fight". You obviously agree that the truth is what it is irrespective of individuals, so why did you argue the counter point in the first place unless you were a)confused or b)looking for a fight.

So who exactly is picking the fights here? You seem to be the constant in both equations...