UFO Video proof
- Thread starter UfoHunter
- Start date
Re: wes
That's the problem. The poster completely refuses the obvious in the odd hope that it is something greater. He also doesn't seem to understand that any 3 year old can prove the existance of UFOs, and is afraid to say what he actually thinks it is (even though it looks like a plane).
Re: Re: wes
really? then tell me why when vrob and ives make the fucking case that the manmade hypo is the likeliest, you fucks insist on mischaracterizing their position? you call them believers simply because they do not commit themselves to categorically denying the et option? toe the line? blaspheme not? who the fuck is trolling who? they are the fuckers who are smart enough to leave their options open unlike you closeminded fools. hedge your bets, morons, just in case mr grey pops in and probes you up the ass!
i bet a few more chris beechams came in here with their crappy pics you fucks would be besides yourselves in giddy frikkin excitement.
lemme ask you wessie, do you know my position on ufos and their origins? just off the top of your head...hit me
i appreciate your honesty.
you are the strangest fucker i've encountered in the pseudo forum.
really? then tell me why when vrob and ives make the fucking case that the manmade hypo is the likeliest, you fucks insist on mischaracterizing their position? you call them believers simply because they do not commit themselves to categorically denying the et option? toe the line? blaspheme not? who the fuck is trolling who? they are the fuckers who are smart enough to leave their options open unlike you closeminded fools. hedge your bets, morons, just in case mr grey pops in and probes you up the ass!
i bet a few more chris beechams came in here with their crappy pics you fucks would be besides yourselves in giddy frikkin excitement.
lemme ask you wessie, do you know my position on ufos and their origins? just off the top of your head...hit me
i appreciate your honesty.
you are the strangest fucker i've encountered in the pseudo forum.
Re: Re: Re: wes
/really?
Yes, basically because of this:
/then tell me why when vrob and ives make the fucking case that the manmade hypo is the likeliest, you fucks insist on mischaracterizing their position?
Which is indicative of emotional attachment to the contrary of anyone you lump into this group. That is prejudice.
/you call them believers simply because they do not commit themselves to categorically denying the et option? toe the line?
If you had paid attention spooks, you'd notice your statement above is simply untrue. You see it this way because of your prejudice. Are you gonna make me quote myself? Vrob said some silly shit (as I took it) and then we came to an understanding and I didn't agree with some of what he said, but for the most part I don't think he's a complete quack like beachum, but he is a bit over the line for me. The only thing I've said about Ives is "yeah I pretty much agree with that" on one of his posts. I don't think I've reponded to him at all besides that. I explicitely stated earlier that I'm agnostic and as such I've NEVER completely ruled it out. Yet you dismiss me as a debunker because I try to correct your stupid bullshit and point out why certain things are more likely than others.
A serious investigation may suspect an outcome, but does not attempt to seriously support that conclusion without solid evidence. Due to your serious lack of comprehension regarding important related issues, you assume that it should be taken seriously given the current available evidence. While that may be true for you, that would make it indicative of an emotional attachment to the presumption of this conclusion, as supporting a conclusion is the antithesis of a serious investigation.
/blaspheme not? who the fuck is trolling who?
you and your paranoid ass, is trolling me because you don't know what you're talking about and think people are trying to fuck with you. that's indicative of poor mental health or a desire to invoke an emotional response for the childish satisfaction of having done so.
/they are the fuckers who are smart enough to leave their options open unlike you closeminded fools.
you are a prejudice fool for calling myself or persol closeminded. (i haven't followed everyone else, so I'm not sure if you're right).
/hedge your bets, morons, just in case mr grey pops in and probes you up the ass!
that you are serious here is simply pathetic and again, indicative of prejudice. oh wait, you're just fuckign with me. are you enjoying it? am i debunking hard enough for you? I have a hard time keeping track of who the moron is when you say things like that spooky.
/i bet a few more chris beechams came in here with their crappy pics you fucks would be besides yourselves in giddy frikkin excitement.
i see, so you think we're all sitting around just wainting to exploit morons? yeah, that's why I'm here. your projection of all your psychosis is revealing child. i don't think you're "fucking" with anyone, as you don't seem capable of controlling yourself.
/lemme ask you wessie, do you know my position on ufos and their origins? just off the top of your head...hit me
i've heard you propose several things any of which are about as probable (given reasonable assumptions and the wisdom of the all of what is currently known about the universe) be as possible as you sending me a check for a gazillion dollars.
you've said "maybe from a nearby star" and "maybe from inside the earth" and what seems to be a hundreds other things in the name of "fucking with debunkers". further, i don't care what you think the origins are, or what your position on ufo's is. I respond to what you post. if you post things that dont' make sense to me I'll likely point out why I think they don't make sense.
i appreciate your honesty.
/you are the strangest fucker i've encountered in the pseudo forum.
:bugeye:
i don't pay attention to what forum I'm in. you are the trollingest, most annoying paranoid that I've encountered on sci.
/really?
Yes, basically because of this:
/then tell me why when vrob and ives make the fucking case that the manmade hypo is the likeliest, you fucks insist on mischaracterizing their position?
Which is indicative of emotional attachment to the contrary of anyone you lump into this group. That is prejudice.
/you call them believers simply because they do not commit themselves to categorically denying the et option? toe the line?
If you had paid attention spooks, you'd notice your statement above is simply untrue. You see it this way because of your prejudice. Are you gonna make me quote myself? Vrob said some silly shit (as I took it) and then we came to an understanding and I didn't agree with some of what he said, but for the most part I don't think he's a complete quack like beachum, but he is a bit over the line for me. The only thing I've said about Ives is "yeah I pretty much agree with that" on one of his posts. I don't think I've reponded to him at all besides that. I explicitely stated earlier that I'm agnostic and as such I've NEVER completely ruled it out. Yet you dismiss me as a debunker because I try to correct your stupid bullshit and point out why certain things are more likely than others.
A serious investigation may suspect an outcome, but does not attempt to seriously support that conclusion without solid evidence. Due to your serious lack of comprehension regarding important related issues, you assume that it should be taken seriously given the current available evidence. While that may be true for you, that would make it indicative of an emotional attachment to the presumption of this conclusion, as supporting a conclusion is the antithesis of a serious investigation.
/blaspheme not? who the fuck is trolling who?
you and your paranoid ass, is trolling me because you don't know what you're talking about and think people are trying to fuck with you. that's indicative of poor mental health or a desire to invoke an emotional response for the childish satisfaction of having done so.
/they are the fuckers who are smart enough to leave their options open unlike you closeminded fools.
you are a prejudice fool for calling myself or persol closeminded. (i haven't followed everyone else, so I'm not sure if you're right).
/hedge your bets, morons, just in case mr grey pops in and probes you up the ass!
that you are serious here is simply pathetic and again, indicative of prejudice. oh wait, you're just fuckign with me. are you enjoying it? am i debunking hard enough for you? I have a hard time keeping track of who the moron is when you say things like that spooky.
/i bet a few more chris beechams came in here with their crappy pics you fucks would be besides yourselves in giddy frikkin excitement.
i see, so you think we're all sitting around just wainting to exploit morons? yeah, that's why I'm here. your projection of all your psychosis is revealing child. i don't think you're "fucking" with anyone, as you don't seem capable of controlling yourself.
/lemme ask you wessie, do you know my position on ufos and their origins? just off the top of your head...hit me
i've heard you propose several things any of which are about as probable (given reasonable assumptions and the wisdom of the all of what is currently known about the universe) be as possible as you sending me a check for a gazillion dollars.
you've said "maybe from a nearby star" and "maybe from inside the earth" and what seems to be a hundreds other things in the name of "fucking with debunkers". further, i don't care what you think the origins are, or what your position on ufo's is. I respond to what you post. if you post things that dont' make sense to me I'll likely point out why I think they don't make sense.
i appreciate your honesty.
/you are the strangest fucker i've encountered in the pseudo forum.
:bugeye:
i don't pay attention to what forum I'm in. you are the trollingest, most annoying paranoid that I've encountered on sci.
Unbelievable
If you anything about filming an object that is flying you would know that if plane was at 2000ft it would be just about impossible to zoom in and keep the plane it the picture. I'll give 100 bucks to anybody that can take A film of a plane at that altitude and get the plane to stay in the frame. It would be impossible,,, that is why people are putting up idiotic posts,, its a plane plane plane,.,,, you are fucking....blind blind blind,,,,,, it's looks nothing like a plane.With over 5o billion pictures of aircraft on the internet I'd like to see one of you show me one that even looks simialar to this................. LISTEN UP......... THE OBJECTS WHER AT NO HIGHER THAN 1000 FEET FROM THE CAMERA....... THIS CAN EASILY BE PROVED BY SIMPILY LOOKING AT THE FUCKING FILM AND SEEING THAT THE CAMERE NEVER WENT INTO DIGITAL ZOOM MEANING THAT THE CAMERA WAS IN OPTICAL AUTO FOCUS AND THE OBJECT WAS EXTREAMLY CLOSE TO THE CAMERA............ THIS CAN ALSO BE CONFIRMED ON THE TAPE SIGNATURE OF THE ORIGINAL COPY........ IF THE OBJECT HAD BEEN ANY FARTHER THAN THAT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN IMPOSSIBLE TO KEEP IT IN THE FRAME......... THE FILS WAS SHOT WITH A HANDHELD CAMERA WITH NO TRIPOD AND YET THE OBJECT STAYS IN THE FRAME THE WHOLE TIME............THE OBJECT ALSO LEAVES IN THE OPPISITE DIRECTION.... YET ANOTHER NEET STUNT BY AN AIRPLANE?........K
ONCE AGAIN.........SHOW ANY PICTURE OR VIDEO OR ANYTHING THAT LOOKS EVEN SIMILAR...particularly an AIRPLANE......'.....................
FUCKING PUT UP OR SHUT UP
I don't mind opinions at all.. I just cant stand little fucking pukes that just post stupid ass, senseless questions QQQQ because they think that someone is actully reading there the crap
and by the way,,,,,I don't need any help from some cum eating one handed typer...... go back to trying to pick up little girls in the chat rooms you frigin loser.......I DIDN'T EVEN READ YOUR IDOTIC POST SO SIT HEAR WASTE MORE OF YOUR TIME WHILE I GO GET LAID YOU LITTLE COCKSUCKER
If you anything about filming an object that is flying you would know that if plane was at 2000ft it would be just about impossible to zoom in and keep the plane it the picture. I'll give 100 bucks to anybody that can take A film of a plane at that altitude and get the plane to stay in the frame. It would be impossible,,, that is why people are putting up idiotic posts,, its a plane plane plane,.,,, you are fucking....blind blind blind,,,,,, it's looks nothing like a plane.With over 5o billion pictures of aircraft on the internet I'd like to see one of you show me one that even looks simialar to this................. LISTEN UP......... THE OBJECTS WHER AT NO HIGHER THAN 1000 FEET FROM THE CAMERA....... THIS CAN EASILY BE PROVED BY SIMPILY LOOKING AT THE FUCKING FILM AND SEEING THAT THE CAMERE NEVER WENT INTO DIGITAL ZOOM MEANING THAT THE CAMERA WAS IN OPTICAL AUTO FOCUS AND THE OBJECT WAS EXTREAMLY CLOSE TO THE CAMERA............ THIS CAN ALSO BE CONFIRMED ON THE TAPE SIGNATURE OF THE ORIGINAL COPY........ IF THE OBJECT HAD BEEN ANY FARTHER THAN THAT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN IMPOSSIBLE TO KEEP IT IN THE FRAME......... THE FILS WAS SHOT WITH A HANDHELD CAMERA WITH NO TRIPOD AND YET THE OBJECT STAYS IN THE FRAME THE WHOLE TIME............THE OBJECT ALSO LEAVES IN THE OPPISITE DIRECTION.... YET ANOTHER NEET STUNT BY AN AIRPLANE?........K
ONCE AGAIN.........SHOW ANY PICTURE OR VIDEO OR ANYTHING THAT LOOKS EVEN SIMILAR...particularly an AIRPLANE......'.....................
FUCKING PUT UP OR SHUT UP
I don't mind opinions at all.. I just cant stand little fucking pukes that just post stupid ass, senseless questions QQQQ because they think that someone is actully reading there the crap
and by the way,,,,,I don't need any help from some cum eating one handed typer...... go back to trying to pick up little girls in the chat rooms you frigin loser.......I DIDN'T EVEN READ YOUR IDOTIC POST SO SIT HEAR WASTE MORE OF YOUR TIME WHILE I GO GET LAID YOU LITTLE COCKSUCKER
Re: Unbelievable
regardless...
If you anything about filming an object that is flying you would know that if plane was at 2000ft it would be just about impossible to zoom in and keep the plane it the picture.
At 2000ft, correct. At 20,000 ft (like people are saying) it is quite possible.
it's looks nothing like a plane.
You mean besides the fact that it does?
THE OBJECTS WHER AT NO HIGHER THAN 1000 FEET FROM THE CAMERA....... THIS CAN EASILY BE PROVED BY SIMPILY LOOKING AT THE FUCKING FILM AND SEEING THAT THE CAMERE NEVER WENT INTO DIGITAL ZOOM MEANING THAT THE CAMERA WAS IN OPTICAL AUTO FOCUS AND THE OBJECT WAS EXTREAMLY CLOSE TO THE CAMERA
Do you even know how optical zoom works?
IF THE OBJECT HAD BEEN ANY FARTHER THAN THAT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN IMPOSSIBLE TO KEEP IT IN THE FRAME
No. The farther away it is, the slower it moves, and the easier it is to keep in frame.
What are you? 12? or just emotionally insecure?
Spookz: you have to admit that Wes's comment sems to apply here.
regardless...
If you anything about filming an object that is flying you would know that if plane was at 2000ft it would be just about impossible to zoom in and keep the plane it the picture.
At 2000ft, correct. At 20,000 ft (like people are saying) it is quite possible.
it's looks nothing like a plane.
You mean besides the fact that it does?
THE OBJECTS WHER AT NO HIGHER THAN 1000 FEET FROM THE CAMERA....... THIS CAN EASILY BE PROVED BY SIMPILY LOOKING AT THE FUCKING FILM AND SEEING THAT THE CAMERE NEVER WENT INTO DIGITAL ZOOM MEANING THAT THE CAMERA WAS IN OPTICAL AUTO FOCUS AND THE OBJECT WAS EXTREAMLY CLOSE TO THE CAMERA
Do you even know how optical zoom works?
IF THE OBJECT HAD BEEN ANY FARTHER THAN THAT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN IMPOSSIBLE TO KEEP IT IN THE FRAME
No. The farther away it is, the slower it moves, and the easier it is to keep in frame.
What are you? 12? or just emotionally insecure?
Spookz: you have to admit that Wes's comment sems to apply here.
I don't know what kind of drugs all your skeptics are taking, but the object is clearly the private transport of Jocariah.
If you clean up the image you can see his head sticking out of the window of the saucer and waving at all you fools.
Now apologize to Ufohunter.
If you clean up the image you can see his head sticking out of the window of the saucer and waving at all you fools.
Now apologize to Ufohunter.
chris beacham
Registered Senior Member
spookz: "i bet a few more chris beechams came in here with their crappy pics you fucks would be besides yourselves in giddy frikkin excitement".
wesmorris:" but for the most part I don't think he's a complete quack like beachum",
Well, I just happened to visit this uninteresting thread of the children arguing with each other.....and they are thinking of me!! Why don't the both of you take a hike until you have something to discuss....
wesmorris:" but for the most part I don't think he's a complete quack like beachum",
Well, I just happened to visit this uninteresting thread of the children arguing with each other.....and they are thinking of me!! Why don't the both of you take a hike until you have something to discuss....
Last edited:
Re: Unbelievable
I know a fair bit, as I used to make 8mm films when I was at school. Used a few different cameras, seldom used videotape, it was a rather new, and by comparison, bulky technology back then, compared to the compact 8mm Eumig which was my favourite. Also having spent a fair amount of time studying physics, and shooting (rifles) using telescopic sights, I'm fairly familiar with how cameras and lenses operate, especially at distance, and high zoom.
2000ft? Assuming your guesstimate was correct. At 20,000ft or more, the relative motion of the aircraft would be small, making it easier to track.
Game on! I live on a flight path, I can easily make that shot. I'll see what I can do. Hell, I was going to buy a DV cam anyway!
It looks exactly like a plane for the few seconds it's in focus.
Eh? It was 2000ft moments ago, when you construct a story, you must rehearse more and be consistent!
Yeah, and like I pointed out, which you ignored, autofocus only works up close. If you manually focus on an object 100metres away at moderate zoom, you'll be in focus for everything beyond. At hundreds of metres the only thing to mess up focus would be zoom, and that's what we see in your footage, a zoom through the clouds, going from focussed to defocussed, ending up with the defocussed reflections in shot.
Quite the opposite! If it was close, and moving at speed, tracking it would be a problem. But what we see is camera shake, not merely tracking problems. Of course, camera shake gets magnified alongside the zoom. So I can tell the zoom was quite
full, meaning the object was quite high.
With such a tight zoom and camera shake, no claims about motion can be substantiated from the footage, as there are no objects in relation to judge motion by.
PLANE!
I know a fair bit, as I used to make 8mm films when I was at school. Used a few different cameras, seldom used videotape, it was a rather new, and by comparison, bulky technology back then, compared to the compact 8mm Eumig which was my favourite. Also having spent a fair amount of time studying physics, and shooting (rifles) using telescopic sights, I'm fairly familiar with how cameras and lenses operate, especially at distance, and high zoom.
2000ft? Assuming your guesstimate was correct. At 20,000ft or more, the relative motion of the aircraft would be small, making it easier to track.
Game on! I live on a flight path, I can easily make that shot. I'll see what I can do. Hell, I was going to buy a DV cam anyway!
It looks exactly like a plane for the few seconds it's in focus.
Eh? It was 2000ft moments ago, when you construct a story, you must rehearse more and be consistent!
Yeah, and like I pointed out, which you ignored, autofocus only works up close. If you manually focus on an object 100metres away at moderate zoom, you'll be in focus for everything beyond. At hundreds of metres the only thing to mess up focus would be zoom, and that's what we see in your footage, a zoom through the clouds, going from focussed to defocussed, ending up with the defocussed reflections in shot.
Quite the opposite! If it was close, and moving at speed, tracking it would be a problem. But what we see is camera shake, not merely tracking problems. Of course, camera shake gets magnified alongside the zoom. So I can tell the zoom was quite
full, meaning the object was quite high.
With such a tight zoom and camera shake, no claims about motion can be substantiated from the footage, as there are no objects in relation to judge motion by.
PLANE!
UFOHunter:
I had understood that autofocus usually used a range finder which was a tight beam, like a laser. Now, I want you to try a simple experiment.
Get a laser pointer.
Find a largish object, like a car. (Moving target would be good, but the experiment may be difficult to do chasing a dumptruck around.)
Stand 2000 feet away from the object. Hold the laser pointer in your hand, and point it at the object.
Have a friend stand at the other end and see if they can see where the laser hits the object.
You may find that you have trouble doing two things:
1) aiming the pointer at the distant object
2) finding the point of impact because even lasers tend to disperse across long distances.
With the results of this experiment in consideration, you should reconsider whether a camera can effectively autofocus on an object 2000 feet away, particularly when it is moving at high speed.
I had understood that autofocus usually used a range finder which was a tight beam, like a laser. Now, I want you to try a simple experiment.
Get a laser pointer.
Find a largish object, like a car. (Moving target would be good, but the experiment may be difficult to do chasing a dumptruck around.)
Stand 2000 feet away from the object. Hold the laser pointer in your hand, and point it at the object.
Have a friend stand at the other end and see if they can see where the laser hits the object.
You may find that you have trouble doing two things:
1) aiming the pointer at the distant object
2) finding the point of impact because even lasers tend to disperse across long distances.
With the results of this experiment in consideration, you should reconsider whether a camera can effectively autofocus on an object 2000 feet away, particularly when it is moving at high speed.