Recommended Posts

Hum

People claim to videotape UFOs in the sky above Earth. They also spot unusual-looking objects in NASA camera feeds at the International Space Station.

Now, a growing number of individuals insist they're using their telescopes and cameras to reveal UFOs around the moon, according to the International Business Times.

Many odd things have been seen by amateur and professional astronomers on the moon over decades, and YouTube affords the opportunity to look at alleged UFOs flying across, toward and away from our nearest astronomical neighbor.

Part of the problem with most videos like these is the lack of specific, helpful information to accompany the visual "evidence," so it's difficult to know what's real and what was created from a clever software app.

But, lunar anomalies are not new phenomena. They've been reported by astronomers going back to the 1700s. Strange things seen by the scientists of centuries past included mysterious bright lights or glowing spots on the moon. In 1869, Great Britain's Royal Astronomical Society conducted a study of unusual moving lights. After numerous observations of this activity, the lights just turned off.

On July 29, 1953, New York Herald Tribune science editor John J. O'Neill noticed, through his telescope, a huge bridge-like object spanning 12 miles in the lunar area known as Mare Crisium. Other observers, including Hugh Percy Wilkins of the British Astronomical Association, confirmed O'Neill's sighting on the lunar surface. The object that became known as O'Neill's Bridge, was eventually thought to be nothing more than a combination of lights and shadows.

The history of the Apollo flights to the moon in the late 1960s into the 1970s included countless tabloid stories of supposed UFO encounters experienced by the astronauts.

Apollo 11 astronaut Buzz Aldrin describes a UFO that accompanied them en route to the moon in 1969.

more & video

Link to post
Share on other sites
HSoft

I thought Buzz's "sighting" had been debunked as being one of the SLA panels that was jetisoned from the S-IVB stage?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2xSilverKnight

I thought Buzz's "sighting" had been debunked as being one of the SLA panels that was jetisoned from the S-IVB stage?

That's what they want people to believe.

Link to post
Share on other sites
mrchetsteadman

I'm still under the impression that no matter what proof or evidence is presented, people will still scream fake. Buzz for instance was HIGHLY trained and would know what a panel from his own ship looked like. But all it takes in someone to say something that lines up with what a skeptic believes and the story is automatically "debunked" and the highly skilled professional is all of a sudden delusional.

I remember Buzz saying that there are monoliths on Mars. But he's nothing but a senile old fool...

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
mudslag

I'm still under the impression that no matter what proof or evidence is presented, people will still scream fake. Buzz for instance was HIGHLY trained and would know what a panel from his own ship looked like. But all it takes in someone to say something that lines up with what a skeptic believes and the story is automatically "debunked" and the highly skilled professional is all of a sudden delusional.

I remember Buzz saying that there are monoliths on Mars. But he's nothing but a senile old fool...

No matter how fake something is, how far out an idea is,regardless of what ever counter evidence may exist, someone out there will still believe in it. It goes both ways.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
compl3x

I'm still under the impression that no matter what proof or evidence is presented, people will still scream fake. Buzz for instance was HIGHLY trained and would know what a panel from his own ship looked like. But all it takes in someone to say something that lines up with what a skeptic believes and the story is automatically "debunked" and the highly skilled professional is all of a sudden delusional.

I remember Buzz saying that there are monoliths on Mars. But he's nothing but a senile old fool...

I guess you missed this part:

Part of the problem with most videos like these is the lack of specific, helpful information to accompany the visual "evidence," so it's difficult to know what's real and what was created from a clever software app.

It's like the Cydonia region on Mars which people thought had a face on it and proved E.T. or Martians were there. Turns out it was just another case of pareidolia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cydonia_(region_of_Mars)

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast24may_1/

But, hey, maybe it's another cover-up.

Link to post
Share on other sites
mrchetsteadman

No matter how fake something is, how far out an idea is,regardless of what ever counter evidence may exist, someone out there will still believe in it. It goes both ways.

I agree 100%! Problem I have is with people that swear everything is fake. That bothers me. Not everything in the skies is an alien craft from Venus, Mars etc. But some things that have been sighted are extremely convincing and the skeptics will still dismiss it as fake. Some things will never be good enough for some people.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
mudslag

I agree 100%! Problem I have is with people that swear everything is fake. That bothers me. Not everything in the skies is an alien craft from Venus, Mars etc. But some things that have been sighted are extremely convincing and the skeptics will still dismiss it as fake. Some things will never be good enough for some people.

To be fair "extremely convincing" is subjective. In this day and age of technology, visual evidence is no where near a standard that qualifies as actual evidence, which seems to be pretty much the only thing anyone can ever provide these days. Eye witness testimony is even further down the flag pole then video or picture evidence. Til someone can provide hard proof, such as something that is actually alien to us, then "extremely convincing" will remain subjective.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
theyarecomingforyou
I agree 100%! Problem I have is with people that swear everything is fake. That bothers me. Not everything in the skies is an alien craft from Venus, Mars etc. But some things that have been sighted are extremely convincing and the skeptics will still dismiss it as fake. Some things will never be good enough for some people.

If there was any evidence for it then people would take it seriously but eyewitness accounts are inherently unreliable. People swear they see ghosts and that they can talk to the dead but I wouldn't give that a second thought. As for astronauts, they're under huge psychological pressure and tend to have very extreme personalities - it's not a surprise that many snap, just like so many soldiers do. I'm perfectly willing to consider what they say but I won't believe it without evidence.

Occam's Razor dictates that the theory with the least assumptions is the most likely to be correct. Which is more likely - that somebody mistook what they saw for an alien craft; or that an advanced alien civilization has travelled thousands of light years to fly around our planet undetected and without any attempt at communication? It's one thing to remain open-minded; it's another to believe in something without evidence.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
mrchetsteadman

To be fair "extremely convincing" is subjective. In this day and age of technology, visual evidence is no where near a standard that qualifies as actual evidence, which seems to be pretty much the only thing anyone can ever provide these days. Eye witness testimony is even further down the flag pole then video or picture evidence. Til someone can provide hard proof, such as something that is actually alien to us, then "extremely convincing" will remain subjective.

That's fair and again, I agree with your train of thought as I have plenty of other times on a wide range of topics. Now, let's take the following video, can everything in that video be explained? Take out the parts of explainable cloud phenomenon and "Norway Missile Tests" and can every one of the things in that video be explained? You don't want to be so open minded that your brain falls out but you don't want to be so closed minded that your brain suffocates. There is even one scenario in that video that the Chinese government couldn't even explain and they shut down a Chinese airport. Can that be explained? Air traffic controllers and pilots had no idea what it was. My point is, while something?s can be explained, not everything can. So if ONE thing might not be able to be explained, that's enough evidence, for me at least that intelligent life exists. Should be for most scientists but personal opinion gets in the way.

Link to post
Share on other sites
mrchetsteadman

If there was any evidence for it then people would take it seriously but eyewitness accounts are inherently unreliable. People swear they see ghosts and that they can talk to the dead but I wouldn't give that a second thought. As for astronauts, they're under huge psychological pressure and tend to have very extreme personalities - it's not a surprise that many snap, just like so many soldiers do. I'm perfectly willing to consider what they say but I won't believe it without evidence.

Occam's Razor dictates that the theory with the least assumptions is the most likely to be correct. Which is more likely - that somebody mistook what they saw for an alien craft; or that an advanced alien civilization has travelled thousands of light years to fly around our planet undetected and without any attempt at communication? It's one thing to remain open-minded; it's another to believe in something without evidence.

But that's what I'm saying. No matter the evidence it will never be good enough. When you have NASA officials, Air Force officials, the Mexican Government, hackers, released evidence from Britain and God knows what else, what more is needed? Before Photoshop, there was great evidence and people still never believed.

Take a look at Roswell, the Air Force put out a press release saying they recovered a flying saucer, after a few hours they corrected that saying it was a weather balloon. Do people really believe that? This is the Air Force, they deal with fighter jets and ****. They KNOW what a weather balloon is vs a flying craft. It's like if you go to a Mercedes Benz dealership and buy a S550 AMG but realize when you get home that it's a Kia Optima. That doesn't happen.

As far as staying incognito, reports have said that we have been in contact with other civilizations from different planets and have even sent people to other planets as a sort of intergalactic trade. How true that is, I have no idea. Then you have the Russian* PM saying that aliens exist among us but he would never say how many because it would cause a public panic.

But I know, even the Russian* PM is delusional and there are reasons they people I mentioned are wrong and their claims can be debunked. Doesn't matter how credible they were before speaking of UFO's.

These are just my opinions, I'm not trying to sway anyone either way.

Link to post
Share on other sites
mudslag

A number of those in that video have been talked about on this forum in the past. Like the Jerusalem one was found to be a hoax. The spiral one and a few others (the China one) were rockets that gave a unique reaction look in the atmosphere, the hole in the cloud in Russia was a "Hole punch cloud" also called a "Fallstreak Hole". Most of these are identified later after the fact but people like this video creator still use them trying to make it out to be more then they are. The agenda is to make it seems like a conspiracy or alien related, nothing here identifies or unidentified equates alien or cover up as being suggested.

Link to post
Share on other sites
theyarecomingforyou
But that's what I'm saying. No matter the evidence it will never be good enough. When you have NASA officials, Air Force officials, the Mexican Government, hackers, released evidence from Britain and God knows what else, what more is needed? Before Photoshop, there was great evidence and people still never believed.

And none of that has reached the threshold of conclusive evidence. Most of it is grainy video, unreliable eyewitness testimony and hoax documents. It's no more credible than the birther movement or the 9/11 conspiracy theories.

Take a look at Roswell, the Air Force put out a press release saying they recovered a flying saucer, after a few hours they corrected that saying it was a weather balloon. Do people really believe that?

Even if it was a "flying saucer", there is no reason to believe it is of extra-terrestrial origin. It's far more likely a US or Russian experimental plane that was unknown to the people who found it.

As far as staying incognito, reports have said that we have been in contact with other civilizations from different planets and have even sent people to other planets as a sort of intergalactic trade. How true that is, I have no idea.

Oh, "reports" hey? Case closed then. Aliens are real. :rolleyes:

I honestly don't know how to respond to people who take this sort of nonsense seriously.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dot Matrix

I'm still under the impression that no matter what proof or evidence is presented, people will still scream fake. Buzz for instance was HIGHLY trained and would know what a panel from his own ship looked like. But all it takes in someone to say something that lines up with what a skeptic believes and the story is automatically "debunked" and the highly skilled professional is all of a sudden delusional.

I remember Buzz saying that there are monoliths on Mars. But he's nothing but a senile old fool...

Not exactly. An object at a distance on the Moon can look completely different than the same object at the same distance on Earth. Our atmosphere distorts light, since there is no atmosphere on the moon, the light doesn't get distorted, and will throw off an observer's senses.

Same thing applies here, thanks to orbital mechanics, there's no telling how far these objects are from the moon, or what their size actually is. Take this photo as an example:

614349main_jsc2012e017827_full.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
Lamp0

That's fair and again, I agree with your train of thought as I have plenty of other times on a wide range of topics. Now, let's take the following video, can everything in that video be explained? Take out the parts of explainable cloud phenomenon and "Norway Missile Tests" and can every one of the things in that video be explained? You don't want to be so open minded that your brain falls out but you don't want to be so closed minded that your brain suffocates. There is even one scenario in that video that the Chinese government couldn't even explain and they shut down a Chinese airport. Can that be explained? Air traffic controllers and pilots had no idea what it was. My point is, while something?s can be explained, not everything can. So if ONE thing might not be able to be explained, that's enough evidence, for me at least that intelligent life exists. Should be for most scientists but personal opinion gets in the way.

Brilliant.

Can't be explained = evidence for aliens.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
mudslag

So if ONE thing might not be able to be explained, that's enough evidence, for me at least that intelligent life exists. Should be for most scientists but personal opinion gets in the way.

UNexplained or UNidentified in no way equates alien life or "enough" evidence. And NO it should never be the same for ANY scientist, science should NEVER accept something that can't explain for any personal view of an answer. That's basically what you're doing, you can't explain something so you give it an answer that you WANT it to be. A true scientist would never let a personal opinion overrule scientific reasoning.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Hum

Occam's Razor dictates that the theory with the least assumptions is the most likely to be correct. Which is more likely - that somebody mistook what they saw for an alien craft; or that an advanced alien civilization has traveled thousands of light years to fly around our planet undetected and without any attempt at communication? It's one thing to remain open-minded; it's another to believe in something without evidence.

Why is an Alien visit any less likely than some other explanation ?

Just because Earth assumes this or that theory, does not automatically mean that our Science is 100% correct.

The Universe is a very big space, with uncountable millions of worlds and other realities.

Earth isn't the oldest planet either.

There could very well be much older and more advanced Civilizations.

There can be other Dimensions which we don't even begin to understand.

Just because Earth people do not know how to travel vast distances of Space, or travel between dimensions, is no proof that it can not be done.

Humans have quite an ego, assuming that we are the one & only.

I don't know what you accept as evidence, but I personally do not believe that all witnesses are kooks, liars, uneducated.

Not all videos, photographs are faked.

People have witnessed non-Earthly craft and other Intelligent beings.

We are not alone. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
mudslag

Why is an Alien visit any less likely than some other explanation ?

Just because Earth assumes this or that theory, does not automatically mean that our Science is 100% correct.

The Universe is a very big space, with uncountable millions of worlds and other realities.

Earth isn't the oldest planet either.

There could very well be much older and more advanced Civilizations.

There can be other Dimensions which we don't even begin to understand.

Just because Earth people do not know how to travel vast distances of Space, or travel between dimensions, is no proof that it can not be done.

Humans have quite an ego, assuming that we are the one & only.

I don't know what you accept as evidence, but I personally do not believe that all witnesses are kooks, liars, uneducated.

Not all videos, photographs are faked.

People have witnessed non-Earthly craft and other Intelligent beings.

We are not alone. ;)

Why can't a catch a leprechaun that will give me a pot of gold and 10k wishes? Why can't I also find a living unicorn Pegasus, Iv looked all over the internet for one and no one is selling them. With all these other dimensions, you would think one would pop into ours at some point. I want answers damn it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
mrchetsteadman

UNexplained or UNidentified in no way equates alien life or "enough" evidence. And NO it should never be the same for ANY scientist, science should NEVER accept something that can't explain for any personal view of an answer. That's basically what you're doing, you can't explain something so you give it an answer that you WANT it to be. A true scientist would never let a personal opinion overrule scientific reasoning.

And this was the answer I was looking for. Now, I have to disagree with you. If 95% of sightings can be explained, does that mean the 5% never happened? What do you do with those? What scientist, in their right mind, would say intelligent alien life doesn't exist if 5% of sightings from credible people cannot be explained?

Take a look at Nick Pope, who worked for the Ministry of Defense for 21 years. Mr. Pope's job was to advise on the threat posed by other life forms. Why would he have a job like that if they don't think that alien life exists somewhere? For 21 years at that? Then take a look at Carol Rosin who was a part of The Disclosure Project. Look at her credentials and tell me she is crazy. These people are much much much more intelligent than the people on here and they believe that intelligent alien life exists. So why would any of you rule it out? That is what I call making personal opinions get in the way of logic.

Gary McKinnon had access to government computers for 13 months and said he found evidence of UFO's, non-terrestrial officials and zero-point energy. He wasn't trying to sell a book. What did he gain besides headache? Did he waste all 13 months just to trick the American Public? Wiki-Leaks were about to release UFO related documents but was shut down before they could. Why do those documents exist? Just to make fun of "tin-foil hat wearers"? If this stuff is so fake why are they stored on Government computers?

Back to The Disclosure Project. 400 of the most credible witnesses that you can find, say UFO's and alien life exists, are they ALL crazy? I'm not delusional, I don't rely on conspiracy theories, I'm highly logical and this is SIMPLE logic. If someone in a position to know more than me in a specific topic tells me what it is, I believe them. I'm not quoting lunatics, I'm quoting real life scholars and people with unimpeachable credentials but yet and still I'm crazy for believing them? Oh okay.

Link to post
Share on other sites
mudslag

5% of unexplained does not in ANYWAY equate alien life, it ONLY equates UNexplained that's it nothing more. Also labeling someone "credible" is moot if that person can't explain something either.

As for people like Nick Pope, many govs have similar people/groups who draw up plans and scenarios for "what if" type situations. In one of History channels dooms day shows they showed how the gov even has plans for something like Yellowstone erupting. I think you can thank Hollywood and our history of science fiction love for our govs making such plans for the slight event of these "what ifs". We humans tend to scare pretty easily, its easy to be scared over some books and movies and think it's best to have a plan for such a case, plus it makes for good training at some point. Even the UN has a special group who's job it is to work up on what to do with first contact. It's better to have a plan and not need it then not have a plan and need it. If I remember correctly even the military plays out a zombie scenario for how they would handle some kind of strange outbreak that cause people to not be in a normal frame of mind. So the idea is not as far fetched as it first sounds once you start to think logically about it.

When wikileaks got all those leaks, some asked about anything relating to aliens, their reply "sorry but no alien leaks".

Back to The Disclosure Project. 400 of the most credible witnesses that you can find, say UFO's and alien life exists, are they ALL crazy?

Sorry but a few billion people believe in god and such, unless those 400 have actual hard evidence, their word is a meaningful as Harry Potter's.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
compl3x

And this was the answer I was looking for. Now, I have to disagree with you. If 95% of sightings can be explained, does that mean the 5% never happened? What do you do with those? What scientist, in their right mind, would say intelligent alien life doesn't exist if 5% of sightings from credible people cannot be explained?

Wait, what? :s

It doesn't mean 5% didn't happen, it means 5% have no explanation. That is like arguing most stories and claims about haunted houses are debunked, but some haven't been, therefore ghosts exist. That is not a valid form of reasoning.

A scientist, or any logically person, doesn't conclude anything from something unexplained.

Sc(k)epticism isn't about being closed or open minded, or taking a side, it is about having a basic standard which you compare claims against. If claims don't stack-up, that is, can't meet the burden of proof or are unfalsifiable then there is no good reason to put anything faith (confidence) in them.

Meeting an alien species is an entirely exciting idea to me, I would personally love it to be true, but the evidence just simply doesn't exist to support it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
theyarecomingforyou
And this was the answer I was looking for. Now, I have to disagree with you. If 95% of sightings can be explained, does that mean the 5% never happened? What do you do with those? What scientist, in their right mind, would say intelligent alien life doesn't exist if 5% of sightings from credible people cannot be explained?

Not explained != Proof of aliens

Take a look at Nick Pope, who worked for the Ministry of Defense for 21 years. Mr. Pope's job was to advise on the threat posed by other life forms.

Preparing for the possibility that we encounter alien life is not proof that we have already encountered it.

Then take a look at Carol Rosin who was a part of The Disclosure Project. Look at her credentials and tell me she is crazy. These people are much much much more intelligent than the people on here and they believe that intelligent alien life exists.

Intelligent people are perfectly capable of being wrong, delusional or crazy. There are numerous scientists who believe in religion, for example.

Gary McKinnon had access to government computers for 13 months and said he found evidence of UFO's, non-terrestrial officials and zero-point energy. He wasn't trying to sell a book. What did he gain besides headache?

He has Asperger's syndrome, a condition "characterized by significant difficulties in social interaction, alongside restricted and repetitive patterns of behavior and interests". Oh, and here's another quote from the Wikipedia article:

"Pursuit of specific and narrow areas of interest is one of the most striking features of AS. Individuals with AS may collect volumes of detailed information on a relatively narrow topic such as weather data or star names, without necessarily having a genuine understanding of the broader topic."

So people with AS tend to become obsessed with particular topics without truly understanding them. Your argument is based upon people who have diagnosed mental health issues. Everything you have posted as "evidence" is more easily explained by human nature and common sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Lamp0

Back to The Disclosure Project. 400 of the most credible witnesses that you can find, say UFO's and alien life exists, are they ALL crazy? I'm not delusional, I don't rely on conspiracy theories, I'm highly logical and this is SIMPLE logic. If someone in a position to know more than me in a specific topic tells me what it is, I believe them. I'm not quoting lunatics, I'm quoting real life scholars and people with unimpeachable credentials but yet and still I'm crazy for believing them? Oh okay.

I don't mean to offend you, but you are not being highly logical here.

The Disclosure Project is utter drivel. The fact that they have a shop that sells promotional books, DVDs & new age mysticsm style training courses to contact aliens, should set off alarm bells.

Steven Greer, who runs the Disclosure Project, is a con-artist; a vulture who prays upon the gulible. Many of the witnesses are not credible souces, but known embellishers & outright hoaxers whom have been completely shuned by other UFOlogists.

If you're interested you should read this informative article on the long history of UFO disclosure, and the kind of personalities involved.

http://home.comcast..../disclosure.htm

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hum

^ Where did you get that rubbish ?

Since when has anyone proven that Greer is a 'con artist' ?

Simply because he talks about facts that you don't want to accept ? :laugh: LOL

Link to post
Share on other sites
Lamp0

^ Where did you get that rubbish ?

Since when has anyone proven that Greer is a 'con artist' ?

Simply because he talks about facts that you don't want to accept ? :laugh: LOL

Oh, there isn't any proof that Greer is a con-artist, at least none I've seen, but I have little doubt he is in this thing for his own finacial gain rather than because he is an avid believer. But that's just what I think.

I am not really surprised you take what Greer says as gospel. You've proven time & time again how suseptible you are to such gobbledygook. I'd be pretty surprised if you actually read the article in the link I posted.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By indospot
      YouTube will start showing ads on videos outside its partner program
      by João Carrasqueira



      Today, Google announced some updates to the YouTube Terms of Service, which are starting to roll out today in the United States. The first of the updates is relatively small, with some language updates making it explicitly clear that facial recognition data can't be collected or harvested without the permission of the person being targeted. Collecting data that can be used to identify a person has always been forbidden on the platform, but the new language focuses specifically on facial recognition.

      The most notable change, though, is that YouTube is going to start showing ads on videos from channels that aren't included in the YouTube Partner Program, as long as they're still "brand safe". The goal for the company is to allow advertisers to leverage as much of YouTube's scale as possible. For users, that means you'll probably start seeing ads on many more videos, but because the channels aren't included in the YouTube Partner Program, there's no revenue sharing with creators. Channels can still apply for the program, but until they do, they may be displaying ads with no financial return.

      Additionally, YouTube says creator revenue will now be treated as royalties in the United States from a tax perspective. As such, Google may withhold taxes from creator payments when required by law, but the company says most creators shouldn't be affected if they provide valid tax documention in AdSense.

      These changes to the YouTube Terms of Service are rolling out today in the United States, and will be expanding to other countries by mid-2021. You can learn more about the changes here.

    • By Abhay V
      Google introduces audio ads in YouTube, targeted at music streamers
      by Abhay Venkatesh



      Google is today introducing a new format of ads for YouTube – audio ads. The firm is touting this format of ads as a way to reach users that leverage YouTube for listening to music, or what the firm calls “ambient listening”. The format targets users that may not be watching music videos or concerts – but listening to them in the background, leading to visual ads not being as effective.

      The company says that such ads will have a static image or a still frame of a video, with the “audio soundtrack plays the starring role in delivering your message”. The firm added new audio ads features to the Ad Manager platform a few months ago that lets advertisers better tailor and analyze the consumption of such content. The Mountain View giant says that it noticed that 75% of audio ads “drove a significant lift in brand awareness” as part of its alpha testing. It adds that testers like Shutterfly saw a 14% lift in ad recall when used for influencing purchase considerations via audio ads.

      It also touts the popularity of YouTube as a source for music streaming. The video streaming platform saw more than 50% of logged-in users stream at least ten minutes of songs every day. For this reason, the company is also introducing dynamic music lineups for video campaigns, providing a way for marketers to target specific music genres, channels, or even events for their ad campaigns to improve the effectiveness of the marketers' messaging.

      Audio ads will be available in beta through Google Ads and Display & Video 360 for marketers. You can head to the support article here for more information.

    • By eRajesh
      Hulu's Live TV streaming service price getting hiked to $65 per month
      by Rajesh Pandey



      Following in the footsteps of YouTube TV, Hulu has also announced a steep price increase for its Hulu with Live TV service. The service currently costs $54.99/month but starting December 18, Hulu will hike its price by $10 to $64.99/month. Hulu had announced a similar $10 price hike for its service in December last year that had bumped its price to $55 per month.

      The price increase puts Hulu's Live TV service price on par with YouTube TV which also costs $64.99/month after a recent price hike. Apart from offering access to 65 channels, Hulu with Live TV also provides one with access to ad-supported content from Hulu's library. The price hike will be applicable to both new and existing subscribers.

      Hulu's Live TV subscription service has over 4 million subscribers which is around a million more than YouTube TV. The service has seen a steady influx of new subscribers, with the bundle's subscription base growing by 40% in just a year.

      Live TV streaming services have only gotten expensive over time as companies add more channels to their bundles and content licensing becomes more expensive. Sling TV is notably cheaper than Hulu with Live TV and YouTube TV with bundles starting at $30 per month but its channel lineup is also considerably smaller.

      Source: Hollywoord Reporter

    • By Abhay V
      YouTube cancels its annual 'Rewind' celebration for 2020
      by Abhay Venkatesh

      YouTube today announced that it is canceling its annual end-of-year Rewind celebration for 2020. Rewind, a summation of popular videos, trends, milestones, and a sort of a celebration of YouTube creators debuted in 2010 and has been ongoing annually for almost a decade. This year, the company says, has been “different” and that it “doesn’t feel right to carry on as if it weren’t”.

      The annual event has seen a mixed reception, with the most infamous one being ‘Rewind 2018: Everyone Controls Rewind’ that went on to become the most disliked video on YouTube. The firm was criticized for making the event more of an advertisement of the platform rather than highlighting eventful moments and the community itself. The company even acknowledged the criticism as part of the Rewind 2019 video after promising something different for the year. Today’s announcement itself includes a pun about the event from 2018.

      The firm adds that it is “taking a break from Rewind this year” and thanks its creators for having found ways to “lift people up”. The post does not suggest if the “celebration” will return next year. Considering that the COVID-19 pandemic has led to a difficult year for many, it makes sense for the firm to not go ahead with the usual celebration.

    • By Jay Bonggolto
      YouTube Music adds new personalization features and other changes
      by Jay Bonggolto

      YouTube announced today a new update to Music that introduces new personalization features. The music streaming app is adding a few changes to its Home tab that allow you to listen to a set of personalized playlists and access songs based on your current activity.

      The personalized playlists are called My Mix, providing up to seven new and personalized set of songs that will be available on the Home tab. The playlists contain songs from various artists, curated according to your taste. The curated lists also combine your favorite songs with new ones that might capture your interest. YouTube Music is also rebranding its Your Mix playlists into My Supermix, which blends your favorite songs in a single library.

      Another change to the app's Home tab is the activity bar that provides access to four types of activity, including Workout, Focus, Relax, and Commute. Tapping on each activity icon will lead you to a dedicated personalized homepage containing playlists that match what you're doing at a given moment. In addition, the Workout tab includes up to four new personalized mixes featuring songs you already like on top of new recommendations. These filters were first seen in September as part of a test.

      The latest changes are YouTube's way of taking on Spotify and other music streaming apps in terms of bringing personalization options to users. It remains to be seen whether these new features will help bolster YouTube Music's market adoption.