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.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Time laspe gif of the Tonopah Test Range airspace during a "military" exercise

page: 2
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 12:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: hillbilly4rent

Everything you have posted is guestimation or calcumation based on 'usually-s' and such





and came up with only about 3 degrees, or 12 minutes


And your "about" is based on what?




posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 12:27 PM
link   
a reply to: hillbilly4rent

A 'rough' angular measurement of the rotation of the field. Much more accurate than pulling a number from one's ass.



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 12:29 PM
link   
Obviously a time lapse UFO… That comment came from my ass, too.

They're just testing us in the test at the Tonopah test range.



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 12:31 PM
link   
a reply to: DenyObfuscation




Which conflicts with your hour and two minutes answer. Some would consider that a clue that something is off. Wouldn't you?


Yes that's where the fps come in I did my calculation of of the normal 24fps that all to of time lapse are in. If the fps isn't 24fps then the length would also be different.



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 12:31 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr



Obviously a time lapse UFO… That comment came from my ass, too.

Obviously. You got anything constructive to add to this discussion of the amount of rotation?



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 12:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: hillbilly4rent
a reply to: DenyObfuscation




Which conflicts with your hour and two minutes answer. Some would consider that a clue that something is off. Wouldn't you?


Yes that's where the fps come in I did my calculation of of the normal 24fps that all to of time lapse are in. If the fps isn't 24fps then the length would also be different.

There you go. Now why not measure the rotation? What's wrong with that? No guessing. No 'usually-s'.



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 12:34 PM
link   
a reply to: DenyObfuscation



A 'rough' angular measurement of the rotation of the field. Much more accurate than pulling a number from one's ass. I


Pulling numbers that's funny, do you do astrophotography? If not do some research on it. The numbers I showed are what most astrophotographers use including myself.

And rough is as good as an about I guess.



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 12:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation

There you go. Now why not measure the rotation? What's wrong with that? No guessing. No 'usually-s'.


I just measured 11 degrees, plus or minus a bit.
The North Star (or close to it) is to the left of the very bright star top right.
There is also a bright star near the horizon on the left. It rotates over that black rise.

I don't know how I would show that to you. But it's what I'm coming up with.
edit on 6-1-2015 by KnightLight because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 12:39 PM
link   
a reply to: hillbilly4rent


And rough is as good as an about I guess.

Maybe to you. A 'rough' measurement is better than an "about" based on... what exactly? Feeling?



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 12:42 PM
link   
a reply to: KnightLight

Thanks for that.


I don't know how I would show that to you. But it's what I'm coming up with.

No worries, I'll look for what you see and check some others. Maybe the field isn't consistent? I don't know yet.

ETA: What are you measuring with?
edit on 6-1-2015 by DenyObfuscation because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 12:44 PM
link   
a reply to: DenyObfuscation

What point are you trying to get? May if I understood what you getting at. Other than that?



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 12:45 PM
link   
How do we know this is Tonopah test range? And a "military" exercise?



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 12:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: KnightLight

Thanks for that.


I don't know how I would show that to you. But it's what I'm coming up with.

No worries, I'll look for what you see and check some others. Maybe the field isn't consistent? I don't know yet.

ETA: What are you measuring with?


clear protractor haha.



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 01:23 PM
link   
We all need to step back and realise how ridiculous we look pressing rulers and protractorsup to measure YouTube videos :-P

I'm using a clear protractor too and measure somewhere between 7-10 degrees, although I guess if this is with a wide angle lens then the FOV isn't uniform?



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 01:41 PM
link   
a reply to: gfad


We all need to step back and realise how ridiculous we look pressing rulers and protractorsup to measure YouTube videos :-P

That sounds funny, but we're not trying to calculate the trajectory for a Moon launch. Just trying to get a reasonable estimate of the rotation. More reasonable than "Well I think it looks about ...". It shouldn't have been such an ordeal. That said, I didn't just press a ruler to my screen, I taped it. That's right, I'm an amateur astro-something and Scotch Blue is my tape.



I'm using a clear protractor too and measure somewhere between 7-10 degrees,
This time I got 5 degrees with a few different field reps, and using a different star for Polaris based on KnightLight's post.



although I guess if this is with a wide angle lens then the FOV isn't uniform?

I did suspect that may skew the results somewhat. I also asked more than once, IIRC, what's wrong with trying to measure it.

Never intended to be precise, just a better method than "I think...". That's all.



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 02:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: gfad
We all need to step back and realise how ridiculous we look pressing rulers and protractorsup to measure YouTube videos :-P


I don't think it so ridiculous to realize you have a ball park way of measuring or analyzing data to come to your own conclusions on your own. I wish school was taught more like that, and I would be much better now at applying all the different classes I took into one tool to continually learn more.

But it's all in good fun, and the picture I get in my head of how I must have looked pressing my protractor onto the screen.. Haha.. Life is funny sometimes.



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 03:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: PrinceDreamer
a reply to: gariac

Can you explain what were supposed to be seeing that is so interesting? Not trying to troll but I see nothing of particular interest in the timelapse, nothing unsual I should say


What you normally see in time lapse photography of the night sky is just star trails, straight lines from passing aircraft, and meteors. When something flies in a curved path, that is interesting. Now in a urban area, planes do fly curved paths for all sorts of reasons. They may be in a delay pattern because the airport that they want to land at can't keep up with the traffic. Or the plane is doing surveillance. Also flight schools.

A curved route in the middle of nowhere usually implies a round robin flight, i.e. take off and land at the same airport. If over the Tonopah Test Range, or the Nevada Test and Training Range (NTTR), the flight is more interesting.

If you follow this forum, you probably saw my long exposure image I made during Red Flag:
Entering the range
Wide angle version

The curved routes here are to avoid being shot down (virtually using electronic scoring). If you fly in a straight line, you are easier to target.



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 03:37 PM
link   
Regarding time estimates, counting frames is probably not useful. The time lapse photography is done on a DSLR and then converted into a video. In this particular case, the camera was on a track to add some motion to the foreground. That puts the photographer in the serious amateur to professional category. [I've done full moon photography and have run into these photographers with cameras on tracks taking a photo every few seconds.]

Going back to my long exposure image
wide shot
This is around 10 minutes of exposure. You can see the Milky Way shift a bit. I'm going to guess the video in question is maybe in the 10 to 20 minute time range, though this is tricky because the apparent motion depends on the angle of view.

Note at the far left there is a red light on a mountain. That is Bald Mountain, a 9000ft peak. The wide angle lens makes the mountain lool like a small hill. Going from left to right, the orange area is the glow from Las Vegas. You can make out the Luxor beam. The red lights are from vehicles entering the range. I think the white dot is the light from the security facility at the back gate to Groom Lake.
edit on 6-1-2015 by gariac because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join