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.

 

3D Footage Of Red Orbs

page: 4
39
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 21 2015 @ 07:44 AM
link   
WOW! To the OP:
I to seen this last weekend. (Saturday May 16) Im actually quite shocked right now because this validates what i saw.
Saturday was the only clear night we had up here in Thunder Bay Ontario last weekend.
There was 3 Red orbs over lake superior at around 10 PM. Thunder Bay has some of the longest day light times in Canada.
So when i seen these 3 red orbs there was still a bit of luminescence in the sky.
My wife and i brought our kids down to the water front earlier in the evening to play at the park. The cold air started to come in off lake superior so we walked back to the car.
I parked my car in the unlit area of the park and as the kids where getting situated in the back seat i seen 3 red lights very far out in the distance over the lake. I said to my wife "what the hell is that?"
We sat their for about 5 minutes watching them. The entire time it was like they would get closer and then seem to fly back into the distance. They were not flying in formations, they were each their own independent object.
It was not a plane or helicopter. I have seen both often enough to be able to judge the 2. It was much to far out over the lake to be a few guys playing with their drones.
It was far out from shore above Lake superior. We watched until what it seemed like, that they either went into the water or flew low to the horizon out of site.
Again i am shocked that someone else had seen something like we did that night and captured them on video!

edit on 21-5-2015 by Macenroe82 because: wrote "because" in the first sentence twice




posted on May, 21 2015 @ 08:15 AM
link   
a reply to: wmd_2008

You'll be happy to know that the Navy has an app, for figuring out the distance to targets through stereopsy. They call it binocular ranging and they use it all the time. It even accurately applies to my little point and shoot.

I don't understand why you are here. You are inaccurately trying to derail a data set. By all means: accurately derail it. It may have a perfectly normal explanation.

So far your ego is the only thing being presented, which makes me think that you are not professionally employed in the field of photography/ videography. At my career level, with this much money floating around, people tend to be diplomatic to everyone. You totally lack that.



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 08:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Macenroe82

Right on!!! That's why I'm here- some of us have experienced it & we need to let each other know.



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 08:24 AM
link   
a reply to: TheAnarchist

Who cares what others say. As you can see here: I've posted my truth, and egos that have no basis for comparison are wearing their fingers away, typing whatever satiates their own need for being recognized as intelligent.

Post it. Those who have been there, will provide their experiences. It feels good.



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 08:50 AM
link   
a reply to: shefskitchen

YOU claim to earn a living as a stereographer so YOU must know that your Sony Bloogle has the lenses to close together to produce good 3d of the objects at the distance you claim they are at, I have already posted a review of the camera, I can also post links to lens spacing and eye spacing and its effect on 3d vision.

Exactly were did I make any claims of earning my living from photography/ video. Typical of people like yourself who post if any poster looks like they may know something about the subject and doesn't agree with the OP then they are only posting to boost their ego WRONG we post to stop other members being misled.

The camera you are using hss a VERY small sensor so is almost useless for night shooting.

The lenses are to close together for a good 3d representation more than a few feet from the canera.

Now I will stroke my ego 35+ years taking pictures first ever camera a 35mm fully manual SLR been messing about and editing pictures on computers since the Atari Amiga days.

Keen amateur astronomer since taking pictures with my first camera using a local community tekescope.

Post and comment on here at the members astrophotographers thread look at threads I have started for examples.

I know the capabilities of photographic equipment very well YOU just got yourself a little over excited
about what your low budget equipment produced.

So instead of commenting about me show everyone were I am wrong about your camera and the quality of its output



edit on 21-5-2015 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-5-2015 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 09:33 AM
link   
a reply to: wmd_2008

I know my bloggie has no entertainment value, due to the the problems you have brought to light. You know that due to it's close interoccular distance (stereographer enough for you?), that ghosting is created in far objects. Terrible for entertainment purposes.

Sensor size makes it uncomfortable to watch. Doesn't take away data. Ghosting makes it uncomfortable to watch. Doesn't mean math can't revert the shot error (there's a plugin for that).

It does have scientific value. Object size, interoccular distance, and angle of incidence were used to calculate the objects' approxiamte size, distance and speed. Of course, the investigator also used my estimate (which wasn't too far off).

Sorry for assuming you were a professional at first. It became blatantly apparent, that you don't know what you're talking about. Now, painfully so.

Stop providing us non-technical reviews of consumer gear as they pertain to entertainment value, or end user comfortability. Because that's what you are: an end user consumer. An armchair quarterback. One that can't do, therefore tries to teach.

Show me some math, where a 32 mm interocular distance at 5 degrees incidence negates binocular ranging. Tell me how a fixed 43mm lense at a fixed f 1.8 distorts and how it can be mathematically reversed. You won't. It will be more "Hey look at me!!!" blow-hard cowardice. This is the 3rd time I'm asking you for fact and not opinion.



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 10:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: wmd_2008
... Typical of people like yourself who post if any poster looks like they may know something about the subject and doesn't agree with the OP then they are only posting to boost their ego WRONG we post to stop other members being misled.


You don't want others to be "misled"? Odd. I've seen you post some of the most absurd UFO explanations around. Sometimes, apparently, without having even fully read the witness's description or watched the entire video. And the worst part is the ridicule. I'd not be writing this but for the ridicule and condescension you often bring to a thread.

In fact, your post right before this last one was "You have quite a low threshold for proof X , a couple of dots on a black background." Who said anything about proof?

I think you probably don't know much about the math concepts involved here. It doesn't matter that the lenses are closer together than you'd prefer. The fact that there are two of them adds additional trigonometric data. Even if just to rule out certain things. (Though it is more than that). So when you say this footage is worthless, you are either trying to mislead people, or you're just so ignorant of the optical principles involved that you're not aware of your own bad advice.

Shefskitchen has presented some unique 3D footage, the kind of original content (regardless of the ultimate explanation) that ATS and its users probably want to keep seeing. He should be applauded for that, not flippantly dismissed as you seem to be encouraging.



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 10:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: shefskitchen
a reply to: wmd_2008

I know my bloggie has no entertainment value, due to the the problems you have brought to light. You know that due to it's close interoccular distance (stereographer enough for you?), that ghosting is created in far objects. Terrible for entertainment purposes.

Sensor size makes it uncomfortable to watch. Doesn't take away data. Ghosting makes it uncomfortable to watch. Doesn't mean math can't revert the shot error (there's a plugin for that).

It does have scientific value. Object size, interoccular distance, and angle of incidence were used to calculate the objects' approxiamte size, distance and speed. Of course, the investigator also used my estimate (which wasn't too far off).

Sorry for assuming you were a professional at first. It became blatantly apparent, that you don't know what you're talking about. Now, painfully so.

Stop providing us non-technical reviews of consumer gear as they pertain to entertainment value, or end user comfortability. Because that's what you are: an end user consumer. An armchair quarterback. One that can't do, therefore tries to teach.

Show me some math, where a 32 mm interocular distance at 5 degrees incidence negates binocular ranging. Tell me how a fixed 43mm lense at a fixed f 1.8 distorts and how it can be mathematically reversed. You won't. It will be more "Hey look at me!!!" blow-hard cowardice. This is the 3rd time I'm asking you for fact and not opinion.



Check your f number Sony Bloogie 3D focal length 4.1 mm ( not taking crop factor into account of 5.6) So 23mm & f 2.8 NOT 43mm and f1.8 YOU DONT even know your equipment!!!!
edit on 21-5-2015 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 10:54 AM
link   
a reply to: TeaAndStrumpets

Thanks for the eloquent take on it. My blunt demeanor tends to get under Flippant's skin.

You know what I love about this thread? After the 2D user debacle, once people viewed in 3D; nobody argued what the object could be. Only the technology used to capture it.

A third corroborating MUFON report:
ufostalker.com...



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 10:55 AM
link   
a reply to: wmd_2008

You're applying 2 dimensional geometrics, to 3 dimensional geometrics.

You've been exposed. You trolled the new guy.

Go find a newer guy.


edit on 21-5-2015 by shefskitchen because: His math is waaaaaaaay off for 3D.



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 02:42 PM
link   
Thanks for posting... and especially for posting something with more "oomph" than usual as far as debunking goes.

I'm just another who's seen some weird things and knows the weird things are not easily explained with our common data set and applauds others with the guts to present truth as they know it, despite the threatened reality constructs.

Debunking is necessary in parsing data... douchebaggery is not.

Skoal.



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 02:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: PlanetXisHERE

You have quite a low threshold for proof X , a couple of dots on a black background



Proof of what?? Proof you like to put words in peoples' mouths? Proof you didn't watch the video? Who mentioned anything about proof?



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 03:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: shefskitchen
a reply to: wmd_2008


It does have scientific value. Object size, interoccular distance, and angle of incidence were used to calculate the objects' approxiamte size, distance and speed. Of course, the investigator also used my estimate (which wasn't too far off).

Sorry for assuming you were a professional at first. It became blatantly apparent, that you don't know what you're talking about. Now, painfully so.

Stop providing us non-technical reviews of consumer gear as they pertain to entertainment value, or end user comfortability. Because that's what you are: an end user consumer. An armchair quarterback. One that can't do, therefore tries to teach.

Show me some math, where a 32 mm interocular distance at 5 degrees incidence negates binocular ranging. Tell me how a fixed 43mm lense at a fixed f 1.8 distorts and how it can be mathematically reversed. You won't. It will be more "Hey look at me!!!" blow-hard cowardice. This is the 3rd time I'm asking you for fact and not opinion.



First of all I never claimed your camera was useful for entertainment value after all your video showed you wont be filming the next AVATAR with it. You claim the data from it is worthwhile you did the math, well looking at your info above YOUR maths will be wrong.


The interaxial distance of the two lens at the back of the 3D Bloggie is about 20 millimeters or about 0.78 inches which should actually be Ok for the sensor size (1/4 type CMOS sensor) that this portable 3D camcorder uses, after all it is made more for close-up photos and videos. The recommended distance by Sony between the camera and the subject of approximately 1.2 m to 5.0 m (approximately 3 feet 11 1/4 inches to 16 feet 4 7/8 inches)


Even Sony would doubt your claims it seems.

That lens has a 5.6 crop factor so it's effective focal length is 23mm on a 35mm format, like I said the max aperture is also f2.8 not f1.8.

So it does kind of look like your potty mouth claims on your video are you getting a little bit to excited.



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 04:22 PM
link   
a reply to: wmd_2008

Wow you're an ass who devalues the community. Go drag down another community.



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 09:30 PM
link   
To be fair, you have to be some kind of douche to think this is anything to do with extraordinary phenomena. The fact you accept it and don't strive to see something better is perhaps the reason the whole phenomena has given us a middle finger lately. No white dot on black background videos anymore, they never have done anything for this field of science and they never will. Get over it!!


I post a video of a piece of cheese and claim it to be a ghost, is the equivalent of white dots on black background UFO videos claiming to be anything other than mundane, normal misidentified items. Go watch some fastwalker videos and see how videos like this (no offence OP) offer up NOTHING whatsoever. Please help UFOlogy progress! Please dismiss any white dot on black background video instantly, we'll all actually get somewhere then


Fastwalkers, btw, are akin to about 0 other known phenomena. A video like this shows something akin to about 10 possible other phenomena. So what makes it or any like it relevant at all, ever? :/

edit on 21-5-2015 by markymint because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 05:23 AM
link   
a reply to: shefskitchen

Schwweet, thanks.

High quality footage of the latest and greatest anti gravity aircraft.
And the rich/poor divide on ATS.

Who could ask for more


we saw one of these over Blackburn in the UK about 15-20 years ago. hung around for about 2-3 minutes then accelerated off over the horizon in nearly the blink of an eye.

at least they are getting more bold in using them now, perhaps they may even become commercially available in my lifetime. which would be nice. (still a nasty terrorist risk tho.... these things would end country borders.)
edit on 22-5-2015 by mSparks43 because: (no reason given)


btw, don't get to hung up on what the poor people say
They're poor because they're stupid :p
edit on 22-5-2015 by mSparks43 because: (no reason given)


To the doubters
this stuff is all mostly "science fact" now, published and everything.
www.sciencedaily.com...

It's actually appears to be Russian tech from the 50s/60s. it's taken quite a long time to get into western mainstream.
edit on 22-5-2015 by mSparks43 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 07:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Raxusillian
a reply to: wmd_2008

Wow you're an ass who devalues the community. Go drag down another community.


Funny I have applause a few times for my contributions on here

edit on 22-5-2015 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 08:48 AM
link   
We don't call them "Drones" anymore, that is so last week media nonsense, we now call them UAV's because that's what they are.....Carry on!
Now I need a 3D tv.....



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 09:03 AM
link   
a reply to: markymint

I do agree with you- the fast mover is the crown jewel. Only once did I have a DSLR on me when 2 of them zipped over my head. They're so fast, I couldn't even hoist the camera in time to track them.

May I ask, did you view this footage on a 3D TV or VR headset? Even though there is a dark background, there is still some valid stereopsis.



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 09:12 AM
link   
a reply to: wmd_2008

No, your math is still pertaining to 1 line of sight, not the combined effects of 2.

I would like to make an appology, though. My wife pointed out that you are most likely a juvenile. I didn't think of that. So If you are a kid just experiencing things for the first time, I should treat you as such & not continue any argument any further.

So for your introduction to stereoscopy:
www.dashwood3d.com...

It doesn't really touch on the math yet, but you're not at that level yet anyway.




top topics



 
39
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join