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.

 

Guy is catching many weird objects in the atmosphere with high-tech set-up

page: 5
37
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 01:37 PM
link   
First video:




Cartoon character balloon head- Face, hair, eyes, mouth, and torso with shoulders, arms, hands, and an opening where it connects to something? Dark and light brown stripes on the back is hair?

edit on 11-8-2015 by Ectoplasm8 because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 02:01 PM
link   
We have a closed FB group dedicated to the in-depth study of anomalies, this is the description of that group:

"This group is dedicated to the study of Variable Topology Entities, or how they are named by Cristian Soldano: Integrated Systems of Variable Morphology, or sky critters as were named by Trevor J Constable, or simply anomalies.
The main aim of this group is to advance the systematization of the knowledge about these real entities that have been video recorded all over the world.
Only people with known experience doing atmospheric observations with HIGH optical magnification cameras or telescopes in daylight or at night are allowed. Footage/pictures with only dots and no structure details do not count in this group.
This group should be considered like a very "Advanced" ongoing graduate course in Ufology and like any elective graduate course in any University it has "prerequisites" to be admitted. As always personal recommendations from members can bypass some prerequisites."

Ironically under the prerequisites of this group almost no living person with the self title of Ufologist will be able to enter in this group because usually they lack the very basic requirement of direct observational experience using optical equipment with high magnification and of course no "expert" of this site or almost any other site will be able to get accepted in that group for exactly the same reasons.

edit on 000000f2015fTuesday022015-08-11T14:02:09-05:00k09 by ufoflicks because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 02:31 PM
link   
a reply to: ufoflicks



Ironically under the prerequisites of this group almost no living person with the self title of Ufologist will be able to enter in this group because usually they lack the very basic requirement of direct observational experience using optical equipment with high magnification and of course no "expert" of this site or almost any other site will be able to get accepted in that group for exactly the same reasons.


Ironically, I'm not so sure any would want to join your select group. Most of us could walk to the nearest store and buy a balloon to study up close thus saving considerable money on equipment. Tellingly, balloons are a popular item 'all over the world.' Perhaps the dangling appendages are actually umbilical cords from these erstwhile critters? Or maybe they are genitalia to enable reproduction?

As the late James Moseley might have said, 'It's all ufoology.' Then again, I'm not a ufologist and my opinion is moot.



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 02:39 PM
link   
I say it again be consistent and pick one hard to debunk:


edit on 000000f2015fTuesday412015-08-11T14:41:17-05:00k17 by ufoflicks because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 02:58 PM
link   
a reply to: ufoflicks

What I see in this video is a tumbling object. It doesn't 'morph,' it tumbles in the atmosphere with a consistent shape. The 'energy surge' can be explained by sunlight reflecting off the (possibly) Mylar material. This effect is amplified by the filters that have been applied to the footage.

The captions says, 'this is NOT the sun's reflection.' Then there's no rationale for why, or how, sunlight has been ruled out.



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 03:00 PM
link   
This is something that I wrote a few days ago:

Is Ufology really for the "masses"?

Let me answer this question with more questions: Is Number Theory for the masses? Is Microbiology for the masses? Is String Theory for the masses?

Clearly the answer is no. But for some obscure reason many people think that anybody can "make" Ufology.

The needed prerequisite of having direct observational experience is bypassed for almost everybody, that automatically invalidate anybody without that experience from making any meaningful contribution and the reason should be clear to anybody with just a little knowledge of the history of science.

But not only the experience doing direct observations is important, the instruments used to make these observations are critical as they are critical in other established sciences.

Many active observers of UFOs/anomalies had used only low optical magnification equipment, wide view optics, people that had used only that equipment really do not have the experience needed in the same way that a person that had only used lupes do not have any experience observing microorganisms since you need microscopes to observe microorganisms.

So the very basic requirement of direct observational experience with high magnification optical equipment is lacking in almost everybody, Ufology is not for these people.



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 04:47 PM
link   
The initial post in this thread contains part#2 of the footage to a polymorphic anomaly, part#1 contains a segment with infrared footage of that anomaly, this anomaly was tracked for more than 40 minutes, it was not visible to naked eye(as almost all anomalies) but it was easily detected in infrared, this is part#1:




posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 05:09 PM
link   
a reply to: ufoflicks

Well gullibility runs high in yours, your set up looked good until I had a look on your yuotube link , so lets discuss a 1300 mm telephoto lens what make, I will go with a clone lens so it will be a 650mm lens with a 2x converter probably a Opteka, Bower, Vivitar there are many more same lens different badge.

It will be f8 max aperture at 650 mm and f16 at 1300 mm hooked up to an IP camera with a 1/2.5" sensor so lets show every one what that looks like.



Your camera sensor is on the left most DSLR's second from right pro equipment next to that.

You have 5 million pixels crammed onto that tiny little chip and to be honest the images are a bit blurry, you would be better using a DSLR on that lens. My camera has 16 million pixels on a sensor with almost 15 times the surface area of you 5 mp chip.

Quality of images depends on the size and not just the number of pixels. Your set up 140x magnification.

Here is a jet at over 25,000 ft on my camera with a 70-300mm zoom taken at 300mm approx 9x magnification



Lets crop the picture



As you can see no shimmer/blurry edges.

There are many members on here that know a lot about imaging, processing , the daylight/night sky & optics we even have few pros we also like to photograph the night sky Members Astrophotography

Your little message may work on youtube but MANY on here will know as much or more than you do, I hooked up my first flim DSLR to a telescope 35+ years ago when everything was manual and you would develop your own film.



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 05:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: wmd_2008
Your little message may work on youtube but MANY on here will know as much or more than you do, I hooked up my first flim DSLR to a telescope 35+ years ago when everything was manual and you would develop your own film.


If he hooked a decent camera up to his setup then the balloons he photographs would very obviously be balloons, which is why he does not do it!



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 06:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: wmd_2008
Your little message may work on youtube but MANY on here will know as much or more than you do, I hooked up my first flim DSLR to a telescope 35+ years ago when everything was manual and you would develop your own film.


If he hooked a decent camera up to his setup then the balloons he photographs would very obviously be balloons, which is why he does not do it!


That's why I posted my pics of the jet at a fraction of the magnification.



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 07:43 PM
link   
I wonder if the person making the video works at Party City?



posted on Aug, 12 2015 @ 02:50 AM
link   
I do believe that these morpheus creatures could actually exist. I've seen many videos in the past that clearly let you see that there's something weird going on in our high atmosphere.

Although I sometimes compare those things with a fata morgana in the higher atmosphere dat somethings could easily be distorted.

However I've seen those things spit glowing balls in the numbers too ,and that is something I can't explain. .
edit on 0b51America/ChicagoWed, 12 Aug 2015 02:50:51 -0500vAmerica/ChicagoWed, 12 Aug 2015 02:50:51 -05001 by 0bserver1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2015 @ 03:10 AM
link   
Several times some of these anomalies had been observed ejecting objects several times, that automatically invalidate any weak intent by debunkers or skeptics trying to explain away this object as a piece of whatever trapped in an air current as in this case:



Or even balloon shaped anomalies had been observed ejecting objects too, but I know that closemindeness runs very high in sites like this one, this is one example of a balloon shaped anomaly ejecting object:



Or when an anomaly splits in two:



The reality of anomalies place a big question mark in many things, in particular it places a big question mark in the "classical" Ufology expectation.
edit on 000000f2015fWednesday272015-08-12T03:27:21-05:00k21 by ufoflicks because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2015 @ 03:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: ufoflicks


Or even balloon shaped anomalies had been observed ejecting objects too,



Yes I think the scientific term is "popping"



posted on Aug, 12 2015 @ 04:01 AM
link   
a reply to: ufoflicks

It would be better if the objects looked in focus but like I said that could be down to the chip & lens quality so why don't you hook up a DSLR to the telephoto lens it may be lower magnification but the quality woul allow cropping the image to compensate . It's the obvious thing to do if you really are sure about what you think you are filming.

edit on 12-8-2015 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2015 @ 04:30 AM
link   
a reply to: ufoflicks



I say it again be consistent and pick one hard to debunk:

It's a balloon caught in a stream of air tumbling and reflecting sunlight which looks the way it does due to the filming method used.
Not hard at all.


edit on 12-8-2015 by gortex because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2015 @ 09:10 AM
link   
Why is it that whenever he adjusts the camera to compensate for the floating "anomaly", the 2 white dots in the background remain stationary? He's filming at dusk (almost 8pm) which even in the summertime might yield a few visible stars. That's what they look like to me yet they're not shifting whenever he re-pans. I'm specifically looking at the one right above the 2015 in the date stamp.

Also, partially deflated Dora or Masha balloon.




posted on Aug, 12 2015 @ 09:32 AM
link   
meanwhile...

ahhhhhh......it's an invasion!
edit on 12-8-2015 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2015 @ 11:00 AM
link   
a reply to: ZetaRediculian

first video is definitely this



Frieza is coming back for revenge and will destroy the planet, it also looks like he grew 1 arm back!.



posted on Aug, 12 2015 @ 01:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: ufoflicks
This is something that I wrote a few days ago:

Is Ufology really for the "masses"?

Let me answer this question with more questions: Is Number Theory for the masses? Is Microbiology for the masses? Is String Theory for the masses?

Clearly the answer is no. But for some obscure reason many people think that anybody can "make" Ufology.

The needed prerequisite of having direct observational experience is bypassed for almost everybody, that automatically invalidate anybody without that experience from making any meaningful contribution and the reason should be clear to anybody with just a little knowledge of the history of science.

But not only the experience doing direct observations is important, the instruments used to make these observations are critical as they are critical in other established sciences.

Many active observers of UFOs/anomalies had used only low optical magnification equipment, wide view optics, people that had used only that equipment really do not have the experience needed in the same way that a person that had only used lupes do not have any experience observing microorganisms since you need microscopes to observe microorganisms.

So the very basic requirement of direct observational experience with high magnification optical equipment is lacking in almost everybody, Ufology is not for these people.


So, without confirmation bias, no one can "Ufoology." Got it.



new topics

top topics



 
37
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join