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.

 

UFO Video Captured By Homeland Security Analyzed

page: 10
56
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 12:00 AM
link   
a reply to: iDope


I'm pretty sure 6 people with higher degrees in science would know whether they were balloons or not.
What do you consider a "higher degree?"
I see one with a Masters. In English literature.
The rest are Bachelors. Undergraduate degrees.

edit on 8/15/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 12:43 AM
link   
A met life blimp



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 01:08 AM
link   
a reply to: iDope

Why are they warmer than the ambient temperature? If they were warmer, and are balloons, they would be rising, not falling.

So because the balloons have been floating in the sun and the material, be it latex or Mylar, will naturally absorb some of the suns heat, they should be rising against strong cross wind currents?


IF they are balloons, what reason would there be for a DHS plane to be sent off to record them?

I wasn't aware a flight was scrambled to specifically record this. This is what it says in the report:

An in-person interview with the source indicated that the pilots of the DHC-8 Turboprop took off on a routine mission and as they veered to the northwest saw a pinkish to reddish light over the ocean that was in their vicinity and approaching toward the south.

There was no plane "sent off to record them."
Pinkish/reddish light that magically disappears when the IR is turned on to record? Sounds like a good candidate for colored Mylar balloons reflecting sunlight.


So yes, they are balloons which explains why a Fed Ex flight was delayed over a small grouping of balloons. Know what happens to balloons vs. Jet plane? Ballons either float on or they are sucked in and are shredded. No damage ever has been reported on a plane as cause of balloon, so let's just delay a flight in case it may happen this time. Right?

The "object" crossed the airfield and the pilots couldn't identify what it was from their distance. That could be a threat to any incoming/outgoing flights if they couldn't identify it, so they immediately contacted the tower because of the potential hazard.

Concerned that the control tower had not alerted them to incoming traffic they contacted the tower.


Here are more screen shots of this highly unusual object that seems to defy any kind of explanation. It's made up of several round pods, it travels with the wind, it tumbles through the air "without risk of impacting objects as it passes by", and ultimately lands in the sea without so much as a splash. But remember, not balloons!






posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 06:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: funbox
a reply to: wmd_2008

a stable focal length is all you need as well you know, not the altered one in jaws. do the math if you dare

funbox



As you well know there was a reason for me doing that if you don't have the information on the lens camera setup then how the object looks in relation to the backgrond perspective wise can give a false impression



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 08:41 AM
link   
Watch this video starting at 1:45...OMG THE SKYSCRAPER IS MOVING SO FAST!!!

source: Getty

a reply to: funbox



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 09:09 AM
link   
10 pages over a frigging gliding bird.



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 09:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: fockewulf190
It's most likely a burst weather balloon , its proximity to the airport would give them good reason to keep an eye on it.


a reply to: sprockets2000


This reminds me of the UFO they said could be "trash" in Denver. Trash HAHAHA

Not trash but insects.

A weather balloon, ok. you can see the flir camera stays on it until it disappears, if it was indeed a balloon burst or not the flir would pick it up FLOATING on the water wouldn't it? Or did it burst after landing on the spine of a fish perhaps.




posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 11:54 AM
link   
a reply to: wmd_2008

did you see any focal shift during any of the cuts ? you claim to be an expert optic manipulator , in your opinion, was there any focal changes during the tracking of this object/s, as to curve the visual continuity overthe fps? .

funbox



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 02:02 PM
link   
a reply to: funbox and to all those who have been asking for a refutation of the actual evidence, as opposed to this...whatever it is.



I suppose that the thread might be well served if it moved on to the discussion of what it might actually be.

From what I can tell the possibilities are:

1. Balloons.
2. Drone/quad copter/RC device.
3. Undisclosed technology.
4. Animal known or unknown.
5. Fake (had to include it anyway, regardless).
6. Unknown/Non-human technology.
7. Other natural phenomena.

The region that includes the island of Puerto Rico is a known hotspot for anomalous reports.

PuertoRicoufos

It has the deepest part of the Atlantic Ocean as well as very interesting geological features

The Puerto Rico Trench is also associated with the most negative gravity anomaly on earth

Not being a geologist I have no idea if this means anything, but the fact that it is in a tectonically active zone is interesting to me.

NOAA report

It is also one of the corners, so to speak, of the fabled Bermuda triangle.




I still do not believe it is a balloon personally, nor a bird. This then leaves me with a couple of other options to describe what is, whatever your point of view, an anomalous sighting.

Have at it, if you like.




edit on 15-8-2015 by Jonjonj because: format



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 02:48 PM
link   
The evidence refutes the report. The object is not moving at a high speed and it never enters the water...

Why get into the math of the report when the assumption the math is based on is false??

a reply to: Jonjonj



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 03:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: funbox
a reply to: wmd_2008

did you see any focal shift during any of the cuts ? you claim to be an expert optic manipulator , in your opinion, was there any focal changes during the tracking of this object/s, as to curve the visual continuity overthe fps? .

funbox



WHO claimed any focal shift do YOU have ALL THE DATA on the system used to record this



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 03:28 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

What evidence do you posit that refutes the report again?
Please present your evidence with data that supports it.
No offence but seriously? So we should all just take your word for it?


edit on 15-8-2015 by Jonjonj because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 03:29 PM
link   
Is it the object that is filmed or is a shadow from an object ?
If you look from the 1:22 mark it passes over some hangars etc, and to me it looks like a shadow sweeping over buildings, even the directional shift passing the roofs.

So if this is a shadow from something, it will be near to impossible to calculate speed or anything from the data provided.

Just my 2,5 cent on the vid.



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 03:40 PM
link   
a reply to: GilDon

I am not sure that a shadow would have a heat signature so I think shadow can be ruled out. At least that is my read of it from the report (which is apparently worthless, all 159 pages of it, from all angles).






posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 03:48 PM
link   
I wish people would just get prescription glasses if they need them, there's really no shame in wearing glasses.
It's not a balloon, it's not a drone, it's got no exhausts, no blades, no wings.
It's a solid sphere moving at about 70-100 mph that eventually seems to just go through the water like it's not even there.
It just blends with the water..it's quite obvious...unless you're a born skeptic, the jokes on you...can't believe your eyes?
Well tough, there it is, going through water at 70+ mph without any interference, just dematerialized.
And then it's doing 20-30 mph and is visibly above the water cause it has a reflection, which it didn't have before when it was underwater.
The absolute video of the century.
And finally it stops and goes underwater again. If the video has gps info on it we could effectively be stumbling on a secret underwater ufo base cause we have heading and distance in nautical miles.
''They'' travel in style.
Oh wait there is gps info, for both the aircraft and the camera's focused location. This is getting hot. LOL, considering it's all in infrared.
edit on 15-8-2015 by Choice777 because: (no reason given)


Edit: And here is it folks. The spot where the ufo went underwater for the last time.
Who knows, maybe its underwater ufo base.

The pics [1],[2],[3] shows the last frames where the UFO is visible and [4] and [5] show the reference A,B,C,D,E when the camera zooms out and the google maps location.

edit on 15-8-2015 by Choice777 because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-8-2015 by Choice777 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 05:17 PM
link   
The only evidence that exists, the video. It disagrees with the assumptions in the report. Did you see how fast that skyscraper was going??

a reply to: Jonjonj



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 05:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Choice777
I wish people would just get prescription glasses if they need them, there's really no shame in wearing glasses.
It's not a balloon, it's not a drone, it's got no exhausts, no blades, no wings.
It's a solid sphere moving at about 70-100 mph that eventually seems to just go through the water like it's not even there.


This is a solid sphere?



These are more screen grabs from camera zoomed portion of the video. I could fill the thread with every frame from that section of the video to show these aren't horribly pixelated, distorted, or motion blurred images that I purposely hand-picked to try and trick people into believing the object is a group of balloons. This is what you see if you look at the frames individually. These are the first and last parts of the zoomed portion:


The images show the object isn't a solid round sphere and isn't streamlined. It's made up of several round objects connected together. When you combine that with the fact that it's tumbling, seemingly free-wheeling through the air with no purpose, breaks apart and looses momentum when the bottom strikes a wave, and lands in the ocean with a no-mass splash, those facts add up to balloons for me.



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 05:32 PM
link   
a reply to: wmd_2008

I asked you if you saw any perspective changes, as you exampled , and you go all twisty about claims, you've seen the footage now , probably more times than you wanted


In any of the footage you've seen , in your expert opinion , can you see any focal length perspective changes between cuts ,?

funbox



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 05:36 PM
link   
a reply to: GilDon

on the contrary , if you could see a shadow you could pinpoint its position far more accurately via triangulating from know objects from the surroundings, in relation to the shadow position and the object itself, Im sure this can be done as it appears to be obscured by a pole near the road

funbox



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 05:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Ectoplasm8

Yes, it's solid. You can't take the crappiest frames and expect to define the object on that. There's video, shoot from a a military grade combat camera.
This thing doesn't allow room for imaginary balloons..the object at times displays a field around it, and at times a shine.
If you interpret that as a hollow object then be my guest and run head first towards a metal door just cause it looks hollow cause it's shiny in the middle.




top topics



 
56
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join