UFO Video Captured By Homeland Security Analyzed

originally posted by: Phage
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.

They all have decades of experience in their own field not counting any UFO research, some have patents in their field, and peer reviewed publications. They are not some high school degree holding UFO enthusiasts who put together this report. There is one who worked on his PHD in physics for four years then found a job before he completed it. So until you or anyone does a full investigative report on this anomoly then this is the best info to go off of. You nor anyone has put even a day into the analysis of this video so why would I believe those that wish not to believe even half of the report.

a reply to: iDope
So, you consider a Bachelors a "higher degree" then.

So until you or anyone does a full investigative report on this anomoly then this is the best info to go off of.

And it doesn't really amount to much.

so why would I believe those that wish not to believe even half of the report.

I'm not asking you to believe anything.

originally posted by: Phage
The claim that the object submerges and then returns to flight. I don't see it.

Starting at 2:05 it disappears.

Ok ...there might be something new here...I don't think the ufo goes underwater anymore.
I think it's cloaking itself. It starts at 2:05...but if you look closely, like go on youtube and use landscape mode and max resolution, then
-at 2:03 it's partially cloaked
-at the very beginning of 2:04 it gets partially cloaked and during the 2:04 second it cloaks/uncloaks very fast
-at the very beginning of 2:06 it cloaks and remains so
-and between 2:06 and 2:08 the object can be seen in it's cloaked state advancing forward.
It's like really matching the water's resemblance but it's still visible and it ''accelerates'' inside the camera's frame, it advances from right to left overtaking the crosshair.
-at 2:10 it uncloaks
-at 2:13 cloaks
-between 2:13 and 2:15 it has a tiny spot uncloaked, then cloaks completely
-at end of 2:18 and start of 2:19 it becomes visible a fraction of a second
-at 2:22 it suddenly becomes visible at about 1 o'clock relative to the crosshair and about ''1'' crosshair distance above the crosshair, and that's when there's a series of 2-3 white flashes and the camera full field of view is saturates with white light and looses track of it.
-at 2:23 it flashes(becomes visible) very fast at 2,30-3 o'clock relative to crosshair and one crosshair distance
-within 2:23 it reappears at 2,30-3 o'clock of crosshair and 1.5 crosshairs away from crosshair and dissapears as 2:24 begins
-operator looses track cause he stops panning the camera at that last known location
-between 2:24 and going towards 2:25 it reappears just slightly above 2 o'clock at half a crosshair distance and moves uncloaked dead on towards the crosshair's upper mark and cloaks again...it's now 2:25
-camera pans again at 2:25 but it's not visible
-at 2:26 it appears again slightly at 2 o'clock and half a crosshair away, does this 3 times inside of the 2:26 second
-at 2:27 it jumps back and is now completely 1 crosshair away at exactly 3 o'clock and cloaks again, camera stops panning.
-at 2:28 camera start panning left tryign to pick it up again, but it's invisible
-at 2:31 it reappears slightly visible right next to the crosshair at 3 o'clock
-at 2:32 it enters the crosshair and is very visible, until 2:34 camera tracks it
-at 2:35 it suddenly splits in 2, still inside 2:32 upper one disappears, reappears a tiny bit
-at 2:35 camera flashes(apparently it's from changing the zoom from 675 to 2024
-at 2:36 the camera is zoomed to 2024, and very important here about 0,1 or 0,2 into the 2:36 second, the image is very clear, it's the screenshot below marked 1. The actual spheres are perfectly visible.
-then the spheres move and keep cloaking partially, both and also independently
-at 2:43 both spheres cloak, but very important here, the lower one becomes very clear and goes out like with a bubble type effect when view as a video. I think this is the clearest frame in the video, i've marked it with 2 below.
Then they both cloak/uncloak a few times and camera zooms out and it's about the end when both cloak for the last time.
This is as good as it gets, look at the video and pause again and again...it all pans out as described.









Dammit, can't make the video start at 2 min.

I got it, starts at 2:00 and end at 3:00.

a reply to: Choice777

So, you disagree with those with higher degrees in science? How dare you!
What makes your opinion more valid than theirs?
(and the pilot who supervised the "study?" Oh..wait..he didn't)

originally posted by: iDope
Because the pictures you posted of the craft look like pods, or four small orbs connected with oneanother does not prove it is balloons. It could be a craft consisting of four seperate orbs that can seperate at any given time. There also does not have to be any living being inside of them if they are spacecraft. They could easily be drones or robotically controlled given their size. Think of our advancement in robotics and drones and now consider what an advanced species could have. Much less dangerous that way if it were to be shot down. And if under fire could break into 4 seperate entiteis and go under water. Which explains why it split in two when it did in fact go under water. Show me a video of it floating above water and I will back down, as that would happen if it were a balloon.

Can you prove this was a cluster of balloons? No. If so, write a paper on why it is and disprove all records disproving the opposite theory. If not then continue being a disinfo scab.

"Disinfo scab"... cute. You're basing your belief this something extraordinary on a group of biased minded MUFON investigators trying to hide under the veil of the "Scientific Coalition of UFOlogy."

If this was some type of intelligently controlled craft with pods/orbs intending on separating and disappearing into the sea, why does it do it only after the bottom of the object drags on a wave? That's a reaction you would expect from wayward balloons, not purposeful craft.

To illustrate my point, here are more screen grabs from the portion where the object separates. The camera is using a wide shot and not the close up examples I've shown above. It has enough visual information that you can see the movement and reaction. I'll try to create an animated slow-motion gif of this sequence tomorrow that gives a much better example. Because of the limited upload size on the forum, it probably will lose what little detail it has now though.
The top half panel is the same as the bottom without the distraction of the notations. Movement is right to left as with the video:


Screen shots above between 2:32-2:35 from the video HERE.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Choice777

So, you disagree with those with higher degrees in science? How dare you!
What makes your opinion more valid than theirs?
(and the pilot who supervised the "study?" Oh..wait..he didn't)

Keep flapping your mouth. So basically you're post hunting. You've said nothing of worth. you're like a kid rambling on a on about how the world isn't fair.
Your actual analysis on the video is 0%.
I don't suffer from mental problems to actually read 160 pages of blabbering, there's enough of yours here, not going through 160 pages.
NO, it only takes a look at the video , pause a few times, repeat and then i've seen enough.
The legally blind need not apply to threads with video/photo evidence.

So now, have you looked at the video starting at 2:00 and towards 2:45 while pausing and repeating multiple times each scene ?
If not, then you've got no right to comment negatively on this thread.

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8

originally posted by: iDope
.....

"Disinfo scab"... cute. You're basing your belief this something extraordinary on a group of biased minded MUFON investigators trying to hide under the veil of the "Scientific Coalition of UFOlogy."

How do you know what he bases his belief on ? Maybe he has eyes and sees the video with perfect vision.

If this was some type of intelligently controlled craft with pods/orbs intending on separating and disappearing into the sea, why does it do it only after the bottom of the object drags on a wave? That's a reaction you would expect from wayward balloons, not purposeful craft.

Yada yada...the same broken logic....How would you know HOW AND WHY a UFO operates in a certain way ? Yes, they forgot their lights on at night, cause they're NOT LIGHTS....yes, it seems to do weird stuff cause its FIELD is lensing air around it or something.
How could you be so adamant about the way in which UFO operate if you don't have one in your garage?

To illustrate my point, here are more screen grabs from the portion where the object separates. The camera is using a wide shot and not the close up examples I've shown above. It has enough visual information that you can see the movement and reaction. I'll try to create an animated slow-motion gif of this sequence tomorrow that gives a much better example. Because of the limited upload size on the forum, it probably will lose what little detail it has now though.
The top half panel is the same as the bottom without the distraction of the notations. Movement is right to left as with the video:

Screen shots above between 2:32-2:35 from the video HERE.

Now to illustrate what a disinfo agent does.....State the exact time stamps of those frames. Cause i think they're not part of the ufo but are in fact waves.
So state the timestamps of each screenshot.

edit on 16-8-2015 by Choice777 because: (no reason given)
[snipped]

Mod Note: ALL MEMBERS: We expect civility and decorum within all topics - Please Review This Link.

edit on 8.17.2015 by Kandinsky because: snipped ill-mannered comments

extra DIV

a reply to: Choice777

It doesn't overtake the crosshairs...the camera slows its panning.

I'm trolling because I posted a video of the same illusion you claim doesn't exist??

a reply to: Jonjonj

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Choice777

It doesn't overtake the crosshairs...the camera slows its panning.

Actually it does overtake the crosshair, cause the crosshair maintains the same speed relative to the waves.
And that's not even the point, just a red herring on your part.
THE point is the fact that the object cloaks and is still slightly visible as a circular blur and it's still moving. And also the height difference is evident from the video, but if one uses a still frame then they can try and claim anything.

It's a red herring??? The camera obviously slows it's pan and the waves are what shows that, yet you think the panning speed stays constant. I thought you had perfect vision?

The object maintains its speed against the waves, a top speed of 19MPH, and the camera has to slow down as it is panning to fast.

a reply to: Choice777

Edit: I know you no longer think this anyway, but your video above is well done and unequivocally proves the object never submerged. As was pointed out earlier it disappears from right to left, not left to right as would be expected by a submerging vehicle. This one clip alone completely debunks the entire report.

It also shows the object is clear rotating, from right to left.

Raymundoko has made some serious allegations in vague terms about the authors of the SCUFO report, including:

originally posted by: raymundoko
All the people involved in the "Report" are known UFO hoaxers.

originally posted by: raymundoko
The team was put together by Daina Chaviano, and she is listed under the acknowledgements of the report which is a whose who of "what hoax was I involved in?"

originally posted by: raymundoko
several of the contributors to the report have been caught red handed embroiled in Hoaxes

I have not seen Raymundoko post any evidence/links to support these serious allegations.

I have had the pleasure of having contact with several of the authors of the SCUFO report over the last few years, particularly Rich Hoffman, Morgan Beall and Robert Powell. I have not seen any previous suggestion that any of them is involved in any hoaxing.

Can Raymundoko please post relevant evidence/links or retract the relevant allegations above?

This is not, of course, to say that I agree with everything Rich Hoffman, Morgan Beall, Robert Powell and the other authors of the SCUFO report state in that document. Indeed, I fear that I may have jeopardised my friendly relationship with at least one of these individuals given his reaction to my suggestion elsewhere that there are apparent serious problems with the SCUFO report.

I had some significant problems with the report at first glance. Those problems have not gone away after spending more time on it. But I'm still studying it and related material/issues, with some other people. (Some of you will be familiar with the work done by the Roswell Slides Research Group deblurring the mummy placard. Most of us in that group have formed another research group focused on critically evaluating the relevant video and the SCUFO report. We have had the pleasure of being joined by several additional researchers, including some top names in the field).

This hoax is a perfect example.

a reply to: IsaacKoi

a reply to: raymundoko

Is a faulty analysis a hoax?
Or is the video itself?

I fully believe the faulty analysis was intentional. It's Morristown all over again for MUFON.

The fact a sci-fi fantasy author who wants to write a new book is behind it is even more proof for me.

a reply to: Phage

Edit: I mean, any person with eyes can see this object never goes underwater and isn't going the 70-90MPH the report assumes. I don't see how this panel could come together and all agree on the above without intentionally lying.

a reply to: raymundoko

I fully believe the faulty analysis was intentional.

Ok.

The fact a sci-fi fantasy author who wants to write a new book is behind it is even more proof for me.

I wonder, hypothetically, if Robert Heinlein (I know, he's dead) had taken part in the study would your opinion be the same simply because he wrote science fiction? How about David Brin, he's still alive.

Yes, I would be extremely skeptical. If Clarke's report determined big black rectangular objects were orbiting Jupiter I would laugh.

Edit: just saw your edit.

Arthur Clark is a writer, that's it.

David Brin is a scientist who is also a writer. Is the woman from this report a scientist?? Also, Brin's sci fi isn't even that good. The Postman is his best work.

a reply to: Phage

a reply to: raymundoko
Where in the report is it talking anything about Jupiter?

For my part, I would pay more attention to the report than I have. I see no reason to slight someone's findings because they write science fiction. (For the record, I doubt Clarke or Heinlein would jump to the conclusions found in the report).

originally posted by: IsaacKoi
Raymundoko has made some serious allegations in vague terms about the authors of the SCUFO report, including:

I have not seen Raymundoko post any evidence/links to support these serious allegations.

Well, what more can you expect from someone who labels himself "disinfo agent" as seen under his screen name?
I'm sitting here scratching my head as to why anyone would attach that label to themselves for all to see?
I guess subtlety has gone out the window now in favor of being more blatant.