It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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

UFO Video Captured By Homeland Security Analyzed

page: 14
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 17 2015 @ 12:29 PM
a reply to: DJW001

Yes, there do seem to be many changes in the images. I assume they are the different filtering systems that particular camera uses. As for why this camera is following the object, I think the whole reason for that is because, during a routine flight, an anomalous object was reported, and the camera was used to document it.

There is a detailed explanation of the camera system in the report if I remember correctly, but I am no expert either in optics or film.

posted on Aug, 17 2015 @ 12:33 PM
a reply to: Jonjonj

Why do you assume that? Incidentally, I just noticed that the time stamp says UT+1; this means that the time is for a drone operating EAST of Greenwich.

posted on Aug, 17 2015 @ 12:34 PM
Thread closed for review by staff.

posted on Aug, 17 2015 @ 03:05 PM
For those curious about the no-link to the site in the opening post; some time ago, that company/site attempted to hijack the AboveTopSecret name after some failed collaboration discussions. So we do not allow direct links. Sorry.

Thread reopened.
edit on 17-8-2015 by SkepticOverlord because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 17 2015 @ 03:11 PM
a reply to: DJW001

If it is UT +1 that would be west of Greenwich, not east. Like GMT +6 is 6 hours after GMT Like in New York? I am taking a punt here because I forget if New York is 5 or 6 hours behind.

Edit: I am leaving this to show that I completely misunderstood your point. I was thinking of the completely wrong thing. My apologies.
edit on 17-8-2015 by Jonjonj because: complete fail

posted on Aug, 17 2015 @ 03:13 PM
a reply to: Jonjonj
Isn't it just British Summer Time?

posted on Aug, 17 2015 @ 03:15 PM
a reply to: UKWO1Phot

There are too many standards for time, I completely failed in my last post.

posted on Aug, 17 2015 @ 03:18 PM
Just a quick question for the mods, what are you looking for when you close a thread for review?

Is it to make sure the links are not malicious? Or does it have to do with the actual content of the thread?

posted on Aug, 17 2015 @ 08:00 PM
I think that these are the important points:

Reality check for those who simply believe they can denigrate people, with no basis other than prejudice.
The fact that in the video it appears that the object disappears from right to left before entering, or not, the water. It seems to me to be an important point.
I do not think that the speed of the object is an issue given the speed of the reported wind at the time.
I am looking forward to how this unfolds.

posted on Aug, 17 2015 @ 08:22 PM
Notice at the end of the video when the plane is going straight the object is going slow? That is when another guy estimated the speed to be no more than 19mph. All the speed being attributed to the object is due to the circling of the camera.

Also, the report had the entire plot of the object on page 15. It's in a straight line in the direction of the wind...

a reply to: Jonjonj

posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 11:54 AM
As I read it, the (approximately) straight line flight path on page 15 is of a non-transponding unknown that showed up on ground radar BEFORE the aircraft (DHC-8) carrying the FLIR pod took off. In other words, it may or may not be related to the FLIR imagery taken after the aircraft took off.

The best estimate of the path of the object that was imaged on the FLIR system is shown on page 22. For those who either didn't read or didn't follow the logic, the position of the unknown that was imaged was estimated by first determining the flight path of the DHC-8 and then determining the direction the FLIR pod was looking, from every point along the DHC-8's flight path. In general, the flight path of the airplane is known with greater accuracy than the path of the unknown. That's because there were two independent means of determining the aircraft's flight path: ground radar tracking of the aircraft's transponder and on-board GPS.

a reply to: raymundoko

posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 01:04 PM

originally posted by: data5091
This is the source link for the detailed findings of the report on this sighting. Pay special attention to the executive summary findings which if this works will come up first. In summary it said no planes or aircraft or bird has the capability that this object showed. This refers to its speed in the water which was greater than 90mph and it didn't slow down while under water. Further it had no navigational lights and was able to split into two. NO drones either have this capability.

Thank-you for linking to the detailed report. It's interesting that the military was uncooperative with the investigators.

Does anyone get the feeling while watching the video that this object is not really in our dimension? Looks like it phases in and out of view, but has no effect on the ocean, nor does the ocean affect it, when it enters/exits. It could be operating in a parallel dimension by an advanced society and had some type of malfunction. Once the pilot realized that it became visible to our dimension, he/she/it returned home for repair. Fascinating!

posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 04:10 PM
Okay, you've convinced me. Changed my mind.
Instead of a bird, I see pretty clearly now that it is balloons.
Any "odd" behavior can be chalked up to the unusual way it was filmed.

posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 05:06 PM
a reply to: 1947boomer

I think they intentionally blurred their facts.

15 is the entire plot of the object based on radar, this can be seen from the time stamps.

22 is where they THINK the object is based on the video. And keep in mind it is THREE possible paths. Note that one of the paths matches the radar trajectory almost perfectly.

So according to the REAL data, the plot on pg 15 is the actual plot of the object. This plot happens to match the direction of the wind EXACTLY for that day. You can see it moving along that plot as the plane is moving in a straight line AWAY from the object. When the plane is moving directly away you will notice the speed of the object is EXTREMELY lower than their 70-110 MPH calculations. Any speed attributed to the object from the video is an optical illusion due to the circling camera.

I previously linked a video of a plane circling a skyscraper that causes the same illusion. The skyscraper appears to be moving through the city because you can't see the base of the building.

Also, earlier in the thread I noted the object moved behind a tree, but a colleague of mine pointed out it never does. You can still see the "blur" which means it just rotated away from the camera again, and it doesn't reappear when it should right after it leaves the tree. I am leaning more and more towards this being a balloon launched by NOAA.

If you check their schedule they launch balloons from that very airport right around when the time stamps says this video was taken.

posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 05:18 PM
a reply to: carewemust

But it does interact with the water. It just doesn't interact with the water when it "submerges" because it never submerges. You can clearly still see the object above water, but the hot side is rotated away from the camera.

Since my advanced degree is in Atmospheric Physics I still have close friends in that industry. I spoke with one on Skype and brought this up and he pointed out that the "hot" part of the balloon is probably the balloon, and the cold side could be a parachute to protect the instrument package (the reclaim about 20% of their packages and lose the rest)

Since it is a FLIR camera we can't make out all the physical aspects of the object, but I am leaning towards it being a balloon with an instrument package and when the balloon failed the chute deployed and it is either spinning in an oblong pattern or the chute became wrapped up in the balloon. Couple this with the fact I found out NOAA deploys balloons from that airport and I think we have settled this case.

posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 08:22 PM
I don't think those are jump cuts, I thought they were filter/zoom changes.

a reply to: DJW001

posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 10:21 PM
Is it just me or that thing looks like a witch on broomstick?

Anyway, I have to admit that I`m quite impressed with the report...actually more than with video clip.

Splitting Into Two Parts

As can be seen in the video, the object splits into two parts shortly after entering the ocean and then briefly re-emerging. Frame by frame analysis ruled out the possibility of a reflection or of a second object emerging from the water. The object’s thermal image actually grew in size momentarily before it split into two parts. Both pa rts moved through the air and water at the same speed as the original object. There exists no aircraft, projectiles, or other technology known to the authors of this report to have these characteristics or capabilities. The authors discuss this unusual characteristic in detail on pages 31 to 39 of this paper.

I mean what? I still can`t comperhend this. The analysis is pretty detailed and I like the heat signature.

The last of the four approaches used surface plots from ImageJ software to create a 3-D view. These are displayed in Figures 21A through 21H. Highlighting was done with the LUT feature that provided six shades used to note the IR heat with the bluer (cooler) pixels being represented as hills and the redder (hotter) pixels as valleys. The blue area is the water and the red-orange area is the object with the yellowish-greenish color being a debatable zone of either the object itself or heated areas around the object. The tall pinkish capped peaks seen in Figures 21E through 21H are the effect of the laser range finder reticle image. The size of the area chosen for each frame was kept constant at 13 x 13 pixels so that the change in size, the bimodal heat zone, and the final splitting of the object would be easier to compare across the eight surface plots.

Figures 21A through 21E depict the heat signature consistently seen through the unknown's complete transit. In Figures 21F through 21H a clear representation of the heat signatures can be seen splitting in to two similar parts as depicted in Figures 20 A through 20H.

Frame by frame analysis provides no evidence any pre-existing and independent second object arose out of the water; nor is there any indication that the second object is some type of infrared reflection of the first object. Frame by frame analysis, which was every 1/30 of a second, did not support either possibility

There is one object....that gets slightly bigger and splits into 2 objects. Very mysterious indeed. I doubt we are able to make anything like this, even with reverse engineering.

posted on Aug, 19 2015 @ 12:20 AM
a reply to: Op3nM1nd3d

The analysis is completely flawed. It interprets a region of non-contiguous pixels as "two separate objects," when it is clearly just a single object at the edge of the instrument's resolution.

posted on Aug, 19 2015 @ 04:25 AM
a reply to: DJW001

Since there is only 2 sec interval between C and H, I won`t dismiss your theory. I would certainly like to see frame by frame from 1:24:40 to 1:24:43.

What I don`t buy is a low resolution camera. After all this is supposed to be from Homeland security and even if it`s not, that was year 2013 not 2003. Should be enough pixels there to create a clear visual image from the thermal measurment.

posted on Aug, 19 2015 @ 05:34 AM

originally posted by: raymundoko
Nobody called me out on facts. That user doesn't like me calling these people hoaxers. The facts of the video are the only facts I worry about and I'm correct about those.

What "that user" (that's me...) didn't like was (as I said in my post above...) your repeated statements by you AS FACTS that the authors of the SCUFO report are all "known UFO hoaxers" and several of them had been "caught red handed embroiled in Hoaxes" without posting ANY relevant evidence or ANY relevant links.

So, yes, I was calling you out on (alleged) facts.

What I wanted was for you to give supporting details/links because I am not familiar with ANY previous suggestions that ANY of the relevant individuals (several of whom I know and respect, even if we don't always agree - particularly in relation to their latest report...) are "known UFO hoaxers".

I take your latest post I quote above as effectively backing down and accepting you cannot provide ANY evidence to support those serious allegations.

Can't you see that making serious unsubstantiated allegations about previous alleged hoaxing by the SCUFO authors undermines your credibility when you make points about the current video and the current SCUFO report?

As I said in my first post, I think there are serious apparent problems with the video (and you have, incidentally, made some good points in relation to it - several of which echo some points made by others elsewhere) BUT that does not excuse making serious allegations against researchers without posting ANY evidence to support them.

edit on 19-8-2015 by IsaacKoi because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in