It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
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.
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
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.