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: 15
56
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 19 2015 @ 07:54 AM
link   
a reply to: IsaacKoi

This fiasco is proof.

Mufon is proof.

Sorry if I equate Mufon members to Hoax supporters and you don't. Mufon members seem to have a knack for blindly accepting that something is otherworldly and then building their case around that assumption.

So Let's get down to it.

Robert Powell; International UFO congress - Robert engaged in pathetic rehashing of long debunked hoaxes thinking they still needed to be debated catering to the crowd of believers; Maybe you were there last year?

Morgan Beall;Where did this guy get his degree? I would really like to know...He used to say it on his bio, but removed it several years ago. Why? He doesn't show up on any alumni lists...

Daina Chaviano; Is a Volunteer for Florida MUFON and works with Morgan Beall. Lied about where she got the video from. So did Morgan Beall since he was also involved with Jose Martinez getting it last year.

I have no idea who Larry Cates is.

Carl Paulson: THE Carl Paulson who supported the hoaxed pictures of sprites, then doubled down earlier this year when he wrote a "scientific" report that a witness would never accidentally confuse a sprite with a UFO...but at least he did admit that someone could probably use a picture of a sprite to perpetrate a hoax. Also, another Florida MUFON member who knows full well Jose Martinez is the source for the video. I wil l say this about Paulson, he seems like the smartest of the bunch.

Richard Hoffman: UFO FILES HANGAR 1, I don't really need to say anything else. This is a guy who has perfected the art of making money off believers.

Have the above people intentionally created a hoax? No, but they have at some point been duped by one and supported it at great cost to their images. Images which have been tarnished over the years and have caused people like me to shrug off anything they comment on. This is just another dark stain on their already tarnished image.


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




posted on Aug, 19 2015 @ 11:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
Robert Powell; International UFO congress - Robert engaged in pathetic rehashing of long debunked hoaxes thinking they still needed to be debated catering to the crowd of believers; Maybe you were there last year?


If you are implying, as seems to be the case, that I belong to a "crowd of believers" then I suggest you look at some of my posts here or elsewhere.

(Ironically, Robert Powell himself has suggested that I'm not open-minded because I have expressed some doubts to him and others about the SCUFO report - so the same remarks by me appear to have caused me to be labelled a believer by one person and a closed-minded skeptic by another researcher...).



posted on Aug, 19 2015 @ 11:24 AM
link   
a reply to: IsaacKoi

Welcome to the club Isaac.



posted on Aug, 19 2015 @ 11:27 AM
link   
a reply to: IsaacKoi

I apologize, I was not implying that and I am sincerely sorry for coming off that way. I was just saying it was a pretty well advertised event. I was suggesting that since you are close with some of these people you may have gone and seen his sad demonstration.



posted on Aug, 19 2015 @ 03:03 PM
link   
I've read some of the posts that have been made on this topic and I am not impressed by the controller of this site's ability to provide a reasoned discussion that avoids personal attacks and defamatory remarks. Defamation of character is a serious offense and to the extent that a site knowingly allows it; that site can be held responsible. I don't take blatantly false accusations lightly. The owner of this site is ultimately responsible.

As Elanor Roosevelt said, "Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people."

The video analyzed by SCU comes with the desire for any explanations to be brought forward in the light and not in the dark as is being done on this post. If someone has developed a theory that these are balloon(s) then it is very simple: send an email to the SCU site and provide the latitude/longitude coordinates of the balloon(s), the specific Zulu times that match those coordinates, and supporting line-of-sight. Explain wind speed and direction with the balloon theory so that a straight forward explanation is provided. We have already explained in the report why we do not think this is the case . But if someone has a balloon theory that supports the facts then we will gladly accept it. To date, not a single person who purports that this is a balloon has provided that type of reasoned scientific analysis. Perhaps it is too soon; that is fine.

I will certainly not entertain the type of tripe remarks made on this site, but we do welcome any comments done in a constructive manner.

Robert Powell



posted on Aug, 19 2015 @ 04:33 PM
link   
Well, it's kind of sad that the upshot of this whole thing is that regardless whether it's a bunch of balloons or something else (?), we all end up right back in the same old position of not knowing anything. It's a video. A complex and confusing video, sure, but only a video, nonetheless. So we can debate about it for another 15 pages, and guess where we're going to end up? Right where we are now.

Does it move the UFO field forward in any way? Sorry, but no. Some people feel that adding more "unknowns" to the heaping pile somehow increases our knowledge of what's going on. I thought that way once, but not any more.

But, hey, go right on ahead. Once this debate loses steam (or helium), I'll be right here.
edit on 19-8-2015 by Blue Shift because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2015 @ 06:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: rpowell2u
As Elanor Roosevelt said, "Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people."

It's been my extensive experience that, in the field of UFOlogy, discussing the "people" and their motivations is infinitely more important than the ideas, events, and supposed sightings themselves. There are very few other "alternative" genres, with the exception of "9/11 Truth," that has so many people doing so many deceptive things.



I will certainly not entertain the type of tripe remarks made on this site, but we do welcome any comments done in a constructive manner.

Your involvement in providing a counter argument is invaluable to the nature of the discussion.

However, please be aware that this site (our members, staff, and mangement) has had extensive experience with those who would contrive deceptions within the UFO arena, and our patience is thin. That being said, I'm sure your involvement will help.
edit on 19-8-2015 by SkepticOverlord because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2015 @ 07:39 PM
link   
a reply to: SkepticOverlord

Hmmm. I am not sure how discussing the messenger can ever be "infinitely more important" than discussing the message. I mean ever.
In any case, simply throwing aspersions on people is pretty bad. Throwing aspersions on people who have taken the time to create a report must first require the report to be analysed and critiqued and not the author, surely?


edit on 19-8-2015 by Jonjonj because: addition



posted on Aug, 19 2015 @ 07:44 PM
link   
I'd like to add that I not only agree with S.O. (see his post above) that the study and commentary on the "people who present UFOs to the public" is necessary and oft times exasperating, it's essential in moving the ball anywhere from where it's sitting now...

(The following is nothing more than my personal observations and opinion and a bit of a rant on the state of my favorite topic.)

[rant]
That the ball is sitting in the file 13 of anyone who matters is of some concern to me because I'm sincerely interested in the phenom and have been trying these past 25+ years to find a way to get it out of the trash pile and get real studies done by real scientists/experts with names and credentials that can be confirmed. I'll admit there has been some success along these lines by a handful of skillful, persistent, HONEST "investigators", a multi award winning investigative journalist, and a few rich folks, but not much considering how many years have passed and how many thousands (millions?) of reported sighting and experiences there have been,

BUT...

Every time it looks like we're making a little forward progress, almost on queue (there's more to that than I will get into in this post I believe), there comes another bogus "thing" (sighting report, report of a report, obviously hoaxed video or misidentified video/picture/quote, etc...) that includes anonymous "experts" who are afraid of their reputations being destroyed.

Add to that less than optimal situation (I am being kind here) the people promoting most of these stories (that seem to appear on queue) have been "involved" with or the defacto point person in promoting previous, similar "cases" that range between the ludicrous, obviously misidentified, and/or a fairly decent hoax, and you see where the ball rolls straight into the trash heap.

Anyone else see the irony staring us dead in the face? These "experts" who are nameless don't want to ruin their reps by bringing their credentials to the table and stand behind their findings?

Really?

I've known and am friends with lots of credible scientists and real "experts" in several fields and, frankly, they never miss an opportunity to get their names attached to something that is genuinely amazing or mysterious IF they can back up what they claim.

It's GOOD for business and I don't care what the topic is, ghosts, UFOs, or marshmallows taking over Manhattan. The genuinely mysterious holds much fascination for us human beings, obviously.

That said, when they can't demonstrate how they came to their conclusions with repeatable tests they take a walk, they don't allow anyone to quote them anonymously. They sure as hell don't publish anything online, it ALWAYS comes out who the "anonymous experts" were when there really is an anonymous expert.

We've all learned that over the years many of these anonymous and otherwise "experts" in Ufology have been proven to be no more an expert than your plumber.

Wait, your plumber actually IS an expert (I hope) at something...

To put a point on this... My experience has been that hiding behind anonymity is not the way of genuine scientists or "experts".

The paying attention to "WHO" is behind or promoting a case is almost as important as the "case" itself when there is any doubt, and a video or image will always have lots of doubt to go around.


[/rant]
edit on 8-19-2015 by Springer because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2015 @ 07:45 PM
link   
a reply to: rpowell2u

Shoddy work with the intent of catering to your base to make them think this is something more than it is isn't a hoax?

The fact the group of you could even come up with what you did according to the video evidence is mind boggling to me.

And now you want us to do your job for you? I thought you did a thorough investigation? What's the point of having a think tank if it doesn't think? Are you saying you DIDN'T check the direction of the wind, yet you checked the wind speed??? I find that hard to believe, and if you didn't it just reinforces my opinion that this is a shoddy, failure of a report. If you (or others involved) did check the direction (since it is on the same page as the speed...I linked it earlier in this thread) then that means you all left it off intentionally. Why?

Edit: Why was any mention of Jose Martinez left off the report?
edit on 19-8-2015 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2015 @ 07:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: rpowell2u

Shoddy work with the intent of catering to your base to make them think this is something more than it is isn't a hoax?

The fact the group of you could even come up with what you did according to the video evidence is mind boggling to me.

And now you want us to do your job for you? I thought you did a thorough investigation? What's the point of having a think tank if it doesn't think? Are you saying you DIDN'T check the direction of the wind, yet you checked the wind speed??? I find that hard to believe, and if you didn't it just reinforces my opinion that this is a shoddy, failure of a report. If you (or others involved) did check the direction (since it is on the same page as the speed...I linked it earlier in this thread) then that means you all left it off intentionally. Why?


I think what you just did there, is blame the person for the fact that YOU don't believe their report. I am now completely lost.



posted on Aug, 19 2015 @ 07:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Jonjonj

No, I blame the person for the work they didn't do and for the bad work they did do. They clearly have the wind speed listed, which means they went into weather archives (I provided the link) and that archive clearly shows the wind speed AND direction. Why would they leave the direction out of the report. Is it because the wind directions lines up perfectly with the radar pings?

Who else would I blame for not believing the report? The PDF viewer that displayed it to me?



posted on Aug, 19 2015 @ 08:05 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

I just want to know, as I am sure many others do, why you can not just make another report to refute all the information you are so certain is erroneous.
Well actually, in your opinion it isn't erroneous, it is maliciously fallacious right?
An intent to mislead intentionally.
I don't see that, but I am sure that there are others who do, but surely it falls upon those to prove that.
Every single person who truly wants the truth will back you up.
But hit and run claims of "this is fake because I say so"...they don't work for me, nor for many others I am sure.




posted on Aug, 19 2015 @ 09:46 PM
link   
Where have I said this is fake because I said so? I've backed everything I said up. If you don't think I have you should engage in some honest reflection.

Does the object submerge? No, and it disappears the wrong way as has been unequivocally shown. Did this report claim to examine frame by frame? Yes. So how did they miss that? I don't believe they did...

Does the wind for the day line up with the radar plot? Yes. I linked to the weather archives.

Was the source of this video a pilot crew member of the aircraft? According to the report it was (or at least the report claimed they were in contact with a crew member). But according to the real original source of the video it was an employee of the airport who had access to top secret material and got it from a black hawk helicopter before it could be destroyed. That all came from Jose Martinez. Why was he left out of the report? Why did the type of craft and the source of the video change? He (Jose) engaged in discussions on both YouTube and reddit when this video first appeared last year and the Reddit users especially tore him apart. Apparently there were no Black Hawk helicopters in PR and the times lined up with planes that were being tested with image tracking to improve the war on drugs. Reddit users came to the conclusion it was one of those planes (which happens to be the plane this report says it was) and the balloon was a reflective balloon designed and launched to test the tracking system. A perfectly plausible explanation. It wasn't until months later that a user on YouTube discovered that NOAA launches balloons from that airport at around that same time.

Why do I have to generate a whole report when those things alone invalidate the one that exists? That isn't how "peer review" works in the scientific world and that isn't how it works here. They wrote a report. It has had major, major, major flaws pointed out. They can either double down and defend those flaws, or they can admit they are flaws and retract them from the report. What happens if they retract them? The report becomes completely useless and their time was wasted.

a reply to: Jonjonj

Edit: Fixed an error
edit on 19-8-2015 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 20 2015 @ 08:04 AM
link   
Having reviewed the video again, taking it at face value and ignoring the story that has become attached to it, this appears to be a recording of the targeting system of a Predator drone that is tracking a sea bird. The drone circles around the slow moving bird, creating the illusion that the bird is travelling in a circle at high speed. If the digital display is to be believed, the drone is circling at about 1,000 feet and the target is flying at under 100 feet. The target is so small that its shape cannot be resolved; it is a clump of just a very few pixels that sometimes breaks up because the light and dark regions cause the sensor to not report the darker areas, leaving gaps that lead to the illusion of the target breaking into smaller parts.

The actual video may be authentic, in the sense that it was taken by the targeting system of a drone. The back story, and the 600 page analysis, is completely bogus. that is what makes this a [HOAX!].



posted on Aug, 20 2015 @ 09:15 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

It seems more like a balloon than a bird to me. It moves in a straight line and appears to be rotating.

Here is the official site that shows DHS started working in PR more to help stop the flow of drugs through the region:

Source

Here is an article showing they implemented Radar to combat drug smuggling in 2013:

Source

So to me this indeed seems like radar picked up something, the plane checked on it and that was it. It never went anywhere because it was either a planned launch for testing, or they took advantage of a failed NOAA deployment to test everything, or they scrambled for real and realized it was just a balloon.

Here is a site I linked previously that shows NOAA operates from this very airport:

Source

And another NOAA source that jokes because their balloons are often confused for UFO's:

Source

Here is a direct link PDF from NOAA that talks about their daily launches from this airport:

Source


the balloon/radiosonde launch two times a day
under normal conditions (occasionally, they have to launch the
balloon four times a day, if a tropical system approaches the local
area)


Notice the date of that informational packet. Hmmm, when did this video originally surface on the web? Me thinks someone took advantage of a situation to fool the masses. I think whoever got this video (Jose Martinez) knew exactly what they were getting, but thought they could pass it off as a UFO.


I just want to go back to the source of the video for a moment. THis originally showed up on Jose Martinez YouTube account and he is the one who was defending it on YouTube and Reddit, however at some point he changed the source of the video to Jorge Martin


At least with respect to our more serious research which makes Mr. Jorge Martin give should all the credit of it


This is in stark contrast to his claims several months earlier that HE obtained this video. Why does the story of the source of this video constantly evolve among PR MUFON??

From that same YT Discussion:


nly 2 person have this video in DVD our source military pilot, Jorge martin and me, Jorge martin he public January riddle in his magazine Millennium, in the summer I met the person who works within the Aguadilla airport is military and is the basis of the coast guard, border patrol and homeland security, public summer in my video on my copy my bad channel quality, but Jorge had the original video which the public first one and then put it on your facebook page


Yet months earlier he said it was an airport employee with access to top secret materials...WHICH IS IT??

I've emailed and called the number listed for Jorge, jorgemartin87@yahoo.com and phone num. 787-758-0696, with no response.

it seems around 9 Months ago Jose stepped away as the source and started sending everything to Jorge and started claiming Jorge was the original source and HE had the contact who was the pilot of the craft.

However he still wants to share credit, and he is pretty mad about this report. From his G+ account:


is unfortunate MUFON NEXT TO A GROUP OF ALLEGED RESEARCHERS video were awarded, but not say who were the ones who disseminate this, if it were not for George Martin and myself, these hustlers of mufon would have nothing, they are like leeches, come something they are interested and looking for ways to take advantage, but nothing here were the first and this video is shown.


Why did they exclude Jorge and Jose as their source for the video? Was it because the source story Jorge and Jose had come up with was falsifiable? So what did they say to Jose?

Their response to the above quote:

Source


Hi Jose, we actually established that we received this video from an official source prior to PRUFON dates. We actually established the accurate data about the case in the report provided at explorescu.org The sources your speak of actually reported the wrong information about the source of the video, establishing the source of their video as not being official and 3rd party to the primary event. Jorge Martin published information that was proven wrong or inaccurate.


So they basically decided that they had to start from scratch. The new story would be they had the video the whole time, but THEIR source story was the accurate one...

CINDERS AND ASHES!!!



Also, for those who missed it:

Credit goes to user Choice777

It disappears right to left. It is rotating, it does NOT submerge.


edit on 20-8-2015 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 20 2015 @ 09:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: rpowell2u
I've read some of the posts that have been made on this topic and I am not impressed by the controller of this site's ability to provide a reasoned discussion that avoids personal attacks and defamatory remarks. Defamation of character is a serious offense and to the extent that a site knowingly allows it; that site can be held responsible. I don't take blatantly false accusations lightly. The owner of this site is ultimately responsible.

As Elanor Roosevelt said, "Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people."

The video analyzed by SCU comes with the desire for any explanations to be brought forward in the light and not in the dark as is being done on this post. If someone has developed a theory that these are balloon(s) then it is very simple: send an email to the SCU site and provide the latitude/longitude coordinates of the balloon(s), the specific Zulu times that match those coordinates, and supporting line-of-sight. Explain wind speed and direction with the balloon theory so that a straight forward explanation is provided. We have already explained in the report why we do not think this is the case . But if someone has a balloon theory that supports the facts then we will gladly accept it. To date, not a single person who purports that this is a balloon has provided that type of reasoned scientific analysis. Perhaps it is too soon; that is fine.

I will certainly not entertain the type of tripe remarks made on this site, but we do welcome any comments done in a constructive manner.

Robert Powell


Thank you for your detailed report on this particular UFO event, I can say without a doubt it is very appreciated by the majority, and the minority are unimportant unless they have a detailed analysis to rival yours.

Again thank you Robert.






posted on Aug, 20 2015 @ 09:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
Having reviewed the video again, taking it at face value and ignoring the story that has become attached to it, this appears to be a recording of the targeting system of a Predator drone that is tracking a sea bird. The drone circles around the slow moving bird, creating the illusion that the bird is travelling in a circle at high speed. If the digital display is to be believed, the drone is circling at about 1,000 feet and the target is flying at under 100 feet. The target is so small that its shape cannot be resolved; it is a clump of just a very few pixels that sometimes breaks up because the light and dark regions cause the sensor to not report the darker areas, leaving gaps that lead to the illusion of the target breaking into smaller parts.

The actual video may be authentic, in the sense that it was taken by the targeting system of a drone. The back story, and the 600 page analysis, is completely bogus. that is what makes this a [HOAX!].


Must be a very cold bird not to have a heat signature then...

Jesus wept...



posted on Aug, 20 2015 @ 09:34 AM
link   
a reply to: skyblueworld

Ignorance is bliss. A detailed report isn't needed in a review process. One legitimate critique is all that is needed for a real scientific paper to go back to the drawing board. In this case, there are multiple glaring errors.

There are a few different kinds of believers.

Those who WANT to believe. These types will usually blindly accept any evidence to support their want. These people often think they DO believe, but in reality their WANT to believe blinds them. They will usually reject any contrary evidence out of hand.

Those who want to NOT believe. This is usually due to some religious dogma and they will reject any real evidence out of hand.

And those who DO believe. I am one of these. I fully believe we are not alone and that we are visited. Since my belief is solid I am afforded the ability to sift through evidence and discard evidence which has all the markings of being manufactured.

To me, this report has all the markings of being manufactured.



posted on Aug, 20 2015 @ 09:38 AM
link   
a reply to: skyblueworld

Welcome to the thread, thanks for not reading it. It has a heat signature, that's how it shows up on camera...



new topics




 
56
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join