UFO Video Captured By Homeland Security Analyzed

originally posted by: raymundoko
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.

Thanks for telling me about your personal beliefs, but did I ask for it?

I will quote rpowell2u:

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.

If you've already provided the above, have you sent it to the SCU site?

It would be nice to have a different analysis.

By the way, i'm a firm sitter on the fence, but thus far, the report by Roberts team has swayed me more than the balloon theory.

originally posted by: raymundoko
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...

I made the original thread on this particular case.

So black is a heat signature now...?



LINK

originally posted by: skyblueworld

originally posted by: raymundoko
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...

I made the original thread on this particular case.

So black is a heat signature now...?

LINK

For the third time, black=hot. Read the exalted report, pg 3.

ETA: You linked YOUR thread. Did you read IT?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Yes. You not knowing that says a lot.

a reply to: skyblueworld

You both missed my point then...

Sarcasm never seems to work online...

originally posted by: skyblueworld
You both missed my point then...

Sarcasm never seems to work online...

I'm trying to follow along. What was the point?

originally posted by: raymundoko
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.

You backed nothing, you only repeat the same thing that doesn't hold any value from any scientific point of view.
You linked a video of a skyscraper as it was proof that objects can seem fast while it's the camera being rotated around, well if that's simple, can't you just grab some data and do a guesstimate of the approximate speed of the plane then? The approximate distance and maybe also the approximate speed of the object since it's obvious since the first 10 seconds of the video that it isn't still.

You have all the data on display, you can take the angle showed in the hud and take some easily referenced object in the background and calculate the speed that a plane should attain if that object wasn't going past X mph. If you assume it is MUCH slower then you will be able to guesstimate the ground speed of the plane.

You also claim that you have advanced degrees in something but you can't explain how a thermal signature of a baloon can suddenly drop to ambient levels then back without an external source, because you know we are watching a FLIR and if you want to admit it was over the ocean BUT didn't submerge, then you have to be more creative to describe how it can disappear (ie lower it's thermal signature by a lot). Or maybe you can explain how a "rotation" can do the same without a shielding object or an external source to drop then increase back the temperature. Or maybe how can a "reflection" on water have the same or similar thermal signature.

You present your limited and scarcely supported opinion as facts. You also proceed to insult for free the authors of the report, also going into something like "hey I don't have hard data, it's your job to present another hypothesis that I like".
I don't really know why it is allowed to spout nonsense when 1st grade physics are ignored.

If you believe this is a hoax then why would they hoax it so that the object isn't going fast? If you believe is true but the hoax is in the report, how about producing a link of the thermal signature of a baloon?

You wasted the time of everyone reading this post for like 10 pages repeating obviously stupid claims unsubstantiated by any single fact. If this is not trolling I don't know what it is.

/end of rant
back to my point

In my opinion the latest part doesn't show a submerged object. The quality of the video compression surely influence the following frames when the object disappear so I can't say for sure that the "ghost" is necessarily part of the video.
I don't buy for a single moment that this is a baloon, I also have a hard time thinking about a bird since there is never a clear indication of the shape changes I would expect when turning and a bird cannot in any way drastically change its temperature.

I read fully the report and I don't agree entirely on it especially on the estimated speed during the last part. However it's a lot of data to process and it'll take me a while to figure out where exactly there can be a significant deviation from the data in the report.
Also the video doesn't show clearly signs of cgi despite some "jumps" as evidenced by other posters, but I kinda seem to find these jumps in every other video about flir and helicopters whenever there is a change in thresholds or area of interest.

I have no doubt that the research is legitimate, it doesn't mean is correct, but there is much more meat in there than in any comment (pro or con) this video on this thread, so if you have an opinion state it as it is, not as a fact, otherwise back it up DECENTLY.

a reply to: Mastronaut

So you haven't read the thread? Let's look at some of the issues in your post.

You backed nothing, you only repeat the same thing that doesn't hold any value from any scientific point of view.

So I didn't link to the weather archives to show that the wind speeds and direction line up with the radar plot? I didn't link to NOAA's official site stating balloon deployment schedules from the same airport? I didn't link to DHS site that these planes are being used to track potential drug traffickers? I didn't show that the illusion of speed is caused by circling a stationary or slow moving target? I didn't show that the source of this video is actually Jose Martinez and Jorge Martin and that their version of where they got it differs completely from the report?

Ignoring evidence is pathetic and shows your true bias.

can't you just grab some data and do a guesstimate of the approximate speed of the plane then

We already know the speed of the plane...

You have all the data on display, you can take the angle showed in the hud and take some easily referenced object in the background and calculate the speed that a plane should attain if that object wasn't going past X mph.

Or you can just make it easy and wait for the plane to be going in a straight line, like at the end of the video, and easily calculate that the object is moving between 7 and 19MPH.

You also claim that you have advanced degrees in something but you can't explain how a thermal signature of a baloon can suddenly drop to ambient levels then back without an external source

I've actually explained that several times. It is rotating and one of the sides has some material that is blocking the heat signature. I have given several options for what it could be. Someone else also pointed out that low clouds in between the camera and the object (i.e. where the plane is flying) are actually what block the heat signature. This was proven to be a possibility as someone showed that even thin clouds can block a heat signature. However, I think it is rotating, because it ALWAYS disappears from right to left no matter where the plane is located.

Or maybe you can explain how a "rotation" can do the same without a shielding object or an external source to drop then increase back the temperature.

Why is rotation in quote marks? None of that sentence made any sense. You seem to completely not understand anything. The wind causes the rotation,especially if the object is losing buoyancy and one side has more drag than the other.

I don't really know why it is allowed to spout nonsense when 1st grade physics are ignored.

Physics is taught in first grade? Did you go to first grade? Is this a joke?

If you believe this is a hoax then why would they hoax it so that the object isn't going fast? If you believe is true but the hoax is in the report, how about producing a link of the thermal signature of a baloon?

The did hoax it to be going fast, 70-110MPH. Just fast enough to not be a bird and way to fast to not be a balloon. However the more accurate top speed of 19MPH based on when the plane is moving in a straight line makes either be a possibility. Unless of course you think it is slowing down to enter the alien base under the surface? And what are you talking about with "the thermal signature of a balloon?" Heat is heat, don't attempt to obfuscate due to your lack of understanding.

However it's a lot of data to process and it'll take me a while to figure out where exactly there can be a significant deviation from the data in the report.

Oh man, I can't wait for your thorough analysis. I'll get some popcorn ready. Based on your post above it will be a true gem.

originally posted by: raymundoko
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.

Absolutely. If you don't mind me saying so, this is one of the most significant points made in this thread and is expressed pithily.

I have difficulty understanding the comments by some of the supporters of the SCUFO report (and, indeed, one of the authors of that report) that suggest that the only proper response to a lengthy "scientific" report is another lengthy document.

The call for any response to the SCUFOR report to be long and detailed brings to mind the situation faced in relation to the Roswell Slides, where the promoters relied upon their years of work and scientific reports by various "experts". Their entire edifice collapsed when the Roswell Slides Research Group (of which I had the pleasure of being part) posted a single image showing the deblurred placard confirming our suggestion that the image merely showed a mummy.

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Mastronaut
So I didn't link to the weather archives to show that the wind speeds and direction line up with the radar plot? I didn't link to NOAA's official site stating balloon deployment schedules from the same airport? I didn't link to DHS site that these planes are being used to track potential drug traffickers? I didn't show that the illusion of speed is caused by circling a stationary or slow moving target? I didn't show that the source of this video is actually Jose Martinez and Jorge Martin and that their version of where they got it differs completely from the report?

Nooa doesn't launch baloons from Aguadilla, they do that on the other side of the island about 80 miles east Source. Not once in the link I could find a mention of Rafael Hernandez or Aguadilla. Where did you read it?

You did link the article about drug trafficking... how does it relates to anything about this object? We already read on the report this is a "US CUstom Border Protection aircraft".

You are saying that its movement it's due to the airplane speed, then it should be easy to prove in this video. But you seem to not want to even attempt this, you link a joke article from noaa and a fact sheet where the only relevant thing is saying that their baloons ascend at 1000 ft/minute. So this must be a deflated baloon or a failed one which should be much more pear-like rather than spherical/blobby. And probably, COLD.

We already know the speed of the plane...

So take the map on the report and tell me where you think (even with a big margin of error) this object moved for the entire length of the video. It shouldn't take much to see the angular movement and estimate an approximate speed of the object. As I said it will take me a lot of time to do something like this and compare the data in the report, but you are telling us about your advanced scientific degree, do a favour to us idiots and prove beyond doubt that the angular speed of the camera is the only reason for the high speed of the object. Linking a video of a skyscraper isn't going to support your point.

You talk about Jose Martinez and Jorge Martin as definite hoaxers and have no problem accepting NOAA data? I don't buy for a single moment that somebody who lied will always lie. I will take that in consideration ofc when there are unfalsifiable data, but in this case there is a video and it's possible to check a lot of things that are stated in the report. I read it and I didn't find a lot of unfalsifiable data. Did you read it?

Or you can just make it easy and wait for the plane to be going in a straight line, like at the end of the video, and easily calculate that the object is moving between 7 and 19MPH.

There are many other places to do this, but you seem to imply it's only possible when the reference is a wave pattern of which we at best have average speed/length. How about the first 15s of the video where the camera clearly moves in steps?

I've actually explained that several times. It is rotating and one of the sides has some material that is blocking the heat signature. I have given several options for what it could be. Someone else also pointed out that low clouds in between the camera and the object (i.e. where the plane is flying) are actually what block the heat signature. This was proven to be a possibility as someone showed that even thin clouds can block a heat signature. However, I think it is rotating, because it ALWAYS disappears from right to left no matter where the plane is located.

This is not an explaination for the heat of the baloon. This a rather moot explaination that assumes there is something (of unknown density) that isn't really showing anywhere else than on the object itself. A very peculiar cloud indeed.

Why is rotation in quote marks? None of that sentence made any sense. You seem to completely not understand anything. The wind causes the rotation,especially if the object is losing buoyancy and one side has more drag than the other.

So you will not have any problem explaining what kind of baloon is made of 2 types of materials one of which is shielding heat and the other is not. Because you seem to say a few times over the posts that it's the rotation that makes it disappear, but seems to rotate a lot more than it disappears. So which one is it? It rotates but only disappear for a few frames?

Physics is taught in first grade? Did you go to first grade? Is this a joke?

Yes ofc it was a joke, but honestly I didn't go to american schools so I don't know where anything is taught and thus I tried to use an extreme, I thought it was extreme enough to be understable.

The did hoax it to be going fast, 70-110MPH. Just fast enough to not be a bird and way to fast to not be a balloon. However the more accurate top speed of 19MPH based on when the plane is moving in a straight line makes either be a possibility. Unless of course you think it is slowing down to enter the alien base under the surface? And what are you talking about with "the thermal signature of a balloon?" Heat is heat, don't attempt to obfuscate due to your lack of understanding.

If the hoax is the intrepretation then it should be easily provable from any 30s interval of the video. Not from a few seconds in the most controversial part of the video where the reference is the average height and length and speed of the ocean waves.

Thermal signature simply means "how black it is compared to the ambient". If this is a baloon how warm should it be to be so black?
I can't find a link where it is said that's higher than room temperature. Given how H or He are stored, I doubt it would even be equal to room unless it is intentionally warmed.

Oh man, I can't wait for your thorough analysis. I'll get some popcorn ready. Based on your post above it will be a true gem.

Yes because it takes time to me to be sure enough to go insult everyone because of predjucies. I don't go all-in discrediting people without providing undisputable sources unlike you.
Based on my post you should understand that I don't like at all taking a hard stance on something that CAN be refuted by a video analysys, but nobody did so far. The only tentative is this which shows that 20 mph can't be at all the average speed of the object. Where's your ballpark of the trajectory?

You provided no evidence to support your claim that the report is an intentional hoax.
You provided no evidence for why a baloon is many degrees higher than ambient temperature.
You provided no evidence that there is a cloud between the camera and the object when it disappear, nor that multimaterial baloons can shield heat when rotating.
You provided your opinion as fact.
You are clearly intentionally trolling otherwise you would have spent the time wasted insulting to do a simple analysys and prove it never moves over X mph.

Have a nice day.

originally posted by: IsaacKoi

Absolutely. If you don't mind me saying so, this is one of the most significant points made in this thread and is expressed pithily.

I have difficulty understanding the comments by some of the supporters of the SCUFO report (and, indeed, one of the authors of that report) that suggest that the only proper response to a lengthy "scientific" report is another lengthy document.

The call for any response to the SCUFOR report to be long and detailed brings to mind the situation faced in relation to the Roswell Slides, where the promoters relied upon their years of work and scientific reports by various "experts". Their entire edifice collapsed when the Roswell Slides Research Group (of which I had the pleasure of being part) posted a single image showing the deblurred placard confirming our suggestion that the image merely showed a mummy.

I completely agree with you and in this case, despite it hurts with ray too.
However what are the parts of the reports that you don't agree with and for what reason? Do you think the research is legitimate or do you think that some fabrication may be behind this (even false data from authorities rather than intentional hoax)?
Given the amount of research you do in this field, how would you rate this video compared to "usual" ball sightings?

The object never submerges, it disappears from right to left no matter where the plane is. That alone nullifies the report. You seem to like to ignore contrary evidence.

Edit: also, did you intentionally ignore my linked information about the balloons having a chute to protect the instrument package? I believe the chute may have wrapped itself up with the balloon.

a reply to: Mastronaut

originally posted by: IsaacKoi
The call for any response to the SCUFOR report to be long and detailed brings to mind the situation faced in relation to the Roswell Slides, where the promoters relied upon their years of work and scientific reports by various "experts". Their entire edifice collapsed when the Roswell Slides Research Group (of which I had the pleasure of being part) posted a single image showing the deblurred placard confirming our suggestion that the image merely showed a mummy.

Some believers may be impressed by the technical jargon used, but I think using simple visual-spatial skills and a little common sense is all that's required sometimes.

------------------------------------------------

I want to point out again, this object disappears several times over land and no where near the water. How is that explained? It's submerges underwater and underground? The screen grab below shows the last portion before filming starts over the water between 1:48 and 1:58 HERE where the object disappears and reappears on the other side of what I believe to be a cloud:


This is a shot in between the portion above. The upper panel is how it's seen as it's filmed and the lower is with the levels adjusted to show the trees below. I took a screen grab that specifically shows the object in between trees to show it's not being covered by those trees:


So:
- The object disappears over land.
- It's not disappearing behind trees.
- It's not disappearing behind buildings.
What logical possibilities are you left with? If these are NOAA balloons as raymundoko suggested, one possibility could be a parachute sweeping around and blocking the heat signature of the balloons as he said. Or the balloons rotating. I still personally believe we're seeing the object enter and exit clouds. The small sequence posted by Choice777 doesn't show the object moving forward displacing water, it shows an object being enveloped by something starting from the rear. My thoughts are either the movement of the object creates a wrap around effect of the cooler clouds as it passes through, or we're seeing clouds in the foreground.

originally posted by: raymundoko
The object never submerges, it disappears from right to left no matter where the plane is. That alone nullifies the report. You seem to like to ignore contrary evidence.

Edit: also, did you intentionally ignore my linked information about the balloons having a chute to protect the instrument package? I believe the chute may have wrapped itself up with the balloon.

a reply to: Mastronaut

Ok so you can show us all some image of the parachute, how big it is and maybe an image of such an item? It would be a good start for a theory that's not really convincing apart if you want AT ALL COSTS that it's a baloon.
You stick to a few seconds in the end of the video and ignore the rest. The object may simply not submerge, but you then ignore the reflection/refraction/splitting. You also seem to be willing to ignore that close to a surface you have a lot of turbulence and the object doesn't really move enough to justify it's height. So if there is enough wind to keep this thing in flight for 3 minutes how come it slowly moves just over the surface of the sea nearly horizontally?

You still forget to answer how a baloon full of H or He is at more than room temperature which is one of the major reasons for having this object visible in a FLIR video.

P.s. you will never find relevant informations if you stop at the first sign of wrong/bad/fake/whatever. I don't care if the report ends saying this was a pink alien's ship flown by a guinea pig. It invalidates the conclusion, not the rest.

I have been thinking over the idea of this being a bird and noticed some are saying that no bird can fly over 70mph. I also had an issue with the movement of the object because it was too stationary in its flight to dispay characteristics of a flying bird.

So I`ve been looking for a flying animal capable exceeding the speed while displaying gliding type abilities with almost zero movements.

I found this:

Golden eagles are sometimes considered the most superlative fliers among eagles and perhaps among all raptorial birds. They are equipped with broad, long wings with somewhat finger-like indentations on the tips of the wing.Golden eagles are unique among their genus in that they often fly in a slight dihedral, which means the wings are often held in a slight, upturned V.

When they must engage in flapping flight, golden eagles appear at their most labored but this flight method is generally less common than soaring or gliding flights. Flapping flight usually consists of 6–8 deep wing-beats, interspersed with 2 to 3 second glides. While soaring the wings and tail are held in one plane with the primary tips often spread. A typical, unhurried soaring speed in golden eagles is around 45–52 kilometers per hour (28–32 mph).When hunting or displaying, the golden eagle is capable of very fast gliding, attaining speeds of up to 190 km/h (120 mph). When diving (or stooping) in the direction of prey or during territorial displays, the eagle holds its wings tight and partially closed against its body and the legs up against its tail. In a full stoop, a golden eagle can reach spectacular speeds of up to 240 to 320 kilometers per hour (150 to 200 mph) when diving after prey. Although less agile and maneuverable, the golden eagle is apparently quite the equal and possibly even the superior of the peregrine falcon’s stooping and gliding speeds. This places the golden eagle as the one of the two fastest moving living animals on earth.

As you can see the unfamiliar flight shape for a bird could be explained by golden eagle unique V flight and speed also if it was in a hurry. Watch the clip again and from time to time it appears as if it flappes the wings just to maintain speed while gliding. Now problem is that Puerto Rico isn`t natural habitat for golden eagles so unless that particular one was migrating for some unknown reason there is a very small chance that this could be one.

en.wikipedia.org...

Peregrine Falcon on the other hand is a part of natural habitat in Puerto Rico and his speed is even more breathtaking.

The peregrine is renowned for its speed, reaching over 322 km/h (200 mph) during its characteristic hunting stoop (high speed dive), making it the fastest member of the animal kingdom. According to a National Geographic TV programme, the highest measured speed of a peregrine falcon is 389 km/h (242 mph).

Problem is though that it cannot reach these numbers on a steady horizontal pathway like golden eagle can.

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

Not making any claims here, just thought I`d share this info...

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8
Some believers may be impressed by the technical jargon used, but I think using simple visual-spatial skills and a little common sense is all that's required sometimes.

------------------------------------------------

I want to point out again, this object disappears several times over land and no where near the water. How is that explained? It's submerges underwater and underground? The screen grab below shows the last portion before filming starts over the water between 1:48 and 1:58 HERE where the object disappears and reappears on the other side of what I believe to be a cloud:

The object also "partly disappears" at about 2:03. A micro and super dense cloud of 4 pixels?
What do you mean "no where near the water"? Unless I'm misunderstanding the object surely disappear also over the water (2:05) and does so disappearing from right to left so a cloud would need to catch up the object to cover it in such a way. It really seem that we can see throught the object because I definetly see the waves behind when it disappears. How can a cloud cover an object but not the one behind it?

This is a shot in between the portion above. The upper panel is how it's seen as it's filmed and the lower is with the levels adjusted to show the trees below. I took a screen grab that specifically shows the object in between trees to show it's not being covered by those trees

I agree, the object doesn't go behind any object (nor clouds imho) and doesn't submerge. At least the video quality doesn't let us have a definite answer for the water interaction.

What logical possibilities are you left with? If these are NOAA balloons as raymundoko suggested, one possibility could be a parachute sweeping around and blocking the heat signature of the balloons as he said. Or the balloons rotating. I still personally believe we're seeing the object enter and exit clouds. The small sequence posted by Choice777 doesn't show the object moving forward displacing water, it shows an object being enveloped by something starting from the rear. My thoughts are either the movement of the object creates a wrap around effect of the cooler clouds as it passes through, or we're seeing clouds in the foreground.

So as a logical possibility we have that the laws of physics can be ignored? How can an object be covered by a cloud from behind? I prefer to say I don't have an explaination rather than assuming a-priori that this is a balloon.

And maybe you can find the temperature of such baloons? Because it seems to be a subject nobody cares to address: if this is a weather balloon as per the fact sheet of NOAA is either H or He, and iirc none of these gas are in need to be warmed to have buoyancy, nor to mention the baloon is filled from a pressurized cylinder thus the temperature should be lower than when stocked.

a reply to: Op3nM1nd3d

The report mentions all 3 species of birds that can reach the speeds calculated and does some assumptions about what of them can meet the habitat in Puerto Rico.

However I am not really sure how can a bird appear as a ball for such a long time, it's probably something that can happen when the bird is 5-6 pixels wide and in the latter part of the video there are some rather clear images of the object slowing, but without any change of shape. I would expect an elongated shape in the worst case, not a sphere.

Why would a cloud have to overtake the object? The plane that is filming is moving at an altitude capable of having decent clouds. The cloud overtaking the object is really just an optical illusion. The video is full of them and seems to have even fooled the so called experts.

I don't think this object was over land at any part of the video. I think it was over the water the entire time as the radar suggests. The illusion of being over land is caused by the altitude of the plane and the direction it is filming.

I did an at home experiment and clouds would also always cause the object to disappear from right to left as that is how the camera would be moving through them.

Also, no idea how I didn't catch this, but the instrument package had a heater on board...they are equipped with a platinum heater to protect the equipment from getting too humid and freezing. I'm wondering if the heat signature is actually the instrument package?

a reply to: Mastronaut

originally posted by: raymundoko
I don't think this object was over land at any part of the video. I think it was over the water the entire time as the radar suggests. The illusion of being over land is caused by the altitude of the plane and the direction it is filming.

I'm sure you can do better and prove me wrong

a reply to: Mastronaut

However I am not really sure how can a bird appear as a ball for such a long time, it's probably something that can happen when the bird is 5-6 pixels wide and in the latter part of the video there are some rather clear images of the object slowing, but without any change of shape. I would expect an elongated shape in the worst case, not a sphere.

Assuming that this really is shot in IR, the number of pixels the object would activate would be as much a reflection of the intensity of the object's heat as it is the object's size. We know nothing of its size or shape.