UFO Video Captured By Homeland Security Analyzed

originally posted by: DJW001
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.

From your comment it seems you imply that IR cameras have no resolution.
Look at this, much worse quality and resolution



As you can see there are a lot of small balls which have no definite shape. But if you look at around 9:08 you can see a slightly bigger one and defintely a shape. Look in this video at 1:59, the shape is round and the object is not that blurry nor small enough to make it a bird.
This is what I see and my opinion, of course I have no way to demonstrate that it IS a sphere, but I am not inclined to think this is a bird (given the entire length of the video not just a few frames where the object is zoomed in).

a reply to: Mastronaut

Was an image supposed to be there?

I also like how you ignored the part of the post about how the cloud isn't overtaking the object...

You seem to also be fooled by the visual effects caused by the slow moving target (in a straight line) and the fast moving plane (in a circle) just as the report authors were.

edit: I want to clarify my report. I hung two sheets from my den and used my sons remote control car in the middle to drive through the den. I think used my phone to circle the den and slowly drove the car in a straight path. The car always disappeared from right to left just as we would expect if a cloud blocked the camera's IR for brief moments.

I am more and more starting to wonder if the heat signature is the instrument package and the heat source is the platinum heater. The balloon may have lost buoyancy and never truly failed, it just started to descend in the direction of the wind.

I did indeed misread the airport that balloons are deployed from, but the times are still accurate. The wind trajectory and speed were plenty to move the balloon to the position it was spotted at.

I would like to print a retraction.

It was inappropriate of me to imply that some of the authors of this report have intentionally hoaxed in the past. I do indeed think they have been caught up in hoaxes and have gotten behind what I feel are fully debunked hoaxes.

One of the posters in this thread who is a contributor even recently rehashed long debunked hoaxes at a quite public "UFO Congress". He could truly believe that he is doing the right thing so I was wrong to impugn wrong motives.

The thing I take issue with is people, like some of the contributors of this report, who seem to always jump to supporting evidence, no matter how contrived it may be.

I believe Daina may have intentionally duped these gentlemen and cut Jose and Jorge out of the picture as their source story was completely falsifiable. Perhaps there is only one true hoaxer here, and they have successfully duped all these people.

a reply to: Mastronaut

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.

Point taken. But please do watch a video again and tell me you don`t see what it looks like it`s flapping with wings when it first zooms in. Why is it not elongated shape might be explained filming it in different angles, not direct 90 degree horizontally. In the latter part of the video actually this thing has a weird shape....though nothing that resembles a bird but again...it could be angle, reflection, distance or any other factor that obscures a true shape.

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Mastronaut

Was an image supposed to be there?

Yes, but disappeared from my uploads...

I'll try again


Notice how it's very unlikely that the object was always over the water. It's not very precise, it's just to show you where is the corresponding area of interest in one of the frames. You can check yourself on google earth from different angles and there are many other points in the video that you can choose to get an approximate position of the object.

I also like how you ignored the part of the post about how the cloud isn't overtaking the object...

You seem to also be fooled by the visual effects caused by the slow moving target (in a straight line) and the fast moving plane (in a circle) just as the report authors were.

You are stating this since many posts, but you provided no data to support your claim. It's your opinion, fine, but don't make it a fact or do something more than pointing fingers.
If you assume clouds then the object is being overtaken by the clouds (the object moves from left to right and disappears from right to left), if you assume a rotation then we have to take your words of another very unlikely event, ie that the parachute somehow covered half of the balloon. Again, no data and no analysys that support your claim.

edit: I want to clarify my report. I hung two sheets from my den and used my sons remote control car in the middle to drive through the den. I think used my phone to circle the den and slowly drove the car in a straight path. The car always disappeared from right to left just as we would expect if a cloud blocked the camera's IR for brief moments.

Why don't you just grab some frames from the video and analyze them using google earth? Where's this video of the rc car?
You make claims but don't back them up with real data.

I am more and more starting to wonder if the heat signature is the instrument package and the heat source is the platinum heater. The balloon may have lost buoyancy and never truly failed, it just started to descend in the direction of the wind.

Fine then what's the approximate distance of the heater from the balloon? The images in the noaa links you posted clearly show that the sensors are quite far below the balloon itself.

You also should read the wind reports for that day and approx hour because the maximum speed is in the range of 6-10 miles per hour while you claimed the speed of the object was measure to be 19 mph.
Source

a reply to: Op3nM1nd3d

Honestly no, I don't see something that I would call flapping. If it's a bird it is gliding most of the time and in 2 minutes I'd also expect to have some frames where the camera angle shows some consistent movement, but I don't.
However I cannot give anything more than an opinion.

19 was the top speed, low end was 7 I think.

I've linked to a video to prove how the optical illusion works...

I'm not going to upload a video with my kid in it. I told you how to replicate it, don't be foolish.

Edit: the clouds aren't overtaking the object. The plane is moving through clouds or the clouds are between the plane and the object and that causes the right to left disappearing act.

a reply to: Mastronaut

a reply to: raymundoko
Do you know why UTC +1 appears on the display? I only know that as a time zone.

a reply to: Mastronaut

This is a poorly created and rough example of one possibility I pointed out. This would be a view straight overhead. A foreground cloud begins to cover the balloons rear to front as it disappears either behind that cloud, or enters another cloud.


I'm trying to come up with some explanation for the object disappearing at different points throughout the video. There could be another simple mundane explanation. The point being, this isn't a mysterious anomalous object that submerges underwater at full speed creating no wake or any movement of the water defying the physics you mention. I find that a ridiculous and completely baseless conclusion that's made to fit into the authors already pre-existing belief in the UFO phenomenon. The video itself doesn't prove this object submerges. It's an optical illusion that also occurs with the speed of the object. You have three different motions going on- the object, the camera, and the craft. When I first saw this video a year + ago, that speed was negated in my mind because of those three motions.

I believe the strong point of this incident is the object itself. It begins with the pilot(s) seeing from a distance a pink/reddish light and they contact the tower thinking another craft is in the area. I believe this is the reflection of colored Mylar balloons. It switches to the IR camera and shows an object that tumbles throughout the video, looses altitude as it moves toward the water, is driven with no purpose and no force whatsoever other than the wind, is made up multiple round objects interconnected, comes near the water and drags and skips off a wave losing momentum and breaks apart. From purely a visual standpoint, it looks and acts as you would expect from a group of balloons.

I'm not clear on your stance. It's probably not a bird, it's probably not balloons, it doesn't submerge underwater. Then what do you think it is? Do you believe it's some otherworldly object? You're arguing the point as if you're supporting that theory. If this was something extraordinary and unique, wouldn't it require the same in evidence?

Utc +1 Is a time zone in Central Europe. However I don't think that means anything. The google earth maps seem to confirm where this was taken. Perhaps the camera was programmed to the right time but they forgot to update the time zone? Happens on computers all the time.

reply to: DenyObfuscation

a reply to: Ectoplasm8


if it was clouds making it disappear, obscuring the land , wouldn't other objects on land be obscured too ?

funbox

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8
a reply to: Mastronaut

This is a poorly created and rough example of one possibility I pointed out. This would be a view straight overhead. A foreground cloud begins to cover the balloons rear to front as it disappears either behind that cloud, or enters another cloud.

But only the object disappears, not anything else.

I believe the strong point of this incident is the object itself. It begins with the pilot(s) seeing from a distance a pink/reddish light and they contact the tower thinking another craft is in the area. I believe this is the reflection of colored Mylar balloons.

What's the light source they are reflecting so much to require a scramble? How can that reflection be enough to give it a definetly higher temperature than the ambient?
I will believe in a mundane explaination when we have one that matches what I see and the data presented. This is not a balloon.

From purely a visual standpoint, it looks and acts as you would expect from a group of balloons.

It doesn't, it would require crazy movements from the plane and only at the end we see 2 objects, for the rest of the video it's impossible to discern a second object.

I'm not clear on your stance. It's probably not a bird, it's probably not balloons, it doesn't submerge underwater. Then what do you think it is? Do you believe it's some otherworldly object? You're arguing the point as if you're supporting that theory. If this was something extraordinary and unique, wouldn't it require the same in evidence?

I can live with the doubt, I don't know what it is. I don't discount the possibility that is something otherworldly or some kind of secret probe and as I said I don't believe it submerges. I'm arguing the points that some of you are trying to make up to have a mundane explaination at all costs.
You start with the predjudice that this MUST be something and CAN'T be something else. I do not have this approach, but I don't know any otherwordly object so I am not going to scream "aliens", nor I do know any tech that would fit perfectly for the object behaviour.

There have been hundreds of thousands of sightings in the past and unless we can identify them they are UFO, the U is the key. The military are ok with calling some events unidentified and they have a lot more knowledge of tech and physics, why should I have the arrogance of taking a stance if what I see doesn't match?

Balloons aren't warm and have a pear shape, especially the deflated ones. Birds aren't spherical and the camera resolution is good enough to distinguish a shape, so in that case it would be a very low chance of not seeing a clear flap or a sudden change of direction.

My stance is "I don't know" and I'm ok in calling this a UFO unless I see compelling examples that none of you presented so far. I have no problems in changing idea is just that your "evidence" is weak.

a reply to: Mastronaut

You seem to ignore evidence and then accuse people of providing none. You seem confused on who requires evidence as well. The wild claims require the most proof.

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Mastronaut

You seem to ignore evidence and then accuse people of providing none. You seem confused on who requires evidence as well. The wild claims require the most proof.

You didn't present evidence of anything. You didn't even try. I did make no claims, you did instead but just stated opinions as facts.
There is a report, I don't fully agree with it and I don't even go into considering unfalsifiable evidence. If you want to attack its data you need to do at least a ballpark estimation of its trajectory and the airplane trajectory.

You instead proceeded to:
- accuse the authors of hoax, stating that they were hoaxers in other cases, presenting no proof and then retracting the statement;
- claim that the object is obviously a balloon, linking a nooa article that says there are weather balloon launches in puerto rico;
- claim that the object is not moving or moving slowly and never got above ground, only above the sea, presenting no evidence, no approximate locations, nothing;
- you avoided to discuss its thermal signature, then ended up justifying this with a platinum heater, despite this heater should be on the box laying at least a few meters below the baloon itself, as it is shown in the links YOU posted;
- you claimed the object disappears because it's half enveloped in its parachute and it's rotating; zero evidence for this aswell;
- support your theory of balloon with a yt video of an helicopter around a skyscraper and an anectode about you filming the effect in your garden.

This for me is evidence of trolling. Present an analysis or please stop attacking other posters with different views.

a reply to: Mastronaut

From your comment it seems you imply that IR cameras have no resolution.

Where do I say IR cameras have no resolution? All cameras have a limit to their resolution, and this object is so small its shape cannot be determined. Notice how small it appears compared to the automobile it passes over. Small objects will often "blow out" pixels due to their brightness, irrespective of what wavelength they are being viewed at. There is no reason to assume the object is a sphere. It could be a black trash bag being carried by the wind.

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: raymundoko
Do you know why UTC +1 appears on the display? I only know that as a time zone.

Correct; as has been pointed out, the drone is displaying Central European time. It is one of the many aspects about this video that makes me question the backstory attached to it.

originally posted by: 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.

I completely agree with you

Always nice to hear.

However what are the parts of the reports that you don't agree with and for what reason?

I'm still working on the report, along with an informal group of skeptics and UFO researchers (the "Puerto Rico Research Review" group) which includes many of the members of the Roswell Slides Research Group and several prominent names in the field.

I'll let you know when I've formed a firmer view on apparent issues with the report.

In the meantime, there are a number of steps that I (or others) could take to potentially narrow (if not eliminate) the issues in dispute.

However, I know from experience that Page 17 of a thread which has almost died out is probably not the place to invite others to help with steps that could be taken to better inform the discussion and avoid polarised debate.

I'm half tempted to start another thread on ATS pointing out some of the steps that we could take to potentially narrow/eliminate issues in dispute (some of which the PRRR is covering anyway, but more hands would make for considerably faster progress).

Personally, I think members of ATS could make a considerable contribution to the effective resolution of this case.

I'd start another thread today just on one issue/approach which may be fruitful in relation to this case, but I don't want to appear to be spamming ATS with a duplicate thread when there is already a fairly long thread on this case, particularly when I'm envisaging the possibility of starting another thread if/when the PRRR reaches any final conclusions.

a reply to: DJW001

don't you mean a hot trash bag being carried by the wind , yet this doesn't explain how it splits *almost equal size* in two, or that it displays no resemblance to a bunch of balloons in the majority of the footage

funbox

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Mastronaut

From your comment it seems you imply that IR cameras have no resolution.

Where do I say IR cameras have no resolution? All cameras have a limit to their resolution, and this object is so small its shape cannot be determined. Notice how small it appears compared to the automobile it passes over. Small objects will often "blow out" pixels due to their brightness, irrespective of what wavelength they are being viewed at. There is no reason to assume the object is a sphere. It could be a black trash bag being carried by the wind.

Sorry I should have said "too low resolution".
At around 2:00 the zoom is far more than enough to resolve an approximate shape. The compression does add artifacts and problems, but I'm confident that there's enough resolution to understand that the heat area is not one of an elongated object.

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: raymundoko
Do you know why UTC +1 appears on the display? I only know that as a time zone.

Correct; as has been pointed out, the drone is displaying Central European time. It is one of the many aspects about this video that makes me question the backstory attached to it.

It seems the timezone in the hud is an editable or variable parameter. You can see from video that sometimes is 0, sometimes +5 and sometimes (at around 5:45) it's +1. Wheter this is due to the location I don't know because I can't say where the video is shot.


However the video surely shows the area of Aguadilla and a fake overlay wouldn't make much sense even though we can't exclude the possibility of a fake.
What's your opinion on the +1.0 UTC, do you think it's a cgi overlay of a real MX-15 camera?

originally posted by: funbox
a reply to: DJW001

don't you mean a hot trash bag being carried by the wind , yet this doesn't explain how it splits *almost equal size* in two, or that it displays no resemblance to a bunch of balloons in the majority of the footage

funbox

A black trash bag would absorb sunlight and re-radiate in the IR. As has been pointed out, it does not split in two, that is an illusion caused by the limits of the imaging device. It is apparently too small to be a bunch of balloons. For the most part, it appears to be nearly a point source "blown out" across several pixels because of its heat signature. I suspect that the drone operator knew exactly what the object was out of experience, and the "mystery" has been concocted by providing misleading information.