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: 21
56
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 25 2015 @ 03:22 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

interesting stuff, a seriously ~# hot camera
, see I told you I didn't read the report


www.sensorsinc.com...

so we've still lost definition even with the superior SWIR , we cant even clearly identify a bunch of balloons .. intel should get a refund


funbox




posted on Aug, 25 2015 @ 09:27 PM
link   
a reply to: funbox

LMAO
SWIR indeed.
Damn those finnicky wavelengths!




posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 06:52 AM
link   
a reply to: funbox

The only things we know for sure about this object is that it is so small that the targeting system could not get a lock on it. We also know that the targeting system is designed not lock on to small objects so that it won't accidentally target birds. If we can believe the data displays, the object never gets above about 200 feet, and it never travels more than about 17 miles per hour. It eventually lands in the water. Be honest now, funbox, what do you think it could possibly be?



posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 09:05 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

see this is the type of double think I just cant get, if it didn't lock on how was it tracked for so long ?
obviously some kind of lock was attained otherwise we wouldn't have a video to watch and chat about

as for what it is ,ill speculate at a lifeform that was in trouble and managed to get away pretty niftily


funbox



posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 09:32 AM
link   
a reply to: funbox


see this is the type of double think I just cant get, if it didn't lock on how was it tracked for so long ?


It was tracked manually, that's why it gets jerky at points. It was moving so slowly that the UAV pilot could easily circle around it.


as for what it is ,ill speculate at a lifeform that was in trouble and managed to get away pretty niftily



You mean, like a bird?



posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 09:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: IsaacKoi
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'm getting increasingly tempted to post a thread here on ATS just devoted to one aspect of this case.

I'm not sure of the etiquette involved in starting a thread that overlaps with this one.

I have in mind posting some resources that I've been working on with other members of PRRR and challenges for ATS in a thread that will NOT be about arguing in favour or against any particular conclusion but SOLELY about extracting as much data as possible and displaying it in various formats (including videos).

I'd like to hear from anyone (particularly any moderator...) that sees a problem with my starting a separate thread with a title along the lines of : Extracting and animating data from the "UFO Video Captured By Homeland Security".



posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 09:35 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

im glad you said that , I knew I didn't read the camera persons actions wrong at the near end


funbox



posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 12:34 PM
link   
a reply to: IsaacKoi

As long as it is only one aspect of the video and you state that in the OP the MOD's will allow another thread.



posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 01:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
As long as it is only one aspect of the video and you state that in the OP the MOD's will allow another thread.


Thanks. I got the green light from SkepticOverlord after my post above so will upload the relevant thread shortly.

Edit to add : I have now uploaded the material for the other thread-
www.abovetopsecret.com...

edit on 26-8-2015 by IsaacKoi because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 08:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: funbox

The only things we know for sure about this object is that it is so small that the targeting system could not get a lock on it. We also know that the targeting system is designed not lock on to small objects so that it won't accidentally target birds. If we can believe the data displays, the object never gets above about 200 feet, and it never travels more than about 17 miles per hour. It eventually lands in the water. Be honest now, funbox, what do you think it could possibly be?


Can you please post a reference for the bolded information? Where are the specs that explicitly state that the locking system is designed to avoid certain objects?



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 02:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: In4ormant
Just throwing this out there. They say the source has been verified and we are to take their word on it. Who's to say it isn't just cgi. I'm not a big believer in the "trust me, I checked" camp.


Normally I would absolutely agree with you. I hate anonymous sources because they undermine the credibility of the claim, whatever it is (conspiracy or otherwise).

However in this case, I personally know the sources involved, including why they must stay anonymous. It's a hard position for someone to be in who may want to share their knowledge, experience, opinion, etc but are hindered from full disclosure.

About the only thing I can say is that this object is truly unknown and the footage is legitimate.



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 02:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: funbox
so we've still lost definition even with the superior SWIR , we cant even clearly identify a bunch of balloons .. intel should get a refund

Well, fortunately for us, a bunch of balloons isn't likely to be much of a threat unless somebody has a tiny little nuke attached to it.



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 02:30 PM
link   
Why did the source change several times? I don't believe you, sorry.

Jose and Jorge had one story about where, what and who it came from. They were the original distributors of the video.

Their claims were falsifiable, so now they (the authors) decided to say they had the video all along and it came from a completely different source...

a reply to: CIAGypsy



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 04:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: CIAGypsy
It's a hard position for someone to be in who may want to share their knowledge, experience, opinion, etc but are hindered from full disclosure.


Well, presumably they _could_ help get to the bottom of the video by sharing their expertise e.g. explaining what the display actually shows by commenting on the draft key below the lettered screenshot at:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 27-8-2015 by IsaacKoi because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 04:21 PM
link   
I've been following this thread with interest and it has been fun watching the arguments go back and forth. If nothing else it has helped me to ascertain how certain people tend to think, who the critical thinkers are, who are more willing to jump on unsubstantiated info, that sort of thing.

I almost feel hesitant to enter the discussion, to be honest, as the sides seem so entrenched that I fear me questioning one side would automatically cast me in the light of a fanatical devotee to the other side of the debate but I can assure you I am pretty much undecided on the whole issue of this video.

That notwithstanding this is my question, and it is aimed largely toward raymundoko. I've been following the whole balloon idea and I must say there has been quite a bit of credibility lent to that and so I went back and watched the video again with a view to seeing it as a balloon. I was doing ok, up to a point, but then something started to nag at me.

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't you say that the apparent speed was, in part, due to the effect of the aircraft and thus the camera circling the object? Similarly, unless I am mistaken, the radar data in the report shows the aircraft flight path as looping the airport at least once.

If that is the case and the object in question is travelling in a wind-blown straight line then how do we account for the fact that object always maintains a constant right-to-left motion in the viewfinder. I'm not talking with regard to relative speed but rather angular position relative to the object. If the aircraft and thus the camera were circling the object then as it comes "behind" the object would the object not then appear to be moving away from the camera and so up the screen "bottom to top"?



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 04:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: ComplexCassandra
If that is the case and the object in question is travelling in a wind-blown straight line then how do we account for the fact that object always maintains a constant right-to-left motion in the viewfinder.

That's not exactly what the viewfinder shows. It shows a background moving in relation to an object that moves in back-and-forth jerks on the screen as the camera adjusts to follow it. If it is moving relatively slow compared to the circling plane, then it will not apparently slow down or stop as the plane circles around it.



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 04:55 PM
link   
It will always be appear to be moving that way because the plane is going much faster than the object and always in the same direction (right to left) pertaining to the object.

a reply to: ComplexCassandra



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 04:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Blue Shift

you're right, it only needs one Hindenberg

funbox



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 05:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
Why did the source change several times? I don't believe you, sorry.

Jose and Jorge had one story about where, what and who it came from. They were the original distributors of the video.

Their claims were falsifiable, so now they (the authors) decided to say they had the video all along and it came from a completely different source...

a reply to: CIAGypsy



There's been many questions about how the video was leaked. I can't answer that question. Don't know that part. The sources I know and am referring to are the ones in the findings report within the government who witnessed and the event and analyzed the video from the thermal.



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 06:06 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

I have a bigger problem now.

I have just spent the last... however long it has been since I posted.... watching the video stage by stage and comparing it to the Google maps satellite version of Puerto Rico and slowly, bit by bit identifying the structures I could see and thus plotting the course of the object. Try as I might I just cannot get it to fly in a straight line.

Is it possible for you to indicate the route that you think the object took? In which direction is the object travelling and where does it meet the water?

My sincere apologies if you have already answered this but I have to confess to not reading each and every page in the thread (only most).

I am pretty damned confident that I have satisfied myself as to the approximate course of the object and am interested to see how close it is to yours.


Edit: Just found the answer to my question in another thread.

I can't agree with your idea that it is always over water. Looking at your position for the object in the other thread I think I can demonstrate that that is not the case.

Are you using the in-camera compass when comparing where the object is in relation to the aircraft? At around the 5 second mark the camera is pointing due West but land can be seen to both the left and right of the object. If there appears to be land to the left and right whilst looking due West at the object doesn't this indicate that part of Puerto Rico lies, at that point, North of the object. Your diagram shows the object to always be North of the Puerto Rico coastline. I can't see how you can conclude that it is always over water based on the information shown in the camera.

If you compare the direction of the object from the aircraft and then compare that to readily identifiable structures on the ground you can ascertain the relative direction of the object from the craft. Just by plotting a few of these points it becomes very clear that this object doesn't travel in a straight line and nor is it always over water.

Damn, and I was pretty convinced you were right too.

Of course, that doesn't mean it's anything out of the ordinary it just means I can't buy into the balloon explanation.


edit on 27-8-2015 by ComplexCassandra because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-8-2015 by ComplexCassandra because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-8-2015 by ComplexCassandra because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
56
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join