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: 22
56
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 06:12 PM
link   
a reply to: ComplexCassandra

An ongoing review of all the data can be found at another thread. I am unsure if it is ok to link so I shall not.
Any help would be appreciated.




posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 10:38 PM
link   
It may not always be over water. I'm only about 2000 frames in. It's definitely over water for the first 2000 frames.

Also, that's not where I thought it was in the other thread. That's actually where the radar reported it to be.

a reply to: ComplexCassandra



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 04:01 AM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

I think 5 seconds into the video falls well within the first 2000 frames. Go look.

I can get how the object can appear to be over land but really be over water if the camera stays North of the object at all times. 5 seconds into the video the camera is clearly due East of the object and it is clearly over land. Very shortly afterwards it can be seen to pass between the camera and a water tower. Incidentally, if you look on the map this water tower is located at the North West corner of a small building complex that can be found at the intersection of Belt Road and Arch Road.

Edit: So if the intersection point of the yellow lines on that other picture isn't where you think the object was then could you let me know your suggested course? I am still trying to see what you see.


edit on 28-8-2015 by ComplexCassandra because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 05:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: IsaacKoi

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".


Perhaps you should just communicate with them via email then?
This is an open forum, you can't just demand that people do as you wish in threads.



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 07:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Iamnotadoctor

since your handing out prescriptions , do you have one for me ?


illbox



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 07:51 AM
link   
5 seconds into the video we have a radar ping of where the object was...I didn't have to guess...

However, for you to think the plane is due east at 15-40 seconds is a little confusing to me as you can literally line the airport up on google maps with the video and the plane was NE, then N of the object.

Frames 170-700 make it clear as day.

Yes the plane is due east at 1-5 secs but the object still appears to be over the water during those seconds just as my picture illustrated.

a reply to: ComplexCassandra
edit on 28-8-2015 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 08:16 AM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

OK, I was trying to avoid going too deeply into the report so as to be able to form my own conclusions and to avoid being "led" by the commentary of others.

If we are going to dip into the report for info then let's do that.

At time stamp 01.22.18 the aircraft, according to radar data, can be seen to be still over land in the vicinity of Villa Montana Beach Resort.

If you look at this time stamp in the video you can see that between 01.22.18 & 01.22.19 the object passes between the camera and the water tower near the junction of Belt Road and Arch Road. One has simply to draw a line between the position of the aircraft and the location of the water tower to determine that at no point does that line cross water and therefore anything appearing between those two points cannot be over water.

Your input into this discussion has, up to now, seemed well-reasoned and your balloon theory was quite well stated but it now seems that you are retreating to a position of "nope - not changing my mind".

Please note that this is the third time of asking but again, what course do you think the object takes?

I have satisfied myself several times that I have an approximate course for the object and, unfortunately for the balloon idea, (and if the report's statements about local weather conditions at the time) not only does the object not follow a straight trajectory it also travels against the wind at times.

This is why I am asking for your suggested course. Because I am now at the point of trying to dispute my own findings (I find this to be a useful tool for critical thinking) and I feel you may be able to help me with this endeavour.

If I knew the course that you think the object takes I may be able to shatter any illusion I may be under when I can see it your way.


With regard to your assertion that you know where the object is a the 5 second mark based on radar data; as I understand it there is NO radar data that can be DIRECTLY attributable to the object. There were a number of unidentified radar hits at the time in question but none were positively identified as being the object in the video. (Unless I missed that part) Therefore I think it is slightly disingenuous to rely on the radar data alone to determine the location of the object in the video.



edit on 28-8-2015 by ComplexCassandra because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 08:31 AM
link   
a reply to: ComplexCassandra

I specifically focused on the beginning of the video because people were using that in this thread to say the object was over land. I am more than willing to admit it moves over land and there is nothing that would prevent it from going over land...I am just saying that the part (at the beginning) where people think it is over land...it isn't.

As far as the radar data is concerned, the ping seems to match google earth, so I have no reason to believe it is NOT the object.

Also, those are NOT time stamps from the YT video in the graphic, they are time stamps from radar. You have to line them up with the time of the video. So at 1:23 the plane was absolutely over the water, as well as 1:22:18 which is when the plane crosses back over the water and the illusion begins.
edit on 28-8-2015 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 08:38 AM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

My analysis so far has only been of the first two minutes. I wanted, in the first instance to get a feel for how much distance had been traversed. I was quite surprised to discover exactly how little distance that actually was.

I am really confused now because the time stamp I refer to - when it passes between the camera and the water tower is only ten to eleven seconds into the whole video. What part (at the beginning) are you referring to? At what point do you consider the object to be over water while other people say it is over land?



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 08:46 AM
link   
a reply to: ComplexCassandra

The object is over the water for the first few seconds of the video. You said the line can't intersect with the water, but any line you make the at the beginning of the video the line will intersect with the water because the plane is over the water. This can be confirmed by looking at frame 700 and you can clearly see the entire airport is behind the object with the land in the distance. No water can be seen. This means the the object is between the airport and the plane. The only way for this to be possible is if the object is over the water.



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 08:53 AM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

So are you saying that the radar data for the aircraft location is wrong?

The video starts at time stamp 01.22.07 and yet we have a radar plot of the aircraft location at 01.22.08 that shows it to be a good 500m inland from the northern coast of PR. According to the radar data the aircraft does not fly out over water until some time after 01.22.18



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 09:11 AM
link   
Right and the object appears to be over water during those first few seconds...it isn't until after 1:22:18 that the object appears to be over land.

a reply to: ComplexCassandra



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 09:36 AM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

You must be watching a different video to me.

At 01.22.08 in the video - at the same time stamp that we have the radar plot that shows the aircraft to be East of the airport and directly over land the compass arrow indicates that the camera is looking West.

In the video the object can be seen passing three long, thin, parallel buildings on the ground. They are easily recognisable due to their apparent diagonal orientation and can be found on the map of PR nestled in the area between Cliff Road, 4th Street, Wing Road and presumably East Parade - assuming it extends that far.

This puts the object either a) already over land or b) just over the sea at the coastline of Northern PR

It then moves very clearly to the point where it passes between the camera and the water tower at 01.22.18/01.22.19

Even if, as you say, the object is over water at 01.22.08 it HAS to move over land for the next 10 seconds in order to pass the water tower at 01.22.18/19

This is essentially what is stated in the report - i.e. the object comes in from the sea, moves over the airport before returning to sea.

This is a far cry from your "always over water" statement.

How do you, therefore, come to the conclusion that it doesn't pass over land until the 01.22.18 mark?



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 10:02 AM
link   
a reply to: ComplexCassandra

No, I think you are misinterpreting some of the readouts in the HUD. At 1:22:18 the camera is facing W/SW, not east... EDIT: NM! you did say west, my mistake. This further confuses me as you should be aware, due to the contour of the shoreline, how this effect is being achieved.

This is frames 340-370. You can also see the NW corner of the airport come into view BEHIND the object, and then pan to include the entire airport. This alone should make you aware that what you saw previously was an optical illusion and that the object is between the airport and the camera. The only option at that point is over the water.

I also agree it is closee to the shoreline, as does the report.
edit on 28-8-2015 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 10:11 AM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

Honestly, continuing to debate this is a moot point. Like I said, this is just what I believe from my observations. THe animated data we get from Mr Koi will prove a lot of people right or wrong, I could be wrong and will gladly accept that.

Even if it isn't over the water I still stand firm by my observation that the object is never going fast, and that it never goes behind trees. I do firmly believe that the object is over the water at the start of the video and for the first minute of the video, but I could be wrong and would admit if I was.



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 11:05 AM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

If you look at the image I have created with my amazing Paint skills you can see my point illustrated. Maybe this will help.

At time stamp 01.22.08 the aircraft, according to the GPS data in the video is at the Eastern end of the red line. The red line indicates the direction the camera is pointing at this time and the object can be seen close to the centre of the view. This means that the object must, at that point in time, be located somewhere along the red line. I could extend the line further out to sea but that would introduce further complications with regard to speed and direction.

At time stamp 01.22.18 the aircraft, according to GPS data in the video is at the Eastern end of the green line and, as you can see this line terminates at the water tower. We can safely terminate this line here as the object can be seen passing between the aircraft and the water tower. This means that at 01.22.18 the object must be somewhere along the green line.

The report does not give accurate weather data for the time of the incident but does state that at 9.50pm - approximately 3hr 20mins before the event - the wind was from the East. I have shown this also with the yellow arrow.

Do you concur, then, that I am correct in my assertions so far that at each time stamp the object has to be located somewhere along the appropriate (red or green) line?

I cannot find a path that has the object over water on the red line at 01.22.08 and over land on the green line at 01.22.18 and follows the wind direction on the night.

Can you see, then, that this makes the balloon hypothesis highly unlikely given that the necessary direction of travel is not even close to being aligned to the wind direction?




posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 11:27 AM
link   
a reply to: ComplexCassandra

No, I do not agree with your lines. Why? Because if you go a few more frames you will notice the object is much farther west than you are assuming it is...

The object never, not once, passes in front of anything. You think it does because of the angle of the plane vs the object and the land behind it.

At 1:22:08 the object appears to be fully over the water and your red line clearly shows that the water is in the line of site. Your blue line is wrong.

I am on a phone right now so can't really get into a more detailed analysis and when I get back to a computer I am going to be working on the spreadsheet. We can revisit this conversation after the modeled data is complete.

edit: At 1:22:08 the plane is moving north and the camera is facing w and slightly nw. I have added that line. As you can see this line completely allows for the object to be over the water.

At 1:22:18 the plane is already over the water. You are confusing the plane icon as being the waypoint, but that isn't the waypoint. The waypoint is where the turn happens in the white line. At 1:22:18 the camera is pointing W/SW. At 1:22:46 the camera is pointing S/SW. Even when I use google maps it gives me a spot right on the shore line, not farther down like your line. How did you come up with your lines?

When you draw lines you see an object that is barely moving at all, is over the water, and is due north of the airport.


edit on 28-8-2015 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-8-2015 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 12:03 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

Cassandra's lines are correct, yours are simply wrong.
Unless you think optics is an opinion, I'd suggest you map and match recognizable objects on the ground when they appear in the middle vertical line of the frame. If your assumption was correct, at 1:22:18 you should only get sea on the right half of the image, but instead look here

Here's what it looks to me so far.



red - frame 51
green - frame 180
blue - frame 504

You are off by at least half a mile NNW.



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 12:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mastronaut
a reply to: raymundoko
Unless you think optics is an opinion, I'd suggest you map and match recognizable objects on the ground when they appear in the middle vertical line of the frame.


And hence the problem you are both having.

You CANNOT use objects on the ground as a point of reference unless the object actually passes in front of the object when at the same elevation as the plane. You have no idea the elevation of the object so you are allowing the optical illusion to fool you.

By your own statement even with your image you are now saying the object has moved mere meters in a matter of 10-20 seconds...I thought you said it was going 70-110 MPH??...

Again, when I input the lat/long in google earth for 1:22:18 it does not match up with your line. 1:22:18 starts at frame 316 and you can still see the water in the background, yet your line makes it seem like it should only see land. Are you lying to yoruself?

Here is the link to the map showing that marker is 750ft from the shore line... when you draw the line there is that small area of water/shoreline before the water tower. This even proves that it is either over the water or on the shore line as when it crosses the tower you can see the airport's NW corner coming into view. You can then draw a line from the target to the tower to the airport and see that the object is about center of the airport and north of it.

Source

At this point the plane makes an extremely sharp westerly turn (left).

Starting around frame 600 you can see the entire airport behind the object and the object is between the plane and the airport. This alone shows that what you saw previously was an optical illusion.

The plane then makes another hard left at 1:23, indicating that the object is between wherever the plane was at 1:22 and 1:23 and the plane is maneuvering to keep it in view of the camera turret. This again indicates it is either over the water or very close to the shore line, but still north of the airport as you can still see the airport in the background. When the plane circles back and cross to land again the object appears to again be over the water. This shows even more that the object is moving slowly north of the airport.

However whether it is over the water or not isn't an argument for or against it being a balloon. The main point I was trying to make is that we can tell from these clips that the object is going EXTREMELY SLOWLY. Nowhere near the 70-1110 MPH the report determines during the opening of the clip.
edit on 28-8-2015 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 01:06 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

Mate, in your image you have used an incorrect start point for 01.22.08

You have taken the "kink" in the flight path as your start point but that is incorrect. Each Tracker time stamp is linked to the position shown by the blue aircraft.

If you don't believe me, verify it yourself. The GPS coords for the aircraft are shown in the video. Plot them at 01.22.18 and you will see they coincide with the aircraft on the diagram.

Try this handy tool

At 01.22.18 the GPS shows a position of 18 30 42/ 67 5 53

This is an inland location to the East of the Villa Montana beach resort complex.

Edit: By the way the balloon hypothesis is back on the cards. I am in the process of testing another hypothesis that allows me to model the object's apparent location in a different way. Possibly more later...

You can rule out the water bit, though, it is leading you down the wrong path.
edit on 28-8-2015 by ComplexCassandra because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
56
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join