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: 23
56
<< 20  21  22    24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 01:16 PM
link   
a reply to: ComplexCassandra

You are correct and I was wrong about the starting point of 1:22:18 and I corrected that in my next post.

Again, the water path isn't even a path. I was using it to show how the optical illusion works.

In this case I was using it to show that the object is roughly over the water or at the shoreline roughly due north of the airport and is moving EXTREMELY slowly and in the direction of the wind.
edit on 28-8-2015 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 01:37 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

Debating with you is pointless. You present crap and pretend it's true.
Frame 316, do you really think in Puerto Rico there are ROADS AND BUILDINGS in the sea?

You should stop ridiculing yourself and offending reader's intelligence with these puerile mappings.


originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: ComplexCassandra
Again, the water path isn't even a path. I was using it to show how the optical illusion works..


The only illusion here is yours, we all understand how optics works much better than you
edit on 28 8 2015 by Mastronaut because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 01:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Mastronaut

Hah, that entire post was comical.



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 01:49 PM
link   
delete please
edit on 28 8 2015 by Mastronaut because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 01:52 PM
link   
Let's not get into the realms of flame wars, guys. Entrenched, partisan approaches get us nowhere when it comes to the search for truth.

We can disagree but let's make sure we do it as constructively as possible else we risk wasting time and getting nowhere.

Please.



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 02:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: ComplexCassandra
Let's not get into the realms of flame wars, guys. Entrenched, partisan approaches get us nowhere when it comes to the search for truth.

We can disagree but let's make sure we do it as constructively as possible else we risk wasting time and getting nowhere.

Please.


You are right, there is no reason to debate, you don't need much more than opening Google earth to see the flaws, I shouldn't even point them out. I just got mad for his behaviour throughout the entire post and I apologize with everyone.



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 02:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Mastronaut

Your "optics" suggest the object is going 70-110MPH, you've said that in this thread. Now you have, on your own, shown it is going only a few MPH, and you then devolved to insults. That is par for the course with people like you.



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 04:58 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

it doesn't help you much when you have disinfo agent and NSAHQ in your profile, is this some genial attempt at reverse phycology ?, or just a mildly warped sense of humour ? either way I think we've gone beyond the straight jacket and are now looming over the huge pile of gaffer tape *just over there , past the writhing ball shaped thing*

funbox



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 05:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Mastronaut

Your "optics" suggest the object is going 70-110MPH, you've said that in this thread. Now you have, on your own, shown it is going only a few MPH, and you then devolved to insults. That is par for the course with people like you.


QUOTE me saying any speed of the object or retract this BS.

You are the one claiming this object IS a balloon and don't understand what me and Cassandra are plotting on the map.
Before having the complete line of sight and then extending to sight cones you can't rule out any speed, you are doing claims with no basis wheter they are 5,15,40,70,120. The object isn't present in any mapping I've done so far and I don't have yet an intersection of the sight cones to produce an area of estimation.
Being conservative and considering the camera direction, the object seems to move about 1.5 miles in nearly 2 minutes which gives an average speed of around 40mph from the TOP view (2D), ie not considering any vertical movement.

I plotted the line of sight of the first 915 frames, every 30 frames with a rounding error of about 1" and about 1m in the height of the plane. In every frame the target location is the ground (0 = over water, 250sh ft over ground).

The only thing I can surely say it's ruled out atm is that the the object isn't at all times above the sea as you suggested and tried to prove misrepresenting data at least 3 times:
- taking Fig 3 locations at your will
- doing the same mistake in the other thread
- tracing random lines few posts ago

This is what I have done so far using the hud coordinates on google earth




Instead you did nothing reasonably useful to support your claims, nor to disprove mines.

Also a few important quotes of you in this thread so if somebody comes in now has a context


originally posted by: raymundoko
You're right, I could never comprehend it. I only have two scientific degrees and that fake report requires at least 3 to be able to understand...

a reply to: fleabit




originally posted by: raymundoko
Nobody called me out on facts. That user doesn't like me calling these people hoaxers. The facts of the video are the only facts I worry about and I'm correct about those.

a reply to: TrueMessiah




originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Jonjonj

Why do you assume the skeptics in this thread are biased? I believe in Aliens. I want them to be real. However, my scientific education and background makes me approach evidence from a different perspective of just blindly believing right away.


And my favourite


originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: carewemust
... snip ...

Since my advanced degree is in Atmospheric Physics I still have close friends in that industry. I spoke with one on Skype and brought this up and he pointed out that the "hot" part of the balloon is probably the balloon, and the cold side could be a parachute to protect the instrument package (the reclaim about 20% of their packages and lose the rest)

.. snip ..


Now use proper data to support your claims and accusations or I'm going to report you for trolling.



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 06:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Mastronaut

Thank you for posting those images. They show what I haven't gotten around to plotting yet.

You're not going to like this.

Look at your image.

Look at your line that runs due East to West.

See how every successive line intersects that original east-west line a little further west?

Is it not possible that the object is at each intersection and thus a slow moving object moving east to west along that line?

I'm back to thinking it's a balloon.



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 07:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: ComplexCassandra
a reply to: Mastronaut

Thank you for posting those images. They show what I haven't gotten around to plotting yet.
You're not going to like this.
Look at your image.
Look at your line that runs due East to West.
See how every successive line intersects that original east-west line a little further west?
Is it not possible that the object is at each intersection and thus a slow moving object moving east to west along that line?
I'm back to thinking it's a balloon.


I don't have any problem with what this is, I don't think it's a balloon for different reasons that would introduce unfalsifiable data or very unlikely scenarios, namely the heating and the random shielding, but I don't have a way to prove or disprove it.
If someone can provide decent data about wheater balloons I'm going to be happy
But so far what I found about balloon is this:
- Noaa launches from 80km, so it can be one of them and probably not a chinese lantern or a house-made one
- they use helium or hydrogen neither of which needs heating for buoyancy
- at lower pressures these balloons deflate losing roundness
- when launched it is about 1.5m (5 feet) and raises at about 1,000 feet/minute
- the balloons last in excess of 2 hours and raise to 35km
Source



A typical NWS "weather balloon" sounding can last in excess of two hours. In that time, the radiosonde can ascend to an altitude exceeding 35 km (about 115,000 feet) and drift more than 300 km (about 180 miles) from the release point. The radiosonde is suspended 25 to 35 meters (~80 to 115 feet) below the balloon to minimize contamination of the temperature measurements from heat shedding off the balloon skin. During the flight, the radiosonde is exposed to temperatures as cold as -90oC (-130oF) and an air pressure less than 1 percent of what is found on the Earth's surface. If the radiosonde enters a strong jet stream it can travel at speeds exceeding 400 km/hr (250 mph).


See the bolded part. But don't forget that:
- the time of the day is about 2+ hours from sunset so It can't have been exposed to much hotter radiation because it would have happen at high altitude (-90°)
- the parachute is well below the balloon itself and seems much smaller in the image
- the temperature of the object is definetly higher than ambient
- they don't launch bunches of balloons, they replace one if it fails after a few minutes

So if the data are wrong, to prove it you need to be sure it is a balloon, which is a circular argument if your aim is to identify this object. There are other unfalsifiable things like the witnesses which I won't debate for obvious reasons.
My problem with the balloon theory is thermal.

It's also possible this is a bird, despite I see no evident flapping and it's harder to justify the splitting at the end since there is no acceleration.
I just don't like false claims and casino-style betting based on zero sources and no real examination nor to mention baseless accusations.

EDIT: I don't discount wrong data or a possible hoax, but respectable members on this forum don't seem to support the latter and plotting the positions data seem to agree with what is shown in the report.

p.s. The camera moves left and right of the object, but sometimes the camera seems not to move and the object takes over. Atm I don't know which frames I traced it could be an artefact or a good indication, but I won't take a position until I have plotted cones (and this is about 1/7th of the video tbh). The only reason why I posted these images is that they rule out the possibility that the object is standing over the ocean, and if It does end up being moving for about a mile and a half, from N-S then S-N back to the sea, the speed can't be justified by the wind speed which was



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 10:10 PM
link   
The anger is real. Again, my main point is that the object is slow moving. Even with your plot you are trying to make it 40MPH when that's not possible...

You're angry and biased and it's showing.

a reply to: Mastronaut



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 01:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Mastronaut

Replace weather balloons with party balloons. A group of helium filled balloons can reach thousands of feet, stay afloat for long periods of time, and can travel many miles. For all you know, they were launched many hours earlier from miles away, stayed afloat for hours absorbing heat from the sun, helium slowly leaked out dropping them into lower winds which carried them to the spot they were filmed.

Why do you believe balloon material wouldn't absorb heat? Doesn't the elementary school experiment of filling a balloon with air and another with water and holding them over a flame show the reactions of absorbing and transferring heat of balloon material? There's no magical heat reflecting properties. Even a reflective Mylar balloon will reflect some sunlight, but will still absorb heat. Especially if it's been floating for hours.

For someone who claims they are taking an unknown stance to this incident, you sure are doing a lot of fighting that this absolutely isn't a balloon. If it turns out that the data is wrong or that these are balloons, a bird, or anything common and Earthly, that would put another big dent into the believer camp. Especially coming from an established UFO group like MUFON and those that support it. Maybe that makes you uneasy?



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 04:50 AM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

a projectionist as well Raymundoko? such talent we have here at ATS


how anger dribbled into your mind from that post , well, it makes me chuckle

funbox



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 05:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Mastronaut

I can think of at least one point, just at the point when the camera operator makes the first zoom jump, where the camera appears to stay pointed at a certain spot on the ground and the object comes into shot from right to left. This sequence is a little tricky for me to understand if it is an optical effect.

When I say I am back to thinking it is a balloon, let me clarify.

Having done similar to you and plotted the sight lines for a few points in the film I noticed that all the ones I have done seem to intersect with the East-West line at some point and at each of these points the intersection is slightly further West than the previous. I haven't done a great many of these plots so there could well be points in the video where this isn't the case.

This suggests to me that there are two ways we can interpret what we are seeing.

The first is that the object moves as it "appears" to move; quite quickly and in a horseshoe flight-path from the sea, over the airport and back to the sea.

The second is that this could be a slow moving object moving East to West, in the same direction as the wind.

I said balloon because this would be the sort of slow moving object that could be propelled by the wind but it could just as easily be something else.

If we can find examples of the sight line intersecting the East West line in a manner that doesn't allow for a steady East West progression then we can rule out the second hypothesis but until then it remains a possibility.



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 06:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8
a reply to: Mastronaut

Replace weather balloons with party balloons. A group of helium filled balloons can reach thousands of feet, stay afloat for long periods of time, and can travel many miles. For all you know, they were launched many hours earlier from miles away, stayed afloat for hours absorbing heat from the sun, helium slowly leaked out dropping them into lower winds which carried them to the spot they were filmed.

Why do you believe balloon material wouldn't absorb heat? Doesn't the elementary school experiment of filling a balloon with air and another with water and holding them over a flame show the reactions of absorbing and transferring heat of balloon material? There's no magical heat reflecting properties. Even a reflective Mylar balloon will reflect some sunlight, but will still absorb heat. Especially if it's been floating for hours.

For someone who claims they are taking an unknown stance to this incident, you sure are doing a lot of fighting that this absolutely isn't a balloon. If it turns out that the data is wrong or that these are balloons, a bird, or anything common and Earthly, that would put another big dent into the believer camp. Especially coming from an established UFO group like MUFON and those that support it. Maybe that makes you uneasy?


The simple answer to your question if it makes me uneasy is no. What makes me uneasy is ignoring arbitrarily thermodynamics without a solid explaination. Any object absorbs heat, but when the heating source stops it starts releasing it. A bird would retain the heat signature, but as much as you and ray I don't clearly see movements to justify it.

I have a problem with unfalsifiable evidence as I already said multiple times and I start with a blank stance. If you provide good evidence of every explaination then I get convinced.

On the other side you seem to automatically assume that not taking a stance is equal to "aliens". You are free to believe it, but I am not on that side and it's unfalsifiable aswell so THAT does make me uncomfortable.
Plus I don't think you can dent any believer/denier, you can only move opinion of people on the fence.

In this particular case there is a lengthy report, it does make some unfalsifiable interpretations, but it's far more detailed than other mundane explainations, so just for respect I think it's due a proper analysis. And since the only thing we're relying atm is the video itself (it doesn't seem tampered at all) also because the radar data seem legit, I'm not going to buy partial explaination, even tho proving the speed and location of the object is a painful work.

If you instead are ok with approximate explainations, you are totally free to do it, just don't impose them to me, or provide some data. For the balloon theory we need thermodynamics, not positions imho.



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 06:52 AM
link   
originally posted by: ComplexCassandra

Birds and balloons aren't excluded at all. I would challenge the "alien" crowd in the same way as the balloon crowd for not providing data or passing opinions as facts. Most of the "hate" in this thread is due to ad-hominem attacks and refusal to present proper data, I tried to do whatever I could to present falsifiable evidence, but I'm just 1/7th of the entire video in the mapping.

I don't think I can already take a stance about the movement in a single direction E-W because the camera changes the fov thus reducing the cone and thus reducing the movement around the object compared to the first part. I'd tend to be more inclined for a S-NNW direction, but again it would be based on the average of the camera without any consideration for the position of the object in respect to the crosshair. For a proper speed calculation 2d maps aren't enough either, but after a complete plot you can set a range of speeds or at least estimate a proper average across the entire video.

I don't know many other floating objects, but so far it seems a "floating bird"
becuase it doesn't precisely match either hypotesis.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 12:03 PM
link   
See my video of the skyscraper for the right to left effect. If the plane was circling clockwise it would seem to go left to right.

a reply to: ComplexCassandra



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 09:09 AM
link   
This PDF was very recently added to the SCU site:
"Balloon Alternative Hypothesis SCU Response...
Since the release of the report, we have been contacted by a IR technician that calibrates and repairs these very WESCAM systems for the Custom and Border Protection agency. This expert has shown the video to his fellow technicians and none of them believe the thermal signature or the movement of the object can be explained by a balloon."
Balloon Alternative Hypothesis SCU Response

It looks like new material will periodically be added and discussed. Supposedly, there's a statement from Customs and Border Protection about the video, and I'm eager to see what they had to say.



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 02:20 PM
link   
a reply to: CardDown

Their data is factually flawed.

They used the center of the cross hair to determine where they placed the object, but one can clearly see the object is not always the center of the cross hair, especially during the first few seconds of the video. This seems to be more disingenuous BS from the SCU group.

Also, if you look at pg 22 of their report, fig 11, NONE of their flight paths match the one they came up with in that document. Why?

Queue the story change...

Frame 130 (1:22:08) has the object center of the cross hair and at frame 199 (1:22:14) the object is far right of the cross hair, not even near the cross hair.

Why use 1:22:14 when frame 256 (1:22:15) has the object at the center of the cross? Then again at frame 318 (1:22:18)

To me it REEKS of dishonesty.
edit on 31-8-2015 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
56
<< 20  21  22    24  25 >>

log in

join