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: 6
56
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 03:10 PM
link   
Look at who was involved in the report, pg 147

a reply to: Jonjonj




posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 03:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
Look at who was involved in the report, pg 147

a reply to: Jonjonj



You mean pp.47? Is the data wrong?



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 03:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: baddmove
Anything linked by OpenMinds does not work onATS.

i did a thread a couple of weeks ago and had the same problem..

Try and find another link as I would really like to read about this..

As a MULTIROTOR (drone) builder and flier, it's not one of the ones we fly..

Could be military but it sure seems big and fast...


Are there many drones that go from air to underwater and then back up again?



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 03:54 PM
link   
a reply to: iDope

maybe for the next 007 movie, it looked to me like there was little deceleration too

funbox



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 03:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Bloodydagger

Because balloons aren't sentient.


But balloons do not go underwater. You say that it never does, yet it completely disappears. At one point it does enter the water and is barely visible below the surface then it reemerges and you can see the reflection of it, or what seems to be its reflection, then reenters the water and is gone. If it were a balloon it would have either kept gliding on and above the water or stopped floating once it hit the water and remained afloat until the air disapated, and the video clearly shows that this was not the case. Also if it were a balloon, it would not be filled with helium, helium balloons rise until they pop. Every gameday in my town they let balloons go after the first touchdown, thousands and thousands and never do they act like this balloon, they go up until they are gone and then pop and then is just litter.



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 04:03 PM
link   
a reply to: iDope

They'll just state how its a shiny balloon and the reflection of the balloon itself is what caused the illusion of it "vanishing"...or something.



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 04:06 PM
link   
a reply to: iDope




You say that it never does, yet it completely disappears.

Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it goes in the water , screenshot of the balloon over the water as it is invisibble to the FLIR camera , all that can be seen is a black dot and faint outline of the object.


It is still above the water.

edit on 13-8-2015 by gortex because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 04:13 PM
link   
a reply to: gortex

I see lots of "black dots" in that screen shot there. Identical to the one you circled. I'm not trying to argue with you or anything, just saying what I personally see. If you can show me exactly what you see, I'll be able to roll with it then.
edit on 13-8-2015 by Bloodydagger because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 04:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Bloodydagger

The "balloon" also caused an air delay of 16 minutes, is that normal? DHS sights a balloon, they are barely trained so when they see a balloon they track it and report to air traffic control who respond by delaying flights? For one random balloon?

Also, this quote from the report really doesn't sound like a balloon, maybe one of those crazy Japanes Jet propelled dragon ball Z Plane Orbs,




The report states: “The object was between three to five feet in length and its speed varied between approximately 40 mph to 120 mph. Its median speed was roughly 80 mph.” The report goes on to note that an interesting characteristic at the end of the flight was when it apparently submerged into the ocean, traveled for over half a mile, and then flew back out. According to the report: “Its speed through the water reached a high of 95 mph and average 82.8 mph.”



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 04:16 PM
link   
a reply to: gortex

The report clearly states that it enters the water. In addittion,




One suggestion has been that the object was merely a balloon. However, the researchers reject this idea for several reasons. They say the wind speeds at the time were 8 to 13 mph at ground level and 12 to 18 mph at 400 to 3200 feet. This means the object was moving too fast to be carried by wind currents. It also changed directions from heading south back to the north, and it went underwater with minimal loss of speed. Another possibility is that the object was actually a bird. The object appears dark on the screen, and for this type of thermal imaging that would mean it was warmer than the ambient air. This is how a bird would appear. However, the researchers note that the object was moving much too fast to be a bird. They note that peregrine falcons, which do occasionally visit Puerto Rico, have an average horizontal speed of 40 to 56 mph, and a maximum of 65 to 69 mph. The researchers also examined the possibility that the object was a drone. Their research did discover that the Navy is working on a drone that can fly through the air and dive into the ocean and become a submarine. It is called a “Flimmer.” They found that current Flimmer drones have not been tested underwater and have an airspeed of 68 mph. They also noted that the fastest known underwater battery powered torpedo travels at 50 mph. The researchers do acknowledge that it could be possible that the Navy is secretly testing a Flimmer drone that is much more advanced. However, they question why the military would so recklessly test it over a civilian area and airport runways. In conclusion they state: “There is no explanation for an object capable of traveling under water at over 90 mph with minimal impact as it enters the water, through the air at 120 mph at low altitude through a residential area without navigational lights, and finally to be capable of splitting into two separate objects. No bird, no balloon, no aircraft, and no known drones have that capability.”



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 04:22 PM
link   
a reply to: iDope

Ah back to the report.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

This thread is just going round in circles now.



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 04:29 PM
link   
a reply to: gortex

Surely if the report is to be refuted it must be done with the same vigour as that with which it was put together, right?
Where is the evidence that refutes the data presented in the report?

Once that is presented, and the report is proven to be erroneous, then, and only then, can the video evidence be reassessed.

So then, two steps: Provide evidence the report is incorrect and then provide another report to explain the anomaly.

Not so hard I imagine for those interested in the subject.

Until that point this remains, to all intents and purposes, quite clearly a UFO.



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 04:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: chunder



Then please refute the (what appear valid to me) reasons given in the report as to why it can't be a balloon - primarily speed and change of direction.


The only reason I can see why they say it isn't a balloon is the estimated speed they believe the object was traveling.
It's pretty obvious to me the object does not enter the water but the expert panel seem to think it does , they estimate the speed it enters the water at about 109.7 mph but there is no splash on entry , at 109 mph ! , they think it might of made a slight wave or movement in the water looking at the video frame by frame but that seems a bit suspect to me for a supposedly scientific panel , it's a body of moving water how can you identify a slight ripple in a sea of waves from FLIR footage , or are they just seeing what they want to see.

Frame by frame analysis indicated that there might be a slight wave or movement of the water as the object entered the ocean. It is unknown at the time of this report if the U.S. or another nation has developed the ability to diminish water displacement caused on impact. it is more difficult to explain the lack of significant deceleration as it entered the water despite the absence of an identifiable power supply.


If they are wrong about it entering the water then they may be wrong about the speed the object was traveling and their claim it wasn't a balloon , I believe they are wrong and that it is a balloon.


Contributors within SCU include individuals from organizations around the world in the UFO/UAP field, militaries, governments, private industry and media. All work SCU conducts is presented objectively and scientifically to the public through peer review. All contributors are appointed based on professional and educational background, no membership exists no dues are collected.


So , what makes you think it isn't a balloon other than this suspect report ?



At the 2:11-2:12 point in the video it looks to me like there is a splash, and then it disappears underwater then reappears and disappears with a splash around 2:16. And keeps acting like it is skipping the water while going several feet underwater and then back out again. How big of a splash would you expect to see from a 3-5ft craft? From that distance. Especially if it was extremley aerodynamic. Have you ever seen a person dive into a pool and make barley any splash at all? Humans are more than 6ft long, and that is a dive into still water. I'm sure whoever pilots this thing has done air to water dives beforeand knows how to do it without destroying the ship. So to expect there would be gigantic wave or anything, watch videos of whales and sharks going airborn, is there a splash? Yes but they don't dive in like dolphins, who really don't cause much of a splash. And sharks and whales don't really cause a differential in waves unless you are really near them. And this craft is nowhere near a shark nor whale.



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 04:38 PM
link   
a reply to: iDope

I saw a splash too at the time you stated. I think people are interpreting different things here.



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 06:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dr X
I don't think it splits in two, that is the reflection of its infrared light from the water.


No, it did split in two. From the Scientific Coalition For Ufology, the question of it splitting in two is answered:


Towards the end of the video, how can you tell whether the object splits in two or whether a second object joins it?
We broke the video apart frame by frame and looked at the thermal signature of the object prior to the split. We saw no indication of a separate object coming from the water but instead saw the primary object double in size, along with the development of two heat zones within the object, and then finally a splitting of the object into two separate objects. Our analysis is detailed on pages 30-39 of the report.
www.explorescu.org...



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 06:05 PM
link   
a reply to: TrueMessiah

im just uploading a video of a zoom and slow , it appears there's been some cuts in this footage



funbox


edit on 13-8-2015 by funbox because: some wolves or other



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 06:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Jonjonj

Yes, most of their assumptions are completely wrong.



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 06:52 PM
link   
a reply to: iDope

Those aren't weather balloons...



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 07:32 PM
link   
This is ridiculous. First off, the "object" isn't going underwater. Watch the sequence between 1:41 and 1:45 before it's even near the water. This is a screen shot from that sequence reading right to left:

In frames 1 and 2 the object is clearly visible. In frames 3, 4, 5 and 6 it goes behind a cloud. In frame 7 it's clearly visible again as it emerges from the cloud. You see the same thing between 1:49 and 1:57. IR can't see completely through dense cold clouds and will only give a small heat signature of the object, as it does in the video.

The only time it touches water is at 2:34 when after losing altitude, the bottom strikes a wave and it splits apart.

You're not alone gortex. As I said over a year ago with this video.... Ballooooooooons:

edit on 13-8-2015 by Ectoplasm8 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 07:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Ectoplasm8

a cloud ?

funbox




top topics



 
56
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join