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.

 

Flying Rod UFO's, The book should still be open

page: 9
7
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 22 2018 @ 01:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: Thoseaintcontrails


So what are the exposure details frame rate shutter speed aperture etc.


Which video are you referring to, the last rod that I posted or the video I have posted in the OP. The rod I recorded in the OP video was recorded at 120fps and played back at 240 fps. Please show an insect that replicates the rod in my video at 120fps. The exif data doesnt work on my slow motion videos.




posted on Mar, 22 2018 @ 02:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Thoseaintcontrails

So what do you use to film them ?



posted on Mar, 22 2018 @ 03:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: Thoseaintcontrails

So what do you use to film them ?


Galaxy note 5



posted on Mar, 22 2018 @ 03:44 PM
link   
How would you prove that the objects are a result of motion blur? This is to WMD saying the rods on the History channel had motion blur.
edit on 22-3-2018 by Thoseaintcontrails because: Addition



posted on Mar, 22 2018 @ 03:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: oldcarpy
If there are loads of these things flying about all over the place why does no one ever actually see them with the Mk One eyeball? How come they only show up in photos and videos?

It couldn't be because they are just bugs, could it?


If just bugs, why hasnt anyone debunked them with daytime video? All the debunking videos are at night with slow shutter pointed at a light source. If these were easy to debunk with daytime video, you would see probably hundreds of videos, but I cant even find one. If you find that daytime debunk, please feel free to post the video.



posted on Mar, 22 2018 @ 05:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: Lathroper

So how do you calculate a speed of 180 mph ?


A website said so. But you could have answered your own dumb question by asking Google:
Peregrine falcon
Bird
The peregrine falcon, also known as the peregrine, and historically as the duck hawk in North America, is a widespread bird of prey in the family Falconidae. Wikipedia
Speed: 240 mph (Maximum, Adult)
Scientific name: Falco peregrinus
Conservation status: Least Concern (Population stable) Encyclopedia of Life
Wingspan: 2.4 – 3.9 ft. (Adult)
Class: Aves
Mass: Female: 1.5 – 3.3 lbs (Adult), Male: 0.73 – 2.2 lbs (Adult)
Did you know: Perhaps because of their amazing flying and hunting skills, Peregrine Falcons have had cultural significance for humans throughout history. peregrinefund.org



posted on Mar, 22 2018 @ 05:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Thoseaintcontrails

originally posted by: oldcarpy
If there are loads of these things flying about all over the place why does no one ever actually see them with the Mk One eyeball? How come they only show up in photos and videos?

It couldn't be because they are just bugs, could it?


If just bugs, why hasnt anyone debunked them with daytime video? All the debunking videos are at night with slow shutter pointed at a light source. If these were easy to debunk with daytime video, you would see probably hundreds of videos, but I cant even find one. If you find that daytime debunk, please feel free to post the video.


You don't seem to be on the same planet as us. There are thousands of daylight videos captured by the average citizen to experiments with high-quality electronic media equipment such as the Albany rod. You can't find one? Then forget the topic your brain is not up to speed.

Nothing is known about rods except that they are f_____g fast! Get with the program!



posted on Mar, 22 2018 @ 05:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lathroper

originally posted by: Thoseaintcontrails

originally posted by: oldcarpy
If there are loads of these things flying about all over the place why does no one ever actually see them with the Mk One eyeball? How come they only show up in photos and videos?

It couldn't be because they are just bugs, could it?


If just bugs, why hasnt anyone debunked them with daytime video? All the debunking videos are at night with slow shutter pointed at a light source. If these were easy to debunk with daytime video, you would see probably hundreds of videos, but I cant even find one. If you find that daytime debunk, please feel free to post the video.


You don't seem to be on the same planet as us. There are thousands of daylight videos captured by the average citizen to experiments with high-quality electronic media equipment such as the Albany rod. You can't find one? Then forget the topic your brain is not up to speed.

Nothing is known about rods except that they are f_____g fast! Get with the program!


I wrote there isnt a day time video that "debunks" rods, not there isnt a video that confirms rods.



posted on Mar, 22 2018 @ 06:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Thoseaintcontrails

originally posted by: Lathroper

originally posted by: Thoseaintcontrails

originally posted by: oldcarpy
If there are loads of these things flying about all over the place why does no one ever actually see them with the Mk One eyeball? How come they only show up in photos and videos?

It couldn't be because they are just bugs, could it?


If just bugs, why hasnt anyone debunked them with daytime video? All the debunking videos are at night with slow shutter pointed at a light source. If these were easy to debunk with daytime video, you would see probably hundreds of videos, but I cant even find one. If you find that daytime debunk, please feel free to post the video.


You don't seem to be on the same planet as us. There are thousands of daylight videos captured by the average citizen to experiments with high-quality electronic media equipment such as the Albany rod. You can't find one? Then forget the topic your brain is not up to speed.

Nothing is known about rods except that they are f_____g fast! Get with the program!


I wrote there isnt a day time video that "debunks" rods, not there isnt a video that confirms rods.


You are correct and I apologize for the misreading and not-too-kind comments. I'm out of this thread 'cause I'm tired of dealing with the critics. Ciao.



posted on Mar, 22 2018 @ 06:30 PM
link   


This is from the American Pickers. It shows the clear difference when there is motion blur and when there is not. The Rod has 5 sets of appendages or wings. The object can still be seen in it's true length in the picture on the right, even with the motion blur.



posted on Mar, 22 2018 @ 07:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lathroper

originally posted by: Thoseaintcontrails

originally posted by: Lathroper

originally posted by: Thoseaintcontrails

originally posted by: oldcarpy
If there are loads of these things flying about all over the place why does no one ever actually see them with the Mk One eyeball? How come they only show up in photos and videos?

It couldn't be because they are just bugs, could it?


If just bugs, why hasnt anyone debunked them with daytime video? All the debunking videos are at night with slow shutter pointed at a light source. If these were easy to debunk with daytime video, you would see probably hundreds of videos, but I cant even find one. If you find that daytime debunk, please feel free to post the video.


You don't seem to be on the same planet as us. There are thousands of daylight videos captured by the average citizen to experiments with high-quality electronic media equipment such as the Albany rod. You can't find one? Then forget the topic your brain is not up to speed.

Nothing is known about rods except that they are f_____g fast! Get with the program!


I wrote there isnt a day time video that "debunks" rods, not there isnt a video that confirms rods.


You are correct and I apologize for the misreading and not-too-kind comments. I'm out of this thread 'cause I'm tired of dealing with the critics. Ciao.


No worries. Hang around a while, it will be interesting if I catch a rod at 1/1000 or faster.



posted on Mar, 22 2018 @ 07:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lathroper

originally posted by: Thoseaintcontrails

originally posted by: Lathroper

originally posted by: Thoseaintcontrails

originally posted by: Lathroper

originally posted by: Thoseaintcontrails

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: Thoseaintcontrails
I think the shutter speed was around 1/30 or 1/15.

That's too slow.


If I can catch insects at 1/30 or slower in focus enough to know what they are, why would I need a shutter speed near 1/1000?


Because by their nature most insects fly slow, while others are quite speedy. The faster the shutter speed the clearer the object becomes and the more definition that is recorded. Overkill is a factor but it all depends on what you are trying to prove. Rods require high shutter speeds, that is a given. Slow shutter speeds will result in blur and that's when critics come out of the woodwork. And proving rods are not your average insect need no longer be proven. Enough videos of rods exist to put them in their own individual category. Only the hardon critics continue to use bs explanations. My 2 videos, above, should be enough to silence them.


My point is addressing the myth created by monsterquest leading to assumptions that insects require thousand dollar high frame rate cameras to capture them in focus. I want to show that its possible to capture the rods and insects in focus on simple cameras.
I recorded this rod in focus for the most part at a normal frame rate and auto shutter speed.
snip
Its flying extremely fast straight towards the ground. The video is unedited. It appears at :14
snip


The problem with your experiment, aside from ArMaP's comments, is that it doesn't add anything worthwhile to a discussion about rods. It's too far, therefore no usable details to isolate it as a rod. If you were to magnify it it would prove unusable as, again, it would be devoid of identifying details.

On another note, do you have any comments on the 3 videos I added to your thread? ArMaP already mentioned the 2 cheetahs. How about commenting on the "identical" David Blaine and CALIENTE rods?


I made comments on the videos on YouTube. I wrote that the objects were probably rods, but that it could be argued that there is poor resolution and motion blur, and they could be birds gliding in between wing flaps. Most of the ideas that rods are just insects is based on the idea that insect motion blur responsible for the appearance of rods. I am saying that even if insects or birds have motion blur, they will not appear as rods. I am talking specifically about rods captured in the day time.


Those that would argue that the the video shows a bird gliding between wing flaps should post a video showing such. The space in both videos from the entrance of the rod 'til it's out of frame is a large space and no bird that I know of can fly as fast. If you play the YouTube video in slow motion (1/4) and as soon as the rod shows, freeze it and move it along frame by frame so that when the rod is seen complete you'll see white or transparent "appendages" that disappear as the rod continues into the frame. And also as it is about to leave the frame. Same for the CALIENTE rod. I don't know what their method of propulsion is but it seems they don't need to "flap" their "wings" continuously. Just a "flap" here and there. From the thousands of images and videos that I've seen, there is variety among the species. A Peregrine falcon can reach 180 mph, it is claimed. But that's in a straight dive and when you see one do it you also see its wing once in a while. The rods in the videos are hauling horizontally at probably more than 180 mph.

Many years ago I read of someone who found what they identified as an obviously dead rod on the pavement but it soon dissolved.


There once was a video on YouTube of a rod flying around inside a car in the daytime, but it vanished. Birds and insects are the reason I record many videos in slow motion. There are more frames and slower speed to rule the birds and insects out as being rods. The rod that I recorded in slow motion is posted in my video posted in the OP with the rod and moth comparison. The rods definitely have a movement through the air unlike any bird or insect.



posted on Mar, 22 2018 @ 08:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Thoseaintcontrails
If just bugs, why hasnt anyone debunked them with daytime video? All the debunking videos are at night with slow shutter pointed at a light source. If these were easy to debunk with daytime video, you would see probably hundreds of videos, but I cant even find one.

If something is impossible then there's no way someone can post a video showing it.


Motion blur happens when the shutter speed is too low for the velocity of the object. When a camera has little light to work with it can use two ways of getting more light through the lens: a wider aperture and a slower shutter speed.

A wider aperture changes the depth of field, a wide aperture results in a short depth of field, so fewer things appear in focus. If the camera is focused at 3 metres it could focus only between 2.80 and 3.20 metres (for example, these are arbitrary numbers)

A slower shutter speed has the side effect of introducing motion blur, and as it only happens in low light conditions is no surprise that videos in daylight with motion blur are not common.

During my lunch hour I made a small video that shows the difference the light entering the lens makes. The video was divided into two because during the recording my sister appeared in the scene and I'm not going to post showing her.

The first video shows a magnet hanging from a lamp in my living room, with the camera pointing to a darker area. In the video we can see that there's motion blur.


You can also see that motion blur makes the magnet look translucent and longer than it really is.


The second video shows the same magnet filmed against a bright background. The stronger light gives the camera enough light, so the camera uses a faster shutter speed.


A faster shutter speed results in no motion blur, so the magnet looks solid and its real shape is easy to see.



posted on Mar, 22 2018 @ 08:25 PM
link   
a reply to: ArMaP

What if you used a wide area array of photo sensors and used a shutter with a predictable frequency along with a synchronized frequency of a lens oscillation. You could then reconstruct a single image from the wider area of sensor readings.
Perhaps even employ a voting method from three or more of these sensor readings to verify a photon should be recorded in the single image?

Some of those old zinc corrosion tests from the 1960's that used ultrasound have apparently been declassified..
edit on 22-3-2018 by Cauliflower because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2018 @ 08:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: Thoseaintcontrails
If just bugs, why hasnt anyone debunked them with daytime video? All the debunking videos are at night with slow shutter pointed at a light source. If these were easy to debunk with daytime video, you would see probably hundreds of videos, but I cant even find one.

If something is impossible then there's no way someone can post a video showing it.


Motion blur happens when the shutter speed is too low for the velocity of the object. When a camera has little light to work with it can use two ways of getting more light through the lens: a wider aperture and a slower shutter speed.

A wider aperture changes the depth of field, a wide aperture results in a short depth of field, so fewer things appear in focus. If the camera is focused at 3 metres it could focus only between 2.80 and 3.20 metres (for example, these are arbitrary numbers)

A slower shutter speed has the side effect of introducing motion blur, and as it only happens in low light conditions is no surprise that videos in daylight with motion blur are not common.

During my lunch hour I made a small video that shows the difference the light entering the lens makes. The video was divided into two because during the recording my sister appeared in the scene and I'm not going to post showing her.

The first video shows a magnet hanging from a lamp in my living room, with the camera pointing to a darker area. In the video we can see that there's motion blur.


You can also see that motion blur makes the magnet look translucent and longer than it really is.


The second video shows the same magnet filmed against a bright background. The stronger light gives the camera enough light, so the camera uses a faster shutter speed.


A faster shutter speed results in no motion blur, so the magnet looks solid and its real shape is easy to see.


Those are useful videos, thanks. Did you set a different speed on the first video or was it an auto setting?
What do you think of the AP rod?
I tried to upload a video that was recorded at a normal frame rate and auto shutter setting to exif. It doesnt provide the shutter speed data.

edit on 22-3-2018 by Thoseaintcontrails because: Addition



posted on Mar, 22 2018 @ 08:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lathroper
A website said so.

Anyone can make a site saying the things they want, that doesn't make it true.


To know the speed of the object in that video (or in any video) we need to know the distance from the camera to the object and the field of view of the camera, so we can know that, if the camera shows (for example, and to make calculations easier) a 36º field of view and an object at a distance of 10 metres crosses it in 0.1 seconds that means that the object was flying at 226.19 km/h. But if the camera's field of view was only 10º then the object was be flying at 62.5 km/h. In the same way, if the distance changes the velocity changes, for the same fields of view, an object at a distance of 5 metres would be flying at 113.10 km/h and 31.3 km/h respectively.

A typical photo camera with a 50 mm lens has, usually, something like a 10º field of view, while a telephoto lens with a 500 mm focal length has only a tenth of that, 1º, which, in the example above, would mean a velocity of 22.6 km/h for the object 10 metres away from the camera.

PS: my calculations may be wrong, it's late and I don't have the time to see if they are right or wrong.



posted on Mar, 22 2018 @ 09:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: Lathroper
A website said so.

Anyone can make a site saying the things they want, that doesn't make it true.


To know the speed of the object in that video (or in any video) we need to know the distance from the camera to the object and the field of view of the camera, so we can know that, if the camera shows (for example, and to make calculations easier) a 36º field of view and an object at a distance of 10 metres crosses it in 0.1 seconds that means that the object was flying at 226.19 km/h. But if the camera's field of view was only 10º then the object was be flying at 62.5 km/h. In the same way, if the distance changes the velocity changes, for the same fields of view, an object at a distance of 5 metres would be flying at 113.10 km/h and 31.3 km/h respectively.

A typical photo camera with a 50 mm lens has, usually, something like a 10º field of view, while a telephoto lens with a 500 mm focal length has only a tenth of that, 1º, which, in the example above, would mean a velocity of 22.6 km/h for the object 10 metres away from the camera.

PS: my calculations may be wrong, it's late and I don't have the time to see if they are right or wrong.


What speed and distance do you think the rod is at in my video with the moth?



posted on Mar, 23 2018 @ 02:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Lathroper



originally posted by: Lathroper
The rods in the videos are hauling horizontally at probably more than 180 mph.


I think if any one is dumb its YOU


It was YOUR claim of the rod speed


Obviously everything has to be explained to you in detail.



posted on Mar, 23 2018 @ 03:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Thoseaintcontrails


This is from the American Pickers. It shows the clear difference when there is motion blur and when there is not. The Rod has 5 sets of appendages or wings. The object can still be seen in it's true length in the picture on the right, even with the motion blur.


You cant see it's true length you just claim that, you need to find out the shutter speed used for the videos again I will ask did you read how the shutter speed works it electronic the sensor can still record some data after the effective shutter time has past most digital cameras use CMOS sensors which are not GLOBAL shutters they scan a line of pixels at a time this can lead to strange effects.

Watch this and learn something



So if you now realise a fast moving object can be stretch due to how a sensor works slower & stationary objects will look ok.

Also when the video file is stored not all frames are recorded fully read up on how that works do a search on mpeg

Also you have to take into account as already mentioned depth of field, small camera sensors have a large depth of field larger sensors a shallower depth of field the aperture and focal length also has an effect.

If you know focal length sensor size and focus distance you can get the range of acceptable focus were an objects appears in reasonable focus. So you can work out if an object was close to the camera.

This is the effect focal length can have on on image.





Those pictures were taken so that the statue looks around the same size on both images but look at the background.

That's why I always have a good laugh at people that make claims about speed and distance when looking at pictures/video and they don't have any details about the equipment used.

Next year I will have been using SLR/DSLR's for 40 years my first camera was of course film,manual focus & exposure even used to develop my own film that's the best way to learn.



posted on Mar, 23 2018 @ 03:08 AM
link   
a reply to: ArMaP


Your angles are out but the principle is correct.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join