It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Kaikoura - encounter with 2nd of 5 craft on Argossy flight

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Jan, 18 2020 @ 07:03 PM

originally posted by: beyondknowledge
a reply to: A51Watcher

I have posted all this information already in the videos that I presented as sources for the evidence on the first page of this thread. Shall I provide a link back to it on this thread?

The videos are from interviews of the people from the sightings, maps of the flight courses, and time data from those videos. Plug the data into Stellarium and look for yourself. Do some navigational investigation and see what the camera man was pointing the camera at. I told you what this film is of and you still don't believe that it is possible.

No your youtube videos and erroneous star charts will do fine as sources for your evidence.

I just wanted to know where you got your information.

My next reply will point out where this information is incorrect.

Have you any explanation as to how the black spots race across the planet one frame to the next?

posted on Jan, 18 2020 @ 08:39 PM
The black spots are digital noise or processing artifices. Nothing other than what happens when you try to enlarge a digital photo too much.

Umm, you mean 1/24 of a second. The frame rate of a 16 mm camera is almost always 24 frames per second. They had a converter for video. It is all in the details.

Are you aware of color fade. The different colors in the chemistry of the film deteriorate at different rates making it not very likely to have the same color as it had over 40 years ago.

So, in your next reply you are going to prove the plane was not pointing in the direction of flight at the time of the filming, and in the location it was flying. OK. Lets see the evidence.
edit on 1 18 2020 by beyondknowledge because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 22 2020 @ 02:42 AM
So first lets examine your allegation that the dark spots were "digital noise or processing artifices".

The digital transfer report addresses the condition of the film -

Preprocess Report
Subject : Kaikoura UAP Video 1 of 4
File name : 1978 Kaikoura 16mm Film
Original film : Fujicolor type 8425, ASA 400 color reversal
Type : interneg 16 mm Transfer
Film processor : Bond Colour, Richmond Victoria, Australia
Integrity : verified
MD5 Hash code : f2ed5f9c2e1ef6c19a91f1fe670111f1
SHA1 Hash code : 9eb500341925b6c9762dde15cdbdbe12409b9597
SHA256 Hash code :
SHA384 Hash code :
SHA512 Hash code :
This report contains calculated results for 16mm film transfer to HD video.
General video forensics:
Complete path: C:SPACEProject KaikouraOriginal Video Interneg 1978
KaikouraNorthern leg
File name : Northern leg
ID : 1
Format : ProRes
Format version : Version 0
Format profile : QuickTime 422 HQ
Codec ID : qt 2005.03
File size : 1.42 GiB
File size (bytes) : 1527357665
Duration : 00:01:07.958
Type : Time code
Format : QuickTime TC
Length (frames) : 1631
Width : 1920 pixels
Height : 1080 pixels
SAR (Storage sample) : 16:9 (1.778)
SaR (Sample Aspect Ratio : undefined (0:1) (0.000)
PAR (Pixel Aspect Ratio) : 1:1 (1.000)
DAR (Display Aspect Ratio) : 16:9 (1.778)
Frame rate mode : Constant
Frame rate : 24.000 FPS
Color space : YUV422p10le (709)
Chroma subsampling : 4:2:2
Color Range : Limited
Channels : 3
Scan type : Progressive
Bits/(Pixel*Frame) : 3.613
Overall bit rate mode : Variable
Overall bit rate : 17979607 bits/sec
Total streams : 2
Video stream : 1
Stream size : 1.42 GiB (100%)
Color primaries : BT.709
Transfer characteristics : BT.709
Matrix coefficients : BT.709
matrix_coefficients_Original : BT.709
Audio stream : n/a
Encoded date : UTC 2013-12-04 01:10:39
Tagged date : UTC 2015-06-06 05:02:30
Writing library : Apple QuickTime
Video language : English
Storag & Preservation : excellent (no vinegar syndrome, chemical
burn, cracks or mold)
1. The 16mm film was transferred to a digital format.
1. 1. N/A
2. Pixel frame size of 1,920 x 1,080 x 2,203
2.1. Written as Width x Height x Diagonal
3. Total pixel count: 1,920 x 1,080 = 2,073,600
3.1. This is High Definition Video Frame Quality.
4. The video transfer was done in zero compression.
4.1. Average bit rate (ABR) of 17979607 bits/sec
4.2. This Video set is +179,000 +/- almost twice as good as Blu-ray data
5. The recording frame speed is 24 or 10 frames per second. (see videos
5.1 Matching the original film speed taken on the day of the event.
6. The 1920 x 1080 has a viewing ratio of 16:9
7. Data used for math.
7.1. 16mm frame size in mm 10.600 x 7.4900 x 12.7031
7.2. Video Frame in Pixels 1,920 x 1,080 x 2,203
8. Scaling: the film was drawn in at 10.60 pixels x 7.49 pixels.
8.1 This represents the original and all calculations made against it.
9. The film laboratory used a mask to give the video a clean cut view.
10. Calculated ratio: Millimeter to Pixel count transfer is 144x times.
10.1 Resulting in a projected frame size of 1,477.4400 pixels x
1,078.5600 x 1,829.2405
11. Mask: The masked area left a picture that measures 1,432 pixels x 1,062
12. Mask: Fully masked 16mm is 144 times original exchange ratio.
13. In simple terms, if you measure anything on the print using pixels,
just divide it by 144 and you will have the Millimeter measurement for
the 16mm original film.
13.1 The cropped 16 mm retained the original 144 ratio
14 Off center measurement
14.1. The transfer to video measures 1.36 pixels off center to the right.
15. N/A
16. The mask on the projected side cut off the following.
16.1. 22.72 pixels on the right and left of each frame. Total 45.44
16.2. 8.280 pixels top and bottom of each frame. Total 16.56
16.3. The frame is sitting exactly on the bottom of the 1920 x 1080
master. The pre-masked 16mm mask started there.
17. Percentages Frame vs Masked Off:
17.1. Projected side;
17.2. Original 1,477.44 x 1,078.56 = 1,593,507 Total Pixels
17.3. Masked side; 1,432 x 1,062 = 1,520,784
17.4. 1,593,507 - 1,520,784 = 72,723 Missing original pixels
17.5. Resulting in 95.43% of the original 16mm film is shown
17.6. Unless an Object is right on the edge it will not bother the
main progress or results of this project. Most all of the videos
viewed so far have the main object very close to frames center.
18. Terms to be used when transferring Frames:
18.1. Original Frame; The 1920 x 1080 frame that
were extracted from the videos. Aka (Video Name) - # (1 to end)
Example: Triangle – 17 ( this is the original )
18.2. Projected size: The most likely pixel frame size used prior to
masking. On the 16mm frame side of the transfer.
18.3. 16mm crop: The extracted size from the original to view the
film as close to the original film as possible.
Aka (Video name) 16mm - #, Example: Triangle 16mm - 17
18.4. 144 ratio: Number used to back calculate to the 16mm frame size.
18.5. 200 pixel item results in 200/144 = 1.38mm Film size.
18.6 0.1 Millimeter of the 16mm film stock = 100 microns
19. Remarks:
19.1 Dr. Maccabee Quote: “The smallest images are about 2 to 4
times the film grain size, this appears to be about 0.005 to 0.010 mm.”
0.005mm * 1,000 = 5 microns
0.010mm * 1,000 = 10 microns
Example: 100 pixels / 144 ratio = 0.6994 mm or 694.44 microns
Actual Width: 1,477.44 Pixel Projected Size / 144 = 10.26 * 1,000 =
10,260 microns
Actual Height: 1,078.56 Pixel Projected Size / 144 = 7.49 * 1,000 =
7,490 microns
20. Test Math Print. Triangle - frame 0045, Processed to show edges
End of preprocess report"

So it appears from the report, that did not occur.

Also no dark spots or artifacts are seen through out the rest of the film footage of all the craft so why would it occur only during the apple footage?

Here is a good overview article with timeline of the events that occurred that night:

I agree that listening to the people that were there that night is a good idea.

One of the first people who were there shown in the first youtube video you provided is Quentin Fogarty.

We have have been in contact with Mr. Fogarty for the last 5 years and his book 'Let’s Hope They’re Friendly' available on Amazon has been a valuable asset in helping us understand the events of that night.

Dr. Bruce Macabee wrote a book about his investigation of the incident called 'FLYING SQUID BOAT' also available on Amazon, both of which we recommend. You can see his praise of our film analysis in the comment section of our first youtube video on the Kaikoura Triangle.

So we sent off an email to Mr. Fogarty asking for comment on your Jupiter theory.

His reply was -


edit on 22-1-2020 by A51Watcher because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 22 2020 @ 03:02 AM

"Maccabee deals with this, and other claims, in his paper. My book also rebuts this. These images are extremely bright and it would have been totally impossible for us, using the camera and film stock we were using to obtain images of planetary bodies. Maccabee estimates that at a distance of 10 nautical miles the luminous intensity of the object (Apple) would have been about 250,000 candelas. Sort of blows the Jupiter theory out of the water!"

Now as to flight path location and time your Stellarium image has an incorrect date set.

The correct date should be Dec. 31st at 2:30 AM.

Yours is set for Dec. 30.

Here is the Stellarium image with correct date and time -

(right click on image and choose open in new tab to see full size)

(Oh look! No Jupiter in the sky!)

with a heading of 147 degrees as indicated by the flight path chart from Dr. Macabees book -

with a rotated to cardinal points version -

The camera btw, was a Bolex 16mm with switchable fps ranging from 10 fps to 24 fps.

Apparently they switched to 10 fps on the return trip where the Apple encounter occurred.

I only used todays standard of 30 fps as an example earlier in regards to the black spots, but the point is moot regardless.

So as all can see, Jupiter is not a viable candidate for the object to be filmed at this time or direction.

edit on 22-1-2020 by A51Watcher because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 22 2020 @ 11:24 AM
You have some additional evidence there that the news report videos I was using as evidence is incorrect. News reporting often get things wrong and I should have not trusted them so much. They oversimplified the flight paths and viewing directions.

The headings where the original film was shot is not as stated in the news videos. This eliminates the possibility of Jupiter being the object filmed.

I am still not convinced that what you say is a controller in the object is not just an optical, digital, or mentally suggestive illusion, but I am now admitting that it is at least possible and you could be close to getting something convincing.

I am not going to argue over your video further as it to me has changed from ‘the evidence is of a known object’ to ‘unknown.’

I enjoyed this discussion a lot and look forward to further developments on your video evidence.

posted on Jan, 22 2020 @ 02:21 PM
Fair enough.

top topics
<< 1  2   >>

log in