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.

 

New Photos

page: 4
2
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 05:08 AM
link   
Another thing I remembered about this "solar obliteration" technique is if there is any difference between using it with the Sun high in the sky or nearer the sunrise or sunset.

If this is supposed to show objects flying high, then with the Sun low we get a bigger atmosphere volume between the Sun and the camera.




posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 02:34 AM
link   
I have been using solar obliteration for the last couple of days and have not picked up anything its weird
is any one using so and has any one picked up anything lately?



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 10:55 AM
link   
Monty UFO

NASA Video Tether UFO

Look pretty similar, don't they? I watched a video called the Case for Nasa UFOs and the guy presenting it said that the UFOs could only be seen with a UV camera because they immited light frenquencies higher than the colour spectrum of the eye.

I don't now if Solor Obliteration would have any effect on how our eyes take in light though...

EDIT: I know the image is small, best i could do. If you wanna watch the Case for Nasa vids they are on google videos.

EDIT: Found a better pic

[edit on 5-9-2006 by Mad Larkin]

[edit on 5-9-2006 by Mad Larkin]



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mad Larkin
Look pretty similar, don't they?
The problem is that those two pictures suffer from the same problem, lack of resolution, it is impossible to know what they are, they could even be something familiar, with that quality it is very difficult see what they are.



I don't now if Solor Obliteration would have any effect on how our eyes take in light though...
No, it does not change the light, for that you need a filter and the light must go through the filter.



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 09:12 PM
link   
check out John Bros site, for all the information on Solar Obliteration
im not sure if its invisible to the naked eye since i have never seen it with my own eye



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by Mad Larkin
Look pretty similar, don't they?
The problem is that those two pictures suffer from the same problem, lack of resolution, it is impossible to know what they are, they could even be something familiar, with that quality it is very difficult see what they are.



I don't now if Solor Obliteration would have any effect on how our eyes take in light though...
No, it does not change the light, for that you need a filter and the light must go through the filter.


Even though the quality is bad you can still make out the "doughnut" shape and the slight indentation in both of the object's edges.

If you don't see what I see, this is what i see...

Monty

Larks



P.s. The NASA photo was taken from a video with footage that was actually broadcast live to American homes in the nineties, showing UFOs swarming around a Tether used in an experiment to conduct electricity from electrons in space...or something like that. Its all on the videos, ill post a link later.

[edit on 9/6/2006 by Mad Larkin]



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mad Larkin
Even though the quality is bad you can still make out the "doughnut" shape and the slight indentation in both of the object's edges.

If you don't see what I see, this is what i see...

Monty

That is the problem with images where nothing looks like something really defined against a defined background, they work like a Rorschach test.



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 05:08 PM
link   
I know what you mean but if you really look closly you can see that in a certain place, as i indicacted with the modified picture you can see that the "frills" on the object seem to, (or one in particular does) go further in, much like the UFO in the other pic I posted.
But ofc, that may be the way i see it and no one else does, as you say



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 07:01 PM
link   
After more than a decade... and am still not sure whether or not the objects are truly 'hiding in the sun' -- or are we simply catching them at a vunerable point.

Many folks... somewhere on the line of 90% -- think that I am just daffed with this stuff. ( And I am the person that was on that show a few years back... explaining how this all came about. )

But I want to add... if it (SO technique) is mistaken... then the concept is still viable.. as a way to achieve daylight stealth. In other words... if our militaries are not doing this kind of thing... I think that they should be.

www.johnbro.com...



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Johnbro
After more than a decade... and am still not sure whether or not the objects are truly 'hiding in the sun' -- or are we simply catching them at a vunerable point.

I think that they are just there, always, only the way the picture is taken they become more noticeable


But I want to add... if it (SO technique) is mistaken... then the concept is still viable.. as a way to achieve daylight stealth. In other words... if our militaries are not doing this kind of thing... I think that they should be.

Keeping ourselves between the Sun and the "enemy" is an obvious technique once we think that the space is a 3D thing, the problem is if there are two "enemies", we can only be between the Sun and one of them.



posted on Sep, 10 2006 @ 05:08 AM
link   
i might set one webcam just for SO if i find a good spot
im going to buy 3
1 for SO and two for the sky



posted on Sep, 10 2006 @ 05:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by CYRAX
i might set one webcam just for SO if i find a good spot
im going to buy 3
1 for SO and two for the sky


Like I told you somewhere else in a thread, I would set one up for time lapse in a coinciding area with another. Take shots every so often, then asssimilate them into a mpeg or avi for rapid viewing.
Trying to watch even 15 minutes of continuous filming without any type of event can be frustrating. I know.



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by bothered

Originally posted by CYRAX
i might set one webcam just for SO if i find a good spot
im going to buy 3
1 for SO and two for the sky


Like I told you somewhere else in a thread, I would set one up for time lapse in a coinciding area with another. Take shots every so often, then asssimilate them into a mpeg or avi for rapid viewing.
Trying to watch even 15 minutes of continuous filming without any type of event can be frustrating. I know.


Is that what Jose Escamilla is doing.
Jose should go down to Australia, which seems to be a hot spot of ufo activity.

I don't know why Jose gave up on Roswell, he might pickup some daytime
activity with his infa red technology cameras.

Keep on telling CYRAX what to do, thats a good thing.

I think it was just random event and he might see it that way.



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 02:32 PM
link   
I just went out and tried this method.
I will edit the videos I took and post them on google.
Before I do that I just wanted to comment on my observations

First. There is a huge difference in the objects you capture between when you compare no clouds and the sun behind clouds.
With no clouds there are tons of visible objects in the video. Most are streaks of light. Some objects did blink in and out, while just a few had curved paths.
The ones that streaked across the video left light trails which leads me to think they are meteors.

I played with different f stops and aperatures as well as different white ballances. In my video I noticed an f9 to f 14 were most likely to pick up the objects. However I did notice a few at other settings.
Bulb white ballance gives the most crisp view and keeps the sky blue.
A shutter speed of 1/6000 to 1/8000 cuts the glare and allows the brighter objects to apear.

With clouds, there are no objects at all. I had the camera on manual focus set to infinity so near by objects such as bugs would not be seen.

So there is definitly objects being captured that are at very far distances.

While setting my manual focus on a passing airplane, I also captured a flying object that was not visible to the naked eye. I only saw it after watching the tape. After I upload the video to google, I'll edit this post and include the link.



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 03:26 PM
link   
I dont want to knock the solar obliteration technique completely because I do think that it very well could be a valid technique for garnering some good photos.

But, it is real important to mention the geographic location, time of day, the date and the ambient temperature outside when taking the photos to rule out for each particular photo that these could be nothing more than bugs that are moving very quickly at lot closer to the camera than the photographer thinks they are.

Yes, I know this argument has been hashed and rehashed to death but in order to eliminate the possibility, hence the debate, of these being indeed bugs these photos should be verifiably taken in the dead of winter in very cold environment would go a long way to squash the "Its bugs!" naysayers.

I only say this because I personally have noticed that there is a large influx of these obliteration posts during the warm months and they die off the colder it gets in the year.....if its real make it work, I say.



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by acmeartifacts
With clouds, there are no objects at all. I had the camera on manual focus set to infinity so near by objects such as bugs would not be seen.


You know that "infinity" in this case is the end of focus, not the start, right?

In reality, having the camera focused to "infinity" would make the camera be on focus starting somewhere in front of the camera until infinity.

Having the camera focus on "infinity" and a big depth of field (higher F values) would show even more objects (even bugs, if the depth of field starts near the camera).

This site explains it better.



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 07:00 PM
link   
That last photo looks like a hole in the roof on the stage of the Truman Show...

THAT was weird!



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mad Larkin
Monty UFO

NASA Video Tether UFO

Look pretty similar, don't they? I watched a video called the Case for Nasa UFOs and the guy presenting it said that the UFOs could only be seen with a UV camera because they immited light frenquencies higher than the colour spectrum of the eye.

I don't now if Solor Obliteration would have any effect on how our eyes take in light though...

EDIT: I know the image is small, best i could do. If you wanna watch the Case for Nasa vids they are on google videos.

EDIT: Found a better pic

[edit on 5-9-2006 by Mad Larkin]

[edit on 5-9-2006 by Mad Larkin]


THAT is EXACTLY what I thought! LOOKS LIKE THE ANOMOLIES AT THE TETHER INCIDENT!

VERY WELL DONE!

SPout



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 10:07 PM
link   
didnt see the edit button, so here is the video I shot.
The resolution is low, So its hard to see everything. The original file was over 700 megs, and it would have taken far to long to upload it.

Google Video Link


[edit on 26-2-2007 by acmeartifacts]



posted on Mar, 3 2007 @ 11:03 PM
link   
that video was full of stuff zooming by i even saw one do a ninety degree turn. i took this pic and originaly didnt see anything in it because ofthe birds but look right in front of the birds. i do apologize i havent been able to crop or zoom because im not use to my picture program but if u do a negative on it ull see more than one object. im gonna do this more often now


[edit on 3-3-2007 by miguelbmx]

[edit on 3-3-2007 by miguelbmx]




top topics



 
2
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join