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.

 

Why are UFO's lit up at night??

page: 4
3
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam
However, there might be other reasons for the apparent pulsation. Such as the camera's autofocus or auto-iris 'seeking' constantly due to a lack of sufficient input.

I just assumed that whatever was being photographed was rotating or tumbling in such a way that it changed in apparent brightness at a certain regular frequency. The bad focus and aperture effects did the rest to create the illusion of pulsation.




posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 05:14 PM
link   
That would do it too. If they were dark or rough on one side, and bright and/or shiny on the other, they would appear to pulsate as they spun.



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 07:37 PM
link   
Video has great closeups.

video.google.com...



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 07:53 PM
link   
Sorry I haven't gotten back to you yet. I should actually spend a few minutes looking at this with enough brain cells engaged to do it justice, it's been nuts here.

I'm tied up for days. I'll get back to it mid-week next week though. Don't want to short-change you.



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 08:06 AM
link   
Maybe the reason they need the lights on of a night may have something to do with the shape and colour of their eyes?

Maybe it's hard for them to see in the dark?

Just wondering what and how the popular large black eyes depicted in so many pictures would see.?
I've always thought that they look like nocturnal eyes like possums, but then if they need lights, they wouldn't be nocturnal.

If it's not because of their physical limitations, maybe it's because the lights that we see on UFOS aren't lights as we know them but maybe some kind of radar for low visibility? Or sensors of some kind?



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 02:45 PM
link   
But, as I said earlier, the lights don't appear to be directional. They look to be ambient. If they aren't lighting up the surrounding area, what are they for?

As a good example...I've been watching the amazing Phoenix Lights footage again. Having never been convinced of them being flares, I often wonder what those lights were actually for.

Grey



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 04:14 PM
link   
One theory I had, all be it its kinda crazy and has no scientific basis is: The lights are passive. The vehicles are surrounded by a form of energy that will put off light in the absence of light...

Like I said, kinda crazy...



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 04:28 PM
link   
I don't think your theory is crazy. Especially considering some of the things I've read over the years about UFO's.

Grey



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam

Originally posted by simonmagus

Lifter Project (Aluminum foil electrogravitic models)
video.google.com...
jnaudin.free.fr...


Except they don't work in a vacuum, because they're propelled by ion wind, not "electrogravitics". Unless you can come up with some reason why they fall to the bottom of the vacuum vessel floor when you suck out the air. At least that's what happened at NASA's alternative propulsion lab in Huntsville.


Thanks Tom,
I had been trying to find someone who might have done the experiment in a vacuum. I'll see what I can find about there test.



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 05:12 PM
link   
From www.scansite.org...

"Hector Serrano talks of work his company –Gravitec Inc – has been doing as a subcontractor to NASA on flights in a vacuum.

On July 1st, 2nd, and 3rd I was at the National Space Science and Technology Centre (NSSTC) testing the Thomas Townsend Brown Effect in one of its large diameter vacuum chambers. While we did have some serious complications, on day three, test device number 2 did show a visible force.

However, while NASA scientist seem to agree that the rotary motion observed could not have been ion wind, they disagree with our conclusion that it is a new effect, in their opinion this is some common EMF effect.

Note: We asked which EMF effect could account for the observed rotary motion and the answer was that they did not know.

It is frustrating to see scientist shoot down empirical evidence with verbal speculation.
This has become the norm not the exception.

The force was observed at 1.86 * 10-6 Torr and decreasing towards 10-7 Torr. "



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by simonmagus
From www.scansite.org...

"Hector Serrano talks of work his company –Gravitec Inc – has been doing as a subcontractor to NASA on flights in a vacuum.

On July 1st, 2nd, and 3rd I was at the National Space Science and Technology Centre (NSSTC) testing the Thomas Townsend Brown Effect in one of its large diameter vacuum chambers. While we did have some serious complications, on day three, test device number 2 did show a visible force.

However, while NASA scientist seem to agree that the rotary motion observed could not have been ion wind, they disagree with our conclusion that it is a new effect, in their opinion this is some common EMF effect.

Note: We asked which EMF effect could account for the observed rotary motion and the answer was that they did not know.

It is frustrating to see scientist shoot down empirical evidence with verbal speculation.
This has become the norm not the exception.

The force was observed at 1.86 * 10-6 Torr and decreasing towards 10-7 Torr. "


There you go.

Actually, this CAN be caused by all sorts of things. For instance, if the 'lifter' is charged, it can have electrostatic attraction to the base of the vessel, to the walls etc depending on the relative charges.

But what it does tell you is that lifters don't work in a vacuum. Did the guy say "it floated a little lower"? Or did he say "it laid on the bottom and twitched a little, once"

If it were truly "electrogravitic", then removal of the surrounding gas wouldn't have mattered, would it?

Sounds like he formed a company and is trying to find some place that will confirm his ideas, his first test was at Purdue in, I think, 2000 in Rusek's lab, SOS.

Jonathan Campbell was one of the true believers in NASA, he tried it in vacuo, nada. Tried it in the 'rotary mode' in order to detect even tiny forces. Nada.



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grey_Pilgrim
I've been watching the amazing Phoenix Lights footage again. Having never been convinced of them being flares, I often wonder what those lights were actually for.


John Lear mentions that the Phoenix Light were flying in a "fallen men" formation. I'm not sure if he has expanded on that anywhere, but I assume he believes them to be man-made.



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 10:01 PM
link   
I think Bob Lazar had it right in this video.

Talks about the reason, for the emission of light - 7:19

www.youtube.com...



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Orginally posted by Freezer

I think Bob Lazar had it right in this video.

Talks about the reason, for the emission of light - 7:19

www.youtube.com...


"The craft lifted off the ground, virtually noiseless other than a small corona discharge indicating the presence of high voltage.."Lazar 1:46

"If you were going to see one of the crafts at night operating, it would appear really as a glowing ball or a just a bright light in the sky at a distance ..even close up you would see a glowing halo around it. What you are dealing with is a high energy source in essentially a gas atmosphere, oxygen nitrogen.And uh when you apply enough energy to a gas molecule they emit photons, they emit light. If it were really a byproduct at how the craft operates when it's emitting that much energy. The gas surrounding the craft emits light..the same reason why lightning is visible, they have a huge electrical discharge and the gas emits light in the form of lightning." Lazar 7:33



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Rare archival 8mm silent film of Thomas Townsend Brown working at Bahnson Labs from 1958 to 1960. Selected clips showing vacuum chamber experiments with various electrogravitic devices, demonstrating successful localized gravity modification, or energy field propulsion. Conducted in large vacuum chamber on numerous occasions, providing proof that Brown's 'Electrogravitic Effect' was more than simply high voltage 'Ion Wind' and representing a true scientific breakthrough.


www.youtube.com...


[edit on 6-3-2007 by simonmagus]

```````````````````````
added 'ex' tags

[edit on 6/3/07 by masqua]



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 05:22 PM
link   
It would have been interesting to see the entire film untouched by amateur editor boy. He was so busy hacking in jump cuts and zooms I couldn't get any sort of flow out of it.

Basically what I saw was several guys messing around with a couple of lab setups. I didn't see any obvious movement. I didn't see any measuring apparatus indicate any lift.

Amateur Editor put a bunch of "explanations" in but what does HE know? In order to have a clue you'd have to have the lab notebooks and dates on the film, then you might be able to sort of put together what they're up to.

I especially like "why do you think they're celebrating?". I don't have a clue. You tell me, editor boy. Do you have any sort of lab notes, or is there an obvious motion? Is there a film of the balance indicating it is exerting force? What was the vacuum they drew? You can't put a good vacuum on in a few seconds, not that big a bell jar. Even with good pumps, you're not going to get 10E-7 Torr in a few hours. If they're opening and closing that thing over and over during the lab session, they're not getting even a moderate vacuum.

You tell me. Did YOU see it move? I see people setting up and tearing down gear, and them drinking champagne. But I don't see motion. I don't see it flying. I don't even see his balance beam moving. And like I say, if they're doing 3-4 setups in one lab day, they're not pulling much of a vacuum.



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 08:47 PM
link   
Aliens may havy extremely different thoughts than we do. Perhaps wave lengths of light that appear to us do not appear to them. A simple output of energy from whatever they're 'driving' may not appear to them, but our eyes or sensory units may be different, we may see it and maybe they wouldn't. Or like it was said earlier on in the post, maybe they've ''droped something on the floor of the car and need to pick it up'' so to speak. Maybe aliens WANT other creatures to acknowledge their existence? Maybe they have to reason to fear us because of superior technology and do not care if they have their lights on? You never really know. Its a good question though.



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam

It would have been interesting to see the entire film untouched by amateur editor boy. He was so busy hacking in jump cuts and zooms I couldn't get any sort of flow out of it.


Why are you blaming the messenger?


Originally posted by Tom Bedlam

Amateur Editor put a bunch of "explanations" in but what does HE know? In order to have a clue you'd have to have the lab notebooks and dates on the film, then you might be able to sort of put together what they're up to.


You can contact Bahnson Laboratory for that information unless the military has classified it. Electrogravitic / Ion propulsion systems have many military applications even if not for space use. Good luck.


Originally posted by Tom Bedlam

What was the vacuum they drew? You can't put a good vacuum on in a few seconds, not that big a bell jar. Even with good pumps, you're not going to get 10E-7 Torr in a few hours. If they're opening and closing that thing over and over during the lab session, they're not getting even a moderate vacuum.


Are you questioning Brown’s competence? Do you have any evidence of his incompetence? What are your qualifications and the experiments you have completed?


Originally posted by Tom Bedlam You tell me. Did YOU see it move? I see people setting up and tearing down gear, and them drinking champagne. But I don't see motion. I don't see it flying. I don't even see his balance beam moving.


Unlike you, I trust T.T. Brown and the experiments he conducted. The video has T.T. Brown himself posing in front of a vacuum experiment with a wine bottle and celebrating. It doesn’t take a genius to see what’s going on.



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by simonmagus

Why are you blaming the messenger?



Because not only does it confuse what's going on, his editing skills are
atrociously bad. I'm not sure how zooming back and forth while twisting
so that it hits the music beats adds anything but motion sickness.



You can contact Bahnson Laboratory for that information unless the military has classified it. Electrogravitic / Ion propulsion systems have many military applications even if not for space use. Good luck.


Ion propulsion is actually real, that's the difference.



Are you questioning Brown’s competence? Do you have any evidence of his incompetence? What are your qualifications and the experiments you have completed?


It's a matter of physics. I can tell you've never worked with high-vacuum experiments by your comment. Not only does it take quite a while to pump it down with a good (read: very expensive) roughing pump, the materials will continue to out-gas from adsorbed gases for quite a while, you often have to heat them with an IR lamp from outside while running your diffusion pump, sometimes for days, in order to achieve a really good vacuum. That's assuming you have no leaks at all. Generally, you end up doping everything with Apiezon bearcrap for a day to block the leaks you just can't find.



Unlike you, I trust T.T. Brown and the experiments he conducted. The video has T.T. Brown himself posing in front of a vacuum experiment with a wine bottle and celebrating. It doesn’t take a genius to see what’s going on.


Not if you're going to jump to wild unsupportable conclusions. I take it you didn't see anything move in the "video" either? That's why I'm saying without a date range on the film, and lab notes, you can't tell what you're supposed to be seeing, much less can you tell if he actually achieved it. For all I know it's multiple films hacked together. Maybe he just had a kid. Maybe he just got some funding. Maybe the film was shot New Year's Eve, and they're having a party in the lab. Hell, I'VE done that. It could be anything. I don't know what he's celebrating and neither do you, although Amateur Editor Boy tries to lead you to believe it. I also note that had Editor Boy had a snippet of film that showed even a questionable success, he would no doubt have looped it in talentless, nauseating, twisting jump cuts while zooming in and out. He did not.

And Brown doesn't even have to be intentionally faking it...it's rare not to have unusual, unrepeatable lab results. However, one of the good/bad things about science is that you have to publish. That's not so everyone can steal your stuff, it's so other people can try to replicate it. And when they can't, then you have a null result. The ability for others to replicate your work and get similar results is a huge part of science.



posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 01:31 PM
link   
You are right about lifters not working under higher vacuum but I believe ion thrust is only one aspect of UFO propulsion. To make those tight right angle turns would require a beam of energy for directional control. Lazar has described it but I find his explanations too simplistic and lacking technical detail.

What do you believe makes these crafts illuminate and hover? .. what do you think are the physics principles behind this levitation video?


Levitation with only a CELLULLAR PHONE and battery.You can make this at home !!!!!Its working like hutchison effect.......REALLY COOL!!!!!!!


www.metacafe.com...



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join