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.

 

Phoenix Lights Wiki Edited By Army National Guard Bureau

page: 1
33
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:
+9 more 
posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 06:42 PM
link   
I was inspired by this thread and thought I would give this a try for myself. I tried it on the Phoenix Lights Wikipedia entry. I was surprised to see some interesting edits.

I found 6 edits by Army National Guard Bureau (Manassas, Virginia).

You can view the edits here:

Edit One
Edit Two
Edit Three
Edit Four
Edit Five
Edit Six

View all edits here

I found this edit to be pretty interesting:



Doubt was cast on the validity of spectral analysis performed on photo and video imagry taken of the Phoenix Lights on the Skeptoid Critical Analysis [skeptoid.com...] podcast. The podcast asserted that a spectral analysis of a photograph or video would not be possible because camera settings, film type, and in-camera electronic filtering would alter the spectrum of any image.


What does everyone else think?




posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 08:55 PM
link   
Not entirely suprising, as the Armed forces definitely covers the subject up. But the fact that they are influencing wikipedia is a little disturbing.

Nothing to see here civilians, move on.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 09:05 PM
link   
looks like the government is trying hard to skew/censor information.

Lights refelcted off commercial airliners, swamp gas, Venus etc. . .

Got something to hide?



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 11:21 PM
link   
I thought this would generate at least some interest. It is not that often that you can confirm a source like this.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 11:36 PM
link   
You get a star and flag from me dulcimer. It is definitely something that we need to pay close attention to, as we hear so much hype of how this subject is NOT covered up by the gov or armed forces, and it appears to blatantly the opposite here, for all to see.

Thanks for exposing this.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 11:58 PM
link   

I found this edit to be pretty interesting:



Doubt was cast on the validity of spectral analysis performed on photo and video imagry taken of the Phoenix Lights on the Skeptoid Critical Analysis [skeptoid.com...] podcast. The podcast asserted that a spectral analysis of a photograph or video would not be possible because camera settings, film type, and in-camera electronic filtering would alter the spectrum of any image.


What does everyone else think?


I think that entry is sort of right. You can't do spectral analysis on photos and videos. All you'd find out is what the print or monitor is made of. You have to analyze the actual light from the actual object for anything to be learned.



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 12:19 AM
link   
Wikipedia is in place for all of us, any of us, to re-write history.

It is phase one. Watch as other accurate sites fall by the way side over the next few years. If you want to hide something, place it right out in the open. Doesn't anyone find it strange that Wikipedia sprang up overnight, and many people take what is there as fact?

Scary times ahead folks, and I'm not even talking Aliens!! I think it's the humans that we need to fear!

edit to add...

btw, if the military wanted to edit something, they would not leave their signature lol. This is some Private, bored and with internet access at a recruitment center in po-dunk Idaho that does not believe things exist outside of his small, itty bitty world of "yes sir, no maam" military life.

[edit on 23-1-2008 by knows_but_doesnt]



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 02:04 AM
link   
You know, I had come in on the Pheonix lights incident late and I was trying to find a good video of it but I was unable to. Does anyone know a good link to the vid/vids that captured it?



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 02:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Dulcimer
 


Star and flag for vigilance, Dulcimer.

It's becoming clearer that wikipedia cannot be trusted as an accurate source of information.



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 03:31 AM
link   
reply to post by flashback
 

That may be, but the quote (ie edit) in the OP is accurate regardless. You cant do a proper spectral analysis (or ANY analysis for that matter) on your average digital video/picture because compression cuts everything useless away. Digital format is *really really poor* at accurately representing a picture unless its completely uncompressed on a very high dynamic range monitor.

If the Phoenix lights was filmed with a high grade movie camera (you know those on rails that people sit on), it would have been better



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 03:40 AM
link   
Point taken, Merka, but I remain suspicious of the wiki. Especially with the revelations, in even the mainstream media, that numerous companies and government entities were caught editing unsavory information about them.

That's not to say that I don't appreciate the idea of open information exchange. I guess it has to be taken at face value.



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 03:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shakesbeer
You know, I had come in on the Pheonix lights incident late and I was trying to find a good video of it but I was unable to. Does anyone know a good link to the vid/vids that captured it?


which incident over Phoenix? There were 2

1997
Phoenix Lights Documentary
March 13, 1997
US News Report

2006
More in 2006
Phoenix Lights 2

hope that satisfies your taste buds for a while ....



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 03:59 AM
link   
It's not bad enough that we got NASA airbrushing
Moon photos but now we got the Nat. Guard
airbrushing Wiki ????
Wow!!! I wonder who's tax dollar paid for that one ??



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 11:30 AM
link   
Good find, very suspicious. I can't help wondering though, if this was an effort to cover something up, why would they edit without even trying to hide their IP? I'm no expert in these matters, but isn't it possible to fake an IP to cover their covering up trail? Or at the very least, edit from some random Joe's house?

I suppose they wouldn't really need to, but if anything to avoid any controversies.

[edit on 23-1-2008 by Xanfalcon]



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 11:58 AM
link   
#13 on the Wiki article linked to yet another assertion that it was flares, without any proof. It is not honest for them to claim a ' subsequent investigation ' showed them to be flatres..when it was NOT another investigation but merely another rendering of the same tale about Air Force pilots not being able to tell the difference between a UFO and some flares.

The government is obviously lying and covering this up: They used a military base to do it and got caught. Shame on them...I hate the liars in the government....and that means most all of them.



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 12:07 PM
link   
Though this is a good find, please be aware that the sometimes 'blurry' blocks found in NASA photos are not a result of them airbrushing.

It's most likely a 'stitching error', where the digital data has a slight error.

Look at a sample photo. ANYONE could do a better job of 'airbrushing' or photoshopping the image so that it would not be apparent.

That does not mean that NASA does not airbrush photos (here's a whistleblower describing it).

It's just that the artifacts you see as a blurring are not an example of this.

Here's an example in which I did a really shoddy job - took all of 3 minutes in Paintshop (top view):

As you can see, my 'cut and paste' is not easily discernible and does not stand out like a 'blurry' image (bottom view) that many people are calling NASA airbrushing.



Again, I'm NOT saying NASA or some agencies don't airbrush photos (who knows why they do it). Just that if they wanted to obscure and falsify a Moon photo, they'd do it in an undetectable way (Unless there was a subsequent matching photo to compare).



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Xanfalcon
 


Yes, someone could use a proxy to hide themselves (even this can be traced back with some persistence).

Or as you say, they could just do it from someones house.

There are plenty of Wikipedia edits out there from people who thought they would never get caught. (Governments )

[edit on 23-1-2008 by Dulcimer]



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 12:40 PM
link   
What's wrong with that edit? The statement is 100% correct. What does it matter who wrote it if it is a fact?



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dulcimer
Doubt was cast on the validity of spectral analysis performed on photo and video imagry taken of the Phoenix Lights on the Skeptoid Critical Analysis [skeptoid.com...] podcast. The podcast asserted that a spectral analysis of a photograph or video would not be possible because camera settings, film type, and in-camera electronic filtering would alter the spectrum of any image.


It's not only impossible due to the reasons listed, but physically impossible. The best analogy for that I read some time ago:

Testing spectral analysis on video is like checking Lincoln's painted portrait for his DNA, the 2 have nothing to do with each other.

Believe me, if spectral analysis were possible in this fashion, astronomers would be very happy people.

All Dilettoso did in regard to "spectral analysis" was draw a line profile thru the light and look at the histogram of RGB. Spectroscopy is a completely different thing.

It's been said that he likes to use lots of different buzz terms to describe things, and doesn't seem to know what they actually mean.

This instance is just one example IMO.

That said, I spoke to the MD Natl. Guard, in relation to the flare drop, and they did say project snowbird (I think that was the name) happened, and that these aren't exotic projects but benign and common exercises. I think it's been well shown by Macabbee that the flare drop was just that, as he showed the lights fall behind the mountain range in the distance.

However, there's the issue of a very large object seen by many much earlier...thats the one I'm interested in. As many have said, the flare drop might have been to muddy the earlier sightings. This might have been done incidentally without the knowledge of the MD Guard Unit, simply following their project guidelines. I don't *think* they know any more then they've said...but who's to say.



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 12:47 PM
link   
While I'm not going to say that the government isn't trying to cover certain things up, some edits from government IP's could just be bored guys who work there editing subjects that they have an interest in. I can see boredom running rampant on a guard base.

I have a site that I host mp3's on and a while back I started seeing hits from an FBI IP address, I was weirded out at first since there was really nothing about the site that would be considered riske to a government agency aside from one song which was titled "kids are the new heroin". I posted a thread about it on a music site I frequent and it turned out that one of the members worked for the government and would check out music while at work. He was also a frequent contributer and songwriter himself so I thought nothing of it after that.

I would hope that if they were actually covering things up, they would mask their IP as others have stated, just remember that government employees screw off at work just as much as the rest of us.

That said, keep looking and checking this stuff out, I think it is important to know where this information is coming from, 1984 has never seemed so alive, wiki is like our own little Ministry of Truth (Lies).

Cool find all the same, and it's nice to know that we can track the edits so precisely.



new topics

top topics



 
33
<<   2 >>

log in

join