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.


Johnny's back from the Gilliland Ranch in Washington.. & "OH BOY"!

page: 12
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 07:48 AM
reply to post by Europa733

James does use an online service for checking satelites in the area.

posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 08:33 AM
reply to post by halfmask

Great post halfmask, thanks for that information. This may be off topic for this thread however. There is another thread that deals with the James/Battery issue.'

Assuming your explanation is the case here, Johnny's battery must have been seriously defective in the first place, to show a low charge state, even when warm. I was under the assumption that it was fairly warm up there, and a lowered temperature was not the reason his battery went dead. I suppose a cold night, as is common in the mountains could account for this though. If their exchange happened first thing in the morning, this is a VERY plausible, simple explanation. The battery remained charged because it never got cold again?

I've done what you've descibed also, while in the backcountry. In the morning, cameras, headlamps, etc are dead as a doornail. After awhile, in warm hands or armpit, they're good as new. Don't laugh, but what I do with my batteries while in the bush, if nights are sleep with them. Works great.

posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 11:36 AM
No offence to all the posters in here, but how bout`you just close this tread until the tapes are ready?

I for one have no interest in reading about the recharging of batteries and stuff, thats discussed in another tread.. And it is irritating having to look trough a lot of pages, hoping not to miss anything important..

I am just waiting for the video, at least we know it`s not a hoax.

Just my oppinion

(Sorry about my bad spelling

[edit on 4-9-2008 by Anom3]

posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 01:33 PM

Originally posted by jpvskyfreak


Suffice it to say that it was very easy to find that these are (in my humble opinion) three Iridium satellites following the same trajectory. NASA has a wonderful program and I even showed James this program so he could verify his captures before just throwing them out there (Sorry James, you should've checked first).

Here are singular shots of time periods of the three Iridium Satellites in question:
Iridium 38


Iridium 81

Now if we combine all three Satellites Trajectories which should match, we would get this:

The combined Satellite Graphics

It's pretty easy to also tell that these are satellites (in my humble opinion) because we can see stars in between the "Three Points" of lights, not being blocked by what should be a solid bottom of a triangle platform.

And lets not forget that splendid fade out that the satellites do when they hit the Earth's shadow...

At least thas my two cents here..


[edit on 9/4/2008 by JohnnyAnonymous]

posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 01:56 PM
reply to post by JohnnyAnonymous

Well done JA.

Thank you for your verification, it's way more than your 2 cents.

This is a good start and this shows that the AIT (ATS Investigation Team) will
perform a serious job analyzing the data. I hope that you guys recorded some events with a least two cameras at the same time.

Europa aka Buck the wild

posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 03:55 PM
At the beginning of many of the UFO videos made at the Gilliland ranch, it's noted that the Heavens Above website is referenced to check for predicted satellite passes. The implication is that the objects seen in the videos can't be satellites since Heavens Above hasn't predicted them. This in my opinion is very misleading.

Heavens Above provides useful predictions for a few dozen brighter satellites only. Apart from the spectactular Irridiums, the ISS, the Genesis duo, etc. the website only gives timings for satellites brighter than magnitude 4.5. It has nothing at all on the thousands of fainter ones. The unassisted human eye can detect objects as faint as magnitude 6.5 under favourable conditions. This is considerably fainter than anything quoted by Heavens Above. I would guess that the skies above the Gilliland ranch are as near perfect as it's possible to get, so the sky will appear alive with satellites at certain times of the night.

Twice daily, NORAD publishes the orbital elements of around 8,000 satellites and space debris, many of which are visible to the naked eye in very dark locations. Almost all these bodies can be video'd with a CCD camera attached to an off the shelf Go-To telescope. Using a laptop to control the scope and a satellite link to the Internet, a serious sky watcher could instantly download all 8,000 orbits and track those passing over his location in real time one after the other. Such equipment would be ideal for exploring the skies above Gilliland ranch. However, much of the published evidence comes from small cameras and camcorders operated way beyond their optical capabilities.

To record phenomena like these with no measurement or even an estimate of optical magnitude is of little value from the scientific perspective. To watch points of light passing through a starfield gives us no idea as to how bright/visible these objects actually are. Remember that any camera lens will 'see' far fainter objects than the human eye is capable of detecting. A large number of these bodies are also tumbling out of control, so exhibit flaring in quite unpredicatable patterns. The 'power ups' exhaulted in many of the YouTube videos can be explained in this way, as can the inevitable fade-outs as the objects pass into Earth shadow.

Having watched a large number of Gilliland sky videos and having personally observed and video'd satellites using professional quality equipment, I am of the opinion that most of these YouTube phenomena are Earth orbiting satellites. There may be other optical events happening there which demand more study, I cannot say more without seeing them myself. I therefore look forward with much anticipation to the results of the ATS investigation.


posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 04:54 PM
when are you going to post the new video. I can't wait to try and debunk it as hallucinations, swamp gas, the planet venus, or a flock of geeses that passed through a leaking nuclear power plant smokestack discharge.

posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 05:54 PM
oh jeez, is that the best gilliland ranch has to offer as far as visual evidence?

You can clearly see the stars between the 3 points of light! I suppose they explained that as the ship being invisible apart from lights on the 3 corners so that any nearby triangle ship traffic can see them?

Gimme a break. I hope the ATS video is a tad more compelling than that.

posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 06:18 PM

Originally posted by waveguide3
To record phenomena like these with no measurement or even an estimate of optical magnitude is of little value from the scientific perspective.

Hi there,

Couldn't agree more with your message in general.

With that being said, I do not think that the AIT went there to collect
scientific data but to make sure with their own eyes, equipment and research, that there was (is) something out of the ordinary as far as UAP in this area.

My point is, the data we are about to take a look at, if "interesting" could motivate some researchers in the near futur if well presented and done. I am talking about well organized scientific teams using a very rigorous protocol with different kinds of electro-optical instruments. Anything from, doppler radar (PSR), vlf radar, lasers, multiple automated or hand controlled cameras with some using grating filters & spectrum analyzers, geiger counters, sismograph, , etc...etc... All that equipment in at least 2 different locations, 3 would be perfect.

Once ready, all this people and equipment have to set their watch correctly sort of speak, because I've noticed in the past that some projects & missions to Hessdalen not only failed to solve the "mystery lights" enigma but rather and worth of all, to proove that there (was) is such a phenomena to the scientific community. From my point of view, they failed somehow because of this time correlation problem to start with and from a lack of rudimentary methodology.

But one have to remember that bringing interesting data to motivate scientists might be almost as hard as actually studying the phenomena in situ with a well prepared protocol. And one shouldn't forget that there are not many people who have the skills & means who will be willing to take a look at it seriously and for free.

Gathering interest from the scientific community is a whole lot harder than we might think. Studying new phenomenas (atmospherical) or from an ET
origin is even harder I guess. Here is a document regarding this last matter :


And a video (using UfoCapture V2 Software) for us to wait for the goods.

Europa aka Buck

[edit on 4-9-2008 by Europa733]

posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 11:41 PM
Not to burst anyone’s bubble here, however there are a lot of wrong assumptions made in this video as to the possibility of the light source being from climbers.

1) It cannot be a flashlight as its thirteen miles away, and…
Sorry to say that it looks exactly like a flashlight to me, as a matter of fact it could very easily be a canister headlamp that a trail guide is using to illuminate the area for his party. Some of the expensive canister lights that are used adventure sports have the same filament as those annoyingly bright "bluish" car headlights. These lights are not the $20 Wal-Mart variety that most folks are used to dealing with, these lights start at around $500 and go up to $2000. Just the replacement filament runs the $100 to $200 range. We use them in diving, and I would imagine that in other high danger sports, such as climbing, where your equipment can be a life or death factor, they use similar lights. If you notice, the beam varies in intensity like it’s being bounced around some.

Examples of canister Lights:
Halcyon Helios Lighting Systems
Dive Rite H10 SlimLine Canister HID Light
Nite-Rider HID Dual Dive Light

2) …Based on Springer’s experience with lights at sea, they don’t carry that far.
The answer here is right in the quote: “at sea”… The distance that light travels is based on the atmosphere that it has to travel through more than any other factor. This is why the stars are clearest at high altitude, and on cold, dry nights. Mount Adams, is 12000 feet above sea level, and the atmosphere is much less of an impediment to a beam of light as its thinner, colder, less humid, and therefore less apt to diffuse the light. At sea you are at the lowest point, the thickest atmosphere, and fairly high humidity, the next step down is underwater.

3) There should not be hikers on the mountain at 3:00 am.
The easiest approach up Mount Adams requires 6 to 8 hours climbing to summit, then another 4 to 6 hours to descend. Up to 8000 feet the trail is well marked and ascent is simple, it gets dicer after that point. I could easily see a group heading up at 3:00-4:00 am to get the easy part out of the way, and be able to make their summit bid by 12:00pm, allowing them to take a slow safe decent and be finished around 6:00pm. Also there are many people who camp at "Lunch Counter", around 9000 feet, either for the view or to acclimatize for their summit bid. Now this is taking into account the easiest approach, there are other approaches, some more technical then others, which take varying times to complete.

4) The hikers were observed in a different part of the mountain than the lights.
Well I would hope that they moved some during the night, its kind of hard to climb up a mountain if you're not moving…

Seriously, there are probably dozens of groups climbing on any given day, and they don’t all take the same approaches. The approach chosen depends on the skill and equipment that each individual party has. Each party may not be visible the entire time as the approaches wind through tree line, bolder fields, and glacier.

BTW, has anyone checked if there was any helicopter rescues off the mountain that night? Lost hikers, hurt climbers, etc?

Anyhooo that’s my two cents on the topic for what they are worth.

posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 07:31 PM

Originally posted by JohnnyAnonymous

"Seeing is bereaving" our own ignorance"... That's just too funny ZG..

BTW ZeroGhost... Did you ever read my MUFON Symposium summary (with photos)?
My MUFON Symposium Summary


OK.. I'm really getting back to the reviewing... really..!

The quote was for you.

No, but just did see the article/thread. Nice work.
What an honor to be exposed by none other than. Good thing I knew who you where. I would have tagged you "Johnny Erroneous" otherwise. Where did you implant that camera? I forgot you where packing. I saw your shot and forgot you got one of me and my boss.

Thanks for showing the poster. You saw the Symposium opening CGI Video I did for Mufon? I composed the poster from actual 3D assets from the video. John Greenewalde did the voiceover for me. Awesome pro, he is great to work with. Modest as a Tinker.

I am editing the video for general public view. Maybe I'll just announce that here when it's up and link to YouTube. People seemed to like the alien entry into the atmosphere.

OK, on topic.

When are we going to get a Gen 3 on a good HD camera, with a good camera person with a bllankity blank fluid head tripod or Steady Cam? I mean REALLY! It just takes money,... and no life. I have to build that with a Heathkit Radar/ EM controlled tracking unit.

I met the Night Vision UFO guy Ed Grimly early this year at a Mufon meeting. He told me all the stories of seeing battling UFOs and such. $5K is a bit for those units. If they are kicking each others butts up there it would be a fun spectator sport. A few cams on rooftop gathering footage, then bet on your team. Go Pleidians! Go Reticulans!


posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 12:27 AM

Originally posted by ZeroGhost

When are we going to get a Gen 3 on a good HD camera, with a good camera person with a bllankity blank fluid head tripod or Steady Cam? I mean REALLY! It just takes money,... and no life. I have to build that with a Heathkit Radar/ EM controlled tracking unit.

I met the Night Vision UFO guy Ed Grimly early this year at a Mufon meeting. He told me all the stories of seeing battling UFOs and such. $5K is a bit for those units. If they are kicking each others butts up there it would be a fun spectator sport. A few cams on rooftop gathering footage, then bet on your team. Go Pleidians! Go Reticulans!


I met Ed Grimsley a couple of times, went to his place in Calistoga to witness the battling Klingons (didn't see any battles), and Dave Rabbit and I interviewed him and had him on the show a few times. He is a character thats for sure.

As for the Generation 3 and 4 IR devices.. I've seen PVS-7's (gen-3) on eBay for below $2000.oo and new for under $3,500.oo. Gen-4's are running about $5000.oo-$7000.oo New and I've not seen any used ones yet as they are still the New kids on the block (so to speak). But none of these puppies have a Video out and the Micky-Mouse set-ups to do a through-the-lens capture has "bigtime-Vigenetting" and they are not easy to have on a tripod (Fluid-head or other) without some form of elbow length manipulation. I played around with trying to create several custom-made extension-bars to handle the added weight but was not pleased with the results. Hence the reason I went with the CCD version of a Gen-2 with a composite-video output. Now I'm sure somewhere in the military, they have something to send/transmit/record the data off the soldier thats using some IR devices, but I've not found any, and trust me, I searched for a month prior to going up to the Ranch for something/anything that would be suitable for Infrared capturing..

A Steadi-cam.. well now.. that would be cool now wouldn't it...? I've actually thought that an ideal setup would be a rotating and pivoting chair with the cameras attached (sort of turret-controlled by hand system) that one could easily sit relaxed while tracking these little 'buggers', that to me would be an ideal setup. The cameraperson would be able to track anything and still be completely relaxed with no neck-pain the following morning..

Ahhh... to dream the impossible dream...!


[edit on 9/6/2008 by JohnnyAnonymous]

posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 04:49 PM
Nice place to be by the looks of it and a brilliant idea. I loved the logos. I take it this is the beginning of a series of investigations into various hotspots?

I have to say that I think defcon5's about right with the mountain light footage.

I look forward to more.

posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 11:09 AM
Alright guys? Just wondered as are a few hundred others whether there will be anythin to see soon? I no its going to take a while to go through and that we will reap the benefits of that but could you perhaps give us a rough estimation of how much longer we are looking at? starred and flagged anyway as its got me hooked and am looking forward to whatever you did manage to capture,Light on the mountain side aside.Cheers

posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 11:37 AM

Originally posted by dooleysleftleg
Alright guys? Just wondered as are a few hundred others whether there will be anythin to see soon? I And Robbie Williams Investigate UFOs at Gilliland Ranch (audio & video)

posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 12:09 PM
reply to post by defcon5

THIS is why I LOVE ATS. Thanks Defcon5. I mean it, you are spot on on every point.

I totally spaced about canister lights, being an ex-diver you'd think I'd have remembered them but turning 45 this year has taken its toll on my brain.

Thanks again for a VERY GOOD, and well thought out post, I have to agree with you 100%.


posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 04:37 PM
I'd like to point out that James (when I asked) said that they had climbed up Mt. Adams and shined a 6 million (or it may have been a 5 million) candlelight bright torch/light back down to the Ranch. It was reported that even with binoculars, the light could barely be seen.

So I think the intensity of the lights we observed were much brighter than an "over-the-counter" purchase to be viewed 13.5 miles away...

My 2 cents..


posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 09:26 PM
reply to post by Springer

Sorry if I upset you Johnny, I was not saying that it was a headlamp for certain, but rather that you couldn’t discount it out of hand. If you read what I wrote, you would also notice that I was talking about lights used in High-Risk Sports, which are extremely expensive, and not the “over the counter” type that you are talking about. In fact, spelunkers often use a type of canister light, which attaches to the helmet and the power pack rests on the belt. Something else that I did not mention above is that power (wattage) is not the deciding factor in lights anymore, there are High Power Lights that cast beams in the yellow wavelength that do not carry as far as the newer HID and LED bulbs do. The reason is that yellow and red defuse the fastest while blue and white light carries much farther. I just purchased a new very small LED dive light as it outperforms my older Xenon filament light, even though the LED is only 1/10th the size of my old Xenon “Cannon” style light. I also asked if you check with the ranger stations for that night to make sure that they were not using a helicopter with a searchlight to find a missing climbing party.

These are just the types of things that you need to consider if you want to do an truly impartial investigation rather then moving straight into the whole paranormal aspect of it. Also I don’t know who James is, and who is to say that this “James” person is not trying to make events seem more spectacular then they really are.

reply to post by Springer

Thanks, I appreciate that.
Additionally, I’m glad to hear that there is another diver here on ATS, only met a few of us on here so far.

posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 10:16 PM

Originally posted by defcon5
Sorry if I upset you Johnny, I was not saying that it was a headlamp for certain, but rather that you couldn’t discount it out of hand.


I'm not upset my friend, I'm just sharing another tidbit to the story that's not yet been divulged.

And I'm not saying that those lights couldn't have been produced by something that's available. I'm simply saying that on what I saw and what I've been told would lean me to believe to find some other explanation. Others in our team may be happy with the thought that these are from explainable lights, myself, I lean to perhaps something else. The others didn't spend the same amount of time as I did there (about 2 weeks), and hence I saw some phenomena on a grander scale than what they experienced.

And no, no one checked to see if any rescue helicopters were in the area that particular evening. We observed helicopters both during the day and night and we concluded that the lights on not only the mountain, but those at the base were not those of a helicopter. Strobeing and flashing FAA lights are a dead give-away when it comes to 'terrestrial crafts' and can be witnessed from a far greater distance than 13.5 miles.

But it's comments like yours that are necessary when trying to find out the truth and please, we encourage more great thoughts such as yours. And I have a feeling that until a more thorough investigation is done, there will be a lot of conjecture as to what they might be.. But in the end, can we say for certain what created those lights... NO.!


posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 10:50 PM
reply to post by JohnnyAnonymous

The rotating beacon lights and the navigation lights on an aircraft can be difficult to discern at an extreme distances. I used to sit on the tarmac and watch our aircraft come in, back when I worked in aviation, and even on a large jet at distance the navigation lights and beacons are drowned out by the main landing light (or in this case the search light). Obviously the smaller the aircraft the shorter the distance that this occurs at. So for example, a 747, which has around a 200-foot wingspan is going to have its individual navigation lights visible at a further distance then a helicopter that only has 20 feet separation between lights. Sound from aircraft is an even trickier business, as it similarly varies with the aircraft, engine noise abatement baffling, ground clutter, wind direction, and atmospheric conditions.

Of course I was not there, (I wish I had been though, I love any chance I get to camp
, and it looks magnificent there), and I did not witness any of what happened first hand. So I am just bringing up things that struck me in the first video, not discounting any of the other stuff you may have seen.

One thing that struck me was that it would have been useful to have someone closer to the mountain, or maybe camping at the acclimation camp, who was in contact with you. That would have helped discern if the lights were coming from the mountain or were in a location between you and the mountain. Plus you could have done some testing with lights of your own, rather then basing conclusions on someone else’s experiments. Especially someone who may have a vested interest in ATS’s agreeing that there is something paranormal about the area.

new topics

top topics

<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in