I think good way to film daytime ufo: two same type of cameras shooting same direction. Other camera infrared (nightmode). This way we can see if object is visible in daylight or not.

I'd have to vote against the cicada theory. I live in an area that gets the cicada song annually, and it sounds nothing like that.

But I do have a question to Johnny...to me this sounds like an internal sound from the recorder. I'm unsure what type of recorder this is and what moving parts are in it, but it sounds either like a small bearing that has been worn, or a CD drive that has begun to wobble. Can you give some feedback on that? Have you set this same recorder up since the excursion and just let it record for a long period of time to see if it makes that noise again?

There are cicadas here in southern Oregon, I hear them in the summer and find the empty exoskeletons on my fence. They look about 2-3 times bigger than a bee with no wings, orange-yellow body and black stripes on its abdomen similar to a honeybee, and they move really slow. Found one when I was digging in the yard as a young boy and have seen a few since then. They do not really sound like what is on the recording, in my opinion cicadas sound more high pitched and with less changing of frequency.

Correct me if i'm wrong.

Both times you hear an airplane in the "unexplained sounds" video,the sound itself seems to go higher,more alerting...

Don't you think?



[edit on 3-10-2008 by thethirdofthestorms]

First of all, thanks for all the hard work and the awesome videos. The clarity and sound quality are amazing!

I do have a few of questions for you guys about the videos related to the anomalous sounds.

1. I've heard a very similar sound to the "feedback loop" before, but it wasn't ET in origin. It was years ago when I had the casing off a 4-head VCR that I was trying to fix and I was running a tape through the machine. When I ejected the tape, the tape came out and the heads or something inside continued to spin and as it spun down, the sound was very similar to what I heard on that feedback loop.

Obvious the IR camera you're using isn't a VCR, but I'm not familiar with the camera setup. Is it recording to magnetic tape just a VCR tape does or is it purely digital?

2. I'm sure this question has been covered somewhere, but has the IR camera that recorded the sounds been set into a controlled test environment like a sound proof room or a basement and set to run for a long period of time to make sure that the same feedback loop didn't re-occur? Also, has the IR camera been tried in another outdoor location not on Gilliland Ranch and been determined not to produce the feedback loop (assuming something environmental isn't causing the camera to make the noise).

3. This was probably also covered somewhere, but when the feedback sound was happening, was it audible to the people around? Could you actually hear it going on or did only the camera pick up this odd sound?

I'm not a skeptic, I'm just trying to rule out all of the possibilities. I would love for this to be the recorded sound of a "beam ship" or experimental plane, but in my mind, I need to exhaust all of the possibilities before I can buy off.

[edit on 3-10-2008 by sos37]

Thank you for all the hard work guys!
I have to say as has been my experience with most things in the field so far.. the more you know or experience the more questions it raises.
I never realize just how skeptical I was until I listened to this and started thinking of what could have been done to cause this.
This really reaffirms the need for the follow up thorough investigation.
I do not know what resources ATS has, but hopefully with the help of some outside people as well.. this can be researched to the best extent possible.
Things that come to mind initially are things such as equipment for mapping what is beneath the surface with sound waves. Perhaps there is something underground in that spot generating this sound.

An increase of cameras in certain areas to cover the entire field of view from a point and motion or sound censors set to a certain level that will kick off an alarm when something happens to make sure you pay attention.

This would probably be very expensive but things like that are necessary to get to a point where you feel you have done everything you can to evaluate a phenomenon.

I hope we are able to find a way to be able to really do all that is possible in investigating this. I know that being left with more questions than answers is something that can get frustrating for any of us.

Originally posted by Zepherian
So in conclusion: At the present time I think people should focus on the bank bailout scandals and the powergrabs, which are much more threatening and urgent issues, and leave the whole Gilliland thing on the back burner.

Just a personal opinion. Please don't shoot me with an Infrared camera

[edit on 2-10-2008 by Zepherian]

Well by all means you may do just that. As it is, not everyone lives in the US, and some of us are very entertained by this topic.

Now...

I had to find a copy of the Billy Meier beamship audio and it is striking how similar the two sounds are. But I'm with Johnny on this, Meier has not left much of an impression on me, so what a conundrum!!

Either way I'm glad for this topic and hope the best for it!!

I watched Johnny's tin can and ball throwing experiment with interest. The distance to the tall trees seems to be maybe 3-400 yards (?). It was informative to observe that the beach ball was clearly resolved by the camera. It appeared as a quite sharp bright disc without significant fuzziness. I didn't perceive the tin can at all, so an object of that size appears beyond the resolution of the lens and the video compression system used in the experiment. From my observation of the video, everything within the frame at the distance of the trees is in sharp focus. I can't remember what the camera's exact shutter speed was, but it was pretty fast as I recall from some of the stills.

The appearance of the UFOs suggests to me that they are not in focus. Assuming the lens has a pretty long depth of field around the 3-400 yard point, anything of beach ball or larger size should have been equally well recorded. However, the objects appear blurred and without solidity. In my opinion, these objects are outside the depth of field and are therefore much closer to the camera than anything else in the frame.

The question of scale has already been raised, but not addressed. If we assume the initial location of the objects to be somewhere in the vicinity of the trees (the prime location for such events - James Gilliland), they should have been in reasonable focus. One object moves at speed to the right of frame, where it appears to go 'behind' the mountain. The evidence that this actually happened is subjective at best. The object apparently flies to the mountain, some thirteen or more miles distant. I fear this distance factor is again playing tricks with us.

As I observe it, the object maintains approximately the same visual size throughout. This indicates that it remains more or less the same distance from camera throughout the flight. If the object were of similar size to the beach ball - or indeed ten or twenty times bigger - it would not have been visible to the camera from a distance of thirteen miles. In fact it would have been much smaller than the tin can in terms of angular size and totally invisible to all but the largest telescopic lens.

With hindsight, a high speed camera would have helped resolve some of the issues raised in trying to analyse fast moving fuzzy objects snapped with a conventional camera. Johhny mentions interframe streaking due to the video mechanism, but also shutter speed. This also creates frame blurring. Any attempt to analyse and identify an object moving across frame at this speed will be little short of futile. Consider how informative are those high speed films of a bullet passing through a tomato.

In conclusion, I don't think it's possible in any way to identify these objects. They are undoubdtedly Unidentifiable Flying Objects, but the most reasonable explanation is they are very nearby and probably flies/bugs.

WG3





[edit on 3-10-2008 by waveguide3]

Originally posted by waveguide3


In conclusion, I don't think it's possible in any way to identify these objects. They are undoubdtedly Unidentifiable Flying Objects, but the most reasonable explanation is they are very nearby and probably flies/bugs.

WG3

Sorry as skeptical as I am about the ranch.. I cannot agree with that assessment. The object pretty cleary goes behind the trees. Which eliminates the idea of a bug. At least that is the way it looks.

Originally posted by hande
I think good way to film daytime ufo: two same type of cameras shooting same direction. Other camera infrared (nightmode). This way we can see if object is visible in daylight or not.

That would be good, except to get a reasonably accurate triangulation and determination of distance and size, you'd need to see the object in both cameras. So I guess we're talking about needing three cameras to get better data. Two for a stereo video setup, and another to see if the thing is visible across the spectrum.

Originally posted by thethirdofthestorms
Both times you hear an airplane in the "unexplained sounds" video,the sound itself seems to go higher,more alerting...

What I was thinking about the sounds was that at least some of them could be long echoes of semi-trailer trucks down-shifting on a hill or pass. That noise carries for a long distance, with the lower frequencies dropping off, leaving the higher, more mechanical sounding frequencies to be heard.

Otherwise, they could be any number of things. Buzzing bugs, the wind vibrating tent ropes or tight barbed wire, frogs, whatever. I'm always surprised when I get away from the city how everything is so quiet and noisy at the same time.

Again, as a parallel to stereo photography, a binaural audio setup might be useful for at least identifying where the sounds were coming from.