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.


IR camera - 7 UFO's seen.

page: 12
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 10:28 PM
reply to post by TravisT

My original point was that I didnt think it was birds, I said clearly it was POSSIBLE but I found it a less likely answer. Further investigation pushed me further to say im pretty sure birds isnt the right answer at which point I simply asked to see if anyone could show me a picture of birds at that range on a near IR camera because I didnt think it possible they would show up like that when the human eye wasnt able to see them.

Nothing unreasonable in that at all.

I have no burning need for them to be birds, to be planes, to be chinese lanterns, the simple point is id like to see some evidence to suggest they are something I think they are not.

If I said they were Alien craft and you didnt believe me you would be quick enough to ask for proof? So when I say they are probably not birds for the reasons stated, why wouldnt you take the moment to prove your case?

Im not simply going to nod my head and say, ok birds, just because you tell me its so. Im afraid thats not how it works, I wouldnt accept they were alien craft without some credible cause to do so, in which case why accept they are birds, or flying monkeys or anything else I dont think is the right answer.

Im sure there is a perfectly logical answer, I just dont think birds are it.

Now if someone had come in on page one and said, hey these are birds, and look at this ill show you how it happened, fine, im a happy guy. Like I said, I have nothing against them being birds, but at this point I dont think they are and while thats the case ill continue to consider other options i feel are more suitable.

Id be more inclibed to think a squad of f-17s than birds, at least they would show up at very high altitude as dots.

posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 10:33 PM

Originally posted by silver6ix

Id be more inclibed to think a squad of f-17s than birds, at least they would show up at very high altitude as dots.

Are you sure?

posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 10:36 PM

Originally posted by Phage

Originally posted by silver6ix

Id be more inclibed to think a squad of f-17s than birds, at least they would show up at very high altitude as dots.

Are you sure?

Just as sure as mammals are birds.

Sorry, I couldn't help myself. I am out of here for real.

posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 10:39 PM

Originally posted by Phage

Originally posted by silver6ix

Id be more inclibed to think a squad of f-17s than birds, at least they would show up at very high altitude as dots.

Are you sure?

Well yes, a fictional aircraft is as good as a fictional bird last time I checked?

I think you get the point though.

posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 10:40 PM
reply to post by HankMcCoy

Actually you are the one who claimed they were birds, i was the one mocking you

posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 10:52 PM
Like those shiny objects in the OP, I'm still 'up in the air' on this one.

I've had a look at the hi-res version, and given my lack of experience using IR photography, I cannot comment on the validity of the claims that they're something other than birds.

However, I can give my opinon based on being a professional photographer. I'm leaning towards the objects being non-avian in nature, given that I have numerous examples of birds in my archive of landscape photography, and I've never see distant white dots in any image (birds appearing in my non-IR photos are distant black dots). I'm also leaning this was given the IR examples Dk provided of the dark birds in trees, etc (would they not also be dark while in the sky?)

Also, like many people, I've seen white bids flying at fairly high altitudes (especially here in Australia), and those dots in your photo don't resemble anything I've ever seen - they're just too high up. However, since they're so high up, I can't make out any flapping wings or familiar bird-like shapes.

I cannot really reach a conclusion personally until I see more IR examples of confirmed birds at great distances.

Also thanks DK for the website about IR conversion, it should work well with an old Nikon D70 I have.

posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 10:53 PM
Part of the reason the debunking in this thread is so stinky is because the skeptics have latched onto this "bird" theory like they're drowning men on a life-line. Pulling out as many pseudo-technical sounding arguments as they can muster. Are you sure none of you worked for the Warren Commission? Author of the magic bullet theory perhaps?

If even one of you had said meteorites (and I've read every post, except most of the later ones made by Travis, so if I somehow missed one of you saying this my sincere apologies) I would have been all over that explanation. Do I need lights in the sky to be alien-piloted UFOs? NO! But I at least need a somewhat plausible answer for a high-speed moving, InfraRed glowing cluster of objects at high-altitude, taken at high shutter speed.

As it was a still photo and not a video I'd say meteorites is as good an explanation as any other. Hell, it's all unprovable anyway, even if we had video unless it was very close up. Either way, NOT BIRDS.

So Post-Banning for D4rk Kn1ght for defending himself, but not even a single "Off Topic Post" sticker for the derailers? That's some crack moderation there guys.

Maybe the rumors are true....

Edited: for using had twice right next to each other in one sentence...

[edit on 10/29/08 by Malynn]

posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 11:01 PM
Looks like brids or flies to me, it's impossible to tell what it is, so this picture is useless..... next!

[edit on 29-10-2008 by _Phoenix_]

posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 11:13 PM
reply to post by Evasius

Im still wondering also, the second photo is harder to place for me, as you see a shadow shape and an IR spot.

The first one might well be planes, but they would have to be very high and normally you would be able to verify by eye. Im taking the OPs word that he couldnt see them by eye when he had them in the IR view, ive no reason not to for the basis of considering it.

The second one, well im not sure, it doesnt look much like a plane I dont think, less like a bird.

I was scanning the sky watching the live view screen and saw an IR hit going across the sky, and saw the object in question. it was very faint even under the IR cameras view, all except the IR signature at the end which as can be seen was large.

Well thats what Dark says on the second image. Very puzzling, it showed on the IR viewer as a shadow with an IR blip at its tail (im assuming thats the tail).

Are there any ships or coatings or whatever the military use which wouldnt reflect IR?

[edit on 29-10-2008 by silver6ix]

posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 12:40 AM
I would highly recommend requesting the OP original hi-res image. When I opened the hi-res in Photoshop, I found an 8th unidentified object in the lower right corner (the OP's first image crops this out I'm assuming due to file size). It's more symmetical than the 7 on top. See image below.

Editing: I would also like to include that upon further inspection of the regular hi-res file, I do believe it is an authentic, unaltered raw file. Here is the info I can extract from the file:

Make: Canon
Model: Canon PowerShot G6
Date Time: 2008-10-28TO8:56:52Z
Shutter Speed: 1/640 sec
F-Stop: f/4.0
Aperture Value: f/4.0
Max Aperture Value: f/2.2
Focal Length 9.1mm
Lens: 7.2-28.8 mm
Flash: Did not fire; No strobe return detection (0); Compulsory flash suppression (2); Flash function present; No red-eye reduction

It does appear the OP used the Adobe Photoshop Lightroom program to take the file off the camera, but it was not altered.

[edit on 30-10-2008 by themamayada]

posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 12:48 AM
reply to post by HaveSeen4Myself

I do not know whether i believe in the theory of chemtrails or not, but where i live( Manitoba ,Canada) in the past week i have noticed a large amount of chemtrails also. More than usual.....

posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 01:10 AM

posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 02:59 AM
I would just like to say that in all my years I've never seen a Chinese lantern lit by anyone. 'Oh it's just a Chinese lantern' they say...well who the hell lets these things off and so frequently that they are mistaken for UFO's ALL OVER THE WORLD (and don't say the Chinese). They're so small, above a few hundred meters its barely a pin prick. Lanterns...Ha!

posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 03:14 AM
The first photo's could be meterorites..or birds. But the 2nd pic is definitly birds.

posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 03:59 AM
I did not read the entire thread, but i want to clarify the term infrared.
The infrared part of the light spectrum has a longer wavelength (lower frequency) than visible light which ends at about 780 nm and is followed by microwaves which start about 1 mm.

Now there are several terms for infrared, these two are what causes confusion in this thread:

"Near infrared" light is what you find coming from the leds of your tv remote controls, for example. Its wavelength is in the shorter wavelength part or beginning of the IR spectrum "bracket".
This is what i think the camera of the OP detects.

"Far infrared" is also known as thermal radiation and is in the longer wavelength part or end of the IR bracket. This is used when architects look at thermal leaks from buildings, or in the military to detect human targets or vehicles (heat from motors or aircraft engines). You might have seen demonstrations of this on tv.

So the OPs camera does not detect heat. Wikipedia has an in-depth article about IR.

posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 04:38 AM
Does anyone realize there is visible and invisible infrared?

Visible infrared we all see. An example of this is using a filter, similar to 3D glasses. It filters out "normal" light frequencies, only allowing infrared light through. Of course, you can only see the visible spectrum.

DK's camera is obviously capable of picking up the invisible infrared spectrum. That "flashlight" you talked about is similar to what I have on my night vision scope. Humans and animals cannot see it, but when looking through the camera or scope, it appears as if someone is using a flashlight, illuminating the area. Therefore the camera is capable of "seeing" the invisible infrared spectrum.

Just some food for thought.

P.S. I believe things do exist in frequencies we cannot see. Light is waveform, so is sound. Children and dogs, for instance, can hear higher frequencies that us adults cannot. Many believe the same applies to light waves (children and dogs seeing things we cannot also).

[edit on 30/10/08 by NuclearPaul]

posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 05:08 AM
reply to post by azzllin

Very Interesting Photos, I have explain under the thread "My conversation about ufos with friend" why we need IR lens or what have you to see UFOS most of the time. This is because of the fact that UFOS as philip Corso explained to us were found with not electrical wires but Fiber Optics using certain wavelength lights or UV Spectrum lights. This is because when using this type of technology you can reduce your mass to Zero thus affecting your molecular structure by being hit by certain wavelength lights thus causing your cells to vibrate at a much higher frequency that cannot be seen by the human eye. We know that the human eyes cannot see all Spectrums of light so when certain spectrums are being use they seem translucent or invisible to the human eye.This is why you caught the UFO using IR lenses instead of the norm. If you watch the STS-80 and STS-75 films you will see clearly how NASA cameras caught the ufos in action and they looked somewhat translucent, this is because of the light technology or fiber optics technology they are using. Albert Einsteins theory of not being able to go faster than the speed of light because of the amount of force that would be exerted is absolutely true, but only because of inertia. So if you could essentially reduce your mass to 0 the laws of inertia wouldn't apply and therefor you could go faster than the speed of light with no resistance to worry about because there would be no inertia law in effect. you have some nice photos here, and many will say what you have cannot possibly be ufos, but they are also the same people that have no understanding of physics, they only know what the mainstream tells them. And if mainstream tells this it must be true? No , the mainstream just doesn't want them to know so they can continue to use the people as a damn near free labor force while they absorb the knowledge and get to use the magnificent technologies that are already here.Just look at the XTAL vision that the Japanese arleady created.

posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 06:36 AM
Hi D4rk Kn1ght,

I tried to U2U you but I haven't written enough posts yet.
I would be very grateful if you could send me the UFO pic. My email address is:

Thanks :-) Also I was wondering if you live in UK (you mentioned cost of camera in pounds). I am in Wales, UK and am very interested in having my camera converted. When it has been converted, does that mean you cannot take 'normal' pics anymore, and only in infrared? What options did you go for on the lifepixel website? just the standard infrared option, or did you pay extra for one of other options?

Thanks for your time!

Kind Regards,


posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 08:15 AM
birds put out a pretty impressive amount of heat, especially in flight, and contrasted against a cold sky.

smaller animals are notorious for excessive heat loss.

have there been any control pics of purposely photographed birds to compare to?

migrating birds in formation flight are common this time of year.

its also easy to imagine exotic shapes from blobby phosphorescent bleeding...

posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 08:23 AM

Originally posted by D4rk Kn1ght
The first one that glinted caught my eye. The others seen here as I said were visible straight away in the cameras screen (its purely IR, has been professionaly converted) so i snapped the pic, and the next second they were gone over the tree northwards.

I have a higher res version but its too large for image shack. I can crop the area in light room if thats ok or you can u2u me and ill send the big version to you.

hey dark, let me ask you this. out here in calif, i tried to buy a set of IR goggles and was told that they are expensive, due to fact that they need to have a pressurized area between 2 lenses to hold liquid nitrogen and you have to have it re-filled about once a year. i have a contact person that makes them up in sacramento, but i was told they cost thousands of dollars. anything cheaper that you now about?

top topics

<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in