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.

 

IR camera - 7 UFO's seen.

page: 14
15
<< 11  12  13    15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by silver6ix
 


TBH I have no idea what the first pic is because they are just dots and could be argued either way till the cows come home.
Its the second pic that I say are birds (two objects and a lamp post), if you look at the two blow ups futher back in the thread you see two pigeons in flight in my opinion.




posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 01:07 PM
link   
rather than answer u2u's from everyone, here's the answer to your questions about dark knight

We don't discuss the reason behind bannings so I won't tell you but I will say it was not the single comment. The banning came from Springer and, should he want to make an announcement, he will.


and now, back to your regularly scheduled programming



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by silver6ix
 


I see you are answering question about IR and photography like you are a professional photographer. So what I would like to know is this...What are your qualifications in photography or does your proffesioan deal with IR technology and that is why you feel you are a qualified expert on these. Or are you just saying what you think should be happening with nothing to back them up..like being involved in photography as a profession or have to deal with it on a daily basis. Because in the end it is just your opinion and it is one that is as less importaant than others such as me. So if you would quit your trolling and basically calling people idiots, maybe people would respect your opinion, instead of declaring people are wrong and you are right.



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 04:46 PM
link   
Look, I know I came off as some kind of "bully", but I was getting around to my case. Kind of what lawyers do, they show you evidence and theories for all sides, and question what is there, while including the validity of any party involved.

-With that being said: How do we know for a fact how high the objects are in the picture? From someone just saying what he thinks the distance was?

-How do you know for a fact how all objects will come out in an IR camera? Are you a professional, or have extensive background experience that can backup your claims?

-Why are these UFOs not in formation? For something that is being controlled by some sort of higher intelligence, I would imagine that they would be more uniform then what the pic shows us. Even fighter jets stay in perfect formation. I normally see this kind of formation in bird species.


I imagine that these are simple enough questions to be answered. Thank you.




[edit on 30-10-2008 by TravisT]



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 05:04 PM
link   
I for one still stick to my earlier comment and say that these are nothing more then Meterorites.

that is all...



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by TravisT
-With that being said: How do we know for a fact how high the objects are in the picture? From someone just saying what he thinks the distance was?


If your position is to deny the facts given then discussion has no merit and you would be as well not posting in the topic. So if you feel the facts presented are deceptive, you might as well not continue the position. Just say so and leave the topic. Really, if he isnt telling the truth theres nothing more to say.

Others might accept the intial position in order to theorise, logically given the size of the objects, whether they are birds, balloons or anything else they ARE distant because they are dots and any of the others would be much larger and more visible at close range.


-How do you know for a fact how all objects will come out in an IR camera? Are you a professional, or have extensive background experience that can backup your claims?


By considering the capabilities of the technology, same as you might suggest someone posting a detail photo of the moon with a nokia cell phone was presenting something impossible for the technology.

A normal near IR camera has a very small sensitivity, which is why as I said before when IR tech is used for monitoring bird migrations, in order to get a "dot" they use very large fixed mount devices with huge reflectors and much more sensitive equipment to gather the signatures.

You dont need to be a professional or an expert to fathom the obvious from the facts, anyone could check the facts, nobody does.

Im not a professional photographer but I can tell you if you try photo the stars with a standard digicam on normal setting all you get is black. I dont need to be professional to gather knowledge. Almost everything you believe you know isnt something you are professional at. In the abscence of a proffesional to suggest otherwise, or evidence to the contrary, the point stands for me.


-Why are these UFOs not in formation? For something that is being controlled by some sort of higher intelligence, I would imagine that they would be more uniform then what the pic shows us. Even fighter jets stay in perfect formation. I normally see this kind of formation in bird species.


Nobody has said they were being controlled by anything, in fact nobody has even decided what they are beyond UFO, UNIDETIFIED flying objects.

That being said theres no reason for them to exhibit any kind of predetermined behavior. The only thing you could draw is when considering what they are NOT how the formation might support that.

Even if they were alien craft id see no defining reason that they must be in formation either.

As for birds, birds do have formations, specific formations namely the V. Theres nothing in that formation that can be said to INDICATE a bird formation because it simply isnt a known formation.

Still, with birds I come back to the original point. I dont think a bird that far off (as it would have to be to appear so small) would be visible on a near IR cam with that sensitivity.

Again, if someone can show otherwise on a cam with that sensitivity or there abouts, fair enough.



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 06:28 PM
link   
Followed this with interest, up until now. Birds, I'm unsure about. Meteorites seems appealing.

But, at the risk of being deleted, and with the greatest respect to site rules, given the current situation all speculation seems a little moot. While the banning of the OP may not - understandably - be open to discussion, it's actually relevant to the topic.



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 06:41 PM
link   
I agree losing the OP destroys the conversation because valuable information is now lost.

Whatever it was must have been pretty upsetting to be banned but none of us will know I guess.

Too bad I think he was on to something here. The thread will die out now....too bad



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by silver6ix

If your position is to deny the facts given then discussion has no merit and you would be as well not posting in the topic.
What do you think is the point of this forum? If you think me denying the ignorance for this thread is bad, then I find that insulting to this forum alone.



A normal near IR camera has a very small sensitivity, which is why as I said before when IR tech is used for monitoring bird migrations, in order to get a "dot" they use very large fixed mount devices with huge reflectors and much more sensitive equipment to gather the signatures.

You dont need to be a professional or an expert to fathom the obvious from the facts, anyone could check the facts, nobody does.
Again, I was just giving another side to the story, you have shown me yours. Whats the point?

As far as "the facts" go: Where are they? There isn't anything solid here that I would even consider a "fact". Everything is being taken for granted in hope that this is truly a fast moving object. Show me all sides of an IR camera, other then "your facts" and I'll start to consider. You have just shown me one side, I have shown you another, I'm sure there is a middle ground, or other avenues to explore. You just don't want to look down that path.





Nobody has said they were being controlled by anything, in fact nobody has even decided what they are beyond UFO, UNIDETIFIED flying objects.

That being said theres no reason for them to exhibit any kind of predetermined behavior. The only thing you could draw is when considering what they are NOT how the formation might support that.
If the object in question still hasn't been identified, then I imagine that it is *drum roll please* unidentified. You may also want to reconsider where you're at, and what these threads pertain to.



Even if they were alien craft id see no defining reason that they must be in formation either.
The reason for unified formation would be to exhibit some sort of intelligence. The formation that is shown looks like that out of a lower intelligent being(ie. birds) or something randomly scattered in the sky, perhaps being a meteorite.


As for birds, birds do have formations, specific formations namely the V. Theres nothing in that formation that can be said to INDICATE a bird formation because it simply isn't a known formation.
You may be missing my point. The formation looks to be a "flying V", that's not the point. The point, is it is a scattered formation, meaning it has no superior intelligence telling it to keep its formation. Sure, its a V, but its scattered.


Still, with birds I come back to the original point. I dont think a bird that far off (as it would have to be to appear so small) would be visible on a near IR cam with that sensitivity.
You don't know for a fact how far the objects are.


[edit on 30-10-2008 by TravisT]



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 06:55 PM
link   
wait... dark knight was ban'd??

Damn... i missed something... umm.. anyone want to inform me into as why? All he did was post some strange pictures...



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by TravisT
 


So what you are saying is everyone is a liar until someone proves otherwise?

You cant be bothered to find you own proof and information and you are automatically right until someone does it for you?

Thats what it reads like to me really. You have already been told the range of near IR and the sensitivity of the cam in question, if you want to prove otherwise id suggest google. Im afraid its not everyone elses job to disprove your unwillingness to accept everything.

Listen to your position, the poster is a liar, the facts of near IR are wrong because your dont believe them whats coming next? Doesnt matter what people present to you, you will find yet another way to deny it.

It wouldnt matter if you did check the facts on near IR and the range of its sensitivity in this cam, any sensible person would have, you would then still deny the possibility because thats all you want to do.



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 10:09 PM
link   
Okay, lets think about this rationally for a moment, please.

There is no way to tell the height of these objects, and I will tell you why.

DK only saw the objects through the viewfinder and not with his own eyes(From the clarifications that I saw in thread). There isn't any depth perception while looking through a 2D viewfinder. The objects could be at the height of stars, meteors, planes, birds, or bugs.

If anyone can find a hole in this logic, please point it out.

Extrapolating on the idea that the height is no longer fixed at a mile in the sky.. we can no longer estimate a speed at which the images were moving.

If anyone can find a hole in the logic of this extrapolation, please point it out.



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 10:20 PM
link   
reply to post by HankMcCoy
 


He said that he saw them come from behind a cirrus cloud.



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 10:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 

Not to get a little rude about it, but I think we need some proof other then what he said he thinks he saw. He has also said a flame was talking to him, while giving us "photographic evidence".

I don't believe any claims without actual proof. Plain and simple.




[edit on 30-10-2008 by TravisT]



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


While I think it is quite unlikely that in the tiniest single glinting he could tell whether it was above or below the wispy cirrus cloud, I will still concede the point.

[edit on 30-10-2008 by HankMcCoy]



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 10:42 PM
link   
reply to post by HankMcCoy
 


The height of the object was never the point. The point was that IF as adamantly suggested, they were birds, they would have to be extremly high to show as dots.

So IF people want to state emphatically they are birds, it would be nice of them to support the idea with some evidence that supports the idea. Clearly birds arent dots, unless the birds are very distant, in which case they are high altitude birds which brings us neatly back to the point being made here, that near IR with that sensitivity shouldnt be able to show up birds at that distance.

The technology used for monitoring bird migrations using IR is called FLIR (forward looking infrared) and it costs upwayds of $40k. It will image up to 2 miles something the size of a swan.

So, maybe someone can demonstrate their point?



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by TravisT
reply to post by Phage
 

Not to get a little rude about it, but I think we need some proof other then what he said he thinks he saw. He has also said a flame was talking to him, while giving us "photographic evidence".

I don't believe any claims without actual proof. Plain and simple.



So why are you in the thread disrupting it for everyone else? Clearly you will never believe anything because you refuse to take his word even for how the pictures were taken?

Whats the point of filling up six pages with that? If you dont want to discuss the issue, think its all a pack of lies then why bother?

Theres the issue, you filled six pages insisting they were birds because you think hes lying?



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 11:08 PM
link   
reply to post by silver6ix
 


silver6ix, with all due respect...

Just shut up.

You have proven to not know anything about anything and being the loudest doesn't make you right.

The height IS in question.
The speed IS in question.
Whether or not the objects were visible to the naked eye IS in question.

Even DK himself told me he is entertaining the possibility that these were bugs and is taking some test shots to see if it is possible.



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by HankMcCoy
reply to post by silver6ix
 


silver6ix, with all due respect...

Just shut up.

You have proven to not know anything about anything and being the loudest doesn't make you right.

The height IS in question.
The speed IS in question.
Whether or not the objects were visible to the naked eye IS in question.

Even DK himself told me he is entertaining the possibility that these were bugs and is taking some test shots to see if it is possible.


Another post with about as much value and something with no value. Did you have a point or did you just want to demonstrate your character a little more, Hank?

Ive forgotten more than you will ever know on probably every subject in existence, but then again thats not really stating very much. What do you know exactly? Thats the one thing that seems to be missing every time you post.


The height isnt relevant. Have you ever seen a bug? Im wondering;.....

[edit on 30-10-2008 by silver6ix]



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 11:17 PM
link   
Without having read the whole thread I must say that the image are interesting. I've wanted to try this out for myself also, but haven't made it that far yet. Were thinking of putting two cameras sidebyside just so everyone, if I caught anything, would be able to se the normal recording and IR recording so that I won't get stuck in the argument about what I think I saw or actually saw, witch seems to repet itself a lot here on ATS.

Think I'm going to try this out sometime soon, I'll be shure to let you know about it when I get that far. And I'll guess I'm going to post the actually video's from both cam's on Google Earht or YouTube high quality for you to see for yourself as well - that is if I manage to capture something interesting witch I can't find any earthly explenation for myself that is.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 11  12  13    15  16 >>

log in

join