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.
Originally posted by Faiol
Originally posted by bloodcircle
Originally posted by lifeform
reply to post by bloodcircle
the only change i see to the planes is a slight change in angle and slight change on where the shadow falls on the planes.
maybe you can point out where we should be looking when it passes in front?
i see the object behind the planes, then it totally disappears, then reappears on the opposite side of the plane.
Follow the path of the object, there is an area that becomes darker near the tail of the plane just on the frame where the object allegedly disappears - and does so obviously in the animation. Posting single frames will not make it any clearer, infact, obscure it further.
This only happens in this frame, none of the others prior or after the object 'disappears'. That is what gives me the impression that, as the next poster says, it is a trick of the light, but for the opposite reason. It gives the illusion that it is passing behind the plane, when in my opinion, it is in front of it.
I'm not claiming this is undeniable, just pointing out that I see it differently.
i just saw the video with brightness lvl, and I can clearly see the plane parts, and the thing must be behind the plane, and there is the speed factor ...
frame1:img509.imageshack.us...
frame2:img220.imageshack.us...
frame3:img220.imageshack.us...
really, there's nothing in front of the plane wtf
Originally posted by Faiol
Originally posted by lifeform
reply to post by bloodcircle
i think i see what your refering to, however the darker area is still visable when the object reappears, if the missing frame another poster spoke about is added.
[edit on 3-11-2008 by lifeform]
what do u mean, there are 3 frames, before, behind, after the plane
not an expert, but i am not dumb
sorry, there are 4 frames with the object, but the first one before the second plane I think doesnt matter, it only matter for u to imagine + - where should be behind the plane
[edit on 3-11-2008 by Faiol]
Originally posted by bloodcircle
Originally posted by Faiol
Originally posted by bloodcircle
Originally posted by lifeform
reply to post by bloodcircle
the only change i see to the planes is a slight change in angle and slight change on where the shadow falls on the planes.
maybe you can point out where we should be looking when it passes in front?
i see the object behind the planes, then it totally disappears, then reappears on the opposite side of the plane.
Follow the path of the object, there is an area that becomes darker near the tail of the plane just on the frame where the object allegedly disappears - and does so obviously in the animation. Posting single frames will not make it any clearer, infact, obscure it further.
This only happens in this frame, none of the others prior or after the object 'disappears'. That is what gives me the impression that, as the next poster says, it is a trick of the light, but for the opposite reason. It gives the illusion that it is passing behind the plane, when in my opinion, it is in front of it.
I'm not claiming this is undeniable, just pointing out that I see it differently.
i just saw the video with brightness lvl, and I can clearly see the plane parts, and the thing must be behind the plane, and there is the speed factor ...
frame1:img509.imageshack.us...
frame2:img220.imageshack.us...
frame3:img220.imageshack.us...
really, there's nothing in front of the plane wtf
Good job. Certainly throws the entire toolbox in along with the spanner there.
Originally posted by Faiol
Now I used speedit to zoom and I put some brigthness and took a PNG screenshoot .... take a look
frame1:img509.imageshack.us...
frame2:img220.imageshack.us...
frame3:img220.imageshack.us...
Originally posted by bloodcircle
Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by bloodcircle
I see where you mean, it is quite interesting.
Now I'm no film expert but if the craft is going at a constant speed and the camera frame rate is going at the same speed wouldn't the second shot put the object dead centre of the first and third shots? If so, it appears to place it in that area. Mind you that's only speculation and my 2 cents.
[edit on 2-11-2008 by Chadwickus]
That's something that I thought about also, so it's a spanner in the works. However the initial frames where the object are seen, the thing does appear to jump at approximately the same length between frames. It's the final frame where it is further away.
(Image is missing the right hand side, click it to view the first frame)
Originally posted by TrustMeImaSalesman
Great videos and a wonderful presentation by our Armed Forces.
After watching these videos several times, what I perceive is two different object field of view.
The aircraft moving at some considerable distance to you. Then another object(item) moving along with or at different angles in relation to the aircraft and at a different distance to you!
Items(objects) closer to you will be moving faster(in relation) than objects in the distance. A perfect example is to gaze at our full moon, low on the horizion, video it and at the same time a bird flies across the face of the moon or jet passes by. The camera catches both!
However, the question is which object is moving faster. Answer: the moon! It's traveling thousands of miles per hour and the jet or bird only hundreds of miles per hour.
In my opinion, your camera captured both quite well but the distance is obviously and clearly seen as two different relationships to the camera.
Sorry, but you didn't capture Morg and Mindy checking out the air show. You caught "Buggsy" McGruder or "Heathcliff" the seagull going home to Gertridue.
But keep on filming as I have seen "UFO'S" from flights in day and nighttime flights while on business.
There is the truth and it's "out there"
Trustmesalesman.
Originally posted by Wolf321
Hank, just curious... wouldn't a frame of the object behind the fighters just be a frame of the fighters?
I came across this youtube video of the same show. The footage that matches mine occurs from time 4:29 to 4:50. The video is not as close or clear as mine, and I sometimes think I see the same object in full screen mode but not like on my video. However, at 4:49 to 4:50, there is another object that appears from the bottom right and climbs up. It seems a little slower than the speed of the object in my video, more typical of a fighter, but based on location it is not one of the F-16s. There were no other aircraft airborne during the Thunderbird demo. It may be the same object, or something altogether different. Here is that video.
[edit on 2-11-2008 by Wolf321]
Originally posted by feydrautha
notice how jet fighters, when they're photographed by anyone, look just like jet fighters.
the same goes for fire engines, tricycles and the space shuttle.
in photographs by anyone, on any camera, they look just like the objects we all are familiar with and know exist.
however, when it comes to spacecraft from another world, they often look well, like ambiguous blurry streaks without definition...
doesnt stop the true believers, though.
the insect in the airshow pics is close to the camera, and not as illuminated by the sun as the jet fighters.
when the insect passed between the camera and the jet, its contrast made it appear to not be visible in the still.
if it was a large craft, farther away than the jets and much faster, its motion blur would have indicated it clearly.
Not really, a fly can be very fast, and at close range it would have a greater angular velocity (I think this is the correct name for it, someone correct me if I am wrong) than the jets.
Originally posted by silver6ix
Now a bug, for it to be a bug moving that fast across the frame it would have to be either a regular sized fly at sufficient sidtance from the camera to register as a smaller dot. In this example of any half decent camera you would have several frames of movement and probably in one of those a good image of the fly. Also you would see the images morph through the frames as it beat its wings and flew by.
A tiny bug closer to the camera would be even more out of focus than a fly some metres away, so it would look blurrier, although the speed could be the same because it was flying closer to the camera.
Second idea is a reall tiny bug at close range. This I just dont buy, the really tiny bugs that fly around arent that fast and if it were sitting right on top of the camera, you would see it in the stills.