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.

 

UFO's caught on video at Lafayette, LA air show

page: 4
22
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 12:18 AM
link   

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.






posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 12:22 AM
link   

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]


check out the animation claiming there is a darker area and take note of where the object can be seen.

now look at the last 3 pics you posted and where the object is in those 3 pics.

in your 3rd pic the dark area on the tail of the plane is still visable even though the object is near the nose.

in the animation 2nd frame when the object disappears there is a dark area near the tail, in the 3rd frame the object is almost of the screen with no dark area.

there is a frame that shows the object near to the nose which was'nt shown in the animation.



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 12:22 AM
link   

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.



nice job for u too ... but that THING behind the plane u saw, it is just a glitch from the video, this is the first frame before the thing appears for the first time ... as u say, light trick






[edit on 3-11-2008 by Faiol]



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 12:23 AM
link   
I think it is a nat. If the nat would fly by the camera close enough it would look as if it was going fast also it shade could of blended in with the shadows under the jet. This would also explain why there was a decent amount seen in the video and why no one would of stop the airshow because an unidentified object is on the radar (or rather isnt on the radar) but then again i could be right but im going to stick with my gut.



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 12:24 AM
link   
reply to post by bloodcircle
 

I was using the pics posted by Faiol as a reference:


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...



So if you look at those three pictures, the object does appear to end up in that darkened spot in your GIF.


Add that to the pic Mike put up:




The trajectory matches up also.



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 12:30 AM
link   
Do you guys have the original video, or are you using the youtube clip?

If you have the original is there any way I can get a copy of it?



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 12:31 AM
link   
but the dark area can still be seen when the object becomes visable again, nearer to the nose of the plane.

take note of the picture showing the object closer to the nose.

the dark area is caused by slight angle changes.



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 12:36 AM
link   

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)


here, that thing is a light trick, thats the frame before the thing, and the other is the frame the thing desappear that u said that the darker area would be the thing





[edit on 3-11-2008 by Faiol]



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 12:53 AM
link   
I made another comparison ... I explain the frames in the picture, this is to show the planes in each frame ... so u will see that the thing could not be below the plane as someone said





posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 02:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Wolf321
 


Really cool find!
You just missed one thing, its part of the airshow



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 08:12 AM
link   
Wolf321

Could you please upload the original file to some file sharing site, like rapidshare, for example?

It would be better if we could look at the original video instead of the converted YouTube version.

Thanks.



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 08:26 AM
link   
Couple of things to think of.

Actually theres no reason for the object to be centralised in the second frame as some suggested, doesnt matter if IT was moving at constant velocity of not, we also must factor in the Jets were moving and the camera was tracking. So a small adjustment can easily be made and account for any movement in the object from dead centre.

Also the planes are not directly sideon to the camera.

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.

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.

My own feeling is that it goes behind the jets, keeps uniform shape and has constant velocity, all of which indicate something other than a fly. Also if the fly was sufficiently foregrounded, id imagine in the still had it been before the plane you would see the lighter aspects of it, and the shadows surrounding it clearly against the plane.



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 11:15 AM
link   
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.



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 11:44 AM
link   

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.


omg, really u think the thing is a BUG? thats impossible ... only if the bug was behind the plane, if thte bug was behind the plane, then its impossible because of the speed ...



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 01:11 PM
link   
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.



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 01:38 PM
link   

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]



i took at look at all the other posts thus far and nobody comments on the other anomoly on the video at 3:58? why?



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 02:19 PM
link   

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.


didnt u saw the frames that show the object disappear ? take a look into the photos before u jump in a conclusion, at least give it a shoot, u just saw the video and u are already saying that this is a bug ... the thing passes behind the plane, for me that is pretty obvious .... check out the screenshots that some guys posted here ...



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 03:52 PM
link   

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.
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.

Also, a camera that was following the jets at a far greater distance would not show a fly focused, not only because of the difference in distance but also because of the difference in speed across the frame, the camera was not following the "fly".

And I think that even a good consumer camera is not able of catching a fly in good conditions at more than some metres, they fly very fast and they move the wings at an extremely high speed, making them invisible to all common cameras.


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.
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.

Another thing, the fact that we can not see the object in front of the jet does not mean it wasn't there, what looks dark in front of the sky may look darker when in front of the aeroplane, like when we see a dirty spot on a window if something is behind it but if we move the head a little it disappears because the background changed to something with the same luminosity and/or colour.

The original footage could clear this up, if it shows the object in front of the aeroplane, but if it does not then I guess we have to find another way of knowing what it was.



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 04:00 PM
link   
From the 320x240 YouTube video it is hard to see enough detail to be sure.
bloodcircle: I'm amazed that you managed to make the slight difference visible in you animation.

To show how bad the resolution is this is how it looks without resize + interpolation.

The UFOs are from frames 1 and 3 and the jets are from frame 2, captured in VLC without compression (PNG files). So it appears to me that you pointed out the right place for a possible location of the UFO if its motion in the FOV is a straight line, but a wrong position for the UFO in frame 3 in your GIF animation.



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 04:27 PM
link   
Silly me I took the low res version on YouTube.
Here are the slightly better raw captures:



The UFO doesn't "disappear"




top topics



 
22
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join