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.

 

Diamond shaped ufo.. recent release

page: 6
28
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by RE2505
 


The sound has been added.




posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 11:27 AM
link   
Mike if you contact me with some of the sound the craft made i'd like to check it out in my music software see what sort of signature it has...



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by FireMoon
reply to post by NightVision
 


Nightvision..You are digging yourself a huge hole you are never going to be able to climb out of so I would just leave it if i were you.... People being randomly picked on without anything illegal taking place, has a history as long as modern Ufology.
[edit on 2-4-2009 by FireMoon]



I respectfully disagree that he is being picked on, as u put it. He's made claims of having extraordinary footage of Helicopters hovering close to his house, and Black SUV's parked in his driveway. This would be the first time in HISTORY someone has filmed this. Keep in mind he's had years to offer up a single frame....hmmm.....


However, you are correct, Firemoon. I am digging myself a hole, hoping that mike will answer 3 simple questions that I have respectfully asked him repeatedly. He said he had MUFON came out to investigate, yet has a sudden case of amnesia when asked the name of the field investigator. See where I'm going with this?

The questions I asked are the same questions any sound investigator would ask. He cries 'victim' when I ask for simple video evidence of his claims. "Camera is broken", or "useless to post that footage" are phrases i hear often.

So be it. I'm done. You guys enjoy. I have given him far too much attention. There are better UFO cases to investigate. Just be wary. that is all.

[edit on 3-4-2009 by NightVision]



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 05:33 PM
link   
Poor guy (nightvision)

I don't think he gets enough attention at home.



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by NightVision

Originally posted by FireMoon
reply to post by NightVision
 





I respectfully disagree that he is being picked on, as u put it. He's made claims of having extraordinary footage of Helicopters hovering close to his house, and Black SUV's parked in his driveway. This would be the first time in HISTORY someone has filmed this. Keep in mind he's had years to offer up a single frame....hmmm.....
[edit on 3-4-2009 by NightVision]


Nightvision you are missing the point... In the history of Ufology Mike's experiences are repeated over and over. Where someone suddenly finds themselves as if they have become, the centre of attention, without anything that is out in the open and direct.. Mike is not saying he is being *picked on* at all. He is saying that from never seeing any military activity around his house, out of the blue, the moment he takes some footage of an unknown object the military are seemingly legion around his neighbourhood.



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 10:39 PM
link   
reply to post by dainoyfb
 

Outstanding Infra Red photos & video! Very good contribution as examples for thread.

I submit that today's DOD MIL TECH FLIR is very advanced from its early days, when it was developed by the Navy for stand off ident.

"If" Mike's UFOs "one of ours," I dare say the IR system would be super clear & capable of long range ident.

I recently read about a means of "masking one's self against IR." I don't know if it works, but the theory sounds feasible however. Someone in the "field" said they were going to try acetate or Plexiglas.

During hot or cold temps or high pressure, it holds static electricity, which may act to degauss whom ever lies behind it. Just thought you may try it to see if it works. Wish I could afford an IR Cam. Wow.



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 12:31 AM
link   
reply to post by DREAMING MAN
 


Yeah, but the problem with hiding from these things is that they will just zip on by instead of put on a show for you.

If your intent is to set up a blind to stake out black project aircraft or for what ever other reason (maybe an Area 51 excursion or something) then plexiglass wont be your best bet. One of the reasons I acquired a thermal imager was to learn how to defeat them. Plastics are fairly transparent to a thermal imager. Mine can see heat sources right through vapor barrier, black garbage bags, tarps, and partially through thin acrylics and other types of plexiglass. Plexiglass is also very reflective in the thermal part of the spectrum so it looks pretty out of place in a natural environment. It doesn't fold up very well for transport either.

Here is the little known secret to hiding from a thermal imager. Set up in a normal nylon tent. This works because nylon fabric is fairly opaque in the thermal part of the IR spectrum and the only way a thermal imager can see a heat source behind an opaque object is to see the effect the heat source has on that object (either through conductance by contact or from radiant heat). The thing about nylon is that it has a very low thermal density and is porous enough to breath well so that it matches the surrounding air temperature very quickly and the relatively small amount of thermal radiation from occupants has such a neglageble affect that the tent wont stand out against the range of temperatures seen in the background. Add a bit of foliage to the outside of the tent and it will break up the unnatural shape.
Be careful to keep any light from monitors etc. well shielded because nylon fabric is very translucent in the visible and near IR parts of the spectrum and a tent with a small light inside looks like a Chinese lantern through a night scope (I notice squatter tents in parks this way all the time).
If you are trying to stake out what might be black project aircraft another thing that you might want to watch for is that none of your equipment (or clothing for that matter) has retail RFID tags attached. I worked on a project not to long ago where we experimented with finding grow operations and other hidaways in the bush by looking for the acknowledgment returns from RFID tags that are now common inside things like fertilizer bags, cordless tools, and other assorted Walmart products. I figure if I've thought of it there is a good chance that spookland has as well.



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 07:26 AM
link   
In the new video, enabling HD, I was able to get a bit more detail at 00;23;01.



And the same image minus the overlay.



It's possible this is an encoding aberration, but it pretty well defined for a graphical artifact.

UPDATE: The "hatch" is a graphical artifact.


In reply to post by Inarismessenger
 
can anybody else see the nose and fuselage when the craft is fully lit around 3:00??


I see what you're talking about, but it's hard to tell if that's the light-cone from the headlights or the fuselage. Looking carefully at all the vid-frames I think it's lighting because the illumination fans out rather than linearly highlighting the same strip of metal across a reflective-surface, attenuating, till it fades to black.

For instance this animation illustrates the shape of the craft and shows what looks like an ever so slightly fanning-light off of the front.



[edit on 4-4-2009 by Xtraeme]



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 12:56 PM
link   
Hi Xtraeme,

I'm trying to see something in the dark. It's not easy. The new video is better that the previous one, 640x480 vs 480x360. This is the "hatch" frame (#691), compressed with lossless PNG compression:



No hatch, as far as I can see. Maybe a JPEG artifact in your capture?

I got the file from the firefox cache directory (22 MB), then extracted all frames with:
ffmpeg -i mike2.flv -s 640x480 -f image2 -vcodec png %04d.png



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 02:03 PM
link   
To eliminate digital noise, I stacked 23 frames near the previous one, still nothing is visible around the lights.



Shadows/highlights adjusted:




posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 02:17 PM
link   
I'm actually very amazed of how thorough many of your interests and investigations are. Thank God there are people genuinely trying to understand this and seem to have the resources to make a run at a scientific study.

Many people here from ATS are some of the most open-minded and scientifically prone people that I have come across, especially in this field.

I can finally say that the majority of the ATS people represent a good community of people who meticulously try to seek solid answers.

Thank you for inviting me Nepratari, And I also thank the ATS crew for welcoming me without incident.



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by nablator
 


Okay, here's the information regarding the former MUFON agent who came out to investigate my case.

Again, his name is Ted Robertson, his main concentration was crop circles; his emal is: tedrobert@bloomington.in.us
He had put me in contact with Linda Moulton Howe, and he was responsible for sending me to Lynn Taylor, who had me investigated by Dr. Levingood.

I talked with him and he said it was okay if you chose to contact him to find out information.



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by nablator
I'm trying to see something in the dark. It's not easy. The new video is better that the previous one, 640x480 vs 480x360. This is the "hatch" frame (#691), compressed with lossless PNG compression:

No hatch, as far as I can see. Maybe a JPEG artifact in your capture?

I got the file from the firefox cache directory (22 MB), then extracted all frames with:
ffmpeg -i mike2.flv -s 640x480 -f image2 -vcodec png %04d.png


Hey Nablator! I'm grabbing the flv stream using Orbit. The program sniffs each client-side page-refresh for RTMP/ MMS/ RTSP URLs. Looking at the file size you're working with (22 MBs) makes me think Orbit is grabbing the lower-quality version (8.5 MBs).

...

And, sure enough! I just went in to the Temporary Internet Files\Content.IE5 folder and the flv is 23 MBs and change. Hmpf. Last time I use that crappy application.

That little snafu aside. I think you're right that it's an artifact. I was running ffmpeg using:


ffmpeg -y -i mike.with.audio.flv -vcodec mjpeg -b 650k -an mike.with.audio.avi


Doing a lossless conversion (using huffyuv) I'm not seeing the "hatch."


ffmpeg -y -i mike.HD.with.audio.flv -vcodec huffyuv -an mike.HD.with.audio.avi


Dang false positives!

[edit on 4-4-2009 by Xtraeme]



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 08:03 PM
link   
reply to post by mike73173
 

Thanks Mike for the info. There is no need to contact them, probably the shape of the craft can't be seen even with a better quality video. The Youtube video is not bad, as evidenced by the digital noise in every frame. (Noise is removed when the compression is too strong.) Sometimes there's information drowned in this digital noise. But here I doubt it, the shape of the craft seems hidden. The stacking technique works best when there is some ambient light, or the sky is not too dark, so the craft can be seen in contrast. I tried stacking another part of the video, frames 945-993. It's not better, unfortunately.



Best,

Nab



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by mike73173
It is Bloomington, Indiana...but the closest military base is Crane (NWSC).


Mike73173, why do you keep insisting the closest military base is Crane, over an hour away?

The truth is that the nearest military base is Camp Atterbury, a mere 22 miles away. The camp is used regularly by all branches of the military and even has past history of flying helicopters over populated areas .

In my book, twice denying the facts does not enhance one's credibility.



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by nablator
 


There's an interesting shape in the blue channel of your PNG image, but I'm not sure how much of that is caused by a technical issue. It'd probably be better with the original combo image because of a high colour depth.

AFAIK the blue channel is the least sensitive on CCD based devices, so in theory the object should be much less exposed in the blue channel than the others. It's easier to see cut and pasting the blue channel and playing with the gamma. I don't know enough to say whether it's just artefacts, it implies a shape, possibly with something sticking out to the right, that's about it. YMMV, I'm probably wrong.



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by nablator
reply to post by mike73173
 

Sometimes there's information drowned in this digital noise. But here I doubt it, the shape of the craft seems hidden. The stacking technique works best when there is some ambient light, or the sky is not too dark, so the craft can be seen in contrast. I tried stacking another part of the video, frames 945-993. It's not better, unfortunately.


I think you're selling yourself short Nab. Upping the gamma reveals some otherwise hidden data about the nose of the craft. Granted it could be the light cone, but based on your stacked composite image it looks like it tapers to a point rather than fanning out.

Call it pareidolia, but this is what's going through my head right now:



I can very easily see the illuminated object in frame 00;23;01 being a turbo-prop engine. Perhaps somewhat similar to this Douglas C-133A:



Or to better fit the audio for this particular segment of the video. Perhaps a jet engine?



[edit on 5-4-2009 by Xtraeme]



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 10:12 PM
link   
reply to post by jackphotohobby
 


Idiot.

I should have checked blooming artefacts in the blue channel:

www.aguntherphotography.com...

That would explain it. I know what blooming is, hence I feel stupid.



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 10:13 PM
link   
reply to post by eaglewingz
 


eaglewingz...you're under the impression that I'm trying to establish credibility, and you couldn't be farther from the truth. I don't care whether you believe me or not...and that's the unadulturated truth...no denials. I'm not here to impress you or gain your favor. I'm here to answer questions for the people who have inquired about my experience...not to give explanations for people merely looking to make a name for themselves by creating static or for the mere purpose of spreading negativity.

And although I'm aware that Camp Addebury exists (that may not be how its spelled), I didn't take time to go through a thorough list to find out every base that resides in Indiana and what their location is in relation to mine...I am a civilian. And much like you, I am human, so, that chances of me knowing everything on earth is improbable. Crane is what I am most familiar with, and, whether its 22 miles away, or 10 days away, it still doesn't explain the military presence AT MY HOME, especially when it was never there before the sighting. You can apply any explanation that you choose that makes you sleep better at night concerning my situation. But, since you weren't with me in my Jeep, work, house, or my shoes...chances are you won't have an idea of what occurred. I think I've got that one covered.

You may believe what you want, and you're welcome to your opinion. Thank you for your comment, and have a wonderful day.



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtraeme
 




If you're allowed pareidolia, so am I
.

Method, cut and paste the blue channel, converted it to RGB, increased gamma to 1.69 (photoshop), increased contrast to 100, saved and uploaded.



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join