Diamond shaped ufo.. recent release

reply to post by Xtraeme


Hmmm...its possible that it could have features of a prop engine, except for the fact that there was no prop engine sound, and the lights would be located on the engine itself...which is something I have never seen before.

reply to post by Xtraeme


Yeah...like I said, judging by the pictures that are provided as examples of prop engines...there do not appear to be lights beneath the engine themselves. So, although I'm convinced that this is a military craft (one of ours), I don't think its a prop engine craft.

reply to post by mike73173


Sounds like we're thinking the same thing. Turbo-props are louder than a mother-f*'er. Not to mention they have a thudda-thudda-thudda noise to them. The turbo prop was the first thing that popped in to my head because the engines are huge, unpainted and highly reflective blocks of steel.

However the engine noise heard from 2:54 - 3:14 makes me think that if there is an external engine attached to the wing it's likely a jet engine. I updated the original post to include that possibility.

The number of lights on the craft is striking! I live right next to LAX and I've never seen any civilian craft with that sort of lighting configuration. At this point I'm nearly 95% convinced it's military (it has what appears to be a conventional airliner body, strobe - albeit irregular flashing, and something that looks like an outboard engine). Perhaps it's a B-52?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ef20a8f87ae0.jpg[/atsimg]

Trying to discern the sweep angle of the wings might help identify the craft. Also calculating the proportions of the nose, wing, and tail, could help to narrow down the search.

I think the number one outstanding question is, why was it so quiet on the first flyover? Makes me think this is some kind of powered glider. Perhaps something like the old P-38?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d199317416c3.jpg[/atsimg]

[edit on 5-4-2009 by Xtraeme]

reply to post by Xtraeme


Here's the external lighting configuration for an MC-130:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/bd17c27b09bf.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1e445653dac0.jpg[/atsimg]

Source (RAF UK).

I should have resized, but the text became quite ambiguous. The key for the letters used marking the lights is in the bottom right corner.

Xtraeme and jackphotohobby: guys you're good. I'm impressed. It takes a good eye to see the shape, and honestly I never noticed it. Actually I looked for something much bigger. The direction of flight is correct, these frames were captured after the silent object passes overhead. Now is it possible for an airplane to cut power and glide for the last 20 - 30 miles? I guess it is. Landing lights are switched on somewhere between 18000 and 10000 feet from what I could find by quickly googling.
www.airliners.net...

Originally posted by Xtraeme
I think the number one outstanding question is, why was it so quiet on the first flyover? Makes me think this is some kind of powered glider.

The noise of the Jeep engine would cover most of the sound, and it could be gliding silently for miles.
The second flyover could be a second aircraft. I think I can get a much better view of its shape at 3:10. And it's not silent at this point.

Here is the new stack, 88 frames (#5721-5808) done in Registax.

Raw result:


Levels adjusted:


Interesting dark line in the middle.

reply to post by nablator


Same thing, just the blue channel (same settings as previous pic):

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f0c62f19bd25.png[/atsimg]


I think the blue channel is interesting. It is the least sensitive channel on many CCD based devices. It is amplified the most by the signal amplifier to compensate, which is why it is the most prone to blooming and image noise.

However, I suspect it may also mean that weaker outlines become visible, because what light did reflect from fuselage hit the blue sensors and was amplified by the signal amplifier to a greater degree than the red and green channels.

I don't think it's blooming, but I could be wrong.

If I'm right the blue channel could be used as a cheap night vision aid in picture/videos where there's enough info in the channel. I wonder if older CCDs are more susceptible to this than newer CCDs because of the amplification ratio of the blue channel. Likewise smaller CCDs should have a similar effect in the blue channel.


[edit on 5-4-2009 by jackphotohobby]

Quoting Mike from the description of the first version of the video:

Also, for the idiots who attribute this to an airplane...you must be on drugs or just retarded. I grew up next to an airport and have seen more conventional and military crafts than most civilians put together. My father used to be an Industrial Engineer at Crane (NWSC) so, DON'T insult my intelligence, or worse, your own by making silly comments like...airplane, plane, yada yada yada. I'll just erase your moronic comments and block you from viewing this again. For those of you who cannot tell...I'm sick to death of know-it-all skeptics or debunkers. I eat your type for lunch and its too bad I don't get paid to do it.

Now maybe I understand better the negative comments by NightVision.

[edit on 2009-4-5 by nablator]

reply to post by nablator


This vehicle was more like 1500 feet in the air. Not much more at all.

reply to post by nablator

Nablator, the reason why I posted that info was because of guys like Nightvision. Not for the people who are truly trying to understand the situation. I am willing to accept an analysis like what is occurring, but, when someone immediately makes stabs at me, like many of the comments that have been left on my youtube site as well as the last time I was at ATS, then I take the defensive posture.

I have not said anything which I believe is a charged statement towards you or anyone else. And you might want to go to some of Nightvision's other posts around ATS to see how he intentionally creates static. I'm not the first one he has done this to, and I won't be the last.

Maybe its time for me to let you guys make your own analysis and completely step away from this again. You guys can come up with any conclusion that you choose which is fine by me.

As a matter of fact...I think I have decided to erase all of my videos, as it is no longer important whether my footage gets seen. Friends of mine told me that it was a bad idea from the jump, and now I tend to agree with them. This was something that was meant to stay with me and the friends who got to experience it with me.

Thank you for your time boys...many of you have been awesome.

reply to post by Xtraeme

I really can not accept that it is a B-52.

The 52s stall speed is 147 kts. I referenced the 1994 Fairchild AFB crash, which is horrific in itself.

I have watched very low level bombing/training runs from1/2 mile. They usually fly three birds on missions, sometimes two.

When I was in Northern Arabia during Desert Storm, the 52s flew so blinking low during the initial phase, I thought it entirely surreal. They were below Iraqi radar. Almost give a camel a haircut! Then as air supremacy was reached, they would fly at maybe 50k+ ft for their runs.

Mike's craft appears to be much slower & lower in my opinion.

Don't worry, Mike, we understand. I have no idea why some people chose to attack you in the first place, your video is certainly genuine and you have been very open and helpful. The Youtube crowd is the worst pack of morons in the world. It seems to be their sole purpose in life to verbally abuse and write stupidities. Just ignore them.

reply to post by mike73173

Mike, maybe you need a cup of tea & a smoke. Step outside and get some air. You have been a fantastic contributor to ATS.

All too often, things get over analyzed, sliced, dissected, probed, nuked, fried, grille, etc. I think this is the case here.

It would happen to any interesting & good post. Think about it. If Stanton Friedman came in with a hot video, people would naturally create a sandstorm.

Take a few days off. There are many of us who think you are a great ATS trooper.

Originally posted by mike73173
This vehicle was more like 1500 feet in the air. Not much more at all.

Yes, I read that already, but distances are notoriously difficult to estimate with an object of unknown size, especially in the dark. I don't know what level of zoom your video camera is capable of. What is the make and model? We could check if the speed and size is consistent with an airplane if you tell us.

Originally posted by mike73173
reply to post by nablator

 

Nablator, the reason why I posted that info was because of guys like Nightvision. Not for the people who are truly trying to understand the situation. I am willing to accept an analysis like what is occurring, but, when someone immediately makes stabs at me, like many of the comments that have been left on my youtube site as well as the last time I was at ATS, then I take the defensive posture.

Which is entirely understandable. If I saw something I couldn't fully comprehend, that was sufficiently bizarre, I would have done the same thing you did. I would have posted it to let people come to their own conclusions and I certainly wouldn't take kindly to people personally ripping me apart.

Maybe its time for me to let you guys make your own analysis and completely step away from this again. You guys can come up with any conclusion that you choose which is fine by me.

I've greatly appreciated your willingness to provide further information. Everything I read in your original youtube comment coincides quite accurately with what's seen throughout the video. Frankly I don't think you deserve the kind of treatment you've received.

As a matter of fact...I think I have decided to erase all of my videos, as it is no longer important whether my footage gets seen. Friends of mine told me that it was a bad idea from the jump, and now I tend to agree with them. This was something that was meant to stay with me and the friends who got to experience it with me.

I hope you reconsider. It's still your experience and you can enjoy it for that. Just because some 10 year old on Youtube wants to take a piss on your video doesn't mean you should delete it. The same goes for people here on ATS or elsewhere that think the only way to get to the truth is to berate and harass a person about their sighting until they crack. It's the online equivalent of water-boarding.

Thank you for your time boys...many of you have been awesome.

Mike, this video is extremely compelling. As a matter of fact we still can't say with 100% certainty that it's not bloom or the light cone. We have details to suggest it is a standard airframe, but nothing conclusive.

If you feel we're ignoring some detail, please, speak up. I'm willing to listen.

Thanks for participating Mike and keep recording! I for one enjoy your videos

[edit on 6-4-2009 by Xtraeme]

reply to post by Xtraeme


You've pretty much summed up what I think about this thread. I feel the same way about the image analysis, and would be quite happy if someone who knows better points out I'm wrong, because then I know better. I hope I've been quite clear about the level of certainty I've assigned to various statements.

Originally posted by DREAMING MAN
reply to post by Xtraeme

 

I really can not accept that it is a B-52.

The 52s stall speed is 147 kts. I referenced the 1994 Fairchild AFB crash, which is horrific in itself.

I'm no aircraft expert. By all accounts I think you're much more qualified than I am to make a call on the make and model of this thing. Any guesses on your part? There are one or two frames that suggest the wing is slightly angled (5º - 10º off-center, recessed). I can grab the frame to give you a more accurate measurement if you're interested.

Mike's craft appears to be much slower & lower in my opinion.

It's a shame we don't have a foreground object to try and accurately measure size. We do have one star that moves through the cameras field of view. Based off that and how quickly it moves off camera we might be able to compute angular speed. I can do the math if you think it would help identify the aircraft.

[edit on 5-4-2009 by Xtraeme]

reply to post by Xtraeme

If it's not too much trouble to try. I'll be glad to look at it,

But quite honestly, I'm barely qualified to take the trash out at my house. "Wife has to watch me when I use the shredder, & my terrier walks me.

Originally posted by dainoyfb
reply to post by DREAMING MAN

 

Thanks very much concerning the IR info.
You have been doing some VERY serious homework!


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. ...

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. ...