Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The 1952 Tremonton, Utah UFO Fleet

page: 5
83
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 02:50 PM
link   

EDIT:

I nearly forgot.
Compairing a freeze frame of the film with a foto of Snow Gees in v-formation is nothing but a poor attempt at manipulation.
Shame on OP for that one.

Your probably the only one who feels that way about my OP, I take it you didn't star and flag it then

First of it is PHOTO, not "foto", secondly it is painfully clear and obvious again that you seem to lack relatively basic research and comprehension skills or are just vainly trying to discredit anything you can for whatever purpose you really have. The image of the snow geese in a v-type formation was, again as stated below the or above the picture in the OP only for a comparison purpose. In fact I was trying to show how a flock of birds CAN look like something else, so again you are terribly wrong. The photo was intending to show how birds can take seemingly 'mechanical and artificial' looking formations and when viewed at certain altitudes could look like UFOs, unfortunately I could not find a picture of them any higher so I stuck with that. The image was also used to illustrate the topic of that section, which was alternate explanations. In conclusion, "a poor attempt at manipulation"?! WOW, you went way overboard there Sir, I do not know what twisted, ignorant, small, non-comprehensible, and shameful little world you live in but obviously you are so far detached from reality and will do anything to prove your point, no matter how ridiculous, ignorant, or erroneous it is! So because you say so and think so that means I was trying to manipulate the audience and do it poorly at that!? ASSUMPTION, maybe you should do a thesis on that to fully understand what that means before you go saying someone else doesn't understand what it means. But I guess it is okay for you to do it right? You sound like you would be ripe for the Robertson Panel, Dr. Condon, especially Phil Klass or any of the Skeptical Inquirer people! Hell, you even resort to their classic ridicule and scoffing when you can not debunk anything scientifically! Another term for you to investigate: PSUEDOSKEPTICSIM. So obviously you realize that the gander of geese do not look anything like the objects in the video, I am not saying that means they weren't birds but it obviously shook you up enough to say that. So let me state it again for you: the geese photo was compared to the freeze frame STRICTLY for comparison purposes to show that birds CAN INDEED look like a classic UFO fleet sometimes. Apparently you thought I was trying to show how they do not look like the ones in the film, they don't but that was not my intent.

Honestly I do not know what to say to you after that comment, it is beyond words how disrespectful and ignorant that was. Maybe you should have forgot to say that and bypassed that particular edit.
You should be ashamed of yourself for totally disrespecting another members hard work and attempt to document and educate the masses on this very real phenonmina (whether you believe or not). You have done nothing in your last response bu bash me, scoff at me, and ridicule me. It is excruciatingly obvious that you have no respect at least for me and likely other members of this site and the multiple believers throughout the world. To say what you did about something that I poured time, effort, and research into is totally absurd and childish. Your blatant disrespect (not only in this thread but others I have seen you troll) you have showed me is utterly disgusting Sir. Me be ashamed of myself? NO YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF YOURSELF!!



I will no longer reply to anything you say as it is apparent you can not be like some of the better skeptical members on here and investigate in a mature and respectful way. Have a great life Sir.




posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 08:56 PM
link   
This is probably the most excellent post I've seen on ATS.

Props to Krog for such a thorough, well-planned and formatted documentary for us ATS members!

Totally enthralling.



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by ironspy
 


Thank you very much for your nice words. I am glad you both enjoyed and learned something. Do not hesitate to print this out or email it to multitudes of people who do not believe or are interested in the phenomena.



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by jkrog08
reply to post by HolgerTheDane
 


I do not know what your problem is, I have seen you aggressively trying to debunk other UFO threads so I guess it is expected.


Perhaps I just like to bring forward the evidence or arguments that support a more likely explanation. Especially when it is already frowned upon.



***snip***
I was not leading anything or inflating anything
***snip***


leading is done by overpresenting certain facts while at the same time downplaying other facts. Like what is done when one report is constantly mentioned as being wrong or unreliable. Perhaps it is this "odd one out" that is in fact the most correct analysis.



***snip***
It seems to me that you either A), do not know how to properly discuss cases in a civil manner, or B), do not like what the facts of the case point to so you are mad at me for presenting them and thus trying to attack them.


I pick out facts that support my own analysis and present them. Perhaps my language skills aren't on par with a native English speaker, but I don't mind. After all English is only my fifth language.

I thought the whole point of your thread was to incite discussion and allow different views.
I see now that all you wanted was to present the case (very well done by the way) and disregard anything not in line with the main theme.



***snip***
Yes I understand there was no reference point and thus there was no clear way to tell how far the objects were, BUT even without that the estimates on speed, accel/decel/ velocity, luminosity, etc could still be made.


No you can't. Unless you know what the object is and thus it's size you cannot claim to be even close on distance, speed etc. Many hoaxes has proven that fact again and again.



As usual with most skeptics(mainly pseudoskeptics) however you are completely disregarding Newhouse's, a 21 year Navy film vet, eyewitness testimony on what he, his wife, and two children saw. You seem to maintain that he was wrong, and that there is no way the objects were at 10,000 feet (simply because apparently you just think it can not be, likely because you know what that means if they were at around 10,000 feet) when what you maintain is true is in direct contradiction to the evidence (like the CIA ran Robertson Panel).



If we should trust the video of the reenacted interview he said that the size was like a specific plane at 10,000 feet.
He did not say the object WERE at 10,000 feet.
Perhaps my language skills are playing tricks on me or perhaps on you.

I'd sure like an explanation of that particular use of English grammatics.




***snip***
You must not do much research or reading of the original article before trying to debunk well researched and presented threads.


Actually I did read quite a lot of it. It's just that I dislike statement made on assumptions (like distance) and then quoted as fact.
That makes me quote the assumptions that DO support a more mundane view.




***snip***
The changes could have occurred by the movement through arc of the objects, the size was thought to change because of the quick velocity of the unknown objects, which would drop altitude rapidly and then ascend rapidly, which was past what birds can do, thus the reason for the speed estimates you like to bash and say do not hold up.


You should try and watch the video frame by frame.

That is when you notice that the drops and ascends are happening in a way which causes the objects to show dublicated as echos on the same frame.
If you knew photography (notice spelling
) and filming you would know that this is common on footage made by handheld cameras. The shaing or trembling causes this effect. It is caused by rapid movement combined with low shutter speed.

Anyway.
Since you so dislike me for trying to argue "the other side" and now won't talk to me - we'll leave it at that.
Stay in you glass bubble and rejoice in the fact that you have won.

Edit: To bugger up spelling in certain areas.



[edit on 29.6.2009 by HolgerTheDane]



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by HolgerTheDane
 


That is not what I was saying, I welcome all discussion. But the way you put it was that I was intentionally misleading the audience, which I was not. The facts were not my facts. They were the USAFs and Navy's facts. I left open the possibility that the objects were birds, but I am simply countering your argument with one of my own. By the way, the objects in the youtube film were the actual objects, not reenactments. Also I think that given even the broad spectrum of distance and altitude the analysis pretty much excludes birds. I am not the only one to say this. Many official government reports and independent researchers said that too. Skeptics and believers alike said that. So it is not just me here. So I appreciate your contribution but some of your other statements were really out of line and offended me. I would be happy to continue any and all debate with you if we can proceed in a civil manner.



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 02:08 PM
link   
Well - I couldn't stay away from your second bashing. So sue me...



Originally posted by jkrog08
***snip***
Your probably the only one who feels that way about my OP, I take it you didn't star and flag it then



Actually I did.
Just because I think you jumped the gun at certain points cannot detract from a job otherwise well done.




***snip***
The image of the snow geese in a v-type formation was, again as stated below the or above the picture in the OP only for a comparison purpose. In fact I was trying to show how a flock of birds CAN look like something else, so again you are terribly wrong.



Then you should have mentioned that in your text. It just struck me at the time of reading OP that you weren't arguing both sides very clearly.



***snip***
***snip***
Apparently you thought I was trying to show how they do not look like the ones in the film, they don't but that was not my intent.


Right on the money. Proper intent noted.




***snip**
You have done nothing in your last response bu bash me, scoff at me, and ridicule me.
***snip***


Actually I just pulled quotes from the analysis already done. When I quoted you I quoted your quotes from the analysis.
And you can quote me on that one.



***snip***


And yes. I am ashamed. Ashamed of not being able to write proper like so that you guys don't get offenden by alternate views.

BTW
Trying to ridicule me for not spelling photo correct...
And you call me childish?

I guess we all are if our pets are kicked hard.



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by HolgerTheDane
 


LOL, please do not try and turn this around on me now. Your ridicule of spelling was deserved since you pretty much called me stupid by your quote :" ASSUMPTION-SAY IT LOUD".Emm.......... Yea, I think that is worse than a spelling correction. Oh and wait we are not done."Shame on you OP".................."Nothing but a poor attempt at misleading"................ So I REALLY AM THE ONE THAT BASHED YOU????


No, there is no grammar corrections needed, your last part that you edited said it all. So go ahead get stared(who ever that was) for your post, get plus one hundred, cause we all know I am the one that bashed you right??!! Sop I can not get angry for someone being rude and disrespectful but if I COME BACK with something I AM BEING AN A-HOLE RIGHT?


Like I said, I am willing to debate this with you in a civil manner, otherwise yes, please do discontinue your presence on this ATS thread. I never said I intend to bash anyone who doesn't think the objects were UFOs! Can some people not take the same strength rebuttal in favor of UFOs as they dish out against them??!



Good ole' ATS, this is why I love it....



I will not continue derailing my own thread anymore, in my opinion and others apparently, it was my best one to date and I intend to keep it that way.


[edit on 6/29/2009 by jkrog08]



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 05:24 PM
link   
It's just unfortunate that there just isn't enough information in the footage to make a determination one way or another. Without any reference points, it's just impossible to determine true speeds. And either the things are so small or so far away, all we get on the film frame are tiny little dots.

Just goes to show you. Photographic or video evidence is nice, but it can't prove anything by itself. We need something more.



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Nohup
 


Agreed, but at least we do have some footage here, unlike others before it. But like all other cases at best it is good evidence, nothing definite. Only opinions can come of this. Although it is a good case to show the public or nonbelievers that there truly is something going on in our skies.



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by HolgerTheDane
 


HolgerTheDane. I am a huge and known Alien Skeptic across the boards. I simply don't believe in them. But this not believing can be used in a peaceful manner. For instance:

jkrog08, in your opinion do you believe that what is filmed is alien?

Now I can probably guess that he will say yes. Personally, I do not believe it is alien, yet I do not believe that the following are birds. As some pepole on ATS know I am a calculation wizard. I love it and yet I hate math..lol.. So lets use this calculations:

For instance what we are looking at, their are no markers to mark how far away the objects are. However, we can get an estimate. For instance how is he holding the Camera? and at what Angle?

The camera is in an angle of about 310-320. Using a radian circles degree measurements, the persons head will be 360 degrees, just for the purpose of this explaination. Anyway, the angle is about 310-320 How can I tell. The sky for instance, since the sky is blue we have shades and markers of the sky. The darker the blue the more of an angle you have to move up. The lighter the sky means you have reached the top, their is no more room up. Even Simplier: If you were holding your camera straight up into the sky, you would have no shadows, because the camera is looking directly, straight up into the sky. However, if you are holding it up in an angle of 310-320 degrees you will have shadows and depending on how dark of the shadows are you can tell how far and what direction the camera is in. Thats all the explaination on the camera. How far away the objects are become another matter.

The blurryness or the Blur effect is important here. This type of Camera had all the stops pulled out for it to be manufactored, infact it is the last camcorder of B&H. I am not too sure about Camera range, but I am sure it would be reasonably good for that period. The Blur only adds to the authenticity of the footage.

Now lets look at the objects. The fatherest at they are apart is around 2.5 inches. Since we do not know the distance we cannot come up with the depth and what not. But that does not mean we cannot work something out. Taking the shadows and the figure we are of 2.5. Taking a number of the lowest value 310/2.5 we get the difference of: 124. Now this figure is important to what the distance of the sky and the distance of the objects are. Taking 124 and with the blur effect, again taking the lowest value of the range of the camera we get: 124/.95= 130 feet. So we know that he is at least 130 feet away. This seems to authentic the tape right their. After all the image is definatley farther away then that, but remember that we used the lowest value and the blur effect. The above can be added to and defined further.

Now that we at least have the basics. We need to measure the objects. I cannot measure the objects becaus ethey are just to small to blurry to make an accurate description, yet we can make some statistics.

1) Birds do not move side to side, backwards or diagnal with that much ease. Now birds are very graceful creatures, but that movement is a little too ridiculous.
2) We can see the objects matching in pairs
3) The objects seem to have a formation that they are using
4) The formation looks practiced at times.

My conclusions is as follows:

The objects are not alien. The objects are that of a military experiment, we know they do it. And the truth is we do not know the entire extent of the air forces capabilities, that is a known fact. We know that the military, air force and navy have vehicles that we may never even know about. The formation proves my point, of it being a practice run and an experiment. My calculations prove that their is an object out their. My perseption of this is as follows in even simplier terms:

The object is at best a UFO, but not an alien craft in anyway shape or form. This is an air force experiment, that was accidently and amazingly caught on tape.

Again Jkrog08, excellent thread
and excellent theories. Hope what I posted above helps..lol..



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by TheMythLives
 


Could you please explain those calculations as if you were talking to a little child, I didn't understood a thing of what you meant.


But I think that you are on the right way, that is the way of reacting to data presentation, with more data or with some processing of the data presented, not by accusing the poster of being biased (although that can always happen, we are only human, after all (I think)).



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


Wow..lol.. I don't think I can. But I will try.

Basically we have the Sky Angle which was listed at 310. The seperation of the objects are at 2.5. By dividing 2.5 ro 310 we can get an accurate representation of how far in the sky they are which was 124 feet in the air. This is gathered by the objects seperation and the surrounding areas of the sky. But for this purpose we only used the objects.

After that we take 124 and divide that by the limited camera's lense and see how far of a distance they are away with an estimation with the blur effect. Its complicated. I will not deny that at all, it took some time to figure out how to work with it, because theirs really no data and no identifable marker to measure anything. So I did the best I could with light, shadows, the cameras lense and of course the objects. I can provide an estimation to the evidence.



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by TheMythLives
 


It didn't worked, I think it's best to take it step by step.


What is the "sky angle"? And why did you said "The camera is in an angle of about 310-320."?

Why do you say that "The farthest at they (the objects) are apart is around 2.5 inches."?

More questions tomorrow.



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


Its basically the shadowing of the lighting, its hard to explain. Just look at the light and then look at the objects correlation to the light ABOVE them. The 310-320 is an estimated guess from the lighting and the objects dimensions. The 2.5" is determined by a ruler and their spacing between themselves. Its easier if I were to meet you face to face and explain it. It is difficult to explain it through typing languages..lol



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 04:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nohup
It's just unfortunate that there just isn't enough information in the footage to make a determination one way or another. Without any reference points, it's just impossible to determine true speeds. And either the things are so small or so far away, all we get on the film frame are tiny little dots.

Just goes to show you. Photographic or video evidence is nice, but it can't prove anything by itself. We need something more.


How about eyewitness reports from Belgian Air Force F-16 pilots together with military and civilian ground radar hits confirming the presence of unidentified flying objects in their air space at multiple occasions, together with hundreds of other witnesses, plus video and photo documentation? Would that be enough to take UFOs seriously?

It is not up to the UFOs themselves to prove their existence. It is us that have to do it.

Any repeated event or incident indicating that some type of unexplained phenomenon is taking place, should be enough for us to consider it seriously.

We haven't got much more to go on in the case of Global Warming than the UFO enigma, and still a large chunk of the Scientific Community is studying it.

When Charles Manson's appeal for the murder of Donald Shea ("no body case") was dismissed, the Court stated that society should not reward murderers for their crimes if they successfully dispose of the body, never to be found.

So - in the American Legal System - a person can be charged with murder in the absence of a body and a person can be convicted of a murder in the absence of a body. They're convicted on what you can call smoking guns.

In this case, we have a witness who explains what he saw, and we have a 'smoking gun' in the form of a film.

That would be enough to stir the jury in some courts.

If we KNEW that UFOs (whatever they are) existed, because they were readily available, you could enter one and fly away in one (or at least, you saw them on TV almost every day... wait, that's exactly what's happening!) at any time, then we would automatically assume Navy Officer Delbert Clement Newhouse's testimony and film to be true, and that because of a paradigm that allowed for the existence of UFOs.

But while you're in a paradigm of denial, it doesn't really matter that Newhouse puts his whole career and credibility on the line to report a UFO incident, and that he has a strange film to back it up. He surely MUST have been mistaken, since you know beforehand that UFOs cannot exist.

Those in denial would profit from a more scientific paradigm, that allowed them to adapt their point of view to what the body of evidence indicates.

Remember, a scientific investigator does not have to be sure from the start what he investigates, he simply follows the trails of information, analyzing the smoking guns, and use deductive reasoning to narrow down the possible explanations.

If one excludes right from the start that the UFO phenomenon cannot be 'unexplained' by conventional means, then quite frankly you're only making an ass out of yourself (I'm not referring to the poster of the quote above).



[edit on 30-6-2009 by Heliocentric]



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by jkrog08
reply to post by HolgerTheDane
 


LOL, please do not try and turn this around on me now.
***snipped the rest***


Try and calm down.

You are WAY too sensitive at the moment.

No reason for continous bashing and rebashing.
"You said" and then "I said"... We can do this for a long time and we both can end up really worked up in a sweat.

I reserve the right to point out obvious missing quotes or facts.

I reserve the right to disagree AND put it in writing.

I'm sorry if my poor language skills keep offending you (or anyone else).

I am NOT sorry for my approach to this particular subject (UFOs).
Where I start with the clear assumption (there it is again) that it probably is a natural phenomenon and then find the arguments that support this ot seems that others tend to say - "I don't know this. OH MY GOD. It's a UFO. It is moving intelligently. It must be an alien craft."

So tell me. After all your digging in the facts...

What is so intelligent about moving in big and smaller circles while moving in a certain direction? What could be the point?

I know what the point is if we say it's birds - which is supported by the last page of the Air Force analysis (as well as in other places).

When we get to a UFO video that does NOT conform to movements or physics already understood THEN I'll join you in celebrating a truly unique experience.
Problem is - we haven't seen this yet.

And that said - it is absolutely no good quoting the good mans military occupation or film experience.

His military record does nothing for his credibility. As an military officer's son I have been among the profession for too many years to believe that. Many soldiers are not very reputable.
Some of your presidents have been criminals. Even the good Mahatma Gandhi was a racist.

His knowledge of filming does one thing and one thing only.
It adds to the suspicion that he knows what it was and that is wasn't alien craft.
Setting the camera on a wrong apperture is basically only done by amateurs.
With his knowledge he should have better footage.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by HolgerTheDane
 





I know what the point is if we say it's birds - which is supported by the last page of the Air Force analysis (as well as in other places).


Ok you basically proved my post above. If it was a secret military experiment like I believe, then this is the answer I would expect. Their not going to say:

"It was a secret air force craft(s) being tested at the time of filming."

Why? Because that destroys the secret....

Also you still believe they were birds? I highly doubt birds can move backwards, the only time a bird can do that is if it is gliding backwards on the wind, but after a few feet they bird needs to start flapping again, also while it is gliding it does not stay in a straight line, it drops. The videos show the objects reversing in a straight line. The objects also have a stand still effect, while some birds can pull of this amazing illusion, seagulls cannot even come close, do to their weight and physical size. Eagles however, can pull this off quite well. Some airplanes can even stop still, or look as if they are standing still, its an illusion. However, that illusion has its limitations and if that video shows birds standing still for that long in that type of illusion, then damn thats the best I have ever seen it done. Quite simply that just does not happen.

I personally believe it is not alien in any shape or form. I respect your opinion I really do, but I think you are wrong. Also, jkrog08 is just defending his belief in Aliens and so on. Theirs no reason to get all up-tight. Just listen to his opinion and cunduct yourself in a reasonable and respectful manner for instance:

Jkrog08, while I disagree with you, that does not mean I do not respect your opinion, however I was wondering if you could explain your opinion to me in regards to________________. and fill in the blank yourself.


There are kind ways to go about things and bully ways. Choose the kind way mate.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by HolgerTheDane
 



What is so intelligent about moving in big and smaller circles while moving in a certain direction? What could be the point?


Me nor anyone on ATS is qualified to accurately answer that question since no one on here knows alien flight tactics. At best I can give you opinion. My opinion for the strange flight plan, which doesn't really fit with birds either, is that these craft were practicing some type of military-like maneuvers. I mean I made a thread last year asking "Why do UFO pilots fly like they are drunk?", we had answers from dimensional traffic, to effects of a anti-gravity system, to just trying to get attention or evading some unseen force! The truth is no one knows why these craft do what they do, except maybe a few privy government officials. Now I probably should have reserved some comments for the My Conclusion section, but some of them were actually true, like what I said in the Robertson Panel passage; About the Robertson Panel, "The panel’s main goal was to ‘debunk’ all UFO reports in the “interest of national security” as they felt the “hysteria” of public reports wasting the military’s time was distracting the main purpose of the military." This was widely known and made public, here is a link to the official book:
Durant Report(Robertson Panel Proceedings)

[edit on 6/30/2009 by jkrog08]



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by TheMythLives
 


Good points, and to answer the obvious question, Yes, I believe the objects were extraterrestrial in nature.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Heliocentric
Would that be enough to take UFOs seriously? [...]

If one excludes right from the start that the UFO phenomenon cannot be 'unexplained' by conventional means, then quite frankly you're only making an ass out of yourself (I'm not referring to the poster of the quote above).


I'm pretty sure UFOs exist. That's not an issue to me, and probably to most people. I know of very few people who don't think UFOs exist.

The question is, what are they? Well, they're unidentified. And the default explanation of something that's unidentified is not "alien spacecraft." It's, "I don't know." The only thing that's going to change something unknown into something known is good, verifiable data. In the case of UFOs, it's going to take a lot of it to prove a UFO is any one specific thing. And unfortunately with the Tremonton film, there's just not enough data in it - or associated with it - to do that.

As I said in another topic, with UFOs, we've found the smoking gun lying in the street. But that's all we have. We don't have a body. We don't have fingerprints to tell who shot it. We don't have the bullet that came out of it. You take that into Court and tell me what you get from it. Nothing. Because we don't have the other bits of evidence necessary to make a case for anything. What you and many other people imply is that if we find a smoking gun on the street, that means somebody was murdered (with murder equating to aliens).

I don't see it that way. I say reality is strange, and weird things happen. Weird things that people see and sometimes photograph, and sometimes experience. What are they? I don't know. Nobody has enough good data to even start to figure out what we're talking about here. Natural phenomena (including random shifts in spacetime and "echoes" from other realities)? Projections of a person's thoughts to create a temporary reality superimposed on our regular reality? Aliens from other planets? Don't know. Could be any of these things, could be none of them. That's what unknown means.





new topics

top topics



 
83
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join