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.

 

A true UFOB & UAP & AOP video capture ?

page: 2
19
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 09:12 PM
link   
Excellently laid out post Europa! Starred and flagged.

At first glance I too thought it resembled a jet of some sort, but the consistancy in the placement of the lights as well as the speed make me rethink that... regardless, it's a very clear video (as in, not very grainy or blurry), and your supporting evidence and explanation is very well done.




posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by nablator

If I'm not mistaken Mr Sonota had other cameras nearby, but pointed at other directions. They did not catch anything, which MAY mean that this was a small object.


It does seem that this object is small at first glance and the change of direction suggests that it would not be manned.

UAV or a RCV?



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by jokerzwild
 
question: what precludes it from being a jet as someone earlier pointed out?

Does anyone know if it was entering the atmosphere from outer space solely on the video?



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 11:06 PM
link   
reply to post by reject
 


It could very well be a jet, it's anyone's guess really


As pointed out though there are a couple of points that would keep me from outright dismissing it as anything other than an aircraft of some sort, namely the way the lights do not change position, rather stay oriented in the same direction the entire time, indicating that whatever it is isn't banking or whatever to turn. It also appears to be moving a bit "snappier" than a normal jet I'd see in the sky, though as someone pointed out, it could be sped up to give that impression.

That being said, it could also be a firefly or something equally as mundane!



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 03:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by reject
reply to post by jokerzwild
 
question: what precludes it from being a jet as someone earlier pointed out?

The time code at the bottom show that this video is displayed in real time. The change of direction takes place in 0.2 seconds. Too fast for a jet IMHO.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 03:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Xtraeme
 


Yes, the ATS Media Portal acts exactly like YouTube, it re-encodes aggressively the videos and resizing them, making them useless for any real use.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 03:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by nablator

Originally posted by reject
reply to post by jokerzwild
 
question: what precludes it from being a jet as someone earlier pointed out?

The time code at the bottom show that this video is displayed in real time. The change of direction takes place in 0.2 seconds. Too fast for a jet IMHO.


That kind of high-g maneuver in 0.2 seconds would cause a post-stall in any normal aircraft. If it's a craft and human-manufactured, it would have to be a UAV, with some form of new supermaneuverability post-stall technology on-board. Though I'll be damned if I'm accepting that explanation out the gate.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 04:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by Xtraeme
 


Yes, the ATS Media Portal acts exactly like YouTube, it re-encodes aggressively the videos and resizing them, making them useless for any real use.


That stinks. My offer stands to the OP. Though Europa, if you want, you can always host the file on something like Rapidshare, Megaupload, Box.net or another generic file sharing service.

Thanks for the info Armap.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 04:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Xtraeme
 

I'll upload the video to your FTP tonight if Europa doesn't do it first. Thanks for the offer.

The original video is also compressed, unfortunately, albeit to a lesser degree. The best frames extracted from the original video look like this, after de-interlacing, contrasting and magnification :



A few jumbled comments about what it could be :

- Some sort of UAV, a microdrone, but their weight/power ratio is not designed for such stunts AFAIK.

- Two fireflies. Europa contacted an entomologist I think.
I couldn't find information about Japanese firefly mating habits (in flight or not ?) There are links here, but I don't read Japanese :
en.wikipedia.org...

- Something different that we overlooked. Sometimes an extraordinary coincidence creates weird looking video captures. This is one of them captured by Mr Sonota's camera. The incredible meteor + insect coincidence :
forgetomori.com...
i263.photobucket.com...

This video also gives us an idea of what a fly looks like when passing in front of the camera.

I hope Europa733 will tell us what kind of answers he got from the experts he contacted to get an assessment of the plausibility of various hypothesis (likely/possible/impossible).



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 06:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by nablator
I remember Internos once said that a UFO video seemed to be fake because individual frames showed no visible motion blur. Actually it depends on the camera. Some camera (even cheap ones) capture frames at a faster rate than they can store them, which makes moving objects less blurry. This is especially useful for filming fast moving objects. So it is not necessarily a telltale sign of CGI.

hi, nablator:
What post? 3,406 post are hard to recall, a link would be helpful.
Yes it depends on the camera, on the guy who was handling it, on his conditions at the time he was filming (hight? sober?), on the general weather conditions especially presence of moisture, framerate, focus, zoom, aperture etc. Some of these factors are strictly connected to the camera, some others are not. A sudden hand shaking could jeopardize a video forever, and generate a motion blur where there should be NOT one, even at the fastest rates available, so it's not just a matter of camera, it's a matter of a combination of factors.
And it may happen on the contrary: to artificially create a motion blur effect, but a fake one, in order to harmonize the appearance of what you see:
some of these CGI people, for example, are used to superimpose the object as it will appear in the next frame to the current one, in order to create "a motion blur like" effect: the more is detailed the image, the highest is the framerate, the less you have some chances to spot it: in the next case it's obvious.




Now, if you look at this sequence:

you will notice that the "cloned" part falls exactly where the object will fall in the next frame:
basically, it anticipates its movement.
The advantage of this technique is that when one watches the video in real time he may get a very convincing motion blur effect; its fault, has been roughly explained above. No one of them can be considered as factors of what Europa presented as case, since no one of the conditions is matching.
And whenever i want to add to some thread, i'm used to add it by myself, don't need spokesmen thanks though.

Ah, forgot to add:
Europa733, thank you for sharing this interesting and well researched stuff



[edit on 29/7/2009 by internos]



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 07:05 AM
link   
About fireflies, the only possible time is June, and this video was recorded April 28th, 2008. Also they are never seen near human settlements according to :
members.jcom.home.ne.jp...

Their light is not continuous:

members.jcom.home.ne.jp...

That's enough for me to rule out the firefly hypothesis.

Another insect theory I've been thinking about. A beetle with the two deployed parts of its carapace turned towards the camera, reflecting a nearby garden light. Some beetles have a highly reflective shell, green or blue and metallic like. However these insects are heavier than flies, and don't do this sort of aerial acrobatics in the south of France. In Japan, I don't know, they may have ninja beetles.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 07:19 AM
link   
I don't know guys, pretty smooth animation. Key frames are this guy's friend, lol.

There are a few things about this that makes me skeptical (which is healthy, contrary to popular belief) but one thing is this guy "developed Ufo-Capture software"?

Wow, if it were only that easy, problem solved. Let's open source his "UFO Capture" software and get an ATS-wide effort going. We will solve this problem in days I think, lol.

Not really sure what this is, what the original frame rate was, or if the time stamp is actually real.

Maybe this guy should pair up with the that other guy who has the amazing telescope modification that captures Ufos all day long. Combine his "UFO Capture" technology with Gridkeeper's "Uber-secret Walmart telescope and we could probably film an alien reality show ala Big Brother or something.



[edit on 29-7-2009 by IgnoreTheFacts]



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 07:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by internos
What post? 3,406 post are hard to recall, a link would be helpful.

Hi, Internos.
Yes that's the one. Thanks, I would never be able to locate it. I thought it was a neat method for recognizing a badly done CGI. There are two separate things to consider.

1. the lack of motion blur. It does look fishy, however I later found out that some cameras don't create any motion blur when the objects filmed are moving (angular movement in the field of view) at a moderate speed as in this flying saucer video.

2. the way the frames blend. When a video is de-interlaced, you get exactly this kind of image, each frame is blended with the next, and this is not a telltale sign of CGI.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 07:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by IgnoreTheFacts
Wow, if it were only that easy, problem solved. Let's open source his "UFO Capture" software and get an ATS-wide effort going. We will solve this problem in days I think, lol.

Actually UFOCapture is a simple video capture software. There are several open source alternatives. Europa knows much more about this subject than I do. Many people have recorded videos of objects moving in the sky at night, but few have done what is needed to rule out obvious explanations: several cameras a good distance apart, to be able to get accurate values of size, distance, and speed.

[edit on 2009-7-29 by nablator]



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 07:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by nablator

Originally posted by internos
What post? 3,406 post are hard to recall, a link would be helpful.

Hi, Internos.
Yes that's the one. Thanks, I would never be able to locate it. I thought it was a neat method for recognizing a badly done CGI. There are two separate things to consider.

1. the lack of motion blur. It does look fishy, however I later found out that some cameras don't create any motion blur when the objects filmed are moving (angular movement in the field of view) at a moderate speed as in this flying saucer video.

2. the way the frames blend. When a video is de-interlaced, you get exactly this kind of image, each frame is blended with the next, and this is not a telltale sign of CGI.

Ok, thanks: well, it's the presence of motion blur that actually makes it fishy, not its lack:
that is a technique developed by those who for some reasons cannot render a video of 2 gigs, so they shorten the framerate but at the same time the technique DOES work. Only of you watch the video at its standard framerate. Basically, that is not made in order to create a trail effect, but to make the movement appear less hand made by "anticipating" the movement of the object: in a single frame, the guy puts two images: one at its real focus, the other one slightly brightened and moved in advance, located where will be in the next frame. The result is that the apparent movement may look perfectly consistent with a real one, and especially if you do this in post processing, the hoax is not very easy to spot. The absence of motion blur, on the contrary, as you already pointed out, is not a straight indication of fabrication, it hardly would be, (especially on stuff filmed using a tripod) without being spotted right away. In the case of the OP, we are not in front of any of these possible occurrences in my humble opinion: the only problem is the lack of details, but i don't see any single indication of possible tricks

But even the lack of details is paradoxicaly a positive: if you don't expect what you film, then you cannot know in advance what you are going to film hence the lacks of focus and details.
I think that the sighting is reliable because i know that Europa is a guy who did put much efforts in this type of research, he got in touch with the best researchers in Europe and i don't think that he would get as result a crappy CGI after such a long and expensive work: what got really caught on camera is another matter, but i don't think that what we see was fabricated at all



[edit on 29/7/2009 by internos]



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by nablator

Originally posted by reject
reply to post by jokerzwild
 
question: what precludes it from being a jet as someone earlier pointed out?

The time code at the bottom show that this video is displayed in real time. The change of direction takes place in 0.2 seconds. Too fast for a jet IMHO.


Indeed, the G-forces would be too extreme for a manned jet, but what about an unmanned one?



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by nablator
Thank you my friend for posting this video at last. You're taking me by surprise, I don't even have my notes here on this computer. I will get them tomorrow.


You are welcome, thank you for all your efforts & work on this video capture.




It's been a long time. I expected some good analysis documents would be available by now from the experts that you contacted. Did you get any feedback ?


Ok, first, one of the best UFO video & photo analyst in France is going to take a look at it (François Louange*). He didn't have time yet because he was working on some photos showing 2 Mirage 2000 being "escorted" by some unidentified objects. ( I know that from my contact who is in the Armée de l'Air => French Air Force)

Then, I made this video available to the French Air Force but I cannot say anything about what they have done so far since it is confidential.
In a few weeks or months from now, we 'll also know what the ICPH** thinks about it since I contacted them.

In other words, I'll be able to tell you what are the analysis results of Mr Louange & the ICPH. I will not be able to tell anyone what the French Air Force thinks or has done about it, sorry. I don't even think that they will (told) tell me eveything to start with.

Now, if video experts want to analyze the video, just u2u me and I'll make it (original video) available only if you seem serious and have the skills.


Cheers,
Europa

* : "Ret", ex Fleximage CEO
** : www.ciph-soso.net...



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by nablator
If I'm not mistaken Mr Sonota had other cameras nearby, but pointed at other directions. They did not catch anything, which MAY mean that this was a small object. Europa733 may have more information about the whereabouts and angles of the other cameras. This could be a way to get at least an upper bound on the distance.


Unfortunatly since Mr Sonota was no very cooperative with me, he only send me this link :

sonotaco.jp...

The camera used for this capture is called "S2" and since I did not calculate the DOF & FOV, it is impossible to make any estimates (distance min&max). But Mr Sonota mentionned that since no other camera caught the event, it could not be further than a few hundred meters.

Springer & Internos & JRitz & ATS crew are more than welcome to u2u me if they are interested in getting the original video. I'll probably fly to L.A for business within a few months which could be a good occasion to meet the ATS crew.

Cheers,
Europa

[edit on 29-7-2009 by Europa733]



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by nablator

A few jumbled comments about what it could be :

- Some sort of UAV, a microdrone, but their weight/power ratio is not designed for such stunts AFAIK.


Here is a pretty good document about UAVs, RPVs, ROAs (2009) :
www.narcap.org...

Off course, some of this technology is highly classified and it could be very hard if not impossible to find out what is the (max) g-tolerance of some of these puppies.


Originally posted by nablator
- Two fireflies. Europa contacted an entomologist I think.
I couldn't find information about Japanese firefly mating habits (in flight or not ?) There are links here, but I don't read Japanese :
en.wikipedia.org...


I did contact 2 french entomologists but they both told me that I should get in touch with specialists located in the Tokyo area. I did not find any yet. Both said as well, that the only insect they knew about that could display such radical flight maneuvers were dragonflies. One of them do not think this could be it because of the overall aspect observed & displayed in this video-capture. The other one doesn't know what to think about it since he is not a video expert.


Cheers,
Europa



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by IgnoreTheFacts
There are a few things about this that makes me skeptical (which is healthy, contrary to popular belief) but one thing is this guy "developed Ufo-Capture software"?



Hi there,

Being skeptical (in a scientific way) is always a good thing as long as it does not become an obsession imho.

Mr Sonota from what I know could careless about ufos (as ET probes and/or spacecrafts), just read his forum and his threads to find out about his personality. The "guy" loves TLEs, lightning, meteors, fireballs and all the "weird" stuff that he and his customers capture.

He is a skeptic to start with.

Cheers,
Europa

[edit on 29-7-2009 by Europa733]




top topics



 
19
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join