Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

UFO's hiding directly in the sun, "The Bro Method"

page: 1
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 10:07 AM
link   
Googling around due to curiosity, I by chance ran into a technique for spotting UFOs.
Apparently, many UFOs can be found because they are hiding directly in front of the sun which would make them very elusive to the untrained eye.


Source: UFOs No Strangers To Korea

Having studied each case in minute detail, Seo shared the lessons learned from his successful UFO observation with The Korea Herald. It's not enough to just set up a camera, he explained. To ensure that your photo survives scrutiny, it's important to use the proper techniques.

The best method Seo recommends is using the eponymous technique developed by an American named John Bro. The "Bro Method" is designed to detect UFOs hiding in the sun's rays.

Take a video camera or timed camera and put it on a tripod. Place the tripod just under the eaves of a house or building, with the lens at an 80-degree angle.

The shadow of the eaves will fall over the camera, reducing glare and highlighting flying objects that would otherwise be obscured by the sun.

"UFOs often hide by placing themselves directly in front of the sun," Seo said. "With the Bro technique, you can still catch them on film."

As in real estate, location is key. Once a UFO is sighted, there's a good chance it can be seen again in the same area.




posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 10:11 AM
link   
EDIT: Nevermind




[edit on 12/9/09 by Chadwickus]



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 10:31 AM
link   
The problem with the "John Bro" method is that people do not think about it.

See it this way: you put the camera in the shade but almost in the Sun, so you can see all those "UFOs" that hide in the Sun light, but if I am some 100 metres to your left, for example, I will see the same "UFOs" but not with the Sun behind them because of the our difference in positions on the ground.

Also, why does this only happens when the Sun is high in the sky and never when the Sun is closer to the horizon?

What we can see with this "method" are only objects close to the object that is projecting the shadow.

I have said this in all threads that talk about this method, but apparently nobody tried it. By using two cameras with a slight angle between them it would be possible to know at what altitude the "UFOs" are, making it clear if they are far away or close to the ground.



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 11:28 AM
link   
I normally film using my Sony Hi8 video camera using a 950nm IR filter and in "Nightshot" mode only. I then tried filming using a UV filter over the 950nm IR filter, plus using the edge of the roof to block the suns rays. You can see in the video that this allows so much more to be seen in the sky. The sky was filled with 100's of strange objects....



[edit on 9/12/2009 by KAKUSA]



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by KAKUSA
 


Is there a good reason it says Oct 8, 2007 down the bottom of the video, if you filmed it today???



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Inkrinhuminge
 

That's because he/she/it copied the YouTube text and image, so he/she/it just acted as YouTube mirror.



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 11:53 AM
link   
looks like small flying insects close to the camera to me.....

my backyard is full of 'em.



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Inkrinhuminge
reply to post by KAKUSA
 


Is there a good reason it says Oct 8, 2007 down the bottom of the video, if you filmed it today???



I just copied and pasted the info I posted on YouTube, didn't notice that...No deceite intended...I'll go edit that now...Thanks for pointing that out...



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 12:19 PM
link   
I will be the first to admit some of the objects are insects, they are obvious to see, but not all are.
I have filmed many strange objects with my camera... My camera is one of those original discontinued Sony's which when using the correct filter has a Xray capability on certain clothing. The reason for this is the camera is able to film during daylight hours using the "NightShot" mode and your able to adjust the exposure and contrast manually, where as the newer cameras can not. I feel this along with my IR filter enables me to film what is not visable to the naked eye. These videos have a green appearence to them because of the IR filter and Nightshot mode. The quality of the footage on YouTube is terrible compared to what can be seen playing the original footage on a TV screen, I think people would see things differently if able to view the footage directly.
I have had the History Channel "UFO Hunters" producer request my original footage to be used on thier show along with a film company, "Glow Films" also requesting to use it.

Here's another video showing 3 objects emerging from a Chemtrail I was filming..again remember the quality is poor compared to the original footage...



[edit on 9/12/2009 by KAKUSA]



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by KAKUSA
 




I have filmed many strange objects with my camera... My camera is one of those original discontinued Sony's which when using the correct filter has a Xray capability on certain clothing. The reason for this is the camera is able to film during daylight hours using the "NightShot" mode and your able to adjust the exposure and contrast manually, where as the newer cameras can not. I feel this along with my IR filter enables me to film what is not visable to the naked eye.


As a filmmaker (and Im not even sure if this is neccesary, just common knowledge) what you stated above doesnt seem right at all.

First, what model is your Sony camera. I dont know (Maybe im too young) about a XRAY capanility buy with Filters (Which just block lights spectrums) doesnt seem very plausible. Unless your camera is not a Bayer CCD o CMOS sensor, and its a some kind of gamma ray sensor. But I must admit I have no special Knowledge, I know a video camera (consumer o pro) isnt capable of it.

Secondly. You are wrong about Newer cameras not being able to adjust Expousure (Aperture actually) and Contrast. In fact, I own a FX-1000 Sony which can be used manually in every aspect.

Still, contrast and expousure doesnt change what type of electro magnetic light lengh wave the camera can see. The sensor will capture the same RGB light. What expousure changes is how much light will it enter, an contrast, it will just change the gradient level between darks and whites. You could see more than the eye with, lets say, a high sensitivity (Low lux) Video camera, which can see more on dark, or even be forced by whitebalance.

Yes its true that Nightshot does actually see a different spectrum wavelenght. And as a Infrared camera, can see things the human eye cant.

But your way of talking about it seem more as if you think you know what you are doing, when youre not.

Please excuse my english, if I sound rude, I dont want to, its not my first language.

And be happy to correct me if Im wrong, thats why Im here for.



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 01:44 PM
link   
haha yeah, sony didnt realize they had invented xray vision either until people started walking around in malls and beaches with the nightvision turned on checking out the ladies bra n panties

lol

it does work, and i believe it works on any sony nightvision camera if you manuall ad an ir filter to the lens.



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 01:45 PM
link   
Here ya go, nice youtube vid of it in action

minus the hot chick

www.youtube.com...



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 01:46 PM
link   
actually... the one with the hot chick is better

lols

www.youtube.com...



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 01:48 PM
link   
and a 3rd lol okies this is all

www.youtube.com...


had to post this one, bet ya didtn see the smiley face to start with

[edit on 12-9-2009 by hisshadow]



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jskun
reply to post by KAKUSA
 




I have filmed many strange objects with my camera... My camera is one of those original discontinued Sony's which when using the correct filter has a Xray capability on certain clothing. The reason for this is the camera is able to film during daylight hours using the "NightShot" mode and your able to adjust the exposure and contrast manually, where as the newer cameras can not. I feel this along with my IR filter enables me to film what is not visable to the naked eye.


As a filmmaker (and Im not even sure if this is neccesary, just common knowledge) what you stated above doesnt seem right at all.

First, what model is your Sony camera. I dont know (Maybe im too young) about a XRAY capanility buy with Filters (Which just block lights spectrums) doesnt seem very plausible. Unless your camera is not a Bayer CCD o CMOS sensor, and its a some kind of gamma ray sensor. But I must admit I have no special Knowledge, I know a video camera (consumer o pro) isnt capable of it.

Secondly. You are wrong about Newer cameras not being able to adjust Expousure (Aperture actually) and Contrast. In fact, I own a FX-1000 Sony which can be used manually in every aspect.

Still, contrast and expousure doesnt change what type of electro magnetic light lengh wave the camera can see. The sensor will capture the same RGB light. What expousure changes is how much light will it enter, an contrast, it will just change the gradient level between darks and whites. You could see more than the eye with, lets say, a high sensitivity (Low lux) Video camera, which can see more on dark, or even be forced by whitebalance.

Yes its true that Nightshot does actually see a different spectrum wavelenght. And as a Infrared camera, can see things the human eye cant.

But your way of talking about it seem more as if you think you know what you are doing, when youre not.

Please excuse my english, if I sound rude, I dont want to, its not my first language.

And be happy to correct me if Im wrong, thats why Im here for.


Well one of us doen't know what they're talking about...My guess is it's YOU ..!!



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by KAKUSA
 


You said that the UFO Hunters producer contacted you for your video. Did you give it to them?



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 03:18 PM
link   
the problem with the ` bro method ` is that a single camera is unable to resolve depth of feild well enough to resolve the range / dimension of an UNKNOWN object

all passive range finding methods / size determination that rely on a single opitic / eyesight demand that one variable is known

ie to determine the altitude of a plane - the spotter relays its identication to a collegue who looks ut the wingspan / fuselage lenth for that plane - which combined with its APPARENT size in the binoculars and the declination give its range and altitude

that is why UFOlogy is mire in guess work - as the range / size is almost never known

if you REALLY want to see ` UFOs hiding in the sun ` you need 2 cameras set up on a measured baseline of at least 100m

the techniqiue - though time consuming is quite simple

set up 2 observation points - seperated by an EXACT known distance - say 100m

put both cameras on tripods - and loc the zoom [ if any ] to the minimum value - this is crucial as you need to know FOV field of view for later calculations

an area with a flat horizon helps - or a prominent vertical point - as you then need to train both cameras so the extreme edge of both images is locked on a single point - say a flag pole or other easily defined point thats a few hundred meters away - at least 300 ig using a 100m base line

now any birds / insects close to the cameras can automatically be discounted - as they will only appear in one camera view

then simplyu start recording - you do not need to synchronise recording - you can do that later by simply playinga radio [ tuned to the same station obviously
] next to both cameras - then synch the audio - and the vid synchs itself

now - any ` ufo ` that apperas in both footages should be investigated - as the cameras are set up with over lapping views - its possinle - by some relativly straight forward trigonometry to make a reasonably accurate estimation of range - then from estimated range - the object size can be estimated via its apparent dimension in the frame [ pixels ]

simple - well quite labourious but - it will generate valid resukts - not the crap the bro method throwes out

maybe i should be conceited and call it the ape method



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
maybe i should be conceited and call it the ape method
Read my first post.



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jskun
As a filmmaker (and Im not even sure if this is neccesary, just common knowledge) what you stated above doesnt seem right at all.

First, what model is your Sony camera. I dont know (Maybe im too young) about a XRAY capanility buy with Filters (Which just block lights spectrums) doesnt seem very plausible.


You're right. They call it "X-ray" but it doesn't involve any X-rays, it's actually a type of "see-through clothing" photography. It's actually based on infrared and not X-ray wavelengths. The infrared captures body heat that emanates through some thinner clothing materials. You can do a Google search to find out more about it.

And all the stuff being photographed with this method looks pretty ordinary to me, bugs mostly, maybe some birds too.

I know some people think bugs and birds should be called UFOs just because their camera doesn't have sufficient resolution to tell what they are, but I find it difficult to agree with that interpretation.

I'll bet if you did this at the McMurdo Antarctic station when it's 40 below zero outside, you wouldn't see too many bugs.



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


reasd my first post previous thread


i have advocated this on other threads / forums too

but people dont seem to want valid results - they continue to cling to the lazy , bug ridden [ pun ] ` method ` like the bro technique that just returns meaningless crap

before any one asks ` why dont you do it then ` - why should i ? - i do not believe that ` UFOs hide in the sun ` and if i did return nagative results believers would just ignore them

edit - PS - have another star - not much but better than nothing

[edit on 12-9-2009 by ignorant_ape]





new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join