Space Battles In Earth Orbit!

Originally posted by ecoparity
Aiming for a 6th grade audience is considered the "rule" with most publications and press.

It certainly is not a rule that applies here where the discussion spans far above a grade six technical level and the participants are expecting more than the main stream answers.

If there are posts that are more technical than some would like, then they can skim past them. For those who want to know...bonus.

Originally posted by dainoyfb
Ok, now that your finished insulting the ATS crowd,

Originally posted by ecoparity
I didn't write a single word accusing ATS of being less technical or literate than the rest of the World so you're completely out of line with that one.

Stating that you should communicate with people on ATS at a grade six level isn't insulting?

Originally posted by ecoparity
Military night vision gear will always be at least one generation above the consumer models and are controlled a/f/a who can buy them and where they can be exported.

Not all military night vision gear can be purchased by civilians. There are quite a few devices limited to mil and LE sales only. Most "standard issue" gear will remain "standard issue" for several years by which time a civilian version will usually be on the market.

Yes, but my point was and is that the military is using Gen3 and mil spec Gen3 is available to the public. This is important to know because it is what Ed is using and what people should be seeking if they intend to duplicate his capabilities.

Originally posted by ecoparity
If your goal was to educate people who are not familiar with the technology you failed. If they don't understand the tech they aren't going to understand a bunch of technical terms which are specific to that technology.

Aren't they? I guess it depends on how it is explained. "Image intensifier" is the standard term used to describe the technology so I hope somebody lets them know so they can ask for the proper product. Its like the difference between CDrom and Blue Ray. You kinda wanna know what your buying.

So are you saying that the alternative is to lie to them so they are completely misinformed and have to take an even further path toward understanding how the technology works? How is "tube" any less understandable than "chip" anyway? You outright deceived them and you're saying I failed? Is there a light sensitive little mouse in there with a bunch of Crayons too?

Originally posted by ecoparity
Since you're the expert I'll bow out of this and leave you to it.

Yes, I am an expert. There are not a lot of people that have deigned these types of systems and truly know fact from myth about how they work and what their capabilities are. Unfortunately I find a lot of misleading information posted by a few people who say what they think they know instead of confirming it from credible sources first. Its a lot of work to clean the mess up.


At any rate, Ed uses Gen3 PVS7 goggles. They are image intensifier based. If you purchase goggles made by the same companies that supply the military (such as ITT) they will not lie about the generation and you will end up with great quality stuff. Even ITT gen2 units will blow your socks off and even outperform most commercially designed Gen3 units. Sometimes vendors have non mil spec units which have small artifacts in the tube that fails them for service. The price is much lower on these units and the artifacts are usually in the form of one or two little dark spots in the view that are not really a problem. With today's economy I wouldn't be surprised if you could find a bunch of second hand units getting dumped for cheap by private owners who are trying to change their toys into much needed cash.

edit for typo

[edit on 24-9-2009 by dainoyfb]

It would be nice if someone recorded the ET battles. There must be night vision video cameras on the market. Anyone own one?

This video shows the objects up very close . And they are shooting at each other.

www.youtube.com...

Sorry mods. Its 3am; had a few toddies.

I love this guy. He has a pair of $4000.00 military grade binocs! Wish I could afford that, I'd be doing it.
I heard him on the Kevin Smith Show when he first started a lot of this. Then, George Noory got to look through them, and he was amazed. I have actually seen this happen without them. And so has a friend of mine. Me in Oregon and her in Missouri. I guess they are getting a little out of the atmosphere that they are hiding in. And no, it wasn't a shooting star!
I was sitting out on my porch, checkin out the sky and I saw this lighted object, going pretty fast and then I looked just east of it, and blam, big sparklies and the other disappeared like really fast. And my friend in Missouri, said she heard something like exploding in the sky, and she looked up and saw something falling apart right after that. And no, that wasn't a star or meteor shower. I do know the difference and so does she. Just putting that in there before somebody starts hollerin at me!

Originally posted by The cult of Osiris
It would be nice if someone recorded the ET battles. There must be night vision video cameras on the market. Anyone own one?

I've been looking with mine quite a bit since Ed came on the scene this year but I haven't seen anything worth pressing the record button for though.

reply to post by dainoyfb


Since your entire boiling issue of concern which negates common courtesy is that absolutely accurate data must be given to the membership so they will avoid a tragic night vision purchasing mistake perhaps you should stop telling everyone that PVS-7 is a Gen 3 device.

PVS-7 is Generation 2.

PVS-7A, B, C D etc are the generation 3 revisions.

Was that necessary? Probably not but since you keep arguing the standard I figured why not be a jerk about it? Remind you of anyone?

You are correct. Thanks for providing more specific info. Though I don't see how that is being a jerk.

edit for typo

[edit on 24-9-2009 by dainoyfb]

Originally posted by Orion65
reply to post by ZeroGhost

 

I don't know what you saw but what I saw two nights ago was like a bunch of satellites all congregated together in one area. I'm no astronomer, and I'm not absolutely sure what a satellite looks like per se to the naked eye (since I've never really put much effort into stargazing) but they definitely weren't stars, they were way too close and were gone the next night (last night) when I went to look again. And there were a lot of them. It was really bizarre.

[edit on 23-9-2009 by Orion65]

I saw at least one impossible turn, and an object with variable blinking lights with stop and go at at least 40-50,000 ft.

In the few minuets I was able to covet the glasses I saw two sporadic meteors. I can only imagine what they would let me see in dark sky in cold winter skies.

BTW, I'm not an astronomer. I'm an amateur astronomer. But amateurs usually have more actual time at the eyepiece than most the PhD's out there. Experience is the best teacher. You don't get a certificate for 27 years of observing, but a trained eye is better than a piece of paper any day.

Also I'm not so keen on Ed's explanations. Remember, he claims to have seen battles in the upper atmosphere as a young boy, naked eye. I would not claim such without years of experience and some solid research. Just have to practice I guess?

ZG

earth seems to have an infestation of
reptilian nature.
they must be routed
so that people can drop the scales from their eyes.
....don't panic
everything is going to be o.k
so says radarloveguy

reply to post by ecoparity

I have my own almost ready to set up - it consists of a night vision camera with a wide view of thy sky mounted on a simple telescope w/ a CCD on the viewer. I can aim the scope / camera anywhere using a bluetooth connection to my PC and I get a live chart of any astronomical objects and satellites as a bonus. Of course, my cameras are Gen 1 night vision so I probably won't capture any of the high orbit objects like Ed gets but my setup cost all of 300 bucks total. Eventually if I can afford it I'll add a true NV Gen3 or 4 scope to the array.

Excellent! I think you'll get footage that is at least stable, and perhaps will have evidence that is wonderful. What a great idea to have the skychart acessible during the process!

You outline what I feel is the problem with Ed's videos -- or at least those that are available on his website for free ........... if you turn off the sound and discount the story surrounding the video, there doesn't seem much to see there (for me). I believe him to an extent, I just want to see it.

It's one thing to bring a "possible UFO" video to ATS for discussion, however a claim of this magnitude (battles in the sky) require better evidence IMO.

I think your idea of a group ATS effort in this direction is a very good one. As you mentioned, 3rd Gen. or better seems necessary to get the good shot. I won't be able to acquire 3rd gen, or at least not until the export laws change, but that won't stop me from continuing to do my own skysearch, or one in conjunction with efforts here. Of course, if the past two years are any indication, perhaps the Caribbean is too dull of a place for celestial battles overhead. Dangit.

reply to post by dainoyfb


Very impressive-looking "little system" it is too! Do you find that high magnification of moving objects, say, known satellites, takes a good image, or is it better to keep a larger sky view?

That didn't make much sense; let me try and ask another way....

Suppose you wanted to take video of a faint satellite -- perhaps the Envisat or Genesis in the 4 - 5 magnitude (for your location) range.. Would you get a "better" video that showed it's movement relative to other fixed objects with a wide field of view, or with higher magnification? Also, are you able to fluidly track moving objects? Thanks much!

Is this one of those mother ships I wonder...interesting anyway.

These in my view are the best nasa ufo clips out there, cant see them being ice particles etc .

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...


[edit on 24-9-2009 by Reevster]

reply to post by dainoyfb


reply to post by ecoparity


Just for the record..... thank you both for your information. I think it's likely you've entered into an area wherein the written word resonates as more terse than intended by the author(s).

Given that you both seem to have a level of expertise in this area, do you know of any way in which I can enhance or better my NV recording? I'm using an ATN Night Storm Gen2 in combination with a camera adapter, and a Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ18 camera, mounted on a sturdy and stable tripod.

My general method is to set upon a known point in the sky, and just capture video through the NV. Often I will use my older gen 1 NV to scan the skies at the same time.

Any suggestions that you might have given that I'm stuck with this level of equipment? thanks

wonder if you can get night vision contact lenses.......
would solve a few things, methinks.

Hi all.

iv never posted anything rubbishing anyones claims on here as i like to keep an open mind.

here it comes...however..

i work for a company that deals with laser based technology for the construction industry, including light enhancing and "night vision" equipment for use in under ground surveying.

i find it very hard to believe that Ed can see anything in space using them as military grade night vision equipment has a limited range that is no where near the edge of space.

this is due to the way they work. Faint light that the human eye cannot pick up is radiated by the googles (in the same way a laser bean is radiated to make it visible) and projected. if the "goggles" could see that far they would be rendered useless on earth as they would detect the visible light from every star and the image would "white out".

What Ed is most likely seeing is a reflection of light from the fluid on his eyes. Old models of night vision suffered from this reflective defect until a company called Leica developed a filter lens in the late 90s. As the light reflects back it becomes weak enough to be radiated and so visible. as he moves his eyes, so does the fluid and will appear to be in the distance and moving.

Of coarse this is just a theory..but an very probable one.

Originally posted by ramfan
Hi all.

iv never posted anything rubbishing anyones claims on here as i like to keep an open mind.

here it comes...however..

i work for a company that deals with laser based technology for the construction industry, including light enhancing and "night vision" equipment for use in under ground surveying.

i find it very hard to believe that Ed can see anything in space using them as military grade night vision equipment has a limited range that is no where near the edge of space.

this is due to the way they work. Faint light that the human eye cannot pick up is radiated by the googles (in the same way a laser bean is radiated to make it visible) and projected. if the "goggles" could see that far they would be rendered useless on earth as they would detect the visible light from every star and the image would "white out".

What Ed is most likely seeing is a reflection of light from the fluid on his eyes. Old models of night vision suffered from this reflective defect until a company called Leica developed a filter lens in the late 90s. As the light reflects back it becomes weak enough to be radiated and so visible. as he moves his eyes, so does the fluid and will appear to be in the distance and moving.

Of coarse this is just a theory..but an very probable one.

Lights at night can be seen from a distance further than the normal daytime range.

Also, your theory doesn't explain how the objects get from Ed's eyeballs onto video.

reply to post by Orion65


Mate, I seriously think we should have a talk.

Take a look at my 1st ever post on ats.

www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread357831/pg1

When I wrote, "If it was intelligent or intelligently controlled, then I truly believe it must have been doing something like reconnaissance," I didn't add in the part where my very first instinct was that it was headed for the naval base.

Now, you mentioning the naval base and describing characteristics that match a lot of what I saw....
To much coincidence.

Lights at night can be seen from a distance further than the normal daytime range.

Also, your theory doesn't explain how the objects get from Ed's eyeballs onto video.

----------------------------

There is far too much light for the Goggles to work in the day or around alot of "man made" light so the range is limited to night vision.

The light passes through the lens as "strong" light and is ignored by the Diode processors. This is then reflected back as it hits his eyes or anything else reflective such as sweat beads and is radiated and becomes visable. The lens Leica developed has two main benefits. it focuses the light to be radiated as it enters the lens as well as disapating reflected light.


[edit on 24-9-2009 by ramfan]

That is both absolutely astounding, and aggravating!

I've got to get me a pair of those now.

I can't believe the government. For what would they be hiding all of this from us for? What do THEY want with the truth, and how is it damaging to them if we know?

The government wants us to think that we are powerless little pawns, and it's WORKING. People think that all these delusional responsibilities we have are the absolute most important thing in this reality. Folks aren't aware of the power they have as an individual!

There's no telling how much they keep from us. We might be able to levitate for crying out loud.

[edit on 9/24/2009 by Psycontagious]