Space Battles In Earth Orbit!

This could explain some of the strange things while using my NOGs while training with the army in Georgia... I thought they were just picking up lights from aircraft and over-amplifying the light source... What's important to remember is that night vision goggles, IR goggles, whatever it may be amplify the source of the light in low and high light situations, so much so that using night vision during the day can permanently blind the user. So, knowing the extreme amount of amplification taking place and the amount of junk that flies through space potentially reflecting light, could something of significant size cause the goggles to make the reflecting lights look like flashes or a "battle" in space. I honestly think someone would of seen or said something by now if there was war being waged in range of our orbit, we do have people in orbit all the time, both government and now civilian(albeit elite civilians). I mean if this was the case the gov would def be putting more money towards space technology(rocket trips to the moon anyone? honestly we went to the moon 40 years ago and the best we can do to put some homo sapiens into space are massive rockets?) instead of wasting money developing aircraft that can't leave our atmosphere.

Just out of curiosity, how much does a MP7 nightvizion goggle cost?

Couldn't find anything online. Sorry if it's slightly out of topic.

[edit on 24-9-2009 by Telos]

i am quite worried about the amount of people that are showing an interest in buying Night Vision. i assure you it will be a waste of money, you will struggle to make out the outline of a 747 never mind anything interesting.
you will see the movement of lights, but completely unable to identify anything at that distance, just a grainy image of "something". id describe it as trying to see under water with the naked eye.

to be able to improve your view of a ufo, you would have to be in a plane in close proximity to the object.

reply to post by ramfan


You're exactly right, airplane lights look like huge flashes at times and the lights on the aircraft make it hard to see anything but the lights. Also certain materials reflect IR, like the black squares on army ACUs, the balck patches look like balls of light in the goggles.

this raw video footage is credible and reminds me of the gathering mark and i witnessed in the north georgia mountains. i started a thread about it - there was definitely some type gathering and i do know that the military was involved in what i termed rabbit hole - searching for alice. i could not believe my eyes and thought it could only be a result of project blue beam. there was also what we termed "dog fighting" between crafts. in my mind i could only attribute it to the military; however, i have sense changed my mind.

another thing; when i could not provide footage because i did not own a video camera and could not prove what i saw was real, well, here is raw footage and there are those that still complain of not having something on film. if you have not seen something of this nature w/your own eyes, i can understand just how unbelievable it may sound..........nonetheless, it is very real to me. there are those who will never be satisfied and will never be able to connect the dots.

reply to post by ramfan

i am quite worried about the amount of people that are showing an interest in buying Night Vision. i assure you it will be a waste of money, you will struggle to make out the outline of a 747 never mind anything interesting.
you will see the movement of lights, but completely unable to identify anything at that distance, just a grainy image of "something"

I agree to a large extent. However, as one who does such NV searches frequently, what would catch my attention and be worthy of posting here would be a light or lights that moved in a nonlinear/unsatellite-like vector -- the often-spoken-of right angle hard acceleration. OR, a group of lights that move independently of each other in combination with nonlinear travel.

It's one of the reasons that I choose to record from a fixed position, rather than trying to follow lights in motion; With the stars/planets as a fixed backdrop, they would provide a frame of reference for the movement.

So far, nothing out of the ordinary, and I've been at this a couple of years. Maybe us islanders are just too boring to wage battles above.

reply to post by ramfan


Your technical explanations of how the type of night vision that Ed are using is entirely inaccurate and you are serving to create substantial confusion on this thread. I suggest that you stop posting immediately and RESEARCH the technology before causing any more damage.

Image intensifier based, generation 3 night vision goggles are passive which means that they do not require the help of near infrared, light emitting diodes to illuminate the scene. They are sensitive enough to use the light from surrounding sources for scene illumination and therefore are not limited by the range that an on board LED illuminator could cast its light. They are not limited by distance but by how much light is being reflected or emitted by the subject. For instance, looking through mine I can easily pick out M13, the Hercules Globular Cluster which is estimated to be about 2500 light years away.

Edit to add more info.

[edit on 24-9-2009 by dainoyfb]

Originally posted by ChemBreather
Hmmm , more MotherShip talk ?
Okey, let us pretend this is real, why arent we helping ?
If ET's are batteling for us, should we pick up a gun too ??

Or are we just not advanced enough ?
Come on, I just saw a Mothership coming in with Comet Holmes Vid, and Collier say there are Motherships all over the place !??

OR, (if this is real) it's just fights/encounters between earth's governments/factions perhaps? I mean what makes us think the (human) establishments aren't capable of much more than they let us know of?

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


is this guy legit ?, he has the eyes of a paranoid schizophrenic, i havent googled this guy but what is your personal opinons on what he is stating does he have concrete footage or video to back this up, i mean if you can see mother ships in space from the desert they must be miles long, surely if they were destroyed in space debris would have rained on the earth, something like when Mir came down ??

Wee Mad Mental

reply to post by weemadmental


Have you watched the raw video? There is nothing to see there and I'm not even sure, given the frequent "smoke breaks" , that the camera was pointed at the sky. Total waste of time. It's surprising to me that Skeptic would feature this.

reply to post by dainoyfb


Now that's weird. Not you post -- that was informative as usual.

When I click on your reply link to Ramfan, it links to my post a page earlier to you and Ecoparity. Odd, that.

____________

I'm no expert, and you clearly are, however I wanted to lend support to your response to Ramfan. Many stars, satellites and other objects I cannot perceive with the naked eye I can see easily even with my 2nd gen. ATN NV.

Often I see satellites that aren't listed at heavens-above.com when I am using the NV. I, of course, can't prove they are satellites, however their moment is completely consistent with conventional satellites -- both the perception of velocity and vector.

A step in the right direction for this guy would be to provide us which brands / models of night vision devices he uses...

If anyone finds some video of these "battles" I would love to see it.

Maybe I saw one of these "battles"..... I certainly saw something that has stayed with me for a long time....

About ten years ago I was driving home after a midnight movie. It was a gorgeous night; one of those nights where the air is so clear you can see more stars than normal. In fact, the view so impressed me that I drove down the four lane highway veeerrrryyyy slowly so that I could indulge in some impropmtu stargazing.

While watching the skies, I noticed two distinct and separate points of light high in the atmospher. Both appeared about the size of a distant plane. Nothing unusual, except that they were moving extremely fast and towards each other. Intrigued, I pulled over to the side of the road (there was no other traffic) to watch.

The two spots of light continued to near each other, and eventually appeared to "merge" together. At least, there was a flash of light. Then one of the objects accelerated in the opposite direction, while the other kinda fizzled away.

I watched the remaining object as it disappeared out of my view. The entire episode, from the time I first noticed the lights until the end, only lasted about 30-40 seconds.

At the time, I wondered if I had witnessed a mid-air collision of some sort. Nothing was ever reported in the news, however, so I dismissed that theory.

Now I wonder if it could have been something else....

thoughts?

I wonder why skepticoverlord hasn't made a single reply to this thread.
Does anyone have any idea what would be the result if they posted the outlandish claims made by this guy, whether we added the disclaimer that 'overlord has about not necessarily endorsing him? It appears to me to be a bit of a double standard. Most disturbingly is the apparent unwillingness to respond by the OP, even after numerous questions have been asked specifically to him. I wonder why that is? Did we appear bored or out of fringe material to discuss here, so he felt the need to "throw us a bone"?

Just wondering is all. Let's all watch for my reprimanding.

Originally posted by argentus
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!

What I find when shooting in high zoom is that very little of the footage ends up with the target in it because you spend most of the time trying to keep the system trained on it. At its highest magnification my system has a diagonal field of view of only 0.05 of a degree. At several km a whole jet liner does not fit in the image. Fluid tracking doesn't enter the equation at those magnifications. Despite getting only glimpses of a craft the advantage is that the detail is striking, even at night. I use the FLIR thermal imager to capture a wide view at the same time and this also provides a motion reference against background objects. So I would recommend if possible to rig a system up where you can do both zoom and wide at the same time even if you have to toggle the recorder back and forth between them while you are filming. If you have to choose one the I would recommend the high zoom. There is a serious lack of close up clear images of UFOs where you can pick out seams, nuts and bolts etc type stuff. Something I like to do is take a bullet cam, pull the lens off and stick it into the focuser of one of my smaller telescopes such as number three here. I take the telescope off of the tripod and just put it over my shoulder like a RPG. It is really easy to just look around and track stuff that way.

reply to post by Untergang


I don't think you'll see a reprimand. SkepticOverlord offered this for our consideration. I don't believe that anything offered by the staff, amigos, SO or Simon are viewed as above critical view, even by them. I think they're all just like us -- people seeking answers.

I also don't think they'd want us to treat this offering any differently than we would if one of the regular members posted it. This is one of those times when the ATS motto rings loud and clear. We are a group of people who examine evidence and discuss it.

That's the stuff dreams are made of -- the desire to seek out the truth.

My humble opinion.

reply to post by dainoyfb


Thank you so much! That is valuable information. I am technologically challenged in this regard, as I understand clearly what you're talking about, yet lack the toys to make it so. Still, you inspire me to push the limits of my creativity. You make me realize that I can involve my computer in the capture. I will work on this.

To date, I do not have a single capture of footage that I have saved; Each time I capture footage, I upload it to my computer and crop potentially interesting features, and save it only until the next one. I haven't captured anything that made me say "WOW!" I'm patient, though. I live for the WOW, as well as other things. Much appreciate your input.

edit to add:

I take the telescope off of the tripod and just put it over my shoulder like a RPG.

thank you! For me, that was an excellent visual. Very clear.

[edit on 24/9/09 by argentus]

Originally posted by argentus
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

Your scopes are going to be performing at the limit of their technology already and no internal modification will change that. However you may consider acquiring a large aperture telescope and coupling that to the front of the night vision device. This will significantly increase light input and also provide a degree of zoom which is often desirable for this type of thing. l do this with a small 3" Newt reflector and it does wonders. My friend has a decent 3 inch Bushnell refracting spotting scope and that works really well too. At a magnification of 1 every time you double the size of the input lens (or mirror) you approximately quadruple the incoming light. for example going from a 4 inch telescope to a one inch lens on the NV device there will be approximately 16 times as much light input (minus losses).
You will have to rig a bracket up to the telescope that takes the weight of the NV device and camera.

I'm guessing that your ATN is a pretty decent scope.

reply to post by SassyCat


hey sassycat....what was that music you used in the video, very nice.....

anybody know what that music was? thank you

[edit on 24-9-2009 by tcbtom]