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.

 

Secret Space Fleet Video - Gary McKinnon Was Right!

page: 2
45
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 01:03 AM
link   
reply to post by gazerstar
 

If you double click on the embedded video you'll be able to see more from the same guy.

As far as I know, nothing has been proven about the formation. I've studied it pretty closely and I think there are a couple of times that stars can be seen "through" the formation but it's hard to be sure. It also seems that there may be a slight change in the relative position of the lights but again, hard to be sure.

Interesting.




posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 01:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Le Colonel
 


If that's not the original audio in my version of the video, then whoever made the vid did a really convincing editing job. The woman's excitement makes it seem like she's really looking at it. I wish that there was a way to know for sure.



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 01:08 AM
link   
I've seen this video before and have always assumed it to be one object. I may be wrong about that, but that's the type of feel I've always come away with.



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 01:13 AM
link   
A good thorough video analysis would probably yield the answer. I imagine if you had access to the original video, increased the lighting and pipe it through a few filters, you could more than likely figure out whether or not its a solid object or a formation of F16's...



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 01:36 AM
link   
I know that most military flights have wingmen, but assuming there are 5 individual aircrart, are there any pilots here that are aware of any incidents where they practiced night time flight formations of this type? It looks more like an aerial demonstration flight. Is there a tactical reason for a formation of this type?

If it was an aerial refueling formation, wouldn't the lead (tanker) give off a larger signature? After looking at the video again, it seems these aircraft are moving much faster that a normal. Could this be because the NVG's show us more stars, it just appears that way?

Is there anyway to detemine altitude, speed, and spacing from these types of videos?



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 01:47 AM
link   
This video, from the same account, includes more information about the video and audio of the Delta-looking craft around 4:30. This version of the video adds the following claim around 4:30:

A Delta craft flew overhead too fast for our camera to catch on film. The Delta craft in the clip shown here is almost identical to the craft witnessed by Melinda, Leslie, Jake, Ed, and 20 other witnesses. The voices in the sound track are genuine and were recorded by us on our camera as the Delta craft flew overhead at incredible speed.

So, I take it that even though the video isn't original, the soundtrack is which means that they really did see a Delta?
Does anybody know anyone who was present at the time of either sighting? Here's the second version:







[edit on 9-12-2009 by gazerstar]



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 01:50 AM
link   
Can someone tell me why there would be a formation of "normal" planes at that altitude at night? If they were doing loopty-loops for an airshow or practice I would understand. They are going straight though.

What throws me is the center light/s. Also if you can see the power lines in the vid with such strength/clarity, then the height can't be that high or the blur would eradicate the line. It's also hard to track objects at a higher altitude while keeping said objects in the center of the viewfinder without being shaky as all get out.

I know birds fly in a v-formation to maximize air flow and I guess I can see that argument but it doesn't seem a strong one.

So for me.. more orbs in another formation going to the next party we all seem to not be invited to


b



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 02:11 AM
link   


So for me.. more orbs in another formation going to the next party we all seem to not be invited to




If they are orbs, they are the fastest orbs I've seen to date.


[edit on 9-12-2009 by gazerstar]



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 02:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by m0r1arty
 

Actually it's the interesting ones that stick in my mind and that one is definitely interesting. I think I know what it is but never got much agreement.


If I might ask... what do you think it is?



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 03:01 AM
link   
I love that delta but the one possibility I can think of is that it's actually something quite small that's much nearer the camera which would give the effect of flying incredibly fast.

The one test that they failed to do was put the laser on it, if the laser had hit it and then when moved off of it seemed to go much further into space then it would have given a clue re the height of this, I'm sure the distance that laser can travel is much shorter than 200 miles..



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 03:05 AM
link   
these videos have always been very interesting to me. some of the things he catches on film with night vision seem almost unexplainable to me...i wish i wouldve known about this guy when i lived in laughlin, woulda been nice to see "for myself". anyways, best bet is that these are test flights from area 51, which is not a far flight from laughlin...what better time to fly aircraft you dont want people to see then at night?



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 06:00 AM
link   
Interesting video....
One thing i would like to ask - without knowing the altitude, how is it possible to tell how fast the thing is travelling? If this is explained on the commentary I apologise, but I am at work and cannot listen to it.
Surely the altitude is an absolute necessity in working out triangulations?

Again, sorry if this is explained in the video - Damn open plan offices!



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 06:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by W3RLIED2
You got any ideas on what those things are Jim? Or you just gonna throw up a couple lines of bull crap?


Your bull crap meter should have rung when the narrator gave a speed of 30,000 mph at orbital altitude, but sadly, it didn't.

The reason is that even the simplest familiarity with real spaceflight would tell you that the typcal orbital velocity at that altitude is 18,000 mph and that anything in excess of 25,000 mph is escape velocity, meaning the craft cannot remain in earth orbit at all but is headed for Mars or somewhere.

OR -- the narrator is spouting bull crap realizing that nobody in his target audience has ANY defense.

Shouldn't you feel at least a little dismayed that he's got you pegged so accurately?

The defense is not difficult to develop -- read more widely, learn more aerospace technology. Ask the right questions from the start. Become able to focus into the kernel of really interesting (and baffling) accounts without getting wastefully distracted.

Otherwise, the next half century of UFOria will look like the first, only moreso. Those who benefit from public confusion and self-misdirection over the corpus of reports will continue to take advantage of the camouflage that the mass of misperceptions -- and bull crap, such as here -- so conveniently provide. And that makes you part of the problem, not part of the solution.

You're smart enough, you just need the will.

[edit on 9-12-2009 by JimOberg]

[edit on 9-12-2009 by JimOberg]



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by gazerstar


So for me.. more orbs in another formation going to the next party we all seem to not be invited to




If they are orbs, they are the fastest orbs I've seen to date.


[edit on 9-12-2009 by gazerstar]

I've been privy to 2 sightings of orbs.. the first they were going about 250mph and the conditions were right for me to accurately gauge the speed becasue of landmarks.
The second time I had landmarks as well but they were moving so fast I couldn't even hazard a guess at how fast they were going but it was WELL of 400mph.

Those suckers can move. But if you know of their capabilities somehow, please let us know so we can all be enlightened.

b



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 09:42 AM
link   
ook. who comes up with these names for these so called alien craft?



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
I think it may be a tight formation of aircraft.


I'd have to disagree there - I could be wrong but I don't think the footage at 4:42 shows a tight formation of aircraft:




posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Phage. You clearly state that you are "not sure" on a few matters on this one. That in itself makes it more interesting, seeing how quickly "you" can destroy some of the weirdest looking things in the sky with "rational" explanations.

What I would like to ask is- If the lights were "not" separate crafts in tight formation, is there anything else you may have in your "mental-library" that can explain the video?

Curious.



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by m0r1arty
reply to post by W3RLIED2
 


Phage is our hidden protector. He's not the forum member some want - but he's the forum member we all need.

-m0r


Thanks for the new sig line. Well said.



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by W3RLIED2
You got any ideas on what those things are Jim? Or you just gonna throw up a couple lines of bull crap?


Your bull crap meter should have rung when the narrator gave a speed of 30,000 mph at orbital altitude, but sadly, it didn't.

The reason is that even the simplest familiarity with real spaceflight would tell you that the typcal orbital velocity at that altitude is 18,000 mph and that anything in excess of 25,000 mph is escape velocity, meaning the craft cannot remain in earth orbit at all but is headed for Mars or somewhere.

OR -- the narrator is spouting bull crap realizing that nobody in his target audience has ANY defense.

Shouldn't you feel at least a little dismayed that he's got you pegged so accurately?

The defense is not difficult to develop -- read more widely, learn more aerospace technology. Ask the right questions from the start. Become able to focus into the kernel of really interesting (and baffling) accounts without getting wastefully distracted.

Otherwise, the next half century of UFOria will look like the first, only moreso. Those who benefit from public confusion and self-misdirection over the corpus of reports will continue to take advantage of the camouflage that the mass of misperceptions -- and bull crap, such as here -- so conveniently provide. And that makes you part of the problem, not part of the solution.

You're smart enough, you just need the will.

[edit on 9-12-2009 by JimOberg]

[edit on 9-12-2009 by JimOberg]


Careful, Jim. You may be spot on in this example, but limiting yourself to the human knowledge base of space flight as a basis for fact is in itself a fallicy. Almost as bad as our limited knowledge of life as the basis for truth.



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Mr Mask
 

Nope.
But it's a very odd lighting configuration for a single aircraft.



new topics

top topics



 
45
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join