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.

 

fast ufos in the sky over Niagra falls Canada April 13th, 2010

page: 17
81
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Drexon
 


Now you are beginning to understand why some of us mistrust the video maker. He seems more intent on playing mind games with his new toys than doing serious research.




posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by jclmavg
 


most of the common bats in this area (niagara region) are small. No more than 4-5 inches nose to tail, that even seems big. I see them every night weather permitting and have found some dead ones.



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by handeroo
reply to post by jclmavg
 


most of the common bats in this area (niagara region) are small. No more than 4-5 inches nose to tail, that even seems big. I see them every night weather permitting and have found some dead ones.

That would drop the speed somewhat but it is unsure this fits within the range of the bats expected in the Niagara region. From the scientific literature I also gather that some estimates of bat speeds are inaccurate and that smaller bats attain lower speeds (between 5 and 10 miles per hour). In the literature there is also evidence that ambient illumination has an effect on the speed of bats, with up to a 30% flightspeed reduction in darkness. It would be interesting to know of this is true also for the bats in the Niagara region.

[edit on 21-4-2010 by jclmavg]



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by handeroo
reply to post by jclmavg
 


most of the common bats in this area (niagara region) are small. No more than 4-5 inches nose to tail, that even seems big. I see them every night weather permitting and have found some dead ones.


Handeroo.....

Perhaps the aliens killed the bats

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

[edit on 21-4-2010 by Maybe...maybe not]



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 07:32 PM
link   
According to this page, the most common bats in the "Niagara Frontier are the big brown bat and the little brown bat."

I don't know if that's the same area or another area with a similar name, but the size of those bats is, according to Wikipedia, "4 to 5 inches (10 – 13 cm) in body length, with a 11-13 inch wingspan". Little brown bats are 6–10 cm (2.4–3.9 in) long with a typical wingspan of 22–27 cm (8.7–11 in).

As they flap their wings very fast, I suppose the size on the video would be the size of the wings, although not fully extended.

I also think that the cameras cannot focus while in night shot mode, that's why every thing looks a little "fuzzy" when seen in that mode.



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 08:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not
 


I have been hoping that they were friendly... I hope they are...IF they are here...



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 09:05 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


I'd like to add here, have you ever seen something and when you try to tell people, they either don't believe you, think you are whack or try to offer their opinion of what it was?? even though they did not see it?? If you have, you can prob see how frustrating it can be. The guy behind the camera has been chasing this since november. A lot of views and comments that he answers and many are from people who can't either read the info and comments, or watch any of his other stuff (or those of others involved).I say this because I have recorded an UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECT yes UFO in Niagara Falls and am meeting up with some of the same 'dilemma'. It will drive you nuts keeping up with it. You only get one chance to make a first impression, and unfortunately, I think some of you may have blown it. Under the ATS rules, a thread can't be started until 20 posts have been made. That is what I am working for and I will post all FOUR videos of the niagara falls UFO. (as soon as i figure out how to do it here) You can analyse the crap out of them and offer whatever opinion of what you might think it is. Bottom line is... you know what you see...something that defies logic and changes you...DEEPLY... and those who see it also. Many people in Niagara Falls have seen some strange stuff here.



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 02:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by jclmavg
Out of interest I checked the parts where the UFO appears to accelerate in speed. I don't think your statement is accurate.

While you may be partially right (I may get motivated and have a good look later..), *your* statements aren't right either..



You copy/pasted the "UFO" and surrounding pixels a few times to see how many times it would fit in there. I think it is far more accurate to take an average pixelsize for the object, then determine the pixels of the path between two points, and use that information to calculate traversed distance and speeds.

Sadly, neither method is truly accurate, especially when the objects are:

1. NOT clearly resolved. You can guess all you want, but the true size of an imaged object can only be measured if it is properly and clearly resolved, and very clearly
that is not the case..

2. Underexposed. Anything that is underexposed will obviously be fading out at the edges, and the fact that this is IR (-weighted?) footage also means that we may only be seeing the very 'warmest' part of the object. Who knows how that corresponds to the actual object - to determine that we would need a very complex analysis of the sensor's response curve at various temperatures and light levels, and to know the heat signature of the object..

True forensic analysis of images is quite complex - not the place for beginners... Just a quick look at those tiny, dim, 2-3 pixel blobs tells me that the error range would be so wide as to make any analysis quite 'vague'.


the UFO has a pixel size of roughly three pixels.

But you haven't even acknowledged that this does not necessarily represent the object's actual size. See points 1 & 2 above.

No error range, no useful analysis. And to determine the error range would be very difficult indeed. Even for a smartypants like me...


I've snipped your calculations, becasue without the considerations above, they don't mean much. As you admit yourself:


I'm also pretty sure that the night vision bloom obfuscates the real size of the object

This I agree with, but then...


which thus might be smaller than three pixels (which means the calculated speeds would be too low).

WOAH!!! It's underexposed, there does NOT appear to be any 'bokeh' effects (and the camera is possibly measuring heat signatures?)....

So that means the object is almost certainly LARGER, not smaller!!!


The only things that can make such an object appear larger than it really is, are:

- overexposure, causing 'bloom'
- out of focus effects (eg bokeh, or lens 'problems')

Clearly it is not overexposed. And I see no sign of out-of-focus blur.

So, I'm afraid your additional calculation is backwards - like I said, photogrammetry requires a lot of knowledge of the topic.


It would be interesting to know which kind of bats are in that particular area and their top speeds and average bodysize.

Yes, but what we really need is simple. Either:

- someone who knows the nightlife of that area to go and examine the 'happenings'. (You'd think the video supplier would take the time to get someone credibly qualified to do that, but I wouldn't hold my breath...)

- someone to accompany him (preferably again someone credible and experienced, like an astronomer..) with BETTER equipment, and who can do a simple parallax test to see if the objects are at high or low altitude.

Now if I was the video guy and was hoaxing this, my next move would be to CLAIM that he had done all that. But I'll just repeat that "credible" bit, again. In the days of email and the Internet, it is pretty easy to verify credibility...

I wonder if there is an astronomy club near Niagara? I might email them...



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 02:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by handeroo
...That is what I am working for and I will post all FOUR videos of the niagara falls UFO.

Good for you - I can't wait..!


You can analyse the crap out of them and offer whatever opinion of what you might think it is.


Yep, we sure will.

But does that mean what I think it does? Namely that YOU haven't researched or analysed them? May I suggest that you do that *before* bringing it here...?
Eg, do you have all the technical information about the camera ready? Have you filmed some known objects with the same camera and settings in similar conditions to show how the camera behaves?
Have you spoken to people familiar with what is in the sky in that area and got some expert opinions?


Bottom line is... you know what you see...something that defies logic and changes you...DEEPLY...

I've experienced things (eg swimming with wild dolphins) that changed me deeply too, but it didn't have any effect on the event - just my perception of it. I knew what i saw - they were bottle-nosed dolphins. But you seem to be contradicting yourself - is it a UFO.. or do you really know what you saw?



Many people in Niagara Falls have seen some strange stuff here.

If you look through night-vision or IR equipment, then yep, you're bound to see strange stuff... It will be a pleasure to see your well-resolved, non IR footage (if that's what it is...)



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 03:05 AM
link   
I have analyzed all the videos and after careful scrutinizing and advanced algebraic equasions combined with calculus and determining the geographical coordinates of this particular event and given atmospherical data input. I have conclusively determined what these objects are.


Swamp Gas!!!



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 03:08 AM
link   
hey so sorry all of you guys for not replying back. kinda gota habit for forgeting my threads. but thanks all of you for the speculation. and thanks maybe...maybe not for embedding for me. and im bout to post youll the whole video of where that footage came from. its some documentary. well look out for the thread wit fastwalkers in the title. thanks again



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 04:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by blaws572
hey so sorry all of you guys for not replying back. kinda gota habit for forgeting my threads. but thanks all of you for the speculation. and thanks maybe...maybe not for embedding for me. and im bout to post youll the whole video of where that footage came from. its some documentary. well look out for the thread wit fastwalkers in the title. thanks again


No problems, but... you mean we have to go through all of this *again* in a new thread? Can't you just post it here - is it not the same topic?



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 04:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by blaws572
hey so sorry all of you guys for not replying back. kinda gota habit for forgeting my threads. but thanks all of you for the speculation. and thanks maybe...maybe not for embedding for me. and im bout to post youll the whole video of where that footage came from. its some documentary. well look out for the thread wit fastwalkers in the title. thanks again


Blaws572.....

There's no need to post more info.

Mate.....it's bats.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 04:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
According to this page, the most common bats in the "Niagara Frontier are the big brown bat and the little brown bat."


Yep, that looks like the right region. (Just as an aside, is that the worst background for readability you've ever seen...?)


I don't know if that's the same area or another area with a similar name, but the size of those bats is, according to Wikipedia, "4 to 5 inches (10 – 13 cm) in body length, with a 11-13 inch wingspan". Little brown bats are 6–10 cm (2.4–3.9 in) long with a typical wingspan of 22–27 cm (8.7–11 in).


Also from the Wiki:

"Big brown bats are insectivorous, eating many kinds of night-flying insects including mosquitoes, moths, beetles, and wasps which they capture in flight. This causes the sudden, frequent changes in direction."


The little ones are insectivores also.

And while I did not succeed in finding what sort of altitudes these guys get to, I did find this:
jeb.biologists.org...
(!!) which, despite being about brown bats versus lower flying insects (mantises?!), might be helpful in further analysis (if only we had better footage that would allow it...)



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 05:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by jclmavg
Out of interest I checked the parts where the UFO appears to accelerate in speed. I don't think your statement is accurate.


It's not 100% accurate, it is an estimate. There is a margin of error, and there always will be. But I have reasons for my methods which stem from experience in doing what I did.


Originally posted by jclmavg
You copy/pasted the "UFO" and surrounding pixels a few times to see how many times it would fit in there. I think it is far more accurate to take an average pixelsize for the object, then determine the pixels of the path between two points, and use that information to calculate traversed distance and speeds.


No, that is a far LESS accurate way. Because the object is in motion and it's distance from the camera is changing. When the distance changes, the size of the object changes. Also, the speed at which the object appears to be moving changes with the distance. So taking an average pixels size over the entire video is pointless, and inaccurate.

I agree though that you should take different speed measurements from different parts of the video, but NOT the average pixel size of the objects from different parts. You should take measurements from two points that are not too far away because the further the distance, the greater chances of the object becoming smaller are larger, adding to the margin of error.

Although the object appears to be moving directly left, and or directly right at times, it could be also moving away and or towards the camera slightly at the same time, adding to the margin of error too.

Also, here are several reasons why I selected the surrounding pixels;

: Because it is dark, I know the entire object is not visible on camera, simply because of lack of light. There is only a small portion of light coming from that object, so that would make it slightly larger than it actually appears, so I can compensate for that, however...

: The night vision also amplifies the intensity of the light which would also make it appear slightly larger. Maybe even canceling out the effects of the above. But...

: The video was compressed using a lossy compression which blended the edges of the object with the background. The black sky was blended onto the edges of the object making it appear slightly smaller. There is a single pixel edge that is a darker color than it should be, and so it appears that I selected more than I should have.

: Yes there is a margin of error, but it is small.


Originally posted by jclmavg
In this part of the video the UFO has a pixel size of roughly three pixels. I measured the time it takes for the object to cross the distance d several times. Average time it takes for the UFO is 1.5 seconds.

Distance d has about 404 pixels (correction: I just noticed that this value should be higher, more like about 435 pixels, so speed should even be higher), the object is about three pixels wide so that means the UFO fits about 134 times in there. Now, assuming that the bat involved is about 20cm long this gives a distance of 26.8 meters per 1.5 seconds, is 17.9 meters per second. This works out to about 64.3 km/h (about 40 miles per hour).

I also measured a part of the video at 1:48 with basically similar results.


I think I mentioned I already did measurements for the rest of the video. Actually, after determining the initial speed, I can easily just watch the object and estimate it's changes in speed mentally.

Using the same exact method I used last time, I took a measurement from 1:48 and 1:49 of the video:



At this size/distance the object is traveling it's own length multiplied by 36 in 1 second of time.

If that bat is 20cm (8 inches), then that means it is flying;
8 x 36 = 288 inches per sec. = 16.3636364 mph

If that bat is 42cm (16.5 inches), then that means it is flying;
16.5 x 36 = 594 inches per sec. = 33.75 mph

At best there is probably a margin of error of about +/- 5 mph. This STILL means the object is within the speed limits of a bat.

From the looks of this measurement, the bat is probably NOT 42cm, it is probably smaller, making it's speed not as fast.


Originally posted by jclmavg
It would be interesting to know which kind of bats are in that particular area and their top speeds and average bodysize.


Yes it would be.


[edit on 22-4-2010 by ALLis0NE]



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 05:51 AM
link   
reply to post by jclmavg
 


Here is another measurement nearer to the time you chose:



Here the object is traveling it's own length multiplied by 39 in 1 second of time.

If the bat is 20cm (8 inches);
8 x 39 = 312 inches per sec. = 17.7272727 mph

If the bat is 42cm (16.5 inches);
16.5 x 39 = 643.5 inches per sec. = 36.5625 mph

Margin of error about +/- 5 mph.

So it is STILL within the speed limit of bats.

I would even suggest that that bat is smaller than 16.5 inches.

-NOTE- Although there appears to be spaces between each object, there is not. Those spaces are caused by the dark edges of the object. The object is still present in those spaces.

Just to add for kicks:
If the object in the video is the size of a Boeing 747 (232 feet), it would be traveling 6,169 mph.

If the object is the size of a large moth, it would be traveling 13 mph. (plausible)




[edit on 22-4-2010 by ALLis0NE]



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 08:07 AM
link   
And now to destroy Allis0ne's argument.

Please check the video that was posted on April 1st. At some point in it a dove (?) flies by the camera, revealing it to take up quite a bit of the cameras field of view.

This PROVES that the objects you see flying around are at an immense altitude, so unless there's bugs to chase at the altitude where intercontinental airplanes fly, you'rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrre outta here.



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Drexon
And now to destroy Allis0ne's argument.

This PROVES that the objects you see flying around are at an immense altitude, so unless there's bugs to chase at the altitude where intercontinental airplanes fly, you'rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrre outta here.


What a joke that was. Not only does that not prove any of my arguments wrong, but YOU are wrong in thinking it proves ANYTHING.

You are being fooled by an illusion. The objects are not at immense altitudes, they are just small and appear to be at immense altitudes.

Sure they are probably higher than other birds, but not immense altitudes.

Nothing you said proves that, and since you don't understand that it shows you really don't know what you are talking about, so no, you'rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrre outta here.


-edit-

And to make another point... this guy is filming these almost every day. Other people have filmed the same thing. The video owner said himself this is a "regular" thing....

...now either we are being attacked by aliens, and advanced technology, and the whole world doesn't know it.... or we are just seeing something mundane like an insect or a bat.

[edit on 22-4-2010 by ALLis0NE]

[edit on 22-4-2010 by ALLis0NE]



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 08:43 AM
link   
Oh I see. They're small and "appear" to be at immense altitudes, but because nothing can move like that at immense altitudes that means it's not an alien craft. Nice circular logic there.

The other problem with the videos you've yet to address is the varying speed of the objects. I don't know any animals that can fly at one speed constantly then suddenly just double it just like that. *snaps fingers* At the very least we'd see Varying speeds, longer distances of acceleration and deceleration instead of there controlled bursts of energy, sending an object off into one direction with a constant speed only to stop on a dime the next instant.

But whatever, bats.



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Drexon
Oh I see. They're small and "appear" to be at immense altitudes, but because nothing can move like that at immense altitudes that means it's not an alien craft. Nice circular logic there.


Uh.. what?


I never said "since nothing moves like that at high altitudes it's not an alien craft"... now you are making things up!


Originally posted by Drexon
The other problem with the videos you've yet to address is the varying speed of the objects. I don't know any animals that can fly at one speed constantly then suddenly just double it just like that. *snaps fingers*


Are you kidding me? I addressed that about 4 times already in this topic.

The reason that bats, and birds, are able to accelerate so fast instantly is because they can just dive down to the ground and pick up speed using gravity. It's called free falling.

Some birds don't even need to flap their wings, they just fly up, down, up, down, and use the momentum to keep them going like a roller coaster.

They are also much like fish, they can just change direction in the blink of an eye. I just showed you a video of confirmed bats doing it a few posts back!

All the bat videos I showed addressed it!



Originally posted by Drexon
At the very least we'd see Varying speeds, longer distances of acceleration and deceleration instead of there controlled bursts of energy, sending an object off into one direction with a constant speed only to stop on a dime the next instant.

But whatever, bats.


I think you need to watch more videos of bats, and how birds fly, how insects fly, and even how fish swim. They have complete control over their own bodies and can make breathtaking turns and bursts of speeds.

Deny ignorance.



[edit on 22-4-2010 by ALLis0NE]




top topics



 
81
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join