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.

 

Original 'Solar Obliteration' episode found..

page: 5
20
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 03:19 AM
link   
What is particularly sad about all this, is... well, let me try to explain thusly...

About 25km from me, there's probably the keenest astronomer in my region. There are many others (I'm a lesser one meself), but he's probably the 'king' in this region. He has about 8 big scopes, runs little sky tours, often hosts astronomy club meetings, etc. Anyone into astronomy, even if they have just been to a couple of astronomy club meetings, will know the type - retired, spends all his money on his hobby, loves to show folks what he does, and how he does it.

One of his scopes is mainly dedicated to solar imaging. It's about 20" in diameter, about 6 feet high on its concrete platform. He uses a variety of wavelength filters, several different occulting discs (yes, astronomers know all about occultation (or in other words, obscuring a bright object so you can image faint detail nearby)), and many other techniques and ancillary equipment that JB couldn't spell, let alone understand. His images are simply awesome. He's a bit like ngchunter here on ATS...

Anyway, there are lots of these folk scattered around the world - many many HUNDREDS, probably more like tens of thousands. They do wonderful work, they love to share their work around and discuss it on astronomy forums and at club meetings.

None of these people are reporting anything unusual.

But John Bro (and his little band of eager followers) whip out their dinky little cameras/camcorders, see some weird stuff floating/flying by when they point it at the Sun, and then run around in circles - "the sky is falling!!".

And the best way they can explain why the highly experienced observers, amateur and professional, aren't seeing or reporting anything weird? 'They are all paid to keep quiet'. Mmmhmm. Of course. Not one breaks ranks, they all get paid enough to keep quiet. Even the ones who just walk into an astronomy store and buy the equipment and start up their own home observatory. You guys DO realise that you don't have to give any identification to buy a huge telescope or solar filter, I trust? Why not try it? How does the TPTB track all these people down?

Ummm.... there is another explanation...


And that is, if you point your camera into a bright light source, even if you (mostly) occult that light, you WILL see stuff you don't normally. And some of that stuff will be fuzzy and out of focus, some of it will have motion blur and show odd patterns as the camera sensor scans the lines that make up the image. And all of it is dust, moths, insects and other extraneous, and, frankly, completely uninteresting objects. They are made interesting simply because they are lit up in a way that these amateurs haven't seen before, and there's the inevitable John Bro (or Escamilla) waiting in the wings to drum up 15 minutes of fame and perhaps try to make a buck.

Anyway, don't believe me. But for those who are tempted to believe this utter rubbish, at least CONSIDER JOINING AN ASTRONOMY CLUB (or even just a photo-/video-graphy club)..

The irony is that for every one of these gullible folk who believe he is onto something, there is probably a capable astronomer or photographer who lives quite nearby (lots of people do a little astronomy, and you won't have to go far to find some serious astroheads) - these are people you could MEET if you actually got off your behind and joined an astronomy club...

If you manage to get that far, by all means find the smartest astronomer you can, one who specialises in solar obs, and bring out John Bro's shots and ask their opinion..




Mostly, astronomers are pretty gentle, understanding folk, and if you explain you are a newbie, it shouldn't be *too* embarrassing..


[edit on 6-9-2010 by CHRLZ]




posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 03:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Johnbro
 

Interesting, but the point is, why do you need to face the sun and then obliterate it to see a UFO? That would be from your POV. If the objects are flitting about then one should be able to photograph them facing in the opposite direction to the sun where no obliteration is needed!

In a nut shell, why face the sun to photograph objects in the first place? Why are they not visible if one's facing away from the sun's glare? Or am I missing something here?


[edit on 6-9-2010 by OrionHunterX]



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 04:08 AM
link   
And may I add a small annotation... The INCREDIBLY simple way to verify this stuff and identify it, is...

PARALLAX.

TWO cameras. Shooting in synch. (or if they are shooting video, you can synchronise them later quite easily, using a number of methods).

Then you can use simple comparison and geometry to determine if the 'stuff' is:
- real, and not just an artefact caused by the lens/sensor/etc
- near or far, in fact you will be able to work out the distance quite accurately.

This is not exactly rocket science. Any amateur can do it, if motivated. This is quite basic stuff - remember that Sine/Cosine/Tangent stuff you were supposed to learn in school?
This was actually right at the beginning of that, just before you fell asleep - the initial, really easy stuff..

But of course if you are motivated to keep your hoax going, you will almost certainly come up with a pile of bogus excuses.

Good luck with that, John Bro.



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 04:25 AM
link   
Whoops! Crossed posts - great minds think alike, OrionHunterX, although your point on parallax was a little different.

Of course you are exactly right - this is rather like the crazy lady who thinks there are alien spacecraft in our upper atmosphere, carefully positioned in front of Venus and Jupiter. What she doesn't quite get (just like John Bro), is that if you were, say 20km away (let alone several hundred kilometres) from her location, it would no longer be obscuring the planet, and there would be TWO objects...


In the same way, something very close to inline with the Sun at JB's location will NOT be near the sun for someone even just tens of kilometres away. So how come they aren't being seen?

Earlier, he foolishly used the analogy of aircraft diving from the sun and attacking other craft.

What he failed to explain is that this technique ONLY WORKS FOR THAT ONE AIRCRAFT (or small tightly packed squadron) BEING ATTACKED. Others, some distance away, will see the craft quite clearly, nowhere near the Sun....

Here's thirty seconds think music for John Bro's followers.
....
....
....
Got it?

Now you really have to ask, did John Bro SERIOUSLY not realise this, or was it deliberate? Either way, it isn't very flattering....



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 04:51 AM
link   
John Bro, earlier in this thread you referred to review of your work by "Village Labs" and J Chisholm.

J Chisholm? - I will comment on him later.. (and that's going to be fun!)


But how about Village Labs? There seems to be nothing available on them - who are they exactly? Website or contact details please.

You said your work was:

backed by hard technical breakdowns from JPL-type scientists.


Are 'Village Labs' and 'J Chisholm' the JPL-types?

And WHERE are the hard technical breakdowns, please.


I think it's time to put up, or...



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 06:01 AM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 


So now, where the dickens is John Bro? Would he be able to respond? I think not as he's clearly barking up the wrong tree and he's probably realized it. This ain't the way to propound and advance the 'UFO cause'!

This so called solar 'Obliteration' is nothing but 'Obfuscation'!! All so amusing and laughable! Can it get any worse than this?



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 06:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Johnbro
This is a really good one I just found. California... April, 2010.

www.alien-videos.net...



that was another nice one to check out!



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 07:05 AM
link   
Now kids, let that be a lesson to you.

That's who you will turn into, if you use argument ad youtubum.

By the way, such posting of YT videos is thoughtless and downright rude, adds nothing of direct value to a thread, and simply gives Youtube and its often deluded inhabitants some free revenue.

Not only does it show you can't use your own words to give your opinion, it also excludes those who do not have high bandwidth or cannot (or don't want to) access Youtube for any of a number of reasons.

How about I post a Rick Astley one next?



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 07:11 AM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 


CHRLZ.....

As per my very first post to johnbro.....

I'll tell what is worrying me more & more.....

Because of this idiotic stuff being posted, someone is going to point a telescope or binoculars or similar at the sun & look at it.

That could cause a devestating eye injury.

The promotion of this material is irresponsible & dangerous.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 07:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not
I'll tell what is worrying me more & more.....
Because of this idiotic stuff being posted, someone is going to point a telescope or binoculars or similar at the sun & look at it.
That could cause a devestating eye injury.
The promotion of this material is irresponsible & dangerous.


That's a very good point. While the odd glance at the sun with unprotected eyes is usually fine, if you add any sort of magnification, the focused high energy IR and UV ends of the spectrum can do serious and permanent damage.

It's also worth noting that it's a good way to destroy a digital sensor too. If any part of the sun is not occulted, and gets magnified onto the sensor for any more than a few seconds, damage to the sensor will probably result. NOTE - most compact digital cameras do NOT use a shutter, so even when they are not taking a snapshot, the sensor is still fully exposed!!

This why solar eclipses are extra dangerous as far as eye injuries. It is not because the sun is any brighter. It's simply that when there is just a small amount of sun showing, people think it is safe to look, and to make it worse, your iris opens up as there isn't much ambient light. Problem is, that little sliver of light contains just as much IR and UV per square millimetre, so it burns the retina without you realising. Say hello to your new blind spot.



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 08:45 AM
link   
I realize - looking back at some of the posts here - that many of you really do believe that I am referring to the flittering little debris that is jumping around the rain gutters. Again, a quick assessment, made by people that far too quick to dismiss things. I think this mentality is a by-product of a world that lives by 'sound bytes' - and the desire for instant gratification. If you don't understand something in 5 seconds; you lose interest. Next, you assail it.

I take it for granted that the 'little white dots' - and 'dust flurries' are absolutely an unfortunate 'by-product' of doing this experiment. Now, if I were a casual observer; and that is all I saw - I would think it was ridiculous, as well.

I ask folks again... -- have a look at this video from California. Wait until approximately 45 seconds into the tape... and pay attention to the background. Now, these aren't the very best examples of what I am referring to - but it is a start.

www.alien-videos.net...


Now watch this video from Germany - starting at the :23 second mark - thru the :57 second mark - and listen to the photographers reaction.

www.formula1movies.com...


These are examples of what I have been referring to. We might ( on a good day ) - get one or two... in an hour. And I never went on TV and said this was alien craft. ( Regardless of what the television show mis-quoted me as saying. )

If I am sometimes found to be 'defensive' - it is not pertaining to the materials. You folks can certainly take this... or leave it. It is in response to the rude and negative manner in which many here conduct themselves.
When I do it back to people; they huff and puff... and take great exception.
And then they transform into somewhat of a 'Goal Tender of their own paradigms.' That truly is where the fights start.

Know-it-all, self-appointed psuedo-intellectuals - seem to make this place their home. I call it the 'Over-night Ghandi' effect. Many here just seem to believe that their's is 'the last word.' It must truly infuriate them - that I have been able to reach the masses with this.


If I am some 'sick person that craves attention' - why do I use a synonym?

Besides, any of you out there that actually know who I am - are also aware that I am on television enough without this. The true motivation to show this to people - is to prove that people don't need the 'UFO Industry' to provide everything for them. 'Solar Obliteration' is just one of many ways - to find answers for oneself. And it is simply a beginner's tool.

The scientific 'proof' factor - should have begun to be satisfied - by the computer analysis of the 'Reseda Saucer' by 'Village Labs' in Phoenix, AZ.

It is quite funny to me; that so many of you - truly believe that Paramount Studios would spend $10 K USD on a false story about 'dust.' It is also remarkable to me... that you believe that a multi-million dollar video editing company ( Village Labs ) - would risk their reputations and business : declaring that a video image of an insect was indeed something anomolous.

"Where is 'Johnbro' - when it comes time to answer the allogations?"

Well, I'm not going to 'live here' on this site. I was trying to show you that. sometimes; ( yes, oft times mis-indentified : but sometimes not ) there is things up / out there - that are interesting enough to give a second look.

Here is an image - using 'S.O. Technique' - from someone that many of you here that are bashing me - actually admire; alot.

www.rense.com...


If you see 'a bug' on that one... well, then... 'Saluda' - because it has been computer analysed by Bruce Macabee... and deemed legitamate. It has also been on television.. and shown to millions - who thought it was awesome. The choice is up to you.

My diary - from the beginning - & why I looked any further at this stuff... is located here.

skymonsters.com...

I probably should have never gone about the business of revealing to the public that there was a technique to obtaining the images. I know of a number of 'famous people' out there that handle their materials in this manner. The viewing public then thinks that 'they' - have some special connection to the 'UFO's' - ( mostly 'ours' - BTW ) Then 'joe-public' will buy just about any book or video that is offered up.

When I tell you that you can find answers for yourself - that is when you believe that I am a 'swindler', or worse. When I tell you that 'it is free' - that is when you become most suspect.

It is an old, standard sociological idiom - that it only requires 2% of the population being supportive of something, to make a social change.

If you folks can't handle this material - you surely won't be able to deal with what is soon to be in-store for us all. And some day, you won't think that I am so laughable.

Until then : we'll just have to continue bashing heads, I surmise.



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 09:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Johnbro
 

Now this is what I call obfuscation! You've laid out a post as long as the Nile but failed to answer even one of the specific questions brought out by various posters in this thread! Carry on......I'm outta here!!



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by CHRLZ
Now kids, let that be a lesson to you.

There's no reason to be condescending in your replies. Not all posters here are astronomers, physicists, rocket scientists and engineers. And no I'm not a kid, just a college graduate in his 50's trying to find out answers to things that are hard to explain. I've taken astronomy classes, but I am by no means an expert on the subject, nor do I try to be. I'm not the kind of person that's going to jump on everything I see in the sky and call it a flying saucer. The majority of people who post here are looking for answers to explain these mysteries away. When I caught these shapes on camera years ago, I also was perplexed on what they could be. I did talk to a high school teacher who taught earth science a while back, and he gave me the answer that those shapes whizzing by in the corona were gamma rays. Rays caught by the refraction of the camera lens? Can you catch gamma rays on camera? I don't know, so I never thought more about it until this post. I truly appreciated your professional explanation of this topic and a lot of it sounds like it holds water. I just don't think it's necessary to paint everyone who has posted here with a broad brush. I agree, You Tube has a lot of adolescent and juvenile followers. You just have to read the video replies and any mature adult can figure that out.
But as far as some of the You Tube videos go, some are legitimate videos shot by people who just want to show what they've caught on tape. There are a lot of hoaxes on You Tube. But people who have done enough research on various subjects, can for the most part, spot the hoaxed videos. You have experience in astronomy, and are lucky to have fellow professionals you can rely on to confirm your questions. As star gazing technology improves, astronomers are finding out some of their theories and explanations have turned out wrong. Don't take this reply the wrong way, but can you understand where some of us laymen are coming from?



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 11:02 AM
link   
Johnbro, ever heard of parallax? Ever used it to verify your work? Or are we supposed to believe these objects are colossal and distant just because you say so?



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by CHRLZ

But how about Village Labs? There seems to be nothing available on them - who are they exactly? Website or contact details please.


CHRLZ, for Village Labs read Jim Dilettoso

Learn about it here

cheers



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 11:29 AM
link   
I was just wondering if you had any footage that is not seen here that you could post to this site?



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Johnbro
I realize - looking back at some of the posts here - that many of you really do believe that I am referring to the flittering little debris that is jumping around the rain gutters. Again, a quick assessment, made by people that far too quick to dismiss things.

That's probably because things were not really explained on this thread.

As I know about this since 2006 I know what you are talking about and that your attitude back then was more the attitude of someone teaching this method to other people; now you just present the result and expect people that never seen it to understand it, and that's not the best way of teaching new things.


'Solar Obliteration' is just one of many ways - to find answers for oneself. And it is simply a beginner's tool.

It's not a way of finding answers, it's another way of having more data and more questions. We can only find the answers when we really know what to ask, so it's a good start, but it's not the end.


The scientific 'proof' factor - should have begun to be satisfied - by the computer analysis of the 'Reseda Saucer' by 'Village Labs' in Phoenix, AZ.

I can wait.



It has also been on television.. and shown to millions - who thought it was awesome.

That means nothing, many people find Britney Spears awesome.



I probably should have never gone about the business of revealing to the public that there was a technique to obtaining the images.

You did right, whenever someone finds a new (or at least for them) way of gathering information they should make it known to other people.

I just think that you should have been more sceptical about the results.

PS: apparently I am on ignore, but I thought I should answer.



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 03:48 PM
link   
Solar obliteration?

Last time I heard about something like that it still involved two vessels aligning at the opposite side of the poles of the sun. Then you need a high pressured hydrogen stream with negatively charge ionic compuounds in it. That way the positively charged hydrogen matter of a sun get's canceled out and pushed together forming a massive fuse reaction in the core simular to a nuclear bomb but much, much more powerful, causing a ripple strong enought to destroy anything in a 300 time radius of the originals sun size relative o its core hydrogen matter. But that's hardly worth knowing.

Never heard of your case. Thanks, I'll read through it.


[edit on 6-9-2010 by AncientShade]



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Johnbro
 


Johnbro.....

As you can see, the "solar obliteration technique" does not withstand any level of scrutiny......& I believe you know that.

Therefore, I believe the following is this the crux of the issue.....

You wrote this:


When I tell you that 'it is free' - that is when you become most suspect.


That could be viewed by some as a little misleading.

This is really all about you using ATS to increase your web & media profile.

In the end, that's all about you obtaining income from advertising revenue, speaking engagements, TV appearances, etc...

You know.....like Jaime Maussan & people like that.

Regards
Maybe...maybe not


[edit on 6-9-2010 by Maybe...maybe not]



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by WeRpeons

Originally posted by CHRLZ
Now kids, let that be a lesson to you.

There's no reason to be condescending in your replies.

What makes you take that as condescending?
Sorry.. but please read on...


Not all posters here are astronomers, physicists, rocket scientists and engineers. And no I'm not a kid, just a college graduate in his 50's trying to find out answers to things that are hard to explain. I've taken astronomy classes, but I am by no means an expert on the subject, nor do I try to be. I'm not the kind of person that's going to jump on everything I see in the sky and call it a flying saucer.

Excellent. Then you will never see me being condescending towards *you*. There is WORLD of difference between that attitude, and those who deliberately mislead, who post youtube videos without comments, who lie about their work being reviewed by experts...


The majority of people who post here are looking for answers to explain these mysteries away.

I'm one of them.


When I caught these shapes on camera years ago, I also was perplexed on what they could be. I did talk to a high school teacher who taught earth science a while back, and he gave me the answer that those shapes whizzing by in the corona were gamma rays.

Being a high school teacher doesn't make you smart in all areas. And I'm sorry, but that's a really silly 'explanation' - gamma rays don't move at speeds that would be captured on camera and are effectively invisible to film or digital media, apart from the fact that hadly any get to the earth's surface.


I don't know, so I never thought more about it until this post.

Neither did your high school teacher, and I would be asking him or her why they would offer such an ill-thought out explanation, when they clearly didn't understand the first thing about gamma rays, let alone videography. Were they joking perhaps, or was it an example of that syndrome where people just have to pretend they know stuff? I have no problem saying I don't know lots of stuff, when topics come up that I am not familiar with. That's what your teacher should have done.


I truly appreciated your professional explanation of this topic and a lot of it sounds like it holds water. I just don't think it's necessary to paint everyone who has posted here with a broad brush. I agree, You Tube has a lot of adolescent and juvenile followers.

If you can point out where I direct my comments at the innocent, please do so, and i apologise if I have used a 'broad brush' - it was not my intent. Yes, I can be a bit terse and unforgiving, but it is only when they are 'repeat offenders', or I can see they are deliberately misleading or timewasting or trying to distract and escape scrutiny.

I don't like having my time wasted, and I don't like poeple trying to mislead others or pretend they know stuff, when they DON'T.


But as far as some of the You Tube videos go, some are legitimate videos shot by people who just want to show what they've caught on tape.

True, and those are the ones I am seeking.


There are a lot of hoaxes on You Tube. But people who have done enough research on various subjects, can for the most part, spot the hoaxed videos. You have experience in astronomy, and are lucky to have fellow professionals you can rely on to confirm your questions. As star gazing technology improves, astronomers are finding out some of their theories and explanations have turned out wrong. Don't take this reply the wrong way, but can you understand where some of us laymen are coming from?

Certainly! And I hope you can see my point of view too. If not, maybe you need to browse over some of the other posts of those who I am a little harsh towards..




top topics



 
20
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join