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.

 

Shape shifting UFO in St. Charles Sky..... Need info

page: 4
1
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by scar7
I see you are near the airport, 2 miles, and I noticed your first object move vertically towards the airport. I had a sighting back in 2007 and below shows the direction of the object the first night I saw it. I posted this on Sept.10, 2009 in another forum site. www.disclose.tv...


I meant I posted it on 2010.

Questions:

I. What direction was the object going in your last video?

-Our atmosphere is made up of nitrogen, oxygen, and other elements that can cause, at times but not all the time, distortion in the atmosphere causing objects in space to be distorted; having a blinking effect, waviness and other effects.
II. Did you see the stars causing that effect before, during, and after your first or last sighting?

III. In the pic that you took before your video, the object looks a bit elongated, was this due to it moving, giving off a light trail in the camera or was the object exactly how it looked?

-You have stated the object looked like a star, but people can define that as it being in space, or shinning like one.
IV. Did the object emit a red shining light, as a helicopter shinning a light at you from a distance (looking like rays of the sun), or was the light stable?


edit on 14-9-2010 by scar7 because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 04:28 AM
link   
A few comments to the OP.

1. PLEASE find someone who understands photography/videography and get them to help you. Hell, if you lived nearby (planning to move to Oz?) I'd be there in a flash with a better camera and all the techniques.. Alternatively, borrow a friend with a decent camera (or just the camera, but learn how to use it) and tripod.

2. STEADY the camera (lean against a pole, a car roof, use a small bean bag on something - there are HUNDREDS of ways to do this)

3. If you want to show movement, you MUST show background and keep the camera still. 'Post-stabiliisation' only works if you have something to go by (usually background stars, streetlights, tree silhouettes etc) - and in that first video all we have is your little dancing blob. The few moments of other stuff are so fleeting and so erratic, there's no way that can be post processed into something useful. The other problem here is that your camera has obviously been forced into a very slow shutter speed, so the object is moving within each frame.

4. The 'shape shifting' is out of focus effects along with digital zoom - clearly the zoom is nothing more than cropping and interpolating - you can tell by the twin hot-pixels that jump into view... Which means, I'm sorry, that you are wasting your time zooming - all the 'added detail' you get is made up by the camera's electronics. OPTICAL zoom (which you don't have) is good. Digital zoom is bad - the devil's tool.
Seriously, if all that camera has, is digital zoom - DON'T USE IT. It just makes things shakier and more likely out of focus, and it adds *false* detail.

Overall, it seems you got what you paid for (or a little less) with that camera...


5. I looked at your second video, and I see what looks exactly like a passenger aircraft approaching you, initially close to head on, and then peeling off either to land or into a holding pattern. In those segments where you include background, I see no unusual movement whatsoever.


I'd like for this to be interesting, but unless you can do a better job of the image capture, the evidence of anything strange just isn't there.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 08:20 AM
link   
reply to post by scar7
 


1. The object was heading North to Southeast almost the same path as the first sighting, initial once it gotten south enough I lost it behind some trees.


2. Not sure what effect your referring to?

3.I never ment to snap a pic, it was a accident. The camera is a VIVITAR VinCam 8690 and at the rush of attempting to record it, it was on photo mode so it snapped that pic. oddly enough It flies by fairly fast to notice what you are saying but it does look cigar shape on the still.

Note: I will say on my first sighting it was in the air just there like a star it didnt moved like the rest of the stars so it seemed like a star, what stood out was it was redder than any of them, also since Mars is visible in the sky I thought it could be mars or a new star but then it starting moving and thats when I ran to get the camera the first time.

The camera is kinda of cheap so it doesnt pick up the light of stars and if U see the object was emitting a bright light. When I watched my video in slow-mo I see it changing colors. with my naked eyes all I seen was red, being the most obvious color.

4.The object looked like one being it just stood there in the sky oddly with the same effetcs the atmosphere gives the stars.


As it started moving the light was stable.... and no sound came from it, i see planes fly by often and I am familar with their characteristics. This isn't a plane from my propsective, no it was not a chopper.

oddly to say my internet was down all day and night yesterday, pretty wierd....


edit on 15-9-2010 by 2ndSEED because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 06:59 PM
link   
I suggest using the picture from now on since we have video already. The pictures are much clearer. Unless it takes the camera a long time to "reboot" for the next pic.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 07:52 PM
link   
September 11, 2009. Time of 1st Red Ufo: 20:28 ? Direction: As the line show or maybe it should be more horizontal


All yellow highlighted satellite times on the list are represented in order in the above picture.

What was the exact time span for both of your sightings and when did they start?

We are looking for a ESE object and there seems to be one on the list but the time does not match your original post.

Im still looking for more satellites, but those are the brightist at the time of your sighting. Neither line up with yours. At the website, it shows that one of the satellites take 4 minutes to move across the sky out of view. Your tape lasted 2 minute-ish.


I dont know if this works: (pic link)
www.heavens-above.com...

It's my first time using the website, so information may not be accurate. So many things to consider when looking into satellites.



edit on 15-9-2010 by scar7 because: Stuff




edit on 15-9-2010 by scar7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 11:07 PM
link   
reply to post by scar7
 


The first sighting was: Saturday, ‎September ‎11, ‎2010, ‏‎8:23pm to 8:25:31 PM

The second was Monday, September 13, 2010. 7:42 to about 7:44 PM

You have done some exstensive research.... hope this helps


edit on 15-9-2010 by 2ndSEED because: adding time


Was looking at the CZ-2D R/B which seems to be around the time but is like a few minutes after and traveling opposite direction. Doesn't seem right, what you say?


edit on 15-9-2010 by 2ndSEED because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 12:22 AM
link   
Yeah. That satellite does not seem to fit your 1 st sighting at all. Doing some work on getting this satellite business down to a T but so far your sighting seems legit, as far it not being a satellite. I think since your object passed by quickly, it falls into other categories below satellites, if not "alien".




Not to much of a high definition pic, but I guess we have other layers of atmosphere to consider. We have not even started on your second sighting yet. Yikes, the work it takes.



edit on 16-9-2010 by scar7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 07:52 PM
link   
Just to confirm



Asking these questions in general, not specifically towards the OP:
Does this seem accuarte?

Can satellites detect if an object is near it?

What monitor's satellites?

I see that in the photo Jupiter is under the object. How can we determine the size of object?

St. Charles, IL:

Elevation: 600 feet above sea level. en.wikipedia.org...

Est. Tree line from eyewitness when last seen: approx. 35 degrees from ground and 55 degrees from zenith.

Time of sighting (giving 15 seconds to get the camera): 2 min & 30 seconds
Time of craft traveling in sky: depends on how long it took to notice it to the time it actually
presented itself. ----How long do you think it was actually up there?


edit on 16-9-2010 by scar7 because: stuff



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 11:26 PM
link   
Wow you been doing some great work (Scar7) I appreciate your intrest and I am sure we'll figure this out... anyhow I been doing some online research and I found this in the MUFON web-site....




Strangly in my sighthing I seen red but as you look at the videos it does look white and pulsating blues.....

Would like someone to freeze frames



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 01:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by 2ndSEED
Strangly in my sighthing I seen red but as you look at the videos it does look white and pulsating blues.....


I'm sorry, but seriously, you are wasting your time wanting those images to cleaned up with 'magic'. I hate to tell you this, but most of the stuff on CSI is not exactly true..

I'm sure some amateur Photoshop 'genius' will pop by and use any number of techniques to show you the results you want (including helmeted aliens in the blown up artefacts), but a *proper* analysis won't give you anything useful. The camera, and its images, are simply not up to it.

The best things you could do are:

1. Given you said you don't know what a satellite looks like, spend some serious observing time outdoors, especially at late dusk and just after (because you *won't* see any satellites in the later evening) - by all means use Heaven's Above, but I'd suggest you first try to find a few without it, and then concentrate on the 'big ones', eg ISS, HST, Envisat, etc. List here:
www.n2yo.com...
I think there's another on H-A.

2. Get hold of a better camera, learn to use it, and use the techniques described above.

I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, but reality sometimes is.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 01:48 AM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 


CHRLZ.....CHRLZ.....CHRLZ.....

When will you start to keep up with the times...... :shk:

You need.....

The Penetrating Photographic Process!!

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



edit on 17-9-2010 by Maybe...maybe not because: Syntax



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 02:33 AM
link   

Wow you been doing some great work (Scar7) I appreciate your intrest and I am sure we'll figure this out... anyhow I been doing some online research and I found this in the MUFON web-site....


Weird, the person was taking out the trash just like you. So its true, trash day comes on Monday.


Maybe I got this all wrong and this is not an unknown object:
Here are your first and second day sightings in regards to the ISS: I guess I was looking at things backwards


Since the heavans-above website states "prediction", I think it's fair to say that your sighting's might be of the ISS. Same magnitude as ISS, roughly the same times of the day, sun going down, and both sightings lasted the same times as the heavans-above website states (1st sighting: 2:30 minutes and 2nd 1:30 minutes)

What do you think?


edit on 17-9-2010 by scar7 because: Massive Correction.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 03:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not
CHRLZ.....CHRLZ.....CHRLZ.....

When will you start to keep up with the times...... :shk:

You need.....
The Penetrating Photographic Process!!
...


OH ... MI ... GOD!!!!!!

That is (expletive deleted
) HILARIOUS!!!!! Thank you MMN, that absolutely cracked me up, and I will be using it henceforth as the poster page for all that is wrong RIDICULOUS in post-processing and image analysis. To that end I have even saved the entire page - I'll repost it if they ever pull it down out of embarrassment.


I know Jose Escamilla is looking for EXACTLY that sort of analysis of some of his stuff, btw...

Added Someone should send that link to Zorgon (if he doesn't already use them..).


edit on 17-9-2010 by CHRLZ because: I added the .. er.. addition



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 02:12 AM
link   
Been a week now since my sighting lots of clouds lately but I keep an out. Anyhow I know ATS is a good source for information for lots of things. I appreaciate Scar7's help and leads. I still tend to believe it's no satellite.... After a week of brain busting research still hasn't changed my thoughts. Anyhow I found another sighting nearby.... I attached the sighting...



Strangely.... more and more reports of similar star like objects lately and if U do some inquiry, U will see they are becoming more frequent ppl



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 06:13 AM
link   
Didn't see this post before, and as I like answering questions...


Originally posted by scar7
...Asking these questions in general, not specifically towards the OP:
Does this seem accuarte?

I won't be specific on this bit out of sheer laziness
. But my experience with Heaven's Above and other sources of satellite data is that they are quite accurate, down to a few seconds or less... The difficulty is usually to do with getting your lat and lon and time zone exactly right. Small discrepancies can mean you completely miss the sighting, as these things generally move quite quickly across the sky and as they are often small and dim, if you are looking just ten or twenty degrees away, you may not see it. And thirty seconds too late will mean you see nothing..


Can satellites detect if an object is near it?

No. Well, in truth a very few may have detection devices, but the overwhelming majority do not. However, most have the ability to shift themselves a little
, so if ground stations detect an 'incoming' bit of debris (or rocket stage..) or a potential crossing of paths with another sat, they can maneuver them.


What monitor's satellites?

Innumerable sources - many amateurs do it for fun, professional observatories, sky mapping and asteroid detection agencies - they can and do feed data into numerous repositories like Heaven's Above, GSOC, The US DoD, etc. Start here:
www.satobs.org...


I see that in the photo Jupiter is under the object. How can we determine the size of object?

You can't. Tiny bright objects "bloom" - in other words, the camera sensor's individual pixels bleed into the neighbouring ones (similar with film grain), giving it a false size. These things are at the limit of the resolution of the camera (or in this case, well beyond) and despite what you might see on CSI, you CANNOT blow up images beyond 'actual pixel' size and try to make measurements or interpret the false detail that results from overenlargement.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join