UFO Closes Airport

lmgtfy.com...
2nd Line

reply to post by spikey

Rational common sense must tell us that these THREE major disruptions to commercial airports in china are not due to military testing.

Okay, what is your rational mind telling you this is? I agree, I don't think it's military testing, but someone is up to no good...be it the news source, the Chinese government, or some other "source." Three closures with similar stories and two pics that look identical smells like a rat to me.

ZOMG ....ufo over fireworks

Fireworks shutdown for 2 days ...The Sun is there

reply to post by Arbitrageur


That 'timed exposure of a helicopter' was the excuse for the other two UFO's that shut down the other two commercial airports.

Helicopters, do not hang around hovering over airports for hours, effectively shutting the airport down, causing passenger laden commercial jets to fly holding patterns or get diverted to other airports, then dart around flying erratically and zooming off and certainly not without being challenged by the authorities.

Three times..three airports. Three sets of ATC not getting any response to their attempts at radio contact. Three sets of ATC and airport authorities never having been briefed about any possible military tests..no arrested helicopter pilots have been made for causing risk to the passengers and aircraft at any of these three airports.

Come on mate, think about what you're saying here. I don't mind a bit of rational skepticism, but debunking for the sake of debunking is another kettle of fish.

Why not call a spade a spade?

Originally posted by spikey
That 'timed exposure of a helicopter' was the excuse for the other two UFO's that shut down the other two commercial airports.

Please re-read my posts.

The photo looks like the timed exposure of a helicopter, (and in other cases, rocket launch, and other unrelated events).

I'm not claiming a helicopter or a rocket launch shut down the airports, in fact I'm quite sure it didn't.

I suspect we haven't seen ANY photos of whatever it was that shut down the airports, which is kind of strange.

reply to post by spikey


Spikey,

I think you're confusing the reports of airfields being closed down with the photographs supplied to substantiate those reports.

The photographs are clearly and unequivocably long exposure shots of helicopters. That they are linked to the airport closures is attributable to poor reporting.

China is a notoriously closed book when it comes to official explanations about events such as these. I have no doubt the airfields were closed but these photographs are unconnected.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Korg Trinity
Looks to me as though it is a projected image. You can Cleary see the light beams rising up. Some kind of Hologram??.

No it looks like a time exposure of a helicopter, aiming a searchlight at the ground, in which case the searchlight beam is going down, not up.

Besides, in order to project an image, you have to have something to project against.

It might well be a helicopter.

But you don't need something to project against these days.



But I agree with you, on second look this image is defo fishy.



Korg.

reply to post by NightGypsy


Well, i guess the short answer is that i'm honest enough to say i just don't know what it is!

I know what it isn't though, given the circumstances here and of the other two occurrences to go on, and for multiple members to insinuate blithely it's this or that without due consideration, just to simply explain it away, is not logical or honest.

And frankly, (I'm not talking about you here) i can't stand liars or sycophantic backside kissers who's posts are designed mainly to ingratiating themselves with others, and do not go any way to helping to rationally investigate these occurrences as a resourceful international ATS membership like ours, interested in these sightings could.

There are a fair number of members around here that if they could force themselves to display a bit more honesty and objectivity, and a bit less mindless parroting, we might actually get somewhere in finding out exactly what these things are..but no, it's easier to rubbish and embrace bollocks, than it is to expend a bit of energy and actually think about it.

I love coming here to ATS, and have spent a lot of time on these boards over the last couple of years, but this kind of automatic rubbishing of anything even remotely like these subjects is really wearing thin. It's aggravating rather than enjoyable these days, which is probably the goal of some of the people on here.
Maybe it's time to move on.

reply to post by Slippery Jim


Whether these photos are of the objects in question or not, they are always supplied as such, and are actively discussed on ATS as being 'the object' responsible.

I understand China is very guarded about what information get's in or out, and this probably accounts for the lack of media regarding these things, especially if the government doesn't know what they are either.

The mere fact these images, being posted in support of the UFOs closing airports stories, become the main point of conversation regarding the events, speaks for itself doesn't it mate?

Timed exposure of a helicopter posts about images posted in connection with these objects hovering and whizzing around Chinese airports for hours on end, directly insinuates that the objects that closed the airports were helicopters.

There are many posts on here, regarding the previous events at the other airports that say exactly that.

It's almost as though some members are deliberately trying to convince other members that helicopters, in all three airports...flying around in flight corridors for hours...without any helicopter pilots being identified or arrested, or being contactable by ATC from the tower has been responsible for the all three airport closures, and diverted aircraft.

Because of this, one has to comment on these images in the context they are being presented.

Cheers.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Ok, point taken.

Thanks for clearing that up.

reply to post by spikey


I disagree
I'm sure an airport had to close down today, but it was NOT because of the 'thing' on that image because the 'thing' on the image was captured on camera several months ago and not today. People talking about the 'thing' on the image in connection with todays closing of that airport does not make it connected to it in any way.

That said, the 'thing' has already been widely discussed in several other threads, here on ats and on multiple other websites. I personally ( read "personally, as in "In My Opinion") don't see evidence of a ufo in that photo and to me it resembles the image of a helicopter. If you see a ufo in it well fine then, but don't flame on others because they think different then you!

The truth is that there are no images available about todays event and there are no better sources then The Sun. There isn't even an official statement. All we know is that an airport closed down and the rest are rumours.
So there isn't really much more to say untill more news about this event comes our way.

Originally posted by Korg Trinity
But you don't need something to project against these days.

That is projecting against something, why do you think you have to refill the water tank?

www.heliodisplay.com...

An internal water tank of 8 liters filled with regular tap water lasts one to two days on the L90 and a 3 liter tank on the M50 lasts a day.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Korg Trinity
But you don't need something to project against these days.

That is projecting against something, why do you think you have to refill the water tank?

www.heliodisplay.com...

An internal water tank of 8 liters filled with regular tap water lasts one to two days on the L90 and a 3 liter tank on the M50 lasts a day.

And you think there is no water vapour in the air?

korg.

Originally posted by Korg Trinity
And you think there is no water vapour in the air?

There is but you can't project against it.

www.weatherquestions.com...

Water vapor is totally invisible. If you see a cloud, fog, or mist, these are all liquid water, not water vapor.

You can project against the liquid forms of water. But liquid forms of water are not always present in the air, depending on the temperature, dewpoint, relative humidity, etc.

Besides, even if there is liquid water in the air, it doesn't tend to make a very good projection surface, unless it's artificially created like the projector creates. The light projected will tend to be scattered along the entire path of the light rays, and not create a distinct image at some random point in space.

And if you don't want to take my word for it, click on "brochure" on the manufacturer's website, and when they explain how it works, they talk about the projection surface they create from ultrafine particles, thus confirming my claim that you need something to project against.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8e59dae0548d.png[/atsimg]

See that they are creating a "micro-thin projection medium"? Now if we can figure out how to do that up in the sky we can project an image up in the sky, but every time I've seen it done, you can see the giant apparatus which creates the projection surface.

That image is not a projection. With our current technology, there would need to be a giant gizmo creating the projection surface we'd need to project an image like that against, and we'd more than likely be able to see that giant gizmo. That heliodisplay is kind of cool though, they got the particles of the projection surface so small they are really hard to see until the light hits them.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Korg Trinity
And you think there is no water vapour in the air?

There is but you can't project against it.

Pedantic but I accept your point and my example was a bad example to illustrate my point. The technology required for sky projections of holograms is not just light reflection of water.

And I agree that the image is very suspect and concur it is likely to be a long exposure.

however this is more what I was talking about when speaking of sky holographic.





Korg.

reply to post by GypsK


@ GypsK & Boondock-saint

Thanks for not hammering me!

To be honest, I kind of restrict my time here on ATS to one particular thread, occasionally start one based on info from where I currently live, and then occasionally lose it completely and post a UFO story!

I'm not a UFO buff by any stretch, or indeed a believer or non-believer. I posted because I hadn't seen it on ATS and as it was one in a series of supposed sightings, thought i would stick it up here for debate.

Good job to those who are more knowledgeable than me, and can call out the picture from previous reports so quickly.

Regarding the photo specifically - i don't personally believe this could be a helicopter on long exposure. The long exposure would indeed be an answer as to how how the bright, horizontal light could have been formed, but with the searchlight effect beaming down, it would have had to be focused on a single point on the ground while the helicopter was moving, in order to make the converging beam that is seen in the picture. Of course, this is possible, but I personally doubt the resultant effect of a helicopter with a searchlight trained on a single point while moving in a perfectly horizontal line would be so clean. And what of the four lights above the white horizontal line? They are distinctly seperate. Not merged into one, like the horizontal line below - so is this the result of a long exposure of amoving object? The ONLY way would be if the light or lights were flashing, which would mean we now have a helicopter travelling in a perfectly straight line, focusing a searchlight on a single spot on the ground, and at a very constant rate of travel to give the impression of four perfectly spaced lights.

Personally, if I had to chose a reason why the picture did not show a UFO, i would have gone with a projection, rather than a long exposure. The trees are also to clean for my liking for it to be LE.

Just my thoughts - like i say, i'm no expert, no UFO buff.

.......and for those who want a better source than The Sun, it's also reported elsewhere. e.g The Telegraph in the UK, which is possibly a more reputable source.

www.telegraph.co.uk...

Originally posted by cushycrux
lmgtfy.com...
2nd Line

Click that link you ignorants!

So it looks like we've cleared up the fact that old photos have been used in new news stories as no new photos are available!!! Why though has the MSM chosen old stock photos that are so obviously not UFOs?

Is it to cause the same silly arguments and misunderstandings I've just witnessed on this very same thread?

We need to stick together guys and respect the posters that obviously have a great deal of knowledge and experience in the subject matter.

And for that matter have a little more patience for those that don't.