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.

 

Very clear video of what appears to be Indian Vimanas

page: 4
22
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 26 2011 @ 02:58 AM
link   
I have no idea what they might be but i think the shape they have is due to the light being blurry and out of focus.




posted on May, 26 2011 @ 04:19 AM
link   
I think they look in focus,,,,most of the time,, they also look like chinese baloon lanterns, hearing the reference there to crop circles tomorrow from the photographer you wil probably find the crop circle makers sent up a few lanterns to give the impression of something alien.....
Cheers!



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 04:25 AM
link   
This is an interesting video to say the least. I just recently started looking into Vimana's and find them absolutely fascinating. Thanks for sharing!



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 05:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by elevenaugust
These are diamond-shape effect created by focus-defocus that copy the internal shutter mechanism of the camera, full explanations here:


edit on 25-5-2011 by elevenaugust because: (no reason given)


Stellar post elevenaugust
This effect is seen in so many videos (like the Grand Canyon video discussed earlier for example) I think ATS should make your post a sticky.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 05:45 AM
link   
Me and a few mates sent up a few lanterns in our cropcircle making days....unfortunately it was always too windy and they left the are too quickly I think. I never heard of anyone saying they noticed them. All good fun though. I remember one of the blokes on our team was all crybaby about them, saying we were running the risk of starting a brush fire or something if they malfunctioned. We just called him daft and kept plonking away.....and no, we were never, not once, ever, close to being remotely sober anytime we did this.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 07:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by cripmeister

Originally posted by elevenaugust
These are diamond-shape effect created by focus-defocus that copy the internal shutter mechanism of the camera, full explanations here:


edit on 25-5-2011 by elevenaugust because: (no reason given)


Stellar post elevenaugust
This effect is seen in so many videos (like the Grand Canyon video discussed earlier for example) I think ATS should make your post a sticky.


I agree.... an excellent vid that should be mandatory for all new members to see.


DENY IGNORANCE



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 08:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by elevenaugust
These are diamond-shape effect created by focus-defocus that copy the internal shutter mechanism of the camera, full explanations here:


edit on 25-5-2011 by elevenaugust because: (no reason given)


Excellent!!
No UFOs here! Case closed!



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by merka
I looked 50 seconds in an all I see is the same thing that I see throughout the video:

Out of focus light points.

The effect of a "saucer" is created by the camera itself.

On top of that, I see nothing that indicate any sort of intelligence or "UFO" like behaviour. In fact it looks suspiciously like flares, slowly falling down.


That pretty much sums it up right there... as true as it gets.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 08:58 AM
link   
Pretty cool video. While watching it I noticed that at the 1:36 mark there seem to be some inconsistencies, or maybe a better word is anomalies. There is an area around the lights that seems to have different pixelation than the rest of the screen, I outlined it in red in the picture. The other area of interest are the branches or leaves that are blowing between the lights when the camera is zoomed in... it seems a little inconsistent, hard to explain so just watch from 1:36 on.






edit on 26-5-2011 by OptimusSubprime because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 09:02 AM
link   
reply to post by OrionHunterX
 


The fact that camera lens aren't up to the job does not close this case at all. Anyone who says it does is just being a bit of a smart arse without any actual evidence to back it up. The camera didn't reveal what the source of the light was, as the camera is simply not up to identifying the said lights, using the video evidence alone.

What did bring this case to a conclusion, was the painstaking work done by others who, rather than adopting the high and mighty, oh it's a camera artifact, nothing to see move along arrogant stance, actually tracked down the facts and the facts, as far as they are available, are all that matters.

After careful study and using the evidence freely presented by the person who took the footage. it was concluded that, in all probability, the person was filming flares from a military training area.

Had that work not been done, we would still have had an open case where the lights were too distant to be identified from the footage due to the limitations of the recording equipment. That is a huge difference to what you are claiming.. The camera creates that effect with all lights that are 1 too small or 2 too far away for the lens to be able to cope properly with revealing them as they truly are.
edit on 26-5-2011 by FireMoon because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by FireMoon
reply to post by Corrupted Data
 


Here's the full video...



The lass actually tells you where she is. if you then check the map from her direct orientation I have to say that it's almost 100% military flares. Look like marker flares to my eyes for illuminating the local area of an exercise. I should point out , I've goner toe to toe with a rake load of people on here about flares being the stock answer and people force fitting the evidence to come up with flares. However, in this case I'd say flares.



Yeah.
I`ve had this video on my channel for over a year.
It was taken in 2008.....i think.
I`m not too sure about flares though.
Saying that, i dont know what they are.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Dephyle
 


Very interesting, here is my analysis.

1) Cameras have a effect known as Bokeh. Its basically defined as everything that isnt in focus. As you can see, the leaves are in focus. This would automatically make the objects in the background be represented in the bokeh. Bokeh distorts details, usually in the shape of circles, but however, the shape of the bokeh has to do with the lens type, how many elements of glass inside, the type of shutter and the F stop used as well. Diamond shaped object in the bokeh could be anything.

2) I find it curious that at 1:22 one appears suddenly, no plane to drop it and it isnt launched from the ground like a flare. They are not flares, or chinese lanterns. This is evident from the sudden and out of nowhere appearance of the one at 1:22. both flares and chinese lanterns are light from the moment they leave the ground.

As for what i think it could be? It is definitely a UFO. as in i cannot readily identify it. It is possible it is of ET or ID origin but there is no substantial evidence. There is however evidence it is not a flare or floating lantern.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 10:49 AM
link   
this video has been posted before. they are military flares.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by derst1988
1) Cameras have a effect known as Bokeh. Its basically defined as everything that isnt in focus. As you can see, the leaves are in focus. This would automatically make the objects in the background be represented in the bokeh. Bokeh distorts details, usually in the shape of circles, but however, the shape of the bokeh has to do with the lens type, how many elements of glass inside, the type of shutter and the F stop used as well. Diamond shaped object in the bokeh could be anything.

Yes!

Bokeh is often most visible around small background highlights, such as specular reflections and light sources, which is why it is often associated with such areas.
However, bokeh is not limited to highlights; blur occurs in all out-of-focus regions of the image.

Here are some examples:



The shape of the aperture is also a factor in determining bokeh. The further from circular the aperture is, the more the out of focus image is likely to show poor bokeh. The shape of the aperture is also reflected in the shape of out of focus images of small areas of light. This is shown quite dramatically below in a series of images of an out of focus highlight in an image.



On the left is the defocused image in the center of the frame taken with a 50mm f1.8 lens, wide open at f1.8. In this case the out of focus image is circular. However notice also that it's not a smooth blurring of a point source as you'd like for ideal bokeh It's pretty uniform in illumination and actually appears to have a brighter ring around the outside. In the middle is the defocused image also at f1.8 , but in the corner of the frame. This time the out of focus image is lenticular in shape. This is due to how the aperture looks to oblique light rays and the shape is caused by the same factors that result in vignetting in the corners of an image when a lens is used wide open.
This particular lens has 5 aperture blades, so when it is stopped down the aperture is pentagonal. In the image on the right this can quite clearly be seen in the out of focus image. Again this is likely lead to less pleasing bokeh than a circular aperture would. Better lenses often have more aperture blades, and those blades are often curved so as to give an aperture that's closer to being circular. Very cheap cameras may use 4 or even 3 blade apertures resulting in square or triangular out of focus highlight which do not create good bokeh....


Worth reading to learn more about bokeh and camera aberrations:

Understanding Bokeh
Bokeh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Having some fun with Bokeh: Paper apertures placed over the front of a telephoto lens cause the bokeh to assume the shape of the aperture.
Bokeh Test from which I copy 11 of the 14 points from the conclusion: "What we have learned?":


1- Bokeh has several components, including edge effects around out-of-focus highlights and false edges in the rendering of out-of-focus details.
2- Bokeh rendering is not the same in all situations, and some lenses will be better than others in some situations and worse in other situations.
3- Wider apertures do not necessarily improve bokeh.
4- Specular highlights and other out-of-focus bright spots don't tell the whole bokeh story.
5- Longer focal lengths improve bokeh. If smooth rendering is important, get a longer lens and back up.
6- Double-gauss designs aren't necessarily bad, but the bad ones are really bad.
7- Sonnar designs don't necessarily have better bokeh, but they have the potential.
8- Reputation for good bokeh (e.g., the Jupiter) don't always show in actual results.
9- Lens complexity seems to have little bearing on bokeh. Lens design, however, is paramount.
10- Apertures shapes are not really an issue with bokeh, especially near wide open. In none of these tests was aperture shape the main determinant in apparent bokeh quality. So, we should stop counting aperture blades. The lens with the most aperture blades was the B&L Tessar, but it had uniformly the worst bokeh.
11- Bokeh is subjective, but it is not an illusion.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pimander

Originally posted by don rumsfeld
I'm interested to know two things:
Is there a AFB near by? The lights just appear & begin slowly falling, like flares.

They look more like out of focus Chinese lanterns. SOmebody may have pointed it out already but I won't waste my time reading the whole thread...



Originally posted by silversurfer6161
reply to post by redtic
 


You are wrong!
Bokeh is ALWAYS blurry.These objects are clearly focused at times.
Normal digital cameras don't give you bokeh....everything is always relatively SHARP.


This is the sort of crap that makes me consider not posting on ATS any longer.


Now go back to this post earlier. Time wasting cretins!


Originally posted by Phage
Here's what my camera does to Venus when I use digital zoom and autofocus.
Note the "detail" seen toward the end.

Don't use autofocus. Don't use digital zoom. Unless of course you want to make a hoax video.


(click to open player in new window)

edit on 26/5/11 by Pimander because: Thanks Phage



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 11:32 AM
link   
reply to post by silversurfer6161
 

skyorbs.net...



Other possibilities.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 11:39 AM
link   
I am glad people came to help with the bokeh idea. It is definitely a side effect of bokeh. And, to the person saying that digital cameras are relatively sharp.... wow, you dont know digital cameras, im sorry. P&S cameras may keep a relatively shaper (less bokeh, but not absent) image than a dslr, due to shutter size, and F stop range, but it is clear to me you dont know what your talking about. It was not in focus and was plainly evident to the trained eye.

Now, I did mention my ideas about it not being a flare. I do not see how a flare can just appear out of nowhere, or even a Chinese lantern for that matter. Both objects have a originating point of, on the ground. Firing a flare into the sky is a very visible process. As is a burning candle slowly floating into the sky. So tell me how the physics of these two types of objects reflect the light source that suddenly appears in the video.

Id say best bet is a Helicopter, or a drone like the ones to be used in miami, florida.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by derst1988
 

Ground launched flares don't really leave much of a trail on the way up. They aren't rockets.

edit on 5/26/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by derst1988
 

Ground launched flares don't really leave much of a trail on the way up. They aren't rockets.

edit on 5/26/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)


Okie doke, these are very different than the flares I have handled. Thanks. Flare is now the number one choice, only question is just how long are these flares supposed to last? Because the ones ive used dont stay light for a couple minutes, unlike the video.

Edit in: judging by the posted video it lasts 30 seconds. Launches ar 07 and goes out at 37. The ones in the OP video are just a tad bit longer, so agains probably flares. Thanks

edit on 26-5-2011 by derst1988 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 12:42 AM
link   
I appreciate the stars and flags I've gotten, don't get me wrong, but, this video was discredited on page two. ATSers need to start reading through the full thread before posting. It's funny that I've gotten twice as many stars after it was shown to be wrong than I did before :p Regardless, thank you guys, I'll have something more reliable soon



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join