Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Bob's Home Video

page: 15
19
<< 12  13  14    16  17 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 05:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Pimander
 


You think all these photos are free to me? There is travel cost. To photograph the base, there is actual work involved to get to Tikaboo. Try doing the hike with 40lbs on your back. I've lost 4 tires over the years. Figure $600 right there since SUV tires are not cheap.

I looked at the Living Moon website. I rather not have any association with it. I gain nothing from them ripping me off.

Regarding copyrights, it does not matter if the image is used in a commercial or non-commercial application.
www.photosecrets.com...




posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 05:26 PM
link   


But still they could probably cloak anything they wanted to, not from the russians but from humanity in general. You know like cloaked battlecruisers dropping from the heavens in orb like shapes, almost like falling stars(meteorities). Far fetched yes, but not more than star trek or battlestar gallactica.
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


Hint: Star Trek and Battlestar Gallactica were TV shows.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Pimander
 


Yeah, then where is my check? I am a target of AFOSI, not an employee.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by astro144
 


The tunnels at the NTS are not secret. Media have been in them. They have infrastructure on the surface that is not hidden.

www.ufomind.com...



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by gariac
I looked at the Living Moon website. I rather not have any association with it. I gain nothing from them ripping me off.


No one is ripping you off... many years ago you gave permission to use your images so long as it was clearly marked as to source and link...

Then recently you changed your mind and told me not to store them on my server but to go ahead and hot link them instead. Those latest emails from YOU I posted a few posts back.

I did miss the Janet ones that you found in an old archive, I will just have to snap a few of my own this week


You are entitled to change your mind, but why this sudden drama? I also find it amusing that you admit that the Dreamland site has cut you off... Two tourists fighting each other over photos...


Yet you feel its okay for you to come in here and call people frauds and liars based on nothing but your personal opinions... no proof at all to back you up..

You know,its odd really... all over the web I see a sudden sharp renewal in interest in Bob's story.... Why is that? What triggered this sudden interest and need to start the attacks all over again? Bob hasn't come forward with anything new... and he doesn't really care who believes him. But guess who is making all the fuzz keeping his name front and center...



You know what I think? I think that 'They' paid you and Dreamland a visit and told ya to back off on the photo tours


Well I too am entitled to an opinion


The louder the opposition protests the more I know I am on the right track
edit on 5-3-2012 by zorgon because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by gariac
The tunnels at the NTS are not secret. Media have been in them. They have infrastructure on the surface that is not hidden.


Yeah Bill Uhouse had a lot of stories about those tunnels. Seems he backs up some of Bob's story too
Bill passed away recently but I see Glenn Campbell has a nice eulogy and collection of Bill's stories

Area 51 Loose Ends
Bill Uhouse Passes Away
area51looseends.blogspot.com...

Seems Glenn has links to all the old Desert Rat reports he did with Bill Uhouse there. Really fascinating reading



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 07:26 AM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


Some are saying the saucer shape helps this technology work well, there may be more than one type of propulsion. But it could be said almost with certainty some saucers are man made.



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 10:24 PM
link   
To the OP, very informative for newcomers about COINTELPRO. Great post!!



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by gariac



But still they could probably cloak anything they wanted to, not from the russians but from humanity in general. You know like cloaked battlecruisers dropping from the heavens in orb like shapes, almost like falling stars(meteorities). Far fetched yes, but not more than star trek or battlestar gallactica.
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


Hint: Star Trek and Battlestar Gallactica were TV shows.
Do you want everyone to think you are a disinfo agent or what? Have you heard of meta-materials?


Well, Muggles, science has some good news for you: Invisibility cloaks are a reality. The technology is far from perfect, but if you'll step into our high-tech boutique of vanishing apparel, we'll guide you through your invisibility cloak options.
How Invisibility Cloaks Work

That is technology from 15 years ago - Tokyo university. Deep black projects are at least 15 years ahead so I'd say that they have technology 30 years ahead of this.



Here is what was made possible with unclassified research 15 years ago.



Still certain that hidden flying disks haven't been operating in US airspace? If you are then you should give this game up.



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 01:44 PM
link   
Mercedes Benz Invisible Car!

Watch out for those speed traps now







posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 10:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Pimander
 


Those optical camo videos are done by projecting an image of the scenery behind the person on the person (target).
www.youtube.com...


The so-called invisible metal would not be invisible for an array of light rays. You can easily visualize this in your head if you can think in 3D.



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 11:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by gariac
reply to post by Pimander
 


Those optical camo videos are done by projecting an image of the scenery behind the person on the person (target).
www.youtube.com...


The so-called invisible metal would not be invisible for an array of light rays. You can easily visualize this in your head if you can think in 3D.


I recall reading something recently that suggested there was rumor of a one off technology demonstration being flown at Groom involving a conventional aircraft with a special skin or coating that allowed both hue and radiance to be altered to some degree, similiar to the principle behind Canada's National Research Council work on Counterillumination camouflage during WWII and occasionally resurrected with little fanfare up to the present.

Metamaterials aside ( I too have had the impression they only work with a fixed light-source and perspective?)...

BAE Systems currently claim to have developed have an infra-red spectrum adaptive camouflage system that fools thermal optics and report to be in development of a similar system that works the visible spectrum.

BAE Systems to Unveil Adaptive Camouflage Cloak for Combat Vehicles at DSEi



Obviously there is huge challenge involved with engineering an aerospace application vs. armor mounted but recent exploitations of lightweight,low power organic light-emitting diode technology on par with Zorgon's example (sans the 2nd aircraft needed to carry the projector for the first
) are probably well within current technological possibility.

If anyone is interested, here is a fairly comprehensive overview on the various approaches to the problem along with their relative merits and faults here...

ACTIVE CAMOUFLAGE FOR INFANTRY HEADWEAR APPLICATIONS
edit on 8-3-2012 by Drunkenparrot because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 12:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Drunkenparrot
 


All this sounds good in principle unless you understand science. First of all, no LED projection scheme will fool countermeasures. You are emitting energy in a manner that is not consistent with the surrounding as viewed by instrumentation. There are so many ways I could defeat such a scheme it isn't funny. Here are a few:
1) Sweep the horizon with IR. The background will reflect the light differently than the LED illuminated camo. Generally for IR detection schemes, you modulate the light so that you can demod it with a lock-in amp. The camo would have to emit similar modulated light in a manner to fool the sensor. Very improbable.
2) Say the background was a wall. A large planar surface will reflect light in a manner inversely proportional to distance. The camo will be small relative to the wall, and will emit light that is inversely proportional to the square of the distance. Thus instrumentation at two different locations could detect the difference. Conversely, the light emitted would have to be tweaked based on knowing the distance to the observer. But in the age of UAVs, it would be trivial to have two vantage points on the target.
3) LIght from LED arrays are not broadband, but have line spectra that can be detected.
4) Arrays that have patterns on them are generally multiplexed. Otherwise the wiring becomes a burden. Instrumentation can detect the matrixing.

en.wikipedia.org...

OK, LED schemes easily destroyed. LCD and other schemes that change the color of the object are more likely to work. However, it you visualize the problem in 3D, you will see that there is no way to paint a color that will be suitable for all observers since there are different backgrounds for different observers. You could make it better than nothing, but hardly invisible.Note that LCDs have matrixing as well, but harder to detect.

For aircraft, it seems unlikely such a LCD scheme could take the abuse. Look at an aircraft fuselage. They show a lot of abuse. I won't rule out LCD visual camo, but for aircraft, it really doesn't matter much. If the people on the ground don't have radar, they are dead. This is due to the "standoff" of the weapons. [High standoff means launch from a distance.] If the plane launches a missile that is faster than sound, you will never get the "pleasure" of hearing the weapon approach. If the people on the ground have radar, then the plane is more worried about having low observability. You could make a weak argument for close air support needing visual stealth since they won't have high standoff.

But what is the point here? This has nothing to do with Lazar's so-called S-4 base. He described it as doors in the mountain side, not stealthy camo.



posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by gariac
 


Just my own personal 2 cents of off topic commentary, as this thread seems to have stalled at an impasse a few pages ago.

Perhaps its the sterility of communication via this format however my functional command of the sciences is perfectly adequate to comment on this subject matter amongst this pier group.

If you will indulge one last offtopic response.


Electromagnetic Stealth is by no means invulnerable, Col. Zoltán Dani made the point by killing F-117 #82-0806 over Serbia in 1999 with a 40 year old SA-3.

It is a given that any defense or offense can be foiled if the willpower exits to commit the necessary resources. The reality is that the problem of reducing RCS (Radar cross-section) is as old as the radar it spoofs and the world has known first hand for twenty years what the combination of low observability and precision guided munitions means in terms of a force multiplier.

Every nation with a modern defense industry has studied the problem at length, the Soviet emphasis on IRST (Infra-red search and track) development for its 4th generation fighters was reactionary to a specific threat, i.e. stealth.

However at this juncture stealth still works, how long until Russian or Chinese develop a low band radar that completley negates its advantage or abandons radar to develop a refined passive countermeasure is the big unknown. Even if electromagnetic stealth remains effective , in the future stealth will be complemented by much more sophisticated attempts to reduce IR emissions and visibility as search/targeting technologies guided by image analysis rather than radar beams are fielded.

Stealth works because it makes something harder to detect, not impossible. The same applies to active camouflage, tests of "Yehudi" light systems in the 1940's proved that simple counter illumination significantly reduced detection ranges, reportedly the Have Blue demonstrators were to have included a counter illumination system and the Boeing Bird of Prey allegedly put something a lot more sophisticated to the test.

Obviously the U.S. aerospace community see's some value in the technology, whether the tech has matured to where it is both economically feasible and robust enough to withstand the thermal and dynamic stress imposed by a high performance aircraft and still be serviced by a board 19 year old airmen as required is the better question.

If you take a moment to read the links I posted you would note that BAE Systems specifically spoofs IR sensors extraordinarily well and is being shopped as a developed system (as the fact that it is being demonstrated on a movingCV90 Armadillo in the link attests to.)

In the context of infra-red search and track, weapons sights and munitions guidance seekers , modern thermal optics are passive. Active IR using augmented illumination like the T-72's L2G projector or the M60's IR/white light search-light have been obsolete systems for 30+ years.

I am sure there is no need to point out that wavelengths of visible light lie in-between the ultraviolet and infrared and shares similar properties with both implying that if the physics work to spoof IR in 3 dimensions from multiple perspectives, they must also be applicable to the visible spectrum as well.

Furthermore OELD is not LED or LCD. OELD are broadband, they can be made to reproduce the complete visible spectrum into the near IR.The next time you are in an electronics store go out of your way to check out one of Sony or Samsungs OELD flatscreens and take note how far you can move off center without losing any image quality. OLED panels are thin and lightweight, Consumer off the shelf OLED technology available today would allow for engineering into a topical skin and the hope is to develop bulk coatings applied in the same manner as typical a paint film.

Adaptive camouflage doesn't need to provide a perfect representation of its background environment, it just needs to reasonably match the hue and radiance of its environment.
 

Back on topic


Bob Lazar


Gariac, the believers have you cornered in that nobody can say with absolute conviction what Bob & Co. filmed (in truth neither can Bob, another light in the sky being touted as proof of extraterrestrial contact.)

Out of curiosity, have you tried to find a Janet schedule for March 29th of 1989? I suspect you are correct, he knew the Janet flight times and the scheduled "saucer" test was the Groom night shift reporting to work.

As you alluded in your last post, it sounds great unless you have a basic understanding of the science. Barring the inconvenient truth that a lot of bonafide, vetted ex Groom employees are beginning to share their histories and information and are emphatic that they never heard anything about extraterrestrial spacecraft, it is the mechanics of his story that wrecks it for him. Specific parts of his explanation regarding the physics are ridiculous and prove beyond doubt that his fantastic story is a lie.

If he had kept quiet about things but he shot himself in the foot with nonsense like gravity a and gravity b waves, %100 efficient energy transfers or the chunks of 115 Uup he carried around in his lunchbox for a week.
edit on 9-3-2012 by Drunkenparrot because: syntax



posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Drunkenparrot
reply to post by gariac
 


Just my own personal 2 cents of off topic commentary, as this thread seems to have stalled at an impasse a few pages ago.


Impasse? Not at all!

Besides showing that the common held belief about no video being taken was completely false, we also found that no one here can even answer the simplest questions about the case.

And the big unexpected bonus was all these supposed know it all's exposing themselves for what they truly are.

All in all quite an epic thread!

I didn't want to spoil it by adding any more facts to the mix.




posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by A51Watcher

Originally posted by Drunkenparrot
reply to post by gariac
 


Just my own personal 2 cents of off topic commentary, as this thread seems to have stalled at an impasse a few pages ago.


Impasse? Not at all!

Besides showing that the common held belief about no video being taken was completely false, we also found that no one here can even answer the simplest questions about the case.

And the big unexpected bonus was all these supposed know it all's exposing themselves for what they truly are.

All in all quite an epic thread!

I didn't want to spoil it by adding any more facts to the mix.





Respectfully, momentarily putting aside the fact that everything Lazar has said on record regarding Ununpentium is nonsense, I have now read 3 separate accounts on where and how he came into possession of the "Samples" which only serves to reinforce my already firm conviction that every facet of Bob Lazar's S-4 story is a lie.

If you choose to believe that some nefarious, unaccountable faction of the military industrial complex has been hiding extraterrestrial spacecraft at an airbase in the middle of the Mojave desert or that a short video of aircraft lights in a landing pattern is proof of the flightesting of these craft, it is absolutely your business and I respect your right to your own beliefs.

With that, while you are entitled to your own opinion, you are not entitled to your own facts, of which you have presented an old video of aircraft landing lights and tried to fill the rest in with argumentative rhetoric backed up by your own confirmation bias.

I dont have a problem with that and I enjoy your posts so understand I am only voicing my own opinion when I say that my own standard for burden of proof is considerably higher.

I dont believe you are having any more luck convincing Gariac with your evidence or your argument so yes, I believe this thread has reached an impasse (IMHO
)



posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 10:27 PM
link   


Electromagnetic Stealth is by no means invulnerable, Col. Zoltán Dani made the point by killing F-117 #82-0806 over Serbia in 1999 with a 40 year old SA-3.
reply to post by Drunkenparrot
 


Stealth is more than just hardware. You need to fly in a stealthy manner. Taking the same route over and over again is likely to get you shot down.



Zoltan got some help from his enemies. The NATO commanders often sent their bombers in along the same routes, and didn't make a big effort to find out if hotshots like Zoltan were down there, and do something about it. Never underestimate your enemy.

www.strategypage.com...

Regarding OLEDs, photoluminescence has line spectra as well. It is just not based on a semiconductor bandgap. The notion of indirect light emission is quite old. In spectral analysis, if your line sensor can't "see" the light, you coat it with a substance whose secondary emission can be detected.

The DoD funds plenty of bad projects. I am very sure any scheme emitting light will have plenty of counterneasures.[Plenty of obvious bonehead engineering from the DoD has seen production. The Honeywell "people sniffer" naplam 'bot used during Viet Nam is a prime example. We spent billions and the VC defeated the system by hanging buckets of urine in the trees.]

You have the right not to believe Lazar videotapes a Janet. It is pretty obvious to anyone that has frequented the area that was the case. I have no way to get a Janet schedule that old. Plus the final leg of the trip is not cast in stone until the plane is near the base and the pilot has heard the local conditions. Landing at Groom is not trivial. There are plenty of hillsides to fly into. I have those old CD of Janet video landing from "Desert Secrets" somewhere. I should probably videotape some Janets landing from TIkaboo. It is quite a ride.

It was a good thread. We certainly identified the real range visitors from the uninformed youtubers.

Dare I bring this up, but I was sent a link to a "Wired Science" show on PBS. [Man does that series stink to high heaven. It is nothing like Wired magazine, which is usually on the mark.] Lazar is handling "uranium" that is triangulary shaped, just like he did in that moronic video where he tried to spew pseudo science to explain the alien technology. Funny how both his (cough cough) element 115 and his uranium are triangularly shaped.



posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 10:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Drunkenparrot
 


I don't believe for a moment you did not see the vast dishonesty and evasion posted by certain members.

But thanks for revealing your agenda and M.O. as well.



posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by gariac
You have the right not to believe Lazar videotapes a Janet.


To the contrary, I believe the Janet explanation you have proposed fits the facts. My thought regarding the Janet schedule was that somebody in your circle may have been keeping notes from back then and hung onto them. I also checked stellarium for the phase of the moon for the date and time on the video but it was moonless.

Thank you for your reply and for overlooking the mildly sharp tone in my last post, just a mild case of wounded armchair internet pride. Its clear we are exchanging familiar knowledge on the stealth subject so I will pass on further polluting the thread with another off topic reply in the hope there is still something worth discussing regarding the video.



posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 11:54 PM
link   
www.youtube.com...


Fast forward to the 35 minute point to see Lazar with yet another triangular piece of metal, just like his so-called piece of element 115.





new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 12  13  14    16  17 >>

log in

join