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.

 

Infra red footage of ufo

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 01:19 PM
link   
Hi there found this youtube link on Live Science of some ufologists who have captured some footage of a triangle ufo in the infra red spectrum using 3rd generation night vision gear ,they took comparative footage of a jet liner to show that what they were seeing was not a plane ,debunkers have said that it is a drone doing border patrols but I have to say after watching the footage I am not decided but I am leaning towards triangle ufo ,the footage in the beggining is a bit wierd then I realized that they had zoomed in a bit I have not used a lot of night vision gear myself but I imagine it is like looking through a keyhole in the dark take a look and tell me what you think.

www.youtube.com...

www.livescience.com...




posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 01:25 PM
link   
So the part of the slow motion footage where you see the object on the near side of the roof of the building is what?
An effect of the night vision equipment being oversaturated with the IR signal coming from the object?

It looks like CG to me, but I admit that I am not an expert.



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 01:29 PM
link   
Really bad CGI.
You can see awful work on the transition of the 'object' going behind the roof.
edit on 18-7-2012 by zilebeliveunknown because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 


I'm not sure but the video nearer the end of the footage comparing the plane is pretty clear though



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 


I also don't know why the guys voice is all spazzed out for effect maybe



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 01:48 PM
link   
I think its likely to be something like this ...



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by gortex
 


Would be cool to shoot that footage in IR to compare with the origional footage



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 02:16 PM
link   
looks like lens flare to me. the way it vanishes into a curved edge on the left gives it away.



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 02:28 PM
link   
This is not "infrared footage". Third generation night vision gear, like all night vision gear, does not use infrared imaging. It uses light amplification technology.

The claim that:

The craft was totally shrouded in infrared light which is invisible to the naked eye.

Is false. Making such absurd claims does not help the credibility of the source nor does the "enhancment" of the imagery.



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 12:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
This is not "infrared footage". Third generation night vision gear, like all night vision gear, does not use infrared imaging. It uses light amplification technology.

The claim that:

The craft was totally shrouded in infrared light which is invisible to the naked eye.

Is false. Making such absurd claims does not help the credibility of the source nor does the "enhancment" of the imagery.



This is not true either. Image intensifier based night vision devices such as Gen 1, Gen 2, and Gen 3 are sensitive to the visible and near infrared (short wave infrared) portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. In other words they are sensitive to and amplify the colors of light that we can see and some other colors next to the red part of the spectrum that we cannot see.

The confusion lies where people have the idea that infrared means thermal imaging. In some cases it does, such as when referring to the long wave portion of the infrared spectrum. Long wave infrared radiation is emitted by relatively cool objects and can therefore be used for thermal imaging. Very specialized sensors and optics are required to detect and image long wave infrared radiation. Image intensifier based night vision devices simply can not be made to do this. The fact that the Gen 3 night vision device used for capturing this footage is only capable of exploiting visible and short wave infrared light means that the object in the video is either reflecting or creating light from an extremely hot source such as the Sun or incandescent light bulb elements which have surface temperatures in the thousands of degrees or devices that excite atoms to directly emit photons in these colors, for example LEDs and flouresent lamps.


edit on 19-7-2012 by dainoyfb because: of typos.



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 12:36 AM
link   
Further more, the statememt by the narator of the video that light from the object was subjected to color and temperature analysis is complete BS and if it was then the expert who did the analysis should not be in their position. There was no light from the object in the video. This is because the light bieng recorded is generated by the image intensifier in the night vision device and does not originate from the object. Image intensifiers do not throughput light from the scene. They instead absorb the light from the scene onto a sensor surface and then a display section generates it's own monochrome (green) light which has no association with the original light from the scene. In other words the analysis would have been done on light generated by the night vision device, not light from the object. It's like looking at a printed photograph of the Sun and expecting to get your eyes fried out.



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 07:35 PM
link   
Is that the same roof in the example footage of the jet? That would mean that the "UFO" is following the airport glide slope. How is this not just a smaller aircraft with anti collision lights that shine brightly in the direction of the camera, which would easily bloom out the night vision scope?



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 07:41 PM
link   
Also, they claim that there was no sound from the object, but suspiciously the original audio track is missing, instead replaced with a dramatic music track. Hmmmm.



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 07:51 PM
link   
Well seems like many good points were made above me as to how the technology should work. I just wanted to add that, other than their word, how do we know it was naked to the eye? I mean besides the video that "shows" the object, we have no way of knowing that some visible object wasn't there for a hoax or it could be cgi. I honestly didn't watch much when they just started throwing random filters on there to try and show something.




top topics



 
3

log in

join