It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Huge Fleet of UFOs detected in Infra Red camera cover entire Sky.

page: 13
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 09:17 AM
my first thought was also bats

i remember being in sydney one hot summer's night out on the road (i was in a car for those wondering) then a HUGE stream of bats started flying over. We stopped on the side of the road and there were thousands upon thousands of them, went for half an hour, and they waggled about like they're doing in that video..


posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 09:41 AM
reply to post by Arken

this is very worrying to see that many when it is this close to the 21st...

posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 09:42 AM

Originally posted by karen61560
reply to post by InhaleExhale

The american south here and we know cotton. LOL. Cotton does not grow on trees. It grows on small low plants that are about 24 inches high at most. When the cotton is ready for picking the fields look like they are covered with snow.

Down Under in Melbourne, Australia there are trees with what looks like cotton blooming of them, its just another possibility I'm throwing on the table,

Thanks for helping me picture the cotton fields Ive seen many years ago with your description, from memory they remind me of vineyard with rows of the plants or a field on the side of a hill.

posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 09:49 AM
Here's a little work I've done in order to try to better understand what it's all about here.
The intend of this work is to see if there's any detectable variation of luminosity in the "UFOs" and, if so, if it could apply to a logical explanation, the flapping wings of birds, for example. (Or the regular luminosity pulsation of the UFOs lights...

I will firstly explain step by step the process I used, this way anybody should be able to verify my methodology (I could be wrong!) and to reproduce it.

1- Video capture

The original video max resolution is, on Youtube, of 720p HD. To upload such videos, I generally use Video Grabber which allows you, without any line to wait.
After a few seconds or so, the process is done and a window pop up with multiple choices. Here, the best resolution is the first one (HD Quality, MP4, 720P, H.264/AAC):

Unfortunately (and we will see later why), the output file is now in MP4 (there's no choice from Video Grabber), but the following steps will allow me to easily convert it.

2- Selection of the sequence

The full video makes 5'04" and have 9084 frames. For the studied sequence, I choose a part of it, in which there's no move from the cameraman and no luminosity variations (such as those that can be seen at the end of the video when an object appears in the FOV and strongly reflect the IR light).
So I choose a 451 frames sequence, at the beginning, from frame 726 to frame 1177, with Virtual Dub, a cool video capture/processing software:

The other interest of this software (among many other things) is that it's able to re-save the video file using a full encoding process in .avi so, that's what I've done with my selection.

3- Addition of a fixed white reference point in the sequence

Now that I have my .avi sequence, the next step is to study it in details with another wonderful software: IRIS, dedicated to astronomical studies, but that can be used as well for UFOs studies, as it use powerful analysis tools for both in the same way.

The next step is to compare the luminosity (or magnitude) variation of the object in time with a fixed reference (which luminosity don't vary) point in the video, like a star for example.

However, at first, and it's clearly visible in the video, there's a strong atmospheric turbulence, which have for consequence to make the couple of visible stars here to strongly twinkling. With IRIS, this unwanted effect could be theoretically fixed by using a special post-process, but in order to do this, one needs some camera reference shoots, besides other things, that I do not have. (offset, dark, flat-field, etc.)

So, the trick here is to artificially put in the video this reference point, i-e a single white dot, in the same way (sort of...) we use in astronomy a coronagraph in front of the sun to block out its light.

Windows Movie Maker, for example, can do that:

This white dot will not change its luminosity at all.
Last step here, before proceeding with IRIS, is to re-save the MP4 file created by Windows Movie Maker in .AVI with Virtual Dub.

4- Process with IRIS

The next step are:
- Open the .AVI file with IRIS
- Convert it in .FIT files, one file by frame
- Select one or several "UFOs", then select the "white dot" reference point.

- Select "automatic photometry" with up to five "UFOs" objects to track down:

- Open "verif.dat" file that sum up all the data in graph:

This graph represent the magnitude/luminosity variation (in thousandth of magnitude) of one of the "UFO" comparatively to magnitude/luminosity of the reference point (that don't change at all).

Let's process now the same way with a visible star in the whole sequence to see how the graph looks like:

5- What does that mean?

The graph for the star varies from -2080 to 2873, (if we exclude the very last frames - 424 to 451 - that returned errors due to a bad tracking) then a total variation of 4953.

The graph for the UFO varies from -1563 to 10.000, (we can reasonably exclude -4710 as it is really a dark point), then a total variation of 11.563.

The variation of the graph for the star is mainly due to the strong twinkling and this effect possibly apply as well for the "UFO" graph, as we don't know the exact distance of these objects to the camera. The farthest the object is, the more the twinkling effect is visible. be continued...

posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 09:57 AM

Originally posted by Andromerius

Originally posted by OccamAssassin

Originally posted by Ghost375
reply to post by OccamAssassin

Why wouldn't they be visible with the normal lens? I'm just curious, not really saying you're wrong. You have the most logical explanation so far.

Low light conditions make them hard to see with the naked eye.....Unless the camera has an incredibly high ISO value(40k+), it won't be able to detect them without isolating a smaller frequency range of light(in this case infra-red) in the electro-magnetic spectrum.

To the poster above....

The flight patterns are what gave away the fact it was a fruit bat(AKA flying fox).

When the bats do their daily commute to their food source, they will generally fly spread out and maintain one heading/direction. Unlike other bats, flying foxes can see and will not fly erratically like their echo-locating cousins.

Again, your theory is flawed, bats do not fly during the day.

They can, but rarely do.

Go to the Royal Botanical Gardens in Melbourne, visit the rain forest or near by during the daytime and you a almost guaranteed to see a bat take flight from one of the trees in the gardens.

posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 10:02 AM

Originally posted by Andromerius

Originally posted by OccamAssassin
reply to post by unb3k44n7

Watch them fly across the front of the moon. They don't fly in perfect formation.
They fly in a swarm of frenzy. Unorganized.

If you see them at either end of their commute, you will see a chaotic swarm as mentioned.

But.....If you see them during their commute (the distance they fly to a food source can be many tens of kilometres away) you will find them flying in straight lines(as in the OP's video) though they are spread out and sporadically dispersed.

On a good day(night?), the cloud of bats can be several kilometres wide and last for 20 - 30 mins, stretching from horizon to horizon.

Like i said, they could never ever be bats since bats do not fly during daylight.
You can ignore it as much as you want, it will not make it right.
edit on 13-12-2012 by Andromerius because: (no reason given)

You can keep repeating that but it doesn't make it right, as I have seen bats fly during day time from one suburb to another.

However they were flying low enough to be seen, obviously, and not in such great numbers as is in the video, but bats can fly during the day,

posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 10:09 AM
Anyway, this twinkling effect can't explain solely the strong variations in the "UFO" graph between the lowest and the brightest values for the magnitude, that are larger than the variations in the star graph.

Conclusion 1:

There's most likely another factor that produce these variations, possibly due to the variation of the magnitude of the "UFO" itself.

Another interesting question now could be: "Is a pattern visible in the magnitude variation of the objects?".

Let's take a closer look a the graph:

While it's not obvious in the first part of this graph, there's possibly a pattern that emerge from the second part, from frame n°351 to the end:

So, we have, between frames 310 and 397, a magnitude peak each 17/19 frames.

Conclusion 2:
Interesting data, but insufficient nonetheless to draw any conclusion for this point yet. More tests with more "UFOs" need to be done.

Will do it if I have some time to spare!

posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 10:17 AM
reply to post by elevenaugust

Brilliant work on that, I hope others will appreciate your time, knowledge, and efforts, and more importantly, what it all means in the end. This contributes much more valuable data as to what was filmed than the other 'guesses' going on around this thread.

eta: do you have stock data on hand to compare this video to video data of say, migrating birds, etc?
edit on 13-12-2012 by Lonewulph because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 10:36 AM
reply to post by outsidethesquare

Not. Have you ever seen bats flying? Even in clusters they are erratic and they don't fly that high either, even when they migrate short distances.

posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 10:41 AM
reply to post by Arken

Not much of an attack formation.....assuming that they "identified" as alien craft.

posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 10:41 AM
just saying ......but i live in townsville northqueensland and im a shift worker so im coming home at 11pm at the latest and my t.v.[d.t.v] has gone out in the last few days all around 12pm-2am or so and there was a "ufo " siteings off the beach here last week three white orb type sometings coming from coral sea heading toward RAAF base
i also ask my friend who works at the base about it and got strange answers from him stating that he cant talk about it and then sed it noit warm enough here for that ever it being 35-37 c the lst week or so

posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 10:48 AM

Originally posted by Lonewulph
reply to post by elevenaugust

Brilliant work on that, I hope others will appreciate your time, knowledge, and efforts, and more importantly, what it all means in the end. This contributes much more valuable data as to what was filmed than the other 'guesses' going on around this thread.

eta: do you have stock data on hand to compare this video to video data of say, migrating birds, etc?
edit on 13-12-2012 by Lonewulph because: (no reason given)


Right now, unfortunately, no. Will have to do a research to find some.... In the meantime, maybe Phage or Gortex have some?

posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 10:54 AM
Great work, 11August!

posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 11:04 AM
I really wish my work didn't block video feed. I really wanted to see it and hoped that it would be an image.

posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 11:04 AM
perhaps a video editing expert can hop onto the thread and help with the whole Neat plugin for After Effects. I just have a hunch that the noise reduction filter he's using might be causing some unwanted video artifacts. I'm almost sure noise reduction filters don't just stay still as they work, but they they're moving, which is why the dots all move in the same direction downwards.

This is just a theory though, don't take it to heart. I'd still like to hear from someone more educated in this sort of thing.

posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 11:16 AM

Originally posted by gortex

It looks to me like it was probably used to reduce noise on the video .

It was!
Here you can see, that outside of the green frame (from Neat Video) is much more noise:

full size

posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 11:26 AM
Read a few pages into this thread and not sure if this has been mentioned.

What about just plain old regular balloons? They all seem to be moving in the same general direction with a little variation and appear to move smoothly.

Maybe released from school students or other function?

posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 11:39 AM

Originally posted by drivebricker

Originally posted by TruthxIsxInxThexMist
reply to post by Arken

Interesting but It looks to me like this guy wants to get paid for his advertising.

don't you get it yet>?

'Oh, look.... i need some cash, i'm gonna go film something and add an advertisement at the beginning then upload it to youtube and tell everyone i've filmed a fleet of UFO's!!'

Youtube is owned by Google, hence the advertisements. People who upload videos dont include the advertisements. Thats done automatically by youtube.

posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 12:35 PM

I recognise the camera menu as being from a Samsung CCTV camera which are normally sensitive in the IR as they have no IR filter like most consumer cameras. It appears to have a visible light filter fitted or the lens cap left on.

When he set the shutter to anti-flicker he adjusted the shutter from 50Hz to 100Hz, normally used to stop flicker from 50Hz mains lighting. This would have reduced the sensitivity of the camera by a factor of 2 but improved the visibility of objects lit by a mains IR illuminator.

Hope this helps...

Thank you, I have been waiting for an answer like this.

Originally posted by eonpeon
THIS could be the answer...?!

Great find!

posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 01:21 PM
I don't know that much about cameras, so I appreciate the above posts and await more info on what this is. I like the suggestion of putting together some stock photos for when these situations come up.

new topics

top topics

<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in