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.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

My most recent video from Area 51

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Apr, 18 2013 @ 10:43 PM
reply to post by Jchristopher5

Love your comment, thank you!

posted on Apr, 18 2013 @ 11:13 PM
reply to post by usmc4hire

I attempted to send you guys a message 2 times today that would not post. I will try again!! Be Careful and not just of the Government Guys but the ET's that hang around the area and in the sky!! I admire the re-search but they will do anything to protect whatever they do in that area. I know the ET's and UFO'S exist and I think they just trade technology for whatever the other wants.

I was taken en-route to work for US Customs and Border Patrol in Piegan, Montana back in Sept-2006. I was taken from a bridge in Charleston, West Virginia near the Amtrak Station and put on another Bridge about 1 or 2 miles from where I was. I was found walking around in shock, and had to return to NC. I never made it to my duty station and my last message to them was- I had been attacked and taken by somethings I could not explain and I was being tracked and hunted.

I wish you guys the best and please stay safe- Amy in NC

posted on Apr, 18 2013 @ 11:17 PM
reply to post by usmc4hire

PS- I forgot to mention- When you guys have time and if you have the resources- Check out NOME, ALASKA 24 missing and no-one wants to talk about anything. Hot Spot- first place I would go and investigate if I had the resources!! Sincerely, Amy in NC

posted on Apr, 19 2013 @ 01:25 AM
reply to post by usmc4hire

The picture. Ahh, that picture. Not stars, the lights are all curved and the blue/green is going the wrong way, red lights all have breaks in the middle. 57 second exposure means that the blue/green light hovered while the red lights traveled slower than the stars. It could be an earthly aircraft but the blue/green one is not. This has been confirmed by the photographer who was just published for a night series he shot of Phoenix Sky Harbor. He knows how to shoot aircraft, been doing it for years. He is 100% sure its not an airplane that we know of. I, myself spent 8 years in the Marines and now work for the leading air and space contractor. I live, eat, and sleep military aircraft and all their aspects, its my job.

The star trails are obvious. I just mentioned them for completeness. It would help to see the original photo rather than what is on youtube, which is highly spatially compressed.

Something that "hovers" is probably something flying at you or away from you, but in the case of aircraft, the former since there is a light at the front. At these distances, your only perception of motion would be sideways. The dome can be the body of an aircraft illuminated by its own lights. These long exposures integrate (as in calculus) the light, in your case over 57 seconds. The eye has an integration period of 10ms to 20ms, depending on how you define integration. The short time is for flashes of light, such as a motion picture projector. Dark integration is more like 100ms to 200ms. My point is it isn't like you are looking at something in a "human" time frame.

To get a natural looking image with long integration, you need to use very low contrast film. The low contrast film is called chromogenic, which incidentally was used for filming nuclear explosions. Kodak has/had a commercial version of such film, designated BW400CN. I see it still exists on the Kodak website.
The latitude of this film is so wide that you can do time exposure shots and see shades of gray rather than blobs of light and the imediate area around the light source. The problem is film is a lot of work these days to develop and scan, plus you can't do a test image at the scene like you can with digital.

I photographed the air space over the base from the Power Line Overlook, probably around 10 years ago. This is a shot done with no moonlight:

You can just barely make out the hillside, but it isn't lost in the noise. Mind you I am integrating star light and the glow from Las Vegas, which is actually brighter than star light.

Once the moon was out, I got this image:

My point is integrating film approaches what you see with your eye.

The problem with integrating a CCD is the dark areas barely toggle a few lsb. If any thing, they are just dither. The only thing you see with a CCD is the light and the area very close to the light. In the case of your UFO, I believe that is the fuselage of an airliner. Looking head on, it would have such a domed shape. And here again, because the UFO is high up in the air, it can easily be off the range. If the object just moves a bit laterally or zig-zags, it can make the curved shape too.

If you had this object with a mountain in the background, this would be a totally different story. That was why I showed some low altitude trails that are obviously "local" to some degree.

So I guess I disagree with the Phoenix expert, but this isn't my first trip to the rodeo. This person is simply wrong IMHO, but you can invite said person to post their photo interpretation.

posted on Apr, 19 2013 @ 10:31 AM
reply to post by gariac

I fully respect where you're coming from and I thank you for your comments. We honestly don't think it was an aircraft (any that the public knows of anyways). Perhaps if you were there on top of Tikaboo with us at the time you would feel differently. There were zero aircraft flying that night and no engine sounds of any kind the entire night. In addition, the photographer has been like a family member to my family for many many years. He has been featured several time by CNN and is currently in the running for one of their top awards. He just found out that one of his recent photos is going to be the cover on the April edition of ScienceWorld. And he knows his planes, as do I.

So again, while I fully respect your views... I disagree. Seriously though, thank you.

posted on Apr, 19 2013 @ 11:06 AM
reply to post by Apollo7

Thank you Amy. I wish you and yours all the best as well.

posted on Apr, 19 2013 @ 03:36 PM
reply to post by usmc4hire

Perhaps if you were there on top of Tikaboo with us at the time you would feel differently. There were zero aircraft flying that night and no engine sounds of any kind the entire night. In addition, the photographer has been like a family member to my family for many many years. He has been featured several time by CNN and is currently in the running for one of their top awards. He just found out that one of his recent photos is going to be the cover on the April edition of ScienceWorld. And he knows his planes, as do I.

Actually, if I were on Tikaboo, I would say exactly what I have written here. The "blob" is too high in the sky to conclude anything significant. You can't deny science.

Further, you can't say for certainty there were zero aircraft flying within the field of view of the lens, once again due to the location in the sky. Again, this is science and indisputable. At an equivalent focal length of 400mm, your viewing angle is around 5 degrees in the horizontal. You can see easily for 300 plus miles as I have proven, but lets say you only could see for 100 miles for starters. [Note you can see a contrail 100 miles away with your naked eye.] Your center of view is on a 247 degree true vector, using Papoose Mountain as a target. At 100 miles out, you horizontal view is about 9 miles wide. Using the law of similar triangles, this progresses linearly. So 300 miles out, you are seeing about 27 miles wide. That is a huge chuck of airspace. Certainly there are aircraft in that wide of a view. Even in the early AM, the UPS and Fedex flights are in the air. In fact, they get to cut through parts of R2508 at those hours.

Here is a shot I took of Mt. Charleston from the summit below Tikaboo,

This would be around 192 degrees true and the plane is likely to be over route 95, about 60 miles. You can see how clear a trail is at 60 miles. I would say your "object" is substantially further away, simply due to the shortness of the trail. [The trail seen by the camera is a projection on a plane if you know trigonometry. In the case of a camera, the plane in question is the focal plane, i.e. the sensor.] To be totally anal here, I am not taking slant range into account.

I'm not impressed by photography awards since we are dealing with science and not art. But this person is free to post here and attempt to defend his photo-interpretation opinion. Just be prepared for an analytical refutation. He may not want to look stupid in a public forum.

In the case of long distance terrestrial photography, there aren't a lot of experts. Just do a scientific literature search. The vast majority of long focal length photography is astrophotography. There are only 2.5 miles of "breathable" atmosphere in such photos. The photography in question here is two orders of magnitude more in distance.

The closest thing to an expert on this kind of photography would be the object tracking gurus at Edwards or the TTR, not a press photographer.

posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 12:34 PM
reply to post by gariac

Per your request, here is a link to the photo.

posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 02:34 AM
reply to post by usmc4hire

It is hard to say since the image has jpeg artifacts. Any chance you can upload a tiff?

The problem with your photo technique is if you capture lights from the base, there will be lens related artifacts in the sky due to the high contrast of the scene. You can clearly see them in my own photographs, and I shoot prime, not zoom plus barlow. Less glass surfaces means less artifacts, though the ones you get tend to be clearer due to less surfaces for the light to reflect off of. This was shot with the Canon 100mm F2 prime:

On this image, I blotted out the hot pixels, but left what looks like a campfire near the bottom of the photograph. That is clearly a reflection in the lens from the lights at the base. I also take photographs without the base in the image to avoid that issue. Actually that is rule 101 in doing these long exposure sky shots. Of course those shots are pretty boring, which I why I don't upload them.

A refractor telescope has simpler glass, usually a double or triplet, but more geometric distortion. [Your would need a curved CCD to get around it. ;-)]

Anyway, back to your photograph, there is a faint arc in the sky whose focus would be your green blob. A tiff and permission to mark up a image would help here.

posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 02:57 AM
This is a long exposure shot taken with the shutter open for 56 seconds.

This is the details from the EXIF data

Auto exposure, Bulb, 57 sec, f/5.6, ISO 1000

So the blue saucer shaped object was probably not that shape.

edit on 23-4-2013 by PhoenixOD because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 11:02 AM
reply to post by gariac

What you see is what you get. Some will believe and some wont. I truly dont see this going anywhere but back and forth and back and forth and back...... to tell you the truth, I dont tike tennis.

With that said and with full respect to your views, I'll pass. It appears that my amateur ass is wayyyy out of place in this forum.

Kindest regards,

posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 11:03 AM
reply to post by PhoenixOD

They have also been in my video this entire time.

posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 11:26 AM
reply to post by usmc4hire

Are you guys ok?? Did you make it out of there? Amy in NC

posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 11:32 AM
reply to post by usmc4hire

I have an ex-airforce doctor whom told me there was also an area 53. He told me- "dont talk about aliens in public" In other words, Aliens exist but our Government will protect this subject with everything they have. I hope you guys made it outta there!! Check out Nome, Alaska 24 missing- the vast remote places are where you can find these beings in true form. Always pay attention to other humans EYES..if they change Black and then back to normal they have been infilitrated.

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in