New UAP video, possibly connected to Lue and co. Nicknamed “the flying rubber duck”

a reply to: penroc3
Zoom in on the antenna arrays….…pretty sophisticated and costly. I don’t have the same opinion you do….especially on what may be government property. I’ll agree to disagree.

👽🍷

a reply to: Ophiuchus1

looks like a contractor/security with radio repeaters

ill admit i saw the pic on my phone and now that im on my computer its bigger

a reply to: Ophiuchus1
Yes I have, and I've shared my interviews with LEO's, here on ATS.
Before being microwaved, I was on Civilian Flying Staff.
Frankly, these demons can be quite unnerving. When I was assigned to a hospital in Wheatridge, CO, I cared for a patient from Los Alamos. The story they told me about the Genetics Lab was out of this world.
About six months ago, J B Wells was in an area near Rapid City SD. He reported seeing several UAP's. At that time, I was at Ellsworth AFB and witnessed a peculiar cloud float in from the North West and stop just above the Southern B-1 flight line and Pride Hanger. This cloud was at least a 1000 feet in diameter. It then continued South East, and be about over the Main Gate on Davis Dr, when it quickly dissipated/disappeared.
They are evil, and they have the ability to know( at least sometimes) when you are looking at them.
I have little doubt that the Rubber Ducky didn't know that the RC-26 wasn't watching it. I also believe that it purposely flew into it's view, just to be video taped.
Here's a good question. Why are they revealing themselves more now, than in the past 1000 years?

originally posted by: penroc3
a reply to: Ophiuchus1

looks like a contractor/security with radio repeaters

ill admit i saw the pic on my phone and now that im on my computer its bigger

Just a footnote not to go more on this location…..below is a screenshot from the GE street view level, zoomed in from a distance. the Antenna’s are a decent height, the structure looks to be there, but because of the distance it’s barely noticeable ……not far from it is homeland security. That’s about it, nothing more to see here….




👽🍶

a reply to: Violater1

Too bad the patient didn’t have any proof to show you about the lab.

My skeptic half tells me you saw a lenticular cloud…….

……” Here's a good question. Why are they revealing themselves more now, than in the past 1000 years? “……

Perhaps we all have E-Tickets for the upcoming End Times and we are all on line waiting for the next Big Show….and they are the Ushers….

👽☄️🔥

originally posted by: Ophiuchus1
a reply to: Violater1

Too bad the patient didn’t have any proof to show you about the lab.

My skeptic half tells me you saw a lenticular cloud…….

……” Here's a good question. Why are they revealing themselves more now, than in the past 1000 years? “……

Perhaps we all have E-Tickets for the upcoming End Times and we are all on line waiting for the next Big Show….and they are the Ushers….

👽☄️🔥

Lenticular clouds, of course. I must have missed that during my Ground School on METARS, NOTAM, and Atmospheric conditions, 40 + years ago. As far as the patient from Los Alamos, The Medical Record contains a lot of information. Additionally, speaking directly with the patient has advantages as well. And that's all I can say about that.
As far as flying, I never seen anything like the Rubber Ducky.
Here is a still from www.wwlp.com... t/
that has a UAP morphing in and out of the Rubber Ducky form.

I did the best I could, but if you watch the video, you can see the similarities.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: penroc3
if we all had military grade FLIR cameras we would see a lot more in the sky than we could see with our eyes

Even consumer-grade infrared showed "fleets of UFOs" flying overhead at night which weren't visible to the naked eye, but usually they were just birds, sometimes too far away to see the wings flapping, though sometimes you could actually make out the wings flapping if you zoomed in enough.

UFO Lou's YouTube channel regularly captures non-visible to the naked eye black triangles over Vegas and they are clearly not birds so your non-stop "debunking" is debunked Little Mickey.

reply to: Violater1

“”

I’m going to go against the experts and say it’s Bogus…..it’s inserted!

Below are 5 screenshots all progressively zoomed in from using the 1st screenshot. All I used was contrast and brightness in the last 2 screenshots….nothing else more to make it stand out.

Do you notice it starting with the 1st screenshot? And it’s not the only place along the objects flight path that I can see a Square outline with the object. The object is on a Square inserted/overlaid.

In my novice opinion….the Aguadilla UFO incident is BS.

I suspect it’s an animated gif of a an object of different shapes with a little tumbling here and there….the background of the gif is mistakenly not completely transparent. The entire gif would measure just a small amount of pixels x pixels square.

That’s my story and I’m sticking to it…..







👽🍷🍕

a reply to: Ophiuchus1

Video compression works in squares, seeing an object within a square when that object has a clear difference in colour when compared to the surrounding area could be just a result of compression.

originally posted by: Ophiuchus1
reply to: Violater1

“

”

I’m going to go against the experts and say it’s Bogus…..it’s inserted!

Report by who? Who are you quoting? Source?

Obviously it seems like an obviously true statement that something can't enter the water at over 90 mph without affecting the surface of the water where it enters, so while I agree with that, whoever wrote that doesn't seem like much of an expert, because they still refer to it as an object, and I think their own statement is evidence that at best what we see is some kind of illusion or distortion of an object, or it might even be an artifact of some sort which I think is what ArMaP is suggesting. We have to widen the list of possibilities beyond the thinking in that conclusion.

The conclusion would seem to rule out bird, balloon, aircraft or drone, but that conclusion implies that what is in the video can be taken at face value and the video has no illusions, which I would definitely not assume in this case. It would be like ruling out humans in the "zebra shape shifter" video because no known humans can shape-shift into zebras like that. Obviosuly that would be a stupid and wrong conclusion made from taking what is seen in the video at face value. We can't rule out humans in the shape-shifter video and there may also be some technological or other optical illusion explanation for this video, not exactly the same as the human-zebra shape-shifter videos.

Of course video manipulation can't be ruled out without a good source and chain of custody, but in this case I have not made that assumption. If it is some kind of illusion/optical or technological artifacts, discovering the source would take a lot of information. For example you could take a thousand videos of a human and play them back and never see anybody shape-shift into a zebra, it takes a particular set of circumstances for that to happen which you might not know how to duplicate if you don't know enough about what causes the artifacts. Likewise with this video, even knowing the make and model of all involved equipment and trying to duplicate what's seen may never do it if there was some atmospheric density gradient that day which could split an image in two. Such things happen but they are not common and are difficult to duplicate later, those other people and other cameras can capture the same thing in the same place at the same time, but the conditions tend to not last long.

An object could appear to split in two due not only to technology, but also due to atmospheric distortion, as explained here:

en.wikipedia.org...(mirage)

It's possible to see multiple images of the same object in certain conditions, no technology required; atmospheric distortion can cause it.

...if the real ship is still above the horizon, the image of it can be duplicated many times and elaborately distorted by a Fata Morgana.

Here the atmosphere has split these things into multiple images:

A Fata Morgana distorting the images of distant boats beyond recognition

I could write a conclusion that says this image rules out a boat because boats float on the water, they don't hover above it, but, that would be stupid:

www.dailymail.co.uk...

A more intelligent "expert" would say there's obviously something unusual going on here and the image should not be taken at face value, but that doesn't necessarily mean we should rule out a boat in this image, so this is an example of why I say the conclusion you posted doesn't seem sound in appearing to rule out the things it seemingly rules out.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

The conclusion statement comes in the link provided by Violator1’s last post above in this thread…..it’s towards the bottom of this article www.wwlp.com... t/

Another example…different shape..from the same vid. You can make out straightish sides and 90 degree corners of a square. Since the square of the gif is almost completely transparent….it attempts to blend with the clouds and sky it’s “flying” in so that only the animated object portion should be seen. For me it would be more convincing had the transparent portion of the objects gif squared background be completely transparent. It’s as if the in-complete transparency of the squaring of the gif, can not compensate fast enough to completely blend with the sky it’s flying through…being that the background sky is not consistently the same in the objects flight path (it’s not all one sky background. Now…I may be wrong calling it a “gif” and there’s another name for this insertion or overlaid special effect….I just don’t believe the object is real.

I stick to my opinion even if expert research says the opposite. But since I’m half skeptic and half non-skeptic….I’ll keep open minded (analogy…I’m neither republican nor democrat, I’m an independent….


👽☕️🍩

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
Obviously it seems like an obviously true statement that something can't enter the water at over 90 mph without affecting the surface of the water where it enters, so while I agree with that, whoever wrote that doesn't seem like much of an expert, because they still refer to it as an object, and I think their own statement is evidence that at best what we see is some kind of illusion or distortion of an object, or it might even be an artifact of some sort which I think is what ArMaP is suggesting.

What I was suggesting was that the square around the object is a compression artefact, not that the object itself is an artefact.

a reply to: Ophiuchus1

If someone is going to fake a video they aren't going to us an animated GIF, with it's limitation to 256 colours/shades of grey, they would use another video.

Unless they were completely ignorant about the technology they were using, which I doubt.

originally posted by: Ophiuchus1
a reply to: Arbitrageur

The conclusion statement comes in the link provided by Violator1’s last post above in this thread…..it’s towards the bottom of this article www.wwlp.com... t/

Thanks for the follow-up to post the source, but...it would be nice if you post the source in the same post where you make the quote. It appears unsourced without the source, and we shouldn't have to dig for it.

Anyway I'm not surprised it's SCU, I've never been impressed by what they put out.

originally posted by: ArMaP
What I was suggesting was that the square around the object is a compression artefact, not that the object itself is an artefact.

That makes sense, thanks for clarifying.

It’s a foo fighter. The cool kind. Not the kind that makes you poison yourself to listen to their crappy pop music.

a reply to: [post=26157747]Ophiuchus


in the interview it shows the uncompressed video and screen shots and there is no pixilation on them

originally posted by: penroc3
a reply to: [post=26157747]Ophiuchus


in the interview it shows the uncompressed video and screen shots and there is no pixilation on them

So in the interview found here….. www.wwlp.com... t/ there are 7 clips related to the object…..

To narrow it down so I could give it the once over……which clip has the uncompressed clip that your talking about…..starting from the top 1st one downwards. I don’t mind eating crow if I’m completely wrong.

👽🎥

originally posted by: Ophiuchus1
a reply to: Violater1

Interesting……a side observation….if legit, your location is listed as Kirtland AFB. Assuming your active or retired …military, government contractor….what’s your take on UFOlogy? Do you have any honest first hand nuggets to share?

🍺

Well ophi, you asked me, "what’s your take on UFOlogy? Do you have any honest first hand nuggets to share?"
So I shared with you some info in which I have first hand experience in. You then scrutinized, disparaged, and ridiculed me.
You're not here, and you weren't there.
I won't take your bait again!

originally posted by: Violater1

originally posted by: Ophiuchus1
a reply to: Violater1

Interesting……a side observation….if legit, your location is listed as Kirtland AFB. Assuming your active or retired …military, government contractor….what’s your take on UFOlogy? Do you have any honest first hand nuggets to share?

🍺

Well ophi, you asked me, "what’s your take on UFOlogy? Do you have any honest first hand nuggets to share?"
So I shared with you some info in which I have first hand experience in. You then scrutinized, disparaged, and ridiculed me.
You're not here, and you weren't there.
I won't take your bait again!

There’s no intentional “disparaged, and ridiculed me.”….not sure that’s how you interpreted that like that….but I assure you it was not to do as you say. I seriously wanted to know your feelings on UFOlogy….and if you had first hand knowledge to share seeing how you are in a primed airspace area at the Air Base for those types of things to happen.

You’ve had your aeronautical former training as myself. Your description of the cloud reminded me of lenticular clouds that are sometimes the reasons people see cloudy anomalies objects.



When you wrote this……” I'm sure there is someone here that can check the metadata of this photo that I took on base a few days ago.”……..you presented a challenge which was nice to check out but ultimately a “nothing to see here”….

There’s no reason to get upset. As everyone has opinions agreed or disagreed.

No baiting was involved.
👽🍻

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
Obviously it seems like an obviously true statement that something can't enter the water at over 90 mph without affecting the surface of the water where it enters, so while I agree with that, whoever wrote that doesn't seem like much of an expert, because they still refer to it as an object, and I think their own statement is evidence that at best what we see is some kind of illusion or distortion of an object, or it might even be an artifact of some sort which I think is what ArMaP is suggesting.

What I was suggesting was that the square around the object is a compression artefact, not that the object itself is an artefact.

Same vid ……2 screenshots, yet another shape, 1 a zoomed in, and 1 a further zoomed in….I submit that the object graphic itself is squared as well…straightish sides are evident (green arrows). This would suggest to me the object squared is layered within an incomplete transparent square (red arrows) as it’s background…..

I’m not convinced on the artifact factor as it pertains to the larger square with the smaller object graphic square can be due to compression.




Come to find out…. there are effects, I found that might suggest to me, could have possibly been used called …..animated overlays, animated streaming overlays, and dynamic overlays.

👽💊