On to something huge here! (UFO HOAX)

Originally posted by Frozenthought

Originally posted by davidbiedny
Holding back the info that you are a co-producer of a film which RELIES on this footage NOT being planes, is very telling, indeed.
dB

Well I would have to say then that you have no clue what you are talking about because I told everybody here in my first post regarding this footage that I am working with David, here is that thread...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Forgive us, I didn't know we had to go searching for all threads started by a poster to get all the info. I guess I have lots of reading to do! LOL

If you think I will hand over anything to somebody a think might be working for the ones who have kept this information from the masses and kept us all in a state of Survival & slavery, Uh No.

Thank what you want

Originally posted by sensfan

Originally posted by Frozenthought

Originally posted by davidbiedny
Holding back the info that you are a co-producer of a film which RELIES on this footage NOT being planes, is very telling, indeed.
dB

Well I would have to say then that you have no clue what you are talking about because I told everybody here in my first post regarding this footage that I am working with David, here is that thread...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Forgive us, I didn't know we had to go searching for all threads started by a poster to get all the info. I guess I have lots of reading to do! LOL

Forgive me, I didn't know there were people here that would trounce on such a thing, when I clearly have hid nothing.

The facts are there. Do I have to put up a bio every single time I put up a thread?

Originally posted by Frozenthought
If you think I will hand over anything to somebody a think might be working for the ones who have kept this information from the masses and kept us all in a state of Survival & slavery, Uh No.

Thank what you want

You've got to be kidding me. Did you even check his site or know who he is? I would take his opinion on ufo footage before many many other so called experts. He's on your side, but perhaps his standards on what constitutes a real ufo video are a little higher than yours, as are mine.

theparacast.com...

Originally posted by sensfan

Originally posted by Frozenthought
If you think I will hand over anything to somebody a think might be working for the ones who have kept this information from the masses and kept us all in a state of Survival & slavery, Uh No.

Thank what you want

You've got to be kidding me. Did you even check his site or know who he is? I would take his opinion on ufo footage before many many other so called experts. He's on your side, but perhaps his standards on what constitutes a real ufo video are a little higher than yours, as are mine.

theparacast.com...

Somebody's actions means more to me than there words or Bio. Perhaps he has done great work, Bravo, more power to him, How he has treated me, I'm not sending him anything.

Originally posted by Frozenthought

Somebody's actions means more to me than there words or Bio. Perhaps he has done great work, Bravo, more power to him, How he has treated me, I'm not sending him anything.

David is more scientific than understanding of feelings bro. He wants to help prove the truth, not that everything is fake. Listen to his show and you will see that is true.

If your footage is real UFOs, nobody could help you prove that better than him! He sure can't make real UFO footage appear otherwise, I think you should let him check it out.

[edit on 9-2-2007 by MiahX]

Frozenthought,

Perhaps you should get some video of actual planes flying over the lake to see how their lights compare to the ones that you videoed. This way there could be no doubt about what the lights of airplanes really look like in the very same environment and recorded with the same kind of video device. Also, you could listen to find out how much noise airplanes produce as they approach and fly over. Then, if there is a clear difference between the plane lights and the "other" kind of lights, you will have solid evidence that the ufo lights that you recorded are not the airplane lights that some people claim they are.

Originally posted by SkyWay
Frozenthought,

Perhaps you should get some video of actual planes flying over the lake to see how their lights compare to the ones that you videoed. This way there could be no doubt about what the lights of airplanes really look like in the very same environment and recorded with the same kind of video device. Also, you could listen to find out how much noise airplanes produce as they approach and fly over. Then, if there is a clear difference between the plane lights and the "other" kind of lights, you will have solid evidence that the ufo lights that you recorded are not the airplane lights that some people claim they are.

Was thinking the exact same thing.

I'll say one thing about this thread, and others (i.e. Sleeper). They certainly are getting a lot of attention here on ATS, and that's a good thing. The more people in the world taking about ufo's, the closer we will be to discovering the truth.

So to all interested, I salute you :-)

Originally posted by Starwatcher

Originally posted by SkyWay
Frozenthought,

Perhaps you should get some video of actual planes flying over the lake to see how their lights compare to the ones that you videoed. This way there could be no doubt about what the lights of airplanes really look like in the very same environment and recorded with the same kind of video device. Also, you could listen to find out how much noise airplanes produce as they approach and fly over. Then, if there is a clear difference between the plane lights and the "other" kind of lights, you will have solid evidence that the ufo lights that you recorded are not the airplane lights that some people claim they are.

Was thinking the exact same thing.

Dito, exactly, but I believe that a third party would be more appropriate (if unlikely) at this point. Who lives near!

quote: So to all interested, I salute you :-)

goodness always shows through I feel. Amongst Monsters and such. Salute you-too.

Dallas

Just a little something about Burke Lakefront Airport here. It's a small airport and, as far as airports go, it doesn't see a great deal of traffic. With Hopkins in operation, it's pretty much turned into a haven for non-commercial small aircraft. I would find it very odd that two planes would attempt to land at Burke at roughly the same time, and especially at night. Possible, sure, but I'd still find that odd even in the middle of the day. I don't drive by it every day like I do Hopkins, but whenever I do drive by Burke, I don't see a whole heck of a lot going on there.

One final thing. The below image is a shot from the air of the typically used runway at Burke. It's facing to the west, and I'd gather that the plane, at the time of this picture, would maybe be in the middle between Burke and Eastlake, maybe a bit closer to Eastlake. It's hard to say.



Looking at the runway alignment, wouldn't planes be over the coastline on final approach? I don't live on that side of Cleveland, so maybe there's some noise issue or something that keeps incoming planes over the water until the last couple miles or whatever. That notwithstanding, IF the one set of lights in that video is a plane about to land, it would have come up about 8 miles short of the runway and crashed into the lake, or maybe into a residential area in Euclid if they were lucky.

I'm still undecided what those things were, and I'm not ruling out that they really were planes, but from what I saw in that video... apparent altitude + distance to the airport, I would find it very hard to believe that they were landing at Burke.

Originally posted by D_Hoffman
Just a little something about Burke Lakefront Airport here. It's a small airport and, as far as airports go, it doesn't see a great deal of traffic. With Hopkins in operation, it's pretty much turned into a haven for non-commercial small aircraft. I would find it very odd that two planes would attempt to land at Burke at roughly the same time, and especially at night. Possible, sure, but I'd still find that odd even in the middle of the day. I don't drive by it every day like I do Hopkins, but whenever I do drive by Burke, I don't see a whole heck of a lot going on there.

One final thing. The below image is a shot from the air of the typically used runway at Burke. It's facing to the west, and I'd gather that the plane, at the time of this picture, would maybe be in the middle between Burke and Eastlake, maybe a bit closer to Eastlake. It's hard to say.



Looking at the runway alignment, wouldn't planes be over the coastline on final approach? I don't live on that side of Cleveland, so maybe there's some noise issue or something that keeps incoming planes over the water until the last couple miles or whatever. That notwithstanding, IF the one set of lights in that video is a plane about to land, it would have come up about 8 miles short of the runway and crashed into the lake, or maybe into a residential area in Euclid if they were lucky.

I'm still undecided what those things were, and I'm not ruling out that they really were planes, but from what I saw in that video... apparent altitude + distance to the airport, I would find it very hard to believe that they were landing at Burke.

Planes regularly come in from the trajectory in relation to where the camera is pointed. Have you considered "Toledo Express" Airport too, which is that direction? Watch the first 'craft head towards the left directly towards Cleveland Hopkins. This is a huge hotbed for air traffic at any time. Check this live air traffic site to see for yourself - flightaware.com...

[edit on 9-2-2007 by Xeros]

Originally posted by SkepticGreek74
defcon5,
You say this:

With flaps down they can fly pretty darn slowly, a good guess from me would be about 60-80 knots. But when they are flying straight at you for 30 or so miles that can take some time, and they look like they are hovering.

So let me get it straight. You are saying planes start their landing procedure at 30 miles out while flying at 60-80 knots. Who are you trying to kid man?

They start to be funneled into the TCA around 40 miles out…

Hi, I'm Susan Smith, and I would like to give you some ideas and information about the work I do as a Terminal Area (Approach) controller at Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport.
I've been an Air Traffic Controller for 20 years now, continuously based in Sydney. During that time, I've worked as a Data Officer (ADSO), Enroute controller and for the last 11 years, I've been working in the Sydney Terminal Control Unit (TCU). As you may know, terminal area (or approach) controllers manage the airspace immediately surrounding an airport.
The area of responsibility usually extends out to about 40 nautical miles from Capital City airports.

Of course Snafu is a better source on this then I am, as I have not passed any IFR certs nor am I an air traffic controller. I would imagine the distance changes some with the size of the airport, size of the aircraft flying to that airport, and the amount of traffic in that area.

Originally posted by SkepticGreek74
Final approach is very short, certainly not 30 miles out, they don't hover as you say,

Final approach is not the only area of the landing pattern, and it is not specifically motioned by me. Not only can they appear to hover, but they can actually hover under the correct conditions as I will show you below.

Originally posted by SkepticGreek74
furthermore jets are not quite,

It has been stated by more then just me at this point that from the front jets are very quiet.

Originally posted by SkepticGreek74
Only cessna's and other small prop planes land at 60-80 knots!

Not true in any fashion, if you read my post I believe that we are talking about its apparent speed from the ground. This is referred to as groundspeed. It is entirely possible for an aircraft to be standing perfectly still, or even moving backwards in its groundspeed.

For example, if an aircraft’s airspeed is 300 knots that means it is moving through the air mass around it at 300 knots. If that same mass of air is also moving (relative to the ground) at 300 knots opposite to the direction the aircraft is flying, the aircraft’s airspeed is still 300 knots. Even though we might think that the aircraft is flying “against” the wind, it is really flying quite safely within a moving air mass.
In the above example, although the aircraft has an airspeed of 300 knots, its groundspeed is 0 knots. Technically, it is hovering over the ground because the air is moving it backwards (relative to the ground) at the same rate as the aircraft is flying forwards (relative to the ground). Of course, my example of wind blowing at 300 knots is highly exaggerated, even in the jet stream, and I use the example just to make the point about groundspeed easier to comprehend. More realistically, though, if you watch gliding birds such as hawks and seagulls, you can occasionally see them hover over one spot on the ground just by pointing themselves into the wind and matching their airspeed with the speed of the wind

So here is your hovering, while it may not happen to most jets, it is mathematically possible under the right conditions, and it can happen to props where the speeds are sometimes only 100Kts top end.

Originally posted by SkepticGreek74
Jets land between 140-160 knots with full flaps applied and landing gear down. By the way, this is landing speed not approach speed. Approach speeds are much higher and less flaps are used!

Not necessarily, see your getting Indicated Airspeed, True Airspeed, and Ground Airspeed all discombobulated. While a Jet may require a higher True Airspeed to not stall out that does not mean it has a faster groundspeed then the prop landing at the next airport over.

First off, stall speed on a commercial Jet is a pretty complex calculation; just try to find a minimum stall speed for a DC-9 variant online. You cannot because it has to be calculated on the fly according to the conditions, and bugs are set in the airspeed indicator. Some of the factors that must be taken into account are Altitude, Temperature, Humidity, and load. Increased altitude, air temperature, and humidity cause a decrease in air density and thus less lift. I have seen stall readings on a DC-9 at 110Knots Indicated airspeed which is exactly 30 knots slower then you list and exactly 30 knots higher then I list, so both our numbers are off by exactly half. Either way though under the right conditions it is possible for a jet to take off with a very low groundspeed and still not stall, especially considering they take off and land into the wind.

Originally posted by SkepticGreek74
I am not a pilot but I have been flying planes on Microsoft Flight Simulator for many years and I know the basics. My friend you don't even know the basics yet your here pretending to be some expert. SHAME ON YOU!!!

Hm, shame on me…
You’re basing this off a game…
A game that is set to pander to the masses in general that do not wish to sit with a wizwheel and calculate or learn how to calculate true airspeed from indicated airspeed.
A game that uses true airspeed by default unless you go under the options and tell it otherwise, so users can fly without a flight calculator in their lap.
Shame on me!
You need to point those figures back in the other direction.

Originally posted by SkepticGreek74
I am not a pilot but I have been flying planes on Microsoft Flight Simulator for many years and I know the basics. My friend you don't even know the basics yet your here pretending to be some expert. SHAME ON YOU!!!

At what point in a flight sim can you project you view out of the cockpit and place it 20 to 50 miles away (at least) to watch your own approach, with a limited draw distance on a comp with no appreciation of weather conditions or light conditions? You'd be better off in reality, getting a chair with a view to aproaching aircraft imo.

These lights......are not.....alien spacecraft, in my opinion mind you.

I'm quite curious here.. when did you record this footage? Because most of Lake Erie on Ohio's Northern boarder has been atleast partially frozen, if not fully frozen for the better half of 3 weeks nows.

Also you recorded this before the ice "reefs" (caused by waves freezing on shore) even started forming on shore, which means its atleast 5-6 weeks old.

Care to explain?

Or are you going to pull the typical hoax/denial line again and say you cant release any information because "they" are out to "disprove" you.

I've lived on Lake Erie for over 20 years. It's in my backyard. I've spent countless nights laid out on my back deck watching over the night sky. Not once have I ever seen anything other then a slew of planes headed for Cleveland Hopkins Airport.

Another weak hoax.

QS, good to hear from you.

He took this last August, and to say this is your backyard and that you haven't seen anything like it before speaks volumes IMHO.

Originally posted by QuietSoul
I'm quite curious here.. when did you record this footage? Because most of Lake Erie on Ohio's Northern boarder has been atleast partially frozen, if not fully frozen for the better half of 3 weeks nows.

Also you recorded this before the ice "reefs" (caused by waves freezing on shore) even started forming on shore, which means its atleast 5-6 weeks old.

Care to explain?

Or are you going to pull the typical hoax/denial line again and say you cant release any information because "they" are out to "disprove" you.

I've lived on Lake Erie for over 20 years. It's in my backyard. I've spent countless nights laid out on my back deck watching over the night sky. Not once have I ever seen anything other then a slew of planes headed for Cleveland Hopkins Airport.

Another weak hoax.

Do the planes ever look like as in the vid, because we are really in need of a third party right now QuietSoul. Thankyou for your much valued input.

[edit on 10-2-2007 by Xeros]

Originally posted by QuietSoul
I'm quite curious here.. when did you record this footage? Because most of Lake Erie on Ohio's Northern boarder has been atleast partially frozen, if not fully frozen for the better half of 3 weeks nows.

Also you recorded this before the ice "reefs" (caused by waves freezing on shore) even started forming on shore, which means its atleast 5-6 weeks old.

Care to explain?

Or are you going to pull the typical hoax/denial line again and say you cant release any information because "they" are out to "disprove" you.

Yes, It is really very easy to explain, I shot that footage in August, August 18th, 2006. No snow here in Cleveland in August that I know of.

How is that for a explanation?