IR camera - 7 UFO's seen.

reply to post by Phage


You are jumping here, even a white bird in IR at close range doesnt glow that much.

The further away you take it the stronger the light would need to be in order to show on an aparatus which has a very limited range of sensitivity. That kind of glow on a camera like that requires a very large signal.

Have you ever seen the equipment used to monitor bird migrations in IR? It has a reflector the size of a bathtub in order to show a signal like you are seeing there and it isnt done on CCV its thermal based imaging. His camera simply doesnt have the sensitivity.

White birds dont glow like lightbulbs under IR. If he couldnt see them with his eyes, I fail to see any explanation for a camera of this sensitivity being able to see them.

Originally posted by silver6ix
If he couldnt see them with his eyes, I fail to see any explanation for a camera of this sensitivity being able to see them.

This is another thing that keeps popping up, which is simply incorrect.

He -did- see them with his naked eye, THEN he looked at it through his view finder.

Originally posted by D4rk Kn1ght
I was watching the skies and some thing very high up caught my attention with a glint and then was gone again, so I had a look through the cameras live view screen and saw not one but several objects travelling from south to north at high speed. All exif data is on the picture and you can see I was using a very high shutter speed due to the brightness of the day.

Originally posted by HankMcCoy

A lot of text to get right back to the original point.

Are you a photography expert?

Are you? Why should anyone take your point which you cant be bothered to support in any way shape or form?
Images have already been posted of birds in IR, strange I havent seen yours yet, just more and more of the same pedantic stuff.

Are you an IR expert?

Are you? Id warrant I know as much about it as any of you here thats for sure, but then that doesnt seem to be hard since you were arguing that the camera could be filtered to take thermal images, nice stuff.

Why should I take YOUR word on anything? Just because YOU say it is so, it doesn't mean its true.

Rinse and repeat?

First make a point, then support your point and when you can manage that, ill see if it stands up, has to be better than more pages of mindless ranting.

Originally posted by HankMcCoy

This is another thing that keeps popping up, which is simply incorrect.

He -did- see them with his naked eye, THEN he looked at it through his view finder.

A glint. Birds dont glint last time I checked and later he clarified the position, the glint was all he saw, he saw them on the screen, he checked back with his eyes and they were not visible at the same time.


So yes they were on the IR screen while invisible to his eye according to the OP.

reply to post by silver6ix


That doesn't work on me because..

I. AM. NOT. MAKING. ANY. POINTS.

YOU are the one that keeps making points without backing them up with ANY evidence. I just am trying to get you to back them up with some evidence, which you can't seem to do.

Condors, Eagles, and Emu don't reflect any IR? PROVE IT. If you know as much as I do, you cannot make that statement, because I haven't the foggiest idea whether they do or not.

Wow! Dots!

How exciting!

Let's call Larry King about this phenomenal discovery!

[edit on 29-10-2008 by spacebagel]

Originally posted by HankMcCoy


I. AM. NOT. MAKING. ANY. POINTS.

Yes, theres the point, you arent, neither are any of the rest.

What are you doing then?

Originally posted by silver6ix

Originally posted by HankMcCoy


I. AM. NOT. MAKING. ANY. POINTS.

Yes, theres the point, you arent, neither are any of the rest.

What are you doing then?

What are you doing then?

reply to post by TravisT


Holding others accountable for the points they are making and correcting factual inaccuracies as I can.

reply to post by HankMcCoy


I know what you are doing, and I thank you for it.

I think you either read my post wrong, or I am reading yours wrong?

[edit on 29-10-2008 by TravisT]

Actually wondering why a swarm of skeptics with nothing to offer insist on spamming the topic, harrassing the OP, and cant be bothered to support their views? I was just curious, maybe I didnt make that clear enough.

Obviously challenging you to show somethign to back yourselves up wasnt going to work, I tired that on page one, so what am I doing, wasting my time talking in pointless circles to people stuck in some warped world of repetition id assume.

Still, are you going to show me some IR birds, or is this still asking a little too much?

Ohh and Hank, correcting is something you seem unable to do, so id focus on beign correct first, that might help us both.

[edit on 29-10-2008 by silver6ix]

Originally posted by TravisT
reply to post by HankMcCoy

 

I know what you are doing, and I thank you for it.

I think you either read my post wrong, or I am reading yours wrong?

[edit on 29-10-2008 by TravisT]

Heh, I see now!

But anyway, I am out of this thread until DK is un-post banned.

I have been u2uing with him and I am raising the possibility with him as to whether or not the objects were MUCH closer than he thought they were.

Bugs in front of his lens.

Originally posted by silver6ix


Obviously challenging you to show somethign to back yourselves up wasnt going to work,

He is, you haven't given any answers other then "uh uh, then what about you" kind of answers.

When we challenge questions and ask for answers, then you ask for proof on our side, we need need to see your proof first in order for you to call foul. Because we haven't really seen anything so far.


On a side note: Its EXTREMELY late, and I'll get to this tomorrow. I'm getting a little bit delirious.

[edit on 29-10-2008 by TravisT]

reply to post by TravisT


I already have and so has the OP. But strange that since page 1 of being asked to demonstrate the point you havent. Why not?

If you cant or wont why keep arguing and harassing the OP? Is that so complicated?

Ive already posted images of birds in IR, I also posted some info on bird formations.

All ive seen in the seven pages which I watched go by was you ranting and harassing the OP with some godlike position that it must be birds because you say so. Then you claimed the camera could be filtered to thermal imagining and then god only knows what else.

You see the point in all of this is that whether or not they are birds isnt the point at all, my point is im a little bored with the egos and smugness of certain skeptics on this board who march around crying hoax and balloon over every thing and throw their toys from the pram over "proof" and yet when you ask them for proof, to actually support one of their claims for a change, they chuck the toys again.

Theres my point in a nutshell, now im playing the skeptics role. I dont see birds, prove it.

[edit on 29-10-2008 by silver6ix]

Well while everyone else is arguing with the OP about wether or not these things are "White Birds" I'm gonna take a stab and suggest maybe they are meterorites?

It is not uncommon for them to come down in the daytime as well as night... just alot harder to notice. And if the OP claims they went really fast, it's a logical assumption.

"UFO"? Yes since we won't be able to determine what it is.


Logical Guess? A meterorite

Originally posted by silver6ix
reply to post by TravisT

 

I already have and so has the OP. But strange that since page 1 of being asked to demonstrate the point you havent. Why not?

If you cant or wont why keep arguing and harassing the OP? Is that so complicated?

Ive already posted images of birds in IR, I also posted some info on bird formations.

All ive seen in the seven pages which I watched go by was you ranting and harassing the OP with some godlike position that it must be birds because you say so. Then you claimed the camera could be filtered to thermal imagining and then god only knows what else.

You see the point in all of this is that whether or not they are birds isnt the point at all, my point is im a little bored with the egos and smugness of certain skeptics on this board who march around crying hoax and balloon over every thing and throw their toys from the pram over "proof" and yet when you ask them for proof, to actually support one of their claims for a change, they chuck the toys again.

Theres my point in a nutshell, now im playing the skeptics role. I dont see birds, prove it.

[edit on 29-10-2008 by silver6ix]

No, you guys dismissed the birds as if it was some silly idea that was completely impossible. Its not, and you guys aren't proving any question that anybody has asked so far.

Let me ask you this hypothetical: If this pictures is of some UFOs(ie. some higher intelligence), then why is the formation totally off? I see that in bird formation all the time, but when I see some credible UFO footage that could be real, normally its in perfect formation. Hell, even fighter jets can make perfect formation. Why is this so off of formation?

[edit on 29-10-2008 by TravisT]

O and people that are all about the dots being "Birds"... I have never seen birds fly as fast as the OP indicates the objects moved... so obviously it is not a bird!

Originally posted by tevis69
O and people that are all about the dots being "Birds"... I have never seen birds fly as fast as the OP indicates the objects moved... so obviously it is not a bird!

The OP is subject of many of hoaxes. Dont take what he says with a grain of salt, until one of his theories is proven.

reply to post by TravisT


Always a good idea to be skeptical but, if no one else is around to authenticate what he saw, how fast it was going etc. then it's all up to debate... and may be one of those times he isn't "crying wolf"


i still think that if it was going as fast as the OP indicates it was, it's a meteorite or comet fallin down and burning up.

Logical Guess? A meterorite

I'd be a hell of a lot more willing to believe this than BIRDS. Meteorites would move quickly enough, and be high enough.