Night Vision UFO's Clear footage

The second video is definately not a cluster of birds, flies too fast and it is quite a ways up there in altitude.

Its either an F-117 or an Aurora variant. Most likely an Aurora variant, none of the F-117's have 3 sets of running lights on each side, only at the front tip, and at the end of each wing tip. The aircraft in the 2nd video has 3 running lights on each side.



HO HO HO!!

Zorgon Great Thread

If not already mentioned,

I think its this:



?

Omega.

Njoy

Elf.

reply to post by RFBurns


Although I agree that the second video does not show birds, we have no way of knowing the size, altitude and/or speed of the object(s), because we do not have any reference.

If it passed clearly above or bellow the jet, then we could get an idea of the altitude, from that an idea of size and speed, but has things are, we cannot know any of those measurements.

PS: Happy Christmas, to everybody to which it applies.

Hello,
This looks like a really great forum. I’ve been asked by one of your members to join this forum in hopes of providing some technical input regarding infrared imaging technologies. I have had a lengthy career of developing cutting edge imaging systems from the diodes and resistors up. I’ve had a soldering iron in my hand since I was 7 years old and I spend about 1200 hours a year doing excursions with my night vision and thermal imaging equipment usually by myself but often guiding groups as well. I have kept a keen eye on ufology since I was a child. I hope that I can contribute a bit of clarification on the capabilities, functionality and particularly the terminology involved with infrared sensor and imaging technology. I also have a personal YouTube channel that I will (with your administrator’s permission) post a link to. At your request I can post example videos and technical demonstrations that may be helpful in your analysis. I have plenty of videos involving aircraft in different situations that is not posted yet but if there is an interest I will get on it.

Something I have noticed while watching many of the modern UFO videos (and also while reading this thread) is that there is considerable ambiguity concerning the use of the word Infrared or IR, so much so that it is leading to arguments on the capabilities of certain camera technologies and causing misinterpretation of technical elements of some videos. This is a growing concern because there is a substantial growth of UFO videos which are being captured using advanced imaging technologies and knowing what type of light a scene is composed of can have a profound impact on how an image is interpreted and authenticated. This forum has considerable momentum and perhaps we can work to inject a few standard technical terms into the community.

The following is a brief description of some of the technologies concerning imaging of UFOs with the infrared portion of electromagnetic spectrum.

Starlight scopes, also referred to as night scopes, night vision goggles, passive night vision, and image intensifiers amplify the available light in the environment to produce a image which is brighter. The resulting image is monochrome (usually green because that is the color which our eyes are most sensitive to). The light is amplified by converting the photons to electrons (because electrons can be accelerated) and then converting those higher energy electrons back into light. The resulting image is monochrome (of one color) because producing a color image would require multiple filtering stages which would significantly reduce the light throughput of the system. This is one of the reasons color video cameras have relatively poor low light capabilities. No single sensor technology can be designed to be sensitive to the entire photonic energy spectrum. Night scopes therefore are sensitive to a specific range of colors that they can detect. This range (contrary to popular belief) starts (at low sensitivity) in the visible band and peaks in the near infra red. It then drops of dramatically toward the thermal infrared part of the spectrum. Because the sensitivity of these devices peak in the near infrared, they are referred to as an infrared technology. The differences in the technologies between generation 1, 2 3, etc are subtle but the performance and reliability differences are extreme. Generation 1 technology dates back to the Vietnam war era and the ones built and sold today for a few hundred dollars are little more than toys, impractical for serious applications. Also, because it has to work at higher energy levels than generation 2 or 3 technology it is easily damaged by excessive light input and tends to burn out sooner as well. The near infrared band by the way is simply the part of the light spectrum next to red but beyond where the human eye can detect. The LEDs that transmit data from a TV remote control radiates in this band and many such LEDs are used to light up a scene that security cameras need to see at night. This works well for short distances since camera image sensors are sensitive to approximately the same range of the spectrum as night vision scopes (extending from near infrared to the violet end of the visible band). The key difference is that night scopes at this time are much more sensitive to low light than camera image sensors. LED assisted are also referred to as infrared cameras because of the infrared LEDs that assist them at night and the fact that if the infrared blocking filter that must be used in color cameras is removed or not implemented the camera’s peak sensitivity will actually be at the near infrared portion of the spectrum. This may not be immediately apparent when looking at the typical black and white image but in fact you are seeing an image produced mainly by infrared illumination. Where you might first see a difference is in the different reflectivitys of certain black clothing dyes. A black shirt might instead appear white or gray through an infrared security camera or through a night scope. Camcorders with a “night” mode often use a servo to mechanically remove the infrared blocking filter that is normally in front of the image sensor. This allows near infrared LEDs on the front of the camcorder to supplement the available light. The reason an infrared blocking filter is placed in front of the image sensor in the first place is to keep the near infrared light in the scene from adding to the red light and causing an imbalance of color tones in the image. This does not happen with the human eye because the eye is not sensitive to near infrared light. LED assisted cameras are also referred to as active night vision because they transmit energy (light) to do their job.

None of these technologies I've discussed so far are sensitive to the thermal spectrum (sort of).

Thermal infrared imagers, also referred to as thermal infrared cameras, thermal imagers or (unfortunately) as just infrared cameras use specialized lens materials that are somewhat transparent in the thermal infrared band and a difficult to produce (read unimaginably expensive) image sensor to capture the subtle amount of thermal radiation (just more photons at energy levels well below visible red) produced or reflected by objects that are relatively cool (you, me, trees, dirt, snow, etc). Thermal imagers are not sensitive to visible or near infrared light at all. Any viewing device that is sensitive to infrared and near infrared is actually two different cameras in one package. Something important to note here is that cool objects are dark to the near infrared spectrum and the visible spectrum, but in the thermal infrared band they are self illuminating. In other words objects do not need to have light reflected off of them to be detected.

As objects get hotter the color of light they radiate moves from the thermal band toward the visible band and when they get really hot the color even passes the visible band beyond violet into the ultra violet. As an example when a stove element is cold (room temperature) it is radiating in the thermal infrared band (like everything else). As it starts to heat up you can not see it glowing. But as it gets to be too hot to touch then part of its emission is in the near infrared band. A black and white security camera or night scope will now be able to see the element glowing. When it gets really hot it begins glow visibly (to emit in the visible spectrum at the red end, the beginning of our eyes sensitive range). Light bulb elements are so hot that they emit light from the thermal infrared band across the entire visible band thus appearing white. The surfaces of some stars are so hot that they actually appear blue and even purple. The point is that if something is hot enough any camera technology is capable of detecting it.

In summery, the video discussed on this thread was imaged through an image intensifier (night scope) therefore you are seeing light who’s color extends from the near infrared (but not into the thermal infrared) and into the visible band of the spectrum.
I hope this helps to narrow things down for your research.

I was also asked if my thermal imager was useful for spotting aircraft. The answer is yes. It does a superb job of detecting even the highest altitude jets. Unfortunately thermal imagers are typically a low resolution device so that at a distance any aircraft appears as a dot with perhaps a slightly visible contrail. I often use the thermal imager to detect blacked out jets at their service altitude and then swing the telescope or night scope over to identify them. Thermal imaging is an amazing technology and I almost forget I even have a night scope when I’m using it. Since most thermal images have the temperature data associated with each pixel it is fantastic for analysis purposes and very difficult for the layperson to manipulate effectively. Unfortunately the technology can be cost prohibitive compared to image intensifier based devices. My high end night scope only cost a few thousand dollars but my upper mid grade thermal imager cost over twenty thousand dollars.

Sorry, posted twice.

[edit on 24-12-2008 by dainoyfb]

reply to post by ArMaP


I also agree there isnt any reference to say what exactly it is. But using the pan motion of the camera against the other two videos as the lighted objects go by and the speed of the pan vs the speed of the pan in the 2nd video as this thing flies by, it seems that the pan motion is considerably faster than the 1st and 3rd video, and if the 1st and 3rd video are birds, which would follow through with the pan motion speed, what else would that be in the 3rd video that would make the photographer pan so quickly to follow it?

You can tell the photographer is panning much faster than the 1st and 2nd video simply by using the stars as a reference.



HO HO HO!!!!

[edit on 24-12-2008 by RFBurns]

reply to post by dainoyfb


Fantastic technical description and welcome to ATS

Now based on your expertise... what are we seeing in the four videos in this thread?

reply to post by dainoyfb



I think you forgot to mention one very important aspect about thermal imaging cameras.

Night Vision cameras usually display an actual image of the environment with its light amplified. However, a thermal imaging camera does NOT display an actual image of the environment.

Thermal imaging cameras generate their own images, based on what heat has been picked up by the sensors. This is why the resolution sucks on thermal imaging cameras, because you are not seeing an actual image of the environment, you are looking a computer generated image of heat sources.

It's exactly like your brain. Most people don't know, but humans can't "see" the environment. Everything you think you see, is actually just a mental image that was created by your brain based upon the information it received from your eyes. This is why everyone sees things differently, even though we are all looking at the same thing, our brains tend to represent what we see differently.

Think of it like you have a little guy in your brain painting a copy of the image your eyes see. The little guy uses your eyes to see the objects, and then paints that image into your mind. YOU never get to see the actual image, you only get to see the painted replication of the image.

Hard to explain, and very odd to think about.

Originally posted by ALLis0NEThe little guy uses your eyes to see the objects, and then paints that image into your mind. YOU never get to see the actual image, you only get to see the painted replication of the image.

So if the little guy gets ticked off at you... you are in a whole lot of trouble... like if he makes a mistake and paints a picture of your wife when you are visiting the neighbor

Its a good thing we all see an elephant when there is an elephant

Thanks Zorgon,
What you are seeing is either:

1)An object or objects which are radiating, reflecting or otherwise manipulating energy, some at least of which falls within the range of near infrared to well into the visible part of the spectrum.

2)A representation of an object or objects which are radiating, reflecting or otherwise manipulating energy, some at least of which falls within the range of near infrared to well into the visible part of the spectrum.

Or:

3)Something else.


Now before you go “OH, COME ON!!!”, I can provide some food for thought. I would like to be able to say that it kind of looks like the light is reflected from non shiny surfaces on the objects because point sources of light viewed through a night scope typically appear disproportionately bright (the airplanes in the videos are good example of this), but in all honesty it is just not possible to determine that. If the object is radiating light across much of it surface and the light is extremely dim or near the edge of the detectable color range of the image intensifier (I’m reminded of a glow in the dark key chain) it could be mistaken for a reflection. Those of you that have not viewed through a night scope may tend to misinterpret the brightness of an object reflecting ground sources as being more brilliant than it actually is. Something we can look at for reference is the background stars. Keep in mind that you are seeing stars in the videos that appear to be as bright as what you are used to seeing with the naked eye, however the majority of these stars will not be visible without the night scope. In likelihood the only stars visible by the naked eye are the ones that are starting to show signs of blooming in the image yet some of these stars are competing with the brightness of the objects. This leads me to believe that the objects are extremely faint. And if I had to put money on it I would say that they have a non shiny surface that reflects efficiently in the portions of the spectrum which light is being produced on the ground and for which the night scope is sensitive to (quite possibly a white or off white surface synonymous with paper, feathers, skin, chalk etc.).

Given what we have here for evidence we could go back and forth speculating for another 300+ posts but without knowing more about the environment, conditions etc. involved with the videos it will likely be just senselessly beating the topic further into the ground. A suggestion would be for those of you in a position to do so to get out there and do the research. Track down whatever further information can be acquired from the camera operator, witness etc. One starting point that I can recommend is that you find out exactly what time the videos were shot, match star constellations so that you can use known star separations as a measuring reference. From there you can start ruling out possible known suspects such as birds and planes by comparing the ranges of angular size vs. velocity. A useful piece of free software that might help (and should be in every UFO researcher’s tool box anyway) is Cartes du Ciel. I would do it myself but its icky sciencey stuff.

Here is another experiment you will be able to do if you know the star constellations in the videos. You know the brightness of the object because you know the brightness of the associated stars (Cartes du Ciel catalogs the brightness of all know stars) Given the typical reflectivity of a known object you can do the math to determine whether or not the brightness of the objects in the videos approximates the expected brightness of that object at that distance (determined by angular size given to us again by the stars) reflecting the light from the surrounding environment. Definitely a project but it would glean some substantial evidence.

ALLisONE,
I don’t think that I can agree with your technical description of why thermal imagers have a relatively low resolution but perhaps we are just using different semantics. The technology implemented in thermal imagers is miles away from that used in night vision equipment, I agree, but it is almost exactly the same as a digital camera or video camera. Just like in a digital camera photons of light are focused through a lens and strike a focal plane array. In the focal plane array of a digital camera the photon energy charges an electron well which represents each pixel. In a thermal imager the focal plane array instead has tiny resistors called microbolometers representing each pixel which change resistance when heated by the photon energy. Beyond this the technology is identical. Data from the focal plane array in either a digital camera or thermal imager is transferred to a processor which does math on the data to reduce intrinsic errors before it is displayed. A thermal imager therefore is just a digital camera which is sensitive in a different portion of the spectrum. Both technologies represent an accurate depiction of the environment. The reason that thermal imagers typically have a lower resolution than other technologies is that it is cost prohibitive to produce microbolometer based focal plane arrays with higher pixel counts and higher sensitivity to color changes. This however is changing and I’m noticing models starting to appear with mega pixel and higher focal plane arrays. Haven’t bothered checking prices on those puppies.


[edit on 25-12-2008 by dainoyfb]

[edit on 25-12-2008 by dainoyfb]

reply to post by RFBurns


The problem is that knowing that the objects were moving at an angular velocity of, for example, 5º per second, is meaningless if we do not know the distance, a fly passing close to you has an angular velocity higher than that of a jet 50 km away.

reply to post by dainoyfb


Thanks for the explanations and for coming to ATS, I am sure that someone with your knowledge will be a great asset to this forum.

Welcome.

Originally posted by dainoyfb
Hello,
I hope that I can contribute a bit of clarification on the capabilities, functionality and particularly the terminology involved with infrared sensor and imaging technology. I also have a personal YouTube channel that I will (with your administrator’s permission) post a link to. At your request I can post example videos and technical demonstrations that may be helpful in your analysis. I have plenty of videos involving aircraft in different situations that is not posted yet but if there is an interest I will get on it.

Welcome to ATS, I am sure your knowledge will be greatly appreciated! And I hope that you will post some of the videos you mention above, they will indeed be very helpful now that we are seing more of these Night Vision and IR videos.

Perhaps you can start your own thread where you post your videos as reference material?

reply to post by ArMaP


Perhaps. But when your seeing the background, in this case the stars, moving past quickly on an object that goes from far left then to far right (from photographer's point of view), and in the other vids the panning motion is considerably slower, this 2nd video object is obviously moving much faster.

Do you know of any birds that fly at 150 kps? (typical landing speed of airliner). 150kps is pretty darned fast for a bird! I dont know of any that fly that fast. That object in the 2nd vid is obvously moving alot faster than 150 kps approach and touch down speed. If the photographer didnt change his altitude, and position, we can take the references from the other 2 videos of the slower moving aircraft, overlay all 3 and get those references to do some comparing for both altitude and airspeed.

I dont have the overlay uploaded, but I did do just that using an external video switcher, 3 dvd playback units and 3 seperate dvds each with these videos all running at normal speed.

That 2nd video is no bird, it isnt any slow moving jet and it certianly isnt flying at the same altitude as the airliner or small engine aircraft.

If you or anyone has the same ability, overlay these 3 videos and then see what you come up with! Its quite interesting!



HO HO HO!!!!

reply to post by dainoyfb


Welcome dainoyfb to ATS!

I got you beat by 1 year with the soldering iron in hand. Started myself in electronics when I was 6.

Spending every single year ever since in the EE field with masters in the other hand, Im sure I can agree and verify all your input to this subject.

Tho I do not have just one particular specialty in the field, it covers everything electronic. Electronics is electronics, no matter what it is. A diode and resistor here doing one thing is a diode and resistor in another doing something else, but still a diode and resistor with their distitnct function by themselves.

I look forward to seeing your videos and examples to help clarify the in's and out's of these various imaging devices. Tho if we get right down to it, if any of them are looking at something we recognize, then they are all looking at the same thing regardless of what part of the spectrum they are operating in.

The question is, particularly in the 2nd vid, what known aircraft of triangluar shape has 3 running lights on each side of it? It isnt the F-117, that aircraft only has 3 running lights total, one at the front tip, and one on each end of the wing tips. Definately not the B2, same thing, one at the front, and one at each of the wingtips.

This obvious aircraft in the 2nd video has 3 lights on each side along its outer edge. And is moving quite fast, tho the exact altitude is not known, I do know for a fact that no aircraft is going to fly above 200 kps at altitudes 1,000 feet and below. (FAA regulations). I also happen to be a private pilot with certification for twin engine jet aircraft and at 1,000 feet or below, 200kps is the max airspeed allowed.

Now with all this in mind, and adding what I done with all 3 videos in my previous post, overlaying the 3 to get references to try to ascertain the altitude and airpseed of the aircraft in the 2nd video, that puppy is definately flying much higher than 1,000 feet. If it is roughly the same size as an F-117, and moving along that fast in the video, it would have to be flying under 2,000 feet to be the size it is seen in the video.

Has anyone seen an F-117 fly over at 2,000 feet, for instance, at an airshow?

Even at 2,000 feet, it looks somewhat small. This aircraft in the 2nd video is moving way to fast to be flying at 2,000 feet.

With the overlaying of the 3 videos, that thing is probably at 5,000 or higher, which would mesh with the airspeed that it is flying at, which is much faster than 200kps.

Still the question remains, what kind of aircraft is it. It isnt no F-117, or B2. This is just a guess, but as I have been saying, it is more likely an Aurora variant.

Merry Christmas everybody!!!


HO HO HO!!!!

reply to post by RFBurns


You can overlay all the videos you want, it is useless to know the altitude, size or speed of that object or objects.

See the image bellow.


If an object at an altitude of 197 pixels is travelling at a speed of 10 pixels per second, it will take 10 seconds to travel the 100 pixels line. An object at an altitude of 386 pixels travelling at a speed of 20 pixels per second will take the same 10 seconds to travel the 200 pixels line, so, while the upper object is travelling at a speed which is twice the speed of the lower object, they will travel the 30º angle in the same amount of time, 10 seconds, they have the same apparent angular velocity.

If you do not have any reference to the difference in height you can not know which one is the fastest.

Also, you can see that the upper object, if it has a length of 100 pixels, it will cover half of the 30º angle, but if the lower object has a length of 50 pixels it will also cover half of the 30º angle, so, once more, we can not know which is bigger if we do not have any reference.

Using the brightness of the lights is also useless, it could only be used if we knew that the lights had the same characteristics.