Night Vision UFO's Clear footage

Oh cmon ArMap, thats alot of nice mumbo jumbo complex explanation where it is unecessary. One does not need complex calculations of angles and degrees and pixels to clearly see a camera panning faster in one video vs the other two. And obviously, if you knew anything about flight regulations at the various altitudes, that object in the 2nd video is definately not flying below 1,000 feet. Much too fast for that altitude and if it were that close to the ground, you would definately be hearing it in that video!!

Using the stars for reference, and you can in the 2nd video, that thing is moving too darned fast for anything to be flying at even 2,000 feet. Again refer to FAA regulations, to which even military aircraft abide by especially over civilian population and in and around commercial air traffic and airports. So with that in mind, this thing is obviously much further up and flying much faster than your typical aircraft.

Have you ever seen a commercial jet flying across the sky at 35,000 feet day or night? It cruises along at about 300 to 450 kps and can cover the entire view arch in less than 5 minutes.

This thing in the 2nd video comes in to view, and goes across the view arch in less than a minute! Thats haulin arse! And for it to be flying that fast, it definatley is not below the 2,000 foot level!

This thing is flying much faster than the commercial aircraft we see in the other video. Again the sound does not reflect that it is at low altitude. We dont need so much complexity in something that can bee seen clearly with the eye and comparing the 3 videos and the photographer pan motion to tell that he is having to pan faster to keep it in frame compared to the other two.

And all of this still does not answer the most important question, exactly what type of aircraft is it that has 3 sets of running lights along its sides.

I appreciate all the complex mathmatical formulation, but really some basic common sense and observation is all that is needed here to clearly see this thing is really moving along. True we do not know its exact altitude, who cares! That isnt the point. What is the point is that it is in fact flying byond speed limits for low altitude, thus that means it is much larger than your typical F-117 flying at 2,000 feet, and its sound definately is not reflecting that it is close enough to the photographer to say its at or below 2,000 feet. The jet sound is very faint, like you would hear from a jet flying at high altitude.

Yes I also know about the dopler effect with sound at certian distances, and have taken that into account. Which is why I even mentioned it. The sound definately mirrors a jet at high altitude flying at or faster than normal speeds for high altitude flight. Meaning 10,000 +

Anyway thanks for the pixel stuff.



Merry Christmas!!!!



HO HO HO!!!! Have a cup o joe!!



[edit on 25-12-2008 by RFBurns]

Well guys, I opened my Yukon Ranger last night and I was delightfully surprised. I'm on the edge of the city so there is a lot of light messing up the view of the stars but when you look at just one through the NV, you see it is surrounded by unseen stars. Stars everywhere!

Now I found out what they mean about blowing out one of your eyes looking through it so I hooked it up with the video cable to my Canon GL2, put the scope on a tripod, and sat back and viewed through the LCD on the cam which was perfect. The whole family could watch a crisp clear picture with a very sharp image. The range on the ground was awesome for a hunter with the 5x focal length it will see with a bright IR light for a couple city blocks. When it comes to recording the video, it is great in Black & White instead of green with a square picture instead of a round hole to see through.

Now for UFO spotting, it has one draw back, the telephoto or say, 5X lens captures only a small part of the sky. The Yukon digital would be perfect if it only took optional lens so you could have a wide angle to capture a larger piece of the sky for long term recording. Now once you see something to look at, then you love the 5x lens where most other NVs top out at 4X. You just have to see it first and then focus in on it and track it. Now in real terms, like a telescope, unless your looking at the moon or planets, even with a large telescope, the stars are still just dots of light so what you are after is to see strange movements that tell you a star isn't a star but something else because of the movement, unless you are blessed with a rare up close shot of a UFO. So you set it up and start recording and hope something flies through your picture. I will say, if something is up there and it gives off any light at all, your going to see it if you are looking that way.

The best thing is that with a cam LCD, you can share the view with friends and family, make it a party while you set in the field or yard and watch the skies. If anyone sees something move, you can zero in on it and group debate. I'm going to record some video test tonight but I have never posted a video so if someone here can, I can email the video test if they will post it here for us all. I am going to mix shots from the video camera with a wide angle and then with the NV and diagram on the wide angle shot exactly how much of that image is captured in the NV image to get a good example of the portion of the sky that can be viewed through the NV. I am also going to see how long of a video cable that can be used so to set the NV on a tripod in the back yard and thread the cable through the back window to my back room office so to pipe the image directly to my computer desk. If that works, I can let it record for hours and then view it on high speed to see if I capture anything while doing other things. I suspect about 15 feet is the maximum length cord that can be used.

So, at this point, the Yukon Digital Ranger is an impressive toy, and for 370 bucks, it most certainly rivals a gen2 NV and maybe close to a gen3 for a fraction of the cost. Add to that the fact it is the only NV version that you can pipe directly to a recorder via a cable, this is the UFO hunters dream on a budget.
Least that is my first impressions.

Originally posted by RFBurns
And obviously, if you knew anything about flight regulations at the various altitudes, that object in the 2nd video is definately not flying below 1,000 feet. Much too fast for that altitude and if it were that close to the ground, you would definately be hearing it in that video!!

Here you are assuming that the object(s) is flying according to flight regulations, and if you do not really know what the object is you can not really assume that.

Using the stars for reference, and you can in the 2nd video, that thing is moving too darned fast for anything to be flying at even 2,000 feet. Again refer to FAA regulations, to which even military aircraft abide by especially over civilian population and in and around commercial air traffic and airports. So with that in mind, this thing is obviously much further up and flying much faster than your typical aircraft.

But why have that in mind for an unknown object? You are limiting the possibilities to law abiding aircrafts.

And all of this still does not answer the most important question, exactly what type of aircraft is it that has 3 sets of running lights along its sides.

I think that is the wrong question, you are assuming that the object is an aircraft, even though you say that the light configuration is unknown, so I think the right question is "what is that object (or objects)?"

True we do not know its exact altitude, who cares!

I care.

HO HO HO!!!! Have a cup o joe!!

I'm not a cannibal.

ArMaP and Ziggystar60, thanks for the welcome.

I agree with quite a bit of what both of you are saying. You won’t know the absolute size of the object but what I’ meant is that you can use the size of a bird/plane etc. for reference to acquire distance and see if the calculated velocity fits within an acceptable range. I’m not willing to estimate velocities, sizes, distances without supporting it with some peer reviewed method of verification which fortunately in this case is possible. There is also ground based objects and other air born objects which potentially could be used as references as RFBurns has mentioned to calculate from.

Man, it's great to be on a forum for a change where members discuss challenging technical issues! I hope you come up with a match for this object someday and I hope it is something interesting.

reply to post by ArMaP


If, as I suspect, the V is actually a close formation of aircraft, perhaps a guess at their separation would be helpful in coming up with some numbers. An F-16 has a wingspan of 9.8 meters. I've compared this to some photos of them flying in close formation and it seems a diagonal separation of about 15 meters (between "centers") is fairly typical. This distance is in demonstration flying so an actual formation may or may not be looser than this.

Assuming this distance between the trailing pair of lights on each side of the V, is it possible to come up with a reasonable guess at the altitude of the formation? Would a variation of a few meters in the separation result in a large difference in the apparent altitude?

I've got a head cold right now and can't think straight so don't know where to go with this. I keep thinking that we would have to know the focal length of the lens and some other information so this might be futile. Is it possible to do this without that information? Anyone? Of course, if it isn't a formation it doesn't mean much anyway.

[edit on 12/25/2008 by Phage]

reply to post by Phage


I think we would need more information, like you said, but it would be a possibility, knowing the percentage of sky the object covers could be used to compute the size at different altitudes or the altitude for different sizes, but I don't think we have the information need, either from the camera or from the images.

Pappie,
A standard analog video output (NTSC, composite or whatever you want to call it) will run through any cheapy video cable for at least 100 feet. Here’s a trick. Grab any old television hookup cable (RG-59). Shove a couple of F connectors ($ 0.25) in the ends and screw in a couple of F to RCA adapters ($4.00). You’ll be able to run 200 feet no problem and possibly over 400 feet.

dainoyfb. thanks. I'll see what I can do. I started a new thread to compile this info in one group. I'm getting my head around how to set up good test and examples that I will post in that thread.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by ArMaP

 

If, as I suspect, the V is actually a close formation of aircraft, perhaps a guess at their separation would be helpful in coming up with some numbers.

[edit on 12/25/2008 by Phage]

Ok let me get this right. You are talking about video 2's triangle being a close formation of aircraft. Seriously?
U guys crack me up sometimes.
Video 2 is either a ufo, or it is a top secrete aircraft. My question is though why would the usaf fly a top secrete aircraft over a cali city. Usually they test fly these over the pacific ocean, stealth or not they don't want the public knowing.

MMM

Cmon guys I posted Here the light photo of it, now its thermal imaging too,

That's the answer, and is worth researching more than the one Craft here.

This is the best proof Omega IMHO...

very very interesting, though could be the latest sr71 lol,

Even a separate alien ship classic shape.

Geese no, not this one especially as mentioned some parts of the footage.

I think it may as said though be proof the old ufo story around Omega, and all its implications?

Elf.

[edit on 26-12-2008 by MischeviousElf]

I dont know if anyone mentioned already that Ed Grimsley the guest on Coast to coast that talked about seeing the UFOS with Night Vision, also said he would see UFOS blowing each other up alot of times. If this is true which I have no reason to believe that it isn't after seeing these videos.

Watching these videos it looks like the UFOs were patrolling, maybe they are protecting earth? from other aliens or maybe these UFos are being flown by us (humans, earthlings) and they are blowing aliens away.... I don't know but they seem like possibilities.

Originally posted by Starwatcher My question is though why would the usaf fly a top secrete aircraft over a cali city. Usually they test fly these over the pacific ocean, stealth or not they don't want the public knowing.

Because they are not really worried about you seeing them anymore

I mean after all they are talking about Mach 10 on Fox News...

NASA Blackswift hypersonic scramjet or HTV-3X



Between Vandenburg, Edwards, Nellis, Area 51, Tonapah and a few others the skies are fairly busy with weird stuff in my neck of the woods

But I still think we need to do the world a favor and SHOOT all Fox News reporters



..

[edit on 28-12-2008 by zorgon]

reply to post by zorgon


yup...sometimes you need to ask a question, then just shut the hell up and let them explain it. i don't know why it is nessesary to keep interrupting the speaker before he finishes.

[edit on 28-12-2008 by jimmyx]

I would shoot that annoying guy but keep the girl.

Ok but its possible that this new Jet is just for show. What I mean is we probably are the ones flying the other ones that are on the Night vision cameras. But then again who knows for sure.

Originally posted by AlwaysQuestion
Great find....

Anyone tried this over the UK skies?

excellent question.....i would love to try it in the UK, it would be pretty low budget in comparison to the videos in this thread though...

reply to post by sounditout


Follow the threads by tarifa37, starting with this one.

Originally posted by Tigergeist
Ok but its possible that this new Jet is just for show. What I mean is we probably are the ones flying the other ones that are on the Night vision cameras. But then again who knows for sure.

Yes this one is just for show... too many people are spotting the real ones... starting as early as 1985 near Hill AFB/Tonapah. I have that from one person who is now in Space Command out of Patrick who saw it in 85 and from Intelgurl's thread on the SR72 started in 2006... (she works at Tonapah)

What better way to keep a secret than to show us an old design concept that is already obsolete

Thats quite a stretch, from a scaled down test model to a fully functioning vehicle flying over populated areas. They are barely done with initial testing and the vehicle itself cannot attain hypersonic speeds without the help of a rocket booster currently, and I dont hear any rockets in these videos, besides which they dont allow supersonic flight over population areas..I could go on, but suffice to say that theory is DOA.

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by Starwatcher My question is though why would the usaf fly a top secrete aircraft over a cali city. Usually they test fly these over the pacific ocean, stealth or not they don't want the public knowing.

Because they are not really worried about you seeing them anymore

I mean after all they are talking about Mach 10 on Fox News...

NASA Blackswift hypersonic scramjet or HTV-3X

Between Vandenburg, Edwards, Nellis, Area 51, Tonapah and a few others the skies are fairly busy with weird stuff in my neck of the woods

But I still think we need to do the world a favor and SHOOT all Fox News reporters

..

[edit on 28-12-2008 by zorgon]

You 'have it' from one person eh?
How come that statement is perfectly acceptable, yet when other people mention they know someone at Nasa or a military witness says they saw or know of secret UFO projects they are instantly laughed at? Yours is just as much hearsay as anyone elses statements (sorry)
Whats with this incredible double standard skeptics live by...

From the evidence we've seen, and some simple logic..no government agency would be flying their ultra top secret aircraft over a populated area you might as well give the blueprints to the Russians or Chinese.

I have that from one person who is now in Space Command out of Patrick who saw it in 85 and from Intelgurl's thread on the SR72 started in 2006... (she works at Tonapah)

What better way to keep a secret than to show us an old design concept that is already obsolete

[edit on 4-1-2009 by atsbeliever]

[edit on 4-1-2009 by atsbeliever]

Originally posted by atsbeliever
You 'have it' from one person eh?
How come that statement is perfectly acceptable, yet when other people mention they know someone at Nasa or a military witness says they saw or know of secret UFO projects they are instantly laughed at? Yours is just as much hearsay as anyone elses statements

Ummm I don't laugh at anyone that says they know someone 'on the inside' I usually U2U them for more details You would be surprised at who is on this forum Hidden in plain site, they even drop hints yet no one pays them any attention...

I do and as a result I get facts... and insider info. As for Intelgurl do yourself a favor and look up her threads... she is VERY knowledgeable on stuff like this and as she says... she is "Operating within DoD Protocol"

From the evidence we've seen, and some simple logic..

We? Who is 'we'? your 'we' may not have seen evidence... but our 'we' has

So I have it from many 'one person's' and on that note one of those just wrote me a letter with a copy of a paper from the government releasing his 'gag' order officially...

To BFFT You know who I am talking about...
Matyas invited him to join Pegasus some time ago...

[note to everyone else... yes this IS a teaser of things to come ]

Good Morning, Matt and thanks for the note/invite. Yes, Ron and I have been sending a few emails back/forth and I enjoy the 'catharsis' and info exchange.

Thank you and the PRG for the kind invitation to join the group. My first impression is to jump-in with both feet but I need to pass the fact of the invitation forward to others in my affiliation for recommendations re possible implications as to projects we have in the funnel or initiatives being worked. I need to make sure that joining the group will not constitute any conflicts of interest or breach any secrecy aspects or present directives.

I'll get back to you on the invite within 72 hours (given it's late in the week and a couple of my people are 9 to 5'ers

Well at the time it was a no go... but today I got this...

Ron,

Thanks for the latest info....pretty wild!

Attached is Notice my office issued two days ago.

I am no longer under 'gag-order' and may be able to participate more in your discussion group after the new year.

Merry Christmas to you and all in your circle.

Best regards,