Revisiting The 1994 Nellis Air Force Base UFO Video

Questions raised:

Apparent erratic motion: Probably mostly due to camera tracking. This can be seen in a montage of screen captures the first half of the S-30 video, which shows a smooth progression in the trajectory, not jumping around.



Graph of ground trajectory:



On the other hand, the velocity is very erratic, going up and down like a roller-coaster, from low near-hovering speeds (30-50 mph) to over 700 mph, with rapid decelerations to lower speeds, followed by high acceleration to high speed, etc. This is very anomalous and quite unlike any conventional craft.



Maneuverablity: Makes a right angle turn at low speed and capable of steep climbs:



Animation of trajectory:



Another Nellis video known as the S-13 video (at another site) does not show anomalous speeds or performance characteristics. The tracked object moves in a straight line sideways to the camera and radar and at typical helicopter speeds. (usually around 90-100 mph) The altitude, however, is a little high for the typical helicopter (11,000+ ft and climbing slowly)



The problem here, is that transcripts of the conversations show that the range operators and central control have no idea what the object is, yet the area is heavily monitored by camera and radar. They're supposed to know everything moving through the area.

Transcripts:

reply to post by debrisfield


Debrisfield.....

Thanks for your commentary & the links to the updated reports.

I will review all that in detail during the weekend.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

reply to post by Maybe...maybe not


hi mmn, thanks for your reply and although you make some great points i still disagree about anything invading nellis airspace, the place is not a normal base. i dont know if youve ever seen the video called dreamland about area 51. they hire a small plane and fly towards nellis and area 51 airspace but are intercepted and forced away long before they even reach the airspace and going by logic im quite certain that they would at least attempt an intercept before it even got close should it be a foreign or unknown craft and even more than they would for just a stray civilian craft.

i think i read that the craft was there for 40+ minutes on the report you posted, i might be mistaken but ive definitely read it somewhere since you started this thread.

thanks

rich

reply to post by RICH-ENGLAND


RICH-ENGLAND.....

Here's the velocity map as linked to by debrisfield wherein the "700 mph figure is calculated:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

roswellproof.com...

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

[edit on 15-5-2010 by Maybe...maybe not]

Wow Maybe...maybe not, that's an outstanding analysis graph... The 9.2G acceleration to over 700mph is quite interesting.

Outstanding links debrisfield, highly informative and detailed.

I would like to see more of the "seasoned" forum veterans tackle this incident as I would like to hear what their thoughts are on the information and analysis that has been scientifically presented. It disgusts me when threads like these go unnoticed by those who claim to be true skeptics who are supposedly open to good scientific evidence, but have yet to prove themselves anything more than your average ATS pseudo-skeptic trying to push a belief upon others.

Originally posted by Jocko Flocko
Wow Maybe...maybe not, that's an outstanding analysis graph... The 9.2G acceleration to over 700mph is quite interesting.

Jocko Flocko.....

If those #'s are correct, it is very difficult to explain the object in terms of known technology.

If it's "unknown" technology, who's is it?

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

Here's the montage overlay:



Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

[edit on 15-5-2010 by Maybe...maybe not]

Here's the mapping of the ground track:



Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

[edit on 15-5-2010 by Maybe...maybe not]

Here's the altitude vs distance chart:



Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

Here's an attempted reconstruction of the appearance & size of the craft:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b2811e81d28b.gif[/atsimg]

roswellproof.com...

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

reply to post by RICH-ENGLAND


RICH-ENGLAND…..

a big point i dont understand is from the camera operators, why would they do a simulated launch?. it seems strange!. is this common practice?. wouldn't they do a real launch if it was an unknown craft invading the airspace of a high security military instalation?.

I am unsure about this aspect. Can you please direct me to the commentary or info regarding this launch issue? (many thanks)

is a simulated launch something they would do against a test flight like a type of wargame scenario to test a crafts missile or radar detection or counter measures?.
could this be more to do with testing the missile system? could it be some kind of missile target drone?

Possibly, but Powell states the following:

‘Michaels gives accounts by two range operators who were prepared to speak on the 'Sightings' TV program. One described himself as a "video tracker" and said that he was present in the 'control room' on the day of the sighting. He confirmed that there are hundreds of cameras on the range and that aircraft tracking and identification is done there on a daily basis. No-one who was present - not even the 'range control' - were able to identify the object.”

homepage.ntlworld.com...

Therefore, it’s difficult to conclude it could have been known technology such as an automated drone because one assumes that could have been recognized.

I also think the performance info I’ve posted above is a stretch for anything in use now, let alone in 1994.

do we know that cameras are definately turned off during flight tests? would that only be for top secret black projects

I guess we “know” that insofar as it’s been stated in some of the reports & documentaries pertaining to this case.

also in that sightings video when that guy does a computer simulation of the crafts flightpath, he says it stays the same distance from the camera at all times as if it knows its being tracked, now obviously thats just his assumption but it does seem a bit too coincidental, so in that case it must have a radar detection and missile lock on warning system or something similar thats used in fighter aircraft?.

So…..now we need to consider that clichéd response by many “believers” to the effect we have no idea as to the potential capabilities of an extraterrestrial craft.

if thats the case then would aliens have developed the same such systems as us?

Who knows…..their aliens!!!!!

this is a great video

It sure is!

i really have no clue about what the craft is

Neither do I.

in my opinion everything that is going on points to either a flight test or testing the missile battery or a bit of both!.

IMHO, the performance data posted above shoots big holes in that option.

Kind regards
Maybe…maybe not

[edit on 15-5-2010 by Maybe...maybe not]

reply to post by zaiger


Zaiger…..

Ahh... This was a good one.

Yup…..sure is

I do not buy the heli explanation becasue to me it clearly is not.

I agree…..the appearance & performance characteristics make an HC a difficult “fit”.

This was 1994 and while that does not rule out CGI, CGI was not that good at that time.

I tend to think it is not a CGI creation, as do most others whose opinions I heard or read.

I believe this one to be legit myself.

I also believe that. However it would be better if we could validate that via the identification of the source who leaked the video.

If i were to hoax this i would have to build a set and then get something to dangle on a string and keep moving. It would not be hard but it would be a lot of work. Hoaxes that take a lot of work always get exposed as the people want the recognition. Like the Alien Autopsy and Spain UFO.

You would also have to simulate the radar tracking data, the audio track, etc….

That sounds very hard to me, if you want to achieve an ”authentic” result such as the video in question.

If this was a hoax job it was a pretty good one.

Yup…..quite the well done hoax, if it was that.

The only thing about this that does not seem right to me is the sky, but i do not know what kind of camera or film they were using so i do not have anything to compare it to but it just looks off.

Ummm…..it looks ”off” that’s veeeeery scientific!

Please define ”off”…..

Perhaps it's the low elevation of the sun (it was approx 20 mins before sunset) that makes the sky look "off"

Kind regards
Maybe…maybe not

reply to post by Maybe...maybe not

hi mmn, the launch commentary is in the transcripts kindly provided by debrisfield, it was also in the links you provided iirc!.

thanks

rich

Originally posted by RICH-ENGLAND
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not

 

hi mmn, the launch commentary is in the transcripts kindly provided by debrisfield, it was also in the links you provided iirc!.
thanks
rich

RICH-ENGLAND.....

Thanks mate.....I'll have a look at that again.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

reply to post by Jocko Flocko


That thing is a freakn ufo look at how it moves. Scary

reply to post by Maybe...maybe not


hi mmn, apologies that i didn't have time to go back and directly link or quote anything as i have a lot going on at the moment. i still haven't had chance to look at this one as close as i would like, hopefully ill get a bit more time during the week as i would like to see how all the flight maps were worked out from the video so i understand whats going on a little better.

but just one point to make at this moment, earlier in the thread i asked if the movement could have been exaggerated in the video and you doubted it because of it being a fixed auto tracking camera, but in the links and transcripts provided by debrisfield, it says the camera was switched to manual tracking part the way through and it seems to be at the point where the object starts to perform amazing manoeuvrability, and also at the point where the object seems to change from looking like a normal helicopter to something else.

if that is the case then maybe this has just been made to look like something it isn't by camera movement !.but once again i could be wrong! haha

thanks

rich

I was suggested I should ask the following inquiry within this thread, and so I will!

Maybe... maybe not, I would like to ask your own personal opinion about what Aliens/UFOs actually are, or just your general opinion on the subject of the phenomena.

I would be very interested in hearing it! Thanks so much.

Kind regards~

Originally posted by Hitotsumami
I was suggested I should ask the following inquiry within this thread, and so I will!
Maybe... maybe not, I would like to ask your own personal opinion about what Aliens/UFOs actually are, or just your general opinion on the subject of the phenomena.
I would be very interested in hearing it! Thanks so much.
Kind regards~

Hitotsumami.....

Wow!! A BIG question!!

Now you've got me thinking.....

I shall find a quiet moment later on today & draft my reply to you.

My views on this topic in general do tie in to the reasons I find this particular case so fascinating.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

Originally posted by RICH-ENGLAND
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not

 

hi mmn, apologies that i didn't have time to go back and directly link or quote anything as i have a lot going on at the moment. i still haven't had chance to look at this one as close as i would like, hopefully ill get a bit more time during the week as i would like to see how all the flight maps were worked out from the video so i understand whats going on a little better.

but just one point to make at this moment, earlier in the thread i asked if the movement could have been exaggerated in the video and you doubted it because of it being a fixed auto tracking camera, but in the links and transcripts provided by debrisfield, it says the camera was switched to manual tracking part the way through and it seems to be at the point where the object starts to perform amazing manoeuvrability, and also at the point where the object seems to change from looking like a normal helicopter to something else.

if that is the case then maybe this has just been made to look like something it isn't by camera movement !.but once again i could be wrong! haha

thanks

rich

We'd need to know what, in this case "Manual tracking" actually is. It could well be that manual simply means that, the camera is controlled from a joystick by a remote operative, rather than the camera itself acting under its' own aegis. In that case the camera is still a fixed point and therefore steady?