Another home run from the team! -
(This footage was taken circa 1990, facing S4 from 'the range' on a tripod.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tICM486sIwQ
Congratulations on the fine work... WOW!! 8)
Very nice! Wish We could have the whole of the trails stay. Maybe a picture is drawn, or a message is there. Who knows? Could be.
Quote from: Amaterasu on September 16, 2014, 11:59:37 PM
Very nice! Wish We could have the whole of the trails stay. Maybe a picture is drawn, or a message is there. Who knows? Could be.
Or maybe it's a newbie pilot in a panic to keep this atomic bull ride from crashing into the ground.
Quote from: A51Watcher on September 08, 2016, 06:49:10 AM
Or maybe it's a newbie pilot in a panic to keep this atomic bull ride from crashing into the ground.
Or maybe its the Alien version of those gang cars you see bouncing around on the street :P
Very interesting!! Something that each of you may have noticed too - I don't know what it is, but it is "different". Is it the flying craft?? It appears at the far fight of the screen, just above center, @ about 1:04 into the video, for just a second or 2. I was able to stop it and screenshot it, both as presented and magnified. I will post the two screenshots for you to see it too!
Added: - it also appears at 1:38 in same area - see the 3rd pic below!
What do you think?? .............It really does not look like a "balloon"!! ;D
Click on pics for larger!
(https://s18.postimg.org/x1fcdbwx5/Screen_Shot_2016_09_08_at_2_44_16_PM.jpg)
(https://s18.postimg.org/mpxc5e0zt/Screen_Shot_2016_09_08_at_2_48_09_PM.jpg)
Also @ 1:38 into the video, same area:
(https://s4.postimg.org/t7bz9c5b1/Screen_Shot_2016_09_08_at_4_00_21_PM.jpg)
Quote from: rdunk on September 08, 2016, 08:59:50 PM
Very interesting!! Something that each of you may have noticed too - I don't know what it is, but it is "different". Is it the flying craft?? It appears at the far fight of the screen, just above center, @ about 1:04 into the video, for just a second or 2. I was able to stop it and screenshot it, both as presented and magnified. I will post the two screenshots for you to see it too!
Added: - it also appears at 1:38 in same area - see the 3rd pic below!
What do you think?? .............It really does not look like a "balloon"!! ;D
Click on pics for larger!
(https://s18.postimg.org/x1fcdbwx5/Screen_Shot_2016_09_08_at_2_44_16_PM.jpg)
(https://s18.postimg.org/mpxc5e0zt/Screen_Shot_2016_09_08_at_2_48_09_PM.jpg)
Also @ 1:38 into the video, same area:
(https://s4.postimg.org/t7bz9c5b1/Screen_Shot_2016_09_08_at_4_00_21_PM.jpg)
If you watch the section of the video without the tracer filter, you will see it is the craft momentarily coming in from the right, then doing an about face and going out of frame again to the right.
The camera was mounted on a tripod and left unattended.
an old sport model.
is your infrared range finder on.if so turn it off or tape it.they see the laser probably.use manual focus if possible.
Quote from: rdunk on September 08, 2016, 08:59:50 PM
(https://s18.postimg.org/x1fcdbwx5/Screen_Shot_2016_09_08_at_2_44_16_PM.jpg)
(https://s18.postimg.org/mpxc5e0zt/Screen_Shot_2016_09_08_at_2_48_09_PM.jpg)
Also @ 1:38 into the video, same area:
(https://s4.postimg.org/t7bz9c5b1/Screen_Shot_2016_09_08_at_4_00_21_PM.jpg)
Robo says, "an old sport model"..............an old sport model WHAT? What is this thing we see in the video, and noted in these screenshots?? Is it a spacecraft? If it is a spacecraft, is it an alien craft or homemade? Has a "craft" similar to this design been seen otherwise/elsewhere? Is the white area to the rear of it a heat hot spot from whatever type of thruster it has?
Quote from: rdunk on September 09, 2016, 04:56:39 PM
What is this thing we see in the video, and noted in these screenshots?? Is it a spacecraft? If it is a spacecraft, is it an alien craft or homemade? Has a "craft" similar to this design been seen otherwise/elsewhere? Is the white area to the rear of it a heat hot spot from whatever type of thruster it has?
Rdunk I think in this image you are confusing the trail of the craft as being the craft itself. This is not an outline of the craft, only the trail of the path it performed.
Watch the video after the tracing section, you will see the same video without the tracing and see where your confusion is.
As to Robo's comments I will leave it to him to explain what he means and what his evidence for it is.
Quote from: A51Watcher on September 09, 2016, 09:00:58 PM
Rdunk I think in this image you are confusing the trail of the craft as being the craft itself. This is not an outline of the craft, only the trail of the path it performed.
Watch the video after the tracing section, you will see the same video without the tracing and see where your confusion is
Could be........but to me it looks different than does the typical "trail" in the vid.
Rdunk - If you were to download the OP video and examine it frame by frame, you will see several other anomalies of note.
Take for instance segments that appear to be blurring due to speed of the object or epilepsy by the photographer.
A blur that appears like a long stretched piece of taffy.
But what about when the taffy snaps in 2, leaving two separate objects before it snaps backs together?
What are we to make of that?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvQCxs2dQuc
Bear in mind that each frame represents a 1/30th of a second slice of time.
Yet frozen in that slice of time we see two instances of the same object appearing in that moment of time.
Quote from: A51Watcher on September 12, 2016, 05:20:51 AM
But what about when the taffy snaps in 2, leaving two separate objects before it snaps backs together?
What are we to make of that?
Depending on how the video was made and converted, that could be a result of the technology used by the camera and/or conversion process.
Quote from: ArMaP on September 12, 2016, 02:08:10 PM
Depending on how the video was made and converted, that could be a result of the technology used by the camera and/or conversion process.
Is there a way to eliminate that possibility? Convert it using more than one kind of software perhaps to check whether we can still see the observed phenomenon?
Quote from: Pimander on September 12, 2016, 02:46:26 PM
Is there a way to eliminate that possibility? Convert it using more than one kind of software perhaps to check whether we can still see the observed phenomenon?
Easier than that. Viewing the original tape shows the observed phenomenon as well.
QuoteDepending on how the video was made and converted, that could be a result of the technology used by the camera and/or....
Got any examples of a result of the technology used by the camera? Conversion process has been eliminated.
Quote from: Pimander on September 12, 2016, 02:46:26 PM
Is there a way to eliminate that possibility?
I don't think there is, this type of conversion is "one way", and for us to be able to see it on the site it means that it was at least converted once, from the original tape or film to digital, but I doubt the first conversion was to a format that YouTube accepted without any conversion.
QuoteConvert it using more than one kind of software perhaps to check whether we can still see the observed phenomenon?
I don't see how that could help. ???
Quote from: A51Watcher on September 12, 2016, 05:06:43 PM
Easier than that. Viewing the original tape shows the observed phenomenon as well.
Conversion case closed. :)
Quote from: ArMaP on September 12, 2016, 09:30:04 PM
Conversion case closed. :)
eh ? im surprised ArMaP ? are you saying it a possible Alien craft ? stolen or bartered for , but not made of this earth ?
and here's me thinking you was going to question the absence of a fixed point , alongside the light in frame.. interesting .. did I miss a trick ?
did you use a tripod Areafiftyonewatcher?
funbox
Quote from: funbox on September 12, 2016, 09:47:20 PM
eh ? im surprised ArMaP ?
If you are surprised that's because, once more, you are thinking that I am thinking like you, but I'm not. :)
Quoteare you saying it a possible Alien craft ? stolen or bartered for , but not made of this earth ?
No, just saying that if the original shows that then it cannot be the result of a conversion.
Quoteand here's me thinking you was going to question the absence of a fixed point , alongside the light in frame.. interesting .. did I miss a trick ?
That was your problem. :P
Quotef you are surprised that's because, once more, you are thinking that I am thinking like you, but I'm not. :)
I don't think, you think like me , you think like you , not me, no surprise in you thinking that, really, no surprise at all :D
QuoteNo, just saying that if the original shows that then it cannot be the result of a conversion.
what is it that the video is showing , original or otherwise ?
QuoteThat was your problem. :P
hmmm , a fair comment though wouldn't you agree ?
a frame of black and a light, or are you using a reference im unaware of ?
funbox
Quote from: funbox on September 13, 2016, 12:06:15 AM
what is it that the video is showing , original or otherwise ?
I don't know, I wasn't talking about
what it shows, I was only saying what is seen could be a result of the camera and/or conversion technology used. As it appears on the original it cannot be a result of the conversion technology used.
Quotehmmm , a fair comment though wouldn't you agree ?
Not if you read my first post, as it was clear I wasn't talking about that.
Quote from: ArMaP on September 13, 2016, 01:36:05 AM
Not if you read my first post, as it was clear I wasn't talking about that.
so you don't think highly contrasted images might play a part , especially when fast motion is apparent ?
you are referring to the tearing/re-joining of the light aren't you ?
funbox
Quote from: funbox on September 13, 2016, 01:47:43 AM
so you don't think highly contrasted images might play a part , especially when fast motion is apparent ?
I don't think that conversion can play a part when there's no conversion, only that.
Quoteyou are referring to the tearing/re-joining of the light aren't you ?
Yes.
Quote from: ArMaP on September 13, 2016, 01:55:17 AM
I don't think that conversion can play a part when there's no conversion, only that.
Yes.
interesting
funbox
There is only one photographic anomaly I know of that compares to this, astronomers often see it in images of galaxies and it's called gravity lensing.
I suspect the powerful artificial gravity distortion field surrounding the craft is producing a gravity lensing effect, just like the ones seen in space.
Quote from: A51Watcher on September 13, 2016, 02:16:55 AM
There is only one photographic anomaly I know of that compares to this, astronomers often see it in images of galaxies and it's called gravity lensing.
I suspect the powerful artificial gravity distortion field surrounding the craft is producing a gravity lensing effect, just like the ones seen in space.
try imagining being inside the camera , watching the shutter chop 30 times a second, now , throw your minds eye simultaneously outside , watch as the light being thrown out the craft reaches the camera, as the object moves rapidly one way or another. it reaches the cameras shutter and gets chopped quickly , but some of the light moves so quick even the rapid moving shutter manages to block some, the sensor/tape is not to happy and doesn't receive, what are important pieces of information for the budding u.f.o researcher :D
funbox
Quote from: funbox on September 13, 2016, 02:31:10 AM
try imagining being inside the camera , watching the shutter chop 30 times a second, now , throw your minds eye simultaneously outside it, watch as the light being thrown out of it, as the object moves rapidly one way or another. it reaches the cameras shutter and gets chopped quickly , but some of the light moves so quick even the rapid moving shutter manages to block some, the sensor/tape is not to happy and doesn't receive, what are important pieces of information for the budding u.f.o researcher :D
funbox
sensor/tape not receiving would display less not more.
We have two images of the same thing in different places.
Gravity lensing does the exact same thing.
AND... we have a powerful gravity source nearby to effect the change, just like gravity lensing.
Quote from: A51Watcher on September 13, 2016, 02:35:41 AM
sensor/tape not receiving would display less not more.
as you see. black is the colour of a frame, where it moved so quick the frame rate couldn't keep up , hence the gap(no light hitting sensor)/blur(partial light)/re-join effect (unimpeded photons)
funbox
I guess its like trying to play a first person shooter at 30 frames a second.. with speed, there's going to be glitches :D
funbox
Quote from: funbox on September 13, 2016, 02:43:09 AM
as you see. black is the colour of a frame, where it moved so quick the frame rate couldn't keep up , hence the gap(no light hitting sensor)/blur(partial light)/re-join effect (unimpeded photons)
funbox
Yes I see your angle - blur with not all of it showing, only the points at each end.
But if we compare the length of those blurs which DO show the middle vs those that do not, there are many long blurs (and short ones as well) indicating a longer distance traveled in the same amount of time, i.e. a faster rate of speed, than the short alleged blurs that do not show an alleged middle.
The cam appears to have no problem catching all the light even in much longer (and thus faster) blurs.
So why would it have a problem in shorter/slower speeds?
There are also many instances of short blurs that have no problem catching all the light.
So we have intermittent seizures in not being able to catch it all?
Quote from: funbox on September 13, 2016, 02:47:49 AM
I guess its like trying to play a first person shooter at 30 frames a second.. with speed, there's going to be glitches :D
funbox
Well even with a glitch you would expect to see an attempt to partially capture some of it.
But we are seeing two clearly distinct separate points of light with ZERO in between.
There should be SOME light traces between them, even if very faint.
Quote from: A51Watcher on September 13, 2016, 03:02:41 AM
Well even with a glitch you would expect to see an attempt to partially capture some of it.
But we are seeing two clearly distinct separate points of light with ZERO in between.
There should be SOME light traces between them, even if very faint.
30 frames is just not enough to capture fast moving objects clearly and accurately
imagine the pivot in centre is the cameras shutter , chopping the light up as the object shoots across the sky, the sensor below eagerly waiting for the light
(http://i.imgur.com/FU8mncJ.gif)
funbox
Quote from: funbox on September 13, 2016, 03:06:23 AM
30 frames is just not enough to capture fast moving objects clearly and accurately
imagine the pivot in centre is the cameras shutter , chopping the light up as the object shoots across the sky, the sensor below eagerly waiting for the light
(http://i.imgur.com/FU8mncJ.gif)
funbox
Gotcha. I understand the concept but I disagree with level of frailty you ascribe to these sensors.
Having watched hundreds of thousands of frames from Area 51 recorded on the technology of the day, I am pretty familiar with what they can and cannot achieve.
What they display is a pretty faithful reproduction of what was seen.
My impression is reinforced by conversations with other image analysis experts in the field.
But we can agree to disagree, as long as you don't come waltzing in with flame throwers at the ready, all for having a different opinion. ;)
Quote from: A51Watcher on September 13, 2016, 03:24:30 AM
Gotcha. I understand the concept but I disagree with level of frailty you ascribe to these sensors.
Having watched hundreds of thousands of frames from Area 51 recorded on the technology of the day, I am pretty familiar with what they can and cannot achieve.
What they display is a pretty faithful reproduction of what was seen.
My impression is reinforced by conversations with other image analysis experts in the field.
But we can agree to disagree, as long as you don't come waltzing in with flame throwers at the ready, all for having a different opinion. ;)
no worries , I don't doubt you captured something on camera, I don't even know what it is, how fast its moving , how far it is away, etc , which makes it difficult to know what the cameras trying to deal with at 30 fps
what is the model of it?
only info so far to go on is 30 fps, you don't make it easy do you ? :D
funbox
Quote from: funbox on September 13, 2016, 03:30:46 AM
no worries , I don't doubt you captured something on camera, I don't even know what it is, how fast its moving , how far it is away, etc , which makes it difficult to know what the cameras trying to deal with at 30 fps
what is the model of it?
Consumer grade Sony VHS camcorder circa 1990, object was between 1/2 and 3/4 miles away.
only info so far to go on is 30 fps, you don't make it easy do you ? :D
funbox
Quote from: A51Watcher on September 13, 2016, 03:41:59 AM
they bring back a few memory's
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0b/Sonyhdrfx1.jpg)
ill kip on it , gnight
funbox
Quote from: funbox on September 13, 2016, 02:43:09 AM
as you see. black is the colour of a frame, where it moved so quick the frame rate couldn't keep up , hence the gap(no light hitting sensor)/blur(partial light)/re-join effect (unimpeded photons)
funbox
You're missing the point. If it is a single frame and the object was in both positions in that frame you would expect the object to look like a line because it moved between the two points. In theory it could have moved extremely quickly between the two points but that would also need explaining.
On the other hand, I am not exactly great at image analysis and know very little about how VHS camcorders work (if that is what the footage was taken on).
ETA: Oh, you both posted more since I loaded the page earlier lol. Ignore if irrelevant now. :)
Quote from: A51Watcher on September 13, 2016, 03:02:41 AM
Well even with a glitch you would expect to see an attempt to partially capture some of it.
But we are seeing two clearly distinct separate points of light with ZERO in between.
There should be SOME light traces between them, even if very faint.
I agree with this, except it may not have been emitting much light in between the points. Otherwise that is what I was getting at above before I realised you had probably already discussed.
Quote from: Pimander on September 13, 2016, 11:16:00 AM
I agree with this, except it may not have been emitting much light in between the points. Otherwise that is what I was getting at above before I realised you had probably already discussed.
maybe it disappeared and reappeared so fast it had time to fire light through the shutter twice, hence the duplication
funbox
Quote from: A51Watcher on September 13, 2016, 03:41:59 AM
so which of the vast range of consumer grade sony's is it? do you still have it ? ide say it was time for an upgrade :D
the 3ccd were good chips, not bad with low light levels too.. was it one of these perchance ?
funbox
Quote from: funbox on September 13, 2016, 09:56:14 PM
so which of the vast range of consumer grade sony's is it? do you still have it ? ide say it was time for an upgrade :D
the 3ccd were good chips, not bad with low light levels too.. was it one of these perchance ?
funbox
Tourist 7 only said it was the best model available at the time.
My footage was taken with a Panasonic.
eta: I don't have it anymore. Crap adjustable lens viewer broke.
Quote from: A51Watcher on September 14, 2016, 08:44:55 PM
Tourist 7 only said it was the best model available at the time.
My footage was taken with a Panasonic.
eta: I don't have it anymore. Crap adjustable lens viewer broke.
why have I been looking for Sony models when, the footage was shot with a Panasonic?
ive missed something somewhere :D
funbox
Quote from: funbox on September 14, 2016, 08:55:26 PM
why have I been looking for Sony models when, the footage was shot with a Panasonic?
ive missed something somewhere :D
funbox
Because you assumed that T7 was filmed by me.
I think my collection runs up to T13 by now.
Sorry for any confusion.