The Most Compelling Evidence

It looks nothing like the singular red UFO footage. If you look at that documentary there is a film analyst talking and displaying why the object could not be tethered in his opinion.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Understanding your premise in jumping to such arbitrary assumptions I can relate in feeling the same way about your considerations on any such matters...not worth a toss.
We have something in common.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And no, it wasn't Maussan who did the testing.
Look into it if your seriously interested.

Peace

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I see that fairly often, when out walking my dogs, as Geese, Ducks and Swans all migrate over head. A V-formation often breaks, birds peel off as they get caught in air currents, or have a collision with their neighbour, and then they often form a new V, and then sometimes catch up and rejoin the original V.

You need to spend more time seeing what Geese actually do, before stating what they don't do. I see Geese fly pretty much every day. They do break formation just like we see in that video.

Have you ever used any night vision equipment? I have. Most uses near IR, that's light just outside visible ranges, just into the Infra Red range. This has the advantage of being able to collate visible light, and IR, as the refractive index of a material varies with the wavelength of the light it is focusing, so near IR and optical are close enough for the same focus to work, and because of this, you can clip an IR image intensifier to a regular rifle scope for use at night, and keep all your parallax settings (guess who went to sniper school?). So, these birds are flying, generating heat, and if white Geese, also reflecting ambient near IR, and whatever visible light available so of course show up well!

Go buy some night vision equipment and look for yourself. I've already done it, and they look just like that. It's good to know how animals behave, as they can help you locate your target at night, for instance, bats will circle anything that moves, and if you see a small IR signature fly in, circle out of curiousity, and fly off, there might be a mark right where that happened, so you have a little look.

Spray that again? You are saying 'the military' examined his footage, and determined it to not be birds?

It's birds. The comments on the site it's on all say it's birds too. Now, let this drop, as again you are showing a stunning lack of discrimination.

Also, you failed to directly answer my question about your eyesight. Do youhave a deficiency? Are you allowed to drive, for instance?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Fuck his opinion. What do YOU see in each video? Do YOU see no similarity?

And on not being tethered, why do we only see lateral motion, and slight vertical, as if held on a radius?

Please, it's a kite, most likely. Watch both vids, bearing in mind the one I took wasn't made to look like the other, it was just random kite flying, but still captures the essence.

You need to stop listening to people's claims about what you are seeing, and actually look at these things yourelf, especially when they are making WILD claims.

 

OK, before I start here let me exercise some anything but regrettable tact and tell you that I DO APPRECIATE your engagement of the subject matter. But for "fooks" sake could we keep this a slightly less elevated and crass plane of discussion? It will be appreciated.

As you watch the night vision video toward the end, is it an illusion of stars that you see apparent objects of similar luminousity pass opposingly through the formation?

It "seems" as though the tracked night vision objects are at a great altitude. When you hypothetically consider this as a real possability, the "geese" that peel off to the right seem to do so in relation to these possible stars in the back ground. Then on top of that, if they are at a great alttitude, they would be moving at unimmaginable speeds to accomplish what is being observed. Bear in mind that this is IF these objects/geese at a tremendous alttitude as it appears to me. If these things are only 300 yards away, this is all a different story. It really doesn't appear that was though.

Here's a useless but relavant piece of info that I won't elaborate on much futher. I have slipped on more Canadian Goose shit than I care to remember. Really. Those things are such the pain in the arse if you were to have happened to grow up near a small body of water in the northern most part of the mid western united snakes. ehem.

What we really need, I tried my best to find yesterday after your posts, is, a comparative night vision footage documenting the nocturnal migration of birds/geese. I am more so interested in what has been pointed out to me as a possible case for this NOT being geese but rather UFOs. Namely the definition and luminosity that the objects exemplify via the night vision equipment. I fully admit that on first appearance, these footage is represent of gooses in formation. However I am a little thrown by their maneuvers depending on altitude.

Clearly, you have the advantage. I have never used NV equipment and know nothing about it's workabilities. I appreciate the insight.

Nope, I was just saying there are those that regularly examine and analyze night vision footage in the military. A much more generalized claim. I was however emphatically stating that someone who used and examined night vision footage in the military looked at this video clip and stated that it was not birds because of definition and ultra luminosity. For the record, although I am uncertain, I tend to believe that if this footage was shot from within a well lit radius (city) that belly of the birds could assuredly reflect that light accordingly. I am not sure about the body heat thing because of sheer ignorance to the science involving such detection. Again the comparative night vision documentation of migrating birds and the "distance issue" come into speculation for me.

see above.

I'm middle aged and yes my vision is 20/20 when I am wearing my prescription glasses.

 

There is no way of discerning the altitude. It is impossible. Do not make ANY assumption about altitude from what you have seen. The only way to tell altitude, is from the object's size, if it is a know object (think WWII gunners here, who were issued with silhouetttes of enemy and friendly aircraft, and charts to demonstrate apparent size at varying altitudes, so they could dial in the ack-ack fire. As we dont know what these objects are, we cannot say how far away they are, this being a 2D representation.)

So you have answered that one yourself. IF they are atgreat altitude, they'd have to be moving at great speed, .... so why cling to the first assumption, when there's no reason to, and your won reasonig nmakes that seem unlikely?

Geese don't fly at tremendous altitude. The altitude varies on the bird species however.

There is no way of telling altitude from that footage. You cannot use the size of the blip, because 'hot' objects swamp the image intensifier, and appear large then they really are.

So you should see similarities from what you know, to what you see on that vid. Theeis nothing out of the ordinary shown, so no need to jump to conclusions.

Luminosity is because they are alive, and exercising! They emit heat, and some of that is in near IR. And again, you CANNOT make any assumption about altitude from a 2D video or picture. If you could, astronomers would just look at stars, and be able to tell how far they were away, without resorting to red shift, and parallax data.

Even inexspensive camcorders have IR nightvision now. Go buy one, and play with it. You'll find that the world in near IR can look a different to the world in the visible spectrum, some objects radiate in IR, so appear lighter (like black items) some white objects reflect a lot, and torches (with filament bulbs, old style) can leave trails across the screen, as they run hot and swamp the CCD.

What definition? We see blobs of light, not defined shapes, there is a total lack of definition, therefore. Also, not ultra luminous, they'd have left a trail if they were that bright, as image intensifiers suffer from some image lag for bright objects. Whoever supposedly examined that footage and made those statements was clearly missing out huge pieces of important information. Check out the amount of 'speckling' in the image, this shows the whole thing was relatively low light, or the contrast should have automatically changed to compensate and would have cut out the random photons that cause that. You get trails from bright objects, and speckling when the conditions are quite dark. MrMilitary guy image analyst should know these things.

OK, then use your eyes, and some powers of discernment. Stop making assumptions about what you see, just look, rewind, and watch again. Don't assume the equipment that captured the image is perfect, and what you see, is exactly how it looked on the day. If cameras took perfect picures, photographers would be out of work.

On size and distance, check out this link, which shows that distance, even for know objects, and be misleading from images;

http://o.pticalillusions.com/airplane-near-misses/