Unidentified Object Recorded By A Military Weather Satellite

General UFO stories

Moderators: ryguy, chrLz, Zep Tepi

Unidentified Object Recorded By A Military Weather Satellite

Postby Chadwickus » Mon Jan 31, 2011 4:51 am

Here's an interesting picture taken by a weather satellite, it is apparently in infrared.

Image

Accompanying it is a fairly comprehensive but inconclusive analysis:

http://brumac.8k.com/DMSP/DMSP.html

I'm really intrigued to find out more details, if anyone has any.

Closest answer so far seems to be maybe a satellite, but who knows?
User avatar
Chadwickus
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 1:17 pm


Re: Unidentified Object Recorded By A Military Weather Satel

Postby RICH-ENGLAND » Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:54 am

Hi Chad.

your picture hasn't linked so im assuming its the same one you posted on ATS?.

interesting, ill have a good read through that later.

thanks

rich
ATS HAS TURNED INTO A "BALLOONATIC" ASYLUM
User avatar
RICH-ENGLAND
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 343
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 4:06 am

Re: Unidentified Object Recorded By A Military Weather Satel

Postby Chadwickus » Mon Jan 31, 2011 10:26 am

I've linked it direct from the analysis source, it's showing up on my end...

Anyway, it's in the link I provided too.
User avatar
Chadwickus
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 1:17 pm

Re: Unidentified Object Recorded By A Military Weather Satel

Postby RICH-ENGLAND » Mon Jan 31, 2011 10:36 am

Chadwickus wrote:I've linked it direct from the analysis source, it's showing up on my end...

Anyway, it's in the link I provided too.


cool, i'll have a good read through it soon.

but there's no picture at my end, just a sign saying "remote linking forbidden, freeservers does not support linking of images or files from free accounts, please upgrade your account"

thanks

rich
ATS HAS TURNED INTO A "BALLOONATIC" ASYLUM
User avatar
RICH-ENGLAND
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 343
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 4:06 am

Re: Unidentified Object Recorded By A Military Weather Satel

Postby chrLz » Mon Jan 31, 2011 11:01 am

Well, I must confess I looked at the image and was underwhelmed. A strange looking cloud. I've seen some very weird shapes before, and there are lots of influences on clouds, some straight, some curved...

Then i started looking at the 'analysis'. Chortle. Forgive my harshness, but I'm in a bad mood (not anyone here's fault, don't worry..) Not Bruce Maccabee again. Save me. I wish he would just stick to playing piano.

I've seen this sort of IMMENSELY LONG, WAFFLING, PSEUDO-SCIENTIFIC stuff posted before, where someone goes hell for leather, all out to prove they can use big words, and equations, and perhaps even understand some of what they have typed, but all for nought, and completely un- (or mis-) directed.

But as for it being a logical analysis..? I shall post the following example from the very start (note that he uses AI (Anomalous Image) instead of 'funny shaped cloud', 'coz that sounds way way cooler) (oh and I hate to correct him but it is NOT the image that is anomalous, it's the cloud shape):

Clouds do not have adjacent straight edges

What a load of errant tripe. Of course they do, quite often!!! Has he never seen 'Morning Glory' clouds and numerous other manifestations (google 'parallel clouds' for a start)? And at that resolution, they could be quite ragged, yet in a roughly straight line - it's a very low-resolution image. No, I'm not saying that natural cloud is necessarily the cause, but it is nonsensical to rule out a shape simply because you haven't seen it in a cloud before. Every day there are bazillions (that's a scientific term used in meteorology) of clouds forming patterns of various types. There aren't gunna be a few interesting ones? (I saw Fred Flinstone yesterday, but didn't have my camera, dang.)

so this is a reason to reject the idea that the AI is a cloud.

NO, It most certainly is NOT.

The outline of the AI is also more angular and more distinct than edges of cloud images

No it isn't - there are many clouds even in that image that have quite 'sharp' edges - it is merely the strange pattern that is making it appear more defined and odd-looking.

and the shape is not striated or "blobby" the way other cloud images are.

By no means are all the clouds in that image striated or blobby. What exactly does blobby mean, I wonder?

Hence the following analysis has been carried out under the assumption that the AI was not made by some exceedingly strangely shaped cloud.

And hence I reject that analysis as a load of pretentious tripe... Seriously, I read some of it, and much of the stuff he is ranting about is completely and utterly irrelevant and/or over the top and unwarranted.

I would also point out that the speed claim of 4000-5000mph and 45,000 feet is completely and utterly unsupported, and probably unsupportable, yet blithely accepted by Maccabee.

May I further quote, just picking a chunk at random:
A "flat earth" approximation to the map rectification equations is
presented in Figure 4. Let t be the angle away from vertical (nadir).
(NOTE: angle t is represented as the Greek letter theta on Figure 4 and A,
is represented as h) Then, x = distance on the earth's surface in nm =
My, where M = 84.5 nm/inch and y is the distance in inches measured along a
scan line on the photograph starting at the center of the scan line (the
center of the photo represents the nadir, "straight down," or t = 0).
By trigonometry, x = A tan (t). Now, imagine that a relatively small object
on the earth's surface has a width (east-west dimension) given by Dx.
The scanning process will create an image of angular width, Dt, that is
related to Dx by the derivative of the equation, Dx/Dt = A/cos^2(t).
Solving this for the angular size, Dt, corresponding to a length Dx, as
viewed by the satellite, gives Dt = (Dx/A)cos^2(t) which shows that the
angular size shrinks with increasing angle (cos(t) shrinks as the angle
increases) even when Dx stays constant. The electronic processor "reverses"
this equation to make the horizontal length scale constant. In other words,
the processor multiplies the angular width of an image, Dt, by the
factor [A/cos^2(t)] to give Dy, measured on the film, as Dy = Dx/M =
A/[Mcos^2(t)] Dt. That is, a "stretch" was applied to each scan line,
with the amount of stretch increasing with the angular distance from the ..

???
Yes, vitally important that we do all this, rather than perform a simple rough 'image distort' to square it up.. :roll:
Pardon me while I fall asleep, hopefully before I vomit.

Don't get me wrong, it's an interesting image and worthy of investigation. But that page and a worth-while investigation have very little in common..

To me, the way to investigate this would be first to look carefully at how the camera records the images, and whether there are any possible imaging anomalies that could cause, for example, the 'slit', which is suspiciously aligned with the scan lines.. Then, if the shape is deemed to be a cloud or other unidentified object, to look very closely at the earth terrain beneath that area, and various other weather maps and charts showing winds, pressure, etc. at the time Given that most of the info will be ground level, it wouldn't necessarily reveal the answer, but it might. Then, you could look at the possibility of military tests, and so on..

I gather the age of the image makes all that difficult, but it's rather interesting to note that the Maccabee 'analysis' seems to leave out a lot of stuff, despite its inordinate length. Tunnel vision...? :D
"To wear the mantle of Galileo, it is not enough that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment. You must also be right." - Robert L. Park (..almost)
User avatar
chrLz
Moderator
 
Posts: 258
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 9:47 am

Re: Unidentified Object Recorded By A Military Weather Satel

Postby franspeakfree » Mon Jan 31, 2011 12:54 pm

23 years ago and still we continue to live in the dark ages whilst the Navy and other elites carry out their objectives. After reading the extensive analylsis it appears that this object was indeed very real and could have very well posed a threat. Of course us mushrooms wouldn't have been aware of it.
franspeakfree
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2010 9:42 am

Re: Unidentified Object Recorded By A Military Weather Satel

Postby ryguy » Mon Jan 31, 2011 1:25 pm

This was a great analysis by Bruce:

"This is because of the way the DMSP satellite creates a picture. It does not photograph a whole area at once the way a camera does. Instead, it creates a picture line by line like a TV set, but much more slowly. Therefore if there is any relative motion between the satellite and the object it is photographing, the satellite picture of the object may be seriously distorted."


And this:

"However, using the above analysis one can show that a rectangular object 24 ft wide and 12 ft long, oriented with its "long" sides parallel to the DMSP orbit, moving with a parallel velocity component that is abou 1 ft/sec less than the satellite velocity and a transverse velocity component of 2 ft/sec and traveling 291 ft below the DMSP orbit at a radial distance of 300 ft from the satellite can make an image such as shown in Figure 11. The severe distortion present in the image of the rectangular object is an artifact of the scanning combined with the object motion relative to the satellite. The lesson to be learned is that the image in a photograph made with the slowly scanning system is not necessarily an accurate representation of the shape of the object.

Incidently, if the object were rotating, which is the likely condition if the UO were space junk, then all bets are off as to the actual shape (see below)."


I always enjoy reading his write-ups. He always goes so over-the-top - the calculations were a brilliant touch. :-)

If I had to go with anything I'd agree that it's most likely a satellite or space junk. I thought it was hilarious that the owners of the photo were looking to sell it. Let me just say that owning a website that comes across as a "believer" site, even though it isn't, within the past three months I've been approached by two people that I can only assume are con artists, about a "story" that they wanted to sell. Stories fall apart upon requests for evidence of course. I think these folks scour the "believer" market for the gullible to make some money, or to get help with making money, off of a story or photo. In the 1980s, Bruce was at the top of the list I think. This is why he was also involved in the distribution of the MJ-12 garbage, along with Moore and LMH.

Cool photo though. :-)

-Ryan
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Re: Unidentified Object Recorded By A Military Weather Satel

Postby Chadwickus » Mon Jan 31, 2011 3:04 pm

chrLz wrote:Well, I must confess I looked at the image and was underwhelmed. A strange looking cloud. I've seen some very weird shapes before, and there are lots of influences on clouds, some straight, some curved...


Thanks for weighing in CHRLZ, the page I linked to is the only one with any information about the photo, I too thought it went on a bit too much, but to me it seemed to be somewhat fair, since they didn't leap straight to it being an alien space craft.

You are right about important parts being left out, such as the fact the image has been cropped, not sure why that has happened and if the original can be found any more.

Anywho, good to hear from you!
User avatar
Chadwickus
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 1:17 pm

Re: Unidentified Object Recorded By A Military Weather Satel

Postby chrLz » Tue Feb 01, 2011 1:12 pm

Chadwickus wrote:
chrLz wrote:Well, I must confess I looked at the image and was underwhelmed. A strange looking cloud. I've seen some very weird shapes before, and there are lots of influences on clouds, some straight, some curved...


Thanks for weighing in CHRLZ, the page I linked to is the only one with any information about the photo, I too thought it went on a bit too much, but to me it seemed to be somewhat fair, since they didn't leap straight to it being an alien space craft.

You are right about important parts being left out, such as the fact the image has been cropped, not sure why that has happened and if the original can be found any more.

Anywho, good to hear from you!


No worries mate, although sometimes I can be a little harsh.. :P , and I admit bias because I have encountered a couple of very similar bloated, pontificating and ridiculously/needlessly complex 'analyses' from Maccabee before, and i think he's full of it... :D I keep picturing this little guy with his head down over his workbook, ferociously hammering out the text and punching the numbers into his beloved HP calculator, focusing all of his energy on the problem - absolutely nothing else matters, except proving the inverse hypotenusal tangent (h^ArcTan(y)) of the meniscus dihedral (namely x-theta*bx) when differentially resolved with a direct cosine relationship to the upper atmospherics, where of course we need to allow for Brownian motion, for which the equation is.....
{not a quote by the way - just taking the @!$$...)

when in fact the 'anomaly' is a scanning/ transmission problem, or an effect caused by the topology beneath the cloud.., or a bit of foam insulation that has fallen onto the satellite's lens cover/window.... :D

Thing is, without a whole pile of other images from that same sat, preferably showing that area on several other passes, and also a good look at the (inevitable) anomalies/artefacts that the camera/equipment might falsely record, and then the corresponding other images of that area from other sources (if any exist), it's just silly to take it too much further. At the time it was 'collected', nobody cared enough - so imo that's just too bad, and now it's too late, unless at least some of that other stuff surfaces..

But please don't get me wrong, I'm very glad you posted it - this site needs more stuff like this!!
"To wear the mantle of Galileo, it is not enough that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment. You must also be right." - Robert L. Park (..almost)
User avatar
chrLz
Moderator
 
Posts: 258
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 9:47 am

Re: Unidentified Object Recorded By A Military Weather Satel

Postby the|exx » Wed Feb 02, 2011 5:47 am

It's definitely captain Picard!

Image

|exx 8)
They're coming to take me away, Ha-Haaah!
- Dan Burisch
User avatar
the|exx
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 156
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:42 pm
Location: Victoria, Australia


Google

Return to UFOs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 18 guests

cron