Sonota UFO Video (split from SUNlite thread)

General UFO stories

Moderators: ryguy, chrLz, Zep Tepi

Sonota UFO Video (split from SUNlite thread)

Postby Buckwild » Mon May 02, 2011 12:11 am

Moderator's Note - these posts were split from the 'Sunlite' thread. If I have missed any posts, or included any I shouldn't have, please let me know.
- chrLz



Hi Tim,

You said in this SUNlite :

All of this indicates that rare/brief events of spectacular nature are being recorded
regularly but none of these systems have recorded any “true” UFOs that I am aware
of. There must be a reason for this.


My best answer is a question. Maybe you did not look for them ? One thing I know for sure is that some astronomers told me that they usually get rid of the video-captures that do not correspond to what they are searching for. We could then wonder if "UFOs" & UAPs could be part of what they get rid of.(?)

Well, as a matter of fact, I do happen either to know or to "own" (original format) a few of them. All taken by CCD cameras & motion detection software. Questions, who would analyze them if I wanted to share them and what is their methodology and can I see some of their work first ? You can pm me.

Same with photography, I know some high quality pictures of what could be UAPs and I even know how to get in touch with the amateur astronomers who snapped them. So you could get all the data & complementary informations you/they need. I just don't post them on forums for strategical reasons.

Cheers,
Buck
User avatar
Buckwild
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 127
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2011 1:01 am


Re: SUNlite

Postby Tim Hebert » Mon May 02, 2011 1:44 am

Buckwild wrote:I just don't post them on forums for strategical reasons.


Could you elaborate on your strategical reasons?

Tim
Tim Hebert
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 491
Joined: Thu May 20, 2010 11:29 pm

Re: SUNlite

Postby astrophotographer » Mon May 02, 2011 2:52 am

Buckwild wrote:My best answer is a question. Maybe you did not look for them ? One thing I know for sure is that some astronomers told me that they usually get rid of the video-captures that do not correspond to what they are searching for. We could then wonder if "UFOs" & UAPs could be part of what they get rid of.(?)

Well, as a matter of fact, I do happen either to know or to "own" (original format) a few of them. All taken by CCD cameras & motion detection software. Questions, who would analyze them if I wanted to share them and what is their methodology and can I see some of their work first ? You can pm me.

Same with photography, I know some high quality pictures of what could be UAPs and I even know how to get in touch with the amateur astronomers who snapped them. So you could get all the data & complementary informations you/they need. I just don't post them on forums for strategical reasons.


The point of this article was where are all the images showing distinct craft and why, when they appear, are they not recorded by more than one camera. If you claim that astronomers have recorded UAP/UFOs on their imagery, feel free to share. If it is one camera taking a single image of a blurry light, then it will resolve nothing. There are plenty of possibilities there. If it is two or more cameras from two or more locations, then that is a completely different story and one can triangulate the data. If the data is good, maybe you have something and should present it somewhere (Perhaps here in a thread) for discussion. Is there a reason you choose to hide it from public scrutiny?
User avatar
astrophotographer
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 577
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 5:46 pm

Re: SUNlite

Postby chrLz » Mon May 02, 2011 8:17 am

Buckwild wrote:Well, as a matter of fact, I do happen either to know or to "own" (original format) a few of them. All taken by CCD cameras & motion detection software. Questions, who would analyze them if I wanted to share them and what is their methodology and can I see some of their work first ? You can pm me.

I am curious as to what you might expect an analyst to do? If you do have two or more sets of images from different locations, then triangulation and a few other bits of photogrammetry (depending on what was actually captured) may give some information - and none of that is rocket science - there are folks on this forum that could do that..

If it is the still images/frames themselves, then there are severe limitations on what can be 'extracted' from a full-resolution image. Enlargement beyond 1:1 is close to useless without deconvolution (which requires specialist information about the camera/telescope/lens design), and even when done well, doesn't give you much advantage anyway - despite the ridiculous depictions on programs like CSI. To use the appropriate vernacular, Nyquist is the limit. :D

There are various processing techniques that may (or may not), be able to bring out detail from what appear to be featureless or very dark/very bright areas, but again, the gains are small or in some cases non-existent *and* (Nyquist again) unless those features cover at least a few pixels in the full-res original, then they will not be giving useful/real detail. Any analyst that does this sort of work will need to explain the limitations, the process in detail, their reasons for choosing the techniques, and show the techniques in use on other images to prove their usefulness - any results should be repeatable (and most of this stuff can be done in Photoshop or similar anyway). Then there are all the provisos about image artefacts from jpeg compression, and so on. (I'll be posting some articles about all this in the near future). If you get it analysed but don't receive all that.. you haven't had it analysed at all.

To add a little humour.. I'd suggest you avoid people like this one (Warning - this link appears to be *serious*, but may induce hysterical fits of laughter in anyone who actually understands imaging...)
http://profindsearch.com/storm_ufo.htm

I believe Steven Greer uses that process.. :lol:

I just don't post them on forums for strategical reasons.

I think posting them on a forum is actually an ideal way to determine if there is anything worth actually investigating. For myself, I don't offer forensic image analysis 'formally', but am happy to offer a bit of my limited expertise on forums.. But it is only after I first see a very convincing 'back story' and the image/video shows something both genuinely unusual and genuinely of a high enough resolution to actually contain detail, that I might get interested.

Call me jaded - too much time at places like ATS.. :-&
"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: SUNlite

Postby Buckwild » Mon May 02, 2011 9:12 am

Hi guys,

Like I already* explained in this forum, there are two main strategical reasons why I do not post interesting videos on a forum :

1. I am looking for similar "objects" with similar intrinsec characteristics (general aspect, flight envelope, aerodynamic considerations & profile, behavior, etc...)

*If another similar event occurs, it would be used as a referential for comparisons. Let's say that two optical systems catch a similar event at the same time or not and that the data obtained from Digital Processing,
Visual interpretation and Manual Interpretation is a good match. We could store this targets in the same category (as a result of their intrinsec characteristics) and say : Hey guys, we''ve got something here ! I did not say ET but something that is either unknown (as a natural phenomena) and/or something that outperform known & actual technology & propulsion systems & aerodynamical constraints.


2.If I post some of the videos, chances are that people (hoaxers) might not only realize that they could duplicate it but also, that a "good" ufo video should have the same characteristics to be credible. Since I do not want that to happen, I'll keep it or them under "secrecy".

There's another reason, when posting a video on the internet, it's like buying a new car, once you start the engine and leave the car dealer, you loose 30% of it"s original price/value, replace price by credibility and you'll understand my POV. I call that the (giggle) google/you tube factor.

ChrLz, I am curious as to what you might expect an analyst to do? If you do have two or more sets of images from different locations, then triangulation and a few other bits of photogrammetry (depending on what was actually captured) may give some information - and none of that is rocket science - there are folks on this forum that could do that..


I know exactly what to expect, I already explained it here :
viewtopic.php?f=52&p=34872#p34872

It does not take a rocket scientist, but it does take professionals with methods and tools.

You guys are talking about triangulations but you have to remember a few things :

1. If the distance between two cameras is too small, then your estimate will not be accurate and you might not capture the event with both cameras (for high alt objects & events) and If the distance is too great, then you might also not be able to capture the event with both cameras. That is if you are looking for intra-atmospherical objects like UFOs.

1a. This is a real problem for triangulating distances, alt, speed for intra-atmospherical objects that are flying at a low altitude. Since you need two sites to be at a certain distance from each other to triangulate accurately the position of an object, then chances are that it won't be captured by a second and/or a third site

2. Most astronomers from what I know only have one ccd cam per site. This is a problem as well, because if you do have multiple cameras located in one site (at least 5) then by knowing which camera(s) filmed it, you can calculate the maximum distance of an object (knowing the Fov & camera charateristics and their orientation) Minimum distance can be calculated as well with an error margin (DoF & blurfo zone)

In other words, triangulations are only possible with high altitude objects like satellites, TLEs, fireballs and meteors because each camera has a limited FoV and like I said, in order to be accurate, you need to have a minimum distance separating at least two cameras.

With one video taken from one site/ccd cam, you can already calculate a few things once you know the blurfo zone limit. One of the videos I have and the most interesting was filmed with only one ccd cam but in a site where 5 cameras (or 6) were filming (N, E,S,W, Zenith).

Now stacking (digital processing) is very interesting but the hard part is determining the validity and accuracy of the results (as it can create artefact. This is why you need professionals to do it. Not only that but in some cases you have to use various technics in order to get rid of artefacts (electric interferences, "cosmics", muons, "worms", etc...) This is why I think that each site should have 10 cameras and not 5.

I do not need to post videos on a forum to know if data can be extracted from it or not and I do have my connections to share information or ask technical questions. It usually happens behind the scene.

I hope that I answered all your questions.

Cheers,
Buck

ps : Bin Laden was neutralized =D>
User avatar
Buckwild
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 127
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2011 1:01 am

Re: SUNlite

Postby RICH-ENGLAND » Mon May 02, 2011 9:39 am

@Buck.

i would seriously consider letting chrlz have a look at any pictures you may have.

he knows his stuff and also explains it extremely well which is most likely one of the reasons he has been chosen to moderate here.

he is a trustworthy guy and someone that many people including myself would consult over photographs during our time at ATS.

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: SUNlite

Postby chrLz » Mon May 02, 2011 11:33 am

Hey, Rich, are you expecting another £5? I'm going broke here.. :) But thanks anyway!

Buckwild wrote:I know exactly what to expect, I already explained it here :
viewtopic.php?f=52&p=34872#p34872

Well, you explained something, but I found much of it hard to understand. Is that "DP MI VI" method outlined anywhere else? I found some of that explanation concerning, because it sounded like the processing applied to an image might be varied if the 'desired' results were not initially found. That would be bad science/bad investigation. But I probably read it wrong - like I said, I found your description hard to follow, so a supporting link would be good.

You guys are talking about triangulations but you have to remember a few things..

Yes, I'm very aware of the limitations - which is why I said:
..triangulation and a few other bits of photogrammetry (depending on what was actually captured) may give some information.

There's not much point going into painful detail unless you are going to present the imagery, and as you said, the chances of getting useful 'triangulatable' imagery from amateurs is astronomically small (pun intended).

you can already calculate a few things once you know the blurfo zone limit.

Have you actually done this, or are you referring to existing analyses done by others? Can you point me to the examples/analyses? The reason I ask is that I have seen this 'attempted' before, quite wrongly and without considering *all* the factors that contribute to being out of focus or blurred. GIGO applies, and as you well know, there are a lot of pretend-scientists out there. Hey, *I* might be one... but I tend to be able to back my claims up.

you have to use various technics in order to get rid of ... muons... "worms"...

Muons??? I think you have hit Nyquist.. :D ..and then 'worms' - a technical term?

I do not need to post videos on a forum to know if data can be extracted from it or not

?? Then why do you need professional analysis? The only way to know what is there, is to apply that professional analysis.

It usually happens behind the scene.

Then as far I can see, there ain't much point waxing lyrical about stuff you won't present. And this sounds very much like the Jaime Maussan/Jose Escamilla/etc approach, where things are done behind closed doors - you run the extreme risk of accusations of unprofessionalism, biased analyses, along with the obvious complete lack of verification. All the things you say you fight..
"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: SUNlite

Postby astrophotographer » Mon May 02, 2011 2:39 pm

I am aware of the limitations of triangulation but I believe your point was that astronomers are recording these UFOs/UAPs and you have the evidence. This was an answer to the question in my article. I am familiar with astronomers recording all sorts of odd images on their film and CCDs. However, most can be reasonably explained. If they are not images of real "craft" and are just lights, it does not say much for the data.

As for your "objects", what do you define as an "object" and how can CCD images determine "flight characteristics"? Additionally, you can not extract any real information from one video taken from one location. All you can determine is angular size, speed,elevation, etc. That data can be useful but you could be recording a satellite or a firefly. One has no idea without a frame of reference.

The question still remains, why can't these craft, which according to UFOlogy are massive in size and are quite frequent be CLEARLY recorded on cameras and film from multiple locations. There are so many cameras out there, it seems that, by now, it would have been resolved.

Finally, If you don't want to share any of this with the forum, why bother mentioning this? It is as bad as stating you have a piece of a flying saucer and then giving all sorts of reasons why you can't get it tested.
Last edited by astrophotographer on Mon May 02, 2011 2:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
astrophotographer
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 577
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 5:46 pm

Re: SUNlite

Postby Buckwild » Mon May 02, 2011 2:44 pm

ChrLz : Well, you explained something, but I found much of it hard to understand. Is that "DP MI VI" method outlined anywhere else? I found some of that explanation concerning, because it sounded like the processing applied to an image might be varied if the 'desired' results were not initially found. That would be bad science/bad investigation. But I probably read it wrong - like I said, I found your description hard to follow, so a supporting link would be good.


These are technics/"basic"methods used by intelligence gathering services, part of this process is called photo-interpretation. Where did I learn about all this ? Google and some of my contacts. I'll see if I can find some documents about it since I should have saved some links. That being said, you kind of sound paranoid or suspicious towards me, it's your right but not a good manner to have a deeper & respectful discussion with a human being.

There's not much point going into painful detail unless you are going to present the imagery, and as you said, the chances of getting useful 'triangulatable' imagery from amateurs is astronomically small (pun intended).


If I present imagery/videos, it will not be on this forum, only behind the curtains (I.E : in private) Like I said, there are reasons why I would or would not do it. If I have the slightest doubt about the person I am sending it to, I just won't. I can be suspicious too but for different reasons.

Have you actually done this, or are you referring to existing analyses done by others? Can you point me to the examples/analyses? The reason I ask is that I have seen this 'attempted' before, quite wrongly and without considering *all* the factors that contribute to being out of focus or blurred. GIGO applies, and as you well know, there are a lot of pretend-scientists out there. Hey, *I* might be one... but I tend to be able to back my claims up.


I could use free software to do it quickly but I can send it to some of my contacts to do it for me, knowing already that sometimes it is too ambiguous for some systems. I've had this problem with a Watec-100 and a HG0608AFCS-HSP lens (video iris type)

Muons??? I think you have hit Nyquist.. :D ..and then 'worms' - a technical term


Cosmics = slang word for cosmic ray hits
Worms = same thing pretty much, when they look like worms
Muons = Cosmic ray hits that look like spots also called (when not identified) TLS as Transient Luminous Spot

Here some examples :

Image

?? Then why do you need professional analysis? The only way to know what is there, is to apply that professional analysis.


This is why I only want to deal with either professionals or confirmed amateurs and in some cases both.

Then as far I can see, there ain't much point waxing lyrical about stuff you won't present. And this sounds very much like the Jaime Maussan/Jose Escamilla/etc approach, where things are done behind closed doors - you run the extreme risk of accusations of unprofessionalism, biased analyses, along with the obvious complete lack of verification. All the things you say you fight..


Wrong attitude with me ChrLz, you keep attacking me already by being suspicious. I told you my reasons, you might not find them good enough, but I am not hiding anything and please do not compare me implicitely with people I had problems with (Jose Escamilla wanted to kick my ass when I called him Jose Es "Scam" Milla on ATS)

++
Buck
User avatar
Buckwild
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 127
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2011 1:01 am

Re: SUNlite

Postby Buckwild » Mon May 02, 2011 5:10 pm

astrophotographer wrote:I am aware of the limitations of triangulation but I believe your point was that astronomers are recording these UFOs/UAPs and you have the evidence. This was an answer to the question in my article. I am familiar with astronomers recording all sorts of odd images on their film and CCDs. However, most can be reasonably explained. If they are not images of real "craft" and are just lights, it does not say much for the data.


I agree, off course most of them can be explained but not all of them and if you want me to prove it, I'll only do it in private with a few conditions and I also have another reason for that. One of the video-captures I have already has a copyright on it. (it is not my copyright) And I am not talking about lights only seen at a distance.

As for your "objects", what do you define as an "object" and how can CCD images determine "flight characteristics"? Additionally, you can not extract any real information from one video taken from one location. All you can determine is angular size, speed,elevation, etc. That data can be useful but you could be recording a satellite or a firefly. One has no idea without a frame of reference.


You can determine what I would call projected & displayed flight characteristics without triangulation. You basically need to know the lower limit (distance) and a higher limit (=> min & max distance & alt) with one or more cameras per site and known referential(s) like a structure's distance and size. Once you have these elements, then you can do the math (size & g-forces involved if x is @ x distance & @ x altitude, same with vertical speed or horizontal speed...) You can already calculate quiet a few things in an equivalency chart but you will never know the exact size, distance, speed, g-forces involved, etc...since you do not know what you are filming. You will know the upper and lower limits for comparisons with biologicals, aircrafts, pyrotechnical devices, etc, etc...

If it is only a light source/point of reflected or artifical or natural light like fireflies, then it might be useless in most cases but it still is interesting, I know an interesting video like that I could post here for that matter. How to differenciate an object from a biological or an object carried by the wind ? It might be possible using a combination of data extracted from the projected flight characteristics and by deriving 5-axis motion to represent the true axis position and special protocols (that's why one need to ask pros) to minimize errors. Errors such as axis wobble, axis orthogonality and axis position and least but not last, visual interpretation & image analysis. This is briefly and probably badly resumed but this is the "idea" more or less. It is just very hard to explain all this in a few lines.

The question still remains, why can't these craft, which according to UFOlogy are massive in size and are quite frequent be CLEARLY recorded on cameras and film from multiple locations. There are so many cameras out there, it seems that, by now, it would have been resolved.


First, ask yourself the question, how many ccd cams are filming our skies ? What do you mean by massive in size ? Because first of all, people most of the time cannot know the size of an unknown object unless it is either flying along a known "object" or on the ground next to a known referential. In the ufo litterature, most ufos are moderate in size, more or less like big private planes in avg I would say, not like 747s or Independance Day flying saucers, this is more rare. Then, just realize that specially at night and even during daytime (not many astronomers film during the day), if two cameras are located 50 km or more from each other or even less, chances are, you will not be able to have both cameras to film or detect (software & ccd cam lux specs) the same object unless it is flying at a high altitude and it's magnitude allows you to capture it on both systems. Like I said earlier, most systems are set to capture meteors/fireballs, storms, TLEs and sometimes people use them to capture satellites & re-entries.

Finally, If you don't want to share any of this with the forum, why bother mentioning this? It is as bad as stating you have a piece of a flying saucer and then giving all sorts of reasons why you can't get it tested.


Why bother ? Because this is what I noticed and I did search for "them", it is my strategy until I build my own AMS.
In private only, I already explained why but my questions still remain unanswered. I am a not a professional analysist and I am not omniscient but I am always looking for motivated, talented, skilled, trained professional specialists. I am not looking for self-proclaimed "ufo-video" pseudo-specialists who will post them on you tube with a pseudo-analysis. Been there, done that, seen that again recently.

++
Buck
User avatar
Buckwild
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 127
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2011 1:01 am

Re: SUNlite

Postby astrophotographer » Mon May 02, 2011 5:54 pm

In my article, I made the stipulation of All of this indicates that rare/brief events of spectacular nature are being recorded regularly but none of these systems have recorded any “true” UFOs that I am aware of. I am still unaware of such recordings that can be verified. When I use the term "true" UFO (and I should have made it clear in the article but I did not), I am talking about a distinct craft that is not anything we know of existing here on earth. If you have that kind of evidence and refuse to share it without restriction, it is your loss and not mine. I am the one asking for people to produce.

The bottom line here is that if you are not willing to share without stipulations. I am not interested in looking at something that I have to sign some sort of non-disclosure agreement on. I have done this in the past and watched the person, who has the evidence to debunk a prominent UFO case, delay publishing for various reasons.

IMO, there are plenty of people in this forum (and in others), who are not professionals but are pretty good at examining the images/videos and researching what something might have been. If you don't trust us to analyze the imagery, then that is your right because we can not produce the necessary qualifications you require. As a result, I see no sense in pursuing this further if you want to play games with the 'evidence'. If it is some sort of "craft" then you really need to submit it somewhere for analysis. My last question is "What is stopping you"?
User avatar
astrophotographer
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 577
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 5:46 pm

Re: SUNlite

Postby RICH-ENGLAND » Mon May 02, 2011 7:18 pm

@Buck.

i mean no offence but this is all getting a bit silly. if you dont want to share then why even bring any of it up in the first place?....

you are saying you want "professional" analysis but let me just make a point..

David Biedny is a professional with a huge background and reputation is he not?. yet he claimed the jerusalem ufo video was real and not cgi......

just because someone is paid to do a job does not mean they are better at that job than someone that isn't paid.

the same thing goes for qualifications etc...

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: SUNlite

Postby Buckwild » Mon May 02, 2011 7:39 pm

Hi Rich,

I agree with you, sometimes pros' can be very deceiving but like I said, I would not mind if confirmed amateurs would take a look at some of the data I have but only behind the curtains. I will not post any of the material in a forum and I gave more than one reason for that. I understand your frustration but again, I am willing to share some of the data with a non-disclosure agreement. End of the line.

You can believe that I am lying if you want but this is my strategy and I made it very clear right from the start and even before in some other thread here. I could even say that the biggest ufo-skeptic investigation group in France actually has the same strategy. They do not disclose all their data just like when you are investigating a crime, you do not disclose all the data you have. It's pretty much the same.

Astrophotographer : My last question is "What is stopping you"?


I take the matter very seriously, this is what stops me from repeating the same errors twice.

++
Buck
User avatar
Buckwild
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 127
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2011 1:01 am

Re: SUNlite

Postby astrophotographer » Mon May 02, 2011 7:47 pm

Buckwild wrote:I take the matter very seriously, this is what stops me from repeating the same errors twice.

++
Buck


As do I. Let us know when you are ready to publish the information. Until then, my comment still stands as correct. That being, I have yet to see any of these systems capture a "true UFO" (distinct unknown/exotic craft and not just strange lights).
User avatar
astrophotographer
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 577
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 5:46 pm

Re: SUNlite

Postby RICH-ENGLAND » Mon May 02, 2011 8:12 pm

Hi Buck.

i dont think you are a liar at all, in fact i usually like what you have to say but im going to be honest right now and say what i think, recently you seem to have started taking all this stuff a little too serious and personal and also since your disagreement with the site owners/moderator you also seem to have a persecution complex that they are all against you!.... which they are not. so hopefully you will move past that.

apologies if im wrong, i honestly mean no offence.

again i would highly recommend you let chrlz look at your pictures, take my word for it, he knows his stuff and he will keep anything to himself that you ask of him, i know this because i have had private discussion with him over photographs on ATS in the past.

any of the old respected ATS members would recommend him and respect his work and opinion.

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

Next

Google

Return to UFOs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 16 guests

cron