mummymonkey
Did you spill my pint?
Not at all. I must have viewed the whole video a dozen times before I noticed the elevation scale on the left was fixed.Thomas said:
Thomas said:
Heh, what do you think will happen? Are they gonna come for you because you're exposing a major conpiracy or a deliberate distorsion of the facts? Or do you think they will lie to us because they want this to be UFO's?
I think I've explained my theory enough times already to not want to explain it anymore, particularly to governments.
I've gone as far as I'm going with this...
So when it comes down to gather the facts from the sources, you don't wanna play anymore?wipeout said:
I think I've explained my theory enough times already to not want to explain it anymore, particularly to governments.
I've gone as far as I'm going with this...
I have just talked to the man with the cigarette from X-files, he said something about having you picked up as soon as possible!
Patricio Elicer
Obsessed with Reality
yes, of course. Just give me some time to think of a comprehensive letter. I'll keep you postedThomas said:Patricio,
Since you're the one that speaks Spanish here, could you write SEDENA and ask them how they can be sure those object were not grounded? I can't find heads and tails in that site, and I'm too lazy to translate the entire site to english or danish
walthrup48
Unregistered
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2001
- Messages
- 1,087
Your post is missing key parts ..... namely reasons and evidence.Joe_Black said:
Explorer said:
And if I tell anyone you said that, then you are anecdotal too!
I believe both you and ball-lightning exist, however.
Actually, there was good thread about it some months back...
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=20202&highlight=lightning
What I saw matches that photo I found exactly.
I have received further answers from Andrew Griffin @ FLIR systems.
Q1) The azimuth reading of the camera, would that refer to North or the airplanes heading?
A1) It can be set up either way.
Q2) How far away would you estimate that oilflares like these would be visible with the StarSAFIRE II?
A2) Estimate of 20 km
Q3) Can a target appear on the StarSAFIRE monitor that only the radar are able to pick up. I.e. A target the camera wouldn't be able to detect without the radar? I.e. Will a radar increase the detection distance of the camera?
A3) The radar and the Star SAFIRE are 2 separate sensors. If a radar picks up a target – this is not displayed on the camera monitor. No – the radar wont increase the camera range – but what it will do is detect a target and point the camera system in the right direction of the target, so allowing easier acquisition of the target in the narrower fields of view.
Q1) The azimuth reading of the camera, would that refer to North or the airplanes heading?
A1) It can be set up either way.
Q2) How far away would you estimate that oilflares like these would be visible with the StarSAFIRE II?
A2) Estimate of 20 km
Q3) Can a target appear on the StarSAFIRE monitor that only the radar are able to pick up. I.e. A target the camera wouldn't be able to detect without the radar? I.e. Will a radar increase the detection distance of the camera?
A3) The radar and the Star SAFIRE are 2 separate sensors. If a radar picks up a target – this is not displayed on the camera monitor. No – the radar wont increase the camera range – but what it will do is detect a target and point the camera system in the right direction of the target, so allowing easier acquisition of the target in the narrower fields of view.
Okay, thanks again to Thomas and the guy from FLIR.
A1) Ah, I'd wondered if that was the case that you can switch it, with Mummymonkey's suggestion of the relationship to north making more sense in some situations.
A2) The estimate of an oil-flare being visible only to 20 km seems a bit strange as an oil-tanker was said to be visible to 50 km, and an oil-flare is much hotter than an oil-tanker's chimneys, which is surely all that would be visible of the oil-tanker at that range.
A3) I don't know that the first target detected -- which I believe was by radar -- ever had the camera record it. A radar object with footage could be important but I don't know that there ever was one.
A1) Ah, I'd wondered if that was the case that you can switch it, with Mummymonkey's suggestion of the relationship to north making more sense in some situations.
A2) The estimate of an oil-flare being visible only to 20 km seems a bit strange as an oil-tanker was said to be visible to 50 km, and an oil-flare is much hotter than an oil-tanker's chimneys, which is surely all that would be visible of the oil-tanker at that range.
A3) I don't know that the first target detected -- which I believe was by radar -- ever had the camera record it. A radar object with footage could be important but I don't know that there ever was one.
wipeout said:
Maybe you should send an application to FLIR Systems Inc., I'm sure they would love to be able to make cameras with the detection ranges you suggest to be possible.
And of course it's not the chimneys of an oiltanker that is detectable, because then you would be able to detect chimneys at a distance of 50km, and the size of an object wouldn't matter as long as it has chimneys. Quit changing the facts to fit the chimney theory please.
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2001
- Messages
- 34,597
I think it looks like an airplane. I could be mistaken, it could be a spaceship. Then again, it could be The Human Torch and his family flying in formation. I think the 1st explanation is most likely, the 2nd and 3rd are absurd.. though the 2nd will be most likely concluded by the ignorant public.
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2001
- Messages
- 34,597
Joe_Black said:
Yea, but you're stupid, so it doesn't really matter does it?
Thomas said:
So what do you think you see of an oil-tanker at 50 km then, if not the chimneys? Most of the hull will be at the temperature of the ocean because it's in contact with it, and the ocean around it seems be invisible from any distance in the footage, hence no horizon.
The only part of the oil tanker which is not going to match the background temperature closely is its chimneys.
I believe an infrared source from an oil-tanker's chimneys (or an oil-flare) could shine through ambient infrared haze and contrast its temperature background in much the same way as a lighthouse shines through light fog at night.
feyd rautha
Student
- Joined
- May 17, 2004
- Messages
- 40
stop it now!
@wipeout
please stop talking about chimneys and oilrigs because you are wrong and it makes me sick to read your nonsence over and over again.
@wipeout
please stop talking about chimneys and oilrigs because you are wrong and it makes me sick to read your nonsence over and over again.
The chimneys are hot yes, but they are too small to be observed at a distance of 50 km as Griffin said. The engineroom of an oiltanker is both huge and very hot. That's what you're gonna detect at 50 km, not the chimneys.wipeout said:
I hardly think that you know more about the StarSAFIRE II than Griffin do, he said 20 km for the chimneys. That's it.
I went looking for infrared images of ships. I found all sorts of images, including apparently inverted ones in which a ship appears lit up like a Xmas tree.
Here's a missile being launched from a ship on infrared, which is closest footage I found to the kind of footage we're talking about:
The missiles' flame would be tiny in comparison to an oil-flare as that ship would also be relative to an oil-tanker, so that picture is roughly similar to what we're talking about.
At distance, I believe the missile flame (or an oil-flare) is more likely to be seen through the ambient infrared haze of the atmosphere, as over the sea it'd be a bright white point on grey background instead of the black object on grey background that is that ship.
It's the same as you see the lighthouses' light more easily than the lighthouse at distant in dim light. It's brighter with higher contrast.
Anyway, unless a map of the Campeche area oil-flares is shown to have (or not have) a configuration like that in the footage, then oil-flares still aren't ruled out.
Here's a missile being launched from a ship on infrared, which is closest footage I found to the kind of footage we're talking about:
The missiles' flame would be tiny in comparison to an oil-flare as that ship would also be relative to an oil-tanker, so that picture is roughly similar to what we're talking about.
At distance, I believe the missile flame (or an oil-flare) is more likely to be seen through the ambient infrared haze of the atmosphere, as over the sea it'd be a bright white point on grey background instead of the black object on grey background that is that ship.
It's the same as you see the lighthouses' light more easily than the lighthouse at distant in dim light. It's brighter with higher contrast.
Anyway, unless a map of the Campeche area oil-flares is shown to have (or not have) a configuration like that in the footage, then oil-flares still aren't ruled out.