UFO disrupts travel at Bremen airport

Guyver said:
lol go look it up. the same people who created adaptive camo for the US army are making it. it is not a clear piece plastic.

plus my dad was not having me on. it flew at night with 2 Tornado escorts. i used to listen to it go on test runs with a scanner.

i know where i was kept years ago. may have moved now as was years ago. trust me, you do not know everything that is going on.

read some of this. they make camo for the US armed forces

http://www.hyperstealth.com/Quantum-Stealth/index.html
Click to expand...

lol - nonsense - no such technology exists even in theory, never mind practice.


i did a 2 year post doc for the MoD about 15 years ago on adaptive camouflage - trust me, they've got nothing.

edit - i should add they have ones for very very small objects - its the larger stuff that is impossible due to the amount 'bending' that would be required.
 
Last edited:
Energize said:
8mm video is very low resolution so it doesn't surprise me you didn't get anything discernible. I use an SLR myself but I have better things to do than film ufo's :p, I shoot animals myself which works along the same principles.
Click to expand...

Does it.. only birds, surely. And that must be bloody hard unless they're lower.
 
It doesn't matter what type of camera it is, the same principles apply to all optical devices. The farther away the object is the lower it's angular velocity relative to the viewer and the easier it is to keep in the frame at any given focal length, at such distances there's no difficulty focusing either because the focusing distance can simply be set to infinity without any need to change focus, and assuming your using a standard parfocal SLR lens, changing zoom will not change the focusing distance either.
Click to expand...

Strictly speaking I'm afraid that is rather too simplistic an explanation, at least from my experience (20+ years) The further away an object the more likely any sharp and untoward movement is likely to knock the object out of view, set to infinity or otherwise. The closer an object the more likely it is you will be able to stay focussed :) The further away an object the more likely you are to have problems holding the camera steady due to the weight of the camera and size of the lense etc. The problems illustrated above become more pronounced as a consequence. All of this also depends on the equipment being used as I am sure you would be aware.
 
Last edited:
Not sure what you mean by "focused"? The object will always be in focus at long distances and as I've said at any given focal length the less likely a movement is to knock the object out of view, it's simple mathematics.
 
Energize said:
Not sure what you mean by "focused"? The object will always be in focus at long distances and as I've said at any given focal length the less likely a movement is to knock the object out of view, it's simple mathematics.
Click to expand...

The focus will also be determined to a large extent by atmospherics so its not just simple mathematics, it is more to do with the judgement and the experience of the photographer. (I was actually thinking about a limited amount of available light when I made the above point. I was also thinking about dots on the horizon but neglected to explain myself properly). I don't think you can compare photographing fast moving objects in the sky to F1 racing regardless but that's my personal view. Over in photography you might find someone who will. Interesting question regardless. :)
 
Last edited:
Lysander said:
Indeed. Statistically [not by Earth-statistics] it would make more sense for this UFO to be an alien ship. If we can't detect what it is by normal means, and taking into consideration the amount of other galaxies out there and their potential for life, there is a higher likelihood that it is an alien spacecraft than a man-made object. Possibly searching/harbouring human specimens, which would certainly account for some of the missing persons who never will get found on this planet.
Click to expand...

Impressive to see such big words used in such a ridiculous jumble.

Statistically when someone knocks my door, I can't detect by conventional means (of looking) who it is without opening the door. Within a galaxy that is 'probably' filled with billions of species, it is more statistically likely that an alien has knocked my door than a human, as I was unable to detect it by conventional means.
Yet an alien has never knocked my door.
 
Lysander said:
Ever tried to zoom in on an object moving at speed hundreds/thousands of feet up with a normal camera, even a decent modern SLR? You won't get anything by a fuzzy blob at the best of times.

Not everyone carries around professional TV cameras in the hope that they'll chance on a UFO sighting.
Click to expand...

That's why there aren't thousands/millions of photos of jet airliners all over the internet!;)

It's pretty easy if you actually want to get a clear photo... Problem is if you get a clear photo you go "oh, it's a (insert boring man made object here)" and it doesn't excite anyone. Get a fuzzy photo of something and suddenly you can't tell what it is...
 
Amp34 said:
That's why there aren't thousands/millions of photos of jet airliners all over the internet!;)

It's pretty easy if you actually want to get a clear photo... Problem is if you get a clear photo you go "oh, it's a (insert boring man made object here)" and it doesn't excite anyone. Get a fuzzy photo of something and suddenly you can't tell what it is...
Click to expand...

yea filmed at airshows and airports by people with decent cameras......you know people expecting to film something not some bloke with a mobile phone.

even a sony handycam on full zoom looking at houses across the street without a tripod is stupidly hard to try and keep steady
 
arknor said:
yea filmed at airshows and airports by people with decent cameras......you know people expecting to film something not some bloke with a mobile phone.

even a sony handycam on full zoom looking at houses across the street without a tripod is stupidly hard to try and keep steady
Click to expand...

and all these people with the nice cameras and tripods, the amateur astronomers, the aeroplane enthusiasts, the weather watchers, the moon watchers etc all put their cameras away when they're not at air shows?

A high percentage of UFO reports and photographs should come from these people, yet they don't.
Do you think this is because these people are perhaps more experienced in looking to the sky and weeding out what the true source of these funky lights are than the average guy walking his dog on a sunday evening?
 
wickfut said:
Do you think this is because these people are perhaps more experienced in looking to the sky and weeding out what the true source of these funky lights are than the average guy walking his dog on a sunday evening?
Click to expand...

The most common phrase is "Like something I've never seen before" and that's exactly what it is.
 
wickfut said:
and all these people with the nice cameras and tripods, the amateur astronomers, the aeroplane enthusiasts, the weather watchers, the moon watchers etc all put their cameras away when they're not at air shows?

A high percentage of UFO reports and photographs should come from these people, yet they don't.
Do you think this is because these people are perhaps more experienced in looking to the sky and weeding out what the true source of these funky lights are than the average guy walking his dog on a sunday evening?
Click to expand...

No, it's because the sighting of an aircraft is thousands of times, if not millions of times, more common than of a UFO.
 
Last edited:
aardvark said:
lol - nonsense - no such technology exists even in theory, never mind practice.


i did a 2 year post doc for the MoD about 15 years ago on adaptive camouflage - trust me, they've got nothing.

edit - i should add they have ones for very very small objects - its the larger stuff that is impossible due to the amount 'bending' that would be required.
Click to expand...


It certainly does exist but not how its being presented in this thread.

They can make planes "disappear" simply by coating the underside with OLED type material, and switching it on turning it the same colour as the sky above.

This has been done, and trialled, and its not new technology.

Light bending etc no, but this yes.
 
Trigger_Happy said:
This vid of 2 F15's chasing an object is compelling.,,


Click to expand...

It's a video of two planes flying about with some audio of people talking on radios, which hasn't been authenticated in any way.

It does have some dramatic music thrown over the top though, you've got to have the dramatic music when showing genuine ufo recordings or nobody will take you seriously.
 
wickfut said:
It's a video of two planes flying about with some audio of people talking on radios, which hasn't been authenticated in any way.

It does have some dramatic music thrown over the top though, you've got to have the dramatic music when showing genuine ufo recordings or nobody will take you seriously.
Click to expand...

LOL what..

Why dont u watch it with your eyes open next time, and you will see they are locking onto a hovering target which is smaller than any "craft" that we use militarily.
 
Trigger_Happy said:
LOL what..

Why dont u watch it with your eyes open next time, and you will see they are locking onto a hovering target which is smaller than any "craft" that we use militarily.
Click to expand...

No it isn't. Why don't you watch the whole video.

The video is stock footage of some planes flying about. The radio communication audio is an alleged recording by some radio hack who was located near the base.

Read the end of the video.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom