Albany Videotape of Unidentified "Missile" Sent to Military Intelligence, Fort Hood, Texas

Earthfiles ^ | November 5, 2002 | Linda Moulton Howe

[spycatcher]

My guess on the ones where blured insects can be ruled out is some kind of unidentified species -- National Geographic video info

[jlogajan]

the video footage showed the object obscured by clouds

If the object is a small foreground insect it will have thin dimensions. Flying in front of a bright background object like a cloud will give the illusion of the cloud showing through -- making the object seem to fly behind the cloud. However, it is just refraction of the light that occurs around all object edges. Because the width of the object is small compared to the amount of normal edge refraction, the bent background light tends to obscure the darker object.

Bright backgrounds can wipe out fine edge detail of foreground objects.

[dark_lord]

You have to admit, the guys that did this really planned it out and did a good job. (Too bad they were vandals.)

[Marysecretary]

Thanks, I looked it up and they do seem to be what's on the Albany video. Strange, aren't they?

[Fred Mertz]

What do you guys think? Check out spycatcher's two visuals also.

[mlo]

Pretty much eliminates blur unless the insect is going Mach 2 or so.

Video cameras do not operate at 1/10,000 sec shutter speeds. You also can't establish the speed of the object without knowing the distance from the camera, even if you do know the shutter speed.

[demosthenes the elder]

"I'm not at all knowledgable of cameras, but is equipment with such high shutter speeds readily available? "

if you have serious long-green, then yes.
otherwise, no.
Think "top-of-the-line Ferrari" and you have a reasonable comparison point.

[spycatcher]

I know, we were talking about using photography for rods

As far as video, you can check this out for a more detailed analysis

[El Gato]

Note that size is much larger than a "missle", and no exhaust.

I don't know what it is, or isn't. But you can't tell the size unless you know how far away it was, compared to the aircraft's distance. The "inset" is a blowup of part of the picture, you can tell by the difference in the background texture. The picture on the linked website shows the actual "size" of whatever it is, relative to the aircraft somewhat more clearly, but one still can't tell relative distances. Many missles don't have exhaust trails for much of their flight, they boost and then coast. They are often "super elevated", that is aimed way over the target, so they gain potential energy while the motor is burning, an then "glide" down to the target.

[archy]

If they had sent it to the anti-aircraft gunnery school at Ft. Bliss, Texas, where Stinger and other AA missile operators are trained, I might be more impressed.

I bet they won't get an identification if they send it to the army cooks and bakers school, either:

Nope, we've never seen a missile like that in any of our mess halls...kinda looks like a rolling pin, though....

[archy]

Here is a jpg of your average Bee, rod-style!

Here's a pic of an F106 drone being stung by a bee:

[dark_lord]

But you can't tell the size unless you know how far away it was, compared to the aircraft's distance.

You are right. If it is behind the clouds, then it is probably very large. If it is up close (a bee in flight) then of course it is very small. In either case, a UFO (we can't tell if it is a big object far away or a small object up close.)

I like the evidence for some "rods" being bees and other winged insects

[Dengar01]

What the hell is a rod... Rod Blagojavech? Illinois Governor Elect, or Rod Stewart?

[gitmo]

You can put yours away? Wow!

[Reactionary]

I don't care what anyone says, those images are absolutely fascinating.

[dalereed]

"And why couldn't the fBI id it as such?"

A Sheriff friend of mine when asked about the abilities of the FBI said:

The FBI couldn’t follow a menstruating elephant in a snow bank!