It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Amaterur Astronomer Detect a UFO Exiting from a Lunar Crater...

page: 6
53
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 17 2014 @ 03:18 PM
link   

edit on 17-9-2014 by Attentionwandered because: happy?




posted on Sep, 17 2014 @ 03:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Attentionwandered
we have uncompressed footage.

Odds are that there ISN'T any "uncompressed footage" anyway. We don't need it, it probably doesn't exist anyway, get over it. Most video astronomers who do live webcasting like this do not record their hours-long webcasts in an uncompressed format. It simply isn't practical. If they record it at all it is in some compressed format. Nevertheless this is clearly NOT a compression issue. The ufo moves with EVERY SINGLE FRAME that it appears in while the moon itself does not despite the fact that it is constantly moving and changing appearance. There is no compression artifacting visible in the trail where the UFO had been in the frames where the moon is not moving. That is because the UFO was added later as a layer on top of the original video. The original video was recorded from an SDC-435 or SCB-2000 or similar camera using a video capture device. This method almost inevitably leads to adjacent frames of the recorded video that are identical to each other as seen with the moon video, and even if it were a compression issue we would see direct evidence of that because of the dynamical nature of the moon's appearance.
edit on 17-9-2014 by ngchunter because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2014 @ 03:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Attentionwandered
a reply to: ngchunter

You are making a lot of assumptions here... Why would the UFO be trailing because of atmospheric pressure?

I didn't say anything about "atmospheric pressure." Try again.


One group of people is essentially saying:
"The movement of the moon and the movement of the ufo do not matchup and it is most likely CGI"
tanka is essentially saying:
"The disparity between the movement of the two objects could be the result of video compression and possibly not CGI"
you are saying (essentially):
"The UFO should be forming a trail behind it where it had previously been, because of the effect of atmospheric seeing"

Nope. Do not put words in my mouth. If it were a "compression issue" the problem could not have revealed the missing detail that had been hiding behind the UFO in the previous frames. If it tried to fill it in we would see the resulting compression artifact, and as this happens across multiple consecutive frames these artifacts would form a trail behind the UFO. I've seen this happen before, that's not what this is.



posted on Sep, 17 2014 @ 03:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: ngchunter
The entire image of the moon is constantly changing due to atmospheric turbulence, that is what you are not understanding. The area where the UFO is is also changing, but a compression error cannot magically reveal detail that was hidden by the UFO in previous frames. The detail in the "current" frame with the UFO's current position would not match up perfectly with the rest of the moon's image due to that fact.



You are thinking in terms of your world; you need to think in terms of your computer's world...they can be vastly different.

In this case you are confusing the "current frae"...to you it is what ever the current frame actually is...to your computer it is whatever it has been told...in this case; the last full frame received from the stream.

Which would not match the detail that should have been missing underneath where the UFO had been due to tracking errors and atmospheric turbulence displacing and distortion the moon's appearance continuously. You keep trying to obfuscate this point and ignore it. The fact is that it does matter and we would see such a trail if that was the problem. It isn't.



posted on Sep, 17 2014 @ 03:32 PM
link   

edit on 17-9-2014 by Attentionwandered because: now?



posted on Sep, 17 2014 @ 03:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Attentionwandered
a reply to: ngchunter

You're right, I meant to say "seeing". Edited.

Good thing I already quoted you for the truth of what you first said then.



And I agree the uncompressed footage probably doesn't even exist'. This footage was probably re-compressed a few times with different algorithms. This means that ANYTHING could happen including details from frames full seconds earlier somehow being made into the UFO frames without artifacts.

If it was a compression error we would see the artifacting behind the UFO. Either we'd see earlier copies of the UFO or we'd see a distorted lunar surface. Those are your two choices, there is no third. I've been doing this for many years now and I've seen that effect myself. This isn't that.


Basically, these "telescope streaming screen capture UFO" videos are ALL a waste of time. Astronomy is fun, and streaming various parts of it is great, but there is no way you can say this proves (or disproves) anything.

Yes, I can, stop trying to obfuscate. It's interesting to me that SO MUCH effort has gone into trying to silence me today, even having my video taken down. Perhaps that's the real conspiracy here. To discredit and silence anyone skilled enough to detect a hoax of this nature. There's a conspiracy for you ATS.
edit on 17-9-2014 by ngchunter because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2014 @ 03:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: tanka418
a reply to: ngchunter


He is attempting to abuse the youtube DMCA system to silence dissent, which further proves his dishonesty.


Actually this statement is wholly untrue...you improperly used his content, and you used to much of it. You should probably consider yourself lucky if he doesn't press criminal charges.

See, this statement right here indicates to me a ridiculous bias and a turning of the tide at ATS. Members now openly support censorship and even CRIMINAL CHARGES for daring to perform a critical analysis someone else's work, as long as that "someone else" appears to be on "their side." Think about that for a minute guys, we're talking about openly supporting censorship and criminal penalties for free speech. Don't give me that "improper use" nonsense, I used short sections of the video directly relevant to my analysis of it, that is all. And for that, I am told I should count myself lucky if I don't face criminal charges. I know this isn't everyone's opinion, but at a site whose motto is "deny ignorance" I find that almost right away I got a response indicating an open willingness to see this kind of censorship. That is a bad sign guys. A very bad sign.



posted on Sep, 17 2014 @ 04:05 PM
link   
a reply to: ngchunter

Its a copy of a copy of a copy where each middle man has changed something and lost some information along the way. Neither of us know the full story and it's a blurry low quality digital video with watermarks all over it; anything could have happened. This whole argument is moot and we agree its a hoax anyway so relax a little bit.

Maybe the conspiracy is the fact that every single ufo video ends up in some stupid argument about computers

At least I learned what 'atmospheric seeing' was, so I have got that going for me.
edit on 17-9-2014 by Attentionwandered because: it wasnt totally useless



posted on Sep, 17 2014 @ 04:08 PM
link   
a reply to: NoRulesAllowed

exaggerate much? I clocked that at 1.4 tops



posted on Sep, 17 2014 @ 04:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: ngchunter
See, this statement right here indicates to me a ridiculous bias and a turning of the tide at ATS.


Yes bias...the bias that comes from having two separate copyrights stolen, and watching someone else make hundred's of thousands of dollars...

The whole subject of copyright is a very sensitive one for me...that doesn't change the fact that you used almost the whole video, even though you didn't need to. And as I said before; you should consider yourself lucky IF he doesn't press criminal charges. He clearly has the case to do so...I would have.

And this argument doesn't have any more merit that the other one; in this case sir... you're wrong.


edit on 17-9-2014 by tanka418 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2014 @ 04:21 PM
link   
Besides no atmospheric disruptions seen on the "object," as we see with the moon as already mention -- has anyone mentioned that the "shadow" is also WAY off?



posted on Sep, 17 2014 @ 04:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: ngchunter
See, this statement right here indicates to me a ridiculous bias and a turning of the tide at ATS.


Yes bias...the bias that comes from having two separate copyrights stolen, and watching someone else make hundred's of thousands of dollars...

This is not copyright theft. This is commentary and criticism which is EXPLICITLY ALLOWED under copyright law. It is extremely telling that right out of the box you come at me telling me that it was justified that my video was taken down and that I should be facing criminal charges. This isn't someone sharing bits of music or movies for others to enjoy to get around paying for it, this is criticism of the work in question, precisely what free speech is designed to protect. There's no need to protect speech you agree with, the integrity comes when you are forced to protect speech you disagree with. You do not stand for that.


The whole subject of copyright is a very sensitive one for me...that doesn't change the fact that you used almost the whole video, even though you didn't need to. And as I said before; you should consider yourself lucky IF he doesn't press criminal charges. He clearly has the case to do so...I would have.

I have not violated any law. I am not a criminal and he has no case. You are a liar and you are debunked. My entire video was 2 minutes 10 seconds long, including my text and my animation showing that the moon didn't move at all while the UFO did. His video is 5:27 seconds long. I used considerably less than half his video, not "almost the whole video" you liar and I only used sections long enough and relevant to establish what he claimed and what he showed.



posted on Sep, 17 2014 @ 04:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord
Besides no atmospheric disruptions seen on the "object," as we see with the moon as already mention -- has anyone mentioned that the "shadow" is also WAY off?


How is the shadow "off"?

Please illustrate...



posted on Sep, 17 2014 @ 04:40 PM
link   
a reply to: ngchunter
Ya know man...I understand that you think you made good use of the "fair use" clause in copyright law...unfortunately "fair use" is rather ill-defined, in that nowhere does it say "how much" of a protected work can be used in a critique.

Way back in the day (1970's) we used to think that "fair use" meant les than 10% of the original...but then we didn't have videos to contend with, mostly printed material...but, "less than half" is way more than 10%, and, the restrictions on that are stricter now...

And, I do sympathize with you, you think you are doing the right thing; perhaps you are. However, you have not proven your assertion, and unfortunately with the data you are trying to use you can't. The very technology "dogs" you attempts at proof of "hoax" here. Every one of the issues you have with the video can be explained by data and compression errors.

So lets move on to other features of the images, perhaps they will be friendlier to you.



posted on Sep, 17 2014 @ 04:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: tanka418
a reply to: ngchunter
Ya know man...I understand that you think you made good use of the "fair use" clause in copyright law...unfortunately "fair use" is rather ill-defined, in that nowhere does it say "how much" of a protected work can be used in a critique.

Well you flat out lied about how much I used. Really speaks to your motivations. You want criminal charges against me for debunking that video. I used what I needed to make the point, end of story. Hell, Myles Power used a lot more than I did in his debunking of the AIDS denialists documentary, and guess what? He won in the end! You are a liar who wants to see me behind bars, nothing you say should be taken at face value. I sincerely hope you have failed to mislead anyone as badly as you failed to answer my questions.



posted on Sep, 17 2014 @ 05:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: tanka418
How is the shadow "off"?

Please illustrate...



It doesn't follow the curvature of the moon. It's not obvious?



posted on Sep, 17 2014 @ 05:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord

originally posted by: tanka418
How is the shadow "off"?

Please illustrate...



It doesn't follow the curvature of the moon. It's not obvious?


I thought about something like that...but, I' not sure I can actually, accurately, follow something in a "view" of that quality. I mean, I sure I / we could easily IF we could get much closer; but at a 1/4 million miles?

Just not sure how much confidence to place on that kind of data...

I've been looking at over and over, as time and interest permits...it does appear to be a "lit" solid object. I've also been looking at in in the sense that I might try to recreate it...

Oh...by "lit solid object" I'm not saying whether it is real or generated...just something there.



posted on Sep, 17 2014 @ 05:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Arken

S&F, thanks for sharing something interesting with the rest of the class.


Anyone else wonder why there are SO many negative responses from noob members with less than 30 posts at the most??

That, and the video, has me wondering if this is, in fact, not a hoaxed/CGI video, but something actually genuine...
edit on 17-9-2014 by lovebeck because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2014 @ 05:52 PM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

First of all I don't believe in extraterrestrial craft at all, but lets just say maybe they are real for fun.

How do you know they would even cast a shadow? Their technology would be so advanced that possibly they don't. What if their movement is choppy due to space/time distortion? Their engine drives would be beyond our understanding and could possible cause a variety of issues with video devices at our tech level.

Here is my basic opinion of this entire matter. Humans are stupid. Every time I see one of these videos I always see people try to debunk them and people try to support them. They always toss out what would prove something to be real on earth.

I would like to remind you that what you are seeing would most likely not be from earth, at least this earth, or at least this earth right now.

You would have no clue what it would like like or what it should do.



posted on Sep, 17 2014 @ 05:54 PM
link   
a reply to: tanka418

This is my point.

Here's a crop of the video… no alterations.


Given the angle of the sun, there should be a shadow like this (highlighted the "object" for clarity).



So I'm calling hoax.



new topics

top topics



 
53
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join