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.

 

NASA secret videos. The undeniable proof!

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 03:44 AM
link   
Nightwing ,

I'm surprised you dropped the "H" word , because you should know that this is NASA material.


Originally posted by nightwing

I will give them partial credit for that but not a passing grade since they
completely ignored a true phenomena in the clips. (It almost appears they captured a Sprite in one frame)


I believe that UFOs in Martin Stubbs NASA Select T.V. archive was the subject of the Video. Lightning in the background is simply a distraction.


Originally posted by nightwing

The music is a dead "give away". You are being sold a bill of goods.


Don't like the music , go to www.projectprove.com... Its all the same NASA Select T.V. footage from over the years and details the same anomalies for free, and is completely independent from David Serada and Martin Stubbs.


Originally posted by nightwing

Yeah, the one where the earth horizon goes black and an indistinct
GREEN something starts dancing over the nearly black screen. Its B/W video people ! Any color there
is your BOGUS flashing "Blue Light" special. Gads, but NASA has incredible high resolution video and these
guys have to wade thru the junk to find the out of focus, "it could be anything" shots that they can try matching to the
music.


Bingo!

NASA deliberately degrades its own Video and this is documented happening many times especially when a strange object enters the field of view. All you need to do is go and look at the link I provided , and you can watch this happen over and over.

Examples of NASA degrading Video.

STS-105 "Snow" Games

STS-104 Ridiculous Snow Games!


When not degrading the video , NASA just cuts the shot to another camera.

Here is a typical and good example of this happening on STS - 61 , all the way back in '93.

STS-61 "The Spacewalk Object"




Originally posted by nightwing

Now folks, We have just identified EVERYTHING in that video without even beginning an analysis.


I thought this quote here nicely summed up your analysis, there wasn't one.



[edit on 14-2-2006 by lost_shaman]




posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 03:58 AM
link   
The movement of the objects in those videos reminds me of microscopic creatures. They just don't appear to behave as one would imagine a physical space ship to behave; their trajectories appear to be directionless, although they do exhibit direction change - they seem to lack direct purpose in their movement.
Afterall, why travel vast distances only to float around aimlessly in the upper atmosphere of an inhabited planet, just doesn't strike one as the behaviour of an intelligent race of extraterrestial beings.

Could they be an orbital life form, like space algae?

[edit on 14-2-2006 by shanti23]



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 04:20 AM
link   


The movement of the objects in those videos reminds me of microscopic creatures. They just don't appear to behave as one would imagine a physical space ship to behave; their trajectories appear to be directionless, although they do exhibit direction change - they seem to lack purpose in their movement.
Afterall, why travel vast distances only to float around aimlessly in the upper atmosphere of an inhabited planet, just doesn't strike one as the behaviour of an intelligent race of extraterrestial beings.

Could they be an orbital life form?


No one here can say you are wrong or right, as your perception is only an assumption on something that is unknown. However we can use logical deduction to see how far our assumption may be a basis of fact.

1. Microscopic life does exist - but they are microscopic, unable to be seen with the naked eye from a distance.

2. Those UFOs in the video have shiny faces, deduced from its reflection off the sun. Can microscopic lifeform have reflective skins akin to metallic surfaces?

This pic is an example on the problem of distinguishing size from a camera which is always in perspective. Notice the bike behind the bike in the foreground is smaller in size?

Actually the 2 bikes are of the same size, but due to the angle, it only looks smaller. My point is - unless those UFOs are just right in front of the camera, they would be much bigger than presumed 'dot' or microscopic size.

More so when you look at the tether image of the video, the UFOs are swarming UNDER the tether, not infront of the camera.




posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 04:37 AM
link   
I meant that their movement reminded me of microscopic creatures, or even algae or jellyfish; animal like instead of mechanical.
I make no assumption, only observation and theory - the rest is unknown.


Can microscopic lifeform have reflective skins akin to metallic surfaces?


Would extraterrestial vehicles be made of metal? That might be too crude
.



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 06:20 AM
link   
Thanks for specifying my error to your observation. Guess your observation and theory is as good as anyone's with regards to lifeforms till NASA decides to come clean instead of keeping silent or feeding us with BS instead when comming across anything that is anamolous.

As to the UFOs themselves, it is still an undeniable fact of what we saw on the video.

May someone manages to catch hold one of the occupants and bring 'it', whatever it is, before the UN council one day - at least we know for sure no one would dare to cover it up before the eyes of the world.



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 08:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101
As to the UFOs themselves, it is still an undeniable fact of what we saw on the video.


Absolutely.
The most remarkable piece of footage is the one towards the end where the objects coalesce into a circular formation with an object in the middle.
It is suspicious that NASA and the other organisations that contributed footage to that video would not use higher quality equipment in their orbital endeavors; I could get better quality footage using a standard USB web camera.

To elaborate my observation, all the creatures I mentioned cannot move under their own steam, they must use a medium in order to travel, the objects in the footage exhibit no known propulsion system; although they appear to move in a similar fashion. Perhaps they are using the medium of gravity?

[edit on 14-2-2006 by shanti23]



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 11:26 AM
link   
Looks like there is some heavy traffic out there...
Great footage! I like the delayed responses from the crew....
Some of the objects looked like possible space junk or "shooting stars"
But! I do have to say some were very questionable!
Great Video!
I Love watching real footage of outer space anyway, regardless of UFOs.



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 01:15 PM
link   
Could somebody somehow send me this video?

Nothing is really working on this comp at the mo so could put it onto my laptop using a memory stick, but no internet on laptop yet so would need it to jus be the video



posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 02:58 AM
link   
"because you should know that this is NASA material" == lost shaman

Really ? All I did was listen to the dang thing. The main piece is stated to be Russian TV footage
and they are taking a video of a video so to speak. What better way to degrade the footage ? In
this case, NASA is NOT the culprit.

OK, we do not have enough information to do detailed analysis but we can perform some sanity checks
on our data. The only starting assumption is that the video is real, and at 30 fps, B/W (for television). This
gives us a time reference. When Mir is in view, we have a rough 2-D reference, using

Overall length: 13.13 m core, about 32.9 m for Soyuz/Mir/Kvant 1/Progress
Maximum diameter: 4.15 m

The added modules attached to the core, Kvant 2, Krystal, Spektr, and Piroda are approx 14 m long, 4 m in diameter,
and connected across an approximate 4 m core. We can thus calculate the field of view at Mir's location. This will
confirm that we are viewing through a telephoto lens but I am too lazy to compute the power and thus the likely lens type.
We wont need it anyway because we are missing other critical data regarding the photography and this is a sanity check, not a
detailed analysis. For all intents and purposes, we can reference Mir because it is stabilized by 3-axis electrical inertial wheels
and attitude control. (Gyrodines)

Reference the many replays of the 18 Nov 1995 footage (STS-74 Atlantis), the field of view given us is approximately 100 m wide and 90 m high
at Mir. It is also a video of a video at high power zoom, and contrast missmatch between the two video cameras prevents true occlusion
determination. Translation, no resolution, no detail. Content value is relative motion and time to cross the reference area,
luminal variance versus time. Even a sanity check requires additional assumptions. When I watched it again just now,
the voice over even admits during the either the fourth or fifth re-run of that segment that it is a video of a video shown on Russian TV.


OK, first two objects of note. Dim flunctuating object appears at Mir's 4 oclock and transits linearly to the 10 oclock position in 8-10
seconds. If in the immediate vicinity of Mir, the apparent motion to the reference is on the order of 10 m/sec. Less if closer to the camera
and more if behind Mir, based upon simple geometry. Conclusion, identicle orbit. (m/sec compared to 17 plus Miles per second is space
billiards) The light intensity varies noticibly in about every half second, which is consistant with much of the other items in view. Conclusion,
object is in tumble. (As opposed to stabilized, as is Mir) Object is a Frag.

Second object traverses from top to bottom of Mir on the right side of screen. Transit time approx 12 secs. Apparent motion to the reference
is around 8 m/sec or less. Light intensity inconclusive from casual observation. While the generic shape appears stable, a slow tumble is suspected.
Without additional data, it is most likely a Frag.

As for these and all the rest, "Objects in mirror are closer than they appear".



posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by nightwing
"because you should know that this is NASA material" == lost shaman

Really ? All I did was listen to the dang thing. The main piece is stated to be Russian TV footage
and they are taking a video of a video so to speak. What better way to degrade the footage ? In
this case, NASA is NOT the culprit.




Oh. Come on!

The title of this thread say's" NASA Secret Videos ". And I have pointed out that there are hundreds of instances of anomalies in video from NASA Select T.V.

I have pointed out that NASA degrades Video from NASA Select T.V. That in and of itself should be a reality check!

Plus I love the way you choose a poor piece of second hand , second or third generation B/W footage filmed off a screen by a T.V. crew in Russia to make this point. Its Klassic!

What better way to degrade the footage ?


That is simply subtle misdirection. NASA is degrading NASA Select T.V. and second hand, second or third generation footage from Russia singled out by you does not counter that argument. Obviously NASA is not responsible for T.V. footage from Russia!


Let's be honest. If the skepticism is justified why the need to focus on the weakest links to justify the dismissive attitude towards the bulk of the evidence of anomalies caught on video in NASA Select T.V footage?



[edit on 18-2-2006 by lost_shaman]



posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 11:25 PM
link   
"Plus I love the way you choose a poor piece of second hand , second or third generation B/W footage
filmed off a screen by a T.V. crew in Russia to make this point. Its Klassic" == lost shaman

Lest you and others forget, I did NOT choose the piece we are commenting on and found to be the first
and main piece of the program. About half of the whole program was devoted to it.
Your characterization of it in the quote above, I totally agree with.

"I have pointed out that NASA degrades Video from NASA Select T.V. That in and of itself should be a reality check! " == lost shaman

I am simply trying to help you with your reality check.

"NASA is degrading NASA Select T.V. and second hand, second or third generation footage from Russia singled out by you does not counter that argument. " == lost shaman

Hmmm. You answered that comment far better than I can with the next sentence.
"Obviously NASA is not responsible for T.V. footage from Russia! " == lost shaman
So how can I counter your argument better than you. Destroyed the argument, you did.

"Let's be honest. If the skepticism is justified why the need to focus on the weakest links to justify the dismissive attitude towards the bulk of the evidence of anomalies " == lost shaman

Ok. lets. I focused on the BEST segment of the program. Now it seems to you that identification of UFO's is "skepticism".
I left out the rest of the dang thing simply because using glint phenomena at the terminator has "fool ya" uses and real uses .
The program used it to "fool ya". Here is how you make the phenomena useful.

From Satellite Times

celestrak.com...



posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 03:32 AM
link   
nightwing,

I applaud your efforts to dissuade the audience! Commendable. Reason unknown...

Notice the way you refer to the " main piece of the program ". Please refer to the NASA Select T.V. footage.

Why are you not addressing the NASA Select T.V. footage ? You are quoting me and I am clearly speaking about NASA Select T.V. Footage.

I specifically said NASA Select T.V. and said redundantly in hopes it would thwart your ability to take my statements out of absolute context.

Seems that you are well adapted to make these adjustments in your argument. Making a poor boy like me work even more diligently I guess.

Yet the simple fact remains that you have not addressed the NASA aspect. I have exclusively talked about NASA Select T.V. for a specific reason.


You are just dodging the issue.





You have voted nightwing for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have one more vote left for this month.


That's right WATS because your actions are above and beyond the normal Bar compared to the emotional and religious rejections of average posters.


Suggestion.


Let's conduct a true "reality check" and look at the real anomalies and Identify them! ( I can hardly imagine my own audacity to suggest such things!)

No harm no foul they are just dust ... Correct ? ... I'll be skeptical with you and we will just ID these things like normal people with intelligent tendencies would do. ( Note to self... Under normal circumstances most people would consider this approach Science. As you can see this form of logic is atypically taboo when the topic of UFOs arises.)


[edit on 19-2-2006 by lost_shaman]



posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 05:57 AM
link   
that vid at the start of this looks like its set in a peatry dish

a scientific dish!

looks fake!, could be evolved minute organizums



posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 02:24 AM
link   
"Why are you not addressing the NASA Select T.V. footage ? " == lost shaman

Because it is not the subject of this topic. This topic addresses the "smoking gun" piece
referenced throughout the discussion. Seems you or someone else recently made a topic
to the effect of NASA Select TV. I may have a look at it, but in the appropriate topic post.

"Seems that you are well adapted to make these adjustments in your argument. " == lost shaman

I have had a tad of training in observation. I do not have to make gross adjustments to describe what I see.

"Let's conduct a true "reality check" and look at the real anomalies and Identify them! " == lost shaman

While that would be enjoyable to me, it would be a hijack of this topic.

"Under normal circumstances most people would consider this approach Science. As you can see this form of logic is atypically taboo when the topic of UFOs arises" == lost shaman

And as you already aluded to, it would be of little interest here. Some things are not worth the effort if it is destined for the "round file".

"that vid at the start of this looks like its set in a peatry dish " == skywatcher7

Exactly. And it seemed to me to be a worthless observation. Out of focus telephoto, video, looking at a very high contrast object (tether).
None of the debris actually passes "behind" the tether despite what you percieve from the video. And if it actually did, how large
would it have to be for occlusion by a two inch white cable at a hundred klicks ? This is geometry, and not complicated.



posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 03:18 AM
link   
Quote by nightwing


it would be of little interest here. Some things are not worth the effort if it is destined for the "round file".

"that vid at the start of this looks like its set in a peatry dish " == skywatcher7

Exactly. And it seemed to me to be a worthless observation. Out of focus telephoto, video, looking at a very high contrast object (tether).
None of the debris actually passes "behind" the tether despite what you percieve from the video. And if it actually did, how large
would it have to be for occlusion by a two inch white cable at a hundred klicks ? This is geometry, and not complicated.



Be comfortable in your denial and your attempts to play the 'snobbish know it all professor.' A good technique regularly used by debunkers so that those less educated would assume you know your stuff and just accept your words ( which conveyed no scientific analysis other than links to lengthy hypothesis of another subject and not the video).

You have a right to your own illusions and agendas. Furthermore, all you are attempting is to have the last word on this topic, so that when over time someone else reads this thread, they would assume you were right as no one else will want to repeat themselves again to challenge your repetitious and twisting turning hypothesises with another post.

Years of playing with your kind has taught many of us much. BUT whatever you do, others are not blind. Petri dish images or grainy videos are not lies but an event of something that happened. If all such images are not considered as evidences, then grainy images of WWII footages and all bw documentary footages of the past are lies too.

No one will be forced or lied to with regards to the video. Watch the video and form your own opinions. Ultimately, time is the greatest revealer of truth. Have fun either in denial ignorance or UFO enlightenment.



posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 02:15 PM
link   
Nightwing ,

You said.


Originally posted by nightwing
"Why are you not addressing the NASA Select T.V. footage ? " == lost shaman

Because it is not the subject of this topic. This topic addresses the "smoking gun" piece
referenced throughout the discussion. Seems you or someone else recently made a topic
to the effect of NASA Select TV. I may have a look at it, but in the appropriate topic post.


And this.


Originally posted by nightwing

"Let's conduct a true "reality check" and look at the real anomalies and Identify them! " == lost shaman

While that would be enjoyable to me, it would be a hijack of this topic.


I think not. Look at the content of the original post for this topic!


Originally posted by Cabanman

NASA secret videos. The undeniable proof!

I really think that it is time for some serious discussion on the topic of NASA and if they are really hiding something from the world.


So as you can see the original poster encouraged "serious discussion on the topic of NASA and if they are really hiding something".

I have to think its quite possible that the original poster was unaware of the origin of the MIR footage in the video he used as an example to others of the NASA videos, as evidenced by the title of the thread " NASA secret videos. The undeniable proof!".

So please explain to me how NASA select T.V. is off the topic of "NASA secret videos. The undeniable proof! " and "serious discussion on the topic of NASA and if they are really hiding something"?

You didn't seem to have a problem talking about the Tether footage, from NASA Select T.V. !


Originally posted by nightwing

And as you already aluded to, it would be of little interest here. Some things are not worth the effort if it is destined for the "round file".


nightwing,

This is amazing! Can you read the destiny of all evidence? Is that like reading Palms somehow? Sounds really interesting.

Or maybe you just mean that all potential evidence goes into your "round file".



[edit on 20-2-2006 by lost_shaman]



posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 11:04 PM
link   
"A good technique regularly used by debunkers so that those less educated would assume you know your stuff and just accept your words
( which conveyed no scientific analysis other than links to lengthy hypothesis of another subject and not the video). " == SeelerofTruth101

Any idea how you would go about analyizing film, or video ? The technique I set out was to establish a reference plane and a time standard.
You got a better way ? If so, you have my direct attention. If you would rather slam the poster and blow raspberries, then PTS will be a
better choice for ya. (But one of your raspberries was great. It seems as if you are saying debunker's are more educated than the debunked,
now THAT is funny. )

"Furthermore, all you are attempting is to have the last word on this topic" == ST101

I enjoy discussing details when inquisitive minds like lost_shaman show up with a good challenge. You could learn a lot from his manners.

"No one will be forced or lied to with regards to the video. " == ST101

Agreed. Drinking the KoolAid was entirely voluntary.

[edit on 20-2-2006 by nightwing]



posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by nightwing

Agreed. Drinking the KoolAid was entirely voluntary.



See here though , you don't know that anyone has been drinking Kool Aid!

How many other chances do you get to look at real footage of Space ?

Unless you look at NASA Video...

So ,.. I guess that leaves us with the option of looking at NASA Select T.V. footage or not looking at footage from space at all.



posted on Feb, 21 2006 @ 11:41 PM
link   
"See here though , you don't know that anyone has been drinking Kool Aid! " == lost shaman

Given how you are re-stating that, you are correct. I don't. But there are many ways of communicating to a limited
audience even in public places. Taken in context with the statement I was replying to, I intended that to be an
analysis in a nutshell. It is phrased in the past tense to avoid today's political use of the term, thus comparing back
to the serious origination of the term, although "fruit punch" would be more correct than KoolAid. And this is way
off topic, so if you are interested as to what parallel I am drawing, I will end this comment with
www.owlnet.rice.edu...

"How many other chances do you get to look at real footage of Space ? " == lost shaman

For the public, or me ? I shall assume you meant the public. If you want to see some really good
high quality stuff, make a habit of visiting places like this (physically, not via the web)

www.rozylowicz.com...

But getting back to the topic, it is not NASA Select TV. Cabanman began this with a link
to a google film with the following credits and commentary. To say this is NASA, or a secret
NASA thing is indeed putting poison in the fruit punch. I think it is time the topic subject
is properly credited.

CREDIT TO
"NASA Secret Transmissions smoking gun UFO revealed
Martins Stubbs
UFO Magazine
31 mins 49 secs - May 4 2003
www.ufomag.com
Commentary Direct Quote:
During this end of the century the man became unaware of his on space and still beliave that we own the universe.
Well , this cable guy manager find out stuning images of the space with cameras that belong nasa . Thanks to google
we are about to make this video available worldiwde and martins stubbs must be happy with it. Canahan as well.
The true is out there guys . The revalations of apocalipse is inside this movie . "

My final comment is that if the above quoted commentary spelling is a sign of the care with which they put projects
together, then I fully understand the piece. So should you.

(Post Script. Just for you ST101, I will make this my last post in this topic. You may have the last word.)



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 01:26 AM
link   
I fail to see how the original posters opinions that encouraged "serious discussion about NASA" are negated by ,and the discussion limited to , the link to the Video in the original post.

Regardless.

Here is the link to my thread on the NASA Select T.V. footage. We can talk about NASA Select T.V. there and not have to worry about going off topic by actually talking about NASA!

NASA Anomalies.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join