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.

 

Evidence- Nasa UFO'S (VIDEO)

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 07:58 PM
link   
Heres the vid

video.google.com...

My apologies if this has been posted before. This video shows ufo's on nasa's own videos of space missions. It also shows how if ufo's were capable of traveling at or faster than the speed of light, they would not be visible to the naked eye. The narrator also is able to calculate the speed of the ufo's at the time of 900,000 miles per hour & some sizes of ufo's from 2 to 3 miles in width. My first time seeing this vid, & thought it all parts were explained well.




posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 05:06 PM
link   
Why the hell is google hosting that video?!
It's copyrighted, and it's not legal to put it on the net like this!!



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 12:17 AM
link   
I'm watching it now, I'm about an hour and a quarter in. It all seems very interesting. The part I'm watching now is amazing. Where the shuttle and the tether are being swarmed by UFO's (and I mean UFO's in the literal sense, not the alien craft sense). Also, it does seem interesting where the narrator of that specific piece of footage says, "This view, uh, showing, uh...", then theres about 10 seconds of silence. To me it gives the impression that he's turning around to his superiors and asking what he should say he see's, considering it looks like the shuttle and tether are being swarmed.
Then he just carries on with "...the shuttle". I doubt it would take him 10 seconds to rememeber the word shuttle.
Then (it seems to me anyway) that the camera is being zoomed in to block the people's view of the UFO's.

I've not finished watching it yet, but so far it does seem very interesting.



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 12:21 AM
link   
I watched the video, and I need a few things explained to me:

1) Why does the angular course change of pheonomena #1 appear to correspond temporally, and exactly, with the zoom out of the camera?

2) Why do the formation objects in the final example travel on a flat plane, rather than converging to the horizon as they move further away?

3) Why did the investigator not address the astrochemist's advice to look for the objects to appear in multiple cameras, and consider any noted parallax? It would seem that would be eminently important.



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 01:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ectoterrestrial
I watched the video, and I need a few things explained to me:

1) Why does the angular course change of pheonomena #1 appear to correspond temporally, and exactly, with the zoom out of the camera?

2) Why do the formation objects in the final example travel on a flat plane, rather than converging to the horizon as they move further away?

3) Why did the investigator not address the astrochemist's advice to look for the objects to appear in multiple cameras, and consider any noted parallax? It would seem that would be eminently important.


1) I'll have to take a look at that in the morning and I'll get back to you with that one.

2) It's possible that they are out of the Earth's atmosphere but are moving at the same pace as the Earth.

3) My guess is he didn't have access to the footage from any of the 3 other cameras. But I can't be sure.



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 01:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ectoterrestrial
I watched the video, and I need a few things explained to me:

1) Why does the angular course change of pheonomena #1 appear to correspond temporally, and exactly, with the zoom out of the camera?

2) Why do the formation objects in the final example travel on a flat plane, rather than converging to the horizon as they move further away?

3) Why did the investigator not address the astrochemist's advice to look for the objects to appear in multiple cameras, and consider any noted parallax? It would seem that would be eminently important.


Uh you came out of nowhere, a few posts to do an expert debunking and yet I know what you are saying here is pure b/s?

I saw the video and I don't know what you are talking about.



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 01:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by jonSUN
Heres the vid

video.google.com...

My apologies if this has been posted before. This video shows ufo's on nasa's own videos of space missions. It also shows how if ufo's were capable of traveling at or faster than the speed of light, they would not be visible to the naked eye. The narrator also is able to calculate the speed of the ufo's at the time of 900,000 miles per hour & some sizes of ufo's from 2 to 3 miles in width. My first time seeing this vid, & thought it all parts were explained well.


There is a discussion already going on about this here.......The STS-80 Formation Over Africa




Originally posted by TrappedSoul
Why the hell is google hosting that video?!
It's copyrighted, and it's not legal to put it on the net like this!!


Maybe Google got the rights to show the video like ZippyVideos.com did?



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 05:10 AM
link   
very excellent vid, very much worth my time as well. thanks!



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 05:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ectoterrestrial
1) Why does the angular course change of pheonomena #1 appear to correspond temporally, and exactly, with the zoom out of the camera?


Hello


I agree with you. The first time i saw this documentary, i immediately noticed the misinterpretation. The right angle turn of the two objects seem to be due to a zoom-out of the camera. HOWEVER, this does NOT explain the objects in themselves, which are absolutely UNKNOWN.



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 08:39 AM
link   
Mmm, interesting video.

One item looked like a satellite to me. It followed the curvature of the earth and disappeared around the other side of the earth, like a satellite.



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 09:38 AM
link   
Is Part 2 available?

(Post too short, so blah blah ba blah blah blah).



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by denythestatusquo
Uh you came out of nowhere, a few posts to do an expert debunking and yet I know what you are saying here is pure b/s?

I saw the video and I don't know what you are talking about.


1)I do not claim to be an expert.
2) I am asking simple questions
3) Please refrain from personal attacks.

How are my observatoins pure b/s? Please elaborate. I would suggest you refer to the videos, rather than your preconceptions of my character.



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 11:45 AM
link   
Musclor,

Thanks. I thought maybe I was going insane, as everyone else seems to ignore that correlation.

Anyways, I am very curious about what those objects floating around all over the place are.

I'm a little concerned about the fact that in some frames, the camera seems to focus on the discs, and they become point sources. Is the disc shape with the notch a biproduct of the camera tube (does it have a notch in it?)

I'm not drawing any conclusions about the objects, but I am not happy with the way in which some people are ignoring elements such as focal distortion and camera zooming and lighting changes.

Anyways, I KNOW SOMETHING is GOING ON HERE.

Back in 1996, I was talking with a physicist, and I was talking about atmospheric physics. This professor told me that in the late 1980s, classified satellites started detecting massive quantities of "micro-meteorites." These objects challenged SDI's ability to detect re-entrant MIRV missles, and played a part in the end of the cold war. Apparently, the laws of thermodynamics failled to accurately predict the size of the flare of missles and objects entering the atmosphere. The flares were far larger than anticipated. The changes to thermodynamics at high speed in the atmosphere were classified. He was telling me this because a decade had passed and the information was being released, I guess. But I may have misunderstood some of what he was saying, and he was hinting at things I couldn't follow.

The "micro-meteorites" were known to the government for a decade prior to the ~1996 mini-ice-comet publication, which only occured after declassification. What are they?

So, I think one important thing to keep in mind is that these small objects entering the atmosphere were (and probably still indirectly are) of classified value and so getting information out of the space sciences will be difficult.

Are they UFOs? Well, that is an interesting hypothesis. And certainly, if these objects don't show up on IR but show up in UV, then I would want to study this further.

[edit on 20-3-2006 by Ectoterrestrial]



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 01:06 PM
link   
I found this video really interesting. I am currently doing physics at university so I can relate some if not all of the physics in the video. It is extremely well presented and I think that the person(forgot his name) in it has presented a valid case for a lot of skeptics out there and for people to answer. assuming his calculations are correct, his logic is impeccable. I actually agree with everything said in that video and it further pushes my towards the "truth being out there."

The science in this video is brilliant and understanble to me at least. Is there a part 2?? Cause i'd really like to see it.



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 02:24 PM
link   
Nice Lawless! Thanks for the link. I'd like to see part 2 as well.

Trapped Soul: Who cares if it's legal or not? Why do you care? I'm curious.

I feel like we have to pounce on whatever information comes our way and make individual decisions as to validity. Hey, it's not as if our government, NASA, etc. are going to level with us on anything related to UFO's now, are they?



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by wingsfan
very excellent vid, very much worth my time as well. thanks!


10 4 that.

Ho Ho Merry UFO.

ebe-ufos.tripod.com...

P.S.
We love the Universe.

(including planet Earth)

____________
Edit : update.

Just wondering why you folks don't mention 'why are those things always facing the camera'.
i.e. they are always round in shape.
(not sometimes half side on or side on)





[edit on 20-3-2006 by CYCdroid]



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 04:06 PM
link   
The guy's name is David Sereda btw.
i didn't finish watching the DVD at home, kept falling asleep because of the late hour. anyhow, i did make it to the satellite tether section. the one question that popped into my mind was, why are ALL the UFOs at the same angle? you see the "top" view of every single one of them. never a forshortened angle or side shot. was this issue covered in the later part of the vid?...



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 06:39 PM
link   
There already was a thread on this video/subject, I made some nice scans (with luma filter) of the biggest eh, "object" you all need to see, especially the last one: www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ectoterrestrial

Originally posted by denythestatusquo
Uh you came out of nowhere, a few posts to do an expert debunking and yet I know what you are saying here is pure b/s?

I saw the video and I don't know what you are talking about.


1)I do not claim to be an expert.
2) I am asking simple questions
3) Please refrain from personal attacks.

How are my observatoins pure b/s? Please elaborate. I would suggest you refer to the videos, rather than your preconceptions of my character.


In regards the video, and your questions, I'll attempt to answer them but my responses will indicate that they don't detract from the idea that ufo's were being observed as you seem to suggest they should:

1. You would do the same if viewing such an object with a camera would you not?
2. If in fact the objects are moving away from the earth then the effect you mention would be observed.
3. The number of objects actually is not a big issue here is it? It is the observed behaviour of a number of objects that nobody can account for.



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 11:59 PM
link   
Ahead of time, sorry for the length of this post:


Originally posted by denythestatusquo
In regards the video, and your questions, I'll attempt to answer them but my responses will indicate that they don't detract from the idea that ufo's were being observed as you seem to suggest they should:

1. You would do the same if viewing such an object with a camera would you not?
2. If in fact the objects are moving away from the earth then the effect you mention would be observed.
3. The number of objects actually is not a big issue here is it? It is the observed behaviour of a number of objects that nobody can account for.


Ok, since I came out of no where I will give some background about who I am :

I am a professionally trained scientist, with a PhD in computer science.
However, I think you will find I am not nearly as narrowly minded as some scientifically motivated individuals. (Nor as narcissistic, but that's another story for the science discussion board)

I am here because I have come to understand a few important lies that are being supported (not directly enforced) by our government, and I now believe that conspiracy and mass control are distinctly within the realm of our nation's capabilities. This disturbs me.

Beyond that, I specifically want to participate in these forums because I find some eye-witness accounts of UFO phenomena to be compelling. In particular, the 2002 Illinois police case seems fairly clear-cut to me. Fortunately, or unfortunately, I have never myself witnessed any activity that I could describe as a UFO.

Now on to your specific responses:

"1. You would do the same if viewing such an object with a camera would you not?"

Yes, I would definitely pan out if I were trying to capture the phenomena. That makes perfect sense. But the diagonal motion of the object could, I think, simply be a product of the zoom out. The actual motion is in the second vector direction (after the turn.) The first direction, I think, contains apparent motion due to the zooming affect. As soon as the camera stops zooming out (casuing all objects in the field of view to move towards the center point) the object 'changes direction'. This, to me, is just far too much to be a coincidence.

If it is just a coincidence, then it is really, really bad luck.

Anyways, it just occured to me that if
(a) for the sake of argument, we assume the change in direction is due to a zoom (you don't have to agree with this)
(b) that if we know amount of panning out done due to the change in scale of the earth
(c) and we know the amount of apparent motion of the object in vector 1 minus vector 2
(d) then we might be able to estimate the distance from the camera focal point to the object in the picture.

This is only valuable if you buy my hypothesis.

2. "If in fact the objects are moving away from the earth then the effect you mention would be observed."

I see your point. I thought they seemed to be in a kind of 'orbit' around the earth. But they wouldn't have to be. Requiring orbit is my human-think. They could be just hanging out near the earth moving on a flat plane relative to the earth, and they would still be UFOs.

"3. The number of objects actually is not a big issue here is it? It is the observed behaviour of a number of objects that nobody can account for."

No and Yes No, in that parallax has nothing to do with the number of objects, but instead has to do with determining the distance of objects from the cameras.

And Yes, because I agree that the behavior, and not the quantity of the objects, is what is important.

I personally believe that UFOs exist and that people see them. But , you are right, I am VERY skeptical of this particular video.

Just like L, I also studied physics in college, and was impressed with how well the presenter did. However, he did kind of screw up his argument about energy waves being used to avoid the cost of inertia. Any packet of energy that traveled together with information carries inertia. Mass and Energy are equivalent, Thats the whole amazing thing about e=mc^2. Remember, light bends in the presence of gravity. Nothing (without an advanced theory beyond general relativity) escapes gravity and inertia. But I think he knows that and just kind of fumbled his explanation a bit. In any case, very few people as of yet understand theories such as Heim hyperspace theory. I don't. I don't expect the narrator to have to nail that either, so this kind of thing I can let go.

Also, I have a whole new respect for Mr. Akroyd. I had no idea he was a free thinker. I just happen to believe that this particular video is not what Mr. Akroyd was lead to believe. Sorry


[edit on 20-3-2006 by Ectoterrestrial]

[edit on 21-3-2006 by Ectoterrestrial]

[edit on 21-3-2006 by Ectoterrestrial]

[edit on 21-3-2006 by Ectoterrestrial]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join