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.

 

The Secret Nasa Transmissions. Smoking Gun

page: 2
3
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 12:41 PM
link   
Yeah its weird, its like they were half invisible and som are flashing lights. Bout the ice debris i higly doubt it, cause space station would be under constant attack from the debris theres soo many we cant count.

They explain a bit the function of a teiter on a video at GOOGLE VIDEO search for "UFO Secret Space 4/5" very interesting video the footage ppl are talking here is like 5 % of the video. There's even more crazy stuff like space serpents you gotta see it, i was wordless realy.. enjoy




posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 12:41 PM
link   
If there is so many ice crystals in space which I highly doubt, then why did the recent Japanese probe disprove the long running theory that all comets are dirty ice balls? Sorry but I saw the vid before am watching it again and it is excellent and it is legit.



posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ectoterrestrial
I agree with Sophismata on this one. If can see the objects taking in energy, please explain the footage in the video from which you extrapolate the energy exchange. Please note the specific video phenomena indicating energy exchange.

You mentioned something about change in brightness, I think. Please elaborate.



I don't know about what he means with energy exchange, but what he means with change in brightness is this:







(luminance filter)


If you didn't see this, then you missed it all.
This object is pulsing rapidly, as you can clearly see from the SHARP relief. Ice crystals... right.




[edit on 24-4-2006 by Oscillator]



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 11:26 AM
link   
No, I saw the pulsing. THat part was indeed interesting, as was the part where the objects appear to pass behind the tether.

WHat I would really like is for people to separate the parts of this video that are really good, like the things passing behind the tether and their apparent size, and the objects around the tether moving in many different directions, from the things that are misinterpretations (like the light that changes vector by about 90 degrees) as the later was a product of the camera zooming.

By including the later, they shoot themselves in the foot, because once one realizes that the misinterpreted the later, one can't help but wonder how much more they are misinterpreting. So what we need to do now is definitively determine which interpretations make sense.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to discount them. I just want to be cautious and apply the maximum observation potential from the footage, so that we have something more definitive than the original documentary, which as I have stated several times, contains a major misinterpretation of the object changing course by roughly 90 degrees.

I do know that 'stuff' up there constantly hitting the atmosphere was classified until around the late 90s. Is this stuff up there ETC? I don't know. But I do know it is a highly sensitive subject in the space sciences.

The one fact I do know is that TONS of 'stuiff' is hitting the earth's atmosphere every day. Not that I have the slightest clue what that stuff is. The only published results are on the spectral signature of the stuff burning up in the atmosphere which the author claimed was largely water.

As for the large disc like things in this footage, I don't know if those have ANYTHING to do , at all, with my previous two paragraphs. I'm just putting some more information out there.

The disk like shapes do leave me very curious. In particular, the 'hole' in their centers, and the notch on the outside, are very interesting artifacts that give us some idea that they have a specific, rather than arbitrary shape. That makes it unlikely that the observed object is simply the image of an ice crystal. I was probing the possibility that they were near field objects artefacting the aperature of the CCD camera, but the fact that they appear to pass behind the tether seems to negate that.

The apparent passage of the objects behind the tether is the single most important thing one could point out from this video, IMHO.

Can someone capture a signel frame from one of these passages and post it here?


[edit on 25-4-2006 by Ectoterrestrial]

[edit on 25-4-2006 by Ectoterrestrial]

[edit on 25-4-2006 by Ectoterrestrial]

[edit on 25-4-2006 by Ectoterrestrial]



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 11:36 AM
link   
Yeah everyone should definitely watch part 4 of the secret space video on google videos, its very weird and interesting to see the strange stuff going on above our heads!

Does anyone know of any more cool videos we should see on this sort of ufo and space phenomena?



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 11:45 AM
link   
Yeah, and I just noticed that the notches of the objects rotate and are in different orientations on multiple objects in the same picture. This would seem to make the 'near field aperature' hypothesis less likely.

I would love to find a technical drawing of the CCD camera and its aperature. Cause then I could rule out that possibility once and for all, although at this point it is already a half dead hypothesis.

Also, if anyone posts a frame with a disc passing behind the tether, please don't use image enhancement such as edge detection on the frame, as this tends to artificially place a black edge around the tether. At least post one copy of the image without enhancement, as edge detection will create an artificial black line along the thether's edges.



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 12:47 PM
link   
I went and looked at this film again, i think there is something not quite right with it.

You can use the slider below the screen to jump any section of the film you like.

If you jump to 1:17:38 and view the film for 5 seconds, pause.

It appears to me that the camera does not move but the tether image is fed over the background video, it just does not look like a pan in direction a camera would make.

1:18:04 - 1:18:07 How on earth does the light source bottom right of the screen not move but the camera appears to rotate/move the image of the tether?

Last but not least.... 21 seconds.

1:18:40 All is well.
1:18:50 Cut to another camera for no reason.
1:18:58 Pause the film.
Pick an object in view (not the tether)
1:19:00 Who just bumped the camera
1:19:01 Pause. The object you picked has vanished.

Most won't notice as a huge translucent disk appears and drops jaws.

Some of this footage the "craft" appear to be swimming like Sperm under the microscope. lol.



[edit on 25-4-2006 by The Links]

[edit on 25-4-2006 by The Links]



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 02:27 PM
link   
I've studied this more and noticed several things that leave me perplexed:


  • Changes of motion (direction and speed) of objects. Examples:

    • 1:20:30 to 1:21:30 To the left of the tether you can see a pulsating object (it looks to me like something oblong rotating 8 times per second) that is travelling along the path of the tether (generally). Watch it for the next minute. It gets past the tether, then starts to turn and makes a complete U turn and goes back down to the right of the tether.
    • 1:18:14 and 1:18:20 you can see one of the objects change vectors of motion (an object to the left of the tether goes from moving towards the top of the image to moving towards the right hand side. No zooming seems to be going on there.) You can actually follow this object from before a zoom starts, where it clearly moving towards the top of the tether. Then towards 1:18:20 the object is clearly moving very much perpendicular to the tether.

  • Near focal effects: The fuzziness of the objects might be the showing up of the aperature in objects closer to the camera than the camera's focal length. I'm still examining this.
  • In front or behind the tether?: I noticed that you can pause the film and use your arrow keys to step through it frame by frame. Try stepping through from 1:19:01, to 1:19:03, thats the interesting part for me. As you step through, pay close attention the APPARENT shadow on the right of the tether AND the APPARENT shadow on the top of the tether. Now, notice that at first, the object appears to cross in front of the tether as it covers the top "shadow". But then it falls behind the side "shadow". Something is not quite as it seems here.
  • flashing phenomena alters a shadow ? During 1:23:06, there is a green streak event near the top of the frame. Pause the video and use the arrow keys to step frame by frame. Notice the notched shadows SouthEast of the streak. Now watch the frame immediately following the streak. A tiny little shadow is partially eliminated. In the following frames it comes back again. You can watch a minute before and after the streak and the shadow will be the same in every frame EXCEPT the one following the streak. In that frame, the shadow is replaced by pixels the color of the hull, NOT saturated pixels. This seems to indicate to me that the event changed the lighting conditions around the hull for a brief split second. This would seem to detract from the theory that these are hard radiation particles hitting the CCD. Of course, this would not be the case if this only occurs in the online video. I'd need to check the VCR copy to be sure this isn't a result of the video encoding, and then we'd have to check any NASA encoding.



Originally posted by The Links
...1:17:38 and view the film for 5 seconds, pause
It appears to me that the camera does not move but the tether image is fed over the background video, it just does not look like a pan in direction a camera would make.

I think the camera is on an automated motor, and the oscillations might be due to the lack of significant gravity. So I think this is ok. In any case, I don't see the feeding over you describe. Maybe I just don't see the detail you noticed.


1:18:04 - 1:18:07 How on earth does the light source bottom right of the screen not move but the camera appears to rotate/move the image of the tether?

That's lens glare, I think, and the sun's angle is not changed much in the rotation. Look again, and you will see the glare does in fact move counterclockwise a few degrees during the camera rotation.



1:18:58 Pause the film.
Pick an object in view (not the tether)
1:19:00 Who just bumped the camera
1:19:01 Pause. The object you picked has vanished.

I tried to find an object to focus on , but at that moment, most seemed to have moved into the lens glare. There are some really faint things moving about, so I tried to focus on those. BUt I couldn't find an object when the camera moves.

As far as the 'bumping' goes. Again, I think that is the actuator moving the camera.


Some of this footage the "craft" appear to be swimming like Sperm under the microscope. lol.

We need to be careful here. CCDs saturate, and when they do, they leave streaks when the refresh timing is too slow. Try this with a home digital camera. But the thingies do give that kind of earie impression, don't they? I find the notches in varying orientations at the same general location on the video to be fascinating. I'm going to do some tests with near field dust with my camera.

[edit on 25-4-2006 by Ectoterrestrial]

[edit on 25-4-2006 by Ectoterrestrial]

[edit on 25-4-2006 by Ectoterrestrial]

[edit on 25-4-2006 by Ectoterrestrial]



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 10:47 PM
link   
exactly, i forgot to mention that some of the objects make turns.
If you watch and individual one mostly it goes strait but once it has moved pased the teather it turns a little.
Im going to look at it tonight again in regards to this complete uturn O_o
Facinating..



posted on May, 10 2006 @ 10:25 PM
link   
Wow I hadn't visted this thread in a bit. You folks do good work. I'd sic you folks on Herr Oberg any day and expect him to start "yelling" again - ever watch this guy? When challenged his voice keeps getting louder and louder and he is incapable of admitting truth to any view other than "his"; "the party line." I've shown this film to pros and they can't explain other than to say what is on the film is 100% authentic and very weird. They say the film data may have been "cooked" with purpose but not by the camera operator... the wash out is too global and may have been applied using a "compositing" algo to wash it before it went on air. They said to do something like this realtime may be as simple as running a command on the "buffer" machine. They fired up an SGI Oxygen box and showed me a similar wash they can apply at will in Maya and it causes about an extra second delay to allow for the processing. Go figure. NASA wouldn't "doctor" photos would they? LOL.

Thanx, great work,

Victor K.



posted on May, 11 2006 @ 03:06 PM
link   
Hey Victor,

I'm not sure about the wash out. I agree, that such a wash out affect could easily be done in real time.

In this case, I think there may be a more harmless explanation. The supplied camera was supposed to be taking photos of the tether as attached to the shuttle.

When the tether snapped and drifted off, they pushed the saturation potential of the camera to the limit to get a decent vieew of the tether.

Once the sun comes round the earth, the whole scene lights up with those wierd things that appear to float around with the tether being some kind of axis.

I discussed this with my wife, we both have physics degrees, and she agrees that if the cable were highly electrically charged (as it was supposed to be), then it would have a strong radial electric field perpendicular to the tether axis. If the charge was dissipating off of one end, then it might have a current, and in that case there would be a cylcindrical magnetic field circling the object.

This could explain the motion of the particles, even if they were ice particles.

But I'm not arguing one way or another. I just know that people 'in the know' that I have talked to make me very suspicious of trusting any official explanations.

[edit on 11-5-2006 by Ectoterrestrial]



posted on May, 12 2006 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ectoterrestrial
I agree with Sophismata on this one. If can see the objects taking in energy, please explain the footage in the video from which you extrapolate the energy exchange. Please note the specific video phenomena indicating energy exchange.

You mentioned something about change in brightness, I think. Please elaborate.



timeframe 1:01:01 the so called ice crystals are hovering ontop of our ionosphere.



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Oscillator

I don't know about what he means with energy exchange, but what he means with change in brightness is this:


If you didn't see this, then you missed it all.
This object is pulsing rapidly, as you can clearly see from the SHARP relief. Ice crystals... right.





You mentioned something about change in brightness, I think. Please elaborate.





[edit on 24-4-2006 by Oscillator]



Ok we all know this theory isnt ENERGY LIGHT? you know like energy = light
in my phsyical world earth so why not in space also?

fire = light = energy
metal absorbing energy = brightness = heat = energy
am i clicking with your brain now


[edit on 18-5-2006 by seridium]



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 08:45 AM
link   
The whole ice crystals thing makes me laugh to be honest, especially when were told that a fleck of paint cracked a space shuttles windscreen, now ice-crystals that make the tether look like a pogo stick are apparently not an issue ? ... If there are that many Ice-crystals floating around there... seemingly all going in their own directions, wouldnt it pose a much larger threat to sattelites and other equipment up there ?... Also strange that in the video you NEVER see any of these crystals colliding ? not even once ? ...

Quite strange that in the video a trained astronaut would look at an ice -crystal and ask what it is ? ... either worry about the level of education of American astronauts, or trust that the dude really had no idea.

This is by far the best evidence I've ever seen, no other material I've ever heard or seen on the internet comes close to this IMHO, but I guess thats just me.

J



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 10:36 AM
link   
Smoking gun? I don't thing so. An ounce of common sense should tell you that. A "smoking gun" should be something indisputable and verifiable, not some blurry video that could be ANYTHING.



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 10:48 AM
link   
I bought the whole series of Smoking gun DVD's when they came out, and have to say, it is one of my favorite documentaries ever. It is almost comical the blatancy in which NASA goes to cover up things moving about-the narrowing of camera lenses to pinhole size, and moronic verbal explainations of certain objects.

It's great when the two astronauts are outside of the station and one starts talking about an object, and the other guy quickly says "I don't know what you're talking about"(in other words, STFU). LOL

The cool thing is that the craft seem to place themselves so close that it's hard for them to even pan away, hence the narrowing of the lens over and over.

Awesome footage.



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 10:57 AM
link   
Ah, the NASA is hiding something crowd, lol. Stop to think, NASA wants money. What better way to increase their budget (to a HUGE amount) is to release data concerning something related to aliens visiting earth? Oh yeah, forgot, the "man" wont let them. There must be some helluva secret "cabal" within NASA to be able to hide all this, concerning the hundreds of people in the room that observe this stuff first hand as it happens.

To think that any NASA scientist could keep his mouth shut if he/she knew they had concrete knowledge of aliens is absurd. Were not talking some human secret, such as the Manhattan project or JFK, both of which don't change the world in the least compared to aliens. Were talking aliens here, and to expect a civilian scientist (hundreds of them) to be able to keep his/her mouth such when there is concrete, verifiable knowledge of such things is ignoring common sense.

But of course, the government that can't keep ANYTHING secret can somehow manage to keep a lid on this, the biggest secret of all mankind, that involves thousands of people all over the world. That must be some really smart government. They sure can't seem to do ANYTHING else right.



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 11:08 AM
link   
Uh yeah, cuz we all know that NASA doesn't airbrush anything either, right?


They are UNDISPUTEDLY hiding things. Anyone who has done any sort of homework instead of just believing what they are fed can see with their own two eyes. lol



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by DimensionalDetective
Uh yeah, cuz we all know that NASA doesn't airbrush anything either, right?


They are UNDISPUTEDLY hiding things. Anyone who has done any sort of homework instead of just believing what they are fed can see with their own two eyes. lol


No they arent UNDISPUTEDLY hiding things. I would dispute that.
If you state they are hiding things, what then are they hiding, and, more relevant, Why ?



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 11:15 AM
link   
They are nothing more than extensional arm of big brother-they have no choice. They hide(through airbrushing) structures on the moon, mars, etc., they very flagrantly try to pan out or close their camera lens or discontinue feeds when an object moves into the screen. They also make ridiculous statements of objects pulling 45 degree turns as "meteors". The list goes on and on.




top topics



 
3
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join