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: 3
3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by DimensionalDetective
They are nothing more than extensional arm of big brother-they have no choice. They hide(through airbrushing) structures on the moon, mars, etc.,

Got any evidence, other then blurry photos of geology or the fantasies of other people to back those statements up?


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.


I would suggest it is statements from those with no scientific knowledge that is ridiculous




posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 11:25 AM
link   
LMAO, you need scientific knowledge to be able to identify when they narrow their lenses to hide what's in the background? Uh okay.


How many meteors have you seen pull 45 degree turns?



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 11:43 AM
link   
None, duh. But that has nothing to do with what you see in this video, lol. Common mistake, you are forgiven of your ignorance.

Remember, "deny ignorance". However here, we are not allowed to outright deny ignorance, so go ahead and ignore this post.



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 11:46 AM
link   
Chorlton-Have you watched this documentary? If not, I would kindly suggest you do. If after doing so, you still feel that NASA is hiding nothing, then so be it.

We'll have to agree to disagree mate. No hard feelings though.



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by IgnoreTheFacts
None, duh. But that has nothing to do with what you see in this video, lol. Common mistake, you are forgiven of your ignorance.

Remember, "deny ignorance". However here, we are not allowed to outright deny ignorance, so go ahead and ignore this post.


Wrong. Perhaps in THESE clips. But there are at least a couple on the docs that DO show just that. The true ignorance is yours for not doing your homework and watching the whole doc before making your attempts at ridiculing others.

Thanks.



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 11:53 AM
link   
Sorry dude, but I did watch the all the links before I posted.



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 01:34 PM
link   
No cigar from me!!

Out of all the footage that has been shot out there, this is the best that could be subjectively selected. Yet again a Smoking Gun is a damp squib.

Surely by now there would something better than this?

I know that there will be the usual attacks on sceptics as dis-info agents etc but maybe our burden of proof is just a smidgen higher?

I want a bit more, than out of focus, flecks of stuff, drifting about and "performing manoeuvres". We are in a time when people will declare that yank astronauts didn't plant a flag on the moon, despite photographic evidence and yet will accept any old tosh as evidence of ET / alien visitation etc!!

Yes in the strictest sense they are unidentified, they are flying (kind of!!) and they are objects. But I assume the argument is supposed to go beyond that?

Another 30 minutes wasted



[edit on 4-9-2007 by something smells]



posted on Mar, 14 2008 @ 10:03 AM
link   
Guys, let's do some mathematics here.

First of all, NASA would not hide the fact that they saw something mysterious. The fact that there's something out there would increase their budget immensely for coming projects, and hundreds of scientists within NASA would surely not keep their mouth shut about this. Mankind has been craving for evidence of extraterrestrial life for decades. Why do you think there' something like SETI ? (www.seti.org...) Btw, SETI projects are sponsored by NASA.

And just because some NASA ground technician doesn't immediately understand the "things swimming in the foreground" in the footage, does that mean its extraterrestrial? Why do conspiracy people doubt obvious "flag on the moon" photos, and then fall for such a simple optical illusion? Also, why are they so quick to calculate the size of the blobs in relation to the tether, but don't question the size of the tether itsself?

The tether is 20 km long, and only 1m in diameter, so thats a 20.000:1 aspect ratio. The footage shows an aspect ratio (length of the tether, divided by it's diameter) of 12:1, so the tether should be approx. 1.600m in diameter.

In other words: you are not seeing the actual tether, but an overcontrasted hallow of a very thin black pole VERY far away (> 100 km), that has gone through some image enhancement inside the infrared camera. Now, don't you think these "enhancements" apply to all objects in the footage? On top of that, the intense light of the sun, it's position, and the curvature and diffraction of the lens do their part on the actual image. You are seeing ALTERED REALITY.

You can read on in the wiki article on "diffraction". If you scroll down to the chapter "Diffraction limit of telescopes", there's a nice image that resembles the blobs in the footage. Wiki: "Even if a lens is designed to minimize or eliminate the aberrations described above, the image quality is still limited by the diffraction of light passing through the lens' finite aperture."

So, things to watch out for when looking at the footage again:

1. Some of the flying blobs have two notches that change size and position as they move, and their circular shape distorts towards the edges of the frame. These are typical optical effects for moving (unfocused) objects in front of a strong light source.

2. The pulsing of the blobs comes from the camera's power supply or some electromagnetic waves in the shuttle. In fact, even the outside rim of the footage seems to have this pulsing effect. Remember your flickering television, or a computer screen that starts to wiggle when your mobile phone is connecting to the nearest antenna. Sorry, no aliens feeding on energy.

3. The "changing of direction" of the blobs results from the zooming of the camera and the curvature of the lens.

4. The observation, that the blobs seem to travel BEHIND the tether, is an illusion coming from the contrast enhancement of the camera and the fact, that the actual thether is only a small black rod inside the hallow you are seeing. And the frozen drop is the tiny black (out of focus) spot inside another hallow. Remember what astronaut Franklin says in an answer to the "swimming things" from the technician at ground control: "it's illuminated by the Sun at such a low angle, so there's a lot of stray light".

You would never be able to tell in the resolution of this footage, whether an out-of-focus and overexposed ice crystal between 10 to 100m distance of the shuttle is before or behind a massive rod at 100 km (!) distance. It's an optical illusion. Did you ever believe that a rainbow actually touches the ground at the position you are seeing it? Your brain is subject to many illusions.

So people, don't SEE WHAT YOU BELIEVE, but BELIEVE WHAT YOU SEE. If you can't see "aliens feeding on energy" without the notion of a doubt, then don't believe it.

Henning Kuersten
www.CodedColor.com...
There's more to a picture...



posted on Mar, 14 2008 @ 10:20 AM
link   
In the tether video how do some of these objects turn to differing degrees? some even turn right back around and go the they came.

Use the time bar and scroll backwards and forwards to find them, even though i believed the videos were more alien than not in the past im more unsure now even considering how some move, still these are the best videos around and it does seem something strange is going on and im more sceptical these days having realised how much rubbish is out there, reason, logic and critical thinking are the way to go.



posted on Mar, 15 2008 @ 05:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by just theory
In the tether video how do some of these objects turn to differing degrees? some even turn right back around and go the they came.


I answered this in item 3 of my thread above.
And a good proof of point 4 can be found on youtube:

www.youtube.com...



posted on Mar, 15 2008 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by time2fly

You can read on in the wiki article on "diffraction". If you scroll down to the chapter "Diffraction limit of telescopes", there's a nice image that resembles the blobs in the footage. Wiki: "Even if a lens is designed to minimize or eliminate the aberrations described above, the image quality is still limited by the diffraction of light passing through the lens' finite aperture."


"Aberrations " don't just pop out of "thin air" like these do. If they were aberrations then they would gradually move in and out of focus.


As said before, meteors don't do turns either!

NASA's explanations are flimsy at best!



posted on Mar, 15 2008 @ 11:37 AM
link   
reply to post by time2fly
 


"The "changing of direction" of the blobs results from the zooming of the camera and the curvature of the lens."


Utter tripe! None of these things would make something look like it had changed direction in respect to other objects in the frame... they would all appear to be affected if this was the case!



posted on Mar, 15 2008 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by time2fly

Originally posted by just theory
In the tether video how do some of these objects turn to differing degrees? some even turn right back around and go the they came.


I answered this in item 3 of my thread above.
And a good proof of point 4 can be found on youtube:

www.youtube.com...


That explanation might work if the parts i've seen had been zooming yet for the most part the camera is steady, also while slight curves to trajectory i could shrug off as being some optical effect the extreme turns a few do is much more difficult to explain, also you have to remember that when viewed in relation to other objects even optical effects can be a weak explanation at best.

[edit on 15/3/08 by just theory]



posted on Mar, 15 2008 @ 12:37 PM
link   
You guys obviously never filmed through a fisheye lens. Throw a baseball in front of your fisheye lens, and watch the movie afterwards. Definitely the ball does not make a straight trajectory. If you throw it away from the lens, as it rises and falls, it will even give you the notion of changing direction.

Note that the objects only turn as the camera is in full wideangle (unzoomed) mode.

Also remember, the shuttle and all objects are floating in 3D space, not in a 2D overcontrasted and underresolutioned film you're viewing. Above that, there's forces like gravitation, electromagentic fields, centrifugal forces, etc. And oh, by the way, the shuttle is also flying a circle around the earth, not a straight line.

And pls watch the youtube video I posted above. I debunks the most powerful "BEHIND" argument, that even startled me in the beginning.

Please, don't always be so damn keen on aliens that you start to ignore plain physics and photographic (optical) effects. Are we living in the middle ages or what??? Buy a good camera and do some experiments. You'll find plenty of surprises, and none of them will be an alien.



posted on Mar, 15 2008 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by time2fly
 


Being a professional photographer, I'm well aware of the effects a fish-eye lens produces. The lens used is not a fish-eye! I also have the "raw-footage" of The Secret NASA Transmissions, so no need to look at scaled down you-tube videos


Try again...



posted on Mar, 15 2008 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by C.H.U.D.
reply to post by time2fly
 


Being a professional photographer, I'm well aware of the effects a fish-eye lens produces. The lens used is not a fish-eye! I also have the "raw-footage" of The Secret NASA Transmissions, so no need to look at scaled down you-tube videos


Try again...


That's exactly the problem with you guys. If you really want to believe something, you tend to ignore physics & facts and other experiments that prove the opposite of what you want to believe... to the extent that you even ignore the basics of your own profession, namely that wide angle lenses cause distortions, out of focus hallows, nonlinear movements - and if you add strong light sources to the whole setup, and 100km of distance between the filmed objects, then you get everything from cool effects to optical illusions - but no aliens.

No offense, I'm an alien believer myself, but this movie just makes me sad at how subjective many poeple get when they really want to believe something. It's similar with placebos. The person who believes in them really gets healthy. Myself, I don't see what i (want to) believe, but i believe only what I see.

PS: read about "Occam's Razor" in Wiki.



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 03:36 PM
link   
Science is not a credential. Science is a method. Many people who have studied and posted their own experiments re: "The Tether" (STS-75) UFOs on the Web and "YouTube" for instance, do not need prior approval of academic institutions, governments or corporations. They do need only curiosity, the ability to frame a question or design tests for a hypothesis, attention to detail, diligent gathering of evidence and then challenging the hypothesis and reporting honestly whether it stands up or collapses. Nobody requires a PhD to do this. The value of the conclusion depends entirely the soundness of the method. Its the method that's at issue, not academic reputation. My intent is merely to point out that dismissing one person's analysis of "The Smoking Gun" videos and the NASA tether UFO incident, because that person doesn't "know" physics, may satisfy the skeptic's desire to affirm preconceptions, but it's no basis for assuming that their work isn't perfectly good science. So to denounce anyones research as not credible, may feel satisfying, but is essentially worthless as criticism and is unworthy as personal comment.



posted on Jul, 29 2008 @ 08:09 AM
link   
I have read all the comments and this is a very good discussion. Thanks for caring and watching!...Martyn Stubbs aka secretnasaman



posted on Jul, 29 2008 @ 08:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by time2fly
You guys obviously never filmed through a fisheye lens....

Note that the objects only turn as the camera is in full wideangle (unzoomed) mode.

Also remember, the shuttle and all objects are floating in 3D space, not in a 2D overcontrasted and underresolutioned film you're viewing. Above that, there's forces like gravitation, electromagentic fields, centrifugal forces, etc. And oh, by the way, the shuttle is also flying a circle around the earth, not a straight line.

And pls watch the youtube video I posted above. I debunks the most powerful "BEHIND" argument, that even startled me in the beginning.


I've seen no evidence they're using a fish eye lens and in fact looks nothing like it.

None of those forces will have much effect in general let alone a localised effect which moves one object back the way it came while leaving surrounding objects undisturbed, also again optical effects don't account for an object moving, stopping then going back the way it came which i've seen in the tether footage, many do gradual turns which perhaps could, in space an object in motion will keep going unless its affected, whats affecting these things that turn? turning requires a constant force to be applied, so impacts are ruled out as that would be an instant direction change, which we don't see, we see gradual turns and changes in speed.

I do agree with how its only appears these objects go behind, i think when its zoomed in we are seeing out of focus objects and it only appears theres shape and that they go behind the tether.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 05:23 PM
link   
The guy that talks about the 3rd phenomenon, catching objects just for the duration of a frame or less, could it be radiation that is caught on film? Early astronauts who took abbundant radiation baths reported seeing similiar flashes with their eyes. Surely an objective can capture the radiation on data albeight minimal since we know where it is safest to oeprate now.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join