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.

 

Unnoticed Flying Objects During Shuttle Launch *new*

page: 15
0
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 06:36 PM
link   
When someone invents square birds, I'll be convinced it's a bird.




posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aotearoa
When someone invents square birds, I'll be convinced it's a bird.


LMAO! You and me both...



posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 06:39 PM
link   
There is no way to prove that the objects on the video are birds. There is no way to prove that they are ufo’s either. All anyone can truthfully say is that there are small objects moving around on the video. That leaves us with nothing but personal opinions with no proof either way. No matter how badly anyone wants to be right; the only fact is that this is a video of unknown objects, of unknown size and undetermined origin on a video of such low resolution that no conclusions can be drawn as to what they actually are. Any other statement is pure speculation or the result of personal bias.



posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 06:43 PM
link   
Not convinced yet?

Here is another of my recent Turkey Vulture pics.

This is a png.


And same image in jpeg.



Notice the similarity now?



posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 06:43 PM
link   
im still cooking up my best evidence... im downloading a professional video analyizing software that should clear up the fact they are going throught the shuttles plume.



posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by lost_shaman
Not convinced yet?


Nope not convinced because i dont know how far that object is, nor do i know how fast it is flying.. because there is nothing next to it to measure it up to. Unlike the smoke plume on my video....


Xo0

posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 06:47 PM
link   
Compression can force small object to appear lager to get them in the picture.. Why am I completely ignored on this matter..?



posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 06:49 PM
link   
I do not have time to read 15 pages of “its a bird/its not a bird” all over again.

Before using any image of something you want to show as evidence, please use an image (or moving images) with enough quality so we can make our opinions based on what we see.

If you post a video compressed with MPG (I hope you know what MPEG compression does to the original video source) and hope that all people see the same as you in a object that has (at most) 3x2 pixels then you are going to be disappointed.

I do not mean to say that these are birds, planes, Superman, whatever. I just want to ask people to do not get angry because other people cannot see what you see in some images that you have to zoom 5 times to even see the objects.


PS: and yes, I think they are birds, and they do not enter the smoke plume left by the shuttle or fly behind, I think the problem lies in the way the MPEG compression gives precedence to the large white smoke plume over the small sized bird.
And they look bigger because they are closer but do not look like being closer because of:
a) they are no references.
b) the zoom from the camera makes things look closer together than they really are.



posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xo0
Compression can force small object to appear lager to get them in the picture.. Why am I completely ignored on this matter..?


Because compression DOES NOT MAKE THINGS LARGER. You know 'compress'.

If something is as small as it can be, it will stay that way. If something is large and needs to be compressed to make the image files size smaller, that is when things tend to shrink.

[edit on 12-6-2006 by LAES YVAN]



posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 06:51 PM
link   
LAES YVAN, look up to the right of your screen, it says that you have X# u2u's. That's private communications. Click on it please.



posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Its funny how my object is about twice the height of his bird picture, and there is still the same amount of pixels... goes to show how big this object really is!

I'm curious as to how you reached that conclusion. Without the specific knowledge of camera angles and distance to the target it's just a guess. The perspective of the viewer is important to establishing possible heights and distances. You also need a good approximation of the distance relative to a known stationary object.
I'd be interested in knowing the specs on lost_shamans pic to establish some perspective.



posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by LAES YVAN

Nope not convinced because i dont know how far that object is, nor do i know how fast it is flying.. because there is nothing next to it to measure it up to. Unlike the smoke plume on my video....


Then you'll likely never be convinced , because I just exactly was able to duplicate the "pixelated smudge" by taking a digital picture of a Turkey Vulture.



posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by longhaircowboy

I'd be interested in knowing the specs on lost_shamans pic to establish some perspective.


What do you want to know?



posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
LAES YVAN, look up to the right of your screen, it says that you have X# u2u's. That's private communications. Click on it please.


ok.. I took off my signatures link to a web page that shows the Navy SEALs code, since I have not been a member for 60 days. In 60 days, how does that make a difference when I put it back?



posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by lost_shaman

Then you'll likely never be convinced , because I just exactly was able to duplicate the "pixelated smudge" by taking a digital picture of a Turkey Vulture.


I can duplicate any pixels with a paint brush...



posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 07:06 PM
link   
here's 40 seconds from the original footage, enlarged. no sharpening, no enhancements or color correction or fiddling with the brightness, just enlarged 300%,tha's all.

6.02 MB file

www.torbtown.com...

notice that one of the 'things' flys in front of a bright white fluffy patch in the clouds at about 13 seconds... nice contrast... grab the playhead on your viewer with the mouse and drag it back and fourth a few times (scrubbing)... interesting motion of the 'thing'...

quack quack

rock on
twj


Xo0

posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by LAES YVAN

Originally posted by Xo0
Compression can force small object to appear lager to get them in the picture.. Why am I completely ignored on this matter..?


Because compression DOES NOT MAKE THINGS LARGER. You know 'compress'.

If something is as small as it can be, it will stay that way. If something is large and needs to be compressed to make the image files size smaller, that is when things tend to shrink.

[edit on 12-6-2006 by LAES YVAN]


That's just exactly was it does mate.. The DPI (dots per inch) is really low on recorded video.. And most compressions will mostly try to take all the information with them. So if a big black bird becomes too small for the photo, it's still going to give the big black bird a dot, but in a more bleding color that fits the background..

Editted some spelling mistakes.

[edit on 12-6-2006 by Xo0]



posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 07:11 PM
link   
When you blow up any digital image too far all you can see are the actual pixels which appear as little squares. If you zoom in that far and still can not identify the object it means that the image does not contain enough information. When the image becomes pixilated (turns into little squares) that means that the limits of the information in the image file have been reached. There is no hope of ever identifying the object as the file does not contain enough information. If the original was shot with film (not with a digital camera) and you can get a copy of the film to me; I’d be glad to blow up a few frames to see what the objects are. You would have to provide a physical copy of the film to do this. A video recording of a TV broadcast is not of any use either. If this was a recording of a TV broadcast that was then converted to an even lower resolution digital copy, then there is no hope. You have already lost most of the detail during the compression process. If it was shot with and HD digital video camera and you could provide the original raw file on disc then I would have enough detail to maybe identify the objects. Otherwise this is all speculation and assumptions. I can not prove it is birds and you can not prove it is not. Otherwise it fits into the definition of insanity. Repeating the same action with the same negative results over and over again.


d1k

posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 07:12 PM
link   
WTF

15 Pages??

Buddy is obviously just baiting everyone with absolutely ridiculous claims to get points out of this absurd thread now.

I'm going to go video record lawn gnomes from 100' away and claim they are leprechauns until I'm blue in the face and until i have 5000 ats points. BBL.

[edit on 12-6-2006 by d1k]


Xo0

posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555
When you blow up any digital image too far all you can see are the actual pixels which appear as little squares. If you zoom in that far and still can not identify the object it means that the image does not contain enough information. When the image becomes pixilated (turns into little squares) that means that the limits of the information in the image file have been reached. There is no hope of ever identifying the object as the file does not contain enough information. If the original was shot with film (not with a digital camera) and you can get a copy of the film to me; I’d be glad to blow up a few frames to see what the objects are. You would have to provide a physical copy of the film to do this. A video recording of a TV broadcast is not of any use either. If this was a recording of a TV broadcast that was then converted to an even lower resolution digital copy, then there is no hope. You have already lost most of the detail during the compression process. If it was shot with and HD digital video camera and you could provide the original raw file on disc then I would have enough detail to maybe identify the objects. Otherwise this is all speculation and assumptions. I can not prove it is birds and you can not prove it is not. Otherwise it fits into the definition of insanity. Repeating the same action with the same negative results over and over again.


A HD digital video? May I ask which media type that uses?




top topics



 
0
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join