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: 16
0
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 07:23 PM
link   
I just looked at the video again. I'm sorry but those are birds.




posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by torbjon
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


That's about the WORST compression anyone can ever analyze a video in. Sorry to say but that video shows nothing more than a confused video editor not knowing what to do with the previous compression.

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



posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 07:26 PM
link   
Lost_shaman- how bout the distance to the wires(or whatever they are) and the approximate angle of the camera when the pic was taken. Also if there are any known landmarks that would establish distance.
Torb-good one there. Bring on the Pelicanists.


Xo0

posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 07:29 PM
link   
Why are you guys replying on perspective issues while I have this valid point about the compression?
There is no evidence AT ALL that it's something else than a bird..

[edit on 12-6-2006 by Xo0]



posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 07:35 PM
link   
Laes Yvan...........

I give you the medal for sheer stubborness. Here we are over 12 pages later, and everyone on here still believes its birds.

Although I posted earlier that I had viewd the clip till my eyes melted, I decided, since youre so determined that its not birds, to look eve harder yet again.

And I am still seeing birds. Your estimates of distance and size seem to confirm this.

some 14 pages later and youre still the only person here who sees more than just birds.


jra

posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 07:36 PM
link   

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


Ummm.. do you know what a digital image is made of? It's made of different coloured squares, known as pixels. When you zoom in on a very small object, it's going to be made out of squares. It does not mean the object in real life is made out of squares.

Anyway I'm done with this rediculous discussion. If you guys want to believe there are aliens flying around durring the day, through rocket exaust for all to see, then fine. Have fun.



posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xo0


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


"Blue Disc". The players are available for preorder right now at Comp USA (I got an email about it last week). High dollar stuff though. $1,000 just for a player. Movies in HD format are being release at the same time. As I recall the discs hold around 48 gigs. I have not checked into the price of a recorder. I'm sure its way out of range for my humble wallet. You have to have a HDTV with HDMI connections to use one. As to the cameras; they are so pricey even the local TV stations are dragging their feet in switching over. I understand the actors are none to happy right now. We will be able to see that they get blackheads just like everyone else. Most of what I watch on the so called HD channels are enhanced. When they do show a true HD quality movie the difference is quite remarkable.



posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 07:41 PM
link   
LAES YVAN:

In other words, it doesn't prove your point, ergo it's crap, is that it?

If you would like me to ADD artifacts to your footage I'd be happy to oblige... however I believe that you would be the only person here that would put any weight into a doctored movie.

This link goes to the Raw Footage, Enlarged, and nothing more. I'm sorry if you can see the wings flapping. (I really would be happy to filter those out for you, btw, maybe tack on a little bumper sticker that says 'Earth or Bust' or something *shrugs*)

www.torbtown.com...

I can MAKE your footage look pretty slick... wouldn't be the raw footage anymore then, though, would it?

good luck with life.

twj

[edit on 12-6-2006 by torbjon]


Xo0

posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 07:44 PM
link   
I am aware of the blue rays, or the HDDVDS, but they aren't in rotation yet.. And still 48 isn't a lot if u compare it to the harddrive who are used in some digital cameras.. Hard disk who can hold up to 200GB. And still there is compression on the video..

There is no such thing as REAL HD Digital recording to my knowledge..
If u want a video camera, analog tapes are still the best way. Cheapest and best quality.. Not the best thing in the world if u want it digitalized though..



posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by torbjon
In other words, it doesn't prove your point, ergo it's crap, is that it?


The "compression is crap" is the SAME arguement that the "bird" theorists have been using since I started the thread.. is it wrong for me to say that the SAME compression crap is what is making it look like the object is changing shape?

How about make a video that proves or disaproves that the objects are flying in and out of the smoke from the shuttle.



posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 07:52 PM
link   
Alright mate, well done for getting this I like it!!!!! I have not seen this video before I have only seen the edited version of the launch.


Can you please send me this video from you hard drive????? I will send you an u2u with my email address / MSN address if this is easer for you? I would like a copy so I can work out some distances from the flying object in relation to the ground and to the shuttle and just other mathematics.

PLEASE do send me the video!!!! I would really like it!!!!!


Anyway NICE ONE for posting the thread and well done for noticing it mate!!!!!!!!


Take it eazy


ALEX




posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by longhaircowboy
Lost_shaman- how bout the distance to the wires(or whatever they are) and the approximate angle of the camera when the pic was taken. Also if there are any known landmarks that would establish distance.
Torb-good one there. Bring on the Pelicanists.


The distance from the camera to the wires in this picture was approximately 10 -11 ft. And looking up at around 50 degrees.

img123.imageshack.us...

This pic same wire same distance there as I didn't move any , with an angle of around 45 degrees.

img155.imageshack.us...



posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 07:58 PM
link   
the reason why the birds dissapear behind the smoke column is due to the resolution of the camera. the background image dominates the moving image and thus it appears that the birds are moving behind the smoke column and therefore dissapearing. sorry if this has already been said but i couldnt be bothered to fully read all 13 pages of this thread. seems strange why they edited this video though!



posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by LAES YVAN
I know tripods have multi-directional pivots.. but do they reach FULL VERTICAL? No, they most likely have limits. My point was, the camera tripod probably reached its vertical pivot limit.
Yes they do, my one reaches full vertical and even comes back to you about 30 degress and its the cheapest one available.



posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by LAES YVAN
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]

YOu do know the difference between compressing something to reduces an image file size does not mean things will visually compress things in the jpeg. They tend to get bigger because when you use compression, things tend to blur into each other.



posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 08:04 PM
link   
Thanks l_s.
Now that we've established this is a bird(there are quite alot in the area, they are attracted to the smell of burning rocket fuel). What do you see here-
www.brumac.8k.com...



posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555
I just looked at the video again. I'm sorry but those are birds.

I know, this has to go down as one of the most clueless posters I've ever seen on any board, its like an 8 year old lying to his parents when they know hes wrong yet he wont admit it.



posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 08:07 PM
link   
OMG IT A BIRD YOU ARE SO HARD HEADED after seeing the video it obveus that those ARE BIRD and when ISJ show the persecetive thing I was like yeah those are birds YOU NEED GLASSE CAUSE I DO HAVE THEM AND I CAN SEE IT CLEARLY AND YOUUUUUU DOOOOO TOOOOOOOOOO DAMNNNNNN!!!!!!!! (I can't belive it 16pgs)

[edit on 12-6-2006 by El Che]



posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flyer

Originally posted by LAES YVAN
I know tripods have multi-directional pivots.. but do they reach FULL VERTICAL? No, they most likely have limits. My point was, the camera tripod probably reached its vertical pivot limit.
Yes they do, my one reaches full vertical and even comes back to you about 30 degress and its the cheapest one available.


Some do, some dont, it all depends the type of video camera you are using. Since this was filmed by a NASA employee, they probably had one of those gigantic cameras with a huge battery pack. Maybe even a VHS or other type of tape system.

That argument is NULL anyway since the shuttle stays in view for most of its flight, besides when its behind the clouds. Someone just asked, why it seems as though the video operator stopped to film the objects, and that was the first thing that came to my head without noticing the shuttle was still in view, yet not centered.



posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by El Che
OMG IT A BIRD YOU ARE SO HARD HEADED after seeing the video it obveus that those ARE BIRD and when ISJ show the persecetive thing I was like yeah those are birds YOU NEED GLASSE CAUSE I DO AND I CAN SEE IT CLEARLY AND YOUUUUUU DOOOOO TOOOOOOOOOO DAMNNNNNN!!!!!!!! (I can't belive it 16pgs)


If it is so clear to you, then please prove to me that the objects DIDNT go behind the shuttles smoke plume. the object is clearly BOLD and VISIBLE and its visibility drops DRAMATICALY when it gets near the smoke plumb. If ISJ perspective theory is correct, we WOULD STILL SEE THE OBJECT EVEN IF IT IS FLYING AWAY OR TOWARDS the camera. The compression IS NOT WHY it disappears, because there is a SOLID BLACK pixel that comes out from behind the plume after it disappears into the plume. If the object was in fact in FRONT of the plume, we should STILL SEE THE SINGLE BLACK PIXEL, but we DONT.

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



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join