It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 22
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 10:57 AM

Originally posted by D1ssient

Originally posted by LAES YVAN
you really want to know why the objects appear to be changing shape?? Because they are MOVING SO FAST.

Take a look at these screen shots of a passing bird from the video around 1:11.

I appears the bird is double vision because of the speed that bird is moving, also the frames at which the camera is capturing video. This will also prove these pictures are analog, not digital..

These photos prove you debunked this case yourself. Nice work.

[edit on 13-6-2006 by D1ssient]

That right there wasn't very smart.

Mod edit rude remark.

[edit on 13-6-2006 by SpittinCobra]

posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 10:59 AM

Even though the planes look as if they are going to hit each other in mid air, they are not. The same camera trick is happening here. It is an optical illusion. The camera can not show depth in space between. These planes are thousands of feet away.

posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 10:59 AM

Originally posted by d1k

Originally posted by Tha Troubleshoota
I don't see anyone trying to "scam" anything. Go back to the OP and start over. You missed some reading comprehension here.

Originally posted by Tha Troubleshoota
That moniker is just about right.

You're the one who needs to take another look, but then again you obviously admin edit: removed childish, irrelevant comment.

[edit on 6-13-2006 by Springer]

No warning for Troubleshoota and his insults?

[edit on 13-6-2006 by d1k]

For the same reason you didn't receive any here an in my thread as well.

Pot calling the kettle black, IMO.


posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 11:20 AM
WOW! This thread has grown like 10 pages since last night and school today!

posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 11:31 AM
I,m not gonna try prove right or wrong here but what I think,only me, is that you MAY have the same phenomena as the '' + goes behind objects'' discussion abouy the moon landing pics.

Bearing in mind that the ''Producer'' of this movie is using a digi cam and all digicams have a maximum resolution i really think the bleed out from a large lighter background. ie the clouds and the smoke are washing out the almost pixel size darker birds flying at cloud or below cloud level making them appear that they travel behind and appear larger due to perspective


posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 12:04 PM

Originally posted by Aotearoa
LAES YVAN, why not send the video to a UFO site and let them sort it out? That would be the most logical thing to do. Then they can analyse it and give some sort of answer.

Umm... But this is a UFO site.

We have sorted this out.

We have analysed the footage and have given an answer. UFOs positively identified as Turkey Vultures.

posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 12:06 PM

Originally posted by SpittinCobra

Even though the planes look as if they are going to hit each other in mid air, they are not. The same camera trick is happening here. It is an optical illusion. The camera can not show depth in space between. These planes are thousands of feet away.

Good example.

I think its my conclusion too.

posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 12:20 PM

Source? I'd like to take a look at that one and the details of it.

[edit on 13/6/06 by Aotearoa]

posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 12:23 PM
I have to find it again, give me a couple of minutes.

This is the only link I can find with the picture, There are tons of links talking about how it was mistaken.

There are 6 different picture in the set on the page.

[edit on 13-6-2006 by SpittinCobra]

posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 12:38 PM
Thanks, I'll have a look into that one. They don't appear to be 1,000ft away so the separation has to be 3 miles.

posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 01:03 PM
Never mind the birds are making me lose my mind.

[edit on 13-6-2006 by SpittinCobra]

posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 01:22 PM

It was from the link you posted.

For a mid-air incident to be classed as a near miss, the planes must be within three nautical miles horizontally or 1,000ft vertically of each other.

He said: 'In this instance a proper distance between the two planes was maintained at all times.'

posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 01:25 PM
hehe, it seemed so random. thanks

[edit on 13-6-2006 by SpittinCobra]


posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 02:03 PM
Excellent spittincobra, perfect example, you have also jogged my mind and here are more of the same......

Btw the tags on this thread are getting silly

posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 03:07 PM
"Umm... But this is a UFO site.

We have sorted this out.

We have analysed the footage and have given an answer. UFOs positively identified as Turkey Vultures."

I still only see birds in the video myself...

I have definatly seen way better UFO footage then this.


posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 03:23 PM
Great pics ISJ.....i guess that puts things in perspective

posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 04:13 PM
Great video of the shuttle launch, didend think it would make so much noise.
No ufo's though.

posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 04:20 PM
I'm really not so sure that I want to get involved in this discussion, but as someone who has done some professional video editing and video photography (using both film cameras and digital cameras), I feel I have a bit to add to this discussion.

First off, let me say that when I initially viewed the video, I thought it was birds and a perspective trick. All of the edited/zoomed video later posted by both sides of the argument only solidified my opinion that they're birds.

Anyway, onto a crash course in the Science of Video Recording 101.

This was most likely filmed with a digital video camera. The precice form of digital media used is not able to be determined from this video, because of the number of times it has been converted (so, I don't know if it was MiniDV, DVD Disc, Digital 8, etc). Why do I say it was most likely filmed with digital video? Because it's obviously a home recording. VHS cameras are difficult to purchase anymore, and the preferred media in the age of computers is digital video, because of the ease of downloading it onto a computer for editing or distribution. Also, most consumer grade VHS recorders were built in a time of simpler optics, and a VHS camera that could get a tight zoom and retain video quality (such as in this video) was VERY expensive. Most assuredly it wasn't a film video camera, simply because home film video cameras are pretty much all antiques (like my Super 8mm camera, built in 1964). Film video cameras in todays world are pretty much relegated strictly to the realm of movie production (and they'll typically shoot in 35mm or 72mm - and these cameras are VERY expensive - roughly $30,000 for a base model). So, this was either shot on a VERY expensive older VHS camera, or it was shot on digital. Digital is far more likely.

The original poster stated at one point in this thread that it must have been an analog camera, because of the apparent stretching and distortion of one of the known birds flying lower in the sky. This is not true. Digital cameras function more or less the same way as film cameras in how they capture video. The video is nothing but a series of photographs (typically taken at 24 frames per second) which gives the impression of motion. That said, a fast moving object (especially when it's out of focus, because it's not the focal objective, will appear blurry and distorted, regardless of the video media the image is being taken with.

Also, addressing the prior statement that the camera may have stopped at it's top height because of limitations of the tripod: This is another fallacy. Most tripods are designed to give a full range of vertical motion up to at least 89 degrees from horizontal (meaning almost perpendicular to the ground). The size of the camera typically has very little to do with the range of motion of the tripod, as the camera is mounted on a platform above the movement points. Even a large professional film camera will be able to utilize the entire range of motion of the tripod. My own tripod ($16 at Walmart - a real cheapo) has a full 360 degree horizontal range, and a 180 degree vertical range (meaning it will go from about 60 degrees below horizontal to vertical, and still tilt back about 30 degrees towards horizontal on the other side). It can clearly be seen in the video that as the shuttle rises past the upper cloud, the video tries to follow it above the cloud, but can't see it, since the shuttle never appears above the cloud due to the line of sight.

Now onto the all-important perspective issue. As has been stated MANY times of this thread, video cameras, regardless of the quality or media, cannot distinguish depth. Every video camera on the planet (with the exception of a few special models - more on that in a moment) takes a flat image. Any apprent depth shown in the images taken by these cameras is an optical illusion in itself, utilizing reference points and sizes of objects in the foreground and background (the typical notion that the farther away something is, the smaller it appears). In almost all photography of airborne objects taken from the ground, there is no real reference point to determine the size of the object being photographed, nor is there any reference points to determine the distance of an object. In the original video, the only reference point that we have is the space shuttle, compared to approximate time of liftoff, and known accelleration and altitiude. This is enough to prove only the size of the shuttle. In the video, it appears that the clouds, smoke trail, and birds are all at the same distance. This is due to the lack of reference points. There is no way to determine in the brain which objects are closer and which are further away. This has been illustrated clearly many times in this thread.

The only cameras that are capable of taking a 3D image are special three dimensional cameras, that are actually two cameras, side by side, each with a slightly different angle of the object being photographed. The means of capturing the three dimensional image varies from camera to camera. Some use a double exposure on the same film, and others use two completely seperate sets of film (or digital images), which are later composited together to see the 3D image. In order to view this kind of film, you need those special sunglasses that you get at a 3D movie.

Finally, explaining the apparent disappearance of the "UFO"s: When an image is shot from a digital camera, it chooses its best pixel quality for the focal point, in this case, for most of the video, it's the space shuttle and the trailing smoke. When the shuttle starts passing the clouds in the camera's line of sight, the camera's optics become confused, and try to focus on various objects at the same time, resulting in the blurring and unblurring of the image. This, especially at distance, would make any small object appear round, as the camera really only allows one pixel for that object, perhaps with a couple of pixels around it, blending the color of the object and the color of the background, to smooth it into the rest of the image. You also have to take into account the light source, in this case, the sun, and how it plays off of the object. Even a back object can appear to be light grey, especially against a light background, if the light hits it just right. Typically, this happens when the light hits the object at such an angle as to reflect the light towards the viewer (remember, the only reason we can see anything is because of light reflected off of objects, and hitting our eyes). When dealing with a portion of an image, in a distant shot, with a digital video camera, which only amounts to 2-3 pixels at the most, when this direct light reflection occurs, the digital camera doesn't notice enough of a difference between the color of the object and the background to give the object even a single pixel, and the object effectively disappears from the image. When that light reflection ceases to be at its peak, the object returns to the image.

Now, considering that the closest the camera could have been to the launch site is three miles, that means that at the nearest shot, you'd have three miles between the camera and the shuttle/smoke trail. At an altitude of 11,000 feet (roughly two miles), you now have a distance of about 5-6 miles between the shuttle/smoke trail and the camera. Even a 20 foot wide object would only appear as a single pixel (if it appeared at all in the image - for an example, view anything in google earth from a height of 26,400 feet (exactly 5 miles) and see how well you can see an object roughly 20 feet wide) at that distance. Figure in that distance, plus the light reflection, plus the lack of reference points to establish distance, the logical conclusion is that these are birds somewhere in between the camera and the shuttle, and they appear to disappear due to the angle of their body, and the reflected light.

[edit on 6/13/2006 by obsidian468]

posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 04:21 PM
There is a saying used in information processing that is something like, "Garbage In, Garbage Out", abbreviated to GIGO.

This is one case of GIGO.

Not because of the information of the video itself but because of the quality of the information.

The video is not "full colour", it only has a maximum of some 10000 colours, way to few to have a decent image analysis, because if the maximum possible colours was reached then the video makes things with different colours look like if they had the same.

That is what I think happens when the UFOs/birds flow in front of the clouds, they do not enter the clouds, the are in front of the clouds but in a position where they are lighter than before, so they look like they disappear but they are still there.

This also happens in an area of the sky where there are no clouds, at the left side of the smoke left by the shuttle. If you look in that area you can see that the birds/UFOs seam to disappear and reappear a little latter.

As for the distances, without references is impossible to know the distance of an object.

To know the distance of the UFOs/birds we need to know their size, or if we need to know the distance from those objects to the observer then we must know their size.

Also, lens made to show things at a large distance are made in a way that "kills" the depth of field, making things look closer than they are.

a) We need to know the distance of the flying objects to know their size.
b) We need to know the size of the flying objects to know their distance.
c) We could only use the size of the Space Shuttle or the size of the smoke plume if we knew what the distance between the Space Shuttle/smoke plume and the observer was, without this information we cannot know for sure the size or distance of the flying objects.

If is impossible to know the relative distances and sizes of all the involved objects then we cannot tell the objects that are closer from those that are farther from the observer.

In this case we do not have --
1. Enough colours in the video to judge if there is any "trick of the light" that makes the flying objects look like they appear and disappear.
2. Definition enough to clearly see what the flying objects are.
3. Knowledge of the sizes of all the objects involved and the relative distances and positions of all those objects, including the person who made the video.

In any case that we have any of these information we can start to use that information to try to compensate for the lack of the others.

Only if we have all of those informations then we could have certainties about the video/photo under analysis.

Finally, I will say what I have said many times:
We cannot judge without proofs, and the quality of the proofs hinders the quality of our judgement.

And remember, we should all deny ignorance, in all its aspects.

posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 04:26 PM
Troll Season

Originally posted by Flyer
Troll: To deliberately post derogatory or inflammatory comments to a community forum, chat room, newsgroup and/or a blog in order to bait other users into responding.

That sums up the original poster perfectly so I think it was a bit harsh giving him a warning for correctly describing the poster as he is baiting for sure.

It also perfectly sums up behavior in violation if the Terms And Conditions Of Use.

I have issued a warning for this post since you insist on rudely insulting a fellow member after I have explicitly advised not doing so.

Let me spell it out for anyone who's not understanding me.

From the Terms And Conditions Of Use:

Originally posted by SimonGray
2) Behavior: You will not behave in an abusive and/or hateful manner, and will not harass, threaten, nor attack anyone.


5b) Cooperation: You will, if asked by myself or a moderator, cease posting any content, and/or links to content, deemed offensive, objectionable, or in poor taste by the representatives of the message board.

You agreed to honor these terms by being a member here, and now you are violating them.

Members who violate the T&C are subject to disciplinary action.

That's what's going on here.

If any member feels I am acting in a manner contrary to the T&C, please feel free to issue a complaint, which will be reviewed by the moderator staff, administrators and Member Council.

Please be advised, however, that my actions in this thread are being taken in full consultation with my fellow staff members.

Do not insult fellow members. Do not ignore my instructions.

new topics

top topics

<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in