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: 28
0
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 07:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpittinCobra
You say you waited a day or to for the "window" of clouds to be clear. So you know the clouds where not that close.

You can see in the film how far the shuttle is away from the clouds, at the beginning of the tape. When the person taping can not find the shuttle, there is some confusion about depth.



NASA held the countdown a few times. One of the reasons was weather, and another a faulty fuel sensor. They were talking about the weather, and how they might have to wait till another day to launch, because if any tiles get wet, they could get destroyed, and fall off. But they decided to go for it anyway, and wait for the best possible time. As you can see in this STS-114 picture:

q.queso.com...

clouds are definitely a threat, and in the immediate area.

But clouds arnt my main concern. Im more concerned whether or not the object went into the plume.. if it DID, then a lot of things can be answered.


Originally posted by SpittinCobra





Do you believe the smoke and cloud to be the same here?




No i do not, but i believe they are very close, because the plume of smoke actually drifts towards the camera and the clouds. And if these objects are flying fast enough i believe they have the ability to fly through both the clouds AND the plume.

[edit on 14-6-2006 by LAES YVAN]




posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 07:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by D1ssient
Keep in mind that we're talking about myself and my IQ. No plume, birds or anything else.


NO, the topic of discussion IS the video.

NOT you or your IQ. Drop it.


And now, back to the topic "Unnoticed Flying Objects During Shuttle Launch *NEW*"



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 07:51 AM
link   
You're aware that's a huge insult?


Originally posted by LAES YVAN
I'm not going to.

Can you at least tell me why?

[edit on 14-6-2006 by D1ssient]



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 07:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by D1ssient
Can you at least ask me why you'll not answer?


Ask YOU? Your question doesnt even make sense. If you are still asking this dumb question, even after 12m8keall2c implyed to get back on subject, then.......


..I don't even have to continue, his question does enough justice.


-edit-

Note.. D1ssient edited his question 3 times, 3rd times a charm right?



Can you at least ask me why you'll not answer?




Can you at least ask me why?




Can you at least tell me why?





[edit on 14-6-2006 by LAES YVAN]



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 07:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by D1ssient

Originally posted by LAES YVAN
I'm not going to.

Can you at least ask me why?

Can you at least take it to U2U please?

Thanx

NN



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 08:07 AM
link   
OK Meteorology joke book at the ready..

Sorry to RAIN on your parade.but the discussion WEATHER they are birds of ufo,s is never gonna be proved one way or the other..

But... I can point out one screaming flaw in your theory..

You are basing you whole discussion on relative size compared to the shuttle plume and the FACT that they go ''through'' the smoke... DEFINITELY not so..

a, you can still see the object as it passes in front of the plume.. albeit very faintly.
bad compression/resolution only

b, you state that at that point the objects are approximately 11,000ft.. NOT so

If i,m not very much mistaken.those clouds you see are regular department store cumulus clouds..yes??

maximum height for cumulus formation is approx 6000ft..AND..... wait for it..

The objects pass in front/below them as they are not disappearing into or behind them..THUS.... TA..DA!!! Placing the objects at closer than 6000ft therefore halfing your estimated size and perceived speed..
0

Do I get the $1000 prize???



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 08:23 AM
link   
This makes me laugh...


Originally posted by LAES YVAN
If i made a yes/no POLL on a totaly different forum with this picture and asked, "Is the object entering the smoke?", I am willing to bet $1,000, that the majority would vote yes. Or, even say its going behind it.



Originally posted by ISJ
Yes! Of course they would






Originally posted by AGENT_T
You are basing you whole discussion on relative size compared to the shuttle plume and the FACT that they go ''through'' the smoke... DEFINITELY not so..


a, you can still see the object as it passes in front of the plume.. albeit very faintly.
bad compression/resolution only


Its SMOKE! Not a solid wall. GAS is not solid. Even then, a few times in the video they DO slightly pass in front of the plume. But other times they go directly into it, like the GIF animation a few posts above shows.



Originally posted by AGENT_T
b, you state that at that point the objects are approximately 11,000ft.. NOT so


Since the objects DO pass through the plume that was created 34 seconds into the flight, that would put the section of plume they flew through at 11,476 feet in the air. According to a stop watch, and this web site: www.spaceflightnow.com...




Originally posted by AGENT_T
If i,m not very much mistaken.those clouds you see are regular department store cumulus clouds..yes??
maximum height for cumulus formation is approx 6000ft..AND..... wait for it..


You must be mistaking, because they actually were expecting rain that day. During the launch, you can even see major cumulonimbus clouds behind the shuttle.


Cumulonimbus clouds can easly reach 39,000 feet.

ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu...(Gh)/wwhlpr/cumulonimbus.rxml?hret=/wwhlpr/cumulonimbus.rxml&prv=1




Originally posted by AGENT_T
The objects pass in front/below them as they are not disappearing into or behind them..THUS.... TA..DA!!! Placing the objects at closer than 6000ft therefore halfing your estimated size and perceived speed..
0

Do I get the $1000 prize???


No, I am affraid you are wrong. And you dont win anything. Sorry. Try again later.

[edit on 14-6-2006 by LAES YVAN]



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 08:31 AM
link   
Yeah in the background they are cumulonimbus. but the ones the cameradude is pointing at and the birds fly in front of are not.. woops did i say birds??



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by AGENT_T
Yeah in the background they are cumulonimbus. but the ones the cameradude is pointing at and the birds fly in front of are not.. woops did i say birds??


I'm sorry man, but I would probably believe that if it wasn't going to rain on the launch date. Even you yourself say the clouds in the background are cumulonimbus clouds, how do you know the ones in the camera view aren't attached to the cumulonimbus clouds? Are you an expert?






ANYWAY, all that matters, is if the objects go throught the plume or not.. The answer to that will answer other questions as well..

[edit on 14-6-2006 by LAES YVAN]



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 08:53 AM
link   
Hey don,t take my word for it..Look at your own video ..compare the clouds on it to your own background pic..It,s there in its pixellated glory for anyone to see.They are two similar named but visually completely different formations..and yeah they are starting to form into 'rainclouds''nimbo-stratus too

BTW you kinda have to learn just a likkle wikkle bit about the weather to get a pilots license.. It,s kinda compulsary..






posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 09:11 AM
link   
How do you know they arnt alto-cumulus? with regular cumulus under them? You really dont know for a fact the exact type of cloud.



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by LAES YVANThe only reason i use the plume of smoke to measure the objects is because the objects fly through the plume.

The only reason i use the plume of smoke to measure the objects is because the objects fly through the plume.

The only reason i use the plume of smoke to measure the objects is because the objects fly through the plume.

The only reason i use the plume of smoke to measure the objects is because the objects fly through the plume.

The only reason i use the plume of smoke to measure the objects is because the objects fly through the plume.

The only reason i use the plume of smoke to measure the objects is because the objects fly through the plume.

The only reason i use the plume of smoke to measure the objects is because the objects fly through the plume.

The only reason i use the plume of smoke to measure the objects is because the objects fly through the plume.

maybe you get it now?


Originally posted by ISJ
Hang on you cant make out the Shuttle in that pic, and you to try to ask us to find a bird ??


Thats almost exactly what i said when i saw the UFO in the video. Except i said...

"Hang on, you cant make out the Shuttle in that pic, but i can see a bird??" Thats, what made me believe it is not a bird.



how many times do i have to post this video of the objects entering the plume of smoke? media.putfile.com...

The last 5 seconds or so, the 3 objects disapear into the plume of smoke WHILE THEY ARE FLYING PERPENDICULAR TO THE CAMERA.


Originally posted by ISJ
If I requested a Maths lesson, then i dont remeber it




YOU NEED A MATH LESSON.


[edit on 14-6-2006 by LAES YVAN]


They are birds.


They are birds.


They are birds.


They are birds.


They are birds.


They are birds.

Wow, that was pretty childish of me huh?

Look dude, This is the place to go if you want a UFO video scrutinized. This website probably has more beleivers than any other, but when 95% of the believers tell you its OBVIOUSLY birds, then they are. Ive had people tell me untill they are blue that a missle test video is a UFO crashing. Sure, some people will belive you, but not everyone is smart,SEE? CLICK HERE

The only argument you have is that at one point the BIRDS appear to go behind the smoke plume. What about this?



The bird in that photo appears to go behind the shuttle (I kow you can slightly see the rest of the bird in front, But you cant see it after you compress the photo multiple times like your vid.) Its simple, Some objects will SEEM to dissapear when trasitioning to a different background,especially a whitish colored background. Its the same reason the crosshairs in the moon pictures seem to "go behind" the astronaut.



Its time to grwo up and admit you were mistaken, noone has accused you of blatenly lieing(I think, Im not gonna read all 30 pages again) Just of being incredibly and willfully ignorant....


MODS IF MY LINK TO ANOTHER FORUM BREAKS THE RULES PLEASE ERASE THE LINK (I figured that that site isnt gonna steal ant ATSers...and its good for a quick laugh)


[edit on 14-6-2006 by Tiloke]



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 09:30 AM
link   
Tiloke,

Please, at least send him to a UFO group.



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 09:33 AM
link   
cumulus



cumulonimbus



gotta add these.. the cumulo-nimbus one has gotta be one of the most beautiful pics i,ve seen


God i miss clouds.. ahem.. anyway back to the topic..

Yes it does matter anyway. the whole point of this long drawn out thread is that it is an error of perception.

No-one has denied that it really does look like objects passing through the plume coz it DOES yes.

Unfortunately that is the drawback of using digital.
regular film can be zoomed/enhanced greatly.But digital works with lots of little dots that a chip has to compress for memory availability and try and make sense of the info it is given.Which it fails to do distinctly here.Especially since it appears to have been compressed further for the web,,

Check out the way the sky to the right of the shuttle looks even before they zoom. blocky yeah?? and thats just blue sky
Not the cameraman or your fault.. just the limit of current tech..

Should double this year.My friend steffan has got a great new lens with software coming out soon.Think 360
Just a teaser..you,ll have to wait

Enhancing it only makes it less distinctive. its best to watch without zooming and lets your eyes work for you.honest.

But the fact is.. they DO pass under these clouds therefore it is impossible that they are anywhere near the shuttle..Roast turkey anyone??

I really hope this clears it up for you



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by LAES YVAN
How do you know they arnt alto-cumulus? with regular cumulus under them? You really dont know for a fact the exact type of cloud.



I do know. trust me.
You can see for yourself that they aren,t though really..can,t you?



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tiloke



Oh my god look at that bird, its going BEHIND the shuttle!!!!!!!!!! It MUST have a wingspan of at least 50 feet. I base that on ABSOLUTLY NOTHING but I will ARGUE about it with EVERYONE for another 26 pages!!!!!!!!!


EDIT----DAMMIT ISJ BEAT ME TO IT

[edit on 14-6-2006 by Tiloke]


Hey, how are you guys still doing EDIT's? I cannot find that ability anymore since the format changed....




posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by LAES YVAN
You say you waited a day or to for the "window" of clouds to be clear. So you know the clouds where not that close.

You can see in the film how far the shuttle is away from the clouds, at the beginning of the tape. When the person taping can not find the shuttle, there is some confusion about depth.


Just wait a minute...

Is this a wind up?????

I,ve spent the last hour being really nice and giving you FACTS/PICTURES AND DIAGRAMS..and now i find this..

So if YOU YOURSELF have posted that you KNOW the clouds were not that close to the shuttle AND you can see for yourself that these flickering birds fly underneath the very sparse CUMULUS clouds..SO from your own words you must KNOW that they are closer still to the camera

Whats your plan??Just to waste peoples time ??




posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 10:04 AM
link   
troublshoota check your utu



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aotearoa
Tiloke,

Please, at least send him to a UFO group.


Is ATS not A UFO group?



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by AGENT_T

Originally posted by LAES YVAN
You say you waited a day or to for the "window" of clouds to be clear. So you know the clouds where not that close.

You can see in the film how far the shuttle is away from the clouds, at the beginning of the tape. When the person taping can not find the shuttle, there is some confusion about depth.


Just wait a minute...

Is this a wind up?????

I,ve spent the last hour being really nice and giving you FACTS/PICTURES AND DIAGRAMS..and now i find this..

So if YOU YOURSELF have posted that you KNOW the clouds were not that close to the shuttle AND you can see for yourself that these flickering birds fly underneath the very sparse CUMULUS clouds..SO from your own words you must KNOW that they are closer still to the camera

Whats your plan??Just to waste peoples time ??



LMAO buddy THAT IS NOT MY QUOTE.. LMAO


Originally posted by SpittinCobra
You say you waited a day or to for the "window" of clouds to be clear. So you know the clouds where not that close.

You can see in the film how far the shuttle is away from the clouds, at the beginning of the tape. When the person taping can not find the shuttle, there is some confusion about depth.



spittincobra said it.. did you change the name of the quoter??


Anyway.. I AM running a VOTE about the animation where the objects disappears into the plume. So far, the results are AMAZING. I will post the results of the vote when they reach about 25 total unique votes.


[edit on 14-6-2006 by LAES YVAN]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join