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: 34
0
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Denied
Is there a point of reference, because just as clouds are not a good measurement so is things out of perspective.


Referance is, Turkey Vultures average 2 and 1/2 feet long, with an average wing span of 6 feet.



the ENTIRE TRUTH OF THIS WHOLE VIDEO LIES IN THE QUESTION OF:

"DO THE OBJECTS ENTER THE SMOKE FROM THE SHUTTLE?"

That is the ultimate question.



Originally posted by Denied
No.


YES. Because if the objects are near the smoke, you can use the smoke to measure the objects...




BTW im not done, i have a LOT more evidence that needs to be debunked.. like FLIGHT PATH's.

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




posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 01:47 PM
link   
Ony if you Completely ignore the color bleeding and compression effects too.


Please close this thread, theres no way he can present new evidence, he can just keep pushing a picture of an optical illusion in our face over and over again, and when the video doesnt agree with him he needs to draw us idiots a pretty picture to try to drill it into our heads, over and over again.

VOTE FOR LOCK?

[edit on 14-6-2006 by Tiloke]



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tiloke
Ony if you Completely ignore the color bleeding and compression effects too.


Please close this thread, theres no way he can present new evidence, he can just keep pushing a picture of an optical illusion in our face over and over again, and when the video doesnt agree with him he needs to draw us idiots a pretty picture to try to drill it into our heads, over and over again.

VOTE FOR LOCK?

[edit on 14-6-2006 by Tiloke]


Its up to the mods mate not us.

Is this a discussion? or us banging our head against a wall?



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 02:04 PM
link   
WOW! Look at this color bleeding!!! Oh My!





Its just smoke!!!

Denied check your U2U, i sent you the link to the Poll votes. Anyone else that would like to see them can message me.

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



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 02:09 PM
link   
[Unnecessary quote of Entire preceeding post removed]

What does that prove?
Not a Thing.

A pixel, when it is small enough, will blend together the colours in it.
Anyone who knows anything knows that when one colour is more dominant than another it will make the combination closer to the dom colour.
In this Video you keep posting over and over again, this is what happens.

The Bird is so small that at certain points the dominant grey will totally envelop the pixel. Does that mean the Bird has disappeare behind something no, it just means its small enough and far enough away to not create enough impact within the pixel box.

Try this, take that picture from 3.5 miles away.
Zoom in as much as you can THEN tell us what you see.




[edit on 6/14/2006 by 12m8keall2c]

[edit on 14/6/2006 by JebusSaves]



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 02:18 PM
link   


Denied check your U2U, i sent you the link to the Poll votes. Anyone else that would like to see them can message me.


I know, i think its a pointless exercise.
Im not here to flame you, im not like that, but i think you have reached a point where you can take this no further.

You said the only thing you want to achieve is the height, speed, etc.
But we are stuck at that point, so what do you propose to do?



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by JebusSaves
What does that prove?
Not a Thing.

A pixel, when it is small enough, will blend together the colours in it.
Anyone who knows anything knows that when one colour is more dominant than another it will make the combination closer to the dom colour.



So what you realy are saying is... the near black dot is being dominated by the light grey smoke?? thats complelty stupid..

Whats the difference between color bleeding, and an object moving behind a smoke screen?

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



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 02:22 PM
link   
Reading thru all of the posts has been extremely interesting;
It seems there is no question that 34 sec into the launch that the shuttle would be approx. 11,476'-0.
The shuttle does not punch through cloud-1 or cloud 2 shown graphically identified in previous posts, but passes behind them. This is consistant with Nasa's waiting for a clear window.
Clouds 1 & 2 would therfore be in the foreground in relation to the shuttle or the "exhaust plume".

How far from the shuttle to the clouds? I cant't tell, I dont think anyone can.
Given that we accept the elevation of the shuttle at 11'470'-0 there is no way to positively determine the elevation of the clouds unless the distance from the shuttle to the clouds is known.

The black objects in question clearly pass in front of cloud which is in front of the shuttle and the plume. So how far in front of the shuttle ehaust plume are the black objects? Once again, there is no way to determine this.

If the distance from the launch site to the camera's location was known and you knew the elevation of the camera, you could then create a "line of site" projected from the camera location to the shuttle. The elevation of any object along the line of site cannot be determined unless one knows the horizontal dist from either the shuttle, the viewer or some other established reference point.
I made a rough sketch based on the "assumption" that the viewers location was 7 miles from the launch site, (I think I read this in a previous post) and the "assumption that the baseline elevation for the launch site and the viewers location were bith at elevation 0'-0.

I also "assumed" that the camera was approx. 5'-0 from the ground. (thats the highest my tripod will go). I then calculated the rough elevations along the line of site at 1 mile increments. I rounded the elevation off




I know there are an awful lot of assumptions but but I think the only critical one is the distance from the shuttle launch site to the viewers location.

Given that he clouds are if front of the shuttle plume & the black objects are in front of the clouds, and that there is no possible way to establish the depth of field for these objects, it is impossible to establish the elevavation of these objects.

The way the objects appear to disappear into the plume can be explained due the the nature of video compression.
Now that I got all that off my chest, I just want to say that I admire your tenacity and your conviction, but I have always felt that thje simplest solution is usually the correct one.
But hey, Thats just me.
I hope my spelling did not offend anyone, I had to get all this while my boss was not looking.



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 02:26 PM
link   
You hit the nail on the head there.

Well done.



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sparky63
The way the objects appear to disappear into the plume can be explained due the the nature of video compression.


Sparky thats it? Thats the ONLY answer you have for the objects appearance of entering the plume? video compression?

I fail to see how an 8 pixel blackish grey dot, could ever fade away into a whitish light grey background, no matter how much compression you put to it. You people talk as if video compression is 100 years behind in technology.

Please explain why this one DIDNT "color bleed" do to compression..





then explain why this one OF SIMULAR SIZE, DID.



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



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 02:41 PM
link   
Leas Yvan,

I'm just curious if you actually stopped to read my post about the basics of video photography.

The post can be found here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

There is a lot of good information in there that explains why the objects appear to disappear in front of the smoke plume, as well as other explanations of other aspects, including distance, depth, size, etc.

While reading that post, forget for a moment about this video, and read the information provided objectively. Soak in the information, and then come back to this. Watch the entire video again, utilizing the video photography information I've provided, and see if it changes your outlook on the video.

I do understand where you're coming from, and how the video currently appears to you. I just think you're missing a few important points that you may not have been aware of.



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 02:44 PM
link   
That gif you posted up, it disappears before it enters "anything".



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 02:45 PM
link   
I am starting to think this whole thread is an experiment.

I am curious though...

Have you submitted this to any other sites, or maybe gotten advice from anyone else
other then the people at ATS ? I think it would be useful to take your "THEORY" and
post it elsewhere.



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by imbalanced
I am starting to think this whole thread is an experiment.

I am curious though...

Have you submitted this to any other sites, or maybe gotten advice from anyone else
other then the people at ATS ? I think it would be useful to take your "THEORY" and
post it elsewhere.



You know hes done a poll right?
Which was based on one specific answer, go look few pages back.



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by obsidian468
I'm just curious if you actually stopped to read my post about the basics of video photography.


Ive read every post on this thread.. everything that everyone talks about, i have herd before at one point or another.. I know the effects of different angles, and sized objects, and how they would shrink beyond recognition by distance. I have personally seen the B-2 Stealth Bomber fly at such an angle it looks like a flying cigar. And I can imagine what it would look like in a photo taken from 11,000 feet away or more...

But the question still in my mind is.. how can you tell the difference between and object entering a smoke screen, and an object fading into the background because of its current angle/size? You really cant..


Originally posted by imbalanced
I am starting to think this whole thread is an experiment.


You are starting to think correctly.


This video is a prime example of a UFO. An Unidentifiable Flying Object. there is no sure way to get an absolute answer to what these objects are, so you must classify them as UFO's. You can say.. hey look... those are birds.. hey look those are alien space craft. But unless you shook hands with the alien, or caught the bird sh*t on your window from that exact bird. There is no way to find out...

This is truly a U.F.O.


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



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 02:53 PM
link   


This is truly a UFO.


Have your UFO, it dont matter, the video is poor.

[edit on 14-6-2006 by Denied]



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 02:58 PM
link   
Well I didnt really mean an experiment in that sense. I meant an ATS experiment.

But take a look at this it may help a bit.....

[edit on 14-6-2006 by imbalanced]



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 03:00 PM
link   





posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 03:01 PM
link   


[Mod Edit: off-site forum content removed]

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




.



[edit on 6/14/2006 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by LAES YVAN

This is truly a U.F.O.


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


Which means YOU have to concede that it COULD be a Bird because YOU cannot Identify it.
Something that YOU have time and again said that its impossible to be.
If you don't know what it is because its not clear enough how can you dismiss the most likliest of explanations WHEN so much evidence is brought forth pertaining to the reason the Bird seems to 'disappear'.

Also, your 'vote' is amusing as you have been arguing that the 'Object' disappears into the Plume, but 60% of the voters have said it disappears behind, which you haven't been arguing for.
Now if you were to show the entire video and ALL the information of this thread, these 'clean minded' people would be in a better place to give you an understanding of what they have seen.

You really have no argument whatsoever other than you are too stubborn to admit you are wrong.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join