Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Unnoticed Flying Objects During Shuttle Launch *new*

page: 36
0
<< 33  34  35    37  38 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 09:30 PM
link   
I do like this photo(even though I see you found a sly way to insult posters here with the title)

img147.imageshack.us... Interesting title.
If you look just to the left of the plume you clearly see the section of cloud that covers the plume at approx 1:07 seconds into the original vid.

IMO if the birds (UFO's) are flying into anything that section of cloud is what they are flying into.


[edit on 14/6/06 by Skibum]




posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 09:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skibum
IMO if the birds (UFO's) are flying into anything that section of cloud is what they are flying into.



REALLY?



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by LAES YVAN
Its only stating the truth.. Ive had to repeat myself many times because you people are trying and trying to find a flaw in most of my posts.. and because you just haven't read, and comprehended my posts.


You dont want people to find 'flaws' in your obviously flawed argument then don't post it on the one board on the internet that DOES that.
Just because this place is full of people that want to (and in alot of cases do) believe, doesnt mean we are all gullible imbeciles who take any fodder presented and take as truth.

[edit on 14/6/2006 by JebusSaves]



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 09:36 PM
link   


REALLY?


Yes, really.

If you watch your own video, starting at around 1:07 you can watch for yourself as the section of cloud moves directly in front of the section of plume you say the birds fly into.



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 09:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by JebusSaves

Originally posted by LAES YVAN
Its only stating the truth.. Ive had to repeat myself many times because you people are trying and trying to find a flaw in most of my posts.. and because you just haven't read, and comprehended my posts.


You dont want people to find 'flaws' in your obviously flawed argument then don't post it on the one board on the internet that DOES that.
Just because this place is full of people that want to and do, believe doesnt mean we are all gullible imbeciles who take any fodder presented and take as truth.


I never said I didnt want you to point out flaws.. however, I would wish you people would stop trying to point out flaws that dont exist. Or continue to point out things that I have already answered, and talked about. I feel like a broken record about now, I must have answered the same 4 questions at least 80 times.



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skibum
Yes, really.

If you watch your own video, starting at around 1:07 you can watch for yourself as the section of cloud moves directly in front of the section of plume you say the birds fly into.


I dont see your point yet.. you are saying the clouds are touching the plume of smoke?



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 09:42 PM
link   


I dont see your point yet.. you are saying the clouds are touching the plume of smoke?


No not at all (though I do recall you claiming that), I'm saying they move in front of the plume (more specifically the section you point out as being where the birds fly into).

IMO the whole cloud is a considerable distance away (towards the camera) from the plume.



[edit on 14/6/06 by Skibum]



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 09:49 PM
link   
HI LAES YVAN.

Well, the debate still rages!! I see alot of people have been posting for the majority of the "Bird" theory yet. Just letting you know that I am still checking in on the outcome and the opinions for this thread.

I like the "Loop" that you created for the object coming out of it , or going into it, you can clearly see that is cylindrical. But, nice way to get your point across.

I check back later.....



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 09:57 PM
link   


The reasons I believe the object is traveling into the smoke plume in this picture:

a) from point A to point B in these short frames, this object is traveling a straight line. NOT noticeably turning or changing shape.

b) the object seems to fade away at the EXACT edge of the smoke plume.

c) other objects that pass IN FRONT of the plume, still retain their color even while they are "turning". Unlike the object in this picture, that consumes the color of the smoke, much like any object would that is entering smoke.

d) the pixels that show before it nears the plume are quite dark, and there is about 8 total pixels. AFTER it enters the area of the plume the pixel count dramatically decreases, even though the object is DARK and the background is LIGHT. You hardly EVER see an instance where a dark object disappears into a light object. It would be like trying to cover black crayon, with a grey crayon.

e) the compression isnt as bad as you think. actually at the very beginning of the video you can clearly see the escape ZIP LINE that the astronauts would use in the case of a emergancy. The zip line is no more than 2 inches thick, and it is visible at 4+ miles on the camera.


Please explain why this zip line that is no more than 2 inches thick is visible at such long range. Wouldnt the "compression" mess this up?




spaceflightnow.com...

Still wearing their cumbersome spacesuits, the crew will exit the shuttle and scurry to the emergency slide-wire baskets on the west side of the launch pad tower. These baskets would be used to quickly transport a shuttle crew to the ground where a fortified bunker awaits if a nightmarish scenario ever occurred. Discovery's crew plans to hop into the baskets but not actually ride them off the tower. In fact, astronauts have never had to escape the pad in such dramatic fashion.


ksnn.larc.nasa.gov...



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



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 10:30 PM
link   



Yes you are correct.. Are you implying that no craft on earth is capable of flying in front of the clouds, AS WELL AS, in the plume? They do seem to be traveling at a fast speed, it IS possible for them to fly both in front of the clouds, AND in the plume of smoke.. It IS possbile for a human aircraft to do such a thing.

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

I am not implying that it is not possible for a craft to do that. But, based on the lack of an true reference point it is impossible to determine the distance from the cloud to the plume. But please consider this;
Watching the clip over and over again I see most of the black objects becoming very faint and some even disappearing from view when they are in the blue sky, with no clouds or plumes to dive into. This seems to occur when they reach the extreme left or right quadrant of the arc they are tracing in the sky. With no plume or smoke or cloud to cause them to be obscured, what would cause this?

Could it be the change in profile and orientation as noted in my previous post?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

If this is possible in the clear blue sky, why can it not occur if the they assume the same orientation but at a location much closer to the observer but still in the line of site of the plume or even at the projected edge of the plume.

This, IMHO is the only reasonable explanation for what you perceive to be taking place.

Review your clip again with this scenario in mind. Surely you must agree that this explanation would give a reasonable solution to why the object appears to vanish into the plume. No need to resort to mysterious craft to explain what is seen on the video.



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by LAES YVAN
Please explain why this zip line that is no more than 2 inches thick is visible at shuch long range. Wouldnt the "compression" mess this up?


The zip line, the legs of the water tower, the rails of the fence show up nice and clear because they are straight lines (yes, the zip line runs at an angle, it is, however, Straight)

The leaves on the trees, on the other hand, are much closer to the viewer than the zip line, at least as large in diamteter (if not larger) than the zip line, and are a chaotic blurred massed due to the mpg compression techniques of the original footage...

Here's some of your original footage, this time enhanced. Before you go balistic on me Again and tell me what a lousy 'compression' job I did just know that Nothing has been 'compressed' in this footage. Don't let the qt .mov ENVELOPE fool you, it's the same Sorenson mpg, re-rendered to NTSC standards.

Enhancements: Enlarged image 791%; Moved center point to center on plume; Inverted QIY channels via quadrature chrominance; Found Edges- (enhanced 1%) inverted, and blended with existing footage 97%.

that's it. No sharpening, softening, dithering, median cut, etc. etc.

www.torbtown.com...

don't just watch the footage, grab the playhead with your mouse and Scrub the footage back and forth... I can follow the flight path of all of the Unidentified Flapping Objects and none of them enter the plume or flap behind it.

soooo looking forward to your witty response.



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sparky63
I am not implying that it is not possible for a craft to do that. But, based on the lack of an true reference point it is impossible to determine the distance from the cloud to the plume. But please consider this;
Watching the clip over and over again I see most of the black objects becoming very faint and some even disappearing from view when they are in the blue sky, with no clouds or plumes to dive into. This seems to occur when they reach the extreme left or right quadrant of the arc they are tracing in the sky. With no plume or smoke or cloud to cause them to be obscured, what would cause this?


If you watch the original video there is no doubt that at very few times, maybe 3 times total, you are correct, they do become less visible while flying in the blue sky. but not invincible. If you look REALLY close, you can see the objects at all times against the sky. If these object ARE birds, that would mean every time they fly towards/away from the camera, they would become less visible. But if you watch the video, there are plenty of times of which the objects are flying towards/away from the camera, and they are VERY visible. The fact they only disappear a few times against the blue sky, tells me that sky is a lot darker, and the objects are a lot lighter than one thinks. The sky is a LOT darker than the white plume of smoke. IMO the objects just blend in with the dark sky. There is no reason why the dark object blend into the plume of smoke...


Also, the camera is pointing North/N.East. The launch takes place at 10:30 am. It would appear to me that the only reason the objects appear so dark most of the time, is because they are casting a shadow that we are seeing from our perspective. Because the sun is in the upper right corner of the video, that would put the shadow just in our view. If at a time the object turns a certain direction, that shadow is disappearing, and becoming lit by the sun, there for making the dark object more LIGHT, blending in with the sky.

IMO, the sky is MUCH DARKER than the plume of smoke. This could cause the object to appear to fade into the sky. Also, the object is much darker than the plume of smoke, there is no reason for the object to fade into the plume, even if the sun is shinning on it.



Originally posted by torbjon
soooo looking forward to your witty response.


In that video.. at 24 seconds, till the end.. you see the last two objects appear to enter the plume of smoke.

Just like this video.. but this video is closer and less pixelated from the resize/zoom. Plus this video retains its orginial format, because virtualdub was used with a zoom filter. And at no time is the format changed to Apple Quick time .MOV

media.putfile.com...


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



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by torbjon
soooo looking forward to your witty response.

Flying into/around/over/under/through/I don't care where ------ if someone does NOT see these objects FLAPPING, someone seriously needs to make an appointment with an optomatrist !!

NN



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by LAES YVAN
In that video.. at 24 seconds, till the end.. you see the last two objects appear to enter the plume of smoke.


Appear would be the operative word, they happen to drop out of frame...

Exactly How does that 'zoom filter' you mention function? I'm an NYFA grad, so be as technical as you like (cut and paste the specs if you have to...) the algorithms for most filters create a lot of artifacts.

the 'enhancements' I did only added 1% edge enhancement (which was then dropped down 97%, ergo 0.03% artifacts)

Inverting the QIY channels has to do with how the data is parsed and doesn't corrupt the data in any way... of course, you knew that, right?

Tell you what, instead of us bashing heads together, I won't tell a Navy dude like you how to splash around in the water, you don't tell a film academy guy like me how to play with footage. Fair?

I'm trying to generate some unbiased images based upon the original raw footage you provided... if you really WANT me to pump it up with blended pixels and fake artifacts, I'll turn the project over to my two year old daughter and she'll click alla the buttons and generate an image that no one anywhere would ever put Any faith in, but man, will it look sweet.

rock on
twj

[edit on 14-6-2006 by torbjon]



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by NoNik
Flying into/around/over/under/through/I don't care where ------ if someone does NOT see these objects FLAPPING, someone seriously needs to make an appointment with an optomatrist !!

NN


I do not see wings flapping. Like I said, i see the double vision effect caused by the speed these objects are traveling, and the type of camera used.. much like the double vision that appears on this bird that is flying at a low altitiude.




It does appear the objects are "moving", or "flapping", but it isnt. It is only a double vision effect caused by the speed and camera shake, and type of camera.



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



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 11:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by LAES YVAN
It does appear the objects are "moving", or "flapping", but it isnt. It is only a double vision effect caused by the speed and camera shake, and type of camera.

Ironic then, that these objects have "camera shake" effect, yet the clouds and plume do not. Friggen amazing.

Ugh

NN



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by NoNik

Ironic then, that these objects have "camera shake" effect, yet the clouds and plume do not. Friggen amazing.

Ugh

NN


the COMBNIATION OF THE SPEED,SHAKE, AND CAMERA USED cause this effect.

The clouds and plume are NOT moving as fast as the objects, there for they dont have the double vision effect.. DUH.



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by LAES YVAN
The clouds and plume are NOT moving as fast as the objects, there for they dont have the double vision effect..

Dude, camera shake is camera shake. If the objects are going to have camera shake, every damn things else will as well. Especially if the objects are so close to the plume that they are going into it, as you state. Shake has nada to do with speed nor camera type ....... it's shakey hand, an object 3 feet or 3 miles distance will exhibit the same effect.



DUH.

Grow up. Again.

NN



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by torbjon
the 'enhancements' I did only added 1% edge enhancement (which was then dropped down 97%, ergo 0.03% artifacts)


The zoom plug in for virtualdub does NOT "enhance", "change" the video in any way. The fact that you changed the video from the original to "enhance" the edge by %1, clearly tells me the video you proved is showing computer generated FAKE edges that dont appear in the original video.. Basically the computer THINKS is sees edges so it adds them, to "enhance" it right? A "film academy guy" would know that "enhancing" a video that already has a terrible, limited, distorted picture, can NOT be enhanced since they are such small objects...

Basically you are adding FAKE edges, to something that is FADEING into the background. You can not do that, and base your judgement on that edited video.


Originally posted by torbjon
Inverting the QIY channels has to do with how the data is parsed and doesn't corrupt the data in any way... of course, you knew that, right?


Please explain what QIY stands for, and post a link to its explanation. I am not informed about this QIY.


Look.. i took this picture of this flag:


And i ran an EDGE ENHANCMENT on it:



This computer thinks the stripes on the flags are EDGES. They arnt.. they are just lines in the colors. That would mean this computer is enhancing something that doesn't exist. There for ruining the Original photo.



Originally posted by Access Denied
So then why aren't the shuttle's wings flapping?


LOL.

Maybe because by the time it is going fast enough, it is to far away to visiualy show any type of double vision. Also , half the movie, beside the begging, the shuttle is behind clouds.



Originally posted by NoNik

Dude, camera shake is camera shake. If the objects are going to have camera shake, every damn things else will as well. Especially if the objects are so close to the plume that they are going into it, as you state. Shake has nada to do with speed nor camera type ....... it's shakey hand, an object 3 feet or 3 miles distance will exhibit the same effect.



DUH.

Grow up. Again.

NN



So are you trying to say the camera has ZERO camera shake??

Please explain why the bird in my picture above shows as double vision.


[edit on 15-6-2006 by LAES YVAN]



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 11:52 PM
link   



If you watch the original video there is no doubt that at very few times, maybe 3 times total, you are correct, they do become less visible while flying in the blue sky. but not invincible. If you look REALLY close, you can see the objects at all times against the sky. If these object ARE birds, that would mean every time they fly towards/away from the camera, they would become less visible. But if you watch the video, there are plenty of times of which the objects are flying towards/away from the camera, and they are VERY visible.


You are assuming that every time they appear to fly toward or away from the camera that they must always maintain the same orientation in respect to the observer. This is not necessarily so. The view of the wings and the body depend on the pitch of the object. That too can not be determined from the clip.



The fact they only disappear a few times against the blue sky, tells me that sky is a lot darker, and the objects are a lot lighter than one thinks. The sky is a LOT darker than the white plume of smoke. IMO the objects just blend in with the dark sky. There is no reason why the dark object blend into the plume of smoke...

So you are willing to agree the the objects can and do disappear or almost disappear in the clear blue sky at least 3 times, and you float the possibility of the object clearly tranversing the homogenous blue sky then suddenly blending in.
Yet you contend that this is not due to the objects changing its orientation with respect to the viewer. What else would cause this suden change?

ON the other hand you vehemently deny the possibillity that any blending of colors, resulting in sudden invisibility, can occur as the object passes in front of the plume, although the plume is a jumble of various shades of white and gray. If this object be it bird or craft is now viewed on edge and presents a slender profile in front of the billowing plume surely you can see that the same thing can take place.

Your whole argument boils down to it disappearing in the plume. Its all about perspective, angles, and changing surface area. Oh yeah, and software compression.
Shadows? I'm not even going to go down that road.





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 33  34  35    37  38 >>

log in

join