UFO PROOF! You Missed The Disclosure!

reply to post by ALLis0NE

These three examples above are different objects, yet they all some how "instantly" appear into view, and they all look exactly the same. No difference in size, shape, brightness, or anything. The are all exactly the same, and show up the same. What are the chances of that??? YES, I DO know how long they were invisible. One or two of them were invisible the entire length of the movie, and don't show up untill a certain moment. When they do show up in the screen, they are STATIONARY. Some how, they gain speed...

Instantly appear? Yes, why are you are absolutely correct they do....
From being not reflecting light, to reflecting light, on a dark background it looks like that, remember rotation?
You know, even STATIONARY objects can rotate.....
Another possibility is that they object is being impacted by another objects which can turn the reflective side against the sun....
You aren't claiming that you can see the 'invisible' objects are you?

So you are going out on a limb, and you are going to pass these off as ice crystals hitting each other and some how acceleraing and stopping. Which means you are insisting that these things are being hit multiple times, in order for them to do the maneuvers they are doing.

Yes, exactly, i didn't think that was so difficult, did you?

Do you understand how far fetched that is?

No i dont, but then, if you count the objects that are visible, then the chance are, for there being just as many invisible objects aswell.....

A UFO teleports in one spot, gains speed, slows down to a stop for a second, then slowly gains speed in the opposite direction, and leaves the screen completely lit, with he same exact brightness the entire time. The light did not "dim" one bit.

Why should it dim?
As you clearly dont know for how long it was 'dark' that is a very invalid argument.

You are trying to tell me that a rotation made it go from invisible to visible, then you are trying to say that object got hit by multiple objects to make it gain speed slowly, then you are saying that same object collides with MORE things to some how make it perfectly slow down and come to a stop, then you are saying MORE collisions made to turn around, and MORE multiple collisions made it slowly GAIN speed. Keyword "GAIN" speed, not "INHERIT" speed.

Now you are following what i am saying.....
Btw, who has mentioned 'inherit' in this thread?

Not only are you trying to saying 1 "ice particle" does this in the camera, but MULTIPLE ones do this.

What is the difficulty of that?
Are there perhaps only one object?
No, there are multiple objects, and probably more that we dont see.

That is by far the most ridiculous thing I have ever herd

And it is "heard" a herd is more than two animals....

Do you know the chances of only 1 "ice particle" colliding with another to make it come to a COMPLETE STOP??? Naturally?

Give me a few numbers and i'll do some calculations on it...(dont forget the ones that are 'dark')

Yeah actually. A few of the UFO's were in the dark for the entire length of the video before they suddenly teleported to the middle of the screen and then accelerated away with a speed faster than the speed they started with when they became visible.

Oh i do understand that they were invisible till they got visible, but do you know for how long they were? Because if you know that, you will know for how long they will stay visible after that.
And their momentum, i thought i explained that as being impacts by other ice particles.

Damn you know what? Some of those so called "ice particles" are travelling so fast, you would think it would be near impossible to get anything done. That sure is a lot of "ice particles" floating around. You would think that the majority of the vacuum of space is 70% ice.

Here you show your lack of knowledge....
The shuttle itself have over 50 parts that can release ice particles.
But as i refered you to the recent STS-75 thread, you would have known that.

Some peoples imaginations are wild. ICE LOL! Did you know that ICE would probably melt instantly if it was in contact with the Sun and it had no protection like an atmosphere to save it?
Did you know in outer space, dark is extreme cold, and light is extreme hot?

Space aliens, somehow.... sounds more wild though than common ice does....
Where did they have contact with the sun?
Remeber that these particles are close to the shuttle.

Yes i knew that, but did you know that water that get's released into space both boils and freezes at the same time? (no sun needed either)

Now, what i dont like about your way, or behaviour towards me, if you read my first posted you would have seen what i stated

Well as the biggest consensus on this footage is that it is ice particles.

Now i only presented this concensus.
That does not mean that i agree with the concensus on it, so stop your attacks, they go unheeded.

reply to post by nablator


Just because people come up with complicated explanations involving debris, ice crystals and whatnot and create reasonable doubt (or try to, at least ), does not mean that those explanations are correct

reply to post by nablator


Your response does not make sense to me.

I didn't say that the floating movement was anything. I just feel that from what people at posting the movement is I would be concerned of their size.

What's with the antagonism? Can we rationally discuss the topic?

Certainly things can appear to 'light up' all of a sudden if rotating a reflective side towards a light source, however this would mean that the object would still be rotating, meaning that it should continue to rotate, thereby 'blinking' on and off as it rotates, like a lighthouse beacon (but reflective light only).

So that must mean that it was impacted by some other object, thereby turning the impacted objects' reflective side towards the light source. In that case, unless PERFECTLY impacted face on, some degree of rotation will have been imparted it. So in this case as well, the struck object should continue to rotate, albeit a different rotational period and also a different path vector. Correct?

[edit on 6-4-2008 by battlestargalactica]

You all have good arguments. But why does every piece of debris have the same shape with that edge on the outer side and the hole in the middle?

The next thing is that they really seem to fly behind the tether.

And there is another footage which shows the same objects forming a circle with
one in the middle? How can debris make a formation???

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by battlestargalactica


Teleportation !!!! Of course, what else could it be...

Really, that's because the shuttle casts shadows. The floaters are not seen in the shade for the same reason you don't see stars on images of the moon.

Hint: it's not because NASA airbrused them.

reply to post by battlestargalactica

Certainly things can appear to 'light up' all of a sudden if rotating into reflective side towads the light source, however this would mean that the object is still rotating, meaning that it should continue to rotate, thereby 'blinking' on and off as it rotates, like a lighthouse beacon (but reflective light only).

Partly correct, however blinking on and off at certain intervals has to do with the rotational speed, if they rotate slowly they will also stay dark for a long time, and also stay reflective for about as long time.

So that must mean that it was impacted by some other object, thereby turning the impacted object towards the reflective side towards the light source. In that case, unless PERFECTLY impacted face on, some degree of rotation will have been imparted to the impacted object. So in this case as well, the struck object should continue to rotate, albeit a different rotational period and also a different path vector. Correct?

They can be impacted yes.
However, that the impacts decide if they are going to be reflective or not, is hard to say, because we have more than four angles to count on, a object could come from the direction of the camera and impact on another object sending it further away untill the camera will not 'see' it anymore.
A object can be stationary but still have momentum, called angular momentum.
This would be rotation of the objects, and for how fast they rotate.

When the impact occurs however, we dont know what will happen, as ice is quite brittle, it could break up, they could even merge as one, creating a bigger particle.



[edit on 6-4-2008 by Balez]

Originally posted by MrdDstrbr

 

Just because people come up with complicated explanations involving debris, ice crystals and whatnot and create reasonable doubt (or try to, at least

), does not mean that those explanations are correct

Yes.
Let's just stick to well known facts: galactic clocks (Sereda), orbs (Greer knows all about them), and simple explanations: teleportation.

reply to post by Rhain


The water droplets on the glass seen in your avatar, are they as big as the house or whatever is in the background? I wouldn't be concerned at all for the safety of the house.

Originally posted by nablator
and simple explanations: teleportation.

You do know teleportation is possible right?

reply to post by nablator


Again I don't understand your response.

I am going to assume you didn't understand my original post.

I choose to respond to your post because yours had some of the information I wanted to isolate. I should not do that, I know.

The tether is 12 miles long, the movement clearly flows around the tether behind, along side and in front.

The space tether experiment, a joint venture of the US and Italy, called for a scientific payload--a large, spherical satellite--to be deployed from the US space shuttle at the end of a conducting cable (tether) 20 km (12.5 miles) long. The idea was to let the shuttle drag the tether across the Earth's magnetic field, producing one part of a dynamo circuit. The return current, from the shuttle to the payload, would flow in the Earth's ionosphere, which also conducted electricity, even though not as well as the wire.

Source

So in my summation of this I feel the movements, what ever they are, must be huge.

OK, I will re-post on this thread what I have posted on other threads about this video.

I don't think that these are large objects but very small objects near the camera. They look the way they do because they are out of focus. I also think that the tether is out of focus because of the distance between the tether and the shuttle at the time the video was made (77 nautical miles, this was not filmed just after the breaking of the tether).

Out of focus objects have a tendency to appear translucent, because what we see is not the object itself. That is easily reproduced if we hold a finger in from of one eye but not in a way to completely cover it; we can see that there is an "aura" around the finger that is translucent.

Thinking about this I tried to reproduce (as far as I could) the situation: an object at some distance of the camera with a smaller, bright object near the camera and out of focus.

This was what I got.
As we can see, although not exactly the same as the tether video, a small out of focus object may look like it is behind the other object. It even has that dark line on the right of the string I used that may look like a shadow of the string on the red circle; a line like that can be seen on the tether video, to the right of tethet, when the round objects pass by it, and as been considered a shadow of the tether on the objects by some people.

The video, if anyone wants to see it, is available here. I still have (but not online) the original MOV file created by the camera (a Panasonic DMC-FZ30).

Another thing that is visible on my experiment is that the out of focus object in front of the string acted as a light-enhancing filter, making the string look brigter on the area covered by the out of focus object. A similar effect can be seen on the tether video, but maybe because of the characteristics of the camera, it looks like the camera reached its limits and turned the brighter area to black, but we can see that the passing of the round objects by the tether had this effect on the tether, like it was a filter.



The characteristic shape of the round objects is a result of the lens of the camera (that is why there are so many videos of "orbs" or "UFOs" that look the same, its because the camera used was the same model). In the following image we can see what a Canon MV730i makes when it cannot focus on a bright object.


If anyone has a camera from the same model it would be easy to see if it produces the same type of "object" as the one I used.

Question: If these are camera effects, out of focus objects near and far, are there any other examples of NASA footage that show similar numerous orbs floating around within the cameras field of view?

This should not be an isolated event if it is a camera artifact, we should be seeing these effects all the time on NASA footage. Anyone have any NASA footage besides the STS-75 videos showing these effects?

reply to post by ALLis0NE

These UFO's are not even close to the thrusters! Did you not see the camera ZOOM IN? If the UFO's were closer to the camera, then the pure action of zooming in would have made the UFO's leave the view!

No, zooming only makes small out of focus particles look like BIG out of focus disks. Exactly what we are seeing in the video. Try it yourself with a camera. Or ask Dr Greers. He knows how to make orbs appear in front of the camera, at night, with a flash.

If the UFO was slowly rotating, I would expect the reflection to start from a dim light that slowly changes to a bright light. But we don't see a slow prgression of brightness, we see and INSTANT brightness, that I have timed AT LESS THAN 1 second.

I agree it's not because of the rotation. More likely the shadow of the Shuttle.

The UFO that you claim is "rotating ice" would have a DIFFUSE reflection, but in the video it appears to have a SPECULAR one.

It's called over-exposure. You don't seem to know what SPECULAR means. Does it look more awesome in CAPS?

Your arguments are WEAK!

You don't have ANY arguments. See, I can write in CAPS too. That makes me STRONG.

I don't think you are paying attention enough. When 1 object is stationary, and another moving object hits it. That stationary object has an instant change in velocity.

I agree. No impacts there. Read the other threads for a discussions on the known forces that explain all visible accelerations.

Who the heck is talking about out of focus objects, and translucent objects??

WHY?

The thread is about THE MOVEMENT OF THE OBJECTS.

Of course the objects are blury! Of course the lenses are making them look round with a little cut out! Why do they move like they are intelligently controlled, and why do they go from 100% invisible to 100% visible?

I don't want to talk about their size, and their relitive size to the tether. That has been talked about for AGES.

TALK ABOUT THE MOVEMENT OF SOME OF THEM.

Some of these movements are not natural.

[edit on 6-4-2008 by ALLis0NE]

reply to post by ALLis0NE

Why such an excited tone, please take a deep breath, and use less caps. Your tone is tending to fire everyone up in this thread. You will find that if you 'speak' (by writing) in a rational, factual, logical way, much more can get accomplished in this and future threads of yours.

Originally posted by nablator
You don't have ANY arguments. See, I can write in CAPS too. That makes me STRONG.

I'm have illustrations showing abnormal unatural flight paths of these objects. All you have is a sarcastic snobby "i know everything about this video" approach to my argument, and you are actually degrading my topic.

So kindly remove yourself, or use some logic to counter my arguments instead of one liner remarks to all of my paragraphs.

reply to post by battlestargalactica



I don't choose how the little voice in your head reads my words.

one more line




[edit on 6-4-2008 by ALLis0NE]

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
Who the heck is talking about out of focus objects, and translucent objects??

I am.

WHY?

Because I can.

The thread is about THE MOVEMENT OF THE OBJECTS.

OK.

Of course the objects are blury! Of course the lenses are making them look round with a little cut out! Why do they move like they are intelligently controlled, and why do they go from 100% invisible to 100% visible?

Then do you agree that they could be small sized object near the camera?

Some of these movements are not natural.

I agree, and if you read the thread to which I pointed on my first post in this thread you would have seen that I talked about that too, but the size and relative position of the objects influences the possibilities.

One thing is a far away 500 metres object appearing and disappearing and changing direction abruptly, a completely different thing is a close by 0.5 millimetre object appearing and disappearing and changing direction abruptly.

do these object appear behind the tether?

edit: i need new eyes, can anyone clone some for me?

[edit on 6-4-2008 by Ramb0]