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.

 

UFO PROOF! You Missed The Disclosure!

page: 8
36
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by nightmare_david
What really gets me about this video is how a lot of you call these things "ice particles/debris" when you clearly ignore a few things.

No, you ignore every fact, evidence, and observation posted before. There is no point repeating the same arguments, please read the entire thread, and the other STS-75 thread, then try to address the refutations, so we may learn something new from your experience and deductions.




posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by nightmare_david
1.) The biggest one moves behind the tether and the tether clearly casts a shadow on the object. That helped put the size of that object at approx. 2 to 3 miles in diameter. Also clearly shows that the object is nowhere near the shuttle so throw out the "small ice particle" theory. If large chunks of ice that size exist in space that close to us we'd see them in NASA videos more often. Actually, wouldn't it be possible to view a chunk of ice 2 to 3 miles in size with a telescope?
The tether was visible from the ground, the "UFOs" not.

See this video.



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 




The tether was visible from the ground, the "UFOs" not.

See this video.

The tether that was filmed from the ground, that was probably filmed with a standard video camera, do we have a date on this film? As it would need to be consistent with the STS-75 footage (date, time etc. ).
Anyways, the link you supplied ArMap, i could not watch that video.

The STS-75 incident was not filmed with a regular camera, so we do have some differences because of that.
So saying that this video is proof of anything because it was filmed from the ground showing the tether, but not the so called "airy discs", i dont consider it to be that consistent, to prove anything, other than that the tether was up there....




posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Balez
Anyways, the link you supplied ArMap, i could not watch that video.
Sorry, try this link.

It's a page that I had alerady posted some time ago.


The STS-75 incident was not filmed with a regular camera, so we do have some differences because of that.
I never got to see the camera's specifications, were they posted?


So saying that this video is proof of anything because it was filmed from the ground showing the tether, but not the so called "airy discs", i dont consider it to be that consistent, to prove anything, other than that the tether was up there....
Probably, how can we know that the discs were not visible with a common camera?



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 




I never got to see the camera's specifications, were they posted?



While any serious analysis of what these scenes really show should require knowledge of the operating characteristics of the camera and of the illumination environment of these scenes, none of these steps appear to have been taken in previously published versions. There's still misinformation about whether the camera was a CCD or vidicon (it was a vidicon, with an image intensifier circuit).

Source

This was James Obergs explanation of the camera, a bit short though.
Even though it was short, i dont think that an image intensifier circuit is normal on a vidicon, nor do i think it will be having any resemblance to a CCD camera.
There were additional filter systems used, but i can not find anything about that though.

The thing with this camera was that it was made for a mission like the STS-75, for filming the tether so that they vissually would be able to see what would happen.

Now as there are very little information on this, i will not say that i am absolutely certain, but almost.




Probably, how can we know that the discs were not visible with a common camera?

As i said earlier, that would be difficult to prove one way or the other, that camera would have to be filming this at the same time as the crew on the shuttle did.

Not that i think it would matter, since i believe that the shuttle camera and it's capabilities picked up these highly charged debris along side the tether.
Not ice particles around the shuttle....



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 10:18 PM
link   
reply to post by ALLis0NE
 



You guys ever notice something??

Everytime UFOs are filmed on earth, usually it's saucer shaped (most of the time). Or some kind of definite shape....like cylinder, sphere etc.

How come everytime a UFO is claimed to have been filmed in space by the Space Shuttle, it's is always amorphously shaped. They are shaped as nothing but debris, with jagged edges and broken geometric shape....JUST LIKE ICE PARTICLES.

How come UFO film from Space Shuttle NEVER shows a perfect FLYING SAUCER, like those supposedly filmed on earth?

Ever thought about that?



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 05:14 AM
link   
reply to post by MachXX
 




Everytime UFOs are filmed on earth, usually it's saucer shaped (most of the time). Or some kind of definite shape....like cylinder, sphere etc.

True... There are other shapes aswell but i see what you mean...



How come everytime a UFO is claimed to have been filmed in space by the Space Shuttle, it's is always amorphously shaped. They are shaped as nothing but debris, with jagged edges and broken geometric shape....JUST LIKE ICE PARTICLES.

Wouldn't that just be a great way to hide?!
Look like rubbish and nothing will notice you....

But actually, there are sightings that are more, looking like a bright light, and not just like debris or ice particles.



How come UFO film from Space Shuttle NEVER shows a perfect FLYING SAUCER, like those supposedly filmed on earth?

That could have something to do with distance...



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 11:21 AM
link   
Anyone also seen the following interesting video?

NASA STS-123 25/03/2008

www.youtube.com...

Be sure to check out the lower right corner from 00:19s to 00:27 seconds.

It's fascinating!



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 11:22 AM
link   
You are so right. And to tell you the truth, I have been interested in UFOs since childhood and read every book possible and watched every video possible to get to the truth. I actually used to think, "When I die, I want to ask God about the truth of UFOs".

Now, when I saw Evidence: NASA UFOS, which includes the video you posted I could not sleep that night. I even watched it in the morning before going to work again. Those NASA videos have made me 100% sure that UFOs are real. 100%! No doubt in my mind. Especially the formation over Africa, did you guys see that one! It's nuts.

Anyway, I'm new here and I loved this thread.



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


The UFOs were net visible from the ground because you need a UV camera, which NASA was using. The UFOs were not seen by the naked eye either because they were in the UV frequency range, which you know our eyes and most of our cameras (unless they are specialized) can't capture.



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by kazmology
 


I only have a problem with that, I have never seen the technical characteristics of the camera, so saying that it was filming in UV without any real data about it does not convince me that it was really the case.

And if the UFOs were not visible with the naked eye why one of the astronauts said that they were "debris that are kind of accompanying us", or something like that?



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


I agree with you too that we do not know the technical characteristics of the camera, but it's just a logical conclusion. The objects were pulsating and flying at different speeds, etc. So the camera captured something real. Also, they were fuzzy or translucent, so again, the camera had to be capturing something in the UV frequency range since the IR cameras did not capture anything.

The astronauts who saw the objects were looking through the camera, which is why they saw them. The tether was like 200 miles away, right? So they have to use the camera to watch it. Again, just being logical.



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by kazmology
 


Knowing that a bright object near the camera will look like those disks, wouldn't be logical also to think that they are objects near the shuttle, and that was why they could not be seen with the naked eye (the camera is amplifying them) and from the ground?

PS: Sorry, ALLis0NE, but people keep on talking about where those things were.



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


NASA uses CCD cameras and they do not go out of focus like normal cameras when close object pass infront of them. CCD cameras have near and far objects in focus, furthermore, the object pass BEHIND the tether, proving that they were are at least 200 miles away. So that's why that explanation is not logical for me.



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by kazmology
 


You are wrong, CCD cameras behave just like other cameras, out makes things in focus or out of focus is the lens, not the way the light is measured by the sensitive elements (chemical or electronic).



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by kazmology
reply to post by ArMaP
 


NASA uses CCD cameras and they do not go out of focus like normal cameras when close object pass infront of them. CCD cameras have near and far objects in focus, furthermore, the object pass BEHIND the tether, proving that they were are at least 200 miles away. So that's why that explanation is not logical for me.


The camera used on the STS-75 mission, was not a CCD camera, it was a vidicon with an image intensifier circuit.

I dont know what the properties of a camera with that configuration will be, but i dont think it will be similar to a CCD.



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Balez
 


Just found something online on: www.advancedimagingpro.com...$4502

And it basically says that NASA uses CMOS cameras and not CCD, but the article also says "CCD and CMOS sensors do the same job of capturing light and converting it to electrical signals. CCD is the more mature technology"

Thanks for making me research this!



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by kazmology
 


correction: according to the article NASA is using CCD but might make a move to CMOS. I'm going to have to do some more research on Vidicon cameras, I think they are analog, but we'll see



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by kazmology
 


Your logic is fine but your facts are not.

The specifications were posted in the other STS-75 thread, including field of view. From memory the camera is not UV only, it has a large spectrum, including IR, visible and UV. According to James Oberg, the depth of field of the camera was 2 meters to infinity, making close particles look like notched, transparent disks. Probably the key to the mystery is there: the STS-75 camera was poorly designed, the light amplification made everything overexposed. You also see disks in other NASA footage, but everyone, including expert CTers, knows their dim light is typical of ice particles.



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by nablator
 


I don't think it was a case of a badly designed camera.

In the video, the camera was being used outside its supposed operation parameters, it was filming the tether at a distance some 5 times bigger than it was supposed to do.



new topics

top topics



 
36
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join