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.

 

NASA STS-114 UFO Footage - Can it be debunked?

page: 39
96
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns


Originally posted by depthoffield
No, you are wrong and simplifying things, there are plenty of videos with debris, which are NOT "swooshing" at all, or maybe very little. None, less or more, depending by their position relative to the thruster blast, and the paralax too. The "shooshing" is not a "MUST" to be ice particle. Don't simplify this.

like this one:




Your image above is the prime example of seeing the differences of these particles reacting to the thruster blast. Do you see the two that are very close "swoosh" off upward across the frame, and that one off in the distance barely moves from the blast?

So you once again provide us more evidence for our side that the object in STS 114 is not reacting like ANY of those particles in your example.


No, you used my video comparing exactly in totality with the OP- STS-114 here and therefore dismissing it. I just explained to you that my video was a demo for curved and changing direction, as some people refusez this at that time.
Ok, glad we understand that we should not compare my video with OP regarding as beeing exactly the same situation. It just shows some similar valid aspects applicable here: deceleration, curved trajectory




"Simplicity is the sincerest form of science." A. Einstein.

it appears that you loose many aspects in your simplicity.







[edit on 5/3/09 by depthoffield]

[edit on 5/3/09 by depthoffield]




posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
But who was telling the lies eh?
That is what I would like to know.

But, once more, I should have written that in a different way, the meaning is not what I wanted it to be. I should have written:

"I don't know if this can be applied to this thread, but I am sure other members think that it can."

It was not meant at your post or yourself.


Can we get back to the freakin subject of the STS 114 video or is this showboating going to continue?
Sure, but I always use all the opportunities I get to correct any knowledge fault, so I thought I should correct the information about that quote's author.


Intimidation doesnt work..first sign of it occured today..tell them they have to do way better than that! Heh.
Tell who? What are you talking about?



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by depthoffield


No, you used my video comparing exactly in totality with the OP- STS-114 here and therefore dismissing it. I just explained to you that my video was a demo for curved and changing direction, as some people refusez this at that time.


Perhaps you and JimbO got confused by your own confusion attempts at mixing and mingling videos to confuse others here...as I said, the object in STS 114 is no ice particle, does not react like any ice particle, and does not whisk out of scene due to any outside influence...what you say is that it is affected by "some force"..to which we are all awaiting for that explanation as to this "some force" is.

Perhaps this "some force" is a propulsion system found in the various un-Earthly craft that have been comming to this planet for eons


Originally posted by depthoffield
Ok, glad we understand that we should not compare my video with OP regarding as beeing exactly the same situation. It just shows some similar valid aspects applicable here: deceleration, curved trajectory.


Well at least this is something we can agree on...the object may exibit your curved trajectory, but that is no evidence in saying it is any ice particle because it just so happend to manuver in a fashion like an ice particle.


Originally posted by depthoffield


"Simplicity is the sincerest form of science." A. Einstein.

it appears that you loose many aspects in your simplicity.


I have been consistant in the entire thread. It is you and your fellow debunker clan who have so desperately been throwing out one nonsense example after another..when one doesnt work, you guys throw out another, and another, and another...as if your loosing aspects (and running out of debunking tricks) in the entire issue.

As I stated before, I have participated in thousands of threads across hundreds of different forums about STS videos. This one, in this particular forum, seems to have some sort of specialty to it for you and ol Jim there to be so focused on it after both you and he have been gone for 3 months or more...suddenly popping up to park right here and grow roots to try to ensure that the focus on the object of STS 114 is thwarted and derailed.

Its so darned obvious that anyone who has no interest in UFO's or aliens would see whats taking place.

Regardless, I plan to stick to my belief and stick to my opinion.

Now I will discuss any alternative that has not been already covered in other threads in other forums over the years. Unfortunately nothing alternatively new has been presented...to me anyway.


Cheers!!!!



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP


Intimidation doesnt work..first sign of it occured today..tell them they have to do way better than that! Heh.
Tell who? What are you talking about?


Sorry ArMaP, that was not meant to be directed at you, it was just an opportunity to send a message out to....they know who they are...about a certian event, about a certian attempt, about how badly they played their parts, and how dumb it was to tip the hand so obviously that even my wife noticed how obvious it was and she has no idea whats going on.

No worries ArMaP.



Cheers!!!!



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
Now I will discuss any alternative that has not been already covered in other threads in other forums over the years. Unfortunately nothing alternatively new has been presented...to me anyway.


We only have YOUR description of what has or has not been discussed in other threads, and frankly, I need more proof than that. How about showing us links to the kinds of discussions I asked about on the last page, please?



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
Sorry ArMaP, that was not meant to be directed at you, it was just an opportunity to send a message out to....they know who they are...about a certian event, about a certian attempt, about how badly they played their parts, and how dumb it was to tip the hand so obviously that even my wife noticed how obvious it was and she has no idea whats going on.


Another sign of terminal collapse of an arguer -- they begin muttering to themselves in code words that mean nothing to anyone outside the range of their own interpretations. Does ANYONE have the slightest idea what this is supposed to refer to? Help!



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 01:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Another sign of terminal collapse of an arguer -- they begin muttering to themselves in code words that mean nothing to anyone outside the range of their own interpretations. Does ANYONE have the slightest idea what this is supposed to refer to? Help!



Why respond to a post not meant for you in the first place? To further your derailing attempt by using me as your target because you have nothing else worthy to contribute to this discussion?

Obviously.

Why the mods allow you to attack the poster is byond me. I really dont care, it does not alter my world one bit. I still believe what I believe. And for some odd reason, you just cannot stand that can you. Aww...1-900-WAHH.



Your so lost now that you have to post replies to my posts where I am not even talking to you.

If anything, you are demonstrating a fine example of terminal collapse going byond the point of desperation. Its sad and pathetic.

Go google the sites for yourself. Im sure that a person with your ability and experience can do simple google searches.

If that is byond your ability, I suggest reading some kind of search engine basics tutorial. Plenty of those out there on the net too...oh wait...you have to search for them. Hmm...good luck.



Cheers!!!!



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 01:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by RFBurns
Now I will discuss any alternative that has not been already covered in other threads in other forums over the years. Unfortunately nothing alternatively new has been presented...to me anyway.


We only have YOUR description of what has or has not been discussed in other threads, and frankly, I need more proof than that. How about showing us links to the kinds of discussions I asked about on the last page, please?



You dont need proof. You only need your ability to do a simple search.

And who is "We"....are you speaking for the entire community here at ATS?

Heh..keep telling yourself that..Im sure you actually believe it.




Cheers!!!!



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 03:21 AM
link   



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 04:56 AM
link   
RFBurns, remember that i proposed more solutions to the puzzle of OP particle coming to the left, stoping and then changing direction and going to the right.
One solution involves some force aplied to the particle, other solutions didn't need any force aplied to the particle.


The winner solution for me, is this:

Shuttle is constantly accelerating to the left, catching the near particle which moves at constant speed, and then letting it behind. In the same time, the particle is constantly going away from the shuttle, to the Earth.
There is no force acting to the particle. But is a force acting to the shuttle together with the camera: thrust acceleration.

Remember the thrown apple analogy? You agree with it, despite finding the little "bug" saying that the apple is falling to earth because of gravitation, but our OP particle is not falling. Then i proposed to you the same example, but now with the apple thrown from the shuttle, here: www.abovetopsecret.com...


original by Depthoffield

I will repeat the mind experiment with the apple, now in space, for you to better comprehend the solution proposed:

You are in the tail of the shuttle. The camera is on the front, filming perpendicular to the earth. You throw the apple, in the direction of the shuttle movement, but giving a little impulse toward the Earth too. If you throw the apple EXACTLY horizontal in the direction of movement vector, then the apple just will go in front of the shuttle. But if you throw with just a little angle, then the apple will move in front of the shuttle, but will goes away toward the Earth too. Is not falling because of Earth gravitation (like simpler apple example), is just a posible trajectory in space.

Now, imagine that the shuttle is accelerating. Of course, it will catch the apple, and then it will let it behind. But the apple is going to the Earth in the same time, thus shrinking. It is the same situation: the apple will appear to goes in front, stoping, and then changing 180 direction, and goes in oposite direction.


Seems you ignored this posibility, which explains exactly the situation.



I will argument more the "accelerating shuttle" phenomenon:

Look at the following youtube movie, which shows how shuttle is accelerating constantly with 1/16 g, taken from STS-8 mission:



The astronauts just explains what is happening.

The scotch-roll, you agree, when is getting released free from the hand of the astronaut, will have inertia and will just going with constant speed, as all the inertial masses do when no force is acting on them.


But the shuttle is not going with constant speed. Instead, it accelerates to the left because of the thruster force aplied to the shuttle-body. It accelerates with 1/16 g. So, it's speed increases. Because speed is increasing, it will catch the constant moving scoth-roll, and it will surpass the roll, leting it behind.

What wee see? we see as some gravitational force is actioning to the scotch-roll to the right.
But, it is not true, no force is acting to the scotch roll, the shuttle is accelerating, the roll it moves steady as inertial principle is aplying (you agree with this principle)

Yet, our eyes see how the scotch roll is decelerating to the left, stoping, changing direction and then going to the right.

Illusion!


Here is a frame with "apparent 180 degree changing trajectory" of the scoth-roll:





Of course, after the scotch-roll is catched in hand, the force from the shuttle will act through the hand to the scotch-roll, thus, the scotch-roll will have the same acceleration as the shuttle, so it will appear steady relative to the shuttle.


All it matters is the principle described: accelerating shuttle can make constant moving particles to APPEAR to change direction.


So i explained how our eyes can deceive our perception. And how a constant moving particle can appear to gradually slowing down, and changing movement in the oposite directions. And do not forget about 2D projection of a 3D curbed trajectory, seen almost from the edge, i explained this earlier.




[edit on 6/3/09 by depthoffield]

[edit on 6/3/09 by depthoffield]



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 05:34 AM
link   
You may or may not want to know the results of the experiement are in. Before I post them I will list the conditions that the experiement was set in.

1. I showed this video footage to 10 random people in my work place
2. I did not feed them in any way and there was no talking about the video previously
3. After they saw the video I asked them to write down in no more than 10 words what they thought the object was and if it was daytime or night time.
4. The ages of the individuals ranged from 18-52.
5. The video shown was cropped with no comments visible.
6. I explained there was no right or wrong answer and that I would not reveal their name.

(If the people in question wrote UFO I asked if they meant intelligently controlled or Unidentified Flying Object)

The results were as follows:

Person 1 - Tight turning circle,slowing maybe reverses - UFO intelligently controlled N

Person 2 - New Tech UFO Intelligently controlled N

Person 3 - The Jensen Spaceship or UFO intelligently controlled D

Person 4 - Orb spacecraft, could it be a green light giving impression of moving object, creatures in space D

Person 5- UFO intelligently controlled NASA N

Person 6 - NASA UFO intelligently controlled, visiting, watching D

Person 7 - Helicopter, flare,Satellite,NASA, Plane, UFO Unidentified Flying Object N

Person 8 - UFO Intelligently controlled, aliens, fear, N

Person 9 - Testing technology, UFO, intelligently controlled, NASA coverup N

Person 10 - Angels, spacecraft, UFO intelligently controlled, aliens, friendly N


So what have we got:

9 people wrote the UFO
8 people thought the UFO was intelliegently controlled
2 people thought that it was testing of new technology (which incidently I am in favour of)
4 People wrote down the word NASA
7 People thought it was filmed at Night (which I thought it was aswell)
3 People thought it was filmed in the Daytime

What I found particularly interesting with this experiement is the fact that after they had given me their paper with their words on. I asked them if they thought NASA had any involvement with E.T. Overwhelmingly they all said NASA cannot be trusted and they believed that there is more going on than we are told. (Bearing in mind that not all these people believe that what we saw in the video was an intelligently controlled craft.) I wonder what the concensus would be if everyone in the world could vote on such an important question

Also whats interesting is the way people wrote down the word UFO, its a word now used to describe an intelligently controlled craft that is flown by non terrestrial occupants. Not just an Unidentified Flying Object. In their eyes they identify it as a craft of some sort.

Lastly I was pretty taken back by the last person when they wrote the words Angels, alien,friendly.

I work in a very busy company where people don't have time for each other and shower themselves in self importance on a dailty basis. Therefore, imagine my suprise when I saw these words. It just goes to show no matter how important we think we are at the end of the day we are all human beings.

Please feel free to add any comments relating to this experiement try to keep it clean


Edit: (does anybody know what a Jensen Spaceship is?)

[edit on 6-3-2009 by franspeakfree]



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 05:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by depthoffield
The winner solution for me, is this:

Shuttle is constantly accelerating to the left, catching the near particle which moves at constant speed, and then letting it behind. In the same time, the particle is constantly going away from the shuttle, to the Earth.
There is no force acting to the particle. But is a force acting to the shuttle together with the camera: thrust acceleration.
[edit on 6/3/09 by depthoffield]


I am sorry to go over old ground but I am not getting it? I understand what you are trying to say but I still don't grasp it? Looking at the video why aren't other objects effected.

For example: If we take the 3 lights at the bottom right of the frame we can see that the shuttle is moving by the way they appear in to rise into the frame after 30 seconds, however, this particular bright visible light in question travels much faster than any of the other lights.

How is that possible? even applying your depth of focus analogy?



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 05:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by franspeakfree

I am sorry to go over old ground but I am not getting it? I understand what you are trying to say but I still don't grasp it? Looking at the video why aren't other objects effected.

For example: If we take the 3 lights at the bottom right of the frame we can see that the shuttle is moving by the way they appear in to rise into the frame after 30 seconds, however, this particular bright visible light in question travels much faster than any of the other lights.

How is that possible? even applying your depth of focus analogy?



I said it before a couple of times: paralax. (en.wikipedia.org...)


I posted this picture:



The more distant a particle is, the less the detectable apparent motion.


You can think too at traveling with a train: the trees or buildings near the railroad are apparently moving fast to the back, but the distant buildings are moving slowly. And the very distant mountains are not moving at all.
But all these objects are fixed, only the train is moving with some speed.


Same here: the particle in OP in motion is much more closer than the others (and smaller it seems). If you look again to the OP movie, there are another distant particles which goes slowly to the right too. They are more distant unlike our speedy "bug", so due to differential paralax are appearing to move slowly or not at all in the time interval.


Look the speeded-up version:
img7.imageshack.us...




and the superimposition






[edit on 6/3/09 by depthoffield]



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 06:14 AM
link   
reply to post by depthoffield
 


Sorry, I know you posted a couple of times and I am trying to see it from the perspective you have explained. However, in the video we can clearly see many lights. Not necessary UFO'S but nevertheless they are what appears to be 'lights'.

These lights appear to be the same size thus indicating that they are indeed the same size or are from the same distance away. If we take the trees on the train analogy, surely more than one tree would look like they are moving. However in this particular video only one light is visibly moving faster than the rest. Yet we can clearly see that the shuttle is not using any of the lights in question.

If we take the 3 lights at the bottom right as a point of vision we can clearly see that the shuttle is moving, however, if it was moving as fast as you are implying (train trees) surely some of the lights in question would change shape? i.e if travelling away from them they would grow smaller, if travelling towards them they get bigger) since none of the objects change shape, we can only assume that the craft is moving incredibly slower than the object that we are all talking about.

If I am wrong can you please explain by using your diagrams overlapping this video so I can see how no other object would be effected by this 'train' of thought.


Just to add in my edit :

I am playing your animation and the video in question via split screen. You can clearly see that the other lights in the video are unaffected. However, if you look at your animation it is clear that you can see the shapes change shape as the screen moves from side to side, given us the perspective of this parallax.

I just don't see how you can apply this light to parallax without it effecting anything else. that shuttle must be very very far away from every single light that we can see in the frame. I just don't buy it. Also to add to the mix why the change in camera angle to show the other bright light appearing at the bottom of the screen?

Lastly, I can fully accept that there is a possibility that the object is moving in a eliptical path and not slowing down to stop like I mentioned in the first post.

[edit on 6-3-2009 by franspeakfree]



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 06:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by franspeakfree
These lights appear to be the same size thus indicating that they are indeed the same size or are from the same distance away.


Wrong! If they appear it doesn mean they are the same size or distance. Seeing is again deceiving. A star seen in the NASA night shot movie (not here unfortunately, but in a plenty other filmings, will appear too as a bright dot. But the star is not egual in size or distance to some particles. Wrong assumtion. Bright dots are just bright dots. There can be difference in brightness, which we detect, but differences in size are almost not detectable. It is the same ilusion of people speaking about Venus "look how big it is". No, it is just a very bright dot, but, it is a dot. Very bright or very dimm is not the same with big or small.


Look another version of paralax:


There are particles closer which appear to moves fast, there are particles a little further which moves a little, and there are particles further, which doesn't appear to move at all or barely detectable.



If we take the trees on the train analogy, surely more than one tree would look like they are moving. However in this particular video only one light is visibly moving faster than the rest. Yet we can clearly see that the shuttle is not using any of the lights in question.


So you want more particles? why? you want a very well populated cloud debris and the shuttle beeing inside of it? Maybe this, with plenty of closer particles:





and their trajectories:


I posted them before.

I don't getting your point...why is only a particle closer in this particluar sequence. Why not? It is forbidden?



If we take the 3 lights at the bottom right as a point of vision we can clearly see that the shuttle is moving, however, if it was moving as fast as you are implying (train trees) surely some of the lights in question would change shape? i.e if travelling away from them they would grow smaller, if travelling towards them they get bigger) since none of the objects change shape, we can only assume that the craft is moving incredibly slower than the object that we are all talking about.


You see, there in THE OP are very fast objects too. So they are very close or very speedy relative to the shuttle.
But, my analogy with train-trees is just an analogy to explain to you the paralax phenomenon, it doesn't imply (as you assume) that the shuttle is moving like a train relative to the particles.
See again the scotch-roll thrown by the astronauts movie:



It appear to you that the scotch-roll is moving so fast? No, it appears to move slow, but it appears to move much faster than the particle in the OP. Yet, the scotch we have enough information to detect is closer and appears moving slowly.



[edit on 6/3/09 by depthoffield]

[edit on 6/3/09 by depthoffield]

[edit on 6/3/09 by depthoffield]



[edit on 6/3/09 by depthoffield]



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 07:46 AM
link   
reply to post by depthoffield
 



Depthoffield owns. Thanks for the explanations. The Parallax View



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 07:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by franspeakfree
You may or may not want to know the results of the experiement are in.


Very much did want to see results, and I appreciate you running this experiment. I will use the results to again urge the NASA public affairs office to be more proactive in getting more credible explanations out.

The results aren't surprising, except that 3 of 10 did think it a daylight scene (as it is), and that's perceptive.

Again, you actually went and brought NEW information to this discussion -- a constructive step -- and not a 'distraction' or 'clutter' as some have called such additional insights. Nicely done!



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 08:30 AM
link   
any comments?


Originally posted by JimOberg
To try to move the ball forward and untangle the mutual taunting, apropos of the desire to show the conventional ordinariness of shuttle videos often misinterpreted as UFOs, what sort of 'ordinary' shuttle videos of obvious nearby particles would be helpful in creating a collection of 'normal scenes. to which the supposedly abnormal scenes can be compared?

I've got some VHS tapes showing a water dump spewing particles through the Orbiter shadow until they suddenly 'appear' about 20 feet out, moving away in a fan, but individual pieces collide and bounce in all directions. You practically can see the shadow of the Orbiter on the receding cloud of particles. As sunrise progresses and sunlit Earth comes under the Orbiter, it back reflects light into the shadow and the particles become visible for their entire route out from the dump port. Another video shows a cloud of such particles half an hour later, below and ahead of the Orbiter, preceding it into the night side.

Also I need to get some videos of the APU exhaust firing up, and the flash evaporator -- two non-water sources of effluent back by the Orbiter tail. I finally have the software to make digital files of these, for posting on youtube.

What other kinds of 'ordinary' unearthly scenes would be helpful in building an appreciation in viewers of what passes for 'prosaic' in outer space?

What comments by the 114 crew would be helpful? I ran across Andy Thomas in the hall when I was up at JSC for an ISS expedition crew presser yesterday, we discussed a number of each of our own recent activities, and I mentioned the on-going discussion of the video from his flight. He acknowledged the videos could sometimes look weird, and added a comment or two about 'conspiracy nuts' that probably aren't printable. Maybe I'll ask him for an attributable quotation of explanation -- what would be of interest?

My point is that we don't yet have enough evidence to make a persuasive case either way -- this is different from those who are convinced they already HAVE a persuasive case and don't WANT any more evidence. Leave them stew in their own ignorance -- what can the rest of us do to find out more?




posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
OK, all new suggestions are encouraged -- and evaluated.

The period after station departure has hosted 'piggy-back' activities, such as deploying small satellites, in the past, so it's plausible other actvities could be scheduled.

What is it about the camera angle that makes it optimal for observing a demonstration? Shouldn't such a demonstration also be visible from the crew cabin so it can be imaged out the high-quality overhead windows?


The way I perceive the whole UFO thing is that it is a completely need to know basis and extremely fragmented.

Because of this need to know basis I theorise that when they run a mission that involves UFOS I imagine that they use 2 control centres one that you worked in and the other one behind the scenes, everything is calculated and ran according to strict policies. I imagine that the reason why the cameras are not set in the main windows is because they need a way that they can control the situation.

If any material does find its way to the general public, its easier to debunk. Besides I am sure that NASA use digital cameras for these 'special missions'

I imagine that the branch of NASA we are talking about is a well oiled machine, extremely strict and keep everyting within a certain restricted frame at all times. Like the old Bush administration.



What was the crew supposed to be doing in this time period? Do you suggest the official activity plan was a cover? If so, why?


I believe that the astronauts are briefed on the subject of E.T after there initial training and after they have been selected to run the mission, Imagine this is done hours shortly before the mission and made to sign some form of contract before they go up that is under the umbrella of national security with severe repucussions for any leakage.



Why would such a demonstration occur during a water dump? Camouflage?


Why indeed, I don't know anything about water dumps, but what I and others know is that NASA lie through their teeth about this phenomena which is why obviously anyone relating to NASA that joins a conspiracy site is going to get a grilling and will have to earn their trust.

As I have looked at this video more times than I have had hot dinners it is apparent to me that the camera is set up for something and I do not believe it was set up and filming at that precise moment to monitor ice particles. Instead it could have been set up to monitor E.T. activity or to film a test flight of new technology.

I believe in coincedences and in my opinion its no coincedence that shortly after I suggested a demonstration yesterday, somebody that took part in the experiement thought exactly the same thing.

IMO The E.T phenomena is real there is no doubt about it, anyone that researches this subject will soon see that the dots don't join up. Although I can understand the need for secrecy as not to cause panic, there are ways around these things.

It is my belief that a conditioning process involving media & Television has been set up to run probably mid 90's and over the last couple of years this processs has begun to speed up dramatically.

The question is why?







[edit on 6-3-2009 by franspeakfree]



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 09:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
I've got some VHS tapes showing a water dump spewing particles through the Orbiter shadow until they suddenly 'appear' about 20 feet out, moving away in a fan, but individual pieces collide and bounce in all directions. You practically can see the shadow of the Orbiter on the receding cloud of particles. As sunrise progresses and sunlit Earth comes under the Orbiter, it back reflects light into the shadow and the particles become visible for their entire route out from the dump port. Another video shows a cloud of such particles half an hour later, below and ahead of the Orbiter, preceding it into the night side.


Can you upload them for us to see? that way we can do what we have done with the other videos, split the screen and replay them in a loop and look intensely to try and unravel the anomaly that we see in the first video.

[edit on 6-3-2009 by franspeakfree]



new topics

top topics



 
96
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join