Ufo near asteroid 2009 !

page: 5
32
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Learhoag
Enough of this "insect" b.s.! The telescope is focused short of infinity so anything closer than what it is focused on will be almost invisible.

Have you ever taken a photo at the zoo or a lion or tiger or any caged animal and you have to shoot from a distance, even up to the bars, and you have to include the bars and the animal is at the rear of the cage, how the bars will become "transparent"?


You must have mis-read my post, I was questioning the insect theory, read again...


I just don't see an insect flying around in such a small area and staying in the shot for a good 5 - 10 minutes


I hope we have that cleared up now.

Thanks.




posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 12:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Pappie54
 


Well, the entire crux of the issue is dependant on how far the object is from the telescope.
There really isn't any way of knowing and it is the most critical bit of information to figure out what it is, or how large, or how fast...

It just isn't possible to know what it is.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 12:14 AM
link   
I agree it is an intriguing video. I just happened to watch this video about 2 hours ago and couldnt really see what the object was reacting to but I dont discount the fact that this thing was moving pretty fast and could be another example of intelligence.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 01:06 AM
link   
I know what this is and it isn't a real object at all; I have the same effect but much smaller in my newest comet lulin video, but because mine is one-shot color it's immediately obvious as a hot pixel. My camera is 10 megapixels though, making it harder to locate in the frame, this video is lower resolution so it stands out - it occupies the same number of pixels wide as the faint asteroid.

www.vimeo.com...
To see it in mine you should get a vimeo account and download the original resolution file (it's basically 720p but it was too narrow to qualify for vimeo's HD service). In my case it's a tiny red dot above the comet that jumps from place to place every second or so - my tracking on the comet was jerkier than the motions seen in the asteroid video.

What happens is that the scope is not tracking perfectly between images, but when they're stacked into an animation the stars seem to remain stationary (or in my case, the comet remains stationary), but the hot pixels "move" with the true motion of the telescope.

[edit on 9-3-2009 by ngchunter]



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 01:49 AM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 


To see if I have this straight. I know I'm restating most of what you said.

It is the creation of the animation itself that causes the strange motion of the pixel. The animation is made by taking each frame and aligning the stars to those in the previous frame. This causes the stars to appear stationary (in spite of small tracking errors in with the telescope) and the asteroid to follow a straight track against them. The pixel, being part of the camera, is actually tracing the tracking errors. In effect, the telescope is shaking a bit. The "motion" of the pixel seems remarkably smooth.

So if this were an actual real time video we would see the pixel remain fixed in the frame with the stars and asteroid wiggling. Is that correct? Is this a method that is always used? Are real time videos ever used for astronomical purposes?

[edit on 3/9/2009 by Phage]



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 01:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Yes, insects can be seen through telescopes. But, if you actually read the link carefully, three things become clear:


  1. the scientists in the link were looking for insects and therefore they
  2. used relatively low-powered telescopes and most importantly
  3. were using the moon as a bright object against which the dark insects would show up.


I have a lot of respect for some of your posts, but this is just knee-jerk skepticism.


EDIT - just to be clear, I have some issues with the video myself, primarily that the "ufo" and "asteroid" would both have to be the same distance away and the "ufo" moves in a very conveniently visible plane. But my default position is "don't know" rather than "it must be an insect".

[edit on 9-3-2009 by rich23]



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 02:27 AM
link   
nice nice are you sure you dont want to run that ice theory out there again on this one too i think the jurys out now that there are more than just a few black holes this stuff is real but if you want to pretend its nothing then lets pretend lets pretend that hillary will start liking bill again and obama will save the banks using oprahs money just lookin for the truth does anybody know what that is anymore just a wondering down here in texas



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 02:40 AM
link   
reply to post by rich23
 


I really didn't say that it must be an insect. I softened my position further when I realized the time frame of the animation. It wasn't knee jerk, the motion reminded me of an insect so I look for evidence that it could have been one. I was aware that it wasn't a strong case, I didn't press it.

But I think ngchunter has given a very plausible explanation.

[edit on 3/9/2009 by Phage]



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 03:32 AM
link   
I'm curious why they just happened to be focused on where the "UFO" was as the asteroid went by. I completely believe in UFOs and have first hand experience but am also a skeptic.

Any chance this could be a fake? If not, pretty amazing odds they focused on that one spot.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 03:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Beamish
 


i agree!!! i'm excited now!
we could soon have a mass visititation by way of all these sightings and landings in the last 2 months.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 06:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by ngchunter
 


To see if I have this straight. I know I'm restating most of what you said.

It is the creation of the animation itself that causes the strange motion of the pixel. The animation is made by taking each frame and aligning the stars to those in the previous frame. This causes the stars to appear stationary (in spite of small tracking errors in with the telescope) and the asteroid to follow a straight track against them. The pixel, being part of the camera, is actually tracing the tracking errors. In effect, the telescope is shaking a bit. The "motion" of the pixel seems remarkably smooth.

Bingo. The tracking errors are smooth because it's a reflection of the gradual accumulation of small amounts of periodic and alignment error of the telescope.


So if this were an actual real time video we would see the pixel remain fixed in the frame with the stars and asteroid wiggling. Is that correct? Is this a method that is always used? Are real time videos ever used for astronomical purposes?

Correct, this is the way it's done 99.9% of the time with deep space objects, all of my time lapse videos included (the only exceptions are my moon and ISS videos; those were shot in real-time by webcams and ccd video). The only exception is if the person is using a stellacam or Mallincam, which is an amateur deep space camera which gives a video image of deep space objects directly from the cam. The framerate is about 1 frame per 2-3 seconds though (because it still stacks images internally, just a lot faster), so it's still similar to this.

[edit on 9-3-2009 by ngchunter]



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 07:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter
What happens is that the scope is not tracking perfectly between images, but when they're stacked into an animation the stars seem to remain stationary (or in my case, the comet remains stationary), but the hot pixels "move" with the true motion of the telescope.
[edit on 9-3-2009 by ngchunter]


Thanks for that perfectly plausible, coherent and probable explanation (which probably only proves that you are a clever NASA plant).

The wider field of the vodinza1.gif linked on page 4 makes it pretty clear that:
1) there is no evidence that the dot moves in response to the asteroid
2) there is no evidence as to the thing's proximity to the asteroid

It also shows a bit of a rythm to the wobble, which I believe fits with ngchunter's explanation.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 08:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by hande
I found this video from




UFO videotaped Near Asteroid 2009 DD 45 By Lunar Explorer Italia


Awesome footage.



The chance these two are on the same course would be astronmical.
If it was under Inteligent Control would Captain Kirk really say:
Engage, now go straight, wait go right, left, right, left, straight now
circle back and go straight, whew that was close.
Seriously, if this was Intelligent control, he was pissed.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 08:38 AM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 


That is the best possibility, too bad I cannot see your video.

Considering that this astronomer had previously appeared with a UFO (as I posted on the previous page) video, it may mean that he still has the same camera.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 08:48 AM
link   
reply to post by skeptic_al
 



Can someone please explain what is "intelligent control" or "intelligen movement"? I think you are giving only anthropomorhic explanations. I am very sure a really intelligent being would have much different movements than what we imagine...
As I mentioned, a flying insects movements and manevours are much more intelligent than our planes. But it depends what you understand from intelligent.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 09:11 AM
link   

It is just my opinion, but this may be the best evidence yet of an intelligently controlled craft.


HI there,

Bro', you really need to get your stuff together and learn the meaning of the words "proof" & "scientific evidence".

But you could be right about "intelligently controlled" if it is indeed an insect.



Cheers,
Europa

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 10:12 AM
link   
Its a very interesting video, however, I think others will agree that this is another example of parallax & Ice crystals


Seriously though can this video be verified???????

If so this is going to be another good one to debate. Certainly looks like its intelligently controlled to me.

[edit on 9-3-2009 by franspeakfree]



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by ngchunter
 


That is the best possibility, too bad I cannot see your video.

Just to clarify, you can see my video without signing up for Vimeo (which is free), you just can't download the full resolution version (MUCH better than flash video) without an account. If it would make it easier, maybe I could put the AVI up for download on mediafire or something later tonight?



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 10:21 AM
link   
This yet again confirms my belief in ET's but I'm sure some sceptic out there will debu k it as space dust getting blown out of the way by the magnetic repulsion of the asteriod or some crap like that...

Whatever... It's an ET craft and you know it!



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by ls1cameric
This yet again confirms my belief in ET's but I'm sure some sceptic out there will debu k it as space dust getting blown out of the way by the magnetic repulsion of the asteriod or some crap like that...

It's a hot pixel, actually.


Whatever... It's an ET craft and you know it!

I don't know it, actually.

What exactly separates my dancing hot pixel in my comet animation from this, aside from it being colorful and jerkier? If I used old or inadequate periodic error data on my scope to induce a gradual drift and aligned my images for motionless stars instead of a comet, I could get the exact same "ufo" to appear without adding anything my images that wasn't already there. I already have a "ufo" in my comet video, but I'm sure you'll complain it's too jerky. That would be remidied by simply tracking stars instead of trying to track the motion of a comet by hand. What's the difference between my images and these, and why would mine be something mundane but his be a "ufo"?

[edit on 9-3-2009 by ngchunter]





new topics
top topics
 
32
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join