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 near asteroid 2009 !

page: 6
32
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 10:31 AM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 


I downloaded the video but I could not see it, I think I do not have the right codec.




posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


Thanks for the heads up, I thought it would be a standard windows codec. It does seem to work on one of the computers at my work, though we did install divx on that one (that shouldn't matter as I didn't use divx). I can't remember which codec I used, I'll look it up tonight and if I can I'll post a link to the proper codec.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 10:47 AM
link   






[edit on 9-3-2009 by zerotensor]



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 10:56 AM
link   
reply to post by zerotensor
 


And that is supposed to mean what?



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


Heh, those graphs look familiar, like what happens on an LX200 like mine, or like the one used here, when you use old 2-axis periodic error correction data with a slightly different polar alignment than when the correction was done. I could make the same thing happen, greyscale my image, and run around calling it a ufo. Wonder how much money I could get for that?

[edit on 9-3-2009 by ngchunter]



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by zerotensor
 


And that is supposed to mean what?


It's a plot of the x- and y- positions of the UFO as a function of frame number. These data seem to support the hot pixel + tracking wobble theory.

Of course, non-stabilized original frames would be the best evidence, one way or the other.




[edit on 9-3-2009 by zerotensor]



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by zerotensor
Of course, non-stabilized original frames would be the best evidence, one way or the other.

Very true. I'm not holding my breath though.
I wonder if he was trying to image in alt-az configuration; his later model LX200 can do periodic error correction in alt-az, my earlier model scope has to be in polar mode. Alt-az, by definition, requires two axis correcting (you can also do 2 axis corrections in polar mode on my scope, but it's only kept in temporary memory and is a sign that your polar alignment was off to start with). In that case, a long period drift could be due to either an inadequate alt-az alignment or old/bad training data. I find it telling that the x axis is a sine wave and the y axis is a near constant slope. That says to me it's got something to do with different drift issues by the Dec and RA drives of the scope.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 11:53 AM
link   
probably a silly question - but wouldn't a hot pixel be moving when the asteroid isn't about to hit it as well as when it is?

are you saying that the other Italian footage and the old nasa footage with these zigzagging orbs are also hot pixels? Because the old nasa on (shown on this thread on page 1 also) the pixel shoots off afterwards

its an interesting theory - anticlimactic sigh - but interesting - I'm just wondering why 2 out of three seem to be most active when dodging something. But maybe you can explain that with close up techniques or something? In other words - it's always moving like that and ATSers should be able to make it do it when the asteroid is farther away?



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 11:58 AM
link   
I emailed Professor Quijano, who produced the animation, and got a short reply.

He says the "UFO" is digital noise and not a real body.

I actually think ngchunter has it more correct in that we're looking at a hot pixel on the CCD sensor combined with slight tracking variances.

@trusername: The object is moving throughout the animation if you watch closely.

[edit on 9-3-2009 by IAttackPeople]



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by trusername

probably a silly question - but wouldn't a hot pixel be moving when the asteroid isn't about to hit it as well as when it is?

I only see it moving, but you could hypothetically make it sit still with autoguiding and absolutely perfect polar alignment (his camera probably has a built-in autoguiding chip, unlike mine). Turn off autoguiding, voila, moving hot pixel. Also, it will vary in speed naturally as the drive goes through its cycle of motion. At some points in its rotation, the gears will have less periodic error than at other times. I'm trying to be generous here and not insinuate deliberate manipulation of his image acquisition process - it doesn't seem to completely stop to me at any time.


are you saying that the other Italian footage and the old nasa footage with these zigzagging orbs are also hot pixels?

If you're talking about footage from the space shuttle, that's ice debris being pushed around by thrusters. Totally different circumstance, different camera, different setup, different method of making a video. This is time lapse deep space astrophotography which has unique quirks.


I'm just wondering why 2 out of three seem to be most active when dodging something.

Not sure what you mean, 2 of 3.


But maybe you can explain that with close up techniques or something? In other words - it's always moving like that and ATSers should be able to make it do it when the asteroid is farther away?

Uh, hot pixels can be made to "move" by aligning consecutive images on their stars regardless of what else is in the image. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're asking though.

[edit on 9-3-2009 by ngchunter]



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by IAttackPeople
I emailed Professor Quijano, who produced the animation, and got a short reply.

He says the "UFO" is digital noise and not a real body.

Wow, that was easy. Thanks IAttackPeople. Don't remember what I read here that left me with the impression that the photographer either believed or tried to pass it off as a real object. Makes me feel much better knowing that there's no deliberate misinformation being foisted.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by trusername
are you saying that the other Italian footage and the old nasa footage with these zigzagging orbs are also hot pixels?
What Italian footage?



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter
I find it telling that the x axis is a sine wave and the y axis is a near constant slope. That says to me it's got something to do with different drift issues by the Dec and RA drives of the scope.


Yes, I tend to agree. It *is* possible that a constant drift in Declination or Right Ascension might also be seen for an actual object in equatorial or polar orbit, so this isn't 100% conclusive evidence for drift/wobble, but it's still pretty good support for the theory.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 05:23 PM
link   
with the distances involved,and this being a 2d video, we have no way to tell if the Ateroid is 100 million miles away, and the anomoly 15 or 20 or anywhere closer or futher.

With all that space out there, I find it HARD to belive these two objects are exactly the same distance from the scope, and thus would have collided, the chances of this are really unimaginable imo.

As far as it "appears" to move away from the asteroid with intelligent control.., with hundreds of thousands of hours of telescope footage, I'd expect to see more than 2 or 3 video like this.

Coincidence imo.

UFO yes..., Alien craft.... I can't make that jump on this video alone.

Cool video though.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 05:36 PM
link   
Wow, a few of you guys did some excellent work there.

I would have wagered money that this video was completely unexplainable.
Glad I didn't.




posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Jay-in-AR
 


And this shows that sometimes the best explanation is one that we do not expect.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 07:01 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


I guess FSE's don't have to worry about one-line responses?

Yes, it does.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 07:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Jay-in-AR
 


The idea behind the warnings for one line posts, as far as I understand it, is to avoid posts like "You are right" or "Great post!", things like that, and I do not think that by adding a second line saying "line two" makes those posts better posts.

So I never worry about worry about one line posts (but I rarely make one line posts).



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


I thought that maybe there was a one line detector-bot.

2nd line.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


I know, man. It was just a poke.
I actually agree with you. But without some context behind your words (hence possibly the need for more input) it could be read that you were condescending.

I viewed the video as a problem of trigonometry. Meaning, that our limitations of the video's evidence left us lacking a key element. Being a 2 dimensional representation of a 3 dimensional reality, we couldn't perceive distance.
That being critical to figuring out what the object was in terms of size and speed.
You are absolutely right, the answer came from where I did not expect.

In regards to the one-liners... I don't mind them either. Especially when they are relavent to the topic, just like you said.





[edit on 9-3-2009 by Jay-in-AR]

[edit on 9-3-2009 by Jay-in-AR]



new topics

top topics



 
32
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join