It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


NASA UFOs new and in Color

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 07:36 AM

Originally posted by Lookingup
What I don't understand if all we are EVER seeing is ice crystals, space junk, or satellites, why do they film hundreds of hours of it? Why waste their time and our money? Why would I run a camera outside my house, knowing that ALL I will ever film will be snow flakes and falling leaves? "Yes folks, you can see the breeze blowing the snowflakes in an oblique direction now.... A dead leaf has just come into view...."

They need new stories.

Answer #1 -- Google Mesoscale Lightning Experiment

Answer #2 -- Why run a camera at an ATM, you know all you're ever gonna get is people cashing checks.

[edit on 8-6-2009 by JimOberg]

posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 11:43 AM
Honestly what is the fuss? Some reflections/lights do not mean that there is a alien involved. Show me a body or a live one then I'll believe. No disrespect meant.

posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 01:00 PM
reply to post by zlots331

NASA is known for releasing lower quality vids to the public.
Thats one objection people have to the original moon landing videos. NASA had colored video cameras on them at the time, yet chose to air the landing in very low resolution black and white film.

Also, as far the quality goes, what cameras can survive the vacuum of space?
Pretty sure they have to be big bulky things, and like many military units, they are probably still using outdated equipment.

But these vids are official NASA videos, as good as quality (minus youtube) that you can see on TV on the NASA channel.

posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 01:32 PM
People assume TOO MANY THINGS.
You have to be aware of some aspects of the things that you´re talking about.
Cameras for video and video transmission in the 60's were A LOT different than what we see today.
Now consider that weight is always a BIG ISSUE when designing space ships and trips to the moon.
So it's not like “O.K. Let's take this camera for video” and it doesn't matter it's weight and seize. NO, PEOPLE, everything is limited and every once counts. Astronauts that went to the moon took GREAT color photos with cameras. But video in the 60's was completely another matter.
Now, about this videos of “tinkering”, “flickering”, “flashing”, “tumbling” stuff out there. Well, nothing extraordinary in this piece. Could be debris, satellite, ice christals, etc...Not alien IMHO.

posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 01:54 PM
reply to post by rush969

With regards to video quality, it may have been an issue back in the 60's but today it is un-excusable.

Many mobile phones can take better quality video than the some of the stuff NASA release to us in this current age.

With modern tech, we should be seeing a huge difference in colour, contrast, and general overall quality. But maybe it's because not many astronauts take their mobile phones with them into space

Mind you, would get great reception...

posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 05:07 PM
Has anyone seen this?

The real flying saucers-We got them

posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 10:30 AM
Take a look at these skull in mars published russian website pravda

Please rate

posted on Jun, 14 2009 @ 07:36 PM
reply to post by Extralien

You know...I was just thinking...
Many of these videos are from cameras that were intended for viewing other things, like the spaceship or a specific part of it, right? And accidentally an object was seen or detected and followed. This might account for some of the lack of quality in those images. If you look closely you can see how perfectly clear some other features are, like parts of the ship.

posted on Jun, 14 2009 @ 11:00 PM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in