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.

 

New Analysis Video of the STS-75 Tether Incident

page: 32
77
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by easynow
 

They can say whatever they want, the critters and foo are surely one of the same, ufo orbs buzzing around in the sky.




posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by cropmuncher
reply to post by zorgon
 

Look similar to these taken from within a crop circle last week...


These may be just lanterns although it is in the middle of nowhere.

Edit - Good video easy


I dont see how these can still be edescribed as ice particles or debrit or lens flare for that matter but i suppose some folks are never going to be convinced til they experience it first hand which is understandable i suppose.

I suppose im lucky to have had all the proof i need first hand a few times over.


[edit on 30/6/09 by cropmuncher]


Compare them to those in my avatar. Whatever the debunkers/lantern fliers say the ufo orbs are real!



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 



Nice Video Easynow, did you make this from the original footage?


yea it's a great video, but i am not the person who made it. these videos are being made by LunaCognita. he is a smart guy and sure does a great job on the production. these are the best analysis videos of the STS-75 UFO incident i have ever seen.

he told me he has more of this to post because all of it would not fit into the time constraints of this new youtube video. i will be looking forward to seeing the rest of it




Effluent dumps would be scheduled by established procedures not to interfere with operations, and look nothing like this, and thruster firings can also be handled in mission procedures as well, and once again, look nothing like this. Neither of these operational procedures, nor debri shaking loose from the shuttle explain these UFOs.



well i tend to agree with you on this viewpoint. it does not really make sense to muddy the FOV if they knew there was going to be a chance to get some video of the tether.

my new theory is...they may have timed a water dump on purpose to hide some UFO's. i see things in the video that could be UFO's. i say that because some of the objects do not resemble or act like some of the other objects.

how can debri from a water dump look and act differently ? if it's all the same kind of debri than it makes sense to me that we would see the same results.

some objects do not move

some objects move at different speeds

some objects are different sizes

some objects have curved trajectories (some upwards)

some objects are making " V " directional maneuvers

some objects if close to the camera should appear as a "airy disc" but they do not.





What could these little white UFOs be?



well we have been discussing the possibility that some could be the UFO's termed "Foo Fighters"

that theory makes some sense to me because they were in fact photographed during WW2 and there were also reports of them from WW1.


if these "Foo's" were chasing Airplanes back then why should we assume they have stopped doing that for no reason ?

why would they not be interested in the Shuttle if they were interested in Airplanes ?

i personally believe these objects (the Foo's) are intelligently controlled and are watching out War technology. according to reports i have read , UFO's have supposedly been photographed by the military during combat and there are also some reports of this type of surveillance going back to 329 B.C. when Alexander the Great was invading India.


then we have all the UFO reports from people working at Nuclear Missile silos.





this UFO Hunters episode is really good and they examine the subject of possible UFO Surveillance of our latest and greatest technology

Some Excellent UFO Footage also


Part 1


Part 2



Part 3
www.youtube.com...
Part 4
www.youtube.com...
Part 5
www.youtube.com...




This is some UFO footage they examined in the show and these may be "Foo Fighters"







i could go on and on about UFO's watching our War methods and watching to see what we are doing. i think some UFO's may have been Near the Tether watching to see what we are doing up there.

i think NASA knew about it and flooded the FOV on purpose.



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by poet1b


Effluent dumps would be scheduled by established procedures not to interfere with operations, and look nothing like this, and thruster firings can also be handled in mission procedures as well, and once again, look nothing like this. Neither of these operational procedures, nor debri shaking loose from the shuttle explain these UFOs.



well i tend to agree with you on this viewpoint. it does not really make sense to muddy the FOV if they knew there was going to be a chance to get some video of the tether.

my new theory is...they may have timed a water dump on purpose to hide some UFO's. i see things in the video that could be UFO's. i say that because some of the objects do not resemble or act like some of the other objects....

i think NASA knew about it and flooded the FOV on purpose.



Well, that explains everything. You have completed your disconnect from any verifiable reality and are now equipped to explain away any evidence contrary to your existing conclusions. Enjoy the trip...



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


another interesting Shuttle UFO Video














[edit on 1-7-2009 by easynow]



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 

The ufo orbs/star of Bethlehem/critters/foo fighters/Nuremburg ufos/ exist James, you just can not deny the massive amount of evidence out there that all points to one simple reasoning.............



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
Hey, you are the camera distorting theorist, I was just agreeing with you that it looks like there is some camera distortion. How much or why, I do not claim to know, but being that the tether looks so thick and the lower right hand corner of the screen is white washed out, throughout the video, clearly there are some problems with distortion, and the NASA crew talks about problems getting a good picture.


ok, you don't claim to know...

By the way, the "wash-out" right hand corner, is called "lens-flare", and appears when the frontal lens surface is directly hit by a very powerfull source of light, here is the sun. This is not a distorsion affecting shapes of the objects in the frame, but only local contrast, so it can make objects hard to see, or not seeing at all (wash-ed out)

the other distorsion, is the overexposure of the senzor, that's why tethter looks so thick. In fact, the thickness is constant, no matter the zoom, i will show this soon. So, the thickness of the tether image is ONLY a camera artifact. As for "plasma effect generated by the tether si that's why is so thick... yeah, right...

And other distorsion, is the blooming effect, the local negativation, appearinfg as i saw at many low light shuttle payload cameras, when extremely bright zones of an object acctually take a gray brightness in the image instead of pure white as expected. (i will show soon this effect on other videos).

And the distorsion which affects the SHAPE of the out of focus objects, is called bokeh, or airy disc, and is responsible for the tottally relation of the shape to the position in the frame, (you should see it if you look at the evidence with good-eyes) and the cat-eye effect too.




Originally posted by poet1b
How large do I think these plasma critter could be if they exist? I guess they would vary in size from micro to enormous. Space is huge.................. I would guess that these in this video could be anywhere from one or two meters in diameter, to possibly as large as a 100 meters or more, if they are only visible during certain lighting conditions, and or have a very low level of visibility.


If they are 1..2 meters, then how can they be seen so big in image? (remember, Sereda ond others estimates them as beeing 2..3 miles in size!). Your answer?




[edit on 1/7/09 by depthoffield]



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by depthoffield
 



Indeed, the shape wee see, is NOT the real shape of the "objects"


On what evidence do you make this claim? All the home made videos posted here, and my own personal experiments with my camera show that objects that get distorted in a video retain their shape.



On what evidence?! I said it multiple times, maybe you didn't saw it.

This:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You really MUST read that post and examine all the pictures posted there...there are 11 different objects from STS-75 which ALL respect the shape according to the position in the frame.

Or maybe this:





As from your personal own experiments..they means NOTHING, because, first, you didn't bother to show us, so, there are just words, and second, that yours experiment surely is wrong, because, you are wrong when you conclude that out of focus small objects should retain the real shape even when defocused.


Below are example which tottally contradicts your "believings":


here is an example of how out of focus punctual objects, here planet Venus, is made as round bokeh by Canon S2IS camera, but made as rhombus by an Panasonic SD5 high definition camera:





Here is another example with JUPITER seen as a TRIANGLE (wow!):



at the end of the movie, you should understand why...

===============


Here are other examples of out of focus objects, small objects which transforms themselves as BOKEH, made by CATADIOPTRIC LENS:



and this:





here is another example which describes the same principle, the loosing of the real shape of the object, and copying the shape of internal shape of the lens or protunding parts (iris):

heart bokeh:



made with this:




Can you see "the light"?



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by JimOberg
 


another interesting Shuttle UFO Video


Cool -- smarmy narrator, Jeff Challender, I guess.

The ground track map indicated orbital sunrise prior to the Chicago fly-past, let me see if there's a way to calculate it and determine when nearby objects get illuminated for real.

As to the PAO commentator, the logic about the exact time of sunrise seems to go like this:

We assume he's accurate with regard to the moment of sunrise, that he's telling the truth. His telling the truth is proof he's lying about sunrise.

How about we check up on everybody?

Suppose I find out the commentator misspoke and the sun had risen BEFORE the two flashers appeared?

What does that prove? What makes it worth my effort to find out, if you shrug it off and say, "Well, but how about THIS one, fella??"



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by ufoorbhunter
 



They can say whatever they want, the critters and foo are surely one of the same, ufo orbs buzzing around in the sky.


thanks for the input ufoorbhunter,

i can't say i am totally sold on the idea of the "Foo's" being living critters.

it is certainly a possible explanation.

either way , you and i will most likely agree that these Foo's do exist and have chased Airplanes on many occasions. it's a factiod that the Skeptibunks that have never even seen a ufo tend to ignore.

www.youtube.com...


no use arguing or trying to convince someone that is only here to prove NASA side of the discussion.



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by easynow
 



AARGGGG Information Overload

Where did you dig up that one? That is amazing
I love the NASA announcer. I mean by now you would think they could just spit out 'ice crystal; without batting an eyelash... This one rattled him



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by depthoffield[/i
heart bokeh:



Can you see "the light"?


Oh yes that is SWEET I can see the light for sure


Thank you so much for that heart picture...

You do notice that the point of the heart is in the same direction no matter where in the frame it is?

Thanks so much for proving that for us



There is NO WAY those hearts would show a point going up or split into two points like the main object goes from notch up, then two notches and then notch down... and while the notch is up on that object the other ones are down.

Old expression we have out here in the west...

Give then enough rope and they will hang themselves



There is nothing in all your attempted explanation that covers the transition of the notch shown in this sequence



Gonna frame that heart picture
Be a great skeptic debunking tool... You see there was a video once showing multiple light sorces across the frame... seems the guy took it off for the same reason as the heart pic... it disproved his point




[edit on 1-7-2009 by zorgon]



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
Where did you dig up that one? That is amazing
I love the NASA announcer. I mean by now you would think they could just spit out 'ice crystal; without batting an eyelash... This one rattled him



This video is from the late Jeff Challender's website.

So that's where I went for the context on sunrise time.

Narrator -- “The sun just rose for Atlantis”
“Caught ‘em lying to the public this time, didn’t we?”

The best track map is at the same mission (hence same orbit) a few days earlier

www.projectprove.com...

Scroll down to the Earth map with the white curved lines on it.

The square brackets on the white lines -- [ and ] --signify on-orbit sunrise and sunset.

The ground tracks of each successive orbit are numbered east to west,
numbers 2, 3, and 4 are seen on the equator starting off the West African Coast, ending somewhere near French Guyana on the South American coast.

Number 5 is not yet numbered, its track comes from SW to NE and reaches the equator over Ecuador.

You can see 5’s sunrise bracket clearly, the others are obscured by text but you can see they are there.

Look at how far the shuttle is in sunlight while the ground is dark, or orbit 4. It’s from over the Amazon River, across the eastern North Atlantic, the Azores, until entering the Bay of Biscay north of Spain where the ground becomes sunlit. That’s about ten minutes, somewhat longer than typical, but normal for orbits near the equinoxes.

Now, realizing that sunrise in space precedes ground sunrise by as much as ten minutes, as this chart shows, look at the ground track of the Chicago fly-past. You can see that ground sunrise is off the Canadian east coast – so orbital sunrise, ten minutes earlier, would have to have been way, way to the southwest, out over the eastern Pacific Ocean.

Over Chicago, the shuttle – and all debris near it – had already been in sunrise for several minutes. The announcer, looking for a chart of sunrise times, sounded – and clearly was – confused.

But not lying.

These charts don’t lie either. Sunrise had occurred long before the flashing objects entered the camera’s field of view.

Does this cast any light on the subject?



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
This video is from the late Jeff Challender's website.


Wow I was unaware he had passed... Did not see anything on that on his site




The announcer, looking for a chart of sunrise times, sounded – and clearly was – confused.


Seems to be a lot of confusion at NASA you know... like these guys trying to figure out what went wrong on the Rover when its wheel jammed



I can understand how they would be confused about when the shuttle would be in sunlight




Does this cast any light on the subject?


ONLY if we can figure out how far away the object that confused the announcer is from the shuttle and if it was in sunlight when it first enters the scene



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 05:43 PM
link   
Here is another video to show that when out of focus objects do not show their original shape.

There were no changes made during the first 10 seconds, after that I focused on the small objects glued to the window.


(click to open player in new window)


The objects were at a distance of 2.5 metres, the camera was focused on the building on the other side of the street (more or less, there are some small houses in between), some 55 metres away.



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by easynow

www.youtube.com...



Nice tidbit of info...


At 1;00..

...I had one account where they actually fired on it, they seemingly went through it, they didn't damage the object at all...

Sooo they seem not to be solid



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
You do notice that the point of the heart is in the same direction no matter where in the frame it is?

That's because the shape is being created on the lens by the "heart" mask and not made by the lens itself, it's not the same thing.

Have you ever played with two magnifying glasses? If you did, did you tried to put one in front of the other and create a good image with that manual assembly? If you did you may remember that things changed with the way you moved the magnifying glasses.

If you have any photographer (even amateur, but preferably with some dark room experience) friend ask him/her for some explanations, apparently I am not able to explain these things to you, and knowing more about photography would help your analysis skills.



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Oh yes that is SWEET I can see the light for sure


Thank you so much for that heart picture...

You do notice that the point of the heart is in the same direction no matter where in the frame it is?

Thanks so much for proving that for us



There is NO WAY those hearts would show a point going up or split into two points like the main object goes from notch up, then two notches and then notch down... and while the notch is up on that object the other ones are down.

Old expression we have out here in the west...

Give then enough rope and they will hang themselves



you moron.
stop reading only what supports your position and immediately discarding the rest.

this was posted ages ago in this thread and completely dismantles your argument there.

and I keep seeing you and your "Pegasus" buddy accusing others of dodging your questions, or of failing to provide proof. Well, its been over 20 pages. Where's my answer?




alright. lets ignore all the times i called you out previous to this - explain why the "critters" bloom out from points of light in the video i linked previously. explain to me why they are smaller in width than the tether, and later wider after the zoom.

please also explain to me why they are all oriented exactly towards the camera so that their "donut holes" face us, and we see no objects of similar width from the side.

don't ignore this post. if your argument holds an ounce of water you should be able to explain this easily and scientifically.


I think this question made you realize you *can't* explain these simple things without resorting to wishful thinking and that what you are defending is nonsense. Or I hope so, because the alternative would be you have no rational mind.

[edit on 1-7-2009 by JScytale]



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by JScytale
you moron.
stop reading only what supports your position and immediately discarding the rest.


Well then... so you admit that the heart picture bokehs support my position


Thanks


So ummm what would be the logic in going any further?




posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by depthoffield
 


All these videos prove is that you can use camera tricks to change the shape of and object. Heck, who didn't already know that.

What are you saying, they used camera tricks to change the shapes of these UFOs?

Why the heck would they do that?

Like I said, everyone should do their own experiment, and come to their own conclusions. Nothing beats actually experience.



new topics

top topics



 
77
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join