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.
Originally posted by easynow
wow, i am disappointed with your statement here ArMaP
"Us", in that sentence, meant all of us that really want to know what was happening on that video, I usually use "we" and "us" when talking about all the ATS members present on a thread or those not present but interested in the subject.
and who is "us"
Originally posted by zorgon
No it doesn't There is no 'morphing' involved in your video the three notches do not MORPH, nor is there the rippling pulsating effect... I will give you a star for persistence though As Easynow says... Hollywood
Compare them side by side... If you cannot see the difference, there is little more to say
Originally posted by JScytaleflashing.
Originally posted by JScytale (that no one ever saw from the ground).
Originally posted by zorgon
Not talking about flashing. Clearly you either do not see or refuse to see the pulsating rippling effect on the main object you can see the 'waves' start at the center moving out to the rim
Sorry embedding disabled
www.youtube.com...
Later gator
Originally posted by poet1b
Normally if you want to prove your case on ATS, you provide links to credible sources.
Go to some search engine, google is probably the most popular. I can provide a link if you need one. You then search for evidence to back up your claims, input a phrase like, video lens anomalies, then look for articles that pertain to the subject matter. You read the article, and if it provides evidence to back up your claims, you post the link along with an important part of the article that backs your claims. Now if the article provides evidence that suggests you might be wrong, you might want to reconsider your theories. In that case, you should probably post the article, and admit you were wrong. It might be hard to believe, but some people would actually ignore, or pretend not to have read evidence that shows that they might not be rights. They keep on debating their side, without ever providing any legitimate evidence to back it up.
Originally posted by bloodline
This video is amazing proof.
Originally posted by Sam60
I now believe I am seeing the results of camera oriented anamolies.
Originally posted by Sam60
reply to post by Exuberant1
You are right.
My conclusion has nothing to do with the overwhelming evidence that has been presented in support of my position.
EasyNow, . just seem to ignore all of that, which I find hard to reconcile with their obvious intelligence & ability to analyse, discuss & debate complex issues.
Originally posted by Exuberant1
Indeed, it must be a matter of belief for you.
A) Produce the camera data
B) Demonstrate how THAT camera's lens can create the movement we see
C) duplicate the artifact's pulsating undulating motion
D) Provide a video with multiple artifacts, with multiple and varying directions of travel and varying orientations.
Originally posted by JScytale
let me tell you something - if several extremely bright, pulsating UFOs hundreds of kilometers in diameter were flying around in orbit near the shuttle (which hundreds of amateur astronomers track) after an accident took place in space (attracting even more attention) i guarantee people would notice them from the ground. not only that, but something bright that size would be readily discernible by the naked eye as being very unusual. you would have had *thousands* of reports.