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: 35
77
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 03:49 PM
link   
You know with all the crashing and smashing of space hardware its a wonder they have any money left. I guess I don't understand why we can't leave em up there for future generations to salvage...

Well I need to go pick on the NAVY for a while... I got some cool tips that are NOT debunkable. Seems the NAVY is more forthcoming with info if you ask nice

You gonna be near Edwards near the end of July?





posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
wow, i am disappointed with your statement here ArMaP

Sorry for disappointing you (is this sentence correct?), and thanks for thinking so much of my observation skills.

The only different thing I noticed that I think should be commented is the object that makes a curve upwards, because it was the only that I have seen on all the video (but they may have been others, I did not followed all objects).

I don't understand that "known vs. predicted" flightpath, predicted by who, based on what?

I am sorry, LunaCognita has made a great work, but I am too tired at the end of the day and I do not have enough free time to watch an almost 10 minutes long video several times to try to see something that may have eluded me before.

Also, this subject has been turning more and more into personal disputes about what is or is not evidence, and the result is that it has made me lost some interest; what's the point of trying to understand what we see on the video if nobody understands what I write and people mock my attempts of explaining my interpretation of what is seen on the video?

We will probably never reach a definite conclusion about this, there is not enough data, and people will keep on telling their opinion is better than other people's opinion and we will get nowhere.


and who is "us"
"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.



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 07:01 PM
link   

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


this is quite simple to understand - the pulsating. imagine a small object. now imagine the small object is not a uniform color. this is easiest if you us extreme differences, say one side bright metallic one side black, but that isnt needed at all. now imagine said object rotating with light shining on it. guess what it looks like? flashing. you know what a small, out of focus flashing light looks like? you guessed it.



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 07:08 PM
link   
the inability of certain people on this board to understand principles, seeming to want nothing but an exact replica of what is seen (sure ill let you know next time i get to ride the space shuttle and sprinkle dust outside!) and then saying "well that's not the same" to demonstrations of optical principles - why are you still even talking?

depthoffield's videos clearly show optical principles. they make them simple to understand. this isn't the whole picture - its individual elements of it being reproduced - and its up to you to use your new understanding to piece it together and see how mundane the STS-75 footage is. That is, assuming you are willing or even capable of doing so.

the arguments regarding shape are not pointless. in order to be out of focus most of the objects in question would be tiny particles near the camera, not colossal ufos hundreds of miles away (that no one ever saw from the ground).



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by JScytaleflashing.


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


Originally posted by JScytale (that no one ever saw from the ground).


Sorry embedding disabled

www.youtube.com...

Later gator

[edit on 2-7-2009 by zorgon]



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 07:36 PM
link   

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

you didn't even read the full post (or use your brain at the end like is requested) and you want me to take this reply seriously?




Sorry embedding disabled

www.youtube.com...

Later gator


not only do those look nothing like the STS 75 "ufos", but they are so nondescript that its amazing someone thought them worthy to put up. 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.



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 08:31 PM
link   
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.



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 12:36 AM
link   

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.


thank you for stating your position as well as zorgon's clearly.


I'm not sure why you are arguing against depthoffield's arguments when he has already provided photographic and video evidence repeatedly.

And if that was targeted at me, I did search for a simple clip of a rotating non-uniform object to make it painstakingly obvious for the people who couldn't understand my point simply from reading the description (it should be pretty clear). I didn't find any video clips of it.

[edit on 3-7-2009 by JScytale]



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 03:04 AM
link   
Seriously...

How is this exact same effect video on youtube nonsense? This is 100% debunked. These are not alien craft or critters. The anomaly has been recreated.

This thread is certifiable, and by that I mean it might belong in the madhouse.



This video is amazing proof. I don't see how you can argue with it... Unless you just 'want to believe'. I think this has run through a pretty thorough group here and I'd be surprised if this 'incident' was taken very seriously around here in the future.

Bunk is bunk.



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 03:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by bloodline

This video is amazing proof.


What do you think it is proof of?

That artifact does not move, change orientation and there is just one of it.


In order for this video to even be admissible to our ongoing comparative analysis, it would have had to present at least two such anomalies which are in different positions and with differing orientations - and which are traveling in differing directions...


*Note the presence of multiple objects, their multiple directions of travel and varying orientations...







[edit on 3-7-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 05:00 AM
link   
In my opinion, DOF, Armap, etc... proved the camera artifact cause way back.

EasyNow, Zorgon, Exuberant1, etc... just seem to ignore all of that, which I find hard to reconcile with their obvious intelligence & ability to analyse, discuss & debate complex issues.

I also recall a very clear explanation of the pulsating of "Zorgon's" object being caused by a video effect. I think it was Phage that covered that well & explained how it was caused by the video scan lines combined with the bokeh effect, although that might have been in another thread. I'll try to see if I can find it.

As I said before, for years I was quite sure I was seeing extraterrestrial craft in these videos.

But now, after spending a huge number of hours reading many articles, watching many videos, reading ATS threads, etc... I now believe I am seeing the results of camera oriented anamolies.


[edit on 3-7-2009 by Sam60]

[edit on 3-7-2009 by Sam60]

[edit on 3-7-2009 by Sam60]



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 05:19 AM
link   
There is one good thing about the fact that a small group of members simply refuse to accept that their "critters" and "alien crafts" have been explained again and again as camera artifacts and video effects.

The group of die hard believers keep threads like this alive and on the main board with their stubborn ignorance. Every thinking newcomer to ATS will have the opportunity to read the logical explanations and get themselves educated.



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 05:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sam60
I now believe I am seeing the results of camera oriented anamolies.


Indeed, it must be a matter of belief for you.

And since no one has thus far been able to provide conclusive evident that the STS-75 Tether UFOs are camera artifacts - you really would have to rely on belief to conclude this, wouldn't you...


If those who promote the artifact hypothesis could provide us with the following four things; perhaps we would be able to accept their hypothesis as being valid:

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.

[edit on 3-7-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 05:31 AM
link   
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.




posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 05:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 

I just saw your edited reply & noticed your reference to the pulsating object.

I wish I could find the explanation of that I saw some time back, I think perhaps in an earlier STS-75 thread. The explanation worked through how the video scanning lines & the bokeh effect caused an uneven, rotating object to look like that.

I think it would be an interesting addition to the discussion on this thread. I don't know enough to try to explain it myself.





posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 05:52 AM
link   

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.



Indeed.

Jim Oberg does not support your position either. Even he concludes that the objects are not camera artifacts but are actual objects.

You should take a hint...



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 05:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 

No, no, no.....

I'm not saying they're not objects.

I'm saying they're objects that are being distorted.

Anyway, you guys really give poor Jim a beating some days.

I hope he's tough!



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 07:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Sam60
 



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.


you seem to be ignoring the OP of this thread and what the discussion really is. also your inability to recognize my position on this issue obviously stems from your lack of comprehension and reading skills. you have contributed absolutely nothing to the discussion here except stupidity.

:shk:

the only thing i will be ignoring in this thread from now on is You





















[edit on 3-7-2009 by easynow]



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 07:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
Indeed, it must be a matter of belief for you.

The problem is that without enough data, all this comes down to a matter of belief.

I believe that the shape and apparent size of those objects is a result of being out of focus, and I base my belief in what I have seen with my own eyes several times.

Some people believe that those objects are "plasma critters", and they base their belief on something else, but it is just a belief, like my own.


A) Produce the camera data

Those that think that camera artifacts do not explain what we see and think that the shape and size of the objects is not related to that should also look for the camera data, if it proves that out of focus objects seen with that camera do not look like that then they could "kill" the camera artifact theory.


B) Demonstrate how THAT camera's lens can create the movement we see

I don't think anyone said that the movement is a camera artifact, only the shape and apparent size of the objects.


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.

C) and D) depend of having A), that is why I keep on looking for camera data or some eyewitness report, even if eyewitnesses reports do not count because they "work for the enemy"
.



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 09:14 AM
link   

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.


John Lenard Walson has gotten some interesting photo's of some objects. Some are in deep space, some have been deemed to be just beyond our moon.

Perhaps we CAN see them. Then again, perhaps not. Given that human sensory organs only recieve a VERY limited amount of information, and are geared to recieve information in frequency ranges that are very Earth specific, there is no telling what you can and cannot see.



new topics

top topics



 
77
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join