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: 39
77
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 09:23 AM
link   


Could it be because that it is what the thread is about.



Yes very good. Now, why is this thread about trajectory?

I can see I'm not going to get anywhere with this line of questioning




posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lazyninja
...you asked me how long I had been researching NASA ufos, so you're saying...


I asked you a question.

You have interpreted that to be something other than the query that it was.

Poor form.



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 09:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


You asked me about NASA ufos, then edited that part out as you realized you made a mistake identifying the phenomenon as being limited to NASA cameras, that in my opinion is bad form also.



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 09:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Lazyninja
 


We have seen in play the classic debunk/disinfo techniques in deferring from what the OP had asked first off.

What can be seen in the video is clearly movement not of what is expected.
Why are some not seeing it?
Probably not even bothering to look or I do my duty for queen and country.
I know,no queen in the US but you get my meaning.



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by gallifreyan medic
 


We can see the movement just fine. What we are asking is how exactly it is relevant. It is like asking how a cat always lands on it it's feet, it's a good question, but it has nothing to do with ufos.



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 09:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Lazyninja
 


So you've indentified what they are then?
Please tell.



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Raybo58
Ok, I'd pretty much written off the shape of the objects as lens artifacts about 20 pages ago, while still believing that the motion study this thread is based on continued to hold some weight concerning, whatever these things are, to be under intelligent control.
Then someone posted this in reply to one of my video experiments on YouTube...
And now I don't know what to think.
If this isn't a hoax, then I need to go change my underwear.
[edit on 4-7-2009 by Raybo58]

If you were already convinced the donut shape in the STS-75 video is a lens artifact, I don't see anything in the video you referenced that should lead you to believe that the circle shape is also not a lens artifact of an out of focus object. The only difference is, that it was made with a straight through lens instead of a reflector lens which is why it doesn't have the "donut hole" in the middle of the donut, characteristic of reflector lenses (caused by the lens design). And whatever that is impinging on the out of focus blur, you could really take that image and put it in a stack of Rorschach test cards, meaning different people would see different things, if you take it out of the context of a thread about aliens. I don't see any gray in that image, could be some leaves or whatever. And no it doesn't look like a hoax at all, I have no idea why you would even think that, it looks like an ordinary video of an ordinary out of focus light with some ordinary stuff blocking part of the out of focus light.


Originally posted by Raybo58
reply to post by Sam60
 

hmmmm, ok, well considering the mentally challenged nature of the source, I suppose we have to place this vid in the "Highly Suspect" column.

It's not suspect at all. It's an ordinary video of ordinary objects. Any claim that it's anything other than that is complete nonsense, not suspect.


reply to post by ArMaP
 

ArMaP, absolutely top notch photos showing a similar effect. On the basis of your great work here I added you to my friends list.



[edit on 4-7-2009 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 09:43 AM
link   
Everyone already knows what they are.

The big ones, with holes, are closer to the camera and more exposed. The smaller ones, are slightly further from the camera, and do not have a hole because they are less exposed.

My head is starting to hurt from hitting it against this brick wall of Mulderism.



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 09:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Lazyninja
 





Originally posted by Lazyninja My head is starting to hurt from hitting it against this brick wall of Mulderism.



Got the same problem with my jaw and arse.

The objects identified and their movement explained?
To the gullible yes.But not to those who have learned to think in 360 and not in tunnel.

[edit on 4/7/09 by gallifreyan medic]



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Got the same problem with my jaw and arse.


Is there some reason your head is on backwards?


The objects identified and their movement explained?
To the gullible yes.But not to those who have learned to think in 360 and not in tunnel.


Hmm well, like everyone else here I saw David Sereda's tether analysis and was pretty convinced by his arguments. However, he didn't conduct his exposure experiment properly at all. I didn't know that at the time.

Since then I've seen the compelling proof proving him wrong, so I have changed my mind. Does that make me gullible? Maybe, but at least I'm not stuck believing what I want to believe.



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 10:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Lazyninja
 


It was meaning to LMAO.



Gullible as in taking it as fact,without doing as you have done.
The same does go to those who believe straight of the bat.

We are not in agreement to what is but I respect your view as you have put in the effort to come to your conclusion.

[edit on 4/7/09 by gallifreyan medic]



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 10:23 AM
link   
These critters have been sighted on many occasions and under various camera conditions. This is demonstrated below:



From STS-80 - critter appears at 33 seconds into this video (This one cannot be accounted for using the 'bokeh hypthesis'):


Here are more STS-80 critters flying in a circular formation (cannot be accounted for prosaically)


NASA's Mission Control - From STS-75 (defintely not bokeh)


An animation of this critter - note the slit is not visible (further disproving the illogical bokeh hypothesis, which Jim Oberg does not support)


A similiar UFO appears during STS-119:









posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


Aha great, thanks for those videos. So they are only observed from NASA cameras like you said earlier. Do you have any videos of those shot from "civillian" cameras?

[edit on 4-7-2009 by Lazyninja]



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lazyninja
Do you have any videos of those shot from "civillian" cameras?



You mean from private individuals?



Originally posted by Lazyninja

So they are only observed from NASA cameras like you said earlier.


Please quote from the post wherein that statement was made.

[edit on 4-7-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 10:35 AM
link   


You mean from private individuals?


Yes.


Please post from the quote wherein that statement was made.


Sorry Shakespeare, I can't because you edited it


[edit on 4-7-2009 by Lazyninja]



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lazyninja


You mean from private individuals?


Yes.


Do you know of a private individual with their own space program?



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


No I don't, and I dont see how that question is relevant, since ufos can be observed inside and outside of our atmosphere.

So I take by the straw man deflecting you just did, that there is no footage of pulsating donuts taken from ordinary private citizen's cameras. No further questions!

[edit on 4-7-2009 by Lazyninja]



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lazyninja
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


No I don't, and I dont see how that question is relevant, since ufos can be observed inside and outside of our atmosphere.


Have you checked youtube?

There are videos of similiar UFOs on that website.

Edit: Youtube Search Results for "Pulsating UFO"

I guess you didn't even check youtube...





[edit on 4-7-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 10:41 AM
link   
Exhuberant1, Are you seriously trying to argue that these are still UFO's even after all of the evidence has been compiled and stacked here? Depthoffield showed them INSIDE the space shuttle. I posted a picture of the lens used to create the shape which also explained the notches. You have to admit that lazyninja brings up a good point when he says "why do they always fly with the hole facing towards us" right?

No one is saying there are no UFO's in space.
We are saying that these are not UFO's.

(P.S. We don't need JimOberg to agree it's BOKEH. He's entitled to his opinion, which he hasn't shared here. Addendum: You spend most of your time tearing him down and baiting him, but now you use him as a source?)



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


Constant straw man arguments makes nobody a "champion of debate" I suggest you brush up your technique.

The pulsating DONUT "ufos" (do I really have to be this specific) are exclusively shot by the old NASA cameras which shot the tether incident. That is because of how they are made, if you have watched the UFO hunters segment where the overexposure from those specific cameras is causing this phenomenon, then you would know what I was talking about.




top topics



 
77
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join