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] Apollo 13: Encounter with Secret Satellite or UFO?

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 09:03 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


are you daft?
given the information presented, all of the conclusions were completely logical. You can't hide information (especially after the source was asked for) and then introduce it later in an attempt to discredit people. thats just hilariously stupid.

and even regardless of the source - the image is so inconclusive that i am shocked you would hold it as evidence of anything. look at the shape of the "object". have you EVER seen an out of focus picture?




posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by JScytale

look at the shape of the "object". have you EVER seen an out of focus picture?


So you acknowledge that there is an actual physical object in the shot...

That is a start.



posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 09:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 



have. you. ever. seen. an. out. of. focus. image.?

not to mention, as armap pointed out, it also looks suspiciously like a lens flare.
point is, nothing is conclusive, but labeling it as a UFO or satellite has a lot less backing it than a speck of dust on the camera lens. not to mention there are no satellites that high - not even remotely close. that and satellites don't "track" moving objects. they have specific paths that cannot be altered or can only be minorly tweaked (with very, very limited fuel for said tweaks).



posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 09:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by JScytale
are you daft?


I must be
because this post of yours has NOTHING to do with the question I asked in the post your replying to.



posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 09:27 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


christ.
do i have to spell everything out for you?

the reason people debunk retarded theories like this one is because they are so blatantly ignorant that people who actually think and research feel obligated to correct them before people start jumping on the bandwagon to stupidity.



posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus
[
And you have the gall to say NASA lies and manipulates things.

pfft



In all due respect, you don't?



posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by JScytale
the reason people debunk retarded theories like this one is because they are so blatantly ignorant that people who actually think and research feel obligated to correct them before people start jumping on the bandwagon to stupidity.


Nah nice try... I find it more likely that you guys think you can convert the 'innocent' with your 'superior knowledge' and feel the need to be heard before any serious discussion begins IMO of course.

What gets me is the continuous attempt at the same methods and expecting different results. You really think you debunking methods make a difference? Just look at the recent thread list...

Good luck on that mission of yours



posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 10:36 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 





posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 11:02 PM
link   
Source of original image used in full resolution.



That is a textbook example of a lens flare. Note the five sided aperture.

Google lens flares to learn about them.

I doubt even the most aggressive hoaxer would try to pass this off as anything else. It is too perfect of an example.



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 03:42 AM
link   
It can be a lens flare (so, inside the lens reflections). But it looks to me more like just as a sunlight reflection on an object INSIDE the cockpit, and that reflection reflected again (seen) in the windows which is acting like a mirror. Please go in your house near the window in a sunny day an make photographs throught the window...you can catch your camera reflection in the image, or at least only bright specks reflections.
My guess is that original reflection is made on one part (protuberance) of the camera itself. In order to photograph the earth, you must move closely to the window, to not catch the borders. Moving closer, you or your camera can be illuminated by the sun. Looking from how earth is illuminated (less than a quarter), it means the sun is at right and more in front of the camera plane, so this is a situation when indeed sunlight can hit the camera (or the astronaut, or some other objects inside the module.

Anyway, it is an OUT OF FOCUS IMAGE, so, it is a lens flare INSIDE the lens, or a small and near object or reflection of it. It involves Depth of Field principle in optics (boring), and even bokeh with it's shape copyying internal iris (5 blades iris here) (even more boring)

Of course, it can be out of this world alien ships, smaller like a bug, going near the camera and even buzzing the astronaut like a fly
.

pointless thread, essentially just what conspirationists ussually use for their "proof": mundane but not well understood optical or physical facts. (artifacts)



[edit on 19/7/09 by depthoffield]

[edit on 19/7/09 by depthoffield] - some spellings

[edit on 19/7/09 by depthoffield]



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 04:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by depthoffield

Of course, it can be out of this world alien ships, smaller like a bug, going near the camera and even buzzing the astronaut like a fly
.


Or maybe it is Russian.

Perhaps these satellites are actually Russian spacecraft.



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 04:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by depthoffield

Of course, it can be out of this world alien ships, smaller like a bug, going near the camera and even buzzing the astronaut like a fly
.


Or maybe it is Russian.

Perhaps these satellites are actually Russian spacecraft.


...which MUST be smaller like a bug, and very closer to the camera, in order to achieve an OUT OF FOCUS state.




posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 04:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by depthoffield

...which MUST be smaller like a bug, and very closer to the camera, in order to achieve an OUT OF FOCUS state.




There is more than one....


And they attracted the attention of the photographer - who took Five consecutive images of the objects.

The camera is against the window. There is just no room for your bug to fly.


[edit on 19-7-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 04:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by depthoffield

Of course, it can be out of this world alien ships, smaller like a bug, going near the camera and even buzzing the astronaut like a fly
.


Or maybe it is Russian.

Perhaps these satellites are actually Russian spacecraft.


a satellite.
with the earth that far away in the background.
do yourself a favor and learn how satellites work.



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 04:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by JScytale

do yourself a favor and learn how satellites work.


The moon orbits the earth.

Anything orbiting the moon is also orbiting the earth, but further out.

Did you know that the moon is a satellite...


(The more you know....
)

[edit on 19-7-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 04:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by JScytale

do yourself a favor and learn how satellites work.


The moon orbits the earth.

Anything orbiting the moon is also orbiting the earth.

Did you know that the moon is a satellite...


(The more you know....
)


i am specifically referring to man made satellites. something orbiting that far away would take such a monumental amount of energy to put there, would be moving so fast it would zip past the apollo module probably faster than a human eye could register, and would have absolutely no ability to do anything remotely useful but take far away pictures of earth. being that far away it would have no conceivable purpose. this all took place "after the accident" as you said - which took place in transit, not in moon orbit.

also, satellites don't "track" anything. you really have a lot to learn about how satellites function, or even what orbit is, if you think a satellite can decide to follow another object in space whenever it wants.

[edit on 19-7-2009 by JScytale]



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 04:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1


And they attracted the attention of the photographer - who took Five consecutive images of the objects.



Actually it looks more like the photographer was taking photos of the earth.

See the original shot that Blaine91555 provided.

The earth is dead centre of the shot.



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 04:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1

There is more than one....


And they attracted the attention of the photographer - who took Five consecutive images of the objects.

The camera is against the window. There is just no room for your bug to fly.



I have no bug to fly. You suggest this when IGNORING the out-of-focus FACT. Right know, you are ridding dead horses...

And, yes, there may have be many reflections from astronaut's camera to the windows, why putting the limit?

And the astronauts takes pictures of the Earth, not to your out of focus artifacts. And, myself if i have to photograph something unique, i didn'd do just one shot, but many, to be sure i have at least one good. This is basic photographer rules.



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 04:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus

Actually it looks more like the photographer was taking photos of the earth.


All Five consecutive shots of the Earth have the UFO(s) in them.

If he wanted to get a shot of the earth by itself, the photographer would have waited until the satellites moves out of the shot and then took the picture.....


[edit on 19-7-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 04:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


did you happen to notice the earth was in the center of the photo in all five pictures? if he was taking pictures of an "artifact" he would center on it. the fact he does not center on the object in any photos lends more credence to the idea that it was something very small and very close to the camera that he never noticed.

I'd also like to point out that you have no evidence the camera was pressed against the window.

and no, he wouldnt wait until the satellite moved out of teh shot if the satellite was not a satellite, you genius.


[edit on 19-7-2009 by JScytale]




top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join