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.

 

Mir Space Station UFO Video (NASA verses Russian)

page: 3
15
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 04:54 AM
link   
it is obviously, in STS75, how NASA operators failed to obfuscate those so-said "alien ships" or "critters", since they are acting, pulsing, changing shape and direction right in front of our eyes, so every almost blind can see them
. It result they are incompetent in obfuscating.

How about various settings selected manually by the operator trying to get a better image in very unfavorable conditions (sun hitting directly the lens in "contrejour", producing big bright flares, spoiling the image, dark sky (low light situation), bright tether, various DEBRIS floating around, and add to this all king of image artifacts (BOKEH, overexposed until negativation areas, sharpening artifacts on the edges of the objects etcetera)?

[edit on 4/9/09 by depthoffield]




posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 05:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
perhaps they did but as you can see we get the crappy picture, i wonder why ?


Russian Picture

www.youtube.com...


NASA Picture

www.youtube.com...


They look almost as good a the ones John Lenard takes




Almost









[edit on 2-9-2009 by easynow]



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 07:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by easynow
perhaps they did but as you can see we get the crappy picture, i wonder why ?


They look almost as good a the ones John Lenard takes
Almost



Enough comic relief, and enough dodging, Zorgon. Did you really think the lunar sketches were made by the guys while out on the lunar surface, watching the sunset? 'Fess up!!



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 07:56 AM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 



They look almost as good a the ones John Lenard takes




dohhhh !

good one Zorgon , yea funny how a guy with a telescope can get a better picture of something in orbit than the NASA shuttle



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
dohhhh !


Easynow, can you clarify your earlier statement that the views in question came from two different cameras?



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 



Easynow, can you clarify your earlier statement that the views in question came from two different cameras?


would you mind quoting me where i said there was two different cameras ?



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by depthoffield It result they are incompetent in obfuscating.


They never intended that STS75 video to reach the public... Your 'tea' has yet to produce the ORIGINAL release from NASA

:shk:


BOKEH


You seem to have an obsession with this word... seems it blinds you to every thing else in the universe...

Well here is a three thousand year old BOKEH for your collection






posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
The observations were made from inside the Command Module in lunar orbit. There are plenty of photographs. But in general, the eyeball is a more sensitive receptor than film or electronics, especially for fast moving and very low light level phenomena.


PLENTY of photos? of the Lunar rays? Well I supoose for someone like you with your long NASA career you have seen so many it must bore you... but you know... seems they are not easy to find..

The eye may indeed be better than a camera, but translating what the eye sees into a black and white scribble then claiming its 'better' than a photo...

And you ask me what my 'problem' is?

How is the sketch on the left even close to the image on the right (which is an image from EARTH used in the NASA article because it seems they also have 'difficulty finding PLENTY of images of the lunar rays)









The astronauts of Skylab made sketches of their views of comet Kohoutek, to complement their photographs. Cosmonauts on the Salyuts and Mir did it all the time with noctilucent clouds.


To COMPLIMENT their photos... yes... and those photos are available with the sketches yes? Also I am not looking for noctilucent clouds om Earth... I want to see the PLENTY of photos they took of sunset rays ON THE MOON to 'compliment' their sketches

So... what is your problem with that?


BTW what have you done with the REAL Jim Oberg?




posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 12:52 PM
link   
Easynow, my apologies for my memory-f*rt -- it was Exuberant...


Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by Exuberant1
I particularly like the incidents with multiple cameras from multiple countries - those certainly make for an interesting comparative analysis.



I missed that one. Weren't we talking about the SAME camera view, possibly displayed differently in the two control centers?

Where were the 'multiple cameras' in space viewing the same phenomenon? Which of us is confused?





posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
To COMPLIMENT their photos... yes... and those photos are available with the sketches yes? Also I am not looking for noctilucent clouds om Earth... I want to see the PLENTY of photos they took of sunset rays ON THE MOON to 'compliment' their sketches


I'm less interested in the dust observations than in teasing you about your notion that the astronauts waited ten days on the lunar surface for sunset.

THAT'S the real "Jim O", as you recognize!!



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
I'm less interested in the dust observations than in teasing you about your notion that the astronauts waited ten days on the lunar surface for sunset.


AH! So the end result is... no photos



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon


BOKEH


You seem to have an obsession with this word... seems it blinds you to every thing else in the universe...

Well here is a three thousand year old BOKEH for your collection



if i have an obsession with the "bokeh", then you have a mega-super-ultra-para-colosal obsession with the "critter" word seeing them in every pixel or so


As for your ancient object..also, a CD-ROM disc, a donut, a pretzel, a wheel etcetera have the same shape, which means nothing. But you like using pareidolia too.

My response was on topic to Easynow where he sees obfuscating in some NASA videos, but you popped here in your characteristic funny style.

Also, you said:

Originally posted by zorgon
They never intended that STS75 video to reach the public...


So, your response to Easynow is also that there is no obfuscation since they (NASA) haven't any reason to obfuscate?



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by depthoffield since they (NASA) haven't any reason to obfuscate?


It has been no secret that my opinion on NASA is they don't lie... they just don't volunteer info that we want
... but they do have algorithms built into spacecraft that can 'obfuscate' images. You need the algorithm to decode the view but according to Sandia labs you can go to jail for having a copy


I posted all that somewhere a few years ago... will have to look it up... might be in the Clementine thread because we were looking for them for the .cub files

Some of my best info comes from NASA guys



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by depthoffield
 




How about various settings selected manually by the operator trying to get a better image


good point depthoffield but until the opening post of this thread is explained with real proof, nobody can/should make any claims about anything seen in these NASA videos and expect others to accept those claims as fact.

thanks for your post




[edit on 9-9-2009 by easynow]



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 02:27 AM
link   
I love that video where the camera is looking at UFOs and then they move it. That made me laugh.



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 02:36 AM
link   
reply to post by humandefense02
 


you mean this one ?



UFO's Show Up and Wooop there goes the Camera !






it made me cry



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 03:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by easynow

you mean this one ?
UFO's Show Up and Wooop there goes the Camera !
it made me cry


This last one was a perfidious time-crop from NASA movies. That is bad.

I guess that in your standards, the NASA's cameras should stare indefinitely at one point.
It's like you are filming your friend a couple of tens of meters away, and at one time you move away the camera, because the sun is hitting your lens, or somebody came between you, or some nasty swarm of mosquitos enter in the frame, or because is that you feel in that moment to change the framing.

This make me laugh, really :p





[edit on 10/9/09 by depthoffield]



[edit on 10/9/09 by depthoffield]



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 03:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by depthoffield

I guess that in your standards, the NASA's cameras should stare indefinitely at one point.



Easynow is quite specific in the wording of his posts - and nowhere in them did he say that NASA's cameras should "stare indefinitely at one point."

Please refrain from making such insinuatory queries.

*If you were genuinely interested in his answer; you would leave the insinuations and implications out of your inquiries.

Besides, it is improper to issue provocations in the form of a question.








This make me laugh, really.




Ah yes, the perfunctory act of mockery.

Now your post is complete.




[edit on 10-9-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 03:34 AM
link   
reply to post by depthoffield
 


ok thanks for your opinion depthoffield ,

i think they moved the camera because of the UFO's , heck maybe i am wrong and maybe i am not.

what do you think about the opening post of this thread, i see you are avoiding discussing it and are attacking everything else ?



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 04:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
[what do you think about the opening post of this thread, i see you are avoiding discussing it and are attacking everything else ?


Most of the time i didn't have any time. The OP require some research eventually, which i can't do it now. As for alleged "obfuscation", the last our dialog, is not a matter of attacking you or everyone, is is not off-topic regarded OP, it is respionse to you, and there I recognise how operating a camera means so i disagree with your claims and feelings about obfuscation (at least examples provided).
I should read this topic in order to make an opinion regarding OP.




top topics



 
15
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join