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: 4
15
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 04:27 AM
link   
reply to post by depthoffield
 


ok thanks for the reply,

i think you need to realize that i am interested in solving this puzzle that i have presented in the opening post of this thread. i would appreciate any help from anyone that will lead us all to some real proof of why there seems to be a discrepancy in the two pictures.

you also need to realize that all the heckling and so called debunking that you are attempting is all in vain and a waste of yours and my time until the puzzle of the Op is solved.

if it turns out the Op does show to be a problem and cannot be explained then your argument of no obfuscation is dismissed. if it turns out there is a logical and provable explanation for that then you might have a point in your debunking and you might not




posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 04:41 AM
link   
interesting pictures ?

it seems this Astronaut has a UFO on his computer screen and whoa the UFO has a notch in part of it's structure ?






posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 04:46 AM
link   
reply to post by easynow
 


That picture looks like a simple desktop background, you can see the icons overlayed at the top.

Is it not possible, it's just a CGI picture that he stuck on his desktop? There is no way of indetifying whether that is a real photo or not????



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 04:50 AM
link   
reply to post by 0010110011101
 


yes i am aware that the picture on his computer is most likely just a desktop background pic... but , i find it interesting that he finds it interesting enough to have it on his computer.

it's ok for Astronauts to like ufo 's too......right ?



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 04:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by 0010110011101
 


yes i am aware that the picture on his computer is most likely just a desktop background pic...



Yeah, that's what it is.

I saw the actual image on pravda awhile ago.



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 05:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by 0010110011101
 


yes i am aware that the picture on his computer is most likely just a desktop background pic... but , i find it interesting that he finds it interesting enough to have it on his computer.

it's ok for Astronauts to like ufo 's too......right ?



Apologies, I misintrepted your post and thought you we suggesting it was a real picture, my fault!!!!

I hope Astronauts like UFOs, I'm sure they've seen enough of them!!!! In fact if anyone is going to have a healthy interest in UFOs they are the best candidates!

And who knows, it could be a genuine photo.....



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 05:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1

thanks Exuberant1,


I saw the actual image on pravda awhile ago.


interesting , i wonder if that's where he got it from ?...lol





reply to post by 0010110011101

hey no problem my friend i was only posting it because i thought it was interesting and thought some other people might like to see the pics.

yes your right , i am sure they are very interested in them for many reasons. i know if i was up there i would definitely be looking out for them.


here is a real picture of the Moon and i believe this might be clear proof that somebody has covered up something in this picture. some peeps previously tried to get me to believe that it's lens flare...lol

it might be an airbrush job to cover something or somekind of image defect.
imo....it is not lens flare.



www.lpi.usra.edu...

history.nasa.gov...



obfuscation ?...You be the judge














[edit on 10-9-2009 by easynow]

[edit on 10-9-2009 by easynow]



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 05:28 AM
link   
reply to post by easynow
 



Hi easy,

another great vid. thx!

Yes, they're here... yes. NASA is hiding something, we all know it.



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 05:58 AM
link   
reply to post by easynow
 


I wholeheartedly agree that it looks like air-brushing. I don't know how we could ever prove it without the original picture and getting your hands on that is about as likely as finding a pile of rocking horse sh*t.

I'm convinced that the majority of pictures which are "released" to the general populace are altered in some way. The video of the lady from the disclosure project outlines clearly that it is common practice.

The question we are still no further forward in answering is why? "They are hiding something" is not a good enough answer! I want to know what they are hiding, why they are hiding it and why they think they have a right to knowledge that is not inherently theirs and which the rest of us are refused.

At the end of the day, the universe and everything contained in it belongs to all of us.



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 06:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
you also need to realize that all the heckling and so called debunking that you are attempting is all in vain and a waste of yours and my time until the puzzle of the Op is solved.

Hey Easynow, seems you didn't uderstant well what i said...

YOU posted an example (sts123), or other (the "swimming" object), as a matter of "obfuscation", and my response was to THEM, not to the OP, but to them. No obfuscation NEEDED in THOSE EXAMPLES, despite you "crying" on them. I've explained how those camera's maneuvers are just natural in those examples. And, i can accept that you simply didn't agree with that, but to acuse me of debunkink... Instead, you should BACK UP your claims that there is indeed obfuscation beyound natural common camera maneuvers.

YOU posted, I've responded (i have this right). Why accusing me of "so called debunking" here? Do you really expect that your CLAIMS in THOSE EXAMPLES to be accepted as is? This is not a discussion board?

As for wasting your time...that is your problem if not accepting discussing ISSUES down to detail.
As for wasting my time... i agree there are times when indeed is a waste of time to describe mundane things and common sense facts to people which don't want to see them.



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 06:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
it seems this Astronaut has a UFO on his computer screen and whoa the UFO has a notch in part of it's structure ?


i could have memory errors, but i'm sure that right here, on ATS, i've saw the exact wallpaper used by the astronaut in his laptop. Maybe Internos, or Armap, i can't remember for sure..



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 06:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by easynow

here is a real picture of the Moon and i believe this might be clear proof that somebody has covered up something in this picture. some peeps previously tried to get me to believe that it's lens flare...lol

it's an obvious airbrush job to hide something if you ask me.


Again, i'm pretty sure what my memory said to me, that someone here just explained with OBVIOUSLY examples, that this picture, as beeing an antena or something from Apollo module, beeing too close and appearing very out of focus (fuzzy). No real mistery here, but i didn't have time (and bandwidth here and now) to search it.

So your "obviously air-brushed" is nothing, but an "obviously confusion. i know, and i assume this, this is un-backuped claim from me, since i didn't provided those examples. No time right now to do the research.



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 06:10 AM
link   
reply to post by depthoffield
 


you don't get it do you ?

until we figure out why there is a difference in the video on the Russian control room screen which is clear and why the NASA version is terrible, you have no grounds for saying there is no obfuscation in any of these videos.

if the Op cannot be explained then that might mean NASA is obfuscating the pictures and that would mean your debunking is WRONG !

get it now ?





Russian Picture

www.youtube.com...




NASA Picture

www.youtube.com...



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 06:13 AM
link   
reply to post by depthoffield
 



that this picture, as beeing an antena or something from Apollo module,




2nd line



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 06:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
you don't get it do you ?
if the Op cannot be explained then that might mean NASA is obfuscating the pictures and that would mean your debunking is WRONG !


You don't get it do you?

I've explained to you that is no need to think to "obfuscation methods" in those (YOURS) examples with camera panning away or adjusting gain/iris or various settings. With that response of me to your examples, i didn't touch the OP. so why accussing me of debunking it? It was only responses to your folowing examples, but NOT why the OP showing russian and NASA versions are different.

Get it?

Let's resume the topic.



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 06:23 AM
link   
reply to post by depthoffield
 


when you have a provable explanation for the opening post of this thread i will listen to what you have to say about the other vids.

so yea how about sticking to the main topic which is the opening post ?

thanks



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 06:29 AM
link   
reply to post by easynow

Originally posted by mblahnikluver
reply to post by Maxmars
 


well I have been looking all day and the only picture that looks like it is this one. It doesnt look exactly the same but the main ship looks a lot like it...I am not sure but just my opinion and out of all the ones I looked at this was the only one that came close.



The picture came from this site and was just posted next to an article. I did searches for wallpapers and just pictures.

www.agoracosmopolitan.com...



All day?
dedication extreme


Well it looks the same to me...




Interesting article... about disclosure...

Maybe it IS a real picture afterall


From this thread
www.abovetopsecret.com...







[edit on 10-9-2009 by zorgon]



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 07:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
Well it looks the same to me...




Maybe it IS a real picture afterall



look who is a good and fast digger, also aware of anything discussed here...
I knew that i saw before that wallpaper and topic here on ATS.
But, it doen't look like a real picture, but a CGI one. for sure. (Or maybe is real, but obfuscated/photoshoped etc to look like CGI, to twist our minds, so we are doomed
i began to shake from fear)

==============




Originally posted by easynow
when you have a provable explanation for the opening post of this thread i will listen to what you have to say about the other vids.
so yea how about sticking to the main topic which is the opening post ?


So you have the right to post any OTHER video, but nobody to discuss about them, and only stick to the OP? This is dangerous even dictatorial approach..


But i answer to another "YOURS OTHER" VIDEO, as a clarification related to one of my previous post:



Originally posted by easynow
here is a real picture of the Moon and i believe this might be clear proof that somebody has covered up something in this picture. some peeps previously tried to get me to believe that it's lens flare...lol

it might be an airbrush job to cover something or somekind of image defect.
imo....it is not lens flare.





Originally posted by easynow

that this picture, as beeing an antena or something from Apollo module,



2nd line


from me too.
My memory was wrong here.. seeing only your crop...
can't be an antenna (i just looke at full frame image). A confusion with another shot from apollo module, with something cigar-shaped and also fuzzy too.


Anyway, every good photographer will recognise that there it is something out of focus, therefore small and closer (since infinite - lunar surface - is in focus), because of the depth of field rules from optics.



[edit on 10/9/09 by depthoffield]



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 07:27 AM
link   
reply to post by depthoffield
 



therefore small and close


*sigh*


it's not something close , you need to rethink what your saying.

and why do you avoid the opening post of this thread ?



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 07:34 AM
link   
not small and close, but

small and closer!


Regarding OP, i don't have bandwidth here at work (a bit more than an old dial-up connection), in order to see youtube movies, or to make research with various pictures...i'll have too much to wait...

Also, i have problem with time too (now was an effort to keep, that's way eating letters or making other spelling errors, also english is not my native language.

Maybe tonight, when parent duties would let me, i can try it. (here i am GMT + 3h now )





[edit on 10/9/09 by depthoffield]

[edit on 10/9/09 by depthoffield]



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join