Mir Space Station UFO Video (NASA verses Russian)

reply to post by depthoffield


ok cool

when you have more time to look over everything let us know




www.lpi.usra.edu...

Originally posted by easynow
when you have more time to look over everything let us know

I said this is something smaller and closer, it doesn't have any relation with the moon surface, just that they are in the same frame and overlayed. Like a bird/plain photographed in front of the moon/sun etcetera
What could it be? A piece of debris outside near the apollo module? Very posible and mundane. A piece of "something" in the cockpit, floating around in front of the busy astronauts? Also posible, and may happen just that.


Hey, what's the link of this picture with the OP?


[edit on 10/9/09 by depthoffield]

reply to post by depthoffield



let me know when you can offer up an explanation for the opening post

that trumps everything

Originally posted by depthoffield
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.

Hello gang.
Easynow and I have discussed this issue in the past in private emails, so I will take a crack at answering DepthOfField's request by giving you a few examples of camera movement obfuscation techniques that the DoD likes to employ when manipulating NASA's shuttle imagery before the public ever gets a look at it. The video I will be using to demonstrate this technique is one I made a few months ago and posted on Youtube related to the "TSS1-R Tether Incident" from shuttle mission STS-75.


Regarding the raw and shake-stabilized scene I show starting @ 2:15 - I actually show that same sequence three times in total in that video - twice starting at 2:15 (raw and then stabilized) and then once more at 6:00, where I show it stabilized and vertically aligned. What I am hoping some people will pick up on there is the fact that the object’s entrance into the field-of-view coincides EXACTLY with the brutally violent camera tilt (followed of course by the always present clutch-bouncing). This is a classic obfuscative technique that has been utilized since the days of Apollo, and it’s purpose is to severely limit the number of quality frames available to analyze, while at the same time (and this is a very, very important point) still giving the appearance of providing a decent view of the object. Notice how in the raw footage the “coincidental” timing of this HIGH-RATE tilt and bounce serves to destroy any sort of clear look we would otherwise have of that object for the entire first half of its traverse across the FOV? Instead, the only stable view of that object that NASA gives the public is after it passes the tether, as it is moving through the obfuscative contrast gradient and into the bloomed lower region where we lose (by design I assure you) a huge amount of the contrast definition.

Now, because of that wicked reflection/contrast gradient they employ during those high magnification sequences, the fact is that the only area of the entire FOV that provides a decent level of proper contrast/brightness is the top left quadrant of frame - which (again, by “coincidence”) is precisely the area of frame that they “bounced” that object through so we would not be afforded the only decently contrasted look at it as it approached the tether. Because of the contrast conditions, you have to remember that any camera movement at all (even the slow bouncing) causes EVERYTHING to blur, especially the gradient transition line. Because the camera gain appears to have been “Black Stretched” for low-lux filming, the gradient transition area is quite noisy, and you can really see in the stabilized version how the camera tilt and bounce serves to force that noisy gradient line to continually sweep back and forth over the object until the camera settles back down. That is an obfuscative measure they are exploiting here - all designed to limit and rigidly control the amount and quality of visual data that we, the general public, have available to analyze.

I am only limited to 4000 characters max per post here gang, so let me continue with some more examples from that same video down below in the next post. I am far from done yet!

Ok, continuing on from my above post, here are some more examples of camera movement obfuscation being employed, all from that same tether video I linked above.

At the 5:24 mark, I show a longer stabilized sequence that involves a combination of simultaneous zoom and tilt/bounce as they tighten in on the tether. You can see the growth of the contrast gradient as it is introduced during the zoom. If you look closely, you see that there is one small object that during the initial zoom and shake can be seen crossing the lower portion of the tether. (I actually did another stabilized rendering of that scene for the full forensic analysis of the tether footage I am working on, and I did not show that stabilized version in that video. That other version I did cancels out the zoom as well as the camera motion by locking the size of the tether so that it remains the same size in the FOV the whole time. That version gives a better look at that one small object that has it’s crossover obfuscated by the zoom and shake technique.

Ok, now why are they obfuscating the scene just as certain objects crossover the tether? Well, you must remember when viewing the tether footage that you are seeing a two-dimensional representation of a three-dimensional scene. When I say “crossover”, I am referring to the way the flightpaths of these objects appear to take them either in front of or behind the tether in relation to the camera system that shot this footage. However, because the size of these individual objects is unknown, it is therefore impossible to determine their true positions in 3-D object space UNLESS we can visually detect the crossover with the tether (whose distance and size is known). The fact is that the only possible way we have to determine any sort of rudimentary range data for any of these objects whatsoever is to analyze the visual response each of them creates as it crosses the tether (assuming the flightpaths take them on that overlapping course obviously). From that, the hope would be to determine whether each individual object can be seen interfering with the contrast response of the tether body itself. Basically, if the object is in front of the tether, there should be a momentary break in the otherwise firmly delineated body of the tether right at the moment of crossover.

At 5:40, you see an example of the use of focal fluctuation as an obfuscate tool the very instant an object crosses the tether. Now, If you watch closely at 5:40 as that object crosses and the focus fluctuates, you see that the object does not appear to break the high-contrast border of the tether as it crosses. If that is indeed the case, it would mean that that object is behind the tether and not crossing in between it and the camera platform. Now, playing the role of skeptic, I would point to the focus shift that occurs right at crossover and say that it alters the scene to the point where one cannot draw a definitive conclusion either way. How convenient an excuse! Again, that focus game in this instance is a nice little plausible obfuscator that conveniently/coincidentally ruins the evidence we have to analyze at exactly the time of crossover while still giving the appearance of showing everything.

(Still not done yet - continued below)

Ok, still referencing the same tether video, as another example, at the 5:47 mark you see a small but bright object enter at the top of the screen just to the left of the centerline. That object quickly moves down the FOV and crosses the tether three seconds later at exactly 5:50. Again, by “coincidence”, just as the object crosses the tether they jolt the camera to mar the view. If you go through the raw footage magnified frame-by-frame, you will see that the camera movement is such that it totally eliminates ANY detail of that small object (blurring it beyond recognition) for just a few short frames - just long enough until it is safely past the tether (again, “coincidence”, right?). This is important here because you can see that the small object’s contrast/reflective condition as it approaches the tether is such that had the camera not been shaken at that inopportune time (or “opportune” time, depending on whether one’s allegiances lie with seeking the truth or covering it up) - had that shake not occurred, we should have been afforded the ability to distinguish whether that object was indeed in front of and not behind the tether in relation to the camera. Conveniently, we are denied the privilege of seeing that evidence here.

Continuing on, if you look at the 8:10 mark, you see another zoom sequence that leads into “stable sequence#3“. Although I didn’t correct the zoom when I show it in this version, you can see that the quick zoom in-out (and contrast fluctuation in this case) also happens EXACTLY at the moment of object crossover, obfuscating it yet again. If you want I can dig up the magnified zoom-corrected/stabilized version I did of that scene and upload it as well.

Now, the full raw version of Martyn Stubb’s tether encounter footage shows more examples of this crossover obfuscation that I have not highlighted for you here. This technique is a common one, and is by no means limited to just the STS-75 tether footage. Here is another example I made up showing camera shake being used as an obfuscative technique - this one from STS-80. This is just a test demonstrator I made, so it is a very basic presentation, but it shows the raw and then stabilized versions of the same scene. In this case, you see that the start of the camera pan coincides EXACTLY with the appearance of the flare, and the camera also just happens to stop panning the instant the flare exits the FOV. In this case, they were deliberately making this object difficult for us to track and focus on by introducing the camera pan in an attempt to obfuscate its movement characteristics. The stabilization however corrects the scene nicely, and affords us a decent (although brief) look at the object as it rises out the FOV.


So, there are a few examples you can ponder over as you think about whether the good people at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration are really being totally upfront and honest with the footage they release publicly. Again, this is just the tip of a very big obfuscative iceberg, with a lot more manipulation going on behind the scenes that is not nearly as easily detectable as the simple methods that I have pointed out here.

Cheers gang,
Luna

I used to get super excited over these object videos. Clearly they are there, clearly they are "unidentified". But intelligent? I don't know. I have yet to see one change direction while being filmed.

reply to post by LunaCognita


Great Post LunaCognita !

that is an excellent video and extremely well produced. thank you for the detailed descriptions of what we are viewing in the sequences. that might wake some people up ? of course some people will forever be in denial even though it's very obvious were being bamboozled with these tricky videos from NASA.

this might be the scene you were talking about where one of the objects crosses the tether ?

Didn't the "UFO" hunter show debunk objects passing behind the tether? I can't remember. I'll have to look it up.

I loved the tether vids.

Originally posted by LunaCognita

Hello gang.
Easynow and I have discussed this issue in the past in private emails, so I will take a crack at answering DepthOfField's request by giving you a few examples of camera movement obfuscation techniques that the DoD likes to employ when manipulating NASA's shuttle imagery before the public ever gets a look at it. The video I will be using to demonstrate this technique is one I made a few months ago and posted on Youtube related to the "TSS1-R Tether Incident" from shuttle mission STS-75.
..............

Hello, LunaCognita!
I liked your movies with stabilised versions, it demonstrates how the shuttle is using its Reaction control system (en.wikipedia.org...) to constantly adjust in small amounts the attitude to the desired angle.

Here is the demonstration of this:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

and a conclusive sequence from there:




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



Regarding your posts here, with STS-75 "obfuscation" techniques...
well.. it looks cool, but, there is a big issue which you neglect...

for example here is an extract from Stubbs videos, via Sereda documentary:



now, from let's say about 3:00 to 4:47, we see the tehther zoomed, but also a lot of "moving discs".
Here you say and exemplify some sequences where this objects are "obfuscated" in order to hide details to viewers (by the way, what viewers, since this was NOT released to the public? aaaa, to lie Mr Stubs, i see... ).
But there is also many stable sequences, when a whole bunch of discs or dots, just goes in front of our eyes, or ILLUSORY behind the tether, without any obfuscation/zooming/shaking or whatever. There are many. Everybody can see them. Where is the obfuscation here?
As I previously said, those NASA "obfuscators"-guys, are totally incompetent, since they let seconds after seconds of videos without any "obfuscation". Objective judgeing, the movie just shows a natural process: camera operator trying to look to tether, and adjusting from time to time the camera.

You see, what you describe is just sequences selected by you to reflect your ideas.... the other ones, which doesn't show nothing, or contradict you.....well..are there as well.

Anyway, your stories about these obfuscating methods in STS-75 are cool and attractive..but are only stories.

Look again for the "non-obfuscated" objects here:



don't ignore them, if you want to be OBJECTIVE.


Also, those STS-75 swarm of floating objects, are just particles of debris, and the disc (or notched disc) appearance is called "bokeh" and is a clue (derived from basic optics principles) of what they are: small and close particles illuminated by the sun (debris are a common candidate)

Here a short summary of this, the second part of that post:
www.abovetopsecret.com...









[edit on 10/9/09 by depthoffield]

reply to post by Demoncreeper


nope they didn't debunk anything...their experiments were all out of proper context and they never looked at all of the video. and never mind the fact that they didn't have the actual NASA camera to see if any special modifications were done to it.

it was interesting but really a weak attempt and in my opinion failed.







[edit on 10-9-2009 by easynow]

Originally posted by easynow
it was interesting but really a weak attempt and in my opinion failed.

In your opinion, has ANY explanation ever offered by ANYone for ANY UFO story you enjoyed believing, EVER changed your mind?

reply to post by JimOberg

In your opinion, has ANY explanation ever offered by ANYone for ANY UFO story you enjoyed believing, EVER changed your mind?

well of course Jim , i am not going to deny some real proof and there have been many ufo videos ect. that i have done a 180 on. do i need to list them for you ? i can if need be.

how about you ?... has anyone ever presented any evidence about a case that changed your mind and convinced you it was a real ufo ?

Originally posted by depthoffield
I liked your movies with stabilised versions, it demonstrates how the shuttle is using its Reaction control system

Hello DepthOfField,
Yes, there are several examples of objects in that footage deviating at the same time - no doubt about it. Of course, there are even more examples in the tether footage showing objects NOT deviating in unison, right? What about those? What about the objects in the FOV that carry trajectories that are not affected at a time when other objects are seen deviating? How do you equate those movements with your RCS argument? Also, you are making that declaration about the RCS as if you know with certainty what flight condition the shuttle was in at the time this footage was shot. You don’t know. Could the shuttle have been in free drift? Certainly. Could they have been in one of the automatic attitude control modes? Certainly. The fact is we don’t know what mode the shuttle was in. Your argument relies on the assumption that they were orbiting in an automatic control mode during tether flyby, and I have not seen anything to support that claim yet.

Here you say and exemplify some sequences where this objects are "obfuscated" in order to hide details to viewers (by the way, what viewers, since this was NOT released to the public? aaaa, to lie Mr Stubs, i see...

).

What are you talking about? The STS-75 footage was broadcast publicly by NASA, so I have no clue what you are claiming when you say this footage was NOT (your emphasis, not mine) released to the public. Do you think Mr. Stubbs was yanking this signal straight off a NASA/DoD TDRS bird and he cracked the encryption? Of course not! He was pulling it from a commercial communications satellite publicly broadcasting the sanitized NASA-TV feed across North America, and anyone with a dish could tune in and watch. Martyn Stubbs taped the transmissions (thank you Martyn!), but for you to claim that this footage was “NOT released to the public” is simply absurd.

But there is also many stable sequences, when a whole bunch of discs or dots, just goes in front of our eyes, or ILLUSORY behind the tether, without any obfuscation/zooming/shaking or whatever. There are many. Everybody can see them. Where is the obfuscation here? ....don't ignore them, if you want to be OBJECTIVE.

I am not ignoring anything. Obviously, the only objects NASA have to be worried about obfuscating in that footage are objects that are passing behind the tether that create a detectable contrast response. Your argument relies on the premise that all these objects MUST be in front of the tether (hence your “ILLUSURY” claim). I certainly am not claiming ALL the objects are behind the tether, am I? I think there are objects both in front of and behind it (in relation to the camera system I mean obviously). The fact is that any object truly passing in front of the tether would not need to be obfuscated, because it‘s contrast response characteristics at crossover already support what NASA wants you to believe - that ALL the objects are in between the tether and the camera. They only had to worry about obfuscating the objects that offered definitive visual evidence they were indeed passing BEHIND the tether - because NASA in no way could explain or account for that using the typical “near-field ice/debris” argument that you are forwarding. Those objects are the only ones that they had to be concerned with, because those are the ones that contradict the near-field ice/debris claim. I highlighted just a few "coincidental" examples of camera shake/contrast/focal/ fluctuation occurring at EXACTLY the moment crossover in my above posts, and I also said there are more examples in the raw tether encounter footage that I did not specifically highlight. You can chock it all up as “coincidence” if you like, but I don’t think I am the one ignoring all the available evidence here.
Cheers,
Luna

Originally posted by LunaCognita
Yes, there are several examples of objects in that footage deviating at the same time - no doubt about it. Of course, there are even more examples in the tether footage showing objects NOT deviating in unison, right? What about those? What about the objects in the FOV that carry trajectories that are not affected at a time when other objects are seen deviating? How do you equate those movements with your RCS argument?

Hey, LunaCognita, but your videos make a big deal especially from objects changing trajectories which i showed to you that they are changing in unison, at the same time with the stars! So, you make a big deal as being something extraordinary from what has a very mundane and unique explication: RCS system in action. So, don't tell me about "others" when you rely exactly on those obviously acting in unison together with the stars!
If you want my answer about "the others" which NOT deviating in unison...are you suggesting that individual particles of debris can't change their trajectoriy independent to the others? (you know, effluents from RCS hitting them, or other forces there). Also, it is also a matter of PERSPECTIVE from the observer (camera) point of view: different changes in trajectories can appear different in value depending from the real angle between particle trajectory and the camera movement trajectory, also PARALAX has an effect here, and you should know this.

So, your stabilised motion trajectory sequences are nothing but great only to expose the obviously solution of the sudden small changings in particle trajectories: RCS in action! Nothing more. Of course, to many people, those changes has great potential to make them scratching their heads wondering "what the hell are those?"

Originally posted by LunaCognita
Also, you are making that declaration about the RCS as if you know with certainty what flight condition the shuttle was in at the time this footage was shot. You don’t know. Could the shuttle have been in free drift? Certainly. Could they have been in one of the automatic attitude control modes? Certainly. The fact is we don’t know what mode the shuttle was in.

But the RCS system must be working at those moments, because that explain why the stars themselves have sudden small changes in movements exactly in unison with the particles!! Have you any explanation why stars also change a bit their position exactly when other particles change their trajectory? (don't tell me that those are not stars!)

Look again for my analysys here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by LunaCognita

DOF: Here you say and exemplify some sequences where this objects are "obfuscated" in order to hide details to viewers (by the way, what viewers, since this was NOT released to the public? aaaa, to lie Mr Stubs, i see... ).

What are you talking about? The STS-75 footage was broadcast publicly by NASA, so I have no clue what you are claiming when you say this footage was NOT (your emphasis, not mine) released to the public.

Ok, here i could be wrong, i don't know the details of this movie, i rely on memory from what i've read, memory which sometimes mislead me....so, i retract my above statement.

Originally posted by LunaCognita

But there is also many stable sequences, when a whole bunch of discs or dots, just goes in front of our eyes, or ILLUSORY behind the tether, without any obfuscation/zooming/shaking or whatever. There are many. Everybody can see them. Where is the obfuscation here? ....don't ignore them, if you want to be OBJECTIVE.

I am not ignoring anything. Obviously, the only objects NASA have to be worried about obfuscating in that footage are objects that are passing behind the tether that create a detectable contrast response. Your argument relies on the premise that all these objects MUST be in front of the tether (hence your “ILLUSURY” claim). I certainly am not claiming ALL the objects are behind the tether, am I? I think there are objects both in front of and behind it (in relation to the camera system I mean obviously). The fact is that any object truly passing in front of the tether would not need to be obfuscated, because it‘s contrast response characteristics at crossover already support what NASA wants you to believe - that ALL the objects are in between the tether and the camera. They only had to worry about obfuscating the objects that offered definitive visual evidence they were indeed passing BEHIND the tether - because NASA in no way could explain or account for that using the typical “near-field ice/debris” argument that you are forwarding. Those objects are the only ones that they had to be concerned with, because those are the ones that contradict the near-field ice/debris claim. I highlighted just a few "coincidental" examples of camera shake/contrast/focal/ fluctuation occurring at EXACTLY the moment crossover in my above posts, and I also said there are more examples in the raw tether encounter footage that I did not specifically highlight. You can chock it all up as “coincidence” if you like, but I don’t think I am the one ignoring all the available evidence here.

But you are ignoring them. Here you stretch again the same claims about "obfuscating".
I said to you: there are also many examples with "objects" going behind the tether, or slowly in front of our eyes, and there is no "obfuscation". Like I said: it results that the camera operator which is there to "obfuscate" is an INCOMPETENT, not beeing able to hide "the truth" to the public.
Ok, here are examples of "non-obfuscated" objects, a sequence without your alleged "obfuscation" actions:




Look 0:23, 0:24, 0:29, 0:31, 0:37, 0:39, 0:53, 0:59. It seems the last slowly big pulsing particle traversing from the left to the right, on the contrary, has been followed by the curious operator and so exposed more to the public. LOL.
That STS-75 sequence shows only a camera filmimg the tether, and the operator naturrally operating camera


Although your analysys is good and you invested talent and work, it didn't show "abnormal anomalies", but only "normal anomalies". Indeed they are head dizzing to many uninformed people, but i hope this isn't the purpose.

here is a great documentary from the late Jeff Challender about NASA using obfuscation in their videos. it's a must watch and will certainly help you to see SOME of the tricks that are used. also important to note: you will see in the video that NASA does have a time delay in their broadcast. they wouldn't want anyone to see something they aren't supposed to, ...now would they ?








part 2




part 3












[edit on 11-9-2009 by easynow]

[edit on 11-9-2009 by easynow]

Originally posted by easynow

This one indeed shows that NASA is tampering the images. I agree.

But i didn't agree of the reason of doing it.
It may hide something.
But also, tampering the static images is a common proces.
Do you really expect that some images to be EXACTLY RAW images? You know, RAW images may have all kind of artifacts, or not so good brightness/gamma/contrast.

I will explain that: also i tamper my images (not all, but ussually some of them):


When, many years ago, i began to "digitalise" some of my precious photos on paper, from chemical films, using a scanner and a PC.

Guess what i did..i tampered the images:
- i modified gamma, contrast, brightness, colors or hue
- i removed using clone tool, the scratches, developing errors (white/dark patches)
- i used masks to raise/low brightness on zones (sky, overexposed areas)
- i cropped the 0....255 interval of brightness variations in the low part (ark areas), for example let's say as an example to 10...250, automatically (autocontrast) or manually (dark level threshold), to increase contrast and remove darky noisy ugly areas

In this days, using digital photography, i also tamper some of the images (the very important ones):
- i modified gamma, contrast, brightness, colors or hue
- i removed using clone tool, the non-desired things, like bugs, electrical strings when deteriorating the atmosphere of the image etcetera
- i remove red-eyes
- i used masks to raise/low brightness on zones (sky, overexposed/underexposed areas)
- i cropped the 0....255 interval of brightness variations in the low part (dark areas), for example let's say as an example to 10...250, automatically (autocontrast) or manually (dark level threshold), to increase contrast and remove darky noisy ugly areas
- i remove noise in high iso images (which also could make the human skin to appear smooth like baby skin, which i don't want, so i have to pay attention, or to use masks to operate only on zones (ussually the sky, where the noise is more obviously)
- i remove/reduce chromatic aberations, fringe or contaminations (like the sun/moon/bright areas false halo
- i remove dead pixels (hot pixels) when they spoil the image.
- various other tamperings.

A detailed analysys of those photos can show easy that those images where tampered.

My reason? To make perfect images from where is not. Am I lying/hiding something in my images? Well, i could say yes, but with a noble reason.

I thing NASA just doing the same with their RAW data when publishing to the world. Nothing more. Also they stitch images and also make projections, scallings etcetera.

I bet many people didn't know this normal tampering processes, and they could send me to jail because i tampering my images, if this was important to them (i lie to them, no?)

The movie posted by Easynow, quoted in this post, with proof for NASA tampering speculate just this.







[edit on 11/9/09 by depthoffield]

[edit on 11/9/09 by depthoffield]

reply to post by easynow


Thanks for the video Easynow.

But as you can see, the debunkers here can rationalize anything to themselves. Take for example your posting of that last video LunaCognita video and the subsequent reaction to it.

...It is like a form of Stockholm Syndrome.




[edit on 11-9-2009 by Exuberant1]

Originally posted by Exuberant1
But as you can see, the debunkers here can rationalize anything to themselves. Take for example your posting of that last video LunaCognita video and the subsequent reaction to it.

First: i can't "rationalise anything". Just some of them. A few. In contrast, for you seems everything is unexplained and deserving to spread to the people as is. As for rationalising from you..well...
Second: it is not for myself, but to others.



[edit on 11/9/09 by depthoffield]

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by JimOberg

 

In your opinion, has ANY explanation ever offered by ANYone for ANY UFO story you enjoyed believing, EVER changed your mind?

well of course Jim , i am not going to deny some real proof and there have been many ufo videos ect. that i have done a 180 on. do i need to list them for you ? i can if need be.

how about you ?... has anyone ever presented any evidence about a case that changed your mind and convinced you it was a real ufo ?

There are a number of of reports I scratch my head over and think, "I wonder what could have caused that", but that's a far leap from concluding, 'Only space critters could have caused that." I'd like to know, mildly, where Jimmy Hoffa's buried, too... but no reason to suspect he's on Mars.

If you change your mind so often as you claim, does that mean that you are spring-loaded to go 'false positive' without justification?