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: 6
15
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 06:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 



sure no problem my friend ,

that documentary made by Jeff Challender that i just posted is a must watch if you or anyone else hasn't already seen it. the picture quality isn't the best because of youtube but it's good enough to get the basics. imo , it only covers some of the tricks they use. i am seriously thinking about buying the DVD if it still exists.

yea that video from LunaCognita is the best ever made about the STS75 vid. i know i have personally thanked him a few times for spending the time on it. i think some skeptics are just to skeptical and it doesn't matter what the subject is they wil always be in denial.

you had me laughing on that Stockholm Syndrome ...good one


if the shoe fits ?






reposting these so nobody is confused as to which video i am talking about






part 2




part 3




the rest of the documentary can be found here in this link...


What is NASA hiding ?







[edit on 11-9-2009 by easynow]

[edit on 11-9-2009 by easynow]




posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 06:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

I'd like to know, mildly, where Jimmy Hoffa's buried, too... but no reason to suspect he's on Mars.

....does that mean that you are spring-loaded to go 'false positive' without justification?




Ah yes, the perfunctory mockery.

....And a provocation in the form of a question.


Now your post is complete.






[edit on 11-9-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 07:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


yea that's Jim Oberg spin zone tactics that we all are really sick of. he tries to discredit people and change the discussion because he has nothing to offer to the topic of the thread.

i think he discredits himself when he does this. kinda sad really..lol



how bout this... depthoffield confirms NASA is tampering with their images !



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

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




[edit on 11-9-2009 by easynow]



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 08:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by depthoffield
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.


How am I ignoring or stretching those examples? As I already stated, NASA only had to worry about obfuscating certain blatant objects that had contrast/reflective conditions which would have offered definitive visual evidence in the publicly released footage that they were passing behind the tether. Because of the terrible quality of the original raw tether footage NASA released, much of that footage (the zoomed out “stable sequences” in particular) simply lack the resolution to conclusively determine whether the objects are passing in front of or behind the tether based on contrast response. Those examples I pointed to from the tether footage that highlight camera shake, pan/tilt, contrast and focal fluctuation obfuscation techniques (not to mention the other examples you can go look at in the raw footage that I did not highlight specifically) are primarily from the zoomed in sequences. Why? Because the magnified examples should improve the clarity of the scene to the point that we should be able to detect if any firmly delineated objects fail to create a detectable contrast response at crossover - unless of course the camera is flooded with contrast gradient and *ahem* “accidentally” jarred or focus-fluctuated at EXACTLY the right moment, ruining the evidence time and time again. You want to hang your hat on “coincidence” to explain all the examples I showed (including the one from STS-80 that you never mentioned), and that is fine. I disagree entirely.

Just to confirm, you said (and I will re-quote you directly here) “there are also many examples with "objects" going behind the tether”.
So do you think there are objects that are behind the tether, which is 100 nautical miles or so distant? Doesn’t that conflict with your near-field debris claims then?

You also posted a video called Draft 006 in your above comment. Pray tell, why did you edit the scene at the 3 second mark? You know exactly why you did it! It was because there was a HUGE focal fluctuation that was about to occur EXACTLY at the moment of object crossover, and you decided to edit that out so you wouldn’t show the evidence directly supporting my obfuscation claim. If anyone wants to see the actual scene play out so they can watch the focal fluctuation occur EXACTLY at object crossover, my tether video I referenced in my earlier post shows that same scene at the 5:37 mark without the edit. You also do the exact same editing game at the 10 second mark in your video, again for the same reason - to avoid showing another perfect example of camera shake that was less than a half-second from occurring had you let the scene play longer. If anyone wants to see how that crossover actually plays out, go to the 5:48 mark of my video, as again, I show it without the selective editing, and you can see the camera shake coincide EXACTLY with the crossover. And I am the one being selective with their evidence here?

Cheers,
Luna



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 02:34 PM
link   
Shocker, but I'm not really ashamed of myself.

Decades of original UFO case investigations, sleuthing Soviet space secrets, exposing bias and incompetence in news stories, and skewering NASA officials who grew careless about safety -- and allergic to transparency. A track record to be proud of, and dedicated to expanding.

Figuring space stuff out, and telling about it. A noble calling.

Annoying eager-believers and super-dupes -- priceless.



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
Figuring space stuff out, and telling about it. A noble calling.


Yes I agree... and you meet some cool people in the process




Annoying eager-believers and super-dupes -- priceless.


Ah I see... so its sport is it? Well that works both ways ya know...

So what info have the Russians gathered on my 'Critters'? Surely they have been 'pestered' by them as well



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 




my apologies for my memory-f*rt -- it was Exuberant...


decades of investigating ..whoooopie !

it seems you can't even keep up with a simple conversation , that must be some real crack investigative work you are claiming...




Annoying eager-believers and super-dupes


some might see that as being a troll




Russian Picture

www.youtube.com...




NASA Picture

www.youtube.com...


would you mind commenting on the topic of this thread ?

or are you only here to troll and change the conversation ?



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
some might see that as being a troll



Now now be nice...

It's allowed when it's a professional troll


And we all makes slips when we get grayer around the ears...



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by yeebsy
The question I've always wondered is, if NASA can put a man on the moon then why can't they put decent high def cameras on the shuttle??


haha!....awesome point, i was wondering the exact same thing. We carry around mini computers/phons in our pockets everyday but NASA's footage is straight out of the 1970's. Maybe that's the way they want it to be.



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
Waiting for documentation of this assertion, please.


Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by secretnasaman
NASA cannot explain it... I asked! They only acknowledge that their video is real, & is as seen on their download. ...


Please provide the names of the NASA people who told you this, the dates, and the texts of emails if any from them. Just checking...



Well Jimmy as secretnasaman has Stated "NASA cannot explain it... I asked!"
Yet you continue with these DISINFO attack's! and fill up Every Thread that has secretnasaman"s footage on it? You really are attracted to the secretnasaman in a big way
(his on your sleeve).
How about doing some fact finding than Jimmy? instead of all these lazy questions.

I will remind everyone that the secretnasaman was good enough to release his personal footage which speaks for it's self,most questions I read should be directed to NASA as they Filmed the Footage and the secretnasaman only recored it!

Remember "Don't Shoot the Messenger".


Zelong.



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zelong

Originally posted by JimOberg
Waiting for documentation of this assertion, please.


Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by secretnasaman
NASA cannot explain it... I asked! They only acknowledge that their video is real, & is as seen on their download. ...


Please provide the names of the NASA people who told you this, the dates, and the texts of emails if any from them. Just checking...



Well Jimmy as secretnasaman has Stated "NASA cannot explain it... I asked!" Yet you continue with these DISINFO attack's! and fill up Every Thread that has secretnasaman"s footage on it? You really are attracted to the secretnasaman in a big way



It's certainly true that secretnasaman has stated as much. My question was -- do we have to take him at his word, or can we corroborate his claim with somebody else's testimony, or something in writing?

I raise the issue because of his past record of claims, that depend solely on his own word for validation, yet often are in conflict with independent testimony and documentation. It just seems prudently cautious to me -- and applies to me as well, of course.



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 08:16 PM
link   
a possible ufo on the Moon ? peeek a boo in the crater



[edit on 11-9-2009 by easynow]



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 01:43 AM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 



It's certainly true that secretnasaman has stated as much. My question was -- do we have to take him at his word, or can we corroborate his claim with somebody else's testimony, or something in writing?


No we take his word for it.If someone gives you information in any field with a wink that it "Mums the Word"-you didn't hear it here- you don't tell ,you shouldn't keep pushing if it's a Lead follow it up if not shelve it.

With all these questions you post taking these threads off topic it's easy to post a comment that maybe wrong only for you to savage it and than continue to ask for an answer!! Grow Up Jimmy.

Stick to the footage shown,comment on it sure like what is that?,wow or I've been studying this lately and these are my findings...etc

Zelong.



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 08:12 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 07:32 AM
link   
hello,

Real nice presentation here. Good work and all.

I have to say that I find it painfully frustrating having to accept NASA's explanations about anything anomalous, strange, new or truly interesting.(Roddenberry rolling in grave).

This, "we can't explain it" business is most likely code for "we won't explain it". I'm sorry but I lost what little confidence I had left in the integrity of NASA with how they tried to explain away the massive UFO's seen in the Tether Incident. As I watched all I could think of was a giant curiosity salvage operation getting started as the tether left our "spatial territory" and drifted into "universal waters" where we had no jurisdiction. Which subsequently seem to match the big ufo we see coming down the right side in the MIR station video. Same pulsating, round, semi transparent look.

At least David Sereta applied some scientific method and thought experiments and came up with something interesting on why those ufo's acted the way they did. NASA said camera refraction spots or something... Phooey.

What a treat to have a truly independent secondary source to compare to NASA's "State of the Art" engineering and technology. How come we have to settle for such crappy footage in this day and age? Where is the same degree of diligence with space camera technology that we see for instance with the binocular and optics industry? (I would guess it's there but TPTB purposely turn up or down the "squelch" when need be)

It seems NASA uses the "sharpest degree of resolution" and "technology" to keep the observant wise minority successfully at bay. And the more objective Russian footage seems to point that way. The best variable in this presentation being the Russian news guy's more unbiased presence.

IMO NASA sees their IFO's as 1) a curious nuisance to be internally observed and monitored but more importantly 2) as a liability to be dumbed down as far as the public is concerned.


cheers



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 07:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by LunaCognita
Just to confirm, you said (and I will re-quote you directly here) “there are also many examples with "objects" going behind the tether”.


I didn't said that! You missed when "re-quoted" me, an important capitalised word: ILLUSORY!
I said this:

Originally posted by depthoffield
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.

(www.abovetopsecret.com...)

You, know, ILLUSORY like here: www.youtube.com... (have you seen this? this was my reason when saying ILLUSORY)


Why you are now twisting what i said, especially after yourself said first:

Originally posted by LunaCognita
(hence your “ILLUSURY” claim)


(from here: www.abovetopsecret.com...)

Anyway, lastly it is unimportant, you made a mistake of what i said, it also happened to me before.






Originally posted by LunaCognita
So do you think there are objects that are behind the tether, which is 100 nautical miles or so distant? Doesn’t that conflict with your near-field debris claims then?


I don't think at all there are big objects behind the tether. Simply it is not necessary, because there is a simple and mundane explanation: "near-field debris" explaining every aspect. On the other hand, if i have to accept the "big, far, behind the tether and various stretched attributes, well, first i have to assure that i didn't sit in a confusion and look at a ILLUSORY optical effect made by some very common candidates: particles of debris generated by the shuttle activities.
Anyway, i don't want to further discuss the STS-75 here, there are other dedicated threads.




Originally posted by LunaCognita
You also posted a video called Draft 006 in your above comment. Pray tell, why did you edit the scene at the 3 second mark? You know exactly why you did it! It was because there was a HUGE focal fluctuation that was about to occur EXACTLY at the moment of object crossover, and you decided to edit that out so you wouldn’t show the evidence directly supporting my obfuscation claim. If anyone wants to see the actual scene play out so they can watch the focal fluctuation occur EXACTLY at object crossover, my tether video I referenced in my earlier post shows that same scene at the 5:37 mark without the edit.

Why edited at 3 sec mark or 10?
well, simply because i simply deleted all your alleged "obfuscated" sequences, in order to remain the "non-ofuscated" ones. This was my purpose: to show that there are a bunch of sequences showing objects going ILLUSORY "behind the" tether and therefore missed by the "incompetent obfuscators-guys" at NASA.
If you look, before the 3 second edited, there are 2 other objects going iLLUSORY behind the tether. Don't tell me about yours streched "local contrast gradients".

After, the 3 sec mark, what i've indeed deleted, and you claimed that is a "obfuscating action"...well, there you know very well it is a focusing action, maneuver which CLEARLY SHOWS how particles are small and closer despite illusory apearing behind the tether...something similar to focusing in a day with snow-flakes, and showing different planes of clear focus.
Here is the argumentation of this: www.abovetopsecret.com...
extract:



Also, what about 0:23, 0:24, 0:29, 0:31, 0:37, 0:39, 0:53, 0:59 in my Draft006 ?
So, you claim those discs (with nothces) don't have enough "contrast gradient" or appeal, or something, so they doesn't need obfuscation?
As i said multiple times..those "NASA obfuscators-guys operating in STS-75 were unqualified to do this!

Sorry, your claims about obfuscation in STS-75 sequences, which exemplified here and we discuss about them, shows NOTHING misterious related to obfuscation, but only a camera operator adjusting from time to time the camera in order to see the principal subject there which was the tether, and don't giving a damn of those floating debris. If myself i was in posture to obfuscate like you claim, then i should never used the focus to make my life a nightmare fighting to notched pulsing dark-centered discs going behind the thether to be hard for people to see contrast gradients details of something...Also, i see people (you for example) selecting sequences helping their claims about obfuscation, but ignoring the other sequences which doesn't support but contradicts their claims. Which isn't OBJECTIVITY from their part at all.





later edit: i work at an analysys regarding directly the OP, russian-versus stubbs video, but i really don't have time as i wish.





[edit on 13/9/09 by depthoffield]



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 05:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
i was watching the Secret NASA Transmissions Video which was produced by Martyn Stubbs and it shows a UFO at the Mir Space Station. this UFO video seems to have two different versions.

as we all can see in Martyn's video , one version is from the Russian control room and supposedly a News reporter that was there recording video captured this and it leaked out ! the Russian version is clear and the other version released by NASA is distorted with mega contrast and it looks like they are trying to make it hard to see the UFO's.
[.......]


Russian Copy





NASA Copy



[..........]

so what does this mean ? how can this be possible ? it is the same exact footage but there is obviously something extra added to the NASA version? are they trying to hide the UFO by doing this ?



I agree, indeed there are differences, but the examples posted for comparation here are WRONG. I will explain what is wrong.


Also, there are other subtle technical facts which usual people don't know and don't bother, but presented obviously here in face of the viewers, and judged in conspiracious ways.

What we have here, is an alleged "Russian copy", which is a result of somebody using a camera and filming an image on a screen. So this is not a direct NASA footage, but a film of a representation of NASA video on a screen. This will be called "russian version" here.

Also, we have a NASA version, an original transmitted signal from some sattelites, and received and recorded by M. Stubbs using his antennas, recording equipment, tapes etc. This will be called "NASA/Stubbs version"


Now, i said , that the two frames posted for comparative purposes by Easynow, quoted above, are WRONGLY selected. Why? Because they are from DIFFERENT TIME FRAMES.

I identified and time-matched the sequences used, and here is the result:



As you see, there is the "Russian version", only ONE sequence, which is called "sequence R1".
Also, there are TWO different (other time intervals) "NASA/Stubbs versions", which i called "sequence N1" and "sequence N2". The N1 sequence have a much more overexposed look, because the gain was raised to maximum and the flare made by the sun on the surface of the lens is spoiling the image. This doesn't happen in N2 sequence (there is not maximum gain), which shows a better image (yet, still the flare is there overlayed on the image, but this i will explain below)

As you see, the only sequences which temporally matches one to the other, are "Russian "sequence R1", and NASA/Stubbs "sequence N2".

Then, please answer Easynow, why you extract for comparison, a frame from NASA/Stubbs "sequence N1", which is already different at the original source level being from OTHER time frame, instead to extract one from "sequence N2"? It is a mistake, or a deliberate exaggeration? I hope is a mistake.
You should selected a frame from NASA/Stubbs "sequence N2" portion, to compare with the correspondent Russian version, if you want to be objective.


will continue to next post...



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 05:34 AM
link   
...continued from previous

Nevertheless, if we compare the "sequence N2" and the correspondent russian "sequence R1", indeed yet the "russian copy" appear to have a cleaner look, the background sky is black as we expect, but the NASA/Stubbs version has the flare still visible, and is much more full of compression artifacts (pixelisation, blocks).
I will explain what's happening, going to some subtle technicall stuff, but really it may require from some readers to deny some ignorance in the technicall field in order to understand the principles involved.

So, i will claim, and explain that at the original level the NASA/Stubbs version on the contrary carry much more information that what the Russian version (camera filming a screen, do not forget what we have there) was capable to show. How this is possible?

We all should know already that when filming with a camera, a reproduction made by a screen, we lose quality. Maybe many of you are aware of those "SCREENER" versions of movies findable on the internet via torrents or other piracy file-sharing solutions, movies filmed on the cinema, and then distributed other the internet. It is obviously that their quality is not so great, there are some things lost, ussually they look darker. But what is lost?
Well, the colors are a bit more false. There is a loss in very fine (tiny) details, such as hair or skin texture, or similar very tiny details. Also, the shadowed areas ussually loses many details, and they just appear as darkier uniform areas, so that's why a screener copy ussually appear darker (the GAMMA attribute is lower). Also, there could be losses in bright areas, making them much uniform than from the original. All of this losses are called "dynamic range losses"

This happens exactly the same in the Russian version, when somebody films the screen where NASA images are reproduced.

First: we don't know how exactly an image on a screen is respecting reality, basically is only a reproduction
Second, the image is darker, that's why the sky is dark.
Third, tiny details, such as noise (if it was there) it is mostly discarded.

What it results: a clean image! and with a lower gamma property, but more distant from how the original signal feeding the electronics of that screen, was in reality.

And a clean image, as any specialist working in video related domains knows very well, is more resistant to further compression and recompression and youtube recompresion etcetera, loosing not so much in it's quality. That's why the impression of "cleaner" version here!!

On the other hand, we have the "NASA/Stubbs" version, which doesn't lost details and gamma (dynamic range) due to intermediate re-filming on the screen.
What it have and doesn't lost?
First: the tiny details such as NOISE. We don't know if the noise is from ORIGINAL NASA stream (could be!), or if not the noise is further raised (very possible!) by the retransmission from the commercial sattelites and also by the not so good antennas or equipments belonging to mr. Stubbs which recorded the signal (the so-called signal-to-noise ratio at the receiver level)!
Second: details in shadow are there, the gamma factor was not falsified by an intermediate camera like in russian copy! So that's why we see details in shadows areas, like left panels of the MIR (which in russian version are barely visible, or if you want, obscured), or the lens flare (which in russian version, again is almost lost, just the right upper corner still shows the most bright part of the flare still is visible)

Again, as any specialist working in video related domains knows very well, a noisy image (or full with plenty of tiny details - noise is such one type) is much more hard to compress without visible loss, therefore, ussually noisy images/videos copies are full of all kind of compression artifacts like pixelisation, blocks etcetera. This compression degradation is very visible in NASA/Stubbs versions proposed here, which we don't know how degraded is relative to what mr. Stubbs has recorded on his tapes!

What i will do next, is to show you how NASA/Stubbs image will appear if i will darker more the image, in order to simulate a filming on a screen, like in Russian video. So i will set a 0.4 gamma value, and see what's happening:

NASA version - gamma simulated comparable with russian version:



You see, general appearance now is much more appropiated, you can see (if your monitor is well calibrated) that the left panels on the MIR along with the right upper lens flare is visible in both videos, also, the noise is almost lost in NASA/Stubbs video, and the sky is dark as we expect.

here is full frame version only with gamma simulated version of NASA/Stubbs "sequence N2" alone, for reference:





As a summary:
- russian version is clean (noise free and darker) because of loss of dinamic range due to refilming a screen and because it doesn't have too much compression artifacts.
- NASA/Stubbs version on it's original state carry much more information (like the left panels of the MIR for example), also it has noise (partly due to Stubbs equipments), but here we have a very badly compressed version, a crappy one.


Summary of the summary, something that other fellows said before me on this topic: different copies can't look the same!
No conspiracy in this OP example, just some confusion here or there, not knowing the background technicall facts





[edit on 14/9/09 by depthoffield]



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 09:21 AM
link   
reply to post by depthoffield
 


the scenes i posted are the same in the Stubbs video




and yes i think your correct that it is a few frames off but there is clearly alot of noise in the NASA picture and you can't just change it with your computer and claim that is the answer.

there is a difference in the two versions and i think we would need better video copies to know for sure what is happening.



[edit on 14-9-2009 by easynow]



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
there is a difference in the two versions and i think we would need better video copies to know for sure what is happening.


Reasonable.

How do you propose that you obtain such copies?



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join