Mir Space Station UFO Video (NASA verses Russian)

reply to post by JimOberg


i already asked Stubbs in this thread if he could upload the Russian version so we could examine it more closely. until i have that it's pointless to try and obtain the NASA version to make the comparison.



[edit on 14-9-2009 by easynow]

video just uploaded on youtube from secretnasaman, that shows the Russian version

Politics aww spare me, but Universum is somthing that we cant handel its too big its too beutiful its deathly... but us. we. are very curious about it. It draws us near it+ i think we are the only intelligence lifeform in whole Universum prof me wrong Dare U!

Yes I watched those 'Secret NASA Transmissions'... Very enlightening stuff.

Once you learn about there 'techniques', you start to see them in all their videos... Flares/Snowy picture/Contrast/Control Room camera footage (always exciting)/'shooting stars'/etc/etc

They feed a modified picture to the public... for shame...


In one instance, you can see them turning it on with the flick of a switch, and then gradually increase the snow.... Some said it was solar interference, but they have examples of them doing it night & day...

Yeah, I have to admit, I was pretty disappointed in NASA when I seen these.

I realize it is not in their mission statement to catalog UFO's.... but you would at least hope they would just supply virgin data as is without manipulating it.... Thats just not right. Let the people decide for themselves.

I don't think there will be mass panic if/when we find out the truth about UFO's and Aliens... We want disclosure!!

Originally posted by easynow
video just uploaded on youtube from secretnasaman, that shows the Russian version

Ok, found some time to continue this.

This second video from Secretnasaman, indeed shows a better version of the "russian" copy.

But, remember what i said, that the russian copy, because is obtained from a video camera filming a screen, lost the dynamic range. As i explained before, with example with screener versions of movies from torrents, the filmed copies are darker, with less dynamic range, apparently cleaner, and can't provide fine details (such as hair texture, or noise in image)

Now, i will continue to demonstrate that movies recorded by Stubbs from relayed original NASA signal via sattelittes, antennas, are BETTER regarding details than the "russian copy" despite the last one appearing cleaner and making the subject of conspiracies.

How is this posible?

I took some sequences from last secretnasaman video, with NASA versus russian versions, and this movie i will use for the next argumentation.

Here are the two sequences selected, used for further analysis:


As you see, the russian copy just follow temporarly the NASA copy, you can see this looking for those two "ufo's" moving.

What i've done next, was to apply a solution (from astronomy i remember) to obtain a better single image from multiple frames, using STACKING.
I used software Registax, a free version.

Bassically, more frames stacked in one single image, better the image and details, because, the real details are consistent during the frames, but the noise is random, so, using stacking, the noise is nullifying itself, so the signal-to-noise ratio increase, making a better image than any of the individual frames.

Here is the result of stacking of the russian sequence:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ef8431f49af6.jpg[/atsimg]

The so-called "ufo" moving, in fact most probable debris around, appears as lines because of multiple frames stacking (the stacking is also a technique to mark out the trajectories.)

If you compare the result of this stacking with individual frames from the russian sequence, one could observe that there is not an evident gain in clarity or details or clear appearance. This is because, the movie used from stacking is from start almost noise free, so the signal-to-noise ratio can't grow substantial.




next i've done the same processing to NASA (Stubbs-recorded) sequence, and here is the result of stacking:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/936de5d833fd.jpg[/atsimg]



The noise is gone, and the image is clean..and very detailed.
In fact it is BETTER than the russian version, showing the panels of the ISS and even more stars(!):


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3a00f27a0d26.jpg[/atsimg]

In fact, you can see some of the not so faint stars even in the NASA/Stubbs video despite the damn noise.

How is posible that the alleged obfuscated public NASA signal, recorded by Stubbs, to show BETTER details than the Russian screen shows?

Just because, as i said before, ( www.abovetopsecret.com... )when you film a screen, you lose faint details!

Just quote the essential:

Originally posted by depthoffield
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)

So, Easynow, and Zorgon (you ride too this "versus" little conspiration), you see, here, when comparing NASA with "russian" versions, both of you are victims of confusion. Don't spread this example anymore. It is wrong.

Originally posted by depthoffield
So, Easynow, and Zorgon (you ride too this "versus" little conspiration), you see, here, when comparing NASA with "russian" versions, both of you are victims of confusion. Don't spread this example anymore. It is wrong.

just an "up".
because it looks this was omitted or even ignored.
indeed, on the contrary of what OP says, the russian version don't have enough details like NASA (stubbs) version have...see my previous post.

reply to post by depthoffield


yea i was ignoring your FAKE image stack that proves NOTHING


i will say it again...

we need better copies of BOTH videos before any conclusions can be drawn so i suggest that you DOF stop promoting your weak azz debunk nonsense and stop insulting our intelligence.

Originally posted by easynow
yea i was ignoring your FAKE image stack that proves NOTHING

debunk nonsense and stop insulting our intelligence

not nothing, but at least two things:
1) well, it proves that nasa version carry more information that the russian camera filmed version, which contradict yours claims. The stars in NASA videos are there, but in russian version can't be seen. If you deny the stacking, then..you are hopeless.

2) it proves, after this last yours post, that you are deliberately acting as a blind closed mind person, unable to see what it is wrong in your claims. You are unable to go beyound obviously first touch impressions when seeing an image. But the details are there. You don't like details. You like only the first impression. which, as seen here, can fool your judgement. Of course, such details revealings could "insult your intelligence".

reply to post by depthoffield


bro i apologize, you worked hard on that and i did ask for your opinion , i just didn't like you bossing me around and telling me what to post etc.

it is a good attempt on your part but i am afraid it's just not enough to convince me. no i am not ignoring anything. in my opinion and you may disagree....the stacking technique creates a false picture. that's all.

thanks for your post

Originally posted by easynow
....the stacking technique creates a false picture. that's all.

tell that to astronomers which use stacking. i saw innumerable examples, on APOD, or spaceweather or i didn't remember, of stacked images.


also, you can see some of the stars DIRECTLY in NASA/Stubbs video (the stacking just reveal them more), stars which are not seen in russian version.

Which proves my point: russian version is unable to show tiny details such fainter stars, or noise, (not talking about how noisy were the Stubbs's equipments itself), that's why the russian image appear clean. As i said, the first visual impression could mislead the viewer.

[edit on 29/9/09 by depthoffield]

[edit on 29/9/09 by depthoffield]