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.

 

NASA UFO Camera Opperator Zooms in and Waits for the UFO to Take Off!!

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 02:39 PM
link   
I searched but didn't find anything on here with this video.

It shows the camera operator zoom in and keep adjusting to stay on a city or thunderstorm. At 1:50, something shoots out and up! This could be a missle test or something, but does anyone have more info? Phage?

www.youtube.com...




posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 02:51 PM
link   
Im the first to reply to one of your threads again im not following you honest!
The video has already been posted, heres the link if you want to see everyones views

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 02:51 PM
link   
wow that's really interesting. The object in question has similar properties to the storm itself. Perhaps some kind of lightning discharge the wrong way? Strange how it wobbles? S&F



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by spragology
Im the first to reply to one of your threads again im not following you honest!
The video has already been posted, heres the link if you want to see everyones views

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Thank you! I'll search past the first couple pages next time



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 03:57 PM
link   
This is a useful exercise in seeing how a novice investigator could take the youtube video and locate an offered prosaic explanation, if any exist. So far, I haven't been able to figure out any reliable methodology to use the existing search engines to do this.

In trying to read the time data on the video, I blew the screen way up and got:

STS-80 Orb 198
MET 012:11:56.26
GMT 337:07:52:13

A confidence check is to take the recorded launch time of the mission,
Nov 19 at 19:55:47 GMT, and add 'Mission elapsed Time', which precisely produces the current Greenwich Mean Time -- validating the read.

The study I did of this video ten years ago still holds:
www.realufos.net...

Since then, two of the astronauts on board the mission, Story Musgrave and Tom Jones, have wholeheartedly endorsed the prosaic explanation I offered.

The bigger question remains -- how would somebody genuinely intrigued by this video, as the initial posters here were, successfully hunt down on the internet any proposed prosaic explanation for this video?

I really don't have any answer but am really eager to try and find one.



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 04:20 PM
link   
My opinion about this "swimming" object was this:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

edit:
why not a copy / paste action:

Obviously what we see in every movie or image, so, the same goes for this NASA videos, it is NOT the reality, but only a good or better aproximation of it, in fact a REPRESENTATION. Every representation (copy if you want) of a phenomenon will describe real characteristics, but can introduce a degree of ERROR (artifact). Those errors depends on technical and physical principles used to construct that representation. For understanding those principles, is really a matter of how deep you want to go into ussually boring stuff.

Here in this NASA movie with the "meteor-like swimming" there, we have a lot of artifacts.
First, camera's are used in low light situation, so they are set toward their maximum posibilities, meaning selecting (automatic or manual) modes suitable for low-light, like increasing electronic signal gain, maximum iris, maximum shutter speed etcetera, all of them selected to aquire more and more light from where is not enough light.
The stretching of the posibilities to their maximum ALWAYS degrade the quality of the image (introduce visible artifacts). Think at your own camera or photo-camera how made images/videos in extreme conditions of low light. Are they "perfect"? Why dark? why blurry, why crappy?

Here in NASA videos we have:
- more or less noise on the image
- blooming (overexposing and negativation) of the brigther zones
- image remanence (especially seen in faster moving objects) (i'm not so sure about the actual word, i'm not native english)
- artifacts due to interference from movement of the object and the method of aquirring image from the senzor (scanning lines of image one by one)
- sharpening artifacts (due to senzor/electronics)
- compression/recording artifacts (not talking by youtube compression artifacts, these are "bonus", but originalcompression/recording artifacts )
- or even other ERRORS

These errors EXIST and you, as a watcher, see them. But it is a mistake to ignore them, and to think that what you see is the reality itself.

Regarding the fast moving meteor-like object, my opinion is that it could be very well a closer particle of debris, going "fast" (in "angular velocity" terms) in front of the camera (just like a bug zippingg through the frame).

The longer tail, is not real, but only remanence in the video due to slow shutter setting used in low light situations (remember rods "legend")

The "swimming", waves in trajectory could be very well again an artifact, a combination of remanence and scaning lines of the image done in camera electronics, this generating "breakings" especcially in faster movings (camera pan or objects moving fast)

Similar, CMOS senzor used in many video or photocameras does suffer from artifacts because of the way they scan the image line by line in the process.
For this effect, someone could learn here:
dvxuser.com...
or find tons of results here: www.google.com...:en-us&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1

Of course, i don't know if NASA camera are using something like these CMOS senzors, but sure the NASA cameras have their own WEAKNESSES, and somehow, an experimented technical user could recognise many of them. I'm not too experimented, yet i recognise some of this. So, i can't think straight and easy to the "OMG alien there", but more i can understand that i have much to learn in the field on technics before jumping in wild conclusions.


[edit on 8/9/09 by depthoffield]



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
This is a useful exercise in seeing how a novice investigator could take the youtube video and locate an offered prosaic explanation, if any exist. So far, I haven't been able to figure out any reliable methodology to use the existing search engines to do this.

In trying to read the time data on the video, I blew the screen way up and got:

STS-80 Orb 198
MET 012:11:56.26
GMT 337:07:52:13

A confidence check is to take the recorded launch time of the mission,
Nov 19 at 19:55:47 GMT, and add 'Mission elapsed Time', which precisely produces the current Greenwich Mean Time -- validating the read.

The study I did of this video ten years ago still holds:
www.realufos.net...

Since then, two of the astronauts on board the mission, Story Musgrave and Tom Jones, have wholeheartedly endorsed the prosaic explanation I offered.

The bigger question remains -- how would somebody genuinely intrigued by this video, as the initial posters here were, successfully hunt down on the internet any proposed prosaic explanation for this video?

I really don't have any answer but am really eager to try and find one.



Great link. Thank you! You're correct, I knew I wasn't watching an alien spacecraft, but couldn't figure out what I was watching.



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 08:49 AM
link   
For the record, here are the views of those two first-hand witnesses:


From: Story Musgrave
To: jameseoberg
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 8:15 PM
Subject: RE: Oberg's solution to your STS-80 'UFO' video

Hello Jim:

What a magnificient dissection and analysis, you made a huge effort. The rational folks will love it, the believers will continue to believe. I shall get a paragraph out for the world as somehow I am at times a centerpoint for the space evidence. My stance of course is that life is on trillions of planets, some of it is advanced enough to be doing star travel but my interpretation of the evidence for visitation is that there is no evidence, that is none by anybody. See ya,


From: Thomas Jones
Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 12:50 PM
Subject: Re: Oberg's solution to the STS-80 'UFO' video

Dear Jim,

Your essay on explaining the "unexplained" STS-80 particle motions (thought by some video enthusiasts to be UFO sightings) is "dead on." You've taken the time to dissect a beautiful scene from Columbia in 1996 and patiently analyze what we crewmembers took for granted: that ice and exhaust particles falling along with the orbiter sometimes drift across the TV field of view, and then get propelled away by thruster pulses. Nothing exotic, but beautiful to watch from the grand windows of the space shuttle. Story Musgrave and I spent many an orbit watching the stars, the Milky Way, the air glow, meteors burning up below us, lightning, and moon-lit clouds, and were amazed at the spectacle of it all. Truly mesmerizing -- and completely explainable in every regard.

Best wishes,
Tom Jones



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 06:58 PM
link   
So why can't we see it enter the frame, just see it appear from the middle of the screen and go which seems to be up.

I agree there are a lot of floating debris in space, but with this video, the "ufo" appears from the middle of the screen, not drifting from one side to the other which is what would happen with the space debris/ice/dust theory.

Your thoughts?



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by breakingdradles
So why can't we see it enter the frame, just see it appear from the middle of the screen and go which seems to be up.

I agree there are a lot of floating debris in space, but with this video, the "ufo" appears from the middle of the screen, not drifting from one side to the other which is what would happen with the space debris/ice/dust theory.

Your thoughts?


I thought I explained that in my link. The shuttle is casting a shadow and some of the particles are drifting out of it into sunlight.



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


That is much more likely and I do agree with that mostly, not fully as I don't think either of us actually KNOWS, but let me ask you this.

Say there was a video, very similar to this one, that did show a craft begining in the middle of the screen, and taking off.

Couldn't your explanation also "work" with that video too?

I could tell you how a video looks like it was made, and be correct in that you could make a similar video that way, but that doesn't mean all videos that could be made a certain way are.



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by breakingdradles
reply to post by JimOberg
 


That is much more likely and I do agree with that mostly, not fully as I don't think either of us actually KNOWS, but let me ask you this.

Say there was a video, very similar to this one, that did show a craft begining in the middle of the screen, and taking off.

Couldn't your explanation also "work" with that video too?

I could tell you how a video looks like it was made, and be correct in that you could make a similar video that way, but that doesn't mean all videos that could be made a certain way are.


Any single event could have different explanations of roughly equal probability, sure.

But we have repeated events of the same type, with identical characteristics. Just after sunrise in orbit. Camera aimed down-sun towards dark-Earth for lightning survey experiment (hence, earth horizon runs across middle of field-of-view). No sunlit structure in field-of-view, so ambient low brightness drives auto gain control to max. Nearby particles from scheduled shuttle event, such as water dump or thruster firing. These are all uncommon (small fraction of the time) features.

THEN, and almost always ONLY then, we get bizarre 'UFO videos' on STS-48, 63, 75, 80, 114, etc etc... that look really weird until you recognize the commonality of their context, and the cause-and-effect prosaic hypothesis for their generation.

The particles that 'appear' are practically without exception moving AWAY from the center of the field-of-view, which is an approximation of the center of the shuttle's shadow. In the 'shadow theory', they are moving AWAY from the shuttle and out into sunlight, which is the normal, common sense of their motion.

Other hypotheses cannot explain this overwhelming preponderence of motion, this non-random asymmetry. Only the "shadow theory" leads to prediction of such a distribution of senses of motion of 'appearing' objects, as a consequence of the physical motion and of the solar illumination conditions.

The clincher is that after a few moments the shuttle orbits eastward until it is above sunlit ground (it crosses the terminator), and then reflected sunlight fills in the shadow zone. Particles moving in that zone are dimly visible from this reflected light, until they too emerge into direct sunlight and grow immensely brighter. This confirms the postulated mechanism for generating such images.



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 01:54 AM
link   
Does it conform it?

What if it was actually a UFO that was taking off at the same time.

I know that it's not the case, but there is a chance, it would look the exact same if done at the right time right?

How would one know the difference?



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 05:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by breakingdradles
What if it was actually a UFO that was taking off at the same time.

I know that it's not the case, but there is a chance, it would look the exact same if done at the right time right?

How would one know the difference?


First, when you say "UFO", i understand you think "alien ship", or "unknown strange phenomen", ok?


I have one example exactly like what you said. Going in a few holidays, and filming/photographing my adventures in holiday, and then later scrutinizing my shots, i've made an extended collection of so called "UFO's", streaks or moving objects on the images, which i safely claim that they are just bugs and birds ( www.freewebs.com... www.freewebs.com... etc ) . But like you said here, also some of them could be UFO's, alien or exo-phenomenons...Could i see the difference? How much is wasted time and how much is understanding reality when and if i continue to hunt bugs on photos?

And this is the heart essence of the mistery. You wouldn't know the difference. But you (should) know that it is common for debris to act like this in space in aproppiate conditions, just like birds/bugs in earth photos. Have you any feeling that some of them are NOT mundane things? This feelings are usually subjectivity. Then, you really need more conclusive data in order to just eliminate the mundane explanation, and to be objective as you can. Else, you will collect just some "things" on your collection, which basically are just "garbage". But i have to be fair, i've learned a lot studying garbage (debris) in space videos.


[edit on 14/9/09 by depthoffield]



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 06:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by breakingdradles
Does it conform it?

What if it was actually a UFO that was taking off at the same time.

I know that it's not the case, but there is a chance, it would look the exact same if done at the right time right?

How would one know the difference?


Well, along those lines, I suppose UFOs could disguise themselves as airplanes, or weather balloons, or even swamp gas... but once you accept such miraculous behavior, any hypothesis is non-disprovable.

The critical factor in such a theory, seems to me, is that the UFO would have to know from where -- and by whom -- it was being observed, since such masquerade would be very 'observation point dependent' -- i.e., it could be made to 'look like' something else only when observed from one particular spot, but would be clearly a masquerade when observed from other spots.

On the other hand, if you are analyzing the body of reports, you are justified in suggesting a commonality of stimuli, and you should seek common characteristics and contexts. That's what my investigation has come up with. The prosaic explanation satisfies -- and explains -- these common factors best, seems to me.



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join