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 Video - Space Battle Between Multiple UFOs

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 11:47 PM
link   
NASA UFO Battle


Here is a pretty crazy video. It shows that seems to be two projectiles fired at two different moving objects. The astronaut zooms in on on one of the moving objects, and zooms back out once the object is out of frame. This shows he did see the object, and was trying to get better evidence on tape. Regardless of whether they were shooting at each other or not, the astronaut was watching, and zoomed in.


This may just be some of the space junk, but it sure looks like the astronaut is interested in it if nothing else!

I love these NASA UFO videos! I know most are just debris, but regardless, they are all interesting.

So what do you think, UFO battle, UFOs no battle, or just all space debris?




posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 12:00 AM
link   
I watched the footage and I see absolutely nothing even remotely resembling a "ufo battle". What am I supposed to look for?



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 12:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by breakingdradles
NASA UFO Battle


Here is a pretty crazy video. It shows that seems to be two projectiles fired at two different moving objects. The astronaut zooms in on on one of the moving objects, and zooms back out once the object is out of frame. This shows he did see the object, and was trying to get better evidence on tape. Regardless of whether they were shooting at each other or not, the astronaut was watching, and zoomed in.


This may just be some of the space junk, but it sure looks like the astronaut is interested in it if nothing else!

I love these NASA UFO videos! I know most are just debris, but regardless, they are all interesting.

So what do you think, UFO battle, UFOs no battle, or just all space debris?


There is no battle going on. Yes, the astronaut is definitely interested in a hauling UFO, there is more similar footage in "THE NASA TRANSMISSIONS: THE SMOKING GUN." At the same time, we see meterorites flashing by. I laugh at NASA explanations that it's all ice particles, debris, water dumps, etc., when they know damn well that no intelligent astronaut is going to videotape a small object that is near the shuttle so no zooming is necessary. Zooming is done on distant objects which means they are large. These objects that are being videotaped (not the meterorites) are UFOs, plain and simple.



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 12:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skeptical Ed

Originally posted by breakingdradles
NASA UFO Battle


Here is a pretty crazy video. It shows that seems to be two projectiles fired at two different moving objects. The astronaut zooms in on on one of the moving objects, and zooms back out once the object is out of frame. This shows he did see the object, and was trying to get better evidence on tape. Regardless of whether they were shooting at each other or not, the astronaut was watching, and zoomed in.


This may just be some of the space junk, but it sure looks like the astronaut is interested in it if nothing else!

I love these NASA UFO videos! I know most are just debris, but regardless, they are all interesting.

So what do you think, UFO battle, UFOs no battle, or just all space debris?


There is no battle going on. Yes, the astronaut is definitely interested in a hauling UFO, there is more similar footage in "THE NASA TRANSMISSIONS: THE SMOKING GUN." At the same time, we see meterorites flashing by. I laugh at NASA explanations that it's all ice particles, debris, water dumps, etc., when they know damn well that no intelligent astronaut is going to videotape a small object that is near the shuttle so no zooming is necessary. Zooming is done on distant objects which means they are large. These objects that are being videotaped (not the meterorites) are UFOs, plain and simple.


Very good point I didn't even think of.

Zooming in on the objects does mean they are not close to the astronaut, rather that they are large and far away.

Star for you.



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 12:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by merka
I watched the footage and I see absolutely nothing even remotely resembling a "ufo battle". What am I supposed to look for?


Not much to look at, but there are 2 large UFOs that seem to have smaller UFOs traveling at much higher speeds almost hit them.

The easiest one to see is the one that almost hits the object the astronaut zoomed in on. Right after he zooms out, if you watch the object, you will see a projectile zoom right by it.

The chances of the projectile being fired by an opposing UFO is very unlikely. The astronaut is however interested in the object, which is what gave this video a little bit of credibility to me.

Thank you for your opinion, you are most likely right.



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 12:28 AM
link   
When putting a title like this, sure you want attention. How many readers will be deceived when they didnn't see any battle?




Originally posted by Skeptical Ed
I laugh at NASA explanations that it's all ice particles, debris, water dumps, etc., when they know damn well that no intelligent astronaut is going to videotape a small object that is near the shuttle so no zooming is necessary. Zooming is done on distant objects which means they are large.


Skeptical Ed, you are wrong about zooming issue.
It is not necessary to zoom only at big/far objects.
It also need to zoom on little close small objects too. Please take yourself a picture with an ant, from 1..2 meter distance, but without using zoom. Can you see it's shape and identify as an ant? You always need zoom when the objects appear to be small in image, no matter how big/small or distant/close is in reality. The appearance of small or big in an image is called ANGULAR SIZE. If angular size is small, you need zoom, no matter the subject distance or it's real size.
But in this video, i don't see the camera operator pursuing the objects in discussion (which can be very well just debris, because debris is common.).
I see him trying to zoom on the Earth surface, but because the lens beeing hit by the sunlight, the lens flare when zooming greatly spoil the image, so, he cancels the zoom (to maybe later, when sunlight angle to the camera changes enough to not hit the lens anymore).



[edit on 25/9/09 by depthoffield]



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 12:31 AM
link   
It honestly looks like satellites or space junk orbiting the earth and those rays moving fast just looked like asteroids enter the earth's atmosphere, but what do I know.



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 12:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by depthoffield
When putting a title like this, sure you want attention. How many readers will be deceived when they didnn't see any battle?





I thought it was a rule that you had to use the article or videos name as the title.

If not let me know and I'll be glad to insert others!



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 12:44 AM
link   
I had to see it twice before i saw what could laughingly be called a battle. The objects in question are pretty cool, the first one slows down. Space debris slows down now?



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 12:48 AM
link   
reply to post by depthoffield
 


Objects that are close (foreground) to the camera and focused on throw the background out of focus. When the camera focuses past the object to the background the object becomes almost transparent or can be seen to resemble a blob. An example: at the zoo I focused on a lion inside the large and deep cage and the animal was towards the back. I got the lion nice 'n' sharp but the cage bars were transparent.

A small object near the shuttle would have no reason to be videotaped and zoomed in. What would be the purpose? However, the zooming I'm talking about is of an object at distance so that when the camera is returned to wide or normal angle the shuttle comes into focus. That means that the camera zoomed to distance or the shuttle body would have stayed in focus if the object was nearby. The many zoom sequences are not to nearby objects but something of interest that is at distance. Such as UFOs!

I'm not a professional photographer although I could have been and my brother-in-law is a retired professional, award-winning photographer. I've been operating 35mm cameras since 1956 and I've owned many SLRs and lenses.



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 01:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by depthoffield
When putting a title like this, sure you want attention. How many readers will be deceived when they didnn't see any battle?




Originally posted by Skeptical Ed
I laugh at NASA explanations that it's all ice particles, debris, water dumps, etc., when they know damn well that no intelligent astronaut is going to videotape a small object that is near the shuttle so no zooming is necessary. Zooming is done on distant objects which means they are large.


Skeptical Ed, you are wrong about zooming issue.
It is not necessary to zoom only at big/far objects.
It also need to zoom on little close small objects too. Please take yourself a picture with an ant, from 1..2 meter distance, but without using zoom. Can you see it's shape and identify as an ant? You always need zoom when the objects appear to be small in image, no matter how big/small or distant/close is in reality. The appearance of small or big in an image is called ANGULAR SIZE. If angular size is small, you need zoom, no matter the subject distance or it's real size.
But in this video, i don't see the camera operator pursuing the objects in discussion (which can be very well just debris, because debris is common.).
I see him trying to zoom on the Earth surface, but because the lens beeing hit by the sunlight, the lens flare when zooming greatly spoil the image, so, he cancels the zoom (to maybe later, when sunlight angle to the camera changes enough to not hit the lens anymore).



[edit on 25/9/09 by depthoffield]


You said: "But in this video, i don't see the camera operator pursuing the objects in discussion (which can be very well just debris, because debris is common.)." When the video starts, the camera seems to be fixed and a "slow" moving object comes into view from the upper left and exits toward the lower right. Another similar object enters from lower left corner and moves upward. Neither of these objects are leaving a trail which meteoroids do. As this second object starts to leave the center of the frame, someone zoom in towards the object but doesn't try to follow the object so it is seen to leave the frame at the upper right edge. Then you see the zoom out which brings the object back into view and, again, it exits the frame. Then we see a meteoroid enter from the right edge and move down. Two more meteoroids enter from the left side, top and bottom, and the 2nd UFO can be seen near the right edge, top. The meteroroids were not zoomed into 'cause whoever is operating the camera knows what they are and was not fast enough anyway. So it's obvious that the UFOs are not flying as fast as the meteoroids.


[edit on 25-9-2009 by Skeptical Ed]



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 01:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by zaiger
Space debris slows down now?

How about trajectory projection in the 2D dimension which is the camera's senzor surface?
Stay yourself a bit further by one road. Look at the cars. Did they appear to you moving constantly? I think on the contrary, they move slowly to you, then faster and faster as they come closer to you, they reach maximum speed when you look perpendicular to the road, and after they slow down. But this is all just APPEARANCE, you know, the cars are moving constantly (not taking in consideration variations, just for the sake of the example).
So, if you see something slowing down, can't rule out a bit just a ILUSSION, given the fact you don't know the real trajectory of the object, of the camera, and all the geometric situation.



[edit on 25/9/09 by depthoffield]



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 01:16 AM
link   
very interesting but i dont see the battle going on, only a bunch of fast moving objects.



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 02:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skeptical Ed
I'm not a professional photographer although I could have been and my brother-in-law is a retired professional, award-winning photographer. I've been operating 35mm cameras since 1956 and I've owned many SLRs and lenses.

Ok, nice, then you really understand what depth of field is. The depth of field interval, you know, has a near limit and a further limit.
Now, you say about foreground and background, and the lion and cage example, describing the out of focus. It is ok.

But, who says that objects in the OP video are closer than the near limit of the depth of field interval of the lens to appear out of focus? Those objects can be debris let's say..5..20 meters away, virtually anywhere in the depth of field interval, we don't really know exactly the limits of the depth of field interval of NASA's cameras, but those limits are there, and the near limit could be very well in the meters or tens of meters interval (depending on lens size and aperture, zoom status and senzor resolution), so tell me which phenomenon denies debris to be closer or farther as their position in respect to the shuttle can be anywhere naturrally. Indeed, if they were closer, they will appear out of focus, like STS_75 videos shows.
I know, i said about the example with the ant beeing 1..2 meters away. well, better i should said the ant or a bee being 10 meters away for example. Is this big and very far away? Nope, small and close. But not so close to be beyound the depth of field interval in a given situation.
So, don't be so sure about "they are large and distant". Indeed they could be distant enough to sit in the depth of field interval, and just that, but this doesn't means anything absolute to think of them as indeed BIG and distant.




Originally posted by Skeptical Ed
Neither of these objects are leaving a trail which meteoroids do. []. So it's obvious that the UFOs are not flying as fast as the meteoroids.


What you call "meteoroids" is also debris. Here is a confusion.
You should know that NASA shuttle's cameras, at least the older ones, have some characteristics. One of them acting here is: image remanence for some time, in low light situation.
And this remanence is better visible on fast moving objects.
So, everything moving fast in image, will show some trail. everything slow or fix, will not show any trail.
I have a NASA sequence when the camera is rotated fast enough to make the STARS in image to make exactly this kind of trails, but only and just when the camera is moving...which speaks for itself the phenomenon of image remanence. I can't post now the example, but I should do soon.

Also, real meteors are not so numerous to be seen so easy one after another (unless is just a big meteor shower underway, which is rare), and their real trails can be seen only when hit the Earth atmosphere and disintegrate there. Also, the vast majority of them act ussually very quick, one second or so.
The OP shows only debris. Or if some of them are not debris, but something else, there is NO recorded difference to separate them to debris. Unfortunately. That's why this kind of videos are just inconclusive.

As for the battle....






[edit on 25/9/09 by depthoffield]



[edit on 25/9/09 by depthoffield]



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by breakingdradles
Zooming in on the objects does mean they are not close to the astronaut, rather that they are large and far away.


Huh? You zoom in on an object close to you to help identify its origin, which is standard NASA practice since maybe the mid-1960s. You want to know if its an indication of a fuel leak, flaking insulation, pyrobolt debris, broke-off mechanical parts, stuff that has direct relevance to your surviving the flight -- or determining improvements to future design.

What's so unearthly about that?

Sure would have been nice if the Columbia crew had been able to do that when the hunk of their wing forward edge insulation drifted off after being smashed in on ascent. But nobody saw it, nobody got a warning they paid attention to.

The more these videos get crackpotted to mere mockery, the less seriously the people who should be watching, do. That's my worry.



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by breakingdradles
So what do you think, UFO battle, UFOs no battle, or just all space debris?


Since the poster is withholding information on the date/time of the video, as well as any air-to-ground crew comments and PAO narration, he has made it impossible to determine the technical context and illumination conditions of the sequence -- which makes the development of a prosaic hypothesis next to impossible.

How convenient.

The game is rigged. The only winning strategy is to walk away.



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 10:50 AM
link   
Well, I saw something... Nothing that shouted out, "Hey, that's an ET spacecraft!" and the cameraman didn't really seem overly interested so yeah, I'm gonna have go with the naysayers on this one, and believe that we are seeing some sort of debris.



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by depthoffield
 


Two deep breaths buddy. Let me clarify my comment. The video appears to be cool and the space debris appears to slow down. Stand by a road and watch cars go by some of them may look pretty cool.



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by depthoffield
What you call "meteoroids" is also debris. Here is a confusion.
You should know that NASA shuttle's cameras, at least the older ones, have some characteristics. One of them acting here is: image remanence for some time, in low light situation.
And this remanence is better visible on fast moving objects.
So, everything moving fast in image, will show some trail. everything slow or fix, will not show any trail.
I have a NASA sequence when the camera is rotated fast enough to make the STARS in image to make exactly this kind of trails, but only and just when the camera is moving...which speaks for itself the phenomenon of image remanence. I can't post now the example, but I should do soon.


Now i have that sequence. The shuttle have a rotation movement, and after the positioning system begin to work to stop the rotation of the shuttle.
And, during the rotation, the stars appear to move in the image, and during the movement, they have trails!!
Here it is:




Not so obvious trails, since the stars don't move so fast, also they are not very bright, but the trails are there!
This is IMAGE REMANENCE, and, if you look at many of low light vidoes from shuttle missions ( archive here:www.nss.org... ) you will see many examples of this issue.



[edit on 25/9/09 by depthoffield]



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 02:24 PM
link   
If there were a date on that, it would be easier to see if it were just meteorite activity. If I were an astronaut I would still love to watch a shower, and if I could get a glimpse of it from space, all the better. Then, if I could RECORD it from space to show my family, I definitely would.

Good video, but not really evidence of anything useful.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join