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.

 

The BEST UFO footage of all time! Maybe?

page: 5
26
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 04:53 PM
link   
It is not the ISS, far too large, and this is evident in comparison to the stars in the background. In all the ISS videos provided, the ISS looks only slightly bigger than the stars. Neither does the ISS appear as a perfect globe. This UFO is very large, far larger than the ISS, and very round.

The change of the size of the object as it drops onto the roof is due to the cloud coverage, not any camera effect. You can clearly see the cloud that diminishes the light of the UFO.

I guess this video could be faked, but if it is, it is a very good fake. We get a close view, and this is not some balloon or Chinese lantern, that is easy to see.

I think the plasma life form concept is the only one that really explains these things. Foo fighters have been regularly reported for over a half a century now, they can't all be fakes and mistaken interpretations.

edit to change can to can't


[edit on 21-11-2009 by poet1b]




posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by kayne1982
 


Looks like an orb, not impressed to be honest, but can't tell it's fake neither.



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by IgnoreTheFacts
reply to post by kayne1982
 



If you are familiar with the Biological UFO's that were filmed during the STS-75 Mission and featured in many other STS videos, then you will find that this video collaborates all of the STS footage available and the content presented is truly authentic.


That statment alone lets us know that your judgment is clouded by unsubstantiated belief...which some would call ignorance. You state that a bunch of debris/ice crystals are "biological ufos" is a stretch of the imagination, then you use that formidable stretch to say this meaningless video substantiates the STS video? I can't even comprehend the logic that leads you to ignore common sense, reason and logic and the many more plausible explanations in order to arrive at the most outlandish one first. That is what is wrong with this entire subject.

[edit on 19-11-2009 by IgnoreTheFacts]


Have to agree. That footage of STS notched UFOs is roundly known to be camera artifacts. A poster on this site showed the same ufo's inside the shuttle when a flash was taken. Unless you understand how a camera takes an image and reflection and refraction, you will constantly be fooling yourself into thinking the notched flying orb lights are actually UFO's. They are not.

Now as the footage being discussed. It's pretty good. I have no idea what it is.



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 06:17 PM
link   
sats in my area are very bright and if i zoom in it will look just like a giant sphere. You can see as the object goes past the roofline it's only a speck.. this is just a camera affect of a bright speck being zoomed in on at night. c'mon people! gheez.



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by reasonable
 


Are you in NYC?

If satellites are directly overhead, they are bright but if they are considerable distance off, then not so bright.

In addition, when you zoom in on the ISS, you can see structural details.

This orb has no structural details, it is not the ISS.

www.satellite-orbits.info...

You can't zoom in on a satellite without making the stars behind it look bigger, just like zooming in on a aircraft.

The orb goes behind cloud coverage, which is why it shrinks.

The ISS fades as it gets near the horizon, not suddenly dropping in size.

www.haydenplanetarium.org...



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by reasonable
 


Are you in NYC?

If satellites are directly overhead, they are bright but if they are considerable distance off, then not so bright.

In addition, when you zoom in on the ISS, you can see structural details.

This orb has no structural details, it is not the ISS.

www.satellite-orbits.info...

You can't zoom in on a satellite without making the stars behind it look bigger, just like zooming in on a aircraft.

The orb goes behind cloud coverage, which is why it shrinks.

The ISS fades as it gets near the horizon, not suddenly dropping in size.

www.haydenplanetarium.org...


I never said it was the ISS but a bright sat zoomed in with nightvision mode on depending on the make of camera will do exactly what was seen in that video. exactly. for all we know he is even porting the image by way of a gen4 nightvision scope..

[edit on 21-11-2009 by reasonable]



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by bloodline
 


What is seen in the STS-75 video has nothing to do with lens artifacts. Even NASA reports debris. The lens artifact claim has been proven to be complete nonsense.

The picture inside the shuttle bay shows water frozen on the lens, an it is certainly not floating in the bay. The only thing is proves is that ice frozen on a lens will distort the picture.

Few of the orbs in the STS-75 video are notched, and neither is this one.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by reasonable
 


If it was zoomed in on a satelite, we wouldn't see the stars in the background, and whenit began dropping below the roof, the roof would have been a great deal more blurry.

Who knows what special effect might be used, but it doesn't look like night vision, or any type of special effects to me.



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 11:48 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


that's exactly what i was thinking poet.

i'm not convinced that this is merely a satellite.

again i ask . . .

but if it's a satellite, why is it something to the tune of 20 times brighter than all the stars around it?

doesn't a bloom effect normally dilute/wash most of the picture?

If it simply appears brighter and larger because of the camera, why are the stars unaltered?

[edit on 11/21/2009 by JPhish]



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 11:55 PM
link   
reply to post by JPhish
 

The ISS was five times brighter than Sirius that night, so yes, it was very many times brighter than the other stars.

No, blooming does not affect the entire frame. Only the pixels adjacent to the source.



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 12:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


You have a link that tells how bright the ISS was, and reason for it being so bright. How about something that shows the ISS actually flew over NYC the night that this video was taken?

By all accounts, as close as that video is zoomed in on the object in question, if it was the ISS, then we should have seen structural details of the ISS, not a glowing ball.



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 12:33 AM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 

The link shows the ISS made a pass over Jamaica, New York on September 24th. A very bright pass.

The OP says a telescope was used but the youtube poster does not. It takes a pretty good piece of glass to discern detail or even shape of the ISS. Optical zoom on a typical camcorder does not cut it. Maybe if ProphetEzikel provides the details requested by another ATS member we can make a better determination. But I wouldn't count on it.

[edit on 11/22/2009 by Phage]



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 12:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by JPhish
 

The ISS was five times brighter than Sirius that night, so yes, it was very many times brighter than the other stars.
ok well that's pretty bright, but this thing appears more than 10 times brighter than jupiter as it passes over the house. Perhaps do to the blooming.

But if the blooming makes this satellite seem so much more prominent, then why does it not have a similar affect on the stars?


No, blooming does not affect the entire frame. Only the pixels adjacent to the source.
OK, makes sense. So there would have to be quite a bit of light "bleeding" into the surrounding pixels of the ISS.

One problem that i have with the ISS theory is at 34 seconds it "appears" to pass in front of the clouds, not behind them. Do you not agree?



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 12:44 AM
link   
reply to post by JPhish
 

You identified Jupiter? Please provide the timestamp at which Jupiter appears.

Blooming is caused by oversaturation of pixels. If brightness levels are not high enough blooming does not occur. The stars are not bright enough to induce blooming.

The apparent size of the object is the result of the "bleeding" you mention.

Stars are also apparent through the very thin layer of cloud.



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 01:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by JPhish
 

You identified Jupiter? Please provide the timestamp at which Jupiter appears.
Oh no, i'm sorry to have gotten you all excited Phage; i was saying that in relation to how bright jupiter normally is. This thing seems a lot brighter to me.

After you asked if i had found it in the actual video, i gave it another look. I think the body that comes into view in the video at exactly 38 seconds might be jupiter.

I haven't really tried to tringulate it's position or anything like that, so it might not be. Just seems significantly brighter than the other stars in the vid. Jupiter is the second brightest thing in the sky on any given night in newyorkcity. None of the other stars come close.


Blooming is caused by oversaturation of pixels. If brightness levels are not high enough blooming does not occur. The stars are not bright enough to induce blooming.
ok . . . but you said this thing was only 5 times brighter than Sirius. That doesn't seem like a big enough difference that it would induce blooming to the degree we see in the video.


Stars are also apparent through the very thin layer of cloud.
yeah i know, but i would assume the object in question would become more distorted because of it's apparent luminosity.



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 01:34 AM
link   
reply to post by JPhish
 

On September 24th Jupiter was at magnitude -2.29, half as bright as the ISS at magnitude -3.4. The zoom is too tight, I cannot identify any of the stars of Capricorn (where Jupiter was) at 0:38, but at 8PM Jupiter was about 28º above the horizon. Unless that is a very short house or the time was much earlier (at which point the sky would not be dark), that is not Jupiter.

Sorry to confuse the issue with facts.

[edit on 11/22/2009 by Phage]



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 01:57 AM
link   
I do have to agree about the lack of fuzziness at the end there. If this was focused on a satellite, it would seem that the house edge would be MUCH more out of focus.

I'd chalk this up to CGI, before a satellite to be honest.



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 03:24 AM
link   
most likely the IR LED used for nite vision/low light vision. probably shut off when he shut the camera down. nothing unusual at all really

[edit on 22-11-2009 by stanlee]



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 03:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by JPhish
 

On September 24th Jupiter was at magnitude -2.29, half as bright as the ISS at magnitude -3.4.
oh wow so that is pretty darned bright. At least i know i was right about one thing and it's brighter than Jupiter.
Thanks for the info.


The zoom is too tight, I cannot identify any of the stars of Capricorn (where Jupiter was) at 0:38, but at 8PM Jupiter was about 28º above the horizon. Unless that is a very short house or the time was much earlier (at which point the sky would not be dark), that is not Jupiter.
probably not Jupiter then.



Sorry to confuse the issue with facts.
how are the facts ever confusing?! Keep em coming.


um . . . yeah after going over the apparent magnitudes of the ISS and the stars it seems reasonable that the bloom would effect the ISS and not the other stars.

But the apparent size of the UFO still seems unreasonable.


Originally posted by fleabit
I'd chalk this up to CGI, before a satellite to be honest.

Or a bit of both;

What do you guys think of the possibility that the original video with the ISS was edited in a program like vegas or aftereffects pro so the "UFO" would seem more profound?

Since he would already have an "object" and wouldn't have to add one, the editing wouldn't be too tough.

[edit on 11/22/2009 by JPhish]



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 03:29 AM
link   
wouldnt that effect everything to the same degree the ufo is effected?



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join