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.

 

Mysterious tetrahedron landing platform at Kremlin!!!

page: 4
48
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Brainiac

sigh... did you really need to go into that much detail?
there is nothing to this, other than a simple video edited hoax...

funny thing is these hoaxers aren't very imaginative, if you do a search for a game called "X-COM Apocolypse" you'll find that geometric shapes were a conduit for incoming space craft from another dimension in that computer game...


Hi , didn't see your post until I'd posted above.

I want to tell you something.

Going into detail, asking questions is something he has done, and something you refuse to do.

Your actions speak for themselves - and you, as is so for many people.

There is wisdom in consideration, you're right - not what you call sanity - but do you know any great thinkers that 'sigh' complaining of too much attention to detail.

Come on my friend, you are a better man than that. We all are.!

Abductee

[edit on 13-12-2009 by UFOabducteebe]




posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by TruthxIsxInxThexMist
reply to post by downisreallyup
 


Ok, i have an idea of what this is all about.... i have attached a picture which i just drew up quickly (so don't laugh)... the idea is that there is a wire between the 2 towers of the Kremlin which this Tetrahedron is attached to.... and all it does is rotate using electrics or a battery placed inside the Tetrahedron.... sort of like when trapeze artists use a wire to cross from one side of a building to the other..... below is a pic of what i mean:



[edit on 13-12-2009 by TruthxIsxInxThexMist]


how would batteries or electricity make an object suspended in midair rotate from strings? if it was held by beams, yes, possible but strings?

let me try to explain this: strings are flexible so if something was rotating the string, the string would only absorb the rotational power leaving the object stationary until the string is winded up so hard it goes in the opposite direction and when it does, the energy in the string would cause it to spin erratically not steady like in the video. furthermore, it seem the object rotate a full 360.

since the object is behind the power lines, its size is undoubtedly substantial. there are no indication of wind but an object this size at this height should be affected by it even if there are no signs of it, so if this was a balloon, why would it rotate instead of flying north to south and/or east to west or vice versa? instead it stayed in the same position, slightly rotating.

my guess is this is either cgi or it is an ornamental object placed there. on a more extreme point of view i would say the object is further than it seem, almost the size of the moon and it is in space. the sunlight is reflecting off of it like it would the moon but can only be seen at that particular angle, thus, the object disappear in a frame and return in a few other. the latter is extreme, you never know, governments are connected and information such as these are very sensitive. lying is what they do best so it5 is very hard ot believe when they tell no or it is a weather balloon, remains of such balloon or any explanation regarding cases mentioned herein. i do not believe them.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 07:03 PM
link   
one little pointer for the OP: As the second youtube video news reporter says "If this was a genuine sighting it would have been reported to the police, whom at present are not commenting"

It'd be really important to justifying this as a factual occurrence. I.e. the object is physically there, which you have a fair bit of evidence for already..

but I really think you need to contact the Russian Police and get info on it - someone does , otherwise de-bunkers are going to pick holes in a case that could be, with such evidence, much stronger.

The police haven't commented, remember - that doesn't mean there wasn't reports

right?

Abductee



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Mr Mask
 


That's the attitude (positive vs negative) I was referring to in the Alex Collier thread, Mr. Mask. You got a star from me on that one.

As far as the thread goes...Personally, I am at a loss on this one. With everything that happens these days with CGI and the non-stop hoaxes, its almost impossible to accurately gauge fact from fiction. Until the "aliens" show up in mass numbers for the whole population to see, or the Governments of the world admit to test flying advanced technology...OR BOTH...I'm afraid that a home video will not be enough to move the masses. I, and many of my friends have several videos taken of Real UFO's (Unidentified objects) from here in Indiana. Believe it or not, Indiana seems to be a haven/hotspot for all sorts of odd activity and there are many witnesses here that would attest to that. However, despite our best efforts, it does no more than to spark the interest of a few people, which clearly states that this is not the general public's interest or concern. The public at large likes things like "American Idol, The Biggest Loser, and Oprah." They want convenience, McDonald's and War. That about sums it up.

The OP is awesome for laying this out in the best way possible but alas, the majority won't believe or will look the other way, and the few that are remaining will continue to believe. Its the same circle that continues to spin.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by downisreallyup
 


Could this be what the object and "landing platform" is? I know you scoffed at me when I suggested the lighted area looked like lit up carnival type tents or something...maybe I wasn't so far off

Original caption: Moscow Lights Up. Moscow, U.S.S.R.: Lights galore create a fairyland scene of the Kremlin as Moscow dresses up for the jubilee celebration of Soviet communism. Floating above the city (background center) far from view, is a huge balloon bearing the portrait of Lenin and illuminated by searchlights.

Click here for picture.





[edit on 13-12-2009 by PhotonEffect]



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 08:26 PM
link   
reply to post by PhotonEffect
 


Good.

We can put this to bed.
I move that the title of the thread be changed. First of all reflecting that there is no "landing platform" as it were still posted in the title. And secondly that this object has been identified!

Good work.
... Everyone. Aside from a few remarks, this was a superb thread.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 09:24 PM
link   
sorry, but this is nothing more than a reflection of a small tetrahedron off the car window. the tetrahedron is in the car. look at the way the tetahedron moves with the glass window exactly, not the outside surroundings.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
Original caption: Moscow Lights Up. Moscow, U.S.S.R.: Lights galore create a fairyland scene of the Kremlin as Moscow dresses up for the jubilee celebration of Soviet communism. Floating above the city (background center) far from view, is a huge balloon bearing the portrait of Lenin and illuminated by searchlights.

Click here for picture.


[edit on 13-12-2009 by PhotonEffect]


That looks quite likely, but that picture was taken November 09, 1967. Do they do big balloons every year?



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 10:50 PM
link   
reply to post by deadlysponge
 


See, there ya go... people like you are the very reason I started this new thread. There ARE NO asinine arguments here! How dare you sit on your lazy ivory couch and criticize anyone's hard work to present sound evidence of something, regardless of how much you disagree with it!

Are you "making every post matter?" I think not. This issue is NOT cut-and-dry and that is precisely why it deserves INTELLIGENT conversation. This topic has every bit as much validity as any other thread here on ATS. That is precisely what this site is for... for people to intelligently talk about interesting things, and some of us find this VERY interesting.

Also, this is not a matter of "believing in it", it's a matter of EVIDENCE that holds some water. I can name at least ONE scenario that may explain why there is a lacking of video evidence, and if that can be done, according to the scientific method, your knee-jerk "postulate" will be proven false. Here are several possible reasons why there is a lacking:

1) Perhaps a floating object is not that unusual over Russia. I have watched several Russian documentaries of Russian companies building UFO looking transport vehicles, so they are not that "freaked out" by something floating silently overhead.

2) Perhaps this was only there during a single short period that stretched from 4:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. The roads in the nighttime video were quite empty, even permitting a U-turn on the usually busy road, so the object could have only been there a short time, during a period when people are not usually up. It is clear that Red Square was 100% empty, since no people were seen at all.

3) Perhaps not many Russians drive around with nice enough video cameras that are capable of filming a dark object in the dark night sky. Judging from the light levels in the brightly lit areas, the camera had to use a longer exposure, and based on the reflection in the car's glass, they were using a nice video camera, not a cellphone camera. That greatly reduces the number of people who would have had the ability to take a clip of it at night.

I have already given my PROFESSIONAL analysis of the video from the point of view as to whether it is a CGI hoax, or there is actually something floating there. Using a lack of video is just not a valid explanation.

With as many people who live in New York city, and with as much PROVEN time as there was, how many videos are there of the towers falling? I have only seen a few videos of the plane hitting the second tower, one video of building 7 falling, and one video of the period between the first tower being hit and the second being hit.

Why were there not thousands of videos of that first tower burning? Heck, a plane had just hit the tower! It was early on a work day, with millions of video-enabled cell phones all over the place, and yet, where is the plethora of videos during that time?

There were thousands of people watching JFK in Dallas Texas, and yet there was only a single video of his receiving the fatal wound, and only a few videos of the shooting at all. Why?

There was a fairly long period just after the Pentagon was struck by whatever it was struck with. Why are there not hundreds of videos showing exactly what happened during those very early minutes/hours? There is not even a single video online! Why?

I can go on and on and on about how major events are NOT covered with much video footage. That is the RULE, not the exception, so please do not turn this thread into the same unscientific, ignorant morass of spewing that rendered the other thread a long, hard-to-read, mostly unintelligent trail of drivel.



[edit on 14-12-2009 by downisreallyup]



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 10:52 PM
link   
You downisreallyup, and expat2368 are two reasons ATS is without doubt the number one site for the discussion of subjects mainstream media is afraid to touch! Excellent work...Thanks and much appreciation to both of you!



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 10:54 PM
link   
I just came across this picture on Mufon. Check out the giant pyramid above the truck...I'm not sure if this is part of another building or what. It looks pretty sweet though.






posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 11:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Pauligirl
 


Ah, excellent find! This is exactly the kind of excellent research that helps to explain an unusual thing. What this video shows is that it is not unheard of, or perhaps it's not even that unusual to see things floating over Red Square. Perhaps they do it more often than any of us know, and the ONLY reason we know about this one is because of the guys who took the time, and who had the right equipment to take a short video of it.

The one guy in the car said "He is going to be so wildly excited to see this." The question is, from the context of the conversation, who is the "HE" that will be so excited and why? Clearly, they were not afraid of the object at all, but were more excited to see it. What if the "HE" in the comment is somebody that has something to do with this object? It was as if they were coming to film it precisely so they COULD show whoever the "he" was. And they said "perhaps we should put it online", indicating that there initial motive was not to put it online, but rather to show whoever "HE" was.

Clearly the guy driving is not the main motivator behind this. The guy with the camera most likely asked the driver to take him down so he could film it, or perhaps they were just driving by and happened to have a nice enough camera.

At any rate, thanks for making a noteworthy contribution to this discussion! If only everyone were as thoughtful. Thankfully, most in this thread ARE indeed that thoughtful, and that gives me hope that ATS is not just a big orgy of unintelligent ranting, but that it does have some very solid thinkers in its midst.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 11:09 PM
link   
reply to post by dankojudd
 


My goodness! That is an excellent find! Oh, but wait, that MUST be CGI because we all know that pyramids don't float over roads looking at car accidents! Oh, and there is only one photo of it, so that must also disprove it! We need to see at 3.4, oh wait, 4.2, no, how about 7.3 photos in order to prove it was really there.

This photo, I'm afraid WOULD be quite easy to do in CGI. The person would have to be quite exact with making the mask, but it could be done without that much work. This is a WHOLE different situation from the nighttime video, but still a good find



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 11:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Bkrmn
 


Thank you for your kind and respectful words
It is because of people like you that I find it rewarding to take the time to research something in-depth. I hope to do the same thing with other non-easily-explained topics in the future.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 11:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by downisreallyup
reply to post by dankojudd
 


My goodness! That is an excellent find! Oh, but wait, that MUST be CGI because we all know that pyramids don't float over roads looking at car accidents! Oh, and there is only one photo of it, so that must also disprove it! We need to see at 3.4, oh wait, 4.2, no, how about 7.3 photos in order to prove it was really there.

This photo, I'm afraid WOULD be quite easy to do in CGI. The person would have to be quite exact with making the mask, but it could be done without that much work. This is a WHOLE different situation from the nighttime video, but still a good find


Cgi? I could do this in paint or photoshop or gimp or fireworks



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 11:18 PM
link   
I enjoy your sense of humor friend. Check it out - that photo was taken for the news...and upon viewing the video on the page below you can see the giant triangle as well. I don't know what it is.

www.seacoastonline.com...



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 11:20 PM
link   
reply to post by insideNSA
 


Sorry, but you are looking at the video with way too little attention to detail. The object does not move because the camera man is aiming the camera at it, and that is why it is staying fairly centered. If you look carefully, when the car hits a bump, the object jumps in the view finder. If the object were inside the car, it would move perfectly in sync with the bumps and movements of the car, which it most certainly does not. Also, when they go under the bridge, the object disappears. When they turn, the object shifts from the side windows, then to the windshield, passing behind the car's metallic window frame. The object is also behind the wires in the first part of the video. At the times when it looks like the object is in front of the wires, there is always discernible artifacts caused by the video compression.

Anyhow, based on your "pseudo-analysis" I would say that you really have nothing to contribute to the proof of this thing, one way or another, not until you take time to critically analyze the video, and explain everything of what you see there... this is not the kind of thing you can do with a rough-cut approach, as the "devil is in the details."



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 11:27 PM
link   
reply to post by '___'omino
 


Agreed... I used the term CGI quite loosely to mean any computer graphics program. Certainly programs like Blender, Maya, 3D Studio Max, Cinema 4D, Houdini, Lightwave, Softimage XSI, or ZBrush would be overkill.

By the way, Softimage has some very nice features for doing certain things. Very nice program in general


[edit on 14-12-2009 by downisreallyup]



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 12:01 AM
link   
reply to post by dankojudd
 


After reviewing the "floating pyramid" in New Hampshire, it is clear that this is simply the roof of a building in the background.

Please see my Google maps analysis for the proof:

Google maps analysis of "pyramid" in New Hampshire

This only goes to show that people who say "CGI" as their first response are only revealing that they are ignorant, and have probably never even seen a CGI program, much less used one. If, on the other hand, someone gives a detailed analysis of why something is CGI, it will become readily apparent if they "know their stuff" or not, and if they do know it, that will stand with any of us truth seekers.

By the way, as a way of comparison, during the making of the movie "Thirty Days of Night" a friend of mine was working with a team to "fix" some of the telephone poles that were blocked by the green screens used in the filming of an outdoor scene. Because they had to modify each frame of the several second sequence by hand, it took several of them nearly a month to simply add or remove some telephone poles. Depending on what is being done, an apparently simple CGI scene could be very involved and time-consuming to make.

Also, it is far more work to integrate CGI objects into existing footage than most people realize, especially when no green screens are used. Unless someone has actually had their backside hurt from sitting that many hours in front of a 3D Studio Max workstation, they really have no idea how much time and effort CGI takes to make it look realistic. Next time you watch a CGI Hollywood movie, take a look at how many CGI animators are typically used... hundreds.

Happy hunting!


[edit on 14-12-2009 by downisreallyup]



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 12:17 AM
link   
reply to post by PhotonEffect
 


I don't believe that I scoffed at you, but only at the assertion that it was a tent of some kind. What I was seeing as a framework was in reality the Christmas lights on the Museum buildings in the background. My reason for rejecting the "tent" idea is because I have put up large tents before, and they use poles, not triangular structures. It was the lines of lights that were throwing me off, since the idea of Christmas had slipped my mind. With the exposure times used on the camera, all the strings of lights blended into single strands of light, giving the impression of solidly-lit boards of some kind.

Anyhow, thanks for adding more pictures to this case, and providing some good contribution



new topics

top topics



 
48
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join