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.

 

UFO in space changes direction twice while avoiding meteor or ?? -- VIDEO

page: 1
34
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:
+4 more 
posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 11:50 AM
link   
Object is in space being filmed while trying to avoid something...not sure what...it changes direction twice. Debunkers? If this is hoax, let me know...

www.youtube.com...




posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 11:53 AM
link   
interesting, looks genuine to me but what do i know, unless its edited then id say it is a ufo craft dodging most probably a missile fired from the scumbags of the US goverment.

Good find, cheers



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 11:55 AM
link   
Looks legit, but what the object that moves actually is eludes me.
If I take a skeptics view I would say you would need to eliminate the possibility it is a flying insect or even a crawling insect on the lens first.



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Visiting ESB
Object is in space being filmed while trying to avoid something...not sure what...it changes direction twice. Debunkers? If this is hoax, let me know...



Ho hum. In the ten months since it was posted on youtube, did anybody do any checks on any of at least a dozen likely prosaic explanations?

Sorry, but uninvestigated dots on a TV screen of the night sky are pretty pitiful 'UFOs'...



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 12:42 PM
link   
Here is maybe some answers:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



I emailed Professor Quijano, who produced the animation, and got a short reply. He says the "UFO" is digital noise and not a real body. I actually think ngchunter has it more correct in that we're looking at a hot pixel on the CCD sensor combined with slight tracking variances. @trusername: The object is moving throughout the animation if you watch closely. [edit on 9-3-2009 by IAttackPeople]



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Ho hum. In the ten months since it was posted on youtube, did anybody do any checks on any of at least a dozen likely prosaic explanations?

Sorry, but uninvestigated dots on a TV screen of the night sky are pretty pitiful 'UFOs'...



I don't know if any "checks" have been made, do you? And just what are those prosaic explanations so we can start shooting those down if necessary? Those dots on the screen are deemed important enough to someone in our government to film. Is "ho hum" all you can come up with since this might be boxing you in?... Obviously no one can say with certainty what this is, but we can rule things out. If we rule out enough of the silly explanations by the self-appointed debunkers, then what are we left with?



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Visiting ESB
 


Not a hoax, but not a UFO either:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

posted on page 6 by IAttackPeople

I emailed Professor Quijano, who produced the animation, and got a short reply.

He says the "UFO" is digital noise and not a real body.

I actually think ngchunter has it more correct in that we're looking at a hot pixel on the CCD sensor combined with slight tracking variances.


Nevermind, hande beat me to it.



[edit on 1/18/2010 by Pauligirl]



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by jonnydavx
interesting, looks genuine to me but what do i know, unless its edited then id say it is a ufo craft dodging most probably a missile fired from the scumbags of the US goverment.

Good find, cheers




Couldn't be the chinese or the russians that fired that missle It must be those Yankee bastards again. . .


Com'on use some common sence when speaking not only is that comment rediculous but i can't seem to recall the last time anyone fired a missle that was several orders of magnitude larger than the target. . .

quite interesting however. Can anyone give us an idea of the scale of these objects?

S & F

[edit on 18-1-2010 by constantwonder]



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 06:53 PM
link   
Hot pixels dont move as far as I know.

Looks nothing like noise to me either.



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 06:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Visiting ESB
 


This is one of Jim's tactics that you will get used to, as annoying as it is... Instead of offering up some of his obviously superior intellect to debunk topics such as these, he will often use arrogant and egotistical wit to hint he might have a clue, but in the end has no more answers than you or I. I would like to think that someone who was once on the NASA's payroll could respond with a far intelligent post than the tripe in which he did, but I no longer hold my breath the way I used to.



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 06:58 PM
link   
C'mon people!

It's an ice crystal and the shooting object is debris caused by engine thrusters.

[\sarcasm]


[edit on 18-1-2010 by Jinni]



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 07:03 PM
link   
I remember this one!
Wow, this was quite the learning experience for me.
That is a hot pixel. I'm sure someone here could find the thread this was originally discussed in about, um... 8 months ago, maybe?

Someone was actually able to reproduce the effect, if I'm not mistaken.

If you don't want to buy that, even though it has been reproduced, ask yourselves this: considering the fact that you have no "depth perception" in that video and it is literally looking outwards thousands upon thousands of miles, what are the odds that it actually picked up on a UFO occupying the same space as an incoming asteroid?

They are astronomically low.

That is a hot pixel. Digital artifact related to the moving object within the camera itself.



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by watcher73
 

Hot pixels don't move but due to tracking errors in the telescope the stars do.
The animation process reverses the the effect by causing the stars to remain stationary. As a result, the hot pixel appears to move.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by JayinAR
 


Interesting, makes me wonder how many other video's out there might just be this type of artifact... I would imagine trying to rule out such a glitch is a tedious and time consuming effort.



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Jocko Flocko
 


Heh, indeed it would be.
But for myself, I have almost given up on looking for UFOs in NASA vids, and the like.

If you look at these things objectively, you will find that most often (in fact every time I have) the evidence tends to lean in favor of what JimOberg would call a "prosaic" explanation.

I know for a certain fact, though, that this particular vid is a hot pixel. Read through the thread Phage just posted. (I'm sure he's linked the thread I'm thinking of) If you read through that thread with an objective mind, you will see that it is an artifact, not a UFO.



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 07:22 PM
link   
[


Ho hum. In the ten months since it was posted on youtube, did anybody do any checks on any of at least a dozen likely prosaic explanations?

Sorry, but uninvestigated dots on a TV screen of the night sky are pretty pitiful 'UFOs'...



Correct if I'm wrong, but I thought that was your job? And if you've had all of that time to turn up some legitimate explanation, I would expect to see it rather than what you're imput above.

C'mon, Jim, what do they tell you in NASA about this thing? Can you be honest with us? Surely, you've asked the PTB for an decent explanation. "Ho-hum" just doesn't cut it from one of the leading debunkers in the field. That was Sagan's old trick, deflect and dismiss. I understand that it being a mysterious space vehicle puts you in a bind because we ain't supposed to be there with any triangles or other high-tech craft. Be mindful that there are two objects to explain, not just the dodging one, but the other one which is moving too fast to be the asteroid.



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by watcher73
 

Hot pixels don't move but due to tracking errors in the telescope the stars do.
The animation process reverses the the effect by causing the stars to remain stationary. As a result, the hot pixel appears to move.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


The tracking thing made sense at first...

Wouldnt a hot pixel make a circle or something and not go back and forth like it does?

Not sure what you mean by the animation process. Ill go read the other thread now.



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by watcher73
 


Do read the other thread!
That was one of the best threads I have ever read here on ATS. And a big part of the reason why this website IS the best on the net.

This site cuts through the bunk like no other.

Some hard hitting stuff in there.



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


wow.. now you're really digging mate. seriously... "
h its just a dot that changes direction.. twice"
I could see if it were a view of something similar in water, the current change, pressure and all that, and then the same could be explained in air, hi velocity causing a temporary vaccuum. ok.. but in space.. where its a constant vaccuum... yeah.. Ho hum to you mate.. shrugging off good footage is just lame. just admit it. you cant think of some BS excuse to label it. Wow.. this is like talking with the REAL Oberg or someone just as retarded. Seriously get better material than that!

On the other hand. It is from an agency in Italy. Between there Mexico, and Holland, they are known for some hoaxes, (Plasma UFO in Mexico, Snow Crop Circles in Holland, Phoney Crop Circles all over Italy, and several LED's strapped to small objects tied to nylon filament and filmed in Italy,
Very good chance that the dot and asteroid are an old atari game filmed and posted as authentic, or a clever screen saver. I hate to say it, but I do have to take this "oh.. dots in space is lame" er's side. You're better off saying the footage came from project camelot, or david wilcock.

Though, it may be legit. I just have a hard time believing it considering the origin of "sighting". good find though and S+F4U



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 07:45 PM
link   
reply to post by stanlee
 


Ummm... I believe that JimOberg has seen this video already and was instrumental in debunking it originally.

Perhaps you are only upset because you feel that this is somehow "new" material.

Not to be rude or anything.



new topics

top topics



 
34
<<   2 >>

log in

join