Show us ONE, just one UFO pic or ANY evidence that can be proven as evidence of visitation.

reply to post by rusethorcain


That quote was from the comments section on the UFO site you posted.
I searched ATS to verify by searching the username.

I still don't know what UFO-Russian fighters video you are talking abou. There are several on You Tube.

Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by black cat

 

why was your original reason for dismissing the photo " doesnt look like the moon to me" ?

Four reasons. First, the object didn't look like the moon, as another poster said. Second, the striations in the object, the different colored bands that are clearly on the object's surface. If this were the moon, this would be an indication of the moon getting brighter or darker as it moved. The only way that would happen is if clouds passed in front of it and in that close-up shot photo there are no indications of clouds because of the stars in the photo. If the moon was consistently one level of brightness then there would be no reason that varying "stripes" would appear in the photo. It would all be one level of brightness. Third, the stars in the photo do not have star trails. The earth is constantly moving and so would our perception of stars. At the rate the moon moves to the length of the object, a time exposure long enough to produce an object of that length should also track the stars as the earth spins. But that isn't evident in the photo. Fourth and last, with a constant time exposure of the moon there should be some visible "light halo" or "light fog" around the object produced by the glow of the moon. But there isn't anything like that in the photo. The only way you wouldn't have a glow is if you closed the shutter of the camera and took exposures onto the same frame of film over a period of time. In graphic design terms, straddling the placement of an object is called the "step". I'm not sure it's the same in photography. Hope that all makes sense.

reply to post by black cat
Now I am going to guess that black cat has me on ignore?

Second line.

Originally posted by OldDragger
reply to post by rusethorcain

 

That quote was from the comments section on the UFO site you posted.
I searched ATS to verify by searching the username.

I still don't know what UFO-Russian fighters video you are talking abou. There are several on You Tube.

OK I will try to be more careful...here is the video I would like you to debunk:

reply to post by butcherguy


Dude, I don't have you on ignore. I did a direct reply to your question on page 52.

reply to post by rusethorcain


i dont see the reports of the new york photo and nobody covered up the ones that do appear in newspapers.

[edit on 15-7-2010 by yeti101]

reply to post by black cat


I still see a variety of misconceptions, maybe I can help.

(Also, an astronomy course, either onine or at local university may be useful too).

First, the object didn't look like the moon, as another poster said.

It looks exactly like one would expect if you laid multiple exposures of the Moon, in a certain phase, and they overlapped.

Go to your kitchen, pick up about ten plates, and lay them over each other so they overlap. Step back, and squint...and will or will they not resemble a cylinder in shape?

Second, the striations in the object, the different colored bands that are clearly on the object's surface. If this were the moon, this would be an indication of the moon getting brighter or darker as it moved.

You seem to be only imaging this was done during a FULL, or mostly gibbous Moon. It wasn't. The "striations" are merely the dark portions, where the sunlight terminates....go out tonight and look, look at the Moon when it's not in full or mostly gibbous presentation. Draw a picture of it. Make ten copies. Cut them out, and lay them over each other, overlappig...see?

... is if clouds passed in front of it...

Ummm...no, not because of clouds.....not at all.

BUT, this is where you really, really need to take some astronomy classes...take some time to understand the apparent motion of stars in teh sky, due to the Earth's rotation:

Third, the stars in the photo do not have star trails.

It was pointed out, there are devices that compensate for this, when taking photos of stars. Stars are dim, require long exposure times...AND, since earth constantly rotates, long exposures will blur....UNLESS compensated for, which is what these devices do.

The earth is constantly moving...

Hold on, let's be clear, here. YES, the earth is moving on orbit....BUT the stars are so far away that THERE IS NO APPARENT MOTION due to this orbital motion of the Earth. The shapes of the constellations do not alter, except over very, very long (eons) of time.

As mentioned, only factor is the ROTATION of the earth, in terms of stars moving across the sky.

Fourth and last, with a constant time exposure of the moon there should be some visible "light halo" or "light fog" around the object produced by the glow of the moon.

I don't think you understand photography very well....

Once you have a camera on a device that tracks the sky to compensate for the sidereal motions of the stars, due to planet rotation...the camera shutter does NOT have to remain open constantly, to achieve the effect in that photo!!!

The BIG CLUE is the way the Moon is captured in "steps"...instants, as IT orbits the Earth, and therefore appears to move across the sky.

THAT is what that photo accomplished.

Your experiences with graphic design seem to be causing your confusion, maybe? Lack of experience with photography, and the various skills and effects one can create, in that field, don't help it seems.

reply to post by black cat
Sorry.

I just noticed that you were referring to the star trails.

I posted a reply to that on page 53. Here is a link to it...www.abovetopsecret.com...

theres no doubt it looks like a time lapse or long exposure shot of the moon. No other witnesses or reports.

[edit on 15-7-2010 by yeti101]

reply to post by weedwhacker


Think Slinky.
a Slinky toy could illustrate the series of exposures.

reply to post by rusethorcain


Some observations;
One, the "official" footage starts out with what appears to be stock footage of what are Mig -21's taking off. why would any official footage, classified or not have this edited into it?
Second, the cockpit doesn't appear at all to be from a Mig-21. Search Mig-21 cockpit view on Google images, look for airforce walkaround,: there are actually umpteen cockpit images to choos from. None of them look at all like the cockpit in the video to me. If it's official film, why use different types of aircraft. This mistake is seen constantly in film, where differing types are used to represent one aircraft, and it's really distracting to aircraft fans.
I would also ask why the film is so short, why were they filming from the cockpit anyway, and also where is the film from the other aircraft?
The Mig-21 was still equipted with cannon as opposed to only missles, normally any footage would be from gun camera's instead of the cockpit.
Just off the top of my head.





[edit on 15-7-2010 by OldDragger]

[edit on 15-7-2010 by OldDragger]

reply to post by OldDragger


MYSTERY SOLVED!
Posted by GeminiSky on the "Undebunkable " thread. It's definatly an F-15, not a Mig-21. In fact if you view the footage he posted, the alleged UFO footage looks faked from '15's firing at target drones.
Definatly fake!

Here's the footage of ANG f-15 Eagles.
Go to 2:00 and tell me what you see! From the back seat.
Credit to GeminiSky

F-15 Eagles target practice

[edit on 15-7-2010 by OldDragger]

Migs my ***! Phoney as three dollar bill!!

[edit on 15-7-2010 by OldDragger]

[edit on 15-7-2010 by OldDragger]

Originally posted by weedwhacker

Third, the stars in the photo do not have star trails.

It was pointed out, there are devices that compensate for this, when taking photos of stars. Stars are dim, require long exposure times...AND, since earth constantly rotates, long exposures will blur....UNLESS compensated for, which is what these devices do.

Did these devices exist in 1950 when the photo was taken? Additional random text to make this a second line.

reply to post by black cat


Absolutley yes they did!
It's motor/gear arraingment.

[edit on 15-7-2010 by OldDragger]

Originally posted by mackblack27

Originally posted by itchy_tartan_blanket
reply to post by AnthraAndromda

 

I am not going to argue with you over proof and evidence. It's been covered. And I like you. And in the nicest possible way - I think you're absolutely mental!

It's a compliment in Scotland

What you think is proof is nothing but evidence to me my friend. There is nothing I've read, seen or heard that convinces me 100% that we are being visited now or ever. People can say they believe 100% that it is so, but to say they know......?

He is quite endeering in a quirky way
As a glasgow boy myself Im more inclined though to go for the term heed banger or basket weaver. If he started preaching this stuff outside ibrox how long do you thik it would be before he was in the gutter LOL
FOLLOW FOLLOW
mackblack27

PMSL!!! Basket weaver! Class!

I'm an Easterhouse Bhoy originally myself but in Irvine now. But you more than most will know I mean absolutely no harm. Where you from? And where are you now?

One thing I must say though.....he sounds like a hun

I AM only on the wind up here

What's your thoughts on the topic though mack? Can you honestly say, beyond reason of doubt, that there is proof we've been visited? Personally I'd love to say aye but I just can't.

Originally posted by AnthraAndromda
reply to post by mackblack27

 

I'm sorry ... which is it thats been lying to me? Sirians (cats) or Reptiles?

Actually, I've met a couple of Sirians, and yes thet are tall, not as tall as my people, but still ... I've also met a few Pleadeans, and an Orion or two. Then there is the several species that are the crew of Mother's ships. Ever have a conversation with a Dragon? Not a real Dragon, but sure looked like it.

I know all about the Reptilians, greys, etc. and they are likely much worse that you imagine.

And, if you are that messaih dude, then you should know full well that I have issues with you, course now they are worse.

I don't take anything on faith, I demand cold hard data. I've spent the better part of 40 years learning how data behaves, it is predictable, and always logical when valid.

I'm sorry big chap but why do you refer to these aliens in names "earthborne"? If that's not a word then it is now! It was seen here first...maybe.
I know the most natural counter-argument to this. But before you try mate, you must be able to prove that aliens visit or have visited Earth? End the argument here now. You cannot say we are not ready or you would've not told your story. You would not be on a forum either. So prove you're extra-terrestrial. Prove you're not "one of us". How'd you get here ya madman?

Where's your vessel? What's the best alcohol on your planet? You brought Buckie to these shores didn't you? To be honest, it IS moon juice!
I don't understand why you would broadcast in a forum but not on TV


Know what I mean?

Originally posted by AnthraAndromda
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not

 

Prove it a hoax!

Man up and put your money where your mouth is and show the whole world what a lying hoaxter I am.

Imade a claim, I provided evidence. You made a claim, and have provided nothing but the same words repeatedly. You have any evidence?

You made the claim, so you provide the proof...I've been banging Jennifer Anniston for 6 months...

It is not our job to prove you're a hoaxer. It is your job to prove you're not.

the way you talk is really trolling,people are trying to explain and have a conversation and you just fanaticaly try to anger them by screaming "NO THERE NO ALIENS"
there are countless photos and prooves from people that just can be trusted. even i saw a ufo once.
i cant say if it was alien ship or experimental human secret craft but DEAL WITH IT

what cant obama pay for better trained disinfo agents?

Well, how about videos of and old thing ? Will it mean anything to you ?


Its on youtube and the hits are pretty low, less than 4500 hits at the time of this writing. Have some bucks, investigate the truth and go inspect it yourself. Take your time then, yeah pics are no fun, especially if they are just 1 SINGLE photo when you can actually take a few.


[edit on 15-7-2010 by RainCloud]