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.

 

Huge UFO Pyramid Incoming!

page: 9
96
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by watchdog8110
Since it doesn't appear to have change of direction noticed ( right , left , up , down ) . It is a floater of unknown origin . Hows that ?



A floater. I like that but I'm pretty sure the optometry department has dibs on that one.

As far as it not changing course, Hoagland would have us believing it's on a steady 19.5-degree incline trajectory at all times (or something like that)

Once upon a time I really respected Hoagland. I really thought he brought a lot of fringe-information to the table. So either I've changed, he's changed or I've just changed my mind about him because he sounds more and more wackier as time goes on. The whole Elenin debacle should've done his good-name in for good!




posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 09:28 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 09:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by miniatus
reply to post by Human_Alien
 


Guys - no need for the fighting, it will only result in getting this thread shut down.. the mods already warned once.


Fighting? I'm not fighting. I'm defending.

Like you, I've stayed on this thread longer than I expected.
Is the rest of the world still intact? Man, we could've been invaded and we wouldn't know because we're squabbling' about some Tuber's triangle. Ugh



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 09:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


It's not a lens flare Phage, since when have lens flares been in a triangle form? They are usually round or oval. Even if we dismiss the triangle, the stronger cigar shape is nothing close to any lens flare that I have ever seen either. Something is without a doubt strange about this object. ~SheopleNation



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 09:41 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 09:42 PM
link   
****REMINDER****

Again.....KEEP TO THE TOPIC and the topic only!

Please stop telling other members how to behave and post.

I am trying to help you keep this thread open.......you need to do your part!

Thank you.
edit on January 1st 2012 by greeneyedleo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 09:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by SheopleNation
reply to post by Phage
 


It's not a lens flare Phage, since when have lens flares been in a triangle form? They are usually round or oval. Even if we dismiss the triangle, the stronger cigar shape is nothing close to any lens flare that I have ever seen either. Something is without a doubt strange about this object. ~SheopleNation



Typically lens flare is spherical...but in this case it would be odd for it to be in a triangle form...but who knows?


edit on 1-1-2012 by jerryznv because: ...



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 09:56 PM
link   
That is incredible, too bad we couldn't get a clearer picture.

What a way to ring in 2012 huh?



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 10:07 PM
link   
Ok .... WTF ?
I've listened to all arguments as to what this is.
At first I thought PauliGirl nailed it with an artifact explanation.
But then I went back and I looked again. I think it's an object .
It set itself too far apart to be a lens flare, IMO.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 10:08 PM
link   
reply to post by jerryznv
 

I don't think that's a real image but I do see a hexagon there.
We need to understand that the images from STEREO have undergone quite a lot of processing.

edit on 1/1/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by jerryznv
 

I don't think that's a real image but I do see a hexagon there.


It's not a real image Phage...just an example of common lens flare...I suppose I could have used a real photo but I thought this depicted it better!

Actually that is a computer generated model of lens flare...for emphasis on the spherical shape...definitely not a real photo!

Good call though...nailed that one!


Here is the real deal:


edit on 1-1-2012 by jerryznv because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by miniatus

Originally posted by OUNjahhryn
reply to post by Violence
 


the video poster says it in the second video. closer to the end. the two balls of light with big vertical black lines are earth and venus (according to the video poster)


But we're still looking at a two dimensional image.. we can't tell the heading of this alleged object, there's absolutely no way to determine where it's going, unless of course we were existing in a game of asteroids =)



Why do you believe this? The guy in the video points out Earth and Venus near the end, and it's heading straight for Earth. Not that I care. We're so F'd up now it better be Jesus's personal savior craft, or we've pretty much had it anyway.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 11:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by thetiler
Looks like a possible cloaked craft trying to disguise itself and the transparency is leaking through.When you have a a malfunctioning in the cloaking of these very advanced alien technologies you can get all kinds of refraction's. Or maybe it's nasa wanting to join the cloaking game and just trying new ideas.


IF the image is real, and cloaked, and is a fairly massive object, then lightwaves passing near it would be distorted by it's mass, so the cloaking isn't perfect at long distances.
But if it was heading towards Earth, it would simply get bigger, not move from right to left, unless this film was taken on Pluto

Let's prepare a warm welcome for our Anunaki masters

edit on 1-1-2012 by playswithmachines because: Typo




posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 11:15 PM
link   
Also keep in mind that we're talking about INTERNAL REFLECTION and light bouncing off the barrel of the camera .. this can cause unusual optical artifacts with the lens flares..This isn't like just aiming your average camera at the sun and shooting.. Couple that with the fact that this artifact ONLY appears on the image that has been processed ( the embossed image ) .. You don't see this "object" in the second camera aimed at the same space... this means there's no object there..

This narrows down the possibilities

A) It's either an internal light reflection in the first camera that isn't in the second camera, entirely possible since they are separate devices.

B) It's an artifact introduced by the processing that the image is going through

Or as I suspect

C) A combination of A and B

There's clearly not actually an object there...


edit on 1/1/2012 by miniatus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by sealing
Ok .... WTF ?
I've listened to all arguments as to what this is.
At first I thought PauliGirl nailed it with an artifact explanation.
But then I went back and I looked again. I think it's an object .
It set itself too far apart to be a lens flare, IMO.


Did you see the two links I posted on page 7? .. I show you one image that is processed ( that shows this supposed object ) and another from a different camera aimed at the same space, at the same time.. that clearly shows no object .. I also posted another link that explains a phenomena called "internal light reflection" .. it really summed up what we're seeing for me..

Either way it goes.. there's no object there.. it has to be a digital artifact from processing, internal light reflection, or both.. at least as far as I'm concerned... I see no object in the untouched image.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 11:20 PM
link   
reply to post by miniatus
 





INTERNAL REFLECTION


How do you know that?

Really how...could it be what I described earlier...possibly...that makes it external.

How do you really know that is internal...or is that your best guess?
edit on 1-1-2012 by jerryznv because: ...



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 11:22 PM
link   
reply to post by jerryznv
 


Because it fits, and is a common occurrence.. there's a page on NASA that goes into explaining it.. these sort of interesting "artifacts" appear all the time in these particular images.. at least from what I've read.

Besides.. why wouldn't it appear in the second image if it were external? .. that makes no sense to me.. any theories there?

I'm not saying I'm right, but I'm personally satisfied by this reasoning.. not everyone needs to be =)
edit on 1/1/2012 by miniatus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by miniatus
reply to post by jerryznv
 


Because it fits, and is a common occurrence.. there's a page on NASA that goes into explaining it.. these sort of interesting "artifacts" appear all the time in these particular images.. at least from what I've read.

Besides.. why wouldn't it appear in the second image if it were external? .. that makes no sense to me.. any theories there?

edit on 1/1/2012 by miniatus because: (no reason given)


I have theories...the one I talked about earlier...but without a given possibility that it is plausible...then no I have no other theories!



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 11:28 PM
link   
Perhaps a catptured image of a crystal moving through an image and not visible to the other camera at the same angle....plausible...yes!

So I am not saying I am right either but I am not so quick to dismiss it either!



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 11:29 PM
link   
reply to post by jerryznv
 


It could very well be an object that is so small that only one of the two devices picked it up which would explain why Hi1 didn't observe it but Hi2 did .. but it being there for four days straight seems unlikely if it were an actual physical object that near the camera.

If it were a large physical object far away I would expect both devices ( hi1 and hi2 ) to have picked it up ..

I don't know.. I'm theoried out =)




top topics



 
96
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join