It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by ColAngus
reply to post by RussianScientists
That's as much his name as you are a Russian scientist.
Someone's just throwing BS out there. No one's confirmed this guys real identity yet.
If you have an old analog video and digitize the signal coming from the analog video player I would expect that one would get a "perfect" (or very good) rendering of all the analog output signal (wanted images) and noise (electronic garbage) contained in original. Video back in those days was NTSC standard (except for special research type video machines) with 640 by 480 "pixel" resolution. (Video monitors of those days had the same limited resolution.) If, back then, one made a video of a high quality film, the resolution of the video would be 640 x 480 which is less than the resolution of the film. Thus I would guess that one could not distinguish between
a) using a 1980 vintage camera to produce the original source video (video the subject matter directly) or
b) make a high quality film the subject matter and then convert the film imagery to electronic analog format (not "digitizing") with a typical NTSC video camera to make a video of the subject matter
I don't know if this exactly answers your question... if not you can try again
Nice. I like how Skeptic Overlord just marked this as hoax, despite the ongoing discussion and interest and, in my opinion, the large number of people who feel it has validity. Deny ignorance, indeed!
Originally posted by charlyv
Anyway, he actually responded to my query. I do not want to quote his entire email, since he has not explicitly given me permission, but I will quote an excerpt from what he said:
...Video back in those days was NTSC standard (except for special research type video machines) with 640 by 480 "pixel" resolution. ...
Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by osneel
Just because you choose to ignore the overwhelming evidence that it is a hoax doesn't mean that it's not a hoax. In two months, all will be revealed.
In two months? What am I missing here? Or, do you just mean that since this is, allegedly, a marketing stunt that the "reason" will become apparent in a couple of months?