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.

 

UFOs during Satellite launch

page: 6
49
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 19 2012 @ 04:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Human_Alien

I don't want to segue too off topic here....but are you aware that tether was 12 miles long and 80 miles away?? Try to get that prospective in your head and now......do you still think they were ice particles traveling BEHIND the tether? Really??


Jim Oberg does. He was the 'voice of reason' for NASA to explain that incident away!



Saying that over and over again doesn't make it -- or any other of your fantasies -- true. Since your clear implication is that somehow I am acting on behalf of any agency or group, I need to point out again that it's just not true. And NASA knows it [even if you are ignorant of it], since I have the honor of being the only writer ever denounced in an official NASA press release for 'wacko' theories about NASA covering up its own screwups..

Let's concentrate on the evidence you originally presented, and rational deductions from it, not on your imaginary caricatures.




posted on May, 19 2012 @ 04:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Human_Alien
I'd ask an astronaut what it is they see out there but it seems most are under a gag orders.
I believe they typically last around 50 years. By that time the government probably figures they'll be too old to be taken seriously anyway. Right Jim?
Just checkin'


This is the standard closed-minded eager-believer dodge for avoiding eyewitness testimony. "Don't listen to THEM, they're obviously LYING". It makes ego-boosting make-believe so EASY to preserve against any possible counter-evidence. Your responses with regard to dozens of posts on this thread with helpful suggestions about the video shows your level of defiant immunity to real-world advice. Step back and consider how you appear, and how you can alter your approach to reality recognition. Criminy, the phenomenon requires better of all of us, it sure hasn't responded well to decades of the mindset you are exhibiting.



posted on May, 19 2012 @ 04:51 AM
link   
These objects are all perfectly identifiable.

If you look at them the camera registers then as nothing more than light circles. That would indicate their just stars the camera is detecting in the distance and then digitally imposing them as best it can. Cameras are known to take distant light sources not normally visible and because it is digital will put the orbs into the film, their just stars, looks like we need to keep looking for proof.



posted on May, 19 2012 @ 05:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Mianeye
 





They are not moving, they are stationary.
The moving is done by the camera tracking the rocket.


Prove it that they are stationary........

if you can.. difficult isn't? Exactly!

However, here's my observation; the camera IS stationary and it's angle is nearly vertical with the rocket itself because all we're seeing is the flame of the engine so.. we're looking nearly directly vertical to the flame indicating the angle is correct.

The orbs/UFOs are flying at perpendicular angle to the rocket itself which are not tracking at the same angle as the camera itself, they're nearly exactly opposite.



posted on May, 19 2012 @ 06:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Komodo
reply to post by Mianeye
 





They are not moving, they are stationary.
The moving is done by the camera tracking the rocket.


Prove it that they are stationary........

if you can.. difficult isn't? Exactly!

However, here's my observation; the camera IS stationary and it's angle is nearly vertical with the rocket itself because all we're seeing is the flame of the engine so.. we're looking nearly directly vertical to the flame indicating the angle is correct.

The orbs/UFOs are flying at perpendicular angle to the rocket itself which are not tracking at the same angle as the camera itself, they're nearly exactly opposite.



I'm guessing here, but it seems to me that your post indicates you've never actually seen an orbital rocket launch. You don't seem to show the slightest clue about the angular motion of the rocket as it heads uphill into orbit. Instead, you are imagining how it MUST look based on your lack of knowledge about how it DOES look to actual observers.

Is that a wrong guess?



posted on May, 19 2012 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Komodo
...However, here's my observation; the camera IS stationary and it's angle is nearly vertical with the rocket itself because all we're seeing is the flame of the engine so.. we're looking nearly directly vertical to the flame indicating the angle is correct.

The orbs/UFOs are flying at perpendicular angle to the rocket itself which are not tracking at the same angle as the camera itself, they're nearly exactly opposite.


The problem with this idea is that rockets do NOT fly a vertical path (i.e. "straight up") into space. They may initially be vertical at launch, but their path quickly becomes one that is more parallel to the ground, as explained and shown in these posts back on page 3:

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

For example, when most rockets (such as the space shuttle) launch from Florida, their path into space does not take them straight up above Florida, but rather they fly due east over the Atlantic ocean towards Northern Africa/Southern Europe. So as a rocket leaves Florida, you would see it fly toward the eastern horizon, not "straight up".

In fact (and as the picture shows in the first link above), there would be a time soon after its launch that it would appear to be flying "downward" toward the ground, but actually it would simply be flying on a curved path over the distant horizon.


edit on 5/19/2012 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2012 @ 10:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


Alien -"Sir I think the humans are attacking the mother ship...oh,nope,false alarm,just another satellite..my bad everybody!"

Until they are identified they will remain ufo.Classic flashing ufo's too!



posted on May, 19 2012 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by Human_Alien

I don't want to segue too off topic here....but are you aware that tether was 12 miles long and 80 miles away?? Try to get that prospective in your head and now......do you still think they were ice particles traveling BEHIND the tether? Really??


Jim Oberg does. He was the 'voice of reason' for NASA to explain that incident away!



Saying that over and over again doesn't make it -- or any other of your fantasies -- true. Since your clear implication is that somehow I am acting on behalf of any agency or group, I need to point out again that it's just not true. And NASA knows it [even if you are ignorant of it], since I have the honor of being the only writer ever denounced in an official NASA press release for 'wacko' theories about NASA covering up its own screwups..

Let's concentrate on the evidence you originally presented, and rational deductions from it, not on your imaginary caricatures.



All I know Mr Oberg is at no time in recorded interviews that I have heard/read of you, have you ever said "Hmmm, we just don't know what that is"

You have an answer for EVERYTHING that's ever been filmed or discussed. How can any mortal being (without an agenda) say or think that way?

You were hired to be the Michael Shermer (Skeptic Magazine) for NASA.
It really ends there!



posted on May, 19 2012 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by Human_Alien
I'd ask an astronaut what it is they see out there but it seems most are under a gag orders.
I believe they typically last around 50 years. By that time the government probably figures they'll be too old to be taken seriously anyway. Right Jim?
Just checkin'


This is the standard closed-minded eager-believer dodge for avoiding eyewitness testimony. "Don't listen to THEM, they're obviously LYING". It makes ego-boosting make-believe so EASY to preserve against any possible counter-evidence. Your responses with regard to dozens of posts on this thread with helpful suggestions about the video shows your level of defiant immunity to real-world advice. Step back and consider how you appear, and how you can alter your approach to reality recognition. Criminy, the phenomenon requires better of all of us, it sure hasn't responded well to decades of the mindset you are exhibiting.



You know what would help that? Show me where you say "I don't know what that is...."

I would be staying on track regarding the OP but then, you showed up here.

Let me set the record straight once again, I am NOT saying these are definitely space crafts. But honestly?....because you're emphatically saying they're not is causing me to at least consider they are!
It's the old "keep your friends close and your enemies closer"

Sorry. You have made me highly suspicious of your agenda because I already was highly suspicious of NASA and anyone whose been paying attention since 1969 would HAVE to agree with me!



posted on May, 19 2012 @ 10:57 AM
link   
Okay, here's another night time launch, this is the Expedition 30 Soyuz night launch. In the video you will see several times the same "objects" in the screen, starting at about 1:35 to the left of the rocket is the first one, once the rocket is far enough away so that the light from the exhaust is not overwhelming the camera's light sensitivity.

Notice how they do EXACTLY THE SAME THING as in the OP's video. Keep an eye out for each one, as you'll see them starting at 1:35, then again at 1:46 in the upper right hand corner, again at 2:02 to the right of the rocket:



Oh, and I saw someone posting like they think a rocket goes straight up in the air. Sorry but that is wrong, it will start to lean over several seconds into flight. Here is a great video that shows that:




posted on May, 19 2012 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by tigpoppa
These objects are all perfectly identifiable.

If you look at them the camera registers then as nothing more than light circles. That would indicate their just stars the camera is detecting in the distance and then digitally imposing them as best it can. Cameras are known to take distant light sources not normally visible and because it is digital will put the orbs into the film, their just stars, looks like we need to keep looking for proof.



That may in fact be the case.
Thanks!



posted on May, 19 2012 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


I spot the first one at 1:36 left of the rocket.

And in my humble novice non-astronaut non-space science degree-holding opinion.....they looked quite large in contrast especially if they're BEHIND the rocket. I just don't know.

Not sure which side of the debate you're on but you helped my position in once again questioning what it is we're seeing.
Thanks (I think)



posted on May, 19 2012 @ 11:19 AM
link   
If we weren't shown this?



www.youtube.com...




and this:



www.youtube.com...




and this:



www.youtube.com...



Then I would not be questioning any of this.
But alas. we now know better! I remain not convinced either way in what was in the OP.
edit on 19-5-2012 by Human_Alien because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2012 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Human_Alien
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


I spot the first one at 1:36 left of the rocket.

And in my humble novice non-astronaut non-space science degree-holding opinion.....they looked quite large in contrast especially if they're BEHIND the rocket. I just don't know.

Not sure which side of the debate you're on but you helped my position in once again questioning what it is we're seeing.
Thanks (I think)


I'm of the opinion that what we are seeing in those 2 videos (the one in your OP, and the one I posted) are nothing more than stationary stars that seem to be moving in the opposite direction of the rocket as the camera on the ground pans while tracking the rocket.

We don't see any at first, because the light from the rocket exhaust is just too bright to allow star light to be seen by the camera (or the human eye). As the rocket moves, it gets further away, and even zoomed in, the brightness level of the rocket's exhaust becomes low enough so that brighter stars become visible in the camera.

However, the camera's FOV (Field Of View) is limited too in these videos, because it is zoomed in on the rocket. When ever a camera is zoomed in, the FOV is lowered, allowing for less things to be seen in the camera frame. You can do this yourself. Unfortunately our eyes don't have a zoom feature (I wish we all had Steve Austin, the 6 million dollar man's eye and could do that), so you'll need to use something like binoculars. Notice how when you focus on something in the sky, you loose the amount of stars you would normally see (your FOV is being limited).

As for some looking bigger than others, I would have to say that they are not bigger, but some are just brighter looking that others. This can give the appearance that some seem bigger. Stars have different apparent magnitudes (brightness) than others due to their distances being different, size of the star, and type of star that they are.

Look at this picture. The brighter stars appear bigger than the dimmer stars:



You also would not see a whole lot of starts either in the videos, because while the rocket's exhaust finally dims enough for some star light, it will only be some of the brightest stars that are captured on camera. A full moon out at night is a good example of that. Deep Space backyard astronomers hate it when the moon is out full when they are trying to look at or take pictures of faint deep space objects.
edit on 19-5-2012 by eriktheawful because: replace the word More with Less



posted on May, 19 2012 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


You may be right
I simply don't know nor would I purport to know. It comes down to opinions (like yours) and not facts like some others who I've endorsed more than I should've on this thread.

Thank you very much for your concise post. You bring up very good points!!!!



posted on May, 19 2012 @ 11:58 AM
link   
One last point to bring up, and these are based on some of the other videos that you posted.

Have you ever watch the TV show, "Ghost Hunters" on SyFy? In the first couple of seasons of that show, there were many times that the guys reviewing the IR (Infrared) camera's footage, would bring the attention to what they called "Energy Orbs".

The majority of the time, the show's hosts, Steve and Grant would debunk, or discount them as bugs, dust, etc, and even went to the extent to show people how an IR camera can show these very mundane things quite clearly. Once in a while they would capture something that did not seem to act like a bug or dust particles, but was still considered highly speculative.

I would say the same thing about a lot of the videos that are posted that swear that these are all alien ships out in space. They could be anything from very small ice particles that are close, space debris, to yes, okay, a giant alien battle starship. The problem is that the videos are not clear, the cameras taking the footage, well they SUCK, show video smearing, etc, etc. There are no frames of references so we can get sizes of these objects (is it a very small ice crystal that is very close.........or is it a 5 mile wide ice asteroid that is thousands of miles away?).

This is what makes me shake my head when people post SOHO vidoes, swearing that there is a HUGE object by the sun. Because the proper question of: "How do you know it is huge?" comes up. There is no frame of reference to gauge either size, nor distance of said objects.

Are they UFO's? Sure! Since that acronym is "UNIDENTIFIED Flying Object". The only thing we know for sure is that they are Unidentified. You don't know their size, nor their distance. So how does anyone know that it's alien space craft or some super secret military space craft?

We don't. We only know that we don't know what it is!


However, speculation, theories, opinions and ideas are cool with me for the most part. Like Zorgon, he swears that we have a super secret space fleet run by the US Navy. Now, I'm ex-Navy myself, and I highly doubt it. However a small part of me thinks "Hey, that would be cool! Go Navy!"




posted on May, 19 2012 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mianeye
Actually i think those are stars, and the camera movement and the rockets flight path makes them seem to move.
edit on 18-5-2012 by Mianeye because: (no reason given)


If that's the case, then what are the two orbs/lights just to the right of the rocket at around 0:40 to 0:59. Surely if the (red circled) orbs are stars which are only appearing to move due to the panning motion of the camera, then the orbs/lights at 0:40 must be something other than stars as they don't move with the circled orbs.
edit on 19-5-2012 by thoiter because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2012 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by thoiter

Originally posted by Mianeye
Actually i think those are stars, and the camera movement and the rockets flight path makes them seem to move.
edit on 18-5-2012 by Mianeye because: (no reason given)


If that's the case, then what are the two orbs/lights just to the right of the rocket at around 0:40 to 0:59. Surely if the (red circled) orbs are stars which are only appearing to move due to the panning motion of the camera, then the orbs/lights at 0:40 must be something other than stars as they don't move with the circled orbs.
edit on 19-5-2012 by thoiter because: (no reason given)


If you mean the "objects" circled in the screenshot below, then I think they are just lens flare or some similar camera lens reflection caused by the brightness of the rocket exhaust.


It's especially obvious that they are some sort of lens flare when you watch how they behave in the actual video.



posted on May, 19 2012 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 

It's possible that they are some kind of lens flare, but if you look closely at around 1:04 to 1:10 they appear to be slowly drifting away from the rocket, and moving out of sync with it. Lens flare would seem most likely though as they disappear simultaneously.

edit on 19-5-2012 by thoiter because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2012 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


That's an interesting approach and one I subscribe to so why is it or should I ask, how is it, the Obergs out there KNOW that they are stars? Because stars are known to be in the sky?


It's almost to the point where if I post these types of videos, I can instantly read people! From the arrogant to ones with an agenda. The clueless ones and of course, the humble ones.

Thanks for pointing out the obvious my friend !





top topics



 
49
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join