Russian Meteor shot down by UFO's?

page: 2
38
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 06:30 PM
link   
lens flare even in the inverted effect? i dont think it is




posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


If it is indeed a lense flare it sure seems very coincidental that as it comes up from behind and at the time it either intersection or collission with the meteor it explodes and breaks up. That's what I find coincidental.



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by ShaeTheShaman
 

Why not? Why would reversing the colors make lens flare disappear?
Just watch the original video.



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vandettas

Originally posted by Infi8nity
Even if the video is fake....
We can shoot missiles out of the sky, no doubt we have efficient protection against asteroids. Dont fear the up and coming news STORY'S.

A rock is not going to take us out.





Depends on the rock.


IDK man we have some pretty powerful technology's. We have known about asteroid threats for a long while and probably have been developing technology to blow them up or divert them for a long while. I would not be surprised if a science/technology has been discovered that could destroy a whole planet fairly quick.



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by proob4
 


This may be a answer.This is original report.Notice how he lean's to the statement it was shot down.






O/P has his next report on the meteor.He is using the same footage from the beging of the first report.But this time there are orbs in it .The meteor was not shot down, it was not lens flare,it was CGI to try to prove his ealier report.



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by proob4
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


If it is indeed a lense flare it sure seems very coincidental that as it comes up from behind and at the time it either intersection or collission with the meteor it explodes and breaks up. That's what I find coincidental.


Seeing how the camera is constantly moving so do the lens flares. Coincidental is a loaded word that is getting used alot. Now you can either accept the lens flare fact or go with wild claims of orbs/angels etc.



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 06:41 PM
link   
reply to post by rockymcgilicutty
 

It's not CGI. It's lens flare.
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Tindalos2013
 


I never said angels. And orbs I only used as a description of what they appear to look like IMO. Same as a UFO is not a flying saucer, it means Unidentified Flying Object. Hell for all I know it could be some military weapon we don't know about.



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 

Here's my reply watch it to the end ,it's only 48 seconds.Isn't that your avatar?


edit on 16-2-2013 by rockymcgilicutty because: (no reason given)
edit on 16-2-2013 by rockymcgilicutty because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 07:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


So Phage, are you saying lens flares destroyed the meteor ? I'm kidding don't hate me.

SnF OP.
edit on 16-2-2013 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 07:21 PM
link   
Yep, definitely lens flare

original image from video:




Color inverted image from video:






or

ufos have a new cloaking type device that disguises them to look like lens flares.



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 07:27 PM
link   
I see lens flare in the video , but I also see something that looks totally solid approach from behind and rip though the meteor and break it apart dragging pieces with it.
Very, very strange in my opinion .
It would have to have been travelling ... what... over 15,000 MPH?



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 07:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Tardacus
 


Hi,

I sincerelty think the hypothesis of the UFO is based on optical distorsions that have been widely discussed in this thread. However what really is intriguing the Scientific comunity about the incident of the Asteroid that fell the Friday in the south east Ural region ( the NASA has confirmed today that it was actually a small asteroid and not a meteorite) is that is the second important even of this natura occurring in Siberia after the so called Tunguska event of june 1908.

Although this asteroid is not of the same magnitude of the one that caused the terrible esplosion of 1908, however is quite interesting the coincidence.

In the centenary of the Tunguska event on my thread of 2008, I posted the hypothesis that there is a giant vortex or energy that covers vast areas of Siberia, some kind of Bermuda triangle on the russian Taiga, and based on that assumption I predicted that we were going to experience another incident like the original one few years after that centenary, as it actually happened this Friday.

Here my thread of June of 2008, that registered new activity this weekend with the new Tunguska II event.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Thanks,

The Angel of Lightness



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 07:48 PM
link   
Yes, anything that cannot be explained in a video that shows the sky is a lens flare................



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 07:55 PM
link   
"a small asteroid or a large meteoroid, depending on how you want to define it."
Bill Cooke, heads the Meteoroid Environment Office at NASA's Marshall Space Center

Just an extra reference link about :
Meteor vs. asteroid? Terms get tangled when describing space rocks



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by PlanetXisHERE
Yes, anything that cannot be explained in a video that shows the sky is a lens flare................


I suggest this threat. Very informative about lens flare:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Just follow the threat and you see the visual explanation from elevenaugust, very instructive



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by PlanetXisHERE
Yes, anything that cannot be explained in a video that shows the sky is a lens flare................


While Phage's answer seems to be (maybe too often) lens flare, don't dismiss it because that is often, actually, the answer.

More and more people w/ cruddy cameras (iPhones and the like) are taking pictures of anomalies, These mobile device are HUGELY susceptible to photographic distortions/errors/artifacts.

I also know people here are somewhat allergic to Occam's Razor, but it still applies.

TD

(p.s. I found/joined this site for the unexplained aerial phenomena -- and have seen a few 'good' ones -- but for the most part the simplest explanation seems to be the right one.)

(p.p.s -- plus some of the astronomy [space exploration] things hit here prior to MSM -- and conjecture is fun [but thruth is better])


edit on 2/16/2013 by TommyD1966 because: Added p.p.s.



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 08:14 PM
link   
reply to post by bluemooone2
 


Thank you! That's what I have been trying to say all along.



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 08:37 PM
link   


This is really really sad.

An invisible alien craft travelling faster than 15000kps, unseen before and after the flare up of the burning meteor, decides to fly inside the meteor to destroy it, and then fly back to krypton. We don't see it in the satellite images of the meteor, we don't see it in the multiple videos of the meteor, we can explain the meteor and it's effects, and unless you slow it down, reverse it, pause it, circle it, emboss it, chant "ooga booga" at it and then proclaim it all fishy, you never notice it.

Amazing technology we have. Pity the brains used to operate it is so absolutely raw.



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 02:38 AM
link   
I had to join after watching and reading this thread. Since this is my first post, you guys are free to laugh at me and my crazy way of thinking


It does appear something moves up from behind the meteor and strikes it immediately before it breaks up. What popped in my head is, could it be a piece of the meteor itself that broke off earlier? Since it was in the plasma trail of the big meteor, it would not have suffered as much resistance and strong deceleration of the main part, and essentially rear end it?

Please let me know what you think.





new topics
top topics
 
38
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join