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.
originally posted by: moebius
originally posted by: peacefulpete
originally posted by: Jay-morris
Could it be the earth below, and we are seeing city lights? Apart from that, I have no other explanations.
That seems to be the most popular mundane explanation for it.
However, I believe that we're seeing stars in the background the whole time (not the Earth).
Plus, the UFO really seems to make its own blasting sound, as it passes by the camera! Which would be a hell of a coincidence if the sound was unrelated to the sighting at that one specific moment lol.
It is also the correct explanation.
The initial elliptical orbit of the capsule is 204 by 357 Kilometers. The capsule fires its own thruster reaching an orbit of 352 by 359 Kilometers. Two additional firings bring it closer to the Space Station’s 403 by 406-Kilometer orbit.
Rendezvous is started with the capsule 2.5 km below the station. Another burn reduces the vertical distance to 1.4 km. Approach is initiated by moving the capsule 350 m directly below the station. From there the capsule climbs vertically towards the station reaching the capture point.
So the camera is looking down onto capsule and earth below.
The camera signal does not include any audio. So it is certainly not coming from them.
originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: peacefulpete
You seem to be flogging a dead horse, again.
originally posted by: roadgravel
Embrace flat Earth and events such as this with all make sense. Remember that men who have spent years learning science are likely to have much less understanding of these events that youtube posters.
Simple explanations are too simple. Go with exotic.
originally posted by: roadgravel
a reply to: peacefulpete
If your opinion is an explanation (reality) then everyone else in the thread has also "explained" what is going on. Too bad all explanations don't match.
originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: peacefulpete
You keep on flogging this dead horse if you like. But it's not going to get up any time soon.
Actually the most SIMPLE explanation would be that it's a government craft. It would be a better explanation than claiming that the video is showing a spot on Earth... which is obviously not the case, when we can see the stars in the background.
originally posted by: roadgravel
a reply to: peacefulpete
Didn't a poster say hot pixels, not dead pixels. Are you changing that fit your version.
originally posted by: roadgravel
Actually the most SIMPLE explanation would be that it's a government craft. It would be a better explanation than claiming that the video is showing a spot on Earth... which is obviously not the case, when we can see the stars in the background.
Obviously? Your opinion versus others.
Why don't you investigate the audio more, maybe you will hear a person or aliens's name mentioned and work that angle.
Unlike stuck pixels, hot pixels only show up when the camera sensor gets hot during long exposures or when the ISO is cranked up above 400-800. Hot pixels are very normal and they will show up even on brand new cameras
originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: peacefulpete
Simple look at the exposure details to capture stars in the timelapse, a timelapse is a series of still images made into a video it's NOT realtime video. Some of the exposures on that to show stars are taken like I said using a Nikon D4 24MM f1.4 at 8000 iso for 3 seconds.
The video you have in the OP cant show stars the exposure setting wouldn't let the stars be exposed.
Do you know how exposure works
originally posted by: peacefulpete
originally posted by: roadgravel
Actually the most SIMPLE explanation would be that it's a government craft. It would be a better explanation than claiming that the video is showing a spot on Earth... which is obviously not the case, when we can see the stars in the background.
Obviously? Your opinion versus others.
Why don't you investigate the audio more, maybe you will hear a person or aliens's name mentioned and work that angle.
Well, where do YOU think the audio wooshing sound comes from, at the same moment, that the craft appears?
originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: peacefulpete
You kneed to do more research re cameras/digital images/exposure.
If the Dragon craft is correctly exposed stars WONT show ie like no stars on Apollo images.
As for hot pixels you haven't got a clue about those either.
Unlike stuck pixels, hot pixels only show up when the camera sensor gets hot during long exposures or when the ISO is cranked up above 400-800. Hot pixels are very normal and they will show up even on brand new cameras
Is that simple enough for you to understand.
Some of us on here are into photography many like me for a long long time.
If the Dragon craft is correctly exposed stars WONT show ie like no stars on Apollo images.
Some of us on here are into photography many like me for a long long time.