Unnoticed Flying Objects During Shuttle Launch *new*

Originally posted by NoNik

Originally posted by LAES YVAN
All three objects in the video are the same size. They are flying in single file in many parts of the movie, one behind the other. They both appear the same size while they are..

Not neccessarily true. You are basing their same size on an assumption that they are travelling in single file. They could be 3 objects that are different size, travelling staggard.

NN

On top of that If the difference in size is 30% (thats significant) you couldnt tell from 3 friggin pixels especially after at least 3 compressions.


MODS PLEASE LOCK THIS THREAD EVRYONE IS IN AGREEMENT THEY ARE BIRDS


[edit on 14-6-2006 by Tiloke]

Originally posted by LAES YVAN
Yes harass me until I do something that just might be illegal, so you can get rid of me.. thats entrapment..

Boy that's stretching it !!!

b.t.w. ive stated 3 times in this thread that i use CAPS when i dont have time to use tags [B] [/B] get it? got it? good..

No one cares about how you make use of caps - at this site it is yelling; it is also quiet annoying; and a mod told you to end it - what, are you above the rules?

If you don't have time to post properly - like everyone else - then don't post.

NN

Originally posted by LAES YVAN

Originally posted by JebusSaves
Shouting at a Moderator, there has to be something in the T&C about that!!!

Yes harass me until I do something that just might be illegal, so you can get rid of me.. thats entrapment..

b.t.w. ive stated 3 times in this thread that i use CAPS when i dont have time to use tags [B] [/B] get it? got it? good..

Well its not entrapment IF the post in which you are replying to is one based within the conversation that has no other reason then to prove a point.

Also, the bullcrap about your Caps because of lack of time, is laughable.
You have had plenty of time to sit here for almost 2 days straight and post, so why can you not adhere to Internet ettiquette.
Also, the comments you place in caps, if you read them in context are obvious shows of anger, agression and exasperation which would lead to shouting in reality anyway.

Originally posted by Tiloke

Look, when it transitions from the blue sky to the greyish shadowed part of the smoke the lighter grey bleeds over a bit making it appear to fade a bit.

Isnt that the same exact thing that happens when something enters a cloud of smoke or fog.. I BELIEVE SO!

Originally posted by NoNik

Not neccessarily true. You are basing their same size on an assumption that they are travelling in single file. They could be 3 objects that are different size, travelling staggard.

NN

This is NOT an assumption.. if you speed up the video you can CLEARLY SEE THESE OBJECTS FLIGHT PATH. At point the ARE following eachother in SINGLE FILE. There is another member on this forum that pointed out the SAME THING. I will find the link to that post.

[edit on 14-6-2006 by LAES YVAN]

Originally posted by LAES YVAN

Originally posted by JebusSaves
Shouting at a Moderator, there has to be something in the T&C about that!!!

Yes harass me until I do something that just might be illegal, so you can get rid of me.. thats entrapment..

b.t.w. ive stated 3 times in this thread that i use CAPS when i dont have time to use tags [B] [/B] get it? got it? good..

That is not the way we work, you should take the time.


Are you saying I am harassing you?

Originally posted by JebusSaves
Well its not entrapment IF the post in which you are replying to is one based within the conversation that has no other reason then to prove a point.

Also, the bullcrap about your Caps because of lack of time, is laughable.
You have had plenty of time to sit here for almost 2 days straight and post, so why can you not adhere to Internet ettiquette.
Also, the comments you place in caps, if you read them in context are obvious shows of anger, agression and exasperation which would lead to shouting in reality anyway.

Go look up the word entrapment...


MODS SERIOUSLY. This guy continualy goes off topic, and has continued to insult me even after numerous warnings.. This guy should be removed from the forum, he degrades the value of this web site.

Originally posted by SpittinCobra

Are you saying I am harassing you?

No but clearly Jebus did, you even edited his post because of it.. some how you ignored the fact that he has a warning sign on his tag while you edited his insult from his post. Keep in mind that warning tag on his name got there from insulting me on this very same thread.


[edit on 14-6-2006 by LAES YVAN]

Originally posted by LAES YVAN
This is NOT an assumption.. if you speed up the video you can CLEARLY SEE THESE OBJECTS FLIGHT PATH. At point the ARE following eachother in SINGLE FILE. There is another member on this forum that pointed out the SAME THING. I will find the link to that post.
[edit on 14-6-2006 by LAES YVAN]

Man you can not determine as an absolute that they are travelling single file with only one referrence point (camera).

NN

Originally posted by LAES YVAN
This guy should be removed from the forum, he degrades the value of this web site.

Now that's funny!!

Spittin cobra, the picture of the two airplanes, there is a good distance between them right?

So they are different sizes right?

But they give the illusion they are of similar size, right?

So with that idea in mind, laes, why is so hard to believe that they would look bigger with that in mind.

And, laes, even if they were UFO's, to be honest its very poor evidence, as if this ever went say on the news, people would shoot down the story as birds.

So what are you trying to prove, that your stubborn and dont want to feel your ego is damaged, or a genuine belief that these are ufos and you need to get it out to the world.

If you feel like that go to sky news and give them the footage.
You know they wouldnt take it.
Do you think ATS would accept it?


[edit on 14-6-2006 by Denied]

[edit on 14-6-2006 by Denied]

Originally posted by Denied
So with that idea in mind, laes, why is so hard to believe that they would look bigger with that in mind.

If the objects didnt appear to fly into the smoke directly under the shuttle, i might believe that the perspective is making them look bigger. But because the video makes me see them going into the smoke, that means the objects are RIGHT NEXT TO the smoke. And i know the probable size of the smoke... does that make ANY sense at all to anyone on this forum??

In simple minded terms:

If the object DIDNT appear to go into the smoke, I would believe your "Its big because its close" theory.

[edit on 14-6-2006 by LAES YVAN]

[Mod Edit: removed unnecessary quote of Entire preceeding post]



Yes it makes sense, whether that is true is debatable.

Ok, as is aid before, even if they are UFO's, then what?

Its not very good evidence, so what do you want to achieve at this stage?

[edit on 6/14/2006 by 12m8keall2c]

Originally posted by LAES YVAN
If the objects didnt appear to fly into the smoke directly under the shuttle .......... snip .........does that make ANY sense at all to anyone on this forum??

What does not make any sense, is that you are the only one seeing that. You posted a vid and got responses. Those responses did not match your own, at which point you seem to go into a mode of attempting to make everyone else see what you do. But we don't, we see birds, never going into the plume.

NN

Originally posted by Denied
Ok, as i said before, even if they are UFO's, then what?

Its not very good evidence, so what do you want to achieve at this stage?

[edit on 14-6-2006 by Denied]

They ARE ufos. Unidentifiable Flying Objects.

My ultimate goal here, is to get the EXACT altitude/size/speed of these UFO. Thats all.

Originally posted by LAES YVAN
But because the video makes me see them going into the smoke, Edited by MrPenny

Ah, the words.....'makes me'. Precisely the intent and affect of optical illusions, odd perspectives, camera lens foreshortening, digital effects, and etc.. It makes you see that.

[edit on 14-6-2006 by MrPenny]

Originally posted by NoNik
What does not make any sense, is that you are the only one seeing that.

That is why i made another VOTE on another THREAD, to see how many people see the object entering the smoke.. So far...19 out of 22 people see what i see.

Originally posted by MrPenny
It makes you see that.

Me and 19+ other people..

[edit on 14-6-2006 by LAES YVAN]

Originally posted by LAES YVAN
That is why i made another VOTE on another THREAD, to see how many people see the object entering the smoke.. So far...19 out of 22 people see what i see.

Well, I started another vote that shows a majority of people see birds.

Originally posted by MrPenny

Originally posted by LAES YVAN
That is why i made another VOTE on another THREAD, to see how many people see the object entering the smoke.. So far...19 out of 22 people see what i see.

Well, I started another vote that shows a majority of people see birds.

Prove it in another 10 hours. Thats how long im going to let my Poll run. Once I get enough NON ATS votes, I WILL post the link. So everyone can see how many people see an object entering the smoke. Or even going BEHIND the smoke.

Originally posted by LAES YVAN
So far...19 out of 22 people see what i see.

1 - a poll on a forum that, as far as we know, is non-existent.

2 -

Originally posted by LAES YVAN - PG 30
I have 19 people say it is either behind or going into the smoke

Which one is it? They see what you see? Or they see behind the smoke?

Be aware, if your votes tally to "behind the smoke", your claim is debunked.

NN



[edit on 14-6-2006 by NoNik]

[edit on 14-6-2006 by NoNik]

Originally posted by NoNik
1 - a poll on a forum that, as far as we know, is non-existent.

Trust me when I say you will feel like an idiot once I post the link to the poll.

Originally posted by NoNik
Which one is it? Behind or going into the smoke?

I guess I will repeat myself AGAIN, sense some people just cant read. The poll question is...

"Does this black object disappear into the smoke?"

The avalible answers are:

"yes", "no", "it goes behind the smoke".

Originally posted by NoNik
Be aware, if your votes tally to "behind the smoke", your claim is debunked.

Why would it be debunked? Actaully EVERYONE ELSES CLAIM OF "PERSPECTIVE" would be debunked. Because if the objects are BEHIND the smoke, that means they are FURTHER AWAY. Now that would also mean these objects are HUGE. Also, it would SUPPORT my claim that they are NEAR the smoke, because another picture of the object clearly shows the object IN FRONT of the smoke.

Does that make any sense to you at all?

[edit on 14-6-2006 by LAES YVAN]

Originally posted by LAES YVAN
Prove it in another 10 hours.

Sorry, I work in a public school and over the last two days I've had about a hundred kids look at the evidence in this thread. Overwhelmingly, "those are birds, man!!"

I really do apologize but privacy issues prevent me from providing any details.