Unnoticed Flying Objects During Shuttle Launch *new*

Originally posted by Sparky63
Your whole argument boils down to it disappearing in the plume. Its all about perspective, angles, and changing surface area. Oh yeah, and software compression.
Shadows? I'm not even going to go down that road.

Why not? The sun is in the correct spot to cast shadows on the bottom of all the objects in the camera, on its largest visible surface area. If a shadow exists in one frame, but not the next, that would explain why the object seems to disappear. (against the blue sky). It does not explain why they disapear against the plume.

If you had a solid piece of ply wood painted almost the same color of the sky, and you hold it up in the sky so that it blends perfectly to where it looks invincible, but then you tilted it at just the right angle that a shadow is casted on it, it becomes visible. because of dark shadow. that would be ALMOST the same effect showing on this video. Except backwards.. for most of the video the objects are casting a shadow, except for a few (3) times the sun shines on it and make it appear to blend with the blue sky, because the blue is pretty dark.


[edit on 15-6-2006 by LAES YVAN]

Originally posted by LAES YVAN
So are you trying to say the camera has ZERO camera shake??

Where the hell do you get that out of my post? You sure do have a way of twisting crap around ........ some may call it an agenda.

My post is that either everything, or nothing, has camera shake, no matter the distance.

BTW - if your going to reply to comments well after a given reply of yours, make a new reply, not an edit-in to an existing reply. I almost missed this and several others of yours due to this method. Three times you added to this reply of yours with new stuff, well after it's initial post. It is very confusing to do so.

NN

Originally posted by NoNik
Where the hell do you get that out of my post?

Originally posted by NoNik
Ironic then, that these objects have "camera shake" effect, yet the clouds and plume do not. Friggen amazing.

You say the clouds and plume dont have camera shake,... i didn't not manipulate anything..


B.T.W. dont tell me how to post. i try to answer everyones questions in ONE post, as to not "spam" the thread. I quote someone, then answer, then submit. I go back, quote the next person, cut , and then edit my last post, and past the quote, then answer... would you rather see that.. or a full page of multiple posts by me?

Originally posted by LAES YVAN

Originally posted by Sparky63
Your whole argument boils down to it disappearing in the plume. Its all about perspective, angles, and changing surface area. Oh yeah, and software compression.
Shadows? I'm not even going to go down that road.

Why not? The sun is in the correct spot to cast shadows on the bottom of all the objects in the camera, on its largest visible surface area. If a shadow exists in one frame, but not the next, that would explain why the object seems to disappear.

If you had a solid piece of ply wood painted almost the same color of the sky, and you hold it up in the sky so that it blends perfectly to where it looks invincible, but then you tilted it at just the right angle that a shadow is casted on it, it becomes visible. because of dark shadow. that would be ALMOST the same effect showing on this video. Except backwards.. for most of the video the objects are casting a shadow, except for a few (3) times the sun shines on it and make it appear to blend with the blue sky, because the blue is pretty dark.


[edit on 15-6-2006 by LAES YVAN]

Your going to claim shadows when at best all you can see are a few pixels?
The elevation cannot be determined.
The orientation can be determined.
THe size and shape of the object cannot be determined.
The objects are making arcs in the sky just Vultures.
They are the same shade as the objects you agree are undeniably vultures.
How can you even claim that they are the same shade as the sky? They stand out in stark contrast to the sky except when their profile is too slender for the software to capture.
If you take into account the perspective issues that have been endlessly discussed,
There is no need to chase elusive shadows.

Originally posted by NoNik
Ironic then, that these objects have "camera shake" effect, yet the clouds and plume do not. Friggen amazing.

Originally posted by LAES YVAN
You say the clouds and plume dont have camera shake,... i didn't not manipulate anything..

If you can not see the blatant sarcasm in my post you referr to, the you are definately a youngin'

Originally posted by LAES YVAN
B.T.W. dont tell me how to post. i try to answer everyones questions in ONE post, as to not "spam" the thread. I quote someone, then answer, then submit. I go back, quote the next person, cut , and then edit my last post, and past the quote, then answer... would you rather see that.. or a full page of multiple posts by me?

Another thing that tells me you are a youngin' - you think an existing board should take to posting the way you post. If a reply is going to take you several minutes, then yes, a new reply is made. I came back 10 minutes later to see your new edit-in to the post I referr. On a board with thousands of posters, and obviously someone in this thread alone posting every few minutes, edit-in only serves to confuse all, not to mention your own post being missed, as a viewer "read that one already", only to have it changed later. Edit is for correction, or instant modification to clarify, etc, not to continually add more replies.

If that does not make sense to you, as it will to every other poster, then perhaps you should quit posting here; especially due the fact you have already displayed statements of it's how "YOU post".

NN

Originally posted by Sparky63
Your going to claim shadows when at best all you can see are a few pixels?

Sense when is a few pixels not enough to determine its shadow??

Originally posted by Sparky63
The elevation cannot be determined.

Yes it can, no matter what perspective you look at it, the ojects are above 6,000 feet and below 12,000. If they wernt they would be MUCH larger.

Originally posted by Sparky63
The orientation can be determined.

Yes they can, the camera is pointing North/N.East , and the launch takes place around 10:30 am. And famous countdown clock is located about 4 miles away, that is where the video was taken.

Originally posted by Sparky63
THe size and shape of the object cannot be determined.

If in fact the objects are going into the plume, the size can be determined. Through out the majority of the video the objects are of a CIRCLE shape.

Originally posted by Sparky63
The objects are making arcs in the sky just Vultures.

What "arcs" are you talking about? If you are saying the objects themself create a V or ^ shape, please prove it. If you are talking about their flight patch, then that is irrelivant because many things flying in the air create arch flight paths.

Originally posted by Sparky63
They are the same shade as the objects you agree are undeniably vultures.

All other vultures in the video are casting shadows...

Originally posted by Sparky63
How can you even claim that they are the same shade as the sky? They stand out in stark contrast to the sky except when their profile is too slender for the software to capture.
If you take into account the perspective issues that have been endlessly discussed,
There is no need to chase elusive shadows.

I never said they are the SAME. Actaully i quite clearly say that the objects are ALWAYS visibile even when they appear to become invinsible, if you look close, they are still visibile, just not as well, because they become light enough to most likely reflect the color of the sky/ocean/ sun off of them to blend more with the sky..


NoNik , what you fail to realize is that this isnt a real time chat...

If someone asks a question, and i try to answer directly after, but it takes me a few minutes to reply, and while im replying other people ask more questions, the order of which i answer questions is not in line...


For example:

Guy1 : "where are you from?"

--my answer should go here, but because my answer is taking long to write other people questions pop up--

Guy2 : "where where you born?"

Me: "Im from california" -edit- "born and raised in california".


Does that make sense?

B.T.W. WHO CARES, GET BACK ON SUBJECT.



[edit on 15-6-2006 by LAES YVAN]

[edit on 15-6-2006 by LAES YVAN]

Hint...

A little less of this..

B.T.W. dont tell me how to post. i try to answer everyones questions in ONE post, as to not "spam" the thread. I quote someone, then answer, then submit. I go back, quote the next person, cut , and then edit my last post, and past the quote, then answer... would you rather see that.. or a full page of multiple posts by me?

Will likely lead to you having to write fewer posts like this...

Its only stating the truth.. Ive had to repeat myself many times because you people are trying and trying to find a flaw in most of my posts.. and because you just haven't read, and comprehended my posts.

And this...

I never said I didnt want you to point out flaws.. however, I would wish you people would stop trying to point out flaws that dont exist. Or continue to point out things that I have already answered, and talked about. I feel like a broken record about now, I must have answered the same 4 questions at least 80 times.

Just a friendly hint.

Originally posted by Skibum
Just a friendly hint.

No half the reason people make me repeat myself is because they dont read the whole thread... SOME people that replied on this thread HAVENT EVEN SEEN THE MAIN VIDEO. Its rediculous. Its not my fault some people are to lazy to read the whole thread.


ONCE AGAIN, GET BACK ON TOPIC F.F.S.

[edit on 15-6-2006 by LAES YVAN]

Originally posted by LAES YVAN
NoNik , what you fail to realize is that this isnt a real time chat...

If someone asks a question, and i try to answer directly after, but it takes me a few minutes to reply, and while im replying other people ask more questions, the order of which i answer questions is not in line...

What you fail to realize, with so many memebers on this board, even just in this thread, it moves so fast that it basically IS RT chat.
Taking a few minutes to reply is not the problem - adding new info to an existing post IS the problem. Like I said, I read that post I referr to, came back ten minutes later, only to notice NEW info in that post because I scrolled up to review a different post. Had I not scrolled up, I would not have seen your reply to myself and another that was edited in.

For example:
------ snip --------
Does that make sense?

That made no sense whatsoever.

B.T.W. WHO CARES, GET BACK ON SUBJECT.

When it's about editing for the sake of adding new info / new replies into an existing post long after an intial post/reply, it becomes part of the subject.

NN

Originally posted by NoNik

For example:
------ snip --------
Does that make sense?

That made no sense whatsoever.

Then i'm affraid there is no help for you, except for more school..

ONE MORE TIME. GET BACK ON SUBJECT F.F.S.

Also.. If someone askes a question AFTER I post, I do NOT edit the post above, i make a new one. However, If I am in the process of answering a question, and more questions are asked before I submit my post, I will edit my post to answer those new question..

FOR IDIOTS TO UNDERSTAND.....
I dont see new quesions, untill after Ive posted answers to other quesions...

[edit on 15-6-2006 by LAES YVAN]

Originally posted by LAES YVAN
Then i'm affraid there is no help for you, except for more school..

You are creating a problem on the thread, yet choose to ignore it.

Jeezuz your thick.

And yes Mod, I am fully cognative of what type of statement that is.

NN

Originally posted by NoNik

Originally posted by LAES YVAN
Then i'm affraid there is no help for you, except for more school..

You are creating a problem on the thread, yet choose to ignore it.

Jeezuz your thick.

And yes Mod, I am fully cognative of what type of statement that is.

NN

the problem is not me!! the problem lies in the fact that while i am answing one question, others are being asked.. let me make it simple since you fail to understand simple forum occurances....


Guy1: "Where are you from?"

-while I am typing the answer to that question above, other questions pop up, and i dont see them untill i submit the answer--

Guy2: "where where you born?"

Guy3: "Have you ever killed someone before?"

Me: "im from california" -submit-

-reads new questions-

-edits- while im editing, more quesions may pop up.

Me: "Im from california, born and raised there, and yes 6 confirmed kills".

See this is a "double post". REAL forums actually dont allow this, and they actually just append it to the post above...

[edit on 15-6-2006 by LAES YVAN]

LAES YVAN,

When those edits take several minutes (including the 10 minute gap I obsevered), on a forum that can have 10 posts in that same 10 minutes, it is very inappropriate, not to mention the already said 'confusing' to do so.

Jeezuz man, someone is trying to inform you about the common workings of this board, yet all you want to do is refute it and do it your way! Have you ever heard of "When in Rome"?

NN

Originally posted by NoNik
LAES YVAN,

When those edits take several minutes (including the 10 minute gap I obsevered), on a forum that can have 10 posts in that same 10 minutes, it is very inappropriate, not to mention the already said 'confusing' to do so.

Jeezuz man, someone is trying to inform you about the common workings of this board, yet all you want to do is refute it and do it your way! Have you ever heard of "When in Rome"?

NN

Have you ever herd of (censored curse words)? JESUS.

Are you to lazy to read the edits on my post????

[edit on 15-6-2006 by LAES YVAN]

[edit on 15-6-2006 by LAES YVAN]

Originally posted by LAES YVAN
See this is a "double post". REAL forums actually dont allow this, and they actually just append it to the post above...

Then go to a real forum.

I know the appendatures you speak of, that's obviously not the GUI of this board, hence a different posting method is neccessary.

This board is this board, use it as every damn one else does.

NN

Look at you hijack my thread, and take it off subject, because you are to lazy to read my edits. You want things YOUR way, and when you dont get them you dont let it go. Can you PLEASE get back on topic, and frikken drop it already?? Is it that hard to reread a post, and read my edits? Stop posting so fast and let some time pass, maybe this form of posting will better suit your needs..

Yes it can, no matter what perspective you look at it, the ojects are above 6,000 feet and below 12,000. If they wernt they would be MUCH larger.

So in your book, give or take 6,000 feet is "determining elevation"?Keep in mind you do not know the distance the cloud is from the Plume, and the object clearly passes in front of the cloud. It is not close to the Plume.

The orientation cannot be determined.

Yes they can, the camera is pointing North/N.East , and the launch takes place around 10:30 am. And famous countdown clock is located about 4 miles away, that is where the video was taken.

I was not referring to the orientation of the "line of sight" to the objects. I am referring to the pitch & yaw of the objects in relation to the observer. This is constantly changing as the objects climb, descend, and turn.

If in fact the objects are going into the plume, the size can be determined. Through out the majority of the video the objects are of a CIRCLE shape.

There is no proof that it is actually going into the plume. Its vanishing act can be easily explained by perspective, compression, and its change of orientation.

What "arcs" are you talking about? If you are saying the objects themself create a V or ^ shape, please prove it. If you are talking about their flight patch, then that is irrelivant because many things flying in the air create arch flight paths.

I was referring to the flight path. Strange that they have the same behavior as the multitude of buzzards commonly seen in the area.

Alll other vultures in the video are casting shadows...

Irrelavent, the other vultures are much lower and much closer to the observer. and none of them disappear as they glide through the shot. there is enough input for the software to capture their shape.

I never said they are the SAME. Actaully i quite clearly say that the objects are ALWAYS visibile even when they appear to become invinsible, if you look close, they are still visibile, just not as well, because they become light enough to most likely reflect the color of the sky/ocean/ sun off of them to blend more with the sky..

Here is what you said

If you had a solid piece of ply wood painted almost the same color of the sky, and you hold it up in the sky so that it blends perfectly to where it looks invincible,

You were clearly making the argument that the object was almost the same color of the sky, and thats why they appear to disappear. really though your on the right track, except the color has nothing to do with it, It is the Surface area that is visible to the camera and can be detected by the software that matters.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - "I don't know what those objects are".

Now, for whoever has said that everyone in this thread believes they're birds, let me suggest reading all the posts before indulging in exaggeration.

We have got to a point now where LAES YVAN is purely defending his right to have an opposing belief. Isn't that what ATS is all about? The right to have an opposing belief without being attacked, baited, flamed or called names?

Mods have issued warnings on this thread at least five times, one of the Mods doesn't even moderate on this topic. Doesn't that give you a hint? One of the Mods who's supposed to moderate on this topic is involved in the "argument" and hasn't given out any warnings at all.

Think about it, people. You're not going to convince LAES YVAN and he's not going to convince you. Why are you still arguing it?

Originally posted by Sparky63
So in your book, give or take 6,000 feet is "determining elevation"?Keep in mind you do not know the distance the cloud is from the Plume, and the object clearly passes in front of the cloud. It is not close to the Plume.

Its a good start of determining it, you said you CANT determine it, when i clearly just did. Also if you look at the ground of some avalible pictures, you can see that the shadow that should be casted on the ground from the sun, and the cloud, doesnt appear in the picture. So it is safe to say the clouds are no more than 3 miles (most likely less) away from the launch pad. The fact the the shuttle does NOT take off completly verticaly and it curves north, could make the cloud seem to appear further from the plume, even if the cloud is directly over the launch pad.

Originally posted by Sparky63
I was not referring to the orientation of the "line of sight" to the objects. I am referring to the pitch & yaw of the objects in relation to the observer. This is constantly changing as the objects climb, descend, and turn.

Through the whole video the objects climb, descend, turn, and much more, and they are totally visible at all times. Except 3 specific times, which i may add 1 was flying perpendicular, and the other 2 times was parallel to our perspective. If the object was descending parallel to our perspective AWAY from us, it would STILL be visible. The only time their pitch would be at the right angle to disappear because of the size of the object is when the object is climbing altitude AWAY and parallel to our perspective, or descending parallel TOWARDS our perspective. Half the time, they are doing both that, and they are still visible, except for 3 times.

Originally posted by Sparky63
There is no proof that it is actually going into the plume. Its vanishing act can be easily explained by perspective, compression, and its change of orientation.

You yourself said the easiest answer is usually the correct answer right? Well, the easiest answer for this occurrence would be that the object is fading into the smoke. Saying it is perspective (when you can hardly tell the perspective) or compression (when the compression isn't THAT bad) , or change of orientation.. All three of those theories are way more difficult to prove compared to the easy possibility that the objects are fading into the smoke.

Originally posted by Sparky63
I was referring to the flight path. Strange that they have the same behavior as the multitude of buzzards commonly seen in the area.

Strange most all objects that fly in the air seem to have some sort of pattern to it.. Ever been to an air show? Ever seen a police chopper circle around a building? Ever seen a a bunch of remote controlled airplanes/helicopter at a local hobby airfield? All objects flying in the sky seem to have a pattern.

Originally posted by Sparky63
Irrelevent, the other vultures are much lower and much closer to the observer. and none of them disappear as they glide through the shot. there is enough input for the software to capture their shape.

How is the shadows casting off of other objects irrelevant because they are closer? No matter where the object is, they should all have the same type of shadow from the sun. If there is enough detail to capture the 2 inch thick zip line from the shuttle to the evacuation bunker, at 4+ miles away.. there should be enough to see a 2 foot bird with a 6 foot wing span with about a 5 inch thickness bird at ALL pitch/yaw/perspectives, at 11,500 feet which equals only 2 miles above the ground.

Originally posted by Sparky63
You were clearly making the argument that the object was almost the same color of the sky, and thats why they appear to disappear. really though your on the right track, except the color has nothing to do with it, It is the Surface area that is visible to the camera and can be detected by the software that matters.

This was merely an example of my point of view, nothing more nothing less. If you were to change the video to Black and White or GREYSCALE. the sky would be more grey than the smoke. Also the objects would match the grey of the sky more than it would the light grey of the plume.. the fact that shadows play an important role on how dark the objects are, supports my view that if they didnt have shadows they would probably blend better with the blue sky, more than they would blend with the plume.




[edit on 15-6-2006 by LAES YVAN]