Hey... NASA More UFOs!

Originally posted by ArMaP
I think most of what we see in that video is also the result of the digital zoom.

What do you mean by 'most' of what we see?..keep in mind, that the video Phage posted earlier was actually a night-time footage of Venus, this one is mostly day-time or just around sunset apparently.

Originally posted by ArMaP
You can even know the camera maker just by the type of artifact it creates (I think that is a Sony).

Artifact?..Are you referring to the second object (red one) that separates from the main object?..yeah, I'm pretty sure this video was discussed already somewhere, but I missed out unfortunately. Isn't this the one that zorgon described as a critter giving birth?..or is that another one?.. because I remember it to be this one.

Anyways ArMaP, I just started a new thread today regarding arguably one of the best (if not best) footage of a flying disk or UFO ever captured on video tape. It would be great if you could add some much needed input over there. Here's the thread;

Old Somerset UK, UFO Footage

[edit on 10/3/09 by Majorion]

Originally posted by Majorion

That's true, keyword being; some. But not all videos are result of camera effects. Check this one out for example;

I didn't say all videos show the effect. That would be a foolish statement. I said videos with the effect are frequently shown as depicting UFO's.

Also, I was specifically addressing the images shown by Exuberant1. Those all are examples of the effect.

Originally posted by Phage

Also, I was specifically addressing the images shown by Exuberant1. Those all are examples of the effect.

...(In your opinion) those are all examples of the effect.

This is a peculiar position for you to take, as Diatoms are actual biological organisms (more specifically a variant of the Class Diatomophyceae vis-a-vis their appearance in the STS-75 video). The object apparent in the colour STS-115 photographs I posted is already confirmed to be of something outside of the shuttle. The STS-115 photo is not in dispute; there is no digital artifact.

Perhaps if you were to be more specific, you would not cause such confusion and we would not have to continually correct you. As I have presented several images thus far, and have included the pertinent details about their origins and source - you have no excuse not to be specific when addressing just what it is you are opining on. Please be more specific in the future.

Thanks in advance!

[edit on 10-3-2009 by Exuberant1]

reply to post by Exuberant1


Oh, come on. I was not referring pictures of diatoms but to the Image that you posted here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
i354.photobucket.com...
The post contains no mention of diatoms or any other images.

Your "caption" (quoted in my reply) was this:

I will leave you with this comparison photo-set which contains one of the most common of these plasmoid bioforms:

To which I replied(www.abovetopsecret.com...):

Actually those are the most common digital video artifacts.

This is what began the discussion about digital artifacts, not the images of diatoms. At no time did I imply that your images of diatoms were digital artifacts.

You are welcome to continue to point out that things look like other things. I've noticed that myself.
www.bestweekever.tv...
But a superficial resemblance is pretty poor evidence of a connection. Because it looks like a duck doesn't mean it is a duck.

[edit on 3/10/2009 by Phage]

Originally posted by Majorion
What do you mean by 'most' of what we see?..keep in mind, that the video Phage posted earlier was actually a night-time footage of Venus, this one is mostly day-time or just around sunset apparently.

I said "most of what we see" because we only see that shape and what looks like two different objects when the (digital) zoom is at its maximum, when it's not the shape its not the same, although the difference in magnification should show at least something of the shape (if the shape is not a camera artifact.

Artifact?..Are you referring to the second object (red one) that separates from the main object?..

See above.

Isn't this the one that zorgon described as a critter giving birth?..or is that another one?.. because I remember it to be this one.

Yes, it's this video, but there is a longer (24 minutes) version on the original thread, this thread. The post with the original video is this post

Anyways ArMaP, I just started a new thread today regarding arguably one of the best (if not best) footage of a flying disk or UFO ever captured on video tape. It would be great if you could add some much needed input over there. Here's the thread;

Thanks, I will see it tomorrow.

reply to post by Phage


Phage I think Exuberant1 was attempting to add a different theory and possible explination to the video, I don't think attacking the root suggestion is a good route here. The possibility of mistaken (lens effect) is plauseable but should not be relied on 1000%

reply to post by alyosha1981


He misstated my position.
That is what I objected to.

reply to post by Phage


OK I see sorry, I am still catching up. I just know your position (respected of course) and wanted to add a buffer, no medaling intended

The light was moving in sync with the arm. How convenient.

Originally posted by Phage
Brought to you by Jaime Maussan...again.
Mister birds, balloons (including flying horses), and hoaxes. One of the men who is singlehandedly contributing to making ufology a laughing stock.

www.ufowatchdog.com...
uforeflections.blogspot.com...
www.eyepod.org...

Ahhhhh you remind me of Rule 3 of Stanton Friedman's 4 Major Rules of Debunkers which is... "If one can't attack the data, attack the people. It is easier."

Typical debunker speak. How about we just look at the evidence instead of trying to find ways of discrediting it without even looking at it.

[edit on 11-3-2009 by Total Package]

reply to post by Total Package


Oh, I can (and did) attack the material. I just like to get the easier stuff out of the way first.

reply to post by Phage


You Phage, take the easy way first? I find that one kind of difficult to believe considering you can be quite complex in your analysis and throw it out there like as if you were blindfolded and hands tied behind your back.

Doesnt seem like your style IMO.


Cheers!!!!

reply to post by RFBurns


What do you think the reaction would have been if I had said, "birds, and debris"?

Originally posted by Total Package
Typical debunker speak. How about we just look at the evidence instead of trying to find ways of discrediting it without even looking at it.

And you are engaging the same behavior you accuse Phage of. You declare him as a debunker, ignoring out-of-hand the fourteen pages worth of arguments he has made. Dismissing him as a debunker is far easier than examining his arguments.

So, how about we look at the evidence instead of finding ways to discredit it without even looking at it?

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
You declare him as a debunker, ignoring out-of-hand the fourteen pages worth of arguments he has made.

Not likely.

This thread is only Thirteen pages in length as of this post....

You should pay as much attention to detail as Phage - our persistent purveyor of needlessly repetitious amorphous-debunkery, which is extremely well sourced when it aids in accomplishing one of his objectives.

*I enjoyed this posts on this thread, especially the first time he made them.

Originally posted by Exuberant1
Not likely.

This thread is only Thirteen pages in length as of this post...

You are so right, exuberant. My point is invalid because I misstated fourteen as opposed to thirteen. Phage is obviously a debunker and Total Package is not engaging in the exact same behavior he accuses Phage of.

Originally posted by Exuberant1
You should pay as much attention to detail as Phage - our persistent purveyor of needlessly repetitious amorphous-debunkery...

If Phage is repetitous in his arguments, perhaps you could tell us how you are any different in your responses.

Perhaps you too should take Total Package's advice; focus on the evidence not the people.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by alyosha1981

 

No.
I'm just using my eyes. I've seen a lot of birds.
I'm asking if you can't see a bird. I'm not telling you it is one, the way he tells you it is a UFO. And please don't pretend he uses the term in the literal sense.

Thats the trouble, people who really want to believe in UFO'S they will never look for obvious possible reasons like space debris in the shots in orbit,birds on the landing shots etc once they are ruled out you then have a UFO but that still does not mean it has little green men all it means is unidentified!

The funny thing is I always laugh at the attempts to zoom in on the picture to make a blurry object a pixelated blurry object some people watch to much CSI it doesn't work!

The other thing is with half the planet armed with video cameras,video phones etc the person who posts the picture/video always seems to be just far enough away that you have no chance of telling what the object really is.

I would love to see real proof of a UFO in just the same way as I would love to see the clouds part a large hand to point from the sky and say I am F***ING real thats PROOF!! not stories in a book but hey thats another subject.



[edit on 11-3-2009 by wmd_2008]

reply to post by wmd_2008


Then why does NASA blurr the shot at 2 points in the video(countless times in others) as is now common practice for them. Why is it that on most missions something anomalous happens? coincidence? I think not.

reply to post by alyosha1981


Did you saw my post on the previous page with this image?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b7506ed65709.jpg[/atsimg]

Did you noticed that this object (?) has a behaviour similar to that of the "UFO"?

And did you saw this post, with photos and a video with large birds (turkey vultures, buzzards, whatever)?

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Thats the trouble, people who really want to believe in UFO'S they will never look for obvious possible reasons like space debris in the shots in orbit,birds on the landing shots etc once they are ruled out you then have a UFO but that still does not mean it has little green men all it means is unidentified!

One shouldn't make such blanket statements. There are a lot of critical minds here on ATS and I just bet some of them do believe. I have never seen a UFO. I DO believe in their existence. I DO know NASA is hiding something - I could give you numours examples of communications, with quotes, that would prove this.

Just because I believe in the above statements doesn't negate that I'm a critical thinker. I will *always* look for the obvious answer first. That being not "little green men." I'm sure a lot of us believers would say, as only intelligent people would, just because it's not identifiable to me doesn't mean it is extraterristrial in nature.