Hey... NASA More UFOs!

reply to post by free_spirit


Thanks for posting the pic free spirit! it's a good one and I see what you mean about the size relation, good call

reply to post by MrSmith


Sorry you feel that way, ya know it's still only as good as the content members post...Ahemmm (like your off topic) one liner, please contribute to the topic at hand we'd love to hear your opinions otherwise please feel free to read and not contribute, This video is great footage in my opinion and deserves more then a sigh.

Originally posted by K-Raz

Originally posted by alyosha1981
reply to post by Jim Scott

 

Take orbs for example - i believe they are electrical phenomena not understood yet. They often happen near volcanos and fault lines. They can bee seen, and are easily detectable, so not pretty good for being "probes"

Ufo orbs are much more than electricty, they are an intelligent thing that can organise, can contact in sequences back, more importantly they are connected to great motherships so maybe they are indeed probes.

reply to post by ufoorbhunter


I've always thought they were probes of some kind either the orb is a ship itself and pioleted or it's unmanned and part of the greater ship! I believe some of the orbs in the video may indeed be these probes watching the shuttle missions.

Originally posted by JimOberg

Thanks for the ungarble. The full account is at
www.parkes.atnf.csiro.au...
and describes how the two Australian sites and the Goldstone site were receiving lunar TV, and the best was being selected in real time for release from Houston.

Unfortunately yes, that is how they did it, putting a camera in front of a monitor that displayed the 10fps 320 line video signal from the LM, while the camera itself was the standard NTSC 525 line 30fps format.

Originally posted by JimOberg
The fuzzy images we see now on newsreels were recorded by filming a TV monitor, but the signals originally broadcast were clearer. What was missing then was high-quality VIDEO-to-video recording.

Part of the fuzzy result was the cameras at that time used Vidicon image tubes, which were the best for that period, but in themselves were quite complex to adjust and peak out for best performance. Since the electronics utilized bulk components such as tubes and coils, which were always subject to "drift", it was not uncommon that even a correctly adjusted camera would drift off adjustment rather quickly. This drift off of spec would cause the old Vidicon image tubes to produce image lag, or in those days it was termed as "image smear".

Since these cameras were looking at a monitor, the slight "smear" we see when Armstrong goes down the ladder and makes that leap was probably due to the camera drifting off adjustment, though it was most probably adjusted correctly prior to Armstrongs' famous leap for mankind. The camera was looking at that monitor for some time before the networks picked up the feed, and its highly probable the camera (NTSC 525 unit) was off spec which contributed to the fuzzy and smear video everyone had seen on their tv screens. If the camera had been re-adjusted just prior to Armstrong making the leap, the smear would have been less apparent as well as the fuzziness reduced somewhat.

Originally posted by JimOberg
RF's statement about conversion capabilities seems correct, although the technology of it may well have involved video scanning of another screen, rather than direct digital processing. My account of the source of the broadcast video was influenced by a garbled account of the RECORDING of the video.

The analog converters could have been connected directly, and probably was prior to the landing and first man on the moon broadcast, but I suspect that what they ran into was the vertical scan frequency difference issue between the 10fps 320 line signal and the NTSC 525 30fps standard, which would have resulted in a vertical rolling line on the output of the 525 end. So they resorted to the indirect method of using a camera in front of a monitor, which as long as the monitor vertical display frequency was the same..ie 60 cycles, then the camera also at 60 cycles vertical frequency rate (59.5945), the vertical bar roll would have been minimized if not completely eliminated.

The old analog systems required constant adjustments to maintain specification. Television engineers sat at consoles, always adjusting camera control units, sync generators, distribution amps and even an engineer out at the transmitter site, constantly "tweaking and peaking".

The good old ol days of analog! It was amazing the stuff worked as well as it did!

Originally posted by JimOberg
It was worth checking, as is any other instance of any of our aging memories.

RF, you helped me get back closer to reality. For that, I owe you. Thanks. I'll try to do the same for you, and pitch it to make it acceptable.

No problem. I appreciate it.

Originally posted by JimOberg
Now, what again are the implications of these video qualities that we were arguing about?

I too would like to see the video recordings of the 10 fps 320 line video feed, which raises a whole different subject of discussion as to what happend to those 2 inch reels of Quad video recordings. The 2 inch Quad format was the standard of the time, using 2 inch wide magnetic tape and recorded on massive machines, some of which were bigger than a refridgerator. They had to use an elaborate air system for the video head bearings that required a very extensive air cleaning and dryer system. Those things were noisy as all get out, took at least 4 guys to roll one of them around, and had support equipment mounted in seperate racks.

They used to be refered to as "FRED's"...or Freaking Rediculous Electronic Device.

2 Inch Quadraplex Video Format

Bosch 2 Inch Video Recorder monster.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0296d10d843f.jpg[/atsimg]

Ampex AVR 1000 B

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/efd1a8b4c3a7.jpg[/atsimg]

A portable version

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/856180fe0a34.jpg[/atsimg]

The 2 Inch Quadraplex reel of tape vs a DV-8 digital tape

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/9bce01d270db.jpg[/atsimg]



Cheers!!!!

[edit on 8-3-2009 by RFBurns]

reply to post by RFBurns


now thats some great information there RFBurns! as always great contribution

Originally posted by alyosha1981
reply to post by RFBurns

 

now thats some great information there RFBurns! as always great contribution

Thanks. I remember standing in front of those monsters day after day constantly adjusting them to keep them in spec, listening to the swishing noise of the air handler system, the loud "click and bang" of the relays and servos.

In TV stations "tape rooms", where these machines were located, it was quite common that the room was a sound proof room isolated from the rest of the facility to prevent all the noise generated by these rediculous things from being picked up by microphones in the studios.

They were rediculous, but they worked extremely well and produced extremely high quality video. The high resolution versions (1050 line 60fps) were capable of producing aspect ratios of 16x9 widescreen with 1,050 lines of resolution at 60 frames per second, and would compare with today's HDTV 1080i image quality.


Cheers!!!!

reply to post by RFBurns


Thanks for the info! I work in TV too.

Originally posted by free_spirit

Originally posted by alyosha1981

To my knowledge no still shots of that object are available to be scrutinized, if there is
then I would love to hear the results, as I'm no image expert.

Here it is at your request, courtesy of NASA. From STS-120 shuttle Discovery landing
on November 7, 2007.

I made the zooming to the object in question. It's very simple just compare the size of
shuttle Discovery and the object and you have it. Unless this is some unknown gigantic
prehistoric pelican that came from nowhere confronting Discovery in it's path and
suddenly stood still, I don't think so. Click on the image for full size.

Good thread alyosha1981.

I hope that you are not serious! A mosquito can appear bigger that the shuttle if it is a lot closer to the camera

Originally posted by Nichiren
I hope that you are not serious! A mosquito can appear bigger that the shuttle if it is a lot closer to the camera

Agreed.

You wouldn't happen to have a better version of the STS-120 landing video file would you?

*Perhaps a better quality version or even a still frame of the video that would allow you (or one of us) to zoom in and determine if this object is indeed a bird or a mosquito near to the camera.

(If it's a bird, I'd speculate that it was a hummingbird. However, I have very little data on which to base such an assessment and, as such, I am currently unable to provide a conclusion that I would deem as being satisfactorily researched)

[edit on 8-3-2009 by Exuberant1]

Originally posted by ufoorbhunter
reply to post by Majorion

 

The pulsating/blinking effect is bang on ufo orb style. That's how they act. The more the evidence comes out from TPTB (NASA) the more believeable it is to the general public. Those pulstaing ufo orbs on this footage do share the same visuals. Interesting stuff and defo not buzzard vultures lol!

NO one has claimed that they are buzzards or birds.

Watch the entire clip. Where maussan claims 2 black blobs are UFO's near the end of the clip, is what is being referred to.

They are neither pulsating, flickering, in space nor imo, anything to do with UFO's.

Thats the problem with the likes of maussan, escamilla, meier, lear et al. They muddy the water with things that prevent people from seeing with their own eyes, and then in an effort to substantiate their beliefs, they close their minds to anything else.

I like to think of the orb's in space as something other than the generic 'debris' explanation. Not all of it, but certainly some of it.

I also don't like to accept every single thing as extre-terrestrial/black op. Some of the time, a bird is just a bird.

When people refuse to look with their own eyes and take onboard everything from someone elses dramatic explanations, it doesn't do anyone any good.

Pretty soon we have "moon breathing soul catching aliens mining helium3 on the dark side of the moon, wagging their fingers at astronauts warning them not to come back - Prove to me there isn't!!" arguments...

My 2c.

reply to post by RFBurns


There are objects in some NASA videos that exhibit the sort of behaviour one witnesses when observing certain organisms under the microscope, albeit in a different visual spectrum than the one which our eyes perceive and on a much larger scale.

Despite their size, when one observes their behavior and movement it becomes obvious that they are acting just like the microorganisms of our biological sphere.
(As evidence/proof, I cite The STS-75 tether video which was filmed in a different visual spectrum than the one you and I are capable of seeing - and wherein the aforementioned behaviors and movements can be found to be exhibited by a multitude of these organisms)

These 'critters' appear to be more readily detected by cameras filming in the infrared and UV spectrum. However, these organisms have also been photographed in the spectrum humans are capable of seeing in.

Here are a few excellent examples of one such critter,which was taken from STS-115 and which is visible to the unaided eye - this one is also reflecting in the visible spectrum:


(Image Hosted by myself on Myspace)

I wonder how these critters would appear in infrared whilst also visible in the normal range of human sight....

*Also, I would like to direct any interested members to the thread '‘Alien Donuts’ In Space! Too Much Of A Coincidence To Be Debunked?" - a thread wherein a proponderance of evidence has been amassed that substantiates the 'critter'/living organism hypothesis in regards to the identity of the notched, donut-shaped objects present during the tether mission (STS-75) and STS-115 (see above photos).

[edit on 8-3-2009 by Exuberant1]

reply to post by free_spirit


It looks like you forgot about perspective, and knowing that a turkey vulture can have a 6 feet wing span, it is not needed for one of those birds to be much closer to the camera to look that size.

And here is a better version of that video.

Also, in this photo, there are some more of those birds flying around, as usual.

First of all, Thanks OP for that clip.
That video was one good one. Have never seen it before.

I am also not surprised that Phage and SaviorComplex was fast to jump into this thread.

Anyway, one thing I don't understand is how many of you keep arguing about J. Maussan. Why??

The footage would be the same no matter who delivers it. The difference is that if the speaker would say, "It is debri" or "It is lens flares and birds" then this thread would have looked different. Then the sceptical persons in here would see it as pure evidence blah blah.

Now, the table has turned and Maussan speaks of his own belief of what we see on the screen. He is then ( in here ) instantly ridiculed and classed as a hoaxer etc. Why?
Because he believes something that others don't.
We should embrace and honor those who have the ability to think "out side the box", not dragging them down the our own perception we claim to call reality.

So leave Maussan's belief out and concentrate on what we see in the video.

I very much believe in these things, however, I lean more towards reflections of some kinda for one reason only. Try slide the searcher on the video where those objects emerge from thin air and fades out again. You'll notice that they move in the exact same path as the obvious lens flares and also the shuttle itself. It looks weird.

But there are sections in this clip that is quite intruiging.
The bird clip, hmm... not entirely convinced it is a bird. That would be one big bird or one tiny space shuttle. but then again, hard to tell either way cause it is hard to say where the object is in perspective of the shuttle. Is it closer or further? Who knows.

Colliding Satellites. This story is one weird one.
I have a VERY hard time to believe that 2 in reference to the earth tiny satellites would hit each other spot on without external interference when we have hundreds of planes in our extremely thin atmosphere flying around everyday without colliding in mid air.
The planes flies in "layers" so a collisions should be impossible.

Now why would our MIT scientist shoot up satellites and put them in orbit around the Earth and the same "layer" so they have a minimum chance of colliding ( and then there are plenty more room in upper atmosphere and space than down here ), when they can put it up there i such manner that it has zero chance of colliding with anything other than space debri.

And to end this, I am still amazed how hard it is for some to let people believe. they just HAVE to come up with alot of "logical" explanations and claim them to be the ultimate correct solution to it all.

You septics are quite allowed to say your words here of what you believe, but for heavens sake, don't try to enforce it on others and ridicule them when they disagree with you, because it doesn't matter how logical your beliefs are, they need just as much proof as anything else. Being logical is not proof enough.

So yes it COULD be birds, dust, ice particles and other crap that floating around, it could be tampons for all I care, but we also need to consider these things to be other than earthly as well.

None of it can't be proved or disproved as birds or UFO's.

So can we all be good ATS'rs now and keep on speculate and imagine what it could be, what we like it to be etc and stop discussing Maussan for instance.

Thanks.

Starrd and Flggd

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by free_spirit

 

It looks like you forgot about perspective, and knowing that a turkey vulture can have a 6 feet wing span, it is not needed for one of those birds to be much closer to the camera to look that size.

And here is a better version of that video.

Also, in this photo, there are some more of those birds flying around, as usual.

Well, yeah. Seems birds are what is shown in OP's video then. =)

Originally posted by alyosha1981
jim I'm not so sure providing links to tainted MSM sites will do much to bolster your claims, unless of course you believe we're all mindless sleeping sheeple

Why are my articles "tainted"? What kind of closed-minded bigotry is that?

Originally posted by Akezzon
Anyway, one thing I don't understand is how many of you keep arguing about J. Maussan. Why??

I agree.

Although I do not consider him a good analyst of videos and photos (it looks like he accepts too much while asking too little), he is a good source of videos and photos, we just have to ignore his opinions about them, if we think he may try to "lead" us to a conclusion, that is why I see most UFO videos without any sound.

I very much believe in these things, however, I lean more towards reflections of some kinda for one reason only. Try slide the searcher on the video where those objects emerge from thin air and fades out again. You'll notice that they move in the exact same path as the obvious lens flares and also the shuttle itself. It looks weird.

I did that when I first saw the video, and I think you may be right. Another thing is that the "object" appears in a similar position, slightly rotated, when there is no up or down in space.

That would be one big bird or one tiny space shuttle. but then again, hard to tell either way cause it is hard to say where the object is in perspective of the shuttle. Is it closer or further? Who knows.

Considering that they usually have helicopters flying around that area (I suppose it was from one of those that the video was taken), and several people looking up, an unexpected object would be easy to spot and difficult to hide, that is another reason I think it was just a bird.

Now why would our MIT scientist shoot up satellites and put them in orbit around the Earth and the same "layer" so they have a minimum chance of colliding ( and then there are plenty more room in upper atmosphere and space than down here ), when they can put it up there i such manner that it has zero chance of colliding with anything other than space debri.

I am not an expert on celestial mechanics, but I think that the altitude and orbit of a satellite is not as easy to choose as that.

If you want a geostationary satellite, for example, it must be at a specific altitude. And for mapping or meteorologic satellites that cover all the Earth then they need a polar or near polar orbit, making it once more closer to other satellites in the same condition. Also, these polar orbits are very fast (they make a complete orbit in less than two hours) so the odds of crossing other satellites' orbit at the same height are higher.

But it's a strange event.

So yes it COULD be birds, dust, ice particles and other crap that floating around, it could be tampons for all I care, but we also need to consider these things to be other than earthly as well.

I think that some sceptics may be seen as forcing their opinion, but at least in my case, when I repeat my theories is because I think the other person is not understanding it or is simply disregarding it, so I try to make them see that other possibilities are really that, possibilities.

As an off-topic PS, I would like to say that I have noticed that there is a new way of posting on a new thread about UFOs, that is just making remarks about the "debunkers" that are going to appear on the thread. It may not be the idea behind those posts, but it may prevent some members (specially new members) from posting.

reply to post by ArMaP


regarding satellites...

Yeah I know it is not an easy thing, but they should have some kind of margins, shouldn't they?

Originally posted by JimOberg
How far does this invisible-cover-up arm reach, do you think?

Good stuff Jim!

It is about time someone asked that question...

...One could reasonably say that NASA's pervasive influence now extends to the space programs of all countries, and whilst the data is often carefully sequestered from the public and it's release carefully controlled - Agreements and Treaties are now made available to the public.
(...who have no say in their ratification or control over their contents...)

Here are the countries with which NASA is currently capable of exerting undue influence, and which have already altered/canceled numerous objectives based on NASA's interventions and policies:

INDIA
CANADA
ISRAEL
FRANCE
JAPAN
GERMANY
ROMANIA
CHINA
KOREA
AUSTRALIA
RUSSIA
SWEDEN
ITALY
EUROPE (ESA)
UNITED KINGDOM
UNITED STATES

*Fellow members,
Here is a web-site with information that is quite relevant to the discussion we are having on this thread and from which the data necessary to compile the above list was borrowed:

www.thelivingmoon.com...
;-) Thanks Zorgon (and John!)

[edit on 8-3-2009 by Exuberant1]

reply to post by Exuberant1


Good post with the jellyfish like pictures.

I actually lean that way myself.
I think space is likely swarming with life. I don't see any reason to suggest it wouldn't be.

I can't wait for the day that people come to this realization on a global scale.


We will look back at ourselves in this moment and think "Yeah, and before that, people also believed the Earth was flat."