Mysterious tetrahedron landing platform at Kremlin!!!

After doing a great deal of research into the floating tetrahedron over the Kremlin, I discovered something even more amazing and unexplainable. Because the other thread on this subject was getting so very long and bogged down with much conjecture and many useless posts, I decided to start a new thread with all my research at the front so that we can discuss the really interesting part of this whole thing... the landing platform beneath the floating tetrahedron!

NOTE: the information on the landing platform/structure is several posts below...

To begin, here are the two videos in question, for those who have not seen it or critically analyzed it yet:





Also, I had contacted a Russian interpreter and had all the conversation between the two men in the nighttime video translated. Here is what they said:

"we should go over that other side to tape it better"
"I'll go outside to tape it better. Can you pull over?"
"Nope, there is no stopping here and we better stay in the car."
"Damn, he'll be so wildly excited when he sees this!"
"I went to this street this morning, and this wasn't there"
"It's probably a meteorological balloon, or an advert I think"
"We should let people see this online"
Then he dialed a phone number...

[edit on 13-12-2009 by downisreallyup]

Also, here is a complete breakdown of the nighttime video, giving a professional analysis of each interesting or anomalous element:

The car is driving towards the left, the driver is in the left seat, the man using the camera is in the right seat, shooting out the left window in front of the driver's face.

As they drive along, the object is clearly behind the power line. The first apparent anomaly occurs at:

Time 00:11 - the object appears to jump in front of the wire. At this point, the car has hit a bump as evidenced from the jostle in the background that is from the camera bouncing with the car. When blowing the picture up and watching this point carefully, it is clear that the wire is quite distorted from the video compression (which is common with thin video portions), and at the precise location where the wire appears to jump behind the object, the wire is actually distorting downwards, blending in with the black background.

Time 00:12 - the driver begins to make what appears to be a U turn, so the camera operator aims the camera out the front windshield, since the car is now heading towards the Kremlin building.

Time 00:14 - the camera operator zooms out. The object's change in size and position are exactly consistent with the surrounding objects, indicating either a true recording, or a very good fake.

Time 00:15 - because the car is still turning, the camera operator continues to keep the object in the view finder, but because the windshield is quite dirty outside the windshield-wiper sweep area, the object disappears as it goes behind the grime on the windshield. By comparing the luminescence of the object to a similarly bright object (the top portion of the tower in the bottom-middle of the image), this is valid, since both the object and the top of the tower disappear behind the dirty windshield area. During this same second, the car continues to make the U-turn, and the camera operator points the camera out his own side window, which is obviously tinted, since the light levels coming through that glass is much less than what was coming from the front windshield or the driver's side window. This means either the driver's window is not tinted, and indeed it is not as dirt on the window can be seen in later portions of the video. Perhaps tinting the driver's window is not permitted for safety reasons.

Time 00:16 - before they go under the bridge there is a brief moment where the object seems to disappear. A possible explanation for this is that a very hard-to-see tree (pure black in the image) moves across the field of view, in front of the spot where the object should be in the sky. Since this is the first time we would see the object through the side window, it is hard to say for sure where the object should be. Plus, because the side window is tinted, it has reduced the light levels passing through the glass. Given the tinted glass and tree, this does not appear to be a flaw in the video. Only by simulating the actual car trajectory and speed in relation to the floating object, could we be sure of where the object should be, and only then could we determine if the tree explains the obscured object. What IS apparent from this portion is that the driver has both hands on the wheel, and the camera is a nice video camera, since it's large lens can be seen in the glass reflection.

Time 00:23 - after going under the bridge, they emerge into a well lit area, and the object is there, behind the lights in the foreground. The reflection of the camera is also quite clear.

Time 00:26 - the object is clearly behind the light poles protruding out from the building. Throughout the entire preceding 3 seconds, the object maintained correct lighting, angle, and relationship with all the other parts of the image, and is QUITE clearly not something inside the car.

Time 00:31 - after going under another bridge, they continued to drive straight, while the camera operator moved the camera to look out the front windshield again. At this point, he turned the camera off while the driver drove the car back towards the Kremlin for another pass.

Time 00:36 - heading back for another pass by the Kremlin, the camera operator is shooting out the front windshield. The object first becomes visible as a very small blob floating in the air.

Time 00:37 - the camera operator zooms in to maximum, introducing digital zoom artifacts. These same artifacts appear in all the objects of the image, including the floating object and the buildings. This indicates that the object pixelation is consistent with the entire image. These artifacts are primarily caused by the low-light conditions. Under low-light conditions the CCDs used in home cams can't pull in enough light, so software is used to boost the values, which in turn reduces the number of possible color shades. So on something like a windshield, where there is reflecting light, and lots of gradient shades, you get that blotching effect.

1:14 - As the car passes by the object, there is a light pole shining it's bright light, with a blooming effect towards the left side of the object. As the car continues past, the light from the light pole moves past where the object is. Now, if you know how the video camera works, you will see that the bright light shining in front of and towards the left side of the object will cause the low-light software in the camera to try and turn down the brightness in that area, thereby causing the left side of the floating object to go black. Plus, the object is rotating on 2 or 3 axis, causing the light to hit different surfaces.

1:17 - as soon as the bright light leaves the frame of the image, the left side of the floating object shows up again briefly before it gets obscured by the driver's sun visor.

1:23 - as they pass by the Kremlin, the camera operator moves the camera down and practically in front of the driver in order to get one final shot of the object, which does appear at the top of the side window. No increasing of light is needed to see the object.

After making this careful analysis of this video, I can state with almost certainty that the object was indeed filmed live. If a fake were to be made, it would have been MUCH simpler to do it from a fixed position. The fact that they were driving gives credence to its authenticity, since the effort to create this would be much more difficult.

I have seen both of these already so.. er.. where is this landing platform?

Next there is an analysis of the where the item is within the Kremlin complex. Here is a link to a Google map, showing where the object is, and also the route driven by the car:

Google map of the locations and route

reply to post by JohnPhoenix


I am in the process of putting all the info into the thread, so if you could please remain a bit patient... I will have all the information up in a few minutes...

Now, for the Landing Platform:

Go to time 00:24 and notice the very bright, well-lit area at the bottom of the image, just beneath the floating object. Notice the triangular towers in the middle of that area.

That entire area is not part of the Kremlin complex. It was constructed there for some unknown reason.

Go to time 00:37 for a better look at this landing site. Here you will see clearly that this entire area is extremely well lit, there are no shadows being cast from the protruding towers, and the towers are made of wood or other similar substance, formed into a lattice for supporting the object when it is on the ground.

The main view of these support structures is at time 00:51. At this point you can see clearly that the angles of these supports matches the angles of the tetrahedron itself. From the way this area looks, it seems that the tetrahedron lands with the point facing downwards, and the flat surface pointing up.







[edit on 13-12-2009 by downisreallyup]

Now, with a keen eye, you will notice that there is no apparent light source for this area, and it is not just a small amount of light. There is a massive amount of light being shined down, and apparently from straight above, since there are no shadows being cast by the towers.

This entire scene is extremely unusual, and it is hard to understand how it is being accomplished, or even more importantly, why it is there, and what it means.

To ignore this, or to dismiss it quickly or lightly I feel would be a serious mistake, and would only prove just how easy it is to hide something unusual in plain sight.

I am highly confident that this setup is there for a reason, and instead of useless arguing about whether it is CGI or not (which is it NOT), it would be much more constructive if we could all use our brains, and try to come up with reasonable suggestions of what it might be. And no, I doubt highly if the Russian government would be launching a weather balloon from the promenade of the Kremlin! This means something, and possibly something VERY important, so let's not miss the chance to do some real sleuthing.



[edit on 13-12-2009 by downisreallyup]

Unfortunately this is a re-post, this is the original

www.abovetopsecret.com...

For starters, I have walked around the area where the object is on many occasions. I am very familiar with what is there. I went back and looked many times at the first video and it appears to me that the object is floating directly above the center of Red Square (Krasnii Plochad - which by the way was called Red Square long before the communists came to power) and almost directly over Lenin's tomb. The "main group of colorful towers" as you call them.. is St Basils cathedral which is separated from the Kremlin wall by about 50 meters or so at its closest point.

Was it a balloon?.. well since upon closer examination, I see that the object is not floating in an area inside the Kremlin wall... it is possible it could have been a balloon, Russians have gone advertising nuts and put Madison avenue to shame with some of the stuff they come up with. However had it been an advertising balloon it would have been lit up like a Christmas tree and had all sorts of flashing lights and lettering.. The Russians are not sublime in their advertising messages.

As far as a "landing platform"... again if there were some structure in the middle of Red Square, everyone would know about it and there would be no mystery. Also I highly doubt there ever being anything built even of a temporary nature in that particular spot. So as far as I am concerned the "landing platform" in the area you are describing is VERY unlikely. I have seen temporary "Event Tents" erected downhill toward the river from St Basils but never actually in Red Square.

My conclusion is that it was one of two things.. CGI done on two different videos... or a UFO. The balloon theory is out because of the reasons I mentioned above. I will add one more thing, people said that if it were a UFO the Russian air force would have planes in the area. I will remind those who may not know of the incident that many years ago some idiot teenager in a light plane flew from Europe, sneaked under Soviet radar defenses and landed in Red Square before anyone in the military knew what was going on. The Russian defenses are apparently perimeter and not designed to deal with something that would suddenly show up in the airspace over Moscow so it is no surprise that there would be no response by military forces.

reply to post by kayne1982


No, this is not a repost... I was a major contributor in that other thread, and that thread has become too long, and too clouded with goop. This is a re-thread, where the information is now repackaged, and also, the emphasis here is not the floating object, but rather the landing structure on the ground. This issue deserves much more QUALITY attention than what the other thread gave to it, in my opinion, and since I have taken so much time to actually research this and put together the information on it, I have taken the liberty to create a fresh direction on the conversation.

reply to post by downisreallyup


Regardless of this info already being put up in another thread i must say you do not disappoint in regard to analyzing this in true ATS style!!

So let me be the first to give you the credit you deserve for your work by giving this thread a flag and a star.

So, any official statement from our russian buddies about what this is and are there any other sources that confirm this event?

Peace

reply to post by expat2368


Thank you for your thoughtful, logical, and informative post! This is exactly the kind of discussion I was hoping to generate in this new thread.

Your mentioning of the person who landed a foreign plane in Red Square is particularly germane. I would suggest, however, that given there is a landing structure, it is more likely that the government knows full well what this is, and has no problem with having it "hidden in plain sight", knowing full well that people may tell the police, and the police will simply have "no comment", etc.

Now, regarding the landing structure, I am not speculating, but only reporting what is obviously there in the video. In order to debunk this, one would have to show the following:

A) How those towers could be placed there with CGI, given the numerous objects in front of them, and the fact that the background is not black, but is filled with objects also. What most people don't realize is that when Hollywood makes a CGI scene, they put a large green screen up behind the area they are intending to fill in with other footage. It is nearly impossible to take an existing video and insert other objects in the scene, where the inserted objects are sandwiched between objects of the existing video, that is unless you place a green screen in the original footage.

B) Why that area is extremely well lit with no apparent source of the light and no shadows from the towers, which points to a directly overhead light source, which is where the tetrahedron is located.



[edit on 13-12-2009 by downisreallyup]

reply to post by downisreallyup


I went back and looked at the first video again. What you are seeing at 45 seconds is a clear shot all the way to the other end of Red Square... the brightly illuminated structures are the building at the other end..and the two arched walkways connecting that building to the Kremlin museum on the left and to the old now closed Communist party headquarters building on the right. As I said I have been there many times and am very familiar with the area.

There simply is no "landing structure" in the video.

I do not know how to confirm whether it is CGI or not so that has to be left with someone else.

reply to post by operation mindcrime


I want to agree, even though we've seen the video's you have done a great job at breaking it down and adding more detail, s&f for the effort and for taking your time to really lay it out for us

[edit on 13/12/2009 by bkaust]

reply to post by expat2368


No, I'm sorry, but you are mistaken. Whether you have been there or not, I would ask that you look at the Google map link, and the items that I marked. You must look at both places in the video where the landing area is seen, at the front of the video and also at the end... these are from two different angles, one looking down the wide promenade area, and the other looking from the parking lot area right next to where the tetrahedron is. I have matched up all landmarks, towers, roads, bridges, etc., and I am quite confident the map is correct. If you wish to refute the map, please give specific marker points, and specific times in the video.

Plus, at the end of the video is it 100% clear that those are not towers of the Kremlin. They are made of a lattice structure, and they are very close together, and do not in any way look like they are part of the architecture.

To pin point the spot in question, you must do at least a 2-point triangulation, which is completely possible using two reference angles from the video. Please be as thorough as I have been if you wish to refute my findings.

Claiming you have been there does not override the images of the video and the Google map correlations.

To make it clearer, here is why the two points in the video disprove your assertion:

1) In the first view of the brightly lit area, we do not really know if it is beyond St Basils cathedral or not, since we have no definitive depth perception. We do know that the cathedral is to the right of the bright area, so logically, if the lit area is beyond the cathedral, it will appear to the right of the cathedral if we go to the second vantage point later in the video. If the lit area is to the left of the cathedral, then it is not beyond the cathedral... this is simple spatial logic.

2) If we look at the landing structure from the second vantage point later in the video, we see that the lit area is to the left of the cathedral, which means it is not beyond the cathedral, but rather it is slightly in front of the cathedral, when viewing it from the first vantage point in the video. This is precisely where I placed it in the Google map, and at that location there is nothing normally there but an empty concrete slab.



[edit on 13-12-2009 by downisreallyup]

Well whatever this object is i can tell its not a any balloon i have seen and also that other UFO Balloon video from russia today doesnt match the one in Kremlin.


Needles to say something big is coming i can feel it.


2010 is going to be a very interesting year


Also the object in Kremlin.

Is not a Balloon nor is it from a company for a tv AD, if it was it would be on tv by now.


So UFO is mostly likey.



[edit on 13-12-2009 by Agent_USA_Supporter]

reply to post by downisreallyup

Well it seems you are convinced there is a "landing structure" there, so no sense me trying to change your mind.

Fact is.. there is not..for two reasons...one would never be placed anywhere in Red Square.. and if there were thousands of people would have seen it and photographed it.

Your mind is seeing something that is simply does not exist so nothing I say will change that.

reply to post by expat2368


First off the reason it it was night at time of the event, secondly i believe military personal were present there at the site, they might have also blocked off the access roads to the landing structure of the object.



Lets see and wait for more russians who were there if there were at the time of the even.

Hopefully we might get more info later.

reply to post by expat2368


Your reasons for saying it can't happen assume that you:

A) know all current political agendas and constraints of the Russian government, which I suggest that you do not.

B) know how the cars passing by the area would respond, how many HAVE responded to the police, what the police response has been, and what the Russian government has done to block further exposure.

You say that my mind is seeing things, and yet you refuse to look at the video and to answer my forensic points. Please, if you want to argue effectively, which is exactly what ATS is about, then please don't use tangential arguments. First, address the video, and show me why my clear arguments are invalid. Then, either I will prove to you that the video and map don't lie, or you will show me my error. If I am wrong, I will admit it, but if you are wrong, THEN, and only THEN can we address the possible explanations of why the government MAY allow that there, and why the mediea response has been minimal.

I applaud your quest to find the truth here.

Your thread on this subject is superior to all other threads on the subject thus far, and for that reason you get a star/flag.

Keep up the research and hard work. It pays off for all.