3 UFO found on NASA beacon files

Originally posted by iksose7

Originally posted by 1967sander
reply to post by iksose7

 

Sorry but I do not believe all I see on the internet. When I find something interesting I investigate it thoroughly and if it is nothing I do not spent any time on the subject. I never assume anything unless I studied it properly and can come up with (scientific) facts.

Greetz,

Sander

Sorry but... what the hell are you refering to with that reply? Care to elaborate??? If your talking about that video then obviously your not 'investigating' thoroughly enough. Not at all infact...

Like the threads where YOU just copy/pasted Youtube videos?

If you are really trying to shoot down the work he did on these video's ur failing badly.

Anyone can see this has cost alot of time regardless of it being true or not.

Go lick the a-holes of the debunkers in some other thread pls, or at least say something that most people will agree on.

reply to post by Romekje


You ask and I serve!

How FRESH do you want it?



AHEAD and BEHIND.

Watch it fullscreen and in HD 720 so you will not mis anything!

Greetz,

Sander

Originally posted by Romekje

Originally posted by iksose7

Originally posted by 1967sander
reply to post by iksose7

 

Sorry but I do not believe all I see on the internet. When I find something interesting I investigate it thoroughly and if it is nothing I do not spent any time on the subject. I never assume anything unless I studied it properly and can come up with (scientific) facts.

Greetz,

Sander

Sorry but... what the hell are you refering to with that reply? Care to elaborate??? If your talking about that video then obviously your not 'investigating' thoroughly enough. Not at all infact...

Like the threads where YOU just copy/pasted Youtube videos?

If you are really trying to shoot down the work he did on these video's ur failing badly.

Anyone can see this has cost alot of time regardless of it being true or not.

Go lick the a-holes of the debunkers in some other thread pls, or at least say something that most people will agree on.

Listen dude. I am not trying to shoot down anything. If you take a look you will find that i support this thread and what 1967sander has found. All i have done is post a video that has official pictures of very large 'somethings' in it and i'm getting called a debunker off you!! WTF!

And as for me just copying and pasting Youtube videos... how the hell else i am ment to get them on to threads i am making?!? Try reading through the posts before you go and start chucking insults around man

or at least say something that most people will agree on.

What so you only say things that you think most people will agree on instead of what your thoughts are. And you acuse me of licking "the a-holes of the dubunkers"

First post here on ATS. Go easy. I'm not a "believer", nor a disbeliever, and every opinion I have on extra-terrestrial life, etc., are purely my own.

With that said, when I saw the "UFO" in question, I was reminded of this:



You've got to admit, they look pretty similar.

reply to post by BlindBelligerence


Spot on observation my friend! Star for you

Originally posted by Arken
reply to post by WingedBull

 

If NASA was trying to cover-up the existence of UFOs, why would they make such satellite footage available to the public?

MAYBE... because NASA must show publicly all the footages coming from Missions payed by taxpayers...or MAYBE NOT?

NASA show the footage first, then NASA can distort them as it please!

They have a 20 sec eelay on "live" transmissions for a reason.

They regularly distort the color scale and sharpness of their streams for a reason.

We all know the shuttle missions' anomalies by now, nasa is full of dung.

I'd take the OP's word over NASA's any day of the week (and here come the flames)

reply to post by iksose7


your not 'investigating' thoroughly enough. Not at all infact...

How is this NOT shooting the messenger?

Making the video is only something you do after you find out something is wrong. i.e. after noticing anomalies by RESEARCHING the images, so next to the time the OP spent researching this, there is also the time spent for the video to be made.

He went out of his league by going deeper into the archives for lower res, but real-time (unedited) footage.

He posted a live video of him doing the process again while comparing the HASH codes of the files (which most wont even look at i presume)

how much more do you need?

Now you dgo make ur own analysis in detail and give us a nice overview of why this is false.

Explain it in detail pls with all the files and steps taken shown, and elaborated.

until you can do that, and you can prove that these are nothing more then artifacts, ur opinion is just an opinion. (like mine or the op's for that matter)

reply to post by BlindBelligerence


Welcome to ATS.

They're quite similar one has to admit, artifact or not.

I still don't get why the OP would have intentionally used the same image twice though, he sounds quite credible and convinced about his work and claims.

Interesting nickname by the way ..

When trying to find the truth, ask yourself a simple question. Who is genuinely trying to lie in this thread? Hint: It's not the OP.

The fact that Phage can dismiss this (and apparently all other evidence) as an artifact is not a valid response. Where are the other similar artifacts from these telescopes? Have we seen it before? If not, how can you matter of factly state it is one? I have never once seen Phage or any other debunker say, "I don't know". It's ok not to know what something is. It's this arrogance that seeps through the debunks that makes me realize THEY are the ones in the wrong.

Come on guys...jeez.

I believe in UFO's and Aliens myself,but arent you guys trying a little to hard to prove they exist,why dont you just sit down and wait until we all see one and then we can agree with each other.

Youtube videos arent exactly the way to go about proving or disproving UFO's or Aliens,or pretty much anything for that matter.Ive learnt that myself after watching quite a few of them.

Stop trying so hard and just wait until something does happen,the way you guys go about trying to prove/disprove this subject is like trying to go to the toilet,but it wont come out,but you keep trying,eventually you realize theres nothing there to get out and leave the toilet.

Pretty crude example,but you get the point.

Hopefully...

The fact that Phage can dismiss this (and apparently all other evidence) as an artifact is not a valid response.

I actually do agree with you Enlightenme1111.
One thing ive noticed is how people take this "Phage" guys statements as facts.Almost relying on the guy for his opinion,usually ending up being what they want to hear as well.I dont know the guy,he seems pretty clued on from what ive seen,but that doesnt mean everything he says is right or a fact.
Think for yourselves and stop relying on someone elses opinion,i see it in pretty much every thread hes in.
He isnt jesus you know...

I know smarter people than him,probably so do you.

reply to post by Chadwickus

Originally posted by 1967sander
reply to post by Romekje

 

You ask and I serve!

How FRESH do you want it?

AHEAD and BEHIND.

Greetz,,

There you go

Originally posted by H1ght3chHippie
reply to post by BlindBelligerence

 

Welcome to ATS.

They're quite similar one has to admit, artifact or not.

I still don't get why the OP would have intentionally used the same image twice though, he sounds quite credible and convinced about his work and claims.

Interesting nickname by the way ..

I haven't watched his last video yet(doing some somewhat related research on my own), which some say has proven the debunkers wrong. Apparently, it has not, but I will watch it anyway.

Regarding the username, it's actually something I do. Often when I create a username or password(not in this case), I use two conjunctive words to try to convey a specific message. For instance, this time, I spent probably ten seconds thinking about a username when that popped into my head. It worked, so I went with it.

Of course, it can be applied worldwide, to a variety of peoples and organizations. That's the point -- provoke thought.

reply to post by Romekje


An artifact can be a UFO.

UFOs are simply unknown things to be looked into. It doesn't mean they are aliens.

*****Fits Viewer Bug Report?*****

I'm not sure if anyone else is aware of this or not, but....

I just downloaded the 2 images you did, from the exact site you did, and opened them in fits viewer. Before I mention any findings, I will mention an odd bug with Fits viewer I noticed. I opened the behind image first. The dark Y shape on the sun is there, and the 3 objects are there. At this point, I wanted to check the AHEAD image. So, in Fits viewer, I clicked "open file" in the top right, selected the AHEAD image, and the program claimed it had opened the AHEAD image. The Ahead image's filename was present in the bar at the top of fits viewer (where you wiggle your mouse pointer around in the vid, to point out the filenames ARE showing), and so on. At this point I went "hm. That's odd. the AHEAD image looks -EXACTLY- like the BEHIND image I had opened in this program prior...only, its flipped upside down..." so, again, without closing fits viewer, I tried to open the BEHIND image again. When it opened, it was the original BEHIND image I was looking at.

So, I then CLOSED the fits viewer between opening each file. Only then would it allow them to open the TRUE file and display the TRUE picture. I noticed you did not close fits viewer between the opening of each file in the video.

My findings show that in the REAL ahead picture, only one of the objects was visible. It did, however, have the same 'spider-like' shape as the objects in the BEHIND.

Can someone confirm this bug with fits viewer?

I believe in this because tuesday just gone I had my own sighting, but, how the hell can something be that close to the sun?? They are that intelligent that they have developed a way of not being cooked by this hot ball of death called the Sun but they are not that clever to find a way of communicating with this planet in a way we all know of and can understand.

They need to show themselves or f&^k off.

nvm

reply to post by Gorman91


Artifact = pixelation caused by interference with solar rays OR "bugs" (in case of billion dollar equipment i'd say) while compressing the images in digitally compressed images (like when you look at an xvid video and see blocks where the image is more stable, and suddenly moves, or zoom in at jpeg images and look at color edges)

UFO = well.. a UFO

reply to post by Qemyst


Weird! I can open two instances of the programme, open the files separately and still see 3 objects on each of them. They have different black - and white levels and the 3 objects have a different intensity as well,

Greetz,

Sander

Originally posted by Kandinsky

It’s been shown that the two images used were not from A and B, but were the same image.
As far as the video in this thread is concerned, it doesn’t hold water because the evidence was at fault. Sander had presented one image from B as being two images from both A and B.

This is correct. The 2 images shown in the video are both B (even though fits viewer CLEARLY says one is A). This is because of the bug in Fits viewer I explained a couple of posts ago. The true ahead image only shows 1 object.

reply to post by Romekje


When an error appears to be a flying thing, then it is classified as a UFO.

Many ufos here on ATS have been deemed pixels or errors.

It's really not that hard to understand.