Mothership with orbs hovering around ISS - NASA cuts feed

reply to post by Bilk22


One thing that I have questioned about this footage is that whatever is being reflected either has intermittent lights that flash on or off as seen in the reflection. The only thing that I can come up with is that its a computer system being reflected or some anomaly with the interior lighting inside of the room that the camera is placed.

Originally posted by Rubicant13
reply to post by Bilk22

 

One thing that I have questioned about this footage is that whatever is being reflected either has intermittent lights that flash on or off as seen in the reflection. The only thing that I can come up with is that its a computer system being reflected or some anomaly with the interior lighting inside of the room that the camera is placed.

I'm willing to bet the camera is on the outside of the station. That would only make sense. If you need to inspect the craft with video, mounting it on the exterior is the only sensible way to do it.

As for what ever that image is, why would who ever was controlling the camera, pan to it? It does appear the operator noticed it, panned to it and then realized others may be watching and shut it down.

Ah, maybe they're just messing with us

all I can think of now is the movie They Live.

This mother ship, people being dumbed down, crazy politics and the world going to sh!t.

I guess the aliens are bored with us now.

The mother ship of all mother ships !!!???. I nearly ship myself!

Dude, you have a better imagination that my 3 year old... no wait I don't have a three year old... so....maybe my imagination is better than yours!

i know what it is, i'll make a thread eventually.

Originally posted by Bilk22
There's something inherently wrong with that explanation. The camera was not focused on earth. It was focused on the door/hatch they were monitoring. It then obviously directly pans to the object and then goes off line. It appears the focal length didn't change with the pan. Someone that was monitoring the camera and the hatch closure manually panned the camera to that object. Do you think they panned to a reflection?

It would be interesting to see the unedited video. I think if you see it you will find that you have false perceptions of what happened.

Here is a hint: look at the ustream logo in the upper right. The changes we see are very clearly video editing as evidenced by the changes in that logo. I didn't see any panning independent of video editing which also affected the ustream logo.

I think highly of Pauligirl for often finding and linking us ATSers to some great sources, however that was not one of her better finds, so I'm not really trying to defend everything that source says because there are parts of it I don't agree with either. You may be right about the focal plane being the hatch, as the hatch does look reasonably well focused and is centered in the frame, as a focal point might be, so I think you have a point there. However I think the youtube video editor fooled you if you think it was the camera that panned rather than a video edit.

It's such a short clip they should really show it completely raw to begin with, then run it a 2nd time with the editing they want to do.

Originally posted by Bilk22
As for what ever that image is, why would who ever was controlling the camera, pan to it? It does appear the operator noticed it, panned to it and then realized others may be watching and shut it down.

Youtube video editor, not camera operator.

Please forgive me for I haven't read through all the posts but this was brought to ATS attention at least one other time in the past......and I believe it was almost unanimously concluded; we're seeing a reflection from inside the craft.


Do you really think NASA would let something this major fall through the cracks of their cover-ups?
If it's too good to be true, especially when it comes to NASA then.......it's too likely it's false.


We'll get the low-down on our alien visitors, from China or India in the next calendar year (or so I've been told)

Reflection. See the rest of the video (which was not cut)

Originally posted by Jaellma
reply to post by sputniksteve

 

Well speak for yourself. I proposed a theory based on photographic evidence and asked for others to comment on it with backup evidence to the contrary. The only person to do so, to date, is the poster, Pauligirl.

I asked for evidence to the contrary and she found it. That was all I was asking for. If you had spent less time arguing and posted WHY you thought it was something else, we probably wouldn't even be having this conversation. To say what it is not without any real back up data is just pointless.

And oh, by the way, so sorry you only know what exists based on what you have seen. I, on the other hand, have been privileged to witness UFOs on a couple of occasions, so I know they exist.

So maybe when it hits you in the head, you will probably come around. Good luck.

edit on 14-9-2012 by Jaellma because: (no reason given)

"To say what it is not without any real back up data is just pointless."

To say what it is without any real back up data is also pointless.

"And oh, by the way, so sorry you only know what exists based on what you have seen. I, on the other hand, have been privileged to witness UFOs on a couple of occasions, so I know they exist."

You know that unidentified things exist well so does almost every other human on this planet as no one has knowledge of all there is so its actually everyone has knowledge of unidentified things, congrats on being human.

why has youtube removed the video???

Originally posted by HDD09
why has youtube removed the video???

Youtube didnt remove the video, danielofdoria stole the video from a girl called Madvicky1975

She edited out the end of the video showing the camera panning, and proving it was a reflection.



Above is the video she released AFTER realizing someone else had nicked it. In a bid to stop the cash coming in she outed herself as a hoaxer. That is why the videos on daniels page are removed, or because he licensed them to the news outlets for even more cash

ETA: Once again people just see what they want. It cant be a reflection, it moves...blah blah blah. Get a grip people, this was blatantly a reflection, as i said on the first page.

reply to post by loves a conspiricy

Way to go, thanks for posting the answer.

Of course some of us didn't need to see this video to know it was a reflection....

But apparently, some people did, and to those people, instead of saying 'I told you so', which is non productive, all I ask is that in the future, be open-minded, but not so open-minded that your brain falls out. Thinking this was a UFO was of the brain falling out type of open-mindedness.

Peace.

Originally posted by InhaleExhale
And oh, by the way, so sorry you only know what exists based on what you have seen. I, on the other hand, have been privileged to witness UFOs on a couple of occasions, so I know they exist.

We've all heard that a lot.

And we all realize that at least 90% of the people who sincerely believe it, have been misled by their senses or interpretive brainware. Maybe 95%. Maybe more.

I'd love to watch an experiment where twenty people who all sincerely believe it are put in a room together and tasked with selecting, among all their sincere recollections, which one or two of them are most likely valid.

No food or water until they agree. After 48 hours of no agreement, no further oxygen, either.

reply to post by JimOberg
Ha ha ha!!!! Jim, you are such a shill. You are no different from the guy who has spent 10 years working soooo deep undercover that he doesn't know what is real or fake anymore. You are the same person who if the evidence is put right in front of your face you would secretly believe something spectacular happened but would pull a poker face and tell the world it was a mirage and your brain was tricking you.

I think it is time you slowly remove yourself away from providing "sound" analysis of what folks claim to have seen, You are getting too drunk on all the overwhelming evidence.

Speaking about my sightings, I don't think you are 10% qualified to analyze what a group of fairly intellectual, sober and objective individuals saw in the remote parts of Central America. I don't think you need to even scoff at things you never witnessed. Sometimes it's better to leave things the way they are instead of trying to make a mockery of things people find fascinating and paranormal.

reply to post by Jaellma

Have you read Jim Oberg's work? He looks for facts and evidence and takes this much more seriously than many other contributors to the UFO field, and is therefore a valuable contributor even if you don't realize it or appreciate it. And based on a number of cases where people have witnessed UFOs and told many fantastic stories about their other-worldly capabilities, Jim Oberg has shown those to be things like missile launches and satellite re-entries.

So I think he has demonstrated some reason for skepticism when people tell fantastic stories of what they have seen, and there is no reason to think the observers in the remote parts of central America are any more qualified observers than the airline pilots who have been featured in Jim Oberg's work.

Moreover, he has acknowledged that perhaps 5% of cases are not explained, and perhaps nobody will ever make a determination of what was seen in those cases.

Maybe there are actually some alien spaceships in that 5%, maybe not. But since they are unidentified we really don't know. But based on the other 90-95% where people have told fantastic stories that have eventually been explained as manmade objects or natural phenomena, do you at least understand the reason for skepticism?

reply to post by Arbitrageur
I have read Jim Oberg's work. I know his accomplishments. I know who he has worked with over all the years. I know what he has debunked and things he has provided to this field for many many years. So don't jump the gun with assumptions before you know the facts, ok.

I am referring to his previous post. It was a direct snide remark to my response to a poster earlier in this thread.

I, along with 1/2 dozen other highly educated people, witnessed a UFO incident in Central America which, as far as I am concerned, fits into the 5% category.

For him to rebuke those comments without knowing the facts smacks of disrespect and petulance to those who witnessed the event. If he had said he found it interesting (as Phage did) that would have made sense but for him to come right out and make a dismissive statement shows poor judgement and frankly, discredits folks who have truly witnessed things they can't explain but somehow have so-called experts label it into whatever category they feel like.

He ought to know better.

reply to post by Jaellma

I suppose you, me and Jim Oberg could all take some diplomacy lessons from Phage, as we have all been snarky at times. Somebody has to push Phage pretty hard to make him snarky, but even that can happen with enough prodding and embracing ignorance. But I have no argument with Phage being more diplomatic in general.

reply to post by Arbitrageur
Ah, that will probably never happen. I am fiery, by nature, but consider myself to be level headed enough to make sound decisions. Maybe that's why Phage gets called upon all the time to be the "judge".