1528 replies to this topic

[zoser]

bee, on 03 November 2012 - 10:54 PM, said:

booN....do you mean the International Space Station?

I'm not bothered whether it's the Space Station or not...that would make it 'one of ours'....

but I can't see which bit is being reflected and where the rest of it is

http://www.google.co...XKdKT0QXMoYGgDQ

If it is a space station ... I'm wondering why it would have been included in the video if there was such an obvious answer....

It just says to me that few people are looking into these cases as seriously as we are.  Martyn Stubbs for example never mentioned in the interview  that some of the spherical objects could be storm phenomena.  From the magnification shots it looks as if they could well be (see post 871).

I believe that there are a huge number however that we will never be able to explain.

[Chrlzs]

booNyzarC, on 03 November 2012 - 11:18 PM, said:

...
Extremely brightened to the point of adding artifacts, but it does bring out the relevant areas of similarity as well.




I'm sure Chrlzs could do a better job of this, but hopefully you can see the reflection with this.

Thanks for the implied compliment <immodest>, and yeah I prolly could </immodest>, but your version is perfectly adequate.

I havta say I find it a little depressing that a 'researcher' wouldn't, as a matter of course, actually *look* at the image and ask themselves "now.. what would an internal lens reflection look like..?" before dragging it here.  Yes, the old lens flare - oft attacked by researcher wannabes, but also very often the culprit.

Thing is that NASA (like anyone with even a modicum of knowledge and experience with cameras) would not even think twice about posting such images or bothering to explain to the completely inexperienced that they WILL see reflections and other obvious artefacts.  Isn't the Interweb wonderful - anyone with the ability to type words into google can become a 'researcher' and waste this forum's time with stuff like that...


Forgive my jaded reply - I don't have much posting time right now, and coming back to the forum and having to wade thru page after page of silly claims like this just makes me a little angry to be wasting so much time - time that could be better spent on genuinely interesting investigations..

[/rant]

{added..}
BTW, I now a feel a bit guilty, as I gather it was Zoser who posted this and he has now accepted the explanation on the chin and in good faith.  Kudos to you for that, Zoser - but now that you understand a little bit about lens reflections, will you please try to be a little more selective?

[bee]

zoser, on 04 November 2012 - 08:53 AM, said:

It just says to me that few people are looking into these cases as seriously as we are.  Martyn Stubbs for example never mentioned in the interview  that some of the spherical objects could be storm phenomena.  From the magnification shots it looks as if they could well be (see post 871).

I believe that there are a huge number however that we will never be able to explain.

good morning zoser....

You got your post 871 screen shot from this video...?






.and I'm not at all sure about it's authenticity....

I would be happier about it if there was some link to the source...but there's just a lot of waffle

Quote

SOURCE: NASA / ISS
Released Footage from July 2012 - This is some of the best UFO footage yet I've seen coming from the ISS! This is actual outer space footage taken in July 2012 from the International Space Station. It's very well known that UFO's like to go ABOVE the weather storms with active lightning where they can gather plenty of energy from space.

[snip]

FAIR USE NOTICE: These pages/video may contain copyrighted (© ) material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available to advance understanding of ecological, POLITICAL, HUMAN RIGHTS, economic, DEMOCRACY, scientific, MORAL, ETHICAL, and SOCIAL JUSTICE ISSUES, etc. It is believed that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior general interest in receiving similar information for research and educational.

started having a look for the raw source of this 'footage' but no luck so far..

I don't like the way the person who made the video is trying to draw us to 'ships' and 'crafts' all the time...

this is the kind of video that I would expect Intelligence Service Employees to make...maybe even using some of the Stubbs

footage to base it on. Stubbs is a problem for the 'authorities' and they are bound to try and weaken/confuse the subject.

well that's my opinion, anyway...

there are lightning storms going off all the time around the earth and I'm sure Martyn Stubbs knows this

and has factored it in to the presentation of his videos.....

[bee]

Chrlzs, on 04 November 2012 - 10:21 AM, said:

BTW, I now a feel a bit guilty, as I gather it was Zoser who posted this and he has now accepted the explanation on the chin and in good faith.  Kudos to you for that, Zoser - but now that you understand a little bit about lens reflections, will you please try to be a little more selective?

talking about being selective.....


I think you must have missed my post where I showed you ACTUAL lens reflection on the STS 75 tether footage...(before it broke)

note how utterly different to the Tether Incident Footage it is.

basically you don't have a leg to stand on regarding lens reflection being the cause of the famous thether incident footage...

even Oberg disagrees with you about this....

[Sky Scanner]

bee, on 04 November 2012 - 11:19 AM, said:

started having a look for the raw source of this 'footage' but no luck so far..

I don't like the way the person who made the video is trying to draw us to 'ships' and 'crafts' all the time...

this is the kind of video that I would expect Intelligence Service Employees to make...maybe even using some of the Stubbs

footage to base it on. Stubbs is a problem for the 'authorities' and they are bound to try and weaken/confuse the subject.

well that's my opinion, anyway...

there are lightning storms going off all the time around the earth and I'm sure Martyn Stubbs knows this

and has factored it in to the presentation of his videos.....

There was nothing secret about this footage when it was released, which was back in early 2000, it was available for anyone to buy through the UK version of UFO mag, that's when I got it, on VHS video. It was then played at a screening at a leeds UFO conference early in 2000 too. Again, anybody could attend, there was no big deal about it being broadcast. If anything it was remarkably underwhelming(even back then). So why, 13 years later do you think the authorities would now have a problem with it? ...and even if they did have a problem (which there is no evidence of) why don't they just slap copyright over it so yt have to pull it!

[bee]

The Sky Scanner, on 04 November 2012 - 11:38 AM, said:

There was nothing secret about this footage when it was released, which was back in early 2000, it was available for anyone to buy through the UK version of UFO mag, that's when I got it, on VHS video. It was then played at a screening at a leeds UFO conference early in 2000 too. Again, anybody could attend, there was no big deal about it being broadcast. If anything it was remarkably underwhelming(even back then). So why, 13 years later do you think the authorities would now have a problem with it? ...and even if they did have a problem (which there is no evidence of) why don't they just slap copyright over it so yt have to pull it!

hi Sky Scanner.....are we talking about the same footage....the uploader says it's from July 2012...?

[Sky Scanner]

bee, on 04 November 2012 - 11:42 AM, said:

hi Sky Scanner.....are we talking about the same footage....the uploader says it's from July 2012...?

Hi Bee,

I'm referring to Martin Stubbs, he's released several vids, the first was entitled "The Secret NASA Transmissions" in early 2000. You say Stubbs is a problem for the authorities, but he's been doing this for 13yrs now, most of which is just a rehash of the original tape. they never had a problem with his "secret tapes" because they weren't secret, never have been...so why would they have a problem now?

[bee]

The Sky Scanner, on 04 November 2012 - 11:46 AM, said:

Hi Bee,

I'm referring to Martin Stubbs, he's released several vids, the first was entitled "The Secret NASA Transmissions" in early 2000. You say Stubbs is a problem for the authorities, but he's been doing this for 13yrs now, most of which is just a rehash of the original tape. they never had a problem with his "secret tapes" because they weren't secret, never have been...so why would they have a problem now?

but they were only NOT secret because Stubbs released the footage.

that he obtained from a feed for NASA employees

Although JO tried to say the footage was live through NASA TV ....FOR THE PUBLIC.....he evaded actually being able to show/prove this.

edit...and I think the Tether Incident footage IS a problem for the status quo / authorities...or what ever we want to call them.

that is my opinion on the matter...


.

Edited by bee, 04 November 2012 - 12:00 PM.

[Sky Scanner]

bee, on 04 November 2012 - 11:55 AM, said:

but they were only NOT secret because Stubbs released the footage.

that he obtained from a feed for NASA employees

Although JO tried to say the footage was live through NASA TV ....FOR THE PUBLIC.....he evaded actually being able to show/prove this.

.

If that were true, then why was he never pursued for hacking into a private channel, stealing footage, and releasing it to the public? Can you prove that the channel wasn't accessible by the public, because if you can't isn't it a leap of faith to say he is a problem for the authorities because the footage was secret, when infact all you have to confirm this is that he put "secret" in the title. Also, why wasn't ufo mag prosecuted for illegally distributing illegal content (if the footage was stolen as you say)? Why wasn't the Leeds conference stopped from broadcasting illegal footage too?

[bee]

The Sky Scanner, on 04 November 2012 - 12:01 PM, said:

If that were true, then why was he never pursued for hacking into a private channel, stealing footage, and releasing it to the public? Can you prove that the channel wasn't accessible by the public, because if you can't isn't it a leap of faith to say he is a problem for the authorities because the footage was secret, when infact all you have to confirm this is that he put "secret" in the title. Also, why wasn't ufo mag prosecuted for illegally distributing illegal content (if the footage was stolen as you say)? Why wasn't the Leeds conference stopped from broadcasting illegal footage too?

your guess is as good as mine....I expect they didn't want to draw attention to it all.

Keep it all within the 'UFO community'....and avoid it bursting into Main Stream Media...perhaps.

If the images are travelling through the air (or whatever)....could this be classed as hacking?

NASA is funded by the public...although Stubbs was in Canada....it could be argued that the footage belonged to the public (and was therefore not illegal?)

But it was Stubbs who brought it to the public's notice....



.

[bee]

The Sky Scanner, on 04 November 2012 - 12:01 PM, said:

Can you prove that the channel wasn't accessible by the public, because if you can't isn't it a leap of faith to say he is a problem for the authorities because the footage was secret,

One could only prove that it WAS accessible to the public....not that it WASN'T.....and frankly JO couldn't do that

and he is in a better position to prove that than me....

I tried to find stuff about NASA TV and what public access there was back then.....but it's not exactly easy to find the info...

[Sky Scanner]

bee, on 04 November 2012 - 12:20 PM, said:

One could only prove that it WAS accessible to the public....not that it WASN'T.....and frankly JO couldn't do that

and he is in a better position to prove that than me....

I tried to find stuff about NASA TV and what public access there was back then.....but it's not exactly easy to find the info...

I had a quick look too myself the other day when you was talking about, I too drew a blank, although I didn't look for long tbh.

bee, on 04 November 2012 - 12:10 PM, said:

your guess is as good as mine....I expect they didn't want to draw attention to it all.

Keep it all within the 'UFO community'....and avoid it bursting into Main Stream Media...perhaps.

If the images are travelling through the air (or whatever)....could this be classed as hacking?

NASA is funded by the public...although Stubbs was in Canada....it could be argued that the footage belonged to the public (and was therefore not illegal?)

But it was Stubbs who brought it to the public's notice....
.

Well I think it would have been easy to shut Stubbs down in 2000, it was a different ball game back then, and nowhere near the amount of internet interest as there is now. I'm sure we'll see it differently though, and that's cool One things for sure though, you've taken my mind back to a time in this subject that I really enjoyed, got fond memories of back then.....the whole subject was more light hearted and enjoyable, and you could let your imagination run a bit wild as it was just a bit of fun then. And I still remember looking forward to ufo mag coming out so I could see what mail order vids were available.....thanks for the trip down memory lane

[zoser]

Chrlzs, on 04 November 2012 - 10:21 AM, said:

Zoser - but now that you understand a little bit about lens reflections, will you please try to be a little more selective?

If you buy me a drink I'll think about it.

[psyche101]

zoser, on 02 November 2012 - 03:37 PM, said:

Which science?  Whose science?  The institutional science or common sense science.  The two are not necessarily the same.

So now you are making up terms as well?


Institutional science and common sense science?

Hang on, that's

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Good God Zoser. Do you enjoy doing this to yourself?


I can tell you that one thing I do know is that sense is not so common these days!

[Chrlzs]

bee, on 04 November 2012 - 11:37 AM, said:

talking about being selective.....

Let's be absolutely clear about this - are you *seriously* saying that you don't think that the image that Boony played with and that I reposted, is a lens reflection (aka 'lens flare')?  My post was VERY specific - I was NOT referring to anything but that image.

Quote

I think you must have missed my post where I showed you ACTUAL lens reflection on the STS 75 tether footage...(before it broke)

I am on a slow connection - so I'm not watching it.  What does that footage have to do with the specific image I was referring to???

Quote

note how utterly different to the Tether Incident Footage it is.

Say what?  Even taking into account I'm not looking at whatever it is that you are making a point about, do you expect every lens reflection/flare to be identical?  As a very simple example, in the case of the one shown in the image I referred to, it is the type of refraction/reflection caused by a flat piece of glass/plexiglass/whatever between the sensor and the object (could be a thick window/porthole, a filter in front of the lens, a filter within the camera..)  Try shooting a night scene through a couple of thick panes of glass at an angle and see what I mean.

That type of 'lens flare' is quite different in appearance from the type that is caused by internal lens elements (CURVED ones), where the object is both displaced and heavily distorted and/or 'recolored'.

If you look here you will see an example of both types in the one image:
http://www.flickr.co...ter/2898075138/
Note that all the lights have been displaced up and to the left - that's the FIRST type of 'flare' - the one I was talking about.
But look at the rightmost 'flared' light - see the odd parasol shape - that's a distortion caused by curved internal elements - it is often accompanied by many more, like this:
http://www.flickr.co...den/4346671675/
All of these effects are often bundled together and labeled as 'lens flares' - it's a catch-all phrase to cover all 'unreal' artefacts caused by reflections and refractions.

Quote

basically you don't have a leg to stand on regarding lens reflection being the cause of the famous thether incident footage...

Really..?  Where *exactly* have I made erroneous claims about that footage?

Please consider that a formal question - either point out my 'error/s' or withdraw the comment and apologise, thanks in advance...

Quote

even Oberg disagrees with you about this....

As above - CITE what I said and where Oberg disagrees with it.  Or withdraw it.