UFO Watchers Claim NASA ....

[Decker]

Here is an interesting news story from CBS in Tampa Bay concerning claims that NASA cut the live feed from the space station when a foreign object showed up near the station.

UFO hunters cry foul over NASA space station live feed « CBS Tampa

Decker

 

[manxman]

Nasa do grey out frequently, that story is a rip-off of the above vid, gets interesting at the end.

 

[Oakenwulf]

Where is the object been replaying it and dont see it

 

[manxman]

right at the end on the left. 4.10

 

[Wade]

It kind of makes you wonder why NASA bothers to keep a feed at all if they keep cutting the feed whenever an anomalous object pops up. It's kind of tease, like they have a secret they are sitting on and want to tell somebody but just can't, or they want people to talk.

 

[Burnt State]

Here's a close up blow up of said UFO; pretty stunning after it left photoshop;

The light oscillations that we see in the original make me feel that it's not really a solid object but perhaps is light based in its origin and composition. Either way, this is the sexy version of it.

 

[manxman]

Secret space program if anything real, imo, but no depth of field to gauge size, a drone,running supplies ?.

How do they get those other 2 drones up there into orbit, the ones that are not secret anymore, and re-enter every couple of years for a service, they are just miniature shuttles.


The X-37 began as a NASA project in 1999, before being transferred to the U.S. Department of Defense in 2004. It conducted its first flight as a drop test on 7 April 2006, at Edwards Air Force Base, California. The spaceplane's first orbital mission, USA-212, was launched on 22 April 2010 using an Atlas V rocket. Its successful return to Earth on 3 December 2010 was the first test of the vehicle's heat shield and hypersonic aerodynamic handling. A second X-37 was launched on 5 March 2011, with the mission designation USA-226; it returned to Earth on 16 June 2012. A third X-37 mission, USA-240, launched successfully on 11 December 2012, and landed at Vandenberg AFB on 17 October 2014.

Is it camo, a drone in camoflage, cant see it myslf, it will be heat shields all around [tiled].
Impressive bit of kit all the same

 

[Constance]

Nasa do grey out frequently, that story is a rip-off of the above vid, gets interesting at the end.

Clicking through again to youtube from your embedded link, I looked at 4:10 and saw lights in the left background; then after a break, at about 4:35, there's a larger thing in the foreground that looks like what @Burnt State posted in shape. Burnt, where did you get the colored image?

 

[ALPHA ROMEO UNIFORM]

If this one is not photoshopped and seen something similar to this type of craft while flying over Asia few years back hiddeing in clouds and this was one of many attached to large object Drone? If so its massive.

 

[Burnt State]

Clicking through again to youtube from your embedded link, I looked at 4:10 and saw lights in the left background; then after a break, at about 4:35, there's a larger thing in the foreground that looks like what @Burnt State posted in shape. Burnt, where did you get the colored image?

"Well, here's the thing," to quote Biedny, if you take a look at the firther developed image from this site: Redirect Noticeyou can now see how the original image of a small square of light, leaving a decreasingy fainter oscillating trail of blurred light behind it, is now a duly fledged flying triangular craft - unbelievable!

These constant calls of UFO's flying past the space station are almost always mundane. Still, they become as embellished as anything Rick Dyer would do, an least in the same vein as to purport such gross untruths.

Not that it isn't odd that the screen goes grey; because, it is, but we are also looking at manipulated video here so what's actually the sequence of events isn't quite clear. Anyone have the original footage? Anyone familiar with these visual amplitudes from the original B&W video from 4:10, as the trail at that point certainly looks like a video artifact to me?

 

[Constance]

"Well, here's the thing," to quote Biedny, if you take a look at the firther developed image from this site: Redirect Noticeyou can now see how the original image of a small square of light, leaving a decreasingy fainter oscillating trail of blurred light behind it, is now a duly fledged flying triangular craft - unbelievable!

These constant calls of UFO's flying past the space station are almost always mundane. Still, they become as embellished as anything Rick Dyer would do, an least in the same vein as to purport such gross untruths.

Not that it isn't odd that the screen goes grey; because, it is, but we are also looking at manipulated video here so what's actually the sequence of events isn't quite clear. Anyone have the original footage? Anyone familiar with these visual amplitudes from the original B&W video from 4:10, as the trail at that point certainly looks like a video artifact to me?

I don't know, Burnt. What I see in the youtube video just after 4:10 are two printed statements against a grey background reading first: FEED FROZEN IN FRAME and then: NOT FAST ENOUGH and then the appearance outside the space station of something close, colored in deep grey, that looks like the segmented shape of the figure in your still image, but oriented vertically, apparent 'nose' upward, which then fades out after a few seconds. I agree that we lack a running video up to that appearance. The video on youtube mostly consists of the same view from the space station repeatedly interrupted with grey screens. I don't know if we are to understand that the youtube video copies a sequence of takes of this same view outside the space station interspersed repeatedly with grey screens leading up to object visible in the last take. But it seems that whoever colorized the horizontal image in your still image represents a segmented or layered shape that strongly resembles the grey image that appears in the space station camera's view we've been seeing on and off before that last take. Hope that makes sense. I've watched this part of the video only about five times so I might be missing something. Try watching beyond 4:10 at full screen size in a dark room.

 

[Burnt State]

What I'm saying is that these treated images are totally manufactured and embellished in photoshop to look like something that it's not, because it's just a small square of bright pixels with an oscillating trail left behind it, probably as a result of the frame rate.

 

[Constance]

What I'm saying is that these treated images are totally manufactured and embellished in photoshop to look like something that it's not, because it's just a small square of bright pixels with an oscillating trail left behind it, probably as a result of the frame rate.

I agree it's absurd to colorize and elaborate that image. In the video following the 4:10 mark I do see a small white squarish area and behind it the grey vertical segmented shape. In one of the earlier takes, between grey screen interruptions, I'm fairly sure I saw (during my last viewing of the whole video) the same or a similar grey vertical shape farther away from the camera, toward the left. I'll look again tomorrow.

 

[boomerang]

I can't speak to this particular case. I can tell you, as an amateur who has dabbled in image enhancing software, that almost any image that has been processed strongly enough will begin to exhibit artifact that can easily be taken as legitimate detail. The brightly colored, course and contrasty look of this one could make us suspicious.

I think the narrator mentioned something about the video being a 'screen capture'. This raises questions in itself. Because we have no idea how the pixels making up the so-called "smoking gun" image may have been distorted or degraded even before they were Photo-shopped. There's a big difference between applying sharpening techniques to an original high quality frame vs one that may have been image compressed (a very common practice to save bandwidth) or who knows else.

I'm not making final pronouncements. Just sayin'....

 

[manxman]

Clicking through again to youtube from your embedded link, I looked at 4:10 and saw lights in the left background; then after a break, at about 4:35, there's a larger thing in the foreground that looks like what @Burnt State posted in shape. Burnt, where did you get the colored image?

I think the guy has taken a screen shot [in dons link] from the vid i posted, and shopped it, Constance.

It may be a double sighting of the same thing, but i doubt it, read the comments he is a well known faker.

Burnts pic is from Don's link i think.

 

[Constance]

As usual, nobody knows.

 

[Goggs Mackay]

"Well, here's the thing," to quote Biedny, if you take a look at the firther developed image from this site: Redirect Noticeyou can now see how the original image of a small square of light, leaving a decreasingy fainter oscillating trail of blurred light behind it, is now a duly fledged flying triangular craft - unbelievable!

These constant calls of UFO's flying past the space station are almost always mundane. Still, they become as embellished as anything Rick Dyer would do, an least in the same vein as to purport such gross untruths.

Not that it isn't odd that the screen goes grey; because, it is, but we are also looking at manipulated video here so what's actually the sequence of events isn't quite clear. Anyone have the original footage? Anyone familiar with these visual amplitudes from the original B&W video from 4:10, as the trail at that point certainly looks like a video artifact to me?

If memory serves me, there does seem to be quite a number of incidents in which live shuttle/station feed have been cut when something interesting seems to be happening. Remember that guy from Canada, I think, who recorded stacks of shuttle live feed that was not scrambled, from his own backyard/workplace dish? I forget his name but there is a whole documentary about it available on youtube.

Anyway, whether anything of a real UFO nature was filmed is for another argument but once NASA discovered someone was recording the live feed, they then scrambled it. I am sure there are instances where NASA claims technical problems etc but that is an argument that they cannot use often, not in this day and age when sending a TV signal to Earth from orbit should be no more than routine.

Anyone remember the guy or the documentary I'm on about?

 

[manxman]

Martin Stubbs, Goggs google him for a refresher.

And once they knew he had 4000 hrs recorded, they tried getting it back thru the court system, it went as high as it could go, martin once put a link up to it on abovtopsecret, in reply to jim obergs tauntings.

 

[Constance]

Martin Stubbs, Goggs google him for a refresher.

And once they knew he had 4000 hrs recorded, they tried getting it back thru the court system, it went as high as it could go, martin once put a link up to it on abovtopsecret, in reply to jim obergs tauntings.

I didn't know that NASA tried to get Stubbs's footage back through a lawsuit. And they lost? That's amazing.

 

[Burnt State]

UFO Fleet over Russia by Martin Stubbs : Secretnasaman

I could not find anything about his court cases with NASA though, @manxman - do you have that link handy? But more importantly, as i know you have studied this content - what do you think are Martin's most important videos? A lot of this stuff is often dismissed by NASA as ice droplets close to the camera creating these large circular and often notched distortions (tether incident etc.).

This one minute video above is highly dramatic, but a UFO fleet? living creatures? or ice crystals? I think i would need some specific science in my brain to better appreciate these images, but i understand how transparent objects at close distance can create such distortions or how weather and other interesting things in our upper atmosphere can create ejecta floating off into space. What's your take on these images?