Conveniently out of focus.
Why do UFO spotters always buy cheap useless cameras?

rainbow wrote:Conveniently out of focus.
Why do UFO spotters always buy cheap useless cameras?

Plus the "UFO" looked like some kind of balloon. And the "bubble" on the Shuttle looked like a reflection of some sort...

the_5th_ape wrote:[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9ISaPByKeE[/youtube]

The triangles in space is a perfect example of the UFO phenomena of plucking figures out of the air. We can only tell the amount of the frame through which the objects move (More on that in a moment). As we have no idea of the distance to them or their size it is utterly impossible to come up with a velocity for them.

Secondly with reference to them they may not be moving at all. It sure looks just like a camera pan/tilt to me. This is made even clearer when one 'dissapears'. Its just moved out of the possibly cropped frame rather than vanishing. Its hard to tell the direction of the camera but depending upon the sensitivity of the camera and the contrast these could just be bright stars caught in a pan of one of the shuttles cameras. They could bit distant bits of debris even. There are plenty of possibilities of which aliens is well down the list and has William of Ockham getting out his beard trimming kit.

The final light again is indistinct. The motion could be real or there is a simple alternative. its a fixed object and the shuttle is rotating. We can see no other background so its hard to tell which.

The first spheres are intriguing but again are pretty unfocussed. Given the colour small could could be possible but they are pretty static. Again though its a huge leap to suggest any aliens and is there any evidence whatsoever that they had any influence on the launch?

Darkchilde wrote:

rainbow wrote:Conveniently out of focus.
Why do UFO spotters always buy cheap useless cameras?

Plus the "UFO" looked like some kind of balloon. And the "bubble" on the Shuttle looked like a reflection of some sort...

The balloon hypothesis is a good fit. NASA uses balloons as part of the weather monitoring process prior to launch. The colour is about right as is the shape.

Think my friends...............
The governments of all nations have used their authority to use and abuse our society, our health, our environments, our morality, our education, our finances and our standards of living.
What better excuse to justify their blatant disregard for humanity than to say, "THE ALIENS MADE US DO IT"

Jumbo wrote:

Darkchilde wrote:

rainbow wrote:Conveniently out of focus.
Why do UFO spotters always buy cheap useless cameras?

Plus the "UFO" looked like some kind of balloon. And the "bubble" on the Shuttle looked like a reflection of some sort...

The balloon hypothesis is a good fit. NASA uses balloons as part of the weather monitoring process prior to launch. The colour is about right as is the shape.

The video was of a video on a TV that looks like feed from a fixed launch pad camera. The objects could be reflections on that TV screen. Note that there's another 'sphere' on the Shuttle's external tank between the shuttle and the booster and another just to the left of the shuttle payload bay doors. They both vanish after the camera zooms out from the sphere on the top left of the screen. If they are alien spacecraft, they're the size of a football!

If they were on the video feed itself, it could be a mote of debris on the pad camera. Compared with this video below,the debris could be considerably smaller than a drop of rain.

Zooming in on a TV screen image would produce video artifacts which may exaggerate the 3D appearance of the object.

Furthermore, shuttle launches were routinely delayed all the time for all kinds of mundane reasons.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYHY_BVj1Xo[/youtube]

It being a video of a video does introduce yet more possibilities. These being artefacts/objects not present in the view the original camera was capturing.

As you say zooming in can cause artefacts as can the fact that the video is on youtube and thus is compressed. Various compression schemes can alter the appearance of mundane things and make them hard to identify.

This footage is a long way from being strong evidence for aliens and doesn't seem to show how it was these things supposedly stopped a shuttle launch.

I have repeated many times, in this thread that youtube videos do not constitute evidence of aliens. The above are some reasons why.

Anyhoo....back to aliens....

BlackBart wrote:Anyhoo....back to aliens....

Mine's bigger than yours!!

Mine's even bigger!


More info here:
http://www.drgrordborts.com/bestiary-of ... at-beetle/

And before you say "but... but... there's no life on Venus", please remember the Conspiracy

I'll post the Cloverfield monster, you'll escalate things with an Arrakis Sandworm... My god, where will this insanity end!!!?

Living planets? Nah, Stapledon had living nebulae whose bodies, upon death, decayed into mere galaxies...

And then there's always God who's as big as he fucking cares to be

tnjrp wrote:Living planets? Nah, Stapledon had living nebulae whose bodies, upon death, decayed into mere galaxies...

And then there's always God who's as big as he fucking cares to be

Aha! You forget the dreaded God-eater beast of Zeta Rectuli IV..





Ok... I made that one up.

"Rectuli" was kinda a giveaway... Tho one might also ask, "what's the difference of you making it up as opposed to somebody else making it up?"

Ah. You're getting confused with Zeta Reticuli. Classic schoolboy error. Totally different place. No God-eaters there at all.

Can I go on vacation on Risa please?

I think a split might be in order here....

But I'll leave this here for the moment.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9bT73BM2Ic[/youtube]