hmm, UFO's

[odyssey2200]

With blured videos and no sense of scale or distance these UFOs could easily be faked.

I do find the whole subject facinating though.

[Known Gambler]

I do like this BBC one from a few weeks ago!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tF2tenfixho

Or perhaps this one, larger than the earth absorbing energy from the Sun????? Observed for over 80 hours?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUSuw8O23f0

Edited by Known Gambler on Tuesday 15th January 18:18

[jmorgan]

Death by youtube..... argh......

[Known Gambler]

jmorgan said:

Death by youtube..... argh......

Just playing with you....but it is interesting that UNKNOWNS are being recorded by the hundreds(?) daily all around the world...they all can't be fake CGI recordings, or drones!

[jmorgan]

It is more interesting the way they are picked up and run with before they are understood. "Experts" in photoshop and other such programs move the sliders, alter things and declare them valid without validating and understanding the path the light has taken from being recorded through to youtube.

Yes people record stuff but by now you would expect in focus and well lit. Problem is that will show up a hoax, look up Billy Meier, enough evidence in his images to show how it was done and people believe that rubbish.

[Known Gambler]

jmorgan said:

It is more interesting the way they are picked up and run with before they are understood. "Experts" in photoshop and other such programs move the sliders, alter things and declare them valid without validating and understanding the path the light has taken from being recorded through to youtube.

Yes people record stuff but by now you would expect in focus and well lit. Problem is that will show up a hoax, look up Billy Meier, enough evidence in his images to show how it was done and people believe that rubbish.

If you notice most supposed REAL ufo's have an AURA about them, making them appear fuzzy.....could be the propulsion system used or cloaking device?

[jmorgan]

Known Gambler said:

jmorgan said:

It is more interesting the way they are picked up and run with before they are understood. "Experts" in photoshop and other such programs move the sliders, alter things and declare them valid without validating and understanding the path the light has taken from being recorded through to youtube.

Yes people record stuff but by now you would expect in focus and well lit. Problem is that will show up a hoax, look up Billy Meier, enough evidence in his images to show how it was done and people believe that rubbish.

If you notice most supposed REAL ufo's have an AURA about them, making them appear fuzzy.....could be the propulsion system used or cloaking device?

Or it is out of focus hocus pocus. Maybe the cloaking shield makes it look like an out of focus insect?

[Known Gambler]

jmorgan said:

Or it is out of focus hocus pocus. Maybe the cloaking shield makes it look like an out of focus insect?

One never knows...supposedly some ET's are insectoids!

[Known Gambler]

Are UFOs hovering over the Eagle Ford Shale?


http://fuelfix.com/blog/2013/01/14/are-ufos-hoveri...

[jmorgan]

Known Gambler said:

jmorgan said:

Or it is out of focus hocus pocus. Maybe the cloaking shield makes it look like an out of focus insect?

One never knows...supposedly some ET's are insectoids!

Oh, it was a theme in the other ufo thread. Some book writer saw aliens whilst the rest of the world said insect, the latter was correct. The focus of objects is a dead give away in many cases, especially when there is a point of reference in the shot be it a hill or a tree etc. Knowing the lens you can work out quit a lot when a reference is observable. That is why I am always dubious when people will edit out the good bits, that is the bits that you can actually learn something from the film or image, just present the blob or some points of light though, must be something from outer space.....

All for images and films of the unexplained. A small few will probably have no ready explanation, most will. That is where the determined hoaxer falls down, trying to manipulate the situation.

[hachiroku]

Nasa pics before they're airbrushed out:

http://www.dumpert.nl/mediabase/587491/87867201/na...

Re the black Knight satellite someone said on another forum:

it is the only thing in a true polar orbit, and it's stationary.

all satellites cannot pass directly over the poles as they interact with the magnetic field lines and crash.

imo it's either a grey command post, or a remnant of the orion group's energetic sustenance satellites.

surprised at trinity's reaction. this thing was found in 1960 - 53 years ago.

http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/images/ISD/highres/S...


"In "Disneyland of the Gods", by John Keel, he reports in depth on this satellite:

"In February 1960 the US detected an unknown object in polar orbit, a feat that neither they or the USSR had been able to accomplish. As if that wasn't enough, it apparently was several sizes larger than anything either country would have been able to get off the ground.

And then, the oddness began. HAM operators began to receive strange coded messages. One person in particular said he managed to decode one of the transmissions, and it corresponded to a star chart. A star chart which would have been plotted from earth 13,000 years ago, and focused on the Epsilon Bostes star system.

On September 3, 1960, seven months after the satellite was first detected by radar, a tracking camera at Grumman Aircraft Corporation's Long Island factory took a photograph of it. People on the ground had been occasionally seeing it for about two weeks at that point. Viewers would make it out as a red glowing object moving in an east-to-west orbit. Most satellites of the time, according to what little material I've been able to find on the black knight satellite, moved from west-to-east. It's speed was also about three times normal. A committee was formed to examine it, but nothing more was ever made public."

Edited by hachiroku on Sunday 20th January 23:48

[jmorgan]

hachiroku said:

Nasa pics before they're airbrushed out:

Date says 2009. You checked to see if they have been brushed out? Should have done it by now.

hachiroku said:

Re the black Knight satellite someone said on another forum:

Been done to death. Debris if memory serves.

hachiroku said:

it is the only thing in a true polar orbit, and it's stationary.

How can it be in orbit and be stationary? Have I misunderstood your comment or is it a cut and paste?

hachiroku said:

all satellites cannot pass directly over the poles as they interact with the magnetic field lines and crash.

Says who? I want to learn here so a reference would be good. The ones I can find says they can and indeed, if you want to see one, Envisat is a good starting point along with many others.

hachiroku said:

imo it's either a grey command post, or a remnant of the orion group's energetic sustenance satellites.

Well, not sure I read the rest correctly. Interested in this quoted bit for the moment.

[Hooli]

jmorgan said:

hachiroku said:

it is the only thing in a true polar orbit, and it's stationary.

How can it be in orbit and be stationary? Have I misunderstood your comment or is it a cut and paste?

That's about the only bit that makes sense, geostationary orbit. Although I'm now thinking you can't do that over the poles?

[Westy Pre-Lit]

Here's a thread I started a while back on the Black knight.

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...

[jmorgan]

Bedazzled said:

Hooli said:

jmorgan said:

hachiroku said:

it is the only thing in a true polar orbit, and it's stationary.

How can it be in orbit and be stationary? Have I misunderstood your comment or is it a cut and paste?

That's about the only bit that makes sense, geostationary orbit. Although I'm now thinking you can't do that over the poles?

You can only do that over the equator. I think in theory you could launch a rocket vertically from the North pole and hover in a geostationary position, but it would not be in orbit so would require constant thrust to overcome gravity and maintain position (what goes up must come down).

Geostationary and it appears to over the same point on the Earth though it is moving at the same speed the Earth turns and only over the equator. Of course there are many types of orbit and inclined will fit in here (geosync or geostationary). If I read thet comment correctly I thought it was stationary. Maybe its my interpretation.

[Hooli]

jmorgan said:

Bedazzled said:

Hooli said:

jmorgan said:

hachiroku said:

it is the only thing in a true polar orbit, and it's stationary.

How can it be in orbit and be stationary? Have I misunderstood your comment or is it a cut and paste?

That's about the only bit that makes sense, geostationary orbit. Although I'm now thinking you can't do that over the poles?

You can only do that over the equator. I think in theory you could launch a rocket vertically from the North pole and hover in a geostationary position, but it would not be in orbit so would require constant thrust to overcome gravity and maintain position (what goes up must come down).

Geostationary and it appears to over the same point on the Earth though it is moving at the same speed the Earth turns and only over the equator. Of course there are many types of orbit and inclined will fit in here (geosync or geostationary). If I read thet comment correctly I thought it was stationary. Maybe its my interpretation.

From what Bedazzled says, I'd go with his version. I forgot that geosync only works on the equator.

[jmorgan]

Everyone knows the Earth is hollow and the 'oles at the poles will just suck them in anyway. So are NASA airbrushing a UFO in over the pole where they cannot be?

[jmorgan]

Some of those that chase with their scopes are amazing. I tried the ISS one night with my scope, got in a right mess.


Edit. Of course, to stay on topic. I don't want to link to anywhere for John Lenard Wilson and his Machines in space. Rense I think hosted a load of that bull. Go on, google away.....

Edited by jmorgan on Tuesday 22 January 16:11

[rxtx]

jmorgan said:

John Lenard Wilson and his Machines in space.

What a lunatic (), I bet he's friends with those other morons, Mike Bara and Richard Hoagland.

[Terminator X]

Known Gambler said:

jmorgan said:

Death by youtube..... argh......

Just playing with you....but it is interesting that UNKNOWNS are being recorded by the hundreds(?) daily all around the world...they all can't be fake CGI recordings, or drones!

What 100 instances from 7bn people ... that's like, a very small %age

TX.