AREA 51 (the thread)

[CingularDuality]

Originally Posted by mentholated

And um, as an amatuer, I guess you don't know that if you know the frequency response of an optical device, based on that, you can extrapolate the actual frequencies radiated by the light source.

A video recording only has so much information. You can't extrapolate information that simply isn't there. You can guess what it might be, but, well, heck, we're talking about frequencies that, on video, will look exactly like a lightbulb, or a gas flame, or a flashlight. You simply can't tell the difference from a video, regardless of how many crackpots on conspiracy sites try to convince you otherwise...

[TheSkudDestroyer]

Hold on, lemme get the worlds smallest violin out. It only plays sad songs.

Yes, unfortunatly you caught me red handed: I do not know what the hell extrapolate means. I am an amateur. I was just pointing out that camera's arent going to pick up everything you see. And for that matter, they can easily mis-represent what is actually happening.

You still have no answer to my editing rebuttle.

But that video is definatly great. Grainy, crappy quality again.

OH GOD, ARE THOSE FLOATING SPAGHETTIO'S?!

There's no need to call me stupid. I just think, in my personal opinion, that those are not UFO's.

You also do drugs, right?

[mentholated]

Originally Posted by TheSkudDestroyer

Hold on, lemme get the worlds smallest violin out. It only plays sad songs.

Yes, unfortunatly you caught me red handed: I do not know what the hell extrapolate means. I am an amateur. I was just pointing out that camera's arent going to pick up everything you see. And for that matter, they can easily mis-represent what is actually happening.

You still have no answer to my editing rebuttle.

But that video is definatly great. Grainy, crappy quality again.

OH GOD, ARE THOSE FLOATING SPAGHETTIO'S?!

There's no need to call me stupid. I just think, in my personal opinion, that those are not UFO's.

You also do drugs, right?

I'm going to ask you politely not to participate in this thread anymore if you can't be serious about it.

[Switchcraft]

Debunked.

Also, I'm still awaiting your reply to the fact that that picture of the giant alien skeleton (nephalim?) turned out to be a photoshop project for worth1000.com. You also said an analysis of that pic wouldn't reveal photoshopping, but...yeah.

[TheSkudDestroyer]

That's the beauty of the internet, anyone can post anywhere. I'm posting here to voice my opinion that the video in question can easily be faked, or mis-interpreted.

If I had to fake this video, I'd do some of the following things:
1. Make shapes in adobe illustrator!
2. Animate my shapes to float around randomly around some tether thing.
3. apply some nice filters (green tint, right?) in final cut pro to make the video grainy and give it that vinage look.
4. Post it on youtube, and ask everyone to rate it a 5.

Meth, you're linking us to very similar videos over and over. It's all over some footage of some experiment or something. I'm not claiming to know what EXACTLY this video pertains. I am being arrogant, I accept that. However, you're absolutely 100% adamant that this video is proof of UFO's? Ruling out that it's either mis-interpreted or easily faked only makes you a slave to conspiracies.

[mentholated]

Originally Posted by Switchcraft

Debunked.

Also, I'm still awaiting your reply to the fact that that picture of the giant alien skeleton (nephalim?) turned out to be a photoshop project for worth1000.com. You also said an analysis of that pic wouldn't reveal photoshopping, but...yeah.

Camera artifacts don't pulsate hundreds of times between frames.

[TheSkudDestroyer]

Originally Posted by Switchcraft

You also said an analysis of that pic wouldn't reveal photoshopping, but...yeah.

Scwhat?!

I demand an explanation and a link to said photo.

[mentholated]

Originally Posted by TheSkudDestroyer

That's the beauty of the internet, anyone can post anywhere. I'm posting here to voice my opinion that the video in question can easily be faked, or mis-interpreted.

If I had to fake this video, I'd do some of the following things:
1. Make shapes in adobe illustrator!
2. Animate my shapes to float around randomly around some tether thing.
3. apply some nice filters (green tint, right?) in final cut pro to make the video grainy and give it that vinage look.
4. Post it on youtube, and ask everyone to rate it a 5.

Meth, you're linking us to very similar videos over and over. It's all over some footage of some experiment or something. I'm not claiming to know what EXACTLY this video pertains. I am being arrogant, I accept that. However, you're absolutely 100% adamant that this video is proof of UFO's? Ruling out that it's either mis-interpreted or easily faked only makes you a slave to conspiracies.

No, this video is not proof of UFOs. The hundreds of other videos of extremely similar pulsating objects floating in the sky and not obeying our understanding of the laws of physics (even on film, you can't reproduce that, and I'd like you to find a computer capable of rendering such images in real time) are the what prove the existance of UFOs.

(that isn't buried underground in a bunker)

[TheSkudDestroyer]

Making an animation pulsate would not take a super computer. Any flash program might do...

Even if it does...Hollywood can most certainly do it.

It just comes down to money if it's really that resource needy.

[mentholated]

Originally Posted by TheSkudDestroyer

Making an animation pulsate would not take a super computer. Any flash program might do...

Even if it does...Hollywood can most certainly do it.

It just comes down to money if it's really that resource needy.

You didn't even watch the last video, did you?

Since some of you want higher resolution pictures, here:

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread316287/pg1

[mentholated]

Originally Posted by TheSkudDestroyer

Making an animation pulsate would not take a super computer. Any flash program might do...

Even if it does...Hollywood can most certainly do it.

It just comes down to money if it's really that resource needy.

It would be cheaper to actually build a craft capable of moving the way it does than to build a computer capable of simulating what it does.

What do you think designed them?

[TheSkudDestroyer]

...


That's a blue dot painted in photoshop :-/

[mentholated]

Originally Posted by TheSkudDestroyer

...


That's a blue dot painted in photoshop :-/

It looks that way when you run it through vbulletin plugin that resamples referenced images, doesn't it?

Well, since you're trying to simultaneously prove and disprove something, I'm just going to ignore your posts and let the rest of them correct you when they realize how immature your arguments sound when looked at by someone who actually uses photoshop.

Consider for a second that these craft might be man made and not UFOs, but unacknowledged IFOs.

http://www.disclosureproject.org/

[TheSkudDestroyer]

I...use photoshop at school.

I simply don't understand why I'm so wrong. I can produce the same dot on a computer.

[mentholated]

Originally Posted by TheSkudDestroyer

I...use photoshop at school.

I simply don't understand why I'm so wrong. I can produce the same dot on a computer.

There are two kinds of dots.

Dots, and dots.

I almost gave up on this thread when Kerostasis or whoever it was posted that link about camera artifacts, because thats the tricky part. But as I read it, I realized his argument quickly fell apart at the last paragraph:

Other issues remain with the interpretation of the scene as showing genuine kilometers-wide circles in space near the shuttle. Such hypothesized objects would be on the same angular size and brightness of a full moon as viewed from Earth's surface. It is not a matter of a handful of amateur astronomers viewing and not seeing such immensely impressive apparitions -- these are images which would have been visible in the daytime sky to anybody on Earth, on the ground or on ships or in aircraft, along the track of the shuttle (they would also have been visible in satellite imagery, including weather satellite views). Not a single report of fast-moving moon-like circles in the sky has been found from anywhere on Earth during this period when the videos were showing the images that have been thus interpreted. The mandatory deduction from this is that such objects never existed.

The mandatory explanation is as such:

if these objects were traveling at super luminal velocities when they detected a giant super conductive coil passing through a planets ionosphere (key word here is ION, you may want to look it up) and charging with incredible amounts of energy, then discharging and floating out into free space, they probably would've dropped to sub luminal speeds to take a look. This explanation holds up when you consider that it was only after the sts-75 incident that these orbs began to be seen hundreds of times throughout the day globally, and continue to be seen, and captured, traveling at sub luminal velocities through our atmosphere. They would obviously not be able to travel at superluminal velocities in our magnetosphere because the earth's own electrogravitic field would interfere with their propulsion system.

Energy has to be traveling below the speed of light in order for it to be detected by any optical system.