AREA 51 (the thread)

[Switchcraft]

Originally Posted by mentholated

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

Nothing on film pulsates hundreds of times between frames, because the very definition of "frame" prohibits you from seeing what happened between one and the next. You only have the frames, and in the case of the original film you posted, there is evidently plenty of argument as to even what type of lens and sensor were used to capture the film in the first place, meaning:

You have no idea what is on that film. You brought up the "frequency" of light from our sun like it meant there was irrefutable proof that everything in the video is unaltered and shows what you seem to be claiming it shows. This is easily disproven...the next time someone tells you about the frequency of our sun, ask them what the frequency is. Then punch them, because hey, the sun gives out light way accross the visual spectrum and certainly into non-visible areas as well. Any kid with a pair of 3D glasses and the wish to be blind can prove this. Anyone who has ever used IR goggles during the daytime knows this. Bonus points, look at the sun through the aforementioned devices for brief periods of time, and you'll start to see crazy artifacts moving across your vision in ways that seem to defy physics and that no computer could simulate! Well, I made that last part up, and so did you, since

you may not be able to make a computer that could simulate the engine necessary to enable the physics of how some of the unidentified phenomena move, BUT

You can, with readily available equipment, make a digital representation of any visual effect or phenomena one could imagine.

That video, which you claim proves...something, though I'm not sure what, is of a multi-kilometer tether that is less than one centimeter in diameter, from a distance of 80 to 100km. It occurs 3 days after the electrical event you reference, and you claim based on the idea that there are dots on the negative image of the video, that this is proof of something. It really only proves to me that the camera, even though it keeps refocusing, is picking up all kinds of things it shouldn't, as a 1cm cable shouldn't appear to be that large at 60 miles away. I would love for you to explain what, since I believe there is a lot you haven't told us, this proves.

After all, you seem to know their propulsion systems (see, they can fly faster than the speed of light but they can't enter our megnetosphere at those speeds, duh. And nobody but NASA got them on tape that day, when everyone on the planet would have been able to see them if they were big spaceships like the moonbats on that youtube link are claiming instead of dust and debris on the casing of the camera like the evil astronaut/media outlet representative was claiming during the filming, even though accorsing to you NASA's primary job is to make sure they don't release images of space with those super secret space dots.) and since you DO seem to know how their ships work without having a picture of them, I'd love to know what else you know about them and their society.

I am not trying to be rude, but once again you ignored the big question I posed:

In another recent forum, you presented "proof", via an image that would supposedly withstand analysis, a screen capture from a DVD you were watching. Only it turns out the proof you provided was a photoshop entry from the website worth1000.com. What is your response to that? Can you admit that perhaps the sources you've been using to search for the answers you like have been less than truthful with you?
Can you admit that the idea that claiming a picture or video is scientifically impossible to reproduce with computers is definitely not the best way to make an argument withstand scrutiny?

Can you provide any civilian footage of the giant spacecraft that every person should have been able to see that day if you were right and those spacecraft had all, 3 days after a cable broke, decided to swarm around and peek at us?

Please note, I'm going to keep hammering at this photshop thing until you respond to it. If you are going to argue that every picture or video you find on a conspiracy website is irrefutable and then ignore when they plainly aren't, then you have no call to take the condescending tone you've taken with people in here, and it should be clear to everyone that your sources for information are not just dubious, but obviously lying to you.

[Mavrok]

switch got on it, the average human eye can only see 12 fps at 30fps speed. your eye skips 1 or 2 frames....


if i had the time, and someone paid me, i could easily replicate that. Adobe Aftereffects makes it easy

[Kerostasis]

Originally Posted by mentholated

I'm still waiting for someone to actually use some logic in this thread other than me.

This quote wins the thread. Seriously. There's nothing I could say that would top that.

[mentholated]

Originally Posted by Switchcraft

Nothing on film pulsates hundreds of times between frames, because the very definition of "frame" prohibits you from seeing what happened between one and the next. You only have the frames, and in the case of the original film you posted, there is evidently plenty of argument as to even what type of lens and sensor were used to capture the film in the first place, meaning:

You have no idea what is on that film. You brought up the "frequency" of light from our sun like it meant there was irrefutable proof that everything in the video is unaltered and shows what you seem to be claiming it shows. This is easily disproven...the next time someone tells you about the frequency of our sun, ask them what the frequency is. Then punch them, because hey, the sun gives out light way accross the visual spectrum and certainly into non-visible areas as well. Any kid with a pair of 3D glasses and the wish to be blind can prove this. Anyone who has ever used IR goggles during the daytime knows this. Bonus points, look at the sun through the aforementioned devices for brief periods of time, and you'll start to see crazy artifacts moving across your vision in ways that seem to defy physics and that no computer could simulate! Well, I made that last part up, and so did you, since

you may not be able to make a computer that could simulate the engine necessary to enable the physics of how some of the unidentified phenomena move, BUT

You can, with readily available equipment, make a digital representation of any visual effect or phenomena one could imagine.

That video, which you claim proves...something, though I'm not sure what, is of a multi-kilometer tether that is less than one centimeter in diameter, from a distance of 80 to 100km. It occurs 3 days after the electrical event you reference, and you claim based on the idea that there are dots on the negative image of the video, that this is proof of something. It really only proves to me that the camera, even though it keeps refocusing, is picking up all kinds of things it shouldn't, as a 1cm cable shouldn't appear to be that large at 60 miles away. I would love for you to explain what, since I believe there is a lot you haven't told us, this proves.

After all, you seem to know their propulsion systems (see, they can fly faster than the speed of light but they can't enter our megnetosphere at those speeds, duh. And nobody but NASA got them on tape that day, when everyone on the planet would have been able to see them if they were big spaceships like the moonbats on that youtube link are claiming instead of dust and debris on the casing of the camera like the evil astronaut/media outlet representative was claiming during the filming, even though accorsing to you NASA's primary job is to make sure they don't release images of space with those super secret space dots.) and since you DO seem to know how their ships work without having a picture of them, I'd love to know what else you know about them and their society.

I am not trying to be rude, but once again you ignored the big question I posed:

In another recent forum, you presented "proof", via an image that would supposedly withstand analysis, a screen capture from a DVD you were watching. Only it turns out the proof you provided was a photoshop entry from the website worth1000.com. What is your response to that? Can you admit that perhaps the sources you've been using to search for the answers you like have been less than truthful with you?
Can you admit that the idea that claiming a picture or video is scientifically impossible to reproduce with computers is definitely not the best way to make an argument withstand scrutiny?

Can you provide any civilian footage of the giant spacecraft that every person should have been able to see that day if you were right and those spacecraft had all, 3 days after a cable broke, decided to swarm around and peek at us?

Please note, I'm going to keep hammering at this photshop thing until you respond to it. If you are going to argue that every picture or video you find on a conspiracy website is irrefutable and then ignore when they plainly aren't, then you have no call to take the condescending tone you've taken with people in here, and it should be clear to everyone that your sources for information are not just dubious, but obviously lying to you.

I'm going to first respond about the nephelim (a giant humanoid skeleton for those who don't know) thing. I'll admit here, after seeing some other fakes (which were claimed to be ake by their fakers), I quickly began to feel fooled. So yes, I believe those images I posted were a hoax, and faked.. but I certainly do not discount the entire theory. Theres one reason for that: descriptions of the nephelim occur through many historical texts from all geographical locations on earth where humans were able to record events by writing them down. So either they all believe in fairy tales, or they saw something that looked like a giant.

Secondly, I said in my earlier post that its impossible to fake a light source that dynamically pulsates hundreds of times between frames. You pointed out correctly that a frame can't show hundreds of events between frames, because.. well, they're frames.

They're only one sample taken. Therefore, by looking at multiple samples in sequence (see: video) you are able to detect linear motion from lightsource and determine that is dynamic (meaning changing, never the same).

Finally, I see that you're all still just coming here trying to find some explanation for how these videos are fake. Well, theres something I forgot to point out. These little dot things, well they can be found on just about any nasa footage if you slow it down frame by frame and use photoshop to clear up the artifacts from antialiasing (unless you have access to tape footage ;]).

I invite you all to go scrounging up old nasa tape footage, or look on google video or wherever and find these things.. and if you can't, then I'll accept that this is a hoax. But if you do, I expect you to cry uncle.


http://www.nss.org/resources/library.../shuttle75.htm

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...08110610243421

As Bill Nye the science guy said, the airforce doesn't declassify projects at Nellis or Edwards or Groom Lake every day. Some people don't think "area 51" exists (it used to, before they changed the name). Theres no base called area 51, and there might not be UFOs.. but I'd like you to tell the guys who work at Nellis AFB that the stuff in their base, that they've "never seen", doesn't exist.

[Steeler]

Originally Posted by mentholated

Secondly, I said in my earlier post that its impossible to fake a light source that dynamically pulsates hundreds of times between frames. You pointed out correctly that a frame can't show hundreds of events between frames, because.. well, they're frames.

They're only one sample taken. Therefore, by looking at multiple samples in sequence (see: video) you are able to detect linear motion from lightsource and determine that is dynamic (meaning changing, never the same).

This is an awkward explanation of how the human brain interprets motion pictures, but it doesn't say anything significant. Yes, similar but gradually changing images shown in rapid succession produce the illusion of motion. So what? Every light source is dynamic if you are recording it over time.

Secondly, your claim that this effect somehow provides concrete data about the nature of the thing you are filming is erroneous. Speaking as someone who shoots and edits video for a living, I can tell you two things:

1. What you see in the final output of a video source is an amalgamation of visual information produced by the light coming into the lens and any visual information produced by the very process of recording it onto media. This is why we see things like lens flares and fuzzy globes around motes of dust. In such instances, there is no actual beam of light, and no giant fluffy globes actually there, these are just artifacts of the camera's components and the recording process. A higher quality lens and camera will produce a better reflection of the actual thing you are filming. A lower quality lens or camera will deviate from the reality of what you are looking at.

2. There is no deep, secret information encoded within the visual image of a video. What you see in terms of chroma, brightness, and contrast are all there is. The camera itself may be equipped to detect infrared or ultraviolet radiation, but the image itself contains no data other than what you can see once it is recorded. When you analyze an image, the best you can do is highlight or enhance particular properties of the image and look for patterns or effects that may have slipped your attention. But that's it. What you see is literally what you get.

I hate to rain on such an entertaining thread, but your vague and poor use of pseudo-scientific terms doesn't contribute to your argument. I'm not even sure what your argument is. Why is this video significant?

[rich73]

Somebody get this guy to change his dosage, or call the white-coated crew, please.

[mentholated]

I don't think any of you even watched the videos.

NASA DOES NOT PURPOSEFULLY INCLUDE BLINKING DOTS THAT ORBIT GIANT SUPERCONDUCTING COILS ON PURPOSE, AND AIR IT ON NATIONAL TELEVISION.

[mentholated]

You guys appear to have a hard time staying on topic, so I'm just going to close this thread. It was SUPPOSED TO BE ABOUT DISCUSSING CLASSIFIED TECHNOLOGY. The TETHER WAS THE DAMN STAR, NOT THE ORBS. Apparently none of you remembered what you learned in elementary school, but when you electrify a coil, you get a magnetic field. When an electric coil is electrified by a magnetic field, you get electricity. The earth's own magnetic field can power every single city, car, even plane in the sky and you're too dumb to realize it.

[sordavie]

rofl

[mentholated]

PUNKD BY NIKOLA TELSA

HOW DOES IT FEEL!? Slaves.

[Kerostasis]

This thread is great entertainment.

[TheSkudDestroyer]

R.A.T.M

Maybe the blinking stuff is UFO's. If NASA didn't put it there, then who did?

Reptoids.

http://www.reptoids.com/

[mentholated]

So, what territories are least likely to be attacked by the looming russian empire/terrorists/asteroids/alien threat that we're supposed to be so afraid of?

[sordavie]

www.timecube.com

[sc1ence]

Originally Posted by Mavrok

switch got on it, the average human eye can only see 12 fps at 30fps speed. your eye skips 1 or 2 frames....


if i had the time, and someone paid me, i could easily replicate that. Adobe Aftereffects makes it easy

The eye does not work like a digital device. It does not have global refresh rate, nor does it have a local refresh rate for individual photoreceptors. The concept of "frame" simply does not apply to the eye. The eyes/brain system is analog and complex as hell.

as for the vid in the OP the ufos are camera artifacts of ice and stars. It is VERY obvious to me. the aura around the objects shrink as the approach the tether then enlarge. this is an artifact of the brightness control of the camera. the auras themselves are as well. the tether is like 2 inches wide, yet from 80 miles, it looks like it is hundreds of feet wide. because of the bleeding pixels.

I do however believe that intelligent life exists outside of our planet. But I do not think "they" have been here. it is more of a probabilistic argument given infinite space, and intelligent life here, there must be some somewhere else.