EPTexplain the changing flight paths of "debris" or "dust particles"
for those who don't get it, this is the same incident
this shows the flight paths of the objects in the first video
the guy has a longer, more indepth video if you're interested
Some freak UFO footage. - Page 11
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
explain the changing flight paths of "debris" or "dust particles" for those who don't get it, this is the same incident this shows the flight paths of the objects in the first video the guy has a longer, more indepth video if you're interested | ||
|
Sad[Panda]
United States458 Posts
On July 16 2010 10:22 sTromSK wrote: talking about possible alien intentions is pointless in my opinion.. if they came here, kidnapped all pandas, completely ignored our will to communicate with them and simply left - we couldnt say a thing.. they are aliens, they know their shit please dont let them take me... | ||
Myles
United States5162 Posts
On July 16 2010 13:50 travis wrote: here's a good video rebuttal to those who claim debunkage of the first video i posted: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4Xx66ba36o explain the changing flight paths of "debris" or "dust particles" for those who don't get it, this is the same incident this shows the flight paths of the objects in the first video the guy has a longer, more indepth video if you're interested The changing of direction could easily be explained by particles coming into the light while another exits the light, combined with the fact perspective in space is a bitch when your moving at the same time as everything else is. Seriously, this comes from someone who 100% sure aliens exist somewhere pretty sure some of them have probably stopped by, that's one of the worst pieces of UFO evidence I've ever seen. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
On July 16 2010 13:50 travis wrote: here's a good video rebuttal to those who claim debunkage of the first video i posted: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4Xx66ba36o explain the changing flight paths of "debris" or "dust particles" for those who don't get it, this is the same incident this shows the flight paths of the objects in the first video the guy has a longer, more indepth video if you're interested http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread342548/pg1 ......? | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
stealth: i've skimmed through that thread before. it doesn't debunk anything, and certainly doesn't address the video i posted. it has some neat discussion though. man, how do people so easily dismiss this shit. have u guys not seen videos of debris in space before? it doesn't move like that... i mean jesus, one of the objects turns around, and then turns again! in like a 3 second period. how could that possibly be an effect of sunlight. | ||
|
OldEnt
Poland90 Posts
| ||
|
Myles
United States5162 Posts
On July 16 2010 14:26 travis wrote: Myles: no, that wouldn't explain it at all. did you even watch the video? look at the trajectories. hell, the objects are moving different directions at the same time. some of them even reverse direction. explain how light could account for one object turning right and another object turning left at the same time. one object even reverses direction (while others go straight, and others turn). stealth: i've skimmed through that thread before. it doesn't debunk anything, and certainly doesn't address the video i posted. it has some neat discussion though. man, how do people so easily dismiss this shit. have u guys not seen videos of debris in space before? it doesn't move like that... Whatever man. I've watched all the videos, and that one is by far the least impressive. You're perspective is changing the whole time and the space dust is all moving in different directions, which which is why some things appear to curve left or right. It's nearly impossible to say an object changing direction is in fact the same object the entire time because its poor quality, it could easily be two objects entering/exiting the light. If you can't accept that this is a possibility why do expect me to accept that its not? | ||
|
Kerrdezzy
United States50 Posts
| ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On July 16 2010 14:33 Myles wrote: Whatever man. I've watched all the videos, and that one is by far the least impressive. You're perspective is changing the whole time and the space dust is all moving in different directions, which which is why some things appear to curve left or right. It's nearly impossible to say an object changing direction is in fact the same object the entire time because its poor quality, it could easily be two objects entering/exiting the light. If you can't accept that this is a possibility why do expect me to accept that its not? because that doesn't make any sense when there is only one source of light and you're viewing everything from one perspective in real time. There is one source of light, and one thing turns to the left, and another turns to the right - at the same time. You're actually suggesting that space dust is disappearing and then other space dust is appearing in the exact same spot with a different trajectory, at the exact same time as the other dust disappears? dude that makes no sense at all. so just so i understand, because I know you're an intelligent guy your claim is that the video is bogus, and that it doesn't actually properly track the objects? | ||
|
Myles
United States5162 Posts
On July 16 2010 14:38 travis wrote: because that doesn't make any sense when there is only one source of light and you're viewing everything from one perspective in real time. There is one source of light, and one thing turns to the left, and another turns to the right - at the same time. You're actually suggesting that space dust is disappearing and then other space dust is appearing in the exact same spot with a different trajectory, at the exact same time as the other dust disappears? dude that makes no sense at all. How does that not make sense? There is a fixed light source, the sun. The sun was coming over the earth horizon, which is why everything lit up all of a sudden at the start. Thus, it's perfectly reasonable to assume certain parts of the background were illuminated, while other parts were blocked by the Earth. So when a dust particle passes behind the Earth's shadow it disappears, when ones comes out of the Earth's shadow, it appears. And there's a lot of dust and debris in space, A LOT, it's not unreasonable to think a few may have crossed paths just as they were entering/exiting the Earth's shadow. Also, it's not one perspective. Your perspective is constantly changing because you're orbiting the earth at a ridiculous fast speed. edit: And I'm saying that the video is real, but the interpretation that it's irregular movement is bogus. | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On July 16 2010 14:44 Myles wrote: How does that not make sense? There is a fixed light source, the sun. The sun was coming over the earth horizon, which is why everything lit up all of a sudden at the start. Thus, it's perfectly reasonable to assume certain parts of the background were illuminated, while other parts were blocked by the earth. So when a dust particle passes behind the earths shadow it disappears, when ones comes out of the Earth's shadow, it appears. And there's a lot of dust and debris in space, A LOT, it's not unreasonable to think a few may have crossed paths just as they were entering/exiting the Earth's shadow. dude if this was debris that was big enough to be moving in and out of the earth's shadow and be tracked by a camera it would blow up the shuttle to have that much debris flying around with different trajectories. you can watch the longer video the guy posted, it first shows the trails, and then shows the actual footage of the objects moving within the trails. you can see that the objects aren't coming in and out of the picture, you can see that in each trail is one object being tracked the whole time if you still disagree with that then whatever, but your explanation definitely still doesn't make sense to me | ||
|
Myles
United States5162 Posts
On July 16 2010 14:48 travis wrote: dude if this was debris that was big enough to be moving in and out of the earth's shadow and be tracked by a camera it would blow up the shuttle to have that much debris flying around with different trajectories. you can watch the longer video the guy posted, it first shows the trails, and then shows the actual footage of the objects moving within the trails. you can see that the objects aren't coming in and out of the picture, you can see that in each trail is one object being tracked the whole time if you still disagree with that then whatever, but your explanation definitely still doesn't make sense to me And I'm baffled that you don't seem to understand how it's very possible. The video is too poor quality to follow an object and be certain its the same object the entire time. The fact that you even argue that its clear enough to track everything flawlessly is ridiculous. And since the other link said the lens was out of focus, its very possible it was very small particles being illuminated by the sun. They don't have to be extremely large to become visible in direct sunlight. | ||
|
Railxp
Hong Kong1313 Posts
does the arched light in the images remind anyone else of the front of a battle cruizer? | ||
|
Thratur
Canada917 Posts
Not sure about anything I'm saying, but I am 99.99% sure those are just ice debris. | ||
|
LuckyLuke43
Norway169 Posts
| ||
|
SONE
Canada839 Posts
| ||
|
Wi)nD
Canada719 Posts
but still pretty badass | ||
|
opsayo
591 Posts
you seem content to dismiss rational explanations in favor of baseless improbable explanations which support the existence of UFO's. you say you don't want to make judgment calls on simple explanations for the behavior seen in these grainy low quality videos yet you're clearly making a judgment call when you dismiss simple explanations over your elaborate ones, even though neither explanation has any base to it. ("space dust? until you come up with a better theory it is far more likely there are multiple kilometer long translucent ufo's slowly hovering past our space tether and then not doing anything with it") claiming to be open-minded to alternate explanations and actually being open-minded are two very different things. how do you explain how UFO's in the 70's looked retro and ugly, and UFO's became significantly more realistic and high tech as the decades passed? example: ![[image loading]](http://www.ufocasebook.com/laslunas1972.jpg) | ||
|
Myles
United States5162 Posts
On July 16 2010 16:02 opsayo wrote: travis, have you ever heard of occam's razor? or the burden of proof? you seem content to dismiss rational explanations in favor of baseless improbable explanations which support the existence of UFO's. how do you explain how UFO's in the 70's looked retro and ugly, and UFO's became significantly more realistic and high tech as the decades passed? example: Oh come on, that's hardly fair. Well, the Occam's Razor part isn't, but I'm sure there were much less obvious fakes taken even 50 years ago. | ||
|
opsayo
591 Posts
aliens can travel faster than the speed of light but their ship designs seem to progress with us. Hey, the UFO's were fake 50 years ago but they're not fake anymore! Look at how realistic that looks! edit: I'm really not going to get involved in this though, if someone thinks space debris pointed out by NASA officials is less plausible than automated AI probes sent millions of years across space to float in our atmosphere and then disappear, that doesn't affect me. someone said that there's no high tech civilization within light years from us (which is true) and travis claimed that because we haven't explored the ocean floor or under the moon's surface that we can't make that claim. i don't even know how you respond to someone who makes statements like that. | ||
| ||
