Does anyone have any ideas what this object could have been?
Rate this posting:
{[["☆","★"]]}
Thursday, April 07, 2011
Huge Object brushes by Soyuz Spacecraft April 5 2011 ?
At 2.20 into this video A large object (ufo) passes by the Soyuz Spacecraft - straight after this the live TV feed was cut a few seconds after the object was seen.
Does anyone have any ideas what this object could have been?
Rate this posting:
Does anyone have any ideas what this object could have been?
Rate this posting:
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Popular posts this month:
- Ben Rich Lockheed Skunk Works CEO Deathbed Ufo Confession
- UFO seen from within plane - REPOST original
- Bill Birnes - why Ufo Hunters was pulled from the TV ?
- UFO Ovni Above Nuclear Facility- Mexico:05-11-2014
- A Closer Look: The 'Cauldrons' in the Valley of Death, Siberia
- Who do you trust on Ufos? The Government or our Astronauts ?
- Happy New Year 2015 from RealUFO'S!
- Central Italy: UFO Orb Night Sighting: 30-12-2014
Posts
8 comments:
All of the objects were following a similar path. Keep in mind that in order to follow the Soyuz craft the camera had to be panning upward. All of the objects look like lens reflection artifacts to me. Since they were al following a similar path at similar apparent speed this would make sense.
All of the "objects were following a similar path at a similar apparent speed. They all look like lens reflection artifacts to me. Keep in mind that in order for the camera to follow the Soyuz craft it had to be panning upward. If the lens had a clear protective filter or other glass element in front of it all the objects could easily be a reflection from the front element whatever it was.
That is extremely odd. The movement of the object is not at all consistent w/the stars either, it does seem as if it is moving on it's own power, and not just being passed by... Weird
Just stars or planet passing in front of the camera's lens. The rocket is moving. Stars don't.
You really see UFOs everywhere...
Very strange indeed. I'm a photo-artist who uses many different filters for effect or lack thereof, some of which counter lens anomalies such as flare & reflection. IF there is a causal relationship between the anomalies and camera action such as panning, it would have occurred much sooner and the effects would have been more dramatic. By the time these objects(?) passed in frame, the camera's panning would have become almost negligible.
No, this occurrence would not have been due to lens flare/reflection.
Listen I know you think you're the expert on the site at debunking these, but I'm sorry to burst your bubble, in this case you're dead wrong. I actually ran this 1 through adobe AE to analyze the final large object in question to compare its speed as it passes by the camera to the other objects by analyzing the frame rate just to see if it was my eyes playing tricks on me. Guess what I found? Not only does the object stay in frame longer then the others, it actually pauses for a few frames. Is this a case of the great backward moving planet? Keep up the good work contributing anon trolls :)
Well Micheal, then I can be assured that you took into account the slower pan speed as the rocket gains altitude as well as variations in pan speed that could have caused both the longer time in frame as well as the "apparent" pauses.
Either one of us could end up being right but if you want further debate with me you will have to adjust that bad attitude of yours. And you are calling others trolls, go figure.
Dude Dennis, That wasn't even directed towards you... I was referring to the anonymous poster that seems to bash my opinion every time I formulate 1 on this site. I respect any1s opinion as long as they take atleast a little time to research & analyze the videos and doesn't just jump to the conclusion that these videos are of either; A. Planes, or B. Flares as these anonymous trolls seem to suspect every1 in the world who films these objects is an idiot and can't differentiate between the 2. You're opinion is valid, but as you can see some1 else has already debunked your initial conclusion if you read the comments. Sorry for the misunderstanding :)
Post a Comment