You are comparing footage taken from a space station, in the near UV spectrum, recording at a distance, (details and specifications are discussed in depth in the discussions I linked), and comparing to unspecified HD footage...
No doubt similiar to the TV you must sit in front of everyday.
I think you lack the expertise to evaluate how 'useful' this footage is.
I almost can't believe that you don't get the point. The only thing that matters in determining how visible whatever is captured on a video is, is the result only. I realize that they didn't have superb conditions, optimal distance, or cutting-edge equipment. This is also reflected in the video, itself, as the video is of poor quality. It doesn't help the evidence that it was made under poor conditions and with poor equipment. It really amazes me that you seem to think the opposite.
If you get a crappy picture of what is claimed to be bigfoot, and you see that the picture is of such bad quality that you can merely see a dark spot on the paper, then the picture does not become better evidence for bigfoot when it is stated that the picture is an enhanced image that was taken from afar with a crappy camera in worse conditions. The picture is still shit. Regardless of the reason why. As the picture is shit, its value as evidence for whatever is claimed, is severely impaired - regardless of whether it is an actual picture of bigfoot or not. Because it cannot be determined from the picture, as it is of poor quality.
The same applies to the critter-video.
Your argument thus far only consists of one point, which I have addressed.
Yes, you have basically said that the video is not of bad quality because it was taped under bad conditions with poor equipment. This does not make sense. Bad conditions and poor recording equipment does produce bad quality video, as evident by the video in question.
But it does demonstrate the complexity of the issue.
Haha, and they call me the crazy.
There certainly is some complexity here. And your subjective experience should rightfully be met with skepticism by anyone you describe it to.
That's a logical fallacy, it should be judged on its individual merit.
I have explained many times why the result of the actual video is the only thing that matters for determining its quality. This is to evaluate the evidence as it stands on its own.
However, if you have missed the bullseye 1000 times in a row (or way more, which assumingly is the case with debunked evidence for alien life), then it is reasonable to expect that you will also miss on your next try, based on prior events. It is not a known fact that you will miss on your next try. But it is still a
reasonable expectation. That was the point I just made. Which you seem to have missed...
Are you actually stating this is more likely to be a NASA hoax?
I am being open minded, and looking at the possibilities. However, yes, it is more likely that it is a hoax than it actually being video of alien life, given that the video is not verified as having captured alien life, and there are no other verified evidence for alien life available. This does not mean that it is a hoax. There are other possibilities too. But it is still less likely to be video of alien life.
As illustrated, NASA does have an incentive to produce false or misleading information, which you do agree with, as you claim their explanation accompanying the video to be false. I am not stating that NASA has, in fact, published the video with the intention to mislead in order to support their own agenda. I am merely stating that this could be a possibility, and they do have an incentive to do such a thing. Assuming that the video is, in fact, real (which I do believe that it is), then it is quite perfect to release it to the public. It did get attention, and it did spark curiosity about space research - which is good PR for NASA.
It seems that you are more paranoid than I, that takes some doing, hats off to you.
No, I am actually trying to put myself in your position. How do you separate their bullshit from their genuine material? You have more or less stated that NASA is not trustworthy. How do you verify that some of what they say can be trusted, but other things cannot?
You fail to address how individual particles of space dust can be seen moving in a manner of all directions when they should trapped in the same gravitational (and other constant) fields. You have also failed to address why these critters can be seen passing behind the Tether and not in front of it, which pretty fucks up all of your counter arguments.
I don't see any individual particle moving in any other direction than
one direction only. This does not indicate intelligence. None of the particles appear to stop or change direction.
Yes, it appears that they pass behind the tether. That may very well be the case. I don't see any problem with that at all. You have probably also noticed how the Tether seems to be unproportionally thick. This is because the video is out of focus. When for example an ice crystal which is lit up by the sun is captured on an out of focus camera lens, the ice crystal will appear larger. If it is actually behind the thether, then it is reasonable to assume that it will be out of focus to a different degree than the tether. You can also see that some particles appear to be much larger than others, which also indicate different distances from the camera, and resulting differences in the focus on the particles.
The footage is captured with infra red camera. The camera is therefore highly sensitive to light, which can explain how for example an ice crystal reflecting sunlight could be very easily noticed by the camera.
You have probably seen this video before, but here is an example of a similar occurrence which, at least in this case, is clearly a product of an out of focus light source. Is this also evidence for flying saucers in the sky which also are alive? I beg to differ.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYLHqv-foMk&feature=RecentlyWatched&page=1&t=t&f=b
Granted, this is not identical to what was captured with the infrared camera lens. But it is arguably similar. And it shows how the apparent shape of a light source seems to change as the light source goes out of focus.
