One of the things I have noticed in his forum is that some of its affiliates back off when a discovery is made that contradicts their orthodox education and beliefs.
In this discovery, and the video I posted below it’s clear that Mathilde was filmed from a “fixed point” (relative to the considerable distance to Mathilde ), and not from any NEAR Shoemaker probe near the “asteroid”.
I have also shown the official video which is a CGI sequence, elaborated by four people at the Cornell Universiy, that does not correspond to the original film, from which allegedly it was synthesized.
The enhancement further highlights other anomalies that impregnated the film and which shows that Mathilde is interacting with other entitites around.
The protective layer is not only in the actions by the deceivers but also in the minds of their targets.
Could the flashing be differences in exposure times? Thats a possibility. Often they take photos with a range of exposures so that they capture "detail" (haha) all light levels.
Frutty, is it my imagination or is there a defined 'beam' coming from/going to the asteroid as it blinks as seen in your animation ?
If so, OSD...this reminds me of the beam in the South African meteorite thread. Interesting...
Chandre in my analysis of the whole sequence is my understanding electromagnetic phenomena are propagating from this object whatever it might be, as it interacts with energy corpuscles around it. Also the jerky movement of the object is something not to be taken lightly as could evidence it being moving between different space dimensions (or it also occurred to me it could be the irregular dilation of light to get to earth from which I think the whole sequence was photographed from, which produces the anomaly).
Be what it may, we now know about another piece of the secrecy about meteors/comets and asteroids, and why every time one hits the earth it’s surrounded in mystery and news promptly disappear without a trace.
Also a very interesting observation. Asteroid comes from semantic roots meaning star-like objects. The blinkings might give us a hint of why they were named this way. Seen from afar they must twinkle like starlets.
Interesting, frutty. I know that took a lot of work to assemble. Do you have an unenhanced sequence you can put up for comparison?
Thanks Mr. In the description of the video you can catch all the links to the original images.
To see it blinking => No need of enhancing just reconstruct the sequence or isolate frames by comparing to the footage.
To see more detail; => Use qmantoo shadow enhancer -> though you won't obtain the exact same exact results I display in the video, you will see plenty of interesting things too.
Q qman .. are you kidding? lol. Take a look at the first series before this one. Mathilda is interacting with several bodies around it. Remember that shadow enhancing is now not something that people can so merrrily rule out as a scientific tool, even NASA is applying it now. lol.
There is something in there. Something different is our eyes cannot see it. But the evidence is there my friend.
On a side note. What do you think about the real colors of our moon? amazingly beautiful aren't they? lol
If there was gravity out there, possibly this might be an interpretation of those 2 photos, but more likely is that there is a slight reflectance as the space craft goes by and alters its angle with relation to the asteroid. I dont know, it could be anything. There are as many possibilities as there are people thinking about it. How much time between images? I assume the spacecraft is moving fairly swiftly and so the encounter only lasted a few a seconds.
If you analyse the pictures, the difference in greyscale value is probably not much, so maybe it was a reflection off the flashing light on the spacecraft!! haha (only joking)
This is a complete sequence from a larger data set taken by NASA NEAR Shoemaker in 1999 hovering above Mathilde. The utility used was the shadow enhancer utility by qmantoo, applied to frames in http://ser.sese.asu.edu/NEAR/THUMB/JUSTMATH/math_just_1.gif There is something really weird going on here.
I have split this asteroid Mathilda discussion from the asteroid Lutetia discussion so that it can be added to later rather than mixing both asteroids under one topic.
Could you produce an image of the blacked out part of Mathilde Asteroid? It should be jaw dropping in order to have been removed without leaving any trace whatsoever.
This is asteroid mathilde, the part I am referring to rests inside the arch of what has been publilshed so far.
Ok folks I was able to find an uncensored but nonetheless tampered image of asteroid Mathilde, in a celestia plug in.
I was able so to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the celestial bodies' information we have access to is pathetic to say the least.
I was also able to find why it was tampered, after enhancing tampered areas, Same old thing. Structures/sculptures or in the most extreme case supernatural BEINGS very similar to us in complexion.
Ok folks I was able to find an uncensored but nonetheless tampered image of asteroid Mathilde, in a celestia plug in.
-- Frutty
See http://www.celestiamotherlode.net/catalog/asteroids.php
The jpg is not an optical image. It's a CG recreation using a surface map/texture map specifically for this 3D space simulator. Please pay attention to the note on the above web page:
"Note: Many full-surface maps have gaps (based on current scientific data) that have been filled in with imaginary data."
This is not a direct image. It's a highly manipulated CG simulation.
Yes goggog I discovered similar faces riding along the helmet in the image, after contour-analizing it.
This frame was taken from the same set of frames Celestia used in its 3D model that produced the image I analized below and that were obtained by NASA’s Mission NEAR Shoemaker back in 1999.
Remember Celestia is the state of the art 3D model of the universe maintained by people at Cornell University that work closely with NASA, in numerous projects.
The question is. What on earth is riding inside the helmet?