The Research of Jeff Challender and Project P.R.O.V.E.

[Anders]

I found this on youtube on a guy's channel who has nothing but crap except this documentary written, produced and narrated by Jeff Challender. It's about NASA scrambling live transmissions and altering the look of video through their downlink.

Link to the doc:

Besides the cheesy kinda instructional low cost of the documentary he puts together something interesting here. I think.

Chandler's website is http://www.projectprove.com/

What he's found sounds lucrative to me. From the little bit of live media classes I took at film school. But I don't know enough about live broadcasting cause my focus was on directing film. So I'm not saying this is real evidence. I'd like to think it is.

Gene, David, or anybody here.Would you happen to know anything about Project P.R.O.V.E. and their claims :question:

 

[Ron Collins]

I have to admit, the NASA logo think was pretty convincing. As were many of the shots that were clear one minute and snowy the next. I would like to hear NASA's explaination.

 

[Stillborn]

They need to save power for their cooler that holds their beer or cold gin. That's why the pic quality sux

 

[Stillborn]

NASA might be hiding stuff that is more mundane than aliens etc. If they are hiding anything at all that is. Could be spy satelites they don't want others to see. Could be a woo woo shield too. They don't want to have to deal with people making ufos out of space junk, or ice. Tether vid anyone?

The delay followed the sts-48 video I hear. Which some people thought humans were firing at ets..

I would like to know how Jeff C determined the static was artificial. I didn't watch the whole show, but might some other time. Thanks for posting it.

 

[Anders]

Interesting point about satellites but that in noway explain some the crafts you'll see in this doc.

Definitely watch the rest of the video cause he explains how he determines each conclusion he's made.

 

[Ron Collins]

I would like to know how Jeff C determined the static was artificial. I didn't watch the whole show, but might some other time. Thanks for posting it.

You should watch the video, it is pretty damning on that subject. Of course, I am no video expert of any sort so if there is a more mundane explaination I would like to hear it.

 

[Chuckleberryfinn]

The anomaly filmed beside the solar panels could be a rotating ice particle with one side shinier than the other. This would explain the apparent pulsating quality of the object. Moreover, if you examine it closely during the color reversed scheme with 200% enlargement, you may note an oblong side on the upper left quadrant of the object that repeats every second or so, suggesting a normal piece of space junk, spheroid in shape, that spins. It's a piece of ice with some flat edges and sides that, like a mirror, shine the flood lights back at the camera.

 

[David Biedny]

"Snow mask"

Are you frikking kidding me?

Jeez, this guy knows SQUAT about video. The noise comes up when the sun goes down because of video gamma compensation - The sun shining into the lens overwhelms the CCD sensors in the video gear, so the gain is turned down, and low gain = low noise. Sun goes away, now the gamma is pumped back up, noise floor changes and noise increases. This is video/imaging 101, which this moron seems to be completely in the dark about. The RGB cycling is due to the effects of low-light on the three separate chips in an RGB camera, and convergence issues between those chips signals when pumping gain, as well as the fact that the video data is being multiplexed with a massive boatload of vehicle systems/control data before getting squirted over to the satellite beaming that stuff back down to mission control. Challender should try taking a basic video tech class at a community college before making a chump of himself.

Oh, and this idiot's rambling about the "snow added to the NASA logo"... for fuck's sake, the logo is superimposed on the video through an 8-bit alpha channel/mask (which yields up to 256 levels of transparency), the live video signal is showing THROUGH it, so when the signal has video gain noise, wow, it's magic, so does the frikking logo. Shiver me timbers, it's amazing when one actually UNDERSTANDS what they're seeing.

Yes, kids, this is the result of a society that places more importance on morons throwing around balls than basic science education. Sigh...

dB

 

[Stillborn]

You should watch the video, it is pretty damning on that subject. Of course, I am no video expert of any sort so if there is a more mundane explaination I would like to hear it.

So Jeff C. explains how he determined the snow was artificial? (think that's the word he used). Recall what he said? He give reason to favor his paranoid conclusion over David's? The whole show is 80 min long iirc, and from the parts I saw this guy didn't impress me, to say the least.

 

[Gareth]

thanks for that David. I figured there was probably an explanation for this (like usual).

The only question I have: isnt there a scene in that vid (I watched it half asleep last night) that flip flops between noise/no noise without any sun affecting it?

What would cause that?

 

[David Biedny]

What would cause that?

Well, I'm not going to watch that mess again, but I'll guess that the gain control can be manually turned on and off at the flick of a switch, as well as adjusted via a control knob.

dB

 

[Stillborn]

thanks for that David. I figured there was probably an explanation for this (like usual).

The only question I have: isnt there a scene in that vid (I watched it half asleep last night) that flip flops between noise/no noise without any sun affecting it?

What would cause that?

I'm more inclined to think it's a short, than NASA thinking little tiny white dots will mask the ET mothership etc.

There's often mundane explanations for these conspiracy vids. A lot of people make a big deal out of the delay as an example. Saying NASA is constantly seeing ETs/their craft and are hiding it. They jump to that conclusion instead of thinking that maybe astronauts sometimes cuss, and maybe what goes on with the FCC within Earth's atmosphere, should apply to outside of it. Occam's razor might not be perfect, but it kicks the nutts of whatever Jeff C. is using it seems. But in fairness I have not watched ALL of the whole show. I'm assuming the rest can be seen in other parts. I do think sometimes you can judge a book by it's cover though. As an example, you can often read fiction, or non-fiction there, or atleast the binder