It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NASA TV does not want to show live nightvision from STS-118?

page: 1
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 08:42 PM
link   
Today i'm watching several STS-118 orbital cycles from NASA TV and when the dark portion of earth is approaching they systematically shut down the live video link from the spacestation/shuttle cameras.

Are they became tired about all those clear nightvision ufo sightings from previous shuttle missions?

[edit on 16-8-2007 by mystr]




posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by mystr
 


Very most likely

That should give you a reason to believe in a cover up.



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 09:27 PM
link   
I could be wrong but I believe that one of NASA's excuses why no stars are visible in the Lunar sky (other than the fact that the daytime sky is saffron colored) is that stars are not visible in a vacuum. I seem to remember that NASA said you need an atmosphere to refract the light of the stars for them to become visible. I think that Hoagland said something about that also. If this is not what they said please accept my apologies in advance.

So of course we know that those statements (if they were made) are without fact or foundation and are total fiction. If the NASA TV were to be turned on during the nighttime portion of the flight (assuming the shuttle is flying in a vacuum) the stars would be brilliant, beautiful and majestic. So to speak.

So if they were brilliant, beautiful and majestic in space then why wouldn't they have been brilliant, beautiful and majestic from the lunar surface. I mean if the sky wasn't a saffron color.

Of course if the daytime sky was in fact a saffron color from the lunar surface then the sky would have to be painted black in all the pictures and if the sky was painted black then you would have to come up with an excuse why there were no stars because it would be impossible to put all the stars in at their correct position. And if you had any color video or even black and white video you would have to lose that video or else it would show a saffron color sky.

Of course, if the daytime sky where in fact black then the video (assuming you found all of the lost video) would show the stars and then you would have to explain why the still photos don't show the stars if the video shows the stars.

Best plan: Lose the videos and don't show the nighttime sky from the shuttle.

Oh, the tangled web we weave....



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 10:40 PM
link   
John, you understand how photography equipment works, right? I don't want to belittle you, but your ignorance of this equipment makes you sound pretty foolish.

As for the nightime feed from the mission being cut off, why don't you just call NASA and ask them? You know, there is a public relations/media number floating around out there somewhere. Of course, you have your mind made up that it is to hide the alien ufos (lol) so any answer you get from there you will brush off as part of the conspiracy.



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by IgnoreTheFacts
John, you understand how photography equipment works, right? I don't want to belittle you, but your ignorance of this equipment makes you sound pretty foolish.

As for the nightime feed from the mission being cut off, why don't you just call NASA and ask them? You know, there is a public relations/media number floating around out there somewhere. Of course, you have your mind made up that it is to hide the alien ufos (lol) so any answer you get from there you will brush off as part of the conspiracy.


ppffft..whatever dude...

anyways John...Mr Lear... pardon my ignorance but why is it important to note that the sky on the moon is saffron colored and why would they alter that fact?
oh and I colored my avatar saffron in your honor, (debuting my roomate Jenna)

[edit on 16-8-2007 by darkheartrising]



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 10:49 PM
link   
This lists some contact information if you want to ask them yourselves. Don't expect me to be the one to call. I don't care. (And I'm a coward.)



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 10:51 PM
link   
Originally posted by IgnoreTheFacts



John, you understand how photography equipment works, right? I don't want to belittle you, but your ignorance of this equipment makes you sound pretty foolish.



No problem ITF. And my ignornace has made me sound foolish more times than not.


As for the nightime feed from the mission being cut off, why don't you just call NASA and ask them? You know, there is a public relations/media number floating around out there somewhere. Of course, you have your mind made up that it is to hide the alien ufos (lol) so any answer you get from there you will brush off as part of the conspiracy.


Yeah, well thanks anyway ITF. I prefer the conspiracy angle.



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 10:53 PM
link   
You know what John, I like you. Your not like the rest of the nuts around here. Don't get me wrong, your still a nut, but at least you find humor in this whole thing.

Cheers!



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 10:57 PM
link   
I like you John


The very fact that you can put up with the likes of some of us makes you a good guy.

I appreciate you.



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 11:07 PM
link   
LL Wlle and Martyn Stubbs recorded plenty of footage with all manner of star stuff in them in the 90's. This mission has shown plenty of night-pass footage... all of it with the cameras facing nadir or Earthward. It would seem that the INCO's who fly the cameras know almost exactly when to change the view. Funnily enough just when there's something unusual in the frame. I suspect at least some delay and buffering helps this "editing". LOL.

The footage from the past has changed... "the look", perhaps hardware at some point "stuff" has been shown less. I completely "buy" that NASA hides "stuff". What stuff? The "stuff". If anyone wants a particular sequence from this mission as provided by NASA-TV over the web u2u me.

Cheers,

Vic



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 11:08 PM
link   
Originally posted by darkheartrising




anyways John...Mr Lear... pardon my ignorance but why is it important to note that the sky on the moon is saffron colored and why would they alter that fact?


Any color sky whether it was blue, yellow, red, saffron would indicate that the moon had an atmosphere. If the moon had an atmosphere it would mean that it had more than one sixth the gravity of earth. If it had a gravity, says 64% of that of earths AND an atmosphere that would probably mean that there was life on the moon.

And if it had life, seeing as the moon is allegedly as old as earth it would probably mean that there was a civilization up there at least as old as we are.

And seeing all the photos that we have posted of mining operations, buildings, huge structures both on the near side and farside it would seem that whoever lives up there is much more technologically advanced than we are.

For instance it appears that 'they' have a fission (or at least some type of nuclear) reactor at Aristarchus.

So if the sky is indeed saffron colored, or any other color for that matter a lot more may going on up there than we have been led to believe.


oh and I colored my avatar saffron in your honor, (debuting my roomate Jenna)


Looks good. Thanks.



posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 01:55 AM
link   
reply to post by mystr
 


There has been many transmissions showing space during the STS-118.
Sometimes at daylight and sometimes at night depending the rotation of
both shuttle /ISS and our planet. During the past two spacewalks most
of the time you could see space on the background but not stars were
visible. Sometimes the camera operator seems to open wide the
camera lens increasing brightness and the situation changes revealing
things in the background normally not visible, that's how ufos and
moving objects have been recorded. There are good examples of this.

In this mission STS-118 there has been at least three good sequences
transmitted in infrared (black and white) showing stars in space and also
strange things moving around just like those old videos like the STS-48.
However these specific transmissions are unpredictable and if you are
not in front of your tv screen at the right moment you miss the chance.

In my opinion there is a rule established by NASA for not to show too
much of clear space during a mission. We have learned there are always
strange things around the shuttles and the ISS but without the help
of the tv cameras we can't get the evidence. Therefore the only way
is to keep spying on NASA transmissions and with some luck we may
witness a ufo incident.



posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 05:36 AM
link   
John,

I'm puzzled as to why you think that the Moon has an atmosphere. If this were the case, then any star or planet occulted by the lunar disk would appear to fade before disappearing. Since this does not occur, I think it's a safe bet to say that the Moon does not have an atmosphere.



posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 06:14 AM
link   
UFOs filmed surrounding the fuel tanks of STS-118...

www.disclose.tv...



posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 06:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by free_spirit

In my opinion there is a rule established by NASA for not to show too
much of clear space during a mission.


Use some common sense here. Why angle the camera to view blank space? The camera is there for mission specifics and it would not benefit ground controllers or the astronauts if they took up over the the frame with blank space, lol.


We have learned there are always
strange things around the shuttles and the ISS but without the help
of the tv cameras we can't get the evidence.


There are always things floating around the shuttle, catching light, reflecting it, space junk, etc. Trust me, if there were real UFOs being recorded by NASA cameras it would be mainstream and undenied by NASA. Imagine the budget increase they could get with that kind of news. And there are simply TOO many people and employees involved with each mission to keep anything that potentially earth shattering a secret.

It's fun to imagine there is some secret cabal keeping alien information from the public, but if you apply just a little common sense to it you will realize it is just fanciful thinking.



posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 07:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by IgnoreTheFacts
Use some common sense here. Why angle the camera to view blank space? The camera is there for mission specifics and it would not benefit ground controllers or the astronauts if they took up over the the frame with blank space, lol.



Thank you.

To a man with a conspiracy hammer, the world is full of coverup "nails"



posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 09:17 AM
link   
Originally posted by Mogget




John,

I'm puzzled as to why you think that the Moon has an atmosphere. If this were the case, then any star or planet occulted by the lunar disk would appear to fade before disappearing. Since this does not occur, I think it's a safe bet to say that the Moon does not have an atmosphere.



This statement is untrue. Both V. A. Firsoff (British Astronomer, Strange World of the Moon) and W.H. Pickering (Dir. JPL 1954) saw stars occulted by the moon. Read page 130 of V.A. Firsoffs book.

Harlow Shapley (Director of Harvard College Obsevatory) stated in March of 1953, he had discovered a thin but breathable atmopshere on the moon.

Peter Andreas Hansen, a decorated and respected Danish mathemetician and astronmer hypthesized to the Royal Astronomical Society that the moon had a breathable atmosphere on its far side.

Most of those who repeat the old "stars are not occulted" have not actually done it themselves nor can they produce any video or film of these supposed "non-occultations".

I have produced numerous photos of vapor and dust on the moon (John Lear's Moon Photo's) not to mention the SMART-1 photos and the explosion near Endymion taken by Lick Observatory in January of 1946 that should leave no doubt that there is an atmosphere on the moon without which these phenomonon could not exist.

You need to add the following names as those who believed there is a breathable atmosphere on the moon (some hypothesized life as we know it):

William Herschel
Nicolaus Copernicus
Aristarchus of Samos
John Wilkens
Hans Kepleer
P.A. Hansen
William Leitch
John Herschel

Oh and by the way, thanks for the post.



posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 09:33 AM
link   
Originally posted by IgnoreTheFacts




There are always things floating around the shuttle, catching light, reflecting it, space junk, etc. Trust me, if there were real UFOs being recorded by NASA cameras it would be mainstream and undenied by NASA. Imagine the budget increase they could get with that kind of news. And there are simply TOO many people and employees involved with each mission to keep anything that potentially earth shattering a secret.

It's fun to imagine there is some secret cabal keeping alien information from the public, but if you apply just a little common sense to it you will realize it is just fanciful thinking.


Good speech ITF. Has that 'certain' ring to it. If you don't have a day job you might ring up NASA to see if they need anybody to answer the telephone.

But with so much information available to the public from other sources you're going to have a tough sell here very shortly if not right now.

The old 'there are simply TOO many people to keep a secret' is also wearing a little thin. Might be able to sell it to children or midlifers.

The old "secret cabal keeping alien information from the public" is not going over well with the 90% of the public that know NASA and the rest of the government are lieing through their teeth. Of course, Iraq is not helping their cause.

If I could respectfully make one small suggestion: leave out the 'trust me' part of your dialogue. It's not selling well these days in advertising.

But hey, go for it. The sound of 'reason and common sense' may appeal to somebody.



posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 09:41 AM
link   
thats so incredibly naive..


Trust me, if there were real UFOs being recorded by NASA cameras it would be mainstream and undenied by NASA.




posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 10:04 AM
link   
Massive evidence means nothing to the people who are trapped in the denial mode. there is no doubt a thin atmosphere on the Moon, as many photos have attested to. There is undeniable and well founded evidence that the mon has aliens there now or in the past; hollow moon, structures that the Govt. always tries to obscure..

A poster above ( trust me ) says that we can TRUST NASA to admit UFO's if they saw them on video; well, they have seen them and so have we but the denials keep coming, by order of the higher ups. We had a saying in Miami, where I grew up: How do you say F Y in Miami? Trust me!!

The moon has massive evidence of buildings, structures, ancient and huge spires, etc. Undeniable evidence. There is a pic of a huge wheel type thing with spokes radiating out of it, and a tall tower in the middle, and the denier's say that this is some appendage on a spacecraft that we are seeing!! Amazing the lengths to which the deniers will stoop to try and resolve the proofs that are so apparent. they would deny any evidence that does not fit into their preconceived notions of that is going on up there.

There is NO DOUBT at all that the moon is inhabited by an advanced race, that the moon is not a natural satellite of the earth, that the moon is hollow, that the moon is older then the earth, and many more. UFO's are seen on the moon many times and bridges observed that vanish later, alterations in terrain only explainable by mechanical alterations,etc.

One has to be committed to denying the obvious in order to sustain any thoughts that the moon is a dead and natural rock flying close to us by mere coincidence; all of the hundreds of anomalies are just non issues for the deniers; they do not need rational logic when they have Nasa and the Govt. to believe!!

Thanks to Mr. Lear for his contributions here and unless someone can show that his research and photos are not valid, I will believe that he is right for the most part. I do not agree with everything that John does, but I believe his main premises; they are proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join