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 STS-114 UFO Footage - Can it be debunked?

page: 14
96
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns

Originally posted by JimOberg

But that's the central flaw in your phrasing of the problem -- that you start by assuming there are no outside forces. You have absolutely no justification for such an assumption.



I see no flaw in my phrasing of the problem. There is no shuttle thruster plume flash at the point this object stops and changes direction, there is nothing else impacting upon the object to make it change direction, and there is NO atmospheric effect at that altitude that would make this object stop and turn and burn. If there is..then you need to point that out and not just tell me or others our phrasing of the quesiton is flawed.




"There is no shuttle thruster plume flash at the point this object stops and changes direction"

So what? Are you concluding from this that are no thruster firings? Is that on the basis that you believe that thruster firings ALWAYS produce flashes visible from ANY exterior TV camera?

"there is nothing else impacting upon the object to make it change direction"

This is a claim of something to be proven, not evidence for it. You are 'arguing the consequent' -- slipping that which you intend to prove into the original assumptions. Tsk tsk.


"..and there is NO atmospheric effect at that altitude that would make this object stop and turn and burn."

Red herring.

"If there is..then you need to point that out... "

I thought I had -- I postulated a flow field from the water dump port. Unless it entrains ice, it is itself not generally visible below a certain density.




posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

"So one lone drifting "dot" of waste dump is going to manuever in the manner we see in the OP video. I, as others are...are still waiting for the definative proof that the object doing the turn and burn is a waste dump leftover. "

You've got it completely backwards. YOU are responsible for proving that the objects CANNOT be explained in conventional terms. The burden of proof lies on the claimant of extraordinariness. You really don't get that? It's like a 'guilty' verdict in a court of law -- requiring 'beyond reasonable doubt' to 'win'. Otherwise, the existing world-view is unaltered.



I think those of us who question how this one object is moving around compared to the other objects in the video have pretty much explained how it is not behaving like the others. And unless your expecting the video itself to just jump out and say "this object moves like this and the other dont because"...well your gonna wait for a very long time.

Its right there in front of you. Continuing to dance around that point is ..well pointless and we clearly see that already. The byond resonable doubt that the object in question is behaving in a manner unlike the rest is again..right there..in front of you. And I am sure that a judge and jury who were to look at this video will also agree, without a shadow of a doubt, that the object in question is definately doing something different than the others.

The next question the jury and judge will ask is.."why does that one object manuever like that and the others just sit there?".

I will let you play the defense attourney and answer their question.




Cheers!!!!

[edit on 25-2-2009 by RFBurns]



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns

It will take a lot more than just some fancy talk and claim of being with NASA at one time to convince me. Until then...shields are up and weapons fully charged. And I never miss.



Uh, what will convince you? Have you ever been convinced you were in error about ANYthing? About any UFO topic? Or do you see it as mortal mind combat with your ego at stake? 'Shields up' ... no counter-argument is ever going to get the drop on you, that's for sure!



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by RFBurns

It will take a lot more than just some fancy talk and claim of being with NASA at one time to convince me. Until then...shields are up and weapons fully charged. And I never miss.



Uh, what will convince you? Have you ever been convinced you were in error about ANYthing? About any UFO topic? Or do you see it as mortal mind combat with your ego at stake? 'Shields up' ... no counter-argument is ever going to get the drop on you, that's for sure!




As a matter of fact, yes. But that was done with solid verifiable evidence, not just talk. And that evidence was way byond the typical ice or junk explanations. Hence is why you and the others will have a very very hard time convincing me otherwise about this one object doing what it does against the others that just stand there like cows reading a dictionary.


So here we are, you and a few others trying to "get the drop on me" when the issue here is the object doing a turn and burn. We still await the explanation for that from you and the rest. Funny...that answer still seems to be elusive and yet to be presented here...but there sure is plenty of other mess on the wall you and the rest are willing to throw in.

Wonder why?


Cheers!!!!

[edit on 25-2-2009 by RFBurns]



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
I will let you play the defense attourney and answer their question.


Both sides in such a trial have the obligation to gather all relevant background information on the phenomenn in question. My contribution so far is the activity timeline, and I've yet to get a hold of the scene list. That's the constructive approach for now. Apparently these context documents are of no interest to you?



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by RFBurns
I will let you play the defense attourney and answer their question.


Both sides in such a trial have the obligation to gather all relevant background information on the phenomenn in question. My contribution so far is the activity timeline, and I've yet to get a hold of the scene list. That's the constructive approach for now. Apparently these context documents are of no interest to you?


Yes..our side has presented its case...the other side keeps using the same old worn out theory that is plainly unapplicable in this case...you still have yet to provide that evidence of how this one lone object moves the way it does compared to the other guys in the video.

Shall we proceed with that...or continue this irrelevant nonsense?



Cheers!!!



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns

Originally posted by JimOberg
The Jeff Challender link was very helpful in that it showed that all the lights in the image were free-floating objects, not cities or ships or thunderheads. His sped-up sequence showed them drifting across the horizon, at almost but not quite the same rates.


We are NOT talking about free floating "lights". We are talking about the object zipping into frame, slowing down, stopping, turning and then burning off in the other direction. Please stay focused.


Originally posted by JimOberg
The link also corroborated the date/time of the video.


Irrelevant.



This isn't making you look very open-minded. While I'm seeking the context of the curver's origin, you seem to want to ignore all context -- even the actual time of the event, you dismiss as 'irrelevant' -- and make believe that only the curver was there in space at an unknowable time with unknowable lighting conditions and unknowable thruster and dump activity. And THEN you demand I prove a prosaic explanation. Talk about stacking the space deck, wowie. No wonder you want the 'curver' deemed 'unidentified' -- you're deliberately stripping off any potential identifying marks!



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 

There are usually around half a dozen 'big hitter' members that represent differing perspectives on threads like this. Tempers run high because they all feel passionately about the subject.

I can't speak for others, but I'm sure if you came back and added to similar threads it could only add to the information that gets exchanged. Regardless of whether members agree or disagree with you; you've added information that wasn't posted before.

Personally, I haven't taken a position yet and will read the last few pages and see. What I think is by the by anyway, but I'm sure there are a few members that would welcome your input in any future threads.



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns

Ahh 2 hours long...should have been a nice LONG 2 hour waste dump trail in that video...thanks for pointing that out. So...WHERE is that waste dump trail? Or even a smither of it?


Here's where your water-out-the-car-window false analogy has betrayed you. You expect -- nay, you DEMAND -- that the dumped water form a trail behind the Orbiter, because that's the way your mind imagines the water molecules will behave.

But if it actually does NOT behave that way in space (and it doesn't), you use THAT original water trail misconception to bolster your original misconception, that there are no conventional forces possible to explain the change in motion of the curver. You wind up double-dipping into error out of an exaggerated sense of your own perfect knowledge of spaceflight.

That sort of circular argument is pretty immune to refutation.

I'm going to get that scene list and post the rersults. Arguing with you about your precious misconceptions isn't getting us anywhere.



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg


This isn't making you look very open-minded. While I'm seeking the context of the curver's origin, you seem to want to ignore all context -- even the actual time of the event, you dismiss as 'irrelevant' -- and make believe that only the curver was there in space at an unknowable time with unknowable lighting conditions and unknowable thruster and dump activity. And THEN you demand I prove a prosaic explanation. Talk about stacking the space deck, wowie. No wonder you want the 'curver' deemed 'unidentified' -- you're deliberately stripping off any potential identifying marks!




Filling the bucket with timeline, curver's origin and all the other "waste dump" is not answering the question. You want to say I have a closed mind yet keep avoiding the question that has been repeated time and time again. I am focused on one issue, the object moving as it does. Throwing in more clutter only clouds the issue...a typical tactic I see so many times on these issues used by the other side.

That alone suggests who has the closed mind.

Now...the issue...the object moving in the manner it does. Slowing, turning and burning off in the other direction. No shuttle thruster plume flash seen, which btw a shuttle thruster plume flash would be quite visible and would happen just prior to that object stopping and turning and burning off in the other direction.

So since we do not see any thruster flash...and there is no wind jet stream at the 115 mile minimum altitdue of the shuttle orbit, and we see no other object hitting that object to make it turn suddenly, the question still remains....what makes it do such a fancy sudden manuver.

What round is this? I lost count again. But I got time...LOTS of time.



Cheers!!!!

[edit on 25-2-2009 by RFBurns]



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by RFBurns

Ahh 2 hours long...should have been a nice LONG 2 hour waste dump trail in that video...thanks for pointing that out. So...WHERE is that waste dump trail? Or even a smither of it?


Here's where your water-out-the-car-window false analogy has betrayed you. You expect -- nay, you DEMAND -- that the dumped water form a trail behind the Orbiter, because that's the way your mind imagines the water molecules will behave.

But if it actually does NOT behave that way in space (and it doesn't), you use THAT original water trail misconception to bolster your original misconception, that there are no conventional forces possible to explain the change in motion of the curver. You wind up double-dipping into error out of an exaggerated sense of your own perfect knowledge of spaceflight.

That sort of circular argument is pretty immune to refutation.

I'm going to get that scene list and post the rersults. Arguing with you about your precious misconceptions isn't getting us anywhere.


Your song and dance is getting quite old friend. Should I put on another record that doesnt make the needle get stuck on the same section of the song?

Isnt it quite funny how your leaving out my post where I clearly state that it is an example, an analogy, and not exact to what happens up in space.

Hmm....curious isnt it folks?!!!


Cheers!!!!

[edit on 25-2-2009 by RFBurns]



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


You know m8, since the "dump" was disproved , you could use the old standard "Marsh Gas" . I hear 75% of the brain trust at NASA actually believe that



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
Filling the bucket with timeline, curver's origin and all the other "waste dump" is not answering the question. You want to say I have a closed mind yet keep avoiding the question that has been repeated time and time again. I am focused on one issue, the object moving as it does. Throwing in more clutter only clouds the issue...a typical tactic I see so many times on these issues used by the other side. That alone suggests who has the closed mind....

Cheers!!!!

[edit on 25-2-2009 by RFBurns]


OK, contextual information that can help define the lighting conditions, crew activities, Orbiter orientation in space, etc etc, all that to you is just 'clutter'. Thanks for making it clear how you conduct an investigation of an admittedly curious piece of video.
regarding that information, you wrote:


..the informaiton is out there, it is just scattered and fragmented, and on purpose. The everyday person who is curious about these things do not have time to sit in front of a pc for hours putting together the fragmented pieces of informaiton...


So your explanation for you not getting it yourself is that, let me get this straight, is that it's just too ha-a-a-a-a-ard
. And even though your message stated "I am plenty of time", you just don't WANT to spend the time to find potentially exculpatory (explanational) material. It's a PLOT by NASA to MAKE you give up easily.


Are you sure that's the image of you-the-fearless-and-tireless-UFO-researcher that you want to be projecting?



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 02:49 PM
link   
The STS-114 'Scene List' overview for the time span in question has this intro -- i'll try to get more detailed writeups:

Clip Title: "Clip 1: Earth View"
start time: 218/13:49:27:27
end time: 218/14:31:15:24
Description: "View from the Space Shuttle Payload Bay (PLB) B CAM of the Earth as the Space Shuttle passes over the Pacific Ocean, Canada, the Atlantic Ocean and Africa. Night lights over North America are in FOV. Light level increases."
Subject: "Earth Views (Daytime)"
Int/Ext: "Exterior".



[edit on 25-2-2009 by JimOberg]



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


I will spend plenty of time discussing the issue at hand, not waste time with irrelevancies to derail the question at hand..which is..once again for you and your star giving fans, "What is causing this one lone object to manuver in the manner that it does while the others just sit there like lumps on a log?"


Now if you and your fans want to continue to dance around that question and hand stars back and forth to each other thats fine.

And as I have said...I got all the time in the world to wait for you and the others to finish that square dance with each other and get to the issue of the thread.

If your timeline data and curve figures clearly tells us how that object is able to manuver as it does..post that proof and we can move on.

In the meantime...I will kick back and just monitor for any progress in this issue and just ignore the other nonesense.

(pours another cup of coffee, plans to take a nap because I doubt any progress will occur anytime soon.)


Cheers!!!!

[edit on 25-2-2009 by RFBurns]



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
Hope that clears things up a little
It does clear things a little, I was thinking that I had seen more posts, but after all it was under a different user name.



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 04:32 PM
link   
RFBurns ..

Please let's shrink down the mistery, since you said you know very well this case and have time to clarify things.

For this, i've made a speeded-up sequence of the OP movie, about 6 times faster...it lasts 5 seconds, but it covers 32 second from the OP movie.

HERE is the sequence, in flash format (because i want to loop to see better the movements there), just click the link:

img7.imageshack.us...


1) First, we can agree all toghether that in the image, above that curved rim (which can be earth rim or maybe atmosphere rim), so, above the rim is the surface of the Earth with some clouds appearing to moving because the shuttle in fact is moving. Is this ok from you?

2) Second, we can agree that all the bright lights there are NOT lights on the surface of the Earth, because they aren't leaved ago by the shuttle movement, like the clouds we see. All the lights are floating in space, at least above the clouds. It is ok from you?

3) If 2) is corect, then we see that most of the lights appear to have the same velocity and orbit like the shuttle, thus appearing almost stationary in the field of view. Is this ok from you? (so, we are not talking here about the object changing trajectory at 180 degree, and are not talkink here about the object going with apparently great speed from the left to the right).

Now the first question for you: what are the apparently stationary bright lights, in your opinion?

I hope, clarifyying those 3 issues and the question, we can just concentrate after only to the misterious fast or weird moving objects.




[edit on 25/2/09 by depthoffield]



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 04:47 PM
link   
RFBurns

Could you please explain what do you mean by "turn and burn"?

I don't understand why the "burn" part.

Thanks in advance.



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 04:58 PM
link   
Hi, inquisitive ATSs.


Originally posted by depthoffield
1)curved rim (which can be earth rim or maybe atmosphere rim), so, above the rim is the surface of the Earth with some clouds appearing to moving because the shuttle in fact is moving.

___OK.


2)bright lights there are NOT lights on the surface of the Earth, because they aren't leaved ago by the shuttle movement, like the clouds we see. All the lights are floating in space, at least above the clouds.

___OK.


3) If 2) is corect, then we see that most of the lights appear to have the same velocity and orbit like the shuttle, thus appearing almost stationary in the field of view.

___BZZZZZ ! Wrong ! They move UP, because they are between us and
the earth. We are flying/orbiting under the earth. We look forward.
So they are almost stationary over ground, except perspective.
Their **ground speed** is _0_ zero.
Watch the one, below-left, crossing horizon -> up ^^.


Now the first question for you: what are the apparently stationary bright lights, in your opinion?

**Very** probably other UFOs.

And there could be others posters that could add, like me:
They are the "guardians's fleet".

Blue skies.



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
RFBurns

Could you please explain what do you mean by "turn and burn"?

I don't understand why the "burn" part.

Thanks in advance.


Its just a type of slang for something that suddenly changes direction and heads off in another. The "burn" part would refer to the sudden acceleration. Sort of like "burn some rubber" in a hot rod....foot to the floor...haul arse...giddy up.



Cheers!!!!




top topics



 
96
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join