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: 21
96
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 04:29 PM
link   
Instead of attacking the veracity of the data and the man showing it. Try giving us what you think we are seeing in these two videos.




posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by watchZEITGEISTnow
 


Question:
Why, if "we" are called debunkers, are "you" called believers instead of bunkers?


whoa is this an admittance that you are a paid debunker ?


the video:

nobody can reach into the video and prove what the object is and you can post technical jargon all day long but it will be a waste of time because at the end of the day it will still be a UFO



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
Why, if "we" are called debunkers, are "you" called believers instead of bunkers?


Clearing out the 'bunk' is in everybody's interest, it makes genuine anomalies stand out more starkly instead of being lost in the noise.

I think I've made clear elsewhere that I believe there are eyewitness testimonials, buried in the mass of 'UFO reports', that could be of genuine interest to science, military intelligence, law enforcement, theology, and for all I know, numismatics, and that such testimony should NOT be discounted merely because of the company it keeps. The trick is in finding such reports, differentiating them from the normal misperceptual noise (and occasional, rare hoax or prank).

In other individual pieces, I've written about why NASA has always been serious about looking out the window for clues about spacecraft functions, but MISSED the opportunity to save 'Columbia' in 2003 when nobody -- on board or on the ground -- noticed the broken piece of the wing drift away a day after reaching orbit. Had it been noticed, more attention to the potential damaged area could have given forewarning of the lethal wound, perhaps allowing a repair or rescue, but at least allowing the crew to go down fighting -- and send private messages to loved ones before doing so.

missed 'Columbia' clue: www.msnbc.msn.com...

why NASA watches UFOs: today.msnbc.msn.com...

The value of such reports, once found, is also independent of the personalities and intellectual processes of those who praised them, or even distorted them. The only 'truly reprehensible' players in this drama, I believe, are those who say, "It's all nonsense, it's a waste of time to look at anything labeled a 'UFO'."

Heck, even the 'Robertson Panel' knew better than that, back in 1953. Thornton Page and Fred Durant, colleagues and friends of mine over the decades, told me all about their intent, and their reasonable conclusions and prescriptions. But I digress.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by drummerroy39
Instead of attacking the veracity of the data and the man showing it. Try giving us what you think we are seeing in these two videos.


No. You are the man making the claim. Tell us what the argument for high speed and great range is. If you don't even want to try to prove that case, then it fails by default.

And actually, some pages back, I did give, in excruciating detail, the context of the STS-80 video, as I was able to reconstruct it, that suggested a prosaic explanation. It was dismissed, I recall, as 'long-winded' -- probably by somebody who didn't want to be bothered to read it.

Oh well, short and simple answers are appropriate for short and simple minds, is my experience.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by drummerroy39
 


I've said what I think about the video of the OP (but I'm not all that sure about it, the particle could be showing effects of shuttle control jets).

I think the video that Sereda babbles about is definitely a particle being pushed by a control jet.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


can you name any " genuine anomalies " incidents that NASA has had ?

just one will suffice, thanks



[edit on 27-2-2009 by easynow]



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
nobody can reach into the video and prove what the object is ....


That was never necessary. If it can be shown that the object is seen to behave as countless other prosaic objects have done for decades in the vicinity of shuttles, many known to be small particles because they are seen emerging from vents and nozzles, then that is sufficient to put the presumption of ordinariness on top.

It is not required to 'prove' ordinariness any more than it is required to 'prove' innocence. That's the going-in presumption. To prove the opposite, you're going to need a lot more rigor, reality, and rationality than has as yet been displayed on this thread.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 04:45 PM
link   
This Thread has inspired me, thanks...and so because of the old saying, "listen to what they say,..but watch what they do", I have posted,as a start, 17 new NASA video clips on You Tube under secretnasaman! So check them ALL out and... RFburns should enjoy these especially!..

There are so many more to come!...sorry no links but I have yet to get my computer to do it? Weird. Strange home made job...still 17 NASA UFOs by secretnasaman on you tube, for others to bring in links..check out the NASA UFOs:Alien donuts!..for ATS members!

I would have posted on ATS but no matter what, my password does not work on the video media portal?...sorry to "stray".. but there are answers and more questions on these new, video postings for the "tubes".. now for this topic to continue...cheers



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 04:48 PM
link   
Sorry..not much time, just maybe 1..2 hours a day just before getting asleep..else is work and family stuff..

Jim Oberg, thanks for explanation about atmospheric drag.




now some answers.




Originally posted by C-JEAN


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.



No C-JEAN, you are wrong in your red phrases:

a) No, we look almost backward, but not at all forward. See again. The clouds APPEAR to move from upper-left to lower-right, indicating the contrary direction of the shuttle vector.

b) Their ground-speed in NOT zero. If it is zero, then the lights will remain behind the movement, exactly like the clouds.

The only explanation: since shuttle orbiting the earth with 8 km /sec (or so), then those light MUST HAVE the same major orbit, direction and speed like the shuttle to appear almost stationary in the field of view.

If assuming they are sattelites in lower orbites (as RFburns claim), then, they, the satelites MUST have bigger speed than the shuttle (simple laws orbital mechanics), so it MUST go ahead to the left in respect to the shuttle.

Only ice particles cloud (or debris) can and it is following the shuttle in proximity with the same speed, direction and could appear almost stationary, since it is a normal product of shuttle activities. (Of course, some alien ships too, can follow the shuttle in orbit, appearing almost stationary, not exluding that 100%, but alien ships is something to be demonstrated with irefutable arguments, instead ICE or DEBRIS PARTICLES are normal, common and well understood by people with enough technical understanding..the issue is only for the others, the crowd, and their promoters like Sereda, and many others)







[edit on 27/2/09 by depthoffield]



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
can you name any " genuine anomalies " incidents that NASA has had ?


I'd list that 'WOW!' signal back in 1977 as a stumper, but that wasn't NASA.

From astronauts, how about this story (by me), where the operative sentence is,


"I don't know what it was," Thomas says, six years later, "but I know that I saw it."


www.seedmagazine.com...

As for other ‘object’ reports associated with manned space flights, none stand out in my mind as unavoidably unexplainable in terms of spaceflight phenomena, especially as our knowledge of spaceflight phenomena and how it is perceived has improved enormously with experience.

It's why we go OUT there -- we didn't know what to expect to find. If we had, the trips would have been useless. What Andy saw has also been reported by cosmonauts, but what it represents, I don’t know.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by easynow
nobody can reach into the video and prove what the object is ....


That was never necessary. If it can be shown that the object is seen to behave as countless other prosaic objects have done for decades in the vicinity of shuttles, many known to be small particles because they are seen emerging from vents and nozzles, then that is sufficient to put the presumption of ordinariness on top.

It is not required to 'prove' ordinariness any more than it is required to 'prove' innocence. That's the going-in presumption. To prove the opposite, you're going to need a lot more rigor, reality, and rationality than has as yet been displayed on this thread.



putting assumptions at the top of a list doesn't prove anything beyond a shadow of doubt.

no doubt there has been space debris filmed numerous times by NASA but to just assume every single anomaly has a simple explanation is an insult to people that have had UFO experiences and know for for a fact there is more to it than mundane explanations.

also i don't have to prove anything in this thread and as i have already stated...nobody can reach into the video and get a sample or touch the thing so...you cannot prove to me that it is something from a water dump.

videos prove nothing either way and in the end it will be up to the viewer to decide what the explanation is.

if NASA was transparent then maybe someone might be able to make the correct decision , until that happens people will argue over this for eternity.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 05:06 PM
link   
In conclusion the data is in the videos I have posted. If you haven.t seen them then do not bother to offer an opinion. It.s common sense, straight forward and does not require a lengthy dissertation. Unfortunately I believe some people here tend to over complicate things on purpose, in order to confuse. Common sense is whats needed to solve this conundrum.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
if NASA was transparent then maybe someone might be able to make the correct decision , until that happens people will argue over this for eternity.


I think you have put your finger on common ground here. Thank you.

NASA's attitude, as shown by repeated official behavior, towards "UFO stories and astronauts", is one of thinly disguised contempt for 'stupid amateurs' -- not even realizing that the videos really DO look weird to people unaccustomed to seeing them routinely, and not caring that most people fascinated by them are curious, intelligent, open-minded 'space buffs' who really do deserve alittle consideration and explanation.

I've bloodied my scalp repeatedly banging on the door of appropriate offices, asking that accessible databases and explanations and examples be displayed on a regular rather than sporadic basis, since their responsibility is to explain things to the public, not proclaim things to them and demand obedient belief. In these experiences, I've come to sadly conclude that NASA sometimes earns the distrust it gets -- even if , as in this case, unfairly.

Where the public distrust is more fairly based has involved issues such as crew safety and international partnerships, where my main journalistic activities have focused in the decade since I walked out of my NASA job after testifying to Congress over a rotten 'safety culture'. I wrote that it smelled like pre-Challenger all over again, they hadn't killed anybody again yet (this, in 1997), and I didn't want to be there, helpless to stop it, when they did. And in 2003, they did.



That makes the idea that I am some sort of 'NASA tool' to coverup stuff all the more ludicrous, and considering the blacklist I was put on at NASA, somewhat insulting. I'm the only journalist ever denounced by name in a NASA Press Release for being 'wrong' -- it was a badge of honor -- back in early 2000. I think you can find that denunciation on NASA's website -- if the organization is straightforward enough. I have a hardcopy of it up on my wall here in my study.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by drummerroy39
 


Common sense tells you something can go 900,000 mph in the atmosphere? Not mine. Mine tells me there's a much better explanation for what we're seeing.

[edit on 2/27/2009 by Phage]



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 05:21 PM
link   
Yeah, this can be easily debunked — once you get it out of your head that the object is changing directions. It's not.

Most likely, what we're seeing is a shiny hunk of debris following a relatively straight trajectory, and the orbital trajectory of the shuttle is actually causing the illusion that the object is turning.

Here's a simple animated diagram of what I mean:



Of course, the proportions here are highly exaggerated, but the principle is sound. The object enters the shuttle's field of view from the right; then the object seems to decelerate as it actually parallels the shuttle's orbit; then the object seems to exit the same way it came in, out of frame to the right.

Thus completing the illusion that the object turned when, in fact, it is following a relatively straight trajectory. It is the shuttle's own velocity and trajectory that is deceiving our eyes.

— Doc Velocity



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by drummerroy39
It.s common sense, straight forward and does not require a lengthy dissertation. Unfortunately I believe some people here tend to over complicate things on purpose, in order to confuse. Common sense is whats needed to solve this conundrum.


In other words, Drum,

"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."

More to the point, you are advising people, to ignore all information about context and illumination and on-going activities, just interpret this space scene as if it were seen on Earth and not in space. Stay narrow-minded. Stay ignorant. That makes for the best 'UFO buff'.

Sure, that'll work fine. Where's it gotten us after half a century of UFOria except deeper and deeper into dark fantasies, paranoia, and delusion-based decision-making. Is that really where you want to be?



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Doc Velocity
 


er, i thought the common theory was this object was an ice particle that has come off the Shuttle ?

are you saying that is not the case ?



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by easynow
 


Not to put words in his mouth but..
An ice particle ejected from the shuttle will be in a different orbit than the shuttle. Not very different, but different. Just like the infamous tool bag was.

[edit on 2/27/2009 by Phage]



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by easynow
 


An ice particle ejected from the shuttle will be in a different orbit than the shuttle. Not very different, but different. Just like the infamous tool bag was.


this i understand , so are you agreeing with D.V. that the object was traveling in a straight line and came from somewhere other than than the shuttle ?


[edit on 27-2-2009 by easynow]



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


I listen to every piece of data presented to me before I reach a conclusion and I am very analytical in my observations. About as far from being narrow minded as you can get. But When I weigh all the evidence presented I come to the same conclusions, with certain exceptions of course. This however is not one of them. Jim I wish you well my friend but I think your too smart for your own good and will never be able to see the obvious, you have my sympathies.



new topics

top topics



 
96
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join