NASA STS-114 UFO Footage - Can it be debunked?

Some really amazing pictures and I am just talking about normal scenic pitcures I have seen came from the ats114 funny how crappy the video is. Plus its not like they are some million dollar tourist, flying around up there. When someone has a camera in the their hand or even if its remote camera the object in focus is usually important... or not just hap hazard unless stuff happens.

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by JimOberg

 

Read Hynek's fundamental requirements for any UFO case to be taken seriously

Hynek was an incompetent investigater and you want me to use his work as an example ?

i could show you plenty of very stupid mistakes he made if need be.

it's amazing how the skepti bunks try to send you in the wrong direction on purpose.

You hit the nail on the head directly. That is a classic and fundamental tactic. Its practically lesson #1 in the field.


Cheers!!!!

reply to post by Kandinsky


thank you !

i could not have said it better

you are exactly correct that the Military Industrial Complex connections are reason enough to have secrets.

so why am i expected to trust any information on a NASA website to investigate a UFO video involving them as Mr. Oberg wants me to ?

it's completely nuts and an insult to my intelligence to think i am going to find the truth on a NASA website.

some of us know what is really going on and can see right thru the game that is being played right here in this thread.

reply to post by RFBurns

You hit the nail on the head directly. That is a classic and fundamental tactic. Its practically lesson #1 in the field.

thanks

it's so obvious that misleading info is being put forth here anyone with half a brain can see it.

i was in sales for many years and have studied sales tactics and i know when someone is trying to sell me something rotten

it won't work with me.

Glad to see you chimed in on this RFBurns

Originally posted by easynow

so why am i expected to trust any information on a NASA website to investigate a UFO video involving them as Mr. Oberg wants me to ?

it's completely nuts and an insult to my intelligence to think i am going to find the truth on a NASA website.

some of us know what is really going on and can see right thru the game that is being played right here in this thread.

Keep that sledge hammer straight and true. You scored another direct hit.

2nd line

Cheers!!!!

Originally posted by easynow
it's so obvious that misleading info is being put forth here anyone with half a brain can see it.

Do you find it possible that some of the videos are also misleading info?

reply to post by ArMaP

Do you find it possible that some of the videos are also misleading info?

ArMaP this question can be proposed in many different contexts so i am reluctant to try and answer it.

are you asking me if NASA has on purpose put out videos thru disinfo agent puppets to propagate a UFO cover story so that secret military craft will be misidentified by the general public ?

or are you asking me if video itself is misleading or is it because the person viewing it is being mislead by their conceptions or misconceptions of what they see in them ? (remember that's a two way street)

if it is the video itself question then wich videos are you talking about ? the one in the Op ? the ones secretnasaman is advertising ? or the ones i have posted in this this thread ?

if you are directing the question at every video in the entire world then the answer would be yes

to be clear on what my viewpoint is about the video in the Op:

i am not defending the argument that the object in the Op is an Alien spacecraft or anything else.

what i am defending is,

this object could be anything

that means the answer to the question in Op "can this video be debunked" is NO

anyone that says they know what this object is...is a disinfo agent wether they are telling everyone it's an Alien spacecraft or telling you it's space debri, ice or water from the shuttle.


i have already stated in this thread that it is up to the viewer to decide what they want to conclude from the evidence and at the end of the day this video will still be a UFO video...period.

unless you can magically reach into the video and touch the object or get a sample of it ?

now i will ask you the same question...

Do you find it possible that some of the videos are also misleading info?

wich context will your answer be in ?

reply to post by easynow


I will answer in the context in which I asked the question, sorry for not making that clear.

I think that some videos may be made public, by NASA, by any other government agencies, by private companies or individuals just to throw doubt on some subjects, UFOs being the most probable victim of these hypothetical "phishing" videos (or photos).

If this was done by NASA or other government related entity, then it will come a time when more data will be published, so they can show that all the conclusions about those videos were wrong.

If this is done by private companies then they will probably are making some money with it, probably making documentaries about those videos, because they were made (or released) on purpose to allow for the creation of several possibilities without the possibility of knowing if any of those are true.

If this is done by a private individual then it could be for many reasons, from someone convinced that they are doing the right thing (for whatever reason) to someone convinced that they are acting as a new kind of "knight" in an Internet battle.

reply to post by ArMaP


thanks ArMaP

i see we are on the same page on these issues and i am glad to know there are people other than myself that understand all the parameters associated in investigating any video.

things are not always what they seem and anyone that takes a side without the proper proof is not denying ignorance.

quoting Nohup...

" if your not a skeptic your a sucker "

this is very true and should be considered in the context of all sides of the issue. that's why i choose to remain neutral.

so if i post a ufo video in this thread it only means that i am putting forth an idea as a possible explanation and by no means the only answer.

thanks again and i enjoyed your videos with the magnet ..it was interesting but i have to ask...do you really think the magnet was affected by magnetic influences or was it just simple gravity influences coupled with a not perfect shape of the item ?

reply to post by easynow


I posted the video with the magnet because that was something that I have known for a long time, a magnet rolling will point to North in the same way a compass needle points to North, because even on a flat surface the small inconsistencies in its movement makes it turn itself to align with the Earth's magnetic field.

In this case I even had some problems with the speed with which the magnet turned, it fell almost everytime because it made very sharp turns.

You can try it for yourself, you just have to find an old speaker. The smaller ones have cylindrical magnets, the bigger ones have toroidal magnets.

Originally posted by RFBurns
Everything else has been thrown up here, but none of that tells us how this..."ice particle" magically steers in another direction with no outside force acted upon it. Cant be any shuttle thruster...no thruster flash is seen just prior to this object turning. It is not any camera movement or shuttle re-orientation, the object begins and completes its turn and even moves off in the other direction before any camera pan or shuttle re-orientation. So what does that leave to make this ice particle of yours...no wait...waste dump ice particle of yours move the way it does without any of the above mentioned outside influences?

Thanks for taking ther time to spell out your reasoning on this debate. It should help all of those watching, and all those participating [included me and you], see into the real questions and get hints about the real answers.

Your thesis, that you have disproved a prosaic explanation because you have eliminated all possible prosaic explanations, can be summarized sort of like this, as I see it:

A. The only two possible prosaic causes are a thruster firing or camera panning. Since you can't think of any others, they don't exist.

B. Shuttle thruster firings can be eliminated, since because they ALWAYS leave a visible flare on ALL cameras operating on the exterior of the shuttle, and there is no flare visible, there is no thruster flash.

C. Camera panning can be eliminated because the background doesn't move.

Let's peel this back in inverse order.

'C' isn't in dispute, and is irrelevant because unless I missed it, nobody has suggested camera panning for this case. For other cases, such as on Jeff Challender's website, it has been proposed, but not here.

'B' fails, because the assertion of flashes -- the 10,000 ft/sec burst of unburned heated propellant residue -- always accompanying thruster firings is just plain wrong. You imagined this, and want us to believe it true based on your personal faith in the claim. No evidence is offered to support it. Plenty of videos, when compared to thruster histories, disprove it -- including the famous STS-48 zig-zagger, where one thruster's double plume does appear, but two other thrusters fire invisibly.

'A' fails, not only because 'B' fails, but because there are many other sources of external effluent that can entrain and perturb the motion of particles.

For example, there's cabin air, released when needed from the airlock or main cabin through a dump valve. It's no dishonor that you are unaware of this, because you clearly were never privy to ordinary shuttle operational features.

For example, there's water vapor from water dumps -- a big one of which was going on in the hours leading up to this event. It's no dishonor that you are unaware of this, because you clearly were never privy to ordinary shuttle operational features.

For example, there's water vapor from the flash evaporator at the base of the tail, quite close in fact to the 'B' camera taking these views. It's no dishonor that you are unaware of this, because you clearly were never privy to ordinary shuttle operational features.

For example, there's hydrazine combustion residue from the APUs, located on either side of the tail, not far from the 'B' camera, that are tested prior to returning to Earth. It's no dishonor that you are unaware of this, because you clearly were never privy to ordinary shuttle operational features.

For example, there's residue of ascent propellants trapped in the dump lines, through the main engine bells, that flakes and flies off mainly in the early hours of flight but can persist in smaller amounts much longer. It's no dishonor that you are unaware of this, because you clearly were never privy to ordinary shuttle operational features.

For example, there's leakage from the payload bay and equipment, including pressurized canisters, located there. It's no dishonor that you are unaware of this, because you clearly were never privy to ordinary shuttle operational features.

And there are others.

What's tripping you up is your arrogant ignorance that you can argue 'by elimination' in a technical field you are largely clueless about the extent of [except by being the only person on this entire planet that I've ever come across, who believes the shuttle can fly to geosynchronous orbit and drop satellites off there].

But by making it clear that it's those kinds of misjudgments and misinterpretations that support the conclusion of this video being genuinely anomalous, you have provided a useful service to the openminded folks on this thread. Thank you.

Originally posted by ArMaP
Do you find it possible that some of the videos are also misleading info?

Indeed I do, and I see them on the History Channel and Fox and on Youtube... Presentations of falsified or partial evidence to promote the 'UFO' interpretation and sell books and videos.

And there's a very rational commercial reason to create and air such shows. Advertisers pay for the shows. They want a viewing audience that is easily persuaded into buying their goods and services. What more profitable broadcast content is there, than programs guaranteed to attract the kind of people who will believe anything? It's an ideal target audience -- gullibles who can fall for half-truth and untruth 'UFO lore', so they can fall for anything else the show's ads are selling, too.


Money. That's the reason.

reply to post by JimOberg


Mr. Oberg,

What exactly are you trying to say?.. We've all been seeing you endlessly rant on a technical level.

Would you please, flat out say, what you believe the object in the STS-114 footage is?

Thank you.

Originally posted by Majorion
reply to post by JimOberg

 

Mr. Oberg,

What exactly are you trying to say?.. We've all been seeing you endlessly rant on a technical level.

"Rant"? Sorry if technical details relevant to a prosaic explanation bother you. Just as long as you realize you don't WANT prosaic explanations and will use any mental gymnastics to prevent them from infecting your faith.

Would you please, flat out say, what you believe the object in the STS-114 footage is?

It looks like ordinary particle motion near a space shuttle, like is seen over decades in hundreds of hours of external camera video scenes observed by workers in mission control, and out over the 'NASA TV' feeds. Explaining why this particle behaves this way requires more performance and context data, which you apparently don't want to see.

Now my question to you -- you owe me now:

Do you think there's any chance on Earth or near-Earth space that the space shuttle has the secret capability to fly out to geosynchronous orbit and deploy satellites there -- and has actually done so over the years while NASA lied about it? A smidgeon of a chance it's technically feasible?

reply to post by JimOberg


Im getting pretty sick of your insults there dude. I am suprised that the mod's are allowing your continuous attacks at me simply because I dont follow your narrow prospectives on this issue.

If you want to exchange insults back and forth by all means send me a u2u and we can have at it for as long as you like.

I have stated over and over again to you, that all this ice particle junk you throw out here is not in any way comming close to describing what this one object is doing in the OP video. You keep dancing around with mumbo jumbo talk just to sound impressive. Guess what....I am not impressed.

And I will state it once again..you dont like how I think, or what I believe this object is in that video..well TOUGH!. Deal with it. You nor anyone else here is seeing me trying to change your position or belief with insults. I think you should be adult enough to do the same.

Now that the insults from your end are done with...at least I hope they are...get to the issue at hand here, and tell us how this object is moving in the manner it does when there is no thruster flash or other outside influence on the object.

If you cannot do that, I suggest you find something else to sound impressive about.


Cheers!!!!

reply to post by RFBurns


he wants you to believe in imaginary thruster firings


that's his explanation

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by RFBurns

 

he wants you to believe in imaginary thruster firings

that's his explanation

No kidding. I suppose I am also to believe that the other objects floating around in that video are just there for special effects that are mounted on masked painted tripods so they stay still and the object moving is actually being held up and moved around by a string like a puppet.

I wonder why this fella is not partaking in the other recent UFO videos in the Aliens/UFO forum?

This STS 114 must have some special meaning to be so focused on it...and me. Strange that I would get so much attention because of my belief.

I never knew I had that much influence to ruffle someone's feathers that much!!!


Cheers!!!!

Originally posted by JimOberg
you don't WANT prosaic explanations and will use any mental gymnastics to prevent them from infecting your faith.

What I want, is a straight answer. Something those at 'Never A Straight Answer' never seem to provide.

My faith?.. I would be so curious to know what faith you're referring to. What makes you think I'm not an atheist or gnostic for example?

Originally posted by JimOberg
It looks like ordinary particle motion near a space shuttle

No, Mr. Oberg, there is nothing ordinary about the footage in question. Otherwise, we wouldn't be having this 25 page ongoing debate, now would we.

Originally posted by JimOberg
you owe me now

Get one thing straight Mr. Oberg, I don't owe you anything.

[edit on 1/3/09 by Majorion]

ArMaP - Your right I apologise, I understood what you meant in the video.

But I still stick with no unseen force in a vacuum that can slow an object though.

Originally posted by easynow
you admitted that NASA is not transparent -- that means they are keeping secrets from the public and you want me to go research this video and look at information on a NASA website to find the truth about something that everyone knows they are covering up ? please spare me the irony of it all

The only irony here is your twisting every comment of mine to fit your preconceptions. Regarding the infamous NASA UFO videos and space shuttle operations, I've never found NASA to be deceptive or restricted -- just poorly organized. The information is there to be found -- just not easily.

Look at it this way: the NASA people I've dealt with on these issues, from officials to scientists to working stiffs, are unanimously contemptuous of the public interpretation of these kinds of videos as alien spaceships, or any other brand of 'UFO' you might care to postulate. They are so familiar with the visual phenomena and their prosaic causes, they consider it a waste of time to volunteer relevant information to nuts who will just as likely (and there's a long history of UFO authors doing exactly this) to misinterpret or deliberately misrepresent it to enhance sales.

When I ask them for supportive data, they oblige out of amusement at my own quixotic pursuits, but sneer at what they call 'bug hunts' (reference: Aliens-II).

What I think I see that they don't is the degree to which the general public, especially young people, are left to encounter these claims, defenseless with regard to authentic, credible counter-explanations. My view is that this falls within the NASA public educational mandate.

Sure, lots of folks with their egos deeply invested in seeing these dots as alien whatzits are never going to admit to themselves that they were spectacularly wrong -- or fooled by somebody. It's inhuman to expect that. But for those with mild curiosity in them, and a genuine desire to understand all angles (and all context), I think NASA owes them more. I'll keep bugging them, and keep on with my 'bug hunts'.

Once and awhile I even sell an article on that theme. But I could sell a lot, lot more from the inverse point of view.