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: 28
96
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
Either you are selectively blind or just so overwhelmed by the evidence against you that you think your still correct and hide behind false confidence. Well all you have to do is simply examine the shuttle mission history. Some of which were posted by Zorgon which clearly points out what I pointed out earlier, and you keep refusing to accept that.


Please be explicit. It is your contention that the space shuttle can attain
an altitude of 22,000+ miles, in order to deploy geosynchronous satellites, right? This capability is documented in material cited by Zorgon? If not, I have indeed seriously misunderstood your messages. It's possible.

As I recall, I got the impression you believed this was a 'secret' capability that was not known to ordinary space workers not 'privy' to insider knowledge, as you claim to be. Then I do find it odd you are now claiming you are vindicated based on information Zorgon found on a public website.

You're right, I really am failing to follow your argument here.




posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 12:27 PM
link   
22000 miles , i thought this was dunking the "turn and burn" ufo, plzz stay on topic or strart a new thread



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by branty
Notice how our Best and Finest on this Billion dollar craft follow this rogue "ice particle" with the camera after a shot from Ronnies Ray Gun


Sorry, Branty, this is not the original video, it is a zoomed in version for some TV show, and the zig-zagger is followed by the editing in their studio, not in the original wide-angled NASA shot. Your imagination has gotten a. of the facts again. It's the notorious STS-48 scene. By zooming in on the one zig-zagger, it has duped the gullible (you seem eager to volunteer to . that list) by not showing the other particles also pushed onto new paths by the thruster burst.

So the thing you want people to 'notice' is really just a figment of your fertile imagination.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 12:32 PM
link   
And you know this how? I watched the vid and dont see other zig zager's



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 

I'll accept my name of Gullible if you accept the comparrison of a little boy whose face covered in chocolate sayin "i didn't do it"



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 



Originally posted by JimOberg
Sorry, Branty, this is not the original video, it is a zoomed in version for some TV show, and the zig-zagger is followed by the editing in their studio, not in the original wide-angled NASA shot.


Would you happen to have a link to the original?

Since you claim that the one Branty posted was 'edited' and 'zoomed in'.

Thank you.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Majorion
 


smacks fore. (wish i said that , good question ) Star



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
Apparently you have no clue how a thruster works. Thrusters are small versions of the rocket engines like those found on the ass end of the shuttle. They fire small bursts of ignited propellant, which if you look at any shuttle video when a thruster fires, you will always see the thruster flash, in normal visual mode video and UV videos. Maybe study up on the engineering aspects of how thrusters work might help you in this situation.


Hmm, maybe they'll revoke my 'Propulsion Console' flight controller certificate that I got at the end of my two-year training to monitor OMS/RCS systems on STS-1 and 2. Seems I don't meet your standards for reality-recognition. On the other hand, you might consider trying for such a certification yourself, to test your expertise.


What UV videos? Where are they on the shuttle? You're right, I don't know of any. Where's the proof there are any?

When you say 'ignited', are you saying the flares you see are burning fuel? What supports the fire, in the vacuum of space?

Flares often show up when a camera is pointed directly at a thruster -- never any argument there. It's when the camera is pointed off to the side -- when the thruster is way, way outside the camera's FOV -- that the visibility of thruster firings becomes more and more unlikely. That's been my experience watching TV views and my thuster control panel at the same time - 'pulse' says a jet, 'dark' shows the TV screen.

The effluent from a thruster plume expands off to the side as well as directly down the centerline, and it doesn't take much 'sideways' flow to disturb the small, light particles drifting around the Orbiter. That can occur even though the main plume, perhaps briefly visible in another camera view but not from the one seeing the particles, makes no appearance.

Does it really baffle you that engine firings can be invisible? You have noticed that even main engine firings can look 'transparent' -- go find some back-end views of the main engines, or a Titan-2 (Gemini) launch from below and behind. The liquid-fuel engine's plume is barely visible.

I can't get this out of my mind. 'UV video'? You're making me dizzy. Where's the evidence?



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by branty
And you know this how? I watched the vid and dont see other zig zager's


Of course you didn't. The people who showed you the edited version so you could get real "UFOs-are-real" thrills didn't want you to see them.

How did you wind up in the position of defending the people who have conned you?



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 12:49 PM
link   
Jim I'm not defending anything or body, just in search of the truth, if that turns out to be your view, i'll accept that,



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 12:51 PM
link   
www.youtube.com... NASA's Dr Frank and Dr Nuth Admit there is something there that should not be. Only visible in the near and far UV spectrum. It's not comets or water either.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Majorion

Would you happen to have a link to the original?

Since you claim that the one Branty posted was 'edited' and 'zoomed in'.

Thank you.


This isn't the original but it shows the original wide angle image...

www.youtube.com...

Because it is at 5x normal speed you can see the other particles that also move 'away' when the thruster flare appears.

And you can see that the original does NOT 'follow' the dot.

Are you satisfied now, and (hopefully) less credulous, a little?

An even longer version of this sequence is also available -- it shows the floating particles 'appear' at sunrise, when the shuttle -- and stuff CLOSE to it -- rises into daylight out from behind the Earth. One of those particles stays on screen long enough to be hit by the thruster effluent, and get knocked in the opposite direction -- which is pretty convincing proof that the sequence shows nearby sunlit particles reacting to a thruster plume, and nothing more.

Nothing more.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by drummerroy39
www.youtube.com... NASA's Dr Frank and Dr Nuth Admit there is something there that should not be. Only visible in the near and far UV spectrum. It's not comets or water either.


I don't see Frank or Nuth admitting any such thing. Where on the video are they making such statements?



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Hmm, maybe they'll revoke my 'Propulsion Console' flight controller certificate that I got at the end of my two-year training to monitor OMS/RCS systems on STS-1 and 2. Seems I don't meet your standards for reality-recognition. On the other hand, you might consider trying for such a certification yourself, to test your expertise.


Ok you want to rattle on between us and not focus on the thread topic, fine, lets either take this to a u2u or to another thread about thrusters on the shuttle.

BTW, dont need a certificate, I have one. What I worked on prior to the first shuttle launch at WSMR/HAFB certifies me enough for the purposes here.

You sound fancy, but doesnt impress me one bit given you only have 2 years "training". Training and actual hands on experience of 5 years as I have are two completely different things.


Originally posted by JimOberg
What UV videos? Where are they on the shuttle? You're right, I don't know of any. Where's the proof there are any?


A typo...NV or IR if you want to get spcific. Does STS-75 ding your bell any?


Originally posted by JimOberg
When you say 'ignited', are you saying the flares you see are burning fuel? What supports the fire, in the vacuum of space?


Oh boy...seems your two years "training" has failed you. Are you aware that thrusters on the shuttle up in orbit use their own supply of injected oxygen for the purpose of supporting the "fire" in the vacume????

Apparenly not.



Originally posted by JimOberg
Flares often show up when a camera is pointed directly at a thruster -- never any argument there. It's when the camera is pointed off to the side -- when the thruster is way, way outside the camera's FOV -- that the visibility of thruster firings becomes more and more unlikely. That's been my experience watching TV views and my thuster control panel at the same time - 'pulse' says a jet, 'dark' shows the TV screen.


With the use of increased sensitivity modes on the cameras, such as IR, the camera does not have to be looking directly at the thruster to see the flash. Now here is where it is apparent that the camera's "AGC" will be affected by that flash, and can be seen quite clearly.

Im not here to lesson you on how thrusters produce controlled bursts of "fire" or how cameras work. You are smart enough to google for that info yourself.


Originally posted by JimOberg
The effluent from a thruster plume expands off to the side as well as directly down the centerline, and it doesn't take much 'sideways' flow to disturb the small, light particles drifting around the Orbiter. That can occur even though the main plume, perhaps briefly visible in another camera view but not from the one seeing the particles, makes no appearance.


You are forgetting that there is NO thruster flash in the STS 114 video. Also you just said that the camera needs to be looking directly at the thruster to see the flash, yet there are plenty of shuttle videos where the thruster flash can be seen. Contradicting yourself there arent you?

On YouTube there are tons of shuttle videos with thruster flashes, as well as tons of videos on official NASA sites.



Originally posted by JimOberg
Does it really baffle you that engine firings can be invisible? You have noticed that even main engine firings can look 'transparent' -- go find some back-end views of the main engines, or a Titan-2 (Gemini) launch from below and behind. The liquid-fuel engine's plume is barely visible.


We are talking about the shuttle, not Titan-2 or any other vehicle. Barely visible is not completely invisible, especially to increased sensitivity modes on the cameras, to which if you knew anything about CCD imagers, they can pick up spectrum outside of the visual range, to which your barely visible plume would be highly visible to the sensitivity and spectrum range of the CCD imager.


Originally posted by JimOberg
I can't get this out of my mind. 'UV video'? You're making me dizzy. Where's the evidence?


Now repeat after me...."Google is my friend".



Cheers!!!!

[edit on 2-3-2009 by RFBurns]



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 
Watch the entire video I posted Jim and you will see the correspondence with Sereda and an admittance of detection of things that should not be there. That are only visible in the near and far UV spectrum.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Because it is at 5x normal speed you can see the other particles that also move 'away' when the thruster flare appears.

And you can see that the original does NOT 'follow' the dot.

Are you satisfied now, and (hopefully) less credulous, a little?





You must need some new eye ware or something. Even in that 5x normal speed video, that object appears out of the atmosphere, the flash, then it moves away...and is the ONLY object that does so while the others that are floating about do nothing.

If that object was moved by a thruster burst, and the others floating about do nothing, then the thruster burst was very selective in choosing that one object that comes up from the atmosphere while the rest that are already there do nothing AFTER the thruster burst.

You must think people are not smart enough to see the obvious. How sadly mistaken you are.






Cheers!!!!



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by RFBurns
 


Take a look at the right side of the frame and the dot below the supposed UFO.

[edit on 3/2/2009 by Phage]

[edit on 3/2/2009 by Phage]



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns

Originally posted by JimOberg
What UV videos? Where are they on the shuttle? You're right, I don't know of any. Where's the proof there are any?


A typo...NV or IR if you want to get spcific. Does STS-75 ding your bell any?


OK... where's any evidence there were 'IR' external cameras on those shuttles?




Originally posted by JimOberg
When you say 'ignited', are you saying the flares you see are burning fuel? What supports the fire, in the vacuum of space?


Oh boy...seems your two years "training" has failed you. Are you aware that thrusters on the shuttle up in orbit use their own supply of injected oxygen for the purpose of supporting the "fire" in the vacume????
Apparenly not.


[Did I say that ALL that I had were two years training? I meant to say that in preparation for STS-1 and -2 I had trained in propulsion systems for two years -- then, I flew missions, lots of missions, using training and experience in propulsion, radar, navigation, TV systems, electrical power, comm, the whole gamut of shuttle systems -- 'wrote the book' on orbital rendezvous procedures, including all the techniques and tools of 'proximity operations' (close-in flying, where external 'situational awareness' was critical), then designed the orbit for the International Space Station... I stayed busy for more than twenty years in that profession. And learned a lot.]

So... Thanks for clarifying your ignorance on the thrusters. No, I'm not 'aware' that the RCS thrusters 'inject oxygen' for combustion in space, because... [drum roll] SURPRISE!!! ...they don't. They never have. You just made this up.

The thrusters that the shuttle uses in space don't use oxygen. Probably you aren't privy to that secret technology -- ask Zorgon to find it for you on the Internet.

[note added: I don't think this is a typo, for which we all deserve infinite slack and forgiveness -- I think you've shown you really don't know how to spell 'vacuum'. How can somebody be an expert on spaceflight when he doesn't know how to spell 'vacuum'? ]





Originally posted by JimOberg
Flares often show up when a camera is pointed directly at a thruster -- never any argument there. It's when the camera is pointed off to the side -- when the thruster is way, way outside the camera's FOV -- that the visibility of thruster firings becomes more and more unlikely. That's been my experience watching TV views and my thuster control panel at the same time - 'pulse' says a jet, 'dark' shows the TV screen.


With the use of increased sensitivity modes on the cameras, such as IR, the camera does not have to be looking directly at the thruster to see the flash. Now here is where it is apparent that the camera's "AGC" will be affected by that flash, and can be seen quite clearly.


So -- the shuttle cameras have an 'IR' mode for increased senstivity? And the evidence for this is -- uh, where?




Originally posted by JimOberg
The effluent from a thruster plume expands off to the side as well as directly down the centerline, and it doesn't take much 'sideways' flow to disturb the small, light particles drifting around the Orbiter. That can occur even though the main plume, perhaps briefly visible in another camera view but not from the one seeing the particles, makes no appearance.


You are forgetting that there is NO thruster flash in the STS 114 video. Also you just said that the camera needs to be looking directly at the thruster to see the flash, yet there are plenty of shuttle videos where the thruster flash can be seen. Contradicting yourself there arent you?


Did I say that the camera NEEDS to be pointing directly at a thruster? I thought I'd said that the flare could be visible when looking directly at it, but when the thruster isn't in the field of view, any flare need not be visible. I'll recheck to see what was unclear about what I wrote.




Originally posted by JimOberg
I can't get this out of my mind. 'UV video'? You're making me dizzy. Where's the evidence?


Now repeat after me...."Google is my friend".


Nope. The rule is -- you claim, you prove.




[edit on 2-3-2009 by JimOberg]

[edit on 2-3-2009 by JimOberg]



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by drummerroy39
reply to post by JimOberg
 
Watch the entire video I posted Jim and you will see the correspondence with Sereda and an admittance of detection of things that should not be there. That are only visible in the near and far UV spectrum.


All I see is what Sereda CLAIMS these guys told him. I never see either of them claiming what you said THEY claim.

And as I posted earlier, you are free to call up Joe Nuth himself at the NASA Goddard SpaceCenter in Greenbelt, Maryland, and verify with him that practically everything Sereda claims that he (Nuth) has said is incorrect.

You really have to go to primary sources in topics such as these -- trusting Sereda to correctly report a quote from somebody else, as you did without checking, has made you look gullible and foolish.

What have we learned from this experience?



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 04:11 PM
link   
Shuttle maneuvering thrusters:

NO 'oxygen injection' as claimed by RF:

science.ksc.nasa.gov...

“Nitrogen tetroxide is the oxidizer, and monomethyl hydrazine is the fuel.”

Not oxygen (O2). The oxidizer is N2O4. Not O2.

Down in oxygen-injected flames with illusional expertise, again.




top topics



 
96
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join