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: 29
96
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 05:13 PM
link   

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


Please look at the sequence again carefully -- if you have proper eyeware, you should be able to spot at least five other 'drifting dots' whose motion changes abruptly, and in the same 'sense', simo with the main objects course reversal. I don't think I'm imagining things.

Your interpretation that one object 'appears out of the atmosphere' is subject to debate. All you can say in terms of raw perception is that it appears suddenly at a point on the field of view. Why it suddenly appears is explainable in a number of ways, yours included, but also including a theory that it just moved out of the shuttle's shadow and into sunlight at that point. Do you find that suggestion at least, in principle, 'possible'?




posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


Jim are you ever going to answer my question ?


do you believe that the Military Industrial Complex connections with NASA have no influence on this lack of transparency ?



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 03:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
This isn't the original but it shows the original wide angle image...


Okay Mr. Oberg, this is the video you linked me to;


NASA STS-48 U.F.O's REAL PROOF.

Now, I asked for the original. Since you said that the one branty posted was not the original and quote "edited". The only difference here, is that as you say.. this one is the same but from a different angle, zoomed out and 5x normal speed.

take a look at 1:23, and you'll see the flash, then the object in question makes a complete turnaround in reaction to the 'flash'.. whatever the 'flash' may be.

If you please, I have two questions. One; if all these objects are mere "Ice Particles".. then wouldn't they burn up near the atmosphere?

Second; the object that zips away a 180 degree turn in reaction to the 'flash'.. how could this object be an ordinary 'Ice Particle'? .. with respect, and I don't claim to know what the object is as of yet, but I just find it very hard to believe, that a mere 'Ice Particle' could behave in such a fashion.

Thank you.


[edit on 3/3/09 by Majorion]



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 04:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
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.




Why didnt you know that when you said earlier how does a thruster maintain a "fire" in a vacume???

What did you do...do a search real quick for the answer? Thought you had 2 yrs training?

Caught ya!!! I purposely put in "oxygen" so as to call you out on your earlier post. Heh....so much for our resident NASA expert.





Cheers!!!!



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 04:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Majorion

If you please, I have two questions. One; if all these objects are mere "Ice Particles".. then wouldn't they burn up near the atmosphere?

Second; the object that zips away a 180 degree turn in reaction to the 'flash'.. how could this object be an ordinary 'Ice Particle'? .. with respect, and I don't claim to know what the object is as of yet, but I just find it very hard to believe, that a mere 'Ice Particle' could behave in such a fashion.

Thank you.




Dont forget to ask our NASA expert how does an ice particle move UPWARD from the atmosphere before it zips off in the opposite direction after that flash.



Cheers!!!!



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 04:58 AM
link   
Maybe he could answer the question ( seeing how depthoffield refuses to ) as to why we constantly see film footage of these ice particle events when they are the only thing in frame? - the whole reason for being filmed. Is NASA spending billions for its astronaughts to film ice particles from the window


Get real jimbo!

[edit on 3/3/09 by cropmuncher]



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 06:01 AM
link   
Well back to the topic of this post, rather than argument about it , I would say that yes it can be debunked but as always, theres going to be some question from some places as to the validity of the debunking arguments. Mind you , there seems to be no one on this site capable of making a truely airtight scientific case for or against the idea of this being a vid of a ufo . You would have thought there would be at least one giga nerd savant here capable of such a calculation. But maybe this site isnt attracting the right userbase. Meh . I cant talk... everything I know about space came from books and discovery channel.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 07:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

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 ahead 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 head 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.


Come on Jim, I could show the original (that is floating around) to 100 people and not tell them the source only that it was recorded in space. I guarantee that over 90% will say that that the objects in question are not ice particles,space debris e.t.c. On a side note this particular video changed the opinion of quite a few of my friends.


I like the way your playing the game though it amuses me.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 07:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by secretnasaman
NASA scientist Dr. Louis A. Frank,
has been "credited" by the space agency with the discovery of "small comets". He found images of this phenomenon in the Ultra Violet spectrum on pictures from a NASA Satellite.
He says they are small comets of water which NASA dismisses as nonsense, but NASA still made him a science hero and gave him additional resources to study this new phenomenon. (He has his own web sight with all the amazing details)...
all because of his
discovery of the "visual" part of this "weird phenomenon". It was unimpeachable! He was the first to "see" it on their own NASA space cameras! (..so what else could they do!)

Dr. Frank wrote the following after viewing the STS-75 tether footage and STS-80 videos:

"I find the contents of the videos FASCINATING. There are several objects that may be small comets in the videos. Other phenomenon being recorded in the videos ARE NOT EASILY EXPLAINED. Several of us have examined the videos MANY TIMES."

An honest NASA man! Amazing what he says about the JimO. "debunked" NASA events!

Trying to "prove' anything about this one STS-114 video clip, cannot be done. Only more reasonable doubt about NASA "truth telling" is raised, by this single example..and that is not "proof". I believe it is a 'clue', that when added to the vast library of NASA UFO video on the web, is of great value.

for example...lets say, I spill a lot of salt on my carpet. I can no longer see it as it mixes in, like dust. I could be lazy and not clean it up, as it now cannot be seen, and a few "grains" found will never be noticed or will be dismissed as normal daily 'carpet bits'!
but...naturally,
for a clean environment, I vacuum the carpet, and amazingly, a very clear picture emerges as to what was on the carpet...among the dust bunnies there is a large pile of undeniable "salt". No disagreement that it is not salt!...Now that it is all gathered together and looked at!

UFO "proof" will come this same way, as the gathering up of bits and pieces of UFO evidence, is telling us what is real when it is all
looked at, as a "whole"! Just like in a civil court action, such as O.J.'s conviction in this court vs the reasonable doubt "free pass" he got from criminal court.

I think the STS-114 NASA clip is another "grain" of UFO evidence, that when added to the other NASA material, is showing us what is in really in space!

Jim Oberg is trying to avoid getting out the vacuum cleaner!
He is doing all he can to stay on this one NASA video and then be content to advance reasonable doubt. He is just one man. Other scientists as Dr. Frank..who's opinion is in the "quote" above,
are more honest and agenda free, and Dr. Franks answer is very typical of the actual opinion of 'real' scientists I have contacted about what the NASA UFO videos are showing us.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 08:04 AM
link   
reply to post by secretnasaman
 


That is why I think we should try to know the most we can about all videos and photos, and analyse everything to the maximum, so we can know how to distinguish if we are looking at "salt" or at "dust", and why I think we should never say "this is the same as in video ----" without a real analysis.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 08:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by JimOberg
 


Jim are you ever going to answer my question ?


do you believe that the Military Industrial Complex connections with NASA have no influence on this lack of transparency ?




Easy, your question assumes 'facts not in evidence' -- that there are measurable 'military-industrial complex' connections to NASA. True, some of the same corporations sell equipment to the DoD and to NASA, and many astronauts are military officers... so what?

The only detectable influence I've ever encountered that may fit in your scope of interest is the reviewing process in the Gemini and Apollo program for the degree of resolution of ground imaging from manned spacecraft -- is it good enough for military applications, and if so, do we want the soviets to know. In order to get the best pix of the lunar surface, the Apollo carried bay-mounted cameras built on principles also used in military recce sats, and these cameras were operationally restricted from use in orbit of Earth, so the 'best' levels would never be revealed (on the moon, the levels were on the order of several meters resolution, just barely able to see the presence of a landed LM, but not enough to determine any technical characteristics of it).

During DoD shuttle missions, downlink imagery showing the payload bay contents and configuration was restricted -- that was about it. But all those comm channels were torn out in the early 1990s when the classified missions ended.

Can't think of anything else. Was that helpful?



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 08:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Majorion
If you please, I have two questions. One; if all these objects are mere "Ice Particles".. then wouldn't they burn up near the atmosphere?


Why should it 'burn up' at all? The orbiter is hundreds of miles above the atmosphere. So are the particles. Entry heating doesn't kick in until well below 80 miles, even 60 miles.



Second; the object that zips away a 180 degree turn in reaction to the 'flash'.. how could this object be an ordinary 'Ice Particle'? .. with respect, and I don't claim to know what the object is as of yet, but I just find it very hard to believe, that a mere 'Ice Particle' could behave in such a fashion.


The 180 degree turn assumes the object is moving in a plane perpendicular to your line of sight. It could actually be making a turn of only 40 degrees or even less, if the motion has a large component into the field of view, rather than entirely at right angles to it. Try sketching a 'turn' on a piece of paper and holding it at a large tilt, and you see the geometric 'squeeze' effect.

So your statement that the turn is 180 degrees shows you are subconsciously adding assumptions and interpretations into what you are thinking is pure perception. Space pictures often trick observers into doing that.

Why shouldn't a particle entrained by a 10,000 ft/sec effluent flow be pushed along by it? You see stuff here on Earth blown by wind.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
Why didnt you know that when you said earlier how does a thruster maintain a "fire" in a vacume???
What did you do...do a search real quick for the answer? Thought you had 2 yrs training?
Caught ya!!! I purposely put in "oxygen" so as to call you out on your earlier post. Heh....so much for our resident NASA expert.


RF, that is the lamest excuse for being caught in another ignorant mistake that I've seen in a long, long time. Thanks for exposing yourself... and what's this trick of continuing to misspell 'vacuum'?

[edit on 3-3-2009 by JimOberg]



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
Dont forget to ask our NASA expert how does an ice particle move UPWARD from the atmosphere before it zips off in the opposite direction after that flash.


A particle drifts across a camera field of view, after having separated from the shuttle in some random direction. What are you expecting in space -- ONE-WAY signs?


As for 'opposite direction' (your erroneous phrase) -- that description is only valid if the screen is flat -- has no depth. The object's image could follow that hairpin-like turn on the screen even if the only course change were 40 degrees, 30 degrees, even less, as it moved farther from the camera.

Well, a world of 'flat' images, is a world of 'flat earth' misconceptions, where you apparently live.


[edit on 3-3-2009 by JimOberg]



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by franspeakfree
Come on Jim, I could show the original (that is floating around) to 100 people and not tell them the source only that it was recorded in space. I guarantee that over 90% will say that that the objects in question are not ice particles,space debris e.t.c. On a side note this particular video changed the opinion of quite a few of my friends.
I like the way your playing the game though it amuses me.


Fran, I certainly agree that you'll get that sort of reaction, because the images really are unearthly in a literal sense. It also helps if you deliberately allow your friends to make their interpretations in the absence of contextual information about the scene, and in the absence of viewing the corpus of similar scenes that define what is 'ordinary' in this new environment we have begun to operate in.

In other words, make sure they are operating without relevant information.

Just one example: ask your friends if the scene is taken in daylight or in darkness. What do you suppose 90% of them will answer -- try it.

...and what do you suppose the actual illumination situation is?

There's no question these videos look weird. Lots of things in space do. What is more than weird -- what is sad -- is some people's insistence in interpreting them apart from their context, of withholding relevant information to encourage misperceptions and misunderstandings. Or even of refusing to consider contextual information, and denouncing anyone who seeks it, finds it, and shares it.

So whose minds are really acting 'closed' on this question?



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by cropmuncher
Maybe he could answer the question ( seeing how depthoffield refuses to ) as to why we constantly see film footage of these ice particle events when they are the only thing in frame? - the whole reason for being filmed. Is NASA spending billions for its astronaughts to film ice particles from the window


None of these scenes are 'filmed' by astronauts -- not naughty ones, either -- out windows, they are from video cameras on the exterior of the orbiters, and usually are operated from Mission Control while the crew is performing mission-related activities (including sleeping). For at least twenty years, these cameras have been routinely pointed at the dark horizon while on the night side of Earth to observe lightning phenomena (including elves and sprites) .. it's called the 'Mesoscale Lightning Experiment', MLE, there's lots of info on it on the web.

One scientific paper here:
ieeexplore.ieee.org...
another
adsabs.harvard.edu...

Even a typical run on youtube
www.youtube.com...

It is these low-light-level scenes that most commonly generate 'UFO videos', particulary in the few minutes after sunrise when nearby drifting particles -- which commonly surround shuttles in flight, from dozens of potential sources and activities -- become sunlit while the earth background is still dark and the camera's AGC is maxed out (making the dots bright). Once sunrise passes and the field of view encounters serious sunlit surfaces -- spacecraft structure, or the ground -- the AGC retreats way back and the small dots fade into invisibility, unless they are particularly large or close to the camera.

What you 'see' on youtube is selections from such scenes, the weirder the better. But there's no mystery where the scenes and their set-ups come from -- routine space operations.



[edit on 3-3-2009 by JimOberg]



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 09:13 AM
link   
This is a still frame of the lightning bolt that emanated from one object as another object passes underneath, as if showing hostile behavior.





And lastly, there's some noteworthy activity at the beginning of this event which is not included in the original post. A small object appears and streaks down and to the right before the large object enters the scene. The large object then appears to stop and turn around at almost exactly the same place where the first object originated. You can see the proximity of these points in the composite image I posted earlier.




[edit on 3-3-2009 by Exopolitico]



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exopolitico
And lastly, there's some noteworthy activity at the beginning of this event which is not included in the original post. A small object appears and streaks down and to the right before the large object enters the scene. The large object then appears to stop and turn around at almost exactly the same place where the first object originated. You can see the proximity of these points in the composite image I posted earlier.


Is this the same sequence that began this thread?

Why is it labeled 'UV'? Another 'imaginary' faux-fact?



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 09:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Exopolitico
 


A question ... How exactly have you come to the conclusion that the object which appeared to "attack" another object, was actualy being hostile? I mean how can you possibly know enough about what ever that object is, to be able to discern its motives for its actions? How can you possibly know the significance of any action it performs ? For all you know, surely, this could have been a communication , or an examination of another object. Is it not true, that what you have stated as an Iron clad fact, is infact nothing more than a supposition, based on thought processes which come from a culture that may have NO simalarity to those which motivate the "attacking" object, or indeed anything that controls it ?
I put it to you that sensationalising a piece of evidence like this, is what gives debunkers room to manouvre. Please dont give the trolls more ammo? Thanks .



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 09:51 AM
link   
I never said it is definitely hostile. However, what I meant was that the lightning emanated from one object as the other one was passing underneath, as if the intention looked hostile. Do I have concrete evidence? No. Just my perception. Watch the original video on page 1 an focus on second 21. You'll see what I mean.

[edit on 3-3-2009 by Exopolitico]



new topics

top topics



 
96
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join