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: 31
96
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by drummerroy39
reply to post by RFBurns
 


RF Burns, Thank you my friend for saying what needed to be said about our friend Jim. His purpose has been made 100% clear in trying to debunk everything that comes along, with his technical jargon, and pseudo intellectual bull crap. Of all the NASA footage available to date, regarding these anomalies. I find it difficult to believe it all comes down to ice particles, space debris, or the frigging shuttle toilet being flushed and having the thrusters diverting their trajectory.


Your welcome.



Granted there are STS videos that do show ice particles being spewed out from the shuttle, as one of them was posted by DOF a couple of pages back. Even in that example however, we can see as the camera zooms in on the ice particles, how tiny they are, and how quickly they disappear from view when they get further away from the camera.

That is the key clue in determining if we are seeing ice particles or not in the other videos. It does not take a slide rule and nth decimal place explanations to see the obvious difference between an ice particle and something moving about in a strange manner. The videos with ice particles are evidence within themselves that prove these strange objects and their mobility as seen in the other videos are definately not the same thing.

Cheers!!!!




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

Originally posted by RFBurns
They would constantly be having to expend limited fuel to correct their trajectories due to strong gravitic pulls or solar winds or sudden curve trajectory effect.
Does that mean that you do not think it's possible that the object is on a curved trajectory that we are seeing from the side?



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by RFBurns
They would constantly be having to expend limited fuel to correct their trajectories due to strong gravitic pulls or solar winds or sudden curve trajectory effect.
Does that mean that you do not think it's possible that the object is on a curved trajectory that we are seeing from the side?


If we were seeing it from a curved trajectory, why does it enter the frame in a straight line, even if view from the camera was at an angle, we should see some kind of curve as it enters the frame.

I don’t dismiss that theory, but are we to believe that this one particular camera viewing angle just so happens to be at the right point of view so that the curved trajectory theory applies because the object just so happens to enter the frame without any signs of even a slight curve to its trajectory?

Too much of a coincidence with that one I think.

Cheers!!!!



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
If all those things were that strong to have such an influence on an object to make it suddenly change course, then every satellite, every shuttle flight, the ISS itself, every meteor, every piece of space junk up there would be changing course all the time and very suddenly all the time to which nothing up there would have a stable orbit. They would constantly be having to expend limited fuel to correct their trajectories due to strong gravitic pulls or solar winds or sudden curve trajectory effect.


As has been established, RF will make anything up to support his desired conclusions, pontificate from non-existent authority, etc., and his bluffs about being 'privy' to inside knowledge of space shuttle secret capabilities have been punctured. And -- oh yes -- he will distort beyond recognition what he claims are the arguments of people who disagree with him. When you see that happen repeatedly, you are justified in suspecting that the person doing it is engaged in trickery.

Nearby particles can be affected by effluents that don't reach far off particles. The effluents could be from thruster firing, from the water dump that RF seems still to refuse to acknowledge was going on (and a dump of the same type was the cause of those curved paths of particles on the video posted yesterday). They could be from other sources. Records of activities of such sources take awhile to obtain, but they can be obtained -- even if RF considers such contextual information 'clutter'.

What has been shown so far is that the motions of the particles in the video in question are of the same type as motions of particles in other videos where prosaic causes are more clear. It is not up to skeptics to PROVE the motion MUST be one or another type of explanation -- the burden of proof lies on the claimant of extraordinariness, that there is no possible way that such a phenomenon could be mimicked by known causes.

RF's problem has been that for him, the list of 'known causes' has been artificially reduced by his being closed-minded to any number of genuine shuttle mission features -- while being far too open-minded (to the point of brains falling out, perhaps) to delusional shuttle faux-features such as geosynchronous orbit access and thrusters that inject oxygen [instead of nitrogen tetroxide, the real oxidizer] for vacuum [that's u-u-m, not u-m-e has RF insists on spelling it] combustion.

There's more to be found out about this incident and its context -- that's on-going. and there's more to be found out about the argumentation and logic levels of those who reject any conventional explanation for it.

Again, for everyone who wants to truly understand stories such as this one, and their impact on our society and culture, this has been a very productive exchange, and no matter what ideas we all came in with, by arguing for them we are all winners.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
If we were seeing it from a curved trajectory, why does it enter the frame in a straight line, even if view from the camera was at an angle, we should see some kind of curve as it enters the frame.
I don’t dismiss that theory, but are we to believe that this one particular camera viewing angle just so happens to be at the right point of view so that the curved trajectory theory applies because the object just so happens to enter the frame without any signs of even a slight curve to its trajectory?
Too much of a coincidence with that one I think.


This is not an unreasonable objection. If one is arguing for a rare
'explanation', one ought to explain why it happened at the proper time to be seen.

I think the explanation is that with hundreds of people scanning all NASA downlink TV, looking for anomalous visual phenomena, the selection pressure will be for only the weird stuff to get noticed and posted to youtube or some TV documentary. Stuff with 'obvious' explanations isn't nearly as interesting. So it doesn't rise to the top of the list. Why should it. The list of scenes, then, is already pre-selected for weirdness.

Asking about the time interval in which the curver actually is curving is an excellent and important question. Can somebody answer it -- RF obviously has no interest in actually contributing to a real investigation -- by plotting the raw position of the curver and seeing if there is any apparent straight-line-motion early on, or later on, or is it ALL 'curving'? Then we could bound in time the hypothetical effluent disturbing force, to be compared to documented effluent source activity from telemetry records yet to be obtained.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 05:00 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


Still won’t answer the question will you? Why you parked here in this one thread out of all the others? NASA got you on some sort of mission to sway public opinion about this one STS video?

It is massively failing I should say.

PFFT!!! I see right through you dude. Don’t forget, I used to be on that side of the fence. You certainly cannot fool me, though you will gladly take the brownie points for the gullible that do follow the bait on the puppet string.

You gladly throw out more BS each day while dancing around the most crucial questions asked of you.

As I said before, you lost the battle to try to sway my belief a long time ago.

That should not affect you in any way, nor should anyone else who does not buy your BS bother you in any way either. But apparently, it does.

Contributing? Do you think derailing a discussion that was doing just fine before you came along is contributing?

Again, classic trademark and remarks from the debunker bunch. I used to play that stupid game years ago friend and was much better at it, your nothing new, or anything next to a real challenge.

As I stated to ArMaP, the object does not do ANY curve until it turns to the other direction. And as I have stated, too much of a coincidence for that camera to be at the perfect angle to see an object moving in a curved trajectory when we clearly see it appearing into frame in a straight line from right to left, then turn, then leave in another straight line.


Cheers!!!!

[edit on 3-3-2009 by RFBurns]



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
And as I have stated, too much of a coincidence for that camera to be at the perfect angle to see an object moving in a curved trajectory when we clearly see it appearing into frame in a straight line from right to left, then turn, then leave in another straight line.


This could well be true, but not because you 'state' it -- your track record in oral veracity has been established on these pages. Can you produce a chart on which the point-by-point position of the curver is shown throughout its appearance, so everyone here can look at the chart and verify your claim? If you detect a change in motion from straight to curved to back again, please try to estimate the time hack where this occurs. This will be very useful to compare with other contextual data that I'm now trying to obtain.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by RFBurns
And as I have stated, too much of a coincidence for that camera to be at the perfect angle to see an object moving in a curved trajectory when we clearly see it appearing into frame in a straight line from right to left, then turn, then leave in another straight line.


This could well be true, but not because you 'state' it -- your track record in oral veracity has been established on these pages. Can you produce a chart on which the point-by-point position of the curver is shown throughout its appearance, so everyone here can look at the chart and verify your claim? If you detect a change in motion from straight to curved to back again, please try to estimate the time hack where this occurs. This will be very useful to compare with other contextual data that I'm now trying to obtain.



How about you present a chart with point by point positons proving that it is curved trajectory.

And as you so kindly have taken this entire thread into a discredit rambling against me, I will say the same thing to you..everything you have presented here could be true, but NOT because YOU state it.

See how that works? Eye for an eye, blade for a blade.

So unless you can prove its curve trajectory, might as well try to convince Eskimos they need to buy ice.


Cheers!!!!



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 05:50 PM
link   
Didn't any of you two, JimOberg and RFBurns, noticed that Exopolitico posted an image showing the trajectories?



Pay attention to what other people post, please.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by branty
Ive researched your adversary on goggle, he is a ... well paid professional debunker, your taking on Nasa,s best RF, (I think your winning)


Branty, do you see the loathsomeness of personal smears like this, accusing me of expressing opinions for money -- especially when I'm not, and never have, and only intellectually cowardly people have to keep saying that? Have you no shame at all?

As for 'NASA's best', that's hardly a compliment, and is also a false and venomous lie.

Don't you detect even a little tackiness in your side having to fall back on such vile, venomous lies in answer to rational (if spirited) debate?

Is that how you conceive of 'winning'? Is that the way you want to be known to friends and strangers and your own family?

Zorgon, you did this too -- with never a blush or a tinge of regret, it seems. Shame on you, too.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
And as you so kindly have taken this entire thread into a discredit rambling against me, I will say the same thing to you..everything you have presented here could be true, but NOT because YOU state it.

See how that works? Eye for an eye, blade for a blade.



Nope. Stuff I say, I provide means of independent verification and checks. Stuff you say, it's 'inside info' from 'sources' and contradicts every other available space resource. Case in point -- space shuttles flying secretly out 22,000 miles to geosynchronous orbit to drop off payloads. Case in point -- 'oxygen injection' in shuttle thrusters. Case after case.

No symmetry or equivalence at all.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 10:25 PM
link   
ArMap,

I am not a scientist and cannot answer your question properly. However, I still stand by what I said. Based on this video and many others (one, posted by Majorion), it seems these objects change direction in a sudden manner.

If what you are saying is plausible, I don't see any other object that may be responsible for their change in trajectory.

I still stand firm. Judging by the sudden movements and the many STS XYZ videos I have seen, these objects (UFOs...yes, they are unidentified) are intelligently operated/maneuvered and there is no debunking that will convince me that they are ice particles, [keep filling the blanks], etc.

And I will say it again. It is obvious that secrecy alone doesn't work. That is why the intelligence apparatus recurs to debunkers, so they can derail, ridicule, obfuscate, etc.

We can discern!

[edit on 3-3-2009 by Exopolitico]



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by branty
reply to post by RFBurns
 

Ive researched your adversary on goggle, he is a well written , well respected , well paid professional debunker, your taking on Nasa,s best RF, (I think your winning)
Jim , Please Dont Misquote Me As Part Of Your Debunking Program , This is my F U L L Quote , not slanderous , its complimenting



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

Pay attention to what other people post, please.


If that track of the curver is accurate, it appears to move in a straight line for its early phase, does a brief turn (reversal), and after the turn continues in an essentually straight line. The period of time during which it is turning is brief -- can anyone estimate it? Two seconds? Four seconds?

This is an important parameter to determine, because it can be compared to the time history of RCS thruster firings, to see if one overlaps the turn period. It just takes awhile to obtain such documentation.

This is what happens on the STS-48 video. An approx 1-second burn of jet L5L (which generates the flashes) is on record as occurring at precisely the time that half a dozen dots all change course, in the same direction, away from the thruster -- and that thruster firing time is the ONLY interval in which ANY dot-motion changes occur during that entire sequence.

That really made a powerful argument for a prosaic cause. I presume that's the reason that the fact of that timing is withheld from readers and viewers on UFO sites and shows. Or has it been mentioned, and I overlooked it -- anybody see it, ever?

And to repeat -- proving that a dot is a particle in an exact position is not where the burden of proof lies. To make this video into evidence for extraordinariness, it must be established that no particle COULD have been there or behaved that way. And we've already seen lots of evidence that in other cases, particles do behave in exactly that way.

And the most sensational 'UFO videos' seem to be occurring just after sunrise on night-horizon camera observation passes. Bizarre coincidence or cause-and-effect? It's a debate that has been suppressed in the UFO world by covering up such evidence.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by branty
Jim , Please Dont Misquote Me As Part Of Your Debunking Program , This is my F U L L Quote , not slanderous , its complimenting


In what corner of the world is being called a 'professional debunker' complimentary, or ever MEANT that way?

Whenever it's popped up, and it has often before, I challenge the writer to provide any evidence for it.

Never is -- it's all imagination. And designed to discredit without thinking.



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 02:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exopolitico
I am not a scientist and cannot answer your question properly. However, I still stand by what I said. Based on this video and many others (one, posted by Majorion), it seems these objects change direction in a sudden manner.
I am not denying that the objects change direction, I am only trying to show that it's possible for an external force to do that to an object.


If what you are saying is plausible, I don't see any other object that may be responsible for their change in trajectory.
As I said before, I am not saying that the two invisible forces of which I spoke are the responsible for this object's movement, they were used just as examples of external, invisible forces that can affect an objects trajectory.


Judging by the sudden movements and the many STS XYZ videos I have seen, these objects (UFOs...yes, they are unidentified) are intelligently operated/maneuvered and there is no debunking that will convince me that they are ice particles, [keep filling the blanks], etc.
I am not trying to convince anyone of anything, I am only trying to show that there are some other possible ways of explaining this movement.

And as I said in my answer to secretnasaman, I think it's important to distinguish between the several possibilities from the known videos, because I think that it is an error to consider all things the same just because they look similar, that way, if someone can find and prove that one object was really an ice crystal, that does not mean that all are ice crystals.

Yes, it gives us more work because we have to analyse all videos based on each specific conditions, but that is why that I say that in this case I do not have any idea of what it is, in the case of other video with the flash I think it is really some small thing (ice particle or whatever) near the shuttle that was forced by the thrusters, and in other videos I think that we see are really large objects (critters or anything) that fly past the shuttle.

PS: I am not a scientist either, I did not even went to any university, but I use all the knowledge I have gathered in my life to try to explain the things I see, in UFO videos as in anything else in my life.



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 04:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by Exopolitico
I am not a scientist and cannot answer your question properly. However, I still stand by what I said. Based on this video and many others (one, posted by Majorion), it seems these objects change direction in a sudden manner.
I am not denying that the objects change direction, I am only trying to show that it's possible for an external force to do that to an object.


If what you are saying is plausible, I don't see any other object that may be responsible for their change in trajectory.
As I said before, I am not saying that the two invisible forces of which I spoke are the responsible for this object's movement, they were used just as examples of external, invisible forces that can affect an objects trajectory.


Judging by the sudden movements and the many STS XYZ videos I have seen, these objects (UFOs...yes, they are unidentified) are intelligently operated/maneuvered and there is no debunking that will convince me that they are ice particles, [keep filling the blanks], etc.
I am not trying to convince anyone of anything, I am only trying to show that there are some other possible ways of explaining this movement.

And as I said in my answer to secretnasaman, I think it's important to distinguish between the several possibilities from the known videos, because I think that it is an error to consider all things the same just because they look similar, that way, if someone can find and prove that one object was really an ice crystal, that does not mean that all are ice crystals.

Yes, it gives us more work because we have to analyse all videos based on each specific conditions, but that is why that I say that in this case I do not have any idea of what it is, in the case of other video with the flash I think it is really some small thing (ice particle or whatever) near the shuttle that was forced by the thrusters, and in other videos I think that we see are really large objects (critters or anything) that fly past the shuttle.

PS: I am not a scientist either, I did not even went to any university, but I use all the knowledge I have gathered in my life to try to explain the things I see, in UFO videos as in anything else in my life.


ArMaP

I have read your posts and I understand what you are trying to say, I undertand that you are looking to find some kind of scientific rational answer to this conundrum, I accept that. I take on board what you have said. However, I myself will stick with what I think, not just because of my 'childish' absession with E.T but because nobody has convinced me otherwise be it science or physics.

My questions to you is, why is it so important, for you personally, to explain this anomaly with science? and do you deam it at all possible that the light in question that decelerates and changes direction could very well be intelligently controlled.



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 04:43 AM
link   
As an experiment today at work I am going to ask people to look at the video. I am not going to tell them anything about it. I will let them watch it and then ask them what they think afterwards.

I will specifically choose people at random without any preconceptions that way we can get an all round non bias view. I will then report their reactions accordingly.



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 07:32 AM
link   
reply to post by franspeakfree
 


Sorry, I had to come back to this thread.

franspeakfree,

that's exactly the problem. "Normal" people will get it all wrong, because what we see on the video is "alien" and totally strange. Our senses (eyes) are calibrated to what's happening on earth under normal gravity and visibility. Our brains have a hard time dealing with something that "seems" to work against common logic. Again, our evolutionary point of reference is earth, not space.

On the other hand I'd like to thank you for keeping an open mind and at least consider the other side



new topics

top topics



 
96
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join