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: 33
96
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Majorion
Are you telling us, that in all of NASA's missions; secret or otherwise, that there has never been any form of life encountered beyond our planet Earth?.. Not even a hint of life?


I'm talking about the subject at hand, weird-looking scenes from space shuttle videos. Nothing I've seen, or that anyone I've talked to has seen, is suggestive of anything but prosaic stimuli -- mostly associated with shuttle-derived particles, sometimes other satellites, sometimes weird but naturalisitc optical effects (e.g., Andy Thomas' 'ring of fire' that I wrote about in a link posted many pages back).

My impression is that this extends to other space missions beyonbd the Moon, but my personal involvement and contacts is less. My conclusions are therefore with less -- but still very large -- certainty.




posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
I'm talking about the subject at hand, weird-looking scenes from space shuttle videos.


With all due respect, you are deliberately avoiding my question, or so it seems. Please put the footage and the ice particle discussion aside for just a second, and honestly tell me if NASA have any knowledge of and/or have ever encountered any form of life beyond our planet.

Or is it possible that you are not privy to such information?

Thank you.



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by drummerroy39
Jim is having delusions of grandeur. How can you possibly insult the intelligence of the people in this forum into thinking that NASA has been forthright, honest, and transparent with information, without concealment? Who gave you the crusade on just how honest NASA EITHER IS OR IS NOT? They lie on such a regular basis, its not even funny. It's called ADMIT NOTHING, and DENY EVERYTHING.


You weren't paying attention when I discussed NASA's cultural failure regarding flight safety in the 1990s. how I testified before Congress about it, and soon after walked out of my job. Later, I became the only working newsman to be denounced by name as 'wrong' on a NASA press release. I broke the stories of the true causes of the Mars probe failures (NOT confusing metric with English units), and led the news media into what actually happened aboard 'Columbia'.

So naturally, when you are ignorant of the major contextual themes, your nickel-priced psychobabble is delusional.

NASA has not been helpful in getting explanations of these weird videos to the public, probably because, in my experience, they don't take seriously how many people -- not just UFO nuts -- are impressed with them. The folks I worked with and am still in touch with think it's hilarious that any rational human being could look at those scenes, that the professionals are familiar with from direct experience, and imagine they are seeing alien spaceships. They roll on the floor laughing over this idea.

Me, I defend the notion that the images are really bizarre and easily can be expected to mislead people, and NASA's educational mission should include overt steps to show the full context of such scenes so they can be better understood for what they are rather than what ordinary people can very easily mistake them for.



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 11:14 AM
link   


Are you telling us, that in all of NASA's missions; secret or otherwise, that there has never been any form of life encountered beyond our planet Earth?.. Not even a hint of life?



Nothing I've seen, or that anyone I've talked to has seen, is suggestive of anything
earlier probes Pioneer and Voyager sent probes with Detailed Images of man, Our position and how to find us in the universe, voice recording of the Sec Gen of the Un , NASA sent these, WHY, looking for ice particles ?



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Majorion

Originally posted by JimOberg
I'm talking about the subject at hand, weird-looking scenes from space shuttle videos.


With all due respect, you are deliberately avoiding my question, or so it seems. Please put the footage and the ice particle discussion aside for just a second, and honestly tell me if NASA have any knowledge of and/or have ever encountered any form of life beyond our planet.

Or is it possible that you are not privy to such information?

Thank you.


I notice your question is designed from the outset to be un-answerable.

From all my professional experience and contacts I can see no way that a discovery of such magnitude could be contained. Folks at NASA are not security-enslaved automatons.

I'm further skeptical that such a discovery is possible, and kept secret, because the main arguments I've seen here and elsewhere FOR such a discovery, such as dancing video dots and strange rock formations, are so silly, I can't take them seriously.

Weird scenes, as they are encountered on shuttle flights or other planets, get published practically in real time. There isn't even a procedural mechanism in place, to my knowledge, to restrain such release.



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Majorion
 


There's a lot more that goes on at NASA that Jim knows very little about. Such as the 145 ft comet that just passed within 142,000 miles off the coast of tahiti, that NASA knew about for weeks.



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by franspeakfree
 


You're asking "Can it be debunked"? Can you tell me then what you think the original video is depicting? In order to have a fair playing field I'd like to know what exactly you expect me to debunk? I'd love to know how you got to your conclusions.

You mocked me when I was stating that we're seeing "dots". Fair enough, so you must know better.

This is not sarcasm. I'm really curious.

Thank you.



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by branty
This is proof of Nasa decieving, he deleted part of my post to look like I was slandering him see page 31, 11 post down ,HOW HE EDITED IT


Branty, the "..." sequence, called 'ellipsis', is commonly used to indicate removed text. It is not 'deception' (and I am not 'NASA'). In your case, I wanted to focus on the toxic accusation you made against my motives, which you still seem to think was some sort of 'compliment'.

All you are now doing is highlighting your own intellectual processes in an unfavorable light.

Take a deep breath.



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by branty


Are you telling us, that in all of NASA's missions; secret or otherwise, that there has never been any form of life encountered beyond our planet Earth?.. Not even a hint of life?



Nothing I've seen, or that anyone I've talked to has seen, is suggestive of anything
earlier probes Pioneer and Voyager sent probes with Detailed Images of man, Our position and how to find us in the universe, voice recording of the Sec Gen of the Un , NASA sent these, WHY, looking for ice particles ?
My breathing is fine, except for catching my breath brtween chuckles at your replies, answer this question my freind

Ceers



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nichiren
reply to post by Majorion
 


What do you mean by "a hint of life"? Your question is very interesting!


I'm really curious what you meant by that?

Thank you.



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by drummerroy39
There's a lot more that goes on at NASA that Jim knows very little about. Such as the 145 ft comet that just passed within 142,000 miles off the coast of tahiti, that NASA knew about for weeks.


Your imagined powers of telepathy leave me breathless -- from laughing too hard. Did you even re-read what you just typed?

Comet? How about asteroid, or if smaller, a half-asteroid?

"Off-the-coast"? -- yeah, like straight UP

"... that NASA knew about" -- the whole world did



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 11:24 AM
link   
Just a thought...

NASA history shows that any "discovery" requires confirmation. So if any discovery of off-earth life was insinuated, it might take decades to confirm and therefore the "discovery" would appear to be "covered-up" in the period of time needed to confirm.

Peace.



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by drummerroy39
 


Comet? It was an asteroid.
142,000 miles off the coast of Tahiti? That's just plain hilarious.
It was discovered three days before it passed by us.

Thanks for demonstrating your extensive knowledge about what is happening in space.

[edit on 3/4/2009 by Phage]



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by drummerroy39
reply to post by Majorion
 


There's a lot more that goes on at NASA that Jim knows very little about. Such as the 145 ft comet that just passed within 142,000 miles off the coast of tahiti, that NASA knew about for weeks.


You are obviously able to do your own drum roll after that one.

Well, ...



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 04:46 PM
link   
I'm sorry that i can't keep up with the topic...time is not my friend.

Yet, i managed in last couple of days to do this in-depth explanation:

RFburns, or other fellas, said that the bright dot from the OP, moving from right to left, can't be for sure just a debris particle floating around the shuttle.
One reason, they said, was that debris in space is imposible to have apparent curved trajectory.

I showed (www.abovetopsecret.com...) this example:



So, the trajectory can be very well curved. Wrong assuming from them.




Next, the question raised by "believers", is something like this:

"the object came from right with speed in straight trajectory, then it stops, change about 180 degree, accelerate and going in straight line to the right". So, debris can't do this. It must be alien spaceship or something inteligent controlled.


Now, i propose to this "believers" a little more knowledge about 3D projected in 2D. I expect from them to NOT read this, because can be much to read, and, they ussually don't want to bother too much to the little details. For them, all that it matters is the first impression to the eye (or to the mind): "look, is weird!" Superficiality is the purpose.


They said about "straight line". Man, are you sure that is straight line and can not be as well a very large radius curve? How you see this "straight line"? In a low aproximation of "look what my eyes can see"? I'll explain later about straight or large radius curved trajectory.

The solution of this puzzle can be this:

The particle comming from the right, have at the begining an apparent speed a little more than the shuttle, thus going to the left in FOV of the camera, and in the same time is going away from the shuttle (the brightness falls), and, in the same time, it constantly (APPARENT or real) looses speed relative to the shuttle, and the right to left moving is finally finished, then, the APPARENT direction changes. This is only an effect of some kind of apparent or real DECELERATION of the particle in respect to the shuttle.


Now the apparent or real deceleration can be:
a) just apparent, because in fact the shuttle has a curved trajectory around the Earth. The principle idea was this:


Originally posted by Doc Velocity
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




b) the decceleration can be instead real, because:

- a force acting to the particle, making it to constantly loose speed in respect to the shuttle, so DECELERATING. The origin at the force can vary, and there are a lot of posible causes for this, the problem is they cannot be well quantified just from this movie. But that does not means at all that they cannot exist.

or

- the shuttle itself ACCELERATING, so leaving away the particle. And the reason that only this particle appear to have this manifestation, can be very well the fact that this particle is much closer than the other particles from the image, which shows much less or not at all deceleration in respect to the shuttle (this is differential parallax situation en.wikipedia.org...)

The most well-known instance of the parabola in the history of physics is the trajectory of a particle or body in motion under the influence of a uniform gravitational field



Now, this apparent or absolute deceleration of the particle in respect to the shuttle (relative to the shuttle i mean, not beeing a native english make me feel uncertain of the right words), simultaneous with the continous going away of the particle, means that the relative trajectory relative to the shuttle can be some kind of parabola or hiperbola, (en.wikipedia.org...), a curved and in-depth extended trajectory relative to the shuttle (remember the example with curved trajectories of ice ejected by the shuttle in the begining of this post)


Now, imagine that this parabola is seen allmost on the edge by the camera on the shuttle. It becomes very squashed as a PROJECTION. It doesn't means at all that the trajectory of the particle is EXACTLY as seen in the image, i repeat that what we see in the image is a 2D projection of a 3D scene from a particular point of view (almost on the edge).


Now, let's ilustrate my point of view about projection of curved trajectory

I made my own version of the OP movie, to see the trajectory of the object:



RFBurns said with 100% sureness that the object moves in straight line.
This rules out the REAL posibility of a curved trajectory, but a very large radius one. Because beeing superficial is easy.

So, i propose to see how an ellipse (a particular kind of parabola, this was my posibility here), drawed in Corel and superimposed to the image, can APPEAR to have straight lines, but in reality is just a CURVED shape.




So a very large radius curved trajectory, can appear to be straight, but in reality is not straight. THIS IS THE POINT HERE. Do not claim about "straight trajectories" when it is not obligatory to be in a multiple posibilities situation.

[will continue]



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by depthoffield
I'm sorry that i can't keep up with the topic...time is not my friend.

Yet, i managed in last couple of days to do this in-depth explanation:

RFburns, or other fellas, said that the bright dot from the OP, moving from right to left, can't be for sure just a debris particle floating around the shuttle.
One reason, they said, was that debris in space is imposible to have apparent curved trajectory.



First of DOF, if your gonna quote what I said, then make darn sure you get it right. I NEVER said that anything in space cannot have curved trajectory. Please post a quote where I say that. And when you discover that I never said that, I expect an apology.

Second, what I DID say, and keep on saying, is that there is no effect on the other particles around the area that are influenced by solar wind, gravity pull, thruster blast, or anything else we can see in the OP video.

Third, both you and JimbO there need to stop the single out RFBurns s*** and focus on the topic. I am NOT the only one who believes this is no ice particle or space junk..OK? Got that? I certianly hope so. Because if the mod's here are going to allow both of you to single me out with word wars, then by all means I will do the same and you and JimbO and the mods will NOT like it one bit.

Fourth, note in your own pictures how that object enters in a straight line, turns and is at a different level as it leaves compared to when it enters. That alone would make it appear to have a curved trajectory through its entire flight path.

I would rather keep myself way above that low level of personal attacks. But if necessary, I am quite good at throwing mud. I certianly hope it doesnt come to that.

Now explain why all your theories are not affecting the other objects in the video and just the one.



Cheers!!!!

[edit on 4-3-2009 by RFBurns]



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by depthoffield
 


OMG! Do not confuse them with facts. It's much more convenient to just believe
your eyes


Thanks for your work!



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nichiren
reply to post by depthoffield
 


OMG! Do not confuse them with facts. It's much more convenient to just believe
your eyes


Thanks for your work!


Facts can be far more easier to alter than the obvious seen with your eyes. It can also be made to sound and look impressive.

Far easier to accept imressive than it is to accept reality.


Cheers!!!!



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by RFBurns
 


I re-addressed your posts, because you have been the most inaccurate of all the posters. You have made at least three (3) factual errors. Is that reason good enough?

I don't know how many times we need to answer your question, but has it occurred to you that space is a 3-D environment and the "curver" might not be on the same plane as the other floaters? Therefore it COULD be affected by a force that is not reaching the other particles.



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns

Originally posted by Nichiren
reply to post by depthoffield
 


OMG! Do not confuse them with facts. It's much more convenient to just believe
your eyes


Thanks for your work!


Facts can be far more easier to alter than the obvious seen with your eyes. It can also be made to sound and look impressive.

Far easier to accept imressive than it is to accept reality.


Cheers!!!!


Sir, you are falling apart. Did you read what you just wrote?



new topics

top topics



 
96
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join