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: 37
96
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Hmmm the 'skeptic cop out'

I disagree... most of us here can see that these are not ice particles... so if someone comes along making such an absurd assumption and tries as hard as you and DOP do to sell that hypothesis... I do not see any reason why we should not expect that either of you PROVE that indeed they are ice particles as you claim...

The fact that you CANNOT and attempt to evade the issue by the 'burden of proof' argument means that you have no proof that these are ice particles... all you have is your opinion that these are ice particles...

Now if you could actually PROVE that... then you would have won your argument and this issue would be closed...

But then we wouldn't be graced with those long winded explanations or your amazing wit at pointing out the intelligence level of those who misspell a word or two


The fact that NO ONE has proven ice particles in all these years shows that there is no proof available... had there been NASA et al could have laid this to rest




..



So there's no proof that there's ice crystals. But there's no proof they're not ice crystals, but there's a lot of evidence to support that.

It seems pretty obvious that the only 'conclusion' to be drawn from that is whatever is most likely based on the available evidence.

What you're saying is "there's no proof they're ice crystals and there's no proof they're not ice crystals, therefore it must be something extraordinary".

Which doesn't make any sense.




posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 


Burden of proof?

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Majorion
You're certainly right about the burden of proof on those making the extraordinary claim.. 'Ice Particles' being the extraordinary claim.



This seems an unbridgeable philosophic chasm.

'Ordinary' usually means, 'consistent with current models of the universe', and 'extraordinary' is unavoidably NOT consistent with same. Just as 'innocent' is the absence of proof a person did something extraordinary, a crime of some sort.

That's why 'guilt' in a criminal trial must be proven 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. And it's why the claim, 'You must change your model of reality because prosaic explanations won't work', has the same burden of proof.

If you don't see the 'burden of proof' that way, I hope you're never on a jury.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
You obviously must believe that people cannot see with their own eyes and observe what happens in that STS 48 video.


Precisely. That is my point. You can't.

You see with your brain, based both on what your eyes send you in raw perceptions, and your brain's files of life-experience in familiar scenes, and half a billion years of hard neural wiring of earthside visual phenomena.

With space scenes, all of that is not only irrelevant, but misleading. This is a situation when intellect has got to overcome animal instinct.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kandinsky

I think Jim Oberg has presented a good case here.


You must be unaware of the fact that everything our friend here has presented in this thread alone, has already been dismissed in hundreds of other forums, YEARS ago.

He is beating a very old dead horse to death and only stirring up alot of stinky dust.


Originally posted by Kandinsky
It's certainly been interesting between RFBurns and Oberg. On a boxing scorecard Jim is winning on points and the 'it's definitely an intelligent craft' corner have had a couple of standing counts
It's pretty clear that respective corners aren't throwing in the towel at any point. I'm 'Swiss' and regard this thread as exemplary in the area of UFO debate.


The so called "winning scores" are from those who are completely unaware of the fact that our friend is using old outdated, and already dismissed theories from years ago.

Its obvious that such use of outdated debunking material reused in an arena filled with people who never seen the material already dismissed years ago would explain for the "winning points" in this case.

In other words, drag in the already dismissed material into a new realm and those who have never seen it before would see it as being new, thus would give it points.

I will point it out once again....this thread was moving along just fine until our friend shows up and throws garbage up on the wall and then diverts attention off of the subject and continues to attack me, which is a typical old tactic used by debunkers. It diverts the attention from the issue of the object in STS 114 to a member of the discussion.

Just read through this entire thread and see the obvious tactic. And it will also be clearly seen how many times I have attempted to put the thread back on track, yet this fella insists on using that old outdated tactic of diverting focus to a member and his minor errors in typo's.


Cheers!!!!



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
Orbiter's shadow? What shadow? Where? Are you even aware of the sun angle in that video and where any shadow of the shuttle would be?


Why yes, I am, and you would have known that had you read my post above -- instead of closing your eyes and proclaiming you can see better THAT way.

Do you agree that the scene is in daylight?

Do you agree that the shuttle casts a shadow hundreds of feet long?

Do you agree that the camera's line-of-sight begins inside that shadow and extends out, still in that shadow, for some distance?

Use your intellect to imagine the illumination conditions.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by ranhome
reply to post by Kandinsky
 


Burden of proof?

en.wikipedia.org...


Thanks, well stated.

"The burden of proof, therefore, usually lies with the party making the new claim."

The original interpretation of this video, by the people who saw it first at NASA, was that it was composed of ordiunary visual stimuli -- drifting particles, thruster effluent, etc.

Then some people, not familiar with space operations or the technical context of the scene, claimed it was something else, something extraordinary.

Theirs is the burden of proof.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


Agreed.



I think that's a potent demonstration of why we can't trust our perception. The A and B squares are the same colour. From here.

[edit on 5-3-2009 by jackphotohobby]



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by RFBurns
You obviously must believe that people cannot see with their own eyes and observe what happens in that STS 48 video.


Precisely. That is my point. You can't.

You see with your brain, based both on what your eyes send you in raw perceptions, and your brain's files of life-experience in familiar scenes, and half a billion years of hard neural wiring of earthside visual phenomena.


Are you now playing the role of a human psycologist now saying you know for certian people interpret everything the same way?

Sorry but people do not interpret everything in the same way, which is what causes differences in opinion and beliefs. For you to expect people to change their belief or change their interpretations just because you say so is expecting the sky to fall..won't ever happen.

That is what is called free will, free expression, and free thought. It is something that NASA and its pool of debunkers cannot stand, because it is something they have absolutely no control over.

Too bad..isnt it.



Originally posted by JimOberg
With space scenes, all of that is not only irrelevant, but misleading. This is a situation when intellect has got to overcome animal instinct.


It does not take a slide rule or rocket science to see the obvious. Telling people that it takes nth decimal point to explain the obvious is only a method of diversion...overtaking the plumbing when all that is needed is one drain and one pipe. Or in other words, needlessly making things complicated and over complex..to which we all know NASA has a bad history of always making things overblown, over complex, and so cluttered that it forces people to turn away out of boardom.

Its a perfect way to not just cover up what is out there, but to also keep the people at bay from even being interested in what is out there.

As Hitler once said..."Tell a big lie enough times and eventually people will believe it".

So how's the old crowd in there doing these days anyway..you know..those "Paper Clip" left overs running NASA these days?



Cheers!!!!



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
You must be unaware of the fact that everything our friend here has presented in this thread alone, has already been dismissed in hundreds of other forums, YEARS ago....

He is beating a very old dead horse to death and only stirring up alot of stinky dust.

The so called "winning scores" are from those who are completely unaware of the fact that our friend is using old outdated, and already dismissed theories from years ago.

Its obvious that such use of outdated debunking material reused in an arena filled with people who never seen the material already dismissed years ago would explain for the "winning points" in this case.

In other words, drag in the already dismissed material into a new realm and those who have never seen it before would see it as being new, thus would give it points.


I'd be curious to find, in all those rehash posts, where ANY of them discussed the actual illumination conditions, the actual thruster firing history, the actual FULL range of dots motion...

Nope, as far as I've observed over the years, such discussions omitted all contextual evidence, shut their eyes to real investigations, and just hyped each other into wilder and wilder speculations of just WHO the UFOs really were.

On this thread, there has been introduced new contextual information on both cases, information not to my knowledge ever acknowledged before. So the duration and scope of past internet ravings and rumblings, in the absence of such evidence, seems to me to be of zero evidentiary value.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by jackphotohobby

I think that's a potent demonstration of why we can't trust our perception. The A and B squares are the same colour. From here.



Really?

You can step each square from either the x line or the y line and see that A is grey, B is white even tho it is in the shadow.

So where are you getting that both are of the same color?

More diversion, defocusing tactics folks, to make you believe that you cannot trust your own eyes and see for what it is.





Cheers!!!!



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
You see with your brain, based both on what your eyes send you in raw perceptions, and your brain's files of life-experience in familiar scenes


Isn't it amazing how debunkers repeatedly use the same tactics over and over and over again.


Basically, the traditional tactic in the quote above, is to say; that all of us are mistaken with the use of our own eyes and brains. Oh let's not forget the overwhelming use of the word 'prosaic'.

A testament to the fact you're a debunker, is that you only post in this thread alone, and endlessly ranting might I add. Of course, that's only with the user name 'JimOberg' .. but in the Johnston thread.. you use the JimO account.



[edit on 5/3/09 by Majorion]



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns For you to expect people to change their belief or change their interpretations just because you say so is expecting the sky to fall..won't ever happen.


It's not because I 'say so' that they have to alter their perceptual processes.

The sky won't fall.

But now we are on the other side of it.

And it's different there.

Unearthly.

Would even 1 out of 100 non-informed viewers ever even recognize the STS-48 scene as 'daytime'? If they overwhelmingly say it is 'night time' (and they do), does that MAKE it night time?

Or does it underscore how alien are the lights and shadows of an environment never before encountered in all of human -- nay, all of terrestrial biota -- experience?



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
....Or in other words, needlessly making things complicated and over complex..to which we all know NASA has a bad history of always making things overblown, over complex, and so cluttered that it forces people to turn away out of boardom.


Is that a type of piggishness?



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
As Hitler once said..."Tell a big lie enough times and eventually people will believe it". So how's the old crowd in there doing these days anyway..you know..those "Paper Clip" left overs running NASA these days?


Hoo-boy...

Look it up.

The last step of the losing arguer is insinuating his opponents are Nazis.

It's a time-tested classical criterion.




posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns

Originally posted by jackphotohobby

I think that's a potent demonstration of why we can't trust our perception. The A and B squares are the same colour. From here.



Really?

You can step each square from either the x line or the y line and see that A is grey, B is white even tho it is in the shadow.

So where are you getting that both are of the same color?

More diversion, defocusing tactics folks, to make you believe that you cannot trust your own eyes and see for what it is.
...



This proves my point.

Proof.

You can check for yourself in Photoshop by using the colour sample tool, or, even more simply, by printing it out and cutting out the squares.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

I'd be curious to find, in all those rehash posts, where ANY of them discussed the actual illumination conditions, the actual thruster firing history, the actual FULL range of dots motion...


Ok which particular video are you referencing here...STS 114 or STS 48. You are not trying to intermix the two as to cause even more confusion here are you? BTW folks, that is another classic tactic.


Originally posted by JimOberg
Nope, as far as I've observed over the years, such discussions omitted all contextual evidence, shut their eyes to real investigations, and just hyped each other into wilder and wilder speculations of just WHO the UFOs really were.


Acutally you are wrong. The contextual evidence was considered very seriously, and even analyzed to death more so than the object in question in ANY of the STS videos which contained a "UFO".

What you do not get..or simply ignore, is that all that contextual evidence has been dismissed already. It is pretty much pointless to try to revive a dead horse that has been dead for years.


Originally posted by JimOberg
On this thread, there has been introduced new contextual information on both cases, information not to my knowledge ever acknowledged before. So the duration and scope of past internet ravings and rumblings, in the absence of such evidence, seems to me to be of zero evidentiary value.



No, on this thread there has been evidence presented that does not even relate to the object in question of the STS 114 video. The evidence presented refered to obvious video and pictorial evidence of what an ice particle will do. Some of that evidence in of itself clearly demonstrates how ice particles would behave, where as none of it even applies to how the object in STS 114 is behaving.

In short, the "new" evidence presented only proves even further that the object in STS 114 is no ice particle simply because of the physics difference in the behavior between it and ice particles.

I would say that the "new" evidence only enforces our belief that the object in STS 114 is no ice particle.



Cheers!!!!



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by jackphotohobby

Originally posted by RFBurns

Originally posted by jackphotohobby

I think that's a potent demonstration of why we can't trust our perception. The A and B squares are the same colour. From here.



Really?

You can step each square from either the x line or the y line and see that A is grey, B is white even tho it is in the shadow.

So where are you getting that both are of the same color?

More diversion, defocusing tactics folks, to make you believe that you cannot trust your own eyes and see for what it is.
...



This proves my point.

Proof.

You can check for yourself in Photoshop by using the colour sample tool, or, even more simply, by printing it out and cutting out the squares.


It only proves that the shadow is making the B square "appear" to be like the A square becasue B square is in a shadow. But the B square is in fact white and not the same color.

That is the point.


Cheers!!!!



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
Acutally you are wrong. The contextual evidence was considered very seriously, and even analyzed to death more so than the object in question in ANY of the STS videos which contained a "UFO".


Well, I sure could have missed it, being deeply involved in my real life. Please help me out and show a few links to the discussions of the thruster firing issue on STS-48, for example. Jack Kasher was involved early on, I recall... but he never 'got it' either.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by ranhome
reply to post by Kandinsky
 


Burden of proof?

en.wikipedia.org...
Thanks for the link...others might benefit from reading further than the first paragraph
I'll support the view by reminding them that...


In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded.
Marcello Truzzi

Majorian, your previous posts in this thread have been open to misinterpretation if you now claim to being open minded and making no assumptions about the video


RFBurns, I've read all the posts in this thread and have followed it since day 1. My first post stated an interest and speculated that it was an extraordinary video. I'm open-minded and fully prepared to change my understanding. Being wrong presents no problem at all. The balance of information on this thread and the related articles I've been reading elsewhere lead to my position now. I'm inclined to favor the explanations presented by J Oberg and others.

ATS isn't a 'hung parliament'; the UFO section is a partisan area where the weight of opinion favors the evidence for UFOs and ET. That the thread was 'progressing well until Oberg' doesn't really matter. He's brought some supported challenges to the interpretation of the video. 'Old' or not, the information relating to the video is still relevant. Others have provided examples and evidence that independently support the less extraordinary claim.




top topics



 
96
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join