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: 41
96
<< 38  39  40    42  43  44 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by depthoffield
Yet there are times when it accelerates for some time interval.


I am glad you agree.

Like RFBurns says; Once it reaches orbit velocity, it simply "coasts" and applies forward thrust bursts on occasion to maintain that orbit velocity and integrity.

If it were constantly accelerating, it would increase its orbital plot.


Originally posted by depthoffield
Are you trying to deny that ice/junk debris it cannot exist?


If you could locate the post wherein such an attempt at denial was made, you wouldn't have to ask that question - You would just post the quote. ;-)

I posit that such a quote does not exist, which is why you will not be forthcoming in presenting it to us.

*In any case, denying that something cannot exist is tantamount to saying that it does exist. In which case, I am sure you will have no trouble finding posts where the nefarious RFBurns says that ice/junk debris can exist....

I have seen several of those.




posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 08:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Majorion

Originally posted by depthoffield
In fact, the experiment made by Franspeakfree, shows the obvious, that attractive urban folclor is reaching them and nothing more.


Yo DOF, why don't you tone it down a little, some of us are really starting to get fed up with your insults alright.

What 'urban folclor' is that? .. oh you mean 'urban folklore'? .. get the spelling right at least.


Escuse a non-native english person, it can make mistakes, and sure this is not the one. Does is this is so important for you? Is this an academy? Please do not harass people for ordinary typos. Please escuse me for not beeing a pure english man and making some mistakes when using dictionary or memory. And what's the problem, sure you understand my phrase? If not, you ask. Be on topic not harass me for nothing. And i think i argumented all important things i'm saying, are you angry for this? Or just don't like analyzing the details?
...
Regarding what i said there..

What insults, Majorion?
It is my opinion, that every bright dots in NASA movies are taken by ordinary people as UFO's because usually they are not aware of little but important aspects like orbital mechanics, depth of field, 2D projection, accelerating/decelerating, water dumps etcetera., so it is exactly a form of Urban Folklore, legends thought to be true without enough arguments or knowledge, as i said. So every Gallup Poll is normal to show this face of low understanding.


[edit on 7/3/09 by depthoffield]



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by depthoffield
Escuse a non-native englisk person, it can make mistakes,

My apologies if you misunderstood my statement regarding language. My point was, that if you're gonna attempt to insult people, at least get the spelling right.


Originally posted by depthoffield
And i think i argumented all important things i'm saying, are you capable of this? Or just don't like analyzing the details?

Oh I am capable of analysis. Why don't you go back to my post regarding the STS-48 footage, and try to answer those questions.


Originally posted by depthoffield
What insults, Majorion?

Maybe I should quote you on that;


Originally posted by depthoffield
every bright dots in NASA movies are taken by ordinary people as UFO's

Ordinary people? .. so I suppose you're Mr. superior?


Originally posted by depthoffield
So every Gallup Poll is normal to show this face of low understanding.

Most people on ATS are educated. That "low understanding" statement of yours is insulting.



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 09:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Majorion

Originally posted by depthoffield
Escuse a non-native englisk person, it can make mistakes,

My apologies if you misunderstood my statement regarding language.

Accepted.



My point was, that if you're gonna attempt to insult people, at least get the spelling right.

I don't attempt to insult people, at least i may do it involuntary, but no more than "believers" saying "debunkers which speaks BS".




Why don't you go back to my post regarding the STS-48 footage, and try to answer those questions.

As RFBurns insisted many times, let's concentrate to STS-114 video here, and to not be off-topic. Start another topic with STS-48, and i may respond to it.



Originally posted by depthoffield
every bright dots in NASA movies are taken by ordinary people as UFO's

Ordinary people? .. so I suppose you're Mr. superior?

Yes, common people. Arbitrary people which Franspeakfree uses for Gallup Polls, people which don't care too much to the little details and knowledge as i said before. I'm sure in the land of true specialists, there will be less UFO's in every bright dot, unlike the crowd.



Originally posted by depthoffield
So every Gallup Poll is normal to show this face of low understanding.

Most people on ATS are educated. That "low understanding" statement of yours is insulting.

Low understanding is not equal to non-educated.
I'll be very ignorant and very low understanding if i choose to judge..for example genetics, medicine etcetera. But this doesn't mean i'm not educated.
And i'm not talking about the ATS people, i was talking about people selected for Gallup Poll.


So, i see that you are angry, and why beeing angry in analysing details of the movies proposed in various topics? Hmm..

[edit on 7/3/09 by depthoffield]



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by depthoffield
So, i see that you are angry, and why beeing angry in analysing details of the movies proposed in various topics? Hmm..

Then maybe your eyes aren't working so well. You see how it is very easy for "ordinary" people to get confused and misinterpret things.


Just for clarification, I'm not angry. However I will kindly ask you for the last time, in the good spirit of discussion, to refrain for this tone of yours, and the excessive insults.

Thank you.

[edit on 7/3/09 by Majorion]



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by depthoffield
... let's concentrate to STS-114 video here, and to not be off-topic. Start another topic with STS-48, and i may respond to it.



I agree.

Relevant data such as this should be sequestered in a thread away from this one, as the similarities and obvious anomalies may lead to comparisons beings made and conclusions drawn.

Allowing this sort of discussion might even result in someone posting a side-by-side comparison of the "UFOs" found in both STS-48 and STS-114.

When that happens, I guess we know who to blame... Majorion ;-)

[edit on 7-3-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
Why then would you use these examples which contain sightings that have nothing to do with NASA, to disprove a possible 'cover-up' involving NASA?

Nearly Always Strawman Arguments


Easy. Both men explicitly stated that they never encountered the subject, either in briefings, flight experience, stories from colleagues, or any other form, while they were at NASA. They couldn't have been more precise. Well, to get you to understand it, maybe they should have been -- but I don't know how.



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
Seems that officials are also jumping to conclusions too eh?


I thought you were complaining that I was getting off the topic of STS-114. Pot, forget kettle, look in mirror.


"The 1964 Socorro/Lonnie Zamora incident also left metal traces, analyzed by NASA."

..and the evidence for this claim is, uh, what? Some UFO buff SAID so?



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
Maybe because they ARE still under contract with NASA to say nothing



More likely, they're telling the truth about this, and you just can't stand the idea...

Of course, Gordo did have a penchant for overdramatizing his space stories to please his audiences, but he was just being generous with those who invited him.



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
DOF..the shuttle does NOT always accelerate while in orbit. Once it reaches orbit velocity, it simply "coasts" and applies forward thrust bursts on occaision to maintain that orbit velocity and integrity.
If it were constantly accelerating, it would increase its orbital plot further out and eventually run out of fuel.


DOF, be cautious -- these assertions by RF -- like so many others of his -- reflect fake-expertise that is inconsistent with reality. The idea of the shuttle occasionally applying 'forward thrust bursts' to maintain its velocity is silly beyond words [it doesn't]. And what's this "orbital plot" that might get increased? It's a term never heard in real spaceflight operations, but it sounds 'spacey' to RF's target audience, and his experience shows it works... Sad.

By the way, in terms of the physics of orbital motion, any satellite is always 'accelerating' in terms of changing its velocity vector to follow its elliptical orbit [it's just not continuously thrusting], but that's a terminological quibble [no points lost for not realizing it]. It is also slightly losing energy to air drag, but that's minor.

Translational thruster burns are made from time to time during the rendezvous with its target, and later to line up for entry, and finally to drop out of orbit, then burn off any remaining forward RCS propellant to push the center of mass a bit aft (a good thing for aerodynamic flight). Rotational thruster burns are made frequently (usually under autopilot control) to keep the Orbiter pointed in the desired direction.

[edit on 7-3-2009 by JimOberg]



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
... A paid debunker called in to resuce the day, but only problem is...he lost before he even stepped through the door.


People keep SAYING that as if it will come true by force of will. But of course, no evidence -- just a wish to smear my motives.

For years I've offered a commission if anyone can find for me the charge number and address whither to send my invoices. So far, no takers.


Instead, unbroken repetition of a delusional distraction.

Being so S-U-R-E just HAS to make it so, I guess.



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Majorion

Originally posted by depthoffield
So, i see that you are angry, and why beeing angry in analysing details of the movies proposed in various topics? Hmm..

Then maybe your eyes aren't working so well. You see how it is very easy for "ordinary" people to get confused and misinterpret things.


Just for clarification, I'm not angry. However I will kindly ask you for the last time, in the good spirit of discussion, to refrain for this tone of yours, and the excessive insults.

Thank you.

[edit on 7/3/09 by Majorion]

I understood Dof's earlier post in the spirit it was intended. He wasn't extending insults to members on this thread. Over the course of several threads since December, I'd go as far to say that he's taken a fair amount of insults. Certainly, he's been criticized for spelling, grammar, intelligence and been accused of poor character and deceitful motivations i.e. he lies to discredit UFO footage.

That he occasionally adds a little sharpness to his replies is simply human. He's often replied to challenges from Zorgon, RFBurns, EasyNow, Exuberance et al that can seem lacking in 'the warmth of human kindness'.

I think he adds a lot of balance to the threads and is scrupulous in supporting his evidence. ArMap has a lot of respect and Depth of Field is cut from similar cloth.



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
Maybe because they ARE still under contract with NASA to say nothing




Maybe they are even under contract not to discuss their contract - or at least certain parts of it...

Do you think Jim Oberg is also forbidden by contract to publicly acknowledge the existence of certain things - such as what we are seeing in STS-114 video?

This would explain some of the statements he made concerning the UFO he allegedly witnessed whilst in Mission Control for the deployment of the GRO satellite during STS-37, a sighting he reflexively dismissed. ;-)

"While watching a long stretch of NIGHTSIDE video I saw a bright ovoid image cross the screen from left to right. Although I was sure there was a rational explanation, it was an impressive apparition. I personally never thought it was an alien spacecraft but you are welcome to follow up on it."

Oberg appears to have simultaneously dismissed and witnessed this 'ovoid image. Even when he saw that UFO, Oberg was 'sure there was a rational explanation'....

Oberg later alleged that the UFO was a city, and I agree with him on this particular allegation. The Ovoid Image was actually an Ovoid city.

So Zorgon, if the 'impressive apparition' that Jim Oberg alleges to have witnessed was indeed a controlled craft - do you think he would even be allowed to acknowledge it publicly?

[edit on 7-3-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns

Originally posted by depthoffield

Originally posted by RFBurns
DOF..the shuttle does NOT always accelerate while in orbit.


Who says is always accelerating?


Umm...are you even aware of what you put in your own animated gif's text?

Your first picture up there.


yes i'm aware. I put a sequence with the shuttle in process of steady acceleration.
A few moments of acceleration, enough to show the concept. This it doesn't means that shuttle is accelerating all the time, like you wrongly understand.

In the STS-8 example, there is at least 20 second of constant accelerations, and that sequence is only for documenting the effect to the audience. There can be minutes of constant acceleration, if shuttle needs to change more the orbit.
Again, I ask JimOberg to say from his experience how long accelerating thrusting can be while in orbit in different scenarious.
All you are trying to do here, RFBurns, is desperately suggesting that no way the OP movie, (which shows 44 second of object reversing trajectory in the FOV of the camera,) can be taken when the shuttle is in accelerating proces.





PFFT! Your MSM NASA buddy there has no relevant contribution other than to derail and defocus from the issue as he has done since day one of his first post in this one thread. He was called out and spotted and tagged for what he is more than once. A paid debunker called in to resuce the day, but only problem is...he lost before he even stepped through the door.

Your opinion is a sign of subjective rejecting. I saw in this topic, on the contrary, JimOberg said many useful and corect things. He proposed the scientific approach down to every detail when judging videos taken in space by the shuttle, something that common "believer" didn't want to do it, he wants to stop at the level "seeing is believing"




My point has far more substance than yours ever will simply because you dont even know what you put in your own examples and contradict yourself.

Listen yourself: You have "more substance", i "contradict" myself... Harassment by cheap afirmations.





Originally posted by depthoffield

RFBurns:
And as I have pointed out many times before, your example is based on an assumption that the object is a mere ice particle.

This assumption takes in consideration that ice/junk debris simply exists and is common in orbit. Are you trying to deny that ice/junk debris it cannot exist?


There you go again, saying that I say things when I clearly do not. Caught once more. Want to go for three?


No, you didn't caught me. You caught yourself. Look what you said before:


Originally posted by RFBurns
We ignore the ice theory because for one, the shuttle is well parked up in orbit during this video, it is not on its way up.

taken from here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

you just ignored the real posibility of ice debris near the shuttle while in orbit, and now contradict yourself saying you didn't said this. Tut, tut, tut...






Originally posted by depthoffield
And until now, you claim again and again that "no way an ice particle can have this trajectory".
And, you see, IT CAN. Simple orbital mechanics.


Here is number three. Show us in ANY of my posts where I say "ice particles cannot have this trajectory". Caught once again...shall you go for a quad?


No, you caught yourself again. Look what you said here:

Originally posted by RFBurns
This cannot be an ice particle. It would have burned up as it moved closer to the atmosphere and became nothing, plus ice does not do 180 degree turns and move off in another direction with no other outside force nearby to make it move.

taken from here: www.abovetopsecret.com...


or you said again here:

Originally posted by RFBurns
....but certianly a tiny ice particle is not going to move in the manner as this object does.

...
But I have to point out once again, no ice particle or space junk is going to manuver itself in the manner that this object does without some kind of outside influence, be it from a thruster blast or something hitting the object.

If something were to hit the object, it would not slow down in the linear fashion as it does in this video. It would not turn and then build up speed over a short time in the other direction.

this taken from here: www.abovetopsecret.com...


Satisfied, RFBurns? These are 2 examples where you denied the posibility of that kind of maneuver from an ice particle, and now you didn' recognise your opinions? Tut, tut, tut...

Anyway, i'm glad you changed lately your first approach, like i said, is a small step for you. ;p


Cheers!

[edit on 7/3/09 by depthoffield]



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by depthoffield

No, you didn't caught me. You caught yourself. Look what you said before


You didn't 'catch him' yet. But I am sure that if you force him to repeat himself a few more times, you might be able to catch him make the odd mistake.

So have you decided what the object in the video actually is?

Is it an ice particle or debris or a satellite? Pick one. Please tell us what you have determined this 'UFO' to be - as you have not been clear in this regard.

In fact, you have been quite inconsistent with your assessments and determinations thus far and I would just like to know what you have concluded the object from the STS-114 video as being.

*Unless of course you have just been speculating all along and are actually unable to identify the object, in which case it would be an Unidentified Flying Object - which don't exist. ;-)



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

DOF, be cautious -- these assertions by RF -- like so many others of his -- reflect fake-expertise that is inconsistent with reality. The idea of the shuttle occasionally applying 'forward thrust bursts' to maintain its velocity is silly beyond words [it doesn't]. And what's this "orbital plot" that might get increased? It's a term never heard in real spaceflight operations, but it sounds 'spacey' to RF's target audience, and his experience shows it works... Sad.


The only "fake" I and others see here is YOU. Your obvous presence here in this one lone thread out of all others is the key evidence clearly seen. You are not fooling anyone, except those you can easily swing into your tiny camp.


Originally posted by JimOberg
By the way, in terms of the physics of orbital motion, any satellite is always 'accelerating' in terms of changing its velocity vector to follow its elliptical orbit [it's just not continuously thrusting], but that's a terminological quibble [no points lost for not realizing it]. It is also slightly losing energy to air drag, but that's minor.


They perform simple adjustments to their orbital plots to maintain those orbits, not constantly fire thrusters continuously to be compensating for minor changes. If they were, every single one of them would run out of the very limited fuel capacity and plummit to the Earth....unless....your postulating that these satellites and the shuttle have another source of fuel that is not exaustable to maintain consistant acceleration to correct minor changes in orbital velocity and integrity. If that is the case, by all means enlighten us.



Originally posted by JimOberg
Translational thruster burns are made from time to time during the rendezvous with its target, and later to line up for entry, and finally to drop out of orbit, then burn off any remaining forward RCS propellant to push the center of mass a bit aft (a good thing for aerodynamic flight). Rotational thruster burns are made frequently (usually under autopilot control) to keep the Orbiter pointed in the desired direction.


Again, all of which are extremely short bursts to correct, compensate, change orbit trajectory, or brake orbital velocity for re-entry.

Your explanation is about as believable as the 72 hour BS of check list bunk after going into orbit before they can open up the bay doors.

Ya I know the score on that one bud. And like I suggested to your number 1, there is a space flight sim with real world Newtonian physics and an exact replication of the shuttle Atlantis that duplicates every detail of the real thing, from launch to orbital insertion, to rendezvous with other orbiting satellites and the ISS, right down to your "waste dump" shower process. And within that sim, it can be clearly seen that maintaining an orbit does not require a constant burn.

In the STS 114 video, the shuttle is just orbiting along, not going anywhere specific to warrant a continuous burn for constant acceleration as your number 1 is demonstrating to explain the object in the video.

So...continue throwing out your BS and I will be here to throw it right back. As I stated, you may be able to swing the gullable, but you met your formidable advisary with your derailing tactics and diverting focus from the subject of the thread onto me.

So its up to you..you want to continue this BS or we can get back to the subject of the video.

If you prefer to continue the BS, you got your work cut out for you I guarantee that.


Cheers!!!!



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by depthoffield
 


Did you ignore the rest of the quote..."WITHOUT OUTSIDE INFLUENCE".

I thought so.

Fragmented quoting when its right there in your face only shows your level of knowledge while you shunt down others putting yourself so high on a pillar.


Cheers!!!!



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by depthoffield
 


All your doing is taking what I said and reversing the meaning. Another classic tactic. Are you getting lessons via u2u now?

Show us other ice floating around that shuttle in the OP video.

I dont see any. According to you, the ice particles go loop-de-loop and are all over the place. Well...why are they not present in that video?

Maybe its because they are simply not there? That would make sense to anyone watching that video and seeing other videos where ice particles can be clearly seen.





Cheers!!!!



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
reply to post by depthoffield
 


Did you ignore the rest of the quote..."WITHOUT OUTSIDE INFLUENCE".



No, you didn't read it. it was there. Pay attention!



[edit on 7/3/09 by depthoffield]



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by RFBurns
... A paid debunker called in to resuce the day, but only problem is...he lost before he even stepped through the door.


People keep SAYING that as if it will come true by force of will. But of course, no evidence -- just a wish to smear my motives.


Dude the motives are as evident as a nickle sized pimple on your nose. Showing up out of nowhere, parking your butt here in this one thread, while a plethora of STS posts fling over your head, and you sit here derailing the flow of discussion from day one and then resort to turning the attention on me. You forget that I used to do the very game your playing as a profession...just as you do now. Your not fooling anyone. Except the gullable which you strive to add so you can appear to be credible. Hey whatever floats your boat there Mr. NASA.


Originally posted by JimOberg
For years I've offered a commission if anyone can find for me the charge number and address whither to send my invoices. So far, no takers.


Oh sure...and we just accept your word because you say so..just like NASA, we are supposed to accept their word. Well guess what, this isnt 1969 when there was a time that people accepted anything NASA said...these days..most people dont trust NASA, nor do they trust any of their goons. Hmm..that must mean we dont trust you either.




Originally posted by JimOberg
Instead, unbroken repetition of a delusional distraction.

Being so S-U-R-E just HAS to make it so, I guess.


Its ok we are quite S-U-R-E of your game here. Interesting, and intriquing that you pass up so much for so little gain by growng roots in this one thread. How come you dont post in the others? Why are you so intrenched into this one lonely thread out of dozens? Oh..it must not be in the contract to work the others, just this one.

Reasonable conclusion.



Cheers!!!!



new topics

top topics



 
96
<< 38  39  40    42  43  44 >>

log in

join