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: 44
96
<< 41  42  43    45  46  47 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 07:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
So why do we need to take it to so many decimal places for casual discussion in a public access conspiracy forum?

Again, no need to and no reason to. There is only one reason why someone would go to such length to take it so far out in the decimal place in the first place....to sound impressive and put themselves up high on a pillar to all the "low level acedemic average folk".
There is other reason for this type of explanation, some people like to explain things in what they think is the best way, with what they think is supporting material.

That is why I try to make my explanations "with many decimal places", as you like to call it, because being someone that is not good with words and is better (but not necessarily good) with numbers, that is the best way I find to try to explain the way I interpret things.

And the fact that "there is no reason" to do it does not mean that I cannot do it, if I could not do it then I would be restricted in the way I could post.

And that is another problem, as we all agree that the language we must use on ATS is English, people that have problems expressing themselves in that language (like myself) may find it better to explain things with numbers and drawings, after all, that is a kind of communication that is the same regardless of the language of the person who is trying to communicate.




posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
Now...in the STS 114 video, there is no visible evidence of a shuttle thruster causing the object to make its turn when it does turn. So in effect, my entire statements you have quoted IS correct.


Nor should any informed person EXPECT there to be -- contrary to the way you have repeatedly demanded. A thruster could have fired for 1-2 seconds and created the turn -- but left no visible 'flash' for any number of reasons (mainly that OMS/RCS thruster plumes are invisible when stable -- flashes can occur at start-up and shut-down, but don't always).

Do you believe that such plumes are generally invisible? What would it take to persuade you?

How about thruster firing history tables?



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaPThere is other reason for this type of explanation, some people like to explain things in what they think is the best way, with what they think is supporting material.



Two other reasons come to mind...

Some people just like to hear themselves talk...

And some get paid by the word...


I will leave names to the imagination



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 05:50 AM
link   

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


I am gradually working my way through the posts again as I have been away thiss weekend. So forgive me if this has been answered and discussed. already.

I would definately not use the words folklore to describe ufology. Far from it, it is clear that some things that people have reported cannot be explained. Because they can't be explained does not make it folklore:

Without deviating to much I just wanted to add something to this equation and that is, I went to see my friends and family at the weekend and of course the discussion turned to the new space telescopes that are seaching for life. I was intrigued how the view of each member has changed dramatically over the past year of so.

They used to think I was strange to believe in UFO and ALIENS e.t.c and of course take the mickey out of me by saying that little green men were coming down to abduct us, you know the score. However, now they are completely changing their opinions and are saying " Maybe there is something to your ufology after all, time will tell" Interesting how peoples opinions are changing now that the media is getting more involved.

Lastly I wanted to ask if anybody has any more water dumping videos that we can put side by side of the original video and compare



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 06:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Learhoag
There's another night video where a female astronaut is describing the night scene that is being video'ed pointing out that the space station is one of those lights in the distance when all of a sudden a bright circular light enters the scene at good speed and you hear the astronaut take a pregnanct pause! I guess she wasn't familiar with debris, ice, etc.!


Can you post that video for us to see please I for one would be very interested in seeing it. We can then compare the lights accordingly.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 06:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by branty


Maybe it is a UFO, that little guy turned and booked
Lurker strikes
[edit on 7-3-2009 by branty]


If you look at the light in question the size changes when it looks like it stops, therefore, it is feasible to suggest that the object is travelling away from the shuttle therefore, appearing to look like it stops.

I believe that DOF has animated this theory in the mid 30 pages



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 06:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by fooks
i understand DOF with his acceleration theory but it seems like the shuttle is climbing as well, very fast in fact, for the object to fall away like that.


Can you clarify if that is what you believe or is that what we are supposed to see in the video. The reason I ask is because I have watched the video multiple times and I can't see that its evident that the shuttle is climbing fast? taking the 3 points of light (bottom right) as reference, is it the lights that are moving up or is the shuttle?

Taking the other lights/satelites/debris as reference they don't seem to be effected like the 3 at the bottom?



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 06:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by C-JEAN

Here are some ice particules, seem from down under:

www.youtube.com...

And see the related videos, on the right side, for education purposes.

Maybe you will spot the difference between birds and UFOs ?

Blue skies.


C-JEAN, the video posted has no reference to ice crystals? at least not to me it shows a UFO fleet on January 28 2005, which incidently I do not believe they are birds, more like balloons but that for another thread



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by franspeakfree
 



i understand DOF's explanation for the visual effect of the object but doesn't feel right.
nothing else moves except at the end, which most likely be the camera panning to the left.


that would mean the shuttle shot that out like a torpedo then outran it?
unless that thing had fins and a motor to steer it towards the earth, how do you explain the drop in such a short time?

to me, it's big and moving under it's own power. by, for, why, i don't know.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

A thruster could have fired for 1-2 seconds and created the turn -- but left no visible 'flash' for any number of reasons (mainly that OMS/RCS thruster plumes are invisible when stable -- flashes can occur at start-up and shut-down, but don't always).


I would say this would be the case if we were looking at a video in the normal visible spectrum, however the video is not shot in the normal visible spectrum. It is in another mode, and an extremely sensitive mode at that to be seeing particles at such distances. I base that on DOF's video example of the dump where we see all those particles get thrown out, swirl around and then vanish as they get further away from the camera, even when zoomed in. And that video is in normal visible spectrum mode.

If there was ANY thruster flash, half second or less or 1 or 2 seconds, we should see something of that flash prior to that object turning, some kind of effect on the increased senistivity of the camera shooting that video.

We do not see any flash at all.



Originally posted by JimOberg
Do you believe that such plumes are generally invisible? What would it take to persuade you?


Out of all the videos I have seen of the shuttle doing course corrections and orientation changes, the flash of those thrusters is evident by the flash, in both normal spectrum mode and UV modes.


Originally posted by JimOberg
How about thruster firing history tables?


Anything written on a piece of paper or graph can be fabricated, especially when there are missions that omit take off weights and landing weights, and given the history of NASA's "Not Always Speaking Accurately", or in other words, lying to the public, I would not outright trust any thruster firing history table upfront without being able to match that up to visual records....but then again, we dont always get the entire full length videos do we...and when there are those rare occaisions when we get a 5 minute video or longer, there always seems to be quite a bit of editing in them.

Be nice if NASA would just return to LIVE video directly from the missions DURING the missions like they used to. Then there might be reason to trust them again.



Cheers!!!!



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
There is other reason for this type of explanation, some people like to explain things in what they think is the best way, with what they think is supporting material.


Well I am not sure I quite pick up on that since what I meant was its much easier for the common person to understand the explanation when it is put into simple terms, be it in English, French, Spanish, German, or Portuguese.


Originally posted by JimOberg
That is why I try to make my explanations "with many decimal places", as you like to call it, because being someone that is not good with words and is better (but not necessarily good) with numbers, that is the best way I find to try to explain the way I interpret things.


First thing I learned in effective business communications is to not over-bloat the point. Be precise and concise but not over do it. When you make the explanation more complex than it needs to be, 9 times out of 10 you loose the audience attention, and you also loose your point your trying to make.

No one is suggesting you change your style of understanding or your style of presenting information to others. The point is, that not everyone understands explanations in the manner you are accoustomed to. And when your presenting information to a diverse audience, you have to consider that only 1 percent out of 10,000 readers are on the same level of sophistication as you are. In effect, the message only reaches very few and the rest simply pass over it.



Originally posted by JimOberg
And the fact that "there is no reason" to do it does not mean that I cannot do it, if I could not do it then I would be restricted in the way I could post.


As I stated, no one is suggesting you change your style or manner in which you post. What is being suggested is that you consider your audience byond the point of just yourself and byond the point of assuming everyone here is on the nth decimal point level that you are placing yourself at.


Originally posted by JimOberg
And that is another problem, as we all agree that the language we must use on ATS is English, people that have problems expressing themselves in that language (like myself) may find it better to explain things with numbers and drawings, after all, that is a kind of communication that is the same regardless of the language of the person who is trying to communicate.


This is true, same as it is with music. The "A" note is the same note in every culture and of every language base. The picture or video looks the same as well. Now with that in mind, do you think adding complex clutter in word form makes the already understandable of a note or picture or video any more understandable?


Cheers!!!!



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 01:09 PM
link   
Yeah dudes, I have the answer to the objects in the STS-114.. we're looking at pulsating Crystal Meth particles.

Sorry, just had to say that



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
The "A" note is the same note in every culture and of every language base. The picture or video looks the same as well. Now with that in mind, do you think adding complex clutter in word form makes the already understandable of a note or picture or video any more understandable?
OK, then how can I explain the way I see it?

The video looks the same to all people, but the way people interpret what they see changes from person to person, that is why some people see an object stopping and going back and other people see an object doing a wide turn. How can I explain my point of view?

PS: thanks for your answers, but those quotes are not from JimOberg.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 02:32 PM
link   


PS: thanks for your answers, but those quotes are not from JimOberg.


The quotes are Armap's
How did that happen?!

Why exactly did NASA stop the live feeds? I had a brief look and didn't find anything immediately. Is there a 'speculation free' factual reason why they stopped them?

The various STS clips that gain the attention on ATS must come from much longer video footage. Only NASA could play a part in their release. Where are the extended versions that could provide context? Who originally released these excerpts? Does anyone have an extended video that they could upload via torrent?




posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns

Originally posted by JimOberg

A thruster could have fired for 1-2 seconds and created the turn -- but left no visible 'flash' for any number of reasons (mainly that OMS/RCS thruster plumes are invisible when stable -- flashes can occur at start-up and shut-down, but don't always).


I would say this would be the case if we were looking at a video in the normal visible spectrum, however the video is not shot in the normal visible spectrum.


Is there any evidence on Earth that backs up this claim, that another person can verify?

I ask that, because I've seen the tech specs on these cameras, and they are visible light B&W units -- or at least, that's what the operating manuals assert (and I can show them to you).

What reason do we have to disbelieve that?



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
If there was ANY thruster flash, half second or less or 1 or 2 seconds, we should see something of that flash prior to that object turning, some kind of effect on the increased senistivity of the camera shooting that video. We do not see any flash at all.


Originally posted by JimOberg
Do you believe that such plumes are generally invisible? What would it take to persuade you?


Out of all the videos I have seen of the shuttle doing course corrections and orientation changes, the flash of those thrusters is evident by the flash, in both normal spectrum mode and UV modes.


OK, you are basing this on your personal viewing of videos. Now, did you watch a random selection of videos, or just those pre-selected to show purported UFOs? In other words, was there editing and selection of WHICH videos you would be watching, before you got to watching them?

I raise the question because you might not be seeing the uninteresting (non flaring) videos because they were non-interesting to the person organzing them for youtube or some UFO documentary. You might not be seeing a fair sampling of thruster firing videos.

And what's this 'UV Mode' reference? Where's the evidence, that somebody else can verify, that any of these scenes are shot in 'UV'?
I don't believe it, myself. Why would such cameras even be mounted externally for routine monitoring? Where's the proof they were?

Now, Columbia did have a UV-transparent 'optical flat' window installed in the mideck door, for occasional solar and stellar observations with special cameras. That required a protective filter be removed from the window during a dark side pass, the camera bolted into place, and then the Orbiter turned to point the camera at the observation target.

The window was always worrisome, since if the filter came off, unshielded solar UV even just reflecting around the middeck would have begun inflicting physiological eye damage ('snow blindness') within 15 minutes. I don't recall that any other Orbiter was installed with one.





Originally posted by JimOberg
How about thruster firing history tables?


Anything written on a piece of paper or graph can be fabricated, especially when there are missions that omit take off weights and landing weights, and given the history of NASA's "Not Always Speaking Accurately", or in other words, lying to the public, I would not outright trust any thruster firing history table upfront without being able to match that up to visual records....but then again, we dont always get the entire full length videos do we...and when there are those rare occaisions when we get a 5 minute video or longer, there always seems to be quite a bit of editing in them.


OK, I think you are saying that you will not believe that there is a thruster firing unless it actually flares on the video scene you are watching, unless you actually see the flare effect. And then you claim this is proof that all thruster firings create flares. Is that your argument?

Some DoD missions omitted takeoff weights and landing weights to conceal the nature of the payload being carried. Such data was available in Mission Control, at the 'secret' level. What is your speculation about what the restricted data really showed? Million-pound payloads with hyperdrives? Or just up and down mass figures within the same ballpark as non-classified missions (which is my impression). What are you getting at here?



Be nice if NASA would just return to LIVE video directly from the missions DURING the missions like they used to. Then there might be reason to trust them again.


'Return'? What evidence is there that they ever stopped, except claims by Richard Hoagland and his buddies? With the end of classified DoD missions about a decade and a half ago, I've been getting the impression that the video is released live from all missions, as always.

What is your 'model' of an official standing by a 'kill' switch or something with instructions to cut off what kinds of scenes? They certainly haven't been very successful at cutting off 'UFO scenes', as the youtube archives show.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kandinsky


Why exactly did NASA stop the live feeds? I had a brief look and didn't find anything immediately. Is there a 'speculation free' factual reason why they stopped them?



There is STS 119 mission beginning on March 12, we should check whether there will be live coverage



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
Now, did you watch a random selection of videos, or just those pre-selected to show purported UFOs? In other words, was there editing and selection of WHICH videos you would be watching, before you got to watching them?

Mr. Oberg,

A while back in this thread, you claimed(and still apparently claim) that the videos shown in the OP of the STS-114 are in some way edited and/or pre-selected to show purported UFOs.

When I asked for the original of the STS-48, you linked me to a video (about 5 min. long) which ironically was also edited(5x normal speed I recall) and was also posted in the context of showing/promoting purported UFOs. And for the record, my questions and analysis regarding that video have still gone unanswered or at all adequately. But fair enough, that was the 48, we're discussing the 114 here.

If you please, could you show us or link us to what actually is the complete and un-edited STS-114 footage? ..I for one, would be extremely interested in examining such a video. Or is such 'not available'?

Thank you.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by deccal
There is STS 119 mission beginning on March 12, we should check whether there will be live coverage


Why shouldn't there be live coverage? Because richard hoagland said there wasn't?

check the schedule at www.nasa.gov...



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Majorion

Originally posted by JimOberg
Now, did you watch a random selection of videos, or just those pre-selected to show purported UFOs? In other words, was there editing and selection of WHICH videos you would be watching, before you got to watching them?

Mr. Oberg,

A while back in this thread, you claimed (and still apparently claim) that the videos shown in the OP of the STS-114 are in some way edited and/or pre-selected to show purported UFOs.


You've lost me.

What I think I was talking about, not clearly enough it seems, is that the videos you see about 'NASA UFOs' aren't 'typical' space camera views, they are views with the dots doing strange stuff. Without knowing what dots normally do, a viewer can't rerally judge how 'unexplainable' a scene may be.

What is deliberately withhold by promoters, and I think you'll agree, is contextual evidence that accompanies the scene and creates a context in which prosaic explanations can be formed.

Simple stuff: is it day or night? Where was the Orbiter, which way was it facing, what camera was in use, what was the crew doing?

Fundamental stuff: what do the primary witnesses have to say about the scenes?

Technical stuff on concurrent phenomena: what effluent-producing activities were in progress by the Orbiter, nearby vehicles (eg, ISS), or the space environment?

When that stuff is omitted, I argue, no 'eyeballs only' interpretation of the scene all by itself has any credibility.

Yet such contextual evidence is almost universally withheld by people using the raw videos to tease non-informed (even misinformed) viewers.

That ain't no way to run an honest investigation or exposition.



new topics

top topics



 
96
<< 41  42  43    45  46  47 >>

log in

join