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: 45
96
<< 42  43  44    46  47  48 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Majorion
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'?


I wish somebody had created such a link. The video is available in the archives of the NASA watchers, like Challender and others, they just don't want to show it to you. NASA doesn't really care if you want to believe the dots are UFOs -- space workers roll on the floor in derision (well, almost) at the idea of people interpreting the dots in that fashion.

If you want the scenes, you'll have to show more initiative and capabilities than just saying, 'show me the URL.' Sticking to the internet alone is a guaranty of unbroken delusionment, I'm afraid. Break free -- on your own power. Anything -I- provide will be de facto suspect by the zorfgonions...

Do you deserve the truth? Then earn it.




posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 

Who mentioned Hoagland? Where is the original footage of these STS missions available? The 4 to 5 minute excerpts must originate from more extensive footage. Somebody, somewhere was able to upload the clips to youtube and other streaming sites. Where is it?



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
I wish somebody had created such a link. The video is available in the archives of the NASA watchers, like Challender and others, they just don't want to show it to you.

So NASA don't want to show us the so called complete and unedited footage, but a bunch of UFO promoters were somehow able to extract some clips for good show and entertainment?

Why does that sound so completely devoid of credibility?..This certainly does not help your case you know.



Originally posted by JimOberg
NASA doesn't really care if you want to believe the dots are UFOs -- space workers roll on the floor in derision (well, almost) at the idea of people interpreting the dots in that fashion.

Well why don't they just show us these "prosaic" footages of "dots"?...Shouldn't hurt, would certainly get the UFO promoters off their backs right?..I fail to understand the logic behind keeping these quote and quote "un-edited" videos to themselves; whilst UFO promoters take advantage of the situation by posting short clips (only God knows how they get those clips in the first place).


Originally posted by JimOberg
Anything -I- provide will be de facto suspect

Well how can you know that, when you haven't provided anything?



Originally posted by Kandinsky
Somebody, somewhere was able to upload the clips to youtube and other streaming sites. Where is it?

Apparently, in some archive, lest us "UFO-believers" get our hands on some footage of "dots".


[edit on 9/3/09 by Majorion]



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 05:38 PM
link   
Mr Oberg: With all due respect to your experiences at NASA, you are operating in a different orbit from the rest of civilization. The average Joe can tell if the footage was shot in day or night, that will never be a problem. But the average Joe has no concept of where the Orbiter was, which way it was facing, what camera was in use, or what the crew was doing. Average Joe is looking at a video that shows unusual activity by so-called white orbs that could NEVER be accounted for by ice particles, debris, water dumps and all of the unacceptable excuses you are "trained" to give or, plainly speaking, obfuscation.

Once again, your explanations ignore Orbiter cameras zooming in and out from those "orbs" which are always at a distance that if they were really ice particles, debris, etc., zooming in to it/them wouldn't be necessary for anything near the Orbiter is of no interest to the "busy" astronauts and zooming in to an ice article is a waste of their time.

Additionally, there is enough footage from Orbiters showing unidentifiable objects zooming at high speeds over Earth's surface and the tracking goes on for a heck of a long time, something not necessary if the object(s) was/were nearby ice particles.

You don't seem to see what we see or you just don't want to admit that there are strange objects videotaped from the various Orbiters by various astronauts who sometimes sound mystified at what they're witnessing and videotaping.

Why don't you just come clean and give us a break with your totally unacceptable excuses. Why do you continue trying to convince us that we have to be the stupidest people on the planet when you, yourself, don't make sense?



Originally posted by JimOberg

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.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 


I think (don't know...think) that the videos may have been obtained from NASATV broadcasts. It seems that there are (were?) times at which this kind of stuff is used as filler. I know I've fallen asleep more than once watching the world roll by beneath the open cargo bay.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Kandinsky
 


I think (don't know...think) that the videos may have been obtained from NASATV broadcasts. It seems that there are (were?) times at which this kind of stuff is used as filler. I know I've fallen asleep more than once watching the world roll by beneath the open cargo bay.



I used to record the NASATV live video feeds of the missions...when NASA was doing live video feeds on their channel. I had a library of VHS Hi-Fi tapes of them. Unfortunately, because of an unusual event that both me and my father have never figured out yet, the shed where these tapes were stored burned down along with some 16mm film footage of HAFB test track missions that had some unusual things in them besides the sled shot down the track.


Cheers!!!!



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
Do you deserve the truth? Then earn it

Please, by all means, tell me how can I earn some of that footage of quote and quote "dots"?



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

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


Absolutely. Give me some time to locate a DVD of Earth shots taken during shuttle missions and there is one scene from the rear camera looking towards the back of the shuttle, and "FLASH", we can see the rear thrusters firing a very short burst.


Originally posted by JimOberg
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).


Perhaps you have only been given information pertaining to your particular position which did not require you to know much byond what you needed to know for your purpose at NASA.

I dont know about you but right there plastered all over page 1, post 1 in this thread and on the STS 75 video and others are video taken in modes other than visible color and b/w.


Originally posted by JimOberg
What reason do we have to disbelieve that?


Are you serious? Do you honestly think that after 40 years of mistrust in NASA over many aspects of what they did and have done, that no one would have any reason to disbelieve in what is on paper from NASA?

Cmon Jim, were not that easily taken for a ride. Its rather difficult to say you are correct when there are videos all over the place that clearly show video shot in modes other than normal visual and B/W.


Cheers!!!!



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 



NASA doesn't really care if you want to believe the dots are UFOs


this is exactly why people don't trust NASA


space workers roll on the floor in derision (well, almost) at the idea of people interpreting the dots in that fashion.


isn't NASA advocating ignorance by not releasing all the video footage for the public to see ?

see the irony here ?


Do you deserve the truth? Then earn it.


we shouldn't have to earn it...

WE Paid for it...



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 07:35 PM
link   
Okay, since this is all I have to work with.

Here's what I notice in the STS-114 footage; that makes me NOT buy into the ice particle explanation or any other prosaic/ordinary explanations. I'll post the clip again;



First of all, there are two different segments in the clip. One is from 0 to 44 seconds, and the other starts from 44 seconds onwards.

Now I'm fairly certain that the first segment has been discussed a lot already, my only interesting observation there; was that the camera started shifting to the left after the object makes a complete turnaround. Come to your own conclusions there.

In regards to the second segment. Again, as I said before, start from 0:44 for the next part;

The first object; which is very clear as it enters the frame, makes a complete stop at around 1:03, yes, a complete stop..which further disproves the highly unlikely gravitational explanation (in which it supposedly doesn't stop).

Now this is the interesting part, and if I'm not mistaken..Mr. Exopolitico already pointed this out (unsurprisingly, his post gone without notice) that a second object in the background also appears; simultaneously just at the time the first object decides to turn back around. And at 1:07 there is a streak of light (or flash..) that appears right where the second object is heading.

And of course, the first object almost appears to be following the course of the second object.

Then finally, just like in the first segment of the video, the camera starts shifting to the left, again..Come to your own conclusions there.


[edit on 9/3/09 by Majorion]



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

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?



Here is a snapshot of the aft of the shuttle during a thruster burst.



According to the source site where I found this...I could not locate my DVD, still packed in a box as I have not yet finished arranging my new place...source site is HERE.

From article:


The post-burn cloud may be visible, but only when reflecting sunlight. The pre-burn cloud is never visible to the human eye but might be detected by a light-sensitive camera.


Now correct me if I am wrong here but isnt that site referencing you?



According to James Oberg and others associated with NASA, the flash of light was caused by the firing of a small reaction control system (RCS) thruster on the space shuttle. Oberg has asserted that:

The RCS jets usually fire in 80-millisecond pulses to keep the shuttle pointed in a desired direction, under autopilot control (usually once every few minutes). These jets may flash when they ignite if the mixture ratio is not quite right. Propellant also tends to seep out the feed lines into the nozzle, where it accumulates, freezes through evaporative cooling, and flakes off during the next firing. The ejected burn byproducts travel at about 1000 ft/sec. One pulse usually emits about a quarter pound of propellant in a fan-shaped plume.



Another pic of a thruster plume.



From HERE


And another..this one is nice, Earth in the background.



Source HERE


So with this visible plume in photos using visible mode on the camera, and the evident "flash" in STS 48...do you still say that the thrusters cannot be seen causing a flash when they are used and cannot be picked up by a camera in visual spectrum mode and in UV mode?


Cheers!!!!

[edit on 9-3-2009 by RFBurns]



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Majorion


Then finally, just like in the first segment of the video, the camera starts shifting to the left, again..Come to your own conclusions there.


My conclusion is that both segments are the same sequence running at different speeds.

Stratch the different speeds part. Same sequence repeated at the same speed. The streak seems to be an artifact.

[edit on 3/9/2009 by Phage]



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 07:47 PM
link   
reply to post by RFBurns
 


Aren't you missing the part of the quotes that say "may be visible". Keyword being "may". That would indicate that the flash is not always visible. Maybe.

[edit on 3/9/2009 by Phage]



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 07:50 PM
link   
Let's be real about what we see in certain NASA videos. We, the uneducated and unwashed, see objects in space videotaped by cameras mounted on the various Orbiters and handheld by various astronauts. Why these objects get the attention they do is the first mystery.

The explanations given by such people as Jim Oberg, and other NASA spokepeople, demand that we give up logic, common sense and reason and accept their illogical explanations because they "know better" even though the spokespeople have never been in space. Those that have been in space don't talk about these things possibly because they've been ordered, and not on paper!, to not discuss anything associated with these objects.

So, here we are at ATS demanding that we be given logical explanations and the only person associated with NASA, now or in the past, is being allowed to discuss these objects but seemingly following NASA dictates of using obfuscation and trying to make said obfustication sound logical when its effect is totally the opposite.

Personally, I've seen NASA videos of ice particles, debris, water dumps, etc., and at no time would I insult anyone's intelligence by claiming that ALL videos show only these "official" explanations.

Only astronaut Story has owned up to seeing unexplainable footage. And he is qualified to speak. I don't think anyone else on ATS is qualified to say that what we see is what NASA says it is.

We know better!

[edit on 9-3-2009 by Learhoag]

[edit on 9-3-2009 by Learhoag]



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by RFBurns
 


Aren't you missing the part of the quotes that say "may be visible". Keyword being "may". That would indicate that the flash is not always visible. Maybe.



May and maybe does not mean "never" Phage. And again, are you ignoring STS 48????

Are you ignoring the images I just posted????

And if you look closer, the quote taken from the article does include the part where Lan Flemming says "may be visible"

Well with STS 48 flash, the photos above...I would say that "may" and "maybe" are visibly "MOOT" at this point.


Cheers!!!!


[edit on 9-3-2009 by RFBurns]



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 08:06 PM
link   
reply to post by RFBurns
 


Correct, it doesn't mean never either. It means sometimes. Sometimes there is a visible flash and sometimes there isn't.

I'm not ignoring anything. In sts-48 it's obvious that the jet fires. In sts-114 it isn't obvious that it fires (if it does). In sts-48 there is a visible flash. In sts-114 maybe there isn't.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by RFBurns
 


Correct, it doesn't mean never either. It means sometimes. Sometimes there is a visible flash and sometimes there isn't.

I'm not ignoring anything. In sts-48 it's obvious that the jet fires. In sts-114 it isn't obvious that it fires (if it does). In sts-48 there is a visible flash. In sts-114 maybe there isn't.



Right, in STS 114 we do not see any plume flash from a thruster, nor do we know if there was any thruster burn at that particular time when the object turns.

And unless we can get the original source footage or a copy of it, complete with timecode so that can be matched to any thruster firing logs, each side of the STS 114 issue can just ride the fence on their respective beliefs of what is seen in that video.

So we are missing two key pieces of data to confirm a thruster fire or not in STS 114.

Jim said he could provide that? Maybe? I dont want to sound rude or anything but I would rather see a thruster firing log direct from NASA that can be verified and authenticated as well as the raw footage with timecode to match up the timestamps on both video and logs to see if in fact there was a thruster blast at the point of the object making its turn.

However, read that article I linked up about these thruster bursts and their plumes. Its quite intriquing.

Cheers!!!!



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 08:26 PM
link   
reply to post by RFBurns
 


Right the log would be helpful. But, correct me if I'm wrong, you've already said that you won't trust the log even if Jim can produce it. So why bother?



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by RFBurns
 


Right the log would be helpful. But, correct me if I'm wrong, you've already said that you won't trust the log even if Jim can produce it. So why bother?


I just said I would rather see one direct from NASA that can be authenticated and verified along with the original footage or a copy of it with timecode so the two can be time matched.

And even tho I do not trust NASA, it is less likely that a thruster burn log direct from NASA, from someone who handles those logs and who is not a part of this particular discussion, or any other in any forum, a neutral non-participant, is more trusting than from someone who is in this thread telling us what we should believe and how to interpret what our own eyes see on a video or photograph.

If there anything that could put to rest the issue of a thruster firing in the STS 114 video when that object does its turn, those two materials from the source and given by an individual who has no stake in this matter, would nail the lid on the coffin IMO.

Sorry Jim, but for fairness sake, I think it would be in the best interest for all concerned that any logs or video sources that are said to be original, should come directly from NASA and by someone not involved.


Cheers!!!!

[edit on 9-3-2009 by RFBurns]



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Majorion
First of all, there are two different segments in the clip.
The only difference is that the second segment is a little longer than the first, both show the same event.


The first object; which is very clear as it enters the frame, makes a complete stop at around 1:03, yes, a complete stop..which further disproves the highly unlikely gravitational explanation (in which it supposedly doesn't stop).
What do you mean by "gravitational explanation", an explanation based on gravity?


Now this is the interesting part, and if I'm not mistaken..Mr. Exopolitico already pointed this out (unsurprisingly, his post gone without notice) that a second object in the background also appears; simultaneously just at the time the first object decides to turn back around.
The first object is already reducing its speed (at least apparently) when the second object appears, so I don't think we can call that "simultaneously" with the change of direction of the first object.


And at 1:07 there is a streak of light (or flash..) that appears right where the second object is heading.
It only lasts one frame, and this is how it looks.




And of course, the first object almost appears to be following the course of the second object.
Both object move to the right, but they do not go in the same way, not even "almost", as you can see in the image posted by Exopolitico.




Then finally, just like in the first segment of the video, the camera starts shifting to the left, again..Come to your own conclusions there.
It's the same video, everything happens as it did on the first segment.



new topics

top topics



 
96
<< 42  43  44    46  47  48 >>

log in

join