NASA STS-114 UFO Footage - Can it be debunked?

Originally posted by ArMaP
The only difference is that the second segment is a little longer than the first, both show the same event.

Yes my apologies, I didn't notice the streak in the first part..so I thought a differentiation in order.. but I noticed it now in the first..my mistake. Regarding the streak, Phage says it's an artifact?..do you both think it a scratch in the negative, or maybe just a lens defect?..anyways, I'm mainly focused on the behavior of the two objects.. still not convinced of the explanations put forth by DOF and others.

What do you mean by "gravitational explanation",

I had a feeling this would be somewhat misunderstood, sorry about that ArMaP, but I was referring to one of DOF's illustrations..go back a couple pages and you should find it, can't remember exactly what he stated, but it was something along the lines of gravitational force pulling the object around, but it hardly proves as he states that it's a particle, even by his own admission.

Originally posted by RFBurns

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.

You're probably pretty "safe" there. But who knows. Maybe you can check with your sources to see what they can come up with.

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.

For my part I'd like to know some things that the log might show (no matter the source). I'm not convinced the apparent motion is directly caused by a jet from the RCS.

Originally posted by Phage
You're probably pretty "safe" there. But who knows. Maybe you can check with your sources to see what they can come up with.

I would rely on my contacts but then that would not be fair to everyone participating because the material would come from someone I know, which some might suggest or think that because I knew the contact providing the material, that it might be altered.

I think a completely neutral individual would be best and fair to all.

Originally posted by Phage
For my part I'd like to know some things that the log might show (no matter the source). I'm not convinced the apparent motion is directly caused by a jet from the RCS.

The object does seem to not reflect movements caused by one of the thrusters or combination of thruster firings. But with the question of on occaision the plume flash is not seen, it would help all of us to answer that question with the original or copy footage, timecode and RCS logs to take that question into the resolved bin.



Cheers!!!!

Originally posted by Learhoag
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.

Uh, what do you think about, say, the STS-48 zig-zag? Day or night? The STS-114 curver, the focus of this thread? Day or night? The STS-80 "out of the clouds" appearer? Day or night? Can you tell? How?

There was an experiment run recently, and reported here -- 7 of 10 'average joes' thought the STS-114 curver scene was at night. That does seem to be a problem.



[edit on 10-3-2009 by JimOberg]

Originally posted by RFBurns

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 beyond 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.

Your arguing is bizarre. Even the operators in Mission Control -- you say -- are not given technical operating specs of their own equipment (I referred specifically to the console handbook of the INCO team that operates, inter alia, all the cameras), but somehow YOU have been made aware of them by somebody 'in the know'?

There's plenty of reasons to withhold belief in your claims of secret 'insider knowledge' of space shuttles, that people operating them, planning missions, troubleshooting anomalies, etc, don't know about, but you do. Like the still un-confronted claim you've made about shuttles being able to fly out to geosync orbits to offload satellites. When are you going to admit that's imaginary?

Where is the evidence, from people we can assume really know, that these external cameras operated in UV?

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!!!!

You've been taken for a ride again and again by people you ought to -- but sadly, don't seem to -- mistrust. Like whoever it was who told you the external cameras have UV detectors and see things invisible to 'normal' light. So far, no evidence, just repeated testimony from you that you are CERTAIN it's true, without the need for evidence.


Still afraid to talk to primary witnesses, too? Astronauts (including non-US citizens) and flight controllers and the newsmen there, why don't you want anybody to know their assessment of such scenes?

Originally posted by RFBurns
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!!!!

The thruster plume travels at 10,000 ft/sec, not 1000 -- oops re the typo, mea culpa.

Your culpability at confusing this issue is far more grave. Since I never said what you are imagining I said, your smug disproving of an imaginary misstatement is only an indicator of wasted time.

You have to try harder to understand things that all of us are saying here, before jumping to wild space goose chases over fundamental misunderstandings. Please go back and read over what I have posted. If you actually find a text from me saying that RCS thruster plumes cannot be seen, I will go to the penalty box and refrain from posting for 48 hours.

If you can't find such a statement that you allege I made, what do you suggest for your own penalty?

Originally posted by Learhoag
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.

Learhoag, you don't rate a one-on-one remedial tutorial, if you think there's no reason for NASA interest in stuff seen floating outside the windows -- just the opposite is true, as has been discussed here at length.

BTW, there's no evidence the astronauts spent any time pointing these cameras, they're usually monitored and controlled from Mission Control, and one purpose is to look for 'stuff' around the shuttle. As has been discussed. Go back and find it.

Originally posted by Learhoag
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.

Still delusional and reality-resistent after all these years, I see.

STS-48 co-pilot Reightler, when asked, said: “We saw a lot of this on STS-48 because we had a dump nozzle that was leaking.” This same nozzle leaked on the next ‘Discovery’ mission as well and “created the same shower of ice particles – but apparently this time no one misinterpreted them as UFOs.”

STS-48 Mission Specialist Mark Brown added: “When illuminated by sunlight they looked like small diamonds floating in space, disturbed only when the maneuvering rockets fired – the plumes from the rockets would hit them and send them off in different directions.”

The night-time camera views of Earth’s horizon, which included the scene in question, were undertaken as part of an experiment to observe lightning storms. The ‘Principal Investigator’ of that experiment was Otha (‘Skeet’) Vaughan, who reported he frequently saw such moving dots: “They’re an ordinary part of space flight... It’s obviously just more shuttle debris.”

Senior payloads officer James Bates, a veteran of control center support for manned space missions dating back to the Gemini program, also saw these scenes in ‘real time’: “I was a Flight Integration Manager for the Shuttle Program Office during those days and was manager of the Customer Support Room where most of the payloads and other tests were managed or run. I had also worked with Vaughan to get his lightning survey implemented, and was very familiar with all of the low-light TV ‘phenomena’ we watched for hours upon end during many of the flights. During STS-48 I was in the MCC watching the ‘snow’ or ice particles. For many flights during slow times when the crew was asleep (or awake) we would watch chunks of ice float away from main engine nozzles and ice fly out of RCS thrusters. AND we would watch the small ‘snow’ get blasted by the thruster plumes. If someone saw only a piece of such videos, yes, they could think they were UFOs.”

The Monday, January 25, 1993 edition of ‘NASA Today’, a video news feed from NASA, also discussed the claims. Host Raye Borders” NASA officials want to set the record straight once and for all about the controversy that continues to swirl around certain occurrences that happened during the STS-48 mission more than a year ago. During the mission, ‘NASA Select’ recorded events which led many to believe UFO’s may actually exist. The most peculiar occurrence took place when an object traveling towards the shuttle made a sharp right turn, and flew off into space.”

Originally posted by Learhoag
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!

Uh, you mean 'astronaut Musgrave'? 'Story' is his first name. Oops.

Interview with Dr. Story Musgrave by Joe Murgia

(This is an interview Murgia did with Dr. Story Musgrave on Friday, July
10th, 1998. Musgrave was the keynote speaker at a convention for
firefighters and emergency medical technicians from the Southeast.
Most were from Florida. It was held in Tampa at the Tampa Con- vention
Center on 7/8, 7/9, and 7/10.)

(exceprt from the interview)

JM - Have you had any personal experiences with what you would
consider an unknown object?

SM - None. And no Astronaut ever has.

JM - No Astronaut?

SM - No. No Astronaut has ever had an experience with something that
has the signature of intelligent life.

=========

Story Musgrave on UFOs in Space

www.omnimag.com...

OMNI: What inexplicable things have you seen out there?
Musgrave: You see satellites. I've seen Mir go by within 28 miles; other satellites and you don't know what they are, but maybe just space debris. All kinds of debris come off space ships, especially at the back end after the main engines shut down and you open the doors: ice chips, oxygen or hydrogen, stuff dumped from the engines. On two flights I've seen and photographed what I call "the snake," like a seven-foot eel swimming out there. It may be an uncritical rubber seal from the main engines. In zero g it's totally free to maneuver, and it has its own internal waves like it's swimming. All this debris is white, reflecting sunlight, or you don't see it. Cruising along with you at your velocity, it's still got its own rotation. At zero g, things have an incredible freedom. It's an extraordinary ballet.

OMNI Could there be a space ship in our galaxy?
Musgrave Sure. I think there's spaceflight going on in our 100 billion stars. And if they were in our solar system they'd be contacting us.

OMNI There are those who believe beings have already made contact, and that the government doesn't want to tell us. And we'll never know the answer to that.
Musgrave Yeah, we will. But I believe the government has told me all there is to know about classified things, and I do not believe there is any information relating to UFOs that they're keeping from us.


=============

Direct quote from Dr. Story Musgrave, Senior NASA Astronaut, taken from "Sightings," Sunday, April 9, 1995.

(Dr. Musgrave)
"On two of my missions, and I still don't have an answer, um, I have seen a, a snake out there, six seven eight feet long. It is rubbery because it has internal waves in it and it follows you for a rather long period of time."
"The more you fly in space the more you see an incredible amount of things out there and THAT sorta brings to you, really a certainty, that other living creatures are out there. Some incredibly primitive, more primitive, some just ah just proteins coming together, amino acids and some just single cell organisms and other civilizations that have been around for a million years that are doing unimaginable kinds of things."

Originally posted by RFBurns
I would rely on my contacts but then that would not be fair to everyone participating because the material would come from someone I know, which some might suggest or think that because I knew the contact providing the material, that it might be altered.

Some "might" indeed, since you've been quoting your contacts with preposterous claims about shuttles flying up to 24,000 mile altitude, secretly, and about phantom UV-sensitive exterior cameras that even their operators don't know the full capabilities of (but YOU do). No thank you, your 'sources' -- if they even exist -- have earned negative credibility here.

UFOs UNCOVERED - OUT OF THIS WORLD
From a TV documentary taped on March 7, 2000.

We see and hear Astronaut Story Musgrave speaking. He says that so far he hasn't seen anything indicative of other forms of intelligence or other kinds of craft. Twice he said he saw what he called "my eel" and we see footage of this "eel." It doesn't really look like an eel, more like those white tubes with metal ribs to keep its round shape and some house lamps resemble this shape (sort of like a TA-KE lamp but round). As the tape continues, the voice-over says: "The new frontiers of space are providing pictures that to some fuel the UFO controversy." We are shown color, daylight footage from STS-80 and the voice-over continues: "In this footage taken from shuttle mission STS-80, the camera is pointing back at Earth. There are many features that are known here. Flashes of lightning from tropical thunderstorms, the city lights of Denver, Colorado. Meteors, satellites, and some 8,000 pieces of space debris. But there are some objects that still remain a mystery. Like this strange shape that appears unexpectedly from the Earth's atmosphere. Is it a UFO? What do the experts make of it?"

Before I include Story's comments about the above scene, let me tell you that I don't know what the narrator was looking at when he made the comments above but there really are few features that are known. Yes, flashes of lightning from the thunderstorm. But I couldn't make out any city lights so how we are to recognize Denver is another mystery. Meteors yes, but I don't know where he sees a satellite. And the most ridiculous stat of all is the 8,000 pieces of space debris! I didn't see any debris, ice crystals or water dumps. What we do see, though, are what we UFO accepters call space UFOs (SUFOs). They're zooming all over the place, from space into Earth, flitting over and under the clouds, grouped in the distance. You gotta play the tape over and over to see each individual object as the eye cannot take them in all at once.

Then Story is shown the above footage from STS-80 on a TV probably at his home, and he comments on the "strange shape" which is not really a strange shape, it is circular with a center "hole" and it looks huge or if it's really small it is has a white envelope surrounding it making it look huge.

Story: "I don't know what it is. Whether it's a washer, debris, ice particle, I don't know. But it's charateristic of the thousands of things which I've seen. What is not quite so charateristic, it appears to come from nowhere. You would think that even if it's facing the dark side or facing a side towards you which is not reflective sun, you think you would see something there. That one is really impressive!" End of documentary for this reply.

Here is an experienced astronaut being impressed by what we know is no damn ice particle or debris. It is a huge UFO emerging from the cloud cover and moving away.

However, be prepared for Oberg's continued patented explanations because he knows that those are Musgrave's own words and he did not call it an ice particle, he didn't call it debris, he didn't say it was the result of a water dump, he didn't say it was the shuttle's thrusters firing, he said it was IMPRESSIVE! Ice particles are not going to impress him. Debris is not going to impress him. Water dumps are not going to impress him. Thruster firings are not going to impress him. Something that he has not seen before IMPRESSED him, folks!

What could have that something been, Mr Oberg?



reply to post by JimOberg




[edit on 10-3-2009 by Learhoag]

Originally posted by JimObergNo thank you, your 'sources' -- if they even exist -- have earned negative credibility here.

By design... no doubt

Originally posted by JimOberg

Your arguing is bizarre. Even the operators in Mission Control -- you say -- are not given technical operating specs of their own equipment (I referred specifically to the console handbook of the INCO team that operates, inter alia, all the cameras), but somehow YOU have been made aware of them by somebody 'in the know'?

Oh Im quite sure that all the operators and techs in the flight control center would have the spec manuals on everything in that room as well as what is on board the shuttle, otherwise they could not be of much help in a problem situation.

Yes I have been made aware of many things inside of NASA. Many things. These contacts I have, one in Florida and one in Houston, are right there on the front line during every launch, during missions, and during landings.

They let me in on a lot of what goes on in those control rooms and behind the scenes. Its good to have long time friends in places like that.

One other contact I have works at the vehicle assembly plant at the Cape,

Anyway, it wouldnt be fair to anyone here, including you, if either of us were to supply an RCS log for STS 114 or a copy of the original mission video since we would be open to biased opinions. I for one do not want to throw in a monkey wrench into this discussion thus is why I say it would be benifical for a neutral party to try to get whats needed to rule out or verify thruster activity during that object's manuvers in STS 114 so that can be put to rest. Its best that someone attempt to get that material thru FOIA and involve neither you or I in that aspect.

Originally posted by JimOberg
There's plenty of reasons to withhold belief in your claims of secret 'insider knowledge' of space shuttles, that people operating them, planning missions, troubleshooting anomalies, etc, don't know about, but you do. Like the still un-confronted claim you've made about shuttles being able to fly out to geosync orbits to offload satellites. When are you going to admit that's imaginary?

Does not matter to me if you believe it or not. Like I said, Ive been involved in activities dealing with the shuttle program and other military projects before that shuttle took its first maiden space flight. But that, nor my involvement is the issue here, the question of what makes that object manuver in the manner it does is the issue. Don't you agree?

Just becasue you happen to have worked in flight control does not necessarily qualify you or your opinion to be absolute to the issue at hand. Tho I think its unusual, and you might find this surprising, I also think its great the discussion has you participating, dispite all the dancing around and throwing rose peddals at the topic trying to cloud up the room with irrelevant posts directed at me.

I made a choice the other day...I will respond to you if its something to do with the subject at hand, the object in STS 114, and I hope it stays on that subject. Drift off with more obfuscation and directed attacks at me for whatever reason will only meet with the same, if not more in return, and that doesnt help this discussion to any degree.

Originally posted by JimOberg
Where is the evidence, from people we can assume really know, that these external cameras operated in UV?

In plenty of videos scattered across the web, in this forum, within this very thread,...it is pretty much right there for everyone to plainly see.

Originally posted by JimOberg
You've been taken for a ride again and again by people you ought to -- but sadly, don't seem to -- mistrust. Like whoever it was who told you the external cameras have UV detectors and see things invisible to 'normal' light. So far, no evidence, just repeated testimony from you that you are CERTAIN it's true, without the need for evidence.

And why should I mistrust them when they tell it to me straight and from what I already know what goes on and their statements match up to what I know, versus you who seems to have been proven wrong about thruster plume flashes and how those things operate by a NASA RCS engineer.

If I were you, I would quit trying to be master of all things NASA when you clearly are not, and just stick to your particular field and contribute from that experience into this subject of the object in STS 114. More than once you have been caught with your foot in your mouth and now you want to shove it further down your throat??

Why? To add more mud to the wall? To dirty up the room some more?

Sheesh...figured you would be tired of that old routine by now. I know I am and so are a lot of the members participating are tired of it.

Originally posted by JimOberg
Still afraid to talk to primary witnesses, too? Astronauts (including non-US citizens) and flight controllers and the newsmen there, why don't you want anybody to know their assessment of such scenes?

I would love to speak to those astronauts, here in this thread, via email, telephone, or face to face. That would be fantastic!!

However, they are not here, and I cant say they would step in and participate. If you can persuade them to do so, by all means exert your influence and get them in here.

We could use first hand eyewitness testimony than testimony from someonen who sat in a chair on the ground looking at everything through a screen on the wall and a monitor in a console.



Cheers!!!!

[edit on 10-3-2009 by RFBurns]

reply to post by RFBurns


Please correct your erroneous quote attributions.

[edit on 3/10/2009 by Phage]

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by RFBurns

 

Please correct your erroneous quote attributions.

Sorry, that was strange. Corrected as requested.

2nd line.

Cheers!!!!

reply to post by RFBurns


I have noticed a pattern that we seem to encounter when discussing STS-114 (and other STS video anomalies) with one of NASA's debunkers. However, I have also detected similiar behaviour patterns in a few other threads that are attributed to other debunkers active in the STS threads, although to a much lesser extent.

Anyhow...

Certain discussion about certain anomalies has often resulted in NASA's debunker of choice consistently engaging us by utilizing low-brow, ad-homenim attacks and issuing various other insulting commentary - which while being entertaining, is irrelevant and off-putting (that is to say, I am somewhat 'put-off' by 'his' hypothesis because of the use of such tactics - as are many other members).

Such behaviour as I have just referenced, and of which examples are listed below, could hardly be said to actually help NASA's position; especially with regards to accomplishing their objectives in this discussion, here on this thread.

It appears that the suggestion and mere mention of any other hypotheses, or a refusal to acknowledge the 'official' NASA one (apparently proffered by NASA for such situations as this), will result in one being met with a response, similiar to those I have quoted below :

Originally posted by JimOberg

"No thank you, your 'sources' -- if they even exist -- have earned negative credibility here. "

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

"Still delusional and reality-resistent after all these years, I see. "

"your smug disproving of an imaginary misstatement is only an indicator of wasted time. "

"Do you deserve the truth? Then earn it." (What!? We already paid for it!)

"So you DO know the debunker's secret charge number, invoice address, password, and decoder ring setting. Thank Gawd"

"You're basing a light year of conjecture on a micron of evidence, here"

"Thanks for the honest reply. " (Oberg is clearly Implying dishonesty in prior posts made by this member... his attack on whom, is documented in the following two quotes)

"This is by far the most uninformed comment I've seen you make so far about space flight, and the competition has been fierce. This tops them all, however."

"your reading comprehension level has slipped even farther than we had initially feared."

*My comments are those brackets (my comments) and are done as a courtesy, to aid in defining context.*

**It is behaviour and commentary of this sort which has led myself and others to become far more distrustful and cautious when encountering NASA's position on a topic such as this.

The use of such tactics and strategy has clearly begun to give credence to the substantiative arguments posited by Zorgon and yourself - who often offer far more prosaic and probable explanations for the phenomena, and who are willing to keep an open mind whilst maintaining a posture that is considerably less aggressive and much more investigatory.

[edit on 10-3-2009 by Exuberant1]

Originally posted by JimOberg
Where is the evidence, from people we can assume really know, that these external cameras operated in UV?

This has been discussed in several other threads already. I can forgive your being uninformed in this regard, but just this one time ;-)

Besides, given your occupation you should know about FLIR Systems delivering a eleven modified cameras to NASA. Langley (The Langley Center) built four identical systems based on the modified versions from by FLIR Systems, for support of STS-114, STS-121, and STS-115, as well as the ISS....

STS-114 carried ThermaCAM S65 - Why don't you know this?

(No matter.... Right here on ATS, you will discover that there exists an abundance of information & links pertaining to the various STS-114 IR/UV capable camera systems, both external and hand-held right here on ATS)

The thread containing your desired 'evidence, from people we can assume really know' is still active and wherein most posts pertaining to the camera system have been thoroughly sourced, thanks to the diligence of Zorgon and the Pegasus Research Consortium.

*Please read the thread ‘Alien Donuts’ In Space! Too Much Of A Coincidence To Be Debunked? - which contains the information and specs/links that you are looking for.

As stated, this has also been discussed in other threads (use search function - it can be tedious, but you know the key terms) and is also available at thelivingmoon.com - where relevant information/data pertaining to the various camera systems has been compiled, indexed and thoroughly sourced. ;-)

Here is the 'Aliens Donut's' thread
www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 10-3-2009 by Exuberant1]

Originally posted by Learhoag
Story: "I don't know what it is. Whether it's a washer, debris, ice particle, I don't know. But it's charateristic of the thousands of things which I've seen. What is not quite so charateristic, it appears to come from nowhere. You would think that even if it's facing the dark side or facing a side towards you which is not reflective sun, you think you would see something there. That one is really impressive!" End of documentary for this reply.

Good one -- show him a video of a scene he's never seen before, and expect instant analysis. Research? We don't need no steenkin' RESEARCH!!

This does, by the way, disprove the silly claim that the astronauts themselves were watching these scenes in real time and controlling the cameras. Thanks!

Stuff 'appearing' is impressive, no doubt. Give Story more than a minute in an ambush confrontation over an undeniably strange-looking scene, and he'd come up with the same suggestion any person familiar with space flight would.

It involves the illumination conditions of the scene, and the shadow of the Orbiter being cast out into the field of view. And how drifting particles in that direction appear, when they cross out of the shadow into sunlight.

There are videos of water dump particles doing exactly that under identical lighting conditions -- 'popping' into visibility, en masse, as they reach the shadow's boundary. I need to get them into youtube-postable form, I guess.

I never said it didn't LOOK weird. These are unearthly scenes.

[edit on 10-3-2009 by JimOberg]

Originally posted by Exuberant1
Besides, given your occupation you should know about FLIR Systems delivering a eleven modified cameras to NASA. Langley (The Langley Center) built four identical systems based on the modified versions from by FLIR Systems, for support of STS-114, STS-121, and STS-115, as well as the ISS....

STS-114 carried ThermaCAM S65 - Why don't you know this?

Cool -- handheld IR camera for tile damage search -- great system...

Amazing, said astronaut Mike Fossum, while scanning parts of the International Space Station (ISS) and the orbiter with his infrared camera during a space walk 350 km above earth. That happened on July 12, 2006.

And the story goes on that this was the first such IR use in space.

Let's follow your advice and focus on the STS-114 images -- can we agree that they were taken by payload bay camera 'B', and there's no evidence it has IR or UV capabilities?

You keep repeating claims of insider info, stick to your guns on discredited space 'info' they gave you, and provide evidence, when you do, or peripheral assertions that were never brought under question.

The camera that took the pictures for this thread. Where's the evidence it had IR or UV capability?

To get your own videos of these scenes, you look up NASA JSC's phone number, call the public information office, they give you the contact for ordering the video, you specify the times of interest and format you need (be sure to ask for a time-tag box insert), you place your order with your money, and you get them.

How hard is that? Why hasn't anyone done this before?

Ditto FOIA. It's amazing what records are available.

Why, only a few months ago, I was able to retrieve Ken Johnston's military records -- you know, the guy who is supposed to be the whistle blower who was in charge of raw Apollo astronaut images and was ordered to delete UFO scenes? On paper, his history is a whole lot different from the version now being promulgated.

You might also ask for the STS-48 records that I posted about ten years ago -- and which were rigorously avoided by 'UFO researchers'. You can confirm that I posted accurate stuff. Anybody think that's worth doing -- or are vague insinuations adequate for decision-making around here?

Where do we find the records about a secret shuttle capability to fly out to 24,000 mile altitude?