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: 48
96
<< 45  46  47    49  50  51 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 11:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


My point exactly.

2nd line.


Cheers!!!!




posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 11:36 PM
link   
Well, you guys sure put a bug in SOMEBODY's ear. Kudoi all around.

March 10, 2009

John Yembrick
Headquarters, Washington
202-358-1100
john.yembrick-1@nasa.gov

Kelly Humphries
Johnson Space Center, Houston
281-483-5111
kelly.o.humphries@nasa.gov


RELEASE: 09-054

NASA LAUNCHES INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION WEBCAM STREAMING VIDEO

HOUSTON -- Internet visitors can now see the Earth as never before --
live from the International Space Station via streaming video, seven
days a week.

The streaming video views of Earth and the exterior structure of the
station are from cameras mounted outside the laboratory complex,
orbiting Earth at 17,500 miles an hour at an altitude of 220 miles.
The video is transmitted to the ground -- and Web viewers --
primarily while the astronauts aboard the complex are asleep, usually
from about 1 p.m. to 1 a.m. CST. When live feeds are not available, a
map showing the current location and path of the station will be
streamed from NASA's Mission Control in Houston.

The streaming video will include audio of communications between
Mission Control and the astronauts, when available. When the space
shuttle is docked to the station, the stream will include video and
audio of those activities.

The International Space Station, a unique partnership between the
space agencies of the United States, Russia, Japan, Canada and
Europe. Construction began in 1998 and will be completed in 2010.
Eighteen crews have lived aboard the orbiting complex since 2000,
including the current crew of three. Station residents have conducted
important scientific experiments and gathered data to help assist
future missions to the moon and Mars.

To view the streaming station video and for more information about the
station and its crew, visit:



www.nasa.gov...



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 11:40 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


TY for that info sir, certainly gonna be a highly rated show I bet



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
Well, you guys sure put a bug in SOMEBODY's ear. Kudoi all around.

March 10, 2009

John Yembrick
Headquarters, Washington
202-358-1100
john.yembrick-1@nasa.gov

Kelly Humphries
Johnson Space Center, Houston
281-483-5111
kelly.o.humphries@nasa.gov


RELEASE: 09-054

NASA LAUNCHES INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION WEBCAM STREAMING VIDEO

HOUSTON -- Internet visitors can now see the Earth as never before --
live from the International Space Station via streaming video, seven
days a week.


To view the streaming station video and for more information about the
station and its crew, visit:



www.nasa.gov...



Well thats pretty cool. We get to see more of Earth from the ISS. And live at that.

You dont suppose that if something unusual were to come into frame that we suddenly see the video go dark and then an ISS emblem pop uo on the screen?

Cool deal anyway. They should include a camera that has a 360* "fisheye" view from atop the station so we can see alot more.


Cheers!!!!



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 11:42 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


Cool. Now I can see myself on NASATV...sort of...kind of.



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
Although the images and research you provided were entertaining and informative, you have yet to provide us with the photographs and proof of tampering which would substantiate your allegations of Soviet space-image tampering.


Uh, say what? Where did I ever allege that the Soviets did space-image tampering? The message was related to RF's post that the Soviet space program never resorted to airbrushing, and I gave a dozen examples where they did -- and now you move the goal posts (or run into them so hard you're not seeing straight). RF made a general allegation about Soviet space practices. I gave solid examples showing his statement was 180 degrees away from reality. And now you help him rewrite the original allegation. Tut, tut....



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 11:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
Oh so now not only are you an authority on EVERYTHING NASA, but you are also a space historian too.


As a matter of fact, yes.



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 11:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
Well thats pretty cool. We get to see more of Earth from the ISS. And live at that.


Hmmm.

I wonder what sort of delay we can expect...

;-)



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 11:48 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


* New Earths (1981) ISBN 0-452-00623-6 ISBN 0-8117-1007-6
* Red Star In Orbit (1981) ISBN 0-394-51429-7
* Mission to Mars (1982) ISBN 0-8117-0432-7 ISBN 0-452-00655-4
* UFO's and Outer Space Mysteries (1982) ISBN 0-89865-102-6
* The New Race for Space (1984) ISBN 0-8117-2177-9
* Pioneering Space (1986) ISBN 0-07-048034-6
* Uncovering Soviet Disasters (1988) ISBN 0-394-56095-7
* Space Power Theory (1999) (written for the U.S. Air Force Space Command; published online)
* Star-Crossed Orbits: Inside the US/Russian Space Alliance (2002) ISBN 0-07-137425-6



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 11:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by RFBurns
Oh so now not only are you an authority on EVERYTHING NASA, but you are also a space historian too.


As a matter of fact, yes.


Amazing. How come your not so popular in many circles of academic institustions and do not have but a tiny fraction of peer reveiwed articles and publications in libraries across campuses around the world then?

I dont dismiss your claim of being an historian, but most historians I have read about are highly known and well respected in thousands of academic institustions.

Just curious.



Cheers!!!!



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 11:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by Exuberant1
Although the images and research you provided were entertaining and informative, you have yet to provide us with the photographs and proof of tampering which would substantiate your allegations of Soviet space-image tampering.


Uh, say what? Where did I ever allege that the Soviets did space-image tampering? The message was related to RF's post that the Soviet space program never resorted to airbrushing, and I gave a dozen examples where they did -- and now you move the goal posts (or run into them so hard you're not seeing straight). RF made a general allegation about Soviet space practices. I gave solid examples showing his statement was 180 degrees away from reality. And now you help him rewrite the original allegation. Tut, tut....



Umm...you did not generalize in your examples, you were spcific about pointing out alterations by the former Soviet Union to photographs that not only did not provide the proof people are expecting, but photos of individuals and not space imagry.

Obfuscation must be your middle name. Ok then....let ME be specific too.

Provide evidence of the former Sovient Union's space program where they played the Nasty Anomaly Scene Airbrush game in their space imagry.

Specific enough?


Cheers!!!!



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 12:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
I gave solid examples showing his statement was 180 degrees away from reality


Indeed.

You (attempted) to give solid examples, but what you ended up doing was showing that your propensity for obfuscation only increases after you have talked yourself into a corner.

Now Jim how about posting some of those photos...

*(photographs relevant to the current topic and which you have implied are proof of Soviet image-tampering being performed on photographs that can be attributed to a spacecraft)

Thanks in Advance!



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 12:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns

Originally posted by depthoffield
So, it is clear that there are 2 big posibilities:
- common mundane solution: which is usually rejected, ignored, not understood at all, refused, criticised, BS-ited etcetera


That is just your personal feeling based opinion. You do not know what level of consideration any of us have given to the "mundane solution".




The "level of consideration" is emanating from the words you and others said. This is already a fight from "believers" coalition with the purpose to:

1) minimise and then 2)dismiss the mundane/common solution,

and for this, you force the discourse with many strategies, as simply labeling things as non-sense for example, hiding some aspects (example: speaking about: the object is big and far, hiding that of course can be small and near), distorting what others said (in an example i show a fragment --sts-8--when shuttle was in constant acceleration for interval of tens of seconds, and propose similar approach with our OP movie, but you then fight with "argument" that shuttle ONLY thrust for couple of seconds and never is accelerating continuous because will run out of fuel and goes away from orbit... and stretched examples like this), trying to discredit the "debunkers" which mockery and saying "NASA is laying", therefore, you, debunkers are gullible or lying (i was labeled as disinfo agent, you see...)



Look for quotes which show the "level of consideration":

Originally posted by RFBurns
And my opinion is that this is no ice particle or waste dump particle or any other rediculous NASA nonsense.



Originally posted by RFBurns
I am sure the well known debunker regulars are pouring over their notebooks right now to try to come up with a link to lens anomaly or ice particle or debris or some other rediculous explanation, and surround that with big words and indimidating, fancy theories to explain this one.



Originally posted by RFBurns
I think the ice theory, and junk theory..are just that...the ice theory is frozen over and the junk theory belongs in the junk pile.



Originally posted by RFBurns
Even the regular joe keeping up with this thread can see the difference between STS 114 and all the bogus explanations given to date...including yours.



Originally posted by RFBurns
Oh well...I will keep checking the thread..hopefully soon the mystery will be solved with some bonafide explanation and not bogus bandering of bubbling bs.



Originally posted by zorgon
most of us here can see that these are not ice particles... so if someone comes along making such an absurd assumption and tries as hard as you and DOP do to sell that hypothesis...



Originally posted by drummerroy39
I have never met a group of so called intellectuals so frigging narrow minded in my life. SO PRETTY PLEASE, WITH SUGAR ON TOP. ANSWER THE FRIGGING QUESTIONS...



Originally posted by cropmuncher
reply to post by depthoffield

From your posts its blatently obvious to me you are a disinfo agent.
& so full of it!




Originally posted by watchZEITGEISTnow
Debunkers and skeptics on these types of obvious threads are really truly annoying and either show their total ignorance in the fact they just can't believe what their left brains see.
Don't even bother replying 'debunker' or 'skeptic'
you're on my ignore list anyway.



Originally posted by RFBurns
I have been consistant in the entire thread. It is you and your fellow debunker clan who have so desperately been throwing out one nonsense example after another..



Originally posted by RFBurns
Well its no wonder NASA hides stuff..with people not able to see the obvious right in front of them why should they bother to spill the beans on any of it...most wont believe it, just in the ice and junk nonsense.



So, labeling common-mundane solution as "non-sense" or "absurd" or "bogus" showed your level of consideration. Everyone can read the topic and see this approach.



[edit on 11/3/09 by depthoffield]



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 12:42 AM
link   
reply to post by RFBurns
 



You dont suppose that if something unusual were to come into frame that we suddenly see the video go dark and then an ISS emblem pop uo on the screen?

Maybe something like this!


Last October hams where treated to this slow scan live image from the ISS

Yep, Richard is a very funny ham! So is his dad. Mutiny on the ISS. It was fun to receive.


Peace



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 12:49 AM
link   

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


Right before your eyes... and others would see it to if it wasn't for the amount of misdirection you provide...

In the case of the STS 75

Tether Optical Phenomena Experiment (TOP)



We propose to use the IEH (International Ultraviolet Hitchhiker), a multidisciplinary facility (Astronomy, Solar System, Earth's atmosphere) to be mounted on the Shuttle pallet as a Hitchhiker flight opportunity, in order to obtain 2D images in the EUV-FUV ((400÷1300) Å) of the optical phenomena occurring in the neighborhood of the TSS satellite. These peculiar phenomena, not detectable during the first TSS mission, are primarily due to the interaction of a high-potential conductive body with the surrounding ionospheric plasma.


EUV-FUV spectroscopy of TSS optical Phenomena
Journal Il Nuovo Cimento C
Publisher Italian Physical Society
ISSN 1124-1896 (Print) 1826-9885 (Online)
Issue Volume 15, Number 5 / September, 1992
DOI 10.1007/BF02507842
Pages 703-711

www.springerlink.com...



Meanwhile, Nicollier took video of Earth's horizon using the Tether Optical Phenomena (TOP) equipment. This experiment, conducted by Stephen Mende of Lockheed Martin, involves the use of a camera system with image intensifiers and special filters and will provide visual data that will allow scientists to answer a variety of questions concerning tether motions and optical effects generated during the Tethered Satellite's deployment. In particular, this experiment will examine the high voltage sheath of electrically charged, or "ionized" gas that will surround the satellite as it flies through Earth's ionosphere.


science.ksc.nasa.gov...

Not sure why you insist on saying 'its not so" when even NASA itself say it is

The paper further states that...


One means to control the current developed by the Tethered Satellite System involves the use of electron accelerators which return electrons to the ionized gas, or plasma, surrounding the orbiter. The interaction between these electron beams and the plasma is not well understood. By using the TOP images to make measurements of the visible light radiated by the plasma, this process, and how it affects the spacecraft, can be better understood.


So I would say that indeed is a special camera... and it IS hand held...


The heart of the TOP instrument is a hand-held low-light video camera with special filters whose primary purpose on TSS is to observe luminescence produced by electron beams and the interaction of the electrically charged satellite with the local charged-particle and neutral atmosphere.


The whole purpose of the experiment was to record the plasma energy effects around the tether...

So no matter how much you pontificate, your not fooling anyone



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 01:35 AM
link   
One step closer to getting those Cameras...

Now of course Herr Oberg could save us trouble and just tell us what UV or IR cameras they used to film those 'critters' but I don't see that happening


SWUIS Space Shuttle Missions


NASA and the Southwest Research Institute, along with scientific collaborators from JPL, APL, and the University of Maryland, developed both an innovative new wide-field ultraviolet (UV) imager for use aboard the Space Shuttle, and an airborne version of the instrument for use aboard high performance aircraft. Two additional missions are planned. The instrument is called the Southwest Ultraviolet Imaging System, or SWUIS (pronounced like "swiss"). The primary objective of the first SWUIS Hale-Bopp Imaging experiment was to obtain image sequences of Hale-Bopp to study its coma and tail morphology and response to solar wind conditions during the scientifically-interesting, classical turn-off phase as the comet moves outbound beyond 2 AU. The second flight on STS-93, flown aboard Columbia from 23-27 July 1999, has UV imaging objectives of the Moon, Venus, Mercury, Jupiter, and a search for Vulcanoids.


Here is what the Moon looks like with the UV camera




Here is the Camera. THIS one is specific to STS 85 and STS 93 missions but not to worry I will eventually find the STS 80 and 114 info




www.boulder.swri.edu...

Type of Camera
UV-sensitive, image-intensified Charge-. Coupled Device (CCD) camera

...


[edit on 11-3-2009 by zorgon]



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 01:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon



So I would say that indeed is a special camera... and it IS hand held...


The heart of the TOP instrument is a hand-held low-light video camera with special filters whose primary purpose on TSS is to observe luminescence produced by electron beams and the interaction of the electrically charged satellite with the local charged-particle and neutral atmosphere.


The whole purpose of the experiment was to record the plasma energy effects around the tether...

So no matter how much you pontificate, your not fooling anyone



I was curious about your final quote being the only one you failed to source as it seems an important quote....

I tracked down your quote and, if I didn't know better, I suggest that you are quoting yourself to support your claims. "It's true because I say it's true???"

Here's the rest of your 'external source' so others can make up their own minds...


The heart of the TOP instrument is a hand-held low-light video camera with special filters whose primary purpose on TSS is to observe luminescence produced by electron beams and the interaction of the electrically charged satellite with the local charged-particle and neutral atmosphere.

The TOP has many advantages over similar photographic recordings made on previous flights because it allows real-time observations of the images seen by the orbiter crew. So whose primary purpose on TSS is to observe luminescence produced by electron beams and the interaction of the electrically charged satellite with the local charged-particle and neutral atmosphere

In other words its NOT seeing dust and ice particles reflecting light... it is seeing CRITTERS that are electrically charged... If you do a search on Google for 'Plasma life forms' you get this result.. Results 1 - 10 of about 9,570,000 for plasma life forms. talk to ppl, ask around.
Reddit source

I've read that exact quote on another thread in recent months...it's either your quote or Mr RFBurns. You are a mischievous man Zorgon



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 02:22 AM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


All of the systems you are talking about are designed for specific missions and tasks. TOP is a hand held camera.


The first images of TLE's from space were obtained during the Mesoscale Lighting Experiment that was conducted in 1989-1991. The space shuttle's cargo-bay cameras were used, which are standard low-light monochrome, un-calibrated video cameras that are often operated for monitoring activities with the shuttle cargo bay.

luna.tau.ac.il...

The sts-114 video is taken by one of the cargo bay cameras.
Unless you can show that non standard cameras were used on this mission you are quoting irrelevancies.


[edit on 3/11/2009 by Phage]



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 02:25 AM
link   
reply to post by depthoffield
 


Thanks for pointing out stuff I have already considered in other discussions LONG before this thread ever came to life DOF.

Maybe thats why I call it nonsense...its already been beaten to death before you got your turn to beat it to death.



Cheers!!!!



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 02:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by depthoffield

So, labeling common-mundane solution as "non-sense" or "absurd" or "bogus" showed your level of consideration.


Incorrect.

Our "level of consideration" could be more accurately be described as being indicated by the intellectual rigour we exert whilst investigating and documenting our research - After which, we then present to you the carefully assembled hypotheses and accompanying corroborative data...

...Which you then predictably (instinctively?) dismiss without offering any sort of substantiative rebuttal or refutation, and which is reflective of your own 'level of consideration'.

No matter.

[edit on 11-3-2009 by Exuberant1]




top topics



 
96
<< 45  46  47    49  50  51 >>

log in

join