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: 49
96
<< 46  47  48    50  51  52 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 02:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Zeptepi
 


Good one Zeptepi!!

2nd line

Cheers!!!!




posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 02:45 AM
link   

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


Oh come on now surely YOU are not that obtuse? All three of those quotes were from the SAME NASA document. Had you read the link you would see that

Middle of the second last paragraph
science.ksc.nasa.gov...

Nice try at deliberate misdirection but no cigar...

But at least you admit to its importance... now we are getting somewhere



[edit on 11-3-2009 by zorgon]



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 02:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
The sts-114 video is taken by one of the cargo bay cameras.


Hmmm nice document thanks... but It does not specifically mention STS 114 in that paper...

It DOES however state..


During 25 orbits there were observations toward the Earth’s limb
above forecasted areas of active thunderstorms, in an effort to image Transient Luminous Events (TLEs) from space.
The astronauts used a Xybion IMC-201 image-intensified camera and performed continuous recordings of the atmosphere from the direction of the night side toward the dusk terminator.


A Xybion IMC-201 image-intensified camera LOOKING for Transient Luminous Events (TLEs) from space...

How about that ...


They aren't 'dust and debris' or 'ice particles' afterall

They were HUNTING for CRITTERS



Great find Herr Phage... much obliged


..

[edit on 11-3-2009 by zorgon]



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 03:04 AM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


Them there critters are gonna become movie stars courtesy of NASA!

Go NASA!!


Cheers!!!!



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 03:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon


No, it doesn't mention sts-114 but it does describe the standard cargo bay cameras. So unless you can show that non-standard cameras were used on sts-114 there is no reason to think otherwise.

The paper is about sprites and jets. Apparently electrical discharges from the tops of thunderheads. The call them transient because they last about 7 milliseconds. They don't look or act much like any of the "critters" you've come up with yet.

[edit on 3/11/2009 by Phage]



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 03:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by PhageApparently electrical discharges from the tops of thunderheads.


"Apparently" as you say... but those 'sprites' in the STS 80 film DO look like my 'critters' and the POINT is that they are intentionally filming plasma effects

NOT 'ice particles, dust or debris'



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 03:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


A lightning bolt is in essence a plasma discharge, electrical in nature.

The critters are plasma based life forms, electrical in nature.

The camera is designed to be looking for transient electrical events (plasma).

I would say it found quite alot of it.



Cheers!!!!

[edit on 11-3-2009 by RFBurns]



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 04:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by PhageApparently electrical discharges from the tops of thunderheads.


"Apparently" as you say... but those 'sprites' in the STS 80 film DO look like my 'critters' and the POINT is that they are intentionally filming plasma effects

NOT 'ice particles, dust or debris'



And your point is what? The Mesoscale Lightning Experiment is ongoing. That's why they have the cameras rolling.

It just goes to show that it is very common to have stuff around the shuttle. As has been pointed out.

Debris is another matter. They film that intentionally to try to figure out if it might be something important off of the shuttle. Something that can cause problems.

[edit on 3/11/2009 by Phage]



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 07:33 AM
link   
Regarding cameras used in the 'UFO' shots, this underscores the importance of obtaining documentation over WHICH camera is being used. The vast majority of 'space UFO' videos come from the payload bay cameras, which have real-time downlink and remote control capability. The mission 'scene lists' indetify specifically which camera was in use for every scene.

This is the sort of 'clutter' and 'distraction' that UFO proponents do NOT want to be seen -- so they are free to factlessly speculate that since there was a UV (or IR) camera on one specific shuttle mission for specific observations, thgose cameras MUST have been the ones that captured the 'UFO' scenes.

This is so counter-factual that it's breathtaking. Once you decree that any written documentation that counters a pre-existing opinion is to be condemned as a forgery, you are free to believe any degree of absurdity.

Like with the scene airbrushing dodge re the Soviet space program versus NASA. All thus fuss over what smudge is an alteration or a third-generation hair on the negative or whatever seems to me to be a deliberate distraction from the reality of lunar imagery: in the past few years, non-NASA probes from the European Space Agency, from China, from Japan, and from India have been mapping the moon with technology a generation ahead of the Apollo images.

Where are the surface anomalies? Actually, it's even worse -- proponents refuse to state where they THINK the anomalies are on the moon, precisely enough to look them up on available non-US images.

So discuss that somewhere elose -- but stick to what can be proved about the cameras that took the images under consideration here -- monochromatic visible-light cameras designed for general activity monitoring in the payload bay, and also used for nighttime lightning searches -- resulting in occasional wonderfully weird scenes among the normal drifting shuttle dandruff.



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 08:10 AM
link   
I have been sitting on the sidelines for a few days and reading the posts, which I must say I am learning new things everyday many thanks.

I woke up today with this thread on my mind, mainly because I was having a discussion with family members and a friend of mine over the weekend.

One of my friends asked me straight out "what proof is there of ET" where on earth do I begin I thought. Any how I loaded up the PC and went straight to this thread and pressed play on the video. Needless to say my friend is now asking me all sorts of questions. (This is seeming to be quite a routine nowadays).


Anyway, I woke up today thinking the same old questions why would a member of NASA join a tin foil hat geeky conspiracy site? why would a space shuttle be filming at the precise moment a UFO flies by. Can this video really be answered using parallax, you know, the normal questions one thinks about when you open your eyes.


Anyway I would like to say on record that I do not believe a single utter word that NASA tells us about space and their conquests. I stake my life on the fact that NASA know much much more about ET activity in and around our solar system and indeed universe. I believe this new stunt they are pulling now where they are searching for earths is a ploy to rake in more money for other purposes. Or the steps to forced disclosure.

I will say however, and this is not the ramblings of a cynical person that belongs to the tin foil hat brigade, disclosure is coming and its coming soon. I believe that NASA / NSA don't have any choice other than tell us the truth reason being is that some things are out of human control.

A mass awakening is happening on this planet and that is so apparent by looking at this site its not all coincedences and mumbo jumbo. There are people out there trying to put their old school techniques in to practice and try to divert the attention away but its like painting over cracks during an earthquake! time is on our side now.

Its interesting reading posts by J and others I can't figure out if he has been kept in the dark like a mushroom or if he is lying through his teeth.

I remember watching a video documentary about Roswell some time ago which is extremely relevant to this thread. The presenter was interviewing this retired military guy and asking him questions about Roswell and his involvement e.t.c What the retired military guy didn't know was that he was being led into a trap by the interviewer I will explain, at the beginning of this interview the old frail man was speaking and explaining what he was doing during the time of the Roswell incident which was something to do with top secret weather balloons and he didn't look like he was lying at all he looked dead serious and would speak without any hesitation. However, previously they had interviewed another person who totally and utterly contradicted this man, both spoke without any hesitation, with clarity and concise details, yet one of them was lying. Guess who it was?

When both men got together and spoke about the Roswell incident the old man got caught out by the other and the old frail man began to squirm (which was pretty embarrasing for him) and he started to change his details to fit in with the other guy. I was totally taken back by this and have always thought about why would somebody that old still want to lie and how can he lie so much without even flinching? if I tell a lie I go bright red and have
guilt written all over me.

My question is could NASA (represented by Jim) be the old frail man ? and if so what would be his motives for his alledged deceiving ?

[edit on 11-3-2009 by franspeakfree]



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 


Never trust the first answers from a Google search, always seeing all the results is the best way of getting what we are looking for.

PS: I don't know if you use Google, but the statistics say you probably did.



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
A lightning bolt is in essence a plasma discharge, electrical in nature.

The critters are plasma based life forms, electrical in nature.

The camera is designed to be looking for transient electrical events (plasma).

I would say it found quite alot of it.



Nice summary
By Thor I think he got it



...

[edit on 11-3-2009 by zorgon]



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
reply to post by Phage
 


A lightning bolt is in essence a plasma discharge, electrical in nature.

The critters are plasma based life forms, electrical in nature.

The camera is designed to be looking for transient electrical events (plasma).

I would say it found quite alot of it.



Cheers!!!!

[edit on 11-3-2009 by RFBurns]


No. Please read again.

The camera was not designed for looking for TLE's. The experiment used the standard cargo bay cameras.

The cargo bay cameras are low light cameras which makes them very suitable for viewing very dim phenomena (like sprites, jets, and lighting in the atmosphere).

Being low light cameras, they cause fairly bright reflective objects (like ice particles and debris) to appear very bright. Being low light cameras they are subject to blooming, making small bright objects appear large and very bright.


[edit on 3/11/2009 by Phage]



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by Kandinsky
 


Never trust the first answers from a Google search, always seeing all the results is the best way of getting what we are looking for.

PS: I don't know if you use Google, but the statistics say you probably did.

Thank you for the reprimand


Google it was. I don't go off the first result. I pasted a phrase and did a few searches until that one matched. The Reddit page link doesn't show quotation marks to differentiate quote from opinion. I assumed it was one continuous opinion. As soon as reference to "critters" was made and links provided to STS-75, STS-80 and STS-114, I drew the conclusion that either Zorgon or RFBurns had posted it. 'Dangler' has an uncanny similarity in phrases to either.

I like to think that I check my sources and if I fail in that intention, I'm confident enough to offer a public acknowledgment for my failings



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
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.


Agree


Originally posted by Phage
It just goes to show that it is very common to have stuff around the shuttle. As has been pointed out.


Of course, agree




Originally posted by zorgon
They aren't 'dust and debris' or 'ice particles' afterall
They were HUNTING for CRITTERS



No, they are not hunting for critters. They are hunting for sprites, those not so well understood dischargings in high atmosphere or edge of space.

look here for some examples of sprites, especially at 1:08 for a very clear example:



Now, selecting "critters" and totally dismissing common "ice or junk debris", it appears to be a naive choice, because it assumes that common (ice) debris is not common at all, it is imposible or very rare. Wrong. Fact is: debris near the shuttle, accompanying it, is a common situation. So it happens relative frequently to appear on the images, no matter how complex the cameras are, no matter they film in UV spectrum too, not just visible. But selecting ONLY the extraordinary claim: "those are critters!", is not a naive choice, as it appears, i do not think at all people promoting it here are naive, no, they are smart, instead i may conclude that the proponents of this idea are just speaking to other people, those who are very given just to simply believe what their eyes see, those which already or later became posible selectees for Gallup Polls (remember Frankspeakfree poll), those "regular Joes" which easy thinks at alien explanation as primary solution (but actually this is sign of their lack of knowledge).

No, the fact is that debris is common. So, debris appearing in images, is common too.

Think at Obama inaugural discourse, when that BIRD made rivers of ink to flow as "UFO sighting". And there are many similar examples too. It's like somebody claims that the cameras at Obama inaugural, or similar examples, in purpose are filming/hunting for UFO's!


Or myself example:
Here i have tens of examples of birds and insects appearing in my holiday shots, but as UFOs:
www.freewebs.com...
www.freewebs.com...
www.freewebs.com...
www.freewebs.com...
(dismiss the language, or if having time and beeing curious, use google translate)

Excepting just one (the Escamilla-like rod example), all of those tens of examples are NOT shot in purpose of hunting them during spending the holidays. It just happened. In holidays i choose to feel good and live the moment. But my examples shows how common and frequently the birds and insects can appear as UFO in images. And there, in the world are many similar examples of "alleged UFO sightings". If someone will claim that myself deliberately hunt for birds and insects during my holiday, it simply doesn't understood the common occurence.... it it is the same like here with the "hunting critters" allegations.

Instead, yes, i deliberatly hunted for birds and insects AFTER the shots were made, later at the computer, when i proposed to myself to document this common occurence, and SELECT ONLY the "sex-appealing" ones. It is the same when many UFO anomaly researchers search for anomalies AFTER the recording is done, and select ONLY those with "sex appeal". Later, the regular Joe, will ONLY see those SELECTED anomalies, and wrongly assumes, due to lack of understanding of normal definition of that phenomenon, for example, that common debris occurence is a non-sense, an imposibility, and therefore, NASA or "debunkers" lies. So, the "critters" or "alien spaceship" theory MUST be the only one, and what happens: debris solution it is easy to... ignore as imposibility.


No, here it is not yet any reason to dismiss the solution with (ice) debris to the OP movie.

I showed how a prosaic common particle of debris can APPEAR to make the turn and decelerating/accelerating. Because shuttle can be in process of steady accelerating during the interval of the shooting, as normal posible maneuver, because 2D recorded projection of a tridimensional trajectory, because that particle can be much closer than the others which appear almost fixed in the frame (but not all!), due to PARALAX differentiation. And yes, thruster plumes are NOT obliged to appear in the frame, despite allegations of this (simply, the thruster can eject the plume toward the back of the shuttle, but camera can be at some distance from thrusters, and is looking almost perpendicular, to the Earth, so WHY plume MUST appear in the frame?). And yes, debris can be very easy to be caught in images (no matter visible or UV), and yes, debris are common.

Dismissing debris solution in this 114 example is just some kind of ... politics.



[edit on 11/3/09 by depthoffield]



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by depthoffield
No, they are not hunting for critters. They are hunting for sprites, those not so well understood dischargings in high atmosphere or edge of space.


Nice name 'Sprites' and your right they are not understood... might even be what creates the critters
And they have Elves too

And I must say they sure look like space jellyfish to me




FULL SIZE HERE





Now, selecting "critters" and totally dismissing common "ice or junk debris", it appears to be a naive choice, because it assumes that common (ice) debris is not common at all, it is imposible or very rare. Wrong.


As usual you missed the whole point. Those cameras are not interested in ICE particles but TLE's And Plasma 'critters' would most certainly be a TLE

At least sprites are in the plasma event range... unlike ice and debris... so yeah I can easily totally dismiss them and say "CRITTERS"




instead i may conclude that the proponents of this idea are just speaking to other people, those who are very given just to simply believe what their eyes see, those which already or later became posible selectees for Gallup Polls (remember Frankspeakfree poll), those "regular Joes" which easy thinks at alien explanation as primary solution (but actually this is sign of their lack of knowledge).


Uh yeah right I think I got what you said
But since a google search for "Plasma Life Forms" yields Results 1 - 10 of about 11,000,000 for Plasma Life Forms and many of those NOT "regular Joes" but accredited scientific institutions... I would say many are getting our point.

As a matter of fact the last time I posted the google search it was 10 mil and the time before that 9 mil so it seems the idea is catching like wild fire...

But don't worry... I am sure you didn't believe in 'sprites' a few years ago either... you will catch up eventually




..

[edit on 11-3-2009 by zorgon]



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 10:30 PM
link   
I'm sorry to NOT sound so "scientific", but SERIOUSLY.. first you debunker dudes say "Ice Particles" (which is far from proven).. now you say "Sprites".

Which is it, exactly?



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon


As usual you missed the whole point. Those cameras are not interested in ICE particles but TLE's And Plasma 'critters' would most certainly be a TLE

At least sprites are in the plasma event range... unlike ice and debris... so yeah I can easily totally dismiss them and say "CRITTERS"


He isn't the one who missed the point. The camera's are used to observe TLE's. Because they are low light cameras, they also record the ice which we know forms around the shuttle during water dumps. The ice is videoed incidentally to the attempts to record TLE's in the atmosphere. They are not trying to video the ice particles but the when the ice particles are there and in the sunlight, they get recorded.



Uh yeah right I think I got what you said
But since a google search for "Plasma Life Forms" yields Results 1 - 10 of about 11,000,000 for Plasma Life Forms


You really need to learn how to work a search engine. See, when you write "Plasma Life Forms" you get hits for every page in which those three words occur i.e.:



The [Delta]F508 mutation shortens the biochemical half-life of ...
Half-life of plasma membrane CFTR under conditions of comparable levels of CFTR .... During CFTR biosynthesis, ubiquitination targets the immature forms of ...
ajpcell.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/280/1/C166 - Similar pages
by GD Heda - 2001 - Cited by 38 - Related articles




Tech Talk Radio - How to buy a Plasma TV You will learn how plasma operates, the truth about plasma life span, .... As a relatively new technology, plasma faces challenges in the form of ... www.techtalkradio.com.au/plasmamyths.asp - 29k - Cached - Similar pages




Characterisation of the plasma membrane subproteome of bloodstream ... (1) Division of Infection and Immunity, Institute of Biomedical and Life Sciences, ... We have isolated plasma membrane sheets from bloodstream forms of ... cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=19962502 - Similar pages


Try putting quotation marks around it in the search box. That gives you a more accurate search. The count goes down quite a bit. But you probably knew that already.



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 10:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Majorion
 


Sprites and jets are unrelated to the discussion. They were brought up because I linked a paper which showed that the cargo bay cameras do not operate in special wavelengths. zorgon (in his inimitable fashion) then jumped on the fact that the experiment that the paper concerned was about using those cameras to observe sprites and jets. Sprites and jets are very interesting and little understood electrical phenomena which occur within the atmosphere above thunderstorms.

The talk of sprites and jets has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion of sts-114.

[edit on 3/11/2009 by Phage]



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage

No. Please read again.

The camera was not designed for looking for TLE's. The experiment used the standard cargo bay cameras.


Obviously they were not looking for ice particles friend. They were in fact looking for TLE's...and used a camera best suited for that task. This Xybion IMC-201 unit is not intended to be used for casual photo ops of the astronauts playing around in the crew compartment of the shuttle.



During 25 orbits there were observations toward the Earth’s limb
above forecasted areas of active thunderstorms, in an effort to image Transient Luminous Events (TLEs) from space.
The astronauts used a Xybion IMC-201 image-intensified camera and performed continuous recordings of the atmosphere from the direction of the night side toward the dusk terminator.


I think your just picking at nat s*** cluttering up the issue, as is Jim. Nit picking per say. Its like you guys are scrapping up any tiny bit of crumbs that are left of all the debunking theories that have in themselves been debunked and chewed up and spat out and your sifting through the remains looking for that last desperate piece to stand on.


Originally posted by Phage
The cargo bay cameras are low light cameras which makes them very suitable for viewing very dim phenomena (like sprites, jets, and lighting in the atmosphere).


There have been tons of cargo bay pictures taken with those cameras and those pictures do look quite normal to me in normal light conditions. Apparently, there are more than just your low light cameras back there. In any case...the camera picked up those sprites..jets..and lighting in the atmosphere..basically all in the same thing Phage...PLASMA DISCHARGES. They just so happen to have a specific "name" which is no different from one human being vs another with different names, yet the same thing, a human being.



Originally posted by Phage
Being low light cameras, they cause fairly bright reflective objects (like ice particles and debris) to appear very bright. Being low light cameras they are subject to blooming, making small bright objects appear large and very bright.


Oh sheesh here we go again with the ice and dust.

Yes they can make TINY ice particles and TINY dust particles light up like the strip in Vegas. But there is NO way, no way in hell that a TINY particle no bigger than a freaking snowflake is going to light up chicago at a great distance no matter how much sunlight is on it or how sensitive that camera is.

The cameras can barely pick them up 20 or so feet away much less be picking them up 80 some odd miles out.

Take your camera, set it up somewhere, where you got a clear line of sight at a dust particle or ice cube even, and place that 80 miles distant and set your camera for sensitive mode and lets see if your camera is going to spot that teeny tiny particle of dust or ice cube from 80 miles out.

NO way Jose.




Ice indeed...dust indeed...yep, I think thats all you guys are running on now. frozen up dust reminants of ice.





Cheers!!!!

[edit on 11-3-2009 by RFBurns]



new topics

top topics



 
96
<< 46  47  48    50  51  52 >>

log in

join