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: 53
96
<< 50  51  52    54  55  56 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 01:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by RFBurns
Thats the polite way in Russian. Bet anything that is not exactly what they do feel about the "delay".


I'll take that bet. What are the stakes, who holds them, and how do you find out what the Russians really feel [i.e., who judges?]? I can make a suggestion (ask them) but that may be too overt for your approach.


In fact, I would welcome your attempt to "ask" them. I dare you. Oh and btw, do that in a setting where everyone can see and hear it in real time so that there is no biased editing to some write up about you asking that question.

I am sure you can arrange that...cant you Jim?


Is that a double DOG dare?

Just provide me with the judging specs -- no, YOU don't get to decide who wins.




posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 01:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by RFBurns

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by RFBurns
Thats the polite way in Russian. Bet anything that is not exactly what they do feel about the "delay".


I'll take that bet. What are the stakes, who holds them, and how do you find out what the Russians really feel [i.e., who judges?]? I can make a suggestion (ask them) but that may be too overt for your approach.


In fact, I would welcome your attempt to "ask" them. I dare you. Oh and btw, do that in a setting where everyone can see and hear it in real time so that there is no biased editing to some write up about you asking that question.

I am sure you can arrange that...cant you Jim?


Is that a double DOG dare?

Just provide me with the judging specs -- no, YOU don't get to decide who wins.


Judging specs? Why would there be a need for judging specs? All that is needed is for you to grab one of them Russian space authority types, from Russia, not one of NASA's little assigned Russian reps, get them in a format where we can all either see or just hear you asking the question and them answering it.

Pretty simple there Jim. However, I will let you make it as complicated as you think it needs to be.

Just make sure your not using some NASA appointed monkey see monkey told what to do/say rep, no it has to be an actual Russian space agency person.

You can do that for us...can't you Jim?



Cheers!!!!



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 01:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by RFBurns
In the STS 114 video, the shuttle is obviously more on the dark side of the terminator than it is on the light side, otherwise that background of Earth would be all lit up. So its behind the terminator zone between dark and light, and happens to be on the dark side of that terminator.


Don't forget the angular size of the FOV. There could well be sunlit surface beyond the edge of the image. But I'm OK with your point. And since the shuttle'ss high above the surface, you agree it can still be in sunlight.


Sure..it "could" be. It "could" also be in the shadow of the Earth as well...perhaps why they used the extra sensitive camera because they were shooting in the dark.


Originally posted by JimOberg


So one can tell if your looking at a nighttime on Earth from orbit by simply looking for the terminator zone, or you see nothing but a darkend side of Earth, which means you have Earth in between you and the sun. And one can tell you are on the "daytime" side by looking at the lit up Earth, where you are between the sun and the Earth.


The region of interesting illumination is when you are neither -- but are 'off to the side' of the Sun-Earth line, flying above the terminator zone in full sunlight. If the camera view shows only dark surface, it does NOT mean the Earth is between you and sun as you wrote. You can see the dark side, and still be in sunlight -- just as people down ON the dark side can look up and see YOU, sunlit in a dark sky.


Sigh..again I did not say that the camera was behind the Earth. Your mixing up what I did say and turning it into something I did not say. The STS 114 is obviously "riding" just behind the terminator zone on the dark side of that zone. No where in that statment do I say "the camera is behind the Earth and the Earth is between the camera and the sun".

Once again...get it right Jim.


Originally posted by JimOberg

Can you prove the shuttle is lit up? Do you see any part of the shuttle in that OP video? Please do show us if you can.


Several ways. First, compute it using commercially available satellite prediction software. Or find somebody who can do that for you.


Did I ask for "prediction"? No, I asked for absolute proof that the shuttle is all lit up. HUGE difference there Jim.


Originally posted by JimOberg
Second, if no shuttle structure is directly in the FOV, look for peripheral glare of leaking light reflected off such structure and illuminating the camera frame. These glares area common feature of sunrise scenes.


The same "glare" effect can come directly from sunlight and not necessarily reflected light from the body of the shuttle. Nice speculaiton, but still no fancy cigar..just more smoke.



Originally posted by JimOberg
Third, if you're lucky enough to get a view of the map on the front wall of the MCC, note where the square brackets are located along the flight path. Those brackets signify orbital sunrise/sunset for the vehicle being tracked.


Well perhaps you can allocate one of those for this discussion so we can time match that map and a copy of the original footage, also with timestamp, so all of that can be matched up and we can then put the position of the shuttle issue to rest.

Just get it from someone who isnt one of your buddy buddies who would be all to happy to alter a piece of paper to match up so that it looks like the shuttle is somewhere where it was in fact not.

A neutral source would be prefered. You can do that for us can you Jim?



Originally posted by JimOberg
Now, you won't agree with my fourth suggestion. Notice when white dots appear in the FOV, and since (in my model) these are nearby small particles, they become sunlit simo with the shuttle. This shows up particularly well vin the STS-48 zig-zagger full video sequence.


Well you said the hot keyword there..."in my model"...to which "your model" is not the accepted model of the mainstream scientific community as well as the UFO community. Its just another theory model amongst hundreds of thousands of others out there.


Originally posted by JimOberg
But if all four methods give the same result, that becomes a strong argument that point-4 is valid as well. If the dots first appear on screen at the same moment the shuttle itself becomes sunlit, this is a strong case that they are nearby, and consequently, small.


Funny how all these nice little instances have to happen just right in order for all 4 of your "models" to have any validity. Well magically putting a square into a round hole when the round hole is actually a square but you call it around hole and make it all work is just that, saying it will work when in fact it wont.

Nice fancy twisting of words there Jim. I remind you once again, this isnt 1969 when people were all too gullable to be intimidated by fancy word wrapping around reached for last ditch explanations...obfuscation is the shorter term for it.

Well I for one would love to see all this neat first hand evidence that NASA has that would put the entire issue to rest..baring that evidence isnt fixed for your benefit to look good on a conspiracy web forum. I would expect something like that to occur if they needed you to look good on MSM media where several millions can be brainwashed, not in a forum where a mere few thousand get entranced.

But even for here, that is a very difficult thing to achieve. A lot of pretty smart people here at ATS...some of them, like NASA...play the "dumb" act quite well to bait the bogus out of their little corners.

We await for you to gather up all this stuff for us.



Cheers!!!!



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 05:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Learhoag
You're wrong about saying "...even after 50-plus pages of debate on this issue,..." I would say that the debate on the OP has taken maybe all of 5 pages. The rest has been a tete-a-tete by the ATS "geniuses" or NASA-wannabes who speak at length of stuff that has no bearing on the OP. They hijack the thread and discuss non-OP subjects.
5 pages of OP, 50+ of b.s.



Learhoag, if you don't like this thread there are countless of other threads on this site. However, I suggest sit back, wait in the wings and digest the information given by experienced memebers, you never know you may learn something.

listening and reading to all sides will put you in a position to voice your views realting to the topic accordingly.



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 06:03 AM
link   
Is there any audio transmission from the STS 114 that we can listen to ifso could you point us in the right direction.



[edit on 13-3-2009 by franspeakfree]



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 06:58 AM
link   
reply to post by RFBurns
 


"Well perhaps you can allocate one of those for this discussion so we can time match that map and a copy of the original footage, also with timestamp, so all of that can be matched up and we can then put the position of the shuttle issue to rest."

Here is the file you need.

This one is different from the others that I sent you.

It has the information that you asked Jim to provide and since I figured that it would not be forthcoming, I decided to locate it and post it.

www.nasa.gov...

* Jim did not post the file, even though it is on on NASA's own website. Which is strange; because if it substantiated his quad-pod of hypotheses he would have already posted it.

Even with all the fall-back positions he has allowed himself, he still would not post information that was readily accessible to him.

As I have said, You will find what you are looking for in this file ;-)



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
Did I ask for "prediction"? No, I asked for absolute proof that the shuttle is all lit up. HUGE difference there Jim.

The same "glare" effect can come directly from sunlight and not necessarily reflected light from the body of the shuttle. Nice speculaiton, but still no fancy cigar..just more smoke.


This is nice -- prove the shuttle is in sunlight when no part of it is in the camera FOV, and RF's demand for this proof is to see a component of the shuttle in the FOV, sunlit. Nice way to stack the deck, man!



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by franspeakfree
Is there any audio transmission from the STS 114 that we can listen to ifso could you point us in the right direction.



I am working on finding some good audio logs to post... ;-)

But for now, here is the STS-114 Video Index over at NASA's website - the one you paid for:

spaceflight.nasa.gov...

*Look at the very bottom of the page, it says:

"Responsible NASA Official: John Ira Petty | Updated: 08/10/2005"

Hah!

..."Responsible".... As opposed to what? an 'Irresponsible' NASA Official?

That NASA felt the need to add the word 'responsible' is quite telling. They are ridiculous.

Responsible ATS Member | Exuberant1 | Posted 03/13/2009
;-P

[edit on 13-3-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Learhoag
.... resulting in products such as "THE SECRET NASA TRANSMISSIONS: THE SMOKING GUN" which show what NASA goes out of its way to deny that there are objects in space that cannot be explained.

No, they can be explained. Ice/junk solution is one likely explanation. Maybe you didn't understand it in its full simplicity but complexity too, and more, it is mundane and boring (not having marketing potential). Repeating again and again "it cannot be explained", doesn't mean it cannot be explained. It only suggest that some people have interest to let them appear unexplained (various motives) toward un-numbered regulars Joe, which forms "the audience".




Originally posted by Learhoag
We see in those videos objects making angled turns, slowly moving and flashing objects

Debris made as byproduct of the shuttle activities, can appear to do this kind of maneuvers. It is a fact, despite "some" dismissing it. In this topic, there where examples of this.



Originally posted by Learhoag
Objects at a vast distance being described as ice particles, debris, water dumps, etc., near the shuttle necessitating zooming in and out and changing the camera's angle and focus, etc.

What "vast" distances? You judge a 2D recorded image without DEPTH recorded? You just believe what you see in a 2D image without depth and with projected trajectories? (and don't bother to tell me about STS75 "behind the distant tether" illusion, as an example of generalising your opinion of "vast", instead read and respond to that separate topic). This is common mistake or deliberate misleading. I will come back regarding "vast distance my eyes see in the image".



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
You can do that for us...can't you Jim?


I'm sure I could, but you'd never believe me, or him -- judging from past practices, I'm guessing here, you'd always find an excuse to claim you'd been right all along, you knew better from 'inside sources' [unnamed, of course], and the efforts to dissuade you were proof of the gummint's fear of your crusading truth-seeking, etc etc... so why waste my time. After watching the venomous personal attacks on anybody differing from the 'UFO' assessment, why should any such person want to subject themselves to it? Me, I'm interested in developing my debate skills and sharpening the arguments I'm publishing in support of my conclusions -- but that's a pretty rare rationale. It's worth my time, and I've cultivated a thick skin.



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
Sure..it "could" be. It "could" also be in the shadow of the Earth as well...perhaps why they used the extra sensitive camera because they were shooting in the dark.


The scene list said that this sequence used the PLB 'B' camera. What are your reasons for refusing to believe that, and why would the camera's identity be falsified?



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1

* Jim did not post the file, even though it is on on NASA's own website. Which is strange; because if it substantiated his quad-pod of hypotheses he would have already posted it.

Even with all the fall-back positions he has allowed himself, he still would not post information that was readily accessible to him.

As I have said, You will find what you are looking for in this file ;-)


Uh, Exubie, look at my first entry on the top of
www.abovetopsecret.com...

You got the day wrong. I didn't.

Is that 'strange'? Or typical?



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by depthoffield

Originally posted by Learhoag
Objects at a vast distance being described as ice particles, debris, water dumps, etc., near the shuttle necessitating zooming in and out and changing the camera's angle and focus, etc.

What "vast" distances?


I think Learhoag was doubling the range... in reality, it's more like half-vast distances for the half-vast UFO speculations.



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by RFBurns
You can do that for us...can't you Jim?


I'm sure I could, but you'd never believe me, or him -- judging from past practices, I'm guessing here, you'd always find an excuse to claim you'd been right all along, you knew better from 'inside sources' [unnamed, of course], and the efforts to dissuade you were proof of the gummint's fear of your crusading truth-seeking, etc etc... so why waste my time. After watching the venomous personal attacks on anybody differing from the 'UFO' assessment, why should any such person want to subject themselves to it? Me, I'm interested in developing my debate skills and sharpening the arguments I'm publishing in support of my conclusions -- but that's a pretty rare rationale. It's worth my time, and I've cultivated a thick skin.



If I thought that you could not be trusted to a point of finding someone neutral to this issue and getting their prospective for us, I would not have considered of going out on a limb to have you locate that resource to begin with. Thats what you get for assuming without bothering to find out what the intent is. Shame on you Jim.


Thats nice your honing your skills to sharpen your arguments to support your conclusions. Its like a pet project..isnt it. A mission, a quest. To try to convince people your right and everyone else is wrong. The structure of your statement there makes the agenda quite clear.

I hope that as you hone those skills and sharpen those arguments, that you do intend to take that self training into the REAL arena of scientific debate and go up against the REAL people, such as that NASA RCS engineer noted in Lan Flemming's article, and not limit yourself to a conspiracy forum or some blog article at a popular social blog site where the majority of discussions are about hair styles and the latest fashion fads.

Quite a challenge you are setting out for yourself. I hope you got it well planned and well researched because in the real realm of scientific debate, facts are at the forefront of every participant in such a setting, and not assumption or presenting their point of view from 4 or more varying "possible" conclusions based on a hand of wild cards.

Its ok Jim, you do not have to go through the trouble to find that neutral prospective. Many resources are available to us via the net and through printed publications. All one has to do is simply search for it.

But it never hurts to ask. And asking you should at the very least tell you that perhaps you can be trusted for something. Perhaps it should remind you that not everyone who believes is so closed minded to what you have to say. Perhaps it should tell you that we are open minded to what you have to offer, and will consider it, and have considered it.

Perhaps it should tell you that out of everything exchanged back and forth, that there is a minimum level of respect.

Hope that helps give you something new to ponder about.

Always remember though, no matter how fancy you make the presentation look or sound, that in itself can be the biggest blunder that will do more harm than good.

And it does not mean that everyone is going to accept it because Jim Oberg presented it. Even the biggest players in the scientific community have to accept the fact that their point of view might not be accepted by the majority.

The peer review process is like stepping into the Roman Coliseum filled with hungry lions and all you got are your presentations as weapons.

Good luck.


Cheers!!!!

[edit on 13-3-2009 by RFBurns]



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by RFBurns
Sure..it "could" be. It "could" also be in the shadow of the Earth as well...perhaps why they used the extra sensitive camera because they were shooting in the dark.


The scene list said that this sequence used the PLB 'B' camera. What are your reasons for refusing to believe that, and why would the camera's identity be falsified?


Out of all the years of deceptive articles and photographs from NASA, you really have to ask ME that question?

I suppose I could as you why would former astronauts come forth after decades of silence and give testimony to what is really out there versus what NASA covers up. But I dont expect you to answer for them.


Cheers!!!!



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 02:37 PM
link   
So I take it there is no audio from this mission then? I thought we may be able to cross section part of the running audio to confirm the water dumps. Thus puting it to bed accordingly?



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by franspeakfree
So I take it there is no audio from this mission then? I thought we may be able to cross section part of the running audio to confirm the water dumps. Thus puting it to bed accordingly?


It is not a surprise that critical points of data are missing...that seems to be the norm of NASA. Though it is more probable that there is audio from that particular point in the footage...its just not on the version we have or posted on the various sites..including NASA's.

Without all of the data, its all a 50 50 round and round debate that will never end.

Cheers!!!!



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
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?


Does anyone intend to try and do this?



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 04:04 PM
link   
Could be as you and the other ATS NASA-spokepeople-wannabes say, good ol' Jim, but on March 18 I'm going to turn 71 and it's been a glorious 71 years because my eyes have made it possible for me to go through life in a very safe and secure manner. These same eyes have been responsible for most excellent research as you know for which you have complimented me on Unexplained Mysteries. Same eyes, differing conclusions. Allowed.



Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by depthoffield

Originally posted by Learhoag
Objects at a vast distance being described as ice particles, debris, water dumps, etc., near the shuttle necessitating zooming in and out and changing the camera's angle and focus, etc.

What "vast" distances?


I think Learhoag was doubling the range... in reality, it's more like half-vast distances for the half-vast UFO speculations.


[edit on 13-3-2009 by Learhoag]



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
I hope that as you hone those skills and sharpen those arguments, that you do intend to take that self training into the REAL arena of scientific debate and go up against the REAL people, such as that NASA RCS engineer noted in Lan Flemming's article, and not limit yourself to a conspiracy forum or some blog article at a popular social blog site where the majority of discussions are about hair styles and the latest fashion fads.


Right, another in that long list of pet 'inside sources' that all you guys seem to have, people who never seem to have checkable names or expertise, except the versions you provide. Even when commenting on material of no possible classification or restriction, such as the RCS system, they have to be 'protected'. Yeah, 'protected' from validation and corroboration. And even if real, you have to rely on the intermediary to properly understand the message in the first place, and accurately retell it.

That's one reason I give little credence to Fleming's account of his expert's opinions -- because his text contains strong indications that his own understanding of spaceflight physics is weak. Example: "Most of our discussions were related to work I am doing and was focused on the ingenious system that dependably supplies fuel and oxidizer to the rockets under weightless conditions in space as well under Earth's gravity during reentry."

See www.vgl.org...

He's referring to the tank and feed designs that move liquid propellant into feed lines without any gas bubbles. It works both in weightlessness (he is correct), under posigrade thrusting during space flight (he omits this), and during atmospheric entry when the liquid is affected primarily not by gravity (which he states) but by the deceleration forces -- inertia.

The liquid pools not mainly in the bottom of the tank, relative to the center of the Earth, but in the forward segment (relative to the braking G-forces), which actually in earth based coordinates is the front wall of the tank. Gravity does affect the entire vehicle -- deceleration force makes the propellant move to where it does. As the shuttle makes wide highly-banked left and right turns to dissipate excess momentum, the propellant does not slosh back and forth from right to left under gravity's influence -- it remains held in place in the 'forward' (relative to flight direction) segment.

This is a subtle physics issue that most people can function perfectly well without ever knowing about. But for a space propulsion system expert not to know the difference between gravity effects on propellant distribution and entry deceleration effects (which dominate) is inconceivable. If the engineer 'source' is real, which is certainly plausible, his advice to Fleming seems to have accumulated a garble factor on its way to us.

Without checking, Fleming simply 'assumed' my RCS expertise was minimal, apparently in large part based on a typo in a 1993 email I sent about STS-48 (saying '1,000' when I meant to type '10,000'). "...(I)t is one more indication that while Oberg may well be an expert on many aspects of space flight, he evidently has no particular expertise or experience with the RCS propulsion system." Actually, my Mission Control certification for STS-1 and STS-2 was in the OMS/RCS systems, and I served on console for the very first shuttle liftoff on April 12, 1981. Evidently somebody else felt my expertise was adequate.

"Unlike Oberg," Fleming also guessed, "this engineer observed tests of thruster firings close up on a routine basis." Since RCS thrusters are not tested at the NASA Johnson Space Center in Houston, Fleming could have earned credibility by saying where his source DID these observations -- probably the same place that I observed them, the NASA White Sands facility outside of Las Cruces, where they have a vacuum chamber with a powerful-enough pump to maintain a significant vacuum even when a thruster is being test fired inside it.

All this relates back to the issue of visibility of RCS plumes, which we've already pounded back and forth on a dozen rounds or more. Fleming's source allegedly believes that flares can only be seen in daylight as the unburned excess fuel, lit by the sun, leaks out from the 'dribble zone' -- but RF has provided views of fan-shaped flares plainly visible at night, a simple photo that falsifies the expertise of Fleming's source.

Video of such flares also shows that the visible material is traveling at extremely high speed -- the flare appears instantaneously and disappears the same way along its entire observed length. Tiny snowflakes dribbling out of the nozzle pushed merely by their own molecule-molecule expansion would hardly move any faster than air molecules emerging from a balloon -- slow enough for variations in density to appear as moving ripples in the flare. But there aren't any.

The flares are most probably incandescent excess propellant heated by the chamber fire, and entrained in the 10,000 ft/sec exhaust plume. Although they do occur more often at the start and stop of burns, they can occur at anytime within a burn if there's a propellant feed hiccup from a bubble or other irregularity in the twin feeds that must maintain the proper 'mixture ration' for clear (invisible) burning. When they don't, the flare effect is born.

But the fan-shaped flare isn't all there is to thruster effluent effects on nearby particles. Certainly the dominent effluent flow is clustered around the nozzle throat centerline. In video shown here, the flare appears to extend out perhaps 25-30 degrees from the centerline.

But at even higher angle off the centerline, lower but still sensible flow occurs. Molecules of burn residue fly out from the nozzle, in increasingly diminished density, down to angles as great as 100 to 110 degrees off the centerline (these extreme cases are probably due to molecule-molecule 'billiard balling' collisions inside the dense central effluent flow). Such flow is plenty powerful enough to entrain and divert small nearby floating particles, and these off-centerline forces were deliberately measured in special flight experiments on STS-7 (I was the team lead, a promotion from my propellant systems position on the first flights), that preceded the first shuttle rendezvous and capture experiments.

The force is real, strong enough to push stuff around, & invisible.



new topics

top topics



 
96
<< 50  51  52    54  55  56 >>

log in

join