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-63 UFO Footage Discussion

page: 10
10
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 08:07 PM
link   
At 0:39 a meteor seems to pass by on the screen. I'm assuming it's a meteor judging from the speed. At 0:41 an object pops into the screen from below. I'll assume that is a piece of junk or a floating sunlit ice crystal. Now at about 0:50, an object at an apparently farther distance away from the floating object, which enters the screen from the right, is something I question, what is it exactly?

The camera then zooms right out, one or two seconds after this object appears.

[edit on 16/3/09 by Majorion]




posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by RFBurns

Problem here tho, is that your expecting us to accept that the shadow will be this huge dark area that will cover several miles width at a given distance, and wider than than as the distance increases. Sure it will widen out the further the shadow eminates, but not as wide as you want us to think.


I think this is also addressed below, but I want to make the point that when RF believes the shuttle's shadow will widen out, he is demonstrating once again his erroneous concepts regarding spaceflight and the space environment, by treating the Sun as a point source.

If you can't even understand the illumination conditions in a space scene, you are helpless to understand the actual cause. So stating that one "can't believe" an offered hypothesis, one is making no judgment at all about the validity of the hypothesis, only the limitations of capabilities of the disbelieving mind.



Glad you think you got some magical power to convince people to think how you think.

There is no data in this video or the other of even a shadow at all. When you and DOF provide that undeniable proof there is a shadow, then bounce around your shadow bs all you want..till then, as I told DOF, your GUESS is as good as anyone elses.


Cheers!!!!



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Your NOT seeing particles disappear is precisely the kind of confirmatory observation that supports the umbra theory. Thanks!!



Think about it Jim, not seeing other objects disappear when one appears...means there isnt any shadow causing the one to appear, and certianly not there to make the others nearby disappear.

That pretty much says there isnt any shadow in the FOV where all this activity is taking place.

Thanks for verifying that in the not so direct, dance around the obfuscation tree method. We will sit back and watch while you guys hold hands and continue to go in circles with this one...and the other.




Cheers!!!!



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by RFBurns
 


It doesn't say there is no shadow in the field of view. It says no objects are seen entering the shadow.



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 08:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Majorion
 


It looks like a "slow-motion meteor", if you know what I mean.

The movement looks the same (faster than the other objects, straight trajectory) but it's too slow to be a meteor (or maybe it's much farther away, so it looks slower).

I don't know what that object is, but it does not look like one of the floating objects.



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 08:32 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 

Exactly ArMaP, it is noticeably slower than the other meteors in the video, which suggests that's a different object, and it certainly wasn't the same object as the floating junk.. and why does the camera zoom out once it enters the frame?



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by RFBurns
 


It doesn't say there is no shadow in the field of view. It says no objects are seen entering the shadow.


Tsk tsk Phage, you should know better than that. First, you have to prove there is a shadow in the FOV. Which in order to prove that, you need missing data to come to that conclusion.

The missing data are:

1. Sunlight angle
2. Spacecraft position
3. Spacecraft orientation
4. Line of sight angle
5. Range of objects
6. The entire unedited footage

Without those key data elements, it is quite impossible to say there is a shadow, or there is no shadow.

All we do have is a short clip of video showing unusual activity within it.

So in essence..as I have stated, its anyone's GUESS as to what causes what, why these anomalies do what they do, and why so much effort is taken by NASA to film these...as they put it..."debris/ice/junk".

Funny how NASA seems to put so much effort and thought into ice/junk/debris and in other missions...rocks and holes in the ground.

See a pattern folks?

No Anomaly Seen Alright

Nothing Acknowledged Since Adam

Never Any Serious Admittance

Now Another Silly Analysis


Rocks...ice...junk...debris....poop dumps....if you do not detect the pattern....help is but a phone call away. Let your fingers do the walking in the yellow pages.

Funny also...that the former Soviet Union's space program never put so much time, effort and funds into rocks, ice, junk, debris..and poop dumps.

Curious...isnt it.




Cheers!!!!



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 09:36 PM
link   
reply to post by RFBurns
 


No, it's enough to know that there is a shadow there somewhere to know that it is an entirely viable theory.

As has been pointed out, debris is filmed and examined intensely in order to determine if it represents a hazard to craft and crew. I haven't really seen any videos of orbital junk (other than shuttle debris) but I'm sure that if any were to be sighted near the shuttle and if it were able to be filmed, it would be, and for the same reason.

The ice is not being filmed intentionally. STS-80, STS-114, and the other similar videos are part of the Mesoscale Lightning Experiment. The recording of ice is incidental to the experiment.

The shuttle MLE demonstrated that excellent data could be obtained using the payload bay TV cameras on STS-26, -30, -32, and -34 and the experiment will be flown on each shuttle mission when it can be conducted on a non interference basis

ntrs.nasa.gov...

This video (which I posted earlier) shows that ice is not always as plentiful. No UFO's here, not a lot of ice. Just some stars, but sure enough, they are filming it. It is part of the ongoing experiment.


[edit on 3/16/2009 by Phage]



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
No, it's enough to know that there is a shadow there somewhere to know that it is an entirely viable theory.


Key word Phage..."somwhere"....well it being "somewhere" does not mean its in the point of interest within the video. It is "somewhere".



Originally posted by Phage
As has been pointed out, debris is filmed and examined intensely in order to determine if it represents a hazard to craft and crew. I haven't really seen any videos of orbital junk (other than shuttle debris) but I'm sure that if any were to be sighted near the shuttle and if it were able to be filmed, it would be, and for the same reason.


Ya..sort of like beating the dead horse knowing its already dead. Cmon man, thats such bogus bs its unreal. How many times does one have to put their finger across the flame of a candle to realize that the flame burns?

How many shuttle missions have there been? How many other space flights has there been? Do you really expect us to believe that after all these flights, all these missions, by all these various spacecraft by two major nations, US and USSR/Russia, that at some point someone would have it figured out by now how much of a threat a dump particle is that is simply floating nearby their craft?




Originally posted by Phage
The ice is not being filmed intentionally. STS-80, STS-114, and the other similar videos are part of the Mesoscale Lightning Experiment. The recording of ice is incidental to the experiment.


Incidental until unusual events occur in those MLE's, then the ice becomes the focal point of not just NASA, but to the debunker bunch as well. It is not incidental, it is more like imperative from that side of the isle.

Curious.



Originally posted by Phage
This video (which I posted earlier) shows that ice is not always as plentiful. No UFO's here, not a lot of ice. Just some stars, but sure enough, they are filming it. It is part of the ongoing experiment.




Again, when unusual events occur in these MLE's, ice becomes plentiful, and not so incidental..a very curious coincidence isnt it. Funny that the ice just so happens to be around (as the unusual objects are constantly being called) when at the very moment an object happens to appar.

Very convienient. Very suspicious, and very obvious.

BTW, the video of just "stars"...how can you be so sure those are stars and not orbiting "junk/debris" further up in altitude?


Cheers!!!!

[edit on 16-3-2009 by RFBurns]



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 10:25 PM
link   
reply to post by RFBurns
 

When I use the term debris I am referring specifically to objects other than ice, such as the clip which was observed on STS-124.

In the video I posted I do see one object for a brief period but the camera operator doesn't seem to have any interest in it. We can also see lights on the surface (Australia) and lightning (the object of the experiment). Some if the other lights "above" the horizon may be ice but they show no detectable motion other than a slow movement toward the limb of the Earth. Several can be seen to disappear behind the horizon as the shuttle moves through its orbit, a good indication that they are stars and not ice (or UFO's).

[edit on 3/16/2009 by Phage]



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 01:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by depthoffield

Originally posted by Majorion
No, it does mean something. It means that he can't apply the ice/junk particle or debris explanation to every single object in the video.


Yes it can be applied. Unless you show me one single object there which defy the debris particles explanation.


Then I will refer you to my post here;

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 02:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Majorion
 

This might be of interest. I just captured it from NASATV. STS-119. We are looking from the cabin, through the cargo bay as the aft RCS jets put on a little show. Some stuff seems to leave the cargo bay as the door opens. Then the jet fires. I'm pretty sure that those "meteors" are coming from the RCS jets.

(click to open player in new window)


[edit on 3/17/2009 by Phage]

[edit on 3/17/2009 by Phage]



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 07:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
And please, no semantic games. We all know exactly what your positions are; if that isn't your position, then please state it.


Lighten up mate. Its just an internet discussion Forum, not a courtroom.

[edit on 17-3-2009 by Skyfloating]



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 07:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
There is no data in this video or the other of even a shadow at all.


Does RF suspect it was a vampire shuttle -- doesn't cast a shadow at all?

The camera angle is down-sun, a risen sun "at one's back". The only question is the precise direction of the shadow based on solar relative orientation. The existence of a shadow in the general direction of the mid-FOV is a certainty.

Actually, this is a big step forward for him. He now agrees that other data, besides the video alone by itself, is needed in order to develop a plausible explanation.

Now compare this to his insistence on the 114 thread that ONLY the video scene -- and NOTHING else -- was sufficient to decide it was a UFO because "he knows what he sees". All else was 'clutter'.

Agreeing that illumination conditions and technical context is now a preconditon for a serious explanation is a tremendous change from his point of view.

Congratulations, RF. Edging closer to reality. We'll all get there together.



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 07:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Majorion
 

This might be of interest. I just captured it from NASATV. STS-119.


Good catch, Phage, thanks. Saw it myself, but my home systems are too primitive to capture and repost video.



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 07:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by RFBurns
There is no data in this video or the other of even a shadow at all.


Does RF suspect it was a vampire shuttle -- doesn't cast a shadow at all?

The camera angle is down-sun, a risen sun "at one's back". The only question is the precise direction of the shadow based on solar relative orientation. The existence of a shadow in the general direction of the mid-FOV is a certainty.

Actually, this is a big step forward for him. He now agrees that other data, besides the video alone by itself, is needed in order to develop a plausible explanation.

Now compare this to his insistence on the 114 thread that ONLY the video scene -- and NOTHING else -- was sufficient to decide it was a UFO because "he knows what he sees". All else was 'clutter'.

Agreeing that illumination conditions and technical context is now a preconditon for a serious explanation is a tremendous change from his point of view.

Congratulations, RF. Edging closer to reality. We'll all get there together.





Keep patting yourself on the back there Jim. Until just a couple of weeks ago you have no clue what I have examined or considered over the last 20 years of these anomalies in STS videos. So for you to say I am just now accepting other data or recognizing the need for other data is only to appease your own unawareness of what I already have been aware of LONG before you and I crossed paths.

As far as getting closer to reality...Ive been there and done that long ago friend. Dont fool yourself into thinking that there is any sort of influence happening here on me.

If you take a closer look at the posts, you will see who brought up these missing facts that are needed and who agrees with that. And you will discover that since there is a lack of these facts, there is no solid ground for either side of the issue to stand on..only their preceptions and only their beliefs.

Yep...we will get to the truth eventually...together?...perhaps...eventually?...thats a sure thing we all can count on.



Cheers!!!!



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 07:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns

Originally posted by Phage
The ice is not being filmed intentionally. STS-80, STS-114, and the other similar videos are part of the Mesoscale Lightning Experiment. The recording of ice is incidental to the experiment.


Incidental until unusual events occur in those MLE's, then the ice becomes the focal point of not just NASA, but to the debunker bunch as well. It is not incidental, it is more like imperative from that side of the isle.

Curious.


Not curious. Cause and effect. The presence of a larger amount of debris -- ice or whatever -- is usually grounds for the 'UFO misinterpretation' of some of the pieces. One causes the other, they are not independent phenomena, as your welcome admission that they often occur more or less simo.

Ditto the 'curious coincidence' that the most spectacular 'space UFO videos' -- 48, 75, 83, 80, 114 now, many others -- are made in the brief and relatively rare illumination conditions of immediately-post-sunrise looking-backwards camera orientation (before crossing the terminator). This striking coincidence is never explained -- I've never even seen it mentioned -- in the pro-UFO arguments and I doubt that most proponents of the UFO misinterpretation even know about it (clever how easily those who demand 'coverups' be dispelled can promulgate their own censorship of inconvenient facts).

Yet it may be the most crucial causitive aspect of the mystery. Debris under certain very specific lighting conditions looks really, really weird. Sure there are videos from other conditions, too -- midnight views illuminated by payload bay lights, full daylight views of larger, brighter objects -- but the sunrise cases dominate the 'best case' list.


Why, if not cause-and-effect?



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 07:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Lighten up mate. Its just an internet discussion Forum, not a courtroom.


Your status as a moderator does not intimidate me, Skyfloating. For the purposes of our discussion, I have a right to ask pertaining questions, the same right as anyone else. What people think this video represents is vital to the discussion. You, however, have no right to come in to the discussion and try to intimidate any of us by way of making a snide comment.

[edit on 17-3-2009 by SaviorComplex]



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 08:10 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Not curious. Cause and effect. The presence of a larger amount of debris -- ice or whatever -- is usually grounds for the 'UFO misinterpretation' of some of the pieces. One causes the other, they are not independent phenomena, as your welcome admission that they often occur more or less simo.


I have not made any admission to anything other than spotting the continuous same excuses put forth for everything in the videos.

If thats all it is Jim, why the huge interest? Why such focus and attention to the mudane elements of ice, junk and debris?

I will tell you why. It is a tool, not unlike how a 10mm socket is a vital tool to turn a 10mm nut, and then you need the ratchet tool, another vital part, to work the 10mm socket to work the 10mm nut.

The tool used here is "ice/dust/junk/debris" in order to "tool" the minds into thinking thats all there is out there.

Unfortunately, those tools wore themselves out years ago. People are not so easily convinced these days. And when it comes right down to it, anyone with a pre school level of education can see when the desperation to re-work those old tools becomes apparent. Trying to keep the calm is too little too late. Its best to let it all out into the open before it of itself does that job for themselves...then what will be the excuse then?

But hey...as I have said before...NASA makes its own bed..and will be the one to lay down in it when the inevitable does occur on its own, and they wont be able to do a thing about it...but try to come up with the "mudane" explanations as to why they took that stance from the begining.

Its like an old dam thats been there holding back a huge amount of water for decades..slowly erroding, slowly leaking that water drip by drip, eating away at the dam...till suddenly...POW!!...that dam breaks and here comes the flood of truth..un-stoppable, un-preventable, and inevitable.



Originally posted by JimOberg
Ditto the 'curious coincidence' that the most spectacular 'space UFO videos' -- 48, 75, 83, 80, 114 now, many others -- are made in the brief and relatively rare illumination conditions of immediately-post-sunrise looking-backwards camera orientation (before crossing the terminator). This striking coincidence is never explained -- I've never even seen it mentioned -- in the pro-UFO arguments and I doubt that most proponents of the UFO misinterpretation even know about it (clever how easily those who demand 'coverups' be dispelled can promulgate their own censorship of inconvenient facts).


You must not get around much, or limit yourself to only certian UFO discussion areas. Everything presented in these few threads over the course of 3 weeks has in fact been discussed over and over again, everything from the lighting circumstances, to angles, to shadows, to flight data records, to poop dump mists, everything.

As I pointed out in another thread, there is a reason why these discussions revive and continue. Shall I repeat that here?

Why not.

Without questions, there can be no answers. Without answers, there will be more questions.

Aparently there are still many questions being left unanswered. To some, those questions have been answered with the repetitive answers..easy to assimilate into their thought processes. To the rest, who continue to ask, are not so easily convinced, and there is a reason for it. They are far more complex in their thinking process, and do not accept the easy answer that is always given to explain away the unknown. Fearing the unknown and filling the void with the easy answer is always the first solution taken by the fearful of the unknown.

But for those who can take more than just the easy way out, they seek the definative response, the more in-depth answer, the one that rattles the cages of the fearful.


Originally posted by JimOberg
Yet it may be the most crucial causitive aspect of the mystery. Debris under certain very specific lighting conditions looks really, really weird. Sure there are videos from other conditions, too -- midnight views illuminated by payload bay lights, full daylight views of larger, brighter objects -- but the sunrise cases dominate the 'best case' list.


Why, if not cause-and-effect?


It "MAY" be. The key word there Jim. May, maybe, could be, might be, can be. All assumption words to put into that void I spoke of above. It fills in the gaps and can be used on a wide aspect to explain the unknown.

Putting the easy answer into the hard question is always the case. However, putting the hard answers into the hard questions is the very reason why people still continue to ask those questions..they remain unanswered.

It doesnt matter what is put on paper by some NASA official, or spokesperson at that. What matters is what the people either accept or do not accept. The majority seem to agree, that there is far more to this than junk and debris, otherwise the revisit of these videos and other inqueries would not continue. The "best case" list is their list, not the people's list. It is the people out here Jim, that make the difference. We can either make or break the program, at the snap of a finger.

Currently, there is a huge threat to the program, and by whom? A person who was an unknown 2 years ago, thrusted up into the spotlight and is now sitting in the most powerful chair on this planet. At the stroke of a pen on a piece of paper, that person can put a stop to this little game, and change it drastically. Or that person can let it continue with the stroke of that pen.

I think that for too long, the uppers at headquarters have actually entrenched themselves with the notion that nothing will happen to them, that they will be able to continue their game indefinately. Well they are sweating visciously at the brow right now...perhaps that is why we see this increased activity of debunking across the net in conspiracy forums related to space. The 11th hour last ditch effort to regain that momentium they once had in stride.

Im sorry to say..its inevitable that the game is about to come to an end. And 4 yrs down the road....who knows what the new game will be. But it wont be the same old game that has been played for the last 40.



Cheers!!!!

[edit on 17-3-2009 by RFBurns]



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join