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: 14
10
<< 11  12  13    15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Majorion
Now this is some pretty intriguing stuff, check it out;


Thoughts?.. opinions?.. can it be debunked?


[edit on 14/3/09 by Majorion]



Actually... I found one a bit better and lnger with more evidence
))

Check this one out


www.youtube.com...




posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by vigusa

Originally posted by Majorion
Now this is some pretty intriguing stuff, check it out;
Thoughts?.. opinions?.. can it be debunked?


Actually... I found one a bit better and lnger with more evidence
))
Check this one out



Well, wouldn't you find it useful to know where the sun was in the sky in these scenes (or do you think it was in darkness?), and where the shuttle's shadow was lying, and what else was going on aboard the shuttle in the time just preceding this -- like a waste water dump or similar effluent event? Wouldn't that be helpful in choosing among different explanations?



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 03:51 AM
link   
Well, wouldn't you find it useful to know where the sun was in the sky in these scenes (or do you think it was in darkness?), and where the shuttle's shadow was lying, and what else was going on aboard the shuttle in the time just preceding this -- like a waste water dump or similar effluent event? Wouldn't that be helpful in choosing among different explanations?



I believe that would be helpful, if not mandatory. Without working through all available data, you will never really know if you have found something extraordinary. I am quite suprised at the manner in which some members respond so negatively when other members (including you) are trying to present such data.



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 07:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sam60
Well, wouldn't you find it useful to know where the sun was in the sky in these scenes (or do you think it was in darkness?),


Both...

The practice rendezvous occurred during the day-time, but the shuttle had been orienting itself and shifting into orbit behind Mir for many passages through night and day, but the photographs that were taken were done so primarily over the day-time portion of the earth.

Here is a link to some photo's of the practice rendezvous:
spaceflight.nasa.gov...

*Due to the political elements involved, the photos would have had publicity value, and would serve this purpose better if taken during the conditions that are in the pictures I have linked to - and they were. ;-)

[edit on 22-3-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 07:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by Sam60
Well, wouldn't you find it useful to know where the sun was in the sky in these scenes (or do you think it was in darkness?),


Both... The practice rendezvous occurred during the day-time, but the shuttle had been orienting itself and shifting into orbit behind Mir for many passages through night and day, but the photographs that were taken were done so primarily over the day-time portion of the earth.


Can you be more precise regarding the scene actually being discussed? Where is the sun in the sky, relative to the camera's line-of-sight? This question releates directly to the issue of there being a shadow cast by the shuttle into the field-of-view, a shadow that causes nearby particles in it to be invisible until they drift out into the sunlight.

And the sun would have to be fairly low on the horizon so that the ground beneath the shuttle would still be dark -- elsewise reflected light from the surface could illuminate particles even inside the shuttle's shadow. That's a pretty restricted situation,

How can we tell if that specific illumination condition holds, or doesnt? It relates directly to judging the plausibilkity of a proferred prosaic explanation.



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
It relates directly to judging the plausibility of a proffered prosaic explanation.

(spelling corrected by Exuberant1)


You can more readily access and post the pertinent information - Please do so.

As for the pictures I linked to in my last post - they speak for themselves, conditions are readily apparent.

As for prosaic explanations; I have already posted mine earlier in the thread.

*Do you acknowledge that some of the 'objects' in the video file are composed of propellant?

If so, do you believe that those droplets of propellant posed any danger to the shuttle or Mir??

Are you aware of the extent to which that the temperature differential between the fuel droplets and surrounding space would account for the exaggerated/pronounced visibility exhibited by those tiny droplets in the IR/UV video provided in the OP?
(perhaps their size was such that they were not readily visible in the photographs, whilst being detected on the IR/UV capable camera on-board the shuttle due to a temperature differential...)

*Why did NASA not communicate to the Russians any 'meaningful data" about the propellant leak and the possible risks?

Were they technically unable to convey the data or were there other influences that prevented NASA from keeping the Russians fully-informed?



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by JimOberg
It relates directly to judging the plausibility of a proffered prosaic explanation. (spelling corrected by Exuberant1)


You can more readily access and post the pertinent information - Please do so.


I have, but I shouldn't be a 'single point failure' for obtaining this kind of thing. If you have any hope of properly understanding visual scenes such as these, you're going to have to be able to find and assess the context on your own. Besides, that makes it more credible.



As for the pictures I linked to in my last post - they speak for themselves, conditions are readily apparent.


By no means. Conditions are unearthly and no readily apparent without serious cogitation. I repeat my question about the status of a shadow zone somewhere within the field of view. Without knowing that, there's no chance of correctly interpreting the appearance and/or disappearance of dots.



*Do you acknowledge that some of the 'objects' in the video file are composed of propellant? If so, do you believe that those droplets of propellant posed any danger to the shuttle or Mir??


The Russians obviously worried about this, and the threat wasn't a life-threatening 'danger' so much as a contamination hazard that could degrade windows and solar panels.



Are you aware of the extent to which that the temperature differential between the fuel droplets and surrounding space would account for the exaggerated/pronounced visibility exhibited by those tiny droplets in the IR/UV video provided in the OP?


I was not aware that 'surrounding space' had any temperature at all. If it's 'space', a vacuum, what temperature do YOU think it would have had?



(perhaps their size was such that they were not readily visible in the photographs, whilst being detected on the IR/UV capable camera on-board the shuttle due to a temperature differential...)


You obstinately cling to this fantasy that the cameras being used for this scene had UV/IR capability. The difference in visibility on different scenes seems entirely accountable by the difference in sensitivity of the imaging systems under vastly different light levels -- very low light for the camera scene heading this thread, and full sunlit objects including Earth's surface, for the images you linked to. It's the same issue as 'no stars in the Apollo photos' -- what is it about this feature of optical systems that you don't believe in?



*Why did NASA not communicate to the Russians any 'meaningful data" about the propellant leak and the possible risks? Were they technically unable to convey the data or were there other influences that prevented NASA from keeping the Russians fully-informed?


As has been repeatedly pointed out to you by others, the Russian side was fully aware of the thruster leak. Your 'question' is actually a bogus assertion in camouflage. That's careless, at the very least.



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


You are being obtuse again, Jimbo.

Why are you so needlessly hostile? - if you don't want to answer my questions or are unable to locate certain data, just admit it. There is no need for malicious commentary. ;-)

You imply that the Russians were full-informed, yet NASA's own documents admit this was not the case.

The fact that the Russians had increased the practice 'rendezvous' distance to ten-times what its original distance, shows that did not feel confident in NASA's data - which it turned out, was incomplete / and according to NASA was not 'meaningful".

*This little nugget is just plain rude, and is blatant misinterpretation of a comparative statement:

"I was not aware that 'surrounding space' had any temperature at all. If it's 'space', a vacuum, what temperature do YOU think it would have had?"

Poor form.... Unless you really are unable to comprehend the statement you are haranguing me for in the above quote.

Surely You don't really believe that the payload-bay camera that filmed the footage in the OP could not function for the purpose which we see it functioning? - the strange logic you use in that remark would imply such cameras to be unnecessary and their additional capabilities redundant...

Why then was not a 'regular' (cheaper) camera not used for the task which we see this one performing?


Nice Try!

[edit on 22-3-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 05:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
You are being obtuse again, Jimbo. Why are you so needlessly hostile? - if you don't want to answer my questions or are unable to locate certain data, just admit it. There is no need for malicious commentary. ;-)


We are obviously talking past each other. Can a third party step in and restate the questions from each of us to the other, so we can respond?



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 07:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg


(perhaps their size was such that they were not readily visible in the photographs, whilst being detected on the IR/UV capable camera on-board the shuttle due to a temperature differential...)

You obstinately cling to this fantasy that the cameras being used for this scene had UV/IR capability. The difference in visibility on different scenes seems entirely accountable by the difference in sensitivity of the imaging systems under vastly different light levels -- very low light for the camera scene heading this thread, and full sunlit objects including Earth's surface, for the images you linked to. It's the same issue as 'no stars in the Apollo photos' -- what is it about this feature of optical systems that you don't believe in?


Maybe Jim, its becasue someone took the time to contact Dr. Joseph Nuth, III, Head of Astrochemistry at the Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, MD. According to Nuth....



“Although the camera itself may respond to x-rays and gamma rays (usually as noise), the optics do not serve to focus on anything but visible and near-UV photons. I would be amazed if the optics were not quartz so that the UV cut-off wavelength would be ~ 180 nm. If sapphire the cut-off drops to 160 nm and for CaF2 the cut-off is ~ 135 nm.”




UV is divided into near, far and extreme. The near UV is higher in wavelengths frequency than the color violet. It is also invisible to the human eye and spans almost as wide as the visible light spectrum in wavelengths. Many of NASAs video cameras see well into the invisible Infra-red also. Infrared is lower in wavelength frequency than the color red. Infrared is even easier than UV detection.

By definition, what Dr. Nuth is saying that the video cameras can see not only Near UV wavelengths of invisible light, but also Far UV defined here: Ultraviolet (UV) light is electromagnetic radiation with a wavelength shorter than that of visible light, but longer than soft X-rays. It can be subdivided into near UV (380–200 nm wavelength), far or vacuum UV (200–10 nm; abbrev. FUV or VUV), and extreme UV (1–31 nm; abbrev. EUV or XUV). It appears he made a mistake 135 - 180 Nano-meters is into the Far UV, even deeper into this invisible spectra than previously thought.


Want more??....



I have confirmed by letter that the above letter from NASA is true and documented. later, James Oberg tried to say that the video cameras on the shuttle were ordinary video cameras. He was uninformed or lying to protect his UFO debunking theories. He was also firstly an employee at NASA working under John F. Schuessler, whom is today the head of MUFON. John F. Schuessler keeps accurate files of astronaut encounters of UFOs and is a believer while Oberg is a debunker. Can you figure this one out now?

David Sereda


Full article HERE Dated Thursday, June 22, 2006

You seem to have a reputation Jim...one that even former fellow NASA employees tend to differ with your opinions, a supervisor no less!!!!

So..whats up Jim? Anyone can search this entire internet and find the plethora of debunking attempts and also find each time you got mashed and trashed like a tiny bug splattered on a windshield.

What is your game here sir? These recorded efferts by you date back a good number of years. Why all of a sudden are you re-sparking old and already disproven debunking statements here in 2009 at ATS?

Is everyone who has questioned these videos and what is in them are so close to the truth, that for some reason it brings you here to once again fill a good discussion forum with already discredited debunking nonsense?

Apparently the UV capability has been around for some time, according to the Smithsonian..



Instrumentation in astronomy VI; Proceedings of the Meeting, Tucson, AZ, Mar. 4-8, 1986. Part 1 (A87-36376 15-35). Bellingham, WA, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers, 1986, p. 136-140.

The NASA Space Shuttle Get-Away Special program is the basis of the present development effort for the definition of a meteor UV spectroscopy experiment that can be contained within a 5-cu ft canister that will be carried in the Shuttle Orbiter cargo bay. The experiment's spectroscope will employ an f/1.0 4.6-cm spectrographic camera, a Cs2Te image intensifier, and a CCD camera. UV study of meteors will allow the detection of the spectral lines of elements and compounds whose visual and near-IR lines coincide with very strong Fe and Ca lines. The 'Fe window' in the mid-UV will allow the detection of Be, Zn, and perhaps B; all are previously undetected in meteor spectra.


Article HERE 1986...1986 Jim....take not of that!!!

Perhaps its time to revise those old debunking scripts of yours and replace them with some actual technical facts.

Oh..there is soooo much more out there too!! I will let others discover the game by themselves.



Cheers!!!!


[edit on 23-3-2009 by RFBurns]



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 07:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns

Originally posted by JimOberg


(perhaps their size was such that they were not readily visible in the photographs, whilst being detected on the IR/UV capable camera on-board the shuttle due to a temperature differential...)

You obstinately cling to this fantasy that the cameras being used for this scene had UV/IR capability. The difference in visibility on different scenes seems entirely accountable by the difference in sensitivity of the imaging systems under vastly different light levels -- very low light for the camera scene heading this thread, and full sunlit objects including Earth's surface, for the images you linked to. It's the same issue as 'no stars in the Apollo photos' -- what is it about this feature of optical systems that you don't believe in?


Maybe Jim, its becasue someone took the time to contact Dr. Joseph Nuth, III, Head of Astrochemistry at the Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, MD. According to Nuth....


Actually, that material is not according to Nuth, it's according to what Sereda SAYS Nuth said. And if you called Nuth, at NASA Goddard, as I have, he'd chuckle gently and tell you he has no idea how what he said was so twisted and misrepresented by Sereda. Nor can he, or Sereda, explain why a scientist at NASA Goddard was chosen to be Sereda's 'inside source' about a camera used on the space shuttle, a program run from the Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas, where the documentation and expertise on these cameras is located.



By definition, what Dr. Nuth is saying ...


Don't pretend you know what Nuth is saying. You are quoting from what Sereda SAYS Nuth was saying. Nuth himself says different -- as you can verify yourself.



Want more??....



I have confirmed by letter that the above letter from NASA is true and documented. later, James Oberg tried to say that the video cameras on the shuttle were ordinary video cameras. He was uninformed or lying to protect his UFO debunking theories. He was also firstly an employee at NASA working under John F. Schuessler, whom is today the head of MUFON. John F. Schuessler keeps accurate files of astronaut encounters of UFOs and is a believer while Oberg is a debunker. Can you figure this one out now?

David Sereda


Full article HERE Dated Thursday, June 22, 2006

You seem to have a reputation Jim...one that even former fellow NASA employees tend to differ with your opinions, a supervisor no less!!!!


John's email is schuessler@mho.net, why not check with him about how true -- or not -- Sereda's claim of what he says, really is.



So..whats up Jim? Anyone can search this entire internet and find the plethora of debunking attempts and also find each time you got mashed and trashed like a tiny bug splattered on a windshield.







Apparently the UV capability has been around for some time, according to the Smithsonian..



Instrumentation in astronomy VI; Proceedings of the Meeting, Tucson, AZ, Mar. 4-8, 1986. Part 1 (A87-36376 15-35). Bellingham, WA, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers, 1986, p. 136-140.

The NASA Space Shuttle Get-Away Special program is the basis of the present development effort for the definition of a meteor UV spectroscopy experiment that can be contained within a 5-cu ft canister that will be carried in the Shuttle Orbiter cargo bay. The experiment's spectroscope will employ an f/1.0 4.6-cm spectrographic camera, a Cs2Te image intensifier, and a CCD camera. UV study of meteors will allow the detection of the spectral lines of elements and compounds whose visual and near-IR lines coincide with very strong Fe and Ca lines. The 'Fe window' in the mid-UV will allow the detection of Be, Zn, and perhaps B; all are previously undetected in meteor spectra.


Article HERE 1986...1986 Jim....take not of that!!!

Perhaps its time to revise those old debunking scripts of yours and replace them with some actual technical facts.


You will note that these science cameras record their imaging for readout on the ground. We are discussing the cameras which took the TV images that were beamed back in real time, that became infamous as 'shuttle UFO videos'. These are different cameras, and AFAIK neither you nor I have ever seen any imagery from them.


Oh..there is soooo much more out there too!! I will let others discover the game by themselves.


Yes, there's a lot of stuff out there. Some of us are trying to filter out the credible from the bunk. Are you part of the solution, or part of the problem?



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 08:30 AM
link   
Obfuscating it again are'nt you Jim?

The guy states he confirmed it by a letter from Nuth. Perhaps you would like to provide proof of your claim that it is not accurate?

I think we all know who is a part of the problem. He showed up 4 weeks ago planting root in STS 114, and now spreads those rotten roots across the other STS videos ONLY AFTER being spotted out of the fact he parked in just one.

Ya..we know where the problem lies Jim. We know without a doubt.

Hey, I wonder if we can get Schuessler in on this. Maybe he might have some insight into your game.

Think I will look him up.



Cheers!!!!



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
The guy states he confirmed it by a letter from Nuth. Perhaps you would like to provide proof of your claim that it is not accurate?


Would you accept Nuth's word on it -- or find a way to accuse Nuth of being arm-twisted to recant by the (drumroll....) Dark Forces?



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by RFBurns
The guy states he confirmed it by a letter from Nuth. Perhaps you would like to provide proof of your claim that it is not accurate?


Would you accept Nuth's word on it -- or find a way to accuse Nuth of being arm-twisted to recant by the (drumroll....) Dark Forces?


I would hardly think that Nuth could be..as you put it "arm twisted" into making any statement.

Unless you or someone else has evidence that his statment given is false, well I would accept Nuth's statement at face value.


Cheers!!!!



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by RFBurns
The guy states he confirmed it by a letter from Nuth. Perhaps you would like to provide proof of your claim that it is not accurate?


Would you accept Nuth's word on it -- or find a way to accuse Nuth of being arm-twisted to recant by the (drumroll....) Dark Forces?


I would hardly think that Nuth could be..as you put it "arm twisted" into making any statement.

Unless you or someone else has evidence that his statment given is false, well I would accept Nuth's statement at face value.



OK. Nuth states that Sereda's version of his views are garbled beyond belief.

Email 03/03/2000 4:27:24 PM CST
From: Joe Nuth
To: JamesOberg@AOL.COM

...Judging from the snippet below [NASA Secret Transmissions], very little of what I had intended to communicate seemed to reach a receptive audience. Hope this helps, Joe Nuth




Now, let's move on...



[edit on 23-3-2009 by JimOberg]



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 08:43 PM
link   
reply to post by RFBurns
 


Hey RFBurns,

I've found some interesting statements pertaining to the propellant leak I have been citing throughout this thread (as being partly to blame for the various objects that appear in the video).

*You will find that some of these statements indicate conditions to be somewhat different from those Oberg has been trying to pass off in his various 'prosaic' explanations - and they also corroborate my 'propellant hypothesis' ... ;-)

"Regardless of spectacle, a problem occurred almost immediately. As NASA Flight Director William Reeves said, "We launched, and, lo and behold … we had a leaking jet. One of the thrusters on the Shuttle was leaking propellant … and the Russians didn’t know what to think of it. They were concerned about fuel contamination on their vehicle; and if we couldn’t arrest the leak, they didn’t want the Shuttle coming too close to the Mir." Among other worries, if contamination got onto some of the Soyuz capsule’s surfaces, the Mir crew could not use it as an escape vehicle.

Early in the flight the propellant spewed in a conical pattern, "like a snowstorm for five miles up into space," according to Commander Jim Wetherbee."

*I trust these men more than Jim Oberg.

[edit on 23-3-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 08:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


I think that text was already posted in this thread, but I don't remember who it was that did the post (if there is such post).

I will look for it.

 


Thinking about it, I think I saw that on a link posted somewhere, not a post.

[edit on 23/3/2009 by ArMaP]



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 09:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


I pointed out the leaky jet on the first page of this thread.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I don't see how this conflicts with what Oberg says.



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by RFBurns

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by RFBurns
The guy states he confirmed it by a letter from Nuth. Perhaps you would like to provide proof of your claim that it is not accurate?


Would you accept Nuth's word on it -- or find a way to accuse Nuth of being arm-twisted to recant by the (drumroll....) Dark Forces?


I would hardly think that Nuth could be..as you put it "arm twisted" into making any statement.

Unless you or someone else has evidence that his statment given is false, well I would accept Nuth's statement at face value.



OK. Nuth states that Sereda's version of his views are garbled beyond belief.

Email 03/03/2000 4:27:24 PM CST
From: Joe Nuth
To: JamesOberg@AOL.COM

...Judging from the snippet below [NASA Secret Transmissions], very little of what I had intended to communicate seemed to reach a receptive audience. Hope this helps, Joe Nuth




Now, let's move on...





Hmm...how about you post the ENTIRE email...INCLUDING HEADERS instead of a manual typed version that ANYONE can create when they need to cover up their BS.

Lets see the REAL thing Jim...the WHOLE thing Jim.


Cheers!!!!



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns

Lets see the REAL thing Jim...the WHOLE thing Jim.



I agree.

Perhaps he is so selective because the rest of the letter substantiates what you have been saying. ;-)

In any case, if that letter actually lent any credence to Oberg's claims, he would have posted it along with the rest of his commentary.

*BTW, here is NASA's database of anomalies for STS-1 through STS-107. ('prosaic' explanations included - however these ones are conveyed in a professional manner)

www.jsc.nasa.gov...

*Here is the link to the STS-63 anomalies .pdf file - much of it focuses on the propellant leak:

www.jsc.nasa.gov...

[edit on 23-3-2009 by Exuberant1]



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 11  12  13    15  16 >>

log in

join