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: 9
10
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exopolitico
reply to post by Phage
 


These objects don't change size when the camera is zoomed. This is proof that the objects are very far and away from the shuttle and any impact from the thrusters.


[edit on 15-3-2009 by Exopolitico]


You're being tripped up by your false assumptions.

Most of what looks like 'zooming' on these views is actually automatic gain control cycling, by the controller in the camera, without any crew input.




posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 08:54 AM
link   

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.



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 08:55 AM
link   
duplicate message


[edit on 16-3-2009 by JimOberg]



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 09:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
For some people DOF, they dont need to beat a dead horse to realize the horse has already died...in other words, these folks that are dismissing your shadow theory out of the many other theories they have also rejected have in fact given it consideration....and came to their own conclusions. Now what upsets them the most, including me, is that you do not recognize the need to move on to a new proposal and continue to try to cram it down their throats.

They have already looked at it, considered it, and rejected it. Its called peer review DOF. And as I have stated before in the other thread, that is the process of how science works.
The problem is that other people do not know what they have and have not considered, so things would be much easier if they just said that they had considered that possibility and said why they do not considered it as the best possible explanation.

I suppose that is how it's done in the scientific and academic circles (I only finished high school, no fancy diplomas here
), people show the proponents of a theory why that theory can not be applied or why it does not explain all that it must explain.



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by UnconventionalRyan1990
And not a very solid explanation at that, given the variables.

2nd line.


But it's the situation regularly set up for OTHER reasons by the shuttle cameras. It isn't an accidental, random orientation.

As part of the MLE experiment, as often as possible on night passes, one of the payload bay cameras is pointed towards the receding horizon to look for lightning events. It can stay that way for the entire night pass and into the sunrise, at which point its AGC shrinks the sensitivity and the sought phenomena can't be seen any more, so the camera is pointed elsewhere.

The most spectacular 'space UFO' videos' occur in this brief after-sunrise phase when nearby debris becomes visible. It's not by accident -- it's cause and effect. That coincidence of timing is a strong argument for the prosaic explanation.



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 09:06 AM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


Is that the same Ed Lopez that wrote this?



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
And I answerd that with the fact that we are missing data that tells us where the shuttle is in its orbit, and most importantly, what orientation the shuttle is flying at. Since we have none of that factual data, no one can say for sure where that shadow is, if it is even in the FOV at all.


This is the old story about the kid who murdered his parents and then asking for mercy from the court because he's an orphan. We're 'missing the data' because RF and his friends have spent years NOT even looking for it, and making fun of people who DID find it and circulate it.

I didn't think it possible in the vacuum of space, but it seems you CAN stick your head into a hole in the ground so you won't see things you're scared of.



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by JimOberg
 


Is that the same Ed Lopez that wrote this?


Yeah, I address his essay in the link I provided.



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 10:59 AM
link   
It's funny how they continue to defend the shadow/ice particle theory, and not even try to explain how some of the particles, which look like they should be in the shadow, are lit up.



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by UnconventionalRyan1990
...not even try to explain how some of the particles, which look like they should be in the shadow, are lit up.


But i explained, should i put again the diagram? It seems that yes. here it is:


Originally posted by depthoffield
In this diagram:




showing a posible situation to our opening movie, you can see that bright dots, are spreaded into all the frame (FOV of the camera). (and also, the invisible ones are spreaded in all the frame too).






What is wrong there? You don't agree that white and invisble dots in my diagram appear to spread into all the FOV? Or what is wrong?

Why you wrongly say that "not even try to explain how some of the particles, which look like they should be in the shadow, are lit up"?

Explain please. One or more arguments. Your arguments.







[edit on 16/3/09 by depthoffield]

[edit on 16/3/09 by depthoffield]



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 11:15 AM
link   
IMO - The truth is, if we all travelled in to space in our own crafts, we would see dozens of UFO'S some debris, some ice crystals but the majority intelligently controlled. Its clear after watching this video and the other STS mission videos that something is going on.

I have just added STS 80 in to the mix, definately not so easily explained away as this one or the STS 114. Hopefully now we can get some idea as to how NASA operate.

[edit on 16-3-2009 by franspeakfree]



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by depthoffield
 


Yes, but if that were the case, then these "ice particles" should be drifting in the same direction, correct? Then, if that true, its safe to assume that we should see some of these "ice particles" dissapear also, which we do not. Sorry but you'll have to try harder then that.



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
We're 'missing the data' because RF and his friends have spent years NOT even looking for it, and making fun of people who DID find it and circulate it.

All we have in this thread, is a certain diagram posted by DOF over and over again. There is no factual data to back it up, how can we be sure where that shadow is?.. as RF said, we are missing supporting data.



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by franspeakfree
The truth is, if we all travelled in to space in our own crafts, we would see dozens of UFO'S some debris, some ice crystals but the majority intelligently controlled...


That is quite the leap to say most of these are intelligently controlled. Give just one example from the video that demonstrates any of these particles show intelligent, independent control.



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 11:51 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by UnconventionalRyan1990
Sorry but you'll have to try harder then that.


I have a better idea! Why don't those claiming these are aliens demonstrate how any of these show independence or intelligence?



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Majorion
All we have in this thread, is a certain diagram posted by DOF over and over again. There is no factual data to back it up...


Just like the only other thing we have in this thread is certain people stating over and over again that it these show aliens, a simple declarative statement with no factual data to back it up.

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



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 12:31 PM
link   
i could watch this clip over and over as im fascinated by u.f.o sightings, but this must be one of their main highways of travel, lol. i think debri and stars or of the likes maybe. who knows



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Majorion
All we have in this thread, is a certain diagram posted by DOF over and over again. There is no factual data to back it up, how can we be sure where that shadow is?.. as RF said, we are missing supporting data.


Are you sure that shadow in NOT in the FOV? You know, is very posible to be in FOV, if you try to understand the clues in the OP image (i just explained before).



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by UnconventionalRyan1990
reply to post by depthoffield
 


Yes, but if that were the case, then these "ice particles" should be drifting in the same direction, correct? Then, if that true, its safe to assume that we should see some of these "ice particles" dissapear also, which we do not. Sorry but you'll have to try harder then that.


Just the opposite. Stuff moving away from the shuttle, some passing through its umbra on that route, will tend to move out into sunlight, but rarely if ever back into the umbra. That's the nature of the directions of motion and the area of the umbra.

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




top topics



 
10
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join