It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

NASA montage ( the best bits from NASA)

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 11:20 PM
reply to post by Phage

Phage, that "water droplet" is too much in focus to be inside the shuttle and in between the camera and window when the camera is clearly focused on the satellite. That is an old video, shot with much older hand held camera tech, and those of that era did not have autofocus that would easily maintain focus when looking through a window. Often those old autofocus circuits would get confused between the object trying to be in focus and the window, thus the focus would come and go frequently.

Since we do not see the focus going in and out, it is reasonable to conclude that the camera is on manual focus, and was focused onto the object intending to be the satellite.

You guys have argued and argued that a tiny dust particle would appear large and circular when between the camera and a distant object when the camera is focused on the distant object, thus would explain those "critters". Yet here, your saying that a water droplet, that "lenses" the Earth and dark sky in the background, would also be in focus that close to the camera and between the camera and window of the shuttle that the water droplet would be in focus as well and enough to even show any lensing reflection?

Ok lets talk about the various distances here..and keep in mind all that rattle about out of focus particles near the camera when the camera is looking at something off in the distance.

How does this one "water droplet" just happen to be in such focus that it shows any lensing, being between the camera and the window, inside the shuttle, and not only that, but not show any inside lighting, pannel lights, or anything else of the shuttle?

All these convienient ducks in a row prosaic explanations are getting quite old and rediculous that every time I see one of these prosaic explanations I cant help but get a good laugh from it.

That object in this OP video reminds me of the movie "Star Man", the huge spherical ship that came to Earth to retrieve the visitor. Though this object in the OP video is not as huge, it does the same reflection effects, as does a ball magnet, or a ball from a pin-ball machine.

Cmon Phage, that object isnt no water droplet between the camera and window and inside the shuttle.

The prosaic explantion unfortunately this time...doesnt hold water.


posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 11:33 PM
Ok...any doubters still out there...should stop wasting precious thread space...think about it in "Linear Logic" form...

Is it possible, that if you go on the "Assumption" that: ""Other Life must exist outside our own cute little "Sphere" within this "Infinite Universe" think otherwise would be someone I would not be interested in meeting or conversing with, for that matter""...(as it would be a complete waste of time)...

Now take this "Linear Logic" form and delve a little further: "So if there is an actual possibility of life out there...and if it quite possible that some Other Life Forms could exist out there with Infinitely Lower Intelligence...and Infinitely Higher Intelligence...??

Remember...this Concept also leads to the Ultimate Creator...Prime Creator...The Big Bang...Sufi Creation etc....and ultimately to the supremely Infinite Being...which may actually mean that we are all "One" in the end...meaning we are all "Prime Creators"....we are One...but Individuals...a contradiction in terms yes...more thinking required...

But I think more than that...we would want to know and begin to classify these "Various Higher Beings" either "Friend" or "FOE"...The Grays, The Reptoids, The Pleadians, The Cassiopeian's, The Orion etc...

Which "Alien is on our Side"....????

I think this a much more important question...and if some are on our side....will they intervene and forget the Universal law of "FreeWill"...treading onto the Free Will of another...automatically makes you a Service To Self or Selfish being...and who am I trying to kid...I have been selfish in my life many times...and have even reveled in it....

This is the learning that is required...become aware...and forget the trivial parts of refuse the existence of other Intelligent equivalent to rejecting the idea of a "Prime Creator of some sort"...

posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 11:42 PM
reply to post by RFBurns

Ok, I'll post my demo...later. Yes, I used manual focus.

posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 11:44 PM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 11:52 PM

Originally posted by qbik2008


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


The Question "Hugh"...was a stretch...was it....well done...corporate policy...Religious Policy....Political Policy...are all welcomed...and well "Recognized" as well....

posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 02:44 AM

Originally posted by Phage
I gave an idea on another thread on this topic here:
RFBurns replied that if the water drop were inside the shuttle, it would reflect the interior of the shuttle. This is incorrect. A water droplet is transparent and does not reflect, but transmits light. It would invert the image of the Earth, particularly if the Earth were brighter than the interior of the shuttle. On the page I linked (with a full analysis) there are examples of this occuring.

Another post of mine on that now closed thread:

[edit on 3/26/2009 by Phage]

Plausible. But focal would be tremendously wide. Also the water drop would only stop if it lost momentum, or, change direction only if a wind (breath) or other force is exerted upon it. Zero G conditions would be in effect.

Good idea, but the physics seem to not support the hypothesis. Anyone guess what camera and lens systems where at work? We would have to do lots of work to know if the "droplet" was foreground or actually at the distance it looks like.

Again this is like doing forensics on a barbi doll. Not enough resolution to do any conclusive guessing, let alone actual science.

I still enjoyed the edit.


posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 04:10 AM
Just an observation I made on the "water bubble", I am curious as to this image looking like its actually closing in on itself ,like an armadillo does to protect itself as it approaches the satellite.

If you watch the whole sequence from the beginning, that is the most telling part to me. Maybe its a water drop, i don't know, but that folding in on itself just seems to mechanical.

If this is a water droplet, I would like to know which astronaut is spitting water all over the place in the first place.

posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 11:32 AM

Originally posted by papajake
I posted an animated gif that I created on the recently closed thread. I'm posting it in this thread to get comments. It's about six frames from the montage video which shows an object, possibly a satellite, zipping in front of--and partially obscuring--the Russian MIR Space Station. It's quite intriguing. My questions to anyone who might know is why is it flying so close to the MIR? It must be between the MIR and whatever it is that's filming the Space Station, and could pose some serious risk, I would imagine. Especially based on its speed. Anybody have any ideas?

If you watch the montage at about the 3:10 mark, you'll see it. But it goes by quick.

Here's the link to the animated gif:

thank you papajake. I was about to question this myself. I appreciate the montage to look at it, and it looks like maybe the solar array of a satellite passes between the MIR and the ISS (or shuttle). If you look at the end of your montage there is a reflection of either MIR or the object taking the picture....

and I think the speed it because its much closer to the object taking the picture than too MIR, but even so, your question about safety is a good one...

neat find and good work!

[edit on 27/3/09 by TrailGator]

posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 12:07 PM
reply to post by TrailGator

Thanks for the reply, TrailGator. With all that "stuff" zipping around up there, I sure wouldn't want to be sitting in a floating and unprotected tin can. Especially considering the recent satellite collision. It gives new meaning to the oxymoron "crowded space".

[edit on 27-3-2009 by papajake]

posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 12:50 PM
reply to post by RFBurns

Here's my demo. I decided I didn't want to expose my dirty windows to the world.
Panasonic GS7OD, using manual focus (at infinity). As you can see it's not the greatest camera in the world but it works for home movies.

The button is about 1/2" in diameter (indicating that the water drop is probably smaller than that). I scrounged around my house looking for a small lens to use but no luck.

The button is generally about 4 to 6 inches from the lens but it's a windy day so it moves in and out. With focus at infinity, the button is in pretty good focus. Even when zoomed, detail (the holes, the fishing line) is recognizable. In the shuttle video, the object is not in clear focus.

Now you can get picky about it but I think this demonstrates pretty well that the field of view issue is not a killer. I think a water drop is a very viable possibility.

(click to open player in new window)

Ick. ATSMedia made it pretty bad. Maybe I'll try again when the lighting is better.

[edit on 3/27/2009 by Phage]

posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 01:45 PM
Chapeau, Phage!

10 minutes of video, in which is recorded actual astronauts speaking of "alien spacecraft" in sight, and you reduce the thread to a discussion of water droplets. Hats off to you! Always a pleasure to watch a real pro in action.

And the last minute of the compilation, the spoke and wheel formation over Africa--or any other minute of it, for that matter? Shall we turn to those clips now? Or keep on with the shape and reflectivity of water droplets in zero gravity?


posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 02:39 PM
reply to post by gottago

I offered my opinion about the water drop because I was asked to (in the closed thread). I have since been responding to objections, directed to me, of the analysis.

I have also addressed other parts of the video (again in the closed thread and again, because I was "challenged" to do so).

The various low light shuttle videos have been discussed, at length, elsewhere.

[edit on 3/27/2009 by Phage]

+2 more 
posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 02:53 PM
reply to post by gottago

BTW, the "alien spacecraft" transmission? It was shown to be hoax a long time ago.

posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 02:58 PM

Originally posted by gottago
10 minutes of video, in which is recorded actual astronauts speaking of "alien spacecraft" in sight, and you reduce the thread to a discussion of water droplets....

Gottago -- do you have ANY reason to believe the 'alien spacecraft' tape is anything but a hoax or a prank? Is there ANY credible evidence it came from an actual space mission, except maybe somebody on the Internet claiming it did? Is that enough for you?

Just asking....

posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 03:09 PM
reply to post by JimOberg

No more reason than I have reason to believe that you are a major player at NASA.

Let's discuss the last minute of the video instead, the hub-and spokes formation over Africa, ok?

This time I get to choose the point to argue, not the debunkers, who attack the weakest link.

What about that video? And with it, the wonderful "where's Waldo?" STS/MIR footage that IMHO should have also been included in this compilation. What about those NASA snippets?

STS/MIR snippet link here

[edit on 27-3-2009 by gottago]

posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 03:33 PM
reply to post by gottago

STS-80 current discussion here:

STS-63 current discussion here:

posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 06:15 PM

Originally posted by gottago
This time I get to choose the point to argue, not the debunkers, who attack the weakest link.

Nope. You're making the extraordinary claim. Your evidence -- ALL of it -- has to stand up to cross-examination.

If the evidence is so good, why is there ANY weakest link?

And if you can't tell the different levels of credibility of an unknown, unverified alleged 'broadcast', from, say, fully verifiable and checkable factual assertions about somebody's professional experience, than that leaves you adrift in a sea of sound and fury, unable to judge ;likely' from 'unlikely'.

Let's practice. STS-29 'transmission'. No evidence it is real. None. All indications it is faked. If we can't reach a consensus on the 'weakest links', it's a waste of time to debate the more complicated ones.

posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 06:41 PM
Why has this entire thread not gone to a higher level of thinking...????'s like watching little Cats and Puppies chasing their tails for hours on end...Mind Boggling to say the least...

The evidence that "Intelligent Life" exists outside of our cutsey little sphere (and I must add, "Far More Intelligent" than us "Moronic Humans" who like nothing more than to argue and disagree with one another over "Trivial Matters") befuddles the the very "current" concept of "Logic"...

How is it that well over many, many Thousands of Years of "Recorded" sightings (ie. Glyphs, Cave Paintings, DVD Cams etc...)...that we are even arguing the actual existence of these beings and talking about "Water Droplets" for gods sakes...!

Forget about which one specifically is a Hoax...this is all part of Big Bro's Disinformation Campaign...and you are all falling into it...Hook, Line and Sinker...wake up!

We need answers now...not anymore has been confirmed..."WE ARE NOT ALONE"...get over it...move on to more important beginning to Classify these beings and Spacecraft and possibly modes of transportation that are currently outside the "Realm" of our Imaginations at present...


posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 08:00 AM

Originally posted by qbik2008
Why has this entire thread not gone to a higher level of thinking...????...

My modest suggestion is that trying to go to a 'higher level' when the foundation level -- the facts that your speculation is based on -- remains in doubt, is not productive. Theories are beautiful, especially when there's no need for any reality to tie them to. Facts can be messy. That's where the challenge is.

posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 08:51 AM

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by gottago

BTW, the "alien spacecraft" transmission? It was shown to be hoax a long time ago.

So your "source " is a non working link page , that has in WRITING

how NASA LIED about the recording , and after some time decided

to tell the truth, but the transmission was REAL , but the incident

was not .....ARE you kidding me !!!!

Please confirm your facts sir, not all the sheeple take your word as gold

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in