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 montage ( the best bits from NASA)

page: 5
54
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

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.


Time will only tell my friend...it is good at least that you are "Aware" and engaged in actually devoting a part of your mind to this "Awareness of Other Life"...however there are many other things to become aware of Like:

The North American Union
The New World Order
World War III
Global Economic Collapse
Global Climate Catastrophe's related to other massive Planetary Bodies on a Trajectory towards Earth...

just a few other things to add to our Awareness...




posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 04:33 PM
link   
Re the 'water droplet' UFO described above, Donald Ratsch has shared this letter that may be germane:


August 16, 1993
Letter SN5-93-42

Dear Mr. Ratsch:

Congresswoman Helen Delich Bentley has requested that NASA respond to your letter of May 3, 1993, regarding the unusual events that you observed during the airing of ‘Today in space’ on January 29, 1992.

A team of scientists in the flight Science Branch reviewed your video tape of the show ‘Today in space’. They found your description of the events to be accurate, but do not agree with your interpretation that the events represent UFOs.

The scenes in question were identified as coming from the STS-37 mission when the Orbiter was approaching the west coast of South America. The original source of the imagery was determined to be an astronaut-acquired 16 mm Arriflex motion picture film. The object in question was analyzed and was determined to be a water drop on the window. After the analysis was complete, we spoke with the STS-37 crew. The crew said that they remembered the droplet hitting the window, and added that the source of the drop was from liquid which one of the crew members was drinking.



2. The object is a water drop on the inner pane of one of the overhead windows on the Orbiter flight deck.

3. The object grows larger because the camera position is moved.

4. The change in shape of the object may be an optical illusion, due to the water droplet surfaces magnifying and focusing the Earth’s limb and the deep space background. However, droplets attached to a surface, through surface tension, can change shape as a function of air flow in the crew cabin and/or accelerations of the Orbiter.

5. The object appears to move because the camera was moved by the astronauts.

6. The object does not cast a shadow on the Earth. The dark region below the object is a piece of dirt on the window. In the higher resolution film (enclosed), many similar objects can be seen as well. The apparent motion of the droplet and the dirt on the window are highly synchronized, due to the motion of the camera. Note, there are three panes in the window and it isn’t known on which window surface the dirt is residing.

7. The video was collected on STS-37 using an Arriflex 16 mm motion picture camera (magazine number 140). The source used on ‘Today in Space’ was a film-to-video conversion, which was sampled each sixth frame. STS-37 was launched on April 5, 1991, and landed on April 11, 1991. The exact time and date of the photography are unknown.

Sincerely,

David E. Pitts
Chief, Flight Science Branch
NASA
Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center
Houston, TX 77058

Enclosure – Detailed summary



Methodology

From the screening of the film, the analysts performed an experiment to determine if the anomalous object was inside the flight deck or outside the window. Fortunately multiple pieces of debris were noted on the Orbiter windows which were tracked during the time period of interest. If the object were inside the Orbiter, then any camera motion would make the anomalous object appear to move a greater image distance than an object on the window. If the anomalous object were outside of the Orbiter, then the object on the window would appear to move a greater distance.

Two independent pieces of debris on the window, two points on the limb of the Earth and the anomalous object were tracked. Tracking consisted of taking the spatial position of these points for each frame over the time period of interest (approximately 100 frames). The digitizing was performed on high quality film to video conversion of the film so that the brightness values could be obtained to ensure that the exact same point was taken frame by frame.



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seany
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


Seany, you can directly contact Donald Ratsch, the man who originally taped the words, and published them, and then upon further research, came to the conclusion the words were some prank by a radio operator working the same frequency as the hobby club that had been rebroadcasting the air-to-ground.

Here's his email. It's not secret or anything.
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 18:51:37 -0800
From: sts48@ix.netcom.com (Donald Ratsch)
Subject: Re: NASA WAV file
To: bdzeiler@students.wisc.edu (Brian Zeiler)

Brian, yes I have the full story on that. The details was carried on
the July 1989 issue of the MUFON Journal. Briefly I recorded some of
the radio broadcast via my audio scanner from the space shuttle
Discovery through WA3NAN, the club station of the Goddard Amateur Radio Club at Greenbelt, Md, transmitting on 147.450 MHZ. It is a
retransmission from the NASA Select original. I heard what I thought
was one of the male astronauts saying, "Houston, Discovery, we still
have the alien spacecraft under observance".

Well I was pretty excited and got in touch with Walt Andrus of MUFON and Vince Dipietro (Mars Face Fame) who is employed at Goddard Space Flight Center who I later handed over the tape to have a voice print analysis performed to compare the target voice to the astronauts' voices that were aboard during that mission. The result of the analysis showed that a few
positive hits on Astronaut Bagian (the physician on board) but not enough hits to say he was the one who said the target words. So the results were inconclusive. Later a check showed there was no target voice on the original NASA Select audio.

About a year after that, I was again monitoring the audio from another NASA mission via my scanner and I heard that voice again, saying something similar to the target voice a year earlier. However on this mission, all the astronauts were different compared to the other one. This led me to conclude that unfortunately, the target voice was a hoax probably from an amateur radio operator. Jim Oberg emailed me some time ago and asked me about that case and I told him what I just told you.



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


Having read most of your anti-NASA conspiracy posts - and as I understand you are or were an employee of NASA, I have to ask:

Do you think you have been ever put under mind control?

Also I'd like to know why you think NASA is such a high standard of truth, justice and the American way if a lot of what we see or hear for ourselves seems 'dodgy' at the best of times?

While I'm at it, what does the DoD and NSA have to do with "space travel"? Why are these two (amongst others) so interested in "space" if according to you nothing suspect is happening at NASA?

wZn



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by peacejet
In the video at 5:27, there is the image from sts-115, regarding the unidentified object. It has been said by NASA as a piece of plastic used to hold the tiles on the under belly. And they usually vapourise during early stage of re-entry.


Hi peacejet. Can you provide any links to evidence of this identification by NASA as I can't seem to find anything like that? As far as I was aware the object is still classified as "unidentified". Cheers.

[edit on 28-3-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 07:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Malcram
 

Posted here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

The debris photographed on STS-115 seems to be some sort of clip.




The Image Science and Analysis Group (IS&AG) performs engineering image analysis in support of the Space Shuttle, ISS, Hubble Space Telescope, and other NASA programs. This group evolved into its current incarnation after the investigation of the STS-51L Challenger accident, and its continued existence fulfills one of the lessons learned of the accident investigation. The value of the IS&AG was reaffirmed after the Columbia accident. Investigations conducted by the IS&AG were critical in determining the cause of the accident. The IS&AG again showed it’s importance to human space flight through support to the STS-114 Return to Flight mission, identifying both debris sources and locations of potential damage. The primary areas of expertise within this group include: static 2D and 3D measurements, high-resolution motion tracking, detailed surveys and monitoring of external vehicle conditions, and thorough imagery screening (film, video and electronic).

ares.jsc.nasa.gov...



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 08:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Hi Phage. Thanks for the links. So, cutting to the chase, I gather from the article you posted they actually don't know what the object is. It remains unidentified?

From the article:

"Nothing was found to be missing or damaged from the thermal protection system, the heat shield of the space shuttle Atlantis, or, in fact, any other part of the shuttle Atlantis."

"an unknown object, presumably from Atlantis, was spotted early Tuesday flying just below the shuttle"

"More of the same was spotted today, but the inspection using cameras on the shuttle's robot arm and a 50-foot-long sensor boom showed the heat shield was in good shape"

Engineers speculated Tuesday that the plastic shim might have shaken loose during hydraulic system tests early Tuesday and floated away, becoming the first of the two mystery objects spotted by the crew and flight controllers. Hale said that remains a possibility.

"It's not a guarantee and I don't know that we'll ever be able to positively prove it"

"We probably will never know for sure.""


All highly speculative. Far from case closed. Which means shuttle Program Manager Wayne Hale's statement to reporters regarding the objects is unsubstantiated:

"All those items came from the space shuttle, they didn't come from some other place"

Hmm. Nowhere near case closed. We need considerably more than this statement in the face of the rest of the quotes above.

The article also frequently refers to the objects as "debris" despite the fact that the objects had not been identified, which is a little deceptive.

I would be interested to see a picture of the plastic shim that was held up and which it was suggested could possibly be what was seen outside the shuttle. That might help. I'll try to find an image. It might "look like a clip" to you, but it looks like some kind of 'ship' to others. LOL I couldn't even hazard a guess. Thanks again Phage. If you have any updates please let me know.

[edit on 28-3-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Malcram
 

Since the article is two and a half years old and I haven't seen any final determination of what it was. The photos show that it was quite as weird looking as the long exposure showed.



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Malcram
 

Since the article is two and a half years old and I haven't seen any final determination of what it was. The photos show that it was quite as weird looking as the long exposure showed.


Weird indeed!

So it remains a legitimate U.F.O.

[edit on 28-3-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Malcram
 


If you like. But I consider it unidentified debris.

This thread hopping is making me dizzy.



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 08:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


LOL But that would mean one of us is making a claim which is unsubstantiated. Get your facts straight first Phage, then you can distort them as much as you like


[edit on 28-3-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 08:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Malcram
 

You have a problem with calling it unidentified debris?
You should see my basement!



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 09:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


LOL. The sensible but punctilious part of my reply can be found
here (or perhaps two posts down from where this link takes you)

The silly part is here, where I explain that I linked to my reply simply because I enjoy making you jump from thread to thread





[edit on 28-3-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 10:30 PM
link   
I found a picture of the "shim" that it was claimed might possibly be one of the unidentified objects seen from the shuttle (STS-115).

One thing is for sure, it looks absolutely nothing like the object shown at 5:20 of the video in the OP. And it was never positively confirmed by NASA as accounting for this or any other object seen from the shuttle.

See also STS-115/12A FD 05 Execute Package



posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by watchZEITGEISTnow
reply to post by JimOberg
 


Having read most of your anti-NASA conspiracy posts - and as I understand you are or were an employee of NASA, I have to ask:

Do you think you have been ever put under mind control?


I don't doubt that if they could have, they would have, when I went to Congress in 1997 to complain that the normal high safety standards had decayed, under White House pressure for diplomatic purposes -- and subsequently walked out of my Mission Control job in November 1997. You can see what I subsequently wrote about it being only a matter of time before they killed more astronauts, on my home page www.jamesoberg.com in the safety section. You could also find the NASA press release in early 2000 where I became the only person ever denounced officially for 'nutty' ideas.




Also I'd like to know why you think NASA is such a high standard of truth, justice and the American way if a lot of what we see or hear for ourselves seems 'dodgy' at the best of times?


NASA is run by humans with all of the human failings (also visible around ATS, as well), so controls -- including heretics and whistleblowers -- are crucial for any hope of success. Spaceflight is so difficult that only the highest level of honesty allows us to accomplish it with minimal dangers -- it's the cutting edge of the 'possible'.

That said, what I see as the distractions caused by mass misinterpretation of spaceflight visual stimuli carries the danger of masking genuine stimuli of significant, even critical, importance. As of now, most UFO buffs are part of that problem, not part of the solution, IMHO.

[edit on 29-3-2009 by JimOberg]



posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by QBSneak000
Great find!!


To me some of the unidentified objects look like creatures rather than ships. Kind of like the ones found in the depths of our oceans where we thought nothing could survive.....surprise!! it does. I wonder if there may be creatures not unlike our ocean ones that can survive in the harsh environment of space? and are checking us out like some do to the lights on our research subs.


I agree...some of them do look like weird creatures...but is it that hard to imagine, if these aliens have such advanced technology, why can't their ships be made to morph and move like a living thing? Already here on earth scientists are using nano-technology to make cars that when dented, will undent themselves and retouch chipped paint.
Just some food for thought.



posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram
I found a picture of the "shim" that it was claimed might possibly be one of the unidentified objects seen from the shuttle (STS-115).

One thing is for sure, it looks absolutely nothing like the object shown at 5:20 of the video in the OP. And it was never positively confirmed by NASA as accounting for this or any other object seen from the shuttle.


The 'jellyfish' object on 115,, the one Phage posted images of, was as I recall observed by the crew coming up out of the payload bay. So it was close and small. Not finding out whose coveralls it came off on, from the closeout crew in the OPF before launch, doesn't detract from the pretty overwhelming evidence it was some sort of small clip, with one of six snapshots looking weird because of the 1/4 sec exposure.

Two other observations.

ONE. The first image WAS weird. NASA still released it, and all live and retrospective voice discussions with the crew. So where's the 'coverup'?

TWO. The other five images all showed a tumbling clip, a manmade device so common that everyone reading these lines can either reach out and touch one like it now, or see it across the room. HOWEVER, as far as I've been able to determine, nobody else on the UFO discussions of this sighting -- including the youtube production which started this thread -- showed the additional images. Were they all incompetent investigators, or worse, did some of them know of the other images and keep them off the internet on purpose? So where's the real coverup?



posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 09:37 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


Jim...Greetings...you have worked hard through your very long life...you bring up many Objective and Logically reproduced Rebuttals...based upon "Objectivity" and "Facts"...never forget the power of "Concepts"...as "Imagination" is "Infinite"...and the only way "Science" and "Technology" progresses...is through adding "Concepts" upon "Concepts" of Existing "Facts"....

You are particularly "Focused" in one area...if you "Desire" to "Progress" in your current understanding of yourself and where you sit within this Infinite Universe...you might want to consider relying more on your "Instinctual Gut" so to speak...these are very crude terms...to say the least...unfortunately...

I am in no way trying to "Belittle" your Experiences and Knowledge acquired on this Earth...I am simply a "Fool"...who recognizes a person that is requiring "More"....

"Facts" are constantly "Dynamic"....this has been true throughout Recorded and UnRecorded History...That is an "Absolute Fact"...(more thinking required)

Embrace "Facts" and "Concepts" in "Unity"...and you may begin to find what you are "Truly Seeking"...

I was on the path of "Complete and Utter" "Logical/Factual Observation"...and I found that this began to "Limit" my "Progression"...I hit roadblocks at every corner I turned and indeed found myself "Chasing My Own Tail" on many, many, many, many, many, many...occasions...

Cheers...and all the best in your "Infinite and Eternal Journey"...

Yours truly...the fool...



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by gottago
And the last minute of the compilation, the spoke and wheel formation over Africa...


Where do we start, in order to validate this sequence -- what mission, date, time? Shouldn't that information be readily available if the scene is presented as 'evidence'? Can anybody help?



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

The 'jellyfish' object on 115,, the one Phage posted images of, was as I recall observed by the crew coming up out of the payload bay. So it was close and small. Not finding out whose coveralls it came off on, from the closeout crew in the OPF before launch, doesn't detract from the pretty overwhelming evidence it was some sort of small clip, with one of six snapshots looking weird because of the 1/4 sec exposure.

TWO. The other five images all showed a tumbling clip, a manmade device so common that everyone reading these lines can either reach out and touch one like it now, or see it across the room. HOWEVER, as far as I've been able to determine, nobody else on the UFO discussions of this sighting -- including the youtube production which started this thread -- showed the additional images. Were they all incompetent investigators, or worse, did some of them know of the other images and keep them off the internet on purpose? So where's the real coverup?


Hi Jim. First of all let me say that I have no opinion on what the object in question is. I simply think that all claims of identifying an object need to be proven.

You describe this same object a "jellyfish" and a "clip" which I find interesting (although I notice you used quotemarks for jellyfish). You state that it is a clip, because you think it looks like one. But "jellyfish" is also used. So it is apparently not at all obvious what it looks like. I personally understand how someone might see a resemblance to a clip, but then what is the strange shaped mass on it's 'back'? When I looked into this I found no references to the crew having seen this object rising up out of the payload bay. I don't mean to be rude but your word regarding what you say you recall will not be enough to establish it as a clip, or that it was "close and small". Do you have any other evidence for this? I don't - as yet - see the "overwhelming evidence" that it was a clip that you say exists? What evidence were you referring to?

Also, are those other five images you spoke of in this thread or do you have a link to them? Why did Daniel Burbank take six photographs of a clip that they saw rise up out of the payload bay? And if they saw it rise up from the bay why does it remain 'unidentified' and why is it only "possible debris" according to NASA?

But again, seeing what you think is a clip shape is no more proof that it is a clip that someone seeing what they think is a craft shape is proof that it is a craft.

I have no problem with it being a clip. I'm just not prepared to accept it without proof and there hasn't been any presented so far, at least not that I've seen. Until then, it's unidentified.


[edit on 30-3-2009 by Malcram]



new topics

top topics



 
54
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join