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.

 

The Truth Behind NASA's "UFO" Videos- New Popular Mechanics article

page: 2
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 08:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Acidtastic

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by Elepheagle
Could it be that the PTB (lol) are 'pre-empting' Steve Bassett and the current Disclosure Movement? Perhaps, since Bassett has some astronauts on board.


Oh, really. Aside from Ed Mitchell -- who is unaware of any astronaut ever seeing a UFO in space, or of any astronaut ever being told to withhold or falsify statements about UFOs... who else?
It's funny that in his interviews, he says the exact opposite. But i guess, he's just gorn maaaaaaad with old age or something.



Interesting -- I must be losing it in my old age, then, because that's the way I've recalled hearing him say it for years.

Can you help me by referring me to an interview which you seem to have heard, that I missed, where Mitchell discusses UFOs seen in space by his fellow astronauts, and discussed being officially warned not to discuss the subject -- stuff you claim to have heard him say?




posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by IsaacKoi
The website of "Popular Mechanics" has a new article entitled 'Footage in the Sky: The Truth Behind NASA's "UFO" Videos'.


Phil Plait, author of "Bad Astronomy", has now covered this story on his blog.



OK, can we first screw our heads on straight here? If you’re claiming that astronauts routinely take video of alien spacecraft, and that NASA is desperately trying to cover them up, why in the frak would they release the video?

Hello, McFly? I mean, seriously?



posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by IsaacKoi

Originally posted by IsaacKoi
The website of "Popular Mechanics" has a new article entitled 'Footage in the Sky: The Truth Behind NASA's "UFO" Videos'.


Phil Plait, author of "Bad Astronomy", has now covered this story on his blog.



OK, can we first screw our heads on straight here? If you’re claiming that astronauts routinely take video of alien spacecraft, and that NASA is desperately trying to cover them up, why in the frak would they release the video?

Hello, McFly? I mean, seriously?


First of all Mr. Phil Plait is wrong or just an ignorant man. Astronauts don't take video
with shuttle cameras during a mission, IT IS NASA the one taking live images via the
shuttle cameras controlled from Houston Control Room by the operator in turn. These
are live transmissions and some replays all of them by NASA from Houston.
So NASA is not releasing any video Mr. Phil Plait NASA is transmitting live signals
from space and these transmissions can be recorded by anyone watching NASA TV
channel, please educate yourself Mr. Plait.

Second lesson Mr. Plait. EVENTUALLY astronauts take videotape with their own
videocameras (not the shuttle ones) from inside the shuttle and eventually these
images are replayed by NASA during a mission but this is not the case with the
Popular Mechanics article. During spacewalks astronauts have tv cameras in their
helmets and IT IS NASA the one controlling these images from Houston not the
astronauts. Do you hear me Mr. Amateur Phil Plat?

Back to the subject of the thread.

This thread about Popular Mechanics is all wrong exposed. Actually the Popular
Mechanics article is something like this: Popular Mechanics VS. Martyn Stubbs,
that's it no more no less. Unfortunately Popular Mechanics is discussing a VEEERY
OOOLD subject here with a VEEERY OOOLD videoclips wich have been discussed
to death for many years since those missions, nothing new here and frankly a
very boring -back again to the same old song- wich tells me undoubtely that this
magazine Popular Mechanics has been in a cave for years or is poorly trying to
sale magazines with an extremely used topic wich to me is very dissapointing.

Once again don't get the wrong idea, this is Popular Mechanics VS. Martyn Stubbs
endorsed by those usual NASA supporters and debunkers. We have here the same
old used arguments, same old used terms and attempted explanations etc.
Listen to me Popular Mechanics: Why don't you go back to your usual stuff and let
the NASA UFO cases to the real experts and researchers and one more thing. If
you have some personal dispute with Martyn Stubbs why don't you sue him instead
of trying to discredit him by publishing disinformation about astronauts videotaping
their missions in space with their videocameras and releasing these videos to the
public, what a pathetic lie. This is what this thread is all about.


[edit on 2-6-2009 by free_spirit]



posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 01:44 PM
link   
Free spirit, I'm not ready to fall in line with your conclusions, but your factual discussion shows me that you have been paying close attention to this genre and have it well figured out. Good for you, to the benefit of all ATSers reading this thread.



posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


Here the link to the interview its actually quite fascinating Hes basically discussing his life from joining the air force on and i didn't realize but hes actually pretty funny.Sometimes i think people forget astonauts are people too.And If they knew something as earth shattering as aliens are visiting us i really dont think anything could keep there mouth shut.These individuals have some very strong traits and i think they have no problem going up against authority if needed.

Borman interview



posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 04:20 PM
link   
Video 2 is not an ice particle like NASA claims.

www.nicap.org...

Click on the link, then scroll down to where it says FIRST PROOF THAT THE MAIN OBJECT WAS NOT AN ICE PARTICLE. Interesting read and makes sense to me. Ice particles don't pause and make 90 degree turns.


As for Popular Mechanics...?



posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by IsaacKoi
The website of "Popular Mechanics" has a new article entitled 'Footage in the Sky: The Truth Behind NASA's "UFO" Videos'.


The same article by Erik Sofge has now been republished on the Fox News website.

This will probably result in it spreading further.


[edit on 2-6-2009 by IsaacKoi]



posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 04:49 PM
link   
The last sentence of the Popular Mechanics article on the FOX News web site really bothers me...

"People see unexplained things," Jones says. "I used to believe UFOs were spaceships — when I was 14."

Is OPERATION RIDICULE now in effect using the mainstream media since we're one month away from the Roswell Anniversary?




[edit on 2-6-2009 by ufo reality]



posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by ufo reality
Video 2 is not an ice particle like NASA claims.

www.nicap.org...

Click on the link, then scroll down to where it says FIRST PROOF THAT THE MAIN OBJECT WAS NOT AN ICE PARTICLE. Interesting read and makes sense to me. Ice particles don't pause and make 90 degree turns.


Sure they do, and laughing at the idea only makes you look funny. There are plenty of examples on youtube of particles obviously hit by thruster plumes and altering direction -- during and ONLY during the thruster firing, exactly as with the STS-48 video.

Re Kasher's "Proofs", I'm sorry to say they seem to me to be mathematical mumbo-jumbo to buttress pre-existing conclusions. Here's a brief description of mine from an unpublished report a few years ago.

===

Kasher’s Five Proofs

Kasher’s 1994 paper presented five “proofs” that the video could not be showing small close objects. Each one of the proofs can be shown to be erroneous.

Proof 1: During the approximately one second interval when the object’s horizontal motion is changing from leftwards to rightwards, it stops for a few tenths of a second before resuming the change in motion. It is two or three pixels off from where a smooth curve would have moved it. This, Kasher argues, must be deliberate and cannot be natural.

Refutation: Setting aside Kasher’s presumption that the object was able to deliberately align its stopping in precisely the vertical axis of the Orbiter TV camera’s field of view, the measurements of vertical screen position elsewhere on the chart show a random scatter of several pixels. By placing a properly-sized error bar on each raw reading, a smooth curve would easily pass through the sequence of points with no zero-motion except instantaneously. The ‘stopping’ is an illusion of over-accurate data points.

Sainio: “The data shown are very noisy.... The expected curve for an accelerated ice particle would be a parabolic path. The initial part of a parabola is quite flat, and the data are not shown to be significantly different than the expected parabola.”

Kasher claims he corrected for the camera orientation by solving.... (quote TBS). But Sainio (footnote TBS) wrotes: "Unfounded math is used to come to this conclusion. Two equations in one variable reduces to another equation, not a unique solution.”



Proof 2: The two fast-moving particles must have been traveling directly away from the RCS thruster. Their motion is linear – “If a rocket did the firing, the lines MUST meet” – and Kasher claims they don’t. Kasher’s ‘Appendix J’ asserted that only the left-firing left pod vernier jet (L5L) could possible affect the particle motion – “This is crucial when we examine the trajectories of the objects more carefully.”

Refutation: Kasher misidentified the thruster responsible for the plume puff – it was actually L5D, the down-firing vernier jet, as shown by telemetry records. He was also unaware of the propensity of aft-mounted down-firing thrusters to generate plumes which significantly impinged on Orbiter structure and thus bounced back into the region the particles presumably were drifting.

Proof 3: Any particle in the thruster plume would be accelerated nearly to plume velocity, at least 96%. Kasher’s ‘Appendix B’ (see below) proves this, and since the main object was NOT accelerated to this speed by the thruster firing (which Kasher claims lasted 0.4 seconds, as measured by the duration of the pulse), it could not have been a particle.

Refutation: I’ll deal in detail with Kasher’s ‘Appendix B’ shortly, but in general the velocity induced on drifting particles depends on how far off the plume centerline they are, and how long the thruster fires. Since the low limit for particle acceleration is clearly zero (as seen by several particles in the video), there must be a range of from zero up to full plume velocity, dependent on factors not measured by Kasher.

In an email to Kasher , Sainio made this observation: “Although you don’t state it directly, you appear to base your argument on the correctness of the exhaust-acceleration theory. But this contradicts your conclusion that ‘they were spacecraft out in space away from the shuttle'’ and obviously not accelerated by a mere thruster. This appears to be an inadvertant reductio ad absurdum argument. If it is exhaust-acceleration, your conclusion is wrong. If not, then the arguments leading up to your conclusion are wrong, and your conclusion is unsupported. No conclusion can be inconsistent with the arguments leading up to it.” In other words, Kasher claimed to prove that the motion could not be caused by thruster exhaust, but the proof required assuming that it WAS caused by thruster exhaust.

Proof 4: The main object remained at rest for about half a second during the period of the main flash (following a shorter pre-flash earlier), and then accelerated sharply. “Presumably this was the time the rocket exhaust was moving through vacuum up to the ‘ice particle’”. If it were ice, it would have been a lot closer to the thruster, so the half second delay is too long for the fast-moving exhaust, and it must have been much farther away.

Refutation: This argument is based on Kasher’s misunderstanding of the nature of the flash, which he assumed was the entire thruster firing. Actually, the flashes were brief interludes within the full thruster firing of about 1.2 seconds when throat-clearing or brief propellant ratio mismatch led to a visible flow in the normally invisible plume.

Sainio agrees: “Presumptions are dangerous to proofs. As the flash is known not to correspond to the thruster firing, this proof fails.”

Proof 5: Since any particle hit by a thruster exhaust would have to reach a speed of 8300 ft/sec, it would be too far away at the end of the thruster firing to be visible.

Refutation: This depends on ‘Appendix B’, where Kasher attempts to prove that a particle entrained in a thruster plume will be accelerated to nearly the full plume velocity. He uses mathematics to show that this is exactly what happened with the main object in the video. As is usual with mathematical fallacies, the error is not in the algebra but in the assumptions.

Sainio: “The 1.7 second acceleration time is flatly contradicted by the raw data it is based on.... [It] is not shown to be anything more than an artifact of the heavy smoothing used in the curve-fit, and is not shown to be a better fit than a simple 1-second linear acceleration due to a 1-second vernier firing which occurred at the time of the event. Practically any curve-fit of a sloped line connected to a flat line will ‘round out’ the end of the slope and make the slope resemble an exponential curve.”



posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 05:00 PM
link   
The object in the STS-48 video is miles away from the shuttle. It's not an ice particle Oberg. But if you think it is, that's fine. I respect that.

*To those who would like to email FOX News regarding the Popular Mechanics article direct it to: yourcomments@foxnews.com



posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 05:13 PM
link   
FOX News also has this article on their site along with the NASA Popular Mechanics article: www.foxnews.com...

"Britain's top UFO expert says there's no smoking gun that proves UFOs exist, but he's seen enough evidence to convert him from skeptic to believer."



posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by AlexDJ
My God...i cant stop laughing !



This is sad. Somebody makes a serious attempt to clarify a significant cultural mystery, and all you can resort to is mindless mockery. Free yourself! Listen to the people around you -- maybe they have something to contribute to your own wisdom and beliefs.

Open your mind.


You call that serious attempt??...i mean after the quote of the astronaut? saying that he thinks that the things he recorded maybe are satellites or stars or space debris or ice crystals?? I mean i supouse that the astronauts who are traine daily for their missions and do walks on space and are debrief and have courses on space cant recognize a satellite from a star??? is this a Bad Joke, are they sending monkeys?????? what kind of people are sending to space..thats my question, if they cant recognize what is a star looks in space and what a satellite looks then i think we are real screw up! How the hell they choose this kind of people???

I am still laughing..and by the way...that is a very poor job trying to describe something about ufo's without any idea of what they are saying! all the premise of they are not ufos goes downt the tubes with that simple thing of (maybe they are satellites..maybe they are stars thing)...

I wonder how Nasa reclut astronauts..i guess the ones that are dumber are the ones to go..no question ask..and they would not know what the heck they are seeing in space!! the intellegent ones stays grounds because they would know what a star is and what a satellite looks in space! and they would deflinity will see that some of that things they are seeing are not stars or satellite or space debris or ice crystals because the way they behave in space...



posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by AlexDJ
 


Wow you do realize what we see in they videos look exactly the same to the astronaut looking out a window..They cant just open the hatch run over there see what it is then pop back into the shuttle. Of course astronauts are not going to be able to immediately identify everything they see! As i posted earlier about John Glenn seeing what he called fire flies. He had no clue what they were untill the video was examined and the determined it was ice crystals.

Here a funny story you guys might enjoy and proves just how much something can look like a star!




Taking advantage of some free time, Schirra and Stafford photographed their ejected, frozen urine, which glinted in the sunlight. "We logged each shot with a label -- urine drops at sunrise, urine drops at sunset, etc. When the photos were processed at the cape, they were beautiful, and I ordered a set of prints," said Schirra, who passed away in 2007. After the flight, a NASA astronomer noticed the photos during the astronauts' astronomy debriefing, which had become mixed with other celestial photos taken during the mission. "Wally, what constellation is this?", asked Dr. Jocelyn Gill of Schirra's firefly photos. "Jocelyn," he replied, "that's the constellation Urion."



posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 09:31 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 




"Right after we got into orbit we were supposed to 'station keep' or fly formation with the booster," Borman says. "We were flying formation and taking photographs and infrared measurements and I started calling it a 'bogey,' which is an old fighter pilot term. Well, a lot of the UFO freaks on the ground picked this up and said we had seen a UFO because we had referred to our booster as a bogey.

Regarding the explanation of the "bogey" term used here, can you point out to "UFO freaks" any uses of that word other than those (in context please) in the following sources?
bogey defintion #1
bogey definition #2
bogey definition #3

Maybe the "freaks" understood something about brevity code, not realizing that Borman (military trained) might decide to make up his own codes during official transmissions, "all of a sudden like".



posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by 1SawSomeThings
Regarding the explanation of the "bogey" term used here, can you point out to "UFO freaks" any uses of that word other than those (in context please) in the following sources? Maybe the "freaks" understood something about brevity code, not realizing that Borman (military trained) might decide to make up his own codes during official transmissions, "all of a sudden like".


Sounds to me like an excellent question to ask Borman. Asking such probing questions, of all parties to the controversy, is a good habit to get into. Now's as good a time as any to start.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 09:13 AM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


Did Kasher ever reply to this at all?



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by ufo reality
The object in the STS-48 video is miles away from the shuttle. It's not an ice particle Oberg. But if you think it is, that's fine. I respect that.


So sorry, but I don't respect the work of people who jump to conclusions without any intervening reasoning or investigation. Just looking at the image tells us nothing trustworthy about the range.

However, illumination changes can give hints.

First, when sunrise occurs in this scene, the shuttle gets illuminated (seen by a slight light smudge in the upper left corner of the FOV) and the nearby particles appear. Since both the particles and the shuttle get illuminated simo, a reasonable conclusion is they are nearby each other.

Second, the shuttle is casting a shadow 'down sun', towards the receding horizon -- it tapers and ends a few hundred feet away -- do the math. You can't see it because there's no 'stuff' to illuminate in it. But it has to be there based on the geometry of the scene, the position of the shuttle, and the pointing angle of the camera.

Particles closer to the shuttle, as they drift out into sunlight, suddenly 'appear' (you couldn't see them before because it was dark). This effect is seen on many shuttle videos, particularly water dumps. A dot that 'appears' in mid screen therefore can be explained by another nearby particle drifting into sunlight.

Since the scene was originally set up to view lightning phenomena off at Earth's horizon, the camera is pointing in that direction. Anything that 'appears' is quite by coincidence going to be in that direction (the direction the shadow is extending), near the horizon.

Of course, if the illumination conditions are not specified -- if the video is shown without identifying the date and time -- you can't determine these conditions. To me that explains why this datum is generally withheld by the posters of the 'space UFO videos'. They want to leave viewers in the dark about the illumination context of the scenes -- couldn't have any prosaic explanation being thought of, oh no sirree.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by believer81
reply to post by JimOberg
 


Did Kasher ever reply to this at all?


He "stands by his work" but has never offered a refutation.

However, why not ask him again and invite him here?



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 10:41 AM
link   
Illuminati lies from the highest sources.
Lying since they said Hitler died.

Yup the day the American Pie died.
Hitler and his buds pooed on it as Truman let the Nazis in.

Secrets known to a minimum of 160 Tesla Free Energy scientists
and saucer pilots from Operation Paperclip, you think
NASA or Popular Mechanics would ever know these secrets.
They are guarded more than the atomic bomb.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by dragonridr
reply to post by AlexDJ
 


Wow you do realize what we see in they videos look exactly the same to the astronaut looking out a window..They cant just open the hatch run over there see what it is then pop back into the shuttle. Of course astronauts are not going to be able to immediately identify everything they see! As i posted earlier about John Glenn seeing what he called fire flies. He had no clue what they were untill the video was examined and the determined it was ice crystals.

Here a funny story you guys might enjoy and proves just how much something can look like a star!




Taking advantage of some free time, Schirra and Stafford photographed their ejected, frozen urine, which glinted in the sunlight. "We logged each shot with a label -- urine drops at sunrise, urine drops at sunset, etc. When the photos were processed at the cape, they were beautiful, and I ordered a set of prints," said Schirra, who passed away in 2007. After the flight, a NASA astronomer noticed the photos during the astronauts' astronomy debriefing, which had become mixed with other celestial photos taken during the mission. "Wally, what constellation is this?", asked Dr. Jocelyn Gill of Schirra's firefly photos. "Jocelyn," he replied, "that's the constellation Urion."


Now the premise here is they already know what a urine looks like in space and they knew ths shuttle was gething their body fluids out to space at an exact hour or a comand type of thing, in the popular mechanics the interview clearly says the astronaut he didnt know exactly if they were stars..or satellites, so my question is, if you are astronaut you at least should know what a star looks in space and what a satellite looks isnt??? I am an amateur astronomer and i know exactly whata satellite looks like in the sky and what a star looks like! How in the hell an astronaut who have all the presure in his shoulders that he knows a mistake in space is a real big problem cant just know what a star and what a satellite is..a simply task that should be recognize by any astronaut these days...and they dont know!!!!! i mean YOU ARE AN ASTRONAUT! you are not a common man in the ground looking a star and looking a satellite..you are an ASTRONAUT, thats your job! and just by that quote that he doesnt know clearly in my eyes says that 1 - they exactly dont know and make an excuse that is a star or a satellite (meaning how poor an astronaut can be in seeing things in space..) or 2 - they know and they prefer the star or the satellite explanation, whatever it feels more confy for the reader!

I am not saying everything up there is an alien or a ufo !! but lots of videos of nasa show strange behavior of this "things" that doesnt enter the "star explanation" or the "satellite explanation" or the "ice crystals explanation" or the "Urine explanation".....


Sorry but i am still laughing just knowing that astronauts cant distinguis a star from a satellite!

It's like you are shark expert and you dont know the difference between a tiger shark and a white shark!! that for me would be a shame.... same thing applies here.



[edit on 3-6-2009 by AlexDJ]



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join