New Analysis Video of the STS-75 Tether Incident

Originally posted by mcrom901

whats your take on this?

bonus items: visible stars + ufo

I think that "Orion" is really cities lit up at at night ,and the shuttle has just crossed the "terminator", so that is the sun creeping into the top of the picture there.

The point is moot since everything that's sunlit is hideously over-exposed anyway.

Originally posted by JimOberg
(sorry -- 4 syllables -- OK?)

ok

ice

debris

yawn

Originally posted by C.H.U.D.

Originally posted by mcrom901

whats your take on this?

bonus items: visible stars + ufo

I think that "Orion" is really cities lit up at at night ,and the shuttle has just crossed the "terminator", so that is the sun creeping into the top of the picture there.

The point is moot since everything that's sunlit is hideously over-exposed anyway.

You did have volume turned up so you could hear the astronaut refer to the moon, right?

Originally posted by mcrom901

Originally posted by JimOberg
(sorry -- 4 syllables -- OK?)

ok

ice

debris

yawn

The topic is a serious one -- since proper notice, recognition, and reaction to exterior 'stuff' can be a matter of life and death for the astronauts, as explained here:

www.msnbc.msn.com...

Originally posted by mcrom901
debris

October 07, 2009 -- As a super bright UFO is seen NASA tries to lose it & pans in. No NASA explanation of anything, so why download it? From Martyn Stubbs. NASA UFO Archives.

An explanation would require the poster to provide the date/time of the video so the shuttle operations context can be determined. Martyn deliberately withholds that datum to sabotage any serious investigation [as he did with the STS-75 video under discussion here -- then provided false information]. It's an old trick, why do some saps keep falling for it again and again and again....?

Originally posted by JimOberg
You did have volume turned up so you could hear the astronaut refer to the moon, right?

No, unfortunately!

Thanks for pointing that out Jim.

Just goes to show how easy it is to misidentify things, and get the wrong impression when reality is distorted by a camera and your environment.

reply to post by JimOberg


science.msfc.nasa.gov...

any further developments? insights? progress report? anything?

reply to post by mcrom901


science.msfc.nasa.gov...

that ^^^^ is NASA disinfo and you won't be getting anything but that from them. everything in that article can be refuted no problem but the boogyman will just keep on defending the lies. i think so yes

great posts mcrom901 thanks , where you been for the last 100 pages ?

Originally posted by C.H.U.D.

Originally posted by JimOberg
You did have volume turned up so you could hear the astronaut refer to the moon, right?

No, unfortunately!

Thanks for pointing that out Jim.

Just goes to show how easy it is to misidentify things, and get the wrong impression when reality is distorted by a camera and your environment.

Space images really ARE 'unearthly'. Using all of our millions of years of earthside eye-brain training, we can quickly get misled, and these topics are a testimonial to THAT.

Originally posted by mcrom901
reply to post by JimOberg

 

science.msfc.nasa.gov...

any further developments? insights? progress report? anything?

Ask Sturrock -- NASA's news service was just auto-hosting a press release stream.





[edit on 3-12-2009 by JimOberg]

Originally posted by JimOberg
false information]. It's an old trick, why do some saps keep falling for it again and again and again....?

there is a nice saying..... 'you don't see the world as it is; but how you are'.... i.e. self projected perceptions.....

Originally posted by easynow
science.msfc.nasa.gov...

that ^^^^ is NASA disinfo and you won't be getting anything but that from them. everything in that article can be refuted no problem but the boogyman will just keep on defending the lies. i think so yes

Easynow, by what earthly or alien logic do you consider a Peter Sturrock press release to be 'NASA disinfo'? Would you even recognize 'disinformation' if you saw it, or is it just a mindless verbal reaction to anything you don't like to read? I'm seriously asking why you think comments such as yours deserve any attention at all?

Originally posted by mcrom901

Originally posted by JimOberg
false information]. It's an old trick, why do some saps keep falling for it again and again and again....?

there is a nice saying..... 'you don't see the world as it is; but how you are'.... i.e. self projected perceptions.....

That's too easy an excuse. You should try to recognize your instinctive perceptual and reasoning patterns, and apply intellect rather than instinct to work around them.

But you're right that one of the biggest problems to getting useful eyewitness reports is how what people EXPECT to see filters their perceptions and edits their memories. Most of the time we are conjuring up visual details from our memories, cued only by a small handful of visual clues. It's why airplane pilots, for example, are such poor observers of unfamiliar aerial phenomena.

[edit on 3-12-2009 by JimOberg]

Originally posted by JimOberg
Ask Sturrock -- NASA's news service was just auto-hosting a press release stream.

all those press releases sound like broken records.....

www.freedomofinfo.org...

Originally posted by JimOberg
That's too easy an excuse. You should try to recognize your instinctive perceptual and reasoning patterns, and apply intellect rather than instinct to work around them.

it goes much deeper than that.......

reply to post by JimOberg

I'm seriously asking why you think comments such as yours deserve any attention at all?

they deserve attention because i said it

your circle of confusion debunker tricks are obvious to everyone and you either live in a world of your own ignorance or are lying , which is it ?




[edit on 3-12-2009 by easynow]

Originally posted by easynow
your circle of confusion debunker tricks are obvious to everyone and you either live in a world of ignorance or are lying , which is it ?

Seems to me that posting a video without providing any means (such as date/time) for verifying it, determining the illumination conditions, or checking up on the operational context, and also deleting the sound track of what the astronauts and Mission Control are saying, and omitting what they have said later when asked about the video, won't score many points in the 'honesty' competition.

Do you even know if the video was made in daylight or night? Do you care? Tell the audience, please. Display your honesty.

Originally posted by JimOberg
Easynow, by what earthly or alien logic do you consider a Peter Sturrock press release to be 'NASA disinfo'?

maybe because of this......

The study was initiated by Laurance S. Rockefeller and supported financially by the LSR Fund.

furthermore......

www.x-ppac.org...

loooool.......

Originally posted by mcrom901

Originally posted by JimOberg
Easynow, by what earthly or alien logic do you consider a Peter Sturrock press release to be 'NASA disinfo'?

maybe because of this......

The study was initiated by Laurance S. Rockefeller and supported financially by the LSR Fund.

furthermore......

www.x-ppac.org...

loooool.......

So the proof that the Sturrock report is "NASA disinformation" is that -- now, see if I'm getting this straight -- a private letter to the White House used the letters "N", "A", "S", and again "A", fiendishly disguised by other letters surrounding them.

[edit on 3-12-2009 by JimOberg]

Originally posted by JimOberg
Seems to me that posting a video without providing any means (such as date/time) for verifying it, determining the illumination conditions, or checking up on the operational context, and also deleting the sound track of what the astronauts and Mission Control are saying, and omitting what they have said later when asked about the video, won't score many points in the 'honesty' competition.

"Man is just a memory. You understand things around you by the help of the knowledge that was put in you. You perhaps need the artist to explain his modern art, but you don't need anybody's help to understand a flower. You can deal with anything, you can do anything if you do not waste your energy trying to achieve imaginary goals" - UG