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.

 

New Analysis Video of the STS-75 Tether Incident

page: 87
77
<< 84  85  86    88  89  90 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


like i said,

if your happy with not wanting to see the raw video footage than great !

enjoy your ignorance , it's obvious you like it




posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


like i said,

if your happy with not wanting to see the raw video footage than great !

enjoy your ignorance , it's obvious you like it


And exactly what have YOU actually DONE to obtain that footage?

Enjoying your impotence?



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


please stop quoting the entire post from directly above. the Mods have asked everyone not to do that yet you keep doing it.


where's the dump info you have been proclaiming for the last ten years years Jim ? how long does it take to scan a few documents ?

and do you agree or not that we need the raw video file to conduct a real scientific analysis of this footage ?



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by JScytale
www.youtube.com...

go to 5:30

that is pretty convincingly debunked by a show dedicated to finding evidence of UFOs. in fact im not sure why people keep talking about the STS-75 incident. If you're interested in some truly good evidence from shuttle missions, watch the full episode, a lot of it is very solid.


Begrudgingly I thank you for this link. Until now I had thought this incident was pretty convincing evidence of near earth lifeforms.

When the facts change, only a fool's views don't change, and as you say it's a pretty convincing debunk. I'm feeling rather deflated now. Cheers buddy



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by sharps
 



it's a pretty convincing debunk


i guess you are willing to ignore the fact that video doesn't prove anything but possibilities in relation to the STS75 video and the experiments that were done were completely out of context ?i would suggest that it might help if you read some of the counter arguments to that video in this thread but it looks like you have already made up your mind without even seeing the raw video copy from NASA so thanks for your post



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
Another independent argument that the notched disks are not 'real' but are camera artifacts can be found in pericynthian's post on another site about two years ago here:

www.unexplained-mysteries.com...
I guess that posting a link to your (I suppose it's your account on that forum) instead of Pericynthion's post was just a mistake, that's the exact same text that we can read on Rense.



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by JimOberg
Another independent argument that the notched disks are not 'real' but are camera artifacts can be found in pericynthian's post on another site about two years ago here:

www.unexplained-mysteries.com...
I guess that posting a link to your (I suppose it's your account on that forum) instead of Pericynthion's post was just a mistake, that's the exact same text that we can read on Rense.


oops. my bad.

what's the working link and anybody want to discuss it?



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Another independent argument that the notched disks are not 'real' but are camera artifacts can be found in pericynthian's post on another site about two years ago here:

www.unexplained-mysteries.com...

He argued that the location of the notch(s) along the circle's rims was dependent entirely on the position of the notch in the field of view. If true, this strikes me as overwhelming indication that the notches are the result of camera internal features, not external reality.



Several years back when I used to frequent rense.com [before it got all Free Ernst Zundely] I wrote in a response to an article that attempted to draw a tenuous parallel between the Dropa Stone folklore and the STS-75 footage. The claim was that because the alleged Dropa Stones had a hole in the middle, and broken "notch" on the rim [as seen in one supposedly authentic photo] they were, in fact, representations of the "Alien Spaceships" seen in the NASA footage. Bear in mind that this was back when I thought there might be something to the footage, not having heard the very reasonable explanations of the camera artifacts, and still I thought it was a ridiculous leap of logic to link the Dropa story, which to date cannot be substantiated, to the Space Shuttle footage.

Anyone remember that rense article?



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 06:00 PM
link   
you know what will be fun to look back upon ?

the debunkers in this thread saying we don't need to see NASA's copy of the video !

now that's history making !



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 12:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by JimOberg
Another independent argument that the notched disks are not 'real' but are camera artifacts can be found in pericynthian's post on another site about two years ago here:

www.unexplained-mysteries.com...
I guess that posting a link to your (I suppose it's your account on that forum) instead of Pericynthion's post was just a mistake, that's the exact same text that we can read on Rense.


oops. my bad.

what's the working link and anybody want to discuss it?



Armap and Jim Oberg, you both lost me, what's wrong with posting the unexplained mysteries link instead of the Rense link, since as you said, it's the same thing? The Rense link was posted on the previous page of this thread, here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

The only discussion I have is to completely agree that the notch position being relative to the position of the bokeh in the frame provides further evidence that it's a photographic artifact and not some donut shaped plasma creature nor a giant 2.5 mile diameter donut shaped UFO.

The evidence is already overwhelming that it's bokeh even without considering the notch, but the notch observation adds to the preponderance of the already overwhelming evidence which as I said obviates the need for a higher quality video to determine the bokeh are artifacts of the camera related to relatively close, out of focus objects.



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 03:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
And exactly what have YOU actually DONE to obtain that footage?


sorry; but why shouldn't it be AVAILABLE in the first place?????




posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 04:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by mcrom901

Originally posted by JimOberg
And exactly what have YOU actually DONE to obtain that footage?


sorry; but why shouldn't it be AVAILABLE in the first place?????



You mean like a videotape in every hotel room, like a Gideon Bible?

Or a mass mailing to all registered voters?

What is so hard about making a person who wants something write a letter to ask for it?

Too hard for some people, i guess. They'd rather just whine.



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 07:18 AM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 



What is so hard about making a person who wants something write a letter to ask for it?


well i (we) haven't written any letters to you , only some short replies asking you to do what you said you were gonna do which is post the (supposed) dump info you have been proclaiming throughout this thread.

what else is required by you from us to uphold your word ? or is your word not good here ? why do you insist on dragging this out longer than need be ?

i have already stated in this thread what my intentions are in acquiring NASA's copy of the video and all it takes is some reading on your part to see what i wrote in this thread about that, but it seems you'd rather just whine about nothing and make up little fantasies about me instead.



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 07:39 AM
link   
I imagine that all those videos in past missions, especially older ones, are recorded on tapes, not standard tapes, but specialized tapes and specialised hardware. So, the originals are NOT in an appropiate format.
Of course, could be copied in a digital format, a format most compatible with the original, in order to not lose quality, information, also, not to introduce artifacts. What format? downloadable or streaming? It depends.

But.... who are those to do all this work? Not only the digitalizing work, but ALL the actions required to do this in a controlled manner (which means many people, from many departments to do their part - including all the papers done inside an institution, web masters maintaining and catalog the data etc). They must be from NASA i think (or should give the data to R. Hoagland?). Then, there must be some costs involved an allthose actions and resources...do you want to pay more taxes do do this? Or maybe you will criticise NASA for having and spending too much, and therefore should do all of this supporting the costs, just for pleasing YOU.

And WHY to do this? To satisfy a bunch of amators which stays on forums and are mesmerized for what they don't understand?


I also want to have original data at hand. But i am realist and understand that it is not something very important for NASA to do... But i hope.

So, that's why i said it is an act of cowardice to rely only on original NASA videos, and yelling to NASA "show me the data, or you are a liar"..but during this time, to promote the mistery as cool entertainment, and deny critical thinking and analysis done on what we have.

You Easynow, said that any analysis is useless, and, maybe is just for fun.
If this is your approach, well, ok, thanks for clarifying it, but don't deny what others said.

There is BOKEH from small and close particles, this was argumented as part of analysis, and you showed nothing as part of this analysis that those are NOT bokeh, but now you came here to deny and consider useless the analysis (including LunaCopgnita OP analysis with stabilization and tracks? or maybe this is not on your denying list), more, you shift the burden/create a false problem that "debunkers don't want original NASA videos".
You are very subjective and unfair.





[edit on 12/11/09 by depthoffield]



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 07:52 AM
link   
reply to post by depthoffield
 


read what you just wrote and tell us all who is the one being "unfair"

i have made it clear what my viewpoint on this is a lonnnnnnnnng time ago and it seems you just ignored it and kept right on doing what you wanted to.

blame
yourself , not me




[edit on 12-11-2009 by easynow]



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 07:57 AM
link   
I've located my original notebook on the controversy and noticed that in the DRAFT SCENE LIST for the day of the first re-encounter with the tether, 'ice' was being noted in external camera views prior to the appearance of the tether. Prior to -- as in independent from. Let me get a hold of the final SCENE LIST, and then we can order a DVD of all the relevant scenes -- including those showing dots (of indeterminate origin, perhaps) -- well before the shuttle overtook the higher-orbiting tether.

EDIT: Just got the final SCENE LIST (see post, below) and the dates were garbled in the DRAFT that I had been given, this event was a day before the first tether sighting.

When requesting such scenes from NASA it is always advisable to ask that a time tag -- GMT or MET -- be inserted in a corner of the scene, it helps coordinate the contextual information.

I also have a request in for a copy of the Execute Packages for the relevant flight days, and also a catalog of all mission water dumps.

No problem -- just takes a little waiting time. It's been only ten years since my original essay on the controversy, and suddenly there's a hurry?



[edit on 12-11-2009 by JimOberg]

[edit on 12-11-2009 by JimOberg]



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 09:05 AM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


remember this post ?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

now all of a sudden you have more excuses not to do what you said you were going to do. is this a control thing for you ? do you want to control the investigation and write a book about it and then say here it is fellas now you can verify what i have done ?

why not post the the supposed dump info that you claimed you already have and were going to post so others can use that to further their investigation ? or are you worried that someone might get the results quicker than you or what ?

are you going to be a man of your word and post the dump info like you said you would ? you said in this thread numerous times you have it and told ArMaP and everyone else you were gonna "get to it"

i really want to know , is this game your playing a control issue ?



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by easynow
 


Easy now, "easynow"...
The man said he would do it, it's going to require some work/time to get done and it's only been a couple weeks... Remember that this is a HOBBY and people have lives they have to attend to.


Springer...



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Springer
 


ok ok , i'll back off , no problem

it's a key piece of information (if accurate) that is not online to find and i was getting frustrated because he hasn't gotton to it yet and i need that info to further my investigation of the video. perhaps i will have to go with a different plan then. sorry for the trouble.



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
ok ok , i'll back off , no problem. it's a key piece of information (if accurate) that is not online to find and i was getting frustrated because he hasn't gotton to it yet and i need that info to further my investigation of the video. perhaps i will have to go with a different plan then. sorry for the trouble.


Whew!

Sometimes I do think I have original insights to offer, from my professional experience -- and I try to offer them as quickly as possible. In these cases, though, the documents should be openly accessible -- but fer shoor, NASA doesn't make it easy (about these AND all other topics). PAO inquiries can work, FOIA inquiries if needed, letters to congressers may be a last resort -- and the more specific the better. Whining about it is just -- well, not helpful.

These sorts of inquiries -- and this sort of contextual data -- should have been sought many years ago by all the enthusiasts who now don't seem to have the patience for ME to do the legwork. But if it becomes the accepted norm to obtain this sort of thing, then this entire thread will have served a constructive purpose.

Taking such simple steps might allow such time-wasting wild spacegoose chases as
www.abovetopsecret.com...
to be avoided in the future.

[edit on 12-11-2009 by JimOberg]




top topics



 
77
<< 84  85  86    88  89  90 >>

log in

join