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 !

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?????

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.

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]

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]