Originally posted by secretnasaman
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not
All you do is present a solution in search of a problem. You are a skeptic...& you say you are on side with the ice theory..(which one is that??)...You dissed the "tether" as a near field event on another thread...
My problem with all this 'paper work' proof being done... as to why this ice theory is so...all the drawings...all the talk, is...that's all it is, talk.... as none of you actually DO the so called scientific duplication you blab on about.
These solutions to superficially puzzling space images are based on traditional research techniques such as interviewing witnesses -- and reporting their comments accurately -- and understanding the operational context and illumination conditions, as well as the operating characteristics of the equipment (and not fantasizing about secret UV cameras and such).
Try it some time.
Spaceflight operations folks are on constant lookout for unusual visual phenomena both for scientific reasons and for what could be learned about spacecraft functions (and malfunctions). They very easily filter out the 'ordinary' blips and dots and camera artifacts, unlike others on these threads.
It's important -- it can be critical to crew survival -- to recognize the truly unusual outside. The Columbia disaster is a good example of a potential visual cue that was missed, or erroneously ignored.
Standing in the WAY of adequate 'noise suppression' (such as by refusing to provide context or even time/date of posted videos) makes some people hereabouts part of the problem, not part of the solution.
