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.

 

What Is NASA Hiding? - Secret Space, UFOs and NASA

page: 2
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 11:18 AM
link   
NASA is such a joke. They've been exploring space since the onset of the 60s and the most we get from them is garbage like "asteroid debris contains the potential for the possibility of single-celled life." WOW, wish I'd sat down for that news. In reality, NASA is probably sitting on information we can only dream of, while feeding us "look at this turd from a bacteria that may be extraterrestrial but we're not quite sure."




posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Sunspots
 

Sunspots, NASA are taking the piss! With other peoples money too. They also want to lock up or discredit as delusional people who expose them. Well I won't be falling for it.

When I was an undergraduate at the University of Manchester in the UK, we used to discuss and write stuff about possible forms of life other than DNA based, how life that may exist in liquid ammonia not water (neptune/uranus), how DNA may be able to replicate in space in certain conditions, how Mars probably has liquid water under the surface where extremophiles can live and lots more. Stuff like the Drake Equation (you can have a play on that site) don't even take into account all of these possibilities for life. NASA scientists are only just starting to publish some of the stuff we worked out as UNDERGRADUATE students back in the early 90's? With all their expertise they're only just realising what we knew as youngsters?

You're right, they are a joke. An extremely expensive one.



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Sunspots
 
I am sad to hear the Jim Oberg put down of Jeff Challenders work... creating his "Project Prove"... & presenting totally good analysis of the efforts NASA went to, in order to hide the UFOs. They were 'on to' this new Ufology search of NASA down links, that Martyn Stubbs had previously started (& discovered UFO events like 'the tether UFO Incident' on the STS-75.)

Jeff demonstrated time & time again the methods NASA has used to block video down links...like weird red smearing...use of the S band (still shots) as soon as any UFO appeared & the extra noise introduced to the very small amount of night shots. And yet he found UFOs even on those!!!
Because of his disability, he spent a lot his time on the computer. Jeff was such a brilliant man... (his computer was 'home made' & upgraded constantly as 'project prove' was constantly under Computer attack. He had files stolen, his system always going down & his 'personal' info being messed with. Yet he never quit on his evidence or Project Prove. He was not a crazy NASA conspiracy guy as Jim Oberg implies.. He loved Space & NASA & his Project Prove analysis was always 100% accurate, respectful & well presented.

I know as I was an original member of Project Prove.



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
I watched Jeff's video about six years ago, too. Considering the burdens of his daily life, i cut him a light year of slack in finding a hobby that energized him and gave him focus. To do so, he conjured up a fantasy world of NASA agents and other government liars who were plotting against him personally, trying tricks that he always was clever enough to triumphantly [correct typo] figure out. As I said, from his position, I could not criticize him for how he reconciled his own realities.

But anybody else in the real world who never shared Jeff's physical and spiritual burdens, who gets sucked into those delerious fantasies while fully healthy both physically and mentally, they need a sharp rap or two on a painful place to wake them up to face reality. No excuses for them.


edit on 18-12-2010 by JimOberg because: typo


I "met" Jeff over the internet back in 2007 when you and I were butting heads, very softly!, and while he may have had his personal demons which he never brought to my attention, we did enjoy a very friendly relationship on the web and on the phone. I contributed a couple of things to his website PROJECT P.R.O.V.E. and one of them he forwarded to Filer's Files.

The stuff he recorded off NASA's transmissions is the same ol' stuff that you've been fighting an uphill battle against: SUFOs. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to admit that certain anomalous objects are regularly video'ed that make shuttle astronauts go silent for moments at a time or "pregnant pauses".

Jeff also videotaped zig-zagging UFOs from his home and he distributed copies of the DVD to friends, and I have a copy of his DVD. In the video I heard a familiar metallic sound and when I asked Jeff, a smoker, if he owned a ZIPPO cigarette lighter he couldn't believe I had identified the metallic sound. He was a fun guy, sometimes. And I spoke with his widow on the phone when she called me after finding my name in Jeff's notes and I felt bad I hadn't been able to visit him even if he was bedridden. He showed me photos of his equipment laden bedroom.



QUOTE(JimOberg @ Sep 3 2007, 01:29 PM)
Hi, Ed. How's the weather in New York City this summer? Gotta keep
those brains co-o-o-o-ol so we can resume our debates. I was in the city
for a few days early in July after my last trip to Russia, to attend the
Bigelow launch at the Russian ICBM base in Siberia (pix on my home page
www.jamesoberg.com).



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pimander

Originally posted by zorgon
But you and I know you have some 'good stuff' tucked away... would be nice if you made some threads about that. Though I suppose that might damage your reputation as NASA 'spokesperson' a little

Exactly right Zorgon. If I get involved in any research for a new documentary on this topic, I think an official invite to Jim to explain NASA budget levels when they're still using 1970's technology. He might also like to help the public understand why they are expected to pay for all this but not be told the truth about what goes on.


How about researching the truth about the quality of optical equipment sent to the moon which resulted in low-resolution videos when they had high-resolution color video cameras ready to be used? We got cheated and very few became aware of it. I just attempted a search for the article(s) which was full of information as far as manufacturer(s), model numbers, etc., and the reasons for the switching of superior equipment for inferior. NASA back room politics.



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by buzzEmiller
[snip] Jeff demonstrated time & time again the methods NASA has used to block video down links...like ....[snip] ...use of the S band (still shots) as soon as any UFO appeared & the extra noise introduced to the very small amount of night shots. And yet he found UFOs even on those!!!



So you fell for the Ku-band deliberate outage conspiracy theory too? Where did you say you learned about standard NASA space video transmission procedures?

Here's a note I sent Jeff about that and related misunderstandings of his:


From: "james oberg"
To:
Date: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 9:48 AM

I've been talking to two old friends of mine who worked console the last mission.

Some interesting new stuff, aside from the amusement they feel when they see how stuff they observe all the time as normal shuttle-associated debris gets foisted on the naive public as something unusual. The debris during door opening on 109 was noticed and logged, and my friend who was on duty at that time pointed out that the TV was sent down via the FM link to Merritt Island rather than through TDRSS, he says that engineers are very eager to get the best views possible of door openings because of the potential of mechanical snags, but the shuttle's Ku-band antenna doesn't get deployed until after both doors are open. This mission we saw views with the right door open and the left door shut, and these were sent down live over the FM system (this is the hi-data rate link that carries engine data during ascent, and can carry TV or playback data during the mission, but is so fast that only the sites near Cape Canaveral and Goldstone and the DoD site in the Indian Ocean can handle it).

He mentioned that the transition to the new improved cameras in the payload bay was complete, and the old B&W models have been retired. They were thought to be a lot more light sensitive than the new ones (it turns out he says they are surprisingly good at low light level, too), which are optimized for daylight operation, and he recalled that they did a lot fewer of the nighttime lightning surveys than they used to, for a number of reasons. First, the principal investigator at NASA-Marshall, Skeet Vaughan, is now retired (his email is skeetv@knology.net, anybody can ask him about his views on these visual phenomena, he's watched hundreds of hours of this stuff and is a REAL expert). Second, the criticality of functioning cameras to station assembly operations has gotten so high that they have been encouraged not to use external cameras until after the station assembly operations for a mission are completed (so as not to risk them breaking), then they can 'sightsee' to their heart's content (the console position that runs all shuttle communications is the INCO, or Instrumentation and Communication Officer -- their mail code at JSC is 'DF' -- and they can remotely select cameras, and control the pan-tilt manually from their console).

He recalled that they seemed to have a lot of main engine ice coming off on 109, more than usual, and whenever they fired thrusters to move the shuttle, more stuff would break off and drift past the tail. After the SSME's shut down about nine minutes out, there is a propellant line purge that dumps several thousand pounds of liquid oxygen and hydrogen through the lines, while the ET is also being jettisoned -- and a lot of ice clings to the inside of the engine bells and comes off in later days, depending on the orientation ('attitude') of the shuttle relative to the sun (the 'beta angle' of how far to the left/right of track the sun actually is).

He also told me how being docked to the station constrains high-speed Ku-band comm, because the antenna (mounted on the forward right sill of the shuttle payload bay) has to track to follow the TDRS satellites in their 24-hour orbits, and for safety reasons they cannot transmit when there is 'blockage', when the station structure is in or near the antenna-satellite line. Recall from NASA TV images that the shuttle is usually docked below the station in its orbital orientation, and the TDRSS satellites are 22,000 miles or so above them. This is especially true during EVAs since the Ku-Band's signal power is high enough to be potentially injurious to humans. So they use a system invented several years ago called 'sequential still video', in which an image is 'snapped' and then transmitted via the omnidirectional S-band system (which has antennas located all around the skin of the shuttle) -- but the rate is so much lower, it takes 6-10 seconds per image (us dial-up modem users recognize this bandwidth issue, fer shoor). The same Ku-Band antenna is used for radar ranging during rendezvous (and during separation and flyaround), so the fast-action TV views are only possible when they switch back to COMM mode from time to time.

He and his associates remain baffled that anyone could mistake the kind of ordinary space junk they see in their cameras all the time, for something alien or unexplainable. He figures it's a combination of folks simply not understanding what really goes on in space, and the activities of some unscrupulous or looney promoters who have found a target audience susceptible to such silliness.



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 08:59 PM
link   
For the record, here's the development of the level of checks that spaceflight workers were willing to make to figure out some of the knottier anomalies Jeff championed [this. on STS-112]. This level of effort soon ceased when Jeff showed his determination to remain defiantly resistant to any prosaic explanbations.


From: JimO (jameseoberg@houston.rr.com)
Subject: How find archive -- STS-112 'UFO' video discussion
Date: 2004-07-01 12:55:23 PST

A couple of years ago there was a very productive discussion here about allegations from Dr. Oren Swearingen that some video from STS-112 showed a UFO. I've forgotten how to locate the archives of sci.space.shuttle and retrieve those messages. Please advise me...

Message 2 in thread
From: Jason A. Ciastko (jason1657@comcast.net)
Date: 2004-07-01 13:09:25 PST

Hi Jim, groups.google.com...

Click on search group and type in your keywords. Good luck.

Message 3 in thread
From: Jorge R. Frank (jrfrank@ibm-pc.borg)
Date: 2004-07-01 21:53:08 PST

The SSRMS was the initial theory, but it was actually determined
to be the shadow of an ISS solar array moving across a radiator on the payload bay door.

There were three threads on the subject; here are links to the articles that started them:

1.
www.google.com...

2.
www.google.com...

3.
www.google.com...

(Watch word wrap.)

Thread 1.

From: James Oberg (jamesoberg@houston.rr.com)
Subject: New Challender STS UFO 'Disk' -- an elbow?
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle, alt.alien.visitors, sci.skeptic, alt.astronomy
Date: 2003-01-23 15:38:44 PST


JimO Introduction: Jeff Challender is the ‘shuttle UFO’ enthusiast recently
sympathetically profiled in a local newspaper [not found Dec 2010]
(www.sacbee.com...)
who also appeared on the ‘Jeff Rense’ radio talk show [not found Dec 2010]
(www.rense.com...).
His colleague Oren Swearingen’s latest claim to UFO fame was
detecting a ‘UFO fleet’ shadowing the space station at night,
that turned out to be the set of tracking reflectors on one of the station
modules.

This is their latest – and in Challender’s words – best ‘disk’ discovery,
posted on an interesting British UFO site specializing in space cases.

STS-112 – The “Disk” Sequence (posted Jan 19, 2003)
yorkshireufoinfo.homestead.com... [not found Dec 2010]

On 7 October 2002, Shuttle Atlantis lifted off from Cape Canaveral at 2:46PM CDT bound for a rendezvous and docking with the International Space Station. This flight saw the onboard ISS Expedition 5 Crew hand over the station to the fresh Expedition 6 Crew.

Dr. Oren Swearingen, a skillful and dedicated colleague, and good friend of mine, recorded the entire flight from his home. For three months, it appeared that all had been normal during this mission. Neither the Doctor, nor I noticed anything out of the ordinary after perusing all of our videotapes.

All that changed during the second week of January 2003. Dr. Swearingen was taking a second look, when his tape #12 revealed what seemed to be a disk shaped object retreating slowly behind the cradle of Atlantis' robot arm. The Dr. made a copy of the incident, and mailed it to me here in California.

It arrived in my mailbox on 17 January 2003. That evening, I began watching this tape and, at first, saw nothing unusual. THEN, upon rewinding, I notice motion under the arm cradle. I ran the tape again, and again, to observe the disk-like object. I became more convinced with each re-run that this was not part of Atlantis, the ISS, nor anything normally seen that I could think of. What made the object so easy to miss is the fact that it moves as slowly as the minute hand on a clock. In real time, the event takes a full 95 seconds to unfold. The anomaly disappears so slowly behind the arm cradle, that unless one is paying very careful attention, it would most likely go unnoticed.

This object is no mere "dot" displaying enigmatic behavior. This object has what appears to be structure, including a bump on the upper facing surface resembling a cupola or dome. Shadowing on the object is consistent with shadows on Atlantis, and her robotic arm. Lighting on the anomalous object is in line with the Solar angle. It has none of the appearance of ice particles, or escaped debris. It displays none of the tumbling usually associated with such bits of flotsam either. In point of fact, it is extremely stable throughout the entire time it is visible.

This object made its debut on flight day 4, at approximately MET (Mission Elapsed Time) 003 days 03 hours 41 minutes, Orbit 51. At this time, the Shuttle/Station complex was sailing high over Nova Scotia at circa 5:00 PM (17:00) CDT. The event took place on 10 October 2002.

Never before have I seen an anomaly so close, or so structured in appearance. An added boon for the observer is that this event happened in broad daylight as well. The STS-112 "Disk Sequence" is the best, and most compelling, anomalous NASA event this observer has ever seen. Hats off to Dr. Oren Swearingen of the great state of Texas, for his diligence, and
persistence. Thank you Doctor.

======
JimO resumes narrative.

I don’t see a ‘disk’, I see the elbow of the RMS as it moves back to cradle after providing TV views of the EVA. But then, our perceptions are probably shaped by our experiences.

STS-112 launched at 3:46 PM EDT on October 07, 2002. Challender says that
Swearingen’s event was at MET 3d 03h 41m, orbit 51, at about 5 PM CDT (6 PM
EDT). If you add the MET to the launch time you get 7:27 PM EDT.

After the docking the previous day, the activities on October 10 started
with grappling a truss section using the station arm, and docking it in
place at 9:36 AM EDT. The crew began their EVA at 11:21 AM EDT, more than an
hour late, and it took them 7h 01m to complete. They closed their airlock at
6:22 PM EDT.

During the EVA, Jeff Ashby maneuvered the STS RMS to provide ‘overhead’ TV
views of the crew activity. Once the EVA was over Ashby berthed the STS RMS.

I suggest that the video in question shows the STS RMS moving into berthing
position, and that Swearingen and Challender confused which arm was which,
and then used their imaginations to watch an RMS elbow and ‘see’ a ‘disk’.


From: Kim Keller (kekeller@cfl.rr.com)
Date: 2003-01-23 19:26:59 PST

I'd like to agree with you, but the arm is definitely not moving; it is already berthed. The sill of the payload bay and the arm retention latches provide good reference for that. The object, whatever it is, is not a disk. Magnification shows the shape to be a right angle, but I don't know what it could be beyond that. There is a visibly changing sun angle that could possibly have some bearing on the matter. The camera view is looking forward, up the port side of the payload bay. Possibly some piece of the station? SSRMS moving?


From: Joe Bob Hankey (joebobhankey@hotmail.com)
Date: 2003-01-23 20:16:10 PST
Frankly, it doesn't look like a disk at all. If you look closely, the arm (or whatever) is either a circle with nothing in the center (I suppose some might call that a disk), or, more likely, a square-like structure (some sort of arm or door). Also, if you look closely enough, you'll see a glimpse of its shadow underneath, indicating that it appears to be closer to the arm than is another part of the shuttle. Either these are miniature aliens, or it's a piece of the ship.
Personally, I think it is a square door/structure/whatever-piece-of-the-shuttle moving backwards from the vantage point of the camera.


From: James Oberg (jamesoberg@houston.rr.com)
Date: 2003-01-24 07:41:06 PST
Thanks, Kim, I'm still confused by what modules we are seeing and which camera is being used. What's your view on this?

From: Chris Bennetts (jcmbenn@yahoo.com.au)
Date: 2003-01-24 14:07:45 PST
I'm with Kim on this, it looks like the SSRMS.
The big thing in the foreground is the shuttle RMS, with two retention latches visible, and the portside payload bay sill visible in the lower right corner of the shots. It's easy to identify the end of the RMS at left, which means we are looking from the aft end of the payload bay forwards, and a little to the port side.
The camera is either mounted on the aft bulkhead of the payload bay with plenty of zoom in use, or (less likely) on the end of the arm itself. I think some of the cameras on the arm can be aimed by the crew on the flight deck, but I don't think there is a camera on the RMS that close to the end, so I'm more confident that the camera was on the bulkhead.
I consider the first frame in the sequence to be the most useful for identifying the object. It's clearly a white boom (especially looking at the enlargements of the object further down the page), with an abrupt corner at the left end. The more I look at it, the more certain I become that it is the SSRMS elbow joint and nearby boom sections.

From: James Oberg (jamesoberg@houston.rr.com)
Date: 2003-01-24 14:54:09 PST
Chris and Kim, I'm with you on this now -- the perspective has fallen into place. We're not seeing ANY ISS structure in this view, except maybe that ' Now let's hear from the original sponsors.

Methinks we need to find out exactly where the SSRMS was at the time. If the UFO nuts learn the SSRMS wasn't anywhere near the FOV at the time, they'll claim a "victory" they don't deserve.


From: Kim Keller (kekeller@cfl.rr.com)
Date: 2003-01-25 08:23:32 PST

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote > Well, except for the minority opinion that it's
> a shadow moving over part of the shuttle (port payload bay door radiator).

I don't think that payload bay camera has the view angle to image the deployed orbiter radiator. What do you think?

I now doubt the SSRMS would appear there or in that form. I'm leaning toward a moving shadow, but I can't figure out what surface it might be moving along.

From: Jorge R. Frank (jrfrank@ibm-pc.borg)
Date: 2003-01-25 09:45:04 PST

"Kim Keller" wrote > I don't think that payload bay camera has the view angle to image the deployed orbiter radiator. What do you think?

I've seen it enough in the simulators to know it's true, but it should be easy enough to prove geometrically:

Coordinates of
Camera B eyepoint: [1294, -87.5, 446] in
Payload bay sill: [576, -105, 420] to [1307, -105, 420] in
Aft tip of deployed port radiator: [941, -232, 412] in

Since the sill runs at a constant yo = -105 in, that makes the math easy; just find where the line of sight from camera B to the radiator crosses yo = 105. If zo > 420 at that point, the line of sight is above the sill, so the radiator is visible. Otherwise, it's below the sill. Running the numbers, I get [1251, -105, 441]. 441 > 420, so it should be visible.

Also, the pan/tilt angles corresponding to this line-of-sight are [-22,-5], well within the capabilities of the pan-tilt unit.

Of course, these numbers represent a fairly lo-fi model of the orbiter (note to JimO: it's the wireframe model from the old SMARTS simulator), and the visibility would change if the radiator were not fully deployed.

I've got some SMS time Monday morning; if I get a few spare minutes I'll see if I can replicate the camera view from the website (first I gotta find someone who knows how to deploy the radiators and roll out the MPMs... I already know how to operate the cameras...).

> I now doubt the SSRMS would appear there or in that form. I'm leaning toward a moving shadow, but I can't figure out what surface it might be moving along.

Agreed about the SSRMS. The sharp angle at the left end of the object doesn't appear to be changing, so the arm would have to be in pure translation without joint rotation. But the only way that could happen is if the arm was motionless on the MBS, and the MT was translating, and I don't think the arm would be visible that far down if it was on the MBS. If it was on the lab PDGF, it might be visible, but I doubt it could move in the manner shown on the video: since one end is fixed to the lab, you can't translate the other end without joint rotation.

From: Jorge R. Frank (jrfrank@ibm-pc.borg)
Date: 2003-01-27 17:30:07 PST

Following up on my own post...

There wasn't anybody handy at the SMS at the time who knew how to operate the radiators and the arm. I could have called someone over, but didn't want to bother for something like this. Fortunately, at least the MPMs were rolled out, so I pointed camera B in the general direction anyway, just to see what I could see. I was slightly surprised to see the radiator anyway, even though it was stowed against the payload bay door. Moreover, it was in precisely the same position relative to the EVA slidewire as the "UFO".

Running the numbers, I shouldn't have been surprised. The coordinates of the tip of the stowed radiator are [941, -210, 343] in, so the intercept at yo = 105 in was [1243, -105, 431] in. Since 431 > 420, the radiator should be visible from camera B in the stowed position.

A picture's worth a thousand words, but unfortunately, the SMS has no "screen capture" capability. Luckily, I had a class to teach at the SES this afternoon (which uses the same scene generator as the SMS, just no capability to deploy the radiators had I needed to). After the class, I replicated Challender's image as closely as I could. It's not exactly identical, what with manual camera control, the different orbital lighting conditions, and the lack of model-to-model shadowing capability, but it's close enough.

The screen capture (link below) shows camera B zoomed at around 40 degrees, panned left about 25 degrees, and tilted down about 5 degrees. The MPMs are rolled out, the RMS is stowed, and the payload bay doors are fully open with the radiators stowed. Comparing this image to the image on Challender's website, it's clear that the "disk" is actually just a sliver of sunlit radiator as the shadow of ISS moves forward along it. This is consistent with the attitude of the shuttle/ISS stack at the time (mated TEA, with the orbiter belly facing the velocity vector, tail facing the Earth and ISS trailing along the negative velocity vector) and the reported time of the video (orbital afternoon, with the sun therefore near the negative velocity vector, so that ISS would cast shadows on the orbiter).

www.hal-pc.org...
yorkshireufoinfo.homestead.com...

Case closed: the UFO is an "IFR" (Identified Flying Radiator).

From: Kim Keller (kekeller@cfl.rr.com)
Date: 2003-01-27 19:31:35 PST

Bravo, Jorge! Well done!


From: James Oberg (jamesoberg@houston.rr.com)
Date: 2003-01-28 06:08:29 PST

Bravissimo!

This was, I think, a genuinely 'enigmatic' image, and I appreciate the response. Most of these visuals, it's obvious what causes them. Once and awhile, one comes along that is a head-scratcher. But I think it's legit to wonder about such cases. My concern in the mid-1990's was the hazard to ISS of ISS-generated debris, including ice, insulation blankets, wiring harness
flakes, dropped tools, etc., that threatened both recontact (as with Exp-2's experience) damage (windows and solar arrays mainly) and mechanical fouling. I did a lot of far-ranging reading, including UFO files, to see the scope of previous activity, but I couldn't get the issue raised very high (there WERE more serious hazards attracting a lot more effort).

I also recalled a document from 1970 when Apollo engineers studied exactly the same issue, regarding 'sightings' out the window. These were called 'moon pigeons'. The report is linked here: members.aol.com...

From: Blue Resonant Human, Ph.D. (brotherblue93@hotmail.com)
Date: 2003-01-28 17:43:05 PST
[ufo nonsense snipped]

From: Kaido Kert (kaido_kert@hotmail.com)
Date: 2003-01-24 04:36:08 PST
[anti-ufo nonsense snipped]

From: Eric Dennison (tiggerntatie-is-the-real-name@earthlink.net)
Date: 2003-01-24 07:52:45 PST
Isn't this a forward view from the aft orbiter bulkhead, port side, aiming slightly down and to port?
If so, doesn't that suggest that no station components would be in view?
And wouldn't that position, and obvious motions of other shadows, suggest that all we're seeing is the shadow of some station component as it creeps along the orbiter's port radiator?

From: James Oberg (jamesoberg@houston.rr.com)
Date: 2003-01-24 14:55:45 PST
We need to work some computer models to map out the geometry, thanks for the suggestion!

From: Jorge R. Frank (jrfrank@ibm-pc.borg)
Date: 2003-01-24 16:00:17 PST
I think you're [Dennison] the first one to get it right so far.
This is a view from the aft bulkhead, portside camera (Camera B), looking forward, panned left, and most likely zoomed in quite a bit. The structure running left-to-right across the picture is the shuttle RMS: wrist joint at the left, lower arm at the right. The two structures running vertically from the arm at the center and right-hand side of the view are the MPMs that secure the arm to the payload bay. The payload bay sill itself is visible to the lower right, and the EVA slidewire can be seen in the background running lower-left to middle-right.
Given those facts, the only thing in the background should be the port payload bay door radiator. There is no ISS structure that could possibly be that low in the FOV. The radiator is not "moving" to the right; a shadow (most likely ISS structure) is advancing forward along the radiator and obscuring it from sunlight. This would be consistent with the orbiter/ISS stack being in mated TEA attitude (orbiter on the ISS velocity vector, with the stack pitched up ~20 degrees), and the video being shot during orbital afternoon. That is consistent with the reported local time on the ground during the shot (5:00 PM in Nova Scotia).
The picture at the bottom of the website is pathetic. It shows a view of the station arm (SSRMS) in an attempt to prove that the structure in question could not have been part of the shuttle arm (SRMS).
In my opinion, the author of the website saw a "disc" because he expected to see a "disc."


From: James Oberg (jamesoberg@houston.rr.com)
Subject: STS-112 Enigmatic Image -- A Prosaic Explanation
Date: 2003-01-28 10:08:42 PST

I highly recommend this analysis of the enigmatic STS 112 visual anomaly. It's at:
home.earthlink.net... [no longer valid]

From: Jorge R. Frank (jrfrank@ibm-pc.borg)
Date: 2003-01-28 19:30:38 PST
Very impressive, especially the analysis of lighting and shadows which my analysis didn't cover in detail.


From: Jon S. Berndt (jsb-nospam@hal-pc.org)
Date: 2003-01-28 22:00:06 PST
This was the first I had seen of the picture in question. It *is* a thorough analysis of what the image doesn't show. But I could not have been more underwhelmed with the "UFO". Is *this* what all the discussion has been about!? What a waste of bandwidth...


From: James Oberg (jamesoberg@houston.rr.com)
Subject: STS-112 Anomaly -- NOT Solved, Says Viewer
Date: 2003-01-30 14:44:57 PST

Jeff Challender is claiming that the shadow on the radiator can't be the solution of his 'moving V' UFO. www.projectprove.com... [no longer valid]
"The consensus of opinion on the most likely cause for this apparition seems to be that it must be a reflection of some part of the International Space Station from the surface of one of the two onboard radiators. The first question that comes to mind regarding this conclusion is: If this is ISSy being reflected from the concave surface of one of the radiators, which can be assumed is not moving relative to the payload bay camera, then what IS causing the motion. ... It was very near Sunset, but that shouldn't cause the image to move, since the assumed source, ISSy, was static. The radiator/reflection hypothesis does not explain the motion."
JimO: I believe the consensus is that this is a moving shadow on the radiator, not the reflection of some other piece of the ISS. Can anyone confirm or deny? I don't recall any serious suggestion that the image is a specular reflection off a shiny radiator, but that appears to be the explanation that Jeff is attempting to refute. The motion appears to be consistent with the motion of other shadows in the sped-up sequence (which actually took about 90 seconds, I think I recall).
JimO: Jeff's first picture has a camera view not from the aft bulkhead of the payload bay, as he first presented, but from the FORWARD bulkhead, and a photograph out one of the two windows. But it does support his point that the doors and radiator are not visible in these scenes.
But if you go to home.earthlink.net... [no longer valid] you will see images from an aft CCTV that clearly show the radiator. So one wonders why Jeff's images don't show the radiator.

From: Jorge R. Frank (jrfrank@ibm-pc.borg)
Date: 2003-01-30 16:15:04 PST

> JimO: I believe the consensus is that this is a moving shadow on the
> radiator, not the reflection of some other piece of the ISS. Can
> anyone confirm or deny?

That's correct. The bright part is reflected sunlight off the radiator, the
dark part is the shadow of some part of ISS.

> The motion appears to be consistent with the motion of other shadows in the
> sped-up sequence (which actually took about 90 seconds, I think I recall).

Also correct. At the time, the shuttle-ISS stack was in mated TEA attitude. This is an LVLH (Earth-oriented) attitude, so the stack was rotating (with respect to the sun) at the orbital rate (360 deg/~90 min) = ~4 deg/min. So, near orbital sunset, one would expect the shadow of ISS to creep forward along the orbiter, just like it does in the video. The rate depends on just how far the shadowing structure is from the payload bay. If (for example) the shadowing structure was the port SM solar array (~120 feet from the payload bay), one would expect the shadow to advance forward at about 8 ft/min, or 12 ft during the course of the 90-second ideo.

> JimO: Jeff's first picture has a camera view not from the aft bulkhead
> of the payload bay, as he first presented, but from the FORWARD
> bulkhead, and a photograph out one of the two windows. But it does
> support his point that the doors and radiator are not visible in these scenes.
> But if you go to home.earthlink.net...
> you will see images from an aft CCTV that clearly show the radiator.
> So one wonders why Jeff's images don't show the radiator.

Jeff's images don't show the radiator because the bulkhead windows are significantly *inboard* from the bulkhead cameras. The fact that the doors/radiators are not visible *from the windows* does *not* support his point that they would not be visible *from camera B*.

Let's run the numbers ("if you can't say it with numbers, it's opinion, not science."):

Port bulkhead window: [560, -15, 480] in (center of window)
Aft tip of stowed port radiator: [941, -210, 343] in
Payload bay sill: [576, -105, 420] to [1307, -105, 420] in

Running the numbers, I get the yo=105 intercept = [736, -105, 417] in. 417 < 420, so one would not expect the radiator to be visible through the window. Jeff is comparing apples to oranges.

The other points he attempts to make are similarly wrong. For example, the reason why the radiator doesn't appear to be corrugated is because the payload bay cameras have a much lower resolution than the still photos he's comparing them with.

From: James Oberg (jamesoberg@houston.rr.com)
Date: 2003-01-30 21:47:34 PST
Jorge's point about the angle of view (from the camera versus the observation window) over the edge of the sill is well taken. It's like the visibility of the wing of a 747 out the window from the passenger seats. Seats near the outer edge can peer 'over' the sill line and see down to the wing; seats in the center of the aircraft, even if the passenger is standing, may not be able to peer down at a sharp enough angle to see the wings.

A good view of the layout of the forward payload bay bulkhead is found at
www.floridatoday.com...
and images.jsc.nasa.gov... [not valid]

The camera is the boxy gizmo on the gold-colored platform, just to the left
of the boom-mounted dish antenna on the right sill.

A view of the entire length of the empty bay is at
www.jsc.nasa.gov...

The aft bulkhead is shown here
images.jsc.nasa.gov...
and the camera seems to be a little farther outboard than on the forward bulkhead. Notice its relation to a line dropped vertically from the second payload door trunnion.

View from inside the Orbiter flight deck aft station is at
history.nasa.gov...
where commander's station is at left, and observer/photographer is at right.



From: Jorge R. Frank (jrfrank@ibm-pc.borg)
Date: 2003-01-31 07:45:07 PST

"James Oberg" wrote
> The aft bulkhead is shown here and the camera seems to be
> a little farther outboard than on the forward bulkhead.

Correct. The aft cameras are 16 inches further outboard than the forward cameras (so it's not proper to use cameras A/D as proof/disproof of radiator visibility from cameras B/C).


From: James Oberg (jamesoberg@houston.rr.com)
Date: 2003-01-31 14:47:10 PST

Here's his [Challender’s] latest "My Position" -- his eyes and mind are firmly closed to
any prosaic explanation: projectprove.com...




---



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 10:49 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


No offence JO, but how do we know that's an actual email/letter you wrote and not just something you typed up today..
It does seem you put a lot of explanations into a note you were sending to someone who apparently was already well versed..
Seemed more like you were writing to a novice...



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 11:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by JimOberg
 


No offence JO, but how do we know that's an actual email/letter you wrote and not just something you typed up today..
It does seem you put a lot of explanations into a note you were sending to someone who apparently was already well versed..
Seemed more like you were writing to a novice...


Well, I didn't think he was well-versed, and those who did were usually folks who themselves were clearly not well-versed. The email ought to be in his own files, I didn't save it as an Outlook Express file because the format is clumsy, I saved it as a Word file. DSo it has no 'properties' file, but that could have been forged anyway so no loss of authenticity.

Let's not try a trick transfer of responsibility here -- it was Jeff who was wrong about all major particulars of spaceflight operations (from the Zone of Exclusion to the 'sequential still video' rationale as just TWO of many examples), and at the very least the material I just posted -- which contains verifiable assertions of engineering and operational procedures -- shows that.

I did mail this sort of thing to Jeff from time to time out of respect for his enthusiasm, and I posted messages of this type on his site's discussion board that ought to still be viewable on some wayback machine's archives. As to what remains in his own computer's email log, I have no way of knowing -- but I do testify that the messages were sent with the dates indicated. They had no effect on Jeff's views except to give him topics to publicly repudiate and make fun of, so I withdrew from those conversations.

There are more -- a video clearly of Venus setting on the horizon that Jeff and all his colleagues insisted wasa genuine UFO and could NOT be a planet because, they explained, Earth's horizon ought to have fallen off below as the camera in theory panned to the side. But of course, in real space video, it wouldn't have done so at all -- Jeff and his buddies totally misunderstood even the basic geometry of the field of view of an orbiting TV camera viewing Earth's horizon, and this video looked exactly as a view of setting Venus, panning and all, ought to have looked. I can post that lamentable tale as well, if anyone's open-minded enough to consider it.

What I am suggesting is that Jeff know so little -- worse, "knew" so much that was plain wrong -- about spaceflight that nothing, absolutely nothing he claimed deserved any credibility without extensive independent assessment by people who really did understand what was going on. In my experience, such assessment, every time, refuted Jeff's conclusions.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 12:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
(snip)
He and his associates remain baffled that anyone could mistake the kind of ordinary space junk they see in their cameras all the time, for something alien or unexplainable. He figures it's a combination of folks simply not understanding what really goes on in space, and the activities of some unscrupulous or looney promoters who have found a target audience susceptible to such silliness.


Let He Who Has Eyes to See, See. Obviously, this isn't a truism that applies to anyone associated with NASA, officially and unofficially. Challender showed two examples in the video: 1-a bright flashing "orb" and a non-flashing, dull-white object. The first one couldn't have been an ice particle while the second one obviously was.

You don't seem to understand that ice particles AT DISTANCE just doesn't sit there blinking/flashing 'cause once an ice particle has been put into ejected motion it will tend to move away and not park itself. Or if an ice particle once ejected follows a straight line and won't make angled turns. Or come towards the shuttle if it was ejected from the shuttle! Or materialize from below the earth's cloud cover and move away NOWHERE near the shuttle. Of as in STS-48, one object sped away while other objects continued on the trajectories. How narrow are the shuttle's firings that they affect one object a hell of a distance away? And when one studies the STS-48 video one can see after many viewings that the flash doesn't seem to be connected to the shuttle. And on, and on.

Let He Who Has Eyes to See, See. Just don't let NASA know that you can see!



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Shrike
You don't seem to understand that ice particles AT DISTANCE just doesn't sit there blinking/flashing 'cause once an ice particle has been put into ejected motion it will tend to move away and not park itself. Or if an ice particle once ejected follows a straight line and won't make angled turns. Or come towards the shuttle if it was ejected from the shuttle! Or materialize from below the earth's cloud cover and move away NOWHERE near the shuttle. Of as in STS-48, one object sped away while other objects continued on the trajectories. How narrow are the shuttle's firings that they affect one object a hell of a distance away? And when one studies the STS-48 video one can see after many viewings that the flash doesn't seem to be connected to the shuttle. And on, and on.


You are shifting the goalposts from an assessment of the validity of Challender's interpretat6ions to the general question of NASA 'UFO videos'. If you wish to select a small number -- two, you offer? -- of his claims to draw a line on, please provide specific links to those claims so we can discuss them. But also be aware that such a retreat may look to many unbiased readers here as an admission that almost ALL of Challender's other claims cannot be defended.

As to what you or I "seem to understand", wouldn't you admit that understanding an unearthly scene that comes from visual effects that have lain outside of human (even ANY earthborn creature's) perceptual experience since the universe began might be aided by familiarity with this new environment, outer space? And that the people most likely to reach correct interpretations are those few who have experienced this new environment, such as astronauts and flight control center specialists? Should their conclusions be given an preferential weighting?

Your own assertions of facts of space object flight are imaginary. A glaring example is the reference to object's appearing to "materialize from below the earth's cloud cover" when you seem to show no idea at all about the shadow zone in the camera's field of view from which small drifting objects can emerge and 'materialize' as they become sunlit [think of last night's eclipse, which I enjoyed watching with my grandchildren from our back yard in Texas]. Nor do you demonstrate any clue that you appreciate the consequences of the field of view having depth, in which an expanding plume field can impinge some dots at mid-range while small objects closer to the camera are shielded by shuttle structure, and more distant ones are out of range. And your deep faith in your own ability to judge the distance of dots on a TV screen is touching -- but I suspect also imaginary. Do you even know, for example, if the STS-48 scenes you cite occurred in orbital daylight or in darkness?

When you mention such "understanding", please be motivated to work on your own, and I'd be happy to look at specific examples which you believe would improve mine.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by The Shrike
You don't seem to understand that ice particles AT DISTANCE just doesn't sit there blinking/flashing 'cause once an ice particle has been put into ejected motion it will tend to move away and not park itself. Or if an ice particle once ejected follows a straight line and won't make angled turns. Or come towards the shuttle if it was ejected from the shuttle! Or materialize from below the earth's cloud cover and move away NOWHERE near the shuttle. Of as in STS-48, one object sped away while other objects continued on the trajectories. How narrow are the shuttle's firings that they affect one object a hell of a distance away? And when one studies the STS-48 video one can see after many viewings that the flash doesn't seem to be connected to the shuttle. And on, and on.


You are shifting the goalposts from an assessment of the validity of Challender's interpretat6ions to the general question of NASA 'UFO videos'. If you wish to select a small number -- two, you offer? -- of his claims to draw a line on, please provide specific links to those claims so we can discuss them. But also be aware that such a retreat may look to many unbiased readers here as an admission that almost ALL of Challender's other claims cannot be defended.

As to what you or I "seem to understand", wouldn't you admit that understanding an unearthly scene that comes from visual effects that have lain outside of human (even ANY earthborn creature's) perceptual experience since the universe began might be aided by familiarity with this new environment, outer space? And that the people most likely to reach correct interpretations are those few who have experienced this new environment, such as astronauts and flight control center specialists? Should their conclusions be given an preferential weighting?

Your own assertions of facts of space object flight are imaginary. A glaring example is the reference to object's appearing to "materialize from below the earth's cloud cover" when you seem to show no idea at all about the shadow zone in the camera's field of view from which small drifting objects can emerge and 'materialize' as they become sunlit [think of last night's eclipse, which I enjoyed watching with my grandchildren from our back yard in Texas]. Nor do you demonstrate any clue that you appreciate the consequences of the field of view having depth, in which an expanding plume field can impinge some dots at mid-range while small objects closer to the camera are shielded by shuttle structure, and more distant ones are out of range. And your deep faith in your own ability to judge the distance of dots on a TV screen is touching -- but I suspect also imaginary. Do you even know, for example, if the STS-48 scenes you cite occurred in orbital daylight or in darkness?

When you mention such "understanding", please be motivated to work on your own, and I'd be happy to look at specific examples which you believe would improve mine.


I appreciate what you say but the joiner is that neither of us has experienced a different view than our earth-based view. So when we look at videos from space we come to different conclusions. You use a logic that is foreign to me and to most everyone that views the videos. This has been a matter of interpretations through the ages since UFO forums were created and you've always offered the same explanations to the consternation of those who see things differently using their logic, common sense, and reason. I don't think that judging space distance is the mystery you make it out to be.

An educated person, especially one who has been a NASA/space enthusiast since 1969 (and possibly before, I don't remember pre-Apollo days) such as I have been, doesn't have to be a rocket scientist to tell when something is near the shuttle or at a distance. There are plenty of NASA videos taken by astronauts videotaping objects that are at a distance and these videos cannot support your POV unless you admit that anomalous objects (not ice crystals, debris, water dumps, etc.) exist and that they have been videotaped by astronauts knowing full well what they're videotaping. The problem lies in finding out who shot what and interviewing said individual(s) and seeing if they admit to taping the particular footage under discussion being shown during said interview.

You use "shadow zone", daytime/nightime, depth, etc., as if everyone you communicated with was a tyro. I'm not a tyro.

Challender, we agree, was a flawed individual who may have seen things differently than the rest of us since he was closer to his activities than those of us who saw only his results. Whatever he said can be questioned referencing his mental state for which I'm certainly not in a position to defend. However, the videos that he offered can be separated from his mental state and discussed on their own. He shows what all of us have seen ad nauseum and that, in the end, is what counts.

What are we seeing? Some misidentifications but not all misidentifications. The odds rule that out.

I strive to offer you specific examples which you believe would improve yours but you set the goal posts too high, especially in discussions in a forum as we both know since time immemorial!

edit on 21-12-2010 by The Shrike because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-12-2010 by The Shrike because: Additional comments.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 11:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Shrike

I appreciate what you say but the joiner is that neither of us has experienced a different view than our earth-based view. So when we look at videos from space we come to different conclusions. You use a logic that is foreign to me and to most everyone that views the videos. This has been a matter of interpretations through the ages since UFO forums were created and you've always offered the same explanations to the consternation of those who see things differently using their logic, common sense, and reason....


The question worth discussing is this. Does it improve the likelihood of a correct interpretation of such videos to celebrate and preserve ignorance of the context and fundamental properties of each video? This, for examples, is Kasher's view on STS-48 -- he announced he was deliberately closing his eyes to available records of contextual status and activities and natural illumination conditions of the zig-zag video so he could demonstrate the power of pure mathematics in penetrating the myastery. The only result was his pathetic "five proofs it couldn't be ice," every one of which is factually fatally flawed. Challender, as we seem to agree, was even more reality-deficient in his understanding of spaceflight basics and his fallacious proclamations of the consequences of his misunderstandings.



...I don't think that judging space distance is the mystery you make it out to be.... There are plenty of NASA videos taken by astronauts videotaping objects that are at a distance and these videos cannot support your POV unless you admit that anomalous objects (not ice crystals, debris, water dumps, etc.) exist and that they have been videotaped by astronauts knowing full well what they're videotaping.


You've put your finger on probably the central controversy, whether interpreting the videos as if they were earthside scenes familiar to our earthborn eye-brain algorithms (instead of visual manifestations of effects of genuinely unearthly but still prosaic phenomena] or whether new knowledge and careful reasoning can allow intelligence to overcome instinct in such cases. Please list for me a few of what you consider the best of the "plenty" of videos that indisputably show distant objects and an explanation of the reasoning that suppoorts that conclusion.


The problem lies in finding out who shot what and interviewing said individual(s) and seeing if they admit to taping the particular footage under discussion being shown during said interview.


Again I agree with you, this can be one problem, although as a rule Challender was unusually fastidious in his documentation of the time/date of the events he showed. In this laudable practice he stood out from most other 'astronaut UFO video' promoters who seem to delibrately withhold such information, making context impossible to determine. But this also could be a dodge to make excuses for not ever obtaining first-person eyewitness descriptions and interpretations, many of which do exist out on the WWW, but they are just ignored by proponents who seem to hope that the undecideds never learn about them.




What are we seeing? Some misidentifications but not all misidentifications. The odds rule that out.


This conclusion has no statistical validity. Do the odds rule out the possibility that ALL reports of ghosts, human levitation, immortal humans, or conversations with Jesus are not authentic? Or do you insist 'the odds' are proof that for any class of phenomenion, ALL potential explanations must be correct for at least SOME of the reports?

Thanks for your reasonable, clearly argued responses. We share a fascination with the subject and I consider any variation in conclusions to be second-order differences that do not subtract from a common belief in the importance of understanding WTF is going on.



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 01:43 AM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 



Thanks for your reasonable, clearly argued responses. We share a fascination with the subject and I consider any variation in conclusions to be second-order differences that do not subtract from a common belief in the importance of understanding WTF is going on.


lol, I had to star that simply because it was a well written paragraph and the WTF at the end made me spit my coffee..



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 02:09 AM
link   
Im astonished as to why we still fund NASA? It is like we are the enabler and NASA is a junkie. It is a symbiotic relationship. NASA has an entirely different agenda than what we expect from NASA, yet it thrives. NASA lies to our face and we ask for more please. NASA could walk in our home and steal our TV and pawn it and we would just go right back to the store and buy a new one. How much money have we wasted on NASA's ambitions only working to appease the military industrial complex I can only imagine. Trillions upon trillions, and we discover water on the moon just last year? Wait that was India.

I mean India found water before NASA , don't' you see what is going on here? A hand full of independent scientists will make more progress in 10 years than NASA in 50 years. Yet we line these peoples pockets annually. Operation Paperclip is live and well.


The whole PR has been BS since the race to the moon during the cold war. It is an enterprise, the people that work at NASA come and go to work and take orders from the brass at the top, they don't know no more at least most of them what NASA's purpose is any more than the average joe.

Our astronauts seen objects on many occasions under intelligent control, only to be debriefed and then forbidden to discuss it. Well some had enough balls and have done the honor to talk God bless them. Imagine what it must be like having a dream come true in becoming an astronaut and learning what is out there then to never be able to share it with your own countrymen? That it is all a lie, you are just a man working for NASA and their agenda. NASA has dishonored these great men and women that risked life and limb, I feel utter disgust when i think of NASA. Almost sick to my stomach. When they aren't taking down SOHO images and editing them and filtering Mars photos they are announcing some irrelevant or something we all ready knew . What a waste of money, give the junkie his next fix.

You really expect me to believe that flying brick of a shuttle orbiting earth doing experiments a high school kid would think of since the late 1970's is the best you could come up with, in 30 years? The Apollo 1 fire, 2 shuttle tragedy's later, countless lies, some remote control robots on mars that half ass function half the time later. Yet these objects are flying around in our air space playing cat and mouse with our best jets and nobody knows anything? Compulsive liar is a compulsive liar is NASA.


"Great liars are also great magicians." - -- Adolf Hitler



End the funding
NASA we know you are lying , stop funding NASA

edit on 22-12-2010 by Unknown Soldier because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 05:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Unknown Soldier
Im astonished as to why we still fund NASA? It is like we are the enabler and NASA is a junkie. It is a symbiotic relationship. NASA has an entirely different agenda than what we expect from NASA, yet it thrives. NASA lies to our face and we ask for more please.


Yeah... I was just working on Lake Vostok stuff and I see NASA is out there looking at those ancient bacteria ( in there search for alien like lifeforms
)

They actually have revived some
How smart is that? These bugs haven't been around for 15 million years and they wanna wake em up?

Sheesh... scientists


Tomorrows headline

NASA recreates The Andromeda Strain



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 06:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Unknown Soldier
(snip)
I mean India found water before NASA , don't' you see what is going on here? A hand full of independent scientists will make more progress in 10 years than NASA in 50 years. Yet we line these peoples pockets annually. Operation Paperclip is live and well.
(snip)
When they aren't taking down SOHO images and editing them and filtering Mars photos they are announcing some irrelevant or something we all ready knew . What a waste of money, give the junkie his next fix.

You really expect me to believe that flying brick of a shuttle orbiting earth doing experiments a high school kid would think of since the late 1970's is the best you could come up with, in 30 years?

India finding water before NASA could admit it's there would be funnier if only it wasn't a tragedy! The shuttle? Lockheed Martin could have an alternative ready in a year with the kind of money it costs to keep that dangerous wreck in space.

Then there's the missing SSTV recordings of Apollo 11. Instead we are offered only 'highlights' of the restored post conversion tapes 10 months after the restoration was completed in December, 09. What were NASA doing with the restored material before the public could see it? Why aren't the public allowed to see all of it immediately if there is nothing to hide? Is it still being processed/edited and if so why? What's wrong, does what it shows contradict what some of the edited Apollo official photographs show?

If these questions irritate NASA then why can't they be more open? Is it really OK that NASA could allegedly be so foolish as to re-use tape and scrub the first moment a human supposedly set foot on another world? Is that story even believable? Is it a coincidence that restored footage is released now editing techniques are so sophisticated that practically anything can be faked?

Have you seen this?

Truths protective layer?

I don't know whether Apollo 11 really landed on the moon with astronauts aboard. However, I do know that lots of the publicly released footage looks either faked or tampered with. Why?

Sorry to go on but this made me giggle. How cruel was that. Poor Neil...



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 10:59 AM
link   
@Pimander..

Yes seen that before, some people have their own definition of what he meant in a broader sense but I could hear his voice straining as he said it, was it a cryptic clue?

Was it strain.....Was it something else.

All I can say is he came across oddly, I'm not saying he didn't walk on the moon but thats a possibility but perhaps there's more to what went on.

As for the bible guy, I must admit the initial reaction from me would be to ignore him but with a 5 grand bounty for charity I'd say he was silly not to have done it, is it guilt, only he knows.



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mclaneinc
As for the bible guy, I must admit the initial reaction from me would be to ignore him but with a 5 grand bounty for charity I'd say he was silly not to have done it, is it guilt, only he knows.


Yeah... its a real stickler actually... I mean if he did swear on the bible, that would end the doubt yes?

It's odd... at the very least... because if he did walk on the moon, what's the big deal in swearing so? And if he didn't and is withholding the truth... then what is one more lie?

Hmmmm



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 08:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
Yeah... its a real stickler actually... I mean if he did swear on the bible, that would end the doubt yes?

Of course it wouldn't end the doubt...but isn't it interesting watching him look awkward...a bit naughty...but interesting


Look whether Armstrong walked on the moon or not, there are so many inconsistencies - such as why all the faked material? Remember the cost. I remember reading that NASA swallowed up 5% of the US gross domestic product for years to land a man on the moon. They really don't have any right to lie about it after that amount of money. That's a lot of explaining to do if they couldn't get through the Van Allen belts.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join