UFO. NASA says it’s space junk.

reply to post by JimOberg


Hmmm, that didn't make sense to me at all. Would you define reality please? Your post almost look like it tries to deny imagination, which is the most important of yourself...

Well, so Lovecraft was right...they can move through space at will.

Originally posted by pikypiky
If NASA says it's space junk, I say it's made up. It looks like the back of one's eye - the retina with blood vessels. I don't know why NASA would include the perspective of the planet in the background. Something just doesn't look right.

When I see mine, it does look as such with some differences. That was the first thing I thought.

Desperately a 'believer', because I am certain of man and his unbridled ambition to utterly destroy the earth. The problem is...believers are no different whether they are sworn to science, God, of ufos. They are duped by everything imaginable. Psychiatrists are the worst.

Originally posted by RUSSO
reply to post by JimOberg

 

I must to say it AGAIN:

They NEVER says nothing that matters anyway.

And ignorance is what makes people like you talk crap like that. But of course you should believe what NASA says, because every day the number of fools increases more and more in the world.

Always has a ignorant beast to point the finger at others and look away from its own rottenness.

So, go find a mirror.

I interpret this to mean that you agree with me that the claim 'NASA says this photo shows space junk' is, in fact, false, since nobody at NASA ever made that statement. But it's my fault, so it's OK to lie about it.

Am I reading your reply correctly?

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by RUSSO
reply to post by JimOberg

 

I must to say it AGAIN:

They NEVER says nothing that matters anyway.

And ignorance is what makes people like you talk crap like that. But of course you should believe what NASA says, because every day the number of fools increases more and more in the world.

Always has a ignorant beast to point the finger at others and look away from its own rottenness.

So, go find a mirror.

I interpret this to mean that you agree with me that the claim 'NASA says this photo shows space junk' is, in fact, false, since nobody at NASA ever made that statement. But it's my fault, so it's OK to lie about it.

Am I reading your reply correctly?

The interpreter on duty here is you, so interpret as you see fit. NASA never says anything that really matters. I can not expect anything better from those who believe in liars. So if you believe that "These Are Clearly scans of original prints without scrupulous cleaning of the optics and prints, " I have to disagree. But Nasa already erased the Moon landing tapes once. How convenient for them to say "hypothetically" that they "not did scrupulous cleaning of the optics and prints". You see, I do not know what compels me to respond to you. Must be because you are so wise that I have to try to reach some of your wisdom. Even if your wisdom is based on lies from an organization that controls all the information we suppose to known about the space.

Originally posted by RUSSO
The interpreter on duty here is you, so interpret as you see fit. NASA never says anything that really matters. I can not expect anything better from those who believe in liars. So if you believe that "These Are Clearly scans of original prints without scrupulous cleaning of the optics and prints, " I have to disagree. But Nasa already erased the Moon landing tapes once. How convenient for them to say "hypothetically" that they "not did scrupulous cleaning of the optics and prints". You see, I do not know what compels me to respond to you. Must be because you are so wise that I have to try to reach some of your wisdom. Even if your wisdom is based on lies from an organization that controls all the information we suppose to known about the space.

Thanks for the detailed and illuminating reply, Russo. May I suggest that our motivations here are to show the different approaches to the one thing we have in common, a feeling that this phenomenon really can contain somewhere within it, something truly extraordinary and useful to find out. It doesn't matter that we disagree on particulars, if we are -- as we are -- in agreement on that 'big picture'.

Space junk??!!! i did not know that space junk can fly back and forth stop then fly back and forth then beam off at the speed of light, and the photo that looks like a deformed jelly fish just goes to show how stupid NASA thinks people are. UFOs and other related phenomenon is not just an anomaly anymore it has come down to world wide sightings

Originally posted by Thinker1
Space junk??!!! i did not know that space junk can fly back and forth stop then fly back and forth then beam off at the speed of light, and the photo that looks like a deformed jelly fish just goes to show how stupid NASA thinks people are. UFOs and other related phenomenon is not just an anomaly anymore it has come down to world wide sightings

How stupid are those people who believe a claim, posted without any background data such as date/time, about a supposed 'NASA claim' that has no verifiable backing?

Do you want to bet that the OP's very title is a fabrication? What are the terms, and the wager?

reply to post by RUSSO


Thanks I posted the wrong link and missed the edit window

Originally posted by JimOberg
Do you want to bet that the OP's very title is a fabrication..

But Jim... NASA always says its space debris or ice particles or camera glitches... in fact you usually say its space debris or ice particles or camera glitches



I am just waiting for the camera experts to tell me what kind of glitch this one is

Space Lightning or Static Electricity

Another great yarn by NASA to explain why they can't keep the dust, lint and pet hairs off their photos... mind you it doesn't cover how all that dust, lint and pet hairs got into the clean room and into the vacuum of space but never mind that... It appears that this 'space lightning' seems to plague NASA a lot... and without airbrushing out all the dust, lint and pet hairs all we get is crappy photos with Crystaline Entities in them. I guess that is why NASA has no stars in their photos... they can't tell between the stars and all the dust specks so they just brush em all out

(4) The Data Camera was modified to prevent accumulation of static electricity. When film is wound in a camera, static electricity is generated on the film surface. Normally, this electricity is dispersed by the metal rims and rollers that guide the film, and by the humidity of the air. In a camera fitted with a Reseau plate, however, the film is guided by the raised edges of the plate. As glass is a non-conductor, the electric charge that builds up at the glass surface can become so heavy that sparks can occur between plate and film - especially if the camera is used in a very dry environment or in vacuum. Sparks cause unpleasant patterns to appear on the film and can be a hazard if the camera is used in an atmosphere of pure oxygen. To conduct the static electricity away from the Reseau plate in the Data Camera, the side of the plate facing the film is coated with an extremely thin conductive layer which is led to the metallic parts of the camera body by two contact springs. Contact is effected by two projecting silver deposits on the conductive layer. The Reseau plate, or register glass, is not a new development in photography. What is most remarkable, however, is that the group of Hasselblad staff working on NASA camera projects in collaboration with Carl Zeiss was successful in applying the idea to a small camera - like the Hasselblad 500EL Data Camera. This camera is not only useful in space photography, it is particularly suitable for all kinds of aerial photography. The special cameras produced in the past for aerial photography were large and intended for a large negative-format - frequently meaning high prices. The Hasselblad 500EL Data Camera with its Reseau plate produced a small and comparatively low-cost camera which gave satisfactory results in aerial photographic work.

www.hq.nasa.gov...

Gonna add this one to my collection of NASA yarns..

Flyby Shooting of Venus...
Moon Storms...
Moon Fountains...



Will someone PLEASE take up a collection and buy them a decent camera?

reply to post by zorgon
Skeptics like Mr. Oberg are black & white on this. UFOs do not exist. Thus everything must be space ice (or dust!).
So how can they debate. Their minds are fixed. All UFOs are ice, get used to it...How is that debatable with these people. Well it is not! UFOs are not a debate point...their position is a fixed & will never change...There are no UFOs...only ice.
(Skeptics believed nothing could sink the Titanic. In those days, they did even believe in ice!)

I wonder if it could be frost? or some kind of bacteria growing?

I took the original image and cranked up the brightness and inverted the image. In case anybody would be interrested to see that in big.

EDIT: can somebody tell me how to resize the image i posted? I apologize for the big size i assumed it would automaticly resize here as a smaller thumb.

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by JimOberg
Do you want to bet that the OP's very title is a fabrication..

But Jim... NASA always says its space debris or ice particles or camera glitches... in fact you usually say its space debris or ice particles or camera glitches

Amazing footwork, Zorg. No evidence that the OP is doing anything but freaky fantasizing in the title, and now you say it's my fault. No need to beat this angle to death -- the urge to conjure up imaginary quotes [and refuse to admit it] to make oneself feel pseudo-smarter is too overwhelming hereabouts.

This is the abysmal quality of 'UFO evidence' you'll keep getting fed ad infinitum, because this is the level that the consumers eat up. Simple supply and demand.

Originally posted by buzzEmiller
reply to post by zorgon

 

Skeptics like Mr. Oberg are black & white on this. UFOs do not exist. Thus everything must be space ice (or dust!).
So how can they debate. Their minds are fixed. All UFOs are ice, get used to it...How is that debatable with these people. Well it is not! UFOs are not a debate point...their position is a fixed & will never change...There are no UFOs...only ice.
(Skeptics believed nothing could sink the Titanic. In those days, they did even believe in ice!)

Thanks for the chuckle. You have only a cardboard cutout of me, perhaps for a dartboard, and not the slightest idea what I really think or advise doing. If astronauts don't correctly identify unusual stuff that is seen outside their spacecraft, they could die -- and they have. It's a matter of life and death -- not a laughing matter.

Here's more details of this theme:

07/23/1993 - Oberg NASA briefing: Mitigation of Hazards of Spacecraft-Generated Debris
www.jamesoberg.com...

MSNBC // June 13, 2008 // Why NASA watches out for true UFOs
today.msnbc.msn.com...

Columbia Disaster (March 18, 2003) -- Was ‘mystery object’ a shuttle clue?
www.msnbc.msn.com...

reply to post by JimOberg

something truly extraordinary and useful to find out

The only thing I can say here is that you are extraordinary truly blind. Sorry if my answer was negative. But thanks anyway.

I have just downloaded 5 different copies of the picture as08-13-2380. And tried Gama and blue indicated in the vid. The space junk or whatever it is on the bottom of the pic is there. But there is no ice crystal or what ever it is in any of the pictures. I have also tried -2381 and -2379 nothing in either of them. But when I do it on different frames on the you-tube vid I find it with ease. Will someone else, a neutral party, please give it a try. let me know.

Ok I just went to a diffrent site and it was there. The site that had it in it was history.nasa.gov... It is on the pic for sure and not on 79 or 81. If it was ice there should have been something on the previous photo and the following photo and nothing. so much for an in focus ice crystal on the lens.

Just wondering why it was edited out on the pics on the other pages.

Emulsion film effect known as static electricity!

medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...
static electricity film fault,
a defect in a radiograph or a developed photographic film that appears as lightninglike streaks. It is caused by overly rapid opening of the film packet or transfer of static electricity from the user to the film.