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.

 

NASA Artifacts explanation is a LIE

page: 6
33
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by TritonTaranis

Clearly you haven't been listening to NASA's explanations long enough

They make no attempt to investigate anything and label it as an artifacts ALL THE TIME because that is there protocol, they will never tell you if they find anything unusual


Fortunately this is not true, because it would be a very stupid and dangerous policy.

Over the past half century of human spaceflight, there have been occasions in which visual detection of unusual external objects gave critical clues to vehicle malfunctions and hazards.

And there have been disasters for which visual clues might have been expected, but were not noticed -- such missed opportunities have had the most serious and lethal consequences.

As a result, Mission Control pays careful attention to external cameras and crew reports, to assess which are 'normal' manifestations of space flight activities, and which are unusual enough to deserve closer attention.

In the real world, I spent many years -- and many missions -- serving in Mission Control, watching our team handle both routine and emergency and sometimes puzzling situations. I've written in detail about these sorts of experiences on my home page [see my signature below].

The notion that the spaceflight operators and crews want to ignore or conceal potentially life-threatening evidence is preposterous, and insulting.

If it makes you feel smarter than 'the sheeple', by all means think how you choose. But don't confuse your delusions with the real world some of us select in which to live and work, struggle and succeed and fail, exalt and despair, and strive to understand.

And most of us are avid SF fans and realize that when that someday comes when ET evidence is noticed, it probably will be on a space mission, and there's nobody can make us keep our mouths shut about it.




posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by freelance_zenarchist
Why do you think that would be impossible? Do you have any experience with photography?

Look at this photo I took. It was hand held, long exposure and I used a flash with my other hand. It has lots of light trails yet you can make out every string on his guitar, similar to the power lines in your photo.






I was a professional photographer, and did similar effects many times. Your argument is apples and oranges, and here's why:

The blur in your picture is a result of a long exposure under ambient light conditions. Had you not fired a flash while the shutter was still open, then the entire picture would have been blurry, or "zig-zag". You wouldn't be able to make out the guitar strings, to use your example. Since you did fire the flash, and since the flash is so bright, and for such a short duration, it overpowers the ambient light and freezes the image for that instant. You could say that it produces a second sharper image over the first, although technically, it's not accurate to consider it as two seperate pictures.

The original picture has no such flash effect, and therefore there is no comparison. Either everything would be blurred by camera movement, or nothing would. Even if he used a flash, it certainly wouldn't illuminate all of the objects shown enough to freeze them.



posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by AntiNWO

Originally posted by freelance_zenarchist
Why do you think that would be impossible? Do you have any experience with photography?

Look at this photo I took. It was hand held, long exposure and I used a flash with my other hand. It has lots of light trails yet you can make out every string on his guitar, similar to the power lines in your photo.


I was a professional photographer, and did similar effects many times. Your argument is apples and oranges, .....


I didn't understand the analogy either. Can you please help me clarify my attempted explanation at
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 04:40 PM
link   
We're discussing this thread on ATS Live tonight! - click the link for more details
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
the stars don't leave a same-shaped zig zag because they were much dimmer.


Sorry Jim, but that is wrong. Dim objects would become even dimmer with camera motion, and in the case of these stars, may not be visible at all in the image. But they wouldn't appear to be stationary.

A picture is the result of light hitting the film (or CCD, depending on the camera type) for a given length of time. The longer the time, the brighter the light will show in the image.

If the camera is still while the shutter is open, the the light is concentrated in one spot for the duration of the exposure. No blur, zig-zags, or corkscrews. If the camera is moving however, the light is dispersed over a wider area of the film, for a shorter period of time, thus dimmer in the final image.

They may show up as a dim blur, however under no condition will they appear to be stationary when the entire image is in motion just because they are dimmer.
edit on 7/27/2013 by AntiNWO because: sorry, somehow lost the quote



posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by AntiNWO

Originally posted by JimOberg


Sorry Jim, but that is wrong. Dim objects would become even dimmer with camera motion, and in the case of these stars, may not be visible at all in the image. But they wouldn't appear to be stationary.

A picture is the result of light hitting the film (or CCD, depending on the camera type) for a given length of time. The longer the time, the brighter the light will show in the image.

If the camera is still while the shutter is open, the the light is concentrated in one spot for the duration of the exposure. No blur, zig-zags, or corkscrews. If the camera is moving however, the light is dispersed over a wider area of the film, for a shorter period of time, thus dimmer in the final image.

They may show up as a dim blur, however under no condition will they appear to be stationary when the entire image is in motion just because they are dimmer.



Thanks for the reply. It seems we are singing from the same page, but I must have omitted the stanza where I should have pointed out that in the Goldie photo, the camera was BOTH moving -- for a second or so -- and THEN stationary [ten seconds, i think he said -- gotta check].

It was during that stationary period that the dimmer objects -- the wires, the stars, and the persistent trail -- registered on the optics. During the brief shaking, only the fireball was bright enough to register. And the fireball registered all throughout the non-shaking period too, laying over the milky-white track.

I linked a description of eyewitness accounts of a similar fireball entry here:

www.jamesoberg.com...



edit on 27-7-2013 by JimOberg because: add url



posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by TritonTaranis
NASA & Debunkers using NASA's made up BS lies always pass of what they cannot explain as a simple artifact and everybody has to move along because its simply impossible to be anything else, especially not a UFO oh no it can't be, for we are alone in the Galaxy and the oldest civilization in the universe, lol yeah sure, hey LOOK look over there

The truth is, the artifact is now the new swamp gas, its nothing but a protocol to tar and discredit anything that they do not understand or do not want you to know, or investigate,





I'll try to be fair about this. I have seen cases where there was something that seemed truly anomalous in an image, and skeptics and officials resorted to the most ridiculous sounding refutations. Artifact in the image, lighting, insects, debris, etc etc....


However, I've seen probably twice as many cases of people pointing to pictures of rocks, just rocks, saying "ZOMFG-- look at the weird thing in this image!" When it was really just a picture of rocks-- with nothing anomolous clearly visible. Those many instances do not help the cases mentioned above, and really only give the skeptics more ammunition. Perhaps people should be a little more selective when trying to claim that this image or that image caught something mindblowing that they're just trying to cover up and deny.

Speaking of which...






Originally posted by TritonTaranis
This is an artifact according to NASA

Admin Note: Image removed at request of copyright owner. Please DO NOT post images you don't own on ATS, post a link to the owner's page displaying it.

An artifact brilliant, can't explain it... call it an artifact... nothing to see move along

edit on 7-25-2013 by Springer because: Removed copyrighted image



Yes, "nothing to see here." Quite literally, it would seem. I'm wondering not only which image was removed (why not link to the image instead of deleting it altogether, Admins?) but also who was the owner of this image that did not want you to see their image? Was this NASA, not wanting you to see their image? Or was it some kook frothing and squealing over his "mind blowing" pictures of plain rocks-- that he wants you to have to visit his website to view.


I would assume the latter, as I don't know NASA to be in the business of serving takedown notices.



posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by iwilliam
....Yes, "nothing to see here." Quite literally, it would seem. I'm wondering not only which image was removed (why not link to the image instead of deleting it altogether, Admins?) but also who was the owner of this image that did not want you to see their image? Was this NASA, not wanting you to see their image? Or was it some kook frothing and squealing over his "mind blowing" pictures of plain rocks-- that he wants you to have to visit his website to view.
I would assume the latter, as I don't know NASA to be in the business of serving takedown notices.


It was Pete goldie, the owner of the copyright, whom I quoted early in this discussion, and linked to his recent article on the photo here:
www.rawstory.com...

Be sure to read all the comments, too.

You can easily find the photo on a dozen websites by image-search 'columbia shuttle lightning' or some similar phrase.

I set the search up for you here:
www.google.com... 5593...........0.
and here
www.google.com... AUoAQ&biw=1016&bih=636

edit on 27-7-2013 by JimOberg because: add urls



posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 05:53 PM
link   


For anyone who doesn't understand why I posted my photo you need to go back and actually read the thread! Strange concept, I know.

Here's what I was replying to -


Originally posted by TritonTaranis

While the purple zig-zag line could be produced by a shaky camera, it would be impossible to get such an image without all the other objects in the image also showing the same pattern of zig-zag motion. such as the stars and power line


TritonTaranis was claiming it's impossible to take a photo with a light trail in it and still have other objects in the photo relatively in focus. Any of you professional photographers should have picked up on this, and it shouldn't have taken Jim 3+ attempts at explaining why the stars aren't leaving light trails.

This thread has been amusing, but ATS Live worthy?
ATS isn't even allowed to post the photo we're supposed to be discussing. It must have been a slow week.
(or ATS Live is taking threads based on number of posts/views instead of quality of material)



posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
It was during that stationary period that the dimmer objects -- the wires, the stars, and the persistent trail -- registered on the optics.

That makes sense, as it's obvious that he used a slow shutter speed to have gotten stars in the picture, unlike the pictures taken on the moon, as so many "moon hoaxers" like to use as "evidence", but let's not go there.
The dimly lit stars and wires most likely would not show in the image for the duration of the camera shake, but of course would if the tripod is stable and the exposure time long enough.



During the brief shaking, only the fireball was bright enough to register. And the fireball registered all throughout the non-shaking period too, laying over the milky-white track.

I didn't study the picture very thoroughly, but I don't remember the the entire section of tail of the fireball which occured before the camera shake stopped (assuming the shake occurred at the beginning of the exposure), being blurred, only a small part of it in the middle.

However if the camera shake came near the middle of the exposure, for example at 0:02 of a 4 second exposure, then that explanation is certainly plausable, IMO.

Taking a second look at the picture, I just can't come up with an explanation for the "lightning" and the fireball trail to appear as they do. You have a perfectly straight line and also a jagged line (lightning?), whereas even with camera shake I can't see any way to achieve this effect.
edit on 7/27/2013 by AntiNWO because: second look



posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by iwilliam

However, I've seen probably twice as many cases of people pointing to pictures of rocks, just rocks, saying "ZOMFG-- look at the weird thing in this image!" When it was really just a picture of rocks-- with nothing anomolous clearly visible. Those many instances do not help the cases mentioned above, and really only give the skeptics more ammunition. Perhaps people should be a little more selective when trying to claim that this image or that image caught something mindblowing that they're just trying to cover up and deny.



I often wonder whether these soughts of threads (eg Mars rocks) are intentionally created to divert attention away from the higher quality threads, as well as to paint the users here as either gullible, dillusional, uneducated, or just not qualified to analyse such photos or videos.



posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 



Originally posted by JimOberg

...

It was during that stationary period that the dimmer objects -- the wires, the stars, and the persistent trail -- registered on the optics. During the brief shaking, only the fireball was bright enough to register. And the fireball registered all throughout the non-shaking period too, laying over the milky-white track.

I linked a description of eyewitness accounts of a similar fireball entry here:

www.jamesoberg.com...


Jim,

Thanks for staying in contact with the original photographer and providing additional details. If he used a digital camera then his settings should be embedded in the EXIF information from the original file.

1. Fireball during jostle
--------------------------
I believe the scenario you presented makes complete sense. The fireball was the brightest object and was the only object to register as the shutter was opening. The EXIF information should have the shutter speed which would lend even more credibility to this theory.

2. Fireball while camera is still
----------------------------------
The middle streak that goes across the photo between the two telephone wires is the entry fireball when the camera was standing still and it was exposed with an approximate time lapse of 10s.

3. Question regarding T0
----------------------------

T0 = the moment the shutter begins to transition its state from closed to open.

I do have one question when I look at the photo with that theory in mind. The left hand side of the anomaly should signify T0 of the fireball's position (assuming the trail is created from left to right). Even if the trail is persistent shouldn't one of the two happen according to this theory:

3Q1) The trail imaged during the 10s period should be dimmer or nonexistent to the left of T0, OR
3Q2.) The anomaly should extend further through the frame without any hard edges at the ends.

In other words, if the trail is persistent then why is the anomaly only in the middle of the frame? Shouldn't we see highlights or ghosts to the left of the point created by T0 during phase 1? At some level of brightness the sensors act as a brick wall filter because they simply can't activate. However, it seems like there should be some trail off in the anomaly stage before hitting the brick wall for exciting the sensors or film resulting in scenario 3Q2.

Thank you for your input.

I will also look into the report mentioned by the original photographer Pete Goldie:

www.rawstory.com...
NASA’s tiger team of 10 world-renowned experts completed a 40 page study devoted to my photograph called “Potential for Discharge and Certain Other Space / Atmospheric Environment Effects in the Columbia Shuttle Orbiter Accident”



posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by compressedFusion

In other words, if the trail is persistent then why is the anomaly only in the middle of the frame? Shouldn't we see highlights or ghosts to the left of the point created by T0 during phase 1? At some level of brightness the sensors act as a brick wall filter because they simply can't activate. However, it seems like there should be some trail off in the anomaly stage before hitting the brick wall for exciting the sensors or film resulting in scenario 3Q2.



Correct
edit on 27-7-2013 by BullwinkleKicksButt because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
It was Pete goldie, the owner of the copyright, whom I quoted early in this discussion, and linked to his recent article on the photo here:
www.rawstory.com...

Be sure to read all the comments, too.

You can easily find the photo on a dozen websites by image-search 'columbia shuttle lightning' or some similar phrase.

I set the search up for you here:
www.google.com... 5593...........0.
and here
www.google.com... AUoAQ&biw=1016&bih=636

edit on 27-7-2013 by JimOberg because: add urls





Thanks for the heads up. I did have a look at the site, and read the article... and it was interesting, though I honestly didn't note anything that seemed super-anomalous in the photo.

I have to say, though, I was very reluctant to click that link. And now that I've read it, it's even worse I almost wish I could take my click back.



At first, it just seemed like kind of a petty, childish move-- to serve ATS with a takedown notice. As if he's some child whining for attention and wants everyone to go to his site, so he can get the clicks, or the recognition, or whatever the hell it is he's after. Like I said-- petty.

But after reading what he wrote in the link you provided, it seems like his motivation is even more scummy:





Those three productions are the only authorized uses of my photograph. Despite that, my image is reproduced without permission in hundreds of websites, almost all of which are presenting, of one sort or another, conspiracy behind the Columbia accident. Pick a fringe group, be it anti-government, fundamentalist believer, HAARP, chemclouds, right wing, left wing, secret dreams of psychics, etc… they all seem to have an angle on what really happened to the Columbia Shuttle, and it always involves the “purple corkscrew”, my “confiscated” camera and that “they” are forcing me to hide the truth. I know it is too much to expect these folks to respect a photograph copyright, let alone the public record of what happened.




So he's basically a control freak, megalomaniac, and a rabid anti-conspiracy nut. Who later (in the comments) goes on to say:



I gave the photos to NASA, not the FBI. I did not "try" to copyright the images, I did copyright the images, as per the advice of my council and NASA's legal department. NASA had complete and immediate access to all my observations, and the observations of the other amateurs who volunteered their time and equipment to aid the accident investigation. The reason I copyrighted the images was for control, specifically to prevent the purple corkscrew image from becoming a public distraction if it was determined to be irrelevant. Although I had very substantial offers from major news outlets, I declined them all until the image was properly analyzed. I can claim some success in minimizing that distraction until the CAIB concluded their report.





Oh thank you, Pete, for being the Gatekeeper of Information and controlling its flow, and not allowing us silly peons to become all confused by having to analyze information and think for ourselves. Good thing there are heroes like Pete out there, keeping all these "distractions" away from us.



I mean, the guy pretty much copyrighted a photo expressly to prevent us "wackos" from speculating about it.





Not to mention that he sounds like a pretentious tool who is rather full of himself. And this smug tool-of-the-system who supposedly "holds a Ph.D. and 2 other graduate degrees from 'old East Coast universities'" doesn't know the difference between council and counsel?


/rant
edit on 27-7-2013 by iwilliam because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 09:58 PM
link   
good luck with show, i'm tied up monitoring the ISS docking... I look forward to seeing any summaries of comments.

will respond to other comments in the AM.



posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 11:45 PM
link   
reply to post by TritonTaranis
 


It's real simple, if you don't own the copyright to an image you can't post it on the internet without the owner's written permission. No, really it IS that simple. Doesn't matter how fast media sharing is growing or being utilized.

Until the IP laws change (and they likely won't over something this flagrant) that's what we have to live with. ASK the owner if you can post their property or don't post it.

ATS will never be a party to using someone else's Intellectual Property without their permission period.

The fact we expect the same protection of our member's IP notwithstanding, it's just plain WRONG. To assert this was some sort of "threat" and we removed the image based on that premise is to totally misunderstand ATS, the DMCA, The Creative Commons Deed, Copyright Law, and common decency. It's also laughable considering what we have exposed in the past, legally.

Springer...
edit on 7-27-2013 by Springer because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 28 2013 @ 02:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by iwilliam

Oh thank you, Pete, for being the Gatekeeper of Information and controlling its flow, and not allowing us silly peons to become all confused by having to analyze information and think for ourselves. Good thing there are heroes like Pete out there, keeping all these "distractions" away from us.



I mean, the guy pretty much copyrighted a photo expressly to prevent us "wackos" from speculating about it.





Not to mention that he sounds like a pretentious tool who is rather full of himself. And this smug tool-of-the-system who supposedly "holds a Ph.D. and 2 other graduate degrees from 'old East Coast universities'" doesn't know the difference between council and counsel?


/rant
edit on 27-7-2013 by iwilliam because: (no reason given)


Pete would make the perfect NASA employee. LMAO



posted on Jul, 28 2013 @ 06:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Springer
reply to post by TritonTaranis
 


It's real simple, if you don't own the copyright to an image you can't post it on the internet without the owner's written permission. No, really it IS that simple. Doesn't matter how fast media sharing is growing or being utilized.

Until the IP laws change (and they likely won't over something this flagrant) that's what we have to live with. ASK the owner if you can post their property or don't post it.

ATS will never be a party to using someone else's Intellectual Property without their permission period.

The fact we expect the same protection of our member's IP notwithstanding, it's just plain WRONG. To assert this was some sort of "threat" and we removed the image based on that premise is to totally misunderstand ATS, the DMCA, The Creative Commons Deed, Copyright Law, and common decency. It's also laughable considering what we have exposed in the past, legally.

Springer...
edit on 7-27-2013 by Springer because: (no reason given)




Very true Springer but what I can see and believe is that atleast 90% of ATS posts containing an image obtained from the web or other sources of other parties ownership/work will not or very rarely have copy right permissions to reproduce.

So what makes this post any different from others........ Just because some infamous NASA debunker cries SUE! it just seems convenient that u jump up and down on this thread and not on many others.

Regards BDU



posted on Jul, 28 2013 @ 08:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bob Down Under
So what makes this post any different from others........ Just because some infamous NASA debunker cries SUE! it just seems convenient that u jump up and down on this thread and not on many others.


We were supposed to restart this discussion to concentrate on the question at hand, whether the image -- which anyone can easily find pirated versions of on websites that make no pretense of observing copyright -- have posted.

I'm still willing and eager to do that.

I have answers to your questions which I'd be glad to deliver U2U, unless you will insist on deflecting the thread from its original intent -- assess whether NASA officials and experts have lied and misled the public about this image and the true cause of the Columbia shuttle disaster.

If you want to raise meta-questions along such lines, however, I would want to discuss why this entire theme is even ON the UFO topic group.



posted on Jul, 28 2013 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by BullwinkleKicksButt

Originally posted by compressedFusion

In other words, if the trail is persistent then why is the anomaly only in the middle of the frame? Shouldn't we see highlights or ghosts to the left of the point created by T0 during phase 1? At some level of brightness the sensors act as a brick wall filter because they simply can't activate. However, it seems like there should be some trail off in the anomaly stage before hitting the brick wall for exciting the sensors or film resulting in scenario 3Q2.


Correct


Incorrect. You've got to keep in mind what was in the field-of-view of the camera when the exposure started, the trace it left behind as it briefly bounced around, and the view as it changed once the camera had settled in, until the shuttle fireball passed out-of-frame to the left.

To appreciate what the visuals would look like you REALLY have to read thoroughly the personal accounts of the STS-72 fireball collected and linked at my website. You have to move out of your habitual library of 'stuff-I've-ever-seen' and make a new entry of something you never in your life have seen or imagined: a shuttle fireball entry leaving a persistent trail across the sky.

My own imagination and decades of sky-watching had not equipped me to properly anticipate what it OUGHT to look like, until I saw one for the first time in 1983. And in later years, when I dragged the family outside in the middle of the night, and especially on the fully-clear nights when we watched the apparition horizon-to-horizon and waited forever-it-seemed for the sonic boom [which scientists had predicted couldn't possible exist from that altitude], I was one of a handful of human beings on the planet who had the opportunity to LEARN by experience what such a phenomenon truly looked like. And then, by my own writings and seeking/collecting the writings of other witnesses, I tried to communicate the features of this genuinely unearthly and never-before-in-planetary-history seen by eyes of any living creature [similar only to extremely rare earth-grazing asteroids, but even then they lacked key visual features].

As an aside, let me generalize. Space flight has presented us with utterly unfamiliar and unearthly apparitions which, when interpreted in earthside old patterns of experience, fail to be correctly understood without energetic intellectual force to overcome instinctive, inertial, time-tested [and valid -- for the EARTH environment] brain patterns. The shuttle fireball is one example. Shadows on the moon is another -- the pictures don't "look right", and for Earth, they aren't, so people's instincts cry 'fake!'. Objects floating nearby an orbiting spaceship is another biggie -- they seem to behave in ways only intelligently controlled creatures or artifacts could EVER do [correct again, for Earth conditions]. And the misinterpretations are in the millions -- just look at youtube and cable TV specials.

If you are merely a bundle of unthinking instincts programmed by your past [by half a billion years of evolution], then I guess that's the way you've got to 'see' things. But if you are a thinking being eager to appreciate the first truly new domain of human activity ever, you're going to have to try really hard to appreciate the NEW environment and its effect on perception and visual interpretation. It's NOT easy.

Back to the zig-zag image. Break it into two separate images. One is the 'ghost trail' laid down by the shuttle, a glowing persistent whitish trail of measurable angular thickness [it's probably caused by angry nitrogen molecules reforming]. The other is the shuttle fireball spark itself.

Open the shutter on the trail. Even with initial jitter, the trail's brightness will not register on the optics until the jitter ends. Then it will have the entire exposure time to build up on the receiver.

Now open the shutter on the shuttle fireball, without any trail. It will bounce around briefly, then settle in and leave a track inscribed by its own brightness. There will be a zigzag at first opening, and then a long, straight track.

Now superimpose those two visual effects into one image.

You'll get exactly what the Goldie image looks like.



new topics

top topics



 
33
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join