NASA ending the ISS live feed...because of UFO's????

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: EndOfDays77

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance
a reply to: EndOfDays77

You're kidding, right?

Edit: Nevermind....I remember that train wreck of a thread....You're not kidding..

The thread is a marvel! I see you're still trolling?! The vast weight of proof is on my side..in fact go ahead and prove it! Present some tangible proof that can outweigh my own repeatably tested tangible proof instead of trying to discredit my work, with a so called smart comment, with no basis in fact..

It's the same thing Oberg does whenever he can't use rational argument against a sighting, he just spits out ridicule, but offers nothing to support his view. Very common here..

Funny, I get that from most of your posts.

In contrast I find Jim's posts to be on topic, lucid, and most of the time they more than adequately explain what is being discussed.

a reply to: shawmanfromny

That third video looks like a lens reflection. I miss the old Space Shuttle UFO videos. They looked like the real deal.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: shawmanfromny

...... I miss the old Space Shuttle UFO videos. They looked like the real deal.

I think that's a very insightful observation with profound implications for assessing the nature of the original stimuli for such scenes.

Although the common explanation of shuttle UFO videos, as ice flakes, is subject to a lot of mockery nowadays, we should all realize there’s been a marked change in the visual nature of 'space UFO videos' since the shuttle stopped flying. Gone are the fleets of UFOs, the criss-cross drifting and zig-zagging of multiple objects seen on camera views.

This change has occurred since the ISS, unlike the shuttle, doesn't dump waste water, and rarely uses thrusters for attitude control. So naturally, pseudo-UFOs created by such prosaic factors on shuttle missions have ALSO stopped -- replaced by distinctive new features of the new optical systems providing continuous external views.

This fundamental qualitative shift of the appearance of 'space UFOs' that coincides with a fundamental technological change of spacecraft routine operations seems to me to a powerful argument that the videos are CAUSED by the technological features of whichever spacecraft was carrying the cameras.

If the videos were caused by factors external to the spacecraft [such as alien vehicles], why have they visually changed so dramatically?

originally posted by: [post=21101807]...
The US is not the only country involved. I know Russia has their NASA counterpart when it comes to the ISS and they work hand in hand with NASA. Do the other involved nations not have stations for tracking / monitoring? Or are they all reliant on NASA / ROSCOM?

That is an EXCELLENT question, It turns out that the NASA TDRSS network is unique -- the USSR had one, it broke down, and is only now being reconstituted. The most recent Soyuz upgrade carries antennas to use it. The Russian segment on ISS was launched with similar antennas but have not yet been tested [I ask the cosmonauts exactly that question prior to every launch].

Prior to that, the Russians on ISS used the American comm links when they were out of range of their own ground stations [and they still do].

Because Russia is geographically so WIDE, about half of every day's orbits cross SOME part of Russia and can briefly talk with ground stations. They have ground stations from Vladivostok in the east to near Moscow in the west.

a reply to: JimOberg


That's a very logical explanation. ISS is less "busy", which in turn means fewer craft-generated events to be caught on camera.

I was hoping that UFO's were less interested in the ISS because it's always there. The Space Shuttles were up there for a few days, and then disappeared for months at a time. Lots of external activities too. They were more interesting to those of us on Earth, so I was thinking they'd be more interesting to "visitors" as well.

Experiment is a wonderful word. If one couches a project as an 'experiment' at the beginning, it gives them a great 'out' for ending it at anytime, i.e.- we are phasing out this or stopping that because it was just an experiment to begin with and we've got our data. I love how they buried the info within the press release as well. NASA has some brilliant PR people. I guess my point is it's fun to try to read between the lines. I might be over thinking it, who knows? reply to: tsurfer2000h

originally posted by: Optic3
Experiment is a wonderful word. If one couches a project as an 'experiment' at the beginning, it gives them a great 'out' for ending it at anytime, i.e.- we are phasing out this or stopping that because it was just an experiment to begin with and we've got our data. I love how they buried the info within the press release as well. NASA has some brilliant PR people. I guess my point is it's fun to try to read between the lines. I might be over thinking it, who knows? reply to: tsurfer2000h

Maybe you're underthinking it. I get the impression it's just a specific live news program that's being phased out and replaced, I don't see ANY statement that the external camera earth view live shots are going away on that date.

a reply to: JimOberg Here's the statement in the press release: "NASA Television’s Space Station Live program will be phased out in August and discontinued Sept. 1. However, NASA TV will continue to air live coverage of dynamic space station operations, including launches, dockings, landings, spacewalks and briefings. NASA TV also will continue to air weekly highlights of life onboard station in the short-format Space to Ground program, also available on YouTube and via podcast." the important lines being: "NASA TV will continue to air live coverage of dynamic space station operations..and..continue to air weekly highlights" What this says to me, and I might be crazy, is that they will air live stuff after the fact but only if they consider it dynamic and also give us highlights on a weekly basis of whatever they want to show us.

Public Affairs Officer Kelly O. Humphries (JSC-AD931) on Monday, August 8, 2016, advised: “We are phasing out the weekday half-hour NASA TV show we call Space Station Live. All of the live downlinks will remain available. We’ve even added some more video resources (mainly for media because file sizes are so large) on archive.org, and are sending out a weekly update with direct links for downloading. Here’s this week’s weekly advisory about that service:
www.nasa.gov...

Nice, didnt see that, well hopefully i got all "conspiracy" for nothing. That statement makes it much clearer about what will happen. Thanks for posting :-)
reply to: JimOberg

originally posted by: Optic3
Nice, didnt see that, well hopefully i got all "conspiracy" for nothing. That statement makes it much clearer about what will happen. Thanks for posting :-)
reply to: JimOberg

The original release WAS ambiguous because the name of the program being phased out wasn't marked as a title and it was not unreasonable to interpret it as a noun phrase. It took awhile for me to get the formal response, nobody has seen it except where I've posted it. That's why double-checking is prudent and doubting the websites is prudent too.

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: shawmanfromny

...... I miss the old Space Shuttle UFO videos. They looked like the real deal.

I think that's a very insightful observation with profound implications for assessing the nature of the original stimuli for such scenes.

Although the common explanation of shuttle UFO videos, as ice flakes, is subject to a lot of mockery nowadays, we should all realize there’s been a marked change in the visual nature of 'space UFO videos' since the shuttle stopped flying. Gone are the fleets of UFOs, the criss-cross drifting and zig-zagging of multiple objects seen on camera views.

This change has occurred since the ISS, unlike the shuttle, doesn't dump waste water, and rarely uses thrusters for attitude control. So naturally, pseudo-UFOs created by such prosaic factors on shuttle missions have ALSO stopped -- replaced by distinctive new features of the new optical systems providing continuous external views.

This fundamental qualitative shift of the appearance of 'space UFOs' that coincides with a fundamental technological change of spacecraft routine operations seems to me to a powerful argument that the videos are CAUSED by the technological features of whichever spacecraft was carrying the cameras.

If the videos were caused by factors external to the spacecraft [such as alien vehicles], why have they visually changed so dramatically?

The lack of visible "alien" activity is not necessary a result of your offered reasons. The views are different. The present view is of the earth spinning below with some dark space in the upper half of the frame and the angle of view doesn't change. That's restricted-view space. The shuttles' cameras, on the other hand, showed different views all around the shuttle. And the camera operators would zoom in on distant "ice particles" that would show a grouping.

Life hasn't changed. Our view of it has.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

this is u again projecting onto others

a reply to: klasslessThis is the future. Zero live feed...out of sight, out of mind as my grandma used to say! Living in the most able era for live video from anywhere, NASA is blacking out the ISS. It's cuz they can. The only reason is secrecy, period! With no manned space shuttles, we are down to a blacked out video, & press release agenda for the ISS & (the still communist) Chinese, who hide everything. Of course there are the machines... like satellites & an automated, solar powered mini shuttle (or 2), that does secret military missions...way beyond the 300 mile radiation zone that would harm astronauts. No video there to be had!

You are so correct on the "ice" & "orbital debris" explanation not being credible. These rotate & tumble, as well as having purpose. They gather & then zoom off in various directions. The UFOs do not necessarily FOLLOW the shuttles, as Jim Oberg suggests. They can be seen on so many videos, moving in the opposite direction from the shuttle, which is going 17,500 MPH. The shuttles tend to "run into" these UFO swarms more than they are followed.

The Oberg ICE/DEBRIS swarms (UFOs) that we all agree we are seeing on the videos, he agrees are EVER-PRESENT, & all around the spacecraft ...yet they never ever HIT any of the various shuttles? (according to NASA) The ICE Jim says, follows shuttles through out their missions, even when they change orbit or height.

NASA says they are ALL known objects we are seeing & the rest of us say there are so many unknowns. I think Oberg & NASA sound unreasonable & unscientific. We are obviously dealing with unknown objects & the ISS , with limited camera viewing, lighting & angles...unlike the shuttles...still delivered unknown objects.

Thus the total need to shut down the live NASA feed. (NASA knows that Jim Oberg needs a retirement/break & is "YESTERDAY'S MAN" anyway!)

originally posted by: buzzEmiller
a reply to: klasslessThis is the future. Zero live feed...out of sight, out of mind as my grandma used to say! Living in the most able era for live video from anywhere, NASA is blacking out the ISS. It's cuz they can. ...

Try to keep up with the class, Martyn. The live feed is NOT ending. You're lost in delusion again.

originally posted by: buzzEmiller
a reply to: klassless

You are so correct on the "ice" & "orbital debris" explanation not being credible. These rotate & tumble, as well as having purpose. They gather & then zoom off in various directions. The UFOs do not necessarily FOLLOW the shuttles, as Jim Oberg suggests. They can be seen on so many videos, moving in the opposite direction from the shuttle, which is going 17,500 MPH. The shuttles tend to "run into" these UFO swarms more than they are followed.

Ice particles that may just break off the body of the shuttle can be accepted as traveling with the shuttles as those ice particles were not forcibly ejected so that they wound up with their own trajectory.

The Oberg ICE/DEBRIS swarms (UFOs) that we all agree we are seeing on the videos, he agrees are EVER-PRESENT, & all around the spacecraft ...yet they never ever HIT any of the various shuttles? (according to NASA) The ICE Jim says, follows shuttles through out their missions, even when they change orbit or height.

This cannot be true for water dumps that produce a jet stream of frozen ice particles that are being forcibly ejected and being left behind as the shuttle moves ahead. That's a weakness in Jim's explanation.

STS-125 Water Dump

NASA says they are ALL known objects we are seeing

Blanket statements have never done it for me. They tend to stray from the truth.

However, I just had this thought for the credibility of some ice particles, even though I don't consider them the real unknowns that we love to discuss. Here's my thought: water dumps are forcibly ejected and either they continue on their path away from the forward travel of the shuttle and as the shuttle orbits if its orbit is slightly changed it could run into a "cloud" of the ejected ice particles which should be seen as a "white" cloud (reflecting sunshine, or not when the shuttle is in the dark) that will soon pepper the oncoming shuttle. Are there videos of this ejected cloud of water now ice particles when they come around to the same area where the water dump occurred?

Thoughtful comments, let me get back in more detail shortly.

originally posted by: JimOberg
Thoughtful comments, let me get back in more detail shortly.

Jim, while you're at it, do you know if the continued force of the water dump move the shuttle off it's straight-ahead path? I noticed that the water dump in the above video is from one of the sides, not straight back as I imagined. And if the water dump force is enough to move the shuttle out of its orbit, even minutely, do they correct the action with reaction by attitude firing?

a reply to: shawmanfromny

I can't believe this BS is being talked about again the NET and this site are full of people making claims about NASA hiding this or editing that, it seems these people don't have the common sense to figure out if NASA wanted to hide things they WOULDN'T show it to start with.

Then we have all the usual claims on the NET and again by members on here about objects spotted on these feeds as has been pointed out they tend to be reflections and camera artifacts etc but what I really love about these people are the claims made of speed etc of these objects, if you DON'T know the size or the distance YOU can't work things out by just watching it.

The only people who benefit from this are the youtube CON ARTISTS who set up channels because they know they have a GUARANTEED very GULLIBLE audience who give them hits to generate revenue

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: EndOfDays77

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance
a reply to: EndOfDays77

You're kidding, right?

Edit: Nevermind....I remember that train wreck of a thread....You're not kidding..

The thread is a marvel! I see you're still trolling?! The vast weight of proof is on my side..in fact go ahead and prove it! Present some tangible proof that can outweigh my own repeatably tested tangible proof instead of trying to discredit my work, with a so called smart comment, with no basis in fact..

It's the same thing Oberg does whenever he can't use rational argument against a sighting, he just spits out ridicule, but offers nothing to support his view. Very common here..

So we allow badmouthing other members here now. My how ATS has fallen. Oh well. Here's your "Nibiru" by the way: www.youtube.com...
When the HDEV feed is still running on September 1st and after, I wonder what your excuse will be?