NASA Artifacts explanation is a LIE

reply to post by Astyanax

Thanks for sharing the principles involved in this. But, let me say this as a copyright/trademark OWNER.

I AGREE with sharing. Its just one stickler. The copyright laws allow me to decide where, when, how and by WHOM items are used...thats the nature of it.

But it wasnt designed in the current time of media availability: we never realized that tech would go this far along with social media.

There has to be a way to share. Oh...and the "fair-use" term people throw about is not accurate at all. Especially if it was stolen or put up without knowledge, consent or permission of the owner.

Again...I agree with the sharing part of my own stuff as well. But, I still have ownership control over it for another X-amount of years....so...now what?

reply to post by nrd101

I don't trust NASA anymore than I trust my government. which is not at all.

Maybe not the proper thread for this, but I won't believe much of what NASA says until they show me a video of the Moon taken from one of the 4 video cameras on Canadarm2 on the ISS, at 'mid-day', ISS time, that is, looking out into deep space. If it has ever been done, I'm sure Jim could locate such a video.
As for the zig-zag, I have to wonder why the ion trail from the shuttle appears to be brighter in the region where the zig-zag trail seems to join the main trail? Another artifact? And what is the zig-zag an artifact of?

You know what would be nice? If people backed up their assertions that whatever government agency they are currently hating on is "lying" with something even vaguely resembling proof. The whole "doesn't feel right to me" or "I'm not buying it" thing has really gotten old...

Originally posted by jaffo
You know what would be nice? If people backed up their assertions that whatever government agency they are currently hating on is "lying" with something even vaguely resembling proof. The whole "doesn't feel right to me" or "I'm not buying it" thing has really gotten old...

Go and read THIS then you might understand.

Visiting us though? It's a little bit ridiculous when you factor in the distances

reply to post by Druscilla


Jesus, how many times?

It's about them coming here, not humans of today attempting to travel to an alien planet.

Originally posted by alienreality
reply to post by JimOberg

 

Since the photograph was used as an example of some behavioral issue with NASA, and not being used to promote web traffic for advertising revenue or other commercial interests, it should fall under "fair use" laws. and not even require permission from the copyright holder.. I could be wrong though Jim, I have been wrong before..

You know something, I don't like what I'm seeing in this thread. It has been partially sidetracked by the photograph issue, yet that San Francisco article from 2003 clearly states that the photographer, ' would not release the picture to the public until examined by NASA' That kind of implies that at some stage it would be released...to the public. So I agree with you, it is also educational as it turns out, for one reason or another. There also seems to be a fair amount of hubris going on here for and against, but from the same quarter??
The thread is good, since it seems the debate is still going on in the upper echelons, probably as much about the pictures, as the ultimate result, and the thereafter.

Originally posted by Morg234

Visiting us though? It's a little bit ridiculous when you factor in the distances

reply to post by Druscilla

 

Jesus, how many times?

It's about them coming here, not humans of today attempting to travel to an alien planet.

Druscilla just picked the wrong moment in time to make that remark,

www.dailymail.co.uk...

Of course it is the Daily Mail which is something of a drama queen paper, but it is topical and doing the rounds, and covered elsewhere, and it was an ATS subject just a teeny while ago. However, the perspective is as you say. So if there are just robotic alien craft about, (allegedly) you can't even exclude them from this topic, since we may not even be able to see them, or know what they do.

Originally posted by BullwinkleKicksButt

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by mysterioustranger

 

I, too, applaud Mr. Oberg's sentiments regarding the use of copyright material. Plenty of my own writing is scattered about the internet on various web sites, reproduced without permission. In most cases the copyright is somebody else's, not mine, so I'm not exactly losing income on it, but it's still annoying to see other people profit from one's hard work in this way.

I didn't realise author of this thread was making money from the photo.

Clearly this THREAT get pulled on anyone posting the image to show the world how NASA is full of poop

Ive never know such a hissy fit over pulling a pic of the web

Originally posted by jaffo
You know what would be nice? If people backed up their assertions that whatever government agency they are currently hating on is "lying" with something even vaguely resembling proof. The whole "doesn't feel right to me" or "I'm not buying it" thing has really gotten old...

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

Then after NASA has explained it away as an artifact and the sheeple walk away

If anything concrete pops up that goes against there explanation, they take the images/footage and buy out that person

Its everywhere you look in the UFO community

Originally posted by TritonTaranis

Originally posted by BullwinkleKicksButt

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by mysterioustranger

 

I, too, applaud Mr. Oberg's sentiments regarding the use of copyright material. Plenty of my own writing is scattered about the internet on various web sites, reproduced without permission. In most cases the copyright is somebody else's, not mine, so I'm not exactly losing income on it, but it's still annoying to see other people profit from one's hard work in this way.

I didn't realise author of this thread was making money from the photo.

Clearly this THREAT get pulled on anyone posting the image to show the world how NASA is full of poop

Ive never know such a hissy fit over pulling a pic of the web

It is a problem ongoing, The LA Times for instance, decided to pursue anyone using their material all of which is now copyright, of course the main 'market' programme target is their internet publishing. It is all horlicks when you consider the internet intent was a philosophy of bringing forward information for everyone, so feck the LA Times, and eventually the only place historically to find their scribings, will be be at their website, which eventually won't have any information of their content on search engines, just the website URL.

A lot of time and energy has in my opinion been wasted in this topic because of anger, combative attitudes (on both sides,) and the legal status of the image in the opening post.

There is a potentially valid issue buried beneath all of this however, despite how obfuscated it has been by the aforementioned anger and bluster. And that issue, which I believe TC was trying to raise, is a lot simpler and more straightforward than the topic and its many arguments might lead one to believe.

It's simple and its most fundamental level consists of two questions:

1) Did NASA at any time dismiss the possibility of sprites and other phenomena mentioned by TC?
2) If so, does this indicate a policy to debunk the unexplained, or simply the limitations of the scientific knowledge of the day in question?

In my opinion focusing on those two questions qualitatively and objectively could have avoided a lot of the other content of this topic and cut right to the chase. No offense intended to anyone on either side of the debate.

Peace.

OK so this thread has gotten into specifics...
Getting back to the title of this thread...
Since NASA is really the only prolific source for "space data", the basic conclusion is that they are the gatekeepers... gatekeepers do provide accurate data from time to time,... but it is only released if it serves their agenda or is benign to their agenda...
Any "unsanctioned" release of info from a NASA employee, former or current, is summarily dismissed...
So we are forced to sift through military and civilian accounts that are even more suspect...

I don't see this changing until commercial efforts en masse break through the "Gate".
A Gate which is, IMO a front for the militarization of space by the infamous "black military"...

We should just privatize NASA /Space programs .... that way when inconvenient data points go missing in action ,, it will automaticly fall under copyright protection...After all ,,not many people have a reason too Need to Know



NASA stonewalled

I would love to believe that ufo,s encircle the earth, that space serpents exist, there are bases on the moon, discarded tea cups on mars etc because it would make life so much more interesting. But as much as I look at the endless pictures on this site and wish they were something else, it's generally no different to the guy who sees christs head in a cornflake.
NASA may well withhold info, there might be alien tea parties happening on mars but as someone new to this site all I seem to read here are people saying it must be true because I want it to be. No proof or explanations or reasoning. If NASA are lying about every ambigious picture, then just explain to me why and what proof you have, otherwise there explanations will always be more acceptable. The fact that they lied, withheld, or whatever on 1 occasion is not a proof that everything else is a lie.

Originally posted by DavidMK
I would love to believe that ufo,s encircle the earth, that space serpents exist, there are bases on the moon, discarded tea cups on mars etc because it would make life so much more interesting. But as much as I look at the endless pictures on this site and wish they were something else, it's generally no different to the guy who sees christs head in a cornflake.
NASA may well withhold info, there might be alien tea parties happening on mars but as someone new to this site all I seem to read here are people saying it must be true because I want it to be. No proof or explanations or reasoning. If NASA are lying about every ambigious picture, then just explain to me why and what proof you have, otherwise there explanations will always be more acceptable. The fact that they lied, withheld, or whatever on 1 occasion is not a proof that everything else is a lie.

For anyone to just show you the evidence in minutes would be impossible

It requires many years of research on the skeptics part, NASA's lies are just a tiny part of Ufology

I think this is the problem, some people are closed of to the idea full stop from the start, and some just don't even bother doing any research at all, there are millions of reports, videos, pictures, witnesses, to trawl over and even then it require a level of intelligence to just understand what they're looking at

Originally posted by AceWombat04

There is a potentially valid issue buried beneath all of this however, despite how obfuscated it has been by the aforementioned anger and bluster. And that issue, which I believe TC was trying to raise, is a lot simpler and more straightforward than the topic and its many arguments might lead one to believe.

I did try

But Jim decided he would try get me sued for posting the picture derailing the entire thread and video/image in question, same as NASA does and had it removed, and so be the case anywhere else its been posted for investigation, the image shows something thought to have been impossible by NASA and science just a few years ago, yet we new of the potential of it, and certainly men like Nikola Tesla new of the potential untapped energy in the atmosphere in the 1900's but he was silenced too


TESLA ON GLOBAL WIRELESS ENERGY TRANSMISSION FOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND OTHER PURPOSES

The closed circuit system consists of a large Tesla coil transmitter, an ionized path connecting the transmitter to the upper atmosphere, the upper atmosphere, a second ionized path connecting the upper atmosphere back down to a receiving location, and the receiver itself. The circuit back to the transmitter is completed through the earth. The upper atmosphere, like any low-pressure gas, is not an ohmic conductor, but will conduct electricity if broken down; i.e., ionized. The portion of the upper atmosphere between the transmitter and the receiver would then conduct current like a neon tube of planetary proportions. It would require a certain amount of energy to maintain the electrical discharge through it.

The earth is 4,000 miles radius. Around this conducting earth is an atmosphere. The earth is a conductor; the atmosphere above is a conductor, only there is a little stratum between the conducting atmosphere and the conducting earth which is insulating. . . . Now, you realize right away that if you set up differences of potential at one point, say, you will create in the media corresponding fluctuations of potential. But, since the distance from the earth's surface to the conducting atmosphere is minute, as compared with the distance of the receiver at 4,000 miles, say, you can readily see that the energy cannot travel along this curve and get there, but will be immediately transformed into conduction currents, and these currents will travel like currents over a wire with a return. The energy will be recovered in the circuit, not by a beam that passes along this curve and is reflected and absorbed,

en.wikipedia.org...



NASA and the government issued warnings to the public about the danger of coming in contact with space shuttle debris in order to cover up the true cause of the Columbia disaster. Were they attempting to conceal the fact that a weapon first envisioned by legendary inventor Nikola Tesla over 80 years ago was the real culprit that brought down the shuttle and killed the 7 astronauts ?

The San Francisco photographer who took photos of the Columbia as it passed over the Bay Area. developed, revealed anomalous flashes of purple light around the shuttle minutes before it was destroyed. NASA later confiscated the photographer's camera and flew it to Mission Control by a special jet.

[snip]

MOD NOTE: This image has been removed due to copyright complaints. Please do not re-post.


What did the camera contain that made it so crucial for NASA to take possession of it? and deny the public from accessing it?

Did other scientists pick up where Tesla left off and create a super weapon the likes of which the world has never seen before ?



Shocking evidence that this is so includes the image above, taken from the TV program "Megalightning." It shows a purplish corkscrew trail of "something" merging with the ionized plasma trail of Columbia entry early in its descent, while Columbia was still 63 kilometers above the earth. One might have expected this image to catch the attention of media around the world. But before that could happen, both the camera and the photograph were examined by NASA scientists and forbidden to the pubic as you can see in this thread from the first few posts or deleted posts

Most shocking was the explanation given by experts who examined the photograph. They said that the luminous corkscrew trail was an "artifact" caused by a camera wobble. The explanation left critics aghast, since the Columbia trail in the photo is crisp with no evidence of camera movement. Nor is any wobble evident in other similar photographs taken at the time. The explanation relegates to "coincidence" the fact that the Columbia trail brightens precisely at its juncture with the corkscrew trail . This brightening is an electrically predictable occurrence when two plasma channels merge

Originally posted by GaryN
reply to post by nrd101

 

Maybe not the proper thread for this, but I won't believe much of what NASA says until they show me a video of the Moon taken from one of the 4 video cameras on Canadarm2 on the ISS, at 'mid-day', ISS time, that is, looking out into deep space. If it has ever been done, I'm sure Jim could locate such a video.
As for the zig-zag, I have to wonder why the ion trail from the shuttle appears to be brighter in the region where the zig-zag trail seems to join the main trail? Another artifact? And what is the zig-zag an artifact of?

I don't understand the motive for the first request. how would such an image be different from the view from earth?

the zigzag is an artifact of the camera's jostling during manual aperture open button push. it is a trace of the shuttle fireball itself, which once overlain on the persistent trail, brightens that track image -- exactly as observed. the stars don't leave a same-shaped zig zag because they were much dimmer.

reply to post by JimOberg

I don't understand the motive for the first request. how would such an image be different from the view from earth?

I have watched many hours of incredibly boring footage from numerous EVAs and never once has an astronaut mentioned seeing the stars or planets, or the Moon, or mentioned moonlight. I'm told they are too busy out there to be able to take time to be sightseeing, but I can't believe that they could fail to notice Venus say, which Celestia shows me should have been visible to many of the EVA participants. The Moon should be the easiest thing to video as it can be done without going EVA, but has never been attempted since the ISS has been in operation? It will look just the same as it does form Earth, yes, everone tells me that, but for me, seeing is believing, and with so many people having a distrust of what NASA tells us about anything they do, surely they could spare a couple of minutes to show just one thing they tell us is true.
The only time we see the Moon from the ISS is when it is viewed close to the rim of the Earth, which means it is being seen through Earths atmosphere, which is how we see it from Earths surface. By looking out into deep space from the ISS, when the Moon is directly 'overhead', the atmosphere will be so thin that an image should be totally unaffected by it, so will it look any different? That's what I want to know, but as usual, NASA does some handwaving and makes excuses and calls it a frivolous exercise. Never a straight answer.

the zigzag is an artifact of the camera's jostling during manual aperture open button push. it is a trace of the shuttle fireball itself, which once overlain on the persistent trail, brightens that track image -- exactly as observed.

Well why isn't the trail portion at the left as bright as the trail at the right of the 'jiggle'? And the camera jiggles and ends up back in exactly the same position so it all lines up? Long odds on that I'd say. I made a quick image of what I think it should have looked like if it was a camera jiggle, with the trail to the left brightened, much darker where the main fireball light is away jiggling, and back to a brighter trail. Maybe I'm not allowed to show a modified image either?

www3.telus.net...

Originally posted by coastlinekid
Since NASA is really the only prolific source for "space data", the basic conclusion is that they are the gatekeepers... ....

How can you claim this? Many nations and a few private groups are active in space, and many private enthusiasts track space activity visually and electronically. Dozens of nations have had people in space, including private citizens. Half a dozen nations have sent probes to map the Moon. Robert Bigelow has flown two prototype habitation modules with external-mounted television cameras. NASA streams audio and video from human space missions and the ISS.

What sort of traffic is NASA supposed to be able to control?

Originally posted by GaryN
reply to post by JimOberg

 

the zigzag is an artifact of the camera's jostling during manual aperture open button push. it is a trace of the shuttle fireball itself, which once overlain on the persistent trail, brightens that track image -- exactly as observed.

Well why isn't the trail portion at the left as bright as the trail at the right of the 'jiggle'? And the camera jiggles and ends up back in exactly the same position so it all lines up? Long odds on that I'd say. I made a quick image of what I think it should have looked like if it was a camera jiggle, with the trail to the left brightened, much darker where the main fireball light is away jiggling, and back to a brighter trail. Maybe I'm not allowed to show a modified image either?
www3.telus.net...

Nice work, and kudos for trying out what images 'ought to' look like under different assumptions.

Your description of the Goldie image is correct.

What must be understood is that the white trail, laid down by the passage of the bright fireball, is persistent. It only fades over a period of minutes.

Try this with your image simulator, this could be really helpful for folks who still haven't grasped the bizarre-looking implications of the very unusual nature of the shuttle entry visuals.

The first impressions on the FOV [call it T-zero] is the dot of light that is the shuttle, and the trailing white line is too dim to be captured as the camera bounces briefly.

Once the camera settles into position [call it T-still], the bright light of the fireball lays down its track on the optics, all the way to T-end [when the shutter is closed].

But over the period of the time exposure, so does the dimmer persistent trail. This includes the continuous track created in the T-zero to T-still period, and the rest of the track after T-still.

That trail already exists behind the fireball, and once the bouncing stops, the laid-down trail has time to build up its brightness on the exposure, exactly in line with the trail laid down by the fireball because it always was trailing the fireball.

It is the persistence of the trail -- the weird fact that the trail is still there when the camera stops wobbling -- that has baffled folks who are unaware of the long-term persistence.

They see the white line as merely the instantaneously laid down history trail of the bright fireball.

That fireball trail is indeed there, from T-still, when the camera is now steady. But the portions of the trail to the left of the 'intersection point' were ALREADY THERE, and become registered during the time exposure for the entire sequence.

Unlike the brilliant zig-zag of the fireball, everything else in the field of view was too dim to leave its own traces during the brief wiggle period.

You seem to have created the perfect tools to visualize and simulate this HIGHLY UNUSUAL effect. Please give it a try.

I am really sorry you never had the chance to see such a shuttle fireball entry. Their like won't happen again in our lifetimes.