NASA Footage, Seems Inteligent Activity On Space

originally posted by: MikhailBakunin

originally posted by: JimOberg
a reply to: flamengo

And was that original video in daytime or nighttime?

That's a joke? Who here doesn't know "day" or "night" is strictly an earth thing?

*for your reference*
(The earth goes around the sun to make day and night. So if you're not on earth you won't see day or night.... ) :/

Oh dear. Where do you even start?
0/10
See me after school.

originally posted by: galadofwarthethird
a reply to: flamengo
More like clearly proof that crappy videos were you cant really see, or tell anything, do exists in both low light and high light situations.

But I suppose you can only get so far using current video capture technology. Its why Hollywood pays to extra bucks to redo scenes over and over, else they be mundane.

So which ones are the aliens, the squiggly lines, or the donuts?

What are talking about? Are you on the same page as me? No the video is not crappy, no it is clearly perceivable that the objects do not fly in a random pattern, they come from every side, and they do make curves showing intent, it is very different then debris or "ice particles", also they are self illuminated, if you cannot see and observer things, that is too bad, you should get glasses and stuff, it is your problem not mine.

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
a reply to: flamengo

They are not ice cristals and they are not moving as reacting to any mechanical force, such as the turbines of the ISS.

Turbines?

is there air in space now?

Whatever propulsion system was in use, sorry not to be technical there. But I guess you understood what I meant.

I understand it that you are saying that there is air in space so the turbine can work.

Ok, right, any comments about the video? Does it make a difference if I wrote turbines instead of Thruster? Thank you for noticing that I am not a space engineer.
My point is clear, the objects are self propulsed, they are not carried out or reacting to external forces. Also they are self illuminated, if you don't see that, then too bad, life carries on.

originally posted by: flamengo
... it is clearly perceivable that the objects …. are self illuminated, if you cannot see and observer things, that is too bad, you should get glasses and stuff, it is your problem not mine.

Why can't they be sunlit?

originally posted by: flamengo
….
….Thank you for noticing that I am not a space engineer. My point is clear, the objects .. are self illuminated, if you don't see that, then too bad, life carries on.

So you are clueless about simple spaceflight-operations stuff such as whether the objects were in sunlight or shadow. This explains a lot.

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: flamengo
….
….Thank you for noticing that I am not a space engineer. My point is clear, the objects .. are self illuminated, if you don't see that, then too bad, life carries on.

So you are clueless about simple spaceflight-operations stuff such as whether the objects were in sunlight or shadow. This explains a lot.

No, it really doesn't matter, you are trying to DESPERATLY, create a non sequitor fallacy here. What I am claiming is simple, and thanks to your video on the debris helped a lot. There you can see the debris, reflecting light, but not self illuminated, flying aimlessly through the space. But you want to conflat this image with the one I posted, which has self illuminated objects flying with purpose, doing seemly calculated turns.
In this case it is a matter of common sense, and of pattern recognition, there are many videos with footage similar to the one I presented, the tether incident is one of them, and I think a scene from STS-80 is also very similar, with 3 types of self illuminated objects doing the same pattern of fliglht, one crossing really faast, other doing curves and navigating as a amoeba, and others still flying in a slower pace. Very different of your footage where every single debri behave in the same manner, if you cannot recognise that, then you should be examined because you have an issue in recognising patterns.

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: flamengo
….
….Thank you for noticing that I am not a space engineer. My point is clear, the objects .. are self illuminated, if you don't see that, then too bad, life carries on.

So you are clueless about simple spaceflight-operations stuff such as whether the objects were in sunlight or shadow. This explains a lot.

Oh, and do you REALLY BELIEVE, that I expect to convince you of anything? Not even if the Mother Theresa of the UFOs appeared in NY Times Square or anywhere for that matter, gray aliens, the annunaki and ashtar abductiong people and dogs, as they seem to like it, and drinking blood from a cow, all that presented with a rock band playing loud, you would say it was the reflection of the sun on the lenses and you are not seeing what we are seeing because of reasons. So no thank you, I don't really take lightgasing people seriously.

a reply to: flamengo

What is "lightgassing"?

originally posted by: flamengo

Oh, and do you REALLY BELIEVE, that I expect to convince you of anything? Not even if the Mother Theresa of the UFOs appeared in NY Times Square or anywhere for that matter, gray aliens, the annunaki and ashtar abductiong people and dogs, as they seem to like it, and drinking blood from a cow, all that presented with a rock band playing loud, you would say it was the reflection of the sun on the lenses and you are not seeing what we are seeing because of reasons.

I'd watch THAT movie!

So no thank you, I don't really take lightgasing people seriously.

What? Do you mean "gaslighting"?

If so, how is Jim trying to make you doubt your own sanity? He is simply pointing out your ignorance (in the polite sense of the word).

Nowt wrong with that; I've learned a helluvalot from 'ole Jim. We ALL have.

originally posted by: flamengo

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: flamengo
….
….Thank you for noticing that I am not a space engineer. My point is clear, the objects .. are self illuminated, if you don't see that, then too bad, life carries on.

So you are clueless about simple spaceflight-operations stuff such as whether the objects were in sunlight or shadow. This explains a lot.

Oh, and do you REALLY BELIEVE, that I expect to convince you of anything? Not even if the Mother Theresa of the UFOs appeared in NY Times Square or anywhere for that matter, gray aliens, the annunaki and ashtar abductiong people and dogs, as they seem to like it, and drinking blood from a cow, all that presented with a rock band playing loud, you would say it was the reflection of the sun on the lenses and you are not seeing what we are seeing because of reasons. So no thank you, I don't really take lightgasing people seriously.

And after that little rant you expect to be taken seriously?
😃😔😣😪

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: flamengo

What is "lightgassing"?

He meant 'gaslighting', he's on a roll, cut him some slack.

a reply to: JimOberg

Illumination in space is really unearthly [by definition] and has confused lots of rational, mature observers of NASA imagery. A dark sky does NOT mean nighttime, for example -- you have to judge that from sunlit structural elements or the ground below, or from running orbital programs to determine exactly where a spacecraft was located when a video was made, or from crew/PAO comments. Even weirder is the observational experiment begun on shuttle flights about 1990, after the full TDRSS constellation was operational and essentially full-time video links were possible. During periods when internal crew video or other operational needs were absent, a cargo bay camera was pointed towards the receding horizon and just run open-loop opportunistically hunting for the puzzling sprites lightning phenomena. The crew was usual asleep or working other activities, so the cameras were remotely operated by the INCO console in Mission Control. The experiment was called 'Mesoscale Lightning Experiment', run by Dr. Otha ['Skeet'] Vaughan at NASA-MSC in Huntsville. It was a spectacular scientific success in documenting the distribution and morphology of this new type of atmospheric electrical activity. But it also caught the very common nearby drifting stuff emitted from various shuttle equipment [within a year, the first 'shuttle UFO fleet' videos were being captured by excited observers such as Martyn Stubbs], most spectacularly at sunrise when the particles rose into sunlight [takes about 6-7 seconds to reach full bright] while Earth's surface in the lower field-of-view remained dark except for lightning activity [which is exactly the reason the camera was pointed in that direction]. Since the camera's line of sight was nearly opposite to the shuttle-sun vector, the shuttle's OWN shadow was splayed out in front of the camera [invisibly, of course, with nothing to shine ON and create an image]. The routine small stuff drifting away from the shuttle would on occasion randomly drift out of the shadow and suddenly appear, often against a Earth surface background, giving a very convincing impression of an object 'materializing' or 'coming from behind a cloud'. This situation lasted only a few minutes, until the shuttle passed over the 'terminator' [day/night line on the surface] and bright sunlit ground/clouds moved into the field-of-view, which made the camera's automatic gain control circuit decrease sensitivity, making most of the small dots too dim to register on the camera optics [the fact that most famous 'shuttle UFO videos' occurred in precisely this narrow visibility opportunity window is strong evidence this explanation is correct]. This prosaic explanation can also be verified in several other ways. First, the crew routinely observed such 'stuff' and with two eyes had depth perception adequate to identify the objects as within a few tens of feet. Second, as such particles generally move away from the shuttle, they were only observed coming out of the shadow, never going back in ['dematerializing'?]. Third, their nearby-ness was verified by their instant reaction to steering thruster pulses triggered periodically by the autopilot to maintain desired pointing, as they moved away from whichever thruster had fired [the shuttle has both nose and tail thrusters so the pulses and the induced movement could be in nearly any direction], if the particle wasn't so close over the payload bay that it was in the shadow of whichever jet was firing [in a vacuum the ejected gases spread out very widely, half of the plume lies farther than 30deg from plume centerline].

There is no reason anybody accustomed to earthside rules of motion and illumination would have any idea how/why this happens. It surprises everybody.

originally posted by: oldcarpy

originally posted by: flamengo

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: flamengo
….
….Thank you for noticing that I am not a space engineer. My point is clear, the objects .. are self illuminated, if you don't see that, then too bad, life carries on.

So you are clueless about simple spaceflight-operations stuff such as whether the objects were in sunlight or shadow. This explains a lot.

Oh, and do you REALLY BELIEVE, that I expect to convince you of anything? Not even if the Mother Theresa of the UFOs appeared in NY Times Square or anywhere for that matter, gray aliens, the annunaki and ashtar abductiong people and dogs, as they seem to like it, and drinking blood from a cow, all that presented with a rock band playing loud, you would say it was the reflection of the sun on the lenses and you are not seeing what we are seeing because of reasons. So no thank you, I don't really take lightgasing people seriously.

And after that little rant you expect to be taken seriously?
😃😔😣😪

That was supposed to be humorous, if you don't understand that, that is toooo bad.

originally posted by: JimOberg
a reply to: JimOberg

Illumination in space is really unearthly [by definition] and has confused lots of rational, mature observers of NASA imagery. A dark sky does NOT mean nighttime, for example -- you have to judge that from sunlit structural elements or the ground below, or from running orbital programs to determine exactly where a spacecraft was located when a video was made, or from crew/PAO comments. Even weirder is the observational experiment begun on shuttle flights about 1990, after the full TDRSS constellation was operational and essentially full-time video links were possible. During periods when internal crew video or other operational needs were absent, a cargo bay camera was pointed towards the receding horizon and just run open-loop opportunistically hunting for the puzzling sprites lightning phenomena. The crew was usual asleep or working other activities, so the cameras were remotely operated by the INCO console in Mission Control. The experiment was called 'Mesoscale Lightning Experiment', run by Dr. Otha ['Skeet'] Vaughan at NASA-MSC in Huntsville. It was a spectacular scientific success in documenting the distribution and morphology of this new type of atmospheric electrical activity. But it also caught the very common nearby drifting stuff emitted from various shuttle equipment [within a year, the first 'shuttle UFO fleet' videos were being captured by excited observers such as Martyn Stubbs], most spectacularly at sunrise when the particles rose into sunlight [takes about 6-7 seconds to reach full bright] while Earth's surface in the lower field-of-view remained dark except for lightning activity [which is exactly the reason the camera was pointed in that direction]. Since the camera's line of sight was nearly opposite to the shuttle-sun vector, the shuttle's OWN shadow was splayed out in front of the camera [invisibly, of course, with nothing to shine ON and create an image]. The routine small stuff drifting away from the shuttle would on occasion randomly drift out of the shadow and suddenly appear, often against a Earth surface background, giving a very convincing impression of an object 'materializing' or 'coming from behind a cloud'. This situation lasted only a few minutes, until the shuttle passed over the 'terminator' [day/night line on the surface] and bright sunlit ground/clouds moved into the field-of-view, which made the camera's automatic gain control circuit decrease sensitivity, making most of the small dots too dim to register on the camera optics [the fact that most famous 'shuttle UFO videos' occurred in precisely this narrow visibility opportunity window is strong evidence this explanation is correct]. This prosaic explanation can also be verified in several other ways. First, the crew routinely observed such 'stuff' and with two eyes had depth perception adequate to identify the objects as within a few tens of feet. Second, as such particles generally move away from the shuttle, they were only observed coming out of the shadow, never going back in ['dematerializing'?]. Third, their nearby-ness was verified by their instant reaction to steering thruster pulses triggered periodically by the autopilot to maintain desired pointing, as they moved away from whichever thruster had fired [the shuttle has both nose and tail thrusters so the pulses and the induced movement could be in nearly any direction], if the particle wasn't so close over the payload bay that it was in the shadow of whichever jet was firing [in a vacuum the ejected gases spread out very widely, half of the plume lies farther than 30deg from plume centerline].

There is no reason anybody accustomed to earthside rules of motion and illumination would have any idea how/why this happens. It surprises everybody.

We don't need your gaslighting, both images are very clear. The image I posted the "objects" seem to act with purpose, and be self illuminated, the ones you posted are neither, it is debris wondering about as it was supposed to do, we don't need a thesis in optics to understand that. As I explained over and over, but you don't seem to understand the difference between the 2 images, as you didn't understand the sts-48, there you failed miserably as well, still ppl give you a voice, I really fail to understand why, because you only give the very failed explanation over and over. Oh boy.

originally posted by: ConfusedBrit

originally posted by: flamengo

Oh, and do you REALLY BELIEVE, that I expect to convince you of anything? Not even if the Mother Theresa of the UFOs appeared in NY Times Square or anywhere for that matter, gray aliens, the annunaki and ashtar abductiong people and dogs, as they seem to like it, and drinking blood from a cow, all that presented with a rock band playing loud, you would say it was the reflection of the sun on the lenses and you are not seeing what we are seeing because of reasons.

I'd watch THAT movie!

So no thank you, I don't really take lightgasing people seriously.

What? Do you mean "gaslighting"?

If so, how is Jim trying to make you doubt your own sanity? He is simply pointing out your ignorance (in the polite sense of the word).

Nowt wrong with that; I've learned a helluvalot from 'ole Jim. We ALL have.

Regarding the film script, I forgot the MIB.

-------

Nope, there is not "ignorance" there, when you cross a street, when you judge an object, you don't write a thesis on optics to justify your interpretation. Pilots don't do it, no one does it, you don't need Bruce Maccabee to understand that the debris Jim posted has nothing to do with the stuff I posted.
Jim does have an agenda, he does have a strong bias, I recognise that, but if you don't, that is too bad, that is how things are.
The material I posted falls in perfect tone with the material collected by Martyn Stubbs and other researchers.
Bruce Maccabee , JAck Kasher, and so many others proved over and over within the basic physics language how they are right, still some people keep giving credence to Jim, despite the fact that is clearly visible, that his debris are flying aimlessly and the things I posted are flying with purpose, if you don't see that, ok, but I see it, and I trust my capacity of judgment on that, because it falls within a pattern, these things happened before.

a reply to: flamengo

"as you didn't understand the sts-48, there you failed miserably as well..."

Here's my report on STS-48, where does it fail, please?

Cite page number and disputed facts, WITH verifiable evidence. Please?

www.jamesoberg.com...

originally posted by: flamengo

originally posted by: oldcarpy

originally posted by: flamengo

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: flamengo
….
….Thank you for noticing that I am not a space engineer. My point is clear, the objects .. are self illuminated, if you don't see that, then too bad, life carries on.

So you are clueless about simple spaceflight-operations stuff such as whether the objects were in sunlight or shadow. This explains a lot.

Oh, and do you REALLY BELIEVE, that I expect to convince you of anything? Not even if the Mother Theresa of the UFOs appeared in NY Times Square or anywhere for that matter, gray aliens, the annunaki and ashtar abductiong people and dogs, as they seem to like it, and drinking blood from a cow, all that presented with a rock band playing loud, you would say it was the reflection of the sun on the lenses and you are not seeing what we are seeing because of reasons. So no thank you, I don't really take lightgasing people seriously.

And after that little rant you expect to be taken seriously?
😃😔😣😪

That was supposed to be humorous, if you don't understand that, that is toooo bad.

It was?
Oh! My sides!
Please stop it or i fear my sides will burst!

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: flamengo

What is "lightgassing"?

He meant 'gaslighting', he's on a roll, cut him some slack.

On a roll?
On a troll more like.

originally posted by: JimOberg
a reply to: flamengo

"as you didn't understand the sts-48, there you failed miserably as well..."

Here's my report on STS-48, where does it fail, please?

Cite page number and disputed facts, WITH verifiable evidence. Please?

www.jamesoberg.com...

I actually read this discussion, I had enough of that particular issue. And they are actually consistent with the way you misrepresent reality with your equations. That is too bad.

a reply to: flamengo

So you're still insisting the objects are self-illuminating? Why can't they be sunlit?