NASA STS-114 UFO Footage - Can it be debunked?

Originally posted by JimOberg
For the STS-80 video, if you want to see the technical context of the images that provides a prosaic explanation, see here:
www.realufos.net...

I don't intend to go on television to face some wild accusations that I'm a paid liar for the grand conspiracy, and basically I don't take anyone seriously who takes these stories seriously. Lifes too short for me to care what some people want to believe these scenes show. I've already spent too much time, but I figured somebody had to make a rational response, whether it was understood and believed, or not.

Hmmm interesting words.. (Highlight mine) and yet you keep doing exactly that every opportunity you get where there is a large audience...

Too bad that video segment of STS 80 didn't include the 'ice particles' coming out of the thunderstorm and one that the camera man zooms in on...

THIS version does have that

Starts at 1:58

reply to post by JimOberg


i looked at the link you posted realufos, 80 , it only confirms that they are ufo's, have we convinced you ?

reply to post by branty


Good one But he wanted you to read his rather long winded 'explanation' in the comments section

Ok so I am not going to get into a slanging match here, because there are to many important questions to debate.

Looking at the STS 80 footage can we confirm that NASA are stating that these are ice crystals? or a pool of water glinting by the suns rays?

In all seriousness, I believe that you and other people on this site know a little more than you say therefore,

Hypothetically, just say that what we see in the STS80 and the STS114 footage are indeed Alien Crafts monitoring our transition progress from the earths atmosphere and making sure that we don't pollute other areas of the galaxy with our barbaric human nature.

Whats the end game? Why the secrecy? Hypothetically\of course!

If I was a part of NASA like Mr Oberg I would be really pissed to find out that I was being used to divert the attention away from the MSM and not be informed myself.

"Sorry Jim its a need to know basis, and you don't need to know, at least not yet" - Carrot on a string



[edit on 27-2-2009 by franspeakfree]

jewiz its a pitty with all that money invested in space technology you would get at least colour with that pice of crap,

I noticed that at 1:08 in the first video there seems to be a bolt of electric current that hits the underside of the object moving from left to right across the screen.

“Too bad that video segment of STS 80 didn't include the 'ice particles' coming out of the thunderstorm and one that the camera man zooms in on...”

This is exactly the scene we need to bring us to a correct understanding of the prosaic explanation of these apparitions.

Visual perception has evolved under terrestrial conditions over hundreds of millions of years, so when confronted with genuinely ‘unearthly’ scenes like these, it’s no wonder it can mislead the perceiver into a false interpretation of what he is being shown. In these videos, our generation is seeing scenes never before perceived in all of human history. Their correct interpretation was never before a driving factor in survival. Little wonder our brains can be send on visual wild goose chases over some of them.

This scene also underscores the importance of my obsession with determining the illumination conditions under which these scenes occurred. This is a context that has been universely dismissed as distracting, as ‘clutter’, by others on this thread and elsewhere. But it turns out to be critical to using our intellectual tools – rather than our in-these-cases misleading instinctive processes -- to understand what we are actually seeing.

It turns out that the most famous ‘shuttle UFO videos’ – STS-48, 75, 80, now 114 and others – have occurred during relatively rare illumination conditions. This is when the Orbiter is emerging from Earth’s shadow but has the camera in use (an external camera in the payload bay) pointed back toward the receding horizon on the dark side of the Earth. The situation obtains for only a minute or two every 90-minute revolution of the planet.

This alignment is not random, since there’s a scientific purpose in observing the darkside horizon – monitoring thunderstorm activities for sprites and other recently-discovered natural electrical phenomena. Google ‘MLE’ for ‘mesoscale lightning experiment’ for more background. When operationally convenient, the Mission control Center points a camera in that direction and downlinks the video.

Now here’s the unintended consequence. The interplay of light, shadow, and matter under this circumstance, particularly at the end of the pass when the sun is rising, creates exactly the opportunity for seeing mysterious dancing dots on the screen. The clustering of ‘UFO videos’ in this short flight interval is not an accident, it is a consequence, of the unique illumination condition.

Nobody in the UFO world seems to realize this – or seems to want to know, when told. But it is the central argument for the prosaic (albeit ‘unearthly’) origin of these kinds of scenes. Don’t expect the UFO promoters on TV, or the enthusiasts on their ego trips of zero-gravity speculation, to tell you this. Even in space, when the rug is pulled out from under you, you’ll fall.

There is one more truly wonderful and awesome feature of this illumination situation, [to be continued]

[continued]

There is one more truly wonderful and awesome feature of this illumination situation, and here’s where the ‘appearing dots’ come into play. In many scenes, lights ‘suddenly appear’ against the Earth background, or near the horizon, near the center of the field of view where the camera was pointed (for entirely different but scientifically valid reasons, as explained above).

Now that you realize that the camera view is ‘down sun’, with the sun at your back and sunlight streaming past you on all sides to illuminate any nearby Orbiter-generated particles, it can suddenly hit you that YOU, the observer (well, you and the entire Orbiter) make an invisible impact on the scene. You are casting a shadow. You are bathing a narrow zone in front of you in darkness. And you can’t see it, because anything IN that shadow is not illuminated, and hence invisible.

But stuff in that shadow zone, being free-floating, moves. And from time to time, it crosses the boundary and, hit by the sun’s rays, it lights up. Now you can see the dot. It suddenly ‘appears’.

And whatever the scene background of the place it appears in, it seems to pop out of there – that’s what our half-billion-year-old visual instinct tells us. But you have to use your intellect, not your instinct, in this never-before-sensed visual environment.

Here’s a test of that ‘shadow’ hypothesis. Objects that ‘appear’ ought to be drifting AWAY from the center of the field of view, ‘out’ of the shadow zone. They shouldn’t ‘appear’ out near an edge and drift into the center of the field. That predicted behavior makes the theory refutable, and hence testable. Try it.

reply to post by JimOberg


Jim, listen lets get off the STS 80 explanation for a minute and answer my question on an earlier post, with regard to the HIGH SPEED TURN and the HYPER VELOCITY move on the David Sereta video, series 1 # 4-5. Can you please explain in prosaic terms, what we are looking at in these two clips I posted on page 17 of this thread? Please explain how the hell an object traveling at hyper speeds can make a 45 degree turn and not explode from the g-force. Then also please explain how any object can travel over 1000 miles at 900,000 mph, 250 feet per sec, in earths atmosphere and survive without burning up. This is way beyond comprehension and can not be debunked.

[edit on 27-2-2009 by drummerroy39]

Originally posted by drummerroy39
Jim, listen lets get off the STS 80 explanation for a minute ...
[edit on 27-2-2009 by drummerroy39]

You promise to come back to it?

The answer to your question is easy. Your question is phony. It contains assumptions in the question that you are trying to prove. It is a deceptive trick that is taught in 'illogical strategems 101', the kind used on K-8 playgrounds and TV commercials around the nation. Grow up.

reply to post by JimOberg


Jim, What kind of pseudo intellectual crap is that, you just spewed? Seeing is believing, look at the videos then lets discuss it. Also please keep in mind all these hypotheses he is showing in this video, are all being bounced off of Dr Nuth from NASA. It lends demonstrable credibility and should not be discounted.

[edit on 27-2-2009 by drummerroy39]

Originally posted by drummerroy39
And for those who need scientifically structured thought, well HERE IT IS. ..

Uh, no. It's not. It's not even rational enough to be wrong, it's too comical for logical parsing, it's a string of gobbledegook composed of scientific terms strung together like the classic kidnapper's message composed of cut-out newspaper words, only he sneezed before the glue set. Sereda quotes 'experts' who to-a-man complain he is misrepresenting everything they ever told him. It's all his own unbounded imagination, disconnected with any checkable fact of nature or technology. And when you realize he is aiming his argument right at YOU, you have to ask yourself what is his appraisal of your own intelligence.

The dots on the STS-80 video are from a visible-light camera, one of four in the shuttle payload bay -- no infrared, no ultraviolet, no high-energy particles invisible in normal light... I know the guys who operate those cameras, I've read their specs and their operations manual, I've made use of them myself during flight control of rendezvous and docking missions, they don't resemble in any form the description Sereda is giving.

Do YOU represent the kind of person Sereda is counting on to swallow his ravings?

Originally posted by drummerroy39
reply to post by JimOberg

 

Jim, What kind of pseudo intellectual crap is that, you just spewed? Seeing is believing, look at the videos then lets discuss it.

Read it again: "Your question is phony. It contains assumptions in the question that you are trying to prove."

Just look at your question. In it, you ASSUME conclusions that remain to be proven. Nothing Sereda claims about these particle velocities is remotely proven.

Once people get taken in by a hoax, or an art forgery, for example, a version of the 'Stockholm Syndrome' seems to appear, and to defend their own egos, they defend the people who deceived them. Take a deep breath, step back, and try to ask yourself if that is happening to you.

reply to post by JimOberg


Its very credible because its sceintific data being relaid through Dr Nuth, a physicist from NASA. It doesen't get any more credible that that.

[edit on 27-2-2009 by drummerroy39]

Originally posted by JimOberg

The dots on the STS-80 video are from a visible-light camera, one of four in the shuttle payload bay -- no infrared, no ultraviolet, no high-energy particles invisible in normal light... I know the guys who operate those cameras, I've read their specs and their operations manual, I've made use of them myself during flight control of rendezvous and docking missions, they don't resemble in any form the description Sereda is giving.

Is there anywhere on the net we can find detailed technical information about the cameras used on the space shuttles? The question about what kind of lens they have has come up in regards to other STS-videos, so it would be very useful to have access to accurate knowledge about the cameras.

Thank you in advance for your help. And sorry if you have already provided information about this here on ATS. I may have missed it.

News Flash people, NASA has already admitted seeing these anomalies in the near and far UV spectrum and can not explain them. Never the less they are extremely interested in them and warrant further examination. What does this tell us? That these anomalies do in fact exist. So Jim, have a coke and a smile my friend....

reply to post by drummerroy39


Sounds interesting.
Can you provide a source?

reply to post by JimOberg


So why does the cameraman follow and zoom in on the first object if it wasn't of interest?

And why are they filming these objects with a hand held infrared camera when they have high res color cameras on board?



Here is a photo taken from the shuttle (showing two Russian vehicles docking, a Progress supply ship, and the ESA Expedition 9 ship, and a Soyuz is docked)



Edit to add link
ESA Expedition 9

So why are they using the hand held IR camera if not to specifically to record these 'anomalies' that do not show up in the REGULAR color cameras?

And please... no essay... just a simple straight answer, thanks



..




[edit on 27-2-2009 by zorgon]

[edit on 27-2-2009 by zorgon]

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by drummerroy39

 

Sounds interesting.
Can you provide a source?

Yes, go to page 17 of this thread, scroll down till you hit my name. You will see three videos I posted. The second and third contain the quote. This is David Sereta corresponding with Dr Nuth, a physicist with NASA.

A side note off topic...

The other interesting thing about that mission is how fast they returned to Earth

Undocking: Oct. 23, 2004, 4:08 p.m. CDT
Landing: Oct. 23, 2004, 7:36 p.m. CDT

When NASA retires that old slow boat the Shuttle... the US is gonna be left behind in the space race

Russia has an assembly line of those Progress robot ships ready to go... ESA is already cooperating and launching with Russia, Robert Bigelow uses Russian ships and launch site to send his Genesis modules up (two already in place)

Unless of course NASA has that hypesonic space plane in the wings ready to go... but that is another thread

Progress craft assembly line... now WHY do you suppose they need so many?


Credit: Zvezda





..


[edit on 27-2-2009 by zorgon]