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

HEADS UP

This thread has grown to over 60 pages, and has apparently fallen off the watchful eyes of your friendly neighborhood moderating staff. In looking back over the last several pages, there are a most distressing number of posts, which by any definition, violate the tenets of our T&C covering civility, decorum and politeness.

I have neither the time nor the inclination to go back and edit or sanction every inappropriate post. So the line is drawn right here. Any further personal attacks or inappropriate commentary will result in action from post deletion to post banning.

Please proceed accordingly.

Thanks for your attention.

reply to post by yeahright


Thank you!!!!

Now..at last...back to topic..as I have made repeated requests for before.


With all the "mud on the wall", there was one counter point piece of evidence that to me, might shed some "light" on the issue. Although this one single piece of counter point evidence does not explain what the object is, nor does it explian why the object manuevers like it does, the one single piece of counter point evidence does tell us, at the very least, the difference when there is a "waste dump shower" and when there is not a "waste dump shower".

It was the video posted by DOF, showing the zoomed in view of a waste dump blast. The video shows us what that looks like, up close and personal.....good thing there is no air in space...I would not want to be that close without a breathing mask on..I can only imagine the smell.

Anyway, the video shows how the waste dump spray looks as it leaves the nozzle. It is a fine mist, like the mist you get out of a can of spary. The mist is very fine in its center, and as it disperses outward in the mist, the mist particles get a little larger.

The video also shows us that these tiny fine particles of waste dump mist disappears from view rather rapidly as the mist travels away from the point of origin. These waste dump mist particles also begin to travel hap-hazardly, going everywhere in no descernable or logical, or intelligent pattern. This is also verfiied by the still photo DOF posted along with the video example, discussing "curved trajectory".

Well naturally a cluster of mist particles flung out into zero G environment is going to go everywhere and in an un-controlled pattern. Each particle taking its own path, its own hap-hazard course, as one would expect out of a cluster of sprayed water, waste or whatever. And because of this un-controlled behavior of non-intelligent waste dump spray mist, any number of those mist particles are going to do whatever they are going to do. Some will go flying outward in a straight path, others will go to the left, some to the right, some up and some down.

Those that tend to travel in a more straight pattern are those mist particles at the center of the mist cluster as it leaves the nozzle, simply because that is where the most "spray force" is located. On the outer edge of the mist, there is less spray force, thus those mist particles will tend to go into a hap-hazard "curved trajectory" much sooner than those mist particles at the center of the spray.

Anyone can test that by simply taking a spray bottle or can and note how the mist behaves. Nothing fantastically scientific about that. The only difference is that down here, in Earth's gravity, the mist will go down to the floor, where as up in zero G, that mist will travel outward in the direction of where the spray is directed. But the principle of the spray force still applies. The center of the mist will have more spray force than the outer parts of the sprayed mist.

The video clearly demonstrates this. The video also clearly demonstrates how fine and tiny these mist particles are, and also demonstrates how quickly they disappear from view, even after the camera has zoomed in onto the waste dump.

The video also shows us that in sunlight, the mist particles are lit up like tiny Christmas tree lights. However, even in the sunlight, the mist particles still disappear quickly as they travel further away from the camera.

In conclusion, at least the video, and still photo, demonstrates what a sprayed mist does up in space. It does not however, explain what is occuring in STS 114, both in how the object manuvers, and what exactly the object is.

Also it is my opinion that camera angle, shuttle orientation, or its orbital position, has no evidence to conclude what that object is in STS 114.

Comparing STS 114 to other STS videos where thruster blast plumes are clearly seen, we see no evidence of a thruster blast in STS 114. The camera is in extra sensitive mode, meaning that even a slight blast plume should be picked up by the camera, especially if there is the belief that this camera can see a very tiny particle lit up by the sun as that particle travels away from the camera..again referencing to DOF's waste dump spray, those tiny particles vanish quickly..the object in STS 114 does not vanish, nor does it dim in any significant level to suggest that during the object's "turn and burn", that it is still so close to the camera to remain visible if it were a simple particle of waste dump mist.

Now here is the real catcher, and puzzler of all this mess. And I welcome our friend to provide the answer if he has one.

IF all this stuff seen in these videos, and this object in STS 114 is mere ice particles from waste dumps, junk or space debris....why is not the entire, uneditied, uncensored videos NOT available to the public? Why are only bits and pieces found at hundreds of places across the interent the only thing anyone has to work with?

If there is nothing out there but ice/junk/debris....then there should be no reason as to why we have nothing here (complete videos) to work with.



Cheers!!!!

Originally posted by RFBurns
Now here is the real catcher, and puzzler of all this mess. And I welcome our friend to provide the answer if he has one.

IF all this stuff seen in these videos, and this object in STS 114 is mere ice particles from waste dumps, junk or space debris....why is not the entire, uneditied, uncensored videos NOT available to the public? Why are only bits and pieces found at hundreds of places across the interent the only thing anyone has to work with?

If there is nothing out there but ice/junk/debris....then there should be no reason as to why we have nothing here (complete videos) to work with.

I'd love to see the letter you got from NASA announcing they would NOT release that video to you. Please show us the letter.

Wait, you never asked them for the video? You don't know of anyone who did ask them, who was refused?

Uh, gee, then I really don't see how you can proclaim the video is 'not available to the public'. I'm not following your chain of evidence here.

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by RFBurns
Now here is the real catcher, and puzzler of all this mess. And I welcome our friend to provide the answer if he has one.

IF all this stuff seen in these videos, and this object in STS 114 is mere ice particles from waste dumps, junk or space debris....why is not the entire, uneditied, uncensored videos NOT available to the public? Why are only bits and pieces found at hundreds of places across the interent the only thing anyone has to work with?

If there is nothing out there but ice/junk/debris....then there should be no reason as to why we have nothing here (complete videos) to work with.

I'd love to see the letter you got from NASA announcing they would NOT release that video to you. Please show us the letter.

Wait, you never asked them for the video? You don't know of anyone who did ask them, who was refused?

Uh, gee, then I really don't see how you can proclaim the video is 'not available to the public'. I'm not following your chain of evidence here.

Why should we have to ask for something that is already ours Jim?

Do you have to go asking for an item you paid for at a store? Or do you expect that item to already be in your hands ready to take home and do with as you please?

Why should we have to ask for a video, in its entirety, un-edited, un-altered, un-cut, whatever else they can think of...when its all just a bunch of dust, debris, junk, ice, waste, dots, spots, relfections, etc etc?

Why should we pay for a space agency who keeps things from us? NASA is supposed to be a "civilian agency"...isnt it? Last time I read the charter, its supposed to be. That means that every single tax payer owns it, and should excpect to not be left out of anything said agency does...cept of course any DOD or National Security issue..to which those two should have their own space agency, and not rely on the civilian agency.

But putting it all into a box here Jim....and wrapping it up with a nice red white and blue bow, do you think that for the billions spent each year to NASA, that there should be something inside that box instead of another box containing another box, and another and another?

Why is NASA so different today than what it was back in the glorious days of the space program? NASA was FAR more upfront with the people, giving us so much information about what was going on, what they were doing, and giving us the results of what they were doing.

All of that seemed to steadily disappear...like that waste dump spray, right after the return of Apollo 11. What did they find Jim? What was it that suddenly turned a civilian space agency into such a "cloak and daggar", shadow in the dark type of agency?

What is so damned secrative about space that we who pay for these missions and data and fancy equipment, are not prevy to?

I and millions of other tax paying Americans would like to know.

(Dont take it out of context Jim...I know the score..just wanting to see what your answer is for the public consumption.)



Cheers!!!!

Originally posted by JimOberg

Uh, gee, then I really don't see how you can proclaim the video is 'not available to the public'. I'm not following your chain of evidence here.

With the amount of money us Taxpayers feed NASA, there is absolutely no reason why they should not have actually released the videos to the public - even digitized them and put them online.

Release-pending-request & authorization does not equate to being readily available to the public... Except to NASA...

There is no valid reason why NASA to not digitize and release the video files to the public via section on their website where they would actually be immediately available upon request, and streamed from the site.

I have no doubts that if NASA began actually making these files available in such a manner, that public interest in space would begin to increase - we wouldn't complain so hard next time you bilked us for several billion dollars, as we could just visit NASA's website, and convince ourselves it was worth it all along.

At the very least NASA should use low-resolution, youtube-type videos in order to save bandwidth. And when we discover something 'anomalous', we could then order the high resolution version from NASA.

To save money NASA could even start Youtube channels for each STS mission - Which shows, that in this day and age, there is no valid reason for the entirety for the STS-114 and other mission video files to made readily accessible by the public who fund the whole operation. (Youtube would even enjoy an increase in ad-revenue from hosting those files due to the traffic that it could create... As I've said; there is no excuse, in this modern age.)

*I would also like to see the original Apollo 11 tapes digitized and put up on NASA's site - But we all know why that will never happen ;-)

[edit on 20-3-2009 by Exuberant1]

Originally posted by RFBurns
Anyone can test that by simply taking a spray bottle or can and note how the mist behaves. Nothing fantastically scientific about that. The only difference is that down here, in Earth's gravity, the mist will go down to the floor, where as up in zero G, that mist will travel outward in the direction of where the spray is directed. But the principle of the spray force still applies. The center of the mist will have more spray force than the outer parts of the sprayed mist.

Be sure to also do it in a vacuum. I'll hold your coat, and stand... over here.

The 'curving' of the waste water particles is interesting, because they DO need some force acting on them, and that force, in that case, is probably molecular flow from the dump valve.

This is why it's important to know, in the 114 video, where is the dump valve in relation to the cirver, and specifically, in relation to the force being generated from left to change the curver's path.

The information by which you can lay out the position of the shuttle hardware relative to the camera's field of view is contained in the 'Update Package' link, and other data such as the 'scene list', that was posted some time ago. I had posted my own interpretation of that layout, for discussion.

I was dismayed to notice some responses asserting that the actual alignment, or even the illumination conditions, were irrelevant to 'knowing' that the curving dot had to be a vehicle under intelligent control. But perhaps now we are converging on agreement that such context knowledge is critical to evaluating proposed prosaic causes.

The distance to the background 'fleet' of particles is also important, because it speaks to the fundamental question of how far away shuttle-generated particles can be seen. Watching their illumination state changes during shuttle sunrise would provide an excellent indicator of actual range.

That can be done with a longer video of the sequence. Getting that video can be accomplished by at least three methods:

1. Asking Martyn Stubbs, and the Jeff Challender family, and others who also taped the entire sequence live when it was broadcast over 'NASA TV', to find it and post it.

2. Asking NASA to provide a copy of the lengthened video, with time tags and audio.

3. Holding one's breath, turning purple, and insisting that that NASA post all mission video for all shuttle missions on youtube, and whining if they don't find the time or money to do it tomorrow.

Is anybody currently following any of those approaches?

Also it is my opinion that camera angle, shuttle orientation, or its orbital position, has no evidence to conclude what that object is in STS 114.

My view is, the more contextual information you have, the more likely to arrive at a rational explanation of the event. Perhaps that's why some people do NOT want that information to become available.

Comparing STS 114 to other STS videos where thruster blast plumes are clearly seen, we see no evidence of a thruster blast in STS 114. The camera is in extra sensitive mode, meaning that even a slight blast plume should be picked up by the camera,...

By no means. Thruster pulses can 'flare' as videos show, but that flare is directed near the centerline. The thruster pulse produces an effluent cloud that expands in all directions, weaker near the margins but still adequate to disturb the motions of floating small particles -- and totally invisible. The only reliable step is to obtain thruster firing history data, such as the data that shows for STS-48 that thruster L5D fired during and only during the period when particles on the screen were changing direction, all away from the effluent source.

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by RFBurns
Anyone can test that by simply taking a spray bottle or can and note how the mist behaves. Nothing fantastically scientific about that. The only difference is that down here, in Earth's gravity, the mist will go down to the floor, where as up in zero G, that mist will travel outward in the direction of where the spray is directed. But the principle of the spray force still applies. The center of the mist will have more spray force than the outer parts of the sprayed mist.

Be sure to also do it in a vacuum. I'll hold your coat, and stand... over here.

A forced flow of liquid through a nozzel is going to do the same thing through that nozzel regardless if it is in a vacume or not. It is not the vacume, or air that makes the flow of liquid through a nozzel happen, it is the pressure behind that liquid forcing said liquid thorugh the nozzle.

The only difference here..and I did point that out...is that the mist will fall to the floor in gravity, out in space, in zero G, that mist will not fall, it will continue outward, as demostrated in DOF's video.

Originally posted by JimOberg
The 'curving' of the waste water particles is interesting, because they DO need some force acting on them, and that force, in that case, is probably molecular flow from the dump valve.

As long as their is pressure comming out of that nozzle, that pressure leaving the nozzle will have an effect on anything nearby, including the liquid already expelled through the nozzle by that pressure.

Originally posted by JimOberg
This is why it's important to know, in the 114 video, where is the dump valve in relation to the cirver, and specifically, in relation to the force being generated from left to change the curver's path.

Why? Are you telling us that a mist of waste dump has turned into a "one lump sum" and created the object we are seeing in the STS 114 video? If not, where is the rest of the waste dump stuff? At least one...just one other reminant of that dump should be somewhere in that video. We dont even see anything else move into frame while the one object does its fancy manuver and veers off. Not one. So again I ask...where is the rest of this dump...at least one.

Originally posted by JimOberg
The information by which you can lay out the position of the shuttle hardware relative to the camera's field of view is contained in the 'Update Package' link, and other data such as the 'scene list', that was posted some time ago. I had posted my own interpretation of that layout, for discussion.

That is nice of you to post that and post your own interpretation of it. Unfortunatley...for me anyway, and I am sure for others, someone's interpretation of the official record is not acceptable for true analyzing of actual data.

Originally posted by JimOberg
I was dismayed to notice some responses asserting that the actual alignment, or even the illumination conditions, were irrelevant to 'knowing' that the curving dot had to be a vehicle under intelligent control. But perhaps now we are converging on agreement that such context knowledge is critical to evaluating proposed prosaic causes.

There are actually three, no skip that, 5 seperate beliefs. One is that it may be a "vehicle" under intelligent control. The second belief is that object may be a "critter", similar or exactly like those found in the tether video. The third belief is that it is a piece of waste dump. The fourth belief is that it is debris. The fifth is that it is an ice particle.

Now here is the kicker, for either side.

On the believers side, it cannot be both a "vehicle" and a "critter".

On the non-believer side, it cannot be three things; ice particle, space debris, waste dump lump.

But it is...something. What that something is, is still open for debate.

Originally posted by JimOberg
The distance to the background 'fleet' of particles is also important, because it speaks to the fundamental question of how far away shuttle-generated particles can be seen. Watching their illumination state changes during shuttle sunrise would provide an excellent indicator of actual range.

Peculiar that none of the "background fleet" of assumed particles are doing anything at all, they seem to be static and like as if they are bolted to the backdrop. They have no motion of their own in that video. As the camera pans, or as the shuttle changes orientation, which I believe it is a camera pan since we dont see any thruster flash plume when that pan occurs, those assumed particles of "background fleet" stay static as the scene changes orientation from the camera pan, exactly like how a static prop would be in a movie stage set, it stays put while something that is moving is focused on and the camera follows that moving object.

Motion, motion, motion...only one seems to be doing that. The rest...just sit there.

Originally posted by JimOberg
That can be done with a longer video of the sequence. Getting that video can be accomplished by at least three methods:

1. Asking Martyn Stubbs, and the Jeff Challender family, and others who also taped the entire sequence live when it was broadcast over 'NASA TV', to find it and post it.

2. Asking NASA to provide a copy of the lengthened video, with time tags and audio.

3. Holding one's breath, turning purple, and insisting that that NASA post all mission video for all shuttle missions on youtube, and whining if they don't find the time or money to do it tomorrow.

Is anybody currently following any of those approaches?

Jim..do you honestly think that this video, and this particular thread, is the only place on the entire interent where this issue has been discussed? Do you honestly think that the thought of sending letters, emails, making phone calls, even walking through the front door of NASA, has not been thought of before by researchers of those previous discussions to do exactly what you have suggested above..and perhaps more?

Maybe researching those discussions and seeing if anyone has done that might help.

Regardless if anyone has or not, there should be no reason to. That raw footage belongs to US..the taxpaying public..not to NASA. Regardless of what NASA "thinks" the public "may" be interested in or not, that does not negate the fact that everything of NASA, including videos, pictures, probes, rovers, the shuttles, data collected, everything...everything of NASA belongs to the public who pays for it.

We should NOT have to ask for what is ours to begin with.

NASA can, and should, put up that video in its entirety on the websites in archive and that way, it is there, for whomever wants to view it, whenever they want to view it, or download it. The only time someone should have to ask for something out of NASA is if they want a DVD of it, or a photo disc of pictures, or printed information to be mailed to whomever is asking.

For our purposes here, we dont need a blu-ray high definition DVD of this video to see these specifics of shuttle orientation, specifics of if a waste dump occured or not, or specifics of when the sun came up or went down.

We should not have to jump through hoops to get what we already own.

Perhaps if NASA were to put this material, in its entirety, as well as all the ancillary stuff along with it onto their websites, maybe there would not be so much suspicion about NASA.

Imagine what it would be like if the internet was around back in the 60's when NASA was so much more open and informative during the early era of the space program. Imagine how much data would be available!

Sheesh, I remember those days watching the nightly NASA coverage across all 3 networks during the Apollo programs and even during the Gemini and Mercury programs. So much information was given, it was a regular nightly feature.

Then "POOF"...after the return of Apollo 11...it all stopped to a trickle. Heck the used to do regular broadcasts directly from the dang spacecraft when the astronauts were on their way to the Moon. But that too stopped.

They say it was because of "lack of public interest"....another lie.

If you were to research the ratings of those broadcasts during that time, it is clear it was not due to lack of public interest.

Originally posted by JimOberg

Also it is my opinion that camera angle, shuttle orientation, or its orbital position, has no evidence to conclude what that object is in STS 114.

My view is, the more contextual information you have, the more likely to arrive at a rational explanation of the event. Perhaps that's why some people do NOT want that information to become available.

I dont dismiss more data to look at, but I dont believe that rational explanations are exclusive to finding out the truth either, espeically when there is in fact..so much of that extra data missing.

Rational has nothing to do with fact or truth.

Originally posted by JimOberg
By no means. Thruster pulses can 'flare' as videos show, but that flare is directed near the centerline. The thruster pulse produces an effluent cloud that expands in all directions, weaker near the margins but still adequate to disturb the motions of floating small particles -- and totally invisible. The only reliable step is to obtain thruster firing history data, such as the data that shows for STS-48 that thruster L5D fired during and only during the period when particles on the screen were changing direction, all away from the effluent source.

In STS 48, we see the thruster plume. In STS 114..we see no thruster plume. We also do not see any other object move while the one moving does its thing, during the turn and burn.

Cheers!!!!!

[edit on 20-3-2009 by RFBurns]

I guess the bottom line is, RF is not going to ask for the video. Has anybody else ever asked -- after all these years of discussions that RF referred to. One person?

Originally posted by JimOberg
I guess the bottom line is, RF is not going to ask for the video. Has anybody else ever asked -- after all these years of discussions that RF referred to. One person?

And what makes you so sure I have not asked for it? What makes you so sure I dont already have it?

You seem to jump to so much assumptional conclusions when you have no idea what has either taken place or has not taken place.

Tell us Jim...have YOU asked for that video?

At least I am not trying to say you have not, or refuse to.

Can we get back to the topic or you going to start that "RF this and that" all over again?

Read yeahright's post up there. Unless you are imune to the T&C that the rest of us have to abide by.



Cheers!!!!

Originally posted by Exuberant1
To save money NASA could even start Youtube channels for each STS mission

Do you mean something like this?

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by Exuberant1
To save money NASA could even start Youtube channels for each STS mission

Do you mean something like this?

Sort of like that...

Except the link you posted contains only a small percentage of the video that it should and is not organized the way I suggested in my post, but yeah - sort of like that. ;-)

If NASA can be trusted why don't they provide live video feed in all of its missions? I mean we pay them enough, don't we at least deserve to see what we are getting with OUR money?

Originally posted by franspeakfree
If NASA can be trusted why don't they provide live video feed in all of its missions? I mean we pay them enough, don't we at least deserve to see what we are getting with OUR money?

Aside from transmission and processing delays (measured in seconds), what evidence is there that you're NOT getting 'live feeds'? Take a look at any specific dynamic events on the flight plans, which we've now posted links for. Then watch it on NASA TV. Does it happen on the downlink TV when it was scheduled to? Try this out at home, by all means, and report back to the thread, please.

Do you see a pattern in your 'questions', that actually themselves often contain dubious (or at least debatable) assumptions?

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by franspeakfree
If NASA can be trusted why don't they provide live video feed in all of its missions? I mean we pay them enough, don't we at least deserve to see what we are getting with OUR money?

Aside from transmission and processing delays (measured in seconds), what evidence is there that you're NOT getting 'live feeds'? Take a look at any specific dynamic events on the flight plans, which we've now posted links for. Then watch it on NASA TV. Does it happen on the downlink TV when it was scheduled to? Try this out at home, by all means, and report back to the thread, please.

Do you see a pattern in your 'questions', that actually themselves often contain dubious (or at least debatable) assumptions?

And how is anyone able to confirm that it is only "seconds" of delay due to processing (editing) when the end result is what they feed down the pipe?

That is like saying trust NASA because WYSIWYG. What processing do you suppose takes place in order to see video off of a camera Jim?

Some elaborate step of taking the video from those cameras before they hit the transmitter?

Perhaps you could "stumble" us thorugh this "processing" for us.



What is seen on the home screens can be minutes or longer from the second it is seen by the cameras.

Are you aware that 99 precent of the "live" stuff people see on tv is actually delayed by up to 5 minutes? Its an FCC requirement so that any foul language or inappropriate scenery can be cut out. It is all timed so that the final result is syncronized to be "on time". Whatever is cut out is usually replaced with "technical difficulties" logos or in this case, the infamous NASA logo screen or flight control room shot.

Look it up yourself. www.fcc.gov.

Dont think for one minute that NASA would not use that same technique on their "live" feeds.

Cheers!!!!

[edit on 23-3-2009 by RFBurns]

Originally posted by RFBurns
Are you aware that 99 precent of the "live" stuff people see on tv is actually delayed by up to 5 minutes? Its an FCC requirement so that any foul language or inappropriate scenery can be cut out. ....

Dont think for one minute that NASA would not use that same technique on their "live" feeds.

Funny, when there's been a monitor in the corner of our NBC news trailer at NASA and we're doing live shots from the mini-studio, the broadcast version seems to pop up a second or two after the person says the stuff. I'll have to watch more closely for this five-minute delay.

If it is an FCC requirement, however, how come you and your buddies are blaming and denouncing NASA for doing it? If they even are... because I suggested a method, above, that can be used in coming days to verify the degree of time lag between pre-scheduled events and NASA TV's showing them. I urge readers here to try this at home and report their results.

reply to post by JimOberg


Wrong.

The technology nowadays is such that even the time appearing onscreen (and streaming to the public) can be inserted via a digital layer - which can be inserted at selected-points in the feed.

*Kudos on your ability to integrate informal fallacy into pseudo-scientific at-home experiments - This must not be your first-time ...;-)

Bigfatfurrytexan Opines:

"But I bet that if someone is smart enough to put a few thousand pounds of man and his equipment into space, they are smart enough to figure out how to explain away any delay in data delivery (or cover it up entirely, making it appear seamless to the end user)."


Nice Try Jimbo!!

[edit on 23-3-2009 by Exuberant1]

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by RFBurns
Are you aware that 99 precent of the "live" stuff people see on tv is actually delayed by up to 5 minutes? Its an FCC requirement so that any foul language or inappropriate scenery can be cut out. ....

Dont think for one minute that NASA would not use that same technique on their "live" feeds.

Funny, when there's been a monitor in the corner of our NBC news trailer at NASA and we're doing live shots from the mini-studio, the broadcast version seems to pop up a second or two after the person says the stuff. I'll have to watch more closely for this five-minute delay.

Boy look at how may stars are representing the numbed!!

Just because there is a little monitor in your MSM van doing live shots at launch times, is not even what we are talking about here!!! We are talking about video DURING the missions..get it folks? Get it Jim? DURING THE MISSIONS...you know, when the shuttle us UP IN ORBIT...DOING MISSIONS!!! Not the launches!!!! ROFLMAO!!!

Originally posted by JimOberg
If it is an FCC requirement, however, how come you and your buddies are blaming and denouncing NASA for doing it? If they even are... because I suggested a method, above, that can be used in coming days to verify the degree of time lag between pre-scheduled events and NASA TV's showing them. I urge readers here to try this at home and report their results.

Arent you aware that before your low rating appearance on TV shows up in living rooms across America, your little mini live nonsense from your mini live van goes through network central first before its sent out to the stations????

By the time everone sees your show, its about 15 seconds. PLENTY of time to CUT OUT unwanted anything.

People just dont get how it works..obviously neither do you. But like lemmings they can follow you right off that cliff and I will sit back and laugh my arse off watching the REAL live show!!!


Cheers!!!!

reply to post by RFBurns


Another great post. I find it interesting how the NASA administrator and all his science and engineering cronies love to talk about how excited they are about space and what it holds in store for us. Yet when they are asked about the possibility of aliens or UFO's they clam up and refuse to answer the question. And this is the kind of response we get from the same NASA that is responsible for capturing some of the most stunning UFO footage in existence. Do they think we are really that stupid? NASA secrecy has been going on for years and it is going to continue. Astronauts have been seeing UFO's in orbit since the dawn of manned space flight...

What ever happened to the audio recordings of NASA astronauts on shuttle missions referring to objects in orbit as UFO's and "alien spacecraft"? What about the secret comm channel on the shuttle that is supposedly only used for discussion of UFO's? And what about all the astronauts, themselves, that continue to come forward with their own stories about UFO's in orbit and/or otherwise?

-ChriS

Originally posted by RFBurns

Originally posted by JimOberg

Funny, when there's been a monitor in the corner of our NBC news trailer at NASA and we're doing live shots from the mini-studio, the broadcast version seems to pop up a second or two after the person says the stuff. I'll have to watch more closely for this five-minute delay.

Just because there is a little monitor in your MSM van doing live shots at launch times, is not even what we are talking about here!!! We are talking about video DURING the missions..get it folks? Get it Jim? DURING THE MISSIONS...you know, when the shuttle us UP IN ORBIT...DOING MISSIONS!!! Not the launches!!!! ROFLMAO!!!

Thank you for making it perfectly clear that English reading for comprehension is not one of your demonstrated capabilities. You pick fights, and throw mockery, mainly because you fundamentally cannot READ accurately what people have typed here.

Where did I write what you are POSITIVE I wrote, that I was talking about launches? Nowhere? Your malfunctioning brain inserted that extra clause into a passage that did not originally contain it, and you went berserk for no rational purpose. Please, calm down and get more careful.