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

Apropos of the video that sparked thus thread, today on STS-119 is the same 'day' plan in which the 114 video was taken -- the day before entry, when the flight control systems were tested, thrusters fired, other equipment activated briefly. Observers ought to pop tapes into their VCRs, or whatever, to record scenes that may provide some views of parallel phenomena with the sequence seen from 114. Or not. It's worth a shot.

Originally posted by easynow
no delay... eh ?

Oh, you saw it on youtube, that settles it, I guess. I'm being ironic here.

Is that Jeff Challender speaking? What was he raving about regarding the red-green-blue interference being a mask to hide UFOs? The camera has red-green-blue filters on a wheel to create color from a B&W system, a standard technology.

I wouldn't be at all surprised at a 20 sec delay in relay from the US through converters to Moscow and whatever relays they have over there -- but I didn't hear the Russian controller referring to a 20 second transmission delay. He just said 'delay' in general -- could be a spacecraft response delay, a feedback delay, a command implementation delay, all of which are of concern to flight controllers.


If the speaker is Challender, I can provide numerous other examples of his complete misunderstanding, overinterpretation, and wild fantasizing about space events. He never understood the 'Zone of Exclusion' -- remained convinced it was a zone for secret UFO transmissions. We got into a long argument over the cosmonauts referring to an EVA wire cutter as a 'dinosaur', based on its profile similar to a T Rex head. Oh, no, Jeff was absolutely convinced 'dinosaur' referred to the saurian pilots of the UFOs buzzing the station.

Was his claim the reason you decided NOT to time the undocking yourself and find out for yourSELF if you noticed any time delay?

Originally posted by JimOberg
Observers ought to pop tapes into their VCRs, or whatever, to record scenes that may provide some views of parallel phenomena with the sequence seen from 114. Or not. It's worth a shot.

Ridiculous expectations, Jimbo.

No individual could be expected to watch the NASA channel or ISS feed cam 24/7.

The sort of dedication exhibited by the likes Martyn Stubbs and Jeff Challender is rare, even extraordinary. Even they did not do what you suggest, nor do either appear to share in your rare desire to continually push a failed parallax excuse. ;-)

[edit on 27-3-2009 by Exuberant1]

Originally posted by BlasteR

NASA employees and astronauts are continuously coming forward with pretty remarkable stories. At least one nasa employee sais she was tasked with airbrushing out "critters" that supposedly kept showing up in their images. Her name is Donna Hare and she came forward for "The Disclosure Project".

If you read her claim more carefully, you will get an entirely different interpretation. She never claimed SHE did anything, and she never referred to critters. Where did you get those serious misunderstandings?

Gary McKinnon said he hacked into government and NASA computers and sais he saw evidence of NASA image doctoring and a UFO coverup. He definately hacked something or they wouldn't have been after the guy. He was jailed, his computers confiscated, and he was forced to pay a fine (although the problem here is that there is no evidence of what he saw, since his computers were confiscated, he sais).

...and in his own words, he spent most of those years high on drugs.

Originally posted by BlasteR

Originally posted by BlasteRI remember seeing ultraviolet footage from an old space shuttle mission that actually showed multiple unknown objects simply appearing and disappearing at remarkable speeds in the ultraviolet spectrum from all different angles. But it must've just been a glitch right?

Somebody told you it was 'ultraviolet', but that didn't make it so. Read the posts, consider the alternative arguments with an open mind, and understand better. It's worth it, but it's often hard, once one point of view has sunk in and taken root.

Actually, one of the methods of filming UFO's in this way involves using multiple cameras all simultaneously filming the same area of sky. There are a few examples on google and youtube of objects showing up in the Infrared but not in the visible light area of the spectrum.

Again, these's no doubt there are people on youtube saying the images are IR, or whatever. I only suggest there should be a little more doubt in your mind that what they are saying has any basis in reality.

Some NASA cameras were designed to detect ultraviolet light wavelengths for a variety of applications. One was used to film the STS-75 tether experiment video that later became famous.

There was a handheld UV camera used to take stills of the tether for viewing on Earth later. The videos of the tether and the swarming stuff were all via the standard payload bay cameras (visible light only), that's why they were able to be transmitted back live.

I saw a youtube vid a while back showing ultraviolet footage from one of the space shuttle missions showing objects simply appearing and disappearing in mid-flight, to and from all different directions. I looked for it but couldn't find it. I'll keep my eyes peeled though.

Youtube again. "Ultraviolet" again. Please consider that your credulity towards anything you seem to see there could be misplaced.

[edit on 27-3-2009 by JimOberg]

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by JimOberg
Observers ought to pop tapes into their VCRs, or whatever, to record scenes that may provide some views of parallel phenomena with the sequence seen from 114. Or not. It's worth a shot.

Ridiculous expectations, Jimbo.

No individual could be expected to watch the NASA channel or ISS feed cam 24/7.

The sort of dedication exhibited by the likes Martyn Stubbs and Jeff Challender is rare, even extraordinary. Even they did not do what you suggest, nor do either appear to share in your rare desire to continually push a failed parallax excuse. ;-)

[edit on 27-3-2009 by Exuberant1]

Not all, just conditions similar to that of 114's scene. This morning they'll do the thruster hotfires. What's the problem with popping a tape into the VCR?

BTW, did you see 'parallel' in my message, and read 'parallax' in your mind, for some reason?

reply to post by BlasteR


Thanks for posting the Donna Hare video, in it she says something I did not knew (maybe because the most famous YouTube video mixes her words with Moon images), that the UFO that she saw on a photo that a NASA (I suppose) technician showed to her was on a photo of Earth, not the Moon, and, according to her, an aerial photo, not a photo from space.

PS: this shows that some off-topic posts may be useful.

Here's today's on-orbit schedule with times for water dumps, thruster firings, APU hotfire, and other stuff that may be associated with interesting visual events similar to those of STS-114. Enjoy the view!

www.nasa.gov...

reply to post by JimOberg

I wouldn't be at all surprised at a 20 sec delay in relay from the US through converters to Moscow and whatever relays they have over there -- but I didn't hear the Russian controller referring to a 20 second transmission delay. He just said 'delay' in general -- could be a spacecraft response delay, a feedback delay, a command implementation delay

proves there can be a delay for whatever reason.

the reason could be to create a "Zone of Exclusion" and it may not.

no way i see to prove something when it would be Above Top Secret information anyways. there is no available evidence for the public to see that i am aware of, so this is a mute argument but doesn't dismiss the possibility's.

Was his claim the reason you decided NOT to time the undocking yourself and find out for yourSELF if you noticed any time delay?

i don't have remote viewing capabilities therefore i cannot guage the real time verses the transmission time and expecting anyone to be able to do this is proposturous.

edit to add

just so we are clear...we are not or at least i am not talking about the launch footage , the possible delay questions are referred to the EVA and orbital observation footage.









[edit on 28-3-2009 by easynow]

reply to post by JimOberg


1- Basis in reality? You mean like Mission control saying that the footage is IR/ Ultraviolet, whatever (sort of like in alot of these videos)? That's exactly what is in some of these videos.. I'm not just going to assume something is IR or ultraviolet and not look into it myself. The specific STS mission I talked about (STS-75) had multiple Ultraviolet cameras onboard to monitor the tether experiment.. That we know. And we also know that the footage taken of the tether at the time of the incident was filmed by one of these ultraviolet cameras (Nasa gives them all names).

2- Hackers on drugs? Wouldn't that just bolster the fact that he really is a hacker? I mean, honestly, I know absolutely no hackers my age that are not strung out on something. It's more a matter of who admits what they do on their free time. That almost helps his argument. The devil is in the details I guess. Its all a matter of personal viewpoint and how you look at things. The world is never as black and white as people like to portray.

3- I really wish you would watch some of the UV/IR footage on youtube. IF we were forced to guess what footage was UV and what footage was IR we wouldn't have any way of knowing what we're seeing anyway without further research (we're not splitting atoms here). That is what I'm good at. I'm not just posting youtube videos that supposedly have IR or UV footage.. In order to confirm what you're looking at, sometimes it takes a little manual research. Most people don't do that because they are too lazy. In that instance, they might just accept what they are being told they are seeing. But let's face it, most people are too lazy and too non-caring to even think of doing the research. YES, I'm just that nerdy.

-ChriS

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by BlasteR

 

Thanks for posting the Donna Hare video, in it she says something I did not knew (maybe because the most famous YouTube video mixes her words with Moon images), that the UFO that she saw on a photo that a NASA (I suppose) technician showed to her was on a photo of Earth, not the Moon, and, according to her, an aerial photo, not a photo from space.

PS: this shows that some off-topic posts may be useful.

Well thanks and sorry at the same time, Armap, LOL! I apologize for my off-topic rant. I just find it really bothersome when I see people pointing out what they see as errors in my judgement when they don't make any valid counterargument that challenges the facts I'm presenting. But I guess it's just easier to say "We don't know whether these videos are UV or IR" when , actually, we do.. I think alot of people would be surprised how just a tiny bit of research can change an entire debate/discussion.

The argument that "it is all up to interpretation" only goes so far. I don't even see how anyone would use that as a valid counterargument. I guess it's easier for some people to try and point out what they see as faults in your own judgement as invalid rather than trying to invalidate the actual content being discussed in the first place. Maybe it's just me, but that gets under my skin more than anything else..

Back to STS-114 discussion..

-ChriS

Originally posted by BlasteR
reply to post by JimOberg

 

1- Basis in reality? You mean like Mission control saying that the footage is IR/ Ultraviolet, whatever (sort of like in alot of these videos)? That's exactly what is in some of these videos.. I'm not just going to assume something is IR or ultraviolet and not look into it myself. The specific STS mission I talked about (STS-75) had multiple Ultraviolet cameras onboard to monitor the tether experiment.. That we know. And we also know that the footage taken of the tether at the time of the incident was filmed by one of these ultraviolet cameras (Nasa gives them all names).

I don't doubt you are quite confident you 'know' this. what I am suggesting is, you be a little less confident in what you think you know because you read it on the 'net, and be a little more confident in what you can find out for yourself through diligent investigation.

My own investigation re STS-75 and the tether views (and I was one of the few ground observers to SEE the tether in the dawn skies over Galveston, in the weeks after it broke free), is that the views were from payload bay cameras of a standard type operating in visible light. I also had the advantage of actually talking with first-hand witnesses, a method that for some reason does not appear to be considered in recent discussions.

The hand-held non-real-time UV camera mentioned in this thread may have made useful observations as well, and the principle investigator ought to be approached for sample pictures. I don't think they will be much different from the visible light camera views for one particular reason: they were taken from inside the shuttle cabin, and the cabin windows are very specially coated to block harmful UV rays from penetrating. You can find out the exact window transmissivity by some diligent research, which may be informative.

Re time delays. I noticed when doing the MSNBC coverage of the landing yesterday, the NASA TV voice coming back over my telephone link lagged the voice in the press room in Houston by 5 seconds. Also, the streaming video of the NASA TV, on the NASA site, lagged about 30 seconds. How much is mere technical processing time, and how much deliberate time for a 'panic button', I can't tell -- but suspect it's technical in nature.

I could detect no delay at all in the press room TV and the precise time of specific events such as undocking. If ther is a 'secret delay', then even the announced event times -- including instructions radioed up to the crew -- must be counterfeit. I find that unlikely.

Here's that NASA press release that called one of my stories "bunk," "complete nonsense," and "wacko" --
but I wasn't the one who screwed up and crashed
a whole fleet of robot Mars probes.


NASA'S RESPONSE TO UPI'S MARCH 21 MARS POLAR LANDER STORY

March 22, 2000

www.nasa.gov...

Well, my FOIA request with the thruster activity data arrived today. Quite satisfactory. As I recall, RF's conditions were that anything I came up with couldn't be trusted, so he required the data to come from a third party.

Has any third party requested the data on their own?

If not, maybe it's because nobody around these parts really wants a prosaic explanation?

If so, so be it. See yah....

reply to post by JimOberg


I'd like to see, even if I don't care enough to put in a overseas FOIA request, it's pretty much what I expected, but I'm curious about the details.

Fascinating!

I never get the 'ice particle people'...

When it moves one direction on entering a picture and at the other side of the screen it turns around...It must be something more than a 'regular' randomly floating space-thingie...

From the moment I have seen the following video footage of the so called 'NASA Tether incident' I am (almost totally) convinced there are UFO's in the space around earth. Call me silly...but first watch the following video:



direct link: www.youtube.com...

I was amazed first time I saw this.

When I first encountered this 'Tether incident' almost emediatly 'The Dropa Stones' came to mind, remember them?:
www.badarchaeology.net...

Watch the following in which David Sereda explains as only he can:

The Secret NASA Evidence on UFO Technology #1 (Part 1):


The Secret NASA Evidence on UFO Technology #1 (Part 2):


The Secret NASA Evidence on UFO Technology #1 (Part 3):


The Secret NASA Evidence on UFO Technology #1 (Part 4):


The Secret NASA Evidence on UFO Technology #1 (Part 5):


The Secret NASA Evidence on UFO Technology #1 (Part 6):


The Secret NASA Evidence on UFO Technology #1 (Part 7):


The Secret NASA Evidence on UFO Technology #1 (Part 8):


The Secret NASA Evidence on UFO Technology #1 (Part 9):


The Secret NASA Evidence on UFO Technology #1 (Part 10):


The Secret NASA Evidence on UFO Technology #1 (Part 11):


Whatever the case may be...Untill there is 100% proof (which actually almost means that I myself have to witness something unexplainable regarding this phenomenon) I am a curious sceptic that needs input!

[edit on 8-4-2009 by kcire]

[edit on 8-4-2009 by kcire]

[edit on 8-4-2009 by kcire]

Have you seen other cases of lens artifacts?

As far as I understand what we see on the tether video, those are just out of focus bright objects, probably ice crystals, relatively close to the camera.

But on the case of this thread's topic I do not know what that object was, I cannot find anything that makes me think that one specific explanation is the most likely to really explain it.

Originally posted by ArMaP
But on the case of this thread's topic I do not know what that object was, I cannot find anything that makes me think that one specific explanation is the most likely to really explain it.

Reasonable. That's why some of us are seeking additional contextual evidence.

The FOIA reveals a significant burst of vernier thruster firing for several seconds within the time span of the video. The aft end of the shuttle is to the left in the field of view, which also seems to be the direction of the source of the disturbing force that alters the course of two objects seen in the sequence (one is turned around in its motion, the other smaller one accelerates). The question remains to time the precise moment of action of the disturbing force to see if it coincides with the now-revealed thruster firings.

Figured I would put my keystrokes on this thread.

Didn't read all 66 pages, but took a look at the video. I noticed when the light changed directions the shuttle changed a vector in other words moved its orbit a bit. I think, not discrediting anyone's belief's but it looks like a satellite and when the shuttle changed course it looked like it was moving. But what do I know I am just a engineer, not a astronaut.

I would have to say, the object never "stopped" the object was moving away from the shuttle in the opposite direction at that moment. Now to me it does appear to be in coming into frame and then going away (almost like a orbit of some type) but that also make me wonder what type of object would have a orbit NOT circling the earth (as this plainly does not)...