NASA STS - 80 Undeniable Proof That They Know More

reply to post by Steve B


No. I don't agree.

1. I see the video effect that causes a dark spot to appear in some of the objects (including the one in your video) fade.
   
2. I see video saturation cause a loss of contrast and the object disappears against the cloud. The camera is overloaded by the brightness of the cloud. We see pure white against pure white.
   
3. I see the object become visible again against the darker background of the surface.
   

I think all of the objects are in orbit near the shuttle.

reply to post by Phage

 

quote]Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Steve B

 

No. I don't agree.

1. I see the video effect that causes a dark spot to appear in some of the objects (including the one in your video) fade.
   
2. I see video saturation cause a loss of contrast and the object disappears against the cloud. The camera is overloaded by the brightness of the cloud. We see pure white against pure white.
   
3. I see the object become visible again against the darker background of the surface.
   

I think all of the objects are in orbit near the shuttle.

I have a problem with bullet point two we don't see pure white against pure white. The cloud is grey not white, after the object reappears it is clearly whiter then the cloud was.

I agree that when a white objects move infront of eachother one will appear to disappear but this is not what we are seeing. The cloud isn't white...so the camera isn't overloaded by its brightness, right?

[edit on 19-3-2009 by Steve B]

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by UnconventionalRyan1990
Yeah, the debunkers usually tend to stay away from this one lol. "

Did you even google any debunker comments on this case, or are you operating on pure fantasy here?

Jim thanks for sticking around and gracing us with your presence.

Can you please tell us the exact stance that NASA took to describe what we see in this video? this will then give us something to chew over.

[edit on 19-3-2009 by franspeakfree]

reply to post by jdub297


Instead of nit picking at the title or whatever it is you have a gripe about regarding this thread. Please offer us some kind of counter argument as to what YOU believe the objects in question.

Let me ask you:

1. Do you know of any technology that we (humans) have in space that can travel at speed and stop immediately without any signs of thrust? ifso please post some kind of counter evidence/proof whatever you want to call it.

2. Are you aware that we (humans) have technology that allows small crafts to whip around in space and fly in formation? ifso please post some pictures and let us see for ourselves.

3.Are you aware that nobody on this thread is arguing that these objects in question are not UFO's

4.Can science explain what we see in this video? if so please enlighten me.

I say this is solid proof of that NASA know something and isn't sharing with the rest of us, it is apparent in the amount of posts in this thread from normal debunkers quick off the mark that they cannot disagree with this.

Instead of flaming me lets stay on topic and talk about the objects in question. Thats all I and others care about. After all as I have said numerous times we are all searching for the same thing at the end of the day (unless some have an agenda).

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by LucidDreamer85

 

It would indicate that they are not objects vaporizing in the atmosphere.

Debris and meteors do not vaporize until they enter the atmosphere.

[edit on 3/18/2009 by Phage]

What do you perceive these objects to be phage? normally you have your extensive knowledge to fall back on and dazzle us all ?

Originally posted by LucidDreamer85
What do you think they are then?

I have been explicit in what I think they are. I do not know. Of course you already know this. Someone who says this...

Originally posted by LucidDreamer85
Have you read anything above or you just post?

...is sure to have read through all the posts in a thread before posting, right?

Right?

Originally posted by LucidDreamer85
Can you prove they were careless in allowing the videos to be released?

That burden of proof is now on you.

I am not the one making that claim. Fran and others such as yourself are; it is not my responsibility to prove it your claim.

Originally posted by LucidDreamer85
You failed yo quote the part about him saying you are acting like you are judge.

No I did not. MaxxMarrs did not ask that asinine question.

It was Dracodie. And I did answer.

Besides, what does it matter what my response to that is? It was off topic and so is your question. Snide, asinine remarks have nothing to do with our discussion. You seem rather keen on making me the subject, not the topic.

Originally posted by LucidDreamer85
also you did not fully quote the entire quote . That also is not fair...Not sure if that was intentional or not.

For clarity I do not, and will not, quote someone in entirety unless necessary to the discussion. It is a waste of time, and I find it annoying, to have to scroll through an entire quote you just read moments before, when all that is needed is the substance. As anyone can scroll up and see what MaxxMarrs posted, there is no need for me to repost his comment in its entirety.

Originally posted by Steve B
Do you agree that at least one of these objects is within the atmosphere? As it goes under a cloud. And if so what do you think that it is if its not a meteor/debris?

I don't think so -- all you really seem to see is the dot disappears, right? The 'going under a cloud' is a possible cause of that, but hardly the only cause, or even the most likely cause. This is why understanding the illumination conditions of videos such as this is so critical -- without knowing where the sunlight and shadows are in the camera field-of-view, you may be forced into misinterpretations.

Originally posted by franspeakfree
I say this is solid proof of that NASA know something and isn't sharing with the rest of us, it is apparent in the amount of posts in this thread from normal debunkers quick off the mark that they cannot disagree with this.

We know you say this -- the question is, does that make it true? Actually, there are satellites in orbit that operate in formation, from the 'A-Train' to NOSS 'triplets' to a few sets of magnetospheric monitors. But I don't think these are necessary for a plausible prosaic explanation. I urge you to read my 12-year-old report on the technical and illumination context of the video, linked earlier.

Originally posted by franspeakfree
Can you please tell us the exact stance that NASA took to describe what we see in this video? this will then give us something to chew over.

The stance of NASA public affairs officers is superficial and condescending and distinctly non-helpful, a pushy 'trust-us' reflex. They can be jerks. They see only the weirdest of the weird theories and speculations, and dismiss them arrogantly (and often carelessly -- repeating the 'meteor' mantra even when it doesn't fit), for the most part -- a perfect strategy to encourage them.

This is worse than useless, and the public's reaction to it is understandable and hard to argue with. Ironically it has helped to a large degree to create the myth of the 'secret NASA UFOs'.

No, I don't want their job -- just to see them do their job right. And one aspect is to show a little more respect and consideration for the reactions and puzzlement of outside watchers of these undeniably bizarre-looking videos.

Originally posted by Phage
I think all of the objects are in orbit near the shuttle.

I think that's a reasonable hypothesis, and here's the test. Somebody needs to get a longer-running video that includes this scene, that starts before sunrise. The dots ought to appear AT sunrise (or sometimes soon after as they emerge from the shuttle's shadow), and not be visible before they are sunlit.

Can we agree that this would be a useful datum in differentiating hypotheses?

Note also that the amateur NASA-TV-watchers probably already have that part of the video, from their original recording sessions. They haven't shown it.

Originally posted by JimOberg
Actually, there are satellites in orbit that operate in formation, from the 'A-Train' to NOSS 'triplets' to a few sets of magnetospheric monitors.

If you weren't connected to NASA and you saw this video for the first time, would you accept that what we see here in this video are A-Train' , NOSS 'triplets' or a few sets of magnetospheric monitors?. If so can you provide links or pictures of the said satellites so that we can see the resemblance please.

Originally posted by JimOberg
The stance of NASA public affairs officers is superficial and condescending and distinctly non-helpful, a pushy 'trust-us' reflex. They can be jerks. They see only the weirdest of the weird theories and speculations, and dismiss them arrogantly (and often carelessly -- repeating the 'meteor' mantra even when it doesn't fit), for the most part -- a perfect strategy to encourage them.

Finally we can all agree on something,

This is worse than useless, and the public's reaction to it is understandable and hard to argue with. Ironically it has helped to a large degree to create the myth of the 'secret NASA UFOs'.

It is, and of course we are going to jump to conclusions first of all. but....My belief that nasa is hiding the truth is not solely based on this video, far from it. I have watched many of these videos, I have heard from many people who have worked at NASA and of course I have had my own experience of E.T.

In my thread I posted today the article quotes Edgar Mitchells statement of whistleblowing and goes on to show us how much tax payers money is being pumped into NASA each year. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to know that wherever there is money there is corruption, but don't take my word for it read the article.

I believe NASA and FRAUD are mentioned once or twice

Originally posted by franspeakfree
In my thread I posted today the article quotes Edgar Mitchells statement of whistleblowing and goes on to show us how much tax payers money is being pumped into NASA each year.

I wonder how many times I will have to post this...

In an interview with Fox News on July 25, 2008, Mitchell clarified that his comments did not involve NASA...

...before Fran acknowledges it and stop insinuating that Edgar Mitchell was whistleblowing on NASA.

It'll probably be Doomsday before she does...

Originally posted by franspeakfree
If you weren't connected to NASA and you saw this video for the first time, would you accept that what we see here in this video are A-Train' , NOSS 'triplets' or a few sets of magnetospheric monitors?. If so can you provide links or pictures of the said satellites so that we can see the resemblance please.

If I had no spaceflight experience, and was shown the video wihout being informed about the illumination conditions and the orbital position and the crew activities context, nor any other similar videos of similar dots, it would blow my mind. The public reaction is entirely justifiable.

And if somebody shows it to you, and withholds that contextual information, it's deliberate deception. It takes an extra effort to get your intellect to overcome a few hundred million years of instinctive optical processing algorithm evolution.

Originally posted by franspeakfree
If you weren't connected to NASA and you saw this video for the first time, would you accept that what we see here in this video are A-Train' , NOSS 'triplets' or a few sets of magnetospheric monitors?. If so can you provide links or pictures of the said satellites so that we can see the resemblance please.

From the ISS or shuttle, they would look like dots -- but moving at a substantial angular rate across the sky, high above the horizon.

Originally posted by SaviorComplex

Originally posted by franspeakfree
In my thread I posted today the article quotes Edgar Mitchells statement of whistleblowing and goes on to show us how much tax payers money is being pumped into NASA each year.

I wonder how many times I will have to post this...

In an interview with Fox News on July 25, 2008, Mitchell clarified that his comments did not involve NASA...

...before Fran acknowledges it and stop insinuating that Edgar Mitchell was whistleblowing on NASA.

It'll probably be Doomsday before she does...

Now then now then savior I have answered you previously about that I responded with:

How do you suppose that he knows all this information if not through NASA?. If he was ordinary jo bloggs would he be taken so seriously? or did the role of NASA astronaut play an important part to his credibility?

I expect that he said NASA was not involved after receiving some pretty nasty phone calls shortly after he went public.

Originally posted by franspeakfree
How do you suppose that he knows all this information if not through NASA?

Perhaps if you had bothered to do any reading on the subject, you would already know. Go back and read your own sources. Mitchell is clear he came to this opinion after his time with NASA, and people have approached him with their stories. Nothing Mitchell talks about is from his own personal experience or knowledge.

Originally posted by franspeakfree
I expect that he said NASA was not involved after receiving some pretty nasty phone calls shortly after he went public.

You are speculating and confusing speculation with fact, yet again. And your speculation makes no sense; why would NASA, who you believe is trying to cover up extraterrestrial visitation, tell Mitchell to disavow NASA of responsibility, and not tell him to shut up on the issue altogether?

At this point, you are picking and choosing which of his comments you accept.

Originally posted by franspeakfree

Answering questions, asking for clarity of thought, and for a clear-headed, objective discussion based on agreed-upon definitions is not "flaming."

Instead of nit picking at the title

OP provides a video clip, a little bit of evidence, not "undeniable proof that they know more." That is not "not-picking." It is a statement of fact.

Thus far in this thread, OP has shown no "proof" of what "they" (who are they) "know."

Tell me, what do they (or you, or OP, or anyone else) "know," based upon this video clip?

... or whatever it is you have a gripe about regarding this thread.

I have a gripe about "verdicts" based upon insufficient evidence. Innocent people have been executed as a result of such thinking.

Please offer us some kind of counter argument as to what YOU believe the objects in question.

Up to this point, there is not much evidence that the clip portrays "objects" that are controlled, that such "control" is by anything "extraterrestrial," the identity of "they," and what they "know."

I do not know what is depicted in this clip, but I've offered no beliefs one way or the other.

Let me ask you:
1. Do you know of any technology that we (humans) have in space that can travel at speed and stop immediately without any signs of thrust?

As there is insufficient oxygen in space to support fire, hydrazine combustion does not exhibit "any signs of thrust." Many satellites are maneuverable, as are the ISS and STS. I do not have any pictures of such, but in my ATS media I have pictures of the STEREO A & B satellites, both "travelling at speed," maneuverable, orbiting "in formation" and doing so "without any signs of thrust."

2. Are you aware that we (humans) have technology that allows small crafts to whip around in space and fly in formation? ifso please post some pictures and let us see for ourselves.

Yes, I am. See my ATS media file for a photo of the STEREO A & B satellites. (assuming, of couse that "small crafts" includes satellites)

3.Are you aware that nobody on this thread is arguing that these objects in question are not UFO's

Yes. It appears, however, that some question whether the clip depicts objects. No one has offered an argument that the clip does not depict UFOs.

4.Can science explain what we see in this video? if so please enlighten me.

My faith in the scientific method tells me that, yes, given sufficient information, science can explain what is depicted in this clip.

Instead of flaming me lets stay on topic and talk about the objects in question.

I will not flame on ATS and would enjoy a reasoned discussion. Mr. Oberg seems to have a lot to offer in this regard.

"Answering questions, asking for clarity of thought, and for a clear-headed, objective discussion based on agreed-upon definitions is not "flaming." (but I repeat myself)

Deny ignorance.

jw

[edit on 19-3-2009 by jdub297]

[edit on 19-3-2009 by jdub297]

[edit on 19-3-2009 by jdub297]

I didnt read all the comments but am aware of most of the shuttle clips of UFOs.

I believe. I dont know the classic questions - who/what/why
but I do know that there is too much evidence proving the existence of UFO past and present.

I dont understand the disbelief of some, who wish to create misleading UFO videos, or debunkers who spend their time spreading hate.

What is the problem with UFO and life coming from somewhere else? Ok, maybe WHY they are coming here, but I cant answer that, but there is something that has been visiting our skies since man has been on this Earth, however long that might have been.

The final solution should be that we all are human, we all have to eat, sleep, expel waste product, love, what is the problem with us. (besides the bankers/policiticians/human haters)

Im awake and waiting for others to join.

Been intently following this thread and, unfortunately, submit that it has digressed, like so many others, to a mud-slinging contest of tit-for-tat "he said-she said" discourse rather than focusing on the topic and anomaly at hand.

Since there are dozens of ATS threads on the STS videos open to speculative interpretation by lay observers, this particular discussion seems to follow the pattern of minimal empirical evidence gradually reduced to vaporous personal commentary rather than serious study.

I would like to believe, perhaps as strongly as the most ardent among us, but for this thread at least, I'm afraid the title has exceeded the corollary of it's premise - interesting perhaps; but "Undeniable Proof" it is not.

As it is, at this juncture at least, I bid you leave, as investigations with something more to research than human psyche beckon. For what it's worth, although many have had interesting ideas (and some hardly any ideas at all), the most logical and plausible explanation, IMHO, has been submitted by altasastro:

Originally posted by atlasastro
... some posts here are bordering on the desperate and the ridiculous. Is this really all you have!

When sunrise occurs (due to the Orbiter's motion along its
orbit), even though the Orbiter is now bathed in sunlight, the
camera is still trained on the dark side of Earth. But now the
floating particles which routinely accompany every shuttle
flight (often ice particles, sometimes junk from the payload
bay, pieces of insulation blankets, a dozen or more distinctly
different sources) can become visible in the sunlight, sometimes
even moving into sunlight from the umbra of the Orbiter (and
thus "appearing suddenly"). These are close to the camera,
sometimes a few feet, at most a few hundred feet. Sometimes they
are hit by pulses of gas from the RCS jets as they automatically
fire to gently nudge the spaceship back towards a pre-set
orientation. Because of the sensitivity of the camera, moving
particles leave streaks -- even stars can be seen to do this
when the camera is being panned (usually by command from a
controller in the Mission Control Center). Tumbling particles
tend to flash. Bright particles overload the optics and appear
as "rings" or "do-nuts" with darker centers.

There's nothing else to it, as far as I can tell. Everyone in
the control center knows about this visual phenomenon, everyone
has seen it numerous times, and they laugh at notions these are
anomalous, while they grimace at yet more silly stories by
people who don't seem to understand much (or do seem to
misunderstand a lot) about "ordinary" space flight.

www.virtuallystrange.net...
James Oberg.en.wikipedia.org...

I don't expect that this will change many minds and 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. Life's
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.

Just want to save some posters some time, the man knows too well and beats you to the punch.