NASA Artifacts explanation is a LIE

Originally posted by alienreality
reply to post by JimOberg

 

Since the photograph was used as an example of some behavioral issue with NASA, and not being used to promote web traffic for advertising revenue or other commercial interests, it should fall under "fair use" laws. and not even require permission from the copyright holder.. I could be wrong though Jim, I have been wrong before..

"Being wrong" is a state I'm not unfamiliar with, since every statement I make hereabouts immediately attracts dozens of "young guns" who dash off to find that I'm wrong, to make a name. More than once, they have helped me improve the accuracy of my arguments, thereby. And I've made some good friends that way, too.

I've stolen my share of visual material, but usually from the Soviets when they had neglected to sign the International Copyright accord. Re the zig-zagger, Goldie says he doesn't have the energy or resources to get embroiled in copyright disputes, so I suspect the OP is safe.

My own view is that even if you can get away with it, it's bad manners. The guy took the photos with his own camera on his own time. They are "his". If you want to use them, ask him for permission, which I suspect would pleasantly surprise him so much, he'd agree.

Originally posted by TritonTaranis
....NASA ask for the pictures, and then forbided them to be published while investigating the artifact....

Who forbade the photo to be published?

That's a new one on me. Where did you learn it? Or did you just dream it up?

Did Goldie tell you? Did you read it in some chat room? Really, you claim it as a fact, but on what verifiable basis?

Goldie's own tenth anniversary story was talking about YOU, in advance, it seems:

Those three productions are the only authorized uses of my photograph. Despite that, my image is reproduced without permission in hundreds of websites, almost all of which are presenting, of one sort or another, conspiracy behind the Columbia accident. Pick a fringe group, be it anti-government, fundamentalist believer, HAARP, chemclouds, right wing, left wing, secret dreams of psychics, etc… they all seem to have an angle on what really happened to the Columbia Shuttle, and it always involves the “purple corkscrew”, my “confiscated” camera and that “they” are forcing me to hide the truth. I know it is too much to expect these folks to respect a photograph copyright, let alone the public record of what happened.

Originally posted by TritonTaranis

Originally posted by Chrisfishenstein


reply to post by TritonTaranis

 

So since NASA says nothing here move along, if they are lying what exactly is this.....thing?

If you can prove it is what you say it is, then you can claim NASA lied......Until then, how is this not a case of nothing here move along?

I guess this is the opened case of the purple squiggly....

What you on about its BEEN proven

Go and read the post again lol

It proves NASA originally called the image an artifact and tried to discredit the lighting theory as an artifact, after investigation it was proven not to be an artifact and NASA got caught out LYING through the investigation leading to the findings /confirmation of mega lighting & Sprites & positively charged strikes thought to be impossible just a few years ago

It just goes to show that NASA does in fact have a protocol to explain away everything they do not understand, or don't want you knowing as an artifact,

edit on 25-7-2013 by TritonTaranis because: (no reason given)

If you go back and watch the video there is more than one lie.
Can you find it?

Originally posted by TritonTaranis
Yeah i wonder who Jim works for

When you write a refuting post on every single NASA ufo/anomoly thread, jonny on the spot, it becomes pretty obvious. As far as NASA goes, I'll never believe anything they say. Ice particles aren't as intelligent and advanced as they like to portray them to be.

I don't trust NASA anymore than I trust my government. which is not at all. which is really what this thread is about. And maybe this wasn't the best picture to use as an example. there are others as well. but the reaction to the picture is alluding to the fact that some one doesn't want you to see it. all very well then, I know UFO's exist. And I wouldn't be surprised if one downed the shuttle, as the pic looks a lot like that at face value.

reply to post by TritonTaranis



Being towed behind the socially acceptable ship of lies
you are not one of them


We need more of those
We have been learning by questioning reality, and we much never stop doing so

s&f

Originally posted by TritonTaranis

Originally posted by freelance_zenarchist

Originally posted by TritonTaranis

While the purple zig-zag line could be produced by a shaky camera, it would be impossible to get such an image without all the other objects in the image also showing the same pattern of zig-zag motion. such as the stars and power line

Why do you think that would be impossible? Do you have any experience with photography?

Look at this photo I took. It was hand held, long exposure and I used a flash with my other hand. It has lots of light trails yet you can make out every string on his guitar, similar to the power lines in your photo.

Cool pic bro

Does your picture look anything like the anomalies in this picture ?

Actually, freelance_zenarchist just totally OWNED you.
It would seem some here just lack the facility to even realize how badly they've been owned, how much of a complete embarrassment to themselves they're being, and still want to insist on playing their little fiddle while Rome burns around them.

Straight lines on guitar plus wavy lines, especially in the lower left area. It's so obvious even blind people that have had their eyes burned out with knives, and then had acid poured into the holes can see it.

The rest of us thank you for the painful entertainment you're giving. So sad.
You really should give up, but, oh, wow. lol.

Serious question: How old are you anyway?
Your argument was lost a long time ago, even before freelance_zenanarchist.

Let it go. There are several ways to create a similar photograph, freelance_zenanarchist showed you one.
double exposure could also create that effect.
A reflection from an off camera light source off one of the camera internal lenses could also create that effect.
A piece of hair on the lens, blurred by proximity and lit by an off camera light source should also create that effect.
Dust on the camera image sensor, the internal mirror, or inside the camera body on the film (if it was film used) could also cause this effect.
An error in processing the film, if film was used could cause this effect.

There are many different very normal and known ways this effect can be created, last of which any film or camera expert would ever suspect of being an actual something directly photographed if asked.
I've only listed a few, and I'm not a photographer or camera expert, and as you've so very completely overwhelmingly demonstrated like a flaming car crash, neither are you.

Give up.

reply to post by JimOberg

Just droppin' in here Jim. As a copyright owner to music, some literary works and a trademark...youve been dead on. Fight the good fight...

Originally posted by Druscilla
Actually, freelance_zenarchist just totally OWNED you.

I dont agree.
everything in that pic was stationary, except for the guitar!
If the camera is moved we see the streaking of the stationary objects, however if the guitar moves along with the camera then it would remain clear, like we see in the pic. So, not "OWNED" I'm afraid.
Also that pic looks like its been doctored, I'll have to examine it a bit closer.

reply to post by VoidHawk


Now we're talking about an entirely new photo!

Additionally, I've addressed several other possibilities for attribution of the original photo flown around by the OP such that regardless of what the squiggly line in the photo IS, regardless of whether it's a UFO, a Blue Sprite, a Chinese Celestial Dragon, or the Aztec Feathered Serpent, there's enough other more mundane and entirely attributable factors it could ALSO be that one lousy photo does not an effective argument make.
10 photographic experts could look at this and give 10 different photography related explanations for how it could be a camera artifact.
A meteorologist would, on the other hand, possibly forward another different explanation altogether.

Case being, what is it? Who cares? a dozen different experts could give a dozen real legitimate plausible explanations.
With that much variability in possibility, there's really no argument on the grounds OP is arguing.

reply to post by TritonTaranis

This is my first post . I just registered and boy does the site look completely different when you are logged in with a user account.

I have been lurking on ATS for quite some time now. I enjoy and I am educated by watching two polarized sides discuss a controversial topic. However, over the last few weeks I've considered creating an account to respond to various threads. I never took the plunge until now.

I'm not sure why I decided to register for this particular thread, but I thought I could be of some service in answering your implied query (even if it were merely rhetorical). You mentioned that the power lines should be moving as well. Here is your statement:

Originally posted by TritonTaranis
This photo shows at least two stars and the power lines
...
While the purple zig-zag line could be produced by a shaky camera, it would be impossible to get such an image without all the other objects in the image also showing the same pattern of zig-zag motion. such as the stars and power line
...

Please consider what the power lines would look like with a long exposure but a very tiny jostle to the tripod. The answer is that they would appear wider and the edges would have a gradient or opaque look tapering off at the ends. Plucking a guitar string just ever so slightly and then with increased force on successive iterations is a reasonable visual example.

There are several questions to consider with regards to the power lines and the anomaly:

1.) How far away are the power lines from the camera? (in other words the angular size)
2.) How much did the camera move?
3.) How far away was the shuttle from the camera?
4.) How fast was the shuttle moving?

The answers to (3) and (4) should be known parameters. You could potentially calculate (2) from that knowledge. It would seem that the original photographer may be available for comment and could give you item (1). With this knowledge you could get a very good idea of how wide the cables should appear.

I understand that the above process is a little silly for most of us to carry out in the context of a discussion on a forum. So, I will just assert that in all likely hood the cables wouldn't look much wider from a tiny jostle (especially if they don't emit much electromagnetic radiation to excite the film). Whereas, the shuttle's plasma ball traveling at super sonic speeds would cover a larger distance across the film in that short amount of time and be bright enough to excite the film as well.

However, I don't completely disagree with your point that camera artifacts are overused explanations. It is clear from my lurking that many people instinctively accept explanations such as camera/lens "artifacts" and "reflections" when confronted with challenging data. When in fact, it may require more detailed analysis. A common trend here at ATS, in my experience, is a series of explanations that start out with the usual suspects such as "yep, clearly an artifact. case closed." and then progresses to a more sophisticated answer which don't involve camera artifacts. It has the appearance of jumping from one explanation to the next and then settling on a consensus. A cynical categorization would be "proof by intimidation". Clearly, "clearly an artifact" was overused in such instances. My guess is that this problem is the core of your complaint.

I hope my post helps. Especially considering it is my very first post here . I wish you luck and hope that you continue to question reality and the common world view. I believe that is how we have progressed so far technologically. Now if we could just get our social development on an exponential trend as well.

reply to post by compressedFusion


Star for you for such a well thought and presented response.
Welcome to ATS!

Please don't let any of our passionate sparring intimidate you.

reply to post by Druscilla


I was referring to your statement

Actually, freelance_zenarchist just totally OWNED you.

You were referring to his explanation of how those streaks were achieved yet the guitar remained clear?
I was simply offering an example of how that could be achieved, therefore did not own OP.

The OP is not something I am very familiar with so cant really comment. I just dont think the guitar picture has any relevance considering my explanation.

reply to post by compressedFusion


Welcome to the madhouse. A fine post

How do you account for the stars not displaying the same zig zag?

Originally posted by VoidHawk
reply to post by Druscilla

 

I was referring to your statement

Actually, freelance_zenarchist just totally OWNED you.

You were referring to his explanation of how those streaks were achieved yet the guitar remained clear?
I was simply offering an example of how that could be achieved, therefore did not own OP.

The OP is not something I am very familiar with so cant really comment. I just dont think the guitar picture has any relevance considering my explanation.

I respect your difference of opinion in giving a reasonable legitimate alternative, albeit contrary mine, even if I disagree, and give you stars on each of your posts.

Originally posted by VoidHawk
I dont agree. everything in that pic was stationary, except for the guitar!
If the camera is moved we see the streaking of the stationary objects, however if the guitar moves along with the camera then it would remain clear, like we see in the pic. So, not "OWNED" I'm afraid.
Also that pic looks like its been doctored, I'll have to examine it a bit closer.

You're just digging yourself deeper into the hole.

I've posted links, and urged you to read, descriptions of a normal shuttle reentry fireball -- a phenomenon I've had the thrill to observe with my own eyes here in SE Texas. It does not look like one might expect it to look if one extrapolates from Hollywood SFX, video games, and even ordinary meteors.

One key aspect is that the shuttle is moving, but its 'contrail' is NOT. As this trail is laid down across the sky, it becomes a persistent, lingering white line. It slowly expands and fades over a period of minutes, far longer than any exposure in Goldie's set.

At the head of the trail is the bright golden/yellow spark of the shuttle's plasma sheath.

If you don't know that, and the OP obviously is proud he/she does not, and defiantly determined to NOT know it -- you have no proper clues to recognize what is being seen in the zigzag photo.

If you were to visualize how the time exposure images are laid down, you would see that all the non-moving objects -- contrail, stars, overhead wires -- have a long time to 'burn in' and leave images. During the brief 'open aperture' jostling, all will bounce around, but only the fireball spark is bright enough to register the line it jerks along. So it shows up as a zig-zag that winds up overlaying the trail.

This is the way time exposures of shuttle fireballs look with a manually jostled start-recording. You can even reproduce this effect with a digital camera at home. Try it.

Originally posted by VoidHawk
How do you account for the stars not displaying the same zig zag?

As already stated, the stars are MUCH dimmer than the shuttle plasma fireball, and would not be expected to leave a noticeable track at that exposure setting.

I gotta stress how AWESOME an entering space shuttle looks like, and I've been watching the skies since before Sputnik. It does not look like you expect it to. And if you're lucky, you even get to hear artificial 'meteor sound', the real-time electrophonic 'hiss' that the plasma trail radio noise excites in the vicinity of random observers. I doubt there will be such BIG spacecraft hitting the atmosphere again for most of the rest of this century.

reply to post by JimOberg

Now, do a google on 'shuttle columbia shot down ' and look at the thousands of hits. Read some of them! Bizarro!

Some of the looniest stuff has (as usual) been on YouTube,

What's scary is to read the comments posted by view ers who swallow the idea -- they sound like a legion of Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich volunteers.

from your link (so I didn't relink it)

attack people, not the subject; lose respect and credibility. Not very 'grownup' as you put it.

He comes off as disinfo agent despite the reality of the event in question. I'm not even going to debate whether it was camera wiggle, lightning strike, plasma, or whatever else is debatable (staying away from ufo attacks);

I'm sticking to his debating tactics, not the person himself. When he chose to make attacks at character and generalize, he failed his work. He failed his side of the debate. His argument was a failure because he couldn't refrain from belittlement of the opposition.

In fact, I am making a big deal out of this; because it is the exact thing we see on here all the time. People don't debate, they bicker, defame, and make snide comments or purely sarcastic with no honest, humble and constructive input. Allowing this to be acceptable and condoned is a big problem.

A recent other thread on here, asking about rover tracks, has people (without reading), jumping in and saying 'all I see are rocks'. If you couldn't see the disturbed sand, you didn't look; regardless of what you believed caused it. This is an epidemic of spouting ignorance. It isn't ignorant to claim it is rocks, it is ignorant to not read the post, not view the images, and only claim the simplest statement; without asking for clarifications to better understand what is seen/being discussed. That isn't contribution, that is ego and disrespect for yourself, the other posters, and the site itself. The only acceptable place for low contribution is off-topic forums made for chit-chat.



I would like people who link stuff like this; to admit the faults of the linked article in the post; to show they at least are using some critical thinking. I'd like all contributors to increase their effort and personal responsibility for quality posts.



If you feel it is just camera wiggle, express it, but don't just close your mind. Study the opposition and give them some concession, such as I know the atmosphere is charged and we've discovered new and interesting things like 'red sprites'; but I still feel based on evidence presented through all sources I could find, that it is still nothing more than an amateur photographer not using a delay when activating the camera on a tripod to prevent user error and user created artifacts. Those are the type of answers I can respect and admire, and at least somewhat deserving of a star for a well thought out post; instead of echo-chamber stars for minimal thought and effort.


I have skepticism; in both the 'look at this' crowd and the 'it's a rock/artifact/etc' crowd. I take no sides, because I assume neither side is factual until I look at as much as I can, and still may remain inconclusive in my mind with a lean to either side ... or possible still sitting in the middle of them if neither had anything convincing. I'm not free from bias by any means, but I try to be as much as possible ... because everyone has their personal spin on things based on their own views and beliefs. I don't believe there is much 'pure' data out there. Everything has a slant from what we learn and are taught in our lives.


So I think the OP is on one side of the fence, and I can see where they are coming from. I don't believe in the all encompassing insinuation that all 'artifacts' are a lie; nor do I believe in the counterpoint that 'there is no reason to lie' or there is no portion of things that have some form of cloak and dagger going on. NASA may be publicly funded, but so are all the alphabets and the military. The military and NASA work well together, and under the authority of national security, I do believe many things are 'scrubbed', edited, changed, omitted, and downplayed about ... from NASA and from just about any source if they can. I can even understand where they are coming from, even if I don't agree with its execution.


Let's find better sources for our debates. Let us debate with honor. No personal attacks, no post count increasing minimal posts, and try to understand each other better, even when we disagree.


There are a lot of 'questionable' youtube videos and pictures that look like rocks; there are many 'questionable' explanations from 'official' sources and professionals as well. This is why it is critical to use your brain and doubt everything, question everything. It is the safest, smartest path you can take in life.

Originally posted by JimOberg


I gotta stress how AWESOME an entering space shuttle looks like, and I've been watching the skies since before Sputnik. It does not look like you expect it to. And if you're lucky, you even get to hear artificial 'meteor sound', the real-time electrophonic 'hiss' that the plasma trail radio noise excites in the vicinity of random observers. I doubt there will be such BIG spacecraft hitting the atmosphere again for most of the rest of this century.

edit on 25-7-2013 by JimOberg because: add other question

This is a very sad thing. You are very fortunate to have witnessed what you have. It is a shame we have moved backwards as a society to not be able to do anything like this to inspire our nation, our dreams, and belief in the country as a whole.


It is a shame NASA has a record of pushing launches and lackluster safety with respect to the shuttle program. If they wouldn't have ignored the warnings and held challenger back; the program itself wouldn't have suffered so much. If they didn't lose respect for the danger and planned ahead for things like tile replacement as a possible necessity for every flight ... having a backup shuttle ready to go, for rescue and repair, for every flight ... it isn't the shuttle's problem, it wasn't a bad machine ... it was bureaucracy, it was bull# that destroyed the ships and the program as a whole. It was the lack of respect for what we were doing and the lives it affected.

Now, we have to rent rides. This fact is as big a tragedy as the lives and the shuttles we lost. What makes me doubt official explanations is what they've proven in the past ... CYA; lies and deceit. The truth always comes out one day, but most people believe what they are told until much later, people who question and inquired find the truth through those who needed to expose it.

This doesn't mean I think the moon shot cheese beams at the shuttle on re-entry. It just means I don't necessarily take face value of what is being said. It is hard to; when you take in consideration all the things we've found out in the past from other major events in our country's short history. Some things much more serious and tragic than this event that were 'allowed' to happen and caused death on much grander scales. What makes them immune on something of a less grand scale? Why lie? Maybe something about the truth they feel needs to be hidden, not that the truth itself is an issue. (and I'm not claiming there is lies about this particular issue).

reply to post by VoidHawk

Originally posted by VoidHawk
reply to post by compressedFusion

 

Welcome to the madhouse. A fine post

How do you account for the stars not displaying the same zig zag?

Thank you for the warm greetings. I decided to speak with my wife before responding. She is a certified professional photographer and has been shooting film for the majority of her life. She doesn't do much astro photography though. We recently returned from a vacation to McDonald Observatory with really clear nights. She took some lovely pictures. We also visited Marfa and had a spectacular viewing of the Marfa Lights. Pictures just don't do the lights justice .

She looked at the picture and the zig-zag. Unfortunately, she felt that she couldn't make many conclusions without knowing more about the setup that the original photographer was using - such as the type of film, the exposure time, the lens used, the focal length, and various other factors.

Despite these unknowns, I distilled my point with her and felt that it bears repeating here for your question. The problem with questions like "why aren't the power lines and stars moving" is that you have no reference for what the angular size should be. This is certainly the case with the power lines. We have some frame of reference for stars since they are essentially the same angular size for any terrestrial viewer despite their position on the planet. If the camera were jostled a star would look bigger and slightly blurry and the power lines would look thicker in this particular orientation.

Are you looking at a bigger blurry star due to shaking of the camera? Or are you looking at a star that isn't shaking? You can't know the answer unless you know the size. If we knew which stars in particular are in the frame then we would have a very good idea because we know their size from previous observations. So, the stars may in fact exhibit the effects of the camera movement and it shows up as a slight increase in their overall size. The effect would not be as pronounced with the stars because they appear motionless in the night sky. The shuttle on the other hand is screaming by with a trail of plasma in its wake.

I must admit, however, that my wife was surprised that the power lines were not moving more because they are closest to the camera (despite my comments about relative size). In the end, she didn't want to draw any conclusions because she didn't know the setup.

On a side note, I showed her the guitar picture and she laughed because of how unrelated the two image artifacts are and therefore proves very little to nothing about the original picture.

I have one final thought I would like to share as I continue to observe the picture. I stated "power lines would look thicker in this particular orientation". That is the type of comment I would like to check out in a experiment given enough time. I'm not for certain but it is just my initial reaction.

reply to post by FreeThinkerIdealist


"He comes off as disinfo agent despite the reality of the event in question. I'm not even going to debate whether it was camera wiggle, lightning strike, plasma, or whatever else is debatable (staying away from ufo attacks); "

In disputes involving technical issues, all opinions are not equal. You have to first assess how each poster's claims correspond to known principles of science and engineering.

Based on my own professional specialties, I have indeed generalized that the less a person knows about real spaceflight, and the more nonsense they think is true, the greater their attraction to bizarre theories.

How can you complain that is somehow :"mean" when you later properly criticized NASA for bad reality-discordant choices that led directly to disasters? In no-nonsense edge-of-state-of-the-art pursuits, there are righter answers and there are wronger answers.

Please don't resort to can't-we-all-just-get-along avoidance of arguments or debates just because you have stylistic or aesthetic objections -- read the original Goldie article to see how anti-factual is the OP's accusation of lying about the images. Please share your opinions on the presence or absence of any evidence for such an attack.

When the OP opens with personal attacks and accusations of deliberate fraud, doesn't that set the tone?