NASA Artifacts explanation is a LIE

Originally posted by compressedFusion
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?

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.

It's a breath of fresh air, to have people around here who actually try and understand the data rather than just dismiss it.
Thanks for sharing your opinion

Originally posted by JimOberg

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.

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

Do you know what I posted? Most of what I wrote concerned an entirely different picture than what you are going on about!! Also the fine post by compressedFusion who's wife IS a professional photographer agreed with my statement about that picture.

As for what I said about the stars, well, my own experience does not agree with your statement.

What a breath of fresh you are sir! We need more like you in here

Originally posted by compressedFusion
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.

Very wise lady. Perhaps you could persuade her to join

Originally posted by compressedFusion
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.

Thanks, I tried to make that point to another poster.

Originally posted by compressedFusion
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.

I'd assume it would depend on whether the camera was moved horizontally or vertically. Being so close as they were, and they do present quite a strong image, I'm inclined to think there was very little vertical movement. I also believe the stars ought to be bright enough to at least give a hint if there was shaking of the camera, but they seem to show very little.
Thanks for your reply

Originally posted by VoidHawk
Do you know what I posted? Most of what I wrote concerned an entirely different picture than what you are going on about!! Also the fine post by compressedFusion who's wife IS a professional photographer agreed with my statement about that picture.

As for what I said about the stars, well, my own experience does not agree with your statement.

VH, did you read Goldie's tenth anniversary article about the photos he took?

So far on this thread, I can't see any indication that ANYBODY has read it -- or commented on it.

I suggest the comments on any slight movement of background objects due to camera jitter don't address the idea that the camera shook only briefly during aperture open, and that the zig-zag shows the extent of the jostling. All other non-moving images would presumably ALSO have moved approx the same extent [not counting the small shuttle fireball motion during the brief jostle], NOT a much smaller jitter amount.

It shook because the photographer did not have a trigger cord attached and had to manually hit the appropriate controls. That's what the man who TOOK the pictures says. Why on Earth would anyone claim it's not true?

Notice that I have asked the OP for several specific items of documentation of factual claims, and descriptions of the degree of his/her familiarity with directly-relevant phenomena such as shuttle fireball appearance.

As far as I can see, the OP has declined to answer ANY of the questions. Is my rudeness the excuse?

reply to post by mysterioustranger

I, too, applaud Mr. Oberg's sentiments regarding the use of copyright material. Plenty of my own writing is scattered about the internet on various web sites, reproduced without permission. In most cases the copyright is somebody else's, not mine, so I'm not exactly losing income on it, but it's still annoying to see other people profit from one's hard work in this way. It's usually greedy consumers who are all in favour of traducing intellectual property rights; if they had what it takes to be producers they would be singing a different tune.

There's a word for those who take other people's things without their permission: they're called thieves.

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by mysterioustranger

 

I, too, applaud Mr. Oberg's sentiments regarding the use of copyright material. Plenty of my own writing is scattered about the internet on various web sites, reproduced without permission. In most cases the copyright is somebody else's, not mine, so I'm not exactly losing income on it, but it's still annoying to see other people profit from one's hard work in this way.

I didn't realise author of this thread was making money from the photo.

Originally posted by BullwinkleKicksButt
I didn't realise author of this thread was making money from the photo.

I sense an ironic undertone here, but the point is well taken.

It's not the author of this thread, it's the photographer who stands to license the image for one-time media use.

It's not the photo itself that's "stolen", since the originator still possesses it.

It's the market value of exclusive use of the image that is degraded.

And copyright violators gain more than merely money -- they get hit counts, website traffic, other metrics that convert to influence, status, and even, yes, cash value.

And doesn't it violate the ATS 'terms of service'?

reply to post by BullwinkleKicksButt

The profit doesn't have to be financial – though it often is, indirectly if not directly. One can profit from the use of others' work in terms of exposure, credibility, publicity and reflected reputation.

I suspect the author was not aware of these issues, and if given the chance could have asked permission from the owner of the image. Yet that opportunity was never given.

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by BullwinkleKicksButt

 

The profit doesn't have to be financial – though it often is, indirectly if not directly. One can profit from the use of others' work in terms of exposure, credibility, publicity and reflected reputation.

OMG. Seriously mate. No one gives a rats arse about nameless users on ATS.
I didn't realise just how important ego is to some people on this website. Thanks for pointing that out.

Originally posted by BullwinkleKicksButt
I suspect the author was not aware of these issues, and if given the chance could have asked permission from the owner of the image. Yet that opportunity was never given.

I agree the OP was unaware, and not only about the copyrighted nature of the image. There's not a single real fact about the image and the analysis of it that the OP appears to be even marginally aware of. But it didn't stop the shrill cries of "liars!", did it?

Originally posted by BullwinkleKicksButt

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by BullwinkleKicksButt

 

The profit doesn't have to be financial – though it often is, indirectly if not directly. One can profit from the use of others' work in terms of exposure, credibility, publicity and reflected reputation.

OMG. Seriously mate. No one gives a rats arse about nameless users on ATS.
I didn't realise just how important ego is to some people on this website. Thanks for pointing that out.

Your cavalier attitude to our host's explicit "Terms and Conditions" may be a little dicey, please remind yourself of them [and remind me, as required, too]:

www.abovetopsecret.com...
The posting of any image that violates the ATS Terms & Conditions will result in an immediate account termination.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

3) DMCA Enforcement: TAN endeavors to comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (hereinafter "DMCA") and other applicable intellectual property laws. TAN will respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the DMCA and remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users. TAN will also terminate the accounts of repeat offenders. If TAN removes or disables access to comply with the DMCA, TAN will make a good-faith attempt to contact the owner, author, or administrator of each affected posts so that they may make a counter notification pursuant to sections 512(g)(2) and (3) of the DMCA. For more information about our DMCA policy and how to file a DMCA takedown notice, please see our DMCA Policy Page.

Congratulations to Mr. Oberg for derrailing this thread into a copyright issue!

It is clear now why some well-educated and gifted members spend so much time here on ATS and the lenghts of time and effort they take to talk you out some conclusions/ideas/hypothesis.

Their zeallous reminds me of the Middle Age´s Holly Inquisition. Instead of the Devil and Hell they menace and label you with copyright law-suits, mental illness, general dellusion or scientific ignorance.

As Socrates (the greek philosopher) said I only know that I know nothing.

reply to post by JimOberg


The rules are not in question.

reply to post by BullwinkleKicksButt

I'm not talking about my posts on ATS, you foolish, rude and presuming person. I write for a living. The stuff that turns up scattered about the internet has nothing whatsoever to do with what I write in this forum.

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by BullwinkleKicksButt

 

I'm not talking about my posts on ATS, you foolish, rude and presuming person. I write for a living. The stuff that turns up scattered about the internet has nothing whatsoever to do with what I write in this forum.

Neither am I. So it looks like you are the presumptuous one

I can't believe we are still talking about copyright issues.
This is bloody ridiculous.

I'll give you copyright Nazis another rule. How about trolling, and off topic comments, to divert the conversation away from the topic.
I have never come across so much hypocrisy in my life

OK, restart.

Is there any evidence the OP's thesis is remotely plausible considering the actual nature of the photograph and of the visual features of a space shuttle reentry fireball.

I started the discussion with posting several unique links, including an essay by the actual photographer.

As far as I can tell, nobody has read -- much less discussed the significance of -- Goldie's essay.

Would that be a more productive approach?

How about we try it.

Originally posted by JimOberg
OK, restart.

Is there any evidence the OP's thesis is remotely plausible considering the actual nature of the photograph and of the visual features of a space shuttle reentry fireball.

I started the discussion with posting several unique links, including an essay by the actual photographer.

As far as I can tell, nobody has read -- much less discussed the significance of -- Goldie's essay.

Would that be a more productive approach?

How about we try it.

Thank you Jim

Can you quote some interesting/relevant extracts from it that you feel would support your point of view.

Originally posted by BullwinkleKicksButt

Originally posted by JimOberg
OK, restart.

Is there any evidence the OP's thesis is remotely plausible considering the actual nature of the photograph and of the visual features of a space shuttle reentry fireball.

I started the discussion with posting several unique links, including an essay by the actual photographer.

As far as I can tell, nobody has read -- much less discussed the significance of -- Goldie's essay.

Would that be a more productive approach?

How about we try it.

Thank you Jim

Can you quote some interesting/relevant extracts from it that you feel would support your point of view.

edit on 26-7-2013 by BullwinkleKicksButt because: (no reason given)

The essay is, like, only three pages long -- we don't need a 'summary'. Read the whole thing, please. It provides a cogent, coherent discussion of how the photo was obtained, studied, and used in the accident investigation, and how the lightning-bolt theory was discarded based on detailed analysis of the images themselves. There's no evidence of deception or censorship at any stage of that analysis.

Where does anybody find anything suspicious or non-factual in the account?