NASA Artifacts explanation is a LIE

Thanks Jim

reply to post by JimOberg


Unfortunately, I don't have much time to give a proper reply to your post. I wanted to make several points but I will boil it down to the two most relevant. Please forgive the brevity of my response .

Originally posted by JimOberg


Incorrect. You've got to keep in mind what was in the field-of-view of the camera when the exposure started, the trace it left behind as it briefly bounced around, and the view as it changed once the camera had settled in, until the shuttle fireball passed out-of-frame to the left.

...

You are right. I forgot to take into account that the field of view is smaller when the shutter is opening. I checked various mechanisms for shutters and I felt it was consistent with your theory. Thanks for clearing up this point . It would be nice to get the shutter speed, as well, as a matter of curiosity. I realize that a lot of people put in considerable effort in examination of the 2003 event. Thank you for your patience and desire to share.

Just as a side note it would be interesting to try and reproduce this effect.

Originally posted by JimOberg

...

My own imagination and decades of sky-watching had not equipped me to properly anticipate what it OUGHT to look like, until I saw one for the first time in 1983.

...

As an aside, let me generalize. Space flight has presented us with utterly unfamiliar and unearthly apparitions which, when interpreted in earthside old patterns of experience, fail to be correctly understood without energetic intellectual force to overcome instinctive, inertial, time-tested [and valid -- for the EARTH environment] brain patterns. The shuttle fireball is one example.

...

I'm glad you brought this point up because it really gets to the heart of the matter. If what we observe in space often contradicts our limited terrestrial experience then I think it is reasonable to expect threads such as this one. In fact, it would be odd if people weren't questioning data that contradicts their experience. I suspect that the difficulty of disseminating information from experts to the public only compounds the problem. In addition, history has taught us to distrust each other - even more so for government and quasi-gov institutions. A modern day example of this is the NSA and the leaks from Edward Snowden.

en.wikipedia.org...

There is also another factor to consider beyond the difficulty that non-experts have with digesting the information. An expert examining the case suffers from the same "terrestrial conditioning". Ultimately they will gather a knowledge pool built up to explain the discrepancies. However, I personally believe that there is a tendency to fit the data into the current world view system. At least one motivating factor is the need to make the data palatable. Another factor is the inertia generated from the series of assumptions inherent to that field.

As you have mentioned we have made observations of the cosmos which have challenged our understanding. A very notable example of such a challenge is the observation of our own galaxy's motion. As we began to understand more of the Milky Way we realized that there isn't enough mass to hold it together through gravitational pull due to the velocities we have measured. As a result we have created concepts such as dark matter and dark energy. In my humble opinion this is just a band aid to our equations. We can surmise the existence of something through the motion of galaxies and gravitational lensing, but we are unable to measure it directly. We are no stranger to such mental exercises. Black holes are a fine example. However, our best estimates put it at 95% of the mass in the Universe. In other words, this isn't something that exists thousands of light years away. It should be observable here as well. Also, there is no prediction for dark matter whereas black holes and their effects were predicted by general relativity before observation.

I believe "dark" is a synonym for we don't know and we should recognize it for what it most likely is. It is likely a flaw in our physics. We have a tendency to want to shoe-horn the data into our current view of physics. I believe that the same holds true for observations within our solar system. The criticism raised by the OP is essentially this. It is easy and dangerous to build up a series of assumptions. It then becomes easy to mistakenly classify or dismiss data without constant vigilance and agnosticism.

Please don't misconstrue my comments as an attempt to diminish the considerable effort that has been done by very hard working people .

I wish you the best.

Just a reminder, lightning research from the ISS continues, here's the latest experiment, by Japan this time: mainichi.jp...)

In the 1990s, opportunistic searches for sprites and such -- the Mesoscale Lightning Experiment of Otha Vaughan -- captured images of many such bursts -- and also contributed significantly to 'ufo secret lore' because of specific illumination conditions that enhanced the visibility of nearby small debris objects.

Any further discussion? You can see the picture by googling it, on dozens of websites.

What are the factual arguments that it cannot be what the experts say, a bumped camera?

reply to post by JimOberg


The only thing I would say is that if I'm understanding correctly that this is a double exposure, along with the other details you stated, then it is certainly a probable that there is no lightning, and nothing unusual about this picture.

On the other hand, I can see no way that a single object leaving a straight trail could produce such an anomalous image, only considering a single long exposure and camera shake at any point.

Either way, you know as well as anyone that whatever the case, there are those that will think what they want, right or wrong. In my opinion, we all do it at one time or another.

Wow I didn’t know there were so many NASA haters in the world or maybe they all congregate here on ATS. I have lived on the space coast for years and seen maybe a hundred launches to where most of the time I don’t even know one was scheduled that day I just hear the rocket and find a spot outside to watch. I have had a couple neighbors that were actual rocket scientists and they were always strait forward honest people. Anyone I have talked to rom NASA where the subject of ET has come up they were more than willing to talk about it. They want to find them more than anyone I have read on here so much so they dedicated their lives to a field of study which puts them at the forefront of exploration.

To read claims that they are covering them up just shows me how detached some people are on here. I bet there are not many here that claim such things have even visited NASA BTW you can visit. Hell the security there isn’t even much I have found myself in restricted waters many times while fishing the area mostly by mistake but sometimes not because fishing is better there. I am speaking of the Banana River.
www.google.com... &ved=0CDAQsAQ&biw=1120&bih=720

Originally posted by AntiNWO
reply to post by JimOberg

 

The only thing I would say is that if I'm understanding correctly that this is a double exposure, along with the other details you stated, then it is certainly a probable that there is no lightning, and nothing unusual about this picture.

On the other hand, I can see no way that a single object leaving a straight trail could produce such an anomalous image, only considering a single long exposure and camera shake at any point.

Either way, you know as well as anyone that whatever the case, there are those that will think what they want, right or wrong. In my opinion, we all do it at one time or another.

The apparition that caused this photo -- with the help of camera jiggle at shutter open -- was something that nobody on Earth had ever seen before space flight. So it's entirely reasonable to not understand how the image was formed without serious attention to eyewitness reports of what shuttle reentries really looked like. In particular, the creation of a milky trail behind the fireball that persisted for several minutes is the one key visual effect that, without understanding it was 'normal', would lead any ordinary person trying to interpret it in traditional, habitual earthside terms, to think the image could not be explained. And it couldn't be, that's true, without the existence of the persistent trail that nobody expects.

No, not a double exposure.

Please read over the descriptions and the links, make pencil sketches, imagine its development in the sky and its registering on the optics. This is NOT easy or obvious.

Originally posted by Grimpachi
Wow I didn’t know there were so many NASA haters in the world or maybe they all congregate here on ATS. I have lived on the space coast for years and seen maybe a hundred launches to where most of the time I don’t even know one was scheduled that day I just hear the rocket and find a spot outside to watch. I have had a couple neighbors that were actual rocket scientists and they were always strait forward honest people. Anyone I have talked to rom NASA where the subject of ET has come up they were more than willing to talk about it. They want to find them more than anyone I have read on here so much so they dedicated their lives to a field of study which puts them at the forefront of exploration.

To read claims that they are covering them up just shows me how detached some people are on here. I bet there are not many here that claim such things have even visited NASA BTW you can visit. Hell the security there isn’t even much I have found myself in restricted waters many times while fishing the area mostly by mistake but sometimes not because fishing is better there. I am speaking of the Banana River.
www.google.com... &ved=0CDAQsAQ&biw=1120&bih=720

You make an important point about NASA wanting to find extra-terrestrial life. NASA has had its budget squeezed repeatedly over the years, even in areas where there is an income stream. If there was one thing that would be guaranteed to open up the purse strings it's the discovery of life, even the faintest hint of it, extinct or otherwise. The idea that they would find it and not go screaming it from every rooftop imaginable defies all logic (other than the paranoid and delusional kind).

As for your opening comment, there is a vocal minority out there who belief NASA are the only people who ever do space research and supply space information. Their main beef seems to be that NASA hasn't come up with what they want when they want it.

Originally posted by Grimpachi
Wow I didn’t know there were so many NASA haters in the world or maybe they all congregate here on ATS.

I don't know if you comment was directed to me, but I'm not a NASA hater at all. In fact, I'm old enough to remember watching the Mercury launches. I saw almost every manned launch all the way through to the last Apollo mission. I was a space geek. I could name the crews of every NASA mission at one time, as well as their vehicles. I launched model rockets because I was so facinated by it all.

When I was 11-14 years old my room was filled with models of space vehicles from every NASA program. I subscribed to a magazine about the space program. I begged my mother to let me stay home from school once to watch a moon walk, which she did. I'm not one of those people who think we never went to the moon, because I saw every mission live and know the facts as they were presented at the time.

Since then though, I've learned that NASA has become just another arm of the government and they do what Washington tells them or get shut down. I'm convinced that Washington will do anything to prevent people from knowing that life outside of Earth exists, and as a result, NASA has become the red headed stepchild of the government. The beaten, abused, submissive, obedient stepchild.

Originally posted by AntiNWO
.... Since then though, I've learned that NASA has become just another arm of the government and they do what Washington tells them or get shut down. I'm convinced that Washington will do anything to prevent people from knowing that life outside of Earth exists, and as a result, NASA has become the red headed stepchild of the government. The beaten, abused, submissive, obedient stepchild.

How does this attitude shape your views on the nature of the zig-zag Columbia shuttle photo? Do you accept the explanation that in THIS case the photo is what it looks like to experts, the result of a camera jiggle during the start of a time exposure? If not, why not?

I have to say that I'm leaning towards it being lightning, even after the "camera shake" explanation that was given.

I don't want to get into an in depth discussion of the technicalities of the photo, but it still eludes me as to how a persistent trail, assuming it's bright enough, would not show blur if the camera was shaken as the shutter opened. If it were dim, as were the wires and stars, then your explanation absolutely makes sense for the reasons we already discussed.

Of course, this is all just my opinion and I was a photographer, not a photo analysis expert. I always say that I am never more than 99% sure of anything, and that's true in this case also.

I hope this makes sense, as it's late for me and I'm tired, but wanted post a reply while I have time.

Originally posted by AntiNWO
.....

I don't want to get into an in depth discussion of the technicalities of the photo, but it still eludes me as to how a persistent trail, assuming it's bright enough, would not show blur if the camera was shaken as the shutter opened. If it were dim, as were the wires and stars, then your explanation absolutely makes sense for the reasons we already discussed....

That's a reasonably cautious position, especially in the face what I am arguing is a fundamentally novel visual phenomenon in human experience. So I hope you can, at your leisure, re-read the STS-72 entry chronicle of two dozen witnesses, compiled and posted. They were all astonished by the persistent trail, but forewarned of the unusual feature, they recorded its features in detail.

reply to post by JimOberg


I said prolific, sure there are other countries with private and government endeavors into space,... but they don't occupy space on a regular basis the way NASA does...

When these other countries and private endeavors do find weird things they attempt to share with the public, they are dismissed or directed to the tin-foil-hat bin...

Other countries' national space programs know which side of their bread is buttered...

Originally posted by coastlinekid
reply to post by JimOberg

 

I said prolific, sure there are other countries with private and government endeavors into space,... but they don't occupy space on a regular basis the way NASA does...

When these other countries and private endeavors do find weird things they attempt to share with the public, they are dismissed or directed to the tin-foil-hat bin...

Specific examples, please? From the space programs in other countries -- not just the UFO websites in other countries.

reply to post by JimOberg



It seems I have miss-spoke and have set myself up for a trick question...

National space programs avoid the subject as a whole so it would be difficult to provide specific examples of them bringing up a topic which they will immediately dismiss...

As for private programs...anything they learn in space I hope they keep close to their vest... they might let something slip eventually...

Originally posted by coastlinekid
reply to post by JimOberg

 

It seems I have miss-spoke and have set myself up for a trick question...

National space programs avoid the subject as a whole so it would be difficult to provide specific examples of them bringing up a topic which they will immediately dismiss...

As for private programs...anything they learn in space I hope they keep close to their vest... they might let something slip eventually...

Come on, this is starting to sound like a self-eating watermelon, where the logic is swallowing its own tail. Are you suggesting that because no information on what you think exists has been released, this proves the stuff DOES exist because the coverup is so thorough?

It's a perfect excuse for the absence of evidence -- and non-disprovable to boot.

Robert Bigelow has devoted considerable efforts and resources to looking for UFO-type evidence. He owns two prototype space hotel modules launched into orbit on Red Army surplus missiles [I was there with him, for the second launch]. The modules have external TV cameras monitoring the space around them.

You're not seriously suggesting that Bigelow would coverup evidence for something he's been questing for, for many years?

An easier answer is more likely. The evidence out there doesn't exist.

But that's off topic. I've here been offering the rationale for the prosaic explanation of the zigzag Columbia shuttle reentry image. It centers on visual features of a 'normal' reentry that most folks just have never become aware of, that's where I thought I could be helpful.

Is there more that I can offer on this dispute?

Come on, this is starting to sound like a self-eating watermelon, where the logic is swallowing its own tail. Are you suggesting that because no information on what you think exists has been released, this proves the stuff DOES exist because the coverup is so thorough?

reply to post by JimOberg


No, I am saying that there are so few independent human entities aside from NASA in space on a regular basis that it is premature to confirm that we have never been visited and there is no cover-up of any evidence whatsoever...

So you know someone involved in private space programs...great lets get more out there and after some time, maybe we will get closer to a true sense of what is really going on...

IMO, NASA has always been adversarial with the public... it is natural for the public to think they are hiding something...

I still think NASA is a front for the military...

reply to post by coastlinekid

No, I am saying that there are so few independent human entities aside from NASA in space on a regular basis that it is premature to confirm that we have never been visited and there is no cover-up of any evidence whatsoever.

What you have described is known as "proving a negative". It can never be proven that we have never been visited. It can never be proven that there is no cover-up. No matter how many independent "entities" go into space and say they don't see anything you always will have that same fallback position. Your conditions, as you have stated them, are impossible to satisfy.

reply to post by Phage


So... you are saying that we can confirm that we have never been visited and there has never been a cover-up of any evidence to the contrary...

2nd

reply to post by coastlinekid

No. That is not what I'm saying.
I'm am saying the opposite.