More NASA video

[kmarinas86]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7892592695685291077

 

[bonzelite]

i'm surprised that even made it to public access. imagine how many more of those anomalous video outtakes have been destroyed or confiscated.

 

[ag30476]

I would imagine a lot of these types of films exist - it's a typical out of focus glowing sphere type UFO - what's the big deal - it's not proof of anything ET

 

[arc2]

I think we are seeing camera artifacts here..... If there weren't a bunch of reflections of the "discs" around the actual "disc" itself I might be more inclined to take it seriously. However, these are not alien devices. They are simply brightly reflecting objects that are creating optical effects inside the camera. Probably ice or junk.<br /><br />There are good videos out there and intriguing pics as well but these aren't very interesting. <br /><br />STS48 is a good example of something unusual.

 

[qso1]

I haven't seen the specific vids because my archaic system won't download them but the stills appear to be from the clips showing ice particles being dislocated rapidly by RCS firings. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[ag30476]

I should commend you on that assessment...after all my prosletyzing about integrity in UFO reporting...I guess that's the aim of narcap?

 

[dragon04]

I'm always amazed and saddened by how low the UFO folks set the bar as to what passes as "evidence" of UFO's.<br /><br />I think that's an important thing for folks to ponder. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[lost_shaman]

How do you guy's know what is or isn't from E.T. ?<br /><br />The thing to think about is that there are anomalies on NASA Videos.<br /><br />Checkout http://www.projectprove.com/Arts/spcufo/spcufo.php<br /><br />And here there is an object NASA identifies as " the Moon" so it clearly is not "Ice chips".<br /><br />http://www.projectprove.com/Arts/106u/106u.php<br /><br />

 

[ag30476]

> How do you guy's know what is or isn't from E.T. ? <br />How many times? How many times must this ne answered?<br /><br />It's up to YOU to prove YOUR claim.<br /><br />But let us suppose - SUPPOSE don't get confused here- that the Moon is misidentified as the Moon in your in the document you site - DOCUMENT not video - THERE IS NO VIDEO evidence, the video has supposedly been kept secret/destroyed/edited.<br /><br />Why? In Heaven's name why was the reference to the Moon put in the document? Simply remove the word "The Moon is visble in the right field of view." and nonody would be the wiser. If I was part of the group in charge of the cover-up, I would ask for the name of the person responsible for releasing such a document and have them shot. <br /><br />Stupidity in UFO-believers is acceptable but not in people working on the cover-up.<br /><br />Oh and if I was part of the group in charge of the cover-up I would find out the name of the worker at NASA who supposedly leaked the document and they would die too. An "accident" could be arranged. Even if I didn't get the right worker, the message would be clear to all workers with access to such documents.<br /><br />No but this little fantasy is not reality. No the reality is that there is a coverup but you are oh-so-clever that you can see through there ruse. They can't fool you. The Moon was not the Moon but ET. And that was not a 3 foot tall astronaut in the Apollo photos, that was an ET.

 

[olddogcage]

Why cant that be the moon, are you assuming the shuttle is stationary. It appears to me the shuttle is moving or maybe rotating, that would explain the change in the shadow and the movement of the moon.

 

[lost_shaman]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p><br /><br />It's up to YOU to prove YOUR claim. <br /><p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />There are anomalies in NASA Select T.V. , I have given you the link to the only publicly available NASA Select T.V. archive.<br /><br />I watched NASA Select T.V. this last August and I saw several anomalies then.<br /><br />Can't wait til March for the next Flight!<br /><br />I never claimed anything was E.T. , just asked how it was known what is and what isn't E.T.?<br /><br />

 

[lost_shaman]

Normal as in occurring on a regular basis , I would agree with. <br /><br />No anomalies? <br /><br />There are many instances from NASA select T.V. that show objects on video changing paths.<br /><br />Objects in motion tend to stay in motion. Orbital debris obey that law.

 

[lost_shaman]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Also an object moving relative to the orbiter will appear to change direction if the orbiter attitude is suddenly changed. <br /><p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Thanks for stating the obvious. <br /><br />I've given the link to the only free publicly available source documenting anomalies from NASA Select T.V.<br /><br /><br />

 

[lost_shaman]

I'm sorry I didn't realize you were so educated about the Shuttle and the environment of LEO.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p><br /><br />They look like typical ice particles that continiously break away from the Shuttle Orbiter.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />You realize that the ice on the Shuttle Orbiter sublimes into Space after a matter of hours.<br /><br />

 

[ag30476]

lost_shaman: Thanks for stating the obvious.<br /><br />shuttle_guy: I did so because you obviously need to be educated. <br /><br />Thanks for stating the obvious.

 

[telfrow]

Lost:<br /><br />Have you looked at Shuttle_Guy's user profile? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong><font color="#3366ff">Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild.</font> - <font color="#3366ff"><em>Tennyson</em></font></strong> </div>

 

[arc2]

There are a lot of dead ends in the UFO video situation. Many seem to have a life of their own as people who haven't learned which are resolved and which are not continue to present them as evidence. A great example is the alleged WTC UFO/helicopter video. I spoke directly with SciFi Channel special projects director Larry Landsman who assured me that the video was CG and had been produced for a commercial. So I put the word out there and was independantly verified by Alejandro Franz on his website. Yet, this video continues to make the rounds. I could give you a ton of other examples....<br /><br />Same goes for these vids. <br /><br />Like I said, there are some intriguing pics and video out there but there is no point in calling something "anomalous" when there is a prosaic explanation for it.<br />

 

[kmarinas86]

<font color="yellow">So I put the word out there and was independantly verified by Alejandro Franz on his website.</font><br /><br />His analysis is flawed because he never observed the original video. I have done a larger analysis by merging two versions of the video into a 54 fps version.<br /><br />The video he uses is the .mov file which is 24 fps.<br /><br />Many of the anomalies, pixelation, motion blur can be explained by the reduced nature of the video. The motion blur, for example, is an artifact created when the video was converted from 54 - 60 fps to 24 fps. This causes some frames to seam (overlay) with each other. The pixelation itself can be explained by a digital resizing of the video from 640x480 to 320x240. It can also be explained by the fact that Alejandro Franz used a picture editor, which means he can sharpen it in such away to make the UFO, buildings, etc. look plopped on - even inadvertently (whatever). There is nothing about movement on front of the building that suggests that it is photoshopped. I can move things on front of buildings too, again they do not make anything more or less photoshopped.<br /><br />And, I wouldn't trust the words of a businessman either.<br /><br />Also, What the hell is the commercial from SciFi doing on talkshows in foriegn countries?<br /><br />How the hell did Jamie Maussan get the tape, did he take it from SciFi? Realize the significance of that.<br /><br />Why do the Japanese have it? What the hell do the Japanese have to do with the SciFi Channel?<br /><br />http://video.raelian.com/gallery/view_album.php?set_albumName=ufo&page=1 <br /><br />If it were something like the Chicken of the Sea commercial, then I would understand why it's doing there, but this is not.<br /><br />You know, there is a pattern in the other SciFi happens video. Most of them have numbers on the bottom:<br /><br />Other Sci Fi ha

 

[qso1]

Lost:<br />You realize that the ice on the Shuttle Orbiter sublimes into Space after a matter of hours.<br /><br />Me:<br />Do you realize you want this to be a UFO so bad that your willing to discount any other reasonable explanation? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[ag30476]

Good job again keeping UFO reporting honest

 

[qso1]

You just save me a load of work that I don't have time for, thanks. I downloaded that clip a month or so ago with the intent of seeing if I could freeze frame it to determine if it was edited or CG enhanced. I never got the time for that. However, we would say there no point in calling something anomolous that actually has an explanation. But a hoaxster or someone trying to make a buck would have no problem calling something explainable anomolous.<br /><br />What I noticed about the clip I saw that gave it away for me was the UFO was shown zipping away from the WTC then buzzed the chopper. When it zoomed away from the chopper, it suddenly needed something that generated a plume not unlike those of a solid rocket motor.<br /><br />What would a UFO that can zip away with no visible plume suddenly need crude SRB assist for? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[lost_shaman]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>shuttle_guy<br /><br />Do you realize that the ice continously replaced by the waste water dumps? <br /><p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Lets look at the mission summary of a randomly selected flight , STS-68. Launched at 273:11:16:00.011 G.m.t. (6:16 a.m. c.d.t.) on September 30,1994.<br /><br />http://members.aol.com/WSNTWOYOU/STS65MR.HTM - STS-68 / FLIGHT 65 MISSION REPORT<br /><br />The flight duration was 11 days 05 hours 46 minutes 08 seconds.<br /><br />During the flight waste water and Supply water was dumped 6 times, with some waste and supply dumps occurring together. This resulted in a total 74.24 gal of water vented into Space.<br /><br />Forty six hours after launch at 275:05:32 G.m.t. (01:18:16 MET) the first waste water dump occurs dumping 108.8 lbs of water.<br /><br />It is almost three days later that the second waste water dump occurs at 278:02:51 G.m.t. (04:15:35 MET) resulting in another 106.5 lbs of water being vented into Space.<br /><br />Most of the vented water that does not boil away and forms ice, results in a large visible plume extending out and away from the Shuttle.<br /><br />Even if one percent of the total water vented that forms ice actually "replaces" ice on the Orbiter instead of venting into space , it would be less than 2 lbs of possible "replacement" ice in the form of thinly spread crystals also subject to sublimation in the first 5 days of flight.<br /><br />Even at 1% accumulation rate of the total vented water, leaves 6lbs max of possible ice for the entire flight of 11 days.<br /><br />When you consider that large areas of the shuttle are frequently subject to sunlight, its safe to assume most ice collecting randomly on the surface of the shuttle would be dissipated rather quickly.<br /><br />So no I would say that I didn't realize that ice is replaced continuously by waste water dumps.<br /><br />Anyway , this thread

 

[ag30476]

Ahh, but the strawberries that's... that's where I had them. ...<br />

 

[arc2]

Hi Kamarinas86 -<br /><br />It has made the rounds on foreign talk shows because it continues to be represented as authentic even though it is not. Given that aviation cases can be strong, UFO devotees often point to them as confirmation of their own contentions. However, most UFO "experts" are self-declared and haven't the credentials to discuss aviation related UAP/UFO cases. <br /><br />As far as Jaime Maussan is concerned, he fits the above description quite well. The FAM case of March 04 is a great example of the kind of "researcher" Jaime Maussan is. <br /><br />As for why the Raelians are passing it off as authentic, well, I wouldn't trust the words of a UFO cult, either.<br /><br />In this field, believers are as bad as debunkers.<br /><br />This alleged documentation of a nmac with a UFO is an example of the kind of case offered as "dramatic proof" by people seeking notariety. The reality of it is that there are scams as bad and worse out there that make this simple misrepresentation look tame.<br /><br />The TNT production "Secret KGB UFO Files" narrated by Roger Moore contains footage of alleged aviation encounters with UAP that are clearly forged. I know because I run a group composed of aviation nuts and one of them actually had the airshow footage used by the animators to create the images of UFO in the footage. If that wasn't bad enough, one of our engineers quickly pointed out that an over-the-shoulder video of an alleged Russian Mig Pilot engaging a UFO was actually footage from inside a US military F-16..... Yet, this production makes the rounds. You tell me why.<br /><br />Back to the WTC Video: My organization specializes in examining cases involving unidentified aerial phenomena and aviation safety. Our papers appear in the National Transportation Library as a resource in aviation accident investigations. We have the Chief of the Aviation Safety Program Office at NASA Ames Research Center on our staff as well as a host of other aviation and aeronautics resou

 

[lost_shaman]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>shuttle_guy<br /><br />But you just posted how the water dumps are performed throughout the mission. Therefore your post where you claim the water "sublimates within hours' implying that the water issue only happens early in the flight was wrong. <br /><p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />No I think I showed that your statement that Ice "continuously" flakes away from the Orbiter, and "continuously" is replaced by waste water dumps was wrong!<br /><br />And everyone who listens to you walks away with a false understanding of Ice on the Shuttle.<br /><br />shuttle_guy , didn't you say that most people have the problem of a poor understanding of the Shuttle and the Environment? <br /><br />You keep saying that I need an education, and yet its funny because I'm the only one here offering Links , free sources, and facts. And I haven't even made any claims about UFOs or Aliens, only offered a link to "anomalies" from NASA Select T.V.<br /><br />I guess everyone has seen a Lunar occultation or an Iridium Flare from NASA Select T.V. ( I watched these Live, STS -114 , but you can see them at http://www.projectprove.com )<br /><br />Of course if you are willing to embellish that small detail to make your point that "there is nothing to see" , what else are you and NASA willing to embellish? <br />