ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags ufos

Closed Thread
Old 1st June 2010, 12:13 AM   #7401
Rramjet
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,046
Originally Posted by Frying Dutchmen View Post
WRONG UFOs that's what Harris thinks other wise why would she link the video? Oh let me guess she's wrong about that but not what Carl Sagan said to Hynek?
I think you are confusing gullibility in certain situations with dishonesty. Just because Harris was “sucked into” the Meier thing does not mean she is dishonest. I tend to believe her when she says that Hynek related the Sagan story to her. And why should we not believe her? Has she said or done anything that proved her to be dishonest? Gullible maybe – dishonest no.

Originally Posted by Frying Dutchmen View Post
Isn't that just a logical fallacy? Just throw as many anomalies at someone till they can't explain them all? The thing is the ball is in your to explain why they are alien.
I am presenting multiple data points. Any scientific investigation needs multiple data points to investigate. One gets a very biased perspective if just a single data point is examined in isolation. You are proposing that we consider single data points independently of all other data points in the UFO debate – and that is simply not scientific…

I have explained why the cases I am presenting are “alien” – because there are no plausible mundane explanations for them – and if something does not have a mundane explanation – then by definition it is alien (but not necessarily ET).

Originally Posted by Frying Dutchmen View Post
We don't advance our knowledge by promoting hearsay and hand waving the inconvenient truth that someone isn't demonstrating the soundest judgment.
We have video and radar data as well as eyewitness testimony – and we have a conjunction of such data in the NZ case (see this post for a reference
Originally Posted by Rramjet View Post
(...)
. And any number of cases where a combination of them are manifest. We also have physical trace evidence (eg thenZamora and val Johnson cases – again see the above post for a reference) We have the results of official research too (eg: (http://www.ufocasebook.com/specialreport14.pdf) and (http://ncas.org/condon/) (http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/Gepan-Sepra.htm)
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/cometa.htm)) and we also have official documentation (eg; http://www.openminds.tv/twelve-gover...fos-seriously/)... And all this is just the tip of the iceberg.

If all we had were merely “hearsay”, then I might agree with you, but there is so much more.
Rramjet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st June 2010, 01:15 AM   #7402
wollery
Protected by Samurai Hedgehogs!
 
wollery's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,853
Originally Posted by Rramjet View Post
First you claim that NASA has “poor collection techniques” - and thus the videos in the compilation cannot be admitted as evidence - but then here (after I point out the unsupportability of your claim in respect of the data collection techniques of NASA) you change your mind to now claim NASA actually has “very good collection techniques” - but that “selective misinterpretation” is the problem. Talk about shifting the goalposts!
Edited by Tricky:  Edited for moderated thread.
The videos are from youtube, not from NASA, there's no way to check their provenance. They could have been retouched in any way. The youtube videos are therefore unreliable as evidence of anything.

If you get the original NASA footage then we can talk about it.
__________________
"You're a sick SOB. You know that, Wollery?" - Roadtoad

"Just think how stupid the average person is, and then realize that half of them are even stupider!" --George Carlin

Last edited by Tricky; 1st June 2010 at 05:02 AM.
wollery is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st June 2010, 05:53 AM   #7403
Jocce
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,083
It seems as if you have missed a couple of questions I posted over the last week. You find them in the following posts:

Regarding fully referenced clips in video compilation
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=7371

Regarding quality assurance of data in video compilation
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=7388

Regarding possible smudges, droplets and reflected light in video compilation
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=7391

Regarding UFO research being prevented because of social stigma
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=7389

Regarding meteorite over the moon surface
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=7322

I would appreciate some answers or comments on those.
__________________
And “I know what I saw” is and will always be evidence (Rramjet)
A claim can be evidence (Rramjet)
Anecdotes are evidence (ufology)
Jocce is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st June 2010, 05:58 AM   #7404
Jocce
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,083
Originally Posted by Rramjet View Post
I am presenting multiple data points. Any scientific investigation needs multiple data points to investigate.
But, you don't even know if they belong to the same dataset.

Originally Posted by Rramjet View Post
One gets a very biased perspective if just a single data point is examined in isolation. You are proposing that we consider single data points independently of all other data points in the UFO debate – and that is simply not scientific…
In fact it is very scientific. Step 1 - validate your data.

Originally Posted by Rramjet View Post
I have explained why the cases I am presenting are “alien” – because there are no plausible mundane explanations for them – and if something does not have a mundane explanation – then by definition it is alien (but not necessarily ET).
In YOUR opinion, there are no plausible mundane explanations.
__________________
And “I know what I saw” is and will always be evidence (Rramjet)
A claim can be evidence (Rramjet)
Anecdotes are evidence (ufology)
Jocce is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st June 2010, 06:12 AM   #7405
wollery
Protected by Samurai Hedgehogs!
 
wollery's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,853
Originally Posted by Rramjet View Post
Despite the fact that I am under no obligation to respond to you at all, the following provides answers to all your questions in the post you reference…
I never said you were under any obligation.

But you did say that you were too busy to respond, but that you would get to it when you had time, and then responded to a dozen or so other posts first.

Quote:
If “everyone here” is “perfectly happy”, then why is “everyone here” trying to contend that the UFOs in the cases I am presenting have mundane explanations - and become “perfectly unhappy” when I point out the implausibility of their mundane explanations?
Ummm, because that's pretty much what you asked for?

The bottom line, as several posters have pointed out on several occasions, is that the majority of cases will never be identified. They are, and will always remain, UFOs. We can speculate on possible mundane solutions. We can speculate on possible non-mundane solutions. But it's all just speculation.

Quote:
Yeah, right, all those who believe in a personal God are just “loud” – they are actually quite small groups and their number could not possibly be described as vast…
Funny how you lump together several minority belief groups (Moon landing hoax believers, flat-Earthers, and holocaust deniers) with theists and then complain when I point out the groups are small. What's even funnier is that in my response I actually stated that most people do believe in a God that acts on personal exhortations. So your objection isn't just semantic, it's completely wrong.

Quote:
Precisely… so what’s your point?
You offer no hypothesis as to what they are, let alone a testable one.

I have asked you for that on more than one occasion, but all I ever get is, "Not all UFOs have plausible mundane explanations".

Quote:
If they see no way of reaching a conclusion then they simply lack imagination and/or are asking the wrong questions.
So what questions should they be asking in order to get a positive result? Remember, a positive result, not a negative one.

Quote:
It is very difficult to make a living as a scientist if you are prevented from publishing your research.
Yet as you pointed out in a recent post, Bruce Maccabee was published, three times, when he offered actual science in relation to a UFO.

But please, enlighten us. What positive results do you believe can be obtained from a study of the cases you have presented? What peer review publishable results could they yield, assuming that there was absolutely no bias against such work?

Quote:
Fortunately I am not attempting to publish UFO research papers…
No comment...

Quote:
I refer you to this post:
Which doesn't even come close to answering the question.

I understand very well how a process of elimination works, and how it should be applied to each individual explanation.

But how do you ensure that you have thought of every possible explanation?

The question isn't how you eliminate an explanation, but how you come up with an exhaustive list of explanations.

Quote:
An explanation that derives from our common conceptions of the natural or technological world.
Fair enough.

Quote:
What do you mean by “tested”?
I mean tested. I mean measured, physically. I mean touched by a scientist with the proper training and the right equipment. I mean taken apart and studied in a laboratory. You know, tested.
__________________
"You're a sick SOB. You know that, Wollery?" - Roadtoad

"Just think how stupid the average person is, and then realize that half of them are even stupider!" --George Carlin
wollery is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st June 2010, 06:43 AM   #7406
Astrophotographer
Graduate Poster
 
Astrophotographer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,843
Originally Posted by Rramjet View Post
First you claim that NASA has “poor collection techniques” - and thus the videos in the compilation cannot be admitted as evidence - but then here (after I point out the unsupportability of your claim in respect of the data collection techniques of NASA) you change your mind to now claim NASA actually has “very good collection techniques” - but that “selective misinterpretation” is the problem. Talk about shifting the goalposts!
Not shifting anything. I am stating that the selective use of the data coupled with the gross misinterpretation of what is shown is the problem here. You are just too blinded by your will to believe to see this.

Originally Posted by Rramjet View Post
I don’t “believe” any such thing. I merely note that there is a compilation of videos, for many of which no rational explanation is forthcoming.
For somebody who claims they do not believe, you simply accept that there is no rational explanation. Belief is “a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing”. You have demonstrated a blind trust that these videos have no rational explanation. Therefore, you do believe they are something exotic without even looking at potential explanations. You insist we do your work for you.

Originally Posted by Rramjet View Post
I even pointed you to a research paper that describes clearly the origins of the campaign of ridicule and denial (http://www.narcap.org/commentary/ufocritique.pdf) which stifles research to this day.
There is no proof in this paper that suggests “ridicule and denial” stifles UFO research. Once again, show me one proposal to study UFOs that have been refused based on “ridicule and denial” and then we can talk. So far, you have provided zero evidence other than a bunch of papers written by UFO proponents.
Edited by Tricky:  Edited for continuity and to prevent repetition.

Originally Posted by Rramjet View Post
If there were a research program in which I could be educated as a researcher and would subsequently find a career path, then I would conduct research. However, the sad fact is (and where this argument stemmed) that no such research program exists and funding for such research is denied because of the climate of ridicule and denial that surrounds the study of UFOs – so I am forced to content myself with explorations of the subject as a hobby, outside my main career path.
Feel free to present actual evidence that UFO research is denied because of the climate of ridicule and denial. Give us one proposal that has been rejected for these reasons.

Originally Posted by Rramjet View Post
But perhaps you have become confused by my use of the term “campaign”? Perhaps I should have inserted “…that has entered into and become a self-perpetuating part of the cultural zeitgeist … which stifles research to this day.”
In other words you are stating there is a conspiracy involved that is stifling UFO research. Prove it.

Originally Posted by Rramjet View Post
One does not have to know how to fix something to know that something is broken -and to point out that corrupt state to interested parties.
You sound like my teenage daughter who kept “blowing tires” by cutting corners too close. She kept blaming the car (she did it with two different cars)/tires (she did it with multiple tires that were new) and not her own technique of driving.

You still are inferring there is a cabal (i.e. a corrupt state). You suggest that science is preventing UFO research. I asked you to demonstrate how you would conduct such research. So far, you have refused to answer this question. This implies you have no idea on how to approach such a problem even though you are free to present such a proposed study without the forum stifling you.

Originally Posted by Rramjet View Post
As I have pointed out on numerous occasions now – you (and other UFO debunkers) are under no obligation whatsoever. However, as members of a self proclaimed sceptical education foundation (headed by a “professional magician” who purports to expose “psychics, faith healers, and such.”) one would have thought that when presented with data that ostensibly falls into the “and such” category, there would be a rational response from the members of such a foundation to “educate”. Instead what I see is an effort of “obfuscate” by shifting the burden of proof back to the one seeking that education.
A. You started this thread in order to educate everyone. You have yet to do so and now you are attempting to shift the burden of education on the forum.
B. You claim to be a scientist. I claim to be no such thing. You have the higher education, which means your research should be set at a higher standard. So far, you have not demonstrated this.
C. You are the one making the claims that these things are exotic and defy explanation. We have all suggested potential explanations but you have dismissed them with little thought or rational explanation for doing so. When asked how you eliminate all mundane explanations you perform the stand “hand waving” technique common with UFO proponents.

Originally Posted by Rramjet View Post
IMO a rational response from you would have been to state that you could explain one video from the compilation, but the rest remain unexplained – perhaps including a rundown of videos and possible likely explanations (as you perceive them) for those videos. Instead you merely claim I have not conducted enough research and that in any case I will deny any explanation you put forward. However, I have accepted the explanation you put forward for that one video (while noting that you cannot explain any of the others) and I now merely point out that perhaps “Education” should be removed from JREF if the members do not wish to involve themselves in such a pursuit. .
It is your evidence. You claimed there was no rational explanation for these clips (which I showed to be false with the one clip). You are trying to shift the burden of proof by suggesting we explain all these random clips (which involves finding the original images/clips at higher resolution. This is called actual research and not blind acceptance that these clips are what the proponent claims them to be). I can recognize ice crystals, lens flares, image defects, water droplets, etc with no problem and I am sure there are great many scientists who can do so as well. Why is it you seem to have problem doing so? Have you even researched any of these clips/images at all? Why should I do your research for you? You now claim we must educate you. We have been down this path and you refused any “education” presented by this forum. “Education” is a two-way street. You have to want to be “educated”.

Originally Posted by Rramjet View Post
So… if you don’t like the “shotgun” approach of presenting many pieces of evidence in one easy to access package… how about we limit the discussion to one or two cases?

I will give you two and allow you to choose which one to discuss.

(http://video.google.ca/videoplay?doc...6621098045120#).
Strike 1. This is a water droplet in the cabin. The camera picked it up as it is floating by. You can see how the light from the earth is refracted by the droplet as it moves. When it is above the earth, there is no refracted light but as it approaches and passes along the edge of the earth’s limb, the amount of refraction increases. There is a good discussion of it in the BAUT forum.

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread....S-51A-Debunked

Originally Posted by Rramjet View Post
Strike 2. This film of the UFO is a fake. It is actually and F-15 and not a MIG. The evidence is the ejection seat. It is an American design (ACES-II) and not Russian. Several aviation forums debunked this long ago by just seeing the ejection seat. I recall seeing the original film posted in one of these forums before the UFO was added. It was from an F-15 mock dogfight if I recall correctly. I will have to look that one up and post the link for you. However, the ejection seat demonstrates it is not from a MIG-21 as claimed in the video. Because it is not what it claims to be, it is invalid evidence.

Once again, you demonstrate that your scientific technique is flawed. You chose not to research these videos and just posted them in the belief they show something truly exotic and we could not explain them. Is this what you call "science"?

Last edited by Tricky; 1st June 2010 at 07:27 AM.
Astrophotographer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st June 2010, 07:25 AM   #7407
TjW
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 11,097
Originally Posted by Rramjet View Post
Actually, it would be evidence that your logic is flawed. Your logic is founded on the false premise that I have claimed that every case I have presented has no mundane explanation. However, I am merely claiming that I cannot find a rational mundane explanation and that to the best of my knowledge (and based on the evidence in this thread) no-one else can either. If however someone came up with a rational (plausible) mundane explanation for any of the cases I have been presenting (as Astrophotographer did recently), I would accept that, remove the case from my dataset and move on. If I can so remove all the cases in my dataset, then I will admit the UFO debunkers to have made their case. For the purposes of this argument let us suppose my dataset comprises only the cases I have presented in this thread so far.
This is simply admitting to an argument from ignorance. In essence, you're saying "I don't know what these are, therefore they are alien until YOU prove that they are not."

In your initial post, you proposed to provide proof of aliens. This is not proof of aliens, it is simply you declaring your biases.
TjW is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st June 2010, 11:13 AM   #7408
Correa Neto
Philosopher
 
Correa Neto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 8,578
Originally Posted by SnidelyW
Could you take a look at these photos, including the one of the artifacts which purportedly fell from the sky, and tell me why they aren't sharp enough, or reliable enough?

http://wisconsinufo.blogspot.com/

Thanks for your time in advance.
Sorry for the delay. I've been busy these days; posting anything more than a few words was a no-go.

Now, on the link you presented. Some of the images are sharp. However, I must ask you if you consider their provenance as good and if the answer is positive, the reasons. Why should I consider the material you linked to as reliable enough?

Do you consider a statement like "These pictures are close to my heart as I recieved them from a close frield a few years ago" and "Here's an image recently taken in Wisconsin" (both directly pasted from your link) as good enough warranties of provenance? I do not, but if you disagree, please expose your reasons.

By now you are probably considering repeating your pledge for lowering the evidence quality standards. My answer will be a sorry but no. And you can find some of the reasons within the sad and hoax history of UFOlogy, plagued with hoaxes. For example, do you remember the recent Haiti UFOs video and the pictures of "drones"? They were sharp and later shown to be hoaxed.

Now, the objects claimed to have fallen from the sky... I believe the original source is http://www.iwasabducted.com/ufogallery/fallingdisks.htm. Please check the story and tell me if it seems reliable and the reasons for your conclusion. Regardless of your answer, I must ask you- why the heck these things were not properly studied? Assuming the tale is real, can't blame the lack of a proper study on close-minded mainstream skeptics/scientists and cover-ups. Blame it on UFOlogists themselves. Now, on a more realistic assessment, I think it is actually just another case of misidentification, intentional or not, of a mundane object. Just like when the UFOhunters, in a display of standard UFOlogic SNAFU, presented pieces of smelter slag as bits of soil melted by heat from an UFO.

As a sideline, consider this- if the site's contents are true, then Wisconsin is a hot spot for UFO activity, where people are getting good imagery. Why then UFOlogists are not setting a model data-gathering project as those briefly described here? Why they keep whining against skeptics, mainstream scientists and building fantastic conspiracy theories when the evidence to shut them all and expose the truth can be at their hands?
__________________
Racism, sexism, ignorance, homophobia, intolerance, extremism, authoritarianism, environmental disasters, politically correct crap, violence at sport stadiums, slavery, poverty, wars, people who disagree with me:
Together we can find the cure
Oh, and together we can find a cure to religion too…
Correa Neto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st June 2010, 11:19 AM   #7409
Correa Neto
Philosopher
 
Correa Neto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 8,578
Originally Posted by Rramjet
How would you interpret it then? Here is a whole set of videos taken by NASA. My question to you is: What do they show?
Oh, yeah, right… have you even looked at the video(s)? If you have mundane explanations, then you should put them forward.
It is not I who is “shifting the burden of proof”, it is you. I provide you with the data you call for and ask if you have any rational explanation for it. Of course you do not… all you can do is make some spurious semantic arguments, attempting to shift the focus from the data. I will not let you get away with such tactics. I will merely ask if you have any rational explanation for the data I have presented.
Instead of just piling them all and writing "explain this", a person with real scientific formation would pick individual examples and then exposing why they can not be explained by mundane causes. Your claim is that they show aliens from beyond the borders of what we call nature (whatever that means). You must back it but you just can't do it. Since you can not back such claim (don't be sad since for to date, no UFOlogist could), you made the old move of trying to shift the burden of proof. Must be at some UFOlogy textbook...

Originally Posted by Rramjet
…but you have just ignored the data!
A claim. Prove it. Prove I ignored the data. I said its unreliable, that mundane explanations are plausible options and that it's been debated before. I even cited a few possible mundane explanations.This is not equal to ignore the data. Unless you are now going to say I "ignored" it all. Maybe "ignore" for you is equal to disagree.

Originally Posted by Rramjet
NASA manipulates its images? Oh…Yeah, right… I was forgetting… they airbrush out the UFOs… not the other way round… huh…
Please tell me where at my post I wrote it can be inferred that "NASA manipulates its images" (*). Back you claim or remove it. Anyone with a real scientific/technical background would be aware that data chain of custody and processing are key issues. If you can not provide a full report on it, the odds are your work will be an easy target for flak. I also would like to remind you that distorting your oponent's arguments will make your case worse. Again, anyone with a real scientific/technical and philosophic backgrounds would be aware of that.

Originally Posted by Rramjet
It would have been more helpful had you been specific: That is, indicated which parts of the video represented the things you claim. But of course you cannot, because specificity would require close analysis and that is something you apparently are unwilling to undertake. Your merebelief seems enough for you.
Have you been specific and indicated which parts of the video represented aliens from beyond the borders of what we call nature (whatever that means) and stated the reasons why? Close detailed scientific analysis and that is something you apparently are unwilling to and/or not able undertake.

Originally Posted by Rramjet
Merely stating generalised, unfounded assertions does make them true.
You mean like claiming a piled bunch of videos show aliens from beyond the borders of what we call nature?

Or saying we are UFO debunkers (denialists, whatever) driven by belief?

Or claiming UFOlogy’s problems arise from the attitude of skeptics and mainstream science?

Or attributing to aliens from beyond the borders of what we call nature tidbits of unconfirmed, decades-old (or even older) reports?

Originally Posted by Rramjet
“Universal flood”? I presume you mean the biblical flood? There is a great deal of evidence for historical flooding and major inundations of various parts of the world that, to the inhabitants/victims, would have made it seem like the flood was “universal”. The flooding of the Black Sea is one such example.

“ID”? Usually an abbreviation for “Identification” - but I presume that is not what you mean? (no matter… I stand by my claim that anything is debatable).
Rramjet, the biblical flood was supposed to be global, all continents underneath the water. Such a flood is impossible. Please tell me the previous statement is debatable or not.

ID= Intelligent Design. Come on, tell us if the statement "there are no reliable evidence backing intelligent design" is debatable.

Show us if the stament "Adamsky and Meier hoaxed their UFO evidence" is debatable.

Or you'll now come out with a "debatable"?

Originally Posted by Rramjet
No, the line is “In an infinite Universe, everything is possible”.
Oh, really? Can I fly by flapping my hands? ID can be a valid alternative to evolution? The universal flood is possible? Hollow Earth? Atlantis? Homeopathy?

I suggest you to reconsider the validity of that line. Do it based on real science, not on pseudoscience. Actually you should reconsider the validity of everything you presented as evidence for UFOs as aliens from beyond the borders of what we call nature based on real science, not on pseudoscience. As a person with real and good scientific background would do.




(*)Processing images and manipulating images usually have different meanings. Manipulating quite often means foul play, as in Rramjet's post.
__________________
Racism, sexism, ignorance, homophobia, intolerance, extremism, authoritarianism, environmental disasters, politically correct crap, violence at sport stadiums, slavery, poverty, wars, people who disagree with me:
Together we can find the cure
Oh, and together we can find a cure to religion too…
Correa Neto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st June 2010, 04:34 PM   #7410
Rramjet
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,046
Originally Posted by Astrophotographer View Post
Strike 1. This is a water droplet in the cabin. The camera picked it up as it is floating by. You can see how the light from the earth is refracted by the droplet as it moves. When it is above the earth, there is no refracted light but as it approaches and passes along the edge of the earth’s limb, the amount of refraction increases. There is a good discussion of it in the BAUT forum.
Since the video I posted was from STS-37 and you post a link that discusses a video from STS-51A I am not sure what you think the connection is here.

Interestingly the video from 51A is actually contained in the original compilation video I posted (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlLN_Jcg1pc - so I suppose your belated reference to it here should now be welcome). However, the respondent discussing 51A has the physics of the analysis completely wrong. The respondent claims a reflection of the WESTAR in a “water droplet” (http://i263.photobucket.com/albums/i...starfinal2.png). Remember the respondent’s “water droplet” is presumably close to the camera inside the cabin and therefore “between” the WESTAR and the camera. If it was a “reflection” then the reflected WESTAR should appear on the left and slightly behind the droplet and thus would not be visible to the camera. However if the droplet is acting as a lens, then not only should the image of the WESTAR be upside down (given it is a convex lens) – but critically, the WESTAR itself would need to be behind the water droplet for us to see it refracted through the droplet. In other words, for us to see a “viable” refracted image of the WESTAR in the droplet, the camera, droplet and WESTAR would need to be basically lined up. This is evidently not the case. So on the evidence of basic physics, the “water droplet” theory does not work for an explanation of 51A.

Now, on the video I posted (STS-37 - http://video.google.ca/videoplay?doc...6621098045120#) the water droplet theory does not work either. Whoever saw a droplet zoom through the air and into view of the camera and then to quickly reverse its motion and then finally to come to a dead halt in front of the camera with no outside force acting on it?

Interesting also to note is even supposing the STS-37 video was a water droplet and the theory held true from the 51A analysis, then where is the refracted earth in this droplet? The droplet is actually quite opaque – no reflections, no refractions whatsoever.

Sticking with your baseball analogy I will therefore call your pitch here soundly hit and the ball in the air heading out of the park. The only question remaining is will it be a home run.

Originally Posted by Astrophotographer View Post
Strike 2. This film of the UFO is a fake. It is actually and F-15 and not a MIG. The evidence is the ejection seat. It is an American design (ACES-II) and not Russian. Several aviation forums debunked this long ago by just seeing the ejection seat. I recall seeing the original film posted in one of these forums before the UFO was added. It was from an F-15 mock dogfight if I recall correctly. I will have to look that one up and post the link for you. However, the ejection seat demonstrates it is not from a MIG-21 as claimed in the video. Because it is not what it claims to be, it is invalid evidence.
Yes, I believe you are correct on this one (http://video.google.ca/videoplay?doc...85100897567649).
F-15 -(http://images.google.com.au/imgres?i...26tbs%3Disch:1)
MIG-21 (http://images.google.com.au/imgres?i...26tbs%3Disch:1)

One can clearly see the curved upper “arms” of the F-15 seat in the video. So not a MIG-21 and so the video is faked. Thank you for pointing that out and therefore the video it cannot be submitted as evidence in any UFO research (unless the research is about UFO hoaxes…). This is precisely the thing I am looking for. There is no point maintaining a dataset on UFO activity if there are hoaxes in that data set.
Rramjet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st June 2010, 05:03 PM   #7411
Sherman Bay
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Posts: 2,211
Originally Posted by Rramjet View Post
I have explained why the cases I am presenting are “alien” – because there are no plausible mundane explanations for them – and if something does not have a mundane explanation – then by definition it is alien (but not necessarily ET).
No, it's not. It's unknown.

Just because you can't conceive of an explanation doesn't mean that someone else can't.

Unknown does not mean unknowable or alien (any kind). It just means we don't know. Perhaps the observations were faulty or distorted, intentionally or otherwise. Perhaps some critical element is missing or overlooked, the way "magic" tricks often work.

Did you ever see a magic trick that you could not explain? Does it then become supernatural? Nonsense; you just don't know. Perhaps if you watched the man behind the curtain, you would.

Drawing a firm conclusion from weak and insufficient evidence is not science. It's pseudoscience.
Sherman Bay is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st June 2010, 06:02 PM   #7412
Frying Dutchmen
Critical Thinker
 
Frying Dutchmen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 387
Originally Posted by Rramjet View Post
I think you are confusing gullibility in certain situations with dishonesty. Just because Harris was “sucked into” the Meier thing does not mean she is dishonest. I tend to believe her when she says that Hynek related the Sagan story to her. And why should we not believe her? Has she said or done anything that proved her to be dishonest? Gullible maybe – dishonest no.
I never said she was being dishonest nor was I thinking she was gullible. Thinking more along the lines that her testimonial about Sagan is rubbish because her faulty thinking about a lot of other matters shows that she is willing to believe anything and maybe even make up stuff to score points against Skeptics, kinda like what you did with this paragraph. Still you haven't explained Why her testimony about Billy Meier is a "grain of salt", apart from calling him a fraud.


Originally Posted by Rramjet View Post
I am presenting multiple data points. Any scientific investigation needs multiple data points to investigate. One gets a very biased perspective if just a single data point is examined in isolation. You are proposing that we consider single data points independently of all other data points in the UFO debate – and that is simply not scientific…
You're presenting multiple data points I don't disagree with that but they are bad multiple data points, don't think that I Just read your comments and replies to my comments, I don't.


Originally Posted by Rramjet View Post
I have explained why the cases I am presenting are “alien” – because there are no plausible mundane explanations for them – and if something does not have a mundane explanation – then by definition it is alien (but not necessarily ET).
Just because you say there isn't a reasonable explanation doesn't make it so, you shown all of us in the thread that you ignore any explanation that doesn't fit your beliefs

Originally Posted by Rramjet View Post
We have video and radar data as well as eyewitness testimony – and we have a conjunction of such data in the NZ case
Do we need to go back to that case again? There was a reasonable explanation that they were Squid Boats.
Frying Dutchmen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st June 2010, 06:31 PM   #7413
Frying Dutchmen
Critical Thinker
 
Frying Dutchmen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 387
Originally Posted by Rramjet View Post

Now, on the video I posted (STS-37 - http://video.google.ca/videoplay?doc...6621098045120#) the water droplet theory does not work either. Whoever saw a droplet zoom through the air and into view of the camera and then to quickly reverse its motion and then finally to come to a dead halt in front of the camera with no outside force acting on it?

Interesting also to note is even supposing the STS-37 video was a water droplet and the theory held true from the 51A analysis, then where is the refracted earth in this droplet? The droplet is actually quite opaque – no reflections, no refractions whatsoever.

Sticking with your baseball analogy I will therefore call your pitch here soundly hit and the ball in the air heading out of the park. The only question remaining is will it be a home run.
It would still be a strike, I can see the image of earth in it.
Frying Dutchmen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st June 2010, 07:15 PM   #7414
Astrophotographer
Graduate Poster
 
Astrophotographer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,843
Originally Posted by Rramjet View Post
Since the video I posted was from STS-37 and you post a link that discusses a video from STS-51A I am not sure what you think the connection is here.
It is STS-51A that had the weststar retrieval. Perhaps we are discussing two different videos. I thought you were selecting the one from your previous version of the video. It is hard to tell the origin of the video. Perhaps you can demonstrate this came from STS-37 and not STS-51 (which shows a similar object).

Originally Posted by Rramjet View Post
Now, on the video I posted (STS-37 - http://video.google.ca/videoplay?doc...6621098045120#) the water droplet theory does not work either. Whoever saw a droplet zoom through the air and into view of the camera and then to quickly reverse its motion and then finally to come to a dead halt in front of the camera with no outside force acting on it?
Because you are ignoring the fact that the camera was hand held and not still and therefore motion can be attributed to the operator and the water droplet (or maybe the droplet is on the window itself). The earth in the background is moving about during the first part of the clip when there is exaggerated motion. When the earth becomes stable in the background, the "sphere" suddenly stops moving about violently. Feel free to suggest it is an "exotic sphere" but I think to back up that claim, you have to present the entire film sequence and verify it was from STS-37.

Originally Posted by Rramjet View Post
Interesting also to note is even supposing the STS-37 video was a water droplet and the theory held true from the 51A analysis, then where is the refracted earth in this droplet? The droplet is actually quite opaque – no reflections, no refractions whatsoever.
Then you obviously are not looking at the same clip. Above the earth, the droplet is opaque. However, as it crosses and approaches the earth's limb, it suddenly becomes dark at the bottom as it refracts the dark portion of the sky. This is the kind of behaviour one would expect from a water droplet.

Originally Posted by Rramjet View Post
Sticking with your baseball analogy I will therefore call your pitch here soundly hit and the ball in the air heading out of the park. The only question remaining is will it be a home run.
Once again, you attempt to shift the rules. You have not proven anything. There is a good deal of evidence to suggest this is a water droplet but, as per your usual methodology, you have dismissed it for no good reason.
Astrophotographer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st June 2010, 08:17 PM   #7415
wollery
Protected by Samurai Hedgehogs!
 
wollery's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,853
Originally Posted by Rramjet View Post
Interestingly the video from 51A is actually contained in the original compilation video I posted (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlLN_Jcg1pc - so I suppose your belated reference to it here should now be welcome). However, the respondent discussing 51A has the physics of the analysis completely wrong. The respondent claims a reflection of the WESTAR in a “water droplet” (http://i263.photobucket.com/albums/i...starfinal2.png). Remember the respondent’s “water droplet” is presumably close to the camera inside the cabin and therefore “between” the WESTAR and the camera. If it was a “reflection” then the reflected WESTAR should appear on the left and slightly behind the droplet and thus would not be visible to the camera. However if the droplet is acting as a lens, then not only should the image of the WESTAR be upside down (given it is a convex lens) – but critically, the WESTAR itself would need to be behind the water droplet for us to see it refracted through the droplet. In other words, for us to see a “viable” refracted image of the WESTAR in the droplet, the camera, droplet and WESTAR would need to be basically lined up. This is evidently not the case. So on the evidence of basic physics, the “water droplet” theory does not work for an explanation of 51A.
You do understand how refraction works, don't you? Refraction alters the path of the light, and in the case of a near spherical lens it alters the path in the same direction on both entry and exit, so you can see refraction of something that isn't directly behind the droplet. The droplet effectively acts like a fisheye lens. And there may well be internal reflection, as well as refraction. That's how rainbows are formed by water droplets.

Also, I don't know what image you're looking at, but the image in the droplet is upside down.
__________________
"You're a sick SOB. You know that, Wollery?" - Roadtoad

"Just think how stupid the average person is, and then realize that half of them are even stupider!" --George Carlin
wollery is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st June 2010, 08:44 PM   #7416
Burning Beard
Muse
 
Burning Beard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 540
Originally Posted by Rramjet View Post
I have explained why the cases I am presenting are “alien” – because there are no plausible mundane explanations for them – and if something does not have a mundane explanation – then by definition it is alien (but not necessarily ET).
No. By definition it is just "unexplained", plain and simple.
__________________
Check out my heavy metal version of the Doctor Who theme... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_9g2nXpYl0

And my Surf Guitar version... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WioJ...eRkAD3bh1dU_gF
Burning Beard is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st June 2010, 10:44 PM   #7417
Jocce
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,083
Originally Posted by Rramjet View Post
for us to see a “viable” refracted image of the WESTAR in the droplet, the camera, droplet and WESTAR would need to be basically lined up.
I would be really interested to see you provide some evidence for this claim?

Originally Posted by Rramjet View Post
Whoever saw a droplet zoom through the air and into view of the camera and then to quickly reverse its motion and then finally to come to a dead halt in front of the camera with no outside force acting on it?
I think most people who has been in a zero gravity environment has experienced that with droplets, dust, etc.[/quote]
__________________
And “I know what I saw” is and will always be evidence (Rramjet)
A claim can be evidence (Rramjet)
Anecdotes are evidence (ufology)
Jocce is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd June 2010, 04:19 AM   #7418
Rramjet
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,046
Will get back to replying to your posts as soon as I can...

Meanwhile, have been working on the "compilation video".

Many of the images in the following compilation can be accessed in their original form from here: (http://spaceflight1.nasa.gov/gallery...tle/index.html)

(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlLN_Jcg1pc)

1. Apollo 10: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DS131DdQwjo)
… the image has been reversed… in the documentary it is the other way round.
2. STS-115 Atlantis – contention is some form of ice crystal but no ice crystal ever looked like that!
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrIe9NQf6G4&NR=1)
Original NASA video here: (http://spaceflight1.nasa.gov/gallery.../html/fd1.html)
(http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/...fd01_03_56.asf)
3. Apollo 16 - has been explained as the EVA “floodlight boom” – but the “arm” of the boom extends back at a seemingly odd angle - nevertheless it definitely has similar features to the boom (http://www.nasa.gov/vision/space/tra...ce/no_ufo.html)
4. ZOND-3 (1965) “Tower of Babel”
Can’t see the video image in the actual ZOND-3 images
(http://www.mentallandscape.com/C_CatalogMoon.htm)
5. ISS-007-E06886 (12 June 2003):
“After the ISS attitude transition on 6/12, the crew noticed a small, shiny, free-floating metallic object about 30 m (100 ft) from the Lab nadir window, moving very slowly away from the ISS. The leading theory was that the object is a cable label. [A photo of a cable label, uplinked from the ground, was later examined by Ed Lu. He confirmed the possibility that the object he saw indeed could have been a cable label. Further identification of the object by ground teams is still underway. Limited tracking data the object on 6/12 showed it below the ISS and 1.7 km in front. Preliminary predictions indicated it was slowly separating, and the specialists did/do not believe it poses a re-contact hazard to the station.” (http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=9514) NASA image here: (http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/station/...S007E06886.jpg)
6. ISS013-E-69634 (20 Aug. 2006): The Aurora Borealis, also known as "northern lights", is featured in this photograph taken by an Expedition 13 crew member on the International Space Station.”(http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/...013e69634.html)
7. ?
8. ?
9. Mission STS 51A WESTAR 6 satellite retrieval
Extended video here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTy0dQidPGM)
UFO can be seen appearing at 10:37. Notice the motion of the UFO as it appears.
Discussion of it as a “water droplet” here:
(http://www.bautforum.com/showthread....S-51A-Debunked)
…but the physics is wrong for a water droplet…
10. STS-114 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoeZ4ceAZes)
Okay…so we have clouds rolling in from space… must be set to rain… LOL.
The compilation video seems to be a sped up video. A real time video can be seen here (resolution not so hot though). (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyquGdCEJNg)
11. STS-96 (May 1999)
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJGGzdruHso)
12. Mir Space Station
Single clip from this extended NASA video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTjk7uuSScI) The extended clip is even more perplexing that the compiled edit!
13.STS-110-E5912 (April 2002)
Original image here: (http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/...s110e5912.html) The compilation pic has obviously undergone some “enhancement” of the UFO, but it is visible in the original image...
14. STS-116-E05364: Original here (beautiful high res. image): (http://spaceflight1.nasa.gov/gallery...116e05364.html)
Seems to be more “junk” in this pic in the immediate area of the “triangle”as well…
15. STS-100-E5220: Original here: (http://spaceflight1.nasa.gov/gallery...s100e5220.html)
Looks to me like some sort of reflection in the shuttle’s window (look at the bottom left corner of the high res. image).
Alternatively…what’s this guy working with? (http://spaceflight1.nasa.gov/gallery...0-342-010.html) Either way…

...and that's as far as I have got... sorry, not much analysis but no time left for anything else....it's a start at least...
Rramjet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd June 2010, 05:12 AM   #7419
Rramjet
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,046
Originally Posted by Astrophotographer View Post
It is STS-51A that had the weststar retrieval. Perhaps we are discussing two different videos. I thought you were selecting the one from your previous version of the video. It is hard to tell the origin of the video. Perhaps you can demonstrate this came from STS-37 and not STS-51 (which shows a similar object).
Then WESTAR (STS-51A) video can be found here: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTy0dQidPGM – look from 10:37) and the STS-37 (Atlantis) here: (http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...6621098045120#).

They are obviously two different videos (compare the clouds and compare the arrival of the UFO on the horizon…) but they show remarkably similar objects.

Originally Posted by Astrophotographer View Post
Because you are ignoring the fact that the camera was hand held and not still and therefore motion can be attributed to the operator and the water droplet (or maybe the droplet is on the window itself). The earth in the background is moving about during the first part of the clip when there is exaggerated motion. When the earth becomes stable in the background, the "sphere" suddenly stops moving about violently. Feel free to suggest it is an "exotic sphere" but I think to back up that claim, you have to present the entire film sequence and verify it was from STS-37.
Are you looking at a completely different video than the two referenced above? The camera motion is relatively stable while the UFO moves considerably in comparison. How can you not see this? I am perplexed that you could suggest the motion of the UFO is due to the motion of the camera… please try this … focus on the horizon and not the UFO (in both films) and then come back and tell me how much the camera moves in comparison to the UFO.

Originally Posted by Astrophotographer View Post
Then you obviously are not looking at the same clip. Above the earth, the droplet is opaque. However, as it crosses and approaches the earth's limb, it suddenly becomes dark at the bottom as it refracts the dark portion of the sky. This is the kind of behaviour one would expect from a water droplet.
Then can I suggest you look at the clips I referenced above? These are the ones I am looking at. I can see (in the STS-37 clip) what looks like the top and bottom of the UFO alternating between having a slight blue tinge to completely grey throughout the entire video – but I suspect this has more to do with the digital imagery than the actual object.

… and you expect a water droplet to move in such a manner?

Originally Posted by Astrophotographer View Post
Once again, you attempt to shift the rules. You have not proven anything. There is a good deal of evidence to suggest this is a water droplet but, as per your usual methodology, you have dismissed it for no good reason.
Two very good reasons:
1. Opacity
2. Movement characteristics

What evidence do you have for "water droplets"? If you can demonstrate other water droplets that have the opacity and movement characteristics of the UFOs in the videos, then you will have a case, but I have seen no evidence of such “water droplets”.
Rramjet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd June 2010, 05:32 AM   #7420
Rramjet
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,046
Originally Posted by wollery View Post
You do understand how refraction works, don't you? Refraction alters the path of the light, and in the case of a near spherical lens it alters the path in the same direction on both entry and exit, so you can see refraction of something that isn't directly behind the droplet. The droplet effectively acts like a fisheye lens. And there may well be internal reflection, as well as refraction. That's how rainbows are formed by water droplets.

Also, I don't know what image you're looking at, but the image in the droplet is upside down.
Please look at these websites on refraction (http://eo.ucar.edu/rainbows/) and (http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/refrn/u14l4b.cfm) and note the path the light takes and then refer that back to the video.(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTy0dQidPGM – from 10:37).

Then please take a close look at that video. Can you see any refraction or reflection of the WESTAR taking place. Either it is occurring or it is not. There is a tiny fraction of the video where the UFO "comes into being" where it is possible to interpret something like refraction, but as the UFO becomes "fully formed", then no such refraction or reflection is apparent. A very strange water droplet to exhibit refraction at one moment but never thereafter…

And I am totally at a loss as to how you can discern any “upside down” image of the WESTAR 6 in that video UFO… please tell me where to look so that I may see it too.
Rramjet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd June 2010, 06:54 AM   #7421
Astrophotographer
Graduate Poster
 
Astrophotographer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,843
Originally Posted by Rramjet View Post
They are obviously two different videos (compare the clouds and compare the arrival of the UFO on the horizon…) but they show remarkably similar objects.
Maybe because water droplets/condensation on the windows happens often enough to be repeatable.


Originally Posted by Rramjet View Post
Are you looking at a completely different video than the two referenced above? The camera motion is relatively stable while the UFO moves considerably in comparison. How can you not see this? .
Wrong. Here is the evidence.
movement4.JPG

Note the earth's limb is higher in the second frame and not in the same position that it was in the first. You can also see MORE of the earth in the frame. Either the earth moved or the camera/shuttle did. It is most likely the camera moved.



Originally Posted by Rramjet View Post
I am perplexed that you could suggest the motion of the UFO is due to the motion of the camera… please try this … focus on the horizon and not the UFO (in both films) and then come back and tell me how much the camera moves in comparison to the UFO.
See above.

Originally Posted by Rramjet View Post
Then can I suggest you look at the clips I referenced above? These are the ones I am looking at. I can see (in the STS-37 clip) what looks like the top and bottom of the UFO alternating between having a slight blue tinge to completely grey throughout the entire video – but I suspect this has more to do with the digital imagery than the actual object.
More evidence:

Drops2.jpg

The shading on the bottom side of the "sphere" changes as it moves below the earth's limb. This is the effect one would expect from a droplet refracting the darkness of space above it. If it were a distinct physical object outside the craft, it would not have a change in shading like this.



Originally Posted by Rramjet View Post
… and you expect a water droplet to move in such a manner?
Prove it is not the camera moving. In the two images I posted above, it is obvious the camera is moving.



Originally Posted by Rramjet View Post
… Two very good reasons:
1. Opacity
2. Movement characteristics

1. The "opacity" is not consistent with a physical object outside the craft. It has a changing illumination on the underside. This is the effect one would expect from a water droplet.

2. Movement characteristics can easily be explained by camera motion. Demonstrate the camera is not moving because I have presented evidence that it is.
Astrophotographer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd June 2010, 08:03 AM   #7422
Jocce
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,083
Originally Posted by Rramjet View Post
Please look at these websites on refraction (http://eo.ucar.edu/rainbows/) and (http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/refrn/u14l4b.cfm) and note the path the light takes and then refer that back to the video.(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTy0dQidPGM – from 10:37).
If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and taste like a duck, there's a good chance that it is a duck. This is a drop of water and it's painfully obvious. You can even see the earth and black sky reflected/refracted on it.

Originally Posted by Rramjet View Post
Can you see any refraction or reflection of the WESTAR taking place.
No, not in this video in the sequence between 10:37 and 10:39 or so. Maybe just in the beginning but it's not really important since such a small object would be hard to see in a water droplet anyway.
__________________
And “I know what I saw” is and will always be evidence (Rramjet)
A claim can be evidence (Rramjet)
Anecdotes are evidence (ufology)
Jocce is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd June 2010, 08:08 AM   #7423
Jocce
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,083
This is where you see the image of Westar:
http://i263.photobucket.com/albums/i...starfinal2.png
__________________
And “I know what I saw” is and will always be evidence (Rramjet)
A claim can be evidence (Rramjet)
Anecdotes are evidence (ufology)
Jocce is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd June 2010, 09:41 AM   #7424
Astrophotographer
Graduate Poster
 
Astrophotographer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,843
I think this video shows the events in question better. Notice how there is abrupt motion of the camera (thus confirming my claim that the camera was shifted in the original video) at time 0:25, which is when the appearance of the UFO from the upper left (the UFO is invisible until it nears the earth’s limb) and violent motion occurs. After that, the UFOs apparent violent motion settles down.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmnukfsB5-U

In the enlarged version there are two specs (which are apparently on the window) that are present on the right side of the frame around time 1:12 near the earth's limb. They oscillate around just like the UFO eventually does. However, just before the UFO appears they dart off. This is also consistent with the camera shifting position and seeing a different part of the window, which is where the droplet appears to have been.

Interesting to see the part of the earth we see the shuttle passing over that would end up refracted/reflected near the top of the droplet. It is pretty brown, which would make an out of focus droplet appear opaque near the top.

Also, the UFO is invisible (you do not see it appear at the edge of the frame) until it magically appears out of the blackness and becomes more distinct as it nears the earth's limb. This is also consistent with a water droplet.
Astrophotographer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd June 2010, 05:28 PM   #7425
wollery
Protected by Samurai Hedgehogs!
 
wollery's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,853
Originally Posted by Rramjet View Post
Please look at these websites on refraction (http://eo.ucar.edu/rainbows/) and (http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/refrn/u14l4b.cfm) and note the path the light takes and then refer that back to the video.(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTy0dQidPGM – from 10:37).
Okay, you need to go and do some more research. The angle of internal reflection is dependent on the size of the drop. The larger the drop, the larger the angle, and the less the path of the light is bent. Now rainbows are usually formed in relatively light rain, where the size of the water drops is usually about 1mm to 2mm. The largest possible drop size is 5mm, but that's for extremely heavy thunderstorms, which are very unlikely to form rainbows.

Now, in zero-G the forces on a water drop are different, and it's possible to form much larger drops, which would completely alter the light path, even allowing light to pass through without internally reflecting, in effect acting as a fisheye lens.
http://th.physik.uni-frankfurt.de/~h.../BR/bubble.jpg
http://www.maniacworld.com/Zero-Grav...ter-Bubble.jpg


Quote:
Then please take a close look at that video. Can you see any refraction or reflection of the WESTAR taking place. Either it is occurring or it is not. There is a tiny fraction of the video where the UFO "comes into being" where it is possible to interpret something like refraction, but as the UFO becomes "fully formed", then no such refraction or reflection is apparent. A very strange water droplet to exhibit refraction at one moment but never thereafter…
Unfortunately I can't view youtube videos, so I can't comment, but the picture you supplied show an inverted refracted image of the WESTAR extremely clearly.

Quote:
And I am totally at a loss as to how you can discern any “upside down” image of the WESTAR 6 in that video UFO… please tell me where to look so that I may see it too.
Not in the video, in the photo. I can't see the video.
__________________
"You're a sick SOB. You know that, Wollery?" - Roadtoad

"Just think how stupid the average person is, and then realize that half of them are even stupider!" --George Carlin
wollery is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2010, 01:13 AM   #7426
Jocce
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,083
Originally Posted by Rramjet View Post
1. Apollo 10: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DS131DdQwjo)
… the image has been reversed… in the documentary it is the other way round.
Original source missing.
Meteorites are pretty common so that would probably be a good starting point in your process of eliminating mundane causes.

Originally Posted by Rramjet View Post
2. STS-115 Atlantis – contention is some form of ice crystal but no ice crystal ever looked like that!
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrIe9NQf6G4&NR=1)
Original NASA video here: (http://spaceflight1.nasa.gov/gallery.../html/fd1.html)
(http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/...fd01_03_56.asf)
A reflection in the lense or window, ice crystal and dust would be good starting points in your elimination process.

Originally Posted by Rramjet View Post
3. Apollo 16 - has been explained as the EVA “floodlight boom” – but the “arm” of the boom extends back at a seemingly odd angle - nevertheless it definitely has similar features to the boom (http://www.nasa.gov/vision/space/tra...ce/no_ufo.html)
Yes, the boom seems to be a plausible explanation.

Originally Posted by Rramjet View Post
4. ZOND-3 (1965) “Tower of Babel”
Can’t see the video image in the actual ZOND-3 images
(http://www.mentallandscape.com/C_CatalogMoon.htm)
Seems fake since it's not in the original images (if in fact mentallandscape has the original images).

Originally Posted by Rramjet View Post
5. ISS-007-E06886 (12 June 2003):
“After the ISS attitude transition on 6/12, the crew noticed a small, shiny, free-floating metallic object about 30 m (100 ft) from the Lab nadir window, moving very slowly away from the ISS. The leading theory was that the object is a cable label. [A photo of a cable label, uplinked from the ground, was later examined by Ed Lu. He confirmed the possibility that the object he saw indeed could have been a cable label. Further identification of the object by ground teams is still underway. Limited tracking data the object on 6/12 showed it below the ISS and 1.7 km in front. Preliminary predictions indicated it was slowly separating, and the specialists did/do not believe it poses a re-contact hazard to the station.” (http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=9514) NASA image here: (http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/station/...S007E06886.jpg)
Since it's confirmed that it could be a cable label I guess this one can be left out of the UFO discussion here.

Originally Posted by Rramjet View Post
6. ISS013-E-69634 (20 Aug. 2006): The Aurora Borealis, also known as "northern lights", is featured in this photograph taken by an Expedition 13 crew member on the International Space Station.”(http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/...013e69634.html)
Scratch, smudge, some dirt seems very plausible.

Originally Posted by Rramjet View Post
7.
Original source missing.
Scratch, smudge, dirt, reflection seems very plausible.

Originally Posted by Rramjet View Post
8.
Original source missing.
Scratch, smudge, dirt, reflection seems very plausible.

Originally Posted by Rramjet View Post
9. Mission STS 51A WESTAR 6 satellite retrieval
Extended video here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTy0dQidPGM)
UFO can be seen appearing at 10:37. Notice the motion of the UFO as it appears.
Discussion of it as a “water droplet” here:
(http://www.bautforum.com/showthread....S-51A-Debunked)
…but the physics is wrong for a water droplet…
Original source missing.
Has been shown that a water droplet is very likely.

Originally Posted by Rramjet View Post
10. STS-114 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoeZ4ceAZes)
Okay…so we have clouds rolling in from space… must be set to rain… LOL.
The compilation video seems to be a sped up video. A real time video can be seen here (resolution not so hot though). (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyquGdCEJNg)
Original source missing.

Originally Posted by Rramjet View Post
Original source missing.

Originally Posted by Rramjet View Post
12. Mir Space Station
Single clip from this extended NASA video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTjk7uuSScI) The extended clip is even more perplexing that the compiled edit!
Original source missing. Bad quality and I don't even know where the camera is pointing.

Originally Posted by Rramjet View Post
13.STS-110-E5912 (April 2002)
Original image here: (http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/...s110e5912.html) The compilation pic has obviously undergone some “enhancement” of the UFO, but it is visible in the original image...
Scratches, smudges, dirt, reflection seems plausible. The video is seriously contrast enhanced and the "lights" show up where there is obvious glare from a light (which has been removed in the video) so best bet is probably reflections from lights within the ship.

Originally Posted by Rramjet View Post
14. STS-116-E05364: Original here (beautiful high res. image): (http://spaceflight1.nasa.gov/gallery...116e05364.html)
Seems to be more “junk” in this pic in the immediate area of the “triangle”as well…
Scratches, smudges, dirt seems plausible.

Originally Posted by Rramjet View Post
15. STS-100-E5220: Original here: (http://spaceflight1.nasa.gov/gallery...s100e5220.html)
Looks to me like some sort of reflection in the shuttle’s window (look at the bottom left corner of the high res. image).
Alternatively…what’s this guy working with? (http://spaceflight1.nasa.gov/gallery...0-342-010.html) Either way…
Scratches, smudges, dirt, reflection seems plausible.
__________________
And “I know what I saw” is and will always be evidence (Rramjet)
A claim can be evidence (Rramjet)
Anecdotes are evidence (ufology)
Jocce is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2010, 07:07 AM   #7427
Correa Neto
Philosopher
 
Correa Neto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 8,578
Originally Posted by wollery View Post
Okay, you need to go and do some more research. ...snip...
This thread in a nutshell...

Skeptics are doing the job Rramjet was supposed to do. Skeptics are the ones doing research, checking and processing the data.

UFO proponents' methodology at this thread has been to just present a pile of links, claim they represent evidence of "aliens from beyond the borders of what we call nature" and challenge skeptics to prove them wrong. UFO buffs (and many other fringe subject proponents as well ) quite often act like this.That's not how it works and anyone with real and good scientific background would know this fact.

Rramjet must bring the data processed through a good, bias-free methodology. So, the claim is that a certain piece of imagery shows aliens from beyond the borders of what we call nature? OK, for starters, tell us camera specs, how the image was taken, chain of custody and how the image was processed. "John Doe did it and no one proved it was a fraud" is not good enough.

The move on and explain how you came to the conclusion that "aliens from beyond the borders of what we call nature" is a valid explanation. Remember to use a good, bias-free methodology to reach this conclusion and do the adequate research.
__________________
Racism, sexism, ignorance, homophobia, intolerance, extremism, authoritarianism, environmental disasters, politically correct crap, violence at sport stadiums, slavery, poverty, wars, people who disagree with me:
Together we can find the cure
Oh, and together we can find a cure to religion too…
Correa Neto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2010, 09:55 AM   #7428
Astrophotographer
Graduate Poster
 
Astrophotographer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,843
Originally Posted by Jocce View Post
Original source missing.
Meteorites are pretty common so that would probably be a good starting point in your process of eliminating mundane causes.
Meteoroids are not that common. I am more likely to consider debris inside the Lunar Module or something small coming off the craft during a thruster firing. The funny thing about this object is nobody during this mission proclaimed they just missed hitting something with their spacecraft. That makes me consider it to be something that was not a threat and a mundane source.

The same can be said for the water droplet on STS-51a EVA. If it were an actual physical object outside the craft of significant size, the astronaut filming it would have screamed for the astronaut to look out for the unknown craft/space debris that may have potentially injured him. Instead, everything continues business as usual. ho-hum.....

In both cases, these were films released by NASA and were screened before doing so (they were not live feeds). One would think that if NASA was hiding the truth about these UFOs (as the compilation implies), they would have simply wiped the films of any evidence of these UFOs. Their presence in the films indicates that NASA is not involved in a Cabal to hide the truth and the explanation for them lie in the mundane and not in the exotic.


Originally Posted by Jocce View Post
Originally Posted by Rramjet
6. ISS013-E-69634 (20 Aug. 2006): The Aurora Borealis, also known as "northern lights", is featured in this photograph taken by an Expedition 13 crew member on the International Space Station.”(http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/...013e69634.html)
Scratch, smudge, some dirt seems very plausible.
This appears to be a lens flare. Something similar happened with another aurora picture (I have also seen other amateurs obtain similar flare effects during aurora). Read the comments section of this link for the experts opinion (Richard Berry is a long time astrophotographer/amateur).

http://news.discovery.com/space/norw...ite-flare.html

The light source could be the bright center of the aurora or some other source of light to the lower right.
Astrophotographer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th June 2010, 02:51 PM   #7429
Rramjet
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,046
Originally Posted by Astrophotographer View Post
Maybe because water droplets/condensation on the windows happens often enough to be repeatable.
So if conditions inside the shuttle are such that water droplets “repeatedly” condense on the widows (a situation I find highly implausible unless the incompetence of the NASA engineers reached new lows on those missions), then why is this not apparent on any other of the hours and hours and hours… of shuttle footage?

Originally Posted by Astrophotographer View Post
Wrong. Here is the evidence.
movement4.JPG

Note the earth's limb is higher in the second frame and not in the same position that it was in the first. You can also see MORE of the earth in the frame. Either the earth moved or the camera/shuttle did. It is most likely the camera moved.
You simply did not do what I asked you to do… why not? It was a simple enough request. I asked you to compare the relative motion of the camera with the relative motion of the UFO in order to show that the camera moves relatively little in comparison to the relatively gross movement of the UFO.

Of course you did something else altogether… Nevertheless, despite your intention, your jpg image still proves my point. If the earth horizon moves upward in the frame, then the camera is tilting down and any water droplet on the window should also move upward… yet it actually moves down. The UFO also reverses its initial left to right motion to move right to left, then comes to a relatively stable halt in front of the camera (it still moves up and down slightly - over and above the camera movement - something one would most definitely not expect from a water droplet). The shuttle itself has not moved to cause such a radical departure from the laws of thermodynamics - because the horizon barely shifts up or down (and barely moves at all left to right). The focal length of the camera does not change at all – because the focus on the horizon does not change at all. So if it is a “water droplet”, then you must explain its departure from the laws of thermodynamics.

Originally Posted by Astrophotographer View Post
The shading on the bottom side of the "sphere" changes as it moves below the earth's limb. This is the effect one would expect from a droplet refracting the darkness of space above it. If it were a distinct physical object outside the craft, it would not have a change in shading like this.
You select a small number of frames that seem to prove your point - but simply leave out all the majority of frames that disprove your point. You even go so far as to obscure the relevant part of the image in one of your own frames with a inserted arrow…

I could pick a sequential series of images which show absolutely no such changes as the UFO moves above and below the horizon… and that proves that your contention is incorrect here because in that case, either the droplet changes reflective/refractive quality throughout the video while maintaining stability of shape and size (sometimes showing what you want it to show, sometimes completely opaque with no colour differential top to bottom as it moves above, below and through the horizon) or that the apparent colour changes are to do with artefacts in the digital imagery.

Originally Posted by Astrophotographer View Post
Prove it is not the camera moving. In the two images I posted above, it is obvious the camera is moving.
You discussed this above and I replied above… the camera moves relatively little in comparison to the UFO.

Originally Posted by Astrophotographer View Post
1. The "opacity" is not consistent with a physical object outside the craft.
This is simply an unfounded generalisation with no supporting evidence. Can I ask why you persist in making such unsupported claims when everyone following this thread would instantly know that my immediate reply would be to state that making such an unfounded assertion does not confer truth on that assertion. You must support with evidence, otherwise we are entitled to dismiss such empty claims from you.

Originally Posted by Astrophotographer View Post
It has a changing illumination on the underside. This is the effect one would expect from a water droplet.
As I pointed out above, I could pull individual sequential frames out of the video to show precisely that there is no “changing illumination” at all.

Then you finish with another unfounded generalisation… you have not demonstrated that your supposed “effect”, even if apparent, is what “one would expect from a water droplet”. Again, without supporting evidence, we are entitled to dismiss this as an entirely empty claim.

Originally Posted by Astrophotographer View Post
2. Movement characteristics can easily be explained by camera motion. Demonstrate the camera is not moving because I have presented evidence that it is.
You have not demonstrated that “Movement characteristics can easily be explained by camera motion”. I asked you to perform a simple experiment – to compare the relevant movement of the camera with the relevant movement of the UFO. If you had done so, it would be readily apparent to you that the movement of the UFO is over and above the movement of the camera. That is the UFO moves to a far greater extent than any movement of the camera can account for. This is entirely evident in the video.

That you then go on to imply that I have claimed that the camera “is not moving” is disingenuous and a straw man argument. I have never stated the camera does not move – all I claim is that the UFO moves to a proportionately greater extent than the camera does and thus the camera movement cannot account for the motion of the UFO.
Rramjet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th June 2010, 02:54 PM   #7430
Rramjet
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,046
In reference to
6. ISS013-E-69634 (20 Aug. 2006): The Aurora Borealis, also known as "northern lights", is featured in this photograph taken by an Expedition 13 crew member on the International Space Station.”(http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/...013e69634.html)

Originally Posted by Astrophotographer View Post
This appears to be a lens flare. Something similar happened with another aurora picture (I have also seen other amateurs obtain similar flare effects during aurora). Read the comments section of this link for the experts opinion (Richard Berry is a long time astrophotographer/amateur).

http://news.discovery.com/space/norw...ite-flare.html

The light source could be the bright center of the aurora or some other source of light to the lower right.
But your own experts discount “lens flare”. For example: “Truls Lynne Hansen, lead scientist at the Tromsø Geophysical Observatory, he doubts that the mystery object can be explained by a technical fault. "Usually such aberrations appear when there is a small and intense source of light in the field of view, or at least so close that the light from it hits the lens," Hansen explained to me via email. "That seems not to be the case here." "Additionally the color of the 'phenomenon' is the same as the color in the aurora, the auroral green line from atomic oxygen," Hansen continued, "so the 'phenomenon' is either a genuine auroral feature or a reflection of auroral light somewhere in space." (http://news.discovery.com/space/auro...ry-solved.html)

Rather the object is explained as: "I agree with Pål Brekke [Senior Advisor at the Norwegian Space Centre] that a reflection from a satellite is a candidate," said Hansen. "It reminds of the so-called 'Iridium flares' -- reflections of sunlight from the regularly shaped Iridium satellites." Satellite flares are well known by astronomers. As a satellite passes overhead, the conditions may be right for the spacecraft's solar panels or antennae to reflect sunlight down to the ground. The result is a short-lived burst of light, known as a "flare." (http://news.discovery.com/space/auro...ry-solved.html)

But the author of the article isn’t so sure… “My personal concern about the satellite flare theory is the question about auroral light intensity. Is the light from a large aurora bright enough to bounce off a satellite and appear as an auroral satellite flare as a point? And in turn produce a parachute-shaped, lens flare-like projection in the photo? I couldn't imagine even an Iridium satellite amplifying auroral light that much (although a stonking-huge orbital solar power array of the future might do a better job).”

But what IS interesting, is that the photo found at your referenced site (http://news.discovery.com/space/norw...ite-flare.html) – taken looking up from the earth - is being blamed on a reflection from a satellite, yet the NASA picture was taken from the vantage of a satellite…

No, something unknown is going on here, something alien to our common and (it seems) expert scientific conception of natural or technological processes. However, with only two known data points, research would be difficult.

This of course contrasts with our ability to research UFO encounters: For example here:

Westall Mass UFO Sighting (6 Apr 1966)
(http://www.westall66ufo.com.au/westall66ufo/)
(http://theozfiles.blogspot.com/2009/...lack-swan.html)
(http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread447523/)
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/Cases/Cas...cle.asp?ID=894)
(http://www.theage.com.au/articles/20...804696941.html)
(http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/W...highschoolufo/)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westall_UFO)

..and the associated study guide (http://www.westall66ufo.com.au/westa...66-study-guide) highlights precisely all the issues surrounding our ability to research such topics.
Rramjet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th June 2010, 04:29 PM   #7431
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 9,645
Originally Posted by Rramjet View Post
You simply did not do what I asked you to do… why not? It was a simple enough request. I asked you to compare the relative motion of the camera with the relative motion of the UFO in order to show that the camera moves relatively little in comparison to the relatively gross movement of the UFO.

Of course you did something else altogether… Nevertheless, despite your intention, your jpg image still proves my point. If the earth horizon moves upward in the frame, then the camera is tilting down and any water droplet on the window should also move upward… yet it actually moves down. The UFO also reverses its initial left to right motion to move right to left, then comes to a relatively stable halt in front of the camera (it still moves up and down slightly - over and above the camera movement - something one would most definitely not expect from a water droplet). The shuttle itself has not moved to cause such a radical departure from the laws of thermodynamics - because the horizon barely shifts up or down (and barely moves at all left to right). The focal length of the camera does not change at all – because the focus on the horizon does not change at all. So if it is a “water droplet”, then you must explain its departure from the laws of thermodynamics.
I notice that the shot you are considering is preceded and followed by shots of crew members with cameras. You will note that they are handheld cameras.

Is it possible that you have simply failed to consider the possibility that the camera moves? You appear only to have considered the possibility of the camera zooming or panning. What if it simply moves up and to the left, while pointing in the same direction?

I was, I must admit, frankly astonished when I first looked at the footage. Astonished that it was the source of any contention whatsoever. Astonished that anyone could genuinely misinterpret what is so screamingly obviously mundane: a droplet on the window the photographer was looking through.
Jack by the hedge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th June 2010, 07:35 PM   #7432
Astrophotographer
Graduate Poster
 
Astrophotographer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,843
Originally Posted by Rramjet View Post
So if conditions inside the shuttle are such that water droplets “repeatedly” condense on the widows (a situation I find highly implausible unless the incompetence of the NASA engineers reached new lows on those missions), then why is this not apparent on any other of the hours and hours and hours… of shuttle footage?
Maybe they are. Have you checked? Maybe the condensation and water droplets are obvious in those frames and do not spark any UFO proponent's interest. Declaring a water droplet a result of "incompetence" is really going a bit far isn't it? Can you demonstrate that water never collects on the window of the shuttle? There is one report of condensation on the windows potentially ruining an IMAX film of the hubble repair mission. Obviously, it does happen.

Originally Posted by Rramjet View Post
You simply did not do what I asked you to do… why not? It was a simple enough request. I asked you to compare the relative motion of the camera with the relative motion of the UFO in order to show that the camera moves relatively little in comparison to the relatively gross movement of the UFO.
Sorry, I don't see it. Prove your point. Your original claim was that there was camera was "relatively stable". Now that it is obvious that this is not the case, you change your tune. The motion of the camera coincides with the violent motion of the "sphere". Is it coincidence or the cause? Prove it isn't.

Originally Posted by Rramjet View Post
Nevertheless, despite your intention, your jpg image still proves my point. If the earth horizon moves upward in the frame, then the camera is tilting down and any water droplet on the window should also move upward… yet it actually moves down. The UFO also reverses its initial left to right motion to move right to left, then comes to a relatively stable halt in front of the camera (it still moves up and down slightly - over and above the camera movement - something one would most definitely not expect from a water droplet).
You obviously did not look at the source video where the camera's actual motion is visible.

Originally Posted by Rramjet View Post
You select a small number of frames that seem to prove your point - but simply leave out all the majority of frames that disprove your point. You even go so far as to obscure the relevant part of the image in one of your own frames with a inserted arrow…
Actually my selection was essentially random. I chose those images from different sections to show the object at different points. If you can present images that disprove this, feel free to do so. However, I did not see any frames that showed no dark bottom when the sphere was below the earth's limb.

Originally Posted by Rramjet View Post
I could pick a sequential series of images which show absolutely no such changes as the UFO moves above and below the horizon… and that proves that your contention is incorrect here because in that case, either the droplet changes reflective/refractive quality throughout the video while maintaining stability of shape and size (sometimes showing what you want it to show, sometimes completely opaque with no colour differential top to bottom as it moves above, below and through the horizon) or that the apparent colour changes are to do with artefacts in the digital imagery.
Feel free to do so. You are a scientist after all. Feel free to prove your point.

Originally Posted by Rramjet View Post
You discussed this above and I replied above… the camera moves relatively little in comparison to the UFO.
You need to look at the source video, where the camera's motion is quite apparent. However, you also need to understand the issue with how close objects can change position relative to distant objects with just a small amount of motion.

Originally Posted by Rramjet View Post
This is simply an unfounded generalisation with no supporting evidence. Can I ask why you persist in making such unsupported claims when everyone following this thread would instantly know that my immediate reply would be to state that making such an unfounded assertion does not confer truth on that assertion. You must support with evidence, otherwise we are entitled to dismiss such empty claims from you..
I make the claim based on the change in lighting on a sphere. Why would it suddenly go dark on the bottom as it passes below the earth's limb? It can not be a shadow for a sphere because it would always be there no matter what frame you select. Therefore, it can not be a physical object outside the craft.


Originally Posted by Rramjet View Post
As I pointed out above, I could pull individual sequential frames out of the video to show precisely that there is no “changing illumination” at all.
Feel free to do so. Until you do so, I think the frames I have shown (and the video itself) shows quite well what I am describing.

Originally Posted by Rramjet View Post
Then you finish with another unfounded generalisation… you have not demonstrated that your supposed “effect”, even if apparent, is what “one would expect from a water droplet”. Again, without supporting evidence, we are entitled to dismiss this as an entirely empty claim..
A water droplet acts like a lens when one looks through it. You see the image upside down. In this case the earth side would be in the upper portion of the droplet and the dark sky would appear in the bottom. This is what one sees when the "sphere" approaches the earth's limb.

Originally Posted by Rramjet View Post
You have not demonstrated that “Movement characteristics can easily be explained by camera motion”. I asked you to perform a simple experiment – to compare the relevant movement of the camera with the relevant movement of the UFO. If you had done so, it would be readily apparent to you that the movement of the UFO is over and above the movement of the camera. That is the UFO moves to a far greater extent than any movement of the camera can account for. This is entirely evident in the video..
I suggest you take a photograph of an object on a pane of glass with a distant horizon. A small motion by the camera will make that object's displacement appear large relative to the horizon. Maybe I will do it for you tomorrow if I have time.

Originally Posted by Rramjet View Post
That you then go on to imply that I have claimed that the camera “is not moving” is disingenuous and a straw man argument. I have never stated the camera does not move – all I claim is that the UFO moves to a proportionately greater extent than the camera does and thus the camera movement cannot account for the motion of the UFO.
Sorry, "relatively stable" is your claim. However, we now know this is not the case based on the source video. The camera' movement was obvious during the sphere's transit into view.
Astrophotographer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th June 2010, 07:55 PM   #7433
Astrophotographer
Graduate Poster
 
Astrophotographer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,843
Originally Posted by Rramjet View Post
But your own experts discount “lens flare”. For example: “Truls Lynne Hansen, lead scientist at the Tromsø Geophysical Observatory, he doubts that the mystery object can be explained by a technical fault. "Usually such aberrations appear when there is a small and intense source of light in the field of view, or at least so close that the light from it hits the lens," Hansen explained to me via email. "That seems not to be the case here." "Additionally the color of the 'phenomenon' is the same as the color in the aurora, the auroral green line from atomic oxygen," Hansen continued, "so the 'phenomenon' is either a genuine auroral feature or a reflection of auroral light somewhere in space." (http://news.discovery.com/space/auro...ry-solved.html)

Rather the object is explained as: "I agree with Pål Brekke [Senior Advisor at the Norwegian Space Centre] that a reflection from a satellite is a candidate," said Hansen. "It reminds of the so-called 'Iridium flares' -- reflections of sunlight from the regularly shaped Iridium satellites." Satellite flares are well known by astronomers. As a satellite passes overhead, the conditions may be right for the spacecraft's solar panels or antennae to reflect sunlight down to the ground. The result is a short-lived burst of light, known as a "flare." (http://news.discovery.com/space/auro...ry-solved.html)

But the author of the article isn’t so sure… “My personal concern about the satellite flare theory is the question about auroral light intensity. Is the light from a large aurora bright enough to bounce off a satellite and appear as an auroral satellite flare as a point? And in turn produce a parachute-shaped, lens flare-like projection in the photo? I couldn't imagine even an Iridium satellite amplifying auroral light that much (although a stonking-huge orbital solar power array of the future might do a better job).”

But what IS interesting, is that the photo found at your referenced site (http://news.discovery.com/space/norw...ite-flare.html) – taken looking up from the earth - is being blamed on a reflection from a satellite, yet the NASA picture was taken from the vantage of a satellite…

No, something unknown is going on here, something alien to our common and (it seems) expert scientific conception of natural or technological processes. However, with only two known data points, research would be difficult.
I don't buy the Iridium flare explanation because there is a far more reasonable explanation. I was trying to direct you towards the comments section. See the comments by Richard Berry, who is quite knowledgable on astronomy and astrophotography. He stated the following:

That sure looks like a camera lens flare to me. It is diametrically opposite across the center of the image from the bright porch light on the house in the foreground.

Then somebody posted an image on how the lens flare lined up with the light. To me there is nothing to consider this image is anything more than a lens flare.

I also would like to point towards Jerry Lodriguss's website where he has an aurora photograph with a flare that takes on the color of the aurora.

http://www.astropix.com/HTML/G_SUN/AURORAS.HTM

Go to the bottom image.

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck. There is a light source and the flare is opposite to it. Pretty convincing evidence that it is a lens flare IMO.

In the ISS image, I can see no reason to dismiss the possibility of a lens flare from the bright source on the lower right. However, this was also taken through a window, which means it could be some lights behind the photographer being reflected. In either case, those possibilities are far greater than some new phenomena that everyone is ignoring. Where you see something "alien", most people see more mundane possibilities. If you want to believe these are "alien" in nature, go right ahead. However, you seem to have problems convincing others outside the UFO community.
Astrophotographer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th June 2010, 04:45 AM   #7434
Stray Cat
Philosopher
 
Stray Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,829
Originally Posted by Astrophotographer View Post
I don't buy the Iridium flare explanation because there is a far more reasonable explanation. I was trying to direct you towards the comments section. See the comments by Richard Berry, who is quite knowledgable on astronomy and astrophotography. He stated the following:

That sure looks like a camera lens flare to me. It is diametrically opposite across the center of the image from the bright porch light on the house in the foreground.

Then somebody posted an image on how the lens flare lined up with the light. To me there is nothing to consider this image is anything more than a lens flare.
I studied this event too... Here is the thread I started:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...ight=satellite

Yup, it's lens flare.

Keep up the good work, I still read this thread even though I don't contribute anymore*.

*Except for this post obviously
__________________
It's only my madness that stops me from going insane!
Stray Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th June 2010, 07:24 AM   #7435
Jocce
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,083
Originally Posted by Rramjet View Post
So if conditions inside the shuttle are such that water droplets “repeatedly” condense on the widows (a situation I find highly implausible unless the incompetence of the NASA engineers reached new lows on those missions), then why is this not apparent on any other of the hours and hours and hours… of shuttle footage?
I don't know why I even bother to respond since you seem to ignore me lately but have you really checked all the hours and hours of shuttle footage so you can support this claim?

Originally Posted by Rramjet View Post
You simply did not do what I asked you to do… why not? It was a simple enough request. I asked you to compare the relative motion of the camera with the relative motion of the UFO in order to show that the camera moves relatively little in comparison to the relatively gross movement of the UFO.
Me, and others have also pointed out that drops of water would behave differently in a zero gravity environment. I still haven't seen a response from you on this.
__________________
And “I know what I saw” is and will always be evidence (Rramjet)
A claim can be evidence (Rramjet)
Anecdotes are evidence (ufology)
Jocce is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th June 2010, 07:26 AM   #7436
Jocce
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,083
Originally Posted by Rramjet View Post
But what IS interesting, is that the photo found at your referenced site (http://news.discovery.com/space/norw...ite-flare.html) – taken looking up from the earth - is being blamed on a reflection from a satellite, yet the NASA picture was taken from the vantage of a satellite…
And that would make reflections from other satellites impossible?
__________________
And “I know what I saw” is and will always be evidence (Rramjet)
A claim can be evidence (Rramjet)
Anecdotes are evidence (ufology)
Jocce is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th June 2010, 07:29 AM   #7437
Astrophotographer
Graduate Poster
 
Astrophotographer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,843
Well, now we have another video, which is about as close to the source as we can go for STS-37. Go to 16:30 in the video. It is interesting to note the speaker says the video is sped up to 4x normal speed (See 15:46 in the video). It is much clearer than the other videos previously posted.

http://www.nss.org/resources/library.../shuttle39.htm
Astrophotographer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th June 2010, 08:59 AM   #7438
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 20,414
I suspect that Mr. Rramjet has watched / is watching the special on the Westfall 1966 UFO sighting, as it's airing on Aussie television (SyFi?). A bunch of hype.

Here is an excellent podcast that discusses this event. What was 3 or 4 kids seeing something "unidentified" has turned into hundreds of people seeing spaceships and the army showing up at the school 10 minutes later.
carlitos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th June 2010, 07:21 PM   #7439
Frying Dutchmen
Critical Thinker
 
Frying Dutchmen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 387
Originally Posted by carlitos View Post
I suspect that Mr. Rramjet has watched / is watching the special on the Westfall 1966 UFO sighting, as it's airing on Aussie television (SyFi?). A bunch of hype.

Here is an excellent podcast that discusses this event. What was 3 or 4 kids seeing something "unidentified" has turned into hundreds of people seeing spaceships and the army showing up at the school 10 minutes later.

Rramjet is right to bring up Westall 66 UFO sighting as evidence of the methods that Ufologists use. I'm not just talking about the documentary but it's a good start point since it took five years to get all the evidence and the show up and running.

Basically the documentary was just eye witness testimony, alot of it was contradictory with lead in questioning and the good old Ad hominem on the principal.
Frying Dutchmen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th June 2010, 08:50 PM   #7440
Rramjet
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,046
1. Apollo 10: (http://spaceflight1.nasa.gov/gallery...ctivities.html)
Originally Posted by Jocce View Post
Original source missing.
Meteorites are pretty common so that would probably be a good starting point in your process of eliminating mundane causes.
Meteorites are pretty common, but they are also pretty fast (eg: http://www2.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=a&id=2109) and this one seems pretty regular… I would need better evidence to call it a meteorite at this point.

2. STS-115 Atlantis (http://spaceflight1.nasa.gov/gallery.../html/fd1.html)
Originally Posted by Jocce View Post
A reflection in the lense or window, ice crystal and dust would be good starting points in your elimination process.
I would say that “ice crystal” come closest as a plausible explanation for this one… still, the shape is rather odd… too regular…

Here is another example: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uoxja...eature=related) Ice?

3. Apollo 16 - has been explained as the EVA “floodlight boom”

4. ZOND-3 (1965) “Tower of Babel”
Originally Posted by Jocce View Post
Seems fake since it's not in the original images (if in fact mentallandscape has the original images).
Good point.

5. ISS-007-E06886 (12 June 2003): (http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/station/...S007E06886.jpg) “Cable label”
Originally Posted by Jocce View Post
Since it's confirmed that it could be a cable label I guess this one can be left out of the UFO discussion here.
I would not say “confirmed”… interesting language you use too… “…confirmed that it could be…” ? And no wonder there is so much “junk” up there… if NASA can let items of inventory “escape” like this… “Ooops, just dropped my hammer…watch out below!”

6. ISS013-E-69634 (20 Aug. 2006): (http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/...013e69634.html)
“Lens flare” is the closest to a plausible explanation here. Astrophotographer pointed to another example or two, but this one seems particularly complex and structured – unlike the other examples he provided. Still not convinced that lens flare IS the explanation… but also not convinced it is anything other than “mundane”.

7. & 8. Unlabelled and originals missing yes (but no reason to suppose they’re not legit. footage) and your “ Scratch, smudge, dirt, reflection seems very plausible.” is not “explaining” anything at this point… it is a mere unfounded generalisation that does not match what is seen.

9. Mission STS 51A WESTAR 6 satellite retrieval (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTy0dQidPGM)
Originally Posted by Jocce View Post
Original source missing.
Has been shown that a water droplet is very likely.
I understand why you keep citing “Original source missing” but I think we can take it that the footage here is legit. As a skeptic I am asking myself “Could it be a water droplet”? (as with STS 37 which shows something remarkably similar (http://video.google.ca/videoplay?doc...6621098045120#)
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmnukfsB5-U)). I think your “very likely” simply goes too far. I am not ruling out water droplet, just that I need more information…better confirmation/evidence of the theory.

10. STS-114 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyquGdCEJNg)
Originally Posted by Jocce View Post
Original source missing.
No, that’s not enough. What’s going on in this video? What is the “mist”? How does it affect the object to reverse the objects direction?

11. STS-96 (May 1999) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJGGzdruHso)
Originally Posted by Jocce View Post
Original source missing.
Again, not good enough.

RE: 12. Mir Space Station (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTjk7uuSScI)
Originally Posted by Jocce View Post
Original source missing. Bad quality and I don't even know where the camera is pointing.
Yeah, can’t find the original - but NASA is using old video formats which seem to require either a Voxware Codec which seems to have bugs in it and not recommended for download/installation or a RealPlayer subscription service which requires credit card details in order to download! No thanks to both…

However…the video in question has been doing the rounds for some time and I am pretty sure it is not hoaxed… but the real question I have is if there is so much space junk up there that they can lose a whole space station among it (!), then why don’t we see it all in any of the later hi res. images? Come to think of it, we don’t get many stars in the hi res images either and there should be plenty of them too…

Another thing…how come some of this “space junk” exhibits independent movement characteristics. That is, some of the bits move and then stop moving and others change direction, some just appear out of nowhere, etc… and what about all those “meteorites”? If I was a shuttle pilot up there and there were all those meteorites flashing past in all directions I would begin to think I was in some sort of shooting gallery… and not only that, they seem to be coming from all sorts of different directions too… discussion of this aspect can be found here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJyuQ...eature=related) plus a discussion of STS 80 footage… How do the debunkers explain STS 80 - I’d really like to know.

I am sure someone has reasonable answers to these questions, but how come the video has been around for so long yet no-one (including NASA) has bothered to explain everything that is going on in that field of view?

The same thing with the “Tether Incident” (STS-75) (eg: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2DVe...620&feature=iv) Can someone please explain the independence of movement of the so called “space junk”? I mean, supposedly free floating objects that curve around all over the place independently of each other? What gives? It is also interesting to note that NASA does not put the full tether incident footage on its website…

… but ever wonder how all that “junk” gets there? How about they just “throw things overboard” that they don’t want… (eg: http://spaceflight1.nasa.gov/gallery...9_fdh05_03.mov) huh!

13.STS-110-E5912 (April 2002) (http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/...s110e5912.html)
Originally Posted by Jocce View Post
Scratches, smudges, dirt, reflection seems plausible. The video is seriously contrast enhanced and the "lights" show up where there is obvious glare from a light (which has been removed in the video) so best bet is probably reflections from lights within the ship.
Please stop grasping at straws and providing generalised assertions as stock standard answers. That is neither scientific nor sceptical (actually the two terms are one and the same). I actually agree with you that it is probably a reflection of lights from within the shuttle.

14. STS-116-E05364: (http://spaceflight1.nasa.gov/gallery...116e05364.html)
Originally Posted by Jocce View Post
Scratches, smudges, dirt seems plausible.
Please… you have put no thought into this at all and are just “parroting” answers without any analysis. I think this could be internal reflections given that one of the “triangles” (the lower one) exhibits a distinctly ephemeral nature and if you look up near the top of the boom, there are most definitely reflections of the same colour showing the internal structure of the shuttle…

15. STS-100-E5220: (http://spaceflight1.nasa.gov/gallery...s100e5220.html)
Originally Posted by Jocce View Post
Scratches, smudges, dirt, reflection seems plausible.
So I give you two possible plausible mundane explanations and you just parrot the same old line without even considering my mundane explanations? How can I take you seriously?

Now…moving on with the rest of the compilation…

16. ISS-01-376-004
(mislabelled? Can’t find it…)

17. Voiceover interview with Edgar Mitchell: No doubt the real deal talking about the fact that he believes aliens are real and that cover-ups exist. He’s not the only former astronaut to speak out similarly but in the end one man’s opinion… Google “Edgar Mitchell aliens” to find plenty more of his opinions on the subject.

18. Apollo 15 TV footage: “Mysterious shadow is filmed by the crew as it tracks across the lunar surface below.”

19. ASTP (1975) – Soviet ‘Soyuz’ filmed from Apollo

20. AS17-135-20680 Apollo 17: claimed to be “lunar surface (sunstruck/overexposed)” Original here: (http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-135-20680HR.jpg) (from index site here: http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/images17.html#MagH) Other photos in the sequence are actually all of the LRV! So there is no reason to suppose they suddenly took a photo of the lunar surface (as claimed) then went back to the LRV… this most definitely is not the “lunar surface”… it is an overexposed picture of the LRV (in other words a manmade angle on the LRV)!

21. SkyLab III, SL3-118-2140 UFO observed and photographed by crew over a 10 minute period 2138 (http://s276.photobucket.com/albums/k...-SkylabIII.jpg), 2139 (http://s276.photobucket.com/albums/k...-SkylabIII.jpg) and 2141 (http://s276.photobucket.com/albums/k...-SkylabIII.jpg). Interesting discussion including transcripts of astronauts talking about it (http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread416549/pg1). (The following are extracts from posts by LunaCognita on that page)

“ …astronauts Alan Bean, Owen Garriott and Jack Lousma spotted what they described as a red "satellite", which they photographed and mentioned during a subsequent debriefing:

LOUSMA: "Did you tell him about that satellite we saw?
BEAN: Yes, we saw a great satellite. We didn't know if we told you about it.
LOUSMA: The closest and brightest one we've seen.
BEAN: Huge one.
LOUSMA: We've seen several. It was a red one.
CAPCOM: No, you may have told somebody, but it wasn't this team. I don't remember hearing about it.
LOUSMA: I guess we didn't report it. It was reflecting in red light and oscillating at, oh, counting it's period of brightest to dimmest, about ten seconds. It led us into sunset. That was about three revs ago, I think. Something like that, wasn't it Owen?”


(NOTE: Astronaut Owen does NOT respond to this question, and the topic of conversation abruptly changes. There is no information available regarding whether or not this sighting was brought to the attention of Mission Control prior to this radio contact 4.5 hours after the event).

Conversation during post-flight debrief, from “Skylab III Technical Crew Debriefing” (NASA doc JSC-08478)

GARRIOTT: Do you want to talk about that satellite?
LOUSMA: I saw a couple of satellites that appeared like a satellite would on earth. I saw one that was not like one you would see on earth, so why don't you mention it?
GARRIOTT: OK. About a week or 10 days before recovery and we were still waiting for information to be supplied to us about the identification. Jack first notices this rather large red star out the wardroom window. Upon close examination, it was much brighter than Jupiter or any of the other planets. It had a reddish hue to it, even though it was well above the horizon. The light from the Sun was not passing close to the Earth's limb at the time. We observed it for about 10 minutes prior to sunset. It was slowly rotating because it had a variation in brightness with a 10-seconds period. As I was saying, we observed it for about 10 minutes, until we went into darkness, and it also followed us into darkness about 5-seconds later. From the 5 to 10 second delay in it's disappearance we surmised that it was not more than 30 to 50 nautical miles [35 to 58 statute miles or 56 to 93 km] from our location. From its original position in the wardroom window, it did not move more than 10 or 20 degrees over the 10 minutes or so that we watched it. Its orbit was very close to that of our own. We never saw it on any earlier or succeeding orbits and we'd be quite interested in having its identification established.”


Note also that page 49 of the “SkyLab III Photographic Index and Scene Identification” document identifies this object as being a “Satellite - unmanned”.
(http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/ca...1974007948.pdf)

when I tried to dig up a direct transcript of this incident from the Skylab "Channel-A" internal tape recorder (basically like the DSE and DSEA "black box" recorders used during Apollo that recorded internal crew conversations), NASA says that the recorder was not active during this period of time (16:35 GMT to 16:45 GMT on Sept 20, 1973).

The reason the tape was not recording as it was supposed to be? According to NASA's official excuse, it was because the tape had run out and had not been replaced on time. Thus, no audio of the actual event in question as it is occurring exists for us to have a listen to (and if you are willing to buy that excuse from NASA, then I have some nice oceanfront property for sale just outside of Kandahar, Afghanistan you might be interested in too!)

The astronauts however were definitely under the impression that the Channel A tape had picked up this conversation, because astronaut Garriott actually references it during the post-mission debrief on October 4, 1973! Here is Garriott referring to this very event, telling the debriefers that they can go and use the Channel A tape to verify the timing and location data for the sighting of this object exactly. (Sorry, I should have included this quote in my earlier above post, as Garriott makes this comment immediately after mentioning how he and his crewmates were "quite interested in having its [the object] identification established."

GARRIOTT: It's all debriefed in terms of time on channel A, so the precise timing and location can be picked up from there." (page 20-2 of Skylab III Technical Crew Debriefing)

22. Skylab III Frame# SL3-118-2141 “UFO observed and photographed by crew over a 10 minute period” (see picture links above)

23. Shuttle Mission STS-29: “Houston, this is Discovery. We still have the alien spacecraft under observance…”

24. S115-E-07201 (19 Sept. 2006) --- This picture of unidentified possible small debris was recorded with a digital still camera by astronaut Daniel Burbank onboard the Space Shuttle Atlantis around 11 a.m. (CDT) today. Engineers do not believe this to be the same object seen in video taken by shuttle TV cameras earlier in the day. (http://spaceflight1.nasa.gov/gallery...115e07201.html)

25. Shuttle mission STS-123 – ‘Mission Control Houston (MCC-H), Internal Camera Feed’ Wide room shot, front screen shows black except white dot lower center, then full screen on dot moving left to right.

26. View of Endeavour port wing from aft camera, view of EE work platform with linear object drifting away (not referenced properly – could it be from 736101 (http://spaceflight1.nasa.gov/gallery...tml/fd9.html)? – but that vid. is 10hrs long… so not going to watch the whole thing just on the off chance…

27. Story Musgrave speaking, ‘public is ready to know…’ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yguS0-WzEeI)

28. Gemini 4, UFO filmed during re-entry (dot moves across sky just prior to flame build-up) NASA had no video on its site of this… one would have thought re-entry to be a particularly interesting video to include…

29. Shuttle mission STS-123 sky full of moving dots (sunrise scene)
Can’t find the original but similar to other videos of “junk” moving all over the place… like the following from STS 48 at about 3:00 to 3:24 (see below).

30. Shuttle mission STS-75 [tether, notched disk]
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2DVe...620&feature=iv)

31. Shuttle Mission STS-48
This is the classic “Star Wars” footage…
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IiDvkB_rG-Q) of course NASA don’t have it on their site!

Proponent video here: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPc7Ys8-S1k)
The debunkers explain it here: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HA5UrE9boW4)

32. Shuttle Mission STS-119 [bright disk crossing docking sight]
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRtuQNsnQpk)
Crosses between the “sight” and the camera…speck of dust?

33. Shuttle mission STS-48-D, “The Shape Shifter”
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Z-lH...eature=related)

34. April 29, 2007 – object transiting lunar disc, Italy, telescope
Can’t seem to find the related video anywhere…

35. Shuttle mission STS-80:
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJyuQ...eature=related)
NASA don’t have this on their site either…
Rramjet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:37 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.