UFO video from NASA - The CAMERA was moving!
Robert Sheaffer
>Did anyone catch today's Hard Copy (6/5)? (Of course, I hate to admit that I
>saw it myself -- it was an accident.) They showed what I feel is some of the
>most impressive evidence of the existence of extraterrestrial activity. The
>video was shot by one of the astronauts on a recent (the most recent?)
>shuttle mission. I will describe the video as it was shown...
>
>Looking toward the surface of the earth, and just below the horizon, a
>small light moved slowly (relatively, of course) from the right to the left.
>Then suddenly, and without *apparent* cause, the thing immediately executes
>a 90 degree turn and accelerates rapidly off across the horizon and into
>space. Meanwhile, at roughly the same location where the thing was at the
>moment before turning, another something shoots rapidly *up* from earth and
>into space. According to the UFO investigator (pardon me, but I forget
>his name, but he is on the UFO magazine staff), somebody "shot" something
>at it, and the thing anticipated the shot and evaded.
>
>Official explanation from NASA was "it was ice" left by the shuttle. ICE?
>That's a heck of a change in attitude and speed for a piece of orbiting
>ice. Of course, one can't be sure of the distance from the shuttle, which
>would be a vital piece of info. I'm usually not impressed by UFO reports,
>but this was something to see. Anyone else catch it?
I spoke to James Oberg about this. He didn't know it had been on "Hard
Copy", but he's quite familiar with the video. Apparently it's something
that some UFO enthusiast taped off the "NASA Select" cable channel late
one night, got excited, and flew off the handle. The far-out fringe of
UFOlogy has been promoting it ever since.
Yes, it IS a piece of ice, floating in the payload bay of the shuttle
Discovery. It's illuminated by the lights in the payload bay. But what
your Trash TV program surely did not tell you is: what you saw was motion
of the CAMERA, not motion of the object. You see, NASA mission controllers
leave the camera on during the "night", while the crew is asleep. The
camera is then controlled from the ground, with a little joystick-type
arrangement. If the mission controllers want to look over here, or
over there, they just flip the lever, and the camera moves. And if
some brain-dead UFOlogist just happens to be watching as the camera
is turned away from a piece of ice, he says "Wow! Look at that baby
accelerate!!!!!!"
--
Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - shea...@netcom.com
Past Chairman, The Bay Area Skeptics - for whom I speak only when authorized!
"Every psychic investigator of [the medium] Mrs. Piper was impressed
by her simplicity and honesty. It never occurred to them that no
charlatan ever achieves greatness by acting like a charlatan. No
professional spy acts like a spy. No card cheat behaves at the
table like a card cheat."
- Martin Gardner (writing in "Free Inquiry",
Spring, 1992)
Jesse Mundis
>In article <nreads01....@starbase.spd.louisville.edu> nrea...@starbase.spd.louisville.edu (Nick Eads) writes:
[...]
>>
>>Looking toward the surface of the earth, and just below the horizon, a
>>small light moved slowly (relatively, of course) from the right to the left.
>>Then suddenly, and without *apparent* cause, the thing immediately executes
>>a 90 degree turn and accelerates rapidly off across the horizon and into
>>space. Meanwhile, at roughly the same location where the thing was at the
>>moment before turning, another something shoots rapidly *up* from earth and
>>into space. According to the UFO investigator (pardon me, but I forget
>>his name, but he is on the UFO magazine staff), somebody "shot" something
>>at it, and the thing anticipated the shot and evaded.
>>
[...]
>Yes, it IS a piece of ice, floating in the payload bay of the shuttle
>Discovery. It's illuminated by the lights in the payload bay. But what
>your Trash TV program surely did not tell you is: what you saw was motion
>of the CAMERA, not motion of the object. You see, NASA mission controllers
>leave the camera on during the "night", while the crew is asleep. The
>camera is then controlled from the ground, with a little joystick-type
>arrangement. If the mission controllers want to look over here, or
>over there, they just flip the lever, and the camera moves. And if
>some brain-dead UFOlogist just happens to be watching as the camera
>is turned away from a piece of ice, he says "Wow! Look at that baby
>accelerate!!!!!!"
>--
>
> Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - shea...@netcom.com
I did not see the footage in question, but for those of you who did, if it
was camera movement, and the first person described "Looking toward the surface
of the earth, and just below the horizon," Wouldn't rapid camera panning
be obvious? The ice/ufo would remain stationary w.r.t. the horizon. I'd think
a fast pan would be obvious since the scenery should move too. If there were
no background to measure camera movement by, I'd be much more inclined to
"write it off." So, could someone who saw the footage please comment on this?
--
Jesse Mundis | Amdahl Corporation | Freedom is just chaos
je...@uts.amdahl.com | 1250 East Arques Ave M/S 316 | with better lighting.
(408) 746-4796 | Sunnyvale, CA 94088-3470 | -Alan Dean Foster
#include <Disclaimer.standard>
brown todd f
>I did not see the footage in question, but for those of you who did, if it
>was camera movement, and the first person described "Looking toward the surface
>of the earth, and just below the horizon," Wouldn't rapid camera panning
>be obvious? The ice/ufo would remain stationary w.r.t. the horizon. I'd think
>a fast pan would be obvious since the scenery should move too. If there were
>no background to measure camera movement by, I'd be much more inclined to
>"write it off." So, could someone who saw the footage please comment on this?
A friend of mine copied it for me and I finally saw it last night. The
segment is very short but I can definitely rule out the camera moving
to cause this change in course of the light object. It appears first
drifting along away from the camera JUST BELOW the horizon. Then,
suddenly and very deliberately, it takes a ninety degree turn and
accelerates OVER the horizon back into space away from the camera. One
second later you see a streak coming directly up from the planet. It
does look as if the object manuevered to get out of the line of fire.
I would like to hear more about the rest of the video not seen on
Hard Copy.
Mike Pinto
>>Looking toward the surface of the earth, and just below the horizon, a
>>small light moved slowly (relatively, of course) from the right to the left.
>>Then suddenly, and without *apparent* cause, the thing immediately executes
>>a 90 degree turn and accelerates rapidly off across the horizon and into
>>space. Meanwhile, at roughly the same location where the thing was at the
>>at it, and the thing anticipated the shot and evaded.
>>
>>Official explanation from NASA was "it was ice" left by the shuttle. ICE?
>>That's a heck of a change in attitude and speed for a piece of orbiting
>>ice.
>Yes, it IS a piece of ice, floating in the payload bay of the shuttle
>Discovery. It's illuminated by the lights in the payload bay. But what
>your Trash TV program surely did not tell you is: what you saw was motion
>of the CAMERA, not motion of the object. You see, NASA mission controllers
>leave the camera on during the "night", while the crew is asleep. The
>camera is then controlled from the ground, with a little joystick-type
>arrangement. If the mission controllers want to look over here, or
>over there, they just flip the lever, and the camera moves. And if
>some brain-dead UFOlogist just happens to be watching as the camera
>is turned away from a piece of ice, he says "Wow! Look at that baby
>accelerate!!!!!!"
>--
>
> Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - shea...@netcom.com
>
I saw this video too, and I would like to know: If the camera movement
caused the motion of the object, why is it that the only thing that moves
is the "ice"? From what I saw, the Earth remained completely motionless
in the background. Every camera pan I have ever seen has caused EVERYTHING
in the picture to move, not just a single object.
--
--
=====================================================================
Mike Pinto | If God had intended man to fly, he
pi...@rbdc.wsnc.org | wouldn't have put all the traction
| down here.
David M. Schiff
[lots of stuff deleted]
> I saw this video too, and I would like to know: If the camera movement
>caused the motion of the object, why is it that the only thing that moves
>is the "ice"? From what I saw, the Earth remained completely motionless
>in the background. Every camera pan I have ever seen has caused EVERYTHING
>in the picture to move, not just a single object.
I only saw the video very quickly on Hardcopy (I would'nt mind
seeing it again) and found the original Nasa explanation implausible,
but camera motion seems like it could explain a lot to me.
Keep in mind that all we could see were lit dots - no detail and no
sense of depth. That white blip could be an alien space ship (or artificial
satellite) which is 5000 miles away or it could be a small piece of ice
5 ft. away.
It has been proposed that camera movement could not account for the motion
of the white blip because the earth is seen to remain motionless in
the background while the blip changes but I wonder if this could be
explained in terms of the type of camera motion and the relative
distances of the blip and the earth. If the camera is translated
but not rotated the earth would not appear to move. For instance,
when you drive in a car at night and notice the moon apparently
following the car(because the rays are all hitting the car in a
parallel orientation). The moon will continue to do this until
the car changes direction by making a left or right turn.
On the other hand an object which is close to the car, such as
a street lamp (or a piece of light refecting ice in the current
situation) seems to have relative motion, due to its proximity
to the car (space shuttle).
Another crude observation which I believes supports this
explanation is the apparent fact (as I remember it :-)) that
the "missile" path seemed to be parallel to the "satellite"
path.
^
/ ^
/ /
/ /
/missile / satellite
As opposed to something like
^
/ \
/ \
/ \
missile / \ satellite
which could not be caused by a single motion of the camera.
In other words, it seems like the direction of motion of the camera
was suddenly changed.
Of course, if the camera was swiveled or in anyway rotated then it
seems like the "camera motion" explanation might not suffice.
It would help to know exactly how the camera was mounted and in what
ways it could have been manipulated by the ground controllers.
Does the above seem plausible?
I would be especially interested in the comments of those who have
a copy of the film (or the fellow who claims to have the secret but
clearer version).
Dave.
Steve Warren
>I spoke to James Oberg about this. He didn't know it had been on "Hard
>Copy", but he's quite familiar with the video. Apparently it's something
>Yes, it IS a piece of ice, floating in the payload bay of the shuttle
>Discovery. It's illuminated by the lights in the payload bay. But what
>your Trash TV program surely did not tell you is: what you saw was motion
>of the CAMERA, not motion of the object. You see, NASA mission controllers
> Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - shea...@netcom.com
>
> Past Chairman, The Bay Area Skeptics - for whom I speak only when authorized!
Hey, you skeptics make such a point of how quickly the True Believers
interpret events to confirm their point of view (a correct criticism,
BTW), but I don't see much difference between their approach and yours.
You eagerly embraced this explanation and proclaimed that it was true,
without ever having seen the actual footage in question. For shame.
If you had actually seen the video we are talking about you would have
realised that the explanation you proposed here is impossible. The
camera was aimed at the Earth the entire time and did not move at all.
It is much more likely that this was an advanced weapons test of some
kind, but of course NASA is not permitted to offer such an explanation.
--
_.
--Steve ._||__ Welcome to the World's First GaAs Supercomputer
Warren v\ *| -----------------------------------------------
V
Nick Eads
I'd like to see you use that explanation while *watching* the video. You
obviously have not seen the video in question, and what your honorable
friend has not explained to you about the "panning camera" theory is this:
The thing accelerates *away* from the camera. Get it? Not zooming left
nor zooming right, but slightly right and dimming into the distance. A
little quick trigonometry will show that it had a larger velocity
component (if the field of the video is taken as the x-y plane) in the -z
direction. Furthermore, the attitude of the earth WAS NOT CHANGING
during the time the "piece of ice" was in motion. I think you'd have to
concede that a camera pan would make this a most obvious giveaway.
And by the way, before you start calling what I watch "trash,"
and before you imply that I am a UFO trash junkie, let me say
that I have only seen that show twice in my life, and I don't care for
their journalistic methods. I am also one of the tried-and-true
UFO skeptics, as I have found too many faults in *every* UFO story I have
ever investigated in a little over 15 years. However this TV show happened
to show a piece of reputable film footage I have been unable to explain --
and I have looked for all the tell-tale signs. Listen, my friend, your
explanation doesn't wash. See for yourself sometime and show me your
verifiable disproof. Trust me, I will be glad if you do. As a fellow
skeptic, I just don't appreciate another skeptic sounding "high and
mighty" that they have the explanation when they themselves haven't even
tested their hypothesis on their own. Alas, it seems some skeptics are
just as illogical and unscientific as some of the believers.
--
*------------------------------*----------------------------------------------*
| Nick "The Cache" Eads | nrea...@starbase.spd.louisville.edu |
| EE Department *----------------------------------------------*
| University of Louisville | GEMail: N.EADS |
| Louisville, Kentucky 40292 | SciBoard (502-588-0864): Sysnick |
*------------------------------*----------------------------------------------*
| Don't blame me; the Illuminati are responsible for everything... |
*-----------------------------------------------------------------------------*
Drew Davidson
>In article <1992Jun9.0...@rbdc.wsnc.org> pi...@rbdc.wsnc.org (Mike Pinto) writes:
>[lots of stuff deleted]
>> I saw this video too, and I would like to know: If the camera movement
>>caused the motion of the object, why is it that the only thing that moves
>>is the "ice"? From what I saw, the Earth remained completely motionless
>>in the background. Every camera pan I have ever seen has caused EVERYTHING
>>in the picture to move, not just a single object.
>
>I only saw the video very quickly on Hardcopy (I would'nt mind
>seeing it again) and found the original Nasa explanation implausible,
>but camera motion seems like it could explain a lot to me.
>
>Keep in mind that all we could see were lit dots - no detail and no
>sense of depth. That white blip could be an alien space ship (or artificial
>satellite) which is 5000 miles away or it could be a small piece of ice
>5 ft. away.
Perhaps further analysis of the tape would reveal more -- like whether
or not the UFO appears to fly beneath dark clouds on the earth's
surface. After reviewing my tape of the program repeatedly, it seems
to me as if the brightness of the UFO changes somewhat occasionally --
and there are dark clouds visible in the earth's atmosphere. However,
my freeze frame is not sharp enough for any real analysis. Maybe if I
had a frame grabber and the original video. :-)
>[...] If the camera is translated
>but not rotated the earth would not appear to move.
True.
>Another crude observation which I believes supports this
>explanation is the apparent fact (as I remember it :-)) that
>the "missile" path seemed to be parallel to the "satellite"
>path.
>
>[diagrams deleted]
>
>which could not be caused by a single motion of the camera.
>In other words, it seems like the direction of motion of the camera
>was suddenly changed.
I have a copy of the video in question and can state categorically
that the motion of the UFO and the "missile" are not parallel. They
are in fact approximately 30 degrees away from parallel.
>It would help to know exactly how the camera was mounted and in what
>ways it could have been manipulated by the ground controllers.
Yes it would help quite a bit to know this. I would also like to
see all records of commands sent to the shuttle to move the camera.
Was it in motion during the incident, and if so how was it moving?
Surely NASA has records of this. What are they, just flying by the
seat of their pants up there?
>I would be especially interested in the comments of those who have
>a copy of the film (or the fellow who claims to have the secret but
>clearer version).
I taped Hard Copy so I have watched the video dozens of times. What
really irked me about their segment was that they didn't let the
video run long enough. They stopped the video before the UFO
completely disappeared -- it had become a dim streak. One time they
let it run a few seconds longer but it was on a monitor behind Don
Ecker. I would like to see the whole video, including any "secret"
versions. 8-)
Drew
--
Drew Davidson \\ HELP FULLY INFORM JURORS! TELL YOUR FRIENDS:
davi...@cs.unc.edu \\ As a juror, you have the right to vote NOT GUILTY
** LEGALIZE TRUTH ** \\ if you believe the law broken is unjust or wrongly
* FULLY INFORM JURORS * \\ applied, regardless of the facts of the case.
Crunchy Frog
>
>>Yes, it IS a piece of ice, floating in the payload bay of the shuttle
>>Discovery. It's illuminated by the lights in the payload bay. But what
>>your Trash TV program surely did not tell you is: what you saw was motion
>>of the CAMERA, not motion of the object. You see, NASA mission controllers
>>leave the camera on during the "night", while the crew is asleep. The
>>camera is then controlled from the ground, with a little joystick-type
>>arrangement. If the mission controllers want to look over here, or
>>over there, they just flip the lever, and the camera moves. And if
>>some brain-dead UFOlogist just happens to be watching as the camera
>>is turned away from a piece of ice, he says "Wow! Look at that baby
>>accelerate!!!!!!"
>>
>caused the motion of the object, why is it that the only thing that moves
>is the "ice"? From what I saw, the Earth remained completely motionless
>in the background. Every camera pan I have ever seen has caused EVERYTHING
>in the picture to move, not just a single object.
It would seem to me that if the background object is *very* far away,
and the camera doesn't rotate in following the object but actually
translates, then the background object (i.e. the Earth) wouldn't move
at all.
Consider this: Go outside and look at the sun when it is setting. It will
(one presumes) be west of you. Turn to watch somebody crossing your
field of view. The sun will shift in your field of view. Then, when
someone crosses your field of view, move with them. The sun will remain
west of you and since you are not changing the direction you are looking
it will appear to stay still.
Or am I missing something?
C Frog
Pierre Stromberg
>I did not see the footage in question, but for those of you who did, if it
>be obvious? The ice/ufo would remain stationary w.r.t. the horizon. I'd think
>a fast pan would be obvious since the scenery should move too. If there were
>no background to measure camera movement by, I'd be much more inclined to
>"write it off." So, could someone who saw the footage please comment on this?
Speaking as a skeptic, I did indeed see this footage too and it definitely
got my attention. The camera didn't make any sudden pans. The horizon was
clearly visible and remained motionless as the action took place. A physicist
colleague of mine asked what the shuttle's direction and velocity was in
relation to the object. It's possible that the object didn't turn a sharp
90 degrees but that it may have only seemed that way. This is a good question
that hasn't been clearly answered but it's interesting to note that the
unknown object also quickly accelerated right after it made it's sharp "turn".
I'm glad that I found this thread in sci.skeptic as I was planning on posting
an inquiry about this footage. It really bugged me.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-Pierre Stromberg Microsoft Corporation Redmond, Washington
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
uunet!microsoft!pierres pie...@microsoft.UUCP decvax!microsoft!pierres
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The road to Hell is paved with good intentions" - Samuel Johnson
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
!
Before i say anything let me admit that i haven't seen this UFO footage done by
shuttle.
But what i grab from other posters I have to make some comments about it,
no matter how ridiculous they may sound!
1) the alleged UFO was shot by a missle: who ever shot the missle should
have known that shuttle Endeavor was up there !!!! doing something!
So it can't be US government doing the shooting definitely, why would they
jeapordize their shuttle and crew !!
2) the alleged "ice" piece (if that's what it was) cannot accelerate on its
OWN and go into higher orbit than the shuttle itself!!
3) if indeed it was a UFO and it was shot by a missle and (what ever
happened to it)... by showing it on TV what purpose does the US government
or NASA was trying to serve??
4) recently, on CNN (after the Endeavor's mission) it was shown that some
floating debris hit the shuttle and cracked a tile (perhaps made a
big dent or mark) on one of its tiles....!!! is that any way connected
to this UFO incident recorded by the shuttle ??
5) note that there is so much space junk out there that we may expect to
encounter it as UFOs in the future
6) Any ideas about clearing and cleaning up this space deris/junk
happy ufoing
S.J. Morden
Okay, assume it's a lump of ice. A lump of ice in what? Space.
A lump of ice in space, in direct sunlight?
Assume yes.
Ice + photons = Ice + rapidly expanding vapour
Rapidly expanding vapour = mass loss + velocity = momentum =
movement.
If the ice was only a few feet away, it would move fairly briskly
wrt to camera.
Before you flame me to Gehenna and back, take a look at the Giotto
pictures of Halley's comet nucleus, and then tell me that ice is
nice 'n' stable in the inner solar system. Jetting, what jetting?
Shalom,
Simes
The milliamp is mightier than the sword! s.j.m...@uk.ac.newcastle
Anson Kennedy
>Just had to write in on this one! :-)
>Okay, assume it's a lump of ice. A lump of ice in what? Space.
>A lump of ice in space, in direct sunlight?
>Assume yes.
>Ice + photons = Ice + rapidly expanding vapour
>Rapidly expanding vapour = mass loss + velocity = momentum =
>movement.
>If the ice was only a few feet away, it would move fairly briskly
>wrt to camera.
You have saved me the trouble of having to bring up this description. It
seems plausible to me (I thought of it when a believer-friend sent me a
copy of what is supposed to be the full video).
--
Anson Kennedy
Secretary of the Georgia Skeptics (but don't even THINK I speak for them!)
"If I had been the Virgin Mary, I would have said 'No.'"
-Margaret "Stevie" Smith (1902-1971)
Don Allen
*yawn*...
As usual, Robert Sheaffer is all wet..here, have a towel and dry off :-)
The camera isn't moving. The object isn't "ice" and as usual, NASA
is covering their hind end.
Did Robert Sheaffer even *watch* the segment?? (I seriously doubt it..
what..a skeptic DO something like get off their backsides?? :-)
Wonder what lame excuse that Robert Sheaffer can give for "ice" performing
evasive manuever when the object ABRUPTLY changes course after it appears
to have been fired upon??
NOTE: BEFORE this video hit "Hard Copy" and was discussed and shown
by Don Ecker (A HECKUVA lot more credible person than Robert Sheaffer
in my opinion) it was shown back in April on the "ET Monitor" satellite
program. Someone wishing to verify this little factoid should do
some followup by contacting John Brandenburg.
Maybe NASA is getting a little tired of playing satellite "tag" with the
ATEK Reptillians, eh? :-)
Don
NSA KEYWORDS: AVIARY, OCELOT, FERRET, KIT GREEN, JOHN ALEXANDER, ED DAMES
--
-* Don Allen *- // Only | Tavistock + Esalen = "New Age"
Internet: do...@bilver.uucp \X/ Amiga | Rothschild + Rockefeller = FED
UUCP: .uunet!peora!bilver!vicstoy!dona | UN + Maitreya = "Twilight Zone"
"A democracy cannot be both ignorant and free" - Thomas Jefferson
lizard man
>
>Okay, assume it's a lump of ice. A lump of ice in what? Space.
>A lump of ice in space, in direct sunlight?
>Assume yes.
>Ice + photons = Ice + rapidly expanding vapour
>Rapidly expanding vapour = mass loss + velocity = momentum =
>movement.
>
>If the ice was only a few feet away, it would move fairly briskly
>wrt to camera.
It should be obvious to anybody that clouds of space debris of any kind
will contain particles exhibiting a variety of motions. Also, the
particles may come in a variety of shapes, sizes, and brightnesses --
i.e., many will not be visible to a camera.
My first reaction, while reading the account of the video, was that it
sounded like a description of some small particles bouncing around in
space. I at first thought that bits of metal or even paint flecks could
provide an explanation, but ice makes even more sense, since the surface
of the shuttle provides an ideal surface for such ice to form, either
before leaving the atmosphere, during jettisoning of liquid waste, or in
the cargo bay.
It would be simple for an easily-seen particle to bounce off of another
not-so-easily-seen particle; likewise, if you've ever dropped liquid
nitrogen or even dry ice in water or even on a tile floor, you
would understand that at temperatures like those found in space,
ice particles can very easily be expected to jet. Try dropping dry
ice in a skillet someday. The resulting motions are not simple.
As our colleague, (Mr.? Mrs.? Dr.? Ms.? check one) Morden points out, Ice in
space, even without direct sunlight, will sublime rapidly, enabling it to
self-propel. If the site of evaporation shifts (an almost certainty),
the ice particle may be expected to change direction.
--Brad Dalton
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Having worked in close contact with many of the members of the SETI
Project team (these are the people building radio telescopes so they can
search for evidence of extraterrestrials) I am sure that when some hard,
cold evidence of extraterrestrial life appears, these people will make
sure we know about it. Most of them have made the search for an answer
to the question of, "Are We Alone?" their life's goal, and pursue it
with the same passion certain medical researchers put toward finding a
cancer or AIDS cure. When there is hard evidence, whether it be microbes
on Mars, algae on Europa, microwave signals from Barnard's Star, it will
appear in the scientific literature.
SETI = "Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence"
To contact SETI, write:
SETI Institute
2035 Landings Drive
Mt. View, CA 94043
or FAX (415) 961-7099
But please don't bug them with crackpot ideas or stories from the
_Weekly World News_. These are serious people who take their work very
seriously. What you might do, however, is ask them to give a
presentation for you.....
----------------------------------------------------------------------
James Roger Black
Robert Sheaffer (shea...@netcom.com), the self-proclaimed "Scepticus
Maximus" writes:
|> I spoke to James Oberg about this. He didn't know it had been on "Hard
|> Copy", but he's quite familiar with the video. Apparently it's something
|> that some UFO enthusiast taped off the "NASA Select" cable channel late
|> one night, got excited, and flew off the handle. The far-out fringe of
|> UFOlogy has been promoting it ever since.
|>
|> Yes, it IS a piece of ice, floating in the payload bay of the shuttle
|> Discovery. It's illuminated by the lights in the payload bay. But what
|> your Trash TV program surely did not tell you is: what you saw was motion
|> of the CAMERA, not motion of the object. You see, NASA mission controllers
|> leave the camera on during the "night", while the crew is asleep. The
|> camera is then controlled from the ground, with a little joystick-type
|> arrangement. If the mission controllers want to look over here, or
|> over there, they just flip the lever, and the camera moves. And if
|> some brain-dead UFOlogist just happens to be watching as the camera
|> is turned away from a piece of ice, he says "Wow! Look at that baby
|> accelerate!!!!!!"
This is a textbook example of arrogant, uninformed, armchair
debunking. A "skeptic" who has not examined the evidence "explains"
the phenomenon in question by reference to the pronouncements of
another "skeptic" who, to put it as charitably as possible, also
doesn't know what he is talking about. The first "skeptic" (now
revealed as a garden-variety debunker) then proceeds to hurl abusive
epithets ("UFO enthusiast", "flew off the handle", "far-out fringe",
"Trash TV", "brain-dead UFOlogist") at his opponents.
As one who *has* viewed the video carefully and repeatedly, I can state
with some confidence that:
(1) There is no evidence that the objects in question are "floating
in the payload bay of the shuttle". They appear, in fact, to be
some distance away from the shuttle.
(2) There is no evidence that the apparent acceleration of the objects
is due to camera motion. In fact, the background (including the
earth horizon and what look to be stars) is quite stable throughout
the entire episode.
(3) There *is* evidence for both the right-angle change of direction by
one of the objects, and for the "shot from below" that streaks
across the screen near where the object had previously been.
Mr. Sheaffer offers no explanation for the latter, which is perhaps
the most striking element of the entire film.
If a "UFO believer" were to offer such a lame, inadequate, and wholly
unsupported statement of his position (especially with a heavy load of
invective and abuse sprinkled throughout for good measure), he would be
enthusiastically crucified by all the net.skeptics. I can't help but
notice that most of the big names in the net's skeptical community
are strangely silent in the face of Mr. Sheaffer's equally offensive
provocation from the other direction.
Just for the record, I do *not* believe that the video shows a flying
saucer being attacked by SDI, or anything of the sort. In fact, some
of the current discussion on ParaNet is leaning toward the hypothesis
that the objects are, in fact, just what NASA says they are--chunks of
waste ice, whose acceleration relative to the shuttle was due to a burst
from a shuttle thruster--and that the "shot from below" is most likely
either a scratch on the glass or, perhaps, a meteor.
If Mr. Sheaffer had bothered to watch "Trash TV" long enough to see
the video, he would most likely have noticed the bright flash of the
thruster from off-screen moments before the objects changed direction
and speed. But since he didn't, it falls to us gullible fools on
ParaNet to do his work for him. So the bottom line seems to be this:
The "believers" are acting like skeptics, and some (though, thankfully,
not all) of the "skeptics" are revealing themselves as believers in the
One True Religion of Debunk.
Any more, you can't tell the players without a scorecard.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Black jrb...@shemtaia.weeg.uiowa.edu
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Arromdee
>(2) There is no evidence that the apparent acceleration of the objects
> is due to camera motion. In fact, the background (including the
> earth horizon and what look to be stars) is quite stable throughout
> the entire episode.
You haven't been listening. It is quite possible for the objects to accelerate
due to camera motion, without the background becoming unstable. Moving
the camera will _not_ cause the background to move around.
--
Hi! Ani mutacia shel virus .signature. Ha`atek oti letoch .signature shelcha!
Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
INTERNET: arro...@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
Robert J Unglenieks
>In article <1992Jun11.0...@umaxc.weeg.uiowa.edu> jrb...@shemtaia.weeg.uiowa.edu (James Roger Black) writes:
>>(2) There is no evidence that the apparent acceleration of the objects
>> is due to camera motion. In fact, the background (including the
>> earth horizon and what look to be stars) is quite stable throughout
>> the entire episode.
>
>You haven't been listening. It is quite possible for the objects to accelerate
>due to camera motion, without the background becoming unstable. Moving
>the camera will _not_ cause the background to move around.
That assumes the camera translates while still observing the same point a
long way away from the orbiter. During the next STS mission, I suggest
EVERYONE watch NASA Select and see how the camera actually pans. Its
motion tends to be very quick and jerky. The only shot that seems to move
smoothly is from the manipulator arm, but just barely.
Rob U, I think it's ice that's sublimating
--
- Rob Unglenieks REAL race cars DON'T wear BOWTIES -
- "Now is the time when men work quietly in the fields and women -
- weep softly in the kitchen; the legislature is in session and -
- no man's property is safe." -Daniel Webster- -
Carl J Lydick
>As one who *has* viewed the video carefully and repeatedly, I can state
>with some confidence that:
>
>(1) There is no evidence that the objects in question are "floating
> in the payload bay of the shuttle". They appear, in fact, to be
> some distance away from the shuttle.
Just how did you determine distance from the shuttle? As I understand it,
you're making this judgement from a two-dimensional image recorded by a single
camera. So how did you judge distance? Without knowing the size of the
object, you can't use scale. Was the object occluded or did it occlude some
other, known object? If not, then just what IS your basis for claiming that
the objects are "some distance away from the shuttle"?
>(2) There is no evidence that the apparent acceleration of the objects
> is due to camera motion. In fact, the background (including the
> earth horizon and what look to be stars) is quite stable throughout
> the entire episode.
Was any part of the shuttle bay visible in the pictures? If not, then as has
already been pointed out, a translation of the camera would not be discernable
by looking at the positions of the earth horizon and the stars.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CA...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL
Disclaimer: Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS. That's what I get paid for. My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below). So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it. If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
Gerry Roston
1- tv is a 2D device. Given that the object in quesiton is a point
source (in this case it would seem to be a small, featureless object),
determining its motion in 3 space is "impossible", especially since
there are no points of reference. There is no way to tell if the
thing moved directly away from the camera or if it simply
"evaporated".
2- Even assuming that the object is not a piece of ice as claimed, why
must it therefor be and ET space craft?
--
Gerry Roston (ge...@cmu.edu) | Question with boldness even the existance
Field Robotics Center, | of God; because if there be one, He must
Carnegie Mellon University | more approve of the homage of reason, than
Pittsburgh, PA, 15213 | that of blindfold fear. Thomas Jefferson
(412) 268-3856 |
|
The opinions expressed are mine |
and do not reflect the official |
position of CMU, FRC, RedZone, |
or any other organization. |
Pete Hardie
w/r/t the 'UFO' being 'shot at' by someone on Earth, has anyone done the
velocity calculations that would show how fast this 'missile' would have
been going, had it been a surface-based one?
I'll wager that it would have to move faster than anything we have now, which
makes it likely the images were lens flares from some reflection off another
piece of shuttle hardware that was rotating.
--
Pete Hardie: phardie@nastar (voice) (404) 497-0101
Digital Transmission Systems, Inc., Duluth GA
Member, DTS Dart Team | cat * | egrep -v "signature virus|infection"
Position: Goalie |
!
>>(2) There is no evidence that the apparent acceleration of the objects
>> is due to camera motion. In fact, the background (including the
>> earth horizon and what look to be stars) is quite stable throughout
>> the entire episode.
>
>You haven't been listening. It is quite possible for the objects to accelerate
>due to camera motion, without the background becoming unstable. Moving
>the camera will _not_ cause the background to move around.
>--
Folks there is a very simple test for checking if the camera was moving or not!
If the object under discussion (ice/ufo/whatever) has its image smeared then
one can be sure that camera has moved, because if the relative velocities of
the object and camera are changing then camera needs time to focus on the
object, untill that happens the image is smeared in the opposite direction
of the motion of camera...!!
Since I haven't seen this video i can't say any thing for sure, could some one
please check once more and look these smearing effects on the object or the
background (payload bay or horizon).
thanks.
Carl J Lydick
>Since I haven't seen this video i can't say any thing for sure, could some one
>please check once more and look these smearing effects on the object or the
>background (payload bay or horizon).
Unless you're saturating the camera, you don't see that sort of smearing. If
the object smears, it could just as well be due to motion of the object as to
motion of the camera. As has been pointed out before, a translation of the
camera will not change the apparent position of something as far away as the
earth. I've already asked whether any part of the payload bay was visible in
the image, though the discussion thus far leads me to believe that no part of
the payload bay was visible. Thus your argument doesn't apply here.
Bob Garwood
To further complicate things - the light source may have been attached to the
camera or otherwise accompany the camera on whatever motion it goes
through (I don't know if it was, someone who knows these sorts of
details about the shuttle camera system should chime in here).
IF the light source might have been attached to the camera, then the
apparent motion of the object due to translation of the camera would
be more complicated in that the brightening or dimming of a nearby object
might appear as if the object were moving even more than simple camera
motion would cause.
The bottom line, though, is that if have no idea what the camera did
and you have no known reference point near the camera (i.e. near enough
that paralax caused by the translation of the camera is noticable) then
you have absolutely no way of knowing which moved, the camera or
the object. Two or more moving objects in the same field of view at
the same time seem to be needed to begin to rule out camera motion.
And finally, if you don't know the size of the object you can't
determine its size from a television screen unless there is some other
object of known size that is known to be near the object of
unknown size.
Bob Garwood
--
Robert Sheaffer
AFTER it has already been broadcast!
That advice might have been useful BEFORE the broadcast, not afterward. You
tell me in advance when it will be on, and I'll be GLAD to look at your
so-called "evidence".
A hint: TV shows seen in the Eastern time zone are seen three hours later
in the Pacific time zone. Even if you DON'T know in advance when some
great "evidence" will be shown, that still gives you 3 hours to alert
those of us on the West coast, from the moment you see it. That's more
than enough time for a phone call, or an email note, or even (in many
cases) a posting to Usenet. Then we can study the tape, and send it
off to someone if necessary.
Some characters have been touting a "NASA UFO" video that shows ice
crystals for some time now. Maybe this one is different. You, too,
can make your own "NASA UFO video". Just turn your VCR to the "NASA
select" channel on the cable during the next shuttle mission, and
stick in an 8-hour tape when you go to bed. Scan it in fast-forward
mode the next day. As soon as you see something you don't understand,
you have found a UFO. Immediately fly off the handle. Send it to
"Hard COpy", and demand an immediate end to the NASA coverup!
Steve Warren
>I'll wager that it would have to move faster than anything we have now, which
>makes it likely the images were lens flares from some reflection off another
>piece of shuttle hardware that was rotating.
Try "faster than anything that has been published."
You might be amazed at the things we can do that no one knows about.
Brian 'Rev P-K' Siano
You know, during this thread, everyone talks about how they saw this
'beam' seem to strike at the unidentified object. Now, I haven't seen the
video, but I wonder why this 'beam' is visible in the vacuum of space.
I'd better explain. Imagine that you're shining a narrow-beam
flashlight from the ceiling to the floor in a dark room. You can easily see
the spot of light on the floor, but the ONLY way you can see the actual
'beam' is if there's some dust in the air to reflect light.
Now, I might be completely wrong here, but in the vacuum of space, it
seems to me that you wouldn't be able to see any beam at all, because there's
no dust motes for it to bounce off of.
However, there is one place where you do see energy beams-- in movies
like "Star Wars" where they can animate the damn beams andmake them look at
glowy and powerful and stuff.
I'm certain there are people here who are a bit more familiar with
how any sort of 'energy beam' might behave in a vacuum, who might show me
where I'm wrong. If I'm wrong, I'll admit it; but from what I've seen, even
_lasers_ (the kind they use at rock shows and SF cons) don't show up unless
there's some dust or smoke in the air. Let alone X-rays or the forces used in
an MRI.
But all this talk of seeing a 'beam' in space just makes me more
suspicious.
(By the way, Phil Klass once delivered a lecture about Ed Walters's
UFO photos. In one photo, what was described as a 'beam of blue light' from
the saucer looked to me to be lens flare-- especially since the blue light
came down from the saucer, to the ground, and then further down the photo to
the lower edge of the plate. But a LOT of UFO fans saw this as a 'ray of blue
light' that the saucer emitted.)
Brian "Rev. P-K" Siano re...@cellar.org
New Sig File Under Construction-- Light and Compact for your Usenet Pleasure.
"The recent problem with the satellite retrieval managed to prove one thing;
DeVries graduates really _do_ work for NASA."
Brian 'Rev P-K' Siano
>
> I'd like to see you use that explanation while *watching* the video. You
> obviously have not seen the video in question, and what your honorable
> friend has not explained to you about the "panning camera" theory is this:
> The thing accelerates *away* from the camera. Get it? Not zooming left
> nor zooming right, but slightly right and dimming into the distance. A
> little quick trigonometry will show that it had a larger velocity
> component (if the field of the video is taken as the x-y plane) in the -z
> direction. Furthermore, the attitude of the earth WAS NOT CHANGING
> during the time the "piece of ice" was in motion. I think you'd have to
> concede that a camera pan would make this a most obvious giveaway.
>
the NASA UFO tape is probably something really mundane. Why? Because of the
absolute certainty the above writer has of what the tape shows. I'll explain
why.
He says that the tape shows the thing accelerating away from the
camera. He bases this on a TV camera's image that offers little in the way of
depth perception. What he does see is something moving to the right, and
dimming-- 'into the distance' is an _inference_. I have a screen saver for my
IBM that has stars coming at the viewer-- the stars move away from the
center, and grow brighter as they move toward the edges, providing a nice
illusion of 'depth.' This object may have grown dimmer in the camera's view,
and provided an illusion of moving away.
Similarly, the behavior of this alleged object seems to mimic the
sort of motion we see in science fiction movies and TV shows. As nifty as it
looks on "Star Trek," motion of spaceships relative to each other doesn't
look like that. (Remember the battle scenes in 'Star Wars?' Those ships
couldn't be that close to each other at that speed, or pull off those
maneuvers in a vacuum.) But that's what we're used to seeing, so video SF has
to give it a 'realistic' feel-- but it's a misplaced realism.
This NASA video sounds more and more like a small anomaly-- maybe Jim
Oberg's piece of ice, maybe a scratch on the lens catching the sunlight, I
dunno-- than it does any actual spaceships.
Steve Warren
>
> You know, during this thread, everyone talks about how they saw this
>'beam' seem to strike at the unidentified object. Now, I haven't seen the
>video, but I wonder why this 'beam' is visible in the vacuum of space.
No, this is the first mention of a "beam" I've seen. There was no beam.
It was an object, similar to the first object. It appears to lift off
from earth and rapidly accelerate to cross the path of the first object
about 0.5 sec. after the first object changes directions.
I have the video on tape at home.
Marcy Weibe
typing on my wife's message board.
My name is Edward Weibe and I work as a Contractor for NASA at GSFC.
NASA Select is run by Allied-Bendix for NASA.
Grant Edwards
:
: 2- Even assuming that the object is not a piece of ice as claimed, why
: must it therefor be and ET space craft?
No, no, you've got it mixed up -- it is a piece of ice AND an ET space
craft. They are built by hyper-intelligent microscopic creatures.
The center of the chunk of ice is actually liquid, and this is where
the crew lives. Its power source is a _very_ small nuclear fusion
device that vaporizes bits of the hull of the craft to provide
propulsion. Thanks to the crew being supported in a non-compressable
liquid they can withstand very high accelerations.
They were trying to take over the Earth, but have been driven off by
the ferocious and savage zooplankton that inhabit the water of Earth.
They were particulary interested in Earth because the zooplankton had
apparently bred and trained large land-based creatures for the purpose
of extracting phosphorus and other minerals from the land-based
deposits and providing it as food for the algae and other food crops
raised by the zooplankton.
--
Grant Edwards |Yow! Th' MIND is the Pizza
Rosemount Inc. |Palace of th' SOUL
|
gra...@aquarius.rosemount.com |
Anson Kennedy
>In article <kPR9LB...@cellar.org> re...@cellar.org (Brian 'Rev P-K' Siano) writes:
>>
>> You know, during this thread, everyone talks about how they saw this
>>'beam' seem to strike at the unidentified object. Now, I haven't seen the
>>video, but I wonder why this 'beam' is visible in the vacuum of space.
>No, this is the first mention of a "beam" I've seen. There was no beam.
>It was an object, similar to the first object. It appears to lift off
>from earth and rapidly accelerate to cross the path of the first object
>about 0.5 sec. after the first object changes directions.
Bad assumption. You can't tell *where* the "beam" or "object" or whatever
originates from. The Earth below all this "Star Wars" spectacle is heavily
clouded. Saying it "appears to lift off from earth" is just innacurate.
BTW, I have heard quite a few people refer to it as a "beam" (although not
necessarily in *this* newsgroup).
>I have the video on tape at home.
Are you offering to make Brian a copy? :-)
Nick Eads
> You know, during this thread, everyone talks about how they saw this
>'beam' seem to strike at the unidentified object. Now, I haven't seen the
>video, but I wonder why this 'beam' is visible in the vacuum of space.
> I'd better explain. Imagine that you're shining a narrow-beam
>flashlight from the ceiling to the floor in a dark room. You can easily see
>the spot of light on the floor, but the ONLY way you can see the actual
>'beam' is if there's some dust in the air to reflect light.
> Now, I might be completely wrong here, but in the vacuum of space, it
>seems to me that you wouldn't be able to see any beam at all, because there's
>no dust motes for it to bounce off of.
Agreed. However, very *few* people, if any, have stated that they saw a
"beam" of light. I referred to it as a streak in my original post (I believe).
In fact, it appeared to me that the majority of the people thought it was some
sort of missile. If it appeared as a beam, I would definitely be inclined to
agree with you. Just wanted to clarify things a bit...
--
*------------------------------*----------------------------------------------*
| Nick "The Cache" Eads | nrea...@starbase.spd.louisville.edu |
| EE Department *----------------------------------------------*
| University of Louisville | GEMail: N.EADS |
| Louisville, Kentucky 40292 | SciBoard (502-588-0864): Sysnick |
*------------------------------*----------------------------------------------*
| Don't blame me; the Illuminati are responsible for everything... |
*-----------------------------------------------------------------------------*
Nick Eads
>Yes, it's fun to say "why don't you head-in-the-sand skeptics watch this"
>AFTER it has already been broadcast!
>That advice might have been useful BEFORE the broadcast, not afterward. You
>tell me in advance when it will be on, and I'll be GLAD to look at your
>so-called "evidence".
>A hint: TV shows seen in the Eastern time zone are seen three hours later
>in the Pacific time zone. Even if you DON'T know in advance when some
>great "evidence" will be shown, that still gives you 3 hours to alert
>those of us on the West coast, from the moment you see it. That's more
>than enough time for a phone call, or an email note, or even (in many
>cases) a posting to Usenet. Then we can study the tape, and send it
>off to someone if necessary.
[deleted material]
For your information, I posted my original message about the
Hard Copy episode a mere 10 minutes after it went off the air here in
the Eastern time zone. Isn't that enough time for you?
I am not going to get into an insulting match
with you, but I find that you have little to *no* respect for the
posters alt.alien.visitors regardless of their believer/disbeliever
affiliation. Why must you whine all the time? People like you give the
rest of us more methodical and openminded skeptics a bad reputation, and
I almost no longer wish to call myself a skeptic because of your rude
and patronizing tone. Do you *always* expect to not have to do *any*
research on your own? Grow up and do some real investigation before
you get flamed to purgatory and back by any more *real* skeptics.
Pete Hardie
>In article <1992Jun11.1...@nastar.uucp> pha...@nastar.uucp (Pete Hardie) writes:
>>I'll wager that it would have to move faster than anything we have now, which
>>makes it likely the images were lens flares from some reflection off another
>>piece of shuttle hardware that was rotating.
>
>Try "faster than anything that has been published."
>
>You might be amazed at the things we can do that no one knows about.
I assume that you mean "no one in the public knows about"....or do we have
sleepwalking research laps? :->
Still, the point I'm trying to make is that I doubt we have anything that will
go from ground to orbit in less than 15 minutes. That rules out the second
image on the film in question being anything material (or else it's from
ANOTHER alien craft....NOT!)
I vote for lens flare from an off-camera light source that was moving.
Nick Eads
>nrea...@starbase.spd.louisville.edu (Nick Eads) writes:
>>
>> I'd like to see you use that explanation while *watching* the video. You
>> obviously have not seen the video in question, and what your honorable
>> friend has not explained to you about the "panning camera" theory is this:
>> The thing accelerates *away* from the camera. Get it? Not zooming left
>> nor zooming right, but slightly right and dimming into the distance. A
>> little quick trigonometry will show that it had a larger velocity
>> component (if the field of the video is taken as the x-y plane) in the -z
>> direction. Furthermore, the attitude of the earth WAS NOT CHANGING
>> during the time the "piece of ice" was in motion. I think you'd have to
>> concede that a camera pan would make this a most obvious giveaway.
>>
> You know, the more I see posts like this, the more certain I am that
>the NASA UFO tape is probably something really mundane. Why? Because of the
>absolute certainty the above writer has of what the tape shows. I'll explain
>why.
> He says that the tape shows the thing accelerating away from the
>camera. He bases this on a TV camera's image that offers little in the way of
>depth perception. What he does see is something moving to the right, and
>dimming-- 'into the distance' is an _inference_. I have a screen saver for my
>IBM that has stars coming at the viewer-- the stars move away from the
>center, and grow brighter as they move toward the edges, providing a nice
>illusion of 'depth.' This object may have grown dimmer in the camera's view,
>and provided an illusion of moving away.
Fine. I concede that it is an inference; it was never meant to be more than
that. But how do you expect me to describe the *apparent* behavior of the
object with respect to the camera if I cannot use exact terms? My purpose in
posting that message was to clarify that the object in question exhibited
behavior that I felt was not caused by camera motion, so I detailed
exactly what motion seemed to apparently contradict the camera motion theory.
Am I certain that was the *apparent* behavior of the object? Yes. Am I
sure that it was the *actual* behavior of the object? No way.
> Similarly, the behavior of this alleged object seems to mimic the
>sort of motion we see in science fiction movies and TV shows. As nifty as it
>looks on "Star Trek," motion of spaceships relative to each other doesn't
>look like that. (Remember the battle scenes in 'Star Wars?' Those ships
>couldn't be that close to each other at that speed, or pull off those
>maneuvers in a vacuum.) But that's what we're used to seeing, so video SF has
>to give it a 'realistic' feel-- but it's a misplaced realism.
[material deleted]
What sort of motion? Your post is really unclear on this point. What is
this object (not alleged object -- I think you meant alleged *behavior* of
the object) doing "relative to another spaceship" that is similar to these
movies/TV shows? You mentioned the Star Wars scene, but this object was
apparently (and I emphasize to you all once again APPARENTLY) at a large
distance from the space shuttle. Could you please elaborate on the
correlation so that I can understand? Thanks.
Steve Warren
>In article <1992Jun11.2...@news.eng.convex.com> swa...@convex.com (Steve Warren) writes:
>>In article <1992Jun11.1...@nastar.uucp> pha...@nastar.uucp (Pete Hardie) writes:
>Still, the point I'm trying to make is that I doubt we have anything that will
>go from ground to orbit in less than 15 minutes.
That is a rather meaningless statement. You can orbit earth at any altitude
that clears the mountains. ;^)
Seriously, what altitude are you talking about? The shuttle only achieves
low earth-orbit, and these objects were apparently maneuvering at a fraction
of the shuttle's altitude.
Anyway, we (the USA) have had hyper-accelerationg rockets for 30 years.
We tried to build ICBM interceptors back in the early 70's, and one of
them (I wish I could remember what it was called - it looks like a strange
fat cone, not like a normal rocket - I saw it on a documentary about SDI)
was really fast. I saw a film of one taking off, and it literally
disappeared straight up almost instantly. I mean that thing was gone.
> That rules out the second
>image on the film in question being anything material (or else it's from
>ANOTHER alien craft....NOT!)
Yep. We couldn't possibly have improved on what was available in 1970,
could we? I mean, the Pentagon would tell everyone if we could make
anything go that fast, right? I'm sure you are correct. If it isn't
published, it doesn't exist.
Steve Warren
>Bad assumption. You can't tell *where* the "beam" or "object" or whatever
>originates from. The Earth below all this "Star Wars" spectacle is heavily
>clouded. Saying it "appears to lift off from earth" is just innacurate.
No it's not. Saying "it lifts off from the earth" is a bad assumption.
Saying "it appears to lift off from the earth" is not innacurate, but
rather a statement of fact.
Appearances can be deceiving, but appearances are what they are.
Carl J Lydick
>Still, the point I'm trying to make is that I doubt we have anything that will
>go from ground to orbit in less than 15 minutes. That rules out the second
>image on the film in question being anything material (or else it's from
>ANOTHER alien craft....NOT!)
I thought the travel time for an ICBM was somewhere around 20 minutes. They
don't go into orbit, but only because they don't make the necessary course
correction at apogee. That'd be ground to orbit in something like 10 minutes.
Carl J Lydick
>Fine. I concede that it is an inference; it was never meant to be more than
>that. But how do you expect me to describe the *apparent* behavior of the
>object with respect to the camera if I cannot use exact terms?
Describe what you saw on your television screen. "The object moved in
such-and-such a direction" (where direction is confined to the two dimensions of
your television screen), "The object got dimmer [or brighter]," and, if the
object was large enough to show a disk on your television screen, "The disk of
the object got smaller [or larger]."
>My purpose in
>posting that message was to clarify that the object in question exhibited
>behavior that I felt was not caused by camera motion, so I detailed
>exactly what motion seemed to apparently contradict the camera motion theory.
No, you posted your interpretation of the motion, not what you actually saw.
>Am I certain that was the *apparent* behavior of the object? Yes. Am I
>sure that it was the *actual* behavior of the object? No way.
>What sort of motion? Your post is really unclear on this point. What is
>this object (not alleged object -- I think you meant alleged *behavior* of
>the object) doing "relative to another spaceship" that is similar to these
>movies/TV shows? You mentioned the Star Wars scene, but this object was
>apparently (and I emphasize to you all once again APPARENTLY) at a large
>distance from the space shuttle.
In what sense was it "apparently" at a large distance from the space shuttle?
What is it about what you saw that makes you perceive it as being distant from
the shuttle? Why continue to give us your INTERPRETATIONS of what you saw
rather than a simple description of what you saw?
Carl J Lydick
>In article <z5cl06=.an...@netcom.com> an...@netcom.com (Anson Kennedy) writes:
>>Bad assumption. You can't tell *where* the "beam" or "object" or whatever
>>originates from. The Earth below all this "Star Wars" spectacle is heavily
>>clouded. Saying it "appears to lift off from earth" is just innacurate.
>
>No it's not. Saying "it lifts off from the earth" is a bad assumption.
>Saying "it appears to lift off from the earth" is not innacurate, but
>rather a statement of fact.
You're right. It's not inaccurate. It's imprecise. Presumably he has reasons
for thinking that it looked like it lifted off from the earth. It would be
reasonable to expect him to give those reasons rather than the rather vague "it
appears to lift off from earth."
Gerry Roston
Anyway, we (the USA) have had hyper-accelerationg rockets for 30 years.
We tried to build ICBM interceptors back in the early 70's, and one of
them (I wish I could remember what it was called - it looks like a strange
fat cone, not like a normal rocket - I saw it on a documentary about SDI)
was really fast. I saw a film of one taking off, and it literally
disappeared straight up almost instantly. I mean that thing was gone.
True. These were the "Sprint" rockets (I believe). They had launch
accelerations of > 30 g's. However, if you doe some simple math, you
will find that their achievable atlitude must have been quite low.
Remember, they were intended to hit incoming ICBM's.
--
Gerry Roston (ge...@cmu.edu) | From whence, then, could arise the solitary
Field Robotics Center, | and strange conceit that the Almighty, who
Carnegie Mellon University | had millions of worlds equally dependent on
Pittsburgh, PA, 15213 | His protection, should quit the care of all
(412) 268-3856 | the rest, and come to die in our world,
| because, they say, one man and one woman
The opinions expressed are mine | had eaten an apple? Thomas Paine
Pete Hardie
>>>In article <1992Jun11.1...@nastar.uucp> pha...@nastar.uucp (Pete Hardie) writes:
>>Still, the point I'm trying to make is that I doubt we have anything that will
>>go from ground to orbit in less than 15 minutes.
>
>That is a rather meaningless statement. You can orbit earth at any altitude
>that clears the mountains. ;^)
True. But what is the height of orbit that visually clears the 'horizon'
visible from the Shuttle in the video under discussion?
>Seriously, what altitude are you talking about? The shuttle only achieves
>low earth-orbit, and these objects were apparently maneuvering at a fraction
>of the shuttle's altitude.
How much of a fraction? Half? 3/4?
It's still a considerable distance. And the flight time to that height is
unlikely to be measured in the small tens of seconds for this tape scene to
match it.
>Yep. We couldn't possibly have improved on what was available in 1970,
>could we? I mean, the Pentagon would tell everyone if we could make
>anything go that fast, right? I'm sure you are correct. If it isn't
>published, it doesn't exist.
Straw man. Such a missile would be
a) obvious at launch - trans-sonic flight, straight up is not subtle
b) used more often for satellite launches. Nothing that good would be
used just for scaring off a few 'alien ships'
c) published by the Soviet intelligence to embarass the USA at strategic
arms talks.
Sure, the govt has secrets. But it's a far leap to go from Classified info
to certainity of aliens.
R. Kym Horsell
>Such a missile would be
>a) obvious at launch - trans-sonic flight, straight up is not subtle
Not necessarily. The shockwave of a vertically rising vehicle may not
intersect the ground.
>b) used more often for satellite launches. Nothing that good would be
> used just for scaring off a few 'alien ships'
Not necessarily. Neither ground-to-air nor ``sounding'' rockets can
launch satellites.
>c) published by the Soviet intelligence to embarass the USA at strategic
> arms talks.
Not necessarily. The vehicle may not carry nukes.
-kym
Steve Warren
>>>>In article <1992Jun11.1...@nastar.uucp> pha...@nastar.uucp (Pete Hardie) writes:
>>>Still, the point I'm trying to make is that I doubt we have anything that will
>>>go from ground to orbit in less than 15 minutes.
>Straw man. Such a missile would be
>b) used more often for satellite launches. Nothing that good would be
> used just for scaring off a few 'alien ships'
>Sure, the govt has secrets. But it's a far leap to go from Classified info
>to certainity of aliens.
Now who is erecting a straw man?
I never suggested aliens. In fact, if you read my note which Pete
originally responded to, you'll see that what I had suggested was
simply that it was *more*likely* that this was a secret weapons test
than that there were ETs being shot at. I did not even suggest that
the weapons test scenario was the most plausible explanation - merely
that it was more likely than the ET explanation.
Do you disagree?
Richard Wilbur
|> >In article <1992Jun11.1...@nastar.uucp> pha...@nastar.uucp (Pete Hardie) writes:
|> >>I'll wager that it would have to move faster than anything we have now, which
|> >>makes it likely the images were lens flares from some reflection off another
|> >>piece of shuttle hardware that was rotating.
|> >
|> >Try "faster than anything that has been published."
|> >
|> >You might be amazed at the things we can do that no one knows about.
[STUFF DELETED]
|>
|> Still, the point I'm trying to make is that I doubt we have anything that will
|> go from ground to orbit in less than 15 minutes. That rules out the second
^^^^^^^^^^^
===============> OK, HOW ARE YOU CALCULATING THIS FIGURE OF 15 MINS??!!
WHO'S SAYING THAT IT TOOK *ANY* AMOUNT OF TIME !!??
|> image on the film in question being anything material (or else it's from
|> ANOTHER alien craft....NOT!)
|>
|> I vote for lens flare from an off-camera light source that was moving.
|>
|> --
|> Pete Hardie: phardie@nastar (voice) (404) 497-0101
|> Digital Transmission Systems, Inc., Duluth GA
|> Member, DTS Dart Team | cat * | egrep -v "signature virus|infection"
|> Position: Goalie |
BRICK
Nick Eads
>In article <nreads01....@starbase.spd.louisville.edu>, nrea...@sirius.spd.louisville.edu (Nick Eads) writes:
>>Fine. I concede that it is an inference; it was never meant to be more than
>>that. But how do you expect me to describe the *apparent* behavior of the
>>object with respect to the camera if I cannot use exact terms?
>Describe what you saw on your television screen. "The object moved in
>such-and-such a direction" (where direction is confined to the two dimensions of
>your television screen), "The object got dimmer [or brighter]," and, if the
>object was large enough to show a disk on your television screen, "The disk of
>the object got smaller [or larger]."
Perhaps I am not making my purpose clear to you. I am describing *apparent*
behavior because it *apparently* contradicts the camera motion theory. Since
there are several messages detailing the exact 2D movements and luminosity
of the object, it would be fruitless to reiterate. In other words,
someone proposed a hypothesis to explain the object on the tape. I therefore
described the exact aspects of its apparent behavior because it gives
everyone something to prove. Is the apparent behavior the correct behavior?
And if it is the correct behavior, it contradicts the camera theory. Unless
someone proposed the apparent behavior, what would there be to prove or
disprove? A true scientist weighs exact facts against apparent facts
because the apparent facts give him a place to start.
>>My purpose in
>>posting that message was to clarify that the object in question exhibited
>>behavior that I felt was not caused by camera motion, so I detailed
>>exactly what motion seemed to apparently contradict the camera motion theory.
>No, you posted your interpretation of the motion, not what you actually saw.
Incorrect; the motion I detailed is what I saw. Sure, you can get precise
and say it is my brain's interpretation of what I see, but what is the
point of arguing over when the actual interpretation takes place? Besides,
I am tired of putting conditionals throughout my posts, and I am sure
everyone is sick of reading them: apparently, seemingly, and all the rest.
And certainly the lack of such words will invariably be the first thing
that many posters will use as weapons. That entire
message should be preceded by a disclaimer: when in doubt, stick an
apparently in front and take it with a grain of salt. Since this is
a poor medium for conveying ideas, I think it is the only way to achieve
anything without becoming bogged down in what really is frivolous detail.
>>Am I certain that was the *apparent* behavior of the object? Yes. Am I
>>sure that it was the *actual* behavior of the object? No way.
>>What sort of motion? Your post is really unclear on this point. What is
>>this object (not alleged object -- I think you meant alleged *behavior* of
>>the object) doing "relative to another spaceship" that is similar to these
>>movies/TV shows? You mentioned the Star Wars scene, but this object was
>>apparently (and I emphasize to you all once again APPARENTLY) at a large
>>distance from the space shuttle.
>In what sense was it "apparently" at a large distance from the space shuttle?
>What is it about what you saw that makes you perceive it as being distant from
>the shuttle? Why continue to give us your INTERPRETATIONS of what you saw
>rather than a simple description of what you saw?
You've got me here. I don't know how in the world I am supposed to tell
you how something looks far away: in the normal way, I guess? This is
definitely not a flame, so please don't take it as such; it is the only
answer that comes to mind. It is small, and it dims to nothingness; hence,
it looks far away. As for posting my interpretations, I feel I answered that
sufficiently above. There already are enough "simple descriptions." If
you have any more questions, go right ahead...
Carl J Lydick
>Straw man. Such a missile would be
>a) obvious at launch - trans-sonic flight, straight up is not subtle
Depends on how long it takes it to go trans-sonic.
>b) used more often for satellite launches. Nothing that good would be
> used just for scaring off a few 'alien ships'
This doesn't follow at all. There's the question of payload capacity.
Brian 'Rev P-K' Siano
>
> For your information, I posted my original message about the
> Hard Copy episode a mere 10 minutes after it went off the air here in
> the Eastern time zone. Isn't that enough time for you?
Uh, I didn't see ANY message on this videotape until at least three
days after it had aired-- and I live on the east coast too. The Internet is
just not very efficient in some respects. In fact, I'm responding to this
message on June 15th, and it's originally dated June 12th, according to the
header.
>
> I am not going to get into an insulting match
> with you, but I find that you have little to *no* respect for the
> posters alt.alien.visitors regardless of their believer/disbeliever
> affiliation. Why must you whine all the time? People like you give the
> rest of us more methodical and openminded skeptics a bad reputation, and
> I almost no longer wish to call myself a skeptic because of your rude
> and patronizing tone. Do you *always* expect to not have to do *any*
> research on your own? Grow up and do some real investigation before
> you get flamed to purgatory and back by any more *real* skeptics.
As far as UFOs go, some of the skeptics here _have_ done some real
investigation.
Ross MacGregor
and upload the files (GIF,IFF etc) somewhere. Im sure a few of us would like
to have a look. Anyone with an Amiga/DCTV/VCR could do it.
A picture is worth a 1000 arguments
-ross
Bruce Carlson
I saw the video and to me it looked like a space defense
systems test. The object started to stream off particles just
before it moved radicaly and after it did. It didn't look like
any sort of thruster as the material was being spead out over a
wide area. The streak that came after it could have been a
booster. Maybe it was a satellite that was hit by an energy
weapon launched by rocket (don't laugh there are 'Star Wars'
plans of this type). The (laser, maser, etc.) hits the satellite
with enough energy to blind it's optics, material is boiled off
the surface, and a fuel tank ruptures making the satellite
move off it path at a radical angle. Then the booster comes by.
Does anyone know when the footage was taken? Over what area?
SCOTT I CHASE
>
> I saw the video and to me it looked like a space defense
>systems test. The object started to stream off particles just
How many space defense systems tests have you previously witnessed from low
Earth orbit? How can you possibly make this claim if you have not ever
seen a space defense systems test?
-Scott
--------------------
Scott I. Chase "The question seems to be of such a character
SIC...@CSA2.LBL.GOV that if I should come to life after my death
and some mathematician were to tell me that it
had been definitely settled, I think I would
immediately drop dead again." - Vandiver
Mike Harris
|> In article <kPR9LB...@cellar.org> re...@cellar.org (Brian 'Rev P-K' Siano) writes:
|> No, this is the first mention of a "beam" I've seen. There was no beam.
|> It was an object, similar to the first object. It appears to lift off
|> from earth and rapidly accelerate to cross the path of the first object
|> about 0.5 sec. after the first object changes directions.
I have connections and they told me over a few beers that they
were trying to shoot down the ship. 'said they almost shot down
the shuttle in their haste. Good thing they didn't.