More NASA UFO's?

[Hazzard]

Which science? Whose science? The institutional science or common sense science. The two are not necessarily the same.

Common sense science?? Im not sure what that is,... "Whos science",... No wonder you have a problem with reality and factual information.

No, Im talking about the Scientific method.

A body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

[zoser]

Common sense science?? Im not sure what that is,... "Whos science",... No wonder you have a problem with reality and factual information.

No, Im talking about the Scientific method.

A body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.

http://en.wikipedia....ientific_method

Ah in that case you will be far less likely to succeed.

[zoser]

More curious footage that shows the large circular objects. Appearing, moving and staying in a fixed position. How is this explained? What are they?

[Sweetpumper]

That's a scan of someone's stomach after eating pop rocks.

[zoser]

That's a scan of someone's stomach after eating pop rocks.

If you study it carefully this clip appears to have all the phenomena that Stubbs has identified. Objects moving in all directions some with the rotation of the earth others not. Some large some small, some slow moving some rapid. Towards the end of the clip in the upper left corner an object appears further out compared to the other objects and it's pulsating.

Notice at precisely 16 seconds a smaller object materialises middle left. Can this really be connected to night/day effects as Jim suggests? I'm doubtful.

Edited November 2, 2012 by zoser

[JimOberg]

More curious footage that shows the large circular objects. Appearing, moving and staying in a fixed position. How is this explained? What are they?

To evaluate possible explanations, let's start simple. Is the scene sunlit or not?

Is it day or night?

[synchronomy]

If you study it carefully this clip appears to have all the phenomena that Stubbs has identified. Objects moving in all directions some with the rotation of the earth others not. Some large some small, some slow moving some rapid. Towards the end of the clip in the upper left corner an object appears further out compared to the other objects and it's pulsating.

Notice at precisely 16 seconds a smaller object materialises middle left. Can this really be connected to night/day effects as Jim suggests? I'm doubtful.

Your first paragraph there seems to describe in a general way what you might see filming debris. Just bits and pieces moving randomly. These objects with holes, and pulsating, I thought, was generally understood to be an artifact of the optics or scanning of the camera when small objects are out of focus.

I don't think it's even possible to determine for certain, whether or not objects "materializing" can be attributed to the night/day effects and/or some characteristic of the optics. "Materializing" seems to imply some intelligence at work. Personally, I like the phrase "came into view". I certainly don't think any of these objects are large.

My thoughts are that this video is just another random and uneventful day in orbit.

I'm afraid that video was a big snooze for me.

[zoser]

To evaluate possible explanations, let's start simple. Is the scene sunlit or not?

Is it day or night?

In this particular clip Jim there is so much going on that that the question seems irrelevant. Take a look at it and let me know what you think.

[zoser]

Your first paragraph there seems to describe in a general way what you might see filming debris. Just bits and pieces moving randomly. These objects with holes, and pulsating, I thought, was generally understood to be an artifact of the optics or scanning of the camera when small objects are out of focus.

I don't think it's even possible to determine for certain, whether or not objects "materializing" can be attributed to the night/day effects and/or some characteristic of the optics. "Materializing" seems to imply some intelligence at work. Personally, I like the phrase "came into view". I certainly don't think any of these objects are large.

My thoughts are that this video is just another random and uneventful day in orbit.

I'm afraid that video was a big snooze for me.

Lots of activity going on there; some of it may be meteors but that doesn't explain the first object or the second object at 16 seconds. I don't think you watched it very thoroughly would be my guess.

[synchronomy]

In this particular clip Jim there is so much going on that that the question seems irrelevant. Take a look at it and let me know what you think.

I fail to understand why you would deem that irrevelant. In order to conduct analysis every piece of information is important.

[zoser]

I fail to understand why you would deem that irrevelant. In order to conduct analysis every piece of information is important.

If there was one clip to analyse that shows all the phenomena together this is it. It'a possible to identify half a dozen or more different phenomena in that one clip. I certainly wouldn't call it uneventful Synch. It's less than 2 mins long the more times you watch it the more objects are noticed.

[synchronomy]

Lots of activity going on there; some of it may be meteors but that doesn't explain the first object or the second object at 16 seconds. I don't think you watched it very thoroughly would be my guess.

I don't see anything at 16 sec. At about 18 secs I see a fast object move from the bottom to the top...is that what you're referring to? If it is I don't think it's worth getting worked up about.

And yes I have watched it thoroughly. The third time through I was freezing it, pausing it, and stepping it frame by frame.

...and I don't see George Jetson.

[zoser]

I don't see anything at 16 sec. At about 18 secs I see a fast object move from the bottom to the top...is that what you're referring to? If it is I don't think it's worth getting worked up about.

And yes I have watched it thoroughly. The third time through I was freezing it, pausing it, and stepping it frame by frame.

...and I don't see George Jetson.

No definitely 16; look again middle to bottom, smaller than the main original object. I'm pleased your looking Synch Apart from the annoying uploader's graffiti it's an amazing clip.

[zoser]

Tell a lie; more lower left than lower middle; sorry.

[Hazzard]

Ah in that case you will be far less likely to succeed.

So far, I would like to add to that.

But who knows, maybe sometime in the near future,...?

I just hope that Im still around when (if) that happens.

[zoser]

So far, I would like to add to that.

But who knows, maybe sometime in the near future,...?

I just hope that Im still around when (if) that happens.

We share a common goal Haz. Now take a look at that footage and let me know what you think please? There's a good chap.

[synchronomy]

No definitely 16; look again middle to bottom, smaller than the main original object. I'm pleased your looking Synch Apart from the annoying uploader's graffiti it's an amazing clip.

Ok, I saw that.

Just so you know I'm working with you here is a frame from about 1:07 and blown up to an ungodly scale.

Isn't it exciting?..lol

[zoser]

Ok, I saw that.

Just so you know I'm working with you here is a frame from about 1:07 and blown up to an ungodly scale.

Isn't it exciting?..lol

I'm interested to know how you do that? What software is it?

[quillius]

Your first paragraph there seems to describe in a general way what you might see filming debris. Just bits and pieces moving randomly. These objects with holes, and pulsating, I thought, was generally understood to be an artifact of the optics or scanning of the camera when small objects are out of focus.

I don't think it's even possible to determine for certain, whether or not objects "materializing" can be attributed to the night/day effects and/or some characteristic of the optics. "Materializing" seems to imply some intelligence at work. Personally, I like the phrase "came into view". I certainly don't think any of these objects are large.

My thoughts are that this video is just another random and uneventful day in orbit.

I'm afraid that video was a big snooze for me.

Hello Synch, I think that we can only say 'came into view' if they enter from any of the edges of the full picture, if they appear anywhere away from the edges then in a way they have materialised. One could argue that in both the 0:16 object and also the 1:22 larger object, that rather than either scenario I have put forward already they appeared or 'came into view' from below the clouds....would this though not now mean that they are indeed large objects?

[JimOberg]

In this particular clip Jim there is so much going on that that the question seems irrelevant. Take a look at it and let me know what you think.

So since you don't want to answer, you attack the question.

Can you even vaguely SENSE how closed-minded you are acting?

YOU mentioned the issue of day-night with your renewed reference to 'materialization' after being told several times that this term is a conclusion, not an observation. If you cannot even describe precisely what you are seeing, how can you possibly think clearly about the nature of the phenomenon?

You also can't possibly have read my '99 FAQs', an essay written precisely for the benefit of naive enthusiasts such as yourself enmired in their own lack of familiarity with the environment, and in their own wrong guesses about what it OUGHT to look like.

And you further confirm a general principal -- the less one knows about real space flight, and the more over-imaginative nonsense one mistakenly believes about what it ought to look like -- the greater one's enthusiasm for UFO-type explanations.

The relevance to the lighting conditions is this:

Suppose it could be demonstrated that ALL of the most famous [infamous] youtube shuttle UFO videos of dots were occurring during brief and unusual periods of specific TYPE of sunlight? Conditoons that occur only for 2-3 minutes every 92-94 minute orbits?

Would you consider that a useful clue as to their nature?

Or -- as you are doing now -- you would continue to insist that people NOT know about this highly-suggestive pattern?

[JimOberg]

Hello Synch, I think that we can only say 'came into view' if they enter from any of the edges of the full picture, if they appear anywhere away from the edges then in a way they have materialised. One could argue that in both the 0:16 object and also the 1:22 larger object, that rather than either scenario I have put forward already they appeared or 'came into view' from below the clouds....would this though not now mean that they are indeed large objects?

When these obects 'appear', where in the field of view do you think the shadow cast by the shuttle itself is falling?

Edited November 2, 2012 by JimOberg

[zoser]

So since you don't want to answer, you attack the question.

Can you even vaguely SENSE how closed-minded you are acting?

YOU mentioned the issue of day-night with your renewed reference to 'materialization' after being told several times that this term is a conclusion, not an observation. If you cannot even describe precisely what you are seeing, how can you possibly think clearly about the nature of the phenomenon?

You also can't possibly have read my '99 FAQs', an essay written precisely for the benefit of naive enthusiasts such as yourself enmired in their own lack of familiarity with the environment, and in their own wrong guesses about what it OUGHT to look like.

And you further confirm a general principal -- the less one knows about real space flight, and the more over-imaginative nonsense one mistakenly believes about what it ought to look like -- the greater one's enthusiasm for UFO-type explanations.

The relevance to the lighting conditions is this:

Suppose it could be demonstrated that ALL of the most famous [infamous] youtube shuttle UFO videos of dots were occurring during brief and unusual periods of specific TYPE of sunlight? Conditoons that occur only for 2-3 minutes every 92-94 minute orbits?

Would you consider that a useful clue as to their nature?

Or -- as you are doing now -- you would continue to insist that people NOT know about this highly-suggestive pattern?

JIm my advise is just get stuck into the analysis of the clip. If anyone knows the time of day I'm sure they will chip in and tell us. In the meantime let's just run with what we have.

[zoser]

Hello Synch, I think that we can only say 'came into view' if they enter from any of the edges of the full picture, if they appear anywhere away from the edges then in a way they have materialised. One could argue that in both the 0:16 object and also the 1:22 larger object, that rather than either scenario I have put forward already they appeared or 'came into view' from below the clouds....would this though not now mean that they are indeed large objects?

I agree with this; what also catches me and must be of some significance is that the original object at the beginning of the clip looks dim/translucent. As it comes to a stop (apparent motion?) it seems to brighten. It then seems to stay in a position relative to the earth's motion at which point it's outline seems to change.

Edit: it's change in intensity is immediate.

What could cause that?

Edited November 2, 2012 by zoser

[JimOberg]

JIm my advise is just get stuck into the analysis of the clip. If anyone knows the time of day I'm sure they will chip in and tell us. In the meantime let's just run with what we have.

If you don't know the illumination conditions, any attempt to run will result in you falling on your face. As you have, again and again.,

Stubbs knows the time of day. He just refuses to post that datum. Why do you suppose?

How about: because knowing the illumination conditions reveals an impressive clue supporting a prosaic explanation.

Naturally he wants to keep you ignorant of the contextual background.

UN-naturally, YOU seem entirely content to allow that condition to continue.

[zoser]

How about: because knowing the illumination conditions reveals an impressive clue supporting a prosaic explanation.

Such as what?