Nasa Cut off UFO Footage?

[Merc14]

17 hours ago, Saitung said:

FACT: ALL NASA footage has a 20 second delay. Its been that way for years. Maybe if they stopped purposely BLURRING their images there would be no need for posts such as this in the first place. LOL

 

17 hours ago, Saitung said:

I've been saying it for years. All I wanna know is this, how come our video footage from right frickn' here in orbit is so bad? Especially when ALL of our digital cable channels come from the same proximity in earth orbit? And what's worse is even the images from Pluto (4.67 billion miles away) have HD quality! Maybe if they stopped purposely BLURRING their images there would be no need for posts such as this in the first place. LOL I'm just saying.

What are you talking about?  These images are high definition and are certainly not blurred, in fact they are breathtakingly beautiful at times?  they are images of earth, however, and are tuned for that, not for viewing celestial objects and if you'd take a few minutes out of your life to go and actually discover what these cameras are you'd understand why this is NOT a cover-up. 

Here is a description of the experiment from NASA http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/experiments/917.html

Science Objectives for Everyone
The High Definition Earth Viewing (HDEV) experiment places four commercially available HD cameras on the exterior of the space station and uses them to stream live video of Earth for viewing online. The cameras are enclosed in a temperature specific housing and are exposed to the harsh radiation of space. Analysis of the effect of space on the video quality, over the time HDEV is operational, may help engineers decide which cameras are the best types to use on future missions. High school students helped design some of the cameras' components, through the High Schools United with NASA to Create Hardware (HUNCH) program, and student teams operate the experiment.

No mysteries here and the system regularly switches cameras, loses connection as antennas come in and out of range and goes dark as the ISS travels into night.  If you'd ever watched the stream you'd know that. 

Lastly, your statement about cable channels and Pluto etc. makes little sense.  If you don't know why you can ask but I am guessing you don't care anyways.

[Ashyne]

Very bad quality video in 2016. Even late 19th century video has better quality.

[Merc14]

5 hours ago, Ashyne said:

Very bad quality video in 2016. Even late 19th century video has better quality.

As I said, the cameras are not looking at celestial objects, they are designed to stream images of the earth and the quality is HD but people can judge for themselves  http://www.ustream.tv/channel/iss-hdev-payload

[toast]

6 hours ago, Ashyne said:

Very bad quality video in 2016. Even late 19th century video has better quality.

Video technology before 31.12.1900? And with better quality than today? Wow, I`m impressed now. Can you pls post such vid?

[paperdyer]

I'm a little surprised Waspie didn't comment with his usual directness.  If you look hard enough you can find a conspiracy in almost every thing.

[Merc14]

1 hour ago, toast said:

Video technology before 31.12.1900? And with better quality than today? Wow, I`m impressed now. Can you pls post such vid?

I'm not sure what Ashyne was actually referring to as these are off the shelf HD cameras mounted toe the ISS hull in special enclosures to see how they fare.   They are set to image the earth's surface 330KM+ below, not teh space around them and for the most part, do an amazing job but beauty is in the eye of the beholder I guess.  They have been up there since March 2014 (so are probably 2012 or older tech) and are in remarkable condition IMHO.  The experiment was supposed to end March 2016 but has been extended till March 2017.

Edited July 19, 2016 by Merc14

[JesseCuster]

On 7/18/2016 at 3:50 AM, Saitung said:

I've been saying it for years. All I wanna know is this, how come our video footage from right frickn' here in orbit is so bad? Especially when ALL of our digital cable channels come from the same proximity in earth orbit? And what's worse is even the images from Pluto (4.67 billion miles away) have HD quality! 

First of all, it should be pointed out (perhaps you're aware of this) that a lot of the screenshots and videos of "UFOs" taken from ISS video footage are a fraction of the frame cropped and blown up way beyond native resolution, so some of the photos in the OP article aren't what the actual video footage looks like, they're small portions of it blown way up and thus of course will look blurry or pixellated.  Take any video or footage and blow up a portion of it way beyond its original resolution and the result will look like a low quality mess.

Secondly, why shouldn't the images from Pluto have HD quality?  They weren't being streamed back from New Horizons from billions of miles away in realtime, so why should quality be an issue?  At that distance, the bandwidth was only something like ~1kbit/sec. They could afford to wait until the Deep Space Network was available to communicate with New Horizons.  They could resend any data that had errors in it or didn't arrive. It took weeks and months before all the data from the probe was sent back to earth.  Etc. etc.  There is simply no reason for any loss in quality for sending information from New Horizons to earth.  The comparison is simply not valid at all with streaming live video footage over the Internet from the ISS.

[+Noteverythingisaconspiracy]

On 18/7/2016 at 4:50 AM, Saitung said:

I've been saying it for years. All I wanna know is this, how come our video footage from right frickn' here in orbit is so bad? 

We are talking about live footage from a video camera, not a high quality telescope with a long exposure time.

On 18/7/2016 at 4:50 AM, Saitung said:

Especially when ALL of our digital cable channels come from the same proximity in earth orbit? 

Most cable channels doesn't come from orbit, they come from a cable. (Hence the name )

On 18/7/2016 at 4:50 AM, Saitung said:

 And what's worse is even the images from Pluto (4.67 billion miles away) have HD quality! 

I suspect you are refering to the images taken from New Horizon, which is a spacecraft that passed Pluto at a minimum distance of  7.750 miles (12.740 km). A far cry from 4,67 billion miles. In fact it is about 602.500 times closer than you number. Quite a big margin of erroe, don't you think.

The images from New Horizon were transmitted over an extended time span, so they never needed to be a live feed. New Horizon didn't have enough power to send a live feed and there was really no need.

So in short you comparison is rather lacking. (To say the least)

 

[Ashyne]

14 hours ago, toast said:

Video technology before 31.12.1900? And with better quality than today? Wow, I`m impressed now. Can you pls post such vid?

 

[Emma_Acid]

1 hour ago, Ashyne said:

 

I'd love to know what direction for this were: "ok, I'd like you to dance a bit, you walk side to side like a crab and you stumble across the frame. Now come on, we only have 3 seconds to get this right"

[toast]

2 hours ago, Ashyne said:

 

Thats not taken with video technology.

[Ashyne]

4 hours ago, toast said:

Thats not taken with video technology.

video

ˈvɪdɪəʊ/

noun

 

1. 1.

   the recording, reproducing, or broadcasting of moving visual images.

    

   https://www.google.com.sg/webhp?hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiajJDTq4HOAhUEkJQKHU-8CzkQPAgD#hl=en&q=video+definition

    

   A video is an umbrella term for any recording of a series of sequential images, contemporarily and commonly used to refer to the digital format. Although film is the analog counterpart of digital video, film is also in modern usage classed as a category of video.

Edited July 20, 2016 by Ashyne

[JesseCuster]

15 hours ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

Most cable channels doesn't come from orbit, they come from a cable. (Hence the name )

And if Saitung is meant to say satellite TV instead of cable TV, then that doesn't come from the "same proximity in earth orbit" as the ISS.

The ISS is in orbit about 400km above the earth and orbits every 90 minutes or so.

Satellites that broadcast TV are at a height such that their orbit is exactly 1 day and are directly above the equator.  That allows them to remain in a fixed spot in the sky relative to anywhere on the earth so you can point a fixed satellite dish at it.  This geostationary orbit is at about 36,000km from the earth.  Definitely not the "same proximity in earth orbit" as the 400km of the ISS.

But why let any facts get in the way of a good anti-NASA conspiracy rant?

[toast]

1 hour ago, Ashyne said:

video

ˈvɪdɪəʊ/

noun

 

1. 1.

   the recording, reproducing, or broadcasting of moving visual images.

    

   https://www.google.com.sg/webhp?hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiajJDTq4HOAhUEkJQKHU-8CzkQPAgD#hl=en&q=video+definition

    

   A video is an umbrella term for any recording of a series of sequential images, contemporarily and commonly used to refer to the digital format. Although film is the analog counterpart of digital video, film is also in modern usage classed as a category of video.

Again, there was no video technology in the 19th century.

[badeskov]

On 7/17/2016 at 7:49 PM, Saitung said:

FACT: ALL NASA footage has a 20 second delay. Its been that way for years. Maybe if they stopped purposely BLURRING their images there would be no need for posts such as this in the first place. LOL

FACT: NASA doesn't purposely blur pictures....that is only the in the imagination of people that do not understand image technology..

Cheers,
Badesdeskov

[Mark One]

NASA wants us to remain fixed with the silly idea that they know everything about outer space.  This is the same firm that still uses gigantic fireworks to put expensive looking tat into orbit - which is mentioned on the news as some kind of great leap for humanity.

If NASA was what it claims to be then why is there no Moon Base operations that google can allow you and school children to wonder over.

 

[+Noteverythingisaconspiracy]

 

11 minutes ago, Mark One said:

NASA wants us to remain fixed with the silly idea that they know everything about outer space. 

When have NASA, or any other space agency (there are actually quite a lot besides NASA), ever stated that they know everything about space ?

11 minutes ago, Mark One said:

 This is the same firm that still uses gigantic fireworks to put expensive looking tat into orbit

What other way could they use with present day technology ?

11 minutes ago, Mark One said:

If NASA was what it claims to be then why is there no Moon Base operations that google can allow you and school children to wonder over.

Lack of funds and lack of political support. A Moon base is not a political priority, so there are no funds for it. Its really that simple.

[badeskov]

43 minutes ago, Mark One said:

NASA wants us to remain fixed with the silly idea that they know everything about outer space. 

This has already been addressed, but I will allow myself to also do so. This is utter nonsense, never has NASA made such a claim - ever!

43 minutes ago, Mark One said:

 

This is the same firm that still uses gigantic fireworks to put expensive looking tat into orbit - which is mentioned on the news as some kind of great leap for humanity.

And you have a better idea of how to do such?

43 minutes ago, Mark One said:

If NASA was what it claims to be then why is there no Moon Base operations that google can allow you and school children to wonder over.

Please explain what NASA (or any other entity for that matter) would need a moon base.

Cheers,
Badeskov

[kmt_sesh]

1 hour ago, Mark One said:

NASA wants us to remain fixed with the silly idea that they know everything about outer space....

 

Are you kidding? I agree enthusiastically with Noteverything and badeskov. This statement of yours is quite bold, so how do you support it? Please link to a reputable source where a legitimate official of NASA, any other space agency, or any astrophysicist has claimed "they know everything about space."

[ChrLzs]

5 hours ago, Mark One said:

NASA wants us to remain fixed with the silly idea that they know everything about outer space.

??? Like others, I'm fascinated by how you came to that conclusion.  Please explain.

5 hours ago, Mark One said:

This is the same firm that still uses gigantic fireworks to put expensive looking tat into orbit

Like others, I'd like to know how, more cost effectively, we should be doing it?  Also, can you point out just one example of the "expensive looking tat", and elucidate on how you would have designed it.

5 hours ago, Mark One said:

- which is mentioned on the news as some kind of great leap for humanity.

Would you mind giving us an example of this, and also explain why you think it is NASA's fault (or problem) if a media outlet exaggerates the importance of a particular mission?

5 hours ago, Mark One said:

If NASA was what it claims to be

Again, what does it claim, exactly?

5 hours ago, Mark One said:

then why is there no Moon Base operations that google can allow you and school children to wonder over.

???  What made you choose a Moonbase, rather than say, the Hubble telescope, the ISS, SOHO/STEREO, the Mars rovers, Juno, Kepler, LRO, the upcoming James Webb telescope, etc... It would be a hideously expensive thing to create and maintain, and would offer little in the way of advantages, unless we were mining the Moon and had industries up there to process raw materials into usable products..  Have you really thought that one through? 

The Moon has no atmosphere, is almost certainly lifeless and we have already pretty thoroughly explored it remotely.  And you think we should spend the (rather tiny) amount of money that NASA gets allocated, on that?

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not a 100% NASA fanboi - indeed I think the way they offer teaser press releases is quite lame, and sometimes they use terribly misleading artist's impressions of various scenes, plus some of their projects (eg the initial Hubble debacle, Space Shuttle issues, the Apollo 1 fire..) were very badly botched and in some cases caused loss of life.  But it's like any human endeavour, and when you balance that with the astonishingly successful achievements like Voyager, Pioneer, Apollo, Mars Surveyor/Opportunity, SOHO...

 

Well, let's just say I'm glad you are not in charge of NASA, because we would have had none of those...

BTW, that computer you are hammering on, your mobile phone, gps etc, would almost certainly have been many years later in development if not for NASA (and particularly Apollo..), and that's just one of the myriad of benefits and advances they have brought to us.

 

[phantulum]

Now NASA doesn't have a reputation for not addressing curiosities  with careful investigation now do they? No sparkly clean and always honest. That's NASA.  Well this one may or may not be something interesting ( aka other than space junk) but brushing off serious and legitimate questions with BS answers will eventually cause distrust. This is just the symptom of a far deeper problem

[ChrLzs]

1 hour ago, phantulum said:

Now NASA doesn't have a reputation for not addressing curiosities  with careful investigation now do they?

Double negative, much?  You realise you just said that NASA does have a reputation for addressing curiosities (is that a pun?).  Actually I would correct that and say NASA only addresses curiosities that are genuinely worth investigating, and until they do, there is nothing much to say..

Quote

No sparkly clean and always honest. That's NASA.

Like any huge organisation, they make mistakes, and may have a few bad eggs.  BTW, I'm assuming by the tone you are being sarcastic, and despite the double negative you are in fact not a NASA fan?  If that's the case, can you please be specific, because at the moment I think your arms may fall off from handwaving too much.

Q1. Please give your best example of a NASA coverup/lie/whatever.

Quote

Well this one may or may not be something interesting ( aka other than space junk) but brushing off serious and legitimate questions with BS answers will eventually cause distrust. This is just the symptom of a far deeper problem

Q2. In what way did NASA brush off questions with BS answers?  Again, be specific.  It's a basic courtesy when you start insulting people.

And..

Q3. do you think any of us work for NASA?

[Merc14]

3 hours ago, phantulum said:

Now NASA doesn't have a reputation for not addressing curiosities  with careful investigation now do they? No sparkly clean and always honest. That's NASA.  Well this one may or may not be something interesting ( aka other than space junk) but brushing off serious and legitimate questions with BS answers will eventually cause distrust. This is just the symptom of a far deeper problem

The far deeper problem, IMHO, is the sheer ignorance of people like you who still believe in myths and fairy tales in an increasingly complex and technologically advanced civilization.   The operation of these of the shelf cameras has been explained in detail throughout this thread but I am willing to bet you didn't spend a second reading those posts or researching the cameras before posting your angry, juvenile comment.  Therein lies the far deeper problem, willful ignorance with the knowledge of the world at your fingertips.

[ChrLzs]

Interesting how Mark One and phantulum so quickly lose interest when asked very simple questions..