Evolutionary Science And Its Implications

[Chinahand]

But MM2 - he didn't write the book - it was ghost written for him by a Roswell Conspiracist.

[manxman2]

I can't speak for the rest of them, but I'm having a pop at you because you're an utter moron.

 

opinions are like assholes everybody has one .. except in your wifes case .. she has 2.

 

my dad is bigger than your dad

 

 

my dads dead. so you will be right on the money.

[manxman2]

But MM2 - he didn't write the book - it was ghost written for him by a Roswell Conspiracist.

 

oh i see he let someone else write his legacy all them years at such a high level only to let the end of his existance become a joke .. way to go

 

 

im not particularly interested in corsos epitaph anyway .. we were discussing the shuttle footage.

 

before the rampant derailers decided to step in.

 

ps well done again china for getting the magic conspiricist word in again at the top of a new page..

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6NWyBc-1eQ

 

 

 

thats what we were discussing.

 

and theres still a deafening silence about the discovery footage and dialog..from march 89.

 

http://vodpod.com/watch/670161-nasa-ufo-re...huttle-missions

Edited June 16, 2009 by manxman2

[Slim]

im not particularly interested in corsos epitaph anyway .. we were discussing the shuttle footage.

 

Why don't you answer Dr Daves post on that subject?

 

 

thats what we were discussing.

and theres still a deafening silence about the discovery footage and dialog..from march 89.

 

http://vodpod.com/watch/670161-nasa-ufo-re...huttle-missions

 

A retransmission, not from the shuttle, by an amateur radio operator. There's no way this is evidence of anything, in fact:

 

sts-29 march 1989

 

Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 18:51:37 -0800

From: sts48@ix.netcom.com (Donald Ratsch)

Subject: Re: NASA WAV file

To: bdzeiler@students.wisc.edu (Brian Zeiler)

 

Brian, yes I have the full story on that. The details was carried on

the July 1989 issue of the MUFON Journal. Briefly I recorded some of

the radio broadcast via my audio scanner from the space shuttle

Discovery through WA3NAN, the club station of the Goddard Amateur Radio

Club at Greenbelt, Md, transmitting on 147.450 MHZ. It is a

retransmission from the NASA Select original. I heard what I thought

was one of the male astronauts saying, "Houston, Discovery, we still

have the alien spacecraft under observance". Well I was pretty excited

and got in touch with Walt Andrus of MUFON and Vince Dipietro (Mars

Face Fame) who is employed at Goddard Space Flight Center who I later

handed over the tape to have a voice print analysis performed to

compare the target voice to the astronauts' voices that were aboard

during that mission. The result of the analysis showed that a few

positive hits on Astronaut Bagian (the physician on board) but not

enough hits to say he was the one who said the target words. So the

results were inconclusive. Later a check showed there was no target

voice on the original NASA Select audio.

 

About a year after that, I was again monitoring the audio from another

NASA mission via my scanner and I heard that voice again, saying something

similar to the target voice a year earlier. However on this mission, all the

astronauts were different compared to the other one. This led me to conclude

that unfortunately, the target voice was a hoax probably from an amateur

radio operator. Jim Oberg emailed me some time ago and asked me about

that case and I told him what I just told you.

 

Why is all your 'evidence' blobs on old tapes or witness statements and heresay? Where's the laser guns? Where's the amazing interstellar technology that allows life to travel the vast distances of space? Why is the best technology we've gotten out of finding a ship CD players and bullet proof vests?

[manxman2]

well done slim did you purposely leave this bit out...

 

Straight after the transmission it is alledged by another radio enthusiast Mr. Oechsler that NASA instructed the crew to switch frequencies to a secure mode.

 

The incident was reported by the media and the tape played on LBC (London Broadcasting Company) from where the wav file was obtained.

 

For some time Nasa denied that the actual message was transmittted from a Shuttle mission. However Nasa spokesman James Hatfield has now stated that the tape is genuine but the incident was a hoax.

 

and also that james oberg is again at the centre of the hoax allegation .. you remember him dont you the ex nasa spokesman debunk book seller china

got his plausible denial debunk story from..

 

and what is your obsession about bullet proof vests etc .. what has all that got to do with shuttle footage.

 

ah hang on a minute i get it now its all part of the belittlement you just cannot resist in partaking in .. good old slim never let the facts get in the way of a good arguement.

 

and it took you ages to find that false debunk aswell.

 

i hadnt noticed daves question.. will get onto thatnow.

Edited June 16, 2009 by manxman2

[Slim]

well done slim did you purposely leave this bit out...

Straight after the transmission it is alledged by another radio enthusiast Mr. Oechsler that NASA instructed the crew to switch frequencies to a secure mode.

 

"It is alledged"? No recording, no evidence, just some guys word? If the message was a hoax, then a command to switch to 'secure mode' would be part of the hoax also.

 

For some time Nasa denied that the actual message was transmittted from a Shuttle mission. However Nasa spokesman James Hatfield has now stated that the tape is genuine but the incident was a hoax.

 

So, it's a genuine tape of a hoax. What's the issue here?

 

and what is your obsession about bullet proof vests etc .. what has all that got to do with shuttle footage.

 

I'm trying to answer your assertation that you're not interested in aliens, but in their technology. You raised the issue of roswell, which is why I'm using that example. Why don't you give me another example of alien technology, given your the one with the interest?

 

The point still stands though, why is all we have wavy blobs on old tape? Where's the recent footage? Where's the high quality close ups? Why is it all 'witness statements'?

 

ah hang on a minute i get it now its all part of the belittlement you just cannot resist in partaking in .. good old slim never let the facts get in the way of a good arguement.

 

Ah there you go deflecting the critisism of your weak arguments against the poster rather than the content. Pretty rich for someone who complains about derails so often.

 

and it took you ages to find that false debunk aswell.

 

Nope, just googled the phrase, and got plenty of responses to say it was bullshit. You'd not be interested in those though, right?

[Chinahand]

As you don't seem to be reading my links MM2

 

In another of Stubb's posted clips, a view through the window of a space shuttle shows lights drifting along in space, then reversing direction and darting away with a flash. The title of that clip: "UFOs quickly take off on NASA video." Again, the reality is less dramatic. Thomas Jones, a former shuttle mission specialist and payload commander and co-author of Planetology: Unlocking the Secrets of the Solar System, was on that mission—STS-80, which also took place in 1996—and provided this description of the footage. "A few ice crystals or flakes of thruster residue in the near field are floating by, get hit by a thruster exhaust plume and zip out of the scene."

 

"There's no way to keep people from using public domain footage for silly purposes," Jones says. "If a shuttle beams back 10 hours of Earth views each day, there are bound to be images and scenes that are misunderstood or taken out of context." If anything, it's the lack of context that many UFO theories and proponents rely on. The clips posted by Stubb and others, whether they originate with NASA or a less credible source, tend to be framed only by a short title, with little or no attempt at reporting (Runco notes that anyone could have simply e-mailed or called him, to ask for his side of the story, instead of simply posting a 13-year-old video and jumping to extraterrestrial conclusions).

 

Specificity might be the currency of the conspiracy theory set, with seemingly random images or snippets of data woven into a matrix of sinister intent, but even a casual investigation of each of those facts can punch holes in the larger plotline. Bloggers continue to reference an interview with Buzz Aldrin in 2005 about seeing a UFO while on Apollo 11, while brushing off his claims that television producers blatantly quoted him out of context. And although UFO proponents have welcomed recent public statements from former astronaut Edgar Mitchell about his belief in an extraterrestrial coverup dating back to Roswell, Mitchell has never said he witnessed anything alien with his own eyes.

[manxman2]

QUOTE

For some time Nasa denied that the actual message was transmittted from a Shuttle mission. However Nasa spokesman James Hatfield has now stated that the tape is genuine but the incident was a hoax.

 

So, it's a genuine tape of a hoax. What's the issue here?

 

thats true slim if you believe nasa astronauts hoax houston. and they ofcourse chose that route of explanation after first denying the transmissions ever took place.

 

however in acknowledging the transmitions were genuine and then palming the multiple amature radio hams who recorded said download off with its a hoax but its our hoax is as much bollox as you talk. .. the plausible denial didnt hold up so lets try a new one route.

 

 

I'm trying to answer your assertation that you're not interested in aliens, but in their technology. You raised the issue of roswell, which is why I'm using that example. Why don't you give me another example of alien technology, given your the one with the interest?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6NWyBc-1eQ

 

 

 

lets just stick 2 the 3 we are discussing.

 

The point still stands though, why is all we have wavy blobs on old tape? Where's the recent footage? Where's the high quality close ups? Why is it all 'witness statements'

 

we dont we have pristine footage from the shuttles the fact that i only want to discuss 3 is to keep some semblence of rationality about the thread.

 

the rest of your post doesnt deserve a reply.

[ans]

Nasa spokesman James Hatfield

 

 

Edit: Bah, close enough.

[Dr_Dave]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6NWyBc-1eQ

 

Let's do this one then.

 

Did you notice the pattern of notches on the circles? How the patterns change as the circles progress across the scene, but that the pattern of notches in any particular part of the scene is the same on different circles, regardless of their size? Does this suggest to you that the notching is an artefact of the camera optics? What do you think that implies about the size of the objects? Do you know about point spread functions in optical observations?

 

Do you know how CCDs work? Do you understand the concept of overexposure in CCD pixels? What happens if a dim object passes in front of a bright object that has reached a CCD pixel's maximum response? What does that look like in motion?

 

If the objects are passing behind the tether (at 80 miles range) what does this imply about the size of the objects? You can make an educated guess based on geometry. What does this size imply? Should the objects have been visible anywhere else?

 

Do you know what happens to waste water on the space shuttle? Do you know whether there was a waste flush before this film? What do you think happens to the waste water when it is flushed? What would the results of a flush look like in these conditions?

 

To my mind, these are all questions that anyone viewing this film should have asked themselves. Presumably you have?

 

Dave

[ans]

I imagine the most challenging question manxman2 has to answer regularly is whether the pee hole in his y-fronts goes at the front or at the back. What hope do you hold out of for the above?

[manxman2]

As you don't seem to be reading my links MM2

 

In another of Stubb's posted clips, a view through the window of a space shuttle shows lights drifting along in space, then reversing direction and darting away with a flash. The title of that clip: "UFOs quickly take off on NASA video." Again, the reality is less dramatic. Thomas Jones, a former shuttle mission specialist and payload commander and co-author of Planetology: Unlocking the Secrets of the Solar System, was on that mission—STS-80, which also took place in 1996—and provided this description of the footage. "A few ice crystals or flakes of thruster residue in the near field are floating by, get hit by a thruster exhaust plume and zip out of the scene."

 

that ofcourse is a well known piece of footage china. and again is plausible denial .. as it has been disected many times the so called ice crystal from memory stops dead for about 0.3 of a second before changing direction an impossible feat .. however did i include that in my 3 clips .. again you just try to muddy the waters. .. i left it out because to me it isnt cut and dried it probably is ice and they have used the same excuse ever since.

 

 

 

"There's no way to keep people from using public domain footage for silly purposes," Jones says. "If a shuttle beams back 10 hours of Earth views each day, there are bound to be images and scenes that are misunderstood or taken out of context." If anything, it's the lack of context that many UFO theories and proponents rely on. The clips posted by Stubb and others, whether they originate with NASA or a less credible source, tend to be framed only by a short title, with little or no attempt at reporting (Runco notes that anyone could have simply e-mailed or called him, to ask for his side of the story, instead of simply posting a 13-year-old video and jumping to extraterrestrial conclusions).

 

ofcourse he is right but we are not discussing hours and hours worth of anomalies . .. these are what we are discussing. and no-one is jumping to conclusions .. i have watched that footage hundreds of times and i cannot deny to myself what i am seeing .. and i have tried but ice crystals out of focus is bullshit.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6NWyBc-1eQ

 

 

 

 

Specificity might be the currency of the conspiracy theory set, with seemingly random images or snippets of data woven into a matrix of sinister intent, but even a casual investigation of each of those facts can punch holes in the larger plotline. Bloggers continue to reference an interview with Buzz Aldrin in 2005 about seeing a UFO while on Apollo 11, while brushing off his claims that television producers blatantly quoted him out of context. And although UFO proponents have welcomed recent public statements from former astronaut Edgar Mitchell about his belief in an extraterrestrial coverup dating back to Roswell, Mitchell has never said he witnessed anything alien with his own eyes.

 

mitchel has often spoken about his earthly ufo encounters as a test pilot. .. your source please.? and i along with everyone else know exactly how much bullshit is on the net/media.

Edited June 16, 2009 by manxman2

[Slim]

thats true slim if you believe nasa astronauts hoax houston. and they ofcourse chose that route of explanation after first denying the transmissions ever took place.

 

Where's the confirmation on record by James Hatfield that the astronauts transmitted that message?

 

however in acknowledging the transmitions were genuine and then palming the multiple amature radio hams who recorded said download off with its a hoax but its our hoax is as much bollox as you talk. .. the plausible denial didnt hold up so lets try a new one route.

 

I have no idea what you're saying here.

 

lets just stick 2 the 3 we are discussing.

 

I'm trying to. You said your interest was the technology. What technology?

 

we dont we have pristine footage from the shuttles the fact that i only want to discuss 3 is to keep some semblence of rationality about the thread.

 

Don't you think it's strage that the camera technology has now moved on from those shitty old tapes, and the footage of random blobs hasn't happened recently?

[Chinahand]

Wow isn't it amazing - Manxman2 is fixating on the tether and two fuzzy videos.

 

In all 3 the astronauts who have taken the videos have explained what is going on - they and other knowledgeable people all say all 3 are due to ice crystals etc in orbit close to the shuttle, either in orbit around it or moving away as a result of the pitch and roll thrusters firing to maintain shuttle trim.

 

The logs of the events are available, there is the direct testimony of the people operating the camera, and expert commentary explaining how the tether is 1cm wide 77 nautical miles away, but how the flare produced by it reflecting the sun is whiting out the camera making it look thousands of times thicker in the image.

 

And what do we have - we have MM2 posting up 1/2 the internet insisting its alien technology - certain that the fuzzy blobs are moving behind a camera flare etc etc etc.

 

This is your best evidence MM2 - well - good for you. Its crap. It doesn't stand up. It makes you sound like a crack pot.

 

an astronaut talking about ice crystals while filming using a higher quality camera (though the quality isn't that good as this good footage has then been videoed by a videocamera from a TV and then put onto Youtube) - listen to what the astronaut is saying. Shudders I can see MM2 ranting about triangles - is it worth the bother.

[Chinahand]

that ofcourse is a well known piece of footage china. and again is plausible denial .. as it has been disected many times the so called ice crystal from memory stops dead for about 0.3 of a second before changing direction an impossible feat .. however did i include that in my 3 clips .. again you just try to muddy the waters. .. i left it out because to me it isnt cut and dried it probably is ice and they have used the same excuse ever since.

 

Most of your videos are various zoom ins on

.

 

The shuttles thrusters are fired at about 21 seconds. The astronaut taking the footage explains that in the popular mechanics article.