[Dakar the Fourth]

This thread is a ****ing joke. Someone tries to introduce a subject of any substance or societal relevance and they're getting attacked and belittled incessantly. In the cesspool of the Lounge, one person tries to add a glimmer of substance, and the thread is filled with verbal droppings of a thousand ignorant assholes. For all the [PL] talk of those who hold science and its tenants in such high regard in the wake of the religion-blind, this thread stands a top the hill of irony and hypocrisy. Sleep well MacNN, this is the final nail in your coffin of irrelevance.
lulz

[analogika]

what?

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth 

This thread is a ****ing joke. Someone tries to introduce a subject of any substance or societal relevance and they're getting attacked and belittled incessantly. In the cesspool of the Lounge, one person tries to add a glimmer of substance, and the thread is filled with verbal droppings of a thousand ignorant assholes. For all the [PL] talk of those who hold science and its tenants in such high regard in the wake of the religion-blind, this thread stands a top the hill of irony and hypocrisy. Sleep well MacNN, this is the final nail in your coffin of irrelevance.
lulz

Still not biting.

Now, if it was about promoting credit card use, and you were Laminar... maybe, but... nah.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by analogika 

what?

Dude, what he said.

[Dakar the Fourth]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

Psst... white text.

Oh, come on, let me accrue a few more WTFs. Killjoy.

Originally Posted by analogika 

what?

I don't know, the thread was screaming for another semi-long over-the-top dramatic post of little to no sense or value.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth 

Oh, come on, let me accrue a few more WTFs. Killjoy.


I don't know, the thread was screaming for another semi-long over-the-top dramatic post of little to no sense or value.

OK.

I edited mine, you edit yours *again*.

[Dakar the Fourth]

Nah, I don't care that much.

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally Posted by analogika 

#1 - What makes you think that's a UV camera?

Known fact. Explained by NASA. NASA was to put a tether into space as an alternative method to put objects in space via electromagnetism. An elevator if you will. The tether snapped and this was a video of what remained of the tether.

The tether is 10 meters wide, and 12 miles long. It was also 80 nautical miles from Columbia in the video. A camera filming at visible light frequencies a 10 meter wide tether from 80 nautical miles away would not see anything.

The charged tether can be seen by the camera filming at UV light frequencies because at that frequency you can see magnetic fields. If you want another example you can find pictures of the Earth's magnetic field on UV pictures of the sky.

#2 - I just watched the video again (watched it back in 2002 when this was discussed to death) - not a SINGLE ONE of the particles EVER changed direction. The whole field of view turned a couple of times as the camera was adjusted, and the guy operating it kept changing focus and zoom to try and get a clean shot of the tether.

*sigh* I don't know why people keep making this false claim. At 18 seconds, there's a 'particle' that enters from the left of the screen with roughly a 1 o'clock heading...it then veers towards the tether, its final heading is roughly between 5 and 6 o'clock...the 'particle' exits at the bottom of the screen. Nothing on the camera was adjusted during the time the particle enters and exits the screen (except perhaps at the very, very end when the particle is about to exit at the bottom.)

#3 - you very obviously have never spent any time whatsoever playing with an SLR camera and a manual-focus zoom lens. For all your talk of physics and "bad science"...

OBVIOUSLY.

[Tiresias]

Oddly, this reminds me of a thread waaaay back started by some schizoid whack about a sex cult that was taking over the world. Does anyone remember that guy?

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!! 

Known fact. Explained by NASA. NASA was to put a tether into space as an alternative method to put objects in space via electromagnetism. An elevator if you will. The tether snapped and this was a video of what remained of the tether.

The tether is 10 meters wide, and 12 miles long. It was also 80 nautical miles from Columbia in the video. A camera filming at visible light frequencies a 10 meter wide tether from 80 nautical miles away would not see anything.

I'll accept that.

The charged tether can be seen by the camera filming at UV light frequencies because at that frequency you can see magnetic fields. If you want another example you can find pictures of the Earth's magnetic field on UV pictures of the sky.

This is absolutely false. You can not see magnetic fields. What you may be able to see is charged particles interacting with something (an EM field, or atmosphere, or any number of things) such that they radiate at UV wavelengths. This also happens in the visible spectrum which is what we see when we look at the Aurora Borealis and the Aurora Australis: charged particles .

Yes, when you look at the UV spectrum you'll see things that you didn't see before, and yes, some of those things might be affected by magnetic fields, but all you're actually seeing is a different wavelength of EM radiation from what your normally see. A couple years back there was a minor scandal when some company released a digital camcorder the CCD of which turned out to be sensitive into the UV spectrum. One result of that was you could actually sometimes see through people's clothes because the UV light passed through them but not through the actual human bodies.

As for the first video, it really does look to me like it's dust, debris, lens flares, &c. Have you never looked through a telescope, camera, binoculars, or anything like that and seen little things moving around? I didn't see any of those specks change direction in the first video, but I'll rewatch it.

As for the other video (I only saw two links, the one I'm talking about is the guy at the blackboard intercut with the video of two specks drifting around and then suddenly accelerating off screen), I think that one is far more likely to show something. It very clearly depicts two objects moving in different directions then suddenly changing direction and accelerating: indicators of powered maneuvers. However, that they are alien spacecraft is still not the only reasonable explanation. They could also be particles of dust fairly close to the camera and out of focus making them appear to be larger. Why would particles of dust display characteristics of powered flight? Well, a magnetic field would explain that. I don't know what equipment they were using during the filming of that clip, but if a magnetic field were to suddenly come on (like if someone flipped a switch on some equipment that generated a magnetic field as the narration of the video suggests might be happening) those particles of dust, if they carried a charge, would suddenly be accelerated along the lines of force of the magnetic field.

If you can provide convincing proof of alien spacecraft around Earth, I'll be the first to buy into it. However these videos are not that.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Tiresias 

Oddly, this reminds me of a thread waaaay back started by some schizoid whack about a sex cult that was taking over the world. Does anyone remember that guy?

Todd Partridge and the Searchlight Cult!

^ That's a name for a late 70's/early New Wave band if I've ever heard one!

[Horsepoo!!!]

Ok, nonhuman, tell me, are these particles of dust *inside* or *outside* the shuttle?

[nonhuman]

How the hell should I know? I wasn't there and have no idea what the camera setup was like.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!! 

Things to understand:
Columbia is in orbit around Earth...moving...if it wasn't, it would start dropping back down to Earth due to the planet's gravitational pull
Considering this, so called "debris" is defying gravity they're moving in different directions from Columbia, some towards Earth, some away, some are just remaining still as Columbia moves away from them...that makes no sense.

This statement completely and utterly disqualifies ANY criticism WHATSOEVER you might have of others' "physics". It's just beyond wrong. It's completely and utterly stupid.

Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!! 

Things to consider:
So called "debris" all looks the same...discs with a hole in the middle and a notch in the outer edge (my take on this, someone threw away giant 2 mile long CDs...except, we can safely say they're not 'compact')

You might do well to watch that film again and note that those gigantic 2-mile CDs suddenly come sharply into focus for a brief moment, as everything else blurs, and all of a sudden they're not HUGE BLURRY BLOBS WITH HOLES IN THE MIDDLE, but - small white dots.

Like I say, you've obviously NEVER played around with a manual-focus zoom.

That's no excuse for your ludicrous "arguments", though.

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

How the hell should I know? I wasn't there and have no idea what the camera setup was like.

They must be *inside* if you knew what 'particle' meant. Particles are tiny. If they were outside the craft miles away, you wouldn't see them. They sure as hell wouldn't be seen at 80+ nautical miles behind the tether. In fact, charged particles are exactly what would let you see the magnetic field as you've said. You wouldn't see huge blobs of these things floating around...you'd see a glow around the magnetized object. Just like the glow around the tether. Particles are tiny. If these things are inside the shuttle...we've got a problem because they're moving behind objects outside the craft and it's being referred to as debris. Debris inside the shuttle?

I'm revoking all your science badges. It's clear you guys are riding the "I likez teh science" wave in an attempt to look intellectually superior. In reality you show ignorance and try to explain things with bad science.

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally Posted by analogika 

This statement completely and utterly disqualifies ANY criticism WHATSOEVER you might have of others' "physics". It's just beyond wrong. It's completely and utterly stupid.

No YUO! Selective science...works wonders doesn't it, analogika. Turn in your science badge.

You might do well to watch that film again and note that those gigantic 2-mile CDs suddenly come sharply into focus for a brief moment, as everything else blurs, and all of a sudden they're not HUGE BLURRY BLOBS WITH HOLES IN THE MIDDLE, but - small white dots.

Yeah...and the tether shrinks too...it's called ZOOMING.

Like I say, you've obviously NEVER played around with a manual-focus zoom.

That's no excuse for your ludicrous "arguments", though.

Finger-in-my-ears...lalalalalala. I don't think you've every played with one. Perhaps you can show me this effect....make a video and post it on YouTube. Show me an object in the foreground going *behind* an object in the background. Go ahead. I dare ya.

[Tiresias]

In obedience to Godwin’s Law, it is necessary for me to interrupt this highly diverting discussion in order to evoke the name of: Hitler.

[Horsepoo!!!]

Another thing...if these things are particles, why are they being referred to as debris?

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally Posted by Tiresias 

In obedience to Godwin’s Law, it is necessary for me to interrupt this highly diverting discussion in order to evoke the name of: Hitler.

Of course, when you've got nothing more to say, invoke Godwin's Law. The losing side almost always invokes it when things go bad for them.

[Tiresias]

The optimist in me says: Somewhere under all that Horsepoo, there's a beautiful pony.

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally Posted by Tiresias 

The optimist in me says: Somewhere under all that Horsepoo, there's a beautiful pony.

Go away...you're embarassing yourself. You in particular have provided nothing but noise to this thread. At least others are doing an effort to explain what they're seeing.

[Tiresias]

Horsepooh, do you honestly think this is a closed argument? that what we are seeing is indubitably a swarm of flying saucers? It seems you are not even open to the falsification of your hypothesis. Nothing anyone has said has had the slightest effect on your certitude.

It's almost as though you see your own subjectivity as the sole criterion for truth.

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally Posted by Tiresias 

Horsepooh, do you honestly think this is a closed argument? that what we are seeing is indubitably a swarm of flying saucers? It seems you are not even open to the falsification of your hypothesis. Nothing anyone has said has had the slightest effect on your certitude.

It's almost as though you see your own subjectivity as the sole criterion for truth.

No...to the contrary, I'm open to the idea that these aren't "flying saucers". It's rather you people that are completely closed to the idea that they could be. I've done nothing but disprove every claim. Claims that have been shifting every time they've been disproved. I haven't budged from mine. You don't see me backpedal like some of you do.

People claim that the first video has objects that never change course. It's baloney.
People claim this stuff is debris. The 2nd and 3rd video shows that it doesn't act like debris.
People claim this debris is getting knocked around like a pinball in the 3rd video. If you're clueless about physics, sure.
People claim this stuff is particles diffusing light. You can't film particles that are a mile away let alone 80 miles away...you'd need a ton of particles reflecting light and it would look like a glow.
People may start claiming these things are particles diffusing light from inside the shuttle. So it's not the debris the astronauts are talking about?

The objects are pulsating light, becoming transparent, sometimes disappearing, and sometimes becoming a solid light object. UV camera...remember that.

And because nobody's doing his/her homework out of disinterest and opting to ridicule me instead, I will tell you guys that there are sightings of these objects in the sky. People report them as balls of lights that change color. This isn't the conventional saucer-shaped or triangle-shaped UFOs that are also common sightings. We're talking balls of light that change color.

If you guys are serious about science you guys can easily figure out why these things change color and why they are sometimes semi-transparent or totally opaque on the NASA videos.

[Tiresias]

Strictly speaking, anything is possible. They could be flying saucers. They could be angels. They could be phosphenes we are all experiencing in mysterious synchronicity but which are not actually on the film at all. But this is where Occam and his handy razor come in. All things being equal, the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. And in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I think we had better go with a non-extraterrestrial explanation until there's more evidence.

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally Posted by Tiresias 

Strictly speaking, anything is possible. They could be flying saucers. They could be angels. They could be phosphenes we are all experiencing in mysterious synchronicity but which are not actually on the film at all. But this is where Occam and his handy razor come in. All things being equal, the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. And in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I think we had better go with a non-extraterrestrial explanation until there's more evidence.

"In absence of evidence to the contrary." Ugh...what is evidence and what is not? I think your definition of evidence is anything that corroborates to your beliefs. I suppose you'll say the same to me. But know this, all the claims put forward in this thread have been pretty much debunked by yours truly.

[Tiresias]

What are you talking about? You don't need physical evidence to prove that something does not exist. Quite the contrary.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!! 

No...to the contrary, I'm open to the idea that these aren't "flying saucers". It's rather you people that are completely closed to the idea that they could be. I've done nothing but disprove every claim. Claims that have been shifting every time they've been disproved. I haven't budged from mine.

You haven't shown very persuasive evidence for yours either. Essentially, you seem to default to believing that everything is proof of UFOs, when somebody with a reasonably skeptical mindset would do the opposite. When you watched Lord of the Rings, did you think Elijah Wood was actually only three feet tall? It certainly appeared that way much more than these appear to be intelligent beings. Most people assume that neither is true, though.

You seem to believe that if we don't have all the details on something, we must default to believing it's proof of aliens. It reminds me of this little snippet:

Me: Scientists have pretty firmly established that the moon is made of rock...
Mary: But they don't know if the rock came from the Earth, or from out of space, so it could just as easily be green cheese.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, not fuzzy videos that might possibly be what you claim or might just as well be a million other things.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!! 

They must be *inside* if you knew what 'particle' meant. Particles are tiny. If they were outside the craft miles away, you wouldn't see them. They sure as hell wouldn't be seen at 80+ nautical miles behind the tether. In fact, charged particles are exactly what would let you see the magnetic field as you've said. You wouldn't see huge blobs of these things floating around...you'd see a glow around the magnetized object. Just like the glow around the tether. Particles are tiny. If these things are inside the shuttle...we've got a problem because they're moving behind objects outside the craft and it's being referred to as debris. Debris inside the shuttle?

I'm revoking all your science badges. It's clear you guys are riding the "I likez teh science" wave in an attempt to look intellectually superior. In reality you show ignorance and try to explain things with bad science.

Um, 'particle' is not really a precise word, it can mean any number of things (yes, it can be a highly specific word such as 'subatomic particle' but that's clearly not what we're talking about here). And if the camera were right up against a viewport, a particle of dust just outside would appear just as big as if it were inside and the camera was farther from the viewport.

And please stop trying to discredit my argument by tying me in with other people's statements. I didn't say that what we were seeing was debris, therefore it doesn't matter if my argument is inconsistent with the debris theory. While it may very well be debris, it may also be dust, it may also be alien spacecraft. Any of these and a variety of others are possibilities. The question is which is more likely (as we don't have nearly enough data to determine which is factual).

Also, we have absolutely no way of knowing if the things we are seeing are at the same distance from the camera as the tether. It seems vastly more likely that they are very tiny things very close to the camera than very large things very far away.

Your science is not as good as you think it is. The reason we see a glow from the tether in the UV spectrum is not because it is 'energized' or 'magnetized'. It's because it's reflecting UV light from the Sun. Different objects and materials have different reflective and refractive properties, therefore will have different appearances under the same lighting conditions.

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

You haven't shown very good evidence for yours either. Essentially, you seem to default to believing that everything is proof of UFOs, when somebody with a reasonably skeptical mindset would do the opposite. When you watched Lord of the Rings, did you think Elijah Wood was actually only three feet tall? It certainly appeared that way much more than these appear to be intelligent beings. Most people assume that neither is true, though.

You seem to believe that if we don't have all the details on something, we must default to believing it's proof of aliens. It reminds me of this little snippet:


Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, not fuzzy videos that might possibly be what you claim or might just as well be a million other things.

That's because I've shown everyone morsels of mountains of evidence which everyone here is absolutely not willing to research themselves. Like I said, even if an extra-terrestrial knocked on your door tomorrow morning, you STILL wouldn't believe it.

The video isn't fuzzy. Do you think million dollar cameras are going to produce a picture quality equal to a consumer camera? Is the Hubble telescope using dumb ass consumer-grade lens? Get outta here.

[Horsepoo!!!]

edit: can't stand my internet connection today...

[sek929]

I posted again in this thread.

Sometimes I see little squiggly lines in the corner of my vision, they are all blurry and sometimes change directions.

Aliens in my cornea?

[Tiresias]

The evidence is far from compelling, and it doesn't become more compelling just because you can find more of the same thing.

[Dakar the Fourth]

Originally Posted by sek929 

I posted again in this thread.

Sometimes I see little squiggly lines in the corner of my vision, they are all blurry and sometimes change directions.

Aliens in my cornea?

Stop touching yourself.

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

You haven't shown very good evidence for yours either. Essentially, you seem to default to believing that everything is proof of UFOs, when somebody with a reasonably skeptical mindset would do the opposite. When you watched Lord of the Rings, did you think Elijah Wood was actually only three feet tall? It certainly appeared that way much more than these appear to be intelligent beings. Most people assume that neither is true, though.

You seem to believe that if we don't have all the details on something, we must default to believing it's proof of aliens. It reminds me of this little snippet:


Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, not fuzzy videos that might possibly be what you claim or might just as well be a million other things.

That's because I've shown everyone morsels of mountains of evidence which everyone here is absolutely not willing to research themselves. Like I said, even if an extra-terrestrial knocked on your door tomorrow morning, you STILL wouldn't believe it.

The video isn't fuzzy. Do you think million dollar cameras are going to produce a picture quality equal to a consumer camera? Is the Hubble telescope using dumb ass consumer-grade lens? Get outta here. The only thing fuzzy around here is your logic. You can't casually dismiss these videos and many other claims of humongous luminous spheres as non-evidence. You're being hypocritical.

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally Posted by Tiresias 

The evidence is far from compelling, and it doesn't become more compelling just because you can find more of the same thing.

Let's look at it some other way...all of the claims brought forward in this thread from people trying to debunk this have been far from compelling. In fact, they're riddled with physical impossibilities.

[sek929]

Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!! 

Let's look at it some other way...all of the claims brought forward in this thread from people trying to debunk this has been far from compelling. In fact, they're riddled with physical impossibilities.

Irony™

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally Posted by sek929 

Irony™

Tell me, where do I falter in my explanations?

Everyone that has described this as debris and was sure of it, is totally wrong.
Now the new thing is that these things are particles. Still no one has yet explained exactly how these things could be particles and how they're going behind the tether and still being seen by the camera.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!! 

Known fact. Explained by NASA. NASA was to put a tether into space as an alternative method to put objects in space via electromagnetism. An elevator if you will. The tether snapped and this was a video of what remained of the tether.

False! From the first site you linked to:

On Sunday, February 25, 1996, the Space Shuttle Columbia deployed an experimental tether into orbit. The experiment was called the Tethered Satellite System (TSS- 1R) and it's purpose of this was to attempt to generate electricity by utilizing Earth's magnetic field.

I am not biting the bait completely, just nibbling here.

[sek929]

Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!! 

Tell me, where do I falter in my explanations?

Geez, where to start, umm, just about everywhere actually.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!! 

No YUO! Selective science...works wonders doesn't it, analogika. Turn in your science badge.

"Selective science" - I like that.

So you have a theory that applies to the Space Shuttle and the tether (keeping them in orbit), but not to objects and particles floating between them, since they ought to be falling to the ground?

That's...um...pretty selective.

Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!! 

Yeah...and the tether shrinks too...it's called ZOOMING.

No, it's actually called FOCUS.

You're just ****ing with us, right?

[Andrew Stephens]

Hands up anyone who really thinks that NASA (or any other government agency) could keep actual evidence of aliens a secret for more than 30 seconds?

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally Posted by sek929 

Geez, where to start, umm, just about everywhere actually.

Right...that comment certainly proves that I'm wrong.

Most of you probably skipped on the science homework in high school...I don't think I can possibly persuade you guys to do your homework on this.

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally Posted by Andrew Stephens 

Hands up anyone who really thinks that NASA (or any other government agency) could keep actual evidence of aliens a secret for more than 30 seconds?

Even if they said it loud and clear for people to hear it, you guys would probably look up at the TV with drool from the side of your mouths saying "Duuh, nah, they must be kidding."

[Tiresias]

Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!! 

Right...that comment certainly proves that I'm wrong.

Most of you probably skipped on the science homework in high school...I don't think I can possibly persuade you guys to do your homework on this.

Stop banging on like you are some kind of authority on scientific enquiry. Because your posts say, not really.

[Horsepoo!!!]

...

[Railroader]

This is like a macgeek2005 thread, but without the macgeek2005 or the swords or "videos" he made or all of the fun stuff that makes this a macgeek2005 thread.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!! 

Let's look at it some other way...all of the claims brought forward in this thread from people trying to debunk this have been far from compelling. In fact, they're riddled with physical impossibilities.

OK, I'm going to postulate that these are nonsentient UFO-shaped vacuum cleaners. I've now shown just as much evidence as you have for aliens. Is my theory entirely reasonable in your opinion?

[analogika]

No!

They're pan-dimensional Chinese space weapons in testing!

[sek929]

Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!! 

Right...that comment certainly proves that I'm wrong.

Well you need little or no proof to come to your ridiculous conclusions so why should anyone else.

I also hypothesize that Saturn is made entirely of coffee and creamer, I mean look at it, looks like coffee and creamer.

Prove me wrong.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by analogika 

They're pan-dimensional Chinese space weapons in testing!

Pfft. Probably painted with lead. I'll pass.