UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Rramjet]

I stated:
“Here is a little test for you then. Please describe the trajectory of the object that appears at 6:17 (bottom right) and disappears at about 8:40 (middle left). I would particularly like to see your explanation of the object’s trajectory between 7:00 and when it disappears (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZ7EgRiU5Zo&feature=related)”

Here's a test for you, what makes it alien?

Can’t take my test huh? I wonder why. And who said anything about it being alien? I am drawing no conclusions about it whatsoever. I am merely having trouble assigning a mundane explanation to it. Can you help?

I stated:
“Can I ask that when UFO debunkers use a chain of logic, they actually think through it logically? The camera is actually capturing video images of “stuff” from the vantage point of “more-or-less the middle” of the shuttle’s cargo bay. We know MIR is off in the distance. We also see pieces of “debris” actually pass behind MIR. For example can you please describe the motion and distinguishing characteristics of the UFO that appears at 8:34 (bottom, slightly to the right of centre just up from the bottom of the frame) and disappears at about 9:13 (at the top of the frame)?”

What makes this alien? It's your video you need to show us why it's alien. Or did you change the name of this thread again?

I answered the “alien” thing above, but what is this about changing the name of the thread? One simply cannot do that (as you well know).

I stated:
“The bottom line is TjW that you propose an explanatory hypothesis (the RCS done it) without ever explaining how the could have done it. That you must do before we can take your hypothesis seriously.”

Bottom line is you are just throwing videos at us because you know you have no evidence of aliens.

(*sigh*) The mere stating of unfounded assertions does not make them true.

 

[Rramjet]

Okay. I see. You don't understand what an RCS is, or how it works.

Okay. I see. You cannot describe the trajectory of the object(s) I refer to. I guess that means you have not actually looked at the evidence then? Shame really – a close examination of the evidence can tell us a great deal – oh well…

The reaction control system changes the angular momentum of a spacecraft around an axis by throwing stuff overboard. Generally, it's a gas.
Once the gas has left the spacecraft, it expands, as any gas will do, into the vacuum.
That expanding gas can affect small particles, changing their trajectories.

Do tell…

You should notice that the RCS changes the angular momentum, not the position, of the spacecraft. To change the angular position, you use the RCS to change the momentum in one direction, wait until you've started moving in that direction, then apply the RCS again to cancel the first momentum change.

If you say so… oh, but wait… ”change the angular position”? Huh. Now what does that actually mean? Well, basic physics tells us that for every action there is a reaction. So… the firing of an RCS thruster will change the position of the shuttle relative to its environment. Now… how can we tell if this has occurred during the video sequence. Oh yes… there is MIR out there AND there are the stars as a background. So we can ask (and answer) a simple question: Does the shuttle’s “angular” position change in relation to these background objects. Well yes, the stars move, but MIR’s position changes in precise relation to the shuttles position in that regard. So no evidence of the shuttle’s RCS firing there. Of course the most telling evidence would be a change in relation to MIR itself… do we see any evidence of that? No, we don’t. MIR is rock solid in relation to the shuttle’s attitude. Hmmm, no evidence of RCS activity there either. Huh… then the rest of your comments here become moot. No RCS firings, no debris trajectory changes caused by RCS firing.

So RCS corrections generally come in pairs.
A small particle moving by when RCS is being used to make corrections could slow down, change direction one way, change to the opposite direction, and speed up again, all depending on which thrusters were firing and where it was relative to them and the camera.

Actually I asked you to describe the mechanics of your hypothesis that RCS firings could cause the trajectory changes we observe in the object(s) of interest. You have provided a general description of RCS firing – but notably have not described HOW the particular object(s) in question could be so affected. Until you DO, we are entitled to dismiss your hypothesis as mere unfounded assertion.

It's okay to be ignorant -- not everyone takes an interest in how this stuff works.

But to then declare that it's unexplainable, because you, personally, can't explain it is a logical fallacy.

Perhaps you would care to point to where I have stated or implied that it is “unexplainable”? Again (sigh) merely stating unfounded assertions does NOT make them true.

Actually I am seeking input from anyone who cares to comment. Perhaps you can help solve the mystery of the trajectories? And what about that second object? It just “appears” from nowhere, flashing, stationary, than begins to move (and here is the critical thing) it passes behind MIR!

When you reject explanations out of hand from people who do know, it goes beyond logical fallacy and into dishonesty.

I wouldn’t be so hard on yourself TjW, many people make mistakes and often a failure to examine the actual evidence will lead them to erroneous conclusions. All I can suggest is that you actually examine the evidence, describe the object(s) trajectory, and then try to work out how your hypothesis in relation to it (them) and the RCS could be correct.

 

[Rramjet]

Anyone with a minimum understanding of photography would know why the specs are so important.

I suppose that is why you failed to include “the specs” with your own photos then, including all the things demanded of the UFO photo (such as the technical specifications of the camera, lens, f-stop and exposure times and including the chain of custody, the type of film, the copying and development process, etc, etc)?

Too bad the article's authors missed this important point (among many others), building a castle of cards; too bad you can not understand the reasons why this castle crumbles with such ease.

Too bad that the mere stating of unfounded assertion does not make the assertion true. If it did then I might even be inclined to agree with you. But sorry, as a sceptic I cannot accept unfounded assertion as evidence of anything.

Unable to formulate a coherent argument to counter the pictures I posted, you resorted to an ad hom attack, suggesting I manipulated the images.

I think you merely misunderstand what an ad hominem attack is. I simply contended that there was no evidence to suggest that the photos you presented were not digitally (or otherwise) manipulated (in an attempt) to show what you wanted them to show.

Besides, this “Photoshopped” argument is used by UFO debunkers against UFO photos all the time – yet when I use that same argument against your own photos – you suddenly see it as a personal attack?

I also “formulated” the argument that the images you presented DO NOT show a squiggly line (due to camera movement) with three “ends” as displayed in the UFO photo. I also implied that your failure to conduct a side-by-side comparison of your photos with the UFO photo was unscientific and that you should have provided us with that comparison at the very least.

You also lied- cameras specs were available at the first post where the images were shown and I stated I can provide the original files with the EXIFS.

You mean this post? (where you stated):

Anyone with real and good scientific formation would understand why the camera and lens models are important. It is about methodology. It is about data QA/QC. It is about setting a divide between science and pseudoscience. If you do not take in to account the effects of exposure and aperture on pictures while measuring images of objects you are at the risk of making big mistakes.

If I present a paper on mineral chemistry and used a microprobe to track, say, the variation of a certain element along a crystal, I must state who made the equipment and its model, as well as other specs such as detection limits and operational conditions. A perfect track of sample preparation and collection, needless to say, are crucial issues. If you can’t understand the analogy and the reasons, you need to go back to basics.

Please tell me again where all the specifications you demanded above for the UFO photo are located in your post (including “detection limits and operational conditions. A perfect track of sample preparation and collection”)? A quote formatted as above from that post would suffice.

Nevertheless, in fact I was actually referring to your SECOND post,where you provided a different set of pictures without any specifications… (I had already replied to your original post – but perhaps that was not clear and I apologise for that) and in reference to your second post I then stated:

“Not only is there no evidence that the images he presents have not been manipulated in an image editor, and not only do they not replicate the image in question (don't let superficial resemblance fool you - a side by side comparison would of course be the proper way to analyse the results - but of course Correa Neto will not so that), but incredibly, after quizzing me so closely and repeatedly in an effort to ascertain the technical specifications of the astronaut's camera, lens, f-stop and exposure times (including the chain of custody, the type of film, the copying and development process, etc), he provides none of that information for his own photos...”

By the way, note that I am not posting a scientific paper, so… Your attempt to shift the burden of proof failed. Anyway, once again, you are proceeding as a person blinded by belief and ignorance of science.

So precisely who is indulging in ad hominem attacks here? But of course… the mere statement of unfounded assertion does not make the unfounded assertion true.

Now, you claimed the pictures were manipulated; it doesn’t matter how you tried to weasel it out with the words “possibly” and “probably”. Prove your claim –it is your onus, your burden. Prove it or remove the claim and apologize.

Hmmm… UFO debunkers argue that UFO photos could be “Photoshopped” (and thus not genuine) all the time, so why are you surprised (outraged even) when that same argument is used against your own photos? I stand by the claim. You presented the photos, you have to prove that they were not “Photoshopped”.

 

[Rramjet]

I stated:
“No, you only need to describe the combination that could have produced the trajectories of the two UFOs I mention above. Those are the two we are interested in and those are the two whose trajectories you must logically account for with your RCS hypothesis. If you propose such an explanatory hypothesis as you do, then you must be able to explain how the mechanics of the situation work according to that hypothesis. Otherwise you are simply making unfounded assertions in the mere hope that they might be true.”

Unfortunately, there is not enough data available to preform such a calculation.

In that case you must drop the unfounded assertion that “the RCS done it.” Especially in consideration of the second object which passes behind MIR!

In the absence of such data, debris is still more likely than aliens.

This is (again) an unfounded assertion. You have absolutely no idea of the likelihood of it being alien. If it IS alien, then there is 100% likelihood of it being alien. BTW I am NOT claiming it IS alien, just at this point I don’t have a plausible mundane explanation for it (them both). Perhaps you can help?

 

[TjW]

If you say so… oh, but wait… ”change the angular position”? Huh. Now what does that actually mean? Well, basic physics tells us that for every action there is a reaction. So… the firing of an RCS thruster will change the position of the shuttle relative to its environment.

No. It will change its angular momentum. That will cause a change in position, of course, but without another correction to return the momentum to zero, the position will continue to change.

Now… how can we tell if this has occurred during the video sequence. Oh yes… there is MIR out there AND there are the stars as a background. So we can ask (and answer) a simple question: Does the shuttle’s “angular” position change in relation to these background objects. Well yes, the stars move, but MIR’s position changes in precise relation to the shuttles position in that regard. So no evidence of the shuttle’s RCS firing there.

Wrong. This is precisely the evidence for RCS firings. The shuttle and the Mir do not have enough mutual gravity for the shuttle to orbit the Mir.
For the shuttle to move around the Mir, which is what the video in question says they were doing, it has to use the RCS. For the Mir to remain centered in the camera, more RCS firings would have to be made. It would be entirely possible for the shuttle to only translate around the Mir. This wouldn't use as much RCS fuel, but would make it more difficult to inspect the Mir, which is what I suppose they are doing.

Of course the most telling evidence would be a change in relation to MIR itself… do we see any evidence of that? No, we don’t. MIR is rock solid in relation to the shuttle’s attitude. Hmmm, no evidence of RCS activity there either. Huh… then the rest of your comments here become moot. No RCS firings, no debris trajectory changes caused by RCS firing.


Actually I asked you to describe the mechanics of your hypothesis that RCS firings could cause the trajectory changes we observe in the object(s) of interest.<snippage>

Previously posted by me:
The reaction control system changes the angular momentum of a spacecraft around an axis by throwing stuff overboard. Generally, it's a gas.
Once the gas has left the spacecraft, it expands, as any gas will do, into the vacuum.
That expanding gas can affect small particles, changing their trajectories.

What part of this mechanical explanation don't you understand?
I'm not asking which parts you choose to believe, merely the parts you can't understand.

Your assertion that the object passes on the far side of the Mir is just that, an assertion. It doesn't appear that way to me.
Show some evidence -- say, that the brightness of the object is modulated by the Mir's flashing light, which it would have to be, if it were on the far side of the Mir.

 

[Frying Dutchmen]

I stated:
“Here is a little test for you then. Please describe the trajectory of the object that appears at 6:17 (bottom right) and disappears at about 8:40 (middle left). I would particularly like to see your explanation of the object’s trajectory between 7:00 and when it disappears (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZ7EgRiU5Zo&feature=related)”

What's unusual about that object? Apart from you calling it a UFO?

Can’t take my test huh? I wonder why. And who said anything about it being alien? I am drawing no conclusions about it whatsoever. I am merely having trouble assigning a mundane explanation to it. Can you help?

Oh noes I didn't take your test?! The test where I could answer but not get it correct because I didn't say UFO?

I stated:
“Can I ask that when UFO debunkers use a chain of logic, they actually think through it logically? The camera is actually capturing video images of “stuff” from the vantage point of “more-or-less the middle” of the shuttle’s cargo bay. We know MIR is off in the distance. We also see pieces of “debris” actually pass behind MIR. For example can you please describe the motion and distinguishing characteristics of the UFO that appears at 8:34 (bottom, slightly to the right of centre just up from the bottom of the frame) and disappears at about 9:13 (at the top of the frame)?”

Pot calling the kettle black.

I answered the “alien” thing above, but what is this about changing the name of the thread? One simply cannot do that (as you well know).

No, it's that you change your meaning of a UFO when it suits you. IE the Iran UFO story, it was UFO there for it was an ALIEN! But now it's UFO there for it's a UFO. So either stick to your descriptions or use the real one.

I stated:
“The bottom line is TjW that you propose an explanatory hypothesis (the RCS done it) without ever explaining how the could have done it. That you must do before we can take your hypothesis seriously.”

(*sigh*) The mere stating of unfounded assertions does not make them true.

What that you don't have any good evidence for UFOs being Alien? Or that you know you don't have any and you are just throwing videos of dots at us to make out that the evil skeptics are just really evil UFO debunkers?

 

[RoboTimbo]

And who said anything about it being alien? I am drawing no conclusions about it whatsoever.

Then it is off topic for this thread. This thread is about the evidence for UFOs, by which you mean UFAOs, and aliens. This is simply another instance of you switching the burden of proof again, presenting something you can't identify and asking others to definitively identify it for you, then handwaving away any plausible mundane explanations.

Maybe you could start to present cases where you actually accept the burden of proof and provide positive evidence of something being alien?*



* NOTE: By alien, I do not mean something that Rramjet simply cannot personally identify.

 

[Rramjet]

Wrong. This is precisely the evidence for RCS firings. The shuttle and the Mir do not have enough mutual gravity for the shuttle to orbit the Mir.
For the shuttle to move around the Mir, which is what the video in question says they were doing, it has to use the RCS. For the Mir to remain centered in the camera, more RCS firings would have to be made. It would be entirely possible for the shuttle to only translate around the Mir. This wouldn't use as much RCS fuel, but would make it more difficult to inspect the Mir, which is what I suppose they are doing.

Actually I have to admit a mistake in my own writings here. You are correct. The shuttle IS moving in relation to MIR. If you run the video at high speed this becomes readily apparent. Indeed, also it is indicated in the soundtrack that the shuttle is “orbiting” MIR.

Your assertion that the object passes on the far side of the Mir is just that, an assertion. It doesn't appear that way to me.
Show some evidence -- say, that the brightness of the object is modulated by the Mir's flashing light, which it would have to be, if it were on the far side of the Mir.

Actually, on closer examination I believe you are correct. The object that appears at 8:13 does pass in front of MIR.

So, we must return to the question of RCS firings and the object’s trajectory.

Let us examine the trajectory of the first object of interest from when it appears at 6:17 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZ7EgRiU5Zo&feature=related).

6:17: Object appears and travels in straight line (right to left upward at 38○ relative to the bottom of the picture frame) until:
7:05: when it curves left to travel at 0○ (horizontal relative to the bottom of frame) until:
7:24: when it curves downward to travel at 25○ (from vertical) until:
8:00: where it halts all relative (to the camera) motion and maintains that stationary position until:
8:18: when it drops vertically downward until:
8:35: when it finally disappears altogether.

One thing to note is that after the object changes direction at 7:05 it becomes progressively smaller as it travels. Between 6:17 to 7:05 it maintained its size, indicating that between 6:17 and 7:05 it was travelling at roughly the same distance from the camera, but then after the change of direction at 7:05 it was then travelling away from us.

Now let us examine the shuttle’s RCS system.

The RCS thrusters are located both forward (in the nose cone RCS module) and aft (in two RCS modules, one at either side at the base of the tail).

An overall description of the RCS system can be found here (http://www.columbiassacrifice.com/techdocs/subsystems/SubSys_RCS.pdf)

A detailed diagram of the forward RCS thruster locations can be seen here (http://www.columbiassacrifice.com/images/tech_overview/hi_res_images/FwdRCSComp2300.htm) while a more general diagram can be seen here (http://www.columbiassacrifice.com/&1_shttlovrvw.htm – Fig. 1-15).

A detailed diagram of the aft RCS thruster locations can be seen here (http://www.columbiassacrifice.com/images/tech_overview/AftRCSPod1000.gif) while a more general diagram can be seen here (http://www.columbiassacrifice.com/&2_shttlovrvw.htm – Fig. 2-5)

The location of the camera (and docking system) can be found here (http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q...Ulf3mU&sig=AHIEtbQWzTR-_1JJD3KFl-GSuTqdZM_Lsg)

As can be noted the system (and camera) sits in the payload bay with the camera pointing at right angles to the shuttle’s main axis (directly out the top of the shuttle in other words).

Armed with the above information we are now in a position to explore whether the firing of the shuttle’s RCS thrusters could have caused the trajectory of the first object.

However, I don’t have time to do that just now, but I will post this information so that others might be able to if they are interested.

PS: one could analyse the second object similarly. Why does it become stationary at about 8:25, to suddenly begin moving again at about 8:35 (coincidentally the same time the first object finally disappears). And why is it flashing so.

 

[Rramjet]

Then it is off topic for this thread. This thread is about the evidence for UFOs, by which you mean UFAOs, and aliens. This is simply another instance of you switching the burden of proof again, presenting something you can't identify and asking others to definitively identify it for you, then handwaving away any plausible mundane explanations.

Maybe you could start to present cases where you actually accept the burden of proof and provide positive evidence of something being alien?*



* NOTE: By alien, I do not mean something that Rramjet simply cannot personally identify.

Hello RoboT. Welcome back. Glad you could join the fray

Well ...it is (so far at least) a UFO (and thus is evidence for UFOs), so directly on topic.

Actually, I am trying my best to identify it. If others care to comment, provide analysis, or hypothetical explanations, that is welcomed also.

Is it alien? Who knows, but pertaining to the OP, if it is a UFO (defies mundane explanation), then it becomes "alien" - that is something that is foreign to our common understanding of the mundane or prosaic.

 

[Rramjet]

What's unusual about that object? Apart from you calling it a UFO?

First object (6:17): Its trajectory.
Second object (8:35): Its flashing nature and trajectory.
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZ7EgRiU5Zo&feature=related)

Oh noes I didn't take your test?! The test where I could answer but not get it correct because I didn't say UFO?

Actually, you did not describe how the RCS system could affect the trajectory to produce the results we can see in the video. You assertions amounted to “The RCS done it.” – and that is simply not enough. How could the RCS thrusters do it is the question that needs answering.

No, it's that you change your meaning of a UFO when it suits you. IE the Iran UFO story, it was UFO there for it was an ALIEN! But now it's UFO there for it's a UFO. So either stick to your descriptions or use the real one.

I think you’ll find I have been consistent since the very beginning. If you can show me where I have been inconsistent then you might have a point, otherwise it is still an unfounded assertion here.

What that you don't have any good evidence for UFOs being Alien? Or that you know you don't have any and you are just throwing videos of dots at us to make out that the evil skeptics are just really evil UFO debunkers?

The ETH is a compelling hypothesis, but you are correct. I do not have direct evidence for it. But I have never claimed I did and have consistently stated so many times. Nothing “evil”, just trying to get the UFO debunkers to stop posting unfounded assertions and to examine and analyse the evidence in a sceptical (and scientific) manner).

 

[RoboTimbo]

Hello RoboT. Welcome back. Glad you could join the fray

Thanks, I was never gone. Moving dots in space just weren't that interesting.

Well ...it is (so far at least) a UFO (and thus is evidence for UFOs), so directly on topic.

Using which of your definitions of UFO?

Actually, I am trying my best to identify it. If others care to comment, provide analysis, or hypothetical explanations, that is welcomed also.

Is it alien? Who knows, but pertaining to the OP, if it is a UFO (defies mundane explanation), then it becomes "alien" - that is something that is foreign to our common understanding of the mundane or prosaic.

Ah, the definition you're using is UFAO then. In that case, you still have the burden of proof to show it is alien. If you can't, it will remain a UFO by the mundane and prosaic definition of UFO.

 

[Jocce]

Let us examine the trajectory of the first object of interest from when it appears at 6:17 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZ7EgRiU5Zo&feature=related).

6:17: Object appears and travels in straight line (right to left upward at 38○ relative to the bottom of the picture frame) until:
7:05: when it curves left to travel at 0○ (horizontal relative to the bottom of frame) until:
7:24: when it curves downward to travel at 25○ (from vertical) until:
8:00: where it halts all relative (to the camera) motion and maintains that stationary position until:
8:18: when it drops vertically downward until:
8:35: when it finally disappears altogether.

One thing to note is that after the object changes direction at 7:05 it becomes progressively smaller as it travels. Between 6:17 to 7:05 it maintained its size, indicating that between 6:17 and 7:05 it was travelling at roughly the same distance from the camera, but then after the change of direction at 7:05 it was then travelling away from us.

Actually, there is a simpler possible explanation that we could look into. Remember that we're in space here (3D) and that the shuttle is orbiting around the space station. If a small object close to the shuttle pass in a straight line from behind us and going to the left, our perspective towards that objects path would change progressively and it would look as if the objects trajectory is curved on the flat 2D space we see. Unfortunately I don't have any 3d software installed on my computer to test the idea so I can only try to imagine it in my head.

What do you think?

 

[Jocce]

you must drop the unfounded assertion that “the RCS done it.” Especially in consideration of the second object which passes behind MIR!

Noone said that 100% certain, the RCS done it. It's one possibility that has been explored. You really need to stop moving my goalposts.

You have absolutely no idea of the likelihood of it being alien. If it IS alien, then there is 100% likelihood of it being alien.

This is just retoric and really bad logic. We know debris exist around the space station. We don't yet know if aliens do. Therefor it is simple to see that debris is more likely than aliens if we don't have enough data to examine. If debris and aliens are equally likely, then invisible unicorns dragging flashlights around is also equally likely. Is that your opinion?

As for the last part. If it is proven alien, then talking about likelihood is just irrelevant because there's no uncertainty any more.

 

[Rramjet]

Actually, there is a simpler possible explanation that we could look into. Remember that we're in space here (3D) and that the shuttle is orbiting around the space station. If a small object close to the shuttle pass in a straight line from behind us and going to the left, our perspective towards that objects path would change progressively and it would look as if the objects trajectory is curved on the flat 2D space we see. Unfortunately I don't have any 3d software installed on my computer to test the idea so I can only try to imagine it in my head.

What do you think?

I don’t think “simple explanation” is quite accurate Nevertheless this diagram may help (http://www.columbiassacrifice.com/subsections_Misc/RCS_Jet_Code.htm).

We must note that the camera (our viewpoint) is located at (in the diagram just linked) approximately where the arrows describing the three shuttle axis meet and is pointing in the direction of positive pitch. We must presume also the shuttle is orbiting MIR nose first (meaning the nose is pointing toward the bottom of the video frame - although of course this is not certain, it does make for the easiest configuration to conduct an orbit … We must remember also that the word “orbit” is somewhat misleading. The shuttle will not be travelling exactly in a circle, but a series of straight trajectories, punctuated by an aft driven negative pitch change, an aft forward thrust, then followed with some combined forward and aft positive pitch firing to counteract the Z axis motion… yes, yes …follow it in the diagram).

So according to your hypothesis… from 6:17 to 7:05 there is no shuttle orbital corrections (because the object travels in a straight line at a constant distance from the camera), but at 7:05 there IS a “correction” – bringing the nose into the picture, thus causing the object to appear to move down…?

But the thing that negates such a hypothesis is the background stars - they continue to move at a constant rate.

There are some other anomalous objects in this video too. At about 1:22 (right after we begin to focus properly on MIR), there are two objects in the upper left corner. One object remains absolutely stationary (in relation to the camera) throughout the entire video! Nothing else in the video does this. While the other object traces a sort of meandering downward curve until it disappears (mid-left) at about 5:11. How are both these things possible? It is just too easy to say “Oh, these are just bits of space junk floating around and occasionally they are affected by the RCS or the relative motion of the camera in relation to them..” But if that were the case then we should be able to logically describe HOW that is so (for example: At 7:05 the G11/12 thrusters fire and this pushes the object… and alters the camera angle… etc, etc – that is there must be a describable, logical sequence of events that could cause the objects movements). There MUST be an explanation. So what are we missing?

The best way to view all these things is to download the video (Firefox has plugins – DownloadHelper and/or UnPlug) and play them on VLC media player (where you can drag the slider to run the video at any speed you want). If you run the video at extreme high speed (like about 60x) the anomalous movements (or in one case, non-movement) are very apparent (as is the movement of the shuttle in relation to MIR and the background stars).

Its just all very strange to me. Take the (1996) STS 75 Tether Incident footage for example – just look at the motion (trajectories) of some of these objects. For example this footage (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2DVeil21gc) – I advise watching with the sound OFF… (“original” footage here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=As-wYmFYb3I). What IS going on? Space debris that wanders about all over the place? Surely someone has described how this can be so? After all, we have been “up there” for a long time now – and no-one has a plausible explanation? What IS going on?

 

[Correa Neto]

I suppose that is why you failed to include “the specs” with your own photos then, including all the things demanded of the UFO photo (such as the technical specifications of the camera, lens, f-stop and exposure times and including the chain of custody, the type of film, the copying and development process, etc, etc)?

I must suggest you to update your knowledge regarding digital imagery, since it seems you are not aware that digital cameras use CCDs instead of film. It would also be nice if you studied about what’s supposed to be at a scientific paper’s section on methodology and why it is important.

Too bad that the mere stating of unfounded assertion does not make the assertion true. If it did then I might even be inclined to agree with you. But sorry, as a sceptic I cannot accept unfounded assertion as evidence of anything.

The available evidence (your posts) indicates to me that regarding UFOs you do not apply critical thinking and accepts unfounded assertions as evidence of your views regarding the phenomena.

I think you merely misunderstand what an ad hominem attack is. I simply contended that there was no evidence to suggest that the photos you presented were not digitally (or otherwise) manipulated (in an attempt) to show what you wanted them to show.

You are just trying to weasel out your statement. Instead of trying to refute my point - the image at the article in question can be of a single point light and the article on Skylab 3 UFO is ridden with flaws- you accused me of manipulating images. Had you presented evidences (and there are none) that I adulterated the images, it would not have been a personal attack. Where are these evidences, Rramjet?

Without these evidences, one might think you can not counter my points regarding the flaws in the article and is trying diversion and evasion maneuvers using personal attacks and once again attempts to shift the onus of burden. A person with real and good scientific training would not do this, unless blinded somehow by belief. It’s a typical behavior, however, of pseudoscience adepts. Instead attacking those who are countering your arguments (as you frequently do by calling us “UFO debunkers”) you should try to actually counter our points. If you can not counter an argument against an idea you presented, regardless on how dear that idea might be for you, you should just admit it and move on.

Besides, this “Photoshopped” argument is used by UFO debunkers against UFO photos all the time – yet when I use that same argument against your own photos – you suddenly see it as a personal attack?
…snip…
Hmmm… UFO debunkers argue that UFO photos could be “Photoshopped” (and thus not genuine) all the time, so why are you surprised (outraged even) when that same argument is used against your own photos? I stand by the claim. You presented the photos, you have to prove that they were not “Photoshopped”.

There are several errors and at least one claim over there.

First, the claim (and sweeping generalization) “UFO debunkers argue that UFO photos could be “Photoshopped” (and thus not genuine) all the time,”. Prove it or retreat it. We, individuals which have been using critical thinking to probe the UFO phenomena, have along this thread been pointing that certain pictures may be (and most likely are) CGI and also have been showing the reasons for this conclusion (unmatching shadows, interlacing issues, differences in pixels, etc.). Note also that no skeptic would claim CGI on 20 years old (or older) imagery… Photographic tricks (collage, montage, forced perspective) yes, Photoshop, no. In these cases (ex.; Trindade UFO pictures) as well, skeptics always presented the reasons why foul play was suspected. You must also bear in mind that many of the pieces of imagery (like those from Skylab 3) have never been considered as hoaxed by skeptics- they are merely considered as unidentified. Your statement, thus is flawed in many levels. Note also that along this thread, those applying critical thinking to UFO phenomena are not the UFO proponents. It seems skeptics are better when it comes down to studying UFOs than UFOlogists themselves… Too bad UFOlogy claims can not resist a critical examination.

Second, again you are trying to shift the burden of proof. I presented the images to back my claim that the image shown at the fourth picture of the article can be a single point light. You are the one claiming they may be adulterated. Thus, the burden to show they were adulterated is yours. Go back to the basics, learn what the burden of proof means (something it seems you always had problems understanding). Now, once again, prove I adulterated the images or apologize and remove the accusation.

 

[Rramjet]

I stated:
” Please tell me again where all the specifications you demanded above for the UFO photo are located in your post (including “detection limits and operational conditions. A perfect track of sample preparation and collection”)? A quote formatted as above from that post would suffice."

I must suggest you to update your knowledge regarding digital imagery, since it seems you are not aware that digital cameras use CCDs instead of film. It would also be nice if you studied about what’s supposed to be at a scientific paper’s section on methodology and why it is important.

That would be a “no” then?

The available evidence (your posts) indicates to me that regarding UFOs you do not apply critical thinking and accepts unfounded assertions as evidence of your views regarding the phenomena.

What “available evidence”? Without presenting it, you are merely making unfounded assertions, and (as you should know by now) merely stating unfounded assertions does not make them true.

You then spend much time in the rest of your post claiming (or implying) that I am “trying to weasel out” of my statements, that I have “accused” you of manipulating images, that in doing so it amounted to a “personal attack”, that I am “trying diversion and evasion maneuvers”, that I am shifting the burden of proof, that I have no “good scientific training”, that I am ”blinded by belief”, that I am typical of “pseudoscience adepts”, that I am “attacking those who are countering” my arguments, that I don’t ” actually counter our points”, that I have committed ”several errors” (and a “sweeping generalisation”), that my statements are “flawed in many levels”, that I do not apply critical thinking …(and so on).

The point is that all these from you are unfounded ad hominem attacks against me and once again you have provided no evidence for such claims and implications. I can only therefore reiterate: Making such unfounded assertions does not make them true.

Second, again you are trying to shift the burden of proof. I presented the images to back my claim that the image shown at the fourth picture of the article can be a single point light. You are the one claiming they may be adulterated. Thus, the burden to show they were adulterated is yours. Go back to the basics, learn what the burden of proof means (something it seems you always had problems understanding). Now, once again, prove I adulterated the images or apologize and remove the accusation.

Whenever I present a UFO photo (or video), one of the very first question asked of me by the UFO debunkers is an enquiry about how I can be certain that such imagery has not been hoaxed or manipulated in some way. For example you stated yourself in reference to the very video clips under present discussion:

Just for starters, we have little if any control on the sort of manipulations the images may have suffered as well as their actual contexts (if the cameras were inside or outside a craft, what sort of cameras were used, camera settings, etc.)

(BTW, notice I have supported my assertion with evidence?)

My response was not to claim that you were attempting to shift the burden of proof, it was to go out and to research and to find and present (where I could) the original video footage located on the NASA website – in order to prove that the images were not manipulated (unless of course you subscribe to the conspiracy theory that NASA manipulates its own images).

In other words, my response was not to claim that (as you do above) “You are the one claiming they may be adulterated. Thus, the burden to show they were adulterated is yours.” Rather I accepted that as I had presented the images, then the burden of proof was on me to show that the images were genuine.

Now you have presented some images. I contend (just as you did) that you must show that the images you presented were not manipulated. Yet, in response to that you not only accuse me of a personal attack and demand an apology, you then turn around to shift the burden of proof to say that I must somehow prove that your images were not manipulated. Can you not see the double standard here CorreaN? Given this, and your own unfounded ad hominem attacks on me (as quoted above), is it really I who should be apologising?

 

[wollery]

Rramjet, here's Correa's original post, along with the camera specs you claim he didn't give. I bolded the relevant bits.

It wasn't hard to find, just one page back. I would expect a good scientist to search for such a thing (and find it, since it was so easy) before claiming it doesn't exist.

Anyone with real and good scientific formation would understand why the camera and lens models are important. It is about methodology. It is about data QA/QC. It is about setting a divide between science and pseudoscience. If you do not take in to account the effects of exposure and aperture on pictures while measuring images of objects you are at the risk of making big mistakes.

<snipped irrelevant sections>

Now, moving on, your statements about the long exposures can be easily demonstrated to be wrong.
Here are blown-ups of pictures I took last year from my apartment’s window, as a Chinese lantern flew above it (yes, I can provide the full image to show the object was at the center of the image and yes, the objective was to reproduce claimed exotic paths recorded on film). The camera I used was a DSLR Canon EOS50D which happened to be with my 300mm Canon EFS zoom objective. Further details can be gathered at the pictures’ EXIF files, which can also be made available or found with the original pictures.
[qimg]http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d150/AVCN/6006zoomed.jpg[/qimg]
[qimg]http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d150/AVCN/6009zoomed.jpg[/qimg]
Predicting your answer, I also got out of the house I was a few days ago and took some shaky shots of Venus using the same camera but with a 18mm-55mm Canon EFS lens. Here are the blown-up central parts and yes, once again I can post the whole shots.
[qimg]http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d150/AVCN/9648zoomed.jpg[/qimg]
[qimg]http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d150/AVCN/9662zoomed.jpg[/qimg]
[qimg]http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d150/AVCN/9654zoomed.jpg[/qimg]
As you can see, in shaky long exposure shots where images are concentrated at the centre of the frame, you can indeed have blobs and there may be zero, one, two or more “ends of the line”. It all depends on how the camera motion conditions the trajectory of the beam of photons originated by the point light over the film (or CCD in the case of the above pictures).
Thus, the numbers produced by measurements (which have very poor error margin estimates and quite possibly a great variance) over the fourth picture are meaningless, since it can (and most likely) show nothing but the product of the long exposure of a point light instead of a solid object with three lights.
Thus, the actual bottom line is that your statements are flawed.

He gives the make and model of the camera, the type of lens, and states that they images shown are blow-ups of the relevant sections, but that the full EXIF images are available. You can have the ORIGINAL image with all the details. In terms of digital photography, chain of custody doesn't come any better.

I think an apology is in order.

 

[Rramjet]

Rramjet, here's Correa's original post, along with the camera specs you claim he didn't give. I bolded the relevant bits.

It wasn't hard to find, just one page back. I would expect a good scientist to search for such a thing (and find it, since it was so easy) before claiming it doesn't exist.

He gives the make and model of the camera, the type of lens, and states that they images shown are blow-ups of the relevant sections, but that the full EXIF images are available. You can have the ORIGINAL image with all the details. In terms of digital photography, chain of custody doesn't come any better.

I think an apology is in order.

Given that the images CorreaN provided were manipulated ("blow ups of the relevant sections"), that he did not "make available" the "EXIF" originals and that he did not provide all the detail for his own images that he demanded for the UFO photo(s) (including image production and manipulation software specifications - ie; the development & copying process, a verified chain of custody, "detection limits" and operating specifications, etc, etc), I think this whole thing has become rather silly. Don't you?

I think what is really occurring here is that the UFO debunkers are trying their best to distract from the main game - which is of course the anomalous trajectories of the "debris" found in the following videos.

STS-74 Atlantis (Launch 12 Nov 1995)
(http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/shuttlemissions/archives/sts-74.html)
Incident: Debri behaving unusually
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZ7EgRiU5Zo&feature=related)

STS-75 Columbia (Launch 22 Feb 1996)
(http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/shuttlemissions/archives/sts-75.html)
Incident: The Tether Incident
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=As-wYmFYb3I)
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2DVeil21gc)

If those videos of “debris” behaving inexplicable don’t inspire you, perhaps you might care to have a look at the following…

STS-80 Columbia (Launch 19 Nov 1996)
(http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/shuttlemissions/archives/sts-80.html)
Incident: UFOs in formation
1. (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2450169839526113062&hl=en#)
2. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJyuQVIFdKo)

 

[TjW]

Given that the images CorreaN provided were manipulated ("blow ups of the relevant sections"), that he did not "make available" the "EXIF" originals and that he did not provide all the detail for his own images that he demanded for the UFO photo(s) (including image production and manipulation software specifications - ie; the development & copying process, a verified chain of custody, "detection limits" and operating specifications, etc, etc), I think this whole thing has become rather silly. Don't you?
<snippage of stuff thrown at wall in attempt to distract from utter failure>

If you wish to define Correa Neto's pictures as "manipulated", due to his providing enlargements of the relevant sections, then it seems to me you would have to use that same definition for the UFO pictures, which provided enlargements of the relevant sections.

Are you admitting now that the UFO pictures were manipulated?

The whole thing has become silly? Absolutely not. It has stayed silly since post number 1.

 

[Correa Neto]

Whenever I present a UFO photo (or video), one of the very first question asked of me by the UFO debunkers is an enquiry about how I can be certain that such imagery has not been hoaxed or manipulated in some way. For example you stated yourself in reference to the very video clips under present discussion:


Originally Posted by Correa Neto
Just for starters, we have little if any control on the sort of manipulations the images may have suffered as well as their actual contexts (if the cameras were inside or outside a craft, what sort of cameras were used, camera settings, etc.)

Could you please explain what you intended to achieve by cherry-picking quotes and showing them outside of their original context?

You post a link to a youtube video composed by a jumble of imagery pieces with little if any references and information which would allow anything roughly similar to a decent evaluation and complain about being asked by skeptics for more data. Do you actually expect people whom actually exercise critical thinking to accept this sort of material “as is”? The funny thing is that once these details are provided, the “U” in UFO either disappears or the evidence becomes much less compelling… Another funny thing is that skeptics are the ones who must do the proper research. Rramjet just posts links and says “identify that”… That’s not what I would expect from someone with scientific formation, but that’s what I expect from a pseudoscience adept.

Given that the images CorreaN provided were manipulated ("blow ups of the relevant sections"), that he did not "make available" the "EXIF" originals and that he did not provide all the detail for his own images that he demanded for the UFO photo(s) (including image production and manipulation software specifications - ie; the development & copying process, a verified chain of custody, "detection limits" and operating specifications, etc, etc), I think this whole thing has become rather silly. Don't you?

Rramjet, how can I "develop" digital imagery?

Rramjet, are you aware of what "manipulate" actually means when it comes down to images? Are you aware of what’s OK or not for scientific purposes? Of course not. Here, let me help decrease your ignorance on science. Follow this link:

http://www.nature.com/authors/editorial_policies/image.html

Its for Nature’s guidelines on the use of digital images on peer-reviewed articles. You probably are not aware of this, but Nature is a top peer-review science journal. Now, check their rules and tell me if the images on the article on Skylab 3 UFO would make it. Now compare with the information I posted and made available and see if you can find anything which goes against the rules. See if zooming an image is not allowed…

Now tell me, Rramjet, can you answer the questions I made about the image processing at the Skylab 3 article? Would you consider them as “manipulated”? Were they zoomed? What sort of contrast/brightness enhancements were made? Were they excessive?

As Wollery wrote, you could get all the information just by asking for it, as stated at the very first post where I showed the images. You, however, attempted a cheap shot by making a false accusation. I can't help but wonder why...

Remember now that I merely posted images on a www forum (note that my goal was not to prove alien craft were following a space station), see how much more detailed and precise were the informations I provided on my images when compared with those from the Sylab 3 UFO article and realize how poor are UFOlogy’s ways. Even if in informal environments, a skeptic’s methods are better than those from top UFOlogists when trying to make their cases formally, so it seems…

Yes, UFOlogy is looking rather silly.

Your posts are also looking more and more silly because instead of handling the many issues I pointed at your previous posts (claims which are false such as “UFO debunkers argue that UFO photos could be “Photoshopped” (and thus not genuine) all the time,” and all the issues with the images and methodology flaws presented at the Skylab 3 UFO article, you are attempting evasions and diversions maneuvers and personal attacks. Sure, it is clear you are not a scientist and this is a rather informal WWW forum and not a peer reviewed journal, but you should have learned something about methodology and debate rules by now.

Now tell me, can you counter my arguments? Can you actually counter the fact that the images I posted are very similar to the Skylab 3 UFO, indicating that the three lights may quite well be the result of a long exposure of a moving point light, thus rendering the whole size estimates useless?

Can you prove I adulterated the images?

I think what is really occurring here is that the UFO debunkers are trying their best to distract from the main game - which is of course the anomalous trajectories of the "debris" found in the following videos.

No. What's actually happening here is a display of several examples of UFOlogy's pseudoscientific methods. What's happening here is you once again having to resort to a conspiracy theory in a futile attempt to hide the flaws in your arguments. What's happening here is yet another ad hom attack from your part.