UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Rramjet]

WRONG UFOs that's what Harris thinks other wise why would she link the video? Oh let me guess she's wrong about that but not what Carl Sagan said to Hynek?

I think you are confusing gullibility in certain situations with dishonesty. Just because Harris was “sucked into” the Meier thing does not mean she is dishonest. I tend to believe her when she says that Hynek related the Sagan story to her. And why should we not believe her? Has she said or done anything that proved her to be dishonest? Gullible maybe – dishonest no.

Isn't that just a logical fallacy? Just throw as many anomalies at someone till they can't explain them all? The thing is the ball is in your to explain why they are alien.

I am presenting multiple data points. Any scientific investigation needs multiple data points to investigate. One gets a very biased perspective if just a single data point is examined in isolation. You are proposing that we consider single data points independently of all other data points in the UFO debate – and that is simply not scientific…

I have explained why the cases I am presenting are “alien” – because there are no plausible mundane explanations for them – and if something does not have a mundane explanation – then by definition it is alien (but not necessarily ET).

We don't advance our knowledge by promoting hearsay and hand waving the inconvenient truth that someone isn't demonstrating the soundest judgment.

We have video and radar data as well as eyewitness testimony – and we have a conjunction of such data in the NZ case (see this post for a reference

(...)

. And any number of cases where a combination of them are manifest. We also have physical trace evidence (eg thenZamora and val Johnson cases – again see the above post for a reference) We have the results of official research too (eg: (http://www.ufocasebook.com/specialreport14.pdf) and (http://ncas.org/condon/) (http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/Gepan-Sepra.htm)
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/cometa.htm)) and we also have official documentation (eg; http://www.openminds.tv/twelve-government-documents-that-take-ufos-seriously/)... And all this is just the tip of the iceberg.

If all we had were merely “hearsay”, then I might agree with you, but there is so much more.

 

[wollery]

First you claim that NASA has “poor collection techniques” - and thus the videos in the compilation cannot be admitted as evidence - but then here (after I point out the unsupportability of your claim in respect of the data collection techniques of NASA) you change your mind to now claim NASA actually has “very good collection techniques” - but that “selective misinterpretation” is the problem. Talk about shifting the goalposts!

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for moderated thread.

The videos are from youtube, not from NASA, there's no way to check their provenance. They could have been retouched in any way. The youtube videos are therefore unreliable as evidence of anything.

If you get the original NASA footage then we can talk about it.

 

[Jocce]

It seems as if you have missed a couple of questions I posted over the last week. You find them in the following posts:

Regarding fully referenced clips in video compilation
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5979707&postcount=7371

Regarding quality assurance of data in video compilation
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5984753&postcount=7388

Regarding possible smudges, droplets and reflected light in video compilation
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5985187&postcount=7391

Regarding UFO research being prevented because of social stigma
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5984765&postcount=7389

Regarding meteorite over the moon surface
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5951682&postcount=7322

I would appreciate some answers or comments on those.

 

[Jocce]

I am presenting multiple data points. Any scientific investigation needs multiple data points to investigate.

But, you don't even know if they belong to the same dataset.

One gets a very biased perspective if just a single data point is examined in isolation. You are proposing that we consider single data points independently of all other data points in the UFO debate – and that is simply not scientific…

In fact it is very scientific. Step 1 - validate your data.

I have explained why the cases I am presenting are “alien” – because there are no plausible mundane explanations for them – and if something does not have a mundane explanation – then by definition it is alien (but not necessarily ET).

In YOUR opinion, there are no plausible mundane explanations.

 

[wollery]

Despite the fact that I am under no obligation to respond to you at all, the following provides answers to all your questions in the post you reference…

I never said you were under any obligation.

But you did say that you were too busy to respond, but that you would get to it when you had time, and then responded to a dozen or so other posts first.

If “everyone here” is “perfectly happy”, then why is “everyone here” trying to contend that the UFOs in the cases I am presenting have mundane explanations - and become “perfectly unhappy” when I point out the implausibility of their mundane explanations?

Ummm, because that's pretty much what you asked for?

The bottom line, as several posters have pointed out on several occasions, is that the majority of cases will never be identified. They are, and will always remain, UFOs. We can speculate on possible mundane solutions. We can speculate on possible non-mundane solutions. But it's all just speculation.

Yeah, right, all those who believe in a personal God are just “loud” – they are actually quite small groups and their number could not possibly be described as vast…

Funny how you lump together several minority belief groups (Moon landing hoax believers, flat-Earthers, and holocaust deniers) with theists and then complain when I point out the groups are small. What's even funnier is that in my response I actually stated that most people do believe in a God that acts on personal exhortations. So your objection isn't just semantic, it's completely wrong.

Precisely… so what’s your point?

You offer no hypothesis as to what they are, let alone a testable one.

I have asked you for that on more than one occasion, but all I ever get is, "Not all UFOs have plausible mundane explanations".

If they see no way of reaching a conclusion then they simply lack imagination and/or are asking the wrong questions.

So what questions should they be asking in order to get a positive result? Remember, a positive result, not a negative one.

It is very difficult to make a living as a scientist if you are prevented from publishing your research.

Yet as you pointed out in a recent post, Bruce Maccabee was published, three times, when he offered actual science in relation to a UFO.

But please, enlighten us. What positive results do you believe can be obtained from a study of the cases you have presented? What peer review publishable results could they yield, assuming that there was absolutely no bias against such work?

Fortunately I am not attempting to publish UFO research papers…

No comment...

I refer you to this post:

Which doesn't even come close to answering the question.

I understand very well how a process of elimination works, and how it should be applied to each individual explanation.

But how do you ensure that you have thought of every possible explanation?

The question isn't how you eliminate an explanation, but how you come up with an exhaustive list of explanations.

An explanation that derives from our common conceptions of the natural or technological world.

Fair enough.

What do you mean by “tested”?

I mean tested. I mean measured, physically. I mean touched by a scientist with the proper training and the right equipment. I mean taken apart and studied in a laboratory. You know, tested.

 

[Astrophotographer]

First you claim that NASA has “poor collection techniques” - and thus the videos in the compilation cannot be admitted as evidence - but then here (after I point out the unsupportability of your claim in respect of the data collection techniques of NASA) you change your mind to now claim NASA actually has “very good collection techniques” - but that “selective misinterpretation” is the problem. Talk about shifting the goalposts!

Not shifting anything. I am stating that the selective use of the data coupled with the gross misinterpretation of what is shown is the problem here. You are just too blinded by your will to believe to see this.

I don’t “believe” any such thing. I merely note that there is a compilation of videos, for many of which no rational explanation is forthcoming.

For somebody who claims they do not believe, you simply accept that there is no rational explanation. Belief is “a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing”. You have demonstrated a blind trust that these videos have no rational explanation. Therefore, you do believe they are something exotic without even looking at potential explanations. You insist we do your work for you.

I even pointed you to a research paper that describes clearly the origins of the campaign of ridicule and denial (http://www.narcap.org/commentary/ufocritique.pdf) which stifles research to this day.

There is no proof in this paper that suggests “ridicule and denial” stifles UFO research. Once again, show me one proposal to study UFOs that have been refused based on “ridicule and denial” and then we can talk. So far, you have provided zero evidence other than a bunch of papers written by UFO proponents.

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for continuity and to prevent repetition.

If there were a research program in which I could be educated as a researcher and would subsequently find a career path, then I would conduct research. However, the sad fact is (and where this argument stemmed) that no such research program exists and funding for such research is denied because of the climate of ridicule and denial that surrounds the study of UFOs – so I am forced to content myself with explorations of the subject as a hobby, outside my main career path.

Feel free to present actual evidence that UFO research is denied because of the climate of ridicule and denial. Give us one proposal that has been rejected for these reasons.

But perhaps you have become confused by my use of the term “campaign”? Perhaps I should have inserted “…that has entered into and become a self-perpetuating part of the cultural zeitgeist … which stifles research to this day.”

In other words you are stating there is a conspiracy involved that is stifling UFO research. Prove it.

One does not have to know how to fix something to know that something is broken -and to point out that corrupt state to interested parties.

You sound like my teenage daughter who kept “blowing tires” by cutting corners too close. She kept blaming the car (she did it with two different cars)/tires (she did it with multiple tires that were new) and not her own technique of driving.

You still are inferring there is a cabal (i.e. a corrupt state). You suggest that science is preventing UFO research. I asked you to demonstrate how you would conduct such research. So far, you have refused to answer this question. This implies you have no idea on how to approach such a problem even though you are free to present such a proposed study without the forum stifling you.

As I have pointed out on numerous occasions now – you (and other UFO debunkers) are under no obligation whatsoever. However, as members of a self proclaimed sceptical education foundation (headed by a “professional magician” who purports to expose “psychics, faith healers, and such.”) one would have thought that when presented with data that ostensibly falls into the “and such” category, there would be a rational response from the members of such a foundation to “educate”. Instead what I see is an effort of “obfuscate” by shifting the burden of proof back to the one seeking that education.

A. You started this thread in order to educate everyone. You have yet to do so and now you are attempting to shift the burden of education on the forum.
B. You claim to be a scientist. I claim to be no such thing. You have the higher education, which means your research should be set at a higher standard. So far, you have not demonstrated this.
C. You are the one making the claims that these things are exotic and defy explanation. We have all suggested potential explanations but you have dismissed them with little thought or rational explanation for doing so. When asked how you eliminate all mundane explanations you perform the stand “hand waving” technique common with UFO proponents.

IMO a rational response from you would have been to state that you could explain one video from the compilation, but the rest remain unexplained – perhaps including a rundown of videos and possible likely explanations (as you perceive them) for those videos. Instead you merely claim I have not conducted enough research and that in any case I will deny any explanation you put forward. However, I have accepted the explanation you put forward for that one video (while noting that you cannot explain any of the others) and I now merely point out that perhaps “Education” should be removed from JREF if the members do not wish to involve themselves in such a pursuit. .

It is your evidence. You claimed there was no rational explanation for these clips (which I showed to be false with the one clip). You are trying to shift the burden of proof by suggesting we explain all these random clips (which involves finding the original images/clips at higher resolution. This is called actual research and not blind acceptance that these clips are what the proponent claims them to be). I can recognize ice crystals, lens flares, image defects, water droplets, etc with no problem and I am sure there are great many scientists who can do so as well. Why is it you seem to have problem doing so? Have you even researched any of these clips/images at all? Why should I do your research for you? You now claim we must educate you. We have been down this path and you refused any “education” presented by this forum. “Education” is a two-way street. You have to want to be “educated”.

So… if you don’t like the “shotgun” approach of presenting many pieces of evidence in one easy to access package… how about we limit the discussion to one or two cases?

I will give you two and allow you to choose which one to discuss.

(http://video.google.ca/videoplay?doc...6621098045120#).

Strike 1. This is a water droplet in the cabin. The camera picked it up as it is floating by. You can see how the light from the earth is refracted by the droplet as it moves. When it is above the earth, there is no refracted light but as it approaches and passes along the edge of the earth’s limb, the amount of refraction increases. There is a good discussion of it in the BAUT forum.

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/85807-STS-51A-Debunked

(http://video.google.ca/videoplay?doc...85100897567649)

Strike 2. This film of the UFO is a fake. It is actually and F-15 and not a MIG. The evidence is the ejection seat. It is an American design (ACES-II) and not Russian. Several aviation forums debunked this long ago by just seeing the ejection seat. I recall seeing the original film posted in one of these forums before the UFO was added. It was from an F-15 mock dogfight if I recall correctly. I will have to look that one up and post the link for you. However, the ejection seat demonstrates it is not from a MIG-21 as claimed in the video. Because it is not what it claims to be, it is invalid evidence.

Once again, you demonstrate that your scientific technique is flawed. You chose not to research these videos and just posted them in the belief they show something truly exotic and we could not explain them. Is this what you call "science"?

 

[TjW]

Actually, it would be evidence that your logic is flawed. Your logic is founded on the false premise that I have claimed that every case I have presented has no mundane explanation. However, I am merely claiming that I cannot find a rational mundane explanation and that to the best of my knowledge (and based on the evidence in this thread) no-one else can either. If however someone came up with a rational (plausible) mundane explanation for any of the cases I have been presenting (as Astrophotographer did recently), I would accept that, remove the case from my dataset and move on. If I can so remove all the cases in my dataset, then I will admit the UFO debunkers to have made their case. For the purposes of this argument let us suppose my dataset comprises only the cases I have presented in this thread so far.

This is simply admitting to an argument from ignorance. In essence, you're saying "I don't know what these are, therefore they are alien until YOU prove that they are not."

In your initial post, you proposed to provide proof of aliens. This is not proof of aliens, it is simply you declaring your biases.

 

[Correa Neto]

Could you take a look at these photos, including the one of the artifacts which purportedly fell from the sky, and tell me why they aren't sharp enough, or reliable enough?

http://wisconsinufo.blogspot.com/

Thanks for your time in advance.

Sorry for the delay. I've been busy these days; posting anything more than a few words was a no-go.

Now, on the link you presented. Some of the images are sharp. However, I must ask you if you consider their provenance as good and if the answer is positive, the reasons. Why should I consider the material you linked to as reliable enough?

Do you consider a statement like "These pictures are close to my heart as I recieved them from a close frield a few years ago" and "Here's an image recently taken in Wisconsin" (both directly pasted from your link) as good enough warranties of provenance? I do not, but if you disagree, please expose your reasons.

By now you are probably considering repeating your pledge for lowering the evidence quality standards. My answer will be a sorry but no. And you can find some of the reasons within the sad and hoax history of UFOlogy, plagued with hoaxes. For example, do you remember the recent Haiti UFOs video and the pictures of "drones"? They were sharp and later shown to be hoaxed.

Now, the objects claimed to have fallen from the sky... I believe the original source is http://www.iwasabducted.com/ufogallery/fallingdisks.htm. Please check the story and tell me if it seems reliable and the reasons for your conclusion. Regardless of your answer, I must ask you- why the heck these things were not properly studied? Assuming the tale is real, can't blame the lack of a proper study on close-minded mainstream skeptics/scientists and cover-ups. Blame it on UFOlogists themselves. Now, on a more realistic assessment, I think it is actually just another case of misidentification, intentional or not, of a mundane object. Just like when the UFOhunters, in a display of standard UFOlogic SNAFU, presented pieces of smelter slag as bits of soil melted by heat from an UFO.

As a sideline, consider this- if the site's contents are true, then Wisconsin is a hot spot for UFO activity, where people are getting good imagery. Why then UFOlogists are not setting a model data-gathering project as those briefly described here? Why they keep whining against skeptics, mainstream scientists and building fantastic conspiracy theories when the evidence to shut them all and expose the truth can be at their hands?

 

[Correa Neto]

How would you interpret it then? Here is a whole set of videos taken by NASA. My question to you is: What do they show?
Oh, yeah, right… have you even looked at the video(s)? If you have mundane explanations, then you should put them forward.
It is not I who is “shifting the burden of proof”, it is you. I provide you with the data you call for and ask if you have any rational explanation for it. Of course you do not… all you can do is make some spurious semantic arguments, attempting to shift the focus from the data. I will not let you get away with such tactics. I will merely ask if you have any rational explanation for the data I have presented.

Instead of just piling them all and writing "explain this", a person with real scientific formation would pick individual examples and then exposing why they can not be explained by mundane causes. Your claim is that they show aliens from beyond the borders of what we call nature (whatever that means). You must back it but you just can't do it. Since you can not back such claim (don't be sad since for to date, no UFOlogist could), you made the old move of trying to shift the burden of proof. Must be at some UFOlogy textbook...

…but you have just ignored the data!

A claim. Prove it. Prove I ignored the data. I said its unreliable, that mundane explanations are plausible options and that it's been debated before. I even cited a few possible mundane explanations.This is not equal to ignore the data. Unless you are now going to say I "ignored" it all. Maybe "ignore" for you is equal to disagree.

NASA manipulates its images? Oh…Yeah, right… I was forgetting… they airbrush out the UFOs… not the other way round… huh…

Please tell me where at my post I wrote it can be inferred that "NASA manipulates its images" (*). Back you claim or remove it. Anyone with a real scientific/technical background would be aware that data chain of custody and processing are key issues. If you can not provide a full report on it, the odds are your work will be an easy target for flak. I also would like to remind you that distorting your oponent's arguments will make your case worse. Again, anyone with a real scientific/technical and philosophic backgrounds would be aware of that.

It would have been more helpful had you been specific: That is, indicated which parts of the video represented the things you claim. But of course you cannot, because specificity would require close analysis and that is something you apparently are unwilling to undertake. Your merebelief seems enough for you.

Have you been specific and indicated which parts of the video represented aliens from beyond the borders of what we call nature (whatever that means) and stated the reasons why? Close detailed scientific analysis and that is something you apparently are unwilling to and/or not able undertake.

Merely stating generalised, unfounded assertions does make them true.

You mean like claiming a piled bunch of videos show aliens from beyond the borders of what we call nature?

Or saying we are UFO debunkers (denialists, whatever) driven by belief?

Or claiming UFOlogy’s problems arise from the attitude of skeptics and mainstream science?

Or attributing to aliens from beyond the borders of what we call nature tidbits of unconfirmed, decades-old (or even older) reports?

“Universal flood”? I presume you mean the biblical flood? There is a great deal of evidence for historical flooding and major inundations of various parts of the world that, to the inhabitants/victims, would have made it seem like the flood was “universal”. The flooding of the Black Sea is one such example.

“ID”? Usually an abbreviation for “Identification” - but I presume that is not what you mean? (no matter… I stand by my claim that anything is debatable).

Rramjet, the biblical flood was supposed to be global, all continents underneath the water. Such a flood is impossible. Please tell me the previous statement is debatable or not.

ID= Intelligent Design. Come on, tell us if the statement "there are no reliable evidence backing intelligent design" is debatable.

Show us if the stament "Adamsky and Meier hoaxed their UFO evidence" is debatable.

Or you'll now come out with a "debatable"?

No, the line is “In an infinite Universe, everything is possible”.

Oh, really? Can I fly by flapping my hands? ID can be a valid alternative to evolution? The universal flood is possible? Hollow Earth? Atlantis? Homeopathy?

I suggest you to reconsider the validity of that line. Do it based on real science, not on pseudoscience. Actually you should reconsider the validity of everything you presented as evidence for UFOs as aliens from beyond the borders of what we call nature based on real science, not on pseudoscience. As a person with real and good scientific background would do.




(*)Processing images and manipulating images usually have different meanings. Manipulating quite often means foul play, as in Rramjet's post.

 

[Rramjet]

Strike 1. This is a water droplet in the cabin. The camera picked it up as it is floating by. You can see how the light from the earth is refracted by the droplet as it moves. When it is above the earth, there is no refracted light but as it approaches and passes along the edge of the earth’s limb, the amount of refraction increases. There is a good discussion of it in the BAUT forum.

Since the video I posted was from STS-37 and you post a link that discusses a video from STS-51A I am not sure what you think the connection is here.

Interestingly the video from 51A is actually contained in the original compilation video I posted (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlLN_Jcg1pc - so I suppose your belated reference to it here should now be welcome). However, the respondent discussing 51A has the physics of the analysis completely wrong. The respondent claims a reflection of the WESTAR in a “water droplet” (http://i263.photobucket.com/albums/ii149/europa73/refletWestarfinal2.png). Remember the respondent’s “water droplet” is presumably close to the camera inside the cabin and therefore “between” the WESTAR and the camera. If it was a “reflection” then the reflected WESTAR should appear on the left and slightly behind the droplet and thus would not be visible to the camera. However if the droplet is acting as a lens, then not only should the image of the WESTAR be upside down (given it is a convex lens) – but critically, the WESTAR itself would need to be behind the water droplet for us to see it refracted through the droplet. In other words, for us to see a “viable” refracted image of the WESTAR in the droplet, the camera, droplet and WESTAR would need to be basically lined up. This is evidently not the case. So on the evidence of basic physics, the “water droplet” theory does not work for an explanation of 51A.

Now, on the video I posted (STS-37 - http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=4596316621098045120#) the water droplet theory does not work either. Whoever saw a droplet zoom through the air and into view of the camera and then to quickly reverse its motion and then finally to come to a dead halt in front of the camera with no outside force acting on it?

Interesting also to note is even supposing the STS-37 video was a water droplet and the theory held true from the 51A analysis, then where is the refracted earth in this droplet? The droplet is actually quite opaque – no reflections, no refractions whatsoever.

Sticking with your baseball analogy I will therefore call your pitch here soundly hit and the ball in the air heading out of the park. The only question remaining is will it be a home run.

Strike 2. This film of the UFO is a fake. It is actually and F-15 and not a MIG. The evidence is the ejection seat. It is an American design (ACES-II) and not Russian. Several aviation forums debunked this long ago by just seeing the ejection seat. I recall seeing the original film posted in one of these forums before the UFO was added. It was from an F-15 mock dogfight if I recall correctly. I will have to look that one up and post the link for you. However, the ejection seat demonstrates it is not from a MIG-21 as claimed in the video. Because it is not what it claims to be, it is invalid evidence.

Yes, I believe you are correct on this one (http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=4596316621098045120#docid=-4468185100897567649).
F-15 -(http://images.google.com.au/imgres?...-15+ejection+seat&hl=en&sa=G&gbv=2&tbs=isch:1)
MIG-21 (http://images.google.com.au/imgres?...-21+ejection+seat&hl=en&sa=G&gbv=2&tbs=isch:1)

One can clearly see the curved upper “arms” of the F-15 seat in the video. So not a MIG-21 and so the video is faked. Thank you for pointing that out and therefore the video it cannot be submitted as evidence in any UFO research (unless the research is about UFO hoaxes…). This is precisely the thing I am looking for. There is no point maintaining a dataset on UFO activity if there are hoaxes in that data set.

 

[Sherman Bay]

I have explained why the cases I am presenting are “alien” – because there are no plausible mundane explanations for them – and if something does not have a mundane explanation – then by definition it is alien (but not necessarily ET).

No, it's not. It's unknown.

Just because you can't conceive of an explanation doesn't mean that someone else can't.

Unknown does not mean unknowable or alien (any kind). It just means we don't know. Perhaps the observations were faulty or distorted, intentionally or otherwise. Perhaps some critical element is missing or overlooked, the way "magic" tricks often work.

Did you ever see a magic trick that you could not explain? Does it then become supernatural? Nonsense; you just don't know. Perhaps if you watched the man behind the curtain, you would.

Drawing a firm conclusion from weak and insufficient evidence is not science. It's pseudoscience.

 

[Frying Dutchmen]

I think you are confusing gullibility in certain situations with dishonesty. Just because Harris was “sucked into” the Meier thing does not mean she is dishonest. I tend to believe her when she says that Hynek related the Sagan story to her. And why should we not believe her? Has she said or done anything that proved her to be dishonest? Gullible maybe – dishonest no.

I never said she was being dishonest nor was I thinking she was gullible. Thinking more along the lines that her testimonial about Sagan is rubbish because her faulty thinking about a lot of other matters shows that she is willing to believe anything and maybe even make up stuff to score points against Skeptics, kinda like what you did with this paragraph. Still you haven't explained Why her testimony about Billy Meier is a "grain of salt", apart from calling him a fraud.

I am presenting multiple data points. Any scientific investigation needs multiple data points to investigate. One gets a very biased perspective if just a single data point is examined in isolation. You are proposing that we consider single data points independently of all other data points in the UFO debate – and that is simply not scientific…

You're presenting multiple data points I don't disagree with that but they are bad multiple data points, don't think that I Just read your comments and replies to my comments, I don't.

I have explained why the cases I am presenting are “alien” – because there are no plausible mundane explanations for them – and if something does not have a mundane explanation – then by definition it is alien (but not necessarily ET).

Just because you say there isn't a reasonable explanation doesn't make it so, you shown all of us in the thread that you ignore any explanation that doesn't fit your beliefs

We have video and radar data as well as eyewitness testimony – and we have a conjunction of such data in the NZ case

Do we need to go back to that case again? There was a reasonable explanation that they were Squid Boats.

 

[Frying Dutchmen]

Now, on the video I posted (STS-37 - http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=4596316621098045120#) the water droplet theory does not work either. Whoever saw a droplet zoom through the air and into view of the camera and then to quickly reverse its motion and then finally to come to a dead halt in front of the camera with no outside force acting on it?

Interesting also to note is even supposing the STS-37 video was a water droplet and the theory held true from the 51A analysis, then where is the refracted earth in this droplet? The droplet is actually quite opaque – no reflections, no refractions whatsoever.

Sticking with your baseball analogy I will therefore call your pitch here soundly hit and the ball in the air heading out of the park. The only question remaining is will it be a home run.

It would still be a strike, I can see the image of earth in it.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Since the video I posted was from STS-37 and you post a link that discusses a video from STS-51A I am not sure what you think the connection is here.

It is STS-51A that had the weststar retrieval. Perhaps we are discussing two different videos. I thought you were selecting the one from your previous version of the video. It is hard to tell the origin of the video. Perhaps you can demonstrate this came from STS-37 and not STS-51 (which shows a similar object).

Now, on the video I posted (STS-37 - http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=4596316621098045120#) the water droplet theory does not work either. Whoever saw a droplet zoom through the air and into view of the camera and then to quickly reverse its motion and then finally to come to a dead halt in front of the camera with no outside force acting on it?

Because you are ignoring the fact that the camera was hand held and not still and therefore motion can be attributed to the operator and the water droplet (or maybe the droplet is on the window itself). The earth in the background is moving about during the first part of the clip when there is exaggerated motion. When the earth becomes stable in the background, the "sphere" suddenly stops moving about violently. Feel free to suggest it is an "exotic sphere" but I think to back up that claim, you have to present the entire film sequence and verify it was from STS-37.

Interesting also to note is even supposing the STS-37 video was a water droplet and the theory held true from the 51A analysis, then where is the refracted earth in this droplet? The droplet is actually quite opaque – no reflections, no refractions whatsoever.

Then you obviously are not looking at the same clip. Above the earth, the droplet is opaque. However, as it crosses and approaches the earth's limb, it suddenly becomes dark at the bottom as it refracts the dark portion of the sky. This is the kind of behaviour one would expect from a water droplet.

Sticking with your baseball analogy I will therefore call your pitch here soundly hit and the ball in the air heading out of the park. The only question remaining is will it be a home run.

Once again, you attempt to shift the rules. You have not proven anything. There is a good deal of evidence to suggest this is a water droplet but, as per your usual methodology, you have dismissed it for no good reason.

 

[wollery]

Interestingly the video from 51A is actually contained in the original compilation video I posted (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlLN_Jcg1pc - so I suppose your belated reference to it here should now be welcome). However, the respondent discussing 51A has the physics of the analysis completely wrong. The respondent claims a reflection of the WESTAR in a “water droplet” (http://i263.photobucket.com/albums/ii149/europa73/refletWestarfinal2.png). Remember the respondent’s “water droplet” is presumably close to the camera inside the cabin and therefore “between” the WESTAR and the camera. If it was a “reflection” then the reflected WESTAR should appear on the left and slightly behind the droplet and thus would not be visible to the camera. However if the droplet is acting as a lens, then not only should the image of the WESTAR be upside down (given it is a convex lens) – but critically, the WESTAR itself would need to be behind the water droplet for us to see it refracted through the droplet. In other words, for us to see a “viable” refracted image of the WESTAR in the droplet, the camera, droplet and WESTAR would need to be basically lined up. This is evidently not the case. So on the evidence of basic physics, the “water droplet” theory does not work for an explanation of 51A.

You do understand how refraction works, don't you? Refraction alters the path of the light, and in the case of a near spherical lens it alters the path in the same direction on both entry and exit, so you can see refraction of something that isn't directly behind the droplet. The droplet effectively acts like a fisheye lens. And there may well be internal reflection, as well as refraction. That's how rainbows are formed by water droplets.

Also, I don't know what image you're looking at, but the image in the droplet is upside down.

 

[Burning Beard]

I have explained why the cases I am presenting are “alien” – because there are no plausible mundane explanations for them – and if something does not have a mundane explanation – then by definition it is alien (but not necessarily ET).

No. By definition it is just "unexplained", plain and simple.

 

[Jocce]

for us to see a “viable” refracted image of the WESTAR in the droplet, the camera, droplet and WESTAR would need to be basically lined up.

I would be really interested to see you provide some evidence for this claim?

Whoever saw a droplet zoom through the air and into view of the camera and then to quickly reverse its motion and then finally to come to a dead halt in front of the camera with no outside force acting on it?

I think most people who has been in a zero gravity environment has experienced that with droplets, dust, etc.[/QUOTE]

 

[Rramjet]

Will get back to replying to your posts as soon as I can...

Meanwhile, have been working on the "compilation video".

Many of the images in the following compilation can be accessed in their original form from here: (http://spaceflight1.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/index.html)

(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlLN_Jcg1pc)

1. Apollo 10: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DS131DdQwjo)
… the image has been reversed… in the documentary it is the other way round.
2. STS-115 Atlantis – contention is some form of ice crystal but no ice crystal ever looked like that!
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrIe9NQf6G4&NR=1)
Original NASA video here: (http://spaceflight1.nasa.gov/gallery/video/shuttle/sts-115/html/fd1.html)
(http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/video/shuttle/sts-115/net56/sts115_fd01_03_56.asf)
3. Apollo 16 - has been explained as the EVA “floodlight boom” – but the “arm” of the boom extends back at a seemingly odd angle - nevertheless it definitely has similar features to the boom (http://www.nasa.gov/vision/space/travelinginspace/no_ufo.html)
4. ZOND-3 (1965) “Tower of Babel”
Can’t see the video image in the actual ZOND-3 images
(http://www.mentallandscape.com/C_CatalogMoon.htm)
5. ISS-007-E06886 (12 June 2003):
“After the ISS attitude transition on 6/12, the crew noticed a small, shiny, free-floating metallic object about 30 m (100 ft) from the Lab nadir window, moving very slowly away from the ISS. The leading theory was that the object is a cable label. [A photo of a cable label, uplinked from the ground, was later examined by Ed Lu. He confirmed the possibility that the object he saw indeed could have been a cable label. Further identification of the object by ground teams is still underway. Limited tracking data the object on 6/12 showed it below the ISS and 1.7 km in front. Preliminary predictions indicated it was slowly separating, and the specialists did/do not believe it poses a re-contact hazard to the station.” (http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=9514) NASA image here: (http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/station/images/ISS007E06886.jpg)
6. ISS013-E-69634 (20 Aug. 2006): The Aurora Borealis, also known as "northern lights", is featured in this photograph taken by an Expedition 13 crew member on the International Space Station.”(http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/station/crew-13/html/iss013e69634.html)
7. ?
8. ?
9. Mission STS 51A WESTAR 6 satellite retrieval
Extended video here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTy0dQidPGM)
UFO can be seen appearing at 10:37. Notice the motion of the UFO as it appears.
Discussion of it as a “water droplet” here:
(http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/85807-STS-51A-Debunked)
…but the physics is wrong for a water droplet…
10. STS-114 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoeZ4ceAZes)
Okay…so we have clouds rolling in from space… must be set to rain… LOL.
The compilation video seems to be a sped up video. A real time video can be seen here (resolution not so hot though). (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyquGdCEJNg)
11. STS-96 (May 1999)
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJGGzdruHso)
12. Mir Space Station
Single clip from this extended NASA video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTjk7uuSScI) The extended clip is even more perplexing that the compiled edit!
13.STS-110-E5912 (April 2002)
Original image here: (http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/station/assembly/html/s110e5912.html) The compilation pic has obviously undergone some “enhancement” of the UFO, but it is visible in the original image...
14. STS-116-E05364: Original here (beautiful high res. image): (http://spaceflight1.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-116/html/s116e05364.html)
Seems to be more “junk” in this pic in the immediate area of the “triangle”as well…
15. STS-100-E5220: Original here: (http://spaceflight1.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-100/html/s100e5220.html)
Looks to me like some sort of reflection in the shuttle’s window (look at the bottom left corner of the high res. image).
Alternatively…what’s this guy working with? (http://spaceflight1.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-100/html/sts100-342-010.html) Either way…

...and that's as far as I have got... sorry, not much analysis but no time left for anything else....it's a start at least...

 

[Rramjet]

It is STS-51A that had the weststar retrieval. Perhaps we are discussing two different videos. I thought you were selecting the one from your previous version of the video. It is hard to tell the origin of the video. Perhaps you can demonstrate this came from STS-37 and not STS-51 (which shows a similar object).

Then WESTAR (STS-51A) video can be found here: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTy0dQidPGM – look from 10:37) and the STS-37 (Atlantis) here: (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4596316621098045120#).

They are obviously two different videos (compare the clouds and compare the arrival of the UFO on the horizon…) but they show remarkably similar objects.

Because you are ignoring the fact that the camera was hand held and not still and therefore motion can be attributed to the operator and the water droplet (or maybe the droplet is on the window itself). The earth in the background is moving about during the first part of the clip when there is exaggerated motion. When the earth becomes stable in the background, the "sphere" suddenly stops moving about violently. Feel free to suggest it is an "exotic sphere" but I think to back up that claim, you have to present the entire film sequence and verify it was from STS-37.

Are you looking at a completely different video than the two referenced above? The camera motion is relatively stable while the UFO moves considerably in comparison. How can you not see this? I am perplexed that you could suggest the motion of the UFO is due to the motion of the camera… please try this … focus on the horizon and not the UFO (in both films) and then come back and tell me how much the camera moves in comparison to the UFO.

Then you obviously are not looking at the same clip. Above the earth, the droplet is opaque. However, as it crosses and approaches the earth's limb, it suddenly becomes dark at the bottom as it refracts the dark portion of the sky. This is the kind of behaviour one would expect from a water droplet.

Then can I suggest you look at the clips I referenced above? These are the ones I am looking at. I can see (in the STS-37 clip) what looks like the top and bottom of the UFO alternating between having a slight blue tinge to completely grey throughout the entire video – but I suspect this has more to do with the digital imagery than the actual object.

… and you expect a water droplet to move in such a manner?

Once again, you attempt to shift the rules. You have not proven anything. There is a good deal of evidence to suggest this is a water droplet but, as per your usual methodology, you have dismissed it for no good reason.

Two very good reasons:
1. Opacity
2. Movement characteristics

What evidence do you have for "water droplets"? If you can demonstrate other water droplets that have the opacity and movement characteristics of the UFOs in the videos, then you will have a case, but I have seen no evidence of such “water droplets”.

 

[Rramjet]

You do understand how refraction works, don't you? Refraction alters the path of the light, and in the case of a near spherical lens it alters the path in the same direction on both entry and exit, so you can see refraction of something that isn't directly behind the droplet. The droplet effectively acts like a fisheye lens. And there may well be internal reflection, as well as refraction. That's how rainbows are formed by water droplets.

Also, I don't know what image you're looking at, but the image in the droplet is upside down.

Please look at these websites on refraction (http://eo.ucar.edu/rainbows/) and (http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/refrn/u14l4b.cfm) and note the path the light takes and then refer that back to the video.(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTy0dQidPGM – from 10:37).

Then please take a close look at that video. Can you see any refraction or reflection of the WESTAR taking place. Either it is occurring or it is not. There is a tiny fraction of the video where the UFO "comes into being" where it is possible to interpret something like refraction, but as the UFO becomes "fully formed", then no such refraction or reflection is apparent. A very strange water droplet to exhibit refraction at one moment but never thereafter…

And I am totally at a loss as to how you can discern any “upside down” image of the WESTAR 6 in that video UFO… please tell me where to look so that I may see it too.