It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Can anyone help me identify these 2 old NASA ufo videos?

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 27 2015 @ 03:39 PM
link   
The 2 videos appear at 52:48 and 53:02


The videos really impress me, these can't be dismissed as ice particles.

Can't recommend the docu btw, but the sun video at the start and the picture at 3:51 are interesting




posted on Dec, 27 2015 @ 03:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Benicealways

If you look closely there is a flash when the object accelerate off, apparently it was a booster rocket igniting (the flash) blasting an ice particle in to space.

Original full video.

Second one is to short.
edit on 27-12-2015 by Mianeye because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2015 @ 04:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Mianeye

Thanks, your right the same is happening on the other video, thanks.

The truth is still out there though; www.bestUFOevidence.com



posted on Dec, 27 2015 @ 05:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Mianeye

its the little roll jets on the side of the shuttle, they have a pretty visible exhaust


i don't think NASA or whoever will ever let a UFO slip. I'm sure the live stream they have is or can be censored if need be, there is allot more up there other then UFO's cretin groups don't want you to see(satellites and such)



posted on Dec, 27 2015 @ 05:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Mianeye

Excellent. I have only ever seen the short version of that before. It's quite an eye opener.



posted on Dec, 27 2015 @ 06:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benicealways
The 2 videos appear at 52:48 and 53:02

The videos really impress me, these can't be dismissed as ice particles.

...


The first one is the notorious sts-48 zig-zagger, caused by the brief firing of vernier thruster L5D. For a debate with Greer at Purdue in 1999, here's my presentation charts with annotations, let me know what's not clear. I was on console for that STS-48 mission, just a different shift. Later I debated it with a Don Ecker on Larry King's show.

www.jamesoberg.com...

The second one, I have no clue it's even legit. You do notice that the UFO posters on youtube withhold this basic date/time information from viewers? Why, do you suppose, except to prevent determination of what was really going on? Was it day or night? Who was on board?

How many more indicators do you have to be given to begin to suspect that you're being misinformed?

The program was designed to impress you. Were you impressed by the Apollo-11 'secret UFO' story by Ken Johnston? Why?




edit on 27-12-2015 by JimOberg because: ....



posted on Dec, 27 2015 @ 06:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: penroc3
a reply to: Mianeye


i don't think NASA or whoever will ever let a UFO slip. I'm sure the live stream they have is or can be censored if need be, there is allot more up there other then UFO's cretin groups don't want you to see(satellites and such)


For the DoD missions in the 1980s there was no live TV of the payload bay, and no advance word of the flight schedule and trajectory -- the rest of the time, once the relay satellite network was deployed in 1989-1991, TV and voice was near continuous [except when the dish antenna was being used in radar mode for final docking]. Since unusual stuff outside could be signs of malfunctions and hazards, everybody was alert to watch and call attention to that kind of stuff, nobody switched it over to some underground X-team or anybody. That would have been silly.



posted on Dec, 27 2015 @ 06:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: penroc3
a reply to: Mianeye


i don't think NASA or whoever will ever let a UFO slip. I'm sure the live stream they have is or can be censored if need be, there is allot more up there other then UFO's cretin groups don't want you to see(satellites and such)


For the DoD missions in the 1980s there was no live TV of the payload bay, and no advance word of the flight schedule and trajectory -- the rest of the time, once the relay satellite network was deployed in 1989-1991, TV and voice was near continuous [except when the dish antenna was being used in radar mode for final docking]. Since unusual stuff outside could be signs of malfunctions and hazards, everybody was alert to watch and call attention to that kind of stuff, nobody switched it over to some underground X-team or anybody. That would have been silly.


It's great having you around. People are too busy calling you a government shill to realize that you're actually on "our side", for want of a better phrase.

You just give everyone a dose of sanity in all of the noise, and it's a bitter pill for some.

I, for one thank you for taking the time to drop by.



posted on Dec, 27 2015 @ 07:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: TomLawless...


I, for one thank you for taking the time to drop by.


Aside from learning a lot hereabouts, I'm enormously grateful for the arguments that grapple over facts, since I was too accustomed to hanging around 'rocket scientists' who shared working jargon -- and found which reasonable 'common sense' assumptions other people thought reasonable, required more care in explaining. Hence my '99 FAQs' and powerpoint presentations.



posted on Dec, 27 2015 @ 07:36 PM
link   
a reply to: JimOberg

ohh i mean the live feed they have now for the ISS. do i think they ever turn it off to hide something, no i dont think they have done that.

but i do think that if a satellite or other military test craft somehow came into the shot they have the ability to turn it off



the little thrusters we see in the zig zag video, there hypergolic right? UDH and what else? i know they give off a visible 'flame'. in the video clips i have seen show them to be whiteish i was watching one of the 'moon landings is fake' videos where the rocketdyne guy was saying that the hypergolics always made a purple exhaust plume, is that true?



posted on Dec, 27 2015 @ 10:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: penroc3
a reply to: JimOberg

ohh i mean the live feed they have now for the ISS. do i think they ever turn it off to hide something, no i dont think they have done that.

but i do think that if a satellite or other military test craft somehow came into the shot they have the ability to turn it off

....


Don't forget the enormous criss-cross speed of objects in other orbital planes -- they'd likely only show up as a streak on a single frame, if that. Farther away -- say, an Iridium flare -- they would have less angular speed, but too small to make more than a pixel or two. No, the stuff that dwells in field-of-view is directly associated with the observing spacecraft. And there aren't any classified satellites being launched from the ISS.

Still, you're correct that based on orders from the Flight Director, Mission Control could cut any TV transmissions from the US segment on ISS, but other cameras are controlled by other partners -- ESA, Japan, Russia, Canada -- as well as commercial payloads like Urthecast. There are no protocols that define conditions where that has to happen, it's been two decades from the final Pentagon classified payload.

The stuff I've found initially difficult to get involved crew activities of a medical nature, or that were politically/diplomatically embarrassing, but there are too many holes in any shroud to avoid the stuff getting out. Sorry if that's disappointing.



posted on Dec, 27 2015 @ 10:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: penroc3 ....


the little thrusters we see in the zig zag video, there hypergolic right? UDH and what else? i know they give off a visible 'flame'. in the video clips i have seen show them to be whiteish i was watching one of the 'moon landings is fake' videos where the rocketdyne guy was saying that the hypergolics always made a purple exhaust plume, is that true?


Shuttle OMS & RCS engines used hydrazine and N2O4, the plumes usually burn invisibly in steady state but at start and stop there's momentary propellant ratio mismatch so unburned chemicals get ejected about 10,000 ft/sec and show up as brief flashes, if sunlit, and depending on camera gain, on the night side sometimes as bright glowing clouds. On ISS the Russian segment uses similar hypergolics for thrusters on the Service Module or Progress drones whose jets are wired into the Russian autopilot -- but I've never seen any videos that have caught them. Usually the entire station's pointing is controlled by the gyros in the US Segment, without any thrusting at all.



posted on Dec, 27 2015 @ 10:57 PM
link   
a reply to: JimOberg

not disappointing at all thank you for the thoughtful reply.

last question, have you gotten to read the thread

www.abovetopsecret.com...

he seems to think that you were wrong about the Cosmos 96 theory, if you did read it what do you think about what he said there? if you want/can PM me you can, its interesting who tries to poke holes in theories that don't fit there own regardless of the evedance



posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 04:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Mianeye

That's a funny explanation..

The trajectory of the single particle that was blasted toward the drifting particle, which took off, were 2 completely different trajectories.

First, If it were the case that a single ice particle was blasted off the space shuttle by a thruster, which also effected a single floating ice particle, then they would fly off more or less in the same direction. The floating particle which suddenly accelerated away from the camera went in a completely different direction, then the one that was directed toward it.

Second, if there was ice blasted off the space shuttle, you would not see a single point and more likely to see a group of particles.



posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 04:10 AM
link   
a reply to: penroc3

Actually they would not be able to censor this one since it is broadcast live simultaneously to several universities; unless they had a really long time delay. I don't think they hire people to monitor their shuttle feeds for UFO's 24/7 ready to hit the censor button.
edit on 28-12-2015 by nOraKat because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 09:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: nOraKat
a reply to: Mianeye



That's a funny explanation..



The trajectory of the single particle that was blasted toward the drifting particle, which took off, were 2 completely different trajectories.



First, If it were the case that a single ice particle was blasted off the space shuttle by a thruster, which also effected a single floating ice particle, then they would fly off more or less in the same direction. The floating particle which suddenly accelerated away from the camera went in a completely different direction, then the one that was directed toward it.



Second, if there was ice blasted off the space shuttle, you would not see a single point and more likely to see a group of particles.



The post-thruster trajectory is a vector sum of the particles' ORIGINAL vectors, and the impulse added by the plume flow.

You DO see a group of particles. Open your eyes. Most show up at the same moment as sunrise, proving they are close to the shuttle. A few drift out of the shuttle's shadow a few seconds later, showing they were even closer to the shuttle.

This is all explained in detail on the link I suggested, and with pictures. Get back to me with any questions remaining after you've studied it.

www.jamesoberg.com...




top topics



 
3

log in

join