STS-48 UFO video oldie but goodie

Around the 20th second it appears one UFO starts chasing another UFO. And the UFO that shoots off is fired upon with some kind of energy weapon from the Earth's surface.



Now the skeptic in me is thinking this is just debris floating around the shuttle. And it's all just coincidence that it seems meaningful.

However, if this is the kind of activity going on around the Earth all I have to say is:

That one again?

Anyone that has tried underwater photography knows what that is, specks of dust. Probably less than 10 feet from the camera. We don’t see them in the air because they fall to the ground. They are shining in the sunlight and react to a blast from a control jet firing. The exhaust gas pushes them away from the off screen exhaust nozzle. Notice the flash in the upper left of the video at 16 seconds.

Have you ever wondered why in underwater photography that the light or flash is located away from the line of the camera lenses. This helps to not take pictures of the particles in the water.

Yes that is an oldie and yes that is a great example of these are not UFOs.

I really want to see a UFO that is a space ship and not just someone not understanding what the &^$@^ they are looking at. Please provide evidence of them.

Thank you.

a reply to: beyondknowledge

Why dont tbe other particles move?

Just curious, not being duplicitous.

originally posted by: TrustedTruth
a reply to: beyondknowledge

Why dont tbe other particles move?

Just curious, not being duplicitous.

Same thought.

What type of view is that? Infrared night vision? Does the International Space Station ever broadcast using that medium?

a reply to: TrustedTruth

They were not in or as close to the exhaust.

Put soap bubbles on some water. Drop something small in. Do the bubbles near to the area that you dropped something in get more affected by the dropping of the object or do all the bubbles have the same reaction to the splash and ripples?

a reply to: carewemust

its shot it UV, very esoteric for the time.

the only way they can be illuminated is by the sun so they are pretty far away, remember how big the shuttle is and how far the points of light are.

the camera was clearly in focus and only a few specks more, if it were ice close to the camera you would think at some point we would get a really nice shot of some ice crystals move thru the focus plane

originally posted by: beyondknowledge
a reply to: TrustedTruth

They were not in or as close to the exhaust.

Put soap bubbles on some water. Drop something small in. Do the bubbles near to the area that you dropped something in get more affected by the dropping of the object or do all the bubbles have the same reaction to the splash and ripples?

But these dust particles appeared the same. Only one removed itself from it's position.

Or I guess dust particles in such a video all appear the same contrast compared to each other. I honestly don't know enough about the video equipment used.

But I'd have thought more than one would have been close enough to have been affected by the burst. ?

Awesome analysis. I have seen the main UFO shoot off when engaged. Did not realize there was a whole fleet there that got the message. Cheers.

a reply to: kwakakev

me either! That there was an armada of ships!

originally posted by: TrustedTruth
But I'd have thought more than one would have been close enough to have been affected by the burst. ?

It looks to me like more than one was affected by the thruster firing, but one more than others, it was closer.

This detailed explanation from Jim Oberg's website has been around for 20 years, why don't more people know about this?

The STS-48 "Zig Zag UFO" -- A Prosaic Explanation

NASA replied (November 1991): "The objects seen are Orbiter-generated debris, illuminated by the sun.... The flicker of light is the result of the firing of the attitude thrusters on the Orbiter, and the abrupt motions of the particles result from the impact of gas jets from the thrusters."

Note "particles" as in plural, so if you don't see more than one particle affected by the thruster firing, you're not looking hard enough.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I have never been able to fault your work. It is minds like yours that draw me here. I am not sure what you are trying to say, that link is awesome.

I never knew the top of the shuttle was still frosty on landing. I am not surprised with the short time differential for landing. Huge engineering challenges to handle such forces.

I always wondered part of the land shot up, looks like China. A little unexpected for them to have that capability at that time.

I am not buying any thruster explanation. The framing of the Earth remains constant. I do see some thruster argument made in the document. Perhaps some minor thruster movement does affect the ice particles at times. In this scenario all I see is China telling ET to get bent. Kinda makes sense now for why the media did publish it at the time. If it was a full USA operation, silence as usual.

it looks look you are providing a politically correct message in these troubling times by keeping the doubt alive. Cheers.

I remember seeing day one on main stream tv news

Thought the muzzle flash on
The surface of the Earth apparent on the surface that is.....sealed it as serious shootin goin on

I figured Perth Australia was shooting....that one shot that missed big time

idk4s

a reply to: penroc3

its shot it UV

Citation required.

a reply to: kwakakev

The framing of the Earth remains constant.

How much should the firing of the thruster have affected the view, you reckon?

The imparted rotation rate change was about one one hundredth of a degree per second [about half a degree per minute], which is so miniscule it obviously wouldn’t register on the field of view.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Its old but still good!

originally posted by: tqrebelo
Its old but still good!

It gives me the "what if" feeling. I'm split on this one. The skeptics make a pretty good case. But it sure looks like intelligent movement going on and a particle weapon shooting up through the atmosphere. I'm stuck 50/50 on this one.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
But it sure looks like intelligent movement going on and a particle weapon shooting up through the atmosphere.

The problem is that we have several things intervening in the scene: the objects we see moving across the screen, the fact that the camera itself, coupled to the ISS or shuttle is also moving and we have NASA's explanation of a firing jet.

If you have several objects just moving from right to left you couldn't call that "intelligent movement", but when change direction it may be interpreted like the result of an intelligent action. Now, knowing all the intervenients in the video, the intelligent firing of a jet to make a slight change in the orbit could make those objects change direction, so we are possibly seeing a change in direction resulting from an intelligent action but not by the objects themselves.

It's like when you are on a bus, looking through the window to a car moving alongside the bus, just slightly faster than the bus. If you move to the front of the bus the car will appear to reduce speed, as it will appear to be left behind a little due to the change in perspective from your point of view.

When looking at a video we should always remember that the camera can also move, and objects at different distances will appear to have different movements because the change in perspective will not be the same for all of them.

PS: as you see I accept NASA's explanation as being the most likely to explain this video.

a reply to: Phage

How much should the firing of the thruster have affected the view, you reckon?

Good point. The evidence is strong that a thruster movement did take place. With a small effect on the shuttles rotation it would be hard to pickup in a small grainy video.

So where these other dots moving around ice crystals that where close to shuttles thrusters or where they UFO's past of the emissary told to go away.

I imagine in the vacuum of space, any small thruster forces will quickly disperse. What kind of range will they have to affect nearby matter floating around 1 meter? 10 meters? 100 meters? I don't know. Estimating depth is difficult with no other references around in the depths of space.

With one UFO clearly getting shot at from Earth, it does make me lean towards the other anonymous movements as more a part of this situation than some ice crystals floating near the thrusters.

a reply to: kwakakev

the video was stabilized and framed to take the rotation feeling out of the video and get a clearer view of what was going on.


it also happened over Australia........people get so warped up in Pine Gap i think people neglect what else is in the outback.


the Wiki page for the mission has all the camera details, you want to look at the payload bay camera and the other extreme UV cameras they took on that mission.


i dont think it was a UFO but rather a test observed by the people on the shuttle, pretty crazy they just happened to have the camera pointed at and focused on this event.....almost like they knew it was going to happen.


how would you film a particle beam(or something similar) cutting thru earths atmosphere? well i would look for the emissions the air gave off as it was being ionized.

funny they were also researching the shuttle glow effect with some of the same cameras





ETA: the glow is from atomic oxygen and NO- sticking to the shuttle...

also they fired the thrusters to get this event perfectly center frame, the astronauts knew NASA could edit the video like we see it now but for anyone watching it would look pretty normal if you weren't looking closely for something like this to happen.

originally posted by: kwakakev
With one UFO clearly getting shot at from Earth, it does make me lean towards the other anonymous movements as more a part of this situation than some ice crystals floating near the thrusters.

"One UFO clearly getting shot at from Earth"?

I very much doubt it. Shot with what? And if that was a shot at the UFO then they failed by a long distance.