It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


What has NASA said about this video?

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in


posted on May, 15 2006 @ 06:57 AM
I know every ones seen this video, and if not its a good one.
But my point is, have NASA publicly commented on this particular video, they have on others and always given natural phenomenon, obviously.

But you can not say ice crystals with this one, nor meteorite.
This UFO is going in one direction, a flash is seen and a projectile is seen firing at this UFO from earth, and then the UFO makes an urgent dash away from this shot and leaves earth.

If NASA have not given a comment, i think they should!!!!
If they have id love to hear it

This is all the proof we need.

posted on May, 15 2006 @ 07:07 AM
I wondered for a while about this one too.

The thing is the flash was too large to be say..a laser/energy weapon/ missile being fired. it looks like the type you get from lightning flashes.And the 'flare'shooting up could have possibly been a sprite.They are quite commonly filmed now from space during storms,If this was the case a burst of electricity could have caused a magnetic repulsion in the object causing the change in direction.

Dont know of any nasa explanation yet though. odd

posted on May, 15 2006 @ 07:36 AM
was about another case.

So they are happy to set to work trying to find out about this?
And no comment on the others?

posted on May, 15 2006 @ 10:28 AM
So it seems NASA has really said nothing. I believe NASA is told to keep shut about it by a higher power, but that's what I suspect, anyone know anything else?

posted on May, 15 2006 @ 11:05 AM
I believe what you got there is footage from STS-48. There are 5 such segments from the mission which raises questions. All segments were recorded from NASA select TV.

The first 4 segments were recorded by Baltimore resident, Don Ratsch. I’m trying to track down all 5 segments. With yours I now have 2.

Dr. Jack Kasher debunks the ice particle theory. I recently viewed footage from the STS-75 mission, which is also very interesting.

The main debunker for STS-48 is James Oberg. (I think)

[edit on 15/5/06 by ConspiracyNut23]

posted on May, 15 2006 @ 12:00 PM
But my point is NASA has failed to comment on this one, im aware of the others have seen them all.

But this is official NASA footage, and if anything they should give an explanation, not no comment.
As for the ones that have been spoken about, i.e ice crystals, well why dont we just present a few of the good ones in NASA's collection and say "explain these"
So there is no argument about ice crystals.

posted on May, 15 2006 @ 03:01 PM
definatly looks genuin to me id be intrested to hear what the powers that be say about this,

posted on May, 15 2006 @ 07:08 PM
Those so called ice crystals Looked like a unidentified flying/floatingg object to me there was a clip where the teather is severed by 2 of these objects or so it looks like that, and then after the teather starts to leave and float off into space you can clearly see these ufo' floating around the object like over 80 of them some are bigger some are smaller and some glow more than others, if anyone thinks that that is ICE CRYSTALS you have to be a total ignorant no knowing of anything retard imo.

What about the clip where all those same kind of objects and you can clearly see they are circular with a hollow or a hollow looking center, my common sense tells me out ionosphere produced mass amounts of energy and in my opinion why wouldnt are planet be a prime energy source for these objects or whatever the heck they are sure looks like they feed off our ionosphere and even our electrical sstorms in the video the objects are clearly hovering over electrical storms and the ionosphere.

posted on May, 16 2006 @ 02:48 AM

Originally posted by ronishia
definatly looks genuin to me id be intrested to hear what the powers that be say about this,

Zip, nothing, can anyone say if NASA said anything about this and other NASA footage??

It just seems madness, that this can be in the public arena, and NASA says ???

posted on May, 16 2006 @ 02:56 AM

Originally posted by Denied
NASA says ???

Nothing, what should they say?
Is the flash at 7 sec what is thought of to be lightning? Why so, I thought lightning moved, that was a stationary flash, was it not?

posted on May, 16 2006 @ 03:12 AM
There are a lot of references to the "official NASA explanation", but I haven't been able to find a link yet. But yes, I believe NASA has commented on the videos somewhere.

Originally posted by ADVISOR
Is the flash at 7 sec what is thought of to be lightning?

No, actually the flash is thought to be a jet from the Reaction Control System.
Here is the info from James Oberg, including the flash explanation.

Second, the optical appearance of RCS jet firings is well known
and familiar to experienced observers, and they look just like
the flash in question. These have been observed and videotaped on
every shuttle mission, from the crew cabin, from payload bay and
RMS cameras, and from cameras on nearby free-flying satellites,
and from ground optical tracking cameras as well.

posted on May, 16 2006 @ 03:28 AM
Alright, I watched it a few times and have concluded the object is under pulsed propulsion. That much is obvious, look how it moves and it's direction and speed.

posted on May, 16 2006 @ 03:32 AM
Seen this before. On a documentary, the official explanation was its Shuttle rubbish thats turned to ice then when its entered the atmosphere it just evaporated and shot off out to space lol.

posted on May, 16 2006 @ 03:51 AM

Originally posted by Liamoville
Seen this before. On a documentary, the official explanation was its Shuttle rubbish thats turned to ice then when its entered the atmosphere it just evaporated and shot off out to space lol.

OMG, is there a way we can ask NASA how that is possible?
Thats a joke.

posted on May, 16 2006 @ 04:06 AM
I have a few possible theory's as to what this could be. Let me start by saying whatever NASA says is more than likely a cover up even if it is not a ufo. Theory #1: Perhaps a ufo was entering earths atmosphere and found that it was not only capable of supporting life but was supporting life and decided to return to wherever it came from and devise a plan for contacting us, taking us over (as in independence day) or just plain decided to leave us alone. Theory #2: Perhaps it was a ufo and as it was entering our atmosphere a shuttle was leaving it. This would explain the flash and the other object shooting out at the same time. Theory #3: Perhaps NASA was tracking it for a while and discovered it was a ufo and decided to fire something at it. I would have to agree that it was too big for a missile that we are familiar with but maybe it was a new weapon unreleased to the public.

No matter what it is im sure the shuttle debris explanation NASA gave was B.S. and there is always the possibility that even NASA has no idea as to what it was. I am also quite positive that NASA has a much better video with a lot better resolution that they are not releasing to the public. No matter what it was it may very well cause me to sleep with one eye open tonight lol.

posted on May, 16 2006 @ 04:12 AM
I don't buy the ice crystal theory. The object in question changes direction far too suddenly and then the flash (which misses by quite a gap)...

Evaporation? Causing and ice crystal to project off into space...followed by a "flash" some fractions of a second behind it?

Coinkydinkal if you ask me. NASA has brushed off other "sightings" as ice crystals and space debris before...on sightings that were less amazing than this one.

Sure gets the imagination working don't it?

posted on May, 16 2006 @ 04:24 AM
I think it was just something that bounced off the stratosphere whether it was space debree or a comet/asteroid. If you look at how it begins to enter the planet,the way it bounces off in the direction it does looks like a ball was bounced off the edge of a table or wall.

Isnt this why the space shuttles have to enter into earth at a specific angle so they dont bounce off the stratosphere? Or something to the effect like that. Im not really sure i remember reading something about that quite a long time ago.

The thing that shoots at it looks like a shooting star if you ask me, nothing we have that is publicly known is able to move that fast, that object is easily moving a few hundred miles a second if you compare compare it to the scale its shown, that sucker was really moving.

But who knows, it could be a ufo but... im sticking with my original thought.

posted on May, 16 2006 @ 04:32 AM
I was thinking of that but couldn't remember what I'd read about it.

Here's a short excerpt from a mailing list at - External link

For those of you that never seen a meteoroid enter the Earth's atmosphere
allow my to begin by saying there are many different consequences during
the transformation of a meteoroid into a meteor. Some enter at a shallow
angle, that is to say they contact the surface of the atmosphere almost
parallel to it. In effect they skip across thin high altitude gases not
unlike a flat stone on the surface of a pond. These tend not to be
brilliant. They appear as thin white lines about the brightness of a
minor star. They are short lived and gone in an instant. Some meteoroids
come in at a slightly steeper angle. These penetrate deeper into the
atmosphere but bounce back into space before they really have a chance to
damage them selves. These also tend not to be so spectacular. They do how
ever heat the gases that they rub against leaving a short-lived glowing

This makes sense I suppose *sigh* but not nearly as wild as a possible UFO nearly shot down.

Can't find the shuttle re-entry angle though...didn't look too hard to be honest

posted on May, 16 2006 @ 04:35 AM
Found this little gem, Evidence: The Case For NASA UFO's

Part one. q=david+sereda&pl=true

Part two. david+sereda&pl=true

Im gonna watch this today, maybe it will shed some light on this more.

posted on May, 16 2006 @ 05:01 AM
NASA Case for UFo includes footage from STS-75 and STS-80 (Formation over Africa)

He also debunks the ice crystal theory.

If the footage you have is from STS-48, I think MUFOR mentions NASA explaination:

EVENT 2 (9-15-91 / between 20:30 - 20:45 GMT)
Note: The official NASA explanation for this event is that ice crystals are being propelled by a shuttle attitude thruster being fired. The fact that the Earth does not appear to shift in the frame indicates that the shuttle's attitude is not changed and therefore, no thruster is being fired during this event.


new topics

top topics

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in