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.

 

What has NASA said about this video?

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by lost_shaman
Mr Spock,

That seriously depends on what your calling a "Shock Wave". Here on Earth we are constantly surrounded by gases under pressure, and a "Shock Wave" that would exert force on an object such as an "explosion" , causes the gases to compress forming a "pressure wave" A.K.A. "Shock Wave" that will exert force on surrounding objects as the "pressure wave" travels through the gas.

There is no "gas" Per Se in "space" , therefore no "pressure waves" and no "traveling" , as in a vacuum the "gas" from an "explosion" would simply disperse because there is no surrounding "gases" to compress.

So in space there would not be any "Shock Waves" that are exerting force on objects in space capable of reversing an objects trajectory as seen on the video.



True and not true


A conventional explosion or even Nuclear in space might be an answer.

Conventional explosives are independent of atmospheric oxygen (an oxidizin' agent is part-and-parcel of an explosive composition; thats why the stuff explodes). No atmospheric or gravitational effects would inhibit expansion of the burst. The explosion of a star - a Nova - precisely is a nuclear explosion of massive scale, accompanied by gas clouds and shockwaves which extend for light-years and shape galactic features.




posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by timb3r

A conventional explosion or even Nuclear in space might be an answer.



If you want to talk about what can happen somewhere out there, or when Nukes are used , then your right. I'm just talking about "Space" the "vacuum" in "Near Earth Orbit" as seen on the Video from STS-48.



Originally posted by timb3r

Conventional explosives are independent of atmospheric oxygen (an oxidizin' agent is part-and-parcel of an explosive composition; thats why the stuff explodes). No atmospheric or gravitational effects would inhibit expansion of the burst.


No, I agree. What I'm saying is that to be effected by that "explosion" , or burst of gas, you'd need to be extremely close to it even if it was a large explosion to be effected because there is no gas in "space" to be compressed into a "Compression Wave", " Pressure Wave" A.K.A. "Shock Wave".





Originally posted by timb3r

The explosion of a star - a Nova - precisely is a nuclear explosion of massive scale, accompanied by gas clouds and shockwaves which extend for light-years and shape galactic features.


Again this would be an enormous explosion of matter ,and thank god there are not any Stars going Super-Nova anywhere near Earth , but that is not even a candidate for what we are seeing on the video from STS-48.



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 09:24 PM
link   
I'll take a leap here. Regarding the "flash" of the RCS and the apparent change of direction of the objects....if the RCS is fired to perform a manuever, wouldnt the angle of view the camera have to also change. It is attached to the object (shuttle) performing the manuever, so it should pitch, yaw, roll right along with the shuttle. I dont see this happening.

Also, regarding the "ice" particle ideas...when the RCS fires and blows off excess fuel or ice from the nozzles, would all of the particles be uniform in shape? Shouldnt they be more like shards, uneven or jagged, different lengths, sizes? Most of the videos from STS missions I've seen, the objects in question are generally all circular, some even with a uniform "divot" on them.



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lost_Mind
I'll take a leap here. Regarding the "flash" of the RCS and the apparent change of direction of the objects....if the RCS is fired to perform a manuever, wouldnt the angle of view the camera have to also change. It is attached to the object (shuttle) performing the manuever, so it should pitch, yaw, roll right along with the shuttle. I dont see this happening.


Actually, the RCS fires frequently and in very small bursts to maintain a certain position. I believe they only use 4 oz of fuel per firing. You have to remember that there are people and equipment that would be colliding inside the shuttle if dramatic maneuvers were to happen automatically. When the pilot is maneuvering (for docking or landing prep for example) there would be more dramatic maneuvering, but the entire crew would be strapped in for those. Think about all the video you have ever seen of the astronauts floating in zero g, and that you never saw them suddenly shift into a bulkhead, which is what would happen if an automatic system performed larger burns less frequently.



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 02:55 AM
link   
That of an object going in one direction followed by a flash then it shoots off.

The object moves as in anticipation of the flash, i would say not from a "shockwave".

All good idea's though, and a good discussion.

Putting aside the serada video, nasa's explanation if any of the original video is pants.



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 07:27 AM
link   
Yeah, I would have to agree that NASA's explanations of these phenomena are weak at best. I noticed that on the video in question that there was a very dim object moving from the lower right towards the center slowly and it didnt seem to be affected by the flash at all. It appears to continue on its course whereas the brighter object not only very abruptly changes direction but appears to accelerate after the turn is made. I wish that the perspective was a little more crisp in these images. It would help iron out some lingering doubts some may have as to the range and relative position/motion these objects have.

Hehe, I looked into the availability and style of UV or near UV capable cameras and I guess I wont be getting one of those anytime soon. $5,995 by Sony and its designed for industrial flaw detection. Was thinking it would be cool to set up a land based UV unit to a decent consumer telescope and see if these could be observed from Earth. Probably wouldnt work though due to the atmosphere filtering too much of the UV spectrum.



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 12:32 PM
link   
Save ur money Lost, Sereda's explanation of the em spectrum and UV in particular is way off. The dust visible in these nasa videos are illuminated by visible light. The idea that these things are invisible in the visible spectrum and visible in UV is ridiculous.

I have to say that the UFO scene is just as F'ed up today as it was in the 1960s during the contactee movement, when many americans would go public on TV and News and say they had alien friends who took them to cities on Venus and Mars. Of course they didn't know what we know today, that there is nothing like that on either planet.

My point is that these distractions take people's energy away from focusing on things that may be real and worth investigating, such as some of the encounters that took place during the 1940s and 1950s. I agree that all phenomena should be looked at, but this focus that NASA has to hide 2-3 mile wide discs yet puts the video on TV is so silly.

Sereda is a snake oil salesman, making money on people's fears as the many others like him. (Bill Cooper anyone?)

People believe some wierd stuff. People believe in this secret gov't conspiracy, and illuminati! Come on, if you had managed to be smart and powerful enough to enslave the whole world without their knowing it, would you leave clues on a dollar bill? How stupid!!



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 12:44 PM
link   


The idea that these things are invisible in the visible spectrum and visible in UV is ridiculous.


Why? Wasnt the nellis air base ufo video shot through a UV light?
Isnt there lots of sightings by aircrew only to be told by a controller theres nothing on radar.
Just because we cant see it does not mean it is not there.



People believe some wierd stuff. People believe in this secret gov't conspiracy, and illuminati! Come on, if you had managed to be smart and powerful enough to enslave the whole world without their knowing it, would you leave clues on a dollar bill? How stupid!!


Thats quite funny your right, why wouldn't they, its all about symbolism, which is in your face.

[edit on 8-6-2006 by Denied]



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 01:30 PM
link   
Hmm amazon has one of his books about his meeting Jesus a few times, which he swears really happened. How could I have ever doubted him?

Jesus, Aliens, I guess the next book will be about Loch Ness or Bigfoot. Too bad Dan Brown beat him to the DaVinci Code.



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Spock
Hmm amazon has one of his books about his meeting Jesus a few times, which he swears really happened. How could I have ever doubted him?

Jesus, Aliens, I guess the next book will be about Loch Ness or Bigfoot. Too bad Dan Brown beat him to the DaVinci Code.



???????????????????????



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 01:58 PM
link   
Forget the sereda video i posted that later, the point of the thread is to discuss the first one.

I have seen a better version of that one too, if any one can help that would be cool, im just being lazy.


[edit on 8-6-2006 by Denied]



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 01:00 AM
link   
Denied, thanks for the links (all of them). I have a lot of personal feelings on this subject, but won't hijack your thread .


As far as the first video is concerned, the only explanation that I would accept is that they don't know, or at least that it's a secret. But they are not known for honesty.


What I would like to say about the other links is this. Last I checked, UFO means UNIDENTIFIED flying object. And as long as no one can identify an object, and it is flying, it is a UFO. Can anyone who criticizes Mr sereda offer anything better? I found some things questionable about his presentation, but not everything. I hear a lot of talk and no action.




Sorry.

[edit on 6/16/06 by W_Smith]

[edit on 6/16/06 by W_Smith]



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 01:15 AM
link   
I have blown it up a bit to maybe get better view.
Also..

I think that it is debri, then when shuttle fires retros, it gets blown
away.

640 X 480 MOVIE (.MOV)

PS: give it a minute its still uploading.



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 02:33 AM
link   
Thats a big file 28mb, so dial people can forget it lol.....
But it does blow it up.

Ok, going with your idea, of space debris, being hurled off into outer space from the thrusters firing, what is the projectile or whatever it is, laser, as someone suggested.

That part does not tie in with that theory.

Dont get me wrong i know the meaning of a ufo.
And this is a ufo.

[edit on 16-6-2006 by Denied]



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 03:36 AM
link   
Im of the opinion that its just debris being pushed away by the shuttle thrusters firing.Im not sure but if the streak of light coming up from Earth was a laser would it not be a continious beam of light rather than a projectile as it appears on the film.



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 03:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by bmdefiant
Im of the opinion that its just debris being pushed away by the shuttle thrusters firing.Im not sure but if the streak of light coming up from Earth was a laser would it not be a continious beam of light rather than a projectile as it appears on the film.


Ok, if its debris then what is the "streak", it doesnt tie in with space debris idea.



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 05:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Spock

Keep in mind when viewing any evidence that the instruments that record the evidence must be taken into account. Modern video equipment will cause items to appear to be pulsating in colors when under extreme magnification, such as when amateurs try to analyze UFO footage. The recording equipment was simply not designed to be of such a high resolution as to distinguish glare from actual object at high magnification.

A good example is the ridiculous belief that dropa stone shaped craft are flying around the space shuttle. What are the odds that:

A) Dropa shaped craft from Sirius are flying around the shuttle, and have NEVER been seen at different angles, always center hole pointed directly at the camera


The NASA camera equipment IS designed to be of such a high resolution as to distinguish glare from actual object at high magnification. They are using high tech infared camera to see ULTRA VIOLET.

If were talking about the tether incident keep in mind that he debunked that those discs may be blur discs by showing us footage of blur discs, there is a very clear difference.

Also earlier you mentioned that there is no way to tell how big the UFO's are.
The tether was 12 miles long and the video showed us a pulsing ultra violet disc that passed BEHIND the tether that can be estimated to be 2-3 miles diamater.

As for the discussing of the possible race and home of these beings I think he should have left that out but thats his oppinion and he does deserve to share that.

Overall I think if your interested in some detailed evidence (THANKS to NASA!) of UFO's and interested in a possible theory of lightspeed and gravity this video is a must see.

I personally have come to a conclusion. I do think our planet is being protected by a race of beings and I believe there are MANY huge crafts (in the ultraviolet spectrum and +) floating around Earth RIGHT NOW and we may even be working with them!

Seriously though the best part of the video was without a doubt that last 10 mins of part one. If your dont want to watch the whole thing WATCH THE LAST 10 MINUTES AMAZING!

GO FOR WAKE SHIELD!

Thanks for that link Denied



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 05:30 AM
link   
After watching those videos I forgot what this thread was even about


I guess I forgot to mention the one UFO that dashed left afte rmoving. What I thought odd was on the same shot there was not only 1 UFO but there was 3!
There was one following right behind the one that dashed that did a slight turn itself and then one coming OUT OF THE ATMOSPHERE!

In that video I should add he went on to explain how it may be a possible man made UFO coming from Earth. He suspected EG&G since they are known to be working on nuclear propulsion.

Sry Spock in my first post I was talking about the tether incedent for size matter.

I guess it could be hard to guess the size of the UFO that dashed but we CAN guess the size of the UFO that came out of the Earths atmosphere and that is too large to be a man made nuclear propulsion craft. It has to be a mile or so. Now that we can compare that one to the size of the UFO that dashed since they are both about same distance.


[edit on 16-6-2006 by Techsnow]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join