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.

 

Undeniable STS-37 Ufo (debunk this!)

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 11:38 AM
link   
For those interested in what exactly STS 37 and STS 51a were doing during their mission.

"Leasat 2 (Syncom 4-1) 1984-113C 11/8/84 ESMC STS 51A GEO 1315
Released from STS 51A 11/10/84; 105 deg W; leased to U.S. government "

that's a US military satellite that was deployed for communications purposes.

More here.

space.jpl.nasa.gov...

And the STS 37 mission had to do with a deployment of a gamma ray antenna.

" April 1991 14:24 GMT. Landing Date: 1991-04-11 13:56:44. Flight Time: 5.98 days. Flight Up: STS-37. Flight Back: STS-37. Call Sign: Atlantis. Crew: Apt, Cameron, Godwin, Nagel, Ross. Program: STS.

Manned five crew. Unscheduled EVA to manually deploy the Gamma-Ray Observatory's high-gain antenna, which failed to deploy upon ground command. Payloads: Gamma-Ray Observatory (GRO), Crew/ Equipment Translation Aids (part of Extravehicular Activity Development Flight Experiment), Ascent Particle Monitor (APM), Bioserve Instrumentation Technology Associates Materials Dispersion Apparatus (BlMDA), Protein Crystal Growth (PCG)-Block Il, Space Station Heatpipe Advanced Radiator Element (SHARE)-ll, Shuttle Amateur Radio Experiment (SAREX)-ll, Radiation Monitoring Equipment (RME)-lIl, Air Force Maui Optical Site (AMOS) Calibration Test.

more info on this mission can be found here.

www.astronautix.com...

I'm of the belief that UFO's or AC's for that matter only buzz our missions when it's of special interest to them. We are quarantined on this planet and if we try to weaponize space with anything especially nuclear we will attract their interest.

We can play in our own backyard with those toys, what we do in our own backyard is up to us but, if we bring those toys to the schoolyard you will attract attention from the administration.




posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 12:54 PM
link   
well perhaps because its on the inside of the shuttle

thats how water can exist



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 03:08 PM
link   
Are you guys sure that that's STS-37? Because it could be this mini satellite that NASA deployed on STS-87.

spaceflight.nasa.gov...

But it's definately not a drop of water.



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheBandit795
Are you guys sure that that's STS-37? Because it could be this mini satellite that NASA deployed on STS-87.

spaceflight.nasa.gov...

But it's definately not a drop of water.


Yeah positive, like i mentioned earlier the video posted is a mash of two separate mission videos, here's a pic from STS 37.

img67.imageshack.us...

And here one from STS 51a.

img115.imageshack.us...

Notice how it's two different missions and the same(?) UFO.

[edit on 9-10-2006 by incunabula]

[edit on 9-10-2006 by incunabula]



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 04:24 PM
link   
popek : well perhaps because its on the inside of the shuttle

thats how water can exist



Just because it is possible to think of a plausible explanation for any event doesn't mean that is the correct answer for the explanation of that event.

For instance in both these videos STS-37 and STS-51A , there is no evidence on the video that a water Droplet was present in the video before the anomaly became visible. Supposedly these were both droplets of water floating in the Cabin that happened to land on the window as Astronauts were filming.

Are we to assume that round water droplets do not make distortions of light until they land on the windows?

You also must consider that there is only limited space inside a Space Craft , that means that either Droplets of water must be moving slowly or that they were generated immediately before the impact of the Droplets on the Windows.



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 04:33 PM
link   
In order to test this theory of water Droplets on windows all one need do is to convince NASA to experiment with water droplets impacting the inside of the windows while filming something like the ISS or a Satellite.

Sounds simple enough in theory.



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 04:37 PM
link   
I'll go out on a limb here but...

In the 2nd half of the video the object being shown in a drop of water on a window. You will notice it appears to move corisponding to camera motion, and also appears to difracct the way a water drop would (note the drop is on the inside of the window)...

[edit]
I see this was already explored...



I can't fully justify this explination being a description for the first object though, as the camera does not appear to be moving enough for this to be the explination (as the satalite stays stedy in the video shot)... But maybe the satalite is both larger and further away than the video makes it appear...

[edit on 10/9/2006 by bobby3]



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by popek
i really cant believe you people are being so blind
i have shown this video to about 20 people in my halls of residence most of them not into UFO's in the slightest and all of them have said its water

jesus people!
wake up!


I absolutely agree with you. I thought the same before even reading the thread, hardly a coincidence. I noticed the distortion too. The supposed movement is coming from the person holding the camera.



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 06:43 PM
link   
If these were water droplets then they would have to be very close to the lens of the camera. If these objects are very close to the lens of the camera and are in focus then any background imagery must be out of focus unless your using an extremely wide angle lens. The lens used to make these photographs (videos) was obviously not extremely wide angle, otherwise you would be able to see the interior of the space ship which you can't.

In fact the lens used appears to be telephoto which impacts the depth of field (range of focus) . These types of lenses only focus at a narrow range of distance.

That being said, the objects must be outside the space ship. If they were inside the space ship they would look like a big smudge on the camera lens, even though they were a perfectly formed sphere. There is no way for a telephoto lens to focus both close and distant at the same time.

Pretty impressive videos. Too bad the resolution sux. Is there anywhere to find them in high quality?



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 07:18 PM
link   
Okay so is the water theory clearly debunked now??
I still think the best theory is the satellite and a mix up between STS missions.



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 07:26 PM
link   
There is this kind of UFO not only on STS-31 and STS-57 missions, but also on STS-62.
I will rip it off DVD and upload somewhere tomorrow.



[edit on 9-10-2006 by Leevi]



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 09:05 PM
link   
Here it is, a VHS=>DVD=>XviD rip of the particular passage with these UFOs. I tried to enhance the video to its best with the filters so, we have what we have


The last scene is from the STS-62 mission. STS-31 and 57 are at the beginning.
10.5 mb.

www.sendspace.com...



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 09:22 PM
link   
Looks like an alien probe observing what they primitive humans are doing on their jalopy in the netherlands of the big blue marble. I can't believe that anybody here thinks that is a drop of water.. how desperate are they to not believe or to lead others down that path I have to wonder what strings they will pull on next?



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 05:38 AM
link   
this is a pointless debate

im a believer in alien visitors to earth
but you people must be desperate

its f@$£ing water
im sure the US gov. are excited to see that so many people are so desperate to believe they will believe this rubbish rather than trying to actually find some proof

its water
people who simply beleive this rubbish are harming the entire UFOlogy community by making us all look stupid



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 06:12 AM
link   
It's not water, It's a satellite.



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 06:40 AM
link   
Here's a clearer video of the water droplet.
Sorry, but it's only short.

[edit on 10-10-2006 by Xeros]



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 06:47 AM
link   
If it's a water droplet, then NASA's camera's must be really advanced then. They can focus on extremely nearby objects and far away objects at the same time!!

I'll repeat the post of TruthCanHurt.


Originally posted by TruthCanHurt

If these were water droplets then they would have to be very close to the lens of the camera. If these objects are very close to the lens of the camera and are in focus then any background imagery must be out of focus unless your using an extremely wide angle lens. The lens used to make these photographs (videos) was obviously not extremely wide angle, otherwise you would be able to see the interior of the space ship which you can't.

In fact the lens used appears to be telephoto which impacts the depth of field (range of focus) . These types of lenses only focus at a narrow range of distance.

That being said, the objects must be outside the space ship. If they were inside the space ship they would look like a big smudge on the camera lens, even though they were a perfectly formed sphere. There is no way for a telephoto lens to focus both close and distant at the same time.



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 06:53 AM
link   
It is clearly not a water droplet and it is cleary a object coming from the darkness of space...

Object sweeps in from a distance...



Object swoops down towards shuttle....



Object Hovers for less than a second....




Object Flys off...




posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 06:55 AM
link   
Also notice how it...materialises as it comes closer to the shuttle....very intresting



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 06:58 AM
link   
Whoever claimed this was a water droplet and condensation formulating in space has just cured humanity's h2o needs.
If water exists freely in space then we might as well start sucking it dry. Who knows? Great theory though.




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join