Undeniable STS-37 Ufo (debunk this!), page 4
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times


reply posted on 12-10-2006 @ 06:23 AM by TruthCanHurt
Originally posted by Leevi

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

www.sendspace.com...


This video clearly show the motion of the camera tracking the motion of the sphere.
Look when the sphere changes direction at time 1:05 it matches when the background changes direction (i.e. the camera moves) exactly.


reply posted on 12-10-2006 @ 09:17 PM by incunabula
Since this is one of the most convincing UFO videos ever taken i decided to do a little follow up one some of your theories concerning water, condensation in the STS-37 space shuttle mission. Here is what i got.

The first is a chemical analyses of the STS-37 mission orbiter windows.

"9.0 DEBRIS SAMPLE LAB REPORTS

A total of 18 samples were obtained from Orbiter OV-104 during
the STS-37 post-landing debris assessment at Ames-Dryden Flight
Research Facility, California...

Orbiter Windows

Results of the window wipe chemical analysis indicates the
presence of the following materials:

I. Metallic particles
2. Albite, Calcite
3. Rust, Dust and Salt
4. Muscovite, Plagioclase (clay minerals)
5. RTV and Insulation glass fibers
6. Organics and trace organic fibers
Debris analysis provides the following correlations:
1. Metallic particles (stainless steel; aluminum, zinc,
and carbon steel alloys) are common to the landing site
and SRB/BSM exhaust, but are not considered a debris
concern in this quantity (micrometer), and have not
demonstrated a known debris effect.

2. Albite and Calcite are naturally-occurring landing
site products.

3. Rust, dust and salt are landing site products.

4. Muscovite and Plagioclase are
landing site products.
naturally-occurring

5. RTV and insulation glass fibers originate from Orbiter
thermal protection system (TPS) .

6. Organic materials are probably insect/animal remains
and deposits, or tile waterproofing agents. The trace
organic fibers (cellulose) appear to be of sampling
cloth origin.

Source::
LINK



So no H20.

Further than that we have also this.

"The window cavity conditioning system prevents moisture from entering into the windshields and the cavities of the overhead and payload-viewing windows"

Source.

spaceflight.nasa.gov...


And TruthcanHurt you're right, filming does take place with a handheld and here is a picture from the STS-37 crew member filming space.

img167.imageshack.us...

And Popek before blurting out stuff, I would maybe discuss these things with you if you backed up your claims a little bit.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
shortened link and added 'ex' tags





[edit on 12-10-2006 by masqua]



reply posted on 13-10-2006 @ 10:19 AM by Xeros
Originally posted by TruthCanHurt


So there you have it, NASA has a system in place to purge moisture from the window cavity. What do you suppose it looks like when the system "depressurizes and repressurizes" the windows during flight? I'm guessing moisture droplets form and then disappear.

So obviously moisture on the windows is a problem and they have a system to address it.




[edit on 13-10-2006 by TruthCanHurt]


Originally posted by incunabulaI would be more inclined to believe your theory if you can show me how that would be a possibility, and proove that the way it was filmed in zero grav, how the water which stays on the inside of the window for at least 27 seconds (video) can trickle in that matter and not be purged right away,thanks!


Water can adhere to objects in zero gravity especially it is in very small amounts. The droplet which I took a photo of and posted as a comparison earlier, was no more than 2mm thick, it was tiny:-



The trickling effect (if there indeed is one) could be caused by the system (which we know it has) used to clean the moisture away. I think the the majority of the movement comes from the fact that the camera is so close to the droplet, that the smallest movement of the camera would make the droplets movement look large.

Originally posted by incunabulaOne more thing, if the water is in front of the camera and the crew member was filming why he wouldn`t just clean the window and continue filming,it seems to me that if i was filming and saw that in front of my shot i would clean it up right away...


It's not that noticeable and how can we be sure that the person is looking through the veiwfinder? I'm sure they don't want to get thier grubby hands on the window, especially if they know of the self cleaning mechanism installed.

[edit on 13-10-2006 by Xeros]


reply posted on 13-10-2006 @ 01:40 PM by Xeros
Originally posted by HooHaa
If that is the case then where is the condensation or fog left behind on the window? oh it just consolidated into a perfect drop in the amount of time he took to breath on the window and grab the camera for the shot.

I highly doubt its water because there would be alot of other evidence to suggest this. Face it you dont know and get off the water high horse.


What evidence do you mean? It's clear to see imo.


Originally posted by Xeros
These droplets are clearly not in focus imo. The water droplet is formed on the inside of the window by condensation. The window is closest to the cold outside, so this more likely where they will gather. Water or liquids can also adhere to surfaces in zero gravity, if they are in a small enough quantity. The droplet appears to come out of nowhere because the cameraman/woman is reajusting his/her position and thus the droplet becomes reflected by the earths radiant light as it is no longer has the blackness of space behind it.


Originally posted by Xeros
Okay,
I've had a go at captuting a droplet on a window with my digital camera. This is may first attempt. I know that you need:-

a) No flash as this can reflect and shift the focus (you can see mine reflecting as I can't disable it, so I had to improvise by trying to block it with some cardboard.)

b) No other objects in the foreground/on the window to distract the focus (a clean window too).

c) It to be as dark as possible behind you and the camera so that there are no reflections in the window to distract the focus. (I had difficulty with this as there are only blinds in my house and no curtains.

I then tried to dismantle the camera to stop the flash, but had to make do. The camera was no more than 5 cms from the window. The window pane is part of a door in my kitchen. The droplet is in the center of the image. The stuff to the left is the flash.



comparison:-




What do you disagree with here?
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5  >>    ^^TOP^^



Aliens Among Us ...Video
  Posted 10 days ago with 65 member flags
Moon: inexplicable phenomena. Luna Cognita video.
  Posted 18 days ago with 60 member flags
UFOs \'Escort\' Mexican Aircraft - Radar Confirmed.
  Posted 13 days ago with 31 member flags
The Aurora, Texas UFO Incident (1897)
  Posted 4 days ago with 27 member flags
Jacques Vallee: Implications of UFO Phenomena - Thinking Allowed.
  Posted 2 days ago with 22 member flags
UFO above Wadden Sea
  Posted 12 days ago with 14 member flags