it is kinda spectacular IMHO as if it was just a cluster of ice particles they would'nt all move in unison even if they came off at the same time..as this object is 1 cohesive thing. Sorry *shrugs*

Originally posted by Breadfan
I don't think that's a UFO, rather some fuel residue from the tank that got frozen or something. Nothing spectacular there IMO.

Originally posted by jainatorres
it is kinda spectacular IMHO as if it was just a cluster of ice particles they would'nt all move in unison even if they came off at the same time..as this object is 1 cohesive thing. Sorry *shrugs*

One frozen cohesive thing. One big chunk of frozen fuel/ice particles.
The shape is a bit odd, I give u that, but that's still not enough to convince me it's of ET origin.

If you look earlier on in its appearance, its quite further away from the tank
relative to the zoom, then moments later it has closed the distance and MAINTAINS the distance as if observing & tracking the tank. Ice crystals dont move under their own power. Check it out.

Originally posted by Breadfan

Originally posted by jainatorres
it is kinda spectacular IMHO as if it was just a cluster of ice particles they would'nt all move in unison even if they came off at the same time..as this object is 1 cohesive thing. Sorry *shrugs*

One frozen cohesive thing. One big chunk of frozen fuel/ice particles.
The shape is a bit odd, I give u that, but that's still not enough to convince me it's of ET origin.

would an ice formation leave such an obvious shadow on the cloud?,as far as i know water casts no shadow.

if it were part of the shuttle discarded during fuel tank ejection,why does the fuel tank catch up the object and over take it?,they should maintain the same vertical distance according to the known laws of physics.

thanks omega,do you think the object seems to have a cental V shape at its rear centre that connects the claw like extensions?

someone mentioned HAARP,thats really eerie as when i first saw the object it immediately reminded me of a documentary i saw about electro-static levitation(a real science that levitates matter).The aluminium craft that was being levitated by the scientists looked very much like this!.

In my opinion the 'drone' is obviously faked, the colour shade is too bright for the rest of the video image, this would lead me to believe that the 'orb' shaped objects are also faked. Why is it so easy to fool rational people with such crappy fake videos?

Originally posted by TomNoddy
Why is it so easy to fool rational people with such crappy fake videos?

So you are saying that NASA fakes videos now?

Please submit your proof....

Or did you not bother to read where these videos came from?

Oh wait a newbie....



[edit on 1-11-2007 by zorgon]

EXACTLY my point too. They always overlook such small details in their debunks.
Further more if it was such a huge chunk of ice forming on the tank (which is never visible in the SRB seperation video's? -Convenient huh- you would think they'd at least give it a mention via the narration from mission control. But you hear zilch. If only to allay concerns.

Originally posted by wierdalienshiznit


if it were part of the shuttle discarded during fuel tank ejection,why does the fuel tank catch up the object and over take it?,they should maintain the same vertical distance according to the known laws of physics.

they should maintain the same vertical distance according to the known laws of physics.

The debunker's have their own laws of physics completely seperate to the rest of creation. In their world ice crystals turn under their own power and shoot off in different directions *shrugs*

[edit on 1-11-2007 by jainatorres]

Off the hook! Crystallin Entities and the whatever that was in the second one. I gotta show that one around at school. I wanna see the look on Mr. Van Der Valk's (new physics teach) face! He'll say something like ,"Um... what do you hink it is?" It's on NASA so we can get to it! This is going to be fun. He's all that and a bag of chips.

Mira

I don't know what the zig zag thing was, but the other thing that some are saying it's a drone looks like a satellite to me. There's alot of space junk out there and it could be just that. But it's a ufo in any case. If it was space junk or a satellite I wish they would explain that while taping. That's just my opinion

it does seem like it could be space junk but the thing that gets rid of that idea is the shadow. it also doesnt look like anything that would be on the shuttle or to hold the tank on because the tanks are jettisoned with boosters not some tripod thingy. i was just curious do these things just float around space or does nasa just pop these things off and hope they dont take out a couple of houses. lol

My theory is that it could be ice from the fuel tank that fell off. Don't they use liquid nitrogen to cool the tank before blasting off? I think the ice is falling at a slower rate than the fuel tank. Maybe the astronaut was just taping the ice when it fell off. The orbs could be light reflections by ice crystals or something, does anyone know the altitude they were at?

What was the shadow of? the tank or the ice?
If it's the ice i suppose i could be opaque and large enough to create a shuttle.

[edit on 1-11-2007 by die_another_day]

Originally posted by die_another_day
My theory is that it could be ice from the fuel tank that fell off. Don't they use liquid nitrogen to cool the tank before blasting off? I think the ice is falling at a slower rate than the fuel tank. Maybe the astronaut was just taping the ice when it fell off. The orbs could be light reflections by ice crystals or something, does anyone know the altitude they were at?

as i previously stated the object leaves a distinct shadow, ice refracts(scatters) light.

it cannot be ice.such a large piece of ice to create such a shadow would have been noticeable on the fuselage

those orbs are not light, as the light has nothing to reflect against to project the illusion of an orb.



[edit on 1-11-2007 by wierdalienshiznit]

Originally posted by wierdalienshiznit
would an ice formation leave such an obvious shadow on the cloud?,as far as i know water casts no shadow.

if it were part of the shuttle discarded during fuel tank ejection,why does the fuel tank catch up the object and over take it?,they should maintain the same vertical distance according to the known laws of physics.

Ouch, this kind of reasoning hurts my eyes! The upper atmosphere is not a vacuum. There is all kinds of drag due to air resistance and water particles, etc... the shape and weight of the object would make it's center of mass much less obvious than the discarded tank. The velocity (which is a vector) would absolutely be different for the two objects.
As for water not casting a shadow, rain drops do, dumping out a bucket of water on the sidewalk sure does...
Also, this could very very easily be a structural mooring instrument, as someone else suggested.

Just wanted to say that though I stick with my above statement, it's also not clear how high up the footage is taken.
Even if the objects are in free fall orbit, their centers of mass would still dictate rotational differences, not to mention any number of collisions that may have happened between the lighter, more awkward object to change it's momentum.

I actually have a physics test on just this thing tomorrow.


[edit on 1-11-2007 by angst18]

We should assume it's ice until it's proven that it's not ice. (insert annoying and illogical comment by zorgon below) Ice CAN leave a shadow, especially if it's frosted and therefore opaque. The person who posted that large ice would be noticed on the fuselage, to you I want to ask, "how?" It's not as if the shuttle has little cameras orbiting it to check it out at all times. Finally, I didn't see anything unexpected about the apparent ice formation's movement and the orbs could've been anything.

Originally posted by angst18

Originally posted by wierdalienshiznit
would an ice formation leave such an obvious shadow on the cloud?,as far as i know water casts no shadow.

if it were part of the shuttle discarded during fuel tank ejection,why does the fuel tank catch up the object and over take it?,they should maintain the same vertical distance according to the known laws of physics.

Ouch, this kind of reasoning hurts my eyes! The upper atmosphere is not a vacuum. There is all kinds of drag due to air resistance and water particles, etc... the shape and weight of the object would make it's center of mass much less obvious than the discarded tank. The velocity (which is a vector) would absolutely be different for the two objects.
As for water not casting a shadow, rain drops do, dumping out a bucket of water on the sidewalk sure does...
Also, this could very very easily be a structural mooring instrument, as someone else suggested.

Just wanted to say that though I stick with my above statement, it's also not clear how high up the footage is taken.
Even if the objects are in free fall orbit, their centers of mass would still dictate rotational differences, not to mention any number of collisions that may have happened between the lighter, more awkward object to change it's momentum.

I actually have a physics test on just this thing tomorrow.


[edit on 1-11-2007 by angst18]

i understand and calculated those concepts.my reasoning is that the fuel tank will fall faster than the object as it as more centriform shape,like a bullet offering less air resistance,yet it is the fuel tank catching up with the object.indicating they did not enter free fall at the same time.

the shadows formed by water and ice are diffuse,not as corpreal as this,try it for yourself.it could be highly frosted ice,yes....

....but equally its not ice?,wheres your onus?

the spheres are not important to me,to little visual data to make any judgement.unless their aerodynamics can be plotted.

The fact that you're seeing shadows at all means that the objects are probably not in free fall, but actually falling to earth. You would have to zoom in pretty far to see any shadows on cloud cover if the objects were up very high, and in that case you wouldn't be able to see the objects at all (cause they'd be all blurry). Does that make sense? Even a large object like the tank would have to be close to the clouds to be able to see and film the object it's self as well as it's shadow in one shot.

Again, do we know exactly what's going on with this video? It seems not. We don't get a great perspective of height.

Not sure about the onus question, onus meaning burden. So you're asking me where's my burden? Like of proof? Can't offer one as I'm not sure of the requisite information.

Altitude, trajectory, initial velocities, time specs, other "space junk" collisions that may have occurred, etc...

All speculation based on good 'ole Newton's 2nd

Oh, and it would only be ice if a. the objects were close enough to the Earth for any liquid to re-freeze after entry into the atmosphere, or b. if the objects are still in cold "space", again this isn't very likely do to the shadow thing.

[edit on 1-11-2007 by angst18]

[edit on 1-11-2007 by angst18]

is it just me or is there someone elso who thinks the crystal-thingy in the second video looks a little like a scorpion?
this certainly looks strange