UFO PROOF! You Missed The Disclosure!

Originally posted by C.H.U.D.
If these objects are so close (as they would have to be for the ice/dust explanation to hold up), then thrusters firing would affect at least the motion of a few other objects, if not all of them, but we only see individual objects changing direction. Therefore thrusters can be ruled out.

Thrusters have a local effect, but yes, I agree. The force pushing the particles downward is something else, it seems constant. The difference between UFOs that change direction and those that don't is speed. Only the slowest are visibly deflected. They are not more intelligently controlled than the others.

[edit on 2008-4-8 by nablator]

reply to post by ALLis0NE


I noticed on that footage if you watch it up close that the "V" like notches move from front to back and from side to side when they move passed the tether. My mate Fin showed me it first and i was gob smacked. I had to download the footage and watch real close but yesssss they do move one closes at the back and another opens somewhere else. What is are these things? Could they be space critters?

reply to post by nablator


The orbital inclination is relevant because a low inclination tells me it's moving more toward the sun instead of perpendicular to it. Orbital inclination is not the same thing as inclination of an airplane.

reply to post by jillh10


Your observation is one of the things that leads me to believe they are not space critters. The notches appear according to the objects position in front of the camera. Critters would not change shape with respect to there camera position. The notches are probably caused by anomalies in the camera.

Originally posted by nablator
Thrusters have a local effect, but yes, I agree.

Glad to hear you agree nablator.

I suspect the effect of thrusters is less local than most would imagine. Bear in mind that thrusters in space are basically an explosive decompression process, and unlike here on Earth, their effect would probably be much more dispersed the further away from the thrusters you are. I'm no expert, so perhaps someone with better knowledge of how thrusters work in space could comment?

Originally posted by nablator
The force pushing the particles downward is something else, it seems constant. The difference between UFOs that change direction and those that don't is speed. Only the slowest are visibly deflected.

Not sure what you are trying to say here - perhaps you could clarify?

Regarding speed, I think it would be safe to say that if a tiny particle were caught in the blast of a truster you would see an extremely rapid change in speed (and direction). What we see in the footage does not support this being the case!

Remember, these are supposed to be very small, if not tiny particles (if you believe what NASA says)... I think a good analogy would be if you had dust or some fluff floating about in front of you, and you were to blow in it's direction. It would shoot off, no matter what speed it was initially moving at. Small/light particles have little or no (for all intents and purposes) momentum.

Originally posted by finnegan
reply to post by jillh10

 

Your observation is one of the things that leads me to believe they are not space critters. The notches appear according to the objects position in front of the camera. Critters would not change shape with respect to there camera position. The notches are probably caused by anomalies in the camera.

Yes, the notches are small irregularities of the aperture. A very simple experiment: put a small reflective (metallic) object in front of your eye, half an inch away, a spotlight on the side to make it shine. You will see a transparent disk of light. If you move the object up and down your upper and lower lids will be plainly visible.

reply to post by C.H.U.D.

I suspect the effect of thrusters is less local than most would imagine. Bear in mind that thrusters in space are basically an explosive decompression process, and unlike here on Earth, their effect would probably be much more dispersed the further away from the thrusters you are. I'm no expert, so perhaps someone with better knowledge of how thrusters work in space could comment?

Like jet airplanes, space rockets work on a principle called "action and reaction." The massive force (action) generated by hot gases firing backward from a rocket's engines produces an equal force (reaction) that pushes the rocket forward through space.

Depending on how much force/thrust is used it can spread out but it is still limited, otherwise there would not be enough thrust to propell the shuttle forward.

Regarding speed, I think it would be safe to say that if a tiny particle were caught in the blast of a truster you would see an extremely rapid change in speed (and direction). What we see in the footage does not support this being the case!

Agreed on that, these objects are not behaving as NASA describes them to behave, it will look like a small snow blizzard/storm according to NASA.
The trajectory of these objects however are more in line, and straight moving.

Remember, these are supposed to be very small, if not tiny particles (if you believe what NASA says)... I think a good analogy would be if you had dust or some fluff floating about in front of you, and you were to blow in it's direction. It would shoot off, no matter what speed it was initially moving at. Small/light particles have little or no (for all intents and purposes) momentum.

Right about the "blowing dust" part.
Incorrect about the momentum.
If there is no force involved no momentum, if there are force involved, there will be momentum, no matter the size of the object (mass).
Light particles get their momentum from the source, as the sun, or what ever it is.

Ice particles from the shuttle get their momentum from the water dump system during ejection.

Depending on how much force is used, the particles will move away from the shuttle in different momentums because of different mass.
And because of the speed of the shuttle, around 17000mph, they will leave these particles behind quite fast.
I know ArMap and nablator does not agree with me about this, but as it is, for every action there is an reaction.

Now there are other sources of debris on the shuttle, that is difficult to deny, since they have alot of cooling systems for certain hydralichs (sp?).
But for those particles to leave the constant they have with the shuttle, either the shuttle needs to make a trajecroty change, or there is a force affecting these particles.

Anyways, my conclusion and theory (one of them) is that these objects are not close to the shuttle, but close to the tether, and they are debris from the tether itself.


[edit on 8-4-2008 by Balez]

I suspect the effect of thrusters is less local than most would imagine. Bear in mind that thrusters in space are basically an explosive decompression process, and unlike here on Earth, their effect would probably be much more dispersed the further away from the thrusters you are. I'm no expert, so perhaps someone with better knowledge of how thrusters work in space could comment?

Sounds very reasonable. It's not rocket science... ahem... well, it is.

The force pushing the particles downward is something else, it seems constant. The difference between UFOs that change direction and those that don't is speed. Only the slowest are visibly deflected.

Not sure what you are trying to say here - perhaps you could clarify?

It's been discussed in the other STS-75 thread. I see parabolic curves, typical of a constant acceleration. Fast moving UFOs move almost in a straight line, and slow UFOs are visibly deflected. I don't see any fast moving UFO slowing or changing direction. I think this force is radiation pressure. Can't prove it, but:
1. radiation pressure from the sunlight exists without any doubt,
2. the acceleration from radiation pressure is inversely proportional to the size of the particle, which may explain why they are affected at all (they're tiny) and why some are more affected.
3. all UFOs are pushed in the same direction.

Regarding speed, I think it would be safe to say that if a tiny particle were caught in the blast of a truster you would see an extremely rapid change in speed (and direction). What we see in the footage does not support this being the case!

Yes, see the STS-48 video for that, including that awesome Star Trek phaser beam sequence!

Remember, these are supposed to be very small, if not tiny particles (if you believe what NASA says)... I think a good analogy would be if you had dust or some fluff floating about in front of you, and you were to blow in it's direction. It would shoot off, no matter what speed it was initially moving at. Small/light particles have little or no (for all intents and purposes) momentum.

Right.

as you can see.... there are thousands of these ufo craft.. flying around the tether.. im sure they were just out sight seeing.. you know... like the old sunday drives to see the sights... after all.. it isnt everyday you see a 12 mile long rope floating around in space... it was probably on there tour guide list of things to see.

Originally posted by Balez
I know ArMap and nablator does not agree with me about this, but as it is, for every action there is an reaction.

Yep, but not mine. No comment.

Anyways, my conclusion and theory (one of them) is that these objects are not close to the shuttle, but close to the tether, and they are debris from the tether itself.

Maybe the static or slowly moving objects visible when the camera is zoomed out are far away. But your theory does not explain why the big, fast moving "orbs" are more out of focus than the tether and why a significant parallax measurement is possible during the camera jittering movements.

reply to post by nablator


Your acceleration idea is a viable proposal. Also there is a possibility of deceleration. That area of the ionosphere consists of sparsely populated oxygen ions. They have little effect on the shuttle, but could possibly slow down a very small particle.

Originally posted by Balez
Incorrect about the momentum.
If there is no force involved no momentum, if there are force involved, there will be momentum, no matter the size of the object (mass).
Light particles get their momentum from the source, as the sun, or what ever it is.

Well, momentum is due to both mass and velocity. Obviously there is some momentum, but considering we are talking about what NASA would have us believe are relatively small/light objects, that are not moving at great speed, I think any momentum would be negligible. I think we are in agreement about this?

Originally posted by Balez
But for those particles to leave the constant they have with the shuttle, either the shuttle needs to make a trajecroty change, or there is a force affecting these particles.

Agreed, but if the shuttle made a trajectory change, then all the objects we see would appear to change course.

Originally posted by Balez
Anyways, my conclusion and theory (one of them) is that these objects are not close to the shuttle, but close to the tether, and they are debris from the tether itself.

I can see a number of problems with this theory:

1- Objects are visible before the experiment goes wrong, so it can not explain all the objects.

2- Debris from the tether in your scenario would only be flying away from the tether, but you see objects flying towards it and then passing it, which is impossible if it were debris.

3- Airy-discs would not appear if the debris was closer to the in focustether than it was to the shuttle. The airy-disc explanation breaks down if the objects are far away.

reply to post by finnegan

Yes, it could be aerodynamic braking, even at this altitude. Both forces push one side of the particle.
force = constant pressure x surface exposed to the wind ~ size²
mass ~ size³
acceleration = force / mass ~ 1 / size
The small particles are therefore more affected than big ones.

Another possible force was proposed in the other thread: as each ice particle slowly evaporates in the sunlight, the ejected vapor makes it move like a tiny rocket.

Originally posted by nablator
It's been discussed in the other STS-75 thread. I see parabolic curves, typical of a constant acceleration. Fast moving UFOs move almost in a straight line, and slow UFOs are visibly deflected. I don't see any fast moving UFO slowing or changing direction. I think this force is radiation pressure. Can't prove it, but:
1. radiation pressure from the sunlight exists without any doubt,
2. the acceleration from radiation pressure is inversely proportional to the size of the particle, which may explain why they are affected at all (they're tiny) and why some are more affected.
3. all UFOs are pushed in the same direction.

Thanks for the clarification nablator.

As far as I know, radiation pressure is a very weak force, and I can't see how it would "suddenly" take hold of a particle as we seem to be seeing in the footage. What we see would be akin to a particle drifting in to a "fast flowing river", where as radiation pressure is a relatively even force.

That would be my biggest niggle here, but I think we would probably see its effect on all particles concerned here, unless there was a very wide variation in size. I don't buy it, sorry.

Your 3rd point however is interesting - I will have to study the footage carefully again to see if it is indeed true that all of the objects change direction in the same way. Perhaps the OP could provide a few more nifty illustrations to this end too ?

Originally posted by nablator
Yes, see the STS-48 video for that, including that awesome Star Trek phaser beam sequence!

A classic for sure - must have watched that sequence a million times by now I'm not sure how it fits into the topic at hand though ?!

reply to post by nablator


I believe I was the one that proposed the propulsion idea. But after seeing as you've pointed out that they have a common acceleration/deceleration, I would consider self propulsion less likely.

Here is an example of how a very small object can be so close it becomes invisible. You can see the object along the marked path from 4:08 to 4:11. It's so close that it is extremely out of focus and nearly invisible.

reply to post by C.H.U.D.

Agreed, but if the shuttle made a trajectory change, then all the objects we see would appear to change course.

Yes they would, unless something confines the particles to the shuttle, which then the shuttle would be acting as a force on the particles.

1- Objects are visible before the experiment goes wrong, so it can not explain all the objects.

Yes objects that left the payload area with the tether and the satellite.
The main tether film that we are discussing is made three days after the tether broke away.

2- Debris from the tether in your scenario would only be flying away from the tether, but you see objects flying towards it and then passing it, which is impossible if it were debris.

And many of them are doing just that also, being drawn towards earth by earths gravity.
But many are going here and there, because of electrostatic charge with different polarizations, so the tether can both attract the debris and push them away.

3- Airy-discs would not appear if the debris was closer to the in focustether than it was to the shuttle. The airy-disc explanation breaks down if the objects are far away.

Now, i have never claimed these to be "airy discs".
I'm not an expert when it comes to cameras and how they work, but as i understand it "airy discs" are supposed to be a complete disc, but here we have "notches" on them, making them not complete, optics are doing that says the experts, right i have seen alot of optical errors, but usually that is when the object takes up the entire view of the camera... But as i said i am not a camera expert and will not get into a discussion about optics.

Posted By nablator

Maybe the static or slowly moving objects visible when the camera is zoomed out are far away. But your theory does not explain why the big, fast moving "orbs" are more out of focus than the tether and why a significant parallax measurement is possible during the camera jittering movements.

As i stated, i am not a camera expert and my knowledge in this area is almost none.
As the camera is capable to pickup the UV spectrums and IR, i think the "airy discs" are because of that capability, also the camera had a image intensifier circuit, which combined with the rest of the camera interprets the image wrong.

As doing a parallax measuring on something that is claimed to be caused by optics might just give you the wrong results, since all light is refracted through the camera and the illusion will also move with the camera when that happens.
That does not make it certain that the object(s) being filmed have moved as the measurement of the parallax did, but the illusion did.

What really gets me about this video is how a lot of you call these things "ice particles/debris" when you clearly ignore a few things.

If I remember correctly, the tether is 12 miles away from the shuttle at this point and the tether itself is 8 miles long. I may have those numbers backwards.

1.) The biggest one moves behind the tether and the tether clearly casts a shadow on the object. That helped put the size of that object at approx. 2 to 3 miles in diameter. Also clearly shows that the object is nowhere near the shuttle so throw out the "small ice particle" theory. If large chunks of ice that size exist in space that close to us we'd see them in NASA videos more often. Actually, wouldn't it be possible to view a chunk of ice 2 to 3 miles in size with a telescope?

2.) All the objects in question share the same shape, circle with a V-shaped notch on one side and a hole in the center. Think of snowflakes (ice). Every snowflake has a unique shape. Why would all these "ice particles" have the same exact shape?

3.) All the objects in question are pulsating. I've never seen "ice" pulsate. They all pulsate in the same manner, from the center then outward and repeats.

4.) How come the "ice" is mostly seen through the infra-red camera and not the regular cameras?

5.) If a collision with another "ice particle" is why the object turns, how come neither of them changed shape? Something would have broken off both chunks of ice and would have been visible in the video.

There's other things I could bring up, but I'm sure others have brought them up already. I will bring up though, that most of you people who believe these to be "ice/debris" that's "close the the camera", always ignore the biggest one that goes behind the tether in your arguments. Since the tether is 12 miles away and casts a shadow on that object, that puts that object at approx. the same place the tether is, 12 miles away from the shuttle. Nowhere near the shuttle and not small at all.

I used to be very interested in the tether videos, but all these people saying these are nothing more than "ice/debris" really get to my nerves. You people have no proof that it's just "ice/debris", but post everything you say as if it's fact anyway.

You same people clearly ignore the other videos showing the same objects and how the astronaut who is reporting to NASA from the shuttle mysteriously shuts up when she realizes what she's looking at. The video I'm referring to is when she's trying to find MIR I believe and she can't because there's other things flying around and she's completely stumped in what to say when all these objects suddenly fly into view.

reply to post by nightmare_david

What really gets me about this video is how a lot of you call these things "ice particles/debris" when you clearly ignore a few things.

1.) The biggest one moves behind the tether and the tether clearly casts a shadow on the object. That helped put the size of that object at approx. 2 to 3 miles in diameter. Also clearly shows that the object is nowhere near the shuttle so throw out the "small ice particle" theory. If large chunks of ice that size exist in space that close to us we'd see them in NASA videos more often. Actually, wouldn't it be possible to view a chunk of ice 2 to 3 miles in size with a telescope?

And you are clearly doing the same as you acuse many to do in this thread, ignoring facts, the tethers real width is no more then 1,5 - 2.0 cm.

So those objects are in fact alot smaller than what many think they are.
The size of the tether is an illusion, the size of the objects are an illusion.

Originally posted by nightmare_david
1.) The biggest one moves behind the tether and the tether clearly casts a shadow on the object. That helped put the size of that object at approx. 2 to 3 miles in diameter. Also clearly shows that the object is nowhere near the shuttle so throw out the "small ice particle" theory. If large chunks of ice that size exist in space that close to us we'd see them in NASA videos more often. Actually, wouldn't it be possible to view a chunk of ice 2 to 3 miles in size with a telescope?

You could view a 2 mile object in the ionosphere in daylight with the naked eye. The objects don't move behind the tether, it's an optical illusion.

2.) All the objects in question share the same shape, circle with a V-shaped notch on one side and a hole in the center. Think of snowflakes (ice). Every snowflake has a unique shape. Why would all these "ice particles" have the same exact shape?

That is not the shape of the particles but the shape the light takes on as it's diffracted which is why they all face the same direction. The notches come from anomalies in the camera, that is why they are always in the same location according to the particles position in the view of the camera.

3.) All the objects in question are pulsating. I've never seen "ice" pulsate. They all pulsate in the same manner, from the center then outward and repeats.

An object can appear to pulsate if it is out of focus, oblong and spinning.

4.) How come the "ice" is mostly seen through the infra-red camera and not the regular cameras?

They were probable using this camera in particular for the different filters and spectrographic lense and wide spectrum capability. They were studying electrical charges and uv radiation which could only be detected with this camera.

5.) If a collision with another "ice particle" is why the object turns, how come neither of them changed shape? Something would have broken off both chunks of ice and would have been visible in the video.

There are multiple reasons why the particles change direction, not necessarily collision with another particle.