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.

 

The STS-48 UFOs incident revisited - discussion with Credulity Kills

page: 2
55
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 4 2008 @ 10:35 AM
link   
Hiyah Internos!

Great thread here with Credulity Kills...when he said hello to everyone on the Introduction thread I knew he was going to come in very handy on this site


Internos as usual your preparation is impeccable, exceeded only by your great skills in image display


Thanks for your 2 cents Credulity Kills. Good luck on your degree.




posted on May, 4 2008 @ 10:35 AM
link   
Those things can't be other satellite because?...?
There is no way that anyone can caculate the speed of the objects just from looking at them. Unless someone can show the math here I won't be convinced that those objects travel at those speeds.

I don't like these videos that are low quality, too misleading.



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 10:53 AM
link   
As well as the thrusters not appearing to actually do anything to the shuttles positionas as far as we can see from the video, I also find it interesting that out of all the objects that are floating about in the video, only the object we are discussing seems to be affected by the firing of the thruster!

Another point which I'm not totally sure about but wasn't this video part of the hours of footage that was recorded by martyn stubbs and therefore NASA was unaware that anyone else was watching it so would be unable to censor or shut down the feed!



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 11:10 AM
link   
Pardon me but my english doesn't work well today
, so this analys prove that what we can see in this footage are just ice particle and the so called beam is just some gazes?
Just want to be sure!

By the way, i take the occasion that there is well documented people on this board to tell a little story, i went before on other board they were speaking about this incident but never did.

Ok, it was around 12years ago, maybe 11 or 10 i can't remember exactly, so i was walking at night with a friend to reach the village and go for sleep, on the way back we have seen a shooting star but not an usual one, this one goes from the ground to the sky not the inverse, i always have been intrigate by this as a shooting star come from space not from earth but in seeing this footage i thought we had been the spectators of a star wars but the date doesn't match.
Anyway does it was possible that i have seen a secret weapon in action or this could be a natural phenomenon???

We were walking on this road and looking in the direction of the village called torgny, it is possible this beam was in australia?

Thx in advance



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by ufopunx
 


Considering that Australia is almost the antipodes of France, I don't think you could see anything coming from Australia, and if you did it would be extremely strong and visible in all the world.



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 05:40 PM
link   
I've been studying the STS-48 case for about 2 months now off and on. Other than the video itself this is really what we have..

Richard C. Hoagland came up with his own theory that the actual distance between the shuttle and the object was probably extremely large due to how the object comes into view. His analysis of the video can be found all over the internet but this is basically his argument:

From: www.bibliotecapleyades.net...

UFO investigators were quick to dispute this interpretation, and US scientist Richard C. Hoagland soon conclusively demonstrated the objects were actually large-sized and many hundreds of kilometers away from the shuttle.

One UFO in particular appears to rise up from below the Earth’s dawn horizon and can be clearly seen emerging from behind the atmosphere and the ’airglow’ layers. It is certainly in orbit around the Earth, some distance out in space, and traveling quickly.

A sudden, bright flash of light is then seen to the left of the picture, below the shuttle. The UFO then turns at a sharp angle and heads out into space at very high speed. Two thin beams of light (or possibly condensation trails) move rapidly up from the Earth’s surface towards where the UFO would have been if it had continued in its original orbit.

Subsequently, careful analysis of the video shows that:

The distance from the Discovery to the Earth’s horizon is 2,757 kilometers

The UFO’s speed before accelerating into space is 87,000 kph (Mach 73)

Three seconds after the light flash, the UFO changes direction sharply and accelerates off into space at 340,000 kph (Mach 285) within 2.2 seconds

Such an acceleration would produce 14,000 g of force (1g is normal Earth gravity)


This image depicts Hoagland's theory and approximated calculations:


Following Hoagland's release, A nasa official named James Oberg made a rebuttal to Hoalgand's theory that can be found here:
www.ufoera.com...

In short, Oberg believes that since the distance betewen the object and the shuttle can not accurately be known we have no way of knowing if the object is a small piece of ice or a kilometers-wide UFO. Hoagland seems to think that this is was some kind of weapons testing due to the extremely high-velocity projectiles being fired toward the object (however that is really just a theory). The interesting part is that even if this was a piece of ice or debris from the shuttle the object changed direction and instnataneously accelerated at the same exact moment the projectile is seen traveling vertically (as if to avoid being hit).

This is also evident in other STS-48 videos which depict
1-objects in orbit which appear to be extremely far away from the shuttle yet still incredibly huge
and
2-projectiles (or at least something like a projectile) being fired at the objects from the ground.

NASA has not debunked the other videos to my knowledge however I have not done the research yet on the other STS-48 videos to say one way or another. I do think that this type of activity is captured by NASA all the time and we constantly and consistently see NASA footage that depicts multiple extremely large objects which make maneuvers that are simply unexplainable. NASA has also captured multiple instances of video footage where unknown objects instantaneously appear and disappear in the ultraviolet and infrared light frequencies which are non-visible. All of this is as yet unexplained by NASA.

UFO's have been witnessed by nearly all manned-missions since the dawn of the space age and our own NASA video footage contradicts what NASA itself claims which is that UFO's are not real and that these objects can all be explained as space junk, ice, or other debris in orbit that is simply floating around. That simply isn't the case. And what about the astronauts and cosmonauts who have witnessed these objects for themselves and are convinced we are being visited?



With the case of the tether video from STS-75, you have an immensely long tether which can be used to gauge the size of these objects that are traveling behind the tether. In this case some of these objects are apparently miles/kilometers in diamater.
This video depicts this and explains the STS-75 footage. The first part of this video is about rods so bear with me.



-ChriS

[edit on 4-5-2008 by BlasteR]

[edit on 4-5-2008 by BlasteR]



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by internos
 


I see entities in the video that do not react to the so called "thrusters". Why would that be? They should all be reacting. I do see some particles that do seem to be what is being referred to as "ice" being pushed through space as a result of the combustion's exhaust. There are however elements in this video that remain to be unexplained. Why don't all the shining lights zip away? As for the person earlier who said that they all do; YOU need to take a closer look at the video.

And outside of this video there's always the tether incident. Those ice particles were massive, let me tell you.


[edit on 4-5-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne

Sparky or highly UV radiating low orbit craft.

I'm sure it was possible in the 1950s.

Another Illuminati exercise they can't tell us about.



Doc, do you think the UV is coming from engines of craft. If so what would kind of propulsion would produce UV?

Thanks.



[edit on 4-5-2008 by Electro38]



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by BlasteR
 


Great counterpoint with all the back up
I love this site, such great discussions! Hoagland though has lost a lot of credibility with me on some of the things in his new book about NASA.., still very interesting and you're right, since we do not know how far away the shuttle actually was from the particles or objects...it's either what Credulity said it was ...ice...or something else.

And I don't think most of us will believe one or the other unless a time machine opened up and we could actually be there to see it from many angles, but I love reading the great discussions on here arguing both sides



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 06:10 PM
link   
DIGITAL VIDEO ANALYSIS OF ANOMALOUS SPACE OBJECTS
by Mark J. Carlotto†
The paper can be downloaded here:
/3wqrss
(it's recovered from web archive)



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 09:00 PM
link   
Hi Internos...excellent thread! This video has always interested me. It's always good to try to revisit some of the more celebrated NASA videos and try to separate fact from fiction.


Welcome aboard Credulity Kills...hope your stay here is enlightening for us as well as yourself.

Here is the longer version of the video that Credulity was looking for showing the camera move to the cargo bay. Hope this can narrow down the cam position for us.

www.youtube.com...


Guz



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 11:25 PM
link   
According to the information given by NASA at this site:
science.ksc.nasa.gov...
The space shuttle discovery launched from pad 39-A on September 12th 1991 at 7:11:04 P.M. EST..
Discovery conducted it's mission and landed at Edwards AFB at 12:38:42 A.M. on September 18th 1991.
(Therefore, the total mission time for STS-48 was a little over 6 days and 5 hours.)

In order to look into the possiblity of some of these objects being meteors (especially the fast moving objects) I took these dates and compared them to charts of all known meteor showers. (for example this one from wikipedia)
en.wikipedia.org...

Just so that we're on the same page, this is some of the different video clips from footage shot by NASA astronauts during STS-48 which depict possible UFO's or unknown objects
(Are there more? I don't know but probably..)
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...

Some of these objects look like meteors, however, after looking at charts of meteor showers active at that time give wierd results. There were no major meteor showers active at that time. The only meteor showers active were minor meteor showers (3 in particular.. the Aries-Triangulads, the Piscids, the Kappa Aquariads). The Piscids have a medium rating and the other 2 are weak.

In some of the footage you can actually see what look like 4-5 of these objects streaking by at high velocity within a 20 second timeframe and they all emanate from one direction (could be proof of a weapon but could also be explained by a meteor shower). The only problem is that none of these showers was strong enough to create meteors that close together or that frequent (and in some cases these were extremely close together).

It is so highly unlikely that you would, then, have an unidentifiable craft in the same frames while all this is going on that it really leaves you with more questions than answers. You then have these objects seemingly interacting or responding to each other's movements. The slower more stationary objects really appear to be trying to avoid the higher-velocity objects which follow more or less straight paths.

This is one of the more unexplainable aspects of the NASA STS-48 footage (not just the one clip either which is super-popular)

-ChriS



[edit on 4-5-2008 by BlasteR]

[edit on 4-5-2008 by BlasteR]



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 12:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Whiterabbit29
As well as the thrusters not appearing to actually do anything to the shuttles positionas as far as we can see from the video

The RCS jets (AKA thrusters) impart a force on the shuttle to adjust attitude (orientation), not position. When controlling to a given attitude (+/- a few degrees), you really can't see the change in orientation with the naked eye.

It's a bit of an aside but the following is good info for people interested in how attitude control works on the ISS and shuttle:

The attitude of things in orbit is affected by two outside forces; aerodynamic and gravitational:

Aerodynamic:
Despite the shuttle and ISS flying at ~400km, there is still some aerodynamic force that slows the velocity of the vehicles as well as causes changes in attitude. Think of it this way: the ISS is currently very asymmetrical; the Columbus module hangs off of one side, and only three out of the four solar array trusses are currently installed (one on one side, two on the other). As gas molecules impact the ISS, the side with more drag slows down at a faster rate than the side with less drag. "But this is nearly a vacuum!? ", you say. Yes, it is nearly a vacuum, but the stationary particles are behind hit by vehicle doing 28,000kph! Conservation of momentum dictates a net exchange and the very, very thin atmosphere imparts a force on the ISS (or shuttle) that changes the attitude.

Gravity:
How can gravity affect the attitude? I've always found this really cool: Newton's Theory of Universal Gravitation states that two objects will attract each other with a force proportional to their masses and inversely proportional to the square of distance between them. That is, the portion of the shuttle or ISS which is closest to the earth will have a greater gravitation force acting on it. If the shuttle is flying pitch-up (nose high), the earth will pull harder on the tail than the nose and tend to make the shuttle pitch upwards. In the very early days of the ISS this phenomenon was used to maintain orientation without having to use any fuel (it's called X-Nadir spin). Essentially, the ISS acted like a pendulum about its orbit.

Attitude control systems on the shuttle and ISS use these forces against each other in order to fly at what is called the TEA (Torque Equilibrium Attitude). The most obvious example of this is when the ISS looked like this:



The large solar arrays on the top created a lot of drag that tended to pitch the front of the ISS upwards. This was compensated for by using the ISS Guidance, Navigation & Control system to pitch the ISS downwards. Once pitched down initially, the stronger gravitational force at the front of the ISS compensated for the pitching up that the aerodynamic forces imparted.

This is where it gets complicated: Because aerodynamic forces vary about an orbit, and even over the course of the year due to the seasons, the ISS uses Control Moment Gyroscopes (CMGs) to "store" momentum and "exchange" it as required. With this technique the ISS can maintain a attitude non-propulsively. I could go on for pages about momentum management CCDB (Command & Control Database) but you guys would fall asleep


The shuttle can't do that and instead requires regular small thruster firings to correct the attitude ever so slightly. That's what you see in the video.

[edit on 5-5-2008 by Credulity Kills]



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 12:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Whiterabbit29
I also find it interesting that out of all the objects that are floating about in the video, only the object we are discussing seems to be affected by the firing of the thruster!



Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
I see entities in the video that do not react to the so called "thrusters". Why would that be? They should all be reacting.


Some of the ice particles are in the plume of the thrusters, some are not. Some get a big hit, some a glancing blow, and some are missed entirely depending on where they are.

Here's a shot of a pretty large plume:

While the resolution isn't great in that picture, I suspect that the white spots we see are chunks of ice and fuel residue. Looking for a better pic...

[edit on 5-5-2008 by Credulity Kills]



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 12:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Credulity Kills
 


CK, S&F!!

Because you obviously know what you're talking about, and I, as a mere airline pilot and space layman (enthusiast), can only use half-assed analogies to explain what seems intuitive to me, as little I know about calculus and the more esoteric specifics of aerospace design....

(making popcorn, sitting back with notepad in hand!!!)

WW



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 12:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Credulity Kills
 


I can see how this could and would be defined as the thrusters. I still have not had enough time to look into it as it is not my area of focus or importance at the moment (I know, lame, sorry.) If it becomes a big deal I might get all mathematical, only then would the trajectories, angles and objects be explained properly. These things need to be done in depth, what we're doing here is fancy verbiage and accumulated knowledge, but I don't see any math. I'd love to see a graph explaining the velocity given through thrust and why certain objects move at differing angles and why some objects that are clearly in range aren't hindered whatsoever and why other objects seemingly come out of nowhere from across the screen at approximately perpendicular angles.

And after that (if it's proven in 100% authenticity), I'd like an explanation of the tether incident.

Also an explanandum on why the "ice particles" are pulsating.

[edit on 5-5-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 12:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by ufopunx
Pardon me but my english doesn't work well today
, so this analys prove that what we can see in this footage are just ice particle and the so called beam is just some gazes?
Just want to be sure!

Your English is great!

I'm completely convinced that these are just ice particles. The streak that you see is just another particle that happened to be closer to the RCS jet. The flash is the firing of an RCS jet.

I've initiated thruster firings on the Russian segment of the ISS and watched them live via the P1 truss camera. That camera is MUCH better than the one from STS-48. With the P1 truss cam you can get a much better perspective of depth - the ice and fuel residue is clearly visible. I sure wish I could find a video of it...



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 12:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
I can see how this could and would be defined as the thrusters. I still have not had enough time to look into it as it is not my area of focus or importance at the moment (I know, lame, sorry.) If it becomes a big deal I might get all mathematical, only then would the trajectories, angles and objects be explained properly. These things need to be done in depth, what we're doing here is fancy verbiage and accumulated knowledge, but I don't see any math.

I really wish I could do the math on this but the assumptions that would have to be made are big enough that I really don't think it would help all that much. Frankly, I haven't a clue as to the aerodynamic properties of the ice particles, the impingement of the plume on those particles, the momentum transfer between the expanding plume and the particles, the direction of the particles in three axes (the traced trajectory image is woefully inadequate as only two dimensions are mapped), etc.

About the best we can do is calculate the acceleration of an average sized ice chunk that gets the full blast from an RCS jet - basic F=ma stuff. Even then correlating that with what we see in the video is difficult as we can't get much of an idea of depth, that is, to what degree are the particles moves towards or away form the camera.



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 01:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Credulity Kills
 


Awesome thread, and thanks for contributing your excellent analysis CK.


I was wondering if you have any opinions on some of the "UFO"s featured in the following footage:



Also - what are your personal beliefs on the UFO phenomenon in general and the whole cliche about NASA being involved in some sort of massive alien cover-up?


P.S. Welcome to ATS!



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 01:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Credulity Kills
 


So essentially what you are telling me is that you can't prove it either way. An attempt at mathematics would equate to nothing more than assumptions according to your personal conviction, and thus so would be any lingual explanation. It is not something that can be carnally analyzed, rather it is your word and your credentials vs. what we see happening in the footage?

If that is not what you are saying, please do explain. Thanks.

[edit on 5-5-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

[edit on 5-5-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]



new topics

top topics



 
55
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join