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: 3
55
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 5 2008 @ 01:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by mc_squared
Awesome thread, and thanks for contributing your excellent analysis CK.


No problem - I enjoy it!


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

I've not seen that video before and I'm not really sure what it is. I only watched the first few seconds and skipped around a bit. I'll take a longer look ASAP.


Originally posted by mc_squared
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?

I've not seen any evidence which I find compelling enough to persuade me that extraterrestrials are visiting earth. As a total Sci-Fi geek I wish that weren't the case, but it seems to be.

As for non-extraterrestrial UFOs, I'm fairly certain that there are military aerospace projects that are highly classified. Perhaps some of them are responsible for some (maybe most) of the UFO sightings which are reported. While I can't say that I've seen much evidence that conclusively supports this idea, I'd be very, very surprised if the US military (and perhaps others) haven't continued a long trend of classified high-tech projects. That said, I doubt the technology is super exotic (anti-gravity and the like).

If NASA is in on any cover-up I'm certainly not privy to it!




posted on May, 5 2008 @ 01:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
So essentially what you are telling me is that you can't prove it either way.

What I'm saying is that we haven't enough information to plug into formulas that would spit out an answer that everybody would agree on. It's not cut and dry. There are simply too many variables.


Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
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?

My explanation certainly fits with what we see in the footage. We can analyze it in more depth (math) but as I said above the assumptions that we'd have to make are massive e.g. I suspect that most of those particles are 30m-40m from the camera whereas somebody who attempted to analyze this previously assumed the objects were thousands of kilometers from the camera! Clearly I think he's wrong, but we've got nothing other than that grainy video to go on. I would be interested in hearing what some photo/video experts have to say about that.

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



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 01:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Credulity Kills
 


So this is all your opinion? That is what it is seeming to play out as the more that I ask questions.

The same way that we would have to plug in mathematical variables you are doing the parallel with your opinion.

We don't know how far the objects are from the camera. If they are all at about 30-40 km, then why don't some of them move? It is optically obvious when in percipience of the film that NOT all of the "ice particle" entities move/react directly to the combustion exhaust of the thruster. So where would we be placing those particles at in distance relative to the thruster? And how far of an effect does the thruster give off (km, pls)? Wouldn't those particles that are "further away" be smaller? Why aren't they substantially differing in size from the other particles? And again, why are the ice particles pulsating? And why do select "ice particles" decide to suddenly light up or go dull?

Thanks.

[edit on 5-5-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 01:43 AM
link   
Mathematics always helps and any experts on the ISS or aerospace in general would be far more applicable than any of my astronomy or cosmology knowledge. As far as we're on the topic of math though, with the STS-48 footage (the famous footage of the object supposedly being "fired" upon), Isn't there absolutely no way of knowing what the distance between us and the object is? Doesn't that make any math a best guess approximation (which would be far from accurate)?

Even if we can use one possible explanation as ice would it not still be premature to use that as an explanation for all of the video footage that depict unknown objects from this mission? There are quite a few images that really leave you scratching your head especially the tumbling worm video (also from STS-48 if I'm not mistaken). These worm like objects have been videotaped by NASA many times and all the videos are similar. Some UFO footage recorded by people on earth also look very similar (how the heck can a worm fly in our atmosphere?). This is an example of one of these other vids with the "space worm" some call it:


This is another one videotaped from the ground (there are many examples of this)


As for the worm thing though, while I'm on the subject, one possible explanation that I've heard is that it is a grounding strap from an old rocket that somehow made it into orbit and NASA ends up seeing it over and over again (not sure how likely that is). The only thing that throws a wrench into that theory is that we have communications from the shuttle being sent down to mission control which describes one of these worm-like objects in detail as the astronauts observed it closely with equipment. The astronaut's close-up desription of the object is pretty odd and doesn't exactly leave you with a definitive answer. But if they really knew what it was would they spend all that valuable time in orbit observing it so closely?

There is a youtube vid of the entire conversation between the shuttle crew and mission control but I'm having a hard time finding it..

-ChriS





[edit on 5-5-2008 by BlasteR]

[edit on 5-5-2008 by BlasteR]



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 01:49 AM
link   
I read the paper referenced above (by Mark J. Carlotto) and I quit reading after what seems to me to be a dramatic error in the analysis.

On page 9 it is stated: "... Fig. 9a is the maximum brightness across the sequence and clearly shows the object appearing at a point just below the horizon line and moving in a path that follows the curve of the earth" (Emphasis mine)

I beg to differ:



The red lines above and below the path of the object and limb of the earth are parallel to one another. The object path looks to me to be linear (within the resolution of the digitization used in the paper) while the same lines along the limb of the earth show a truly curved nature.

Several other things in that paper are worrisome, but this lapse is perhaps the most obvious. It is as if the author did not even truly check the object path against a straight line as I have done here.

Edit: This comment is only in regards to the paper above. I do not doubt that anomalies exist, but I do find the paper referenced to be highly dubious...

Woody

[edit on 5-5May-08 by WoodyAcres]



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 01:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Credulity Kills

I've not seen any evidence which I find compelling enough to persuade me that extraterrestrials are visiting earth. As a total Sci-Fi geek I wish that weren't the case, but it seems to be.


We literally have googles and googles of evidence that support something odd going on but taking it to the extreme, imo, and assuming that it is extraterrestrial is reaching. Even if we had UFO's land on the white house lawn we still wouldn't really have an answer until we knew for sure they were ET's. The UFO phenomenon has alot of odd attributes on the side like abduction and lost time.

The problem is that you're pretty much taking people's word for it when I, myself, prefer having something tangible to back up those claims. Then you have cattle mutilation which is bizarre in and of itself but coming to conclusions without the hard proof really doesn't help anything. Even if everything does point to some kind of technology far beyond our own there is no way to confirm whether or not it is something we devised that is being tested or used in secret or whatever.

Skepticism is important even for those of us who want to believe.. But there is also a difference between true skepticism and denial..

-ChriS



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 01:54 AM
link   
I have seen another video of this and i guess it's us trying to shoot at a UFO with our SDI system..which sounds like a bad idea on so many levels.

hehe,but i guess our government knows what it's doing..i sure hope so



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 02:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skipper1975
I have seen another video of this and i guess it's us trying to shoot at a UFO with our SDI system..which sounds like a bad idea on so many levels.

hehe,but i guess our government knows what it's doing..i sure hope so


Some people also think it has something to do with HAARP but, IMO,that is reaching. How do simple electromagnetic emissions fire (or aim for that matter) such a projectile? It just doesn't make sense. I have yet to see an explanation that really backs up the HAARP thing.. I just watched a 30 minute video about what HAARP is used for and I actually live here in Alaska also so people talk about it every once in a while.

Some people on youtube have labeled the STS-48 footage something like "HAARP SHOOTING AT UFO!!" or something ridiculous. Meanwhile you have all these people who believe everything on the internet and are like "OH WOW IT"S HAARP SHOOTING AT A UFO" LMAO..

-ChriS

[edit on 5-5-2008 by BlasteR]

[edit on 5-5-2008 by BlasteR]



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 03:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
So this is all your opinion? That is what it is seeming to play out as the more that I ask questions.

Sure. It's my opinion of what we're seeing based on my knowledge of the shuttle attitude control system and the fact that I've seen this very thing happen before in real-time (granted, with the ISS, but hypergolic thrusters are all pretty similar).


Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
The same way that we would have to plug in mathematical variables you are doing the parallel with your opinion.

I disagree. About the only assumption that I have made is that what we're seeing here is roughly what I have seen before. I base that on the fact that under very similar circumstances a very similar thing is seen regularly on the ISS (and the shuttle). This is a common phenomenon.

When it comes down to it, what we see here is consistent with the known behavior of the system and this has been observed many times before. As such, there is no need to go looking for alternative explanations. Obviously, I will discuss alternative explanations even though I don't believe them to have any validity - at least as they've been presented to me thus far (I'll keep an open mind, but Occam rules).


Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
We don't know how far the objects are from the camera. If they are all at about 30-40 km, then why don't some of them move? It is optically obvious when in percipience of the film that NOT all of the "ice particle" entities move/react directly to the combustion exhaust of the thruster. So where would we be placing those particles at in distance relative to the thruster?

I actually said 30m-40m, not km. Some of them move as they're in the path of the jet plume. Some aren't and thus they don't move. Those that don't move could be in front of, behind, above, or below the plume. The fact that a range of particles move at varying speeds all radially outwards from a common location supports the notion that these are merely ice particles reacting to the jet firing.


Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
And how far of an effect does the thruster give off (km, pls)?

I could put it in kilometers but that would result in a lot of zeros
. The range of the plume is substantial but I don't know exactly. It's at least 40m outward (much less up/down and forward/aft as these are directional of course), and probably further than that. I get the 40m from the fact that ISS solar arrays must be feathered out of plane from the shuttle thrusters when the shuttle is controlling the mated ISS/shuttle in a docked configuration. If they're not, the solar arrays risk contamination form the fuel byproducts and damage from the force.


Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
Wouldn't those particles that are "further away" be smaller?

That all depends on how big they are.


Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
Why aren't they substantially differing in size from the other particles? And again, why are the ice particles pulsating? And why do select "ice particles" decide to suddenly light up or go dull?

I suspect that the size range is due to their origin, e.g. FES (Flash Evaporator System) water dumps produce very fine crystals while water dumps are much larger. Then there's expelled human waste which can be *ahem* chunky. There's also a randomness to it; some globs of water will clump together resulting in big ice crystals, others won't.

I don't think the ice particles do any "deciding" to go light or dark. I suspect all we're seeing there is the sun glinting off the varying faces of the asymmetrical ice particles as they spin - much like a wind chime in the sun.



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 03:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlasteR Isn't there absolutely no way of knowing what the distance between us and the object is? Doesn't that make any math a best guess approximation (which would be far from accurate)?

Even if we can use one possible explanation as ice would it not still be premature to use that as an explanation for all of the video footage that depict unknown objects from this mission?

My best guess in 30m-40m and that's based on the fact that what we're seeing here has been seen before - and then we could see the plume imparting force on the ice. The explanation as I've put it, at least as far as I'm concerned, explains what we see in the video. Completely. The fact that that it's been repeated corroborates that. We don't need to go looking for other explanations. I feel that's a bit like waking up one morning and looking for an alternative explanation for why the sun has risen: "Sure it's happened before, but is this the same phenomenon happening the same way?" Probably.

In lieu of better evidence (a better video), I'm most content to state that what we've seen here is hardly out of the ordinary and is anything but anomalous.


Originally posted by BlasteR
There are quite a few images that really leave you scratching your head especially the tumbling worm video (also from STS-48 if I'm not mistaken).

Space is a weird place. Things behave in a very different way than what we on the ground have become used to. It's very anti-intuitive. I can't view the "worm" video now but I'll look later.


Originally posted by BlasteR
But if they really knew what it was would they spend all that valuable time in orbit observing it so closely?

The grounding strap sounds like a reasonable explanation but I'll have to see it myself later. That said, the answer might not be definitive. After all, there's a lot of junk up there and only relatively large things can be tracked from the ground. This is why the astronauts track such visible things so closely. Getting an idea of the trajectory of visible objects gives the guys on a ground some data to determine whether there is a threat of the object hitting the shuttle/station in subsequent orbits. A debris hit, especially by the size of something big enough to be seen with the naked eye is very, very dangerous. Mission control can and has taken steps to boost the shuttle and station to different orbits to prevent debris hits.



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 03:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlasteR
Skepticism is important even for those of us who want to believe.. But there is also a difference between true skepticism and denial..

I couldn't agree more.



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 04:12 AM
link   
Finally!

Welcome to ATS Credulity Kills.

I've been waiting for somebody to go through the loads of STS videos that have even the most skeptical "believers" saying "huh?". One of the only videos that I'd truly care to hear an explanation on would have to be the STS-75 "Tether Incident". I'm sure there's a completely mundane explanation for the "swimming things" in the foreground. But being who I am I need to satisfy my curiosity. The obvious answer would be various debris but it's next to impossible to tell what the scale is. One thing that has me boggled is that it seems that objects are directly behind the tether at times.

I'm sure you're familiar with the event but here's an unedited video:

video.google.com...

If the details section is correct then what do you have to say about this specific quote:



Many objects were floating around in the shot. Some seemed to emit a flash in a regular synchronized pattern, while other large objects, like the one shown above, appeared to pass behind the 12-mile long tether, which would suggest a diameter in excess of three miles -- depending on how far behind the tether the object was.


Thanks in advance and let me reiterate:

Finally!



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 05:38 AM
link   
Thanx for reigniting my curiosity in this particular vid, internos!!
And an excellent thread. Starred and flagged!

But apart from that particular object which is the bone of contention, no one seems to have noticed an object emanating from the bottom left of the screen at approx 1:30 in the vid.

Enhanced, this is what emerges. Notice the geometric shape, with wings of some sort. An alien UFO, an Aurora type craft, an ice particle, or debris? Your guess is as good as mine!





And now the intriguing part is that the flash emanates from exactly the same spot from where this object was!! Star wars? Part of the Strategic Defense Initiative?


Cheers!


[edit on 5-5-2008 by mikesingh]



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 06:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Credulity Kills
Sure. It's my opinion of what we're seeing based on my knowledge...


Okay, that's all I wanted to know.


I disagree. About the only assumption that I have made is that what we're seeing here is roughly what I have seen before.


Okay, that's what I was in reference to. Thank you for your reply.

As for pulsating spinning "ice crystals"... I don't buy it. Why some light up and then go dull is because of the sun reflecting off of them?

So the pulsating ones are spinning. Okay, so pulsating = rotation.

So why aren't the one's that suddenly go dark and light not pulsating? They're not spinning, therefore they should have persistent attributes, unless you're going to tell me that they are spinning slowly. I could have written your entire last post and the reasons that you gave me, either because they are true, or because they are easily thought of.

So we're just approximating. The objects that are effected are within 30-40 m, and any that are not effected are beyond that or closer than that. Sounds legit, I'm just very skeptical because of other videos that I have seen.



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 11:39 AM
link   
A space battle, I just don't know. Could that be some sort of spacecraft, I suppose it could. Could it be spacejunk, I suppose it could. Cameras play tricks. I have seen this video played elsewhere showing small little "trails" like that of a missile or weapon of some kind. It would be foolish to think we are alone and even more foolish to think our government isn't trying to create a weapon to fend off an invader. Will Smith in an F-18 just won't cut it, Randy Quaid either. I really hope it's aliens in that video and I hope that one of them crashes into the white house. Deny that.

[edit on 5-5-2008 by Ragnarok691]



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Credulity Kills
 





I'm pretty sure it's the aft-facing camera at the front of the cargo bay (which is used on all missions - some special mission-specific cameras have been flown as well). I can't seem to find the (alleged) longer version which purports to show it pointing into the bay - that'd confirm it. If my assumption is right, it's most likely one of the port-aft RCS ( Reaction Control System) jets that you see firing.

This is just typical, i had a shuttle schematic which shows the thrusters, and now i can't find it.

It has been helpfull at times...



This would place the camera ~30m or so form the RCS in question. As for the ice particles, it's hard to say. The plume created by the RCS jets is rather massive - during dockings with the ISS the ISS' solar array wings are feathered to prevent damage from shuttle thruster firings. Those arrays are 30m-40m from the jets.

Yes, but the burn from those thrusters during an un-docking as an example, is usually a bit longer than what the normal altitude/trajectory corrections are (?).

The problem with videos like these, are the lack of information, or bad quality from optics (not bad in that sense of meaning), some type of radar imaging system would be more helpfull.


There are two objects here, ofcourse they could be ice or debris of some sort, if their movement is from the force of the RCS their angle of trajectory is not consistent with eachother.

I know i can not say for certain what it is we are seeing, but as everyone else i want it explained in the best way possible.



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 02:58 PM
link   
Say don't some of these fast fliers have small luminous trails.
Any clues or is it rocket exhaust.
The luminous gaseous ether of Tesla's is still an option.
He did it hundreds of times on a table with a coil in front of hundreds
of engineers and scientists, and you never heard, like a hundred years
ago.
Yeah, its still there to glow away at the right electrical conditions.
Yet, quite more powerful (voltage wise, not power) and able to
fly around at electrical speeds.

These must be expert pilots and are careful to go in straight lines.
Its easy to get stuck in the sky following the directions of the commander
who knows you can't do a certain maneuver.
So bush.
The pilots do not know how they work.
And the Illuminati is not about to tell them.



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by mikesingh
 


Looks lik3 3 light sourc3s.

Yeah, triangle. The main motor is central to the craft and very wide
in diameter.

The light sources are the small apex motors sparking from the highly
static surroundings.

Imagine a positive charge moving across the sky, it will generate a
current and that will generate a magnetic field. And perhaps a glow
here and there.



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 03:37 PM
link   
What can survive a that kind of acceleration...? I remember reading something on Bob Lazar on how the crafts pomegranate's a gravity wave inside the ship which counters Gs amazing stuff anyways. It is very clear these are not ice crystals! why weren't the other particles equally affected? we see an object moving slowly then turn around and haul ass! then we see something going thru the SAME exact spot where that object would have been if it would NOT have taken the evasive action.... THIS IS VERY CLEAR!! ice particles do not take evasive action! Perhaps if we turn this into a 'human experience we can understand better. Imagine your strolling along walking... then you see people who want to KILL you and they start shooting at you what do you do? you haul ass running AWAY from your potential killers... and there bullets.!! key word AWAY!!! Ice particles do not take evasive action PERIOD... And AGAIN all of the objects should have been equally affected in the video... not just 1



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 04:06 PM
link   
Below is a snippet from a story I saved a while back and just found. this article is a very good read on this whole subject. It answers some questions about the thrusters and the STS-48 video, but still does not answer them all.

Hey Credulity Kills, are you the expert in this story? The Nasa employee in this story backs up your expertise on this subject.

"Space Shuttle Thrusters, Light Flashes, and Ice Particles. Some Insights from an Expert"

Summary

In a discussion with a NASA aerospace engineer familiar with the space shuttle reaction control system, I learned that the thrusters never generate any light while operating, but they always emit a small cloud of unburned propellant just before the thruster fires and a much larger cloud immediately after the thruster shuts down. The post-burn cloud may be visible, but only when reflecting sunlight. The pre-burn cloud is never visible to the human eye but might be detected by a light-sensitive camera. Any light flashes seen in space shuttle videos cannot be from a thruster unless they coincide with the beginning or end of a rocket burn. The consequences of this information in regard to two videos of apparently anomalous objects taken by shuttle video cameras are described.

Entire article here: www.vgl.org...


Guz



new topics

top topics



 
55
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join