It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 4
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in


posted on May, 5 2008 @ 04:11 PM
reply to post by thefreepatriot

I think the question is more "is that really the acceleration?"

As I have said in another thread, without knowing the distance at which the object is and the distance (or the angle) that he covered during the acceleration we can not know how much did it travelled in that time, and without distance we cannot know what the acceleration was.

And many things have had extreme acceleration without killing anyone, it would only kill someone inside the object (or if someone was the target of the object), if the object is devoid of living creatures nobody is going to die.

posted on May, 5 2008 @ 06:43 PM
Great thread as always Internos starred and flagged!

I cannot yet accept the argument of ice crystals/debris defended by the people from NASA, it this was true then why don`t all the visible things in the image react in a similar fashion?.

Something definitely is happening here, what it is I`m not really sure, but certainly no clear explanation from our "friends" at NASA.

posted on May, 5 2008 @ 09:02 PM
reply to post by Camilo1

I'm in agreement with you Camilo1.

I have questions too.

The supposed ice crystals are going in different directions. This would mean multiple firings of the thrusters in different directions in a short period of time to all be in the video. Otherwise, shouldn't the supposed crystals all be traveling in the same direction? Also, why are not all the ice crystals in the video at the time the thruster goes off not manipulated? Only one ice crystal is severely affected by this. It appears out of nowhere (light?) and does seem to be farther away than the others too. The answer we need is how far away the supposed ice crystals are.

One more note. If you look at the full video that I referenced, the plume (thruster firing) in the video goes to the right of the object in question. Shouldn't it be thrown in the exact direction of the plume? It isn't.

Here is the video again:

It's at about 1:46 mark

Any answers to these questions is appreciated.


posted on May, 6 2008 @ 12:16 AM
Here are a couple of images of a Reaction Control System (RCS) thruster firing on the space shuttle:

Courtesy: David Wozney

It should be understood that 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.

According to James Oberg and others associated with NASA,

…the flash of light was caused by the firing of a small reaction control system (RCS) thruster on the space shuttle. Oberg has asserted that:

The RCS jets usually fire in 80-millisecond pulses to keep the shuttle pointed in a desired direction, under autopilot control (usually once every few minutes). These jets may flash when they ignite if the mixture ratio is not quite right. Propellant also tends to seep out the feed lines into the nozzle, where it accumulates, freezes through evaporative cooling, and flakes off during the next firing. The ejected burn byproducts travel at about 1000 ft/sec. One pulse usually emits about a quarter pound of propellant in a fan-shaped plume.

Now, according a NASA aerospace engineer who was involved in the design, testing, and performance evaluation of the RCS from the beginning of the shuttle program:

When the thruster starts firing, the propellants are briefly exposed to the vacuum of space after flowing out of the opened valves until they reach the combustion chamber and ignite. While exposed to vacuum, some of the liquid propellants boils off into space and then immediately freezes into "microscopic snow. In the case of the small thrusters, this happens so quickly over the short distance from the valve to the combustion chamber (about 2 inches) that the amount of “snow" generated is too small to be seen.

But the dribble volume is large enough that the snow generated can be seen as a white plume in reflected sunlight. It is totally invisible without some external source of illumination.

The detailed explanation and insights from Ian Flemming are here:

This and the video grab in my post above points to a ‘Star Wars’ test of some sort!


posted on May, 6 2008 @ 12:24 AM
reply to post by mikesingh

Isn't there also the issue of the infamous STS-48 video being filmed in Infrared? (at least I'm pretty sure it's IR). There is clearly no light reaching the surface of the planet and the sun is apparently on the other side of the planet (although the exact angle unknown). I see what the NASA experts are saying but it really doesn't even seem apparent that any direct sunlight is evident anywhere whatsoever in the video. Its possible that light somehow illuminated the plume from the side and we just aren't seeing the sunlight.

If we can pinpoint the exact time the video was shot would we not then know where the shuttle would be and, therefore, where the sun would also be with relation to the shuttle? (assuming that you could reference where the shuttle would have been at that time at all via NASA information). That is one possible way to debunk the illumination scenario but I'm just not sure if it would even be possible.


posted on May, 6 2008 @ 12:41 AM
reply to post by mikesingh

Good job Mike....again, you bring something to the table to either....refute?? or enhance??? the OP....never sure which....

A pic of the RCS from a Shuttle....a STILL pic, BTW....a microsecond of a shot....even if not 'shopped', which I would never accuse a member of doing...

Thing is.....a still photo is...well, a still photo. Doesn't paint the whole picture.

If you take a picture, a snapshot, of a horse in a a very tight turn in the race, and your shutter speed is sufficiently quick to capture each leg of the horse, and of course, the aperature is sufficiently large enough to take in the light, in the brief shutter moment......

BUT, you know as well as I that the 'f-stop' is important, as well as the lens involved, and the aspect ratio, and the exposure....and whether the camera is moving, relative to the subject......well....a still photo, unless it's just to decide, 'by a nose', the winner in a horse race....a still photo is worthless. It can be manipulated....heck, even videos can be manipulated nowadays!!!

A still frame, of an RCS burn, on the Space that happens to be illuminated, either by natural Sunlight, or manipulated in Photoshop....and you wish to use THAT?! To what purpose?

To deliberatly cause confusion? Why? Becaue I am not sure how to spell 'deliberatly'????

I know....this is a long post, and you'll pull a selected few sentences from it, to make me look stupid....but the people who read ATS will know....because, if you try to 'pull' a few sentences, from my post, I will reveal to the audience.....

So, I sugest you respond, honstly, to my entire point.

A picture can be photoshopped....a video, that's harder, but it can be fked too.

you decide.


posted on May, 6 2008 @ 02:41 AM
reply to post by weedwhacker

Heck! Are you saying that the images I posted of the RCS thruster firing on the shuttle are photoshopped?

The images are from Joseph P. Allen's book Entering Space. So I suggest that instead of accusing me of photoshopping the images, you'd do well to ask the author that question. He can be got after writing to David Wozney at


posted on May, 6 2008 @ 02:46 AM
reply to post by mikesingh

Reply to Mike....

I don't know, Mike....i'm just suggesting that sometimes, if it is a still photo, it can be interpreted in one way....a video, can be interpreted too...just the facts, Ma' an ancient detective used to say.....

posted on May, 6 2008 @ 03:09 AM
reply to post by weedwhacker

Yep! It's possible that the author had manipulated the images. But would he? Publishing photoshopped images in a book to prove a point in his favor would have been risky business!

But getting hold of the original images from NASA would put this to rest. Here's a pic of STS-35 firing its RCS from the official NASA website:

NASA Photo ID: STS035-35-007
Courtesy: NASA


posted on May, 6 2008 @ 03:43 AM
reply to post by mikesingh

As always Mike, your findings are great!

I dont think that NASA's site likes me very much, i never find anything on there at all.

So, there could have been a vissible "plume" on the STS-48 video, with the almost same direction as the objects speed off to?
Even if it was for a few milliseconds, something should be seen almost at the same moment the objects speed away in the opposite direction?

I do believe that the RCS was fired, but i dont think it is consistent with how the objects move.

posted on May, 6 2008 @ 04:23 AM

Originally posted by Balez
I do believe that the RCS was fired, but i dont think it is consistent with how the objects move.

Hi Balez! You hit the nail on the head!
Need I say more?


posted on May, 6 2008 @ 08:42 AM
From the KSCVeteran (05-06-2008)

I was on duty when the STS-48 event happened.
I heard all the comments of the crew and those of the NASA/Shadow Goverment on earth in the Top Secret room I was stationed to monitor the mission, in the LCC (Launch Control Center). I witnessed many events and others YOU have not been allowed to know. ET's in the Shuttle Payload Bay, etc.
Get this VERY CLEAR! It was NOT ice crystals that were observed. No ice crystal can accelerate to between 50 to 100,000 miles per hour in that short time duration that my VERY trained eyes were following.
Those advanced technology "objects" were there and were attacked by a weapon we called "Brilliant Peebles" at that time in our US Space Program History.
I spoke directly to the former CEO of the Lockheed Skunk Works, Dr. Ben Rich at KSC. I asked him how far ahead of general public knowledge the USA was at that time in existing technology (1969). Dr. Ben said, the secret Black Budget $$ is beyond belief and that WE were at least 50 + years ahead of the knowledge of the normal tax paying citizens. MEANING you, your family and neighbors!
I have been writing my Real X-Files books (3) for about 18 years. NO publisher will touch my disclosures, BECAUSE I KNOW THE TRUTH! And THEY know I do.
Open my website at:
YOUR government destroyed my retirement from my pioneer space program years (1958 to 1992). I now TRY to live on a small amount of Social Security.
Believe it or not. OR remain one of the Sheeple in this nation of MORONS!!

Clark C. McClelland, former ScO, Space Shuttle Fleet, Kennedy Space Center, Florida

posted on May, 6 2008 @ 08:46 AM
reply to post by TeslaandLyne

Interesting. You mentioned, "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

I was wondering if there is any more info about this anywhere on the web?
(I wonder what the "luminous gas" is.)

About the HAARP thing, If it can "move" the ionosphere up and down... I wonder if the HARRP array is really being used to provide propulsion to all of the weird military craft, such as the silent, giant triangles.

I remember learning that they can "focus" the HAARP's energy on any point.

Didn't Telsa want to do that with his Wardencliffe tower? (I mean in addition to shooting electricity all over the world, etc.) It seems he also wanted to provide propulsion to aircraft, by way of his transmitter tower.

He probably would have achieved that, one hundred years ago. If perhaps it couldn't work correctly back then, it must work now.

posted on May, 6 2008 @ 08:57 AM
The so called "ant-gravity" lifter those guys demonstrated in their garages in recent times. The military had no interest in them, since their (military) "lifters" use the energy produced by the HAARP array to provide propulsion.

Those guys in their garages could only keep the lifter within the limits of the electrical field produced by the wires surrounding the lifter. If you can remove those wires and focus that same energy at any point you can move that same lifter outside the confines of a stationary electrical field.

If the HAARP array can focus it's energy in any point within the earth's ionosphere, you can propel a craft anywhere on earth. The "craft" is really just a "receiver" to the HAARP's transmitter.

(I'm just speculating out loud.)

[edit on 6-5-2008 by Electro38]

[edit on 6-5-2008 by Electro38]

posted on May, 6 2008 @ 09:49 AM

Originally posted by KSCVeteran
Those advanced technology "objects" were there and were attacked by a weapon we called "Brilliant Peebles" at that time in our US Space Program History.

Hello Clark honor to have you on this board sir.

How much can you tell us about "Brilliant Peebles"?

When was it developed? What type of weapon is it? What is its range? What were they shooting at in STS-48? Why??

posted on May, 6 2008 @ 10:15 AM
I find this extremely difficult to believe, that we (humans) would be firing high tech missiles at Alien beings who can traverse time and space.

The fact that they are present is enough to imply that they, (Aliens) are many hundreds of years (at least) advanced in technology than we are.

It would be like cave men throwing stones at 21st century man.

I believe, if they are not optical illusions, or debris as the captain explained, they would only be man made.

We would not be firing at Aliens. If they wanted to land and take over they would only need to want that.

We can't even provide food for starving people in the world, yet we can have very hi-tech space wars with advanced alien beings?

If we are indeed engaged in hi-tech space wars with advanced beings, we are screwed. However, could it be possible that what was seen there, was in fact an "exercise"? Not a "battle"?

[edit on 6-5-2008 by Electro38]

posted on May, 6 2008 @ 10:34 AM
reply to post by KSCVeteran

How do you know they were "accelerating" as you described? If you don't know the objects distance?

You need to know their distance from the camera before calculating acceleration, no?

Are we to believe that a real NASA employee would be posting top secret info on some internet forum?

posted on May, 6 2008 @ 04:40 PM

Originally posted by mikesingh

Originally posted by Balez
I do believe that the RCS was fired, but i dont think it is consistent with how the objects move.

Hi Balez! You hit the nail on the head!
Need I say more?


Exactly. The flash that we are seeing IS Most likely the RCS but the other objects in question seem to defy this as being the only cause. This is simply because of the fact that the objects are moving at different angles and speeds. The accleration of one of the objects could technically be explained by the RCS, however the interesting part is that this same type of interaction between multiple objects is visible in 3 or 4 clips from this same exact mission (and not all are accompanied by a flash).

As I said before, there were no major meteor showers active at the time only 2 minor ones and one moderate in size. Some of the objects in the other videos that speed by the supposed UFO's all seem to be emanating from the same direction/source (at first I thought this was evidence of meteors). These objects are traveling extremely fast and extremely frequently and extremely close together (But probably far to frequently to be explained by the meteor showers that were active).

You also have the fact that the IR cameras that were used pick up non-visible wavelengths of light (would an IR camera even pick up the debris from the RCS being fired? I'm not an expert in IR imagery).

In the video, some believe the flashes are coming from the ground, however, if the RCS is really responsible then these flashes would have had to come from the lower left of the footage to create what we are seeing. Since the object then travels away from where that RCS would have been being fired then you have a likely scenario that is explainable.

Is that the cause for what we are seeing in other STS-48 footage? IMO, Probably not since in some cases you have multiple unknown objects all traveling at different speeds and in different directions (not exactly accompanied by a flash of any kind).

This is the full-length version of controversial STS-48 video (no editing):

If you look closely at the bottom left while the camera is fixed on the planet you can see that some of these objects are apparently flying within our atmosphere since they are entering and exiting cloud-cover (are they really or are they materializing and dematerializing just as ultraviolet nasa footage has shown close-up multiple times?). After the flash and the objects move around, the camera pans down towards the planet and you see this odd-shaped object (I believe it is the same one Mike Singh posted earlier) which has 3 "lobes" traveling across the shot just as the sun starts to rise.

The one object that accelerates might be explained by the RCS being fired, however if you manually fast-forward the footage you can see dozens of objects all moving at different speeds and directions even after the flash occurs.

If you watch very carefully right after the flash, you then have what some claim is something "Firing" at the object from the ground. Although that may not be the case, we do know that the object is extremely far way due to where it passes through the cloud-layer. The object emanates from a point below where the earth's horizon would be and seemingly passes through this cloud-cover and vertically towards the object.

It's possible that the flash just happens to coincide with the movement of the accelerating "UFO" in question. Was it really a UFO trying to avoid being hit or was it ice being blasted out by the RCS firing? Since we have no way of knowing how far away the object is, we don't have that answer (although NASA seems to have all the answers right?). However, we do know how far away this supposed "projectile" was just because we can see it passing through the cloud-cover from the ground. Was it really a projectile? It wasn't a meteor. Meteors enter the atmosphere and burn up not exit the atmosphere. So what the heck is this?
This same exact kind of flaming object emanating from the ground is evident in other STS-48 clips that are pretty popular. In an earlier post I tried to include all the STS-48 clips on youtube but I'm not sure what else there is or if I found them all.. There are alot.


[edit on 6-5-2008 by BlasteR]

[edit on 6-5-2008 by BlasteR]

posted on May, 6 2008 @ 08:21 PM
reply to post by mikesingh

Hi mikesingh, Just wanted to let you know first that I have enjoyed all your threads on ATS. They are well done with research to back it up, which is very important, at least for me. I respect all you do here. Your threads are always an interest to me.

I just wanted to get an understanding for your post that basically copied mine. You posted the same link.

here is my post:

Although I am not yet apt at bringing information here in the colorful way you do...nonetheless, I provided the same information before you with nothing but a shrug. I'm not in this for notoriety. Is this a popularity contest here on ATS or a place to find truth?

I'm here! See me? All I'm saying. I want to contribute to those threads I'm interested in, but damn this stuff bursts my bubble.

I'm your fan mikesingh, don't get this post wrong, but this is about hard work I have done myself.


posted on May, 7 2008 @ 02:05 AM
reply to post by Guzzeppi

Hi Guz!

Frankly, I didn’t read your post on the previous page before posting! My bad! I was rifling through Google for an explanation when I chanced upon Lan Flemming's elucidation. It was in no way trying to steal anyone’s thunder! The idea is to find the truth through multiple sources for corroboration.

If you found that site first then needless to say the credit must go to you! I never did claim any credit for it anyway!!

If you've felt strongly about it, then apologies! The beer’s on the house!


[edit on 7-5-2008 by mikesingh]

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in