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: 5
55
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 7 2008 @ 04:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Credulity Kills
If NASA is in on any cover-up I'm certainly not privy to it!


Ok cool - I will cross you off the list then




posted on May, 7 2008 @ 05:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Guzzeppi

here is my post: www.abovetopsecret.com...

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.

Guz

Hi, Guzzeppy:
please believe me: if there is someone who ALWAYS gives the due credits here on ATS then that's Mike

Many times he emailed me / sent me U2Us when he couldn't find a source for his findings: he prefers to don't start a thread rather than starting it without providing the due credits.

I think that he simply didn't checked the link that you have kindly provided, that's his only fault, IMHO

Now, if you search for "shuttle" "rcs" "thruster" in google images, for example, the page in question
www.vgl.org...
comes with the very first results, check it out.
I don't think that Mike would ever deliberately claim credits for a fellow member's hard work, and by the way, thank you for your great contribute to this thread



[edit on 7/5/2008 by internos]



posted on May, 7 2008 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by mikesingh

Thanks for your reply, I appreciate it! Actually, I like your post better than mine.


With all that mumbo out of the way...Lets try to solve this mystery.

Cheers to you mikesingh! _javascript:icon('
')


Guz:

[edit on 7-5-2008 by Guzzeppi]

[edit on 7-5-2008 by Guzzeppi]


[edit on 7-5-2008 by Guzzeppi]



posted on May, 7 2008 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by internos

Thanks for that internos and the u2u. I know it wasn't intentional. All my respect to you and mike.

Guz



posted on May, 7 2008 @ 07:43 PM
link   
I am helping a friend research some anomlies related to that particular 1991 mission, Its seems somehow related to a ufo flp over the island of Crete where the outline of the shuttle appeared accoumpanied by redlights.
Normally the shuttle cannot be seen on a significant scale without telescopic assistance . Apart from the experiments it listed in wiki, there was also the deployment of a telcom satellitte TDSR5 which was to go in Geosync orbit opposite TDSR4 on the opposite side of Earth. Is there any kind of experiment conducted at the time which would result in that kind of lensing effect and or red light display. I understand the Defense mission s to follow that later in November, and this was primarily civilian.
My friend hypothesizes that there was possible a relation to study of ley lines or something of the sort.. Hopefully Internos or credulity might have another plausible scenario, The incidents were reported allegedly in local newspaers as well as paranormal news.

www.imageshack.gr...
en.wikipedia.org...
Thanx so much

[edit on 7-5-2008 by Sys_Config]



posted on May, 7 2008 @ 09:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by OEAOHOO

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 ..an 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??





That was also a key word leading to many posts over several forums about these videos and possible defense systems in action. IMO we should check how these videos fared in Russian language sites, did they find it interesting, did arouse speculations, any interesting notes being made etc. I always find speculations from the other side a bit interesting.
If Credulity Kills has any knowledge of Orbiter, could there be a way of him producing a presentation of what he thinks really happened? A video or a series of pictures can speak a thousand words.


[edit on 7-5-2008 by spacebot]

Also can we find any other videos of similar RCS plumes showing what we see in the STS-48 videos? I bet there must be many if Credulity Kills theories are correct.

[edit on 7-5-2008 by spacebot]



posted on May, 8 2008 @ 07:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Sys_Config
 


Do you have any references (links) to the specific events you're speaking of?
Sounds interesting.

Thanks.



posted on May, 8 2008 @ 08:09 AM
link   
Everytime there is clear footage of alien spacecraft, like the fairly recent one a few months ago where they flew in a triangular formation. A NASA guy came on TV and announced they were ice particles. Even though they were flying in a triangular fomation and matching speed with the shuttle.
YOu could tell the NASA guy was lying.

Every time..its ice particles.
I'm sorry I think the ice particle explination is just unbelievable.

You can see the objects are near the Earth and very far away.



posted on May, 8 2008 @ 08:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Dr X
 


Well, as admitted in this thread; it is nothing more than their opinion. Credulity Kills admitted it. Therefore it's still up for grabs and NASA either doesn't know what it is (Duh, unlikely), or does and is playing semantical games.(Evidence points toward such)

It's all there, read between the lines and see it.



posted on May, 8 2008 @ 08:43 AM
link   
reply to post by internos
 


This is fantastic stuff Internos
! i have seen this before but never went in detail with it! thanks for your great threads!

There is a few other interesting cases STS!

Big star and a Flag!



posted on May, 8 2008 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Electro38
 





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
ago."

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



Google tesla experiments 1892

Its not like the Tesla coils you see with hobbies.

In other written up demonstrations he demonstrates air circuits.
Air is made to glow in his first British demonstration, streamers
of 2" in a one foot loop.

www.electrotherapymuseum.com...

Some sparky devices but not what Tesla had in his published documents.

The NY Worlds Fair grounds have a Science Building with a video
on youtube showing a one wire light bulb.

They say it demonstrated how electricity goes through the earth
when obviously it can go through the air.

It all anti Tesla Illuminati backed science to eliminate any thought
UFO flight through electricity.



posted on May, 8 2008 @ 08:07 PM
link   
reply to post by TeslaandLyne
 


Thanks. You mentioned the one wire light bulb. Didn't he also have a "no wire" light bulb? Just stuck in the ground, partially utilizing the earth's telluric current, I think.



posted on May, 8 2008 @ 11:12 PM
link   
If you missed UFO Hunters lastnight on the History Channel you missed a good one. They talked about this very footage as well as other NASA footage like the Tether incident.

As for the STS-48 video, I posted the full length original in my last post. The big prevailing theory, it seems, is that the flash and the object accelerating are both caused by these thrusters. These are the big problems with this theory that were discussed on the history channel lastnight:

1-The object stops for about a half second before accelerating again.
2-The infamous "projectile" is traveling in a completely different direction (challenging that they were ice somehow broken off from the RCS thrusters).

IMO they could have done more with this video. For example, they didn't mention that what many think is a projectile is
1-Traveling up through the atmosphere and emerges from the cloudcover, then continues to travel upward
2-A meteor does not travel up through the atmosphere but vice versa, elminating this possiblity.
3-This also couldn't have been ice or space junk because of this fact.

You can also see other objects seemingly traveling in earth's atmosphere and emerging from cloudcover as I mentioned in my last post (although what these are is, of coarse, unknown).

Then you have the fact that one of the objects had 3 distinct lobes on it as the camera zooms down toward the earth (The same image, I believe, that Mike Singh posted earlier on).

This is a pretty insane video.
Not all of the objects in the video can be explained as ice or junk accelerated out by the RCS. This just because of the simple fact that if you FastForward through the video you see objects traveling in many different speeds and directions before and after the flash. What all of these objects are is obviously unknown, but what I'm getting at is that the RCS explanation doesn't explain everything in the video. IMO, It only explains the flash and doesn't explain why the object stops for half a second before accelerating again.

-ChriS



posted on May, 12 2008 @ 03:40 PM
link   
Hey all. Sorry for the delay. I've had the last few days off and I detached myself from the electronic world - it's been fantastic!

I haven't gone back through the thread yet but I will ASAP.


Originally posted by BlasteR
If you missed UFO Hunters lastnight on the History Channel you missed a good one. They talked about this very footage as well as other NASA footage like the Tether incident.

I saw this episode today. Honestly, I thought it was hit and miss. The STS-75 "Tether Incident" explanation was fantastic and I think they're dead on, 100% correct.


Originally posted by BlasteR
The big prevailing theory, it seems, is that the flash and the object accelerating are both caused by these thrusters. These are the big problems with this theory that were discussed on the history channel lastnight:

I think the biggest problem with the UFO Hunters discussion of STS-48 is their "expert" physicist had absolutely no clue what he was talking about. Also, the narrator states:



Vernier rockets are small rockets engines originally used on these missions to help keep the shuttle on its trajectory. There were four vernier rocket thrusters on the Space Shuttle Discovery during STS-48; two that point outwards and two that point down.

Yes, there are four vernier rockets on the aft of the shuttle (there are two in front). What they fail to mention is that there are 38 primary thrusters, 24 in the back. The thrusters on the top of the OMS (Orbital Maneuvering System) pod fire upwards and could have accelerated the ice particles in the direction that was seen.


Originally posted by BlasteR
1-The object stops for about a half second before accelerating again.
2-The infamous "projectile" is traveling in a completely different direction (challenging that they were ice somehow broken off from the RCS thrusters).

1-The force isn't instantaneous and continuous. The thrust profile looks like an inverted parabola. The thrust likely halted the movement of the object (at lest in the two dimensions that we can see form the video) before the peak thrust pushed it away.
2-It's not traveling in a completely different direction by any means. It moves upwards, away form the zenith RCS thrusters on the top of the OMS pod.


Originally posted by BlasteR
IMO they could have done more with this video. For example, they didn't mention that what many think is a projectile is
1-Traveling up through the atmosphere and emerges from the cloudcover, then continues to travel upward
2-A meteor does not travel up through the atmosphere but vice versa, elminating this possiblity.
3-This also couldn't have been ice or space junk because of this fact.

1-Who is many? I think that is a minority opinion, especially amongst scientists.
2-Definitely not a meteor.
3-How do 1 & 2 make 3 true?



posted on May, 12 2008 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlasteR
Not all of the objects in the video can be explained as ice or junk accelerated out by the RCS. This just because of the simple fact that if you FastForward through the video you see objects traveling in many different speeds and directions before and after the flash.

I beg to differ. Ice particles will float somewhat randomly depending on where they broke off from (before the flash). All of the objects in the RCS plume move away (radially, as one would expect) from the thruster firing (after the flash). Some got hit with the full force of the blast, some with a glancing blow, some weren't in the plume at all.

The STS-114 video is nothing more than space junk or a satellite of terrestrial origin. The orbit around the earth makes what is called an "orbital plane." If you take the orbital plane and look at it nearly "end on" it turns into a parabola (if you looked at it exactly end on it would looks like a straight line). Objects in orbit can appear to move linearly if you see the orbit end on and you're moving at velocity which is close to that of the object you're observing.



posted on May, 12 2008 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Credulity Kills
 


1 and 2 make 3 true because ice and space junk does not travel upward through cloudcover and into space. I used the word "many" really because its true. For people who believe this is a ufo being shot at, many believe that this is a projectile being fired at the supposed UFO. Other objects at the lower left-hand part of the screen in the original full-length clip show objects also moving through cloud-cover. These may not be UFO's, but it proves that there is cloud cover there. The bright streaking object seemingly passes through this cloud-cover and instantly appears as it travels upward through the atmosphere. I'm not saying that's what it is, I'm saying it is one possible explanation..

I understand that it isn't so out of the question that thrusters could have created what movements the object makes. The question you have to ask is how likely is it that the object would stop for about half second and then accelerate at a steady rate again. It isn't impossible, and it is possible that varying trajectories, parabolic thrust, etc..etc.. could have made this object move as we see in the clip. But how likely is it that the object would actually stop in one spot? I can't answer that, but it is pretty odd don't you agree?

I agree with you on the episode of UFO hunters. They did an OK job but I don't think they addressed everything in the video like, for example, the 3-lobed object that appears after the camera pans down toward the earth after the flash and the object moves (in the full-length clip). I think this is the image mikesingh posted? The multiple, small objects moving through and emerging from cloud cover at the lower left, not to mention all the other dozens of objects moving around in the shot before and after the flash takes place. There is so much going on in the video and the RCS thrusters only account for the flash. Since we have no way of knowing the distance between the shuttle and these objects we have no way of knowing what we are actually seeing correct?

What we have are multiple possibilities with no way of truly knowing what we are seeing. Do the RCS thrusters really explain everything we see in the video? How can that question be answered with any level of certainty since we just don't know? You have all these objects moving around which have unchanging trajectories/speeds before and after the flash. And what about this odd-shaped triangular object that shows up as the camera pans downward, the speeding object that passes through the cloud cover and continues traveling vertically, Not to mention the other video clips from this very same STS-48 mission with similar things going on, and no flash whatsoever.

-ChriS

[edit on 12-5-2008 by BlasteR]

[edit on 12-5-2008 by BlasteR]

[edit on 12-5-2008 by BlasteR]



posted on May, 17 2008 @ 08:28 AM
link   

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

Nope, that's not me! I'm glad to hear we're in agreement, however (not that there was any doubt!)



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 05:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Credulity Kills
Thanks internos.

I posted this in the other thread but I'll do it again here:

The flash that you see is a shuttle thruster firing - mostly likely an automatic one. Thrusters are used by the shuttle to maintain attitude or to move to different attitudes when required. There's typically a deadband of a few degrees that the shuttle's computers will control within - if it hits a attitude error of ~5 degrees (typical but that's modifiable) in any axis, thrusters will fire to correct the orientation.

As mentioned above, the shuttle sheds quite a bit of ice from different places. It's required to regularly dump water overboard (a byproduct of the fuel cells), uses a FES (Flash Evaporator System) to reject heat before the radiators are deployed, and even expels human waste. All of this stuff freezes almost immediately upon hitting vacuum.

The object that you see trending right to left (object 1) is likely frozen crap (figuratively or even literally) that came off the shuttle. The flash is definitely from the contact of the hypergolic fuel and oxidizer from some nearby thrusters. While the flash is initially visible, the bulk of the thrust comes in the moments after as the gaseous byproducts of the combustion expand. That expansion of gasses is what caused the change in direction of object 1 and made it accelerate. Object 2 (AKA the first streaks) which appears to shoot past object 1 could be more ice or the clumped up residue that collects in the thruster manifolds (unburned fuel that freezes).

The second streak is something I hadn't seen before looking at the video again just now. The thruster firing pushes debris in its path outwards - more or less radially form the thruster itself. I say "more or less" as the thrusters are, of course, directional. Debris directly in front of the thruster will be pushed quickly away from the jet in the direction that the jet faces. Debris which is nearby will get a glancing blow of gas that has already dispersed (and thus decelerated) therefor it will tend to move more slowly and not directly outwards.

Streak 1 is due to debris very close to the thruster (or even in the thruster manifold) whereas streak two is due to more distant debris that got a glancing blow.

The analysis of the video in the above post makes the assumption that the objects are very far away, yet we've got no reason to assume that.

As for the camera moving away 65 seconds later, I really don't think that tells us anything. The INCO officer in Houston will move the camera regularly and will usually point it at the cargo bay. Besides, if there were real concerns about exposing the existence of secret craft in orbit, NASA would just they delay the public video feeds or just stop them all together.

As for the video drop-out, this is hardly unusual. Video from the shuttle or ISS requires Ku-Band communication with the TDRS satellites. Ku-Band is high bandwidth and thus in high demand from other non-NASA users. On the ISS right now, Ku-Band is only available about 30-35% of the time. The lower bandwidth S-Band is available about 80% of the time but is unable to transmit smooth, high FPS video like you see in this video.

That's my $0.02.

[edit on 4-5-2008 by Credulity Kills]


yeah i didn't bother to read past this post in this thread, so what, the mods will warn me and take away 500 points and i will be a month or two off of getting my background image from the ATS store? coooool lol

you are saying the thrusters went off but the planet doesn't get smaller, the camera stays in place, and nothing moves as we see this "flash" of "light" from "thrusters"?

can you insult us anymore?

a thruster would move the camera for some reason, and move the camera on the w/e the camera is on ISS/STS or w/e, unless of course nasa was shooting STS 48 with a cam NOT on what is was recording from

seriously...you are trying to tell ATS that thrusters went off, but the image doesn't move? the planet doesn't move or change as the thrusters go off? i can explain my problem with what you said more if you want, but it's been discussed

if a thruster went off, the image would change, something would move relative to what the thrusters did, the only things moving are the unidentified flying objects and the objects that seem to go at them lol that seem to come from earth BTW, i have read in this video it would have been australia

for real you are saying "thrusters went off"

so if i hook up a camera to my honda civic and watch my bro do some bike stunts on his motorbike as i hit my "thrusters" in the camera shot you are gonna see what?

some kind of movement relative to how fast the civic and the bike are traveling when i hit my "thrusters"

i just don't get it, i really don't............

unless thrusters are just flashes of light, and don't move w/e had the camera on it for STS 48

if thrusters don't move w/e the STS 48 camera was on, then why tell ATS the flash of light was thrusters when anyone who's not a retard knows that when you move something attatched to a camera, the image from the camera will move too....not to mention all of the other stuff in this video, watch the other STS videos, is that all ice floating around our planet in space too? lol and thrusters? the tether incident is ice too lmao oh wow

the camera doesn't move, the planet doesn't move, the image doesn't move, if the "thrusters" don't provide some kind of movement for w/e purpose WTF are they there for?

at so many miles above earth a "thruster" doesn't make a planet smaller, when it goes off and moves either, up, down, right or left? maybe diagonally to the left and up?

the image from the camera is stable the whole time, so really what are you trying to tell ATS when you say what you did about "thruster" and STS 48?

seriously, i hook up a video camera to the back window of a car, someone is behind that car with a motorbike, doing some wheelies or something who knows/cares, but when i hit the gas pedal the car accelerates, and the image that camera records stays still?

NO

but that is what you are trying to tell ATS with what you said, so unless you want to say "look, at so many miles above earth, a thruster won't provide much movement and a camera on w/e the thruster is thrusting in w/e direction won't show movement, when you have a camera on something that isn't really moving much, like earth BUT that flash of light was thrusters"

no moves



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by OSSkyWatcher
 





if a thruster went off, the image would change, something would move relative to what the thrusters did, the only things moving are the unidentified flying objects


Hmm.. not necessarily. As credulity pointed out, there are many thrusters and some of them firing in different directions (for precise orbital manuevers). Thus, considering the distance from earth, the shuttle itself wouldn't move quickly enough to really change the view of the planet.



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by BlasteR
 




But how likely is it that the object would actually stop in one spot? I can't answer that, but it is pretty odd don't you agree?


I'm no expert. It certainly depends on a number of variables. If these are ice particles close to the shuttle (and area of thrust), one would expect them to have a small mass, thus making it unusual for the one to stop briefly. Of course it all depends on the force acting on the object. Without knowing more about the force of the thrust, the mass of the object, and the distance the object is from the thruster.....

But I certainly agree the video is very peculiar. If they are ice particles why do they suddenly appear out of nowhere (like they are coming out of the atmosphere as some have suggested)?





new topics

top topics



 
55
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join