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.

 

NASA STS-114 UFO Footage - Can it be debunked?

page: 20
96
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
You never knew it because you were not privy to know it. When did you start working for NASA btw....late 70's was it?....hmm...well I suppose that would explain why you did not know about it because the shuttle's initial design planning began in 69.


There you go again, making up false factoids, assuming they are true, to support your claims. I began work at the Johnson Space Center in July 1975, working side by side with people who had flown Apollo and helped design the space shuttle -- Max Faget, who held the patent for the system, was a neighbor in Dickinson. The vehicle did evolve in the early years, but never regarding its altitude ceiling. It is physically impossible for the system, as designed or as built, to attain geosynchronous orbit. Anybody who tells you it could -- or you, if you stop playing games long enough to be straight -- is not only misinformed, they're ignorant of spaceflight engineering principles. Are those kinds of people your target audience?




posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
This report is NOT available via the web... you need to order it from NASA... like most of the GOOD stuff
Do you mean this report?



It's available on the web, that is how I got it 10 minutes ago, from here.

Edited to correct the link, sorry for that.


[edit on 4/3/2009 by ArMaP]



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 03:33 PM
link   
You people still don't seem to get it. Please explain how a craft or any sort of debris, be it a comet, meteor, ice particle, or a piece of dog feces traveling at a substantial speed in space. Can suddenly make a 45 degree turn without imploding from the g-force? And please produce something that can do 900,000 mph in earths atmosphere. Traveling a distance of 1000 miles that can survive without burning up. I have never met a group of so called intellectuals so frigging narrow minded in my life. SO PRETTY PLEASE, WITH SUGAR ON TOP. ANSWER THE FRIGGING QUESTIONS...



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

Do you mean this report?


And it's a camera for doing combustion experiments in a sealed canister inside the shuttle, right? GREAT view of outside objects.

The scenes in question, on youtube, were shot from the payload bay cameras, whose ops characteristics are well documented. They do not include IR, UV, or X-ray vision.

The screen dots were a common phenomena seen from mission Control. Her'es a comment from a veteran payloads control officer on STS-48:

Senior payloads officer James Bates, a veteran of control center support for manned space missions dating back to the Gemini program, also saw these scenes in ‘real time’: “I was a Flight Integration Manager for the Shuttle Program Office during those days and was manager of the Customer Support Room where most of the payloads and other tests were managed or run. I had also worked with Vaughan to get his lightning survey implemented, and was very familiar with all of the low-light TV ‘phenomena’ we watched for hours upon end during many of the flights. During STS-48 I was in the MCC watching the ‘snow’ or ice particles. For many flights during slow times when the crew was asleep (or awake) we would watch chunks of ice float away from main engine nozzles and ice fly out of RCS thrusters. AND we would watch the small ‘snow’ get blasted by the thruster plumes. If someone saw only a piece of such videos, yes, they could think they were UFOs.”



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by drummerroy39
 


Just three questions about your questions:

1 - how can you say that the object is travelling at 900,000 mph?
2 - how do you know the objects is in Earth's atmosphere?
3 - which video are you talking about?



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 03:42 PM
link   
was the orginal footage shot in 1080i?



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by drummerroy39
You people still don't seem to get it. Please explain how a craft or any sort of debris, be it a comet, meteor, ice particle, or a piece of dog feces traveling at a substantial speed in space. Can suddenly make a 45 degree turn without imploding from the g-force? And please produce something that can do 900,000 mph in earths atmosphere. Traveling a distance of 1000 miles that can survive without burning up. I have never met a group of so called intellectuals so frigging narrow minded in my life. SO PRETTY PLEASE, WITH SUGAR ON TOP. ANSWER THE FRIGGING QUESTIONS...


I can't explain that. Why should I have to? What does it have to do with any 'shuttle UFO video'??

If you want explanations for how small particles, moving a few inches per second within a range of feet to tens of yards from the Orbiter cameras, can 'appear' out of nowhere, change directions, and flicker -- why YES, I do believe I can offer a persuasive conventional explanation of that, and I may already have.

You have provided no evidence that the question YOU posed is remotely reality-based. Calm down, avoid overuse of the all-caps key, and make that argument based on evidence, not frustrated hand-waving. If you can.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 

www.youtube.com... www.youtube.com...
The distance was easy to measure, given the earths circumference, time of travel, which in turn gave us the speed.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


If you want explanations for how small particles, moving a few inches per second within a range of feet to tens of yards from the Orbiter cameras, can 'appear' out of nowhere, change directions, and flicker -- why YES



BUT we can agree we dont KNOW?!? how far the object(s) are in question..

HMMM burn



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 03:55 PM
link   
The evidence is in the NASA footage I just posted, try looking at it before providing your hypothesis Jim. I don't care how close to the camera the so called particles are. Nothing can make that type of maneuver and survive.

[edit on 27-2-2009 by drummerroy39]



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by drummerroy39
reply to post by ArMaP
 

www.youtube.com... www.youtube.com...
The distance was easy to measure, given the earths circumference, time of travel, which in turn gave us the speed.


There is a variable missing. Without knowing the size of the object there is no way to calculate its distance from the camera. Even if you know its size, you also need to know about the lens and camera.

Without distance, you cannot calculate speed.

[edit on 2/27/2009 by Phage]



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 04:04 PM
link   
The speed calculated was an approximation, not exact. It still shows how much distance is being covered in a short period of time



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by drummerroy39
 


How much distance did it move? 10 feet? 10 miles?

Without knowing, or making an assumption, about the size and/or distance of the object there is no way to know.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
So...after all this..has there been any effort made to explain how the object manuvers as it does in the OP's video yet?

Doesnt look like it.


Some pages back I described the additional evidence need to define the full context of the video sequence -- illumination, other space vehicle actions, similar objects with potential shared provenance -- and perhaps I wasn't clear that this could take from weeks to months to obtain.

It's been years since the flight, of course, but it's clear that nobody who claims it's a UFO has sought this contextual information, or even wants it. You've called such evidence 'clutter', and shown every indication you'd rather people not know anything about it -- anything but the raw video itself.

Instead, you have proclaimed, without evidence, that there ARE no other external forces acting on the putative particle. You, of course, have no way of really knowing that, you are just imagining it, and asserting it as a fact. You've done that a lot in your postings.

A genuine, responsible investigator would recognize the potential of such forces from any number of sources related to the Orbiter and its environment, and in order to establish the degree of 'extraordinariness' of the curver's motion, would obtain the documentation to eliminate them one by one.

You skip that part -- it's too ha-a-a-a-a-ard, you seem to have been saying -- and just jump to the conclusion you wanted from the beginning, without any evidence. Feel free to do so, but you aren't allowed to make believe you are a real researcher producing credible results, if you do so.

And it's tacky to mock the real investigators. Just makes you look more and more -- what can we say? -- irrelevant.

But to quote Allen Hynek, a report can't be called a 'UFO' until it has been thoroughly investigated. Your efforts here, if they have any central theme, is to discredit any investigation in advance.

The standing prosaic hypothesis, undisproved by your bald assertions of non-facts, is that a nearby particle came under the influence of an effluent stream -- a phenomenon that occurs frequently on shuttle missions, as observed and reported both by crew (maybe you're not privy to these messages) and TV downlink. The temporal placement of the event near the end of an extra-long two-hour water dump, which had already filled the skies with free-floating particles, is suggestive of some causal relationship, but only follow-on investigation of all potential effluent streams is adequate to demonstrate the superiority of that hypothesis over others.

What's YOUR preferred hypothesis? How can it be checked? Or -- don't you want it checked?



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Listen your starting to sound very un-educated with comments like that. Try watching both videos before offering an opinion



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by drummerroy39
 


I have.
They are full of erroneous information.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by drummerroy39
 


As Phage said, there isn't enough data to know the speed of the object (that was why I asked
), and seeing that this is not about this thread's video, I will stop talking about it, there is too much distraction already.

PS: I never liked David Sereda, but after seeing how he makes the chalk "scream" on the black board almost makes me hate him.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by drummerroy39
The distance was easy to measure, given the earths circumference, time of travel, which in turn gave us the speed.


Sereda gave you the speed, based on gobbledegook. Gawd, I hope you don't have him do your taxes!

If you still insist these values were derived properly, please summarize in written form the claimed proof.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by drummerroy39
You people still don't seem to get it. Please explain how a craft or any sort of debris, be it a comet, meteor, ice particle, or a piece of dog feces traveling at a substantial speed in space. Can suddenly make a 45 degree turn without imploding from the g-force? And please produce something that can do 900,000 mph in earths atmosphere. Traveling a distance of 1000 miles that can survive without burning up. I have never met a group of so called intellectuals so frigging narrow minded in my life. SO PRETTY PLEASE, WITH SUGAR ON TOP. ANSWER THE FRIGGING QUESTIONS...


Don't hold your breath. These guys are paid to wear you down.

Just accept that the people in this thread that do see a UFO - do just that. I often see these topics hijacked by 'the professional debunker team/s' and eventually we run out of steam - and we can't be bothered with it anymore.

I often wonder what a thread like this would be like if no one attempted to JUSTIFY to these SELF PROCLAIMED KNOW IT ALLS. Because essentially you know what you see as do I and the other """"""BELIEVERS"""""". Just be happy with that, in knowing that!


The real question we that believe should be discussing is - what kind of craft is it. what is it attempting to do and why ...and so on. It is 100% pointless debating a UFO. It is more productive to rationalize what this UFO was doing at this point in time up there - I suggest dates should be looked at (and times) to see what was happening on the Earth at the time of these sightings.

Keep your focus away from pointless debunkers - oh and you can ignore 10 at a time, so you won't be tempted to succumb to their out dated tactics.



wZn



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by watchZEITGEISTnow
 


Question:
Why, if "we" are called debunkers, are "you" called believers instead of bunkers?



new topics

top topics



 
96
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join