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: 22
96
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
If the objects are even moving at all, and the orientation of the shuttle and where it is along its orbial path could make it appear as if it was in a geostationary orbit. The shuttle does on certian missions put up geostationary satellites. This would require the shuttle to also place itself into a geostationary orbit to properly place the satellite.


As others said, you should post a reference for the claim that shuttle flies in geostationary orbit (36000 km up instead normal 300 km or so), not say only "do your work". It appear just a arrogant claim from you and nothing more. Instead you urges the "debunkers" (believers term) to argument any little boring physical fact. Try to be objective and correct.
Anyway, we see in OP that the SHUTTLE IS MOVING as usual (look for the clouds and how rapid the shuttle begins to arrive to the terminator (day-night boundary). So, the shuttle moves. More, the image doesn't look at all to be filmed at that high altitude.... the curvature of the Earth had to be much more..curved! So, the claim with "geostationary orbit", even if may be possible (but show us the reference!), it has NOTHING to do with the OP movie.



Originally posted by RFBurns


Originally posted by depthoffield
Now the first question for you: what are the apparently stationary bright lights, in your opinion?


Those could be low orbiting satellites, or orbiting debris. I would tend to think they are more likely low orbiting satellites.



1) they cannot be low orbiting satelites because:
a) see my previous post, response to C-JEAN...basically lower orbit means higher speed than the shutle, so the satelites has to move to the left, not stationary or to the right as we see
b) so many sattelites there ?!?



Ice particles at those distances are not going to lite up Chicago like that. It would take larger objects to reflect that much light and display in those sizes. They are no where near the shuttle to say they are small ice particles lit up by the sun. The much smaller, less bright lit objects could be surface lights.


Why you assume as FACT that only posibility that ice debris or junk, have to be only at "those big distances" and no way to be near the shuttle?
Then answer how debris near the shuttle, iluminated by the sun should appear in the image? Let me guess: as small bright dots in the image. (or bokeh donuts but this is another story)
FACT is you and nobody cannot judge at all the distance and size to unknown points of light from a 2D image, but you just dismiss without reason a common posibility: ice debris near the shuttle, iluminated by the sun. Your argument? just "we see that they are very distant" FACT: seeing can be deceiving many times, especially when the brain is in posture to assume as basic perception and only that


(extracted from Armap video of ice debris, i think you see it many pages before..this thread is growing too fast) (as an exercise here: try to see in this particular little sequence at least 3 particles of ice debris having CURVED TRAJECTORY... wow



Now whats wrong to you not accepting ICE debris to those stationary lights? Because you in reality don't have any reason to dismiss it. Maybe, accepting they are ice debris in proximity of the shuttle, it will hurt the feeling of the readers about that real misterious particle which is changing direction? hmm...




Originally posted by RFBurns


Originally posted by depthoffield
I hope, clarifyying those 3 issues and the question, we can just concentrate after only to the misterious fast or weird moving objects.


I actually see two fast moving objects, one is considerably weaker in intensity but is in fact there, and moves across the center of the frame just below the primary object before it makes its sudden stop and turn and burn off into the other direction. This object appears as if passing through the atmosphere from center left, and moves very quickly to the right and seems to be flying within the atmosphere but a very high altitude. But one thing at a time. The primary object moving into frame from right to left, stopping then turn and burn.


The only object in interest here, the changing direction particle is the real subject in the OP movie. Agree again with you on that.

But, again: you assume that it passes within the earth atmosphere...why that? again just basic brain perception assuming trusting the eyes only? But the intellect is lasy? again you dismiss all the distance interval starting from the first meter away from camera and until when atmosphere edge may be, lets say 100 km above the Earth. So, you place the object at maybe 100 km above earth "in atmosphere at high altitude" (so maybe results beeing at 200 km distance from the shuttle), just because you let the eyes deceive you? Then, maybe all other almost stationary objects are in the high atmosphere too? But why in just the high atmosphere? Why not in middle atmosphere, let's say 10 km, like airplanes...
I think you just proved here a high level of superficiality, i'm sorry...



[edit on 27/2/09 by depthoffield]

[edit on 27/2/09 by depthoffield]

[edit on 27/2/09 by depthoffield]




posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by easynow
 


Nope. I have a different thought about what's going on. I don't like to repeat myself if it's avoidable though.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
Yeah, this can be easily debunked — once you get it out of your head that the object is changing directions. It's not.

Most likely, what we're seeing is a shiny hunk of debris following a relatively straight trajectory, and the orbital trajectory of the shuttle is actually causing the illusion that the object is turning.

Here's a simple animated diagram of what I mean:



Of course, the proportions here are highly exaggerated, but the principle is sound. The object enters the shuttle's field of view from the right; then the object seems to decelerate as it actually parallels the shuttle's orbit; then the object seems to exit the same way it came in, out of frame to the right.

Thus completing the illusion that the object turned when, in fact, it is following a relatively straight trajectory. It is the shuttle's own velocity and trajectory that is deceiving our eyes.

— Doc Velocity


Nice try, you may be right, but you are wrong in one esential aspect:
The particle in OP movie is between the shuttle and the Earth, and the camera is looking perpendicular to backward towards Earth surface. In your movie, the particle is in high orbit that the shutle, and the shuttle looks forward. Wrong. Please redo the drawing, and lets see together the result, thanks

[edit on 27/2/09 by depthoffield]



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 06:03 PM
link   
Phage:

ok thanks, i didn't think you would agree with that but i was just checking


Jim O'Berg:

thanks for the reply and i am glad we agree on the transparency issue.



Thread:

i will leave everyone to their educated assumptions but remember nobody can prove what this object is without having more evidence. ultimately it is up to the viewer to decide for themselves.

peace



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by easynow

Thread:

i will leave everyone to their educated assumptions but remember nobody can prove what this object is without having more evidence. ultimately it is up to the viewer to decide for themselves.


Nice to have you here and remind that. Of course every reader will decide for yourself. Is just natural.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by drummerroy39
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.



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...





Really? Are you sure? EASY you say? wow.
Please tell me, if a little ice particle, iluminated by the sun, lets' say 5 milimeters in size and 10 meters away from the camera it may be in the image you posted, exactly in the center of the image, exactly superimposed with the earth atmospehere for example, please tell me how will appear? let me guess: as a little bright dot, exactly as other bright dots in the image.
Man, this reminds me about that thread with that damn bird in Obama inaugural discourse... many "opened minded" people "saw so easy" the big high speed UFO or rochet or whatever...until somebody posted the better resolution video, and the obelisc overlap...oh, you believe too in the Billy Meier UFOs made from model trash lids i supose? Assuming 3D from 2D just as eyes basic perception is a very common mistake proving... ignorance and need to know!


Or maybe, you can tell me which objects here are bigger and the distance to them, (but ignoring that the bird is a bird, and the airplane caryiing a banner! is an airplane carrying a banner, so acting like in space, looking at unknown objects) since they appear toghether:



and the animation:



(shoot taken in one of my holiday)

Or maybe you may try to understand this scene with ice debris?:



damn those thruster firings from the Orbital Maneuvering System and Reaction Control System of the shuttle..


[edit on 27/2/09 by depthoffield]



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 06:49 PM
link   
oops here is a wrong post, deleted.


[edit on 27/2/09 by depthoffield]



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
er, i thought the common theory was this object was an ice particle that has come off the Shuttle ? are you saying that is not the case ?


Well, I've seen more than one piece of NASA footage that seem to show particles/objects making acute turns within the camera's field of view. In the most well-recognized example, you can actually see the orbital maneuvering thrusters fire just a split-second before the object changes direction. In that particular case, I have no problem accepting the ice particle explanation.

In this case, I don't see the familiar burst of the orbital maneuvering thrusters, and the mystery object appears to gradually decelerate before changing directions. This would lead me to think the animated explanation above is the more likely scenario — that a shiny hunk of space debris traveling in a relatively straight trajectory seemed to move into and out of the camera's field of view, and that the shuttle's own motion and velocity created the illusion that the object turned when it did not. (See the animation above).

And when I say relatively straight trajectory, I mean a straight trajectory relative to the shuttle's own orbital trajectory. It could be a hunk of space junk on more of an elliptical orbit than the shuttle's orbit, for instance.

No, I don't think this mystery object is under intelligent control, based on the footage provided. Now, if it had performed a figure-eight maneuver, receded into the distance and then returned to within a few meters of the camera, I would have to reconsider my position. However, such extraordinary behavior is not apparent in this footage.

The behavior that is apparent can be very easily explained, as I did with the above animation.

— Doc Velocity

[edit on 2/27/2009 by Doc Velocity]



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Doc Velocity
 


hey thanks Doc Velocity for the reply


good theory you have and it is a possibility no doubt but are you aware that this opens up the door wider for this object to be some type of real UFO versus a mundane ice particle that came off the Shuttle ?

point is if it did not come off the Shuttle in close proximity of the camera than it could be anything including space debri or something else.

food for thought thanks again



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by depthoffield

Or maybe you may try to understand this scene with ice debris?:



damn those thruster firings from the Orbital Maneuvering System and Reaction Control System of the shuttle..




Damn those thruster firings missing from STS-114 can't help them debunkers explain that object's manuvers. Toss out everything else in the world to draw attention away from the issue..they are good at that..but addressing the issue...the score is zilch.





Cheers!!!!






[edit on 27-2-2009 by RFBurns]



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
Toss out everything else in the world to draw attention away from the issue.


What issue is that? If we dismiss the most likely explanations, we're left with only the least likely explanations, such as extraterrestrial intelligence guiding a blip on a brief sequence of NASA footage.

Based on the "evidence" provided in this footage, I fail to understand how anyone can make the leap to a conclusion of extraterrestrial intelligence. The footage just doesn't support it. I mean, you could just as easily claim that this footage proves the existence of Superman and the Green Lantern. That's a leap of imagination, as is the leap to a conclusion of extraterrestrial intelligence.

— Doc Velocity



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by depthoffield


In your movie, the particle is in high orbit that the shutle, and the shuttle looks forward. Wrong.


As I stated, that was a simple animation with exaggerated proportions. However, it correctly demonstrates that a body traveling in a straight trajectory can be perceived as making an acute turn, relative to the observer. The principle is sound, regardless of the stylized particulars of the animation.

— Doc Velocity



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

Originally posted by Doc Velocity


What issue is that? If we dismiss the most likely explanations, we're left with only the least likely explanations, such as extraterrestrial intelligence guiding a blip on a brief sequence of NASA footage.


And who defines what is least likely? Its quite arrogant for mankind to think he is the ultimate being in the universe. It has been here far longer than we have.


Originally posted by Doc Velocity
Based on the "evidence" provided in this footage, I fail to understand how anyone can make the leap to a conclusion of extraterrestrial intelligence. The footage just doesn't support it. I mean, you could just as easily claim that this footage proves the existence of Superman and the Green Lantern. That's a leap of imagination, as is the leap to a conclusion of extraterrestrial intelligence.

— Doc Velocity


What evidence? Oh you mean all this other mumbo jumbo that dances the hoot-n-scoot up-n-down beat around the bush evidence. To which none explain what is occuring with that one object amogst others that suddently turns and burns.

No thruster flash, as I pointed out about a dozen times already. The object makes its turn and off in the other direction BEFORE the camera/shuttle pans left. No other object seen impacting it to make it go the other direction...no just some lone ice waste dump blob that has a mind of its own and zips off in the other direction....na nothing unusual there, nothing to see..move along.

PFFT!!!

Well its no wonder NASA hides stuff..with people not able to see the obvious right in front of them why should they bother to spill the beans on any of it...most wont believe it, just in the ice and junk nonsense.

NASA has it made in the shade with gullibles out there.




Cheers!!!!



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 09:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Doc Velocity
 



if your theory about the object progressing in a straight line is correct and you think it's just space debri.....

wouldn't that be dangerous to the Shuttle ?

and would this theory imply that NASA almost had a HUGE accident ?



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 10:20 PM
link   
nice nice ice footage must be the entire mendenhal glacier doing about mach 40 but lets keep pretending theres nothing out there sagan wasnt just wasting his breath there are hevenly highways for which we have no road map but while we are down here they want us to pretend pretend that hilary will soon start liking bill again and obama will use oprahs money and her votes to bail out the banks oops got off topic nice footage i think theres really something to this must have been massive in size how come we havent seen other glaciers move like this after we fired from austrailia at them i think bill was down there during this time frame maybe it was fired from one of our satillites down there or manilla maybe maybe im just not too big on pretending as i grow older carl sagan was no dummy makes me smile abit



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
And who defines what is least likely? Its quite arrogant for mankind to think he is the ultimate being in the universe.

It's equally arrogant to think that our fantasies constitute reality, when a few elementary physical principles will adequately explain a mundane occurrence. By believer logic, perceiving a mirage in the desert means there are vast, elusive bodies of water in the desert.

No. It doesn't. But they want to believe in a fantasy so strongly that they will reject any explanation that conflicts with their dream world. No, this doesn't mean they're "more open to infinite possibilities"... It means they're suckers.


Originally posted by RFBurns
The object makes its turn and off in the other direction BEFORE the camera/shuttle pans left. No other object seen impacting it to make it go the other direction...no just some lone ice waste dump blob that has a mind of its own and zips off in the other direction....na nothing unusual there, nothing to see..move along.

So, given all of this absence of evidence, your contention is that it's an extraterrestrial intelligence, right? Based on what? What makes you believe this is an extraterrestrial intelligence rather than something equally fantastic like, say, Zeus hurling bolts of lightning at the Earth, or Iron Man coming in for a landing? Where do believers draw the line? Without any evidence to support it, why do believers embrace extraterrestrial intelligence, but dismiss the possibility that it's Howard the Duck?

Hey, infinite diversity in infinite combinations, right? Anything is possible, so why not ancient Greek gods or heavenly angels?


Originally posted by RFBurns
PFFT!!!

Well, yeah, exactly.


— Doc Velocity

[edit on 2/27/2009 by Doc Velocity]



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 11:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Doc Velocity
 



why do believers embrace extraterrestrial intelligence, but dismiss the possibility that it's Howard the Duck?


maybe because believers seen a ufo and not Howard the Duck ?

who is Howard anyways ? have you seen him ?



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 11:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
if your theory about the object progressing in a straight line is correct and you think it's just space debri..... wouldn't that be dangerous to the Shuttle ? and would this theory imply that NASA almost had a HUGE accident ?


Well, sure, but you must keep in mind that no shuttle mission is risk-free. Statistically speaking, the shuttle astronauts are flipping a coin with every lift-off...they could be dead within seconds of ignition. Or an asteroid could rip right through the shuttle on orbit at any moment — NASA has no contingency plan for that. Or the shuttle could come in at a bad angle and disintegrate on de-orbit. It's just another risk.

So, sure, I can accept that the shuttle program has seen several near-misses that never reached the public. I mean, who needs the bad press?

This is all assuming that the mystery object is large enough and close enough and traveling fast enough to threaten the shuttle. However, we cannot say with certainty anything about the dimensions or velocity of the object based on this footage. We'd need a radar readout to accurately determine distance, size and velocity.

Based on the video alone, we just don't know. It might be the size of a softball or the size of commercial dryer, for all we know, maybe 30 meters distant or 30 kilometers.

— Doc Velocity



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 11:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
maybe because believers seen a ufo and not Howard the Duck ?




Howard the Duck is an intelligent, hard-drinking and two-fisted bird from a parallel universe. George Lucas wishes he'd never heard of Howard, either.

Just for the record, I myself have seen 4 UFOs in my life. And I grew up living next to Ellington Airforce Base on the east side of Houston, Texas, so I know the difference between military aircraft and commercial aircraft and private aircraft and UFOs. The objects that I saw over a span of 4 decades were completely outside of my experience and outside of my ability to explain. They remain mysteries to me.

But I still never jumped to the conclusion that they were extraterrestrial in origin. Just because they aren't part of our human experience doesn't automatically mean they are from another planet or another dimension. These things have been haunting the Earth back into human pre-history...So why can't we accept that UFOs may be a permanent fixture on Earth? Maybe this is their home planet.

— Doc Velocity

[edit on 2/27/2009 by Doc Velocity]



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 11:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Doc Velocity
 


ok thanks for the reply Doc Velocity,

extremely high odds for this too be the explanation imo.

not saying it's impossible...just unlikely




top topics



 
96
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join