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: 26
96
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by franspeakfree
But I still stick with no unseen force in a vacuum that can slow an object though.


Can't face the embarrassment or ego-hit of having made a mistake? Come on, grown-ups learn to deal with that throughout their lives.




posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Majorion

Originally posted by JimOberg
you owe me now

Get one thing straight Mr. Oberg, I don't owe you anything.


You asked me a question, and I answered it.

I then asked you a question, and you won't answer it -- that's all I objected to.



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 06:18 PM
link   
To all the folks believing and insisting in their ignorance (or interest!) that objects (debris) in orbit must move ONLY in straight trajectories because superficial logic suggest...(hello RFBurns...):



From Armap video (thanks again!), posted here: www.abovetopsecret.com... showing a water dump, i extracted the next sequence, judging the trajectories of the particles.



The result is this:





Interesting, no?

Look, the trajectories of inanimate dumb particles of debris left alone in space, are.. CURVED!







Please, explain RFBurns if you have diplomas, are old in UFO hunting at many forums, and a lot of people thinks like you, as beeing majority, like you underline to us many times. (and you owe us the arguments with the claim with shuttle flying at geosyncronous orbits too).

I know, you will ignore, or you just loudly complain to silly debunker tactics or whatever.


And you asked many times "show me the force acting to that particle in the OP". Ok, next time i will search a video from NASA where they filmed the VECTOR of force (anybody see vectors of force in any image? because i don't want to search too much).

In FACT the force itself is invisible. It may be camera positioning perspective, it may be atmospheric drag, solar presure, magnetic fields (if particle contains iron), it may be thruster firings, it may be shuttle ACCELERATING constantly or a combination of those forces. Or other forces, known by REAL specialists in the field of science regarding physics in orbit, but not by an amator like me.



[edit on 1/3/09 by depthoffield]



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by depthoffield
curved...


wow!

do the 'senses' of the curves seem consistent? That is,
do you see effects of an 'invisible' forcing flow that may be
characterized as originating from the same general area?
or are the curving motions in random directions?

i think I'm also seeing tenuous 'blasts' of 'fast-moving fog'
but I can't be sure that's not an image processing artifact,
and I don't see a correlation with the curving force -- assuming
it's even external to the dots.

This is nice work.



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 07:11 PM
link   
Is anyone sure it's not a satellite changing direction? Just curious what makes you people experts and have the right to say "It's no satellite".



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by franspeakfree
ArMaP - Your right I apologise, I understood what you meant in the video.
OK, I'm glad that situation was cleared.


But I still stick with no unseen force in a vacuum that can slow an object though.
I find that a little strange.

Don't you think that gravity can stop an object from moving in one direction and make it move in the opposite direction?

Or that an object charged with a positive electrical charge can be stopped in its trajectory and sent in the opposite direction if it gets close to another object with a stronger positive charge?

And, as I said before, it does not really mean that the object stops, it may be making a wide turn, but as we only see it from the side we see only the object getting close to the apex of the turn and then turn back, like on my second video. In that video I had the same magnet (just because it was close at hand) hanging from a string and it was making a circular movement, but it looks like it gets slower and then turns back, like the object in the STS-114 video.




posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by depthoffield
 




From Armap video (thanks again!), posted here: www.abovetopsecret.com... showing a water dump, i extracted the next sequence, judging the trajectories of the particles.





the particles or whatever you want to call them curve because there is a force created from the water dump release. the particles are just reacting to each other ?

that is not the case in the Op video so what does this prove ?




[edit on 1-3-2009 by easynow]



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 07:27 PM
link   
Ok , I have to point out that where tiny bits of debris are concerned, there are various invisible forces that act to change the movement patterns of random crap in space. You have the solar winds , magnetic pull from gravity. What also ought to be considered is that SPACE isnt empty . Not even the "space"between celestial objects is truely empty. And as has been mentioned different substances react differently to a vacuum. Remember that if any of those debris particles contained gases of some kind, the force of those gasess being depressurised could account for curvature . After all thats what manouvering thrust does, except its controled and on a much larger scale.



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 08:03 PM
link   
reply to post by depthoffield
 


Nice try...but your example there still does not show how ONE object makes a slow down, turn, then head off in the other direction while the others just sit there as we see in STS 114.

Your example shows MANY ice particles from a dump, go everywhere, which is what is expected from a blasted into space dump.

Also, those ice particles are quite small, even at such close range to the shuttle in your example video. Now if the STS 114 object is an ice particle, and we were to compare that to your ice particles in your example video for size and distance from the camera/shuttle, where is the body of the shuttle to be seeing that object in STS 114 if that object is so close to the shuttle like those in your example video eh?

In other words, those ice particles in your example video vanish from sight so darn fast even when the camera zooms in because they are so tiny that they end up not being able to be seen as they get further away.

Yet in STS 114...we see that object quite clearly along with those others that just sit there like lumps on logs.

Sorry, but your example gets a grade of F.




Cheers!!!!


[edit on 1-3-2009 by RFBurns]



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueBrit
Ok , I have to point out that where tiny bits of debris are concerned, there are various invisible forces that act to change the movement patterns of random crap in space. You have the solar winds , magnetic pull from gravity. What also ought to be considered is that SPACE isnt empty . Not even the "space"between celestial objects is truely empty. And as has been mentioned different substances react differently to a vacuum. Remember that if any of those debris particles contained gases of some kind, the force of those gasess being depressurised could account for curvature . After all thats what manouvering thrust does, except its controled and on a much larger scale.


These invisible forces of solar wind, magnetic pull from gravity would affect ALL items and not just be selective to only ONE, as we see in STS 114.



Cheers!!!!



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 08:10 PM
link   
Perhaps some here are just taking this new bogus explanation of gravity a bit over the edge.

If gravity had such an influence on ONE piece of particle, why would that force not act upon the others in STS 114 as well????

Are some forgetting they insist that there are several of these particles in that video and declare this one that turns and burns as a "magic bullet ice particle" that is so special that gravity and solar wind just chooses it to do a miracle manuver????


Get real.


Cheers!!!!

[edit on 1-3-2009 by RFBurns]



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 08:20 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


Problem with the magnet example AirMaP is that an ice particle is not capable of having any magnetic properties to be affected by magnetic fields as would a piece of magnet.





Cheers!!!!



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
Are some forgetting they insist that there are several of these particles in that video and declare this one that turns and burns as a "magic bullet ice particle" that is so special that gravity and solar wind just chooses it to do a miracle manuver???? Get real.



What nobody is forgetting is that you are the only known person on this planet who seems to believe the space shuttle capable of flying up to geosynchronous altitude and dropping off payloads, secretly. Or maybe you no longer believe it either, but realize it was a misunderstanding, yet you're too stubborn to admit it.

The difference between the motion of the 114 curver and the background 'fleet' could easily be merely a difference of range. After all, in the 114 case, the water dump had been going on for two whole hours [we now know this only because of my original research, the data that you dismiss as 'clutter', and your buddies call 'rant']. Early dumped water/ice could be hundreds of feet away or more.

This effect is seen in the infamous STS-48 zig-zag video. At the moment of the thruster flash, the main 'object' and several others ALL simo undergo a force in a parallel direction -- the direction of the thruster effluent flow -- but other drifting particles do not. Nor would they, if they were farther away (or much closer, in the effluent 'shadow' of the Orbiter body).

Don't attempt to judge 'size' of the particles, since all we see is 'brightness'.... and in the recently posted fleet of curvers, the presence of Orbiter structure (a payload bay door and the bay forward bulkhead, behind the crew compartment) creates a bright enough field that the AGC -- auto gain control - circuit drops sensitivity and makes the particles much less bright than they would be if they alone were in the camera FOV.

That's just the way AGC works. It's no shame not knowing this, you probably were never privy to regular operational characteristics of shuttle systems...



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
the particles or whatever you want to call them curve because there is a force created from the water dump release. the particles are just reacting to each other ?

that is not the case in the Op video so what does this prove ?



OK, let's discuss this idea. What force are you postulating?
If you don't know, then you have no justification asserting
your mystery force was NOT on 114. Get specific, and be
considered fairly.



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 10:13 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 



OK, let's discuss this idea. What force are you postulating?
If you don't know, then you have no justification asserting
your mystery force was NOT on 114. Get specific, and be
considered fairly.


what part of what i wrote did you not understand ?

the water dump created force

it is two completely different circumstances and your trying to snowball it all into one.


and what's with you accusing me of twisting everything you say ?

you admitted that NASA was not transparent

are you now denying that you said it ?

your interpretation of why you think they are not transparent is not the same as what the majority of the public believes.

so who is twisting here ?

do you believe that the Military Industrial Complex connections with NASA have no influence on this lack of transparency ?



[edit on 1-3-2009 by easynow]



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

What nobody is forgetting is that you are the only known person on this planet who seems to believe the space shuttle capable of flying up to geosynchronous altitude and dropping off payloads, secretly. Or maybe you no longer believe it either, but realize it was a misunderstanding, yet you're too stubborn to admit it.


Thats your narrow sighted opinion. Stick to the subject instead of attacking me, which is a violation of T&C.


Originally posted by JimOberg
The difference between the motion of the 114 curver and the background 'fleet' could easily be merely a difference of range. After all, in the 114 case, the water dump had been going on for two whole hours [we now know this only because of my original research, the data that you dismiss as 'clutter', and your buddies call 'rant']. Early dumped water/ice could be hundreds of feet away or more.


Hmm...now your calling the other stuff a "fleet"? Just remember who said it first. Your research? Before a few days ago I never heard of you, as I am sure many here have not since youve been in hiding for a few months.
Care to elaborate on what makes your research the ultimate deciding factor for the entire world's opinion?

Early dumped water/ice are not so large that your going to see them even at a few hundred feet away..or more as you put it. DOF's poor example video clearly shows their size compared to their distance from the body of the shuttle and how fast those small particles vanish.

Again, nothing even comming close to trying to explain STS 114.



Originally posted by JimOberg
This effect is seen in the infamous STS-48 zig-zag video. At the moment of the thruster flash, the main 'object' and several others ALL simo undergo a force in a parallel direction -- the direction of the thruster effluent flow -- but other drifting particles do not. Nor would they, if they were farther away (or much closer, in the effluent 'shadow' of the Orbiter body).


The effect in the STS 48 video also does not come close to what this one object does in STS 114. So from your prospective, one lone magical ice particle is going to twist and shout and turn itself about while the others watch?

Heh...ya ok.


Originally posted by JimOberg
Don't attempt to judge 'size' of the particles, since all we see is 'brightness'.... and in the recently posted fleet of curvers, the presence of Orbiter structure (a payload bay door and the bay forward bulkhead, behind the crew compartment) creates a bright enough field that the AGC -- auto gain control - circuit drops sensitivity and makes the particles much less bright than they would be if they alone were in the camera FOV.


People can clearly see the huge difference between the example video of spewing waste water turning into small ice particles by simply looking at them and the body of the shuttle in the shot. Again, not even a 10 mile close call to explaining STS 114.


Originally posted by JimOberg
That's just the way AGC works. It's no shame not knowing this, you probably were never privy to regular operational characteristics of shuttle systems...




AGC has got nothing to do with STS 114 either. I happen to have a masters in Electronic Engineering since 1978..and know a hell of alot more than what your pretending to show here. Even the regular joe keeping up with this thread can see the difference between STS 114 and all the bogus explanations given to date...including yours.

I suppose as long as there is question about STS 114, which happens to be occuring in 6 other forums besides ATS...you sure seem to focus on one particular thread at one particular forum and at one particular member.

Did I ruffle your feathers that much? Aww....what a shame.

Too bad it wont help you in your futile quest to change my opinion, and hundreds of thousands of others. You lost that battle the very first post.

Better luck next time.




Cheers!!!!

[edit on 1-3-2009 by RFBurns]



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 11:22 PM
link   
Hey, RFBurns,

You are getting disperate (now showing again your diplomas etc). You should accept that you make mistakes. It is easy and don't ruin your credibility. We all make mistakes.


And the point here was:

CURVED TRAJECTORY! Something you and others denied.

You and others said again and again and again that in space particles goes ONLY in straight line, and, in OP, that particle is moving in curved trajectory and this is a big difference,
You see that is NO DIFFERENCE. Curved trajectory just...CAN HAPPENS.

And stop saying that your OP movie is showing an object stoping and changing direction and this is unique. Because, in my example, there are many particles just doing the same. You should observe this very easy, because I, an amator without diploma, i see very clearly. (next step from me will be to extract one of those particles and show you, but, again, i trust your ability to see it)

And your asertion with AGC (automatic gain control), is, again, wrong.
In OP, the filming is done in low light situation, so cameras working more toward their maximum capabilies, but in my example with the shuttle water dump, the body of the shuttle is lit by the sun and camera settings are about to day-light situation, so you should understand the diference in AGC. Now, your purpose to denying that, i understand, is to show us "how big" is the OP object. I understand your reason. But you just push too much the ignorance of the readers. Like the shuttle orbiting at geostationary altitude claim too.


CURVED TRAJECTORY IS NOT A DIFFERENCE. PERIOD. You should accept THIS obvious detail.


[edit on 1/3/09 by depthoffield]



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 11:57 PM
link   
reply to post by depthoffield
 


Me...getting desperate? How so? It is you and ol JimO there who keep trying to convince me to believe his and your explanations. I stick to one point of view, you guys on the other hand keep throwing out poor examples one after another, and often contradicting yourselves.

Lets see, first its dust, then its ice, then its waste dump, then its magnetic fields, then its solar winds, then its left over waste dump particles, then its gravity, and now...heh...its curved trajectory. Funny how every bit of theory you guys throw out here seems to have no bearing on the one lone object in that STS 114 video.

Everyone can clearly see who the ones that are desperate here.

What surprises me is you two just keep trying with no success to sway my opinion. I find it very intriquing, perhaps I should be honored that I am getting so much attention in this one particular thread.

Maybe I could interest you both in adding more attention to me in my contributions to the Mars color images thread? Or perhaps the few dozens of other threads I post in as well?

Amazing. I have never seen such devotion to try to sway just one person's opinion and belief. I should at the very least give you both credit for the effort...dispite it isnt getting either of you anywhere with succeeding in changing my point of view.

Perhaps you two could join me in the other forums discussing the STS 114 video as well? Just google for them, you will find me in them. Oh, I should point out that in those forums I use a different screen name, but I am sure that you guys can easily figure out which one of the hundreds of participants across several different forum sites would be me.


You two believe what you want to believe..I dont have a problem with that. But you two seem to have some sort of major problem with what I believe in. Pitty. Not sure what kind of remidy there is for that....have a beer...glass of wine....some tea perhaps? I hear green tea does anxiety and stress wonders.



Cheers!!!


[edit on 2-3-2009 by RFBurns]



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 01:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
What nobody is forgetting is that you are the only known person on this planet who seems to believe the space shuttle capable of flying up to geosynchronous altitude and dropping off payloads, secretly.


STS-51C: Classified DoD Mission

Mission: Department of Defense
Space Shuttle: Discovery
Launch Pad: 39A
Launch Weight: 250,891 pounds
Launched: January 24, 1985 at 2:50:00 p.m. EST
Landing Site: Kennedy Space Center, Florida
Landing: January 27, 1985 at 4:23:23 p.m. EST
Landing Weight: Classified

Hmmm wonder what they brought BACK?



---------------------------------------------------------------

STS-51-C launched a secret, Magnum ELINT (ELectronic INTtelligence) gathering satellite into geosynchronous orbit. An identical one was also launched by STS-33 and STS-38.


Mission name: STS-27
Shuttle: Atlantis
Launch pad: 39-B
Launch: December 2, 1988, 9:30:34 a.m. EST
Landing: December 6, 1988, 3:36:11 p.m. PST
Duration: 4 days, 9 hours, 5 minutes, 37 seconds
Orbit altitude: Classified
Orbit inclination: 57.0 degrees


-------------------------------------------------------------------

Mission name: STS-36
Shuttle: Atlantis
Launch pad: 39-A
Launch: February 28, 1990, 2:50:22 a.m. EST
Landing: March 4, 1990, 10:08:44 a.m. PST
Duration: 4 days, 10 hours, 18 minutes, 22 seconds
Orbit altitude: 132 nautical miles (245 km)
Orbit inclination: 62.0 degrees

The sixth shuttle launch dedicated entirely to the Department of Defense, STS-36's payload is classified. STS-36 launched a single satellite, 1990-019B (USA-53), also described as AFP-731. Other objects (1990-019C-G) have appeared in orbit since its deployment.

It has been reported that USA-53 was an Advanced KH-11 photo-reconnaissance satellite that used an all-digital imaging system to return pictures. The KH-11 series is a digital imaging photo- reconnaissance satellite with both visual and infrared sensors. USA-53, nicknamed "Misty", was tracked briefly by amateur satellite observers in October and November 1990.

The launch trajectory was unique to this flight, and allowed the mission to reach an orbital inclination of 62°, the deployment orbit of its payload, while the normal maximum inclination for a shuttle flight is 57°. This so-called "dog-leg" trajectory saw Atlantis fly downrange on a normal launch azimuth, and then maneuver to a higher launch azimuth once out over the water. Although the maneuver resulted in a reduction of vehicle performance, it was the only way to reach the required deployment orbit from the Kennedy Space Center (originally, the flight had been slated to launch from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, until the shuttle launch facilities there were mothballed in 1989). Flight rules that prohibit overflight of land were suspended, with the trajectory taking the vehicle over or near Cape Hatterras, Cape Cod, and parts of Canada. The payload was considered to be of importance to national security, hence the suspension of normal flight rules.


Ah yes thge Infamous MISTY.....


DoD Mission Patch




posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 01:43 AM
link   
I don't know if this has been suggested because I don't feel like looking through 24 pages, but is it possible that this was a piece of debris flying at a straight trajectory, then the shuttle took off in the same direction, making it llok like the debris made a 180?



new topics

top topics



 
96
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join