NASA STS-114 UFO Footage - Can it be debunked? , page 3

Originally posted by nablator
{}. Small debris is what they are. {}

If you believe that no force exists in space, yes. But if you do a bit of research you will find that typical atmospheric drag is 30 micropascals at ISS altitudes, around 400 km. For comparison, solar radiation pressure in the vicinity of the Earth is 4.6 microPascals, and solar wind pressure is typically a few nanopascals. The acceleration of a particle is inversely proportional to its size, because force = surface x pressure, proportional to the square of the size, force = mass x acceleration (Newton's second law) and mass is proportional to the cube of the size.

The constant pressure of 30 µPa pushes a small particle (ice, probably). The smaller it is, the faster it accelerates.

Little atmospheric drag is one force. I have to agree with this. That's why, in time, in a matter of months if i remember, all the very little particles of space debris fall to earth and burn when hit the more denser atmosphere. And because little atmospheric drag too, that's why satelites or ISS have to raise their orbits from time to time.

Originally posted by fxmodels

Actually I believe there is plenty of doubt that these are UFOs. In fact I think this is an example of what happens when people view things that are outside of their day to day experience.
{}
My first thoughts on this video are that this is indeed space debris, most likely ice. Ice particles can be found floating around the shuttle and launched satellites.
{}
You cannot ignore the science and call something a UFO and say something like "there is no doubt these are UFOs". That is irresponsible and leads to junk science which as we have seen, can get us into major trouble!

Marc

Agree with this too. Too often people ignore the little but big facts.

And i think too of what we see in OP it's debris (ice or junk from shuttle activities)

And not only those 2 particles. But all of them. Because, if you speed up and play forward and back a little, you can see there are many "lights" there changing relative position one to another. And , do not forget, they are not stars since they are seen on the Earth as background.

Originally posted by RFBurns
I am sure the well known debunker regulars are pouring over their notebooks right now to try to come up with a link to lens anomaly or ice particle or debris or some other rediculous explanation, and surround that with big words and indimidating, fancy theories to explain this one.

And i'm sure that the regular believer who thinks proud by himself he is an open mind person, will see there a fleet of alien spaceships, or critters, from the 4-th dimension, defying laws of physics, making inteligent maneuvers etcetera. Of course, no need for argument, just the proof is only in what he saw there. :p

This cannot be debris from the shuttle. The object is too far away when it enters the frame.

Too far away?!? ... How you judge the distance? you assume? Then you should not forget that a point of light can be with equal chances a 1 milimeter size particle a few meters away, a centimeter size object tens of meters away, or a 1 kilometer sized at hundreds of miles away. It involves "depth of field" and similarity theorem. Fancy but don't be intimidated (joking about your language in your post). This reminds me about faker Billy Meier with his models...big ships at big distances..or not.

This cannot be a lens anomaly. No lens anomaly brings something into the frame and manuvers as this object does.

Here i agree with you. It clearly shows it is independent from lens movements.

This cannot be an ice particle. It would have burned up as it moved closer to the atmosphere and became nothing, plus ice does not do 180 degree turns and move off in another direction with no other outside force nearby to make it move.

No, it can be ice particle. Why you say about burning in atmosphere since the particle could be small and meters or tens of meters away? You know that shuttle flies at 400 km altitude, and atmosphere can be enough dense to burn speedy objects at maybe 60 km altitude if i remember. Do you really think that any ice particle or junk can be seen at ~~340 km away ??
And yes, particles can APPEAR to make 180 degree turns, just like a bullet, if you are the shooter and see its trajectory, the flying bullet APPEAR to make 180 degree turn from up to down movement..but in reality, the bullet moves on a balistic trajectory, and what you see it's a PROJECTION of the trajectory FROM YOUR POINT OF VIEW.

This cannot be space junk. Again, it would have begun to burn up as it got closer to the atmosphere. Free falling..or floating in this case, debris or ice does not slow down as it approaches the atmosphere. It will speed up and increase velocity, and then begin to burn up.

see previous.

Im not sure what to make of it..other than it is not any of the above. It could be either a controlled craft or one of them "space critters".

it could be, if we have proofs that they exist (but not another similar junks), but, what it is much more probable: alien/critters defying laws of physycs, or ice or junk that are COMMON in shuttle activities and not broke any law?

Either way, IMO..it is definately something other than ice, debris, lens anomaly, junk, light refraction, video glitch or whatever else is in the debunker bag o scuses.

No, it is NOT definately. You should ELIMINATE the common ice/junk solution to make "definately" conclusions.

[edit on 23/2/09 by depthoffield]

[edit on 23/2/09 by depthoffield]