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: 35
96
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jabbah
Poor guys trying to persuade yourself that these stuff can't be real!
Listen to me : we are alone in the universe , and even if other intelligent life forms do exists , they are too far away to reach us!

Do you feel better now?


[edit on 4-3-2009 by Jabbah]


I do not think at all we are alone in the big universe. Beeing not alone, it doesn't rule out the common debris manifestations, when someone acnowledge their manifestation. If no knowledge, and superficial, then every star, or every lens flare there can be alien, because, of course, we are not alone in the universe...

[edit on 4/3/09 by depthoffield]




posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 11:36 PM
link   
reply to post by depthoffield
 


So what are the LIGHTS exactly? Illuminated magnetic fields captured on film?



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 11:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns

And I like my side of the fence, got lots of people numbering in the hundreds of thousands if not a few million who do not take "space junk" or "waste dump" for an answer.


My mother or millions of people can not understand at all the "space junk", or "water dump", or "2D projection", or orbital mechanics. So what?



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by ranhome
So what are the LIGHTS exactly? Illuminated magnetic fields captured on film?


Particles of debris iluminated by the sun . Did you read the topic?
Debris exists, can appear as white dots in the image, and can have curved trajectory. Plus, a camera is able to capture just a 2D projection of anythink in the reality. Read again.



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 11:40 PM
link   
reply to post by depthoffield
 


DOP, prove that they are ice particles. Are you going to say this happened a mere few feet from the shuttle?



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 11:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns

Originally posted by depthoffield

Capischi? (i really think you do)


For in atmospherics or an enclosed canopy of an aircraft, that would be good comparisons.

Cept were talking about something up in space in a vacume in zero G. Capischi? (I really think you do know the difference between the two and also know atmospheric examples are poor examples for something in space)
Cheers!!!!



Ok, next exercise for your mind: You can assume that the atmospheric drag in the plain example doesn't exist, and the plane not going uniform, but accelerating.

What will do the apple? Exactly like the OP. Moving, stoping, changing direction in 180.

Capischi?



Cheers!

[edit on 4/3/09 by depthoffield]



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Exopolitico

DOP, prove that they are ice particles. Are you going to say this happened a mere few feet from the shuttle?



feets, or tens of feets, or something like this, depending of the size of the particles and the distance, they can be seen or not in the image. (A 200 meters away 1 milimeter particle i don't think it can be seen at all.

Why to prove that ICE particles exists, since they are common in shuttle activities?

YOU have the burden of proof that, despite ice particles exists as common product of the shuttle, in the OP movie it can't be ice (or junk) particle.



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 11:54 PM
link   
reply to post by depthoffield
 


I think your hundreds of miles away from the object. IMO Dont think it was 10 feet.

But we can disagree. Until I can prove it,,,



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 11:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by depthoffield

Originally posted by Exopolitico
YOU have the burden of proof that, despite ice particles exists as common product of the shuttle, in the OP movie it can't be ice (or junk) particle.

You are simply trying distract by ridiculing what to most seems to be an object traveling at a certain speed, slowing and turning almost 180 degrees. You can tell me they're ice particles or propelled by shuttle thrusters. You will not convince me.

I will agree to disagree until you convince me otherwise.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 12:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by depthoffield

Originally posted by RFBurns

Originally posted by depthoffield

Capischi? (i really think you do)


For in atmospherics or an enclosed canopy of an aircraft, that would be good comparisons.

Cept were talking about something up in space in a vacume in zero G. Capischi? (I really think you do know the difference between the two and also know atmospheric examples are poor examples for something in space)
Cheers!!!!



Ok, next exercise for your mind: You can assume that the atmospheric drag in the plain example doesn't exist, and the plane not going uniform, but accelerating.

What will do the apple? Exactly like the OP. Moving, stoping, changing direction in 180.

Capischi?



Cheers!

[edit on 4/3/09 by depthoffield]


I did not say they do not exist, I am saying the examples you provided are good for conditions in the atmosphere or inside an airplane..not up in space where its a vacume and zero g.

Here is an exercise your brain is in much need of:

Do you think that inside the shuttle there is gravity so that when that apple gets thrown that it will behave like that if the shuttle was within the atmosphere and much closer to the influence of Earth's gravity?

Dont think it will. Hence...the example provided is not applicable to the object out in zero G and within a vacume. Capischi?

I just love how the debunkers like to twist up someone's words and make it sound like that was actually said...when it clearly was not.

You loose again.



Cheers!!!!

[edit on 5-3-2009 by RFBurns]



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 12:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns

Here is an exercise your brain is in much need of:

Do you think that inside the shuttle there is gravity so that when that apple gets thrown that it will behave like that if the shuttle was within the atmosphere and much closer to the influence of Earth's gravity?

Dont think it will. Hence...the example provided is not applicable to the object out in zero G and within a vacume. Capischi?



Ok, again i'm glad you really understand my example with the plain. I though you have the necessary ability.

Now, the difference in OP from the plain experiment which you accepted.

In plain example, the apple is falling accelerating to the earth.

In shuttle situation, the particle can happen very well to not falling to the earth as the apple do, but to be ejected toward the Earth. So, it moves constantly away from the shuttle.

If moving constantly to the earth (because ejected), or accelerating to the Earth (as apple do), means the same: object going away from the shuttle in Earth direction.

Now, the rest of the exercise, remains the same: if the shuttle accelerating, then the particle will appear decelerate relative to the shuttle. It is the same situation. Deceleration makes relative curved trajectories, and changing directions just like i said before. The issue is exactly the same. You failed in fully understand the concept.

I will repeat the mind experiment with the apple, now in space, for you to better comprehend the solution proposed:

You are in the tail of the shuttle. The camera is on the front, filming perpendicular to the earth. You throw the apple, in the direction of the shuttle movement, but giving a little impulse toward the Earth too. If you throw the apple EXACTLY horizontal in the direction of movement vector, then the apple just will go in front of the shuttle. But if you throw with just a little angle, then the apple will move in front of the shuttle, but will goes away toward the Earth too. Is not falling because of Earth gravitation (like simpler apple example), is just a posible trajectory in space.

Now, imagine that the shuttle is accelerating. Of course, it will catch the apple, and then it will let it behind. But the apple is going to the Earth in the same time, thus shrinking. It is the same situation: the apple will appear to goes in front, stoping, and then changing 180 direction, and goes in oposite direction.


Capischi?

Sadly, no more time now for me to continue now, i will make a drawing for this scenario maybe tonight (now is morning here where i am, and the boss may detect my.."off-work" activities)

[edit on 5/3/09 by depthoffield]



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 01:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by depthoffield

Originally posted by Jabbah
Poor guys trying to persuade yourself that these stuff can't be real!
Listen to me : we are alone in the universe , and even if other intelligent life forms do exists , they are too far away to reach us!

Do you feel better now?


[edit on 4-3-2009 by Jabbah]


I do not think at all we are alone in the big universe. Beeing not alone, it doesn't rule out the common debris manifestations, when someone acnowledge their manifestation. If no knowledge, and superficial, then every star, or every lens flare there can be alien, because, of course, we are not alone in the universe...

[edit on 4/3/09 by depthoffield]


Sorry but i simply can't believe that These are ice particles



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 02:13 AM
link   
reply to post by depthoffield
 


Do not pat yourself too much on the back there thinking your giving me any lessons on Newtonian physics..I happen to know quite a lot more than you think. Spare yourself the work.

Now lets examine the object in STS 114 and all of the examples you have provided.

Your analysis is entirely based on the belief that everything up there will act like an ice particle. An ice particle has barely any mass compared to something like a satellite or the shuttle or a UFO craft of comparable size to the shuttle. Are you familiar with inertia?

Well inertia plays a huge role in zero G space. An ice particle's tiny mass, or inertia, would not behave in the same manner as....lets say your apple for argument's sake. The apple, tho not very much larger than an ice particle, would still have more mass than the ice particle, given we are going by your insisting that these are tiny ice particles close to the shuttle because tiny ice particles at a large distance would not be seen. The apple would require more opposing inertia force for it to change its heading, the ice particle would not.

In a nutshell DOF, the ice particle would turn extremly suddenly, and not gradually as if it had a lot of mass. Lets say your ice particle idea is what that object is in the STS video..now can you explain what kind of gradual, light opposing force..(or some force as you put it)...would cause this very tiny, extremely lightweight ice particle to manuver with the turn seen in the video in orbit?

And if this "some force" is up there, and very selective on what it acts upon, why do we not see other ice particles react in this same manner?

All of the ice particle videos from the shuttle move quite suddenly when an outer force, such as a shuttle thruster blast, occurs. They are in the frame, floating as if nothing is going on, then we see a thruster burst, and SWOOSH!!!....off that ice particle goes!

This object in the STS video does not SWOOSH out of view from any thruster blast.

Now given we have seen from your own example of ice particles and their amazing vanishing act when they move away from the camera, are any of us to accept the explanation that this object in STS 114 is one of those ice particles as you example in your video of ice particles that vanish at a short distance from the camera?

Remember, this object maintains its visibility in the entire OP video, all the way through its flight path. It does not vanish until it moves out of frame, it does not slowly disappear from view like your ice particles do in your example video.

So...our conclusion is...based on your own video example, that the object in question in the STS 114 video is NO ice particle of any sort.

The physics of its motion do not match that of a tiny ice particle, it does not disappear from view as it travels away from the camera point of reference, and it does not suddenly SWOOSH off from any thruster blast.

Your video also demonstrates the very light mass of the ice particles and is why those ice particles in your video example "whisk" off and go radical in direction. Had those ice particles had more mass, they would continue outward in less of a hap-hazard manner.

Again, the object in STS 114 does not do any of those things.

Your own video proves the object in STS 114 is no ice particle.




Cheers!!!!



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 02:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jabbah
Sorry but i simply can't believe that These are ice particles


Neither do I, this is the video you linked us to;


UFO Footage - STS-48 - "Abrupt Turn" - Full Length Original



Now clearly, some of the objects behave in a way that would not be expected of a mere 'Ice Particle'.

Since when can an 'Ice Particle' make a complete turn around, zipping off, accelerating away in an anticipatory manner?

Now start from 1:35 for example, and about at 1:46 the object clearly attempts to avoid whatever it is that eventually appears at around 1:50, and you can clearly see how it anticipates and maneuvers away from whatever it is that comes blasting at it shortly after.

Thanks for posting Jabbah.


[edit on 5/3/09 by Majorion]



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 02:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Majorion

Since when can an 'Ice Particle' make a complete turn around, zipping off, accelerating away in an anticipatory manner?

Now start from 1:35 for example, and about at 1:46 the object clearly attempts to avoid whatever it is that eventually appears at around 1:50, and you can clearly see how it anticipates and maneuvers away from whatever it is that comes blasting at it.

Thanks for posting Jabbah.




The object in that video does seem to react in a split second just before the flash. Also...that object comes up through the atmosphere. It was not in orbital space prior to its appearance. No ice particle comes up from the atmosphere unless that ice particle just so happens to be attached to the shuttle hull or other vehicle just launched.

And the object is a considerable distance from the camera point of reference...meaning this object is MUCH larger than a typical ice particle.

Also if you look very closely, there are TWO flashes. The first flash has no effect on the object. Now would an ice particle not be influenced by the first flash but then be influenced by the second flash?

No.

If the object were there already and did not appear from comming through the atmosphere, I would say that it probably would be an ice particle...but as I just pointed out, no ice particle "flies" up throught the atmosphere to go dance around in orbit.



Cheers!!!!

[edit on 5-3-2009 by RFBurns]



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 02:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
And the object is a considerable distance from the camera point of reference...meaning this object is MUCH larger than a typical ice particle.


Agreed, the word 'Particle' denotes that the size would be extremely small. Clearly, even from afar, the object is considerably larger than a particle.


Originally posted by RFBurns
If the object were there already and did not appear from comming through the atmosphere, I would say that it probably would be an ice particle...but as I just pointed out, no ice particle "flies" up throught the atmosphere to go dance around in orbit.


Exactly, the behavior of the object alone, it is not indicative of an 'Ice Particle'.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 02:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Majorion
 


Also did you notice that the STS 48 video shows 2 flashes?

That object is not even phased by the first flash. The object begins to take off just before the 2nd flash, as if avoding something.

Lets play along with the ice particle fans for a moment.

This ice particle likes to fly up from the atmosphere and go play around in orbit.

This ice particle is minding its own business at a great distance from the camera point of reference.

This ice particle is not even close enough to the shuttle to be affected by thruster blasts.

This ice particle decides to do a mega turn and burn.

This ice particle is still visible for a considerable time after that turn and burn.

This ice particle must be HUGE to be able to continue to see it at that distance!

This ice particle must have intelligence.

Now lets discontinue playing the ice particle fan.


This is NO ice particle.



Cheers!!!!

[edit on 5-3-2009 by RFBurns]



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 08:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
And who cares if this thing is on some sort of curved trajectory. What does that have to do with the price of tea in China anyway? It has no relevance to what this object is or why it suddenly changes course.

I think that the trajectory of the object is relevant, because of the inertia, as you pointed out.

If the object is making a wide, sweeping curve that looks more acute because of perspective then it may be a larger object with a relatively big mass, while if the object is going in that direction and goes back in the opposite direction, for it to be able to do it (either by its own forces or because of external forces) then it must have a relatively small mass.


The apex of the turn is too sharp to be a casual curve trajectory, also as this thing turns, it would be heading towards the Earth surface, or towards the stronger pull of Earth's gravity and that turn would have become less sharp and widen out, and the object would have begun to take a nose dive into the atmosphere.
Not necessarily, it depends to which side the object turned, and once more, on a 2D screen we do not have enough data. Unless we use the brightness of the object, that looks dimmer at the end, suggesting that the object entered the screen closer to the camera than when it exits.


Thank goodness for independant thought and free will.
We that I agree.


And please Not Another Silly Acronym.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 08:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exopolitico
Of course, you will laugh at the possibility of making a few other stops to drop cargo (i.e., food, water, etc.) at a few other "locations" before docking to the ISS we know.


You got that right. Laughing out loud is the rational reaction to your fantastic imaginations.

There's been a lot of delusions about 'other' space bases, but the fundamental reality-check is, why don't people see them in the sky? Lots of very skilled hobbyists keep close tabs on orbiting satellites, including a few that don't like to be kept tabs on, and these fantasy-islands just don't seem to show up.

The normal shuttle rendezvous profile is 'Flight Day 3', that is, the third day of crew activity (launch day is 'Flight Day 1'). It runs to be about 44 to 48 hours after launch, which is about the same as the standard Russian Soyuz profile (50 hours). I don't know where you got your figure of '72 hours' -- I suspect, like all the other faux-facts you've been spewing to support your preconceptions, you just made it up to fool people you count on to swallow it.

In both rendezvous cases, US and Russian, the reason for the time duration is the same. To reach the target, you have to launch in the brief interval (a few minutes -- for the Russians, a few seconds) as Earth's rotation carries you through the target's orbital plane. But at that moment, the target can be anywhere along its circular track -- a few thousand miles, or ten or twenty thousand miles -- ahead of you. You catch up by being in a lower, faster orbit -- you pick that altitude on launch day depending on the target's range that day.

Allowing an extra day between launch day and rendezvous day gives enough 'wiggle room' to catch up to a target at any range. It also gives time to reconfigure the Orbiter, get the Ku-band antenna out and functioning, do a shakedown of the navigation and control equipment, and nowadays, run the exterior inspection with the robot arm to look for tile damage.

In the old days, Gemini and Apollo, quicker rendezvous sequences were run, but only because the small targets could be maneuvered ahead of time to lie in the proper range at the moment of launch. Now that the target is too big and heavy to do that easily, and now that docking is a complicated enough procedure it takes a lot of post-launch preparation, the extra time is fully utilized. The work would have to be done at some point in the mission anyway, it's not 'lost' to being useful by doing a FD3 rendezvous.

Each rendezvous can cost 1000-1200 pounds of maneuvering propellant. So there can't be any 'secret' stop-offs because the initial tank load is precisely known to all technical operators in Mission Control and to the mission planning teams.

I hope that answers the question to the satisfaction of readers who really were interested in a real answer. How about you?



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 08:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exopolitico
DOP, prove that they are ice particles. Are you going to say this happened a mere few feet from the shuttle?


Backwards, again. You make the claim for extraordinariness.

The burden of proof is on you to show they CANNOT be small particles near the camera.

Since other views of small particles near the camera, performing curved motion during a water dump, have been shown, and since a water dump had been in progress for two hours before this scene, a prima facie case can be made that what we're seeing is just another variant of that typical prosaic space scene.

The difference is in the duration of the water dump -- this one was a lot longer than curved motion dump scene shown earlier. So a lot of the particles had the chance to move a lot farther away, beyond the reach of the effluent force -- which could be water vapor, or thruster exhaust, or any of another half dozen sources that are typical of shuttle space operations.

You have to disprove that.




top topics



 
96
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join