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: 36
96
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 08:21 AM
link   

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


Selecting the more likely explanation would be aided by getting a longer tape of this scene, and the exact time of sunrise. If the 'fleet' is hundreds of miles away (and behind) the shuttle moving at 5 miles per second, then they will become illuminated later -- say at 200 miles distance, 40 seconds later, a detectable difference.

If they are hundreds of miles away, also, their angular separation as seen on the view means they are tens of miles apart in vertical difference. This means that the higher ones will become sunlit substantially earlier than the lower ones. Again, a measurable differentiating factor.

This is how a real investigation into theories for this scene should progress.

Nobody, to my knowledge, has EVER done such an investigation of this case before. Why not, I wonder?




posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 08:41 AM
link   

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


Thanks for the link, Jabbah, it's the full duration STS-48 scene and it provides from internal evidence and researched data a compelling explanation of the dots as nearby debris.

Earlier I made fun of the phrase "I can't believe..." as an indicator of reality (it tells more about the speaker's abilities, than about nature's). Practice stretching your mind into the unearthly and undeniably weird-looking environment of space. Strange stuff occurs, and is at first hard to believe.

Watch the sequence under this point of view:

Darkness surround the Orbiter as it flies across SE Asia. Stars set, ground targets recede.

A growing glare in the upper left corner signifies sunrise. The Orbiter and the space around it is now filled with streaming sunlight, as it casts its shadow 'down sun' towards the distant dark horizon.

The moment of sunrise can also be calculated from the public orbital data. It coincides precisely with the moment the glare swells.

Simo with the sunrise at the Orbiter, several drifting dots appear. This coincidence is evidence these dots are close by, because they pass into sunlight simo with the Orbiter. Look for them, and then follow their motion.

About a minute passes. Other dots appear, from the edge, and in one case, in the center of the field of view -- out where the edge of the Orbiter's shadow is projecting through space. Imagine another small nearby particle just drifting nearby, crossing the shadow boundary, and becoming sunlit.

A flare occurs in the lower left cormer.

This flare is precisely coincident with the firing of the L5D vernier steering jet. As revealed by available navigation data, the Orbiter was slowly floating in a certain pointing mode with an error allowance of several degrees. It drifted up against the deadband boundary, and as it touched that boundary, the autopilot pulsed the steering jet to push it back into the allowable zone. This is shown on the data plots.

Simo with that pulse, and ONLY during that pulse, a number of dots change course. The spectacular zig zag dot is one of them.

Also among them is at least one dot that had appeared a minute earlier, at sunrise.

Think about the significance of that. A dot whose simo illumination with the Orbiter implied it was very close to the Orbiter, changes direction with the flare. This implies to me that it is entrained and pushed by the the thruster effluent.

And if that is the explanation of that dot's course change, why not extend that explanation to all other similar-looking dots on similar-looking trajectories with similar-looking course changes? Occam urges that explanation.

QED.




[edit on 5-3-2009 by JimOberg]



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
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.


The STS-48 video provided by Jabbah shows examples of why this assertion, like all others based on his self-proclaimed expertise, is false.
When entrained by effluent flow, small particles react with a speed that depends on the thickness and speed of the effluent flow.

They do not ALWAYS 'swoosh' out of the scene. This is another RF typical imaginary non-fact. In the STS-48 sequence you can see one or two 'swoosh', a few others 'corner', a few others 'tilt', and a few others just 'hiccup', some not appear to be affected at all -- all different ranges of reaction, that are functions of distance (and mass) of the particle from the source of the effluent, or of sheltering effects of Orbiter structure.

This is what real shuttle videos show. It refutes again (surprise!) a self-serving imaginary assertion from RF.



[edit on 5-3-2009 by JimOberg]



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
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.


We're making progress -- you wrote 'seem', rather than writing it as undeniable fact. Good for you.

Since 'flash' and thruster firing are NOT one-to-one simo (the flashes can, but often don't, occur at discrete points during a thruster firing), the data needed is the time of the thruster firing. And that time is a perfect match for the interval during which, and only during which, many of the particles change motion.

As to the object 'coming up through the atmosphere', that is an interpretation, not an observation. The dot APPEARS at a point near the horizon, where we also know the edge of the Orbiter's shadow is stretching out.

An alternative explanation is that it became sunlit at that point as it drifted, ten or twenty feet out, across the umbra boundary.

[edit on 5-3-2009 by JimOberg]

[edit on 5-3-2009 by JimOberg]



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 09:05 AM
link   
For the data charts on STS-48, see www.igs.net...

Proof of the Prosaic Nature of the STS-48 Zig-Zag Video

The attached two charts provide convincing proof that the famous zig-zag dots of the STS-48 shuttle flight (September 1991) are exactly what space experts inside and outside NASA have always said they were: routine nearby small sunlit debris hit by the expanding exhaust of a shuttle steering rocket triggered randomly by the computer autopilot which was steering the spaceship. More elaborate and exotic "explanations" rely on misinterpretations of the images and on a deliberate omission of relevant data such as shown here (these two charts have never been published by proponents of extraordinary scenarios -- they apparently never asked NASA for them).

Chart 1 is a page from the mission's Flight Plan showing what was happening at the time of the zig-zag (approximately 20 hours 39 minutes 20 seconds GMT on Julian Date 258 -- or about 3:39 PM CDT on September 15, 1991. The crew was just waking up -- powerful prima facie evidence that they were not engaged in some intensive secret experiment. The shuttle was on "Orbit 44" and -- most significantly -- was flying southeastwards, just emerging from Earth's shadow (which it did in fifteen seconds centered at precisely 20:37:04 GMT). As it did, the space around it became bathed in sunlight that remained invisible to the TV view except when NEARBY objects drifted into them -- if the objects had NOT been nearby they would NOT have become illuminated at the same time the shuttle emerged into sunlight. Note also that the "beta angle" is 44 degrees, which means that as the shuttle and its aft pointed TV camera (viewing backwards along the flight path to observe lightning) rise into sunlight, the illumination is coming from 44 degrees off to the side of the direction of flight (north, as it turns out, or to the left, when facing into the direction of flight). Thus the shuttle's umbra -- the shadow it casts 'down sun' -- is tilted 44 degrees to the line of sight of the TV camera -- horizontally to the left, in the field of view as seen. This means that objects closest to the shuttle will be in its shadow and will only become visible when they drift out of the shadow into sunlight -- but it also means that objects along the same line-of-sight can be either IN shadow (if they are closer to the shuttle) or OUT of the shadow (if they are at a slightly greater range), a three dimensional concept that has escaped many of the theorists proposing extraordinary 'explanations'.

Chart 2 shows a plot of telemetry from the shuttle during a six minute interval around the time of the zig-zag. The displayed parameters are the roll-pitch-yaw angle rate errors of the shuttle (bottom), the angular rate the shuttle is drifting in all three axes (center), and the amount the angles differ from the desired direction loaded into the computer (upper section). The "digital autopilot" (or "DAP") is also told how much slack to allow the shuttle's drift before making a corrective rocket firing -- this is called a "deadband" and at the time of the zig-zag it was set at one degree. As can be read off the charts, the steering jet firing that was observed on the video as a flash occurred in response to a slow drift in 'pitch error' (see top section, dotted line labeled 'pitch'), which had gradually been approaching the 'deadband limit' of one degree over the previous three minutes. The timing of the firing is thus shown to be determined by a slow ordinary flight process, and any coincidences with other factors (such as sunrise) are only by random chance. Notice that the change in pitch rate caused by the rocket firing is about 0.010 degrees per second (as shown on the center section data), which over a period of one minute amounts to an angular distance of half a degree. Despite widespread assertions that the absence of a detectable change in background motion proves that the flash cannot be a steering rocket, this actual motion is far too small to be noticeable in the motion of background features, especially since at the shuttle's actual orientation (roughly wing down, nose to the side, belly "into the wind"), this half a degree per minute of different pitch motion (nose up or down relative to the shuttle body) merely moved the line-of-sight along the horizontal axis of the field of view.

Separate tables of telemetry from the steering jets (not shown here) indicate that jet R5D fired at 20:39:23.31 for precisely 1.68 seconds, and its symmetric twin L5D fired at 20:39:23.79 for precisely 1.2 seconds (it had not fired for the previous 13 minutes). They both stopped at the same time, 20:39:24.99. This is exactly the set of jets one would expect to fire to correct a small error in pitch, which persuasively connects the angle error telemetry chart with the jet firing history data. The reason the computer fired one jet slightly ahead of the other can be deduced from the angle chart (center section) which shows a slight rolling drift which was also corrected by the unbalanced firing of the pair. It should also be pointed out that as all experienced observers of shuttle TV images realize, the visible flare of these jet firings is only an occasional and sporadic feature of their actual firings, which at other times -- especially in periods of smooth, stable propellant flow -- can be invisible. Therefore the actual start, stop, and duration of the jet firing cannot be determined solely based on visual evidence on the TV image, a fact repeatedly but evidently fruitlessly made known to private researchers.

Note in passing that claims of major angular changes of the motion of some particles -- up to 135 degrees or more -- could be based on lack of appreciation of the three dimensional nature of the actual motion. Assuming a significant motion along the line-of-sight (which would be a characteristic of objects moving from inside the shuttle's shadow out into sunlight), even a relative small angular change in motion -- 10 or 20 degrees, for example -- would look much more significant when projected into a two-dimensional field- of-view plane normal to the line of sight. This can be easily demonstrated by drawing a line on a piece of paper, with a 20 degree course change at the midpoint, and then tilting the paper so that it is observed from near one end of the line -- the line can easily seem to 'reverse course' even though in 3D it only bent sl



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 09:07 AM
link   
I just wanted to add a little bit more to the equation if I may.

First off I wanted to thank depthoffield for all his/her input I have read your posts and although I am a staunch believer (I have actually witnessed a UFO close up that is not from this world and if it is then why aren't the people that built it sharing it with the public).

I am prepared to take on board other theories. However, I am still convinced that what we see here in the video is intelligently controlled.

After looking at the video several hundred times I have a new theory. I believe as I said before that the light we see in this video is intelligently controlled. However, could it be that it is being controlled by us HUMANS.

Everything in this video, especially the way the camera is positioned and filming suggest that maye this is a practice/test flight of a newly developed craft. Possibly demonstrating the technology in front of others. Also what I have noticed is 3 bright lights at the bottom right hand side of the screen. Could it be that these are the spectators? aswell as the other lights that come in to focus throughout the clip.

I am willing to accept that it is a possibility that the craft in question doesn't actually stop but does turn at an elipticle angle.

Don't dismiss this theory straight away take a look again and watch out for the lights that appear bottom right, also why is that only some of the lights flash, surely if the light was reflecting off of all the ice particles wouldn't they all shine?

I am still working on the experiment but its manic at work and time is not on our side.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by franspeakfree
Everything in this video, especially the way the camera is positioned and filming suggest that maye this is a practice/test flight of a newly developed craft. Possibly demonstrating the technology in front of others.


OK, all new suggestions are encouraged -- and evaluated.

The period after station departure has hosted 'piggy-back' activities, such as deploying small satellites, in the past, so it's plausible other actvities could be scheduled.

What is it about the camera angle that makes it optimal for observing a demonstration? Shouldn't such a demonstration also be visible from the crew cabin so it can be imaged out the high-quality overhead windows?
Recall, the shuttle is flying right wing forward heads down, and camera B -- the aft left payload bay camera -- is peering out to its left at the receding Earth dark horizon. This is a standard attitude for MLE observations -- what special good is it for other types of observations?

What was the crew supposed to be doing in this time period? Do you suggest the official activity plan was a cover? If so, why?

Why would such a demonstration occur during a water dump? Camouflage?



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
Is there some compulsion driving you to misspell 'vacuum', so as to prove to us what an authority you are on spaceflight conditions?


Can't answer the question so attack the spelling? Come on now Jim... surely YOU don't need to resort to such cheap tactics to keep the focus off?

Not everyone in here is a PROFESSIONAL writer you know



And I have seen university papers written by Professors that are full of typos... shall we strip them of their Ph.D.'s because they make a spelling error?

[edit on 5-3-2009 by zorgon]



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 12:08 PM
link   
Wow, still discussing how the little UFO booked and ran,



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
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.


Hmmm the 'skeptic cop out'

I disagree... most of us here can see that these are not ice particles... so if someone comes along making such an absurd assumption and tries as hard as you and DOP do to sell that hypothesis... I do not see any reason why we should not expect that either of you PROVE that indeed they are ice particles as you claim...

The fact that you CANNOT and attempt to evade the issue by the 'burden of proof' argument means that you have no proof that these are ice particles... all you have is your opinion that these are ice particles...

Now if you could actually PROVE that... then you would have won your argument and this issue would be closed...

But then we wouldn't be graced with those long winded explanations or your amazing wit at pointing out the intelligence level of those who misspell a word or two


The fact that NO ONE has proven ice particles in all these years shows that there is no proof available... had there been NASA et al could have laid this to rest




..

[edit on 5-3-2009 by zorgon]



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by JimOberg
Is there some compulsion driving you to misspell 'vacuum', so as to prove to us what an authority you are on spaceflight conditions?


Can't answer the question so attack the spelling? Come on now Jim... surely YOU don't need to resort to such cheap tactics to keep the focus off?

Not everyone in here is a PROFESSIONAL writer you know[edit on 5-3-2009 by zorgon]

I hope you were blushing when you wrote this Zorgon
You've used all manner of tactics to debate opposing views on ATS. Insult and accusation from time to time? Some quite Machiavellian. I'd be very surprised if the criticism of someone's misspelling hasn't occurred...at least once. This isn't a criticism, just an observation. You represent a big character on these boards and it's no bad thing


I think Jim Oberg has presented a good case here. It's certainly been interesting between RFBurns and Oberg. On a boxing scorecard Jim is winning on points and the 'it's definitely an intelligent craft' corner have had a couple of standing counts
It's pretty clear that respective corners aren't throwing in the towel at any point. I'm 'Swiss' and regard this thread as exemplary in the area of UFO debate.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kandinsky
It's certainly been interesting between RFBurns and Oberg. On a boxing scorecard Jim is winning on points and the 'it's definitely an intelligent craft' corner have had a couple of standing counts


But on actual points (exclude the boxing ones
), RFBurns has won on common sense points.

Afterall, why should any of us prove that the objects in question; aren't 'Ice Particles'. As zorgon pointed out, shouldn't the 'burden of proof' lay on the person(s) making the claim?



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 

Who made you the score keeper, i too have been watching, RF owns this shill , all the other bloke has done, is throw smoke and mirrors, no actual PROOF


[edit on 5-3-2009 by branty]



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
The fact that NO ONE has proven ice particles in all these years shows that there is no proof available... had there been NASA et al could have laid this to rest


Of course, it's not a FACT, is something you want to prove -- and it's easiest to cheat by 'assuming' it's true from the beginning.

One of my big disagreements with NASA treatment of this subject is that they think anybody who falls for these UFO interpretations are blithering idiots unworthy of a waste of time to try to reason with them.

I don't agree. There are enough people genuinely puzzled by these weird scenes, who are open to reasoned, polite exposition of facts, that I think NASA should make a minor effort, at least, to provide answers.

Now, you won't LIKE the answers, and after all that effort, you will still be accusing NASA of lying and covering up.

Since you will never accept prosaic explanations for these events, isn't it hypocritical of you to complain that NASA hasn't provided such explanations -- so you can mock and reject them?

Maybe NASA's attitude is more reality-based than my own.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
Hmmm the 'skeptic cop out'


Nope. The scientific method.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg


They do not ALWAYS 'swoosh' out of the scene. This is another RF typical imaginary non-fact. In the STS-48 sequence you can see one or two 'swoosh', a few others 'corner', a few others 'tilt', and a few others just 'hiccup', some not appear to be affected at all -- all different ranges of reaction, that are functions of distance (and mass) of the particle from the source of the effluent, or of sheltering effects of Orbiter structure.

This is what real shuttle videos show. It refutes again (surprise!) a self-serving imaginary assertion from RF.





I just love how your using that old classic tactic of running out of tricks in your debunk bag and focusing on a specific member in a discussion to thwart the flow of the issue. You seem to forget that I did just that kind of crap years ago, and it wont work here because I will spot you out each time you do it to attempt to divert the discussion from the issue to rediculing a member.

Im on your tail dude, and since you insist on pointing the attention at me, I will be there to bounce it right back at you and make it very clear for everyone to see.

Now if you had bothered to actually read in full context to my post, you will find that I was not referencing the STS 48 video, but the STS 114 video, and that the object in the STS 114 video does NOT swoosh like an ice particle does with a thruster blast.

Once again...your caught. Keep it going tho, because each time you do it, is each time I will spot you out and others are begining to see your obvious mission here. But unfortunately for you, you have never had someone who was once on that side of the fence of debunking for NASA, now works for the good guy side and will definately go the distance to expose your purpose here.

Lets dance.




Cheers!!!!



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 01:13 PM
link   
Reply to Majorian and Branty,

I think that the 'burden of proof' is on the one making the extraordinary claim.

Technically, that challenge rests with people asserting that it's an intelligently guided ET craft. Jim Oberg's explanation is extraordinary also, due to the fact that most people can't conceive or mentally picture that an object can change direction in an imagined vacuum. Between each extraordinary claim, the ET guided craft is more so.

There are precedents and examples of similar behavior posted by several other members that at the least support the possibility that Jim Oberg's explanation is more 'prosaic'.

There aren't conclusive precedents and examples to support the explanation that an intelligently guided craft has been filmed entering Earth's atmosphere and executing a deliberate maneuver. On that basis, I interpret this as being the more extraordinary claim. The natural extension of this interpretation is that the burden of proof rests with those that assert it


I won't confine myself to a conclusive stance, but I tend towards the more reasonable explanation offered by the 'less extraordinary' side of the debate
Based on the evidence and argument offered in these pages, it seems unreasonable to take either explanation with complete certainty.

To use a criminal trial analogy, can anyone say that this case has been proven 'beyond reasonable doubt?'



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 01:20 PM
link   
Some of the evidence on context that will help provide a persuasive argument for ordinariness for the view under discussion takes awhile to collect. So far we have been able to obtain:

the time of the episode

the crew activity plan for the time of the episode

the solar illumination conditions during the event

contemporary events occurring during the episode,
such as a major water dump

the Orbiter position in space, and attitude

the identity and location of the camera being used

None of this information has ever been published before. It is illuminating to see how many posters on this thread defend staying ignorant of it, and call this contextual evidence 'distractions', 'rants', and 'clutter'.

I submit that is the strongest evidence that their argued interpretation is weak -- they react very negatively to providing additional factual context about the original event. They attack the very idea of needing a more complete knowledge of the actual event.

What remains to be obtained includes:

A much longer video of the preceding and following ten minutes or so, time-tagged and with air-to-ground voice.

RCS thruster time history during the event interval

Autopilot parameters of deadband and attitude, and attitude errors

MCC logs on activities concerning other potential sources of effluent, particularly the aft flash evaporator and the three tail-located Auxiliary Power Units, one of which is turned on briefly on the day before landing as part of the 'FCS Checkout' activity (Flight Control systems).

Now, once this becomes available, if the facts warrent it a strong case can be made for a prosaic explanation -- at this point it remains a 'possible' but not proven hypothesis.

Question is -- will the 'pro-UFO' team EVER accept a prosaic explanation? It's pretty clear they have vowed to never do so, to never accept any 'supposed' evidence that argues for one.

For symmetry, I want to say that the 'anti-UFO' dissenters would probably be delighted to find evidence for an extraordinary cause -- of an exact type yet to be determined.

'Unexplainable' results is how science advances, and in space, is how you notice things that could be very important for the mission, even for survival (re the broken-off piece of Columbia's wing, which was briefly outside their windows but tragically nobody noticed, or if they did, thought it worth mentioning).

NASA operators in Mission Control seek out unknown visual effects, rather than ignore them, because of their potential criticality. They are HOPING for 'true UFOs' so they can find out what they really mean for the mission.
It's why the quickly recognize and see through the ordinary junk, so as to find anything extraordinary.

Back to the question of pro-UFO folks EVER accepting 'preponderance of evidence' for a prosaic explanation.

We have a test case. All the desired data, on the list above, has already been located and placed on the Internet, about the famous STS-48 zig-zagger. It is linked to, above.

I ask, for the sake of calibration of degree of open-mindedness, for those who believe STS-48 represents an unexplainable event (a conclusion reached, as we have seen, in the utter absence of any technical context information, even whether the scene is day or night), to look over the offered contextual information and describe what it might prove, or what conclusions it might modify.

In other words, are you even capable of accepting new evidence and altering your current opinions (in this case, on STS-48, because it is MUCH better documented)?

Zorgon? Branty? RF? Please let us know.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kandinsky
I think that the 'burden of proof' is on the one making the extraordinary claim.

Technically, that challenge rests with people asserting that it's an intelligently guided ET craft.


If you will notice Kandinsky, I nor anyone I'm aware of have stated that the objects in question are ET craft. Up till now, it has been rightfully labeled as a UFO; which is an unidentified flying object and not alien spacecraft.

You're certainly right about the burden of proof on those making the extraordinary claim.. 'Ice Particles' being the extraordinary claim.


But even if the objects were for example say.. a form of plasma life.. how exactly does that constitute 'extraordinary'?



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

As to the object 'coming up through the atmosphere', that is an interpretation, not an observation. The dot APPEARS at a point near the horizon, where we also know the edge of the Orbiter's shadow is stretching out.


You obviously must believe that people cannot see with their own eys and observe what happens in that STS 48 video.

Look behind the object when it moves up from the atmosphere, there is a considerable distance from that object to the rim of the Earth behind it.

Interpretation is either based on hearing, or seeing. Without either of those two, there is only assumption..to which you seem to utilize quite a lot here.

Orbiter's shadow? What shadow? Where? Are you even aware of the sun angle in that video and where any shadow of the shuttle would be?





Originally posted by JimOberg
An alternative explanation is that it became sunlit at that point as it drifted, ten or twenty feet out, across the umbra boundary.



Interesting "theory"...to which was suggested years ago, and that was thrown out with the garbage back then....how you ask? Simple...there are other objects close by that are ALREADY lit up by the sun.

The STS 48 object moves up INTO the sunlight and is illuminated once it moves into the field of sunlight. It can be clearly seen this object moves upward and through the atmosphere from a point between being unlit by the sun due to the Earth's shadow, and then into the sunlight region byond the shadow of the Earth.

An ice particle does NOT fly up through the atmosphere.

Unless you got some verifiable proof of an ice particle doing just that..I think we are done here with the STS 48 video object as being some lame ice particle...as was established YEARS ago friend.

Your beating an already dead horse lame NASA excuse to death here. Waste of our time.


Cheers!!!!



new topics

top topics



 
96
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join