NASA STS-114 UFO Footage - Can it be debunked?

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by RFBurns
Acutally you are wrong. The contextual evidence was considered very seriously, and even analyzed to death more so than the object in question in ANY of the STS videos which contained a "UFO".

Well, I sure could have missed it, being deeply involved in my real life. Please help me out and show a few links to the discussions of the thruster firing issue on STS-48, for example. Jack Kasher was involved early on, I recall... but he never 'got it' either.

Do you know how to use a search engine?

Simply type in the search box "STS-48 forum discussions"..without the quotes, and you will get a ton of results to sift through.



Cheers!!!!

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by RFBurns
As Hitler once said..."Tell a big lie enough times and eventually people will believe it". So how's the old crowd in there doing these days anyway..you know..those "Paper Clip" left overs running NASA these days?

Hoo-boy...

Look it up.

The last step of the losing arguer is insinuating his opponents are Nazis.

It's a time-tested classical criterion.

Hoo boy...how does it feel to have your own tactic used against you.

Told you I would be on your tail to show others here how you work.



Cheers!!!!

reply to post by Kandinsky

Originally posted by Kandinsky
Majorian, your previous posts in this thread have been open to misinterpretation if you now claim to being open minded and making no assumptions about the video

If anyone interpreted my observations with my previous posts in regards to the footage as claiming the objects to be 'extraterrestrial'... then yes, my assertions have been misinterpreted. My only assertion was that the 'Ice Particle' explanation just doesn't fit. And of course my questions have gone conveniently unanswered till now.

Go back to my posts regarding the STS-48 video, and you'll see all the questions I brought up. Nothing would make happier if anyone could answer those questions Kandinsky

I am open minded. But I also know when someone's trying to sell me something. Where I live, you got people trying to sell you something all the time, and you quickly learn the routine I assure you.

Originally posted by RFBurns
As Hitler once said..."Tell a big lie enough times and eventually people will believe it".

It was not Hitler, it was Joseph Goebbels, the Reich Minister of Propaganda.

The full quote is:

If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.

I don't know if this can be applied in this case, but I am sure other members think that it can.

[edit on 5/3/2009 by ArMaP]

Originally posted by RFBurns
It only proves that the shadow is making the B square "appear" to be like the A square becasue B square is in a shadow. But the B square is in fact white and not the same color.

That is the point.
...

No. The shadow and the geometry makes the B square look like it's not the same colour as the A square. The B square is the same shade of grey as the A square.

You said:

You can step each square from either the x line or the y line and see that A is grey, B is white even tho it is in the shadow.

So where are you getting that both are of the same color?

Which is incorrect too.

There's a better explanation of how it works here.

Originally posted by RFBurns
Hoo boy...how does it feel to have your own tactic used against you.

You've lost me. When did I ever insinuate you had any Nazi characteristics?

Trying to follow your comments really is making my head spin.

Originally posted by RFBurns
Simply type in the search box "STS-48 forum discussions"..without the quotes, and you will get a ton of results to sift through.

I don't want tons of results. I want a few that discussed what I thought was 'new evidence' about the technical context of the event. You said the evidence was already discussed and refuted. Please prove it.

Specifically, where is it discussed and disproved my observation that the thruster burn time is the only time that any of the dots on the FOV change motion direction. None before. None after. Only during that brief interval.

Where was this refuted?

Where was it discussed and refuted, about my observation that there is a shadow zone extending 'into' the field of view, cast by the Orbiter, and that particles inside the zone are not seen, but become visible when they drift across the boundary into sunlight.

Where was that disproved?

Burden of Proof and all the other stuff aside...

Would it not seem logical that IF you had proof that they were indeed ice particles... now would be an opportune time to present that evidence... and put an end to the debate once and for all?

Problem is you CAN NOT do that... because IF you HAD such conclusive evidence you would not have hesitated to slap us in the face with it...

So in the end all you bring to the table is your opinion that they are all particles of ice or debris.

Originally posted by zorgon
Burden of Proof and all the other stuff aside...

Would it not seem logical that IF you had proof that they were indeed ice particles... now would be an opportune time to present that evidence... and put an end to the debate once and for all?

Problem is you CAN NOT do that... because IF you HAD such conclusive evidence you would not have hesitated to slap us in the face with it...

So in the end all you bring to the table is your opinion that they are all particles of ice or debris.

For decades there are reports of UFOs. Some of those are analyzed and remain 'unidentified' and inconclusive. It's impossible to prove what an observer saw. Likewise, it's disingenuous to ask for proof that the object was an ice particle. It's impossible to prove. Proof is an abstract concept for this thread. No contention is provable.

'Burden of proof and all the other stuff aside...' is untenable. If we leave all that aside we are left with nothing more than a video representing anything we want to see. Supporting evidence for explanations adds substance and is unavoidable.

To try to move the ball forward and untangle the mutual taunting, apropos of the desire to show the conventional ordinariness of shuttle videos often misinterpreted as UFOs, what sort of 'ordinary' shuttle videos of obvious nearby particles would be helpful in creating a collection of 'normal scenes. to which the supposedly abnormal scenes can be compared?

I've got some VHS tapes showing a water dump spewing particles through the Orbiter shadow until they suddenly 'appear' about 20 feet out, moving away in a fan, but individual pieces collide and bounce in all directions. You practically can see the shadow of the Orbiter on the receding cloud of particles. As sunrise progresses and sunlit Earth comes under the Orbiter, it back reflects light into the shadow and the particles become visible for their entire route out from the dump port. Another video shows a cloud of such particles half an hour later, below and ahead of the Orbiter, preceding it into the night side.

Also I need to get some videos of the APU exhaust firing up, and the flash evaporator -- two non-water sources of effluent back by the Orbiter tail. I finally have the software to make digital files of these, for posting on youtube.

What other kinds of 'ordinary' unearthly scenes would be helpful in building an appreciation in viewers of what passes for 'prosaic' in outer space?

What comments by the 114 crew would be helpful? I ran across Andy Thomas in the hall when I was up at JSC for an ISS expedition crew presser yesterday, we discussed a number of each of our own recent activities, and I mentioned the on-going discussion of the video from his flight. He acknowledged the videos could sometimes look weird, and added a comment or two about 'conspiracy nuts' that probably aren't printable. Maybe I'll ask him for an attributable quotation of explanation -- what would be of interest?

My point is that we don't yet have enough evidence to make a persuasive case either way -- this is different from those who are convinced they already HAVE a persuasive case and don't WANT any more evidence. Leave them stew in their own ignorance -- what can the rest of us do to find out more?

Originally posted by zorgon
Problem is you CAN NOT do that... because IF you HAD such conclusive evidence you would not have hesitated to slap us in the face with it...

Zorgon, you and RF and others have been slapped in the face by stark reality already so many times you're punch drunk and don't even notice it. Every technical assertion you guys have made about how space 'MUST' be like, or what the space shuttle can 'secretly' do, has been refuted with checkable, verifiable independent citations.

You don't even try to prove your slimey lie that I'm a paid agent of the disinformation forces, you just keep sayin it and finding consolation in it with the weird notion that because I am answering your challenges, it must mean the Dark Forces really fear you. Of course, if I didn't answer, you would consider it proof that the Dark Forces really feared you.



[edit on 5-3-2009 by JimOberg]

Originally posted by zorgon
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...

First, please call me DOF, no DOP, thanks.

How you can see that the white dots are not ice particles?
They can be, and a lot of situations and explainings were described here to argument the posibility.

Your bold phrase "absurd assumption" is based on what? What is your argumented contribution down to ice particles, to this thread to say such words? So, is just a flaming opinion.

I don't think anyone can proove 100% they are ice particles. But until now, it was prooved in different aspects that ice/junk debris can appear and act just like this. And ice debris are common in shuttle activities.



So, what was prooved until now, is that dismissing ice particles solution is more like an ignorant approach.

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

It is NOT just a matter of believing...is a matter of understanding. Brain work.

Originally posted by franspeakfree
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 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.

Ok, this is a proof that someone really understand the concept of a 2D projection of a trajectory beeing deceiving about the real movement of an object. This is argument for brain activity, not just "look what my eyes see!.

thanks Franspeakfree to beeing really open minded.

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

The same old superficiality. Man, you should understand that ONLY seeing a 2D projection of a 3D situation can be very deceiving.

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.

wow..how you put a white dot exactly into or near the Earth atmosphere? beacause your eyes see this?
A question for you: assume a little ice particle, 5 mm in size, 5 meters away from camera, lit by the sun, and exactly in the same direction (exaclty the same position in the image frame) as the object there. How we should see it? response: as a white dot, near the edge of the Earth atmosphere. Can you told the distance to the white dot? no! you accepted many posts ago: "First off, there is indeed no way to say its near or far"... You choose only what you want...

Interpretation is either based on hearing, or seeing. Without either of those two, there is only assumption..

But a lot of BRAIN ACTIVITY is necessary to rule out the great posibility that the hearing and seeing to easy deceive you, if left alone. Remember how you fail of the gray squares test, because of the rush to believe only what your eyes see.

And, the same brain activity shows that a 2D image doesn't capture the depth dimension. And when you said "look the white dot it is in or near the Earth atmosphere", you demonstrate again and again the same mistake of believing only what your eyes basically see.

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.

not clearly at all. You forget (or sadly dismiss) again the third dimension. It can be very well a small particle, near the shuttle and entering or exiting the shuttle shadow. This variant use the common debris existence, the common situation with shuttle shadow and doesn't break any physical laws. Thus is not an extraordinary claim at all. But an object beeing into or near the atmosphere and changing suddenly the direction, it assumes great velocities, great sizes and brokening phisycal laws, so it is an extraordinary claim. Then PROOVE IT. Of course i agree with you, the STS-48 is off-topic here, but, remember, not a "debunker" first proposed on this topic, but a "believer"!

An ice particle does NOT fly up through the atmosphere.

Who says this? We are talking about ice particles near the shuttle. Again derailing to the mistake of assuming depth in a 2D image?

[edit on 5/3/09 by depthoffield]

Originally posted by RFBurns
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.

Wrong. It just APPEARS to do so. Overlaying fooling your eyes.

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

great distance you said? wrong assuming again. If an ice particle is at great distance, it cannot be seen. Simple.

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

Have you any laser/radar to measure the distance to a white dot on the 2D image recorded? So you dismiss a good posibility because you wish this.

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

No, it is inanimate.

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

We all see this.

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

You see, when you wrongly assume the great distance, you begin to strech the phisycs and create monsters.

This ice particle must have intelligence.

Wrong. Your wrong conclusion is based on wrong assumptions.


[edit on 5/3/09 by depthoffield]

Originally posted by RFBurns
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?

Yes, i'm familiar with inertia. In space, all the objects, NO MATTER their mass or shape, will maintain their speed constantly IF NO FORCE alter their movement. So, a little ice flake or a heavy shuttle it doesn't matter. All it matters is the force acting on the mass, if any.

Originally posted by RFBurns
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.

Agree here.

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?

I've proposed several solutions here, all valid more or less but not imposible, why you ask again, didn't you read? Ok, i'll repeat for you:

A) atmospheric drag, solar pressure, magnetic or electric field effect if applicable, all of this beeing real forces acting to this particle. Unfortunately, most of these are hard to quantify by me, and until a good and deep lesson will clarify, i cannot totally eliminate this forces since they can exist and can have differential effects to different objects with different properties in specific conditions. Read this:

Originally posted by nablator
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.

So you tottally dismis the A) variant because ?... where is the argument?


B) relative movement of the particle relative to the shuttle, because changing trajectory of the shuttle, or the particle, in their ROUND orbit arround the earth, so no need of a real force acting on the particle. Read this:

Originally posted by Doc Velocity

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:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/252254294c3b.gif[/atsimg]

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.

So, you are totally dismiss the B) variant because...? where is you argument?


C) variant most plausible for me: The shuttle is constantly ACCELERATING during that movie, so the particle, which first have a little more speed than the shuttle, is then catched and left behind. The apple thrown mental experiment. I've detailed the aparent curved trajectory seen from the edge as becoming a sharp turned 2D projection. And here is no need of any real force acting on the particle, since the shuttle is the one changing movement (acelerating)

Here i have to detail more, as i promise to do some drawing showing this.


[next]

Originally posted by RFBurns
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?

Response: we may not see another particles reacting the same, maybe because the real force is different depending by the particular properties of the particle or the distance (paralax).Or, as variant B) and C) says, there is no force involved acting to the particles, and only the paralax have differential results.

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!

No, you are wrong and simplifying things, there are plenty of videos with debris, which are NOT "swooshing" at all, or maybe very little. None, less or more, depending by their position relative to the thruster blast, and the paralax too. The "shooshing" is not a "MUST" to be ice particle. Don't simplify this.

like this one:

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

This can be an indication that here we don't have tipical thruster sudden blast. The objects and shuttle are moving steady (or accelerating steady-the shuttle).

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.

Why you assume that this particle in the OP is identical in movement and conditions of viewing with those ice debris in my previous video? My previous video was an example of curved trajectory and changing direction, and little particle appearing visible in the image, and only this. More, it was shot with cameras Automatic Gain Control set to daylight situation, but OP was with AGC set to maximum gain because filming dark side of the Earth, the direction of filming differ, so the situation was not the same.

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

Wrong, you see the things too simplistic.

Originally posted by ArMaP

I don't know if this can be applied in this case, but I am sure other members think that it can.

But who was telling the lies eh?

Can we get back to the freakin subject of the STS 114 video or is this showboating going to continue?

Man...I dont think I have ever seen so much derailing efforts in a single thread before.

Intimidation doesnt work..first sign of it occured today..tell them they have to do way better than that! Heh.


Cheers!!!!

Originally posted by depthoffield
Response: we may not see another particles reacting the same, maybe because the real force is different depending by the particular properties of the particle or the distance (paralax).Or, as variant B) and C) says, there is no force involved acting to the particles, and only the paralax have differential results.

Why of course we will see the particles at various points react differently to a thruster blast...read on....

Originally posted by depthoffield
No, you are wrong and simplifying things, there are plenty of videos with debris, which are NOT "swooshing" at all, or maybe very little. None, less or more, depending by their position relative to the thruster blast, and the paralax too. The "shooshing" is not a "MUST" to be ice particle. Don't simplify this.

like this one:

Your image above is the prime example of seeing the differences of these particles reacting to the thruster blast. Do you see the two that are very close "swoosh" off upward across the frame, and that one off in the distance barely moves from the blast?

So you once again provide us more evidence for our side that the object in STS 114 is not reacting like ANY of those particles in your example.

Originally posted by depthoffield
Why you assume that this particle in the OP is identical in movement and conditions of viewing with those ice debris in my previous video? My previous video was an example of curved trajectory and changing direction, and little particle appearing visible in the image, and only this. More, it was shot with cameras Automatic Gain Control set to daylight situation, but OP was with AGC set to maximum gain because filming dark side of the Earth, the direction of filming differ, so the situation was not the same.

Huh? I hardly would say that I am the one who is assuming the object in the OP video is like one of the ice particles in your video and picture examples...quite the opposite..as anyone with a 2nd grade level reading comprehension can figure out.

Originally posted by depthoffield

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

Wrong, you see the things too simplistic.

"Simplicity is the sincerest form of science." A. Einstein.


Cheers!!!!