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

page: 4
96
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 


Thanks for the video, that clears it up for me and I agree they are not sprites.

Is there a way to tell if they are self illuminating or if they are reflecting another light source?




posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by intriguedUK
reply to post by Exopolitico
 



Have you never kicked a ball into the air? They do this here on earth all the time, without being intelligently controlled therefore I would say its not that simple to state this as conclusive proof of UFOs as from the video we can not identify what the obect is and what forces are acting upon it.


Hello intriguedUK. Your ball analogy is irrelevant in this case. Why? We are talking about a scenario in which there is no gravity. In a zero gravity environment, a natural object cannot stop in mid air and change direction. This object not only stopped, it changed course at almost 180 degrees. That, my friend, is impossible unless there is intelligence behind that maneuver.

Now, if I were to kick a ball in a zero-gravity environment, you know that ball will go on forever, unless its attracted by a gravitational force.

Now, did you notice how an object went from left to right and the bright object seem to have stopped when the other object went by and it looks as if it were following it? Just an observation.


[edit on 23-2-2009 by Exopolitico]



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 03:51 PM
link   


 



tobefree.wordpress.com... /2008/05/16/nasa-space-shuttle-footage-ufo-missed-by-ground-based-energy-pulse-weapon/







Have another look at this one, just for giggles.
Clearly there is something in this, what i dont know but its nothing realining.



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 04:02 PM
link   
That's right Pazcat. That is the CLASSIC. Object moves to the left; bright light appears/missile/laser, and the object changes direction at a tremendous high speed.

Oh, wait! That was the debunked one. Didn't they say it was the shuttle booster that propelled the object? Sure, the boosters would have an effect at such distance.

[edit on 23-2-2009 by Exopolitico]



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by depthoffield
 


I wondered when you might pipe up


I will ask you again, why are the astronaughts aboard these shuttle missions using their valuable time filming ice crystals/lens anomalies from there window?

often, like this time, when they are the only thing in shot?

Even zooming in on individual "ice crystals" (
) to track them?

Why use infra red?

From your posts its blatently obvious to me you are a disinfo agent.

& so full of it!


[edit on 23/2/09 by cropmuncher]



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 04:11 PM
link   




Your explanation makes total sense to me. It looks like all the "believers" chose to ignore it.



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 04:12 PM
link   
never saw the first one before great vid!



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Quazze

Originally posted by RFBurns

I cant wait to hear this one explained away.



It was explained with elite detail, but perhaps you are being naive to accept the logic. This is truly an amazing video and easily can lead you down a puzzling tunnel. But why do you automatically assume it is an intelligently controlled spacecraft from an unknown region just because you, yourself, cannot explain it.

I do not mean to rag on or demean you, but it is disappointing when individuals like yourself become so close minded.


Actually I think I am being quite open minded about it. I also think I have followed up my reasons for not thinking it would be ice, or junk or a satellite, to which all are quite reasonable and logical conclusions to why it would not be any of those things I have mentioned.


Cheers!!!!



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Exopolitico
 



OK I'll give you that it was not necessarily a good example, but given that there is no sense of scale within the video and we have no indication of the size of the object, the distance it is away from the shuttle or other objects, the size of it compared to those surrounding it, or its distance from the earths atmosphere i don't think that it can just be assumed that it must be being intelligently controlled. If the other object for example is in orbit, it would be affected differently from something in freefall entering an atmosphere or being dragged into the earths gravitational pull. I'm not saying that either of these are the case, just that there are other things that could possibly be happening.



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 04:20 PM
link   
I never understood why all nasa's space/shuttle cameras that shows ufos have the same quality as a 10$ webcam....

the videos shows really nothing and has no infos about speed or other characteristics.



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Nichiren
 


We ignore the ice theory because for one, the shuttle is well parked up in orbit during this video, it is not on its way up. Second, that object goes into the upper stratosphere, and at the speeds it approaches that upper stratosphere, any ice would burn up, or junk would also burn up.

Third, the object is not moving directly away behind the shuttle to not be able to see how fast it is traveling or to be taken as something falling off the shuttle during its orbital insertion. It is moving from right to left, not directly backwards.

Fourth, ice and junk do not slow down, turn and head in the other direction.

Unless now there is intelligent ice and junk floating around up there that just suddenly decides to jump into camera view and pull stunts like slow down, turn and move in another direction.

I think the ice theory, and junk theory..are just that...the ice theory is frozen over and the junk theory belongs in the junk pile.

I would buy the satellite theory before the ice/junk theory.



Cheers!!!!



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by RFBurns
 


Thank you for your post. Where is your point of reference for scale in that video?



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 04:25 PM
link   
I think we are seeing the effects of small changes in the motion of the shuttle, orbital corrections.

1) Notice that all of the lights (except the ones in question) display the same relative motion through the video. They all move slowly toward the top of the frame. This indicates that they are stars and light sources on Earth, the movement being an indication of the general movement of the shuttle in its orbit.

2) The first, bright object moves across the frame from right to left. Now, it could be moving to the left relative to the shuttle, or the shuttle could be moving to the right relative to it. There is no way to tell the difference.

3) As the apparent movement of this object slows, it could be slowing, or the movement of the shuttle relative to it could be changing. If that's the case, why then does the apparent motion of the other lights not change? If the mystery object is very much closer to the shuttle than the lights, parallax would cause a small change in the velocity of the shuttle to be much more visible on the near object than on the very distant sources of light.

4) Note that shortly after the apparent motion of the "important" object begins to reverse, another very dim object becomes visible, moving from left to right as well.

Summary: an object (ice, junk, etc.) is nearby the shuttle, with a relative motion to the left. The shuttle accelerates gently to the left, causing the relative motion to slow and eventually reverse. The dim object is on a slightly different trajectory and is closer to the camera, causing it to appear to be moving faster. The change in velocity is not visible in the other lights because of their distance.



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 04:30 PM
link   
BTW: could somebody please provide a link with better video quality. Youtube compression is terrible.



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by depthoffield
 


First off, there is indeed no way to say its near or far. But isnt it funny how all you debunkers always say that its near the camera or shuttle. That is no more different from me or anyone else saying it is far away.

Touche.

Second, anything falling off the shuttle is not going to get dragged off when your in a vacume. The tether video when it breaks off is the perfect example of something comming loose from the shuttle..such as your ice particle. That tether does NOT move away from the shuttle at break neck speeds. It gradually moves away as its velocity decreases since the shuttle is no longer holding on to it.

Third, there is no indication in the video that the shuttle fired its rear thrusters, we do not see any thruster plume flash when this object changes directions. Nor do we see any shuttle thruster plume flash when this object slows down and then makes its turn and heads off in another direction.

That pretty much rules out a piece of ice falling off the shuttle. And again, the shuttle is already in its orbit path, it is not on its way up. It is just traveling along in its orbit and suddenly this object comes into view, zipping from right to left.

This isnt no ice particle or junk. As I said before, I would buy the debunk excuse of a satellite correcting its trajectory than the ice/junk...junk.

But then again, no satellite would have enough fuel much less thruster power to overcome the intertia and speed that this thing is moving along at, then also have enough to change direction and then move off swiftly.

Maybe its a new type of space weather ballon.




Cheers!!!!



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 04:30 PM
link   
Now, I just noticed something others have not. If they have mentioned it, I apologize for re-posting. Take a look at second 21. If you blink you will miss it. There is what seems to be a stationary object and then, another (not as bright) object goes from left to right. Right when its going under the object, lightning seems to be coming out, almost as if the intent was hostile. And that's when the other ship seems to go from left to right as well.

We keep hearing of dogfights "up there". This may not be as far fetched as it sounds.

[edit on 23-2-2009 by Exopolitico]



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


If that were the case we would see the lights change orientation on the surface that are shining.

Cmon, the shuttle would have to do a center pivot rotational change for it to be that, yet we do not see the ground lights change orientation.

Whats next in the bag-o-scuses?



Cheers!!!!

[edit on 23-2-2009 by RFBurns]



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nichiren
reply to post by RFBurns
 


Thank you for your post. Where is your point of reference for scale in that video?



I base that on the lights we see from the surface, this ojbect is slightly larger. Not accurate but who cares. Its obviously not any ice or junk or near the shuttle. No shuttle thruster plume flash to redirect a floating piece of ice...oh wait...this is not floating, its zipping along from right to left...then slows down over a good distance...still no shuttle thruster plume flash....then this object stops and changes direction....almost forgot..still no shuttle thruster plume flash....then the object moves away almost 180 degrees from its original trajectory.....and nope..still no shuttle thruster plume flash.

Next?



Cheers!!!!



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 04:42 PM
link   
reply to post by RFBurns
 


What surface are you talking about? Is this re video 1 on page 1?

[edit on 23-2-2009 by Nichiren]



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 04:42 PM
link   
Here is another example of NASA obviously testing the waters for public disclosure...

They do it again and again, time after time..example after example...

Yet what do WE do? We debate it than rather push them for the answers. We let them sit back and watch us argue if it is or isn't something.

In a way I have come round to NASA (NAZA) as deceptive and corrupt these guys are, in the way they can always say "Hey we even showed you guys the vision from our missions - yet you choose to go on the "what could that be", rather than take it for what it is - a UFO". They have covered their arses by doing this too.

Debunkers and skeptics on these types of obvious threads are really truly annoying and either show their total ignorance in the fact they just can't believe what their left brains see.

Don't even bother replying 'debunker' or 'skeptic' you're on my ignore list anyway.

The people that do believe or know, it is frustrating to have this proof yet the sheep are asleep, and preoccupied with the doom and gloom economy to even want to know about open main stream discussion. They have been hypnotized by their main stream 'news' to care little outside that small box.

wZn






top topics



 
96
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join