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: 42
96
<< 39  40  41    43  44  45 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by depthoffield

Originally posted by RFBurns
reply to post by depthoffield
 


Did you ignore the rest of the quote..."WITHOUT OUTSIDE INFLUENCE".



No, you didn't read it. it was there. Pay attention!



[edit on 7/3/09 by depthoffield]


Ya, its there, I read it, I wrote it, the point is..YOU didnt read it or even put it into your reverse tactic attack becasue then you would have no basis for attack.

Pretty simple there. With your self proclaimed superior intelligence, you should be able to figure that one out......or can you? Maybe its "too" simple for you.


So...lets nail you to the wall here....provide proof that the object in the STS 114 video is an ice particle.

Lets nail your mentor to the wall....provide proof that the object in the STS 114 video is an ice particle.

No self proclaimed samples, or assumption examples....only verifiable, undeniable proof from THAT video only..the STS 114 video.


Cheers!!!!




posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns

Originally posted by depthoffield

Originally posted by RFBurns
reply to post by depthoffield
 


Did you ignore the rest of the quote..."WITHOUT OUTSIDE INFLUENCE".



No, you didn't read it. it was there. Pay attention!



[edit on 7/3/09 by depthoffield]


Ya, its there, I read it, I wrote it, the point is..YOU didnt read it or even put it into your reverse tactic attack because then you would have no basis for attack.

No, it is not an attack, is a response to you when you ask me to show you where you dismissed the posibility of an ice particle making 180 degree turns.
Anyway, you harass me, but the point is another: you accepted lately that indeed ice debris can make 180 degree turns, despite first you dismissed this as an argument against ice debris solution. So the ice debris solution is valid from this point of view, which is : can make 180 degree turns.




With your self proclaimed superior intelligence,

Look who's talking: we learned multiple times from your mouth that you have 12 (if i remember the number) years of forum activities, have diplomas, courses, in high demanding domains, you know every tactics etcetera, etcetera. You are indeed a master, this anyone may conclude from your many self-laudative words.



So...lets nail you to the wall here....

is this your purpose here?



provide proof that the object in the STS 114 video is an ice particle.

Along the topic, i've provided arguments sustaining the real posibility of ice debris doing this. A solution just refuted by many of you, the "believers" and quoted as "BS old theory" or somethnig like this, based on the "seeing is believing" yours theory.

I can't prove it is an ice debris particle. Maybe is an insulation flake, a frosty piece of propelant or any junk posible in flight. I only argumented the real posibility of beeing somethink of this.

[edit on 7/3/09 by depthoffield]



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 12:23 PM
link   



I can't prove it is an ice debris particle. Maybe is an insulation flake, a frosty piece of propelant or any junk posible in flight. I only argumented the real posibility of beeing somethink of this.


Maybe it is a UFO, that little guy turned and booked

Lurker strikes

[edit on 7-3-2009 by branty]



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by depthoffield
No, it is not an attack, is a response to you when you ask me to show you where you dismissed the posibility of an ice particle making 180 degree turns.
Anyway, you harass me, but the point is another: you accepted lately that indeed ice debris can make 180 degree turns, despite first you dismissed this as an argument against ice debris solution. So the ice debris solution is valid from this point of view, which is : can make 180 degree turns.


I think you just misinterpret what I write. I never claimed that an ice particle cannot possibly do a 180 turn about. I dismiss the argument that the object in the STS 114 video is an ice particle. The ice debris solution is not valid in this case to me because I do not believe it is an ice particle.




Originally posted by depthoffield

With your self proclaimed superior intelligence,

Look who's talking: we learned multiple times from your mouth that you have 12 (if i remember the number) years of forum activities, have diplomas, courses, in high demanding domains, you know every tactics etcetera, etcetera. You are indeed a master, this anyone may conclude from your many self-laudative words.


Even someone who has mastered a skill can always learn more, to which I always am open to learning new things. But unlike some, I do not just blindly accept everything put forth to me without giving it due consideration..to which I have in this entire case of the STS 114 object. I have not seen any other evidence yet that convinces me this object is a mere ice particle or waste dump chunk or debris.


Originally posted by depthoffield

So...lets nail you to the wall here....

is this your purpose here?


My purpose here is to discuss and discover what that object is in the STS 114 video. However, I have been met with other purposes by others within this thread, and it is quite obvious to many who have been keeping up with it. I have many times tried to get this thread back on track, only to come back and find more attacks and finger pointing at me, so basically...when that happens, I bite back.



Originally posted by depthoffield

provide proof that the object in the STS 114 video is an ice particle.

Along the topic, i've provided arguments sustaining the real posibility of ice debris doing this. A solution just refuted by many of you, the "believers" and quoted as "BS old theory" or somethnig like this, based on the "seeing is believing" yours theory.


I have said that you deserve credit for the evidence you have presented, but unfortunately I dont agree with it. Instead of just accepting that I dont agree with it, both you and Jim there have been trying so desperately over the last several days to sway my opinion. And as I have said before, hell will freeze over before that ever happens. So lets discuss about the subject instead of throwing mud at each other, I think we can get much further with some progress to figure out what exactly is that object in that video.

Seeing is all we have here with this video. Comparing it to others, thats been done, none of which are really comparing to this STS 114 object. Oh ya there are similarities of videos showing ice particles doing fancy hap hazard manuvers, but I have stated the object in STS 114 does no such hap hazard movement at all. To me that means there is something else going on in that video.


Originally posted by depthoffield
I can't prove it is an ice debris particle. Maybe is an insulation flake, a frosty piece of propelant or any junk posible in flight. I only argumented the real posibility of beeing somethink of this.


Possibly it could be an insulation flake, or perhaps even one of the white tiles that somehow dislodged from the hull of the shuttle. You see I do keep an open mind about all this. What I will close my mind to is the repetitive attempts to shove obvious BS down my throat. Here we have an actual alternative contribution of possibly being a piece of insulation or tile from the shuttle itself.

Now we are moving forward with the discussion.



Cheers!!!!



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
Maybe they are even under contract not to discuss their contract - or at least certain parts of it...


This is another handy explain-away-anything tool that provides excuses, for example, of spending hundreds of hours discussing the STS-114 UFO or the STS-48 UFO and never once asking the primary witnesses what THEY saw and interpreted it as. As far as I can tell from such discussions I've read, nobody even thinks it odd that the accepted practice is to AVOID talking to the primary witnesses.

That should be a clue about the 'investigation' process we're witnessing.



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by depthoffield
Again, I ask JimOberg to say from his experience how long accelerating thrusting can be while in orbit in different scenarious.


Firing of OMS engines is much less frequent than the pulses from the RCS engines, and can last 60 seconds or more for major maneuvers, 2 or 3 minutes for de-orbit burns. It also depends on whether one or two engines are selected.

Obtaining firing histories for RCS jets is much more time-consuming.



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
So have you decided what the object in the video actually is?
Is it an ice particle or debris or a satellite? Pick one. Please tell us what you have determined this 'UFO' to be - as you have not been clear in this regard.
In fact, you have been quite inconsistent with your assessments and determinations thus far and I would just like to know what you have concluded the object from the STS-114 video as being.


You aren't getting the point. There are a number of different plausible prosaic causes for such moving dots, just as there is a large number of potential effluent flows sources (I listed many, but not all, on an earlier post) to disturb the normal motion, or alter the Orbiter's own motion.

It is the WEALTH of such prosaic options that will require some additional investigation to differentiate among them.

The pro-UFO view is that there is NO prosaic option, not a single one. That has been refuted by the offering of several different possibilities.

The 'UFO' interpretation fails -- until every one of THOSE, and others as yet described, can be disproved. Closing your eyes and saying that one is personally intellectually unable to believe any prosaic explanation, is not a proof that such do not exist.

You seem confused about just who it is who has to prove what to whom.

With a lot more research, I can argue that I have proved the STS-48 dots are nearby sunlit debris disturbed by a thruster firing, but much of the key evidence that establishes this explanation (evidence that pro-UFO folks clearly do not even WANT to see, or want anyone ELSE to see) took a lot of work to obtain, and has not been obtained for the 114 case.

So the list of prosaic explanations remain plausible but unproven hypotheses -- that's all. And the fundamental claim that it MUST be a UFO because there CANNOT be a prosaic explanation, fails.

[edit on 7-3-2009 by JimOberg]



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
They perform simple adjustments to their orbital plots to maintain those orbits, not constantly fire thrusters continuously to be compensating for minor changes. If they were, every single one of them would run out of the very limited fuel capacity and plummit to the Earth....unless....your postulating that these satellites and the shuttle have another source of fuel that is not exaustable to maintain consistant acceleration to correct minor changes in orbital velocity and integrity. If that is the case, by all means enlighten us.




This is by far the most uninformed comment I've seen you make so far about space flight, and the competition has been fierce. This tops them all, however.

You are saying that if a space shuttle 'runs out of fuel', it will plummet to Earth.

Are you absolutely sure of this? We'll get back to this one.


BTW, your phrase "...to maintain consistant acceleration to correct minor changes in orbital velocity and integrity" means absolutely nothing to me. As I mentioned before, your garbled jumbled techno-jargon reminds me of a ransom note of words cut from a newspaper and strung together, but the kidnapper sneezed before the glue dried and the words got jumbled into gibberish phrases. What is 'orbital integrity'? What is 'consistant acceleration'? They may sound 'spacey' to a regular chap, but they're a dead giveaway to people familiar with orbital ops that the speaker is bloviating.




[edit on 7-3-2009 by JimOberg]



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
Your explanation is about as believable as the 72 hour BS of check list bunk after going into orbit before they can open up the bay doors.


Is this a highly-garbled reference to Zorgon's [or somebody's] suggestion that since it takes 72 hours for the shuttle to reach the space station (but only 4 hours for the Soyuz to return from the space station), this means the shuttle is secretly stopping off at stealth space facilities (perhaps in geosynchronous orbit?)?

As far as I can recall, neither I nor anyone else on this planet ever said it took 72 hours to open the bay doors -- if you think anyone ever said this (and your message suggests you do), your reading comprehension level has slipped even farther than we had initially feared.

The time it takes to rendezvous with the space station, closer to 48 hours than 72, and about the same both for shuttles and Soyuzes, has orbital dynamics reasons. The payload bay doors are opened as soon as the crew can get to it, within an hour of launch (and nobody AFAIK has ever said anyone different, excepting you), to get the thermal radiators deployed. Until they are operating, the Orbiter is cooled through the flash evaporator that generates -- dare I say this? -- a flow of ice particles that look like UFOs to some, but in so doing uses up a finite supply of available water.

[edit on 7-3-2009 by JimOberg]



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
You forget that I used to do the very game your playing as a profession...just as you do now.


So you DO know the debunker's secret charge number, invoice address, password, and decoder ring setting. Thank Gawd!

Quick, send it to me, this could make us both rich.



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
You aren't getting the point. There are a number of different plausible prosaic causes for such moving dots, just as there is a large number of potential effluent flows sources (I listed many, but not all, on an earlier post) to disturb the normal motion, or alter the Orbiter's own motion.

It is the WEALTH of such prosaic options that will require some additional investigation to differentiate among them.

The pro-UFO view is that there is NO prosaic option, not a single one. That has been refuted by the offering of several different possibilities.


So basically a long winded fancy way to say you have no idea what it actually is..




posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by RFBurns
They perform simple adjustments to their orbital plots to maintain those orbits, not constantly fire thrusters continuously to be compensating for minor changes. If they were, every single one of them would run out of the very limited fuel capacity and plummit to the Earth....unless....your postulating that these satellites and the shuttle have another source of fuel that is not exaustable to maintain consistant acceleration to correct minor changes in orbital velocity and integrity. If that is the case, by all means enlighten us.




This is by far the most uninformed comment I've seen you make so far about space flight, and the competition has been fierce. This tops them all, however.

You are saying that if a space shuttle 'runs out of fuel', it will plummet to Earth.

Are you absolutely sure of this? We'll get back to this one.


BTW, your phrase "...to maintain consistant acceleration to correct minor changes in orbital velocity and integrity" means absolutely nothing to me. As I mentioned before, your garbled jumbled techno-jargon reminds me of a ransom note of words cut from a newspaper and strung together, but the kidnapper sneezed before the glue dried and the words got jumbled into gibberish phrases. What is 'orbital integrity'? What is 'consistant acceleration'? They may sound 'spacey' to a regular chap, but they're a dead giveaway to people familiar with orbital ops that the speaker is bloviating.







Go preach to someone who gives a rat's ssa. Consider yourself ignored until you post something worthy of paying attention to.


Cheers!!!



[edit on 7-3-2009 by RFBurns]



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


Our NArseSA friend there woudl'nt know what bit him in the arse if it looked at him straight in the face.

Of course he has no idea what it is. When they dont have a clue they throw in everything else but the obvious just to make themselves sound important.

Self ego trip is what I recall it being refered to.

Big..fat and so overbloated ego that it "fits".


Cheers!!!!

[edit on 7-3-2009 by RFBurns]



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 05:40 PM
link   
It's great footage, period. As usual, there are replies by people whose sanity can be questioned. But the one point to consider, which few seem to do enough to voice it, is why is a shuttle camera aimed in that particular direction? Before that object appeared, paused and reversed direction, was there something similar that was seen by an astronaut and then the camera was focused on that area which otherwise just shows some stationary lights, some blinking, some not?

You don't have to be a UFO believer or skeptic to accept that what you are seeing in that video and in countless others is that something out of the ordinary is being videographed, for some reason.

If you want to believe that what you are seeing is debris, ice, etc., that's your perogative. But if that's your opinion...

There's another night video where a female astronaut is describing the night scene that is being video'ed pointing out that the space station is one of those lights in the distance when all of a sudden a bright circular light enters the scene at good speed and you hear the astronaut take a pregnanct pause! I guess she wasn't familiar with debris, ice, etc.!



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 05:44 PM
link   
Do we really need these kinds of replies? Why don't you people communicate privately? Who the hell enjoys these discourses? Certainly NOT me. I want to see replies that deal with the subject, not ridiculous personal attacks. Note the word "ridiculous."



Originally posted by RFBurns

Originally posted by depthoffield

Originally posted by RFBurns
reply to post by depthoffield
 


Did you ignore the rest of the quote..."WITHOUT OUTSIDE INFLUENCE".



No, you didn't read it. it was there. Pay attention!



[edit on 7/3/09 by depthoffield]


Ya, its there, I read it, I wrote it, the point is..YOU didnt read it or even put it into your reverse tactic attack becasue then you would have no basis for attack.

Pretty simple there. With your self proclaimed superior intelligence, you should be able to figure that one out......or can you? Maybe its "too" simple for you.


So...lets nail you to the wall here....provide proof that the object in the STS 114 video is an ice particle.

Lets nail your mentor to the wall....provide proof that the object in the STS 114 video is an ice particle.

No self proclaimed samples, or assumption examples....only verifiable, undeniable proof from THAT video only..the STS 114 video.


Cheers!!!!



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 05:51 PM
link   
Well, I'll be! Good ol' Jim is still pushing the tired ol' "...a flow of ice particles that look like UFOs to some, but in so doing uses up a finite supply of available water."

Get over it Jim, will you? Fortunately, NASA has released footage of debris, water dumps, ice particles, etc., and at no time do these items look or resemble what is seen in a hell of a lot of videos, particularly the one under discussion, STS-114. Maybe one of these days, one of these ice particles is going to come down and abduct you! (How the hell does one insert a smilie on here?) :-)



Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by RFBurns
Your explanation is about as believable as the 72 hour BS of check list bunk after going into orbit before they can open up the bay doors.


Is this a highly-garbled reference to Zorgon's [or somebody's] suggestion that since it takes 72 hours for the shuttle to reach the space station (but only 4 hours for the Soyuz to return from the space station), this means the shuttle is secretly stopping off at stealth space facilities (perhaps in geosynchronous orbit?)?

As far as I can recall, neither I nor anyone else on this planet ever said it took 72 hours to open the bay doors -- if you think anyone ever said this (and your message suggests you do), your reading comprehension level has slipped even farther than we had initially feared.

The time it takes to rendezvous with the space station, closer to 48 hours than 72, and about the same both for shuttles and Soyuzes, has orbital dynamics reasons. The payload bay doors are opened as soon as the crew can get to it, within an hour of launch (and nobody AFAIK has ever said anyone different, excepting you), to get the thermal radiators deployed. Until they are operating, the Orbiter is cooled through the flash evaporator that generates -- dare I say this? -- a flow of ice particles that look like UFOs to some, but in so doing uses up a finite supply of available water.

[edit on 7-3-2009 by JimOberg]



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Learhoag
Do we really need these kinds of replies? Why don't you people communicate privately? Who the hell enjoys these discourses? Certainly NOT me. I want to see replies that deal with the subject, not ridiculous personal attacks. Note the word "ridiculous."



Perhaps you should start at page 1 and work your way through and find where the "ridiculous" began and by whom and who it was that attempted more than once to return the thread to normal discussion.


Thank you.



Cheers!!!!



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Learhoag
(How the hell does one insert a smilie on here?) :-)




THere are a row of smilies to the right of the reply text box. Pick your flavor and there ya go.



Cheers!!!!



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 06:11 PM
link   
comments withdrawn.

[edit on 7-3-2009 by Kandinsky]



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 06:11 PM
link   
Jim Oberg said in a reply to someone: "With a lot more research, I can argue that I have proved the STS-48 dots are nearby sunlit debris disturbed by a thruster firing, but much of the key evidence that establishes this explanation (evidence that pro-UFO folks clearly do not even WANT to see, or want anyone ELSE to see) took a lot of work to obtain, and has not been obtained for the 114 case."

Jim: You may want to believe that your explanation is the only plausible one. But you make 2 mistakes: (1) is that you were not in space so you are basing your arguments using the same footage that we all saw and we all do not agree with you. (2) the flash(es) we see were not what affected that object that changed direction and sped away. This has been argued back and forth with people who accept your opinion and by others, more knowledgeable than the rest of us tyros, regardding speeds and angles, and their explanation sounds more logical than yours.

Additionally, it has been pointed out, ad nauseum, that the shuttle doesn't change from its position as it should if a thruster fired. After all, what is a thruster for if not to change position.

Finally, the shuttle was at distance because in sometimes unseen additional footage from that mission, we can see the shuttle camera zooming in and out, refocusing, etc. Something that is not needed IF those were really ice particles.

It looks like you will never give up your fanciful explanations but you're talking to down-to-earth (pun there!) average Joe's who cannot be convinced that what they're seeing is anything more than unknowns in space. There is too much footage of strange-acting ice particles, debris, etc., fleeting about earth, departing earth's atmosphere and arriving at earth's atmosphere and penetrating it. Not to say anything of those ice particles that arrived one at a time and neatly parked themselves in a circle!



new topics

top topics



 
96
<< 39  40  41    43  44  45 >>

log in

join