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: 43
96
<< 40  41  42    44  45  46 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 08:45 PM
link   
It doesn't really matter what page one starts at (I did at page 1). What is common not only here at ATS but in all forums is that people with questionable intelligence get involved and eventually, down the line, the OP becomes a battleground. There is nothing wrong with expressing your true feelings. But they should be taken off-board.

I'm one of those who likes to call a spade a spade, because some "spades" deserve the most vitriolic attack one can generate. But I've learned not to get involved in replying tit for tat.

Sometimes a thread will never return to normalcy and that's when all good thinkers should bow out.

Privately, not publicly.



Originally posted by RFBurns

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 @ 08:48 PM
link   
Thanks for that but I tried it and I don't know how to get the smilie in this box. I clicked once and twice on the one I wanted and nothing happens. I tried dragging it into this box and it doesn't come along. How do you do it. Simple instructions, please! :-)

I came back in 'cause I just noticed the 2 smilies under the box that contains your reply and since I know that I hit that smilie twice, that must be it. But I don't want it under the box, I want it at the end of a sentence, for example.


Originally posted by RFBurns

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!!!!


[edit on 7-3-2009 by Learhoag]



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 10:27 PM
link   

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


Just the opposite. We have a number of valid conjectures on what it could be, and we have an investigation plan to obtain more detailed contextual data to further help select among them.

Is that strategy THAT baffling to you? Don't you agree that it's the more productive approach than running AWAY from contextual information?



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Learhoag
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're basing a light year of conjecture on a micron of evidence, here.

First, the astronaut wasn't pointing the camera, the INCO console in Mission Control was. They perform practically ALL of the commanding of the payload bay cameras.

Second, the reason for viewing that scene has been mentioned several times before. There is a standard operating procedure of aiming a payload bay camera toward the receding horizon (or as nearly as possible) on night time passes, to capture opportunities for lightning flashes, sprites, elves, various mysterious atmospheric electrical phenomena. It's called the Mesoscale Lightning Experiment -- Skeet Vaughan in Hyntsville, Alabama, was principle investigator for years, although recently retired.

A large number of famous 'space UFO' videos come from these types of views.

As the Orbiter passes out from behind Earth, into sunlight, nearby particles become sunlit (they can 'appear' anywhere on the screen, either at sunrise or later as the drift out of the Orbiter's shadow). Those that behave in unusual ways become famous UFOs. Those that drift aimlessly (the vast majority) remain in obscurity.



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Learhoag
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. ...


No mistake. I talked with primary witnesses (have you?). I've seen such scenes on the wall display in front of my RGPO console in the 'Trench' in Mission Control, flight after flight, and recognize their normal nature for space operations. Lastly, my arguments don't just use the footage you base your beliefs on, they also use contextual technical information such as illumination conditions, spacecraft activities involving effluent creation, flight crew activities, and in general a 'situational awareness' of the intervals of these scenes that contains vastly more relevant factors that I've seen you show any hint of knowledge of.

I think that makes my description of the events and speculation on their causes a whole lot more reality-based than yours. Just my opinion.



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Learhoag
Jim: You may want to believe that your explanation is the only plausible one. But you make 2 mistakes: .... . (2) the flash(es) we see were not what affected that object that changed direction and sped away. ... 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.


Earlier I posted a link to here www.igs.net...

that included the explanation of why a one-second vernier thruster firing can't possibly induce an angular rate large enough to be noticeable in the brief excerpts of this video now in circulation. Please read the chart and do the math, and come back if you need help...

"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."



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns

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


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



Thanks for the honest reply. The space shuttle, of course, remains in orbit by virtue of its momentum. It does not, EVER, 'plummet to Earth' when maneuvering propellant runs out.

Actually the opposite is true -- if the shuttle lost its maneuvering propellant, it would NOT be able to return to Earth and the crew would be doomed. Months later, air drag would gradually lower its orbit until it burned up on a funeral pyre for the dead crew on board.

Anybody who actually believes that shuttles need fuel to STAY in orbit for their two-week missions had better read up on the basics of space flight, and in the meantime avoid making hyper-confident assessments of what they THINK they are seeing in an environment that is alien to them.

For longer-term low-altitude orbits, such as the space station, or mil reccesats, it is a different story, but I don't think we were talking about them. If so, I'm ready for a clarification, though.



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 11:17 PM
link   
Here are some ice particules, seem from down under:

www.youtube.com...

And see the related videos, on the right side, for education purposes.

Maybe you will spot the difference between birds and UFOs ?

Blue skies.



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 01:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
It does not, EVER, 'plummet to Earth' when maneuvering propellant runs out.

Actually the opposite is true -- if the shuttle lost its maneuvering propellant, it would NOT be able to return to Earth and the crew would be doomed. Months later, air drag would gradually lower its orbit until it burned up on a funeral pyre for the dead crew on board.




You are screwing us around Jim. ;-)

You alleged that the shuttle 'does not, EVER, 'plummet to Earth' when maneuvering propellant runs out'...

Then you immediately contradict your prior allegations and state that the shuttle DOES return to earth 'when maneuvering propellant runs out'.

Make Up your mind JimBo -

*Some of us are archiving everything you write here and we'd like to keep confusion to a minimum for future researchers. Being purposefully ambiguous only makes you look bad, and that makes RFBurns and Zorgon look good.



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 03:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
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.

No, you said multiple times, and i just showed to you quotes from your posts, so you said multiple times that an ice particle can't do this kind of movement. And using this sayings, as principal argument, you dismissed the real posibility of object beeing an ice particle.

Look again your rebuttals:



Originally posted by RFBurns
This cannot be an ice particle. It would have burned up as it moved closer to the atmosphere and became nothing, plus ice does not do 180 degree turns and move off in another direction with no other outside force nearby to make it move.

taken from here: www.abovetopsecret.com...


or you said again here:

Originally posted by RFBurns
....but certianly a tiny ice particle is not going to move in the manner as this object does.

...
But I have to point out once again, no ice particle or space junk is going to manuver itself in the manner that this object does without some kind of outside influence, be it from a thruster blast or something hitting the object.

If something were to hit the object, it would not slow down in the linear fashion as it does in this video. It would not turn and then build up speed over a short time in the other direction.

this taken from here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

So, you dismissed wrongly the posibility of beeing an ice particle. Yet, i showed how an inanimate inertial object, with no real force acting on it, ice particle for example, can appear in the recording doing exactly what you dismissed, a maneuver like in OP, a slowing down, changing movement in the opposite direction and slowly speeding up. The real cause of this behaviour it can be the the process of shuttle constantly accelerating while the movie sequence is taken, as i said.

But why you dismmised? Because you said:

Originally posted by RFBurns
The ice debris solution is not valid in this case to me because I do not believe it is an ice particle

Believing is not an argument. Show REAL arguments why this object cannot be an ice particle.



Originally posted by RFBurns
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.

No, my responses where done to you as a response to your arguments or dismissals which where wrong, and i showed why they were wrong. Remeber, you asked, i responded. I wear the burden of proof because you asked.
Bassicaly you claim something, i claim another posibility (a mundane one), you dismiss what i claim, i responded with arguments to you that your dismissals are not valid. So, indeed, sustaining a solution down to every little confuse detail is time consuming and can appears as a desperately approach. But basically you cannot yet find real flaws to my solution, you just don't agree with it. Although, lately, you accept part of the concept raised by the solution, look what you are saying:


Originally posted by RFBurns
Possibly it could be an insulation flake, or perhaps even one of the white tiles that somehow dislodged from the hull of the shuttle.





So, repeating again:

My solution implies that shuttle is constantly accelerating at the moment when the OP movie is taken, and the object, whatever it is, is not too far from shuttle.

What the OP object can be:

- an ice particle. You don't believe in it, but you don't have real arguments against it, you just don't believe in it. Yet, ice debris exist in orbit, as common posibility, so they are good candidates;
- a frozen bit of propeland. It is the same as ice debris, but i think ice debris are much more common than bits of leaking propelant. Yet, the object can be a frozen bit of propelant, as shuttle byproduct, it is another real posibility;
- a paint flake. Another real posibility
- an insulation flake. This is another candidat with real chances. And, i see, you are agree with this real posibility;
- an white tale disloged from the shuttle, Yes, it can be even one of this. You see this real posibility too
- another mundane byproduct of the shuttle, which can be real too

All of this posibilies, with some of them you agreed already, means the object beeing close to the shuttle, iluminated by the sun, and appearing to change trajectory because shuttle maneuvers (steady accelerating during the period of OP movie).
So, all of them are not in or near Earth atmosphere, huge, doing marvelous maneuvers etcetera. They all are closer and smaller, and really not doing any fancy maneuver. And are not BS like you continue to say!

Originally posted by RFBurns
attempts to shove obvious BS down my throat




There are other posibilities too, this beeing extraordinary (not common or mundane):
- secret sattelites or ships from government, military etc; and the proof for this it is? what? fancy maneuvers? many other shuttle movies having similar apparence of mistery? The rumour of all of this? yet common mundane objects can do this too. We expect more proof for this more extraordinary claim..instead realist skeptiks are urged to demonstrate their mundane solution down to every aspect...

- critters: and the proof for this it is? what? fancy maneuvers? many other shuttle movies having similar apparence of mistery? yet common mundane objects can do this too. We expect proof for this extraordinary claim..instead realist skeptiks are urged to demonstrate their mundane solution down to every aspect...
- alien spaceships: and the proof for this it is? what? fancy maneuvers? many other shuttle movies having similar apparence of mistery? yet common mundane objects can do this too. We expect proof for this extraordinary claim..instead realist skeptiks are urged to demonstrate their mundane solution down to every aspect...


[edit on 8/3/09 by depthoffield]



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 03:13 AM
link   
So, it is clear that there are 2 big posibilities:
- common mundane solution: which is usually rejected, ignored, not understood at all, refused, criticised, BS-ited etcetera
- extraordinary claim: based on refusal of first and just thinking of infinite posibilities. This needs more qualitative proof!

Finnally, the OP movie is an UFO: unidentified object. But, there are very likely common mundane solutions to this, which unfortunately are just rejected with hate many times. "damn debunkers"



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 03:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by depthoffield
What the OP object can be:

- an ice particle. You don't believe in it, but you don't have real arguments against it, you just don't believe in it. Yet, ice debris exist in orbit, as common posibility, so they are good candidates;
- a frozen bit of propeland. It is the same as ice debris, but i think ice debris are much more common than bits of leaking propelant. Yet, the object can be a frozen bit of propelant, as shuttle byproduct, it is another real posibility;
- a paint flake. Another real posibility
- an insulation flake. This is another candidat with real chances. And, i see, you are agree with this real posibility;
- an white tale disloged from the shuttle, Yes, it can be even one of this. You see this real posibility too


You admit that you are unable to identify the object.

You say the object could be ice, propellant, a paint flake, an insulation flake, and even a 'white tail' dislodged from the shuttle.

You clearly cannot identify the object and your inability to identify this object renders it as a de facto UFO - To you anyways. ;-)

*I knew you'd come around.



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 04:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by depthoffield
Finnally, the OP movie is an UFO: unidentified object.

And that was my only contention DOF.

Now, should I refer to you as a gullible 'believer' for calling the object a UFO?



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 05:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
You admit that you are unable to identify the object.

You say the object could be ice, propellant, a paint flake, an insulation flake, and even a 'white tail' dislodged from the shuttle.

You clearly cannot identify the object and your inability to identify this object renders it as a de facto UFO - To you anyways. ;-)


I actually identified several posibilities, all common and mundane.
Which many all of you, "believers", (many times with hate) are gladly and bitter to dismiss, ignore, refuse, BS-it it etcetera. And nail us to the wall. This is proof for not beeing open minded to common reality.

And, you know very well, despite that UFO means exactly and only "unknown object", many of "believers" and young people here are actually understand "alien ships".
Unknown is just unknown. And is unknown due to lack of information, not because science or human knowledge can't explain them.
Look at the Gallup Poll made by Franspeakfree. Is representative. They don't talk about "unknown", they talk about aliens most of them.



Originally posted by Exuberant1
"I knew you'd come around.

It is logic, and why you are angry for this?

The topic is called:
"NASA STS-114 UFO Footage - Can it be debunked? "
I think "debunked" is a bad word, much correct should be "explained".

Corect it shoud be:
"NASA STS-114 Footage with unknown object - Can it be explained?"

And yes, there are several posibilities, all common and mundane, which can explain very well what we see.



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 05:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by depthoffield
This is proof for not beeing open minded to common reality.

And you, are not being open minded to UN-common reality.

By your own admission, the object is still unidentified.. yet you insist that a 'mundane' explanation can be found. What if this object is not 'mundane'?

revealing one's own bias on the subject perhaps? hmmm..



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 05:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by depthoffield

I actually identified several posibilities, all common and mundane.


You did do that.... And you did so repeatedly and with consistent irregularity in your determinations and assessments, all of which were common and mundane and yet ceaselessly changing.

However, the object in question cannot be all of those things simultaneously, and as you now admit, you are unable conclusively identify the object.

Your assessment that 'the OP movie is an UFO' is correct. I cannot identify the object and neither can Zorgon or RFBurns or Majorion ;-)




[edit on 8-3-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 06:08 AM
link   
reply to post by depthoffield
 


You are actually adding reverse interpretation to what I wrote and meant.

Ok to clarify...the ice particle will not do a "casual" turn as seen in the STS 114 video. Oh did I happen to leave out "casual turn" before? Oops.


Taking it to so many decimal places is not really necessary here. This is a public social forum for discussion of controversial subjects, not a research institution data exchange port.

Now your ice particles, as seen in other STS videos, to which I DID refer to on more than one occaision, will turn as they manuver, but they do NOT turn in the manner of the object in STS 114. Your examples, the video of the waste dump spray, the gif image of three particles, all whisking off after sudden turns. And those sudden turns were caused by an external force...the shuttle thrusters.

Now...in the STS 114 video, there is no visible evidence of a shuttle thruster causing the object to make its turn when it does turn. So in effect, my entire statements you have quoted IS correct.

I just did not waste time taking it out to the .0000000000000001 decimal point. Its not necessary to do so. Again this is no scientific forum, it is a public access social discussion forum. And as you stated a couple of pages back, most people are low level educated Gallup Poll selectees who are not anywhere near of acedemic education levels.

So why do we need to take it to so many decimal places for casual discussion in a public access conspiracy forum?

Again, no need to and no reason to. There is only one reason why someone would go to such length to take it so far out in the decimal place in the first place....to sound impressive and put themselves up high on a pillar to all the "low level acedemic average folk".

The more you overtake the plumbing...the easier it is to stop up the drain.

There is no simpler way to put it to you. But I believe I have provided both a complex and simple prospective to you. Its up to you to properly interpret either or. Dont worry, if you make a mistake in interpreting either or...well...nobody's perfect.



Cheers!!!!



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 06:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by depthoffield

The topic is called:
"NASA STS-114 UFO Footage - Can it be debunked? "
I think "debunked" is a bad word, much correct should be "explained".

Corect it shoud be:
"NASA STS-114 Footage with unknown object - Can it be explained?"

And yes, there are several posibilities, all common and mundane, which can explain very well what we see.


Absolutely. There are several "possible" explanations. However, possible does not mean absolute, no matter how many zeros you put behind the decimal place...ie pictures and demonstrations.

Can you come to the conclusion..as we believers have...that none of us can positively identify that object?

Does this mean that your argument is correct? Does it mean the our argument is correct?

No to both.

We each have our own conclusions, and that is good enough for each of us. To consistantly attempt to sway us to accept your conclusion is only self defeating DOF. What you should be doing, instead of repeating the same examples over and over, trying to cram it down our throats, is to say to yourself ok..they still believe what they believe, now how could I interact with them in a positive way and in a productive way that moves the thread forward for everyone to try to figure out what that thing is so that both sides can discuss the issue on an even civil playing field.

At this point the discussion is deadlocked. So how do we get it moving forward again?

Perhaps combine all our analysis and find some common ground to work with from there and maybe...just maybe we can ALL figure out what the heck that thing is in the STS 114 video.

Cheers!!!!



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 06:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by depthoffield
So, it is clear that there are 2 big posibilities:
- common mundane solution: which is usually rejected, ignored, not understood at all, refused, criticised, BS-ited etcetera


That is just your personal feeling based opinion. You do not know what level of consideration any of us have given to the "mundane solution". To say its simply rejected is quite narrow and an extremely wide assumption on your part.


Originally posted by depthoffield
- extraordinary claim: based on refusal of first and just thinking of infinite posibilities. This needs more qualitative proof!


Again, that is just your personal take on the believers. When believers have already considered evidence you present, and have in their own conclusions, dismissed that evidence, does that mean they never examined that evidence presented again and again?

No it doesnt.


Originally posted by depthoffield
Finnally, the OP movie is an UFO: unidentified object. But, there are very likely common mundane solutions to this, which unfortunately are just rejected with hate many times. "damn debunkers"



Another personal prospective based on assumption of others. In effect, you are doing exactly what you are saying the believers are doing.

Not a very productive way of moving forward in analyzing the object in question by simply rejecting the believers evidence.


Cheers!!!!



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 06:47 AM
link   
i understand DOF with his acceleration theory but it seems like the shuttle is climbing as well, very fast in fact, for the object to fall away like that.

which leaves JimO's account of thruster firing to move the shuttle 1/2degree?

i didn't quite get the whole thing JimO was trying to explain but what i did get was the shuttle wouldn't have moved enough to cause that "illusion".

if they both are correct, that would be some serious vertigo with such a small movement.

but what do i know, i think the clip is upside down and playing backwards anyway.




new topics

top topics



 
96
<< 40  41  42    44  45  46 >>

log in

join