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

Excellent piece of footage, one that i have "laid my eyes on before", but nonetheless still "brilliant!

No way at all is this "space-debris" of any kind.

The item [s] contained within this video have their own power, as they can be seen manoeuvreing in 3[three] different directions, debris and similar will only ever move in one direction and will Not change course.

Top Post

Originally posted by depthoffield

You can search "debris in space" with google and find 5000000 results too, and growing too. So what? Do you think "regular Joe" search this? So, for them is a tottaly missed point.
But "debris" is a more dedicated and mundane world, and doesn't attract.

You really need to get off your high horse about people not being savy enough to do searches for topics. I dont know who you think you are, but rest assured my fellow human being who is like the rest of the human race on this planet, you are NOT superior.

Originally posted by Funklestiltzkin
Playing games is your purpose?

Putting yourself so high up on a pillar like you do, it is quite clear who is playing games with people's heads.

I can search 20 different search engines for ways on making bread and come up with over 5000000 results as well. So what. Does that mean that the average joe doesnt know the difference between how to make white bread versus wheat bread with that much resources at their fingertips?

Really friend, you gotta bring yourself into the 21st century here and know that the average joe these days are far more sophisticated than you give credit for. Staying inside the narrow prospective of judging people based on Gallup Polls is in of itself, very limited view of the diveristy of people's knowledge and ability.


Cheers!!!!


[edit on 12-3-2009 by RFBurns]

Originally posted by spymaster
The item [s] contained within this video have their own power, as they can be seen manoeuvreing in 3[three] different directions, debris and similar will only ever move in one direction and will Not change course.
Top Post

Absolutely, I and others agree with you, however, looking at the object in question does it indeed stop or does it turn eliptically away from us, giving us the appearance of it stopping?

Although we say that the object in question is not a piece of ice debris instead it is an intelligently controlled craft of somekind. That has a force that can control its speed (Newtons law) in a vacuum of space.DOF makes a great post (a few pages back) explaining parallax and optical illusion its well worth the read.

Edit: Condescending comment removed



[edit on 12-3-2009 by franspeakfree]

Wow, I spent most of the day with Richard Garriott at Britannia Manor, yesterday, and he even showed me the pirate flag he transmitted the image of from aboard ISS. I asked a few questions based on interesting issues raised here and got some great answers. Being kicked 'out of the box' is always productive, despite the intentions of the kickers, and the bruises -- it's a path to better insights. Will share soon. Gotta read the rest of my email.

J

Originally posted by RFBurns
If you guys are trying to tell us that ice particles and dust particles (again define "particle) all over the place up there that are large enough to be seen at either 20 feet or further out, then the shuttle and ISS and every other satellite up there would be slamming into these things consistantly, because according to the ice particle junkies...thats all there is up there in all these videos.

Unless all these ice particles and dust particles magically move out of the way of a speeding shuttle going 18,000 mph before smashing through the windows or the hull, I would say that the ice particles are so tiny and so INSIGNIFICANT to not be of any concern at 18,000 mph that if one were to hit a window or the hull, it would simply vaporize on impact.

RF, sometimes I am compelled to wonder if you apply your intelligence on purpose to deliberately MISunderstand the contrary opinions being expressed.

NOBODY to my knowledge has ever postulated that the space shuttle is zooming THROUGH a stationary cloud of debris, ice, whatever, at 18,000 mph. Heck, nobody I know could even imagination how such a cloud could exist in space just beyond the atmosphere -- are you suggesting that dust and ice and junk can just float around out there in the zero-G vacume waiting to be rammed by orbiting satellites? Your wording sure seems to suggest that -- so please clarify.

What I have suggested is that debris frequently comes off space shuttles and floats along with it, sometimes getting hit with plumes of various origins and effluents, sometimes just letting air drag sweep them slowly away into lower orbits. None of this shuttle-origin stuff is going at harmful impact speed with the shuttle.

We know there's lots of this stuff because witnesses (that may be a difficult concept for you on this subject matter -- it means somebody who directly saw the material or video of it in real time -- you really ought to try to find out what they have to say, if you dare) see it and talk about it, and lots of videos show it drifting close enough to pass in front of shuttle and station hardware. Like, really really close.

This kind of stuff can also wind up looking like the famous 'space UFO videos' -- their appearance and motion is indistinguishable, leading to the conclusion that there's no evidence to suggest they are anything else. Now, they could be cleverly-disguised alien vehicles -- that can't be disproven -- but they look like ordinary space junk to those who know how ordinary space junk looks and behaves.

But the stuff isn't just floating idly, waiting for a streaking shuttle to ram into it. It's floating along with the shuttle at essentially the same velocity, because it came from the shuttle. How is that not clear?

And how -- please explain -- you imagine that particles could just naturally float motionless out there in near-earth space? You can't be serious.

PS -- I was teasing about the misspelling of 'vacume'. Sorry, couldn't resist. Real space experts know how to spell it.

Originally posted by RFBurns
The cameras can barely pick them up 20 or so feet away much less be picking them up 80 some odd miles out.
[edit on 11-3-2009 by RFBurns]

It's never been in dispute. The issue is -- what is the evidence any of these dots is 80 miles, or even 8 miles, or 800 feet, away?

The main argument I've heard is that some of them 'appear' in mid-screen with Earth in the background, and the presumption is that this means they were occluded by something out near Earth's surface -- such as clouds -- and the 'appearance' is proof they are out at the range of Earth's surface -- hundreds of miles.

My counterargument is that sudden appearance is not proof that the object was previously occluded by the distant Earth (or clouds). It's equally plausible -- and much more common, in other videos -- for the 'appearance' to be caused by emergence of a nearby particle from the shuttle's shadow.

Now, there is a 'proof' that this hypothesis is by far the more likely explanation.

Here's how it goes: when you actually determine WHEN the 'UFO videos' were taken and the actual illumination and orbital conditions at the time of the event (stuff that learhaug denounces as useless and distracting info, or in RF's term, 'clutter'), a curious and highly unlikely coincidence becomes apparent.

The shuttle's darkened umbra only exists for a minute or two every orbit, as the shuttle emerges from Earth's shadow but before passing across the terminator and overflying sunlit surface -- from which reflected sunlight fully illuminates anything within the umbra.

Funny thing is, the famous videos with 'appearing' UFOs... an undeniably weird and unearthly lighting effect ... all seem to be taken ONLY during those unique and rare intervals of the missions. Not in full darkness. Not in full sunlight. Just at dawn (dusk is physically possible too, but the MLE camera pointing doesn't get set up until after full sunset). No other time.

I suggest this strongly implies causality, not coincidence. Stuff appears during these particular intervals, and gets seen and recorded and identified as UFOs. And by NOT understanding the illumination context, by closing their eyes to a fuller understanding of the entire situation, naive observers misjudge what they are 'seeing'.

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by RFBurns
If you guys are trying to tell us that ice particles and dust particles (again define "particle) all over the place up there that are large enough to be seen at either 20 feet or further out, then the shuttle and ISS and every other satellite up there would be slamming into these things consistantly, because according to the ice particle junkies...thats all there is up there in all these videos.

Unless all these ice particles and dust particles magically move out of the way of a speeding shuttle going 18,000 mph before smashing through the windows or the hull, I would say that the ice particles are so tiny and so INSIGNIFICANT to not be of any concern at 18,000 mph that if one were to hit a window or the hull, it would simply vaporize on impact.

RF, sometimes I am compelled to wonder if you apply your intelligence on purpose to deliberately MISunderstand the contrary opinions being expressed.

Jim, I am simply making note of what OTHERS are suggesting, not what I say.

Originally posted by JimOberg
NOBODY to my knowledge has ever postulated that the space shuttle is zooming THROUGH a stationary cloud of debris, ice, whatever, at 18,000 mph. Heck, nobody I know could even imagination how such a cloud could exist in space just beyond the atmosphere -- are you suggesting that dust and ice and junk can just float around out there in the zero-G vacume waiting to be rammed by orbiting satellites? Your wording sure seems to suggest that -- so please clarify.

Again, it is what others are saying, impying that there is nothing up there but junk, ice and debris. If that is all there is, after 40 some years of space launchings, satellites firing thrusters, shuttle launches, shuttle thrusters firing, ice falling off these vehicles and flaking away from thrusters on all of them, then there is alot of this mess to be flying through.

Its just basic logic Jim...(Heh, everytime I say that I feel like Dr. McCoy trying to remind you that he is a doctor, not a brick layer)..that with all this bogus debunker explanations..including NASA's broken record explanations, including yours, that all this garbage up there must pose a huge risk and its just a miracle that no satellite, no shuttle, no lauch vehicle, and even the ISS, have not slammed into all this ice, junk and debris.

And once again Jim...thats basing on what YOU GUYS are saying, not what I or the other believers say.

Originally posted by JimOberg
What I have suggested is that debris frequently comes off space shuttles and floats along with it, sometimes getting hit with plumes of various origins and effluents, sometimes just letting air drag sweep them slowly away into lower orbits. None of this shuttle-origin stuff is going at harmful impact speed with the shuttle.

Yes, debris, even ice DOES in fact fall off the shuttle....from TIME TO TIME...what you and all the other debunker clan want us to believe, is that EVERY TIME the cameras SEE something UNUSUAL, that "oh this is the time when ice and debris fall off the shuttle".

NOT!!

Now if you have read my posts accurately, you will see that I have stated time and time again, that there IS shuttle video that SHOWS ice and debris, but NOT in EVERY video.

So Jim...this means that I do not dismiss the FACT that ice and debris do venture off the shuttle and float around up there.

It does NOT mean that EVERY single video we see with strange pulsing objects checking out a tether or manuvering in non-ice/debris like manners, are ice and debris.

Originally posted by JimOberg
We know there's lots of this stuff because witnesses (that may be a difficult concept for you on this subject matter -- it means somebody who directly saw the material or video of it in real time -- you really ought to try to find out what they have to say, if you dare) see it and talk about it, and lots of videos show it drifting close enough to pass in front of shuttle and station hardware. Like, really really close.

Jim..the only witnesses who say in abundance that there are nothing but ice and debris are people like you, Phage, DOF, and the other debunker club members. Now if there were actual astronauts/cosmonauts sitting in here testifying under their own choice...we might hold more credibility to the claim.

Now if you want to place dares, I dare you to bring one of them in here, someone who is neutral on the subject matter, and let them speak freely on their own without reprisal to their position in the space program.

But I bet that is a very tough call.

You know, unless you been sleeping under a "Mars/Moon/ice/debris" rock, there have been plenty of astronauts from the Apollo era, including the Gemini era (John Glenn), who have stated there are far more things up there than your typical ice/debris/junk.

No I wont go do your homework for you, search for it yourself. Its there, try google.

Originally posted by JimOberg
This kind of stuff can also wind up looking like the famous 'space UFO videos' -- their appearance and motion is indistinguishable, leading to the conclusion that there's no evidence to suggest they are anything else. Now, they could be cleverly-disguised alien vehicles -- that can't be disproven -- but they look like ordinary space junk to those who know how ordinary space junk looks and behaves.

Things in fuzzy blurry photos and videos can "look" like a lot of things Jim, and even if it "looks" like something familiar, such as your collection of ice and junk, that does not mean thats what it is.

In effect, ANY object that is NOT clearly identified and confirmed and verified IS in fact a U.F.O..

Originally posted by JimOberg
But the stuff isn't just floating idly, waiting for a streaking shuttle to ram into it. It's floating along with the shuttle at essentially the same velocity, because it came from the shuttle. How is that not clear?

The "stuff" does not follow the same course of a new launch. The "stuff" gets affected by gravity pulls, solar winds, you know, the stuff you guys claimed earlier that is the reason for the object in STS 114 to do what it does...remember?

Thus upon a new launch, the stuff already up there from the previous flights (20+ years of it) are not exactly following the latest flight. Unless again, gravity pulls and solar winds only apply to when we see an unusual movement performed by your ice and debris and junk.

Originally posted by JimOberg
And how -- please explain -- you imagine that particles could just naturally float motionless out there in near-earth space? You can't be serious.

Never said they "float motionless". I said they "float around up there". That is not saying "they float motionless up there". A boat going 30 knots on the ocean is not only going 30 knots on the ocean, it is floating on the ocean at 30 knots.

Again you want to go to the 100th decimal point just sound sophisticated, but with the due respect, you are doing what another member did, picking at the ground for whatever crumbs you can find that can be used to obfuscate the issue.

I suppose you have never "read between the lines" before? Or have never in your entire short career reporting for NBC and NASA, to generalize what your talking about, or writting about?

Oh I should have realized...anyone associated with NASA never makes an error, they are perfect in every way, they do not generalize or summerize or rationalize...they PATRONIZE.

Originally posted by JimOberg
PS -- I was teasing about the misspelling of 'vacume'. Sorry, couldn't resist. Real space experts know how to spell it.

Again, as I stated a day ago, everyone has their faults there Jim.

You are no exception. But if you want to again clutter this thread with attacks and counter attacks between you and me about irrelevant bulls***, then LETS DANCE.



Cheers!!!!

reply to post by RFBurns


The ice forms around the shuttle as the result of a water dump. The ice eventually sublimates and does not remain in orbit as particles. There are not clouds of ice but there is a lot of junk.

Yes, there is danger from space junk. Witness what happened with the ISS today.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 3/12/2009 by Phage]

Originally posted by Phage
Yes, there is danger from space junk. Witness what happened with the ISS today.

Yes, I just saw this on ABC news. But how often are such incidents reported on the news?.. quite rare actually, much like the rare possibility that the objects in the STS-114 footage are mere ice particles or space junk.

Also, this reported piece of debris the size of a fist, didn't actually colide, it missed by a distance of miles..

[edit on 12/3/09 by Majorion]

reply to post by Majorion


The ice particles and debris seen around the shuttle comes from the shuttle and is thus in a very, very similar orbit as the shuttle. These are regular occurences

The junk that caused concern to the ISS did not come from the ISS and was in a different, intersecting orbit. This is not a regular occurence.

[edit on 3/12/2009 by Phage]

Originally posted by Phage
The ice particles and debris seen around the shuttle comes from the shuttle

I have seen DOF's illustration of dust/ice particles dispersing from a shuttle, and they behaved and looked nothing like the objects we are discussing regarding STS-114. And up till now, even after 50-plus pages of debate on this issue, I haven't seen any conclusive evidence to support the notion that these objects are ice particles.

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by RFBurns
The cameras can barely pick them up 20 or so feet away much less be picking them up 80 some odd miles out.
[edit on 11-3-2009 by RFBurns]

It's never been in dispute. The issue is -- what is the evidence any of these dots is 80 miles, or even 8 miles, or 800 feet, away?

There is none, I dont think anyone has provided any positive proof of "dots" being 80 miles, 8 miles or 8 feet away. But if anyone were to go back and read your posts, DOF's posts, Phage's posts, it doesnt take a slide rule to see that is exactly what you want people to believe, that its just dots a few feet away. You may not say this in exact words, but you and the others imply that in your long winded theories.

Originally posted by JimOberg
The main argument I've heard is that some of them 'appear' in mid-screen with Earth in the background, and the presumption is that this means they were occluded by something out near Earth's surface -- such as clouds -- and the 'appearance' is proof they are out at the range of Earth's surface -- hundreds of miles.

Now if these were mere ice "particles"..and as I have said to Phage...define "particle", then they must be incredibly HUGE particles to be seen at great distances since we do know that these "particles", as presented in DOF's dump burst video, that they vanish from view before they even hit 20 feet distance from the zoomed in frame.

Originally posted by JimOberg
My counterargument is that sudden appearance is not proof that the object was previously occluded by the distant Earth (or clouds). It's equally plausible -- and much more common, in other videos -- for the 'appearance' to be caused by emergence of a nearby particle from the shuttle's shadow.

Plausible is not absolute proof there Jim. It only means one possibility because you guys like to focus on the familiar..what do they call it...pareidolia?!!! It must be ice to you guys because thats what you only allow yourself to see because that is familiar and much easier to digest for the brain. Does not take as much brain function to throw out the familiar explanation but to make it sound impressive, that simple pareidolia explanation is all wrapped up in long winded fancy words.

But hey..whatever "FLOATS" your ice boat there Jim.

Originally posted by JimOberg
Now, there is a 'proof' that this hypothesis is by far the more likely explanation.

A hypothesis is not proof there Jim. Hypothesis is another term for "theory" which in itself is also not absolute proof. Hypothesis is just another one of those fancy words applied to the same meaning as "theory", but the word "theory" is not as colorful of a sound as "hypothesis".

Originally posted by JimOberg
Here's how it goes: when you actually determine WHEN the 'UFO videos' were taken and the actual illumination and orbital conditions at the time of the event (stuff that learhaug denounces as useless and distracting info, or in RF's term, 'clutter'), a curious and highly unlikely coincidence becomes apparent.

Here's how it goes: when something unusual appers in these videos that can be compared to video of obvious "clutter" and the huge difference can be seen that the unusual object in one video is nothing like the video containing the obvious...you get every frightened to death debunker in on it to try to cram down your throat that its just ice or dust or debris so nothing to see, move along. Funny that NASA spends so much frame time and money on ice, debris and junk. One ice/debris/junk particle is like the other one seen before....never do we see a huge discussion take place about these obvious things, even from believers of UFO's, BUT we do see discussions about the unusual get a flood of the debunkers trying to slam down the unusual as one of their familiar pieces of ice/debris/junk stuff again, and again, and again.

It is "pareidolia" at its best.

Originally posted by JimOberg
The shuttle's darkened umbra only exists for a minute or two every orbit, as the shuttle emerges from Earth's shadow but before passing across the terminator and overflying sunlit surface -- from which reflected sunlight fully illuminates anything within the umbra.

More "clutter" folks...irrelevant since the object is no where near the shadow of the shuttle when it turns and burns off in another direction.

Obfuscation at its best.

Originally posted by JimOberg
Funny thing is, the famous videos with 'appearing' UFOs... an undeniably weird and unearthly lighting effect ... all seem to be taken ONLY during those unique and rare intervals of the missions. Not in full darkness. Not in full sunlight. Just at dawn (dusk is physically possible too, but the MLE camera pointing doesn't get set up until after full sunset). No other time.

Perhaps you need to look at the much OLDER footage when normal visual modes were used...in the early shuttle missions when satellites were being launched with the Earth in the background, blue as can be, in the sunlight, no where near any dawn or dust terminator zone. Hmm...pretty much blows that theory out into space...doesnt it.

Originally posted by JimOberg
I suggest this strongly implies causality, not coincidence. Stuff appears during these particular intervals, and gets seen and recorded and identified as UFOs. And by NOT understanding the illumination context, by closing their eyes to a fuller understanding of the entire situation, naive observers misjudge what they are 'seeing'.

No one is closing their eyes here except for you and the debunker club. There is...again...plenty of video evidence where strange objects come into frame that are not from behind shadows or being video taped during a dawn or dusk timeframe. And just in case you have not figured it out, as DOF seems to be stuck on, people these days are a bit more sophisticated than you like to believe, and it does not take a slide rule or degree to see obvious versus unusual. It doesnt take nuclear science to tell something is moving in a strange way compared to something that moves in a familiar manner when a side by side comparison can be done very easily with readily available footage from all those missions.

Perhaps your game of "tell them they are dumb and dont know a thing but we know everything" worked 40 years ago...but unfortunately..it does not work so well in today's world.


Cheers!!!!

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by RFBurns

 

The ice forms around the shuttle as the result of a water dump. The ice eventually sublimates and does not remain in orbit as particles. There are not clouds of ice but there is a lot of junk.

Yes, there is danger from space junk. Witness what happened with the ISS today.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

No one is denying that there is junk up there posing a threat. What will be dismissed is that every single bogus explanation thrown at every single video of strange unusual movments of objects are not the junk/ice/debris simply because these particular videos can be side by side compared to the videos that do show the typical junk/ice/debris and their movements, and it can be clearly seen, without a slide rule, that the two are entirely different.


Cheers!!!!

Originally posted by spymaster

Excellent piece of footage, one that i have "laid my eyes on before", but nonetheless still "brilliant! No way at all is this "space-debris" of any kind.

spymaster, i've been away -- what link are you referring to, please.

Originally posted by JimOberg
spymaster, i've been away -- what link are you referring to, please.

He's not referring to a link. He's referring directly to this footage;



Ahh, the phenomenon featured in the OP, what got this thread started.

RF: "You know, unless you been sleeping under a "Mars/Moon/ice/debris" rock, there have been plenty of astronauts from the Apollo era, including the Gemini era (John Glenn), who have stated there are far more things up there than your typical ice/debris/junk. "

Uh, RF, John Glenn was 'Mercury Era', not 'Gemini Era'. Slight difference.

Now, what do YOU say he said about 'far more things up there'?

As I recall, he was the first orbiting pilot who spotted ice particles -- coming out of his flash evaporator, as it turned out. Shuttles also have flash evaporators.

Why did you bring his name up? What do you claim he helps you prove?

Originally posted by JimOberg
RF: "You know, unless you been sleeping under a "Mars/Moon/ice/debris" rock, there have been plenty of astronauts from the Apollo era, including the Gemini era (John Glenn), who have stated there are far more things up there than your typical ice/debris/junk. "

Uh, RF, John Glenn was 'Mercury Era', not 'Gemini Era'. Slight difference.

Now, what do YOU say he said about 'far more things up there'?

As I recall, he was the first orbiting pilot who spotted ice particles -- coming out of his flash evaporator, as it turned out. Shuttles also have flash evaporators.

Why did you bring his name up? What do you claim he helps you prove?

Good ol J. Glenn proves quite a bit..especially when you say reference to actual witnesses to these strange objects seen by the actual witnesses.

Oh ya the Mercury program...got them mixed up, both early space efforts to find out what will be required to go to the moon since all of that was unknown. Here is where I will admit my mistake...not anything massive as denying unusual vs obvious like others seem to do and make grave mistakes between them and never fess up to it.

Anyway, Glenn is not the only one. Mitchell is another, Grissom, God rest his soul, is another, to name only a few. These guys were on the ground floor of the space program, and as they have aged, they have come to the conclusion that its time to step up and fess up to the cover-up that has been occuring for decades. These are highly respected, highly credible first hand witnesses, unlike the young, dumb and easily controlled astronauts going in endless circles in the shuttle spending hours filming ice particles and debris.

If only those who were on the ground floor could step in on this and give their first hand testimony...that would be the cream of the crop.



Cheers!!!!

You're wrong about saying "...even after 50-plus pages of debate on this issue,..." I would say that the debate on the OP has taken maybe all of 5 pages. The rest has been a tete-a-tete by the ATS "geniuses" or NASA-wannabes who speak at length of stuff that has no bearing on the OP. They hijack the thread and discuss non-OP subjects.

5 pages of OP, 50+ of b.s.

Originally posted by Majorion

Originally posted by Phage
The ice particles and debris seen around the shuttle comes from the shuttle

I have seen DOF's illustration of dust/ice particles dispersing from a shuttle, and they behaved and looked nothing like the objects we are discussing regarding STS-114. And up till now, even after 50-plus pages of debate on this issue, I haven't seen any conclusive evidence to support the notion that these objects are ice particles.

Originally posted by Majorion
He's referring directly to this footage;

From my curiousity as a young man in the ufo arena


I never tire of looking at a undisputable UFO.


Aint it a jewel

RF: Perhaps you need to look at the much OLDER footage when normal visual modes were used...in the early shuttle missions when satellites were being launched with the Earth in the background, blue as can be, in the sunlight, no where near any dawn or dust terminator zone. Hmm...pretty much blows that theory out into space...doesnt it.

JimO: The subject here were dots that 'appeared' near the center of the FOV, with the interpretation that they came from 'behind clouds' or over the edge of the planet. I'm not familiar with any such center-screen 'appearance' videos of space UFOs in 'older' footage -- please make a specific citation/link. Let's be sure we both understand what subset we're talking about here -- scenes in which dots 'appear' apparently from behnd distant things, that implies they are even more distant. You brought that up as evidence of great distance of some of the dots.

RF: No one is closing their eyes here except for you and the debunker club. There is...again...plenty of video evidence where strange objects come into frame that are not from behind shadows or being video taped during a dawn or dusk timeframe.

JimO: We're talking about objects that appear in mid-frame, not come into the frame from the edge. I know you say this with all sincerity, RF, but how do you actually 'know' whether it's a dawn/dusk timeframe? I mean, you don't seem to CARE what the illumination conditions are, except to proclaim somehow you 'know' what they are (without any research) when it's convenient for your argumentation. Ditto where the shuttle's shadow lies in the FOV -- I doubt you ever gave a moment's thought to it before this exchange, and now you claim preternatural ability to sense WHERE in the FOV the shadow must be, just by... by what, actually? How? I don't see any way that you would have a clue where the shadow actually was, with your expressed contempt for contextual information such as shuttle and camera pointing angles, line-of-sight to sun angles, region of Earth's shadow, etc. Without knowing any of that, tell us how you know where the shuttle's shadow is in the FOV -- say, the one at the very top of this thread?