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

Originally posted by RFBurns
I suppose I could as you why would former astronauts come forth after decades of silence and give testimony to what is really out there versus what NASA covers up. But I dont expect you to answer for them.

Who are you referring to -- testifying to 'what is really out there' that they saw but had to conceal until nowadays? Who?

Is there any data to support that the shuttle changed its speed at this time, on this mission?


quote]Originally posted by Phage
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.

Originally posted by Majorion

What do you mean by "gravitational explanation",

I had a feeling this would be somewhat misunderstood, sorry about that ArMaP, but I was referring to one of DOF's illustrations..go back a couple pages and you should find it, can't remember exactly what he stated, but it was something along the lines of gravitational force pulling the object around, but it hardly proves as he states that it's a particle, even by his own admission.

No, just the example with the apple thrown from the flying plane, involves falling due gravitation.


But, my last and animated example, here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

shows a particle which simply is going away from the shuttle, little by little, toward Earth, in constant motion.

Originally posted by Majorion
I'm sorry to NOT sound so "scientific", but SERIOUSLY.. first you debunker dudes say "Ice Particles" (which is far from proven).. now you say "Sprites".

Who says the particles in question are "sprites"?

Why put words in mouth that where never said? You seem to be inattentive.

And about ice particles, there is any real reason here that the OP object, even doing apparently a 180 degree change in direction (i explained a reasson why can do that) CANNOT be an ice (junk) particle? The point is that it can be ice/junk particle near the shuttle, (or insulation flake or less probable even a stripped tile - this beeing also "junk" as byproduct from the shuttle), so they can be near particles sunlit, with very good chances, because ice/junk from the shuttle exist arond the shuttle and this is quite common. As i said before, nobody can prove that is 100% ice/junk particle, unless go back in time and capture it, but, the real point, again, is that the object can be just that with good probability. But the "believers" here just struggle to death to ignore and dismiss that very probable posibility without real arguments.

[edit on 13/3/09 by depthoffield]

Originally posted by depthoffield
there is any real reason here that the OP object, even doing apparently a 180 degree change in direction (i explained a reasson why can do that) CANNOT be an ice (junk) particle?

As I said before, up till now, there hasn't been any real or conclusive evidence to prove that these are ice particles.

The point is that it can be ice/junk particle near the shuttle, (or insulation flake or less probable even a stripped tile - this beeing also "junk" as byproduct from the shuttle)

Here you go again, shifting explanations, so which is it?.. junk or ice?

nobody can prove that is 100% ice/junk particle

Then why do you continue to state with-certainty quite blatantly that the objects are ice/junk particles?

But the "believers" here just struggle to death to ignore and dismiss that very probable posibility without real arguments.

very probable possibility?.. basically you don't really know what the objects are, due to absence of any conclusive proof of an ice particle explanation or other similarly conventional theories. Now try again.

Originally posted by depthoffield
And about ice particles, there is any real reason here that the OP object, even doing apparently a 180 degree change in direction (i explained a reasson why can do that) CANNOT be an ice (junk) particle?

Yes!!! The mere fact that Jim Oberg has spent so much time here trying hard to debunk this one...

THAT alone makes it an interesting anomaly

You forgot, the skeptics don't have to abide by the same standards they think everyone else should step up to. They just offer an even more outlandish explanation and because they are the 'rational' ones its automatically given to be correct.

So apparently the shuttle flys around with a cloud of ice/loose tiles/particles that can spawn more copies of themselves then fly off in different directions at any given moment. no one seems to be worried about that either.

Originally posted by Majorion

Originally posted by depthoffield
there is any real reason here that the OP object, even doing apparently a 180 degree change in direction (i explained a reasson why can do that) CANNOT be an ice (junk) particle?

As I said before, up till now, there hasn't been any real or conclusive evidence to prove that these are ice particles.

The point is that it can be ice/junk particle near the shuttle, (or insulation flake or less probable even a stripped tile - this beeing also "junk" as byproduct from the shuttle)

Here you go again, shifting explanations, so which is it?.. junk or ice?

nobody can prove that is 100% ice/junk particle

Then why do you continue to state with-certainty quite blatantly that the objects are ice/junk particles?

But the "believers" here just struggle to death to ignore and dismiss that very probable posibility without real arguments.

very probable possibility?.. basically you don't really know what the objects are, due to absence of any conclusive proof of an ice particle explanation or other similarly conventional theories. Now try again.

[edit on 13-3-2009 by atsbeliever]

Originally posted by zorgon
Yes!!! The mere fact that Jim Oberg has spent so much time here trying hard to debunk this one...

THAT alone makes it an interesting anomaly

What 'fact' is that, Z? Do you insist it's true that the object made a nearly 180 degree course change?

Why couldn't it have been a 30 degree course change, viewed from nearly in plane with its motion?

What do your eyes tell you on this basic scene?

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by zorgon
Yes!!! The mere fact that Jim Oberg has spent so much time here trying hard to debunk this one...

THAT alone makes it an interesting anomaly

What 'fact' is that, Z? Do you insist it's true that the object made a nearly 180 degree course change?

The fact was clearly stated... you presence in the thread... If its important enough to draw you out for so much time, it must certainly be an enigma worthy of study




[edit on 13-3-2009 by zorgon]

Originally posted by atsbeliever
So apparently the shuttle flys around with a cloud of ice/loose tiles/particles that can spawn more copies of themselves then fly off in different directions at any given moment. no one seems to be worried about that either.

They are worried -- it's why the camera follows and zooms in on brighter and stranger looking objects. And they have good reason to be worried -- as we've discussed here, prosaic, life-threatening reasons.

And yes, manned spacecraft generate lots of dandruff -- ice is only one type -- and have for more than 50 years. But fortunately for environmentalism -- and follow-on flights -- the stuff is usually (not always) light weight and high drag, and at the altitude these vehicles operate at, air drag cleans them out within weeks or at most months.

This is the way real space flight is. Now, weirder looking stuff -- that's worth looking at. That's a common ground we seem to mostly share.

Originally posted by zorgon
If its important enough to draw you out for so much time, it must certainly be an enigma worthy of study

Indeed it is -- the passion that people pour into the unexplainableness theory of the dots, a theory literally based on ephemeral junk -- that's fascinating like train wrecks and high-rise fires.

And the bigger issue -- finding a way to filter out the really interesting stuff that does from time to time appear among the 'ordinary' stuff. The sad irony is that for people who think they are seeing extraordinary phenomena in misinterpreted prosaic stimuli, they make themselves blind to the possibility of really detecting anything really unusual.

Originally posted by JimOberg
You got the day wrong. I didn't.

Is that 'strange'? Or typical?

Strange.

What is 'typical' is your 'neeeneer neener neeneer,"-type response, all because my posting of a file which you had also posted earlier.

Poor form JimBo.

An example of a 'typical' thing, would be Kandisky's superior debunking skills, with which he called you out on your cited evidence, and pointed out quite clearly, that the files you posted do not substantiate your argument in anyway - 'typically,' you did not provide an adequate response (as you probably assume that hardly anyone bothers to read the .pdf files and so are able use them in all sorts of creative ways. Even when caught you would probable still baffle the Citizens with BS - which would also be 'typical' ;-P.

Kandinsky posted the following immediately after you cited the file as corroboration for one of your multitude of theories, I forget which.

It appears your post didn't answers Kandinsky's questions - to the extent that he had to make further requests of you, even after you posted the files which you allege support whatever theory you are putting forth on THAT day:


"The film has no detail with which to support those assertions. If I'm missing something obvious, I'm happy to eat my hat. I buy one a week for just such reasons and it costs me a lot of money

The question is about where the video is from, which location it's filming from and why the point of view remains static compared to other STS footage. Provenance of the video would go a long way to reassuring people. As it is, who knows what it is?

If you can answer those questions this thread will fade and the STS-114 footage can be added to the STS-80 as indicative of something extraordinary"
-kandisky

*In any case - Your bluff has been called, and you are yet to offer any substantiative refutation and rebuttal of the points put forth by RFBurns.

You have also been continuing to dance around RFBurns' questions - also Typical.

[edit on 13-3-2009 by Exuberant1]

reply to post by zorgon



Still lurking, and learning. Here we have covered many possibility's, and dissected many theories, so I have a theory to offer if I may. Since many theories have been explored, with no conclusion, perhaps all participants , All, try the theory of it being a UFO , and see where that takes us.

Originally posted by JimOberg

Right, another in that long list of pet 'inside sources' that all you guys seem to have, people who never seem to have checkable names or expertise, except the versions you provide. Even when commenting on material of no possible classification or restriction, such as the RCS system, they have to be 'protected'. Yeah, 'protected' from validation and corroboration. And even if real, you have to rely on the intermediary to properly understand the message in the first place, and accurately retell it.

The people I know have had life long careers at NASA..unlike some who only been there a few years. I tend to keep them out of anything that could jepordize their life long careers, especially in this situation where their involvment would be something that they would choose to do on their own, not something that would link back to me as the cause of any unfortunate result that may occur with those life long careers.

Originally posted by JimOberg
That's one reason I give little credence to Fleming's account of his expert's opinions -- because his text contains strong indications that his own understanding of spaceflight physics is weak. Example: "Most of our discussions were related to work I am doing and was focused on the ingenious system that dependably supplies fuel and oxidizer to the rockets under weightless conditions in space as well under Earth's gravity during reentry."

Well thats just your own opinion Jim, your not the entire scientific community or the official word on the scientific community. You can think that you are all you want just because you go on MSM tv and fool all the atomaton reporters and gullable sheeple glued to peacock.

Again its all just your own opinion, funny that there seems to be a serious lack of actual engineers and scientists in agreement with you.

Sounds to me like its all just self ego boosting, patting yourself on the back syndrome. Whatever makes you feel big there Jim. It only shows us the absolute in NASA...big ego's tend to bolster their own repetively.

Originally posted by JimOberg
See www.vgl.org...

The same article I linked to with the flash pictures. Do you also read the part where Fleming refers to the discussion with an actual NASA RCS engineer who designed, built, tested those systems?

I recently had the opportunity to discuss various aspects of the space shuttle's RCS propellant supply system with a NASA aerospace engineer who was involved in the design, testing, and performance evaluation of the RCS from the nearly the beginning of the shuttle program. Unlike Oberg, this engineer observed tests of thruster firings close up on a routine basis.

He then goes on to say, what you quoted above:

Most of our discussions were related to work I am doing and was focused on the ingenious system that dependably supplies fuel and oxidizer to the rockets under weightless conditions in space as well under Earth's gravity during reentry.

Now if you interpret what he says correctly, it means that the discussions he had with this engineer were related to the work Flemming does AND also about a system involving the RCS system. Note the word "and" in there. Now what does that mean Jim?

It means that in the quote above, the same quote you put up, are TWO seperate items being addressed. In other words, he talked to this NASA engineer about two things, the work Fleming does, AND discussed the ingenious fuel systems.

You are not correctly interpreting the man's writting, and trying to say Flemming works on fuel systems for the thrusters.

Shame on you Jim

Originally posted by JimOberg
He's referring to the tank and feed designs that move liquid propellant into feed lines without any gas bubbles. It works both in weightlessness (he is correct), under posigrade thrusting during space flight (he omits this), and during atmospheric entry when the liquid is affected primarily not by gravity (which he states) but by the deceleration forces -- inertia.

The liquid pools not mainly in the bottom of the tank, relative to the center of the Earth, but in the forward segment (relative to the braking G-forces), which actually in earth based coordinates is the front wall of the tank. Gravity does affect the entire vehicle -- deceleration force makes the propellant move to where it does. As the shuttle makes wide highly-banked left and right turns to dissipate excess momentum, the propellant does not slosh back and forth from right to left under gravity's influence -- it remains held in place in the 'forward' (relative to flight direction) segment.

And the point here is.....what. I believe the reason for linking to this particular article was to note the fact that thruster firings CAN be seen, and ARE seen, and anyone can go back the couple of pages or so and see those pictures I posted that CLEARLY show thruster firing flashes..all of which were normal camera modes, not increased sensitivity modes.

Originally posted by JimOberg
This is a subtle physics issue that most people can function perfectly well without ever knowing about. But for a space propulsion system expert not to know the difference between gravity effects on propellant distribution and entry deceleration effects (which dominate) is inconceivable. If the engineer 'source' is real, which is certainly plausible, his advice to Fleming seems to have accumulated a garble factor on its way to us.

Fleming is not a space propulsion expert. You are putting that label on him here in this thread to obfuscate the issue and re-route the attention to something completely irrelevant.

Now if you want to know what Fleming does do, just in case those of you out here who just gladly go along with Jim there and not check for yourselves..here is Fleming's educational background:

Education

Care to throw up your educational background for us Jim, something that clarifies your "expertise" in RCS systems?

Originally posted by JimOberg
Without checking, Fleming simply 'assumed' my RCS expertise was minimal, apparently in large part based on a typo in a 1993 email I sent about STS-48 (saying '1,000' when I meant to type '10,000'). "...(I)t is one more indication that while Oberg may well be an expert on many aspects of space flight, he evidently has no particular expertise or experience with the RCS propulsion system." Actually, my Mission Control certification for STS-1 and STS-2 was in the OMS/RCS systems, and I served on console for the very first shuttle liftoff on April 12, 1981. Evidently somebody else felt my expertise was adequate.

A kid with a lolipop could have sat in your seat too, show us some actual credentials that clearly qualifies you as an RCS expert.

Originally posted by JimOberg
"Unlike Oberg," Fleming also guessed, "this engineer observed tests of thruster firings close up on a routine basis." Since RCS thrusters are not tested at the NASA Johnson Space Center in Houston, Fleming could have earned credibility by saying where his source DID these observations -- probably the same place that I observed them, the NASA White Sands facility outside of Las Cruces, where they have a vacuum chamber with a powerful-enough pump to maintain a significant vacuum even when a thruster is being test fired inside it.

Heh, trust me Jim, if you had anything to do with the RCS systems out at WSMR/HAFB, you would know who you are dealing with right here, right now. Funny that your name never rings a bell to me or my other fellow engeineers who were there in 78. Where were you?

Observing is one thing, but actually designing them, building them, and doing the tests on them are completely different Jim. Your so called qualifications limit yourself to observation, to read a pannel indicator, to see an "idiot" light go off in red illuminance for a warning, to monitor operational guages and to pass on that info via your little headset to the flight control command.

But hey, like I said, throw up those credentials that can be verified to clearly show everyone here you are an RCS expert as you claim yourself to be.

Aerospace Career Specialities -- James E. Oberg

Funny..but no where in YOUR own words do you mention ANYTHING about working with, or even observing tests on the RCS systems of the shuttle.

Interesting...isnt it Jim.







Cheers!!!!

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by RFBurns
I suppose I could as you why would former astronauts come forth after decades of silence and give testimony to what is really out there versus what NASA covers up. But I dont expect you to answer for them.

Who are you referring to -- testifying to 'what is really out there' that they saw but had to conceal until nowadays? Who?

You really must be so isolated to your own world that you have not seen or heard for the last 20 years all the testimony and interviews put forth from these former astronauts to ask "who"?

My my...you really do need to get out more Jim.


Cheers!!!!

Originally posted by atsbeliever
You forgot, the skeptics don't have to abide by the same standards they think everyone else should step up to.

The problem is that nobody really has to abide to any standards, so each abides to what he/she thinks it's best, unless he/she is not honest to him/herself and behaves in a different way from that the he/she says is the right one.

Unfortunately, that characteristic is not specific of any group (sceptics or believers), but it's a personal characteristic that is independent of that person's opinions about any subject.



I would like to ask all people participating on this thread to keep on topic, as it says on the top of the page, this is a big thread, and filling it up with unrelated posts only lowers the quality of the threads we have on ATS.

Thanks.

Originally posted by Majorion

Originally posted by depthoffield
there is any real reason here that the OP object, even doing apparently a 180 degree change in direction (i explained a reasson why can do that) CANNOT be an ice (junk) particle?

As I said before, up till now, there hasn't been any real or conclusive evidence to prove that these are ice particles.

Read again my question...
I've asked you one or more real reasons which make the ice/junk particle solution to be excluded. If not exist, then why struggling to dismiss it?
It has the highest probability to be the final solution since ice/junk is common and can do exactly that maneuvers and appear exactly like that.
So, again, why to dismiss it as bogus/bs etcetera? Finally you can't say why, at least until now. Try harder.

Originally posted by Majorion

Depthoffield
The point is that it can be ice/junk particle near the shuttle, (or insulation flake or less probable even a stripped tile - this beeing also "junk" as byproduct from the shuttle)

Here you go again, shifting explanations, so which is it?.. junk or ice?

no shifting explanation. Does it matter for you if that particle is an ice particle, a frozen bit of propelant particle, a flake of paint, a bit of insulation? Simply, the OP can be a small particle of "something one of this", and the word describing them, the notion, is: "debris" particle. Of course, ice debris is the most common occurance in the category of those "debris", so that's why talking in my explanations to ice most of the time. Clear?

Now, what really matters, you dismiss without reason the full notion of closer particle of "debris" (whatever may be: ice, propelant, insulation, paint etc), and your argument is ...just cluttering the arguments presented down to ... vocabular used? So you dismiss ice, because it can be ... insulation flakes? Or frozen propellant? Or viceversa? You dismiss one because the other? What to understand? What's your point when dismiissing the IDEA OF SMALL PARTICLE OF DEBRIS? The chemical composition of the small particle?
No matter the chemical composition of a particle, in space it will move inanimate inertial, and it can appear in image when lit by the sun, even when they are small. And that's the point which you, "believers" don't like it and try to hide down to bogus.

Ice flakes, frozen bits of propelant, paint flakes, insulation flakes, and other materials made from the shuttle...they all can be as small particles of debris near the shuttle, as byproduct of it! And the reason to dismiss them is what? It seems you are not getting to the heart of the idea proposed, instead you clutter me. Please show real arguments which eliminate the common posibility of closer small debris particles.

Ok, i take in consideration your point and i'll refer from now on as "debris particles (most probable ice debris)". But you know, chemical composition is not the important aspect... instead the idea of small particle floating closer to the shuttle is the point. I hope it is clear.

Originally posted by Majorion
Then why do you continue to state with-certainty quite blatantly that the objects are ice/junk particles?

What i described as solution to the OP, is the real great posibility of beeing closer debris particles (most probable ice debris), since debris particles are common occurance in shuttle activities. And tell my, in return, why you continue to state with-certainty quite blatantly that close debris particle solution is non-sense?

Originally posted by Majorion
basically you don't really know what the objects are, due to absence of any conclusive proof of an ice particle explanation or other similarly conventional theories.

But i know that debris particles (most probable ice debris) are quite common occurance near the shuttle, when in space, and i know that closer small particles reflecting the sun light can appear in the image. And i know about depth of field in optics and photography, i know how 3D reality is captured in 2D image (paralax, projection of trajectories, i wrote about them).

So, it happens that i understand the image and the posibilities there. Show me where i'm wrong in my proposed solution, with smaller closer particles of debris (most probable ice debris).


[edit on 13/3/09 by depthoffield]

[edit on 13/3/09 by depthoffield]

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by depthoffield
And about ice particles, there is any real reason here that the OP object, even doing apparently a 180 degree change in direction (i explained a reasson why can do that) CANNOT be an ice (junk) particle?

Yes!!! The mere fact that Jim Oberg has spent so much time here trying hard to debunk this one...

THAT alone makes it an interesting anomaly

More that just an interesting anomaly...but a huge flashing neon sign lit up in bright red with the words "DAMAGE CONTROL".



Cheers!!!!

Originally posted by RFBurns

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by depthoffield
And about ice particles, there is any real reason here that the OP object, even doing apparently a 180 degree change in direction (i explained a reasson why can do that) CANNOT be an ice (junk) particle?

Yes!!! The mere fact that Jim Oberg has spent so much time here trying hard to debunk this one...

THAT alone makes it an interesting anomaly

More that just an interesting anomaly...but a huge flashing neon sign lit up in bright red with the words "DAMAGE CONTROL".



Cheers!!!!

I propose to ATS owners to BAN any NASA or related NASA person to exclude them definitely from here. You know, only the believers tell the truth and only the truth, they don't have any interest (selling documentaries, owning sites etcetera).
Kidding.

Originally posted by RFBurns

Most of our discussions were related to work I am doing and was focused on the ingenious system that dependably supplies fuel and oxidizer to the rockets under weightless conditions in space as well under Earth's gravity during reentry.

Now if you interpret what he says correctly, it means that the discussions he had with this engineer were related to the work Flemming does AND also about a system involving the RCS system. Note the word "and" in there. Now what does that mean Jim?

I had interpreted that quote as saying that the discussion with that engineer were about his (Flemming) work and that that work was focused on the supply system.

Can someone please explain the subtleties of English that give this a different meaning? Thanks.