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

Originally posted by Jay-in-AR
To answer the question... No, this footage cannot be debunked.
There is at least one UFO in the footage, maybe two.
Since it is a UFO, it cannot be debunked as it is unidentified.

It is an UFO, or, beeing in space, an UOO, i mean an "UNIDENTIFIED ORBITING OBJECT".
But it has one very likely explanation: common small debris particles (most probable ice debris).

Originally posted by Jay-in-AR
The Ice-Particle idea is ludicrous.

Why? If you say so? You should argument your opinion.

Originally posted by Jay-in-AR
Ice particles do not move at velocities greater than 18k mph, level out and reverse.
Impossible.
[

Wrong. They can APPEAR to do this as a response to maneuvers made by the shuttle. This was my earlier demonstration. I'll put it again in next post, especially for you to read it, and see how imposible is posible. If you want. And try to find the mistake or argument which eliminate my explanation. If not, then don't harass me with "ludicrous" and "imposible", it means you failed to understand it..or just don't want to understand this solution.

Originally posted by Jay-in-AR
And they really only have two options. Either it is an undisclosed military craft, or it is alien.
One of the two. IMHO.

Originally posted by Jay-in-AR
Edit to add yet another possibility... This is some sort of bad-to-the-bone living entity living in space that moves at tremendous speeds.

Yours three posibilities, have one thing in common: they are EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS. So you really should try hard to argument them with palpable arguments, but not with another extraordinary claims. You should show us that the OP is something big, far, or alive, doing maneuveurs and CANNOT just be the much more common occurance of smaller debris particles near the shuttle. Only dismissing the most likely real mundane solution, is not an argument. It is closed mind.

And for the record: i don't totaly dismiss these 3 extraordinary claims, that "believers" deliberated or blindly promote as only posibilities. Instead i put them where they belong: in the let's say 5% procent of probability, AFTER the 95% procent of probability of common debris particles. (I should let room for some other explanations like Superman or dead-souls orbs etcetera, because, you know, they can exist and doing those maneuvers, nobody can tottally dismiss it. Maybe another time ).


Dismissing the most likely explanation, the one with 95% probability, as beeing bogus, ludicrous, bs or whatever, is a BIG MISTAKE. And some of you here just fight to death to bury the most likely explanation.

Originally posted by Jay-in-AR
However, if that were the case, why does the particle stop moving away and then begin to move perpendicular to the shuttle? Gravity? Surely not. It would have behaved such much sooner. I mean, just off recollection, I'm guessing the the object moves upper-left for about 10 seconds.

You really don't read my earlier explanation. It shows to your judgement, if you dare to exercise it, that the particle is just moving constantly, but the shuttle is in process of steady acceleration during the time interval of filmimg . I exemplified with a filming inside the accelerating shuttle, in the STS-8 mission, with on object (scotch role) moving constant, but APPEARING to do EXACTLY the same maneuver of decelerating, stopping, and reversing. Read my next post, where i repeat my earlier explanation, especially for you or those who proved that they ignore it.

Originally posted by Jay-in-AR
And I DO NOT buy the idea of this being a optical illusion.
There are points of light in the background to hold reference.

It is an optical illusion, in the situation when you are misleaded to only believe that the particle itself decelerates, stops, change the direction and then accelerates to the opposite direction. But when you take in consideration that YOU, the observer, are doing some maneuvers (steady acceleration), and the apparent movement of the objects are result of YOUR real movements and position in respect to different objects (which is PARALAX), then it really is not any optical illusion

And here is the explanation , taken from: www.abovetopsecret.com...


Originally posted by depthoffield:
I reiterate the best solution in my opinion, proposed lately, to the unusual movement of the OP particle.

I said that the particle of ice/junk debris, is going in front of the camera, not so far, having an uniform speed (because it's inertia), a little more speedy than the shuttle, so that's why it moves in image from the right to the left, in direction of motion. But the shuttle is in constant acceleration, so, gradually, it's speed slowly increases, so, it catches the particle. But after, the speed of the shuttle continues to steady increase, and the particle is left behind. In the same time, the particle gradually constantly goes away from the shuttle, toward the Earth. No force required to act to the particle. It is moving free, inertial. Just the shuttle and camera is accelerating itself.

Here is the process:



This image is seen as from somewhere perpendicular to the orbit plane of the shuttle, and shows how the shuttle and particle have their trajectories.

The Earth is exactly up in this image. The gray triangle is the field of view of the camera, oriented to the Earth.

The shuttle is moving form right to the left. It is accelerating constantly, this means that it's speed is constantly increase as part of some maneuvering process.

The particle is moving inertial, in straight line, with constant speed, from left to the right, having a speed a little bigger than the speed of the shuttle at the begining of the sequence. Later, since the speed of the shuttle increases, it will became higher than the speed of the particle, so it catches and then left behind.


Here is a more adnotated version, to better understand the concept:



The D1, D2, D3..D7 blue rectangles, are just marks, they are equal
D1=D2=D3=..D7

they represent distances covered by the particle in units of time, let's say in one second. In every second, the particle covered equal distances, because is moving inertial, that's why all "Dx" distances are equal.


The S1, S2, S3..S7 blue rectangles, are again marks, showing distances covered by the shuttle in the same time units, seconds. But because the shuttle is constantly accelerates, the "Sx" distances are gradually longer, as speed of the shuttle gradually increases. So that's why S1 is smaller than S2, which is smaller than S3, which is smaller than S4 etc.

As i said, first the speed of particle is greater than the speed of the shuttle, so S1 and S2 are smaller than Dx, and i choose that S3 to be equal to Dx, beeing the moment when the speed of the shuttle is equal with the speed of the particle (and this is the moment when particle appears to stop in the image)



A composed version of all the frames, is this:



Of course, the image is not at scale, it is much exagerated, but this doesn't change the concept (see the scotch-roll below, too)


Now, we can see how, despite the particle is moving constantly, and no force acting on it, however it will appear as gradually decelerating and then change direction to the right in the field of view of the camera.

And here is an edge view of the movement of the particle, as how is seen by the camera, taking in consideration the going away movement too:



Here the actual frame of the camera is the black one, the gray border is outside the view, but i need to draw it to show how particle is outside the view.


It is exactly like the OP particle acts. Going from right, decelerating, stoping a little, changing direction with 180 degree, going to the right, in the same time diminishing size (brightness).


And this solution use only what we have as very posible common facts:
shuttle accelerating, particle of debris going inertial in the field of view.


I like to repeat the steady accelerating process (here with 1/16 g), spoken by the astronauts themselves, it is really interesting and fun:



and the same "curved 180 degree changing trajectory" of a free inertial moving object, the scoth-roll:






As i said, just seeing can be deceiving. You really need more experience and brain activity to judge complicated images or phenomenons, that's why common and numerous people OBVIOUSLY is wrong when "seeing the obvious" and take superficial conclusions, and fail to the tests in Gallup polls.

reply to post by depthoffield


DOF..the flaw in your logic here is that your giving us an example of something inside the shuttle that will have this effect when the shuttle fires its thrusters. The very reason why things are usually strapped down during such manuvers.

Now...lets think about this a moment.

Roll of duct tape, not tied down, floating in zero G, already going the same speed as the shuttle is. Then suddenly, the shuttle fires its acceleration thrusters, shuttle accelerates, along with anything else tied down to said shuttle, which in turn moves with the shuttle as it accelerates...however, the roll of tape does not accelerate at the same speed as the shuttle does, hence the roll of tape, and the two astronauts also not tied down, experience acceleration lag...or in other words, are pushed to the opposite direction of the acceleration direction.

It is the same thing when sitting in an aircraft at take off. If you had a ball sitting on the drop down table and the airplane accelerates to take off speed, and that ball is not held in place, what will happen to that ball?

It will begin to roll in opposite direction of the acceleration direction.

But you dont have to be on an airplane to try this little physics experiment.

Take a hot cup of coffee and put it on the dash of your car right in front of your steering wheel. Start your car and floor it.

Note what happens if that cup of coffee is not in a cupholder or velcro'ed down to the dashboard.

And if you were not there to stop that cup of coffee, and your car continues to accelerate, that cup of coffee would continue to the back of your car until it hit something to stop it.

Same thing with the roll of tape in the shuttle. The shuttle is still accelerating even tho the thrusters are off. And since nothing is holding down that roll of tape, it continues to move back in the opposite direction of the acceleration direction until it "catches up"..or is finaly strapped down long enough for its mass to "catch up" with the speed of the shuttle, then it will once again float in mid air and be at the same speed as the shuttle.

Now this object in STS 114...it is outside of the shuttle, not attached to the shuttle, and is out there in space on its own. How the heck can you be applying this example of something INSIDE the shuttle when it accelerates to explain the motion of the STS 114 object which is OUTSIDE the shuttle and not tied to the shuttle in any way or form and yet that object manuvers as it does????

And your still saying people are on the level of something lower than Gallup Poll selectees.

It does NOT take extra brain function to see simple physics in action, especially when your providing the example of what NOT that object is doing because of some acceleration made by the shuttle.

Really DOF....it has absolutely nothing to do with ANY of the outside objects in ANY of the videos.

Now if we were talking about a particle inside the cargo bay and suddenly the shuttle fires its accelerator thrusters or even its attitude control thrusters, we would see that particle inside the cargo bay go nutz as we see with the roll of tape inside the crew compartment.


Cheers!!!!

[edit on 14-3-2009 by RFBurns]

reply to post by depthoffield


Why do you feel the need to insult the intelligence of people who don't agree with you?

Also, I never IGNORED anything that you had written. I was asked to come to this thread last night. It is 55 pages long. So, instead of reading the whole damned thing, I just jumped in answering the OPs question...
I then thought for a bit about what the "ice particle" theorists could possibly be saying on their behalf and I put out my opinions on that.

Considering it appears I hit the meat of the issue, I would say I didn't do TOO bad.
As for your argument, I don't feel the need to expound on what RFBurns has already added. I agree with him.

Again, please don't be so insulting. It is unbecoming of someone such as yourself.

Opportunity for entertainment has arisen -- I did a hit with NBC taped yesterday for use in Saturday's nightly news on the shuttle flight. Y'all have a chance to watch tonight and throw popcorn -- or debris of your choice, including ice particles -- at the screen. Enjoy.

Originally posted by RFBurns

Now...lets think about this a moment.

Roll of duct tape, not tied down, floating in zero G, already going the same speed as the shuttle is. Then suddenly, the shuttle fires its acceleration thrusters, shuttle accelerates, along with anything else tied down to said shuttle, which in turn moves with the shuttle as it accelerates...however, the roll of tape does not accelerate at the same speed as the shuttle does, hence the roll of tape, and the two astronauts also not tied down, experience acceleration lag...or in other words, are pushed to the opposite direction of the acceleration direction.

It is the same thing when sitting in an aircraft at take off. If you had a ball sitting on the drop down table and the airplane accelerates to take off speed, and that ball is not held in place, what will happen to that ball?

It will begin to roll in opposite direction of the acceleration direction.

But you dont have to be on an airplane to try this little physics experiment.

Take a hot cup of coffee and put it on the dash of your car right in front of your steering wheel. Start your car and floor it.

Note what happens if that cup of coffee is not in a cupholder or velcro'ed down to the dashboard.

And if you were not there to stop that cup of coffee, and your car continues to accelerate, that cup of coffee would continue to the back of your car until it hit something to stop it.

And is exactly what i said before.
Finnally you understand it. (Others didn't understand at all...)

Originally posted by RFBurns
The shuttle is still accelerating even tho the thrusters are off.

WRONG!! BASIC PHYSICS. When no thrust aplied, no accelerating. NO force, no acceleration. Just free inertial moving. INERTIA PRINCIPLE! I think you just beeing innatentive.

Originally posted by RFBurns
Now this object in STS 114...it is outside of the shuttle, not attached to the shuttle, and is out there in space on its own.

And the scotch roll, when released and floating free, is atached to the shuttle?!? No, it is going constant inertial. As any inanimate object will do when no force acting on it. Inertia, remember? I know you understand it.

So, the scotch roll, when released free, DURING THIS TIME, it just going constantly, unbound to the shuttle or anything, EXACTLY LIKE AN OUTSIDE PARTICLE. Only when holded in hand or touching any object inside the shuttle (like the wall), it will have an force acting on it.
So, the example is very valid.
You can extend your logical critical thinking.
Imagine that 3 walls on the shuttle doesn't exist, and astronauts are on EVA activity, on the cargo bay. And doing the same experiment with the scotch roll thrown in the direction of shuttle movement, which steady accelerates. What differ? Only 3 walls (the shape) and the "inside" concept. Have this anything to do with the movement of the scotch roll? NO! The scotch roll will do the same: going toward front of the shuttle, but in short time, the shuttle will catch it , and then let it behind. Thus, the scotch roll will APPEAR to decelerate, stop, and accelerate in oposite direction. But, remember, the scotch roll, once released, IT MOVES CONSTANTLY.
Now, a step further: imagine the astronauts beeing on the extremity of the CANADA-ARM, that robotic arm of the shuttle. And doing the same experiment, throwing the scotch roll toward the direction of movement, and during this time, shuttle steady accelerating. The scotch roll will do the same. IT WILL FLOAT FREE and constantly, during the time when no force acting on it. So, you see, the priciple is the same, no matter an inside object, or outside particle.

Originally posted by RFBurns
How the heck can you be applying this example of something INSIDE the shuttle when it accelerates to explain the motion of the STS 114 object which is OUTSIDE the shuttle and not tied to the shuttle in any way or form and yet that object manuvers as it does????

I've just explained. No "HECK" required!

Originally posted by RFBurns
Really DOF....it has absolutely nothing to do with ANY of the outside objects in ANY of the videos.

Really RFBurns, it shows EXACTLY THE SAME PRINCIPLE OF PHYSICS. You denied it but...finnally without ARGUMENT.



Cheers!!!!



[edit on 14/3/09 by depthoffield]

Originally posted by Jay-in-AR

Why do you feel the need to insult the intelligence of people who don't agree with you?
...
Again, please don't be so insulting. It is unbecoming of someone such as yourself.

Don't victimize yourself. I didn't insult you. But your "ludicrous" word regarding "debris particles", shows that you didn't read or understand my previous examples. So i put it again, especially for you. You read it? What is wrong?

Originally posted by Jay-in-AR
As for your argument, I don't feel the need to expound on what RFBurns has already added. I agree with him.

OK. So you just post your opinion without arguments. But stop using "ludicrous" words, because then it demands to argument your position. And this is not insulting your inteligence, is response to you insulting my inteligence. Think about, please.

reply to post by depthoffield



ok, so where does the energy for the particle come from to overtake the shuttle?

the shuttle has to be thrown into reverse then pop a wheelie like a dragster
and take off to make that object behave like that.
and climb because that object gets smaller.

i see it like when you are driving on the highway and a car pulls up next to you to take an off ramp.
it banks off to change direction.

it doesn't make sense even if the object was moved by the thrusters,
1-the thrusters have to fire in the opposite direction of travel then,
2-fire again in the opposite direction to pass the object.

reply to post by depthoffield


For future reference, "IMHO" even though it is frowned upon here, I suppose, qualifies your statement being opinion only.

So, to me, in my opinion, the idea that I am looking at an ice particle in that video is ludicrous.
Eh, I was going to go into your gallop poll remarks, but it isn't worth my time.

In any event, I understand what you are getting at when you say that the particle was seeming to move because the shuttle was in the middle of a manuever. This is something I didn't think about last night, also. So thanks for pointing out that obvious possibility.
But, which is it, is the shuttle not accelerating or is it? I'll have to rewatch the video to see if there is anything other than the object that can make a suitable reference point.



[edit on 14-3-2009 by Jay-in-AR]

I think most people in here understand plenty, they just don't subscribe to the rhetoric being thrown around by DOF and Jim,O. RF Burns, Thank you my friend for saying what needed to be said about our friend Jim. His purpose has been made 100% clear in trying to debunk everything that comes along, with his technical jargon, and pseudo intellectual bull crap. Of all the NASA footage available to date, regarding these anomalies. I find it difficult to believe it all comes down to ice particles, space debris, or the frigging shuttle toilet being flushed and having the thrusters diverting their trajectory.

Having now watched it again I don't think so.
Everything else holds very steady. The object in question moves up-left and then cross right.
If it were a manuever causing this, the shuttle would need to be moving opposite the objects movement when it turns right.
However, all of the points of light in the background stay perfectly still.

I don't buy it.

And once again, that "ice particle" moved a LONG ways away from the shuttle. As an above poster pointed out, its size is reduced considerably.

Originally posted by depthoffield
Don't victimize yourself. I didn't insult you

Yes. You did.

For openly daring to have a difference of opinion, you treated him to the following remarks:


"Only dismissing the most likely real mundane solution, is not an argument. It is closed mind. "
-saying he has a closed-mind.

"I should let room for some other explanations like Superman or dead-souls orbs etcetera,"
-using off-topic, and fabricated information to insult and belittle his arguments.

"You really don't read my earlier explanation. It shows to your judgement, if you dare to exercise it,..."
- insulting his judgment.

"Read my next post, where i repeat my earlier explanation, especially for you or those who proved that they ignore it. "
- calling him ignorant .

*Then you do it again in the post where you deny insulting him:

"But your "ludicrous" word regarding "debris particles", shows that you didn't read or understand my previous examples. So i put it again, especially for you..."

-once again, you imply that he is ignorant, lazy or too stupid to understand your ever changing theories and explanations.


Depthoffield,

Will you please stop insulting the members here?

Will you at the least, keep it to one insult per post if you can't stop?
(I know it' s hard sometimes. But you really should tone it down a notch)

Originally posted by zorgon
Tossing this into the mix...

Thanks for the video, Zorgie -- did you notice some of the dots passing in FRONT of the IUS stage as it deployed? Neat trick for giant spaceships many miles away, for sure.

The object being referred to, as I interpret it and as the astronaut describes its position, is the white line extending from the rudder ('between the rudder and the right OMS pod', he specified -- did you hear those words?), perhaps some sort of insulation strip partially peeled off (hence, of great interest). Can you see that anomalous 'object' in the video when you look there, for it. The dots apparently have nothing to do with it -- are being ignored, as usual.

The capcom's addressing one of the crew as 'Dick' suggests this might have been STS-26 when Dick Covey was pilot for an IUS deploy mission.

Originally posted by Exuberant1
Depthoffield, Will you please stop insulting the members here?
Will you at the least, keep it to one insult per post if you can't stop?
(I know it' s hard sometimes. But you really should tone it down a notch)

An ideal standard should be to criticize opinions or claims-of-fact by participants, but not themselves as people, not their characters -- it's worth striving for even as we all, me too, fall short of the ideal.

For example, Exubie's sensitivity to 'insults' to HIS friends, and his blindness to the malevolent personal attacks against the motives, capabilities, and ethics of people who disagrees with, suggests an imbalanced, 'double standard'. Nazi allusions seem proper to him, if we can judge from the content of his admonitions here.

We can all do better -- and this subject deserves it.

It's important, in understanding this video, to determine for how long the object is in the 'course change' phase of its flight. The curving occurs during a short interval between two stretches of pretty-nearly straight line motion.

That interval may last two seconds or so. Who else can offer assessments of its duration? The importance of this is when potential disturbance sources get documented, they also might be short-lived -- and a comparison of the two time durations may be a useful criterion for accepting or rejecting a proposed disturbing force.

RF asked earlier about my interpretation of the orientation in the scene. I'll repeat: from the flight plan info, the shuttle orbiter is flying right-wing forward bay-to-earth, and the 'B' camera (in the aft left corner of the bay) is being used, pointed back towards the dark Earth.

In the scene, the Earth horizon is at bottom, and earth looms above. That would put the nose of the shuttle to the right, and the tail to the left, and the payload bay sill out of frame to the bottom. Does that geometry work you guys, too?

Originally posted by JimOberg
Nazi allusions seem proper to him, if we can judge from the content of his admonitions here.

Predictable.

*Your use of a variant of the Reductio Ad Hitlerum tactic was quite predictable.

I cite Godwin's law: an adage formulated by Mike Godwin in 1990. The law states: "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."


From Wikipedia:

"There are many corollaries to Godwin's law, some considered more canonical (by being adopted by Godwin himself)[2] than others invented later.[1] For example, there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically "lost" whatever debate was in progress. This principle itself is frequently referred to as Godwin's Law. It is considered poor form to raise such a comparison arbitrarily with the motive of ending the thread. There is a widely recognized codicil that any such ulterior-motive invocation of Godwin's law will be unsuccessful (this is sometimes referred to as "Quirk's Exception").[6]

Godwin's Law applies especially to inappropriate, inordinate, or hyperbolic comparisons of other situations (or one's opponent) with Hitler or Nazis or their actions. It does not apply to discussions directly addressing genocide, propaganda, or other mainstays of the Nazi regime.[citation needed] "


According to this, doing what you just did is tantamount to admitting defeat in this thread: 'NASA STS-114 UFO Footage - Can it be debunked?'

RFBurns and Zorgon will be here shortly to accept your capitulation. ;-P

*In any case, now that I've rebutted your insulting remarks, Can we get back on Topic?

Namely, the 'turn and burn' maneuver exhibited by the object in the video and what are it's means of propulsion. ;-)

Unless of course it is biological - and I don't mean a waste dump...

[edit on 14-3-2009 by Exuberant1]

What makes someone feel insulted may not be the same that makes other people feel insulted, so it's easy to insult someone while not thinking that we are doing it, but only if we left out of our mind that not all people are equal.

Kind words do not offend, neutral expressions and words do not offend, but once we start using "stronger" words and expressions we should always think that the people at the other end of the conversation may not interpret the words in the same way and feel insulted.

So, keeping that in mind and keeping on topic, let's continue this endless discussion, OK?

reply to post by Exuberant1


The first "Hitlerian" reference was back on page 37, in this post.

And it was a wrongly attributed quote.

Please, stay on-topic.

Originally posted by depthoffield

WRONG!! BASIC PHYSICS. When no thrust aplied, no accelerating. NO force, no acceleration. Just free inertial moving. INERTIA PRINCIPLE! I think you just beeing innatentive.

No, its correct. The inertia of the forward movement continues enough to cause that roll of tape to keep going in the opposite direction, as seen in the video, it goes opposite the acceleration direction a number of times. Again, the intertia of the forward applied thrust burst is the cause.

Originally posted by depthoffield
And the scotch roll, when released and floating free, is atached to the shuttle?!? No, it is going constant inertial. As any inanimate object will do when no force acting on it. Inertia, remember? I know you understand it.

No, your mis-understanding what I wrote. The very reason why the roll of "duct" tape moves the way it does during a thruster burst is because it is "NOT" tied down. Remember, that roll of duct tape was at one point either in a drawer, tied down or strapped to something before they demonstrate the movment in the video, hence that roll of duct tape is traveling at the same speed before the truster burn, which is why it floats in mid air until the shuttle fires the truster. I know you understand it DOF...your purposely trying to mix and mingle what is written that anyone can clearly see what I wrote. You should remember that.

Originally posted by depthoffield
So, the scotch roll, when released free, DURING THIS TIME, it just going constantly, unbound to the shuttle or anything, EXACTLY LIKE AN OUTSIDE PARTICLE. Only when holded in hand or touching any object inside the shuttle (like the wall), it will have an force acting on it.
So, the example is very valid.

IF, and only IF..a particle came detached from the shuttle, it would travel along with the shuttle until its inertia is slowed.

Now here is where you keep fumbling the football. You need to prove that the object in STS 114 was attached to the shuttle before we see it move into frame. Otherwise...the example is highly invalid.

Originally posted by depthoffield
You can extend your logical critical thinking.
Imagine that 3 walls on the shuttle doesn't exist, and astronauts are on EVA activity, on the cargo bay. And doing the same experiment with the scotch roll thrown in the direction of shuttle movement, which steady accelerates. What differ? Only 3 walls (the shape) and the "inside" concept. Have this anything to do with the movement of the scotch roll? NO! The scotch roll will do the same: going toward front of the shuttle, but in short time, the shuttle will catch it , and then let it behind. Thus, the scotch roll will APPEAR to decelerate, stop, and accelerate in oposite direction. But, remember, the scotch roll, once released, IT MOVES CONSTANTLY.

The roll of duct tape would move consistantly with the shuttle as long as it is tied down to something during a thruster burn. If that roll of duct tape were left to just float about, it would be bouncing all over the place. That is why things are strapped down, including the astronauts, or they hold onto something, when the shuttle fires its acceleration thrusters or attitude control thrusters. Otherwise, they too would bounce around inside the shuttle.

Here again, your extended thinking logic is so flawed. Until you can prove that object in STS 114 was attached to the shuttle, it is an object free in of itself out in space. And lets also look at this even more closely.

If it was attached at one point and simply broke away and floated away from the shuttle where it comes into the camera view, what force would make it change its course? Remember, no thruster plume flash, its not attached to the shuttle, it drifts off away from the shuttle, so again...your logic is highly flawed trying to apply those examples to an object totaly isolated from any physical contact with the shuttle, and no external force seen acting upon it.

I think what the problem here is DOF..is that your seriously over-analyzing and over-extending your thinking gears up in the brain case there and over-looking the simple obvious.

Originally posted by depthoffield

Now, a step further: imagine the astronauts beeing on the extremity of the CANADA-ARM, that robotic arm of the shuttle. And doing the same experiment, throwing the scotch roll toward the direction of movement, and during this time, shuttle steady accelerating. The scotch roll will do the same. IT WILL FLOAT FREE and constantly, during the time when no force acting on it. So, you see, the priciple is the same, no matter an inside object, or outside particle.

Again, flawed logic. In order for the shuttle to accelerate, it has to fire its acceleration thrusters. And we know for a fact, those thrusters are visible when they fire. Unless you missed my post with the normal visible mode pictures of flash plumes from the thrusters, we would be seeing these flashes from the thrusters quite visibly, more so in the STS 114 increased sensitivity mode of the camera shooting that object. But we do not see ANY flash plume at all, especially when that object turns and burns off in the other direction.

Originally posted by depthoffield

Originally posted by RFBurns
How the heck can you be applying this example of something INSIDE the shuttle when it accelerates to explain the motion of the STS 114 object which is OUTSIDE the shuttle and not tied to the shuttle in any way or form and yet that object manuvers as it does????

I've just explained. No "HECK" required!

Not quite DOF, you did not explain anything other than try to force wedge your square peg into the round hole with your examples of an item inside the shuttle during a thruster blast where in STS 114, there is no evidence of any thruster blast or acceleration blast much less any evidence that the object was even attached at one point to the shuttle at all.

Try again.

Originally posted by depthoffield

Originally posted by RFBurns
Really DOF....it has absolutely nothing to do with ANY of the outside objects in ANY of the videos.

Really RFBurns, it shows EXACTLY THE SAME PRINCIPLE OF PHYSICS. You denied it but...finnally without ARGUMENT.

NO, your examples only show a similar effect, not the same principle of physics because you have yet to prove the object in STS 114 was attached to the shuttle, you have yet to prove there was any shuttle thruster firing at the time the object turns, and you have yet to prove that the object is even an ice particle as you keep saying it is.

So..with 3 whammy's against your theory there....I would start trying to prove these theories, begining with proof the object is an ice particle, then move on to proving it was attached to the shuttle, then move on to proving the manuver it does at its turn is caused by the shuttle accelerating.

Then..perhaps..you might have reason to CAP us to death.

Have a nice day!!! Or evening whichever it is in your part of the world.



Cheers!!!!

[edit on 14-3-2009 by RFBurns]

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by Exuberant1

 

The first "Hitlerian" reference was back on page 37, in this post.

And it was a wrongly attributed quote.

Please, stay on-topic.

Correction there ArMaP...just like how NASA operates with its hired goons to debunk everything, Hitler was the Nazi organization's "front man" who always spoke for it..the one telling the lies...hence the quote is correct, and quite appropriate.

In essence, it was on topic, just a little side note of the topic, but definately on topic.

But its all interpretation, depneding on if you catch its "in between the lines" meaning.

Apparenly...some did not.


Cheers!!!!

Originally posted by JimOberg


Opportunity for entertainment has arisen -- I did a hit with NBC taped yesterday for use in Saturday's nightly news on the shuttle flight. Y'all have a chance to watch tonight and throw popcorn -- or debris of your choice, including ice particles -- at the screen. Enjoy.

That should prove interesting. I hope you gave us a nice plug. Maybe that will help increase the ATS membership.

And thanks for letting us know that its "entertainment". I kind of figured that it would be a "hit" on NBC with something more concise and serious from the realm of the scientific mind rather than in the form of "entertainment".

I look forward to viewing it...though I have to hook up all my tv stuff because I dont watch tv, but it will be ready for your "hit".



Cheers!!!!