Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 58
96
<< 55  56  57    59  60  61 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 03:32 PM
link   
Houston, we have a problem.


Originally posted by JimOberg
More information could help select among alternative hypotheses.

An alternative hypothesis would be helpful, because the ice particle hypothesis has run thin as the ice on top of a frozen lake.




posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Learhoag
You can't have an ice article appear at a vast distance from the shuttle and the ice particle is hauling and the camera is kept on this ice particle as it covers half the earth's hemisphere.



Original posted by various "believers"
"obviously" the bright dots are at tens or hundreds of miles away



No, you believers continues to say that objects (bright dots) or dismissed (by you) ice/junk particles are only at "vast" distances, and move with great velocities (half of emisphere). No, the smaller debris particles (ice debris most probable) which explains the sightings, are NEAR the shuttle, meters or tens of meters away (because kilometers distant it cannot be seen anymore). And, of course, you cannot tell from recorded image that these small particles are indeed closer to the shuttle/camera, but...BUT COMMON sense and a bit of knowledge, says that small debris particles from the shuttle can be COMMON occurance near the shuttle, and the same COMMON sense (or a bit of photography experience) says that tiny particles lit by the sun CAN APPEAR in the image.

One example:



You see how small particles of dust, just a few feet away, can appear in image, some of them as big discs (as in STS75, but, again, this is another story), some of them (more distant) as white dots. Now how you judge the size and distance to the particles? In my movie, relative to background furniture, which is not far away, its clear that they are small and close. But USE THE BRAIN, and think that the furniture doesn't exist there. This make particles dissapear? NO! Stretch a little your brain inteligence, and think that instead of the furniture, is a distant mountain. Does this make the closer sunlit particles of dust here to dissapear? NO!
How you can judge the size and distance of the particles in this scenario? Don't tell me they are big objects distant, near the mountain!


Another example here:
the crop showing WHITE BRIGHT DOTS APPARENTLY NEAR THE PLANE:



or



an improved version (contrast) to see better the dots:




and full image here: img17.imageshack.us...


Now, some of you, "believers", as you continues to strech the posibilities as only "vast distances" in a 2D image, surely will say the same about this image, that "those bright dots fly near the plane at maybe 8 km altitude and are big enough."
Nope, since i made that shot (years away), and i know what they are, it shows only flying seeds from poplar tree, as like is snowing with them, so they are meters or tens of meters away up from my camera, lit by the sun, and small. No way to be near the jet plain there, despite eyes see "it looks obviously like is near the plain".
And THAT is yours "obviously we see how far (vast) they are". As it appear to be just a misjudgement, an illusion, a lack of full understanding, but i know you are not dumb at all, but instead i feel you speak this ("is obviously at great distance") to the regulars Joes, which may only read this topics and don't know about depth of field in optics, and make the audience.


[edit on 14/3/09 by depthoffield]



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns

Your examples, based entirely on ice particles, do in fact show how those ice particles can manuver like the object in STS 114.



WOW! YOU FINALLY UNDERSTAND IT AND ACCEPT IT AS A POSIBLE SOLUTION!

You know...you contradict yourself...

So, you accept that my explanation, is a plausible one, without flaws to eliminate it. Of course, is just one explanation from several posibilities, but it is one explanation which takes care about the COMMON occurance of debris particles (most probable ice debris).

And therefore, is not BOGUS, BS, MUSIC FROM BAND-WAGON, etcetera, all the "nice" words you said along this topic.
You contradict yourself, you know....

Or it was a mistake in your post, and therefore, we should delete your sayings there and this my post here.

Cheers!



[edit on 14/3/09 by depthoffield]



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
BUT...just because ice particles/dust particles are common occurance, and just because someone can find videos that show those particles moving about in the same manner as the object in question..DOES NOT prove in any way, that the object in STS 114 is a mere ice particle/dust particle/debris particle/junk particle.


Not proving that those are indeed 100% debris particles, but proving that they could be very well closer debris particles, and since debris particles are common occurence, it means only one thing:

Your sayings, and others, --totally dismissing the debris solution, as beeing bogus, bs, lucridious, closed mind proof, work of disinfo agent, etceterea (i can do a search to enumerate all the "nice" words, but everybody here know what themselves said along this topic)--...is simply WRONG.

Debris solution is a viable one. And with great probability.
Don't dismiss it with "nice" words.








[edit on 14/3/09 by depthoffield]



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jay-in-AR

Weird that the paid stooges are afraid of those letters.
As if UNIDENTIFIED denotes alien intelligence!


But wait, that's what they accuse "believers" of.
Note that the very term "believer" is used to marginalize people who look at these things as a possibility.

It is laughable, really.




C'mon, Jay-in-AR...

You should know better what UFO means to the crowd.

Of course definition means that is ONLY something unidentified... mostly because the lack of enough information to identify the object.

But who cares about definitions? a few...


UFO means alien ships to the majority of the regular people. Make a Gallup Poll and you will see.... in fact, someone did one Gallup Poll here....



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


In the video in question, what is there that can possibly be used to judge the distance?
The thing is apparently NEVER in the shuttle's shadow and there isn't any other nearby object to be seen. Not that I recall, anyhow.

The fact that it is never in the shadow is telling, though.

I tend to think that this is a larger object and is moving with some speed indeed. If not, the thing would be gone in an instant at 18k mph.



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by depthoffield
 


I don't care what it means to some people, or even most people.
There was nothing wrong with that post.

Hell, I call planes UFOs until I can see clearly that it is a plane.



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by fooks
ok, so where does the energy for the particle come from to overtake the shuttle?


JimOberg explained here www.abovetopsecret.com...

posible sources for debris:


Originally posted by JimOberg
Significant shocks -- payload deployments, thruster firings, door openings and other mechanical motions of external equipment (say, a camera's pan/tilt motor) -- do break stuff loose, often but not always with great force. Venting (there are a dozen major vents in the forward and aft sections of the shuttle) can also be initiated manually or automatically. Also, extended thermal exposure in sunlight can also induce shedding of frozen materials such as water or hydrazine. There is no shortage of such causative forces.


I put some phrases as bold text, to say what i think may be applicable here.


[edit on 14/3/09 by depthoffield]



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jay-in-AR
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.
However, all of the points of light in the background stay perfectly still.

I don't buy it.


No, "everything else" it is not steady. Different dots appears to move one relative to other.

Look here for very speeded-up sequence (and played forward and backward to see easy the movements):



Notice the more obvious curved and in depth extended apparent trajectory of the object in relation to the observer (camera on shuttle)


Here i see PARALAX. And the one object which really moves, is the shuttle itself (steady accelerating), making fleet of more distant debris to appear to deform it's "surface" shape, because of paralax relative to the shuttle (i explained before what paralax is, with some examples, you may missed it, and i don't want to post again (yet...but if someone asks, why not?))



Originally posted by Jay-in-AR
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.

Since is moving away from the shuttle (or the shuttle from it), as my drawings shows, why not to shrink? I've explained already this.










[edit on 14/3/09 by depthoffield]



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jay-in-AR

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?


My explanation says that the shuttle is accelerating steady during the OP movie (about 44 sec), just identical to that example from STS-8 movie, with astronauts throwing away trhe scotch roll, where it shows about 20 second of steady acceleration (and astronauts said it have an acceleration about 1/16 g)

And i said it clearly in my explanation, the one with gif animations with the shuttle and the marked distances, explanation posted here 2 times already, last time especcially for you.





[edit on 14/3/09 by depthoffield]



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by depthoffield
 


I don't think that the object's movement is the result of any movement from the shuttle, if it was then all objects external to the shuttle should move in the same direction, the closer ones more than those farther away, but the direction would be the same, and the object that we see changing direction does not move in the same direction.



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
I don't think that the object's movement is the result of any movement from the shuttle, if it was then all objects external to the shuttle should move in the same direction, the closer ones more than those farther away, but the direction would be the same, and the object that we see changing direction does not move in the same direction.


At first glance, yes, Armap, should move to the same direction, but 3D paralax, is much more complicated. Add to this, the perspective effect (real paralel lines appearing to converge - as definition), add to this little differences in orbital trajectories of different debris, and you have a mixture of all of this orbital motions.

please watch again the speeded version here:





As an argument for "not the same direction", please, Armap, watch the following maneuver of the shuttle:




Look closer, and you see that not all the debris here follow the same direction:



You agree with this observation?



Returning to STS-114 video,
You can see that somehow almost all the objects appear to be attracted more or less toward Earth (up in the image), despite Earth limb (curvature) is very steady in the image.
Or all the particles are going down toward Earth, or the shuttle is climbing, letting them away. And this could be the reasson for shuttle accelerating: raising altitude as neccessary step in the mission, or going away from the cloud debris.




[edit on 14/3/09 by depthoffield]



[edit on 14/3/09 by depthoffield]

[edit on 14/3/09 by depthoffield]



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by depthoffield
 


I don't think that the object's movement is the result of any movement from the shuttle, if it was then all objects external to the shuttle should move in the same direction,


Of course I agree, the movement of the object has nothing to with the shuttle. This is entirely a different entity whether it be an intelligently controlled craft or a piece of debris. To say otherwise is absurd and indeed clutching at straws.



The object that we see changing direction does not move in the same direction.


Unless its following an eliptical path thus giving the appearance of a change in direction. (after slowing down)



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by depthoffield
 


Rephrasing what I said, I don't think that an acceleration from the shuttle is the responsible for the perceived change in direction of the object.

Also, I don't think that the object is affected by a thruster, like those on the other video you posted, that were clearly (as clearly as anything we can see on a video where the thruster is not visible) affected by the thruster.



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by franspeakfree
Of course I agree, the movement of the object has nothing to with the shuttle. This is entirely a different entity whether it be an intelligently controlled craft or a piece of debris. To say otherwise is absurd and indeed clutching at straws.
Being an entirely different entity does not mean that what we see on a video taken from the shuttle can not be affected by the movements by the shuttle, in the same way we see things change direction when we are inside a car that is making a turn, but I don't think this is the case here.



The object that we see changing direction does not move in the same direction.

Unless its following an eliptical path thus giving the appearance of a change in direction. (after slowing down)
I wanted to say that the object is not moving in the same direction as the other objects, that is one of the reasons I don't think its movement is the result of a change in the shuttle's movement.

And I think the object is probably making a wide turn (elliptical or otherwise), like I said back on page 6.



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 10:01 PM
link   
We've been through a lot of back-and-forth in recent days and my attention has mainly been elsewhere. If there are comments that anyone believes I have not responded to adequately, please post links to them and I'll try to get to them. Sorry for the spotty attention.

PS I'll be on NBC's TODAY show Sunday morning in the first segment.

My Saturday evening NBC 'Nightly News' with Lester Holt spot was at www.msnbc.msn.com...
at 1:39 into 2:43 segment




[edit on 14-3-2009 by JimOberg]



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by depthoffield
Look closer, and you see that not all the debris here follow the same direction:




That's an interesting video. I've looked at several of the objects and their post-flash motion appears to be a vector sum of their pre-flash motion and a force in a direction from the area of the flash. You'd expect them to get disturbed into different directions and amounts due to their different depths into the FOV and their different masses, as well as their different initial motions.

Is there any dispute that this video shows nearby particles being affected by a brief thruster plume? What are the arguments against that prosaic explanation?



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

How do you know those dots 'come from behind'? They look just like the dots that pass in front of the IUS. What's wrong with the assumption they are of the same nature -- small, and close?


Because Jim, if you simply look at the top of the main engine housing, you can clearly see these things appear as they clear the top and come into view. Dont sit there and say "oh its because the engine housing is white and ice particles are white so thats why they are not from behind"...BS...if that were the case, we would not see your dot rising from the IUS either until it got into the black background of space away from the white of the shuttle.



Originally posted by JimOberg
Mindless mockery is not a valid argumentation technique, except when aimed at a mindless audience. Stuff floats around shuttles -- live with it. Deploying an IUS (a BIG rocket) is a violent event involving pyrobolt detonations and cable guillotine initiations, and stuff floats off, from tile chips to insulation strips (like the 'space snake' Musgrave reported on two of his IUS deploy missions) to insulation blanket clasps -- and operators are interested in what they might be, because on occasion they might be a real clue about something to worry about.



What is mindless Jim, is the constant BS fed to us by you and the NASA goons who somehow seem to think that people are just stupid and cant put 2 and 2 together just because you and the NASA goons "think" your smarter. Remember, this isnt the 1960's anymore, and there are alot of people out there who have more degrees and education backgrounds than you and the NASA goons who obviously think you all are full of it.

There is no way that opening the bay doors, launching a satellite, or working the hydraulic systems are going to cause so much vibration as to shake things loose, when all that seems to stay in place during the launch phase. Again, if that thing is that fragile, it has no business going up into space and risking the lives of the crews....period.



Originally posted by JimOberg
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you get upset when people call you and your friends insulting names, right? Pot, meet kettle. Whoever it was saying something remotely like you seem to remember was speaking truth. These dynamic events are often the cause of visible flurries of stuff.


A tit for tat, we all know there are rats in the house. These dynamic events as you call it seem to always have the same lame dame explanations from you and the NASA goons, though you and they call it dynamic events that "often" cause the visible flurries of stuff.

Funny, that dynamic events when they only "often" cause visible flurries would all have the same lame dame explanations.




Originally posted by JimOberg
This is what your 'inside contacts' tell you? If they really do work at the positions you claim, they must disagree with your view the shuttle should be grounded -- or they'd have quit or gone public with their safety concerns. I sense a reality-disconnect here.


My contacts have told me that they would not step onto that thing if it was their only resort to escape a major Earth catastrophe. Now if you want to spout about how things fall off the shuttle over tiny vibrations, yet turn around and say opposite of that, well we all know the score there. Which one is it...the thing is a flying death trap, or a sturdy craft where all these unusual objects that suddenly appear are something else other than bits and pieces falling off this sturdy craft?



Originally posted by JimOberg
This is a fundamental conceptual chasm -- you appear to be in gross denial of the true context of spacecraft operations and the stuff they shed on a frequent basis that accompanies them in orbit for short periods before decaying. Your unrealistic assumptions are driving your conclusions.


Heh, it doesnt take a slide rule there Jim to see who's in gross denial.

You may be able to sit at a console and read an indicator and follow a procedure on a piece of paper, but your no engineer of any sort unlike those of us who actually know what goes into those things, how they are built, right down to their molecular structure, and what makes them tick.

We dont go by idiot lights and needls on indicators Jim, we go by the numbers. And those numbers vs real world do not always mesh so neatly as you like to think.

But it is not the first time engineers have been ignored. Remember Challenger?

Nuff said.



Cheers!!!!



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 10:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns

Originally posted by JimOberg

How do you know those dots 'come from behind'? They look just like the dots that pass in front of the IUS. What's wrong with the assumption they are of the same nature -- small, and close?


Because Jim, if you simply look at the top of the main engine housing, you can clearly see these things appear as they clear the top and come into view. Dont sit there and say "oh its because the engine housing is white and ice particles are white so thats why they are not from behind"...BS...if that were the case, we would not see your dot rising from the IUS either until it got into the black background of space away from the white of the shuttle.


Good reasoning -- let's keep it up.

And what is out there behind that tail, that for the first many hours of every shuttle flight is spitting oodles of trapped propellant and -- yes! -- ice in all directions? The three shuttle main engines. Where do the lines of motion of those back-end particles converge? The.... [****].

And was this video taken on the shuttle's first day of flight? That kind of information can be helpful in testing a prosaic explanation.

[edit on 14-3-2009 by JimOberg]



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
There is no way that opening the bay doors, launching a satellite, or working the hydraulic systems are going to cause so much vibration as to shake things loose, when all that seems to stay in place during the launch phase. Again, if that thing is that fragile, it has no business going up into space and risking the lives of the crews....period.


Uh, RF, if the stuff in the payload bay shakes loose during ascent -- and a lot of it very well could -- where does it go? The doors are closed. It stays inside.

When the doors are opened, the stuff shaken loose inside now has a place to go -- outside, right past the cameras.

Thanks for setting this explanation up and providing support.






top topics



 
96
<< 55  56  57    59  60  61 >>

log in

join