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

page: 59
96
<< 56  57  58    60  61  62 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 11:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by depthoffield

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!


Its neat to see you can neatly turn context around to protect your own contradictions. But sorry jack..doesnt work here...as others have already seen and pointed out. But keep patting yourself on the back there, convince yourself of it enough..you actually begin to believe your above everyone else.


Originally posted by depthoffield
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).


Nope, thats what your telling yourself by simply not reading and understanding plain english. What your doing is interpreting only what you want to interpret that fits your little boxed belief. The only thing I agree with you on your examples, is that your examples show ice particles that have a similar movement as the object in STS 114. Now if you understand english correclty, no where in there does it say I believe the object is an ice particle.

But as I said above, keep telling yourself that I do so you can feel more comfortable in the false premise you give yourself that people believe you.

Just in case you need an easier form to understand...I dont agree with you.



Originally posted by depthoffield
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....


You are so lost in your own ego dude...again you dont even bother to read the entire post, just those little sections that you can use to turn what I meant around for your benefit.

You must be getting lessons via u2u or something. I see the same pattern forming out of you as I did on day one of our friend Jim when he planted root here.

Obfuscation to its finest folks. Now we got two of em in practice.



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

Cheers!



Nope, no mistake...but you definately are making the big mistake. Are you actually thinking that no one reads for themselves and only reads your posts and quotes you pick and choose to emphasize your twisting and reverse tactic on what is written?

Your worse than our friend Jim in the art of obfuscation. Perhaps we need to hand the award to you instead?

This time, when you wish to quote me, quote the entire paragraph or sentance and not leave out the critical parts that clearly would make your points...pointless. We might actually get somewhere with all of this.




Cheers!!!!




posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 02:18 AM
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.





Originally posted by RFBurns
The only thing I agree with you on your examples, is that your examples show ice particles that have a similar movement as the object in STS 114.


But is very clear plain english.

You said you agree that my examples show how ice particles can manuver like the object in STS 114.

So, if those debris particles can manuver like the object in STS 114, it means also that the object in STS114 is maneuvering like some debris particles, and the maneuvering itself is not a difference between this object and some particles of debris. But you know, you and others said multiple times that exactly the maneuvering is one difference of many, between this STS114 object and debris particles, so this maneuvering is one reason to dismiss the debris particle solution. Here is one example of your first thoughts:


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

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




But lately, you agreed that maneuvering is not a difference. In this domain, maneuvering, the debris particles solution still is valid, you just agreed in plain english with this.


This is changed your mind from your part, accepting that debris particles can maneuver like the OP STS114 object, despite your struggle to hide this in "you ofuscate me, you cropped my quotes etcetera"








Originally posted by RFBurns
Now if you understand english correclty, no where in there does it say I believe the object is an ice particle.


Of course, you don't believe it is an ice particle, but you accepted it as an insulation flake or tile (which is, basiccally just other object floating in space near the shuttle)


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


So, you accepted also that a small object can be closer to the shuttle, despite earlier in this topic you put the STS114 object down closer to the Earth atmosphere.


So, you're becoming lately just beeing more and more opened-mind to mundane solution, and, i said before,
you have nothing yet to eliminate the debris particle solution... Which is my basic point:
the debris solution is valid, (is no bogus, bs, lame etcetera) until a good reason will dismiss it. And i just showed that maneuvering is not a reason.







[edit on 15/3/09 by depthoffield]



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 02:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
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.

I agree, this STS114 object is not affected by the direct blast of the thruster on it. But i disagree, the other video shows many if not all the objects that also are not affected by the direct blast of the thruster on them, instead showed how shuttle is moving away, thus letting them away, as paralax movement can do.

a) You agree with this observation regarding the other video?


And, also, in the other video, you can see objects not going in the same direction, (and not taking in consideration only the fast moving ones which streak the image, but also the more distant ones, between themselves)

b) You agree with this observation regarding the other video?


So, with this, i want to point my argument, that a maneuver from the shuttle is not going to make all the objects to go in the "same direction", as you pointed before. Your opinion?





Originally posted by ArMaP
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.

Ok. It is you opinnion, but i have to ask why you don't think? (Because i presented here a solution, which speaks about this posibility, and i want to know from you what is wrong about this posibility: acceleration from the shuttle to be responsible for the perceived change in direction of the object(s)). Thanks.



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 02:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by depthoffield
You said you agree that my examples show how ice particles can manuver like the object in STS 114.



No. He didn't.

RFburns: "The only thing I agree with you on your examples, is that your examples show ice particles that have a similar movement as the object in STS 114."

Please stop lying, or at least stop misrepresenting his statements. Your actions are intentional and there are no excuses for them.

Please stop.



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 02:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by depthoffield
You said you agree that my examples show how ice particles can manuver like the object in STS 114.


No. He didn't.

RFburns: "The only thing I agree with you on your examples, is that your examples show ice particles that have a similar movement as the object in STS 114."

Please stop lying, or at least stop misrepresenting his statements. Your actions are intentional and there are no excuses for them.

Please stop.






In plain English he said:


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




This is not a lie, not a misinterpreting, he just agrees with similar maneuvers between STS114 object and some debris particles.

[edit on 15/3/09 by depthoffield]



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 03:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by depthoffield

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.





Originally posted by RFBurns
The only thing I agree with you on your examples, is that your examples show ice particles that have a similar movement as the object in STS 114.


But is very clear plain english.

You said you agree that my examples show how ice particles can manuver like the object in STS 114.


Thats right. Your ice particles in your video examples can move like the object in STS 114, however that does not mean or prove in any way that the object in STS 114 is an ice particle.



Originally posted by depthoffield
So, if those debris particles can manuver like the object in STS 114, it means also that the object in STS114 is maneuvering like some debris particles, and the maneuvering itself is not a difference between this object and some particles of debris. But you know, you and others said multiple times that exactly the maneuvering is one difference of many, between this STS114 object and debris particles, so this maneuvering is one reason to dismiss the debris particle solution. Here is one example of your first thoughts:


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

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



Once again, none of the ice particles moves exactly like the object in STS 114 because those ice particles move in the manner they do because of an outside force, the thruster blasts. That object in STS 114 has nothing acting upon it. No evidence whatsoever of any force acting upon it to cause it to turn and head off in the other direction.

Your streching for those tiny similarities to conclude for yourself that the object in STS 114 is an ice particle....which you have yet to prove. Once you prove it is an ice particle, then and only then will any of your examples be applicable to say "this is what it is".




Originally posted by depthoffield
But lately, you agreed that maneuvering is not a difference. In this domain, maneuvering, the debris particles solution still is valid, you just agreed in plain english with this.


Nope, I agreed that your examples of ice particles move like how ice particles move...plain english. Again your mis-interpreting and then twisting what I write.

Its ok tho DOF...everyone else here can clearly understand what I am saying. Just remember, they can also see your twisting of what I am saying so that it fits to support your reverse action on the meaning.


Originally posted by depthoffield
This is changed your mind from your part, accepting that debris particles can maneuver like the OP STS114 object, despite your struggle to hide this in "you ofuscate me, you cropped my quotes etcetera"


Again, your leaving out part of what I said, only reading what you want to read and not the whole. Let me repeat it again, ice and debris can move like that object in STS 114, when something acts upon it, but it in no way proves by any means that the object in STS 114 is an ice particle or debris.

Pretty straight forward there DOF. Why do you continue to ignore that in my posts?

Repetitive attempts to twist what I write is only making yourself look bad.



Originally posted by depthoffield

Originally posted by RFBurns
Now if you understand english correclty, no where in there does it say I believe the object is an ice particle.


Of course, you don't believe it is an ice particle, but you accepted it as an insulation flake or tile (which is, basiccally just other object floating in space near the shuttle)


Really?....


Originally posted by depthoffield

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


So, you accepted also that a small object can be closer to the shuttle, despite earlier in this topic you put the STS114 object down closer to the Earth atmosphere.


How about you go back and quote the entire post so that everyone gets the right meaning. Here is the fine example of how you are nit picking at my posts, taking only those sentances and paragraphs that fit your little reversal tactic. Its not working DOF. People can go back and read the whole thing and then come back here and see what your doing.

Maybe you should include the part where I mention that the above possibilites applied to your examples, not the STS 114 object.



Originally posted by depthoffield
So, you're becoming lately just beeing more and more opened-mind to mundane solution, and, i said before,
you have nothing yet to eliminate the debris particle solution... Which is my basic point:
the debris solution is valid, (is no bogus, bs, lame etcetera) until a good reason will dismiss it. And i just showed that maneuvering is not a reason.




You keep convincing yourself of that DOF..whatever makes you feel comfortable. You can accept the mundane all you want, I have already stated my belief. And it is nothing like how your trying to dictate here of what it is.

Until you prove the object in STS 114 is debris, ice, junk, doodoo from waste dump, I doubt anyone else will buy your explanation either, or believe how you believe as well.

Sorry, but you will have to do MUCH better than this to get me to step into your little comfy box.



Cheers!!!!

[edit on 15-3-2009 by RFBurns]



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 03:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by depthoffield
You said you agree that my examples show how ice particles can manuver like the object in STS 114.



No. He didn't.

RFburns: "The only thing I agree with you on your examples, is that your examples show ice particles that have a similar movement as the object in STS 114."

Please stop lying, or at least stop misrepresenting his statements. Your actions are intentional and there are no excuses for them.

Please stop.


Thank you Exuberant1. Perhaps if more re-quote all of DOF"s misunderstanding, maybe DOF might figure it out that we have DOF figured out on what DOF is doing with my posts.

Its easy to take someone's writting and pick and choose lines from that writting, twist its meaning and apply it to one's own little misgivings.

Perhaps at some point it will stop.


Cheers!!!!



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 03:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by depthoffield

In plain English he said:


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




This is not a lie, not a misinterpreting, he just agrees with similar maneuvers between STS114 object and some debris particles.



Where is the rest of your post where you try to insert your own interpretation of that highlighted in red from my post?

You said that I agree and imply the object in STS 114 is ice or debris or parts from the shuttle.

So if your going to nit pick the poster's quotes, how about including ALL of it and ALL of YOUR replies so that the whole picture is presented, not just bits and pieces to fit your little game to get you out of the corner you backed yourself up into.


Cheers!!!!



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 05:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
Once again, none of the ice particles moves exactly like the object in STS 114 because those ice particles move in the manner they do because of an outside force, the thruster blasts. That object in STS 114 has nothing acting upon it. No evidence whatsoever of any force acting upon it to cause it to turn and head off in the other direction.


And if RF had his way, it seems, nobody would ever find such evidence because he doesn't want anybody to LOOK for it -- or talk about it, if they found any. All he needs is the scene itself -- no context, no technological/operational events chronology surrounding the 'curver', nothing but his own omniscient eyeball. That's no way to research ANY UFO event of any kind.

Note, too, he just skips over my comments on how he has acknowledged there WILL be particles generated when the payload bay doors open, at the very least from stuff shook loose during launch. Oops, that exchange seems to have been forgotten already.

[edit on 15-3-2009 by JimOberg]



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 06:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns

Originally posted by depthoffield

In plain English he said:


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




This is not a lie, not a misinterpreting, he just agrees with similar maneuvers between STS114 object and some debris particles.



Where is the rest of your post where you try to insert your own interpretation of that highlighted in red from my post?

You said that I agree and imply the object in STS 114 is ice or debris or parts from the shuttle.


No, you seem confused. I didn't said never that you agreed that OP is indeed ice or debris, i said that you agreed that maneuvering is the same, so, i concluded, based on your agreement:

the debris solution is valid from this point of view: maneuvering. Which is something (maneuvering) you dismissed earlier in this thread. So you were wrong in this aspect: maneuvering.

And if debris solution is valid from this point of view (maneuvering), it doesn't mean that it is proof that OP is indeed debris, it means that OP object CAN BE VERY WELL DEBRIS, which is something you dismissed because of maneuvering as one of the reasons.

[edit on 15/3/09 by depthoffield]

[edit on 15/3/09 by depthoffield]



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 06:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Note, too, he just skips over my comments on how he has acknowledged there WILL be particles generated when the payload bay doors open, at the very least from stuff shook loose during launch. Oops, that exchange seems to have been forgotten already.


More misrepresentation.

RFBurns specifically stated that 'none of the ice particles moves exactly like the object in STS 114 because those ice particles move in the manner they do because of an outside force,'

In this case that outside force he was referring to would be represented by a 'thruster blast'.

He then clearly states : "That object in STS 114 has nothing acting upon it. No evidence whatsoever of any force acting upon it to cause it to turn and head off in the other direction."

Poor Form.

You also insinuate that RFBurns has been purposefully ignoring the 'exchange' which you allege to somehow substantiate one of your theories.

This is clearly not the case - as his posts have clearly indicated.

Even though certain rebuttals may have grossly misrepresented and quite possibly even misinterpreted them apurpose - RFBurns continues to offer dignified response, which is commendable in the face of such a blatant use of informal fallacy, and purposeful obfuscation.

Such tactics can be an excellent way to monopolize an opponent's time - although in a debate with no time limit; they only serve to expose your motives and do not hold up under scrutiny, especially in circumstances where the time and resources are available to investigate the statements made in your posts.;-)


Cheers!

[edit on 15-3-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 07:47 AM
link   
reply to post by depthoffield
 


On the video you posted I can see objects having three different reactions:
- some are directly affected by the action of the thruster
- some are affected by the shuttle's change in direction
- some do not look affected by the direct or indirect action of the thruster

The objects that we see affected (directly or indirectly) by the thruster show the same signs of acceleration, starting slowly and gaining speed with time, until they reach a constant (or so it looks) speed, and that is what I do not see on the STS-114 video.

On the STS-114 video, the majority of the objects we see is moving in one general direction (the top of the frame), but they are all moving with a constant speed. The object that crosses the screen from the bottom right to the top left and back does not look affected by any instantaneous acceleration during its presence on the screen.

Even if we consider its change of direction, we see it slowly loose speed and then, with apparently the same rate, gain speed again (another reason that makes me think that the object is doing a wide turn).

Sorry if I did not answered your a) and b) points, but I was not sure about what was the question, my English sometimes fails me.



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
Even though certain rebuttals may have grossly misrepresented and quite possibly even misinterpreted them apurpose - RFBurns continues to offer dignified response,


Sure, by calling people 'goons' and liars.

Gimme a break.



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by JimOberg

Note, too, he just skips over my comments on how he has acknowledged there WILL be particles generated when the payload bay doors open, at the very least from stuff shook loose during launch. Oops, that exchange seems to have been forgotten already.


More misrepresentation. RFBurns specifically stated that 'none of the ice particles moves exactly like the object in STS 114 because those ice particles move in the manner they do because of an outside force,'


More misunderstanding. To clarify, I'm referring to another exchange where RF denied the possibility that anything could break loose from a shuttle and float freely in space.

So when you misunderstand something, your instinct is to accuse somebody else of misrepresentation? Tut tut.

How can we move forward on agreeing that stuff does come off shuttles in orbit -- lots of stuff. That seems to still be a matter of dispute.



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by Exuberant1
Even though certain rebuttals may have grossly misrepresented and quite possibly even misinterpreted them apurpose - RFBurns continues to offer dignified response,


Sure, by calling people 'goons' and liars.

Gimme a break.



I refered to the bad apples at NASA as "goons"...never once saying that you are a goon...unless you happen to be still contracting to NASA to be here in this thread, and are confirming that for us with your response.

So tell us dear Jim....is that the case? Are you here under contract with NASA to discredit and debunk this particular video?

Did I by chance pull a certian string that is connected to a huge bell going "DING DING DING"...calling out the hidden agenda that some of us here, me in particular, already had figured out since day one when you arrived????

Hmm....how unusual to be getting so defensive when the name goon was not even directed at you.

Your reaction is just like that of someone defending a company who is still in the employ of said company. But you are retired from NASA...right?


Go figure.


Cheers!!!!

[edit on 15-3-2009 by RFBurns]



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
Your reaction is just like that of someone defending a company who is still in the employ of said company. But you are retired from NASA...right?


Are you ready to concede that shuttles can release debris into space? That's an important step in understanding prosaic hypotheses about at least some of the dot videos.

Your random thoughts on how people should behave or not, as evidence for your imaginary suppositions, is useless as a reality check. It seems to me you'll always find another way to arrive at conclusions you always wanted to hold from the beginning.

So let's work on things we can check, to advance to factual agreements.

Shuttles can release debris -- small stuff usually, larger sometimes. Some of it is effluent from thrusters, from flash evaporators, from hydraulic pressure generators, from water and air dump ports, and elsewhere.

The STS-114 scene on page 1 was with the shuttle in sunlight, as shown on the flight plan that Exubie found (and I'd already posted). You were demanding proof of that. I submit the flight plan as such proof.

Shuttles cast a shadow into the vacuum of space. Stuff inside that shadow would not be illuminated by the sun (in the minute or two after sunrise, when the ground beneath the shuttle is still dark -- the 'terminator zone'), and under such conditions would be invisible until they emerge into sunlight when they would suddenly appear.

Can we agree on these statements of fact?



[edit on 15-3-2009 by JimOberg]



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Are you ready to concede that shuttles can release debris into space? That's an important step in understanding prosaic hypotheses about at least some of the dot videos.


Never stated that the shuttles could not release debris in this entire discussion. Not sure where that one is comming from.



Originally posted by JimOberg
Your random thoughts on how people should behave or not, as evidence for your imaginary suppositions, is useless as a relaity check. It seems to me you'll always find another way to arrive at conclusions you always wanted to hold from the beginning.


There is nothing random about it Jim, its very direct, from very keen observation, and from experience. Your problem seems to be that you have become so used to people just readily accepting your word because of your record, and that now you found someone, perhaps a group of people, who dont just hop into that bandwagon so easily, is rather upsetting and perhaps stomps on the self bloated ego you have created for yourself over the years, it is something that you were not expecting to see happen.

Well..in real life Jim, we all dont get to have it our way when we want it our way.




Originally posted by JimOberg
So let's work on things we can check, to advance to factual agreements.


No argument there. As I have stated many many times, the examples put forth with this discussion, have been covered many many times before, in many other forums, and in many other chat rooms since this video became known. I am quite ready for some new data to look at, not revised, rearranged old data that doesnt provide any new prospectives.



Originally posted by JimOberg
Shuttles can release debris -- small stuff usually, larger sometimes. Some of it is effluent from thrusters, from flash evaporators, from hydraulic pressure generators, from water and air dump ports, and elsewhere.


Again, this is a moot point because I never said the shuttles cannot release stuff. What I have stated, and I will repeat it here for this instance, is that if these shuttles were so flimsy to be releasing this much clutter, they have no business flying much less have human beings inside them.

I have seen videos of the astronauts strapped to their seats in the crew compartment at launch time, and that first jolt when the main engines fire is quite a vibration, and then, those SRB's fire off, causing an even harder jolt of vibration. The entire mess vibrates like hell, even at liftoff. None of this smooths out until the shuttle reaches lofting speeds, at any point before that, things can come apart. But not so much as to be causing so much of it to flake away that everything within these videos are due to these parts and pieces falling off the shuttle.

It almost sounds like your saying that the shuttle is so fragile that if one of the astronauts were to bounce off the inner wall, that something outside the shuttle will come apart and break loose during orbital flight.

I would think that during the launch cycle would be the most possible time frame when things would be vibrated loose. But if we had some sheer force data during launch, and when cruising along in orbit during opening of the bay doors and such, maybe we can have a better prospective on which vibrations would most likely cause something to fall off. Ya?

Ya that sounds like a good idea. If you can, round up some sheer force data measurements during launch and then during opening of the bay doors or satellite launches from the cargo bay or from working the hydraulic systems up in orbit.



Originally posted by JimOberg
The STS-114 scene on page 1 was with the shuttle in sunlight, as shown on the flight plan that Exubie found (and I'd already posted). You were demanding proof of that. I submit the flight plan as such proof.


Great!! The shuttle is in the sunlight. What is so significant about that? What does that have to do with the object in question and why it does its fancy turn and burn?

No relevance IMO.



Originally posted by JimOberg
Shuttles cast a shadow into the vacuum of space. Stuff inside that shadow would not be illuminated by the sun (in the minute or two after sunrise, when the ground beneath the shuttle is still dark -- the 'terminator zone'), and under such conditions would be invisible until they emerge into sunlight when they would suddenly appear.

Can we agree on these statements of fact?



Again, what relevance is that with the object being discussed? The object is constantly lit in the video, suggesting it is in the sunlight through the entire length of the video provided. We do not see anything prior to it entering the frame that would suggest it was behind the shuttle in a shadow or not. All we do see is when it enters the frame, fully lit, and turns and burns, fully lit, and heads off in the other direction....fully lit.

So the issue with the shuttle shadow is basically irrelevant in this because of the object. It is lit up in the entire video. That is why I dismiss anything relating to a shadow from the shuttle.


Cheers!!!!

[edit on 15-3-2009 by RFBurns]



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 05:15 PM
link   
Thanks for the constructive reply.

I gotta go pay attention to the shuttle launch now -- see ya later.



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 09:36 PM
link   
I've been sitting here thinking about this manuever that the object makes in the video and I cannot think of any way that the shuttle could possibly manuever that would account for the object to appear to reverse.

If we assume that the object only APPEARS to come to a near halt then we have a situation where, through the trajectory of the object itself or the movement of the shuttle, that the object is moving in an almost straight line opposite the shuttle. I don't see how this is possible assuming that the object in question is moving in a straight line. When it appears it appears to the right of the shuttle.
The only way for that to work would be for the entire shuttle to move laterally into the wake of the object while moving the front of the shuttle to the right.

Althought, I guess they could feasibly make manuevers like this, but I just wouldn't expect it.

Otherwise, the object itself is moving in an arc.

Edit - Actually, the shuttle would have to completely cross the wake of the object and train the camera to the left of the object in order to achieve this result (I believe)... This doesn't happen. In order for that to happen, the object would either come to rest at the center or right of center of the frame.
Arc.

[edit on 15-3-2009 by Jay-in-AR]



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 10:02 PM
link   
I can see that it's the same people, spewing the same garbage about how this could be an "ice particle" as in the STS-63 thread. If this were an ice particle, then it COMPLETELY DEFIES THE LAWS OF PHYSICS by slowing down, changing direction, and accelerating after it has changed direction, which is IMPOSSIBLE without its own propultion system.



new topics
 
96
<< 56  57  58    60  61  62 >>

log in

join