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

page: 60
96
<< 57  58  59    61  62  63 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 10:35 PM
link   
reply to post by UnconventionalRyan1990
 


Not only does the object here in STS 114 do some fancy turn and burn, which is of in itself very unlikely for an ice particle at a considerable distance from the shuttle and its thrusters, but if some believe this movment may be a result of the shuttle changing direction, well that is a bit impossible at 18,000 mph.

It would take a huge amount of main engine burn in the opposite direction of travel to get the shuttle to do a course change of near 180 degrees to make that object do the fancy manuvering it does. No engine or thruster on the shuttle can almost instantly bring it to a hault, and change direction. Plus there is not even enough fuel on board for such a drastic aleration in direction. It would require a 2nd huge fuel tank to sustain main engine burn to slow down the shuttle and then slowly begin to move in the opposite direction.

Lets also not forget about the occupants inside the shuttle. If that shuttle were to instantly change direction, those poor astronauts inside would be smashed up against the walls flat as a pancake...they would be killed. Even if they were strapped down in their seats, the sudden G-Force change would kill them.


Cheers!!!!



[edit on 15-3-2009 by RFBurns]




posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
Thanks for the constructive reply.

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



I used to watch those regularly...back when NASA gave us live video. Now they are pretty much all the same, big fire, big thing moves up, rotates, accelerates, reaches SRB sep, continues up and downrange, hits MECO, drops tank, settles into orbit.

3 days later after letting it "cool down" and going through flight check lists
...we see a tape delay feed of the shuttle meeting up with ISS. (after it has visited other points and now has a half full cargo bay).

The thing about this 3 day cool down nonsense...is why would it need to cool down for 3 days after a launch, when they certianly do not wait 3 days for the shuttle to cool down after re-entry and landing????

Hmm....something to ponder about.

Ya they were once a thing to see...especially in the day of when Apollo launched to actually go somewhere instead of just going up in endless circles.

But I suppose some are still fascinated by the simple and repetitive.



Cheers!!!!

[edit on 15-3-2009 by RFBurns]



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 07:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
3 days later after letting it "cool down" and going through flight check lists
...we see a tape delay feed of the shuttle meeting up with ISS. (after it has visited other points and now has a half full cargo bay).

The thing about this 3 day cool down nonsense...is why would it need to cool down for 3 days after a launch, when they certianly do not wait 3 days for the shuttle to cool down after re-entry and landing????

Hmm....something to ponder about.


RF, your willingness to explain and elaborate on your views in detail is a constructive contribution to helping us all -- and eventally you yourself, it can be hoped -- understand the significant misinterpretations that are preventing you from coming to a realistic understanding of what we are all viewing (and some 'seeing' differently) in the 114 video. Thanks for the effort and thanks for the valuable contribution.

It's rarely 'three days after launch' that the shuttle meets the ISS, it's usually two days. This isn't a trivial question about being able to count, or being able to correctly relay a provable fact, it's important in understanding what is going on in that period, and in your head.

Smehow you've gotten the notion that this period is for the shuttle to 'cool down'. I've never heard of that idea, and it's silly. Whatever heat built up on the tiles and in the main engines dissipates in a matter of hours and makes no difference to its flyability anyway. Where do you imagine you ever heard this 'official explanation' from NASA anyway? And 'imagine' is the operative word here -- so much of what you sincerely think you know about the shuttle is 'imagined' just like that, it looks to me.

You seem to have a lot of serious misconceptions and imaginary 'certainties' about the project that have interfered with your ability to understand it effectively.

"..after it has visited other points and now has a half full cargo bay..." is another wonderful piece of nonsense, What other points, where are they, why can't anybody else on Earth see them in space? Why do observers still see the shuttle where it 'officially' is supposed to be, chasing its target in low Earth orbit. These aren't places out in 24,000 mile high geosynchronous orbit, are they -- where you still seem to cling to the belief the shuttle can secretly fly?

This assertion is checkable and subject to corroboration -- or refutation, if you only could be specific enough to explain the allegation. And where does the shuttle get the rocket fuel for this detour, and how does it explain it to the majority of experts in Mission Control who (apparently in your view) are also kept in the dark about this secret phase of the flight?

So, half the payload is left behind at this secret stop? Does that mean the components brought to the ISS are only half as heavy as officially claimed? Or that the shuttle actually has twice the payload performance as officially claimed? And that TV of the payload bay, from the first hours of the flight, is somehow falsified to hide the secret payload?

These questions reflect directly in 114 because your postings here reject the prosaic explanations for the dots mainly on what you claim is your unique and 'insider' knowledge of the space shuttle. That 'insider' knowledge has often been called into question in these exchanges, with the suggestion you have imagined many of them, or have been given distorted factoids that you have carelessly believed. And it's never before been as blatent as in this latest claim of yours of a secret destination and secret payloads for these missions.

It seems to me that if any of this claim were true, whatever dots are seen dancing outside the windows and on TV screens would be the least of the sensational news being revealed.

Comments such as you just made, I think, make it perfectly clear how far people can believe that your factual allegations on spaceflight -- and any judgments made based upon them -- can be trusted. Again, thanks for being so clear.



[edit on 16-3-2009 by JimOberg]



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
reply to post by UnconventionalRyan1990
 


Not only does the object here in STS 114 do some fancy turn and burn, which is of in itself very unlikely for an ice particle at a considerable distance from the shuttle and its thrusters, but if some believe this movment may be a result of the shuttle changing direction, well that is a bit impossible at 18,000 mph.

It would take a huge amount of main engine burn in the opposite direction of travel to get the shuttle to do a course change of near 180 degrees to make that object do the fancy manuvering it does.


Uh, RF, the shuttle NEVER ever makes a 'main engine burn' in orbit. Nunca. Jamais. Nikogda. Ain't no way. That you should even think it plausible is strike sixteen against your pose of a 'space expert'.

And you keep slipping things-in-dispute into your 'assumptions' for the puzzle -- re the distance to the curver. There's been no proof it's far, far away. So far, the presumption is that like all other known 'dots' in the shuttle video, it's close by.


[edit on 16-3-2009 by JimOberg]



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns

Not only does the object here in STS 114 do some fancy turn and burn, which is of in itself very unlikely for an ice particle at a considerable distance from the shuttle and its thrusters, but if some believe this movment may be a result of the shuttle changing direction, well that is a bit impossible at 18,000 mph.


What considerable distance? How much, for example? Tell an aproximate value of what you define as "considerable distance".

And should i put again an example from STS-8, with the shuttle in constant acceleration with 1/16 g, making objects (scotch roll) to APPEAR to decelerate, stop , reverse movement and accelerate? And all this is happening at 18000 km/h.

[edit on 16/3/09 by depthoffield]



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
Why do observers still see the shuttle where it 'officially' is supposed to be, chasing its target in low Earth orbit. These aren't places out in 24,000 mile high geosynchronous orbit, are they -- where you still seem to cling to the belief the shuttle can secretly fly?


How do they know your 'observers' are not witnessing a Buran shuttle?

For that matter, I don't know of any one person who is capable of tracking the shuttle for a period of time that is longer than the time it takes for the shuttle to pass over the relatively small percentage of space that an individual is able to effectively observe.

*Governments have secrets, and the Russian government still has a fleet of Burans ;-)
(Yes, Jim - a fleet of them, which are alleged to be 'grounded,' but extremely well-maintained. Zorgon has a picture of one on his site and it is in a unique location...check it out)

In any case, NASA is to blame for the confusion with regards to the 22,300-mile geosynchronous orbit idea; it was their poorly-worded press kit for STS-51L that helped foster and only encourage the idea, which already existed at the time - from, page 14:

"TDRS-1 is now in geosynchronous orbit over the Atlantic Ocean just east of Brazil (41 degrees west longitude). It initially failed to reach its desired orbit following successful Shuttle deployment because of booster rocket failure. A NASA-industry team conducted a series of delicate spacecraft maneuvers over a 2-month period to place TDRS-1 into the desired 22,300-mile altitude."

*Things were different then. We were involved in a cold war with the Soviets - ambiguity and well-placed coincidence had strategic value.
(for example; the calculation for a year's worth of helium3 was conveniently worked out to equal the shuttle's payload, even though the technology to utilize the He3 did not exist, that did not stop us from giving the Russkies something else to worry about.)

[edit on 16-3-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by UnconventionalRyan1990
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.


"spewing the same garbage". You should demonstrate it is garbage. Otherwise, you just insult people. Shame.

Again, for you, did you see the STS8-example? The scotch roll doesn't break any law of physics. But it APPEARS to "slowing down, changing direction, and accelerating after it has changed direction, which is" POSSIBLE "just without its own propultion system". In fact, the scotch roll is moving inertial with constant speed when is free.

[edit on 16/3/09 by depthoffield]

[edit on 16/3/09 by depthoffield]



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

RF, your willingness to explain and elaborate on your views in detail is a constructive contribution to helping us all -- and eventally you yourself, it can be hoped -- understand the significant misinterpretations that are preventing you from coming to a realistic understanding of what we are all viewing (and some 'seeing' differently) in the 114 video. Thanks for the effort and thanks for the valuable contribution.


Thanks for the compliments. The misinterpretations you speak of are a matter of point of view to each individual's prospective. I believe here in this thread, that would apply to every single participant.

Nothing to date has proven either side's case. It is all still open to speculation, and interpretation. And as I have stated before, as well as others have stated, much of the examples presented here have been hashed out many times before in the past.

Every now and then its not such a bad thing to review it again. Where a problem arises is when those previously considered examples become too repetitive. It is like listening to a skipping record..repeating that little part over and over..and then becomes quite irritating to a point where you want to throw something at the record player or stomp your foot on the floor to make the needle jump past the skip.



Originally posted by JimOberg
It's rarely 'three days after launch' that the shuttle meets the ISS, it's usually two days. This isn't a trivial question about being able to count, or being able to correctly relay a provable fact, it's important in understanding what is going on in that period, and in your head.

Smehow you've gotten the notion that this period is for the shuttle to 'cool down'. I've never heard of that idea, and it's silly. Whatever heat built up on the tiles and in the main engines dissipates in a matter of hours and makes no difference to its flyability anyway. Where do you imagine you ever heard this 'official explanation' from NASA anyway? And 'imagine' is the operative word here -- so much of what you sincerely think you know about the shuttle is 'imagined' just like that, it looks to me.


Well Jim...most of that is taken from conversations you have had previously with a well known member of this forum who is no longer here, by their choice. I am sure you remember him. Though I will not go into details of that because that member is not here and it is not appropriate to discuss someone when they are not here to partake and give their testimony, but if you think back a little, and perhaps search, you will find those posts are still there.


Originally posted by JimOberg
You seem to have a lot of serious misconceptions and imaginary 'certainties' about the project that have interfered with your ability to understand it effectively.


Your forgetting that I happen to get informed by those on the inside via my contacts. There isnt a single mission that goes by without me being informed about certian aspects of them. To protect those contacts, and their neutrality and to prevent any recourse to them, do not expect me to reveal these contacts, or disclose any information in detail that is passed on to me. There is a purpose for that passed on info, and until the time is right, it and the persons I am in contact with will remain confidential.



Originally posted by JimOberg
"..after it has visited other points and now has a half full cargo bay..." is another wonderful piece of nonsense, What other points, where are they, why can't anybody else on Earth see them in space? Why do observers still see the shuttle where it 'officially' is supposed to be, chasing its target in low Earth orbit. These aren't places out in 24,000 mile high geosynchronous orbit, are they -- where you still seem to cling to the belief the shuttle can secretly fly?


Its no secret Jim. As posted in earlier pages by Zorgon, DOD missions and a few other private industrial mission records have been provided and can be found at the NASA sites.

Do you think that the cargo bay is only capable of holding satellites to release into orbit? Well you see, thats some of the capabilities of that shuttle that apparently you are not aware of...as well as the public not being aware of.


Originally posted by JimOberg
This assertion is checkable and subject to corroboration -- or refutation, if you only could be specific enough to explain the allegation. And where does the shuttle get the rocket fuel for this detour, and how does it explain it to the majority of experts in Mission Control who (apparently in your view) are also kept in the dark about this secret phase of the flight?


Read above reply regarding the "extra fuel". As to the "experts" sitting in mission control, they are under the same need to know basis when it comes to DOD missions. Not many know this, I am sure you do however, that on certian military operations involving the shuttle, those "experts" sitting at mission control during these classified operations are not the regular mission control people you see sitting there when they take a comms satellite up, or crew replacement/supplies for the ISS.

That was the standard practice in the early days of the shuttle missions involving DOD operations. And more often than not, Houston was not in control during those classified missions.

Unfortunatley, you wont be able to confirm any of it since obviously you are not aware of it, as well as the classified nature of those missions. Or it could be that you are aware of it, and just playing "dumb" in this instance so as to further the cover under which these DOD missions operated in conjunction with NASA. And if you really want to nip it in the bud here, we are starting to step into an area where both you and I could face serious problems with disclosing certian things that the DOD would like to keep classified. So lets leave it at that.



Originally posted by JimOberg
So, half the payload is left behind at this secret stop? Does that mean the components brought to the ISS are only half as heavy as officially claimed? Or that the shuttle actually has twice the payload performance as officially claimed? And that TV of the payload bay, from the first hours of the flight, is somehow falsified to hide the secret payload?


There have been a number of missions where launch weights and landing weights have been witheld from the public documentation. Again, refer to those conversations you had with a former member, those posts are still located within this forum.



Originally posted by JimOberg
These questions reflect directly in 114 because your postings here reject the prosaic explanations for the dots mainly on what you claim is your unique and 'insider' knowledge of the space shuttle. That 'insider' knowledge has often been called into question in these exchanges, with the suggestion you have imagined many of them, or have been given distorted factoids that you have carelessly believed. And it's never before been as blatent as in this latest claim of yours of a secret destination and secret payloads for these missions.


Again, I will not disclose the names of my contacts for their protection. I value their friendship, their careers, and their record. There are some things that go byond betrayal Jim, and I for one will not cross that line just to appease you or anyone else here at ATS. I know where the line is and Im sorry, but you and everyone else here will never see me cross that line.

As time goes on, and as things progress in other areas, there will be things mentioned, stated, or if you want to call it...revealed. No wine before its time. Take it as it is..or ponder till the cows come home. Either way, those contacts are highly confident in me to not cross that line of trust.


Originally posted by JimOberg
It seems to me that if any of this claim were true, whatever dots are seen dancing outside the windows and on TV screens would be the least of the sensational news being revealed.


The "dots" are put on MSM news. But you leave out one important fact when those are shown on MSM news. There is also some NASA spokesperson sitting there filling the sound with "ice particles/junk/debris" and putting in a manner to the likes of a comedy show. Playing "BOZO" so to speak...entertaining the "kids" of the public, dumbing down the tax paying populace that there is "nothing to see, move along".

They also seem to have a bad habbit of showing highly edited video on the MSM channels. Strange, but not unexpected.



Originally posted by JimOberg
Comments such as you just made, I think, make it perfectly clear how far people can believe that your factual allegations on spaceflight -- and any judgments made based upon them -- can be trusted. Again, thanks for being so clear.


People can think for themselves Jim. Many of the participants in this thread alone have been members of ATS longer than I have, and also have been quite capable of doing their own research. They have also been quite capable of reaching their own conclusions. It just so happens that what I state and what I believe, and what I know, falls into their conclusions and their beliefs. I have nothing to do with how others come to their conclusions. I am simply just another one of the crowd on this side of the fence.

If you examine the latest statistics, it seems that about 80 percent of the population of this country alone, are also on this side of the fence. It is becoming more difficult for NASA and government to cover up nasty deeds, so much so that if there were not any reason to question, there would not be so many asking the questions.

As I have said to you time and time again, this isnt the 1960's anymore.

Cheers!!!!

[edit on 16-3-2009 by RFBurns]



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by depthoffield

Originally posted by RFBurns

Not only does the object here in STS 114 do some fancy turn and burn, which is of in itself very unlikely for an ice particle at a considerable distance from the shuttle and its thrusters, but if some believe this movment may be a result of the shuttle changing direction, well that is a bit impossible at 18,000 mph.


What considerable distance? How much, for example? Tell an aproximate value of what you define as "considerable distance".


Not just a considerable distance, but also a considerable size.

I base that on your own example video of the waste flush you posted a few pages back, and again in the STS 63 thread. Even when the camera zooms in to its maximum, those tiny mist particles vanish out of view very quickly, and they are all in the sunlight, as seen by the lit up sections of the shuttle itself. It is your "curved trajectory" video that in of iteself, demonstrates that tiny mist particles disappear quickly out of view as they travel away from the shuttle.

In STS 114, that object does not disappear at all, in fact, it remains not just seen through its entire flight path, it remains consistant in its intensity through the entire video.

It does not fade out, it does not dim, it does not act like anything in your curved trajectory video of tiny mist particles from a waste flush.

And in your curved trajectory video, even zoomed in at its maximum, the camera still picks up parts of the shuttle, clearly showing how close your tiny mist particles are to the shuttle.

In the STS 114 video...there is no part of the shuttle seen at all. If that object was so close to the shuttle, and was one of your mist particles, it would have done the same things that your mist particles had done in your example video. Right down to vanishing as it got further away.

But that object in 114 does not do any of that..does it.



Originally posted by depthoffield
And should i put again an example from STS-8, with the shuttle in constant acceleration with 1/16 g, making objects (scotch roll) to APPEAR to decelerate, stop , reverse movement and accelerate? And all this is happening at 18000 km/h.


The reason why that roll of duct tape does what it is doing is because it cannot accelerate with the shuttle if it is not tied down to a part of the shuttle, therefore it is free floating on its own. The roll of duct tape has no thruster of its own to keep up with the shuttle's acceleration. Thus it will do what we see in that video.

It is also inside the shuttle. If that roll of duct tape were outside the shuttle, it would simply fall behind, as it does inside the shuttle. The only thing that keeps that roll of duct tape from falling even further behind is that the astronaut catches it. It would also stop from falling further behind once that roll of loose duct tape were to come into contact with the rear wall of the cabin.

Remmber that little physics experiment I told you to try with the hot cup of coffee on your dash of your car?

Same thing friend....same thing. Unless that hot cup of coffee is held in place when you floor the gas peddal, that hot cup of coffee will end up in your lap. (OUCH!)


Cheers!!!!

[edit on 16-3-2009 by RFBurns]



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by depthoffield
And all this is happening at 18000 km/h.


Uh, mph. The kph number is ~30,000. Slip-of-the-finger.



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by depthoffield
And all this is happening at 18000 km/h.


Uh, mph. The kph number is ~30,000. Slip-of-the-finger.


Of course, 18000 mph, about 8km/sec or so. maybe is slip of the mind



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by JimOberg
Why do observers still see the shuttle where it 'officially' is supposed to be, chasing its target in low Earth orbit. These aren't places out in 24,000 mile high geosynchronous orbit, are they -- where you still seem to cling to the belief the shuttle can secretly fly?


How do they know your 'observers' are not witnessing a Buran shuttle?


So the Russians are secretly in on the charade, too? If they are flying anything else toward the ISS escept Soyuz missions, why don't they do something useful like also dock at the ISS with cargo? And why isn't the pseudo-Buran visible either before or after the shuttle's 'phantom diversion' -- or why doesn't the 'bogus-Buran' perform that mission itself? Makes no sense -- is that why you like the idea?



For that matter, I don't know of any one person who is capable of tracking the shuttle for a period of time that is longer than the time it takes for the shuttle to pass over the relatively small percentage of space that an individual is able to effectively observe.


Well, THAT settles it. You personally don't know something, so it's impossible. In the real world, a network of amateur skywatchers at www.seesat.org tracks everything of any size in orbit, including objects not registered by the DoD, and pretty much sees all and tells all.




*Governments have secrets, and the Russian government still has a fleet of Burans ;-)
(Yes, Jim - a fleet of them, which are alleged to be 'grounded,' but extremely well-maintained. Zorgon has a picture of one on his site and it is in a unique location...check it out)


As any Russian would tell you, "sto protsentnoye govno." Space experts know where the leftover Buran hardware is, and ain't none of it in flight condition -- nor are there any boosters to carry it, if it were. This is beyond delusional.


In any case, NASA is to blame for the confusion with regards to the 22,300-mile geosynchronous orbit idea; it was their poorly-worded press kit for STS-51L that helped foster and only encourage the idea, which already existed at the time - from, page 14:

"TDRS-1 is now in geosynchronous orbit over the Atlantic Ocean just east of Brazil (41 degrees west longitude). It initially failed to reach its desired orbit following successful Shuttle deployment because of booster rocket failure. A NASA-industry team conducted a series of delicate spacecraft maneuvers over a 2-month period to place TDRS-1 into the desired 22,300-mile altitude."


What confusion? That was the STS-6 mission, I was on console for the IUS deploy. The kick stage went off course late in its burn profile, leaving the TDRS-1 in an elongated but still very high orbit. Its own on-board thrusters were able to make up the delta-V deficit and place it on station.

I agree, the NASA wording is not so iron-clad that SOME reader can't bend it to misunderstand it, but there's got to be a limit of expectation of how elaborate an explanation has to be so that nobody in the world will be able to misinterpret it. Some people will always find a way -- you and RF are good examples.



*Things were different then. We were involved in a cold war with the Soviets - ambiguity and well-placed coincidence had strategic value.
(for example; the calculation for a year's worth of helium3 was conveniently worked out to equal the shuttle's payload, even though the technology to utilize the He3 did not exist, that did not stop us from giving the Russkies something else to worry about.)


Sorry, Exubie, you've totally lost me. I've never seen anything in the Soviet/Russian press that suggested anybody over there was ever worried about a shuttle-load of He-3 -- from where, the Moon?



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 03:54 PM
link   
RF, your reply of posted on 16-3-2009 @ 01:39 PM answered none of the issues I raised. As for 'forgetting' you have inside sources in the space program, I have never 'forgotten' it, because I've never believed it -- so many of your allegations of 'insider secrets' are so patently preposterous, I figure somebody is yanking your chain out of cruel humor, or these communications to you are imaginary. I've given a dozen good examples of things you've claim that are in conflict with every other source of information on shuttle capabilities and practices.

For example, the last DoD shuttle mission was back in 1992 or so, and the security hardware in the 3rd floor MOCR installed for 'secret' level operations was subsequently physically torn out. Hundreds of people work in that building, thousands more pass through it -- nobody agrees with your claim but those you've convinced around here.

None of your responses were germane to the issues I raised. Please try again.



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
In the STS 114 video...there is no part of the shuttle seen at all. If that object was so close to the shuttle, and was one of your mist particles, it would have done the same things that your mist particles had done in your example video. Right down to vanishing as it got further away.

But that object in 114 does not do any of that..does it.


These are bogus requirements. If the 114 particle was close to the camera and moving mostly crosswise to the FOV, and was entrained by a 2-sec thruster firing or other effluent producing event, it could reverse course and remain close to the shuttle. The water dump (mostly fuel cell product, not waste) is deliberately aimed to depart the vicinity of the shuttle. The 114 curver does not have to possess that initial direction, and can remain nearby for the duration of the video clip. Nobody postulated IT was originally a water dump residue.



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
In STS 114, that object does not disappear at all, in fact, it remains not just seen through its entire flight path, it remains consistant in its intensity through the entire video.

It does not fade out, it does not dim, it does not act like anything in your curved trajectory video of tiny mist particles from a waste flush.
Are you sure it stays constant, always with the same intensity and apparent size?

I have not made any measurements, but I think it gets dimmer.



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


IMO, it gets dimmer as it moves further away from the shuttle. It is a pretty steady decline in luminosity. UNTIL it changes direction. Then it is pretty constant.
I agree that this object appears to move quite some distance from the shuttle.

Jim was asking about shuttle shadows and all of this stuff as if it had anything to do with this video.

Once again, I think the fact that this thing was never in the shadow of the shuttle at all is telling. And as Burns has said, you never see the "particle" in relation to any other part of the shuttle.

I think this thing moves quite some distance.

Edit - However, this thing never comes CLOSE to disappearing.



[edit on 16-3-2009 by Jay-in-AR]



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 07:32 PM
link   
To see if it gets dimmer I changed the contrast to make it more noticeable, and this is what I got.


(click to open player in new window)


Then I "captured" that object and the bright one at the bottom of the screen to make a comparison.



The apparent brightness and/or the size of the object really change.



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 07:36 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


AWESOME WORK, man.

Alright, I agree with Jim.
Contrast enhancement shows the material being jettisoned that alters the particle's movement.

Great stuff, once again Armap.



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
is that why you like the idea?


I despise the idea.

Russians with space shuttles....

However, I cannot ignore the propensity of evidence that has been gathered over at the Pegasus Research Consortium.

You spent a good deal of time 'uncovering soviet space disasters' - and should be fully aware that you are not always fully informed with regards to certain missions... until after they crash.
('uncovering'.... and here I thought you already knew everything, and were never left out of the loop ;-)


Originally posted by JimOberg
Sorry, Exubie, you've totally lost me


That is OK - You lost me after the Cosmos 96 debacle.


Originally posted by JimOberg
I've never seen anything in the Soviet/Russian press that suggested anybody over there was ever worried about a shuttle-load of He-3 -- from where, the Moon?


And I never suggested anything that would indicate that the Russian press would be involved in the worry ;-)



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 12:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
I despise the idea. Russians with space shuttles....

However, I cannot ignore the propensity of evidence that has been gathered over at the Pegasus Research Consortium.


I tried searching -- all I got to was Zorgon's idiotic shuttle-docking-to-secret-space-station thread at www.abovetopsecret.com...

Can you provide a link that shows what you consider hard evidence the Russians have a fleet of flight-ready Buran shuttles? Because I've been to the sites of a large number of test prototypes, seen the wanderings of the atmospheric flight prototype vehicle, been inside the outside-deployed Baykonur airframe used for propulsion system tests (recently moved to the refurbed cosmodrome museum), and been to the gravesite of the actual flight vehicle. And ain't not a one of them remotely flight ready.




new topics
top topics
 
96
<< 57  58  59    61  62  63 >>

log in

join