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

Originally posted by JimOberg
Can you provide a link that shows what you consider hard evidence the Russians have a fleet of flight-ready Buran shuttles

"Hard evidence"?

"Flight-ready"?

Those are your words Jimbo ;-P

...And neither are those words in the post from which you insinuate they were extracted:

"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"

Since you are unable to negotiate your way around the Pegasus Research Consortium; I will locate the picture for you - Then you can help us figure out what is in the image and hopefully, allay my worst fears:

Edit,

Here is the image located on the Pegasus Research Consortium - in Jack Arneson's Files:

(I've been trying to discern blue in one of the pixel's on the foremost wing...but all I can see is Red. I hope this is just some sort of prank, but I can't determine who took the photo, and NASA has been proven to manipulate images in the past. I hope this was just a joke, or a ploy to manufacture a cold war 'shuttle-gap' ...)

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5f77fa26671e.jpg[/atsimg]
"No Russian Shuttle eh? What I want to know is... WHO took this photo?" - Jack Arneson (thanks Zorgon and Jack!)


[edit on 17-3-2009 by Exuberant1]

Originally posted by Exuberant1
Here is the image located on the Pegasus Research Consortium - in Jack Arneson's Files:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5f77fa26671e.jpg[/atsimg]
"No Russian Shuttle eh? What I want to know is... WHO took this photo?" - Jack Arneson (thanks Zorgon and Jack!)

Uh, if it's the first Buran flight, why does it already have the entry scorch marks?

Originally posted by JimOberg
Uh, if it's the first Buran flight, why does it already have the entry scorch marks?

I didn't say the picture was of the "first Buran flight"....

Nice try.

*Thanks for confirming that it is actually a Buran!

Do you have any thoughts on who may have took the picture?

Originally posted by ArMaP

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.

If of any significance to relate to a shadow effect ArMaP, the measurement will be miniscule to even phathom the effect would be caused by any shadow. More likley, any miniscule measurement of intensity change would be attributed to the object traveling away from the camera and light angle change during its flight path, as well as any light reflection change as it enters its turn and goes in the other direction.

Point is...there is no significant amount of intensity change in that object throughout the entire length of the video we have.


Cheers!!!!

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by Exuberant1
Here is the image located on the Pegasus Research Consortium - in Jack Arneson's Files:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5f77fa26671e.jpg[/atsimg]
"No Russian Shuttle eh? What I want to know is... WHO took this photo?" - Jack Arneson (thanks Zorgon and Jack!)

Uh, if it's the first Buran flight, why does it already have the entry scorch marks?

Maybe because just like NASA, they dont always replace every single tile unless it is necessary.

For example:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5268fa78ffd3.jpg[/atsimg]

How many times has this shuttle been refit, gone over with a fine tooth comb prior to rolling to the assembly facility and hoisted up to the tank prior to rolling out to the launch pad...and here you can see previous flight scorch marks on it. BTW, Atlantis is the newest of the fleet with less flights than the others.

Welp...I would say that Buran flew more than just once there Jim...probably a few times prior to the Soviet Union's collapse. Though the official record states they only flew it once, un-manned for a test, I dont expect the Soviet Union at that time would have told any of us the truth regarding their prized spacecraft and its actual activities....sound familiar there Jim?


Cheers!!!!

[edit on 17-3-2009 by RFBurns]

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by JimOberg
Uh, if it's the first Buran flight, why does it already have the entry scorch marks?

I didn't say the picture was of the "first Buran flight".... Nice try.

Since that was the only Buran orbital flight, we're at a factual impasse...

Do you have any thoughts on who may have took the picture?

False question. It implicitly ASSUMES that somebody 'took' the picture.

The honest question would be, what is the source of the image?

My thoughts: Fotoshopsky.

Originally posted by RFBurns
Point is...there is no significant amount of intensity change in that object throughout the entire length of the video we have.

Quite the opposite was proven only a few pages back. The change in brightness is consistent with something about doubling its range over the time period shown.

I asked earlier, in this field of view, which way is toward the nose, and which way toward the tail -- so as to correlate, or NOT, any activity of vents and thrusters in either end of the shuttle.

RF, do you have any opinion of the orientation of this field-of-view with the orbiter's structure? Do you consider it useful, even important, information?

Originally posted by RFBurns
Maybe because just like NASA, they dont always replace every single tile unless it is necessary.

Welp...I would say that Buran flew more than just once there Jim...probably a few times prior to the Soviet Union's collapse. Though the official record states they only flew it once, un-manned for a test, I dont expect the Soviet Union at that time would have told any of us the truth regarding their prized spacecraft and its actual activities....sound familiar there Jim?

RF, I don't expect you to agree with everyone else and with all official, unofficial, post hoc, and third-party records, either. You definitely march to the beat of a different drummer, and your imaginations and expectations show no sign of being constrained by all other available sources. Nor is there any reason to choose to believe your opinion as opposed to that of everyone else's on the planet.

Buran flew once, unmanned. The follow-on booster was identified, and its components are still in the hangar in Area 110 at Baykonur (I've seen them). So is the wreckage of the flown Buran itself, crushed -- along with six workmen -- when the roof collapsed some years ago.

No 'invisible' secret additional flights, never observed by a worldwide net of private visual skywatchers -- as well as the space radars of a dozen countries. The proof that there were no more flights is as iron-clad as the proof there are no live T-Rexes roaming some Cost Rican island, or no 250-year-old High Lama in a secret valley in Tibet.

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by RFBurns
Point is...there is no significant amount of intensity change in that object throughout the entire length of the video we have.

Quite the opposite was proven only a few pages back. The change in brightness is consistent with something about doubling its range over the time period shown.

I did say in my post, which you left out btw, that any miniscule intensity change would be accountable to the fact that the object is traveling away from the camera, as well as any changes caused by sunlight angle and reflection angle changes when the object makes its turn and reverse course. Just not in so many words, but that is exactly what was meant.

Originally posted by JimOberg
I asked earlier, in this field of view, which way is toward the nose, and which way toward the tail -- so as to correlate, or NOT, any activity of vents and thrusters in either end of the shuttle.

I dont know which way would be the nose or which way would be the tail. We cannot see anything in the video that gives us a clue as to the shuttle's orientation at the time this video was shot. It would be indeed quite helpful to have that data as well as the camera's postion in realtion to the shuttle orientation to ascertain any thruster activity.

But if we compared this video to STS 48 where we see a significant flash, as well as seeing the flash plumes in normal modes on the still photographs I posted much earlier, if there was any thruster activity going on in STS 114, particularly when the object does its turn and about face manuver, we should at least see some kind of indication that there is thruster activity taking place during that time frame, as well as any reminants of propellant let loose when the thrusters are turned off...meaning we should have seen more than just this one object moving through the frame...if we are to believe this object is a mere ice particle or propellant particle after a thruster burn.

We only see that one object doing the fancy manuver.

Originally posted by JimOberg
RF, do you have any opinion of the orientation of this field-of-view with the orbiter's structure? Do you consider it useful, even important, information?

As far as for an absolute determination of thruster activity, perhaps. Visibly however, there is no evidence of thruster activity due to the lack of any flash occurance in the entire duration of the video, as well as lack of additional "particles" moving into frame.

As to the object in question, not really. Again, it seems to be doing its own thing for no apparent reason given the video information we do have. I am not so sure that if knowing which way the nose is pointing or which way the tail is turned, would validate exactly what that object is, and why it does what it does.


Cheers!!!!

So errmmm what's THIS one?

STS 119




March 16 2009: Russian Astronaut aboard the ISS searches for "Cloud like" object





Cloud like Object? Way to go BORIS

Originally posted by RFBurns

Originally posted by JimOberg
I asked earlier, in this field of view, which way is toward the nose, and which way toward the tail -- so as to correlate, or NOT, any activity of vents and thrusters in either end of the shuttle.

I dont know which way would be the nose or which way would be the tail. We cannot see anything in the video that gives us a clue as to the shuttle's orientation at the time this video was shot. It would be indeed quite helpful to have that data as well as the camera's postion in realtion to the shuttle orientation to ascertain any thruster activity.

We agree on this.

The difference is, I went and did something about it.

I got the data and posted it here.

You seem not to have noticed.

You seem to act as if this data was never sought, and never posted, anywhere in all these years of previous discussions.

But now we are making progress. Yes, the data is needed. And yes, it's available. Now let's examine its implications.

Originally posted by zorgon
So errmmm what's THIS one?

Throwing in the towel on 114?

reply to post by zorgon


Star for you!

Notice how the lady in the first video waits until it is out of the frame before she start commenting again - perfect for future editing ;-)

I wonder if this is related to the two 'debris' warnings that the ISS has received in the past two weeks....

Good stuff zorgon!

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by RFBurns

Originally posted by JimOberg
I asked earlier, in this field of view, which way is toward the nose, and which way toward the tail -- so as to correlate, or NOT, any activity of vents and thrusters in either end of the shuttle.

I dont know which way would be the nose or which way would be the tail. We cannot see anything in the video that gives us a clue as to the shuttle's orientation at the time this video was shot. It would be indeed quite helpful to have that data as well as the camera's postion in realtion to the shuttle orientation to ascertain any thruster activity.

We agree on this.

The difference is, I went and did something about it.

I got the data and posted it here.

You seem not to have noticed.

You seem to act as if this data was never sought, and never posted, anywhere in all these years of previous discussions.

But now we are making progress. Yes, the data is needed. And yes, it's available. Now let's examine its implications.

I like how you assume things there Jim. Getting desperate are we to the point of making assumptional claims to what another person does or does not read or consider?

Remember when I said that getting the missing data from someone neutral was in the best interests of all concerned?

Well...I still stand by that suggestion. Im glad you were able to gather data for us and post it. Unfortunatley however, we do not have any proof that it is authentic, or do we have any way of knowing if it is accurate or un-altered, by you or the person or persons you got it from.

In other words Jim, it cannot be trusted..at least from my prospective. However if it makes you feel any better, I have looked at it, I have considered it...but because of the manner it was delivered, I cannot trust it. It does not mean I dont exclude it, it just means I do not trust it.

And before you go off on a tangent about it..it does not mean I dont trust the messenger...its the message I dont trust.

In any case, it is really irrelevant to the object in question. Knowing which way the nose is pointed, or which way the tail is pointed, only tells us just that..which way the nose is and which way the tail is. It does not tell us what the object is, or tell us why it manuevers like it does.

You know what would be really helpful with this Jim? The full, unedited, uncensored footage of this mission..thats what would be helpful. Perhaps in that video, there might be some of the missing data we need, like a zoomed out section of the shot so we can see how the shuttle is oriented, a zoomed out shot to see if in fact a waste dump spray took place, like a zoomed out shot that will tell us if this object came from a left over propellant particle lingering around the thruster nozzle..you know, some vital clues to all this mess.

Yep..sure would be nice to have that original full length footage.


Cheers!!!!

[edit on 17-3-2009 by RFBurns]

reply to post by zorgon


Looks like our critter friend came to pay a visit again. Maybe to help absorb up all that waste dump spray and propellant leaks???


Cheers!!!!

reply to post by zorgon


In the 2nd video, she says "pixel defect". Pixel defect? Has anyone ever seen a pixel defect move across the screen in sync with the object in question before?

Amazing that a pixel that is fixed in an imager device would be able to move from its fixed point on the CCD imager.

Hmm....Curious.


Cheers!!!!

[edit on 17-3-2009 by RFBurns]

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by Exuberant1
Here is the image located on the Pegasus Research Consortium - in Jack Arneson's Files:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5f77fa26671e.jpg[/atsimg]
"No Russian Shuttle eh? What I want to know is... WHO took this photo?" - Jack Arneson (thanks Zorgon and Jack!)

Uh, if it's the first Buran flight, why does it already have the entry scorch marks?

Yeah that really IS a good point isn't it? But still

WHO TOOK THE PICTURE is a valid still unanswered question...

I really don't want to turn this into a Russian Shuttle thread but one little post...

Shuttle Buran & Antonov AN225 Mriya I like this little clip... and the music reminds me of that Atari game so many years ago...



And where is Ptichka? the little Bird?

Buran Russia's Space Shuttle
Two Buran's in Storage
Baikonur Cosmodrome
Building 80, Area 112A

One is Pitchka, haven't IDed the other yet but it may be OK-ML-2

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c9a819066baa.jpg[/atsimg]

But while we are talking Russian... whats up with the FLEET of Progress ships?

Here you can see three Russian vessels docked at the ISS at the same time as the Shuttle approaches

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/externalimage .png[/atsimg]

People are always so ready to believe the Russians are backwards and out of the picture... yet here at Zvezda we have an assembly line of progress ship... why do they need so many? I know ESA and Robert Bigelow use them

Maybe NASA could save some tax payers money if they would 'go commercial' as well...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6ea8d1d3bb84.jpg[/atsimg]
Credit: Zvezda

Robert went to the Russians to launch his Gemini space hotel modules because NASA said no... Robert's version of NASA = No Access to Space for Americans



Well two of his modules are up thanks to Russia and you can track them here
www.thelivingmoon.com...

Actually right now they are near the Hubble( this tracker shows Hubble and ISS as well)

May 2004 - Bigelow Aerospace and Kosmotras have executed a Non-Technical Framework Agreement, that, pending U.S. Department of State approval of a Technical Assistance Agreement, will allow Kosmotras to launch a BA spacecraft in 2006 aboard the Dnepr Launch Vehicle. The Framework Agreement also provides BA with the option to purchase several additional launches aboard the Dnepr in the future.

Book Titled "High Frontier"
Subtitle "There is a defense against Nuclear War"
by General Daniel O.Graham
Former Deputy Director of the CIA

It was written in 1983, published by Tom Doherty Associates,Inc.
8-10 West 36th Street, New York, New York, 10018

On the first page is a quote by Congressman Newt Gingrich which I shall type out below, but which may hint at what this Secret Space Station's possible usage may be.

By Newt Gingrich
" . . . He who Controls Space may well control the future of Mankind. We have a chance, through High Frontier, using existing technology to develop a space program that is absolutely necessary to our survival and that will give us a chance to move past the Russians to assure our own nation and freedom a future on this planet"

So in 1983 Newt says we are still behind the Russians

Okay back to "glowing space thingies'






...



[edit on 17-3-2009 by zorgon]

Originally posted by Exuberant1
I wonder if this is related to the two 'debris' warnings that the ISS has received in the past two weeks....

At Marjorion's suggestion I put this into its own thread... This one is long enough already

www.abovetopsecret.com...





..

[edit on 17-3-2009 by zorgon]

Originally posted by zorgon

WHO TOOK THE PICTURE is a valid still unanswered question...

And where is Ptichka? the little Bird?

If you have to depend on skeptics to do your basic archival research, you're in a worse situation than I had imagined.

See www.k26.com... it has the same image.

The page contains the line: SOURCE: Almanac of Soviet Manned Space Flight by Dennis Newkirk.and "All image from www.buran.ru".
... I don't, at first glance, see that image on buran.ru , but it might
have been since removed in a site update.

In any case, it appears on the k26.com page right next to an even more
obviously not "spy satellite" (but fotoshopsky'ed) picture of Buran at reentry.

'Ptichka' was the Baykonur launch prep team's nickname for the Buran, not the name of another shuttle. There was another one, Buran-2, being prepared for orbital flight -- it too has been scrapped. Once and a while, some Russian space official announces he is ready to resume Buran flights -- after getting an advance payment of $20 million or so from an eager customer. Sounds like the Moscow branch of Bernie Madoff's office, to me.

And you don't have to tell me about Bigelow and the Russian launch contract. I stood on a small knoll next to him at Dombarovskiy ICBM base in Siberia in mid-2007 to watch his second module get launched. That was an interesting trip.

The picture you posted of the assembly line still shows you can't tell one end of a Progress spacecraft from either end of a 'Soyuz' launch vehicle. Every time you try posing as a credible space expert, you embarass yourself -- and the people who swallow your stuff -- further.




[edit on 17-3-2009 by JimOberg]

Originally posted by JimOberg
Every time you try posing as a credible space expert, you embarass yourself -- and the people who swallow your stuff -- further.

Poor Form.

*At least use spell-check when dishing out insults ;-P

And besides, none of us are posing as space experts - but we are doing our best impressions of conspiracy theorists...

You are the only one claiming to be a "space expert" - we are just theorizing and speculating.

You are more than welcome to stay, but just don't expect us to "swallow your stuff" (eww) - NASA has a poor track-record when it comes to honesty and openness, and I find both your judgment and credibility to be questionable (ex. Your Cosmos 96 debacle).









[edit on 17-3-2009 by Exuberant1]