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

Have a look at this video. It is of STS-80.

STS 80

While there is only one object in question in STS-114 and it can be easily said to be "debris" or "ice crystals" or "gasses"... I do not think that is the case. I think it is just another easy to use explanation that causes little thinking on the information receivers part.

After looking at the STS-80 video it is CLEAR that the object seen in STS-14 could be similar. After reading and listening to theories and facts about the STS-80 one must be a little subjective when believing STS-14 was just "debris"..or"ice crystals" or whatever else they are going to throw at you to provide as little insight to the real cause as possible.

Just my 2cents

reply to post by smurfy


I think in order to give both sides justice one must listen to both sides and read each post, this is a fantastic thread, certainly not because I started it, but because so many talented, experienced members added their valued input. Some members whom are not with us anymore on ATS. Que lastima.

[edit on 6-3-2010 by franspeakfree]

Originally posted by Smell The Roses
Have a look at this video. It is of STS-80.

STS 80

While there is only one object in question in STS-114 and it can be easily said to be "debris" or "ice crystals" or "gasses"... I do not think that is the case. I think it is just another easy to use explanation that causes little thinking on the information receivers part.

It is vitally important to note that if the object in question is travelling in a straight line and that it isn't parallax, then we must raise the question as to how it stops in a vaccuum of space. #

This was the argument that was carried on for many days, it can't all be about ice crystals surely.

Originally posted by Smell The Roses
While there is only one object in question in STS-114 and it can be easily said to be "debris" or "ice crystals" or "gasses"... I do not think that is the case. I think it is just another easy to use explanation that causes little thinking on the information receivers part.

At least it's an explanation that does not need anything that is still unknown.

After looking at the STS-80 video it is CLEAR that the object seen in STS-14 could be similar.

Yes, it could be similar, but if we do not have a consensual explanation for the STS-80 video, even if it objects are similar to the one seen on the STS-114 video it doesn't mean that the STS-114 object is explained in any way, explaining something by telling that it's the same as another unexplained object is not explaining it.

And those are my two euro cents.

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by Smell The Roses
While there is only one object in question in STS-114 and it can be easily said to be "debris" or "ice crystals" or "gasses"... I do not think that is the case. I think it is just another easy to use explanation that causes little thinking on the information receivers part.

At least it's an explanation that does not need anything that is still unknown.

After looking at the STS-80 video it is CLEAR that the object seen in STS-14 could be similar.

Yes, it could be similar, but if we do not have a consensual explanation for the STS-80 video, even if it objects are similar to the one seen on the STS-114 video it doesn't mean that the STS-114 object is explained in any way, explaining something by telling that it's the same as another unexplained object is not explaining it.

And those are my two euro cents.

Well I guess the consenus here is that it is still unidentified? So I guess we have a UFO here? The best part of it is that its from official NASA footage and does have an extreme odd taste to it.

You can tell me till you are blue in the face that this is this and that is not that but I see no proof providing this was not alien craft.

Just as you can deny what it can be I can deny what it can't.

Still no proof it was alien craft and still no proof it wasn't...Like the other poster said - We are back at square one?

[edit on 6-3-2010 by Smell The Roses]

reply to post by Smell The Roses


G'day Smell The Roses

For you......

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/14a51cb4064d.jpg[/atsimg]

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

[edit on 6-3-2010 by Maybe...maybe not]

Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not
reply to post by Smell The Roses

 

G'day Smell The Roses

For you......

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

Lol thanks for making me laugh Maybe...maybe not.

Yeah sadly the most intriguing and unexplainable events go uncovered and eventually catch dust.

I have been trying to go over some of the more interesting, unique, and credible stories/events on this site and bring them back some attention.

Edit : removed the picture in quote as it was large heh...

[edit on 6-3-2010 by Smell The Roses]

Originally posted by Smell The Roses
Well I guess the consenus here is that it is still unidentified?

I don't if it's the consensus or not, but I think that's the most common opinion.

So I guess we have a UFO here?

I think so, but the "F" in "UFO" may mean at least two things, flying or floating. As this is still unidentified it can also be something floating along with the shuttle, although some people are violently against that theory.

You can tell me till you are blue in the face that this is this and that is not that but I see no proof providing this was not alien craft.

Just as you can deny what it can be I can deny what it can't.

Yes, that's what I was trying to say, maybe I wasn't clear enough.

Still no proof it was alien craft and still no proof it wasn't...Like the other poster said - We are back at square one?

Yes, that's why I said "we are at the same point we were at the beginning", there isn't any clear proof of what that thing is (or what those things are in the STS-80 video, or what the other things in the other (and my favourite) STS-80 video are).

Some things that were only present in events that are not repeatable may not be seen again, so if we didn't had all the data in the first occasion we will never get it.

reply to post by ArMaP
Does anyone know the orientation of the shuttle itself in the STS80 video, the stream of objects, including the first one appears to be away from, or behind the direction of travel. 114 seems to show the object originating from behind the view of the camera and going in the same direction as the Shuttle. If you wanted to be "Earthly" exotic about it, and make a comparison between STS80 and STS114, then maybe both objects were a visible "target" fired from the Shuttle for a ground based military technology exercise. Were there military connections on both Columbia and Discovery, (which replaced Atlantis) a lot of unknowns.

Originally posted by ArMaP
Some things that were only present in events that are not repeatable may not be seen again, so if we didn't had all the data in the first occasion we will never get it.

I think you meant "have".

Yes, I suppose there is no conclusion to this and nobody is correct with any of their speculation. Case still unsolved and open for theories.

Originally posted by Smell The Roses
I think you meant "have".

Probably. I never know when to use what.

Yes, I suppose there is no conclusion to this and nobody is correct with any of their speculation. Case still unsolved and open for theories.

It's possible (and even likely) that someone is correct, the problem is that we do not even have any idea if that is the case or not.

reply to post by franspeakfree
Hi Frans,
I'm not sure what you mean, but as for reading all posts... I read all posts, hence my first post may come when a thread is well established. That is not to say that I remember all posts however, and I always strive to consider all scenarios, and I have made the same comments in the past as yours.

Originally posted by smurfy
I read all posts, hence my first post may come when a thread is well established. That is not to say that I remember all posts however, and I always strive to consider all scenarios, and I have made the same comments in the past as yours.

Absolutely, now you can see how hard it is too come to a decent conclusion, the arguments for both sides of this story are very compelling indeed.

The question I ask myself continuously (as I have physically seen a huge flying saucer) is what purpose are they for if they are terrestrial? there is no doubt in my mind that these saucer craft can zip in and out of our atmosphere. NASA vehemently deny the existence of these craft so anybody that has had a sighting is either high on drugs or plain lying. I know this is not the case.

Originally posted by Smell The Roses
Have a look at this video. It is of STS-80.

STS 80

While there is only one object in question in STS-114 and it can be easily said to be "debris" or "ice crystals" or "gasses"... I do not think that is the case. I think it is just another easy to use explanation that causes little thinking on the information receivers part.

After looking at the STS-80 video it is CLEAR that the object seen in STS-14 could be similar. After reading and listening to theories and facts about the STS-80 one must be a little subjective when believing STS-14 was just "debris"..or"ice crystals" or whatever else they are going to throw at you to provide as little insight to the real cause as possible.

Just my 2cents

What do you think the opinions of the STS-80 actual witnesses are worth,
compared to your own two pennies?

Do you know what they think? Do you believe it would be honestly reported on the UFO websites?

Originally posted by smurfy
reply to post by ArMaP

 

Does anyone know the orientation of the shuttle itself in the STS80 video, the stream of objects, including the first one appears to be away from, or behind the direction of travel. .........

These are the basic questions which remain non-agreed-on -- and without which, no prosaic explanation can be disproven. The curving object appears to me to be a small nearby object that briefly curves its direction, but moves straight both before and after that change. It's the sort of thing one often sees when a vernier thruster is firing (flares rarely show up, the plume is so thin that far off the centerline).

Since this is a common, prosaic visual event, anyone who wants to believe it is 'unexplainable' has to show why it could NOT be a thruster effect on a small particle.

Otherwise, heck, every airplane-looking-object you see passing overhead has to be considered 'unexplained' until you have the flight number and the registered flight plan? Of course not.

Originally posted by franspeakfree
NASA vehemently deny the existence of these craft so anybody that has had a sighting is either high on drugs or plain lying. I know this is not the case.

Fran, I think you are lying about what 'NASA says' regarding drugs and lies. It's just an exaggeration or a parody, right? You made it up to make a point. But it's not true, is it? Has anybody ever seriously made that claim, or is it fictitious entirely, an argumentation gimmick to mislead your audience?

jim your prosiac excuses of explanations just dont hold water when examined your a book and article peddler who has fed from the tax payers teet for many many years and are still doing so.

your a company man that will say anything that siuts your purpose during any thread to do with shuttle footage.
you will make claim after claim and promise upon promise to forward the relevent data for scrutiny only to dissapoint every time.
your promises are quite frankly just another way of killing a thread after your untrue and unverified strawman explanations along with your sock puppet bootboy accounts fail to achieve the disinterest in the thread you strive every day to achieve.

your contribution to the sts75 thread was quite literally breathtaking in audacity as every time you are proven incorrect by documted material you just wait a page or 2 and just carry on as if it hadnt happened and then repeating your discredited data.
you had to admit on that thread that your original debunk of the footage was based on footage shot at a completely different time and day.
didnt stop jimbo tho as your prosiac debunk fitted any day and any footage.

your detailed account of shuttle orientation etc etc looked like a thoroughly well researched piece.
until it was pointed out to you that for your explanatoin to fit the alledged ice particles would have to have been very special ice particles to float up and behind the shuttle to fit your explanation.
when i pointed out to you the simple physics about debris dropping down and away infront of the shuttle due to its lowering orbit whilst still travelling at the same speed as the shuttle you eventually conceeded you were wrong.
waited for me to stop posting and just carried on reposting your orientation piece knowing that most readers will in the most part not start reading the thread from several pages back.
time and time again i corrected you on basic physics in that thread when you relied on public ignorance to air your credible sound bites to distort the true facts.

i despise disinfo merchants like you your so obvoius to anyone with abit of knowledge, but your paymasters get value for money out of you impressing your points forcibly on those that havent the required basic knowledge and a will to research.

i mean why would anyone who is a supposed nasa expert be trawling forums full of kids the globe over day in day out pushing the same old tired debunking bilge.
your motive is obvious its work jim plain and simple.

tell us how the alledged crystal in the 114 footage enters and gently decelerates to a FULLSTOP before softly accelerating away in the direction from whenst it came.

come on jim explain to these people how long these invisible burns last for and explain the physics behind the gentle decceleration and acceleration and the time the whole sequence takes.

i will bet my house on that your reply will consist of a strawman
arguement a personal attack and nil zero nadda about the physics involved.





[edit on 8-3-2010 by baut trojan horse]

[edit on 8-3-2010 by baut trojan horse]

Originally posted by baut trojan horse
jim your prosiac excuses of explanations just dont hold water when examined your a book and article peddler who has fed from the tax payers teet for many many years and are still doing so.

Well, we know which end of the horse our trojan friend is acting on behalf of.

Rational discussions of evidence, anyone?

Vernier thruster burns can last for five or ten seconds. When just holding attitude, a second or two is more typical. That's what the thruster firing history tables for the notorious STS-48 zig-zagger shows: a thruster firing (L5D) at precisely the interval when some of the particles change motion -- none do before, and none do after, that period. And the particle motion veers farther away from the origin of the plume cloud.

One of the particles (not the main one) even shows that the objects are small and close to the shuttle. A minute earlier, when the shuttle emerges from Earth's shadow, so do some particles -- showing they are very close. Others later show up as they emerge from the shuttle's shadow. Then when the thruster fires, one of those original particles is still in the FOV and it clearly changes course simo with the other course-changers.

Spaceflight is like that. The less you know about real spaceflight, the more the miraculous faux-explanations appeal to you. And the nastier your rhetoric gets.

Where's your own evidence it's at all unusual? For example: Referenced to the field of view of the camera, where is the nose of the shuttle, do you think? On what basis do you believe so?

How can you even attempt to assess a suggested prosaic explanation if you don't even know which end is 'up', or whether it's day or night in the scene?







[edit on 8-3-2010 by JimOberg]

[edit on 8-3-2010 by JimOberg]

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by smurfy
reply to post by ArMaP

 

Does anyone know the orientation of the shuttle itself in the STS80 video, the stream of objects, including the first one appears to be away from, or behind the direction of travel. .........

These are the basic questions which remain non-agreed-on -- and without which, no prosaic explanation can be disproven. The curving object appears to me to be a small nearby object that briefly curves its direction, but moves straight both before and after that change. It's the sort of thing one often sees when a vernier thruster is firing (flares rarely show up, the plume is so thin that far off the centerline).

Since this is a common, prosaic visual event, anyone who wants to believe it is 'unexplainable' has to show why it could NOT be a thruster effect on a small particle.

Otherwise, heck, every airplane-looking-object you see passing overhead has to be considered 'unexplained' until you have the flight number and the registered flight plan? Of course not.

This had got to be the one of the funniest posts trying to get people to believe in the easiest possible BS solution. Talk about living in the bubble they created.

Seriously man you ask people to provide proof that it is not a thruster effect LOL. You sound worse than the people claiming this is alien craft with no proof. Why do you look so bad? Simple, bc you are trying to convince others of your point which holds as much weight as the other 50 theories on it, yet YOU act like your word is the final truth unless proven otherwise.

Give me a break.

Originally posted by Smell The Roses
Seriously man you ask people to provide proof that it is not a thruster effect LOL. You sound worse than the people claiming this is alien craft with no proof. Why do you look so bad? Simple, bc you are trying to convince others of your point which holds as much weight as the other 50 theories on it, yet YOU act like your word is the final truth unless proven otherwise.

Dear Rose:

Do you think it would help to discuss these kinds of videos with people who worked at Mission Control? Do you suspect they might have an insight into what's normal for spaceflight... or not?

Or do you think it's better to stay as ignorant as possible about the context and background of the videos? Does that enhance your confidence in your correctness?