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

page: 69
96
<< 66  67  68    70 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

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?



OK so you are saying you work for NASA? You know people at Mission Control? That is why you come of as an arrogant know it all? Um I didn't think so. Why don't you take your own advice and contact those people yourself and ask them. Contact us back please and let us know how it goes, as I know that will get me nowhere in the search for truth.




posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 04:09 PM
link   
quote.
Now as to the object in the STS0-114 video, this "left over waste dump blob"....lets examine that closely. A waste dump will be shot out of the waste dump valve on the shuttle, and if I am not mistaken, under slight pressure, like a spray. This would produce small ice pieces of the waste as it leaves the valve going into space, falling behind the shuttle because the shuttle continues to move along its trajectory and the waste spray falls behind. A good example of this effect is to take a cup of water in a car going 60 mph down the road, stick it out the window and pour out the water, watch how the water reacts to the wind drag.
quote

total load of bull. and the analogy is a joke .. but he sounds so sure.


i have seen this rubbish repeatedly expressed on this thread by several people.

lets be clear its quite simple.
shuttle
ice particle

shuttle holds position by selective use of thrusters.

ice particles sublimate within 10 mins of entering the vacume into direct sunlight.
ice particles and shuttle debris has no thrusters to counteract the gravity they are immediately exposed to once loose from the shuttle.
they simply fall earthward travelling the same speed as the shuttle and as their orbit gets shallower they just get further and further away infront of the shuttle.
if you have to guess then dont bother putting it in print your not doing anyone any favours.
theres so much crap been put forward on this thread by well meaning people.
however guesses and/or it makes sencs etc.
just turns threads into jokes subtly encouraged by the likes of the nasa guy above.

absolutely basic shuttle physics but the guy who wrote the quote above had shortly before been claiming a 2 year doctorate in the subject.
total and utter bull.



i find reading abovetopsecret a great source for links from the guys that know how to research a subject properly.
however wading thru the crap that these pretend experts/sock puppet pros provide is extremely frustrating.





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



posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 04:10 PM
link   
Oh and to get back on track.

Nobody has any clue as to what this is and that is why it remains unsolved.

Still trying to figure out what this is and not buying the debris, thrust theories. Sorry but I don't think anyone is.



posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 04:44 PM
link   
you only need 2 things to know whether it was the thin ice coincidence of a thruster burn.

the days execute package and the footage date and time which martin easily can provide.

no thruster burn and jimbo is shafted.

i know jim knows there was no burn as if he did you can be sure the relevent page of the days execute package would be uploaded.








ps
a 14 second thruster burn.
how many of them have you ever heard of jim under normal flight conditions.
eh jimmy come on tell us.



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



posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Smell The Roses

Originally posted by JimOberg

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?



OK so you are saying you work for NASA? You know people at Mission Control? That is why you come of as an arrogant know it all? Um I didn't think so. Why don't you take your own advice and contact those people yourself and ask them. Contact us back please and let us know how it goes, as I know that will get me nowhere in the search for truth.


[SNIP]

Naw. That's uncalled for. Forget I ever typed it. Sorry.

Yeah, I have worked at Mission Control, done the training, got certified, put in my hours 'before the mast' on all sorts of shifts -- boring, snoring, or terrifying -- and watched hundreds of hours of front-room screen TV of dancing dots. Bought the patches and mugs, too.

I was on duty for the first liftoff in 1981, other orbital missions and maneuvers, specialized in rendezvous operations, even got to do a DoD mission. Got an award for plotting out the orbits of the first space station assembly mission, other awards too. Cool stuff.

I'll be posting more of my background discussions on my home page, including a detailed analysis of the the STS-48 prize video. I do hope you look past the snarky comments, and your own too-eager imagination, and look over the material. I do hope it's a contribution to undeniably weird-looking youtube videos.

 


Removed un-civil remark





[edit on 9/3/10 by masqua]



posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by baut trojan horse
quote.
Now as to the object in the STS0-114 video, this "left over waste dump blob"....lets examine that closely. A waste dump will be shot out of the waste dump valve on the shuttle, and if I am not mistaken, under slight pressure, like a spray.


Who ever claimed it was a waste dump? Not me. Probably too early in the mission for one.

Apparently not your own view, however. So we move on.





[edit on 8-3-2010 by JimOberg]



posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 05:09 PM
link   
i see no answers jim.

no-one said water dump jim another strawman distraction.

nice speech mind.






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



posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by Smell The Roses

Originally posted by JimOberg

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?



OK so you are saying you work for NASA? You know people at Mission Control? That is why you come of as an arrogant know it all? Um I didn't think so. Why don't you take your own advice and contact those people yourself and ask them. Contact us back please and let us know how it goes, as I know that will get me nowhere in the search for truth.


Rose, I've got a sale price on a T-shirt with an up-pointed arrow and a text that reads, "I'm with stupid". For you, $3.99 plus shipping. Or we can take up a collection on the thread.

Naw. That's uncalled for. Forget I ever typed it. Sorry.

Yeah, I have worked at Mission Control, done the training, got certified, put in my hours 'before the mast' on all sorts of shifts -- boring, snoring, or terrifying -- and watched hundreds of hours of front-room screen TV of dancing dots. Bought the patches and mugs, too.

I was on duty for the first liftoff in 1981, other orbital missions and maneuvers, specialized in rendezvous operations, even got to do a DoD mission. Got an award for plotting out the orbits of the first space station assembly mission, other awards too. Cool stuff.

I'll be posting more of my background discussions on my home page, including a detailed analysis of the the STS-48 prize video. I do hope you look past the snarky comments, and your own too-eager imagination, and look over the material. I do hope it's a contribution to undeniably weird-looking youtube videos.





I don't believe you. Sorry. And as pointed out, you offer no explanations or answers.



posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by baut trojan horse
i know jim knows there was no burn as if he did you can be sure the relevent page of the days execute package would be uploaded.

ps -- a 14 second thruster burn. how many of them have you ever heard of jim under normal flight conditions.
eh jimmy come on tell us.



Thruster burns don't appear in the daily execute package. Where did you get that idea? You need to FOIA the burn histories for a reasonably short period of time -- a whole day's records could be 80 to 100 pages long.

"14 second" burn? They can easily occur when you want to make a rotation at a higher than minimum rate -- depends on the digital autopilot setting. Heck, we burn the verniers for 1000 seconds or more during station reboost maneuvers. Not a prob.



posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by baut trojan horse
you only need 2 things to know whether it was the thin ice coincidence of a thruster burn.

the days execute package and the footage date and time which martin easily can provide.


Which makes you wonder why Martyn consistently refuses to provide that information, eh?

Getting all the info can be a laborous and time consuming process. On the cases that I've completed, the really notorious ones such as STS-48 and STS-80, the 'coincidence' is clearly documented. It's really a lot easier, if you enjoy believing they're UFOs, to ignore the documentation and dismiss it all as lies. You'll probably be happier that way, too.



posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 05:17 PM
link   
Jim can you please give us a link to your credentials so we can verify what you are saying is true. Otherwise it is just too difficult to believe what you are saying. Not trying to be rude but anyone can play anyone and act like they are something they are not.

If you do have all this knowledge than I think some of us might be a little more interested in what you have to say.

Thanks.



posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


did we see the shuttle re-orientate in the vid jim.

another strawman deceptoin.

now please explain the 14 second unvisible thruster burn.

and this is a blatant lie to discourage people from checking the execute package and discovering your subdefuge as i have several.

Thruster burns don't appear in the daily execute package.







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



posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by franspeakfree

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.

I too have seen a huge flying saucer going overhead and just missing me, well actually, it was a dinner plate, (I'm only joking/reminiscing) The thing about the 114 video is the constant brightness and uniformity of the object, especially in a fairly murky video, which puts it apart from similar ones where the light and uniformity from the "object" is phazing. In 114 it is pretty much constant from start to end. Also, at the very start of the video there is definite movement of the camera, up or down without necessity.



posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by baut trojan horse
you only need 2 things to know whether it was the thin ice coincidence of a thruster burn.

the days execute package and the footage date and time which martin easily can provide.


Which makes you wonder why Martyn consistently refuses to provide that information, eh?

Getting all the info can be a laborous and time consuming process. On the cases that I've completed, the really notorious ones such as STS-48 and STS-80, the 'coincidence' is clearly documented. It's really a lot easier, if you enjoy believing they're UFOs, to ignore the documentation and dismiss it all as lies. You'll probably be happier that way, too.


i dont believe in aliens visiting earth jim.

i do care however about detail.
your style of debunking is quite frankly a joke.

jim oberg the nasa guy who never has anything more than his opinion to show as evidence the mere fact you worked in mission control is all anyone needs to know.

i will wager i know more about the physics of low earth orbit than you have ever known in the 100 upon 100s of hours research i have done.

and if you try teaching me i will humble you as i did on the sts75 thread again your memory just isnt there enough now, for you to just spin me, as i know when your BSing.

and you still havent answered my questions.
all youve done is strawman and deflect.

try answering me directly on what ive asked you.



this is exactly what i mean about your debunking style all smoke and mirrors jimbo.
and useless self promotion.
but evidence not a bit of it.

asked simple direct questions to back up your claims and you just reply with a deflection or a strawman.

you have nothing in the locker to prove anything have you .. just be honest.

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

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



posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by smurfy
In 114 it is pretty much constant from start to end.
I may be mistaken (there too many similar threads for my poor head
), but I think I captured some frames in different occasions to compare the brightness of the object and the brightness changes.

I will look for it.


Edit: it was in this post.

[edit on 8/3/2010 by ArMaP]



posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 06:27 PM
link   
What is the correct term for when an object appears to reverse direction because of the relative motion between the object and the observer? Retrograde motion? Parallax? Someone (I think) stated that this has already been ruled out as an explanation, but can someone summarize for me why?


This is a video made in Celestia (The Space Simulator). IRIDIUM 12 appears to reverse course as the observer is about to pass near its line of orbit. Both Iridium 12, and the observer are in free fall. Couldn't the same thing be happening in the STS-114 video?


[edit on 8-3-2010 by Tearman]



posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tearman
Couldn't the same thing be happening in the STS-114 video?


I mean I guess it is possible...But the problem most are having is not only the change in direction...it is the object's visual appearance as well.

I don't think anyone will ever convince anyone else of what this is because plain and simply nobody knows.

Cool video though showing a possible explanation. Thanks for the effort.



posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tearman
What is the correct term for when an object appears to reverse direction because of the relative motion between the object and the observer? Retrograde motion? Parallax?
Is it apparent retrograde motion?

That's what it looks like to me, specially because of the way the brightness changes.



posted on Mar, 9 2010 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 
Hi Armap,
I don't see any of your posts at that link. I'm not sure if there is retrograde or apparent retrograde motion there, the object is already changing direction to the right before any camera/shuttle movement to the left, and previous to that the camera view is dead straight ahead and unmoving, the only other movement being at two seconds in on the video, and that movement is down-up and is two seconds before the object appears. That's what makes me think that something, (the object seen) was force expelled from the shuttle.



posted on Mar, 9 2010 @ 02:27 PM
link   
Well I have something to add to this from the other side of the spectrum. Let it be known I do not think this is anything other than something unexplained and unknown. I do not think we have the answer to this.

However... it does strike me as odd after watching this video countless times that the object in question moves so fluently. I mean the more I watch this it doesn't even appear to be an alien craft in the sense that it flies so smoothly in its path. I remember listening to a fastening explanation about how alien craft are powered by gravity (Lazar) and that they almost always fly a little bit shaky because of this. Now maybe just maybe the craft (if it was) was luckily in a place with no outside interference as far as their craft goes and it allowed them to move in such a perfect way. I mean the same can be said for debri, thrusters, ice, whatever....The path is so very perfect.

I am even more stumped.






top topics



 
96
<< 66  67  68    70 >>

log in

join