It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
Originally posted by smurfy
In 114 it is pretty much constant from start to end.
Originally posted by Tearman
Couldn't the same thing be happening in the STS-114 video?
Is it apparent retrograde motion?
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?