Ill try to make this point 1 more time it is lens flare. the shuttle was coming around the sun started coming over the horizon. What was happening is the lens was getting light hitting vertically instead of into the aperture of the camera. Its obvious by watching the clouds they were high cumulus clouds that don't appear that quickly. Unless of course side light started to hit the clouds then it becomes visible. At night you can see through the clouds and will only become visible through light diffusion. Sorry its not ice crystals in the op video its not a UFO just light refraction in the lens.

All I appreciate your input as always.

One thing I must reitterate is that the shuttle is travelling at 18000 mph.

Some things I must address:

First ICE CRYSTAL theory.

You have to ask yourself, do you firmly believe hand on heart that ice crystals can accelerate past an object thats travelling at 18000 mph, then decelerate (think of the force) thats what it is an unknown force. (18000 mph) Then shoot off in the opposite direction. Meanwhile NASA just so happen to be recording?

This video is part of a tv programme that was aired and I firmly believe our not so friendly NeverAStraightAnswer people would have had great delight in saying that this footage is indeed fake and heres the proof. Instead nothing.

Second Sprite:s

You have to be joking, just because this idea is now spreading itself around the MSM like a rash does not mean that we have to use it everytime somebody sees something in the sky. Look what the CHINESE LANTERN idea has done to the UFO community in the last few months,

Its these kind of videos that keep the debunkers and the disinfos at bay, there is no backhanded retorts,scoffs and I know better posts. This is a rare sight, one that I will relish for a few days.

Lastly, I believe its highly relevant to point out.

I watched a film a long time ago that starred Eddie Murphy as an ET machine he had people controling him from the inside, there were these two policeman trying to find him throughout the film, one believed he was E.T the other a staunch disbeliever. No matter what the disbeliever saw he firmly denied that Eddie Murphy was E.T. Even up to the point where Eddie Murphy was exposed as E.T. he still denied it then suddenly the fact that he was an E.T sunk in to him and he was gobsmacked. I never forget that film when I am on this site.

No matter how bizaar or unearthly, no matter how much evidence is put under the nose of the staunch disbelievers the truth is that they will never believe until they see something through their eyes.

It makes me sad to think of those people as having no room for the possibility of other life form existing other than our own.

Originally posted by RFBurns

As I posted earlier in reply to another member (post above), I do know something about Celestrial Mechanics. Though quite complex and formulas take up far more than what the 10,000 maximum character limit in this reply will allow, there isnt anything in the OP video providing outside influence on this object's movements.

That is the key thing here, where is the outside influence to affect the object's initial trajectory and speed, plus the effect to make it slow down, then the affect to make it almost stop, and then the effect that makes it turn and move away from where it almost stops?

As Nablator says in page two on this topic, and i quote:

Originally posted by nablator
If you believe that no force exists in space, yes. But if you do a bit of research you will find that typical atmospheric drag is 30 micropascals at ISS altitudes, around 400 km. For comparison, solar radiation pressure in the vicinity of the Earth is 4.6 microPascals, and solar wind pressure is typically a few nanopascals. The acceleration of a particle is inversely proportional to its size, because force = surface x pressure, proportional to the square of the size, force = mass x acceleration (Newton's second law) and mass is proportional to the cube of the size.

The constant pressure of 30 µPa pushes a small particle (ice, probably). The smaller it is, the faster it accelerates.

So, the force which influences ALL the objects on the shuttle orbit, (one of them) it is called atmospheric drag. Very small, but it exists.
RFBurns, if you claim yourself you are good at maths, and have some "papers" or some diploma, then it may be easy for you to calculate the acceleration of a particle starting with it's surface and mass. And you know, some paticles may be small and dense, like frosen drops of water, or little junk particles, and other particles may be bigger but no-dense, like a snowflake. Of course, the force to them will be dofferent, so they will have different accelerations (or decelerations). Think of this.

Originally posted by Kandinsky


It seems we don't know for sure which shuttle the footage could have been taken from, when they shot it or from where? And WHY do they use 2mb camera phones? Is it a weight issue?

If there was a weight issue problem, I think they would have more serious concerns with all the ice particles falling off the shuttle.

Originally posted by Kandinsky
Looking around, the slow version was uploaded to You Tube 16 months after the STS-114 Flight. It seems the only flights we can rule out are those from STS-115 onwards. All the references I've found agree that it's between Hawaii and Florida and it's STS-114. The vid should have had a provenance. Where is it? Quite a few questions here...

We wont find any ancillery data on YouTube. And NASA never leaves up any video showing strange stuff for very long on their sites, which makes the debunker's game easier for them to decalre hoax since there is no link to the source.



Cheers!!!!

Without more information it looks like nothing more than a red herring.

I have no doubt NASA has evidence of the extraordinary and is covering up a lot of what's out there for whatever reason, but this doesn't really point to anything special that I can see.

Originally posted by RFBurns
We wont find any ancillery data on YouTube. And NASA never leaves up any video showing strange stuff for very long on their sites, which makes the debunker's game easier for them to decalre hoax since there is no link to the source.
Cheers!!!!

Hi RFBurns,

None of the skeptics & debunkers said it was a hoax yet. But without further
data, this video could show anything, maybe not even Space or the Earth.

Now, the "lights" that are supposed to be stars that are outside the "Earth" at the bottom of the screen all move in the same direction (up) & speed as the ones within the Earth's surface (city lights ?)

Weird, isn't it...? That should attract your attention.

Just try it yourself and use the "horizon" as a reference point.

Most images of the Earth taken from orbit lack stars. The stars are there, they just don't appear in the pictures or videos, because fast exposure or camera settings did not allow enough starlight into the camera to record an image on the film.

Now, if it was stars and if we knew about the video camera settings & optical filters, image processing, etc.., we could ask professionals to see if it was possible to capture stars with these settings.

Now, someone talked about artefacts, well, it sure is an interesting hypothesis to explore if we get more data in the futur.



ps : Anyone checked with Stellarium or similar ? I did and I did not locate or identify the "lights" seen in the video. Waveguide3, we need your help...


Cheers,
Europa





[edit on 24-2-2009 by Europa733]

Originally posted by Europa733

None of the skeptics & debunkers said it was a hoax yet. But without further
data, this video could show anything, maybe not even Space or the Earth.

That was a general reference as they always seem to use. It is not necessarily this particular video.

Maybe not even space or the Earth? Well wouldnt it be nice to see the original posted on a NASA website? Sure it would...my point exactly as I stated earlier. No NASA video from their website makes it easier for anyone to just dismiss it.

Pretty handy there...dont you think?


Cheers!!!!