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

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.

reply to post by franspeakfree


I SAW THIS!!! I couldn't sleep and went outside to sit and watch the night sky. I saw what I thought at the time was a satellite moving across the sky and all of a sudden it just shot off in the opposite direction! It was several years before I saw anything about it, but one time on 20/20 (I think?) they showed the exact same thing I saw and I felt elated by the fact that the Shuttle had seen it as well. Thank you for your post.

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.

I've watched this video a few times now, Disclose TV seems to be slightly better quality than You Tube. All of those lights below the shuttle don't seem right for Hawaii or the Eastern seaboard of Florida. Too many for Hawaii, too bright, not enough for Florida etc




Is it possible that the camera is filming South and that the land below is the Caribbean?




More specifically, this infrared satellite shot of Puerto Rico looks possible...




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?

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...

reply to post by franspeakfree

No matter how bizarre 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.

I think some of these 'disbelievers' will surprise you one day. They aren't all seeking to deny some extraordinary things, they often set the bar quite high regarding acceptable evidence. What often appears a need to dismiss UFO videos conceals a deep interest in the subject.

This sts-114 video is very interesting but it leaves questions and falls short of 'proof' until some of those answers are found. For me, it's there with STS-80 as possibly extraordinary

I really hope Obama discloses this crap. Surely he knows this technology could solve 75% of our problems.. ffs do it already.

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.

reply to post by depthoffield


Umm...there is NO atmospheric drag in space man. If your trying to apply that to this....you simply dont get it do you depthofield.

In case you and your quoted friend there dont realize it, as you go up in altitude, the atmosphere gets thinner and lese dense..hence drag decreases. At typical parking orbit of the shuttle, the density and drag effect of atmosphere would be several times less than the density and drag influence of cigarette smoke.

Shuttle Orbit Altitudes

Atmospheric Density And Pressures

If you can...crunch the numbers yourself and see for yourself...and anyone else who needs to...the function in the math where an increase in altitude equates to a decrease in density and pressure of the atmosphere, hence the same with drag.

So your wanting people to believe that there is enough drag and atmospheric pressures at 115 miles up (shuttle orbit minimum), that an ice particle will speed across a scene, slow down, stop, about face and head off in another direction due to the atmospheric drag and density coeficient at that altitude?

Are you trying to shove into our faces the same excuse they used for Kennedy...you know the "magic bullet" BS???? Where in this case, some ice particle that drops off the shuttle just magically zips right to left behind the shuttle, slows down, stops mid flight, turns, and then heads off in the other direction.

Sure sounds like it to me.

Go look at the tether video. If you can show us anywhere in that video where the tether is influenced by atmospheric drag that would make it zip away at the speeds we see this object in the OP's video is going...then you have a point.







Cheers!!!!

[edit on 24-2-2009 by RFBurns]

reply to post by Nichiren


you can put &fmt=6 at the end of the youtube link and it should reload the video in better quality. works better on some vids than others but its worth givin it a go.


[edit on 24-2-2009 by ItsallCrazy]

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.

reply to post by Kandinsky


As I said before, I don't think that we are seeing the Earth, the speed of the shuttle over Earth is too high, we can always see the Earth pass by (relatively) very fast, even when we are looking at the horizon.

reply to post by ArMaP


No you can see the curvature of the Earth in the distance, which is curved in the video \____/ .


Snapshot from STS-114 video, adjusted brightness to bring out Earth horizon.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/51adb1f335fd.jpg[/atsimg]


It also depends on where the shuttle is in its orbit path. The shuttle does orbit in a straight line, but depending on where the shuttle is along that path, plus orientation of the shuttle itself, would determine if we see the Earth passing fast or appear to not pass by fast at all.




Cheers!!!!

[edit on 24-2-2009 by RFBurns]

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.

There isn't anything in the video that we can see as acting on the object, that is true, but that does not mean that there isn't anything affecting it.

Gravity, for example, is affecting it, although I am not saying that gravity is the force that makes it change direction, and as you know about Celestial Mechanics you know how complex the gravitical interactions between objects are, and none of those forces are visible on a video.

As we do not even know (at least I don't know) in which direction is the camera pointing, we cannot know if there was an obvious force affecting that object that could be seen, for example, if the camera zoomed out a little.

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 I tried to explain, what we are seeing is the projection of the object's trajectory on the plane of the camera, not its real three dimensional trajectory, so we are limited by our point of view.

A balistic trajectory would have the same look as this object's trajectory if seen almost paralel with the direction in which the object in a balistic trajectory was thrown, but when seen in a side view we would see a parabolic trajectory.

That was what I meant to say, as we can see in a fast version of the video, the object does not return in exactly the same way it came in.

Maybe this accelerated version (at 500 fps instead of the original 30) can show what I mean about the object's trajectory. It also shows that there are more objects moving, but they are moving very slowly.

reply to post by RFBurns


Are you really sure that is the Earth's rim? I am not, there is nothing to show us that it is or that it isn't, and if that is really the Earth's rim then the lights are not on Earth, there is no way the shuttle will look as if it was "parked", it does not fly in geosynchronous orbits.

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]

reply to post by ArMaP


There are videos of the shuttle in orbit where the scene of the Earth seems to almost be at a stand still. Again it depends on what orientation, and where the shuttle is during its orbit.

It does change its course for various missions. It does not always fly in an orbital path where we would see the surface moving fast. If the shuttle just stayed in one orbit path, all those launched satellites in various positions in orbit would not be there.

As to the horizon..cmon..surely you can clearly see that is the curvature of the Earth. Again there are plenty of STS videos that show the Earth curvature in this manner.

If that is not the curvature of the Earth below the shuttle..care to give us an explanation as to what it is then?

As to the ice particle bs....again...cmon. There is no way any atmospheric influence at that altitude will have the effect of what the object is doing in that video. I..and I am sure others, would LOVE to see an example of how some lone ice particle just zips along from one side of a frame to another and turns and burns the opposite direction when there is no shuttle thruster plume flash or anything else causing it to zip and dip and turn and burn.

Its so obvious that these so worn out lame explanations do not apply here. People do not need a slide rule or fancy theory to see the obvious. And what we got here is something way byond the simplistic explanation escape of ice or junk.

I would say prove its a particle of ice and prove that the atmosphere is causing this thing to turn and burn, and prove that there is some explainable force..seen or unseen, causing this so called ice particle to turn and burn.

Do I need to prepare a few pots of coffee for this and take a nap while the resident ridiculers dig deeper into the bag-o-scuses for that last ditch 11th hour desperate attempt?

I will wait. (prepares first round of coffee)


Cheers!!!!

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!!!!

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by RFBurns

 

Are you really sure that is the Earth's rim? I am not, there is nothing to show us that it is or that it isn't, and if that is really the Earth's rim then the lights are not on Earth, there is no way the shuttle will look as if it was "parked", it does not fly in geosynchronous orbits.

You really need to re-examine the video, especially your 500 fps version of it..at the end, when the camera pans, or the shuttle changes orientation, the Earth curvature clearly comes into view.

And btw, that re-orientation does not occur until AFTER the object does its fancy manuvering.

Well there is no point in continuing in this discussion if all the responses are going to be the same lame dumb game of ignoring the obvious.

As I stated in other threads, there are those of us who think way byond the 8x11 piece of paper, and definately can see with our own eyes what is happening.

I like it on the outside of the box. More freedom of movment, thought and belief.


Cheers!!!!

Another thing...


Why is it so important to know the exact mission code number ?

One of the reasons is simply because NASA owns a device that could be responsible for such a sighting & maneuvers, it is called the AERCam Sprint as Autonomous Extravehicular Activity Robotic Camera Sprint :

spaceflight.nasa.gov...

They used it for the first time during the STS-87 mission.

We know this : The AERCam is designed to fly very slowly at a rate of less than one-quarter of a foot per second.

Seems too slow but I wanted you guys to know about this but once we know which mission we are talking about, maybe we'll be able to check if it was part of the experiments during this mission.


Cheers,
Europa