NASA STS-63 UFO Footage Discussion

Originally posted by Majorion
And where did I even once say; that we are looking at aliens?

Semantic games. Sorry, we are not falling for that; we are far more intelligent than you give us credit far, and you are far less intelligent than you think.

Originally posted by Majorion
Please stick to the topic, not me.

Coming from an expert of the personal attack and thread derailment, that is rich.

Originally posted by Exopolitico
reply to post by RFBurns

 

That's exactly right RFBurns. In just a span of 2 minutes we have seen how many of these meteor-looking objects fly by as such high speed? How many of these have ever penetrated the shuttle or the ISS?

There is much junk in space, I'm surprised more satellites are not going off line from these objects.

At those speeds, it would be like a bullet shot from a gun through a watermelon, leaving very little left of the watermelon..or in this case...the shuttle or ISS or satellite.

They have been extremely lucky. I hope that the research and development of the plasma based shield comes to being practical because with all those speeding meteor bullets up there, and all that junk up there, without something to deflect that mess, soon even low Earth orbit paths will be un-passable. It will be like huge rocks blocking the roadway up there, except those huge rocks are not static, they are in motion!


Cheers!!!!

reply to post by Exopolitico

I don't think those are meteors. I think they are "snow" being ejected by the jets. This accounts for them moving in the same direction.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Exopolitico

 

I don't think those are meteors. I think they are "snow" being ejected by the jets. This accounts for them moving in the same direction.

Snow ejected from the jets? Let me think for a micro second. No.

These objects are miles away from the shuttle. There is absolutely no way that what you're saying is possible. That would mean the thrusters are ejecting "snow" from right to left. If I'm positioning the camera forward, then the thrusters are behind me on my left, or on my right.

Sorry, not even a good try, in my opinion. If what you are saying is even remotely true, then there is snow going from left to right too. Last time I checked, the thrusters were at one specific location, not more than one.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Exopolitico

 

I don't think those are meteors. I think they are "snow" being ejected by the jets. This accounts for them moving in the same direction.

Jets mounted to what? Some of them are not heading in the same direction btw.

It has been studied and validated that even a pebble sized micro-meteor travaling at the same speed as the shuttle, going in the opposite direction hitting the shuttle, would be exactly as I described it before, a bullet shot from a gun going through a watermelon.

Since we do know that meteors are a normal occurance and a majority of them burn up in the atmosphere before hitting the ground, it stands to reason that what we are seeing in that video, are these regular meteor visitors, I think there is one in that video that heads directly at the Earth comming up from the bottom of the frame.

There are a couple that fly by next to each other from the upper right of the frame and through the center and then off to the lower left, and another that is going in the opposite direction, from about center left and off to near upper right of the frame.

Im not so sure these are "snow" shot around by jets. They look too much like speeding meteors. Also, if they were influenced by jets, or thruster blasts, where is the thruster plume flashes? Also we should be seeing the shuttle change orientation during these thruster jet bursts because that camera is pretty much static on its shot, though it does pan a little here and there, but that is attributable to the camera's servo pod it is mounted to.


Cheers!!!

Originally posted by Exopolitico

Originally posted by peacejet
My guess would be that the situation is a combination of background stars, debries floating around orbit and some shooting stars. And near the end of the video you can see some lightning sprites. And this should not be confused to some other things.

You're right with all of the above, except debris DOES NOT blink. It may shine every so often with the reflection of light, but blinking at a steady pattern is not possible.

As Phage already said, if the particle is rotating in space, it will do with constant angular velocity (momentum inertia), so, the period of rotation is constant, so the irregularities reflecting more or less light on its surface will constantly re-appear, so that's why they blink at a steady pattern (which is perfectly possible).

As an example, look for this ice debris, some of them, if you look carrefully, do blink regularly:





Also a much more clear example, i'll recomend it, spoken by the astronauts themselves:



Look especially after 0:22 mark. It is clear how they blink regularly.

reply to post by SaviorComplex

SaviorComplex. I will ask you one last time, stick to discussion of the footage. You are deliberately derailing the thread, and being quite disrespectful.

Originally posted by Exopolitico
What are the chances of seeing two meteors fly at the same speed next to each other?

Probably higher than we think, many meteors fly "with company", probably the result of the breaking of bigger meteors.

reply to post by depthoffield


Thanks for those two videos DOF. They once again clearly show the difference between the very fine mist of a dump versus the much larger sized sparklies we see in the other video.

Not even related to one another.

It is convienient for NASA to explain it away when they edit the video from the fine mist shower to the sparklies later in the 2nd video.

Good one DOF!! More pudding for the pot...on our side.


Cheers!!!!

Originally posted by branty
Both of the boxed orbs appear as (bear my comparison please) a bubble does when hitting the surface of the water , center first, if they were coming out of shadows, wouldn't they appear , more of the effect of a eclipse, one side lighting up as the light crosses to fully light the object

That could happen if the objects are much smaller than we see them, if what we see is the result of the light amplified by the camera.

If the object is really just two pixels wide, for example, but the camera makes it look like a 10 pixels object, the object will not turn from nothing to 10 pixels, when the first pixel appears on the scene, and the camera would turn it into a 5 pixels object, but it would add the pixels around the central (and only) pixel. As more pixels appear the effect is repeated.

I hope I was clear enough, my explanations are usually all mixed up.

reply to post by ArMaP


OK, but follow the object (2nd) at 1;40, keep your eyes on it, even after the fast pan out, it moves behind a stationary object and moves away pulsating

reply to post by RFBurns


The astronaut plainly states that the twinkling objects are ice crystals.

I've never once said they were alien spacecraft, all I'm trying to do is disprove the ice particle theory. If those meteors or whatever they are flying by are indeed meteors, then should they not get pulled into the earths gravity? And nobody has answered me yet about why none of these "ice particles" block out any of the background stars when they are in the shadow of the space shuttle. And as RFBurns already pointed out, how do these "ice particles", being so close to the shuttle, survive a long zoom instead of comming out of focus, like they should?

reply to post by Phage


Hello sir


even if they were ,

do you really think he would say

"look at the ufo's "?

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by RFBurns

 

The astronaut plainly states that the twinkling objects are ice crystals.

Oh ya Phage, so if the astronaut were to say I see a UFO, would you be sitting there verifying it for us because the astronaut said it was?

Remember the one astronaut that stated "We have a bogey at 10 o'clock high"?

Do you believe that astronaut too?

What about the Apollo astronaut who states something following them.."just seems to be riding along with us"?

Or...is it possible that next you will tell us that the 10 o'clock high sound clip and the Apollo clip is fake? Well, how about we say to you that the astronaut in the example video posted by DOF saying they are ice crystals is also faked...faked by NASA?

Kind of a double edge sword here...isnt it.


Cheers!!!!

[edit on 15-3-2009 by RFBurns]

reply to post by branty


If they were UFO's and they were trying to hide it, why would he be showing the video?

Regarding the "snow" being ejected from the shuttle thrusters, let me point something out. Here are the times in the video where you see these objects and their trajectory:

20 seconds: S-N
21: E-W
22: S-N
26: E-W
40: NW-SW
58: NW-SW
1:06: NW-SW
1:37 SW-NE
2:11 SW-NE
2:23: NE-SW

Simply, my logic tells me if these are ejected from the shuttle thrusters, then the thrusters have a span of almost 360 degrees. That, as we all know, is not the case with the space shuttle.

Sorry, but the attempt to say these are meteorites, or else, as simply "snow" being ejected by the shuttle thrusters is an absurdity, in my personal opinion. We can agree to disagree (as usual).

[edit on 15-3-2009 by Exopolitico]

reply to post by Phage


hide in plain sight

they were trying to find mir, if (and i only said ufo for the previous question)the objects are in the line of sight, it was out of their control


not to mention , like so much in Nasa , governments and what have you, the first explanation is usually believed

[edit on 15-3-2009 by branty]

reply to post by RFBurns


RFBurns, Phage would simply say that the astronaut doesn't have enough evidence, nor has his/her facts straight.

He would also say that BOGEY meant "snow" being ejected from the thrusters and we are seeing it 100 miles away.

No, seriously, there is only so much debunking I can take.

[edit on 15-3-2009 by Exopolitico]

reply to post by RFBurns
"Huston, this is Discovery, we still have the alien spacecraft uhh, under observance."

video.google.ca...#

So I geuss we should take that astronauts word then too!

[edit on 15-3-2009 by UnconventionalRyan1990]