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 Phage
Originally posted by Exopolitico
My logic tells me that to effectively control the attitude of the shuttle, the thrusters must fire in more than 360 degrees. And in fact, they do:
Yes, I understand the thrusters have that capacity, but in the span of 2 minutes (total time for this video), the shuttle is NOT firing the thrusters in every direction. Those objects (UFOs - merely unidentified). But, heck, I'm not paying attention to the meteorites; I'm paying attention to the slow moving flashing objects.
My point was that in the span of 2 minutes, that we could discern, a dozen of these objects moving at high speed flew by. If they are merely space debris, I would be very concerned as an astronaut.
Also, the orientation of the shuttle MUST change when the thrusters are fired. In the span of 2 minutes, how many times did you see the shuttle change orientation? And most of these objects are far and way out of range from the the thruster firing.
Let me add another video for reference purposes:
video.google.com...
[edit on 15-3-2009 by Exopolitico]
Originally posted by depthoffield
No BS, a mistake. I am human too.
Sorry, i took the "bogus" word regarding debris from some very prejudiced persons in the other thread, STS114. Ok, then, shadowing particles making them appear or dissapear, it is not bogus, i guess?
Originally posted by depthoffield
Originally posted by RFBurns
I SAID your theory depends on angles, those of which are unknown in this video.
But the chances of shadow beeing more or less in frame of view is very likely, beeing a common and normal situation, you agree with this?
Originally posted by depthoffield
What "OTHER OBJECTS"?
Originally posted by depthoffield
In this diagram:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/55c86afb40a7.jpg[/atsimg]
showing a posible situation to our opening movie, you can see that bright dots, are spreaded into all the frame (FOV of the camera). (and also, the invisible ones are spreaded in all the frame too).
So, is this explanation OK?
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.
Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by UnconventionalRyan1990
We don't know that the objects ever are in focus. I don't see any detail that would indicate that they are. As I said, all we are seeing is the bloom from the light reflected by them, just as all we see is the bloom from the stars (and Mir, wherever the hell it is).
Originally posted by Exopolitico
These objects don't change size when the camera is zoomed. This is proof that the objects are very far and away from the shuttle and any impact from the thrusters.
Originally posted by UnconventionalRyan1990
Yes, but that still doesn't explain why they would survive a long zoom, like in the video, without going out of focus. If they were ice particles, you would see this happen.
Originally posted by RFBurns
Originally posted by depthoffield
No BS, a mistake. I am human too.
Sorry, i took the "bogus" word regarding debris from some very prejudiced persons in the other thread, STS114. Ok, then, shadowing particles making them appear or dissapear, it is not bogus, i guess?
Glad you recognize error and limitations of the human race to which you are apart of...
Originally posted by RFBurns
perhaps you should carry that one over to the other thread as well and not keep telling people they are lower than Gallup Poll selectees with inteligence levels being on the bottom of the list.
Originally posted by RFBurns
Originally posted by depthoffield
Originally posted by RFBurns
I SAID your theory depends on angles, those of which are unknown in this video.
But the chances of shadow beeing more or less in frame of view is very likely, beeing a common and normal situation, you agree with this?
The chances that any shadow from the shuttle is in the FOV depends on the angle of sunlight and where the shuttle is in relation to where the sunlight angle is. It also depends on how the shuttle is oriented, which will determine what kind of shadow is produced.
Originally posted by RFBurns
Problem here tho, is that your expecting us to accept that the shadow will be this huge dark area that will cover several miles width at a given distance, and wider than than as the distance increases. Sure it will widen out the further the shadow eminates, but not as wide as you want us to think.
Originally posted by RFBurns
It still does not explain why the other objects are lit up near those that appear suddenly from nowhere.
Originally posted by RFBurns
Originally posted by depthoffield
So, is this explanation OK?
It is one of many possible explanations DOF. And certianly not the absolute explanation.
Originally posted by depthoffield
Originally posted by RFBurns
Originally posted by depthoffield
No BS, a mistake. I am human too.
Sorry, i took the "bogus" word regarding debris from some very prejudiced persons in the other thread, STS114. Ok, then, shadowing particles making them appear or dissapear, it is not bogus, i guess?
Glad you recognize error and limitations of the human race to which you are apart of...
This is something - recognizing own mistakes - that you are not capable doing it (at least in the STS114 topic)
Originally posted by depthoffield
Originally posted by RFBurns
perhaps you should carry that one over to the other thread as well and not keep telling people they are lower than Gallup Poll selectees with inteligence levels being on the bottom of the list.
I didn't say that..they are not lower thans Gallup Poll selectees, don't twist it.... and i didn't refer to "intelligence", i refered to level of knowledge in this particlular filed of understanding images. I only said that regulars Joes are equal as selectees on any Gallup Poll can be. I talked by MEDIUM. (and i said by myself as an example with my regular low knowledge in genetics or medicine). Again, don't twist my words, you are very good in doing that and throwing with mud into the people.
Originally posted by depthoffield
Yes, of course depends on angle, position, orientation, like you said. I asked about your agreement about the high, normal or low chances that the shadow beeing in the FOV.
Originally posted by depthoffield
Originally posted by RFBurns
Problem here tho, is that your expecting us to accept that the shadow will be this huge dark area that will cover several miles width at a given distance, and wider than than as the distance increases. Sure it will widen out the further the shadow eminates, but not as wide as you want us to think.
What huge dark area? And i never said the shadow is wider, i said is like a cone, narrowing. Please pay attention. And, you know, as simple tangent formula shown, the extent of the shadow can be maximum 2300 meters (as a very rough aproximation, as i said) in the most favorable condition. If - like i said, and you and Phage also said- the shuttle is much edge-oriented, the surface making shadow is much smalles, so, the extent of the shadow is accordingly shorter...maybe a few hundred of meters away.
And, again, the shadow of any object made by the sun-light, is not widening, you are wrong, it will narrow, think about it. (an example: the moon has about 3000 km in size, yet it's shadow on the surface of the Earth when it eclipses the sun is about 160 km or so (if i remember correctly).
Originally posted by depthoffield
Originally posted by RFBurns
It still does not explain why the other objects are lit up near those that appear suddenly from nowhere.
Look again to the diagram, you didn't understant it well. This position explains why the full frame is full of white dots, as full as invisible dots also.
Originally posted by depthoffield
Ok, it is one posible explanation. Tell this to others here which fight to ignore and dismiiss it.
May i add, a mundane and common, and not an extraordinary one. In fact, due to leaked propelant issue, it has favorised circumstances. Are you agree with this?
Originally posted by RFBurns
Perhaps you need to review the entire thread again, not just bits and pieces of it to find the parts of your home made puzzle there DOF.
Originally posted by RFBurns
Originally posted by depthoffield
Originally posted by RFBurns
perhaps you should carry that one over to the other thread as well and not keep telling people they are lower than Gallup Poll selectees with inteligence levels being on the bottom of the list.
I didn't say that..they are not lower thans Gallup Poll selectees, don't twist it.... and i didn't refer to "intelligence", i refered to level of knowledge in this particlular filed of understanding images. I only said that regulars Joes are equal as selectees on any Gallup Poll can be. I talked by MEDIUM. (and i said by myself as an example with my regular low knowledge in genetics or medicine). Again, don't twist my words, you are very good in doing that and throwing with mud into the people.
Well now..how does it feel to have your own tactic turned right back at you? Doesnt feel too well does it. Maybe now you understand.
Originally posted by RFBurns
If it did leak that much, that would be a very SERIOUS situation to the shuttle and crew. A potential 18,000 mph bomb just waiting to go off at the slightest static spark or firing of any other RCS thruster in all that floating flamable ice.
Originally posted by RFBurns
This all depends on the orientation of the shuttle. If its nose first in the direction of flight path and sunlight angle, that shadow will be quite small and have a narrow footprint. If its flying with its underbelly facing towards the flight path and sunlight angle, that shadow will be much larger with a bigger footprint.
But as I said before, without that data telling us these things, we dont know and cannot say for certian that any shadow has any effect on what is seen in this video...espcially when other objects nearby are still lit up by that same sunlight angle.
Originally posted by RFBurns
Originally posted by depthoffield
Yes, of course depends on angle, position, orientation, like you said. I asked about your agreement about the high, normal or low chances that the shadow beeing in the FOV.
And I answerd that with the fact that we are missing data that tells us where the shuttle is in its orbit, and most importantly, what orientation the shuttle is flying at. Since we have none of that factual data, no one can say for sure where that shadow is, if it is even in the FOV at all.
Originally posted by RFBurns
Originally posted by depthoffield
Look again to the diagram, you didn't understant it well. This position explains why the full frame is full of white dots, as full as invisible dots also.
I understand your diagram just fine..what you dont understand is that there is no hard evidence to even suggest there is a shadow at all. Until that evidence comes forth, your "GUESS" is just as good as anyone else's at this point.
Originally posted by RFBurns
For some people DOF, they dont need to beat a dead horse to realize the horse has already died...in other words, these folks that are dismissing your shadow theory out of the many other theories they have also rejected have in fact given it consideration....and came to their own conclusions.
...
They have already looked at it, considered it, and rejected it. Its called peer review DOF. And as I have stated before in the other thread, that is the process of how science works.