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.

 

NASA STS-63 UFO Footage Discussion

page: 8
10
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 08:10 PM
link   

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]




posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 08:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Exopolitico
 

The shuttle has an automatic stationkeeping function. The automatic pilot makes very small corrections on an ongoing basis using very short bursts of the RCS jets. A movement in one direction is countered by a movement in the opposite direction in order to maintain orbital position and attitude.

Meteors (inaccurate term, until they enter the atmosphere) are generally dark in color and not very reflective. Unless one was very close to the shuttle or very large it would not be visible.

If there was that much debris (or that many meteors) moving around it would be a huge concern. The astronauts don't seem to be concerned. A logical conclusion is that it is a routine occurance to see "snow" ejected by the jets. Note that none of the jets' thrust is directed toward any part of the shuttle.


[edit on 3/15/2009 by Phage]



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 08:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


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.


[edit on 15-3-2009 by Exopolitico]



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 09:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Exopolitico
 


When I use zoom on my video camera everything appears to change size, distant as well as close objects. Isn't that the point of zooming? To make distant objects appear larger? I don't understand why you would say distant objects wouldn't get larger.

It is important to keep in mind that this is a low light camera, the CCD is reacting very strongly to light levels. In other words, the brighter an object is, the larger it will appear due to "blooming". We can judge neither the size nor distance of any of the objects we see by their apparent size in the video.



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 09:30 PM
link   
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.



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 09:50 PM
link   

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...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 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.

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.

Take some objects and a light source, scale it down and see for yourself that the shadow stays fairly narrow. Especially when the object casting the shadow is nose first to its flightpath and into the direction of the sunlight compared to belly up to the sunlight.

But we dont know the orientation of the shuttle to determine if the shadow is narrow or wide.

It still does not explain why the other objects are lit up near those that appear suddenly from nowhere.



Originally posted by depthoffield

What "OTHER OBJECTS"?


Refer to the video on page 1.


Originally posted by depthoffield
In this diagram:




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?


It is one of many possible explanations DOF. And certianly not the absolute explanation.


Cheers!!!!

[edit on 15-3-2009 by RFBurns]



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 10:14 PM
link   
And not a very solid explanation at that, given the variables.

2nd line.



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 10:29 PM
link   
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).



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 10:35 PM
link   

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.


Sorry to step away from all the drama, bickering, and ignorant "proofs" to check out a fact...

But, I'd like to know about the slow-moving object travelling out away from Earth, towards the end of the video? Since you seem to have the answers lol

Also, the nice spinning one that is not Mir, according to Mission Control, should also be looked at further.



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 10:54 PM
link   

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).


What I find a bit odd about the MIR thing, is that they should have had the coordinates of its position in relation to the shuttle's position and should have easily been able to focus in on MIR.

I mean, they have managed to find and know where the ISS position is...seems kind of strange that they had a difficult time trying to locate MIR in that video.

Also throw in the monitoring and tracking stations keeping tabs on stuff up there..and it furthers the oddness of being unable to zero in on MIR.

Does not quite add up IMO.

To me, seems like this trying to locate MIR is just something thrown in to divert focus on whats actually going on in that video at that time.



Cheers!!!!

[edit on 15-3-2009 by RFBurns]



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 11:56 PM
link   

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.




Not necessary absolute true.
If the particles are small enough (and they can be as what debris -ice or propelant - can be), and not closer than the near limit of the depth of field of the objective, they will maintain the dot size in image.

Look for those ice debris ejected by the shuttle, how they survive to the zoom:



Relevant for this issue is the first part of the video, the "full scene". The distance from camera to the debris is here.. i dont' know, maybe 10..20 meters.




[edit on 15/3/09 by depthoffield]

[edit on 16/3/09 by depthoffield]



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 12:10 AM
link   
Funny about those tiny particles of ice, are two things.

One...they seem to vanish into the darkness rather quickly, even in the maxed zoom mode, thus verifying their very tiny size, which would also fit with your previous video example of the mist or 'snowshower' dump.

Two...they slow down before they go into their curved trajectory, and continue to slow down after they go through their curved trajectory, and their curved trajectory is rather wide for the particle size.

Ok I can see where you would want to throw this example into the STS 114 thread...again, but I fail to see this as relevant to the STS 63 video, since none of the objects being pointed out in the STS 63 video are doing the "turn and burn" manuver like the object in STS 114.

So what is the relevance DOF other than to say were looking at tiny particles at a great distance in STS 63? Hardly.

Remember your 3D prospective from a 2D source rant in the other thread?

Apply that here, and your gonna clearly see these object in STS 63 are not sitting next to the shuttle. They are a considerable distance away from the shuttle, and much larger than mist particles.


Cheers!!!!

[edit on 16-3-2009 by RFBurns]



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 12:31 AM
link   

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 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 as a medium attribute of regulars Joes). Again, don't twist my words, you are very good in doing that and throwing with mud into the people.




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.


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 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 becoming 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 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 of camera view is full of white dots, as full as invisible dots also. There is a misture.






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.


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?





[edit on 16/3/09 by depthoffield]

[edit on 16/3/09 by depthoffield]



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 12:48 AM
link   

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)


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 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 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.

Once again I say to you, refer to the video in the OP and clearly see the other objects nearby that are lit up when those being highlighted by boxes suddenly appear from nowhere. To me, that rules out any shadow effect causing them to appear because of the other nearby lit up objects.


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).


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 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.


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 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?


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. Now what upsets them the most, including me, is that you do not recognize the need to move on to a new proposal and continue to try to cram it down their throats.

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.

Even the brightest, most recognized theorists and scientists have had their proposals rejected, but they dont continue to try to cram the same old rejected stuff down their peer's throats. They back off, find more data, re-examine that data, re-write their proposal and then re-introduce a NEW prospective based on the added data.

The mundane and common is not science just because some find it favorable. Real science does not settle on favorable, it settles on facts.


Cheers!!!!

[edit on 16-3-2009 by RFBurns]



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 02:54 AM
link   
Great job finding this . And it still a mystery what it could be. But it looks like there is a whole armada outhere... so if they are around our planet they also could be on surface of earth.



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 07:12 AM
link   

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.


You should also do it, regarding yourself. See next..




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.


It is your own tactic, don't hide yourself showing to others.

Now you said this was a test, don't you? Funny how you change your sayings when caught. I wonder if i didn't commented your twisted comment regarding Gallup Polls, you would announced me "hey this was a test"? Or let it exactly as it is, to others to make wrong impression about me?


Anyway...let's go on topic.





[edit on 16/3/09 by depthoffield]



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 07:48 AM
link   

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.


This is marvelous. RF is claiming that floating fuel droplets in a vacuum can be ignited by another thruster. So much for his faux-expertise on spaceflight. What possibly could make it burn without oxygen, RF?



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 08:06 AM
link   
Years ago I had a series of conversations with Ed Lopez about these videos -- here's the link:

STS-63 Discussion, Oberg and Lopez

Too bad the checkable factual assertions -- the view was just after sunrise, with normal shuttle-generated particles drifting around, some of them exiting the shuttle's shadow... exactly the unique illumination conditions which have generated 'UFO videos' on so, so many other occasions.

If the UFOs were genuine, their specific preference for showing themselves in this very brief and unusual orbital flight phase would be a bizarre and highly-unlikely accident.

If on the other hand, the 'UFOs' were the result of the unusual lighting conditions, it's "cause and effect", and no mystery at all why this 'coincidence' holds.

Funny, how in all the reportage and discussions on such cases on these and other boards, this 'coincidence' has never seemed to have been mentioned, AFAIK. It's as if people didn't WANT to know -- worse, wanted NOT to know -- the context of the videos, lest some prosaic explanation intrude into their fun fantasies.



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 08:12 AM
link   

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.


Let me make an extraordinary proposal, RF. Go and FIND OUT what the orientation of the shuttle -- and the Sun's orientation to its angular plane -- was at the time of this scene?

As far as some particles being illuminated and some not, even along the same radius vector from the camera, you have to force your mind to think three-dimensionally, and realize that the umbra is narrowing with growing range.

What was that great quotation from 'Wrath of Khan' when Spock comments on the ship-to-ship combat tactics of their adversary? Something like, 'Intelligent but uneducated -- still thinks in two dimensions..." ?? Was he also thinking of you? It sure seems to fit.



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 08:25 AM
link   

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.


But i didn't ask you about missing data, or explaining to me this truth, you said it, and is ok, we miss some data. I've asked about your opinion regarding chances the shadow to be in the FOV. (High, normal, low). It is something extraordinary to have shadow in FOV? it is somethink normall to happen?, or is something to happen most of the time? What about analyzing a bit the OP image?
But if you don't want to answer strictly to the question...


In my opinion, generrally speaking, having the shadow in FOV is something ordinary. It's a matter of fact (this without even taking in consideration the OP image)., a certain posibility.

Now, looking OP image:
a) is clear that camera is looking to the far edge of the Earth (or in fact its' atmosphere), where is full night.
b) And is looking just in oposite direction relative to the direction of the shuttle movement, this can be seen easy especcially when terminator appears and details on the Earth surface can be seen
c) in two minutes or so, we see appearing the terminator (day-night boundary) on the Earth surface, because in the mean time shuttle moved significant (8 km/sec * 120 sec = about 1000 km). And it moves toward the sunlit part of the Earth disk, as we can see easy. So, the shuttle is going toward the direction from where light come Logically we can conclude that the shadow of the shuttle, it will stretch almost opposite to the direction of the shuttle movement. But, also, the camera is looking opposite to the direction of movement. It was my last diagram explained in words.

So you see, there are very favorable chances that the shadow to stretch inside the camera FOV, when analysing the image beyond superficiallity.




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.


Tell me a theoretical example applicable here of "hard evidence to even suggest there is shadow".


But you know, evidence for shadow to exist is there, in the OP image if you judge the clues we have (direction of motion, direction of light, direction of camera FOV). I've just explained above.




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.



Where in this thread they realised about the dead horse? And with what arguments which remains unanswered?
I saw some people just and only dismissing it very easy often in a few words or sentences... as simple personal oppinions...but i didn't see their arguments or questions remaining unanswered.

Oppinions like "i don't buy your theory" and questions like "why the debris are not becoming big when zoomed" which received plausible answers with examples, answers which are not further accepted or eliminated with tangible facts or undeniable logic, all of this personal opinions or questions raised but not clarified beyond first level of correct answers, does NOT make them hard peer review, neither science, RFBurns. You only stretch the definitions...

[edit on 16/3/09 by depthoffield]



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join