The first video is very convincing because natural occurances cant and dont happen like that. Something going up that fast was 100% intentional. Second video was cool, and I hope we get some more good footage like this soon.

this is quite old. im not a frequenter of the UFO topics and ive seen this. (im not intentionally to be a jerk)

the problem is you still have to build a case for any UFO in the film and the "projectile" being fired at it.

plus, unless it was a laser, wouldnt a ground mounted weapon be noticeable? firing it would be tremendously loud and the weapon would probably have to be huge.

The first one is old but the second one was taken 2006 but uploaded in 2009.

It would have to be some type of energy based weapon , conventional gun powder based weapons couldn't achieve the results in the first video ..... if it originated from earth that it.

The first video is old, and has been thoroughly explained, most people seem to accept what it really is in that footage. If you watch just before the supposed object moves and is “shot at”, you will see a flash on the screen in the lower left side. That flash is the reactant rockets firing to keep the shuttle in the correct attitude. Any spacecraft flies in a cloud of debris, everything from ice to bits of dirt, even actual parts that fall off the shuttles themselves fly alongside the shuttle like a cloud. When the reactant rockets fire, they displace some of that debris, and you get movement of those objects just like you saw in the video.

The second video, could be the landing light of an aircraft, and a bat flew into the shot for all we know. There is no reference to determine what is in that video. One thing I will tell you though, is that I doubt it is anything shooting at the light. The reason being is that there are just not AA systems parked all around this country, set up, and ready to fire in case something flies by them. Chances are that it is a bat, fairly close to the camera that picked up enough illumination to show up on the film.

I've read about the first video being debunked and personally I don't buy it one bit.

If you watch it again after the blast of light the camera on the shuttle pans and zooms to follow the object when it darts off ...

Now If this was a piece of ice being propelled from thrusters , why would the camera man even bother to pan right and zoom hard on the object as it darts off?

Must have been a special piece of ice to get so much attention from the camera man!

nice vids .. seen the 1st a thousand times wouldnt it be funny if aliens were daring each other to see who can get closest to earth (im my world it would happen) :p

the fact that the flash does seem like its the booster..and this happening directly before the things start to move..id (sadly) be prepared to accept that explanation...that flash (and i dont mean the streak of light but the flash itself) could not have come from the earth..it would have been seen by billions of people if it had..

[edit on 5-11-2009 by alienesque]

Originally posted by ufoptics

Not really....they are not shooting a missile or the likes, it's a laser.

Would a laser weapon discharge not be an instantaneous affair? From the moment of firing to striking a target I imagine the focused energy would be moving at the speed of light.

If it is a weapon discharge I would think it is much more likely to be a projectile weapons discharge from say – a rain gun.

Originally posted by ufoptics
First....thoroughly explained? The explanation just doesn't fit. Your saying that it was space junk. That is the most remarkable moving space junk....

I would not call it space junk per say, its most likely a very small piece of ice or debris that is floating along with the shuttle. It might only be the size of a nut or bolt.

Originally posted by ufoptics
flies along then pauses and does a 90 degree turn and then zips off the other direction. The streak that goes by is coming from an angle not in relation to the shuttle.

There are reactant rockets all around the shuttle, they have enough force in them to push the shuttle with a single burst, they have more then enough power to alter the trajectory of an object the size of a bolt. When they fire they fire more then one at a time, if they did not do this the shuttle would continue to move in the direction of the first thrust. Therefore, you have one thrust to start the movement, and another thrust to stop the movement once the desired attitude is achieved. Not all of those reactant rockets may be visible from the cameras perspective, but the objects they displace may be.

For example, lets say one fired on the aft part of the shuttle near the camera, it starts the shuttle in a roll and pushes your object upward. Then the rocket to check that roll, which is maybe on the nose fires stopping the roll, it pushes the object in another direction, thus your object just made a 90° turn in the field of the cameras view, while only one reactant burst is picked up by the camera.

Originally posted by ufoptics
So the theory of the booster rockets and space junk causing this is nonsense.

Funny, that is exactly what the experts who made the shuttle said it was, debris moved by the react rockets.

Originally posted by ufoptics
Second, The last time I checked airliners and aircraft in general have more than 1 giant light.Not to mention they have strobe and red lights in addition to their landing lights.

True, and not true.
Aircraft are required by FAA regulations to turn on their landing lights when they go below 10K feet. While aircraft do have strobes, navigation lights, and rotating beacons, these are not visible at distance when the landing lights are turned on. The landing lights are so much brighter then the weak nav and beacon lights that they are simply overpowered by them, and merge into a single bright light. The Strobes are aft pointing, and only visible when you are looking from behind the wing.

I can easily go to the local airport, film aircraft on approach, and show that they can appear to be a single bright white light hovering soundlessly in the sky. It has to do with altitude, aircraft type, direction of travel, and distance. Again it is an optical illusion.

Originally posted by ufoptics
Now, if that was a bat...I'll eat it raw. I have seen hundreds of bats in my lifetime and never has one flown a perfect straight line from that angle or height. After all, bats are flying around for one thing....FOOD....INSECTS....

I see a bat flying from slightly below the pole to above it, maybe a distance of 30 feet in a straight line. I see bats swoop like that here to catch bugs all the time.

*edit*

A doublepost, my bad

[edit on 5-11-2009 by SmokeJaguar67]