Does anyone have any comment on that big 7.2mb video I posted earlier??? The object travels across the screen and then it stops abrubtly. That would be strange behaviour for debris or any other particles... After that it moves again, and stop for the second time. Then it become brighter, and seems to dissapear behind the Earth at the end.


And here are some scientific analyses from the first link that I posted (about sts-48.

A frame overlay method previously applied by Carlotto to the STS-48 video frames revealed that some of the unidentified objects followed curved trajectories, indicating that they experienced prolonged periods of acceleration that cannot be attributed to the relatively brief firing of a shuttle thruster rocket acting on nearby debris particles. The same method was reapplied to the video but over considerably longer periods of elapsed video time than those originally covered by Carlotto. It was found that two of the objects changed their courses from initially linear trajectories to highly curved trajectories. This and other details revealed by the longer time span overlays tend to rule out explanations for the path curvature that would be consistent with the shuttle debris interpretation. Rather, the newly-revealed aspects of the objectsí trajectories strongly support Carlottoís interpretation: that the path curvatures are evidence that some of the objects are large, self-propelled, and closer to the Earthís horizon than to the space shuttle.

Scientific analysis of the STS-48 Space Shuttle video showing multiple objects moving in unusual trajectories in space. The video was captured by a camera aboard the Space Shuttle Discovery (mission STS-48) on 15 September 1991. Digital video analysis is performed to determine if the objects in question are ice particles disturbed by a thruster firing as contended by NASA or other objects moving independently of the shuttle.

The attached two charts provide convincing proof that the famous zig-zag dots of the STS-48 shuttle flight (September 1991) are exactly what space experts inside and outside NASA have always said they were: routine nearby small sunlit debris hit by the expanding exhaust of a shuttle steering rocket triggered randomly by the computer autopilot which was steering the spaceship.

Several years ago, NASA employee James Oberg apparently wrote via E-mail an extensive rebuttal of Richard C. Hoagland's analysis of the STS-48 video. This rebuttal has made the rounds of various web sites and newsgroups, and has been used as an example of the supposedly "faulty" nature of Hoagland's research. As near as I can tell, this rebuttal has gone completely unchallenged. After a quick perusal of Oberg's letter, I felt it was drastically flawed on several points. The following is my response to Oberg's rebuttal.