Latest: NASA space shuttle Endeavour UFOs

Have a look at the video:



Just before transmission from the rocket was cut there were UFOs at

12:33 - object whizzes just over the rocket constituting a severe hazard.
12:52 - UFO near top right.

I use the word UFO in the pure sense of the word.

While watching it live, when I saw the UFO at 12:52 I knew the transmission was going to end! LO AND BEHOLD THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED.

That CANNOT be a coincidence as I saw it coming and it did.

Can you please post a still picture of the key frames for those without video?

Originally posted by zookey

Can you please post a still picture of the key frames for those without video?

No, I don't have time.

You can do it though and edit your post.

Originally posted by ZforZionism

Originally posted by zookey

Can you please post a still picture of the key frames for those without video?

No, I don't have time.

You can do it though and edit your post.

I guess the "for those without video" part was too subtle.

i watched it live on TV, it was just debris coming off of the main tank. the massive amount of vibration causes small bits of insulation to shake free from that tank

reply to post by zookey


i guess so...

Originally posted by ZforZionism

Originally posted by zookey

Can you please post a still picture of the key frames for those without video?

No, I don't have time.

You can do it though and edit your post.

The video is 15 min long. Please make sure you can help other members by taking a screen shot to post.
It is not fair to them to go on some fishing expedition to find something that you see yet refuse to share with others.

Originally posted by ZforZionism

That CANNOT be a coincidence as I saw it coming and it did.

Prophecy?

Your first time appears to be ice or debris.

The second is a bit more odd to me personally when watching based on the distance away from the picture.

The narrator even states, "The residual items floating away there, ah, typically particles of ice that accumulated on the back end of the orbiter during the, ah, tanking process while it was sitting on the launch pad."

Quote starts at 12:22.

reply to post by ZforZionism


Explanation: Uhhhmmm?

The Shuttle had disconected from the Main External tank before the times mentioned in the OP.

And the voice over during the transmission of the launch clearly explains what they are when they occur!

Its ice that has formed on the tank surface in the shadow prior to launching.

And Its quite clear the 1st 'UFO' was a peice of debris that came from higher up of the tank which explains is super close proximity and also due to that proximity its VERY SMALL SIZE [less than fist sized methinks at a glance]

Personal Disclosure: The last 'UFO' is also most likely ice jettisoned by the Main Tank starting to roll due to lack of any attitude control! I watched the launch myself and I would have posted immediately had I seen anything suspicious! I dont think this qualifies but I do thank the member for bringing these 'anomalies' to our attention as I didn't see the 1st 'UFO' during the live transmission.

Links to youtube at specific times mentioned in the OP... [about 2 to 3 seconds prior the actual moments]

1st UFO at 12.33 [starts at 12.30]

2nd UFO at 12.52 [starts at 12.50]

Originally posted by jimmyx
i watched it live on TV, it was just debris coming off of the main tank. the massive amount of vibration causes small bits of insulation to shake free from that tank

12:33 - object whizzes just over the rocket constituting a severe hazard.
12:52 - UFO near top right.

I mentioned UFO for 12:52. 12:33 caught my attention because of the SIZE of the object.

reply to post by TSearchX


Am I the only person that gets incredibly frustrated by narrators that say "ah" after every 5 words?

When getting someone to narrate a video, at least make sure they can TALK.

"What we did, ah, was go to the, ah, mall and see the, ah, Easter, ah, Bunny".

Originally posted by Adyta
reply to post by TSearchX

 

Am I the only person that gets incredibly frustrated by narrators that say "ah" after every 5 words?

When getting someone to narrate a video, at least make sure they can TALK.

"What we did, ah, was go to the, ah, mall and see the, ah, Easter, ah, Bunny".

edit on 5/16/2011 by Adyta because: (no reason given)

People who lie a lot do that very often because they need to double check the consistency of their statements.

Originally posted by Adyta
reply to post by TSearchX

 

Am I the only person that gets incredibly frustrated by narrators that say "ah" after every 5 words?

When getting someone to narrate a video, at least make sure they can TALK.

"What we did, ah, was go to the, ah, mall and see the, ah, Easter, ah, Bunny".

edit on 5/16/2011 by Adyta because: (no reason given)

I do that in work meetings, I play Count the Ah's and Uhm's during a presentation.

Thing is, once you hear them that is ALL you hear, not the presentation then after a while of internal giggling you get fed up with it and it become annoying.

Another one to watch for is the "nodders" who agree with what the presenter says, yeah uhu *nods I knew that yeah *nods* I agree see im being a good corporate citizen im nodding!

reply to post by ZforZionism


People also inherently do this to continue their verbal thought without interruption from others. Think muscle memory, people who do this tend to do it all the time without even having to think about it.

Claiming that there are "ahs" in there because he was lying is silly.

You have GOT to be kidding me right?

Did you just flat out ignore the commentary where he mentions the ice particles? Apparently you did...

Watch more launch videos this is normal, no UFO!

I already posted a link to this sequence here
www.abovetopsecret.com...
where I keep trying to persuade Annuki that his proclamation that
ice in space is impossible by the laws of physics, is not valid.

But this shouldn't trump the focus of my campaign on this topic:
external stuff is important because it CAN be a cue to vehicle malfunction.
So any raw imagery ought to be looked at as quickly as possible, without
the going-in presumption it's something anomalous...

...BUT with the realization it MIGHT be!

It could be dangerous NOT to pay attention to a ONE of these blips.
We just can't tell a priori WHICH one so we gotta look at 'em all.

Example: the shuttle 'Columbia' catastrophe.

Originally posted by JimOberg
I already posted a link to this sequence here
www.abovetopsecret.com...
where I keep trying to persuade Annuki that his proclamation that
ice in space is impossible by the laws of physics, is not valid.

But this shouldn't trump the focus of my campaign on this topic:
external stuff is important because it CAN be a cue to vehicle malfunction.
So any raw imagery ought to be looked at as quickly as possible, without
the going-in presumption it's something anomalous...

...BUT with the realization it MIGHT be!

It could be dangerous NOT to pay attention to a ONE of these blips.
We just can't tell a priori WHICH one so we gotta look at 'em all.

Example: the shuttle 'Columbia' catastrophe.

Well, it certainly did catch my eye because it was massive and unlike the smaller particles I saw earlier. A chunk of ice that big is like a hard rock, traveling at that speed it could have taken out the damn shuttle heat plates.

Also the speed at which the ice decelarated looked like it didn't come of the booster rocket. Look at the ice particles when they come of the shuttle - they are travelling at the same speed.

This object seemed to be going at a different speed altogether.

Not convinced it's an ice 'particle' and the risk associated with a hazard for an object that size that is too great.

This is no ice particle, but an object possibly of a much slower/faster speed than the main rocket.

Basically, the speed and size of the object is not commensurate with an ice particle unless the rocket speed is greater than the speed of the shuttle (if it came off of the shuttle that is).

Also, bear in mind there is no air friction to slow down the object if it was an object from the main rocket like it did in the video.

Still doesn't make sense.

Originally posted by ZforZionism
Still doesn't make sense.

Outer space can sure look that way, but when somebody posts the reasons they reach certain conclusions, hitherto-unknown friends on ATS can assist them in learning more about this literally unearthly realm which has come only so recently within range of human senses and activity. And if we bring along our earthside instincts and interpretive mushware, it will baffle and mislead us.

First, the shuttle ET sep is at about 65 miles altitude, moving horizontally at about 5 miles per second. There's PLENTY of air drag at that height, and anything in orbit would fall back into the atmosphere within hours. Light stuff -- ice flakes -- are much 'draggier' and decelerate into the atmosphere within minutes.

You can see this happening. The camera is looking backwards relative to its line of flight, and so the near volume is within its 'wind shadow'. Think of standing atop a speeding car facing backwards and the wind hitting your back. Stuff off the tank floats around at near-orbital speed, tumbling randomly until -- UNTIL they 'step outside' away from the wind shadow and get the full force of the very thin but VERY fast wind, and get whipped away to the rear. Watch for this in the video. It's an amazing, invisible force -- air drag 65 miles up.

At the very start of the separation, as you see the shuttle pulling up and away, it is firing its thrusters continuously, and their 10,000 ft/sec plumes too can deflect some of the junk near them. You should be able to spot a few cases of that. But most of the dots' course changes in THIS video are 'wind blast' induced.

None of the stuff you see is what the newspapers call 'space junk' -- pieces off of defunct satellites in random orbits. There are thousands of those pieces up there but they're too small and too far away and moving much too fast to EVER be visible in a shuttle camera. ALL of these items -- as in all of the other shuttle videos on youtube -- are either nearby maneuvering space vehicles (station, supply drone, whatever), or 'stuff' emitted by the main vehicle (shuttle, usually).

I've seen this on the front screens at mission control in houston -- I worked there for 22 years, from the very first shuttle launch through the first ISS assembly mission, which I designed the orbit for -- and it really does look bizarre. It can be really misleading if people try to interpret the motions in terms of the environment we've spent half a billion years evolviong inside of. This is outer space -- it really IS different. As it should be.

It's even more fun when you understand it.

It's as Jim says, 'stuff'" likely ice, as the narrator also says, flying off the external tank. The external tank and shuttle had parted company anyway in the period of your concern. You can see even the wavy engine exhausts are still subject to air flow anyway.

Originally posted by smurfy
It's as Jim says, 'stuff'" likely ice, as the narrator also says, flying off the external tank. The external tank and shuttle had parted company anyway in the period of your concern. You can see even the wavy engine exhausts are still subject to air flow anyway.

It's even weirder to see this during night launches, as the engine plume shock wave hits the thin atmosphere and creates a circular rippling fiery shock wave around the tail, until shutdown. Then all the other plume effects are even starker in the dark as they glow from super-high molecular impact.