NASA STS-63 UFO Footage Discussion

reply to post by Majorion
Hiya Majorian, good video and interesting too. It really emphasizes the risks that astronauts undertake. From the particle/debris 'blizzard' to the meteoroids flashing past it's a very busy piece of footage. Anything else in the video seems impossible to say one way or another.

I've no axe to grind with NASA and have a reasonable admiration for the work they do. Nevertheless, I don't think *proof* of any visiting ETs will be found on NASA footage. Not because "they lie" or are part of a global conspiracy, but because all these videos are inconclusive at best. They are old and unlikely to offer the revelations sought by ardent UFO fans.

I'd be curious to know the sum total of all STS mission flight times. The twenty or so minutes we have from STS-63, 75, 80, 114 represents the only footage thought to contain alien UFOs. It rather undermines the contentions , promoted by some, that Earths outer atmosphere and immediate space is teeming with visitors. It may even support the popular consensus (heresy to some) that it's devoid of visitors...

All NASA flight footage was indeed videotaped, and is hundreds of hours of space video! And they are in Martyn Stubbs NASA Archive, which is slowly being released. Go to You Tube & look at the 50 plus NASA UFO videos just posted under "secretnasaman",
And they are all titled "NASA UFOs..." Your lack of research is obvious, as is your NASA video search for UFO footage. Lazy comment.

Originally posted by secretnasaman
All NASA flight footage was indeed videotaped, and is hundreds of hours of space video! And they are in Martyn Stubbs NASA Archive, which is slowly being released. Go to You Tube & look at the 50 plus NASA UFO videos just posted under "secretnasaman",
And they are all titled "NASA UFOs..." Your lack of research is obvious, as is your NASA video search for UFO footage. Lazy comment.

I wondered how many hours were recorded not *if* they were recorded. Looking at your 'secretnasaman' youtube page I could barely contain my surprise at the 'NASA secret ufo' videos. The majority are those I mentioned i.e. "STS-63, 75, 80, 114" under a variety of titles. Two other videos are clearly lens artifacts and would be shot down immediately on ATS. Rather than being dismissive of your perspective (as you were of mine), I'd say well done for taking the time to post your videos on You Tube. If an original one comes your way that has something remarkable don't hesitate to start a thread on it.

What you misinterpret as a 'lack of research' is in fact experience of the NASA UFO footage. Most ATS (alien and UFOs) members are also aware of the same videos. My earlier point therefore remains, there seems to only be around 20 minutes of unusual footage from the STS missions


EDIT to add...Having wondered about the cumulative flight times and how it would indicate an approximate length of video footage per camera. The combined flight time of all STS flights since April 13th 1981...

1180d 18h 30m 29s

That's a lot of footage!

[edit on 15-3-2009 by Kandinsky]

Debunking is easy, just like going to school and learn a whole lot of wrong theories and facts..
Like, there is no life else in the universe, we say so , therefor it is so.
It is hard for grownups to change their world perseption, it goes against everything they are 'tought' be right.Evolution Tssk ! I dont buy it, never have and never will.

When debunking, you just take old facts and present it as facts for your claim, even when the other side say 'that is old news' it dosnt matter for the Debunker, coz that is the approved facts by the Gov's world wide..
Simple stuff...

Originally posted by RFBurns
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.

That reminded me of something.
What are those ice particles? If they are just fuel then they need the oxidiser, if they are just the oxidiser then they need the fuel, but if they are both fuel and oxidiser particles (not both in each particle, obviously) then what would be the effect of hitting those with a thruster flame?

Would they be blown away? Would they become liquid again and react (only if they meet) with each other? And if they react, what would be the result, many small bursts? A large, chain-reaction type burst?

Interesting, but if the results would destroy the craft that was responsible for the leaks I hope we never see it.

Sorry for the slightly off.topic.

What about the object in the video that decelerates? Aren't things in space not supposed to slow down?

reply to post by SaviorComplex


your so boring...

Any one that views this nasa vid see's what is going on for sure.


I dont think basic stoggy comments can truly describe what it is, but none thew less plenty put out vomit in hopes of gathering some flies.

reply to post by Europa733

And your thoughts on the video?

This video shows a bunch of UOOs (Unidentified orbiting objects), or UFO's as definition means, if you want.

But, debris solution (no matter ice, junk, propelant, etcetera) can explain all the effects seen.

Now, i understand that the really "strange" UFOs here, are those which suddenly appear or dissapear in the image.

There is an explanation: shuttle shadow.


Look for this diagram, showing how a bunch of debris particles, can appear in the image (the full white disk dots outside the shadow zone of the shuttle), or can be tottally invisible (the represented outlined circles inside the shadow zone).

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8e49cfe9677f.jpg[/atsimg]

And this is only one arbitrary situation.


Now, the image is simplified...the reality is that the shadow of the shuttle is a cone in space. One particle in space is in total darknes only if the shuttle it eclipses all the disk of the sun from the particle point of view (remember total full eclipse of the sun). If particle is further away, behind the apex of the shadow cone, the shuttle doesn't anymore eclipse the entire disc of the sun, instead just it will transit the disk without shadowing visible the sunlit particle (remember the inelar total eclipse of the sun)


[edit on 15/3/09 by depthoffield]

Originally posted by ChemBreather
Debunking is easy, just like going to school and learn a whole lot of wrong theories and facts...

If anything, your example shows why skepticism is not easy, as you must make the effort to learn. This is opposed to believing, as all one must do is simply see something they do not understand and make the leap that it must be alien, making no further effort to understand it.*

Originally posted by ChemBreather
Like, there is no life else in the universe, we say so , therefor it is so.

Please show us where one person in this thread has said such a thing?

Originally posted by ChemBreather
When debunking, you just take old facts and present it as facts for your claim,

So there is something wrong about presenting facts?

Originally posted by ChemBreather
It is hard for grownups to change their world perseption, it goes against everything they are 'tought' be right.

Much like your view of skeptics? We are lazy thinkers and brainwashed? How about instead of attacking skeptics for being skeptics, focus on the topic.

Originally posted by Jb0311NY
your so boring...

Any one that views this nasa vid see's what is going on for sure.

"Your" describes a possessive case, something belonging to the person you are addressing.

"You're" describes a state-of-being, a contraction of "you are."

I do appreciate the correct use of the ellipsis.

Anyway...please tell us what is going on in the video, for sure.

(*This is an over-simplistic description of the believer's worldview. It is not keeping with reality, a hyperbole to demonstrate how the poster's own simplistic and closed-minded view could easily be turned back on him. A great many believers do great work. Though I doubt the usual suspects will read this caveat. Let the attacks begin...)

[edit on 15-3-2009 by SaviorComplex]

reply to post by ArMaP

The Russians had concerns as well

One of the thrusters on the Shuttle was leaking propellant … and the Russians didn’t know what to think of it. They were concerned about fuel contamination on their vehicle; and if we couldn’t arrest the leak, they didn’t want the Shuttle coming too close to the Mir." Among other worries, if contamination got onto some of the Soyuz capsule’s surfaces, the Mir crew could not use it as an escape vehicle.

history.nasa.gov...

Originally posted by depthoffield
This video shows a bunch of UOOs (Unidintified orbiting objects), or UFO's if you want.

So you concede that some of the objects are unidentifiable?

There is an explanation: shuttle shadow.

As you illustrated with the diagram, my question is; how far exactly does this shadow supposedly extend? ..and how are you sure that the sunlight is even coming from that direction (left)?

Originally posted by Majorion
So you concede that some of the objects are unidentifiable?

Even if he does, it ultimately means nothing. The inability to identify these objects does mean it proves they are alien or extraterrestrial.

[edit on 15-3-2009 by SaviorComplex]

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
Even if he does, it ultimately means nothing.

No, it does mean something. It means that he can't apply the ice/junk particle or debris explanation to every single object in the video.

A more realistic version, which shows the integral frame of the image taken by the camera beeing full of bright dots.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/55c86afb40a7.jpg[/atsimg]




[edit on 15/3/09 by depthoffield]

Originally posted by Majorion
As you illustrated with the diagram, my question is; how far exactly does this shadow supposedly extend? ..and how are you sure that the sunlight is even coming from that direction (left)?

In my diagram the direction of the light comes from the left because it is the way i drawed it

If you look the OP, it is clear that the camera is filming the dark side of the Earth, in the opositye direction that the shuttle moves. Later as it orbits, the shuttle comes to the day-to night boundary on the Earth surface (and the automatic gain control of the camera is affected by the brightness of the Earth surface). So, the camera is filming with the sun in its back. Similar to my diagram.


As for the lengh of the shadow, is simple to make an aproximation: the shuttle beeing let's say 20 meters in diameter (if assuming a disc, for the sake of the calculations), it will tottally eclipse the sun disk only if is angular size as seen from the particle point of view is greater than 0.5 degrees (the sun angle).
Thus the simple tangent formula will show the extent of the shadow in space:

Distance = 20 / tan (0.5) = 2300 meters. (In reality it will be less, because the shuttle is not a disk (we have to take in consideration the size of the maximum circle inside the projected shape of the shuttle)





[edit on 15/3/09 by depthoffield]

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by RFBurns
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.

That reminded me of something.
What are those ice particles? If they are just fuel then they need the oxidiser, if they are just the oxidiser then they need the fuel, but if they are both fuel and oxidiser particles (not both in each particle, obviously) then what would be the effect of hitting those with a thruster flame?

Would they be blown away? Would they become liquid again and react (only if they meet) with each other? And if they react, what would be the result, many small bursts? A large, chain-reaction type burst?

Interesting, but if the results would destroy the craft that was responsible for the leaks I hope we never see it.

Sorry for the slightly off.topic.

I think its right on topic since some of what is seen in the video is from the RCS leaky.

It is an interesting question, and one I do hope NASA has taken into account. Regardless if its just the oxidizer, or the fuel, or both, it is still a problem either way. The loss of propellants, the risk of ignition of a chain reaction in open space near the shuttle, and even another issue, the RCS propellant storage and feed system needs to be examined and possibly re-designed. We dont need another "Challenger" like incident due to some management overlooking an engineering problem again.


Cheers!!!!

Originally posted by depthoffield

Now, i understand that the really "strange" UFOs here, are those which suddenly appear or dissapear in the image.

There is an explanation: shuttle shadow.


Look for this diagram, showing how a bunch of debris particles, can appear in the image (the full white disk dots outside the shadow zone of the shuttle), or can be tottally invisible (the represented outlined circles inside the shadow zone).

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8e49cfe9677f.jpg[/atsimg]

And this is only one arbitrary situation.

This example depends on the angle of sunlight and where the shuttle is with respect to the FOV of the camera and angle of the camera.

Without those facts, your just guessing at what is causing some of those "dots" to appear or disappear.

Instead of showing us mudane examples, how about showing us some bonafide, verifiable evidence based on actual flight data and then draw your pretty pictures based on that factual data.

Thank you.


Cheers!!!!

Originally posted by Majorion
No, it does mean something. It means that he can't apply the ice/junk particle or debris explanation to every single object in the video.

Yes it can be applied. Unless you show me one single object there which defy the debris particles explanation.

Originally posted by RFBurns

This example depends on the angle of sunlight and where the shuttle is with respect to the FOV of the camera and angle of the camera.

Without those facts, your just guessing at what is causing some of those "dots" to appear or disappear.

Instead of showing us mudane examples.....

No, show me one object in OP which can tottally defy MUNDANE and COMMON situations, so beeing really misterious, not forced misterious.

So, you see how here, the debris explanation is NOT bogus.
Is legitimate and perfectly posible.


[edit on 15/3/09 by depthoffield]