STS-114 UFO Video

SecretKnowledge
If this was true then why dont we see any movement of the shuttle?
There is movement but not for 12 seconds after the ufo makes its turn.
Also if this were true then everything in the frame would turn, would'nt it? The only change in trajectory is the ufo's

SK, lots of people think the same way -- even PhDs -- but in reality, routine vernier thruster firings create angular rates far too low to be noticed in the video sequence. I've put the angular rate telemetry graphs from the infamous STS-48 zigzag UFO on my website www,jamesoberg.com/ufo.html and discuss it specifically in my 99 FAQs.

The more that people make bogus analogies with earthside flight experience, or just 'guess' instead of asking around, and guess wrong -- the more they seem to opt for the UFO explanations. Seems like a pattern.

ATSZOMBIE is on his own. I have no idea what he's talking about.

JimOberg

SecretKnowledge
If this was true then why dont we see any movement of the shuttle?
There is movement but not for 12 seconds after the ufo makes its turn.
Also if this were true then everything in the frame would turn, would'nt it? The only change in trajectory is the ufo's

SK, lots of people think the same way -- even PhDs -- but in reality, routine vernier thruster firings create angular rates far too low to be noticed in the video sequence. I've put the angular rate telemetry graphs from the infamous STS-48 zigzag UFO on my website www,jamesoberg.com/ufo.html and discuss it specifically in my 99 FAQs.

The more that people make bogus analogies with earthside flight experience, or just 'guess' instead of asking around, and guess wrong -- the more they seem to opt for the UFO explanations. Seems like a pattern.

I have a question Mr. Oberg.

I've read your work for a number of years and I was interested in what attracts you as a scientist to all of this? I am just a student getting into what may be a career in science and I've seen that there is a great amount of ambivalence in getting involved with the whole UFO idea, mainly because most claims can not be verified or tested but also due to the stigma the whole subject has.

Your explanations of most of the "NASA UFO" videos seem soundly rooted in logic and your expertise in space science, orbital mechanics and the history of NASA and the Russian space programs.

However I do wonder if you feel there are may be any anomalous things under the purview of NASA which the whole UFO area tends to obscure or prevent credible investigation of because the UFO field has a stigma of wackiness (for good reason due to some of its inhabitants)?

I am thinking of things like Lunar transient phenomena, and stuff of that nature. Are you at all interested in that?

For example: What do you make of Dr. Paul Davies from Arizona State University's proposal to comb through Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter photos for evidence of non-human technological activity on the Moon using a citizen science, crowd sourced platform like Galaxy Zoo or Planet Hunters.org?

news.discovery.com...

reply to post by SecretKnowledge


I see two objects in the video. The first craft moves from screen right to screen left, the second it stop the second craft appears. The second craft seems to come out of the first and travels screen left to screen right.

Wow, that's a good one, I noticed a few other thing moving about in straight lines all so, but they could just be a camera quality thing or regular debris, all so I know its probably impossible to catch with that frame rate but just after the main object seems to come to a stop, I see a quick flash roughly center screen resembling a sprite. A faster traveling object (from left to right) looks to pass the exact top point off the possible sprite, refueling over a storm maybe or could just be camera created artifacts. the main object is very interesting though.

reply to post by JimOberg

The more that people make bogus analogies with earthside flight experience, or just 'guess' instead of asking around, and guess wrong -- the more they seem to opt for the UFO explanations. Seems like a pattern.

A Pattern that reads into everything but the reality.

It is filmed from the shuttle, which fires thrusters, that dislodge and move ice in random patterns (from time to time).

So obviously, its a UFO…

It is more important to find an explainable scenario, if one exists, before grasping for reasons that have far less objective chance of proof. We often want something to be more exotic and bend over backwards trying to make something fit some pretty wild speculation.

The most logical explanation here is that this is a small ice crystal that is within a few feet of the shuttle. The shuttle is always firing it's thrusters to keep the ship at a designated attitude. The shuttle overtakes the trajectory of the ice crystal, and it appears to stop and reverse direction. The stars in the background will obviously show no displacement.

This is totally within the realm of reality, and is the most probable explanation. In order to depart from that, you need to prove that this is not the case, and I am afraid that it cannot be ruled out as the primary reason for this display, as we have seen this many times before in other shots of ice crystals around the shuttle.

Ice crystals and Thrusters, I could see that happening, just as plausible as anything else, interesting how the object pauses for a while before the change in direction, precisely controlled burst of energy propelling an object, works either way for me.

Ice crystals my ass. I believe that as much as I believe Stalin sent a Horton Flying wing piloted by Dr. Mengele's mutated child-pilots that just happened to make it all the way to Roswell then crashed. Ya ... ice crystals.

JadeStar
However I do wonder if you feel there are may be any anomalous things under the purview of NASA which the whole UFO area tends to obscure or prevent credible investigation of because the UFO field has a stigma of wackiness (for good reason due to some of its inhabitants)?

I am thinking of things like Lunar transient phenomena, and stuff of that nature. Are you at all interested in that?

You get it. There are plenty of anomalous reports worthy of attention for reasons unrelated to the 'ET explanation'.

One example -- establishing the scientific foundation for 'meteor sounds', another classic no-stones-fall-from-heaven establishment rejection of entirely legitimate eyewitness reports. In the 1980s I helped connect anomalous real-time 'electrophonic sound' from space shuttle reentries, to allow in-advance instrumentation of upcoming fireballs.

UFO reports are evidence for other phenomena of genuine interest -- at this moment i'm using Russian reports to characterize the rocket exhaust plume clouds from missile tests [what I'm going to suggest be called the 'combustion gown' effect], and in the 1990s used similar reports to establish unusual flight trajectories for top secret space to ground weapons tests there.

And in space, 'UFO reports' have been clues to vehicle malfunction, and MIGHT have saved the lives of astronauts in 2003 if they had been properly noticed, reported, and interpreted.

These sort of examples establish for me the good case that other stuff worth knowing about also probably masquerades in the data bases, that we haven't yet winnowed out.

It's not "all nonsense", but the non-nonsense is often difficult to extract.

cprnicus
Ice crystals my ass. I believe that as much as I believe Stalin sent a Horton Flying wing piloted by Dr. Mengele's mutated child-pilots that just happened to make it all the way to Roswell then crashed. Ya ... ice crystals.

Now you're just being closed-mindedly stubborn. At least before being resolutely rejectionist, read about how ice flakes [not particularly crystalline] REALLY look like and behave in a space environment. EG, my "99 FAQs". You might find out that most of what you already think you know really ain't so.

NASA STS-114 UFO Footage
70 pages worth already posted about this enjoy

reply to post by gortex


It is a space rock............ LOL sorry had to say it... but it looks like there are two actually! you see the one fly in from the bottom right screen or midway bottom right and as it goes if you watch you will see another flying into the right hand side of the screen.

When you search for video on this the original full wide shot seems to have been buried somewhere. It shows the flash from the maneuvering jets just before the change in direction of several objects. Everything on YouTube now is zoomed and cropped to omit that part (the "truth" part).

ETA: I've seen other manipulations to the video too (slowing or speeding up the footage) to make it appear more fluid at different points.

JimOberg

The GUT
I like, "space critter." Maybe even of superior intelligence.

Oberg could cough out some sort of iffy explanation I'm sure, and he might be right.

.

Not off the top of my head. It looks like a long sweeping curve of increasing distance from the camera, and I've watched it twice and I just see the horizontal motion come to a slow stop and then reverse -- it's just a very low angular rate that far away, not a dead stop for a non-zero interval. But for something to have maintained a fairly constant directional acceleration over such a long period is unusual and doesn't seem to easily fit the effluent flows from water and air dumps or thruster firings.

There have been suggestions that gentle curving may be an effect of molecules popping off on the sunlit side of a spin stabilized snowflake, but I've never seen the numbers that backed up that theoretical effect.

Worth tracking back, thanks for the update on date/time.

The author is not only clueless about some fundamentals, he is mis-clued with false information.

Sure you can see ships from orbit, espwcially the ones all lit up to attract cuttlefish.

"The next scene shows the camera looking down at the Pacific and it should be all dark... but it isn't!"

Why should it be dark if the sun is already rising? Why can't the space around the shuttle be bathed in bright sunlight?

That's one key issue of this scene. Is it day or night in orbit?

edit on 28-10-2013 by JimOberg because: (no reason given)

It's interesting how for some people the ET possibility isn't even mentioned or considered, when many highly intelligent people will tell you when the possible has been ruled out only the impossible remains?

We have had two highly respected researchers come on ATS (Ask an Expert forum) and give their opinions that Roswell was a genuine ET incident, yet people listen to someone who is still bound by secrecy oaths, and even if craft in question in the OP was a genuine ET craft would never be able to tell the truth about it?

Isn't that right Jim? Are you still bound by secrecy oaths?

firing of thrusters on the shuttle would mean everything in the cameras field of view would move simultaneously, not just one part of it . i'd like to see a video proving the opposite.

PlanetXisHERE
....

We have had two highly respected researchers come on ATS (Ask an Expert forum) and give their opinions that Roswell was a genuine ET incident, yet people listen to someone who is still bound by secrecy oaths, and even if craft in question in the OP was a genuine ET craft would never be able to tell the truth about it?

Isn't that right Jim? Are you still bound by secrecy oaths?

Uh, if I were, wouldn't I have to lie to conceal it? So aren't you demanding an answer that you're already spring-loaded to explain away?

Are you dissatisfied with my treatment of this issue in my "99 FAQs" at www.jamesoberg.com/ufo.html, or do you just want special one-on-one personalized tutorials? Please read the material I've already prepared for all the people before you who thought of the same question, and let me know where you find it unsatisfactory.

RoScoLaz
firing of thrusters on the shuttle would mean everything in the cameras field of view would move simultaneously, not just one part of it . i'd like to see a video proving the opposite.

Why? Did you learn this in Mission Control, or did you just imagine it OUGHT to be so?

ADD:

see www.jamesoberg.com...

Look at Chart 2 [print out a hi-res version] and the explanatory paragraph. Mull it over for awhile, it's 'rocket science' so it's not so obviously 'common sense'. Then you might understand why your assumption is faulty.

reply to post by JimOberg


No Jim, I was just looking for a simple Yes or No answer to the question of whether you were still bound by secrecy oaths or anything of that nature, and maybe hoping for an adult response and not one loaded with high-schoolish scorn and sarcasm.