STS-114 UFO Video

always some darned lights farting about.
love to see a ufo in daytime photo of nasa.
But they will airbrush it or something

ive been mulling this over today....
So we have an ice particle floating along in space. Going along nicely. Then the shuttle uses its thrusters. Which in turn affects the trajectory of the ice particle. Ok.
Now this is were im puzzled.
If this is the case, then why does the ice continue on a curve trajectory? Surely if it was blasted by the thrusters then it would go backward in a fairly straight line? It continues on a curve.
Im stumped on this point. Looking at the video (again) it definitely turns in a curve.

This is to you Jim,
Instead of guiding us to your website, could you explain to us why this is the case?
If thats possible to do in fairly plain english
It should put this to bed for the rest of us, i know it would for me. Thanks in advance

reply to post by SecretKnowledge


I would guess it's because the force of the thrust is not exactly equal and opposite to the momentum of the particle. Adding vectors over time can produce curved motion. Orbits, for example.

PlanetXisHERE
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.

I told you where the answer was, and I don't play yes-no setup games.

If you really want the answer, now you know where to find it, or instead, how you plan to avoid reading it because it's my fault. Suit yourself and act your age.

signalfire
A further question would be, how come those pesky UFO-ies always keep changing their minds? I mean, they must have filed a flight plan or something, right? Well, stick to it already! Can't have all these whatevers just moseying around all over the place, going every which way, like they've got all the space in the universe or whatever...

On the other hand, maybe it's good if they can't decide on a course of action. If they could, they probably would have wiped us off the map a long time ago.

Maybe the space critter roaming E.M. fields are grazing or hunting space munchies and don't know or care that we are even here.

KPB

SecretKnowledge
ive been mulling this over today....
So we have an ice particle floating along in space. Going along nicely. Then the shuttle uses its thrusters. Which in turn affects the trajectory of the ice particle. Ok.
Now this is were im puzzled.
If this is the case, then why does the ice continue on a curve trajectory? Surely if it was blasted by the thrusters then it would go backward in a fairly straight line? It continues on a curve.
Im stumped on this point. Looking at the video (again) it definitely turns in a curve.

This is to you Jim,
Instead of guiding us to your website, could you explain to us why this is the case?
If thats possible to do in fairly plain english
It should put this to bed for the rest of us, i know it would for me. Thanks in advance

As I wrote a few pages back, this long gentle curve doesn't mesh with any thruster-induced course change effects I'm familiar with.

Some long-period course-changer seems needed.

Some air-dumps might last that long [eg, airlock, depress].

Effects of air drag might account for it but it seems excessive for draggy effects. Also, it's attitude and velocity vector dependent but that needs to be determined.

Effects of propulsion from sublimating water molecules has also been suggested, but as I said, I haven't run the numbers on mass flow and ejection velocity, somebody ought to do it.

Some of these gently curving long arcs have been seen before, once we've gotten the biggies settled [sts-48, 63, 75, 80, etc] and agreed on, it would be interesting to dig into these secondary miscellanies. I don't monopolize this research and am not the lone gate-keeper on access to needed insights and data, so have at it!

reply to post by JimOberg


Are we sure the footage is displayed at 100% speed?

reply to post by gortex


There isn't ..

PlanetXisHERE
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.

I don't know why anyone would take Oberg's word on anything when he can't even answer the simple question of whether he is currently bound by any secrecy oaths or agreements.

reply to post by SecretKnowledge


Am I the only one that caught the Other object in this video?

Somewhere right around 18 seconds, something starts on the left-hand side and proceeds through to the right at a slight diagonal - it starts about a third of the way 'up' the video... It's not until this object 'passes' the first object, that the first starts accelerating in that direction...

Although it doesn't appear that the first object is reacting to the second one necessarily, it does strike me as highly improbable that two objects ( one potentially under intelligent control ) would cross so close to each other in view of a camera at the same time...

Let alone a camera that likely didn't have the greatest of recording capabilities, breadth, or depth.

JimOberg

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.

That was brilliant work.

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.

That's what I suspected. I've seen you portrayed as the grinch who stole Christmas by quite a few people in the "UFOs are ETs" camp and I've always thought that was a bit unfair as you seemed to be just as interested, perhaps more interested in the classic definition of UFOs as Unidentified rather than as "OMG Aliens!" in the same way that Dr. James McDonald was, than some of your detractors.

I am very interested in studying UFOs for much the same reason you are, because they may tell us about things we've overlooked or missed.

I'm very interested in Lunar Transient Phenomena (seen by credible astronomers for centuries) not because I think they are "OMG Aliens" (though that would be fantastic if they were) but because they might be evidence that impacts happen on the Moon more frequently than we thought or the Moon is not as dead as we thought. Or something is causing lunar soil to give off lights, perhaps some interaction with the solar wind that are unaware of. Only after those more plausible explanations were ruled out would I move on to "might be aliens".

I do wonder what your take on this video shot by a couple of amateur astronomers in Italy:



I've perused your web site and at the risk of sounding like a "shill" I'll be there often.

Do you think that Dr. Paul Davies is using the " lets look on the Moon for alien artifacts" thing to spark public interest in helping go through the LRO data for more mundane finds or do you think that he legitimately is -primarily- interested in finding alien artifacts on the Moon?

Also, do you believe any of the "lost cosmonaut(s) floating in space" stories/myths/legends could have some basis in reality?

Sorry for all the questions unrelated to the STS-114 video but it's cool to be able to talk to you.

DigitalJedi805
reply to post by SecretKnowledge

 

Am I the only one that caught the Other object in this video?

Somewhere right around 18 seconds, something starts on the left-hand side and proceeds through to the right at a slight diagonal - it starts about a third of the way 'up' the video... It's not until this object 'passes' the first object, that the first starts accelerating in that direction...

Although it doesn't appear that the first object is reacting to the second one necessarily, it does strike me as highly improbable that two objects ( one potentially under intelligent control ) would cross so close to each other in view of a camera at the same time...

Let alone a camera that likely didn't have the greatest of recording capabilities, breadth, or depth.

Ah yeah caught that alright.
But its just a boring old straight line ufo
The one i pointed out for discussion is much more interesting

reply to post by JimOberg


Thanks for the reply Jim
And from what i got from it, that you're not exactly sure what caused the turn.
If that is the case, would you be prepared to say that we are in fact talking about a ufo here?

SecretKnowledge
reply to post by JimOberg

 

Thanks for the reply Jim
And from what i got from it, that you're not exactly sure what caused the turn.
If that is the case, would you be prepared to say that we are in fact talking about a ufo here?

We're definitely in a gray no-man's-land here, and while I remain curious about what's causing the curving, I'm satisfied through numerous other examples of at first glance anomalous motions, every one of which succumbed to in-depth investigation, to have a hunch the same results will ultimately prevail here. But ii IS only a hunch, yet my hunches have been consistently proven out so far. The STS-48 results establish that -- if you don't agree the data is ironclad that the objects are small sunlit nearby bits of ice, some entrained by bounceback of a specific thruster firing, then you don't understand enough basic spaceflight operational principles to deserve a legit opinion -- tough talk. OK, when the prosaic possibilities for these gentle curves have been thoroughly cataloqued, investigated, and eliminated, THEN you meet the hynekian definition of a UFO. We're nowhere near that, so far, so what are you guys going to do about it? Please proceed scientifically and I'll make that journey with you.

JimOberg
We're definitely in a gray no-man's-land here, and while I remain curious about what's causing the curving, I'm satisfied through numerous other examples of at first glance anomalous motions, every one of which succumbed to in-depth investigation, to have a hunch the same results will ultimately prevail here. But ii IS only a hunch, yet my hunches have been consistently proven out so far. The STS-48 results establish that -- if you don't agree the data is ironclad that the objects are small sunlit nearby bits of ice, some entrained by bounceback of a specific thruster firing, then you don't understand enough basic spaceflight operational principles to deserve a legit opinion -- tough talk. OK, when the prosaic possibilities for these gentle curves have been thoroughly cataloqued, investigated, and eliminated, THEN you meet the hynekian definition of a UFO. We're nowhere near that, so far, so what are you guys going to do about it? Please proceed scientifically and I'll make that journey with you.

So--in other words--beats the hell out of you, Jim, but we can't call it an unidentified "flying" object yet? Nice.

The GUT
So--in other words--beats the hell out of you, Jim, but we can't call it an unidentified "flying" object yet? Nice.

Not exactly. I haven't done the basic context data search required to BEGIN suggesting a case for non-explainability. Anybody who cares to pitch in and start the process, go and get the date/time of the event, the Orbiter attitude/rates and thruster history, the a/g comments and MCC logs, that sort of fundamental essentials of a genuine investigation. I'll be glad to help out with the data once obtained, I'm just not prioritizing it anywhere near the head of my to-do task list. Without such data, it's another useless 'argument from ignorance'.

1. It's interesting how the crew moved the camera into the sun-glare to prevent anyone from seeing the others that could have been following this lead vehicle.

2. Why do most space UFO's "glow" with light? Is it merely the sunlight, or do they emit their own light?

cwm

JimOberg
Not exactly. I haven't done the basic context data search required to BEGIN suggesting a case for non-explainability. Anybody who cares to pitch in and start the process, go and get the date/time of the event, the Orbiter attitude/rates and thruster history, the a/g comments and MCC logs, that sort of fundamental essentials of a genuine investigation. I'll be glad to help out with the data once obtained, I'm just not prioritizing it anywhere near the head of my to-do task list. Without such data, it's another useless 'argument from ignorance'.

If you had all that data then you could definitively say what the object was and explain its curved counter-trajectory?

Admit it, brother, it is rather intriguing--even to you--on first glance at least.

carewemust
1. It's interesting how the crew moved the camera into the sun-glare to prevent anyone from seeing the others that could have been following this lead vehicle.

Divining intent, and the identity of the actual camera controllers, of such scenes seems wa-a-a-a-ay premature, why not find out some basics first.

2. Why do most space UFO's "glow" with light? Is it merely the sunlight, or do they emit their own light?

Now this is an excellent question and a good place to start. Determining whether it's 'day' or 'night' in such scenes is far from intuitive, but it fundamentally limits the range of potential hypotheses and explanations. You might hear radio comments, but usually you have to get the orbital trajectory data and run it through off-the-shelf space tracking software, see www.satobs.org for helpful hints.

The GUT
If you had all that data then you could definitively say what the object was and explain its curved counter-trajectory?

I don't know, I am interested in finding out, but I'm more interested in a lot of more time-critical events, such as the awesome surge of Russian military missile launches today and the consequent UFO flaps in Yakutia and elsewhere in Russia.

Admit it, brother, it is rather intriguing--even to you--on first glance at least.

No need for a shame-faced 'admission', I can proclaim it. I'm interested in this gently-curve phenomenon associated with the same class of apparitions -- small, sunlit, not unlike apparitions of KNOWN 'shuttle dandruff' -- that we DO know the explanations for [eg, STS-48].

Of course, if folks remain disbelieving of the STS-48 prosaic explanation, with the tons of documentation, analysis, and eyewitness reports, then it's probably a waste of time trying to dissuade them from UFOria over these kinds of dots. But we do make progress together.... And I kinda like the company.