Are non-human terrestrials fighting a secret war we know nothing about??? Interesting NASA footage!

a reply to: HarbingerOfShadows
Could have... they also could have met time traveling humans from the future, they could have met demons from the spirit realm, they could have willed beings into existence, they could have written it as entertaining stories, they could have used psychological archetypes to relate stories, they could have experienced a glitch in the matrix.

But I mean, one would expect their knowledge would have been far better of space and physics if they had met spacefaring aliens...

originally posted by: TheSilverGate
a reply to: greenday1978

most def some interesting footage.
Anyone got any sound explanations on this one?
Nothing I could think of, but I'm not really too knowledgeable
about things that may cause anomalies like that in the atmosphere or above.

The youtube poster didn't tell us the date/time of the scene, to make it impossible to verify -- or explain. On purpose?

originally posted by: Urantia1111

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TheSilverGate
Small bits of debris originating from the spacecraft and close to the camera.

because this is the only explanation...

nothing in any NASA video is anything but "debris"... ever... got it...

thanks for that opinion again... and again...

Mindless mockery is the last refuge of the bankrupt intellect, as is 'straw man' gimmicks attributing false views you want to appear to discredit, sad but all too common.

I posted this at the youtube site:

I worked 20+ years in Mission Control, including STS-48. We saw this kind of stuff all the time, and while we always kept an eye out for anything unusual that could have been a clue to vehicle malfunction [or something else], we knew all the ordinary visual phenomena that were prosaic for space flight. I try to explain these unearthly 'normal' events in my "99 FAQs" at www.jamesoberg.com/ufo.html

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: makemap
Hm.
Beings who can cross interstellar space versus beings who use chemical rockets to leave their single planet.
Guess which side I'm betting on. Assuming that those beings are in our neighborhood.

Asymmetrical warfare works.

originally posted by: greenday1978
a reply to: Phage

Not the way the light is reflecting from the high surface of the "hull." You can tell there is distance between the object and the camera.

How are you so familiar with illumination in outer space?

Let's find out -- simple question, is the scene day or night?

originally posted by: greenday1978
a reply to: LABTECH767

They're all moving in the same general direction. Also, some emerge glowing. If they were ice then there would be back splash against the camera. The station's thrusters weren't firing that long either to propel so much ice for such a time. The thrusters CAN'T fire that long and maintain their fuel payload.

Thanks for the attempt at rational analysis, that's the productive direction, good for you.

Next step is to learn the basics of real spaceflight operation, not just imagination.

Since you don't know the date/time of the video, you don't really know what thrusters were firing, do you?

We need that sort of info for good analysis

The youtube poster concealed it.

I wonder why?

originally posted by: greenday1978
a reply to: Phage

Weightlessness plus the heat from the thruster firing would cause solid ice to shatter, sending it in every direction; and not in just one general direction.

Reasonable hypothesis, subject to verification or disproof by experiment or observation.

Why can't you demonstrate this in a lab -- shattering ice by thruster plume? Might be interesting.

Anyhow, thinking along these lines is a good start, now follow the trail to its end.

originally posted by: greenday1978
a reply to: Phage

At least a single icicle would have bounced back against the glass at some point. Spacial motion dictates. Ice wouldn't travel in a single direction in space. ...g.

Has anybody who actually has experience with real motion of ice in space, helped you with this, or is it all based on your own imagination? As I said, that's a good place to start, but you seem to be missing an important step -- to verify your imagination corresponds to reality.

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: Phage

Well phage what essentially is a comet and what causes it's plume, solar radiation, as you know in space there is not really a medium in the near vaccuum to disperse heat and cold so in shadow it is very cold and in direct sun light it get's very warm, ice would evaporate in the warm side causing a jet effect as mass is displaced away from itself and vaporised creating a small thrust, if spinning this may in part neutralize itself but this would definitely then cause an erratic motion not a uniform pattern of motion given how many particle's there appear to be.

This is a reasonable suggestion based on real effects, but you have to run the numbers and not just wave your hands. What would be the mass rate for water ice [or hydrazine ice] sublimation? What would be the average departure speed/direction of molecules? What would be the produced thrust on the parent body, assuming what mass?

I suspect this could actually induce a gentle curving motion to a small water ice flake, over a period of minutes, but I don't have the numbers either. And other effects, such as air drag, are likely to have much stronger effects.

The bigger question raised by your analogy is this -- does comet jetting measurably change the motion of the comet body? That would be useful to know.

In any case, I like your intuitive suggestion, but I caution you to make it more quantitative -- how MUCH influence will be noticeable?

originally posted by: MasterKaman
a reply to: whyamIhere

** if the debris "originated" from your spacecraft, the implication is that its construction was so shoddy that bits were regularly flying off. what is your prediction for its functional life - before its own cameras fly off as well ??

By no means. While pieces of blanket and insulation do flake off, or packing material is released when satellites are deployed, the vast majority of nearby stuff is water and hydrazine ice flakes. It's so normal that everybody expects it and only pays attention if it's bigger than usual. I've written this up in my "99 FAQs" based on my own and others' shared experiences and observations.

originally posted by: Ridhya
a reply to: HarbingerOfShadows
That's exactly what im getting at - he seemed to be imposing his modern scientific idea of space onto an ancient notion of a spiritual realm...

It's an argument I see often, that ancient people knew of planets. But they just saw them as dots in the sky. I mean, the babylonian worldview was that the world was inside of a sphere, the outer mountains were connected to and held up the sky, and the pleides stars were 19 or so miles away. Not very knowledgeable if they met aliens.

Classic astronomers had a fairly good idea of the scale of the spaces above Earth -- the Greeks [and their Hindu and Chinese contemporaries] had nailed the size of Earth and moon, and the distance to the moon, and that the sun was a LOT farther away than the moon, and that planets like Venus and Jupiter were not points of light like stars but had non-zero angular size. They didn't realize that air was concentrated only close to Earth's surface. But without telescopes, all in all, not so shoddy.

a reply to: JimOberg

Well it is obvious it does effect the cometery tragectory but it is only a miniscule effect as you know, a comet is a huge body usually and the ejecta is only displaceing at a minimal thrust (thrust is used loosely here) so the amount of mass displaced is minimal with a negligable amount of displacement, also the movement of the comet if it is rotating may in fact counteract some of this as it would only be that material that escapes the comet's own low gravity that has any effect, sending voyager out into space had an effect on the earth but it is so low that the effect of solar wind on the planet probably dwarf's it and the magnitude is so very low it is barely measurable, that is if it is measurable at all.

So yes like I said it depend's how long they have been exposed and like you point out the movement if detectable may be negligable, of course Nasa must have published obscure paper's on this somewhere as they were so anal retentive they studied absolutely every contingency and never left a single i undotted or t uncrossed, more so before they had modern computer's in fact.

It is interesting though, obviously if we strapped an open nuclear reactor on the side of a commet and fed it ice to vaporise into a high pressure stream of gas then we would have a very dirty mass driver but we would be applying many thousand's of magnitudes as much energy to the object than solar radiation does.

Here is one not totally unrelated question, has anyone done a study on how much the earth's orbit will decay over the next 2 billion year's (of course it is variable dependant on a number of factor's but someone must have an educated estimate) and will it be any nearer to where venus now is as well as the sun getting hotter and swelling slightly over that period, will mercury decay to an even closer orbit becoming like the legendary vulcan and what rate of increased decay the closer to the sun will they have as they encounter more dense solar particle wind and other ejecta.

originally posted by: PlanetXisHERE

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TheSilverGate
Small bits of debris originating from the spacecraft and close to the camera.

Oh really? Small bits of debris that have regular size and shape and are mostly heading on the same trajectory at similar speeds? Wow, I didn't know random debris could act so homogeneously, in fact its kind of inherently contradictory.

You didn't know it. so it's impossible?

Do you REALIZE how silly your statement makes you look?

Open your mind to the possibility that you need to open your mind and learn something new.

This is a good place to start?

Labtech, I think you're on a productive path and I've wanted to follow it, too, just didn't have the time. Please keep pestering me to pester my physicist friends to help get those numbers. I suspect they will be helpful in further understanding the motion of some small particles on some of these videos.

Thanks!

Sweet mother of UFO footage...

So... I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that I think this is totally genuine; but I could be wrong, as we all can... always...

I don't see much likely-hood of debris at such a scattered distance with such varying speeds and directions.

I'm pretty stoked... I hope that the revelation of this footage to the public encourages a response from NASA... This is a pretty big deal if it is what it looks like.

Per ancients vs ancients - let's hope not; as they apparently have some residence on our own planet - and there's always a chance that that 'war' if we're going there, could make it's way to Terran soil.

Regardless of the potential outcomes, awesome post, S&F&

ETA: When are they gonna fix margins on memes? Whatthe.

what about the OTHER white specks in the video, the ones that aren`t moving and are moving very slowly, are they space ships too?

a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

What happens if the faction that occupies the Earth, falls in battle? I wonder what will happen to us then?

a reply to: FormOfTheLord

Operation Solar Warden? Solar Warden was said to only have 8 cigar shaped vessels.

a reply to: draknoir2

We'd more/less have to use guerilla tactics... like terrorists to battle them. Still wouldn't be much of a fight though.

a reply to: JimOberg

Because I work with pictures and light.