Some of the best UFO vids

a reply to: curbcrawler

Your first video is clearly a bird and the "ships" it is deploying are cloaca droppings.

I don't see any reason these couldn't be human manufactured drones. Assuming this isn't CGI. (No Mach 60+ speeds)

Things zip by the ISS all the time, and are captured on camera. Generally it's just ice shards from the outside of the station. Rarely it will be another satellite or space junk.

The Turkey video was debunked years ago, it is the bow of a ship* recorded at night time. *ocean/pirate kind

The last video is very clearly external lens refraction. If you don't believe any of my assessments, I can pull the specific frames that support my assertions.

a reply to: Archivalist

I find your explanation of the first video and the explanation of the ISS footage extremely lacking and disingenuous. From the military video you can see orbs coming out of the atmosphere and they all stay in shape and illuminated to the same degree, furthermore exhibiting some kind of wobbling effect when they seem to boost themselves. Supposed ice that is captured on ISS footage are also moving much much slower in nearly every video and have a tendency to flicker since a rotation to them is logical, but in the video it is not so, you can see the difference because I captured possible (ice)debris in the same video. Ice cannot make u-turns, but maybe you had some physics in mind that you wish to share and no one knows about ? Then we have the problem in your logic behind it being human craft, for instance going to the reactor, what possible reason would they have to do so ? That doesnt make any sense. Okay I guess you believe this is CGI. Maybe you think some of the ISS sightings are humans too, what reason do you have that they come close to the ISS ? keeping the spacewalk in mind.

Address these points if you are truly serious.

Address how an object can make a big smooth turn such as in my video at 1:40 from outside force, with reason and science, not speculation.

Cloaca?? Okay its apparent you're a jokester. Sad.

originally posted by: curbcrawler
a reply to: Archivalist

..... Ice cannot make u-turns, but maybe you had some physics in mind that you wish to share and no one knows about ? ....

Ice flakes often made turns when hit by orientation thruster plumes -- STS-48 is the most notorious example:

www.jamesoberg.com...

Ice flakes also change direction through air drag, through molecular ejection under sunlight, and sometimes by snapping into parts when spinning.

But I guess you're someone who didn't know about those phenomena?

originally posted by: curbcrawler
...
Address how an object can make a big smooth turn such as in my video at 1:40 from outside force, with reason and science, not speculation.
.....

Fair enough -- what is the exact date/time of that video clip so we can check the context with shuttle mission timeline info.

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: curbcrawler
a reply to: Archivalist

..... Ice cannot make u-turns, but maybe you had some physics in mind that you wish to share and no one knows about ? ....

Ice flakes often made turns when hit by orientation thruster plumes -- STS-48 is the most notorious example:

www.jamesoberg.com...

Ice flakes also change direction through air drag, through molecular ejection under sunlight, and sometimes by snapping into parts when spinning.

But I guess you're someone who didn't know about those phenomena?

The air drag is negligible at such elevation and time scales of seconds, in combination with the velocity scale that is close to the relative velocity of the ISS since the object in question does not seem to have a large velocity with respect to the ISS. The other aspects have no significant effect since molecular ejection would result in a visible ray proportional to the effect of changing velocity itself, and furthermore we see no snapping parts.

I hate to say it but the file you shared is not scientific, the scribbles are distracting and very scattered and incoherent.

I will try my best to come with a specific time later. Have a lot of important stuff going on and don't have the data drive at my disposal right now believe it or not

All the best. Have a great weekend

originally posted by: CreativeGalore

Why aren't we shown the offending message so that we can see what we wrote that's offending to the mods?

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: curbcrawler
a reply to: Archivalist

..... Ice cannot make u-turns, but maybe you had some physics in mind that you wish to share and no one knows about ? ....

Ice flakes often made turns when hit by orientation thruster plumes -- STS-48 is the most notorious example:
false

It would be proper to say "Ice flakes often make angled turns when hit..." You make it sound as if the turn was curved. And for crying out loud, STS-48 does NOT show any thruster effect on anything 'cause the thruster is not shooting off a controlled skinny plume, it's wide angle and should affect everything in its path. None of the STS-48 white objects were affected by your alleged shuttle thruster firing and the white object that drifts, stops for a second and then shoots off at an angle towards the darkness is an intelligent action, it's the only one. Very selective thruster! If you were right, and you're not, ALL of the white objects would have affected and angled away. They do not, they just keep drifting slowly or fast and others continue to arrive on the scene.

originally posted by: curbcrawler

The air drag is negligible at such elevation and time scales of seconds, in combination with the velocity scale that is close to the relative velocity of the ISS since the object in question does not seem to have a large velocity with respect to the ISS. ......

Mountains have elevation. Spacecraft have altitude.

For fluffy low-mass-to-area objects like ice flakes, air drag can be effectively observed over a period of minutes, especially when drag changes markedly as the object emerges from the spacecraft's wind shadow.

originally posted by: curbcrawler
.... The other aspects have no significant effect since molecular ejection would result in a visible ray proportional to the effect of changing velocity itself, and furthermore we see no snapping parts.....

How would it cause a visible ray? You're just dreaming this up. Thermal ejection is in an essentially random direction, not straight towards the sun.

Depending on relative mass and orientation, the separating sections of a particle can be of highly varying brightness.

And we're still interested in local effluent flow not just from thrusters but also waste water dump port and fuel purges and [for shuttles] APU exhaust.

originally posted by: curbcrawler
....

I hate to say it but the file you shared is not scientific, the scribbles are distracting and very scattered and incoherent.

....

Can you find a 14-year-old Boy Scout with the Space Exploration merit badge to help you understand it?

originally posted by: idusmartias
...You make it sound as if the turn was curved. ...

As Kasher and others have conceded, the STS-48 turn =IS= curved, over a period of a second or so, with the responsible thruster pulse lasting 1.2 sec per telemetry.

You need to appreciate the 3-D nature of the space you're looking at, and that the thruster plume and dots are moving through. .

The location of thruster L5D and the plume dispersion [and reflection off the trailing edge of the port wing] creates a 'wind' off the side of the Orbiter but closer in, the volume is in the shuttle body's own plume shadow. Several dots react to the plume, and several do not -- presumably those closer in, in the plume shadow so not affected by the pulse.

Mr Oberg,

Are thrusters fired or waste dumped during spacewalks?

I am fairly certain they or not and they are not dumping fuel or waste during an EVA.

This would undermine your theories from first principle

Some of the "Best UFO Videos Ever", you touted? No offence, mate, but just try to imagine my disappointment- upon viewing- that shower of sh$t.
Must try harder. See me after class.

a reply to: JimOberg
I'm with you, Mr. Oberg. You- and your ilk- are informative and educational. Us lay folks need to rememeber where we'd be without people like you.
So, so the nay-sayers and conspiracy c*nts.
Science, critical thinking and the Empiric Method. Science!!
Keep up the good work, mate.
Kind regards, and much love to you, and the cosmos 👍🍻

originally posted by: curbcrawler
...I hate to say it but the file you shared is not scientific, the scribbles are distracting and very scattered and incoherent.
....

Fair comment, this =WAS= my presentation and lecture notes. I'm actually composing two book chapters in a new book on 'outer space mysteries' that makes a more coherent literary exposition. Anybody interested in helping me out by proof-reading a draft?

Still, there is unique relevant information on the event in this link, please look harder.

a reply to: JimOberg

Duh. Me. Nevermind.

a reply to: crumpet97

What you shared is more telling about you as a person than the information and footage I shared.

If you have anything substantial to bring to the table I am all ears.

You talk about science, but you yourself are only using swear words.

I am also awaiting for Mr Obergs reply to my dismissal of his theories with a pertinent question/point.

I will await your in depth analysis since you are so mouthy.

a reply to: curbcrawler

"I am also awaiting for Mr Obergs reply to my dismissal of his theories with a pertinent question/point."

I can't find any indication curbcrawler has a clue about real spaceflight, I honestly don't know where to begin because of his confidence he already knows it all.

Does he agree that stuff coming off a space vehicle will drift along near it for a long time, due to their own momentum? And that if they are in the vehicle's shadow they probably won't show up on TV until they emerge from the shadow? And that astronauts can estimate nearby object's ranges by their binocular vision [two-eyed depth perception]?