NASA sts-75 archive soon to be released

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by Majorion
Surely these things we see on the NASA videos cannot be ice particles. Who came up with that silly answer anyways?

The real witnesses and the real experts, in case you really wanted to know. But keep ignoring them, if it makes you feel any smarter.

No, we have just been either lied to, or just been told nothing so many times, and there are so many loose ends that don't add up.

NASA would do a LOAD to help their credibility just by stopping the practice of not answering questions from the public about things the public is interested in. It is just that simple. Experts or not, it makes them look like they are hiding something that was discovered with our tax dollars.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by Majorion
Surely these things we see on the NASA videos cannot be ice particles. Who came up with that silly answer anyways?

The real witnesses and the real experts, in case you really wanted to know. But keep ignoring them, if it makes you feel any smarter.

No, we have just been either lied to, or just been told nothing so many times, and there are so many loose ends that don't add up.

NASA would do a LOAD to help their credibility just by stopping the practice of not answering questions from the public about things the public is interested in. It is just that simple. Experts or not, it makes them look like they are hiding something that was discovered with our tax dollars.

NASA does answer. The letters and interviews are sent to the public. They never seem to get posted on the internet. And UFO hoaxers like B1ll B1rne$ just goes on TV claiming, 'NASA never answers', and his target audience (including you), believe him.

Have you ever sent a calm, specific question to NASA about a UFO report, that wasn't answered? Then tell us about that. Otherwise, stop with the uncritical, eager-believer repetitions of other people's bogus assertions.

reply to post by JimOberg


Jim, I don't know who that Birnes guy you are talking about is. If that is what you meant to type. I don't really buy what everyone says. I am critical enough to want to see the raw data to make my own determination. I have a professional background as a data analyst, and am as happy as you could imagine entrenched in a spreadsheet chopping apart data points to present a report. It is "what i do" (or, used to do for almost a decade).

Now that you understand that much, let me explain. I have made only a few cursory contacts with any NASA employee's (outside yourself). I am taking the word of several other people, including Zorgon (who may come by and share some examples that he is aware of).

I can say that my inquiries about Ning Li were, um...less than informative. I was referred in the most vague of manners to the "Baltimore Area", which was not corroborated by Dr. Robert Baker nor by my own research.

I assure you, there is no reason to display any emotional response here. We are just discussing.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
Now that you understand that much, let me explain. I have made only a few cursory contacts with any NASA employee's (outside yourself). I am taking the word of several other people, including Zorgon (who may come by and share some examples that he is aware of)......

I assure you, there is no reason to display any emotional response here. We are just discussing.

Well, actually, most folks aren't. Look at the STS-80 discussion thread. A direct commentary from a direct witness -- astronaut Story Musgrave -- is offered for discussion, and the thread goes silent. Ditto direct comments from STS-48 crewmen, STS-75 personnel -- the fundamental central core of any UFO case, the perceptions and interpretations of primary eyewitnesses -- and they are generally ignored.

Originally posted by Majorion
Interesting topic, Starred and Flagged

Surely these things we see on the NASA videos cannot be ice particles. Who came up with that silly answer anyways?

But OP, update us once this vid comes out.

I think change of direction of the "objects" (i.e debris, ice partciles from cargo bay etc) can be fully explained by the shuttle thrusters, you know they fire those to keep the shuttle in place.

Reaction Control System

The forward and aft RCS units provide the thrust for attitude (rotational) maneuvers (pitch, yaw and roll) and for small velocity changes along the orbiter axis (translation maneuvers).

Additional OMS thrusting periods using one or both OMS engines are performed on orbit as needed for rendezvous, for payload deployment or for transfer to another orbit.

science.ksc.nasa.gov... s.html#sts-rcs

Orbital Maneuvering System

The orbital maneuvering system provides the thrust for orbit insertion, orbit circularization, orbit transfer, rendezvous, deorbit, abort to orbit and abort once around and can provide up to 1,000 pounds of propellant to the aft reaction control system. The OMS is housed in two independent pods located on each side of the orbiter's aft fuselage.

science.ksc.nasa.gov... s.html#sts-oms

Originally posted by reugen
I think change of direction of the "objects" (i.e debris, ice partciles from cargo bay etc) can be fully explained by the shuttle thrusters, you know they fire those to keep the shuttle in place.

I agree this is a leading, reasonable hypothesis for such course changes. But to prove it, one needs to obtain the thruster firing time history for the period the dots change direction.

This requires that the date/time the video was taken be provided.

Sadly, in the vast majority of youtube postings by UFO proponents, this datum is withheld.

Why the coverup?