NASA STS-114 UFO Footage - Can it be debunked?

Originally posted by Nichiren
reply to post by RFBurns

 

When logic fails, accusations fly ...

All the best,

N

There is no accusation..only an observation.

I find it highly illogical that this one video and thread draws the attention of an alledged NASA person with only a post score of 57 considering all the other STS videos and threads.

All the best.


Cheers!!!!

reply to post by Nichiren


And I'm fine with that.

And you should be fine that I am fine about that.

Because as we both know (or do we?) NASA ain't the most honest when it comes to discussing .... well .... most things eh?

Keep your mind open.

wZn

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by RFBurns
Ya right ok. Which one of you regular debunkers just signed up another account or got one of your friends to sign up or call back someone who hasnt posted for quite some time to only have 53 points?

Accusing other ATS members of signing up another account (which is forbidden by the T&S) is not very polite from you, and if you look you can see that this member is older (as an ATS member) than you.

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by RFBurns
Ya right ok. Which one of you regular debunkers just signed up another account or got one of your friends to sign up or call back someone who hasnt posted for quite some time to only have 53 points?

Accusing other ATS members of signing up another account (which is forbidden by the T&S) is not very polite from you, and if you look you can see that this member is older (as an ATS member) than you.

Its not an accusation, it was not specific to any member, it was an observation, a question, to which the issue itself is highly suspect.

The point is valid...suddenly someone who is alledgedly a NASA person chimes in on this one thread when there are a plethora of threads about other STS videos....and no one thinks that is suspect?

Now if I had named specific members...that would be an accusation.

I did not name any specific member or accuse any specific member. I generalized an observation to something that is highly suspect.

Is the fact that they registered in 2007 relevant to the interaction on the forum?

Their post points..53

My post points...25,000+

Can we get back to the issue of this thread which is the OBJECT doing manuvers inconsistant to just some piece of waste dump ice????




edit to correct post count
Cheers!!!!

[edit on 24-2-2009 by RFBurns]

There are U.F.O.'s.
What they may be, well that is the ultimate question.
I think, some of us, a little of them(them= E.T.).
I seriously hope, E.T. The Extraterrestrial.
Not, you are protein. For us.

NASA=
Nasty Anomaly Scene Airbrush
Nasty Anomaly Scene Airbrushers
Neatly Aquired Secret Anomalies
Never A Straight Answer
Never Acknowledge Something Absolute
Never Admits Something Anomalous
Never Any Sense Alright.
Never Any Sensible Answer
Never Any Serious Accountability
Never Any Serious Attention
Never Any Serious Attitude
Never Any Social Advancement
Never Anything Seriously Accepted
Never Anything Seriously Admitted
Never Another Significant Achievement
Never Another Step Ahead
Never Acknowledge Scams Agency
New Age Scientific Abomination
New Anomaly Secretly Aquired.
New Anomaly Shrouded Abundantly
Nice Acknowledgements Secretly Admired
Newly Aquired Secret Anomaly
Nice Analysis Seems Absent
Nice And Senseless Answers
No Actual Scientific Analysis
No Actual Sensor Aquisition
No Actual Sighting Aquired
No Actual Signal Aquired
No Admittance Sure Acceptable
No Admiration Since Adam
No Adult Supervision Available
No American Sense Alright
No American Sense Anyway
No American Social Advancement
No American Space Access
No Anomalies Seems Attractive
No Anomalous Samples Acknowledged
No Anomalous Snapshots Aired
No Anomaly Samples Acknowledged
No Anomaly Seen Admitted
No Anomaly Seen Anyway
No Answer Same Answer
No Answer Seems Acceptable
No Answer Seems Alright
No Anomaly So Ahaha
No Answer So Ahaha
No Answer Sounds Acceptable
No Attributable Signficance Always
Nonsense Abundancy Scam Agency
Non Affirming Sidetracked Analysis
Not A Single Admiration
Not All Seen Anyway
Not Any Sensible Accomplishment
Not Any Single Admittance
Not Always Straight Anyway
Not Anybody Says Anything
Not Anything Seen Alright
Not Anything Succeeded Always
Nothing About Space Admitted
Nothing Admitted So Ahaha
Nothing Anyway So Ahaha
Nothing At Scientific Achievement
Now A Serious Analysis
Now Acting Shockingly Asinine
Now Acting Shockingly Astonished
Now Acting Stupidly Asinine
Now Acting Stupidly Astonished
Now Acting Surprisingly Asinine
Now Acting Surprisingly Astonished
Now Another Sacred Analogy
Now Another Senseless Acquistion
Now Another Silly Analysis
Now Another Silly Answer
Now Another Silly Avenue
Now Another Step Almost
Now Another Stupid Analysis

Credit to RFBurns

No, this video cannot be debunked with claims of Ice particles, lens anomalies and so on...

[edit on 25/2/09 by Majorion]

Originally posted by John Matrix
Any body notice the more faint object that comes from the left and what looks like a lightning bolt?

It happens a few seconds after the brighter object that moves from right to left becomes stationary.

Are you referring to the "bolt" that fires from left to right? It appears to be pretty close to on track with the object, just a bit too early. I had picked up somewhere that this may be a Tesla inspired ground based defense system. This was on another, similar video where the object moved from right to left...hovered for just a sec...then shot away to the right as one of these"bolts" was on what appears to be on a collision course(fired at). Actually in that video I believe there was 3 "bolts"...

At the time frame of this footage, mid 70's ish(did not look up), maybe we weren't so cool with some of the groups and were trying to deter them from being here...

OOppsss double post !

[edit on 2009/2/24 by C-JEAN]

Originally posted by depthoffield

Regarding the one moving bright particle, which apparently moves from the right to the left, stop, and then moves to the right, i advanced a hypothesys, that not only the projection of the balistic trajectory of the particle to the camera point of view, can make this illusion of changing direction, but the little atmospheric drag can account for this if the particle has big area but low mass (fluffy). Can the atmospheric drag be observed in real time like it is my guess here? (or solar pressure or other little forces involved)

Your awareness of this issue is commendable. 'Differential drag' effects can be striking over a period of hours, but I don't recall seeing them act as quickly as this video suggests in this case. Typically, ice from a water dump is so much more 'draggy' than the metal Orbiter that it is slowed more by air drag, drops into a lower orbit that is faster (and actually shorter in terms of miles per circuit), and thus begins pulling ahead of -- and below -- the Orbiter. Within an hour the twinkling ice cloud can often be seen preceding the Orbiter into sunset -- I really need to post video of that on youtube sometime.

So the effect is real, and profound, although the time scale doesn't seem to quite fit if we are seeing a real-time video.

This video, by the way, doesn't need 'debunking', it needs 'explaining'. Even for 'space junk' sequences -- and I've seen plenty -- this one is pretty unusual. It's not 'bunk'.

The 'explaining' usually unvolves learning more about the context of the video -- a process that is rarely performed on youtube or on UFO websites. That process helped provide persuasive prosaic explanations for the STS-48 and 75 and 80 notorious 'UFO videos' -- it just takes time and energy.

Understanding what outside blips might be isn't mere curiosity -- Mission Control has always, even in Apollo days, been interested in video and eyeball reports because of the chance they could reflect a malfunction of the spacecraft -- a fuel leak, a loose piece of insulation, a malfunctioning pyrobolt, a dropped tool or toolbag, or other stimuli. Recall the tragically missed chance to warn 'Columbia' in January 2003 when the stove-in wing leading edge fragment, broken loose during ascent but wedged into the hole, worked itself loose the next day and drifted away. Radar data, examined AFTER the spaceship's loss, identified the blip, but no visual or video sightings in real time occurred, and the crew and ground -- unwarned -- drove off the cliff two weeks later.

So the stuff is of interest, precisely because it might NOT be 'unidentified' at all. And 'differential drag' is definitely part of that context -- just maybe not relevant to this specific case.

Originally posted by Nichiren
BTW. Where do you gather the exact time of the video?

'Europa733' posted it here a few days ago. It seemed credible because when compared to the timeline, it had sunrise almost precisely as shown.

reply to post by Majorion


Obsess much

reply to post by RFBurns


Apparently no one told you the shuttle doesnt have the ability to escape the earths atmosphere the only manned craft to leave earths atmosphere was the apollo missions. Until you actually go though the radiation built your still in the atmosphere.

its a satellite defense system being tested. thats why it was filmed.

US has really small satellites that can manuver up to other satellites and scan,takephotos,destroy,etc...

china and russian also have simular systems...

the video is not UFO's, but a test of these type defense/spy systems

Secret Space Shuttle Missions

living in utah in the 80's and 90's i have seen stuff like that above Oquirrh Mountains flying above Dugway Proving Grounds

[edit on 25-2-2009 by werk71]

Originally posted by RFBurns
I could dive into a bunch of mathmatical mumbo jumbo and confuse the hell out of everyone here, but I would not put the average person participating in these discussions through that. My intent is to explain it in more or less..simple terms that dont require brain blender confusion.

What is required is realization that these scenes are fundamentally 'unearthly' and the instinctive perceptual processing we've evolved with under atmospheric pressure and weight and diffuse sunlight can be treacherously misleading when viewing space images.

You may have explained for the right to left motion of this 'ice particle' after a waste dump...but you nor anyone else has explained how this 'waste dump ice particle' does a turn and burn and head off in the other direction.

I'm offering a hypothesis that the particle is entrained in effluent from the water dump. Whether expanding water vapor, or thruster plume residue, these fast-moving clouds are usually (not always) too thin to be visible, and have profound, immediate effects on particles exposed to them, depending on the particle mass and original direction of motion, and the thickness of the flow field. That's just the way things are surrounding a shuttle Orbiter, or an Apollo Command/Service Module, or a Soyuz, or even the International Space Station.

Also..if this is just some left over drop from a waste dump done prior...where is the cluster of waste? That dump would go in the same direction as this left over drop would. We do not see that dump cluster anywhere prior to this object zipping right to left in the video.

Indeed the dump water molecules would be going in that direction, except those that bounce off each other or off spacecraft structure. It's just they are usually too small and thinly-spaced to be visible. The thicker regions of the water dump would be well outside the camera's FOV.

Cheers!!!!

Originally posted by watchZEITGEISTnow
Because as we both know (or do we?) NASA ain't the most honest when it comes to discussing .... well .... most things eh? Keep your mind open.

wZn

No argument there -- I walked out of NASA in November 1997 after testifying to Congress that their decayed safety culture was going to kill more astronauts. I couldn't stop it, I just wouldn't play along.

Open minds are fine -- be careful your brains don't fall out, is all.

Originally posted by Majorion
NASA=
Nasty Anomaly Scene Airbrush
Nasty Anomaly Scene Airbrushers
Neatly Aquired Secret Anomalies
Never A Straight Answer
Never Acknowledge Something Absolute
Never Admits Something Anomalous
Never Any Sense Alright.
Never Any Sensible Answer
...

Hey thats my list!!!

I dont mind others using it, in fact I insist it be put up on a huge billboard lit up in neon lights in every major city, town, suburb and along every highway and roadway all over the world!! Just remember to give proper credit.


Cheers!!!!

[edit on 25-2-2009 by RFBurns]

Originally posted by RFBurns
Can we get back to the issue of this thread which is the OBJECT doing manuvers inconsistant to just some piece of waste dump ice????

Deeming something 'inconsistent' with a prosaic space phenomenon is only a valid argument when one demonstrates familiarity with that and related phenomena, and their operational contexts. Are you arguing that it is better NOT to know a water dump was going on during this period?

Originally posted by dragonridr
reply to post by RFBurns

 

Apparently no one told you the shuttle doesnt have the ability to escape the earths atmosphere the only manned craft to leave earths atmosphere was the apollo missions. Until you actually go though the radiation built your still in the atmosphere.

Yes but not in so much as being at 5,000 or 10,000 or 30,000 or even 60,000 feet. At the average altitude of the shuttle orbiting, it ranges from 115 miles on out to as much as 600 miles. The ISS parks its butt at 200 miles up. The shuttle has released satellites at various altitudes within the 115 to 600 mile range.

The atmospheric density and drag cooeficients are considerably less than found at even 150,000 feet.

If there was significant density of atmosphere at 115 miles and on up, the shutte moving at 18,000 mph would be buring up due to that density.

But it doesnt. Lucky for the crews..isnt it!


Cheers!!!!

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by RFBurns
Can we get back to the issue of this thread which is the OBJECT doing manuvers inconsistant to just some piece of waste dump ice????

Deeming something 'inconsistent' with a prosaic space phenomenon is only a valid argument when one demonstrates familiarity with that and related phenomena, and their operational contexts. Are you arguing that it is better NOT to know a water dump was going on during this period?

I dont believe I implied anything about a waste dump..until you mentioned about a waste dump and I said "so where is the cluster of waste dump prior to the suspected object's debuit in the video".

What I am arguing is the "turn and burn" this alledged "left over waste dump blob" is doing in that video....as pointed out and the point of this thread.



Cheers!!!!