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

BTW, here's the link to my home page with proposed prosaic explanations for famous 'astronaut UFO cases':

www.jamesoberg.com...

At the very least, do we have common ground that before properly judging these videos it's necessary to understand the dynamic, operational, lighting, human witness (in space and in Mission Control) testimony, and mechanical-state context of the video?

Or does anyone argue that the image alone -- with no knowledge of its context -- is sufficient to reach a conclusion on its cause, or on eliminating any proposed causes?

Originally posted by secretnasaman
In space, ice melts very quickly due to the heat of the Suns radiation, so forget ice.

Not in my experience. Early shuttle missions were bedeviled by ice buildup around dump vents, for example, and one hunk of ice deposited on a payload bay door even survived the fiery reentry, to quickly melt in the muggy Florida weather once on the runway. Ice does form on the shuttle exterior, break loose, and float away, visible for at least an hour before sublimating (NOT melting, by the way) into vapor.

If these were natural objects, such as debris, they would be falling through space in the same direction and all at the same speed, so forget debris.

Not in the experience of spacecraft operators. Objects come off the Orbiter, or out of its payload bay, or from dozens of valves and nozzles, at various speeds, usually quite different from the speed of the originating craft. Those speeds are also often abruptly changed by entrainment in exhaust clouds from thrusters (as well as other venings from water dumps and sublimators, or even the airlock pressure release valve). It's seen all over the shuttle videos.

Satellites revolve around the Earth in straight lines and in orbits that are constant, so forget satellites.

Other satellites haven't been proposed as explanations for videos of this type, but they are also seen and imaged from time to time. They orbit the Earth in ellipses (not straight lines) with varying speeds (both real speed, and perceived angular rate as the range changes), and combined with the orbit of the observation point, can fly quite interesting curved trajectories across the visual field.


Maybe these kinds of comments can allow a generalization to be formulated for discussion:

The less a person knows about real spaceflight, or the more he/she 'knows' that actually isn't so, the more likely he/she will be attracted to the UFO explanation for such videos.

As a corollary, this also explains why such people deliberately attempt to NOT know authentic contextual information about the videos they choose to interpret as UFOs. The more ignorant they can keep themselves, the happier and stauncher they will be in their beliefs.

Seems like there are plenty of examples of this right here on this thread, eh?

reply to post by JimOberg


Bravo!

Unfortunately I've come to the conclusion that we're not dealing with rational people on this thread. They "see" whatever they want to see. Logic and truth be damned ...

I'm a bit offended to be labelled a "debunker" so quickly. If you people knew what I've seen with my own two eyes. I have first hand experience with UFOs and missing time. Maybe that's the reason why I'm hyper cautious to follow and accept what "seems" to be the truth. Our senses deceive us when it comes to matters regarding UFOs.

Good luck. I'm out.

[edit on 25-2-2009 by Nichiren]

reply to post by Nichiren


Don't go Nichiren, Don't go

Originally posted by Nichiren
I'm a bit offended to be labelled a "debunker" so quickly. If you people knew what I've seen with my own two eyes. I have first hand experience with UFOs and missing time.

Well then instead of debunking why not show us proof of your first hand experience? perhaps then we might not label you a debunker? No? Hmmmm..
Oh wait... you don't have any proof so that would just put you in the same category as the other nutcases on here huh?

BTW I would like to remind everyone that Jim Oberg and Phil Plait make MONEY debunking... They write books, do lecture tours debunking. Now if it wasn't for us 'believers' they would have nothing to debunk and thus a lot less income.

I find it hilarious when these people attack Hoagland and others for selling books , yet see no problem with doing the same on the other side of the fence...

Hypocrisy at its finest

Originally posted by zorgon
BTW I would like to remind everyone that Jim Oberg and Phil Plait make MONEY debunking... They write books, do lecture tours debunking. Now if it wasn't for us 'believers' they would have nothing to debunk and thus a lot less income. I find it hilarious when these people attack Hoagland and others for selling books , yet see no problem with doing the same on the other side of the fence... Hypocrisy at its finest

Uh, what money? When's the last time you think I got paid for a 'debunking' speech on UFOs, or even gave one? Ditto a book, or a magazine article, or anything?

This is a slimey falsehood. Provide evidence, or apologize and crawl back into your hole.

Originally posted by Nichiren


"So...whats the big deal?"


The big deal is that you were dead wrong about basic visual clues. I've never claimed to be an expert. You are the one who is talking about degrees and multiple memberships on related websites

I just wanted to point out that you don't even know the basics, regardless of your educational background. Your mind is made up and facts only get in the way.

Ya?...well your friend Phage had it wrong too...are you going to spot him out as well to boost that ego some more?

Make sure you do if your going to waste thread space spotting people who are wrong...in effect, that makes YOU wrong too for not pointing all who were wrong.

See how that works?!!!


Cheers!!!!

[edit on 25-2-2009 by RFBurns]

Originally posted by zorgon

TW I would like to remind everyone that Jim Oberg and Phil Plait make MONEY debunking... They write books, do lecture tours debunking.
Now if it wasn't for us 'believers' they would have nothing to debunk and thus a lot less income.

I propose every scientist, and/or any man who try to explain something to educate the people in some area, to make donations to every "believer" and "low level of knowledge" people, every teacher to make donations from what they earn to every schoolboy, etcetera, because their low level is the reason for some educated people in one area to make money teaching others... Is that your point?!

"I find it hilarious when these people attack Hoagland and others for selling books , yet see no problem with doing the same on the other side of the fence..."

There is a little big difference:
Hoagland, Escamilla and many others distort the facts, speculate anything to make money. This is their purpose, their business. They find/create the "food" for feeding the crown hunger for sensational. When someone (like in marsanlomaly as an example) claim even jpeg compression artifacts to claim they are construction on the surface of Mars...then..this is the difference.





[edit on 25/2/09 by depthoffield]

Originally posted by secretnasaman
Thanks to RFBurns ! He is keeping the wolves at bay and is fearless!

Thank you for the compliment. The wolves by now should realize that I am no newbie...and have been in the ring with the best of the best and made those best of the best yelp away with their tails tucked between the hind legs more than once, not just here, but at dozens of forums over the last 15 years.

Originally posted by secretnasaman
...also please
believe it, that is the real Jim Oberg. If there is a confusing registration for this man, its only because ATS management loves these guys to post and will thus do whatever they ask, he probably has a cover id as well!

One time there was a fella that dropped in on a forum site who said the famous 11 words of "I am from the Government, and I am here to help". He spent practically 24 hours, 7 days a week over a 3 month period in the forum. It was like his job to be there.

This fella turned out to be one of the Odyssey THEMIS IR image processor guys at ASU. At first, things seemed to be going smoothly for the members at that forum. Even so far as to instruct and provide guidance on how to process multi-strip IR data bands from the THEMIS IR camera.

But...after one of the members...some know the name of that person quite well, published their work, based on the "government guy's" help, the government guy suddenly turned on him and the entire membership of the fourm, declaring all were lies, fabrications and faulty analysis.

BAMF was his name..and deception was his game.

Well not to drift off topic here, but I don't stand around with open arms to someone drifing in who "says" they are from NASA or JPL or whatever and just blindly let the bugs in without having my bug spray pointed and ready.


It will take a lot more than just some fancy talk and claim of being with NASA at one time to convince me. Until then...shields are up and weapons fully charged. And I never miss.

Originally posted by secretnasaman
So why this thread for the BIG MAN??..Good question...Ego? or the failure of Bill Nye, the science/skeptic guy to replace him?
...and for everyone who read his "boast" that he has debunked the STS-75 and STS-80 videos ... don't believe it for a moment...his tactic is to dismiss things he does not want
to explain and can not debate..He's upset that no one mentions him in threads anymore when we are talking NASA video.

I give people the benefit of the doubt, but I do not just drop my guard down becasue I see the NASA letters or fancy dancing.

Unfortunately, the tides are turning on these very old outdated, worn out lame dame explanations of what these occurances are in these videos. This is a different time and place, it is not the 1950's anymore when sheeple were easy to lead into the sheering house. There is the internet, access to all kinds of resources, instantly publish and discuss data, spread the word. We are not limited anymore by the ball and chain of No Anomaly Seen Alright word. Other nations are sending out their own probes and planning manned missions to go find out for themselves.

The days of "NASA is it and thats final" are comming to an end.

As Walter Kronkite used to say..."And that's the way it was"...but he also used to say..which this one applies better...."And that's the way IT IS".



Now as to the object in the STS0-114 video, this "left over waste dump blob"....lets examine that closely. A waste dump will be shot out of the waste dump valve on the shuttle, and if I am not mistaken, under slight pressure, like a spray. This would produce small ice pieces of the waste as it leaves the valve going into space, falling behind the shuttle because the shuttle continues to move along its trajectory and the waste spray falls behind. A good example of this effect is to take a cup of water in a car going 60 mph down the road, stick it out the window and pour out the water, watch how the water reacts to the wind drag.

Ok before you nth decimal place fanatics get all huffy puffy..this is an example, not an exact replicant of what happens in space ok....ok.

Now...these waste dump ice particles will be quite small, even near the shuttle they would be like individual water dropplets, like that from a spray bottle, perhaps a little larger than from a spray bottle but similar and not that much larger.

So.....where is the waste dump??? If this object is a left over "drop" like after turning off a faucet....where is the main cluster of waste dump in that video????

And still no one has proved what is causing that object to "turn and burn" after slowing down.

Can we focus on that and not try to further derail this thread off into irrelevant directions???

I would appreciate it..as the other participants would like that as well.




Cheers!!!!


[edit on 25-2-2009 by RFBurns]

reply to post by RFBurns


As far as going back the OP so far even by some hint of their own admission that answer so far is NO

reply to post by depthoffield


Are you aware that Hoagland, who has spent the last 30 years of his life, and other independant researchers, have put any monies they get from lectures, tv apperances and their books right back into their research organizations?

It would be quite difficult for them to continue for 30 years or more if they just pocketed the monies they make from their research and not put that back into the effort.

Everyone makes money in one form or another. So what, big deal. That is irrelevant, has no bearing on the issue at hand, which is the object in the STS 114 video, and is one of those 11th hour last ditch, dig deep down into the bag-o-scuses to derail a discussion flow.

Can we PLEASE get back to the object in question and try to figure out what causes it to turn and burn?


Cheers!!!!

[edit on 25-2-2009 by RFBurns]

Originally posted by ranhome
reply to post by RFBurns

 

As far as going back the OP so far even by some hint of their own admission that answer so far is NO

Well thats why were here, to try to figure it out since we always get the Never A Straight Answer answer out of the "science guys".

Now A Serious Analysis....wish I could apply that moniker to NASA more than the others.



Cheers!!!!

reply to post by JimOberg


It is true that ice particles that form on the surface of the hull of the shuttle and from the dump valves do fall off the shuttle.

But you make it sound like as if that is a constant occurance, which it does not, and that explains away every single strange object zipping into the video frame and doing fancy manuvers like the turn and burn and going off in another direction.

I do not think the problem here is that people just want to dismiss logical discussion, they want to discuss the possible, not the same old excuse of ice or junk when said object is NOT moving in the manner as ice or junk would.

Lets focus on that shall we.....with no outside influence or force such as wake from a thruster plume or impact by another object, how is the ice or junk able to slow, stop, turn and then burn off in the other direction?

Lets figure that one out and then we can discuss ice till we are all frozen blue in the face.



Cheers!!!!

[edit on 25-2-2009 by RFBurns]

Originally posted by RFBurns

Lets focus on that shall we.....with no outside influence or force such as wake from a thruster plume or impact by another object, how is the ice or junk able to slow, stop, turn and then burn off in the other direction?

But that's the central flaw in your phrasing of the problem -- that you start by assuming there are no outside forces. You have absolutely no justification for such an assumption.

The Jeff Challender link was very helpful in that it showed that all the lights in the image were free-floating objects, not cities or ships or thunderheads. His sped-up sequence showed them drifting across the horizon, at almost but not quite the same rates.

The link also corroborated the date/time of the video.

This leads us to the additional contribution my investigation made -- the actual crew timeline for that day, showing that a two-hour-long water dump was nearing its end.

Seems to me, the drifting dots are pretty closely connected to that dump, and have drifted some distance from the Orbiter.

The riddle is -- if there is an effluent flow still in progress, as I postulate, how does it affect the motion of the 'curver' but not the bigger collection of particles?

One possible explanation is that the armada of particles are farther away, and the curving dot is closer into a stronger flow field.

It would be nice to get the ID of the camera taking these views.

Fortunately, there is exactly such a source for this, called the 'Scene List', a catalog generated by the NASA AV office after each flight that lists every TV scene, its origin and time and general location over Earth.

It's a very valuable resource for investigating such videos.

Together with the 'Daily Execute Package' with the detailed activity plan, has anybody ever seen such resources referenced in any UFO board discussion of such videos? Is it possible that nobody presenting expert and/or sincere opinions about such videos knew about such resources?

How can that be? And how, under those circumstances, can anybody's judgments about original causes for the video scenes have any basis in evidence?

Or , it could be a ufo, can u admit that ?

Originally posted by RFBurns
Now as to the object in the STS0-114 video, this "left over waste dump blob"....lets examine that closely. A waste dump will be shot out of the waste dump valve on the shuttle, and if I am not mistaken, under slight pressure, like a spray. This would produce small ice pieces of the waste as it leaves the valve going into space, falling behind the shuttle because the shuttle continues to move along its trajectory and the waste spray falls behind. A good example of this effect is to take a cup of water in a car going ...

Now here's a good example where your earthside-trained mind falls into the trap of assuming space motion is like earthside motion, not even recognizing the different principles that make your 'analogy' as anti-realistic as three-dollar bill... and just as revealing.

Water tossed out a car window falls behind because air drag slows it rapidly. It stays behind the car because there's no accelerating force on it.

Ice particles ejected from an orbiting vehicle behave entirely differently. Given enough time (an hour or so), they lose energy to air drag and -- because they are orbiting the Earth, not riding in a car -- they slip into a lower orbit that converts potential energy (altitude) into kinetic energy (speed). They speed up and overtake the Orbiter, and then precede it at a lower altitude in their faster orbit.

Thanks for the good example and openness about the basis for your reasoning. Your generous explanation is spurious, and shows that many of your unconscious assumptions about 'normal' space effects are not reality-based, they are imaginary -- innocently, to be sure. The cure for this, considering your obvious intelligence and dedication, is just education and experience, but you have to force yourself to realize that as you understand spaceflight better, many of your current conclusions about what you are seeing need to be modified or abandoned.

That takes more than mere intelligence, it takes mental agility and an open mind. I'd bet that you can provide those qualities.

Give it a try. The Universe awaits.

Originally posted by branty
Or , it could be a ufo, can u admit that ?

I don't know what that means. Are you trying to say that the dot could be a technological construction of an ET civilization, or a 'space critter', or a hologram from the future, or a HAARP kugelblitz, or an angel? If so, by all means argue for your explanation of choice.

If you are merely trying to say that the objects defy conventional explanation, that's another thesis -- and to debate that, we all need a better insight into what 'conventional' phenomena in space can look like. That's a productive line of inquiry.

But in that case, don't forget that ANY area of human activity produces 'unknowns' that don't need extraordinary causes to account for. Jimmy Hoffa isn't on Mars, whether we ever find his body or not. There are always going to be someunsolved murders, some unfound missing, some unexplained aircraft accidents -- without 'alien' causes. That's just life.

Originally posted by JimOberg

But that's the central flaw in your phrasing of the problem -- that you start by assuming there are no outside forces. You have absolutely no justification for such an assumption.

I see no flaw in my phrasing of the problem. There is no shuttle thruster plume flash at the point this object stops and changes direction, there is nothing else impacting upon the object to make it change direction, and there is NO atmospheric effect at that altitude that would make this object stop and turn and burn. If there is..then you need to point that out and not just tell me or others our phrasing of the quesiton is flawed.

Originally posted by JimOberg
The Jeff Challender link was very helpful in that it showed that all the lights in the image were free-floating objects, not cities or ships or thunderheads. His sped-up sequence showed them drifting across the horizon, at almost but not quite the same rates.

We are NOT talking about free floating "lights". We are talking about the object zipping into frame, slowing down, stopping, turning and then burning off in the other direction. Please stay focused.

Originally posted by JimOberg
The link also corroborated the date/time of the video.

Irrelevant.

Originally posted by JimOberg
This leads us to the additional contribution my investigation made -- the actual crew timeline for that day, showing that a two-hour-long water dump was nearing its end.

Ahh 2 hours long...should have been a nice LONG 2 hour waste dump trail in that video...thanks for pointing that out. So...WHERE is that waste dump trail? Or even a smither of it?

Originally posted by JimOberg
Seems to me, the drifting dots are pretty closely connected to that dump, and have drifted some distance from the Orbiter.

So one lone drifting "dot" of waste dump is going to manuever in the manner we see in the OP video. I, as others are...are still waiting for the definative proof that the object doing the turn and burn is a waste dump leftover.

Originally posted by JimOberg
The riddle is -- if there is an effluent flow still in progress, as I postulate, how does it affect the motion of the 'curver' but not the bigger collection of particles?

Riddle...sorry but I dont do riddles. I deal with straight answers..or is the Never A Straight Answer syndrome still lingering in you even after leaving NASA?

Originally posted by JimOberg
One possible explanation is that the armada of particles are farther away, and the curving dot is closer into a stronger flow field.

Field of what? Empty space? Vacume? Do you see any thruster wash plume flahses in that entire video to have any influence on ANY of those particles of waste dumps? Was there some magical wind jet stream 115 miles plus up there that suddenly came along and blew on that object to make it stop and turn and burn?

Funny, we dont see any of the other loose particles up there moving in the manner this object does at the time this object does its turn and burn...just the one, not the rest. Care to explain that one too?

(brews another pot of coffee for this one)

Originally posted by JimOberg
It would be nice to get the ID of the camera taking these views.

Yes it certianly would. Along with the rest of the ancillery data. It would be nice if NASA would just post these videos on their sites and put that ancillery data with it and let US make our own conclusions instead of trying to force down our necks their Never Anomalies Seen Ahahaha garbage.

Originally posted by JimOberg
Fortunately, there is exactly such a source for this, called the 'Scene List', a catalog generated by the NASA AV office after each flight that lists every TV scene, its origin and time and general location over Earth.

It's a very valuable resource for investigating such videos.

Yes I am aware of that. But do you think the average person out there has hours to spend bouncing from one site to another putting together all these fragmented pieces to assemble the picture? Why not just put the stuff where it belongs instead of scattering it all over the place?

Never Any Sensible Allocation.

Originally posted by JimOberg
Together with the 'Daily Execute Package' with the detailed activity plan, has anybody ever seen such resources referenced in any UFO board discussion of such videos? Is it possible that nobody presenting expert and/or sincere opinions about such videos knew about such resources?

How can that be? And how, under those circumstances, can anybody's judgments about original causes for the video scenes have any basis in evidence?

As my previous reply says....the informaiton is out there, it is just scattered and fragmented, and on purpose. The everyday person who is curious about these things do not have time to sit in front of a pc for hours putting together the fragmented pieces of informaiton...they become disinterested, board, and turn away. I believe that is done on purpose..to make people become disinterested to the point where they just accept the upfront explanation becasue that is much easier to deal with than to spend the hours putting together all these fragmented bits and pieces.

There was a time when NASA went on public tv daily and described the space program in detail, but in everyday language and kept the public informed and interested. Today, at most you get 2 minutes worth of mumbo jumbo that turns away public interest.

Not everyone in the public domain is a scientist, or a geologist, or an engineer. They are everyday people living their lives with more important things to do than to sift through the scattered mess of NASA's little game of 52 pickup.

So there are a few out here who try to assemble all that fragmented info and present it in forums like this one. Then of course, we get the plethora of well wishers who come along and throw off the flow of discussion and once again..cause a disinterest and disgust.

Fortunatley for those who get tired of that mess, there are those who stick around and keep the fire buring so those who leave in disgust can return to see the fire still burning.

(puts another log on the fire)




Cheers!!!!

Originally posted by JimOberg

Now here's a good example where your earthside-trained mind falls into the trap of assuming space motion is like earthside motion, not even recognizing the different principles that make your 'analogy' as anti-realistic as three-dollar bill... and just as revealing.

Water tossed out a car window falls behind because air drag slows it rapidly. It stays behind the car because there's no accelerating force on it.

Are you just blind or just trying to derail this even more. Did you not read below that post I made "THIS IS JUST AN EXAMPLE"????

Apparently not. And if you bothered to read it correctly, I even stated that it is not an exact duplicate of what happens in space. Stop trying to twist this around and just face the music as it is.

Originally posted by JimOberg
Thanks for the good example and openness about the basis for your reasoning. Your generous explanation is spurious, and shows that many of your unconscious assumptions about 'normal' space effects are not reality-based, they are imaginary -- innocently, to be sure. The cure for this, considering your obvious intelligence and dedication, is just education and experience, but you have to force yourself to realize that as you understand spaceflight better, many of your current conclusions about what you are seeing need to be modified or abandoned.

Heh...you have no idea who I am or what I know. I happen to know quite alot more than you think. And what I do here is not fill the discussion with confusing talk and fancy walks. I put in everyday understanding answers for those people who do not need their minds filled with so much technical mumbo jumbo that they become disinterested. I use simple analogy..I am sure you have heard of that before. It is much easier for the people if you talk to them in plain english than to clutter it up with unecessary nth degree overflow.

Originally posted by JimOberg
That takes more than mere intelligence, it takes mental agility and an open mind. I'd bet that you can provide those qualities.

Give it a try. The Universe awaits.

It takes 10 times the intelligence and mental agility to compress all that technical jargon down to simple language that the average person will understand. I think I do quite well in that department without your input.

If I was not, there would be far more people gripping about it than just you.

There are forums out there that DO cater to the technical jargon. Perhaps one of those would be better suited for your tastes?

I seem to be able to communicate the point very well here and people like that. So I will continue on that method. If it helps people to pick up on things, then obviously it is doing something right.


Cheers!!!!

[edit on 25-2-2009 by RFBurns]

"So one lone drifting "dot" of waste dump is going to manuever in the manner we see in the OP video. I, as others are...are still waiting for the definative proof that the object doing the turn and burn is a waste dump leftover. "

You've got it completely backwards. YOU are responsible for proving that the objects CANNOT be explained in conventional terms. The burden of proof lies on the claimant of extraordinariness. You really don't get that? It's like a 'guilty' verdict in a court of law -- requiring 'beyond reasonable doubt' to 'win'. Otherwise, the existing world-view is unaltered.