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

Originally posted by depthoffield

RFBurns ..

Please let's shrink down the mistery, since you said you know very well this case and have time to clarify things.

1) First, we can agree all toghether that in the image, above that curved rim (which can be earth rim or maybe atmosphere rim), so, above the rim is the surface of the Earth with some clouds appearing to moving because the shuttle in fact is moving. Is this ok from you?

We see the Earth and its rim as if we are looking at a basketball held just above the head and your looking up at the lower portion of it.

Setting up the Scene

Originally posted by depthoffield
2) Second, we can agree that all the bright lights there are NOT lights on the surface of the Earth, because they aren't leaved ago by the shuttle movement, like the clouds we see. All the lights are floating in space, at least above the clouds. It is ok from you?

Some may in fact be up in low orbit, reflections of satellites or junk. A few appear larger than others. This could indicate altitude and distance from the camera point of view.

Originally posted by depthoffield
3) If 2) is corect, then we see that most of the lights appear to have the same velocity and orbit like the shuttle, thus appearing almost stationary in the field of view. Is this ok from you? (so, we are not talking here about the object changing trajectory at 180 degree, and are not talkink here about the object going with apparently great speed from the left to the right).

If the objects are even moving at all, and the orientation of the shuttle and where it is along its orbial path could make it appear as if it was in a geostationary orbit. The shuttle does on certian missions put up geostationary satellites. This would require the shuttle to also place itself into a geostationary orbit to properly place the satellite.

Originally posted by depthoffield
Now the first question for you: what are the apparently stationary bright lights, in your opinion?

Those could be low orbiting satellites, or orbiting debris. I would tend to think they are more likely low orbiting satellites. Ice particles at those distances are not going to lite up Chicago like that. It would take larger objects to reflect that much light and display in those sizes. They are no where near the shuttle to say they are small ice particles lit up by the sun. The much smaller, less bright lit objects could be surface lights.

Originally posted by depthoffield
I hope, clarifyying those 3 issues and the question, we can just concentrate after only to the misterious fast or weird moving objects.

I actually see two fast moving objects, one is considerably weaker in intensity but is in fact there, and moves across the center of the frame just below the primary object before it makes its sudden stop and turn and burn off into the other direction. This object appears as if passing through the atmosphere from center left, and moves very quickly to the right and seems to be flying within the atmosphere but a very high altitude. But one thing at a time. The primary object moving into frame from right to left, stopping then turn and burn.

And yes I would enjoy discussing with anyone and try to figure it out with anyone why that object moves the way it does in that video.


Cheers!!!!

Originally posted by C-JEAN
BZZZZZ ! Wrong ! They move UP, because they are between us and
the earth. We are flying/orbiting under the earth. We look forward.
So they are almost stationary over ground, except perspective.
Their **ground speed** is _0_ zero.

The Orbiter attitude and sunrise data indicates the camera was pointed back towards darkside, reverse of the direction the Orbiter was flying. Can you visualize that geometry in your model of what was flying where?

This camera direction was per a long-standing science experiment called MLE, to observe sprites and other mesoscale lightning phenomena against the horizon while on nightside passes. Skeet Vaughan in Huntsville used to be the PI, he's retiired but can tell you all you want to know -- or more -- about it.

reply to post by RFBurns

If the objects are even moving at all, and the orientation of the shuttle and where it is along its orbial path could make it appear as if it was in a geostationary orbit. The shuttle does on certian missions put up geostationary satellites. This would require the shuttle to also place itself into a geostationary orbit to properly place the satellite.

A geostationary obit is at an altitude of about 23,000 miles. The shuttle does not obtain orbits of anywhere near that level. The highest orbits the shuttle reaches have to do with Hubble, which orbits at about 385 miles.

The highest shuttle flights have been the Hubble Space Telescope missions, all operating at around 330 nautical miles, or about 380 statute miles. STS-82, the second HST repair mission, boosted the HST up to an orbit of 335 x 325 nm in February 1997.

www.geocities.com...

When geostationary satellites are launched by a shuttle they have their own booster to kick them into the higher orbit after the shuttle releases them.

Originally posted by RFBurns
The "burn" part would refer to the sudden acceleration. Sort of like "burn some rubber" in a hot rod....foot to the floor...haul arse...giddy up.

Cheers!!!!

Aside from the object going through a gentle turn as it recedes (based on its growing dimness), what evidence do you have that it accelerates -- in terms of increasing true speed? Sure, it could, due to effluent entrainment, but I don't see any marked increase in true velocity. Please explain.

Originally posted by RFBurns
If the objects are even moving at all, and the orientation of the shuttle and where it is along its orbial path could make it appear as if it was in a geostationary orbit. The shuttle does on certian missions put up geostationary satellites. This would require the shuttle to also place itself into a geostationary orbit to properly place the satellite....
Cheers!!!!

You probably are tired and typing too fast, you can't possibly mean what you actually said. Please take a moment, look it over, and correct it.

Originally posted by RFBurns
Those could be low orbiting satellites, or orbiting debris. I would tend to think they are more likely low orbiting satellites. Ice particles at those distances are not going to lite up Chicago like that. It would take larger objects to reflect that much light and display in those sizes. They are no where near the shuttle to say they are small ice particles lit up by the sun. The much smaller, less bright lit objects could be surface lights.

Cheers!!!!

Since my interpretation labels those dots as ice particles from the on-going water dump, we have a major chasm here in interpretation, worth examining in greater detail. How do you determine the distance to that cloud of dots? You say they are 'nowhere near' the shuttle. On what basis?

This video of a wastewater dump may help understand things.

Or maybe not.



Edit: I forgot the source.

STS-90 Flight Day 14

[edit on 25/2/2009 by ArMaP]

Originally posted by depthoffield
RFBurns ..
Now the first question for you: what are the apparently stationary bright lights, in your opinion?[edit on 25/2/09 by depthoffield]

Hi there & everyone,

First, even if Mr Oberg found a time correlation between the Mission Summary and the video, I still think that it will not replace an official source.

Call me a skeptic, you might be right actually. But anyway, I want to thank him for sharing his personal knowledge with us here on ATS.


All the "lights" I checked are going up in regards to the screen while the camera stays steady for more that 30 seconds (used the airglow layer as a reference). Some slightly move to the right and some to the left and each "light" has travelled a slightly different apparent angular distance.(which could mean different things...)

i263.photobucket.com...

I would say that it most likely is ice particles as arleady mentionned by Mr Oberg & others or some kind of small debris coming from the Orbiter itself rather than satellites or city lights or stars in the distance.

Cheers,
Europa

[edit on 25-2-2009 by Europa733]

reply to post by ArMaP


Sorry ArMap, I'm no visual expert, but that is definitely not the same thing as the STS-114 video. That doesn't explain it.

reply to post by Majorion


It wasn't meant to explain, like I said, I thought it could help to understand things, just that.

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by RFBurns
The "burn" part would refer to the sudden acceleration. Sort of like "burn some rubber" in a hot rod....foot to the floor...haul arse...giddy up.

Cheers!!!!

Aside from the object going through a gentle turn as it recedes (based on its growing dimness), what evidence do you have that it accelerates -- in terms of increasing true speed? Sure, it could, due to effluent entrainment, but I don't see any marked increase in true velocity. Please explain.

Obviously this object slows down, turns gently as you put it..then moves off in the other direction..we do not see it instantly zip to the other direction, it accelerates from its turn to head off in the other direction.

Sheesh...do I really have to explain the obvious that is in this video?

I dont mind being the teacher but honestly, I kinda figured one only need to simply look at what this object is doing and does not require a play by play announcer.


Cheers!!!!

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by RFBurns
If the objects are even moving at all, and the orientation of the shuttle and where it is along its orbial path could make it appear as if it was in a geostationary orbit. The shuttle does on certian missions put up geostationary satellites. This would require the shuttle to also place itself into a geostationary orbit to properly place the satellite....
Cheers!!!!

You probably are tired and typing too fast, you can't possibly mean what you actually said. Please take a moment, look it over, and correct it.

If anyone were to think that the shuttle has not participated in placing satellites byond 350 miles your dreaming. Much of the early missions of the shuttle involved commercial satellites that require stationary orbits. Otherwise ground dishes would be tracking satellites that are not stationary.

Dispite the age of the thing, its quite capable of doing far more than what everyone has been taught for the last 30 years. In case some have forgotten, its base design was intended to be the next ship to carry missions to the moon. All that got scrapped and the shuttle ended up becoming a stripped down version of itself..basically nothing more than a space going delivery truck. Even with that, Never A Straight Answer always kept its capabilities well under wraps. No different from the SR-71's max capabilites kept secret, and the U-2's capabilities.

Its good to have deep inside contacts like I have managed to have over the last 30 years..unfortunately Jim..your not one of them who were deep inside. There is alot that even you were kept out of the loop from.



Cheers!!!!

reply to post by RFBurns


Source? Where did they carry the delta V?
Oh, never mind. The dog ate it.

[edit on 2/25/2009 by Phage]

Originally posted by ArMaP
This video of a wastewater dump may help understand things.

Or maybe not.

(click to open player in new window)

Edit: I forgot the source.

STS-90 Flight Day 14

Oh, yes, it explains a lot.
Anybody can see there that:
1) they are small particles of "something" generated by the shuttle. Ice. That can be seen in the image.
2) different particles have different directions, even crossing
3) different particles having differens apparent spedds, some of them just striking from the image
4) shows APPARENT deceleration of particles
5) curved trajectories (even some kind of turns)

It is very similar like in STS-75 swarm (remember the unzoomed shots of the swarm)

It would be a much better example if we may have just about a minute more of the video. But, it is good enough to make an idea.

Here is a cropped section from Armap video, more like a zoom, to better see the movements.




Thanks Armap, myself was started to search something similar.


p.s. i am on dept to answer to some more postst here, but no time anymore right now. i'll be back.



[edit on 25/2/09 by depthoffield]

[edit on 25/2/09 by depthoffield]

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by RFBurns
Those could be low orbiting satellites, or orbiting debris. I would tend to think they are more likely low orbiting satellites. Ice particles at those distances are not going to lite up Chicago like that. It would take larger objects to reflect that much light and display in those sizes. They are no where near the shuttle to say they are small ice particles lit up by the sun. The much smaller, less bright lit objects could be surface lights.

Cheers!!!!

Since my interpretation labels those dots as ice particles from the on-going water dump, we have a major chasm here in interpretation, worth examining in greater detail. How do you determine the distance to that cloud of dots? You say they are 'nowhere near' the shuttle. On what basis?

By simple observation. It doesnt take a slide rule or mountain of equations to see with the eye. Some of us are able to ascertain depth simply by looking. After decades of looking at pictures of UFO's and videos of UFO's, its really not that difficult to recoginze similarities between one and another when it comes to something's distance from the camera.

Ok now that the fun and games are done...has anyone..anyone come up with any kind of explanation to the object in question?

I really would like to see this thread get back on track. I suggest those who want to discuss the waste dump and stationary stuff to start a different thread. Those issues are not what this thread is about.


Cheers!!!!

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by RFBurns

 

Source? Where did they carry the delta V?
Oh, never mind. The dog ate it.

[edit on 2/25/2009 by Phage]

Sorry but there are some things your gonna have to find out for yourself, that is if you either know the right contacts or have the need to know.



Cheers!!!!

reply to post by RFBurns


At the risk of being OT:
Zorgon has a clone! A Mini-he!

[edit on 2/25/2009 by Phage]

Here is a composite image made from the video. The frames were translation-stabilized relative to the apparently stationary lights on the ground. Then they were averaged and enhanced using wavelets to render the tracks visible. The trajectories of most objects in the scene are visible, although a couple of the dim and quick ones got lost in the noise.

While the motion of the slower-moving lights might be easily explained as something prosaic, I have a hard time understanding how a free-floating ice crystal or piece of debris could follow the curved trajectory seen in the video.

reply to post by franspeakfree


looks good to me

*new to forums*

Well I have just spent another half an hour reading the updated posts and looks like I was bang on the money.

An ex NASA employee joins the thread and out of nowhere the wolves start their attack. There isn't a shadow of a doubt in my mind that NASA know about UFO have had contact with E.T. and have protocols for this type of leakage.

I agree wholeheartedly with RFburns when he says that NASA is coming to an end. How silly they are going to look when the truth is revealed. How they will scamper with their tail between their legs when the proof hits home.

No matter what NASA want to call it, ICE CRYSTALS,VENUS,SUN REFLECTION,SWAMP GAS,LENTICULAR CLOUDS e.t.c There are some things that cannot be debunked or shot down in to flames.

"Houston this is Discovery, we still have the Alien spacecraft under observation" - Need I say more

Just to add I am in full support of RFburns and anyone that reads this thread that agrees that what we see in the video is a UFO (unidentified object) should leave a message, before the wolves close in and redirect the thread.