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

[continued from last post]

More, we see that the object come from the right to the left, and aparently continous decelerates until stoping completly, then, changing direction, and aparently continous accelerating to the right. Beeing a projection, IT DOENS'T MEAN that object really stop and change with 180 degree the direction, it only means the PROJECTION do this.

So, to better ilustrate this PROJECTION manifestation, i propose to you to test the following link, with real data simulation in real time!, and see how sattelites moves around the Earth (they have circular, or eliptic trajectories.). More, you are able to drag and move the point of view, like a real god.

This is the link: science.nasa.gov...

(attention, it requires JAVA)

Form there i extracted some animations. I selected one sattelite, HST (Hubble Space Telescope), and it have highlighted orbit (red/gray). The speed was selected to be 100 times more like real speed, to see the movements.

First, let's see together the posibilities: zoom, and move the point of view with mouse:



You see how real circular orbits became squashed ellipses just because of the 2D projection of a 3D shape.

To explain what we see, there are many geosyncronous sattelites, the distinct and compact ring in ecuatorial plane ot the Earth, which are about 36000 km distant if a remember correctly.

The other many sattelits, are low orbits satelites, like HST, which flies about a few hundred kilometers above the Earth.

There are other satelites there, if you are interested, you can click them to see their trajectory.



Now, a second example, concentrating to HST orbit. I have to select an upside-down point of view, to make HST to move something like our OP particle (from right to left when closer, and left to right when further). I moved a little again the image, to see how circular is the HST orbit, but how appear as a very squashed elipse when see the orbit almost on the edge, as a projection.





Now, finnally, what it interest me, is this zoomed version:



Wee can see that what i want to argument:

A real circle, as beeing HST trajectory, is seen as a very squashed ellipse, and, more, IT APPEAR TO HAVE STRAIGHT TRAJECTORY, AND 180 DEGREE TURN !
But, remember, in reality, HST have a circled trajectory and moves uniform, doesn't accelerates, or decelerates, or stops or change the trajectory. The "illusion" is only because the PROJECTION of the movement seen almost from the edge.


I hope that demonstrates how a 2D PROJECTION of a curved TRAJECTORY can make the ILLUSION that the object is moving in almost straight line, decelerating, stoping, reversing with 180 degree the direction, and accelerating.

Now, coming back, i repeat:
the object in discussion, because is decelerating (absolutely or relative) relative to the shuttle, and having in same time a going-away movement, can have a curved trajectory relative to the shuttle. And this curved trajectory, beeing a projection, can make the ilusion of stoping and changing direction.

Originally posted by Nichiren

I re-addressed your posts, because you have been the most inaccurate of all the posters. You have made at least three (3) factual errors. Is that reason good enough?

Thats your opinion, based on your own conclusions, which also are subject to being "factual errors".

You are entitled to making your own opinions, factual errors included.

Originally posted by Nichiren
I don't know how many times we need to answer your question, but has it occurred to you that space is a 3-D environment and the "curver" might not be on the same plane as the other floaters? Therefore it COULD be affected by a force that is not reaching the other particles.

None of you have answered the question to MY satisfaction. Fair enough?

Good.



Cheers!!!!

Originally posted by Nichiren

Sir, you are falling apart. Did you read what you just wrote?

Again, your own opinion. I certianly am entitled to mine.

And my opinion is that this is no ice particle or waste dump particle or any other rediculous NASA nonsense.

Thats the way I see it and is good enough for ME...which is the ONLY thing that matters.



Cheers!!!!

reply to post by depthoffield


Thats all real nice DOF...glad you can make colorful animated gif's.

But none of that explains why this one object in STS 114 does what it does and why no other object is doing what the object in question is doing.

Like I stated to another gullable fan who's joined your bandwagon, my opinion and belief still stands and that is all that matters for me.

Im sure that thousands of others feel the same way. So I know for a fact I am not alone....neither are we.




Cheers!!!!

Originally posted by RFBurns

But none of that explains why this one object in STS 114 does what it does and why no other object is doing what the object in question is doing.

I've just explained to you in the last two posts.

I give another shot, a simple one:

Suppose you are in a flying plane. You are somewhere to the back of the plain. And a cameraman is on the front of a plain, filming down perpendicluar to the Earth. You throw away an object, let's say an apple, horizontal in the forward direction of flying. Of course, the apple will go faster than the plain , so it will go through the FOV of the camera. In the same time, the apple will fall to Earth. So, in the FOV, the apple will go away from the plain (down). In the same time, the atmospheric drag, will slow down the apple, so, in a matter of seconds, the plain will catch the apple, and then it will overtake it. Next, the apple continues to loose speed, and as time goes, it will remain behind the plain. What the cameras will film?
An object going in the direction of the plain flying, then stoping, then going in oposite direction. And in the same time shrinking becaue falling down. Exactly like our particle.

The apple makes 180 degree changing in direction? NOT AT ALL. It just decelerates relative to the plain. In reality, the apple have a parabolic falling (not exactly, because of the air drag)

Capischi? (i really think you do)

Now, our particle, may decelerate because some force, like little atmospheric drag (but, i understand, atmospheric drag cannot be so much prononced here), magnetic or electric effects, or other forces, or, as i explained before, (did you read it?) because the shuttle itself is on accelerating process.
Why the others particles don't have same manifestation? I've explained, because they can be more distant, so the PARALAX differentiation can manifest. In fact, there are other particles too, that are slighty moves from left to the right.

I propose to you an example of differential apparent moves of debris, because of paralax (this time because of a sudden thrust of the shuttle nozzles):



You see that different object have different movements because the shuttle sudden move, and the distances to them varies (not all the debris particles are at the same distance)


Look again for paralax example here:



taken from here: en.wikipedia.org...



[edit on 4/3/09 by depthoffield]

[edit on 4/3/09 by depthoffield]

reply to post by depthoffield


Thanks for your effort!
Great work.

reply to post by RFBurns


Sir, I'm afraid this thread is not about the initial topic anymore. There is only one term that applies to your state of mind: you are a fundamentalist "believer".

I now understand that reason, sound argument, logic and an open mind do not apply to you. And you know what, that's totally fine with me.

I wish you well and I'm definitely out.

Originally posted by RFBurns
Now explain why all your theories are not affecting the other objects in the video and just the one.

Explanations have been offered several times -- essentially this: the background 'fleet' could be farther away, and if it's part of the earlier water dump, it would be. The curver is closer in to the camera.

You can't disprove that -- and the burden of proof is on YOU to disprove ALL non-extraordinary theories.

Originally posted by depthoffield

Capischi? (i really think you do)

For in atmospherics or an enclosed canopy of an aircraft, that would be good comparisons.

Cept were talking about something up in space in a vacume in zero G. Capischi? (I really think you do know the difference between the two and also know atmospheric examples are poor examples for something in space)

Have you compensated for the changing camera angle when it pans in that STS 114 video for your curved trajectory plot and also taken into account that the camera does not pan left until after the object has changed direction and heads off in the other direction?

Also have you and anyone else hung over on this curve trajectory business looked at the Earth rim and the other stationary objects and taken note that they are quite stable as is the video, to which there is no real significant change in the object's trajectory as it enters the frame?

Take a straight edge ruler or even a piece of paper, hold it up on the screen and align the edge of that piece of paper or straight edge ruler where it enters the frame. Note how the object rides along the edge of the paper or ruler and also note how other items above that edge of paper or ruler do not shift position enough if at all, to say the object is entering at any angle in reference to the frame other than a straight line.

And who cares if this thing is on some sort of curved trajectory. What does that have to do with the price of tea in China anyway? It has no relevance to what this object is or why it suddenly changes course. The apex of the turn is too sharp to be a casual curve trajectory, also as this thing turns, it would be heading towards the Earth surface, or towards the stronger pull of Earth's gravity and that turn would have become less sharp and widen out, and the object would have begun to take a nose dive into the atmosphere. But it does not do that, it heads off in the other direction as if nothing out there has any affect on it.

Unless gravity for some reason suddenly decides to ignore this one object after causing it to change direction and the solar wind decided to blow on it to keep it from heading into the atmosphere as it leaves its apex of its turn, saving this ice particle's life from an firey atmospheric experience.

Originally posted by depthoffield
Now, our particle, may decelerate because some force, like little atmospheric drag (but, i understand, atmospheric drag cannot be so much prononced here), magnetic or electric effects, or other forces, or, as i explained before, (did you read it?) because the shuttle itself is on accelerating process.

Some force....some force....thats a good escape goat to use when you simply do not have a friggin clue what the heck is going on in that video, or to simply deny and deter focused attention on said object and its movement. Wrap "some force" in between some fancy talk and pretty animated images would make anyone who has no clue about motion or simple Newtonian physics believe anything within.

Some force...well maybe this "some force" is something new in the world of Newtonian physics? A previously, never before suggested entry in the bag o scuses now? "Oh its just SOME FORCE, nothing to see move along".

Originally posted by depthoffield
Why the others particles don't have same manifestation? I've explained, because they can be more distant, so the PARALAX differentiation can manifest. In fact, there are other particles too, that are slighty moves from left to the right.

Just as you have told me that there is no way to determine this object in question exact distance or size, how are you so confident that those other objects can be more distant? There are those fancy words again for the everyday joe to be even more thrown off the issue...PARALAX differentiation.

Other objects that slightly move from left to right...those are not the issue. And even if they were, nothing else in that video is moving around like the object in question.

Oh well...I do not suppose this thread will get anywhere other than all this clutter nonsense.

It doesnt affect my world or my belief or my opinion in any shape or form. Thank goodness for independant thought and free will.

My free will and thought says this is not an ice particle or space junk or something affected by gravity or solar wind or a result of curved trajectory. That is what I think, that is what I believe and that is where it will be for me until I see otherwise.

Do not feel so bad about all this jargon and animated pictures you spent so much time on trying to sway my point of view. Although my point of view stands quite firm, you should give yourself some credit for all that effort.


Cheers!!!!

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by RFBurns
Now explain why all your theories are not affecting the other objects in the video and just the one.

Explanations have been offered several times -- essentially this: the background 'fleet' could be farther away, and if it's part of the earlier water dump, it would be. The curver is closer in to the camera.

You can't disprove that -- and the burden of proof is on YOU to disprove ALL non-extraordinary theories.

Explanations have been offered several times that are so distantly remote to the object in question which is why I continue to ignore those explanations and wait for the one that is most connected to this STS 114 object.

Until that happens, you guys can spin your wheels and get nowhere might fast as long as you like. As I said to DOF, dosnt affect my point of view one way or the other.

But perhaps someday one of you or both might actually catch my attention when either of you present something that is more closely related to this STS 114 video's object as some evidence to say "it is this or it is that".

Till that happens, I suppose you have your side of the fence, and I have mine.

And I like my side of the fence, got lots of people numbering in the hundreds of thousands if not a few million who do not take "space junk" or "waste dump" for an answer.


Nothing Admitted Since Adam.



Cheers!!!!

[edit on 4-3-2009 by RFBurns]

Originally posted by Nichiren
reply to post by RFBurns

 

Sir, I'm afraid this thread is not about the initial topic anymore. There is only one term that applies to your state of mind: you are a fundamentalist "believer".

I have to give you credit for coining the phrase "FUNDAMENTALIST BELIEVER".

If you will be issuing labels now, I have to label some as [PAID] FUNDAMENTALIST-CLOSED-MINDED-SKEPTICS.

People, come on, who are you kidding here? Your theories of ice particles or objects that change trajectory because of the magnetic field of another object is hard to swallow.

I have seen my share of STS XYZ videos and not once have I been convinced on the explanations. Add me to your FUNDAMENTALIST BELIEVER category if you wish. However, none of you have answered the questions to my satisfaction either.

How can an object stop in a zero-gravity environment and change direction the way in which we have seen, not only on the video in question but on plenty of others?

You can try as hard as you want to say it is merely ice particles, swamp gas or the shuttle thrusters, but you are still not convincing many, including me.

I still stand by my intelligently maneuvered objects theory. And if my theory is right:

1. They are ours and the secret space program is a reality.
2. They are not ours, which opens the possibility of life outside of our planet.

Tough to swallow, eh?

Oh, while I'm at it and not to derail the subject, can any of you answer why the shuttle takes 72 hours before it rendezvous with the ISS? Acclimation? R&R for the crew? Opening the shuttle doors?

I thought time in space was precious and every minute counts. Ask the astronauts who walked on the Moon. I have!

[edit on 4-3-2009 by Exopolitico]

Originally posted by Exopolitico
I thought time in space was precious and every minute counts. Ask the astronauts who walked on the Moon. I have!

As I recall we were told it was 'check lists' lots and lots of check lists

Well the Russians can do better

Mission: Expedition 9/Soyuz 8
Vehicle: Soyuz TMA-4
Left the ISS with the returning crew and landed in less than 4 hours

Undocking: Oct. 23, 2004, 4:08 p.m. CDT
Landing: Oct. 23, 2004, 7:36 p.m. CDT



Speaking of 'valuable' time... one has to really wonder why JimO spends so much time in THIS particular thread... almost as much as he did in the bash Ken Johnston thread...

Curious indeed...




[edit on 4-3-2009 by zorgon]

Poor guys trying to persuade yourself that these stuff can't be real!
Listen to me : we are alone in the universe , and even if other intelligent life forms do exists , they are too far away to reach us!
Do you feel better now?

[edit on 4-3-2009 by Jabbah]

Originally posted by RFBurns
Cept were talking about something up in space in a vacume in zero G. Capischi?

Is there some compulsion driving you to misspell 'vacuum', so as to prove to us what an authority you are on spaceflight conditions?

Originally posted by Exopolitico
Oh, while I'm at it and not to derail the subject, can any of you answer why the shuttle takes 72 hours before it rendezvous with the ISS? Acclimation? R&R for the crew? Opening the shuttle doors?

I thought time in space was precious and every minute counts. Ask the astronauts who walked on the Moon. I have!

Yes. I can. That was my primary duty at my console in Mission Control for a good number of years.

But I think your '72 hours' is a careless miscount, take some time and correct it, please.

Originally posted by zorgon
As I recall we were told it was 'check lists' lots and lots of check lists
Well the Russians can do better

Mission: Expedition 9/Soyuz 8
Left the ISS with the returning crew and landed in less than 4 hours

Uh, the question was about how much time it took to rendezvous, not how much time it took to return.

You got it backwards.

Originally posted by zorgon
Speaking of 'valuable' time... one has to really wonder why JimO spends so much time in THIS particular thread... almost as much as he did in the bash Ken Johnston thread...

Is that the ex Marine jet fighter pilot, test pilot, PhD physicist, director of the NASA Apollo photo archives Ken Johnston?

Or the real one, who was none of those things?

Originally posted by JimOberg
But I think your '72 hours' is a careless miscount, take some time and correct it, please.

Take time and correct it? You seem to know the answer. Would you care to shed some light? Of course, you will laugh at the possibility of making a few other stops to drop cargo (i.e., food, water, etc.) at a few other "locations" before docking to the ISS we know.

Oh, but I suppose this went beyond your scope of responsibilities or "need to know" at NASA. But hey, let's stop derailing, right?

[edit on 4-3-2009 by Exopolitico]

Originally posted by Exopolitico
People, come on, who are you kidding here? Your theories of ice particles or objects that change trajectory because of the magnetic field of another object is hard to swallow.

The point was "ice particles changing trajectories". And this is a FACT.

You know, debris can have CURVED trajectory in space. Please explain to yourself the forces which make the debris in the example of ice ejected by the shuttle to have curved trajectories:




As for the force involved, the magnethic or electric field can be or not an option, or just the acceleration of the shuttle to make the ilusion. I wrote in much details in my previous posts. I think words just missed your eyes and years (or mind).

Originally posted by Exopolitico
How can an object stop in a zero-gravity environment and change direction the way in which we have seen, not only on the video in question but on plenty of others?

I've explained. You can't comprehend i guess? Just like that apple in the plane example can appear to stop and change direction, just like HST appear to stop and change direction. Beeing a projection. Not necessarily at all that the real object doing this.

Originally posted by Exopolitico

I still stand by my intelligently maneuvered objects theory. And if my theory is right:
1. They are ours and the secret space program is a reality.
2. They are not ours, which opens the possibility of life outside of our planet.

And the proof for your claims lies in space debris particles that can't do those manifestations, just because your eyes tell this to your mind. And dismiss because no knowledge to all the details that can be involved. Beeing superficial. Or, I guess, you don't need to prove somethink, since is obvious to the eyes.

[edit on 4/3/09 by depthoffield]

So who saw this live on a big screen besides me?

What can we agree on? Lets start there...

Can we agree that the event happened more than an inch from the lens?

Can we agree that the lens was clean? with no distortions?

By this I mean sts 114 or ats 114


[edit on 4-3-2009 by ranhome]