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

Originally posted by RFBurns
Good ol J. Glenn proves quite a bit..especially when you say reference to actual witnesses to these strange objects seen by the actual witnesses....

Anyway, Glenn is not the only one. Mitchell is another, Grissom, God rest his soul, is another, to name only a few. These guys were on the ground floor of the space program, and as they have aged, they have come to the conclusion that its time to step up and fess up to the cover-up that has been occuring for decades. These are highly respected, highly credible first hand witnesses, unlike the young, dumb and easily controlled astronauts going in endless circles in the shuttle spending hours filming ice particles and debris.

You skipped actually detailing what you claim Glenn has admitted to.

As for Grissom, ditto -- where is his supposed admission?

As for Mitchell, you are claiming he was a "first hand witness"? To what?
A first-hand witness is somebody at the scene, not somebody who heard the story from a cousin of the guy who was told the story by somebody who said he was at the scene but couldn't use his real name.

Which is Mitchell re UFO stories?

Oberg: "You skipped actually detailing what you claim Glenn has admitted to."

Do you really expect these ATS "geniuses" to actually detail? Where they gonna get the detail from? They don't depend on actually providing evidence, all they need to satisfy themselves and their ATS cronies is to say it and continue abusing bandwidth. Don't expect a logical explanation, it won't come.

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by RFBurns
Good ol J. Glenn proves quite a bit..especially when you say reference to actual witnesses to these strange objects seen by the actual witnesses....

Anyway, Glenn is not the only one. Mitchell is another, Grissom, God rest his soul, is another, to name only a few. These guys were on the ground floor of the space program, and as they have aged, they have come to the conclusion that its time to step up and fess up to the cover-up that has been occuring for decades. These are highly respected, highly credible first hand witnesses, unlike the young, dumb and easily controlled astronauts going in endless circles in the shuttle spending hours filming ice particles and debris.

You skipped actually detailing what you claim Glenn has admitted to.

As for Grissom, ditto -- where is his supposed admission?

As for Mitchell, you are claiming he was a "first hand witness"? To what?
A first-hand witness is somebody at the scene, not somebody who heard the story from a cousin of the guy who was told the story by somebody who said he was at the scene but couldn't use his real name.

Which is Mitchell re UFO stories?

what type of ice crystals, pulsate change directions ?

what type of ice crystals, are miles in length in STS 75. what type of crystals move at such high speeds then turn around yet not break !

cut the crap, some of you think your smart. first impressions always count and that's whats important here. not what you lunatics make up later.

and please stop insulting us with stupid excuses.

tell me something you NASA lovers, why has NASA stopped the live broadcasts ? you know why don't you. ice crystals right, complete lunatics.

Originally posted by JimOberg

JimO: The subject here were dots that 'appeared' near the center of the FOV, with the interpretation that they came from 'behind clouds' or over the edge of the planet. I'm not familiar with any such center-screen 'appearance' videos of space UFOs in 'older' footage -- please make a specific citation/link. Let's be sure we both understand what subset we're talking about here -- scenes in which dots 'appear' apparently from behnd distant things, that implies they are even more distant. You brought that up as evidence of great distance of some of the dots.

There are some older shuttle videos during the early years when NASA began its "shuttle trucking company" putting up satellites, where strange "dots" would appear in mid frame, some from the upper portion of the frame, some from the left, some from the right, and even some from below. Those seem relevant to the question of "dots apparing".

Yes isnt it quite strange how some of these "dots" seem to come UP through the atmosphere and also suddenly zip off in another direction..curious...never seen an ice particle or dust particle or space junk come UP and through the atmosphere.

Originally posted by JimOberg
JimO: We're talking about objects that appear in mid-frame, not come into the frame from the edge. I know you say this with all sincerity, RF, but how do you actually 'know' whether it's a dawn/dusk timeframe?

In those videos where we clearly see the darkness of the Earth in the background, obviously that means the shuttle is flying either just outside the terminator zone of the nighttime vs the daytime. Now when the shuttle parks up in orbit at a certian altitude and orbit path, it can remain in sunlight just like the ISS does. Dispite this fact that the ISS and the shuttle can remain in sunlight even though it is flying over the nightside of Earth, it does not mean that both are sitting in the daytime hours as they pass over the nighttime hours of Earth.

When your at that point in space where you are exposed to sunlight all of the time, in effect, there is no "nighttime" or "dawn/dusk" time. That is only true here on the surface of the Earth as it rotates. You are in "daylight" as we call it, when we are seeing the sunlight, and in "nighttime" when we are on the opposite side of the sunlight.

But up there, in specific orbits where you can be in the sunlight all the time, there is no "daytime", or "nighttime", tho the clock continues to count 24 hours.

So one can tell if your looking at a nighttime on Earth from orbit by simply looking for the terminator zone, or you see nothing but a darkend side of Earth, which means you have Earth in between you and the sun. And one can tell you are on the "daytime" side by looking at the lit up Earth, where you are between the sun and the Earth.

Originally posted by JimOberg
I mean, you don't seem to CARE what the illumination conditions are, except to proclaim somehow you 'know' what they are (without any research) when it's convenient for your argumentation. Ditto where the shuttle's shadow lies in the FOV -- I doubt you ever gave a moment's thought to it before this exchange, and now you claim preternatural ability to sense WHERE in the FOV the shadow must be, just by... by what, actually? How? I don't see any way that you would have a clue where the shadow actually was, with your expressed contempt for contextual information such as shuttle and camera pointing angles, line-of-sight to sun angles, region of Earth's shadow, etc. Without knowing any of that, tell us how you know where the shuttle's shadow is in the FOV -- say, the one at the very top of this thread?

Again, what shadow? Where is the shuttle shadow in the video? I do not see any outline of a shuttle shadow whatsoever, even on the object that moves into frame. Besides, you need an object large enough to even see the shuttle shadow outline from the sun. Now if that video shows the terminator to be to the left of the camera FOV, then the shuttle shadow would be off in space, and not anywhere near that object in question. And since we see the shuttle riding just behind that terminator zone between day and night, that means the shuttle shadow will be at the angle of the sun light, which would align with the terminator line and behind the shuttle, not to the side of it, not to the right of it, not above it, or below it, it would be behind the shuttle in relation to the angle of the sunlight.

There is no shuttle shadow in that video (STS 114).

Its so obvious Jim....dammit! Sorry couldnt resist, I keep being reminded of Dr. McCoy's famous quotes..."Dammit Jim Im a doctor, not a NASA debunker"!!!!



Cheers!!!!

Originally posted by Learhoag


Do you really expect these ATS "geniuses" to actually detail? Where they gonna get the detail from? They don't depend on actually providing evidence, all they need to satisfy themselves and their ATS cronies is to say it and continue abusing bandwidth. Don't expect a logical explanation, it won't come.

We have provided plenty of evidence, your problem is..is that you have not bothered to search this entire thread and actually view it.

But we cant expect the debunker club "geniuses" to examine any of it anyway, it falls outside of their paradyme and too much for their tiny box frame of mind.

To each their own.


Cheers!!!!

Originally posted by aspx
tell me something you NASA lovers, why has NASA stopped the live broadcasts ? you know why don't you. ice crystals right, complete lunatics.

Glad you brought this up again.The bigger question is, why do some folks THINK NASA has 'stopped' live broadcasts? What evidence is there that they ever did?

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by aspx
tell me something you NASA lovers, why has NASA stopped the live broadcasts ? you know why don't you. ice crystals right, complete lunatics.

Glad you brought this up again.The bigger question is, why do some folks THINK NASA has 'stopped' live broadcasts? What evidence is there that they ever did?

On every single shuttle mission Jim. Oh ya we get to see the launch live, the ascent live, then shortly after SRB sep, all we get after that is flight control center for a few minutes...then the infamous NASA TV emblem with someone going over the next scheduled programs on audio.

Why do we not see any LIVE video looking out into space during missions like we used to get back in the days of STS 75, 48 and earlier? Everything is now tape delayed.

Oh..ya we DO get to see live coverage of the landing. Yay. (YAWN). And once in a while, they "may" do a live interview with the shuttle crew...which is fine and dandy, but that doesnt show any space shots at all. just the inside of the crew compartment with the astronauts all in a row answering questions.

Live video...."Its dead Jim".


Cheers!!!!

[edit on 12-3-2009 by RFBurns]

Originally posted by RFBurns
Everything is now tape delayed.

Correct.

Ground controllers in Russia depend upon the "live" TV feed from NASA during these operations (Soyuz and Progress maneuvers) in order to monitor how things are going.

It appears that NASA plays no favorites when it comes to secrecy and censorship. The Russians are given the very same video feed as broadcast to the public over NASA Select TV.

During the approach of Progress-18 to ISS, when the freighter was at approximately 62 km (39 miles) distance (23:44 GMT 18 June), Russian Mission Control (TsUP) in Korolev (A suburb of Moscow), appears to have let slip that there is actually a 20 SECOND DELAY on downlink NASA TV from ISS.

*Russian Technician At TsUP in Korolev commenting on the delay in the downlink.:

"Well, it's about 20 seconds, uh, delay that we have here. Yeah, it's just a slight delay, it's OK."

I waded through 46 pages before adding my 2 cents which says, in a concise way, what you all have taken 50,000 pages to tell. No one has provided any "evidence" of anything that explains the anomalies. No one knows what they are, although we speculate on what they're not. This thread should have died a quiet death many, many, many pages ago. Rehashing is the only thing that has fattened the thread.

There is only one person that is really qualified to offer knowledgeable comments and even he comes up short in his "official" explanations of what the video shows for most of his explanations violate common sense and logic.

We "critics" think we know what the video shows but it's not really a knowing, it's a guess which is better than the official explanation for that requires a leap of faith which, again, violates reason.

Originally posted by RFBurns

Originally posted by Learhoag


Do you really expect these ATS "geniuses" to actually detail? Where they gonna get the detail from? They don't depend on actually providing evidence, all they need to satisfy themselves and their ATS cronies is to say it and continue abusing bandwidth. Don't expect a logical explanation, it won't come.

We have provided plenty of evidence, your problem is..is that you have not bothered to search this entire thread and actually view it.

But we cant expect the debunker club "geniuses" to examine any of it anyway, it falls outside of their paradyme and too much for their tiny box frame of mind.

To each their own.

Cheers!!!!

Originally posted by Learhoag
I waded through 46 pages before adding my 2 cents which says, in a concise way, what you all have taken 50,000 pages to tell. No one has provided any "evidence" of anything that explains the anomalies. No one knows what they are, although we speculate on what they're not. This thread should have died a quiet death many, many, many pages ago. Rehashing is the only thing that has fattened the thread.

There is only one person that is really qualified to offer knowledgeable comments and even he comes up short in his "official" explanations of what the video shows for most of his explanations violate common sense and logic.

We "critics" think we know what the video shows but it's not really a knowing, it's a guess which is better than the official explanation for that requires a leap of faith which, again, violates reason.

I believe I have made mention of that fact as well..that neither side can prove what it is or what it is not.

You would have seen that had you actually read my posts completely. Did you come across that during your 46 page trip around the thread?


Cheers!!!!

[edit on 13-3-2009 by RFBurns]

reply to post by Learhoag


So...what exactly do you suggest here Learhoag. That we just forget about this discussion? That we cower in a corner and whine? That we give up our stance on what we believe just because this entire thread seems to irritate you and you only?

Well friend..I hate to break it to you but that aint gonna happen. The only thing that will stop this discussion is if the thread gets closed by the mods.

Sorry, but unless you got something that contributes to this discussion and not just complaints about the posts themselves, I dont see any reason for you to even be hitting that reply button.

Can we get back to the discussion now?


Cheers!!!!

Originally posted by RFBurns
There are some older shuttle videos during the early years when NASA began its "shuttle trucking company" putting up satellites, where strange "dots" would appear in mid frame, some from the upper portion of the frame, some from the left, some from the right, and even some from below. Those seem relevant to the question of "dots apparing".

So you've said -- I asked you to show us a link to one or two.

Originally posted by JimOberg
JimO: We're talking about objects that appear in mid-frame, not come into the frame from the edge. I know you say this with all sincerity, RF, but how do you actually 'know' whether it's a dawn/dusk timeframe?

In those videos where we clearly see the darkness of the Earth in the background, obviously that means the shuttle is flying either just outside the terminator zone of the nighttime vs the daytime. Now when the shuttle parks up in orbit at a certian altitude and orbit path, it can remain in sunlight just like the ISS does.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'just outside the terminator zone'. The terminator is the line on the planet's surface. What's the zone?

So the shuttle can go high enough 'to remain in sunlight'? With a maximum polar tilt of 23 degrees and an orbital inclination of 52 degrees, the shuttle orbit will always be at least 90 minus 75 , or 15 degrees tilted into the 'night side' even at maximum sunlight. Lots of satellites do orbit in nearly-continuous sunlight, but they are either much higher than the shuttle can ever reach, or at sun-synchronous orbits that are on the retrograde side of near-polar -- much higher inclinations than the shuttle can ever reach.

There are rare occasions -- the so-called 'white nights' -- when the ISS is for a few days in a path where the sun skirts the horizon all about (continuous sunlight), but the shuttle never launches in these periods because of thermal loads under such 'hot' exposure. At least, as far as I know. Do you have any example of a shuttle mission that ever was in continuous sunlight over a full orbit?

Dispite this fact that the ISS and the shuttle can remain in sunlight even though it is flying over the nightside of Earth, it does not mean that both are sitting in the daytime hours as they pass over the nighttime hours of Earth....

But up there, in specific orbits where you can be in the sunlight all the time, there is no "daytime", or "nighttime", tho the clock continues to count 24 hours.

My use of daytime and nighttime was to denote if the shuttle was in daylight or shadow, not the clock time. This has implications regarding illumination of nearby particles.

So one can tell if your looking at a nighttime on Earth from orbit by simply looking for the terminator zone, or you see nothing but a darkend side of Earth, which means you have Earth in between you and the sun. And one can tell you are on the "daytime" side by looking at the lit up Earth, where you are between the sun and the Earth.

No. The views such as started this thread see only the dark side of Earth, but the shuttle is still sunlit. If you really don't get why, then you are helpless to understand the illumination conditions around the shuttle. Ever stand on the dark surface and watch a sunlit satellite pass overhead?

Originally posted by JimOberg
I mean, you don't seem to CARE what the illumination conditions are, except to proclaim somehow you 'know' what they are (without any research) when it's convenient for your argumentation. Ditto where the shuttle's shadow lies in the FOV -- I.....

Again, what shadow? Where is the shuttle shadow in the video? I do not see any outline of a shuttle shadow whatsoever, even on the object that moves into frame.

That's the point -- the stuff that's in the shadow, being non-illuminated, doesn't show up on TV view. When the object appears, you are seeing the result of the shadow, because an instant earlier it was in shadow, you couldn't see it BECAUSE of the shadow, and THAT shows you where the shadow is. When it becomes sunlit, you see where the edge of the shadow lies. This doesn't usually work this way on Earth, where there are generally too many sources of reflected/diffused light (the sky, surrounding ground, etc) that fill in shadows.

Besides, you need an object large enough to even see the shuttle shadow outline from the sun.

How about the ISS? Ever seen video of the shuttle's shadow moving across the exterior of the station, say, during separation and flyaround?

Now if that video shows the terminator to be to the left of the camera FOV, then the shuttle shadow would be off in space, and not anywhere near that object in question. And since we see the shuttle riding just behind that terminator zone between day and night, that means the shuttle shadow will be at the angle of the sun light, which would align with the terminator line and behind the shuttle, not to the side of it, not to the right of it, not above it, or below it, it would be behind the shuttle in relation to the angle of the sunlight.

There is no shuttle shadow in that video (STS 114).

Its so obvious Jim....dammit!

You get it, but don't quite get it (and thanks for the detailed, patient exposition which allows us to move towards agreement). That shadow will be behind the shuttle as viewed from the Sun, and in these common post-sunrise videos, the camera is looking back towards the dark horizon, so the sun is 'behind' the camera, which means the shadow is in 'front' of the camera. There is indeed an offset angle to the left or right that depends on the angle the sun lies to the left or right of the orbital plane (it's called 'beta angle'), and the groundtrack angle at which it crosses the terminator, but that can be computed.

This all relates to the issue of 'appearing' dots. It does not relate to the scene from 114 because frankly I don't see any 'appearing' dots in it -- does anyone else?

Summary -- the shuttle's shadow can be out there, you only 'see' it by what you do NOT see, drifting particles that lie in it, non-sunlit. When they drift out of the shadow, its presence becomes apparent by the particles becoming sunlit and suddenly 'appearing'.

[edit on 13-3-2009 by JimOberg]

Originally posted by Exuberant1

*Russian Technician At TsUP in Korolev commenting on the delay in the downlink.:

"Well, it's about 20 seconds, uh, delay that we have here. Yeah, it's just a slight delay, it's OK."

Thats the polite way in Russian. Bet anything that is not exactly what they do feel about the "delay".

Now isnt that interesting in of itself...its called the International Space Station...yet the Russians have to rely on NASA to see their own Soyuz craft THROUGH NASA???

Talk about control. Im sure thats probably why the Chineese and India dont want to participate in the ISS nonsense. Its not international, its inter-NASA-nal.


Cheers!!!!

The topic has been run to the ground but I wouldn't be surprised if you keep it going to the 100th page.

Originally posted by RFBurns
reply to post by Learhoag

 

So...what exactly do you suggest here Learhoag. That we just forget about this discussion? That we cower in a corner and whine? That we give up our stance on what we believe just because this entire thread seems to irritate you and you only?

Well friend..I hate to break it to you but that aint gonna happen. The only thing that will stop this discussion is if the thread gets closed by the mods.

Sorry, but unless you got something that contributes to this discussion and not just complaints about the posts themselves, I dont see any reason for you to even be hitting that reply button.

Can we get back to the discussion now?


Cheers!!!!

Originally posted by RFBurns
Live video...."Its dead Jim".

Maybe we're also getting closer here. Considering the image processing and multiple comsat links the signals go through, I'd always figured some processing time would be required -- a matter of a few seconds. You can see that when a scene is viewed in the MCC by a wall-mounted camera that is sent out over NASA TV. That's what passes for live on most international television, these days -- what was the delay with the Beijing Olympics, for example?

What I don't see is an office with a guy and a hand poised over a 'kill' switch to hide some scene -- haven't enough 'UFO scenes' slipped through over the years to convince you that imaginary guy is asleep? The INCO console is the shuttle side control position, and they can select scenes to send out, or switch to others, especially in the intervals where Ku-band hi-rate links drop out.

Maybe somebody here should call up JSC PAO and ask for an official description of the image processing chain, for an ezine article or something. Get their story -- then compare it to versions you've heard.

Short delay -- yeah. 'Tape delay' for purposes of coverup? I've seen no evidence of that in the heart of the control center that would have to perform that function.

Originally posted by RFBurns
Thats the polite way in Russian. Bet anything that is not exactly what they do feel about the "delay".

I'll take that bet. What are the stakes, who holds them, and how do you find out what the Russians really feel [i.e., who judges?]? I can make a suggestion (ask them) but that may be too overt for your approach.

Now isnt that interesting in of itself...its called the International Space Station...yet the Russians have to rely on NASA to see their own Soyuz craft THROUGH NASA???

Did it really say that? They got a NASA video signal, which considering the extra comsat hops and SECAM encoding could easily take many seconds more, and they also get their own TV directly down from their ISS segment and from the Soyuz -- but only when the vehicles are over Russian ground sites [it's why the schedule their spacewalks to occur during those orbits with the maximum time over Russia]. At all other times, the partners have worked out ways of letting others use NASA's nearly-full-orbit relay satellite fleet. Why is that a bad idea?

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by RFBurns
There are some older shuttle videos during the early years when NASA began its "shuttle trucking company" putting up satellites, where strange "dots" would appear in mid frame, some from the upper portion of the frame, some from the left, some from the right, and even some from below. Those seem relevant to the question of "dots apparing".

So you've said -- I asked you to show us a link to one or two.

My God Jim,,are yot that incapable of looking through the hords of shuttle videos showing those dots in pure sunlight? Sheesh, just surf youtube, there is a plethora of em.

Originally posted by JimOberg
JimO: We're talking about objects that appear in mid-frame, not come into the frame from the edge. I know you say this with all sincerity, RF, but how do you actually 'know' whether it's a dawn/dusk timeframe?

In those videos where we clearly see the darkness of the Earth in the background, obviously that means the shuttle is flying either just outside the terminator zone of the nighttime vs the daytime. Now when the shuttle parks up in orbit at a certian altitude and orbit path, it can remain in sunlight just like the ISS does.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'just outside the terminator zone'. The terminator is the line on the planet's surface. What's the zone?

The terminator is not a finite line Jim. It has a zone, that has a width from light to dark. If it were a narrow line, we would not have a sunset or dusk, we would go from daylight instantly to darkness and back again. It doesnt work that way.

Originally posted by JimOberg
So the shuttle can go high enough 'to remain in sunlight'? With a maximum polar tilt of 23 degrees and an orbital inclination of 52 degrees, the shuttle orbit will always be at least 90 minus 85 , or 5 degrees tilted into the 'night side' even at maximum sunlight. Lots of satellites due orbit in nearly-continuous sunlight, but they are either much higher than the shuttle can ever reach, or at sun-synchronous orbits that are on the retrograde side of near-polar -- much higher inclinations than the shuttle can ever reach.

There are rare occasions -- the so-called 'white nights' -- when the ISS is for a few days in a path where the sun skirts the horizon all about (continuous sunlight), but the shuttle never launches in these periods because of thermal loads under such 'hot' exposure. At least, as far as I know. Do you have any example of a shuttle mission that ever was in continuous sunlight over a full orbit?

I said...that the ISS AND shuttle CAN be in sunlight even tho it is flying over the nighttime on Earth. I did NOT say it can stay in sunlight all the time.

Get it right Jim.

Originally posted by JimOberg

Dispite this fact that the ISS and the shuttle can remain in sunlight even though it is flying over the nightside of Earth, it does not mean that both are sitting in the daytime hours as they pass over the nighttime hours of Earth....

But up there, in specific orbits where you can be in the sunlight all the time, there is no "daytime", or "nighttime", tho the clock continues to count 24 hours.

My use of daytime and nighttime was to denote if the shuttle was in daylight or shadow, not the clock time. This has implications regarding illumination of nearby particles.

In the STS 114 video, the shuttle is obviously more on the dark side of the terminator than it is on the light side, otherwise that background of Earth would be all lit up. So its behind the terminator zone between dark and light, and happens to be on the dark side of that terminator.

Originally posted by JimOberg

So one can tell if your looking at a nighttime on Earth from orbit by simply looking for the terminator zone, or you see nothing but a darkend side of Earth, which means you have Earth in between you and the sun. And one can tell you are on the "daytime" side by looking at the lit up Earth, where you are between the sun and the Earth.

No. The views such as started this thread see only the dark side of Earth, but the shuttle is still sunlit. If you really don't get why, then you are helpless to understand the illumination conditions around the shuttle. Ever stand on the dark surface and watch a sunlit satellite pass overhead?

Can you prove the shuttle is lit up? Do you see any part of the shuttle in that OP video? Please do show us if you can.

Originally posted by JimOberg
I mean, you don't seem to CARE what the illumination conditions are, except to proclaim somehow you 'know' what they are (without any research) when it's convenient for your argumentation. Ditto where the shuttle's shadow lies in the FOV -- I.....

Again, what shadow? Where is the shuttle shadow in the video? I do not see any outline of a shuttle shadow whatsoever, even on the object that moves into frame.

That's the point -- the stuff that's in the shadow, being non-illuminated, doesn't show up on TV view. When the object appears, you are seeing the result of the shadow, because an instant earlier it was in shadow, you couldn't see it BECAUSE of the shadow, and THAT shows you where the shadow is. When it becomes sunlit, you see where the edge of the shadow lies. This doesn't usually work this way on Earth, where there are generally too many sources of reflected/diffused light (the sky, surrounding ground, etc) that fill in shadows.

Again, since you made this point time and time again, what orientation is the shuttle in that video? Is it facing nose to flight path, is it facing ass end to the flight path, is it riding sideways to the flight path, is it belly up to the flight path?

Does that OP video tell us any of that information?

No it doesnt.

So again, I ask...where is this shadow?

Originally posted by JimOberg

Besides, you need an object large enough to even see the shuttle shadow outline from the sun.

How about the ISS? Ever seen video of the shuttle's shadow moving across the exterior of the station, say, during separation and flyaround?

Why of course your going to see a shadow of the shuttle on the ISS hull when the shuttle is CLOSE ENOUGH for its shadow to be seen on the ISS hull. But there is a very HUGE difference between the ISS and a tiny ice/dust particle.

Define "particle" Jim.

Originally posted by JimOberg

Now if that video shows the terminator to be to the left of the camera FOV, then the shuttle shadow would be off in space, and not anywhere near that object in question. And since we see the shuttle riding just behind that terminator zone between day and night, that means the shuttle shadow will be at the angle of the sun light, which would align with the terminator line and behind the shuttle, not to the side of it, not to the right of it, not above it, or below it, it would be behind the shuttle in relation to the angle of the sunlight.

There is no shuttle shadow in that video (STS 114).

Its so obvious Jim....dammit!

You get it, but don't quite get it (and thanks for the detailed, patient exposition which allows us to move towards agreement). That shadow will be behind the shuttle as viewed from the Sun, and in these common post-sunrise videos, the camera is looking back towards the dark horizon, so the sun is 'behind' the camera, which means the shadow is in 'front' of the camera. There is indeed an offset angle to the left or right that depends on the angle the sun lies to the left or right of the orbital plane (it's called 'beta angle'), and the groundtrack angle at which it crosses the terminator, but that can be computed.

That all depends if the object even came from behind the shuttle from its shadow. We dont know that is the case in the OP video because we do not see any part of the shuttle body to tell what orientation it is at, or even enough to really see exactly where it is in orbit. But there is enough there to tell its not on the light side of Earth, its not showering space with waste dump, and its not rotating or firing thrusters due to lack of flash. All we see is some weird object move in, turn and burn and move out.

Originally posted by JimOberg
This all relates to the issue of 'appearing' dots. It does not relate to the scene from 114 because frankly I don't see any 'appearing' dots in it -- does anyone else?

Acutally there IS a "dot" that appears in the STS 114 video that seems to be flying at a great speed and passes the point just underneath the turn pivot point of the object in question, and the other "dot" seems to be following the curvature of the Earth and flying through the atmosphere, and at a very fast speed. Take a closer look at the STS 114 video Jim.

Originally posted by JimOberg
Summary -- the shuttle's shadow can be out there, you only 'see' it by what you do NOT see, drifting particles that lie in it, non-sunlit. When they drift out of the shadow, its presence becomes apparent by the particles becoming sunlit and suddenly 'appearing'.

Nice of you to try to tell me what I see and what I dont see. Unfortunatley that trick doesnt work on me or anyone else these days. I know what I see, and so does everyone else. Sorry, but apparenly you see what you want to see and what you expect others to see just because you say that is what they will see...but people are not so easily dupped.


Cheers!!!!

[edit on 13-3-2009 by RFBurns]

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by RFBurns
Thats the polite way in Russian. Bet anything that is not exactly what they do feel about the "delay".

I'll take that bet. What are the stakes, who holds them, and how do you find out what the Russians really feel [i.e., who judges?]? I can make a suggestion (ask them) but that may be too overt for your approach.

In fact, I would welcome your attempt to "ask" them. I dare you. Oh and btw, do that in a setting where everyone can see and hear it in real time so that there is no biased editing to some write up about you asking that question.

I am sure you can arrange that...cant you Jim?

Originally posted by JimOberg

Now isnt that interesting in of itself...its called the International Space Station...yet the Russians have to rely on NASA to see their own Soyuz craft THROUGH NASA???

Did it really say that? They got a NASA video signal, which considering the extra comsat hops and SECAM encoding could easily take many seconds more, and they also get their own TV directly down from their ISS segment and from the Soyuz -- but only when the vehicles are over Russian ground sites [it's why the schedule their spacewalks to occur during those orbits with the maximum time over Russia]. At all other times, the partners have worked out ways of letting others use NASA's nearly-full-orbit relay satellite fleet. Why is that a bad idea?

You forget I am a 25+ year broadcast engineer who also knows about every single video standard on the planet, including Russia's SECAM system, which btw, is superior to our old NTSC system. The delay is not because of standards conversion, it is because the Russians have to pick up that live feed THROUGH NASA's systems, which in of itself is a slight delay of about 5 seconds, goes through NASA's standards converter, then shoots that new SECAM signal back up to their (Russian) bird (satellite) where it is once again downlinked on their system in their format and then seen.

Now if the camera signal were sent straight to the Russian bird instead of going through NASA's handy work, that delay would be reduced by about 10 seconds.

Think about it Jim.

And why is it a bad idea that everything be handled through NASA when it is supposed to be INTERNATIONAL? Oh boy that one is a tough one to answer...NOT.

The answer is so obvious. Im surprised that any nation participating in the ISS program would go along with it. I would not doubt there was some other influence there to make them agree to that BS.


Cheers!!!!

[edit on 13-3-2009 by RFBurns]

Originally posted by RFBurns
In the STS 114 video, the shuttle is obviously more on the dark side of the terminator than it is on the light side, otherwise that background of Earth would be all lit up. So its behind the terminator zone between dark and light, and happens to be on the dark side of that terminator.

Don't forget the angular size of the FOV. There could well be sunlit surface beyond the edge of the image. But I'm OK with your point. And since the shuttle'ss high above the surface, you agree it can still be in sunlight.

So one can tell if your looking at a nighttime on Earth from orbit by simply looking for the terminator zone, or you see nothing but a darkend side of Earth, which means you have Earth in between you and the sun. And one can tell you are on the "daytime" side by looking at the lit up Earth, where you are between the sun and the Earth.

The region of interesting illumination is when you are neither -- but are 'off to the side' of the Sun-Earth line, flying above the terminator zone in full sunlight. If the camera view shows only dark surface, it does NOT mean the Earth is between you and sun as you wrote. You can see the dark side, and still be in sunlight -- just as people down ON the dark side can look up and see YOU, sunlit in a dark sky.

Can you prove the shuttle is lit up? Do you see any part of the shuttle in that OP video? Please do show us if you can.

Several ways. First, compute it using commercially available satellite prediction software. Or find somebody who can do that for you.

Second, if no shuttle structure is directly in the FOV, look for peripheral glare of leaking light reflected off such structure and illuminating the camera frame. These glares area common feature of sunrise scenes.

Third, if you're lucky enough to get a view of the map on the front wall of the MCC, note where the square brackets are located along the flight path. Those brackets signify orbital sunrise/sunset for the vehicle being tracked.

Now, you won't agree with my fourth suggestion. Notice when white dots appear in the FOV, and since (in my model) these are nearby small particles, they become sunlit simo with the shuttle. This shows up particularly well vin the STS-48 zig-zagger full video sequence.

But if all four methods give the same result, that becomes a strong argument that point-4 is valid as well. If the dots first appear on screen at the same moment the shuttle itself becomes sunlit, this is a strong case that they are nearby, and consequently, small.

Originally posted by RFBurns


And why is it a bad idea that everything be handled through NASA when it is supposed to be INTERNATIONAL? Oh boy that one is a tough one to answer...NOT.

The answer is so obvious. Im surprised that any nation participating in the ISS program would go along with it. I would not doubt there was some other influence there to make them agree to that BS.

There you go again... assuming something, and proclaiming it true.

Go check on the independent ESA and JAXA comm links., and of course, the fully independent Russian comm links -- that you apparently don't believe exist. And that 'belief', for you, is all the proof you need. Others, however, will ask you for more proof that NASA controls all the ISS comm.