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

Originally posted by depthoffield
I've asked you one or more real reasons which make the ice/junk particle solution to be excluded. If not exist, then why struggling to dismiss it?

It seems that you're struggling with this. The proper question is.. why should the ice particle explanation be accepted?.. the burden of proof lies on the person(s) making the claim, you have thus far; failed to prove conclusively that these are ice particles, so no one should feel obliged to accept this explanation yet.

can do exactly that maneuvers and appear exactly like that.

This is something you have also failed to prove. I've seen all your illustrations, and none of them are like STS-114.

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by zorgon
If its important enough to draw you out for so much time, it must certainly be an enigma worthy of study

Indeed it is -- the passion that people pour into the unexplainableness theory of the dots, a theory literally based on ephemeral junk -- that's fascinating like train wrecks and high-rise fires.

If all it is is junk...explain why someone like you has to pop in waving your flag saying "foul" and then taking root into "junk" for so long that it justifies the time you have spent discussing this "junk" with ordinary people in a conspiracy forum.

If anything, I would expect to see this occur in a more real scientific discussion forum where actual scientists go at it for weeks and weeks, you know, the REAL arena of posts consisting of formulas, quotents and every other word referenced and notated [sic] and so forth.

Funny thing about it all, is that this mirror's the occurance back in 2003 in the TEM forum and the "BAMF" event.

The only difference between here and then, is that this time, its an object in an STS video whereas in 2003, it was over a IR image of buried structures deep below the packed permafrost layers and dirt at Cydonia.

Now with that in mind...and all the brew ha ha that insued on a national talk radio show, you would'nt by chance happen to be here to keep things on the straight and narrow suggested by someone higher up the ladder of events..as it was back in 2003 with the BAMF ordeal...would you?

If it smelled like rotten meat back in 2003, and you smell the same odor in 2009 in a different forum, it must be that same rotten meat returning to stink up the issue.

Originally posted by JimOberg
And the bigger issue -- finding a way to filter out the really interesting stuff that does from time to time appear among the 'ordinary' stuff. The sad irony is that for people who think they are seeing extraordinary phenomena in misinterpreted prosaic stimuli, they make themselves blind to the possibility of really detecting anything really unusual.

You mean its about you finding a way to "clutter" up the really interesting stuff that does every single time, get thwarted and derailed when someone noitices the really interesting things in these videos and goes to discuss it with other people in a conspiracy forum.

And then continue to throw out fancy wrapped up "gifts" of boxes within boxes of nothing but "air" to further enhance the obfuscation and derailing of the discussion flow.

Since day one, that is exactly what has occured here when you began posting. And it does not take a slide rule to clearly see..it continues.

Oh every once in a while the discussion actually moves forward, perhaps during those hours when your off line asleep, as I have noticed since continuously monitoring this thread on a 20 hour basis each day, taking the steps necessary to be up during the hours of when it would be most likely that you would be offline and watch others return to the discussion, then wait for that magical hour of when you post once again after reviewing the night before posts you missed, and do it all over again like the previous day. Its worth only getting 4 hours or so of sleep each day for over 3 weeks to log the patterns. Loosing sleep is nothing when you tend to gain vital statistical information.

In other words Jim...your being watched, and notes are being taken, and patterns are being drawn, which leads to those conclusions some have realized about what the deal is with you here in this one thread spending so much time trying so hard to debunk this one.

As I said, I saw it the day you stepped in the door Jim. But I will say this...its good to once in a while brush up on skills to support the arguments and sharpen the edge once in a while...dont you think?



Cheers!!!!

Originally posted by Majorion
The proper question is.. why should the ice particle explanation be accepted?..

You make me repeat again..... Because small debris particle (most probable ice debris) is common occurance, and can act as OP movie, as i showed already.
And why to not accept it as most plausible explanation? Any reason? You again avoid to respond to it.

Originally posted by Majorion
no one should feel obliged to accept this explanation yet.

You feel obliged? You are free to accept whatever you want. But, when dismissing others argumented options, you MUST PRESENT YOUR ARGUMENTS ALSO. Until then...just off-topic bad philosophical talkings from you here.

Originally posted by Majorion
I've seen all your illustrations, and none of them are like STS-114.

You didn' see well, or have trouble understanding 3D perception on a 2D image or representation. I can't help you more.



[edit on 13/3/09 by depthoffield]

To answer the question... No, this footage cannot be debunked.
There is at least one UFO in the footage, maybe two.

Since it is a UFO, it cannot be debunked as it is unidentified. The Ice-Particle idea is ludicrous.

Ice particles do not move at velocities greater than 18k mph, level out and reverse.
Impossible.
Craft.
UFO until someone pretty high up comes clean with what it actually is.

And they really only have two options. Either it is an undisclosed military craft, or it is alien.
One of the two. IMHO.

[edit on 13-3-2009 by Jay-in-AR]

Originally posted by depthoffield
You make me repeat again...

No, I'm not making you repeat again, nor do I want you to. But you're doing that pretty well on your own.

And why to not accept it as most plausible explanation? Any reason? You again avoid to respond to it.

You obviously don't know what Plausible means;
seeming likely to be true, or able to be believed: a plausible explanation/excuse
dictionary.cambridge.org...
This is not seeming to be true, and this is not able to be believed. If you had conclusive evidence of the ice particle explanation, then you wouldn't have hesitated to pull out the big guns and shut us all up very early on, however you don't.

You didn' see well, or have trouble understanding 3D perception on a 2D image or representation.

Thankfully, I possess 20/20 vision, and have seen all types of optical illusions over the years. I for one aren't buying into your optical tricks.

[edit on 13/3/09 by Majorion]

There is another option, I suppose.
That would be that the shuttle itself is moving opposite of the particle.


However, if that were the case, why does the particle stop moving away and then begin to move perpendicular to the shuttle? Gravity? Surely not. It would have behaved such much sooner. I mean, just off recollection, I'm guessing the the object moves upper-left for about 10 seconds.

I can't really run any figures on it unless I know what caused the particular particle to come off. You need to factor in acceleration in order to determine if the object was somehow sucked into the gravitational field of the shuttle itself.
But I find this highly unlikely. I would guess that 9 out of 10 the particle would simply follow along the shuttle.
In this case, the particle moved a LONG ways from the shuttle before being guided back in and eventually away perpendicular. If something like this had occured on the shuttle, we would know.

Edit to add yet another possibility... This is some sort of bad-to-the-bone living entity living in space that moves at tremendous speeds.

[edit on 13-3-2009 by Jay-in-AR]

And I DO NOT buy the idea of this being a optical illusion.
There are points of light in the background to hold reference.

Originally posted by depthoffield

Originally posted by Majorion
The proper question is.. why should the ice particle explanation be accepted?..

You make me repeat again..... Because small debris particle (most probable ice debris) is common occurance, and can act as OP movie, as i showed already.
And why to not accept it as most plausible explanation? Any reason? You again avoid to respond to it.

Your examples, based entirely on ice particles, do in fact show how those ice particles can manuver like the object in STS 114.

BUT...just because ice particles/dust particles are common occurance, and just because someone can find videos that show those particles moving about in the same manner as the object in question..DOES NOT prove in any way, that the object in STS 114 is a mere ice particle/dust particle/debris particle/junk particle.

A parrot can repeat words of the human species...and parrots are common, does that mean the parrot is a human being?

No.

Originally posted by depthoffield

Originally posted by Majorion
no one should feel obliged to accept this explanation yet.

You feel obliged? You are free to accept whatever you want. But, when dismissing others argumented options, you MUST PRESENT YOUR ARGUMENTS ALSO. Until then...just off-topic bad philosophical talkings from you here.

Come now DOF...you cannot outright say that someone else has or has not given consideration to any of the theories presented here, or has or has not considered your examples either. Chances are quite good that Majorion, and others incluidng myself, have already gone through these examples that you and the others have presented many times before, in many other forums over the years.

You simply do not know for a fact if someone ignored you, or took your information and done the comparisons, at the time you presented it, or before from someone else's presentation of it.

Originally posted by depthoffield

Originally posted by Majorion
I've seen all your illustrations, and none of them are like STS-114.

You didn' see well, or have trouble understanding 3D perception on a 2D image or representation. I can't help you more.

Doing 3D preception from a 2D source is always done with imagination. Again, taking examples that mimick the object in STS 114 is like selective choosing of crayons out of a box of thousands to draw a picture of how you want the example to be so that they comes close to the movements of the object in STS 114. Not exactly a very scientific way to try to prove STS 114 is mere ice or junk, but the effort is noted and the material has been considered.


Cheers!!!!

Originally posted by branty
reply to post by zorgon

 

Still lurking, and learning. Here we have covered many possibility's, and dissected many theories, so I have a theory to offer if I may. Since many theories have been explored, with no conclusion, perhaps all participants , All, try the theory of it being a UFO , and see where that takes us.

I think the Ice Particle theory has run its course , may I offer another to be discussed, it will probably be a nice refreshing change

Originally posted by branty

Originally posted by branty
reply to post by zorgon

 

Still lurking, and learning. Here we have covered many possibility's, and dissected many theories, so I have a theory to offer if I may. Since many theories have been explored, with no conclusion, perhaps all participants , All, try the theory of it being a UFO , and see where that takes us.

I think the Ice Particle theory has run its course , may I offer another to be discussed, it will probably be a nice refreshing change

Absolutely branty. Please do.

2nd line.

Cheers!!!!

reply to post by branty


And that is the problem with these things. Especially when obviously paid stooges are on the scene.
Everyone is looking for SOMETHING to solve the problem. And in most cases, someone can come up with SOMETHING to answer it, and it works.

However, in many cases, the "I DON'T KNOW" is the honest answer.
However, paid stooges especially, this doesn't work. People need to know.

I don't know why, because they damned sure don't pay attention to much else in their reality.

In my reality, the UFO answer is occam's razor. It answsers a bunch of them. They are real.

The most "plausible" answer?


Please!

No need to argue over 50 pages what is, or is not plausible. If that were true this thread wouldn't have existed past page 2.

Originally posted by branty

Originally posted by branty
reply to post by zorgon

 

Still lurking, and learning. Here we have covered many possibility's, and dissected many theories, so I have a theory to offer if I may. Since many theories have been explored, with no conclusion, perhaps all participants , All, try the theory of it being a UFO , and see where that takes us.

I think the Ice Particle theory has run its course , may I offer another to be discussed, it will probably be a nice refreshing change

RF , the theory was in the quotes

I would love to see the letters UFO in Jim's replies

reply to post by branty


Weird that the paid stooges are afraid of those letters.
As if UNIDENTIFIED denotes alien intelligence!


But wait, that's what they accuse "believers" of.
Note that the very term "believer" is used to marginalize people who look at these things as a possibility.

It is laughable, really.

[edit on 13-3-2009 by Jay-in-AR]

You are wrong in your definition of a "believer." A "believer" is someone who is conditioned to accept without requiring evidence.
"Possibility" means capable of happening or existing, cemented by evidence. Believing won't make it happen or exist.

Originally posted by Jay-in-AR
reply to post by branty

 

Weird that the paid stooges are afraid of those letters.
As if UNIDENTIFIED denotes alien intelligence!

But wait, that's what they accuse "believers" of.
Note that the very term "believer" is used to marginalize people who look at these things as a possibility.

It is laughable, really.

[edit on 13-3-2009 by Jay-in-AR]

On the other hand, if it were one of these "believers" that said: "HEY, THAT is a UFO." and we were looking at one of these Aurora craft, the same people would be saying "You idiot 'believer' UFO doesn't mean alien. It simply means unidentified."

Hypocrisy abound. In this case, it is just the opposite.

Tossing this into the mix...

reply to post by zorgon


Thanks zorgon.

Another example of the cloud of debris and ice particles that Jim Oberg insinuates to be constantly following the shuttle missions.

The cloud must do this to help Oberg account for his theories - perhaps it is an intelligent entity trying desperately to get noticed and has employed Jim Oberg to reveal it's existence to the world; since Jim appears to be constantly expanding and even exaggerating on the capabilities of clouds of ice particles and debris, he'd make the perfect spokesperson for such an endeavour...

I know this; If I were a sentient cloud of debris and particulate matter floating around in low-earth orbit, I'd consider Jim to be an ally for my cause and an excellent person to head-up my public-relations division. I would put him in charge of publicly adding 'rudimentary intelligence' to the long list of attributes and capabilities he has recently bestowed upon me: 'the cloud of particulate matter and debris.'

*I joke.

[edit on 14-3-2009 by Exuberant1]

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by zorgon
If its important enough to draw you out for so much time, it must certainly be an enigma worthy of study

Indeed it is -- the passion that people pour into the unexplainableness theory of the dots, a theory literally based on ephemeral junk -- that's fascinating like train wrecks and high-rise fires.

And I guess its good research material for a new book... will ATS get a research cut?

Originally posted by JimObergMe, I'm interested in developing my debate skills and sharpening the arguments Im Publishing in support of my conclusions -- but that's a pretty rare rationale. It's worth my time, and I've cultivated a thick skin.

Yup I guess so on that book

The sad irony is that for people who think they are seeing extraordinary phenomena in misinterpreted prosaic stimuli, they make themselves blind to the possibility of really detecting anything really unusual.

So then you are saying that there really are 'unusual' phenomena out there to be detected? Interesting comment.


...





[edit on 14-3-2009 by zorgon]

Originally posted by zorgon

So then you are saying that there really are 'unusual' phenomena out there to be detected? Interesting comment.

I think he is Zorgon..just not in such simple wording and straight forward meaning. Its like a riddle wrapped up in an puzzle shrinked down into a black hole and spat out the backside with hot air to give it that extra "turn and look away" effect.



Cheers!!!!

[edit on 14-3-2009 by RFBurns]

reply to post by zorgon


The first prominent white particles moving across the screen in the video appear to be spinning particles on a constant trajectory. I think those are just debris.
The other prominent white particles in the video appear to move away at the same rate as the satellite that is being launched. I think it is debris associated with the launch of the satellite.
There does not appear to be any complex movement to suggest anything more than that.

[edit on 14-3-2009 by Sam60]