Swarm of Lights Appear Over Argentina and Chile And Is Filmed From Six Cameras.

Originally posted by ecoparity
reply to post by JimOberg

 

Did we watch the same videos? Did you watch ALL of the videos, start to finish?

There were multiple videos taken of the event, some much clearer than others and if we're accepting the videos posted are indeed the correct ones taken of the same event then yes, the object was within 1 mile of the camera at an altitude of 1000 feet or less. .

Let me ask again -- on what basis did you obtain that measurement of range and altitude?

It's not even a swarm of meteors: what you're actually seeing there is a satellite dramatically breaking up as it re-enters the Earth’s atmosphere. And it’s even been identified: it was the Cygnus mass simulator, a payload lofted into space by the Antares rocket in April!

Antares put the Cygnus dummy into a low orbit. At that altitude the atmosphere is thin, but it’s there. Over time, drag affected the satellite, lowering its orbit, dropping it into thicker air, slowing and dropping it more. On Thursday night local time (Friday morning, May 10 at about 01:00 UTC), the Cygnus dummy payload dropped down enough to experience re-entry. As it slammed through the atmosphere at several thousand kilometers per hour it compressed the air in front of it, heating it up. The pressure and heat disintegrated the structure, and it fell apart, blazing across the sky.

www.theufochronicles.com...

I did see the space shuttle breakup upon reentry (which was during day time) so the breakup did not have the dramatic arcs and sparks as something at night... Some pieces landed a couple of hundred miles away yet even then it did not look like it was not descending.

reply to post by Bybyots


Orbital still has not responded to any of my e mails. I should have renamed my account J Oberg. This means Jimbo still has time to convince Orbital to go along with the cover story.

reply to post by Alda1981


I'm skeptical about it being falling satellite debris.
I wouldn't have a clue how to prove it to myself, so we just take it as they say it is and never question it again?
It looked like one large object to me.

Originally posted by violet
reply to post by Alda1981

 

I'm skeptical about it being falling satellite debris.
I wouldn't have a clue how to prove it to myself, so we just take it as they say it is and never question it again?
It looked like one large object to me.

Lots of people do get that impression. What I'm asking you to do is consider that you, like many, many other people, MIGHT have been mentally cued into a misperception.

The evidence in support of that suggestion is in the 1963 Kiev report I linked to a few pages back. Please just skim through all those drawings.

Some show fireball swarms. Some show large structured objects.

None show them both.

It's like Clark Kent and Superman. You can see one, or the other, but never both together. That's a clue about their relationship.

This does NOT prove it was NOT a large object.

It may demonstrate that it didn't HAVE to be a large object, in order for it to LOOK like one.

Can you consider that possibility?

While you're at it, how do you suggest we explain how the Cygnus spacecraft, known to have been flying through the same sky, at the same time, in the same direction, was NOT seen by the witnesses?

Originally posted by spiritualarchitect
reply to post by Bybyots

 

Orbital still has not responded to any of my e mails. I should have renamed my account J Oberg. This means Jimbo still has time to convince Orbital to go along with the cover story.

I'm drawing a blank at Orbital, too. We'll probably do a story at the NBC website tomorrow.

I'm rattling some other cages, too.

reply to post by ecoparity

Well, I can see. There's clearly a solid object there with lights of various colors around a geometric perimeter.

Can you point that out in a screen shot? I don't see a solid object anywhere. A geometric perimeter? What shape do you see?

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by ecoparity
reply to post by JimOberg

 

Did we watch the same videos? Did you watch ALL of the videos, start to finish?

There were multiple videos taken of the event, some much clearer than others and if we're accepting the videos posted are indeed the correct ones taken of the same event then yes, the object was within 1 mile of the camera at an altitude of 1000 feet or less. .

Let me ask again -- on what basis did you obtain that measurement of range and altitude?

Looks like I owe you an apology, there is something weird going on w/ the videos of this event and I can't say for sure any longer which ones are which.

The video I watched yesterday that had me so convinced shows an object going right to left with an obvious navigation light of some kind. Checking the videos posted on page 1 tonight show something else, all going the opposite direction and higher / further away. (I was on mobile yesterday and just followed the link to youtube and the associated playlist but it's NOT the same video I see now embedded into the thread on my desktop).

Now I can't find that damn video.

So, uh..... yeah. Like I said, always good for a laugh and I'm sorry for going orbital but I was looking at that video (the one I watched) and I knew there was no way we both watching the same one. Apparently I was the one watching the wrong video. Crap.

Can anyone please point out the video I was watching so I can at least try and chase down where it came from, if it's even related, etc (it said it was but youtube isn't exactly source UNO for accurate tagging)?

Originally posted by ecoparity
... The video I watched yesterday that had me so convinced shows an object going right to left with an obvious navigation light of some kind. Checking the videos posted on page 1 tonight show something else, all going the opposite direction and higher / further away. (I was on mobile yesterday and just followed the link to youtube and the associated playlist but it's NOT the same video I see now embedded into the thread on my desktop).

Now I can't find that damn video.....

There are indeed videos showing the apparition moving in opposite directions, since the apparent ground track passed between the different observation points. But I don't have urls.

reply to post by JimOberg


If I can just find the same one and verify it...

Looking at the video on page 1 embedded I'd have to agree that's highly likely to be space debris. The quality and framing make it hard to be sure (it just kind of sucks).

You have to make some allowance for me if I can find this other video and hopefully verify it. I used to do a huge amount of video editing and I developed this weird ability to see half frames at normal playback speed and notice things. It's not special, most editors can do it after enough hours at a deck. I actually do a lot of analysis of alleged UFO videos and am still honest enough to admit I can find explanations for most of them.

When I saw this video I saw yesterday and everyone involved seemed to be backing it as authentic, well I got a little worked up over the space debris thing. Now that I've seen the same video you have I don't see how it could be from the same event. I can see where someone might have confused it as such but it's apples and oranges to the embedded videos.

I'm going to get my iPad out of my bag and see if I can recreate my path and track down that video...

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by unknown known
reply to post by JimOberg

 

So, what was the video of?

I think that Ted Molczan, a respected Canadian amateur satellite tracker, has nailed the identity of the stimulus as the reentry of the Cygnus dummy spacecraft payload.

First, the timing and direction of the flight, known from official tracking reocrds, is spot on.

Second, the video and witness reports are consistent with previous evidence from previous reentries going back fifty years.

The arguments against the identification seem to consistent entirely of people who imagine they know what shallow-angle fireball swarms ought to look like, based on their imaginations, but no real knowledge or experience.

things to think about ..
Cygnus (spacecraft)
of note: (emphasis mine)

The Cygnus spacecraft is an unmanned resupply spacecraft being developed by Orbital Sciences Corporation as part of NASA's Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) developmental program. It will be launched by Orbital's Antares rocket and is designed to transport supplies to the International Space Station (ISS) following the retirement of the American Space Shuttle. Since August 2000 unmanned ISS resupply missions have been regularly flown by Russian Progress spacecraft, as well as by the European Automated Transfer Vehicle, the Japanese H-II Transfer Vehicle, and the SpaceX Dragon. With the Cygnus spacecraft, NASA seeks to increase its partnerships with domestic commercial aviation and aeronautics industry.[4]

ISS
Perigee 402 km (250 mi) AMSL[1]
(02 November 2012 04:38:51 epoch)
Apogee 424 km (263 mi) AMSL[1]
(02 November 2012 04:38:51 epoch)

so .. apprently it has either a heat shield or apprently survived the re-entry and most of it wasn't burned up.. can you explain this ?

i'm just say'n ..

Originally posted by Komodo
... so .. apprently it has either a heat shield or apprently survived the re-entry and most of it wasn't burned up.. can you explain this ? i'm just say'n ..

The operational Cygnus will have a heat shield and will parachute to the surface intact.

This 'mass simulator' had no such heat shield, so as is normal for reentering satellites, it began heating at 80 km and get into serious stress slightly lower down. But it was in a very shallow descent path so it may have taken a minute or two to drop even 10 km.

At that point, external heating combined with crushing G-forces from air drag usually cause vehicle breakup, and individual pieces fly on in parallel paths, some falling behind with higher drag. After another minute or so of deceleration [do the math -- 10 G's is 320 ft/sec/sec], anything not already pulverized is too slow to maintain a fireball, and the dark fragments continue forward and more steeply downward motion. They reach the ground hundreds of km downrange of where the fireball illumination ceased.

reply to post by JimOberg


Yeah its prob space debris.

It is as if some cloaking mechanism was damaged, or not functioning properly due to some disturbance the cloak was encountering. I would think that a phenomenon like this repeating at different times and places could either mean that it was the same object, with one problem, or several different objects, all with the same problem. If it was the same object at different places at different times, it could be mechanical. But if it happened with different objects, and the same problem occurred, then it would probably be environmental.

I think the first question to ask is was it intentional, and if so, who was it?

Still, it could be some kind of natural phenomenon, which for a lot of reasons could be happening more frequently and more profoundly. There's a whole lot of CO₂ going around. Levels we've never seen before. We don't know what's going to happen.

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by flexy123
"Space Junk" or "broken up satellite" doesn't move even remotely move in such a way.

You are not alone in this opinion, but I have to ask a serious question -- on what experience or knowledge do you base it, or is it just a guess?

Because the initial footage implied something which performed a tilt movement (eg "object" performing a rather significant turn/change in course) across a rather limited section of sky. (In that first segment it looked like that the "object" literally performed a turn while only crossing a few degrees on the sky - something I would not expect from a re-entry)

Originally posted by flexy123

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by flexy123
"Space Junk" or "broken up satellite" doesn't move even remotely move in such a way.

You are not alone in this opinion, but I have to ask a serious question -- on what experience or knowledge do you base it, or is it just a guess?

Because the initial footage implied something which performed a tilt movement (eg "object" performing a rather significant turn/change in course) across a rather limited section of sky. (In that first segment it looked like that the "object" literally performed a turn while only crossing a few degrees on the sky - something I would not expect from a re-entry)

interesting observation.. never noticed this till you mentioned it.. I looked at the entire video 5x and to me...

-it doesn't look like the video was taken while driving in a car (while the car was in motion) at any point in the video
-and the lead light does seem to change direction, which is first left to right, then gradually from half way through till the end, it's nearly vertical in the video.. that to me would be a chance in direction (this is just what i'm noticing)

If we could mark the lead light's path all the way thru the video, then we should be able to see if it indeed does change direction...I don't have the s/w to do this nor am I even a novice and running such s/w.. but it would be interesting ..

reply to post by flexy123



The "turn" was the camera moving and the ZOOM lens being engaged.

Please, please give it a rest. Why are there LIGHTS on a craft?

Twinkling little lights, is that what you think they are?

It is debri, satellite, whatever. NOTHING ELSE.

If it were anything it would simply be a military craft, it is not.

Originally posted by unknown known
reply to post by flexy123

 

The "turn" was the camera moving and the ZOOM lens being engaged.

Please, please give it a rest. Why are there LIGHTS on a craft?

Twinkling little lights, is that what you think they are?

It is debri, satellite, whatever. NOTHING ELSE.

If it were anything it would simply be a military craft, it is not.

edit on 14-5-2013 by unknown known because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-5-2013 by unknown known because: (no reason given)

The same reason we put lights on craft, to prevent collisions. Even though we rely more on high tech solutions like radar, transponders, collision avoidance automation, etc we still provide a visual backup.

Even craft that can supposedly fly at hyper mach speeds and turn on a dime would need some form of anti collision lighting, probably more so. When our military aircraft turn off the normal lights they will switch on IR based lighting so they can see each other.

Not to mention possible concerns that some Earthling might fly into your nice, shiny UFO without them...

The majority of UFO case history establishes a huge precedence for lights on the crafts, so nothing out of the norm about them really based on that.

I went down the list of OrbitalSciences contacts again,
www.orbital.com...
and they all go to voicemail. Well, we'll have to go with
the NBC story of 'could not be reached for comment'.

I've totally struck out with all official/unofficial channels. Bummer.

reply to post by JimOberg

I think this isn't normal that they remain silenced for such a big event.
Without official announcement in next couple of days, can we rule out that it has anything to do with terrestrial origin?