After a Week of Silence How Orbital's falling satellite sparked a UFO mystery in South America.

reply to post by JimOberg


From the same thread.

"Orbital has seen the report and the video of the reentry of an object from space over South America. We too believe it was likely the Cygnus mass simulator reentering Earth's atmosphere, as the report speculates, after spending 18 days in orbit following its launch aboard the test flight of our Antares rocket.

"We too believe it was likely the Cygnus"

Believe and likely arent trusty worthy, as i already replied to you in the original thread of the UFO, and from here member had stated that the MS was already decayed in April not may.

reply to post by JimOberg


Jim your just copying it from another forum. And as usual you seem to be avoiding this.

PAYLOAD SIM (CYGNUS)
REAL TIME SATELLITE TRACKING

NORAD ID: 39142
Int'l Code: 2013-016A
Perigee: N/A
Apogee: N/A
Inclination: N/A
Period: N/A
Semi major axis: N/A
Launch date: April 21, 2013
Source: United States (US)
Decay date: 2013-04-27

How do you explain this then and thats the same Cygnus.

reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter


Short of them capturing the debris so they can confirm it, which I am confident they will soonest) what would you have them say?

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter
reply to post by JimOberg

 

Jim your just copying it from another forum. And as usual you seem to be avoiding this.

....
How do you explain this then and thats the same Cygnus

That's the decay of the 'A' object,

The 'D' object decayed May 10 [gmt], right over Chile/Argentina.

The confusion is in assigning which of the payloads was which of the radar blips being tracked by USSTRATCOM.

There was never any doubt that one of them decayed at precisely the date/time,direction/speed of the observed fireball swarm over Chile/Argentina.

That was the 'D' object.

Molczan analyzed the decay characteristics of both objects based on released tracking data and concluded that 'D' was the much heavier one. I demanded USSTRATCOM confirm/deny Molczan's correction of their assignment of name to known, tracked objects -- a process that is far more uncertain than a naive observer might assume since the objects were initially close together and were not transmitting radio identifier codes.

The USSTRATCOM answer appeared yesterday when without any fuss or fury they switched the letter designators to the assignments that Molczan and the actual satellite owners had already concluded.

It's a real world corrective process based on real world information and reanalysis of such information. Real life is like that.

You are still faced with the reality that USSTRATCOM predicted and then confirmed the reentry of one of the objects across Chile/Argentina at the same time/direction as the ground observations. Which object do YOU think it might have been?

reply to post by JimOberg

That's the decay of the 'A' object,

Thats quite incorrect. And also why are you still copying things from that other forum?

The confusion is in assigning which of the payloads was which of the radar blips being tracked by USSTRATCOM. There was never any doubt that one of them decayed at precisely the date/time,direction/speed of the observed fireball swarm over Chile/Argentina. That was the 'D' object.

I am quite sure that USSTRATCOM. That they are quite trust worthy as much NORAD and its Santa tracking.

There was never any doubt that one of them decayed at precisely the date/time,direction/speed of the observed fireball swarm over Chile/Argentina. That was the 'D' object.

What was seen in Chile/Argentina. Wasn't even an fireball swarm as it had no comet trail i am sure your going to make up excuses for the lack of the trail.

Originally posted by Springer
reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter

 

Short of them capturing the debris so they can confirm it, which I am confident they will soonest) what would you have them say?

Well its almost being two weeks since the Object has being witnessed in South America. As always i highly doubt that its an falling satellite. Since these two weeks we had no updates on the them capturing the debris.

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter

Originally posted by Springer
reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter

 

Short of them capturing the debris so they can confirm it, which I am confident they will soonest) what would you have them say?

Well its almost being two weeks since the Object has being witnessed in South America. As always i highly doubt that its an falling satellite. Since these two weeks we had no updates on the them capturing the debris.

Since the mass simulator was designed and built to safely burn up completely, how to do convert the successful accomplishment of that intent into proof the object was never there?

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter

Originally posted by Springer
reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter

 

Short of them capturing the debris so they can confirm it, which I am confident they will soonest) what would you have them say?

Well its almost being two weeks since the Object has being witnessed in South America. As always i highly doubt that its an falling satellite. Since these two weeks we had no updates on the them capturing the debris.

Since the mass simulator was designed and built to safely burn up completely, how to do convert the successful accomplishment of that intent into proof the object was never there?

Since two weeks have passed any words on the magical hunting for the space debris? if it was an satellite?

Again all space debris whatever satellite or the space shuttle for take all leave comet like trails without any flickering lights on the bottom.

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter


Since two weeks have passed any words on the magical hunting for the space debris? if it was an satellite?

Again all space debris whatever satellite or the space shuttle for take all leave comet like trails without any flickering lights on the bottom.

edit on 23-5-2013 by Agent_USA_Supporter because: (no reason given)

Since two weeks have passed any words on how you were able to magically determine the speed and distance of the objects "from the video itself"?

Click here for more information.

FINALLY got an admission from USSTRATCOM about their scrambling the Cygnus launch objects ID list.

From: "Murdock Stephanie NMI LCDR USSTRATCOM/J020"
To: "'James Oberg'"

Interpretation aside, have we now established the agreed-on facts that the Cygnus Mass simulator satellite did reenter on a SW to NE path across Chile and Argentina at precisely the time that ground observers in both countries were watching a fireball swarm?

Although we have a dozen videos of the event, so far I've searched a lot of SA OVNI blogs and nobody has posted any eyewitness drawings.

The question is -- can a fireball swarm lead some observers to perceive a large structured object, with sharp outline, purely as a visual misinterpretation? How many cases of that happening are needed to reach agreement that it can happen?

This is the bigger question and it has significant importance for UFO studies, IMHO.

Originally posted by WASTYT
Unexplained flickering? I'm sure it could be adequately explained if you researched it.

The flickering is quite easily explained. As an object enters or reenters the atmosphere and breaks up more and new surfaces are exposed to ablation (the process that results in light being produced), so the object brightens. Ablation then wears the object down some more, and the process is repeated until there is no more object left, or the object is slowed down enough that ablation ceases, after which the object falls to earth. The overall effect is "changing in brightness" AKA flickering.

As for the lack of a tail/tails I went into great detail explaining it here (conveniently overlooked by the OP despite "thorough" research), but should also add that whether a tail is picked up by a camera depends on how sensitive the camera is. Tails are always significantly fainter than the glow from the plasma around the object itself, so there is no guarantee that a tail will be recorded.

My post will no doubt be branded an attack by the OP judging by his/her previous replies to people who have tried to contribute answers to this debate that question the OP's firmly held belief that the cause of this event was not a man-man-orbital object (despite all the evidence to the contrary).

I very much doubt it's possible to change the OP's mind, so this post is not aimed at him/her, but all the others who might be reading this that have at least some slight vestige of an open mind remaining and are able to use reason/logic in a way that does not contradict the meaning of the two terms.

I finally found the NASA graphic on how a satellite [here, the UARS] fragments and drops pieces hundreds of miles downrange -- just like the Cygnus Mass Simulator did over Chile and Argentina. Thius is worth studying for those who want to understand satellite reentry disintegration. For those who prefer their imagination over reality, never mind.

Another booster reentry last night, over Brazil this time:
satobs.org...

The video shows the early fireball phase, prior to disintegration and swarming.

Can anybody find any videos from farther downrange? That might be far off the coast, though.

The entry was predicted oin a special website:
www.aerospace.org...