The Abundance of NASA's STS Mission Footage is the Most Compelling Evidence UFOs Exist

Do you think he filmed it himself?
Should be in the vast NASA archives somewhere.
I think he is fed up defending what he did as there will always be another guy asking for proof.
What is the"independent person validating"?

Ok. Well I guess ATS has said about all they will say for the most part. I'll check out those 99 FAQ's. Thanks. My interest in these objects comes from something I saw. It was what appeared to be a ball of light that came over a ridge next to my house. This object was silent, slow moving, and about 300-500 Ft up in the air. It flew directly over my house, and my father was with me at the time. Some other people in the area reported it to MUFON. It was a bright white light. I thought it was a plane coming towards me at first. It was just a ball of light about the size of a small plane. I'm curious to whether we are experimenting with anti-gravity propulsion or what. There is an Air Force base about 10 miles from here.

One of the better Shuttle mission footage UFO documentaries are the following:



What makes these objects anomalous are the following:

1. They appear to be self luminous (there are objects that have no light shining on them), most space debris is not self-luminous. Furthermore, they appear to be self luminous far longer than meteorites. In some videos the objects begin to flash light.

2. Space debris that appears far away from the shuttle does not accelerate, make 90 degree right angle turns and orbit to the west. This is true even of objects close to the shuttle, especially if the objects accelerate, make 90 degree turns this begs the question, how can "space debris" with quite weak forces acting on them stop, accelerate, and perform 90 degree turns when the space shuttle is not venting or firing anything?

UFO hunters had a physicist with PhD perform an analysis on a video of anomalous objects in space shot from the outside of the shuttle. Some thought they were ice-crystals, the problem is that the thrusters fired in the direction opposite to the movement how an ice crystal would move. Ice crystals usually follow the direction of the thruster burn.

Object Analysis

There are many anomalous objects in space, the catch is knowing how to distinguish between space debris and actual anomalous objects.

Here are some pointers:

Take a forensics science approach, eliminate or account for as many variables that could possibly distort your analysis.

1. Space debris is not self luminous.

2. Space debris, even under the influence of phenomena in space, do not accelerate at the rates seen on the video. Neither do they make sharp 90 right angle turns.

3. All space debris were brought up by some space mission, nearly all space missions launch rockets towards the east, hence all satellites, shuttles, and space debris orbit to the east. Much space debris was seen orbiting to the west.

Originally posted by deloprator20000
One of the better Shuttle mission footage UFO documentaries are the following:

What makes these objects anamalous is:

1. They are self.......

Please check out my "99 FAQs" to determine how much of what you think you 'know' just isn't so, then we can seek the interesting anomalies.

reply to post by JimOberg


I think you did Ufology a service, you have provided a series of critiques that will be invaluable to the UFO researcher. You pointed out all the possible extraneous phenomena we must account for before we can rationally conclude such an object may be an ET-UFO.

Most of it is based on optics, space phenomena, and orbital mechanics of the shuttle.

I did look at your 99 faq's, they didn't explain how objects that appear far from the camera can stop and then accelerate. Furthermore it didn't explain how objects can be self luminous outside the earth's atmosphere, or orbit to the west, third it simply POSITED how these objects could be simply a trick of light and shadow but nowhere did you PROVE using the internal optics of the Shuttle Cameras, geometry of the light sources that it is so.

The problem is that you give probable explanations without proving that those conditions held in a particular case. This is the difference between circumstantial evidence and forensic evidence. All you need for circumstantial evidence is an explanation that fits the facts, but there may be many other equally valid explanations as well. Without a forensic analysis, one cannot conclude that a particular explanation is the correct one.

I would concede this point, many of the conclusions from the UFO video I posted are also partially based on circumstantial evidence, so we as UFO researchers have to do more forensic analysis.

Why does that 'telephoto lens' explanation remind me of the Roswell kneeling-on-the-floor looking at a metallic kite BS that the military trots out when it's in a panic? How big do ice particles need to be to show up AT ALL on a telephoto lens focused on something 100 miles away? How close do they need to be to the object in question? How did they show up at 70 miles, and 80 and 100? Lots of ice? All over the place? Wow.

Because if the ice particles are the size of city blocks then you would think the astronauts would be kinda worried about them, all bouncing around out there at random. And if they're small particles, how can they show up on a telephoto shot?

And there seemed to be an awful lot of audio silence during that video sequence, which I personally took to mean either they were talking on the secure channel while trying to figure out what the hell were those things, or they were simply dumbfounded into stunned silence at the video themselves. Sure didn't look or sound like a regular day at the STS office.

Actually, the vast majority of Nasa's "unexplained" footage is not very impressive at all. I think a lot of people feel these things are unexplained because they do not have experience or knowledge of how things are in space. They see something moving and flashing and assume it is emitting its own light, and is turning it on and off. This is not the case. Objects in space will reflect sunlight to a certain degree, depending on the surface itself. And most objects in space are tumbling either sideways, or end over end. Therefore when the light hits them while they are spinning, the object is presenting two different faces to the sunlight, and these surfaces are reflecting different amounts of light, causing the illusion of blinking.

I have seen all of the videos that have been passed around as proof of aliens in space, and none of them are beyond explanation. People like to talk about the tether video being unexplainable, when in fact it is just an optical illusion. In fact, on the Science Channel program about Nasa's anomalous videos, this illusion was recreated by a scientist who appeared on the program. And the explanation made sense, and is much more likely than "aliens." And much of these videos simply displayed debris, often times getting pushed around by the spacecraft's thrusters, as well as appearing far away when in actuality it is right outside the window. Distance is difficult to judge in space, hands down. And I remember at least two of those videos showing nothing more than a reflection from the inside of the spacecraft. I mean to think people actually think these things are proof for aliens is absolutely insane.

Originally posted by JiggyPotamus
Actually, the vast majority of Nasa's "unexplained" footage is not very impressive at all. I think a lot of people feel these things are unexplained because they do not have experience or knowledge of how things are in space. They see something moving and flashing and assume it is emitting its own light, and is turning it on and off. This is not the case. Objects in space will reflect sunlight to a certain degree, depending on the surface itself. And most objects in space are tumbling either sideways, or end over end. Therefore when the light hits them while they are spinning, the object is presenting two different faces to the sunlight, and these surfaces are reflecting different amounts of light, causing the illusion of blinking.

I have seen all of the videos that have been passed around as proof of aliens in space, and none of them are beyond explanation. People like to talk about the tether video being unexplainable, when in fact it is just an optical illusion. In fact, on the Science Channel program about Nasa's anomalous videos, this illusion was recreated by a scientist who appeared on the program. And the explanation made sense, and is much more likely than "aliens." And much of these videos simply displayed debris, often times getting pushed around by the spacecraft's thrusters, as well as appearing far away when in actuality it is right outside the window. Distance is difficult to judge in space, hands down. And I remember at least two of those videos showing nothing more than a reflection from the inside of the spacecraft. I mean to think people actually think these things are proof for aliens is absolutely insane.

Well I've stated several times that I don't know if these are extraterrestrial. I have a better understanding of the universe and it's laws than the average person. From what I do understand ice crystals don't slow to a halt then accelerate in a different direction regardless of any thrusters. Any ice from the shuttle would continuously move away slowly in one direction. These objects move in every direction. They appear and disappear completely inconsistent from what tumbling debris looks like. How is the camera focused on "particles" close to the shuttle while remaining focused on the tether? I enjoy astrphotography and to me that would be like trying to capture dust on my lense and the moon at the same time.

reply to post by deloprator20000


If I could remember the thread specifically (there are simply too many), I would be happy to link you to a thread in which user Armap clearly showed these odd movements to be a result of shuttle thruster boosts. You can't see them in the footage we get on YouTube, but if you download the footage and adjust contrast, hue, etc and view it again, you can clearly see these particles being moved around via expected natural causes.

As I said, threads like these are embarrassing.

Interested parties can start with the STS75 mission "anomalies". If you cannot be bothered to seek the truth in these matters, you are no UFOLogist.
Instead you are a part of the plague of biased believers who make this field a joke in the scientific eyes.

Originally posted by alfa1

And of course this creates a situation where the video itself is undebatable. Its effectively a thread where 100 cases are submitted all at once. These never end usefully.
All we ever get is a "some might be, some might not be" result.

All it takes is One.
Tens of thousands of False Reports , a Year, Every Year?

JUST ONE

Originally posted by deloprator20000
One of the better Shuttle mission footage UFO documentaries are the following:
[snip]
What makes these objects anomalous are the following:

1. They appear to be self luminous (there are objects that have no light shining on them), most space debris is not self-luminous. Furthermore, they appear to be self luminous far longer than meteorites. In some videos the objects begin to flash light.........

You are starting off with a fundamental flaw, since the famous drifting-dots youtube videos are practically ALL in full sunlight, and anything in the camer'as field of view [with one exception] will be sunlit. There's no NEED for internal illumination.

The reason this isn't evident to you is because folks like Stubbs usually withhold the date/time of the videos. Of course they have it -- Stubbs says he logged all his tapes as he was making them. He just won't tell you. Without that critical data you can't use standard orbital flight software to generate the sunrise/sunset times.

In the sequences that the orbital lighting conditions can be calculated, or the crew/MCC refers to it, when dots appear, they are in sunlight.

On rare occasions, such as during approach to a space station like Mir or ISS, all the shuttle payload bay lights are on, and so small nearby objects do appear, as long as they are close enough.

The other exception teased above is how dots seem to APPEAR in mid-screen out of nowhere. Without knowledge of the shuttle's orientation, camera angles, and illumination conditions, this effect is startling. That may be why such critical information is also kept secret by the youtube posters.

WITH that information, a remarkable pattern appears. These 'appearing' dots only appear on footage taken during a brief period between orbital sunrise and crossing the surface terminator [the day/night line on the ground]. During and ONLY during this period, the down-sun umbra of the shuttle is not flooded with backscattered light from the ground, 'filling in' the space and making particles there, visible. During and only during this 2-3 minute period every 92-93 minute lap around Earth, small nearby particles drifting away from the shuttle can cross into sunlight and 'appear'. And since the observation cameras are often pointed back into Earth's shadow [for a lightning search experiment], the 'appearing' occurs right in the middle of the field of view.

But it is a consequence of the camera pointing, shuttle orientation, solar illumination, and orbital track features -- NOT a random visit by unexplainable stimuli.

Without knowing such fundamental issues such as it is it day or night [and you didn't know], any analysis you do will be way off base.

And look around at who is keeping you from knowing this: Stubbs and his buddies.

Originally posted by deloprator20000
Here are some pointers:
[snip]
3. All space debris were brought up by some space mission, nearly all space missions launch rockets towards the east, hence all satellites, shuttles, and space debris orbit to the east. Much space debris was seen orbiting to the west.

Not true at all.

Do the math.

At an orbital speed of 5 miles per second to the east, anything orbiting the same speed to the west will have a relative speed of maybe 10 miles per second. It would be seen -- if at all - -as a one or two frame smear in the cameras or the crew eyeballs. The dots you incorrectly assume are orbiting to the west can be seen over a period of 5-10 seconds or longer -- they'd be 100 miles away or more if they REALLY were in such retrograde orbits. By not doing the real math, your gut instincts have fooled you again.

Stuff in the camera field of view drifts in all directions because there are shuttle structural elements in all directions, for bouncing off, or for plumes bouncing off and pushing stuff.

Originally posted by JayinAR
Interested parties can start with the STS75 mission "anomalies". If you cannot be bothered to seek the truth in these matters, you are no UFOLogist.
Instead you are a part of the plague of biased believers who make this field a joke in the scientific eyes.

So you speak for UFOlogist and the entire scientific community now? I think the ice crystal debunkers have got you fooled. Just another lame debunker explanation and we know these debunkers with their lame explanations are out there. If you repeat it enough times they will believe it.

Originally posted by Tw0Sides

Originally posted by alfa1

And of course this creates a situation where the video itself is undebatable. Its effectively a thread where 100 cases are submitted all at once. These never end usefully.
All we ever get is a "some might be, some might not be" result.

All it takes is One.
Tens of thousands of False Reports , a Year, Every Year?

JUST ONE

Apply the same standard, say, to human levitation, or communicating with the dead, or immortal humans, or leprechauns. What does the mass quantity of such stories -- varying in different epochs -- mean about the chance of a single ONE of them being true?

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by Tw0Sides

Originally posted by alfa1

And of course this creates a situation where the video itself is undebatable. Its effectively a thread where 100 cases are submitted all at once. These never end usefully.
All we ever get is a "some might be, some might not be" result.

All it takes is One.
Tens of thousands of False Reports , a Year, Every Year?

JUST ONE

Apply the same standard, say, to human levitation, or communicating with the dead, or immortal humans, or leprechauns. What does the mass quantity of such stories -- varying in different epochs -- mean about the chance of a single ONE of them being true?

You tell me Jim, your the Debunker.
Sure there are Over Zealous reports, granted.
But Reports from Cops, Presidents, Pilots, Air Traffic Controllers, Astronauts .
Must be Nice to be you, Always the Smartest One in the Room.

Yeah eah...they debunked ED Walters in Gulf Breeze, but many many other witnesses saw and even photographed the same things.
They debunked the Kecksburg crash but there really was something that fell and was hauled away.....
They debunked the hell out of project blue book and still had a percentage of unknowns left over....
Sure as theres apples, theres aliens....of some type or other.......................

reply to post by Tw0Sides

All we ever get is a "some might be, some might not be" result.
All it takes is One.
Tens of thousands of False Reports , a Year, Every Year?

JUST ONE

Well those are some pretty slim odds there. The math is pretty simple. There are exactly zero confirmed aliens that have visited earth. This means that the chances of just one of the thousands of reports being an alien is unknowable. However, we have a pretty good knowledge base of how these things get misidentified. This means that we can put some value on any given report that it is a misidentification. For the reports that cant be identified, we still can not count on "just one" being aliens. Even if the number of reports goes higher, the math doesn't change. It doesn't make it impossible, just very unlikely.

It interesting to think about but just like its fun to think about hitting the lottery. But people do hit the lottery. But that's because we "know" that a winning number exists.

I'm not a debunker, I just like to play cards in Atlantic City sometimes. It's just math.

I haven't seen a single shred of evidence that suggests UFOs exist.

What I HAVE seen is a massive amount of evidence for entities masquerading as "aliens".

The countless abductees being kidnapped, probed, molested, and surgically implanted around the world on a daily basis completely trumps any NASA footage.

NASA has a known agenda, the abductees do NOT.

The abductee implants are another major clue as well:

Isn't it strange how in threads such as this the REAL compelling evidence (abductees) RARELY ever comes up... WHY is that?

Because we are being LIED to by the vast majority of researchers about the "alien" agenda.

Some of the researchers who haven't sold out and are more interested in exposing truth than they are protecting their reputations have exposed the massive fraud, coverup, and hidden agenda behind a facade of deception.

We ARE being LIED to and people like Joe Jordan, L.A. Marzulli and others makes this absolutely undeniable.

reply to post by Murgatroid


But threads such as this aten't about abductees. I totally agree with you, but it is off topic.

Maybe write a thread about abductees?