Wacky idea about aliens & "dark matter".

[voggmo]

[FONT=Arial][SIZE=3]The official NASA explanation for this event is that ice crystals are being propelled by a shuttle attitude thruster being fired. The fact that the Earth does not appear to shift in the frame indicates that the shuttle's attitude is not changed and therefore, no thruster is being fired during this event. [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][SIZE=3][/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][SIZE=3]Nasa's official explanation is "Wacky"[/SIZE][/FONT]

[TerriO]

voggmo, please condense your replies. Some mods would consider three posts in a row to be spamming.

Okay, we're getting there, but I'm not convinced yet. Anything that isn't on ufoevidence.org? I'm not inherently inclined to trust a site whose registry comes through an anonymous proxy register. Otherwise, we're forced to take on faith that their claim of "In-depth, quality and scientific research on the UFO phenomenon." is accurate. I find it difficult to take such claims on faith when the domain registration is done anonymously. How do you know what they're saying isn't faked?

[scotthm]

voggmo wrote:

---

It leaves earths atmostphere, therefore technically it is a spacecraft.

That would imply that it was manufactured, which is just an assumption on your part.

I have seen this film at conventions,& on FOX tv. It is NASA film no doubt. Not trusting any artists.

Even so, it's still just a dot moving across the screen. That dot could be a meteor, or a speck of dust, or a chunk of ice, for all we can tell.

---------------

[voggmo]

Each response was given at a different time, & as well had different material.

As for Oberg, everyone should know this...


KING: All right, no, James, that's a fair question. Did you sign any kind of an agreement with NASA not to reveal certain things?
OBERG: DOD material, yes. This is not, and this is not covered. Nothing about this material is covered-
ECKER: All right, let me- One last question, Jim-
KING: `DOD' means Department of Defense material? OBERG: Department of Defense, that's right.

http://www.ufoseek.org/News00/don_ec...on_sts-48.html

For further enlightement on this film, I would suggest buying dvd;s where scientists are interviewed & give the speed changes, rate of accelaration etc. A human would turn into a dime in a half second at the speeds that thing went.

The best film is from Fox tv with Don Ecker. I'll try & find it. & you can disbelieve anything if you really try despite scientific anaylsis etc.

[Meredith]

I won't beleive in aliens until i see evidence with my own eyes, ie. a ship, a dead body, a close encounter of the third fourth and fifth kind.

[scotthm]

voggmo wrote:

---

A human would turn into a dime in a half second at the speeds that thing went.

That would imply that the distance to the object is known, and I don't think that's the case.

All this video proves is that there's a lot of junk floating above the Earth.

---------------

[voggmo]

Again, the path of discovery for you relies on your viewing the scientists analysis. That point is covered in tapes, dvd's on this film by scientists.

It is also interesting to note Nasa no longer allowed live feeds after Don Ecker appeared in Fox tv with this footage. You can hear him speak about that here.

http://www.blinkx.com/video/the-stat...hdxLoQZKxQ2Gww

[voggmo]

Er, no Scott, junk doesn't do U-turns & accelerate like this does. Again the scientist above has declared debunked the spacejunk theory.

This is a better link, shows 3 versions of the film. Notice the flash that goes by it just after it turns.

http://www.ufocasebook.com/beststs48.mpg

[voggmo]

Here's more Science Terrio, 2 guys from Lunascan project. Sorry I cannot use edit button. Scott, meteors do not follow the sort of trajectory this object does. Never have.

after the flash it changes direction and accelerates within seconds to a speed of 400 km/sec!

http://www.nicap.org/sts_48dir.htm

three people, all of whom I have worked with, either in regard to UFOs or lunar research, that are much more qualified. Jack Kasher has worked on UFO images for MUFON and did some work for me while I was State MUFON Director for Indiana. And Mark Carlotto and Lan Fleming are top consultants periodically used by The Lunascan Project when it comes to anomalous images. The video or DVD of STS-48, by Jack Kasher is available from our site at: "materials".





The objects could not have been tiny particles close to the camera lens, since the camera was focused at infinity, as can be seen on the videotape when the camera turns down until the side of the cargo bay is visible. As I mentioned above, the cargo bay was obviously out of focus at first; so any tiny particles near the camera would have been indistinguishable blurs, and would not have been visible.


FIFTH PROOF THAT THE MAIN OBJECT WAS NOT AN ICE PARTICLE

Two problems with the ice particle interpretation immediately surface. First, a (large) particle one foot wide would subtend an angle of less than 0.001 degrees. This is more than an order of magnitude smaller than the limit of resolution of the human eye--the particle would be a point source of reflected light. It is difficult for me to accept the possibility that it would be visible at that distance. And how could the ice particle have drifted that far from the Shuttle?
The second problem is much more serious. Recall that we know the direction the particle moves after the flash. Thus we only need to trace back along this line to locate the necessary position for the attitude adjustor rocket to accelerate the particle in this direction. From the diagram it is clear that the rocket would have to be located nearly fifteen miles below the Shuttle. This is clearly unacceptable, and is yet another proof that the object was not an ice particle.

[scotthm]

voggmo wrote:

---

Scott, meteors do not follow the sort of trajectory this object does. Never have.

after the flash it changes direction and accelerates within seconds to a speed of 400 km/sec!

I did find something from your link that I found interesting:

I have not been able to determine from the tape just how far away from the Shuttle the main object was.

This means, of course, that any guess as to the object's velocity would be just that: a guess.

Nice try though.

---------------

[voggmo]

1 persons view of several who analyzed it. Nice try though.

I must say I see no point in snarkacious argumentation. Get the dvd-s, estimate for yourself after weighing it all up what time it is with that particular piece of evidence.

The trajectory in it's outro is dead straight, wiping out all hope & theory it was a piece of ice or junk blown about by the shuttle's propulsion.

[scotthm]

voggmo wrote:

---

I must say I see no point in snarkacious argumentation.

Well, there is none.

Get the dvd-s...

Um, no. I'm not going to finance these dubious theories.

---------------

[voggmo]

This below was also from the link, again nice try.


The air glow is a region above the Earth's surface that ends at an elevation of about sixty miles.

http://www.nicap.org/muj_kasher_sts48.htm

[voggmo]

By refusing to seriously analyze the data by refusing to spend a tiny amount of money on a dvd, you forfeit ANY legitimacy as a researcher or conscientious objector.



since the main object clearly accelerated and moved above the Earth's airglow in the videotape. Thus, it would have been an intelligently directed craft that was above the atmosphere; that is, it would have been a spacecraft.
Also, the glowing objects clearly cannot be meteors, satellites, or space junk, since none of these can change direction.


http://www.nicap.org/muj_kasher_sts48.htm

[scotthm]

voggmo wrote:

---

By refusing to seriously analyze the data by refusing to spend a tiny amount of money on a dvd, you forfeit ANY legitimacy as a researcher or conscientious objector.

OK. If I have to finance your pet project to be taken seriously then feel free to dismiss my skepticism.

---------------