Wacky idea about aliens & "dark matter".

[voggmo]

Nonetheless, they are obviously not natural phenomena. Shooting stars don't make u-turns, nor does space ice & junk. This one is obviously intelligently controlled, & is shot official NASA footage shot from the space shuttle. The earth's curved shape is in background.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2y5fnhUz9e4&feature=related

 

[scotthm]

^ It's not obvious at all either what it is or what is responsible for its motion. It is merely an unidentified speck that travels across the field of view in a manner open to interpretation.

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

 

[voggmo]

Actually no. It is not open to interpret it as a natural phenomena as our scientists currently know enough about shooting stars, space junk & all other known aireal phenomena to rule out it being interpreted as being any of those known quantities.

& again, as it accelarates MORE rapidly than any current earth based technology A/C, one cannot be open to interpret it as being an earth based technological craft.

 

[TerriO]

You're trusting a grainy video posted on YouTube by someone who admits to being an "artist" in their own profile and has no overt connection to NASA to legitimize this video to back your argument? That's not exactly stellar (you'll pardon the expression) evidence in your favor, voggmo.

There are holes big enough to drive a Mack truck through in this one.


Personally, if it is video from the shuttle, of which I'm not convinced, it looks like a small meteorite that was deflected by a layer of atmosphere more than anything else.

And I say that as someone who thinks it's statistically impossible for us to be alone in the universe. This one just doesn't work as evidence for me.

 

[scotthm]

Actually no. ...one cannot be open to interpret it as being an earth based technological craft.

I wasn't thinking it was any sort of spacecraft at all, so its identity is definately open to interpretation.

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

 

[voggmo]

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

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

 

[voggmo]

Kasher states they are intelligently controlled spacecraft. He's not an artist.

http://www.ufoevidence.org/Researchers/Detail82.htm


John C. 'Jack' Kasher , Ph.D.
John C. "Jack" Kasher, PhD, is an authority on UFOs and a professor of physics and astronomy at the U of Nebraska at Omaha (UNO). One of his research projects has been to analyze the UFOs appearing on video footage taken by NASA during Discovery Space Shuttle Mission STS-48.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFpGFEFvXBQ


[FONT=Times New Roman] Dr. Jack Kasher a PHD in physics and many other experts have questioned NASA's forth rightness in explaining the anomalous objects as ice crystals or camera lens smudges. Sam writes: I am a longtime film producer recently working on documentary films, I have had cooperation from various divisions of NASA and I can tell you that this entire subject has not been thrown away by them as being of no importance. Furthermore, I also have D-2 Digital Video clones of the NASA Master tapes of the STS-48 event which I have taken to a high end video studio for analysis. I can report that our initial study reveals that the subject cannot be easily explained away. Physicist Dr. Jack Kasher has written a book on the STS-48 events, which has his scientific analysis and is quite compelling. [/FONT]

 

[TerriO]

Can we get a source that isn't taking the word of some anonymous person on YouTube?

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

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

Could you please give a definition of spacecraft for us to work from? Because if something leaving Earth's atmosphere is your criterion, a spacial body (meteor, small asteroid, etc.) bouncing off of the Earth's atmosphere inherently meets that requirement, as it would have to enter part of the atmosphere in order to be deflected.

I, however, have not seen this film. Therefore, I need some evidence that it is what you say it is. Could you please provide some evidence other than us taking your word for it that it is in fact a NASA film? The graininess of the YouTube links makes it difficult to tell with any kind of certainty.

 

[voggmo]

Jack Kashers word is offered above.

This footage is a bit clearer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9AFs67Xjes&feature=related

 

[voggmo]

Nasa employee James Oberg does not discount the fact that the footage is NASA footage.

http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc519.htm

Several years ago, NASA employee James Oberg apparently wrote via E-mail an extensive rebuttal of Richard C. Hoagland's analysis of the STS-48 video.












STS-48


Mission: UARS
Space Shuttle: Discovery
Launch Pad: 39A
Launch Weight: 240,062 pounds
Launched: September 12, 1991, 7:11:04 p.m. EDT
Landing Site: Edwards Air Force Base, Calif.
Landing: September 18, 1991, 12:38:42 a.m. PDT
Landing Weight: 192,780 pounds
Runway: 22
Rollout Distance: 9,513 feet
Rollout Time: 50 seconds
Revolution: 81
Mission Duration: 5 days, 8 hours, 27 minutes, 38 seconds
Returned to KSC: September 26, 1991
Orbit Altitude: 313 nautical miles
Orbit Inclination: 57 degrees
Miles Traveled: 2.2 million

 

[voggmo]

[FONT=Arial]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. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]Nasa's official explanation is "Wacky"[/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]

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_ecker_and_james_oberg_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]

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-state-of-ufology-pt-3/ekxPgRDKhdxLoQZKxQ2Gww

 

[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]

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.

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