UFOS: the Research, the Evidence.

[Randall]

Don’t get me wrong, a discussion about the definition of UFO is useful, but we were bogged down in one particular aspect of that: That is, is it legitimate to allow an individual belief to define a category to the exclusion of all other individual beliefs? I contend it is not, you contend it is. Your reasoning was that it can if it is a popular belief. That is many, if not most, people immediately think “ET” when they hear “UFO”, so why not just define UFO as ET? My objection was that mere popularity does not confer veracity ...

Rramjet,

I was happy to drop the issue of how the word UFO is defined, but since you decided to add a couple of your own comments that don't really represent my position, one would think I should be allowed to respond ... or will I get told to go post it on another thread? I also noticed you also had no problem redefining the word "mundane".

Anyway, despite the above issues, I now know what you are getting at ( which was the main point ). However to be clear, I won't be using your terminology. The way you've defined UFOs, especially considering their vague nature and the possibility of natural phenomena, you really aren't talking about UFOs. You're talking about UAPs. Of course I understand that in your mind UAPs and UFOs are the same thing, so you don't have to change your usage. I know what you really mean. That way we don't have to argue about it anymore. Here's the NARCAP description of UAP for you so that when I use it you'll know what I'm referring to:

UAP:

"The term "Unidentified Aerial Phenomena" or UAP is an attempt to address the
fact that not all UAP are described as unidentified flying objects or UFO. Many are
simply described as unusual lights. NARCAP feels the term "UAP" more accurately
reflects the broad scope of descriptions in aviation reports as well as the possibility that
these phenomena may arise from several different sources."


​

Now, which cases in your presentation would you say best fit what ufologists are really most interested in, which is UFOs ( alien craft )?

 

[carlitos]

Don't forget hoaxes and lies. And people being mistaken. Tired eyes and brains just plain seeing things that aren't there. And hallucinations. No need to sweat it over acronyms, since plenty of UFO sightings have turned out to be perfectly mundane.

 

[manxman]

Don't forget hoaxes and lies. And people being mistaken. Tired eyes and brains just plain seeing things that aren't there. And hallucinations. No need to sweat it over acronyms, since plenty of UFO sightings have turned out to be perfectly mundane.

What about the ones that remain UFOs carlitos, that is what we are aiming to find, what is interesting about ex UFOs.
What percentage of UFO reports consist of your posts explanations, for the ones that remain UFOs.

Or do you think your normal adhom riddled handwaving will just be accepted here and repeated ad nauseum parrot fashion as with the jref denialists, theres plenty of skeptics here, not all here start with a conclusion and then work backwards, but we are all polite, so lets hope your next post is alittle more substantial than schoolboy 101 sweeping mockery of witness testimony, because taking witness testimony was my daily bread and butter, what about trained observers.

 

[carlitos]

What about the ones that remain UFOs carlitos, that is what we are aiming to find, what is interesting about ex UFOs.
What percentage of UFO reports consist of your posts explanations, for the ones that remain UFOs.

For the ones that remain UFOs? Zero.

What percent of the ones that remain UFOs have been confirmed to be aliens?

 

[manxman]

And here we go on a jref circle jerk.

I asked you questions, on your claim, answer them please.

What percentage of UFO reports consist of your posts explanations, for the ones that remain UFOs.[after an identification proccess has failed]

What about trained observers.[observations of air-bourne phenomena]

 

[carlitos]

And here we go on a jref circle jerk.

I asked you a question, on your claim, answer it please.

What percentage of UFO reports consist of your posts explanations, for the ones that remain UFOs.

How could I possibly answer that? There are literally millions of mundane explanations that could explain something that is unidentified. People like ufology reject whatever mundane explanation you suggest because they "know what they saw" and it was aliens. They reverse the burden of proof and pretend that the scientific method doesn't apply, because ufos are special or whatever.

All it would take is one UFO report confirmed to be alien, and it would change the world. I don't suspect that discussing Rramjet's 50-year-old stories is going to get us there, though. Do you?

 

[manxman]

Well perhaps you should take that issue up with ufology, this thread is entitled UFOs the research and evidence, not lets all shoot down ufology[the poster] because it is fun, do you see extraterrestrials mentioned in the title.


Bit of advice do not come into threads here with sweeping , mind numbingly meaningless statements as below, that you cannot even answer a basic question about.

Don't forget hoaxes and lies. And people being mistaken. Tired eyes and brains just plain seeing things that aren't there. And hallucinations. No need to sweat it over acronyms, since plenty of UFO sightings have turned out to be perfectly mundane.

You will be pulled up for it each and every time.



quote
All it would take is one UFO report confirmed to be alien, and it would change the world. I don't suspect that discussing Rramjet's 50-year-old stories is going to get us there, though. Do you?




Do you see ramjet making any claims you do not agree with then, which one of the fifty year old cases do you want to discuss with us.
Again as at the jref ramjet consistently looks for a possible distinction between mundane and none mundane, to quote rammy, nothing more nothing less, ET believer was a label the jref pack put on him.

In truth he only acknowledges that intelligent life is scientifically possible and all that possibility entails.

 

[Rramjet]

I was happy to drop the issue of how the word UFO is defined, but since you decided to add a couple of your own comments that don't really represent my position, one would think I should be allowed to respond ... or will I get told to go post it on another thread?

It seems to me that you have not explained your position – all you have done is reiterate that UFOs = ET. If I have summarised your reasoning for that belief incorrectly then I apologise - but it is only because I cannot see how you have provided a clear rationale (aside from claiming popular belief).

I also noticed you also had no problem redefining the word "mundane".

The trouble with “mundane” is that the strict definition you supplied (2. of this world: relating to matters of this world) does not cover anything that is outside the earth’s atmosphere, yet we would want to include such things as asteroids… Yet the first definition (1. ordinary: commonplace, not unusual, and often boring) does cover such things and the two definitions in combination are covered by my statement (explicable in natural or technological terms according to the public fund of knowledge held by the scientific world.), which allows for things not of this earth (from definition 2) but still considered commonplace (from definition 1). However, I simply don’t see that as a redefinition at all… according to the dictionary definitions we can say that something mundane is explicable in natural or technological terms according to the public fund of knowledge held by the scientific world. (where you might substitute something like “common knowledge” for “the public fund of knowledge held by the scientific world” – I was merely trying to be precise..).

Anyway, despite the above issues, I now know what you are getting at ( which was the main point ). However to be clear, I won't be using your terminology. The way you've defined UFOs, especially considering their vague nature and the possibility of natural phenomena, you really aren't talking about UFOs. You're talking about UAPs.

…but UFO = Unidentified Flying Object is about as precise as one can get. One may quibble about the “flying” and the “object” (they may or may not be either, depending on the circumstance) but surely one can have no quibble with “unidentified”.

However, you seem to want them to be identified (as ET craft). But I have asked you repeatedly - in every post I have written on this topic - what the criteria for that identification might be that would allow us to distinguish ET craft from all the other UFOs (any UFO) we might observe – and you have ignored that question every time. That is, can you answer the question: It is an ET craft because…?

I can answer the question It is a UFO because ... it defies identification according to our (common and scientific) knowledge of the natural and technological world.

Now just because it defies plausible mundane explanation, can we therefore conclude ET craft? I don’t believe so because we still have alternatives open to us (undiscovered natural phenomena, secret technology, etc).

Nevertheless, when we come to discussing individual cases, in many instances we DO seem to have circumstantial evidence for ET craft: That is, radar detectable, ostensible intelligent control, technologically “impossible” manoeuvres and associated beings. So while I may be perfectly happy for you to justify “ET craft” on an individual case basis (along the lines of the above criteria) – it is just not legitimate for you to define ALL UFOs as ET craft.

Take a look at the following case for example:

The Brown Mountain Lights
(http://www.brownmountainlights.com/)

“ Of course, there are those who insist the lights are simply “ghosts,” or some form of spiritual materialization, as well as aliens, UFOs, or giant fireflies! Theories on all from inter-dimensional activity to fairies and glowing “little people” have been put forth. Despite the speculation, no one has ever proven what the lights are. We can only be sure of one thing: they DO exist.” (http://shadowboxent.brinkster.net/brownexplain2.html)

But then… an explanation…

“ Considering all data available, the most likely explanation was that those primary illuminations traditionally known as the "Brown Mountain Lights" are a form of plasma, the fourth state of matter, naturally produced by the mountain. Plasma is the product of so much energy being added to a gas (including air) that one or more electrons are ripped from each atom producing a swirling, luminous mass of free-floating electrons and atoms that have a positive charge (positive ions). Plasmas are enhanced by having fuel in the air, such as the carbon produced from a forest fire. The BM Lights may have appeared more often in the past when wood fires were more commonly used. According to David Hackett, ORION also concluded the lights are most likely a plasma phenomenon. Plasmas would indeed interact with nearby human observers since the plasma field would be influenced by the field of a human body.” (http://shadowboxent.brinkster.net/brownplasma.html)

So… before extensive investigation it was a typical UFO case. The debunkers jumped all over it with their own investigations:

“ In the twentieth century, the lights were first journalistically documented in 1913. A reporter from the Charlotte Observer explored the mystery. Afterward, they were investigated three times by the United States government: once by the U.S. Weather Service, and twice by the U.S. Geological Survey. Even the Smithsonian conducted an expedition. In a 1922 geological survey, George Mansfield studied the mountain and its weather conditions for weeks. In his official report, titled Circular 646, he stated the lights were: 47% auto headlights, 33% locomotive lights, 10% stationary lights, and 10% brush fires. Almost everyone clearly saw the report as pure hogwash. The lights had been seen long before autos and locomotives. Plus, in 1916, a great flood wiped out transportation routes. There were no trains or autos in the area for more than a week. However, the lights continued to be seen.” (http://shadowboxent.brinkster.net/brownhistory.html)

..and of course the “ET crowd” had their own interpretation… but it seems neither had the real answer. And certainly, under your definition ufology (UFO = ET craft), they must be ET craft …except they are not…

Do you see what I am getting at ufology? We simply cannot define UFOs as ET craft – because they might not be at all!

Now, which cases in your presentation would you say best fit what ufologists are really most interested in, which is UFOs ( alien craft )?

You are switching the burden of proof there ufology (another typical debunker trick BTW…). You are the one claiming UFOs are ET craft – not I. Therefore you are the one who needs to support your claims in that regard with evidence.

Do you see ramjet making any claims you do not agree with then, which one of the fifty year old cases do you want to discuss with us.
Again as at the jref ramjet consistently looks for a possible distinction between mundane and none mundane, to quote rammy, nothing more nothing less, ET believer was a label the jref pack put on him.

In truth he only acknowledges that intelligent life is scientifically possible and all that possibility entails.

Indeed. I have claimed that the evidence shows that there are UFO cases that defy plausible mundane explanation. Nothing more, nothing less.

I have also claimed that while the ETH is a plausible alternate explanation for UFOs (science predicts ET should exist, science does not rule out interstellar travel, there are reliable observations of ostensible intelligent control and associated beings), we just do not have the direct evidence to support it. It may be true that some UFOs are ET craft, but the evidence for that is only circumstantial (as far as I know) and looks can be deceiving – alternate explanations exist.

My direct concern in this thread is to show that UFOs (or UFO reports) exist which defy mundane explanation. That is a direct challenge to the debunker’s hypothesis (a la carlitos) that it is all explicable as misidentified mundane objects and hoaxes. That is, my concern is not to explain UFOs (that I leave to others), merely to point out that the debunkers cannot support their hypotheses because there does exist evidence and research which falsifies their hypotheses.

(and as for this “fifty year old” nonsense – it is a typical debunker line that assumes that evidence somehow magically loses its veracity as a function of time – total and utter nonsense. Indeed, it has been pointed out – by ufology in the first instance - that some of the older cases might have more veracity simply because they were less “contaminated” by popular culture than is the case today).

 

[Randall]

It seems to me that you have not explained your position – all you have done is reiterate that UFOs = ET. If I have summarised your reasoning for that belief incorrectly then I apologise - but it is only because I cannot see how you have provided a clear rationale (aside from claiming popular belief).

Rramjet,

First, no need to apologize. We were just trying to work through an issue with the lexicon used in the research. It seemed to me you wanted to drop it because it was dragging the thread in a direction you didn't want to go. I appreciate that, and I see your angle, so I've agreed to carry on using terms that make sense to me and simply not take issue with yours. Any time you would like to reopen that discussion, I'm OK with it.

The trouble with “mundane” is that the strict definition you supplied (2. of this world: relating to matters of this world) does not cover anything that is outside the earth’s atmosphere, yet we would want to include such things as asteroids… Yet the first definition (1. ordinary: commonplace, not unusual, and often boring) does cover such things and the two definitions in combination are covered by my statement (explicable in natural or technological terms according to the public fund of knowledge held by the scientific world.), which allows for things not of this earth (from definition 2) but still considered commonplace (from definition 1). However, I simply don’t see that as a redefinition at all… according to the dictionary definitions we can say that something mundane is explicable in natural or technological terms according to the public fund of knowledge held by the scientific world. (where you might substitute something like “common knowledge” for “the public fund of knowledge held by the scientific world” – I was merely trying to be precise..).

…but UFO = Unidentified Flying Object is about as precise as one can get. One may quibble about the “flying” and the “object” (they may or may not be either, depending on the circumstance) but surely one can have no quibble with “unidentified”.

I uderstand what you are trying to say even if it is out of synch with common usage. You don't have to explain.

However, you seem to want them to be identified (as ET craft). But I have asked you repeatedly - in every post I have written on this topic - what the criteria for that identification might be that would allow us to distinguish ET craft from all the other UFOs (any UFO) we might observe – and you have ignored that question every time. That is, can you answer the question: It is an ET craft because…?

Perhaps this is the crux of our apparent communication problem, The issue of identification is another matter entirely separate from point 1 of the definition ( UFOs are alien craft ). The definition of UFO as alien craft simply says this is what we mean and it is what we are looking for. It doesn't imply proof or anything else.

On the issue of identification. What the USAF and everyone else interested in ufology have used as a method of identification is a process of elimination. Essentially to eliminate from UFO reports as many known natural and manmade objects or phenomena as possible. At this point the USAF called such objects "Unknowns". There were also some in the USAF, including those in the official investigations who felt it was reasonable to believe that some of these objects were UFOs ( alien craft ).

At this point absolute empirical evidence and scientific proof are still not the issue. We have identified what we are looking for and through a process of elimination believe it is reasonable to propose we have found it. Again "alien" does not strictly imply only extraterrestrial ... it is simply alien to our civilization. It may also turn out later that we are mistaken, but again that isn't relevant at the time. What matters is that we are clear on what we mean and through a process of elimination determined it is reasonable to believe we have detected it. Where it came from exactly we still don't know.

I can answer the question It is a UFO because ... it defies identification according to our (common and scientific) knowledge of the natural and technological world.

Now just because it defies plausible mundane explanation, can we therefore conclude ET craft? I don’t believe so because we still have alternatives open to us (undiscovered natural phenomena, secret technology, etc).

The above again assumes ET craft as opposed to alien craft. Alien craft may or may not be extraterrestrial. Also, once we have proof of what the UFO is, it is no longer a UFO, it is something else, either mundane or from wherever it has been proven to come from ( e.g. it is a Zeta Reticulan Shuttle ). It is no longer alien to our civilation by virture of our knowledge and understanding of its existence. The only definition of "alien" that would then apply would be the one we think of when we describe "illegal aliens" in an international political context. As for the possibility of natural phenomena, we would then be dealing with UAPs. As for secret terrestrial technology, if it is connected with our civilization, then it would not be a UFO. If it could not be connected our civilization it would be a UFO.

Nevertheless, when we come to discussing individual cases, in many instances we DO seem to have circumstantial evidence for ET craft: That is, radar detectable, ostensible intelligent control, technologically “impossible” manoeuvres and associated beings. So while I may be perfectly happy for you to justify “ET craft” on an individual case basis (along the lines of the above criteria) – it is just not legitimate for you to define ALL UFOs as ET craft.

Take a look at the following case for example:

The Brown Mountain Lights
(http://www.brownmountainlights.com/)

“ Of course, there are those who insist the lights are simply “ghosts,” or some form of spiritual materialization, as well as aliens, UFOs, or giant fireflies! Theories on all from inter-dimensional activity to fairies and glowing “little people” have been put forth. Despite the speculation, no one has ever proven what the lights are. We can only be sure of one thing: they DO exist.” (http://shadowboxent.brinkster.net/brownexplain2.html)

.......

A cursory look at the Brown Mountain Lights would in today's lexicon be classed as UAPs. The show's people call it "paranatural". That would be an interesting video for Chris here too because it relates to his own camera project in the San Luis Valley.

Historical Example:

An example of what I would call a UFO ( alien craft ) is the one reported by a USAF F-86 pilot during broad daylight in 1952 as described by Ruppelt in the opening chapter of his classic book The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects. Here we have a report by a USAF pilot who pursued a UFO to within 500 yards and clearly saw during the day that it was a flying disk moving at Mach 1 that then outpaced his jet. So far as we know, no nation on Earth at that time ( or for that matter even now ) has created a flying disk with anything even close to that kind of performance. We are obviously not talking about a natural phenomena either. For those who think old F-86s are pretty much the same as flying Snoopy's doghouse ... here's a video of what these cool planes could do ...

[video=youtube_share;-56qSiicgUw]http://youtu.be/-56qSiicgUw[/video]​

 

[boomerang]

Wow! I know the F-86 design was just under the mach. But I had no idea they could climb like that from level flight. I remember talking to a guy who flew them in Korea. He said the first time his G-suit clamped down on him, he thought he had taken a round!

Thanks for posting.

 

[manxman]

quote

Disc-shaped object appeared beneath shuttle

According to internal reports—confirmed by Dr. Story Musgrave, a Payload Specialist crew member aboard the STS-80 Mission—a disc-shaped object much larger than the orbiting American spacecraft suddenly appeared beneath the shuttle. At the time, Columbia was maintaining an altitude 190 nautical miles above Earth.




Sts80 is the one Ive mentioned several times now, trying to gauge interest.

Musgroves comments on this object/light are very interesting, no matter how the skeptics hand-wave this one away, no-on has ever come up with a barely credible explanation.

Watch at about 3.5 mins in, the ufo comes into picture, then proceeds in a straight line, coming to a complete standstill, then descends into the electrical storm, and holds its position, at 4min55 seconds a different ufo rises out of the electrical storm, and proceeds out of camera shot in a straight line.

Keep your cursor on the first ufo as it fades, as the shuttle speeds on at 17.5k mph, the camera zooms in on it again as it lifts back out of the electrical storm into orbit, and interacts with the other 2 ufos.



Some background.

Shuttle was 190 nautical miles up.

The cameras were commissioned especially for filming electrical storms, they were uv cameras and remote controlled from flight control.[ however this does look like a bw camera, so i will confirm when i deal with obergs story]
Sprites and other similar phenomena had really caught NASAs interest by then.


All the skepickal handwaves only ever seem logical for one bit at a time, but cannot account for the whole.

A prime example of this is obergs handwave about the ufos being out of focus debris, and the terminator line, makes them appear to just jump into existence as they come out of the shuttles shadow.
Literally the same hand-wave he uses for all shuttle footage.

Now that explanation would hold good for the one that pops into existence at 4.58 out of the storm, if we had not just seen one enterthe frame and come to a halt, and descend into the same part of the storm, and then somehow has the power to come back into orbit, earth lights could not be seen through the storm, nor does out of focus debris near to the shuttle lower itself into an electrical storm, and NASA flight controllers do not zero in on out of focus close to the shuttle debris, and the interaction between the 3 ufos he zeros in on at the end of the clip, shows intelligence or atleast recognition of the others presence.


..........................



The above is a post i made to another thread about a veterans today story, i would like to put this one to bed, its bugged m long enough, seen many explanations that account for individual events, but fail to explain the whole, combination's of absurd coincidences do not provide either logical or plausible answers for me, i want to know now its been a puzzler for about 4 years now.


Heres the vid of the next orbit/pass, i think martin stubbs has the full 2 hour sequence, for sale.

UFO Behind Shuttle STS-80 Video




This is obergs explanation, so i am going to dissect it rammy paragraph by paragraph, and see how it balances out.
I may need a hand with some of it, i will ask if i do.


I try to ignore nick pope commentary, and watch full screen on mute, now i could live debris just forming a near circle,and the sun bathing it in light, even though this vid has the sequences in the wrong order, so this circle formed is by the same storm chasers as the first orbit, and that was no debris, and again it appears they show awareness of the others presence.




Notes on the STS-80 UFOs" -- James Oberg January 1997

The STS-80 scenes seem to me to be identical in origin to the
infamous STS-48 scenes and to numerous others throughout the
shuttle flight program: low-light sensitive B&W cameras are
trained on the receding horizon during night passes, to observe
serendipitous lightning events for an experiment called
Mesoscale Lightning Experiment, managed out of NASA-MSFC in
Huntsville. You can see the dark horizon, the glowing 'air glow'
layer, moving stars, moving city lights below, lightning
flashes, and under moonlit conditions, dim clouds.

By the way, these low-light B&W cameras are pretty old and are
being replaced mission by mission -- the suite of cameras
carried by a shuttle (one in each corner of the payload bay, two
on the RMS, others perhaps mounted on the keel looking upwards
at target spacecraft, plus a few handheld units inside the
cabin) can be adjusted as needed, and a new color CCD camera is
much higher quality (it doesn't 'bloom' in overbright
reflections, and can't be damaged by sun exposure), but it's not
as sensitive in low light, so there are fewer opportunities to
see such views every year.

When sunrise occurs (due to the Orbiter's motion along its
orbit), even though the Orbiter is now bathed in sunlight, the
camera is still trained on the dark side of Earth. But now the
floating particles which routinely accompany every shuttle
flight (often ice particles, sometimes junk from the payload
bay, pieces of insulation blankets, a dozen or more distinctly
different sources) can become visible in the sunlight, sometimes
even moving into sunlight from the umbra of the Orbiter (and
thus "appearing suddenly"). These are close to the camera,
sometimes a few feet, at most a few hundred feet. Sometimes they
are hit by pulses of gas from the RCS jets as they automatically
fire to gently nudge the spaceship back towards a pre-set
orientation. Because of the sensitivity of the camera, moving
particles leave streaks -- even stars can be seen to do this
when the camera is being panned (usually by command from a
controller in the Mission Control Center). Tumbling particles
tend to flash. Bright particles overload the optics and appear
as "rings" or "do-nuts" with darker centers.

There's nothing else to it, as far as I can tell. Everyone in
the control center knows about this visual phenomenon, everyone
has seen it numerous times, and they laugh at notions these are
anomalous, while they grimace at yet more silly stories by
people who don't seem to understand much (or do seem to
misunderstand a lot) about "ordinary" space flight.

As far as I was able to determine, these STS-80 scenes were
recorded beginning about 11:55 PM PST on December 1, 1996.
That's 07:55 GMT on December 2. Since the shuttle was launched
on Nov 19, that is 324/19:55:47, this makes it about 12 days 11
hours 59 minutes "Mission Elapsed Time", or MET. This was on rev
197, crossing Venezuela, then the West Indies. The Orbiter
attitude was bottom forward, with the vehicle yawed somewhat so
the nose was off to one side.

According to the activity plan sent up that morning, the crew
was doing some evaluation of an EVA tool associated with their
airlock problems, and the two pilots were scheduled to begin a
review of landing procedures. Lunch was to follow. When I asked
crewman Story Musgrave, who is not shy about talking about
anomalies of any kind, he assured me he saw nothing unusual on
the flight, at this point or at any other.

The camera, "B" located at the rear of the payload bay, was in a
pre-set position which was later changed by ground commands.
Judging from the star motion at the horizon, it was looking
southwest, not precisely backwards (since then the stars would
have been setting straight down across the horizon). I don't
have the exact numbers on the camera's pan/tilt and it's too
much trouble to get them.

According to a computer reconstruction of the trajectory,
sunrise occurred at GMT 07:57. That's precisely when the picture
shows a slight foggy periphery, and when the first objects
appear. They keep showing up until about 08:01, when sunlit
clouds come into the camer's field of view and the iris
automatically stops way down so that the tiny objects (and stars
too) are no longer visible. The camera view continues in
daylight for long after that.

The crew's "Earth Obs Exposures" daily plan listed ground
targets which confirm this flight path:

12/11:54:05 Caracas
12/11:55:58 Montserrat

and then

12/12:19:34 Lake Nasser
12/12:21:13 Jiddah, Saudi Arabia
12/12:21:23 Mecca

These are "opportunities" only, not assignments, and apparently
nobody was free to take the shots over Caracas and Montserrat.

Here is some trajectory data from which you can reconstruct the
flight path and lighting conditions at the interval of interest,
if you have the commonly- available software.

M50 State Vector
GMT 337:00:54:47.00
MET 012:04:59:00
Position (ft)
X 7272023.0
Y -20753260.5
Z -2137127.9
Velocity (ft/sec)
VX 20614.669694
VY 8420.434295
VZ -11894.207423

At MET 12/11:55:47 for example, position is lat 15.07N, Lon
62.06W, alt 185.4nm, inertial velocity 25245.6034 ft/sec, the
orbital range is 183.8361 to 193.8737 nm, period 91:23.435, beta
angle -34 degrees (the sun is off to the right of the orbital
plane by this angle),

The video that I saw over in the Public Affairs Office was tape
#612710. If you want to specify it to buy your own copies, give
the MET or GMT times, and order ten minutes before and after the
interval, so you can see the typical phenomena of stars leaving
trails, and auto iris control functioning, and at one point the
constellation Orion going by, and at the end a view around the
Orbiter's sunlit payload bay. All very ordinary, unspectacular,
normal space views, in my opinion.

I don't know where the impression came from that this was a
rebroadcast of daily highlights, since these programs are
invariably short (10-15 minutes), with short clips jumping from
scene to scene, usually involving views of astronauts. This
sequence, on the other hand, was continuous for at least 20
minutes from the same camera, and the geography and lighting are
consistent with the real time orbital motion. I looked at the
"Flight Day Highlights" summary for three days around this date
and that's what they consisted of, with no replay of any of
these "dancing dots" scenes (why should there have been?).

I don't expect that this will change many minds and I don't
intend to go on television to face some wild accusations that
I'm a paid liar for the grand conspiracy, and basically I don't
take anyone seriously who takes these stories seriously. Life's
too short for me to care what some people want to believe these
scenes show. I've already spent too much time, but I figured
somebody had to make a rational response, whether it was
understood and believed, or not.




I am pretty sure oberg is only addressing the later footage of the so called #ufo circle#.

Even so i think it a stretch to describe this as random debris, Critters - Amoeba Like Life Forms [ third picture down accredited to easynow ].

Starting in the right hand corner of the picture, theres 2 lights, one bigger and brighter, i think the smaller one of the 2 is a city or something lit on the planet, same as the other one the other side the same size and brightness.

Take those 2 away, and you have 7 that form a very near perfect horse-shoe around the 8th in the middle, which is absolutely dead centre of the HS, i mean dead-centre, how does debris come to a halt in that formation, how does it come to a halt in any formation, once in motion its stays in motion, free from external forces in space, that really is an impressive picture, random moving debris formation, i just cannot reconcile that.

And the light in the centre can be seen in the vid moving into position its very dim, almost translucent, and comes in from the top just to the side of the fifth light around from the right-hand corner, stopping and then lighting up, its undeniable it comes in quite quick and just stops dead once dead-centre, debris my arse.

 

[manxman]

Also come across this,


Watch this on youtube by using the link in the top of the embedded vid, as the vid sticks and then jumps forward onc embedded, and it spoils the vid.

heres a gif i found of it.

http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Shuttle/STS114/05C.gif


Someone tell me please how a piece of debris whose source is the shuttle itself, and is either loosened, or forced away from the shuttle, either way it is moving away from the shuttle, the speed and the direction it takes are affected by the pressure applied when being ejected or let loose, be it ice or debris, from the shuttle.
This object/light comes from behind and to the side of the camera, and is heading across and away from the camera, any thruster burn would be to the side and rear, once it passed by the camera, only direct pressure from the exact opposite direction could reverse its course, unless it was capable of doing it all by itself, there is no other force except an expanding gas field from a burn that could act on free floating debris, sublimation will also make ice move in orbit as it gases out on the sunlit side, thats why it spins.


This object/light, comes to a complete halt for 4 seconds, before reversing, 8 seconds of virtual stillness, before slowly going back the way it came, in what world of physics would an expanding gas cloud effect a piece of free floating debris like that, it would be an instant change in direction as the gases hit it.

There is zero flash from a thruster burn visible either, there should be if that was the reason, it could be the ONLY thing that could of effected free-floating shuttle debris, it would instantly deflect the debris which ever way it was expanding.

And its approach speed to full stop is neat.



.................

Sts 48 oberg again.

There would seem to be nothing that could cause a flash of light in space other than the
shuttle's own thrusters. Because a number of the objects in the video abruptly change
course within a second of the flash, the causal chain seems complete: a thruster fires,
causing a light flash and small objects very close to the space shuttle are pushed away by
the thruster exhaust gases.

Somebody tell me what i am seeing please.

 

[manxman]

By the way ramjet and ufology,i have taken the liberty of ruling out geese, seagulls, blimps, and my grand ma's cat, that should save carlitos several posts here..

 

[Randall]

I haven't seen any of the NASA videos that weren't adequately explained as ice crystals outside the spacecraft, space debris, other manmade objects, or as particles caught between the multipane windows that catch the light a certain way and/or any combination of these mixed with the way the camera was focused. We need something better than these videos.

 

[manxman]

I haven't seen any of the NASA videos that weren't adequately explained as ice crystals outside the spacecraft, space debris, other manmade objects, or as particles caught between the multipane windows that catch the light a certain way and/or any combination of these mixed with the way the camera was focused. We need something better than these videos.

Me also ufology, however i am not seeking input on any other shuttle footage, only the 2 missions above, how does your ice crystal/ debris scenario work with the sts 80 film, the footage was shot in 2 consecutive orbits 90 mins apart.

I do not for a minute think they are #manned space-ships#, i need a mundane explanation, as i havent seen anything satisfactory yet, i am not one for guessing what they are.

 

[Randall]

Me also ufology, however i am not seeking input on any other shuttle footage, only the 2 missions above, how does your ice crystal/ debris scenario work with the sts 80 film, the footage was shot in 2 consecutive orbits 90 mins apart.

I do not for a minute think they are #manned space-ships#, i need a mundane explanation, as i havent seen anything satisfactory yet, i am not one for guessing what they are.

manxman,

Well you might add this one to the list of explanations:

According to an article in the March 8, 1974 issue of Science (Volume 183, Number 4128, pages 957-959), the authors attributed the frequent light flashes which were reported by the astronauts as cosmic ray nuclei which passed through the retina after penetrating the head from various directions. Fast moving charged particles passing through the retina at right angles would produce starlike flashes of light (similar to that of a camera flash going off at a distance) while particles moving tangentally to the retina would explain the streaks of light which were also observed.

If NASA camera film or video tape responds in a similar way to these fast moving charged particles as the human retina does, then we may have identified the likely source for the mystery flashes of light in the 'The Smoking Gun' video.

http://ufoupdateslist.com/2000/may/m18-010.shtml

 

[ALPHA ROMEO UNIFORM]

Maybe it was the Tardis or the Robinson
Mind looking in the backyard is more important some suggest,
BBC News - Venus springs ozone layer surprise

 

[manxman]

Are you for real.

Sts 80 footage cosmic ray flashes in the retina and camera lense, ive read quite abit about the footage over the last 4 years, waded through 60 odd page threads of utter shite, on ats and the likes JUST for the links they provide, but i gotta tell you ufology that explanation for sts80 and sts114 is unconvincing, i am not interested other missions at all at this time, or their problems, i read quite some time ago about cosmic rays micro-meteros etc.

Dont take me as un-appreciative of your input though, i know its given with best intent, tell me why you think its debris, what characteristics make you think that.


Know this about shuttle debris, after 3 days on mission the shuttle has shaken free any debris brought with it externally.
Also note light debris will only fly with the shuttle for 10 minutes or so, before gravity starts sucking it back down in low earth orbit.
Thats why you see so much footage of debris in parabolic arcs, once you allow for camera alignment/angle, they always turn out to be gravity induced arcs, the effect of gravity is instant the second they become free-floating.
Tell me, do you see any parabolic arcing in all 3 events i posted.

What i am trying to locate now is the execute package for sts80, to see if there was activity that could have released internal debris, around the time the footage was taken, for elimination purposes, that still leaves ice, i will get around to ice in an orderly fashion later, i am also emailing Martin Stubbs i have several questions for him about both bits of sts80 footage.

 

[Randall]

Are you for real ...

Sts 80 footage cosmic ray flashes in the retina and camera lense, ive read quite abit about the footage over the last 4 years, waded through 60 odd page threads of utter shite, on ats and the likes JUST for the links they provide, but i gotta tell you ufology that explanation for sts80 and sts114 is unconvincing, i am not interested other missions at all at this time, or their problems, i read quite some time ago about cosmic rays micro-meteros etc.

Dont take me as un-appreciative of your input though, i know its given with best intent, tell me why you think its debris, what characteristics make you think that ...

Am I for Real? ... I ask myself that question fairly regularly and still don't have a definitive answer. The post I gave on high energy particles causing sensor streaks was something I thought you might find interesting. But is that the cause? I doubt it for the points of light that seem to be still. So what are they? I don't know. Are they even objects? I don't know that either. Some ufologists suggest they are alien craft revealing their presence. I doubt that too. Like I said before, we need something much more definitive in the way of video. For that matter, video doesn't prove anything anyway. It's just a technological device that displays images on a monitor. But I'll keep an eye open and if I run across anything I'll post it up.

​

 

[manxman]

Am I for Real? ... I ask myself that question fairly regularly and still don't have a definitive answer. The post I gave on high energy particles causing sensor streaks was something I thought you might find interesting. But is that the cause? I doubt it for the points of light that seem to be still. So what are they? I don't know. Are they even objects? I don't know that either. Some ufologists suggest they are alien craft revealing their presence. I doubt that too. Like I said before, we need something much more definitive in the way of video. For that matter, video doesn't prove anything anyway. It's just a technological device that displays images on a monitor. But I'll keep an eye open and if I run across anything I'll post it up.

View attachment 2502​

The points of light that do not move are stars, the tiny glistening specks are debri/ice, both easily distinguishable in both sts80 vids.

Can anyone reproduce the still frame picture easynow produced here in this thread for me please, 4th picture down on this page, Critters - Amoeba Like Life Forms entitled sts80 the formation.



This what happens when i try.
critter001.jpg


Here it is as a gif.

http://www.thelivingmoon.com/41pegasus/04images/Critter/STS80-1.gif


......

When you watch this copy of the footage, you will see that out of the 9 points of light visible, that make up the ring/horseshoe, in the still picture gif above, only 2 are still and do not move, but it is quite easy to see they are points of light on the continent below, watch on full screen, both light points 2 and 8 are visible from the start, and are clearly earth lights, the other 7 are all opaque at the time, and are all moving into the formation.

UFO Behind Shuttle STS-80 Video

Counting from the right-hand corner, they are light points 2 and 8, the formation, without those 2 points of light in it, is very impressive for 8 random pieces of debris to form and hold, even discounting the once in motion physics of the vacuum.




,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

See how the light/ufo in the sts 114 is brighter on its arrival than it is when fully departed, thats a wide sweeping parabolic arc flight path.
Where it appears a neat anchors down full stop, it is infact still travelling the same speed all the way through the sequence.
It appears stationary as it turns, a long sweeping turn, and then it speeds up again as it becomes more parallel with the camera, and it dims the further away it travels.

http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Shuttle/STS114/05C.gif

The gif speeds up the arc flight path, the speed of the light/ufo in the nasa footage makes the chance of it being a gravity driven arc a non starter imo.

Theres no sign of RCS activity, and that would show up clearly if there was a firing for sure on the darkside as they were.
I thought someone may have noticed when i posted before full stop and reversed etc about it, i asked you a post or 2 ago do you see any parabolic arcs in the footage, do us a favour and look again at 114 and see if you see it now, with the tell-tale dimming as its distance from the camera increases, you can notice it start when it #appears# stationary.
Watch the stars for how still the camera is until the light/ufo starts going out of frame, looks to me like it surprised a very bored mission controller, you will see what i mean if you watch the whole vid, would be extremely boring sitting watching that, the camera starts to move right at the end of the clip to get the anomaly off the live screen imo, i doubt many cable viewers noticed it live streamed.
The gif demonstrates his surprise and reaction best imo.


I am also getting a nagging in my brain of satellite in an elliptical orbit, for sts 114, but it appears the arc is in the wrong direction for that, had the arc followed the curvature of the planet, i would be personally done with this one, but it does not do that, it comes in from behind and to the side of the camera, and leaves on an angle to go back out into deeper space, the curvature of the earth is clear to see on full screen.


Could a small comet/meteor come in that deep and simply bounce of the upper atmosphere due to momentum, as small ones they often do clip the earth, but like a stone skimming over water, shallow approach.
To me its a certain parabolic flight path, and its speed is constant, only camera angle makes it appear to slow down and stop, the dimming caused by the increasing distance between camera and object/light, is the clincher for me.

Heres a better gif
http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/2916/53254229.swf