Smoking Gun NASA STS-75 UFOs proven real: Forensic Analysis + Commentary

[maggador]

http://youtu.be/fC1kT5Laezw

NASA claims the thousands of UFOs in this smoking gun footage of the STS feeds during the tether experiment, are ICE or DEBRIS. WELL!!!! Now we add velocity tails to the UFOs and you can see in the video that the so called DEBRIS are not going in a straight line!

Nothing in space can curve and U-turn on its own.

Obviously, the most important thing we are interested in when examining the tether footage is the movement characteristics of the many objects that can be seen flying around in the cameras field-of-view (FOV). Due to the large number of objects swarming around, it can be difficult to properly visualize individual object velocity vectors or apparent delta-v changes by examining just the raw footage alone. The high 'clutter factor' helps to hide the fact that many of these objects are experiencing some truly remarkable deviations in flightpath trajectory.

So, how is this explained, since these movements can not be caused by debris / ice particles floating around on their own?

[chrlzs]

Couple of major issues..

1. How is a UFO (Unidentified Flying Object) proven 'real'?
Does that mean it is proven to be Unidentified (and 'Flying' and an Object)? I think that goes without saying, although flying perhaps isn't the best term for being in orbit...
Or does it mean that it is definitively and irrefutably proven to be ice/debris? I think you will find that even NASA does not have *absolute* proof of that - without sending the astronauts on a wild debris chase EVA for no good reason.
Or finally, are you now claiming you know, and have proof of, what it is? If so, do elaborate with reasons. Not by pointing at a video that I won't be watching..

And:
2. Have you done any research on this?
If so, how did you miss the threads here already on this topic, eg:
115163-The-Tether-Incident-(Space-Shuttle-Mission-STS-75)
and even this article by Jim Oberg, hosted on Rense of all places..
STS-75 Shuttle 'Tether' Video Analysis
.. and then how have you dismissed the *many* factors that can make an object 'curve' (or appear to) while being viewed from an orbiting craft?
Without going into great detail, there are things like outgassing, motion of the craft ('yaw/pitch/roll-ish' adjustments), orbital paths differing, even simple perspective distortion are all relevant, yet you didn't mention any of them.. Feel free to refer to ONE specific bit of footage that you believe CANNOT be explained by any of those factors, and show us - a screen grab showing the object highlighted, and then exact timing in the video would be good.

If you don't mind visiting a more 'out there' site, may I also suggest you pop over here, and take a look at the excellent work done by the exceptionally-talented 'depthoffield' (no, it's not me!) at Abovetopsecret.

Finally, I would generally recommend that serious researchers NOT use the words 'smoking gun' in their subject title...

[korjik]

Every planet stops, goes backwards in its orbit, then changes back to going in the normal direction. Does this mean they are UFOs?

Without the full three dimensional vectors of the moving objects it is impossible to see what is actually happening. These things are all in orbit. They are all on elliptical paths. An orbiting object looking at other orbiting objects can see apparent changes in direction simply from the changing point of view.

[captain swoop]

If they are close in to the ship the RCS Thrusters could be changing their direction.

Now. Mod Hat on.

Maggador If you are making some kind of claim then please state what it is, Linking to a video and saying something is real isn't the way to do it. Tell us what claims are being made in the video and tell us what you think they mean.

Please take some time to read the rules for posting in the Conspiracy Forum and the advice to posters. Both linked atthe bottom of this post.

[maggador]

I should have been more specific. The video proves real UFOs in the definition of the term, Unidentified Flying Objects. Simply saying it is floating debris / ice particles is too weak and not explainable in the way these objects move around. Saying they are in orbit is also weak, since several of these objects fly in "zick zack" patterns, some move up, then stops, and abruptly and violently shoots back almost directly where they came from, they move in completely different paths and directions, etc.

To my knowledge, this is not normal behavior by objects floating around in space. Only two things can explain such movement, one being the objects THEMSELVES propelling away with an own inner force, and the other being some external influence by other forces - the question will remain in both cases, WHAT is the force making them move and distort their flight paths in such ways?

[maggador]

PS: Also note that this video contains the FLIGHT PATHS illustrated and highlighted to make it easy to see exactly how they move and fly around, with tails added after the objects to make this clearly stand out and be visible for anyone. I did not find this in other videos when searching here, thus I started this thread since this puts a new perspective on it all, at least it did for me.

[Gillianren]

They appear to zigzag based on the perspective of the camera. To your knowledge, that is not normal behaviour. Your knowledge is wrong.

[Swift]

Maggador

I changed the video to a link. Though the forum software supports embedded videos, they are against our rules. The appropriate part of rule 8 is quoted below.

Additionally, don't embed a huge image (meaning an image that's over 100k or 800 pixels wide) or a video of any size inline using the [img] or [video] tags. We still have dialup users and others with limited bandwidth for whom downloading a large image would be a significant annoyance.

[Swift]

It would seem this video was made in direct sunlight. It also seems that the majority of these objects are moving in generally straight paths with only slight "wiggles" along those paths, with a few particles making more significant changes in direction.

How is that not explained by sublimation from the ice particles, causing material to be ejected from them, resulting in changes in direction? How do their movements compare to other examples of ice in space, such as ice on the outside of cryogenic tanks or from venting?

If they are not ice, what do you propose they are? And why would NASA make up a story that they were ice off of the tether?

And yes, those are direct questions, and I would like answers to them.

[maggador]

They appear to zigzag based on the perspective of the camera. To your knowledge, that is not normal behaviour. Your knowledge is wrong.

It is easy to say I'm wrong, without explaining WHY I'm wrong.

[maggador]

It would seem this video was made in direct sunlight. It also seems that the majority of these objects are moving in generally straight paths with only slight "wiggles" along those paths, with a few particles making more significant changes in direction.

Yes, most of them are moving fairly straight, some more curved, while the few that DOES change direction significantly does so to the extreme - they completely stop up on their path and reverses and starts on completely new paths. It is difficult to say anything about distance and size of these objects from such a video alone, but I think the way these objects moves are noteworthy if not more.

How is that not explained by sublimation from the ice particles, causing material to be ejected from them, resulting in changes in direction? How do their movements compare to other examples of ice in space, such as ice on the outside of cryogenic tanks or from venting?

Regarding sublimation, this could be a possibility but more evidence on ice particles moving in such ways due to sublimation would have to be provided as documentation to prove that, as I myself have not seen any such drastic movements caused by sublimation before. Also, would you explain how this would occur on only some of these objects and not more or all? And why would this occur in the first place on any of them, what would be the energy source causing such a severe form of sublimation on those objects while not affecting the rest of them? Can you provide examples of similar effects caused by sublimation as evidence making this a probable cause?

If they are not ice, what do you propose they are? And why would NASA make up a story that they were ice off of the tether?

I do not know what they are, which is why I wrote UFOs. There could be many reasons why NASA would make up the story (or believe what they said for that matter) and any theories on that would only be pure speculation.

[Swift]

It is easy to say I'm wrong, without explaining WHY I'm wrong.

First, let me be a moderator. By our rules, only the advocate of a conspiracy (you) is obliged to answer questions. You may ask questions, but no one is obliged to answer them or provide you with explanations.

Regarding sublimation, this could be a possibility but more evidence on ice particles moving in such ways due to sublimation would have to be provided as documentation to prove that, as I myself have not seen any such drastic movements caused by sublimation before. Also, would you explain how this would occur on only some of these objects and not more or all? And why would this occur in the first place on any of them, what would be the energy source causing such a severe form of sublimation on those objects while not affecting the rest of them? Can you provide examples of similar effects caused by sublimation as evidence making this a probable cause?

I'll address a couple of your questions.

What is the energy source? Note what I wrote about direct sunlight - that's the energy source. That's what works on comets.

Why some pieces and not others? Shape of the ice, how it was oriented (and thus heated) to the sun, differential density of the ice piece and other flaws, with result in the "venting" being directional.

Similar examples: watch pieces of dry ice (carbon dioxide) sublimate (I've actually done this). Some will sit there quietly, other will hiss or move around, and I've even seen them jump around.

I do not know what they are, which is why I wrote UFOs. There could be many reasons why NASA would make up the story (or believe what they said for that matter) and any theories on that would only be pure speculation.

Name one possible reason, even if only speculation. Frankly, I can't think of one. But, whatever reason you pick, explain why they would do so - what would be their advantage in substituting this story?

[Gillianren]

It is easy to say I'm wrong, without explaining WHY I'm wrong.

Start by researching "epicycles." That will teach you the importance perspective has on determining the movement of an object.

[Jason Thompson]

Yes, most of them are moving fairly straight, some more curved, while the few that DOES change direction significantly does so to the extreme - they completely stop up on their path and reverses and starts on completely new paths.

As would be expected were they caught up in a jet of exhaust from the RCS system.

Also, would you explain how this would occur on only some of these objects and not more or all?

Different composition. They may not all be ice, they may have sufficiently different mass that the effcts of sublimation are more pronounced on some than others, and so on.

And why would this occur in the first place on any of them, what would be the energy source causing such a severe form of sublimation on those objects while not affecting the rest of them?

Sunlight, the same thing that allows us to see them in the first place.

Can you provide examples of similar effects caused by sublimation as evidence making this a probable cause?

As has already been mentioned, dry ice sublimates and can indeed end up skipping all over the place as a result.

[NEOWatcher]

Regarding sublimation, this could be a possibility but more evidence on ice particles moving in such ways due to sublimation would have to be provided as documentation to prove that...

But the video specifically says they are not that. If they are not that, then prove to me why they can't be that.
Just because it is not proven to you that it could be that, doesn't mean you have a better explaination than that.

... as I myself have not seen any such drastic movements caused by sublimation before.

Ever seen dry ice bounce around in a liquid?

...would you explain how this would occur on only some of these objects and not more or all?

Different densities, crystallain structures, sunlight hitting the facets at different angles, imperfections, impurities, probably a lot more.

...Can you provide examples of similar effects caused by sublimation as evidence making this a probable cause?

Can you provide an even more probable cause?

...There could be many reasons why NASA would make up the story (or believe what they said for that matter) and any theories on that would only be pure speculation.

Even if we go with "UFO" as in "I don't know what it is", then what are these reasons for NASA making up a story?

[JayUtah]

Simply saying it is floating debris / ice particles is too weak and not explainable in the way these objects move around.
...
To my knowledge, this is not normal behavior by objects floating around in space.

Is your knowledge on that subject complete?

[JayUtah]

...they completely stop up on their path and reverses and starts on completely new paths.

And why is this unusual in the case of one moving object observed from another moving object along dissimilar paths? Most armchair faux-tographic analysts fail to consider that the path in image space is not necessarily the path in affine space.

It is difficult to say anything about distance and size of these objects from such a video alone, but I think the way these objects moves are noteworthy if not more.

Carefully chosen words. What do you mean by "noteworthy?" What do you think should be done about this video?

Regarding sublimation, this could be a possibility but more evidence on ice particles moving in such ways due to sublimation would have to be provided as documentation to prove that, as I myself have not seen any such drastic movements caused by sublimation before.

I have yet to see sublimation that did not result in chaotic impulses. Your video says it cannot be sublimation. Please tell us what means were used to test and dismiss that possibility.

Also, would you explain how this would occur on only some of these objects and not more or all?

Because sublimation is not guaranteed to occur for all visible objects. What is your basis for asserting an expectation of commonality?

And why would this occur in the first place on any of them, what would be the energy source causing such a severe form of sublimation...

The Sun.

...on those objects while not affecting the rest of them?

You're assuming that because some of them may be sublimable substances, they all must be.

Can you provide examples of similar effects caused by sublimation as evidence making this a probable cause?

Sublimated outgassing in comets.

I do not know what they are, which is why I wrote UFOs.

Every claim of the paranormal begins by attempting to falsify all possible normal causes, as you are doing here, in an attempt to argue that the ultimate cause must therefore be unnatural. Can you confirm that you are not intending to propose some paranormal cause, however indefinite?

There could be many reasons why NASA would make up the story (or believe what they said for that matter) and any theories on that would only be pure speculation.

Isn't that a just a different way of saying you can't think of any provable reason why NASA would be less than honest about this video?

[eburacum45]

One thing that people who watch these short movies tend to forget is that they are filmed by cameras located on the outer surface of spacecraft which are themselves moving in a complex fashion. During the filming of such a segment the Shuttle can pitch, roll, and yaw, and the camera would move in a complex fashion with respect to the centre of gravity of the craft. This affects the apparent trajectory of any, and all, of the ice crystals moving past the window; in short the ice crystals are moving and so is the camera.

Particles which are more distant from the window will appear to move in straighter lines than particles which are nearby, due to parallax.

To fully model the trajectory of the camera and each of the ice crystals would be a considerable task; I don't see that this has been acheived yet, but it seems very likely that if it were the ice crystal hypothesis would be vindicated.

[Jens]

I watched the video and quite frankly, I can't imagine how one might conclude that the objects are anything other than small particles near the camera. It clearly seems to be hundreds of tiny particles floating around.

[publiusr]

RCS systems have more reach than you might expect. Folks try to keep spacecraft widely separated before making any kind of burn if it can be helped. I don't know how long a smoke ring vortex out of a nozzle would last in a vacuum if at all, but add to ice particles the camera angle, and you get all sorts of unusual activity. I even seem to remember a piece in an old addition of the Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets where the spent service module of an Apollo capsule somehow managed to get ahead of it, spooking the astronauts.

[DALeffler]

Even if the objects are under control from whatever source is presumed, why would they move the way they're moving?

If that seems a stretch into speculation, well...

The motion doesn't make sense even if the objects are alien space craft.