125 replies to this topic

[Verloc]

Space debris or "junk", just don't shoot outwards from orbit around a planet.Around 47 sec you see 2 objects travelling outward, away from the planet.Impossible for space debris, it would have a predictable orbit around the planet.

[Hazzard]

Verloc, on 22 January 2013 - 11:42 AM, said:

Space debris or "junk", just don't shoot outwards from orbit around a planet.Around 47 sec you see 2 objects travelling outward, away from the planet.Impossible for space debris, it would have a predictable orbit around the planet.

_{A good place to start would be to find out the date and time of said event/video.  The information we have gathered so far isnt exactly doing wonders for the credibility (spelling errors and getting dates wrong) that should tell you something.}

[Verloc]

True Hazzard.

[Amerix]

Quote

Space junk doesn't orbit the planet?

Was just about to say that.  It's space debris following orbit.  Nothing too out of the ordinary.

[SwampgasBalloonBoy]

Amerix, on 22 January 2013 - 03:32 PM, said:

Was just about to say that.  It's space debris following orbit. Nothing too out of the ordinary.

No saying you're wrong, but people acting like they see this stuff everyday

[FenderJazzBass]

spikeman25, on 21 January 2013 - 02:26 AM, said:

. It doesn't take off at accelerated speeds like in this video or fly away from the planet like that . Lol ... Give me a freaking break  . Space debris does not haul ass or fly away from earth like that . Aliens could land in your back hard and you would still deny their existence .

Seriously. UFOs could blot out the sun with motherships over every major city on the planet, while 10 armed extraterrestrials slap everyone on the planet in the face ALL AT ONCE & half the people would still deny it. its hilarious.

[FenderJazzBass]

Hazzard, on 22 January 2013 - 09:43 AM, said:

And if I have a question about deliberate ignorance, I know whom to ask.

You rock. I'm baffled by so many smart people burying their heads in the sand. Its as if they are terrified of the truth so refuse to recognize it no matter what. I've taken to telling such people how much they suck rather than argue with them. some peoples heads are planted so far into the sand aliens could be dancing around on the hood of thier car and they'd still say "you can't prove it so i dont want to talk about it." Is it cowardice ?

[SwampgasBalloonBoy]

FenderJazzBass, on 23 January 2013 - 03:15 AM, said:

Seriously. UFOs could blot out the sun with motherships over every major city on the planet, while 10 armed extraterrestrials slap everyone on the planet in the face ALL AT ONCE & half the people would still deny it. its hilarious.

Have you look at the fossil diatom thread you started? there's still hope, it haven't proven the doc a quack

[Chrlzs]

SwampgasBalloonBoy, on 23 January 2013 - 01:40 AM, said:

No saying you're wrong, but people acting like they see this stuff everyday

There's a bit of a false dichotomy going here, though..  Being in orbit is NOT every day, and indeed many things that happen in that environment may appear counter intuitive to everyone's earthly experience.  F'rinstance, here's just a few things to think about:
- being in orbit *doesn't' mean that other things that pass you by at the same height are also necessarily in a similar orbit (or even in an orbit at all), nor do they have to be going in the same direction or at the same speed..
- orbiting craft are not stable frames of reference - they are travelling in a curved path
- orbiting craft are not stable frames of reference - they may be maneuvering up or down to a higher/lower orbit (and those maneuvers cause some really weird effects!)
- orbiting craft are not stable frames of reference - they may be maneuvering left/right or rotating (more really weird effects)
- orbiting craft use thrusters to maneuver, and those thrusters will affect the paths of nearby debris (the thruster exhaust may or may not be visible)
- orbiting craft eject material periodically, which will also affect debris paths
- there may be electrostatic fields around the craft, ditto
- there may even be (quite erratic and unpredictable) effects of atmospheric drag - the ISS is low enough that there are enough air molecules to cause issues

Some of those things may not have occurred to the readers here - because .. you don't see this sort of stuff everyday..   If you need elaboration, just ask and I'll try to expand on those brief snippets.

But the thing is - we have no way of checking most of these things as the footage allegedly captured has no provenance whatsoever - for all we know it may contain faked stuff (this sort of thing is relatively easy to fake nowadays).  So I'm afraid I'm not spending my time chasing it up further.

[SwampgasBalloonBoy]

Chrlzs, on 23 January 2013 - 03:26 AM, said:

There's a bit of a false dichotomy going here, though..  Being in orbit is NOT every day, and indeed many things that happen in that environment may appear counter intuitive to everyone's earthly experience.  F'rinstance, here's just a few things to think about:
- being in orbit *doesn't' mean that other things that pass you by at the same height are also necessarily in a similar orbit (or even in an orbit at all), nor do they have to be going in the same direction or at the same speed..
- orbiting craft are not stable frames of reference - they are travelling in a curved path
- orbiting craft are not stable frames of reference - they may be maneuvering up or down to a higher/lower orbit (and those maneuvers cause some really weird effects!)
- orbiting craft are not stable frames of reference - they may be maneuvering left/right or rotating (more really weird effects)
- orbiting craft use thrusters to maneuver, and those thrusters will affect the paths of nearby debris (the thruster exhaust may or may not be visible)
- orbiting craft eject material periodically, which will also affect debris paths
- there may be electrostatic fields around the craft, ditto
- there may even be (quite erratic and unpredictable) effects of atmospheric drag - the ISS is low enough that there are enough air molecules to cause issues

Some of those things may not have occurred to the readers here - because .. you don't see this sort of stuff everyday..   If you need elaboration, just ask and I'll try to expand on those brief snippets.

But the thing is - we have no way of checking most of these things as the footage allegedly captured has no provenance whatsoever - for all we know it may contain faked stuff (this sort of thing is relatively easy to fake nowadays).  So I'm afraid I'm not spending my time chasing it up further.

Even in term of space junks( let assumed it to be space junks for argument sake). This are not your traditional space junks! I'll take the word of Oberg for it. It's rare even for him. As for real or fake, aren't you the man for the job?

[Chrlzs]

SwampgasBalloonBoy, on 23 January 2013 - 03:39 AM, said:

Even in term of space junks( let assumed it to be space junks for argument sake). This are not your traditional space junks! I'll take the word of Oberg for it. It's rare even for him. As for real or fake, aren't you the man for the job?

If it was a still image, then yes, I'm the guy..
Videos, not so much* ... there's a chap I know who does image stabilisations and video analysis.. but he's picky and doesn't like wasting time on wild goose chases, eg videos that have no provenance (or access to the uncompressed original) like this one.  I will go and see whether he has already dealt with this, however, and report back.

I'll happily concede that one sequence in that video is 'unusual', but given all the other effects that might cause weird debris paths it is not beyond possibility that one or more of the things I listed above that may have been responsible.  If the video was properly documented I'd be prepared to take it further, but as it is.. I have much gardening to do that is more important..



* Although maybe this might spur me on to get into video analysis - it's probably going to become more important as time goes by, so I should stop procrastinating...

[FenderJazzBass]

bison, on 17 January 2013 - 05:39 PM, said:

The latter part of the video, wherein two objects move together, is the most interesting. They are seen to fly behind a solar panel, which clearly indicates that they are more distant than this structure. They exhibit rounded shapes of considerable size; not just points of light. Perhaps most interesting of all, they travel in a broad, sweeping arc. Hard to understand how how or why ice particles or debris from the space station would be constantly changing their direction like that, turning well over 90 degrees, and possibly more, once they are lost to view.

The last two objects are flying in formation. I could say that till i'm blue in the face however it takes experience to recognize the truth of it. Thats the problem with sightings and skeptics. If the skeptic has no experience or is ignorant, the expert can go on and on and on it wouldnt make a bit of difference. I'm starting to believe skeptics are just jealous spineless cowards who will refuse to believe anything unless they put it in their mouths and smash their head on it, even then they may not believe it because the truth is terrifying to them.

Having decades of experience means the ability to understand better. Lack of experience but knows how to type ? Loling thinking they know better. Its hilarious. Even NASA astronauts came out and said they saw many UFOs on Earth, in space and on the moon. The astronauts said extraterrestrials are visiting this planet. Still people dont believe it.

Its very frustrating for me (having seen a big triangle ufo up close) when running across an obviously smart person however hasnt seen it therefor will not believe it no matter what i say. I feel bad for that person and wish more than anything they (being smarter than me) had seen what i saw.

[psyche101]

FenderJazzBass, on 23 January 2013 - 06:44 AM, said:

The last two objects are flying in formation. I could say that till i'm blue in the face however it takes experience to recognize the truth of it. Thats the problem with sightings and skeptics. If the skeptic has no experience or is ignorant, the expert can go on and on and on it wouldnt make a bit of difference. I'm starting to believe skeptics are just jealous spineless cowards who will refuse to believe anything unless they put it in their mouths and smash their head on it, even then they may not believe it because the truth is terrifying to them.

So let me get this straight. You thank a smart person would take an anonymous forum poster at face value?


LOL @ Terrified. Believers who lose debates often say this, but it has me perplexed. Just what is there to be terrified of? The outlandish stories, if every even one, was proven true, would provide decades worth of head scratching, That is what gets a skeptic of - critical thought. You would be giving them what they want. Saying "sorry you were right" to an anonymous identity is quite a good trade of for decades worth of information to understand.

FenderJazzBass, on 23 January 2013 - 06:44 AM, said:

Having decades of experience means the ability to understand better. Lack of experience but knows how to type ? Loling thinking they know better. Its hilarious. Even NASA astronauts came out and said they saw many UFOs on Earth, in space and on the moon. The astronauts said extraterrestrials are visiting this planet. Still people dont believe it.

Skeptics see UFO's too. I have, so has Lost Shaman. We just do not believe what we have seen is a spacecraft, and physics do not back the type of space craft described in most recollections. And not one ever has been tracked going into, or leaving the solar system. Not one, Ever.

FenderJazzBass, on 23 January 2013 - 06:44 AM, said:

Its very frustrating for me (having seen a big triangle ufo up close) when running across an obviously smart person however hasnt seen it therefor will not believe it no matter what i say. I feel bad for that person and wish more than anything they (being smarter than me) had seen what i saw.

I too wish that more people had seen what you saw. From memory, you got pretty shirty with anyone who dared challenge anything but ET. Who is scared? I also wish you had seen the UFO's I have. You might understand a skeptic better.

Edited by psyche101, 23 January 2013 - 07:18 AM.

[Verloc]

@Psyche101:"Skeptics see UFO's too. I have, so has Lost Shaman. We just do not believe what we have seen is a spacecraft, and physics do not back the type of space craft described in most recollections. And not one ever has been tracked going into, or leaving the solar system. Not one, Ever."

You really think thats enough of a reason to deny the existence of aliens travelling in and out of the solar system? Because we've never seen them do it?
Physics is the way we interpret the rules and structure of this reality, it doesn't necessarily mean that we know all there is to know about it.So it's very possible that some some alien travellers have technology to bend, if not brake the rules of physics...anti-grav systems, inertial dampeners etc.

Pardon if I misunderstood your post, just thought I'd comment.

[Chrlzs]

FenderJazzBass, on 23 January 2013 - 06:44 AM, said:

The last two objects are flying in formation.

O rly?

Quote

I could say that till i'm blue in the face

Yes, you could.  Repeating something endlessly, without actually giving an explanation, is one way of impressing those lacking in knowledge, I guess..

Quote

however it takes experience to recognize the truth of it.

Actually, claimed experience isn't really worth anything on the Interwebz (often precisely the reverse), and sometimes 'experience' may simply give someone over-confidence, especially in trying to analyse an environment in which they are *not* experienced.  So, FJB, you have spent time in orbit?  Studied orbital mechanics in the sort of detail required to understand all the issues I raised above, and more?  If not, then your experience may not be what you wish it to be...  The thing is, if you have two or more objects of similar mass near each other, that were given an initial velocity by some event and that are then affected by one or more velocity changing forces..  what else will they do but 'fly in formation'?

The thing is, making a claim about expertise is worth a helluva lot less than just stating a logical step-by-step thought process, outlined sensibly..

Quote

Thats the problem with sightings and skeptics. If the skeptic has no experience or is ignorant, the expert can go on and on and on

Yes, they can, and the readers might be wise to just question their expertise.  Readers are welcome to question mine too - but then to consider what I present, here and elsewhere..

I'd suggest that in fact the biggest problem with sightings is the lack of provenance - just like in this 'case'.  Here we have no details of the footage, so it cannot be investigated usefully.  As far as I am concerned, any suggestion that this shows something of great interest is highly tempered by the fact that we can't even check if this is a simple example of After Effects at work..! let alone look at original full-res footage, let alone use date/time/mission information to eliminate a variety of potential causes.

And I might add here - that is EXACTLY what NASA does - it investigates incidents of concern in exactly that way - looking in detail at what maneuvers the craft was making, if there were any outgassings/exhaust plumes, etc.  If anyone is interested in a couple of examples - yes - REAL RESEARCH!, here's a suggestion for you - try the following two links, both authored by someone who posts here and I'm guessing is one of the experts that FJB seems to dislike so much - Jim Oberg.
http://www.jamesoberg.com/sts48.html (About the STS-48 'Zig-Zag' Video)
http://www.jamesober...ated-debris.PDF (3Mb PDF file - analysis of ISS/Shuttle debris dangers)

Have a look at those pages in detail - read them carefully, note the citations and information presented.  Then compare to what has been posted here about this unidentified, possibly unidentifiable, video footage and ask yourself who is the expert..

Quote

I'm starting to believe skeptics are just jealous spineless cowards who will refuse to believe anything unless they put it in their mouths and smash their head on it, even then they may not believe it because the truth is terrifying to them.

Oh.  OK.     I think I'll just avoid the ad hominems and let the readers decide whether that little rant helped your credibility at all...

Anyway, to those here that wish to discuss politely and amicably, any sign of that provenance yet?  I, and I suspect Jim Oberg and many others, will happily return to discuss and debate if that appears.  Even though we are absolutely terrified..