1528 replies to this topic

[badeskov]

Futhalero, on 30 August 2012 - 08:39 PM, said:

I believe the first video posted on this topic is two geostationary satelites.

First, the videos always show the suposed UFOs right before sunrise, wich is the perfect time to see artificial satelites, because from your point of view, the sun is still below the horizon, but to the satelite, the sun is already shining (and the light is being reflected to your eyes, thus making then apear as points of light).

Also, the video is speed up, so it's hard to determinate it's real distance or velocity. But, being so close to each other reminds me of ESA SYLDA's dual payload technique, used in Ariane 5 launch to put two satelites in geostationary orbit. Once the payload is in geostationary orbit, the satelites are released in oposite directions (never prograde or retrograde because that would change the orbit). This results in the satelites being apparently close to each other as you can see in this picture:

<snipped image>

Very good points, thanks for posting Futhalero.

Cheers,
Badeskov

[badeskov]

quillius, on 30 August 2012 - 03:44 PM, said:

Hello Badeskov,

I suppose one could argue that the fact that satellites/ice/debris etc are observed all the time then the chances that if it WAS one of the mentioned then it would have been identified by now

Therefore the chances are it isnt as suggested  

Hey quillius,

I don't see why that should be the case, to be honest. There are many thousand satellites in orbit and add to that all the debris, such as spent rocket stages and the like, which gives you a lot to actually see when the light and reflectivity is right. If something wasn't at a range where it posed a danger, why go through the trouble of trying to identify it unless it was truly spectacular? And this was in my opinion not at all spectacular.

Cheers,
Badeskov

[quillius]

Abramelin, on 30 August 2012 - 06:50 PM, said:

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Space_debris

badeskov, on 30 August 2012 - 08:49 PM, said:

Hey quillius,

I don't see why that should be the case, to be honest. There are many thousand satellites in orbit and add to that all the debris, such as spent rocket stages and the like, which gives you a lot to actually see when the light and reflectivity is right. If something wasn't at a range where it posed a danger, why go through the trouble of trying to identify it unless it was truly spectacular? And this was in my opinion not at all spectacular.

Cheers,
Badeskov

Are Satellites not tracked in space? I also thought the same for space junk/debris that were over a certain size? how can a it be a small bit of ice/debris OR a satellite? I struggle to see how we can put forward a suggestion that includes debris/ice and satellites in the same sentence when the size differences are quite different are they not?

Is it not similar to saying its either a tincan or a Lorry or maybe a raindrop that I can see??

[starchild1976]

You can learn a lot from an alien. Ask 'em yourselves. "Excuse me, green man from planet slime, are ya or aren't ya planning an invasion?I'd like to know when to take my vacation time."

[badeskov]

quillius, on 31 August 2012 - 09:02 AM, said:

Are Satellites not tracked in space? I also thought the same for space junk/debris that were over a certain size? how can a it be a small bit of ice/debris OR a satellite? I struggle to see how we can put forward a suggestion that includes debris/ice and satellites in the same sentence when the size differences are quite different are they not?

Is it not similar to saying its either a tincan or a Lorry or maybe a raindrop that I can see??

Hi quillius,

Satellites and debris is indeed tracked in space. However, there is a heck of a lot of it and we do not have a specific track. There are more than 8,000 large pieces flitting around in orbit and more than a million being tracked. With a general direction, non-specific, and no distance, the amount of possibles is enormous.

That said, I have downloaded the raw SacCat data and am working on converting it to the Celestia data format for illustration. Unfortunately this is after hours so it is a bit slow

Cheers,
Badeskov

[TheMacGuffin]

A lot of the best UFO videos I've seen--not this one, which doesn't look real to me--show objects that are self-propelled and self-luminous, moving at a much faster velocity relative to the space station or the shuttles.  Very often these fast objects are being filmed well below the shuttles or space station, but someones also moving by rapidly as they head out into space.

In my opinion, these are the "real" UFOs, although I have often wondered whether they are ours or "theirs"--or both.

Edited by TheMacGuffin, 02 September 2012 - 02:08 AM.

[DONTEATUS]

I answered the question ! now wheres my Tee-Shirt ?

[Alisdair.MacDonald]

DONTEATUS, on 02 September 2012 - 03:17 AM, said:

I answered the question ! now wheres my Tee-Shirt ?

Ask Imaginarynumber1 he is in charge of the Tee-Shirt dept.

[DONTEATUS]

Kool !  HEres some we do  in Big-D !
Be there Oct,20th  Forest Lane Reunion ! 1,200 plus rides to See and hear ! A Tradition from the 70`ss

Attached Files

•  217629_469005866450773_1629574874_n.jpg   50.95K   2 downloads

Edited by DONTEATUS, 02 September 2012 - 08:31 PM.

[JimOberg]

badeskov, on 30 August 2012 - 08:49 PM, said:

Hey quillius,

I don't see why that should be the case, to be honest. There are many thousand satellites in orbit and add to that all the debris, such as spent rocket stages and the like, which gives you a lot to actually see when the light and reflectivity is right. If something wasn't at a range where it posed a danger, why go through the trouble of trying to identify it unless it was truly spectacular? And this was in my opinion not at all spectacular.

Cheers,
Badeskov

My own thinking on this is that crews RARELY see other satellites or 'space debris', they are too far away and moving TOO fast across the sky. Exception -- Iridium flares and occasional 'close' [500-1000 km] passes of bright, large satellites or NOSS triplets. My analysis persuades me that essentially ALL the dots and 'stuff' in the shuttle video is shuttle-generated 'dandruff' of various kinds.

[zoser]

JimOberg, on 26 October 2012 - 05:54 PM, said:

My own thinking on this is that crews RARELY see other satellites or 'space debris', they are too far away and moving TOO fast across the sky. Exception -- Iridium flares and occasional 'close' [500-1000 km] passes of bright, large satellites or NOSS triplets. My analysis persuades me that essentially ALL the dots and 'stuff' in the shuttle video is shuttle-generated 'dandruff' of various kinds.

The astronauts testify to the contrary.  Jim you seriously need to do some research and listen to the people themselves and stop clinging to some classic party line.   Nobody really believes it anyway.



Lots of links to other testimonies.

http://www.youtube.c...c.1.XlO27zD5RXU

Edited by zoser, 26 October 2012 - 06:00 PM.

[JimOberg]

TheMacGuffin, on 02 September 2012 - 01:58 AM, said:

A lot of the best UFO videos I've seen--not this one, which doesn't look real to me--show objects that are self-propelled and self-luminous, moving at a much faster velocity relative to the space station or the shuttles.  Very often these fast objects are being filmed well below the shuttles or space station, but someones also moving by rapidly as they head out into space.

In my opinion, these are the "real" UFOs, although I have often wondered whether they are ours or "theirs"--or both.

"Self-luminous" is YOUR guess, and would require you to show tghey were NOT illuminated by the sun. That would require you to determine the lighting conditions of the time of the sighting, as well as where in the field of view the shuttle's own shadow is lying out, leaving nearby objects dark.

I don't think you've EVER done that for a single case [counter-example welcome] . You're just guessing, guided by the answer you WANT to get. Hopeless.

Ditto your assertion the dots are moving "at a much faster velocity relative to the space station or the shuttles" -- when all you can actually measure is the angular velocity, and for objects close to the camera -- a few meters or so -- even small absolute drift creates a high relative angle rate. Without knowing the actual range to an object you are not justified in claiming an absolute velocity for it -- but that hasn't stopped you, either.

Step back and consider: your 'assumptions' already contain the conclusions you THINK you are 'proving' with real evidence.

As we'd say in Mission Control, a classic 'self-eating watermelon' [Chuck Shaw's phrase].

[JimOberg]

zoser, on 26 October 2012 - 06:00 PM, said:

The astronauts testify to the contrary.  Jim you seriously need to do some research and listen to the people themselves and stop clinging to some classic party line.   Nobody really believes it anyway.

Aldrin is talking about seeing an object associated with his own vehicle's booster rocket. How does that break the pattern I'm suggesting?

Other youtube videos involve vehicles performing rendezvous with, or departing from, the shuttle or the station. I'd classify them as 'associated vehicles', but none appear to be random, independent satellites or debris.

[zoser]

JimOberg, on 26 October 2012 - 06:05 PM, said:

Aldrin is talking about seeing an object associated with his own vehicle's booster rocket. How does that break the pattern I'm suggesting?

Other youtube videos involve vehicles performing rendezvous with, or departing from, the shuttle or the station. I'd classify them as 'associated vehicles', but none appear to be random, independent satellites or debris.

JIm

Watch and listen to the material.  Otherwise you are just expounding your own wishful thinking and it's not valid.  They were there; you were not.

[JimOberg]

zoser, on 26 October 2012 - 06:00 PM, said:

The astronauts testify to the contrary.  Jim you seriously need to do some research and listen to the people themselves and stop clinging to some classic party line.   Nobody really believes it anyway.
...Lots of links to other testimonies.
http://www.youtube.c...c.1.XlO27zD5RXU  

Thanks for the chuckle. I'm the guy who actually HAS talked with the astronauts and flight controllers in Houston.

Your explain-away reality-avoidance semantic trick about me 'clinging to some classic party line" is also a joke since it's my original research -- not the mindless eyes-closed echo chamber of the UFO internet sites -- that's independent, original, and first-hand reality-based. And for the EVA myths, the most dangerous.

You're right to be afraid of it, and to try to discourage newbies to close their minds to it. Be very afraid.