Shouldthisexist Posted May 28, 2015 #1 Share Posted May 28, 2015 Hi everyone! I have did a quick search and didn't see a actual thread related to the topic, but as always feel free to link or merge me. Ok so backdrop, sts-48 is referring to a video from nasa showing a object move into frame at a constant looking speed. At which point a flash is seen and the object does almost a complete 180 and speeds off. A beam or streak of light is then seen coming from the direction of earth. Has there been a conclusive debunk or is it still unexplained I have seen the ice crystal theory before but not really buying it. Sorry for not posting a video I am at work and will search for a Sutibale one when I have the chance. Thanks for reading hope to hear some new ideas and facts. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.United_Nations Posted May 28, 2015 #2 Share Posted May 28, 2015 Wasn't this underwater? i thought it was under the sea Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badeskov Posted May 28, 2015 #3 Share Posted May 28, 2015 (edited) Hi everyone! I have did a quick search and didn't see a actual thread related to the topic, but as always feel free to link or merge me. Ok so backdrop, sts-48 is referring to a video from nasa showing a object move into frame at a constant looking speed. At which point a flash is seen and the object does almost a complete 180 and speeds off. A beam or streak of light is then seen coming from the direction of earth. Has there been a conclusive debunk or is it still unexplained I have seen the ice crystal theory before but not really buying it. Sorry for not posting a video I am at work and will search for a Sutibale one when I have the chance. Thanks for reading hope to hear some new ideas and facts. This has been discussed in detail here at UM. It is filmed in space and the "objects" in question are ice particles surrounding the space shuttle. The one that "speeds off" is pushed by one of the shuttle RCS thrusters firing. Cheers, Badeskov Edited to add: you can also read James Oberg's take on it here. Edited May 28, 2015 by badeskov 9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeder Posted May 28, 2015 #4 Share Posted May 28, 2015 You mean this one. Yes its popped up here a few times. No reason to think someone is shooting ufo's from earth. Why on earth would we do that? NASA and everyone else dreams of finding life Video while in orbit on 15 September 1991 shows a flash of light and several objects that appear to be flying in an artificial or controlled fashion. NASA explained the objects as ice particles reacting to engine jets.[7][8][9] Philip C. Plait discussed the issue in his book Bad Astronomy, agreeing with NASA.[10] This topic was also discussed in an episode of UFO Hunters.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS-48#Ice_particles 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shouldthisexist Posted May 28, 2015 Author #5 Share Posted May 28, 2015 http://www.nicap.org/sts48.htm I hope this link works that I stumbled across. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shouldthisexist Posted May 28, 2015 Author #6 Share Posted May 28, 2015 You mean this one. Yes its popped up here a few times. No reason to think someone is shooting ufo's from earth. Why on earth would we do that? NASA and everyone else dreams of We'll some of us are very interested in finding alien life, but some people prefer to do it the old fashion way. Kill it poke it with a stick then examine it. I think as a species human have shown a love and talent for killing everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeder Posted May 28, 2015 #7 Share Posted May 28, 2015 We'll some of us are very interested in finding alien life, but some people prefer to do it the old fashion way. Kill it poke it with a stick then examine it. I think as a species human have shown a love and talent for killing everything. No I dont think we'd ever shoot at a real alien craft, we have no reason do we? More to gain from letting them visit, ha...not that we could stop them if they tried. Once you understand the feasibilty of star travel...you start to realise just how hard it is with the vast distances to cross... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeder Posted May 28, 2015 #8 Share Posted May 28, 2015 (edited) I think as a species human have shown a love and talent for killing everything. Thats a broad statement to make, do you love and have talent for killing anyone? I dont. Anyway, every species that lives today, and the countless millions that have gone extinct... has to eat, usually smaller prey. The natural world is all about survival, killing. Its not just a 'human thing' . Edited May 28, 2015 by seeder 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shouldthisexist Posted May 28, 2015 Author #9 Share Posted May 28, 2015 No I dont think we'd ever shoot at a real alien craft, we have no reason do we? More to gain from letting them visit, ha...not that we could stop them if they tried. Once you understand the feasibilty of star travel...you start to realise just how hard it is with the vast distances to cross... I understand star travel very well never fear! Also let's look at this not shooting aliens. I'll give one example the battle of L.A, we fired countless shots at something we weren't even sure of a UFO in the truest since at the time. Last time I checked getting shot at isn't a very friendly reception. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeder Posted May 28, 2015 #10 Share Posted May 28, 2015 I understand star travel very well never fear! Also let's look at this not shooting aliens. I'll give one example the battle of L.A, we fired countless shots at something we weren't even sure of a UFO in the truest since at the time. Last time I checked getting shot at isn't a very friendly reception. The Battle of LA occured during war time, different scenario entirley. There are a number of threads on that subject aleady 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shouldthisexist Posted May 28, 2015 Author #11 Share Posted May 28, 2015 Thats a broad statement to make, do you love and have talent for killing anyone? I dont. Anyway, every species that lives today, and the countless millions that have gone extinct... has to eat, usually smaller prey. The natural world is all about survival, killing. Its not just a 'human thing' . Ok let me apologize I was meaning to jest a bit not be serious about that, I should have been more clear and careful with my words. That being said you pose a good point that we kill smaller prey to survive that's the natural order. But how many other species kill other animals for sport, or pleasure. I said humans as a entire species since we have existed but let's keep this recent. Are you trying to tell me that we hunted black rhinos, sea minks, thylacines, cape lions, passenger pigeons because it was absolutely necessary to our survival? If so then we have completely different views on what surviving is. But as I said this was my fault and I do not wish to change this into a different discussion, thank you for pointing out my mistake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shouldthisexist Posted May 28, 2015 Author #12 Share Posted May 28, 2015 The Battle of LA occured during war time, different scenario entirley. There are a number of threads on that subject aleady How so we still decided to shoot at whatever it was we had no idea if it was hostile or friendly. How is this a different scenario I'm just using to to show that humans can be very catious and if it scares us or we feel threatened we naturally defend ourselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeder Posted May 28, 2015 #13 Share Posted May 28, 2015 How so we still decided to shoot at whatever it was we had no idea if it was hostile or friendly. How is this a different scenario I'm just using to to show that humans can be very catious and if it scares us or we feel threatened we naturally defend ourselves. I imagine the military at the time were sufficiently smart enough to know it wasnt one of theirs, they had been bombed recently by the Japanese in the surprise pearl harbour attack... makes for hasty trigger fingers 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leo Krupe Posted May 28, 2015 #14 Share Posted May 28, 2015 How so we still decided to shoot at whatever it was we had no idea if it was hostile or friendly. How is this a different scenario I'm just using to to show that humans can be very catious and if it scares us or we feel threatened we naturally defend ourselves. True, we were defending ourselves, but the question is, against what? The mindset at the time, which Seeder pointed out, was it was wartime, the US had recently been attacked by the Japanese, so the natural thought would gravitate toward another sneak attack (most likely the Japanese, but not necessarily). Certainly that before aliens from another planet. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shouldthisexist Posted May 28, 2015 Author #15 Share Posted May 28, 2015 (edited) I understand that completely, and I'm not trying to say that we just recklessy shot at something we thought was a UFO. Here let me try to explain my point, say you are the president or leader of the world. You see a confirmed UFO heading towards earth and you have a weapon against it. This UFO refuse to respond and shows no signs of stoping or turning away from earth, are you willing to risk the entire human race on the assumption it was friendly? Same with battle of la we were sure it wasn't one of ours and saw it as a threat so we tried to protect ourselves. I find it very illogical to assume that all aliens that come to vist us are just friendly and want nothing but peace. Edited May 28, 2015 by Shouldthisexist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shouldthisexist Posted May 28, 2015 Author #16 Share Posted May 28, 2015 True, we were defending ourselves, but the question is, against what? The mindset at the time, which Seeder pointed out, was it was wartime, the US had recently been attacked by the Japanese, so the natural thought would gravitate toward another sneak attack (most likely the Japanese, but not necessarily). Certainly that before aliens from another planet. Exactly my point we fired not cause was alien but because we perceived it as a threat. Why would we not see aliens as a threat if they refuse to respond/speak or show agression even if we tried to contact them. Honestly if we come in contact with aliens we have to realize they could be good or bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZDZ Posted May 28, 2015 #17 Share Posted May 28, 2015 I remember this, IIRC I may have been watching NASA TV live at the time it occurred. It's one of the videos which caused NASA to add a time delay to the NTV feed. I am not convinced in the reaction jet firing theory because it doesn't account for the third event, the object which appears from below moving up in a direction against the jet blast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeder Posted May 28, 2015 #18 Share Posted May 28, 2015 And this is where I bow out. The video shows nothing but what has been stated... no ufo's, no shooting missiles from earth... heard it so many times and its tedious. Plus the Battle of LA has resurfaced UFOlogy really is dead... just these old bones to rake over time and time again... 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merc14 Posted May 28, 2015 #19 Share Posted May 28, 2015 http://www.nicap.org/sts48.htm I hope this link works that I stumbled across. I found this to be a poorly presented paper as they are asserting that it couldn't be a thruster firing because the shuttle didn't move against the star background. BS, how about a station keeping puff that would move the ship an imperceptible amount, especially as measured against a star field and was just to maintain speed and station. As far as firing on a UFO from earth do you have any idea of the immense power that would be required to make a laser flash that brightly from the surface? The whole hypothesis is beyond absurd? I am amazed that any adults with the ability to draw a reasonable conclusion would settle on laser fire from earth's surface as an explanation. Lastly, to drop the battle of LA into the argument is just as seeder said, a death blow for Ufology. Anyone with a bit of sense would at minimum understand what was going on in 1942 and the very real fears at the time of a Japanese invasion of the West coast. Looking back we know that it wasn't possible for the Japanese to mount such an attack but in 1942 they were conquering empires in the Pacific and we couldn't seem to win a battle. This was a false alarm that caused trigger happy soldiers to fire at anything they thought was moving. The unretouched image shows that there was nothing in those beams of light. Yes, I actually keep a copy on my desktop to paste here because UFO believers so commonly go back to it. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.United_Nations Posted May 28, 2015 #20 Share Posted May 28, 2015 there was also Japanese sub attacks on the Californian coast which in the LA incident could be that it was an Japanese Invasion 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek Willis Posted May 28, 2015 #21 Share Posted May 28, 2015 Lastly, to drop the battle of LA into the argument is just as seeder said, a death blow for Ufology. Anyone with a bit of sense would at minimum understand what was going on in 1942 and the very real fears at the time of a Japanese invasion of the West coast. Looking back we know that it wasn't possible for the Japanese to mount such an attack but in 1942 they were conquering empires in the Pacific and we couldn't seem to win a battle. This was a false alarm that caused trigger happy soldiers to fire at anything they thought was moving. The unretouched image shows that there was nothing in those beams of light. Yes, I actually keep a copy on my desktop to paste here because UFO believers so commonly go back to it. I don't for a minute - make that a nanosecond - believe the Battle of LA had anything to do with UFOs. I was wondering, however, has there been any explanations for why the search lights are all pointing in the same direction if, as the un-retouched image shows - there is nothing actually there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrLzs Posted May 28, 2015 #22 Share Posted May 28, 2015 I remember this, IIRC I may have been watching NASA TV live at the time it occurred. It's one of the videos which caused NASA to add a time delay to the NTV feed. ????? WOAH. Stop right there and back that claim up, thanks AZDZ.. I am not convinced in the reaction jet firing theory because it doesn't account for the third event, the object which appears from below moving up in a direction against the jet blast. So, you have determined that the blast had not stopped?.. or the particle was not in front of or behind it?.. or didn't get deflected by something?.. or there wasn't another jet blast from a thruster oriented differently? How did you determine those things? I trust you are aware that there isn't a 'blast' as there would be on earth with all the air, but that the deflected ice/whatever objects have to be actually HIT by exhaust particles? AZDZ, you have a better mind than this. Use it. On a more general note, and forgive my sarcasm, who would have thought that in space (a vacuum), with a jet black sky yet sunlight shining brightly, orbiting at a huge speed relative to Earth below, in 'zero gravity' (actually, it's free-fall, not 0G), with various outgassings and debris from the ISS/Shuttle etc and with frequent thrusters being used at various angles to fine tune the location and orientation of the craft... that we would see particles moving strangely.... Think about all that folks, and then ask - is it the people who give the full explanations for this sort of occurrence (like Jim Oberg..) who are closeminded, or is it those who cannot comprehend all of the issues that are relevant in this extremely 'alien' environment? 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawken Posted May 28, 2015 #23 Share Posted May 28, 2015 I don't for a minute - make that a nanosecond - believe the Battle of LA had anything to do with UFOs. I was wondering, however, has there been any explanations for why the search lights are all pointing in the same direction if, as the un-retouched image shows - there is nothing actually there? Good Question. What are the search lights focusing on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeder Posted May 28, 2015 #24 Share Posted May 28, 2015 Good Question. What are the search lights focusing on? A point in the sky where they thought something was... most likely Thats why we have tracer bullets Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek Willis Posted May 28, 2015 #25 Share Posted May 28, 2015 A point in the sky where they thought something was... most likely Thats why we have tracer bullets I am no expert on these things, but wouldn't the sequence be that searchlights scan the sky and then when something is spotted, one or more lights focus on the object to illuminate it. The gunners then fire at that, and are able to know if they are firing on target through seeing their tracer bullets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts