Sts-48

[AZDZ]

?????

WOAH. Stop right there and back that claim up, thanks AZDZ..

I should have said "NASA was accused of adding a delay." "My" evidence the accusation was true is my personal observations. Probably the same observations that led to the accusation in the first place.

Back then in the 90's, when NTV was available on my TV subscription service, and when a shuttle was on orbit, NTV was almost the only thing I watched. I had seen hundreds of examples of the camera going dark moments after some distant object floated into view but then something changed. The cut away's became less frequent and so did sightings of the floaters. Then the accusation, I believe it was by someone 'in the know' guesting on coast to coast was made. It made sense at the time.

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?

Watch the clip, the object doesn't come in from the side of the frame, it just appears mid frame on an upward trajectory then exits at the frame top. The theory of it coming up from Earth, crazy as that sounds, does fit the visual evidence no matter how you or anyone flails their arms against it.

AZDZ, you have a better mind than this.

You seem to have a grasp on the situation yet you choose to continue taking me to task on cut and dried issues. A child could see the odd way the upward object behaves, but being a skeptic you gotta give fight about it. Just say okay, it's weird but doesn't mean alienz. I would agree and we could move on.

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....

Newtons 1st Law. Unless you know something about the motion of objects in space being different from on Earth?

I don't believe the BOLA was with a spaceship.

Edited May 28, 2015 by AZDZ

[badeskov]

<snip>

I find it very illogical to assume that all aliens that come to vist us are just friendly and want nothing but peace.

Frankly, I find it very illogical that aliens are visiting at all...

Cheers,

Badeskov

[Shouldthisexist]

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.

Again let me re state I WAS NOT USING THE BATTLE OF L.A AS PROOF OF ALIENS. I was using that as a example of just because we want their to be aliens doesn't mean we are going to greet the first ones we see with open arms. I hope that clears that up.

[aquatus1]

You don't find that example to be a bit unbalanced?

"We fired on what could have been an alien in a wartime situation after having been attacked by the enemy and having detected an intruder that could not be identified as a friendly aircraft and we had spent hours on alert, so we would probably be just as unfriendly to the first aliens we see, regardless of the circumstances."

[S2F]

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.

As far as I am aware there should not have been that many searchlights trained in one area regardless if there was an actual object there or not. It diminishes battle effectiveness to only concentrate on one target at a time. If there were other craft they would have slipped by practically unchallenged. It isn't a 'regulation' per se but keeping searchlights free to illuminate multiple targets (again, whether there is more than one target known of or not) is a sound strategy for AA defense. The fact that there were so many lights trained on one area indicates 'green' soldiers with itchy trigger fingers rather than a UFO in my opinion. As to what object, if any, that precipitated the firing I'm not sure but there is sufficient evidence to suggest a weather balloon* could have been the culprit.

*Yes, people like to ridicule anyone who says anything about weather balloons when speaking of UFO's but they are nonetheless potential candidates for confusion or misidentification from time to time.

Edited May 29, 2015 by S2F

[Shouldthisexist]

You don't find that example to be a bit unbalanced?

"We fired on what could have been an alien in a wartime situation after having been attacked by the enemy and having detected an intruder that could not be identified as a friendly aircraft and we had spent hours on alert, so we would probably be just as unfriendly to the first aliens we see, regardless of the circumstances."

Yes it is I will admit, but in today's modern era if a UFO or unknown plane flies in our airspace if it doesn't respond or seems to pose a threat we generally shoot it down. This situation I would assume apply to aliens, in the battle of la Idk what we shot at but I do understand that tensions where high and we are in the middle of a war that I will not debate I completely agree with the afore mentioned statements.

This all being said I could have chose a better example. But my underlying meaning of that example still stands it was a rebutle that we want aliens to be real and find them so bad that we would never shoot at them and just welcome them with open arms.

[seeder]

Everyone has seen a Fox movie....ooh, look at those beams converging

Edited May 29, 2015 by seeder

[Merc14]

Yes it is I will admit, but in today's modern era if a UFO or unknown plane flies in our airspace if it doesn't respond or seems to pose a threat we generally shoot it down. This situation I would assume apply to aliens, in the battle of la Idk what we shot at but I do understand that tensions where high and we are in the middle of a war that I will not debate I completely agree with the afore mentioned statements.

This all being said I could have chose a better example. But my underlying meaning of that example still stands it was a rebutle that we want aliens to be real and find them so bad that we would never shoot at them and just welcome them with open arms.

Name one aircraft that has been shot down in American airspace over the last 100+ years of aviation history? A 61 year old man landed a gyrocopter on the capitol lawn a month or so ago and walked up to the secret service agents to say hello so no, we don't fire on unknowns in US airspace so you just made something up and reported it as fact without even the least bit of research. Plus, you still haven't answered how a laser powerful enough to be seen from orbit, firing on an object in orbit, could be hidden from the public. We're talking about the energy release of multiple nuclear weapons focused into a beam of directional and coherent light aimed at an object in orbit and no one knows about it? Get serious.

Edited May 29, 2015 by Merc14

[ChrLzs]

I should have said "NASA was accused of adding a delay." "My" evidence the accusation was true is my personal observations. Probably the same observations that led to the accusation in the first place.

And yet you can easily verify the location of the ISS (and shuttle back then), even by sight when it passes over your location... There is no delay. Which is why personal observations need to be taken with a grain (or dose) of salt..

Back then in the 90's, when NTV was available on my TV subscription service, and when a shuttle was on orbit, NTV was almost the only thing I watched. I had seen hundreds of examples of the camera going dark moments after some distant object floated into view but then something changed.

Hundreds...? Yet, even though these were freely available transmissions, only a very select few examples have made it to Youtube...? Can you post the very best example of these 'distant' objects floating into view, or again do we need to just take your word? Frankly I think you are exaggerating and also making claims about distance that you cannot support.

And apart from the supposed (and unsupportable) claim that they are distant, in what way does that make them any less likely to be debris particles that are occasionally affected by outgassing or thrusters?

The cut away's became less frequent and so did sightings of the floaters.

Better cameras, improvements to receiving stations, more interesting directions to point the cameras..

Then the accusation, I believe it was by someone 'in the know' guesting on coast to coast was made.

You need to think about where you hang out.. And if an accusation is made, you need to think about how you could verify or disprove it. One of the ways (in the case of the ISS - there are no shuttles around now..) would be to verify the location of the ISS (easy - indeed it made a pass near my house last night at 6pm and I watched it go over exactly as/when/where predicted - I'll film the next one..) And then you would need to observe the views of earth to see where the live feed places the station. Sure, that will take a bit more effort and you might have to wait for a good view, but that will nail it, given the very fast rate with which it changes position. There is no delay (beyond the second or so imposed by the technology) and the blackouts are at the appropriate times when the station is out of reach of a suitable ground station.

As an example, right now as I type this it is blacked out, as it is right over the middle of the Pacific. That won't apply by the time you read this.. but here's where you, dear reader, can see not only where it is, but also where it is looking down:

http://iss.astroviewer.net/

And there you go, as I typed that it just came back on line again, having got into range (of a South American receiving station, I'd guess) - here's the view:

Sadly it doesn't show the earth in that particular view, but it often does, so you could check it then.

The live, realtime feed is here:

http://spacestationl...a.gov/timeline/

It made sense at the time.

Lots of things may seem to make sense, especially when you have a desired outcome.... but that one wasn't backed up, and is demonstrably not true.

Watch the clip, the object doesn't come in from the side of the frame, it just appears mid frame on an upward trajectory then exits at the frame top.

You mean, like something that *because of it's position, either nearer or further than other particles, suddenly came out of a shadow*....? How did you tell if it was inline with the thruster?

You have NO information about the distance of the object compared to others, which means ALL of the points I made stand..

The theory of it coming up from Earth, crazy as that sounds, does fit the visual evidence no matter how you or anyone flails their arms against it.

What?? Coming up from Earth??? The earth that is (relatively) spinning at a huge rate beneath the shuttle (or station..)? AZDZ, the first thing you need to learn about orbital mechanics is that if anything 'came up from earth', it would almost certainly be heading in a different direction and if it encountered the shuttle/station it would be traveling at a rate of thousands of kph.. Anything drifting near the shuttle / station at that orbital level and trajectory *has come from the shuttle / station*.

You seem to have a grasp on the situation

Yes, although I'll happily admit my knowledge is nowhere near that of Jim Oberg..

yet you choose to continue taking me to task on cut and dried issues.

Cut and dried? AZDZ, this stuff you are posting is just plain wrong. It is misinformation. It should be challenged.

A child could see the odd way the upward object behaves

And a child would almost certainly have no idea how to formulate a description of what forces were acting on it, relative to the camera location. That's why it is best to listen to experts with a knowledge of the relevant sciences, namely physics and orbital mechanics - someone who knows what things might affect the relative trajectory (Hi, Jim!)..

but being a skeptic you gotta give fight about it. Just say okay, it's weird but doesn't mean alienz. I would agree and we could move on.

This isn't about being weird, this is about wrong information (the non-existent delay) and also unsupported claims. I for one won't let them stand unchallenged.

Here's an offer - specify which video and which particle (ie timing, and give location in the frame) that you claim is not explainable, and why. Then I'll happily explain what you have ignored/forgotten/not thought of.

Newtons 1st Law. Unless you know something about the motion of objects in space being different from on Earth?

Sigh. If you are claiming that law was breached, or that I somehow contradicted it, as I said, be specific and let's look at it in detail, shall we?

If not, stop complaining, admit you are in error and drop the smarm.

ADDED PS - I've just watched the ISS go over the Black Sea towards Armenia. As it did so, you could see the daylight terminator (ie the Sunlit versus shadowed area) passing under the Station, in exactly the right location. No delay. Verified.

Edited May 29, 2015 by ChrLzs

[Shouldthisexist]

Name one aircraft that has been shot down in American airspace over the last 100+ years of aviation history? A 61 year old man landed a gyrocopter on the capitol lawn a month or so ago and walked up to the secret service agents to say hello so no, we don't fire on unknowns in US airspace so you just made something up and reported it as fact without even the least bit of research. Plus, you still haven't answered how a laser powerful enough to be seen from orbit, firing on an object in orbit, could be hidden from the public. We're talking about the energy release of multiple nuclear weapons focused into a beam of directional and coherent light aimed at an object in orbit and no one knows about it? Get serious.

So are you stating that America is the only country that has the ability to shoot down a air craft or are you implying that aliens would only visit America? Plus please quote me on the post where I personally stated that oh wow I think a giant laser is real and blasting at everything in space or that we are hiding it from the public.

My main interest was focused on the object that seemed to react intelligently. I have no idea what actually caused the flash phenomenon on camera. I don't understand the rash almost insulting attitude over a statement I never made

[lost_shaman]

No such a thing as "itchy trigger fingers" folks. Thats just not how these AA guns worked at the time.

They were all being directed onto a target in one way or another, many being RADAR directed. It was a very complicated although fast process where searchlights and guns are all directed onto the same target at the same time by "Directors" which were sophisticated analog computers that used range, direction, azmuth, and speed data to compute a firing solution in real time for each shell being fired.

The Directors made real-time computations for direction and azmuth and range that were sent to dials on the searchlights and guns with required three man crews for each respectively were two crew members manned a seperate dial that they would turn in response to the Directors dial to keep an arrow between the two "zeroed out".

The Directors computed the data that went to the guns and searchlights based on a RADAR crew doing the same thing, one person "zeroed" the RADARs direction on the target while another "zeroed" the RADARs azmuth onto the target.

[Merc14]

So are you stating that America is the only country that has the ability to shoot down a air craft or are you implying that aliens would only visit America? Plus please quote me on the post where I personally stated that oh wow I think a giant laser is real and blasting at everything in space or that we are hiding it from the public.

You don't identify your country of origin and are discussing the US space shuttle so I am limiting myself to American airspace. If you want to list your country of origin I will gladly cite the shootdowns of civilian aircraft that have occurred within your countries' borders. There are several sites on the internet listing civilian aircraft shootdowns so really not that difficult to do, although it is evidently beyond your ability.

I find your post particularly disgusting given the recent terror campaign that has been unleashed on civilian air traffic but this seems par for the course with many, not all, UFOlogists.

My main interest was focused on the object that seemed to react intelligently. I have no idea what actually caused the flash phenomenon on camera. I don't understand the rash almost insulting attitude over a statement I never made

Define acted intelligently and I deleted much of what I said before because I don't want to get banned. Ukraine **EDIT**, think before you post.

No such a thing as "itchy trigger fingers" folks. Thats just not how these AA guns worked at the time.

They were all being directed onto a target in one way or another, many being RADAR directed. It was a very complicated although fast process where searchlights and guns are all directed onto the same target at the same time by "Directors" which were sophisticated analog computers that used range, direction, azmuth, and speed data to compute a firing solution in real time for each shell being fired.

The Directors made real-time computations for direction and azmuth and range that were sent to dials on the searchlights and guns with required three man crews for each respectively were two crew members manned a seperate dial that they would turn in response to the Directors dial to keep an arrow between the two "zeroed out".

The Directors computed the data that went to the guns and searchlights based on a RADAR crew doing the same thing, one person "zeroed" the RADARs direction on the target while another "zeroed" the RADARs azmuth onto the target.

Great description of what was going on in 1942 LA. There are several threads on UM that look at the different radar sets, their shortcomings and when they had "contact" and what they "saw". Anyone familiar with military operations understands the dynamics of the situation given the date and location of the event. It never happened again, which is telling. We called it colt fever and it is a primary reason the military tries to get young aircrews the chance to shoot an air to air missile in an exercise, at least once, in a controlled environment before the real shooting starts. I would assume it is the same across the entire military, at least in the US.

Edited May 29, 2015 by aquatus1

[S2F]

No such a thing as "itchy trigger fingers" folks. Thats just not how these AA guns worked at the time.

They were all being directed onto a target in one way or another, many being RADAR directed. It was a very complicated although fast process where searchlights and guns are all directed onto the same target at the same time by "Directors" which were sophisticated analog computers that used range, direction, azmuth, and speed data to compute a firing solution in real time for each shell being fired.

The Directors made real-time computations for direction and azmuth and range that were sent to dials on the searchlights and guns with required three man crews for each respectively were two crew members manned a seperate dial that they would turn in response to the Directors dial to keep an arrow between the two "zeroed out".

The Directors computed the data that went to the guns and searchlights based on a RADAR crew doing the same thing, one person "zeroed" the RADARs direction on the target while another "zeroed" the RADARs azmuth onto the target.

Well they were either firing at something that posed a legitimate threat (which there is zero evidence for) or there were "itchy trigger fingers" involved. How else do you fire on an unknown without any discernible results?

[lost_shaman]

Well they were either firing at something that posed a legitimate threat (which there is zero evidence for) or there were "itchy trigger fingers" involved. How else do you fire on an unknown without any discernible results?

UAP. That makes sense considering "itchy trigger fingers" makes no sense.

[S2F]

UAP. That makes sense considering "itchy trigger fingers" makes no sense.

Fair enough.

[qxcontinuum]

ice particles which can change their trajectory to 360 degrees and accelerate....

ice particle my ass !

[psyche101]

Good Question. What are the search lights focusing on?

Shellbursts.

Fireworks do not hit anything either. But they are very pretty to watch.

[ChrLzs]

ice particles which can change their trajectory to 360 degrees and accelerate....

ice particle my ass !

Which is where, apparently, you get your knowledge of basic physics.. Do you also deny that a billiard ball can be made to bounce off another ball, or a cushion, or indeed pretty much any object and go backwards, or indeed at any angle? I think we can see why you are not listed in the next snooker championships...

Oh, and next time you are facing into a strong wind, whch way will it blow you if strong enough? And how big do you reckon these ice flakes (which are well known to be emitted by these spacecraft in huge numbers) are, and how bright when illuminated by sunlight?

Edited May 29, 2015 by ChrLzs

[aquatus1]

ice particles which can change their trajectory to 360 degrees and accelerate....

ice particle my ass !

Wouldn't that just be a spin?

[psyche101]

ice particles which can change their trajectory to 360 degrees and accelerate....

ice particle my ass !

You sit in a thruster blast and then let us all know how stable you managed to remain.

[psyche101]

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.

Why wouldn't they ring first??

Edited May 29, 2015 by psyche101

[ChrLzs]

You sit in a thruster blast and then let us all know how stable you managed to remain.

Indeed.. and whatever you do:

- don't you dare accelerate as those particles keep on hitting you - prove Newton wrong!!!

- as Aquatus noticed (and I should have..) don't change your direction 360 degrees (ie spinning a complete revolution and then continuing in exactly the same direction) too often, as you will get very giddy. Then you may throw up even worse than you did in that posting..

[qxcontinuum]

so you are suggesting the space station was in matter of fact rotating which created the impression that the object did?

In that case the earth line seen at the horizon hasn't changed as it should have ...

[ChrLzs]

<<..sighs wearily and leaves thread..>>

[psyche101]

so you are suggesting the space station was in matter of fact rotating which created the impression that the object did?

In that case the earth line seen at the horizon hasn't changed as it should have ...

You do realise that STS stands for Space Transportation System?

It's a shuttle mission.