UFO Delays Shuttle Landing!

[Jocko]

Insert roll eyes icon here...

Sure. Next, we'll learn how to use the "quote" function.

Jocko,

-The object is said by NASA to hoover, between the shuttle and Earth.

Space is a vacuum, yes, but nothing "Hoovers" in space. Assuming you meant "hover," I think it's incumbent upon you to back up that it was immobile relative to the Shuttle. My understanding is that it wasn't.

I await more reliable evidence than your personal recollection of grainy video.

-The camera that caught the image HAD to move consstantly to keep the object within the viewfinder.

So which is it, hovering or moving? Can't do both. Besides, did it occur to you that this took place while the Shuttle was undocking and making early maneuvers in preparation for landing, i.e., in motion?

Motion. Is. Relative. Again, I urge you to read up before delving deeper into your latest flight of UFO fancy.

-The 3 objects from the second day, weren't moving to or 'away' from the shuttle at any consistant velocity.

Evidence? I heard something quite contrary. Back up this assertion or we have nothing to talk about, since I don't see any benefit to debunking your imagination - which this most assuredly is.

You personal attacks on my character, or ability to ascertain mood or tone are uncalled for.

Your criticisms of the astronaut's professonalism is fully out of line, and all I said was that you choked on Howard Stern (true) and favor UFO conspiracy theories (also true). Sorry if you see that as an attack, but both issues are quite germane to the subject at hand.

'I' DID hear the astronaut report the 'bump'. As well, I have heard via the history channel, Jim Lovell's report to Houston. Those two reports from space carried as different a tone as any I have heard. One was said with a sense of urgency, and the other was said in a light-hearted manner suggestive that a punchline would follow, or that someone listening would think he was actually joking...thus the quote, "This is not a joke, but..."

Why don't YOU do some research on this topic, and THEN offer a rebuttle?

Why don't you learn to spell "rebuttal," and then explain how you know what ground control operators were actually thinking at that famous moment? "I saw it on TV" really doesn't have the compelling weight of authority I was hoping for, and your "impressions" of things have been... shall we say, a bit unreliable?

If you have no evidence, you have no argument. Sorry, but that's the truth, pal. You're all assertion and no proof, as usual.

Currently, you have nothing creative or constructive to offer this discussion.

Did Jim Lovell's ground controllers give you that bit of insight?

 

[Jocko]

Not that you've lifted a finger to deserve it, but once again I've done your homework for you.

Mission Control spotted the baffling object -- the size of which was not immediately determined -- with a video camera in the shuttle's cargo bay. The object may have come out of the cargo bay early Tuesday, but officials were not certain.

The object floated near the shuttle in the same orbit for a while, slipping farther and farther away until it was just a dark speck in NASA video beamed down to Earth.

Wow, floated nearby for a while.
Slipped farther and farther away.
Until it was gone.
According to Newton's 1st law.
Wow.

Not as thrilling as a close enounter, but it has the advantage of not making one look like a gullible mark for believing it.

Oh, that "bump" you're so excited about? It's the firing of the jets - as the Shuttle moved away from the station.

Sensors on the shuttle's right wing detected some kind of impact about the same time the object was first spotted. But NASA officials said the fact that many of the sensors in that section were triggered -- rather than just one or two -- suggests they were set off by vibrations from the jet firings.

Anything else, or are we done here?

 

[King of the Americas]

Jocko,

"NASA" reported that the object hovered in the same orbit as the shuttle, whereas in the video I saw, it was 'moving and changing direction'.

The shuttle actually postponed all pre-entry procedures because of the 'bump' or encounter with the something.

---

I HAVE provided links to this story, obviously none of which you have reviewed, and are instead content to attack me personally.

Tell me, do you purpose to use this forum to attack me, or to gather and exchange information on current events, so that you might arrive at a better understanding of the world in which you exist???

You have neither reviewed the material presented here, nor have you provided any links to information about this topic youself.

Instead, I see, over and over again, aspersions as to my ability to collect and present reliable information. You've even lowered yourself to attacking my spelling and or typing errors...again.

I entreat you, please do some research to refute that which I have presented here, or SHUT UP!

 

[King of the Americas]

Questions:

Are shuttle sensors calibrated to account for these 'normal' viberations?

Did the crew report 'normal' shutters/viberations, or did they report a 'bump'?

At what rate did this object move away from the shuttle, and what 'action' caused the movement?

---

Above you wrote, that it floated nearby for a while, THEN moved farther and farther away.

So it was in a stable place...THEN it moved further away???

Do video images also suggest this, or is the object moving with a singular constant velocity away from the shuttle?

Answer those questions, and then move on to the next day's happenings.

---

Two ring-like objects and a plactic bag...?

http://www.space.com/php/multimedia...tp://www.collectspace.com/">collectSpace.com+

Were these objects in a stable position, relative to the shuttle, or where they moving?

 

[Jocko]

Jocko,

"NASA" reported that the object hovered in the same orbit as the shuttle, whereas in the video I saw, it was 'moving and changing direction'.

You saw nothing. You imagine plenty. Or rather, the media and NASA don't imagine things the way you do.

The shuttle actually postponed all pre-entry procedures because of the 'bump' or encounter with the something.

Did you read the quote above about your "bump"? About how it wasn't a bump at all? About how it was considered, most reasonably, an effect of the thrusters as it undocked - which even you must admit, comes before the landing preparations?

Your inability to process simple information is the reason why I wouldn't trust your opinion on the color of the sky without three other sources.

I HAVE provided links to this story, obviously none of which you have reviewed, and are instead content to attack me personally.

Again, you have a history of losing composure over the air and you criticisms are therefore beneath consideration. And you are an avowed proponent of alien visitation theories - if you prefer that to UFO conspiracy kook. What is inaccurate or irrelevant in those two fact that make them "attacks"?

As to your citations, let me do something you were unwilling to do: actually cite a quote or two. From Brietbart:

"It's not uncommon to see little bits of pieces of things floating by," said flight director Paul Dye.

The first object sighted Tuesday morning appeared to drift away when landing systems were put through a normal but bumpy trial run.

"So far we do not know the identity of the two things that floated away yesterday," Houston spacecraft communicator Hans Schlegel told Atlantis Tuesday night.

Nothing about unusual movement, collision or anything else you CLAIM it supports. In fact, it contradicts pretty much everything you've offered on the subject.

Let's see if your "argument" fares any better on Yahoo:

Tuesday night, shuttle program manager Wayne Hale said mission controllers don't have a lot of conclusions about an object spotted below Atlantis early Tuesday.

Also Tuesday night, a reading from a sensor in the orbiter's right wing indicated a possible strike was probably a normal reading linked to the checkout, the report said.

Whoops, nothing about unnatural movement or confimed collisions there, either.

So tell me, if you can, where the assertion of unusual activity comes from? You won't tell me, because you know it's laughable. It comes from your imagination, nowhere else, and certainly not in your sources.

Tell me, do you purpose to use this forum to attack me, or to gather and exchange information on current events, so that you might arrive at a better understanding of the world in which you exist???

You do no live in the world in which I exist. You live in a dreamworld of dark conspiracies and fantasy. And you are willfully blind to the way these illusions evaporate when exposed to sunlight.

You have neither reviewed the material presented here, nor have you provided any links to information about this topic youself.

Look again, champ, you're wrong on both counts. I now wonder if you read your own sources, and how you reached your rather farfetched conclusions.

Instead, I see, over and over again, aspersions as to my ability to collect and present reliable information. You've even lowered yourself to attacking my spelling and or typing errors...again.

Your spelling's sloppiness is indicative of your reason's sloppiness, as I've just demonstrated.

I entreat you, please do some research to refute that which I have presented here, or SHUT UP!

I entreat you to educate yourself on the matter before lecturing your betters.

 

[Jocko]

http://www.space.com/php/multimedia...tp://www.collectspace.com/">collectSpace.com+

Were these objects in a stable position, relative to the shuttle, or where they moving?

According to you, they moved unnaturally. I'm still waiting for as much as a whiff of evidence to back it up.

Rephrasing your hypothesis as a question doesn't absolve you of the responsibility to back up your assertions. So how about it?

 

[Jocko]

Lest we forget what the theory on the table actually is, before it goes from statement to question to denial.

After seeing the video, I want to know how it is able to change direction...

Rather than taking a moment to consider IF it changed direction, you jump to conclusions and want to know HOW.

Still waiting for evidence.

 

[bjb]

The main question in this thread seems to be how objects can 'move away' from the space shuttle. It turns out the objects don't move away, it is the space shuttle that is moving away from the objects.

During these manuvers, the shuttle was firing its RCS (reaction control subsystem) thrusters to move away from the space station. The thrusters are also used to rotate the vehicle until its desired orientation is achieved. Should an object come loose from the shuttle, it will maintain its motion according to Newton's first law of motion. Now when the shuttle fires its thrusters, the shuttle will change its motion, but not the object in question. It will appear to move away from the shuttle, but it is the shuttle that has changed its velocity/orientation and is moving away from the object. Since the camera is fixed to the payload bay, the object will appear to move while the shuttle stays fixed.

The object will also appear to move when the payload bay camera moves or shakes. This type of motion can be detected by watching the background (the earth) as the orbiter passes by clouds, the ocean, etc. I've watched the video several times and I notieced that most of the time, the earth is passing by in a nice, smooth manner, but every so often, a feature on the earth will jump a small amount. Near the end of the video, the features shake back and forth a few times. Clearly, this is evidince that the camera itself is moving. The same shifting of the background will occur if the shuttle fires its RCS thrusters.

I'm curious to know if anyone else has noticed that the earth itself is also 'moving unnaturally' in the video. Am I the only one with good eyes here?

 

[Jocko]

You are obviously not interested in learning The Truth™.

 

[King of the Americas]

http://spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/sts115/status.html

---

You may have trouble accessing the actual video and audio here, but the summery suggests you are wrong.

"Mission control's Terry Virts informs Atlantis commander Brent Jett that some landing preparations will be postponed while flight controllers investigate a mystery object sighted in television views, floating alongside the shuttle."

&

Cameras in the payload bay sight a mystery object flying alongside the space shuttle Atlantis. This video prompted ground controllers to delay some landing preparations.

---

The key terms here are "flying alongside"

NOT

"flying away from"

Also curious is the use of the term "flying" rather than 'floating'...

---

 

[Jocko]

http://spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/sts115/status.html

---

You may have trouble accessing the actual video and audio here, but the summery suggests you are wrong.

"Mission control's Terry Virts informs Atlantis commander Brent Jett that some landing preparations will be postponed while flight controllers investigate a mystery object sighted in television views, floating alongside the shuttle."

&

Cameras in the payload bay sight a mystery object flying alongside the space shuttle Atlantis. This video prompted ground controllers to delay some landing preparations.

---

The key terms here are "flying alongside"

NOT

"flying away from"

Also curious is the use of the term "flying" rather than 'floating'...

---

If something is moving very slowly, it can be floating/flying alongside and STILL be moving away. Especially when - as your own sources loudly declare - that it's difficult to impossible to judge how far away it is already. It's a perfectly simple explanation that you refuse to accept because it's not mysterious enough!

This is not proof. This is more contorted connect-the-dots, woo style. The source says nothing to back you up, so you try to fill in the blanks with wild supposition and fall back on meaningless semantics, thinking that will salvage your position. It won't.

If there was anything unusual about the motion, the three-PhD astronauts on the scene would have noticed it a lot quicker than you did on TV, wouldn't they? Then you'd be happy as a clam, criticizing the lack of panic in their voices as they reported it.

 

[King of the Americas]

Conclusion???

It is an unsolved MYSTERY:

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/060919_sts115_landingdelay.html

---

Review this thread, and you'll see that 'I' have drawn NO conclusions as to what these things are or were.

I have asked probing questions, based upon what I have seen and read.

Most of which have not and probably can not be asnwered with the information we currently have available to us.

What we HAVE is a "U.F.O" that altered procudures on a shuttle.

Moreover, whether that Unidentified Flying/Falling/Floating Object 'bumped' into the shuttle is also NOT 'known'.

The initial report by crew members started with "We are not joking, but..."

 

[Psi Baba]

The nasa.gov site has NOTHING on this subject, for review.

No pictures or mention of any kind.

NASA Orbital Debris Program Office.

The NASA Orbital Debris Program Office welcomes your comments, opinions and correspondence. We are located at the Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas. Please feel free to call upon us at any time.

For questions or comments pertaining to the NASA Orbital Debris Program Office please contact:
Nicholas L. Johnson
Chief Scientist
* Email: nicholas.l.johnson@nasa.gov
* Fax: 281-483-5276

Eugene G. Stansbery
Program Manager (Acting)
* Email: eugene.g.stansbery@nasa.gov
* Fax: 281-483-5276

There are over 110,000 thousands pieces of space junk, (totalling 4 million pounds) 1 centimeter or larger orbiting the Earth. Nearly 9,000 pieces are tracked. Some of them are moving at 17,500 mph. Source: http://www.space.com/spacewatch/space_junk.html

 

[Jocko]

Review this thread, and you'll see that 'I' have drawn NO conclusions as to what these things are or were.

Yes you have. I've quoted them above, such as skipping "is it changing speed" and leaping to the CONCLUSION that it is, and merely wondering "how it is changing speed."

I have asked probing questions, based upon what I have seen and read.

And had each one answered, only to ignore each and every explanation.

Most of which have not and probably can not be asnwered with the information we currently have available to us.

Huh? You don't lilke the answers, so you pretend they don't exist? Is that how you call yourself a skeptic?

What bumped the Shuttle? Nothing, it was a faulty reading cause by the thrusters.
What was the debris? Apparently rings, a bag and a piece of tile filler. A firmer answer can probably be had once a post-flight inspection is done.
Why was it moving strangely? It wasn't.
How did it drift away? Newton's first law of motion.

Sorry, no mysteries here. An inventory of the Shuttle will reveal whatever fell out, but whatever it was, it was not behaving strangely in orbit.

What we HAVE is a "U.F.O" that altered procudures on a shuttle.

Sure, if UFO stands for Unhinged Freak's Obsession. Otherwise, it's what we call one of a billion shards of space junk.

Moreover, whether that Unidentified Flying/Falling/Floating Object 'bumped' into the shuttle is also NOT 'known'.

Oh yes it is. You just can't settle for the mundane truth. Look at your own sources, fer Chrissakes.

The initial report by crew members started with "We are not joking, but..."

So? First you're upset by the tone, then by the content, now... er, what, exactly?

 

[King of the Americas]

Jocko wrote:

What bumped the Shuttle? Nothing, it was a faulty reading cause by the thrusters.

*NASA has NOT reached that conclusion.

What was the debris? Apparently rings, a bag and a piece of tile filler. A firmer answer can probably be had once a post-flight inspection is done.

*NASA has NOT reached that 'conclusion'. The second day's object "looked" like two ring and a piece of foil or metal faberic. The image linked above 'could' be a plastic bag, but AGAIN, NASA has NOT conclusively said what ANY of these objects were. Their finding is that the first day's object 'might' be a tile spacing "shim", not a "filler".

Why was it moving strangely? It wasn't.

*That is YOUR conclusion. Others disagree.

How did it drift away? Newton's first law of motion.

*I have already provided links that showed it didn't "just drift away".

---

You accuse me of 'jumping to absurd conclusions', but you are the one saying you know 'exactly' what these things were and whether or not one of them bumped into the shuttle. NASA doesn't know what these things were, or are, what makes your opinions or conclusions more valid than their's?

I don't know you from Adam. I only know that you have been launching personal attacks at me since I can remember, and have taken contrary views from my own, seemingly just for the sake of doing so. Your opinions and 'conclusive findings' on this, matter less to me than a pile of s*** in a cow pasture.

---

You are wrong, about my stance on this issue.

Upon this subject 'I' have reached no conclusions. I have stated what I saw and heard, and asking questions in an attempt to gain more insight and understanding. I NEVER said anything about it "changing speed", but rather that I witnessed it change "direction", as did at least 2 other posters within this thread.

It is my opinion that you are the obsessed crack-pot. Rather than being obsessed with finding an explaination for the as of yet unexplained, you seem to be obsessed with 'me'...

You are a sad, short sighted, little man, and I pity you.

 

[webfusion]

OV-104 did not encounter a "UFO" of alien origin.

The debris that was in proximity to Atlantis was tentatively identified by both earth-based flight specialists and the in-flight crew itself.

See: Post #33 of this thread.
It really says it all.

Next case.

 

[Jocko]

Let me parse the chaff for the few cogent nuggets:

Jocko wrote:

What bumped the Shuttle? Nothing, it was a faulty reading cause by the thrusters.

*NASA has NOT reached that conclusion.

They have declared, in your sources and mine, that there is evidence that it was the thrusters (i.e., the readings were reported over the entire wing, not in a single spot). There is NO evidence to the contrary, apart from your fantasizing.

What was the debris? Apparently rings, a bag and a piece of tile filler. A firmer answer can probably be had once a post-flight inspection is done.

*NASA has NOT reached that 'conclusion'. The second day's object "looked" like two ring and a piece of foil or metal faberic. The image linked above 'could' be a plastic bag, but AGAIN, NASA has NOT conclusively said what ANY of these objects were. Their finding is that the first day's object 'might' be a tile spacing "shim", not a "filler".

Whatever. Is there a point to this? Bottom line, the likely suspects are objects unable to maeuver on their own, rendering your insistence on hinky orbital movements even sillier. To wit:

Why was it moving strangely? It wasn't.

*That is YOUR conclusion. Others disagree.

Well, since I have NASA, the astronauts, the laws of physics and every three-digit IQ on the planet on my side, I'm left wondering who actually disagreeing with that... and why.

Give your evidence. Not more opinions. Who thinks it was moving strangely?

How did it drift away? Newton's first law of motion.

*I have already provided links that showed it didn't "just drift away".

No you haven't. And worse, you ignored the simple fact that something may be alongside and still drift away slowly. Again, there is NO evidence to the contrary.

Give your evidence. Not more opinions. Who says it didn't just "drift away"?

blah....blah.... blah.... You you are the one saying you know 'exactly' what these things were and whether or not one of them bumped into the shuttle. NASA doesn't know what these things were, or are, what makes your opinions or conclusions more valid than their's?

You see a tree laying in the woods. Is it out of line to state that you know it fell? The laws of motion allow the intelligent mind to accurately read evidence to deduce what has happened, and since you refuse to educate yourself on how those laws work, you cannot understand how simple the puzzle really is. That's your fault, not mine, and it's not up to NASA or anyone else to support your flawed ideas of how the world works.

I don't know you from Adam. I only know that you have been launching personal attacks at me since I can remember, and have taken contrary views from my own, seemingly just for the sake of doing so. Your opinions and 'conclusive findings' on this, matter less to me than a pile of s*** in a cow pasture.

You give yourself far too much credit. My "views" are against yours not for the sake of it, but because that's where the sane people hang out. I know you take these conclusions as meaningless. That doesn't make them wrong. It doesn't make NASA wrong. It doesn't make Newton wrong. It makes YOU wrong, and your fragile ego just can't bear it.

By the way, one thing I never tire of is a co-dependent drama queen posting at length how my opinion means nothing to them. You know where the ignore button is, champ. Don't be afraid, it's not nearly as intimidating as the quote button (whose utility continues to elude you).

You are wrong, about my stance on this issue.

Upon this subject 'I' have reached no conclusions. I have stated what I saw and heard, and asking questions in an attempt to gain more insight and understanding. I NEVER said anything about it "changing speed", but rather that I witnessed it change "direction", as did at least 2 other posters within this thread.

Cite it, for I must have missed it.

It is my opinion that you are the obsessed crack-pot. Rather than being obsessed with finding an explaination for the as of yet unexplained, you seem to be obsessed with 'me'...

You are a sad, short sighted, little man, and I pity you.

Yep, I'm a crackpot. Not a genius like you. That's just my cross to bear in life.

 

[a_unique_person]

NASA Orbital Debris Program Office.



There are over 110,000 thousands pieces of space junk, (totalling 4 million pounds) 1 centimeter or larger orbiting the Earth. Nearly 9,000 pieces are tracked. Some of them are moving at 17,500 mph. Source: http://www.space.com/spacewatch/space_junk.html

Didn't their mothers teach them to clean up after themselves?

 

[Jocko]

OV-104 did not encounter a "UFO" of alien origin.

The debris that was in proximity to Atlantis was tentatively identified by both earth-based flight specialists and the in-flight crew itself.

See: Post #33 of this thread.
It really says it all.

Next case.

Prepare for a poorly-spelled assualt on your intellect from the King, as you have clearly not embraced his rather unique take on things.

 

[bjb]

I don't see anything unusual in the motion of that object. I do see that video image shifts because the camera is moving and shaking. I'm afraid some of us are seeing what they want to see in the video.