UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Rramjet]

RE: STS-115 Atlantis (Launch 9 Sep 2006) (http://spaceflight1.nasa.gov/gallery/video/shuttle/sts-115/qtime/sts115_fd01_03.mov)

Have you pondered the possibility that it might be a reflection of light in the lense or window?

Yes I have and what negates this is that the object is revolving about a central axis as it moves while maintaining its precise shape – tellingly it is also tracked by a smaller object to the left which is moving at precisely the same speed (suggesting of course that it is some sort of debri – mundane in other words). It is clearly an external object but what sort is the question.

Yes - that's a game which depends on the person being questioned already knowing in advance what the object is, and being aware of all its properties. (If you've ever played it with children, you would know that the game falls apart when they give wrong or uncertain answers. )

So? What’s your point? I used the game merely to show it was possible by the process of elimination (if played in good faith) to ascertain the identity of any mundane object by the simple application of (usually) less than twenty questions (even given the severely restrictive yes/no answers) - and this contrasts with the UFO debunkers implied claim that the process of elimination is somehow indeterminate. Are you trying to suggest that the UFO debunkers in this thread are not “playing the game” in good faith?

I'm sorry if I missed some of this discussion, but how exactly have you been able to firmly rule out the possibility that this bright object is just a reflection in the cabin

See my answer to Jocce above.

 

[Rramjet]

Re: Skylab 3 (Launch 28 Jul 1973) ((http://brumac.8k.com/Skylab3/SL3.html)

It has been shown that there is a possibility that it could simply be an unsteady camera trying to follow a point source.

Actually an unsteady camera has been hypothesised, but this hypothesis has been shown to be unlikely (no-one has been able to replicate the “three endpoints” with a “shaky camera” and all such attempts have utilised “long exposure” times) but of course we don’t need the photo to conclude that something very unusual occurred. See this post for example:

(…)

(Apologies also to Jack by the hedge - I inadvertently cut one of his statements short at the end of my last post - unfortunately the status of this thread prevents me editing the missing section back in. It did not substantively alter the meaning of his statement or my reply)

 

[Jack by the hedge]

[re. reflection]

Yes I have and what negates this is that the object is revolving about a central axis as it moves while maintaining its precise shape – tellingly it is also tracked by a smaller object to the left which is moving at precisely the same speed (suggesting of course that it is some sort of debri – mundane in other words). It is clearly an external object but what sort is the question.

I don't see that that excludes the possibility that the bright shape is an object reflected in the cabin window. The craft and its contents are in free fall, after all, so it may be a reflection of an item slowly tumbling behind the photographer.

[re. 20 questions]

So? What’s your point? I used the game merely to show it was possible by the process of elimination (if played in good faith) to ascertain the identity of any mundane object by the simple application of (usually) less than twenty questions (even given the severely restrictive yes/no answers) - and this contrasts with the UFO debunkers implied claim that the process of elimination is somehow indeterminate. Are you trying to suggest that the UFO debunkers in this thread are not “playing the game” in good faith?

Plainly not. I am making the point that you cannot rely on a process of elimination when your answers contain guesswork. For example, you feel that you have eliminated the possibility that the object is inside the craft. I believe it's fairly obvious that you have not done so.

 

[Astrophotographer]

A “near disaster for the entire project”? Hardly.

This is stated by somebody who was unaware of the problems encountered. I am sure you would say the same about Apollo 13 (which was also a near disaster). It is easy now to list all the accomplishments of Skylab but the news shortly after launch was that Skylab was in serious trouble. I suggest you go to the library and read some of the articles at the time. For instance the story in the Albuquerque tribune of May 16, 1973 (p. 1) stated:

Officials said an initial long - term manned mission to the $294 million orbiting laboratory, already crippled by a serious power shortage, is unlikely because of the high temperatures.
The space agency said early Tuesday that temperatures had reached 100 degrees within the craft. But by 7:30 'p.m. MDT, flight controller Don Puddy said the temperatures had risen to 120 in the orbiting space cabin, the nation's first such vehicle.

The May 19th edition of the same paper carried this humorous cartoon:



Reminds me of how Hubble was treated when it was found to be flawed.

It took a lot of work to save Skylab (like Hubble) and it is a credit for NASA and the astronauts to conduct the necessary work to save the station. On a first attempt to free the solar panel the astronauts could not free it. It was late in the first mission when they managed to free the stuck panel and restore it so there was enough power to get the station back into operation. The second mission had to deploy a second solar shield that would give better coverage to lower temperatures further.

“Other parts”? There were two (according to NASA); the meteoroid shield and one of the solar panels – and neither were very large (in fact not all of the MS had separated). A complete description of the incident can be found here

Then I guess everybody was seeing UFOs following the station the days after launch. The August 1973 issue of Sky and Telescope (“Amateur Observations of the Skylab Procession” on page 126) had a write up about it. I don’t have the article handy but I will see if I can obtain it. At the time there were multiple objects observed following the space station. I recall seeing 3-4 objects in addition to the station but that is a memory and I don’t have any observation records from that time period (I was 13 and my notes/observations were on 3X5 cards that were discarded long ago by my mother when I joined the service). Perhaps they were part of the Saturn V and shell that protected the station on launch.

Well, it seems that if none of the “debri” made it into orbit, then the answer - based on the evidence I provided above – is clearly the evidence "says.

Well, obviously something made it into orbit for people to see the procession days after launch. Maybe they were UFOs too.

“LOUSMA: "Did you tell him about that satellite we saw?
BEAN: Yes, we saw a great satellite. We didn't know if we told you about it.
LOUSMA: The closest and brightest one we've seen.
BEAN: Huge one.
LOUSMA: We've seen several. It was a red one.”.

So you are relying on his description of “huge” when 3 of the 4 photographs only show a point source? I think you misunderstand what he probably was describing. It was bright to them and they equated brilliance with size. It is a common mistake.

Actually there are (according to you) only two: First the MS/SAS-2/associated debri hypothesis and second the “foil from the solar shield” hypothesis. On the evidence these are both implausible sources for the observed object. And so….

I gave some examples. I did not state there were only two. What evidence has been presented that any other potential debris is implausible? Have you accounted for any/all debris that was in orbit at the time? You are the one indicating that all potential sources have been eliminated.

“Its orbit was very close to that of our own. We never saw it on any earlier or succeeding orbits…” (http://brumac.8k.com/Skylab3/SL3.html)

So something changed between orbits…….

Or it was a piece of small debris that was in the right place and right time that happened to be reflecting the sun correctly for the brief time period in question.
As for what changed in between orbits, the most likely scenario is the effects of atmospheric drag on the object. Assuming it is a small man-made object with a low cross section, the effects of atmospheric drag would be less than the larger Skylab. As a result, the separation between the two would change and result in them not seeing it anymore. Even a small change in separation would result in them being unable to see it reflect the light from the sun.

There definitely IS sufficient data to show that it was unlikely to have been anything “we” had put up there… and even if it was a mundane object, it most certainly WAS “something out of the ordinary”.

What data have you displayed that it is unlikely? I have yet to see it. Feel free to list all objects that were in orbit at the time, including small bits of debris. Until you do so, your claim of providing “sufficient data” is without merit. I am not sure how you can claim it is “something out of the ordinary” because the astronauts themselves wrote it off as a satellite of some kind. That means they did not see it maneuver or it have any significant size or shape.

Actually an unsteady camera has been hypothesised, but this hypothesis has been shown to be unlikely (no-one has been able to replicate the “three endpoints” with a “shaky camera” and all such attempts have utilised “long exposure” times) but of course we don’t need the photo to conclude that something very unusual occurred.

Are you serious? You can not even identify what the exposure time, lens, and f-stop setting for the camera were. Now you are asking people to go out and EXACTLY replicate the motion of the camera to reproduce this squiggly line. I think Correo Neato’s examples are good enough to demonstrate that a single point source can produce a squiggly line. Just because he did not reproduce the exact squiggly line (and if he did you would reject it anyway because he used a “long exposure time”), does not invalidate this hypothesis.

Examining the four images indicates that the astronaut probably was bracketing his exposures to ensure he recorded it (changing exposure settings). This is why it is recorded well in one (2139) and not the other (2140). He would then attempt to increase exposure time to ensure he recorded the object. This was number 2141, which probably was a lot longer exposure than 1/250-1/500th second.

 

[Frying Dutchmen]

So? What’s your point? I used the game merely to show it was possible by the process of elimination (if played in good faith) to ascertain the identity of any mundane object by the simple application of (usually) less than twenty questions (even given the severely restrictive yes/no answers) - and this contrasts with the UFO debunkers implied claim that the process of elimination is somehow indeterminate. Are you trying to suggest that the UFO debunkers in this thread are not “playing the game” in good faith?

It is indeterminate, you haven't parroted anything from the research that implies that it's anything bar a UFO, you know the regular kind not your kind. Even you have admitted that in this weeks postings. You have to have good faith that the research is 100%. Which us evil UFO debunkers have show that it isn't. So are you playing in good faith that Macca and Rice are 100% correct on the sighting? Besides I don't faith in someone that hasn't show any reason to have faith with in the beginning.

Instead of having good faith lets talk about having good evidence. Lets say the evidence of the skeptics in this thread are really UFO debunkers. So, where is the evidence stay a statement a quote of a skeptic here in this thread saying. I don't believe in UFOs?

 

[Rramjet]

I stated (quoting Astrophotographer regarding Skylab):
“A “near disaster for the entire project”? Hardly.

This is stated by somebody who was unaware of the problems encountered.

Merely stating such an unfounded and categorical assertion does not make it true.

I am sure you would say the same about Apollo 13 (which was also a near disaster).

Merely stating such unfounded categorical assertions does not make them true.

…moreover, your claim for Skylab 3 was that it was “ a near disaster for the entire project”. Clearly on the evidence this is a totally unwarranted assertion.

It is easy now to list all the accomplishments of Skylab but the news shortly after launch was that Skylab was in serious trouble. I suggest you go to the library and read some of the articles at the time. For instance the story in the Albuquerque tribune of May 16, 1973 (p. 1)

Your key phrase here is “shortly after launch” (and it also depends on what your mean by “serious trouble”). Once repairs were made, Skylab 3 functioned basically as intended and from then on all planned experiments etc were conducted successfully. (see here http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4011/app2.htm for a breakdown).

…and I think your relying on notoriously sensationalist newspaper articles for an accurate representation of problems with Skylab is like me asking for an accurate assessment of UFO cases from UFO debunkers – the reliability in both cases is practically zero – accuracy and truth are going to be the very first casualties.

I think you should actually refer (and defer) to the official histories of the project rather than attempt to rely your obviously flawed memories of the event. Research Astrophotographer, that is the name of the game.

Then I guess everybody was seeing UFOs following the station the days after launch.

This is a totally unfounded assertion. I also find it interesting you have now changed “weeks” to “days” and I still doubt that even “days” is an accurate representation here…. BTW, the booster tanks fall back to earth as well…

The August 1973 issue of Sky and Telescope (“Amateur Observations of the Skylab Procession” on page 126) had a write up about it. I don’t have the article handy but I will see if I can obtain it. At the time there were multiple objects observed following the space station. I recall seeing 3-4 objects in addition to the station but that is a memory and I don’t have any observation records from that time period (I was 13 and my notes/observations were on 3X5 cards that were discarded long ago by my mother when I joined the service). Perhaps they were part of the Saturn V and shell that protected the station on launch.

Perhaps then, as I indicated above, rather than rely on the probably flawed memories of that 13 year old boy, you should actually conduct a little research to get your facts straight before making any further unsubstantiated claims?

Well, obviously something made it into orbit for people to see the procession days after launch. Maybe they were UFOs too.

Merely stating unfounded assertions does not make them true.

So you are relying on his description of “huge” when 3 of the 4 photographs only show a point source? I think you misunderstand what he probably was describing. It was bright to them and they equated brilliance with size. It is a common mistake.

I think you are confusing the capabilities of the human eye and brain with the capabilities of a camera. A camera cannot interpret using environmental cues, humans are quite adept at doing so.

I gave some examples. I did not state there were only two. What evidence has been presented that any other potential debris is implausible? Have you accounted for any/all debris that was in orbit at the time? You are the one indicating that all potential sources have been eliminated.

Actually you provided just two hypotheses and I showed both to be implausible by presenting the evidence. According to the astronauts, the observed object was “huge”, it was “red” and it was following Skylab in a “similar orbit”. What “debri” are you proposing that would fit those characteristics?

Or it was a piece of small debris that was in the right place and right time that happened to be reflecting the sun correctly for the brief time period in question.

Given the average time for Skylab to orbit is about 93 minutes (http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/history/skylab/skylab-stats.htm), then the 10 minute observation time of the object equates to 9% of a full orbit. That in turn equates to a distance of nearly 4000 miles. How do you propose that a “small” piece of debri could have “followed” Skylab in orbit for this period but was never observed before or after?

Perhaps also (again) you missed the following in my last two replies to you

“LOUSMA: "Did you tell him about that satellite we saw?
BEAN: Yes, we saw a great satellite. We didn't know if we told you about it.
LOUSMA: The closest and brightest one we've seen.
BEAN: Huge one.
LOUSMA: We've seen several. It was a red one.” (http://brumac.8k.com/Skylab3/SL3.html)

(Bolding mine. Rr)

As for what changed in between orbits, the most likely scenario is the effects of atmospheric drag on the object. Assuming it is a small man-made object with a low cross section, the effects of atmospheric drag would be less than the larger Skylab. As a result, the separation between the two would change and result in them not seeing it anymore. Even a small change in separation would result in them being unable to see it reflect the light from the sun.

Let me get this straight. You initially hypothesise that debri from the mishaps during the launch follow Skylab around for months, to suddenly and mysteriously appear on one particular orbit only, be misidentified as a huge, red satellite (never seen before or again), yet here you are now proposing that within the space of that single orbit “atmospheric drag” is responsible for the sudden disappearance of that debri? Anything strike you as slightly inconsistent about that?

What data have you displayed that it is unlikely? I have yet to see it. Feel free to list all objects that were in orbit at the time, including small bits of debris. Until you do so, your claim of providing “sufficient data” is without merit. I am not sure how you can claim it is “something out of the ordinary” because the astronauts themselves wrote it off as a satellite of some kind. That means they did not see it maneuver or it have any significant size or shape.

Astrophotographer, in cases such as this, we have to account for the evidence. To simply ignore the evidence is neither scientific nor is it likely to lead us toward any satisfactory conclusion.

The astronauts clearly saw many satellites, so had something to compare the object with (as well as being familiar with “debris”).

LOUSMA (…) I watched the booster protector cover go off and lots of flashes and debris and everything in every separation, but that’s all normal (…)

GARRIOTT Do you want to talk about that satellite?

LOUSMA I saw a couple of satellites that appeared like a satellite would on Earth. I saw one that was not like one you would see on Earth, so why don’t you mention it?

GARRIOTT Okay…” (http://brumac.8k.com/Skylab3/SL3.html)

Are you serious? You can not even identify what the exposure time, lens, and f-stop setting for the camera were. Now you are asking people to go out and EXACTLY replicate the motion of the camera to reproduce this squiggly line. I think Correo Neato’s examples are good enough to demonstrate that a single point source can produce a squiggly line. Just because he did not reproduce the exact squiggly line (and if he did you would reject it anyway because he used a “long exposure time”), does not invalidate this hypothesis.

Again you miss the point. If no-one can reproduce the photo while having free reign on what “the exposure time, lens, and f-stop setting” to use, then that is even more reason to reject the “shaky camera” hypothesis. The replication MUST involve a photo that has three distinct “blobs” at the end of the point source’s “trajectory”. A “squiggly line” (with two ends) just will not do! That is entirely stock standard normal for “camera shake” photos. It is the three ends (with distinct blobs) that is the key feature that must be reproduced (no matter what the “trajectory” shape is in between).

Examining the four images indicates that the astronaut probably was bracketing his exposures to ensure he recorded it (changing exposure settings). This is why it is recorded well in one (2139) and not the other (2140). He would then attempt to increase exposure time to ensure he recorded the object. This was number 2141, which probably was a lot longer exposure than 1/250-1/500th second.

But you keep coming back to the photo. This is unnecessary. You have to explain the sighting full stop. The photo adds an extra dimension, ostensibly allowing a size calculation, but it is not necessary to do so. The astronauts observations are inexplicable in themselves, without need to embroil ourselves in (probably unresolvable photographic controversy (in this thread at least).

 

[Jocce]

Could it be a chunk of ice? Perhaps… But what a very strange shape… how could a “chunk of ice” form into such a shape? It would seem implausible – highly improbable… and where did it come from? “We” have obviously caught up to it… so it was originally ahead of the Shuttle and the ejected booster tank – so it could not have come from either of those… So the difficulty we have here is that we don’t have a plausible source for the object.

See? There you have in your "process of elimination", two questions that you choose just to gloss over and leave unanswered. You resort to an argument from incredulity rather than examining the possibility.

Moreover, NASA put the video up on its site so it would be fully aware that the object is there – but strangely there is no “explanatory note” to go with the video. Are they playing a practical joke on us? I am sure they would deny any such thing, so perhaps they really don’t know what the object is/was?

I'm thinking that the reason that there is no mention about the object from NASA is that it's just an everyday phenomena. That sounds very plausible to me.

Re: Lens flare, reflection etc.

Yes I have [thought of that] and what negates this is that the object is revolving about a central axis as it moves while maintaining its precise shape – tellingly it is also tracked by a smaller object to the left which is moving at precisely the same speed

Yet again you resort to argument from incredulity. You just claim that this behaviour would be impossible if it was a reflection without providing any argumentation or calculations. Simply saying that it negates the hypothesis of a reflection doesn't make it so.

Since your methodology in proving aliens is to disprove the mundane, you need to show conclusively, that this could never be a reflection. It's not enough to say "it's implausible".

 

[Astrophotographer]

Big snip of going over the same ground again and again.

But you keep coming back to the photo. This is unnecessary. You have to explain the sighting full stop. The photo adds an extra dimension, ostensibly allowing a size calculation, but it is not necessary to do so. The astronauts observations are inexplicable in themselves, without need to embroil ourselves in (probably unresolvable photographic controversy (in this thread at least).

1. The photo is the evidence you are presenting. Without it, it is just a satellite or debris in orbit. In the context of the three other images, which show only a point source, the fourth image is most likely due to camera vibration. Until you can demonstrate otherwise, it is the most likely cause for the image's shape. If you want to spend the money for me to go up to the ISS so I can take pictures under the same conditions as the astronauts and see if I can replicate the "squiggle" under those same conditions, I will gladly accept your generous offer. However, I think if you showed these images to professional photographers or scientists independent of the UFO phenomena (showing them all four images and not just the one), they would probably agree that it was most likely due to image vibration.

2. The astronauts felt it was a satellite (i.e. somethng in orbit and not "alien" in nature). They saw no shape and no size to the object other than it being bright. They did have binoculars on board yet reported nothing more than a bright object that, to them, was just a bright satellite.

Until you can demonstrate that it really was something "alien" then it remains nothing more than a piece of something reflecting light in earth orbit. Let us know when you have the information for all debris in orbit at the time and and have eliminated each one.

 

[Jocce]

Again you miss the point. If no-one can reproduce the photo while having free reign on what “the exposure time, lens, and f-stop setting” to use, then that is even more reason to reject the “shaky camera” hypothesis. The replication MUST involve a photo that has three distinct “blobs” at the end of the point source’s “trajectory”. A “squiggly line” (with two ends) just will not do! That is entirely stock standard normal for “camera shake” photos. It is the three ends (with distinct blobs) that is the key feature that must be reproduced (no matter what the “trajectory” shape is in between).

You get blobs when the photographer manages to follow a point source. You get lines when the camera moves in a more or less consistent speed in respect to the point source. You get gaps when the camera moves too fast for light to get captured. This is pretty basic stuff that anyone should know. There is absolutely no need to produce an exact replica of the photo to understand this.

 

[Correa Neto]

Again you miss the point. If no-one can reproduce the photo while having free reign on what “the exposure time, lens, and f-stop setting” to use, then that is even more reason to reject the “shaky camera” hypothesis. The replication MUST involve a photo that has three distinct “blobs” at the end of the point source’s “trajectory”. A “squiggly line” (with two ends) just will not do! That is entirely stock standard normal for “camera shake” photos. It is the three ends (with distinct blobs) that is the key feature that must be reproduced (no matter what the “trajectory” shape is in between).

You are the one, once again, missing one too many points.

First of all, the images I posted were not squiggly lines with two ends. Within them you can actually find images which had one to four endpoints. Thus, your request (which will later be shown to not necessary) was more than accomplished.

Then you asked for distinct blobs. It seems you missed this picture:

Quite blobby, I would say. I can also show this zoomed picture of the same Chinese lantern, with a higher "blobbyness level". Note that if I had chosen a smaller exposure time, the image would look much more like the UFO picture in question. The balloon was, by the way, moving from right to left. You can guess the shapes one could get with smaller exposure times. Can you imagine what half of the trail imaged below would look like?

There's also this zoomed picture of squiggly lights taken from reflections at my kitchen's window and city lights. Some are light trails, some are triangular blobs, some are something in between. You can see that the final product is a function of the path over the CCD, intensity of the point light and a factor you and the article's authors failed to take in to account- focus sharpness.

Now, what you are actually committing is the Nirvana or perfect solution fallacy. Only someone not aware of how experimenting and modeling are carried out in real science and with little if any experience in photography would ask for what you are asking. Or maybe someone blinded by belief. One does not need to reproduce perfectly the image, one just needs to show that it can be reproduced, and this was more than accomplished by the image with four ends, for example.

Note also that a more exact reproduction of the image –if necessary- would require data which is not available: exact camera and lenses specs plus f-stop and exposure settings and information on the relative brightness of the point light.

Which brings me to the main point you are missing- the methodology used to reach the size estimates are flawed. Thus, the only intriguing aspect left is the red color, something which can hardly be taken as from beyond the borders of what we call nature. Astrophotographer already pointed to one plausible mundane solution.

 

[Rramjet]

They saw no shape and no size to the object other than it being bright. They did have binoculars on board yet reported nothing more than a bright object that, to them, was just a bright satellite.

The record of evidence must be set straight. I have posted the following quote three times in direct reply to Astrophotographer:

“LOUSMA: "Did you tell him about that satellite we saw?
BEAN: Yes, we saw a great satellite. We didn't know if we told you about it.
LOUSMA: The closest and brightest one we've seen.
BEAN: Huge one.
LOUSMA: We've seen several. It was a red one.” (http://brumac.8k.com/Skylab3/SL3.html)​

…and the following now twice:

“LOUSMA: I saw a couple of satellites that appeared like a satellite would on Earth. I saw one that was not like one you would see on Earth…” (http://brumac.8k.com/Skylab3/SL3.html)​

(Emphasis added. Rr)

Jocce "quotes" me (in reference to STS-115 Atlantis (Launch 9 Sep 2006) - http://spaceflight1.nasa.gov/gallery/video/shuttle/sts-115/qtime/sts115_fd01_03.mov) as stating:

“Yes I have [thought of that] and what negates this is that the object is revolving about a central axis as it moves while maintaining its precise shape – tellingly it is also tracked by a smaller object to the left which is moving at precisely the same speed” (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=6091127#post6091127 #7607)​

And on the basis of that proceeds to claim that therefore I contended it was “impossible” for it to have been a reflection and that such statements from me (at least in part) indicate that “your methodology in proving aliens is to disprove the mundane”.

Again the record of evidence must be set straight. My actual statement was:

Yes I have and what negates this is that the object is revolving about a central axis as it moves while maintaining its precise shape – tellingly it is also tracked by a smaller object to the left which is moving at precisely the same speed (suggesting of course that it is some sort of debri – mundane in other words). It is clearly an external object but what sort is the question.

Nowhere have I stated that a reflection is “impossible” and clearly, using the above methodology I have concluded with a mundane hypothesis.

Correa Neto then attempts to post (referencing Skylab 3) some (possibly, even probably image edited/manipulated) photos which purport to prove that the Astronaut’s photo of the object in question (2141 - http://brumac.8k.com/Skylab3/SL3.html) could have been due to camera shake.

Not only is there no evidence that the images he presents have not been manipulated in an image editor, and not only do they not replicate the image in question (don't let superficial resemblance fool you - a side by side comparison would of course be the proper way to analyse the results - but of course Correa Neto will not so that), but incredibly, after quizzing me so closely and repeatedly in an effort to ascertain the technical specifications of the astronaut's camera, lens, f-stop and exposure times (including the chain of custody, the type of film, the copying and development process, etc), he provides none of that information for his own photos...

Yet he posts:

Note also that a more exact reproduction of the image –if necessary- would require data which is not available: exact camera and lenses specs plus f-stop and exposure settings and information on the relative brightness of the point light.

As rational debate on the above cases seems to have broken down, may I suggest instead we explore this case?

STS-74 Atlantis (Launch 12 Nov 1995)
(http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/shuttlemissions/archives/sts-74.html)
Incident: Debri behaving unusually
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZ7EgRiU5Zo&feature=related @6:17)
Lots of “UFOs” but the one that appears at 6:17 at the lower right goes diagonally up –slowing down all the while - then curves down, up, and then down again…
At 8:13 there is a flashing UFO that appears bottom centre. It slowly moves up… then at 8:38 suddenly accelerates, passes behind MIR, accelerates again and disappears.

The question is: How can mere "debris" perform such manoeuvres?

 

[TjW]

<snippage>
As rational debate on the above cases seems to have broken down, may I suggest instead we explore this case?

STS-74 Atlantis (Launch 12 Nov 1995)
(http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/shuttlemissions/archives/sts-74.html)
Incident: Debri behaving unusually
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZ7EgRiU5Zo&feature=related @6:17)
Lots of “UFOs” but the one that appears at 6:17 at the lower right goes diagonally up –slowing down all the while - then curves down, up, and then down again…
At 8:13 there is a flashing UFO that appears bottom centre. It slowly moves up… then at 8:38 suddenly accelerates, passes behind MIR, accelerates again and disappears.

The question is: How can mere "debris" perform such manoeuvres?

Rramjet, practically the first thing mentioned in that video is that the Shuttle is maneuvering around MIR. To me, at least, that implies they'll be intermittently using the RCS..

You find it unlikely that whatever it is can change direction? I find it unlikely that an experienced pilot would not call previously unseen and unexpected traffic. Anything of any significant mass is a risk in a situation where you don't have brakes.
So either the pilots didn't see them, or they didn't consider slowly drifting
lightweight materials a threat. Possibly both.

The orbiter docking system is not in the nose of the shuttle. It's in the payload bay. So an expanding burst of gas from an RCS jet in the nose of the Shuttle could very easily push a drifting flake of paint "down" relative to the camera.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

...It is clearly an external object but what sort is the question.

...Nowhere have I stated that a reflection is “impossible” ...

So - just to clarify - when you said the artefact was "clearly an external object", that was not intended to be taken as meaning that it wasn't an internal object?

OK.

 

[Rramjet]

Rramjet, practically the first thing mentioned in that video is that the Shuttle is maneuvering around MIR. To me, at least, that implies they'll be intermittently using the RCS..

You find it unlikely that whatever it is can change direction? I find it unlikely that an experienced pilot would not call previously unseen and unexpected traffic. Anything of any significant mass is a risk in a situation where you don't have brakes.
So either the pilots didn't see them, or they didn't consider slowly drifting
lightweight materials a threat. Possibly both.

The orbiter docking system is not in the nose of the shuttle. It's in the payload bay. So an expanding burst of gas from an RCS jet in the nose of the Shuttle could very easily push a drifting flake of paint "down" relative to the camera.

I wish, just once that even just one UFO debunker would actually examine the evidence before commenting (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZ7EgRiU5Zo&feature=related). Surely that is not too great a thing to ask? The piece of debris in question (appearing at 6:17 bottom right) does not move in a simple trajectory (ie; “down”) at all. It curves and halts, heads off in another direction, halts again, reverses direction, and generally “wanders” about before disappearing .

I wish also that before hypothesising an explanation such as the one proposed above, such UFO debunkers would just consider the logical ramifications and consequences of what they are contending.

Sure the firing of the RCS might cause floating debris to alter trajectory. That is a given. However, here we have a hypothetical contention that does not go beyond that bald fact. It fails to consider the actual mechanics or the physics of what actually occurs when the RCS fires.

The first thing to consider is of course that when the RCS fires it is not a gentle thing (it must move the shuttle against whatever inertia the shuttle has - and the shuttle has a great deal of it). The thrust generated is sudden (even from the “microbursts” that occur semi-regularly simply to keep the shuttle on course). Any floating debris caught in the shockwave from such a firing would alter course suddenly and seem to jet away. It would not lazily follow a curved trajectory, then stop and then slowly head off in the opposite direction, then back again… and so on, all with no sudden movements - just slow curves, slow halts, slow alterations…

And of course any debris displaying (even) a (simple) curved trajectory as a result of RCS firings would have to have the shuttle firing continuously and following that debris around in a curve of its own (and so would the camera by the way). In the video under discussion the attitude of the shuttle in relation to MIR is rock steady. Thus we can conclude that during the video sequence at least, there were no firings of the RCS at all.

As to what the astronauts saw and did or did not comment on, there were quite a few pieces of “debris” in the video and unless one of the astronauts was consciously following the particular one in question, then they would not be expected to comment on it. It would just look like any other piece of debris floating by. It is only when one closely follows the trajectory of that particular piece of debris, from when it appears to when it disappears, that one notices the unusual nature of it.

Quite simply the firing of the shuttles RCS does not account for the movement of the piece of debris (and we have not even discussed the second piece of debris appearing bottom of frame at 8:13 which heads in the opposite direction - or perhaps UFO debunkers think the RCS system is mobile and can move around the shuttle from position to position...?)

 

[TjW]

I watched the video. The docking port is more-or-less in the middle of the shuttle. So the camera is more-or-less in the middle of the shuttle. So the camera is taking a picture of stuff more-or-less in the middle of the shuttle.
The RCS thrusters are NOT in the middle of the shuttle. They are at its extremities. So expanding gas from a burst from a pitch nozzle at the nose would tend to move debris toward the tail of the shuttle. Expanding gas from a port roll nozzle would tend to move stuff starboard. Do I need to go into all the different combinations which could apply?

If it were another spacecraft, I would have expected some comment from the pilots. Either a "What the hell is that!" if it were of unknown origin. Or possibly a "What the hell does he think he's doing?" comment on the randomness of the course changes if the craft were something they were expecting to see.

 

[Rramjet]

I watched the video.

Here is a little test for you then. Please describe the trajectory of the object that appears at 6:17 (bottom right) and disappears at about 8:40 (middle left). I would particularly like to see your explanation of the object’s trajectory between 7:00 and when it disappears (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZ7EgRiU5Zo&feature=related).

The docking port is more-or-less in the middle of the shuttle. So the camera is more-or-less in the middle of the shuttle. So the camera is taking a picture of stuff more-or-less in the middle of the shuttle.

Can I ask that when UFO debunkers use a chain of logic, they actually think through it logically? The camera is actually capturing video images of “stuff” from the vantage point of “more-or-less the middle” of the shuttle’s cargo bay. We know MIR is off in the distance. We also see pieces of “debris” actually pass behind MIR. For example can you please describe the motion and distinguishing characteristics of the UFO that appears at 8:34 (bottom, slightly to the right of centre just up from the bottom of the frame) and disappears at about 9:13 (at the top of the frame)?

The RCS thrusters are NOT in the middle of the shuttle. They are at its extremities. So expanding gas from a burst from a pitch nozzle at the nose would tend to move debris toward the tail of the shuttle. Expanding gas from a port roll nozzle would tend to move stuff starboard. Do I need to go into all the different combinations which could apply?

No, you only need to describe the combination that could have produced the trajectories of the two UFOs I mention above. Those are the two we are interested in and those are the two whose trajectories you must logically account for with your RCS hypothesis. If you propose such an explanatory hypothesis as you do, then you must be able to explain how the mechanics of the situation work according to that hypothesis. Otherwise you are simply making unfounded assertions in the mere hope that they might be true.

If it were another spacecraft, I would have expected some comment from the pilots. Either a "What the hell is that!" if it were of unknown origin. Or possibly a "What the hell does he think he's doing?" comment on the randomness of the course changes if the craft were something they were expecting to see.

Why does it have to be “another spacecraft”? This statement from you indicates an initially prejudiced mindset that might not be conducive to an unbiased analysis. Moreover, your “expectations” are unfounded. How do you know the “pilots” were even watching the video feed at the time? It is obvious that there are no manoeuvres occurring and they are busy people. They don’t have time to sit around and carefully analyse every minute detail of the video feed – for such close analysis is what it takes to discover the anomalous trajectories. That is, it is only if you are giving the video feed your full and undivided attention that you will notice something anomalous about the objects I mention. A more casual observation style and they are just other pieces of “debris” floating around with all the rest (funny how I explained all this to you in my previous post – yet in what by now seems typical UFO debunker fashion, you simply ignore my explanation to re-assert your initial contention).

The bottom line is TjW that you propose an explanatory hypothesis (the RCS done it) without ever explaining how the RCS could have done it. That you must do before we can take your hypothesis seriously.

 

[Frying Dutchmen]

Here is a little test for you then. Please describe the trajectory of the object that appears at 6:17 (bottom right) and disappears at about 8:40 (middle left). I would particularly like to see your explanation of the object’s trajectory between 7:00 and when it disappears (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZ7EgRiU5Zo&feature=related).

Here's a test for you, what makes it alien?

Can I ask that when UFO debunkers use a chain of logic, they actually think through it logically? The camera is actually capturing video images of “stuff” from the vantage point of “more-or-less the middle” of the shuttle’s cargo bay. We know MIR is off in the distance. We also see pieces of “debris” actually pass behind MIR. For example can you please describe the motion and distinguishing characteristics of the UFO that appears at 8:34 (bottom, slightly to the right of centre just up from the bottom of the frame) and disappears at about 9:13 (at the top of the frame)?

What makes this alien? It's your video you need to show us why it's alien. Or did you change the name of this thread again?

The bottom line is TjW that you propose an explanatory hypothesis (the RCS done it) without ever explaining how the could have done it. That you must do before we can take your hypothesis seriously.

Bottom line is you are just throwing videos at us because you know you have no evidence of aliens.

 

[TjW]

Okay. I see. You don't understand what an RCS is, or how it works.
The reaction control system changes the angular momentum of a spacecraft around an axis by throwing stuff overboard. Generally, it's a gas.
Once the gas has left the spacecraft, it expands, as any gas will do, into the vacuum.
That expanding gas can affect small particles, changing their trajectories.
You should notice that the RCS changes the angular momentum, not the position, of the spacecraft. To change the angular position, you use the RCS to change the momentum in one direction, wait until you've started moving in that direction, then apply the RCS again to cancel the first momentum change.
So RCS corrections generally come in pairs.
A small particle moving by when RCS is being used to make corrections could slow down, change direction one way, change to the opposite direction, and speed up again, all depending on which thrusters were firing and where it was relative to them and the camera.

It's okay to be ignorant -- not everyone takes an interest in how this stuff works. But to then declare that it's unexplainable, because you, personally, can't explain it is a logical fallacy.
When you reject explanations out of hand from people who do know, it goes beyond logical fallacy and into dishonesty.

 

[Correa Neto]

Correa Neto then attempts to post (referencing Skylab 3) some (possibly, even probably image edited/manipulated) photos which purport to prove that the Astronaut’s photo of the object in question (2141 - http://brumac.8k.com/Skylab3/SL3.html) could have been due to camera shake.

Not only is there no evidence that the images he presents have not been manipulated in an image editor, and not only do they not replicate the image in question (don't let superficial resemblance fool you - a side by side comparison would of course be the proper way to analyse the results - but of course Correa Neto will not so that), but incredibly, after quizzing me so closely and repeatedly in an effort to ascertain the technical specifications of the astronaut's camera, lens, f-stop and exposure times (including the chain of custody, the type of film, the copying and development process, etc), he provides none of that information for his own photos...

Anyone with a minimum understanding of photography would know why the specs are so important. Too bad the article's authors missed this important point (among many others), building a castle of cards; too bad you can not understand the reasons why this castle crumbles with such ease.

Unable to formulate a coherent argument to counter the pictures I posted, you resorted to an ad hom attack, suggesting I manipulated the images. You also lied- cameras specs were available at the first post where the images were shown and I stated I can provide the original files with the EXIFS. By the way, note that I am not posting a scientific paper, so… Your attempt to shift the burden of proof failed. Anyway, once again, you are proceeding as a person blinded by belief and ignorance of science.

Now, you claimed the pictures were manipulated; it doesn’t matter how you tried to weasel it out with the words “possibly” and “probably”. Prove your claim –it is your onus, your burden. Prove it or remove the claim and apologize.

Yet he posts:


As rational debate on the above cases seems to have broken down, may I suggest instead we explore this case?

It is pretty easy to see where the irrationality is coming from. May I suggest you either prove your claim of image manipulation from my part or remove that claim and apologize?

 

[Jocce]

No, you only need to describe the combination that could have produced the trajectories of the two UFOs I mention above. Those are the two we are interested in and those are the two whose trajectories you must logically account for with your RCS hypothesis. If you propose such an explanatory hypothesis as you do, then you must be able to explain how the mechanics of the situation work according to that hypothesis. Otherwise you are simply making unfounded assertions in the mere hope that they might be true.

Unfortunately, there is not enough data available to preform such a calculation. In the absence of such data, debris is still more likely than aliens.