ParaNet BBS/nasavid
From KB42
ParaNet BBS/nasavid
| File Name: | FILENAME |
|---|---|
| Author: | Unknown |
| Date: | Unknown |
| Posting BBS: | Unknown |
| BBS Main Page: | ParaNet Main Page |
| Key Words: | ParaNet, UFO, Ufology |
(4462) Sat 6 Jun 92 3:44p
By: Nick Eads
To: All
Re: Ufo Video From Nasa
St: Sent
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@UFGATE newsin 1.27
From: nreads01@starbase.spd.louisville.edu (Nick Eads)
Date: 5 Jun 92 22:02:29 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville
Message-ID: <nreads01.707781749@starbase.spd.louisville.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
Did anyone catch today's Hard Copy (6/5)? (Of course, I hate to admit that I
saw it myself -- it was an accident.) They showed what I feel is some of the
most impressive evidence of the existence of extraterrestrial activity. The
video was shot by one of the astronauts on a recent (the most recent?)
shuttle mission. I will describe the video as it was shown...
Looking toward the surface of the earth, and just below the horizon, a
small light moved slowly (relatively, of course) from the right to the left.
Then suddenly, and without *apparent* cause, the thing immediately executes
a 90 degree turn and accelerates rapidly off across the horizon and into
space. Meanwhile, at roughly the same location where the thing was at the
moment before turning, another something shoots rapidly *up* from earth and
into space. According to the UFO investigator (pardon me, but I forget
his name, but he is on the UFO magazine staff), somebody "shot" something
at it, and the thing anticipated the shot and evaded.
Official explanation from NASA was "it was ice" left by the shuttle. ICE?
That's a heck of a change in attitude and speed for a piece of orbiting
ice. Of course, one can't be sure of the distance from the shuttle, which
would be a vital piece of info. I'm usually not impressed by UFO reports,
but this was something to see. Anyone else catch it?
--
*------------------------------*----------------------------------------------*
| Nick "The Cache" Eads | nreads01@starbase.spd.louisville.edu |
| EE Department *----------------------------------------------*
| University of Louisville | GEMail: N.EADS |
| Louisville, Kentucky 40292 | SciBoard (502-588-0864): Sysnick |
*------------------------------*----------------------------------------------*
| Don't blame me; the Illuminati are responsible for everything... |
*-----------------------------------------------------------------------------*
--- ConfMail V4.00
* Origin: Paranet(sm) - The world's leading UFO Investigative News Network
@SEEN-BY 104/2 422 428 605 107/816 30163/100 150 1012/3
@PATH: 30163/150 104/422
(1:30163/150)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(4511) Sun 7 Jun 92 12:42p
By: Drew Davidson
To: All
Re: Hard Copy Shows Nasa Ufo Video
St: Sent Reply in 4517
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@UFGATE newsin 1.27
From: davidson@monet.cs.unc.edu (Drew Davidson)
Date: 6 Jun 92 18:26:06 GMT
Organization: University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Message-ID: <12711@borg.cs.unc.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
The syndicated TV infotainment show Hard Copy showed a NASA videotape
beamed live from the Space Shuttle Discovery depicting a UFO flying
above the earth. The video appears to be black and white; the UFO is
just a speck of light. However, the light suddenly makes a right-angle
turn and speeds off into space at what appears to be high speed (it
actually seems to fly on a trajectory away from the camera, but seems to
go at high speed because it becomes quite dim and disappears as it is
moving a short distance on the screen). A second or two after the UFO
appears to speed off, an object shoots up at right angles to the earth,
somewhat near the position of the UFO a second or two earlier. Don
Ecker of UFO magazine theorizes that the UFO was making an evasive
maneuver to avoid being shot at.
NASA claims the object is a piece of ice made from waste water dumped by
the shuttle on a previous orbit. They have no comment about the
apparent shot coming from earth, or the apparent right-angle turn of the
UFO.
Whatever it is, it's very intriguing. It's very hard for me to believe
it was a piece of ice. I would like to know much more, like what part
of earth the UFO and shot were over, and if there were any UFO
encounters in that area on that date. I would also like to know what
the astronauts on board the shuttle thought of the incident when it
happened, and I would like to hear all radio transmissions made by them
before and after the incident.
Any comments on the video?
Drew
--
Drew Davidson \\ HELP FULLY INFORM JURORS! TELL YOUR FRIENDS:
davidson@cs.unc.edu \\ As a juror, you have the right to vote NOT GUILTY
** LEGALIZE TRUTH ** \\ if you believe the law broken is unjust or wrongly
* FULLY INFORM JURORS * \\ applied, regardless of the facts of the case.
--- ConfMail V4.00
* Origin: Paranet(sm) - The world's leading UFO Investigative News Network
@SEEN-BY 104/2 422 428 605 107/816 30163/100 150 1012/3
@PATH: 30163/150 104/422
(1:30163/150)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(4746) Tue 9 Jun 92 6:51p
By: Travis R. Stone
To: All
Re: Nasa Video..most Interesting
St: Sent
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@UFGATE newsin 1.27
From: STONE@Zeus.unomaha.edu (Travis R. Stone)
Date: 8 Jun 92 19:24:56 GMT
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Message-ID: <1992Jun8.192456.25461@news.unomaha.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
I've seen the video mentioned; actually, I've seen a version
of it that had quite a bit more stuff on it that was along
the same lines, just a bit stranger. The version I saw included
a segment showing (fairly clearly) two objects that
appeared to be oblate and flickering as though they were
spinning come across the field of view; a fast-moving "streak" comes
up from below---presumably from Mother Earth---and appears to
strike one of the objects. The result? I don't know...at the
instant of apparent impact, the tape "cut away" to another segment.
The version shown to me is currently in the hands of a small group
of private individuals whose names I cannot---and would not---reveal.
I feel that merely stating what I have seen in no way compromises
my promise to them to keep my big trap shut about their posessing
such a tape, and I only mention this to let all of you who have
not seen this video (nor, more than likely, believe that it exists)
that
(A) It most certainly does exist, although I grant you that
my merely saying so doesn't constitute concrete proof
thereof,
(B) It contains rather a bit more than the segment seen on
"Hard Copy"---stuff that left me shaking my head and
feeling a bit disturbed (yeah, yeah---I can hear all the
wits out there smirking: "Yup...I'll BET you're disturbed,
buddy!") that, if those "streaks" really WERE shots, then
we may already be in a "shooting war" with an opponent
we can't hit, and
(C) This NASA nonsense about ice can be definitely ruled out
(especially if you see the other segments of the tape,)
but the possibility of the whole thing being a H-K
(Hunter-Killer) satellite test cannot---until somebody
figures out how to deduce the speed of the objects from
the video tape and arrives at a figure that mitigates
against making the rather extreme turns seen therein.
I may give it a go myself this summer, if I can find
some slack time.
T.R. Stone
University of Nebraska-Omaha
Home of the Toughest Organic Chemistry Instructors in the Galaxy
(On videotape OR off!)
--- ConfMail V4.00
* Origin: Paranet(sm) - The world's leading UFO Investigative News Network
@SEEN-BY 104/2 422 428 605 107/816 30163/100 150 1012/3
@PATH: 30163/150 104/422
(1:30163/150)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(4752) Tue 9 Jun 92 6:52p
By: Robert Sheaffer
To: All
Re: Re: Ufo Video From Nasa - The Camera Was Moving!
St: Sent Reply in 4754
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@UFGATE newsin 1.27
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Date: 8 Jun 92 21:17:02 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Message-ID: <q#=lmw.sheaffer@netcom.com>
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal
In article <nreads01.707781749@starbase.spd.louisville.edu>
nreads01@starbase.spd.louisville.edu (Nick Eads) writes:
>Did anyone catch today's Hard Copy (6/5)? (Of course, I hate to admit that I
>saw it myself -- it was an accident.) They showed what I feel is some of the
>most impressive evidence of the existence of extraterrestrial activity. The
>video was shot by one of the astronauts on a recent (the most recent?)
>shuttle mission. I will describe the video as it was shown...
>
>Looking toward the surface of the earth, and just below the horizon, a
>small light moved slowly (relatively, of course) from the right to the left.
>Then suddenly, and without *apparent* cause, the thing immediately executes
>a 90 degree turn and accelerates rapidly off across the horizon and into
>space. Meanwhile, at roughly the same location where the thing was at the
>moment before turning, another something shoots rapidly *up* from earth and
>into space. According to the UFO investigator (pardon me, but I forget
>his name, but he is on the UFO magazine staff), somebody "shot" something
>at it, and the thing anticipated the shot and evaded.
>
>Official explanation from NASA was "it was ice" left by the shuttle. ICE?
>That's a heck of a change in attitude and speed for a piece of orbiting
>ice. Of course, one can't be sure of the distance from the shuttle, which
>would be a vital piece of info. I'm usually not impressed by UFO reports,
>but this was something to see. Anyone else catch it?
I spoke to James Oberg about this. He didn't know it had been on "Hard
Copy", but he's quite familiar with the video. Apparently it's something
that some UFO enthusiast taped off the "NASA Select" cable channel late
one night, got excited, and flew off the handle. The far-out fringe of
UFOlogy has been promoting it ever since.
Yes, it IS a piece of ice, floating in the payload bay of the shuttle
Discovery. It's illuminated by the lights in the payload bay. But what
your Trash TV program surely did not tell you is: what you saw was motion
of the CAMERA, not motion of the object. You see, NASA mission controllers
leave the camera on during the "night", while the crew is asleep. The
camera is then controlled from the ground, with a little joystick-type
arrangement. If the mission controllers want to look over here, or
over there, they just flip the lever, and the camera moves. And if
some brain-dead UFOlogist just happens to be watching as the camera
is turned away from a piece of ice, he says "Wow! Look at that baby
accelerate!!!!!!"
--
Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com
Past Chairman, The Bay Area Skeptics - for whom I speak only when authorized!
"Every psychic investigator of [the medium] Mrs. Piper was impressed
by her simplicity and honesty. It never occurred to them that no
charlatan ever achieves greatness by acting like a charlatan. No
professional spy acts like a spy. No card cheat behaves at the
table like a card cheat."
- Martin Gardner (writing in "Free Inquiry",
Spring, 1992)
--- ConfMail V4.00
* Origin: Paranet(sm) - The world's leading UFO Investigative News Network
@SEEN-BY 104/2 422 428 605 107/816 30163/100 150 1012/3
@PATH: 30163/150 104/422
(1:30163/150)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(4889) Wed 10 Jun 92 6:55p
By: Steve Warren
To: All
Re: Re: Nasa Video..most Interesting
St: Sent Reply chain 4746 4893
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@UFGATE newsin 1.27
From: swarren@convex.com (Steve Warren)
Date: 9 Jun 92 19:14:42 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
Message-ID: <1992Jun9.191442.10991@news.eng.convex.com>
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
In article <1992Jun8.192456.25461@news.unomaha.edu> STONE@Zeus.unomaha.edu
(Travis R. Stone) writes:
>The version shown to me is currently in the hands of a small group
>of private individuals whose names I cannot---and would not---reveal.
It's not that big of a deal. I've got the version from
Hardcopy myself. Videotaped it off the air.
...
> (C) This NASA nonsense about ice can be definitely ruled out
> (especially if you see the other segments of the tape,)
> but the possibility of the whole thing being a H-K
> (Hunter-Killer) satellite test cannot---until somebody
> figures out how to deduce the speed of the objects from
> the video tape and arrives at a figure that mitigates
> against making the rather extreme turns seen therein.
> I may give it a go myself this summer, if I can find
> some slack time.
I saw a posting earlier that mentioned camera motion. This is
impossible, because the camera is pointed at the planet Earth, which
fills 80% of the screen. The Earth can be considered a reference
frame, and it does not move at all in the video.
If the object is as close to Earth as it appears to be, then it is a
very luminous object. It was also moving thousands of miles per
second after the change in direction. It starts out drifting very
slowly across the globe (maybe 1 minute to cross the whole globe).
Then it really turns a (right angle) corner and accellerates
dramatically on its new course - it shoots off into space crossing the
Earth completely in about 1/2 second.
The object that takes off from the ground appears to accellerate at a
similar rate but crosses the path back where the first object was
originally before the right angle turn (the interceptor does not
appear to correct its trajectory or track the first object).
However, before everyone on this newsgroup assumes that this is
evidence of aliens, consider how much money the USA has spent on Star
Wars technology in the last decade. I think it is much more likely
that this was some secret weapons test, and that could explain why
NASA has come up with this bogus ice story. Good grief, at least they
could come up with something reasonably credible. Ice doesn't zoom
off into space like that. That is a pretty pathetic cover story.
--
_.
--Steve ._||__ Welcome to the World's First GaAs Supercomputer
Warren v\ *| -----------------------------------------------
V
--- ConfMail V4.00
* Origin: Paranet(sm) - The world's leading UFO Investigative News Network
@SEEN-BY 104/2 422 428 605 107/816 30163/100 150 1012/3
@PATH: 30163/150 104/422
(1:30163/150)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(4891) Wed 10 Jun 92 6:55p
By: Tom Randolph
To: All
Re: Re: Hard Copy Shows Nasa Ufo Video
St: Sent Reply chain 4761 5149
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@UFGATE newsin 1.27
From: trandolph@milkwy.enet.dec.com (Tom Randolph)
Date: 9 Jun 92 18:20:43 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Message-ID: <1992Jun9.183415.19671@ryn.mro4.dec.com>
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
In article <qTT4LB2w163w@quake.sylmar.ca.us>, nateh@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Nate
Hawthorn) writes...
>I agree, but as you can tell, YOUR GOVERNMENT is trying to say that you
>are stupid enough to beleive their cover up!
>
>So the question is: Are you stupid enough to beleive your government?
>Are you stupid enough to let them keep covering this stuff up???
Don't you "conspiracy" dudes see even a little contradiction in this scenario?
Why in the world would OUR GOVERNMENT let us see this to begin with if it was
anything so controversial that it needed covering up?
BTW, is there any audio on this tape? Are the comments "WOW, WHAT THE HELL WAS
THAT!!", or is there nothing, no comments at all, cuz nothing of note was
occuring...
-Tom R. milkwy.enet.dec.com!trandolph
--- ConfMail V4.00
* Origin: Paranet(sm) - The world's leading UFO Investigative News Network
@SEEN-BY 104/2 422 428 605 107/816 30163/100 150 1012/3
@PATH: 30163/150 104/422
(1:30163/150)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(4893) Wed 10 Jun 92 6:56p
By: Kerry Sanders
To: All
Re: Re: Nasa Video..most Interesting
St: Sent Reply chain 4889 4918
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@UFGATE newsin 1.27
From: LB.KSD@isumvs.iastate.edu (Kerry Sanders)
Date: 9 Jun 92 21:15:23 GMT
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Message-ID: <1992Jun9.211523.25248@news.iastate.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
In article <1992Jun9.191442.10991@news.eng.convex.com>,
swarren@convex.com (Steve Warren) writes:
>In article <1992Jun8.192456.25461@news.unomaha.edu> STONE@Zeus.unomaha.edu
(Travis R. Stone) writes:
>>The version shown to me is currently in the hands of a small group
>>of private individuals whose names I cannot---and would not---reveal.
>
>It's not that big of a deal. I've got the version from
>Hardcopy myself. Videotaped it off the air.
> ...
>> (C) This NASA nonsense about ice can be definitely ruled out
>> (especially if you see the other segments of the tape,)
>> but the possibility of the whole thing being a H-K
>> (Hunter-Killer) satellite test cannot---until somebody
>> figures out how to deduce the speed of the objects from
>> the video tape and arrives at a figure that mitigates
>> against making the rather extreme turns seen therein.
>> I may give it a go myself this summer, if I can find
>> some slack time.
>
>I saw a posting earlier that mentioned camera motion. This is
>impossible, because the camera is pointed at the planet Earth, which
>fills 80% of the screen. The Earth can be considered a reference
>frame, and it does not move at all in the video.
>
>If the object is as close to Earth as it appears to be, then it is a
>very luminous object. It was also moving thousands of miles per
>second after the change in direction. It starts out drifting very
>slowly across the globe (maybe 1 minute to cross the whole globe).
>Then it really turns a (right angle) corner and accellerates
>dramatically on its new course - it shoots off into space crossing the
>Earth completely in about 1/2 second.
>
>The object that takes off from the ground appears to accellerate at a
>similar rate but crosses the path back where the first object was
>originally before the right angle turn (the interceptor does not
>appear to correct its trajectory or track the first object).
>
>However, before everyone on this newsgroup assumes that this is
>evidence of aliens, consider how much money the USA has spent on Star
>Wars technology in the last decade. I think it is much more likely
>that this was some secret weapons test, and that could explain why
>NASA has come up with this bogus ice story. Good grief, at least they
>could come up with something reasonably credible. Ice doesn't zoom
>off into space like that. That is a pretty pathetic cover story.
>--
> _.
>--Steve ._||__ Welcome to the World's First GaAs Supercomputer
> Warren v\ *| -----------------------------------------------
> V
I've been waiting for an explanation like this. Speaking of
which, has anyone heard any new info about that new plane thats
supposed to replace the SR-71 Blackbird? A couple of months ago
some it was possibly tracked out in California, buts thats the
last I heard. This might be a more legitimite for the scepitcs.
--- ConfMail V4.00
* Origin: Paranet(sm) - The world's leading UFO Investigative News Network
@SEEN-BY 104/2 422 428 605 107/816 30163/100 150 1012/3
@PATH: 30163/150 104/422
(1:30163/150)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(4894) Wed 10 Jun 92 6:56p
By: Mike Pinto
To: All
Re: Re: Ufo Video From Nasa - The Camera Was Moving!
St: Sent Reply chain 4754 4895
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@UFGATE newsin 1.27
From: pinto@rbdc.wsnc.org (Mike Pinto)
Date: 9 Jun 92 05:52:38 GMT
Organization: Red Barn Data Center Public Access Unix, Winston-Salem, NC.
Message-ID: <1992Jun9.055238.27160@rbdc.wsnc.org>
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal
sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>>Looking toward the surface of the earth, and just below the horizon, a
>>small light moved slowly (relatively, of course) from the right to the left.
>>Then suddenly, and without *apparent* cause, the thing immediately executes
>>a 90 degree turn and accelerates rapidly off across the horizon and into
>>space. Meanwhile, at roughly the same location where the thing was at the
>>at it, and the thing anticipated the shot and evaded.
>>
>>Official explanation from NASA was "it was ice" left by the shuttle. ICE?
>>That's a heck of a change in attitude and speed for a piece of orbiting
>>ice.
>Yes, it IS a piece of ice, floating in the payload bay of the shuttle
>Discovery. It's illuminated by the lights in the payload bay. But what
>your Trash TV program surely did not tell you is: what you saw was motion
>of the CAMERA, not motion of the object. You see, NASA mission controllers
>leave the camera on during the "night", while the crew is asleep. The
>camera is then controlled from the ground, with a little joystick-type
>arrangement. If the mission controllers want to look over here, or
>over there, they just flip the lever, and the camera moves. And if
>some brain-dead UFOlogist just happens to be watching as the camera
>is turned away from a piece of ice, he says "Wow! Look at that baby
>accelerate!!!!!!"
>--
>
> Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com
>
I saw this video too, and I would like to know: If the camera movement
caused the motion of the object, why is it that the only thing that moves
is the "ice"? From what I saw, the Earth remained completely motionless
in the background. Every camera pan I have ever seen has caused EVERYTHING
in the picture to move, not just a single object.
--
--
=====================================================================
Mike Pinto | If God had intended man to fly, he
pinto@rbdc.wsnc.org | wouldn't have put all the traction
| down here.
--- ConfMail V4.00
* Origin: Paranet(sm) - The world's leading UFO Investigative News Network
@SEEN-BY 104/2 422 428 605 107/816 30163/100 150 1012/3
@PATH: 30163/150 104/422
(1:30163/150)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(4895) Wed 10 Jun 92 6:56p
By: Brown Todd F
To: All
Re: Re: Ufo Video From Nasa - The Camera Was Moving!
St: Sent Reply chain 4894 4897
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@UFGATE newsin 1.27
From: browntf@seq.uncwil.edu (brown todd f)
Date: 9 Jun 92 13:04:40 GMT
Organization: Univ. of North Carolina @ Wilmington
Message-ID: <1992Jun9.130440.21776@seq.uncwil.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal
jesse@uts.amdahl.com (Jesse Mundis) writes:
>I did not see the footage in question, but for those of you who did, if it
>was camera movement, and the first person described "Looking toward the
surface
>of the earth, and just below the horizon," Wouldn't rapid camera panning
>be obvious? The ice/ufo would remain stationary w.r.t. the horizon. I'd
think
>a fast pan would be obvious since the scenery should move too. If there were
>no background to measure camera movement by, I'd be much more inclined to
>"write it off." So, could someone who saw the footage please comment on this?
A friend of mine copied it for me and I finally saw it last night. The
segment is very short but I can definitely rule out the camera moving
to cause this change in course of the light object. It appears first
drifting along away from the camera JUST BELOW the horizon. Then,
suddenly and very deliberately, it takes a ninety degree turn and
accelerates OVER the horizon back into space away from the camera. One
second later you see a streak coming directly up from the planet. It
does look as if the object manuevered to get out of the line of fire.
I would like to hear more about the rest of the video not seen on
Hard Copy.
--- ConfMail V4.00
* Origin: Paranet(sm) - The world's leading UFO Investigative News Network
@SEEN-BY 104/2 422 428 605 107/816 30163/100 150 1012/3
@PATH: 30163/150 104/422
(1:30163/150)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(4897) Wed 10 Jun 92 6:57p
By: David M. Schiff
To: All
Re: Re: Ufo Video From Nasa - The Camera Was Moving!
St: Sent Reply chain 4895 4899
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@UFGATE newsin 1.27
From: schiffd@tigger.cs.Colorado.EDU (David M. Schiff)
Date: 9 Jun 92 23:08:26 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Message-ID: <1992Jun9.230826.28010@colorado.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal
In article <1992Jun9.055238.27160@rbdc.wsnc.org> pinto@rbdc.wsnc.org (Mike
Pinto) writes:
[lots of stuff deleted]
> I saw this video too, and I would like to know: If the camera movement
>caused the motion of the object, why is it that the only thing that moves
>is the "ice"? From what I saw, the Earth remained completely motionless
>in the background. Every camera pan I have ever seen has caused EVERYTHING
>in the picture to move, not just a single object.
I only saw the video very quickly on Hardcopy (I would'nt mind
seeing it again) and found the original Nasa explanation implausible,
but camera motion seems like it could explain a lot to me.
Keep in mind that all we could see were lit dots - no detail and no
sense of depth. That white blip could be an alien space ship (or artificial
satellite) which is 5000 miles away or it could be a small piece of ice
5 ft. away.
It has been proposed that camera movement could not account for the motion
of the white blip because the earth is seen to remain motionless in
the background while the blip changes but I wonder if this could be
explained in terms of the type of camera motion and the relative
distances of the blip and the earth. If the camera is translated
but not rotated the earth would not appear to move. For instance,
when you drive in a car at night and notice the moon apparently
following the car(because the rays are all hitting the car in a
parallel orientation). The moon will continue to do this until
the car changes direction by making a left or right turn.
On the other hand an object which is close to the car, such as
a street lamp (or a piece of light refecting ice in the current
situation) seems to have relative motion, due to its proximity
to the car (space shuttle).
Another crude observation which I believes supports this
explanation is the apparent fact (as I remember it :-)) that
the "missile" path seemed to be parallel to the "satellite"
path.
^
/ ^
/ /
/ /
/missile / satellite
As opposed to something like
^
/ \
/ \
/ \
missile / \ satellite
which could not be caused by a single motion of the camera.
In other words, it seems like the direction of motion of the camera
was suddenly changed.
Of course, if the camera was swiveled or in anyway rotated then it
seems like the "camera motion" explanation might not suffice.
It would help to know exactly how the camera was mounted and in what
ways it could have been manipulated by the ground controllers.
Does the above seem plausible?
I would be especially interested in the comments of those who have
a copy of the film (or the fellow who claims to have the secret but
clearer version).
Dave.
--- ConfMail V4.00
* Origin: Paranet(sm) - The world's leading UFO Investigative News Network
@SEEN-BY 104/2 422 428 605 107/816 30163/100 150 1012/3
@PATH: 30163/150 104/422
(1:30163/150)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(4898) Wed 10 Jun 92 6:57p
By: Andy Kurtz
To: All
Re: Re: Ufo Vid From Nasa
St: Sent
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@UFGATE newsin 1.27
From: ak35+@andrew.cmu.edu (Andy Kurtz)
Date: 9 Jun 92 20:16:13 GMT
Organization: Doctoral student, English, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Message-ID: <MeBF6Ba00WBLA4lFEK@andrew.cmu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
I was able to videotape the ufo segment and so have been able to watch
it a number of times (I *am* an avid Hard-Copy watcher -- one of the
only tv news shows that makes no pretense to objectivity!!). The
segment actually shows the video from two different perspectives -- as
part of the video segment itself, that is, the video "spliced" into the
segment, and filmed from what looks to be about a 13 inch tv monitor
from a distance of around 4 or so feet (perceived distance, not actual).
The latter perspective is interesting in that the monitor being used
casts the black and white video in blue, enhancing contrast. In the
blue monitor from around 4 feet, you are clearly able to see the white
streak moving in what looks to be an arc from below, sort of an
elongated "U". It is unclear from the video whether or not this streak
of light intersects with the trajectory of the white dot. In fact, my
first reaction was that it clearly did not; it seemed too close. But it
was a weird perspective, shot from a weird angle, released by a weird
organization, and broadcast by a weird tv show, so who knows...
Jess Mundis writes
>Wouldn't rapid camera panning
>be obvious? The ice/ufo would remain stationary w.r.t. the horizon.
The earth's horizon does remain stationary, and therefore the camera
also. A correct conclusion? I do not think how it could be otherwise.
Obvious questions:
Keeping in mind that NASA is the PR strongarm for the entire
military-industrial complex, wouldn't this footage be "newsworthy" to
others besides Hard Copy -- why was it not on the network news? Did
anyone see reports of it in the NY Times or equivalent papers? This
does not seem as silly as it sounds. Sure, network news usually steers
clear of the anything but that which is boring and safe. Still, NASA is
a government agency and the release of video from them indicates a
certain amount of scientific legitimacy. Which hints at another
question: if it were only a piece of ice, why did NASA release it at
all? Could it have been leaked? Does anyone know the particulars of
the release?
Are we able to garner any hard data from the video (Speed, trajectories,
distance)? I'll leave it up to the math wizards out there.
One last thing:
T.R. Stone writes
>I've seen the video mentioned; actually, I've seen a version
>of it that had quite a bit more stuff on it that was along
>the same lines, just a bit stranger. The version I saw included
>a segment showing (fairly clearly) two objects that
>appeared to be oblate and flickering as though they were
>spinning come across the field of view; a fast-moving "streak" comes
>up from below---presumably from Mother Earth---and appears to
>strike one of the objects. The result? I don't know...at the
>instant of apparent impact, the tape "cut away" to another segment.
Although I am not sure why anyone with such footage would conceal it
(there are plenty of ways of "leaking" it to those who would make sure
it would become public without risking their anonymity), I must say that
one of the amazing things about the footage that NASA released is what
we do not see. It seemed to me that the white dot was still within the
field of view when the tape was cut -- either by NASA or by Hard Copy.
ak
--- ConfMail V4.00
* Origin: Paranet(sm) - The world's leading UFO Investigative News Network
@SEEN-BY 104/2 422 428 605 107/816 30163/100 150 1012/3
@PATH: 30163/150 104/422
(1:30163/150)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(4899) Wed 10 Jun 92 6:57p
By: Steve Warren
To: All
Re: Re: Ufo Video From Nasa - The Camera Was Moving!
St: Sent Reply chain 4897 4901
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@UFGATE newsin 1.27
From: swarren@convex.com (Steve Warren)
Date: 9 Jun 92 23:55:08 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
Message-ID: <1992Jun9.235508.16563@news.eng.convex.com>
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal
In article <q#=lmw.sheaffer@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
writes:
>I spoke to James Oberg about this. He didn't know it had been on "Hard
>Copy", but he's quite familiar with the video. Apparently it's something
[...]
>Yes, it IS a piece of ice, floating in the payload bay of the shuttle
>Discovery. It's illuminated by the lights in the payload bay. But what
>your Trash TV program surely did not tell you is: what you saw was motion
>of the CAMERA, not motion of the object. You see, NASA mission controllers
[...]
> Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com
>
> Past Chairman, The Bay Area Skeptics - for whom I speak only when authorized!
Hey, you skeptics make such a point of how quickly the True Believers
interpret events to confirm their point of view (a correct criticism,
BTW), but I don't see much difference between their approach and yours.
You eagerly embraced this explanation and proclaimed that it was true,
without ever having seen the actual footage in question. For shame.
If you had actually seen the video we are talking about you would have
realised that the explanation you proposed here is impossible. The
camera was aimed at the Earth the entire time and did not move at all.
It is much more likely that this was an advanced weapons test of some
kind, but of course NASA is not permitted to offer such an explanation.
--
_.
--Steve ._||__ Welcome to the World's First GaAs Supercomputer
Warren v\ *| -----------------------------------------------
V
--- ConfMail V4.00
* Origin: Paranet(sm) - The world's leading UFO Investigative News Network
@SEEN-BY 104/2 422 428 605 107/816 30163/100 150 1012/3
@PATH: 30163/150 104/422
(1:30163/150)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(4901) Wed 10 Jun 92 6:57p
By: Nick Eads
To: All
Re: Re: Ufo Video From Nasa - The Camera Was Moving!
St: Sent Reply chain 4899 4904
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@UFGATE newsin 1.27
From: nreads01@starbase.spd.louisville.edu (Nick Eads)
Date: 9 Jun 92 15:29:38 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville
Message-ID: <nreads01.708103778@starbase.spd.louisville.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal
In <q#=lmw.sheaffer@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>In article <nreads01.707781749@starbase.spd.louisville.edu>
nreads01@starbase.spd.louisville.edu (Nick Eads) writes:
>>Did anyone catch today's Hard Copy (6/5)? (Of course, I hate to admit that I
>>saw it myself -- it was an accident.) They showed what I feel is some of the
>>most impressive evidence of the existence of extraterrestrial activity. The
>>video was shot by one of the astronauts on a recent (the most recent?)
>>shuttle mission. I will describe the video as it was shown...
>>
>>Looking toward the surface of the earth, and just below the horizon, a
>>small light moved slowly (relatively, of course) from the right to the left.
>>Then suddenly, and without *apparent* cause, the thing immediately executes
>>a 90 degree turn and accelerates rapidly off across the horizon and into
>>space. Meanwhile, at roughly the same location where the thing was at the
>>moment before turning, another something shoots rapidly *up* from earth and
>>into space. According to the UFO investigator (pardon me, but I forget
>>his name, but he is on the UFO magazine staff), somebody "shot" something
>>at it, and the thing anticipated the shot and evaded.
>>
>>Official explanation from NASA was "it was ice" left by the shuttle. ICE?
>>That's a heck of a change in attitude and speed for a piece of orbiting
>>ice. Of course, one can't be sure of the distance from the shuttle, which
>>would be a vital piece of info. I'm usually not impressed by UFO reports,
>>but this was something to see. Anyone else catch it?
>I spoke to James Oberg about this. He didn't know it had been on "Hard
>Copy", but he's quite familiar with the video. Apparently it's something
>that some UFO enthusiast taped off the "NASA Select" cable channel late
>one night, got excited, and flew off the handle. The far-out fringe of
>UFOlogy has been promoting it ever since.
>Yes, it IS a piece of ice, floating in the payload bay of the shuttle
>Discovery. It's illuminated by the lights in the payload bay. But what
>your Trash TV program surely did not tell you is: what you saw was motion
>of the CAMERA, not motion of the object. You see, NASA mission controllers
>leave the camera on during the "night", while the crew is asleep. The
>camera is then controlled from the ground, with a little joystick-type
>arrangement. If the mission controllers want to look over here, or
>over there, they just flip the lever, and the camera moves. And if
>some brain-dead UFOlogist just happens to be watching as the camera
>is turned away from a piece of ice, he says "Wow! Look at that baby
>accelerate!!!!!!"
>--
I'd like to see you use that explanation while *watching* the video. You
obviously have not seen the video in question, and what your honorable
friend has not explained to you about the "panning camera" theory is this:
The thing accelerates *away* from the camera. Get it? Not zooming left
nor zooming right, but slightly right and dimming into the distance. A
little quick trigonometry will show that it had a larger velocity
component (if the field of the video is taken as the x-y plane) in the -z
direction. Furthermore, the attitude of the earth WAS NOT CHANGING
during the time the "piece of ice" was in motion. I think you'd have to
concede that a camera pan would make this a most obvious giveaway.
And by the way, before you start calling what I watch "trash,"
and before you imply that I am a UFO trash junkie, let me say
that I have only seen that show twice in my life, and I don't care for
their journalistic methods. I am also one of the tried-and-true
UFO skeptics, as I have found too many faults in *every* UFO story I have
ever investigated in a little over 15 years. However this TV show happened
to show a piece of reputable film footage I have been unable to explain --
and I have looked for all the tell-tale signs. Listen, my friend, your
explanation doesn't wash. See for yourself sometime and show me your
verifiable disproof. Trust me, I will be glad if you do. As a fellow
skeptic, I just don't appreciate another skeptic sounding "high and
mighty" that they have the explanation when they themselves haven't even
tested their hypothesis on their own. Alas, it seems some skeptics are
just as illogical and unscientific as some of the believers.
--
*------------------------------*----------------------------------------------*
| Nick "The Cache" Eads | nreads01@starbase.spd.louisville.edu |
| EE Department *----------------------------------------------*
| University of Louisville | GEMail: N.EADS |
| Louisville, Kentucky 40292 | SciBoard (502-588-0864): Sysnick |
*------------------------------*----------------------------------------------*
| Don't blame me; the Illuminati are responsible for everything... |
*-----------------------------------------------------------------------------*
--- ConfMail V4.00
* Origin: Paranet(sm) - The world's leading UFO Investigative News Network
@SEEN-BY 104/2 422 428 605 107/816 30163/100 150 1012/3
@PATH: 30163/150 104/422
(1:30163/150)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(4904) Wed 10 Jun 92 6:58p
By: Drew Davidson
To: All
Re: Re: Ufo Video From Nasa - The Camera Was Moving!
St: Sent Reply chain 4901 4905
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@UFGATE newsin 1.27
From: davidson@monet.cs.unc.edu (Drew Davidson)
Date: 10 Jun 92 01:25:55 GMT
Organization: University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Message-ID: <12794@borg.cs.unc.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal
In article <1992Jun9.230826.28010@colorado.edu> schiffd@tigger.cs.Colorado.EDU
(David M. Schiff) writes:
>In article <1992Jun9.055238.27160@rbdc.wsnc.org> pinto@rbdc.wsnc.org (Mike
Pinto) writes:
>[lots of stuff deleted]
>> I saw this video too, and I would like to know: If the camera movement
>>caused the motion of the object, why is it that the only thing that moves
>>is the "ice"? From what I saw, the Earth remained completely motionless
>>in the background. Every camera pan I have ever seen has caused EVERYTHING
>>in the picture to move, not just a single object.
>
>I only saw the video very quickly on Hardcopy (I would'nt mind
>seeing it again) and found the original Nasa explanation implausible,
>but camera motion seems like it could explain a lot to me.
>
>Keep in mind that all we could see were lit dots - no detail and no
>sense of depth. That white blip could be an alien space ship (or artificial
>satellite) which is 5000 miles away or it could be a small piece of ice
>5 ft. away.
Perhaps further analysis of the tape would reveal more -- like whether
or not the UFO appears to fly beneath dark clouds on the earth's
surface. After reviewing my tape of the program repeatedly, it seems
to me as if the brightness of the UFO changes somewhat occasionally --
and there are dark clouds visible in the earth's atmosphere. However,
my freeze frame is not sharp enough for any real analysis. Maybe if I
had a frame grabber and the original video. :-)
>[...] If the camera is translated
>but not rotated the earth would not appear to move.
True.
>Another crude observation which I believes supports this
>explanation is the apparent fact (as I remember it :-)) that
>the "missile" path seemed to be parallel to the "satellite"
>path.
>
>[diagrams deleted]
>
>which could not be caused by a single motion of the camera.
>In other words, it seems like the direction of motion of the camera
>was suddenly changed.
I have a copy of the video in question and can state categorically
that the motion of the UFO and the "missile" are not parallel. They
are in fact approximately 30 degrees away from parallel.
>It would help to know exactly how the camera was mounted and in what
>ways it could have been manipulated by the ground controllers.
Yes it would help quite a bit to know this. I would also like to
see all records of commands sent to the shuttle to move the camera.
Was it in motion during the incident, and if so how was it moving?
Surely NASA has records of this. What are they, just flying by the
seat of their pants up there?
>I would be especially interested in the comments of those who have
>a copy of the film (or the fellow who claims to have the secret but
>clearer version).
I taped Hard Copy so I have watched the video dozens of times. What
really irked me about their segment was that they didn't let the
video run long enough. They stopped the video before the UFO
completely disappeared -- it had become a dim streak. One time they
let it run a few seconds longer but it was on a monitor behind Don
Ecker. I would like to see the whole video, including any "secret"
versions. 8-)
Drew
--
Drew Davidson \\ HELP FULLY INFORM JURORS! TELL YOUR FRIENDS:
davidson@cs.unc.edu \\ As a juror, you have the right to vote NOT GUILTY
** LEGALIZE TRUTH ** \\ if you believe the law broken is unjust or wrongly
* FULLY INFORM JURORS * \\ applied, regardless of the facts of the case.
--- ConfMail V4.00
* Origin: Paranet(sm) - The world's leading UFO Investigative News Network
@SEEN-BY 104/2 422 428 605 107/816 30163/100 150 1012/3
@PATH: 30163/150 104/422
(1:30163/150)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(4905) Wed 10 Jun 92 6:58p
By: Crunchy Frog
To: All
Re: Re: Ufo Video From Nasa - The Camera Was Moving!
St: Sent Reply chain 4904 4908
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@UFGATE newsin 1.27
From: amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog)
Date: 10 Jun 92 03:05:07 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Message-ID: <1992Jun10.030507.1228@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal
In article <1992Jun9.055238.27160@rbdc.wsnc.org>
pinto@rbdc.wsnc.org (Mike Pinto) writes:
>sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>
>>Yes, it IS a piece of ice, floating in the payload bay of the shuttle
>>Discovery. It's illuminated by the lights in the payload bay. But what
>>your Trash TV program surely did not tell you is: what you saw was motion
>>of the CAMERA, not motion of the object. You see, NASA mission controllers
>>leave the camera on during the "night", while the crew is asleep. The
>>camera is then controlled from the ground, with a little joystick-type
>>arrangement. If the mission controllers want to look over here, or
>>over there, they just flip the lever, and the camera moves. And if
>>some brain-dead UFOlogist just happens to be watching as the camera
>>is turned away from a piece of ice, he says "Wow! Look at that baby
>>accelerate!!!!!!"
>>
> I saw this video too, and I would like to know: If the camera movement
>caused the motion of the object, why is it that the only thing that moves
>is the "ice"? From what I saw, the Earth remained completely motionless
>in the background. Every camera pan I have ever seen has caused EVERYTHING
>in the picture to move, not just a single object.
It would seem to me that if the background object is *very* far away,
and the camera doesn't rotate in following the object but actually
translates, then the background object (i.e. the Earth) wouldn't move
at all.
Consider this: Go outside and look at the sun when it is setting. It will
(one presumes) be west of you. Turn to watch somebody crossing your
field of view. The sun will shift in your field of view. Then, when
someone crosses your field of view, move with them. The sun will remain
west of you and since you are not changing the direction you are looking
it will appear to stay still.
Or am I missing something?
C Frog
--- ConfMail V4.00
* Origin: Paranet(sm) - The world's leading UFO Investigative News Network
@SEEN-BY 104/2 422 428 605 107/816 30163/100 150 1012/3
@PATH: 30163/150 104/422
(1:30163/150)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(4908) Wed 10 Jun 92 6:59p
By: Pierre Stromberg
To: All
Re: Re: Ufo Video From Nasa - The Camera Was Moving!
St: Sent Reply chain 4905 4909
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@UFGATE newsin 1.27
From: pierres@microsoft.com (Pierre Stromberg)
Date: 9 Jun 92 21:08:17 GMT
Organization: Sausage, SPAM, Baked Beans, and SPAM Incorporated.
Message-ID: <1992Jun09.210817.25293@microsoft.com>
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal
In article <14u503EK0eBd00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> jesse@uts.amdahl.com (Jesse
Mundis) writes:
>I did not see the footage in question, but for those of you who did, if it
>was camera movement,and the first person described "Looking toward the surface
>of the earth, and just below the horizon," Wouldn't rapid camera panning
>be obvious? The ice/ufo would remain stationary w.r.t. the horizon. I'd
think
>a fast pan would be obvious since the scenery should move too. If there were
>no background to measure camera movement by, I'd be much more inclined to
>"write it off." So, could someone who saw the footage please comment on this?
Speaking as a skeptic, I did indeed see this footage too and it definitely
got my attention. The camera didn't make any sudden pans. The horizon was
clearly visible and remained motionless as the action took place. A physicist
colleague of mine asked what the shuttle's direction and velocity was in
relation to the object. It's possible that the object didn't turn a sharp
90 degrees but that it may have only seemed that way. This is a good question
that hasn't been clearly answered but it's interesting to note that the
unknown object also quickly accelerated right after it made it's sharp "turn".
I'm glad that I found this thread in sci.skeptic as I was planning on posting
an inquiry about this footage. It really bugged me.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-Pierre Stromberg Microsoft Corporation Redmond, Washington
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
uunet!microsoft!pierres pierres@microsoft.UUCP decvax!microsoft!pierres
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The road to Hell is paved with good intentions" - Samuel Johnson
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--- ConfMail V4.00
* Origin: Paranet(sm) - The world's leading UFO Investigative News Network
@SEEN-BY 104/2 422 428 605 107/816 30163/100 150 1012/3
@PATH: 30163/150 104/422
(1:30163/150)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(4909) Wed 10 Jun 92 6:59p
By: !
To: All
Re: Re: Ufo Video From Nasa - The Camera Was Moving!
St: Sent Reply chain 4908 4912
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@UFGATE newsin 1.27
From: vu0208@bingsuns.cc.binghamton.edu (!)
Date: 10 Jun 92 06:44:19 GMT
Organization: State University of New York at Binghamton
Message-ID: <1992Jun10.064419.7293@newserve.cc.binghamton.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal
In article <12794@borg.cs.unc.edu> davidson@monet.cs.unc.edu (Drew Davidson)
writes:
Before i say anything let me admit that i haven't seen this UFO footage done by
shuttle.
But what i grab from other posters I have to make some comments about it,
no matter how ridiculous they may sound!
1) the alleged UFO was shot by a missle: who ever shot the missle should
have known that shuttle Endeavor was up there !!!! doing something!
So it can't be US government doing the shooting definitely, why would they
jeapordize their shuttle and crew !!
2) the alleged "ice" piece (if that's what it was) cannot accelerate on its
OWN and go into higher orbit than the shuttle itself!!
3) if indeed it was a UFO and it was shot by a missle and (what ever
happened to it)... by showing it on TV what purpose does the US government
or NASA was trying to serve??
4) recently, on CNN (after the Endeavor's mission) it was shown that some
floating debris hit the shuttle and cracked a tile (perhaps made a
big dent or mark) on one of its tiles....!!! is that any way connected
to this UFO incident recorded by the shuttle ??
5) note that there is so much space junk out there that we may expect to
encounter it as UFOs in the future
6) Any ideas about clearing and cleaning up this space deris/junk
happy ufoing
--- ConfMail V4.00
* Origin: Paranet(sm) - The world's leading UFO Investigative News Network
@SEEN-BY 104/2 422 428 605 107/816 30163/100 150 1012/3
@PATH: 30163/150 104/422
(1:30163/150)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(4912) Wed 10 Jun 92 7:00p
By: S.j. Morden
To: All
Re: Re: Ufo Video From Nasa - The Camera Was Moving!
St: Sent Reply chain 4909 4914
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@UFGATE newsin 1.27
From: S.J.Morden@newcastle.ac.uk (S.J. Morden)
Date: 10 Jun 92 08:55:37 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK NE1 7RU
Message-ID: <BpMGsp.Myu@newcastle.ac.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal
Just had to write in on this one! :-)
Okay, assume it's a lump of ice. A lump of ice in what? Space.
A lump of ice in space, in direct sunlight?
Assume yes.
Ice + photons = Ice + rapidly expanding vapour
Rapidly expanding vapour = mass loss + velocity = momentum =
movement.
If the ice was only a few feet away, it would move fairly briskly
wrt to camera.
Before you flame me to Gehenna and back, take a look at the Giotto
pictures of Halley's comet nucleus, and then tell me that ice is
nice 'n' stable in the inner solar system. Jetting, what jetting?
Shalom,
Simes
The milliamp is mightier than the sword! s.j.morden@uk.ac.newcastle
--- ConfMail V4.00
* Origin: Paranet(sm) - The world's leading UFO Investigative News Network
@SEEN-BY 104/2 422 428 605 107/816 30163/100 150 1012/3
@PATH: 30163/150 104/422
(1:30163/150)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(4914) Wed 10 Jun 92 7:00p
By: Marcy Weibe
To: All
Re: Re: Ufo Video From Nasa - The Camera Was Moving!
St: Sent Reply chain 4912 4971
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@UFGATE newsin 1.27
From: 283s@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Marcy Weibe)
Date: 10 Jun 92 14:00:41 GMT
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD
Message-ID: <20872@oasys.dt.navy.mil>
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
First, I am using my wife's account. Second, I am very familiar with
this footage (just by the description) because I was one of the researchers
who pulled the original tapes. The trush is that the objects (not object)
were being referenced against an Earth background. The atmosphere is
also visible as a thin band along the edge of the Earth background.
This gives us the camera reference we are looking for. The camera
did not move. A rotation of the Earth versus the Orbiter reference
shows the camera very steady.
Next, we have the objects in question, and there are a couple of "hat"
shaped objects which are present at the same distance on different days.
However, these do not make abrupt turns or accelerate. They are very
stationary with respect to the background and surrounding smaller particles.
The objects being mentioned that are seemingly changing velocity and
direction, are very hard to get a size fix on. The stationary and slightly
wobbling hat types are also hard to judge size but they have a definite
observable shape to them; tophat if you will.
I am aware of Mr. Oberg's knowledge of this and the original ufologist
who brought these to our attention. A very talented collegue of mine
and myself proceeded to do an extensive study of these and remained
collective throughout the study. It then so happened that the astronauts
were attending a dinner locally to be congratulated on their successful
misison. Digital zooming providing by me on all subject objects, with
color removed for clarity, and a tape of this was hand delivered to
one of the crew at this dinner. A thorough study was promised. By
this time, Mr. Oberg was in full defense. A somewhat cocky attitude
was observed in his correspondence. This was long before any rational
study was concluded.
My experiences with UFO's and video go deep into the Gulf Breeze sightings
case and beyond. I know a tru-f-o when I see one. The astronauts efforts,
with the "experts" they have, concluded it was indeed ice particles
affected by a thruster firing. No real explanation was given for the
"hat" shape which appeared on at least two occasions at different days
on the mission. My getting on here is to give the facts, and there
is more to this story. In my opinion, everything seen, was not necessarily
ice, but chunks only; maybe.
In addition, I do this type of work for research purposes only not to
make money which sometimes others tend to do. I have no idea where
Hard Copy received their tape but I know if they showed the black and
white version, this tape was one that I worked on.
--- ConfMail V4.00
* Origin: Paranet(sm) - The world's leading UFO Investigative News Network
@SEEN-BY 104/2 422 428 605 107/816 30163/100 150 1012/3
@PATH: 30163/150 104/422
(1:30163/150)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(4971) Thu 11 Jun 92 12:35p
By: Don Allen
To: All
Re: Re: Ufo Video From Nasa - The Camera Was Moving!
St: Sent Reply chain 4914 4976
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@UFGATE newsin 1.27
From: dona@bilver.uucp (Don Allen)
Date: 11 Jun 92 00:56:35 GMT
Organization: W. J. Vermillion - Winter Park, FL
Message-ID: <1992Jun11.005635.26340@bilver.uucp>
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal
In article <q#=lmw.sheaffer@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
writes:
>In article <nreads01.707781749@starbase.spd.louisville.edu>
nreads01@starbase.spd.louisville.edu (Nick Eads) writes:
>>Did anyone catch today's Hard Copy (6/5)? (Of course, I hate to admit that I
>>saw it myself -- it was an accident.) They showed what I feel is some of the
>>most impressive evidence of the existence of extraterrestrial activity. The
>>video was shot by one of the astronauts on a recent (the most recent?)
>>shuttle mission. I will describe the video as it was shown...
>>
>>Looking toward the surface of the earth, and just below the horizon, a
>>small light moved slowly (relatively, of course) from the right to the left.
>>Then suddenly, and without *apparent* cause, the thing immediately executes
>>a 90 degree turn and accelerates rapidly off across the horizon and into
>>space. Meanwhile, at roughly the same location where the thing was at the
>>moment before turning, another something shoots rapidly *up* from earth and
>>into space. According to the UFO investigator (pardon me, but I forget
>>his name, but he is on the UFO magazine staff), somebody "shot" something
>>at it, and the thing anticipated the shot and evaded.
>>
>>Official explanation from NASA was "it was ice" left by the shuttle. ICE?
>>That's a heck of a change in attitude and speed for a piece of orbiting
>>ice. Of course, one can't be sure of the distance from the shuttle, which
>>would be a vital piece of info. I'm usually not impressed by UFO reports,
>>but this was something to see. Anyone else catch it?
>
>I spoke to James Oberg about this. He didn't know it had been on "Hard
>Copy", but he's quite familiar with the video. Apparently it's something
>that some UFO enthusiast taped off the "NASA Select" cable channel late
>one night, got excited, and flew off the handle. The far-out fringe of
>UFOlogy has been promoting it ever since.
*yawn*...
As usual, Robert Sheaffer is all wet..here, have a towel and dry off :-)
The camera isn't moving. The object isn't "ice" and as usual, NASA
is covering their hind end.
Did Robert Sheaffer even *watch* the segment?? (I seriously doubt it..
what..a skeptic DO something like get off their backsides?? :-)
Wonder what lame excuse that Robert Sheaffer can give for "ice" performing
evasive manuever when the object ABRUPTLY changes course after it appears
to have been fired upon??
NOTE: BEFORE this video hit "Hard Copy" and was discussed and shown
by Don Ecker (A HECKUVA lot more credible person than Robert Sheaffer
in my opinion) it was shown back in April on the "ET Monitor" satellite
program. Someone wishing to verify this little factoid should do
some followup by contacting John Brandenburg.
Maybe NASA is getting a little tired of playing satellite "tag" with the
ATEK Reptillians, eh? :-)
Don
NSA KEYWORDS: AVIARY, OCELOT, FERRET, KIT GREEN, JOHN ALEXANDER, ED DAMES
--
-* Don Allen *- // Only | Tavistock + Esalen = "New Age"
Internet: dona@bilver.uucp \X/ Amiga | Rothschild + Rockefeller = FED
UUCP: .uunet!peora!bilver!vicstoy!dona | UN + Maitreya = "Twilight Zone"
"A democracy cannot be both ignorant and free" - Thomas Jefferson
--- ConfMail V4.00
* Origin: Paranet(sm) - The world's leading UFO Investigative News Network
@SEEN-BY 104/2 422 428 605 107/816 30163/100 150 1012/3
@PATH: 30163/150 104/422
(1:30163/150)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(4972) Thu 11 Jun 92 12:35p
By: Lizard Man
To: All
Re: Re: Ufo Video From Nasa - Was It Just Ice?
St: Sent Reply in 4980
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@UFGATE newsin 1.27
From: dalton@pan.arc.nasa.gov (lizard man)
Date: 11 Jun 92 02:52:12 GMT
Organization: Space Science Division, NASA-Ames Research Center
Message-ID: <1992Jun11.025212.1401@riacs.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal
In article <BpMGsp.Myu@newcastle.ac.uk>
S.J.Morden@newcastle.ac.uk (S.J. Morden) writes:
>
>Okay, assume it's a lump of ice. A lump of ice in what? Space.
>A lump of ice in space, in direct sunlight?
>Assume yes.
>Ice + photons = Ice + rapidly expanding vapour
>Rapidly expanding vapour = mass loss + velocity = momentum =
>movement.
>
>If the ice was only a few feet away, it would move fairly briskly
>wrt to camera.
It should be obvious to anybody that clouds of space debris of any kind
will contain particles exhibiting a variety of motions. Also, the
particles may come in a variety of shapes, sizes, and brightnesses --
i.e., many will not be visible to a camera.
My first reaction, while reading the account of the video, was that it
sounded like a description of some small particles bouncing around in
space. I at first thought that bits of metal or even paint flecks could
provide an explanation, but ice makes even more sense, since the surface
of the shuttle provides an ideal surface for such ice to form, either
before leaving the atmosphere, during jettisoning of liquid waste, or in
the cargo bay.
It would be simple for an easily-seen particle to bounce off of another
not-so-easily-seen particle; likewise, if you've ever dropped liquid
nitrogen or even dry ice in water or even on a tile floor, you
would understand that at temperatures like those found in space,
ice particles can very easily be expected to jet. Try dropping dry
ice in a skillet someday. The resulting motions are not simple.
As our colleague, (Mr.? Mrs.? Dr.? Ms.? check one) Morden points out, Ice in
space, even without direct sunlight, will sublime rapidly, enabling it to
self-propel. If the site of evaporation shifts (an almost certainty),
the ice particle may be expected to change direction.
--Brad Dalton
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Having worked in close contact with many of the members of the SETI
Project team (these are the people building radio telescopes so they can
search for evidence of extraterrestrials) I am sure that when some hard,
cold evidence of extraterrestrial life appears, these people will make
sure we know about it. Most of them have made the search for an answer
to the question of, "Are We Alone?" their life's goal, and pursue it
with the same passion certain medical researchers put toward finding a
cancer or AIDS cure. When there is hard evidence, whether it be microbes
on Mars, algae on Europa, microwave signals from Barnard's Star, it will
appear in the scientific literature.
SETI = "Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence"
To contact SETI, write:
SETI Institute
2035 Landings Drive
Mt. View, CA 94043
or FAX (415) 961-7099
But please don't bug them with crackpot ideas or stories from the
_Weekly World News_. These are serious people who take their work very
seriously. What you might do, however, is ask them to give a
presentation for you.....
----------------------------------------------------------------------
--- ConfMail V4.00
* Origin: Paranet(sm) - The world's leading UFO Investigative News Network
@SEEN-BY 104/2 422 428 605 107/816 30163/100 150 1012/3
@PATH: 30163/150 104/422
(1:30163/150)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(4976) Thu 11 Jun 92 12:36p
By: James Roger Black
To: All
Re: Re: Ufo Video From Nasa - The Camera Was Moving!
St: Sent Reply chain 4971 4977
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@UFGATE newsin 1.27
From: jrblack@shemtaia.weeg.uiowa.edu (James Roger Black)
Date: 11 Jun 92 04:04:01 GMT
Organization: University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA
Message-ID: <1992Jun11.040401.16930@umaxc.weeg.uiowa.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal
In a recent article about the NASA "UFO taking evasive action" video,
Robert Sheaffer (sheaffer@netcom.com), the self-proclaimed "Scepticus
Maximus" writes:
|> I spoke to James Oberg about this. He didn't know it had been on "Hard
|> Copy", but he's quite familiar with the video. Apparently it's something
|> that some UFO enthusiast taped off the "NASA Select" cable channel late
|> one night, got excited, and flew off the handle. The far-out fringe of
|> UFOlogy has been promoting it ever since.
|>
|> Yes, it IS a piece of ice, floating in the payload bay of the shuttle
|> Discovery. It's illuminated by the lights in the payload bay. But what
|> your Trash TV program surely did not tell you is: what you saw was motion
|> of the CAMERA, not motion of the object. You see, NASA mission controllers
|> leave the camera on during the "night", while the crew is asleep. The
|> camera is then controlled from the ground, with a little joystick-type
|> arrangement. If the mission controllers want to look over here, or
|> over there, they just flip the lever, and the camera moves. And if
|> some brain-dead UFOlogist just happens to be watching as the camera
|> is turned away from a piece of ice, he says "Wow! Look at that baby
|> accelerate!!!!!!"
This is a textbook example of arrogant, uninformed, armchair
debunking. A "skeptic" who has not examined the evidence "explains"
the phenomenon in question by reference to the pronouncements of
another "skeptic" who, to put it as charitably as possible, also
doesn't know what he is talking about. The first "skeptic" (now
revealed as a garden-variety debunker) then proceeds to hurl abusive
epithets ("UFO enthusiast", "flew off the handle", "far-out fringe",
"Trash TV", "brain-dead UFOlogist") at his opponents.
As one who *has* viewed the video carefully and repeatedly, I can state
with some confidence that:
(1) There is no evidence that the objects in question are "floating
in the payload bay of the shuttle". They appear, in fact, to be
some distance away from the shuttle.
(2) There is no evidence that the apparent acceleration of the objects
is due to camera motion. In fact, the background (including the
earth horizon and what look to be stars) is quite stable throughout
the entire episode.
(3) There *is* evidence for both the right-angle change of direction by
one of the objects, and for the "shot from below" that streaks
across the screen near where the object had previously been.
Mr. Sheaffer offers no explanation for the latter, which is perhaps
the most striking element of the entire film.
If a "UFO believer" were to offer such a lame, inadequate, and wholly
unsupported statement of his position (especially with a heavy load of
invective and abuse sprinkled throughout for good measure), he would be
enthusiastically crucified by all the net.skeptics. I can't help but
notice that most of the big names in the net's skeptical community
are strangely silent in the face of Mr. Sheaffer's equally offensive
provocation from the other direction.
Just for the record, I do *not* believe that the video shows a flying
saucer being attacked by SDI, or anything of the sort. In fact, some
of the current discussion on ParaNet is leaning toward the hypothesis
that the objects are, in fact, just what NASA says they are--chunks of
waste ice, whose acceleration relative to the shuttle was due to a burst
from a shuttle thruster--and that the "shot from below" is most likely
either a scratch on the glass or, perhaps, a meteor.
If Mr. Sheaffer had bothered to watch "Trash TV" long enough to see
the video, he would most likely have noticed the bright flash of the
thruster from off-screen moments before the objects changed direction
and speed. But since he didn't, it falls to us gullible fools on
ParaNet to do his work for him. So the bottom line seems to be this:
The "believers" are acting like skeptics, and some (though, thankfully,
not all) of the "skeptics" are revealing themselves as believers in the
One True Religion of Debunk.
Any more, you can't tell the players without a scorecard.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Black jrblack@shemtaia.weeg.uiowa.edu
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--- ConfMail V4.00
* Origin: Paranet(sm) - The world's leading UFO Investigative News Network
@SEEN-BY 104/2 422 428 605 107/816 30163/100 150 1012/3
@PATH: 30163/150 104/422
(1:30163/150)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(4977) Thu 11 Jun 92 12:36p
By: Ken Arromdee
To: All
Re: Re: Ufo Video From Nasa - The Camera Was Moving!
St: Sent Reply chain 4976 4978
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@UFGATE newsin 1.27
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Date: 11 Jun 92 04:51:38 GMT
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Message-ID: <1992Jun11.045138.17642@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal
In article <1992Jun11.040401.16930@umaxc.weeg.uiowa.edu>
jrblack@shemtaia.weeg.uiowa.edu (James Roger Black) writes:
>(2) There is no evidence that the apparent acceleration of the objects
> is due to camera motion. In fact, the background (including the
> earth horizon and what look to be stars) is quite stable throughout
> the entire episode.
You haven't been listening. It is quite possible for the objects to accelerate
due to camera motion, without the background becoming unstable. Moving
the camera will _not_ cause the background to move around.
--
Hi! Ani mutacia shel virus .signature. Ha`atek oti letoch .signature shelcha!
Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
--- ConfMail V4.00
* Origin: Paranet(sm) - The world's leading UFO Investigative News Network
@SEEN-BY 104/2 422 428 605 107/816 30163/100 150 1012/3
@PATH: 30163/150 104/422
(1:30163/150)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(4978) Thu 11 Jun 92 12:36p
By: Robert J Unglenieks
To: All
Re: Re: Ufo Video From Nasa - The Camera Was Moving!
St: Sent Reply chain 4977 4979
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@UFGATE newsin 1.27
From: unglenie@author.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J Unglenieks)
Date: 11 Jun 92 05:14:45 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Message-ID: <1992Jun11.051445.4054@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal
In article <1992Jun11.045138.17642@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>
arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>In article <1992Jun11.040401.16930@umaxc.weeg.uiowa.edu>
jrblack@shemtaia.weeg.uiowa.edu (James Roger Black) writes:
>>(2) There is no evidence that the apparent acceleration of the objects
>> is due to camera motion. In fact, the background (including the
>> earth horizon and what look to be stars) is quite stable throughout
>> the entire episode.
>
>You haven't been listening. It is quite possible for the objects to
accelerate
>due to camera motion, without the background becoming unstable. Moving
>the camera will _not_ cause the background to move around.
>Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
That assumes the camera translates while still observing the same point a
long way away from the orbiter. During the next STS mission, I suggest
EVERYONE watch NASA Select and see how the camera actually pans. Its
motion tends to be very quick and jerky. The only shot that seems to move
smoothly is from the manipulator arm, but just barely.
Rob U, I think it's ice that's sublimating
--
- Rob Unglenieks REAL race cars DON'T wear BOWTIES -
- "Now is the time when men work quietly in the fields and women -
- weep softly in the kitchen; the legislature is in session and -
- no man's property is safe." -Daniel Webster- -
--- ConfMail V4.00
* Origin: Paranet(sm) - The world's leading UFO Investigative News Network
@SEEN-BY 104/2 422 428 605 107/816 30163/100 150 1012/3
@PATH: 30163/150 104/422
(1:30163/150)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(4979) Thu 11 Jun 92 12:36p
By: Carl J Lydick
To: All
Re: Re: Ufo Video From Nasa - The Camera Was Moving!
St: Sent Reply chain 4978 5070
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@UFGATE newsin 1.27
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Date: 11 Jun 92 05:14:46 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Message-ID: <1992Jun11.051446.28626@cco.caltech.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal
In article <1992Jun11.040401.16930@umaxc.weeg.uiowa.edu>,
jrblack@shemtaia.weeg.uiowa.edu (James Roger Black) writes:
>As one who *has* viewed the video carefully and repeatedly, I can state
>with some confidence that:
>
>(1) There is no evidence that the objects in question are "floating
> in the payload bay of the shuttle". They appear, in fact, to be
> some distance away from the shuttle.
Just how did you determine distance from the shuttle? As I understand it,
you're making this judgement from a two-dimensional image recorded by a single
camera. So how did you judge distance? Without knowing the size of the
object, you can't use scale. Was the object occluded or did it occlude some
other, known object? If not, then just what IS your basis for claiming that
the objects are "some distance away from the shuttle"?
>(2) There is no evidence that the apparent acceleration of the objects
> is due to camera motion. In fact, the background (including the
> earth horizon and what look to be stars) is quite stable throughout
> the entire episode.
Was any part of the shuttle bay visible in the pictures? If not, then as has
already been pointed out, a translation of the camera would not be discernable
by looking at the positions of the earth horizon and the stars.
---------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL
Disclaimer: Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS. That's what I get paid for. My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below). So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it. If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
--- ConfMail V4.00
* Origin: Paranet(sm) - The world's leading UFO Investigative News Network
@SEEN-BY 104/2 422 428 605 107/816 30163/100 150 1012/3
@PATH: 30163/150 104/422
(1:30163/150)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(4980) Thu 11 Jun 92 12:36p
By: Nick Eads
To: All
Re: Re: Ufo Video From Nasa - Was It Just Ice?
St: Sent Reply to 4972
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@UFGATE newsin 1.27
From: nreads01@starbase.spd.louisville.edu (Nick Eads)
Date: 11 Jun 92 05:23:03 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville
Message-ID: <nreads01.708240183@starbase.spd.louisville.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
In <1992Jun11.025212.1401@riacs.edu> dalton@pan.arc.nasa.gov (lizard man)
writes:
[multiple deletions]
>It should be obvious to anybody that clouds of space debris of any kind
>will contain particles exhibiting a variety of motions. Also, the
>particles may come in a variety of shapes, sizes, and brightnesses --
>i.e., many will not be visible to a camera.
Agreed, except as noted below...
>My first reaction, while reading the account of the video, was that it
>sounded like a description of some small particles bouncing around in
>space. I at first thought that bits of metal or even paint flecks could
>provide an explanation, but ice makes even more sense, since the surface
>of the shuttle provides an ideal surface for such ice to form, either
>before leaving the atmosphere, during jettisoning of liquid waste, or in
>the cargo bay.
Remember this point you just made: an *ideal* surface exists for ice...
>It would be simple for an easily-seen particle to bounce off of another
>not-so-easily-seen particle; likewise, if you've ever dropped liquid
>nitrogen or even dry ice in water or even on a tile floor, you
>would understand that at temperatures like those found in space,
>ice particles can very easily be expected to jet. Try dropping dry
>ice in a skillet someday. The resulting motions are not simple.
Ahh, herein lies what I consider a shortcoming of this theory. Although
it is definitely true that ice can possibly exhibit the motion seen, you
stated that an *ideal* surface existed for ice to form. So although
some ice will not be visible, should not more than just one or two pieces
of ice be visible? If ideal conditions exist, one would think a lot of
ice should exist, some visible, some not, but certainly more than just the
few shown on the video (assuming, perhaps, a Gaussian distribution).
Granted, the video clip is short, but the small number of particles
really bothers me; the statistics do not seem right.
>As our colleague, (Mr.? Mrs.? Dr.? Ms.? check one) Morden points out, Ice in
>space, even without direct sunlight, will sublime rapidly, enabling it to
>self-propel. If the site of evaporation shifts (an almost certainty),
>the ice particle may be expected to change direction.
>-- Brad Dalton
[multiple deletions]
Again, that is correct: so then, why does the object in question move in
what appears to be two consecutive *linear* courses? Although I am
certainly no expert in it, I do have a minor in Physics as well as
Mathematics, so I am well familiar with the agents in question -- I think
the behavior should be much more complex. It is hard for me to
conceptualize the sublimation of ice imparting a single impulse or pulse
along one direction, let alone consecutive such actions.
This is certainly no disproof that it wasn't ice, but these questions I
have asked are keeping the credibility of the ice theory very low for me.
Hopefully somebody out there can clarify these issues for me...
--
*------------------------------*----------------------------------------------*
| Nick "The Cache" Eads | nreads01@starbase.spd.louisville.edu |
| EE Department *----------------------------------------------*
| University of Louisville | GEMail: N.EADS |
| Louisville, Kentucky 40292 | SciBoard (502-588-0864): Sysnick |
*------------------------------*----------------------------------------------*
| Don't blame me; the Illuminati are responsible for everything... |
*-----------------------------------------------------------------------------*
--- ConfMail V4.00
* Origin: Paranet(sm) - The world's leading UFO Investigative News Network
@SEEN-BY 104/2 422 428 605 107/816 30163/100 150 1012/3
@PATH: 30163/150 104/422
(1:30163/150)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(4983) Thu 11 Jun 92 12:37p
By: Wellison@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
To: All
Re: Re: Ufo Sightings
St: Sent Reply chain 4981 5071
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@UFGATE newsin 1.27
From: wellison@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Date: 11 Jun 92 14:11:16 GMT
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services
Message-ID: <1992Jun11.091116.40736@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
> I'm just interested in finding out how many readers of this
> newsgroup have actually seen a UFO(First person accounts!).
Yeah, every time I come home late and don't phone the ol'lady first. I see
flying tea saucers, flying dishes and other unidentified flying objects ;-)
On a more serious note, I have been deeply interested in the phenomina of UFO's
for over 20 years. I am currently involved in designing and building electronic
devices to detect and track UFO's based on known laws of physics (I.E. by
detecting light or electromagnetic radiation that an object might emit). I have
been to several UFO sights where they have been sighted. But in all of that
time, I have yet to actually see one. However, just because I can't see an
electron or an atom doesn't mean that I don't believe that it exist. I do
believe that UFO's exist. If someone sees and object and can't identifiy it,
then it is a UFO. But whether or not it is some little grey alien out for a
Sunday fly by, well, I'm still having trouble believing in that. But not all
UFO reports are hoaxs. Some are indeed real sightings and the person(s) seeing
the UFO(S) are truly upset by what they have seen. If UFO's are the imagination
of people, by some accounts, as many as 1 in 20 Americans and more world wide,
then pyschology guru's should be busting butt to find out why the world has so
many unstable people wandering around in it. Unlike Philip Klass and his fellow
debunkers, I'm not totally throwing out the idea that some UFO's may be
controlled by a higher intelligence, but like Mr. Klass, I feel that a more
earthly soloution is possible as well. Things in nature that we have yet to
discover. To draw a conclusions by personal belief and not by a scientific
approach only adds fuel to the fire. My interest has if anything, grown more in
the UFO debate. But I remain neither a believer nor a disbeliever. I merely
want to know what they are. Being somewhat of a dreamer, I think that it would
be the greatest single event in man's history if they were indeed
extraterrestal, but by the same token, if they aren't, then what are they ?
When the answer comes, either way, it will be a step in our understanding of
the world and universe around us. So I'll continue my trek and research on the
subject, but keeping an open mind as well. To omit possibilities based on
personal belief is taking peices from the puzzle, rather than solving it. To
keep an open mind is to find the answers ;-)
-=-=- Wes =-=-=
--- ConfMail V4.00
* Origin: Paranet(sm) - The world's leading UFO Investigative News Network
@SEEN-BY 104/2 422 428 605 107/816 30163/100 150 1012/3
@PATH: 30163/150 104/422
(1:30163/150)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(5070) Fri 12 Jun 92 3:32p
By: Gerry Roston
To: All
Re: Re: Ufo Video From Nasa - The Camera Was Moving!
St: Sent Reply chain 4979 5072
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@UFGATE newsin 1.27
From: gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston)
Date: 11 Jun 92 17:00:49 GMT
Organization: Field Robotics Center, CMU
Message-ID: <GERRY.92Jun11120049@onion.cmu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal
I have not seen the video, but let me make two comments anyway:
1- tv is a 2D device. Given that the object in quesiton is a point
source (in this case it would seem to be a small, featureless object),
determining its motion in 3 space is "impossible", especially since
there are no points of reference. There is no way to tell if the
thing moved directly away from the camera or if it simply
"evaporated".
2- Even assuming that the object is not a piece of ice as claimed, why
must it therefor be and ET space craft?
--
Gerry Roston (gerry@cmu.edu) | Question with boldness even the existance
Field Robotics Center, | of God; because if there be one, He must
Carnegie Mellon University | more approve of the homage of reason, than
Pittsburgh, PA, 15213 | that of blindfold fear. Thomas Jefferson
(412) 268-3856 |
|
The opinions expressed are mine |
and do not reflect the official |
position of CMU, FRC, RedZone, |
or any other organization. |
--- ConfMail V4.00
* Origin: Paranet(sm) - The world's leading UFO Investigative News Network
@SEEN-BY 104/2 422 428 605 107/816 30163/100 150 1012/3
@PATH: 30163/150 104/422
(1:30163/150)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(5072) Fri 12 Jun 92 3:32p
By: Pete Hardie
To: All
Re: Re: Ufo Video From Nasa - The Camera Was Moving!
St: Sent Reply chain 5070 5073
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@UFGATE newsin 1.27
From: phardie@nastar.uucp (Pete Hardie)
Date: 11 Jun 92 13:14:15 GMT
Organization: Digital Transmission Systems, Duluth, GA.
Message-ID: <1992Jun11.131415.20859@nastar.uucp>
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal
w/r/t the 'UFO' being 'shot at' by someone on Earth, has anyone done the
velocity calculations that would show how fast this 'missile' would have
been going, had it been a surface-based one?
I'll wager that it would have to move faster than anything we have now, which
makes it likely the images were lens flares from some reflection off another
piece of shuttle hardware that was rotating.
--
Pete Hardie: phardie@nastar (voice) (404) 497-0101
Digital Transmission Systems, Inc., Duluth GA
Member, DTS Dart Team | cat * | egrep -v "signature virus|infection"
Position: Goalie |
--- ConfMail V4.00
* Origin: Paranet(sm) - The world's leading UFO Investigative News Network
@SEEN-BY 104/2 422 428 605 107/816 30163/100 150 1012/3
@PATH: 30163/150 104/422
(1:30163/150)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(5073) Fri 12 Jun 92 3:32p
By: !
To: All
Re: Re: Ufo Video From Nasa - The Camera Was Moving!
St: Sent Reply chain 5072 5075
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@UFGATE newsin 1.27
From: vu0208@bingsuns.cc.binghamton.edu (!)
Date: 11 Jun 92 16:48:57 GMT
Organization: State University of New York at Binghamton
Message-ID: <1992Jun11.164857.17426@newserve.cc.binghamton.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal
In article <1992Jun11.045138.17642@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>
arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>In article <1992Jun11.040401.16930@umaxc.weeg.uiowa.edu>
jrblack@shemtaia.weeg.uiowa.edu (James Roger Black) writes:
>>(2) There is no evidence that the apparent acceleration of the objects
>> is due to camera motion. In fact, the background (including the
>> earth horizon and what look to be stars) is quite stable throughout
>> the entire episode.
>
>You haven't been listening. It is quite possible for the objects to
accelerate
>due to camera motion, without the background becoming unstable. Moving
>the camera will _not_ cause the background to move around.
>--
Folks there is a very simple test for checking if the camera was moving or not!
If the object under discussion (ice/ufo/whatever) has its image smeared then
one can be sure that camera has moved, because if the relative velocities of
the object and camera are changing then camera needs time to focus on the
object, untill that happens the image is smeared in the opposite direction
of the motion of camera...!!
Since I haven't seen this video i can't say any thing for sure, could some one
please check once more and look these smearing effects on the object or the
background (payload bay or horizon).
thanks.
--- ConfMail V4.00
* Origin: Paranet(sm) - The world's leading UFO Investigative News Network
@SEEN-BY 104/2 422 428 605 107/816 30163/100 150 1012/3
@PATH: 30163/150 104/422
(1:30163/150)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(5075) Fri 12 Jun 92 3:33p
By: Carl J Lydick
To: All
Re: Re: Ufo Video From Nasa - The Camera Was Moving!
St: Sent Reply chain 5073 5078
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@UFGATE newsin 1.27
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Date: 11 Jun 92 19:19:24 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Message-ID: <1992Jun11.191924.3399@cco.caltech.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal
In article <1992Jun11.164857.17426@newserve.cc.binghamton.edu>,
vu0208@bingsuns.cc.binghamton.edu (!) writes:
>Since I haven't seen this video i can't say any thing for sure, could some one
>please check once more and look these smearing effects on the object or the
>background (payload bay or horizon).
Unless you're saturating the camera, you don't see that sort of smearing. If
the object smears, it could just as well be due to motion of the object as to
motion of the camera. As has been pointed out before, a translation of the
camera will not change the apparent position of something as far away as the
earth. I've already asked whether any part of the payload bay was visible in
the image, though the discussion thus far leads me to believe that no part of
the payload bay was visible. Thus your argument doesn't apply here.
---------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL
Disclaimer: Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS. That's what I get paid for. My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below). So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it. If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
--- ConfMail V4.00
* Origin: Paranet(sm) - The world's leading UFO Investigative News Network
@SEEN-BY 104/2 422 428 605 107/816 30163/100 150 1012/3
@PATH: 30163/150 104/422
(1:30163/150)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(5078) Fri 12 Jun 92 3:33p
By: Bob Garwood
To: All
Re: Re: Ufo Video From Nasa - The Camera Was Moving!
St: Sent Reply chain 5075 5082
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@UFGATE newsin 1.27
From: bgarwood@sngldsh.cv.nrao.edu (Bob Garwood)
Date: 11 Jun 92 21:13:26 GMT
Organization: National Radio Astronomy Observatory
Message-ID: <BGARWOOD.92Jun11161326@sngldsh.cv.nrao.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal
To further complicate things - the light source may have been attached to the
camera or otherwise accompany the camera on whatever motion it goes
through (I don't know if it was, someone who knows these sorts of
details about the shuttle camera system should chime in here).
IF the light source might have been attached to the camera, then the
apparent motion of the object due to translation of the camera would
be more complicated in that the brightening or dimming of a nearby object
might appear as if the object were moving even more than simple camera
motion would cause.
The bottom line, though, is that if have no idea what the camera did
and you have no known reference point near the camera (i.e. near enough
that paralax caused by the translation of the camera is noticable) then
you have absolutely no way of knowing which moved, the camera or
the object. Two or more moving objects in the same field of view at
the same time seem to be needed to begin to rule out camera motion.
And finally, if you don't know the size of the object you can't
determine its size from a television screen unless there is some other
object of known size that is known to be near the object of
unknown size.
Bob Garwood
--
--- ConfMail V4.00
* Origin: Paranet(sm) - The world's leading UFO Investigative News Network
@SEEN-BY 104/2 422 428 605 107/816 30163/100 150 1012/3
@PATH: 30163/150 104/422
(1:30163/150)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(5081) Fri 12 Jun 92 3:34p
By: Brick Wilbur
To: All
Re: Reasons For Nasa Disclosure
St: Sent Reply in 5085
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@UFGATE newsin 1.27
From: wilbur@oyster.cps.msu.edu (Brick Wilbur)
Date: 11 Jun 92 20:51:05 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, Michigan State University
Message-ID: <1992Jun11.205105.29626@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
Someone asked: "Why would the government allow that to be shown on TV?".
As the on theory goes: The Government is slowly allowing more and more info
out
to the public as to soften the blow of reality when our ancestors return from
whatever part of the universe they are coming from.
As you will all notice the increasing, and increasing media about the UFO
abductions and sightings. This totally coincides with this theory.
I for one realized that this was going to happen soon. I am further amazed
that
I was right. There is continually being more and more said, implied, shown,
and
even more hints to "NEW" existing technology....
EXAMPLE: If the government didn't want the public to know anything about the
super fast ship that they built (AURORA) they would not have been flying the
alleged "US invention" over California to Nevada at exactly 8:00am everyday
for at least 8 days in a row.
Did they really think that know one would see it? Let alone hear it?
People, it was planned....slowly give out hints of alien presence.
I dont think that it was an actual alien ship, but rather one that was
reproduced
from alien design. They (the AIR FORCE) had to use the metals that are
available here on Earth
in order to build it. I believe that this is why, those ships flying in pairs
over California to Nevada, created so much noise that they set off the
seismographs at the edge of California.
Since most alien ships run mostly silent(correct me if I'm wrong on this) and
these AIR FORCE created ships were very noisy, apparently the AIR FORCE had not
been able to reproduce the material properties of the alien ships thereby
producing a ship that runs quiet.
These AIR FORCE ships also had that glowing green effect that is seen around
virtually every UFO in flight (correct me if I'm wrong on this).
A SIDE NOTE ABOUT THE JUNK FLOATING AROUND IN SPACE:
Every item (7179 of them) floating in space has its exact position known.
There
cannot be any of those items suddenly changing its position because they are
all
in orbit with known velocities. Those objects are all plotted on a computer at
NORAD and NASA and that space monitoring base in the Mojave desert.
So none of that stuff is going to *ram* into the space shuttle unless someone
is
completely asleep at the computer at NASA. And sure as hell the space shuttle
crew is not going to take the chance and plot a course that is going to run
into
1 of the 7179 objects. The will take pains taking calculations to avoid
colliding with any of the KNOWN objects that have KNOWN velocities.
So again...what the hell was an unknown object doing up there that could change
its velocity like that??
My answer...Alien ship.
Brick
--- ConfMail V4.00
* Origin: Paranet(sm) - The world's leading UFO Investigative News Network
@SEEN-BY 104/2 422 428 605 107/816 30163/100 150 1012/3
@PATH: 30163/150 104/422
(1:30163/150)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(5082) Fri 12 Jun 92 3:34p
By: Robert Sheaffer
To: All
Re: Re: Ufo Video From Nasa - The Camera Was Moving!
St: Sent Reply chain 5078 5084
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@UFGATE newsin 1.27
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Date: 11 Jun 92 21:23:29 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Message-ID: <j#clry#.sheaffer@netcom.com>
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal
Yes, it's fun to say "why don't you head-in-the-sand skeptics watch this"
AFTER it has already been broadcast!
That advice might have been useful BEFORE the broadcast, not afterward. You
tell me in advance when it will be on, and I'll be GLAD to look at your
so-called "evidence".
A hint: TV shows seen in the Eastern time zone are seen three hours later
in the Pacific time zone. Even if you DON'T know in advance when some
great "evidence" will be shown, that still gives you 3 hours to alert
those of us on the West coast, from the moment you see it. That's more
than enough time for a phone call, or an email note, or even (in many
cases) a posting to Usenet. Then we can study the tape, and send it
off to someone if necessary.
Some characters have been touting a "NASA UFO" video that shows ice
crystals for some time now. Maybe this one is different. You, too,
can make your own "NASA UFO video". Just turn your VCR to the "NASA
select" channel on the cable during the next shuttle mission, and
stick in an 8-hour tape when you go to bed. Scan it in fast-forward
mode the next day. As soon as you see something you don't understand,
you have found a UFO. Immediately fly off the handle. Send it to
"Hard COpy", and demand an immediate end to the NASA coverup!
--
Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com
Past Chairman, The Bay Area Skeptics - for whom I speak only when authorized!
"Every psychic investigator of [the medium] Mrs. Piper was impressed
by her simplicity and honesty. It never occurred to them that no
charlatan ever achieves greatness by acting like a charlatan. No
professional spy acts like a spy. No card cheat behaves at the
table like a card cheat."
- Martin Gardner (writing in "Free Inquiry",
Spring, 1992)
--- ConfMail V4.00
* Origin: Paranet(sm) - The world's leading UFO Investigative News Network
@SEEN-BY 104/2 422 428 605 107/816 30163/100 150 1012/3
@PATH: 30163/150 104/422
(1:30163/150)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(5085) Fri 12 Jun 92 3:35p
By: Rhys Weatherley
To: All
Re: Re: Reasons For Nasa Disclosure
St: Sent Reply to 5081
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@UFGATE newsin 1.27
From: rhys@cs.uq.oz.au (Rhys Weatherley)
Date: 12 Jun 92 03:48:31 GMT
Message-ID: <8317@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au>
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
Disclaimer: I neither believe nor disbelieve in UFO's, etc. I'm happily
sitting on the fence waiting for further evidence, one way or the other.
The following reply may seem a little harsh, but without supporting evidence
you don't have a leg to stand on.
In <1992Jun11.205105.29626@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> wilbur@oyster.cps.msu.edu (Brick
Wilbur) writes:
>Someone asked: "Why would the government allow that to be shown on TV?".
You're supposing of course that the government controls every aspect of what
is shown on TV and can therefore dictate what is and isn't shown.
>As the on theory goes: The Government is slowly allowing more and more info
out
>to the public as to soften the blow of reality when our ancestors return from
>whatever part of the universe they are coming from.
Facts Brick. Where's the facts? You have the good basis for a SF/conspiracy
novel though I'll grant you. :-)
>As you will all notice the increasing, and increasing media about the UFO
>abductions and sightings. This totally coincides with this theory.
The media are very good at their job. It's a cut-throat world out there on
the nightly news. Look at the Gulf War. The military had a very tough time
keeping a lid on the media. You're the one calling it a "theory" though.
It's just that - a theory. Certainly not a fact or law without more evidence.
>I for one realized that this was going to happen soon. I am further amazed
that
>I was right. There is continually being more and more said, implied, shown,
and
>even more hints to "NEW" existing technology....
The Earth is a very large and complex place. There's two sides to every story.
Every "implication" and "hint" can be just as easily explained as the natural
cause of events. Don't make your theory any more complex than it already is
Brick - the more complex the theory, the more inconsistencies creep in, and
the less likely it becomes that someone will actually believe your story.
>EXAMPLE: If the government didn't want the public to know anything about the
>super fast ship that they built (AURORA) they would not have been flying the
>alleged "US invention" over California to Nevada at exactly 8:00am everyday
>for at least 8 days in a row.
Why not? Maybe it was the only available time in their busy testing schedule?
>Did they really think that know one would see it? Let alone hear it?
>People, it was planned....slowly give out hints of alien presence.
It was planned, I'll grant you, but without access to the flight records and
the pilot briefings, etc, you just have a lot of suppositions as to the
motives for the flights. If you have copies of the pilot briefings and they
say "fly over these areas and act like a UFO because we want to introduce the
UFO idea to the populace gently", or words to that effect, then let's see them.
>I dont think that it was an actual alien ship, but rather one that was
reproduced
>from alien design. They (the AIR FORCE) had to use the metals that are
available here on Earth
>in order to build it. I believe that this is why, those ships flying in pairs
>over California to Nevada, created so much noise that they set off the
>seismographs at the edge of California.
What makes Earth metals any noiser than any other kinds of metals? What other
metals are there? Do you have evidence of other stable metals suitable for
ship construction? The aluminum can sitting on my desk at present is not
making any sound at all. If it had a jet fighter engine though it would make
plenty of noise due to exhaust gasses, friction and whatnot, rather than the
metals it is made of. Things can be done to reduce noise, but supposing we
don't have the right metals is a bit far-fetched. May I suggest you try
"we don't have the right manufacturing processes yet"?
>Since most alien ships run mostly silent(correct me if I'm wrong on this) and
>these AIR FORCE created ships were very noisy, apparently the AIR FORCE had
not
>been able to reproduce the material properties of the alien ships thereby
>producing a ship that runs quiet.
Assuming of course they were trying to replicate an alien ship. What if they
were just testing out a new kind of plane of totally Earthly, albeit high-tech
origin? Not everything the goverment/military does has to have an ulterior
motive to deceive the populace you know.
>These AIR FORCE ships also had that glowing green effect that is seen around
>virtually every UFO in flight (correct me if I'm wrong on this).
Green? Every UFO?
>A SIDE NOTE ABOUT THE JUNK FLOATING AROUND IN SPACE:
>[...]
>So again...what the hell was an unknown object doing up there that could
change
>its velocity like that??
You're supposing that NASA, NORAD, their Russian counterparts, etc, etc, etc
actually tell each other what's going on, and what every single piece of junk
up there is. It could quite easily have been one of your 7179 objects - one
of the ones with rockets and funded by Star Wars technology. :-) It could
have been anything - the jury is not yet in.
Cheers,
Rhys.
--
Rhys Weatherley, University of Queensland, Australia.
rhys@cs.uq.oz.au "I'm a FAQ nut - what's your problem?"
--- ConfMail V4.00
* Origin: Paranet(sm) - The world's leading UFO Investigative News Network
@SEEN-BY 104/2 422 428 605 107/816 30163/100 150 1012/3
@PATH: 30163/150 104/422
(1:30163/150)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(5134) Fri 12 Jun 92 6:14p
By: Brian 'rev P-k' Siano
To: All
Re: Re: Ufo Video From Nasa - The Camera Was Moving!
St: Sent Reply chain 5084 5138
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@UFGATE newsin 1.27
From: revpk@cellar.org (Brian 'Rev P-K' Siano)
Date: 12 Jun 92 05:56:55 GMT
Organization: The Cellar BBS and public access system
Message-ID: <kPR9LB1w164w@cellar.org>
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal
You know, during this thread, everyone talks about how they saw this
'beam' seem to strike at the unidentified object. Now, I haven't seen the
video, but I wonder why this 'beam' is visible in the vacuum of space.
I'd better explain. Imagine that you're shining a narrow-beam
flashlight from the ceiling to the floor in a dark room. You can easily see
the spot of light on the floor, but the ONLY way you can see the actual
'beam' is if there's some dust in the air to reflect light.
Now, I might be completely wrong here, but in the vacuum of space, it
seems to me that you wouldn't be able to see any beam at all, because there's
no dust motes for it to bounce off of.
However, there is one place where you do see energy beams-- in movies
like "Star Wars" where they can animate the damn beams andmake them look at
glowy and powerful and stuff.
I'm certain there are people here who are a bit more familiar with
how any sort of 'energy beam' might behave in a vacuum, who might show me
where I'm wrong. If I'm wrong, I'll admit it; but from what I've seen, even
_lasers_ (the kind they use at rock shows and SF cons) don't show up unless
there's some dust or smoke in the air. Let alone X-rays or the forces used in
an MRI.
But all this talk of seeing a 'beam' in space just makes me more
suspicious.
(By the way, Phil Klass once delivered a lecture about Ed Walters's
UFO photos. In one photo, what was described as a 'beam of blue light' from
the saucer looked to me to be lens flare-- especially since the blue light
came down from the saucer, to the ground, and then further down the photo to
the lower edge of the plate. But a LOT of UFO fans saw this as a 'ray of blue
light' that the saucer emitted.)
Brian "Rev. P-K" Siano revpk@cellar.org
New Sig File Under Construction-- Light and Compact for your Usenet Pleasure.
"The recent problem with the satellite retrieval managed to prove one thing;
DeVries graduates really _do_ work for NASA."
--- ConfMail V4.00
* Origin: Paranet(sm) - The world's leading UFO Investigative News Network
@SEEN-BY 104/2 422 428 605 107/816 30163/100 150 1012/3
@PATH: 30163/150 104/422
(1:30163/150)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(5138) Fri 12 Jun 92 6:15p
By: Steve Warren
To: All
Re: Re: Ufo Video From Nasa - The Camera Was Moving!
St: Sent Reply chain 5134 5141
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@UFGATE newsin 1.27
From: swarren@convex.com (Steve Warren)
Date: 12 Jun 92 14:19:48 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
Message-ID: <1992Jun12.141948.15249@news.eng.convex.com>
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal
In article <kPR9LB1w164w@cellar.org> revpk@cellar.org (Brian 'Rev P-K' Siano)
writes:
>
> You know, during this thread, everyone talks about how they saw this
>'beam' seem to strike at the unidentified object. Now, I haven't seen the
>video, but I wonder why this 'beam' is visible in the vacuum of space.
No, this is the first mention of a "beam" I've seen. There was no beam.
It was an object, similar to the first object. It appears to lift off
from earth and rapidly accelerate to cross the path of the first object
about 0.5 sec. after the first object changes directions.
I have the video on tape at home.
--
_.
--Steve ._||__ Welcome to the World's First GaAs Supercomputer
Warren v\ *| -----------------------------------------------
V
--- ConfMail V4.00
* Origin: Paranet(sm) - The world's leading UFO Investigative News Network
@SEEN-BY 104/2 422 428 605 107/816 30163/100 150 1012/3
@PATH: 30163/150 104/422
(1:30163/150)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(5141) Fri 12 Jun 92 6:15p
By: Marcy Weibe
To: All
Re: Re: Ufo Video From Nasa - The Camera Was Moving!
St: Sent Reply chain 5138 5145
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@UFGATE newsin 1.27
From: 283s@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Marcy Weibe)
Date: 12 Jun 92 15:54:47 GMT
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD
Message-ID: <20987@oasys.dt.navy.mil>
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal
I inadvertently forgot to put my name on the previous post since I was
typing on my wife's message board.
My name is Edward Weibe and I work as a Contractor for NASA at GSFC.
NASA Select is run by Allied-Bendix for NASA.
--- ConfMail V4.00
* Origin: Paranet(sm) - The world's leading UFO Investigative News Network
@SEEN-BY 104/2 422 428 605 107/816 30163/100 150 1012/3
@PATH: 30163/150 104/422
(1:30163/150)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(5145) Fri 12 Jun 92 6:16p
By: Grant Edwards
To: All
Re: Re: Ufo Video From Nasa - The Camera Was Moving!
St: Sent Reply chain 5141 5146
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@UFGATE newsin 1.27
From: grante@aquarius (Grant Edwards)
Date: 12 Jun 92 15:56:21 GMT
Organization: Rosemount, Inc.
Message-ID: <1992Jun12.155621.27880@rosevax.rosemount.com>
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal
gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston) writes:
:
: 2- Even assuming that the object is not a piece of ice as claimed, why
: must it therefor be and ET space craft?
:
No, no, you've got it mixed up -- it is a piece of ice AND an ET space
craft. They are built by hyper-intelligent microscopic creatures.
The center of the chunk of ice is actually liquid, and this is where
the crew lives. Its power source is a _very_ small nuclear fusion
device that vaporizes bits of the hull of the craft to provide
propulsion. Thanks to the crew being supported in a non-compressable
liquid they can withstand very high accelerations.
They were trying to take over the Earth, but have been driven off by
the ferocious and savage zooplankton that inhabit the water of Earth.
They were particulary interested in Earth because the zooplankton had
apparently bred and trained large land-based creatures for the purpose
of extracting phosphorus and other minerals from the land-based
deposits and providing it as food for the algae and other food crops
raised by the zooplankton.
--
Grant Edwards |Yow! Th' MIND is the Pizza
Rosemount Inc. |Palace of th' SOUL
|
grante@aquarius.rosemount.com |
--- ConfMail V4.00
* Origin: Paranet(sm) - The world's leading UFO Investigative News Network
@SEEN-BY 104/2 422 428 605 107/816 30163/100 150 1012/3
@PATH: 30163/150 104/422
(1:30163/150)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(5146) Fri 12 Jun 92 6:16p
By: Anson Kennedy
To: All
Re: Re: Ufo Video From Nasa - The Camera Was Moving!
St: Sent Reply chain 5145 5148
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@UFGATE newsin 1.27
From: anson@netcom.com (Anson Kennedy)
Date: 12 Jun 92 17:14:59 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Message-ID: <z5cl06=.anson@netcom.com>
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal
swarren@convex.com (Steve Warren) writes:
>In article <kPR9LB1w164w@cellar.org> revpk@cellar.org (Brian 'Rev P-K' Siano)
writes:
>>
>> You know, during this thread, everyone talks about how they saw this
>>'beam' seem to strike at the unidentified object. Now, I haven't seen the
>>video, but I wonder why this 'beam' is visible in the vacuum of space.
>No, this is the first mention of a "beam" I've seen. There was no beam.
>It was an object, similar to the first object. It appears to lift off
>from earth and rapidly accelerate to cross the path of the first object
>about 0.5 sec. after the first object changes directions.
Bad assumption. You can't tell *where* the "beam" or "object" or whatever
originates from. The Earth below all this "Star Wars" spectacle is heavily
clouded. Saying it "appears to lift off from earth" is just innacurate.
BTW, I have heard quite a few people refer to it as a "beam" (although not
necessarily in *this* newsgroup).
>I have the video on tape at home.
Are you offering to make Brian a copy? :-)
--
Anson Kennedy
Secretary of the Georgia Skeptics (but don't even THINK I speak for them!)
"If I had been the Virgin Mary, I would have said 'No.'"
-Margaret "Stevie" Smith (1902-1971)
--- ConfMail V4.00
* Origin: Paranet(sm) - The world's leading UFO Investigative News Network
@SEEN-BY 104/2 422 428 605 107/816 30163/100 150 1012/3
@PATH: 30163/150 104/422
(1:30163/150)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(5147) Fri 12 Jun 92 6:16p
By: J. Johnson
To: All
Re: Re^2: Ufo Video From Nasa - The Camera Was Moving!
St: Sent
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@UFGATE newsin 1.27
From: jcj@tellabs.com (J. Johnson)
Date: 12 Jun 92 13:15:57 GMT
Organization: Huh?
Message-ID: <1992Jun12.131557.5753@tellab5.tellabs.com>
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
In article <20872@oasys.dt.navy.mil> 283s@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Marcy Weibe)
writes:
>First, I am using my wife's account. Second, I am very familiar with
>this footage (just by the description) because I was one of the researchers
>who pulled the original tapes...
So you or your wife are obviously a hell of a security risk
(oasys.dt.navy.mil) or the "coverup" is not doing very well 8-).
>A very talented collegue of mine and myself proceeded to do an extensive
>study of these and remained collective throughout the study.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I don't understand what you mean here.
>... A somewhat cocky attitude was observed in his correspondence. This
>was long before any rational study was concluded.
Could you elaborate on the contents of the correspondence? Thanks.
--
jcj@tellabs.com
--- ConfMail V4.00
* Origin: Paranet(sm) - The world's leading UFO Investigative News Network
@SEEN-BY 104/2 422 428 605 107/816 30163/100 150 1012/3
@PATH: 30163/150 104/422
(1:30163/150)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(5148) Fri 12 Jun 92 6:16p
By: Nick Eads
To: All
Re: Re: Ufo Video From Nasa - The Camera Was Moving!
St: Sent Reply chain 5146 5151
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@UFGATE newsin 1.27
From: nreads01@sirius.spd.louisville.edu (Nick Eads)
Date: 12 Jun 92 18:36:21 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville
Message-ID: <nreads01.708374181@starbase.spd.louisville.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal
In <j#clry#.sheaffer@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>Yes, it's fun to say "why don't you head-in-the-sand skeptics watch this"
>AFTER it has already been broadcast!
>That advice might have been useful BEFORE the broadcast, not afterward. You
>tell me in advance when it will be on, and I'll be GLAD to look at your
>so-called "evidence".
>A hint: TV shows seen in the Eastern time zone are seen three hours later
>in the Pacific time zone. Even if you DON'T know in advance when some
>great "evidence" will be shown, that still gives you 3 hours to alert
>those of us on the West coast, from the moment you see it. That's more
>than enough time for a phone call, or an email note, or even (in many
>cases) a posting to Usenet. Then we can study the tape, and send it
>off to someone if necessary.
[deleted material]
For your information, I posted my original message about the
Hard Copy episode a mere 10 minutes after it went off the air here in
the Eastern time zone. Isn't that enough time for you?
I am not going to get into an insulting match
with you, but I find that you have little to *no* respect for the
posters alt.alien.visitors regardless of their believer/disbeliever
affiliation. Why must you whine all the time? People like you give the
rest of us more methodical and openminded skeptics a bad reputation, and
I almost no longer wish to call myself a skeptic because of your rude
and patronizing tone. Do you *always* expect to not have to do *any*
research on your own? Grow up and do some real investigation before
you get flamed to purgatory and back by any more *real* skeptics.
--
*------------------------------*----------------------------------------------*
| Nick "The Cache" Eads | nreads01@starbase.spd.louisville.edu |
| EE Department *----------------------------------------------*
| University of Louisville | GEMail: N.EADS |
| Louisville, Kentucky 40292 | SciBoard (502-588-0864): Sysnick |
*------------------------------*----------------------------------------------*
| Don't blame me; the Illuminati are responsible for everything... |
*-----------------------------------------------------------------------------*
--- ConfMail V4.00
* Origin: Paranet(sm) - The world's leading UFO Investigative News Network
@SEEN-BY 104/2 422 428 605 107/816 30163/100 150 1012/3
@PATH: 30163/150 104/422
(1:30163/150)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(5149) Fri 12 Jun 92 6:17p
By: Peter.a.inorio
To: All
Re: Re: Hard Copy Shows Nasa Ufo Video
St: Sent Reply to 4891
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@UFGATE newsin 1.27
From: shark@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (peter.a.inorio)
Date: 12 Jun 92 20:07:43 GMT
Organization: AT&T
Message-ID: <1992Jun12.200743.26@cbnewsc.cb.att.com>
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
In article <qTT4LB2w163w@quake.sylmar.ca.us>, nateh@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Nate
Hawthorn) writes:
> davidson@monet.cs.unc.edu (Drew Davidson) writes:
>
> > The syndicated TV infotainment show Hard Copy showed a NASA videotape
> > beamed live from the Space Shuttle Discovery depicting a UFO flying
> > above the earth. The video appears to be black and white; the UFO is
> > just a speck of light. However, the light suddenly makes a right-angle
> > turn and speeds off into space at what appears to be high speed (it
> > actually seems to fly on a trajectory away from the camera, but seems to
> > go at high speed because it becomes quite dim and disappears as it is
> > moving a short distance on the screen). A second or two after the UFO
> > appears to speed off, an object shoots up at right angles to the earth,
> > somewhat near the position of the UFO a second or two earlier. Don
> > Ecker of UFO magazine theorizes that the UFO was making an evasive
> > maneuver to avoid being shot at.
> >
> > NASA claims the object is a piece of ice made from waste water dumped by
> > the shuttle on a previous orbit. They have no comment about the
> > apparent shot coming from earth, or the apparent right-angle turn of the
> > UFO.
> >
> > Whatever it is, it's very intriguing. It's very hard for me to believe
> > it was a piece of ice. I would like to know much more, like what part
> > of earth the UFO and shot were over, and if there were any UFO
> > encounters in that area on that date. I would also like to know what
> > the astronauts on board the shuttle thought of the incident when it
> > happened, and I would like to hear all radio transmissions made by them
> > before and after the incident.
> >
> > Any comments on the video?
> >
> > Drew
> > --
> > Drew Davidson \\ HELP FULLY INFORM JURORS! TELL YOUR FRIENDS:
> > davidson@cs.unc.edu \\ As a juror, you have the right to vote NOT
GUILTY
> > ** LEGALIZE TRUTH ** \\ if you believe the law broken is unjust or
wrongl
> > * FULLY INFORM JURORS * \\ applied, regardless of the facts of the case.
>
>
> I agree, but as you can tell, YOUR GOVERNMENT is trying to say that you
> are stupid enough to beleive their cover up!
>
> So the question is: Are you stupid enough to beleive your government?
> Are you stupid enough to let them keep covering this stuff up???
>
> The reason we don't know more is that people are being really STUPID!
>
> So:
>
> How can we do anything about this?????
>
> (I'm going back to bed, and watch TV and forget all this and hide in my
> little world)
Don't you think if our government wanted to cover this up that they
would have done a better job than this. I mean we wouln't have seen
the original live from space. It would have been delayed and then
edited or some such thing! Let's stop with the "government coverup"
and "conspiracy" theories already!
--- ConfMail V4.00
* Origin: Paranet(sm) - The world's leading UFO Investigative News Network
@SEEN-BY 104/2 422 428 605 107/816 30163/100 150 1012/3
@PATH: 30163/150 104/422
(1:30163/150)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(5151) Fri 12 Jun 92 6:17p
By: Pete Hardie
To: All
Re: Re: Ufo Video From Nasa - The Camera Was Moving!
St: Sent Reply to 5148
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@UFGATE newsin 1.27
From: phardie@nastar.uucp (Pete Hardie)
Date: 12 Jun 92 19:58:27 GMT
Organization: Digital Transmission Systems, Duluth, GA.
Message-ID: <1992Jun12.195827.27467@nastar.uucp>
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal
In article <1992Jun11.223959.17150@news.eng.convex.com> swarren@convex.com
(Steve Warren) writes:
>In article <1992Jun11.131415.20859@nastar.uucp> phardie@nastar.uucp (Pete
Hardie) writes:
>>I'll wager that it would have to move faster than anything we have now, which
>>makes it likely the images were lens flares from some reflection off another
>>piece of shuttle hardware that was rotating.
>
>Try "faster than anything that has been published."
>
>You might be amazed at the things we can do that no one knows about.
I assume that you mean "no one in the public knows about"....or do we have
sleepwalking research laps? :->
Still, the point I'm trying to make is that I doubt we have anything that will
go from ground to orbit in less than 15 minutes. That rules out the second
image on the film in question being anything material (or else it's from
ANOTHER alien craft....NOT!)
I vote for lens flare from an off-camera light source that was moving.
--
Pete Hardie: phardie@nastar (voice) (404) 497-0101
Digital Transmission Systems, Inc., Duluth GA
Member, DTS Dart Team | cat * | egrep -v "signature virus|infection"
Position: Goalie |
--- ConfMail V4.00
* Origin: Paranet(sm) - The world's leading UFO Investigative News Network
@SEEN-BY 104/2 422 428 605 107/816 30163/100 150 1012/3
@PATH: 30163/150 104/422
(1:30163/150)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(5237) Sun 14 Jun 92 12:22p
By: Steve Warren
To: All
Re: Re: Ufo Video From Nasa - The Camera Was Moving!
St: Sent Reply chain 5204 5260
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@UFGATE newsin 1.27
From: swarren@convex.com (Steve Warren)
Date: 13 Jun 92 21:04:31 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
Message-ID: <1992Jun13.210431.7754@news.eng.convex.com>
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal
In article <1992Jun12.195827.27467@nastar.uucp> phardie@nastar.uucp (Pete
Hardie) writes:
>In article <1992Jun11.223959.17150@news.eng.convex.com> swarren@convex.com
(Steve Warren) writes:
>>In article <1992Jun11.131415.20859@nastar.uucp> phardie@nastar.uucp (Pete
Hardie) writes:
>Still, the point I'm trying to make is that I doubt we have anything that will
>go from ground to orbit in less than 15 minutes.
That is a rather meaningless statement. You can orbit earth at any altitude
that clears the mountains. ;^)
Seriously, what altitude are you talking about? The shuttle only achieves
low earth-orbit, and these objects were apparently maneuvering at a fraction
of the shuttle's altitude.
Anyway, we (the USA) have had hyper-accelerationg rockets for 30 years.
We tried to build ICBM interceptors back in the early 70's, and one of
them (I wish I could remember what it was called - it looks like a strange
fat cone, not like a normal rocket - I saw it on a documentary about SDI)
was really fast. I saw a film of one taking off, and it literally
disappeared straight up almost instantly. I mean that thing was gone.
> That rules out the second
>image on the film in question being anything material (or else it's from
>ANOTHER alien craft....NOT!)
Yep. We couldn't possibly have improved on what was available in 1970,
could we? I mean, the Pentagon would tell everyone if we could make
anything go that fast, right? I'm sure you are correct. If it isn't
published, it doesn't exist.
--
_.
--Steve ._||__ Welcome to the World's First GaAs Supercomputer
Warren v\ *| -----------------------------------------------
V
--- ConfMail V4.00
* Origin: Paranet(sm) - The world's leading UFO Investigative News Network
@SEEN-BY 104/2 422 428 605 107/816 30163/100 150 1012/3
@PATH: 30163/150 104/422
(1:30163/150)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(5239) Sun 14 Jun 92 12:23p
By: Mark Holladay
To: All
Re: Skepticus Maximus (sp?)
St: Sent
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@UFGATE newsin 1.27
From: markh@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Mark Holladay)
Date: 14 Jun 92 05:18:13 GMT
Organization: University of Hawaii at Manoa
Message-ID: <1992Jun14.051813.29521@news.Hawaii.Edu>
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
SKEPTICUS MAXIMUS(sp)
You remind me of someone who, long ago, brunt down the temples
and cut off the heads of the priestess and priests just because you
didn't like their point of view. You are like a fly who is stuck
in a beer bottle. You are so intoxicated by the fumes of your
beliefs and so dizzy from bouncing off the glass of your short
sightedness you can't see what's going on around you.
REFERENCE THE SHUTTLE UFO SIGHTING.
I am a believer, but I can see the shuttle sighting as being
a piece of ice. The thing is how can anyone tell without getting
all the data available on the subject. The specs of the camera,
the placement of the shuttle over the Earth, the video, etc. NASA
would probably provide this info if asked politely.
FREEDOM OF SPEECH.
I respect your right to free speech but aren't you a minority?
Isn't the data in? There is something happening. Don't most
people agree it is possible there is a U.F.O. phenomena?
The question is what is it and what causes it? U.F.O. does not
mean E.T. star ship!
PSYCHIC PHENOMENA.
You are wrong to say psychic powers do not exist. There
again, the question is, what is it and how does it function?
I will not go into this because it is for another newsgroup.
Yes, you are a cross posting master, and you are a shark. You
devour anyone who is vulnerable. Just be aware that some dolphins
are jumping into the pool. If you don't know what this means watch
some reruns of flipper.
I know this newsgroup is full of jokers, but that's what makes
it fun. And I thank the serious posters for having a sense of
humor. I respectfully ask you and yours to tone down your posts.
Go ahead, attack me, your words will run off me like water off
a ducks back...
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ HAVE FUN @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
--- ConfMail V4.00
* Origin: Paranet(sm) - The world's leading UFO Investigative News Network
@SEEN-BY 104/2 422 428 605 107/816 30163/100 150 1012/3
@PATH: 30163/150 104/422
(1:30163/150)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(5270) Sun 14 Jun 92 4:02p
By: Don Ecker
To: All
Re: Nasa Video
St: Sent
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@MSGID: 9:1012/3 670ffc31
John Hicks wrote:
> Many of you presumably saw Don Ecker on Hard Copy the other
> night, and the video tape from Discovery.
> The tape shows a about a quarter-Earth, with a small white
> object slowly moving along in the mid-upper right. The object appears to
> suddenly make a 90-degree turn and accelerate. What looks like a
> faint blob of material appears to shoot from the lower left toward the
> spot where the object initiated its turn.
> Don asserted that the object was a ufo of some sort, and
> something fired a "shot" at it, which it dodged. However.......
Actually John, what I said was that IMHO it could not have been
"ice", and as far as it being a UFO, I mean in the truest sense of
the word, "Unidentified, Flying, and an Object". I SPECULATED a
"shot", and the 140 degree turn was somewhat dramatic. I just
received a 1st generation copy of the tape and will have analysis
done on it. I also have the official NASA "explanation" of these
events and more will be heard on this very soon.
> a) What specifically were the astronauts supposedly taping?
> b) Did a manuevering jet that would have been visible fire at
> the corresponding time with what we saw on the tape? (hint....the
> original tape would almost certainly have been time-coded, and of
> course NASA would know exactly what time a jet was fired.) If the times
> coincide, then we're forced to accept that explanation pending
> further information.
This was just prior to the "water dump" which did have shuttle
manuvers connected with the "dump". In the dump, the camera,
shuttle and everything else did move. With event # 2, (object,
"shot" etc.) nothing else had movement. Stay tuned.
Don Ecker
UFO Magazine
PO Bx 1053
Sunland, CA 91041
--- FD 1.99c
@SEEN-BY 104/422 1012/3 5
@PATH: 1012/3
* Origin: ParaNet(sm) Alpha-Delta The DATA Base (9:1012/3.0)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(5343) Mon 15 Jun 92 12:16p
By: Gerry Roston
To: All
Re: Re: Ufo Video From Nasa - The Camera Was Moving!
St: Sent Reply to 5260
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@UFGATE newsin 1.27
From: gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston)
Date: 15 Jun 92 15:29:15 GMT
Organization: Field Robotics Center, CMU
Message-ID: <GERRY.92Jun15102915@onion.cmu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal
Anyway, we (the USA) have had hyper-accelerationg rockets for 30 years.
We tried to build ICBM interceptors back in the early 70's, and one of
them (I wish I could remember what it was called - it looks like a strange
fat cone, not like a normal rocket - I saw it on a documentary about SDI)
was really fast. I saw a film of one taking off, and it literally
disappeared straight up almost instantly. I mean that thing was gone.
True. These were the "Sprint" rockets (I believe). They had launch
accelerations of > 30 g's. However, if you doe some simple math, you
will find that their achievable atlitude must have been quite low.
Remember, they were intended to hit incoming ICBM's.
--
Gerry Roston (gerry@cmu.edu) | From whence, then, could arise the solitary
Field Robotics Center, | and strange conceit that the Almighty, who
Carnegie Mellon University | had millions of worlds equally dependent on
Pittsburgh, PA, 15213 | His protection, should quit the care of all
(412) 268-3856 | the rest, and come to die in our world,
| because, they say, one man and one woman
The opinions expressed are mine | had eaten an apple? Thomas Paine
and do not reflect the official |
position of CMU, FRC, RedZone, |
or any other organization. |
--- ConfMail V4.00
* Origin: Paranet(sm) - The world's leading UFO Investigative News Network
@SEEN-BY 104/2 422 428 605 107/816 30163/100 150 1012/3
@PATH: 30163/150 104/422
(1:30163/150)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(5387) Mon 15 Jun 92 6:07p
By: Pete Hardie
To: All
Re: Re: Ufo Video From Nasa - The Camera Was Moving!
St: Sent Reply chain 5343 5389
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@UFGATE newsin 1.27
From: phardie@nastar.uucp (Pete Hardie)
Date: 15 Jun 92 16:25:28 GMT
Organization: Digital Transmission Systems, Duluth, GA.
Message-ID: <1992Jun15.162528.5900@nastar.uucp>
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal
In article <1992Jun13.210431.7754@news.eng.convex.com> swarren@convex.com
(Steve Warren) writes:
>>>In article <1992Jun11.131415.20859@nastar.uucp> phardie@nastar.uucp (Pete
Hardie) writes:
>>Still, the point I'm trying to make is that I doubt we have anything that
will
>>go from ground to orbit in less than 15 minutes.
>
>That is a rather meaningless statement. You can orbit earth at any altitude
>that clears the mountains. ;^)
True. But what is the height of orbit that visually clears the 'horizon'
visible from the Shuttle in the video under discussion?
>Seriously, what altitude are you talking about? The shuttle only achieves
>low earth-orbit, and these objects were apparently maneuvering at a fraction
>of the shuttle's altitude.
How much of a fraction? Half? 3/4?
It's still a considerable distance. And the flight time to that height is
unlikely to be measured in the small tens of seconds for this tape scene to
match it.
>Yep. We couldn't possibly have improved on what was available in 1970,
>could we? I mean, the Pentagon would tell everyone if we could make
>anything go that fast, right? I'm sure you are correct. If it isn't
>published, it doesn't exist.
Straw man. Such a missile would be
a) obvious at launch - trans-sonic flight, straight up is not subtle
b) used more often for satellite launches. Nothing that good would be
used just for scaring off a few 'alien ships'
c) published by the Soviet intelligence to embarass the USA at strategic
arms talks.
Sure, the govt has secrets. But it's a far leap to go from Classified info
to certainity of aliens.
--
Pete Hardie: phardie@nastar (voice) (404) 497-0101
Digital Transmission Systems, Inc., Duluth GA
Member, DTS Dart Team | cat * | egrep -v "signature virus|infection"
Position: Goalie |
--- ConfMail V4.00
* Origin: Paranet(sm) - The world's leading UFO Investigative News Network
@SEEN-BY 104/2 422 428 605 107/816 30163/100 150 1012/3
@PATH: 30163/150 104/422
(1:30163/150)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(5389) Mon 15 Jun 92 6:08p
By: R. Kym Horsell
To: All
Re: Re: Ufo Video From Nasa - The Camera Was Moving!
St: Sent Reply to 5387
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@UFGATE newsin 1.27
From: kym@bingsuns.cc.binghamton.edu (R. Kym Horsell)
Date: 15 Jun 92 20:20:20 GMT
Organization: State University of New York at Binghamton
Message-ID: <1992Jun15.202020.13743@newserve.cc.binghamton.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal
In article <1992Jun15.162528.5900@nastar.uucp> phardie@nastar.uucp (Pete
Hardie) writes:
>Such a missile would be
>a) obvious at launch - trans-sonic flight, straight up is not subtle
Not necessarily. The shockwave of a vertically rising vehicle may not
intersect the ground.
>b) used more often for satellite launches. Nothing that good would be
> used just for scaring off a few 'alien ships'
Not necessarily. Neither ground-to-air nor ``sounding'' rockets can
launch satellites.
>c) published by the Soviet intelligence to embarass the USA at strategic
> arms talks.
Not necessarily. The vehicle may not carry nukes.
-kym
--- ConfMail V4.00
* Origin: Paranet(sm) - The world's leading UFO Investigative News Network
@SEEN-BY 104/2 422 428 605 107/816 30163/100 150 1012/3
@PATH: 30163/150 104/422
(1:30163/150)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(5467) Tue 16 Jun 92 12:24p
By: Steve Warren
To: All
Re: Re: Ufo Video From Nasa - The Camera Was Moving!
St: Sent Reply chain 5389 5469
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@UFGATE newsin 1.27
From: swarren@convex.com (Steve Warren)
Date: 15 Jun 92 22:22:46 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
Message-ID: <1992Jun15.222246.26076@news.eng.convex.com>
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal
In article <1992Jun15.162528.5900@nastar.uucp> phardie@nastar.uucp (Pete
Hardie) writes:
>In article <1992Jun13.210431.7754@news.eng.convex.com> swarren@convex.com
(Steve Warren) writes:
>>>>In article <1992Jun11.131415.20859@nastar.uucp> phardie@nastar.uucp (Pete
Hardie) writes:
>>>Still, the point I'm trying to make is that I doubt we have anything that
will
>>>go from ground to orbit in less than 15 minutes.
[...]
>Straw man. Such a missile would be
[...]
>b) used more often for satellite launches. Nothing that good would be
> used just for scaring off a few 'alien ships'
[...]
>Sure, the govt has secrets. But it's a far leap to go from Classified info
>to certainity of aliens.
Now who is erecting a straw man?
I never suggested aliens. In fact, if you read my note which Pete
originally responded to, you'll see that what I had suggested was
simply that it was *more*likely* that this was a secret weapons test
than that there were ETs being shot at. I did not even suggest that
the weapons test scenario was the most plausible explanation - merely
that it was more likely than the ET explanation.
Do you disagree?
--
_.
--Steve ._||__ Welcome to the World's First GaAs Supercomputer
Warren v\ *| -----------------------------------------------
V
--- ConfMail V4.00
* Origin: Paranet(sm) - The world's leading UFO Investigative News Network
@SEEN-BY 104/2 422 428 605 107/816 30163/100 150 1012/3
@PATH: 30163/150 104/422
(1:30163/150)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(5475) Tue 16 Jun 92 12:25p
By: Nick Eads
To: All
Re: Re: Ufo Video From Nasa - The Camera Was Moving!
St: Sent Reply chain 5469 5477
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@UFGATE newsin 1.27
From: nreads01@starbase.spd.louisville.edu (Nick Eads)
Date: 16 Jun 92 01:13:50 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville
Message-ID: <nreads01.708657230@starbase.spd.louisville.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal
In <1992Jun14.180843.9246@cco.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J
Lydick) writes:
>In article <nreads01.708375851@starbase.spd.louisville.edu>,
nreads01@sirius.spd.louisville.edu (Nick Eads) writes:
>>Fine. I concede that it is an inference; it was never meant to be more than
>>that. But how do you expect me to describe the *apparent* behavior of the
>>object with respect to the camera if I cannot use exact terms?
>Describe what you saw on your television screen. "The object moved in
>such-and-such a direction" (where direction is confined to the two dimensions
of
>your television screen), "The object got dimmer [or brighter]," and, if the
>object was large enough to show a disk on your television screen, "The disk of
>the object got smaller [or larger]."
Perhaps I am not making my purpose clear to you. I am describing *apparent*
behavior because it *apparently* contradicts the camera motion theory. Since
there are several messages detailing the exact 2D movements and luminosity
of the object, it would be fruitless to reiterate. In other words,
someone proposed a hypothesis to explain the object on the tape. I therefore
described the exact aspects of its apparent behavior because it gives
everyone something to prove. Is the apparent behavior the correct behavior?
And if it is the correct behavior, it contradicts the camera theory. Unless
someone proposed the apparent behavior, what would there be to prove or
disprove? A true scientist weighs exact facts against apparent facts
because the apparent facts give him a place to start.
>>My purpose in
>>posting that message was to clarify that the object in question exhibited
>>behavior that I felt was not caused by camera motion, so I detailed
>>exactly what motion seemed to apparently contradict the camera motion theory.
>No, you posted your interpretation of the motion, not what you actually saw.
Incorrect; the motion I detailed is what I saw. Sure, you can get precise
and say it is my brain's interpretation of what I see, but what is the
point of arguing over when the actual interpretation takes place? Besides,
I am tired of putting conditionals throughout my posts, and I am sure
everyone is sick of reading them: apparently, seemingly, and all the rest.
And certainly the lack of such words will invariably be the first thing
that many posters will use as weapons. That entire
message should be preceded by a disclaimer: when in doubt, stick an
apparently in front and take it with a grain of salt. Since this is
a poor medium for conveying ideas, I think it is the only way to achieve
anything without becoming bogged down in what really is frivolous detail.
>>Am I certain that was the *apparent* behavior of the object? Yes. Am I
>>sure that it was the *actual* behavior of the object? No way.
>>What sort of motion? Your post is really unclear on this point. What is
>>this object (not alleged object -- I think you meant alleged *behavior* of
>>the object) doing "relative to another spaceship" that is similar to these
>>movies/TV shows? You mentioned the Star Wars scene, but this object was
>>apparently (and I emphasize to you all once again APPARENTLY) at a large
>>distance from the space shuttle.
>In what sense was it "apparently" at a large distance from the space shuttle?
>What is it about what you saw that makes you perceive it as being distant from
>the shuttle? Why continue to give us your INTERPRETATIONS of what you saw
>rather than a simple description of what you saw?
You've got me here. I don't know how in the world I am supposed to tell
you how something looks far away: in the normal way, I guess? This is
definitely not a flame, so please don't take it as such; it is the only
answer that comes to mind. It is small, and it dims to nothingness; hence,
it looks far away. As for posting my interpretations, I feel I answered that
sufficiently above. There already are enough "simple descriptions." If
you have any more questions, go right ahead...
--
*------------------------------*----------------------------------------------*
| Nick "The Cache" Eads | nreads01@starbase.spd.louisville.edu |
| EE Department *----------------------------------------------*
| University of Louisville | GEMail: N.EADS |
| Louisville, Kentucky 40292 | SciBoard (502-588-0864): Sysnick |
*------------------------------*----------------------------------------------*
| Don't blame me; the Illuminati are responsible for everything... |
*-----------------------------------------------------------------------------*
--- ConfMail V4.00
* Origin: Paranet(sm) - The world's leading UFO Investigative News Network
@SEEN-BY 104/2 422 428 605 107/816 30163/100 150 1012/3
@PATH: 30163/150 104/422
(1:30163/150)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(5508) Tue 16 Jun 92 6:22p
By: Richard D Warner
To: All
Re: Re: Blackbird Sr-71
St: Sent Reply to 5485
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@UFGATE newsin 1.27
From: cs000rdw@selway.umt.edu (Richard D Warner)
Date: 16 Jun 92 16:38:23 GMT
Organization: University of Montana
Message-ID: <1992Jun16.163823.7381@selway.umt.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
I saw the footage, and it's so obvious to me that the camera
didn't move. The Earth was visible in the background, and it stayed in
the same position relative to the camera. They played the film over and
over and this is reliable info. My concern, which I posted immediately
after the show (the next day) was whether this could be explained by a
meteor traveling almost directly away from the shuttle, thus it would have
only a small horizontal component in its movement. Then, when it hits
the Earth's atmosphere, there is a sudden change in direction, and we are
more able to see its true speed because now it is traveling mostly
horizontally instead of along the z-axis. The other object that shot by
could have been a piece of ice in orbit. It had a haze around it like
a comet (which often are mostly ice I understand), and was moving at
perhaps an orbital speed in the opposite direction of this shuttle.
Rich
--- ConfMail V4.00
* Origin: Paranet(sm) - The world's leading UFO Investigative News Network
@SEEN-BY 104/2 422 428 605 107/816 30163/100 150 1012/3
@PATH: 30163/150 104/422
(1:30163/150)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(5512) Tue 16 Jun 92 6:22p
By: Brian 'rev P-k' Siano
To: All
Re: Re: Ufo Video From Nasa - The Camera Was Moving!
St: Sent Reply to 5477
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@UFGATE newsin 1.27
From: revpk@cellar.org (Brian 'Rev P-K' Siano)
Date: 16 Jun 92 16:51:58 GMT
Organization: The Cellar BBS and public access system
Message-ID: <BP1gmB6w164w@cellar.org>
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal
nreads01@sirius.spd.louisville.edu (Nick Eads) writes:
>
> For your information, I posted my original message about the
> Hard Copy episode a mere 10 minutes after it went off the air here in
> the Eastern time zone. Isn't that enough time for you?
Uh, I didn't see ANY message on this videotape until at least three
days after it had aired-- and I live on the east coast too. The Internet is
just not very efficient in some respects. In fact, I'm responding to this
message on June 15th, and it's originally dated June 12th, according to the
header.
>
> I am not going to get into an insulting match
> with you, but I find that you have little to *no* respect for the
> posters alt.alien.visitors regardless of their believer/disbeliever
> affiliation. Why must you whine all the time? People like you give the
> rest of us more methodical and openminded skeptics a bad reputation, and
> I almost no longer wish to call myself a skeptic because of your rude
> and patronizing tone. Do you *always* expect to not have to do *any*
> research on your own? Grow up and do some real investigation before
> you get flamed to purgatory and back by any more *real* skeptics.
As far as UFOs go, some of the skeptics here _have_ done some real
investigation.
Brian "Rev. P-K" Siano revpk@cellar.org
New Sig File Under Construction-- Light and Compact for your Usenet Pleasure.
"The recent problem with the satellite retrieval managed to prove one thing;
DeVries graduates really _do_ work for NASA."
--- ConfMail V4.00
* Origin: Paranet(sm) - The world's leading UFO Investigative News Network
@SEEN-BY 104/2 422 428 605 107/816 30163/100 150 1012/3
@PATH: 30163/150 104/422
(1:30163/150)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(5723) Thu 18 Jun 92 12:28p
By: Bruce Carlson
To: All
Re: Re: Ufo Video From Nasa - The Camera Was Moving!
St: Sent Reply chain 5604 5757
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@UFGATE newsin 1.27
From: carls@pioneer.unm.edu (Bruce Carlson)
Date: 18 Jun 92 01:20:13 GMT
Organization: Space and Planetary Image Facility
Message-ID: <9aklr6h@lynx.unm.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal
I saw the video and to me it looked like a space defense
systems test. The object started to stream off particles just
before it moved radicaly and after it did. It didn't look like
any sort of thruster as the material was being spead out over a
wide area. The streak that came after it could have been a
booster. Maybe it was a satellite that was hit by an energy
weapon launched by rocket (don't laugh there are 'Star Wars'
plans of this type). The (laser, maser, etc.) hits the satellite
with enough energy to blind it's optics, material is boiled off
the surface, and a fuel tank ruptures making the satellite
move off it path at a radical angle. Then the booster comes by.
Does anyone know when the footage was taken? Over what area?
--- ConfMail V4.00
* Origin: Paranet(sm) - The world's leading UFO Investigative News Network
@SEEN-BY 104/2 422 428 605 107/816 30163/100 150 1012/3
@PATH: 30163/150 104/422
(1:30163/150)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(5752) Thu 18 Jun 92 6:09p
By: Bill Moore
To: All
Re: Re: Reasons For Nasa Disclosure
St: Sent Reply in 5756
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@UFGATE newsin 1.27
From: billy@anasaz (Bill Moore)
Date: 18 Jun 92 09:57:10 GMT
Organization: Anasazi, Inc. Phoenix, Az
Message-ID: <1992Jun18.095710.10111@anasaz>
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
In article <1992Jun11.205105.29626@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu>
wilbur@oyster.cps.msu.edu (Brick Wilbur) writes:
->Someone asked: "Why would the government allow that to be shown on TV?".
->
... conspiracy stuff deleted ...
The producers of Hard Copy don't check with the government first. This is
America.
NASA Select on Satcom 2, Transponder 13, carries the whole mission, live and
anybody with a satellite dish can tune in. You can find the original
uplink and shuttle audio on Transponder 5. This is th raw video with
shuttle to ground audio communications on it.
A UFO investigator happened to be taping when the incident occured. He
dealt directly with Hard Copy, the government wasn't involved.
--
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Bill Moore billy%anasaz.UUCP@asuvax.eas.asu.edu (602) 395-1732
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
--- ConfMail V4.00
* Origin: Paranet(sm) - The world's leading UFO Investigative News Network
@SEEN-BY 104/2 422 428 605 107/816 30163/100 150 1012/3
@PATH: 30163/150 104/422
(1:30163/150)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(5757) Thu 18 Jun 92 6:11p
By: Scott I Chase
To: All
Re: Re: Ufo Video From Nasa - The Camera Was Moving!
St: Sent Reply to 5723
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@UFGATE newsin 1.27
From: sichase@csa3.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Date: 18 Jun 92 21:18:28 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Message-ID: <24039@dog.ee.lbl.gov>
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal
In article <9aklr6h@lynx.unm.edu>, carls@pioneer.unm.edu (Bruce Carlson)
writes...
>
> I saw the video and to me it looked like a space defense
>systems test. The object started to stream off particles just
How many space defense systems tests have you previously witnessed from low
Earth orbit? How can you possibly make this claim if you have not ever
seen a space defense systems test?
-Scott
--------------------
Scott I. Chase "The question seems to be of such a character
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV that if I should come to life after my death
and some mathematician were to tell me that it
had been definitely settled, I think I would
immediately drop dead again." - Vandiver
--- ConfMail V4.00
* Origin: Paranet(sm) - The world's leading UFO Investigative News Network
@SEEN-BY 104/2 422 428 605 107/816 30163/100 150 1012/3
@PATH: 30163/150 104/422
(1:30163/150)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(5840) Fri 19 Jun 92 12:27p
By: Brick Wilbur
To: All
Re: Nasa Footage: 10billion Watt Lasar
St: Sent Reply in 5844
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@UFGATE newsin 1.27
From: wilbur@tuna.cps.msu.edu (Brick Wilbur)
Date: 18 Jun 92 23:31:07 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, Michigan State University
Message-ID: <1992Jun18.233107.22814@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
I talked to someone who works for the United States Govt on Wednesday.
I recently told him of the research that I was doing for the series of articles
that I was to write for some newspapers. These articles are about the UFO
controversy. Anyways, I mentioned to him if he had seen the footage from the
shuttle. He said, no.
As soon as I described what occurred, his eyes fixed on me and said, " I know
what it was that shot up...a lasar." I said, "A lasar? How do you know that?"
He replied: "They got a lasar that shoots up into space. I've seen actual
footage of it. Its in the desert in New Mexico, I believe... They showed them
making sure that there were no planes in the way when the shot it."
I thought this was interesting. So I did some research.
At Los Alamos National Laboratory is a 20 BILLION WATT LASAR!!!
And get this, the name of the lasar is A U R O R A ! ! ! !
Bizzzzzaaaaarrrreeee!
Brick
--- ConfMail V4.00
* Origin: Paranet(sm) - The world's leading UFO Investigative News Network
@SEEN-BY 104/2 422 428 605 107/816 30163/100 150 1012/3
@PATH: 30163/150 104/422
(1:30163/150)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(5841) Fri 19 Jun 92 12:27p
By: Brick Wilbur
To: All
Re: Lasar,Nasa Footage
St: Sent
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@UFGATE newsin 1.27
From: wilbur@tuna.cps.msu.edu (Brick Wilbur)
Date: 18 Jun 92 23:56:26 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, Michigan State University
Message-ID: <1992Jun18.235626.24811@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
By the way for those people who will ask me for the citation of the Aurora
lasar
is:
SOURCE: Fusion, May-June 1985 v7 p14
TITLE: Aurora Laser hits record 20-billion watts.
AUTHOR: Charles B. Stevens
ref. no. 03756347
Brick
--- ConfMail V4.00
* Origin: Paranet(sm) - The world's leading UFO Investigative News Network
@SEEN-BY 104/2 422 428 605 107/816 30163/100 150 1012/3
@PATH: 30163/150 104/422
(1:30163/150)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(5844) Fri 19 Jun 92 12:27p
By: Mark Schlegel
To: All
Re: Re: Nasa Footage: 10billion Watt Lasar
St: Sent Reply to 5840
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@UFGATE newsin 1.27
From: schlegel@odin.unomaha.edu (Mark Schlegel)
Date: 19 Jun 92 01:37:00 GMT
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Message-ID: <schlegel.708917820@odin>
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
wilbur@tuna.cps.msu.edu (Brick Wilbur) writes:
> As soon as I described what occurred, his eyes fixed on me and said, " I know
>what it was that shot up...a lasar." I said, "A lasar? How do you know
that?"
>He replied: "They got a lasar that shoots up into space. I've seen actual
>footage of it. Its in the desert in New Mexico, I believe... They showed them
>making sure that there were no planes in the way when the shot it."
This laser is used for ranging satellites and the moon by bouncing short pulses
off retroflectors on the satellites or off retroflectors left on the moon by
the Apollo astronauts. The flight time is measured by atomic clock to arrive
at the distance. The site in New Mexico mentioned above is actually McDonald
observatory in Western Texas (unless a new system has been built that's
unknown to me).
>I thought this was interesting. So I did some research.
>At Los Alamos National Laboratory is a 20 BILLION WATT LASAR!!!
>And get this, the name of the lasar is A U R O R A ! ! ! !
>Bizzzzzaaaaarrrreeee!
Remember that although the power is enormous (2x10^10 watts) the pulse
duration is so short that the energy involved is very small because
energy = power * time
Mark Schlegel
schlegel@odin.unomaha.edu
--- ConfMail V4.00
* Origin: Paranet(sm) - The world's leading UFO Investigative News Network
@SEEN-BY 104/2 422 428 605 107/816 30163/100 150 1012/3
@PATH: 30163/150 104/422
(1:30163/150)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(7582) Thu 9 Jul 92 6:09p
By: Robert Sheaffer
To: All
Re: Oberg's "explanation For Sts-48 Ufo"
St:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@UFGATE newsin 1.27
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Date: 9 Jul 92 14:09:34 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Message-ID: <0w8l6h=.sheaffer@netcom.com>
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.alien.visitors
NOTE OF INTEREST June 28, 1992
By: James Oberg, Rt 2 Box 35O, Dickinson, Texas 77539
Subject: Actual explanation for the notorious STS-48 "UFOs" on
videotape
After the "HardCopy" interview with Don Ecker (June 5), and my
appearance with him on "Larry King Live" June 26, I've gotten an
appreciation of where this UFO connection has come from. When I
saw the original incoherent letters from D. Ratsch, I dismissed
it as complete looney-tunes, but subsequently I've found out what
fundamental misunderstanding and ignorance has led to the fuss.
Lights on the shuttle TV cameras can be many things, and on these
scenes in question they are stars, cities, lens spots, and nearby
shuttle-generated debris (they are rarely if ever other
satellites). Especially with the low-light cameras used for the
nighttime mesoscale lightning surveys, the horizon is deceptive
because the glowing line is the airglow and the actual edge of
the earth is somewhat below it. With poor contrast; this means
that stars can cross the glowing "horizon" and still be visible a
bit further before actually setting.
There are more than 50 sources of ice on the shuttle, plus a
steady source of debris such as insulation flakes from inside the
payload bay. This includes 38 primary RCS jets and 6 vernier jets
(which burn the hypergolic [self-igniting] propellants of
nitrogen tetroxide and hydrazine), an air dump line, a waste
water dump line, a supply water dump line, two fuel cell purge
lines (the hydrogen one is always leaking water), two flash
evaporators, a water spray boiler, and so forth. No surprise,
then, that floating debris near the shuttle is a common sight.
The particles usually (not always) spin, and depending on the
axis of spin they may or may not flash, and depending on the
speed of spin their flicker may or may not be picked up by the
camera CCD scanner.
The RCS jets usually fire in 80-millisecond pulses to keep the
shuttle pointed in a desired direction, under autopilot control
(usually once every few minutes). These jets may flash when they
ignite if the mixture ratio is not quite right. Propellant also
tends to seep out the feed lines into the nozzle, where it
accumulates, freezes through evaporative cooling, and flakes off
during the next firing. The ejected burn byproducts travel at
about 1000 ft/sec. One pulse usually emits about a quarter pound
of propellant in a fan-shaped plume.
When small, drifting debris particles are hit by this RCS plume
they are violently accelerated away from the jet. This is what is
seen in the infamous "Case 2" sequence, where a flash (the jet
firing) is immediately followed by all nearby particles being
pushed away from the jet, followed shortly later by a fast moving
object (evidently RCS fuel ice) departing from the direction of
the jet (the streak is caused by the slow camera speed). If one
plotted all the departure lines of the pushed debris and the
expelled ice, they would converge at the jet's location.
These ice particles, in particular, form slowly inside the jets
and elsewhere, as the fluid (water or propellant) seeps out and
spreads over the surface, They take on the shape of the structure
they form on. They can thus have just about any shape, usually
flat. They have been seen and photographed for thirty years,
about as long as UFOlogists have mistaken them for flying
saucers.
--
Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com
Past Chairman, The Bay Area Skeptics - for whom I speak only when authorized!
"Every psychic investigator of [the medium] Mrs. Piper was impressed
by her simplicity and honesty. It never occurred to them that no
charlatan ever achieves greatness by acting like a charlatan. No
professional spy acts like a spy. No card cheat behaves at the
table like a card cheat."
- Martin Gardner (writing in "Free Inquiry",
Spring, 1992)
--- ConfMail V4.00
* Origin: Paranet(sm) - The world's leading UFO Investigative News Network
@SEEN-BY 104/2 422 428 605 107/816 30163/100 150 1012/3
@PATH: 30163/150 104/422
(1:30163/150)
