Images of "UFOs" taken by NASA spacecraft are of more than passing interest for two reasons:
First, nobody of any persuasion would accuse NASA of faking UFO photos (the accusation raised immediately regarding all photographs taken by private citizens). Everyone knows that NASA is far too hostile to the idea of UFOs for that possibility to be given any credence.
Second, the NASA photos and videos show objects in space, which could suggest that some UFOs are actually vehicles capable of space travel (something not demonstrated by even the best images taken from the ground of UFOs within the Earth atmosphere).
The best known NASA video was taken by the Space Shuttle Discovery during the STS-48 mission in 1991. NASA contends that this video shows nothing more than small debris particles near the shuttle. At one point, a flash of light can be seen on the left side of the video. Some of the objects can be seen to respond immediately to this flash by abruptly changing their direction of movement. NASA says this flash was due to the firing of a shuttle attitude control thruster and that the objects changed course when they were struck by the rocket exhaust plume. (By the way, the STS-48 video is a subject about which Mr. Clark McClelland apparently has some first-hand experience.)
For several years, this explanation seemed compelling to me because I could not see how anything other than rocket exhaust from the space shuttle itself could account for the light flash. And only small debris particles near the shuttle could be affected by the firing of the small thruster. Plus, NASA has released a version of the video showing time stamps indicaing that the light flash coincided with the firing of one of the shuttle thrusters. NASA's debris explanation thus seemed consistent with many of the observable featurs of the video -- but not all of them.
Physicist Jack Kasher and digital image specialist Mark Carlotto both did careful frame-by-frame analyses of the video (something nobody at NASA apparently ever bothered to do). Both Kasher and Carlotto found major problems with the debris explanation but didn't address the problem of the light flash or why it should coincide so closely in time with the documented time of a shuttle rocket firing. So while there were seemingly compelling arguments made both in favor of the debris hypothesis and against it, neither side presented an explanation that appeared completely consistent with _all_ of the observable events in the video.
Being a computer specialist for a NASA subcontractor, I became interested in these unresolved questions and started doing my own analysis of the video. I'm confident that what I've found provides the remaining pieces of the puzzle and that a completely self-consistent explanation now exists that _excludes_ the debris hypothesis completely.
I've written three articles on what I've found in the video that can be accessed at URL:
Two of them are also posted on Dr. Mark Carlotto's NewFrontiersinscience.com web site.
To summarize what I found:
1. The light flash in the video to which the objects responded did _not_ originate at the lower left-hand corner of the video where exhaust from the STS-48 vernier thruster would have come from but in the upper left-hand corner. Further, the shape of the flash region of the video could not have been produced by a thruster. Tge flash is an intensification of the pre-existing lens flare already present due to sunlight reflecting off the orbiter's body. This light flash was therefore also caused by a brilliant light source far away from the shuttle that illuminated the shuttle's entire body that added to the preexisting lens flare. See the last section of the article at: http://www.newfrontiersinscience.com/Members/v02n02/a/NFS0202a.shtml
2. Several of the objects underwent course changes unrelated to the light flash that cannot be attributed to "prosaic" causes such as atmospheric drag or pressure from ice sublimating in the sunlight. This is the subject of the article at:
3. Computations of the times of star transits of the air glow layer in the video indicate that the light flash occurred at least 2 seconds after the thruster stopped firing, which is additional confirmation that the light flash was unrelated to the thruster firing as claimed by NASA (NASA did no scientific analysis at all of this video before making their assertions that the light flash was from a thruster's exhaust gases and that the objects were merely small debris particles moved by the impact of the rocket exhaust). This topic is covered in the first part of the article at:
4. There are extremely odd discrepancies in the time displays on the video that James Oberg used to support the case that the light flash coincided with a thruster firing. The discrepancies strongly suggest that these time displays were tampered with after the STS-48 mission was over. This is the subject of the article at:
I read with great interest what you had to say in your article. I opened up the
links and went through them also. However, when I got to item 4, which is:
www.vql.org/webfiles/STS-49/LOS.html, I got caught in a loop or something.
I tried to hit the back button, but it wouldn't let me out. I eventually had to X out
and jump on out of this website altogether, and then come back in. I thought for a
moment there, I had been abducted or something. LOL.........
I have read and seen on TV various accounts of this incident in the past, but
this explains the incident a lot clearer than what was shown on the tube......
Robert L. Sharp
Gering, Nebraska USA
Don Tago 1/1/2004 6:22:42 PM
Im sorry you have nothing better to do in your spare time than look at piecies of debris floating around in space, and convince yourself and everyone gullible enough around you that they are looking at space ships.
Think about this:
-If they were aliens spaceships, they would have to be very far away, since they appear very tiny, as to be mistaken for shuttle debris. But if they are spaceships, and so far away, why would they be affected in the least by the shuttle rocket firing?
-If there was an intense brilliant flash of light that cause they glare in the video, why did not astronauts not record or notice anything of that nature.
-Whenever ive seen footage from space, it is simply stars, space, the shuttle, astronauts, and earth. Not usually more than that. But then for an instant, a video camera captures nearly TEN moving objects, all within the span of just a few seconds. This looks more like an invasion than a visit by our alien neighbors.
http://www.nicap.dabsol.co.uk/sts48.htm -this site documents the ten moving objects.
-As i said in previous posts, i totally rule out any sightings in which people report that spaceships are making dramatic nearly instantaneous course changes of angles more than 90 degrees. Now in the above study i linked to, it was reported that the speck known as M1 in the above study was caculated to be traveling at about 35km/sec, or about 22miles/sec or 1320mph. This sort of instantaneous change in direction at that speed would create over 1000G's, or in other words, 1000 times the gravity that exists on earth. Anything in a craft like that that isnt made of metal would be crushed to flatness. So im not sure how you want to explain that. Maybe this proves conclusively that aliens are made of metal.
Hope you enjoyed reading this
Robert L. Sharp 1/1/2004 6:29:45 PM
Excuse me Mr Tago, but 22 miles per second converts to 79,200 MPH.....
Robert L. Sharp
Don Tago 1/1/2004 6:34:18 PM
sorry, bad mistake on my part. i was calculating for miles per minute, but put the wrong units.
But ok. nearly 80,000 miles per hour. That would be well over 50,000G's. I think that might crush metal too, so i guess aliens cant be made of metal....!
Imagine what would happen to any living thing put under the stress of 50,000 times the gravity of earth!...taking into account that any living intelligent thing would have to be carbon based, made of organic material, with outer skin of some sort, composed of organ type processors which sustain its existece.
Go ahead, think about it.
Robert L. Sharp 1/1/2004 6:42:15 PM
Why do you think all of these objects are necessarily MANNED craft? It could
be they are small probe craft that are made of a material we haven't even begun
to theorize about. I do agree anything travelling at this type of speed, would be
crushed like a paper cup if they made a 90 degree turn abruptly. Maybe they
have materials that can withstand this type of abuse. Just a comment......
Robert L. Sharp
Lan Fleming 1/1/2004 7:40:34 PM
Think about this:
[[If they were aliens spaceships, they would have to be very far away, since they appear very tiny, as to be mistaken for shuttle debris. But if they are spaceships, and so far away, why would they be affected in the least by the shuttle rocket firing? ]]
Because there WAS NO thruster firing at the time of the light flash. As I clearly stated, whether or not the light flash was caused by a thruster firing was the SOLE question I set out to answer. Try reading a little more carefully. Or I should say, try reading at all before pontificating.
[[As i said in previous posts, i totally rule out any sightings in which people report that spaceships are making dramatic nearly instantaneous course changes of angles more than 90 degrees. Now in the above study i linked to, it was reported that the speck known as M1 in the above study was caculated to be traveling at about 35km/sec, or about 22miles/sec or 1320mph. This sort of instantaneous change in direction at that speed would create over 1000G's, or in other words, 1000 times the gravity that exists on earth. Anything in a craft like that that isnt made of metal would be crushed to flatness. So im not sure how you want to explain that. Maybe this proves conclusively that aliens are made of metal.]]
If you were the reading type, you might know that everyone is aware of the problem of high accelerations, including a Chief NASA scientist named Paul Hill, who suggested that these craft may generate field forces that protect occupants of a craft undergoing very high accelerations. Strong magnetic fields are already known to do so for some materials.
[[ Hope you enjoyed reading this ]]
I always enjoy reading ignorant rants from people such as yourself who think they know better than everyone else even though they obviously know nothing and are too lazy to learn anything.
Don Tago 1/1/2004 7:50:36 PM
Im sure you are famliar with the Ockam's Razor principle. The simplest explanation is most invariably the right one.
So for you to sit there and proclaim they are alien space craft, and then devise all these crazy explanations to rules to try and explain how your theory is right in opposition to everything against it is ridiculous. Why do you want to believe so much that these specks are extra-terrestrial? Will it fill some gap in your life? Make your existence seem productive and meaningful? I hope its a good reason at any rate. Because your wasting not only your own time, but everyone elses as well.
Lan Fleming 1/1/2004 7:57:58 PM
Sorry about your "browser abduction" experience.
[[I have read and seen on TV various accounts of this incident in the past, but
this explains the incident a lot clearer than what was shown on the tube...... ]]
The footage shown on TV is very dramatic, but you certainly couldn't rule out the debris explanation just by seeing that. Like most questions that are worth finding answers for, this one took a considerable amount of work by several people.
Lan Fleming 1/1/2004 8:11:44 PM
Mr. Tago [[So for you to sit there and proclaim they are alien space craft,]]
I proclaimed no such thing, which only goest to show you have a serious reading disablility that you really should work on.
Don Tago 1/1/2004 11:34:45 PM
You are obviously trying to prove that they are alien space craft. Being that this entire message board is titled "ARE UFO's REAL?" and it is clear i believe they arent, and you are arguing that the specks are not debris i determined thru circumstantial evidence that you MUST be assuming they are some sort of alien craft from another planet. Well, yes, you didnt SAY that, but you infered it to high hell....was i suppose to assume you thought they were doughnuts, or cockerspaniels?