http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc497.htm

While this link does not cover the man that admitted it was him flying his RC balloons, it does cover the next things:

*triangular shaped with a dome above it (the dome isn't mentioned often, therefore I post this source)
*electrical motor hum audible
*unreliabillity of the used radar system for low speed objects (and low flying objects from own experience)

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

Computer, Eyewitness accounts do not mean anything factwise normally. Many studies have proven this to be very true.
They are easy to get things wrong, they are constrained by what they know, and they are easily influenced by third parties. Just because people say they saw something moving very fast, and they had not seen thast before does not mean anything unless you have evidence of the object to confirm thses results.

Even if they can describe the crafts accurately its very, very hard to estimate speeds of somthing with your bear eyes on the cround. You want to try it? Go to a racetrack with a friend. Close your eyes, have your friend drive at a random , but very fast speed. Now open your eyes having viewed the car in motion right away. Watch for 30 seconds and close them again. Then make you absolute best estimate of speed. How accurate were you?

Still don't believe me on how unreliable eyewitness accounts are? look up a study. Took me literally 15 seconds in a test search.

I bet I can reproduce the STS-101 mpeg. When I get home tonight, I'm going to set up my video camera on the hood of my car. I'm going to turn on the car's bright lights (to simulate the sun) and then I'm going to walk 20 meters out in front of the car and flip a coin.

If it looks like the STS-101 footage, would that convince you?

The only thing is, I'm not sure if my dinky little video camera can pick up changing contrast all that well. Maybe I could rent a video camera.

Hey, my new camcorder came in yesterday; I can try it too! Back when the subject was hot I wanted to do just that but my digital camera doesn't take video and I had no camcorder.

one key to doing this, I think, is to try and get about 2 rotations per second on the coin. If you flip it the way you'd normally flip a coin it will be spinning too fast and the reflective/non-reflective moments will blend together giving you a solid bright light.

So, try to spin the coin slowly.

Another idea I have is to not flip the coin at all, but to instead hang a coin or shinny washer on a string and point a lamp at it. If my camera can't pick up the flipped coin (or if it's still raining tonight) I'll try the string thing.

I really have no allusions that this is going to convince ComputerTech, I just think it is fun to do this stuff. The statement I'm trying to disprove is, "obviously having its own light source." I intend to disprove that by creating a flashing flight on an object with no guidance and no light source of its own. If I can do that, then it wont mean the STS-101 video is a rotating washer, it will mean that a rotating washer can look like a blinking light, thus you cannot say "obviously having its own light source"

ok, after about 0.5 minutes of fiddling around, I've managed to produce this.

It's a video of a quater suspended from a string and given a little bit of spin. It shows the same effect that you see in the STS-101 video, except that my quarter is not as reflective as a shiny new washer, and my 60w lamp is not as bright as the sun. Also, the quarter would twist until the tension in the string built up, and then it would stop and begin twisting the other way, so the pulses of light are not as regular as the would be with an object tumbling in zero G.

or if you prefer, this is a video of a tiny alien spacecraft that I managed to capture in my sun room. The aliens were quite curteous. they had collision lights on thier ship. I welcomed them to earth by swating them like flies.

Your quarter obviously has it's own light source.

j/k Well done, tofu.

__________________
You're a coward and a liar and a thOOF - Bart Sibrel

This is debunking at it's worst (or best, depends on one's view).

I never claimed you could not fake a washer spinning in space, but the STS video is not a washer spinning in space.

There are several things wrong with the experiment.

#1.) The size of the STS object is unknown. In order to fit you're hypothesis a lot is assumed including this.

#2.) The rotation or spinning of the object is assumed. Another assumption. Notice how debunker's can assume and make unsubstanciated claims without evidence? If I do that, it's considered another woo-woo tactic.

#3.) The assumption that this object needs the sun to shine. I've never been able to find any information on this video indicating the direction of the sun. If it's at night or day?

In order to accurately say this is a reflected object spinning in space, you would need to know many facts. The size of object, in relation to hubble. The direction of, or if there was a sun angle. Weather or not the object can be proven to be spinning.

In other words, we can't claim anything, because we don't know everything, hmm?

Check, please!

Really? How do you know this? Given the amount of debris that exists around manned satellites, the likelihood of the object being debris is high - especially as debris is frequently and unambiguously seen in other footage of manned space operations.

Pffffft! An accusation that can equally be levelled against you. You assume a large object far away. We assume a small object closer. Both are possible. One is far more likely.

Piffle. Axial rotation is the norm in space, not the exception. Take any object at random floating in space and the odds are extremely high that the object will have some degree of rotation.

What do you think is illuminating the solar panel also visible in the clip. Glow-worms?

See, Robbie, you really need to learn the meaning of 'parsimony'. You see a bog-ordinary crater with an interesting floor shadow and think that there is a collapsed alien structure at the bottom of it. You see a mountain peak disappear from the edge of a cropped picture and excitedly question what sort of lunar structure could be mobile. Yet there is so much around us that should really be generating your excitement - if only you invested as much time in those things as you do in this nonsense.....

There are countless examples in footage of debris in space spinning and catching the sunlight as it does so. Your example looks entirely consistent with those. We cannot prove what the object is in the mpeg you provided, any more than you can. However, given a choice between spinning debris (i.e. a common and demonstrable occurrence) and an alien spacecraft (for which there is no evidence whatsoever), parsimony suggests the former is vastly more likely.

__________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day." - Douglas Adams

I see the string, it must be fake! :-P

Good job man. Seriously. :-)

Perhaps it is an unidentified object? As in, you and I do not know what it is? Again, and again I've said I don't know that it's an alien object. I am saying that the spinning debri theory doesnt answer it.

When you force yourself to explain UFO'S as natural, chances are that many of them will be forced explanations and very faulty.

Why can't the thing just be a UFO?

And again, before someone goes off on a tangent.

A UFO AS IN UNIDENTIFIED :P

Everytime I write the word UFO several people on here think I mean "alien controlled vehicle which this woo-woo worships."

Don't dissemble. :x You raise this object as an anomoly precisely because it suits your agenda. Hiding now behind this defence because your argument is shown to be so deeply flawed is frankly cowardly.

I disagree. It answers it very well. And debris contains an s.

What, you mean as opposed to explaining them as aliens. Such an argument is not forced and faulty?

Because you have sought to have the object explained. You have done this by presenting it here to this forum. The members of this board have demonstrated to you that debris around a manned spacecraft is not uncommon. They have demonstrated by experiment that a spinning object will pulse light as it rotates.

You present this mpeg and say it's a mystery. We answer and say, no it is not a mystery, it is similar to commonly seen phenomena. You then say, you don't know that for certain, so my mysterious object remains a mystery. I say, nuts to that!

Let's say that I am videotaping a tree where I know a swarm of bees has taken up residence. As I watch the video later, I see an object zip across the screen. The resolution of the video makes direct identification of the object impossible. However, I am perfectly entitled to be confident that it is simply a bee zipping across the field of view. Using your argument, another person might equally claim that it is a miniature plane piloted by a millimetre high Micky Rooney clone. After all, I can't tell for sure what the object is, so why is one argument better than the other??

The answer is parsimony.

However, your tactic is to reject a perfectly plausible explanation simply because it is too prosaic. And that doesn't suit your needs, does it Robbie?

__________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day." - Douglas Adams

Yes, you're answer is too mundane and laughable for my liking. I would need more proof to say for sure what this object is. This is still a UFO in my mind.

You are pretending that youre explanation is fact simply because I don't offer one of my own. Interesting logic.

Based on what I've seen in the video, and the available evidence. I would conclude that this object is being intelligently controlled and is pulsating using it's own light source. Who is controlling it? I have no idea.

The above makes more sense of the video than a piece of space debrI. Just because one answer is more sensational than another does not make it false.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Where did I say that our explanation was a fact? In fact, I specifically said:

What I did say is that that debris is the most likely answer and others have provided evidence that supports that position. However, you don't want a simple explanation - not your 'style'. (NB: note the use of the possessive).

The difference between your argument and ours is that you say "I would conclude that this object is being intelligently controlled and is pulsating using it's own light source " with absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support this hypothesis. We suggest that it is debris on the basis of consistency with known physics and the precedent of hours of video footage with similar examples. Whose argument is stronger? (Here's a hint: it's not yours).

You can believe what you want - that's your prerogative. But don't get unhappy if people don't automatically agree with your position. That's our prerogative.

__________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day." - Douglas Adams

The debunkers questioned/attacked me for not accepting the theory suggested. Just as you're doing now.

Why don't I accept you're theory? The BA told me I offered both bad explanations and NO EXPLANATIONS on this issue. You are kind of doing it again. Reason's below.

#1.) The direction and path of the object in no way wobbles, or spins.

#2.) The object seems to pulsate in an analog fashion, like it's timed. Not just a random "reflection".

#3.) Most importantly, the explanation offered could be used to explain ANY vehicle seen in space with nothing but lights. It's certainly an easy out.

I live by an airport and see very large brilliant lights comming toward me while I am driving all the time. I don't look up and say, that's just a piece of debri reflecting sunlight. I know it's a BIG piece of debris with HEADLIGHTS and passengers. The debris answer, is not an answer. It's only half the equation.

So the question I have for you is, what is this piece of debris?

The answer is quite simple. We don't know. We do not claim anything other than it is debris of unknown origin. We cannot support the claim of aliens, because we have no data (hard evidence) to compare it to. That's how science works.

Edited for clarification

__________________
Obedience brings victory
Victory is life
That is the order of things