It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Who is your Ufology dream team?

page: 2
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 20 2019 @ 12:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: vlawde
Seems many of us are on the same page. I'd say Vallee, Keel, Hynek.

Or, we could have an even better team with impeccable credentials that may be able to give us answers since they've done so much research, and who are beyond reproach:

Erich von Däniken
Billy Meier
Giorgio A. Tsoukalos



Wasn't it hynek who came up with the swamp gas solution, and a lot of the tropes that still haunt urology to this day.




posted on Dec, 20 2019 @ 12:53 AM
link   
i reckon Tyler Rogoway would be a very useful investigator to have in any "Ufology dream team".



posted on Dec, 20 2019 @ 01:20 AM
link   
a reply to: JimOberg




Wise choices -- three people who know ZERO about spaceflight videos.

Merry Christmas Jim.



posted on Dec, 20 2019 @ 01:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Night Star

It's one of the Space Shuttle mission videos from 2005 mate , the video not Even Jim can explain.


Merry Christmas Night Star.



posted on Dec, 20 2019 @ 01:47 AM
link   
a reply to: AaarghZombies

Richard Dolan, Richard Feynman, Enrico Fermi. Because these men can think straight and can bring things in perspective..



posted on Dec, 20 2019 @ 05:32 AM
link   
a reply to: JimOberg

Ahh damn sorry, I found STS-48 and got excited lol



posted on Dec, 20 2019 @ 06:53 AM
link   
While I will admit that Keel definitely had some interesting cases, nd that he should be required reading when it comes to ufology and parapsychology I'm not so keen on some of his conclusions. He has a tendency to make logical leaps that seem more appropriate in a movie than in real life. Suh as concluding that some "aliens" were really time travelers because they wanted to see the front page of a current newspaper.

He also had a tendency to put himself into stories and to make them about himself. For example he's start investigating a story and he'd suddenly become an apparent target for the MIB or for some kind of pseudo gang stalkers. Or he'd find that his phone had been tapped. There were often aspects of his vases that seemed to follow him or to revolve around him in a way that other more famous researchers didn't seem to get.



posted on Dec, 20 2019 @ 09:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: Night Star

It's one of the Space Shuttle mission videos from 2005 mate , the video not Even Jim can explain.


Not so fast. I haven't gotten all the backup info required for even trying. That takes a lot of work.

Is it worth it? Do you accept my explanations for STS-48 zig-zag, the tether swarm, the ''Black Knight' UFO, and the 2009 'Norway Spiral', the Apollo-11 UFO stories -- which all took a lot of research and insight? Are we making progress?



posted on Dec, 20 2019 @ 11:49 AM
link   
a reply to: JimOberg




Do you accept my explanations for STS-48 zig-zag, the tether swarm, the ''Black Knight' UFO, and the 2009 'Norway Spiral', the Apollo-11 UFO stories

I think you know I do just as you know I respect your work in the field and the positions you held but you are not the font of all knowledge when it comes to what is or could be floating around out there.

Until a reasonable explanation is offered for that video I'm still scratching my head , that doesn't mean I think it's ET but hey ... it could be.


edit on 20-12-2019 by gortex because: English is hard :-)



posted on Dec, 21 2019 @ 11:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: AaarghZombies

Dr Richard Haines , John Greenewald Jr , Karl 12.

I'd leave their first case up to them but would ask if they could explain this , its puzzled me for years.
John Greenewald Jr was asked who in UFOlogy he would trust, and he said he couldn't think of even one single person. I think he has a point, since most of the big names in UFOlogy I don't trust either, and I'm not sure if I trust him or not but he's less biased than a lot of people so he has that going for him. For your space UFOs I think Jim Oberg's research is solid, but he apparently hasn't researched STS114 yet. Mick West is one of the best UFO researchers I've run across, but even he only bats maybe 95% accuracy so you still have to weed out his 5% misses which he has even admitted to in some cases. His work on the Chile UFO was outstanding though, some of the best I've seen.


originally posted by: gortex
Until a reasonable explanation is offered for that video I'm still scratching my head , that doesn't mean I think it's ET but hey ... it could be.
I can't tell you what it is, but whoever is controlling the direction of the camera doesn't seem interested in it at all, since they are panning the camera not to keep track of the moving dot but in more or less the opposite direction. So to me that's suggestive that whoever controls the camera doesn't think it's ET.

There's actually a very thin atmosphere outside the spacecraft, enough to create drag. The shuttle has a lot of mass and momentum so bumping against a few thin atmosphere particles doesn't slow it down much compared to much smaller and much less massive particles like flakes of ice or paint or other "space dandruff". So, relatively speaking, when the shuttle and space dandruff are exposed to the same thin atmospheric drag, the space dandruff particles tend to have a greater change in velocity than the shuttle.

To think of an earthly example, imagine mounting a camera on the left handlebar of a bicycle, aimed toward the right handlebar. Now imagine riding the bicycle at 10 kph (let's say coasting on a level surface) and emptying a thimble of dust particles in view of the camera. The camera will see the dust particles first falling, then apparently accelerating to the right side of the camera frame (toward the rear of the bicycle). The dust particles are actually decelerating faster than the bicycle which creates the apparent motion to the right. The bicycle is decelerating too as a result of atmospheric drag, but not as much as the dust particles.

My hypothesis is that the second part of that STS114 video shows the effects of such drag, where the "UFO" or in my hypothesis "space dandruff" particle moves to the right because of this drag explaining that apparent motion relative to the shuttle, similar to the way you'd get apparent motion of the dust particles relative to the bicycle in the above example.

So what about the initial direction of the dandruff particle? It could be the result of a thruster firing. In the STS-114 video I suspect the initial direction is from the thruster firing, and the final direction is a result of atmospheric drag. The thruster firing only moved the particle so far from the camera but the motion of the particle from the thruster is relatively small compared to the orbital motion, so drag affects both motions but drag from the orbital motion eventually dominates because the orbital motion is so much greater than the motion from the thruster. At about 350 km altitude of STS114 I know the orbital motion is approximately 7700 meters per second, and I don't know what the initial velocity from the thruster might be, but certainly only a very tiny fraction of that. Remember that objects close to the camera give an exaggerated impression of velocity compared to more distant objects. The view from the camera of course does not reflect this huge discrepancy in the amount of motion and the result looks a little confusing but I think that hypothesis could explain the video, especially when you consider that drag is proportional to the square of the velocity. Whether it's the correct explanation or not, I don't know.

I'm not nearly as intrigued by dots changing direction as apparently some people are, since I can think of numerous reasons how it can happen with space dandruff and I think Jim Oberg's explanation of the STS-48 direction change is spot on, also involving a thruster firing, though in that case it resulted in the final direction rather than the initial direction as I hypothesize for STS114. Now if the UFOs on NASA videos looked more like this, I'd be intrigued:



edit on 20191221 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Dec, 21 2019 @ 12:06 PM
link   
a reply to: AaarghZombies

What do you mean they have to be real?

If I take a pen name like "Nevermore Willisten Hellhorse the third" which sounds like S#it how are you going to know who the real person is?



posted on Dec, 23 2019 @ 03:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: AaarghZombies

Dr Richard Haines , John Greenewald Jr , Karl 12.




Hey man am truly honoured to be included with those two and if I had to nominate anyone then it would be Brad Sparks and Martin Shough (lots of others though).

It really is about the patterns in data (ccamouflaged in absurdity).

Ho Ho happy Christmas



posted on Dec, 23 2019 @ 04:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
Wasn't it hynek who came up with the swamp gas solution, and a lot of the tropes that still haunt urology to this day.


Hynek was talking about one specific report from students concerning mysterious glows among the trees in the swamp behind the dormitory. And he was probably right. Headline-seeking intellectual-mocking reporters ran with the faked version of his claim.



posted on Dec, 25 2019 @ 10:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: vlawde
Seems many of us are on the same page. I'd say Vallee, Keel, Hynek.

Or, we could have an even better team with impeccable credentials that may be able to give us answers since they've done so much research, and who are beyond reproach:

Erich von Däniken
Billy Meier
Giorgio A. Tsoukalos



Wasn't it hynek who came up with the swamp gas solution, and a lot of the tropes that still haunt urology to this day.


Yes, Urology is haunted by tropes. Not to mention all those bladder infections!



posted on Dec, 25 2019 @ 11:24 AM
link   
I sometimes admire the folks who diligently (compulsively) collected UFO reports over the years, which if nothing else at least gave us an estimate of the size and scope of the phenomenon. Unfortunately, it never gave us much past that. There was a time when we thought more data would give us an answer, but that turned out not to be the case. And none of the more famous of the researchers who wrote speculative books and directly talked to witnesses turned out to know anything much more than ordinary armchair dabblers like me. They might know more details about a specific case, but overall they were, and remain, as clueless as anyone.



posted on Dec, 25 2019 @ 11:37 AM
link   
I deeply respect the pioneers in ufology and all the people who made the field up and not down

some people in a dream team not in particular order, I appreciate and thank all of them



George M. Eberhart usa
Allan J hynek usa
Jacques Vallée usa france
Georges filer usa
Keith Basterfield australia
Felix Ziegel russia
Mark Rodeghier usa
Kim Møller Hansen danemark
Jim and Coral Lorenzen usa
Gordon Creighton england
Håkan Blomqvist sweden
Carl Sagan usa
Ademar José Gevaerd brazil
Jacques Bergier france
Aimé Michel france
Giorgio A. Tsoukalos usa switzerland
Brinsley Le Poer Trench england
Art Bell usa
Jerome Clark usa
Nuno Alves portugal
Richard M. Dolan usa
Roberto Pinotti italy
Brian Vike canada
Scott Corrales usa
Illobrand von Ludwiger germany
Raymond E. Fowler usa
Richard H. Hall usa
Linda Moulton Howe usa
Donald Keyhoe usa
Luis burgos argentina
John E. Mack usa
Kevin D. Randle usa
Nick Redfern usa
Leonard H. Stringfield usa
Joël Mesnard france

and so many other...

I consider myself as a dwarf

"Dwarfs on the shoulders of giants"

without the efforts of all those people before us we are nothing

today the dream team is all the people of goodwill in ufology

they are no ufos they said.. the pioneers told us another story

here from 1890 to 1967

ibb.co...

edit on 25-12-2019 by anakinnEo because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2019 @ 12:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
Wasn't it hynek who came up with the swamp gas solution, and a lot of the tropes that still haunt urology to this day.


Hynek was talking about one specific report from students concerning mysterious glows among the trees in the swamp behind the dormitory. And he was probably right. Headline-seeking intellectual-mocking reporters ran with the faked version of his claim.


He said that plumes of swamp gas were igniting in a straight line in sequence. He was probably not right as that doesn't happen in nature.



posted on Dec, 25 2019 @ 12:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blue Shift
I sometimes admire the folks who diligently (compulsively) collected UFO reports over the years, which if nothing else at least gave us an estimate of the size and scope of the phenomenon. Unfortunately, it never gave us much past that. There was a time when we thought more data would give us an answer, but that turned out not to be the case. And none of the more famous of the researchers who wrote speculative books and directly talked to witnesses turned out to know anything much more than ordinary armchair dabblers like me. They might know more details about a specific case, but overall they were, and remain, as clueless as anyone.


in fact this is a multiple stage process

first collect data , long, very long ...personaly constating that no world database really exist , the hatch or the cufos one's are incomplete, I have commencing to collect the world datas for decades now accelerating with multiple gov divulgations since 2015 and the efforts to put mags in the afu with isaac

so it seems non sens

but second stage is to put some reflexion and there are constants and variables in ufology for sure, patterns too

some ufos seens in 1896 are the same that seens in 1990 for example , the atctics and strategy are sometimes recurrents etc

but discussing such things is halas really not possible in a skeptic world, I have personaly try to talk for 10 years in the net and in forum in vain

I have allways think that private research could go along with gov or military research, and sometimes I think that they search for ideas ,I have no problem to give ideas

more you are more global intelligence there is

but some does not play that game, they are in some competitive motion or destructive ones

I have just doubts in ufology , but I have a certitude, They exists , if we cannot understand is another problem

so study the data is one way to understand

for me there is no one ufology but many ufologies, as many as the nulmber of different visitors with différents ships, tactics and strategy

the skeptic world is too narrow

the reality is more large

and if they accompagnied us in some way for centuries, the ways could deeply varry

there is a learning curve too , clearly

so we could learn many many things from data

and I'm not a ufosect or stupid or new age.. just want to understand

so many ufo data show false ufos, confusion, planets, atmo phenomenon, fakes or just military aircraft

yes of course yes.. BUT there are many many cases where the term unindentified remain un-identified

more

some ufo present same characteristics one year and perhaps ten years later, so constants are very interesting

this is a multidiosciplinar research which involve true knowledge in many scientific fields

this is not the invisible college because this is visible or it was

so it seems to be clueless , yes I agree, BUT we have so many information now that we could estimates some part of the mystery , we could identify threats and repetitions in some way , we could even doing some prediction in some cases

so patterns could be very interesting for military too

example, you see a triangle with two apparent independant red lights , is it dangerous ? yes if you came too close , no if you don't

you see a string of lights one mile long and at 45deg it could be elon thing , but it could be also something very high in the sky that is not elon thing

example the sweden wave of 46 47; officially the spy plane... mdrrrrr, seriously ?

ibb.co...

if you analyse such datas you can identify some time patterns too, in this case some progressive concentric time pattern

this is a military no sense even in cold war



edit on 25-12-2019 by anakinnEo because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2019 @ 12:59 PM
link   
a reply to: gortex

Thank you! Merry Christmas Gortex!



posted on Dec, 25 2019 @ 01:39 PM
link   
Donald Keyhoe
Linda Moulton Howe
Bob Lazar




top topics



 
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join