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.

 

Shooting a UFO, STS mission (video)

page: 11
0
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 11:53 AM
link   
Yes Jim, I read them. I read them and I agree with them and you, 95%. You and I agree that the phenomena is prosaic junk.

I am refering to the bickering and snide attacks that I have seen on both sides whenever someone veers from the desired outcome of the other side. Sometimes, a counter-argument insues, which is great. But I have seen insults fly as well, and it is dissappointing, as it does not support the case.

Lost_Shaman, would you be willing to coinvestigate the ice-crystal issue a little bit here, so that we can see if we can reach agreement on a basic model of how long the ice crystals would hang around the shuttle?

[edit on 5-10-2006 by Ectoterrestrial]




posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 04:46 PM
link   
Where did the beam come from ? was it the land or SEA can anyone say Uso's what if it wasent us shooting but what ever EtI is in our oceans shooting at someother et ! what if they are at war with someone else !!!! i make a good point right



posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 05:09 PM
link   
the "particle beam" or whatever you call it could also have been fired from another craft in the atmosphere, we suspect it was on of us but it could have been another alien. or a human mad craft. going after it. just not seen on screen.

if you notice you slightly see another object at 354 to 356. im not saying in right but it could be 2 aliens are a human trying to intercept the alien



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 10:53 AM
link   
Why 'assume' it was a particle beam -- which, if you knew anything about particle beams, you would realize are invisible in vacuum? Why not a fast-moving nearby small particle accelerated by the thruster firing that occurred at precisely that time?



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 12:47 PM
link   
I agreew with JimO on that. A typical particle beam isn't going to show in the vacuum of space.

If you are going to go with that theory of a weapon firing,I would assume either (far fetched) a plasma blob or (more likely) a rail gun bullet, as is occasionally discussed in technical articles.

But all I see are two glowing bits that appear to pass somewhat close to each other. So why jump to the conclusion that one of the glowing bits was 'fired' at the other one? What convinces you that that is what is going on? Is it the video image or something else?



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 05:03 PM
link   
Ectoterrestrial : Lost_Shaman, would you be willing to coinvestigate the ice-crystal issue a little bit here, so that we can see if we can reach agreement on a basic model of how long the ice crystals would hang around the shuttle?

Sure.

If it is only ice seen on NASA video then by understanding ice we can say , "yes what we see on the Videos conforms to ice" or "no it doesn't conform with ice".



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 08:31 PM
link   
Jim, I've got one question for you regarding an STS-48 video. The flash of light which occured is a thruster firing, right ? So..why didn't the shuttle change it's direction during it ? We can see that the camera view remains perfectly orientated, very stable. How can this be if the shuttle changes its position ? I'm not the only one who questions this, here is the link: www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 01:04 AM
link   
This is silly. Plasma weapons ;\ I don't even have to listen or watch the entire movie to know that it's just bull. Just think about it.

Some guy wrote a book a few years ago
NASA and the USA has plasma weapons
They shoot at ufos
A team goes out to recover crashed ufos

I swear, I could've sworn there was a game that came out in 1993 which almost consisted entirely of that. Oh right, it was called X-Com: Enemy Unknown (UFO DEFENSE).

Really, I swear they don't even try. I should write a book about aliens that live in the sea and attack coastal cities because they want to take over again. And that they are being controlled by a dormant god whois just waking up. I'd probably make a lot of money :]

And it's not like space debree is unknown. Hell, it punched a hole on the shuttle a few weeks ago. So no big surprise there. Or did the aliens do it :\?

[edit on 20-10-2006 by CidCaldensfey]



posted on Oct, 21 2006 @ 07:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ectoterrestrial
I agreew with JimO on that. A typical particle beam isn't going to show in the vacuum of space.


Define 'typical particle beam weapon'' if you don't mind.



If you are going to go with that theory of a weapon firing,I would assume either (far fetched) a plasma blob or (more likely) a rail gun bullet, as is occasionally discussed in technical articles.


34

One hypothesis which is consistent with the evidence available but which cannot be proved is that the Soviet Union is satisfied with the restric tions of the ABM Treaty under the existing strictures because they cannot develop an effective ABM technology of the con ventional type. Conventional ABM technology depends very heavily on the ability to construct and deploy large-scale computer systems capable of controlling advanced radars and missiles throughout the Soviet Union Leap.=frogging" to laser or CPB technology would permit them to avoid areas of techno logy in which they are weakest and concentrate in areas where they have demonstrated considerable strength: optics and nu clear phenomenology. There is a school of thought within the U.S. intelligence community, currently a minority, who believe that the Soviets are far more advanced in laser and CPB tech nology than most specialists now believe. This is a par'ticularly difficult arena in which to make judgments because U.S. scien tific personnel have little experience of their own with which they could compare.

the United States has been the first developer, we are unable Unlike other types of technology where 1 See the testimony of G. Heilmeier, Director of the Advanced Research Projects Agency, Department of Defense, Senate Armed Services Committee, March 9, 1976 L For a comprehensive review of what is known and conjec tural about Soviet directed energy weapons, see C. A..

Robinson in Aviation Week and Sp'a'ce' Technology, May 9, 1977 7 to know what theory may prove to be practical to produce an effective laser or' CPB weapon. Thus, it is virtually impossible to ascertain with high confidence whether or not the Soviet Union is either far ahead or far behind our own efforts. Based upo'nthose efforts which can be observed, it seems clear that the Soviet effort, in terms of resources invested, dwarfs our own;

www.heritage.org...


35

The Radio Instrument Building Research Institute under the supervision of Academician A. Avramenko developed a plasma weapon capable of killing any target at altitudes of up to 50 kilometers. Engineers and scientists of the institute in cooperation with the National Research Institute of Experimental Physics (Arzamas-16), Central Aerohydrodynamic Institute, and Central Machine Building Research Institute prepared a concept of the international experiment Doverie (Trust) for testing of the Russian plasma weapon at the American ABM testing ground in the Pacific Ocean together with the US. The cost of the experiment was estimated at $300 million. According to Academician Avramenko, the plasma antimissile weapon would not only cost tens times less than the American SDI, but would also be much simpler in development and operation. The offered joint project could save expenditures on development of its own plasma weapon for the US. The plasmoid based on the energy of ground super-high frequency generators or laser (optical) generators creates an ionized territory in the trajectory of a warhead and in front of it, and completely disrupts the aerodynamics of the object's flight, after which a target leaves its trajectory and is ruined by monstrous overloads. The killing effect is delivered to the target at the speed of light.

www.fas.org...


Far fetched?

36

Before he headed the Pentagon, Rumsfeld was chairman of the Commission to Assess U.S. National Security Space Management Organization. In its final report, submitted to Congress on Jan. 11, 2001, it warned, "If the United States is to avoid a 'Space Pearl Harbor,' it needs to take seriously the possibility of an attack on U.S. space systems." The commission recommended the creation of a U.S. Space Corps that would defend our space-based "military capability."

Rumsfeld's report was actually a tamer version of an earlier Department of Defense Space Command document -- "Vision for 2020" -- that, on its Web site, showed laser weapons shooting deadly beams from space, zapping targets on Earth. Beneath this sci-fi image crawled the words "U.S. Space Command dominating the space dimension of military operations to protect U.S. interests and investments."

"Vision for 2020" rightly predicted that the global economy would widen the gap between "the haves" and "the have-nots." By deploying space surveillance and weaponry, the United States would have the ability "to control space," and, from this higher ground, "to dominate" the Earth below.

sfgate.com.../c/a/2003/11/13/EDG11308KV1.DTL


As 'space' Pearl Harbour?


But all I see are two glowing bits that appear to pass somewhat close to each other.


So the one 'glowing bit' changing direction when the other 'glowing bit' approaches is not odd in your opinion?


So why jump to the conclusion that one of the glowing bits was 'fired' at the other one?


Well maybe i am completely ignorant but last i checked 'glowing bits' behaved a bit less strangely.



What convinces you that that is what is going on? Is it the video image or something else?


Lots and lots of reading very interesting material you have never seen.
People after all see what they allow themselves to see....

Stellar

[edit on 21-10-2006 by StellarX]



posted on Oct, 21 2006 @ 08:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by CidCaldensfey
This is silly. Plasma weapons ;\ I don't even have to listen or watch the entire movie to know that it's just bull. Just think about it.


If you don't know you just don't know. Did you read the first few pages of this thread or did you decide that jumping in at the end would not expose your ignorant state ( on this matter) before you got to ridiculing those so much better informed than yourself?


Some guy wrote a book a few years ago
NASA and the USA has plasma weapons
They shoot at ufos
A team goes out to recover crashed ufos


Sounds like a fun book but i have seen enough to indicate that it was probably closer to non fiction than fiction...


I swear, I could've sworn there was a game that came out in 1993 which almost consisted entirely of that. Oh right, it was called X-Com: Enemy Unknown (UFO DEFENSE).


Great game and it's good you did not have anything negative to say about it. I can stand a great deal of abuse but dissing that game would be a really bad idea.



Really, I swear they don't even try. I should write a book about aliens that live in the sea and attack coastal cities because they want to take over again.


Good fiction sells well...


And that they are being controlled by a dormant god whois just waking up. I'd probably make a lot of money :]


If you don't consider your readers idiots you probably could!


And it's not like space debree is unknown. Hell, it punched a hole on the shuttle a few weeks ago. So no big surprise there. Or did the aliens do it :\?


And since you bumped your toe against a rock once you can for eternity just ignore whoever steps on it.
The whole idea that debris do cause occasional damage certainly does not invalidate the reality that lasers and other energy weapons fired at satellites have been doing the same since the mid 70's.

Stellar



posted on Oct, 21 2006 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by Ectoterrestrial
I agreew with JimO on that. A typical particle beam isn't going to show in the vacuum of space.


Define 'typical particle beam weapon'' if you don't mind.




Hi StellarX,

To me, a "typical particle beam" is the type you make when you emit ions from a an energized source. Usually, you need a fairly good vacuum to get these beams to stay coherent. Otherwise they scatter when they hit air molecules. They can be ionic molucules or electrons, as the standard two. Because they are charged you can use a magnetic field to aim the beam, which comes in handy for targetting at a TV screen or a collection plate in a lab experiment. You know the type I am talking about. Thats what I meant by 'typical particle beam'

As far as I can tell, suhc a 'typical'a particle beam in the atmosphere would generate heat and light but scatter, and one in a vacuum would not be visible to a camera.
Similarly, my thought was that since a laser will also not be visible from the side, that is an unlikely source for what is observed.

The only things that I could think of that might be visible would be a large bullet mass from a railgun type setup, a guided missile, or some kind of charged particle cloud (plasma) at high temperature. Those were the things I mentioned in an earlier post.



34


I agree that the Soviet Union did try to develop laser systems if I recall correctly, but those would not be visible from the side as in the STS footage. The US government leaked propaganda to the US press about ground based soviet laser systems in the mid 80s prior to a set of peace talks and military funding.


nu clear phenomenology.


Yeah, this area is the one where I think there is the most potential for a weapons system. My thought was heavy plasma, which I stated in the quoted message.



35


This is an interesting fact. I didn't know that. That makes the case for plasma over railgun stronger. Interesting.


The offered joint project could save expenditures on development of its own plasma weapon for the US. The plasmoid based on the energy of ground super-high frequency generators or laser (optical) generators creates an ionized territory in the trajectory of a warhead and in front of it, and completely disrupts the aerodynamics of the object's flight, after which a target leaves its trajectory and is ruined by monstrous overloads. The killing effect is delivered to the target at the speed of light.


Ahh, now that is very interesting. This would only work in the atmosphere itself, I suppose, but that doesn't mean there couldn be other forms of directed energy weaponry in use.



Far fetched?


Not at all, apparently you either didn't read my messages or I was unclear. I said that if it was a wepaon system at all it might be a railgun bullet or a plasma weapon.

What is far fetched is looking at two dots that pass near each in a video other and concluding that it is a war where an earth based weaponj system (1 dot) is being fired at an alien space craft (another dot.)

I think that a great many very important things are being hidden from the masses and that we are being lied to in quite evil ways by people who feel morally superior.

But I see two dots in the video, not a space war.



36


Yes, this is fascinating, isn't it! I have no doubt that we have considerable space assets in the miliary; including non-terrestrial personnel, space based weapons, and possibly even lunar facilities. If I had been in charge of the military I would have definitely gained turf on the moon. I don't think I would have been Donald Rumsfeld, thank the higher powers, but I would not have sat around and waited for some other rising empire to weaponize the moon. Not with how many people are still fear/hate-based on our planet. I'd want a reasonable government to have some sway. (Not the present one, but a reasonable one.) Yes, I know this is a recursively applied fallacy.

I think you and I probaly agree that many things are going on up there and we are left in the dark.



Vision for 2020 document


I think this has already been realized. I am betting you feel that way as well.
IN any case, your point about this being policy is defintely spot on. I agree. The way it is merged with the neo-con fallacy is certainly frightening! And so if it hasn't been done already, it is certainly in the works for morepublic knowledge by 2020.



So the one 'glowing bit' changing direction when the other 'glowing bit' approaches is not odd in your opinion?


Yes, I agree it is odd. But consider that if you are floating around with bits of crud around you, then if you change your veloicity, the crud around you would change its apparent velocity in the opposite vector.

Please note that in the video I saw, the 'bullet' object does not come into the video until after the UFO has changed direction. That means the other particle could have also been moving on a different vector and changed vector at the same time. Thus, it lends the appearance of only one object changing direction, but this is an assumption of the viewer as it is not demonstrated nor implied by the video. If we can find other objects in the video that do not change vector at the same time, then we are really on to something.

For example, in the TETHER BREAK INCIDENT video, for example, some of the dots appear to traverse an oval-like path around the length of the tether. That was very interesting and can't be easily explained.

As another example, in the latest NASA video of the 'junk' next to the shuttle, one of the 'RINGS' appears to flip over once and then not flpi over again. That is not innertial motion either, and is very interesting.


Well maybe i am completely ignorant but last i checked 'glowing bits' behaved a bit less strangely.


If you want my truly honest opinion, yes, you have assumed too much into these glowing bits. That doesn't mean you are wrong in your beliefs, just that this video doesn't demonstrate what you are claming, IMHO.



Lots and lots of reading very interesting material you have never seen.
People after all see what they allow themselves to see....

Very true, StellarX. And I thank you for the external quotes. Those were great. We just disagree about how much you can extract from the video. I think it demonstrates far less than you do. If you can show me otherwise, I would be very excited and more than happy to eat my words.

[edit on 21-10-2006 by Ectoterrestrial]

[edit on 21-10-2006 by Ectoterrestrial]



posted on Oct, 21 2006 @ 12:52 PM
link   
Lost Shaman,

I think we agree on figuring out more about ice in orbit. Its not about bashing one side or the other or claiming the identity of the objects in the video. Its just about making sure we all agree what ice could be like in orbit.

I'll go research the subject and come back here when I have something I think is useful.

[edit on 21-10-2006 by Ectoterrestrial]



posted on Oct, 26 2006 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ectoterrestrial
To me, a "typical particle beam" is the type you make when you emit ions from a an energized source. Usually, you need a fairly good vacuum to get these beams to stay coherent. Otherwise they scatter when they hit air molecules. They can be ionic molucules or electrons, as the standard two. Because they are charged you can use a magnetic field to aim the beam, which comes in handy for targetting at a TV screen or a collection plate in a lab experiment. You know the type I am talking about. Thats what I meant by 'typical particle beam'


You clearly know what your talking about.



As far as I can tell, suhc a 'typical'a particle beam in the atmosphere would generate heat and light but scatter, and one in a vacuum would not be visible to a camera. Similarly, my thought was that since a laser will also not be visible from the side, that is an unlikely source for what is observed.


As far as i understand particle beam weapons are not affected to any large degree ( any certainly not anything like lasers) by the atmosphere and that they were always the best choice for ground based defenses...


The only things that I could think of that might be visible would be a large bullet mass from a railgun type setup, a guided missile, or some kind of charged particle cloud (plasma) at high temperature. Those were the things I mentioned in an earlier post.


Visible to the human eye or to camera's and the like on board space stations and satellites?


I agree that the Soviet Union did try to develop laser systems if I recall correctly, but those would not be visible from the side as in the STS footage. The US government leaked propaganda to the US press about ground based soviet laser systems in the mid 80s prior to a set of peace talks and military funding.


Why would they not be visible if such equipment are knowingly deployed to observe such phenomenon? Excuse my ignorance but if one can not see it with the eye you will need some kind of way to observe being fired at, right? While i find your claim about it being a staged claim for propaganda purposes i have checked it out and i have not seen that that was in fact the case. The CIA consistently underestimated Soviet technological advances while the DIA got much closer in it's public admissions...


This is an interesting fact. I didn't know that. That makes the case for plasma over railgun stronger. Interesting.
Ahh, now that is very interesting. This would only work in the atmosphere itself, I suppose, but that doesn't mean there couldn be other forms of directed energy weaponry in use.


My thinking exactly....


Not at all, apparently you either didn't read my messages or I was unclear. I said that if it was a wepaon system at all it might be a railgun bullet or a plasma weapon.


I just got the wrong impression apparently as you seem open minded enough on closer inspection.



What is far fetched is looking at two dots that pass near each in a video other and concluding that it is a war where an earth based weaponj system (1 dot) is being fired at an alien space craft (another dot.)


Well actually it looked quite like a beam approaching the one dot but i guess we all see what we are ready to see.



I think that a great many very important things are being hidden from the masses and that we are being lied to in quite evil ways by people who feel morally superior.

But I see two dots in the video, not a space war.


So noted!


Yes, this is fascinating, isn't it! I have no doubt that we have considerable space assets in the military; including non-terrestrial personnel, space based weapons, and possibly even lunar facilities.


By "you' i assume you mean the USA but i think i have some bad news for you on that score.
If anyone has weapons in space I'm thinking Russian.....


If I had been in charge of the military I would have definitely gained turf on the moon. I don't think I would have been Donald Rumsfeld, thank the higher powers, but I would not have sat around and waited for some other rising empire to weaponize the moon.


I think from the pictures John Lear and others have provided this has been done long ago the only question being how much of it was constructed and how much of it were left over from a earlier civilization...


Not with how many people are still fear/hate-based on our planet. I'd want a reasonable government to have some sway. (Not the present one, but a reasonable one.) Yes, I know this is a recursively applied fallacy.


No American government in the last century has been at all reasonable when it comes to human freedom and independence and if i look at the alternatives i am worried indeed.


I think you and I probaly agree that many things are going on up there and we are left in the dark.


Would be ignorant of me to try deny the obvious.



I think this has already been realized. I am betting you feel that way as well.
IN any case, your point about this being policy is defintely spot on. I agree. The way it is merged with the neo-con fallacy is certainly frightening! And so if it hasn't been done already, it is certainly in the works for morepublic knowledge by 2020.


If i look at the downward spiral that the US armed forces is in i do not think much will come of this as by that time there will not only be the old rivals but a whole host of new one's...


Yes, I agree it is odd. But consider that if you are floating around with bits of crud around you, then if you change your veloicity, the crud around you would change its apparent velocity in the opposite vector.


Pretty well aware of how that works but the shuttle can not change it's velocity or vector in that fashion and neither can any on board camera's. I find the whole ice particle theory quite amusing but i lack the energy and time to take on someone like Mister Oberg who clearly knows better but has decided to say what he is...


Please note that in the video I saw, the 'bullet' object does not come into the video until after the UFO has changed direction.


One assumes that any craft in such low orbit will have RWR type devices optimized to warn it against the weapons it's likely to have to survive and that it will change course as soon as such weapons are fired even if the weapons effect has not been observed from the shuttle?


That means the other particle could have also been moving on a different vector and changed vector at the same time. Thus, it lends the appearance of only one object changing direction, but this is an assumption of the viewer as it is not demonstrated nor implied by the video.


Not really following but i am not really interested in any attempt at making this out to be some kind of 'evidence' to build the case for laser or CPB type weaponry; for that i will rely on defense establishment documents and the like.



If we can find other objects in the video that do not change vector at the same time, then we are really on to something.


Well in the clip i have it certainly does not look like everything is changing due to a common disturbance....


For example, in the TETHER BREAK INCIDENT video, for example, some of the dots appear to traverse an oval-like path around the length of the tether. That was very interesting and can't be easily explained.


Interesting video that but i have no idea where i stored that clip. :0


As another example, in the latest NASA video of the 'junk' next to the shuttle, one of the 'RINGS' appears to flip over once and then not flpi over again. That is not innertial motion either, and is very interesting.


Well it's becoming apparent to me that you do not have any serious hangups about what might be going on so no need for me to hassle you about it.



If you want my truly honest opinion, yes, you have assumed too much into these glowing bits. That doesn't mean you are wrong in your beliefs, just that this video doesn't demonstrate what you are claming, IMHO.


I have made mistakes before ( yes, yes it's a understatement of epic proportion) so your opinion about my opinion have been noted.



Very true, StellarX. And I thank you for the external quotes. Those were great. We just disagree about how much you can extract from the video. I think it demonstrates far less than you do. If you can show me otherwise, I would be very excited and more than happy to eat my words.


Glad you enjoyed reading the interesting quotes/information as i certainly enjoyed discovering and reading it all over the last year or so.
. I am sure you read the earlier material i provided on page two? I do not really consider these videos interesting enough to argue ( much anyways) over so i am most certainly not going to spend more time opening a open mind.

Stellar



posted on Oct, 27 2006 @ 12:14 PM
link   
This has been an interesting discussion. I found a short documentary clip about this particular NASA sequence. After watching, it's hard to disagree with the researcher guy -- and to me its obviously some form of alien craft dodging a missile strike.

The documentary clip:

Secret War In Space - NASA mission STS 48



posted on Oct, 27 2006 @ 06:39 PM
link   
There is an extended clip of that STS mission. The film in your link is zoomed in on the UFO, the original is not, the flash comes from the shuttle, and the object that was "launched" at the ufo came from somewhere else....just watch www.qtm.net...

Its the second video.



posted on Oct, 29 2006 @ 12:54 AM
link   
Not the second, the first. Sorry about that.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join