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.

 

UFO PROOF! You Missed The Disclosure!

page: 9
36
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 08:20 PM
link   
reply to post by nablator
 


That's fine, but the objects/particles pass BEHIND the tether, it is clear. So it negates that argument completely.

Since they ass behind the tether, they are at least 200 miles away, also making some of them 1-2 miles in diameter. These things were huge. And what about the NASA engineers that said the computers in the tether were remotely reconfigured? Did anyone hear or read of this?




posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 04:36 AM
link   
reply to post by kazmology
 


The disk of confusion from a brightly lit out of focus spec is transparent, as has been pointed out repeatedly by Armap. Please read the other STS-75 thread. As the tether is even brighter, and very much overexposed, it is visible through the disk.

The evidence is compelling for tiny, very close debris:
- identical disk shapes + notches,
- migrating notches according to their position,
- significant parallax (see the other thread for frame captures).

OK, they could be a multitude of mile wide UFO playing around the tether, visible only in the UV or IR spectrum, all behind the tether, all changing shape according to their position in the FOV. Sure. Bloody likely.


A hybrid theory of mile wide out of focus UFO behind the tether is not possible, because there is no camera in the world that could make them look more out of focus than the tether. 80 miles away is the same as infinity for any camera.

I'm not denying some of the debris could be far away, maybe near the tether. They are visible when the camera zooms out, they are not disk-shaped, aren't more out of focus than the tether, and don't move.



posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 07:37 AM
link   
I wander why this topic hasn't been changed, it has nothing to do with disclosure.
Mary had a little lamb, there you go not a single line post.



posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 07:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by nablator
OK, they could be a multitude of mile wide UFO playing around the tether, visible only in the UV or IR spectrum, all behind the tether, all changing shape according to their position in the FOV. Sure. Bloody likely.



Sure.

Why not?


UFOs that are only visible in UV or IR have been demonstrated over and over again. UFOs that materialize and dematerialize at will have been demonstrated over and over again.

Is the concept that our neighbors from around the galaxy could be monitoring, and possibly quarantining us, really so far out there?


If you're going to quarantine someone properly, better have a whole fleet of huge ships in their space, in case they try to break loose.....



posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 12:17 PM
link   
Altthough these "things" seem to teleport into view, through the whole clip i saw things fading in and out of the field of vision, this doesnt mean they were teleporting spacecraft, rather, chunks of ice comming in and out of your view. A similar principal can be said about ships in the ocean, from the coast the world seems to drop off at the horizon, watching ships come over the horizon can give them the illusion that they are popping up from nowhere right before your eyes. As for the object changing directions, remember in space you can go in more directions than up,down,left,right. With this said, for all we know another object hit that one from a view the camera couldnt see, in a "behind" sence. This could have knocked the object diagonally away, but since depth perception isnt at its best from this distance it appears for the object to 'change course' on its own accord.



posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by kazmology
 




Since they ass behind the tether, they are at least 200 miles away, also making some of them 1-2 miles in diameter.

That is completely wrong.
Do you know the size of the tether? The size of the tether cable was 1,5 - 2,0 cm in width.
That does not make these ufo's several miles big.
They are probably no more than 2-3 cm in size.



These things were huge. And what about the NASA engineers that said the computers in the tether were remotely reconfigured? Did anyone hear or read of this?

Never heard of it, would be interesting if we could get that from a NASA source.



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 11:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by C.H.U.D.
This is a great topic, and it needs to be kept in the lime-light IMO.

I've said this before (in one of the other threads), and I'll say it again:

If these objects are so close (as they would have to be for the ice/dust explanation to hold up), then thrusters firing would affect at least the motion of a few other objects, if not all of them, but we only see individual objects changing direction. Therefore thrusters can be ruled out.

IMO not only does this footage prove that UFOs exist, but it also proves that not all UFOs are the product of so called "black projects" since their behavior (investigating the tether) makes no sense if they are our own. It may not be proof of ETs from far away star systems though, but I think it's likely since I doubt life forms living in our upper atmosphere would have the ability to teleport or cloak (it's impossible to tell which of these may be occurring with the evidence at hand) themselves.

[edit on 8-4-2008 by C.H.U.D.]


In some cases we can also generally gauge the loads that would be put on some of these objects because we can generally gauge relative speed and distance. This is one example from STS-48 where calculations have been done to gauge relative speed and acceleration (as an example)..

I found this on a website a few weeks ago.. Can't find the link at the moment..


This is the video (and this is just one of many ufo's videotaped during STS-48):


Here we see a closeup video of the object and it's maneuvers to avoid being hit by whatever projectile is being fired from the ground:


In this particular case of STS-48, the acceleration was instantaneous and enough to technically liquify any humans onboard. Again, proof that this is far beyond black budget programs or the military in general. But with the STS-48 UFO you also have something firing at this UFO from the ground and you see the UFO doing these insane maneuvers to avoid being hit. Whatever the case, with STS-48 we are left with more questions than answers. The main point, however, is that in some cases it is possible to gauge the approximate loads on the craft, the speeds, and the accelerations that are made and what we can see with this example is that if anyone was on board they would not have survived an instantaneous 14,000g acceleration. This is proof of an advanced technology far surpassing our own.

If you consider all of the UFO's seen by astronauts and cosmonauts since the dawn of the space age and you read the descriptions of these objects and, in some cases, watch the actual videos of these objects, you begin to see correlations and similarities between some of the objects which are more than just coincidence. IMO, what we have is nothing less than direct evidence that we are being contacted by an intelligent civilization from somewhere/sometime that is not of this earth.

-ChriS

[edit on 23-4-2008 by BlasteR]



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 07:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by nablator
The evidence is compelling for tiny, very close debris:


Oh phulleaase. Have you actually stopped to think about the fundamentals?

We're around 287 km above the earth's surface, moving at something like 276,000 km per hour. We're travelling in a craft around 37 meters long, wingspan about 28 m. The camera is recording visible light in its spectrum in a specific direction.

I am yet to see any answer to the following question that is remotely plausible.

How can debris simultaneously:

1. have a multitude of velocity vectors (magnitude and direction)

AND

2. remain visible for several minutes?

Let's imagine ourselves travelling along with the columbia, sitting just outside the craft, looking at the area toward which the camera is directed.

What we would have to see, with necessary equipment, is this "debris" moving downward, upward, left to right, right to left, etc. ... in all directions, at all kinds of speeds around the craft's exterior.

That's what the camera records according to your hypothesis.

So let's get a grip on some facts here.

*The objects are seen for several minutes, and there's a lot of them.
*The objects travel many directions relative to each other.
*The objects travel at many relative speeds.
*On multiple occasions, the objects direction and speed, up to 180 degrees.
*Pieces of debris change direction independently of all others
*Possible forces arise from electrostatic charges, plumes, and sublimation.

What can we very safely infer:

*If it is debris, it must come from the craft.
*Whatever the reason for it travelling in many directions, it will disperse if it is actually very close.
*On several occasions, objects move yet there is no evidence of a force that simultaneously alters the velocity and/or direction of multiple objects.

What we hear in the broadcast:

"we see a long line, couple of star-like things and a lot of things swimming in the foreground ..."

"well the long line is, ah, is the tether umm and, ah, there's a little bit of debris that, ahh, kind of flies with us and, ah, it's illuminated by the sun at such low angles ...."

Debris cannot stay in the craft's inertial frame yet move in a multitude of directions. This is patent nonsense. For a start, that makes the guy incompetent. So what else could it be?

Could the objects be continuously produced by a dump?

Imagine ourselves outside of the craft. How can the stream of debris from a dump going past the location of the camera *possibly* move downwards, upwards, sideways ... in all directions. You got an explanation for that, because you need one.

You claim the evidence is *compelling for tiny, very close debris*. If so, then you must be very clear on how every one of these features can be compatible with your claim. Otherwise, you're selectively focusing on certain 'evdidence' and ignoring a host of other evidence. In other words, you're selecting evidence to fit your hypothesis and ignoring evidence that doesn't fit.

This list above cotnain facts, not ifs, not maybes.

Have you actually stopped to think about these facts?

All I've seen is ad hoc explanations for one or other feature of the behavior of the objects. As in various cases, the 'explanations' strain credibility to a far greater extent than the alternative. To claim that objects very close to a craft move in numerous directions at different velocities, yet stay in view -- not to mention changing direction and speed independently -- well, that sounds a lot like a claim of 'magic' dust to me.

Fairies, perhaps?

[edit on 24-4-2008 by 987931]



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 05:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by 987931
Oh phulleaase. Have you actually stopped to think about the fundamentals?

Yes I have. Have you?



How can debris simultaneously:

1. have a multitude of velocity vectors (magnitude and direction)

AND

2. remain visible for several minutes?

Of course you are right the cloud expands and its density decreases. I agree 100%. I think that's exactly what we see in the video, but with velocities very low, and particles very small, it does take a while. Only a few bigger debris remain at the end, motionless, maybe far away.


*Pieces of debris change direction independently of all others

All I see is a downward, very weak, possibly constant acceleration.


*Possible forces arise from electrostatic charges, plumes, and sublimation.

And radiation pressure. I believe it has a major effect on submillimetric particles.


What can we very safely infer:

*If it is debris, it must come from the craft.

Or the broken tether. Or the satellite. There are several types of debris there IMHO.


*On several occasions, objects move yet there is no evidence of a force that simultaneously alters the velocity and/or direction of multiple objects.

I don't agree. IMHO all the disk shaped UFO are tiny particles swimming in the FOV less than a few meters away, all affected by the same force(s), and the slowest are more visibly affected, which is normal.


What we hear in the broadcast:

"we see a long line, couple of star-like things and a lot of things swimming in the foreground ..."

Yes. Exactly, their are two types of debris.


"well the long line is, ah, is the tether umm and, ah, there's a little bit of debris that, ahh, kind of flies with us and, ah, it's illuminated by the sun at such low angles ...."

Their embarrassment is rather comical. All the nonsense about NASA hiding things is destroyed by this video and many other UFO video like STS-48, STS-80. Where is the cover-up? They are just thinking "we are unable to see the satellite, the stupid camera only shows stupid ice particles".


Debris cannot stay in the craft's inertial frame yet move in a multitude of directions. This is patent nonsense. For a start, that makes the guy incompetent.
...
Imagine ourselves outside of the craft. How can the stream of debris from a dump going past the location of the camera *possibly* move downwards, upwards, sideways ... in all directions. You got an explanation for that, because you need one.

The relative speed of debris is VERY low. Don't forget we are looking at them through a telephoto lens. If you look closely you will see the directions are not random, but many particles may have bounced off the Shuttle, as it moves for orbital corrections through the cloud of ice particles ejected earlier during the water dump.

WE are incompetent. We are not astronauts. I trust people who were actually up there.


Could the objects be continuously produced by a dump?

Not hours after the dump.


You claim the evidence is *compelling for tiny, very close debris*. If so, then you must be very clear on how every one of these features can be compatible with your claim. Otherwise, you're selectively focusing on certain 'evdidence' and ignoring a host of other evidence. In other words, you're selecting evidence to fit your hypothesis and ignoring evidence that doesn't fit.

Sure. No problem. What did I ignore? Anyway I'm not trying to prove anything. I'm just saying the evidence of intelligent behavior is inexistent and all the available evidence points to very small close-up debris. Debris are not just a theory, they are common, in every Shuttle mission. If you have a different opinion, the burden of proof is on YOU to submit evidence of anything that can't be explained otherwise. I am open-minded, but rational. I choose the simplest or least hypothesis, always.

Think beyond the first impression. Think about all the things we don't know. Don't let belief cloud your judgment. You have no evidence whatsoever of anything unexplainable in the STS-75 footage.


All I've seen is ad hoc explanations for one or other feature of the behavior of the objects. As in various cases, the 'explanations' strain credibility to a far greater extent than the alternative. To claim that objects very close to a craft move in numerous directions at different velocities, yet stay in view -- not to mention changing direction and speed independently -- well, that sounds a lot like a claim of 'magic' dust to me.

We are not used to seeing the effects of weightlessness and sun shining on particles in vacuum. I'm sick of listening to self-proclaimed experts, who are quick to dismiss the opinion of real experts because they already know the truth. What's the alternative? Self-propelled critters? Mile wide UFO?


Fairies, perhaps?

Possible, but unlikely.

Talk about straining credibility!


[edit on 2008-4-25 by nablator]



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 07:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by nablator

How can debris simultaneously:

1. have a multitude of velocity vectors (magnitude and direction)

AND

2. remain visible for several minutes?


Of course you are right the cloud expands and its density decreases. I agree 100%. I think that's exactly what we see in the video, but with velocities very low, and particles very small, it does take a while. Only a few bigger debris remain at the end, motionless, maybe far away.


So far, so good ... a sort of plausible sounding response.


What can we very safely infer:

*If it is debris, it must come from the craft.

nab:
Or the broken tether. Or the satellite. There are several types of debris there IMHO.


You just agreed debris will disperse. This is days after the tether broke. Anything from the tether would have to have had to stay in the inertial frame of the craft for a long time. How exactly do you propose it can be moving and still there?

Based on what, exactly, is your humble opinion that there are several types of debris. Given we are incompetent, not astronauts, I assume you have a source?


nab:
The relative speed of debris is VERY low. Don't forget we are looking at them through a telephoto lens. If you look closely you will see the directions are not random, but many particles may have bounced off the Shuttle, as it moves for orbital corrections through the cloud of ice particles ejected earlier during the water dump.


Don't think so.

1. The relative speed does not matter, the smaller the area the dust supposedly exist within, the more rapidly the density of material will decrease by definition. All that matters with respect to density is how fast they appear to move (and the fact they are moving in all directions).

2. A change in orbit anywhere near significant enough to *cause* particles to bounce would separate the debris from the craft in an instant. Gone. Not remotely plausible.

3, The ratios of velocities differ substantially, and these ratios are completely independent of the absolute speed relative to frame.

Also, I said nothing about the directions being random.

You're either missing or intentially ignoring the point. It doesn't matter how low the relative velocity of the debris is. It has a multitude of directions and relative velocities and should disperse. As I said, looking at the outside of the craft, this "debris" is moving up, down, left, right, all over exterior of the craft. What -- are you imagining debris like this, moving in every direction (very slowly) around a large proportion of the exterior of the craft? Otherwise, are you going to invoke yet another ad hoc explanation for this region being special?


nab:
WE are incompetent. We are not astronauts. I trust people who were actually up there.

OK, then all of your opinions are null and void if not based precisely on sources. Trust them on what, exactly?



Debris are not just a theory, they are common, in every Shuttle mission. If you have a different opinion, the burden of proof is on YOU to submit evidence of anything that can't be explained otherwise.

Strawman. I didn't say debris are uncommon -- I am looking for an explanation of debris crawling about in every direction around a craft, with a multitude of velocities.

Your burden simply reflects your misconception or ignorance of what the hypothesis in question. I am not focusing on the mere possibility of debris: it is unquestionably possible for debris to exist around a shuttle.

I am concerned with its BEHAVIOR, and specifically that it has a multitude of velocity vectors, yet stays in view for several minutes. It should disperse and be gone. Simple as that, and one does not need to be an astronaut to establish this.

[edit on 25-4-2008 by 987931]



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 07:14 AM
link   

nab:

We are not used to seeing the effects of weightlessness and sun shining on particles in vacuum. I'm sick of listening to self-proclaimed experts, who are quick to dismiss the opinion of real experts because they already know the truth. What's the alternative? Self-propelled critters? Mile wide UFO?



I am sick of listening to obfuscation about the inexperience of people in space. I've never seen anything behave precisely according to Newton's laws without many complexities (friction, heat, etc.). Does that mean I can't understand them unless NASA gives me a ticket to go into space?

As an expert in one field, I'm also sick of hearing people tell me to trust experts -- if I trusted experts in my field of greatest speciality, I would believe all kinds of utter rubbish.

Who said anything about mile wide UFOs?

Try reading what I say, stop assuming I say based on what others have said in the past. If you wouldn't mind, please


[edit on 25-4-2008 by 987931]



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 07:25 AM
link   
To me it's just another video. A video is not gonna disclose it for me sorry. Whatever those were on the video could of been attracted to the tether with magnetics or other forces. And if particles or debris is flipping around in space then light can shine on them and disappear to. I'm not saying that it is debris or anything else, but still a video isn't gonna do it for me. I'm still waiting for disclosure.



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by 987931
You just agreed debris will disperse. This is days after the tether broke.

Disperse means move away from the camera. Big debris, like bits and pieces of the tether, insulation or whatever they are may be miles away from the tether. And this is 3 days after it broke IIRC.


Anything from the tether would have to have had to stay in the inertial frame of the craft for a long time. How exactly do you propose it can be moving and still there?

The tether is moving, but it's still there too. There may be several miles of distance between them. Everything is moving, slowly.


Based on what, exactly, is your humble opinion that there are several types of debris. Given we are incompetent, not astronauts, I assume you have a source?

Based on the dialog they had with mission control that you just posted, and their lack of movement.

You want to know my sources. I am not afraid to admit that I know little, and the more I learn, the more I see how ignorant I am. You claim to know what should and should not happen. What are your sources? Do you claim the impossibility of things you can't explain?

Read this page for a good description of a water dump during the STS-114 mission. Especially the sentence "There were a lot of objects seen during this period of night time darkness. BUT, things got a lot more energetic as soon as the Sun rose." The Sun created a little snowstorm, don't say it is impossible to see ice particles moving in every direction, it happened in STS-114 in a very similar way. It's on a CT website, so you can't claim it is NASA disinfo. And the owner of the website, Jeff Challender is smart enough to say "the ice flakes passing through the field of view bear a striking resemblance to the "miles wide" "Dropa Stone" "space ships" of STS-75 "Tether Incident" fame".

I am not going to discuss the plausibility of anything happening or not happening in real life, because:
1. I am not an expert of space physics, just using common sense,
2. theory and practice are two different things, I wouldn't be surprised if the experts were wrong about the real reasons of this "snowstorm" in space.
3. why the "snowstorm" happened 3 days after the tether break doesn't matter. Did someone flush the waste water by mistake just before the video started? Maybe. Who cares? The question is not why, it's what. What the UFOs are I mean.

Attacking my / NASA's theory is fair game but do you have a better one?
Please give me your theory, and let's call it quits.



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by nablator
The tether is moving, but it's still there too. There may be several miles of distance between them. Everything is moving, slowly.

The tether is 20 km long. The camera is deliberately pointed in its direction in a vast expanse. That's why it is still visible. It also happens to have an apparent width in the order of a million times the actual width.

There have to be stochastic processes producing forces on debris from a breakage, by the nature of the event. It's a break, not a controlled and directed firing.

Each bit of debris has a large component of its velocity vector in common with the craft and tether, however, if we think of all of this as being still in space (wer'e in that frame) any net force acting on a piece of debris in any direction at all propels it so that it continues to wander away.

This is only a quick calculation but the tether is moving away at something like 0.7 km per hr I think. Even an angle of 2 degrees results in a distance of 1.75 km between debris and tether after three days.



Based on the dialog they had with mission control that you just posted, and their lack of movement.

There is not a lack of movement and the hypothesis of small relative movement is based on the assumption of proximity.



You want to know my sources. I am not afraid to admit that I know little, and the more I learn, the more I see how ignorant I am. You claim to know what should and should not happen. What are your sources? Do you claim the impossibility of things you can't explain?

It's kind of disingenuous to ask such questions, don't ya think? It's tautological that one cannot claim the impossibilty of things once cannot explain. The same applies to you, me, everyone. So what nablator?



Read this page for a good description of a water dump during the STS-114 mission.

OK, but I have problems with this whole line which I'll explain in another post if I have time.



Attacking my / NASA's theory is fair game but do you have a better one?
Please give me your theory, and let's call it quits.



Why do you assume I need a theory but you (or NASA) doesn't?

If I see an animal jump in front of my car in the dark, I don't need a theory to be able to say it wasn't a deer based on its size or shape.

I am simply saying I do not believe this can possibly be debris. I have seen James Oberg's attempt to explain this away. He references documents about the 'moon pigeons', in which there happen to be no pictures or diagrams. As I recall, he builds up so it's believable there is debris on these missions and that they're seen under certain conditions (sunlight and contrast). Then he gets to the critical part, what is this specific debris, but he wanders off into obscurity/vagueness. At one point, he invokes some ad hoc theory about optical equipment when he needs to read up on masking (something that was very telling to me about his whole story). He makes a big deal about the conditions (light and contrast) yet they apply to any objects.

I do not take what NASA says on face value any more than I take anything most institutions say on face value.

As I said: I'm yet to see an explanation of how debris can travel in every direction yet remain visible. Most importantly, nobody can say what this is, so it is unidentified, pure and simple. It's just assumed by some to be debris, there's no evidence that actually fits the behavior -- all claims are based on the valid, but only vaguely relevant, statement that debris does exist around shuttles. Sure it does, but that doesn't mean it can exhibit any kind of behavior. Space is massively simpler than earth, not more complex. I agree, there could be an explanation, but I haven't seen one, so the question remains very much open as far as I am concerned.

[edit on 25-4-2008 by 987931]



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Solarskye
To me it's just another video. A video is not gonna disclose it for me sorry. Whatever those were on the video could of been attracted to the tether with magnetics or other forces. And if particles or debris is flipping around in space then light can shine on them and disappear to. I'm not saying that it is debris or anything else, but still a video isn't gonna do it for me. I'm still waiting for disclosure.


IMO we have a ridiculous amount of evidence to support:

1- The existence of an unknown intelligence flying these UFO's in orbit and in earth's atmosphere. (aliens?)

2- NASA is not telling the truth about UFO's in orbit even though the UFO reality is supported by countless photos, videos, and first hand accounts all made by NASA personnel.

3- That UFO's have been monitoring us since the dawn of the space age and that UFO's have been witnessed by virtually all manned space missions.

4- That UFO's in orbit can disappear and reappear (almost as if materializing and dematerializing) into non-visible wavelengths of light such as the Ultraviolet. Direct NASA video evidence shows this happening many times.

5- That these UFO's are not space debris, ice, or otherwise anything other than an unknown spacecraft flying under intelligent control.

Sorry but a small magnetic force, or anything else man-made for that matter, cannot cause an object to instantaneously accelerate into a 14,000G maneuver in orbit. What we are seeing is objects that have been recorded by NASA doing this. Points that need to be made about this:

1-even if we had the technology to conduct such a maneuver (and we dont') anyone inside would be liquified by the forces within the craft (considering the craft even survived).
2-Ice or space debris does not change trajectory or otherwise accelerate to mach 245 at the flip of a switch.
3- This is not a satellite or other known human space vehicle.

See my last post for more details on this but it just goes to show that some of these objects are not exactly so easy to explain away. NASA astronauts have even been recorded calling these objects alien spacecraft and UFO's. We have intercepted transmissions that prove this.

It also proves that NASA now uses an encrypted radio communications system for all discussion of anything involving UFO's in orbit. There have also been cases recorded on live television where unknown objects have been reported by astronauts, studied closely with instruments and cameras, and descriptions are sent back to MC in Houston. This is just the tip of the iceberg.

-ChriS

[edit on 25-4-2008 by BlasteR]

[edit on 25-4-2008 by BlasteR]



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlasteR
2- NASA is not telling the truth about UFO's in orbit even though the UFO reality is supported by countless photos, videos, and first hand accounts all made by NASA personnel.
How do you know that they are not telling the truth? Have you any inside information directly from NASA to support your idea that they are not telling the truth about UFOs?


5- That these UFO's are not space debris, ice, or otherwise anything other than an unknown spacecraft flying under intelligent control.
How can you say that? What real evidence do you have that these are unknown spacecraft flying under intelligent control? They are unknown, just that.


Sorry but a small magnetic force, or anything else man-made for that matter, cannot cause an object to instantaneously accelerate into a 14,000G maneuver in orbit.
To know the acceleration we need to know the speed reached in any amount of time. We know the time, but to know the speed we must know the distance travelled, and to know that we must know the distance from the camera to the objects, and that we do not know because we do not know the size of the objects and we need to know one of those things to know the other, we cannot know the distance if we don't know the size and vice versa.


2-Ice or space debris does not change trajectory or otherwise accelerate to mach 245 at the flip of a switch.
Once more, that "Mach 245" idea is based on nothing.


It also proves that NASA now uses an encrypted radio communications system for all discussion of anything involving UFO's in orbit.
How can we know that they use encrypted communications for anything involving UFOs? Just because someone says so? Or did NASA announced it?



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 06:46 PM
link   
If this was just debri or ice particles as some say, then logic suggest you would see the same kind of stuff in other nasa videos? Can anyone post a link to similar sightings?


2nd: if this would be normal, why is the NASA operator asking what it is??


I remember watching a documentary by David Sereda about this and in movie there was some expert saying it was a photo phenomen which is normal called erie disk or something.. which Sereda of couse did not agree with.


[edit on 25-4-2008 by Shades1035]



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 09:53 PM
link   
I got it. This is the way they have their thrusters and camera set up.
this explains it all!!




posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shades1035
If this was just debri or ice particles as some say, then logic suggest you would see the same kind of stuff in other nasa videos? Can anyone post a link to similar sightings?

Exactly, and there should be plenty of cases to compare with given the amount of video and the interest these generated.

Nablator posted one supposedly showing the same kind of stuff above www.projectprove.com...

The "blizzard" example lacks the continuity even to allow a comparison. The apparent speeds are much larger and it's a loop less than about 2 secs, which makes it impossible to compare features of the movement. In the one above the "blizzar", though, everything appears to be moving up then swept right. A very systematic pattern of movement as you'd expect, not pieces moving independently of each other. Even in the so-called blizzard example, virtually everything that actually has any kind of visible continuous moves upwards (with one exception I can see, but one I can live with).



I remember watching a documentary by David Sereda about this and in movie there was some expert saying it was a photo phenomen which is normal called erie disk or something.. which Sereda of couse did not agree with.


An Airy disk, an interference pattern.

[edit on 25-4-2008 by 987931]



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alien Abduct
I got it. This is the way they have their thrusters and camera set up.
this explains it all!!




That's it! How did I not see it before?



new topics

top topics



 
36
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join