What kind of proof do you want?

reply to post by seridium


Yeah I probably shouldn't of thrown in that "fleet of alien space crafts" line lol, sozz about that.

The shuttle's thrusters may have caused the disturbance on previous orbits so you can't completely discount that.

I guess I should do some research before further commenting cause I really want to deny ignorance.

Originally posted by styxxz
reply to post by seridium

 

Yeah I probably shouldn't of thrown in that "fleet of alien space crafts" line lol, sozz about that.

The shuttle's thrusters may have caused the disturbance on previous orbits so you can't completely discount that.

I guess I should do some research before further commenting cause I really want to deny ignorance.

Thats not reasonable. If you gave something inertia in space, with the shuttles thrusters it would retain that inertia as theres no resistance or friction to counteract the force.

In that video you see objects which slow down and speed up, this in space isnt possible with some form of internal force to give it inertia, which space debris could not have.

If you did a basic force diagram on that footage what you would see something which is impossible without inertia or some known force operating from more than one direction.

For example in several cases large "objects" accelerate slightly, approach the tether, slow down and you can see their trajectory curl round under the tether and into another direct. This requires force, it doesnt just happen. Debris that has been scrattered in space would move in a SINGLE direction retaining its inertia endelessly (remeber no friction or resistance to provide counter force) until such time as another force was applied to the obejct to change its inertia or trajectory. So, what force slows them down them speeds the up and allows them to curve and change direction?

That CANNOT be thrust, its impossible.

In the footage here watch from 3.20 - 3.32. That object slows, speeds and curves, now do a force diagram and tell me what forces are giving, resisting and curving its movement.

Another example, at 5.12 at the top left you see a large bright "object enter the camera view, in space with inertia it would continue STRAIGHT remeber retaining its speed. Watch ist trajectory. What forces are giving it that new trajectory?



The point is simply that theres plenty in that footage that needs a far better explanation. What forces are causing that movement and how? What is causing the decceleration and then acceleration we see in some objects? How are they turning? These things dont just happen, something has to be providing force to the object for this to occur.

Originally posted by silver6ix
Thats not reasonable. If you gave something inertia in space, with the shuttles thrusters it would retain that inertia as theres no resistance or friction to counteract the force.

In that video you see objects which slow down and speed up, this in space isnt possible with some form of internal force to give it inertia, which space debris could not have.

Okay I concede, it's not the thrusters causing this. But I'm not convinced they are alien controlled as yet. A lot more research (on my part) is required for me to come to that conclusion.
Thanks for the clips, but unfortunately I can't view them due to low bandwidth.

Originally posted by styxxz

Originally posted by silver6ix
Thats not reasonable. If you gave something inertia in space, with the shuttles thrusters it would retain that inertia as theres no resistance or friction to counteract the force.

In that video you see objects which slow down and speed up, this in space isnt possible with some form of internal force to give it inertia, which space debris could not have.

Okay I concede, it's not the thrusters causing this. But I'm not convinced they are alien controlled as yet. A lot more research (on my part) is required for me to come to that conclusion.
Thanks for the clips, but unfortunately I can't view them due to low bandwidth.

Of course and it would be unreasonable for anyone to say they are alien controlled

Theres many theories. Space life forms, energy lifeforms (like ocean life but space based). Maybe some manipulation and grouping of spacial forces which could be explained with advanced physics, sparial distortion, ripple effects whatever (way beyond my ability to explain how that mgiht happen).

Anyway you see the point, my point really is that there is information missing from the undrstanding of that video. I suppose NASAs choice to play cloak and dagger with things like this gives people genuine cause for suspicion really. If theres nothing to hide, why hide things id say is my biggest doubt about NASAs integrity.

edit.. double post

[edit on 18/10/08 by styxxz]

Originally posted by silver6ix
Of course and it would be unreasonable for anyone to say they are alien controlled

That was my original point to the op, there's no real proof of aliens in any of these videos.

Theres many theories. Space life forms, energy lifeforms (like ocean life but space based).

I could believe in space lifeforms, considering the discovery of organisms living in places on Earth that was once considered impossible like in volcanic vents beneath the sea etc.

Maybe some manipulation and grouping of spacial forces which could be explained with advanced physics, sparial distortion, ripple effects whatever (way beyond my ability to explain how that mgiht happen).

Clearly you have an open mind unlike some who will jump to conclusions or refusing to consider alternate theories simply because that may conflict with their beliefs.

Anyway you see the point, my point really is that there is information missing from the undrstanding of that video.

Indeed. Precisely my point, though I didn't make it very clear.

I suppose NASAs choice to play cloak and dagger with things like this gives people genuine cause for suspicion really. If theres nothing to hide, why hide things id say is my biggest doubt about NASAs integrity.

Yes I agree. Maybe NASA can't explain these anomalies so they decided that it's easier to pull the plug rather than admit that.

I find it funny how NASA can tell you the Substance, volume, weight, size, gravity, levels, temperatures etc of planets 1000's of light years away but they still can't find any credible evidence of life in space, what a crock of you know what!

The problem is, that no matter what kind of evidence we will be handed, it will always be debunked in one way or another. If debunkers can't come up with a "good" explanation they will call it a ballon or swampgas or whatever and then add "the simpliest explanation is most of the time the right one".

Even if extraterrestrials came down to the earth surface we would still have people who would doubt and disbelieve. But it would, at the same time, be a solid confirmation for the believes which would make the debate wether they are real or not a lot easier.

I saw an other thread where the OP asked where the evidence were.
Well, imo they are right infront of us. But that humans have a hard time to let go of the ideology that we would be highest in the food chain throughout the universe and are not willing to accept that there would be more supreme beeings out there that would stand above us.

I believe that most of the debunks are based upon dread and fear. Which is quite understandable.
Others are just unable to think "outside the box".

But in my opinion many of the videos, documents, and not to forget, all the witnesess that comes from higher authority are enough to atleast start to question the issue. It would be enough for anyone to start to lean towards believing instead of sceptism.

There is soooo much footage, documents and other materials that claiming that everything is a hoax or a fraud is quite absurd.

There are thousands or reports world wide every year.
And it is enough for only one to be genuine to have our beliefs confirmed.

Discerning reality from fantasy requires a healthy dose of skepticism and keen inquisition. Unfortunately some skeptics like to be only skeptical, improbable means improbable.

One of the best books I have read is Roswell Revisited by Maj Kevin Randle. In one chapter he does what no other UFO researcher or author has done (to my knowledge as I have read a lot of UFO books), and that is write a chapter on the arguments for and against something happening at Roswell. Most of the other authors would stick to their opinion whether it is pro or con. But Maj Randle, to his credit, gives some good arguments to the nothing extraordinary crowd. While he does believe something happened and offers evidence that something extraordinary did happen, it is good to see the other side not ridiculed.

If you have a good case, you should not be afraid of skeptics. Their questions should serve to find more answers. This is what the ufologists need, and that is a better way to look at cases. To me, the overall body of evidence must be weighed, and there are many good cases that stand up to scrutiny.