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.

 

‘Alien Donuts’ In Space! Too Much Of A Coincidence To Be Debunked?

page: 4
30
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 08:05 AM
link   
reply to post by SaviorComplex
 



The number of stars does not make a post more or less valid.

Then why the hell is there a star system on ATS?




In fact, since you are defending him Majorion, you must be a disinformation agent. Prove to everyone, here and now, that you are not.


Sure
it should be rather easy since I'm obviously not a disinfo agent.

Most people here on ATS know that I'm from Saudi Arabia, I've told my story here in an introduction thread. And I've never went out of my way attempting to debunk a particular topic in a rather noticeable fashion. You see where I'm going here?

[edit on 6/2/09 by Majorion]




posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 08:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Majorion
 


The star system, as far as I understand it, is simply a way for other members to show their support, agreement or appreciation for a post they think is good/funny/educational/well written and so on. There are all kinds of reasons for starring a post. A post with no stars does not have to be any less valid or true than a post with 50 stars or more.

And personally, I have great respect for people who can offer a reasonable explanation for things, and also back up their statements with info/images/videos. I don't consider them disinfo agents at all. I think that is a rather childish label to put one someone. No offense.

The smart thing to do, at least in my opinion, is to discuss the information provided, and also offer alternative explanations if you have any - but don't shift the focus from the subject to the poster. When things get personal, the discussion topic drowns in flame wars and pissing contests, and none of us get any wiser.

And I sure would like to get wiser. That is why I come here in the first place.



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 09:06 AM
link   
Imo opinion all debunk attempts are fail so far.

The "out of focus" video doesn't say much, cause the focus distance between the tether and the "particles" are so great that, again...the objects in the forground would vanish completly at the zoom in and not swim around as blurry disc/sphere shaped things "looking" like they are going behind the tether.

So credit to you for putting down the energy to make that video, however, it doesn't convince me one bit that that effect is what is seen in the STS video.

Generally, it is just as impossible to debunk a UFO sighting just as to prove it's real.
Mainly cause us humans can embrace the debunking "proof" much easier than going thinkin "out of the box".
Therefor, all it takes for a sighting to be clearified as debunked is a good debunking story where the explanations fits fairly good with our own reality and of what we see on the ufo case at hand. Where it, to be proven to be the real deal, is much more far fetched since we always will have people NOT believing under any circumstances and in addition we have no solid references of alien engineerings, bio information etc etc.

For example, You will have a higher possibility to have people believe that the thing up there in the sky is a bird rather than a space ship. Why is that? Well I believe it is because we can much easier use the bird as an reference. It fits into our world more easier than an alien space ship.
So based on that I believe it is easier for us to believe the "logical" explanations made here rather then actually just let it be unexplained.

About the tumbling.

Ofc it can be that it tumbles, but it could also be that it is NOT tumbling, cause the pulsating has a constant frequent pulse. If a "Particle", "rock", or any other "space debri" would give a constant freq on the pulse it would been it to be symetrical shaped.
But this is a grey zone. Cause to me it is just as likely that is is a tumbling as it is NOT tumbeling. There is just NO WAY to proove any of these alternatives.

We can ONLY speculate of what these are.

Therefor I find it very annoying with all the debunkers claiming to have the TRUTH!!!

-WE HAVE THE TRUTH PEOPLE!!! AIGHT!!

Why not just be more neutral and use our imagination a bit.
More fun to talk about "What if", rather than "It can't be this, and can't be that...blah blah".

I mean, this is not a contest you can win by proving anything. Let people believe, if you don't believe, than fine...that is quite alright.
But sometimes it feels like some use a little to much energy into "debunking" something, almost like they are afraid that they would be wrong.

I personally think the STS video is awsome and allowes me to fantasies and hope and perhaps make others see that there is a possibility that there is something out there.
I believe they are real, exists and are here. But to have it proven I need to see them descend to us, open their hatch ( or what ever they would use ) and meet us face to face......or face to blob.....face to something.

But until that happens I'll give hoping and believeing. And NO debunk attempt will ever change that. =)


EDIT: I added a small amount of text and corrected some spelling.


[edit on 6-2-2009 by Akezzon]



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 09:32 AM
link   
You guys never heard of space Debris?

There are 1000's of tons of junk in orbit at varying altitudes right out to the moons orbit. ranging from lost bolts, space gloves, tools, human waste and defunct sattilites.
Not only that as said before if you take an number of pictures, anomolies come up due to the nature of Film and digital noise if using a digital camera. Chemical film can also be altered by cosmic radiation, heat and
water vapour to create unusual optical effects.

What is more likely - swarm of highly improbable alien ufos or Space Debris and ice particles - i know what a betting man would place his money on!

You can also simulate the "donuts" just be half closing your eyes, looking at a light source and letting your vision just go out of focus. You will see orbs and funny shapes floating in the film of your tears and they have uncanny resemblance to UFO's or biological beings.

Now focus your eyes properly - there gone!



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 09:36 AM
link   
reply to post by IAttackPeople
 


For one, the blur is not pulsating
and two, it still looks to be in front.
Three, where is the apparent notch that each of of the objects had?

Now care to zoom out so we can see the orbs no matter what? like in the nasa video. They zoomed in AND out and guess what? shape remained.



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Akezzon
Imo opinion all debunk attempts are fail so far.


What has failed here is common sense.


Originally posted by Akezzon
The "out of focus" video doesn't say much, cause the focus distance between the tether and the "particles" are so great that,...the objects in the forground would vanish completly at the zoom in...


Being that the film is in two-dimensions, the distance between the particles and the tether would matter little if the particles are close enough to the camera when the tether is in focus. (though the video experts here will correct me if I'm wrong or explain in better detail).


Originally posted by Akezzon
and not swim around as blurry disc/sphere shaped things...


Why are the particles referred to as swimming? Not a single one of the objects shows any sort of independent movement. None of them change direction. If you watch the video, they all move in one of several directions and not a single one deviates from that path.

Also notice that the notches on these supposed craft change, gaining and losing them, as they move through the frame, each doing this at the same point.

If these were craft, the notches would the be oriented in one set direction while the craft was moving. But this does not seem to be the case with these objects, it is independent of the direction of the particular. (oh wait...I'm sorry, kilometer sized objects that no one can see from the ground...)


Originally posted by Akezzon
Generally, it is just as impossible to debunk a UFO sighting just as to prove it's real.


True. However, you can show through a preponderance of evidence what something is more likely and less likely to be.


Originally posted by Akezzon
Mainly cause us humans can embrace the debunking "proof" much easier than going thinkin "out of the box".


Considering humans are hard-wired for belief, it is easier for us to accept something strange has a supernatural explanation to it. The "out of the box" thinking is finding a natural explanation.


Originally posted by Akezzon
Therefor I find it very annoying with all the debunkers claiming to have the TRUTH!


Yeah, I know right. Don't they know the truth is the exclusive province of the believers?


Originally posted by Akezzon
Why not just be more neutral and use our imagination a bit.


How is "I can't explain it, therefore it must be supernatural" using your imagination?


Originally posted by Akezzon
But sometimes it feels like some use a little to much energy into "debunking" something, almost like they are afraid that they would be wrong.


Why are skeptics on ATS criticized for putting effort in to demonstrating their opinions and ideas, that they are either called "disinformation agents" or accused of having some psychological failing?

[edit on 6-2-2009 by SaviorComplex]



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by SaviorComplex

Originally posted by Majorion

The number of stars does not make a post more or less valid. All it means is there are a bunch of idiots, as immature as Exopolitics, who agree with him. Nothing more, nothing less.

SaviorComplex,

So now you are being disrespectful? Tell me where in my post was I being disrespectful? You're talking about immaturity here? Maybe you need to read the post again.

I was simply stating that every single message I have seen, even in messages that were as clear as 2+2=4, Phage always persists as to say 2+2=5 and gives an explanation where some believe it. I was expressing my opinion and obviously more than one person shares it.

How can I prove to you that I'm not a disinformation agent? I can't. Perhaps I am. At least I'm on the side that makes intel folks like Phage work harder for their money.

[edit on 6-2-2009 by Exopolitico]



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 10:11 AM
link   
The word Debunk has become tarnished with negativity.

here is its definition:

"A debunker is an individual who discredits and exposes claims as being false, exaggerated or pretentious. The term is closely associated with skeptical investigation of topics such as U.F.O.s, claimed paranormal phenomena, conspiracy theories, alternative medicine, religion, research outside mainstream science or pseudoscientific subjects."

"The American Heritage Dictionary traces the passage of the words bunk (noun), debunk (verb) and debunker (noun) into American English in 1923 as a belated outgrowth of "bunkum", of which the first recorded use was in 1828, apparently related to a poorly received "speech for Buncombe" given by North Carolina representative Felix Walker during the 16th United States Congress (1819–1821).
The term debunk originated in a 1923 novel Bunk, by American novelist William Woodward (1874–1950), who used it to mean to "take the bunk out of things."

Often the term "debunkery" is not limited to arguments about scientific validity. It can also be used in a more general sense at attempts to discredit any opposing point of view, such as that of a political opponent."

Instead of being upset about debunkers, question why you are really upset? Is it beacause rational thinking invalidates your beliefs or is it beacuse you just don't like someone coming out with a well thought out hypothesis to your theorys?
If everybody just thought "outside the box" the world would still be full of unicorns and talking lions that can give you riches.
What do you actually prefer - black and white or shades of grey? At least the debunker is willing to come up with the black and white and try and prove it. Sadly most Ufologist would rather stick to the grey areas and ignore the search for the truth.



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Majorion
Most people here on ATS know that I'm from Saudi Arabia, I've told my story here in an introduction thread. And I've never went out of my way attempting to debunk a particular topic in a rather noticeable fashion.


So what? We don't know you are from Saudi Arabia, that story could just be part of your cover.

And who says disinformation agents have to exclusively debunk? A disinformation agent could just as easily pose as a believer in order to confuse us. Since none of us know the truth, a disinformation agent could spread any amount of lies from any part of the believer-skeptic spectrum and none of us would be the wiser.

So, want to try again?



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by SaviorComplex
 



Why are the particles referred to as swimming?

And why are the objects being referred to as "particles"? .. Is there some conclusive evidence I seem to have missed out on?



Considering humans are hard-wired for belief, it is easier for us to accept something strange has a supernatural explanation to it. The "out of the box" thinking is finding a natural explanation.

And if these things happen to be a form of plasma life, or extraterrestrials in artificial craft, why should they be considered 'supernatural'? .. why shouldn't they be considered natural? .. Oh I forgot.. these things are just 'ice particles' right?



Why are skeptics on ATS criticized for putting effort in to demonstrating their opinions and ideas, that they are either called "disinformation agents" or accused of having some psychological failing?

As far as I know SC, neither I nor one has accused you of being an agent. But you were the one whom accused me. Per your request; I proved to you I'm not an agent earlier.. care to be so courteous as to prove yourself also?

And certainly nobody has accused you of psychological failing.. in fact, I'll go on the record to say that you and Phage are by far and large two of the most intelligent and resourceful people I've come across here on ATS.



So what? We don't know you are from Saudi Arabia, that story could just be part of your cover.

Simple, ask any of the mods to confirm this via my IP address.. still not convinced? ..would you like me to speak Arabic(against the T&C's)? .. or recite Quranic scripture? .. Or tell you about the culture here? Or even bring in some witnesses?

Cheers!

[edit on 6/2/09 by Majorion]



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Majorion
 

You are from Saudi Arabia? Do you get reports of ufo orbs out there?



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 10:48 AM
link   
i would like to know more about this donut on the NASA screen and what is their official explanation as to why this "ice particle" looks like this on their viewscreen.

wouldn't there be an accident danger factor involved if the cameras can't show what is really the true look of what ever is there ?

how could NASA identify anything if it is just a distorted out of focus object ?

that would be a pretty sloppy job on their part and could put Astronauts lives in danger if things can't be properly identified right ?






posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 10:55 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Majorion
And if these things happen to be a form of plasma life, or extraterrestrials in artificial craft, why should they be considered 'supernatural'? .. why shouldn't they be considered natural?


Being that they are not part of our natural world as we know it, something that exists outside of our every day norm, I classify them as "supernatural" to distinguish from said every day.


Originally posted by Majorion
As far as I know SC, neither I nor one has accused you of being an agent. And certainly nobody has accused you of psychological failing...


Nor did I say you did. It was in reference to the poster I was replying to making those accusation of someone else.


Originally posted by Majorion
in fact, I'll go on the record to say that you and Phage are by far and large two of the most intelligent and resourceful people I've come across here on ATS.


Thank you very much. I appreciate that.


Originally posted by Majorion
Simple, ask any of the mods to confirm this via my IP address.. still not convinced? ..would you like me to speak Arabic(against the T&C's)? .. or recite Quranic scripture? .. Or tell you about the culture here? Or even bring in some witnesses?


I'm sure that those same powers capable of covering up UFOs and aliens for almost 70 years would be capable of faking such things as IP address, drop a little Arabic or produce witnesses to testify for you.

I'm not really accusing you or anyone else of being a disinformation agent. I'm just showing you how easy it can be flipped and the finger pointed the other way. Fact is, some believers here use the accusation of "disinformation agent" to silence skeptics that make them uncomfortable. It is harassment and needs to stop.


[edit on 6-2-2009 by SaviorComplex]



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 11:07 AM
link   
i thought the topic of this thread was about alien donuts

why is there needless discussion about believers and skeptics ?



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bruiex
These objects have different rates of pulse, moving at different speeds, multiple sizes and clearly Not In Front Of the Tether!
[edit on 6-2-2009 by Bruiex]


Hello Bruiex. You said it best above. Also, if it was the camera's refresh rate, the objects would pulsate at the same time an would all be moving, not only at the same time but would move as the camera moves. In addition, they would totally disappear or obfuscate the lens when zooming. That was not the case here.



[edit on 6-2-2009 by Exopolitico]



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 11:30 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Exopolitico
 

Phage doesn't get his sums wrong and claim 5 from 2+2. That much is evident by the lack of serious challengers to his posts


Checks and balances are a necessity on ATS and especially in the UFO field. Phage embodies this. Mike Singh et al occasionally offer opposing explanations. The two extremes offer balance. It seems short-sighted to criticize anybody that provides an alternative and substantiated explanation.

People are drawn to Mike's posts because they never fail to be interesting. Phage has a right to post opposition as much as you have the right to support Mike's threads. I've noticed that, with one notable exception, neither Mike nor Phage descend to personal attacks and remain focused on the evidence.

So as not to drift off-topic...the STS-75 footage has been explained conclusively on the other thread that others have linked already. Beyond the evidence already presented, it'd difficult to see the debris as intelligent life. Even single-celled organisms move with more intelligence using only flagella. A good thing about ATS is that people can draw their own conclusions regardless of the evidence



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 11:41 AM
link   
From here on there will be no posting to the poster. Civility and Decorum Are Required On ATS

Please remain on topic, which is "'Alien Donuts' In Space! Too Much Of A Coincedence To Be Debunked?"

Thank you.



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 


My analogy of 2+2=5 was simply to illustrate that I have seen previous posts where factual data has been provided to back up a claim and still it will not suffice. That's all.

I appreciate your post, but even as debates get heated, I'm sure you'd agree there is no justification for recurring to offensive language. And I'm not referring to you.





[edit on 6-2-2009 by Exopolitico]



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join