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.

 

NASA STS-114 UFO Footage - Can it be debunked?

page: 24
96
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 11:08 AM
link   
... and I thought I had A.D.D. Damn I salute you sir(s)

You couldnt stay on track to save your live(s)...





posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kandinsky
This is in no way an insult, he's one of my favorite characters. On some of your more excited posts I'm reminded of this fellow...



None taken. Thats one of my favorite characters as well. He was a problem solver. And they dont make em like that anymore.
(both the cartoons and problem solvers)



Originally posted by Kandinsky
One thing I notice however, is that you are clearly an intelligent and educated man. At times you insist on things being black and white. What is clear and concrete in your mind isn't necessarily so amongst others.


The other side should be considering that as well. What I will vigerously stand up for is what I believe. I dont ever try to convince anyone of anything other than tell them where I see things. Yet the other side insists on me changing my mind for their sake. They will have a very long wait for that to ever happen.


Originally posted by Kandinsky


See, in a universe of INFINITE POSSIBILITIES, that means there are MORE than just ONE possibilities. Saying its only ice particles then later saying they only originate from Earth is not just a contradiction, but also an OBVIOUS FLAW in your logic. The only BLOATED BRAINS are the ones who hide behind ice particles that do nothing and never see the one that is DIFFERENT.


In a universe of INFINITE POSSIBILITIES it's possible that you are wrong about this footage. The possibility is as equal for the rest of us. If people disagree and offer a different opinion it needn't require you to insult their intelligence. I agree with some of your posts and disagree with others, at no point do I assume you are an idiot.


I never assume anyone is an idiot, and appreciate the courtesy. And yes I could be wrong about the OP video. But has anyone yet provided a direct, concise answer as to why that lone object..or ice particle as some insist it is...on how it makes it's turn and burn manuver while the others nearby just sit there and do nothing?

Im still waiting for that answer. When I see the compelling evidence that concisely explains it with an example that is directly related to what is seen in the OP video, not a "close" example, but a direct example, then I will change my mind.

What does it matter to those who are so feather ruffled about my belief of this video anyway? Do I rattle their cage that much? Is my lil ol belief and opinion going to make their lives that much more difficult? So much effort and so much energy used to try to "get one on me", and that effort has been futile as well. If I knew I had that much of an influence on people's lives out there, I would have ran for office instead of exerting that talent in a forum.

Oh well.....till the answer comes along...I will just sit back, enjoy the coffee and check in once in a while to see if the case is solved.



Cheers!!!!

[edit on 28-2-2009 by RFBurns]



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 02:04 PM
link   
if this object is a UFO could it possibly be a Foo ?

these UFO Foo's followed Airplanes during WW 2 so why not follow the Shuttle ?





en.wikipedia.org...

www.ufocasebook.com...

no proof that this is the case but it's not an impossibility either.



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
I dont ever try to convince anyone of anything other than tell them where I see things. Yet the other side insists on me changing my mind for their sake. They will have a very long wait for that to ever happen.


Nonsense. Some of us argue that mature human beings change their minds in the light of new evidence. You refuse to consider new evidence once you've made up your mind -- you mock it and name-call it and proclaim your invulnerability to it.

It's not for 'our sake', it's for reality's sake, that grown-ups base their interpretations on evidence and modify them as more evidence becomes available.



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by secretnasaman
This Thread has inspired me, thanks...and so because of the old saying, "listen to what they say,..but watch what they do", I have posted,as a start, 17 new NASA video clips on You Tube under secretnasaman! So check them ALL out and... RFburns should enjoy these especially!..

There are so many more to come!...sorry no links but I have yet to get my computer to do it? Weird. Strange home made job...still 17 NASA UFOs by secretnasaman on you tube, for others to bring in links..check out the NASA UFOs:Alien donuts!..for ATS members!

I would have posted on ATS but no matter what, my password does not work on the video media portal?...sorry to "stray".. but there are answers and more questions on these new, video postings for the "tubes".. now for this topic to continue...cheers


Just wanted to say thanks for the videos I have been watching all the NASA stuff lately and I am incredibly grateful that you upped them. Keep it up



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 02:39 PM
link   
I have just been catching up and reading each post. Anyone who comes here and looks at this thread, can clearly see that the debunkers are coming out of the woodwork now that the heat has turned up.

Still sticking with ice crystals?

I had to chuckle when I saw phage and the 'the group' come into play
I also notice how easy it is to skip past peoples questions and continue setting up the smokescreen.

UFO believers are not kids looking up at the sky at night, they are people that study the facts and have open minds and understand that not everything can fit into a category or be wrapped up with a neat bow.

It is clear there are anomalies all around us that these anomalies have been caught on tape whilst NASA gather their intelligence. Looking at the 17 Nasa videos it is clear there is a set pattern to these things.

Could it be that we are in the middle of a space war without knowing about it?

Interesting times indeed.



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 03:59 PM
link   
I could finally make a video showing what I have been thinking about since the beginning of the thread (I had to find the material).

I do not mean to say that the reason for the change in direction of the object was a magnetic influence, this is only to show that it is easier than it may look for an inanimate object, once moving, to be affected by unseen external forces.

There was no other "intelligent behaviour" besides my own, and for even that I have my doubts.



(click to open player in new window)



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 04:02 PM
link   
nice example, mean more if your round object stoped , then picked up speed in a diff angle, urs slows down and stops



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


You have got to be kidding us ArMaP what the is that supposed to be? no offense but come on.

IF the shuttle is travelling 18000 mph that little video doesn't explain how an object travelling in excess of 30000 mph can slow down and and change direction so quickly.

Taking in to consideration the size of the UFO (object in question) are you saying that a magnetic force caused the object to slow down and change trajectory? is there such a force in a vacuum of space?



to be affected by unseen external forces.


What unseen external force, its a vacuum in space?



A vacuum is a volume of space that is essentially empty of matter, such that its gaseous pressure is much less than atmospheric pressure.


source

edit:harsh words

[edit on 28-2-2009 by franspeakfree]



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by easynow
 


Absolutley, according to some, the foos were there to monitor the situations and to make sure that nothing got out of hand of course some believe that due to some understanding they were not allowed to interfere, except of course if Nukes were to be involved.



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by franspeakfree
You have got to be kidding us ArMaP what the is that supposed to be? no offense but come on.
I am not kidding, and that is supposed to show that an external influence can make an object change direction. In this case, it's the Earth's magnetic field affecting the movement of a toroidal magnet.


IF the shuttle is travelling 18000 mph that little video doesn't explain how an object travelling in excess of 30000 mph can slow down and and change direction so quickly.
You do not know the distance to the object or its size, you can only know that it travels the angle covered by the camera in a specific amount of time, but not knowing the distance or size you can not say at what speed the object is moving.

Also, and that was something that I thought that everyone understood, the object may not be stopping at all, it may be just making a curve, like the object in the next video.


(click to open player in new window)


Imagine that what we see in the STS-114 video is half of what we see on the above video and you will see that the behaviour is the same (only by object is moving much faster across the screen).


Taking in to consideration the size of the UFO (object in question) are you saying that a magnetic force caused the object to slow down and change trajectory? is there such a force in a vacuum of space?
I said explicitly (or so I thought), "I do not mean to say that the reason for the change in direction of the object was a magnetic influence"


What unseen external force, its a vacuum in space?
Do you mean that there are no forces in space? No solar wind? No gravitic influence? No magnetic influence? I don't understand it.

Edited to correct from "there are forces in space" to "there are no forces in space"

[edit on 28/2/2009 by ArMaP]



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by franspeakfree
reply to post by easynow
 


Absolutley, according to some, the foos were there to monitor the situations and to make sure that nothing got out of hand of course some believe that due to some understanding they were not allowed to interfere, except of course if Nukes were to be involved.


i don't know if these Foo's had an agenda or not but the pilot reports claim these things did maneuvers around their craft that were unexplainable. similar to the concorde ufo video



and this one



Foo Fighters do the Turn and Burn also



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 09:20 PM
link   
oops forgot this one



filmed on different Shuttle missions



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by franspeakfree
I had to chuckle when I saw phage and the 'the group' come into play
I also notice how easy it is to skip past peoples questions and continue setting up the smokescreen.

UFO believers are not kids looking up at the sky at night, they are people that study the facts and have open minds and understand that not everything can fit into a category or be wrapped up with a neat bow.

It is clear there are anomalies all around us that these anomalies have been caught on tape whilst NASA gather their intelligence. Looking at the 17 Nasa videos it is clear there is a set pattern to these things.

Could it be that we are in the middle of a space war without knowing about it?

Interesting times indeed.


There are five 'anomalies' in that sentence I highlighted


I find it hard to see why Phage and 'the group' generate any hostility or resentment. If there is an element of doubt about something it's expected that someone will voice that doubt. If evidence is open to a different interpretation, it's natural that someone will point out that interpretation. I hope that some ATS members never serve on a jury because the quality of evidence they are sometimes willing to accept would result in serious miscarriages!

I began the thread with optimism that the video could be something 'extraordinary'. During the course of the thread enough prosaic alternatives have been offered to at least force the element of doubt. With doubt in mind, the video is more than likely mundane. Being parsimonious, it *is* mundane.

Does it matter? One more video bites the dust. There are other videos and questions remain. This video is a commercial pilot recounting a large UFO sighting in 2007. Radar traces, witnesses...




posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
oops forgot this one



filmed on different Shuttle missions


Wow NOT.

If you don't know the context of these scenes, their illumination conditions, the crew's activities and comments, you know, BASIC contextual information, then how is any 'first impression' valid as 'proof' the apparitions are unusual for spaceflight? The discussion on the 114 case -- an odd long curving motion of one dot -- seems to demonstrate that proponents of UFO-ness demand tightly limited focus, with deliberate ignorance of context. This winds up providing no insight at all into which if any of the videos are truly anomalous. This may be ego-enhancing, but it isn't knowledge-enhancing.

So there is a prescription of steps needed to establish valid arguments for 'extraordinariness', and nobody involved with torrenting ambiguous youtube videos in the absence of any checkable evidence, has taken any of these steps.

Read Hynek's fundamental requirements for any UFO case to be taken seriously -- go look it up -- and see that none of these fits that criterion.

It's almost as if.. as IF UFO advocates are afraid to look too closely at these cases, lest they discover hints of explanations, and no, we wouldn't want THOSE to get around, would we?



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 11:55 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


lmao

..your kidding right ?

you admitted that NASA is not transparent

that means they are keeping secrets from the public and you want me to go research this video and look at information on a NASA website to find the truth about something that everyone knows they are covering up ?

please spare me the irony of it all



i appreciate your thoughts and concerns about validating evidence don't get me wrong...but i don't trust NASA and that means any information they present could be false.

how can i validate the information to be the truth that you want me to go find ?

[edit on 1-3-2009 by easynow]



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 12:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by franspeakfree
I had to chuckle when I saw phage and the 'the group' come into play
I also notice how easy it is to skip past peoples questions and continue setting up the smokescreen.


Smokescreen? I gave my opinion of what I think I see and pointed out some of the problems with Sereda's presentation of a shuttle video other than the one which is the supposed topic of this thread.

A couple of Zorgon's boldly inaccurate and/or diversionary (to be charitable) statements:


Progress craft assembly line... now WHY do you suppose they need so many?




The videos are clips from the HANDHELD IR CAMERAS That is why they look the way they do... THERMAL Imaging not photographic... Last I heard IR shots hot spots as BRIGHTER... the hotter... the more white the object is..


RFBurns:



The shuttle does on certian missions put up geostationary satellites. This would require the shuttle to also place itself into a geostationary orbit to properly place the satellite.



Sorry but there are some things your gonna have to find out for yourself, that is if you either know the right contacts or have the need to know.



It isn't me who's blowing smoke.

[edit on 3/1/2009 by Phage]



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 12:25 AM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 



Read Hynek's fundamental requirements for any UFO case to be taken seriously


Hynek was an incompetent investigater and you want me to use his work as an example ?

i could show you plenty of very stupid mistakes he made if need be.

it's amazing how the skepti bunks try to send you in the wrong direction on purpose.



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 12:34 AM
link   
reply to post by easynow
 
That NASA keeps secrets from the public isn't a surprise. Commercial reasons and intellectual property rights are cause enough for secrecy. A low-key cyber war has been taking place over the past several years. Hackers with IPs based in Russia and China have been attempting to access databases in the West to steal technical data.

If NASA didn't keep secrets other nations might just as well stop developing technology and exploit NASA instead. I'm making a *dumb* point but there are reasons for secrecy that don't necessarily require a cover-up. Look at NASA Technology to understand why secrecy is a modern necessity. While Governments remain silent about UFOs any agency supported by Government budgets must remain silent also.

Slightly off-topic, but I've noticed that some of NASA's biggest detractors around here will cheerfully use NASA resources to support their claims. It seems ironic to accuse them of gross and institutionalized dishonesty and then use their resources to support a claim



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 12:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by RFBurns
I dont ever try to convince anyone of anything other than tell them where I see things. Yet the other side insists on me changing my mind for their sake. They will have a very long wait for that to ever happen.


Nonsense. Some of us argue that mature human beings change their minds in the light of new evidence. You refuse to consider new evidence once you've made up your mind -- you mock it and name-call it and proclaim your invulnerability to it.

It's not for 'our sake', it's for reality's sake, that grown-ups base their interpretations on evidence and modify them as more evidence becomes available.


I seriously hope your not implying that I am some newbie at all this. You have no clue who your dealing with friend.

New evidence? The only evidence presented does not explain why this one object does what it does in the OP video.

Everything else has been thrown up here, but none of that tells us how this..."ice particle" magically steers in another direction with no outside force acted upon it. Cant be any shuttle thruster...no thruster flash is seen just prior to this object turning. It is not any camera movement or shuttle re-orientation, the object begins and completes its turn and even moves off in the other direction before any camera pan or shuttle re-orientation.

So what does that leave to make this ice particle of yours...no wait...waste dump ice particle of yours move the way it does without any of the above mentioned outside influences?

Just one of those weird waste dump ice particles eh...if you believe that well thats fine. But unfortunately..the number of those who do not believe what you do seriously tilts the scales in our favor that it is obviously something else at work here.

Don't blame me for that number, I just happen to be one of the hundreds of thousands who do not agree with the magic "bullet" ice particle theory. Oddly enough, we did not believe in the "magic bullet" theory of Kennedy either, but thats another mystery isnt it.

Oh well...I will keep checking the thread..hopefully soon the mystery will be solved with some bonafide explanation and not bogus bandering of bubbling bs.



Cheers!!!!

[edit on 1-3-2009 by RFBurns]



new topics

top topics



 
96
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join