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: 30
96
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Exopolitico
 


Yes I see what you meant by it obviously , and I also saw a similar looking burst, which appeared to have no obvious physical source at about 1:28/1:29 in the top left hand corner of the screen, bout an inch and a half from the top of shot, and roughly a quater inch in from the left edge of shot.
My point is that to report your impressions in a such a way , can sway someone subconciously to one line of thinking , and can interupt the normal process of examination and opinion forming.
Theres no real way to tell if the first burst was even FROM the object you specified, called even further into question by the second burst at 1:28/1:29 , which appeared to have no point of origin what so ever.




posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exopolitico
I never said it is definitely hostile.


Exo, I've raised the point that the most famous of these videos all seem to concentrate in the minute or so of sunrise following a night TV observation pass, a very narrow and relatively rare range of circumstances.

I argue that this suggests the special illumination circumstances are creating the most spectacular scenes that become interpreted as UFOs.

Do you have a different interpretation of this interesting situational characteristic? This scene, too, is just at sunrise. Do you attribute any significance to that?



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueBrit
reply to post by Exopolitico
 


I put it to you that sensationalising a piece of evidence like this, is what gives debunkers room to manouvre. Please dont give the trolls more ammo? Thanks .


With all due respect, I wholeheartedly disagree with your statement about giving the debunkers more ammo. I am stating an obvious possibility here, not sensationalizing. If you want to omit the "lightning" comment, please ignore it, but let my post roll and see what others say. Thank you.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 10:15 AM
link   
Ok, so I guess I'm the only one that sees a correlation between an object passing by under another one and a burst appears.

Let's move on. Then, what about the composite image below?




[edit on 3-3-2009 by Exopolitico]



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by Exopolitico
I never said it is definitely hostile.


I argue that this suggests the special illumination circumstances are creating the most spectacular scenes that become interpreted as UFOs.


I think we seem to be missing the point here. The bottom line is that it is impossible for an object moving in a zero-gravity environment to stop and change course. I believe that is how we can summarize this post, regardless of time of day, sunrise or sunset. You call that an interpretation? I simply call that an intelligently maneuvered object in space.

[edit on 3-3-2009 by Exopolitico]



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exopolitico
I think we seem to be missing the point here. The bottom line is that it is impossible for an object moving in a zero-gravity environment to stop and change course.


Thanks for illuminating your chain of reasoning on this puzzle.

Just because your mind can't grasp that possibility, doesn't mean it's impossible.

What was I saying in a recent post about who in this discussion were demonstrating the closed minds?



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 10:26 AM
link   
Threads always become interesting when you enter Exopolitico


Mr. Oberg, I'm well aware that the degree in which the object turns around zipping off is NOT exactly 180 degrees.. I just said that to reference the viewer to the object in question. And I still don't buy into the 'Ice Particle' explanation, with all due respect.

Anyways, let's try and stick to STS-114.. this is what the thread is about.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 02:16 PM
link   
This thread has become a sheltered workshop for Jim Oberg....a veritable happy farm
of sheep and their sheep-shearers!

One day, historians, will view our skeptical society as an anomaly. For the past 50 plus years, UFO researchers have fought long and sacrificed much for Freedom of Information and UFO Disclosure. They deserve better than this non literary, high risk skeptic has to offer.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by secretnasaman
This thread has become a sheltered workshop for Jim Oberg....a veritable happy farm of sheep and their sheep-shearers!


This thread has seen more substantial theorizing and theory-testing, more original research results found and shared, on this event, than any other site on the subject on the whole internet. And it's driven off the BS'ers and bluffers, to secretnasaman's dismay. He's left to whine, 'Someday, some DAY they'll realize what a prophetic genius I really was...." as he fades away.

I've lived long enough to have done a lot of pioneering work on 'space history mysteries', and hindsight has been very, very kind to my originally unpopular theories. I stand out in the full sunlight, on ground zero of aimed missiles from legions of ill-wishers, and I use my real name... ever consider doing that, nasasecretman?

I even has somebody call the IRS on me once, demanding a 'snitch fee' for revealing the gazillion dollar annual bribe I was receiving from the Dark Forces©. An auditor called me to ask what it was all about, I explained about the kinds of people whose hearts and heads I occasionally broke, and he quickly had the calibration he needed. "I could have guessed," he added as he prepared to hang up and close the file, "since the letter was written in crayon."

Was that you, nasasecretman?




posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


I don't think that Exopolitico can answer that, I don't think he/she was the one who posted it on YouTube with that name.

All this confusion about wavelengths and original videos would be left behind if we could get access to the real NASA footage, can't you use your knowledge or personal influence to find out where can we get access to them? After all they were publicly shown, why not publish them after?



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Exopolitico
The bottom line is that it is impossible for an object moving in a zero-gravity environment to stop and change course.

Does that mean that you don't think it's possible, for example, that an object moving in a zero-gravity environment but charged with an electrical positive charge, moving in the direction of another object, larger and with a stronger positive charge, would stop and be repelled by the stronger charge of the other object (which would also be repelled, but with a weaker force)?



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 02:59 PM
link   
Hello Jim,
I have tried to use my name, and there are posts to prove it! But I was never taken seriously as Martyn Stubbs (I was debunked!)> If that is what ATS members want, then so be it!...thus 'secretnasaman" lives on...
and... that was a fun and cleaver post, showing that you are indeed, literary as well as scholarly...just
my way of saying saying 'hello'....I'm off to work now...you should be to.. you have made your point...cheers!



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by RFBurns
Why didnt you know that when you said earlier how does a thruster maintain a "fire" in a vacume???
What did you do...do a search real quick for the answer? Thought you had 2 yrs training?
Caught ya!!! I purposely put in "oxygen" so as to call you out on your earlier post. Heh....so much for our resident NASA expert.


RF, that is the lamest excuse for being caught in another ignorant mistake that I've seen in a long, long time. Thanks for exposing yourself... and what's this trick of continuing to misspell 'vacuum'?





The only lame excuse I see happening here is your sudden appearance out of nowhere and parking your NASA nonsense in this one thread out of the dozens about STS videos and UFO's. Obviously your agenda here is not to discuss possibilites, but to divert, thwart and disperse the discussions of the object in question in STS 114.

I submit to you that your ever single reply here is lame..as is every NASA excuse.

If you are so right about everything..to which your not obviously, why are you not partaking in the other STS video UFO threads? Is this one particular case so important for you to be in this one thread only and ignore the others such as the tether video thread or the STS 48 video thread??

That to me is obvious NASA debunking tactic. Just your presence here in this one thread out of dozens indicates the purpose of derailing the issue of the object in STS 114...which is a well known tactic across hundreds of UFO forums.

Perhaps we are more correct than what your NASA cares for..perhaps even CIA or NSA. Either way, its so obvious like a huge pimple on a nose the reasons for your rooted interests in this one lone object on this one video out of all the others.

I am sure plenty of other participants see this as well.

Back to the topic.

So now that thruster flash has been ruled out, as well as random ice particle ruled out, and gravity pull, solar wind etc etc have been ruled out as to why this one object moves in the manner it does while the rest just sit there looking stupid, anyone got some ideas on what this thing really is?


Cheers!!!!



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

Does that mean that you don't think it's possible, for example, that an object moving in a zero-gravity environment but charged with an electrical positive charge, moving in the direction of another object, larger and with a stronger positive charge, would stop and be repelled by the stronger charge of the other object (which would also be repelled, but with a weaker force)?


Where is this other charged object? This other object would have to be nearby the object in question to have any affect on it to make it suddenly switch directions..yes?

Even your magnet proposal cannot be true unless another magent is nearby to have an effect on the first.

If this "other" object has that much influence to not have to be nearby the object in question, why is that "other" object not having any effect on the other nearby objects that remain stationary????



Cheers!!!!



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 03:45 PM
link   
There are lurkers like me following this thread. I dont have a background in the science of Nasa or space flight to add to the level of this thread , im learning a lot. Thats fine to me. Regarding 114 . While not being able to interject viable arguements , my vision is fine. That little UFO booked.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by branty
 


It sure does take off in the opposite direction! And there is no evidence whatsoever of any thruster blast acting upon it, and gravity pull or curved trajectory wont make that object turn as quickly as it does. Gradually yes, but as quick as it does in that STS 114 video..no.

The debunkers want you to believe that things work that way in space when affected by gravity pulls or solar winds or this curved trajectory nonsense. If all those things were that strong to have such an influence on an object to make it suddenly change course, then every satellite, every shuttle flight, the ISS itself, every meteor, every piece of space junk up there would be changing course all the time and very suddenly all the time to which nothing up there would have a stable orbit. They would constantly be having to expend limited fuel to correct their trajectories due to strong gravitic pulls or solar winds or sudden curve trajectory effect.


Cheers!!!!

[edit on 3-3-2009 by RFBurns]



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by RFBurns
 

Ive researched your adversary on goggle, he is a well written , well respected , well paid professional debunker, your taking on Nasa,s best RF, (I think your winning)



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by branty
reply to post by RFBurns
 

Ive researched your adversary on goggle, he is a well written , well respected , well paid professional debunker, your taking on Nasa,s best RF, (I think your winning)


Thanks for the comment branty.


After facing off with the best of the best for over 12 years and being the one left standing..this one is no different. I used to be on their side of the fence so I know how they play their stupid game, and can use that against them.

Its sad that discussions like this have to come down to battle of the beliefs. I did not start it, but I will stay in the ring as long as necessary.


Cheers!!!!

[edit on 3-3-2009 by RFBurns]



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by RFBurns
 


RF Burns, Thank you my friend for saying what needed to be said about our friend Jim. His purpose has been made 100% clear in trying to debunk everything that comes along, with his technical jargon, and pseudo intellectual bull crap. Of all the NASA footage available to date, regarding these anomalies. I find it difficult to believe it all comes down to ice particles, space debris, or the frigging shuttle toilet being flushed and having the thrusters diverting their trajectory.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by RFBurns
 


I see that I really have a big problem trying to explain things to some people...

Please read what I wrote and the quote that I included on my post.

I was asking about Exopolitico's statement that it's impossible for an object on a zero-gravity environment to stop and change course, I was not pointing that an electrically charged object would explain this particular situation, in the same way that I did not said that what we see is the result of some magnetic influence, what I have been saying is related to what some people have said, that an inanimate object cannot change direction on its own.

I have been saying from the beginning that an object, even in space, can be affected by invisible forces (that is why I used the magnet and electric charge examples), so we can not rule out invisible forces as an explanation for this type of behaviour.

Yes, they would need to be very strong to affect this object in this video, but it's not impossible, in the same way I don't think it's impossible for this to be a "critter" or an extraterrestrial craft.

I hope I have made myself clear this time (but I doubt it).

PS: To be even more correct, my magnet experiment would never work in zero-gravity (or near zero-gravity) because it would turn instantly over itself to align its magnetic field of the stronger Earth magnetic field, because it would not have it's weight preventing it from turning on the table top.



new topics

top topics



 
96
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join