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: 40
96
<< 37  38  39    41  42  43 >>

log in

join
share:

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

Originally posted by franspeakfree
The way I perceive the whole UFO thing is that it is a completely need to know basis and extremely fragmented. Because of this need to know basis I theorise that when they run a mission that involves UFOS I imagine that they use 2 control centres one that you worked in and the other one behind the scenes, everything is calculated and ran according to strict policies. I imagine that the reason why the cameras are not set in the main windows is because they need a way that they can control the situation.


This may be easy to imagine but impractical in the real world. In my day we had two separate MCC's, one on the second floor and one on the third floor of Bldg 30. During DoD missions, one was wired and isolated for 'SECRET' level material, related to the payloads that were being carried. There were special physical access controls, special EMI screening, the works. The existence of both control rooms was never a secret, and they shared so many support functions that hundreds of people had access to both. But by 1992, with the end of DoD use of the shuttle for 'SECRET' payloads (never Top Secret or above), the shielding stuff was torn out and the access controls removed, and the room was retired as a national historic site re Apollo-11, which had been controlled from there. Another set of control rooms, for the space station, were built in a new annex to Bldg 30, and those rooms, and the one remaining active room in the old section, were used for a variety of flight and training functions (once Shuttle-Mir began in 1995, that control room was constantly manned, so another room needed to be available for training).

Amidst all these facilities and function swaps, everybody knew everybody else and support teams (including maintenance and 'sustaining engineering') worked on all the rooms. The notion that people could disappear into some other room elsewhere, or even more incredible, that strangers with no previous spaceflight experience could be hired and stashed away underground somewhere else and still be able to operate a space shuttle, is impossible to take seriously. And everyone in the regular Mission Control Center would notice if a shift team ended with the words, 'Okay, somebody else will run it now for a day or two, come back on Saturday." If a shuttle is launched, and the regular folks at Houston see that nobody there is steering, the word will get around.

The security levels we dealt with, and that flight crews dealt with on DoD missions, involved payload characteristics and advance flight plans (to prevent others in the world from knowing where to aim their sensors to get too-specific technical data). None of these procedures involved lying to the outside world about 'camouflage missions' -- they all dealt with simply withholding data of interest to the Soviet Union (and notice the timing -- the security levels were cancelled very soon after the collapse of the USSR).

These considerations persuade me that your idea of a parallel secret team of flight controllers is impossible. But then, you'll probably say, I'd say that anyway.
Well, that makes you immune from first-hand testimony, and then you're helpless in the face of your own overactive imagination.


If any material does find its way to the general public, its easier to debunk. Besides I am sure that NASA use digital cameras for these 'special missions'


Shuttles do carry digital still cameras with impressive optics, for use -- inter alia -- in observing damage to their cast-off External Tank. Also, sometimes, IMAX cameras. But the orientation of the shuttle in this 114 scene, and the camera selection and angle, would make the crew cabin windows pointing in the wrong directions to use that gear to see the same things the 'B' camera was seeing.


I imagine that the branch of NASA we are talking about is a well oiled machine, extremely strict and keep everyting within a certain restricted frame at all times. Like the old Bush administration.


Then how come the 'UFO video' got broadcast in the first place? Who slipped up?


I believe that the astronauts are briefed on the subject of E.T after there initial training and after they have been selected to run the mission, Imagine this is done hours shortly before the mission and made to sign some form of contract before they go up that is under the umbrella of national security with severe repucussions for any leakage.


Would any testimony from any astronaut change your mind? How about any non-NASA non-US astronaut? How about any Russian cosmonaut riding aboard a shuttle? Even Ed Mitchell and Gordon Cooper, with their own personal convictions about UFO reality, both made it clear there were no NASA briefings or constraints on the subject. And we can deduce the same, because of the pages and pages of 'astronaut UFO comments' and all those 'astronaut UFO videos' -- all coming out live for the whole world to see and hear. What kind of cover-up slips up so often?


I don't know anything about water dumps, but what I and others know is that NASA lie through their teeth about this phenomena which is why obviously anyone relating to NASA that joins a conspiracy site is going to get a grilling and will have to earn their trust.


Knowing something doesn't make it so -- and the more comfortable it is to believe something, and the more it enhances one's own sense of specialness and superiority, the more it needs to be examined rigorously, IMHO. Can you list me two or three of the worst 'NASA lies' about UFOs that you believe were issued? Isn't a suspicion about anyone who actually knows about a subject under discussion (as opposed to a long cast of characters here who pretend to know, but don't, yet still persuade most local folks that they do?), a built-in innoculation against disconcerting reality?


As I have looked at this video more times than I have had hot dinners it is apparent to me that the camera is set up for something and I do not believe it was set up and filming at that precise moment to monitor ice particles. Instead it could have been set up to monitor E.T. activity or to film a test flight of new technology.


Of course it's set up to observe 'something', as has been explained several times already. It's set up as a follow-on the years-old Mesoscale Lightning Experiment.

[edit on 6-3-2009 by JimOberg]




posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 12:27 PM
link   
ON the subject of the water dumps, here are some extra details...


The three fuel cells, which provide electrical power for the Shuttle, produce water as a by-product. Whilst some of this is used by the crew for drinking and personal hygiene, excess over demand must periodically be dumped overboard to prevent saturation of the cells. This is accomplished by venting the surplus at high velocity through jets in the nose of the orbiter. Droplets of water turn to ice crystals and sunlight reflected from these gave rise to the observed phenomena.
Harvard abstracts article


(click to open player in new window)

Water and wastewater

The above video illustrates the effect of the blizzard of ice particles as they are lit by the Sun. The gif below from Jeff Challender shows that ice particles can appear to have the dimensions of the STS-114 video.



In the right circumstances the plume from a waste dump can be seen from Earth and it seems there are quite a few afficionados of the phenomena...



These aren't posted to 'debunk', 'derail' or 'dismiss' the OP video. They just illustrate how such particles can appear similar and gain brightness in rising sunlight. I picture a room with curtains drawn in Summer, a chink creates a sunbeam and dust particles shine brightly. Nice image as it's cold and dark where I currently live


In my perspective they lend credence to the explanation put forward by several members. Personally, I'm unable to achieve certainty because my subject knowledge of the conditions of space and photography is less than some other members.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 


nice find sir, doesn't explain why the little UFO turned tail and booked though



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by branty
reply to post by Kandinsky
 


nice find sir, doesn't explain why the little UFO turned tail and booked though


Well, the particles in the first water dump scene WERE following curved paths. Why could THEY do so prosaicly, but the 114 dot NOT do it the same way?



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kandinsky
These aren't posted to 'debunk', 'derail' or 'dismiss' the OP video. They just illustrate how such particles can appear similar and gain brightness in rising sunlight.

Honestly a great post Kandinsky, and I've seen the video you've uploaded before (ArMaP posted it before, if I'm not mistaken). But for me personally, it's not about the brightness of the objects in either the STS-114 or STS-48. It's about the apparent behavior exhibited. And I've looked at all the evidence and arguments here in support of the ice particle explanation, and quite frankly..I'm still not convinced.

A lot of lurkers and non-meticulous readers; will come out of here believing that the footage has been debunked or explained in some way, but this is not the case. Again, for me personally, the objects in question will still remain as unidentifiable.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by branty
reply to post by Kandinsky
 


nice find sir, doesn't explain why the little UFO turned tail and booked though


Well, the particles in the first water dump scene WERE following curved paths. Why could THEY do so prosaicly, but the 114 dot NOT do it the same way?



This obviously is due to the different mass of those particles in the waste dump 20 or so feet away vs the object at a considerable distance in the STS 114 video.

Those tiny particles are so light in mass they will fling out in hap-hazard manner, going everywhere and in a sporatic pattern, which will include curved trajectories.

The object in STS 114 does not fling out in a hap-hazard manner or spiral all over the place. It follows a path, turns and heads off elsewhere with the same hap-hazardless manner as it did when it enters the view of the camera.

The obivous is....obvious. And its obvious you working this thread is a cry of "help us" from the resident sitters of this forum.

Funny how the previous ones have not chimed in since the day you bounced in...clues everywhere of what it is all about.

Given the OP's little experiment he posted earlier with the 10 individuals, its quite clear that people these days are not so gullable and intimidated by the fancy talk and long winded explanations. They see what they see quite clearly, and when you get someone bouncing into a discussion who happens to do stuff for one of the MSM networks, its even more clear what the agenda is, and that more and more people out here dont buy the nonsense as they once did decades ago.

Its a whole new era with a new mindset.

Let the chips fall where they may.



Cheers!!!!

[edit on 6-3-2009 by RFBurns]



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 02:05 PM
link   
I'll reiterate that of the two explanations for the phenomena occurring in the subject video, one is sourced and referenced. One explanation provides precedents, implications by comparison to similar events, demonstrations of theory behind the assertion and is less extraordinary.

The other explanation is often supported by denying the validity of the evidence of the less extraordinary account. There are opinions and even a survey. A certain amount of attacking or attempting to demean the opposition doesn't help either. I understand the general position taken here because the video shows something unusual. When I first saw it, I had the same sense of confusion.

The posts in this thread aren't going to satisfy anybody 100% that a definitive explanation has been agreed upon. The explanation that has the 'best fit' for the evidence is the one offered by Jim Oberg, Depth of Field and several others. If the arguments from each viewpoint could be somehow weighed, the scales would balance in favor of the more ordinary explanation.

Depth of Field puts a lot of effort and energy into these threads and shouldn't be so readily dismissed. He takes time to demonstrate his points. Jim Oberg has attracted some unnecessary comments and insults that didn't refer to his explanation. He's only improved this thread by his input. I hope he continues to turn up on other threads now and then. RFBurns has fought with tenacity and again has only improved this thread by his input. Sometimes it seems that the focus is about who is on which side rather than the subject of the thread


Then again, it is more fun taking sides



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by branty
nice find sir, doesn't explain why the little UFO turned tail and booked though


I've explained, it seems you didn't read or didn't understand. I will follow shortly with a new and more sugestive drawing.




Originally posted by RFBurns

Given the OP's little experiment he posted earlier with the 10 individuals, its quite clear that people these days are not so gullable and intimidated by the fancy talk and long winded explanations. They see what they see quite clearly


You listen yourself? Ordinary people with different and ussualy low knowledge of specific technical domains, are always gullible in this domains, and I showed to you a few times why just seeing can be deceiving. You like to hide behind the crowd, but remember, the crowd ussually don't know nothing about orbital mechanics, 2D projection, water dumps, speeds and distances involved etc.

You just said that ignorance and low level of knowledge are enough to judge an unusual image. So, following your words, maybe all this crowd can be hired as image analysts or mission controllers of the shuttle missions...

In fact, the experiment made by Franspeakfree, shows the obvious, that attractive urban folclor is reaching them and nothing more.



[edit on 6/3/09 by depthoffield]



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by depthoffield

You listen yourself? Ordinary people with different and ussualy low knowledge of specific technical domains, are always gullible in this domains, and I showed to you a few times why just seeing can be deceiving. You like to hide behind the crowd, but remember, the crowd ussually don't know nothing about orbital mechanics, 2D projection, water dumps, speeds and distances involved etc.


Funny you mention this. Are you saying that people need to have some high level of knowledge to have the ability to see the obvious when they look at something?

I dont suppose that debunkers who utilize long winded fancy techno babble are not taking advantage of that gullability you point out...are they?



Originally posted by depthoffield

You just said that ignorance and low level of knowledge are enough to judge an unusual image. So, folowing your words, maybe all this crowd can be hired as image analysts or mission controllers of the shuttle missions...




I said no such thing. You said it. I simply said that people can see the obvious when they see it. Once again your trying to dictate to people that what they see and believe in what they are seeing is not justified because according to you, they are in a catagory of gullable, unknowledgable folks who cannot trust their own instincts and trust their own eyes.

My how low of an opinion you have with today's far more sophisticated society.

This is not the 1930's when people had more simplistic mindsets and were easily gullable to going nuts over a fictional radio program on Holloween night.


Cheers!!!!



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
This is not the 1930's when people had more simplistic mindsets and were easily gullable to going nuts over a fictional radio program on Holloween night.


This is a poor example to bring up.

1930s, common folks without knowledge of science or other hi-falutin' stuff hear radio show, jump to conclusion aliens have arrived.

1990s to present, common folks without knowledge of science or other hi-falutin' stuff watch TV special, jump to conclusion aliens have arrived.

Seems a reasonable parallel to me...



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 04:33 PM
link   
Granted that most of the technical jargon associated with this subject, could be hard for the common man to follow. However with a little common sense and some good analytical skills. It should be all you need to win the day.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 05:00 PM
link   
I reiterate the best solution in my opinion, proposed lately, to the unusual movement of the OP particle.

I said that the particle of ice/junk debris, is going in front of the camera, not so far, having an uniform speed (because it's inertia), a little more speedy than the shuttle, so that's why it moves in image from the right to the left, in direction of motion. But the shuttle is in constant acceleration, so, gradually, it's speed slowly increases, so, it catches the particle. But after, the speed of the shuttle continues to steady increase, and the particle is left behind. In the same time, the particle gradually constantly goes away from the shuttle, toward the Earth. No force required to act to the particle. It is moving free, inertial. Just the shuttle and camera is accelerating itself.

Here is the process:



This image is seen as from somewhere perpendicular to the orbit plane of the shuttle, and shows how the shuttle and particle have their trajectories.

The Earth is exactly up in this image. The gray triangle is the field of view of the camera, oriented to the Earth.

The shuttle is moving form right to the left. It is accelerating constantly, this means that it's speed is constantly increase as part of some maneuvering process.

The particle is moving inertial, in straight line, with constant speed, from left to the right, having a speed a little bigger than the speed of the shuttle at the begining of the sequence. Later, since the speed of the shuttle increases, it will became higher than the speed of the particle, so it catches and then left behind.


Here is a more adnotated version, to better understand the concept:



The D1, D2, D3..D7 blue rectangles, are just marks, they are equal
D1=D2=D3=..D7

they represent distances covered by the particle in units of time, let's say in one second. In every second, the particle covered equal distances, because is moving inertial, that's why all "Dx" distances are equal.


The S1, S2, S3..S7 blue rectangles, are again marks, showing distances covered by the shuttle in the same time units, seconds. But because the shuttle is constantly accelerates, the "Sx" distances are gradually longer, as speed of the shuttle gradually increases. So that's why S1 is smaller than S2, which is smaller than S3, which is smaller than S4 etc.

As i said, first the speed of particle is greater than the speed of the shuttle, so S1 and S2 are smaller than Dx, and i choose that S3 to be equal to Dx, beeing the moment when the speed of the shuttle is equal with the speed of the particle (and this is the moment when particle appears to stop in the image)



A composed version of all the frames, is this:



Of course, the image is not at scale, it is much exagerated, but this doesn't change the concept (see the scotch-roll below, too)


Now, we can see how, despite the particle is moving constantly, and no force acting on it, however it will appear as gradually decelerating and then change direction to the right in the field of view of the camera.

And here is an edge view of the movement of the particle, as how is seen by the camera, taking in consideration the going away movement too:



Here the actual frame of the camera is the black one, the gray border is outside the view, but i need to draw it to show how particle is outside the view.


It is exactly like the OP particle acts. Going from right, decelerating, stoping a little, changing direction with 180 degree, going to the right, in the same time diminishing size (brightness).


And this solution use only what we have as very posible common facts:
shuttle accelerating, particle of debris going inertial in the field of view.



I like to repeat the steady accelerating process (here with 1/16 g), spoken by the astronauts themselves, it is really interesting and fun:



and the same "curved 180 degree changing trajectory" of a free inertial moving object, the scoth-roll:






As i said, just seeing can be deceiving. You really need more experience and brain activity to judge complicated images or phenomenons, that's why common and numerous people OBVIOUSLY is wrong when "seeing the obvious" and take superficial conclusions, and fail to the tests in Gallup polls.



[edit on 6/3/09 by depthoffield]



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 01:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
Even Ed Mitchell and Gordon Cooper, with their own personal convictions about UFO reality, both made it clear there were no NASA briefings or constraints on the subject. And we can deduce the same, because of the pages and pages of 'astronaut UFO comments' and all those 'astronaut UFO videos' -- all coming out live for the whole world to see and hear. What kind of cover-up slips up so often?


Awesome Jim, Good stuff!

You see, I have only been able to find Cooper talking about sightings he had when he wasn't with NASA and Ed Mitchell even said in an interview with Fox news on July 25, 2008, that his comments did not involve NASA, but quoted unnamed sources....

Ed Mitchell clarified that his comments don't involve NASA, nor do Cooper's comments involve NASA.

Why then would you use these examples which contain sightings that have nothing to do with NASA, to disprove a possible 'cover-up' involving NASA?

Nearly Always Strawman Arguments



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 01:47 AM
link   
Maybe because they ARE still under contract with NASA to say nothing


Hey... NASA More UFOs!
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 02:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by RFBurns
This is not the 1930's when people had more simplistic mindsets and were easily gullable to going nuts over a fictional radio program on Holloween night.


This is a poor example to bring up.

1930s, common folks without knowledge of science or other hi-falutin' stuff hear radio show, jump to conclusion aliens have arrived.

1990s to present, common folks without knowledge of science or other hi-falutin' stuff watch TV special, jump to conclusion aliens have arrived.

Seems a reasonable parallel to me...


Care to provide some statistical proof of that?

Never mind...you seem to have a problem with doing searches for information..I will do this one for you.



A 1996 Gallup poll reported that 71% of the United States' population believed that the government was covering up information regarding UFOs.


ARTICLE

Hmm...71 percent believe government covers up info about UFO's. That would in itself imply that the 71 percent believe in UFO's and not because they watch TV sitcoms and jump to conclusions.

From same article:



A list of various purported physical evidence cases from government and private studies includes:

Radar contact and tracking, sometimes from multiple sites. These cases often involve trained military personnel and control tower operators, simultaneous visual sightings, and aircraft intercepts. One such recent example were the mass sightings of large, silent, low-flying black triangles in 1989 and 1990 over Belgium, tracked by multiple NATO radar and jet interceptors, and investigated by Belgium's military (included photographic evidence). Another famous case from 1986 was the JAL 1628 case over Alaska investigated by the FAA.
Photograpic evidence, including still photos, movie film, and video
Landing physical trace evidence, including ground impressions, burned and/or desiccated soil, burned and broken foliage, magnetic anomalies, increased radiation levels, and metallic traces.
Physiological effects have been reported including skin burns and symptoms resembling radiation poisoning.
Animal/Cattle Mutilation cases, that some feel are also part of the UFO phenomenon. Such cases can and have been analyzed using forensic science techniques.
Biological effects on plants such as increased or decreased growth, germination effects on seeds, and elongated and blown-out stem nodes (usually associated with physical trace cases or crop circles)
Electromagnetic interference (EM) effects, including stalled cars, power black-outs, radio/TV interference, magnetic compass deflections, and aircraft navigation, communication, and engine disruption.
Remote nuclear radiation detection, some noted in FBI and CIA documents occurring over government nuclear installations at Los Alamos National Laboratory and Oak Ridge National Laboratory in 1950, also reported by Project Blue Book director Ed Ruppelt in his book.
Hard physical evidence cases, such as 1957, Ubatuba, Brazil, magnesium fragments analyzed by the Brazilian government and in the Condon Report and by others. The 1964 Socorro/Lonnie Zamora incident also left metal traces, analyzed by NASA.
Misc. electromagnetic phenomena, such as microwaves detected in the well-known 1957 RB-47 surveillance aircraft case, which was also a visual and radar case; polarization rings claimed to be observed around a UFO by a scientist, explained by James Harder as intense magnetic fields from the UFO causing the Faraday effect.
These various reported physical evidence cases have been studied by various scientist and engineers, both privately and in official governmental studies (such as Project Blue Book, the Condon Committee, and the French GEPAN/SEPRA). A comprehensive scientific review of physical evidence cases was carried out by the 1998 Sturrock UFO panel.


Seems that officials are also jumping to conclusions too eh?





Cheers!!!!



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 02:25 AM
link   
reply to post by depthoffield
 


DOF..the shuttle does NOT always accelerate while in orbit. Once it reaches orbit velocity, it simply "coasts" and applies forward thrust bursts on occaision to maintain that orbit velocity and integrity.

If it were constantly accelerating, it would increase its orbital plot further out and eventually run out of fuel.


Perhaps you would like to try a space flight simulator that includes an exact real world computerized model of the shuttle Atlantis and uses real world Newtonian physics and learn how the shuttle operates in orbit?

Orbiter Space Flight Simulator



And as I have pointed out many times before, your example is based on an assumption that the object is a mere ice particle.

Now show us an example with your talents of a much larger object with far more mass doing these manuvers as your ice particle example.


Cheers!!!!

[edit on 7-3-2009 by RFBurns]



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 07:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
DOF..the shuttle does NOT always accelerate while in orbit.


Who says is "always" accelerating?

Yet there are times when it accelerates for some time interval. I show it one example taken from STS-8 mission. And it was just one example. And filming outside while accelerating is very posible.
I think JimOberg can say much more about this, anyway, your point is...with no substance.

Accelerating is possible and normal. Are you trying to deny this?!



And as I have pointed out many times before, your example is based on an assumption that the object is a mere ice particle.

This assumption takes in consideration that ice/junk debris simply exists and is common in orbit. Are you trying to deny that ice/junk debris it exists?

And until now, you claim again and again that "no way an ice particle can have this trajectory".
And, you see, IT CAN. Simple orbital mechanics.

Nice to change your opinion from total denying. It's a step.

Cheers!


[edit on 7/3/09 by depthoffield]


[edit on 7/3/09 by depthoffield]



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 08:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by depthoffield

Originally posted by RFBurns
DOF..the shuttle does NOT always accelerate while in orbit.


Who says is always accelerating?


Umm...are you even aware of what you put in your own animated gif's text?

Your first picture up there.


Originally posted by depthoffield
Yet there are times when it accelerates for some time interval. So, filming outside while accelerating is very posible. I show it one example taken from STS-8 mission. And it was just one example.
I think JimOberg can say much more about this, anyway, your point is...with no substance.


PFFT! Your MSM NASA buddy there has no relevant contribution other than to derail and defocus from the issue as he has done since day one of his first post in this one thread. He was called out and spotted and tagged for what he is more than once. A paid debunker called in to resuce the day, but only problem is...he lost before he even stepped through the door.

My point has far more substance than yours ever will simply because you dont even know what you put in your own examples and contradict yourself.

Perhaps you should update your picture and change the text in it. But dont worry, I have already saved it so that you cant hide your obvious fatal error.



Originally posted by depthoffield
Accelerating is possible and normal. Are you trying to deny this?!


OMG..more accusations. Show me where in ANY of my posts where I deny accelerating is possible. You cant and you wont find it anywhere, except in your obvious derailing posts. Second rule of the debunker, ridicule the poster and twist their words. You are caught as well friend.


Originally posted by depthoffield

And as I have pointed out many times before, your example is based on an assumption that the object is a mere ice particle.

This assumption takes in consideration that ice/junk debris simply exists and is common in orbit. Are you trying to deny that ice/junk debris it cannot exist?


There you go again, saying that I say things when I clearly do not. Caught once more. Want to go for three?


Originally posted by depthoffield
And until now, you claim again and again that "no way an ice particle can have this trajectory".
And, you see, IT CAN. Simple orbital mechanics.


Here is number three. Show us in ANY of my posts where I say "ice particles cannot have this trajectory". Caught once again...shall you go for a quad?



Originally posted by depthoffield
Nice to change your opinion from total denying. It's a step.



I havent changed a damned thing in my opinion. Tho you keep on trying to do that for me, which is impossible, but your welcome to keep trying and I will keep catching you in your blunders and display them proudly to everyone and put a nice bright spotlight on them as I do with your master.

Yep..hope you two are in for the LONG haul because I have yet to even start.



Cheers!!!!

[edit on 7-3-2009 by RFBurns]



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 08:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by depthoffield
In fact, the experiment made by Franspeakfree, shows the obvious, that attractive urban folclor is reaching them and nothing more.


Yo DOF, why don't you tone it down a little, some of us are really starting to get fed up with your insults alright.

What 'urban folclor' is that? .. oh you mean 'urban folklore'? .. get the spelling right at least.




posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 08:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Majorion
 


In my opinion he is supplying great information and almost convinced me. On the other hand you are right about the tone.
If you are that right, which I believe you are, you should not try to convince Everyone. It is always good that at least one person is not convinced so that we do not have a totalitarian view of the world.



new topics

top topics



 
96
<< 37  38  39    41  42  43 >>

log in

join