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: 50
96
<< 47  48  49    51  52  53 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 11:06 PM
link   
reply to post by RFBurns
 

I don't have a low light camera.
Why do you think it is 80 miles away?

[edit on 3/11/2009 by Phage]




posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 11:10 PM
link   
Im sorry guys , ive been lurking on this thread for 20 pages , but what do SPRITES and LOW LV LIGHTS have to do with that little UFO doing an abrupt turn and booking , thats the thread



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 11:13 PM
link   
reply to post by RFBurns
 

The Xybion IMC-201 was used for that one experiment (MEIDEX) on sts-107.

The link I provided used the standard cargo bay cameras. That is why I provided the link, to show that the standard cargo bay cameras are low light monochrome cameras that are not filtered.

The Xybion IMC-201 is not a standard cargo bay camera, as you said. Unless you can show that it was in use on sts-114, bringing it up is irrelevant.


[edit on 3/11/2009 by Phage]



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by RFBurns
 


Why do you think it is 80 miles away?


Hmm...the "critters" in STS 75, the "critter" in STS 114, the "critter" in STS 48, to name a few.

Now I am sure there are dust and ice particles (btw, define "particle") floating around at 80 miles distant and further from the camera point of view, but they wont be seen, much MUCH too small, even at 20 feet they are quite small.

If you guys are trying to tell us that ice particles and dust particles (again define "particle) all over the place up there that are large enough to be seen at either 20 feet or further out, then the shuttle and ISS and every other satellite up there would be slamming into these things consistantly, because according to the ice particle junkies...thats all there is up there in all these videos.

Unless all these ice particles and dust particles magically move out of the way of a speeding shuttle going 18,000 mph before smashing through the windows or the hull, I would say that the ice particles are so tiny and so INSIGNIFICANT to not be of any concern at 18,000 mph that if one were to hit a window or the hull, it would simply vaporize on impact.

Yes there are ice and dust up there, but NOT in such the manner that your implying that they can be seen no matter what at any distance.

Besides, do you honestly think that NASA, and all that expensive equipment is up there to get off on dust and ice particles????

No I doubt it.

BTW, and ice particle and dust particle are NOT electrical in nature, therefore are not the same as a sprite, or jet or lighting, or plasma in nature.

But they just so happen to get in the way at the most peculiar times...dont they.


How cooincidental.

I dont believe in cooincidence.



Cheers!!!!



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 11:16 PM
link   
These useless b.s. replies are soooo boring! Like the guy above said, why don't you stick to the OP? Or take it to private level.


Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by RFBurns
 

The Xybion IMC-201 was used for that one experiment (MEIDEX) on sts-107.

The link I provided used the standard cargo bay cameras. That is why I provided the link, to show that the standard cargo bay cameras are low light monochrome cameras that are not filtered.

The Xybion IMC-201 is not a standard cargo bay camera, as you said. Unless you can show that it was in use on sts-114, bringing it up is irrelevant.


[edit on 3/11/2009 by Phage]



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by RFBurns
 

The Xybion IMC-201 was used for that one experiment (MEIDEX) on sts-107.

The link I provided used the standard cargo bay cameras. That is why I provided the link, to show that the standard cargo bay cameras are low light monochrome cameras that are not filtered.

The Xybion IMC-201 is not a standard cargo bay camera, as you said. Unless you can show that it was in use on sts-114, bringing it up is irrelevant.





Who is to say that thing was not used for something else, especially after the first time around it picks up something unusual. Naturally, given our lovely space agency's habbit of hiding things, they would have no problem omitting the use of such a camera or a better one to re-examine all that ice and dust discharges now would they.

It amazes me ow naieve some are about NASA. After all these decades of documented deception and coverups and lies, we are just supposed to ignore that and accept their word.

This isnt 1969 anymore...back then people trusted NASA at every word they spoke.

It isnt that way today Im sorry to say.



Cheers!!!!



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 11:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Learhoag
These useless b.s. replies are soooo boring! Like the guy above said, why don't you stick to the OP? Or take it to private level.


Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by RFBurns
 

The Xybion IMC-201 was used for that one experiment (MEIDEX) on sts-107.

The link I provided used the standard cargo bay cameras. That is why I provided the link, to show that the standard cargo bay cameras are low light monochrome cameras that are not filtered.

The Xybion IMC-201 is not a standard cargo bay camera, as you said. Unless you can show that it was in use on sts-114, bringing it up is irrelevant.


[edit on 3/11/2009 by Phage]


It is a part of the OP, a part of the entire discussion, a CONTINUING discussion that has also had introduced other STS videos for comparison..to which THIS issue with the camera IS a part of the OP.

Cheers!!!!



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Learhoag
These useless b.s. replies are soooo boring! Like the guy above said, why don't you stick to the OP? Or take it to private level.



PS...no one is forcing you to read this discussion.

However, I submit that YOUR reply is useless and BS.

Stick to the OP.


Cheers!!!!



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 11:24 PM
link   
reply to post by RFBurns
 


Ok, you win. You've convinced me.

There are 9 foot aliens which are part of every shuttle mission. Mars is crawling with life, has flowing water everywhere, and has or did have an advanced civilization. The moon has an atmosphere and 2/3 Earth gravity and domes, and towers and all kinds of things.

NASA has been lying about it all along.



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by RFBurns
 


Ok, you win. You've convinced me.

There are 9 foot aliens which are part of every shuttle mission. Mars is crawling with life, has flowing water everywhere, and has or did have an advanced civilization. The moon has an atmosphere and 2/3 Earth gravity and domes, and towers and all kinds of things.

NASA has been lying about it all along.


Actually no Phage, there are not any 9 foot aliens floating around the cargo bay having a discussion with the astronauts in their space suits discussing the crawling creepies on Mars that was once pets of the advanced civilization hundreds of centuries ago when the Moon was not in orbit around the Earth but later placed there after the domes were built with the look-out towers.

There are however, some unusual anomalies in these videos. There are however videos clearly showing ice and dust particles.

There is definately a very distinctive difference between the two, which is also cleary seen.

Thing is Phage, us believers have heard the ice particle, dust particle, swamp gas, Venus, bean gas, sour gas excuse for decades now. And not all of them are right.

It is those that are definately not the things above that has us intriqued and irritated when we hear those old lame excuses over and over again.

I cant speak for other believers, but I can say this for me....I dont dismiss anything until I have examined it for myself, and when I have already examined something and have ruled it out for myself, then there is nothing in this world that can convince me otherwise unless I am presented with something other than the already ruled out explanation.

So far, all I see is the same thing...ice this, dust that. There is a deeper explanation to these anomalies, one that obviously has both the skeptic and believer baffled.

To us, we believe its either a critter, or a piece of alien hardware. To the skepitc, its ice, or dust, or Venus or bean gas.

But not a single side can say the absolute of what it, or they might be.

I am sure that the skepitc side is just as tired of hearing the believer say its a UFO or alien as the believer is tired of hearing the skeptic say its dust or ice or Venus.

I think the next step for both sides to ask is instead of what it is..perhaps we all should ask..what it is not.

Maybe from that angle one of us will find the answer.

When all avenues of possibility have been explored, what is left, no matter how far fetched it is...must be the answer.


Cheers!!!!



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by RFBurns
 


Ok, you win. You've convinced me.

There are 9 foot aliens which are part of every shuttle mission. Mars is crawling with life, has flowing water everywhere, and has or did have an advanced civilization. The moon has an atmosphere and 2/3 Earth gravity and domes, and towers and all kinds of things.

NASA has been lying about it all along.


I've saved this post.

I knew you'd come around, but your 9-foot alien theory will require some further proof.



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 11:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


(mutters to himself) i thought they were 4 feet tall



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 11:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 

Maybe they need the low-light level Xybion IMC-201 for sprites. But why would they need to use those types of cameras for plasma life forms in space? ..Perhaps they don't.

Sprites are an upper atmospheric phenomena associated with thunderstorms.. so naturally, they would need extra-special cameras to document these "sprites" considering the rarity of this phenomena in such harsh conditions as thunderstorms.

Why WOULD they need to use such cameras for TLE's in space?

After all, those standard cameras from the 90's seem to be working pretty well..




posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 12:00 AM
link   
reply to post by RFBurns
 


The problem is this: Someone brings up a document from NASA or some other source and says "See! NASA says this!". Someone then points out that the document doesn't really say what the first someone says it said. Someone #1 then says "NASA can't be trusted. NASA lies!".
"But you said..."
"Well, NASA didn't lie about that, but they lied about a lot of other stuff so they must be lying about this."

What exactly NASA lies about seems to have a direct correlation to the agenda of someone #1.

This is not a rational discussion, this is shadow boxing.

[edit on 3/12/2009 by Phage]



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 12:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Well put Phage this has become like a large rock plummeted from the sky.



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 12:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
I've saved this post.
I knew you'd come around, but your 9-foot alien theory will require some further proof.



Originally posted by branty

(mutters to himself) i thought they were 4 feet tall



I guess Phage read Clark McClelland's report



To all who have faith in ME, I present you with this artists concept of what I saw many years ago at KSC. It was a tall creature, about 8 to 9 feet tall. It had a humanoid body shape with two arms, two hands, two legs, two feet, a slim torso and a normal size head for its size. The color of its skin I could not determine. It appeared to have two what appeared to be eyes, but it was not detailed enough for any other comments.


www.stargate-chronicles.com...



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 12:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
And I must say they sure look like space jellyfish to me




So what? It is important for this thread what your brain's imagination likes to traipse away? You sell pareidolia?

So, your "must say" is playing games with gullibles.



Originally posted by zorgon
As usual you missed the whole point. Those cameras are not interested in ICE particles but TLE's And Plasma 'critters' would most certainly be a TLE


No, you can't read my post. Or if you read, you, again are playing games. Read again my last post carrefully. I've said exactly that those cameras are not interested in debris or your imaginary "critters" flying in space, they are interested in sprite phenomenon at the edge of the space-artmosphere boundary, yet this doesn't imply, like you suggest, that debris cannot be seen involuntary in image as regular occurence, since they, debris, are just regular ocurences.


Originally posted by zorgon
At least sprites are in the plasma event range... unlike ice and debris... so yeah I can easily totally dismiss them and say "CRITTERS"

so what?! More games to play here? ice and debris can be in the plasma range too, because, they reflect a wide range of spectrum of sun light hitting them, including UV. You put earlier an example with moon filmed in UV. Does this mean, using your own twisted interpretation, that the moon is in the plasma range, so you can "easily totally dismiss it" beeing a solid body visible in visual spectrum? Is the moon the biggest critter there? wow.

You just "easily totally dismissed" your logic. Playing games.



Originally posted by zorgon

Depthoffield:
instead i may conclude that the proponents of this idea are just speaking to other people, those who are very given just to simply believe what their eyes see, those which already or later became posible selectees for Gallup Polls (remember Frankspeakfree poll), those "regular Joes" which easy thinks at alien explanation as primary solution (but actually this is sign of their lack of knowledge).


Uh yeah right I think I got what you said



I guessed you should understand






Originally posted by zorgon
But since a google search for "Plasma Life Forms" yields Results 1 - 10 of about 11,000,000 for Plasma Life Forms and many of those NOT "regular Joes" but accredited scientific institutions... I would say many are getting our point.

As a matter of fact the last time I posted the google search it was 10 mil and the time before that 9 mil so it seems the idea is catching like wild fire...

More childish games here from your side...

You can search "debris in space" with google and find 5000000 results too, and growing too. So what? Do you think "regular Joe" search this? So, for them is a tottaly missed point.
But "debris" is a more dedicated and mundane world, and doesn't attract.

You think you are smart saying the stuff with search engine, and i agree, for gullible people it may sound good. But, this is for laughing to those who knows what a search engine reflect.


Playing games is your purpose?

[edit on 12/3/09 by depthoffield]



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 01:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by depthoffield
so what?! More games to play here? ice and debris can be in the plasma range too, because, they reflect a wide range of spectrum of sun light hitting them, including UV. You put earlier an example with moon filmed in UV. Does this mean, using your own twisted interpretation, that the moon is in the plasma range, so you can "easily totally dismiss it" beeing a solid body visible in visual spectrum? Is the moon the biggest critter there? wow.


Predictable.

I would hope you are just feigning your uninformed state and are actually being purposefully obfuscatory as a matter of tactics.

Anyhow;

Whilst these 'critters' appear to be more readily detected by cameras filming in the infrared and UV spectrum, these organisms have also been photographed in the spectrum in which is found the human visual range.

Here are a few excellent examples of one such critter,which was taken from STS-115 and which is visible to the unaided eye - this one is reflecting in the 'visible' spectrum:



*When these creatures are visible to the naked eye, I wonder if a change in their energy output could detected on IR/UV capable cameras - what would those changes look like and what causes them, etc, etc...

Edit :

Before I start griping about NASA's behaviour when it come to ancillary data; I should let you know that the above set contains two images, the third being a magnification of the second.

[edit on 10/20/1941 by Exuberant1]



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 02:08 AM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


LOL the number of pages is closer to 643 pages for Plasma Life Forms

Not millions thats just silly.

Are we still talking about sts114?

also there is NO "P" in Jedi

[edit on 12-3-2009 by ranhome]



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 02:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Learhoag
These useless b.s. replies are soooo boring! Like the guy above said, why don't you stick to the OP? Or take it to private level.


No offense but I have to ask have you read the whole thread or are you just popping in after reading the last couple of pages. Phage has explained numerous times why he brought up the subject. Being on a conspiracy site I am suprised you don't want to learn from more experienced members?

Please go back 5 pages and read from there. Then make a comment worth reading.



new topics

top topics



 
96
<< 47  48  49    51  52  53 >>

log in

join