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.

 

Hey... NASA More UFOs!

page: 10
46
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by alyosha1981
reply to post by JimOberg
 


Well considering that MSM only passes along the information that the powers that be want them to pass along, it's not so far fetched to be weary of that portion of the "long arm" do an ATS search for media related disinformation and related, you'll see


I think this discussion evolved from my question regarding the hi-quality hand-held digital still camera views of the 'flasher' at the end of the Mausson video. I was trying to see, since Mausson had withheld these sharper images in his own presentation, whether they had been shown anywhere else on ATS during discussions of that UFO case.

Somehow I'm getting the impression that the answer is 'no', and that Alyosha is also defending the practice of withholding and concealing these NASA-released images from UFO discussions. In order to combat alleged media distortion of the question, it seems he approves of deliberate distortion of the question by concealing the better imagery.




posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jay-in-AR
We can't do that by saying that a turkey-vulture (or whatever it is) is undoubtedly an alien craft.

Great posts Jay-in-AR!

And of course, healthy skepticism should be encouraged, as well as close examination of any footage.

But similarly to your above statement, we also cannot discount that some footage dealt with and analyzed; could be a genuine 'ET craft' if you will. It just seems, that some people, are unwilling to even consider such possibilities unfortunately.



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 07:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Majorion
 


This is true. It is also unfortunate. However, the evidence I have seen has led me to believe, quite firmly, that the UFO phenomenon is genuine and quite possibly of extraterrestrial nature.
That being said, I welcome any and all skepticism. If at any time, I feel that the skeptic is simply gainsaying me, I will shut down my correspondance.

The real problem I have isn't necessarily when a skeptic dismisses something in what appears to be an irrational way (so long as the skeptic is honest enough to qualify his statements being opinion and not cold-hard fact), it is when people speak irrationally about things being something they have no way of knowing whether it is true or not. It is the latter that does harm to the field.

The skepticism sharpens investigation. Iron on iron, or so they say on the football practice field.

I don't have an obligation to make anyone see things the way I do.



[edit on 8-3-2009 by Jay-in-AR]

[edit on 8-3-2009 by Jay-in-AR]



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Majorion
I'm not one of the experts who knows how to extrapolate a picture.. could someone do that please? .. ArMaP maybe?
.. it definitely deserves closer examination.
This object?



It was a good reflector, it even created a lens flare.



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
It was a good reflector, it even created a lens flare.

Thank you ArMaP. Glad you noticed my post.




But I take it you believe it is a satellite maybe?..I admit that it does appear to possibly reflect sunlight. But what could account for the spinning?..do satellites typically behave this way, and/or can be seen in broad daylight like this?

[edit on 8/3/09 by Majorion]



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 08:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Majorion
 


That's no satellite.
2nd line.



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Majorion
 


I think that the official version is that it was a piece from the shuttle.

Whatever it was it sure looks artificial, and probably most things is space are tumbling, I think it is harder for something to move in a constant position when anything touching it would affect its movement (or if that thing broke off from some other thing, it must break away all at the same time, if any part gets stuck for a fraction of a second then it would tumble).



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
I think that the official version is that it was a piece from the shuttle.

Do you know where to see the 'official' explanation?..do you have or know the external source?

Anyways, thanks again ArMaP, I'll have to take another look at that part tomorrow, it's very late here, and my connection is terribly slow unfortunately.



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 08:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Majorion
 


It was posted by JimOberg in this post, but the link is all mixed up.

From that garbled link I "extracted" this page.



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by alyosha1981
reply to post by JimOberg
 


Well considering that MSM only passes along the information that the powers that be want them to pass along, it's not so far fetched to be weary of that portion of the "long arm" do an ATS search for media related disinformation and related, you'll see


I think this discussion evolved from my question regarding the hi-quality hand-held digital still camera views of the 'flasher' at the end of the Mausson video. I was trying to see, since Mausson had withheld these sharper images in his own presentation, whether they had been shown anywhere else on ATS during discussions of that UFO case.

Somehow I'm getting the impression that the answer is 'no', and that Alyosha is also defending the practice of withholding and concealing these NASA-released images from UFO discussions. In order to combat alleged media distortion of the question, it seems he approves of deliberate distortion of the question by concealing the better imagery.


Jim,
I was not in any way, shape or form defending any person from with holding better resolution images or footage, I was however pointing out the mis direction that MSM is known for IE: they say it's a satellite then that's what the public is expected to believe.

Some posters have been gracious enough to provide some still shots to enable us to further examine the object(s) Jamie Maussan didn't "with hold" crucial information he simply presented the evidence at hand for consumption.

Here is also another video from the same STS-115 mission.

Heres another of the object during landing. It's not hi res but another none the less.

[edit on 8-3-2009 by alyosha1981]

[edit on 8-3-2009 by alyosha1981]



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 09:25 PM
link   
reply to post by alyosha1981
 


He withheld the part of the press conference which would have made it clear that the topic was about a piece of debris. That he had the "incriminating" part of the interview indicates he probably had the whole interview (unless you want to be very charitable, which there is little reason to be).

He didn't show parts of the landing video that would have made it clear the UFO was a buzzard. The same video that is available on youtube.

[edit on 3/8/2009 by Phage]



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 09:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Phage, where is the proof that the object is a buzzard? please show me and I'll drop that one. From the still provided previously I think it's not even remotely shaped like a bird, more triangular if you ask me.Refer to Free spirit's post.

[edit on 8-3-2009 by alyosha1981]



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 09:34 PM
link   
and I had my hopes up w/ the thread title till I saw Jamie Maussan at the mic.

*sigh*

I'm glad your here Phage so I don't have to point out all the nonsense this man comes up with. Plus you do a heck of a better job. So I'll just star your posts.

This is supposed to be cutting edge NASA leaked UFO video, and I'm seeing birds, space debris, and lense flares. This guy has been hoaxing for what 20 some odd years, and people still buy his nonsense,



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 09:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Nola213
 


The discussion here is on the video and the possible object(s) shown, in no way am I advocating Maussan he just happens to be the one presenting the video. The object(s) in question are not birds, space debris IMO, whay don't you provide some insight into why you think these objects are what you say they are or would you rather let Phage do it for you?



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 09:45 PM
link   
reply to post by alyosha1981
 

Yes, the object is too far away to say for certain that it is a buzzard but there is such a thing as coming to logical conclusions. At 6:37 there is a "UFO" which passes between the camera and the shuttle. At 6:40 there is another "UFO". Kennedy Space Center is plagued with buzzards. They are a concern at every launch and landing. In 2005 a buzzard hit Discovery's external tank at launch.
www.cnn.com...

Which is more logical, which do you really, really think the UFO is? An extraterrestrial craft, or a buzzard? Are the other two objects UFO's? If they are, why wouldn't Maussan show them? Could it be because they are more identifiable as birds than the distant one? I think so.


[edit on 3/8/2009 by Phage]



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 10:45 PM
link   
A few more UFO's as STS-112 lands


[edit on 3/8/2009 by Phage]



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 10:49 PM
link   
reply to post by alyosha1981
 



If Phage had said this is the Holy Grail of UFO vids. all these peeps would be saying , YA I THINK SO TOO



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 11:09 PM
link   
'UFO' versus shuttle piece

Originally posted by Majorion
But I take it you believe it is a satellite maybe?..I admit that it does appear to possibly reflect sunlight. But what could account for the spinning?..do satellites typically behave this way, and/or can be seen in broad daylight like this?


Since your buddies and trusted sources are covering up the existence of higher-resolution images of that object, your speculation is wasted brainpower. Whose purposes do you suppose that serves?

My view: not that of getting nearer to reality.

Look here: 'UFO' compared to shuttle piece...

a52.g.akamaitech.net...

[edit on 8-3-2009 by JimOberg]



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 11:14 PM
link   
reply to post by branty
 


Your right, and it should be noted that I respect Phage's opinion I just don't agree with this paticular one.



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 11:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


NASA employs measures to keep the vultures away from the airspace Phage so sorry but I'm not buying the buzzard theory


Among the anti-vulture measures:*Audio of gunfire and explosions. The vultures have ignored recordings of hawk and eagle cries already in use to scare small birds away.

*Vulture hotels. The day before launch, NASA will try to lure vultures into cages stocked with animal carcasses and water. The birds will be freed after liftoff.

*Radar. The devices will be set to detect objects the size of a vulture, which are 2 to 3 feet tall. If radar or a camera detects a bird on the pad, the countdown will be halted.

One measure against the scavengers has already succeeded. Crews at Kennedy started scooping up roadkill this spring, in hopes that closing the birds' chow line will drive them elsewhere. Already, more vultures are diving into the center's garbage bins.

Even smaller critters can give NASA headaches. Last month, a small bird smacked into Discovery's fuel tank, but there was no damage. "No harm, no foul," Payne says

Source



new topics

top topics



 
46
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join