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: 11
46
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 11:29 PM
link   
reply to post by alyosha1981
 


Those measures have to do with launch. Near the launch pad something can be done about the birds. Noise can be made there and the birds might leave, the launch can be delayed. When the shuttle is landing there isn't much to be done to clear the area and the shuttle can't be told to wait. Did you see the sts-112 video I posted? Do you think that is a UFO at the very beginning?

Here's some more stuff about the "flasher".
www.nasaspaceflight.com...

www.cfnews13.com...

Better resolution vid here:
CNN


[edit on 3/8/2009 by Phage]




posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 11:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Ok i'm satisfied that the object falling is indeed a part off the shuttle as shown in your links Phage, thank you. now what about the others



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 11:47 PM
link   
I'm curious so I pose a question to anybody who may know or has an opinion.

How large or bright would a UFO have to be for us to see with the naked eye on a clear dark night that was flying in space? I mean I've seen satellites slowly traversing across the night sky before and they certainly aren't as large as a controlled alien craft. The objects for example in the video that zoomed up to the I.S.S. then flew away. Do you think those could have been seen from earth with the naked eye on a clear night?



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by zarlaan
I'm curious so I pose a question to anybody who may know or has an opinion.

How large or bright would a UFO have to be for us to see with the naked eye on a clear dark night that was flying in space? I mean I've seen satellites slowly traversing across the night sky before and they certainly aren't as large as a controlled alien craft. The objects for example in the video that zoomed up to the I.S.S. then flew away. Do you think those could have been seen from earth with the naked eye on a clear night?








I think it would all depend on how much light pollution one has in their area, as to the size question I'm not sure but I would guess that a large craft with luminous properties probably could be seen, they stay away(star wars defense system:up


[edit on 8-3-2009 by alyosha1981]



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 12:00 AM
link   
reply to post by alyosha1981
 


After seeing the sts-112 video are you also satisfied that the landing UFO is a buzzard? Are you satisfied that Maussan misrepresented the debris video? That he selectively edited the press conference about it?

What makes the other debris videos different from the flasher? It's just more debris. Are you asking me to tell you what each piece of debris is actually is? If you say to me, "What's that?" and I say, "It's a 737." Are you going to say, "Well then, what's that?" Do I really have to say "It's a C-17" instead of "It's another plane"?


[edit on 3/9/2009 by Phage]



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 12:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Absolutly not a buzzard Phage! I accepted the "flasher" proof you provided and I agree now it's a piece off the shuttle. As far as the other objects namly the first one I'm not so eaisly swayed. I gave you credit for some good points provided, I didn't ask that you systematicly debunk the whole video, if you choose to thats up to you, albiet you'll have to do better then " it's a buzzard" with that one and as the first one goes........ UFO as far as I'm concerned.

There are plenty of J.Maussan bashing threads and this isn't one of them, weather or not he porpusfully witheld information? I have no idea I would lean twords him being misinformed personally.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 12:25 AM
link   
reply to post by alyosha1981
 

Ok. I pulled you from the dark side a bit then (or is it the other direction?)


One for me. I'll take anything I can get. I don't have anything else to say at this point.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 12:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Very sporty of you thanks alot, just don't think you've derailed another believer
I will never go to the darkside Phage



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 04:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
Its too bad that UFOlogists insist on sticking to the "Alien Spacecraft" theory... otherwise we might actually get somewhere


Agreed.


These "Critters" are physical, but appear to exist on the higher end of the energy spectrum.... in which they are primarily observed.

However, under certain conditions, they can increase their output of energy and thus can also be observed within the visible spectrum - this is likely responsible for a large percentage of sightings in what humans observe as the UFO phenomenon.

It has been proposed that the 'critters' are lifeforms living on the edge of our three dimensional physical dimension. They manifest in ours but primarily inhabit another dimension or they are made up of higher level energy (Plasma?) or are composed of biological materials we currently do not understand, and which operate and maneuver under principles that we do not comprehend - Publicly anways ;-)

Life itself could theoretically have began in this spectrum, before adapting to conditions on planetary bodies - which required amongst other things, a dramatic decrease in size whilst increasing in density.

It is also likely that some of these energy creatures not only live in orbit, but also descend into the atmosphere and move about in high altitude. (I believe that the majority of 'real' UFO cases are directly attributable to this behaviour by the various 'critters')

*Here are some forms which are commonly observed and associated with the UFO phenomenon, and which are also exhibited by organisms known as Diatoms:


(Image Courtesy of DisgitalStar.net)


(Image Courtesy of botit.botany.wisc.edu)

[edit on 9-3-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 04:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by alyosha1981
 

Ok. I pulled you from the dark side a bit then (or is it the other direction?)


One for me. I'll take anything I can get. I don't have anything else to say at this point.



1 out of several hundred thousand around the world is but a micro-fraction of a dent if any.

Sounds like there is still much work to do.



Cheers!!!!



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 05:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by Jay-in-AR
reply to post by Exuberant1

Plasma Life Forms... google search
Results 1 - 10 of about 10,700,000 for plasma life forms. (0.16 seconds)

NASA knows about them despite JimO's postulating. Its too bad that UFOlogists insist on sticking to the "Alien Spacecraft" theory... otherwise we might actually get somewhere
It is easy to see that mechanism is the foundation of JimO and the Skeptic Tanks word view. The NASA go-to skeptics always seek out the comfortable, conventional UFO debates, avoiding organic concepts completely. They feel that is too "strange" for this "greatest mystery of all time"!



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 05:57 AM
link   
reply to post by secretnasaman
 


I see what you mean, this organic being or "critters" as Exuberant1 calls them, are super interesting to me, I wouldn't rule out the possibility of some sightings being atributed to them!



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 06:09 AM
link   
The flying machines from other planets theory of UFOs is the bed rock upon which the skeptics base their debates that these ET constructed spacecraft 'do not exist'.

We can all have fun debating NASA UFOs on ATS, but it is futile to seek any formal recognition from these ATS skeptics, such as JimO. This is because, the argument is reduced to a battle against character.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 06:13 AM
link   
reply to post by alyosha1981
 


Although I casually refer to these bioforms as 'critters'; A whole new classification of species is being created in order to facilitate the process of research and discussion in the scientific community, which is almost impossible without consistence within the classification and terminological systems.

Here is one example of the terms now being used to describe these lifeforms:

"The extraterrestrial energyzoa hypothesis (ETZH) is and alternative hypothesis of the extraterrestrial hypothesis, that some of the UFO phenomena is best explained as being some kind of biological lifeforms and not creatures from other planets occupying physical spacecraft visiting Earth. The issue has already been a matter of discussion in astrobiological speculation known as the atmospheric critter hypothesis."
(source: en.wikipedia.org...:Cyberguru/etzh)

*The term 'critter' was first used to describe these creatures by Trevor Constable, who also referred to the creatures as biological 'aeroforms' which are also known as 'plasmoid bioforms'...

I will find a more concise genus/classification system and will post it here later, after my nap.

I will leave you with this comparison photo-set which contains one of the most common of these plasmoid bioforms:

(Image Courtesy of Hande - A fellow ATS member. Thanks Hande!)



EDIT: Ever Heard of a Von Neumann Probe?

Since one of the primary objectives and requirements of such a probe is self-replication, a biological component would be an easy way to overcome certain seemingly inherent limitations often associated with Von Neumann's probe concept.

Just a thought ;-)

[edit on 9-3-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 06:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


I like the term, and the topic is new on me so I do some searches and get with the times so to speak, does seem to be a good explination for some sightings though not all I would say



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 07:00 AM
link   
What I see on NASA videos are images of pulsating self- luminous objects, that travel beyond the Earths atmosphere at different speeds and varying in their size.
There appears to be 2 kinds if "living" space craft.

One type, looks like amoeba! Organic,"cellular like" life forms, existing in the plasma state, that are biological in origin (space fauna). They look the same as the 2nd type of UFO... a "constructed" space craft, that is bio-energetic, using the same free energy for propulsion as the cellular space fauna, and are constructed using the same organic material as the biological UFOs... there "skin", which must be stronger than any of our steel...

Both types of UFO use the same operating principals and both exist in the plasma state. They mix together in space, and the "critters"(!) and craft often are mistaken for each other.

UFOs as only metal, flying machines from other planets, propelled by a big mysterious engine, is not what appears to be on NASA video. The preconceived notion that all UFOs are the same (ships from other planets) is why we get them confused,
and why this topic is such an enigma.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 07:09 AM
link   
Armed with mechanistic thought, our skeptic cannot debate entities riding bio-organic, free energy propulsion craft. A UFO that has a mind of its own!



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 07:17 AM
link   
The NASA UFOs are seen moving at different speeds, as they come and go, change in shape and number, and they position for very short periods of time.

Some NASA videos look more like something you would see through a microscope!



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 07:35 AM
link   
Trevor James Constable, who you mentioned as the person to check out on this matter of organic UFOs, says in his book that on April 27, 1947, the US Air Force stated in an official release:
"The possible existence of some sort of strange ET animals has also been remotely considered, as many of the objects acted more like animals than anything else. However there are few reliable reports on ET animals"

Amazing, these 1947 Air Force "press releases"!... the "UFO found at Roswell", press release was 1947 and the CIA was formed, and the....!



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 08:31 AM
link   
reply to post by alyosha1981
 


As you can see in these two photos, there were some large birds flying on that area.




I found those photos here.

And in this video (STS-112) we can see more birds, more or less in the same place.



new topics

top topics



 
46
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join