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: 12
46
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 08:51 AM
link   
The routine, mechanistic skeptic, like JimO, wants to choose the battlefield. UFO skeptical thinking cannot cope with such radical concepts as biological and bio-energetic critters and craft!

Everywhere on NASA official space-science video, the living, functional elements that I can clearly see, continually elude the skeptics mechanical mind, which must handle everything by engineering principals.

Conceiving of the usual UFO suspects...those "ships" from other planets, do not disturb the UFO skeptic emotionally, but space craft that are physical, but invisible, have enormous power to disturb a linear thinking skeptic.

Space is filled with free primary energy, that existing conventional science knows nothing about. I imagine UFOs as something that are not from here, but from another planet and dimension and use this free energy for propulsion. The existence of these UFOs as "organisms", piloted by intelligence, is what I see on NASA UFO video.

They travel in pulsating fashion, swelling and shrinking as they move through the picture, much like we humans, as our heartbeat pulsates and we swell and shrink as our lungs breath air. The NASA UFOs are spherical and look like discs. The videos show us these plasma coated organisms are capable of speeds and changes in their shape and size, that render skeptical mechanistic points, worthless.




posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by secretnasaman

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


Star for You secretnasaman!

Here is an illustration done by Bill Macdonald of the 'craft' that was found at the Roswell crash site, and below that is a photograph of a Diatom exhibiting similiar form.


(Image courtesy MacTonnies - Artist Bill Macdonald)


**Now compare the above illustration of the Roswell UFO to the Diatom at the top right corner of the following image:

(This photograph was provided by UCMP Museum Scientist Dr. Karen Wetmore)

[edit on 9-3-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by secretnasaman
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!


Neither can you.

Even if we accept that these objects are alien, we do not know anything beyond that. You are speculating what they may be, then confusing that speculation for fact. You have no evidence whatsoever that these are biological entities, plasma-form entities, mechanic craft, or whatever you want to assume them to be. None.


Originally posted by Exuberant1
EDIT: Ever Heard of a Von Neumann Probe?


Like secretnasaman, even assuming these are alien objects, you still do not know what they are. You cannot say what the intention, purpose or anything else about these objects. Suggesting them to be Von Neumann probes is pointless.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 10:10 AM
link   

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


What does one have to do with the other? You are doing nothing but connecting dates that have no real connection.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
You cannot say what the intention, purpose or anything else about these objects.


Correct.

I lack the resources to perform the sort of extensive analysis that would satisfy my own requirement for proof.

As such, I am reduced to speculation - will you join us, friend; in speculation?



Originally posted by SaviorComplex
Suggesting them to be Von Neumann probes is pointless.


Which is why I did no such thing ;-)

I did however, ruminate on the possibility that certain limitations inherent within Von Neumann's probe concept could be more easily solved with the utilization of a biological component ;-P



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
As such, I am reduced to speculation - will you join us, friend; in speculation?


No, because I am all too familiar with the mentality here. Too often speculation is taken to be synonymous with facts.



Originally posted by SaviorComplex
Which is why I did no such thing


Under some tortured logic, I suppose you did not.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


Wonderful pictures! The diatoms shapes do seem to resemble reports of craft and I think not a coincidence, nature is the best architect. I think it's possible the craft "watching" our shuttles in orbit, or at least some may possess organic qualities enabling them to interact in and out of the atmosphere, I for one will join you in speculation any time



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by alyosha1981
 



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


Actually those are the most common digital video artifacts.
Different cameras give different results. Here's mine, like it? The really good part is at the end.

(click to open player in new window)



[edit on 3/9/2009 by Phage]



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Phage, what about sightings of this nature involving the discriptions of objects with these properties? or the transmissions of some astronauts describing "bogeys" could they have any connection to one another? I'm all for the effects of lens flare ant all of that, as it is appropriate but what about the reports of the "tube" type objects? Such as the one shown in the first video segment.

[edit on 9-3-2009 by alyosha1981]



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by alyosha1981
 


Eyewitness reports are eyewitness reports. People report what they see and think they see.

Video artifacts are video artifacts. They are not life forms.

I don't see any tube. I see an elongated piece of something that disappears into the shadow.

[edit on 3/9/2009 by Phage]



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by alyosha1981
 



I don't see any tube. I see an elongated piece of something that disappears into the shadow.

[edit on 3/9/2009 by Phage]


Or does it reverse into the shadow?



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 04:34 PM
link   
And my opinion on that object, is that there is no camera effect, it may very well be producing the light seen, attempt in communication? warning? I don't know but the footage IMO doesn't resemble any previously documented sts footage.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by alyosha1981
 


And did you noticed the other object on the bottom of the screen?




posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
Actually those are the most common digital video artifacts.


That hypothesis has been proposed as possibly, on occasion, accounting for some video anomalies that are mistaken as UFOs.

However, I find it quite intriguing that you believe Humans to be capable of detecting these 'artifacts' unaided and then going out and recording recording them. ;-)

No matter.

While I find your hypothesis to be entertaining and in some cases even applicable, I have found that your overt utilization of informal fallacy only weakens the arguments you put forth.

Nevertheless, I appreciate your investigative efforts - although, in this instance you posit an incomplete explanation pertaining to a phenomena with an apparent origin and cause, and for which several theories already account.

Many of these hypotheses are far more prosaic and concise, and with a greater proponderance of supporting data than your own.
(much of this supporting information and 'evidence' can be located in the 'Alien Donuts' thread).

[edit on 9-3-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 

The effects of digital zoom and autofocus are frequently presented as UFO's. That is why I recorded that video, to show that these are very specific effects. My camera matches the effect which I have sometimes seen presented as a UFO. Others have presented examples (elsewhere) which match the effects you showed.

I did not say anything about naked eye observations of these artifacts being made prior to recording them. My answer was to a question about eyewitness reports of similar objects. There was nothing in the question regarding simultaneous recording of those reports. To answer your interpretation of the question; I have seen not one case of the type of object you (and I) have shown in which digital zoom has not been used. Where is the informal fallacy? Is it a coincidence that the appearance of these objects corresponds exactly to digital zoom effects? A common feature of these videos is that the object is shown as a point source of light which is zoomed upon, whereupon the UFO is revealed. How is it possible that the naked eye can discern the detail in a point of light? I think that anyone who claims to do so is deluding themselves, or attempting to delude others. We see ample evidence of both situations occurring.

The "donut" effect is irrelevant. There is a superficial resemblance to the images you showed (they are circular) but it is an entirely different effect, caused by entirely different things.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


"Where is the informal fallacy?"

I think the informal fallacy is probably in relation to your earlier statements that you don't wish to speak on the things you weren't able to debunk...
Not that I agree with the statement, just sayin'.

On a side-note, I would wonder WHY there is a coincidence such as this?
Why is it that we see digital artifacts that look almost precisely like these things?
Are our microscopes producing the same effects?

It is a weird coincidence, at the least.
Odd also that these same patterns are made when you submit a small amount of sand to powerful frequencies.

[edit on 9-3-2009 by Jay-in-AR]



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 06:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
The effects of digital zoom and autofocus are frequently presented as UFO's.

That's true, keyword being; some. But not all videos are result of camera effects. Check this one out for example;



Now later throughout the footage, you can actually see a separation of sort, a second object appears, besides the distinct shape, and the colors of the object itself are not the typical bland white.


Originally posted by Phage
My camera matches the effect which I have sometimes seen presented as a UFO.

Thank you for the earlier illustration Phage, and it was well done in proving your point, especially at the end part. But that hardly accounts for all UFO vids, like the one above for example.



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 08:25 AM
link   
Thanks to all who have posted photographs; some of us are still living in Bedrock and can't view video.
I sincerely appreciate your time.



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 08:26 AM
link   
The three points I want to highlight are at 4:17 when two luminous objects can clearly be seen, the light appears to be coming from the objects themselves. At 5:15 and 5:56 the camera controller changes the view when objects are present. This is a well known fact as NASA consistently does this when objects are present in the shots.



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Majorion
 


I think most of what we see in that video (that was discussed here on ATS before, with the presence of the person that made the video) is also the result of the digital zoom.

You can even know the camera maker just by the type of artifact it creates (I think that is a Sony).




top topics



 
46
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join