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: 2
46
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 03:08 AM
link   
reply to post by RFBurns
 


He claims the collision of a private satellite with a Russian satellite was intentional. Does he bother with an explanation of his theory? No, he just says it was not accidental.

The stuff he shows around the shuttle in orbit doesn't even show any of the "impossible" motion you harp about. He doesn't even mention that it may be debris.

You don't see the bird in the first shot of the shuttle landing? "A UFO got very close to it".

You really don't see the buzzard in the closing shot of the shuttle landing? "New objects appear. It's seems that they were not alone since the first day"

He is a black eye on ufology for his lack of research and lack of concern about what he presents.




posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 03:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Can you provide proof that the objects you claim are birds are just that..birds? or are you just doing what you are accusing Maussan of doing?



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 03:18 AM
link   
reply to post by alyosha1981
 


No.
I'm just using my eyes. I've seen a lot of birds.
I'm asking if you can't see a bird. I'm not telling you it is one, the way he tells you it is a UFO. And please don't pretend he uses the term in the literal sense.



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 03:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


No, your doing the same thing your accusing him of doing, here he says " a ufo goes close to the shuttle" providing his opinion, you say "can't you see the bird?" thus implying tht the object could be none other then a bird, leading your listener to that conclusion. He may in fact have seen alot of ufo's as well and thats his take.



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 03:48 AM
link   
reply to post by alyosha1981
 

Yeah, I see your point but this is a discussion. People watching don't seem to get a chance to say "yeah, but" to Maussan, at least we don't get to see that part.

Maussan may have seen a lot of videos of UFO's but he's also seen a lot of birds and balloons too.

BTW, the press conference? Maussan doesn't mention the reason there was so much interest in what was shown. Note the newscaster talk about the "great pictures from the astronauts", just as the speaker in the press conference does. There was a great deal of concern about debris on this mission, both because of what they talk about here, and because stuff was photographed falling from the shuttle at launch. But Maussan doesn't think that's important enough to mention. It wasn't debris that could have jeopardized the lives of the astronauts, it was a UFO.





[edit on 3/7/2009 by Phage]



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 03:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage

He claims the collision of a private satellite with a Russian satellite was intentional. Does he bother with an explanation of his theory? No, he just says it was not accidental.


A lot of people have said those two satellites colliding was an intentional act, ranging from theorists saying it was to instigate a war, to an attempt to destroy some weapon platform and even theorized that a UFO had something to do with it, destroying both satellites and that the cover up was saying they collided. Point is that he wasnt the only one throwing out a theory. But even if he stands by the theory he publishes, does that make him any different from any other theorist or puts him in any special catagory to single him out because of his belief?

To me, he seems like any other theorist out there who is publishing their ideas and opinions. It doesnt mean that the theories published are true or written in stone, its just another source of informaion.



Originally posted by Phage
The stuff he shows around the shuttle in orbit doesn't even show any of the "impossible" motion you harp about. He doesn't even mention that it may be debris.


Not everything up there is debris Phage. If there was that much debris floating around up there doing hap hazard manuvers all over the place, then not only would the shuttle be in jeapordy every time it goes up there, but every single satellite as well as the ISS being subject to getting hit by these hap hazard traveling objects..or debris as you put it.

I dont harp about anything, and I certianly do not say that there is impossible movements up there, I do say that there is a HUGE difference between the movement of a light mass particle such as ice versus a large heavy mass object and the two WILL move in a different manner. That is just basic Newtonian physics, a subject that I am well versed in.

And lets not turn this thread into a 'point the finger at RFBurns' like it is over at the STS 114 video. I dont think the OP or anyone else wants to see that crap carried over to this thread. Lets stick to the topic at hand thank you.



Originally posted by Phage
You don't see the bird in the first shot of the shuttle landing? "A UFO got very close to it".


Bird? So you have seen a lot of birds in your life time...well so have I. It is not difficult to recognize a bird in a picture or video. What I do see is some dark blob moving about as the shuttle lands. I dont declare it a bird until there is absolute proof that it is in fact a bird. More accurately at this point, it is just some dark thing moving in the frame.



Originally posted by Phage
You really don't see the buzzard in the closing shot of the shuttle landing? "New objects appear. It's seems that they were not alone since the first day"


Suggestive questions like that are the sign of apparent pre-leading the objectional viewer to early conclusion based on assumption. Again, can you prove it is a buzzard or bird? Telling us you have seen many birds is no proof, just a statement that tells us you have seen birds before.


Originally posted by Phage
He is a black eye on ufology for his lack of research and lack of concern about what he presents.


Maybe he is. Do you judge a book by its cover so much as to declare someone's depth of research by merely seeing the end result? Were you sitting by his side when this guy examined the videos or anything else prior to publishing?

You are simply assuming with a blanket policy of dismissal. I submit that your not being very practical in your skepticism and only reverting to a common "one size fits all" attitude. I am surprised Phage, you are usually more complex in your skepticism.


Cheers!!!!

[edit on 7-3-2009 by RFBurns]



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 03:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


NASA likes their"debris" cover
do they think we are all stupid? or what they can't expect us to believe that all of the anoymoloys around the shuttle were some sort of debris coming off the shuttle or "space junk" either I don't buy it.



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by alyosha1981
reply to post by Phage
 


Though misunderstood, I believe Muassan to have have good intentions here, he's not selling this video and not using it to promote anything so the what's the motivation? maybe the persuit of truth.. I dunno.


I'm sorry, but I can't let that comment go by.

And no disrespect to you alyosha, but Phage is spot on with our friend Jaime.
It is reported that the bogus Mexico City UFO from 1996, netted Maussan at least $200,000 USD. Whilst no direct link has been proven showing Maussan to have orchestrated the hoax, the question has to be asked: who benefitted from it?

And again, Phage is right. Having Maussan associated with anything UFO, taints it.



[edit on 7-3-2009 by mckyle]



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
Brought to you by Jaime Maussan...again.
Mister birds, balloons (including flying horses), and hoaxes. One of the men who is singlehandedly contributing to making ufology a laughing stock.

www.ufowatchdog.com...
uforeflections.blogspot.com...
www.eyepod.org...



phage i think you are making a laughing stock of yourself by somehow implying that the above videos are hoaxed... since you can't directly state them to be a hoax you attack the presenter in the video... nice job... seriously you need to get into a new line of work...cause you suck at it



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 11:07 AM
link   
I would hope that most consider Royce one of the most competent investigators in the field of UFO hoaxes.

And contrary to popular belief, Royce is not a debunker. He's an avid ufologist - just a little more balanced than most;-)

Here's what he has to say about our friend Jaime:

UFO Watchdog

My apologies to those who are already aufait with this site.

[apologies about replication of the UFO Watchdog link. Please refer to Phage's post]

[edit on 7-3-2009 by mckyle]



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by alyosha1981
 

TY for the nice find, S@F for you, love these, Jamie is doing something for the cause of Disclosure, there will always be nay sayers , just laugh at them as they are laughable, instead of blaming the presenter, why not offer another viable option



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


so let me get this right, the debris wasn't a ufo it was a piece off the shuttle, didnt a shuttle burn up because of ice debris hitting it and destroying its integrity , Maybe the Best and Brightest should ground themselves till they can build a ship that doesn't fall apart every few missions, I mean would be nice for the safty of the crew



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by mckyle

Phage is spot on with our friend Jaime.
It is reported that the bogus Mexico City UFO from 1996, netted Maussan at least $200,000 USD. Whilst no direct link has been proven showing Maussan to have orchestrated the hoax, the question has to be asked: who benefitted from it?


What does that matter? Are you saying that there are no skeptical researchers of UFO's; have not earned a single penny from their publications?

Well not to ruffle your feathers but they have.


Originally posted by mckyle
And again, Phage is right. Having Maussan associated with anything UFO, taints it.



Maybe the guy is trying to correct that? The video contains actual NASA footage. I doubt very seriously the guy could alter any of it without it being immediately detected.


Cheers!!!!

[edit on 7-3-2009 by RFBurns]



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 11:34 AM
link   
The responses to Phage are amazing. No other way to put it. He is dismissed, ridiculed and condescended to for suggesting there might be another explanation, when Maussen himself provides no evidence. He makes shows what amount to blurry photos, which he has to "interpret" for his audience, then makes claims he has no evidence for. He simply throws out the claim and it is accepted whole-cloth, without a single bit of critical thought.



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by SaviorComplex
 


and your point is...
2nd line



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by branty
so let me get this right, the debris wasn't a ufo it was a piece off the shuttle, didnt a shuttle burn up because of ice debris hitting it and destroying its integrity...


Perhaps you should educate yourself on what lead to the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster.


The loss of Columbia was a result of damage sustained during launch when a piece of foam insulation the size of a small briefcase broke off the Space Shuttle external tank (the main propellant tank) under the aerodynamic forces of launch. The debris struck the leading edge of the left wing, damaging the Shuttle's thermal protection system (TPS), which protects it from heat generated with the atmosphere during re-entry.


Do you have any evidence, whatsoever, that it was a "UFO" (don't play semantic games), other than Maussen is telling you it is?

[edit on 7-3-2009 by SaviorComplex]



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
when Maussen himself provides no evidence. He simply throws out the claim and it is accepted whole-cloth, without a single bit of critical thought.

I think that our resident InfaRedMan would beg to differ.



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by branty
reply to post by Phage
 


so let me get this right, the debris wasn't a ufo it was a piece off the shuttle, didnt a shuttle burn up because of ice debris hitting it and destroying its integrity , Maybe the Best and Brightest should ground themselves till they can build a ship that doesn't fall apart every few missions, I mean would be nice for the safty of the crew


Since the first shuttle launches, sections of the heat tiles would come off, mostly due to the type of glues used back then. Fortunately the tiles that did come off were not the critical ones (black tiles) that protected the shuttle the most.

Today however, the glues used to attach those tiles is considerably improved. It was considered back in the early days of the shuttle as a top priority improvment requirement. But every now and then, tiles still come off.

But here is the thing...just one of those tiles is easily recognizable if it is floating near the shuttle. If it was in fact one of the tiles that came off and just floated along with the shuttle, NASA would say that outright, as they have stated many times before when tiles come off and are captured by the camera floating near the shuttle.

In this case however, they say its debris.

Ya...ok...No Acknowledgement Seems Apparent.




Cheers!!!!



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by branty
and your point is...
2nd line


The point is explicit in my post. If you have trouble understanding it, there is no amount of further explanation that will help you.



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by SaviorComplex
 


People who watch Jamie videos know what we are in for, if I see 20 so called ufo's on his vids, and I believe 2 are real, 10% , to me thats a great vid, yahooooooooooooooooooo, you know I right for you watch his videos as well Savior



new topics

top topics



 
46
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join