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-63 UFO Footage Discussion

page: 1
10
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 06:43 PM
link   
Now this is some pretty intriguing stuff, check it out;


Thoughts?.. opinions?.. can it be debunked?





[edit on 14/3/09 by Majorion]




posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 07:01 PM
link   
"we did see something flashing visually but we not sure if that might be errrr"

These STS videos are excellent not only do they show us space and commentary but they also show us, apprehension and confusion at the same time.

In this video we see so many "lights" flashing,whizzing,burning that could very well be intelligently controlled craft aroudn about 1:20 we get the very statement as mentioned above.

NASA know, all astronauts are sworn to secrecy under the official secret act punishable by a hefty spell in solitary or worst.

Keep up the good work Majorion starred and flagged.



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Majorion
Thoughts?.. opinions?.. can it be debunked?



How about asking "what is it?" instead of "can it be debunked?"


Originally posted by franspeakfree
NASA know, all astronauts are sworn to secrecy under the official secret act...


They are?



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
How about asking "what is it?"

Okay SaviorComplex. What is it?



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 07:53 PM
link   
My guess would be that the situation is a combination of background stars, debries floating around orbit and some shooting stars. And near the end of the video you can see some lightning sprites. And this should not be confused to some other things.



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Majorion
Okay SaviorComplex. What is it?


There are a great many things it could be, it fits the very strict definition of a UFO.

However you are making the not-so-surprising leap that since it is unknown it must therefore be alien. The question you ask implies that it cannot be debunked; of course, we already know that many here already assume that it cannot be.



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 07:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Majorion
 



You know what feeling I get from listening to her speak, I feel like she's about to shout'

"I can't find the G.. D... thing , there's too many ufo's n the way!!



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 08:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Majorion
 


I take my hat off to you sir, and Franspeakfree and a couple others who offer these for serious discussion , have some laughs and learn more of what we all have a common interest in. You take the HARD road , the road that has obsticles at every turn. It is so much easier for non-believers to stick out there chin , and say, Prove It. There are many on this site that are glad you persevere.



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
There are a great many things it could be, it fits the very strict definition of a UFO.

You seem to be referring to a very specific object Savior, would you be so kind to point it out for us, at what minute did you see it?



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Majorion
You seem to be referring to a very specific object Savior, would you be so kind to point it out for us, at what minute did you see it?


By "it" I mean the video in general. Poor writing on my part; please pardon me, I'm distracted by more important things...like the Big East Championship.



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 08:23 PM
link   
A little basic research reveals the cause of the blizzard. STS-63 had a leaky RCS jet. It was so bad that it caused a lot of concern about the planned rendezvous with Mir.

Early in the flight the propellant spewed in a conical pattern, "like a snowstorm for five miles up into space," according to Commander Jim Wetherbee. The Russians didn’t want Discovery to come within 1,000 feet of Mir. But NASA flight controllers and the Discovery crew "worked the problem," at times rolling the Orbiter to warm the thrusters in the Sun.

history.nasa.gov...


But of course that had nothing to do with it.



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 08:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Do you ever wonder why Nasa continues with this Space Program? I mean every time a person reads a piece on NASA , they are having equipment problems. Perhaps we should leave it to the Chinese or Russians . Deep space is no place to roll out a roll of duct tape.



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 08:39 PM
link   
I wrote an article on STS-63 for rense.com SIGHTINGS on 3/27/00 and if you are interested in an early report on this go to: www.rense.com...

STS-63 Anomalies
By Edward Lopez
3/27/00


reply to post by Majorion
 



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 08:44 PM
link   
reply to post by branty
 


No. I don't wonder why.
Seeing as how China just entered the manned space travel game, I'd give them a little more time before we decide how good they are at it.

Russia has its share of problems too. Here's one from last year.
www.msnbc.msn.com...

[edit on 3/14/2009 by Phage]



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 08:45 PM
link   
Are you a NASA "stooge"?


Originally posted by Phage
A little basic research reveals the cause of the blizzard. STS-63 had a leaky RCS jet. It was so bad that it caused a lot of concern about the planned rendezvous with Mir.

Early in the flight the propellant spewed in a conical pattern, "like a snowstorm for five miles up into space," according to Commander Jim Wetherbee. The Russians didn’t want Discovery to come within 1,000 feet of Mir. But NASA flight controllers and the Discovery crew "worked the problem," at times rolling the Orbiter to warm the thrusters in the Sun.

history.nasa.gov...


But of course that had nothing to do with it.



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 08:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Learhoag
 


Are you a jackass?



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 09:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


link didnt work


No offense my friend , we all know that NASA doesn't lie,

So i'll assume they are wrong

If i read it right the thruster was leaking propellant , and our best and brightest solved the problem by giving it a suntan ?

So up there , we have dust particles, ice particles and leaked propellant , why do we bother to go back so often?

[edit on 14-3-2009 by branty]



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by branty
No offense my friend , we all know that NASA doesn't lie,

So i'll assume they are wrong


And how do you know they are wrong?

What is your explanation for what is seen in the video?

If NASA is engaged in a cover-up of alien activity, one must wonder why they let such videos be seen...



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 09:03 PM
link   
reply to post by branty
 


Here's a press article about it
www.washingtonpost.com...



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
Are you a jackass?


I'm not sure if that is the term I would use, but I digress...

It seems every day more and more members in this forum do not believe there is room for genuine disagreement.




top topics



 
10
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join