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: 13
10
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by SaviorComplex

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.


Its so true any one who disagrees is working for the government. as a disinfo agent. But unfortunately its not just on here it is society as a whole we are expected to agree with general consensuses if you do not your branded. For example criticism of Obamma your a racist. People honestly believe they dont have the right to be offended its hate speech.Truth is if they could argue there points better and stick to facts instead of name calling the planet would be a lot better off.
PS thanks phage for the info you saved me time of trying to figure out what could explain the streaks all ready suspected in flight maneuvers.




posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
Now I have already stated that I will NOT use my contacts, or rely on those contacts to provide this data, even though they could, and have to me directly, I do not believe that in the interest of fairness to all sides concerned, that I be involved in any way, shape or form, in providing said data.


This is quite clever. RF says that we cannot use the material I have obtained about context of the most famous space UFO videos, because I am not to be trusted (not that anyone has ever found any error in the raw data I presented), and to be fair, he will not use any data he obtains from his sources. Balanced, symmetrical, and rational argument for everyone to ignore my research.

But the balance is bogus, because there's plenty of reason to suspect his 'sources' are 'imaginary friends' that he cites in order to make (in the 114 thread) howler after howler of incorrect allegations about space flight, that support hisd UFO point of view.

Stuff he wants people to believe, he attributes to these unnamed and non-verifiable 'inside sources' who supposedly tell him things inconsistent with every other known written or oral or digitized source on the planet.

Here's how it should really work. We BOTH obtain this contextual data, and publish both versions, and those items that agree are regarded as verified -- those (if any) that clash, are subject to further discussion).

So -- RF needs to obtain the thruster histories, flight plans, and other technical specs for the time periods near the 63 (and 114) UFO videos, from his supposed 'inside sources', and I will do the same, and then he shows his, and I show mine (I don't show mine first -- he could just copy them -- I've already shown the full STS-48 context data files on line, so that proves that I can get that kind of stuff).

Now of course, I suspect he won't do that, he'll find some excuse. I suggest he won't do it because he can't -- he HAS no 'inside sources' who could obtain the data for him -- and he just wants to bluff his way through to maintain crediblity.

But I could be wrong. And RF could prove it.

Either way, the understanding of the mystery of these undeniably weird-looking videos will be advanced by the results of this exercise.

It's a win-win-win-win-win-(one-guy-loses) strategy.



[edit on 18-3-2009 by JimOberg]



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 12:05 PM
link   
We need to follow up on this idea that RF will graciously refrain from exploiting his 'inside sources' to obtain shuttle context data for UFO videos (as a way of persuading people not to trust MY data either). Just the opposite should be the plan -- we BOTH obtain the data, and compare. When it agrees, the data is validated.

RF doesn't trust the data I've posted on famous cases already. It's easy to prove the data is bogus. Have his insider friends go and obtain the data through their own channels, the same data that I have already posted, and when it is different (presumably when my data was altered), SHOW the other data side-by-side to discredit my data.

What an EASY way to destroy my credibility. How simple, anyone ought to have thought of it -- and already done it. But somehow, no results have been posted.

Now, it's possible that the data is already in RF's hands, and is identical to the data I have already posted. So he won't reveal that -- easier to just sniff suspicions in my direction, while covering up the confirmatory results of his research. He says his sources can get the data for him. Have they already and he's hiding it?

There's a simpler explanation for his not revealing the matching data. He doesn't have it, and can't get it. His imaginary friends 'inside' the space program are powerless to produce real information. Maybe they don't even exist.

That would explain why he 'generously' declines, from a sense of fair play, to use his sources, to discredit my sources.

But it wouldn't explain why he hasn't used his sources to send him ammunition to discredit flight data I have already obtained and posted, re 48, 63, 75, 80, and other UFO related incidents.

Maybe they can't.

Alternative possibilities, anyone?



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by RFBurns
Now I have already stated that I will NOT use my contacts, or rely on those contacts to provide this data, even though they could, and have to me directly, I do not believe that in the interest of fairness to all sides concerned, that I be involved in any way, shape or form, in providing said data.


This is quite clever. RF says that we cannot use the material I have obtained about context of the most famous space UFO videos, because I am not to be trusted (not that anyone has ever found any error in the raw data I presented), and to be fair, he will not use any data he obtains from his sources. Balanced, symmetrical, and rational argument for everyone to ignore my research.


More nit picking folks by our resident ex NASA friend.

Where did I say no one can use your data? People are free to use your data all they want. If its good enough for them...thats for them...me however, I am not so gullable to easily biased and altered data comming from a known debunker in the UFO research field. I prefer to stick to my instincts there Jim, what is good for you or others is not necessarily good for me or others. Thats the way it is.



Originally posted by JimOberg
But the balance is bogus, because there's plenty of reason to suspect his 'sources' are 'imaginary friends' that he cites in order to make (in the 114 thread) howler after howler of incorrect allegations about space flight, that support hisd UFO point of view.


As I stated many times to you and others here, believe what you want. Why should we believe anything you spit out here? What makes you any different from a bum on the corner? For that matter, what makes me any different from that either?

Not a damned thing. Your presence here at a conspiracy forum where the so called "scientific community" of credible calibur consideres a basket case is questionable and reason for suspicion. Do you like hanging around such sites that are considered as such by the credible scientific community?

Curious.


Originally posted by JimOberg
Stuff he wants people to believe, he attributes to these unnamed and non-verifiable 'inside sources' who supposedly tell him things inconsistent with every other known written or oral or digitized source on the planet.


Try try all you want there Jim...you think your dealing with someone who backs down or cowers to a corner...guess what...you got a long wait comming. There is no way I will jepordize my contacts, my friends, my line of communication because of you. You will just have to either accept that or go find a cup to cry in because until the time is right, their identity will remain safe.


Originally posted by JimOberg
Here's how it should really work. We BOTH obtain this contextual data, and publish both versions, and those items that agree are regarded as verified -- those (if any) that clash, are subject to further discussion).


Not a bad idea. However, that is a setup. Why do you ask. Simple, it will turn this thread into a whole new argument between sides that will say exactly the following:

Your side: RF has altered the data, or his suppliers have!!! Bogus!!

My side: Jim has altered the data, or his suppliers have!!! Bogus!!

Nice try there Jim, but your gonna have to try a lot harder to set me up.



Originally posted by JimOberg
So -- RF needs to obtain the thruster histories, flight plans, and other technical specs for the time periods near the 63 (and 114) UFO videos, from his supposed 'inside sources', and I will do the same, and then he shows his, and I show mine (I don't show mine first -- he could just copy them -- I've already shown the full STS-48 context data files on line, so that proves that I can get that kind of stuff).


I already have that stuff, and a lot more. Stuff from the last 30 years of the shuttle program, and then some. What you want for me to do is irrelevant, as I have stated, when the time is right, it will happen.

And that time is not here at ATS, or the right time for your account, or this thread's account.

There is a far more important goal for that collected data that will have a major impact, and that goal is not within this thread, or the others, or for ATS.



Originally posted by JimOberg
Now of course, I suspect he won't do that, he'll find some excuse. I suggest he won't do it because he can't -- he HAS no 'inside sources' who could obtain the data for him -- and he just wants to bluff his way through to maintain crediblity.


Of course I wont, how many times do you need it to be told to you.


Originally posted by JimOberg
But I could be wrong. And RF could prove it.


I already have. I proved to you that I cannot be setup so easily, and I have proved to you and everyone else, that I dont betray a trust given to people LONG before ATS ever existed, and LONG before you were even known in the space program.

Sorry, but that trust is far more important to me than anything. If you simply cannot understand that..well it does not surprise me considering how deceptive the entire US space program is, and has been since its inception.

Some of us are just good to the bone, others could care less.


Originally posted by JimOberg
Either way, the understanding of the mystery of these undeniably weird-looking videos will be advanced by the results of this exercise.

It's a win-win-win-win-win-(one-guy-loses) strategy.



So...the real agenda comes to the forefront. Your not here to partake in discovering what is in these videos with the general public..you are here to win some sort of sick deceptive game with deceptive tactics..or strategy as you put it. Guess what Jim...you keep forgetting I was on that side of the fence...your game wont work on me. Just thought I would remind you of that fact.

What a web they weave when they practice to deceive.

As long as I am here, I will try my best to not let others fall into your little web trap. I will spot it out as its thrown out. Count on it.



Cheers!!!!

[edit on 18-3-2009 by RFBurns]



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns

Originally posted by JimOberg
But the balance is bogus, because there's plenty of reason to suspect his 'sources' are 'imaginary friends' that he cites in order to make (in the 114 thread) howler after howler of incorrect allegations about space flight, that support hisd UFO point of view.


As I stated many times to you and others here, believe what you want. Why should we believe anything you spit out here? What makes you any different from a bum on the corner? For that matter, what makes me any different from that either? Not a damned thing.


One thing: my stuff can be verified independently. His stuff, not.

And as expected, his imaginary friends 'inside' NASA are useless in providing checkable data -- or in casting any suspicions on the credibility of the data I've already provided.

Who to believe? Why have to guess?

Better to go out and check things out, look things up, dig and compare. Find out, and tell about -- quaecumque sunt verae.

To advance the theme of this thread, what do we DO next?



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
To advance the theme of this thread, what do we DO next?

With all due respect, why not just answer my question Jim?.. why have you not answered any of my questions?.. and if you did give an answer, it was deliberately insufficient.



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Majorion

Originally posted by JimOberg
To advance the theme of this thread, what do we DO next?

With all due respect, why not just answer my question Jim?.. why have you not answered any of my questions?.. and if you did give an answer, it was deliberately insufficient.


Its becasue our friend Jim there is infatuated with attacking me, and not the issue.

He seems to believe that as long as he keeps posting personal level attacks at me, that he will succeed in defocusing people's attention on the subject matter.

Its an old classic tactic..one I have spotted out before, and will so again here.


Cheers!!!!



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Majorion

Originally posted by JimOberg
To advance the theme of this thread, what do we DO next?

With all due respect, why not just answer my question Jim?.. why have you not answered any of my questions?.. and if you did give an answer, it was deliberately insufficient.


So you complain, by accusing me of deception. Nice opening move.

Let's push the 'restart' button -- the real one, not the howler mistranslation that stupid Hillary gave the Russians, to cement their impression of her as a strutting fool.



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
So you complain, by accusing me of deception. Nice opening move.

I have not accused you of deception Jim, why even imply such a thing?.. I simply asked a question, one that I'm fairly certain you are fully capable of answering. Now if you don't wanna answer, that's fine by me.



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg


One thing: my stuff can be verified independently. His stuff, not.


Verfied by who....your buddies at NASA? The ones that play to your favor because they are in on your side of the game?

PFFT!!! Man your out of sync so bad its helarious! Anyone else catch that one?


Originally posted by JimOberg
And as expected, his imaginary friends 'inside' NASA are useless in providing checkable data -- or in casting any suspicions on the credibility of the data I've already provided.


Funny that you keep saying my contacts are imaginary to try to program that into people. Spotted out again. The more you say it..the less influence your having.


Originally posted by JimOberg
Who to believe? Why have to guess?


No one is demanding anyone to believe anything Jim..except you. You keep implying I dont have contacts inside NASA and elsewhere in government. And you keep at it and at it, hoping to either force me to spill the beans, or make me simply go away....HAH!!! You are WAY behind the times friend...better catch up.


Originally posted by JimOberg
Better to go out and check things out, look things up, dig and compare. Find out, and tell about -- quaecumque sunt verae.

To advance the theme of this thread, what do we DO next?



I can suggest plenty of things to advance the theme of this thread...one of which is for you to focus on the issue, and not a particular member and spread your derailment across 3 threads.

Hows that for a suggestion to what to DO next?


Cheers!!!!



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by Majorion

Originally posted by JimOberg
To advance the theme of this thread, what do we DO next?

With all due respect, why not just answer my question Jim?.. why have you not answered any of my questions?.. and if you did give an answer, it was deliberately insufficient.


So you complain, by accusing me of deception. Nice opening move.

Let's push the 'restart' button -- the real one, not the howler mistranslation that stupid Hillary gave the Russians, to cement their impression of her as a strutting fool.



I dont know about anyone else who is reading Jim's reply to Majorion, but does anyone see in that quote Majorion accusing Jim of deception?

I certianly dont.

Another derail, defocus attempt on another member there Jim?

Why not just answer Majorion's question and let the theme of the thread move forward???

Cheers!!!!



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Majorion

Originally posted by JimOberg
So you complain, by accusing me of deception. Nice opening move.

I have not accused you of deception Jim, why even imply such a thing?.. I simply asked a question, one that I'm fairly certain you are fully capable of answering. Now if you don't wanna answer, that's fine by me.


..."if you did give an answer, it was deliberately insufficient."

OK, ask again.



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
..."if you did give an answer, it was deliberately insufficient."

OK, ask again.

Jim, the reason I said that, was because there was a certain deliberate insufficient answer you provided a while ago in the STS-114 thread, I would quote you here.. but that would be off-topic and against the T&C's, although a member or two have seemed to escape with this behavior. Now as I said before, I did not accuse you of any deception, and if you don't wanna answer, that's fine by me.



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Majorion

Originally posted by JimOberg
..."if you did give an answer, it was deliberately insufficient."

OK, ask again.

Jim, the reason I said that, was because there was a certain deliberate insufficient answer you provided a while ago in the STS-114 thread, I would quote you here.. but that would be off-topic and against the T&C's, although a member or two have seemed to escape with this behavior. Now as I said before, I did not accuse you of any deception, and if you don't wanna answer, that's fine by me.


Was this the question on shuttle orbital altitude? I recall being baffled by why you couldn't easily find this out by yourself, but I'm willing to help.



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
Was this the question on shuttle orbital altitude?

Yes Jim, I'll repeat the question; how far up is the space shuttle relative to distance from Earth's surface?.. would 40 Kilometers perhaps an accurate approximation?



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Majorion

Originally posted by JimOberg
Was this the question on shuttle orbital altitude?

Yes Jim, I'll repeat the question; how far up is the space shuttle relative to distance from Earth's surface?.. would 40 Kilometers perhaps an accurate approximation?


You can find this for many satellites at www.heavens-above.com, right down to sighting opportunities in the dawn/dusk sky. All satellites operate above about 120 km (except when on final decay into the atmosphere) and the shuttles can range out to 600 km on Hubble missions. Hubble's current orbit is 563 x 568 km, that's where the May shuttle mission will be headed.

A daily report on the ISS usually includes altitude range -- and that's where 'Discovery' is now:
www.hq.nasa.gov...


For today, it is

ISS Orbit (as of this morning, 6:46am EDT [= epoch])
Mean altitude -- 354.5 km
Apogee height -- 360.8 km
Perigee height -- 348.1 km
Period -- 91.63 min.


[edit on 18-3-2009 by JimOberg]

[edit on 18-3-2009 by JimOberg]



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 

Thank you. Now I'll refer you back to my first post on this issue, see;

www.abovetopsecret.com...

How does this rather extraordinary news NOT relate to all these STS UFO vids?.. doesn't it prove that there may be explanations beyond the prosaic Jim?.. and how come NASA haven't made this discovery before?.. I mean the ISRO are pretty late in space exploration compared to NASA, right?.. how could they supposedly find out about this before NASA?.. I just find that very difficult to believe.

[edit on 18/3/09 by Majorion]



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Majorion
Thank you. Now I'll refer you back to my first post on this issue...
How does this rather extraordinary news NOT relate to all these STS UFO vids?.. doesn't it prove that there may be explanations beyond the prosaic Jim?.. and how come NASA haven't made this discovery before?.. I mean the ISRO are pretty late in space exploration compared to NASA, right?.. how could they supposedly find out about this before NASA?.. I just find that very difficult to believe.


Uh, I don't understand your problem. That's in the upper atmosphere and these are microorganisms. How are space vehicles tearing up through this level, and fireballing down through it, supposed to spot this stuff? What are your expectations regarding a spacecraft's sensory systems?



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
Uh, I don't understand your problem.

I think that there are two interesting things about this news.. first; why have NASA not discovered this before the ISRO?.. and second; doesn't this prove that the folks at NASA themselves don't know everything, for them dismiss to these anomalies in every video, and then the prosaic explanations?.. yes, these micro-organisms are in the upper stratosphere, three of these species-- no less. But it's okay Jim, I know you're not gonna answer these questions, just like every other vital question I ask.

Peace


[edit on 18/3/09 by Majorion]



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Majorion

Originally posted by JimOberg
Uh, I don't understand your problem.

I think that there are two interesting things about this news.. first; why have NASA not discovered this before the ISRO?.. and second; doesn't this prove that the folks at NASA themselves don't know everything, for them dismiss to these anomalies in every video, and then the prosaic explanations?.. yes, these micro-organisms are in the upper stratosphere, three of these species-- no less. But it's okay Jim, I know you're not gonna answer these questions, just like every other vital question I ask.

Peace


[edit on 18/3/09 by Majorion]


But that's the whole reason Mission Control and the crew watches for stuff out the window -- because it might NOT be 'ordinary' stuff. In a high-priority case, it could be pieces coming off the spacecraft. Had anyone on board Columbia or in Houston watching TV images spotted the broken piece of the spaceship's left leading wing drifting off on the second day of flight, they might well have been alerted to looking for the lethal wound and either fixed it, rescued the crew, or gone done swinging (after time for private messages with their families).

Since the very first astronaut orbital flights in 1962, NASA has always tried to determine what eyeballs and cameras could detect in free space, and to filter out optical indications of spacecraft malfunctions from the routine 'space dandruff' that accompanies all manned spacecraft to greater or lesser degrees. And they always will do so -- as they should.

What did you 'imagine' they do on spaceflight -- draw the curtains and put their hands over their eyes? Nope. They looked and looked and looked, to stay alive (and thus opened their eyes and minds to all sorts of weird stuff).



And that's just one kind of unusual stuff that's potentially of genuine interest, as long as it can be filtered out of the routine stuff.



[edit on 18-3-2009 by JimOberg]



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join