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: 7
10
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by branty
 


That's right Branty: OCCAM'S RAZOR.

I wish I could put together a video of all the NASA OOPS. We would need a decade to watch them all.




posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by UnconventionalRyan1990
 


ty for that, never seen it before



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by UnconventionalRyan1990
reply to post by RFBurns
 
"Huston, this is Discovery, we still have the alien spacecraft uhh, under observance."

video.google.ca...#

So I geuss we should take that astronauts word then too!

[edit on 15-3-2009 by UnconventionalRyan1990]

Sorry, but he actually did not mean alien spacecraft; he meant to say "Houston, we still have the snow ejected from the thrusters under observance."

Oh, and that big circle with the hole in the middle shown on the lower left portion of the big screen? That's just debris on the lens. Debris that moves, that is.

Sorry, I couldn't resist!

[edit on 15-3-2009 by Exopolitico]



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 04:32 PM
link   
This chap says he saw ufo , then gets debriefed , no more ufo



think his cred is still good



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by UnconventionalRyan1990
reply to post by RFBurns
 
"Huston, this is Discovery, we still have the alien spacecraft uhh, under observance."

video.google.ca...#

So I geuss we should take that astronauts word then too!



That is one of the best ones IMO. No doubt we should take the first hand witnesses word verbatim...shouldnt we?

I mean if they see ice crystals, with all that training and experience, surely they would know what they are seeing...and announce that on the coms system...right?

So when these astronauts announce in their little microphones "alien spacecraft" and "bogey at 10 o'clock high" and "just seems to be riding along with us"...and "ice crystals"...we should consider they are telling us the truth....right?


Cheers!!!!



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 04:37 PM
link   
Please, everybody, do not move into other subjects.

This is not about what the astronauts said in other occasions (at least for now), there is enough for us on the OP's video to keep the conversation going without making a mess of this thread.

Thanks.



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Exopolitico
Sorry, but he actually did not mean alien spacecraft; he meant to say "Houston, we still have the snow ejected from the thrusters under observance."

Oh, and that big circle with the hole in the middle shown on the lower left portion of the big screen? That's just a debris on the lens. Debris that moves, that is.

Sorry, I couldn't resist!



Sometimes silence speaks the loudest, restatement reveals the relevant, and most likely reveals the truth.


Cheers!!!!



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


ArMaP, there are other video examples being brought into this subject for comparison to the OP video, hence specific items from the examples will be discussed which are in fact related to the thread topic, since some have suggested ice crystals lit up by sunlight from moving out of the shuttle shadow and some zipping on by at incredible speeds.

I dont think that anything brought to the table here could be said to not be more on target with the topic.

Cheers!!!!

[edit on 15-3-2009 by RFBurns]



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 04:41 PM
link   
Oh we still are discussing STS-63, I'm just showing, if you wanna take the astronauts word for it, then there you go.



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
reply to post by depthoffield
 


Thanks for those two videos DOF. They once again clearly show the difference between the very fine mist of a dump versus the much larger sized sparklies we see in the other video.

Not even related to one another.

It is convienient for NASA to explain it away when they edit the video from the fine mist shower to the sparklies later in the 2nd video.

Good one DOF!! More pudding for the pot...on our side.
Cheers!!!!



You are kidding! (deep down in your soul). Of course you will say otherwise.

[edit on 15/3/09 by depthoffield]



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by UnconventionalRyan1990
So if some of these ice particles are in the shadow, then how come I cant see any star light being blocked out as they pass by? Unless all those ice particles somehow miraculously manage to stay out of the light from all of those stars.


There is a reason for that: tell me the lengh of the time interval, when a single little particle will eclipse a single star, at one moment, taking in consideration the real size (a dot) of the particle as seen from the camera, and the complex movement of the particles and shuttle. A fraction of a second? Filmed with maybe TV standard with maybe interlaced lines, and then transformed in progressive scan in this low quality youtube video?

There could be your answer.

First, show me one star in the OP, and others, in order to look closely to them, to try to see that one short ocultation of it, if one invisible shadowed particle happens to ocult the star.


[edit on 15/3/09 by depthoffield]

[edit on 15/3/09 by depthoffield]



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
reply to post by UnconventionalRyan1990
 


Another very good point!

Lets see if the shadow dance gets put on these points in a direct way instead of the twisted, long winded, sound impressive obfuscation way.


What twisted, long winded, impressive obfuscation way?



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Exopolitico


Simply, my logic tells me if these are ejected from the shuttle thrusters, then the thrusters have a span of almost 360 degrees. That, as we all know, is not the case with the space shuttle.


My logic tells me that to effectively control the attitude of the shuttle, the thrusters must fire in more than 360 degrees. And in fact, they do:




posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Exopolitico

Originally posted by franspeakfree
"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.


You just stole the words right out of my keyboard. I was just going to say that. Is that not a big OOPS for NASA?. We can see the flashing object and it is MIR. Wait, that's not the one, it's the other flashing object. No, the other.

So, in fact, NASA is confirming that there are OTHER flashing objects. I didn't hear them say ice particles or some other absurd description as we continuously read at other threads.




Originally posted by Majorion
Yes, I noticed that as well. On the comm, you can hear how confused they are, how they are unable to confirm which object is the Mir, in the midst of so many other objects.





Put yourself in the position of one person in the NASA Control center. What he sees? A frame full of white dots. And the dots, are dots, no matter the resolution (unless MIR is close enough to appear big enough). Some of them are stars, some of them are debris, one of them is MIR. So, how he could know which dot in the screen is MIR? The flasshing one? But you know, debris can very well to flash. Can you say, which is MIR in the OP? Of course there is confusion. It is normal to be.

[edit on 15/3/09 by depthoffield]

[edit on 15/3/09 by depthoffield]



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by branty
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!!

2nd line
theres the 3rd



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns

I did not say its bogus...you did. Stop your BS of twisting people's posts DOF.

No BS, a mistake. I am human too.

Sorry, i took the "bogus" word regarding debris from some very prejudiced persons in the other thread, STS114. Ok, then, shadowing particles making them appear or dissapear, it is not bogus, i guess?




Originally posted by RFBurns
I SAID your theory depends on angles, those of which are unknown in this video.


But the chances of shadow beeing more or less in frame of view is very likely, beeing a common and normal situation, you agree with this?




Originally posted by RFBurns
Now lets look at it more closely shall we?

These objects that suddenly appear...according to you, they do this because of the shadow effect from the shuttle...are you with me so far?


Good...now if these objects are appearing out of nowhere due to your theory of them coming into the sunlight because the shadow angle from the shuttle changes as it moves along, then how do you explain WHY THE OTHER OBJECTS WELL WITHIN THIS SHADOW ARE ALREADY LIT UP????


What "OTHER OBJECTS"?


In this diagram:




showing a posible situation to our opening movie, you can see that bright dots, are spreaded into all the frame (FOV of the camera). (and also, the invisible ones are spreaded in all the frame too).

So, is this explanation OK?


[edit on 15/3/09 by depthoffield]

[edit on 15/3/09 by depthoffield]



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 06:01 PM
link   
The smoking gun video and other downloads from the Shuttle flights have a lot of good evidence that I think addresses both the UFO subject as "space ships" and the existence of life forms in space and the upper atmosphere. I believe you can find the smoking gun video on google.



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Exopolitico
That's exactly right RFBurns. In just a span of 2 minutes we have seen how many of these meteor-looking objects fly by as such high speed? How many of these have ever penetrated the shuttle or the ISS?



Originally posted by RFBurns
At those speeds, it would be like a bullet shot from a gun through a watermelon, leaving very little left of the watermelon..or in this case...the shuttle or ISS or satellite.



What high speed? You mean the speed when one object traverses the field of view? That is called angular speed relative to the camera point of view. And angular speed can be high despite the object beeing close and moving slower (as a bug or a bird closer enough but streaking in the image), and the same angular speed can be very small, when the object is very speedy but far enough (look how ISS appear to move slowly to the eye or to the camera when seen from Earth surface, despite orbiting with 8km/sec).

So, not knowing the distance to the unknown sized object (white dot), doesn't mean it MUST ONLY move at high and dangerous speeds as your assertion imply. It can move at high speed (and beeing far), but it also can move at low speed (when beeing close). And the debris which is seen in the images, are close enough and don't have high speeds relative to the shuttle.

So, what high and dangerous speed?




[edit on 15/3/09 by depthoffield]



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 06:35 PM
link   
reply to post by depthoffield
 


my friend , have you watched the OP,s video?



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by branty
my friend , have you watched the OP,s video?


yes, of course.

2 line



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join