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.
Originally posted by Exopolitico
reply to post by Phage
These objects don't change size when the camera is zoomed. This is proof that the objects are very far and away from the shuttle and any impact from the thrusters.
[edit on 15-3-2009 by Exopolitico]
Originally posted by RFBurns
Problem here tho, is that your expecting us to accept that the shadow will be this huge dark area that will cover several miles width at a given distance, and wider than than as the distance increases. Sure it will widen out the further the shadow eminates, but not as wide as you want us to think.
The problem is that other people do not know what they have and have not considered, so things would be much easier if they just said that they had considered that possibility and said why they do not considered it as the best possible explanation.
Originally posted by RFBurns
For some people DOF, they dont need to beat a dead horse to realize the horse has already died...in other words, these folks that are dismissing your shadow theory out of the many other theories they have also rejected have in fact given it consideration....and came to their own conclusions. Now what upsets them the most, including me, is that you do not recognize the need to move on to a new proposal and continue to try to cram it down their throats.
They have already looked at it, considered it, and rejected it. Its called peer review DOF. And as I have stated before in the other thread, that is the process of how science works.
Originally posted by UnconventionalRyan1990
And not a very solid explanation at that, given the variables.
2nd line.
Originally posted by RFBurns
And I answerd that with the fact that we are missing data that tells us where the shuttle is in its orbit, and most importantly, what orientation the shuttle is flying at. Since we have none of that factual data, no one can say for sure where that shadow is, if it is even in the FOV at all.
Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by JimOberg
Is that the same Ed Lopez that wrote this?
Originally posted by UnconventionalRyan1990
...not even try to explain how some of the particles, which look like they should be in the shadow, are lit up.
Originally posted by depthoffield
In this diagram:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/55c86afb40a7.jpg[/atsimg]
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).
Originally posted by JimOberg
We're 'missing the data' because RF and his friends have spent years NOT even looking for it, and making fun of people who DID find it and circulate it.
Originally posted by franspeakfree
The truth is, if we all travelled in to space in our own crafts, we would see dozens of UFO'S some debris, some ice crystals but the majority intelligently controlled...
Originally posted by UnconventionalRyan1990
Sorry but you'll have to try harder then that.
Originally posted by Majorion
All we have in this thread, is a certain diagram posted by DOF over and over again. There is no factual data to back it up...
Originally posted by Majorion
All we have in this thread, is a certain diagram posted by DOF over and over again. There is no factual data to back it up, how can we be sure where that shadow is?.. as RF said, we are missing supporting data.
Originally posted by UnconventionalRyan1990
reply to post by depthoffield
Yes, but if that were the case, then these "ice particles" should be drifting in the same direction, correct? Then, if that true, its safe to assume that we should see some of these "ice particles" dissapear also, which we do not. Sorry but you'll have to try harder then that.