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 - 80 Undeniable Proof That They Know More

page: 2
14
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus
Why don't you check out the live feed happening right now from the shuttle and ISS?

Might spot something.


Makes you wonder why an agency engaged in a cover-up of extraterrestrial activity would be so careless as to allow live-feeds or videos like STS-80 to be released.




posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by SaviorComplex
 


I've thought this as well.

Maybe they feel there's nothing to hide...I dunno



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 02:26 PM
link   
I've found this footage intriguing for a long time. At one time I thought it was definitely evidence of some intelligent behavior. I'm no longer that sure. A David Serada video has a higher quality version. Although he naturally cites it as indicative of intelligent life, I'm not so convinced. People hate the word 'paraeidolia' , we shouldn't focus on the pattern but the possible explanations. With one exception, it's the most unusual and intriguing footage.

I'll be interested in seeing what others think and how they interpret it. I fully expect most to insist 'OMG! It's proof!' If DoF presents an alternative explanation, he'll be summarily dismissed as usual. I don't discount his explanations and he provides more evidence than those that just insist 'it must be ET UFOs'. He's not the enemy, he's a guy with an interest in UFOs. He wants evidence that he can accept like everyone else.

Jim Oberg has a record of challenging everything he sees. I suspect he's as keen on explaining sightings as 'believers' are in claiming they are UFOs. Does it matter? If people support their opinions or interpretations it's all good.

A recent thread on the Mayan panels exemplified where enthusiasm and belief in UFOs and aliens can lead to complete misinterpretation. We shouldn't let our conclusions get in the way of evidence or supported explanations.

Circumstantial evidence has led to investigations, reports and commissions throughout Western Governments (Canada, France, USA, Mexico, UK) over decades. As a phenomena it's certainly real. Whether any NASA footage becomes conclusive *proof* will depend mostly on our perspectives.

Based on recent ATS STS threads, it'll be interesting and hopefully new light will be shed on the video.



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kandinsky
People hate the word 'paraeidolia' , we shouldn't focus on the pattern but the possible explanations.


Any group of multiple points will seem to form a pattern of some sort....


Originally posted by Kandinsky
With one exception, it's the most unusual and intriguing footage...


What is that one exception?


Originally posted by Kandinsky
I fully expect most to insist 'OMG! It's proof!'


Except they will not tell us what it is proof of or how it is proof; just make a declarative statement that whatever-it-is it is impossible to debunk.



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
Makes you wonder why an agency engaged in a cover-up of extraterrestrial activity would be so careless as to allow live-feeds or videos like STS-80 to be released.


The way I see it its like scooping water in your hands. No matter how hard you try to keep hold of the water it seeps through your hands. Maybe they are not in control anymore, or not as in control as they used to be. UFOLOGY has gained lots of attention in the last 12 months or so and people are accepting that we may not be alone.

What if a Disclosure timeline was set up, 65 years to filter the acceptance of ET in to mainstream society. 1947 + 65 years =

We know from the many reports advisors thought it best not to disclose because many people would panic and cause mayhem However, nowadays just
Look at tv shows and films that are on nowadays, we are moving very quickly now but over the next couple of years we will be galloping.

What if NASA released the STS videos as part of the disclosure.

The internet is awash with ufo clips and interviews nowadays. If the internet was up and running 40 years ago they would have had no quarms in sensoring the information.




[edit on 16-3-2009 by franspeakfree]



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kandinsky
If DoF presents an alternative explanation, he'll be summarily dismissed as usual. I don't discount his explanations and he provides more evidence than those that just insist 'it must be ET UFOs'. He's not the enemy, he's a guy with an interest in UFOs. He wants evidence that he can accept like everyone else.


No no I don't believe DOF will be dismissed straight away, I agree he does provide more information than most people on the subject which is why I would like him to step in to the arena and give us some insight. My mind is always open to new possibilities and I am learning, as I have said before on other threads, all the time. His diagrams of parallax on the STS114 mission, made me rethink about the eliptical trajectory of the UFO.

However, that said, I am not going to sit here and be told they are ice crystals without some proof to back it up, ie a video of ice crystals forming a perfect circle that we can all watch.

I appreciate your comments Kadinsky and I read them carefully I am always interested in what you bring to the table.



A recent thread on the Mayan panels exemplified where enthusiasm and belief in UFOs and aliens can lead to complete misinterpretation. We shouldn't let our conclusions get in the way of evidence or supported explanations.


I am also in agreement about jumping to conclusions, however, my philosophy is 'they can't all be wrong'

We have so much to learn from the mayans/moorish and its a travesty that their sacred books were destroyed because their opinions didn't coincide with the 'powers that be' What were written in those books I wonder? to me the mayans were the missing link between E.T and Humans thats for another thread.

[edit on 16-3-2009 by franspeakfree]



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by SaviorComplex
 



Any group of multiple points will seem to form a pattern of some sort....

Pretty much, yes. The multiple points in this video seem to form a circular pattern with the flashing object in the rough center. Paraeidolia kicks in and prompts people to assume it's a deliberate/intelligent pattern. Doesn't mean it is.



What is that one exception?

Just something I saw the other day and I want to look at it more. Intriguing doesn't mean 'OMG! Aliens!' It just means interesting.



Except they will not tell us what it is proof of or how it is proof; just make a declarative statement that whatever-it-is it is impossible to debunk.


I won't generalize that everyone on the thread will jump to conclusions, experience says that a lot will. Enthusiasm puts conclusion before alternative explanation or evidence.



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 03:06 PM
link   
Starting at :50 in the second link, it looks like the object takes on
the shapes of a few Star Trek TNG ships, specifically Ferengi, Romulan
and Klingon.

I'm being serious.



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by holyTerror
Starting at :50 in the second link, it looks like the object takes on
the shapes of a few Star Trek TNG ships, specifically Ferengi, Romulan
and Klingon.

I'm being serious.


Unfortunately I am not a trekkie fan therefore, your going to have to explain that one to me and probably others

Interesting enough though in relation to star trek, to me that was introduced in to our tv schedule for the very reason I mentioned earlier.

Wasn't it xfiles pilot that was sponsored by the US government or something



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 03:31 PM
link   
There are a couple of things happening in this video.

Slow motion to highlight these unusual things. Mouse cursor points to them.


(click to open player in new window)


First, notice the "critter" enter the frame from top right-center and make its way down to the left. Also note that after a bit, this critter decides to "light up", or shine shortly after the first critter in the center "lights up".

And I dont mean smoking cigs either.

The critter seems to maintain its shape and familiar look to the critters in the tether video. Circular, hole in the center and notch, as it moves through the frame. Now if this were an out of focus 'ice particle', at some point in its travel, especially as it gets further from camera, it should begin to narrow and come into focus...but it does not.

The second thing to notice is an object enters the frame in the upper section. It is very bright, and comes out of nowhere and moves to the left. Once again the mouse cursor points this out.


Cheers!!!!

[edit on 16-3-2009 by RFBurns]



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by SaviorComplex
 


I think it's premature to come to a conclusion about what the objects are.

It's always exciting to see something that appears to defy explanation, so you can't blame people if they crow a bit.

I have to say you're coming across as a bit curmudgeonly - you are unable to explain the video so you are trying to entice people into saying these are ET craft so you can leap on them as making baseless claims - at least that's my impression.

It's not good enough to simply state that the burden of proof is on those making claims. The objects remain unexplained.

I would say any prosaic explanation has to explain the following:

1) The objects appear to move to a fixed distance from the shuttle.

2) From the vantage point of the camera the objects appear to take up postion on the arc of a circle.

3) The objects increase in brightness.

4) Debris surrounding the shuttle would keep pace with it unless it was acted on by a force.

Also it seems obvious there was something otherworldly about the objects, didn't you hear the music?



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by SaviorComplex
 


Why dont you give your opinion about what you think its happening in the video , instead of acting like you are a Judge.



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by MarrsAttax
 




1) The objects appear to move to a fixed distance from the shuttle.

1) There is no way to judge the distance of any of the objects from the camera.




2) From the vantage point of the camera the objects appear to take up postion on the arc of a circle.

2) You are making the rather strong assumption that the objects are all in the same plane.

Any three points form a semi-circle. It doesn't take much to get a fourth to fit. At best, this is a roughly circular arc.

Few (if any) of the objects change their relative positions to move into position. They all are either visible from the beginning of the video or appear on place. (As when an object leaves the shadow of the shuttle)




3) The objects increase in brightness.

3) Once visible, they do not increase in brightness. They actually decrease in brightness toward the end of the video but that is due to the stopping down of the camera as the light reflected from Earth increases.




4) Debris surrounding the shuttle would keep pace with it unless it was acted on by a force.

4) There is no way to judge the distance of the objects from the camera. Do you mean that the objects appear to be changing their distance from the shuttle? Isn't this in contradiction to your statement #1?

[edit on 3/16/2009 by Phage]



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by franspeakfree
 

I noticed the Sereda music in the video you posted.. but I like this one more for the STS-80;




posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 

He meant that they go to a fixed point above the atmosphere and hold they're position. And what do you mean they dont light up? The last object that goes into the center, CLEARLY gets, at least, 5 times brighter then what it was originally.

And IF your explanation for why they get brighter is correct, then they should all be the same brightness. Assuming that their all the same distance away from the shuttle. The reason why I assume that they're all the same distance away is because their similarities in size.


[edit on 16-3-2009 by UnconventionalRyan1990]



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by MarrsAttax
I think it's premature to come to a conclusion about what the objects are.


I would agree.


Originally posted by MarrsAttax
It's always exciting to see something that appears to defy explanation, so you can't blame people if they crow a bit.


That is the very essence of science; presented with a mystery an explanation is sought. However, there are those here who think the mystery is solved by virtue of it being a mystery.


Originally posted by MarrsAttax
I have to say you're coming across as a bit curmudgeonly


I may be. I'm also quite dashing and handsome. Louisville is the #1 overall seed and #1 team in the AP poll. But those have nothing to do with the subject-at-hand.


Originally posted by MarrsAttax
you are unable to explain the video


You are right, I can't. I can admit that. However, unlike some others, I recognize my inability to explain it means only that.


Originally posted by MarrsAttax
so you are trying to entice people into saying these are ET craft so you can leap on them as making baseless claims...


And here is where you are wrong. I'm not trying to entice anyone to tell us anything other than what they think this video represents, whatever that may be, and why. There are some in this thread who are declaring it immune from debunking but refusing to tell us what it is that we are supposed to debunk.


Originally posted by MarrsAttax
It's not good enough to simply state that the burden of proof is on those making claims.


But that is how science works, the burden of proof is on the claimant. However, there are those here who think it is enough to simply declare their claim impossible to debunk without providing anything to back up said claim (or even making a proper claim to begin with in some cases). At the same time, they think they do not have to provide any evidence or argument; they confuse an inability to invalidate their claim as being synonymous with proving their claim.



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by UnconventionalRyan1990
reply to post by Phage
 

He meant that they go to a fixed point above the atmosphere and hold their position. And what do you mean they dont light up? The last object that goes into the center, CLEARLY gets, at least, 5 times brighter then what it was originally.


That's not what he said. Maybe you should let him speak for himself.


1) The objects appear to move to a fixed distance from the shuttle.


The object is not visible before it appears at the "center", at which point CCD blooming causes it to appear to grow in size.

[edit on 3/16/2009 by Phage]



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by dracodie
Why dont you give your opinion about what you think its happening in the video , instead of acting like you are a Judge.


I have not acted like a judge, in the least. I have asked questions, that is quite different than acting like a judge. I have also admitted that I do not know what these are. If anyone has acted like a judge, it is people like Franspeakfree or UnconventionalRyan, those who declare it is undeniable and impossible to debunk.



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 

Phage, if you please.. take a look at the video I posted, tell me what you disagree with; in regards to the guy's analysis of the video.



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage

1) There is no way to judge the distance of any of the objects from the camera.


I agree. That's why I used the word 'appear'.



2) You are making the rather strong assumption that the objects are all in the same plane.


I'm making no assumptions. I used the word 'appear' for the same reason.



Any three points form a semi-circle. It doesn't take much to get a fourth to fit. At best, this is a roughly circular arc.


I agree.




Few (if any) of the objects change their relative positions to move into position. They all are either visible from the beginning of the video or appear on place. (As when an object leaves the shadow of the shuttle)


The very first object travels from behind the camera and moves down and to the left. At 33 secs it appears to almost explode. I'm wondering if this could be explained by the object hitting the atmosphere.




3) Once visible, they do not increase in brightness. They actually decrease in brightness toward the end of the video but that is due to the stopping down of the camera as the light reflected from Earth increases.


They increase in brightness in the sense that they go from invisible (or very faint) to very bright and then remain bright for some time. Does anyone know how long a piece of debris burning up in the atmosphere would be visible for?



4) There is no way to judge the distance of the objects from the camera. Do you mean that the objects appear to be changing their distance from the shuttle? Isn't this in contradiction to your statement #1?


You are right, they are contradictory. #1 should have said they appear to take up a fixed position - the shuttle itself is of course moving - my bad.

What I was trying to say in #4 was that generally ice particles and debris stays in orbit around the shuttle unless they are given a 'kick' (Newton's first Law of Motion). For an object to move in the way the first object did it would have to have a force acting upon it, whether ejection from some waste vent on the shuttle or interplanetary drive


On the face of it the objects appear odd. However, I'm willing to admit my ignorance of how objects/debris behaves in space so I think this could be explained (not debunked - hate that word) by some kind of mass being ejected from the shuttle and hitting the atmosphere. If these objects take a long time to burn up then even if they were falling away from the shuttle their brightness could make it look as though they were stationary (similar to how a plane in the distance can look stationary if it is flying directly towards you.

My problem with this theory boils down to my lack of knowledge about:

The amount of time objects take to burn up in the atmosphere;

The details of space shuttle waste management;

The unknown distances and size of the objects involved.

I'm sure someone will be able to help with the first two.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join