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: 6
14
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by drummerroy39
Please take time and watch these 3 videos from David Sereda. It clearly shows NASA's obvious cover up. www.youtube.com... www.youtube.com... www.youtube.com...


Paraphrasing:

Water balls. They cannot survive in space without a "fenomenal membrane" surrounding them. That would make them intelligent. It would make them living.

Give me a break. David Sereda a physics expert?




posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by franspeakfree
 


You guys ever think that these formations might be the constellations they are from and they are visually showing us where they are from because they obviously know we have different forms of communication that we may not be able to understand or comprehend?



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
What do you think they are, Fran? You have all-but-declared this video cannot be debunked. So, what is your claim?


He already stated it above? Have you read anything above or you just post?

His claim is that it is undeniable evidence that what is on the video is not space debris.

If it's not space debris and can organize itself into formation then it must be intelligent enough to do so. What is it though is still a mystery but it basically means that we are not being told what it was.

Did NASA come out and say this is from a form of intelligence ( either ours or alien) ?

No. They are then keeping this a secret or failing to provide us with truthful information.

And by truthful information i mean the 100 % truth. Not just half the story.



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaviorComplex

Originally posted by UnconventionalRyan1990
Yeah, the debunkers usually tend to stay away from this one lol. "Oh no, it's gonna be hard to try and prove these are ice particles. Maybe if we ignore it, it'll go away by itself." Haha.


Going to ask you the same question I've asked Fran.

What do you think they are? Instead of just declaring it impossible to debunk, tell us what you think they are and provide evidence supporting it. So far, none of you have done that.

An inability to invalidate a hypothesis is not the same as proving the hypothesis. Provide evidence that supports your claims.


What do you think they are then?
2



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaviorComplex

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.


Because it is run by humans and humans are capable of making mistakes.

Can you prove they were careless in allowing the videos to be released?

That burden of proof is now on you . lets see if it takes you 3 times to answer though. ;-)



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by UnconventionalRyan1990
Yeah, the debunkers usually tend to stay away from this one lol. "


Did you even google any debunker comments on this case, or are you operating on pure fantasy here?



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

Originally posted by Phage
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]


To your # 4 point: Can't you just measure the distance from the earth to the shuttle and then work your way inwards doing an endless guess and check until you calculate a pretty accurate distance?
Not sure exactly that I am the best person to do this but can this not be done? and if not could you explain why I am wrong?



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 02:18 PM
link   
Can anyone assist with basic context questions. What are the illumination conditions -- daylight or darkness? What is the crew saying about the view? Which way is the camera pointing versus flight direction, and what kind of camera is it?



[edit on 18-3-2009 by JimOberg]



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaviorComplex

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.


You failed yo quote the part about him saying you are acting like you are judge.

What is your response to that? also you did not fully quote the entire quote . That also is not fair. If you are going to comment on the entirety of the quote, then the entire quote should be included. Not sure if that was intentional or not.



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by MarrsAttax
 


Objects entering the atmosphere usually vaporize within a few seconds at the most. Ever seen a meteor?

Shuttle waste management at your service:
Water dump

As you can see the stuff gets spewed at a variety of speeds and directions. Some goes jetting away and some just floats around.



Ok then. They are in view for longer than a few seconds. Would this then cancel out space debris or meteors then?



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by LucidDreamer85
 


It would indicate that they are not objects vaporizing in the atmosphere.

Debris and meteors do not vaporize until they enter the atmosphere.

[edit on 3/18/2009 by Phage]



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 02:33 PM
link   
Aliens in space? ISRO discovers extraterrestrial life


In a major scientific breakthrough Indian Space Research Organisation(ISRO) claims to have found three unknown species of bacteria about 40 kilometres above the earth's surface.


I'll credit this thread for the news, and this is the source;

ibnlive.in.com...

Discovery of New Microorganisms in the Stratosphere


Three new species of bacteria, which are not found on Earth and which are highly resistant to ultra-violet radiation, have been discovered in the upper stratosphere by Indian scientists.

www.isro.org...

But this has nothing to do with it, right?



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

Originally posted by UnconventionalRyan1990
Yeah, the debunkers usually tend to stay away from this one lol. "Oh no, it's gonna be hard to try and prove these are ice particles. Maybe if we ignore it, it'll go away by itself." Haha.


YOU haven't even explained what you think it is.



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaviorComplex

Originally posted by UnconventionalRyan1990
All you do SaviorComplex is imply that, just because we dont believe in the whole "ice particle" thing, we think its intelligently controlled E.T. spacecraft. Why the change of heart, all of a sudden?


I did not imply anything. I asked a question, a very specific question. Don't play games. I'll ask again. What do you think this video represents.

Has anyone else noticed the little game the believers are playing with these videos? They declare them impossible to debunk but refuse to say what they think these objects are.

[edit on 16-3-2009 by SaviorComplex]


Hook. Line. Sinker.

I think the zealots need to shut up, and start acting their age. That is considering they aren't all twelve years old of course.



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 02:41 PM
link   
The NASA PAOs are clueless about these kind of images -- they dismiss them contemptuously with explanations-de-jour rather than actually trying to find out a prosaic explanation. One guy kept insisting we were seeing meteors, just because the moving light was streaked -- even though the camera optics latency even makes stars streak when its panning fast.

You don't have to believe the public spokesmen at NASA (whom i've found to often be unbelievable in terms of assuring the public that all-is-well) to reach a well-informed conclusion, after a lot of work, that there are indeed plausible prosaic explanations for such scenes. But NASA's public affairs offices don't make that easy at all -- more the mode of 'believe us and don't ask questions'.

Boy, don't get me started on THAT!



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 02:43 PM
link   
If you google "STS-80 UFO Oberg" the top item is this link to a twelve year old report I did on the story:

www.virtuallystrange.net...

Sadly, I never saw any indication anyone read it.



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by LucidDreamer85
 
Here is one of the problems with the OP and the 'conclusions' drawn variously in this thread.

Your question first.
No. You need more information that the orbital "height" or distance of the shuttle. A small object close up looks the same in [i/apparent size as a large object at a great distance. (Try the old penny at arm's length v. full moon test, to see.) Without binocular or stereoscopic views, you cannot judge the distance of an object knowing only your distance from a fixed point.



As for the rest of the OP, a little clarity would go a long way, if this thread survives that long.

1. U.F.O. does not equal ET. "Unidentified Flying Object" is a description, "Extra Terrestrial" is an origin.
They have yet to be proven to be the same or even related.

2. A picture or movie or statement is not "proof." It is evidence.

3. "Proof" is not a conclusion or opinion. It is a sum of facts. It can be peer-reviewed, tested, and is reproducible. Independently.
(Think of a jury's "verdict" in a trial. It can be reviewed by others who weren't present and accepted ("affirmed") or rejected ("reversed").)

4. The proponent of a theory, hypothesis, allegation, position, conclusion or opinion has the "burden of proof." Evidence, including measurements, photos, statements, samples and opinions can be offered as "proof" but each must be independently evaluated and must stand on its own. Each can be questioned, accepted or rejected.

If the OP will accept this and respond to the questions asked, we can wrap this up pretty quickly.

Not very likely, though. Takes a lot of the fun out of speculating and wondering and smirking.

"Your witness."


Deny ignorance!

jw

[edit on 18-3-2009 by jdub297]



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by LucidDreamer85
Can you prove they were careless in allowing the videos to be released?

That burden of proof is now on you . lets see if it takes you 3 times to answer though. ;-)

He was being sarcastic of many ATS members' opinion that NASA intentionally withholds UFO information.

His point was that such an agency would be "careless" to ahve live feeds and video archives.

Since they provide feeds and archives I conclude they couldn't care less.
(actually, they do care, or they wouldn't post the feeds in the first place)


jw



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Majorion
But this has nothing to do with it, right?


There is no reason to assume they have anything to do with what we are talking about. There is no reason to assume these bacteria did not originate on Earth; they could easily be yet another extremophile. These bacteria, for all intents and purposes, were found on Earth. Their home, the stratosphere, is very much part of the Earth; if you've ever flown on a commercial airline, you've been in lower reaches of the stratosphere.

[edit on 18-3-2009 by SaviorComplex]



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 03:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 



Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by LucidDreamer85
 


It would indicate that they are not objects vaporizing in the atmosphere.

Debris and meteors do not vaporize until they enter the atmosphere.

[edit on 3/18/2009 by Phage]


Do you agree that at least one of these objects is within the atmosphere? As it goes under a cloud. And if so what do you think that it is if its not a meteor/debris?



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join