NASA montage ( the best bits from NASA)

page: 3
54
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 06:31 PM
link   
the proof is right there.... crafts making 90 degree turns and accelerating to speeds that would normally kill any Human pilot should be more then enough proof....? Do you think we have anywhere close to the technology needed to be able to pull those manuevers,speeds and g forces? I swear its no different then if an indian tribe(that has never seen a flying craft) where to see a helicopter... the tribe will immediatly start referencing known phenomenom to them... such as gods or demons, etc... how different is this now? yes you are not referencing to gods or demons but you are still referencing to things you know that exists instead of taking in the possibility that the helicopter is being flown by a different tribe..........you immediately say that its not possible because there is no proof of that other tribes exists ........... Sometimes I think humans haven't evolved at all......

[edit on 26-3-2009 by thefreepatriot]




posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by thefreepatriot
 


It is possible that NASA doesn't actually know if these unidentified objects are actually crafts or something else, hence they cannot fully explain what is happening in space because they do not really know and can only hypothesise. It would take a huge amount of solid evidence to say to the world, these objects are indeed flying crafts with aliens inside them.


[edit on 26-3-2009 by freeradical]



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 06:43 PM
link   
Skeptic........skeptic


Wheres a skeptic when you need 1 ?

Can a skeptic please explain 2:46 .

Look forward to it.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by freeradical
[more)

yes there is no evidence that they are being piloted by aliens... but considering the manuevars being shown it is pretty darn likely........



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 07:46 PM
link   
I gave an idea on another thread on this topic here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
RFBurns replied that if the water drop were inside the shuttle, it would reflect the interior of the shuttle. This is incorrect. A water droplet is transparent and does not reflect, but transmits light. It would invert the image of the Earth, particularly if the Earth were brighter than the interior of the shuttle. On the page I linked (with a full analysis) there are examples of this occuring.

Another post of mine on that now closed thread:
www.abovetopsecret.com...


[edit on 3/26/2009 by Phage]



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 07:53 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 07:55 PM
link   
reply to post by RFBurns
 


Hey Mr RF Burns , ive read your postings and I think you forgot something there

.Cheers

.RF Burns



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by RFBurns
 


Did you see the page I linked? There's more to it than a single image. There is also an image made at about the same time (and possibly of the video being made). The lighting inside the shuttle is very subdued. Which would make sense if they were observing an EVA.

BTW, lemmings don't do that.
www.snopes.com...

[edit on 3/26/2009 by Phage]



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 08:08 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 08:13 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by cropmuncher
 

If you note to whom I am replying you may catch a hint of where my attitude comes from.



BS. Water droplets do reflect.


But whatever...people want to believe the debunker nonsense thats ok. Like lemmings following the lead....right off the numb then dumb cliff.


A lot of respect shown there, don't you think?

I may come across as arrogant but I don't throw insults around.



[edit on 3/26/2009 by Phage]



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 

Blimey theve tightened up the rules a bit, anyhow fair point about the insults but it doesnt change my opinion. If you werent so adamant you are right all the time when you clearly are not maybe peoples tone towards you would change.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 



You seem to be the only skeptic venturing in this thread. So I will direct this to you.


While I believe some of these instances in the video are likely "known" or "explainable" phenomenon, I think there might be a couple that are truly unexplainable at least within our current scope of knowledge.

For example, there are a few who have mentioned specifically 2:46 of the video. Maybe I missed your explaination for this one, what do you think?

And also are there any clips in this whole video that you just can't explain?



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 08:54 PM
link   
i guess they must have a water leak on more than one shuttle mission if that's a water droplet....





posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 09:00 PM
link   
I posted an animated gif that I created on the recently closed thread. I'm posting it in this thread to get comments. It's about six frames from the montage video which shows an object, possibly a satellite, zipping in front of--and partially obscuring--the Russian MIR Space Station. It's quite intriguing. My questions to anyone who might know is why is it flying so close to the MIR? It must be between the MIR and whatever it is that's filming the Space Station, and could pose some serious risk, I would imagine. Especially based on its speed. Anybody have any ideas?

If you watch the montage at about the 3:10 mark, you'll see it. But it goes by quick.

Here's the link to the animated gif:



[edit on 26-3-2009 by papajake]

[edit on 26-3-2009 by papajake]



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 09:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


You want folks to actually believe that water does not reflect, when all anyone has to do is simply fill a sink with water and see a reflection, or go to a pond and see a reflection, or ignore the fact that if water did not reflect light or refract light, rainbows would not be produced in a mist or rain storms.

Whutever.

Lead em off that cliff!! Im sure there are plenty just aching to follow!!

Count me out.


Cheers!!!!



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 09:42 PM
link   
If that is a water drop floating around, then why does that water drop maintain its spherical integrity as it moves into the frame, then levels off as it slides to the right, and not wobble or morph its spherical shape as a water drop would do in zero G???

A water drop in zero G as demonstrated aboard the ISS.



Phage...your water drop remains completely spherical as it moves around in that video.

Still think its a water droplet....anyone?





Cheers!!!!



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 10:12 PM
link   
reply to post by RFBurns
 


A "large free sphere of water" is not the same as a drop of water. The smaller the drop is, the more surface tension will tend to keep it in a spherical shape. But you will note that in the video, the large hunk of water doesn't really do much until it is impinged upon.

You'll also note that the small drops of water maintain their spherical shape until they bump into another drop. At that point they merge, wiggle around, and then regain their shape. As long as they are isolated, they are "rigidly" spherical until they bump into something (like the side of the air bubble which contains them). Unless something bumps the droplet, it keeps its shape.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 10:21 PM
link   
Did you not see the small droplets of water in that video that also change shape? Well they do, dispite their size.

BTW, why is your water drop in the OP video so well in focus if the camera is focused on that satellite and this alledged water drop is between the camera and window inside the shuttle??

Must be one large water drop.


Shouldnt it be appearing like one of those "critter" particles so out of focus with the hole in the center and no so defined that we see "lensing"????

Hmm...water drops, ice particles, space junk, waste dump, debris.....you and the others seem so hell bent on convincing everyone thats all it is.

Almost like in a panic attack sort of way.

Well sorry but there seems to be a huge difference of opinion on all of these anomalies being....prosaic.

Its a spherical UFO moving in a manner not consistant with a free floating water droplet, and certianly NOT inside the shuttle.




Cheers!!!!



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 11:03 PM
link   
reply to post by RFBurns
 

As I said, the small drops don't change shape unless they hit something. The video is so brief that even if there is any change in the shape it wouldn't be obvious.

If it were well in focus it would be obvious that it is a water drop, it is not obvious.

You have a point about the appearance of ice crystals in other videos but the camera used here (a handheld, inside the shuttle) is different than the cargo bay cameras and the lighting conditions are very different. I just did a test with my camera, looking out my dirty window and my laziness is clearly visible. The crud on the window is recognizable and the focus is at infinity. If you like, I'll upload it later.

I don't think a water drop can be ruled out.

www.nss.org...


[edit on 3/26/2009 by Phage]





top topics
 
54
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join