It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


NASA UFOs??? You Decide!

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 01:21 PM

Originally posted by thefreepatriot
reply to post by fleabit

so at 22 seconds you are stating that the object that makes an immediate hard 180 degree turn and extreme acceleration is an ice crystal?????????
Of course it could be an ice crystal. From what it looks like to me, is something floating, and gets to close to the RCS jet, and just as it goes off, it reacts to that.

I think you're mistaken in thinking these are huge crafts observed from far away, when in fact, they are very small objects floating close to the shuttle and its jets/camera.

Do you see what I'm saying?

[edit on 29-3-2009 by TravisT]

posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 01:28 PM
reply to post by thefreepatriot

Yeah that's cool, you're one of many who think it may have come from there..and no one knows what they do at these bases really.

Just thought I'd throw what little local knowledge I have in.

posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 04:32 PM
Never been convinced by this Video

Don't get me wrong, I'm a beleiver of ET around here and have been witness to it myself.

but this video is not the smoking gun.

why so many craft?
why not ice particals? its zero gravity remember, after the thruster burn theres so little kenetic energy needed in space that I'm quite shure ice particals could be blown around in all directions.

not beeing too technical but, with lots nof experiance on video behaviour it just looks to me like the objects are really close up, like viewing planctum in the ocean???

if there not that close, why are they so visable, even a craft 50m across would be barly visible on the camera.

I don't trust NASA as much as most,
but Ice particals sounds good to me!!!!!

posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 04:50 PM
reply to post by Seany

Hey, uh Seany is it? Yeah...I explained exactly why they move the way they do above.

So, intrinsically you are saying that they are not ice particles want them to be UFOs? I'm not following what you're trying to say here.

Do you understand the laws of motion?

Read it again:

EDIT: What is it about obvious ice particles that is making people lean toward "alien spaceship" as an explanation? Is it the same phenomena I've examined with "ghost hunters" and their insistence that every spec of dust is a supernatural orb of some kind?

[edit on 3/29/2009 by LogicalResponse]

posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 05:34 PM
reply to post by LogicalResponse

Logicalresponse, why are you here?
Genuine question as i see you are here soley to debunk ufo topics, seems strange to join a conspiracy site just to debunk ufo's.
Almost obsessed by them arent you

I believe that you believe ( or know ) & thats why your here just like a few others on here who only post debunker stuff on ufo's, esp Nasa threads.

posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 05:42 PM
I think OP video is a good one supporting the debris particles solution in this case. (which is a well known case showing alleged UFO-s aka alien ships or critters)

Because, seeing the trails, give us a good indication of particles movement and timings.

At 20 sec on OP youtube movie (look again), the flash ocurred, because some thruster firing.
Exactly at this moment, many, if not all the particles change their trajectories a bit, allmost indistinguishable, or more, or even more.

All these changings in trajectories happen at 20 sec mark.

For understanding, look at this gif animation, showing one frame at from the 20 sec mark, and one frame from the end, long after the changing occured.

Look, many trajectories are bended more or less exaclty at the 20 sec mark, the moment of thruster firing. Why different changings in trajectories of different objects?> Because PARALLAX, different objects beeing at different distances away from the camera, which is a property of random particles of debris floating arround the shuttle (as it's product.)

Does it means that all the objects deliberate choose to change their movement at exactly that moment, and therefore showing "inteligence"?

Or it means very prosaic, that at exactly that moment, the thruster firing make the shuttle (and the camera) to change the position? And the sudden changing in movement of the objects is mostly an illusion because actual movement of the observer (camera)? (or some particles receiving direct hit by the thruster blast)

The ice/junk debris solution, (spoken by astronauts, and people understanding how debris acts in orbit), fits very well in what we see in the OP sequence. There is no argument eliminating it (apart from "ice debris is ridiculous" statements from some folks), or at least i've not seen one.

[edit on 29/3/09 by depthoffield]

posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 05:53 PM
reply to post by depthoffield

Ice particles eh

Hi depth, i was just gonna ask logical to give you a nudge & say hi from me

Another member who only joined to debunk the ufo topics esp the nasa ones

Seems a strange hobby to me.

posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 05:59 PM
reply to post by depthoffield

Hey i just noticed you have not posted for 13 days - nasa been keeping you busy have they

oops nearly forgot - i dont think they are ice crystals.

[edit on 29/3/09 by cropmuncher]

posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 06:17 PM

Originally posted by cropmuncher
reply to post by depthoffield

Ice particles eh

So, if I understand things right, you are dismissing a very concise and science-based examination of some very prosaic phenomena.

"UFOs, eh..."

Another member who only joined to debunk the ufo topics

...or, you know, to look for actual evidence that they exist. Ever stop and consider that I actually have an honest interest in UFOs?

What's really nasty about that statement is proposing that you inherently or are magically aware of the motives or hidden agendas of any given person because they disagree with you.

When all of the poor evidence and mystical assumptions about ETI are dismissed, you are left with nothing but the cold hard truth about UFOs. Considering that, you'd think ufology would be all over it. It does nothing but help bolster ET claims and gather viable data for their existence.

But part of that is letting go of living and thinking in a fantasy world. Part of letting go of that is accepting the difference between what is evidence and what isn't.

esp the nasa ones

Yes. Because I am a super-secret, "ebil goberment" disinfo agent, or whatever you guys call em now-a-days.

Seems a strange hobby to me.

So, you know my hobby's too, huh?

You'd think that part of getting to the bottom of the UFO phenomena would actually require a person to look at some of the evidence shared by their proponents and analyzing it for errors. And that's all I'm really doing.

If that feels threatening (which is what I am gleaning from typical reactions) then actually getting a solid case together to prove they exist is going to be terrifyingly impossible for some folks. They won't even be able to get from square 1 to square 2.

posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 07:01 PM

Originally posted by cropmuncher
reply to post by LogicalResponse

Logicalresponse, why are you here?

I am here to look for and verify corroborative evidence for the existence of UFOs. I have an interest in Ufology and general xenosophontology.

People say that they can't all be bunk.

Well, I am here to figure that out.

Genuine question

Question answered.

as i see you are here soley to debunk ufo topics,

Are you suggesting that people are not allowed to question UFO supporters, and and are to just accept everything they say?

Debunking does help ufology you know...

seems strange to join a conspiracy site just to debunk ufo's.

If someone wanted to do that, more power to them I say. I wouldn't be against it.

How is that different, than say, the people that join the BAUT and JREF forums with the sole intention of peddling their various beliefs and attempting to start debates with the users there?

Almost obsessed by them arent you


Obsessed to me would be something like believing them to be alien beings or something of that sort.

Oh wait...

I believe that you believe ( or know ) & thats why your here just like a few others on here who only post debunker stuff on ufo's, esp Nasa threads.

Even random strangers are subject to the paranoid notions of conspiracy and cover-up.

So, what was the purpose of that off-topic reply? Are you annoyed that a scientific explanation was given? Is the security of your personal beliefs compromised because of one guy's analysis?

Unless you can give a better explanation for the movement and behavior of those ice particles to show that they maneuver intelligently, you really don't have much to add aside from "waaaaagh!"

Almost all UFO proponents argue that some sightings are of objects that "seem intelligent." Regardless of the noncommittal phrasing, they then use this evaluation to argue that the phenomena cannot be of ordinary or natural origin. That is, they use it as a means of falsifying other hypotheses. That line of reasoning is valid only if the phenomenon is actually argued to be an intelligently-directed vehicle, not merely one that "seems" intelligent. Hence the non-commitment occurs only to soften the premise when stated and to preclude immediate objection; it is negated in subsequent argument, when disputing the premise becomes untimely.

It's time to move on from ice particles and debris and focus on getting some evidence that actually holds up.

End of story.

posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 02:44 AM
I am so waiting for the HD DVD.

It is becoming more and more tenuous trying to extract any science out of video that has gone through a few generations and switching codex's. In fact there are so many uncertainties and combination's of variables it is downright silly. So all we have is ... well, this.

We've seen this video several times, edited in many ways, and the hotspot trail we have here , likely a simple effect plug-in for After Effects or Final Cut Pro that simply extends the time a bright pixel sustains. Good idea.

I would however challenge anyone to definitively prove anything here unless they have had access to the original or have it on good authority this is unknown or known objects.

You need several good videos of proven ice crystals to evaluate first. And after that you would only be able to account for some observed objects. So, all we have is educated guesses, dead reckoning, enthusiastic hopefulness and then a few that believe anything they do not understand.

If the flash is a positional adjustment, the light comes from the gas reflecting light. It is not ignited. I cannot see any position change, so if it is position adjustment it is a very small micro adjustment to the craft.

All the past speculation is that it was a particle weapon. The particle stream would not be seen traveling. It is near light speed. So likely not that. It could be an electromagnetically accelerated projectile, or another exotic orbital weapon that got funding likely not for UFO (publicly), but satellite warfare. So the flash could be related to whatever technology is being incorporated. We don't know what that could be.

I've seen real UFOs. I know they exist, but if was uninitiated as such and someone else would have told me they exist based on their experience I would have reservations no matter how convincing their arguments. But I want proof. Not for me, but for those who have not experienced the truth yet. The ones screaming for truth or fearing it. Because it is important we have the perspective that includes such an important reality to go forward. The implications will shatter our delicate outdated paradigm.

This video is quite interesting, but what we are left with are only our opinions, some based on feelings, some on educated evaluation or even quantum non local connections in our neural net.

My educated opinion and "non local", after seeing all the videos and documentary discussions for years with many experts and enthusiasts is that it is something besides the simple ice crystal explanation. There are some convincing things I see that due to my visual skills at knowing how some things should look, but without any numbers or measurement. Dead reckoning. Astronomy and space science knowledge help too.

I have a good laypersons sense for the orbital environment and science of astronautics and space program operations. I also know the science and astrophysical subjects including physics where it relates. But all I can muster with this video is an opinion. Albeit a somewhat educated one, but still only an opinion.

So when we all know all we have is that, you can then concentrate on discovering each others reasons for believing or disbelieving and pose good questions of each otherto that end. Anything else, ranting, posturing, defending or ignoring. seems childish and a waste of time.

Don't defend your opinion without compelling reasons. You might see something I missed. I want your eyes and mind too.


[edit on 3/30/2009 by ZeroGhost]

posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 02:59 AM
NASA's weak excuse of ice crystals is really wearing thin.

NASA claims the movement of the 'crystals' is due to the firing of attitude thrusters onboard the shuttle. IF (and a BIG IF) these really were crystals jettisoned from the shuttle (piss, to you and me) and moving in response to the shuttle firing it's directional thrusters:

A) They would all be moving at the same speed.

B) They would all be moving in the same direction, relative to the thrust.

C) If the flash we see was indeed the shuttle's thrusters, the limb of the earth would change. In other words, if the shuttle changed it's attitude, the view of the earth would doesn't.

D) the 'ice crystal' explaination, isn't even a sensible explaination, let alone a credible one.

E) We are all being told a pack of lies, and NASA is in on it.


new topics

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in