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.

 

Triangle UFO on Nasa Photo

page: 2
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by merka
The problem is that anti-gravity technology in a flying wing is
a contradiction that makes no sense whatsoever.


Welllll, if I was a test pilot of the anti-gravity, I would like
VERY MUCH to have wings as a back-up ! !

Sooooo if the anti-grav fails, I can fly down, like the space shuttle,
don't you think ?

Blue skies.




posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
NASA calls EVERYTHING that is anomalous in our eyes 'space debris', but I still want to see the high res version of this one


Zorgon, that's just plain not true. NASA's always been interested in filtering out stuff that's important -- to safety, usually, but to science, as well -- from ordinary stuff that doesn't need attention. It has NEVER dismissed 'outside stuff' automatically. You really have to rein in letting your imagination dictate convenient pseudo-facts to you.



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by gatorboi117
The Space Junk theory is garbage. NASA does not allow the shuttle to come within miles of any Space Junk. If this triangle shape WAS in fact space junk, it would have to be epically huge to be able to be seen like this from the safe distance the shuttle would be at, which raises the question... what "junk" would that be?


The junk theory is garbage? You were TRYING to make us grin, I hope.

There's confusion over 'space junk' -- in the news, it usually refers to independently orbiting stuff left over from other space shots. If big enough, the shuttle or station have to dodge. Your statement about that is correct.

I have rarely seen any image suggestive of this kind of 'space junk' from any NASA mission. The stuff seen outside is usually self-generated 'stuff' that comes off the spacecraft, either normally or accidentally. So it has about the same initial speed and direction as the shuttle, and is not an imminent collision hazard for that reason.

That's what this piece was -- something off the structure from which the crew photographed it. NASA is always deeply concerned about determining why it came off, what broke, and what might need fixing. They don't ignore it -- that's why you sometimes see exterior cameras zooming over at objects. The first need is to make sure they're not going to recontact -- the next, to try to find out where outside they came off of.



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by Kandinsky If the NASA source is known, Armap could already know where it's located...


Half of ArMaP's sources came from me


Check out my database sometime, though it needs a little updating on recent stuff... I needs a secretary


www.thelivingmoon.com...


So at least half of his sources didn't


U2U him and don't be proud! The image appears to originate in that NYT article and I doubt the author would have much say in the image content. I've emailed a couple of staff to ask for details of the NASA catalog the image came from. If it's genuinely NASA, I'd guess it's space junk, debris etc. If it isn't NASA, we're looking at a fake image.

I'd like to see a photo of Musgrave's 'Snake.'


OMNI: What inexplicable things have you seen out there?

Musgrave: You see satellites. I've seen Mir go by within 28 miles; other satellites and you don't know what they are, but maybe just space debris. All kinds of debris come off space ships, especially at the back end after the main engines shut down and you open the doors: ice chips, oxygen or hydrogen, stuff dumped from the engines. On two flights I've seen and photographed what I call "the snake," like a seven-foot eel swimming out there. It may be an uncritical rubber seal from the main engines. In zero g it's totally free to maneuver, and it has its own internal waves like it's swimming. All this debris is white, reflecting sunlight, or you don't see it. Cruising along with you at your velocity, it's still got its own rotation. At zero g, things have an incredible freedom. It's an extraordinary ballet.

OMNI Could there be a space ship in our galaxy?

Musgrave Sure. I think there's spaceflight going on in our 100 billion stars. And if they were in our solar system they'd be contacting us.

OMNI There are those who believe beings have already made contact, and that the government doesn't want to tell us. And we'll never know the answer to that.

Musgrave Yeah, we will. But I believe the government has told me all there is to know about classified things, and I do not believe there is any information relating to UFOs that they're keeping from us.


Folk can read anything they like into that...I read it as a guy being honest and saying he has no experience of NASA cover-ups or UFO sightings in space



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by gatorboi117
The Space Junk theory is garbage. NASA does not allow the shuttle to come within miles of any Space Junk. If this triangle shape WAS in fact space junk, it would have to be epically huge to be able to be seen like this from the safe distance the shuttle would be at, which raises the question... what "junk" would that be?


The junk theory is garbage? You were TRYING to make us grin, I hope.

There's confusion over 'space junk' -- in the news, it usually refers to independently orbiting stuff left over from other space shots. If big enough, the shuttle or station have to dodge. Your statement about that is correct.

I have rarely seen any image suggestive of this kind of 'space junk' from any NASA mission. The stuff seen outside is usually self-generated 'stuff' that comes off the spacecraft, either normally or accidentally. So it has about the same initial speed and direction as the shuttle, and is not an imminent collision hazard for that reason.

That's what this piece was -- something off the structure from which the crew photographed it. NASA is always deeply concerned about determining why it came off, what broke, and what might need fixing. They don't ignore it -- that's why you sometimes see exterior cameras zooming over at objects. The first need is to make sure they're not going to recontact -- the next, to try to find out where outside they came off of.



Yes, I WAS going for the pun there, but the essence of the statement is true.
What would come off of the shuttle looking ANYTHING like that? I'm a shuttle buff, so I'll be the first to tell you: unless they lost a wing or one of the tail fins, that was not from the shuttle ; or, it could just be right in front of the camera and just be a paintchip, but it doesn't seem to be that.



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kandinsky
U2U him and don't be proud!


Actually ArMaP and I share emails frequently


But your right if its not NASA I would agree its likely fake



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
Zorgon, that's just plain not true. NASA's always been interested in filtering out stuff that's important -- to safety, usually, but to science, as well -- from ordinary stuff that doesn't need attention. It has NEVER dismissed 'outside stuff' automatically. You really have to rein in letting your imagination dictate convenient pseudo-facts to you.


Okay Herr Oberg I'll bite...

Can you show us an example of 'outside stuff' that NASA considers important enough to report on? And one that has been made public?

I mean you claim my statement is not true... I will retract it if you can show me the proof that NASA has such a report, other than 'ice and debris'



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
That's what this piece was -- something off the structure from which the crew photographed it. NASA is always deeply concerned about determining why it came off, what broke, and what might need fixing. They don't ignore it -- that's why you sometimes see exterior cameras zooming over at objects. The first need is to make sure they're not going to recontact -- the next, to try to find out where outside they came off of.


AH So you are then confirming that this photo of the triangle is indeed a NASA image.
So that would mean that you have the source of this and the relevant data to go with it. Please be so kind as to share... thanks



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 04:30 PM
link   
So let me get this straight. Because theres only one single thing Id like to confirm.

Is the picture a real NASA photograph?

I notice that you never denied that, Jim.



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kandinsky
I'd like to see a photo of Musgrave's 'Snake.'


I think I can get one or two for you. Problem is, they look pretty much like what they probably are -- strips of insulation laid down between tiles that often come loose [not dangerous]. Story had his two sightings both soon after deploying humongous rocket stages that employ explosive bolts and boxcar-scale springs to push away from the shuttle. Lot's of stuff shakes and breaks loose.

Since they look so ordinary, most UFO sites seem to prefer to omit them and leave their configuration to over-heated imaginations.



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Majorion
Is the picture a real NASA photograph?


A larger version of the photo appeared in an article in NY Times published February 6, 2007, called "Orbiting Junk, Once a Nuisance, Is Now a Threat". In the article the photo is credited to NASA and looks like this:



You can find the photo and the article here:
www.nytimes.com...

In the article, Nicholas L. Johnson (chief scientist for orbital debris at NASA) is interviewed. If anyone is interested, I suggest they contact him and ask where this photo with the black triangle came from. His email adress can be found at this site:
orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa.gov...

Personally I think this IS a piece of space debris. It seems unlikely that a NASA scientist would give a photo of a triangular UFO (or a secret man made space craft) to NY Times and let them publish it.



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
Okay Herr Oberg I'll bite...

Can you show us an example of 'outside stuff' that NASA considers important enough to report on? And one that has been made public?

I mean you claim my statement is not true... I will retract it if you can show me the proof that NASA has such a report, other than 'ice and debris'



Yes, and I will.... Zorgon, what's this 'Herr Oberg' jab -- sort of like me calling you 'Comrade Zorgon' or something? What's the thrill it gives you?



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by ziggystar60
 


Hi ziggystar-dust!

Thanks for the information, I was far too uninformed.


But I dunno, space debris? - is it really that common for space debris to be triangular? - first time Ive ever seen triangular debris, honestly.

Cheers,



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 08:04 PM
link   
That photo (and the next) is available on a NASA site, the Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth.

They are from STS-61C, and apparently there are no higher resolution photos available.

STS61C-31-2

STS61C-31-3

They are labelled as "space debris", like the photo before theses two, in which I cannot see anything special.

The funny thing about it is that I have never seen any reference to an ID of these photos, until Extralien posted a video with what could be "criters" on the Are some UFO's animals that live in space? thread.



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 08:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by zorgon
Okay Herr Oberg I'll bite...

Can you show us an example of 'outside stuff' that NASA considers important enough to report on? And one that has been made public?

I mean you claim my statement is not true... I will retract it if you can show me the proof that NASA has such a report, other than 'ice and debris'



Yes, and I will.... Zorgon, what's this 'Herr Oberg' jab -- sort of like me calling you 'Comrade Zorgon' or something? What's the thrill it gives you?


Jim, please don't avoid Herr Zorgon's question.

I would also like to see you answer it - if you can...



"Can you show us an example of 'outside stuff' that NASA considers important enough to report on? And one that has been made public?"



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
Jim, please don't avoid Herr Zorgon's question.

I would also like to see you answer it - if you can...


"Can you show us an example of 'outside stuff' that NASA considers important enough to report on? And one that has been made public?"


I'll be answering Fra Zorgon's question in due course, but Exubie, you've dodged too many of mine, you've lost the right to expect me to respond to any of YOUR questions. Nothing personal -- just a general rule. What goes around, comes around. Cheers!



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 08:36 AM
link   
Hey guys,

not much info around about sts-61c however I did find a 17 min video on google basically talking about the success of the mission.


Google Video Link


Look at the video from 4min in... after the SATCOM KU-1 has been deployed


rich


[edit on 5-6-2009 by olegkvasha]



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by Exuberant1
Jim, please don't avoid Herr Zorgon's question.

I would also like to see you answer it - if you can...


"Can you show us an example of 'outside stuff' that NASA considers important enough to report on? And one that has been made public?"


I'll be answering Fra Zorgon's question in due course, but Exubie, you've dodged too many of mine, you've lost the right to expect me to respond to any of YOUR questions. Nothing personal -- just a general rule. What goes around, comes around. Cheers!



The only requests I ever make of you are those asking you to substantiate your claims and provide the requisite corroborative external source data.

If you want to start using me as an excuse not to back up your claims - Go right ahead


*I'll check back later to see if you have answered Zorgon's question....



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
Okay Herr Oberg I'll bite...

Can you show us an example of 'outside stuff' that NASA considers important enough to report on? And one that has been made public?

I mean you claim my statement is not true... I will retract it if you can show me the proof that NASA has such a report, other than 'ice and debris'



How's this:

www.nasa.gov...



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 11:27 AM
link   


The Apollo light boom . Good one


I LOVE what NASA says though...

"UFOs aren't necessarily alien spacecraft."

True enough not ALL UFO's or objects mistaken for UFO's are Alien spacecraft, but it sure seems they are covering their butts...

aren't necessarily alien spacecraft."

Priceless that...




top topics



 
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join