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 UFO 2009 Shuttle Atlantis may 11, at 11.42

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in


posted on May, 13 2009 @ 11:33 AM
I think the term UFO has gotten lost in the mud.Lest please be clear U.F.O. means unidentified flying object,all of the space junk that isnt catologed is a U.F.O.. It would be nice if people would seperate Alien from U.F.O. ,they can be the same thing ,but are in no way the same thing.This also applys to the Term U.S.O. , unidentifid submurged object.So when someone says they seen a U.F.O. on a video they are being 100% truthfull,if they don't know what the object is.These Terms where coined by the millitary establishment,not some fringe group.
so if i throw a baseball and hit u in the back of the head,you can honestly say u where hit by a U.F.O., if u didnt see it comeing, or cant find the baseball.
The term U.F.O,and U.S.O. have been gravely dimminished by the term alien being substituted for it.Lets try and take our words back from the brink of insolvency,and use terms as they are ment ,not as a trend.
thank you.

posted on May, 13 2009 @ 11:45 AM
reply to post by devareous

Yes you touched on something there that I usually find annoying as well. UFO vs ET craft.
Some people will swear that they should be interchangeble even though if identified it is no longer a UFO, whether it be identified as terestrial or non.

posted on May, 13 2009 @ 02:08 PM
( please forgive me, I know that this is off-topic but I would just like to reply to Kernoon. I do not mean to derail this thread and I will stay on-topic, thanks )

Hello Kernoon,

Thanks for your reply. However it is impossible for the wings to fold back and both the engines enter through that small hole. Also the high tail must have folded down as well to fit into that hole without leaving a trace. Quite a feat of oragami for a plane dont you think ? It is just impossible. Then, it got hot enough for 2 six-ton titanium engines to disintegrate without a trace, yet there are un-burnt desks and un-melted computer screens nearby ?

posted on May, 13 2009 @ 02:15 PM
reply to post by mumblyjoe

Im going to start an organization BAADD posting(Bloggers against Attention Deficit Disorder posting), please please please people, stay on topic, apologizing before hand doesnt excuse going off topic. If you want to discuss that topic, move it to another forum.

Just looks like space junk to me, i knew tho it wouldnt be but a day or two before someone came up w something from this mission

posted on May, 13 2009 @ 04:32 PM
Well nice to see you all stirred up! lol

I don't debate debunkers anymore - pointless - waste of energy.

You should try it!

I have been watching NASA TV for quite sometime now - and I must say I have not seen a single star - and I have not seen "space debris" apart from the spent tanks from the shuttle mission so far (which NASA explained on the feed).

It seems that the lights (because that's what they look like to me) stay still in this clip - and the actual screen in MCC shows these lights in the exact same position that was on the video - in 2 views BTW. I notice these "lights" fade in and out unison on both screens - which is interesting too.

I think NASA are showing us these "lights' or UFOs on purpose - and hope they would show a little more - well a lot more.

I don't believe the story that again has been told by the only people that would know (NASA) that there is "so much space junk up there", I believe this statement to be pure unadulterated BS - and if someone tells you one lie, I don't see why they wouldn't tell another (hi NASA). That's the disappointment.

The fact NASA either go quiet, voice changes, pan the camera away, fade it in or out of range, get deliberate flare in vision when these lights appear tell me something.

It's not what NASA say in these interesting clips - it's what they don't say that really matters.

But then again, these TV feeds could all be done in a studio and never took place in the 1st place - they had a ton of practice to perfect it.

posted on May, 14 2009 @ 04:35 AM
Maybe some people arent seeing any space junk, because every bit of space junk they see, they see as something else?

Ive never seen a forrest, just large gatherings of Ents.

posted on May, 14 2009 @ 05:03 AM
I've watched many Shuttle STS videos on Google and on Youtube, a majority of the alleged ETI/UFO objects are just particles, there is a lot of ice around the loading bay and when they open the doors, the ice, snow that built up after liftoff in the upper atmosphere will break off and float into space. I think thats also a rational explanation to the "NASA tether" video objects, it was a very popular video some years ago (David Sereda). Q: That tether is a few miles long and some of the "particles" pass behind the tether (1:10-1:25) (NASA Control "-we see a lot of things swimming in the foreground"), so what size are those "particles" ?

Added: (edit)
However, the video showing "particles" forming a perfect circle above the earth infront of the camera is a bit chilling, NASA cant explain that one.


[edit on 2009/5/14 by reugen]

posted on May, 14 2009 @ 06:18 AM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on May, 14 2009 @ 06:19 AM

i absolutly agree with you

for sentencing somebody
the words of eye witnesses or policemen is god enough

yet for ufos its not?

if a astronaut who is trusted in a multi million dollar machine to do something which mankind has never been done before isnt good enough evidence to say ufos and aliens are real

then what is

ill tell you why

because these people arent skeptics
they are debunkers

people who live inside a small bubble and will attack or ridicule anyone who believes we are not alone!

skeptics dont try writing back to me with soft talk about `oh im open minded and we need skepticism to progress etc....`

because when you put down the words of a SPACE ASTRONAUT and of millions of witnesses of ufos....

then you have no right to say `oh we just need evidence`!

posted on May, 14 2009 @ 06:53 AM

Originally posted by watchZEITGEISTnow
I don't debate debunkers anymore - pointless - waste of energy.

Way to discredit your entire thread, it's not us who have to disprove that's an intelligently controlled spacecraft hellbent on sodomizing you and your fellow believers.

What makes you jump to the inane conclusion that what we're seeing isn't particulates & ice (debris) which is absurdly common in all STS missions? You stroll into a public medium and expect people not to show discontent when you provide absolutely zero proof for your system of belief?

What are your data/sources that prove your hypothesis? Out of all of the STS videos you pick this one? There are dozens of others that show much more of what is in tune with "intelligent design" - this is just one epic flop.

posted on May, 14 2009 @ 08:23 AM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on May, 14 2009 @ 08:36 AM
Ok so space junk/debris will hold orbit and then when the camera's happen to be on they suddenly start moving or falling to earth?

Also that would have to be some big space debris/ice (lol) to be that large and luminecent at that distance from the shuttle.

By announcing prior to the launch that the area is heavy in debris etc it sets a good cover if we do see anything.

It seemed wierd on the first video that once the multiple objects start to blink and move that NASA changed to mission control shot, but if you watch the radar you can still see them being tracked no?

While this is not concrete proof for against since we cannot actually get a perfect view, go figure. But it seems more reasonable that they are an anommoly/ufo/et whatever before i would say it is spacejunk/debri.

[edit on 14-5-2009 by Krypto69]

[edit on 14-5-2009 by Krypto69]

posted on May, 14 2009 @ 09:37 AM
If NASA had alien contact, do you really think they would go to repair hubble ?

Alien contact can give us many new knowledge... but Hubble is just stupid human telescope...

Sad but true.

posted on May, 14 2009 @ 10:11 AM
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions

posted on May, 14 2009 @ 10:46 AM
reply to post by timeforchange

so what do you think it is - I would like you to tell us what you think it is and explain your findings. That would be a good start. Thanks

posted on May, 14 2009 @ 10:48 AM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on May, 14 2009 @ 12:13 PM

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask

Just looks like space junk to me

Space Junk? No way Jose! There's no such thing according to many on this forum. They're all Alien Saucers! Every last one of them! There are people here who have argued against every claim of space junk ever made in every NASA thread that's ever been created. Honestly!

Ergo, I'm assuming that by using Occams Razor and at the same time eliminating all the possible prosaics first, that somehow they have come to the conclusion that space debris and ice do not exist.

Just an observation!


posted on May, 14 2009 @ 12:56 PM
I Wonder what timeforchange said that was so horrible he got banned, anyway i found an analysis of the 'ice particles' made by a professor in physics and astronomy, i think it's quite interesting,


"This paper is a quantitative, scientific study of the videotape. Starting with a frame-by-frame analysis of the position of the main object, the author would have been able to obtain all three of its velocity components, as well as its location, if it truly were an ice particle. "

(edit link)

[edit on 2009/5/14 by reugen]

posted on May, 14 2009 @ 02:52 PM

Originally posted by C-BuZz
Sooo, yeah. What are we looking for exactly? I don't see anything even close to a UFO in that clip?


You mean besides the other objects moving through the vid? yeah I agree without those other objects there is not anything even close to a UFO in that clip. But if we humble ourselves a bit and count the other objects in the video. Then there are a few things they could be....1.satilites? have to do more research to determine that.
2.Stars? nope they are moving wrong.
3.Debris, maybe but unlikely.have to do more research to determine that.
I guess your faced with unidentified objects...are they flying? yes,just as much as the shuttle is. So it does indeed fall in the UFO realm(like it or not)

"C-BuZz" Do you mean you don't see the other objects or are you 100% sure of what they are...and if so why not enlighten us dumb folk as ta-wat-day-be

posted on May, 16 2009 @ 09:04 AM
We all think of UFOs as space ships being flown by critters from distant planets, or from inside our planet. How about space bugs?
Or, creatures like the simple celled organisms that live everywhere on this planet? Yea, they are UFOs in that we can't definitely identify what they are, but why make it a conspiracy? The existence of germs (and even the molecules that make up our air) was denied for years!

I suggest that they are "spugs" (space bugs).

<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in