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 UFO 2009 Shuttle Atlantis may 11, at 11.42

page: 6
26
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 16 2009 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by veterator
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).


Not far from the truth considering that most ET craft are biological and alive. Space bugs or live intelligent ships not that out there.

In regards to whatever is seen on video in space or in the skys it's the same thing. You will never get anything on video in space or near earth unless someone allows it to be captured. All ET craft is undetectable, untraceable and unseen by the human eye unless they choose to be and unless they choose to show up on radar.

Take a nice look at a clear blue sky on a sunny day, that is about as close as you will get to seeing an ET craft.




posted on May, 16 2009 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by timeforchange
for sentencing somebody
the words of eye witnesses or policemen is god enough

yet for ufos its not?


In neither case is it "good enough." Eye witness testimony may be used as supporting evidence, but it is rare it is the sole evidence someone is convicted on. A person will not be convict of a crime based on eye witness testimony alone when there is no other evidence to tie them to the crime.


Originally posted by timeforchange
because these people arent skeptics
they are debunkers


Why is "debunk" such a dirty word around here?

You cannot "debunk" something unless it was already full of bunk.



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


I've been lurking here for over a month now. I have seen zealousness and closed-mindedness (ie; each and every anomaly is proof of extraterrestrial visitation without consideration of more prosaic explanations) attacked, but never have I seen someone attacked for a belief we are not alone. A difference in viewpoints and disagreement over what evidence means is not an attack or ridicule.


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


Despite your earlier attempt to distinguish between the skeptic and debunker, here it seems you are using the two terms interchangeably.



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by RiotComing
. Keep watching those NASA feeds, everyone!


This begs a question I see few people ask. If NASA were responsible for a cover-up of alien space-craft, space-critters, or whatever you want to believe these objects are, why would they allow public consumption of these feeds?



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by RiotComing
reply to post by booda
 


In my opinion, it's simple, because to hide these missions from public view would generate rat-like-smells. If a UFO pops on screen every now-and-then, which they do, they know they can get away with it even if it's watched by thousands on YouTube as long as they provide a semi-rational explanation and write off us folks talking about it as Nuts.


Makes sense to me. Whoever labeled the videos didn't even know why the live TV downlink stopped off the coast of Arabia. Uh, ever hear of the ZOE? No? Ignorance allows imagination to run riot -- case in point.

For knee-jerk skeptics who believe all UFO data is junk [not me], this mania for shuttle drifting dots -- arguably, normal shuttle-generated junk -- is powerful confirmation of the intellectual incapacity of eager-believers and in their uncontrollable hyper-gullibility.

The real 'UFO puzzle' deserves better than these time-wasting detours into dead ends. Guys, go get some clues, and follow the real trails -- not this nonsense.



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 08:33 PM
link   
reply to post by mikesingh
 


Mike, you're cheating -- showing a picture you CLAIM is from a shuttle flight, asking an object in it be identified, but refusing to provide us with the mission, date, time, other contextual information vital to really understanding it. You've rigged the game, and sad to say, that's pretty typical of this conversation.



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 04:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
reply to post by mikesingh
 


Mike, you're cheating -- showing a picture you CLAIM is from a shuttle flight


Mikesingh knows the Rules here.

False Claims of this magnitude are Banworthy events, and Mikesingh is certainly not one to make false claims.

Do you have evidence that would corroborate your acrimonious insinuations of deception by Mikesingh when he attached the following notations to his images?

"Like this object photographed from the STS 115 mission"

"Or this object (top left) photographed through the port hole of the Space Shuttle... Whether it's part of the shuttle is the question. But what part? "


*Do you have an answer to the question posed by mikesingh, as to whether to object in the second image is a part of the shuttle - and if so, which part?



"Whether it's part of the shuttle is the question. But what part?"

Like the trustworthy Mikesingh; I would also like to know which part of the shuttle we are seeing out the porthole of the image.

If you cannot ascertain the identity of the object in the image - then do not be afraid to admit it. There is no need to proscribe his efforts merely because you are unable to provide us with a determination or opinion of your own.

...And if you still unwilling to even give us your opinion on the object, your considerable experience would no doubt enable you to recommend various courses of investigation that may lead to to identification of the object.


Cheers!!!


[edit on 19-5-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by JimOberg
reply to post by mikesingh
 


Mike, you're cheating -- showing a picture you CLAIM is from a shuttle flight


Mikesingh knows the Rules here.

False Claims of this magnitude are Banworthy events, and Mikesingh is certainly not one to make false claims.

*Do you have an answer to the question posed by mikesingh, as to whether to object in the second image is a part of the shuttle - and if so, which part?



Cheers!!!


[edit on 19-5-2009 by Exuberant1]



The request is valid and mikesingh should provide the link or information to where
he got this picture that he claims is an evidence, these are the rules and if he fail
or ignore the request then it's clear mikesingh is cheating. Where did you get this
second picture mikesingh? Please clarify the issue



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by free_spirit
 


Please post this list of rules.

Perhaps mikesingh does not know these details but is merely availing himself of the insights that could be offered by his fellow members. He was making a query...

... Perhaps someone here has seen this image in the past - Mikesingh would never know unless he posted it and asked (which he did). Have you seen it before?


Do you doubt that this image was taken from, the shuttle?

Do you have any idea as to what the identity of the object in the image may be?

I'd greatly appreciate any insights you may be able to offer. I bet mikesingh would too.


[edit on 19-5-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 06:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex

Originally posted by RiotComing
. Keep watching those NASA feeds, everyone!


This begs a question I see few people ask. If NASA were responsible for a cover-up of alien space-craft, space-critters, or whatever you want to believe these objects are, why would they allow public consumption of these feeds?


I've already answered that question, perhaps not on this thread but definitely on my other thread:

They know that they can get away with it. They probably don’t mind it getting on YouTube as they know it won’t go any further, as the main media will squash it if the story gets ‘too big’ (bearing in mind the Rothschilds have owned Reuters since the 1800s and thus control all the media).


In other words, NASA can't lose, no matter what gets screened up on YouTube.. they have an excuse and a cover for everything. And the good folk just go along with whatever explanation NASA dream up - just like this ridiculous "missing link" fossil garbage going through the media at the moment - people swallow any explanation if the rationality adheres to general scientific consensus (in that case, Evolution / Darwinism).. the Global warming lie is another example of people swallowing any old theory, totally unaware that the whole idea behind it is to bring in the carbon credit scam! No different to the Federal Reserve scam and the IRS scam!

See? We have bent over for them so many times now over modern history, they know they can get away with something as trifling as flying saucers on the NASA cams. Let's hope it's not for too much longer!

Well here's some FRESH FOOTAGE from the Atlantis mission (May 19 to be exact) -

...yet more undeniable footage that we have flying saucers out there cruising around, intelligently-controlled, in plain sight on the NASA cameras. The footage continues to roll in with every mission. And to the debunkers, no I'm not going to upload screen-grabs of the object this time around.. you'd have to be blind not to see this object! Or should I say... ice debris cruising in to say gidday..


[edit on 22-5-2009 by RiotComing]



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 06:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
[...And if you still unwilling to even give us your opinion on the object, your considerable experience would no doubt enable you to recommend various courses of investigation that may lead to to identification of the object.


My considerable experience tells me that without knowledge of the year, date, time, and technological context of a brief scene that could be snatched from tens of thousands of hours of downlinked space video, attempts to identify what is IN the scene are futile. Which could be why the information is withheld, and the bogus challenge flaunted.

When you're ready to play by grown-up rules, the grown-ups will pay attention.



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 07:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by Exuberant1
[...And if you still unwilling to even give us your opinion on the object, your considerable experience would no doubt enable you to recommend various courses of investigation that may lead to to identification of the object.


My considerable experience tells me that without knowledge of the year, date, time, and technological context of a brief scene that could be snatched from tens of thousands of hours of downlinked space video, attempts to identify what is IN the scene are futile. Which could be why the information is withheld, and the bogus challenge flaunted.


Look at the title of the thread Jimbo


You really are an expert investigator....

[edit on 22-5-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 07:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by RiotComing

Well here's some FRESH FOOTAGE from the Atlantis mission (May 19 to be exact) - [snip]
...yet more undeniable footage that we have flying saucers out there cruising around, intelligently-controlled, in plain sight on the NASA cameras. The footage continues to roll in with every mission. And to the debunkers, no I'm not going to upload screen-grabs of the object this time around.. you'd have to be blind not to see this object! Or should I say... ice debris cruising in to say gidday..



Well, as a suggestion, how about a bright celestial object [say, the moon] rising from behind the Earth horizon? How is this scene different in any way from such a view of such an 'object'?



posted on May, 23 2009 @ 02:42 AM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 

I respectfully disagree. First you see it flit into view from the left. It shimmers and comes-and-goes, and disappears. Then it returns again. Then it fades from sight. Then when it reappears, it creeps closer and closer, and also progressively drops in position. The moon does not do that.



posted on May, 23 2009 @ 06:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by RiotComing
reply to post by JimOberg
 

I respectfully disagree. First you see it flit into view from the left. It shimmers and comes-and-goes, and disappears. Then it returns again. Then it fades from sight. Then when it reappears, it creeps closer and closer, and also progressively drops in position. The moon does not do that.


The image gradually creeps across the sky in one direction at a constant rate. How fast do you figure the Moon would move across the sky, when viewed from the shuttle?

Don't let the apparent direction fool you. Usually the shuttle is flying 'upside down'.



posted on May, 23 2009 @ 06:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by Exuberant1
[...And if you still unwilling to even give us your opinion on the object, your considerable experience would no doubt enable you to recommend various courses of investigation that may lead to to identification of the object.


My considerable experience tells me that without knowledge of the year, date, time, and technological context of a brief scene that could be snatched from tens of thousands of hours of downlinked space video, attempts to identify what is IN the scene are futile. Which could be why the information is withheld, and the bogus challenge flaunted.


Look at the title of the thread Jimbo


You really are an expert investigator....



Well, that's what confuses me. It says "May 11 at 11:42". Do you think that's the time the video was taken, Exubie?



posted on May, 23 2009 @ 07:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by free_spirit
The request is valid and mikesingh should provide the link or information to where he got this picture that he claims is an evidence, these are the rules and if he fail or ignore the request then it's clear mikesingh is cheating. Where did you get this second picture mikesingh? Please clarify the issue


Three days on, still no checkable, verifiable source of the video, or date/time to determine context. Another entry for the 'junk pile', I guess.



posted on May, 23 2009 @ 08:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
Three days on, still no checkable, verifiable source of the video, or date/time to determine context.

Another entry for the 'junk pile', I guess.


Wow....

Is that really what do to to the video's who's contents you cannot debunk?

Pretty sad to see you like this - especially when the date, time, mission and source are all in the thread's title and OP:

"NASA UFO 2009 Shuttle Atlantis may 11, at 11.42"

-It is From NASA's 'live' feed... (see youtube channel or page one of this thread)


Not to mention that the voice in the video and data displayed at the end provide many of those details you repeatedly claim have not been provided at all...

Did you listen to the video with the volume off and then skip the end?

You must have...






[edit on 23-5-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on May, 23 2009 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Pretty sad to see you like this - especially when the date, time, mission and source are all in the thread's title and OP:

"NASA UFO 2009 Shuttle Atlantis may 11, at 11.42"

-It is From NASA's 'live' feed... (see youtube channel or page one of this thread)


Well, Exubie, that's the problem I'm having, and the difference between our approaches.

You say the video was taken on May 11 at 11:42.

Well, since the shuttle was only launched on May 11 at 2:01 PM EDT, I have a real hard time figuring out how an in-space video can be made hours before the shuttle got into space. That's a problem for me.

But not for you, apparently.

Do you know how to check simple facts such as the shuttle's launch time? Please do so, confirm my figure, and offer an explanation about how the date/time YOU are claiming is accurate, can possibly be accurate?



posted on May, 23 2009 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by JimOberg
Three days on, still no checkable, verifiable source of the video, or date/time to determine context.

Another entry for the 'junk pile', I guess.


Wow....

Is that really what do to to the video's who's contents you cannot debunk?



This is in reference to mikesingh's posted video, and the objection stands.



posted on May, 23 2009 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg


Well, since the shuttle was only launched on May 11 at 2:01 PM EDT, I have a real hard time figuring out how an in-space video can be made hours before the shuttle got into space. That's a problem for me.


Oh dear....

Then you must really have a problem with how people in England Are eating lunch at noon while you are still eating your 8 o'clock breakfast....

If the OP was from Amsterdam, he might even have said the shuttle was launch occurred at 10:01 AM (five hours before 2:01 PM in your part of the world).

As the OP did not specify his timezone; perhaps you should exert some intellectual rigour and engage in some actual investigatory work for a change; Try writing the OP and asking, or make inquiry to the individual who hosted it on his youtube channel.

But then you'd still be relying on others to do that which you already have the means to do yourself;

*There are many ways to find the information you demand - That you have not been unable to locate it by yourself is surprising.

You cannot expect us to do your research for you. It is up to you back up your own claims and perform your own investigation and analysis.



[edit on 23-5-2009 by Exuberant1]



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join