New NASA STS-75 video-UFOs over Mexico

Originally posted by robatmj12
reply to post by JimOberg

 

i guess im saying that i dont find fault with wanting to examine the evidence independently inappropriate but what i do consider inappropriate are the explanations after they are examined a flock of birds or a weather balloon a temp inversion tricks of light doing mach 20 you have to meet me halfway on this your far left im far right ill agree to that but just 10 12 yrs ago scientists were sure there was a black hole out there somewhere now they have examined the evidence and found that every galaxy has one and there are millions of galaxies do you think they all stay home on saturday night and dont go anywhere im just tired of pretending theres nothing else out there and were the only ones that exist in the whole entire universe it would be a lot of wasted space

Sorry, Rob, I don't see how this applies to the shuttle video we're discussing. The prosaic explanation for the typical space videos is most often small particles off the shuttle itself -- sometimes material from inside the payload bay, or off the heat shield, or ice from any of a hundred valves on the hull, or sometimes other shuttle-derived stuff that should NOT have come loose. Sometimes being hit by expanding brief thruster plumes. Occasionally celestial objects or other distant satellites. Stuff that's been observed and photographed since, oh, about 1962 or so -- ordinary stuff.

reply to post by JimOberg


i think your explanations apply to this topic i see that there are particles discharged in the shuttles wake looking aft and some of them might be ice and the like from the payload doors maybe the crew is up there drinking some slurpees and somehow its getting outside could be incomplete fuel burn but your going to have to do better on your stray distant satellite theory its doing mach 20 atleast a hundred miles below them and they dont even talk about it you dont think theres someone over there at nasa that told them just pretend you dont see anything this object is visable an easy 500 miles outside of there wash and is clearly visable before during and after it goes through it still dont believe step outside tomorrow and look up at a few contrails there up there at about 40000ft thats just 8 miles its very hard to make out the plane but the object that crosses below in this case is visable from a hundredish miles below im thinking it was bigger than a DC 3 bigger than a 777 maybe 14 times bigger can you say mothership take a little dose of truth serum and see if your not better by morning

reply to post by robatmj12


That is some good stuff, but your purpose would be served better if you would use punctuation (it is one very long run on sentence), and you utilized paragraphs.

Most folks won't take the time to read a "wall of text".

So, Jim....how long would you need to observe the evidence and present some thoughts?

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
So, Jim....how long would you need to observe the evidence and present some thoughts?

Depends on what is required -- if I need to get thruster firing histories, it takes about a month for the FOIA -- see the STS 114 discussion thread.

That all requires I start with the date/time of the event. Notice how the original posters neglect to provide that datum, even when asked repeatedly. Why do YOU think they are withholding it?

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


hey i think your slammin me ill agree my grammer is less than perfect i want to know what you think this object is ive been hanging engines on airplanes for 20 yrs a motor has to last 2 to 3 yrs with my name all over it and i sleep like a baby while families ride around on my name but the new guys i work with have good grammer skills like your looking for and can email the pentagon if needed but cant run a engine hoist they make me listen to their music and ask me things like whos your daddy and ll cool jay trash the white women but that doesnt distract me because i still care about everyone that flies on my signature

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
So, Jim....how long would you need to observe the evidence and present some thoughts?

Depends on what is required -- if I need to get thruster firing histories, it takes about a month for the FOIA -- see the STS 114 discussion thread.

That all requires I start with the date/time of the event. Notice how the original posters neglect to provide that datum, even when asked repeatedly. Why do YOU think they are withholding it?

More accusations...


Jimbo, no one is withholding anything; you just must not have bothered to watch the video (there is no excuse for that):


*At the start of the video the "date/time" and mission number is displayed.

*At roughly 3:00 the voice can clearly be heard giving the location and other information.

You have all you need to begin your own independent investigation and analysis - and it's been here all along (and you didn't even notice)



As to invoking "FOIA" and then blaming the "Original Posters" for your own investigatorial ineptitude...




...Nice try Jimbo!

[edit on 25-5-2009 by Exuberant1]

I must be denser than you have assumed, Exubie -- I see five different times listed at the beginning but I can't figure out which if any of them apply to the subsequent sequence. In my ineptitude I do need your ept help on thus.

reply to post by Exuberant1


i just have to agree with you here i think hes laying down on the obvious here smoke and mirrors is his only explanation i think hes back into his pretending mode there just cant be anything else out there a million galaxies and they all stay home and never venture out to explore but thats just me