Nasa STS 119 ufo a whole lot of them

just found this video of an astronaut filming ufo's



0:18, 0:50, 0:55, 1:00, **1:05**, **1:07**, 1:18, 1:39, 2:27, **3:33**, **3:52**, 4:17, 5:10,
these are the time frames in witch you can see them


[edit on 24-5-2009 by madmax8]

All the things that must be first ignored to even consider any of those things to be alien/ufo amounts to a lot in my opinion. I realize that none of us have any experience in a vacuum/zero G environment, so we mentally latch onto something that we don't expect to see and apply whatever belief system we want to it. At least that seems to be the case here.

But I don't think there is anything here that is show stopping or can't be explained by a dozen or so mundane explanations before deeming them anything other than what they probably are. But you will get dozens of people in here that think otherwise. On one hand they accuse nasa of covering up UFOs and aliens, but then on the other hand they point to every single released NASA source to contain dozens of alien/ufos. I don't understand, it gives me a headache sometimes.

again...white dots against a black sky and they are automatically UFO's, this is why the MSM largely ignores believers.

Originally posted by IgnoreTheFacts
All the things that must be first ignored to even consider any of those things to be alien/ufo amounts to a lot in my opinion. I realize that none of us have any experience in a vacuum/zero G environment, so we mentally latch onto something that we don't expect to see and apply whatever belief system we want to it. At least that seems to be the case here.

But I don't think there is anything here that is show stopping or can't be explained by a dozen or so mundane explanations before deeming them anything other than what they probably are. But you will get dozens of people in here that think otherwise. On one hand they accuse nasa of covering up UFOs and aliens, but then on the other hand they point to every single released NASA source to contain dozens of alien/ufos. I don't understand, it gives me a headache sometimes.

Did you see the UFO at 1:05? It jets into the shot travelling in a southwesterdly motion, changes it's course to due west for like a second, stops for another few seconds and then disappears. It happens quick.

Maybe it's an illusion or something. Common sense tells me that ice particles or debris aren't capable of acting that way at all. Anyhow, great find madmax8. S&F.

Originally posted by cmazzagatti
Common sense tells me that ice particles or debris aren't capable of acting that way at all.

I think you've put your finger on the issue here. Our earthside ground-trained interpretative brainware, evolved from hundreds of millions of years of experience, are good guides for interpreting visual stimuli -- locally, here on Earth. But when they are fed visual images from motion in a vacuum, in a zero-G environment with no obvious up-down frame and no masking clues for object distance, in harsh light conditions of outer space where gas leaks and thruster plumes expand linearly rather than waft and coil on non-existent breezes, these time-tested algorithms can mislead us. Our subconscious minds, eager to force a familiar interpretation on such novel apparitions, by editing and imagination if necessary, become an obstacle to accurate 'seeing'.

The images look strange, unearthly for sure, and to explain the motion in terms of our past experience and evolution, we have to automatically 'cue up' and 'add in' physical effects and forces to 'make it look right'. But those add-ins are really not justified, or even needed, in the new environment which we generally neither understand intellectually nor feel comfortable in intuitively.

You really have to make an effort to suppress your imaging instincts here, because they are being applied in a regime they never were developed for. The 'surer' you are in your interpretations, the more cautious you have to be alert for misinterpretations.

If you do that, and force yourself back to 'first principles' of motion, illumination, and observation, the scenes on these 'NASA shuttle UFO videos' become a lot less "obviously UFOs" and transform into some wondrous "WOW!!" scenes that humans have only in recent years become physically capable of viewing.

We're really the first human generation ever to be able to watch such stuff. If we immediately react by trying to force the scenes to conform to ground experience and knee-jerk trained reflexes, we throw away an opportunity that many of our ancestors dreamed of acquiring, but couldn't.

Your eye/brain combination is venturing into truly new worlds. Don't blow it by closing your mind to the 'new normal' in that environment.

reply to post by JimOberg


Well, that logic can also be turned on you too: just because the objects don't look like the shiny, metallic flying saucers you see in Hollywood movies, doesn't mean they can't be extraterrestrial in origin. How do you know that extraterrestrial intelligence even has to have a physical body to exist? How do you know it can't exist in the form of superluminal light, or even thought?

History has shown a pattern of constant (and accelerated) change and modification of theory. New discoveries are being made everyday; what was once unimaginable to us at some point has eventually come into existence. If you were to time-travel back some thousand years with a Blackberry, and shared it with some of the primitive, indigenous civilizations that lived in that time period, they'd think they were witnessing magic. A small, handheld plastic device that lets you talk to someone on the other side of the globe? Plastic itself hadn't even been invented till the mid-1800s. It'd be a mind-blowing revelation for them when they found out it was possible.

I think some people (especially the hardcore skeptical types like you) should sit down in a quiet room one day, re-evaluate their places in the larger spectrum of things and realize that they're but microscopic bugs crawling around on a tiny, spherical space rock, surrounded by billions of other space rocks, in the middle of an infinite universe, out of an infinite number of possible universes.

Oh, and I agree to an extent with your post, but you really didn't have to make a simple point in a five paragraph mini-dissertation.

Originally posted by cmazzagatti
Oh, and I agree to an extent with your post, but you really didn't have to make a simple point in a five paragraph mini-dissertation.

Yeah, it did get kinda wordy.... I stand rebuked. But I'm glad you read it.

The dispute is not over what is possible. There are no 'a priori' reasons I know of that argue convincingly against on-going ET observation of our world. Assuming they are doing so, I assume their technology allows them to control the degree of our observation of them.

I'm a stickler for proof in the other direction. What things do we observe that have no other explanation than a phenomenon (or more than one) beyond our current understanding of the universe? I have no problem in stipulating the existence of an infinite number of such phenomena. But what would they look like to us?

Specifically, regarding images on space videos -- the vast body of video clips has multiple causes, and the challenge is -- which if any are un-explainable by our current models? For spaceflight, this can be a matter of life and death to answer correctly, and it really was for the Columbia crew when they did not notice -- or realize the significance of -- a small dot drifting past their windows on the second day of their doomed flight in 2003. That 'dot' was a fragment of their heat shield, the scab off of a lethal wound that -- undiagnosed and unremedied -- did kill them two weeks later.

Filtering out the few 'important' (or even 'critical') observations from the vast mass of 'ordinary background noise' is thus an urgent task, and spaceflight operators have known this for a long, long time. Dismissing all sightings as 'junk', or jumping to the conclusion they are 'unexplainable' except in terms of secret weapons, alien spaceships, bugs and energy beings, and any other non-disprovable (and hence worthless) hypotheses, isn't a useful shortcut.

I do believe there is wheat within the chaff, 'signal' behind the 'noise' -- but the nature of that 'signal' remains, to me, undefined, requiring a whole lot more work than has been applied to the topic to date. Does that make me a 'believer'?



[edit on 24-5-2009 by JimOberg]

reply to post by madmax8


Another NASA manipulated footage now by this moron Yotube user Romulo282838
who slowed down the original footage to give a false impression and perspective,
removed the original audio to hide the evidence of what's going on exactly and
added spectacular fancy and fake titles just to get his seconds of fame by deceiving
those who watch his manipulated and edited piece of footage. A common faker.

Here we go. What you are seeing here is the footage sequence of the March 21, 2009
spacewalk from the STS-119 shuttle Discovery. The Discovery hatch has been opened
and the astronauts are ready to go out. No here's the trick. What you are seeing as
many white dots moving are actually water particles going out FROM INSIDE the
shuttle through the hatch. They ARE NOT flying around outside. This guy Romulo
knows it and is trying to be clever but not anymore. As I explained in another thread
not long ago covering the same video these water particles sometimes appear when
the hacth is opened to initiate a spacewalk. It's been explained, proven and
documented. This is the same case here with this STS-119 footage.

Now check the similar incident during STS-118 Endeavour spacewalk and hear the
audio. See the bunch of white dots around expelled from inside.More clear than this?

Direct link to the video.

media.abovetopsecret.com...

Great find (AGAIN!)

3:33 -

UFO comes in off the screen from the right - does a slow u-turn - then
speeds off again in a nice swoop motion to the left!

Awesome UFO maneuver, kind of reminded me of a Jetsons craft - you can just imagine the spacey whirl that should accompany a crafty space turn like that.



wZn