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.

 

100% proof of U.F.O.S in space - You cannot debunk this one

page: 16
80
<< 13  14  15    17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

So the radiometer is only pushed in one direction, and so freezes up and stalls out?


what have you done with the REAL Jim Oberg??

The radiometer gets its 'force' from ONE direction the present location of the Sun (or if you are using a strong independent light source. Of course it doesn't stall as the next blade rotates and now gets the 'push'



You can't even think through the consequences of your made-up make-believe facts.


Having a bad day? Can't win any battles?





Imagine an ice flake, and imagine it rotating freely in space -- which way would the thrust vector push?


In ONE direction only... determined by the direction it is currently moving and IF pushed by the sun, it would vector away from the sun. It would not reverse direction by any action of light rays from the sun

What part of that is incorrect?




posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 06:37 PM
link   
A "100% proof" would be a lot clearer than these videos!

As you learn after studying the subject for a while, there are SEVERAL possible sources for unidentified flying objects:

1) several different ET groups;
2) the secret U.S. space program;
3) the secret Russian space program;
4) the secret "NWO" space program (purported to have started in Germany).

I have not run across any other suggested sources for valid high-technology non-impulse-engine space flight vehicles, but there probably are more.

The great challenge of this site is: how do you get the people who have worked directly with these technologies and have total certainly about projects they have participated in to come forward on some basis and speak openly about it?

One of our problems is that many of these technologies include some sort of vehicle cloaking capability, so we may never be able to use photographs to "prove" these vehicles exist.

Billy Meier took hundreds of photos of such craft. The people who piloted these craft told him that they had turned off the cloaking so his cameras could get pictures. Why aren't these photos proof enough? Because there has been a prolonged and concerted effort to discredit them. This subject MUST be kept mysterious! Until we can move out from under that oppressive conviction that this subject must continue to be officially dismissed, we won't get the information about it that we really need to understand it comprehensively.



posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
The picture of him in a shuttle cockpit is a typical 'visitor' picture. Workers there generally are wearing headsets and other badges


Ah yes that would be in the display that any visitor can sit in and have a picture taken... like THIS one

Looks a lot like the one Clark has... except it appears to be YOU did the same to post on your website



Seems Clark is wearing a flight suit in his copy though





So are you saying because you are wearing a VISITORS badge and put on a head set your picture is more proof than Clark's with the flight suit?

I guess its this one at Johnston Space Center in Houston



Maybe I should have one too... it would look cool on my site

[edit on 9-6-2009 by zorgon]



posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by l_e_cox
The great challenge of this site is: how do you get the people who have worked directly with these technologies and have total certainly about projects they have participated in to come forward on some basis and speak openly about it?

One of our problems is that many of these technologies include some sort of vehicle cloaking capability, so we may never be able to use photographs to "prove" these vehicles exist.


Well the problem is that IF someone on here had the job of applying " some sort of vehicle cloaking capability" to some 'possible' secret spaceship... that person would by the nature of his work be identifiable were he/she to come forward and say "Guess what I do at work!"

Since such a job would require special clearance, and be only done by one or a few people, coming forward even anonymously and making such a statement would be light renting a sign blimp with an arrow over his/her house.

Secondly IF such a person was here on ATS and were to do more than drop hints and give leads on where to look, that person would be pounced on by all the skeptics and fence sitters demanding proof.

What would such a person do? Would he risk treason and steal a blueprint? Would he/she take a photo from a lapel pin and put it here on the net?

Would such a photo be proof enough to the hordes here?

Do I really need to answer that



Well there are people here who have such jobs


OH and BTW that non existent craft we are not talking about? No pilot... its robot controlled




[edit on 9-6-2009 by zorgon]



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 06:59 AM
link   
reply to post by HolgerTheDane
 


What people don't take in to consideration is that my view is not one sided. I take on board both sides of the discussion, I only tend to sway to the far side when others don't accept other possibilities. i.e their minds are closed to the fact that other entities exist outside of this earth.

Imagine that you have seen a craft depicting that of a clear flying saucer, no seems completely solid looking, somthing like a saucepan lid. Now imagine that this saucepan lid is right in front of you and not making a sound. Imagine that its there for a few seconds and then - Whoosh- its gone, without a trace or sound.

Next imagine you come across a site where others have seen the same thing and more. Then imagine that someone from one of the biggest secret operations in the world comes on to your thread and says that their company is not aware of any of these things and have had no involvement whatsoever in these matters.

I saw with my own eyes this craft shoot up out of this earth in a blink of an eye, yet apparently according to SETI and NASA they have never picked up anything out of the ordinary?

Which leads me to believe in a cover up, based solely on the fact that they have millions of dollars of equipment that could easily pick up these things? because of this I begin searching and like I said before the deeper the search goes the worst it becomes.

SETI: IMO is not set up for discovering EBE life thats a guis, its set up to purely monitor them.

The real NASA: IMO is not set up to discover space,its set up for purposes of money-control and greed

See where I am coming from ?

I will take a look at the video later as I am just rushing in and out for now.


[edit on 10-6-2009 by franspeakfree]



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 07:06 AM
link   
Just for the record, I wrote to McClelland but I have not had any response as yet, which is a shame because it would have been good to hear both sides. I will let you know if I get a response.



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 07:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
So are you saying because you are wearing a VISITORS badge and put on a head set your picture is more proof than Clark's with the flight suit?


Even McClelland has admitted he never took up his intended duties at the shuttle processing facility because of a hang-up with his security clearance -- which he does not describe.

The cockpit I was sitting in was the high-fidelity motion base simulator -- not a mockup -- in building 5 at JSC. The evidence it is a real workplace is both the headset I was wearing and the flight checklists in use -- two features missing from the posed McClelland picture.

Clark was wearing a team T-shirt, not a 'flight suit'.

I am not wearing a VISITOR badge -- you just imagined that, and stated it to make it look like a fact. Please restrain your imagination from overcoming your judgment.



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 07:34 AM
link   
reply to post by franspeakfree
 


Try sending another email, but this time include "ATS member" in the subject line.



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 09:50 AM
link   
To me it looks like it's just debris in all three of the videos. I'm no expert, so yes I have the exact knowledge necessary to be deemed a profession, but I'm just using some reasonging.

1.) Just because several objects are near each other doesn't make them related in anything but proximity. Also, yes the objects are moving in different directions, but does that mean they are alien crafts or something of that sort? There are millions of objects, ranging in size, that are orbiting our planet. Do you really think they are all going to move in the exact same direction?

2.) Once again, I am no expert, but what I suggest is that the clip involving the electric probe might have something to do with its electric field? Maybe some of those objects are magnetic, and I'm pretty sure (i may be wrong, probably am) that when you pass an electric current through metal, you also create a magnetic field around it.

Like I said, I am by no means an expert, but I do have some basic knowledge in physics. If I'm wrong on anything, feel free to correct me. I'm no hardcore skeptic, but I have to point out the flaws above.



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 12:54 PM
link   
Has anyone pointed out that infra-red light is picked up and converted to visible(white) light by cameras?That dust particles are too small for an auto-focus and therefore look massive?(they can be very close...)
I'm certainly no expert,but as I've pointed out to desperate believers on other forums(in their case,it was orbs)mightn't it be a good idea to look at things objectively first?By which I mean;first assume they are miniscule,infra-red reflecting,invisible to naked eye water molecules dancing around a more massive and therefore with its own gravitational effects object...and look for untypical behaviour after this has been taken into consideration?
After all,they could be space bees.made out of glass.



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ericynical
Has anyone pointed out that infra-red light is picked up and converted to visible(white) light by cameras?That dust particles are too small for an auto-focus and therefore look massive?(they can be very close...)
I'm certainly no expert,but as I've pointed out to desperate believers on other forums(in their case,it was orbs)mightn't it be a good idea to look at things objectively first?By which I mean;first assume they are miniscule,infra-red reflecting,invisible to naked eye water molecules dancing around a more massive and therefore with its own gravitational effects object...and look for untypical behaviour after this has been taken into consideration?
After all,they could be space bees.made out of glass.


Why do you assume they are invisible to eyesight? Astronauts will talk about debris they see around them, openly. Familiarize yourself more with direct eyewitness testimony re these cases (I know it's hard because the UFO promoters actually ignore and cover up the testimony of the on-site witnesses, as a rule) before creating unnecessary hypotheses.



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
I am not wearing a VISITOR badge -- you just imagined that, and stated it to make it look like a fact. Please restrain your imagination from overcoming your judgment.


Well it seems the picture is important to you...

It just bothers me that you constantly deride others credentials openly, actually go out of your way to do so like with Clark and Ken Johnson... and I am sure I have heard you mention Ed Mitchell's state of mind (might be wrong on that one but I can look it up )but when anyone questions yours you get defensive.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Just looking at that picture of yours does not show much difference between the simulator and the public photo op version. It does not show that the badge is not a visitors badge that everyone gets, or an employee badge. But its okay I believe you worked there


Chest thumping is okay, but don't knock it when someone else does the same.... its not a competition.







[edit on 10-6-2009 by zorgon]



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 01:57 PM
link   
Not to call you a liar or anything but I did notice that the backs of the seat in both your picture and Clark's picture match





Yet the backs of the seat of the actual Shuttle Simulator look a lot different..



www.nasaimages.org...

Hmmmmm

So got that NASA version of the Tether film for us yet?







[edit on 10-6-2009 by zorgon]



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 02:16 PM
link   
It isn't exactly 100% proof, but it is pretty good



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by HolgerTheDane
Have you ever heard of Crooke's Radiometer?


Yes I have... so is it your contention that the rays of the sun are pushing these things around out there?

Hmmm Amusing theory, but you do realize that if that were true the force as tiny as it is, would be only in ONE direction?



Nice try though


What I wanted to demonstrate is that sometimes the most unexpected things turn up when trying to explain different phenomenon.

I cannot in all honesty claim that the direction change occurred because of this effect, but then again I don't have all the relevant facts. As none of us actually have. Educated guesses are all we have and some people are more educated than others.



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
It just bothers me that you constantly deride others credentials openly, actually go out of your way to do so like with Clark and Ken Johnson... and I am sure I have heard you mention Ed Mitchell's state of mind...


Since I have a pleasant personal relationship ongoing with Ed, I don't think i've done that for a long while, if ever -- and if I did, it was wrong to do so.

"Deride" is a biased word to use re the credentials you mentioned. In Ken Johnston's case, for example, where books claim he was a Marine F-4 pilot, chief NASA LM test pilot, PhD in physics, and curator of the Apollo photo archives, I found and published documents that showed that he never finished flight school, was a switch-thrower in a mock-up LM cockpit, bought a "doctor of philosophy" certificate of no academic standing from a mail-order house in Denver, and was a shipping clerk in the lunar lab who had been given one of about forty sets of moon photos by the REAL curator's office -- and told to clear out his closet when the contract closed. All honorable duty, and I salute his military record -- the real one, not the phony one.

How do you see that as 'deriding'? I see it as 'correcting'. Why didn't anyone else check? 'Deriding' is what I do with people who swallowed the original misrepresentations and exaggerations. Do you deserve any of it?



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
How do you see that as 'deriding'? I see it as 'correcting'. Why didn't anyone else check? 'Deriding' is what I do with people who swallowed the original misrepresentations and exaggerations. Do you deserve any of it?


Well perhaps 'deriding' is the wrong word... hounding?


But you do the 'correcting' with a lot of zeal.

Still waiting for that NASA link to the STS75 video... I just don't understand ow everyone is calling this an official NASA video when it didn't come from NASA

Does no one here care why NASA does not have this video available? Seems every time I ask that the answer is avoided.

[edit on 10-6-2009 by zorgon]



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by watchtheashes
 


Well in my opinion christianity is a big lie to indulge us to halt ourselves from becoming enlightened, as are all religions, 1 % truth 99 % perversions.

Jesus of Nazzerath wasn't the Christ.

So are you an Anti-christ?

-Psycho.



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by watchtheashes
 


Well in my opinion christianity is a big lie to indulge us to halt ourselves from becoming enlightened, as are all religions, 1 % truth 99 % perversions.

Jesus of Nazzerath wasn't the Christ.

So are you an Anti-christ?

-Psycho.



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Does no one here care why NASA does not have this video available? Seems every time I ask that the answer is avoided.


The same thing happens when I ask...

Nobody has been able to link us to the Original film from NASA itself - Even Jim Oberg can't seem to find it.


Strange indeed.






[edit on 10-6-2009 by Exuberant1]



new topics

top topics



 
80
<< 13  14  15    17  18 >>

log in

join