100% proof of U.F.O.S in space - You cannot debunk this one , page 4

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 80 times

reply posted on 4-6-2009 @ 09:13 AM by reugen

Originally posted by watchtheashes
reply to post by reugen

You will see it. It does move about and change shape and pulsate and shines many colors.

Freaky stuff I know but I kid you not.

I have two telescopes. Ones a crappy Vivitar but the one I used to see the star up close the first time. Only at 50x too. Where are you located? I'm located in the Rocky Mountain area of the US. Lots of UFO activity over N O R A D. This is all over the world though.

One time after band practice I saw a triangular craft overhead with yellow lights along the bottom. Funny thing is the only thing triangular about it was what can best be described as its "outline." I made no mention of it and moved on. The star was in the west bright bright during this sighting. Relation? I think yes.

I am located in the northern hemisphere, northern europe so we should have the same sky approx, about the same latitude, but different timezone. Ok, i shall watch very closely to the east (in the morning) and to the west (in the evening and night). My guess is that you are seeing Venus, are you 100% sure this is a new object in the sky ? I just read some other thread here on ATS about some sightings in china, it also pointed to a Opera webspace with photos of the same object you are refering to, www.abovetopsecret.com...

Ok, thanks for location provided, regards.

[edit on 2009/6/4 by reugen]

reply posted on 4-6-2009 @ 10:06 AM by franspeakfree

I am suprised at the lack of comments I would have thought other members would have jumped on this like a rash. Notice how the debunkers stay away and all is quiet.

reply posted on 4-6-2009 @ 10:17 AM by tim1989

Originally posted by franspeakfree
I am suprised at the lack of comments I would have thought other members would have jumped on this like a rash. Notice how the debunkers stay away and all is quiet.

Well, I've seen these videos numerous times before. The tether video for instance has been posted here a lot. So there has been lots of discussion about them. People get tired of explaining why it's real/ fake every time it's posted. It makes prefect sense why there isn't more discussion, it's because there isn't more to discus. Post a NEW compelling video and watch the posts saw.

reply posted on 4-6-2009 @ 10:17 AM by watchtheashes

That means that the footage cannot possibly be explained by "ice crystals" or my favorite "swamp gas."

reply posted on 4-6-2009 @ 10:29 AM by franspeakfree

Originally posted by tim1989
Well, I've seen these videos numerous times before.

Really have they been shown before? can you point me to the thread of the first 2 videos I have never seen those before and would like to read about it.

Also just to add: you may have seen them before but there are numerous amounts of new members here that might not be as informed as you. Therefore, in my opinion every thread is a potential new thread for new readers.

The problem is many new members don't search and are just looking for answers. These threads get buried under all the others therefore, that is why its important for others to see before this happens.

[edit on 4-6-2009 by franspeakfree]

reply posted on 4-6-2009 @ 10:31 AM by franspeakfree

Originally posted by watchtheashes
That means that the footage cannot possibly be explained by "ice crystals" or my favorite "swamp gas."

Exactly in laymans terms it can't be explained therefore, nothing to see here move along on to the threads that can be explained and shot down within the first few posts. Ho hum you can't win them all

reply posted on 4-6-2009 @ 10:37 AM by JimOberg

Originally posted by franspeakfree

Originally posted by zerbot565
why on earth would they dump water ?

dumping water i just dont buy that.

I don't buy it either and its refreshing to hear that others don't aswell . This is the explanation that is used time and time again..

franspeakfree, I'm surprised you haven't even tried to understand the theory before closing your mind to it.

Water is dumped from shuttles because it is waste product from the fuel cells that provide electrical power (the chemicals going into the reaction are liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen, from cryogenic storage tanks). Far more water is produced than the crew can drink or wash in.

Also, waste water -- urine and wash water -- is dumped. Also, for cooling, since the very first manned space flight, flash evaporators ('water spray boiler' is another variation) use the heat absorbed by the liquid-gas transition of water in a vacuum to cool coolant in thermal control loops attached to electronics. Lastly, there's a lot of water ice around the aft end on attaining orbit, from dumps of H2 and O2 from the main engines.

Not knowing this is no excuse for not believing it. You can remedy the situation by raising your scientific and technical knowledge. Otherwise, all you do is provide more demonstrations of the kinds of folks who are most excited by these 'space UFO' videos -- folks not known for their actual knowledge of the factors in the situation.

reply posted on 4-6-2009 @ 10:41 AM by JimOberg

Originally posted by tim1989
Isn't it odd NASA themselves can't say what these objects are, HOWEVER.

A "debunker" on this forum has no problem explaining they are ice crystals or camera reflections.

If it were that simple I'm sure NASA would of said so.

C'MON! That excuse is getting old and tiresome.

NASA has always offered explanations for this sort of thing, when asked. They put the explanations on their websites. They answer letters with long letters.

It's the folks who post the videos on youtube (or make cable TV 'UFO' specials) who claim that NASA has offered no explanation.

Seems to me, they figure their target audience won't/can't think or investigate for themselves so they'll believe anything posted with a snazzy video.

Why do you keep proving them correct in their contempt for your mental abilities?

Free yourself. Open and flex your mental powers. The Universe is out there at your disposal.

reply posted on 4-6-2009 @ 10:47 AM by Exuberant1

Excellent Thread franspeakfree! Star and Flag!

Your thread even attracted NASA's Jim Oberg....

Good Work.

reply posted on 4-6-2009 @ 10:57 AM by watchtheashes

reply to post by reugen

Nope it can't be in the sky the same time as Venus if it is Venus. It outshines even Venus. Venus doesn't have "spiky light rays" either. Venus does not change color, move about, or any of that. Especially does not change from one shape to another.

I know by now Venus will have moved to the East. However this thing stays in place and when it does move it's not because it's in orbit. Venus doesn't rise up and then go back down and then up and then down. This thing is BRIGHT. Look around on the internet. People are so quick to say it's Venus but it's either to high up or too low or a completely different shape and color to be that especially when you can observe Venus while it's out.

reply posted on 4-6-2009 @ 11:05 AM by watchtheashes

reply to post by JimOberg

NASA has always offered explanations for this sort of thing, when asked.

If you are from NASA then why are you guys covering up the "star sign?"

Don't say NASA (Never A Straight Answer) doesn't cover things up, and if you don't know because you know nothing of it, explain to me how Venus can:

Be in two places at once. That's the big one.

Change color, size, shape, move but not from orbit, move the moon to the wrong side of the sky for that time of night during a time it should be on the opposite side of the sky, etc.

EDIT:
This is NOT Venus. I've even pointed two telescopes at it at the same time to see if I just had a broken telescope. Guess what happened? It changed shape and color before I ever left there for but five minutes, and the position was in the corner of view when I saw it again. So it moved that far and changed shape and color in five minutes. Are you going to tell me Venus does that?
[edit on 6/4/2009 by watchtheashes]

[edit on 6/4/2009 by watchtheashes]

reply posted on 4-6-2009 @ 11:10 AM by JimOberg

Originally posted by watchtheashes
reply to post by JimOberg

NASA has always offered explanations for this sort of thing, when asked.

If you are from NASA then why are you guys covering up the "star sign?"

Well, I guess nobody can fool you. I'm not even going to try.

PS. I used to work at Mission Control. I left in 1997 after testifying before Congress about a decaying safety culture that was going kill somebody if not fixed -- but I couldn't fix it.

I'm not 'from NASA'. As far as I can tell, they don't care what you think, and have no responsibility for it.

reply posted on 4-6-2009 @ 11:13 AM by JimOberg

Originally posted by watchtheashes
reply to post by reugen

Nope it can't be in the sky the same time as Venus if it is Venus.

There's a very helpful website called www.heavens-above.com that generates displays of the sky from your location at any time, and a list of visible satellites for your location. Many people use it a lot and I've never heard any complaints. And it's maintained by some European group, not NASA, if that helps.

reply posted on 4-6-2009 @ 11:29 AM by watchtheashes

reply to post by JimOberg

Thank you for the reply. I meant no offense to you in any way. That's just my loving NASA acronym. In my opinion they don't ever give a straight answer. By the way there is no possible way that it could be Venus from the facts stated alone. That and the fact that Venus is not THAT high up and bright in the sky during the early hours. In the evening hours you can still see it too, not as often as when Venus was over there on the west, but it still moves to the West sometimes. Yes moves to the west sometimes when Venus could not possibly be visible after it moves to the eastern morning sky. Venus is here right now:

www.fourmilab.ch...

Oh and satellites are not round and do not change shape.

[edit on 6/4/2009 by watchtheashes]

reply posted on 4-6-2009 @ 12:26 PM by 1SawSomeThings

reply to post by franspeakfree

I am suprised at the lack of comments I would have thought other members would have jumped on this like a rash. Notice how the debunkers stay away and all is quiet.

Shhhhh! With the title of the thread debunkers will be here, don't worry! I sense them circling already....

Also just to add: you may have seen them before but there are numerous amounts of new members here that might not be as informed as you. Therefore, in my opinion every thread is a potential new thread for new readers.

I totally agree; it is pertinent to post this because due to the video being on Yahoo and it's non-sarcastic tone, some may acquire more than a passing interest. Interest and awareness improve the public perception of Ufology, and Ufology being taken more seriously may bring forth more witnesses and evidence.

I don't know if it's in this thread, but I find very compelling the shuttle video of the object moving in one direction, then dodging to the other direction before some projectile from below crosses its location. Didn't NASA stop live transmissions soon after that? Hmmmm....

reply posted on 4-6-2009 @ 12:50 PM by reugen

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by tim1989
Isn't it odd NASA themselves can't say what these objects are, HOWEVER.

A "debunker" on this forum has no problem explaining they are ice crystals or camera reflections.

If it were that simple I'm sure NASA would of said so.

C'MON! That excuse is getting old and tiresome.

NASA has always offered explanations for this sort of thing, when asked. They put the explanations on their websites. They answer letters with long letters.

It's the folks who post the videos on youtube (or make cable TV 'UFO' specials) who claim that NASA has offered no explanation.

Seems to me, they figure their target audience won't/can't think or investigate for themselves so they'll believe anything posted with a snazzy video.

Why do you keep proving them correct in their contempt for your mental abilities?

Free yourself. Open and flex your mental powers. The Universe is out there at your disposal.

Then it would be natural for NASA to register a new domain, such as debunk.nasa.gov or devnull.nasa.gov, where they have a db on display for all letters answered and responses to videos and images. That would be a treasure for people like you Jim, just point to a url, the answer is already there, well formatted and well documented. Why invent the wheel 33 times ?

I've also seen a lot of the videos and images several times here on ATS, someone above asked why no debunkers are present in this thread, its because it has already been debunked and discussed thoroughly -- several times, over and over again.

Really, it could be something like a nasa wikipedia for discussion and debunking bad astronomy, i bet a lot of people would be willing to contribute, In the name of science. The science people should be given the upper hand of course i.e admin rights.

Saluté!

[edit on 2009/6/4 by reugen]

reply posted on 4-6-2009 @ 12:59 PM by JimOberg

Originally posted by 1SawSomeThings
I don't know if it's in this thread, but I find very compelling the shuttle video of the object moving in one direction, then dodging to the other direction before some projectile from below crosses its location. Didn't NASA stop live transmissions soon after that? Hmmmm....

That's what Richard Hoagland says. But I never found it to be true.

Fun to believe, sure.

Reality-based, nope.

reply posted on 4-6-2009 @ 01:03 PM by seangkt

They debunked the video of the discs passing through the line thing on ufo hunters.

The other ones I got nothing to say about as bad as I would like to believe those were absolute proof they were kind of far from it.

reply posted on 4-6-2009 @ 01:04 PM by JimOberg

Originally posted by reugen
Then it would be natural for NASA to register a new domain, such as debunk.nasa.gov or devnull.nasa.gov, where they have a db on display for all letters answered and responses to videos and images.

I totally agree. The NASA public relations, folks, seem to have decided -- based on real experience -- that it's not worth the effort. Seeing all the smarmy, venomous accusations against them [some in recent posts on this thread, above], I find it hard to argue. But I do disagree with them and would like such material be more accessible, for those who are genuinely curious and seek balanced arguments (a lot of people here).

Not having it easily accessible, however, is no excuse to throw one's hands up and say that it's too hard to find, so I'll ignore it -- and worse, declare that it doesn't exist. Or swallow the baseless claims of those who make that accusation, like Bill Birnes.

reply posted on 4-6-2009 @ 01:07 PM by Xtrozero

It seems we want to jump right to a speck is a space ship flight off in the distance in many of these, but it could just as easily be something up close to the camera.