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: 8
80
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 10:21 PM
link   
Clearly these are UFO's in the literal sense of the phrase. However, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest these things are alien. They might be bits of junk being moved by some unusual (but very natural) phenomena we're not aware of. A weird optical illusion or glitch with the camera. Or, yes, they could be alien.




posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 10:57 PM
link   
Please limit your comments to the thread topic being discussed and not individual members. Surely the topic is far more fascinating.



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 11:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by heyo
The OP posted the vid, challenged all to proclaim him wrong, and no one did.


The burden of proof lies with the claimant, in this case Fran. The burden of proof does not lie with the audience. And in this case, Fran provided no evidence, simply made a claim and demanded others disprove it.


Originally posted by heyo
You came along and said you didn't like his attitude, and so you attacked the medium and not the message.


I did not attack Fran's attitude, I attacked the logical fallacies of the argument, because Fran's entire argument (and your's by extension) is dependent on these logical fallacies; it is proof because she says it is proof and others must demonstrate otherwise (in other words, shifting the burden of proof from the claimant); that because no one can disprove the claim it is therefore true; that because no one is disputing the claim at a particular moment it is therefore true; that because an explanation does meet her personal satisfaction therefore there is no explanation (you engage in this same fallacy). And that it all boils down to a God in the Gaps fallacy; because it is unexplained then it is unexplainable. None of this is a personal attack.

Please get back on topic, discuss the facts, the argument and the logic, not the people behind them.



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 11:29 PM
link   
Sorry. I wanna clarify my post, Because I hope my comment didn't spark the mod's in any way


The "you"s are generic, aimed at anyone, not someone in particular.....

Would you (anyone reading this). Looking back it may be misleading, my tone was ill mannered,



"How can you say it's ABSOLUTELY not moving slightly away from the camera?"



I guess better said, how can anyone....?



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 11:42 PM
link   
Here are some longer videos I found on youtube. The guy on this vid works for nasa. He is the only nasa employee to ask the UFO question.

Enjoy


Part 1


Part 2


[edit on 4-6-2009 by lawbringer]



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 12:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by franspeakfree
[I say this is proof that U.F.O.S in space exist, prove me wrong otherwise. Tell me how objects can move in different directions and speeds when there is no natural force controlling them?


That is as much proof as Star wars, star trek, etc is proof. If the video was on the nasa site or some other "reputable" source o.t.o.h.....

If I wanted to I could download the software from the internet and make my own "100% proof" video.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a firm believer, but I have to disagree with you.



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 02:03 AM
link   
You say this can't be debunked, yet this guy hit the nail on the head.


Originally posted by JimOberg


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.

Not that I don't believe you (I do), but do you think you can post some proof of what you are saying? Any credible articles which discuss how shuttles work.



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 03:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by HolgerTheDane
With no true reference point there is no way of knowing if it is a huge craft or a speck of dust.


Holger, we aren't quite that helpless.

First, we often see the particles against shuttle structure, such as the tail -- so the existence of at least some small close particles is proven by that.

Second, we often see streams of particles emerging from water dump ports, flash evaporators, or leaky thrusters. More proof of existence, as above.

Third, we sometimes see particles 'appear' in the camera field-of-view simo with orbital sunrise at the shuttle's altitude. This is strong indication the particles are NEAR the shuttle, if they experience sunrise at the same moment.

Fourth, in the minute or two after sunrise, with some particles already visible, we occasionally see new particles APPEAR in mid-screen. When these are cases of the shuttle aiming the camera down-sun after sunrise, the case involves the shuttle also casting a shadow in the same direction. Particles emerging from that shadow must be close -- tens of feet, little more -- from the shuttle.

After several minutes, the shuttle begins passing over sunlit ground, and there is enough scattered light to 'fill in' its shadow zone. Particles in it are no longer fully invisible, just dimmer than in full sunlight. By this time, enough scattered sunlight is reaching the camera optics that automatic gain control dims the whole field-of-view way down and small particles usually fade away.

Watching front/back passage of small images at a greater distance is tricky since the camera optics tend to broaden the image, smeared over several pixels no matter how small or narrow the actual item. Protection against over-bright damage in the optics leads to full-white fields 'graying out' (you can see this effect in lightning bursts, or bright passing cities on the ground) in their centers. A white dot crossing the line-of-sight of an already grayed-out field will NOT show up as a white dot on top of that gray field -- the field, already over-bright, STAYS grayed out, giving the striking illusion that the white dot is passing BEHIND the grayed-out field of the other object.




Thank you. Good points.



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 03:52 AM
link   
Ugh, another wanna-be 100% proof thread.
Same tired old videos that show nothing conclusive. I don't know why I bother reading these. Still waiting for this 100% proof here... I'm sorry, but I really don't think you are going to find anything on yahoo, youtube, etc for 100% proof.



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 04:31 AM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 



Can you clarify are you saying that the UFOS in question in the first 2 videos are ice particles and nothing else? because this post is turning into a them and us thread I would like to stay on track with what you have said on page 4.



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 04:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by eniac
reply to post by franspeakfree
 


Interesting material. Terrible presentation.

100% proof it is not. Do not claim that it is. Do not bring Issac Newton's good name into it... ridiculous. You don't know what forces are at play. You don't know what the objects are, or what's happening in their environment.You don't know the range of the objects.

You had good material... even if we'd all seen it a million times before. You spoil your post with your poor analysis of it.


Thanks for your comments eniad I took them onboard and then discarded them as soon as I read you Isaac Newton remark.

Pray tell me why I shouldn't quote his name. Why you are at it my friend please answer my question I posed earlier.

As no doubt your probably aware of where I am going to go with this after the question is answered I doubt I will receive a reply.

Question:

There are 2 objects in space. Their weight and mass are the same and they travel at the same speed. What will happen to the 2 objects and why?



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 04:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by franspeakfree

Question:

There are 2 objects in space. Their weight and mass are the same and they travel at the same speed. What will happen to the 2 objects and why?





Are they close together?

Are they in orbit?

(Sorry to be a bug, but I see where you are going with this, and think providing this info would help
)

*Nice thread BTW.



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 05:01 AM
link   
This is an example of a typical thread that you will find on this site when it comes to proving the existence of UFO'S in space UFO'S (Unidentified Flying Objects ).

These threads are always orchestrated in a way to destroy the basis of the thread and transform it in to a destroy the credibility of the poster thread. Its completely crazy in my book, because you have to ask yourself why are we all here on this site? why do members continually post hateful comments and down right rude comments? I have no idea?

It is evident though because parallax cannot be used the old ice particles comes in to play. Not one member has explained logically how ice particles can move at different speeds from left to right?



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 05:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


Yes thats right there are 2 objects in space, the same size travelling in the same direction parallel to each other (should speed matter and size matter)


[edit on 5-6-2009 by franspeakfree]



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 05:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by mulderscully
hi guys ... just like anyone here i like the idea of ufos being up there but all those little white moving dots of something aint proof, sorry ... anyone here ever seen a picture of our planet taken from a distance of 20.000km? no? well, earth is surrounded by a heapload of junk ... just take a look ... and thats all the tiny white dots moving around, satellites and junk, here's the pic

www.theglobaleducationproject.org...


Oh come on these are more than white dots, but for this post I will go with white dots. These white dots as you put defy laws of physics do they not?

The first video clearly shows white dots travelling from left to right under which scientific force is applied in order to move the white dot? and to make it change direction in a vacuum of space?

I accept that there is space junk and debris up there my goodness we get told this in every thread that involves NASA. But and its a big but, why don't we see more white dots travelling in the same manner if all we see are space debris surely they would be travelling at the same speeds in orbit, would they not?



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 05:41 AM
link   
reply to post by heyo
 


Well said heyo, its refreshing to see that there are others on this site (judging my u2u's there are alot) that can see whats going on.

For the record I accept that some of the white dots in many videos we see can be explained as ice crystals but to say everything is ice crystals is a getting a little thin now.

I mean to say that years ago many UFO sightings were explained as venus and then we progressed to flares then to swamp gas now its chinese lanterns whats next
come on I thought this site was all about denying ignorance?



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 07:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by lawbringer
Here are some longer videos I found on youtube. The guy on this vid works for nasa. He is the only nasa employee to ask the UFO question.



The first link just went to the youtube front page.

David Sereda (link 2) most definitely does NOT work for NASA and never did. I've debated him on Coast-to-Coast and found him very skilled at imagining things that must be true that would prove him right, and then stating them sincerely as facts.Many NASA employees of the past and present are interested in UFOs and have done research and spoken out -- examples include John Schuessler and Alan Holt. Your statement about the 'only' one appears to be a made-up non-fact with non-evidence -- can you provide facts and evidence to back it up?



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 07:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by franspeakfree
reply to post by JimOberg
 



Can you clarify are you saying that the UFOS in question in the first 2 videos are ice particles and nothing else? because this post is turning into a them and us thread I would like to stay on track with what you have said on page 4.


You're right, there's lots of distracting noise, it's confused me too. Can you be more specific about what you want me to elaborate on, please?



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 07:10 AM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 



Sure, of course,

Can you tell me do you personally believe that the white dots in all the videos mentioned purely in this thread are ice particles from a water dump?

Also can you please tell me what is the standard procedure of these water dumps when in space? how many times do they happen in one day for example.


[edit on 5-6-2009 by franspeakfree]



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 07:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by franspeakfree
Question:

There are 2 objects in space. Their weight and mass are the same and they travel at the same speed. What will happen to the 2 objects and why?



Their weight is the same as that of any other object in space -- zero.

Having the same mass is an interesting feature (so they will react the same way to gravitational forces) but you did not specify if they had the same density, cross-section area, brightness -- all factors that create different responses to external forces such as air drag and solar irradiance, among others. Different shapes also affect how likely they are to collide with other particles and how much collision energy goes into rotation versus velocity-change (what spaceflight geeks call 'translation').

Density differences alone create dramatic motion differences over surprisingly short periods of time, at shuttle altitudes. It's why the most common type of shuttle-derived particles, ice fragments (not necessarily 'crystals'), lose energy to air drag, drop into lower faster orbits, and pull ahead of the shuttle within one or two orbits of being emitted. Even slightly different paths through space create dramatic different subsequent motions as they recontact shuttle structure in dsifferent geometries.

Particle reaction to entrainment by high-speed (approx 10,000 ft/sec) thruster plumes also varies depending on position within or to the side of the plumes. Since dots in a field-of-view are at an indeterminate distance, and hence within an unpredictable portion of the plume field passing across that feld-of-view, they can respond to a thuster firing very differently.

There's no doubt that this unearthly feature of small-particle motion in a vacuum near a large structure that belches sporadically creates very eerie motions that confuse and mislead people whose visual interpretative algorithms have been shaped by a hundred million years of one-G full-air-pressure dynamics. The way out of this confusion and misperception is to suppress knee-jerk 'instinct' (useless, even harmful in this new environment) and replace it with intellect, informed by understanding of the new driving forces of this new universe we've ventured into.




top topics



 
80
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join