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.

 

New Analysis Video of the STS-75 Tether Incident

page: 28
77
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
So, what we have here at ATS are three categories, i think: believers, skeptics, and those who just want to find the truth. The first two have ulterior motives (propping up their mental information processing grids. disinformation, entertainment, etc). That latter 1 is the one that is wanting to flesh out answers via investigation.


Dear Lone Star Furrball -- In Mission Control, the only kind of people tolerated were those determined to find the truth, and brave enough to modify past (even recent) judgments as facts and analyses became available. Once you develop that mental approach [and I did, as the record shows], it's hard to break out of it.




posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 03:36 PM
link   
First of all, sorry for answering something that was not directed to me.


Originally posted by poet1b
The fact that for most of the video the camera is constantly being adjusted in a manner which appears to be aimed at getting rid of the UFOs in the frame, it is understandable that during parts of the video there were distortions of these UFOs.

The distortion that depthoffield is talking about happens regardless of changes in the camera, as explained with this image.




Why do you continue to ignore the vast amount of evidence that these UFOs were not as a result of distortions of the camera.

I do not ignore what you call the vast amount of evidence that the objects (or more precisely, how we see the objects) are not a lens artifact because from what I have seen of other lens artifacts, although they do not look exactly like the ones we see on this video (and that would only be possible with a camera like that in similar conditions) they look close enough for me to consider the lens artifact theory as a possibility.


NASA is clearly stating here that these things exist, and that they are larger than 1 cm, and further than 10 meters from the shuttle. After this evidence is revealed, why do you cling to the fantasy that these must be a result of camera distortion. All of the evidence so far has proven you wrong, time to move on.

Nobody is saying that they do not exist, we see them because they exist, even if only as a light source, and as I said even before Zorgon posted that text, they do not need to be very close to the lens to be seen as an out of focus object.

Yes, they say that they must have been larger than 1 centimetre, but that does not mean that they are not some particles from the shuttle, the satellite, the tether or from some other source.

Even if they are plasma life forms, I still think that we see them as we do because they are out of focus.


They are several days into the mission, particles generated by the launch have mainly slipped away.

And who has proposed that they were debris from the launch? Didn't you read that text that you quote, where they talk about the sources of debris (and debris, as far as I understand them, are pieces of some larger objects, they do not have to be from a specific object or made of a specific material)


Being that this is a critical part of the mission, they would have placed the shuttle in the best attitude for clear observation of the tether.

Why do you say that? They thought of moving the shuttle to catch the tether, but the other experiments on board were more important than the wasted time and fuel. Also, the telemetry was working and they got almost all the data that they wanted, they had no real need to film the tether, they almost passed it by without noticing it once, according to Umberto Guidoni.


Effluent dumps would have been avoided prior to the crucial observation window, attitude and course corrects would be kept at a minimum.

If you can show some evidence of that it would be great, as it is, it is just speculation, so we cannot use that as a fact.


Then the direction which the camera is pointing towards is changed slightly to bring the tether on the screen. No other adjustments seem to have been made, nothing changes in the appearance of space to indicate some critical line was crossed. All appears normal, except that now there are all of these UFOs around the tether flying in different directions, and appearing to change direction and speed.

You said what changed, the direction in which the camera was pointing.

If you are pointing, for example, in a direction in which everything is in the Earth's shadow and you move the camera in a direction that is catching the Sun "rising" behind the Earth, wouldn't you expect the image to look different? Wouldn't you expect that objects that are not seen in the shadow because they are not self-luminous will show under the strong sunlight?


Why are they only around the tether?

We do not know if they are only around the tether, once the camera is pointing to the tether it does not move away, so we cannot say if that happened or not.

Maybe if we had a longer version of the video showing what happened after they lost the camera from the field of view we could solve this case.


During the short period when the camera was not being played with, we had a good view of the tether and the UFOs, and they did not look like crystals, or something close to the camera, why would anyone then assume that they must be objects near the camera?

I find it a little strange that you, apparently, do not understand that an out of focus ice crystal, piece of metal, satellite, planet, star, whatever, will look like any other out of focus object, when out of focus, the shape we see is dictated by the lens construction, not by the object itself.


Some of these UFOs look like they are moving behind the tether, how could this be? Your attempts to demonstrate how this is possible showed no such thing.

Why do you say that they look like they are moving behind the tether?
I have asked it several times from other people that say that and nobody answered, maybe I will have more luck this time. (thanks in advance if you do answer
)


Isn't it about time we moved on in this conversation to discuss what these UFOs might be?

I thought that was what we were discussing.

One possibility, small objects near the shuttle.
Another possibility, larger objects near the tether.
Now, how can we have any idea of what those objects are? Do you use only our imagination? If we do, then I can say that they are bowling balls from another dimension where everybody only has one finger, how can you prove that I am wrong?

In the same way, we cannot prove that other people are wrong when they say that these are plasma creatures, but as in the example above, in which I could not prove that I was right either, how do you prove that you are right? Nobody has, as far as I know, any evidence of the existence of these plasma life forms, so they are as unknown as the other dimension bowling balls, and this will get us nowhere.

That is why I think that we should try to understand first if these are really common objects or uncommon, and with the data we have we cannot prove it either way.



posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


Except that what you are quoting is what is in the article put out by NASA on dealing with particles in the camera aperture. I don't know what I am talking about, NASA doesn't know what they are talking about. Apparently no one knows what they are talking about except you, and those who agree with you.

The article Zorgan provided a link to, from NASA, describes everything the way I thought it to be, and backs what I have been saying throughout this thread. Everyone else seems to get it except for the debunkers, who seem to be a completely clueless lot most of the time.



posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


And the video you show is with the camera adjusted at the extreme causing the distorting, everything is distorted in this picture. You take one frame and claim it represents the whole video, what nonsense.

Where is your link that show this tether experiment was not highly important?

If you read the article of dealing with objects in the video footage you will see exactly what I am talking about with timing effluent dumps and thruster firings. The link has already been provide a few times.

As I explained, if the small adjustment to the where the camera was pointing would have resulted in a change in the lighting it would have been clearly visible. As usual, you are doing nothing but clutching at straws.

We know these UFOs are only the tether because before the small move in where the camera was pointing, there were no UFOs. The Camera moved slightly, and suddenly numerous UFOs. If you have any observational skills at all you can see how much the camera moves.

No out of focus ice crystals do not look like other out of focus objects, and all the demonstrations proved that, irregardless of your claims. Your video demos were a joke, and only proved you wrong.

I say they look like they are moving behind the tether because they do look like they are moving behind the tether, and large numbers of people agree. Once again the video demos made it look even more like these objects were moving behind the tether.

All the evidence so far demonstrates that they are not ice crystals, nor are they micrometers. That they change speeds and directions the way they do eliminates the micro meteor idea, and distance, size, and lack of twinkling properties eliminates the ice crystal theory, not to mention the numerous other evidence that has been shown here on the forum.

If you don't see it at this point, then it is because you refuse to see it.



posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b

The fact that for most of the video the camera is constantly being adjusted in a manner which appears to be aimed at getting rid of the UFOs in the frame, it is understandable that during parts of the video there were distortions of these UFOs.


Please take a picture of some specific person, let's say your friend, placed 100 meters away, when you are in a dense crowd.. a public square or something. You will be obliged to avoid people to not enter in your frame whem trying to picture your friend. Is this a conspiracy? Not! It's a NORMAL fact. Jeez...



Originally posted by poet1b
Why do you continue to ignore the vast amount of evidence that these UFOs were not as a result of distortions of the camera.

What "amount of evidence" are you talking about?! There are DIRECT and CLEAR facts that the shape of the discs are just a function of their position in the frame. Re-read my posts and eventually eliminate the facts revealed with your facts down and directly related to that specific issue, no say about "amount of evidence", your succes among scientists whatever. etc.




Originally posted by poet1b
After Zorgon linked us to this NASA statement on page 26 of the thread.

ntrs.nasa.gov...

On page 7 of this document it states.


Because several of these particles had clear disks they were not on the camera lens but rather quite remote, >10 m. Based on drag calculations they must have been quite large (larger than cm diameters) in order to persist with negligible motion in the field-of-view, We can offer no better explanation at this time.



FIRST, that study doesn't refer to STS-75. Why you propose that they say about EXACTLY the same phenomenon like in STS-75?

And SECOND, they talk about DEBRIS, closer particles, milimeter or centimeter in size, to which they can make calculations starting with atmospheric drag. You and others, propose that in STS-75 those discs are miles in diameter because "behing the tether" illussion. What's the link with that study? That study says that particles exist, talks about measures to understand, model and minimise their effect in optical observation with sensible instruments. That study just DEMONSTRATES that debris EXISTS and is a common PRODUCT of space activities, which can appear in images. We know already this (but some believers here denied even this :d )




Originally posted by poet1b
NASA is clearly stating here that these things exist, and that they are larger than 1 cm, and further than 10 meters from the shuttle. After this evidence is revealed, why do you cling to the fantasy that these must be a result of camera distortion. All of the evidence so far has proven you wrong, time to move on.


so, debris MUST exists ONLY 10 meter away, because this is what you understand from space activities. So, space debris is inteligent and maintain the distance. And you say this is a rule..... LOL. You are amazing
Again, that study refers to a specific situation, on ISS if i remember, or anyway another sts mission.
And my
"fantasy" is not a fantasy, is a FACT, as anyone with a little judgement can SEE in ACTUAL images from STS-75, (which we are talking about here): shape of objects is a function of their position in the frame. This is not fantasy. This may be only your blindness.




Originally posted by poet1b
Why are they only around the tether?


Who says they are around the tether? just a superimposition of some 3d objects on a 2d image?

Well..why do i need to explain this basics? they filmed in direction of the tether, to see the tether. Any object coming in the same direction, will appear in the frame. It doesn' necessarily means that that object is around the tether, it only means it is in the same direction. When the moon or a plane or a bird goes in front of the sun (making an eclipse or just a beautiful overlap), it doens't mean that the moon or the plane or the bird are "near" the sun. BASIC PERSPECTIVE.




Originally posted by poet1b
Why weren't we observing these UFOs for the first 1:40 of the video footage?


Perhaps because the swarm of debris is in shadow of the shuttle or a protuberance of it? you know, shadow of the shuttle can be casted several hundred of meters away (if i remember corectly). Since this is a valid posible situation, then why ignore it? You don't like it? well...



Originally posted by poet1b
Why so many in a concentrated area, far in excess of what there should be?


Why not? Is there a restriction of the amount of debris unintentionaly produced in some part of the mission and appearing in the frame? There have been already posted examples which show many particles of debris in the frame. You seem to just simplify things only in the way you like it. This is not objectivity and logic, you know...



Originally posted by poet1b
During the short period when the camera was not being played with, we had a good view of the tether and the UFOs, and they did not look like crystals, or something close to the camera, why would anyone then assume that they must be objects near the camera?


And in your opinion how an ice cristal or whatever debris particle, close enough to appear as bokeh, should appear? Have you experience in understanding bokeh? I see you not. In this respect then...your question seems logical




Originally posted by poet1b
Some of these UFOs look like they are moving behind the tether, how could this be? Your attempts to demonstrate how this is possible showed no such thing.

It showed exactly such think: bokeh as beeing transparent to let distant objects to be see through them. You seem to be now in "deny everything" posture, you know....




[edit on 25/6/09 by depthoffield]



posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
And the video you show is with the camera adjusted at the extreme causing the distorting, everything is distorted in this picture. You take one frame and claim it represents the whole video, what nonsense.

One frame? That means you didn't watched it, it's a GIF animation with 77 frames, showing one of the objects moving from left to right and chaging shape while it crosses the field of view, while the camera's configuration and position remain the same.

I posted that because what you said ("The fact that for most of the video the camera is constantly being adjusted in a manner which appears to be aimed at getting rid of the UFOs in the frame, it is understandable that during parts of the video there were distortions of these UFOs.") made me think that you considered that it was the change in the camera's configuration and/or position that made the objects look different.


Where is your link that show this tether experiment was not highly important?

I did not said that the experiment was not higly important, it became less important after breaking, that was what I said, and this was at least, and as far as I have seen, three days after the break, when they had already considered it lost.


If you read the article of dealing with objects in the video footage you will see exactly what I am talking about with timing effluent dumps and thruster firings. The link has already been provide a few times.

That report is from 1988, 8 years before the STS-75 flight, it was not directly related to the STS-75 mission, so I think you are right, the water dumps made 8 years before the STS-75 mission were probably not the ones producing the objects we see on this video.


As I explained, if the small adjustment to the where the camera was pointing would have resulted in a change in the lighting it would have been clearly visible. As usual, you are doing nothing but clutching at straws.

What small adjustment? It even looks like a change of scene instead of a continuous shoot, look at it in slow motion and may see what I mean.

(click to open player in new window)

You can see the bright objects that are visible fading away and the tether entering the field of view from the bottom, while the objects that were already visible do not follow the movement of the tether. They keep on fading out while the tether and the other objects fade in and move up.


We know these UFOs are only the tether because before the small move in where the camera was pointing, there were no UFOs. The Camera moved slightly, and suddenly numerous UFOs. If you have any observational skills at all you can see how much the camera moves.
See above.


No out of focus ice crystals do not look like other out of focus objects, and all the demonstrations proved that, irregardless of your claims. Your video demos were a joke, and only proved you wrong.
OK, explain why do ice crystals do not look like other out of focus objects, preferably with some video acompanying the explanantion. A video from yourself is also welcome (like the one you said you did but never posted), I never consider other people's work a joke, so you do not risk any accusation like that from me, regardless of the way you "talk" to me.
(I said before that ice crystals are one possibility, the best way of describing those things, to me, is "small out of focus objects")


I say they look like they are moving behind the tether because they do look like they are moving behind the tether, and large numbers of people agree. Once again the video demos made it look even more like these objects were moving behind the tether.

OK, what makes your "they look like this because they look like this" better than anyone else's "they look like this because they look like this"?


All the evidence so far demonstrates that they are not ice crystals, nor are they micrometers.

I never spoke about micrometeors, so you are wasting your time talking about them to me, I don't think they are micrometeors, and, once more, ice crystals are just one possibility, do not become so attached to those two words, they are just representative of small, bright objects, as I said before, they can even be plasma creatures, I still think they are out of focus, just that.


That they change speeds and directions the way they do eliminates the micro meteor idea, and distance, size, and lack of twinkling properties eliminates the ice crystal theory, not to mention the numerous other evidence that has been shown here on the forum.

Yes, I said before that the "small out of focus object" does not explain their movement.


If you don't see it at this point, then it is because you refuse to see it.

Apparently you are the one ignoring what I have been posting, you keep on talking about things that I didn't said, and it also looks like you did not read the whole document that Zorgon posted.

PS: sorry everyone for any spelling mistake in this post, it was made in a hurry.


Edited to change "explain why do ice crystals" to "explain why do ice crystals do not look like other out of focus objects" and to remove a duplicated "never"


[edit on 25/6/2009 by ArMaP]



posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


Jim, perhaps we will agree to disagree here. I am currently struggling to grasp several pieces of information, and i do not think i can explain it correctly at this moment.

Lets just say that your mindset comes from you experiences, many of which have to do with a certain group of people who share your mindset (and likely helped you condition it, as you allude to in your post about Mission Control).

My mindset comes from my experiences, as well. We each have our own Mental Information Processing Grids, and mine allows possibilities that yours doesn't.



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 11:24 AM
link   
reply to post by depthoffield
 


Take photos of someone in a dense crowd?

What in the sam hill does that have to do with anything? This is the same ludicrous nonsense you guys keep throwing at us.

These UFOs are not crowding the Tether, only a few pass in front of the tether, and they are so small in comparison to the tether that they do not block the view of the tether, while people tend to be the same size as other people, able to completely block each other out. In most of the footage, there is a good view of the tether, and only a small part is blocked for short durations. The constantly playing with the camera is what causes most of the problem.

Apples and Oranges! Heck no, you are comparing bananas and blackberrys with this one.

This is typical of the same ludicrous nonsense that you throw at me in the whole post, and that is all Armap seems capable of doing. It is like your only purpose is to ask stupid questions and deny any sense of logic or reason. It is pathetic.



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


Once again, here is the link the original footage.

www.youtube.com...

At 1 minute 40 seconds, they move the camera slightly to get the tether on screen. You can clearly see the tether rising up from the bottom of the video.

THE CAMERA BARELY MOVES

Look at the triangle formation of stars that is in the picture just before the camera position is adjusted. You can see where the position of those stars change, the bottom two stars in the triangle are still in the picture with the tether.

Either you have horrible observational skills, or you only care about spreading disinfo. It is really annoying.

It does seem like the constant adjustments of the camera begin almost immediately. Only a for about a minute is the camera well focused on the tether, starting about 4:40 into the video. The ground guy even comments on this, and then communications go silent, like maybe they switched to a scrambled channel. Then it seems like they start messing with the camera adjustments again, when the picture was fine. We don't get another good look after this.

Oops, edit to correct script mistake.



[edit on 26-6-2009 by poet1b]



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 12:08 PM
link   
Correction, around 4:15 into the video they get a good focus on the tether. The ground guy asks about the satellite at the end of the tether at 4:40, and then there is radio silence until 5:27, and the crew guy never attempts to answer the question. The next thing we hear is telemetry info on the satellite. How strange! Why does he ignore the question, and why the sudden absolute silence. It clearly seems like they went to a secured channel to briefly discuss something. WHY?

Once the radio silence is broken, then adjustments to the camera begin again. The announcement of the satellite distance seems to indicate that the distance hasn't changed that much.



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b

Correction, around 4:15 into the video they get a good focus on the tether. The ground guy asks about the satellite at the end of the tether at 4:40, and then there is radio silence until 5:27, and the crew guy never attempts to answer the question. The next thing we hear is telemetry info on the satellite. How strange! Why does he ignore the question, and why the sudden absolute silence. It clearly seems like they went to a secured channel to briefly discuss something. WHY?

Once the radio silence is broken, then adjustments to the camera begin again. The announcement of the satellite distance seems to indicate that the distance hasn't changed that much.


Try listening to normal space a/g for several hundred hours to get an appreciation for the pacing of question/response in conflict with other flight deck activities (or talk with somebody who has). It might cure your hyper-active imagination, which has consistently led you astray in this discussion.



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 12:31 PM
link   
UFO @ 8:07 !

object changes direction for no apparent reason. camera is steady, FOV appears to be steady, tether (just above yellow line) does not move.





posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


I understand the logistics of how conversations unfold in operations. I have considerable experience in similar types of situations. I am not drawing conclusions, just asking questions about things that seem to not fit normal operations.

You continue to assume too much about what I know or do not know. I guess it is just far easier to make off the cuff remarks than to consider what I am saying, in order to respond intelligently.

Normally it is expected, if something came up that took away the persons attention, that he should say something like, "wait", or "hold on". In any operations, it is important to maintain continuity. Maybe continuity broke down at this point, but it seems a bit unusual. That is my point. To just ignore the question, only to report logistics after about a minute of time has past, might just be an overlook in the conversation, but it seems off. Good analysis should question things like this. You should know this.



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by easynow
 


Good observation, I think these changes in movement show more than anything that it can't be ice crystals or meteorites. This gets back to your original point. Even the NASA study on particles in the video footage doesn't address this issue.

Why would this UFO change direction in this manner? Ordinary explanations don't seem to apply. This means alternatives should be considered. Plasma does exist. It seems to be a plausible explanation. Why the refusal to discuss this by some?



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 01:28 PM
link   
Let me point out that my 9-years-ago explanation essay offered a test of whether the tether thickness on the screen was a genuine 'aura' or was a camera artifact. I suggested you compare the thickness during various 'zoom' stages, when the length changes by a factor of two or more. Yet the thickness remains the same. I interpret this as an indication that the on-screen thickness is a camera artifact.

People who saw it directly -- from the cabin or from the ground -- reported no glow aside from sunlit brightness.

As to the motion of the dots, I agree some of them are not linear. The question has to be, what dots-creation events occurred in the recent past of this scene, and what forces are available to alter their motions. The water dump is clearly on the activity plan, so the origin of residue particles near the shuttle can be explained. Matching the particle motion changes with thruster firings (and other candidate effluent sources) requires FOIAing the time-tagged data from NASA, but as far as I can tell, nobody out there has done it -- so nobody is justified in claiming there CANNOT be disturbing forces on the particles. How simple is that?

There's been a lot of suggestions that the curving is caused by sublimation off the surface of the particles, which can be irregular -- even flat -- in shape. I'm not a proponent of that theory but I'm no longer as skeptical as once I was. Imagine a small particle, ejecting water molecules at a rate that will cause it to loose haly its mass in five minutes, say. Assume a molecular departure velocity. Apply the rocket equation, and determine the acceleration induced on the particle as its mass drops. Let's see if the numbers appear promising, or if they rule out that hypothesis.



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


There you go, something worthy of your salt. I have some observations I would like to make on this idea, but I need to concentrate on some other things right now.



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
UFO @ 8:07 !

object changes direction for no apparent reason. camera is steady, FOV appears to be steady, tether (just above yellow line) does not move.



Cool. So you have ruled out any shuttle-based effluent events? How nice. Care to share your methodology, or was it divine revelation?

Or does the word "apparent" serve just as code talk for "I'm ignorant of the contextual conditions but my opinion is as good as anybody else's"?

[edit on 26-6-2009 by JimOberg]



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 03:35 PM
link   
First of all, poet1b, please answer these questions, if you don't mind.

1. Did you saw the whole GIF animation made by depthoffield, the whole 77 frames? If you did, did you noticed any changes in the camera during that time?

2. Did you saw the video I posted, taken from one of the two "uncut" versions that were posted on this thread, the same one you posted in your answer? If you did, doesn't it look like what we see is a fade-out of the previous view, fading-in the tether view?


Originally posted by poet1b
Either you have horrible observational skills, or you only care about spreading disinfo. It is really annoying.

I don't know if my observational skills are horrible or not, they haven't failed me yet, but I guarantee you that I am not spreading disinformation, I am doing the same thing that you are doing (I suppose), giving my opinion about this video.



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by easynow
UFO @ 8:07 !

object changes direction for no apparent reason. camera is steady, FOV appears to be steady, tether (just above yellow line) does not move.



Cool. So you have ruled out any shuttle-based effluent events? How nice. Care to share your methodology, or was it divine revelation?

Or does the word "apparent" serve just as code talk for "I'm ignorant of the contextual conditions but my opinion is as good as anybody else's"?

[edit on 26-6-2009 by JimOberg]


Jim, there really, really is no reason to be a jerk. Really.

I think the term "apparent" usually means,

1 : open to view : visible
2 : clear or manifest to the understanding
3 : appearing as actual to the eye or mind
4 : having an indefeasible right to succeed to a title or estate
5 : manifest to the senses or mind as real or true on the basis of evidence that may or may not be factually valid


It seems you got the general gist of "Apparent" correct, but chose to use inflammatory words like "ignorant" as well. Bad form.


[edit on 26-6-2009 by bigfatfurrytexan]



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 08:24 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 



Why would this UFO change direction in this manner? Ordinary explanations don't seem to apply. This means alternatives should be considered. Plasma does exist. It seems to be a plausible explanation. Why the refusal to discuss this by some?


there can only be a couple possible explanations for the change in direction.

one of those possibility's will not even be considered by some people because they believe there is a mundane explanation for everything.

which brings a good point:

should we be considering advice/opinions from someone that has never even seen a real ufo and/or refuses to explore alternative theory's ?


imo an open minded person or someone that has seen a real ufo would have no problem looking at alternative theory's. refusal of alternative options, sends up a warning signal to me.


yes plasma does exist and even if some of the objects are space debri we can't rule out the possibility that some are not. that means there could be plasma life forms or straight up ufo's mixed in the scene. they might be interested in what's going on since the tether and other things might be glowing because of a plasma field from the atmosphere. if there were ufo's out there , there's no doubt in my mind that they would be taking notice of the tether.

this might be a plasma critter...
www.youtube.com...

the subject of why these objects usually appear near the terminator has caught my interest. i think if i was hunting critters, the terminator would be the first place i would go looking.






top topics



 
77
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join