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: 41
77
<< 38  39  40    42  43  44 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
I never said NASA supports the bokeh hypothesis, and I don't care what NASA says, I have my own opinions, as you may have noticed, if you have followed some of my posts.


there seems to be a belief among "believers" on these boards that all "debunkers" act in concert with an identical agenda. i find that mildly entertaining and slightly worrisome.

the idea that people can evaluate evidence on their own and come to their own conclusions that don't agree with yours shouldn't be a sign to you that there is a conspiracy. attacking me or another poster in this thread by saying "that's not what your buddy oberg said" or "nasa doesn't agree" is hilariously misguided - especially when they haven't even commented on the matter.

[edit on 4-7-2009 by JScytale]




posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
Armap, If you want to prove that ASA is supportive of the Bokeh Hyopthesis to explain the UFOs in the footage we are examining, you will have to back it up with some evidence in the form of links to external sources (ideally from NASA).


YOU made that connection, and YOU got called out on it. ArMap at no point expressed an opinion other than his own. You assume that because he doesn't believe these are UFOs then he must agree with everything NASA believes on the matter. You then made the unsupported claim that NASA stated they can't be camera artifacts. You were called out on this. You cannot shift the burden of proof to him. It is your responsibility to find evidence of your claim, assuming you want to continue pursuing this faulty line of reasoning.



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lazyninja
reply to post by zorgon
 


Hey Zorgon, you're a knowledgeable guy about NASA and related matters, maybe you can help me. I might possibly write to NASA, but I'm so uninformed that I don't even know what the part of the camera is called, I know what it looks like! but that isn't so helpful
Maybe I should just send a picture.

I need to find out, what method of lighting modern NASA cameras use, I'm having real problems of finding this information.

Oops, I didn't read your post entirely. I see you're not interested in finding it out yourself. Oh well, then I'll just make a general appeal to everyone in ATS, since the two major proponents of the pulsating alien theory are (unsurprisingly) not interested in helping me.



[edit on 4-7-2009 by Lazyninja]


this wouldn't hurt as a starting point.
www.nasa.gov...
making a simple technical request, such as "what kind of cameras and lighting techniques does NASA use in shuttle flights these days?" (im sure your question would be more specific) should be met with an answer handily.

and you don't have to express vast technical knowledge to get an answer when asking for help from a scientist in understanding something. they live to expand human knowledge, satisfying someones curiosity is not something a scientist would hesitate to do.

[edit on 4-7-2009 by JScytale]



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by JScytale
 


Can you find any statements made by NASA that use the Bokeh hypothesis to explain the UFOs in this footage?

You cannot.



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by JScytale
 


Can you find any statements made by NASA that use the Bokeh hypothesis to explain the UFOs in this footage?

You cannot.



please read my posts before commenting. by reading i mean understanding my points.

[edit on 4-7-2009 by JScytale]



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
Armap, If you want to prove that ASA is supportive of the Bokeh Hyopthesis to explain the UFOs in the footage we are examining, you will have to back it up with some evidence in the form of links to external sources (ideally from NASA).

OK, I will say it one more time, it looks like two times was not enough.
Maybe if I write in bold it would be more readable.

I do not want to prove that NASA is supportive of the Bokeh hypothesis.

Is it better? Or do I have to write it in flashing plasma letters?


Why do you keep on talking about something I did not said?


It seems that you cannot find any statements made by NASA that use the Bokeh hypthesis to explain the UFOs in this footage. Thus far you have been unable to provide us with one or post any links to external sources which would indicate NASA's support for the Bokeh Hypothesis ...

I haven't even looked for it, I don't care if NASA is supportive of the bokeh hypothesis or not, I just wanted to know if your statement was based on a NASA statement or not.



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

I do not want to prove that NASA is supportive of the Bokeh hypothesis.


In order to prove me wrong, that is exactly what you must do.



Edit; check your u2u box


[edit on 4-7-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by ArMaP

I do not want to prove that NASA is supportive of the Bokeh hypothesis.


In order to prove me wrong, that is exactly what you must do.






how hard is it to understand that exactly zero of the people who disagree with you in this thread care about NASA's official stance on the matter? In my eyes at least, they are a source of credible experts but their opinions are their own, not mine. I will evaluate any theories they put forth but that doesn't mean I'm going to subscribe to them without hesitation.

NASA's theories have zero bearing on my theories or armap's theories. This should not be difficult to understand.



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 03:07 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by JScytale
NASA's theories have zero bearing on my theories or armap's theories. This should not be difficult to understand.


Well since its July 4th, time to light that BBQ


But you know if you are going to argue that what NASA's opinion on these issues is is IRRELEVANT than your argument is no better than this one, and not as funny



[edit on 4-7-2009 by zorgon]



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
In order to prove me wrong, that is exactly what you must do.

But I do not want to prove you wrong about that statement, I only wanted a confirmation


Edit; check your u2u box

Checked, as you know by now.



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
But you know if you are going to argue that what NASA's opinion on these issues is is IRRELEVANT than your argument is no better than this one, and not as funny

[edit on 4-7-2009 by zorgon]


how is "my opinions are my own" a difficult position to understand?

like i said, NASA is a source of highly credible insight. saying their opinions have zero bearing on mine means i will read over NASA's conclusions and add weight to their arguments because not only do they have first hand accounts, but they are experts in the field - but does that mean I will agree with their opinions unconditionally? no, it does not. their opinions are theirs. my opinions are mine. armap's opinions are armap's. oberg's opinions are oberg's. lazyninja's opinions are lazyninja's. how about yours and exhuberant's?


EDIT: Am I alone in believing bloodline's post did not warrant removal? It was not off topic, it was pointing out an "I know you are but what am I" level argument. hell, it got two stars in the minute or two it existed.

[edit on 4-7-2009 by JScytale]



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by JScytale
 

In Raybo58's absence, I posted the video on that Turkey UFO thread & noted he was the person that posted it here.

I don't support either the video posted by Rabo58 or the Turkey UFO as being "real", but it's all interesting nevertheless.

In the instance of the video posted by Raybo58, I agree with Armap.



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 04:25 PM
link   
You should really read the thread. There have been a great many thoughtful contributions sprinkled among the ego duels.


Originally posted by Lazyninja
And no I don't know why people cling to side issues, can you tell me?


Define "Side Issue". It seems like you're suggesting that anything less than an alien craft landing on the Whitehouse lawn is irrelevant.

Since that hasn't happened yet, we are studying the available evidence, which is rather intriguing to anyone who's not totally lacking in intellectual curiosity, and building a case that would charge NASA, in these particular instances, with participating in a cover up.

Every one of your questions has been thoroughly hashed over long ago in this thread.



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Sam60
 


Jebus man, give me a minute. I've only been up for half an hour.



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Define "Side Issue". It seems like you're suggesting that anything less than an alien craft landing on the Whitehouse lawn is irrelevant.



Back when the anomalies were unexplained (to the UFO community at least, why else would NASA be so casual about having them on public display) the movement of the anomalies was a fairly important issue of debate.

But when the origin of the anomalies was explained as just being camera artifacts, the matter of them moving irregularly was relegated to being a side issue. At least in my opinion.

[edit on 4-7-2009 by Lazyninja]



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Raybo58
 

Humble apologies.... but I did put your name all over it.

You will be HUGE in that thread!




posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by JScytale
like i said, NASA is a source of highly credible insight.




Thats up there with Neville Chamberlain that one.



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lazyninja
Back when the anomalies were unexplained (to the UFO community at least, why else would NASA be so casual about having them on public display) the movement of the anomalies was a fairly important issue of debate.


You ARE aware that NASA did not put this video on public display, aren't you? If NASA had their wish it would never have been on the internet, There was even a major court battle over ownership in 2000.

This STS75 footage was INTERCEPTED by a satellte TV network dish by Martyn Stubbs aka secretnasaman..

It is NOT a NASA original. NASA won't give us the original. Even Jim Oberg cannot get his hands on it though he says maybe.. if we can give the exact time so they can find it in thousand of feet of video that we also don't have easy access to

Hope that helps



I am willing to be proven wrong on this one

Produce the original NASA copy of this or any of the other 'famous' UFO's like STS80



[edit on 4-7-2009 by zorgon]



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lazyninja
reply to post by gallifreyan medic
 


We can see the movement just fine. What we are asking is how exactly it is relevant. It is like asking how a cat always lands on it it's feet, it's a good question, but it has nothing to do with ufos.


The movement is relevant insomuch as it provides clues that the objects, whether they are in sharp focus or not, are operating under intelligent control. Which is one of the features that would have to be in evidence if you were making a case that what we are seeing is not simply debris or ice crystals. Basic physics tells us that a body in motion will tend to remain in motion unless otherwise acted upon by an opposing force.



In this case an object changes course no less than 6 times in 15 seconds. It has been postulated that the effect might be due to thruster firings or collisions with other objects too small to be seen. Without further evidence, it remains a matter of opinion I suppose.





[edit on 4-7-2009 by Raybo58]



new topics

top topics



 
77
<< 38  39  40    42  43  44 >>

log in

join