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.
Originally posted by easynow
i also find it strange as secretnasaman pointed out that Oberg wants to drag the conversation over to his place. that is weird to say the least.
Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by depthoffield
So when did this water dump that you claim happened occur?
Why doesn't this look like video footage of water dumps, or what is described in the article.
Once again, there is no evidence what so ever that this is from a water dump. Water dumps can be seen in normal video taping, so we would have seen the particles from the beginning, but we don't. We also don't see a large ejection of a bunch of water particles, so no water dump.
Originally posted by JimOberg
By the way, the freezing of dumped water has practically nothing to do with the 'temperature of space'. It's a phase-change effect involving something called, I believe, the 'heat of vaporization'
STS-75 Shuttle 'Tether'
Video Analysis
By James Oberg
Whispers
(a UFO releated discussion board)
www.junjun.com...
5-10-00
The STS-75 tether videos are remarkable scenes and convey a powerful impression of large, distant circular unknowns. The video is visually striking.
What possible prosaic explanations are there?
Originally posted by mcrom901
reply to post by JimOberg
cherio jim.... the below article is quite interesting..... thanks..... looool... i mean just the beginning......
www.rense.com...
STS-75 Shuttle 'Tether'
Video Analysis
By James Oberg
Whispers
(a UFO releated discussion board)
www.junjun.com...
5-10-00
The STS-75 tether videos are remarkable scenes and convey a powerful impression of large, distant circular unknowns. The video is visually striking.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
But yes to an untrained eye it might appear distant. What people are trying to do is provide some training to help the untrained eyes become better trained eyes, but it seems some of the training is falling on deaf ears.
There are organized group of scoffers masquerading under the term "skeptics" who deny, ridicule and suppress anything progressive that challenges the static views of the establishment. They are debunkers who tend to distort, dismiss and obfuscate any phenomenon that challenges a conventional materialistic view of reality. In truth, they are not true skeptics engaging in open inquiry, but selective debunkers with an agenda to defend the establishment. That's why we call them "pseudo-skeptics". A "true skeptic" engages in open inquiry and doubt toward all views and belief systems, including their own and those of the establishment. But these "pseudo-skeptics" never question the views of the establishment, materialistic science or anything presented as "official".
Common Fallacies of Pseudo-Skeptics:
Double Standards, Contradictions and Lies
Denial of Evidence
Dismissing testimonies and experiences as invalid
Cherry picking of evidence
Selective Skepticism
Straw man arguments
Santa Claus gambit
Occam's Razor
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by Arbitrageur
does the out of context experiment the ufo hunters did prove there are no objects going behind the tether ?
no it does not.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
the UFO Hunters demonstration that the passing behind the tether was an illusion was very dramatic, and even non-technical people should have no difficulty following that. But some people choose to disregard that and the videos DepthOfField has made which reveal the objects are not further than the tether.
Another bogus factoid in your declaration: Water dumps are by no means visible from all, or even most, exterior cameras in all orientations, under all conditions of illumination (or non-illumination). Your over-simplistic assumptions that they must be, are baseless.
Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by Arbitrageur
thanks i appreciate your comments but DOF is using a youtube video that is compressed and distorted and trying to make claims of what is and is not close to the camera and what is and what is not out of focus.
no offense to DOF or secretnasaman but the video in the condition we have is not worthy of scientific analysis in that perspective. motion tracking is even questionable so your argument that DOF has proven anything is ridiculous. you already know what i said about the ufo hunters video.
until we see the original raw video from NASA no final conclusions can be drawn. i have said this so many times in this thread it's getting old.
if you choose to believe that the video is good enough to make final conclusions than great i am happy for you but it is not good enough for me and nobody should accept anything less than the raw footage to study. then we can have a real discussion about this.
and don't want any clarification to take place.
Originally posted by easynow
so me asking to see the raw video footage indicates to you that i "don't want any clarification to take place" ?
Originally posted by easynow
i think the fact that you don't agree with me proves that you like to embrace ignorance enjoy it
Originally posted by easynow
won't it be nice to see the raw data and find out if you have been correct with your theory's ?