Black space debri or ufo you tell

page: 3
9
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by booda
 


First off you're right except the girls in said strip joint would be heavily pixelated/blurred you can't actually see anything worthwhile


As for the identifying part, does anyone actually know what space junk looks like ? How would we be able to distinguish space junk from alien craft if we know what neither look like, even if we had a perfect picture ?




posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


this link was just a quick google search on how thermo nuclear propulsion systems may work, as i thought u might be familiar with the way our sun is workin... guess what! it looks like its on fire (at least it does to me...) - and take another one... hell yeah it doesnt need oxygen either to "burn"!

let me allow to quote myself

wich is emitting some sort of flame - it could also be flare...
hmm did i ever said it IS a flame? no.i didnt... so please, for "gosh sake", stop bullying people for beeing open minded



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by s.one.z
reply to post by JimOberg
 


let me allow to quote myself

wich is emitting some sort of flame - it could also be flare...
hmm did i ever said it IS a flame? no.i didnt... so please, for "gosh sake", stop bullying people for beeing open minded


If you had said "It's emitting something that LOOKS LIKE" a flame, then you would have a valid point. However based on your own quote, I think it is obvious that yes, you did in fact say it was a flame. I don't see how the qualifier "some sort of" makes you think you didn't call it a flame.

Anyway it's good that there are participants on theis board who do pay attention to detail, so you may learn the same lesson I did, and that is that maybe we need to think about our post before clicking the "reply" button, moreso than in other forums, because if we just "think out loud" here and type things into a post that aren't really accurate, we will get called on it. Don't take it personally, it's happened to me too. We have to look at is as a growth experience to help make us into better and more thoughtful posters. So a more thoughtful followup post from you would have been, "yeah I guess it's not a flame, I stand corrected", instead of trying to defend an obvious incorrect statement. Please don't take this personally, I'm not attacking you, just sharing my observations about how this forum works. I think you will have some good things to share here if you just try to be a little more clear.



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 11:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Ummm... isn't that objective perception to the individual ?

If you look at a comment I made on the first page I defended him as I took "some sort of flame" to be something which resembles a flame but isn't neccesarily a flame in itself.

Then again, it's just like all like the pictures we see, what I perceive to see isn't always going to be the same as what you perceive it to be. However I generally believe he wasn't intending to imply that it was an actual flame brought on by combustion

[edit on 15/7/09 by Discotech]



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Discotech
However I generally believe he wasn't intending to imply that it was an actual flame brought on by combustion

I agree with you that may not have been his intention, however that's what he said, so that's why I concluded my response with the statement "I think you will have some good things to share here if you just try to be a little more clear."



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 02:32 PM
link   
wowowow, slow down guys slow down - i agree on you that my statement could be taken wrong, excuse me - im always having a hard time posting here since english is not my mother language.

this conversation thought me alot indeed... to get back to being a reader instead of posting - since im feeling bad now on ruined the ops thread...



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 05:41 PM
link   
neaaa you did not hehe, its always nice to discuss things,



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 09:58 AM
link   
here is my video I examine it in detail.

www.youtube.com...



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 10:28 AM
link   
any further news on this?
was hoping for an answer to the question 'junk form what?' tbh

Edit: just had a thought about this
i remember the usa testing an antisatelite missile some years ago, could this be part of whatever they hit with it?, and is it possible to fins out?
just a thought



[edit on 29-12-2009 by babylonstew]



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 04:50 AM
link   

This a a close up of ISD_highres_STS088_STS088-724-70_3
Link to the High Res photo below.





“I looked up STS 88 on NASA’s site. The only thing I found that “could” be this was some very small floating tools and parts debris.” Read here: www.nasa.gov... “ Besides what small parts floating away from the orbiter have “running lights? (See STS088-724-70_3.JPG). Of all of my 58 years, I have never seen more convincing images than this. We either have some very advanced hardware flying with the Shuttle or it is “someone” else’s.


Source Filer's Files # 26 - 2010

Also thought this may be of some interest sorry if it has all ready been posted.



S&F OP


As for Space junk etc.. I don't think so but then that's me.





[edit on 26-6-2010 by k3rm1t]



posted on Oct, 10 2010 @ 04:40 AM
link   
I just saw this video for the first time and did a search to see if it has been discussed before. This does not look like space junk. Space junk is mostly tiny pieces of metal and the biggest space junk are junked satelites. This looks nothing like either. In fact this looks nothing like anything we have ever put into space.

The detail at 1:50 in the video is jaw dropping. It looks like a complete craft and it definatly does not look man made. I suppose its possible that it could be top secret military craft but the implications of the military possesing such technology is almost as great as it being of extraterrestial origin.

This is one of the best "proof" videos I have ever seen. People want something more concrete than a shakey video of a ambigious ball of light? Well here it is. Try to debunk this. I want to see how this video really stands up to scuitiny. If you say its space junk give me some evidence that we have put something like that up there before.

I want to believe.



posted on Oct, 10 2010 @ 05:26 AM
link   
Oh, I remember these photos.

One of my friends on BAUT has an entire album full of them.

It's more or less a bunch tools wrapped in a utility blanket/belt if I remember correctly. They were accidentally left out of the airlock and jettisoned.



posted on Oct, 10 2010 @ 05:33 AM
link   
Tools in a utility blanket? I have a hard time accepting that. Sounds a bit like "It's only a weatherbaloon" butI suppose its plausible, although I hardly see any resemblance. This thing looks fairly large.



posted on Oct, 10 2010 @ 05:40 AM
link   
reply to post by TheKnave
 


I believe the tools were actually quite large and had to be assembled together. Very expensive stuff, too. I'm sure they were pretty frustrated when they found out what happened to them.

I think I can even see some of the rods bulging from the wrap in the youtube clip.



posted on Oct, 10 2010 @ 05:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Discotech
 





Why, why, why does it always have to be blurred ?


It makes sense that only blurred ones are photos of UFOs or Moon bases. Because in a sharp photo, you would see that it is just some debris or rock..



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by warrenb
ok say let us swallow the official line for a second and say it's debris
debris from what exactly?


From the last rogue ship the Silurians sent. The NAVY secret space fleet took it out, but it got closer to Earth than expected before they were able to destroy it. They used the new rail gun, but missed the first time so had to wait for a recharge to build up.

At least they got it in time... though it did give NASA PR agents more work. I mean if it was really just ordinary space debris why so many high res color pics when we can't even get a good shot of the moon...

Oh yeah? Prove me wrong then... as warren asked... pieces of WHAT? Since they track every tiny scrap, they would know exactly where it came from, just like when China killed one of there own satellites NORAD ID'ed every little piece

The green line is ISS orbit, the red are pieces of that Chinese satellite



So yeah until you guys can prove to me what it was, I am sticking to my version



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 06:57 PM
link   
reply to post by k3rm1t
 


“I looked up STS 88 on NASA’s site. The only thing I found that “could” be this was some very small floating tools and parts debris.” Read here: www.nasa.gov... “ Besides what small parts floating away from the orbiter have “running lights? (See STS088-724-70_3.JPG). Of all of my 58 years, I have never seen more convincing images than this. We either have some very advanced hardware flying with the Shuttle or it is “someone” else’s."

Nice post, but someone at NASA already removed that link.

That wasn't you now was it Jimbo.



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Discotech
 


It does not make sense that NASA would put an alien craft ~ or a secret military craft ~ on their website.

But why is it still so odd loking and why is it black?
And why does it have lights?



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by spiritualarchitect
reply to post by Discotech
 


It does not make sense that NASA would put an alien craft ~ or a secret military craft ~ on their website.

But why is it still so odd loking and why is it black?
And why does it have lights?


Why do you think it has lights? Because part of it is in sunlight?



posted on Nov, 7 2012 @ 12:06 PM
link   
There are 3 lights on the right "wingtip" and 2 lights on the left "wingtip".
These lights do not appear to be sunlight, not like the sunlight we see in the other photo.




top topics
 
9
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join