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.

 

U F O's Being Shot At? By Ground Based Weapons? Video

page: 2
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 08:28 AM
link   
I think the rocket blast on the shuttle is an easy explanation to debunk the flash and the movement of the object !

The thrusters on the shuttle arent fired all the time and are only fired to correct position when needed. Much like the thrusters on the ISS they are only fired to correct altitude once every time they decend to a certain altitude

In my opinion it would seem coincidence that the thrusters are firing at the same time as the object is moving!

Maybe they are independent of each other and in fact the thrusters are firing and also the object is moving independently from the thrusters moving it ! All we see is a flash , we have no idea of the direction of the thrusters. We can only assume they are firing in the direction the object then travels once the object from earth comes into question. Another point is we cannot say for sure the scale and distance the objects are in relation to each other in this video !

Also if the thrusters were firing wouldnt there be a communication stating this , like one of the astronauts stating , thruster burn for 2 secs or something like that , however there is nothing stating this on the video.

I thought commands like this had to be confirmed by the flight commander and ground control ?

there seem to be quite alot of coincidences for this to be explained away as rocket thrusters and space detritus!

furthermore lasers or beam weapons would not be heard , and they may not even be in the visible light frequency so how can we say that they can be seen for sure.

As for the second video , well the glasgow airport flight path flies over my house , and ive seen plenty planes go over me at night , and ive thought they were ufo's plenty of times until they get to a certain distance and you can see the wing lights, emergency beacon and landing lights .

And bats dont fly in straight lines ! hell most winged creatures dont fly in straight lines for most of the time

so imo this is still wide open!




posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 09:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by ufoptics
reply to post by alienesque
 


Still...the booster rocket theory is not convincing, the angles and positioning are opposite of where the camera/shuttle is. May be the Star Wars Satellite program is a reality and the flash occurred from a lower atmosphere positioned satellite?


yes..thats a possibility i guess...but couldnt the beam of light just be a meteor?



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 09:14 AM
link   
reply to post by jpvskyfreak
 






I can give you feedback with this.



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 09:32 AM
link   
As the video that jpvskyfreak posted at the middle in page 1 states, we learn that this happened right over an american military base in Australia


And the fact that they quit filming, are quite disturbing. This has happened before. NASA clearly doesn't want UFOs on tape.



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 10:14 AM
link   
Ok lets forget the NASA footage for a minute ....

Lets look at the other clip ... what do you think it is that (shoots/projects/hurtles/fly's) towards the bright UFO/ORB from the earth perspective?

In my opinion the large light is not a plane (at first glance) .. reason ... strobes ... usually singular or double with a rotating beacon and accompanying port and starboard navigation lights can be identified ... that's what they're there for

If you look at regular aircraft footage with landing lights "on", under night vision , you can still see the strobe flash or light changes due to the rotating beacon or perspective change of the navigation lights ... I cant see any light change in this footage it's just one big ball of light ..

The NASA footage is interesting BUT the other footage and the fast shooting light is pretty cool too!

The beer was ultra cold tonight here in Hong Kong ... I love ASIA



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by ufoptics
reply to post by ELECTRICkoolaidZOMBIEtest
 


Not really....they are not shooting a missile or the likes, it's a laser.


And the reason a laser beam in space is visible is -- uh, what?



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by sapien82
I thought commands like this had to be confirmed by the flight commander and ground control ?


By no means. Under autopilot stabilization, the jets fire automatically when a 'deadband limit' is reached.

The telemetry records for this portion of the flight have been released and posted on the internet. They show the shuttle gradually drifting towards such a limit and they show thrusters firing briefly to correct the attitude, at precisely the moment the flash is seen in the lower left corner.

Haven't seen those records? Gosh, I wonder why the UFO buffs cover them up and ignore them. Any guesses why that information is withheld on forums like these?



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 08:09 PM
link   
So what about the second video filmed beyond the telegraph poles? You cant honestly say that the object that shoots towards the light is a bird or a bat ....



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 08:12 PM
link   
nice videos but in the second one i say its def not a laser no beam!!! was either a small missile but doubt more like a tracer round being fired off but still good vids



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by jpvskyfreak
In my opinion the large light is not a plane (at first glance) .. reason ... strobes ... usually singular or double with a rotating beacon and accompanying port and starboard navigation lights can be identified ... that's what they're there for

If you look at regular aircraft footage with landing lights "on", under night vision , you can still see the strobe flash or light changes due to the rotating beacon or perspective change of the navigation lights

As I already stated, when landing lights are turned on, they outshine the nav lights, and rotating beacon lights. Please show me the rotating beacon or nav lights on this MD-80 (the plane most commonly mistaken for a “Black Triangle” aircraft BTW)?

Or this one:

Now take that same aircraft move it back about 3 miles, and it will appear as a single bright light hovering soundlessly in the sky. If it is not moving directly toward you it will appear to drift like the one in the video above does.



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 08:36 PM
link   


Well Nick Pope seems to think that there are policy's and procedures in place to deal with "un correlated data" from UFO's that arrive unannounced in Britain's airspace.



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 08:44 PM
link   


Here is some night footage of an aircraft and as you can see the strobes over power the rest of the aircraft lighting system ... reason being , so aircraft can be "sighted" from any angle or perspective .... sometimes you may even hear ATC feeds saying "you got your strobes on?" to help the tower get a visual position fix on an aircraft that's hard to find.

This very well could be an aircraft coming head on with it's landing lights on , but I still think you'd see the strobes flash at some point ....

And if it is an aircraft! Why are they shooting at it? The 7 second mark still has a fast object travel in the direction of the light.



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 08:58 PM
link   
As far as the first video goes...we can rule out Lasers. The reason...A laser would be a solid beam and would be instantaneously visible (it moves at the speed of light) and would be a solid line until turned off.

This is clearly a projectile of some sort. It enters the video frame, moves across the screen, then exits continuing on it's path since it didn't hit anything....at high velocity. Whether it's a weapon who knows...However if it is a projectile weapon...chances are it would be a rail gun.

This is the most logical explanation and the only thing powerful enough to propel a projectile to those speeds in a short amount of time. It would also explain how it could be quiet, thus not being noticed by people, since it's being propelled by magnets and not an explosive device.

It wouldn't necessarily have to be located close to a power plant. Depending on how far along the weapon development was it could actually be mobile.

Too bad, or maybe it's a good thing...It doesn't hit it's target. Only then would we know if it was a weapon being fired at a craft or the "Ice Crystal" explanation.

As for the second video...who knows what it is...but it's not moving at the same velocity as the one in the first video and if it is something be fired is likely something much more conventional.

[edit on 5-11-2009 by 750Aero]

[edit on 5-11-2009 by 750Aero]



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 09:18 PM
link   
reply to post by jpvskyfreak
 


defcon5 plays along NASA's explanation (a la Jim Oberg) and says: "The first video is old, and has been thoroughly explained, most people seem to accept what it really is in that footage. If you watch just before the supposed object moves and is “shot at”, you will see a flash on the screen in the lower left side. That flash is the reactant rockets firing to keep the shuttle in the correct attitude. Any spacecraft flies in a cloud of debris, everything from ice to bits of dirt, even actual parts that fall off the shuttles themselves fly alongside the shuttle like a cloud. When the reactant rockets fire, they displace some of that debris, and you get movement of those objects just like you saw in the video."

I've never bought that explanation after having watched that video a ton of times. First, the flash does NOT seem connected to the shuttle. Second, IF it was the shuttle firing one of its attitude rockets we would have seen a change in perspective as the shuttle should shift due to the firing. You can't have an action and no reaction. Third, as it's been pointed out many times, not all of the white objects are affected by the flash and they just continue in their slow drift.

The object that speeds off appeared out of the earth's atmosphere and some will claim that it was an ice particle coming into sunlight. Bah, humbug! It appeared, just as some did in STS-80 up from earth and it drifted and there must have been some "sensing" aboard the object that something was coming its way and it sped off faster than you can say "Jim Oberg"!

If you want a believable explanation seek out Jack Kasher's and others. Those that try to explain it away were not in space and have no idea what they're talking about. Jack Kasher is qualified to offer his opinion. The others are not.

The second video doesn't show me what others see, I don't see any hostile action. What I see is possibly another UFO speeding off, farther away.



[edit on 5-11-2009 by The Shrike]



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by jpvskyfreak
Here is some night footage of an aircraft and as you can see the strobes over power the rest of the aircraft lighting system ... reason being , so aircraft can be "sighted" from any angle or perspective ....

Actually I spent many years working for an airline, and I can ID many aircraft by type based on their lighting pattern (though its getting harder as more have similar lights now), so I know how aircraft lighting works. Strobes are rear facing and only visible from behind the wing on ALL commercial aircraft. Nave lights, depending on aircraft type, reside in the wingtip lighting bubble, which is often also used for housing the wingtip landing lights (aircraft type dependant). The rotating beacon’s purpose is not so much for aircraft to see each other, but to let ground personnel know when the engines are running, hence the fact that they are turned on when the engines are. Private planes are a different story, the lighting can vary based on what the owner decides he wants to spend on lighting.

Here is the wingtip of a MD-80 aircraft:

As you can see the strobes point backwards toward the trailing edge, and thus are only visible from behind the wing. The Nav lights are directly in front of the landing light, and when the landing light turns on (and swings down), they completely drown out the Nav lighting. See what I mean?



Originally posted by jpvskyfreak
sometimes you may even hear ATC feeds saying "you got your strobes on?" to help the tower get a visual position fix on an aircraft that's hard to find.

Never heard that before, ATC should never have a problem spotting an aircraft as they are required to turn on their landing lights any time they are below 10K feet. Things such as logo lights vary from airline to airline, and each has their own procedure for them (the Logo light on the pic above is the one next to the strobe light that I forgot to label, it points at the tail logo).


Originally posted by jpvskyfreak
And if it is an aircraft! Why are they shooting at it? The 7 second mark still has a fast object travel in the direction of the light.

Looks like a bat or bird to me. If it is someone shooting at it, then who has an AA system that is out there shooting at random objects anyway?



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 09:29 PM
link   
oh wow. these video... again...
like they havent been discussed one trillion times.

seriously, seriously...

tune in next week for another similarly titled thread. "object changes direction: proof"
oh my...



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 09:47 PM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


Dude I've got several thousand plus hours ... time on B747-400's and Boeing 777-200/300/300ER's ... and I do not discount your analysis on the footage , all I'm saying is that to me it looks weird. But for all intentions sake (lets call it a plane).

If you can ID that light as an MD well hat off to you man , but with the Boeing single strobe and airbus double strobe I cant see either / and I think if he did have it on under the sensitivity of the night shot you would pick up some ambient light flash as it went off.

Sorry man don't buy the bat explanation ..... that thing what ever it was ... is FAST.

Birds under night Vision just for the hell of it






[edit on 5-11-2009 by jpvskyfreak]



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 10:26 PM
link   
I'm voting for ice particle, pushed away by the thruster exhaust. That would account for the most puzzling questions. As for the light streak, I don't know.

The alternative explanation is much more complicated and requires several items not known to exist. First, it requires a UFO to be some sort of craft. Possible, sure, but not confirmed despite all the years of speculation. Then it also requires a hypothetical weapon that we have no evidence exists, that was able to target this thing and fire at it. How? Why? It would mean that the government would deliberately fire on an unknown craft, without seeking to know what it was, whether its intentions were peaceful, whether it possessed massive weaponry that could wipe out the planet, and so on. Just a shot in the dark, hoping to knock out a UFO in space. That they somehow discovered.

The UFO in question never appears as anything but a white dot. There is no detail to help us distinguish between ice and spacecraft. That being the case, it could be anywhere from a few feet away from the shuttle, to many miles away. If it's close, it's small and it's not moving very fast. If it's far away, it's huge and it's moving quite rapidly. Also it's accelerating at an unbelievable rate, which would be fatal for humans. That would require some sort of technology also not known to exist, which would allow the pilot of this UFO to survive such masive accelerations.

The streak of light itself is suspicious. It's moving at a visible rate. I don't know exactly how our "star wars" weapons would work, but to my understanding, they'd be moving too fast for the human eye to follow. Yet this took several seconds to move from wherever it originated, to out of our view. Also, it presumably moved out of the Earth's atmosphere, but it still glowed. How is that?



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 10:48 PM
link   
I'm going to go with ice particle accelerated by the thrusters. It is too slow to be a laser or any other type of optical device or weapon.

If it was a rocket, it would need to build enough speed to break out of the atmosphere. Those type of rockets are from my understanding are always multiple stage with a combination of Solid, then Liquid fuel and can take minutes to reach orbit from the ground. Then you get into the question, ok that is possible if they are firing at something with a fixed orbit if they wanted to take out a satellite or something, but trying to hit a so called non orbiting craft would be useless.



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 10:51 PM
link   
reply to post by chiron613
 

Nah, I don't buy the particle story. There's enough footage of other spacejunk being propelled by the thrusters and none of them show the same velocity, speed, direction of travel, etc.

I'm even sure if you would one day be privileged to make a trip around space, you'd be sick to your stomach of what you'll see. Sick because of the lies and everything you thought to know just vanishes in a split second. Sick because you'll feel like a prehistoric barbaric human with no significance whatsoever



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join