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.

 

Three UFOs Flying Around ISS. Ground Control order: 'Endeavour please pause the playback!'

page: 11
60
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 26 2011 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dastardly666

Firstly, thanks for your post I appreciate the time you put into it and I agree with much of what you said.

For the objects in question, to say its definitely space debris or even an alien space ship without providing 100% evidence is misleading. I appreciate the opinions and view points of others however to say its fact without the proof is wrong. My point is, no-one has been in space to know how each object behaves in space and what objects are up there. Like many here, I've never seen space debris. There was no scientific explanations given by the posters on this thread. And I should not have to provide evidence to prove anything as I am not the one saying the object is definitely something. Just because it looks like something it doesn't mean it is that. We have no distance or other information to suggest what we are seeing is indeed space debris or some other mundane object.

I'm not saying I am right, I just want more evidence to make me happy that what we are seeing is debris and not something else.


If, IF, we could get a bonafide american/russian/german hero astronaut posting here or on vid to explain what we are seeing in these transmissions and it ends up being explained as ISS or Shuttle debris by them what would that do? It has to be up to the willingness of the recipient of that information (you me and everyone else here) to accept it as the highest form of proof available to explain it. The problem is that people have a knack for moving that bar of acceptable proof whenever it doesn't meet their boxed up view of reality.

For you the bar is much higher than it is for me and a lot of other people here evidently. We are not going to convince you to lower your bar of acceptance and you most likely will not raise ours. We must either be open-minded enough to allow a wider range of possibilities or agree to disagree. Nothing wrong with that, but the experience of this kind of debate always somewhere down the road has an effect on how we all modify our conclusions about stuff like this. You don't have to compromise what you think by opening up the box a bit. Just dont let your brains pop out in the process....




posted on May, 26 2011 @ 01:24 PM
link   
Well, astronaut Tom Jones on STS-80 posted this on his blog, concerning the claims that UFOs were seen on his mission:

skywalking1.wordpress.com...

And here's a link of the views of astronaut Mario Runco about a youtube 'space ufo' video that he asserts was bogus.

www.popularmechanics.com...
edit on 26-5-2011 by JimOberg because: add link



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by Dastardly666

Thanks for proving my point.

You said your evidence is that the objects look like and behave like mundane debris. What is scientific about that? This is not evidence alone to prove 100% that the objects are mundane debris.


To prove a person 'not guilty' in court it is NOT required to prove who ELSE did it -- the presumption is always one of the accused's innocence. If there is sufficient doubt of the 'proof of guilt' [proof of extraordinariness], the presumption of innocence stands.

The burden of proof is similar with 'UFO' claims.

To establish that an extraordinary explanation is required, one must prove that all prosaic explanations fail.

It is not up to the defenders of prosaic explanations to PROVE they are true, just that they are reasonably possible.

That makes them, by default, logically superior to claims that current models of reality have failed.

That you don't get it -- that you argue exactly the opposite -- indicates that what you think you know about logic and science is bass ackwards.

You have control over this. LEARN.


Jim,

From reading your previous posts and your dire attempts to debunk UFO videos, you are the last person to criticise anyone about their logic and science and your above post proves this. If all current and ex-NASA employees are like you then we are in serious trouble.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dastardly666
For the objects in question, to say its definitely space debris or even an alien space ship without providing 100% evidence is misleading.


Not only it is obvious you have zero scientific literacy but you have not bothered to comprehend any post here.


Originally posted by Dastardly666
My point is, no-one has been in space to know how each object behaves in space and what objects are up there.


To draw your argument out to it's logical conclusion, as you have never been to space, then you are in no position to tell us we are wrong.


Originally posted by Dastardly666
Like many here, I've never seen space debris.


But we have seen film of it, which is readily available. You are choosing to be willfully ignorant.


Originally posted by Dastardly666
There was no scientific explanations given by the posters on this thread.


Yes there has, that it looks and behaves as debris. Can please tell us why this is not scientific evidence?

While you say there has been no scientific explanation given, you know this not to be the case. Indeed, your choosing to ignore or acknowledge (even if you do not accept) explanations and evidence seems to change between posts.


Originally posted by Dastardly666
And I should not have to provide evidence to prove anything as I am not the one saying the object is definitely something.


You are telling us we are wrong; but you have not told us why.


Originally posted by Dastardly666
Just because it looks like something it doesn't mean it is that.


Here you are wrong. It doesn't necessarily mean it is. However, there is no evidence to suggest otherwise.


Originally posted by Dastardly666
I'm not saying I am right, I just want more evidence to make me happy that what we are seeing is debris and not something else.


What evidence do you have to support it not being debris?



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 01:39 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 01:40 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 01:46 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 01:46 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 01:49 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Dastardly666
 
Space Junk or debrie is consentrated around the earth close to the earth and in an earth type orbit. For it to floated out as far as the ISS is extremely rare. Something that far out usually excapse from the cargo bay of the shuttle. Plus the images in the OPs video shows that whatever it is, it is very far away from the ISS or the shuttle, at least 80 or 100 miles or more. Now here on earth how far away can you see could you see a 10 cm can floating in the air even with a camera zoom lense, much less not zoomed.

The image below will show you just how far away the ISS is from the Earth. If the ISS can cast a shadow on the Sun it is way out away from junk, satellites, ice from the launch. Be logical, no one has even come close to proving ice or junk, they just keep repeating it and tell everyone else to prove it is not. There are people on this thread that have worked for NASA, myself included, All 13,000 large pieces of space junk over 4 cm can be located anytime time of the day. They could call and ask if there is a piece of space junk in that area at the time, but they don't do that. Like Hitler said you repeat a lie long enough people will believe it.

www.spaceweather.com...

How many miles away can you see one ice crystal? Can you see a plane 80 to 100 miles away? Logic my friend, says it is not space junk or an ice crystal. What it is is the question? So discussing it as being a piece of junk or



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by coolottie
... If the ISS can cast a shadow on the Sun it is way out away from junk, satellites, ice from the launch. ...


Please think again about what you seem to be claiming. A lot of readers here who were carelessly sipping something when they read this passage may have sprayed all over their keyboards, so please try to avoid such provocations in the future [grin].

Didn't you get the joke about the Slobogdian space program that planned to one-up America's landing on the Moon by landing an astronaut on the Sun? And they planned to overcome the heating problem by doing it at night.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arken
reply to post by Phage
 


The Big phage!


The Master of the sentinels...

Seems that I've touched a wasps nest!



Fascinating footage. Nice find.

It looks as though it's brought in the gnarling pack - a sure sign you've touched on something!



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by coolottie
reply to post by Dastardly666
 
Space Junk or debrie is consentrated around the earth close to the earth and in an earth type orbit. For it to floated out as far as the ISS is extremely rare. Something that far out usually excapse from the cargo bay of the shuttle. Plus the images in the OPs video shows that whatever it is, it is very far away from the ISS or the shuttle, at least 80 or 100 miles or more. Now here on earth how far away can you see could you see a 10 cm can floating in the air even with a camera zoom lense, much less not zoomed.

The image below will show you just how far away the ISS is from the Earth. If the ISS can cast a shadow on the Sun it is way out away from junk, satellites, ice from the launch. Be logical, no one has even come close to proving ice or junk, they just keep repeating it and tell everyone else to prove it is not. There are people on this thread that have worked for NASA, myself included, All 13,000 large pieces of space junk over 4 cm can be located anytime time of the day. They could call and ask if there is a piece of space junk in that area at the time, but they don't do that. Like Hitler said you repeat a lie long enough people will believe it.

www.spaceweather.com...

How many miles away can you see one ice crystal? Can you see a plane 80 to 100 miles away? Logic my friend, says it is not space junk or an ice crystal. What it is is the question? So discussing it as being a piece of junk or



Hi Coolottie,

Thanks for the informative post.

What you said sounds a lot more credible than what has been said.

It is easy to say its debris or space junk but like you rightly ask, what exactly is it?

I suppose we will hear from them soon.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dastardly666
Thanks for the informative post.
What you said sounds a lot more credible than what has been said.


Our task here is done. The facts of the matter -- it was a playback twenty hours after docking that was completed after at least one pause to transmit higher-priority real-time robot arm views during the AMS ungrapple/install, while the docking the previous day was broadcast live from another camera, on the space station itself. The shuttle camera view is NEVER broadcast live during approach because the hi-gain antenna is shared for either radar ranging or TV transmission, and during docking, guess which is more important?

It's also been reaffirmed here that the less one knows about real spaceflight operations -- or actually, the more nonsense one believes to be true, but it isn't -- the higher one's enthusiasm for UFO interpretations of space videos. The poster child (or the poster grandma, actually) for that observation made some examples not long ago:

“Space Junk or debrie is consentrated around the earth close to the earth and in an earth type orbit. For it to floated out as far as the ISS is extremely rare.”

Not surprisingly, exactly the opposite is true. “Space junk” is thickest at altitudes above the space station and is actually less dense at lower altitudes because the higher air drag more efficiently ‘cleans out’ the junk and drops it into the atmosphere.

And I repeat my own claim that the careless use of the term ‘space junk’ has caused confusion (my bad, too). None of the stuff seen in any of the shuttle and station videos seems to be a member of this notorious cloud, but instead are almost all objects originating from the shuttle or station, or other vehicles engaged in close-in rendezvous operations. Some are actually stars, planets, or the Moon.

“Plus the images in the OPs video shows that whatever it is, it is very far away from the ISS or the shuttle, at least 80 or 100 miles or more”

Images show nothing of the sort without some other object at that range to compare it too, or perhaps different timings of shadow entry/exit to give such a clue. Otherwise, it is just a dot that could be 10 feet, 10 miles, or 10 light years away.

“Now here on earth how far away can you see could you see a 10 cm can floating in the air even with a camera zoom lense, much less not”.

From Earth people frequently naked-eye see objects of this size 50-60 miles up as they hit the atmosphere, and amateur satellite observers with backyard optics see and videotape stuff this small ten thousand miles away. I’ve myself seen a space tether the thickness of a telephone cord, naked eye, at a range of 300+ miles.

“If the ISS can cast a shadow on the Sun it is way out away from junk, satellites, ice from the launch”

It’s not casting a shadow on the Sun’s surface, or course – what she probably meant to say was displaying a silhouette. All solid objects in space appear in silhouette when they cross the face of the Sun. It has nothing to do with whether they are “way out away from junk, satellites, ice from the launch”. Zilch.

“Be logical, no one has even come close to proving ice or junk, they just keep repeating it ….” No, they provide real-world examples and links that actually support their contentions.

“There are people on this thread that have worked for NASA, myself included”. No evidence has been presented to support this – indeed, all these silly and spurious claims argue strongly against it being true.

“They could call and ask if there is a piece of space junk in that area at the time, but they don't do that.” There is no rational reason to do so since there is no reason to suspect that the dots in this video are bigger than 4 cm and have been in space long enough to be detected, tracked, and characterized.

“Like Hitler said you repeat a lie long enough people will believe it” This sort of hate-filled rhetoric is the ultimate characterizer of this kind of approach.

“How many miles away can you see one ice crystal?” Who cares? When the objects are meters away, visibility at ranges of kilometers is irrelevant.

“Can you see a plane 80 to 100 miles away?” Actually, if has lights, or is sunlit against a dark background like the space dots are, you can. What’s the point?

“What it is is the question? So discussing it as being a piece of junk or”

Please complete the thought.

edit on 26-5-2011 by JimOberg because: typo



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 07:39 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 

You should know how far the ISS is from earth, so how many miles away is it.
Also, how does all of that junk get that far out into space.
you could also call where they track these 13,000 pieces of junk and they would tell you if there was any in that area at that time.


This is always what you do when I prove your Junk theory more bogus than anyone UFO theory. Can't take it don't play. The only place you seem to be about to do any reporting or writing is on ATS. Always making personal attacks against me just shows your lack of character as well as intelligence



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 07:42 PM
link   
reply to post by coolottie
 


Oberg, James (1981). New Earths. Stackpole Books. ISBN 978-0452006232.

Oberg, James (1981). Red Star In Orbit. Random House. ISBN 978-0394514291.

Oberg, James (1982). UFO's and Outer Space Mysteries: A Sympathetic Skeptic's Report. Donning Company. ISBN 978-0898651027.

Oberg, James (1983). Mission to Mars. Plume. ISBN 978-0452006553.

Oberg, James (1984). The New Race for Space: The U.S. and Russia Leap to the Challenge for Unlimited Rewards. Stackpole Books. ISBN 978-0811721776.

Oberg, James (1987). Pioneering Space: Living on the Next Frontier. McGraw-Hill. ISBN 978-0070480391.

Oberg, James (1988). Uncovering Soviet Disasters: Exploring the Limits of Glasnost. Random House. ISBN 978-0394560953.

Oberg, James (1999). Space Power Theory. US Air Force Academy.

Oberg, James (2002). Star-Crossed Orbits: Inside the U.S.-Russian Space Alliance. McGraw-Hill. ISBN 978-0071407960.

en.wikipedia.org...

And that's just the books.
edit on 5/26/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Dastardly666
 

Yes, I just found one of the most amazing UFO videos yet, and we are trying to findout if it is Fake or Not, even guys that do CGI say they can't tell, but if it is fake it the best they have seen. Huge mother ship.
Not meaning to take away from this thread because the video on here we know for sure is not fake.
Thanks.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 5/26/2011 by coolottie because: forgot link



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 10:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


I have seen his website. Even sent him an email about it. He replied but no message just an attachment I didn't open. Impressive, but I have looked for a NASA site and found one where he was making a presentation on Russian Space research. watched the video. I know a lot of very intelligent people, 4 Astrophysics, they all believe exterrestials are visiting earth. I myself have given a presentation to military students in physics attending Cambridge UK on Quantum Physics and Other Dimensions. It was well excepted. I have never read any of his books because until I got on ATS I had never heard of him.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 12:10 AM
link   


I would also like to see a video where the u.f.o.'s actually changed their trajectory mid flight.. That would be interesting.
reply to post by Demoncreeper
 


Footage of UFO's changing trajectories do exist. Space shuttle Discovery caught a UFO on camera in 1991. An object moves from right to left and then makes a 135 degree turn and then accelerates. Here is the footage from NASA cameras:


edit on 27-5-2011 by missanthropic because: Added quote



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 04:22 AM
link   
I want to see, in the original NASA Mission site, the whole Endeavour-ISS Docking Approach scene!
Link please. Thanks.



new topics

top topics



 
60
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join