There's no such thing as a NASA UFO

Originally posted by mcrom901

Originally posted by Kandinsky
Reading a NASA transcript shows that pretty much all agreed it was a terrestrial UFO.

hrmzz... what is a terrestrial ufo

Im actually Luaghing my ASS of here...

You cant read can you...I mean, you can obviously write..
But hows the reading skills..

UFO: UNIDENTYFIED FLYING OBJECT...

WHAT, in that is extraterestrial?!?!? PLEASE ANSWER....

Originally posted by Miccey

Originally posted by mcrom901

Originally posted by Kandinsky
Reading a NASA transcript shows that pretty much all agreed it was a terrestrial UFO.

hrmzz... what is a terrestrial ufo

Im actually Luaghing my ASS of here...

You cant read can you...I mean, you can obviously write..
But hows the reading skills..

UFO: UNIDENTYFIED FLYING OBJECT...

WHAT, in that is extraterestrial?!?!? PLEASE ANSWER....

how does anything 'unidentified' turn out to be "terrestrial"?

reply to post by mcrom901


I have no idea at all...

[INSERT:
It could be a terestrial UFO if its partial identyfied.
Like a rubble, ice, whatever]

But, can it be terestrial?

Or does it HAVE to be EXTRA terestrial..???

So, if i find a fish i cant identify, its alien???
Sure i know its a fish, but hey, i cant identify it so
it has to be extraterstrial...

A UFO is a ufo untill someone without a doubt can PROVE
what it is...
Fish, plane, rock, clowd, Obama in tights, Solarpanel from ISS
A grey from planet Bla bla bla....

Originally posted by Miccey
A UFO is a ufo untill someone without a doubt can PROVE
what it is...
Fish, plane, rock, clowd, Obama in tights, Solarpanel from ISS
A grey from planet Bla bla bla

You got it backwards. A 'UFO' is a report that has been thoroughly investigated and no prosaic explanation is plausible. What we have here are usually 'proto-UFOs', or UFO candidates. The burden of proof rests with the claimant of extraordinariness, i.e., that the report CANNOT be explained by ANY potential proasic cause.

reply to post by JimOberg


You know Jim..

I read your statement and i find my definition in there too...
Read closely and you hopefully will too...

DEFINITION...Mine is probobly not the same as all others.
But i firmly states a UFO is unidentyfied flying object. And will
ramain as such untill proven to be soemthing known or another
explanation can be fitted to that OBJECT..

OffT:

Damn im doing a conversation in a thread with JimO..
Famous from TV...Ive seen you there so dont try to Deny...

Damn again..
The more i read your coment Jim the more respect i loose..
A REPORT??? Hmmm

Originally posted by JimOberg
The burden of proof rests with the claimant of extraordinariness, i.e., that the report CANNOT be explained by ANY potential proasic cause.

I don't think it's too extraordinary not being able to identify an object. The truth is that until an object is identified we don't actually know whether it can be attributed to a prosaic cause

I do find it extraordinary that you can have a, "terrestrial UFO." If you have not identified what the damn thing is, how in God's name can you know it has a terrestrial origin? Call me ignorant if you like but it makes no sense to me....

Incidentally, what do astronauts call unidentified objects they spot in space? If they notify NASA ground/Houston, what do they call it? Is there a code word or standard name?

reply to post by Pimander


JimO has done some work for NASA
but i dont think he is inclined to tell...
Even if he know...

Bogey perhaps..Nhaa

But why cant ther be TERESTRIAL UFO´s...??

Can you honestly IDENTIFY every single object...

Insect
Bird
Plane

Sure, but what if your wrong...

There are some questions about my use of 'terrestrial UFO' so I'll try and explain what I meant and why I used those words.

Bruce Maccabee's report that Easy linked (Here) referenced Brad Sparks as a contributor to the data he was using to identify the 'Wingman.' For those who don't know who Sparks is, he's a ufologist of some respect. He's worked with APRO, NICAP, CUFOS and Project 1947. He hasn't been a public presence for some years. Maccabee writes...

My own analysis of data which has recently (1976) become available, thanks
to the efforts of Jim Oberg, Brad Sparks, and myself, shows that rather than
traveling ahead of schedule, at the time of the photos the P-3 was actually
behind schedule.

An example of Brad Sparks' research is well worth reading in Catalogue of 1600 Blue Book Unknowns. He was one of the first to point out the mistaken classifications in Blue Book. He's also written a history of USAF involvement in Proceedings of the Sign Historical Group UFO History Workshop The article is called 'Ruppelt's Coverup' and other contributors are Jerry Clark, Tom Tullien, Jenny Randles, Bill Chalker etc. Serious UFO researchers.

Everyone here knows who Jim Oberg is and knows that he favours prosaic explanations for UFO sighting reports. His stance is that all reports can be explained if there was enough data. He's an expert on the subject and, like it or not, brings subject knowledge that most of us don't have.

Sparks' view is that some sightings cannot be explained by prosaic explanations. To a degree, he and Oberg represent opposing perspectives.

Jim originally identified the object as a Proton 3 stage; it was sharing a similar orbital path and was a likely candidate. Sparks had a look at the data and calculated that the Proton 3 stage was 3000 miles away and out over the horizon. According to him, it couldn't be the Proton.

He looked at more of the data and saw that a garbage dump would also be on a similar orbital path. More investigation told him that the garbage dump would be within sight of the Gemini 11 but 5 minutes later. There was a margin of error in NASA's timings that would allow for the dump to be where the crew saw their 'bogey.' He suggested that the 'bogey' could be an ELSS backpack from a spacewalk. Source

Conrad had earlier suggested that it could be the backpack also.

James Oberg had favoured the Proton 3 stage, but had allowed himself a margin of error too. He wrote in 1996...

What do I think the Gemini-11 sighting was? Right now with what I've seen,
and considering all the evidence at my disposal, I'd say the following
odds express my view:
Proton-3 65%
Other manmade satellite 30%
Other spaceflight-related event 5%
Unexplainable stimulus

I'm not sure they ever definitively found out what this one was on Mars:

Mars Rover UFO

reply to post by Kandinsky


Verry well put, and explains alot..

Originally posted by Miccey
reply to post by Required01

 

Sure is frustrating.

I cant understand how an Unidentyfied Object cant exist..
And i sure as hell cant understand WHY gvmts cant
accept the fact that ALL things CANT be explained.

Just accept for petes sake.

And try to find an explanation..

If that outcome is Domestic, scientific phenomenon or EVEN Alien on
origen.."SO BE IT"...


And YES!!!
It is that easy...

PS: Alien in origin does NOT state its Alien Lifeforms driving vehicles...
Alien origin as in meteors, asteroids or some other natural cause.
But that does not say it CANT be Alien lifeforms either..Right...!!!!

edit on 25-8-2011 by Miccey because: (no reason given)

Please.... Think of your heart and blood pressure!!!

You can thank Hollywood and MSM for the idiotic connection of aliens and UFO's. Mindless people accepting everything as is told.

reply to post by mcrom901


You are seriously damaging your credibility with your nonsense.

This thread is getting no where fast.

I will add something of use to this thread. I felt guilty with my comment above.

I hope this is not off topic but I used to think that the STS-75 tether incident was certainly something, whether worldly or other worldly.

Everybody knows it but here it is again.
www.youtube.com...I was watching tv and I saw this show and this guy said he could replicate it and explain what is going on.....

www.youtube.com...

Whether this is propaganda or not, I believe him.....

Does NASA withhold truths on purpose? Do they lie?

I see many make the claims, but really do not back them up with proof.....

reply to post by liejunkie01

Whether this is propaganda or not, I believe him.....

That's an interesting statement.

Obviously you suspect somethings not right about that segment of the 'ufo hunters' show or you wouldn't have mentioned the possibility of it being propaganda so can you tell us what made you say that and which parts (if any) made you suspicious ?

Is it because they only presented a minimal amount of evidence and didn't tell you everything ?
Or what ? And...are there no reasons to be skeptical of what they presented ?

This thread is getting no where fast.

Where were you expecting it to go ? lol

Originally posted by Blue Shift
I'm not sure they ever definitively found out what this one was on Mars:

Mars Rover UFO

Supposedly it's a meteor or a satellite but I guess they don't really know what it was ?

This is an image of what is now believed to be the first meteor photographed on Mars.

Because of the long exposure time, another possibility originally considered was that this could have been the Viking 2 Orbiter rather than a meteor.

Link

Interestingly there is another image from Sol 63 that supposedly shows the Earth ?

This is the first image ever taken of Earth from the surface of a planet beyond the Moon.

Link

I always found this image of a supposed UFO on Mars to be interesting....





marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov...
marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov...
marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov...


Some people say the object is a speck of dirt on the lens but I'm not sure what it is.

Originally posted by Required01
You can thank Hollywood and MSM for the idiotic connection of aliens and UFO's. Mindless people accepting everything as is told.

Is that what you have been told to think.

You do not know whether you are correct. The only idiotic position is the closed minded one. The purpose of research is to understand the unknown. It may well turn out that connection is far from idiotic.

Originally posted by Kandinsky
James Oberg had favoured the Proton 3 stage, but had allowed himself a margin of error too. He wrote in 1996...

What do I think the Gemini-11 sighting was? Right now with what I've seen,
and considering all the evidence at my disposal, I'd say the following
odds express my view:
Proton-3 65%
Other manmade satellite 30%
Other spaceflight-related event 5%
Unexplainable stimulus

Originally posted by easynow
I always found this image of a supposed UFO on Mars to be interesting....

Looks remarkably like an insect to me. Educated guesswork says 65 % insect, 35% funny shaped dot?

reply to post by easynow

Since it (and a few other flecks) doesn't appear in the left image of the stereo pair, taken at the same time, something on the lens is a pretty good bet.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/fedfdcf8bf08.gif[/atsimg]
marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov...

reply to post by Phage


Yep the ole dirt speck is certainly a possibility

It could also be an image artifact created during the post telemetry processing

From what I understand the software and algorithms used aren't always 100 % reliable

And we can't rule out the possibility the object recognition and filtering process only caught and cleaned up one of the stereo images.

Well at least one things for sure,
when trying to identify NASA UFOs ... we're all just making guesses

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by easynow

 

Since it (and a few other flecks) doesn't appear in the left image of the stereo pair, taken at the same time, something on the lens is a pretty good bet.

Presumably the dirt is present on several other pictures taken using the same lens? If so I'd say case closed. Otherwise Martian fly?