Nasa States They Have no idea what these Orbs Of Light UFO's Are!!!!!!

reply to post by hotrice


NASA is lying, they know what it is. Cloaked UFOs or their own craft in the sky.

Wow, I was gonna say 'Chinese lanterns,' but those are in the section of our atmosphere where it's 3000 degrees hot.

Well, I'm sure this thread and whole issue will sink and be forgotten just as always. No headlines tomorrow.

reply to post by Jonas86


When bigger experts than you say they can't explain it, how come someone random decides he knows what it is? Im not talking about this case only, many times when it comes to asking real experts, yet some debunker knows better...

Originally posted by Imtor
reply to post by Jonas86

 

When bigger experts than you say they can't explain it, how come someone random decides he knows what it is? Im not talking about this case only, many times when it comes to asking real experts, yet some debunker knows better...

hmmmm - how about we do some research into nasa and their ties to the nwo illuminati agenda?

and who said they were experts? They cant put a man on the moon - wait - they said they did, and today they say they are still developing tech to protect astronauts from being fried by radiation shoul dthey leave orbit in a spacecraft

who you gonna call?

I saw this formation last week in Pomona, CA. Six lights in total, both triplets making that obtuse triangle shape.

I'm still trying to figure out why these wild interpretations attract so many sincere and excitable youngsters, and I'm starting to see a pattern.

You have to start out really being ignorant of real spaceflight features, but that's not enough -- you have to be ignorant of your own ignorance, and sincerely believe that your guesses and fantasies are as real [or moreso] as the stuff people like Wayne Hale did for a living.

The remedy is to read more, elsewhere, about genuine spaceflight -- how it's done, what it involves, what's 'normal' in this new environment. Confess to yourself the need to learn more, and be willing to admit that what you think you know, ain't really so.

It's called being modestly open-minded.

Then you can tackle the real space mysteries awaiting attention, and laymen's investigation, and contribute to the solution -- not proudly parade as part of the problem.

Please help.

Your family and friends can then stop snickering at you.

Folks you really need to read the threads. Those statements were taken out of context on purpose to push a hoax agenda. It's just another YouTube cut and paste job carefully crafting statements to make you think something they never stated. Deny Ignorance.

I wonder how many times I have to post this:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www1.whdh.com...

The objects were only a 100 feet away. That means they were really small pieces of debris. They identified the objects as being two small rings, and a piece of foil.

Atlantis commander Brent Jett described the objects as two rings and a piece of foil. He told Mission Control the first object, about 100 feet from the shuttle, was "a reflective cloth or a mechanic looking-cloth. ... It's not a solid metal structure."

They knew they were debris, so the topic title is a complete lie.

reply to post by indisputable


reply to post by AmatuerSkyWatcher


Yeah, they chase the objects with their cameras and tracking equipment so they can figured out what it is. If a huge nut and bolt fell off the shuttle they would probably want to know where it came from before they try to fly the thing back to Earth.

Debris come off the shuttle all the time, they chase the debris with their cameras and tracking equipment to find out what part of the shuttle just fell off.

"It's not uncommon to see little bits of pieces of things floating by," said flight director Paul Dye.

NASA officials thought the debris may have come from the shuttle's cargo bay.
"Typically, when we open the payload doors on the first day of flight, we will see objects," landing flight director Steve Stich said. "It's a little bit unusual to see objects maybe this late in the mission."

www1.whdh.com...



I actually remember when this happened back in 2006. Nobody really cared because everybody knew it was just small debris only 100 feet away from the shuttle. I guess all you have to do is copy a video, do some misleading editing, and paste it 5 years later when everyone forgot, and it becomes a UFO!.... :facepalm:

reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy


Hey, I'm not saying it's one thing or another, it was just funny seeing the skeptics saying the guy from NASA said "traced" which is a blatant lie. So here we have a post that shows that believers are willing to lie/mis direct, to further their own cause and the skeptics willing to lie/mis direct to further their own cause. Not a very healthy mix if you ask me! (btw i'm not saying you lied GoP!) I'm glad i'm a fence sitter, then I don't have to have an agenda, and I can take each topic on a case by case basis.

You'll have to admit using the word "chase" in the context that you did (in your descripton of your last post) and what the guy from NASA did, is a very odd way to use the English language, regardless of whether that is the right interpretation or not. There are a few other words that are more appropriate than that! By using the word chase, you're implying that the chased has taken "flight" from the pursuer, even though in some contexts that isn't the case. It's the implications of choosing to use that word that has led to this topic.

Originally posted by AmatuerSkyWatcher
reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy

 

Hey, I'm not saying it's one thing or another, it was just funny seeing the skeptics saying the guy from NASA said "traced" which is a blatant lie. So here we have a post that shows that believers are willing to lie/mis direct, to further their own cause and the skeptics willing to lie/mis direct to further their own cause. Not a very healthy mix if you ask me! (btw i'm not saying you lied GoP!) I'm glad i'm a fence sitter, then I don't have to have an agenda, and I can take each topic on a case by case basis.

You'll have to admit using the word "chase" in the context that you did (in your descripton of your last post) and what the guy from NASA did, is a very odd way to use the English language, regardless of whether that is the right interpretation or not. There are a few other words that are more appropriate than that! By using the word chase, you're implying that the chased has taken "flight" from the pursuer, even though in some contexts that isn't the case. It's the implications of choosing to use that word that has led to this topic.

I think you're over-interpreting what he 'might' have meant based on conversational modern English and not on the bizarre jargon and acronym-laced 'NASAspeak'. Since I was immersed in that distinct subculture for several decades my interpretation is that he meant 'tried to solve the puzzle of', as in 'chasing a problem', and that's the way I've heard him actually use the word in conversations, meetings, and memos -- I've known him since about 1979, so I think I've calibrated his jargon.

But we don't need to go second-hand. Why don't we just ask him?

What questions do you propose? I'll email them to him and invite him to drop on in.

reply to post by JimOberg


Considering you were "immersed" there at NASA please clear something up for me. I was under the impression that the Air Force can track dime sized objects in our orbit from the ground. Also they have tracking satellites in orbit to fill in the data gaps on the ground.

Does the Air Force not share this data with NASA?

reply to post by JimOberg


Ask him why he can't string simple English together, considering he's a big wig at NASA? If he doesn't know why, ask him if I can have a job, as I can't do it either.

Originally posted by AmatuerSkyWatcher
reply to post by JimOberg

 

Ask him why he can't string simple English together, considering he's a big wig at NASA? If he doesn't know why, ask him if I can have a job, as I can't do it either.

Please don't waste this unique opportunity by being a smart ass.

reply to post by JimOberg


Ask him my question that you refuse to respond to.

reply to post by BIGPoJo


Is that supposed to be a loaded question?

They can't track all debris, especially debris that had recently fallen off the shuttle.

Originally posted by BIGPoJo
reply to post by JimOberg

 

Ask him my question that you refuse to respond to.

Is that the question you asked an hour ago and you're torqued I didn't leap to deliver a one-on-one remedial tutorial to you? Pushy, aintcha? Get in line.

I just got an email back from Wayne, he is mighty amused by this discussion and will respond.

reply to post by JimOberg


Does the Air Force share its tracking data or not Jim?

Have you researched Wayne Hale, I found his blog on NASA's website [pretty interesting].

blogs.nasa.gov...

and

blogs.nasa.gov...

Originally posted by BIGPoJo
reply to post by JimOberg

 

Considering you were "immersed" there at NASA please clear something up for me. I was under the impression that the Air Force can track dime sized objects in our orbit from the ground. Also they have tracking satellites in orbit to fill in the data gaps on the ground.

Does the Air Force not share this data with NASA?

This is a good question that requires a detailed response, which until this weekend I did not have the time to respond fully to.

The US Defense Department, plus agencies in Russia and France and probably China, have radars that track objects passing within their range, down to hand-sized objects in low orbit [and larger objects in higher orbits]. But it spots and measures most of the stuff only every few days -- nothing is tracked continuously since low orbit stuff is 'over the horizon' of radar sites ~99% of the time.

When any object is predicted [days in advance] to pass within a small range of the space station, NASA is alerted. Because predicting the future path even over a few hours or days is uncertain, the 'error range' can be a mile or more. That means that most potential impact predictions are false alarms -- but only after the fact.

The uncertainty comes from solar-induced fluctuations in upper atmosphere density as well as drag variability caused by small objects tumbling and facing different 'cross-section area' to the wind.

After the recent Iridium-Kosmos collision, US assets expanded their work to predict potential collisions for several hundred larger, active satellites -- especially those with maneuvering engines that could be fired to dodge the possible collision. But even moreso in those cases, the highest possibility that can be predicted -- due to those tracking uncertainties -- is still a fraction of a percent, so most 'avoidance maneuvers' are unnecessary. You just can't judge in advance WHICH will be -- you have to do them all.

Because of the high relative speeds, a threatened satellite cannot assist in refining the tracking of a potential collider -- until the last seconds, it'll be too far away to even see.

That's why I argue that thousands of youtube postings of apparently anomalous objects in shuttle and station imagery/video are NOT "space junk" in the traditional meaning of the word -- fragments or whole bodies of other derelict space vehicles.

The shuttle itself -- and to a lesser degree the ISS -- emit their OWN 'space dandruff'.

That stuff is usually too small, and too close to the parent vehicle, to be picked up on ground radar even if they were in the proper position -- which 99% of the time they are not.