It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
so they're explanations are SO much more likely to be true
If you play poker...you will notice these things. Low or high probability is only our way of trying to predict an event which in it's self is not tied to the probability.
What is a probability of a deep space asteroid hitting the earth? very very low...yet it happens. It has happened.
Originally posted by SpearMint
Not true at all.
You seem to be convinced they're hiding something, you need to consider the other possibilities.
a) They simply don't know the answer so they shrug it off as a glitch or whatever so they don't appear to not know what they're doing.
b) They're telling the truth, there's no proof that they're lying.
There is so much that NASA do not know about the universe.
There's also usually a completely plausible explanation for a lot of things in NASA videos that people claim to be aliens/UFOs, such as ice crystals and space junk.
Originally posted by MollyMN
Be neat if we could do another thether experiment?
Be quite interesting.
I know we dont need more space junk out there.
I myself thought it was pretty weird.
For such a simple explanation it took NASA this long?
Whats there explanation for all the crappy photos they give us with there advanced million+ dollar cameras?
Originally posted by reclaimed
Originally posted by JimOberg
"Glanced over"... gives you only a 'glancing blow' wsith reality. Your current opinons could survive that.
The questions you have raised have been thoroughly discussed and debated in earlier threads at
ATS. You don't deserve a one-on-one remedial tutorial. Read up -- don't "glace over" -- those high-quality discussions, and get back to us.
All you've done so far is advertise your ignorance of discussions that have already occurred about exactly the issues you are excited about.
Re the images on the STS-75 scene: the point has been made that the orientation of the notch in each circle is a direct function of WHERE on the field-of-view the circle is. This so obviously proves it is a camera-associated artifact that your mind has so far been unable to grasp the significance of it. Concentrate on that. Epiphany awaits.
The "circle of objects" scene is from STS-80. What do you say about the direct testimony from astronaut crewmen about that scene? Are you even aware of that testimony?
01 Q: You’ve called the stories of astronaut UFO encounters “one of the greatest myths of the Space Age” and “probably the most fascinating and frustrating theme of modern folklore”. What do you find so unbelievable, or so unreliable, about all of these stories, photographs, videos, sound bites, documentaries, and other evidence?
A: From hundreds and hundreds of such stories and videos that I’ve studied, they all look to me to be ‘ordinary’ visual effects of human space missions, understandable public misunderstandings of normal space conversations, and predictable exaggerations, confabulations, and even fabrications of people who enjoy – or profit from – telling wild tales. I’ve seen no compelling indication of anything beyond the realm of modern science – nothing.
03 Q: For millions of people around the world, the ‘astronaut UFO cases’ are the ‘jewel in the crown’ of ‘Ufology’, which is the study of UFO reports and the argument that such reports constitute evidence for extraordinary events that might even include visitations by non-human space travelers. If they are all wrong, why should you care?
A: If they’re all wrong, as I think they are, the social implications are significant beyond this limited subject matter. We should be asking how it could happen in this case that popular culture is so far off base -- how it might be happening in other areas of public beliefs.
77 Q: How can you dare to disbelieve a true American hero such as Gordon Cooper. A: I’ve researched his stories deeply, and found that his tales tend to get more dramatic with the years – a typical narrative effect. I’ve found many independent witnesses to both his pre-NASA stories [Germany and Edwards AFB] who all describe much less spectacular occurrences [writers who claim the stories have never been explained are ignorant of these research activities]. In other cases where Cooper recounted documented spaceflight experiences, he often added unreal dramatic details, possibly for audience satisfaction. Some fantastic stories can only be explained as designed to generously please his audiences – best example is his autobiography account of how he saved the space shuttle from a lethal design flaw by relaying a telepathic warning from space aliens. Links TBD 78
How can you dare to disbelieve a true American hero such as Edgar Mitchell? A: I’m happy to accept Mitchell’s personal opinions on other stories he’s heard, but he has nothing to contribute to the ‘space UFO’ subject. I’m glad that there are some intelligent people trying to map the limits of human knowledge – and beyond – as he has done since his space career. When I analyze his published works, such as the report of his private ESP experiment on Apollo-14, I get the impression of a man so excited by the concepts that he may not bring sufficient skepticism and rigor to his criteria for credibility. His report on his ESP experiment, for example, strikes me as ‘ad hoc’ modification to the ‘success’ scoring criteria after the fact, to make essentially random results look significant by changing the rules after the game. I’m glad he had the boldness to conduct the experiment, but I’m not alone in concluding that a proper assessment of the results show nothing significant.
85 Q: How many of the stories are outright hoaxes?
A: Not many, but a few. The oft-repeated ‘we still have the alien spaceship in view” comment looks like a prank by a radio amateur transmitting over a radio band where the actual air-to-ground was being re-transmitted for local listeners in Greenbelt, Maryland.
Originally posted by MarioOnTheFly
Perhaps my thread starter was poorly chosen. The point I was trying to make is that...I feel we are being lied to. Any specific video I could point to is already "debunked". And it's always the same thing...and when something new happens, than they invent some kinda new effect that fits the video...like Bokeh
The thing is...much of it is guesswork. How do I know that...?
In the history of science, there has never been a breakthrough that didn't involve the violation of models that were, at their time, considered "fact".
This would account for everthing we encounter every second and every day of our lives. Its like saying "how do i know my car is not a transformer?" we can never be certain now can we?
Originally posted by MarioOnTheFly
reply to post by ZetaRediculian
It equates to our human thinking, we accept things that are "more likely" or "probable", based on our understanding of the variables involved.
But being probable or more likely from our point of view is by no means a sure truth.