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.

 

The Abundance of NASA's STS Mission Footage is the Most Compelling Evidence UFOs Exist

page: 4
10
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 19 2013 @ 08:31 AM
link   
reply to post by FearYourMind
 


I am having a hard time understanding the point of your video in relation to this thread.
Are you saying, as Colonel French has said, that the ice particle explanation for STS anomalies is an attempt to throw together a debunk that pacifies our curiosity?

If so I couldn't disagree more.
Those ARE ice particles you are seeing. I apologize that your thread premise is faulty and you were called out on it, but it is and you were.

In regards to Colonel French's testimony at the Citizen's Hearing, there was a thread on that exact video posted recently. Perhaps you could read that.


I am not a debunker. And honestly, I get frustrated with these guys all the time. BUT, I DO understand that legitimate UFO cases are quite rare. What you are seeing in the NASA vids are not UFOs, and I have a strong suspicion that if they were even Jim Oberg would admit as much.




posted on May, 19 2013 @ 08:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by JayinAR

I am having a hard time understanding the point of your video in relation to this thread.
Are you saying, as Colonel French has said, that the ice particle explanation for STS anomalies is an attempt to throw together a debunk that pacifies our curiosity?......


Jay, did French himself say the shuttle UFO video explanation was incorrect? Are you quoting HIS direct testimony about the NASA videos? Sorry -- I must have missed it.



posted on May, 19 2013 @ 08:40 AM
link   


Originally posted by Tw0Sides
Apply the same standard, say, to human levitation, or communicating with the dead, or immortal humans, or leprechauns. What does the mass quantity of such stories -- varying in different epochs -- mean about the chance of a single ONE of them being true?
You tell me Jim, your the Debunker.
Sure there are Over Zealous reports, granted.
But Reports from Cops, Presidents, Pilots, Air Traffic Controllers, Astronauts .
Must be Nice to be you, Always the Smartest One in the Room.


Why don't we stick to the theme of the thread?

And along those lines, it's not a matter of 'smartest', it's a matter of experience directly relevant to the subject at hand. It's experience I want to share, even if many folks would rather not know about it.

Like how to tell day from night in orbit. It's not as obvious as some obviously think.

Which reports from astronauts re space events do you find credible?
edit on 19-5-2013 by JimOberg because: dd



posted on May, 19 2013 @ 09:19 AM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


Nope. That was the video of him saying it was his job to debunk. Same video we discussed about a week ago.



posted on May, 19 2013 @ 09:24 AM
link   
reply to post by JayinAR
 


Sorry, but there has been nothing posted here that even comes close to debunking this. So far all we have is Jim's 99 FAQ's which don't answer the questions I've asked over and over. Seems you base your entire argument on Jim's belief and FAQ's. I see nothing else here to suggest otherwise. Repeating yourself over and over doesn't prove anything. By all means...show me how ice particles can slow down in space and even come to a complete stop. That's just one of many questions I have asked that nobody answered and the 99 FAQ's don't explain it.
edit on 19-5-2013 by FearYourMind because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-5-2013 by FearYourMind because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2013 @ 09:33 AM
link   
reply to post by FearYourMind
 


Actually no. If I can ever find a reason to get a legitimate point in against Oberg, I jump at the opportunity. It was Armap that conclusively DEMONSTRATED on these very boards that the odd movements and such are the result of booster rockets manipulating the ice particles. I have already stated this...

I have been looking for the thread, but I cannot find it as there are literally hundreds of these threads. I was thinking it was an STS75 thread, but I don't think that's right. I don't think it was in relation to the tether incident.

Point is that this topic has been beaten to death on these boards and I cannot understand why you even created a new thread on the matter. You haven't added anything to the myriad of discussions already available on these archives about this.

You said you've been following ATS for 10 years...surely then youve already seen all these threads, right?



posted on May, 19 2013 @ 09:48 AM
link   
reply to post by JayinAR
 


I've seen what seems like dozens of threads over the years on this topic, but I wasn't convinced that ice particles and tumbling space debris accounted for all of the anomalies or even half of them. Nothing explains why an ice particle would come to a complete stop. This has been filmed numerous times during STS missions. They stop, disappear, then reappear and accelerate on the footage. I understand boosters can make an object seemingly take off, but how do objects slow down and stop?



posted on May, 19 2013 @ 10:00 AM
link   
reply to post by FearYourMind
 


Well, you understand that the boosters actually eject exhaust, right?

What happens if an ice particle is moving in a path roughly perpendicular to that exhaust plume? In zero gravity it is easily pushed in the opposite direction. Its quite simple, really.

Oh, and the thread I am speaking of was an STS48 thread, but I still cannot find the right one. There are a multitude of them. Armap was able to show the "UFO" to be a particle being acted upon by the shuttle's booster by adjusting the contrast and hue of the footage.

It was conclusive.

So, if we have a prosaic explanation for how these things happen, why on earth would we leap to conclusions that the others are anything BUT what we know to have happened in the 48 footage? It is silly.



posted on May, 19 2013 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by JayinAR
reply to post by FearYourMind
 



So, if we have a prosaic explanation for how these things happen, why on earth would we leap to conclusions that the others are anything BUT what we know to have happened in the 48 footage? It is silly.


Because to rule out every anomaly on all of the missions simply because someone pointed out ice particles in one of them isn't how you conduct an investigation. That's poor and lazy investigating. Like I said before, I think you've been easily fooled by the ice particle debunkers. You claim to know these are ice particles, but that's based on one video and a thread you can't find. If this has been debunked so many times I'm sure you can find one thread out of the dozens, but you can't and either can I.



posted on May, 19 2013 @ 10:47 AM
link   
A thread I can't find?


That's the point, isn't it? You are bringing stuff to the table that has been discussed countless times before. I am not doing your research for you.
It is clear that you want to believe regardless of what anyone may say. Hell, you have a guy in here who's job is to monitor these very cameras!


I'm done here.



posted on May, 19 2013 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by JayinAR
A thread I can't find?


That's the point, isn't it? You are bringing stuff to the table that has been discussed countless times before. I am not doing your research for you.
It is clear that you want to believe regardless of what anyone may say. Hell, you have a guy in here who's job is to monitor these very cameras!


I'm done here.


Doesn't take much to convince you I guess. I'm supposed to be convinced right now? Based on what? A guy who's job was to monitor these cameras and now attempts to debunk the anomalies? And a sts48 video that showed some ice particles? I don't think so. That may be plenty enough for you, but not me. I'm not someone who believes swamp gas explanations either. Regardless to who worked where and says so.



posted on May, 19 2013 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by JayinAR
 


Here's the STS-48 footage. The least intersting of them all and this is the footage you've based your conclusion on along with Jim's FAQ's and experience. Is this really enough to rule out all of the anomalies in STS footage? Seriously?

edit on 19-5-2013 by FearYourMind because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-5-2013 by FearYourMind because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-5-2013 by FearYourMind because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-5-2013 by FearYourMind because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2013 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by FearYourMind
 





None of the ice crystal explanation makes sense.



Why does it not make sense?

Have you tried making sense of it, or just went
after watching some You Tube?



posted on May, 19 2013 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by InhaleExhale
reply to post by FearYourMind
 





None of the ice crystal explanation makes sense.



Why does it not make sense?

Have you tried making sense of it, or just went
after watching some You Tube?


I've explained over and over why it doesn't make sense. Also, it's not just "some YouTube video", the abundance of footage has been around since before YouTube and it's official NASA footage.



posted on May, 19 2013 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by FearYourMind

Originally posted by InhaleExhale
reply to post by FearYourMind
 





None of the ice crystal explanation makes sense.



Why does it not make sense?

Have you tried making sense of it, or just went
after watching some You Tube?


I've explained over and over why it doesn't make sense. Also, it's not just "some YouTube video", the abundance of footage has been around since before YouTube and it's official NASA footage.



Yet my second question was have you tried to make sense of that which you do not understand?

if so why are ice particles not a valid answer?



posted on May, 19 2013 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by InhaleExhale
 


Ice particles makes sense for some of the footage but not all. Not even half. I did state however that I didn't necessarily believe the anomalies were extraterrestrial, but that they are real anomalies and unknown to us. I have looked at many different possibilities.



posted on May, 19 2013 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by silversurfer6161
For those who are really interested ,there are some very good NASA videos on Marty Stubbs' YouTube channel.
Of the multitude of objects floating around(ice crystals,dust etc),you will find some in these videos that you can't explain.Accept it and go from there.....


Since Stubbs refuses to provide basic context such as date/time, he cleverly prevents any way to independently validate the videos. It's a trick, why are you such a willing victim?
I refuse nothing!...Oberg gets more info & he needs even more...then more..pathetic technique, changing goalposts...just lazy...

And no tricks from me!!! Is this a poor attempt to say these are fakes? How stupid is that! Skeptic/denier/debunker Oberg is a one "trick" pony !



posted on May, 19 2013 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by InhaleExhale
 


When I say I don't necessarily believe these entities or anomalies are extraterrestrial, I mean I don't know for sure where they came from. For all I know they have been here as long as we have, but I don't rule out the very real possibility that they are extraterrestrial.


edit on 19-5-2013 by FearYourMind because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2013 @ 04:18 PM
link   
Another thought occurred during all this debunking of debunking, etc.

Ice crystals in space, huh? Okay, so it's really cold out there. And I imagine the STS etc are dumping a certain amount of debris overboard on a regular basis although I had thought they were recycling all their waste water. Seems like it should be against some law to dump your garbage overboard in space, especially since there's plenty of inadvertent and dangerous debris floating around up there.

How does an 'ice particle' or even a big chunk of ice, last any amount of time at all when it's being bombarded with solar radiation, is in a vacuum, and has no atmosphere or other shielding to protect it? Shouldn't it sublimate almost immediately?

Anyone? I'm honestly asking. I can't imagine any 'ice' lasting more then minutes.



posted on May, 19 2013 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by JayinAR
 


if a booster is operating, the whole viewpoint would accordingly move also, as the spacecraft did (thrust). yet in this video, for example, the viewpoint remains static while the 'ice crystal' changes direction and scarpers. it is clearly nothing to do with any boosters.





top topics



 
10
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join