No i'm not suggesting collusion at all . What i'm saying is that you seem to flat out refuse to believe what our own scientists are telling us every day .I.E what we know about our Universe is infantile to whats there to be known.
Also i have no problem with disproving the Null Hypothesis .....believe it or not i work like this myself in everyday life.....
BUT.....either because of or in spite of this i feel that when it comes to the universe ...what can i or we possibly know.
It's a fact that anomalies in the sky have been reported for hundreds if not thousands of years.
Yes we all know that swamp gas,meteorites,planets,planes,"ball lightning" , etc can account for most .....what about those ones that just cant be explained ... ?
The ones that have been witnessed by credible people through the years , photographed , filmed, ....because your mindset tells you and is reinforced by others that it is impossible for ET to be here ....you simply block out any possibility at all and based on this proceed to shoot down any or all evidence presented.
For example i think that you once implied that every single one of the "disclosure project" witnesses were either delusional ,mad or imagining things.....i've seen you say the same about Astronauts that have witnessed things in space they couldnt explain.........You're not alone though.
I will explore something and then if after a while i see merit in the sceptics argument i'll hold my hands up and say .."okay i think i'm wrong here" ....i have never seen yourself or Hazzard do this ...because you just wont accept that you could possibly be wrong. This to my mind is very definitely a closed minded approach to anything

(p.s. Hazzard should be along soon for moral support )

How extraordinary, as I've never said (nor do I think) that it is *impossible* that ET could visit the Earth. What I have said (and still support) is that there is not any definitive evidence that this is indeed the case. Present some irrefutable evidence and I'll be on board the ETH quick enough.


Could you please provide a link to where I said this? What I most likely said was that we can't exclude the possibility that anyone giving such testimony might not be in some way confusing objective reality with their own internal sense of what's reality.




What's this about? I've never said that astronauts haven't witnessed things they couldn't explain. In fact, Gordon Cooper was very vocal about this very subject. What I have said is that some of the text going around the net about astronauts seeing ET ships and bases on the moon is a hoax, I stand by this statement.

If you read closely you'll see that I have not offered up any resolution as to what certain UFOs might be. I very often will say, "it's an unknown". Since I do not purport to have the definitive *answer* as to what all UFOs are how can I be *wrong*?



Let's be frank here shall we, I'm a "big girl" (I could easily be hazzard's Mom) so this need for "moral support" is solely your perception.

Hey Lilly...am on my way home will reply tomorrow ....btw.the moral support rub was in jest

morrison1976, it is not considered the done thing on this board to criticise other boards. If you have a problem with another board then the place to complain is there and not here (the opposite also holds true).

I know that these aliens on Earth beliefs may be strongly held and are often tied in with self-image, passionate whishes or perceptions about the world around us. They can, however, be in the way when looking at the "evidence" objectively.

So, just for the record. I do what I always do, look for anything BUT the "aliens are here" explanation. Then, in the end, after all and every possible known theory is looked at, then and only then, might have something interesting left to take serious.

You see, we are all on the same team here. I think that we all would love nothing more then proof of extraterrestrial life. Proof being the key word here.

Some of you believe that in 1947 alien rocket jockeys made a last-minute navigation error and crashed in the desert. The putative victims are generally portrayed as humanoid, if somewhat shorter than us, and with bigger heads - like children. While not impossible, this is unlikely. I think that the Roswell aliens in the stories we all have heard resemble us because we relate better to anthropomorphic creatures. Any real aliens out there wont be so similar. They probably wont crash, either. Does proof of a coverup in Roswell=proof of aliens? YES to some, NO to me.

Did Buzz see an alien space craft on the way to the moon, maybe. But I believe that what they saw was a piece of the SLA (Spacecraft/LM Adapter), one of the 4 panels that was jettisoned prior to transposition and docking shortly after TLI, when the spacecraft was a couple thousand miles out on July 16.

And about the Disclosure Project. Are all these credible high ranking fine people with top secret clearance crazy or lying!? I dont know. But again I have to ask myself.... What was that conference really about? It was about 2 hours of testimony by people largely describing the commonplace UFO sightings. There were also a couple folks who made outlandish claims of having seen extraterrestrial beings(!!)

So? Maybe, maybe not. Again, prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt, at the exclusion of all other possible explanations, any of it, and you might have something there.

In the end, the matter of alien visitation will be decided by the evidence, not by the intensity of opinion.

Nah, it's MID this time...perhaps you thought I wouldn't see this?



I do not think that haz, Lil, Bade, or myself would argue against the notion that our knowledge of the Universe is infantile campared to what is there to be known. That is a given. That's what makes science so cool...you can do it for your whole life and keep learning.




Our mindset tells us no such thing. Not a one of us would ever say it is impossible for "ET" to be here.

...at least I think so!!!

I have repeatedly stated that I think the probability of "ET" is incredibly high, and very likely. You seem to be having a problem coming to grips with the discipline required by the scientific method; a discipline which requires empirical evidence and proofs...things that can be substantiated, experimental data which can be repeated and confirmed, etc.

No such thing has ever been presented in connection with the alien/UFO situation. It's all a bunch of reported sightings, films and photos and statements of something unusual which cannot be backed up. The credibility of the people who report such things is not the issue---it is the ability to substantiate what they report.

The most credible person in the world can say to me, "I saw an alien spacecraft. It landed in my bloody back yard, a being from the planet Zunev got out and he shook my hand and said 'Hey, Man, how's it going, I really like you!'.


I might even believe him, or her. Perhaps I'd have no reason whatsoever to doubt his or her statement to me. However, the statement itself is not proof, no matter the degree of credibility of the person making it. There's got to be some empirical means of determining corroborating evidence of the event. If the person mentioned was a scientist, he or she would completely understand, and likely would not mention it unless or until he or she could supply some sort of evidence to support his or her experience.

[We're talking; DNA samples of any contacted areas, visual inspection and sampling of the area (ground, plants, things in the area) in which the event occurred, impounding the persons clothing worn for detailed examination, detailed inquiry into FAA radar reports for the period of time in question, pilot reports, if any, medical tests to determine the presence of any pathogens or strange immune system responses in the claimant, witnesses, other evidentiary things,etc., etc.]

Otherwise, the knowledge is strictly his or hers.

I am wondering if you're seeing what it is I am saying.


What you need to understand is science.
As well, you need to understand the following:


None of us "cohorts" (i.e., Lilly, Badeskov, Hazzard, Waspie, and several others--all pretty darn intelligent and scientifically oriented folks, they (I aint quite smart enough to sit with them folks...!))-- have ever denied or debased the idea that alien life exists. Indeed, most of us have stated that we think it's likely and that the probablility is high.

None of us have ever denied the existence of UFOs, and we all realize that there are things that have been seen, reported, etc., that are unexplained...UFOs, in other words.

And none of us have ever seen one jot of proof that any of what's been sighted, reported, filmed, or photographed has ever, in any way, been shown to be alien. We do not deny that some things might be alien. I'm all for that. What we do deny is that there has been any proof of it.

You see, we do not deal in belief. We deal in knowledge. There is a vast difference between the two things.

You may believe all you want to. But knowledge requires a higher standard than that which propels belief.

There is no reason to get indignant about it. What needs to be understood is the burden of proof that science and its method requires.

Right! now this is really pi**ing me off! What about Hazzard bringing up the sock puppet!! If you say the same to Hazzard, then thats cool, just forget he is a de-bunker and it might be easier for you.

Now lets get back to the topic!!!

Yes! this is still unexplained. Ok!, de-bunkers have said debris and ice particles, but this is more than that, as some clearly go behind the tether, and some of them have strange patterns on them and are pulsating. I have yet to see a decent explanation.

I wouldn't go as far as calling them "debunkers". They haven't debunked anything. They've just offered up some lame explanations and are reaching for anything to explain away the alien spacecraft while claiming they use science to form their hypothesis. So far I have read that it is space debris, ice released by the spacecraft, and a camera glitch. Wow thats some great science you guys are using there, guys!
Too bad none of that adds up when you take into consideration that each one has a single crescent cut out of it, they pulsate, and some clearly fly behind the tether.

I also liked this other link, originally posted by skyeagle, that shows even more amazing NASA UFO footage. Skyeagles Link

Yes you are right, my mistake, i mean skeptics . Youe right though, the debris and ice do not explain a number of things in this footage.

By all means of respect, but nobody has explained anything. All that has been put forth are (perfectly valid) suggestions for what is seen, and in my honest opinion they are a lot more plausible than a 2km wide disc flying around visible only in the infrared part of the spectrum (no sightings in the visible part of the spectrum nor any radar detection). You tell me what you think is more likely? And while you ponder that, remember that we are looking at the footage from a camera that was pushed to its limits, focusing on something (the tether) way beyond what it was designed to do. That will play all kinds of tricks with what you see and you can basically not conclude anything from the footage at hand! It is all in the probabilities, out-of-focus ice (or similar) or a 2km wide spacecraft that nobody saw.

Best,
Badeskov

That is so true Science is indeed very cool and there is so much still to explore and learn!

Best,
Badeskov

To tell you the truth, i have not seen a skeptics explanation that im happy with. For me, and i have viewed this many times some of these objects clearly go behind the tether. Some of these objects are pulsating, which i find very strange. Some of these objects have patterns on them. I still think until these have been answerd properly, to me, its still very open for disscussion.

I agree, it is very open - in my point of view because the video we are looking at is impossible to conclude anything from. With a camera driven to and beyond it's capabilities and a video feed that on top of that is compressed, the amount of information we have is simply not sufficient to conclude anything about what we are looking at. While is does look that the disc passes behind the tether, I would ascribe this to photographic effects. That is my personal opinion and I have nothing to base it on except that it sounds plausible - a tad more plausible than a 2km wide disk flitting around in space and happens only to be visible in the infrared part of the spectrum. In all honesty, I think there are much more interesting cases to look into. This one reminds me a bit of somebody taking a picture and derives all kinds of exotic ET explanations from compression artifacts.

Best,
Badeskov

I'm not sure if anyone has pointed this out before but the tether used for the STS-75 experiment was only about a centimeter thick. And yet, looking at the video the camera has distorted the image to make the tether appear as though it's several hundred meters wide! If the camera optics can create this "false width" then the circular objects are obviously distorted as well, and are not as large as some people assume them to be.

Exactly. In my honest opinion it is simply not possible to tell what is what simply because of the distortions induced. So any explanation will be pure guess work.

Best,
Badeskov

And there it is, as clear as daylight.

In your opinion(s)

Go to the new post re "sceptics" that Morrison put up....and there you do have it clear as day.
See can you recognise the mistakes you are making in your approach to the topic when reading it......i know you wont admit to it so i highlighted the part i think you should read in my answer to it...... here it is also

The negative claims of pseudo-skeptics who offer facile explanations must themselves be subject to criticism. If a competent witness reports having seen something tens of degrees of arc in size (as happens) and the scoffer -- who of course was not there -- offers Venus or a high altitude weather balloon as an explanation, the requirement of extraordinary proof for an extraordinary claim falls on the proffered negative claim as well. That kind of approach is also pseudo-science.

Exaclty, but I'm sure your point will be ignored by people who want to believe there were ufos in the video

I believe in "UFOs", but this video, in my opinion, is just debree. And I agree with some of the believers here that some skeptics go overboard. They become so trapped on the "skeptic side", that they'll brush off everything before even being educated on said case. They'll go straight into the "Can't be real" mode and do everything they can, even when they truly can't explain something, to explain it away.

EDIT: Replace skeptic with cynic. =P


Cynics say that believers "want to believe", but we can say something similar about them. They >don't want any of these types of things to be proven<. I think they become so wrapped up in being on the opposite side of believers, that they actually begin to HOPE the believers are never right. I see this bias ALOT. Also, if a cynic can't seem to explain away a person's video, they'll go straight to the unproved, unscientific explainations such as "This video is a hoax" or "So and so has to be lying".


I see this WAY too much in the scientific community. I think if einstein was still alive, he'd kill himself reading some of your posts.

It's tough being a skeptic. But being a cynic is easy. Watch, I'll show you...

Balloon or kite
Fire from Pipes on a rig.(By the way, fire is a popular "explaination" for this UFO, but it was proven that it was not fire. There was a video analysis on it. I watched it on discovery channel)
Fakes, birds, airplanes, stars, etc(Why fake? Because UFOs don't exist, I look at things ass backwards!)

Now, I didn't really analyze any of these videos. I just watched, and assumed. In cases like this, cynics would be just as much as believer as the believers.

Ok, ok. All joking aside, most people here are good skeptics. But sometimes they go overboard and become cynics. I've seen hazzard and lily do this as well. And you think you're so protected behind these "I'm just scientific" and "I use logic" comments, but it doesn't always work. What you may think is perfect logic and reason sometimes, is actually a bit biased and closed.

Have you watched both of Seredas videos ?.....Honestly now ? If not i reccommend you do because even if the width of the discs is distorted the width of the tether will be distorted by the same amount ...as they are the same distance away....so this being the case the ratio will be the same ...so the size can still be judged from the video...given the size of the tether is a known ...if the disc is much further behind the tether this makes it even bigger.
Look ....for anyone that hasn't seen the video ..please do so ,when you do ask yourself one question thats all...just one ...does that disc go behind that tether or not...if so what could this be...debris ?....no !

The problem here is, in the video it does look like the "disc" goes behind the tether. However, it is FAR FAR FAR more likely that the disc is a peace of space debree that floated in front of the tether and because of the distortion present in the video only APPEARS to go behind the tether. I do agree it really does look like it goes behind the tether, but in all probability it didn't.

The cm wide tether appears hundreds of feet wide in the video because of the distortion... So we KNOW there is distortion in the video. That is a FACT. An object the size of a piece of dust just a few feet in front of the camera would be distored as well and appear much larger than it is and much wider than the tether due to it's proximity to the camera. It would also be slightly translucent because of the distortion. The brightness of the reflection of the tether is so bright that it would shine through the tiny piece of space debree (possibly ice) make it appear as though the debree traveled behind the tether.

There is nothing about my arguement that is a stretch of the imagination. However, a giant disc shape object only visible in a certain spectrum of light and not visible from the planets surface does stretch the imagination.

K.I.S.S. keep is simple stupid (I'm not referring to anyone on the board as stupid, so please don't be offended)

From Seredas blog...he has challenged NASA to disprove him on this.He's still waiting

This means that in NASA STS-75, when the video camera zooms in to get a closer look at the tether, we see the tether getting thicker, not due to the camera going out of focus as NASA Reported that the thickness of the tether is due to sunlight reflecting off of the ionized nitrogen gas surrounding the tether and or the energy field surrounding the tether itself. The discs of light would not be there at all if they were illuminated pieces of dust near the camera lens; having not been able to visually survive in the focal plane of the video camera on the long zoom inwards. The only way they would survive would be if they were truly distant objects. The fact that the camera is in focus all the way, means they are not distant stars in an out-of-focus state.

Yes, in my(our) opinion.



I think that we already have made it as clear as it can be. But sure, Ill take a look at his thread later.

Okay...For those of you that haven't seen the video .Look at this picture.




On the left you can see the object in question come in from the left towards the long tether .....On the right you can see the object passing behind the tether (the tether even leaving a shadow on the object) .What the sceptics want you to believe is that this is a piece of space dust or ice thats actually directly in front of the camera and not behind the tether which is 80 miles away......Now who's stretching credibility ?
Also bear in mind that when these objects are moving they are also pulsating with some kind of energy ....i've never seen even space ice do this !

Did you not read my last post? There is no "shadow" by the way.

have seen odd things already via Nasa TV -ISS spacewalks shuttle pitch maneuver(from ISS) from discovery bay cameras and ISS cameras , in fact right before the golfball tee off (from ISS)saw some things streak by..............B

I agree. How can we be sure that the rest shown in the video (the two kilometer alien space ship going behind the tether) is "real"? Simple answer, we cant!

i read it and answered it ...have you looked ?
Have i summed up your position on this accurately ?

Bogeyman, what you are mistaking for a shadow is in fact the notch on the side of the disk shaped object. Look again.

Oh, so you did read it. Well in that case, you sum my position accurately and from your post it appears you don't agree, which is totally fine with me As long as you read the post and at least gave it a moment to try and sink in

In the footage the ground control asks the crew, and I quote The twelve mile long tether cable was only 10th of a cm in thickness and should not have been visible from over 77 miles. The shuttle astronauts did not know the answer then, but on wed feb the 28th 1996 nasa Sts 75 day seven highlights they recorded the very reason as the scientist report that they can measure sunlight induced electrical charges on the tether and satellite as it moves through the daylight and night orbits of the earth. Because the tether was charged with energy constantly by the highly charged particles in space, and from the ionosphere, it produced a magnetic field around the tether which became sunlit and very visible Also the report revealed that nitrogen gas from the satellite had been emptied, and the gas would have become ionized which could have produced a neon tube like effect. This all explains why the tether looked think from so far away, it had nothing to do with the glare or out of focus theories.
It clear that the objects move behind the thickness of the tethers sunlit induced electrical charge and ionized gas. The light shinning of the tether and the energised field obscures the light of the ufos as they pass behind the tether.

So, you contend that I said, "every single one of the "disclosure project" witnesses were either delusional, mad, or imagining things"? And, you go on to say "you know you've said it". All this despite my clarification that what I said was that we can not rule out that some of the Disclosure Project witnesses might be confusing objective reality, that some may be lying for various reasons...who knows. Human beings don't always tell the truth for various reasons. This is not the same thing as flat out saying that all of the people from the Disclosure Project are doing these things.

The problem arises in figuring out who may be confused, or fibbing and who is talking about objective reality. How do we determine this? Frankly, I can't see how this can be done.

Well we could go over each others posts from way back or ....NOT .
The Jist is right though

Actually, no it isn't. The "jist" of this matter is quite different from what you appear to think I'm saying. What I'm saying goes to the core of why eyewitness testimony alone, without corroborating evidence, can never be accepted, by itself, as scientifically definitive evidence. Human beings are fallible, our senses are at the mercy of our psyche and our beliefs... this is just the way it is.

I suggest the...NOT. Like morrison and the rest of us have said after almost every post, -back on topic-.

enough!!!! back to the topic

Okay....Lilly my apologies for not having the data to back my claim
Bogey
Back on topic

Well, well...Whose a naughty boy then, eh ??

Nope, thats not the case, and its not debris floating by the the tether because the crew clearly state that it was debris that flies with them, but then that does not make sense. The explanation of debris and ice crystals is very questionable.

Lilly with this kind of argument, you can never be wrong. Of course humans are falibal and some do have ulterior motives. As far as the disclosure witnesses go what would they really gain from lieing ? Ok back on topic LOL.

Quote" The twelve mile long tether cable was only 10th of a cm in thickness and should not have been visible from over 77 miles"

I had no idea the tether was this small that's 1 mil thick, how wide was it?

What I'm talking about has to do with why anecdotal evidence is not considered as being scientifically definitive. I'm not specifically saying that anyone is *lying* per say, nor am I trying to be cynical. I'll not comment any further on this here.

God! come one people! Dont give up on this one! lol

This is very true, Exeter...I will paste a piece of a post I made regarding this same STS-75 stuff on another thread just a few moments ago...someone had asked me what I thought of the "tether incident". Once I realized what they were talking about, I knew what was going on:





The really funny thing about this is that no one, crew, or Capcom, ever says a thing about these supposed "UFOs". There's no, "Oh my God, Houston, are you seeing this?" Just the bland commentary about stuff going on.


There's a reason for this.

It's because they're intimately familiar with what they're seeing. They know it's just junk floating around. Like I said before, we've seen this kind of stuff on-orbit hundreds of times before. It's nothing unusual.

Lilly said:


I agree.
And, she's not wrong.

Unfortunately, what Exeter said is in fact the case.
Further, it is indeed debris flying along with them, floating into the field of a camera looking at a highly magnified and terribly distorted object, some 90-95 miles away from the camera.

What is highly questionable, and almost laughable, is the contention that these things represent some sort of alien craft...huge alien craft, in the distance...you're watching the footage and the COMM. You hear nothing unusual at all, do you?

Enough said.

That just does not make sense! they should ot be pulsating, they should not have patterns like they do, and they should not clearly go behind the tether. I have heard the commentry, and its not like what you said, as i stated in my post earlier on here. I have also stated why the tether looked the way it did, nothing to do with out of focused camera. If these are debris, then when the camera zoomed in, we would not be seeing what we are seeing. There are many answer still needed for this, and alot of the other objects in some of these transmissions

The "pulsing" you refer to is caused by the particles spinning and reflecting the sunlight as they float by the field of vision. Since the images are so highly distorted it's easy to mistake this as some form of self illumination.

As to the patterns and the illusion of the objects passing behind the tether a reasonable explanation has already been given.

I strongly agree that the "discs" we're seeing in the STS-75 video are very likely nothing more than the ordinary ice particles and other debris commonly seen near the orbiter. The physics and optics of the situation have already been explained multiple times, so I won't repeat any of that here. What I would like to do is post a few pictures that show a similar situation in an everyday, earthbound setting.

The following two photos were found on Wikipedia at this page: (link). They are credited to photographer Llamnuds, but are marked as public domain and so should be safe to repost here. The photos show falling raindrops at night illuminated by a camera flash while the camera itself is focused on a more distant object. This gives us a similar setup to what I believe we're seeing in the STS-75 video: small, brightly-lit particles near the camera seen against a dark background.

The first photo is a wide-angle view of the scene:


Note that the raindrops appear in many apparent sizes. The ones nearest to the camera appear as large circular discs. Note also that the average size of the discs is relatively small.


The second photo is taken from the same position, but has been zoomed in (similar in concept to the zoom-in on the tether in the shuttle video):


Notice how the "discs" did not vanish when the camera was zoomed in. In fact, the average size of the "discs" has increased. Also note how several of the "discs" appear to be passing behind the top bar of the swing. Are these really basketball-sized discs passing behind the swing? Of course not. They're just out-of-focus raindrops very near the camera lens.

The same illusion on the STS-75 video is made even more convincing by the presence of a dark edge along the right-hand side of the tether image. This is not a shadow and not part of the tether itself. It's a video camera artifact caused by the extreme brightness of the overexposed tether. If you watch carefully, you can see the same dark edge along the right-hand side of the brighter "discs" floating through the scene.

As for the pulsation or flickering of some of the discs, it's really not possible to prove anything from this video, but I think I'd agree with Exeter's last post. The pulsation is probably caused by the ice particles sparkling in the sunlight as they slowly drift past the camera. If you look at a twinkling star with a telescope or pair of binoculars and then defocus the image to get a blurry disc instead of a point, you'll see a similar effect. The entire disc appears to flicker.