why doesn't NASA ever say anything about this?
LINK
Full Version: NASA catches hundreds of UFO's on tape
Unexplained Mysteries Discussion Forums > Unexplained Mysteries > Extraterrestrial Life & The UFO Phenomenon
QUOTE(Snozzberry @ Jan 22 2007, 07:58 AM) [snapback]1511238[/snapback]
OH, Watch out! Ah, Ooooh, Uhhh - - 'BAM!'
I wonder if China know how small those things are and how fast they move? I'd like to see them try to shoot those!
Looks like somethings swiming around a petri dish under a microscope.
QUOTE
Looks like somethings swiming around a petri dish under a microscope.
Nope. its not
This is from nasa's own camera's
It's foreground debris (if you watch the video one of the astronauts actually says as much). It's probably ice. The shuttle produces electricity using fuel cells. These combine hydrogen and oxygen to form water. The waste water is dumped overboard. This is what most o the "UFO sightings" made in Shuttle videos actually are. Of course some people will not accept this and no doubt will reply with the standard response that this is NASA lies.
I don't see anything out of the ordinary. Yeah, debris and probably ice particles. But they travel in straight lines and don't make erratic or strange movements.
QUOTE(Waspie_Dwarf @ Jan 22 2007, 09:41 AM) [snapback]1511327[/snapback]
It's foreground debris (if you watch the video one of the astronauts actually says as much). It's probably ice. The shuttle produces electricity using fuel cells. These combine hydrogen and oxygen to form water. The waste water is dumped overboard. This is what most o the "UFO sightings" made in Shuttle videos actually are. Of course some people will not accept this and no doubt will reply with the standard response that this is NASA lies.
Finally!
If you watch EVIDENCE THE CASE OF NASA'S UFO'S, then some of the stuff is very unexplained. I listened to a debate with David sereda and the king de-bunker James Oberg, and he was losing the debate when they both got cut off. The tether incident is very interesting, and you clearly see some of the objects move behind the tether. It has not been proved to be debris, thats just the explanation nasa came up with, but Sereda backs up his claims very well, and i think its still open, until a debate comes along again like the sereda and oberg. Hopfully next time someone better than Oberg!
QUOTE(Waspie_Dwarf @ Jan 22 2007, 04:41 PM) [snapback]1511327[/snapback]
It's foreground debris (if you watch the video one of the astronauts actually says as much). It's probably ice. The shuttle produces electricity using fuel cells. These combine hydrogen and oxygen to form water. The waste water is dumped overboard. This is what most o the "UFO sightings" made in Shuttle videos actually are. Of course some people will not accept this and no doubt will reply with the standard response that this is NASA lies.
Aint that the truth!
A poorly appreciated principle of space travel, yes even today, is that things are always coming off -- or out of -- a piloted space vehicle. Space missions dump excess propellant from engines after the vehicle reaches orbit.
Unused propellant may leak past a hundred different valves in small steering rockets. When the jets fire, bits of propellant can get caught in the exhaust and shoot off at great speeds, while other pieces floating nearby are blasted away by expanding rocket plumes.
Some vehicles discard waste heat by evaporating water against coolant panels, resulting in blizzards of ice crystals. (Remember John Glenns mysterious "fireflies" on his first flight, "the constellation Urion," astronauts joked) Piloted missions periodically purge both liquid waste and surplus water from fuel cells. These valves can leak or get stopped up with ice which later flakes away.
They do not realy have anything to do with UFOs, except technically, as they are not 100% identified as ice particles, they can be labelled unidentified.
But alien spacecrafts.......
QUOTE(morrison1976 @ Jan 22 2007, 03:51 PM) [snapback]1511335[/snapback]
If you watch EVIDENCE THE CASE OF NASA'S UFO'S, then some of the stuff is very unexplained. I listened to a debate with David sereda and the king de-bunker James Oberg, and he was losing the debate when they both got cut off. The tether incident is very interesting, and you clearly see some of the objects move behind the tether. It has not been proved to be debris, thats just the explanation nasa came up with, but Sereda backs up his claims very well, and i think its still open, until a debate comes along again like the sereda and oberg. Hopfully next time someone better than Oberg!
I don't place much emphasis on what James Oberg says. We had it out years ago on the Iranian UFO incident of 1976 and I caught him red-handed distorting the facts on the avionics aboard the F-4 Phantom.
QUOTE(morrison1976 @ Jan 22 2007, 03:51 PM) [snapback]1511335[/snapback]
If you watch EVIDENCE THE CASE OF NASA'S UFO'S, then some of the stuff is very unexplained. I listened to a debate with David sereda and the king de-bunker James Oberg, and he was losing the debate when they both got cut off. The tether incident is very interesting, and you clearly see some of the objects move behind the tether. It has not been proved to be debris, thats just the explanation nasa came up with, but Sereda backs up his claims very well, and i think its still open, until a debate comes along again like the sereda and oberg. Hopfully next time someone better than Oberg!
Agreed
Hazzard ....Can you please explain how the Disc can be quite clearly seen going Behind the tether from 80 miles away ?
This is just not possible with foregroud debris OR Airy discs !...Sereda explains this very well in his documentary.
QUOTE
Aint that the truth!
A poorly appreciated principle of space travel, yes even today, is that things are always coming off -- or out of -- a piloted space vehicle. Space missions dump excess propellant from engines after the vehicle reaches orbit.
Unused propellant may leak past a hundred different valves in small steering rockets. When the jets fire, bits of propellant can get caught in the exhaust and shoot off at great speeds, while other pieces floating nearby are blasted away by expanding rocket plumes.
Some vehicles discard waste heat by evaporating water against coolant panels, resulting in blizzards of ice crystals. (Remember John Glenns mysterious "fireflies" on his first flight, "the constellation Urion," astronauts joked) Piloted missions periodically purge both liquid waste and surplus water from fuel cells. These valves can leak or get stopped up with ice which later flakes away.
They do not realy have anything to do with UFOs, except technically, as they are not 100% identified as ice particles, they can be labelled unidentified.
But alien spacecrafts.......
A poorly appreciated principle of space travel, yes even today, is that things are always coming off -- or out of -- a piloted space vehicle. Space missions dump excess propellant from engines after the vehicle reaches orbit.
Unused propellant may leak past a hundred different valves in small steering rockets. When the jets fire, bits of propellant can get caught in the exhaust and shoot off at great speeds, while other pieces floating nearby are blasted away by expanding rocket plumes.
Some vehicles discard waste heat by evaporating water against coolant panels, resulting in blizzards of ice crystals. (Remember John Glenns mysterious "fireflies" on his first flight, "the constellation Urion," astronauts joked) Piloted missions periodically purge both liquid waste and surplus water from fuel cells. These valves can leak or get stopped up with ice which later flakes away.
They do not realy have anything to do with UFOs, except technically, as they are not 100% identified as ice particles, they can be labelled unidentified.
But alien spacecrafts.......
Yes we do know about waste, debris, ice-crystals, but that does not explain the objects, esp the objects that seen to have patterns and pulsating and going behind the tether.
QUOTE
I don't place much emphasis on what James Oberg says. We had it out years ago on the Iranian UFO incident of 1976 and I caught him red-handed distorting the facts on the avionics aboard the F-4 Phantom.
Oberg is a bit of a joke, but he is seen like a god to some de-bunkers, and they dare not disagree with him. He is the king of stupid explanations lol
QUOTE(morrison1976 @ Jan 22 2007, 05:10 PM) [snapback]1511364[/snapback]
Yes we do know about waste, debris, ice-crystals, but that does not explain the objects, esp the objects that seen to have patterns and pulsating and going behind the tether.
I have seen the STS-75 tether videos, there are some remarkable scenes and convey a powerful impression of "large, distant circular unknowns". The video is visually striking.
They appear to move behind the tether, and in straight lines unless they encounter some force, such as the exhaust plume from a rocket thruster. They dont need propulsion or power sources, just natural inertia.
If you look at the notched circles -- these are very unusual images, not common on other shuttle videos. But a careful analysis of the many cases of notched circles crossing the STS-75 screen shows a tell-tale pattern: the position of the notch clocked around the rim is a direct function of the position of the circle on the FOV,(field of view). As a circle moves, at different points on the FOV, the notch is in different positions. But as the circle moves across the screen, it repeats the notch position of circles that had previously been at the new position it reaches.
So, if the notch position is a function of the position on the FOV, we are talking about a camera-related factor here, an artifact of the optical system, and not a "REAL" image of some object. I e, not an alien spaceship.
Check this out morrison, and you can see this consistent pattern.
These notched circles are known as Airy Disks. Its an optical phenomena of camera and telescope optics.
Sadly, that information is not present in the produced/released videos which have been seen to date. Consequently, viewers can be expected to jump to erroneous conclusions regarding the nature of these videos, based on the pre-selected data shown them versus the data withheld from them.
The question is ...does the disc go behind the tether...or not.
If it does ,the tether is 80 miles away....how can this be a camera malfunction or airy disc ?
From David Seredas website
Quote
Dear Jim Oberg, AT first, you said the video camera on STS-75 had no CCD, then when I proved to you that with no CCD, when the camera zooms in towards a closer look at the tether, and focuses on infinity, near-field debris disappears from the focal plane all together and cannot produce an "Airy Disc." Then you said the camera does have a CCD, hoping that would help your theory. With a CCD video camera, near-field small debris (I tested this with a metal tac hanging 6 inches from my video camera) also disappears when the camera zooms towards a distant object. In fact, you cant see anything less a soft blur if that. So how does your theory hold at all either way that the objects are dust bunnies that got too close to the video camera? Either way, on a long zoom, they disappear from the focal plane.
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.
Here's a link to a similar discussion from the BAUT board. Seems that for some the NASA explanation is reasonable...for others not.
Lilly is right. We are back to the old "either you believe" it was, in this case, genuine kilometers-wide circles in space near the shuttle. Or you dont.
Think about this in another way if you like. These objects would be the size and brightness of a full moon as viewed from Earth. It is not a matter of a handful of amateur astronomers viewing and not seeing such immensely impressive apparitions, these are images which would have been visible in the daytime sky to anybody on Earth, along the track of the shuttle.
Not a single report of fast-moving bright moon-like circles in the sky has been found from anywhere on Earth during this period when the videos were showing the images that have been thus interpreted. Why is that you think!!?
The mandatory deduction from this is that these kilometers-wide circles/alien spaceships never existed.
Think about this in another way if you like. These objects would be the size and brightness of a full moon as viewed from Earth. It is not a matter of a handful of amateur astronomers viewing and not seeing such immensely impressive apparitions, these are images which would have been visible in the daytime sky to anybody on Earth, along the track of the shuttle.
Not a single report of fast-moving bright moon-like circles in the sky has been found from anywhere on Earth during this period when the videos were showing the images that have been thus interpreted. Why is that you think!!?
The mandatory deduction from this is that these kilometers-wide circles/alien spaceships never existed.
QUOTE(hazzard @ Jan 22 2007, 05:32 PM) [snapback]1511443[/snapback]
Think about this in another way if you like. These objects would be the size and brightness of a full moon as viewed from Earth. It is not a matter of a handful of amateur astronomers viewing and not seeing such immensely impressive apparitions, these are images which would have been visible in the daytime sky to anybody on Earth, along the track of the shuttle.
Not a single report of fast-moving bright moon-like circles in the sky has been found from anywhere on Earth during this period when the videos were showing the images that have been thus interpreted. Why is that you think!!? The mandatory deduction from this is that these kilometers-wide circles/alien spaceships never existed.
Not a single report of fast-moving bright moon-like circles in the sky has been found from anywhere on Earth during this period when the videos were showing the images that have been thus interpreted. Why is that you think!!? The mandatory deduction from this is that these kilometers-wide circles/alien spaceships never existed.
This is what clinches it for me...anything that incredibly *huge* would have been seen by thousands, probably millions! This did not happen, therefore the explanation that the "airy disks" weren't really there (ie, were some type of camera glitch) seems reasonable to me.
QUOTE(hazzard @ Jan 22 2007, 05:32 PM) [snapback]1511443[/snapback]
Lilly is right. We are back to the old "either you believe" it was, in this case, genuine kilometers-wide circles in space near the shuttle. Or you dont.
Think about this in another way if you like. These objects would be the size and brightness of a full moon as viewed from Earth. It is not a matter of a handful of amateur astronomers viewing and not seeing such immensely impressive apparitions, these are images which would have been visible in the daytime sky to anybody on Earth, along the track of the shuttle.
Not a single report of fast-moving bright moon-like circles in the sky has been found from anywhere on Earth during this period when the videos were showing the images that have been thus interpreted. Why is that you think!!? The mandatory deduction from this is that these kilometers-wide circles/alien spaceships never existed.
Think about this in another way if you like. These objects would be the size and brightness of a full moon as viewed from Earth. It is not a matter of a handful of amateur astronomers viewing and not seeing such immensely impressive apparitions, these are images which would have been visible in the daytime sky to anybody on Earth, along the track of the shuttle.
Not a single report of fast-moving bright moon-like circles in the sky has been found from anywhere on Earth during this period when the videos were showing the images that have been thus interpreted. Why is that you think!!? The mandatory deduction from this is that these kilometers-wide circles/alien spaceships never existed.
Doesn't that depend on the light frequency being emitted ? In the next piece of that quote i posted from Sereda i think he goes on to say the cameras are filming Light in the UV or IR range .....Wouldn't this explain it not being seen from Earth ?
QUOTE(Lilly @ Jan 22 2007, 11:38 AM) [snapback]1511447[/snapback]
This is what clinches it for me...anything that incredibly *huge* would have been seen by thousands, probably millions! This did not happen, therefore the explanation that the "airy disks" weren't really there (ie, were some type of camera glitch) seems reasonable to me.
Airy disk doesn't mean that things were not there. Airy Disk is just a diffraction pattern when a point source of light passes through a circular aperture.
Also the Airy Disk diffraction pattern also appears much larger than the point sources themselves that are seen as Airy Disks.
A couple reasons its not space debris-- The objects can be seen to go behind the tether. The disks also "pulsate", space debris and ice do not pulsate. You can catch many of them making right angle turns while in motion.
Looks to me like some kind of dubris rather than UFO's.
QUOTE
BAUT board
This board is a bit of a joke. Its just a de-bunking forum, and that de-bunk everything. Its such a closed minded forum that uses science as the excuse not to believe, even though most of them dont know what they are chatting about.
QUOTE
Think about this in another way if you like. These objects would be the size and brightness of a full moon as viewed from Earth. It is not a matter of a handful of amateur astronomers viewing and not seeing such immensely impressive apparitions, these are images which would have been visible in the daytime sky to anybody on Earth, along the track of the shuttle.
Not if these object can only be seen in IR or UV.
QUOTE(morrison1976 @ Jan 23 2007, 02:41 AM) [snapback]1512042[/snapback]
... Its such a closed minded forum that uses science as the excuse not to believe...
Science doesn't deal in belief.
QUOTE
... even though most of them dont know what they are chatting about.
Actually, on BAUT it's required that posters support their arguments in a scientifically sound manner. QUOTE
Not if these object can only be seen in IR or UV.
Does this indicate a "cloaking device" hypothesis?
QUOTE
Science doesn't deal in belief.
Is that so, why then on that forum are there people filled with stupid explanations on some cases. The problem with a hardcore de-bunker(esp on that site) is they think people are stupid, no matter what they have seen, on there own or with many other people. That site is full of ignorant people who dont even really look at the cases, they go straight to ufo skeptic page and get there answers from there. Thats why i never go on there. I have browswed some of skyeagles posts on there, but the place is full of hardcore de-bunkers, and maybe out of all of them there is only a few that are ok. Very bad site indeed!QUOTE
Actually, on BAUT it's required that posters support their arguments in a scientifically sound manner.
Like i said before, some are ok on there, but to many hang on's and people who just dont have a clue!
QUOTE
Does this indicate a "cloaking device" hypothesis?
ERm no. Its what the camera's are using when these objects are being filmed, very strange that is!QUOTE
QUOTE(morrison1976 @ Jan 23 2007, 02:41 AM) [snapback]1512042[/snapback]
This board is a bit of a joke. Its just a de-bunking forum, and that de-bunk everything. Its such a closed minded forum that uses science as the excuse not to believe, even though most of them dont know what they are chatting about.
Not if these object can only be seen in IR or UV.
Not if these object can only be seen in IR or UV.
NASA UFO Video
Female astronaut's voice: "We have an unidentified flying object."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7f-nB8Ait-M
QUOTE
NASA UFO Video
Female astronaut's voice: "We have an unidentified flying object."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7f-nB8Ait-M
Female astronaut's voice: "We have an unidentified flying object."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7f-nB8Ait-M
I cant look at media stuff at the moment in china, because of the earth that happend about a month ago. The internet has been down pretty much all the time since then. They think it will not be up and running for another couple of weeks
which is a pain, because it takes me about 20 mins to send a message on here sometimes
Last year on 9/11/06 Commander Pavel Vinogradov reported an Unknown Object to Mission Control around 12:35 pm Central Time as the ISS/Shuttle Atlantis was passing over Africa.
He said in Russian and it was translated over the Air on NASA T.V. , " We have an unknown object. We don't know what it is ... If no one knows what it is ... then no one cares. Do you have any questions ? "
Mission Control answered , " No questions."
He said in Russian and it was translated over the Air on NASA T.V. , " We have an unknown object. We don't know what it is ... If no one knows what it is ... then no one cares. Do you have any questions ? "
Mission Control answered , " No questions."
if it was indeed debris what made them move soo fast all of a sudden...
what kind of debris has a circle shape with a hole in the middle...
The thing suppose to go straight but what made it moved slightly to the bottom right...
I have no doubt that this are UFOs...
what kind of debris has a circle shape with a hole in the middle...
The thing suppose to go straight but what made it moved slightly to the bottom right...
I have no doubt that this are UFOs...
QUOTE
QUOTE(hazzard @ Jan 22 2007, 05:32 PM)
Think about this in another way if you like. These objects would be the size and brightness of a full moon as viewed from Earth. It is not a matter of a handful of amateur astronomers viewing and not seeing such immensely impressive apparitions, these are images which would have been visible in the daytime sky to anybody on Earth, along the track of the shuttle.
Not a single report of fast-moving bright moon-like circles in the sky has been found from anywhere on Earth during this period when the videos were showing the images that have been thus interpreted. Why is that you think!!? The mandatory deduction from this is that these kilometers-wide circles/alien spaceships never existed.
Are you serious? Do you have any figures to prove that these would be "the size and brightness of the moon as viewed from earth"?? Im not sure how far above earth this happened but they are in earth orbit, so even if the spacecrafts were very large, I don't think they would be visible, especially in the daytime.Think about this in another way if you like. These objects would be the size and brightness of a full moon as viewed from Earth. It is not a matter of a handful of amateur astronomers viewing and not seeing such immensely impressive apparitions, these are images which would have been visible in the daytime sky to anybody on Earth, along the track of the shuttle.
Not a single report of fast-moving bright moon-like circles in the sky has been found from anywhere on Earth during this period when the videos were showing the images that have been thus interpreted. Why is that you think!!? The mandatory deduction from this is that these kilometers-wide circles/alien spaceships never existed.
QUOTE(Lilly @ Jan 22 2007, 05:38 PM) [snapback]1511447[/snapback]
This is what clinches it for me...anything that incredibly *huge* would have been seen by thousands, probably millions! This did not happen, therefore the explanation that the "airy disks" weren't really there (ie, were some type of camera glitch) seems reasonable to me.
This is just outright denial. A camera "glitch". The astronaut himself referred to it as "debris". Funny how glitches in cameras can fly around behind a tether 80 miles away. You might want to click on Skyeagles link above. Amazing how many of NASA's camera "glitches" look like flying saucers!
Could just be a piece of ice or camera artifact. The tether is so bright anything translucent, like a flake of ice near the camera would appear to travel behind the tether, could just be an optical illusion.
QUOTE(louie @ Jan 23 2007, 01:57 AM) [snapback]1511277[/snapback]
Looks like somethings swiming around a petri dish under a microscope.
I agree....They look like spermies to me!!!!
QUOTE(Malakissmeni @ Jan 23 2007, 10:04 AM) [snapback]1512401[/snapback]
I agree....They look like spermies to me!!!!
Got a lot of first hand experience with that, do ya?
QUOTE(morrison1976 @ Jan 23 2007, 03:41 AM) [snapback]1512042[/snapback]
This board is a bit of a joke. Its just a de-bunking forum, and that de-bunk everything. Its such a closed minded forum that uses science as the excuse not to believe, even though most of them dont know what they are chatting about.
They may not know everything there is to know about the universe, most of these guys deal in science fact, not science fiction.
But one thing they do know, a sockpuppet when they see one....or two.
QUOTE(morrison1976 @ Jan 23 2007, 03:41 AM) [snapback]1512042[/snapback]
Not if these object can only be seen in IR or UV.
Back to the old cloaked alien spacesships are we!? Dont you think that the aliens, many millions of years ahead of us, would have thought of that!?
QUOTE
They may not know everything there is to know about the universe, most of these guys deal in science fact, not science fiction.
But one thing they do know, a sockpuppet when they see one....or two.
Ok!! I have explained to them, but they are not botherd, so i dont care. When i changed my user name i never went back to the old one. Like i said to them, first time i changed it because i did not realise how easily pi**ed off people got on there and i almost got band, so i thought i would start from the begining with a different ID, which i did, i just went about things a different way because the de-bunkers on there were easily insulted. I changed it the 2nd time because i changed my email, thats all, nothing special, so they band me, but to tell the truth, i dont really care because the forum is totally one sided, with some amazingly stupid explanations for some cases. Most of them are not skeptics, but hardcore de-bunkers, the worst type of skeptic. But one thing they do know, a sockpuppet when they see one....or two.
If you want to go down that road hazzard then by all means lets do it. It is plain to see in some cases you so proudly claim to have the answers to, you only got the answers from some of the people on that forum. Erm let me see,(1). THE FAST WALKER, you cutted and pasted from another persons conclusion (2) Battle of LA you also had know clue what happend. It seems to me that you look at cases and the ones you cant explain, you go onto that site and get your answers from die hard de-bunkers, or sometimes you cut and paste there answers onto here, you bad boy!!. Also i think i remember you posting, asking for there help to de-bunk something, now what does that tell me about you? well, it tells me that your thoughts on cases are not your own, and you are the worst type of de-bunker.
Now im sure you dont want this to carry on, so lets leave it as that, but if you do the same thing again, then i will hit back!!
QUOTE
Back to the old cloaked alien spacesships are we!? Dont you think that the aliens, many millions of years ahead of us, would have thought of that!?
Im just saying that these objects seem to appear when the camera switches to UV or IR
I have said this many times, morisson, when I have a question or two about something unexplained I often go to BAUT for answers, the forum is packed with guys who knows what they are talking about. True, there are some one sided members as well, but I wouldnt go to GLP or some other Woo Woo site for a reality check like some believers I know, thats for sure.
The reason I like UM is that theres a little bit of both here. Believers that believe that every little light in the sky is a transdimentional alien from the future here to warn us about nukes and pollution. And on the other side we have guys like MID, Lilly and Badeskov. The latter has thought me so much that I can never thank them enough. And about the CAP, well, I think that most of us are a little guilty of that, dont you.
As for me being the "worst kind of debunkers", coming from you, Ill take that as a complement.
If there is one thing I learned when debating GHOSTS,ALIENS OR DEMONS, on forums like this, its laughing at the old ad hominem routine you believers love so much. I just wont get sucked into a piss***contest, you cant provoke me.
The reason I like UM is that theres a little bit of both here. Believers that believe that every little light in the sky is a transdimentional alien from the future here to warn us about nukes and pollution. And on the other side we have guys like MID, Lilly and Badeskov. The latter has thought me so much that I can never thank them enough. And about the CAP, well, I think that most of us are a little guilty of that, dont you.
As for me being the "worst kind of debunkers", coming from you, Ill take that as a complement.
QUOTE
Now im sure you dont want this to carry on, so lets leave it as that, but if you do the same thing again, then i will hit back!!
If there is one thing I learned when debating GHOSTS,ALIENS OR DEMONS, on forums like this, its laughing at the old ad hominem routine you believers love so much. I just wont get sucked into a piss***contest, you cant provoke me.
QUOTE
I have said this many times, morisson, when I have a question or two about something unexplained I often go to BAUT for answers, the forum is packed with guys who knows what they are talking about. True, there are some one sided members as well, but I wouldnt go to GLP for a reality check, thats for sure. The reason I like UM is that theres a little bit of both here. Believers that believe that every little light in the sky is a transdimentional alien from the future here to warn us about nukes and pollution. And on the other side we have guys like MID, Lilly and Badeskov. The latter has thought me so much that I can never thank them enough. And about the CAP, well, I think that most of us are a little guilty of that, dont you.
As for me being the "worst kind of debunkers", comming from you, Ill take that as a complement.
When you ask for someone to help you de-bunk something, that says it all really. Yes, you would find worst kind of de-bunker a complement, because thats what you are. And im sorry, but Badeskov is a skeptic, and a very good one who comes to his own conclusions by looking at cases. I dont class you as the same sort of skeptic. Remember!, just like believers, there are many different types, there is not just de-bunker and believer!As for me being the "worst kind of debunkers", comming from you, Ill take that as a complement.
QUOTE
If there is one thing I learned when debating GHOSTS,ALIENS OR DEMONS, on forums like this, its laughing at the old ad hominem routine you believers love so much. I just wont get sucked into a piss***contest, you cant provoke me.
What!! Hazzard you talk so much rubbish, esp when its coming from you and not your de-bunking friends. So you spend your time on ghosts forums too. You just really like to de-bunk. You use the i want evidence, but really you dont. You just seem happy trying to prove people wrong and how much of a better person you are. As i have stated before, you provoked me with the sock puppet remark, but that kind of back fired on you, so now you come out with this rubbish. I am even wondering how much of the stuff you post on here is really coming from you, i guess we will never know, but all of your posts will be very suspect from now on.
By the way, what do i believe in??
Now please! back to the topic!
About BAUT, the rules there are spelled out clearly, and differ considerably from sites like Unexplained Mysteries.
Now, morrison, you had problems because you did not follow the rules. Here's a couple of examples (bolding is mine to highlight area of example):
link to BAUT forum rules page
So, the rules covered the areas in which you had problems. Everyone should read the rules of every bulletin board on which they intend to post. The rules can differs from site ot site and it's the posters responsibility to familiarize himself with the rules before posting.
Now, morrison, you had problems because you did not follow the rules. Here's a couple of examples (bolding is mine to highlight area of example):
QUOTE
13. Alternative Concepts
If you have some idea which goes against commonly-held astronomical theory, then you are welcome to argue it here. Before you do, though READ THIS THREAD FIRST. This is very important. Then, if you still want to post your idea, you will do so politely, you will not call people names, and you will defend your arguments. Direct questions must be answered in a timely manner.
People will attack your arguments with glee and fervor here; that's what science and scientists do. If you cannot handle that sort of attack, then maybe you need to rethink your theory, too. Remember: you came here. It's our job to attack new theories. Those that are strong will survive, and may become part of mainstream science.
Additionally, keep promotion of your theories and ideas to only those Against the Mainstream threads which discuss them. Hijacking other discussions to draw attention to your ideas will not be allowed.
If it appears that you are using circular reasoning, depending on long-debunked arguments, or breaking any of these other rules, you will receive one warning, and if that warning goes unheeded, you will be banned.
If you have some idea which goes against commonly-held astronomical theory, then you are welcome to argue it here. Before you do, though READ THIS THREAD FIRST. This is very important. Then, if you still want to post your idea, you will do so politely, you will not call people names, and you will defend your arguments. Direct questions must be answered in a timely manner.
People will attack your arguments with glee and fervor here; that's what science and scientists do. If you cannot handle that sort of attack, then maybe you need to rethink your theory, too. Remember: you came here. It's our job to attack new theories. Those that are strong will survive, and may become part of mainstream science.
Additionally, keep promotion of your theories and ideas to only those Against the Mainstream threads which discuss them. Hijacking other discussions to draw attention to your ideas will not be allowed.
If it appears that you are using circular reasoning, depending on long-debunked arguments, or breaking any of these other rules, you will receive one warning, and if that warning goes unheeded, you will be banned.
QUOTE
10. Sock Puppetry
Users are allowed only one account per person. Don't attempt to register a second or third forum username so you can have different personalities and have conversations with yourself. Sock puppets will not be tolerated. All such accounts (including the primary one) will be banned without warning.
Users are allowed only one account per person. Don't attempt to register a second or third forum username so you can have different personalities and have conversations with yourself. Sock puppets will not be tolerated. All such accounts (including the primary one) will be banned without warning.
link to BAUT forum rules page
So, the rules covered the areas in which you had problems. Everyone should read the rules of every bulletin board on which they intend to post. The rules can differs from site ot site and it's the posters responsibility to familiarize himself with the rules before posting.
QUOTE
About BAUT, the rules there are spelled out clearly, and differ considerably from sites like Unexplained Mysteries.
Now, morrison, you had problems because you did not follow the rules. Here's a couple of examples (bolding is mine to highlight area of example):
Now, morrison, you had problems because you did not follow the rules. Here's a couple of examples (bolding is mine to highlight area of example):
Oh my God!!!! this is getting annoying now!. No!!! i did not read the rules, and if i did then maybe i would not have got banned, but i did get banned, so thats that and no skin of my nose, like i said before. But want i dont like is when people like Hazzard call me a sock puppet when he did not even know the reasons why, so if he wants to go down that road, then so will I.
I know some of you de-bunkers like to stick together, but this is a different forum, and you are not Hazzard, so can you just leave it!!!
Now, for the last time, back to the topic!!!
QUOTE(morrison1976 @ Jan 23 2007, 03:37 PM) [snapback]1512578[/snapback]
Oh my God!!!! this is getting annoying now!. No!!! i did not read the rules, and if i did then maybe i would not have got banned, but i did get banned, so thats that and no skin of my nose, like i said before. But want i dont like is when people like Hazzard call me a sock puppet when he did not even know the reasons why, so if he wants to go down that road, then so will I.
Calm down murrison!
You dont want to get banned overhere aswell, do you. http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/rules.php
QUOTE
Calm down murrison!
You dont want to gett banned overhere aswell do you. http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/rules.php
You dont want to gett banned overhere aswell do you. http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/rules.php
Im fine, nothing wrong with me im afraid
QUOTE(morrison1976 @ Jan 23 2007, 02:37 PM) [snapback]1512578[/snapback]
I know some of you de-bunkers like to stick together, but this is a different forum, and you are not Hazzard, so can you just leave it!!!
I'm aware that I'm not hazzard. My intention was to show you where you went wrong on BAUT so that you would not run into the same problem again in the future.
QUOTE
Now, for the last time, back to the topic!!!
I do believe it was you who brought up the problems you had with the BAUT board. But, I agree... enough said.
QUOTE
I'm aware that I'm not hazzard. My intention was to show you where you went wrong on BAUT so that you would not run into the same problem again in the future.
I know this, and i have explained all thisQUOTE
I do believe it was you who brought up the problems you had with the BAUT board. But, I agree... enough said.
Yes i brought up the problems with the site. Hazzard brought up the sock puppet! but you are right, enough said
Enough is enough.
This is a bit troubling, it the teather truely is 80 miles away from the shuttle what is the de-bunkers official explenation for some of these disc's passing under the teather. I also thought there was a clearer video of this out there I will take a look.
Well this is all I could find not sure if it's better quality and I can't hear if there is any talking, no speakers here at work.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=68...sa+tether+video
I do find it a bit odd that these so called ice formations, seem to be very similar to one another ie rotating, color/brightness/fluxuations and that same little pie shape strange. Watching this a couple of times I can see some that very much appear to travel underneath the tether. Hmmm I'm not to sure what to make of this, interesting though.
Well this is all I could find not sure if it's better quality and I can't hear if there is any talking, no speakers here at work.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=68...sa+tether+video
I do find it a bit odd that these so called ice formations, seem to be very similar to one another ie rotating, color/brightness/fluxuations and that same little pie shape strange. Watching this a couple of times I can see some that very much appear to travel underneath the tether. Hmmm I'm not to sure what to make of this, interesting though.
QUOTE(hazzard @ Jan 23 2007, 02:13 PM) [snapback]1512561[/snapback]
. And on the other side we have guys like MID, Lilly and Badeskov. The latter has thought me so much that I can never thank them enough. And about the CAP, well, I think that most of us are a little guilty of that, dont you.
How can you have learned anything when you all sing from the same hymn sheet ? No offence but Morrison has a very valid point.....When someone makes a case for something First Hazzard or Lilly will come on and shoot it down (no matter what it is) ...and ten minutes later The next will come on and completely back up every word the other has said.....it's a bit tiresome but i for one have got used to it now and as a matter of fact have timed them on some posts......but hey whatever ...the point is are they right or not ? a lot of the time they are not and are in fact guilty of what they accuse others of....namely believing every thing they see and hear (As long as it comes from the right site of course).
But this is the point of a forum ...difference of opinions ...
QUOTE(Bogeyman @ Jan 23 2007, 05:25 PM) [snapback]1512708[/snapback]
...When someone makes a case for something First Hazzard or Lilly will come on and shoot it down (no matter what it is) ...and ten minutes later The next will come on and completely back up every word the other has said.....it's a bit tiresome but i for one have got used to it now and as a matter of fact have timed them on some posts......
If you are suggesting some type of collusion then you are very much mistaken.
First of all, I do not "shoot things down", rather I operate from a strictly empirical/scientific methodology. The first thing one does with any hypothesis is to attempt falsification, that's science, not a conspiracy. Certain other posters (such as hazzard, badeskov, MID) are simply functioning in the same manner, is it really any wonder that we tend to agree with one another most of the time?
QUOTE(Bogeyman @ Jan 23 2007, 09:25 AM) [snapback]1512708[/snapback]
How can you have learned anything when you all sing from the same hymn sheet ? No offence but Morrison has a very valid point.....When someone makes a case for something First Hazzard or Lilly will come on and shoot it down (no matter what it is) ...and ten minutes later The next will come on and completely back up every word the other has said.....it's a bit tiresome but i for one have got used to it now and as a matter of fact have timed them on some posts......but hey whatever ...the point is are they right or not ? a lot of the time they are not and are in fact guilty of what they accuse others of....namely believing every thing they see and hear (As long as it comes from the right site of course).
But this is the point of a forum ...difference of opinions ...
But this is the point of a forum ...difference of opinions ...
When something compelling is offered here it gets "passed" on by debunkers/skeptics... Its very easy to debunk ET here, after all science doesnt support it due to a lack of hard evidence so "that's that" as they say (I say, SO?). Ask any debunker here to go debunk NARCAP or discredit Richard Haines?!!?!? Professional and military pilots see "controlled craft", seperate from weather phenomenon, period. Yet, it will be sliced up and interpreted in all kinds of ways so that it fits neatly into a believable scientific form (some people dont need this). Well, this seems to be a bit of a belief system too dont you think. I think a lot of people would like to think they have a grasp on the universe and/ or that they are simply just more intelligent than someone who would support the UFO=ETH thing... Whatever floats your boat I guess.
QUOTE(Lilly @ Jan 23 2007, 11:33 AM) [snapback]1512852[/snapback]
If you are suggesting some type of collusion then you are very much mistaken.
First of all, I do not "shoot things down", rather I operate from a strictly empirical/scientific methodology. The first thing one does with any hypothesis is to attempt falsification, that's science, not a conspiracy. Certain other posters (such as hazzard, badeskov, MID) are simply functioning in the same manner, is it really any wonder that we tend to agree with one another most of the time?
First of all, I do not "shoot things down", rather I operate from a strictly empirical/scientific methodology. The first thing one does with any hypothesis is to attempt falsification, that's science, not a conspiracy. Certain other posters (such as hazzard, badeskov, MID) are simply functioning in the same manner, is it really any wonder that we tend to agree with one another most of the time?
I should've commented on the collusion thing too... I dont see it this way, for the most part. Some of the people mentioned here are more than fair and atleast leave an open argument for and against ETH. Remember, birds of a feather DO flock together, its natural.
Bogeyman,
Sorry for intruding on your discussion and while I have no desire to further fuel the discussion, I just had to throw a comment in here.
In my opinion, we do not sing from the same hymn sheet, but we sing the same kind of hymns (to stay in your analogy). And now that MID, Lilly and Hazzard are mentioned along with me, I'll just say that we have areas of knowledge that overlap, but more important, we also have areas of knowledge that do not overlap, but are complementary. There is no collaboration, conspiracy or the like in the cooking behind the curtains - we just happen to share the same requirements for scientific data and analysis and thus supplement each other fairly well.
By the way, I do not normally include named persons in my posts, but I guess it'll be ok in this case (otherwise, please do forgive me).
I resent that implication, as that would mean that the only intention we (aforementioned named people) have is to go shooting from the hip. As you state yourself, we are here to engage in a discussion and exchange points of views, and that is what all of us are judged by - and in the end, the whole topic. Of course, sometimes a good point is made and then I show my support by agreeing, I readily admit that, but I am mainly here to learn and has no intention of being an echo of others. And I will argue from science point of view! And my arguments will be researched thoroughly! Consequently, I will not believe anything I read or am told, as implied, and to the best of my knowledge neither will MID, Lilly or Hazzard. Actually, from reading their posts it should be fairly obvious that they have a very critical stance towards any information put forth. It is hard, but that is how science works. It can feel hard as well, but there is no personal attacks or wishes to bring anybody down. Try and think of it from a different angle: tomorrow you are to present your hypothesis for 300 people in a auditorium. You have made your power point slides, your suit has been at the dry cleaners and the butterflies in your stomach are replicating at a frightening rate, but you think you are ready. But are you really ready? Did you think any and all conceivable questions through? Where are your weak spots? Will some clever smarta.. get up and ask that one critical question you hadn't thought of that punctures your whole hypothesis in front of 300 people and making a laughing stock out of you? This board is rather relaxed in this matter, but we will ask questions and we will point out if we think something is wrong. The BAUT forum is strictly a science board and they state that up front. Surely, they will be more than helpful (there are some incredible smart people there) if you have a question to ask, but if one comes around with material that is not properly researched or simply completely unsubstantiated, it will be noted. And if continued, one is simply banned. It is in that respect a no nonsense board and it has nothing to do with personal grudges or the like, simply the arguments. And that people don't want to waste their time over and over again.
I will therefore say that any hypothesis that is brought forth I will try and put any and all holes in that I can possibly can. And one day I won't be able to do so and that is when I know we have something substantial! But in many cases all we can do is to discussion opinions and in the end we might have to politely disagree and so be it! I respect your opinion and I trust you to respect mine
Finally, I have no intention of adding to the discussion on how discussion forums work in general, how one should behave or what is scientific facts, etc. If there is an interest in continuing this discussion I would suggest we make a new topic and return to the original topic of this thread (of which I have no knowledge and thus will not engage in before doing some research).
Best,
Badeskov
Sorry for intruding on your discussion and while I have no desire to further fuel the discussion, I just had to throw a comment in here.
QUOTE(Bogeyman @ Jan 23 2007, 09:25 AM) [snapback]1512708[/snapback]
How can you have learned anything when you all sing from the same hymn sheet ?
In my opinion, we do not sing from the same hymn sheet, but we sing the same kind of hymns (to stay in your analogy). And now that MID, Lilly and Hazzard are mentioned along with me, I'll just say that we have areas of knowledge that overlap, but more important, we also have areas of knowledge that do not overlap, but are complementary. There is no collaboration, conspiracy or the like in the cooking behind the curtains - we just happen to share the same requirements for scientific data and analysis and thus supplement each other fairly well.
By the way, I do not normally include named persons in my posts, but I guess it'll be ok in this case (otherwise, please do forgive me).
QUOTE
No offence but Morrison has a very valid point.....When someone makes a case for something First Hazzard or Lilly will come on and shoot it down (no matter what it is) ...and ten minutes later The next will come on and completely back up every word the other has said.....it's a bit tiresome but i for one have got used to it now and as a matter of fact have timed them on some posts......but hey whatever ...the point is are they right or not ? a lot of the time they are not and are in fact guilty of what they accuse others of....namely believing every thing they see and hear (As long as it comes from the right site of course).
But this is the point of a forum ...difference of opinions ...
But this is the point of a forum ...difference of opinions ...
I resent that implication, as that would mean that the only intention we (aforementioned named people) have is to go shooting from the hip. As you state yourself, we are here to engage in a discussion and exchange points of views, and that is what all of us are judged by - and in the end, the whole topic. Of course, sometimes a good point is made and then I show my support by agreeing, I readily admit that, but I am mainly here to learn and has no intention of being an echo of others. And I will argue from science point of view! And my arguments will be researched thoroughly! Consequently, I will not believe anything I read or am told, as implied, and to the best of my knowledge neither will MID, Lilly or Hazzard. Actually, from reading their posts it should be fairly obvious that they have a very critical stance towards any information put forth. It is hard, but that is how science works. It can feel hard as well, but there is no personal attacks or wishes to bring anybody down. Try and think of it from a different angle: tomorrow you are to present your hypothesis for 300 people in a auditorium. You have made your power point slides, your suit has been at the dry cleaners and the butterflies in your stomach are replicating at a frightening rate, but you think you are ready. But are you really ready? Did you think any and all conceivable questions through? Where are your weak spots? Will some clever smarta.. get up and ask that one critical question you hadn't thought of that punctures your whole hypothesis in front of 300 people and making a laughing stock out of you? This board is rather relaxed in this matter, but we will ask questions and we will point out if we think something is wrong. The BAUT forum is strictly a science board and they state that up front. Surely, they will be more than helpful (there are some incredible smart people there) if you have a question to ask, but if one comes around with material that is not properly researched or simply completely unsubstantiated, it will be noted. And if continued, one is simply banned. It is in that respect a no nonsense board and it has nothing to do with personal grudges or the like, simply the arguments. And that people don't want to waste their time over and over again.
I will therefore say that any hypothesis that is brought forth I will try and put any and all holes in that I can possibly can. And one day I won't be able to do so and that is when I know we have something substantial! But in many cases all we can do is to discussion opinions and in the end we might have to politely disagree and so be it! I respect your opinion and I trust you to respect mine
Finally, I have no intention of adding to the discussion on how discussion forums work in general, how one should behave or what is scientific facts, etc. If there is an interest in continuing this discussion I would suggest we make a new topic and return to the original topic of this thread (of which I have no knowledge and thus will not engage in before doing some research).
Best,
Badeskov