Naturally, UFOs never crash in cities or populated areas. Only in the desert, where ther are no witnesses!

Why are there no FLYING SAUCERS in NASA videos?

Do you think if NASA had videos of saucers they would share them with the public?

By all means of respect, but with 33 years invested in studying the UFO phenomenon you have surprisingly little to show for it except for unsubstantiated claims (of which you have plenty). I bid you farewell and I hope that the next 33 years of searching will be more productive

Best,
Badeskov

After 33 years i can tell you your all being duped by your governments to control social norms.....the circumstanial evidence is overwhelming..with the cloaking abilities of all the ships; your puzzle will never be completed.......good luck

Limited-

The problem is that over the years, 99% of the UFO lore is TRASH. Of the remaining 1%, 9/10 of that is military related.

I personally do as NASA is made up from civilian scientists, which I am sure would have a hard time keeping such under wraps. But it does beg the question that Leadbelly posted, why is it that ET seeming prefers to crash land in places where the population density is so low that almost nobody notes it?

Best,
Badeskov

Who exactly asked you to stop posting?

How can you beg that question when there is no physical evidence of any "crash landing"?

Of course, they would never have parachutes. That idea is alien to aliens!

Thank you, Bade...for your kind comments!

Interesting point, but RCS exhaust gas is not visible. It most certainly consists of objects, but, like air, you can't see it. Additionally, the exhaust of an RCS is not hitting a particle in its path at "orbital velocities". Both the RCS and the object are already at orbital velocity. The gas is hitting the particle at the velocity that 110 PSI gas escapes from the engine bell of the vernier...whatever that might be. It's not close to orbital velocity.

Yeah, good question actually. That was presuming that the various alleged crashes actually happened. For clarification, no, I do not believe that ET has crash landed here on Earth!

Best,
Badeskov

Thanks, Badeskov. I really appreciate all of your posts, too.

Pericynthion

And why should we believe you... again? Im still waiting for those triangle ships, Mr. Triad... they're a bit late, Christmas went by long ago...

The Skeptics will never believe until they meet one or see one with there own eyes and will then wonder why people don't believe them.
Out of the 10000000000 stars visible at night and then the other 1000000000 stars visible in really dark places around the world. Plus the ones not visible from earth plus the 100 000 000 more stars circling each one of the other stars with its own galaxy and then its own planets. How is it only 1 out of the 2100000000000 planets. We are the only planet that has life. The skeptics probably walk outside there house can't see anybody and instantly think they are the last people on Earth.

There is more evidence pointing toward there being Aliens then theres not. So suck on that.

Excuse me? But, how can you beg that comment when there has been physical evidence of crash landings of UFOs that have taken place many decades ago? Don't you read?

Are you serious Stellar? Try reading more about the triangle ships, and, moreover, just because you have not seen them personally (they have been photographed, and recorded by civilian and military) that does not mean that they don't exist because "stellar" missed his sighting last "Christmas."

By all means of respect, but I think you missed the point. I have not encountered anyone saying that ET is not out there; as a matter of fact to the best of my knowledge most people on this board believe ET is indeed out there in abundance somewhere. The dispute is whether ET is roaming earth or not.

Best,
Badeskov

The jury is still out on that alleged evidence, sorry...

limited,
you have a habit of giving up too easily.....I've noticed this about you in the past in various threads...As has been suggested to you before(by me), if you have a story to tell, why not start a new thread and enlighten us....You'll be surprised, there might be people out there willing and able to listen...Unlike some people here, I'm not mentioning names but you know who you are !!!!!

Actually VD - you have the 'true skeptic' pegged wrong. But that is ok, I remember that you are 14 and still learning.

Being an amature astronomer - I have no issues w/there being life out there. From animal, vegitable to even various forms of higher life forms, to even intelligent life forms... To think other wise, well, I don't think other wise. Most of the 'skeptics' that I know - the honest ones argee with that too.

The problem is: Alien life visiting this planet. So much of this is based on 2nd hand stories and whole lot of assumptions based on Faith - not FACTS. UFO's do not equate to ALIENS. Sorry they do not.

For each piece that the believer puts forward it is based on a lot of 'blind faith' and very little on facts.

Again let me show:

A UFO is seen in Earth's Air space or Upper Atmospher. These pictures are alwasy BLURRED or OUT OF FOCUS PICTURES, yet they are assumed to be "Alien", by the so called believer. It is just automatically assumed more often then not. But what is this assumption based on??

A UFO that canNOT be identified and in most cases is to quick to even begin to ID. There is little to no thought given to a 'human explination' - nope, this is written off with the lame excuse: "Man does not have this technology." - "Thus it has to be alien." Do they bother to CHECK the possiblity that man MIGHT have this technology?? NOPE! No effort to research this at all. They just write it off, through in a couple of "experts", that really have no clue what is going on, because if they did - they wouldn't say that. Or if they do - the money $$$ yes $$$ says, "Tell them (the believers) what they want to hear!"

Then when, what the would be considered Reasonable Evidence/Alternative/Observation is given to suggest and shows a valid "human equation", the believer does one or all of the below:
... A. It is ignored.
... B. Throws a 'tangent' into the dialog to side step it.
... C. Throws out insults and 'names calling'.
... D. They seldom if ever address the points.

Then you have the leaps - yes leaps, that in ANY other discipline or area of your life, would simply not be done. These leaps to the "alien equation" are all founded on extreme blind faith.

It is assumed - aliens are in these crafts.
..... There is no real evidence to support this leap. It is a leap. There is no evidence of any kind to say:"alien pilot on board."
It is assumed - they are from a planet, but are clueless in this too.
.... The rational of life on another planet is far different than life on another planet "visiting up". Two different realities.
.... You are assuming they are an 'advanced race' - but there is ZERO evidence to support this. None. It's simply assumed.
It is assume - they have interstellar technology. There is no evidence to suggest this.
..... There is no evidence that these UFO's have been anywhere beyond our own atmosphere. Let alone interstellar space.
..... There is no evidence to suggest these have any technology of interstellar capablities. They are simply seen ONLY in our AIR SPACE, nothing more.

See how much of this is based on a lot of leaps of faith and assumptions??

There is evidence and even logic and rational that these very easily could be "Human Based Technology". But this is rejected just a little TOO QUICKLY. Even when clear cut evidence in some cases is given, it is emotionally met with,"this is dis-information..." or other emo comebacks. But they refuse to look at the clear cut evidence. It is de-nounced, period.

You say and other have said the following in different ways: "we won't believe unless a real alien lands their shp infront of us and greets us." What I find funny is that when evidence is presented to the believer - clear cut evidence, they close their eyes and REFUSE to look at it. Hey at least we will accept the clear evidence WHEN presented of ET's on planet Earth. I find it curious that most (not all) will not do the same when the "human equation" is presented clarly. Why does the average "believer" emotionally reject reasonable and logical answers when they are given, even clear evidence?? Or at least rational thought to give enough to say, "We should look into this." At least LOOK!

At least I'm open to the possiblity of the believer's side. (When I am given reasonable and credible evidence to suggest attention be given.) But I do not see that given in return... Hmm...

As you grow through your teens you are going to be presented w/A LOT of different and conflicting inforamtion. People passing off 'crap' and will sell it, like it the PRIZED JEWEL. You have to be able to engage in Critical Analytical Reasoning Skills. Learn to look at ALL the sides presented. Then weigh the credibility or lack of, the evidence or lack of, the facts or lack of. Learn it now - so it becomes a part of your life process. Even check out my theories, thougts and observations. Ya I mean that! See if they "hold water" - you'll have to do some honest research and look investigation - BUT GO FOR IT DUDE!

Jj -

This one has a longer story attached to it, and we are not talking about a single triangular ship here or there; no, we are talking massive amounts (200 trillion, was it? Pax, Stellar, others?)...

Best,
Badeskov

LMAO........Eh, Mod team ? Is he allowed to say that ? If it's ok with you guys, I wanna start using that line too....."So suck on that"

Hey Theo - I might suggest that you first find out exactly what is being talked about here.... There was a "promise" made that some ships were going to clearly make themselves known and seen at Christmas time 2006. As you noticed, as did a few UM members, they didn't show up.... (I guess they couldn't dis-engage their cloaks.)

Any wasy -Two Totally Different 'ships' are being talked about... Trust me.
The triangle ship that landed 2005 at Boeing Plant, I think this is the one you are talking about -> is NOT the ships Limited was/is talking about that was suppose to show up at Christmas. Not to mention a few other 'off the wall claims'.

I would suggest that you check out the claims of LIMITED before you start defending them. The "Commonwealth" might not be able to back you up on this one... (Trust me...)

Uhm, eh...never mind

Best,
Badeskov

Indeed so, very different triangular ships. I like the notion that they couldn't disengage their cloaking field Although I would expect that the sheer mass of 200 trillion ships (if that is indeed the correct number) would wreck gravitational havoc anywhere they went, meaning that cloaked or not, I am sure we'd have discovered them, if nothing else then when planetary orbits started showing large perturbations

Best,
Badeskov

Hi Badeskov,

You sound intriguing.....Please tell me you have a sense of humour as well !!

Haha, thanks...and, yes, I must certainly do possess a sense of humour ...

Best,
Badeskov

This thread has gone off topic again i suggest you all visit my sts 80 thread!!!

Who made the "promise?" Actually, you might want to look into the REAL DEAL rather than the "off-the-wall" claims on waiting on some silly "promise" that these Triangle Ships were going to land on CHRISTMAS 2006 and Santa Claus was going to deliver those hot updated playstations to your home.

It is this kind of tic-tac crap that deviates from the more serious questions about what is really happening. I'm not "backing up" anyone's so-called "claims" ~ what I find silly is that with all the very serious questions on these particular craft that "promising" a landing on "Christmas" etc., etc., is just more of the ignorant BS that detracts from mature discussion on the real phenomena rather than the BS.




I agree. Thanks. I will.

Check out the video time codes: 1:20, 1:47 and 2:15. Notice that one object makes multiple changes and other objects actually decelerate despite the lack of physical contact.

Oh really? And what sort of evidence would that be?



Excuse me, but you apparently have no clue what I'm refering to. limited claimed to be "Commander Triad" in charge of trillions of those "triangle" ships. He went on to make numerous claims which all fell through, and I'm now asking him why we should believe anything he says. I want to know what credibility he has left. You disagreeing with me would be like disagreeing that a known liar can not be trusted.

Stellar - I am beginning to see that some are not aware of Limited less than good "track record". I actually thought this was pretty clear:



Emphasis only on this post, not on the original.

But I guess (??) It wasn't as clear as I thought it was.

I agree - why would one support a "known liar" and I'm not sure why anyone in their right mind would do that. But some do, I guess.

Why I pretty much ignore Limited's posts - they simply are not credible.

Jj -

when did NASA stop the live feeds from the space station?....your on so many sides of the issue jj i cant figure out where your coming from...

limited claims it's 200 trillion ships...


LINK-> Post #437

did you ever consider maybe i was joking around.....pax get some fresh stuff

so you were spamming?...

why should I bother finding another of your fantastic claims?, besides, it's a classic... "I will laugh last mr spock..and it's 200 trillion ships..."

Indeed, it is a classic

Why would you even care? If his "numerous claims" all fall through, and he has no credibility, then why are you still asking him anything? Disagree? I don't give a flying... Just get back on being serious and please just quit with the cheese whiz "questions" and the posts to "commander whoever." Jeez.

May I make a suggestion please ? I think this thread has run it's course, people are just re-hashing old stuff and have resorted to name-calling and the like....How about a Mod please close it and put us all out of our misery.....

I think, intelligent reading of Jj will reveal that he is decidedly on one side of the issue, and he maintains that position from the basis of rational thought and topic-matter knowledge.


When did NASA stop the live feeds from the ISS?

They never did.

I think the most credible by far is the astronauts that come forth saying UFO's and Aliens exist. Why else would they do it? It would cause them nothing but grief.

At this point I have a request of everyone; please try to stay on topic. I would also like to point out that NO ONE has told/asked/requested limited to "stop posting"; I have no idea where that came from, but I find it troubling that limiteds claim was thrown out there with no evidence, or response to my question. The moderating team may ask people to be civil with each other, and on very extreme cases have to suspend peoples accounts if they are out of control(we have all seen that happen here from time to time), but we simply do not tell people to stop posting. We may tell people to stop cussing...name calling...posting dirty pictures, but not just to stop posting.

I wanted to make that very clear to everyone; any requests for limited to stop posting came from his end of his life, much like the billions of ships we all waited for this christmas.

You had to sneak that in there didn't you ? And oh so subtle.....

To get things back on track here, I’d like to readdress the spherical UFOs seen at time codes 0:43 and 1:20 in the original poster’s video (link). Here are stills of the objects in question:

STS-51A (Time Code 0:43)


STS-37 (Time Code 1:20)


My contention is that these are nothing more than water droplets on the shuttle’s flight deck windows through which the crew is shooting. In both clips, the camera is being hand-held, so the scene jiggles back and forth a bit. Because the water drop is very close to the camera, it's apparent movements are much more exaggerated than those of the distant Earth.

Since my first attempt at illustrating this phenomenon apparently wasn’t very convincing, I spent some time today trying to create a video which roughly duplicates the lighting conditions seen in the shuttle videos. I placed a droplet of water on my glass shower door and covered my bathtub with a black cloth to simulate the darkness of space. By holding the camera upside-down, I put the light and dark areas in the same orientation as the shuttle videos (black space above, bright Earth below). Now, this crude setup won’t get me any job offers from George Lucas, but it does provide the right lighting conditions for viewing through the water droplet.

Here’s a still shot of the result:


The video clip can be viewed here:
YouTube Clip

As shown in the video, small camera movements can make the water droplet appear to move quite radically over the more distant background. Some background movement is noticeable in my video because the bathtub is only about 10 feet away. This movement would be less noticeable in the shuttle video because the Earth is so much farther away.

One note about the water drop: As can be seen in my still image, the droplet is not perfectly round. I wasn’t able to make a water drop big enough to keep a round shape without sliding down the glass door. Droplets would tend to be much more spherical in zero-gravity.

Water drops do not maneuver in ways that particular object does. Note the light source and how the light is reflected, unlike how light is affected by water droplets, but pay close attention to the way the object maneuvers between time code: 1:20 and 1:23. What does the laws of physics say about objects that are placed into motion?

Videos of astronauts playing with water droplets do not show the droplets maneuvering in ways that object in question does and once again, here is where we call upon the laws of physics to understand why. In space, the water droplets tend to deform and not hold a stable shape unlike the object in question, which indicates the object in the video is of a solid mass as indicated by the fact that its shape remains stable and unchanged, unlike a large drop of water in a space environment.

Did you watch the video clip? I can make the water drop "maneuver" any way I want to by moving the camera. Please tell me what maneuver is impossible to recreate here. As for the light sources and reflections/refraction, what specifically is different about the shuttle videos as compared to my water droplet?

Yes, I watched the video and I have seen videos of astronauts playing with drops of water as well. None of those water drops maneuvered in ways the object had done between time codes 1:20 and 1:23 and the water droplets could not hold their shapes in a weightless environment, unlike the object in question.
The camera in the NASA video has nothing to do with the motion of the object. For an example, the background can be used as a means of reference and note the motion of the object is independent of that of the background setting.

Just to clarify things, I believe the water drops in the shuttle video are stuck to the flight deck windows, not floating in the cabin. This is the situation I recreated in my video. The droplets themselves are not moving. All of the apparent motion is due to movement of the camera itself. Because the droplets are closer to the camera, they appear to move more than the distant background.

And for what it's worth, small water droplets hold their shapes very well in microgravity. Big drops do, too, as long as they're not disturbed. Check out this video: (YouTube link). In particular, watch the small droplets bouncing around inside of the large water sphere beginning at about time code 1:22. Very cool stuff.

Here's a better way of looking at it. Notice at time code, 0:42, the object approaches the shuttle from a distance slows down as it nears the shuttle and then maneuvers to the right. That clearly indicates the object is not a water droplet on the window.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7f-nB8Ait-M