HHHMMMMMM! i have heard a saying like this on another site, but it was elves instead of pink unicorns i think, and to tell you the truth, it was only a matter of time before that sort of stupid saying would make it on here. Oh! there is a giant invisible monster in my garden, prove im lying!!

PLEASE!!!!!!
NO MORE OF THIS KIND OF RUBBISH ON HERE! IT DOES NOT MAKE YOU CLEVER PEOPLE!

It's almost certainly a drop of water (condensation) on the window through which the crew is shooting. 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. You can see the Earth moving slightly in sync with the "UFO," though, if you watch carefully.

Here's a quick demonstration using a drop of water on my office window. It would be much clearer in video form, but I'll have to settle for posting a couple stills. The camera was set to continuous shooting mode, and these images were taken only a few seconds apart. The camera was only shifted an inch or so between shots.



In video mode, I can easily duplicate the motions seen in the shuttle video and make the water drop dance above the distant house.

Also, here's a shot with the water drop in focus. Notice how the light refracting through the drop creates an upside down version of the scene. Watch the UFO video again and pay attention to how the light and dark portions of the object behave as it nears the Earth's horizon.

This video has been very thoroughly debunked, especially by science writer and long-time NASA observer James Oberg. He did a frame by frame analysis -- the "objects" can be very easily explained to be the motions of tiny particles close to the window of the Shuttle.

At the very least, this is far from "proof" that there are UFOs horsing around in earth orbit.

IronGhost is right. The footage is interesting until you've seen it debunked MANY times; it no longer is even questionable in my mind. Do some further research and don't just switch to tunnel-vision at the first thing you get.

Of course, some people are just going to believe that anything circular and moving is an alien spacecraft...even when such phenomena is in deep space, where they have never been and have no knowledge of how the laws of physics apply.

Yeah, must be an alien spacecraft--anyone ever wonder why the aliens are masking their ships as ice on a camera lens? That's some neat camo.

do you have any links to some videos or some sites with essays debunking the video?

Why have you concluded that you have eliminated all the "things" that they may be??

This is your assumption based on a lack of information of how ice crystals behave in space...it is an unproven assumption.



You have not provided evidence that "something shot" at "anything". Again, it is an unproven assumption.

Your assumption is that what is seen is some kind of craft. You have not even "tried" to prove that to be true. Again...an unproven assumption.



When you allow yourself to make any number of assumptions...calling them valid, when in fact they are not, it's no wonder that your conclusion is alien spaceships...

...but pardon some of the rest of us if we don't share your leaps of logic.



Please don't bring out that tired old chestnut...it demonstrates only that even astronauts can deceive themselfs...it's sad really.

...and he even has the numbers to "prove" it...go ahead, sky, and post them again.

Of course posting your numbers doesn't demonstrate that aliens are infesting our skies, but I know how you take confort in the "appearence" that you know what you are talking about.



While this is of course true, that won't stop skyeagle from taking this opportunity to insult Mr. Oberg and regale us with his tales of how he has "bested" him in debate...

Do us all a "favor", skyeagle...before you are tempted to tell us your "stories" once again, stick a cork in it...

As far as critical thinking is concerned, skyeagle, you and Jim Oberg are on opposite sides of the scale.

do you have any links to some videos or some sites with essays debunking the video?

do you have any links to some videos or some sites with essays debunking the video?

First, please don't shout.

Second, the Invisible Pink Unicorn and the Invisible Elf examples are used to demonstrate claims that are simply not falsifiable. Understanding that certain claims are at their core incapable of falisfication isn't particularly *clever* per say, but understanding such does lend itself to critical thinking....which is not "rubbish" in the least.

Ok - UN-identified Flying Objects.

I just had a talk w/a friend in the military. Because I am aware of his Clearance Status, I've learned to avoid certain various and sundry questions. Same as there are certain things I cannot and am not aloud to talk about.

So I asked a pretty generic question:
Is it safe to say, that the military has various sundry projects that involve prototype droan that can fly? -
..Answer: Yes.
.... he added = just watch Discovery Channel you can see this. (Which is where I got the question was safe to ask.)
Is it safe to say, that these droans can turn "right/left CRIPS angles"?:
.. Again, yes - no secret there.
Are some of these Laser Guided, to add a crisper and clearn control?
.. Answer: Yes.
.... Laser technology is again not a 'big secret'.
Are some of the droans HIGH ALTITUDE fliers?
.. Answer: Yes.

Jj - none of this is TOP SECRET in their basics. You can ask around. What would be classified at various levels would be the 'what are they specific' and 'how they work' specific. (Which makes obvious sense.)

The point is - as he also admitted, "these are tested in a lot of different air space, locations and weather conditions. Yes they are tested to see if various radars pick them up or not. It's like "beta testing" software. You test it 'in house' - then you simply have to 'test in various fields, to see how they work or do not work." Again, when you stop to think about it, ya - makes a lot of sense.

Also back in the 1990's (pretty much the whole decade) stop and ask: How many testings were be done w/the Star Wars Technology? Plus add to that - How exactly would they test them?? ie: Moving Objects.

Also another little bit of TRIVIA: Google or search engine of your choice:
........> How many objects orbit the earth?
........> How many satilites orbit the earth?

Also, I wouldn't put two cents on what James Oberg says on the UFO enigma. I caught him red-handed distorting the facts on aircraft avionics in regards to the McDonnell-Douglas F-4 Phantom and caught him again distorting the facts regarding NORAD's DSP satellite!! Needless to say, I let him know that he was deliberately distorting the facts and that I knew more then he thought I knew.

Also, ice particles do not maneuver nor change velocity in the absence of an outside stimilus, especially in a space environment.

The objects that make sudden turns are clearly UFO's. Aliens or not. Theres no debate. What did supposed spacejunk encounter for it to make sudden turns like that? There's footagae out there such as the hovering lights over Africa as seen up in space that are clearly UFO's. They assemble into a circle and then the middle light glows brightly. The odds of space junk in chaotic formation assembling into a circle and show an intelligent pattern of light effects simply could not happen. It's clear !

The only sceptisism i can offer is that there has been some footage that i once thought real for sure that turned out to be false when did enough of my own research on it. But i still say there's indisputable footage out there.

Perhaps I was not clear enough with my "put a cork in it" comment...let me elaborate...

Skyeagle...you really need to stop insulting James Oberg. I've heard your crap before and I simply do not believe you. What you hope to accomplish by tarnishing the name of a respect space journalist is obvious...he is a real THREAT to your space aliens fantasy...

As far as the ice crystals are concerned, you continue to display your ignorance...the "crystal explanation" is very well understood and accepted by any scientist who happens to actually investigate the FACTS.

Please stop making yourself look foolish...and if you have nothing nice to say about Mr. Oberg, then SHUT THE HELL UP!

I agree!

Ask him if we have 100-meter saucer-shaped drones capable of 40+ G maneuvers and hypersonic velocites within earth's atmosphere and not create a sonic boom.



Never no secret there either but ask him if drones are capable of normal flight at altitudes of 200,000 feet.

But, not fly within prohibited, positive, nor airport controlled airspace without permission from ground controllers, as UFOs have been known to do in the skies over many nations around the globe and that is a clear indication those UFOs were not experimental aircraft of the military. I've stated many times there are areas where secret flight test are conducted but Washington D.C. is not considered a flight test zone for secret aircraft operations, not even within the controlled flight zones at many military bases within the United States. In fact, military installations around this country have reported saucer-shaped UFOs violating their own airspace and jets have been scrambled as well.

The events of 1952 over Washington D.C. is a clear example that the UFOs had nothing to do with experimental aircraft and that the UFOs violated many CAA regulations during those incidents, which once again, exclude experimental aircraft. But as it was, military interceptors were scrambled to find out what was going on and the military had no knowledge of experimental aerial activity over the White House either yet there were many UFOs on mulitple days operating within prohibited and controlled airspace without permission from ground controllers, which once again, is not indicative of the way we really conduct classified test of our valuable assets.



Actually, it doesn't if you really knew how classified flight test are handled and where they are flown as well. Is this the way the U.S. military conducts secret flight test of its valuable black assets?




But, not over the White House nor within controlled airspaces of international airports in full violation of FAA flight regulations.



NORAD has a list of thousands of objects orbiting Earth but those who have built space surveillance assets for NORAD have stated that many of thel UFOs detected by their detection systems are not man-made nor of natural origin.

Link?

Whether you believe me or not, that is moot because it doesn't change reality by any means and remember, I have challenged skeptics before to prove me wrong by posting facts and evidence that refutes mine.

James Oberg put himself on the spot and as a result, I made an example out of him on the old CNN message board, that in regards to the Iranian UFO incident of 1976. It was not possible for aircraft avionics to malfunction and repair themselves in the manner he'd claimed. What he was trying to do was to debunk that incident by distorting the facts surrounding the avionics of the F-4 and simply, he got caught throwing 'loaded dice' on this incident, BIG TIME!!



Those are not ice crystals and besides, ice crystals don't violate the laws of physics by maneuvering without exertion from an outside force. Just a matter of common sense logic, you understand!



I knew EXACTLY what I was talking about and furthermore, James Oberg is nothing more than an instrument used to push ahead the disinformation campaign on the UFO enigma and that is about as nice I can say about him in that respect. James Oberg simply got caught red-handed distorting facts on issues that I was already well-aware of.

Did he really think that he was the only person who knew that he was deliberately distorting the facts?!

Sounds like a challenge. I thought I posted links before about Aerojet's engineers stating that their systems were tracking UFOs in space?




Apparently, the engineers at Aerojet, the folks who designed the DSP satellites, have said that their DSP satellites track up to 2 to 3 "Fast Walkers" per month and NORAD tracks roughly 500 each year and they are not talking satellites nor comets either, they are referring to UFOs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NORAD’s DSP Satellite Detects “Fast Walker”

MAY 5, 1984, an alert was triggered at the North America Air Defense Command. Moving at 22,000 miles per hour, it was heading toward Earth and had been determined to NOT be incoming ballistic missiles, or any other type of conventionally explainable object. Once tracked, it was code-named "Fast Walker".


http://www.anomalies.net/ufo/gov/dsp/dsp-001.ram

http://www.nicap.org/walker.htm

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ditto!! And, only a closed-minded skeptic would overlook that fact.

No, I don't keep a catalog of information just for cases like this. As I've said, I've seen the footage in there discussed and debunked many times (even on T.V., mind you), and was thereby implying that if one actually tried to LOOK for some information that explained it, they probably wouldn't have too difficult a time of finding it.

I, however, as I've stated, have seen it debunked many times and don't really care to waste the time to track that stuff down. Believe it if you want. All I'm saying is I found it interesting too until I saw it debunked MANY TIMES.

And a lot of that footage is pretty old. There is nothing new there.

Yes indeed, astronauts and cosmonauts have been talking UFO reality in space for years and they are not talking about "ice particles" either.

Not only are astronauts and cosmonauts confirming ET UFOs in space, Russian scientist are confirming ET UFOs as well.

Look who is talking UFO reality!

Sorry, its stupid and annoying! We are not all little kids who need that sort of rubbish thrown apon us like that. Yes, people who do say this normaly think they are being clever, but they are not, esp when all the people start using this saying. It has nothing to do with critical thinking at all. Its to do with trying to sound clever, with a smirk and a raised eyebrow as you type it!. So please! leave that to the bad astromany website.



Now, these people make me laugh. The ones who see Oberg as the de-bunking king. They most prob have a poster on there bedroom wall too. Anyone who has read Obergs posts in forums will know how rude he can be with people who do not agree with him. I sent him an email and he used the same arragonce with me as he has done with many people. So yes, i have a problem with him too. Some of his explanations on some ufo's is clearly coming from someone who just wants to de-bunk, while hiding behind the saying that he would like nothing more than the ET/ufo to be real, what a load of rubbish. I think many people who have read into Obergs writings, dont take him seriosly, but there are some de-bunkers who take his every word, which is quite sad really because some of his explanations are really coming from someone who just wants to disagree with believers.

I take all of this with a grain of salt, esp. Russian sourced information. In fact, the more reason, the better.

But, what about this? Where does the line get drawn on connecting lights, to other stories about UFOs- toying with missiles? Wherein is the embellishment? When stories mention soucers on the ground? Those, I seriously question.
Where are the witnesses?

http://www.nicap.org/babylon/missile_incidents.htm


I have yet to accept NASA video as ET events.

Thats what he does best. But im still wondering if he knows more. or if he is just a puppet

Hazzard, why dont you look yourself. Its not hard, as you do have the internet. And like sky said, he has most prob posted a link before.

James Oberg gives a reasonable analysis of Gordon Cooper the related UFO stories. Even the Edwards AFB incident, which Oberg at least says was apparently not explained, on the record. But, he discounts the interpretations that Cooper knows what was seen or filmed.

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Most of these have already been explained, but I'm going to mark the exact time that the ones I think are unexplained start. Most of the ones I'll mark can't be explained any other way besides video editing in my opinion.


1:21 - The "Zig Zagging Balls" within the next few seconds.
2:10 - The extremely fast moving "Orb of Light". I don't see any normal explaination for this one.


EDIT:
Well, I could only find 2 really odd ones.

Assuming that we are looking at footage of some sort of craft, is there any reason why it couldn't be of terrestrial origin?

These are old and have been debated for a long time. Why new interest? Did Snozz just fing them on you-tube?

Unexplained maybe, UFO's technically, but Alien controlled craft? Please. That's speculation. The stupid angel theory has nearly as much credibility (more for many people). So saying "This is it, FINALLY proof!" is a bit far to go Snozz.

By the way, having someone support you that claims he "knows" they are saucers from Andromeda because he has been "on one" does not help your cause.

they are not saucers..they are triangular ships cloaked...why does it hurt the cause?...the US govt knows i've been on them...and what is this "cause" you speak of...all i ever see is people trying to cover up the truth..

That's what I was thinking. Personally, I believe that our government has made contact and are trying to learn some some of their technology.

This is it. What we all have been waiting for. Thee diffinitive evidence that ufo's/flying saucers exist. Compliments of NASA. Case closed.

Doncha mean 'all the evidence YOU'VE been waiting for.

no the proper word is "steal" the technology...they've made contact and dont want to sign a treaty..they wanna steal the technology.

I've read in several places that our government exchanged our genetics for their technology. This would explain abductions.


I'm not sure though, I'm still reading up on it.

Speculation. If "we" traded genetic material, there would be no need for abductions, so that certainlt does not explain anything.


The above quote from limited.........
Says you.
Because you have no evidence.
Again, says you.
The cause to prove UFO's and Aliens are here, etc.
Again, says you to teh covering up.

Would you consider starting a new thread about your experiences with the cloaked andromeda ships? Since you talk about it.

They will shut my thread down and say it is fiction...because ?...trust me it already happened.

Trust me - "THEY" have better things to do then watch your thread and waste our tax dollars. You seriously know 'jack'. This is just like the UFO's that were asked about at Christmas??? Vapor instead of Vipers??

Your, "what you think you know" - is seriously over stated and over rated and based on fiction, not taking your meds (as stated in the prior post) or you bought into something lock stock and sanity - without using ANY Critical - Analytical - Reasoning Skills.

Sigh ----

If an ET walk up to most skeptics and slaped them in the face they probably still wouldn't believe. There answer may be something like: "it was a guy in a costume...". lol.

I stopped worrying about skeptic opinions years ago. But I do find it very interesting that many here on a sight like this are of the 'skeptic' mentality...this is quite ironic in fact. Why are you here? I don't care what evidence anyone brings, you guys are simply not going to believe!

Its a good thing you don't need to believe in me for me to be here....thank goodness for that. LOL.

What I find so ironic too is that most skeptics I know are religious.lol. Now thats a laugh. You can believe in a creator but then actually concieve that he has only created one intelligent being in this universe. What a laugh. LOL

whatever........

And the problem with believers is that they don't let the facts ruin a good story.

Your talking about perceived facts right?

lol. Thats not a problem, its a convinience.

Perception is not necessarily reality!!

Well ya know what? ET hasn't walked up to me and slapped me in the face, so youe "example" is pointless.

Even more pointless because there are no aliens, alive or dead, to perform tests on, and no exotic spaceship materials to test. Point is that there is a whole lot of nothing.



Is this an example of how you have examined evidence to conclude that aliens exist? You "know" some god believing skeptics, so you assume that the skeptics here will be believers???

Amazing...

First off, don't say there are no aliens dead or alive here, you simply don't know that. What you can say is that you don't have any.

Secondly, the only assumption I make is that it is illogical to think that we are the only 'intelligent' beings in this universe.

I said "...most skeptics I know..." not most skeptics here on this board. I can't even comprehend a non-
religious skeptic...LOL. Now thats the biggest laugh...

I have a question for you - if a skeptic is non-religious does that mean he actually thinks evolution can only take place on earth? (I ask because I see a non-religious skeptic as someone who believes in evolution only and not a creator. Now thats an assumption I will own up to...lol).

Exactly - in FACT (sorry couldn't resist, should of but didn't) - 95% of their "we've been visited by aliens" is second hand, handed down by "second hands". Wonder just how many 2nd hand me downs there are? There is actually one STORY where I tried to follow it back to the source ...>>> THERE WAS NONE! There was no source.

Here is the other side of the coin that the believer does not see: IF just one "main fact" of the story is found to be un-true or false - THE WHOLE CLAIM IS THEN PUT INTO SERIOUS QUESTION AND DOUBT. Just one "main fact' of the claim is false - the whole claim has to be seriously questioned. Those that don't - are chooseing to keep TOO OPEN A MIND. You wouldn't do that anywhere else, especially where your $$$ is concerned - SO WHY DO IT HERE???

Jj -

The skeptic mind - what a waste of talent....

*a waste because its useless for imagination which is the seed of science, technology and progress

*talent because in its awesome strive for nothingness ('nothing really exists but us') it actually exemplifies genius. Because only genius can convincingly dispute reality.

Speaking on behalf of the pro-UFO side, I feel it is important to emphasize the fine line between skepticism and disbelief. I define a debunker as a true believer in the non-existence of UFOs. There is no correlation between skepticism and disbelief. The debunking ideology has shown a consistent point of view apparently created by an arrogant egotistical presumption of idiocrity within the UFO community and the bias in the methodologies of their conspiratorial speculative analysis albeit unfounded. All from the safety of their comfortable arm chair inspired by scientific and analytical reasoning and common sense supported inexorably by the scientific method, or so they think. Through this unfounded presumption they thus create their own personal biased agenda through ridicule and propogation of any contradictory evidence or un-falsifiable arguments of scientific logic. The fact of the matter is, they often fall victim of their own accusations and are therefore no more credible than the UFO fanatics that cling to the UFO phenomenon as a second religion.

Polls have consistently shown a correlation between the ideology of UFO reality and the level of education being higher than that who surmise the phenomenon to be of a more mundane origin. This does not by any means prove the reality of the phenomenon, but what it does is lift the curtain of unfounded ridicule to reveal a truth that is in stark contradiction to general conception.

Please people don’t be so in the box packed. Learn some things for you’re self’s the ancient pictorials of pilots space crafts air planes humanoid beings in space suits things you can only explain as alien in origin and inspiration. That’s the facts its not in dispute the Mayans didn’t come up with space crafts alone they didn’t imagined space suits.

There seems to be this belief that the ancients were so pure that they couldn't make anything up. Ancient humans still had imagination and told stories. Just because paintings on a cave wall look vaguely like how we perceive ETs doesn't necessarily mean they were visited. The only reason you're saying they look like space suits and space crafts is because you know what they look like and you can't put yourself in the mind of acient humans.

How many times does it need to be stated?

UFO's are not questioned, challenged or even doubted by the "SKEPTIC"!

This has NEVER EVER been the question or challenge.

It IS the JUMP from UFO to AFO (Alien Flying Object -aka- Being's from another planet) is what is questioned and challenged. When people make this leap - this is where the SKEPTIC has doubts. NOT .> UFO's <. but .> AFO's <.

So can we agree that the topic and/or phrase: UFO is NOT the issue here?? Can we just put that to 'rest'???

If you are going to challenge the "Skeptic" at least be straight forward and say that your challenge to the "SKEPTIC" is they do NOT accept that ALIENS FROM ANOTHER PLANET have been and/or are here. At least be straight forward enough - that you believe in Alien Life has/is visiting Planet Earth and this is where your challenge is with "us"....

Fair Enough???