Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 7
Alisdair.MacDonald

More NASA UFO's?

Are these UFO's?   51 members have voted

  1. 1. Do these videos contain images of UFO's?


Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

1,529 posts in this topic

What happens when an unstoppable force meets an immoveable object?

Reminder:

Moderators are unstoppable.

We are moveable.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not when it upsets the skeptics feelings.

I couldn't care less if sceptics feelings are hurt to be perfectly blunt with you, unless the criticism is breaking forum rules then in order to keep a thread going you try and defuse or end any bickering. What I do care about though is the subject matter, so i'll point out any short comings I see in it whenever I feel like thanks :tu:

Edited by The Sky Scanner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reminder:

Moderators are unstoppable.

We are moveable.

Are you serious? I've been posting here 4 and half years - show me where my position has changed in that time?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Countering the answer with some logic that finds genuine holes in the answer is what is called 'honest debate', everything else is just more examples of why this subject is falling further and further away from public appeal daily.

Just to say that this subject has to my knowledge only ever had a small minority interest. It's a taboo subject in schools, and people laugh at you on the street if you dare mention it.

What is it that has done that? The 'bulldozer style' skeptic view that is promoted by universities, institutions and Governments all over the world. If you dare believe in the subject you are stigmatized.

Some there are that would change this given a chance.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if you have your moderators hat on when you said the second sentence...

but didn't you defend DONTEATUS's right to post in his own style and format a little while ago...

do other members get afforded the same right..?

.

I have pointed out things like that several times.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Countering the answer with some logic that finds genuine holes in the answer is what is called 'honest debate', everything else is just more examples of why this subject is falling further and further away from public appeal daily.

I don't know if it is or if it isn't...or if I even care.... :)

It is what it is

:tu:

.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to say that this subject has to my knowledge only ever had a small minority interest. It's a taboo subject in schools, and people laugh at you on the street if you dare mention it.

What is it that has done that? The 'bulldozer style' skeptic view that is promoted by universities, institutions and Governments all over the world. If you dare believe in the subject you are stigmatized.

Some there are that would change this given a chance.

So playing the CT card furthers the discussion how?

Back on topic, how do you explain Chrlz's post about camera lens artifacts? http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=232810&st=375#entry4522679

45a6c0ec1c8e.gif

If that is not a camera lens artifact then what do you propose it is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to say that this subject has to my knowledge only ever had a small minority interest. It's a taboo subject in schools, and people laugh at you on the street if you dare mention it.

What is it that has done that? The 'bulldozer style' skeptic view that is promoted by universities, institutions and Governments all over the world. If you dare believe in the subject you are stigmatized.

Some there are that would change this given a chance.

Why do you think people laugh at it when it's mentioned on the street? Do you honestly think it's the sceptic community solely responsible for that? ...because whilst there is an element of militant sceptics that will rubbish anything put in front of them, the numbers are small in comparison to amount of hoaxes, and the amount of believers that will just see a yt vid of some distant light and call it alien. This subject (imo) seriously needs to start cleaning it's own yard out...I haven't seen that been done at all, the debates on this thread are no different then those on the BE1 thread years ago, or on ATS 10yrs ago...the same illogical reasoning is given now as it was then, so the subject stagnates, therefore loses more appeal..

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's an interesting article by Richard Dolan called "Government Lies and UFOs", which of course has been absolutely massive over the decades. NASA certainly lies all the time about them.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=10&ved=0CFUQFjAJ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fkeyholepublishing.com%2FGovernment_lies_and_ufos.htm&ei=jTqQULX2MIyo8ATQg4HYBQ&usg=AFQjCNFMqblvuXThSvq9HrM-PmFXmZ9WZg&sig2=tIfYHeFKUifHjnvRXAklRA

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So playing the CT card furthers the discussion how?

Back on topic, how do you explain Chrlz's post about camera lens artifacts? http://www.unexplain...75#entry4522679

45a6c0ec1c8e.gif

If that is not a camera lens artifact then what do you propose it is?

I stated earlier that I haven't a clue. I have no problem with admitting as much. I can't see the relevance of the clip in your post because that is not how the objects appear on the original NASA footage. They move around at various speeds and pulsate. What this clip is I really have no idea. There are competing theories and I posted one earlier this evening.

I would suggest that a starting point should be the findings of the UFO observers that use IR or night vision equipment because they appear to be seeing similar objects. That's is where the investigation should begin, not by trying to pass away the phenomena as some exotic lens aberration.

I do recall from seeing the entire footage that the astronauts didn't see anything. That suggests to me that the objects are out of the visible spectrum range; I still don't like the lens theory to explain the whole phenomena. There are too many objects all moving in different directions if you study the footage carefully to put it down to the equipment.

My best guess if I were to make one that the objects are electro-magnetic in nature; energy. I can't say any more than that.

What interests me more however are the testimonies from the astronauts from the various Gemini and Apollo missions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

45a6c0ec1c8e.gif

If that is not a camera lens artifact then what do you propose it is?

gawd knows....but the Tether Incident sure stirs up a lot of passion and that has to be factored in to the equation, IMO

oh and that looks like neon effect at the end.... :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So playing the CT card furthers the discussion how?

Back on topic, how do you explain Chrlz's post about camera lens artifacts? http://www.unexplain...75#entry4522679

If that is not a camera lens artifact then what do you propose it is?

I agree with Gore Vidal that "everything in the U.S. is a goddamn conspiracy", including the doctors who did cigarette ads telling people that smoking was good for their health and Richard Nixon collecting a million bucks in 1968 in return for letting Jimmy Hoffa out of jail when he became president.

Hell, if I were to start listing all the conspiracies that Nixon alone was involved in I'd be on here forever.

Of course, I don't agree that EVERY conspiracy theory is right. I was in Poland when the 9-11 events happened, taking a train from Krakow to Warsaw the next day, and the Polish guy sitting across from me kept saying "the Jews" did it. He said all kinds of things along those lines but I naturally didn't buy his particular conspiracy.

Has there always been a policy to lie about and cover up UFOs, however? No doubt about it. You can take that to the bank.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you think people laugh at it when it's mentioned on the street? Do you honestly think it's the sceptic community solely responsible for that? ...because whilst there is an element of militant sceptics that will rubbish anything put in front of them, the numbers are small in comparison to amount of hoaxes, and the amount of believers that will just see a yt vid of some distant light and call it alien. This subject (imo) seriously needs to start cleaning it's own yard out...I haven't seen that been done at all, the debates on this thread are no different then those on the BE1 thread years ago, or on ATS 10yrs ago...the same illogical reasoning is given now as it was then, so the subject stagnates, therefore loses more appeal..

I would agree with you in the main. In the absence of new information, things do stagnate and go around in circles. It's a law. What is needed is new information or disclosure. I'm sure there are many that share your frustration. The truth is that there are lots of parties to blame; Governments, fanatics, skeptics, and more. The subject has not been handled well since Roswell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's an interesting article by Richard Dolan called "Government Lies and UFOs", which of course has been absolutely massive over the decades. NASA certainly lies all the time about them.

http://www.google.co...KUifHjnvRXAklRA

This is a bit off topic and probably deserves it's own thread however from your link:

I will describe cases and conclusions indicating the phenomenon:

- is real

- is technological

- and is NOT "ours."

To my knowledge the UFO phenomena has never been adequately determined to be 'technological' in any way shape or form. If you have something to show otherwise could you possibly start a new thread about it?

Edited by Slave2Fate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do recall from seeing the entire footage that the astronauts didn't see anything. That suggests to me that the objects are out of the visible spectrum range; I still don't like the lens theory to explain the whole phenomena. There are too many objects all moving in different directions if you study the footage carefully to put it down to the equipment.

That is because such 'anomalies don't happen with the human eye, at least not to the same degree. It is the physical characteristics of the camera that cause these 'airy discs' to appear. That's why the astronauts didn't see these things. Furthermore, these 'airy discs' happen to be in the same shot as the ice particles, it is not one or the other, it is both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why do the 'shapes' move around in different directions... when the camera isn't moving....as in the tether footage?

surely lens flare wouldn't do this?

First up, I'm working FT at the moment and we are very busy - I just don't have time to delve deeply right now - maybe later. But I'll just say that there are a number of things happening, only a small part of which is the 'bokehed' out-of-focus shapes, and the full answers depend not only on what bit of footage you are looking at, but also each individual 'thing'. Apart from basic orbital mechanics (this is a very complex and sometimes counter-intuitive subject in itself), the previously mentioned water dumps, thruster exhaust, outgassing, interactions/collision between the particles themselves, and the fact that both the particles and the Shuttle (or ISS) not only are orbiting but also often maneuvering/turning/rotating (in 3 dimensions) all mean that fully analysing even a single speck is a non-trivial task. Then there's reflectivity and light/shadow considerations... And we evil debunkers are supposed to simply identify things on the spot? <_< Only Zoser & MacG will offer that service..

Much easier to just ignorantly add it to the list of tantalising testimony.. Thing is, it's a LOT harder to do the required work to identify and analyse this sort of stuff - and indeed there will often simply not be sufficient data to analyse them anyway. Which is why it's easy fodder for those who wish to misinform and mislead, rather than actually try to get their heads around the complexity of what is shown... BTW, these things (and all those topics I just mentioned) have been quite extensively analysed elsewhere - have you, Bee actually looked at NON-tinfoilhat sites, for a change? When I get time I'll post links, but in the meantime, maybe others will chime in if they haven't already.. That ATS link I gave is a start..

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you saying that the STS-75 tether footage was broadcast live to the public....?

I would honestly like you to prove that because I can't imagine that that would have happened.

here it says...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_TV

but when did the live feed to the public start....and was that particular bit broadcast live as you are claiming?

.

The 'NASA TV' was broadcasting from the 1980s via satellite, where it could be accessed by schools and occasional local cable TV franchises [mostly those around NASA centers], and for anyone with their own dish. I recall having it on our regular cable channel in Houston at least by the mid-1980s.

It did not have its own broadcast channel, it had to piggyback on commercial or educational users.

Probably the best way to demonstrate the programming existed twenty years ago would be to use a wayback machine to read NASA's home page in, say, 1991, and see the programming offered on 'NASA TV'.

How else do YOU imagine Stubbs could see it so easily? Did you think he had hacked into some encrypted feed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is because such 'anomalies don't happen with the human eye, at least not to the same degree. It is the physical characteristics of the camera that cause these 'airy discs' to appear. That's why the astronauts didn't see these things. Furthermore, these 'airy discs' happen to be in the same shot as the ice particles, it is not one or the other, it is both.

So what proportion of each is there do you think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By golly, everything in the US has been a conspiracy since even before the US existed. I think the first one was in 1636 or thereabouts when the Puritans ginned up a war with the Pequot Indians so they could exterminate them and steal their land--and to add insult to injury claim that they did it with God's blessings.

Or maybe it started in 1619 when the first slave ship arrived in Jamestown and the colonists figured out they could be made to plant all the tobacco. If they had any doubts, they could just thumb through their Bibles to the parts the appeared to justify slavery as God's will. LOL

Edited by TheMacGuffin
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And we evil debunkers are supposed to simply identify things on the spot? <_< Only Zoser & MacG will offer that service..

Much easier to just ignorantly add it to the list of tantalising testimony..

This is the kind of comment that should be censured imho. Flame baiting at it's most blatant.

If you persist in provoking people Chris then you get what you deserve.

Carry on with this if you wish; but when it comes back your way please don't complain.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've asked some good questions. I see a lot of people claiming to be experts. However little substance is forthcoming.

The emperor may be wearing no clothes.

Zoser, please address, IN FULL, this post. I claim to be an expert - so you will now prove I have offered 'little substance', or have the cojones to withdraw that insult.

Here's the link again. It's the one that you completely ignored when you asked about the notched shape..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's something you may find interesting.

A website listing astronauts who have seen UFO's in space. Very good reading.

The list includes:

Major Gordon Cooper

Donald Slayton

Major Robert White

Joseph A. Walker

Commander Eugene Cernan

Ed White & James McDivitt

James Lovell and Frank Borman

Neil Armstrong & Edwin Aldrin

Maurice Chatelain

Scott Carpenter

Read more.............

http://www.syti.net/UFOSightings.html

So how many of these alleged cases would you admit might be fictional, or bogus, or just misrepresented by UFO promoters?

How many would it take to show you are a helpless, hopeless dupe?

Take Maurice Chatelain. When did HE ever go into space?

All you do with these regurgitations of internet nonsense is to advertise your own arrogant ignorance.

Do not be surprirsed when people laugh at you. You deserve it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 'NASA TV' was broadcasting from the 1980s via satellite, where it could be accessed by schools and occasional local cable TV franchises [mostly those around NASA centers], and for anyone with their own dish. I recall having it on our regular cable channel in Houston at least by the mid-1980s.

It did not have its own broadcast channel, it had to piggyback on commercial or educational users.

Probably the best way to demonstrate the programming existed twenty years ago would be to use a wayback machine to read NASA's home page in, say, 1991, and see the programming offered on 'NASA TV'.

thankyou for the reply...

but was the STS-75 tether footage broadcast live to the public?

you didn't really say

How else do YOU imagine Stubbs could see it so easily? Did you think he had hacked into some encrypted feed?

that doesn't mean that the feed you are alluding to was available to the public...

there's was an encrypted feed as well..... :w00t:

;)

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do not be surpirsed when people laugh at you. You deserve it.

Did you read the website Jim? There is a short youtube clip at the bottom full of astronaut testimonies. Here is one:

During James Lovell's flight on Gemini 7:

Lovell: BOGEY AT 10 O'CLOCK HIGH.

Capcom: This is Houston. Say again 7.

Lovell: SAID WE HAVE A BOGEY AT 10 O'CLOCK HIGH.

Capcom: Gemini 7, is that the booster or is that an actual sighting?

Lovell: WE HAVE SEVERAL...ACTUAL SIGHTING.

Capcom: ...Estimated distance or size?

Lovell: WE ALSO HAVE THE BOOSTER IN SIGHT...

What do you think he was referring to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what proportion of each is there do you think?

Perhaps I misspoke a bit, The 'airy discs' or bokeh are caused by the light reflecting off of the ice particles and furthermore being out of focus, not so much that they are 'separate'.

Bokeh characteristics may be quantified by examining the image's circle of confusion. In out-of-focus areas, each point of light becomes an image of the aperture, generally a more or less round disc. Depending how a lens is corrected for spherical aberration, the disc may be uniformly illuminated, brighter near the edge, or brighter near the center. Lenses that are poorly corrected for spherical aberration will show one kind of disc for out-of-focus points in front of the plane of focus, and a different kind for points behind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh

I hope that helps explain it a bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 7

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.