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

Hazz/Debunker have been trotting out the same stuff for SEVEN years...they aren't likely to change any time soon..... ;)

.

typo maybe? :whistle:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Criticising someone for offering Opinions and not being very scientific?

Irony? :unsure2:

I didnt see the criticism in Bee's post 747?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: the bolded part. In my honest opinion, this is not a movie theater or like watching a movie on the TV, this is a discussion forum and the avoidance of in depth discussion is a very obvious indication of the depth of detail each point of discussion holds, or lack of same. Sadly. If there really was some detail and depth that could be substantiated, I would think the proponent would be more than happy to keep the discussion on point. However, that is not the case and pretty much outlines the lack of actual data/weight to a given case.

In that sense, for some quantity has turned into quality, which I find a rather shallow approach.

Cheers,

Badeskov

hello Badeskov,

in response to the first bolded: or that the constant digging at the opposing view doesnt allow for such discussion on detail to flow.....

second bolded: thats also suggesting teh avoidance (or derailment) is being caused by the ETH proponents only...which I personally dont agree with

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you my friend, very kind of you to say. There is some interesting information presented, and it seems they are not getting the attention they may deserve.

can be difficult during a p******g contest :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing that Stubbs can claim that no other person can is that he has all the footage and has laboriously combed through it in his painstaking research. [...]

"Kid watches cartoons.

Mother enters the room: 'For the last time, turn off TV!'

'Mooom... I'm doing research!' "

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After all it's blatantly obvious that they are stars right? What else could the be? :blush:

Zoser, this kind of 'reasoning' is what I call 'argument from ignorance'.

It is essentially saying, " I in my limited knowledge and understanding can't think of any other alternatives, so that proves to my satisfaction that there CAN'T be any."

Lights on the ground [or on the ocean surface] can look like lights in the sky [stars] if you don't know the direction the camera is pointed or even the day-night time.

That's why it's critically important to know the date/time of a video and other contextual particulars.Without it the video is worse than useless as evidence for anything except the incompetence of the pro-UFO argument.

It's why I keep hassling you over such basic data, such as whether it's daytime or nighttime in the STS-48 and STS-75 videos which YOU yourself posted as evidence for anomalous phenomena, a SIMPLE question which you STILL strenuously avoid answering. Why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Kid watches cartoons.

Mother enters the room: 'For the last time, turn off TV!'

'Mooom... I'm doing research!' "

Say what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zoser, this kind of 'reasoning' is what I call 'argument from ignorance'.

It is essentially saying, " I in my limited knowledge and understanding can't think of any other alternatives, so that proves to my satisfaction that there CAN'T be any."

Lights on the ground [or on the ocean surface] can look like lights in the sky [stars] if you don't know the direction the camera is pointed or even the day-night time.

That's why it's critically important to know the date/time of a video and other contextual particulars.Without it the video is worse than useless as evidence for anything except the incompetence of the pro-UFO argument.

It's why I keep hassling you over such basic data, such as whether it's daytime or nighttime in the STS-48 and STS-75 videos which YOU yourself posted as evidence for anomalous phenomena, a SIMPLE question which you STILL strenuously avoid answering. Why?

I think you are jumping to conclusions regarding my assertions. I'm not actually making any regarding the footage. My comment was aimed at the disarmingly quick manner in which the crew member asserts that the object is a star. It seems to be coming from a posture of defense. That raises suspicions. He doesn't say "I don't know what that was" which to me would have been much more honest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you are jumping to conclusions regarding my assertions.

I don't think so. Your argument seems to be that there are fundamentally unexplainable visual phenomena going on, and you provide candidate examples -- but don't take the required steps to establish the videos even ARE anomalous. And it is growing more noticeable to everyone that for fundamental, reasonable questions -- is it day or night on the videos you posted? -- you duck and evade. So questions of YOUR motivation can naturally arise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hazz/Debunker has been trotting out the same stuff for SEVEN years...there isn't likely to be a change any time soon..... ;)

And the difference from those who see ET everywhere is ...... ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think so. Your argument seems to be that there are fundamentally unexplainable visual phenomena going on, and you provide candidate examples -- but don't take the required steps to establish the videos even ARE anomalous. And it is growing more noticeable to everyone that for fundamental, reasonable questions -- is it day or night on the videos you posted? -- you duck and evade. So questions of YOUR motivation can naturally arise.

How can anyone not think that there is unexplainable visual phenomena going on? Have you reviewed the Martyn Stubbs interview yet?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think so. Your argument seems to be that there are fundamentally unexplainable visual phenomena going on, and you provide candidate examples -- but don't take the required steps to establish the videos even ARE anomalous. And it is growing more noticeable to everyone that for fundamental, reasonable questions -- is it day or night on the videos you posted? -- you duck and evade. So questions of YOUR motivation can naturally arise.

Hello Jim, do you think that the bolded part is not the case then? (without limiting the question to some of the 'photos/videos' in this thread)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you are jumping to conclusions regarding my assertions. I'm not actually making any regarding the footage. My comment was aimed at the disarmingly quick manner in which the crew member asserts that the object is a star. It seems to be coming from a posture of defense. That raises suspicions. He doesn't say "I don't know what that was" which to me would have been much more honest.

For you it would be an honest response to say "I don't know what that was" because you honestly don't know what it was. For him it is an honest response to say that "the lights moving by in the background are either isolated lights on the ground or stars, I think likely the latter," because he honestly was a mission specialist on board at the time, was directly involved in the deployment of PAM-STU, and they filmed the satellite for days; one result of which is that he would have first hand familiarity with the kind of footage captured. After spending several days filming something like that and having the benefit of observing it with the naked eye, he's in a much better position to identify what the camera had picked up, don't you think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didnt see the criticism in Bee's post 747?

"a vague OPINION.." and

"not very scientific is it?" isn't a criticism, then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"a vague OPINION.." and

"not very scientific is it?" isn't a criticism, then?

I didnt think so, I thought it was merely highlighting a fact - that is was an 'opinion' and by default its therefore non scientific

she didnt say it was a bad thing :)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the difference from those who see ET everywhere is ...... ?

The difference between me and people like bee and zoser is that they are doing their best to squize ET into the UFO phenomenon.

I am doing this by falcification, always have. Im not reading about, or watching a UFO on youtube thinking - That must be ET in origin.

Im thinking - What else could it be, besides ET?

Edited by Hazzard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The difference between me and people like bee and zoser is that they are doing their best to squize ET into the UFO phenomenon.

I am doing this by falcification, always have. Im not reading about, or watching a UFO on youtube thinking - That must be ET in origin.

Im thinking - What else could it be, besides ET?

I think 747 may have been defending you suggesting there is no difference :innocent:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For you it would be an honest response to say "I don't know what that was" because you honestly don't know what it was. For him it is an honest response to say that "the lights moving by in the background are either isolated lights on the ground or stars, I think likely the latter," because he honestly was a mission specialist on board at the time, was directly involved in the deployment of PAM-STU, and they filmed the satellite for days; one result of which is that he would have first hand familiarity with the kind of footage captured. After spending several days filming something like that and having the benefit of observing it with the naked eye, he's in a much better position to identify what the camera had picked up, don't you think?

He made an instant response not a considered response. The dangers of this should be obvious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The difference between me and people like bee and zoser is that they are doing their best to squize ET into the UFO phenomenon.

I am doing this by falcification, always have. Im not reading about, or watching a UFO on youtube thinking - That must be ET in origin.

Im thinking - What else could it be, besides ET?

To clarify my position on this I see two kinds of data.

1) The testimony from crew members, astronauts and cosmonauts particularly from the Gemini and Apollo missions combined with several early unexplained photos suggest to me that there has been an ET phenomena at play. MacG has uploaded many pictures that refer to this.

2) The more recent footage from space shuttle and ISS missions where we have particle or spherical like phenomena often in swarms but not always suggests to me that there is an unknown phenomena at play. Some of this may or may not be ET related. The key thing is that it is unknown. Martyn Stubbs from what I have seen and heard leads the field into this research being the custodian of a vast amount of footage and the means to analyse it.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He made an instant response not a considered response. The dangers of this should be obvious.

How exactly did you come to that conclusion? Because it took you an instant to read it? How do you know how much time he spent considering it?

But okay.

Let's assume that after watching it he instantly recognized the lights in question as being extremely similar to other lights he has observed previously, probably hundreds if not thousands of times during his 3 missions which totaled almost 23 days of cumulative time in space. In addition to this time up there, how much time did he spend in his career following up with the type of footage that was collected for mission briefings and the like? Just how familiar with such footage do you suppose someone would be after that, and how difficult would it be for him to look at it and quickly identify the likely source of it?

Use your head zoser. He's not seeing this footage for the first time. He was there when it was filmed. He was up there a few times and is familiar with the kind of footage that is captured.

He is providing tantalizing testimony about his observations from the perspective of a first hand witness. Why are you discounting his testimony?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the difference from those who see ET everywhere is ...... ?

setting aside the sly dig.....'who see ET everywhere'.....

we trot out lots of different stuff....:)...lots of different cases/info/angles etc etc...

hazz/debunker just go...nah nah nah...no no nah nah.....Exhibit A and nothing else will do. (metaphorically stamping feet and pouting)...lol

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think 747 may have been defending you suggesting there is no difference :innocent:

Thank you for that, quillius,... :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

setting aside the sly dig.....'who see ET everywhere'.....

we trot out lots of different stuff.... :)...lots of different cases/info/angles etc etc...

hazz/debunker just go...nah nah nah...no no nah nah.....Exhibit A and nothing else will do. (metaphorically stamping feet and pouting)...lol

.

Hey, thats me, I need science to tell me that any of this is real.

Belief and faith only goes so far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for that, quillius,... :rolleyes:

my pleasure Hazz :santa:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, thats me, I need science to tell me that any of this is real.

Belief and faith only goes so far.

Hey, thats me, I need science to tell me that any of this is real.

Belief and faith only goes so far.

Which science? Whose science? The institutional science or common sense science. The two are not necessarily the same.

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.