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 1
FenderJazzBass

Never before seen footage

126 posts in this topic

. It doesn't take off at accelerated speeds like in this video or fly away from the planet like that . Lol ... Give me a freaking break . Space debris does not haul ass or fly away from earth like that . Aliens could land in your back hard and you would still deny their existence .

Seriously. UFOs could blot out the sun with motherships over every major city on the planet, while 10 armed extraterrestrials slap everyone on the planet in the face ALL AT ONCE & half the people would still deny it. its hilarious.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And if I have a question about deliberate ignorance, I know whom to ask.

You rock. I'm baffled by so many smart people burying their heads in the sand. Its as if they are terrified of the truth so refuse to recognize it no matter what. I've taken to telling such people how much they suck rather than argue with them. some peoples heads are planted so far into the sand aliens could be dancing around on the hood of thier car and they'd still say "you can't prove it so i dont want to talk about it." Is it cowardice ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously. UFOs could blot out the sun with motherships over every major city on the planet, while 10 armed extraterrestrials slap everyone on the planet in the face ALL AT ONCE & half the people would still deny it. its hilarious.

Have you look at the fossil diatom thread you started? there's still hope, it haven't proven the doc a quack :tu:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No saying you're wrong, but people acting like they see this stuff everyday :lol:

There's a bit of a false dichotomy going here, though.. Being in orbit is NOT every day, and indeed many things that happen in that environment may appear counter intuitive to everyone's earthly experience. F'rinstance, here's just a few things to think about:

- being in orbit *doesn't' mean that other things that pass you by at the same height are also necessarily in a similar orbit (or even in an orbit at all), nor do they have to be going in the same direction or at the same speed..

- orbiting craft are not stable frames of reference - they are travelling in a curved path

- orbiting craft are not stable frames of reference - they may be maneuvering up or down to a higher/lower orbit (and those maneuvers cause some really weird effects!)

- orbiting craft are not stable frames of reference - they may be maneuvering left/right or rotating (more really weird effects)

- orbiting craft use thrusters to maneuver, and those thrusters will affect the paths of nearby debris (the thruster exhaust may or may not be visible)

- orbiting craft eject material periodically, which will also affect debris paths

- there may be electrostatic fields around the craft, ditto

- there may even be (quite erratic and unpredictable) effects of atmospheric drag - the ISS is low enough that there are enough air molecules to cause issues

Some of those things may not have occurred to the readers here - because .. you don't see this sort of stuff everyday.. :D If you need elaboration, just ask and I'll try to expand on those brief snippets.

But the thing is - we have no way of checking most of these things as the footage allegedly captured has no provenance whatsoever - for all we know it may contain faked stuff (this sort of thing is relatively easy to fake nowadays). So I'm afraid I'm not spending my time chasing it up further.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a bit of a false dichotomy going here, though.. Being in orbit is NOT every day, and indeed many things that happen in that environment may appear counter intuitive to everyone's earthly experience. F'rinstance, here's just a few things to think about:

- being in orbit *doesn't' mean that other things that pass you by at the same height are also necessarily in a similar orbit (or even in an orbit at all), nor do they have to be going in the same direction or at the same speed..

- orbiting craft are not stable frames of reference - they are travelling in a curved path

- orbiting craft are not stable frames of reference - they may be maneuvering up or down to a higher/lower orbit (and those maneuvers cause some really weird effects!)

- orbiting craft are not stable frames of reference - they may be maneuvering left/right or rotating (more really weird effects)

- orbiting craft use thrusters to maneuver, and those thrusters will affect the paths of nearby debris (the thruster exhaust may or may not be visible)

- orbiting craft eject material periodically, which will also affect debris paths

- there may be electrostatic fields around the craft, ditto

- there may even be (quite erratic and unpredictable) effects of atmospheric drag - the ISS is low enough that there are enough air molecules to cause issues

Some of those things may not have occurred to the readers here - because .. you don't see this sort of stuff everyday.. :D If you need elaboration, just ask and I'll try to expand on those brief snippets.

But the thing is - we have no way of checking most of these things as the footage allegedly captured has no provenance whatsoever - for all we know it may contain faked stuff (this sort of thing is relatively easy to fake nowadays). So I'm afraid I'm not spending my time chasing it up further.

Even in term of space junks( let assumed it to be space junks for argument sake). This are not your traditional space junks! I'll take the word of Oberg for it. It's rare even for him. As for real or fake, aren't you the man for the job?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even in term of space junks( let assumed it to be space junks for argument sake). This are not your traditional space junks! I'll take the word of Oberg for it. It's rare even for him. As for real or fake, aren't you the man for the job?

If it was a still image, then yes, I'm the guy.. :gun:

Videos, not so much* ... there's a chap I know who does image stabilisations and video analysis.. but he's picky and doesn't like wasting time on wild goose chases, eg videos that have no provenance (or access to the uncompressed original) like this one. I will go and see whether he has already dealt with this, however, and report back.

I'll happily concede that one sequence in that video is 'unusual', but given all the other effects that might cause weird debris paths it is not beyond possibility that one or more of the things I listed above that may have been responsible. If the video was properly documented I'd be prepared to take it further, but as it is.. I have much gardening to do that is more important.. :D

* Although maybe this might spur me on to get into video analysis - it's probably going to become more important as time goes by, so I should stop procrastinating...

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The latter part of the video, wherein two objects move together, is the most interesting. They are seen to fly behind a solar panel, which clearly indicates that they are more distant than this structure. They exhibit rounded shapes of considerable size; not just points of light. Perhaps most interesting of all, they travel in a broad, sweeping arc. Hard to understand how how or why ice particles or debris from the space station would be constantly changing their direction like that, turning well over 90 degrees, and possibly more, once they are lost to view.

The last two objects are flying in formation. I could say that till i'm blue in the face however it takes experience to recognize the truth of it. Thats the problem with sightings and skeptics. If the skeptic has no experience or is ignorant, the expert can go on and on and on it wouldnt make a bit of difference. I'm starting to believe skeptics are just jealous spineless cowards who will refuse to believe anything unless they put it in their mouths and smash their head on it, even then they may not believe it because the truth is terrifying to them.

Having decades of experience means the ability to understand better. Lack of experience but knows how to type ? Loling thinking they know better. Its hilarious. Even NASA astronauts came out and said they saw many UFOs on Earth, in space and on the moon. The astronauts said extraterrestrials are visiting this planet. Still people dont believe it.

Its very frustrating for me (having seen a big triangle ufo up close) when running across an obviously smart person however hasnt seen it therefor will not believe it no matter what i say. I feel bad for that person and wish more than anything they (being smarter than me) had seen what i saw.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The last two objects are flying in formation. I could say that till i'm blue in the face however it takes experience to recognize the truth of it. Thats the problem with sightings and skeptics. If the skeptic has no experience or is ignorant, the expert can go on and on and on it wouldnt make a bit of difference. I'm starting to believe skeptics are just jealous spineless cowards who will refuse to believe anything unless they put it in their mouths and smash their head on it, even then they may not believe it because the truth is terrifying to them.

So let me get this straight. You thank a smart person would take an anonymous forum poster at face value?

LOL @ Terrified. Believers who lose debates often say this, but it has me perplexed. Just what is there to be terrified of? The outlandish stories, if every even one, was proven true, would provide decades worth of head scratching, That is what gets a skeptic of - critical thought. You would be giving them what they want. Saying "sorry you were right" to an anonymous identity is quite a good trade of for decades worth of information to understand.

Having decades of experience means the ability to understand better. Lack of experience but knows how to type ? Loling thinking they know better. Its hilarious. Even NASA astronauts came out and said they saw many UFOs on Earth, in space and on the moon. The astronauts said extraterrestrials are visiting this planet. Still people dont believe it.

Skeptics see UFO's too. I have, so has Lost Shaman. We just do not believe what we have seen is a spacecraft, and physics do not back the type of space craft described in most recollections. And not one ever has been tracked going into, or leaving the solar system. Not one, Ever.

Its very frustrating for me (having seen a big triangle ufo up close) when running across an obviously smart person however hasnt seen it therefor will not believe it no matter what i say. I feel bad for that person and wish more than anything they (being smarter than me) had seen what i saw.

I too wish that more people had seen what you saw. From memory, you got pretty shirty with anyone who dared challenge anything but ET. Who is scared? I also wish you had seen the UFO's I have. You might understand a skeptic better.

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Psyche101:"Skeptics see UFO's too. I have, so has Lost Shaman. We just do not believe what we have seen is a spacecraft, and physics do not back the type of space craft described in most recollections. And not one ever has been tracked going into, or leaving the solar system. Not one, Ever."

You really think thats enough of a reason to deny the existence of aliens travelling in and out of the solar system? Because we've never seen them do it?

Physics is the way we interpret the rules and structure of this reality, it doesn't necessarily mean that we know all there is to know about it.So it's very possible that some some alien travellers have technology to bend, if not brake the rules of physics...anti-grav systems, inertial dampeners etc.

Pardon if I misunderstood your post, just thought I'd comment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The last two objects are flying in formation.

O rly?

I could say that till i'm blue in the face

Yes, you could. Repeating something endlessly, without actually giving an explanation, is one way of impressing those lacking in knowledge, I guess..

however it takes experience to recognize the truth of it.

Actually, claimed experience isn't really worth anything on the Interwebz (often precisely the reverse), and sometimes 'experience' may simply give someone over-confidence, especially in trying to analyse an environment in which they are *not* experienced. So, FJB, you have spent time in orbit? Studied orbital mechanics in the sort of detail required to understand all the issues I raised above, and more? If not, then your experience may not be what you wish it to be... The thing is, if you have two or more objects of similar mass near each other, that were given an initial velocity by some event and that are then affected by one or more velocity changing forces.. what else will they do but 'fly in formation'?

The thing is, making a claim about expertise is worth a helluva lot less than just stating a logical step-by-step thought process, outlined sensibly..

Thats the problem with sightings and skeptics. If the skeptic has no experience or is ignorant, the expert can go on and on and on

Yes, they can, and the readers might be wise to just question their expertise. Readers are welcome to question mine too - but then to consider what I present, here and elsewhere..

I'd suggest that in fact the biggest problem with sightings is the lack of provenance - just like in this 'case'. Here we have no details of the footage, so it cannot be investigated usefully. As far as I am concerned, any suggestion that this shows something of great interest is highly tempered by the fact that we can't even check if this is a simple example of After Effects at work..! let alone look at original full-res footage, let alone use date/time/mission information to eliminate a variety of potential causes.

And I might add here - that is EXACTLY what NASA does - it investigates incidents of concern in exactly that way - looking in detail at what maneuvers the craft was making, if there were any outgassings/exhaust plumes, etc. If anyone is interested in a couple of examples - yes - REAL RESEARCH!, here's a suggestion for you - try the following two links, both authored by someone who posts here and I'm guessing is one of the experts that FJB seems to dislike so much - Jim Oberg.

http://www.jamesoberg.com/sts48.html (About the STS-48 'Zig-Zag' Video)

http://www.jamesober...ated-debris.PDF (3Mb PDF file - analysis of ISS/Shuttle debris dangers)

Have a look at those pages in detail - read them carefully, note the citations and information presented. Then compare to what has been posted here about this unidentified, possibly unidentifiable, video footage and ask yourself who is the expert..

I'm starting to believe skeptics are just jealous spineless cowards who will refuse to believe anything unless they put it in their mouths and smash their head on it, even then they may not believe it because the truth is terrifying to them.

Oh. OK. :blink: I think I'll just avoid the ad hominems and let the readers decide whether that little rant helped your credibility at all...

Anyway, to those here that wish to discuss politely and amicably, any sign of that provenance yet? I, and I suspect Jim Oberg and many others, will happily return to discuss and debate if that appears. Even though we are absolutely terrified.. :P

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good post, Chrlzs.

"skeptics are just jealous spineless cowards" :rofl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good post, Chrlzs.

...

I take that as high praise from the direction whence it came.. :D

BTW, I mentioned above I might check if my video analysing friend had looked at any of this footage, and the answer is worth elaborating upon...

No, he hasn't. But.. it just so happens that the very last video sequence he looked at was ... a sequence taken from the International Space Station, showing a (very boring looking) UFO. Not this footage, but similar - what a coincidink...

And what was the result of the analysis? I'm glad you guys asked..! First up, it took quite some considerable detective work to identify the footage, but it was found. It was found DESPITE the fact that the hoaxer had deliberately reversed the footage, both vertically and horizontally in his attempt to hide the origin!! When the original NASA footage was matched up against the unreversed hoax footage, it was very obvious that the UFO had been added in a program like 'After Effects' - the original footage showed nothing of interest.

That hoaxer was in some ways clever to do the reversal, but by doing so (which CANNOT happen by accident) he gave away the game - he can't now claim NASA somehow saw his footage and then went back and post-edited it - the original footage shows all the continents and ISS details correctly, the hoaxer's doesn't, naturally.

Now that was a significant investment of time and effort on the video analyst's part in order to bust that attempt to mislead the gullible. And people with a hatred of NASA seem to be lining up to do this sort of stupidity - I can point to plenty of examples of proven fakery.. On the reverse side - on NO occasion has NASA been busted for removing or altering imagery like this - in fact they are often the ones who investigate it, and apart from the enormous amount of material available in their massive archives that are publicly accessible, they are happy to help get access to all original footage (and even raw data if applicable) if there is genuine reason to do so.

PS, if anyone *without a NASA hatred* wants to see the debunking I referred to above, PM me for details.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Psyche101:"Skeptics see UFO's too. I have, so has Lost Shaman. We just do not believe what we have seen is a spacecraft, and physics do not back the type of space craft described in most recollections. And not one ever has been tracked going into, or leaving the solar system. Not one, Ever."

You really think thats enough of a reason to deny the existence of aliens travelling in and out of the solar system? Because we've never seen them do it?

Physics is the way we interpret the rules and structure of this reality, it doesn't necessarily mean that we know all there is to know about it.So it's very possible that some some alien travellers have technology to bend, if not brake the rules of physics...anti-grav systems, inertial dampeners etc.

If they were unmanned, G forces and so on wouldn't be an issue anyway; not to mention that if they used anti-gravity technology in some manner, they might be able to cancel out G forces as far as it affected them.

"not one ever has been tracked going into, or leaving the solar system." Into the Solar system? That seems a bit ambitious to hope to be able to track something the size of a smallish spacecraft that far. Besides, there are many, many possibilities, from warp drive so that they only drop into "real" space when they get near their destination, to the possibility that they might not have to come so far and that they may be operating from somewere, for instance, among the moons of one of the giant planets, or the Asteroid belt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously. UFOs could blot out the sun

Well take a look at this image

clicky

post-135078-0-12543200-1358968147_thumb.

and see this page for some figures and more pics if it helps

http://www.universet...em-in-pictures/

So by now you get a 'visual' of the debris problem, and it doesn't take much reasonable thought (or shouldn't) to consider that the ISS cams will be picking up lots of these twinkling, tumbling (flashing) images of just such junk, does it now?

Sure I can appreciate that if what the ISS cameras see's - is very occasional, then anything seen 'may' be of interest, but the fact that this stuff is seen on a huge number of available vids, and tonnes of it, and the fact that - as the link above explained - space is teeming with junk, well the first thing anyone should think.... is that it IS - just junk.

If you lived near a lonely motorway and saw one car a week - you may start behaving like a trainspotter and look forwards, with interest, to seeing whatever vehicle came down it, but live next to a busy motorway with thousands of cars passing daily and the novelty soon wears of doesn't it? As per the ISS.

besides, if youre still unconvinced, then you need to know that 'The US Space Surveillance Network' - tracks all objects that are 5-10 cm - in low earth orbit, and also tracks everything larger than 30 cm, in the Geo-stationary ring. So, If you really wanted to know if this junk is anything MORE than just junk, or if any powered craft have even skimmed by us, or even directly entered earths atmosphere, then 'those' are the people to ask!

Edited by seeder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
....

besides, if youre still unconvinced, then you need to know that 'The US Space Surveillance Network' - tracks all objects that are 5-10 cm - in low earth orbit, and also tracks everything larger than 30 cm, in the Geo-stationary ring. So, If you really wanted to know if this junk is anything MORE than just junk, or if any powered craft have even skimmed by us, or even directly entered earths atmosphere, then 'those' are the people to ask!

I agree that the vast majority of dancing dots on the 'dotty' youtube videos is 'junk', but I think the origin is slightly different from the traditional 'space junk belt'. Stuff out there -- the stuff being tracked by NORAD -- is usually so small and moving crossways to the ISS flight path that it is to all intents and purposes unseeable. If close enough to register on eyeball or optics, it will flash halfway across the sky in a single scan.

Occasional distant sightings of large satellites, or even pairs or triplets of satellites [see the DoD 'NOSS' constellation] can occur by chance, but I'd judge them to be unusual. That's unless the other vehicles were associated with the orbit of the observing vehicle, perhaps arriving or departing supply drones. They are often seen and observed, and occasionally misrepresented on youtube.

The other reservoir of 'junk' is the spacecraft generated category, really small stuff really close to the vehicle, so small it rarely or ever gets radar-tracked and catalogued, so light it usually decays from orbit in days or weeks.

I made this point in my '99 FAQs', which I again recommend to new readers.

www.jamesoberg.com/ufo.html

Although mere visual tracking can provide no insight to actual distance, three factors argue strongly for very near distances:

1. At sunrise the dots usually fade into full light at the same time and rate as the main vehicle, evidence they are nearby.

2. In the minutes after sunrise, some additional dots occasionally 'appear', in the field of view consistent with the known 3D location of the projection of the shuttle's own shadow [for example]. If you're close enough to be shadowed by a vehicle, you are very close indeed.

3. At mid-range -- out over the payload bay sill for example -- some dots respond to thruster firings in the expected directions, indicating proximity and small size.

Another 'proof' of the existence of this category of objects is crew eyewitness reports, where binocular vision allows depth perception out to 40-60 ft, where there dots are observed by human witnesses. There are also videos where the dots pass in front of background structure such as shuttle tail or station solar array.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they were unmanned, G forces and so on wouldn't be an issue anyway; not to mention that if they used anti-gravity technology in some manner, they might be able to cancel out G forces as far as it affected them.

"not one ever has been tracked going into, or leaving the solar system." Into the Solar system? That seems a bit ambitious to hope to be able to track something the size of a smallish spacecraft that far. Besides, there are many, many possibilities, from warp drive so that they only drop into "real" space when they get near their destination, to the possibility that they might not have to come so far and that they may be operating from somewere, for instance, among the moons of one of the giant planets, or the Asteroid belt.

No it is not ambitious at all. The only thing I can suggest is to immerse oneself in astronomy and become aware of the community. It's bigger than most realise.

Yes, indeed it would be spotted. How come if we can see them on RADAR we cannot track them leaving the atmosphere on RADAR?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Psyche101:"Skeptics see UFO's too. I have, so has Lost Shaman. We just do not believe what we have seen is a spacecraft, and physics do not back the type of space craft described in most recollections. And not one ever has been tracked going into, or leaving the solar system. Not one, Ever."

You really think thats enough of a reason to deny the existence of aliens travelling in and out of the solar system? Because we've never seen them do it?

Physics is the way we interpret the rules and structure of this reality, it doesn't necessarily mean that we know all there is to know about it.So it's very possible that some some alien travellers have technology to bend, if not brake the rules of physics...anti-grav systems, inertial dampeners etc.

Pardon if I misunderstood your post, just thought I'd comment.

Why yes indeed I do. I feel with the number of reports, and claims of RADAR tracking that at least one instance should be tracked entering, or leaving the Atmosphere, and indeed the solar system Do you think it is quite acceptable that hundreds of sightings a year, thousands in total, have managed each and every entry and exit unnoticed? But we only notice them in the atmosphere?

And might I ask if you are aware that Amateur community informed NASA of the last 2 Jupiter stikes? I can tell you now that astronomy forums are not buzzing with talk about spaceships, it is considered quite nonsensical in all the ones I have visited.

You did not misinterpret, but I do not agree with you. At every moment, literally thousands of pairs of eyes are trained i the skies, not to mention satellites and other surveillance equipment. How do they miss every encounter across all time, when what they do is monitor immediate space?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Skeptics see UFO's too. I have, so has Lost Shaman. We just do not believe what we have seen is a spacecraft, and physics do not back the type of space craft described in most recollections. And not one ever has been tracked going into, or leaving the solar system. Not one, Ever.

me too.. when I was a kid.. back in the early 70's..

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

me too.. when I was a kid.. back in the early 70's..

There we go!

Believers tend to think skeptics have no experience, when in fact they have simply a different experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why yes indeed I do. I feel with the number of reports, and claims of RADAR tracking that at least one instance should be tracked entering, or leaving the Atmosphere, and indeed the solar system Do you think it is quite acceptable that hundreds of sightings a year, thousands in total, have managed each and every entry and exit unnoticed? But we only notice them in the atmosphere?

And might I ask if you are aware that Amateur community informed NASA of the last 2 Jupiter stikes? I can tell you now that astronomy forums are not buzzing with talk about spaceships, it is considered quite nonsensical in all the ones I have visited.

Well, maybe that's why. If people know that something is going to be laughed out straight away without even being considered, no one's going to be likely to bring it up, are they? it's like the people who proposed that the earth went round the Snu. If the weight of convention is that you'll be laughed down as a loon, no one who wants to be taken seriously will bring it up, will they?

Regarding the question of spotting them visually, it could be a very simple answer in that, due to the propulsion system they use (or the materials from which they're made), they're only visible to the naked Eye (or with natural light) under certain circumstances. After all, even to travel between planets in the solar System, let alone reach here from outside it, it'd take years at conventional speeds, wouldn't it, so again, surely the same argumrent as with interstellar travel would apply, in that they'd surely use some different technology so that they wouldn't have to waste years trudging between planets. So they'd only "pop in" to normal space when they were fairly near their destination. I mean, UFO reports commonly mention that it appeared and then disappeared without seeming to fly off, don't they, or they accelerate very, very quickly. Surely this is unequivocal proof that they use technology not of this world*.

* :innocent:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, maybe that's why. If people know that something is going to be laughed out straight away without even being considered, no one's going to be likely to bring it up, are they? it's like the people who proposed that the earth went round the Snu. If the weight of convention is that you'll be laughed down as a loon, no one who wants to be taken seriously will bring it up, will they?

If spaceships were indeed common, it would not be taboo. People are there to talk about astronomy, not spaceships. If someone had a picture of a spaceship, and it was genuine, and if that was indeed the case, then it would be relevant Never happened either as far as I know. If such did happen, it is highly likely that more than one person would have a photo, and many would know "where to look" or what to look for. A great many people have cameras attached to their scopes. If is was a regular occurrence as purported, then I do not see how the best eyes in the sky are missing all the action.

Regarding the question of spotting them visually, it could be a very simple answer in that, due to the propulsion system they use (or the materials from which they're made), they're only visible to the naked Eye (or with natural light) under certain circumstances. After all, even to travel between planets in the solar System, let alone reach here from outside it, it'd take years at conventional speeds, wouldn't it, so again, surely the same argumrent as with interstellar travel would apply, in that they'd surely use some different technology so that they wouldn't have to waste years trudging between planets. So they'd only "pop in" to normal space when they were fairly near their destination.

We look at many spectrums what you seem to be describing sounds more like Star Treks Sub Space. Even so, the alleged invisible mother ship is till sending scout ships to earth that are photographed, and seen if UFO's are indeed ET. It strikes me as having it both ways to claim that we cannot see them, but people report them.

I mean, UFO reports commonly mention that it appeared and then disappeared without seeming to fly off, don't they, or they accelerate very, very quickly. Surely this is unequivocal proof that they use technology not of this world*.

* :innocent:

Or proof of visual inaccuracies. I suspect the UFO's that largely exhibit outlandish manoeuvres are more likely natural phenomena. Aliens still have to obey physics, if it will kill a human, it will kill an organic alien.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If spaceships were indeed common, it would not be taboo. People are there to talk about astronomy, not spaceships. If someone had a picture of a spaceship, and it was genuine, and if that was indeed the case, then it would be relevant Never happened either as far as I know. If such did happen, it is highly likely that more than one person would have a photo, and many would know "where to look" or what to look for. A great many people have cameras attached to their scopes. If is was a regular occurrence as purported, then I do not see how the best eyes in the sky are missing all the action.

We look at many spectrums what you seem to be describing sounds more like Star Treks Sub Space. Even so, the alleged invisible mother ship is till sending scout ships to earth that are photographed, and seen if UFO's are indeed ET. It strikes me as having it both ways to claim that we cannot see them, but people report them.

yes, they'd pop into visible space when they get here, but not en route. That's why they're not reported going in & out of the solar System, or our Atmopshere. I really don't see why the idea of the "alleged invisible mother ship" is treated with such Disdain; do you really not think that a ship even of considerable size (several kilometres in size, perhaps) would be easily spotted among, the say, the asteroid Belt , or the moons of some of the big planets? And there might not even have to be a mother Ship; what if they used, say, a suitable Asteroid or moon as a base? If they used time dilation technology to get from place to place, they'd be invisible from the moment they took off to the moment they arrived.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes, they'd pop into visible space when they get here, but not en route. That's why they're not reported going in & out of the solar System, or our Atmopshere.

So you are saying that ET uses some sort of wormhole to open up inside our atmosphere? And that sort of energy surge goes unnoticed?

What supports that hypothesis? Not being able to catch a flying saucer?

I really don't see why the idea of the "alleged invisible mother ship" is treated with such Disdain; do you really not think that a ship even of considerable size (several kilometres in size, perhaps) would be easily spotted among, the say, the asteroid Belt , or the moons of some of the big planets? And there might not even have to be a mother Ship; what if they used, say, a suitable Asteroid or moon as a base? If they used time dilation technology to get from place to place, they'd be invisible from the moment they took off to the moment they arrived.

Yes, Sky Scanner pointed out to you that we monotor the Asteroid belt. Surely you can understand that all those rocky bodies pose a danger to earth? The moon, I do not believe either, they are watched every bit as much, if not more so than the planets. I often have several of Jupiters moons come into view should I point my scope that way.

How would time dilation make them invisible?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you are saying that ET uses some sort of wormhole to open up inside our atmosphere? And that sort of energy surge goes unnoticed?

What supports that hypothesis? Not being able to catch a flying saucer?

Yes, Sky Scanner pointed out to you that we monotor the Asteroid belt. Surely you can understand that all those rocky bodies pose a danger to earth? The moon, I do not believe either, they are watched every bit as much, if not more so than the planets. I often have several of Jupiters moons come into view should I point my scope that way.

How would time dilation make them invisible?

How many of the Moons can we actually study the surface of in detail? Are you saying that if someone was on the Moooon, (our Mooooon), and was watching through a telescope, they'd be able to keep a close enough eye on every part of Earth all the time to be able to watch every single aeroplane flying about? And that's from our Mooon; could anyone keep watch on the moons of Jupiter or Neptune closely enough to be able to spot that? Similarly, the Asteroid belt; what would be the odds on someone being able to spot some craft that might be using one of them as a base, just at the moment it takes off? considering how many Asteroids there are. How would time dilation make them invisible? I expect it's probably something to do with bending light; a similar effect has been reported by people seeing a UFO when they're directly underneath it, when people nearby couldn't it. It's probably to do with manipulation of gravity, I expect.

:yes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

me too.. when I was a kid.. back in the early 70's..

what did you see?

Edited by SwampgasBalloonBoy

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 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.