psyche101 Posted October 30, 2012 #351 Share Posted October 30, 2012 We have been over this many times.....Edgar Mitchell is a clever man...he was in the right place at the right time to 'know stuff'... Maybe he was maybe he wasn't. What is the right place and the right time? Not somewhere that general staff can listen in, and for Gordon Coopers rather vocal appearances, why would someone like that trust Edgar? He would not go public unless he was very sure of his facts. But he can't disclose his sources, in detail, if they wish to remain anonymous. Yet Qullius and I did expose many of his sources, which include Bob Lazar, Glenn Dennis, Phillip Corso and Stephen Greer. His sources are avoided by the UFO community in general because they have been proven to be lying and fabricating claims. The anonymous sources from what I understand are largely Bull traders from Roswell. HIS confidence in his sources...be they 'old timers' or 'military and intelligence circles'.....is good enough for me. That is fine Bee, if you do not want to dig deeper I understand. But I cannot take your view seriously because of that. Quillius I am sure you agree is a fair debater and he was the one who produced the final nail in that coffin. thankyou psyche !....you are pretty sharp yourself..... but for the record....I never post things that I don't have a level of confidence in....that doesn't necessarily mean I believe everything I consider.. lots go on the back-burner to see how it ties in with other info... Indeed you do tend to consider the most unlikely of sources with little reason to validate their wild claims. That's part of the mystery of Bee. I can relate to that after having thought about it for a while. I too like new technologies and promote them whenever I can, but tings like Solar, geothermal or similar. I see your direction, and I applaud it, but I find it is on shaky ground. My profession draws me toward proven technologies and thoroughly researched products and ideas. Huh ! ? lol Not sure what opening that was...I'll have to go back and have a look.... . I would tell you, but where is the fun in that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psyche101 Posted October 30, 2012 #352 Share Posted October 30, 2012 The problem is that you seem to be analysing from a position of bias; "UFO's in space are impossible therefore people cannot be seeing them". Zoser I assume this was for Jim, but I thought an opportunity to clarify some points. UFO's in space are common. The objection is to ET flying across the Universe in a small craft that clearly is not capable of doing so. Or refusing sound explanations because they delete ET. You are the worst poster on the forum for this, and by a long shot. This is a discussion forum, an discussion is expected. What you seem to think of is some sort of interactive blog. Did you see the picture of space junk posted early in this thread? Most of that is deemed UFO's. ET is the dividing point. The subjects are different. They have been related by people, not physical proof. Stories make these connections, nothing more, That is where the phenomena has the problem that we all discuss. Your analysis seems to be coming from this angle. Then you put forward a technical case why it cannot be so. It's all coming from the wrong starting point. That is all that is required. If a prosaic explanation exists, it is the best option. What do you feel shoehorning ET into cases accomplishes? And what is the point of convoluting a claim with as many possible answers as one's imagination can come up with? You seem to have the wrong starting point. You seem to think every claim is genuine, and work back from that. The data is the essential commodity with regards to these investigations. Peoples personal interpretations are superfluous. Lets imagine you just landed on a new planet with no understanding of physics. You find a piece of wood. What is it made of? Well be looking around you and following your intuition, you might consider that it burns when next to fire, so there might be some fire in it. And hey, sap comes from trees, there must be water in it too. But if i leave it on the ground for a few months, it will rot and become one with the earth, so it must have dirt in it. But if I throw it in water, it floats, so it must have air in it too. So if I get a bucket, and mix some water, air fire and dirt, eventually I will end up with a piece of wood. But an electron microscope will tell a very different story. I'm guessing that denying the UFO phenomena saves NASA a lot of money because they can then concentrate on the profitable ventures instead of responding to the public demand for more investigation that in the end would be costly. What rubbish. Lets say you ring NASA tomorrow and tell them yo saw a UFO and want investigated. If I were a NASA employee that picked up that call my response would be "do it yourself". You do not command NASA, and they are not at your beck and call. How the average person would change anything is hard to see from that angle. If anything public demand would drop of. Why is it impossible for people like you to go out, buy a telescope invest in a camera, and start looking yourself? Private Enterprise is more capable of these investigations than the Government is, but that is going nowhere either. It is much easier to point a finger though. That's what it's really all about imho. Not a conspiracy theory as such; just common sense. Well I think the above claim that you made about NASA qualifies as a conspiracy theory. And it is not common sense. That is where you keep starting from the wrong angle, and assuming everything you hear is genuine. You keep telling people to do that as well, why would anyone take that advice? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psyche101 Posted October 30, 2012 #353 Share Posted October 30, 2012 (edited) and enhanced with neon effect... like I say....don't know what they are...but the footage is very intriguing if you examine it closely.. . LOL @ Neon effect. It's one of these I reckon You stumbled on the Neon sign advertising the restaurant at the end of the Universe and took a picture of the contact details? Edited October 30, 2012 by psyche101 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DBunker Posted October 30, 2012 #354 Share Posted October 30, 2012 the airy discs once again!!!??? Its spelled OPTICS people.....not ET. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcrom901 Posted October 30, 2012 #355 Share Posted October 30, 2012 Its spelled OPTICS people In photography, bokeh (Originally /ˈboʊkɛ/,[1] /ˈboʊkeɪ/ BOH-kay — also sometimes heard as /ˈboʊkə/ BOH-kə,[2] Japanese: [boke]) is the blur,[3][4] or the aesthetic quality of the blur,[5][6][7] in out-of-focus areas of an image. Bokeh has been defined as "the way the lens renders out-of-focus points of light".[8] 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
booNyzarC Posted October 30, 2012 #356 Share Posted October 30, 2012 In photography, bokeh (Originally /ˈboʊkɛ/,[1] /ˈboʊkeɪ/ BOH-kay — also sometimes heard as /ˈboʊkə/ BOH-kə,[2] Japanese: [boke]) is the blur,[3][4] or the aesthetic quality of the blur,[5][6][7] in out-of-focus areas of an image. Bokeh has been defined as "the way the lens renders out-of-focus points of light".[8] 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
booNyzarC Posted October 30, 2012 #357 Share Posted October 30, 2012 In photography, bokeh (Originally /ˈboʊkɛ/,[1] /ˈboʊkeɪ/ BOH-kay — also sometimes heard as /ˈboʊkə/ BOH-kə,[2] Japanese: [boke]) is the blur,[3][4] or the aesthetic quality of the blur,[5][6][7] in out-of-focus areas of an image. Bokeh has been defined as "the way the lens renders out-of-focus points of light".[8] Making these posters is kinda fun... Okay, I'll stop now... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted October 30, 2012 #358 Share Posted October 30, 2012 Sorry to throw a Molotov Cocktail in here guys, but these objects really don't look like ice crystals to me. Would anyone care to justify this claim? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMacGuffin Posted October 30, 2012 #359 Share Posted October 30, 2012 You will now post an example to back up your smarm. Like I already did with the example of you misleading the forum about Jupiter. If you can't provide something similar from me, then it is clear who the misinformant is... And as you are now implying that you have a knowledge of the Neon filter - do tell us how it works. 1. Is it additive/destructive? 2. Should it be used for 'forensic' analysis? 3. What sort of processing techniques ARE appropriate for forensic image analysis? Give reasons for your answers. It's time for you to step up to the plate, and STOP criticising others (at least those that point out your errors) and STOP pretending you 'know stuff'. Prove it. It looks like this, but it's not something I have ever used myself. I have a strong distrust for anyone who would use it to alter UFO pictures. Here's someone who used the filter because they said it showed the shape and outline of the alleged UFO better. I don't lie ANY of this, don't trust it, and don't like it when anyone uses it for any reason. All of this photo manipulation makes me extremely uncomfortable and reminds me of things the CIA and other intelligence agencies do. I just plain don't like any of it at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMacGuffin Posted October 30, 2012 #360 Share Posted October 30, 2012 Unrelated to all these photoshop methods, here's someone who can turn his car into a "UFO". I don't like this either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psyche101 Posted October 30, 2012 #361 Share Posted October 30, 2012 Sorry to throw a Molotov Cocktail in here guys, but these objects really don't look like ice crystals to me. Would anyone care to justify this claim? What a shock. I never expected this response. What was your inspiration? Carlotto? Kasher? Jim is the best man to ask by a long shot, his page details it perfectly, is there some part you do not understand about the explanation? With Jim here, it seems a golden opportunity for you to learn. He debated Kasher's points with hard data and telemetry which supports his explanation. I suggest that you ask him about any details you are fuzzy on. LINK What are you saying the ice crystals are? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted October 30, 2012 #362 Share Posted October 30, 2012 Zoser Well I think the above claim that you made about NASA qualifies as a conspiracy theory. And it is not common sense. That is where you keep starting from the wrong angle, and assuming everything you hear is genuine. You keep telling people to do that as well, why would anyone take that advice? I've posted quite a few clips of unidentified objects that neither you or anyone else here have succeeded in explaining. Objects materialising, and changing trajectory. The tether incident although not footage that has particularly caught my attention is still far from explained. UFO's in space is still very much an open case I'm afraid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psyche101 Posted October 30, 2012 #363 Share Posted October 30, 2012 Making these posters is kinda fun... Okay, I'll stop now... Awesome. Mate, you gotta do a Bee poster...... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted October 30, 2012 #364 Share Posted October 30, 2012 (edited) What are you saying the ice crystals are? I really don't know and I would be deeply suspicious of anyone that claimed to know would be my honest response. The simple reason being that nothing that we have ever seen resembles that shape and pulsating movement. Edited October 30, 2012 by zoser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psyche101 Posted October 30, 2012 #365 Share Posted October 30, 2012 I've posted quite a few clips of unidentified objects that neither you or anyone else here have succeeded in explaining. Objects materialising, and changing trajectory. People have explained many of them. You were not listening, by preference though. Quite a claim Zoser. Have you ever seen a debate through to the end? Every time I debate you, halfway through, when your loss is overwhelming, you post half a dozen youtube vids and pretend nothing happened. Dead set, you would not know, or not allow yourself to know about any explanation. The only person that can help you with deliberate ignorance is you. The tether incident although not footage that has particularly caught my attention is still far from explained. Speak to Jim. Who do you think on this board is more qualified? You know how you always bang on about people "who were there" well Jims the man. He worked at NASA, he has been closer than anyone else here, excepting perhaps MID. Who do you think is capable of a more complete answer? UFO's in space is still very much an open case I'm afraid. I am sure you are afraid. You might want to watch your wording. What UFO's have been seen in space, and what has been seen in LEO? Dop you know where space starts? No Astronaut has seen any such thing in space. Some claims have been made, as per Gordon Cooper, and I see plenty of reason for his stance, being at odds with NASA and all but this is not the thread for that. Ask them yourself, many can be emailed. That would be more accurate than cruising Youtube for hours on and would it not? UFO sites take any claim they hear and distort them as I proved to you with the Buzz Aldrin incident, which you are also yet to acknowledge as no Alien spaceship. UFO's yes, there is much space debris. Alien spaceships No. And again, think about the amateur community for a second would you? You do realise they track these missions don't you? I have pointed that out to you before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted October 30, 2012 #366 Share Posted October 30, 2012 (edited) Speak to Jim. Who do you think on this board is more qualified? You know how you always bang on about people "who were there" well Jims the man. He worked at NASA, he has been closer than anyone else here, excepting perhaps MID. Psyche I do wish you wouldn't keep referring me to the great guru. I would rather have a Ufologist to refer to, someone with a genuine interest in the subject like Stan Friedman to be honest. Jim's interest is debunking things; as is yours and presumably the rest of the faction are the same. My interest is ufology that I pursue with an open mind. I'm not a physics worshiper straight from the institute. I use a variety of methods to investigate things, not just text book analysis. So what were those objects that changed trajectory that STS-48 caught on film? Edited October 30, 2012 by zoser 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psyche101 Posted October 30, 2012 #367 Share Posted October 30, 2012 I really don't know and I would be deeply suspicious of anyone that claimed to know would be my honest response. The simple reason being that nothing that we have ever seen resembles that shape and pulsating movement. I suggest you look up the debate Jim Oberg presented to Kasher. It has the data and telemetry. Tell you what, here you go LINK - bet you do not even click on it. It holds the answers you seek. Because you have not seen Ice particles in space before does not mean they do not exist. about 50 different types of Ice form over the Shuttle. How many people do you expect to have seen ice particles blasted from a surface with thruster firings in a zero G environment? Do you really think most people would recognise such at a glance? Yes, other missions have produced similar effects. STS 102 for instance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted October 30, 2012 #368 Share Posted October 30, 2012 I suggest you look up the debate Jim Oberg presented to Kasher. It has the data and telemetry. Tell you what, here you go LINK - bet you do not even click on it. It holds the answers you seek. Because you have not seen Ice particles in space before does not mean they do not exist. about 50 different types of Ice form over the Shuttle. How many people do you expect to have seen ice particles blasted from a surface with thruster firings in a zero G environment? Do you really think most people would recognise such at a glance? Yes, other missions have produced similar effects. STS 102 for instance. So how do you account for the regular pulsation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psyche101 Posted October 30, 2012 #369 Share Posted October 30, 2012 Psyche I do wish you wouldn't keep referring me to the great guru. I would rather have a Ufologist to refer to, someone with a genuine interest in the subject like Stan Friedman to be honest. The "great Guru" wrote the very explanation you are refuting. The right ting to do is to take your problems to the man who wrote the paper. What you wish to do is pretend Jim does not exist, and talk to some crackpot. Good God, Stan Friedman? Honestly, I think that might well be the most foolish line you have ever posted. No joke. If you wish to just be plain and outright stupid, please do not bother me with it. Again your fear of Jim does not negate his data. That seems to be what you cannot wrap your head around, data. Jim's interest is debunking things; as is yours and presumably the rest of the faction are the same. My interest is ufology that I pursue with an open mind. I'm not a physics worshiper straight from the institute. I use other faculties and ways of exploring things. You do not have to be a physics worshiper, and you never will be. Your contempt for knowledge is completely at odds with the claims of wanting to learn. Yes, I know, you guess at things, and then insist your guesses are correct. Silly Zoser. This is not about debunking or believing. Try to understand research and methodology for a short second at the very least. You have the opportunity to learn how Jim came to this conclusion, and then refute any aspect that is amiss. That has nothing to do with believing or debunking Zoser. That is research method, something else that is way beyond you. All that should matter is what can be presented, and the explanation will come from that. You are much worse than any debunker Zoser. Debunkers, as you like to call the critical thinkers but I will stoop for your benefit, actually tear the evidence apart. The inspect every aspect, every corner, every possibility. What you are doing is simply dismissing the evidence at hand, and looking for support and validation. I doubt even Friedman would approve of your methods, because people like you make people like him look even worse than he already does. Honestly, Jim should have you on ignore, you do not deserve his time in my opinion. So what were those objects that changed trajectory that STS-48 caught on film? Ice manipulated by thruster fire. Get a grip Zoser. You are the one fantasising about them. But what you did say above is you do not want to know, and you will not entertain prosaic explanations. You want an alien spaceship, and you will to a UFOLogist to get one of need be and ignore every fact in sight. Perhaps you should stick your fingers in your ears for good measure? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psyche101 Posted October 30, 2012 #370 Share Posted October 30, 2012 So how do you account for the regular pulsation? With regards to what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted October 30, 2012 #371 Share Posted October 30, 2012 With regards to what? Just what I suspected all along. The skeptics have absolutely nothing and no way of explaining these phenomena. I have given the people here very opportunity to answer and all that comes back is derision, vagueness, condescension and referral to even more vagueness. Ah well that's that then. I would appreciate a more up front and honest answer like "I just don't know" or words to that effect instead of claiming ownership of the phenomena. That's a little dishonest imho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psyche101 Posted October 30, 2012 #372 Share Posted October 30, 2012 Just what I suspected all along. The skeptics have absolutely nothing and no way of explaining these phenomena. I have given the people here very opportunity to answer and all that comes back is derision, vagueness, condescension and referral to even more vagueness. Ah well that's that then. I would appreciate a more up front and honest answer like "I just don't know" or words to that effect instead of claiming ownership of the phenomena. That's a little dishonest imho. LOL, I had not idea you were that far behind. I would appreciate the full question! I will type nice and slooowww foor youu With regards to the background, the flash or the particle? All three have luminance, all three could be described as "pulsing" to which are you referring? Got it now? I cannot make that any simpler. Good God Zoser, I really do not have the patience to spoon feed you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted October 30, 2012 #373 Share Posted October 30, 2012 LOL, I had not idea you were that far behind. I would appreciate the full question! I will type nice and slooowww foor youu With regards to the background, the flash or the particle? All three have luminance, all three could be described as "pulsing" to which are you referring? Got it now? I cannot make that any simpler. Good God Zoser, I really do not have the patience to spoon feed you. Well if you are convinced by that then I think I've got my real answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Commander Travis Posted October 30, 2012 #374 Share Posted October 30, 2012 Psyche I do wish you wouldn't keep referring me to the great guru. I would rather have a Ufologist to refer to, someone with a genuine interest in the subject like Stan Friedman to be honest. You mean someone who knows all about (i.e. believes unquestioningly) that UFOs are Extraterrestrial spacecraft, rather than, say, an expert in spaceflight? Ok.. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bee Posted October 30, 2012 #375 Share Posted October 30, 2012 . here's a detail from the footage...one of the chuggy things touched another 'thing'... this is the video where I got the above screen shot from......it happens in the top left area at 4:10 if you tap on the pause arrow through that second, to slow it down..you can see it better... [media=] [/media]. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now