NASA sts UFOs

clarky003

clarky003

Tank
Joined
Nov 8, 2003
Messages
6,123
Reaction score
1
Pretty amazing documentary about the footage taken from the space shuttle STS missions. NASA cameras have the ability to range into the UV light bandwidth, and they uncovered some astonishing things.

High quality version of part 1
http://stage6.divx.com/Sky-Divx/video/1075337/Evidence-The-Case-For-NASA-UFOs-

Part 2
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8524267568796529301

It's long, but this was the only guy at NASA to properly investigate it and it's well worth the watch, especially the parts where the objects are manouvering impossibly by conventional means, and when one is calculated to be travelling at nearly 900,000 mph.

And some more modern footage reveals these objects flying up away from the gravitational pull of the earth.

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7IzXHsym7k[/YOUTUBE]
 
NASA know a hell of a lot more than they're letting on. This is just a mere distraction from the truth.
 
excellent thread, gone check this again in the mornin.

gn
 
Looks interesting, when I got some time to spare Ill definitely check it out. ty



edit: yea this music is creepy as hell
 
How do I download part 1? D:

NVM I found it, it's the dotted arrow on the right of the play button
 
The You Tube video you posted shows objects flying away from the camera, but the earth is in the background. Clearly they could be just going the opposite way orbiting the Earth. Also UV rays are much more potent is space, so with a UV camera, you would see a lot of things you couldn't see with the naked eye....I have to watch those first two videos you posted.

UPDATE: Ok, I watched a bit of the first video and nothing convinced me..these things look like garbage more than anything, plus you can't really see anything that good.

I'm sorry. The guy who is trying to explain these things does not know what he's talking about. He's trying to explain these things with basic science and it really doesn't make any sense at all. Plus, he's assuming so many things.
 
How do we know someone
didn't edit the video?
 
dream431ca said:
I'm sorry. The guy who is trying to explain these things does not know what he's talking about. He's trying to explain these things with basic science and it really doesn't make any sense at all. Plus, he's assuming so many things.
Click to expand...

Pretty much what I thought...
 
Agreed with dreamca. I'm 28 minutes in atm, and so far it just looks like they're trying to confuse you enough to assume something. Since when do high velocity objects EMIT light?! And those things on the camera weren't even CLOSE to light speed. Those blobs in the first few footage shots looked like reflections more than anything else. The blob things that were shown around the same time were just rotating rocks, floating around in space. They just looked bloomy because of the high exposure of the camera.

Later they said something like 'well at the time they weren't sure, but it turned out to be water!'. After that they confirmed they no one actually knew what it was, and that they were probably just rocks. So that entire bit about the water stuff was unnecessary. Then just because nasa wasn't sure, they concluded that there's somthing nasa doesn't know! Woah! As if that means that they're aliens!


Imma watch further now.


edit: "the DoD satellites didn't pick up anything." From that statement they conclude that the department of defense is interested in these things and looking for them. wtf?

Next up there's that bit about the fireball thingy. they say that the thing is moving away from earth. how could they tell? it could just as well be flying overhead and look like flying upwards. it's not easy to see perspective in 2d videos.

edit2: ROFL ROFL ROFL! now's that bit about the 'high speed turn'! HAHAHAAA the camera was just zooming out WTF ROFL LMAO. How can they be this ignorant and stupid? God damn that made me laugh. For me this ends the viability of the whole documentary. edit: hahahahahahaha yeah i'm lolling hard over what conclusions he draws from this. "a high energy quantized object (man he loves those words it seems). the only hypothesis i can make is that the beings in this craft transform the actual mass of the space ship into a high energy state, so they're lighter than the lightest element of nature. they're defying the laws of physics! ALIEEEEEENS!!!"
hahahaha i can't believe people actually buying this crap. man this makes me feel so intelligent. sorry to say :D

edit: hahahaha the same with the 'high velocity object' after that.

edit: "this is one of my favorite pieces of footage because it draws very powerful conclusions." all of this from a camera zooming out. HAHAHAHA oh man.
oh they go even further. they're now calculating the speed that that object would go.... lol......... i can't believe they're so retarded.

edit: they're still crapping on about that object they saw while the camera was zooming out. Even in that they make a massive retard mistake. They're talking about that deuterium helium fusion thingy, how it could propel a space ship very fast. but they 'saw' an object ACCELERATE quickly. That's something very different. ofcourse then they compare it to the object and say that they're area 51 test-flying a new technology blablabla that use D-He fusion propulsion. WHAT CRAP LOL.

edit: oh because it looked like it moved in the atmosphere, that's so far away, it must be aliens flying a huge spacecraft!!!



edit: omg next sequence, about he pulsating thingy behind the astronauts. it was just an object that the camera could see, and the camera was changing light exposure, so it brightened up and darkened a few times. GOD DAMNIT WHY DO STUPID PEOPLE LIKE THIS EXIST. They should be fined for communicating with other people.

next sequence about the 'meteors'. they were just rocks which you could see clearly because of the high camera exposure.

edit: now he's saying that every white point is a star, then how come there are stars between the earth and the camera?! ohhhhhh that defies physics. ALIENS!


edit: why do they think that you can't see rocks untill they burn up? comon. this is getting annoyingly retarded.

edit: LOL that professor Nuth even sent them an email explaining what they saw with the camera zooming out. Did they just not understand what he said? God damn.


edit: those 'disks' by that tether were in my eyes just rocks that were out of focus, so they looked like blobs. The 'black points' are just grain from the bad image quality.


edit: hahaha "hey i saw some light", "could've been a star". "because there could not be stars between the earth and the camera, 'stars' was a codeword for 'UFO'. AND FFS PEOPLE UFO = Unidentified Flying Object. UFO =/= ALIENS.

edit: the last bit about the circlejerk aliens is just as garbage.


I'm not watching any further now. Clarky, if there was a reputation system, I'd subtract the most amount possible from yours for posting this absolute crap video about a guy with slim to no scientific knowledge and mysteriously deeply retarded observation capabilities.
 
Agreed.
I love how the guy in the beginning says, that the film provides irrefutable and undeniable evidence for extraterrestrial beeings that "care" about us.
Sounds like delusional wishful thinking to me.
 
my theory of why "extraterrestrials have visited us" is bullshit.

-we know that in our vicinity there is no intelligent life.
-the nearest possible locations for that kind of life are light years away.
-a civilization capable of traveling light years would have such technology that to us would seem pretty god-like.
-therefore there is no need for them to hide and if they wanted to hide they probably would have such cloaking technology that we wont have in 500 years. therefore invisible to us in most ways.
-if they wanted to communicate they could do that easily and not fear anything
-if they wanted to wage war, earth would be vaporised before we even notice something going on

so believing that somebody has visited us or that is observing us is utter bullshit for the time being.

we'd either know or be completely clueless.

i guess those things in the videos are just space derbies or something
 
Wow talk about taking it too seriously Bricky, the point of the documentary is there isn't a plausable explaination within present understanding as NASA scientists have admitted, which is why it is entirely speculatory but interesting none the less.

They don't behave like anything that would be naturally explainable, they appear to phase in and out and have the ability to travel at tremendous speed away from the gravitational pull of the earth. They can't be meteors or space debris because of their obvious relativity to the earth and the shuttle, being far too bright in observation over large distances and not behaving anything like space debris secondly. So I have guesses but again it's just specualtion, but don't let disbelief steifel the broadness of the speculation.
 
clarky003 said:
Wow talk about taking it too seriously, the point of the documentary is there isn't a plausable explaination within present understanding as NASA scientists have admitted, which is why it is entirely speculatory but interesting none the less.

They don't behave like anything that would be naturally explainable, they appear to phase in and out and have the ability to travel at tremendous speed away from the gravitational pull of the earth. They can't be meteors or space debris because of their obvious relativity to the earth and the shuttle being far too bright in observation over large distances and not behaving anything like space debris secondly. So I have guesses but again it's just specualtion, but don't let disbelief steifel the broadness of the speculation.
Click to expand...

due to the reasons i posted, i would never presume these objects are of "extraterrestrial intelligence" origin.
there is no such thing as "unnatural" everything can be comprehended trough science. if they behave weird it just means that we do not understand it yet.

to give some unknown phenomena alien origins before conducting analysis is similar to what religious people do for hard to comprehend events.




speaking of unnatural things.
the closest i'm willing to accept the idea of a God is the Aincent beings portrayed in Stargate. Limiting to god-like powers, but still explainable in a form. But that is just a thought.
 
Well the guys science is sound, and his theory is actually awesome, but he does seem to make the wrong observation when the camera zooms out, or the footage is sped up.

That by no means makes his theory stupid nor does it make those objects easy to explain. The oscillation of EM waves and that it's propautionate to the energy of a wave is very easy to understand anyway, and he is right, if an advanced civilisation were present and travelling the cosmos they would be using highly quantised technology and changing the frequency of matter in order to conquer the vaste distances.

Remember these are visible in the UV bandwidth, and just barely in cases, some appear to just phase in, so they are clearly high frequency objects, which is one of the main points.
 
clarky003 said:
Wow talk about taking it too seriously Bricky, the point of the documentary is there isn't a plausable explaination within present understanding as NASA scientists have admitted, which is why it is entirely speculatory but interesting none the less.

They don't behave like anything that would be naturally explainable, they appear to phase in and out and have the ability to travel at tremendous speed away from the gravitational pull of the earth. They can't be meteors or space debris because of their obvious relativity to the earth and the shuttle, being far too bright in observation over large distances and not behaving anything like space debris secondly. So I have guesses but again it's just specualtion, but don't let disbelief steifel the broadness of the speculation.
Click to expand...

I haven't seen anything in those pictures that didn't behave like space debris. Unless you mean those lens flares and reflections. The rest was just unfocused imagery and overexposure.

Sorry, but that you bought the crap about the footage where the camera zooms out makes it hard for me to want to go into discussion with you, nut.
 
The Brick said:
I haven't seen anything in those pictures that didn't behave like space debris. Unless you mean those lens flares and reflections. The rest was just unfocused imagery and overexposure.

Sorry, but that you bought the crap about the footage where the camera zooms out makes it hard for me to want to go into discussion with you, nut.
Click to expand...

lol! I just scanned over it the first time, looking at it again it's easy to spot, no need to be such a condescending Brick. When background objects are in focus with a camera, like the earth, foreground objects close to the camera do not go out of focus, that is a fact. These objects are never out of focus as they change appearance as the earth is in constant focus through their changes in luminosity, so I give you a tally of one for lame observation.
 
clarky003 said:
Well the guys science is sound, and his theory is actually awesome, but he does seem to make the wrong observation when the camera zooms out, or the footage is sped up.

That by no means makes his theory stupid nor does it make those objects easy to explain. The oscillation of EM waves is very easy to understand anyway, and he is right, if an advanced civilisation were present and travelling the cosmos they would be using highly quantised technology and changing the frequency of matter in order to conquer the vaste distances.

Remember these are visible in the UV bandwidth, and just barely in cases, some appear to just phase in, so they are clearly high frequency objects, which is one of the main points.
Click to expand...


he may know his stuff, but he's speculating nonetheless.

a civilization that advanced could used anything it does not have to be the thing you want to hear.

seeing them in UV does not show their advanced cloaking tech. scientists here on earth are experimenting with light bending cloaking technology. i'm afraid to speculate what the aliens could have.



an advice (as i have a feeling you want to throw in the scalar waves theory again)
sorry clarky but you have to give up the idea of the greratest power source in the uni/multiverse being easily harnessed trough a 20$ device some redneck "scientist" made in his backyard. but i'm not accusing you directly of anything.

oh btw, what happened to those plans i asked you for?
 
I have to give up? try telling that to Bearden and all the people at the disclosure project, and all around the world who say they can and already have the ability to accomplish it.

I mean how hard is it to understand that the source of the energy in a circuit is the change in potential state of virtual photon flux in vacuum between the electron and not actually the battery, the battery only creates the potential in the wire to allow the excited state to occur, not the source of the energy.

The problem is not weither it can be done but that nobody wants to know, because they have a skewed preconception of what energy actually is in terms of its source, the electron is a free energy machine it's as simple as that, electricity is exitation of the electron, and that mechanisim is driven by the vacuum, very simple.
 
I see you've studied quantum mechanics? Or are you just quoting a random guy that uses difficult words.
 
I have studied it, familiar with most of it, and it's pretty easy to see that the whole universe is a constant influx of energy, free energy. The problem of not understanding that arises because we only consider energy to be that in the form that does work.

Most of the time we don't realise that we are infact using over half that expended work to destroy the potential source/ the battery, which allows the extraction of the energy in the form of electricity in the first place. So the reason circuits and machines are so inefficient is because they are effectively designed to be suicidal, which they are.
 
clarky003 said:
I have to give up? try telling that to Bearden and all the people at the disclosure project, and all around the world who say they can and already have the ability to accomplish it.

I mean how hard is it to understand that the source of the energy in a circuit is the change in potential state of virtual photon flux in vacuum between the electron and not actually the battery, the battery only creates the potential in the wire to allow the excited state to occur, not the source of the energy.

The problem is not weither it can be done but that nobody wants to know, because they have a skewed preconception of what energy actually is in terms of its source, the electron is a free energy machine it's as simple as that, electricity is exitation of the electron, and that mechanisim is driven by the vacuum, very simple.
Click to expand...


haha, explain in mathematical form, please? enough fancy words.

and btw

When background objects are in focus with a camera, like the earth, foreground objects close to the camera do not go out of focus, that is a fact.
Click to expand...




i think it's becoming a fact that you are loosing your sense of reality.







i still want those plans!
 
This is stupid folks. I was in Mission Control for a good deal of STS-117, and saw nothing unusual. If you want to suggest a conspiracy theory go ahead, but it won't be taken seriously.
 
i think it's becoming a fact you are loosing your sense of reality.

i still want those plans!
Click to expand...

How so? you don't seem to have that clear a picture of reality yourself and it's all a matter of perspective as they say. That picture is taken with a narrow apature, NASA cameras are in focus close and long range, as you can tell when the shuttle or space station is close in the forground and the earth is in sharp focus aswell. If you watch the video he does a demonstration, the object close to the camera (4 inches away) does not go out of focus when a tree is in focus in the backdrop. So that image you posted is very misleading.

You can look for the principal yourself if your willing to even attempt to try and understand.

http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/tepcoil.htm, thats the best circuit experiment to try. basically your trying to create a setup where the electrons are prevented from substantially damaging the potential source dipole/ battery, and are filtered into another cicuit of discharging pulsed potential that supplies the load.

tbfnrganm.gif
 
clarky003 said:
How so? you don't seem to have that clear a picture of reality yourself and it's all a matter of perspective as they say. That picture is taken with a narrow apature, NASA cameras are in focus close and long range, as you can tell when the shuttle or space station is close in the forground and the earth is in sharp focus aswell. If you watch the video he does a demonstration, the object close to the camera (4 inches away) does not go out of focus when a tree is in focus in the backdrop. So that image you posted is very misleading.

You can look for the principal yourself if your willing to even attempt to try and understand.

http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/tepcoil.htm, thats the best circuit experiment to try. basically your trying to create a setup where the electrons are prevented from substantially damaging the potential source dipole/ battery, and are filtered into another cicuit of discharging pulsed potential that supplies the load.

tbfnrganm.gif
Click to expand...



well i don't know what camera they use, i'm not an optician, so i might be wrong. as for most cameras in the world this is not so.


thanks for the plans, it seems it more than an hour work. if i get really bored i just might give it a try. but i'd really hate it if it turns of a scam. actually i'm a bit worried where will i get all these parts.
the plans are awfully explained.
 
clarky003 said:
Wow talk about taking it too seriously Bricky, the point of the documentary is there isn't a plausable explaination within present understanding as NASA scientists have admitted, which is why it is entirely speculatory but interesting none the less.

They don't behave like anything that would be naturally explainable, they appear to phase in and out and have the ability to travel at tremendous speed away from the gravitational pull of the earth. They can't be meteors or space debris because of their obvious relativity to the earth and the shuttle, being far too bright in observation over large distances and not behaving anything like space debris secondly. So I have guesses but again it's just specualtion, but don't let disbelief steifel the broadness of the speculation.
Click to expand...


How do we know they are traveling away from the Earth? Sure on Camera it looks like they are, but in space, it's pretty hard to tell if they are moving away from Earth or just in orbit.

In the comment about space debris or meteors, I don't believe they are meteors, but space debris, I believe is what you see most of the time. Remember they are using a UV camera to film it, and the cameras they use in space must be enhanced to see things a little better. Also, it is nearly impossible to tell the distance between the camera and the object moving in the field of view. You have no point of reference and certainly very little depth perception in space, so I think the distance issue is out of the question. I agree it is firmly speculation, but the man who is trying to explain it all goes into to much detail and begins to sound silly. For something so speculative he sure sound serious and for me, that's what ruined the film. Overall it does have some good film without the guy explaining what he believe is going on.
 
The part where they examined the moving objects when the camera was just zooming out ruined it for me. The rest too I think but I'll never forget that part. It was hilarious at first, but after 30 minutes of continuous constructive error it became annoyingly retarded.
 
clarky003 said:
How so? you don't seem to have that clear a picture of reality yourself and it's all a matter of perspective as they say. That picture is taken with a narrow apature, NASA cameras are in focus close and long range, as you can tell when the shuttle or space station is close in the forground and the earth is in sharp focus aswell. If you watch the video he does a demonstration, the object close to the camera (4 inches away) does not go out of focus when a tree is in focus in the backdrop. So that image you posted is very misleading.

You can look for the principal yourself if your willing to even attempt to try and understand.

http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/tepcoil.htm, thats the best circuit experiment to try. basically your trying to create a setup where the electrons are prevented from substantially damaging the potential source dipole/ battery, and are filtered into another cicuit of discharging pulsed potential that supplies the load.

tbfnrganm.gif
Click to expand...

I don't get what this has to do with the discussion. It looks like the circuit is using a ramp generator that flows into a semi-conductor collector unit that discharges the electrons at 1ms intervals. Now if I'm correct, you can't really build this at home because, it doesn't specify what type of semi-conductor it is and a ramp generator is relatively expensive. If you are taking a course somewhere, maybe you could try this. But I see no relevance to this and the current discussion.
 
Google video #2 time index 7:40:

He explains that NASA stated that the reason the thin tether appeared so thick in the video is due to some form of electrical charge and ionic field, plus nitrogen gas being ionized around the tether.

Could this not have affected other small particles in the same vicinity? Creating sphere-shaped "ufos", which are actually small particles that have been affected by the same fashion as the tether, giving them a "thicker" appearance that is visible from such a far distance.
 
The "particle" in question would not have had a constant shape as it ran behind the tether if that were the case.

I have to say this tether experiment is amazing. I've never heard of it until I saw this. I've never even really thought of UFOs only being visible in invisible spectrums. The videos and speculation really don't convince me of anything other than what emerging technology may be in store. Watch "A Case for Antigravity" if you haven't already.
 
_Z_Ryuken said:
The "particle" in question would not have had a constant shape as it ran behind the tether if that were the case.
Click to expand...

I don't follow. Why would it not have a constant shape? The nitrogen gas would perfectly encompass a particle in a sphere-like way (kind of like a miniature atmosphere, being attracted to the particle's small amount of gravity) with the same kind of attraction that the tether had to the gas around it.
 
The nitrogen gas is attracted to the tether and the "particle" is not energized, merely passing by. It doesn't seem to be at all affected as it passes by. Considering the collection of gases is relatively close to the cable I don't see the particle could maintain it's own atmosphere, or blurry appearance.
If the particle were close enough to be affected at all I think it would have been drawn into the tether.

Oh, and remember they pass behind the satellite, and the total length of the experiment is 12 miles, so the "particles" must be at least 1 mile in diameter.
 
_Z_Ryuken said:
The nitrogen gas is attracted to the tether and the "particle" is not energized, merely passing by. It doesn't seem to be at all affected as it passes by. Considering the collection of gases is relatively close to the cable I don't see the particle could maintain it's own atmosphere, or blurry appearance.
If the particle were close enough to be affected at all I think it would have been drawn into the tether.

Oh, and remember they pass behind the satellite, and the total length of the experiment is 12 miles, so the "particles" must be at least 1 mile in diameter.
Click to expand...

I see what you mean.

Its just a difficult thing to grasp considering the explanation of why we can even see the tether from such distances in the first place is quite confusing.

And how does he know the distance of the objects in relation to the tether? Its all so confusing.
 
He's using the satellite as a reference. Anything 1/12th the diameter of the total length of the tether is about one mile wide. This is how large the objects appear (he says 2 to 3 miles). Two objects, and they look exactly the same. This is only the minimum possible size. Since the objects are moving behind the satellite we assume it is minimum. If they passed in front we would assume 1 2 3 miles as a maximum as we don't know if it is near the satellite or a spec of dust. This is no spec.
I don't really know how else to explain it but it appears to be really far away so must be something really huge.
Huge and transparent.

Could be a bubble of dark matter/energy that emits Uv rays for all we know.
 
His theory of light and mass speeding past the speed of light while spiraling in the black hole is pretty interesting. Is it contradicting the concept that the reason black holes have event horizons is due to the intense gravity capturing even light?

Also, couldn't we simply test the theory by looking for ultraviolet rays in a black hole? By my thoughts, we would expect to see visible light slowly turn into ultraviolet (or whatever is next in the light spectrum) as mass/light got closer to the event horizon.
 
The thing with light energy is when it gets bent like that, UV rays may turn into visible light or IR do to the wavelength being stretched out. The light that gets "sucked" in would increase in frequency but it would not be visible to us as it is moving away from us. Anything that does escape towards us would be very low energy. Anything high energy would not be "escaping", per se.
I don't remember this part of the video so I can't comment on what he said about it.
I do think I remember a program of what can be expected of black holes. Black discs with immense jets of intense gamma radiation streaming from the poles. Not sure if this info is outdated or not.
 
tehsolace said:
His theory of light and mass speeding past the speed of light while spiraling in the black hole is pretty interesting. Is it contradicting the concept that the reason black holes have event horizons is due to the intense gravity capturing even light?

Also, couldn't we simply test the theory by looking for ultraviolet rays in a black hole? By my thoughts, we would expect to see visible light slowly turn into ultraviolet (or whatever is next in the light spectrum) as mass/light got closer to the event horizon.
Click to expand...

That's the thing, we need to observe one close enough to beable to detect the range of the spectrum through the event horizon.

But in essence it is a great theory, not only easy to understand but one that unifies all the phenomena we see. So in this case light and matter arn't actually being crushed in to an infinite point of increasing material and density this way, but are infact phasing out transforming through the higher spectra to higher energy states that are faster than light, making them invisible to the naked eye.

Essentially particles and photons are being converted back into the vacuum at the event horizon. The problem of course is that our quantum mechanics and particle physics which all need a 'vacuum' to be correct, directly contradict classical theory which we are all taught the most in school, which is why most people have no concept of the vacuum and have difficulty understanding that infact our universe needs this virtual energy to run itself. Yet here we are all still using a model that inaccurately presumes no aether/ no higher states of energy.

And it doesn't contradict, thats the beauty of it really. What he's saying is gravity is infact waves of energy that are oscillating much faster than anything in the spectrum. Hence why waves being oscillated so rapidly, beyond visible light have less visible mass and an immense amount of gravity in a black holes event horizon.

Gravitational waves basically, waves that are travelling far faster than the speed of light is what we observe as the effect of gravity. It also explains why we havn't detected them yet, they are oscillating so fast they are out of our range of detection conventionally.

It also explains the Dark energy and Dark matter, energy from the higher spectra in the form of gravitational waves that are inobservable must have an effect on empty space as a whole, accounting for the trace amounts of extra gravitational energy needed to explain the increasing rate of expansion of the galaxies.

Obviously they have an enigmatic but pronounced effect on our visible universe, so when I talk about scalar waves, and standing waves, this is exactley what I'm refering to and is exactley what Tesla had discovered.
 
That sounds good to me. I never really bought into the warping spacetime crap.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

RakuraiTenjin
102 MINUTES THAT CHANGED THE WORLD
Replies
26
Views
2K
kineaesth
kineaesth
Back
Top