Hey... NASA More UFOs!

reply to post by ZeroGhost


Well, there are the links in the post you quoted and you can do an ATS search for "Maussan hoax".

But I didn't say he is a hoaxer. Because none of the material he presents is his, he is safe from that claim. I said he presents hoaxes. Let's give him the benefit of the doubt; he has endorsed known hoaxers and presented hoaxes as genuine. He is either very gullible or just doesn't care about doing any verification or research of his own.

[edit on 3/7/2009 by Phage]

Originally posted by alyosha1981
reply to post by Jim Scott

 

Of course.... using OR as a crutch and dismissing these objects so easy, with no evidence to support.

I do believe in ufo's, but im skeptical and tend to use occhams razor a lot. When the debris start forming patterns and such, i wake up. I'd wager that 90% of the videos out there could be explained by more down to earth stuff - the last 10% are truly mind boggling though.

Take orbs for example - i believe they are electrical phenomena not understood yet. They often happen near volcanos and fault lines. They can bee seen, and are easily detectable, so not pretty good for being "probes"

I love watching NASA tv. Sometimes you see some really interesting stuff, and then they always turn away...

Originally posted by Phage

But I didn't say he is a hoaxer. Because none of the material he presents is his, he is safe from that claim. I said he presents hoaxes. Let's give him the benefit of the doubt; he has endorsed known hoaxers and presented hoaxes as genuine. He is either very gullible or just doesn't care about doing any verification or research of his own.

Is it possible Phage; that this character is presenting this stuff on more of an entertainment level than a scientific level?

Or do you truely sense that this guy, knowing he is publishing hoax material, is actually trying to convince people that the known hoax material he is aware of and publishing is not hoaxes?


Cheers!!!!

Originally posted by RFBurns

Since he is hired to speak and present at UFO conventions, no, I don't think he is presenting it as entertainment. It's my impression that the attendees take it pretty seriously.

I don't know if he knows when he is presenting hoaxes (or balloons, or birds). As long as he get's paid, I don't think he cares.



[edit on 3/7/2009 by Phage]

Originally posted by RFBurns

Originally posted by mckyle

Originally posted by RFBurns
I doubt very seriously the guy could alter any of it without it being immediately detected.

Show me where I mentioned anything about altered NASA vids?

What I said was that anything associated with Maussan will be perceived by some as tainted, because of his track record.

I personally found the NASA vids very interesting. No conclusion to what they are, but certainly interesting.

Did I specifically say that YOU said that? No. You know darn well what I meant in what I wrote. But in case you dont..here is its meaning.

It means that the guy "Maussan" could probably not alter the actual NASA footage without it being detected right off. It is a comment about Maussan, not you. And there is not even a hint of suggesting that YOU suggested that Maussan could alter the footage.

Talk about second guessing. You seem to be doing enough of that yourself.

(dont you just love it folks when the posts you make get twisted up to make the twister sound authentic?)
Cheers!!!!

Don't you just love it folks, when RF Burns seems to have a knack of selectively answering segments of a post and dismally failing to distort them into something that his intellect can manage.

Either that, or you have problems embracing arguments that run counter to your belief.

Personally, I'm always suspicious of someone who continually feels the need to edify their intelligence by reciting their myriad qualifications.

I think your ego is trying to cash checks that your intellect can't honour old boy.

Just factually and honestly address my last post to you, and everything will be dandy.

[edit on 7-3-2009 by mckyle]

I could not find a specific topic, so let me try this. I'm new.

I have watched numerous satellites travel over my home mostly in a south- north direction. I live about 70 miles west of Washington DC. This morning March 7 2009 at approximately 5:40 am, I saw through my skylight what looked exactly like those common satellites. It was traveling west to east though and was ten times brighter. About the size of a little brighter Jupiter or Saturn on a small moon night.
I watched outside with binoculars as it disappeared over the horizon. It should have traveled directly over DC.
It seemed lower than the south- north little guys and as silent. I would guess at about 50,000 feet.
It could be that it looked closer than satellites because of the brightness. It was amazing! Any ideas?
thanks donnie

reply to post by Donny 4 million

Hi.
According to this site:
Heavens-Above, that was the International Space Station.
It made a pass over your area; becoming visible above the horizon in the northwest at 05:36, at it's highest point it was 65 degrees above the horizon (that can look like pretty near straight up), and it disappeared in the east south east at 5:41.
It was very bright, showing at magnitude -2.0.
It's at an altitude of about 350km

It would have been better to start a new thread though.

[edit on 3/7/2009 by Phage]

Originally posted by ufoorbhunter

Originally posted by alyosha1981
reply to post by RFBurns

 

They launched that Keppler Satellite today. Maybe they will use it in its search for earth like planets to (suddenly) find life out there and act surprised.

Yes and also direct the sat killer beam towards the unfriendly sat's and ufo's don't you think.

Thanks for the find. Really good footage and all relatively new.

Originally posted by mckyle

Don't you just love it folks, when RF Burns seems to have a knack of selectively answering segments of a post and dismally failing to distort them into something that his intellect can manage.

Either that, or you have problems embracing arguments that run counter to your belief.

Personally, I'm always suspicious of someone who continually feels the need to edify their intelligence by reciting their myriad qualifications.

I think your ego is trying to cash checks that your intellect can't honour old boy.

Just factually and honestly address my last post to you, and everything will be dandy.

[edit on 7-3-2009 by mckyle]

I already did. I think what the problem is here is that you are the one who has a problem with someone with a different opinion than yourself...to a point where you simply do not understand that persons' post which had NOTHING to do with you, or you just simply ignore its meaning to purposely start some sort of controversial argument and derail this thread.

So..park it and take the time out to fully understand the post had absolutely nothing to do with you at all. It was about Maussan.




Cheers!!!!

[edit on 7-3-2009 by RFBurns]

Originally posted by RFBurns
As a 25 year television broadcast engineer, I can assure you there were standards converters readily available in 69 that could take a 10 fps video signal and convert that to 525 30fps directly.

Try to get the technical history right.

Thanks for the ungarble. The full account is at
www.parkes.atnf.csiro.au...
and describes how the two Australian sites and the Goldstone site were receiving lunar TV, and the best was being selected in real time for release from Houston.

The fuzzy images we see now on newsreels were recorded by filming a TV monitor, but the signals originally broadcast were clearer. What was missing then was high-quality VIDEO-to-video recording.

The Apollo LM 16-mm views remain the most clear record of the surface activity, but they were not realtime -- the film had to be carried back to Earth.

RF's statement about conversion capabilities seems correct, although the technology of it may well have involved video scanning of another screen, rather than direct digital processing. My account of the source of the broadcast video was influenced by a garbled account of the RECORDING of the video.

It was worth checking, as is any other instance of any of our aging memories.

RF, you helped me get back closer to reality. For that, I owe you. Thanks. I'll try to do the same for you, and pitch it to make it acceptable.

Now, what again are the implications of these video qualities that we were arguing about?



[edit on 7-3-2009 by JimOberg]

Can someone find another source for these videos, please?

Maybe then the conversation can move away from this Maussan guy.

I think that would be a much more interesting discussion as we seem to be conveniently debating this gentlemens character and not the interesting videos in question.

If the video is authentic, then I don't really care about Jaime or his track record and am prepared to move on.

The videos may be genuine so perhaps we should stop deflecting and start deducing.

- Lee

Did anyone find my links to the hi-res digital still images of the flashing thingie, that I posted earlier, useful or of interest? Have they been seen on ATS in discussions of that event, in the past -- anybody know?

Thanks!

The images were a lot sharper than the video Mausson used. They really contribute to developing a credible prosaic solution for this one particular case.

Since MA-6, Mission Control and the flight crews have been interested in external objects for a fundamental reason: they could be clues to a malfunctioning of the spacecraft.

Details:

Why NASA watches out for true UFOs
today.msnbc.msn.com...

Was ‘mystery object’ a Columbia shuttle clue?
www.msnbc.msn.com...





[edit on 7-3-2009 by JimOberg]

Thanks, Phage
I'm just an old dog learning new tricks! You know how well that works.

reply to post by JimOberg


jim I'm not so sure providing links to tainted MSM sites will do much to bolster your claims, unless of course you believe we're all mindless sleeping sheeple

Originally posted by alyosha1981

To my knowledge no still shots of that object are available to be scrutinized, if there is
then I would love to hear the results, as I'm no image expert.

Here it is at your request, courtesy of NASA. From STS-120 shuttle Discovery landing
on November 7, 2007.

I made the zooming to the object in question. It's very simple just compare the size of
shuttle Discovery and the object and you have it. Unless this is some unknown gigantic
prehistoric pelican that came from nowhere confronting Discovery in it's path and
suddenly stood still, I don't think so. Click on the image for full size.

Good thread alyosha1981.

Originally posted by Phage

Originally posted by RFBurns

Since he is hired to speak and present at UFO conventions

[edit on 3/7/2009 by Phage]

Excuse me but I have to correct you Phage. Nobody is HIRED at the UFO Conventions
no researchers, authors, experiencers, abductees etc. To say hired implies to receive
money for services way of payment. UFO Conventions don't work this way. They
invite speakers from all around the world and they (Conventions) offer to cover
expenses like airplane tickets, hotel and sometimes certain foods like breakfast.

In the past they included a small fee to help the speakers with their expenses like
taxis and restaurants but that was in the past, not anymore. In exchange for the
invitation the speaker agrees his lecture to be videotaped by the Convention to
be sold but the speaker doesn't receive money or royalties from the sales, it's
an agreement interpreted as collaboration to support the UFO Convention. This
is how it works. Correction made.

those don't even look like craft...god this field is becoming such joke. Oh well I keep falling for this stuff...one of these days there will be something good posted....I hope, believes and thier willingness to believe anything shoived in thier face....funny most of the times but also pathetic. The people in charge of this footage obviously don't think it is significant in any way. Nasa and thier space missions most likely see this type of junk all day long and don';t even bother trying to hide it or even mention it in thier talk with mission control. I believe it is not NASA that is leaving out the broadcasts but the people who use thier footage as proof of UFO's. Oh yeah don't bother telling me that I am just part of the sheeple that are willing to believe anything NASA says...igt is the believers who are the sheeple to believe anything that comes out of most of these so called UFO investigators mouths. Most are complete frauds.

[edit on 8-3-2009 by riggs2099]

[edit on 8-3-2009 by riggs2099]

Its almost pathetic how far fetched ATS has goten.

/sigh