NASA STS - 80 Undeniable Proof That They Know More

Originally posted by Le Colonel
I dont understand the disbelief of some, who wish to create misleading UFO videos, or debunkers who spend their time spreading hate.

Not everyone agrees that UFOs cannot be explained, given enough information and removing subjectivity and emotion.

Hoaxers can be seen as in need of attention, desiring control, and seeking to destroy the credibility of people who want to study the UFO phenomenon, among other things.

"Debunking" is not the same as spreading hate. Shouldn't hoaxers be debunked?

Beleivers and hoaxers are equally capable of spreading hate. Belief in UFOs plays no part in that equation.

Deny ignorance.

jw

I've come to believe that more serious explanations are needed to be offered, because NASA isn't doing it (despite its charter of space education and outreach), and the videos are undeniably 'unearthly', and despite what any extremists may want to believe until their dying day, most people I've encountered who are genuinely curious about what-the-heck these dots are, are openminded and rationale and enthusiastic for spaceflight in all its manifestations.

And I've been strengthened in my intuition that there's every reason to assume that phenomena of genuine interest could be caught up in the pot-pourri of 'UFO sightings', and if not filtered out from the noise, could represent lost opportunities to understad the world better.

My best example is the hunk of wing thermal shielding that was stove in during Columbia's launch (Jan 2003) and then worked its way free and drifted off the next day. Nobody on boasrd or in Mission Control (via TV) were looking, or saw it. Had they, and had they recognized it for something REALLY unusual, the fate of that mission would have been very, very different.

Originally posted by JimOberg
I don't think so -- all you really seem to see is the dot disappears, right? The 'going under a cloud' is a possible cause of that, but hardly the only cause, or even the most likely cause. This is why understanding the illumination conditions of videos such as this is so critical -- without knowing where the sunlight and shadows are in the camera field-of-view, you may be forced into misinterpretations.

Totally agree with you this is the only thing I have ever thought of that could determine if this is going under a cloud or not. It definately could be a satelite casting a shadow on the object.

If I had the orbital data for the time the shadow is cast on the object I could definately tell you if it shadow is cast by a satelite or a cloud. I am very glad that you of all people replied to my post. Can you tell me if there is any way I can get the orbital data for all known satelites at this time?

Heres yet more proof that NASA know more. Which is relevant to this thread because I am being called out to provide evidence of NASA covering up the existence of extra terrestrial life and indeed activity to the public

Originally posted by franspeakfree
Heres yet more proof that NASA know more. Which

Uh, a basic question: who is the author of this clip and why should we believe he has edited and commented competently or honestly?

reply to post by franspeakfree


I like your thread topics, yet this amazing STS-80 is only a minute?. Please take some time and look up my uncut version on You Tube under NASA UFO's hold a meeting!

Uncut and better quality, all from my original discovery, and some given to Sereda for our movie Evidence. Look at all 58 videos posted under secretnasaman, many are uncut sequences.
Every NASA video you discuss from STS -48 to the STS-80, I released from my NASA downlinks and put out in Secret NASA transmissions, Live at Leeds, Evidence, Secret Space, all shows on TLC, SiFi, Fox TV, the History channel (etc) and... You Tube mash ups
I am releasing the NASA UFO video clips, uncut on a regular basis. So go check them out. Its strange putting up videos of NASA UFOs myself, and finding them competing for views against my own original, unedited stuff copied and uploaded!

Originally posted by franspeakfree
Heres yet more proof that NASA know more.

The mother link is here: www.jsc.nasa.gov...
...and you can read in the commentary about any discussions of the 'space music' -- some sort of radio interference -- if you care to flip through the pages.

Originally posted by secretnasaman
reply to post by franspeakfree

 

I like your thread topics, yet this amazing STS-80 is only a minute?. Please take some time and look up my uncut version on You Tube under NASA UFO's hold a meeting!stuff copied and uploaded!

This is helpful. Do you have the 114 FD12 UFO sequence, or was that after you no longer could tape NASA TV?

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by secretnasaman
reply to post by franspeakfree

 

I like your thread topics, yet this amazing STS-80 is only a minute?. Please take some time and look up my uncut version on You Tube under NASA UFO's hold a meeting!stuff copied and uploaded!

This is helpful. Do you have the 114 FD12 UFO sequence, or was that after you no longer could tape NASA TV?

you mean to tell me that a career NASA man can't get a copy of the footage and has to ask secretnasaman for it ?

Dohhh !

Originally posted by easynow
you mean to tell me that a career NASA man can't get a copy of the footage and has to ask secretnasaman for it ?

Dohhh !

Nope. I want to determine how much somebody without friends in the business could dig this stuff out. NASA does not make it easy. They don't care about the 'UFO nuts'. I figure, those scenes are really weird if you come at them from an earthside perspective, they deserve an explanation. The true-believers, they have their fantasies to keep them warm -- but most folks who are fascinated by these undeniably unearthly scenes are space enthusiasts who really do want to understand them.

Here's an example of some links that ARE set up, but not advertised:
www.jsc.nasa.gov...

reply to post by JimOberg

Nope. I want to determine how much somebody without friends in the business could dig this stuff out. NASA does not make it easy. They don't care about the 'UFO nuts'.

to me what you wrote here could be taken a few different way's. should i have any reason to suspect that you are just looking for loopholes to close since you say NASA doesn't make it easy ? seems very suspicious fyi

maybe you want to know what videos secretnasaman has because it could be detrimental to sustaining a coverup ? and if he released more of the video it would not be good for NASA.

i see more than one possible motive here.

i can hear you already .... "that's proposturous"

this might serve as a warning to secretnasaman to not tell you anything. i hope he doesn't tell you anything. you need to get the video from NASA if your going to debunk the 114 video and after you present it then secretnasaman should see if it matches NASA's version.

I figure, those scenes are really weird if you come at them from an earthside perspective, they deserve an explanation. The true-believers, they have their fantasies to keep them warm -- but most folks who are fascinated by these undeniably unearthly scenes are space enthusiasts who really do want to understand them.

these scenes are weird no matter what perspective someone has and your right they deserve a real explanation but since you have said again that NASA doesn't care about the ufo nuts i am sure without more evidence the so called explanation will be biased. maybe you will surprise me and get the video from NASA ?

i notice in all your posts a condescending attitude towards anyone that believes in ufo's and you have labeled them "ufo nuts"

have you ever seen a ufo ? have you ever had a close encounter with something unexplainable ?

if you had you wouldn't be so quick to call people ufo nuts. you think you know everything about this subject and i admire your technical knowledge of this subject but you might be making a mistake under the guise of ignorance.

Here's an example of some links that ARE set up, but not advertised:
www.jsc.nasa.gov...

don't insult my intelligence, please... that link is worthless



edit spell

[edit on 21-3-2009 by easynow]

You right these arent natural there made by an intelligent race. I like to call them humans and the objects are called satellites in a geosynchronous orbit.
when i decided to do a little research into tracking i noticed there is a nice circle made over africa . Which also explains as the shuttle pases into darkness why they start becoming visible. Also found a cool java ap which shows all the satellites in orbit theres thousands.

Now with the arguments ive seen on this thread apparently i dont need to show proof just make a claim but i will any way.

All geosynchronous satellites are located around the equator in a location called the “Clarke Belt”. The Clarke belt is exactly 22,366 miles (35,786 Km) above the surface of the earth. And heres some news for you africa probably has more then most areas for communication over the horizon from us to asia.

sattelite tracking

Sorry not everything has to be aliens!

reply to post by dragonridr


Do these satilites normally descend towards Earth, hold a stationary position , then light up?

reply to post by Seany


They will as the orbiter is in orbit the object will appear to fall then rise as the shuttle passes it. so yes they do and the flashes you see is the sunlight off the satellites ever watched one at night they flash just like in the video. So next time do some research instead of just posting what you think is right.

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by easynow
you mean to tell me that a career NASA man can't get a copy of the footage and has to ask secretnasaman for it ?

Dohhh !

Nope. I want to determine how much somebody without friends in the business could dig this stuff out. NASA does not make it easy.

Hmm..can anyone guess who he is referencing in that statement?

Tell me something Jim...are you trying to tell us your some sort of magical psychic that can determine who does have friends in the business and who doesnt?

Talk about making far out claims. That one tops it all, even over claims of seeing aliens and UFO's and being abducted.

Someone asked you if you could get ahold of those videos, and that was your response to that question, quoted above.

A very brightly lit neon sign there that says "I will avoid your direct question with a non-substantial, re-directing statment".

Another way to see the meaning in your response would be that you too would have a difficult time in meeting the request.

As you said..."NASA does not make it easy". I fully agree.



Cheers!!!!

reply to post by dragonridr


Research ?? I looked at your link

It shows what?? there are satilites near thr border, and so.....


Refer to the vid, rub the sleep outta your eyes , and learn

replay vid if neccessary

reply to post by RFBurns

Hmm..can anyone guess who he is referencing in that statement?

i only need one guess ....it's You !

debunker tactic #1 ............attack the person

[edit on 21-3-2009 by easynow]

I've posted this video grab from STS-80 in another thread but here it is again...


Video grab from STS-80

Can ice particles behave in this fashion? Yes, if they are intelligent! No amount of debunking is gonna deter from the fact that this cannot happen with ordinary ice/dust particles.

But then again there's probably less than a trillion trillion to one chance of that happening!

Cheers!

Originally posted by Seany
reply to post by dragonridr

 

Research ?? I looked at your link

It shows what?? there are satilites near thr border, and so.....


Refer to the vid, rub the sleep outta your eyes , and learn

replay vid if neccessary

Ive given you an alternate explanation for what they could be and apparently this argument only works one way were supposed to disprove your suppositions but you dont have to is that it. Prove to me they cant possibly be satellites can you? All i get is watch the video hmmmm all the video proves is there is something there i didnt see any aliens in those did you?

This may be slightly off-topic, but I just wanted anyone who is interested in NASA's many, many cover-ups and conspiracies to be aware that Jim Oberg has been doing what he does for as long as I've been on the internet. I doubt he even believes half of what he says, but he is paid to support the (current) official story. It's that simple. The fact that he is now here means that ATS is now recognized as the number one destination for these discussions. Be aware.