100% proof of U.F.O.S in space - You cannot debunk this one

Fran, I'm sorry for seeming harsh on my last post, but I was just frustrated. I do believe we have been visited in the past and still are to this day. It was the "100% proof" that got me excited. I think if you would have worded your post a little differently it would not have agitated so many of us. I'm not your enemy!

This is just another perspective of the objects in question on most Nasa video's. It is a good argument for "Ice Crystals".

"Anomalies" are relative

In outer space, even "ordinary" things seem so alien that Earthlings back home can get their minds blown by what veteran space voyagers find routine and boring. So we have to acquire a thorough knowledge of what is ordinary -- in terms of space flight -- so that the genuinely extraordinary can be filtered out.

And that's been the problem with so many false alarms and blind alleys in the quest to identify truly alien phenomena viewed by Earth's emissaries into the universe. Sightings, photographs, descriptions and videos of space phenomena can be found in hundreds of magazines, books and websites -- but what, if anything, do they really signify?

People back on Earth must remember that the first principle of space travel is that objects coming off a vehicle tend to fly along with it. They appear to move in straight lines unless they encounter some force, such as the atmosphere or an exhaust plume from a rocket thruster. They don't need propulsion or power sources, just natural inertia.

The second poorly-appreciated principle of space travel is that things are always coming off -- or out of -- a piloted space vehicle.

Space missions dump excess propellant from engines after the vehicle reaches orbit.

Unused propellant may leak past a hundred different valves in small steering rockets. When the jets fire, bits of propellant can get caught in the exhaust and shoot off at great speeds, while other pieces floating nearby are blasted away by expanding rocket plumes.

Another common culprit is ice. Some vehicles discard waste heat by evaporating water against coolant panels, resulting in blizzards of ice crystals. (These were John Glenn's "fireflies" on his first flight.) Piloted missions periodically purge both liquid waste ("the constellation Urion," astronauts joked) and surplus water from fuel cells. These valves can leak or get stopped up with ice which later flakes away.

Insulation blankets may shed fragments, or lose buttons and clips. Latex-based "gap filler," inserted between shuttle tiles, sometimes peels loose in long strips. There's also junk carelessly left behind in the shuttle's payload bay -- washers, clipped wires, dust covers and the like. When payloads separate from their launch platforms, it often is by means of small explosive charges that leave fragments, metal shavings and even entire straps tumbling violently through space.

The moon pigeons

From stray particles, to snowflakes, to meter-long icicles -- all of this "space dandruff" can fill spacecraft windows and TV fields-of-view.

Some are flat, some are round, some are long and curved. Some catch the light, flickering as they tumble, others don't. Some appear suddenly as they drift out of the spacecraft's shadow into the bright sun. It is a visual kaleidoscope of unearthly -- but to experienced spacefarers, entirely prosaic -- apparitions.

NASA has always been interested in understanding how such objects are created because they might be dangerous. Apollo astronauts called them "moon pigeons" in their post-flight debriefings, and regularly described seeing them during their radio conversations with Earth.

On-board viewing methods changed over the decades. Gemini astronauts literally sat by their windows because their cabin was too small to move away. The Apollo era saw larger vehicles in which busy astronauts spent less time actually looking out windows.

"Unexplainable" shuttle sights

By the time the space shuttles came along, their magnificent windows were frequently used for astronaut sightseeing. But the craft also sported an impressive array of television cameras in their payload bays and on their robot arms.

Once nearly-continuous communications coverage was established in 1989, via relay satellites in 24-hour orbits, these cameras were usually left on continuously, providing material for the live broadcasts of NASA TV.

Many clearly unusual scenes of moving objects from these broadcasts have become famous, particularly sequences from STS 48 (1992) and STS 80 (1996). White dots crisscross the earth, horizon and star-filled sky. Some appear out of nowhere, or abruptly change direction. Investigators with more enthusiasm than expertise have deemed these apparitions "unexplainable in earthly terms," and indeed they are.

The notorious STS 48 and STS 80 videos, for example, share some common factors not known to amateur investigators, and these factors provide convincing proof of their routine nature. In both cases, the shuttle has just emerged from Earth's shadow and the camera is peering backwards toward the still-dark Earth to spot lightning bursts.

The shuttle is bathed in bright sunlight, but since it's in vacuum, this light is invisible except as it illuminates nearby particles. Some particles that happen to be closer to the camera drift away and pass out of the shuttle's shadow, making them suddenly visible.

Even bigger pieces of "space junk" can appear mysterious. On the STS 61 (December 1993) mission to service the Hubble Space Telescope, there's a flashing object off to the side of the telescope as the shuttle pulls away. Although some enthusiasts proclaim this is an alien observer, it's actually just a worn-out solar panel that was manually jettisoned a few days earlier.

Source:www.space.com...

Peace

Guz

it would help a lot if people stopped referring to videos as "proof" or especially "100% proof".

Proof would be something unquestionably extraterrestrial and physical that anyone on the planet interested in seeing or examining it would be able to with no hassle and come to the same or similar conclusions.

This is evidence, and very famous evidence - the so called "tether incident" - but I personally remain a little skeptic that they are UFOs. And no, I don't consider myself "a skeptic" in the way that most of the people on the boards seem to interpret the word - I have seen a UFO with my own eyes and it was unquestionably non-human by the way it moved.

Did anyone see the newsaper article in the UK of 20 UFOs think it was Wednesday?

reply to post by kerazeesicko


Edgar Mitchell seems to believe in aliens as well as UFO's. He's an astronaut and has also been to space. So, even though the OP cannot provide proof for the claims that you ask, I think Mitchell is qualified enough to satisfy your curiosities involving the possibilities of the crafts in the videos being unknown spacecraft.

I highly doubt that will be enough to ascertain your belief though. You seem quite set on your predisposed notions.

I don't claim to be right or wrong. I'm just making an observation.

reply to post by watchtheashes


Watchtheashes...I'll entertain your constant pleas. Since you believe in all of this, did it ever occur to you that a landing may actually be another false flag scenario? The United States and Russia have been cross engineering technology for quite some time now.

What if...and I'm just saying, what if...It's not an alien landing at all, but one made to give the appearance of such?

I'm talking about a staged landing. If we've been developing anti-gravity and UFO's, then there's just as much of a possibility that whomever comes down to land is American military personnel.

Don't be so easily fooled.

Aliens have never been our problem. To the best of my knowledge, its been human greed and the need for control.

Anyway...as far as your theories, I'll believe it when it happens. Otherwise its all conjecture and speculation.

Originally posted by UFOtheories
Edgar Mitchell seems to believe in aliens as well as UFO's. He's an astronaut and has also been to space. So, even though the OP cannot provide proof for the claims that you ask, I think Mitchell is qualified enough to satisfy your curiosities involving the possibilities of the crafts in the videos being unknown spacecraft.

Mitchell has made it clear he has never seen a UFO, in space or anywhere, and knows of no astronauts who have seen UFOs in space, and was never instructed by NASA concerning any constraints on discussing the subject in any form. That's his testimony. There's no need to imagine him saying anything different.

Originally posted by heyo
Oh God, the burden of proof statement lol. If i lie in a box for ten years, then get out and burn the box, the burden of proof does lay with me to prove that i was in the box, yet it doesn't change the fact of how obvious it was to me that i was inside said box.
the burden of proof belongs to the one who wishes to disprove what seems to be glaringly obvious...

Yes, that pesky burden of proof. Burden of proof likes with the claimant, not the audience. You seem to have trouble understanding this concept, in the process making a negative proof fallacy (no proof is provided for X, but because you cannot disprove X, X is true) as well as a shifting burden of proof fallacy. These links should help you get a better understanding.

Burden of Proof

when anyone is making a bold claim, either positive or negative, it is not someone else's responsibility to disprove the claim

(emphasis mine)
Burden of Proof -- Science and Philosophy: Extraordinary Claims.

Shifting Burden of Proof fallacy (what Fran made in her opening-post, and what you made above)

Originally posted by UFOtheories
Edgar Mitchell seems to believe in aliens as well as UFO's. He's an astronaut and has also been to space. So, even though the OP cannot provide proof for the claims that you ask, I think Mitchell is qualified enough to satisfy your curiosities involving the possibilities of the crafts in the videos being unknown spacecraft.

You are trying to make a case for proof-by-proxy. While Edgar Mitchell may be right in that there are aliens visiting the Earth, it does not mean that these videos represent alien craft.

[edit on 5-6-2009 by DoomsdayRex]

It's a very good video no doubt about it.

Graham

The part of the video that is undeniable is the tether segment which appears in 'the secret NASA transmissions'. It has been discussed many times on ATS but I still think it's valid to bring it up again for newer members and to ensure it is not forgotten.

My take on the tether segment is that... wait for it... let the flames begin...they are space jellyfish!!!!!!!!!

Or rather they are a type of Earth lifeform that lives way up up up into and beyond the Earths atmosphere. A couple of hundred KMs up into Earth orbit seems to me to be a much less harsh an environment than the bottom of the ocean. It's alobvious that the objects seen in the video are definitely being intelligently guided. They do not follow a straight( or curved due to gravity) trajectory. Another puzzle is that they are all the same shape like a polo a ringed donut.

They are various in size, and some debunkers have claimed that they cannot be spacecraft or life because some are over a mile in diameter. My answer to that is that the objects do exist, they are there! The debate is what are they? Because if they are not craft or life then what remains is mile long rocks floating in earth orbit just waiting to fall on some city?

Life on Earth has been shown to exist survive and thrive in many extreme environments from ocean depths, in boiling springs, by black smokers, in the dryest deserts to the coldest peaks. It's not much of a stretch for life to have evolved up there in near earth orbit. Ah but how could they grow to such size, firstly i doubt that they are over a mile in diameter, and even if they were it shouldn't be a surprise that a lifeform free from the shackles of gravity would be able to grow to such size. Just google largest lifeforms and you'll find that some single organism fungi have grown to 10 square kilometers and lived over 8000 years, and that's with gravity. As further proof of the resilience of known life let's not forget the tardigrade has been found living 6000m up in the himalayas and 4000m below sea level. They can also live at close to absolute zero and at temperatures in excess of 151c (303F), as well as being able to absorb radiation levels 1000 times high than lethal levels for man. Even if these space jellyfish needed oxygen to live it wouldn't be a problem because at both poles there is a small but continous loss into space of Earth atmosphere. All these jellyfish would need to do was
go and hover over a pole for a bit, fill up their air bladders and bob's yer uncle.

I think everyone here is forgetting the definition of U.F.O. UNIDENTIFIED flying object. So yes this thread does prove that there are unidentified objects in space. I could see if the OP said Proof of alien crafts! Sure then pick it apart. But that is not the case.

I'm relatively new here, and have never heard of the so-called "TETHER INCIDENT." However, that last shot there of the rectangular object looked, to me, just like a close up, through a microscope, of a cell of some sort. no?

Originally posted by blasfemaz
Regarding the STS-75 videos (the satellite attached to the 12 mile tether).
I have some questions for those of you with more knowledge in the field.

I am not an expert either, but I can answer some of your questions. Those more knowledgeable will be able to better describe what is happening, if need be.

Originally posted by blasfemaz
Several of you mention these could be small dust particles floating very close to the camera lens. How can this be possible when there are several of these objects that float behind the tether?

I understand video cameras have flaws and sometimes small objects in the foreground can appear further off, but if you reexamine the video you will notice several objects clearly floating behind the tether.

They aren't moving behind the tether, they are in front of it. That they appear to move behind it is due to an optical illusion created by the camera. ATS member Depthoffield created this video to demonstrate how the illusion works.



UFO Hunters conducted a similar experiment (two videos, starting at the six-minute mark on the first and continuing on the second).

Originally posted by blasfemaz
Watch the parts in the video where they zoom in to one of the ends of the tether. You will see more detail on the objects. Some of these appear to be pulsating as if filled with some electric energy.

The particulars are each an irregular shape and are tumbling over their own axis as they move. When the sunlight catches them it creates the illusion they are pulsating.

reply to post by JimOberg

The first link just went to the youtube front page.

David Sereda (link 2) most definitely does NOT work for NASA and never did. I've debated him on Coast-to-Coast and found him very skilled at imagining things that must be true that would prove him right, and then stating them sincerely as facts.Many NASA employees of the past and present are interested in UFOs and have done research and spoken out -- examples include John Schuessler and Alan Holt. Your statement about the 'only' one appears to be a made-up non-fact with non-evidence -- can you provide facts and evidence to back it up?

Here the other vid, sorry.

Part 1


here's the link if it still doesn't work
www.youtube.com...

From 1996 to 1998, David Sereda was hired by HiEnergy Micro devices, a Defense Contractor in Irvine, California, building leading edge technology for the world's only chemically specific detection of buried landmines. The Chief Scientist and Chairman was Dr. Bogdan C. Maglich, an M.I.T. PhD physicist, and inventor of non-radioactive, self-colliding beam, deuterium-helium-3 fusion. Dr. Maglich had abandoned efforts to further develop non-radioactive nuclear energy due to lack of interest from the government, investment community and the public. It was in 1995 that Dr. Maglich discovered a revolutionary technology for the detection of buried landmines, and hidden explosives. At HiEnergy Microdevices, David Sereda moved from Vice President to President in one year. He helped negotiate and open alternative applications to the detection systems at Hinergy for other areas of National Security at U.S. Customs, The Undersecretary of Defense for A&T, the FAA, and other government agencies. Later it was realized that the technology could be applied to finding concealed and well-disguised explosives, narcotics, chemical and biological weapons, for National Security purposes. Tests were verified by Special Technologies Laboratory, in Santa Barbara, California in 1997.

You're right he has never worked for nasa, but he does have friends there that gave him better footage of these space UFOs in question. I guess I jumped to conclusions based on the fact he had some original footage from nasa reseachers. By the way, he may have an imagination, but that doesn't make him a lune. He does have a PhD in Physics.

Here's a vid from John Schuessler who did in fact work for nasa like you said.



[edit on 5-6-2009 by lawbringer]

Originally posted by lawbringer
You're right he has never worked for nasa, but he does have friends there that gave him better footage of these space UFOs in question. I guess I jumped to conclusions based on the fact he had some original footage from nasa reseachers. By the way, he may have an imagination, but that doesn't make him a lune. He does have a PhD in Physics.

Uh, not to seem too much of a wet blanket, but where can I confirm the self-written 'bio' and the claimed PhD?

I agree that there are alot of possible explanations as to what we are seeing.. But there is only one true explanation regardless of how many factors come into play. And even though we can look back on this footage years later and debate what we're seeing here, when you look at all the other pieces of the UFO puzzle overall, there is never going to be a 100% level of certainty that UFO's aren't real. A likely outcome is never an inevitability.

With this particular video, I think what we're seeing is misleading. People see objects moving in every direction at different speeds, etc.etc.. and they assume the only explanation is aliens with big black eyes from Zeta Reticuli. For some folks, that's a very normal assumption to make. It isn't for people like me.

But there is quite alot of video, audio, and photographic evidence that all just give us more and more questions. Statistically, we're more likely to come across odd footage with very normal explanations. I really do believe this. But I also understand that there are many well-documented, bizarre, unexplainable cases involving multiple credible, honest, intelligent people from all walks of life. And this can't just be outrightly ignored because one or two clips of video have very normal, alternative explanations.

Take this example.. (this was on the history channel a while back)
A pilot flying a small passenger aircraft over the oceans off the coast of England notices an object he describes as "half a mile across".. Another, smaller, object is also noticed nearby. These objects were witnessed by the pilot and multiple passengers. The sighting was later confirmed over the radio by other aircraft that saw these objects.. The objects gave off a slight glow that is reported by all the witnesses, and all the witness testimonies seem to match each other as far as appearance and overall size. It was a little more complex than this.. But this was the basic turn of events.

Now, regardless of how you look at this particular example or how you digest this information, regardless of how a debunker might try to fit all the pieces together into some kind of feasible normal explanation, the certainty that this WASN'T a UFO is never going to be 100%.. To say that it is.. That's an impossible conclusion to make. Occums Razor tells us that the simplest explanation is usually the right one. But to assume that the likely explanation is always going to be the right one is completely illogical.

There is also alot of really bizarre physical evidence involving metals and aluminum alloys falling off some of these objects when they "blink out" that have been analyzed by private companies that confirm some of these objects are indeed aluminum alloys of unknown origin "unlike anything we've seen before". This particular quote is from UFO Hunters show entitled "UFO Relics" from the history channel, recently. A solid state physicist, also an expert in aluminum alloys, analyzed the object and was completely mystified after doing a thorough metallurgic analysis of the object. You can see this episode on youtube.

What I'm getting at here is that it isn't so odd that normal explanations exist for what alot of people are seeing, videotaping, and photographing because that is statistically more likely to happen than someone seeing or otherwise documenting a legitimate UFO-related event. But the puzzle pieces surely do add up. And you have to take all of said puzzle pieces into account if anyone is ever going to gain any kind of real, accurate perspective with relation to things we don't understand.

At some level, our inability to understand attributes and phenomenon of the natural world throw "Occums Razor" right on its head. Especially since alot of the most likely explanations for phenomenon like UFO's and the paranormal all seem to be pretty freakin' complex..

Personally, I believe that with relation to the "Tether video", it is very interesting and intriguing but there ARE possible explanations for what we're seeing here. In the full-length video of the encounter, you will notice smaller "orbs" go by and then you will see "whispier", larger orbs moving along the same path as the smaller ones seemingly in the distance and further away. This tells me that alot of these objects are alot closer to the camera than people really think and that when the camera is zooming in on the object it just appears that we're seeing a holy grail of UFO activity when these are really just imaging artifacts produced by small objects close to the camera as well as a variety of other factors. The multi-lensed attributes of the camera that was used, for example (which alot of people don't take into account here).

People are claiming that the tether can be used, basically, as a measuring stick that can be used to get an idea of how large these objects are that appear to be moving "behind" the tether. But that isn't exactly the case. If these really are imaging artifacts, which I now believe, all this technique is doing is giving us relative sizes of the artifacts with relation to the tether.
And the artifacts are also more likely to give us the illusion of moving "behind" the tether when they really aren't. This combined with the attributes of the camera and the lighting conditions, which all come in to play as well.. All give us a very interesting but very explainable video. Like I said before, it doesn't tell us 100% without a doubt that these aren't UFO's.. But it is HIGHLY likely that this is what is what we're seeing here. This is my opinion.

But this in no way takes away from the fact that many astronauts have reported seeing UFO's and aliens in orbit. Astronauts have been seeing bizarre things in orbit ever since the dawn of manned space flight and these objects don't always get reported. The apollo 11 UFO is a great example. Buzz Aldrin said that they basically didn't want everyone thinking they were seeing flying saucers following them around out in space (that would sound pretty loony tunes). But there have been many instances in which radio communications prove that astronauts are seeing strange objects..

I limited myself to one youtube video, here.. And I think this one is particularly most applicable to my post.

EDIT TO ADD..

OOPS! Here it is..



-ChriS

[edit on 6-6-2009 by BlasteR]

On what basis is any claim made by Sereda worthy of automatic belief without verification? Aside from an enthusiast trying to sell you something, what life experience -- or past track record -- loans him credibility?

It's definitely proof of UFOs

But then, is there anyone on the planet who doesn't already accept the existence of UFOs? By definition they must exist

A UFO is simply any unidentified object or light seen in the atmosphere (or space). The video is thus 100% proof of UFOs in space.

What is not proof of is that these are no longer UFOs but identified objects. And certainly it is not proof that they are alien spacecraft.

reply to post by mugen1005


Really?

How old are you? Just asking because I want to believe you have been deprived of basic information.

Sightings are worldwide. And I don't know about the NAZI stuff, other than your assertions sound like a complete corruption of known facts, i.e., most of America's early rocket technology was developed in part by NAZI scientists "captured" after the war.

Do some study. It's easy.

Originally posted by jeddun
Ya...great job posting a lovely dance of dust near an aperture lens set to infinity..gr8 job..jeez. That tether shot..with the particles floating around? are JUST particles of dust and what have you at an extreme close proximity to a camera lens set to infinity as there is nothing to focus on in space. People are STILL on this damn video with the tether im sick of it already..its been debunked..NEXT! I have seen similair artifacts here on earcth when shooting video in a meadow at low light conditions during spring when pollen is floating around like crazy.......man im getting tired of the SAME syndicated nonsensical trash being posted and discussed..anyone else?

New Age believers seem to be more desperate than usual the way they grab at straws.

How do most of you even function in life? Seriously. I never witness ONE single original thought here...i see people falling over themselves to congratulate any number of posters here on posting the 'copied plagiarized work' of anothers writings and then handing us their cheesy explanations. Meanwhile not a single one of you geniuses can produce one iota of proof, not even a great argument. I see hoax after hoax...mixed with regurgitated neo-scientific explanation borrowed from some other 'guy' that wrote something or spoke at some nebulous seminar somewhere. I will say this though..this site provides all of us with hours upon hours of entertainment and the site should be branded as such..For Entertainment Purposes Only...Nothing Read here is True .....the very discussions alone amongst most of you are funny..people here trying to sound 'educated' and theological. Nice.

[edit on 5-6-2009 by jeddun]

What really bothers me with your post is that I cannot give it more than one star.

But of course - the star and flag system seem to be used mostly to congratulate fellow believers. Sometimes it is mindbogling the number of stars and flags that are given to rehashed hoaxes and misinformation.

But you should also acknowledge people like JimOberg who puts on a valiant fight trying to stay calm and collected while at the same time giving us proper information and well thought out arguments.