NASA USAOs: Alien Craft? NOT Ice Crystals!

Originally posted by lost_shaman

Originally posted by The Shrike
You like to reply inanely and your analogies suck big time!

Ok. Maybe my analogies do "suck". What is wrong with my point?

Originally posted by The Shrike

Have you ever replied to any thread and contributing to the discussion 'cause you ain't doin' it here.

I've discussed all this stuff with Jim before on ATS.

What point? The lack of a point was why I replied negatively to your reply. So you've discussed, etc., what does that have to do with your lack of offering your opinions about the thread topic? Besides, I've been discussing with Jim since the early '90s!

Originally posted by depthoffield
There is not so rare ocasions to find ice, or other similar generated debris around the shuttle (because the shuttle is the source).

examples:
snip
or STS-75, 48 etcetera, but is better to think of these as alien ships or critters, is much more fun.

edit on 29/3/12 by depthoffield because: (no reason given)

You think that the video examples you provided provide the answers to the questions posed by those who do not accept the ice crystals explanation offered by such foru luminaries as Oberg, Phage and others. In reality, the videos create more questions than answers.

Ice crystals leave the shuttle en masse and have been seen to move out in a haphazard manner with no orderly fashion. The are seen set in motion and you know that once a body is in motion it stays in motion. Space UFOs are seen "standing still", drifting slowly and in the middle of a "fleet" others may move in and through in different directions, etc.

One of the biggest problems with the explanation of the alleged thruster firing seen in the STS-48 footage, as Oberg likes to point out, is that the object that materialized out of the earth and is seen drifting and makes an angled turn when the alleged thruster fire affects it although the other objects are not affected. In one of your videos you see thruster firing and yet the white objects that are "claimed" to be ice crystals are not affected at all!

Nice try.

Originally posted by The Shrike

What point? The lack of a point was why I replied negatively to your reply. So you've discussed, etc., what does that have to do with your lack of offering your opinions about the thread topic? Besides, I've been discussing with Jim since the early '90s!

The point about ice not surviving very long in LEO. Do you disagree that this is a valid point to make when people start talking about ice in LEO?

Originally posted by lost_shaman

Originally posted by The Shrike

What point? The lack of a point was why I replied negatively to your reply. So you've discussed, etc., what does that have to do with your lack of offering your opinions about the thread topic? Besides, I've been discussing with Jim since the early '90s!

The point about ice not surviving very long in LEO. Do you disagree that this is a valid point to make when people start talking about ice in LEO?

I haven't seen any discussion about ice in LEO and those that favor the ice "theory" do not have much to go on and are outnumbered by those that agree that what we see in NASA videos is rarely ice, if at all, mainly because of the behavior of the objects which is unlike ice.

Originally posted by The Shrike

I haven't seen any discussion about ice in LEO

Ok well... FYI thats exactly what I've been talking about here in this thread.

Originally posted by mcrom901
reply to post by depthoffield

 

dof, i suppose you have some hard data re the sts-75 timestamps / water dumps, etc. ?

i hoped that Mr Oberg will FOIA NASA for more data as he promised once, but later he said that this action from him doesn't worth enough in relation with time and energy spent...
As for myself, i'm not an UFO researcher, so i'm too lasy to FOIA etc. Those which says they are UFO researchers shoud do the job, unless all they want really is to sell entertainment or other obscure personal motifs..

Originally posted by The Shrike
You think that the video examples you provided provide the answers to the questions posed by those who do not accept the ice crystals explanation offered by such foru luminaries as Oberg, Phage and others. In reality, the videos create more questions than answers.

Ice crystals leave the shuttle en masse and have been seen to move out in a haphazard manner with no orderly fashion. The are seen set in motion and you know that once a body is in motion it stays in motion. Space UFOs are seen "standing still", drifting slowly and in the middle of a "fleet" others may move in and through in different directions, etc.

One of the biggest problems with the explanation of the alleged thruster firing seen in the STS-48 footage, as Oberg likes to point out, is that the object that materialized out of the earth and is seen drifting and makes an angled turn when the alleged thruster fire affects it although the other objects are not affected. In one of your videos you see thruster firing and yet the white objects that are "claimed" to be ice crystals are not affected at all!

Nice try.

Those examples with ice and debris posted by me a few posts before, were all selected from NASA public shuttle videos, narated by astronauts themselves. How about that. From here: www.nss.org...

So, NASA is very idiot, or very sneaky to release public videos to the press which "create more questions than answers". Or simply NASA thinks we are idiots. ...

In my videos posted above, anybody easy can find examples with debris which make exactly what your alleged UFO's does: stand still, blink, appear from nowhere, have curved trajectories, appears to accelerate, suddenly change trajectories. goes in all directions etc.
Debris around the shuttle really does all of that (or appear to do depending on the camera point of view and shuttle maneuveurs).

So, how can i say those cannot be ice/debris particles?! based on what? Ok, if i am a person which i like to dream at misteries, well, i can feed myself with these low quality grains of "UFO's" ... and even make "quantum theories" like David Sereda with chalk on blachboard

Originally posted by depthoffield

Originally posted by mcrom901
reply to post by depthoffield

 

dof, i suppose you have some hard data re the sts-75 timestamps / water dumps, etc. ?

i hoped that Mr Oberg will FOIA NASA for more data as he promised once, but later he said that this action from him doesn't worth enough in relation with time and energy spent...

so how does one make the connection in that case? does correlation imply causation? i was under the impression, based on the tss data, that 'no thrusters or other gas or water releases were in progress at that time'... moreover, even the fes dump turned out to have been initiated much later... i will look forward to any data which might come to light in the future though

I'm not the 'choke point' here, nor the 'single point failure' to be blamed for everyone else's inadequacies, If people want the data, request the data from the agencies who have it. They've always provided this kind of stuff when asked.