Jump to content

Evolutionary Science And Its Implications


Recommended Posts

bbc reckoned so slim it was in their trailer for a week or 2 when advertising their universe documentary. .. lots of people must remember that incredible fact.


but true slim style pick on a very very minor point in a posting to argue and derail a thread.


Perhaps they said more stars in the universe than grains of sand on earth, rather than stars in our galaxy?


Derail? I'm responding to one of your posts. It's common for you to simply post critisising a poster and not actually add to thre thread at all! Don't post something if you can't handle scrutiny.


I also posted that you should start a separate thread, in an effort to avoid a derail. Posting in public but referring to private messages seems a bit daft.


And I'm with China on the Nasa vid, it's obviously very small objects on a different plain as a result of the focus being so distorted to capture the tether.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

fine ok slim.


now debunk just that link above.


or this one if thats to hard.



however it was chinas views i wanted as i feel he isnt just out to score cheap points.


and is quite capable of alternate theories as i just cannot see any other alternative to technology being utilised in both those clips.

Edited by manxman2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Manxman2 - try this - it is a long and patient reply of a NASA spokesman to your video - bottom line - it aint aliens - now you either have to think he's a liar, or you are ignorant and so over interpreting the data - your choice.


Notes on the STS-80 UFOs" -- James Oberg January 1997


The STS-80 scenes seem to me to be identical in origin to the

infamous STS-48 scenes and to numerous others throughout the

shuttle flight program: low-light sensitive B&W cameras are

trained on the receding horizon during night passes, to observe

serendipitous lightning events for an experiment called

Mesoscale Lightning Experiment, managed out of NASA-MSFC in

Huntsville. You can see the dark horizon, the glowing 'air glow'

layer, moving stars, moving city lights below, lightning

flashes, and under moonlit conditions, dim clouds.


By the way, these low-light B&W cameras are pretty old and are

being replaced mission by mission -- the suite of cameras

carried by a shuttle (one in each corner of the payload bay, two

on the RMS, others perhaps mounted on the keel looking upwards

at target spacecraft, plus a few handheld units inside the

cabin) can be adjusted as needed, and a new color CCD camera is

much higher quality (it doesn't 'bloom' in overbright

reflections, and can't be damaged by sun exposure), but it's not

as sensitive in low light, so there are fewer opportunities to

see such views every year.


When sunrise occurs (due to the Orbiter's motion along its

orbit), even though the Orbiter is now bathed in sunlight, the

camera is still trained on the dark side of Earth. But now the

floating particles which routinely accompany every shuttle

flight (often ice particles, sometimes junk from the payload

bay, pieces of insulation blankets, a dozen or more distinctly

different sources) can become visible in the sunlight, sometimes

even moving into sunlight from the umbra of the Orbiter (and

thus "appearing suddenly"). These are close to the camera,

sometimes a few feet, at most a few hundred feet. Sometimes they

are hit by pulses of gas from the RCS jets as they automatically

fire to gently nudge the spaceship back towards a pre-set

orientation. Because of the sensitivity of the camera, moving

particles leave streaks -- even stars can be seen to do this

when the camera is being panned (usually by command from a

controller in the Mission Control Center). Tumbling particles

tend to flash. Bright particles overload the optics and appear

as "rings" or "do-nuts" with darker centers.


There's nothing else to it, as far as I can tell. Everyone in

the control center knows about this visual phenomenon, everyone

has seen it numerous times, and they laugh at notions these are

anomalous, while they grimace at yet more silly stories by

people who don't seem to understand much (or do seem to

misunderstand a lot) about "ordinary" space flight.


As far as I was able to determine, these STS-80 scenes were

recorded beginning about 11:55 PM PST on December 1, 1996.

That's 07:55 GMT on December 2. Since the shuttle was launched

on Nov 19, that is 324/19:55:47, this makes it about 12 days 11

hours 59 minutes "Mission Elapsed Time", or MET. This was on rev

197, crossing Venezuela, then the West Indies. The Orbiter

attitude was bottom forward, with the vehicle yawed somewhat so

the nose was off to one side.


According to the activity plan sent up that morning, the crew

was doing some evaluation of an EVA tool associated with their

airlock problems, and the two pilots were scheduled to begin a

review of landing procedures. Lunch was to follow. When I asked

crewman Story Musgrave, who is not shy about talking about

anomalies of any kind, he assured me he saw nothing unusual on

the flight, at this point or at any other.


The camera, "B" located at the rear of the payload bay, was in a

pre-set position which was later changed by ground commands.

Judging from the star motion at the horizon, it was looking

southwest, not precisely backwards (since then the stars would

have been setting straight down across the horizon). I don't

have the exact numbers on the camera's pan/tilt and it's too

much trouble to get them.


According to a computer reconstruction of the trajectory,

sunrise occurred at GMT 07:57. That's precisely when the picture

shows a slight foggy periphery, and when the first objects

appear. They keep showing up until about 08:01, when sunlit

clouds come into the camer's field of view and the iris

automatically stops way down so that the tiny objects (and stars

too) are no longer visible. The camera view continues in

daylight for long after that.


The crew's "Earth Obs Exposures" daily plan listed ground

targets which confirm this flight path:


12/11:54:05 Caracas

12/11:55:58 Montserrat


and then


12/12:19:34 Lake Nasser

12/12:21:13 Jiddah, Saudi Arabia

12/12:21:23 Mecca


These are "opportunities" only, not assignments, and apparently

nobody was free to take the shots over Caracas and Montserrat.


Here is some trajectory data from which you can reconstruct the

flight path and lighting conditions at the interval of interest,

if you have the commonly- available software.


M50 State Vector

GMT 337:00:54:47.00

MET 012:04:59:00

Position (ft)

X 7272023.0

Y -20753260.5

Z -2137127.9

Velocity (ft/sec)

VX 20614.669694

VY 8420.434295

VZ -11894.207423


At MET 12/11:55:47 for example, position is lat 15.07N, Lon

62.06W, alt 185.4nm, inertial velocity 25245.6034 ft/sec, the

orbital range is 183.8361 to 193.8737 nm, period 91:23.435, beta

angle -34 degrees (the sun is off to the right of the orbital

plane by this angle),


The video that I saw over in the Public Affairs Office was tape

#612710. If you want to specify it to buy your own copies, give

the MET or GMT times, and order ten minutes before and after the

interval, so you can see the typical phenomena of stars leaving

trails, and auto iris control functioning, and at one point the

constellation Orion going by, and at the end a view around the

Orbiter's sunlit payload bay. All very ordinary, unspectacular,

normal space views, in my opinion.


I don't know where the impression came from that this was a

rebroadcast of daily highlights, since these programs are

invariably short (10-15 minutes), with short clips jumping from

scene to scene, usually involving views of astronauts. This

sequence, on the other hand, was continuous for at least 20

minutes from the same camera, and the geography and lighting are

consistent with the real time orbital motion. I looked at the

"Flight Day Highlights" summary for three days around this date

and that's what they consisted of, with no replay of any of

these "dancing dots" scenes (why should there have been?).


I don't expect that this will change many minds and I don't

intend to go on television to face some wild accusations that

I'm a paid liar for the grand conspiracy, and basically I don't

take anyone seriously who takes these stories seriously. Life's

too short for me to care what some people want to believe these

scenes show. I've already spent too much time, but I figured

somebody had to make a rational response, whether it was

understood and believed, or not.




James Oberg




What amazes me when people start arguing about angels on a pin head grains of sand vrs stars is that its is perfectly easy for them to calculate the answer themselves - it seems that they just can't be bothered switching their brain on.


20 seconds on google fine sand grains have a diameter between 1/4 and 1/8 of a millimetre. With a close packed density of 74% that gives approximately between 90 billion and 725 billion per cubic metre.


Even if the BBC said their were more stars than grains of sand - it doesn't change the fact that they were wrong and it was sloppy journalism not to have done 20 seconds worth of maths before saying it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

fine ok slim.

now debunk just that link above.

or this one if thats to hard.


I did in my post above.


however it was chinas views i wanted as i feel he isnt just out to score cheap points.

and is quite capable of alternate theories as i just cannot see any other alternative to technology being utilised in both those clips.


Again, you chose to dig at me rather than talk about the points I raised. Who's the points scorer? I know you're sore from the virus thread, you've had a chip on your shoulder about me ever since, but the point of a discussion forum is to discuss things, and I'm going to continue to do just that, particularly when I disagree with some poorly thought out nonsense like the bulk of what you post. You're wasting your time insulting me or attempting to put me off replying, that stuff doesn't bother me in the slightest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the interests of fairness -BBC Link


70 Sextillion grains of sand between 0.125 and 0.25 mm in diametre would fill between 300,000 and 2,500,000 kilometres of beach if the beach was 100 metres wide and 3 metres deep in sand.


The CIA Factbook - tinhats out everyone - say the worlds coast lines are 356,000 km long.


My feeling is that the grain size, and depth of sand are tenuous approximations - you can reasonably easily make an argument that their are more grains of sand on earth than stars in the universe or vice versa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually I don't believe the BBC report - it includes Sand in Deserts - the Saraha Desert is 9 million square kms.


If you give an average depth of 1 m - very low - then with an average size of 0.25 mm that makes 820 sextillion grains far more than the stars reported!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

we are never going to settle this sand vs stars debate ourselves, perhaps we should ask god? (sarcasm)


actually come to think of it, in norse mythology wasn't a minor god's punishment for an infraction, that he had to count every grain of sand on the earth?


but to keep the thread at least somewhat on topic, does the intelligent design movement have propaganda an answer for why the universe is so vast, if its only purpose is to house one planet which can sustain life?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

who gives a fuuk about whether the bbc got it right about the grains of sand thing.



Manxman2 - try this - it is a long and patient reply of a NASA spokesman to your video - bottom line - it aint aliens - now you either have to think he's a liar, or you are ignorant and so over interpreting the data - your choice.


I would like you to quote where i have said it was or could be !!aliens!!

I have repeatedly said i believe that its technology being utilised and i am not prepared to speculate as to the developers/owners or whether the tech is even occupied..


Also if you could be bothered you would of been able to post up plenty of quotes from optical physicists and other nasa experts that refute his assertions as rubbish ..

im ignorant as i see an object track in from space come to a halt and decend into the electrical storm and hold its position whilst shortly after an object rises out of earths atmosphere and departs off into space.

if either of you can be bothered please feel free to dispute the clip above and give an honest opinion of your own as we can all find arguments for and against from very reputable and highly decorated individuals.



ofcourse if you think his explanation of charged particles or space debris/ice crystals a few feet in front of the camera lens is what you are actually seeing then fine he also mentions earth lights which apparently must be visible thru the electrical storm. it wasnt so clear cut as he makes out to a fair number of his collegues however.

but they talk about possible entities being in control .. that kind of speculation does not enter the equasion for me .. i am only interested in the tech side .. i do not believe earth is a singular occurance nor is our ability to send out probes into space.


as stated not everyone in nasa agrees. .. nor do many astronauts who flew missions.




"UFO sightings are now so common,the military doesn't have time to worry about them....When a UFO appears,they simply ignore it.Unconventional targets are ignored because apparently we are only interested in the Russian targets,possible enemy targets.Something that hovers in the air ,then shoots off at 5000 miles per hour doesn't interest us because it can't be the enemy. UFOs are picked up by ground and air radar and they have been photographed by gun camera all along.There are so many UFOs in the sky that the airforce has had to employ special radar networks to screen them out". Lee Katchen, NASA atmospheric physicist,June 7th,1968.


"I've been convinced for a long time that the flying saucers are real and interplanetary. Another words we are being watched by beings from outer space." Albert M. Chop, deputy public relations director, National Aeronautics and Space Administration,(NASA) and former United States Air Force spokesman for Project Blue Book.


In 1979 Maurice Chatelain, former chief of NASA Communications Systems confirmed that Armstrong had indeed reported seeing two UFOs on the rim of a crater.



Scott_Carpenter. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Carpenter "At no time, when the astronauts were in space were they alone: there was a constant surveillance by UFOs."


Victor Afanasyev



In April of 1979, Cosmonaut Victor Afanasyev lifted off from Star City to dock with the Soviet Solyut 6 space station. But while en route, something strange happened. Cosmonaut Afanasyev saw an unidentified object turn toward his craft and begin tailing it through space.


"It followed us during half of our orbit. We observed it on the light side, and when we entered the shadow side, it disappeared completely. It was an engineering structure, made from some type of metal, approximately 40 meters long with inner hulls. The object was narrow here and wider here, and inside there were openings. Some places had projections like small wings. The object stayed very close to us. We photographed it, and our photos showed it to be 23 to 28 meters away."


In addition to photographing the UFO, Afanasyev continually reported back to Mission Control about the craft's size, its shape and position. When the cosmonaut returned to earth he was debriefed and told never to reveal what he knew, and had his cameras and film confiscated.


Those photos and his voice transmissions from space have never been released.


It is only now, with the collapse of the Soviet Union that Afanasyev feels that he can safely tell his story.


"It is still classified as a UFO because we have yet to identify the object."




Astronaut Cady Coleman

NASA Transmission - Shuttle Mission STS-73

"Mission control, we have a UFO pacing our position, request instructions."


Gordon Cooper

has testified to a United Nations committee that one of the astronauts actually witnessed a UFO on the ground.


Colonel Philip Corso

Army Intelligence officer, former Head of Foreign Technology at the U.S. Army's Research and Development Department at the Pentagon. Four years Director of Intelligence on President Eisenhower's White House National Security Staff


"Let there be no doubt. Alien technology harvested from the infamous saucer crash in Roswell, N.Mex., in July 1947 led directly to the development of the integrated circuit chip, laser and fibre optic technologies, particle beams, electromagnetic propulsion systems, depleted uranium projectiles, stealth capabilities, and many others.


How do I know? I was in charge!


I think the kids on this planet are wise to the truth, and I think we ought to give it to them. I think they deserve it."


And to second corso’s assertion .. in a hand written memo obtained under the freedom of information act.


J Edgar Hoover

Former Director of the FBI

"We must insist upon full access to discs recovered. In the LA case the Army grabbed it and would not let us have it for cursory examination."



"We have stacks of reports about flying saucers.We take them seriously when you consider we have lost many men and planes trying to intercept them".

General Benjamin Chidlaw,

Air Defense Command.


China its extremely easy to find impressive documentation both for and against the existence of other technologies its an arguement that can never be won eitherway and i have no interest in trying.

I do believe that the shuttle cameras have filmed other technologies and a few official debunkers from nasa will never get me to believe that those objects are merely space junk or reflections of earth based lights its a piss weak effort if you ask me .. i believe what i am seeing ignorant twat that i am.


nor do i believe that these objects forming a circle and then holding position until the one in the centre lights up are ice crystals out of focus or earth lights either.



and how on earth can anyone dispute that some of those objects travel behind the tether whats wrong with your eyes. .. the tether is between 77 nautical miles to 100+ in the clip below what kind of space junk/ice crystals can be seen travelling in space over 100 miles away going behind the tether.



regardless of all the opinions what happens between 2mins 52 seconds and 2 mins 58 seconds in the clip below is quite extrordinary. .. if you watch the fast moving white light that enters the frame on the bottom right and travels towards the top of frame .. you clearly see it violently swerve around a stationary light source and resume its original tracking..


pretty smart manouver for an ice crystal or earth light.





i believe i am witnessing technology being utilised in all 3 clips .. and many more bits of footage downloaded by martin stubbs out of his 2500 hours of recorded unedited nasa downloads.


how many people here would bet their houses on all 3 clips being no more than out of focus ice crystals/space junk...?

Edited by manxman2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

thats it ali in true idiot style attack me not my claim.


i suppose you have an explanation..??


or will ice crystals suffice for you .. and i will repeat again i have no interest in speculating about little greenmen .. all i am interested in is if i was witnessing technology being utilised in space.


i will leave the alien speculation upto the 100s of highly decorated and vip individuals already signed upto the disclosure program.

all seeking to be released from the official secrets act so as to be able to tell a congressional hearing what they have witnessed.

Edited by manxman2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It wasn't an attack, it was a joke. Lighten up.


It is not beyond the realms of possibility that we have been visited but youtube clips aren't likely to help convince me of it. They are called UFO's because of precisely what they are. UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS


I'm absolutley sure there are all kinds of 'advanced' life forms out there in that massive expanse of space. I wish I could go meet them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

they are only clips of what were live streams to millions of viewers ..


theres nothing untoward about them .. what you see is what you get.


and sorry for taking your comments out of context.


what the human race has achievedin the last hundred years is remarkable .. what we will achieve in the next hundred will be equally as remarkable .. what we have achieved in 1000 yrs time we can reasonably guess at .. what we will have achieved in 10,000 yrs is totally beyond anyones comprehension imo.

Edited by manxman2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Create New...