Jump to content
Manx Forums, Live Chat, Blogs & Classifieds for the Isle of Man
Sign in to follow this  
Chinahand

Evolutionary Science And Its Implications

Recommended Posts

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

 

Me. He says what it is, he's got a much better view of it than we have from an out of focus old video. It's crap catching the light on a pretty week camera at the limits of its focus abilities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so in your opinion slim none of them objects are travelling behind the tether..?

 

not to mention the voilent swerve at 2mins 57secs in the tether clip just use the pause button another out of focus ice crystal slimbo making a manouver which defies any law of physics.

Edited by manxman2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
so in your opinion slim none of them objects are travelling behind the tether..?

 

I'm not being drawn in. Nasa have said what it is, there was people who were watching it with their own eyes. You can't prove it either way, but the explanation looks plausible to me given the equipment and lighting conditions. It's not evidence of advanced technology, and you're pretty daft for believing it to me in my view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Manxman2 - the tether is a couple of centimeters wide 80 or so nautical miles away - you cannot see the tether at all - it is entirely blinded out - the flare from its reflection is blocking out multiple pixels while the tether itself would be something like a 10th of a pixel wide - think about the image - its miles long - how wide does the flared image make it look - 100s of feet, but that's an artifact of the camera.

 

You cannot say things are going behind the tether - a flared and out of focus area of pixels is meeting another flared and out of focus area of pixels and they are merging - you have no perspective in the image. But guess what the person who was taking the pictures does have perspective - and what does he say - its ice crystals around the shuttle which he is filming through.

 

That is a perfectly reasonable explanation for me - he was there, he's giving an objective explanation to the ground crew. You can believe he's lying if you like - why would he? But when I look at the images I see very little to make me believe that his explanation isn't reasonable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

fine china sleep well..

 

however you neglect to say how often the cameraman zooms in on it .. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6NWyBc-1eQ

 

start the clip at 3 mins 58 secs and then pause it as soon as it goes to 3mins 59 secs .

 

then tell me that the object isnt behind the tether even stevie wonder could see the tether dividing the object in half.

 

and also that tether is 12 miles long 10% is 1.2miles that object which is clearly behind the tether measures without any doubt 15% of the tethers lenght .. your a smart boy you do the maths .. then do the maths again with the object being a further 100 miles behind .. then the maths again with the tether only 6 miles long as when it breaks it coils up to half its true lenght imo all clearly visible at the beginning of the clip.

 

im not trying to convince anyone china but i need a better cover story than out of focus ice crystals and or debris.

 

however i respect your opinion china so lets move on to this clip .. ice crystals/debris again please and in particular the event at 1min 22secs...?

 

ps you never commented on the 2mins 52secs to 2mins 57secs part i highlighted with the violent swerve to aviod the stationary ice crystal before instantly carrying on in the same trajectory as its approach..

Edited by manxman2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
im not trying to convince anyone china but i need a better cover story than out of focus ice crystals and or debris.

Manxman2 - I can't help you - you believe what you believe, but I don't think it is a cover story.

 

You get similar responses with things like "orbs" in photos - lots of people go - thats a ghost, and suddenly they are embuing a fuzzy, unexplained, indistinct mark on a photo with all sorts of atributes that have very little to do with the object itself and which to me says far far more about the biases and opinions of the observer.

 

You are seeing technology in these videos - sorry but that to me says more about your way of interpreting data than about the fuzzy indistinct images themselves.

 

The people involved in taking these pictures give you a simple and mundane explanation - you discount it, call it a cover story - say its a technology.

 

I'm sorry, but I believe you are imbuing these fuzzy pictures with far far more weight than they can bear - and to make them bear that weight you have to discount the testimony of the people who actual took the images in the first place.

 

For the astronauts these weren't UFOs - they report that they were debris and waste from the shuttle - we are ignorant of such things and so can still say they are UFOs, but to then change that unidentified object into a technology, to give it a teleology and purpose is for me entirely unjustified.

 

We are looking at fuzzy blobs, the astronauts who saw them say they are ice etc, you are saying no its a space craft or whatever - that's one huge leap.

 

I'm totally against making such leaps - they are entirely unjustified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

im not talking about ghosts or orbs china i am talking about possible technology. i asked you for your opinion now several times on specific parts of those clips and you are avoiding having to give a str8 answer. nor am i interested in what the crew said on a live transmission after so many previous public gaffs about ufos

 

you concentrate instead on any negatives you can grasp ..

 

now what about the 2 mins 52 secs to 2mins 57 secs segment and violent swerve then the almost instant course correction again.. and the 3min 58 sec segment where the object is unmistakably behind the tether..

Edited by manxman2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Manxman2 - I don't believe it is worthwhile continuing this back and forth - I believe the videos are small particles orbiting close to the shuttle illuminated in early morning light with the shadow of the shuttle also occassionally throwing the particles into darkness and then into light again.

 

The particles are orbiting around the shuttle, but due to the fact the camera has a fully open aperture and is focused on infinity the images are entirely blurred out with no perspective in the image. A circular orbit around the shuttle when you cannot see the perspective will make the object seem to suddenly change course - its an apparant movement - its stopped moving away from you and has started to swing back down towards you. I can't explain it easily in words, but if you observe the planets in orbit around the sun from earth you get similar effects as the orbits of earth and say Mars interact.

 

You are calling these changes course corrections - I feel that is entirely due to your biases - you can say the same thing about my explanation, but I don't need to add anything else to the mundane explanation given us by the astronauts themselves.

 

Over the tether I have now multiple times said that the tether is about 1 cm thich 70 miles away - to talk of its thickness in the image is to entirely mistake an artifact of the camera with reality. You are seeing pixels "top out" and are calling that something going behind. I totally disagree with you.

 

Nothing is being gained from this conversation, I am not refusing to be straight with you - pure and simple I totally disagree with your interpretation - that is as straight as I can be - I believe you are wrong, over-interpreting and ignoring the first hand evidence of those taking the pictures. Is that clear enough for you? I do not want to be rude, but enough all ready, lets agree to disagree.

 

At the moment there is no widely accepted evidence that these images tell us anything. There's lots of debunking, and lots of aspiration that they are showing us something important, but the simple fact is they are fuzzy indistinct images that infact don't tell us very much at all.

 

I fervantly hope that someday there will be good irrefutable evidence of alien life and extraterrestial intelligence - but I really expect that evidence to come from a NASA probe on Mars and SETI - both organizations with multiple billion dollar budgets to find such evidence - rather than Youtube claims that fly in the face of what real astronauts say.

 

Is this straight enough for you, or must this waste of our time continue - it is reasonably entertaining, but we are rapidly entering a time of reduced returns on our respective efforts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there was no need to write a bloody novel china i just want your opinion on those specific events and not obergs regurgitated.

 

you have been quite willing to hang your hat on obergs one article without any background work at all .. sure you use alot of words but you say very little ..

 

all you have done is repeat one nasa debunker to which i raised you 5 or 6 nasa believers of equal or superior rank.

 

you have tried and indeed are still trying to avoid a str8 answer to my specific points .. i can only conclude you cannot explain those specific events.

 

now yopur trying to steer the gist of the convo over to seti et al when they are interested in other life / i am interested in the technology aspect only.// you are right about one thing we do not having anything thurther to discuss with these events.

 

and why would it make a happeth worth of difference who hosts the vid clips .. again grasping at any negative rather than admit what your eyes are seeing. opical illusion it maybe but it happens just as i say no matter who hosts the clips.

Edited by manxman2
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

seeing how you put so much emphasis on the astronauts words ..

 

heres some more..

 

http://vodpod.com/watch/670161-nasa-ufo-re...huttle-missions

 

houston we still have the alien craft under observance. shuttle discovery.

 

just one of a multitude of those gaffs i mentioned earlier.

 

 

 

even the astronauts seem to mistake ice crystals for .. in their own wordS !!ALIEN CRAFT!! ..

Edited by manxman2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://kbmorgan.com/ufos/ufofiles/db713.htm

 

At 6.30 a.m. (EST), radio ham Donald Ratsch, who had been monitoring the communications of the space shuttle Discovery from his home in Baltimore, Maryland, heard the following communication: 'Houston, Discovery, we have a problem We have a fire'. Checking his recorder, he found that it had stopped, and inserted another tape. At 6.42 a.m., the following message was recorded: 'Uh, Houston, Uh, this is Discovery. We still have the alien spacecraft under observance.'

 

Between 6.30 and 6.40 a.m., another radio ham in Baltimore, Ron Trump, reported hearing the transmission: 'Kicking in breakers. Houston, we have a problem . . . We have a fire.' The communications of the Discovery (S TS-29) astronauts were being retransmitted over several frequencies by the Goddard Space Amateur Radio Club (WA3NAN) at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland. Only the unclassified channel or channels were being broadcast on 147.450mhz. Extensive investigation by Vincent DiPietro (whose report is available from the Fund for UFO Research) and former NASA mission specialist Bob Oechsler, revealed that the recorded voice was probably not that of any of the astronauts on board, according to Voice Identification Inc., a New Jersey company, for example, who concluded:

 

...the results of our analysis fall in the 'probable' range because of the limited number of words on the questioned recording. . . With the additional samples that you sent us we were able to locate more repetitions of each word, giving us a better basis for determining the intraspeaker variability of [crew member] Dr. Bagian's voice. From our preliminary analysis, his was the only one of the five astronauts whose voiceprints exhibited enough similarity to the questioned speaker to warrant further analysis. Upon further analysis... we found that there was more dis-similarity than similarity, indicating that Dr Bagian was not the questioned speaker... It is our opinion that in all probability none of the five astronauts made the questioned transmission. This analysis carries a low degree of confidence due to the previously mentioned limitations.

 

Colonel John Blaha, the captain, whose voice was also considered a possibility, denied that the incident had ever occurred. Bob Oechsler has told me that none of the communications heard by the radio hams was located on the official Discovery tapes and that the transmissions were made from the Fort Meade, Maryland area- where the National Security Agency has its headquarters.

 

Manxman2 - you can believe that there is some huge cover up if you want - yippee alien space craft are doing flybyes astronauts are hushing it all up, integrated circuits came from Roswell. Enjoy. I'm sure you think you are on to something. Keep on combing youtube I'm sure you'll prove it someday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.jamesoberg.com/kal-007.html he does exceedingly well with his debunking theories he has a theory and a book to sell from kennedy to the shuttle footage ffs .. a snake oil salesman is what you have dedicated your entire days postings on..

 

 

Manxman2 - you can believe that there is some huge cover up if you want - yippee alien space craft are doing flybyes astronauts are hushing it all up, integrated circuits came from Roswell. Enjoy. I'm sure you think you are on to something. Keep on combing youtube I'm sure you'll prove it someday.

 

i havent claimed any coverup. you are attempting again to throw the convo ofcourse.

 

and i watched hours worth of martin stubbs downloaded transmissions years ago .. the fact i chose easily avaliable clips is neither here nor there and i no way detracts from what appears on screen .. however we have now come to the nitty gritty .. attack the messenger time .. is that really all you have left..

 

the roswell quote was not from me .. but lest we forget it was from these 2 distinguished gentlemen..

 

philip corso http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_J._Corso

 

j edgar hoover. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Edgar_Hoover

 

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."

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Day_After_Roswell is the book corso published. a crisis of conscience..? .. or a pack of lies from a man with such a distinguished and honourable career.. .. i think he published because he knew he was dying which he did die less than a year later..

 

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."

 

hoover is refering to los alamos.

 

ofcourse they could all be lying all 400 that are signed up to the disclosure project .. pressuring for a private congressional hearing where they will not be bound by the official secrets act..

Edited by manxman2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

or how the legendary flying-saucer crash outside Roswell, New Mexico in 1947 helped America win the cold war. Retired colonel Philip Corso had, he claimed in these colourful 1997 memoirs, worked on alien technology recovered from the crash, and managed to obtain a glowing blurb for the book from a US senator. The senator later claimed that he'd been deceived by Corso - his testimonial had been written for a different book altogether - and his plug was removed from later edition

 

and that makes corso a liar why or how..?

 

corso knew he was dying the senator wasnt and would have to live with the fallout.

 

corso achieved all this.

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

 

then wrote a book about his work during his dying days.. .. go figure his words .. i think the kids of the world deserve the truth. .. what use was money to him where he was headed..?

Edited by manxman2

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Guest
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.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...