Evidence: The Case For NASA UFO's - Part 1

[star.logic]

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-5070476612863849446&q=nasa

A very well detailed analysis of the UFO's caught on NASA's satellite UV camera's.


What do you think?

[Seismosaurus]

Oh dear me...

One of his arguments, summarised :

1) Stars are far away so aliens would have to travel huge distances, probably at near light speeds, to get here.
2) Relativity says it takes huge energy for a spaceship to travel at near light speeds.
3) Photons in the shorter than visible light range have the most energy.
4) SETI looks for radio signals, which have low energy because they are longer than visible light.

Conclusion : This is why SETI has not detected aliens.

Do I even need to say anything about that?

[star.logic]

Nope looks like everything is in perfect logical order. Thanks for the reply, post again if you'd like.

[Jeff Corey]

Sure are UFOs, no doubt. Unidentified Floating Objects.

[Timble]

Yes, the usual floaty bits and blobs. I've seen some of this stuff before, it could actually be anything.

[star.logic]

You haven't watched the whole video have you?

Well it's a lot more than just those NASA videos.

And no, it couldn't be anything, unless of course you don't mind the laws of physics.

[LaPalida]

What are those floating disk thingys that are pulsating anyway? Surely not asteroids... satellites? Is this really NASA footage though or is it some kind of video hoax?

[Jeff Corey]

You haven't watched the whole video have you?

Well it's a lot more than just those NASA videos.

And no, it couldn't be anything, unless of course you don't mind the laws of physics.
No, I don't mind the laws of physics, I use them every day. But I watched the video footage and was not impressed.
So sue me.

[Miss Whiplash]

You haven't watched the whole video have you?

Well it's a lot more than just those NASA videos.

And no, it couldn't be anything, unless of course you don't mind the laws of physics.

In any event, you sound convinced. Did the tinfoil hat help you reach this conclusion?

[Skeptic Guy]

1) It was produced by "Terra Entertainment". (Emphasis mine)
2) It is hosted by Dan Ackroyd. Don't get me wrong, I think he is one of the best comedic actors there ever was, but he has bought this stuff hook, line, and sinker.
3) The video of space junk floating around reminds me of the "orbs" phenomenon that the ghost hunters harp on all the time.

The "most powerful evidence" of UFOs? Don't see it.

[FramerDave]

I see nothing compelling in the video. Bits of space debris floating about.

The one that did the 90 degree turn most likely hit a jet from and OMS firing.

The disk or doughnut-shaped ones are small bits close to the camera and focus.

The flashy ones? They're tumbling. Pulsating? I'm sure someone with more knowledge of CCD devices can fill us in, but I'd bet it's simply an imaging artefact.

Dropa stones? Oh good lord.

If this is their evidence they need to do better.

Tell us what YOU think of it, star.logic.

[Patricio Elicer]

What are those floating disk thingys that are pulsating anyway? Surely not asteroids... satellites? Is this really NASA footage though or is it some kind of video hoax?I have not seen the video yet, but I bet the Shuttle Tether Video (http://www.rense.com/general/stsd.htm) is in there. Pretty impressive stuff, well until you find out that it's just ice and debries floating on the proximity.

[star.logic]

What are those floating disk thingys that are pulsating anyway? Surely not asteroids... satellites? Is this really NASA footage though or is it some kind of video hoax?

Well, that's what we must describe/explain here and now!

No hoax, it was the footage NASA's cameras recorded.

In any event, you sound convinced.


I know what this film holds!


Did the tinfoil hat help you reach this conclusion?

It did not assist me!

1) It was produced by "Terra Entertainment". (Emphasis mine)
2) It is hosted by Dan Ackroyd. Don't get me wrong, I think he is one of the best comedic actors there ever was, but he has bought this stuff hook, line, and sinker.


Pay attention to the important aspects and you'll get the message!


3) The video of space junk floating around reminds me of the "orbs" phenomenon that the ghost hunters harp on all the time.


Some would say..."SAME THING!".


The "most powerful evidence" of UFOs? Don't see it.

You saw them, you just don't know it!

Please be more specific so I may help relate to what you're talking about, within the film!

I see nothing compelling in the video.

Your opinion!


Bits of space debris floating about.


Space debris, or "junk", does not move as if it were a craft, traveling at very high speeds, making turns, or stopping. Essentally acting as an intelligent object!


The one that did the 90 degree turn most likely hit a jet from and OMS firing.


There was no sign of anything else in the vacinity, and the object remained intact, as well as there are other instances of these high-speed turns being conducted!

Many of them, in other videos as well!


Tell us what YOU think of it, star.logic.

What would you like to know?

[Patricio Elicer]

As I expected, the video of the Tether Experiment is persistently shown. But the original audio is wiped out, why?. When the astronaut on the shuttle is asked about those "objects" in the foreground, he replies that it is "debries illuminated by the sun". Surely such an explanation would diminish the "entertainment".

Here's a video of the Tether Experiment "UFO's" and the original audio (6+ min).

As-wYmFYb3I

[Patricio Elicer]

Space debris, or "junk", does not move as if it were a craft, traveling at very high speeds, making turns, or stopping. Essentally acting as an intelligent object!I don't recall seeing any object stopping and/or making turns on the video. But if it were so, why do you think that that fact makes them intelligent objects?

EDIT: The debris can actually change direction when jet engines are turned on. Take a look:

Shuttle STS-48 VIDEO (http://www.yorkville.k12.il.us/webquests/webqeichhammer3/sts48.mpeg)

[grayman]

:rolleyes: "Houston we are being investigated by giant space jellyfish".

[Wowbagger]

Everyone knows there's no such thing as UFOs!!!!




(er... please ignore the ship in my avatar)

[fuelair]

You haven't watched the whole video have you?

Well it's a lot more than just those NASA videos.

And no, it couldn't be anything, unless of course you don't mind the laws of physics.


I teach physics, you sound like you need to take them (look it up).

[star.logic]

^ On topic, please! Refer to the video! Thank you!


But the original audio is wiped out, why?


Most likely for clarity, and simply provide visual, while the man can speak.


When the astronaut on the shuttle is asked about those "objects" in the foreground, he replies that it is "debries illuminated by the sun".


Remember, these don't behave like debris do, and I cannot comment on the position of the sun.


I don't recall seeing any object stopping and/or making turns on the video.


They're there!


But if it were so, why do you think that that fact makes them intelligent objects?


That does not! The intelligence causing the craft to navigate in that manner would!


EDIT: The debris can actually change direction when jet engines are turned on. Take a look:


Very possible!



Shuttle STS-48 VIDEO (http://www.yorkville.k12.il.us/webquests/webqeichhammer3/sts48.mpeg)

You have found another video of the same phenomena! Another indicator of intelligence, as this time, an unknown force/energy/object is emitted from the earth, apparently heading for the object in motion, which then abruptly moves out of the way!


:rolleyes: "Houston we are being investigated by giant space jellyfish".

The astronauts do have something to say, and it doesn't involve "space jellyfish", although I don't know if anything does!

Everyone knows there's no such thing as UFOs!!!!


One would be lead to believe if not for the ability to think on one's own!

[Loss Leader]

Yeah, I didn't take time to watch this viedo but I've seen the tether video. A couple points:

Video taken in space is very, very deceptive. There is very little that can be used for scale. That makes it very hard to tell how big anything is. Not only that, since it isn't stereoscopic video, it's very hard to tell where objects are in relation to each other. It doesn't show a 3D field.

Add to that the fact that you have no idea what camera is turned on, how its focussed or what it's looking at. In the tether video, the camera is so badly out of focus that the tether with a diameter of an inch or so appears to have a diameter of a hundred feet.

The space shuttle regularly dumps water, urine and all sorts of other waste. This stuff tends to do what everything in space does - just hang out where you put it. The space shuttle regularly flies around in a haze of its own waste.

Liquids in space behave strangely. Sheilded from sunlight, it instantly freezes. If the sun hits any of it, that part begins to boil. Until another part of it protects it from the sun at which point it freezes again. All of these forces can cause a water droplet to move and change course in unpredictable ways.

Any movement of the shuttle will seem like apparant movement of the things in the camera's field of view. Not only that, but the shuttles engines will disturb any debris around the shuttle , causing it to move and change course again in unpredictable ways.

The end result is that a lay person cannot know what a video taken from space is showing. The best that one can do is rely on experts. Luckily, there were at least seven of them around when the video was taken. The lack of excitement on the part of the astronauts is the best clue that there is nothing unusual in the video.

And remember, these are people who have dedicated their entire lives to getting into space. If their childhood dreams of meeting aliens were ever to even hint at coming true, they would be the first to geek out like a high school girl getting front row seats at Death Cab for Cutie.

[LaPalida]

I have not seen the video yet, but I bet the Shuttle Tether Video (http://www.rense.com/general/stsd.htm) is in there. Pretty impressive stuff, well until you find out that it's just ice and debries floating on the proximity.

Hey, thanks for that link! Now it all makes sense. I read this all in the morning. I don't like to dismiss things just because they are popularly rejected by the skeptic community. I am a skeptic and I like to investigate strange things on my own. Again thanks for your help. It turns out that the "disks" are either debris (like water being dumped overboard) or distant star fields. The dark spots in the center of the circular objects is simply the camera dimming their centers to compesate for the fact that they are very very bright. The very large "disks" are distant stars that are out of focus. The notches in the "disks" are camera artifacts. The paper explains this fairly well. Too bad that people jump to conclusions first and then rationalize their thinking to fit the conclusion disregarding evidence to the contrary.

[Starthinker]

Virtually all of this has been discussed before. Just dig down a few pages and you'll probably find all the threads you need.

[star.logic]

^ There has yet to be an explanation on the mobility of the objects, how the objects can travel around the planet in very quick speeds (seconds), how the objects change direction, moving at 10,000 (approximate) miles per hour, and do not rip to pieces!

All of these indicate something special about these objects! And there is much more, kept within that video!





They looked very organized and similar to be junk, and I don't believe I ever see any contact one another.

[Astrophotographer]

Most likely for clarity, and simply provide visual, while the man can speak.!

Hmmm...or maybe to present a certain point of view?



Remember, these don't behave like debris do, and I cannot comment on the position of the sun..

So you haven't really researched it. You just accept the video at face value?



That does not! The intelligence causing the craft to navigate in that manner would!

And your conclusion is based on what? What you want to believe? Do you have the time tags and data behind this video? Do you have any idea what the shuttle was doing at this moment in time that could cause an apparent or possible change in direction? Until you can provide this information or access it, your conclusion is based on what you want to believe and not what is possible.

The only thing I see in these videos are distant specs or out of focus specs. There are no definitive objects in these videos. I can go outside and video/photograph plenty of specs of light at night and some will appear to behave in a strange way. However, they are not spaceships and could easily be something more mundane. Drawing a conclusion from video made be a TV show designed to sell the idea that "UFO=alien spaceship" is not very scientific.

[The Bad Astronomer]

Sigh. More of this, eh?

1) You don't know how far away the objects are. If they are miles away, then they are moving at incredible speeds. But if they are pieces of ice a meter away, they are moving very slowly. Which is more likely, given that we know ice comes off the Shuttle all the time?

2) It is not just "possible" that the jets can make objects move and change directions, it is a proven fact. The STS 48 video has been thoroughly debunked by not just James Oberg, NASA historian, but also by Ron Parise, a Shuttle astronaut.

3) The video to which you link has been heavily edited and slanted not to tell the truth, but to convince you they are right. You need to find other venues, like Oberg and Parise, to get a more balanced (and truthful) view.

4) If these are really alien craft, then NASA has nothing to lose by revealing them and claiming they are aliens. In fact, they have everything to gain. NASA is constantly battling for money (I have very personal experience with this, as more than one project I have worked on was canned), and proof of aliens would give them more money than they could spend.

5) If these are aliens, and NASA wants to cover them up, why have they done such an awful job of it? Why make these videos public at all? Whistleblowers? Nope. These are official NASA releases.

So, my professional opinion about this video is: feh.

That is quotable.

[Starthinker]

^ There has yet to be an explanation on the mobility of the objects, how the objects can travel around the planet in very quick speeds (seconds), how the objects change direction, moving at 10,000 (approximate) miles per hour, and do not rip to pieces!

All of these indicate something special about these objects! And there is much more, kept within that video!





They looked very organized and similar to be junk, and I don't believe I ever see any contact one another.

You misread my post. Yes, there were explanations. Look for the other threads.

[Soapy Sam]

Life's too short to waste 1 1/2 hours on flared out images of out of focus dust.

As Mr.Ackroyd says "The volume and quality of the evidence is undeniable and irrefutable".

Someone has been dumping urine out the airlock again.

[Loss Leader]

Sigh. More of this, eh?


I'm not listening to a word you say until you admit that you were too harsh about Superman's cape in your review of Superman Returns. Superman was moving - flying up, stopping, turning - and all of those things would impart some motion on the cape. It did not look like there was a breeze in space. It certainly did not behave in the ridiculous manner of Superman IV.

Admit this, and I will consider the possibility that this stupid out-of-context shuttle video of urine is not the UFO evidence it claims to be. Stick to your position and I will never consider your opinions again.

9Man, I hope it's clear that I'm joking. But not about the cape, though. I thought it looked good.)

[LaPalida]

Does anybody know how much the lost satellite cost? Any idea on whether or not NASA will be repeating the experiment? It looked so promising :(

[star.logic]

Hmmm...or maybe to present a certain point of view?


What I said.


So you haven't really researched it. You just accept the video at face value?


Incorrect!


And your conclusion is based on what?


Logic and compilations of information/evidence from various sources!


What you want to believe?


Of course!


The only thing I see in these videos are distant specs or out of focus specs.


They can be described various amounts of ways.


There are no definitive objects in these videos.


Your last quote speaks of them!


I can go outside and video/photograph plenty of specs of light at night and some will appear to behave in a strange way.


You cannot reproduce this video!


However, they are not spaceships and could easily be something more mundane.


Anything is possible!


Drawing a conclusion from video made be a TV show designed to sell the idea that "UFO=alien spaceship" is not very scientific.

The aim here is "finding the truth"! Logic is applied to information/data, and a conclusion is drawn based on probabilities.


Sigh. More of this, eh?


Tired?


1) You don't know how far away the objects are.


They overlap the earth, giving us quite a tangible limitation to their distance!


If they are miles away, then they are moving at incredible speeds.


See above quote!


But if they are pieces of ice a meter away, they are moving very slowly. Which is more likely, given that we know ice comes off the Shuttle all the time?


Ice is not powered, these objects moved under a force! They were self-propelled.


2) It is not just "possible" that the jets can make objects move and change directions, it is a proven fact.


Yes, I deem it highly possible, and has most likely happened many times before and after!


3) The video to which you link has been heavily edited and slanted not to tell the truth, but to convince you they are right.


They have provided a view very different from yours, this does not make them liars!


4) If these are really alien craft, then NASA has nothing to lose by revealing them and claiming they are aliens.


They have much to lose!


In fact, they have everything to gain.


See above quote!


NASA is constantly battling for money (I have very personal experience with this, as more than one project I have worked on was canned), and proof of aliens would give them more money than they could spend.


"Money" would change if this was revealed!


5) If these are aliens, and NASA wants to cover them up, why have they done such an awful job of it?


I'd say they're doing a wonderful job, as people do not know!

Why do more than necessary? As you said, they are short on funds!


Why make these videos public at all?


Why not? Nothing to lose!


Whistleblowers? Nope.


There is an astronaut!


These are official NASA releases.


Yes, as I stated earlier.


So, my professional opinion about this video is


Not what I'm looking for! Thank you!

You misread my post. Yes, there were explanations. Look for the other threads.

Maybe later!

Life's too short to waste 1 1/2 hours on flared out images of out of focus dust.

Your opinion!


As Mr.Ackroyd says "The volume and quality of the evidence is undeniable and irrefutable".


His opinion!


Someone has been dumping urine out the airlock again.

???

[Buckaroo]

^ There has yet to be an explanation on the mobility of the objects, how the objects can travel around the planet in very quick speeds (seconds), how the objects change direction, moving at 10,000 (approximate) miles per hour, and do not rip to pieces!

All of these indicate something special about these objects! And there is much more, kept within that video!

Star.logic, pay attention while the grownups are talking. If you actually read what others have posted here, you may (though based on your posts to this point, I think it's unlikely) begin to understand why your statement falls outside the realm of self-deception and into that of simple mind-numbing stupidity.

[Jim_MDP]

Another ex-NASA dood sez...

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/69745669f4d7b862.jpg


Oh and...

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/69745669f4db59da.jpg


Gotta go find that other stoopid thread of yours now.

[Mojo]

The "most powerful evidence" of UFOs? Don't see it.The fact that it's totally unconvincing doesn't mean that it's not "the most powerful evidence of UFOs". ;)

[davidsmith73]

EDIT: The debris can actually change direction when jet engines are turned on. Take a look:

Shuttle STS-48 VIDEO (http://www.yorkville.k12.il.us/webquests/webqeichhammer3/sts48.mpeg)

A question on this video.

Why don't we see the position of the camera change in relation to earth if what we are seeing is movement of an ice particle due to the flashing thrusters?

Would such a camera movement be too small to notice with the naked eye?

[Cuddles]

They have provided a view very different from yours, this does not make them liars!

But on the other hand, them being liars does provide them with a very different view from ours.

[wahrheit]

As long as these idiot aliens in their fancy UFOs can't come up with something more impressive than moving lights on our CCD sensors, I'm not interested in them.

[DeviousB]

Ice is not powered, these objects moved under a force! They were self-propelled.

Does not follow. That something moves (or more properly, accelerates) does not indicate self-propulsion. Bullets accelerate, but are not self-propelled.

[DeviousB]

Why don't we see the position of the camera change in relation to earth if what we are seeing is movement of an ice particle due to the flashing thrusters?

Would such a camera movement be too small to notice with the naked eye?

Yes, space-shuttles being ever so slightly more massive than dust particles.

[Jocce]

A few questions relating the bolded parts star.

There has yet to be an explanation on the mobility of the objects, how the objects can travel around the planet in very quick speeds (seconds), how the objects change direction, moving at 10,000 (approximate) miles per hour, and do not rip to pieces!

All of these indicate something special about these objects! And there is much more, kept within that video!

1. Where is your evidence showing that one or more of these objects actually "traveled around the planet". It's not in the part of the video I've looked at.

2. You can't see any other reason for apparent velocity changes than intelligence steering the blobs?

3. Show me your calculations for your approximation of speed (approx 10 000 mph).

Thank you.

[Jocce]

On another note. Some of what the UFO guy says really speaks volumes

"Cameras, telescopes and radar are limited to the electromagnetic spectrum" Well...duh!

"a spacecraft heading our direction even beyond the speed of light" ahem...why is he refering to mc^2 all the time if he doesn't "believe" in it?

"SETI is looking in the wrong places" Yeah of course, any and all EM waves comming our direction would be from vehicles nearing the speed of light...or?

etc...etc... love the dramatic music though...

[davidsmith73]

Yes, space-shuttles being ever so slightly more massive than dust particles.

We probably agree that thrusters are designed to actually move the shuttle!
I was wondering on what you base your statement that such a movement would not be noticeable on this video?

[Foolmewunz]

I am always gob-smacked at the participants at JREF. I was totally unaware that The Bad Astronomer was The Bad Astronomer.

(Giggling with excitement....) Dr. Phil Plait, hisself! Here on JREF with the likes of me!

I'm an unabashed fan!

I don't suppose it's spamming if I plug his book here? If it is, well I'll accept the admonishment; it's worth it. http://as.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0471409766.html
(And you can check his profile for link to his blog.)

If you, like me, have no knowledge of Astronomy, it's a wonderfully "user-friendly" book. (StardotLogic, you might want to talk to the mother ship and see if they have it on a microchip.... It'd do a lot to offset the damage you've undergone reading the five hundred plus pages of drivel that Greer has compiled out of yet more drivel that's been circulating for years.)

Okay - back to your discussions with stardotlogic. I can't wait for the discussions of Karl Wolfe and the photos he saw of the ET base on the dark side of the moon! :popcorn2

[Loss Leader]

I'm just about ready to call cat time. The video has been roundly debunked. star.logic has been told exactly what the video shows, given directions to similar threads and heard from The Bad Astronomer himself. Clinging to the UFO explanation now is more than just ignorance, it's wilfull disregard of the truth.

[Geek Goddess]

The fact that it's totally unconvincing doesn't mean that it's not "the most powerful evidence of UFOs". ;)

Great line, Mojo. May I use it?

[wahrheit]

I'm just about ready to call cat time. The video has been roundly debunked. star.logic has been told exactly what the video shows, given directions to similar threads and heard from The Bad Astronomer himself. Clinging to the UFO explanation now is more than just ignorance, it's wilfull disregard of the truth.

I was about to post a message exactly like yours. Being of different opinion is a fine thing, but the outright ignorance of star.logic strongly reminds me of troll posts.

[Geek Goddess]

I am always gob-smacked at the participants at JREF. I was totally unaware that The Bad Astronomer was The Bad Astronomer.

(Giggling with excitement....) Dr. Phil Plait, hisself! Here on JREF with the likes of me!

I'm an unabashed fan!



Is it not totally cool? I have degrees in chemistry and chemical engineering, and feel SO uneducated compared to the people I run across here. Which is great!

In regards to this thread - Dr. Shermer's book "Why People Believe Weird Things" had some pithy comments about UFO believers. I would quote them here, but I keep lending out my books to friends. Most of the people I run across that believe in this stuff simply don't have the background to understand any technical explanations. I like to point out to them that reports of sightings of UFOs didn't start occurring until science fiction hit its Golden Age 70-80 years ago, and really didn't take off until the 1950s showed a big increase in SF movies. After "Close Encounters", all the 'sighted' aliens tended to be tall and spindly with big heads. Groupthink.

[davidsmith73]

After "Close Encounters", all the 'sighted' aliens tended to be tall and spindly with big heads.

Apparently, Spielburg based his aliens on descriptions from real reports of supposed close encounters. I do buy the theory that UFO/alien reports are influenced by popular culture. But in reality, popular culture is influenced by real events too (when I say "real events" I mean that the reports are real, not that ET's are real).

[Patricio Elicer]

A question on this video.

Why don't we see the position of the camera change in relation to earth if what we are seeing is movement of an ice particle due to the flashing thrusters?

Would such a camera movement be too small to notice with the naked eye?I can think at least of 3 reasons why there's no noticeable movement of the camera, that adds together:

1) The video segment is too short.
2) The thrusters are commonly used to do fine position adjustments.
3) The background reference, the Earth, is too far away.

You shall note that not even the shuttle rotation motion around the Earth is noticeable in that footage.

[DeviousB]

We probably agree that thrusters are designed to actually move the shuttle!
I was wondering on what you base your statement that such a movement would not be noticeable on this video?

The on-orbit control system of the shuttle uses a system of six vernier thrusters that put out about 10N of force each. As I pointed out previously, the shuttle is fairly massive (70,000 to 90,000 kgs, depending on load), so if all the vernier thrusters were on the same side of the shuttle (they are not), and fired simultaneously, you would get 60N of force accelerating 70-90 tonnes of spacecraft, i.e. less than 1 mm/second^2

[FramerDave]

I honestly just don't understand it. Let's try this again:

If you want to know how fast these things are moving, you need to know how far away they are. Do you know how far away they are, and if so, how?

A good way to figure out how far they are is their apparent size vs. actual size. Do you know their actual size? If so, how?


If you don't know either one then you're just guessing. You've been given explanations completely in line with known science, yet you reject them in favor of something for which you have no evidence. Why is this? Seriously, I want to understand the thought process.

[Loss Leader]

Seriously, I want to understand the thought process.

1. UFO's are cool.
2. My life is not.
3. My life would be more interesting if there were UFOs.
4. Thus, UFOs exist.

[Big Les]

1. UFO's are cool.
2. My life is not.
3. My life would be more interesting if there were UFOs.
4. Thus, UFOs exist.

Word. This could work for just about anything covered on this forum. "Insert woo here".

[Astrophotographer]

Logic and compilations of information/evidence from various sources!

Feel free to list your sources OTHER THAN this video.


The aim here is "finding the truth"! Logic is applied to information/data, and a conclusion is drawn based on probabilities.

Logic??? This is an awkward form of logic that states that it can't be this or that and MUST BE alien spaceships. You have yet to provide any data for each of these videos to suggest they are nothing more than specks of ice/dust in space floating around the shuttle and the motions can be attributed to thruster fires, the shuttle changing position, or something else. It is MORE PROBABLE that the specks are just ice and dust around the shuttle since the shuttle always has such items floating about it. It is MORE PROBABLE that the change in direction of these floating specs have something to do with the shuttle affecting these dust/ice specks.

[The Bad Astronomer]

We probably agree that thrusters are designed to actually move the shuttle!
I was wondering on what you base your statement that such a movement would not be noticeable on this video?

There are different thrusters on the Shuttle that do different things. For example, the Shuttle needs to stay in the correct "attitude" -- that is position (rotation, XYZ axis, however you want to describe it) relative to Earth -- as it orbits. Various forces cause it to rotate a little, so there are smaller rockets on the sides that give just enough force to very slowly rotate the Shuttle in the opposite direction. I think the thrust is like 25 pounds (though I don't recall exactly); the orbiter weighs over 150,000 pounds, so you can imagine that rocket doesn't move it very quickly! The astronaut I talked to about this (Ron Parise, the guy I mentioned in my post on the first page) said it sounds like a dull thump when it ignites.

So the movement of the orbiter when this rocket fires is very tiny (which is the why the Earth doesn't appear to move), but an ice particle caught in the exhaust will go flying. That's why you see them change direction. In fact, in the video. The change in direction usually preceded by a flash of light. That's the rocket firing.

In more fact, Ron looked up the timings of the video and the rocket firing, and surprise! They line up.

So these aren't UFOs of any sort. They're ice particles caught in the exhaust of a rocket.

[The Bad Astronomer]

I am always gob-smacked at the participants at JREF. I was totally unaware that The Bad Astronomer was The Bad Astronomer.

(Giggling with excitement....) Dr. Phil Plait, hisself! Here on JREF with the likes of me!


I've been on the forum since 2002, so I can even call you a noob.


I'm an unabashed fan!

I don't suppose it's spamming if I plug his book here? If it is, well I'll accept the admonishment; it's worth it. http://as.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0471409766.html
(And you can check his profile for link to his blog.)



That's very nice, thank you. But if you must link to it, you should use the URL on my site, so I make extra money.

Some fan you turned out to be. They'll let anyone on the boards these days...

[Foolmewunz]

I've been on the forum since 2002, so I can even call you a noob.



That's very nice, thank you. But if you must link to it, you should use the URL on my site, so I make extra money.

Some fan you turned out to be. They'll let anyone on the boards these days...

Well... Harrumph!

Let's do this with subtlety then.... dum de dum de dum....

Say, fellow posters! If you'd like a really good book, try the following link:

http://www.badastronomy.com/amazon.html

(Tongue deeply embedded in cheek.)


:spjimlad:

[wahrheit]

I've been on the forum since 2002, so I can even call you a noob.
Only a n00b spells n00b "noob".

:duck:

[personable]

I notice Dan Akroyd seemed rather pensive and often looked across nervously at someone off camera. Clearly he was being held at laser-point by some extra terrestrial being, and if that isn't irrefutable evidence of alien occupation I don't know what is.

[star.logic]

As long as these idiot aliens in their fancy UFOs can't come up with something more impressive than moving lights on our CCD sensors, I'm not interested in them.

That will have consequences!

Does not follow. That something moves (or more properly, accelerates) does not indicate self-propulsion. Bullets accelerate, but are not self-propelled.


I am relating to the film in question here!

A few questions relating the bolded parts star.
1. Where is your evidence showing that one or more of these objects actually "traveled around the planet". It's not in the part of the video I've looked at.


That's to be expected, if you haven't looked at it yet, then it's probaby yet to be looked at! Watch the video!


2. You can't see any other reason for apparent velocity changes than intelligence steering the blobs?


Yes! I can!


3. Show me your calculations for your approximation of speed (approx 10 000 mph).
Thank you.

For what? It's very likely They're on the video!
(StardotLogic, you might want to talk to the mother ship and see if they have it on a microchip....


That's a question for another time!


It'd do a lot to offset the damage you've undergone reading the five hundred plus pages of drivel that Greer has compiled out of yet more drivel that's been circulating for years.


If you have sustained damage, please seek help!


Okay - back to your discussions with stardotlogic. I can't wait for the discussions of Karl Wolfe and the photos he saw of the ET base on the dark side of the moon! :popcorn2

There are various photographs, compared to the ones released by NASA some time ago, in which there are obvious "fuzzes" "blurrs" or markings where the graphics were airbrushed out! The newly released photographs show what was actually there!

I'm just about ready to call cat time.

Cat time?? Maybe you mean sleep!?


The video has been roundly debunked.


If you say so!


star.logic has been told exactly what the video shows


Where?


given directions to similar threads and heard from The Bad Astronomer himself.


And???


Clinging to the UFO explanation now is more than just ignorance, it's wilfull disregard of the truth.

It seems you are extending your knowledge a bit too far! You have gotten ahead of yourself in explanation!

You've been given explanations completely in line with known science, yet you reject them in favor of something for which you have no evidence.

This has not been done! The explanations put forth do not explain everything!

I was about to post a message exactly like yours. Being of different opinion is a fine thing, but the outright ignorance of star.logic strongly reminds me of troll posts.

Maybe you should speak with "troll" ???

1. UFO's are cool.
2. My life is not.
3. My life would be more interesting if there were UFOs.
4. Thus, UFOs exist.

This is incorrect! It seems you have obtained only a "face" value of what the term "UFO" actually represents!

[Jocce]

Originally Posted by star.logic

That's to be expected, if you haven't looked at it yet, then it's probaby yet to be looked at! Watch the video!

Are you trying to tell me that somewhere in this 1.5 hour long film there is actually a sequence showing one of these blobs making a full orbit around the globe? I doubt it.

Originally Posted by star.logic
Yes! I can!

Good! So you're convinced that the rest of us are probably right then and that these things are probably just debris floating around?

For what? It's very likely They're on the video!
Are your calculations in the video or is it very likely your calculations are in the video or is it just your unfounded opinion/guess/hunch that these things move in 10000mph?

And "For what?" Because you claim it, now prove it kid.

[DeviousB]

Various forces cause it to rotate a little, so there are smaller rockets on the sides that give just enough force to very slowly rotate the Shuttle in the opposite direction. I think the thrust is like 25 pounds (though I don't recall exactly); the orbiter weighs over 150,000 pounds, so you can imagine that rocket doesn't move it very quickly!

Bad Bad Astronomer! The avoirdupois pound, quite apart from being non-SI, is a unit of mass, the unit of thrust is pounds-force!

[Spindrift]

So these aren't UFOs of any sort. They're ice particles caught in the exhaust of a rocket.

These are absolutely UFOs, of a sort - Urine Frozen Objects, they are believed to have originated in the Constellation Urion.

[Steve H]

:rolleyes: http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-5070476612863849446&q=nasa

A very well detailed analysis of the UFO's caught on NASA's satellite UV camera's.


What do you think?


The video? Lame woo. Your posts since? Lacking in substance.

These kind of attempts to promote flying saucers crack me up. First we are told NASA and the PTB can't be trusted to reveal "the truth" and then we are shown NASA footage to promote this nonsense!

[Beerina]

Apparently, Spielburg based his aliens on descriptions from real reports of supposed close encounters. I do buy the theory that UFO/alien reports are influenced by popular culture. But in reality, popular culture is influenced by real events too (when I say "real events" I mean that the reports are real, not that ET's are real).

Prior to the more-or-less invention of UFOs, people spotted fairies and demons all over the place. This changed to "greys" (although the vast variation in "police sketches" of aliens is well-documented, they come from almost as many different species as there are sightings!) is an example of the fantasy nature of it, although some UFOlogists twist it back around yet again to suggest it is evidence of their reality because people misinterpreted the earlier "sightings" of fairies, etc. as being of aliens that were not understood.

[Beerina]

Does not follow. That something moves (or more properly, accelerates) does not indicate self-propulsion. Bullets accelerate, but are not self-propelled.

Not once they leave the gun, they don't, although they do slow down (accelerate negatively) because of air resistence. Still, it's been pointed out that if these were frozen particles, they could boil on one side because of the sun, and thus move around, and, if they are small particles near the shuttle, a blast of steering jets or whatnot will send them careening. A sudden 30mph gust of wind will knock a light fleck flying very suddenly and quickly, and make it look like it's suddently altered thousands of MPH if you misinterpret it as being very far away.

[davidsmith73]

Prior to the more-or-less invention of UFOs, people spotted fairies and demons all over the place. This changed to "greys"

I haven't read enough on the history of "alien" encounters to make an informed comment.

I was wondering whether the first appearance of the "greys" coincides, in history, with the first appearance of the typical "flying saucer" reports of UFO's ? (late 40's, early 50's ?)


(although the vast variation in "police sketches" of aliens is well-documented, they come from almost as many different species as there are sightings!)

Are the majority "greys"?


although some UFOlogists twist it back around yet again to suggest it is evidence of their reality because people misinterpreted the earlier "sightings" of fairies, etc. as being of aliens that were not understood.

If aliens do exist and have been visiting us, lets say for a few hundred years, then I find it quite plausible that they were interpreted as faires and demons. Not much point in speculating about that though.

[FramerDave]

I haven't read enough on the history of "alien" encounters to make an informed comment.

I was wondering whether the first appearance of the "greys" coincides, in history, with the first appearance of the typical "flying saucer" reports of UFO's ? (late 40's, early 50's ?)



I haven't found anything definitive, but I have seen mention that the typical "grey" we hear about in purported UFO abductions started appearing right about the time Close Encounters came out, in 1977 I believe.

I'd have to dig around to be sure, but I recall reading that the aliens in Close Encounters were inspired by creatures from an episode of The Twilight Zone.

Considering the huge exposure of the movie, I'd think it would be a safe bet that Close Encounters is responsible for the appearance of the greys.

Interestingly, the appearance of aliens seems to be cultural. For instance, many reports of aliens in South America featured reports of reptillian-like creatures consistently. I'd wager that the appearance of aliens has become much more homogeneous given the spread of American pop culture throughout the world.

[Loss Leader]

These kind of attempts to promote flying saucers crack me up. First we are told NASA and the PTB can't be trusted to reveal "the truth" and then we are shown NASA footage to promote this nonsense!

Not only a NASA video but a video released in the normal course of operations by NASA, the very people who are supposed to be covering it up.

[This Guy]

Not only a NASA video but a video released in the normal course of operations by NASA, the very people who are supposed to be covering it up.

Well, obviously they only release the easily debunk-able stuff!

The REAL evidence is locked away under a mountain, in the secret vault, near where the alien bodies are kept!

Or is it Area 51?

Whatever :covereyes

[NoZed Avenger]

In order to be convincing, we need less "facts" and more! exclamation! points!!

[Bell]

I'm not sure if it has been mentioned before, but...

UFO != flying saucer piloted by anus probing aliens

[Correa Neto]

I haven't found anything definitive, but I have seen mention that the typical "grey" we hear about in purported UFO abductions started appearing right about the time Close Encounters came out, in 1977 I believe.

I'd have to dig around to be sure, but I recall reading that the aliens in Close Encounters were inspired by creatures from an episode of The Twilight Zone.

Considering the huge exposure of the movie, I'd think it would be a safe bet that Close Encounters is responsible for the appearance of the greys.

Interestingly, the appearance of aliens seems to be cultural. For instance, many reports of aliens in South America featured reports of reptillian-like creatures consistently. I'd wager that the appearance of aliens has become much more homogeneous given the spread of American pop culture throughout the world.

Not exactly. Back in my woo days (pre- Close Encounters) I was part of a UFOlogy group, and there were already reports from little grey men. The aliens pictured at he movie were supposed to be the "most reliable" rendering of a "real" alien, backed by Hynek's studies (he even made a cameo in the movie). Of course, the sightings of this type of alien increased after the movie... An there was some revisionism also. Can't find a link, but I remember seeing at an old UFOlogy book a pre- Close Encounters drawing of an alien from the Hill case. It looked like a mini Spok, pointed ears included. Nowdays, they're reported as greys...

As for the reptilians, I am not sure they are more consistent in South America. I may be wrong, but I think they are quite common in North America, because of David Icke.

I suspect te "reptillian affair" was triggered by a sci-fi series from the early 80's. It was about an alien species identical to humans that actually were carnivorous reptiles disguised. They came to Earth passing as friends and slowly take controll of the society and then start using humans as food.

http://members.tripod.com/Vicki_98/faq.htm#1.%20%20The%20Genesis%20of

[fuelair]

I'm not sure if it has been mentioned before, but...

UFO != flying saucer piloted by anus probing aliens

and that might explain someone heres' interest in them!!!!! Should have realized that myself!!! Sometimes the obvious explanation is the simplest one!!!
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :D :D :jaw-dropp :rolleyes: :D :D :eek:

[luchog]

Is it not totally cool? I have degrees in chemistry and chemical engineering, and feel SO uneducated compared to the people I run across here. Which is great!

This is a truly odd place. The woos here have such a low level of scientific knowledge that they make me feel like a PhD when arguing with them; and then the real PhDs start posting and make me feel like an idiot child.

I remember discussing the "face on Mars" when the second NASA photo from the same Cydonia region came out in 1998, and the third in 2001. A lot of the woo-prone people I knew were leaning toward accepting Hoagland's "cover up" conspiracy theory. Being a former photography (fine art) major, who was working in the industry at the time, I was able to describe in exhaustive detail exactly why they were the same thing as the first photo, how to recognize the key features, and why the "face" was just an artifact of the particular lighting angles and poor resolution on the first "face" image. Most accepted my comments as a valid debunking; but a few stuck to their woo, unwilling to accept any facts that contradicted their cherished notions.

[luchog]

Apparently, Spielburg based his aliens on descriptions from real reports of supposed close encounters. I do buy the theory that UFO/alien reports are influenced by popular culture. But in reality, popular culture is influenced by real events too (when I say "real events" I mean that the reports are real, not that ET's are real).

"Grays" were reported prior to Spielberg, but only as one of a large number of different types of aliens; they may have had a marginally greater frequency than other types, but I can't recall at the moment. They certainly weren't overwhelmingly dominant until after Close Encounters. Prior to CE, many of the alien types resembled a number of the more popular literary and artistic/theatrical depictions of aliens, or were strongly culturally influenced. For example, the ETs reported from the former Soviet Union almost invariably tended to be large and strong, even brutal-looking. Ape-like and Lizard-like variations were common in many regions.

An interesting note: prior to the popularity of science fiction around the late Victorian and Edwardian periods, stories of abduction by elves, fairies, demons, and other mystical figures occurred with a similar pattern to alien-abductions. Some of the depictions of these beings bear a strriking resemblance to modern alien portrayals; particularly the "Greys".

[luchog]

Bad Bad Astronomer! The avoirdupois pound, quite apart from being non-SI, is a unit of mass, the unit of thrust is pounds-force!

Actually, the English/American system is a sort of jumbled mess, with three or four different sets of terminology, and "pound" doing double-duty as both weight and mass. Some variants use the pound/pound-force for the mass/weight differentiation. Others use slug/pound -- the slug being a basic unit of mass equivalent to the gram in the metric system, while the pound, pound-force, or poundal is the unit of force equivalent to the metric Newton.

[LaPalida]

Only a n00b spells n00b "noob".

:duck:

leik its 'nub' lol kthx

[Luke T.]

Well, I did a little debunking of one of the "UFO videos" that is in the OP video link in another topic on here.

I shall refer to that video as the "tether video".

A standalone video of the tether video is here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=As-wYmFYb3I).


Parts of this tether video appear in the OP google video. For example, at around 4 minutes and 30 seconds into the google video. And again at one hour and 14 minutes into the google video. This tether video is covered from one hour and 14 minutes to about 1 hour 30 minutes.

So here is what I wrote in this topic (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=62236) about this alleged UFO video.

Ya, I'll tell ya when

at 4 13 a big one comes flashing from the left as it enters it goes straight then curves up around the tether then back down again as it passes it. I deviates about 1.5 - 2 centimetres on my screen from the lowest point to the highest point. Thats one clear example, get a whiteboard marker and mark the middle of the image. You will notice now camera change happens in this sequence. Even drawing a perfectly straight line on where it enters and where it finishes will show you that the image comes off the line by more than its diametre.

There is another blob that passes the very tip of the tether at 4:09. If you watch that blob at 4:13, it makes the exact same kind of "turn" that yours does. And so does the tip of the tether. It's all from the camera change. The effect is not as noticable on vertically travelling blobs.

As for another blob which moved, same post:

At 2 50 one coming from the bottom left fast make a 30 degree turn just after the tether turning in about 1/4 of the screen. See...drastic turn. Its very obvious it turns after passing the tether, cant miss it.

With this one it is immediately obvious what happened if you look at any other blob besides the one you think is turning. There's a nice big one around the middle of the tether you could try looking at. As your blob is moving across the screen during its initial appearance, you can see the camera operator zooming in on the tether. And at the precise moment you think the fast one is making a turn, you will see all the other blobs change in and out of focus. The camera operator was making another change to the lens, zooming back out and then in very quickly. And since the one you were concentrating on is at the very edge of the lens at that moment, it looks like it turns.

ETA: At the beginning of the google video around the 4 and a half minute mark, they greatly enlarge one of the blobs as it appears to pass over the tether, and then show it again and flash a graphic of a "Dropa Stone (http://www.crystalinks.com/dropa.html)" right around the six minute mark, another icon in the UFO mythology. You can see the very same graphic that is in the google video of a Dropa Stone in the Dropa Stone link I put in the sentence before this one.

But if you watch the standalone video I linked, or the google video (at 1:17:21), you can see that at the beginning of the tether video, the camera changes focus as the cameraman zooms in and tries to focus on the snapped tether. At one point, you see the blobs snap into little white points which instantly reveals that the "blobs" are way out of focus when the google video guy draws them on his chalkboard or when they attempt to link them to "Dropa Stones".

Amateur hour. All the way.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1086456ce63429171.jpg

[Loss Leader]

Amateur hour. All the way.


I wonder if in all of human history there have ever been urine droplets scrutinized so intensely.

[TjW]

Gee... whiz!

[fuelair]

Gee... whiz!
Pee...whiz!

[DeviousB]

Gee... whiz!

No, Zero-gee whiz!

[CurtC]

Bad Bad Astronomer! The avoirdupois pound, quite apart from being non-SI, is a unit of mass, the unit of thrust is pounds-force!Besides being an astronomer, Phil is also a popularizer, communicating science to a lay audience. As such, he uses pounds to give someone a feel for the scale of the forces involved. If he were writing that as an astronomer, he wouldn't be using pounds at all, but kg and newtons.

But I've never heard that "pounds" is unacceptable as a unit of force, and that the correct term is "pounds-force." I was taught that pounds are technically force, but are often used to represent the mass that would produce one pound of force in one g. The slug is the English unit for mass. Has that changed?

[CurtC]

I haven't found anything definitive, but I have seen mention that the typical "grey" we hear about in purported UFO abductions started appearing right about the time Close Encounters came out, in 1977 I believe.I thought that the "grey" description started with Barney and Betty Hill's account in 1965. If there's an earlier reference, I'd like to hear it.

[Larry Lovage]

Is there anyone else here who is trying to watch the video with an open mind, but finds themselves completely irritated by the awful, awful, intrusive music?

They seem to be actually singing "Woo-da. Woo-da. Woo-da-day." No arguments there!! :mad:

[DeviousB]

But I've never heard that "pounds" is unacceptable as a unit of force, and that the correct term is "pounds-force." I was taught that pounds are technically force, but are often used to represent the mass that would produce one pound of force in one g. The slug is the English unit for mass. Has that changed?

Yes, the English unit of mass is the kilogram.
;)

A search for lbm (pound-mass) and lbf (pound-force) should turn up plenty of examples. For the record, an avoirdupois pound was defined in 1959 by international committee to be 0.4535924 kg, i.e. it is a unit of mass.

[wahrheit]

Is there anyone else here who is trying to watch the video with an open mind, but finds themselves completely irritated by the awful, awful, intrusive music?

They seem to be actually singing "Woo-da. Woo-da. Woo-da-day." No arguments there!! :mad:

At least the makers of that pseudo-evidence video were very honest, right in the first seconds of the video, it says TERRA ENTERTAINMENT in big letters.

[Larry Lovage]

I can't hear it very well - when the guy calculates the speeds of these dots as 900,000 miles/hour, isn't he actually debunking them as any possible kind of alien spacecraft? Isn't everything that he finds impossibly amazing, further proof that they aren't any kind of large spacecraft? How is he reconciling his 250 miles per second spacecraft with a) nothing seen by the shuttle astronauts and b) the quite correct pointing out by the professional astronomer he spoke to, that the power output would be enough to light up every early warning defence system on Earth?

[star.logic]

Are you trying to tell me that somewhere in this 1.5 hour long film there is actually a sequence showing one of these blobs making a full orbit around the globe? I doubt it.

We could not see it go the whole way, as we can't see through the earth!


Good! So you're convinced that the rest of us are probably right then and that these things are probably just debris floating around?


Could be!


Are your calculations in the video or is it very likely your calculations are in the video or is it just your unfounded opinion/guess/hunch that these things move in 10000mph?

And "For what?" Because you claim it, now prove it kid.


Not how it works, although I'll help you with anything I have a duty to help you with!

These are absolutely UFOs, of a sort - Urine Frozen Objects, they are believed to have originated in the Constellation Urion.

It is believed that the Shuttle releases this substance.

:rolleyes: The video? Lame woo. Your posts since? Lacking in substance.


Thanks for your opinion!


These kind of attempts to promote flying saucers crack me up.

I'm glad you find it funny, although I don't think that's their intent!

First we are told NASA and the PTB can't be trusted to reveal "the truth" and then we are shown NASA footage to promote this nonsense!

We are shown NASA's footage, not NASA's word, if this footage is "True" then NASA's word goes directly against what they're showing us, and so it was correct for you to say, originally, that NASA (never a straight answer), or TPTB cannot be trusted to reveal the whole truth to us, you are correct!

Prior to the more-or-less invention of UFOs, people spotted fairies and demons all over the place.

These beings are of another kind, based more-so on the mind of the individual!

This changed to "greys"

As we had the technology to spread the word!


(although the vast variation in "police sketches" of aliens is well-documented, they come from almost as many different species as there are sightings!)

There are far more species currently 'around', than there are reports of them! Millions of times more!

is an example of the fantasy nature of it,

This is only perceived by your eye, not the one's who wanted nothing to do with this type of life, but were suddenly thrown into one such or more such experiences. Most of the time, the UFO searchers do not always find what they are looking for, and it is those who have nothing to do with such a thing prior to their experience, that actually have the experience!


although some UFOlogists twist it back around yet again to suggest it is evidence of their reality because people misinterpreted the earlier "sightings" of fairies, etc. as being of aliens that were not understood.

Doesn't make sense!

Not once they leave the gun, they don't, although they do slow down (accelerate negatively) because of air resistence.


Air resistance in space!??

Still, it's been pointed out that if these were frozen particles, they could boil on one side because of the sun, and thus move around, and, if they are small particles near the shuttle, a blast of steering jets or whatnot will send them careening. A sudden 30mph gust of wind will knock a light fleck flying very suddenly and quickly, and make it look like it's suddently altered thousands of MPH if you misinterpret it as being very far away.

Very interesting!


I was wondering whether the first appearance of the "greys" coincides, in history, with the first appearance of the typical "flying saucer" reports of UFO's ? (late 40's, early 50's ?)


Much farther than that, hundreds of years ago!


Are the majority "greys"?


Not in the least!


If aliens do exist and have been visiting us, lets say for a few hundred years, then I find it quite plausible that they were interpreted as faires and demons. Not much point in speculating about that though.

These could be seen as different beings, entirely, coming from a different form of existence altogether!

I haven't found anything definitive, but I have seen mention that the typical "grey" we hear about in purported UFO abductions started appearing right about the time Close Encounters came out, in 1977 I believe.


He formed the movie's image of them, off of the many reports that he had witnessed!


I'd have to dig around to be sure, but I recall reading that the aliens in Close Encounters were inspired by creatures from an episode of The Twilight Zone.


Incorrect!


Considering the huge exposure of the movie, I'd think it would be a safe bet that Close Encounters is responsible for the appearance of the greys.


Incorrect! Although close, reversed!


Interestingly, the appearance of aliens seems to be cultural. For instance, many reports of aliens in South America featured reports of reptillian-like creatures consistently. I'd wager that the appearance of aliens has become much more homogeneous given the spread of American pop culture throughout the world.

Different cultures are open to different things! As well as different times and places!

Not only a NASA video but a video released in the normal course of operations by NASA, the very people who are supposed to be covering it up.

Yes, and they saw no fear in releasing it, as if you're not paying attention to what is actually happening, you could believe what they tell you to believe!


The REAL evidence is locked away under a mountain, in the secret vault, near where the alien bodies are kept!


It is kept "many places"! Many different evidences and technologies are!

In order to be convincing, we need less "facts" and more! exclamation! points!!

I can not make you think, and examine the facts, instead of grammar!

Not exactly. Back in my woo days (pre- Close Encounters) I was part of a UFOlogy group, and there were already reports from little grey men. The aliens pictured at he movie were supposed to be the "most reliable" rendering of a "real" alien, backed by Hynek's studies (he even made a cameo in the movie). Of course, the sightings of this type of alien increased after the movie... An there was some revisionism also. Can't find a link, but I remember seeing at an old UFOlogy book a pre- Close Encounters drawing of an alien from the Hill case. It looked like a mini Spok, pointed ears included. Nowdays, they're reported as greys...

There are many different kinds of many shapes and sizes! As varying in race, as humans and animals are on earth!


As for the reptilians, I am not sure they are more consistent in South America. I may be wrong, but I think they are quite common in North America, because of David Icke.


You mean the "hybrids".


I suspect te "reptillian affair" was triggered by a sci-fi series from the early 80's. It was about an alien species identical to humans that actually were carnivorous reptiles disguised. They came to Earth passing as friends and slowly take controll of the society and then start using humans as food.


Again, reversed!

and that might explain someone heres' interest in them!!!!! Should have realized that myself!!! Sometimes the obvious explanation is the simplest one!!!
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :D :D :jaw-dropp :rolleyes: :D :D :eek:

You have shown the most interest in that scenario since that post wast made!

"Grays" were reported prior to Spielberg, but only as one of a large number of different types of aliens; they may have had a marginally greater frequency than other types, but I can't recall at the moment. They certainly weren't overwhelmingly dominant until after Close Encounters.

They were the most spread, most "media hyped", so it's going to result in people seeing more of them! Hence your post being about them, and not another!


Prior to CE, many of the alien types resembled a number of the more popular literary and artistic/theatrical depictions of aliens, or were strongly culturally influenced. For example, the ETs reported from the former Soviet Union almost invariably tended to be large and strong, even brutal-looking. Ape-like and Lizard-like variations were common in many regions.

Many kinds in many different places and times!


An interesting note: prior to the popularity of science fiction around the late Victorian and Edwardian periods, stories of abduction by elves, fairies, demons, and other mystical figures occurred with a similar pattern to alien-abductions. Some of the depictions of these beings bear a strriking resemblance to modern alien portrayals; particularly the "Greys".

See last response!

[star.logic]

Is there anyone else here who is trying to watch the video with an open mind, but finds themselves completely irritated by the awful, awful, intrusive music?


A mental condition is to blame!


They seem to be actually singing "Woo-da. Woo-da. Woo-da-day." No arguments there!! :mad:

^

I can't hear it very well - when the guy calculates the speeds of these dots as 900,000 miles/hour, isn't he actually debunking them as any possible kind of alien spacecraft? Isn't everything that he finds impossibly amazing, further proof that they aren't any kind of large spacecraft? How is he reconciling his 250 miles per second spacecraft with a) nothing seen by the shuttle astronauts and b) the quite correct pointing out by the professional astronomer he spoke to, that the power output would be enough to light up every early warning defence system on Earth?


The physical power that we use is very inefficient even at these low levels, at high levels it would be pointless to continue research and technology! As well as the amount of energy that would be required, to travel such way physically, the speed, the acceleration, the de-acceleration and direction change would be equivalent to large explosions behind the craft, physically observable energy, as well as the craft itself blowing to pieces!

That is if they were to be working under the same technology that we have now, which is simply unlikely under the vastness and differences within the universe, as well as the performance that they were displaying! Impossible under our standards!

[sackett]

I think I've heard Stop.Logic's argument before.

I once challenged some ufoologists with an old question: If advanced beings are bopping around Earth, then why don't we pick up their radio signals? The ufoologists answered gravely that advanced beings wouldn't need radio to communicate because they're so, well, advanced. I confess I didn't have a reply to that one.

Star.raving seems to be saying that the absence of evidence for UFOs is proof that they exist: Do those blobs move in impossible ways? Very well then, that proves that they have wunnerful powers that we can't even hardly imagine yet!

Heck, his exclamation points alone should convince anybody but a closed-minded skeptic!

[alfaniner]

You mean the "hybrids".

You forgot something!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Corrected here:
You mean the "hybrids"!

[wahrheit]

star.logic, your quite long post does not contain any valuable new information, but only questions, vague suggestions or even outright nonsense.

NASA (never a straight answer)
What about an experiment? star.logic, go to the bathroom, stand in front of the mirror and look at the reflection. Now repeat what you said in the quote above, three times. But only the part in parentheses.

[star.logic]

If advanced beings are bopping around Earth, then why don't we pick up their radio signals?

Why would they communicate using our technology?


Star.raving

Please, choose the name I chose for you!


seems to be saying that the absence of evidence for UFOs is proof that they exist:

Not in the least!


Heck, his exclamation points alone should convince anybody but a closed-minded skeptic!

Not in the least! Close-minded skeptics do not use logic in your scenario, seeing as they are looking towards the icon I put at the end of my statements for truth, rather than in the statements themselves!

[star.logic]

star.logic, your quite long post does not contain any valuable new information, but only questions, vague suggestions or even outright nonsense.

I could say the same about your short post.

Yet it would not make it true, it would only make it my opinion!

The truly logical person knows when what they're saying is true because it's opinion, or when it's actually logic-based, I see you haven't gotten to that yet!


What about an experiment? star.logic, go to the bathroom, stand in front of the mirror and look at the reflection. Now repeat what you said in the quote above, three times. But only the part in parentheses.

Nope! Thanks anyway!

[DeviousB]

The truly logical person knows when what they're saying is true because it's opinion, or when it's actually logic-based, I see you haven't gotten to that yet!

This statement has nothing to do with logic. If something is your opinion or not can have no bearing on whether or not it is true.

[wahrheit]

Why would they communicate using our technology?
That's not what sackett said. He wondered why we wouldn't pick up any radio signal if these guys are around.

Your argument goes like this:

no radio signal found ==> "they" do not use "our" technology

I think non sequitur is the English term for that kind of conclusion.

[sackett]

Star.lost, go here

http://www.martiansgohome.com/smear/

to read a great deal about the ufo world, including its inhabitants and their ways. Might help.

Oops, sorry about having fun with your handle. Won't happen again. Nope, sure won't.

[Astrophotographer]

I always find it amusing that UFOs can be recorded at all. If they are using technology so far advanced that they do not use radio frequencies to communicate, why would they allow themselves to be seen in the visible light spectrum?
Realize that our primitive technology has been able to mask our primitive aircraft from our primitive radar. Still there are those who claim that our primitive radar has actually tracked their super advanced craft. Does this mean our primitive stealth technology is more advanced than their super spacecraft?
Additionally, our primitive aircraft technology has been working on the ability to mask itself to the surrounding background creating visual stealth. Again, our primitive technology appears far more advanced than that being used by these alien spacecraft. Makes one wonder who really has the more advanced technology!

[R.A.F.]

I always find it amusing that UFOs can be recorded at all. If they are using technology so far advanced that they do not use radio frequencies to communicate, why would they allow themselves to be seen in the visible light spectrum?

The believers answer that with a variation of "they don't mind being detected, but are not "ready" to make themselfs known to everyone".

IOW, they enjoy playing "cat and mouse".

Of course that makes zero sense, and the believers answer that with "but they are aliens and they don't think like us".

As is obvious, this is the same "type' of argument that starlogic is using, ie...."they don't use radio, because they are alien".

That's why it quickly becomes pointless to argue with folks like starlogic. Their arguments have NO basis in reality...fact is they "make it up" as they go along...

[Correa Neto]

Oh, it gets worse than that...

Some UFOlogists claim UFO crashes (such as Roswell) happen because our radars interfer with their guidance/propulsion systems...

So much for their "advanced technology"...

[Snow]

These are absolutely UFOs, of a sort - Urine Frozen Objects, they are believed to have originated in the Constellation Urion.
I was almost crying laughing after reading that. Thanks!