I believe in ufos because of this video ..

[IamRAMBO24]

1. It is a legit video. NASA has verified it as legit but tried to cover it up by saying the objects are dust particles. You can also see the video being shot in space and the tether itself (which is miles long), so this is really hard to duplicate.

2. NASA's official explanation is that the objects are dust particles and look like UFOs due to the camera being out of focus.

Here are some strong rebuttals to this claim:

A. The objects are clearly pulsating.

B. NASA is using UV cameras to capture light that are usually not visible, hence why the objects look transparent in the video.

C. Based on the size of the tether (around 12 miles), the objects are measured to be 2-3 miles in diameter.
http://www.soul-guidance.com/houseofthesun/media/real/backyard/tether04.jpg

D. The sphere shape with a circle in the middle and a pizza shape cut out on the side is evident in all of these shapes. Dust particles and debris in space don't come in the same geometry; some might look the same but they are not made up of the same exact symmetry.

C'mon guys, lets drop the name calling, the fallacies, and the stubbornness; either this is a dust particle (or debris) or it is not.

Before I show the video, here is what a dust particle looks like.
http://files.myopera.com/nielsol/blog/airburst_antartica.jpg

Here is the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=As-wYmFYb3I

[dr.hee]

http://www.soul-guidance.com/houseofthesun/media/real/backyard/tether04.jpg






http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20070813093415/jedipedia/de/images/6/62/Falke.jpg


:eek:


































































































































































































































































































http://caffeine-fueled.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/giorgio-tsoukalos.jpeg

[cos88]

good point op, here is another proof: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ywu9RwV1b8

[Raymone]

Be sure to include YouTube videos as sources in any research papers you'll never write.

[IamRAMBO24]

Be sure to include YouTube videos as sources in any research papers you'll never write.

It's a NASA video. Your point is moot.

Keep up with the fallacies naysayers, I bet you can't prove that's actually a dust particle.

[IamRAMBO24]

Interesting. I find this video to be the greatest hard evidence.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsjhdoWKtXM

lol

I have a legit video.

All I'm asking is 2 things:

1. Tell me what it is.

2. Come up with a conclusion as to what it is.

Simple logic.

As is, you're just dodging because you're too stubborn to exercise the idea, which makes you stupid as hell.

[IamRAMBO24]

I would also like to add that every inert object in space follows a straight line once in movement. In the video, some objects are changing course and momentum.

So not only do I have video evidence to back up my claim, but I'm throwing geometry and physics into the fray.

It is easy to ignore, but it is quite hard to disprove. C'mon ISHers don't cop out like this.

[niko]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RGtC2S22Z0

This one convinced me.

[IamRAMBO24]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RGtC2S22Z0

This one convinced me.

Another cop out ..

Look at this photo:

http://www.soul-guidance.com/houseofthesun/media/real/backyard/tether04.jpg

The tether is 12 miles long, so the object's diameter is at least a quarter of its length. We're looking at an object that is at least 2-3 miles long. If this is indeed a dust particle (which btw has never been recorded as that large close to earth's atmosphere), then wouldn't it go to reason it would be a huge national emergency?

Surely earth's gravitational force would of pulled it towards it if it was that size.

Another law of physics for the win.

[niko]

Another cop out ..

Look at this photo:

http://www.soul-guidance.com/houseofthesun/media/real/backyard/tether04.jpg

The tether is 12 miles long, so the object's diameter is at least a quarter of its length. We're looking at an object that is at least 2-3 miles long. If this is indeed a dust particle (which btw has never been recorded as that large close to earth's atmosphere), then wouldn't it go to reason it would be a huge national emergency?

Surely earth's gravitational force would of pulled it towards it if it was that size.

Another law of physics for the win.
I see a ruler and a donut floating in the water.

[IamRAMBO24]

Conclusion:

You guys are too stubborn to exercise the idea even when there is a legit argument and video to back it up.

*End thread

I'm quite disappointed in the posters who claim themselves as smart. They have shown themselves as ignorant since they are so willing to disregard a piece of evidence (video) and not actually try to disprove it.

[IamRAMBO24]

It's funny because these close minded fools would always take the easy route out by claiming the video is a hoax, but this is a legit video; they have absolutely nowhere to run to other than to try and derail the thread.

Ignorance at its finest.

[IamRAMBO24]

P.S. Rambo won't shut up and this thread will continually be bumped as new arguments pop up in his overly gifted mind and precise observation.

[niko]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DWDRF2LMmI

Me too, i found this convincing too.

Do you think all the alien activity on this board today is to confuse us from the truth, a little noise?

[IamRAMBO24]

I see a ruler and a donut floating in the water.

Ok finally a bit of progress. I have a question for you. What is it? Don't just brush it off because it looks a bit "too fuzzy" and you can't quite explain what it is, look at the physics, consider the size, look at the fact it is pulsating, and if you want to be more detailed, look at the symmetry on the pulsation, now explain to me what natural object in space with that size and can only be seen by a UV camera (which captures light invisible to the eye) is that close to our atmosphere?

Take all the characteristics into consideration and formulate your opinion. Thanks.

[niko]

Ok finally a bit of progress. I have a question for you. What is it? Don't just brush it off because it looks a bit "too fuzzy" and you can't quite explain what it is, look at the physics, consider the size, look at the fact it is pulsating, and if you want to be more detailed, look at the symmetry on the pulsation, now explain to me what natural object in space with that size and can only be seen by a UV camera (which captures light invisible to the eye) is that close to our atmosphere?

Take all the characteristics into consideration and formulate your opinion. Thanks.
To be honest, you post so much shit to argue about that I would have no idea when or when not you would be serious so i have no desire to look at the video, sorry.

[IamRAMBO24]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DWDRF2LMmI

Me too, i found this convincing too.

Do you think all the alien activity on this board today is to confuse us from the truth, a little noise?

That video is prob a hoax.

:facepalm

Don't try to derail this thread with bullsh*t like that. I'm presenting a legit video. Huge difference.

[IamRAMBO24]

To be honest, you post so much shit to argue about that I would have no idea when or when not you would be serious so i have no desire to look at the video, sorry.

My point exactly.

You didn't even f*ckin look at the video before you tried to derail this thread. What an idiot. Grow up dude.

[DonDadda59]

1. It is a legit video. NASA has verified it as legit but tried to cover it up by saying the objects are dust particles.

What does NASA gain by 'covering up' evidence of extraterrestrial life? It seems logical that such evidence would benefit them in many, lucrative ways and they would be the first to bring this news to the masses. Every time there is a discovery of any planets that could potentially host life, they plaster it all over the news. But here they supposedly have irrefutable proof (:oldlol: ) and they go out of their way to try to debunk their own findings?

Do you even know what a fallacy is? :lol

[Bush4Ever]

If you are that desperate for attention, you should at least be a funny troll and not an annoying one.

[IamRAMBO24]

What does NASA gain by 'covering up' evidence of extraterrestrial life? It seems logical that such evidence would benefit them in many, lucrative ways and they would be the first to bring this news to the masses. Every time there is a discovery of any planets that could potentially host life, they plaster it all over the news. But here they supposedly have irrefutable proof (:oldlol: ) and they go out of their way to try to debunk their own findings?

Do you even know what a fallacy is? :lol

Hypothetical.

I don't know what the f*ck they are trying to gain. All I know is what I see in the video. Stick to the evidence. No more bullsh*t fallacies, thanks.

[niko]

My point exactly.

You didn't even f*ckin look at the video before you tried to derail this thread. What an idiot. Grow up dude.
I didn't derail the thread, i made a joke. You can keep going forever. Every thread has comments like this in it, get over it.

I can tell you one thing, master debator or not, pick your fights because if you fight 20,000 times about every topic to the death, it's kind of hard to take one particular thing seriously.

[IamRAMBO24]

If you are that desperate for attention, you should at least be a funny troll and not an annoying one.

Idiots only find me annoying since I will always be challenging people's belief system; the smart ones are the ones who thank me.

[Bush4Ever]

Idiots only find me annoying since I will always be challenging people's belief system; the smart ones are the ones who thank me.

It's extremely easy to "challenge" a belief system. It is more difficult to do so in a serious way, let alone doing so in a manner where you would bear the consequences of being incorrect.

Throwing crap up against a wall and seeing what sticks (which you do for attention) is not "challenging belief systems".

[IamRAMBO24]

I didn't derail the thread, i made a joke. You can keep going forever. Every thread has comments like this in it, get over it.

I can tell you one thing, master debator or not, pick your fights because if you fight 20,000 times about every topic to the death, it's kind of hard to take one particular thing seriously.

It goes to reason if the official sources are secretive (government entities), then you can't solely rely on their word since they are not revealing everything (for whatever purpose). Therefore, waiting on their word is swimming in ignorance.

I'm just asking you to look at the evidence (video) and formulate your own opinion. That's it. Even I don't know what it is; the only thing I know is it is not a dust particle.

[IamRAMBO24]

It's extremely easy to "challenge" a belief system. It is more difficult to do so in a serious way, let alone doing so in a manner where you would bear the consequences of being incorrect.

Throwing crap up against a wall and seeing what sticks (which you do for attention) is not "challenging belief systems".

I would hardly call a legit video where people can analyze and come up with a concrete definitive proof is the same as "throwing crap at the wall." The only thing stopping them is their own stubbornness. It has absolutely nothing to do with reason, logic or evidence.

[Raymone]

I see a ruler and a donut floating in the water.

Close. It's a jelly donut (http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/nasa-sued-failing-investigate-martian-jelly-donut-rock/story?id=22335788).

[Akrazotile]

I've been a believer in aliens and the supernatural ever since the documentary Mars Attacks! was released.

OP's claims look legit.

[DonDadda59]

Hypothetical.

I don't know what the f*ck they are trying to gain. All I know is what I see in the video. Stick to the evidence. No more bullsh*t fallacies, thanks.

Evidence :oldlol:

OK, I'll play along. So you don't buy the 'official cover up explanation' that the orbs that appeared in the frame are dust particles. To you it's proof of extraterrestrials and their advanced space travel capabilities. Great.

So are you also of the opinion that these images are proof of ghosts/spirits and not dust particles or other chromatic aberrations?

http://southjerseyghostresearch.org/cases/roc1-dj930b.JPG

http://www.shot-net.com/ParanormalTrax/jan.orb.caller.1.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0b/FortGhost.jpg/800px-FortGhost.jpg

[IamRAMBO24]

You guys suck.

I took it seriously and I couldn't come up with a rational explanation for what it is. I was hoping maybe you guys can tell me. Guess not. As is, just the thought itself has turned many off.

[Raymone]

The illuminati jews at NASA are simply following the orders of their zionist government masters and covering up legitimate UFO videos to conceal meetings between the Rothschilds, Rockefellers and aliens at Area 51.

[niko]

You guys suck.

I took it seriously and I couldn't come up with a rational explanation for what it is. I was hoping maybe you guys can tell me. Guess not. As is, just the thought itself has turned many off.
Again, it's not the thought. It's where you are coming from. Every post you make is "this is something controversial but i will argue it to the death". You don't bring information, you bring a chance to argue.

So even something like this, which i would look at normally (crytozoology, aliens, i like that shit) makes me feel like you don't really believe it, you just want to scold us about it. It feels like in order to look at it we have to agree to listen to you lecture endlessly as well. Which I don't want to.

So instead ill probably look at some point at this but never comment to avoid the back and forth.

[IamRAMBO24]

Again, it's not the thought. It's where you are coming from. Every post you make is "this is something controversial but i will argue it to the death". You don't bring information, you bring a chance to argue.

So even something like this, which i would look at normally (crytozoology, aliens, i like that shit) makes me feel like you don't really believe it, you just want to scold us about it. It feels like in order to look at it we have to agree to listen to you lecture endlessly as well. Which I don't want to.

So instead ill probably look at some point at this but never comment to avoid the back and forth.

Come on niko, you're smart enough, just take on the argument.

[IamRAMBO24]

Evidence :oldlol:

OK, I'll play along. So you don't buy the 'official cover up explanation' that the orbs that appeared in the frame are dust particles. To you it's proof of extraterrestrials and their advanced space travel capabilities. Great.

So are you also of the opinion that these images are proof of ghosts/spirits and not dust particles or other chromatic aberrations?

http://southjerseyghostresearch.org/cases/roc1-dj930b.JPG

http://www.shot-net.com/ParanormalTrax/jan.orb.caller.1.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0b/FortGhost.jpg/800px-FortGhost.jpg

1. It could be photoshopped.

2. Those are still images. It can be anything.

3. What is the source?

My video is totally different. Stop with your straws and actually look at it.

[DonDadda59]

1. It could be photoshopped.

2. Those are still images. It can be anything.

3. What is the source?

My video is totally different. Stop with your straws and actually look at it.

:facepalm

How is it a 'straw' exactly? You're too dense to even realize it's the same exact thing you're doing here. Those are images that people claim are irrefutable proof that angels, ghosts, spirits, etc exist. What they really are- dust and other chromatic aberrations. Just like the video in the OP, 'my video' as you put it. You see dust floating around and for some reason you immediately conclude that it's a fleet of super advanced extraterrestrial interplanetary/inter-galaxy aircraft? :biggums:

Why would that be your first conclusion?

[BrownEye007]

It's a NASA video. Your point is moot.

Keep up with the fallacies naysayers, I bet you can't prove that's actually a dust particle.
I bet you can't prove that it's actually a UFO.

[Thorpesaurous]

There was a pretty good TV show that debunked the tether incident. If you google it, it's a pretty straightforward explanation. It appears to be a frost particle distortion extremely close to the camera lens, if memory serves. It's a very reasonable conclusion.

The one with the particle that changes direction is more intrigueing to me. They presented a case that that thing didn't change direction so much as reach the end of an orbit, and boomeranged around, but because of the angle we're looking at it from, it looks like it stops and makes a decision to reverse course. Of course that coincides with a burst of light and a particle moving quickly toward it. I think they're explanation of that was it was a piece of ice blown off by the the boosters kicking on, which also explains the light.

They had some data to back up the booster surge that I can't recall. Again, it's reasonable, but either way it's a much more interesting piece of footage.

If there were a barely mobile several mile diameter ship hovering in low orbit as is implied by the tether video, it would be pretty difficult to keep hidden even from amatuer astronomers.

[IamRAMBO24]

There was a pretty good TV show that debunked the tether incident. If you google it, it's a pretty straightforward explanation. It appears to be a frost particle distortion extremely close to the camera lens, if memory serves. It's a very reasonable conclusion.

The one with the particle that changes direction is more intrigueing to me. They presented a case that that thing didn't change direction so much as reach the end of an orbit, and boomeranged around, but because of the angle we're looking at it from, it looks like it stops and makes a decision to reverse course. Of course that coincides with a burst of light and a particle moving quickly toward it. I think they're explanation of that was it was a piece of ice blown off by the the boosters kicking on, which also explains the light.

They had some data to back up the booster surge that I can't recall. Again, it's reasonable, but either way it's a much more interesting piece of footage.

If there were a barely mobile several mile diameter ship hovering in low orbit as is implied by the tether video, it would be pretty difficult to keep hidden even from amatuer astronomers.

1. Ice particles aren't that big.

2. Ice particles don't pulsate.

3. These objects are being shot with a UV camera (hence the transparent look) and cannot be seen with the naked eye. Like you said, if they are indeed ice particles, it would of been picked up by millions of astronomers considering they are 2-3 miles in diamater.

Again the photo:

http://www.soul-guidance.com/houseofthesun/media/real/backyard/tether04.jpg

Tether = 12 miles long

Object near tether = looks like it is a quarter of its length in diameter, therefore it could be anywhere from 2-3 miles long.

If these are ice particles, then why aren't they being picked up from astronomers? NASA had to use a special camera to pick up these objects since normally they can't be seen with the naked eye. Last I checked, the purpose of these cameras is to get rid of debris and dust in order to see distant stars and galaxies without the fuzziness. It is kind of ironic they are all of a sudden picking them up when their purpose is to filter them out.

[IamRAMBO24]

:facepalm

How is it a 'straw' exactly? You're too dense to even realize it's the same exact thing you're doing here. Those are images that people claim are irrefutable proof that angels, ghosts, spirits, etc exist. What they really are- dust and other chromatic aberrations. Just like the video in the OP, 'my video' as you put it. You see dust floating around and for some reason you immediately conclude that it's a fleet of super advanced extraterrestrial interplanetary/inter-galaxy aircraft? :biggums:

Why would that be your first conclusion?

It doesn't fit the characteristics of dust:

1. 2-3 miles long.

2. It is pulsating.

3. It is symetrical in geometry and structure. The donut hole and pizza side cut out is evident in all of these structures. There is absolutely no natural dust particle that has this characteristic.

Calling it a dust particle is being ignorant of what it really is.

[dr.hee]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-wS2r_F7Lf04/T6ctnV-HHeI/AAAAAAAAEeY/EGbltGXJ6ps/s1600/tether,+experiment,+UFO,+UFOs,+sighting,+sightings ,+SOHO,+NASA,+Sun,+Solar,+Corona,+space,+cable,+al ien,+aliens,+ET,+biological,+life,+form,+magnetic+ field,+science,+astrobiologyScreen+Shot+2012-05-07+at+9.54.58+AM.png

http://www.tarrdaniel.com/documents/Ufology/images/UFOevidence/STS75.jpg




http://static3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100527230544/memoryalpha/en/images/3/3f/USS_Enterprise-D_falls_toward_Veridian_III.jpg

:eek:

[IamRAMBO24]

Dust particle:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/2f/Smooth_chondriteIDP.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8b/A_glowing_jet_from_a_young_star.tif/lossy-page1-220px-A_glowing_jet_from_a_young_star.tif.jpg

Object in video:

http://www.viewzone.com/tether5.jpg

Considering dust particles come in a few molecules to 0.1

[IamRAMBO24]

I bet you can't prove that it's actually a UFO.

I'm not trying to prove it's a ufo, I'm trying to prove it's not a dust particle.

[dr.hee]

Takes 2:30 to debunk that bullshit :oldlol:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ce6QUJ0idYo

Let's see how Rambo is spinning that one. I don't know...he's probably in for arguing for the sake of it anyway. Deluding himself into thinking that by "winning" an argument even though he knows he's wrong, he's proving how great he is. Didn't he even make a thread about this?

:lol

[nathanjizzle]

You believe in UFO's? wow. ofcourse UFO's are real as long as their are unidentified flying objects.:facepalm you meant to say aliens or alien space craft right? pretty elementary for someone that claims they are highly intelligent.

[dr.hee]

You believe in UFO's? wow. ofcourse UFO's are real as long as their are unidentified flying objects.:facepalm you meant to say aliens or alien space craft right? pretty elementary for someone that claims they are highly intelligent.

:applause: Rambo is dumb as a brick...

[niko]

Come on niko, you're smart enough, just take on the argument.
This is my point, i don't want to argue with you on anything. Discuss, sure. But you want to argue. I don't get it.

Look at this cool thing i found, let's debate it endlessly. that's a weird sentiment.

[dr.hee]

This is my point, i don't want to argue with you on anything. Discuss, sure. But you want to argue. I don't get it.

Look at this cool thing i found, let's debate it endlessly. that's a weird sentiment.

Yup, it's very telling. He views it as some high intellectual art to argue while knowing he's completely lost, running away when he's getting destroyed. Wonder what that guy is doing in real life :lol

[DonDadda59]

Takes 2:30 to debunk that bullshit :oldlol:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ce6QUJ0idYo

Let's see how Rambo is spinning that one. I don't know...he's probably in for arguing for the sake of it anyway. Deluding himself into thinking that by "winning" an argument even though he knows he's wrong, he's proving how great he is. Didn't he even make a thread about this?

:lol

That video =

http://www.photo-dictionary.com/photofiles/list/9394/12778bendy_straw.jpg

The truth=

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d3/THOH_Kang_and_Kodos.png

Prepare your anus, Earth. :(

[IamRAMBO24]

This is my point, i don't want to argue with you on anything. Discuss, sure. But you want to argue. I don't get it.

Look at this cool thing i found, let's debate it endlessly. that's a weird sentiment.

The fun part of a discussion is a debate. :D

What you nerds don't realize is although I might come off as a d*ck, I'm really a good guy trying to better myself. I'm feeding off your intelligence through these debates.

[IamRAMBO24]

Yup, it's very telling. He views it as some high intellectual art to argue while knowing he's completely lost, running away when he's getting destroyed. Wonder what that guy is doing in real life :lol

How the f*ck am I lost when the only person willing to take a look at the vid is Thor. You nerds just brushed it off and started derailing this thread.

I'm not the one being immature.

[dr.hee]

That video =

http://www.photo-dictionary.com/photofiles/list/9394/12778bendy_straw.jpg

The truth=

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d3/THOH_Kang_and_Kodos.png

Prepare your anus, Earth. :(

http://platformthing.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/la-la-la-shut-up.gif

[bladefd]

I have a legit video.

All I'm asking is 2 things:

1. Tell me what it is.

2. Come up with a conclusion as to what it is.

Simple logic.

As is, you're just dodging because you're too stubborn to exercise the idea, which makes you stupid as hell.


( . )( . )


^ I ask you two things:

1) Tell me what that is

2) Come up with a conclusion as to what it is if you've never seen it

[dr.hee]

( . )( . )


^ I ask you two things:

1) Tell me what that is

2) Come up with a conclusion as to what it is if you've never seen it

http://www.biglosers.us/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/giorgio-tsoukalos.jpg

[IamRAMBO24]

( . )( . )


^ I ask you two things:

1) Tell me what that is

2) Come up with a conclusion as to what it is if you've never seen it

I asked first.

[Overdrive]

Some laws of physics for you:


I would also like to add that every inert object in space follows a straight line once in movement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-body_problem


Surely earth's gravitational force would of pulled it towards it if it was that size.

Another law of physics for the win.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_speed

[red1]

:applause: Rambo is dumb as a brick...
rambo dumber than a brick of rocks

[IamRAMBO24]

Some laws of physics for you:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-body_problem



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_speed

Elaborate.

[IamRAMBO24]

rambo dumber than a brick of rocks

If I'm so f*ckin stupid then why can't you argue the video?

Thought so.

[red1]

If I'm so f*ckin stupid then why can't you argue the video?

Thought so.
this n*gga right here got a higher IQ than you






http://www.permaculture.co.uk/sites/default/files/images/greek-potato.standard%20460x345.gif

[dr.hee]

this n*gga right here got a higher IQ than you



http://www.permaculture.co.uk/sites/default/files/images/greek-potato.standard%20460x345.gif


That's racist. Just ask them niguhz...

http://www.peruforless.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/PurplePeruvianPotatoes.jpg

[Jello]

"I believe in ufo's"
Classic rambo.

[Overdrive]

Elaborate.

Objects don't move in a straight line in space. At the very moment an objects enters a planets gravity field it's part of a three body problem(star-planet-object).

Nothing simply falls down. Especially when it's moving.

I didn't look at your video, because in general all those videos get debunked sooner or later.

Basically the plate shape of flying objects is neither favourable in atmospheric or nonathmospheric flight. Why should a progressive species use shapes for their spaceships that stem from men's imagination?

[red1]

That's racist. Just ask them niguhz...

http://www.peruforless.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/PurplePeruvianPotatoes.jpg
I've never seen a more untrustworthy and suspicious group of potatoes. Lock them up before they start influencing our children

[dr.hee]

I've never seen a more untrustworthy and suspicious group of potatoes. Lock them up before they start influencing our children

So you're telling me they're not good at basketball?

[red1]

So you're telling me they're not good at basketball?
lets just say...


they are one unsavory bunch



http://blog.zap2it.com/pop2it/david-caruso-gif-sunglasses-1.gif

[Jackass18]

Here's another analysis debunking it: http://www.*****.com/general/stsd.htm

Why do you post old shit that's already been debunked? What's next, the Loch Ness Monster photo?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/5e/Hoaxed_photo_of_the_Loch_Ness_monster.jpg

[dr.hee]

Here's another analysis debunking it: http://www.*****.com/general/stsd.htm

Why do you post old shit that's already been debunked? What's next, the Loch Ness Monster photo?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/5e/Hoaxed_photo_of_the_Loch_Ness_monster.jpg

Wow, that's a huge d!ck.

[Meticode]

I like how people use the world UFO in the place of alien craft. They say things like "I bet you can't prove it's a UFO." You're saying, "I bet you can't prove it's a unidentify flying object." Or course it's a UFO, if it wasn't we'd tell you exactly what the hell it is.

It could be a dust particle, it could be crap we've flung out in space, it could be semen from the astronauts space suit. Who f*cking knows.

[IamRAMBO24]

"I believe in ufo's"
Classic rambo.

Did you watch the video?

Nope, just a troll.

[IamRAMBO24]

Wow, that's a huge d!ck.

Did you watch the video?

Probably not, too stubborn.

[IamRAMBO24]

Here's another analysis debunking it: http://www.*****.com/general/stsd.htm

Why do you post old shit that's already been debunked? What's next, the Loch Ness Monster photo?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/5e/Hoaxed_photo_of_the_Loch_Ness_monster.jpg

Did you watch the video?

Nope, living up to his name.

[IamRAMBO24]

Objects don't move in a straight line in space. At the very moment an objects enters a planets gravity field it's part of a three body problem(star-planet-object).

Nothing simply falls down. Especially when it's moving.

I didn't look at your video, because in general all those videos get debunked sooner or later.

Basically the plate shape of flying objects is neither favourable in atmospheric or nonathmospheric flight. Why should a progressive species use shapes for their spaceships that stem from men's imagination?

Exactly.

STFU and come back at me when you've seen the video; look at this idiot trying to "refute" me when he hasn't seen the f*ckin video. The nerve some of you trolls have.

:facepalm

[IamRAMBO24]

Remember, the people who aren't responding are quietly agreeing with you and respect you.

What do we have here, another professional troll. Let me guess you didn't watch the video, but I'm sure you're arguing on your alts behalf Budaddaiiii? I'm sure he's seen the video and getting off on sticking his d*ck through that donut hole.

Go blow each other troll.

Watch the video or GTFO. Thanks.

[RoseCity07]

It's really sad that some people are so desperate for proof they will see anything they want to see even if it's not really there. I'd love for real proof to be shown but this isn't even close to it.

[niko]

It's really sad that some people are so desperate for proof they will see anything they want to see even if it's not really there. I'd love for real proof to be shown but this isn't even close to it.
He doesn't want proof or necessarily think it's real. He wants to argue it's real. It's irrelevent what he thinks, even to himself. he thinks it's fun to argue to the rest of you that you are wrong.

[IamRAMBO24]

It's really sad that some people are so desperate for proof they will see anything they want to see even if it's not really there. I'd love for real proof to be shown but this isn't even close to it.

Proof is in the details homeboy. How are you gonna come off with some lame reasoning as saying "they will try to see anything if it's not really there?"

Something is there.

1. It pulsates, but it can't be a star.

2. It is 2-3 miles long (this has been proven).

3. It looks transparent because NASA is using UV cameras that picks up invisible light, meaning those objects can't be seen with the naked eye.

4. It has geometry. Perfect circle, donut in the middle with the precise calculation of pi, the cut out pizza shape is angle at the same degree with every object, therefore it can't be a natural phenomenon such as a comet or dust particle.

Look I'm not assuming anything; the assumption is all on you homeboy: you're assuming it is a natural artifact when I proven it can't be.

[IamRAMBO24]

He doesn't want proof or necessarily think it's real. He wants to argue it's real. It's irrelevent what he thinks, even to himself. he thinks it's fun to argue to the rest of you that you are wrong.

Then tell me what it is. I have a legit argument; you're too much of a nerd to take it straight on.

Stop trying to cop out and say you don't want to argue. That's just a poor man's way of saying you don't want to argue. Trust me if you can actually disprove my claims, then you would of have done it already. I'm sure every one of you would jump on that chance immediately if the opportunity presents itself, so stop saying some stupid sh*t like "Man you love to argue, so I won't watch the video, but I'm just going to troll you and tell you are wrong. OMGZ. I SO COOLZ.
"
Do you know how stupid you look right now? I'm calling you out and you're too much of a beta to take me on.

You guys might view me as delusional, but one thing I won't ever do around here: cop out of an argument. Man up, maybe you will actually learn something.

[Overdrive]

Exactly.

STFU and come back at me when you've seen the video; look at this idiot trying to "refute" me when he hasn't seen the f*ckin video. The nerve some of you trolls have.

:facepalm

Are you an alien? Why would I refute "you". Do you feel discriminated?

[IamRAMBO24]

And the proof I have is the video. It is legit and straight from NASA. That's all the proof I need.

I have the evidence I need with the correct kind of sound reasoning and you nerds are brushing it off and trolling the f*ck out of this thread.

:facepalm

What does that say about your character if you can't take on a legit discussion? Yall are just a bunch of trolls, period. Stop being so immature and take on the discussion even if you don't fully believe in it. At least if you can prove me wrong, you can take solace in the fact that you've proven me wrong. As is, you all are just acting like a bunch of trolls with no merit to your posts.

Another piece of observation:

The objects appear out of nowhere, this goes to prove it can't be a comet or a dust particle since you'll see the object moving across the camera from left to right if it is indeed those objects. These objects are moving up, down, left, and right so it is not being controlled by a gravitional force; these objects look like they are moving on their own.

[IamRAMBO24]

Are you an alien? Why would I refute "you". Do you feel discriminated?

It is one thing to refute my claims, but it is quite another when you admit you did not watch the video before you did it.

You're just a troll. GTFO.

[Overdrive]

It is one thing to refute my claims, but it is quite another when you admit you did not watch the video before you did it.

You're just a troll. GTFO.

I did not refute your claims of aliens being out there and havin flying objects. I refuted these points:

"Objects move in a straight line in space" and "An object would fall down on earth".

I don't need to watch a video made in 0.5p of some flying disc to refute those points, because they're wrong no matter what.

[IamRAMBO24]

I did not refute your claims of aliens being out there and havin flying objects. I refuted these points:

"Objects move in a straight line in space" and "An object would fall down on earth".

I don't need to watch a video made in 0.5p of some flying disc to refute those points, because they're wrong no matter what.

stop being a troll and watch the video.

[dr.hee]

stop being a troll and watch the video.

You claimed nonsense about physics, got schooled...and as usual, you run away like a little bitch :oldlol:

[IamRAMBO24]

You claimed nonsense about physics, got schooled...and as usual, you run away like a little bitch :oldlol:

Shut up troll, watch the video, and argue my points. Thanks.

[dr.hee]

Shut up troll, watch the video, and argue my points. Thanks.

Are you brain damaged? You can't know whether I watched the video or not. Besides, I've already posted a link that explains how to reproduce the same effects seen in your video in 2:30 minutes. The whole Devil's advocate arguing for the sake of it schtick could be interesting, but your intellectual level is way too pedestrian to pull it off.

So again...Overdrive destroyed you on physics, and you're not man enough to admit being dead wrong. Running away like a little girl, lol. Nothing new to see here :sleeping

[IamRAMBO24]

Are you brain damaged? You can't know whether I watched the video or not. Besides, I've already posted a link that explains how to reproduce the same effects seen in your video in 2:30 minutes. The whole Devil's advocate arguing for the sake of it schtick could be interesting, but your intellectual level is way too pedestrian to pull it off.

So again...Overdrive destroyed you on physics, and you're not man enough to admit being dead wrong. Running away like a little girl, lol. Nothing new to see here :sleeping

That stupid photo with snow flakes? GTFO.

It's a legit shot homeboy. I have proven it is 2-3 miles long, it obviously pulsates, there is geometry, and I have proven it can't be a comet or a dust particle due to the fact it's not moving in a straight line by a gravitational pull and appear out of nowhere.

Your rebuttal is bullsh*t. Now tell me what it is if you are so confident you know what it is.

[IamRAMBO24]

So again...Overdrive destroyed you on physics, and you're not man enough to admit being dead wrong. Running away like a little girl, lol. Nothing new to see here :sleeping

I didn't bother with overdrive's argument because his f*ckin 3 way movement is rookie material. If he actually watched the video, he would realize the objects move in all directions and not synchronized; last I checked, the 3 way requires synchronization and a gravitational pull. Trust me, overdrive can't argue this point. Your love child is being an idiot.

[tontoz]

A video from 1996?

:facepalm

[Meticode]

Looks like space debris or some shit. Nothing changed direction seemingly.

[Raymone]

The OP is borderline retarded. Sorry, mentally disabled.

But I respect him in that he at least gave college a try before dropping out. Better than to have never tried at all.

[IamRAMBO24]

Looks like space debris or some shit. Nothing changed direction seemingly.

I'm going to key in one argument: pi.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/36/Pi_eq_C_over_d.svg/220px-Pi_eq_C_over_d.svg.png

Simply put it is the ratio of a circular object to its diameter. If the circular object is larger, it will have twice the circumference.

Here are the pictures of the various sizes of the objects:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-L3N4vI6guYc/UWgnWNiU34I/AAAAAAAAPgY/kpnTAFoqios/s400/UFO,+UFOs,+sighting,+sightings,+alien,+aliens,+ET, +space,+nasa,+ESA,+moon,+tether,+incident,+life,+b iology,+form,+entity,+angel,+god,+area+51,.jpg

As you can see, it follows pi right down to its mathematical proximity. Not only that, the pizza shape cut out is at the precise angle from the circumference.

Sure we might find symmetry in nature, but the chances of geometry is probably a billion to one between two objects, let alone hundreds of objects in space.

This is a dust particle:

http://www.weirdwarp.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/interplanetary-dust.jpg
http://mhpbooks.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/img7-320x310.gif
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/publications/slidesets/marslife/images/slif_s32.jpg

Details folks. Details.

[CelticBaller]

i totally believe in aliens now :bowdown:


























































































































:oldlol:

[Raymone]

It follows pi.

[JUDGE WITNESS]

finally we have discovered an intelligent species

[IamRAMBO24]

i totally believe in aliens now :bowdown:
:

No reason, logic, or video evidence can change a long held indoctrinated belief system.

The only way you will believe it is if the government comes out and says it (which they won't) or the news media (which they won't either).

You're not operating with your brain; you're just operating with your emotions. If you were logical, you would attack the arguments I laid out, as is, you're just soaking in your own stubbornness.

[Angel Face]

I believe you OP. UFOs are real. Rode one when I was a kid, the interior was awesome has cool air conditioning and super advanced computers and it flies so fast. I still remember it up to this day. Best experience ever. Made me cry.

[niko]

I believe you OP. UFOs are real. Rode one when I was a kid, the interior was awesome has cool air conditioning and super advanced computers and it flies so fast. I still remember it up to this day. Best experience ever. Made me cry.
Was that because of where they stuck the probe?

[nathanjizzle]

assuming if it were somewhat reasonable to believe these were alien spacecraft. why would all of them be facing broadside to the camera showing their buttholes.

[Jackass18]

Did you watch the video?

Nope, living up to his name.

I've watched the video multiple times as it's a bit old. It's already been debunked, but you just want to keep on going for the sake of arguing. Go check out James Oberg's analysis or the video in this thread that also debunks it.

[Andrei89]

OP is a *******

[Jailblazers7]

Takes 2:30 to debunk that bullshit :oldlol:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ce6QUJ0idYo

Let's see how Rambo is spinning that one. I don't know...he's probably in for arguing for the sake of it anyway. Deluding himself into thinking that by "winning" an argument even though he knows he's wrong, he's proving how great he is. Didn't he even make a thread about this?

:lol

So wait...this was posted on the third page but somehow this thread is still going? WTF?

[niko]

So wait...this was posted on the third page but somehow this thread is still going? WTF?
We aren't allowed to stop. I made fun of Rambo in another thread and he basically cried for me to stop. So we must discuss this forever.

So it's not dust damnit!

[JUDGE WITNESS]

floating space donut

aliens

[dr.hee]

So wait...this was posted on the third page but somehow this thread is still going? WTF?

Yup. Rambo staying true to his simple mind. Running away like a child everytime someone destroys his crappy posts. That's why he's doing it on an anonymous message board. No real life consequences for being a b!tch. He'd be the laughing stock of any real conversations within seconds, but in the context of a forum where he can ignore facts and log off when being exposed, he's preserving his delusion of thinking he's an intelligent debater by sidestepping every post that's showing how pedestrian his thought processes truly are:oldlol:

[joe]

Pretty interesting. I don't know enough about physics, cameras, or lighting to really have an opinion however. At gunpoint, I'd say that debunk video posted below did seem pretty legit. I do appreciate your threads Rambo though I do agree you could do to be nicer. :P. I think people do dismiss things just because they don't like thinking too much.


Takes 2:30 to debunk that bullshit

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ce6QUJ0idYo

Let's see how Rambo is spinning that one. I don't know...he's probably in for arguing for the sake of it anyway. Deluding himself into thinking that by "winning" an argument even though he knows he's wrong, he's proving how great he is. Didn't he even make a thread about this?

[Zan Tabak]

These things have been filmed from the ground as well check out this vid...4:00 minute mark..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oaht3Tyieq8

Also, check out this guys^^ Youtube channel. Definitely has the best collection of UFO vids.

[Raymone]

The pizza follows pi.


I'm going to key in one argument: pi.

As you can see, it follows pi. Not only that, the pizza shape cut out

[shlver]

I'm going to key in one argument: pi.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/36/Pi_eq_C_over_d.svg/220px-Pi_eq_C_over_d.svg.png

Simply put it is the ratio of a circular object to its diameter. If the circular object is larger, it will have twice the circumference.

Here are the pictures of the various sizes of the objects:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-L3N4vI6guYc/UWgnWNiU34I/AAAAAAAAPgY/kpnTAFoqios/s400/UFO,+UFOs,+sighting,+sightings,+alien,+aliens,+ET, +space,+nasa,+ESA,+moon,+tether,+incident,+life,+b iology,+form,+entity,+angel,+god,+area+51,.jpg

As you can see, it follows pi right down to its mathematical proximity. Not only that, the pizza shape cut out is at the precise angle from the circumference.

Sure we might find symmetry in nature, but the chances of geometry is probably a billion to one between two objects, let alone hundreds of objects in space.

This is a dust particle:

http://www.weirdwarp.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/interplanetary-dust.jpg
http://mhpbooks.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/img7-320x310.gif
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/publications/slidesets/marslife/images/slif_s32.jpg

Details folks. Details.
Details huh? Like the apparent detail you missed when you compared two media taken with different resolutions.

[IamRAMBO24]

Takes 2:30 to debunk that bullshit :oldlol:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ce6QUJ0idYo

Let's see how Rambo is spinning that one. I don't know...he's probably in for arguing for the sake of it anyway. Deluding himself into thinking that by "winning" an argument even though he knows he's wrong, he's proving how great he is. Didn't he even make a thread about this?

:lol

This is how you know your argument is legit: you take on everybody. You don't just cave in and use trolling as a last result, you take on the argument.

Like I said, bring it on:

1. The debunkers said and I quote them, "The camera is out of focus."

What they are not telling us is the camera is zooming into to the object hence parts of it are not in focus, but if you watch the video, the astronauts are doing whatever they can to focus their lens as close to the object as possible; since NASA is using a UV camera, it can pick up light that are invisible to the naked eye.

http://r.ddmcdn.com/w_622/u_0/gif/star-milky-way.jpg

To see distant galaxies, they have to clear out dust in order to pick up the lights beyond our galaxy

http://images.freehdw.com/800/3d-abstract_other_hubble-distant-galaxies_57194.jpg

Those objects in the video look transparent because they are invisible light and not because they are out of focus; you can compare this with the tether and see it is 2x its density because of the power of the camera, so NASA's multi million dollar camera isn't sh*tty and can't focus on close objects in space, it is the objects themselves that are fuzzy because they invisible to the naked eye.

[IamRAMBO24]

2. They are dust particles.

Again, look at the photo:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-L3N4vI6guYc/UWgnWNiU34I/AAAAAAAAPgY/kpnTAFoqios/s400/UFO,+UFOs,+sighting,+sightings,+alien,+aliens,+ET, +space,+nasa,+ESA,+moon,+tether,+incident,+life,+b iology,+form,+entity,+angel,+god,+area+51,.jpg

Now compare it to a dust particle:

http://www.weirdwarp.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/interplanetary-dust.jpg

What is the difference? Geometry. It is a perfect circle right down to pi. You don't see a disfiguration in the edges; the circumference angles directly at 90 degrees with the pizza cut out shape. Each and every object has this mathetical precision. Nothing in nature can produce this; sure we might have symmetry on 1 object, but it is virtually impossible for 2 natural objects to have the same mathematics. Think of the snow flake analogy: not one is similar.

[IamRAMBO24]

I'm pretty sure I can argue the entire debunking, but I'll stop right there. I don't you naysayers to process too much; it might make your brain explode.

[shlver]

I'm pretty sure I can argue the entire debunking, but I'll stop right there. I don't you naysayers to process too much; it might make your brain explode.
Process this: the video taken by nasa and your images of dust particles are two different resolutions.

[Lebowsky]

2. They are dust particles.

Again, look at the photo:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-L3N4vI6guYc/UWgnWNiU34I/AAAAAAAAPgY/kpnTAFoqios/s400/UFO,+UFOs,+sighting,+sightings,+alien,+aliens,+ET, +space,+nasa,+ESA,+moon,+tether,+incident,+life,+b iology,+form,+entity,+angel,+god,+area+51,.jpg

Now compare it to a dust particle:

http://www.weirdwarp.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/interplanetary-dust.jpg

What is the difference? Geometry. It is a perfect circle right down to pi. You don't see a disfiguration in the edges; the circumference angles directly at 90 degrees with the pizza cut out shape. Each and every object has this mathetical precision. Nothing in nature can produce this; sure we might have symmetry on 1 object, but it is virtually impossible for 2 natural objects to have the same mathematics. Think of the snow flake analogy: not one is similar.
This post is so ful of fail.

[shlver]

Only rambo would suggest dust captured on a low res 1996 camera would look like the high res micrograph from a scanning electron microscope. Then conclude that it's not dust and must be an alien aircraft because they're dissimilar.

[CelticBaller]

Only rambo would suggest dust captured on a low res 1996 camera would look like the high res micrograph from a scanning electron microscope. Then conclude that it's not dust and must be an alien aircraft because they're dissimilar.
dont ever bother man :lol

[Lebowsky]

Only rambo would suggest dust captured on a low res 1996 camera would look like the high res micrograph from a scanning electron microscope. Then conclude that it's not dust and must be an alien aircraft because they're dissimilar.
You're obviously overlooking the fact that the two pepperoni pizzas are identical right down to the number pi, and you can't find two identical pizzas in nature.

[Marlo_Stanfield]

they recently shut down a huge airport in germany because an unidentified flying object appeared in the sky and appeared and disappeared on the radar for like 3 hours. they sent out miltary helicopters to search for it but didnt find it.
it was a huge buzz in german media but one day after u would never hear from it again even tho theres evidence that it was some shady shit.
Coincidence???:coleman:

[niko]

Totally being a non jerk , I don't find this compelling. If OP shows more and different videos id watch but this has already been disproved and the argument against that isn't that compelling. My non sarcastic two cents.

[ace23]

Rambo getting destroyed on every page :roll: :roll:

[IamRAMBO24]

Rambo getting destroyed on every page :roll: :roll:

That video has already been proven to be false. He was using whatever means to create an optical illusion with the lens in a controlled environment. He could probably replicate one object with the same shape, size, and light, but there were muliple sizes emitting different degrees of pulsation and changing speeds and some going faster than a comet (300 miles per second) based on the velocity of comets and asteroids in comparison, not to mention, not all the objects reflected the same kind of donut hole shape: some are different in structure; there are too many anamolies to take that debunking video seriously.

Here is an example of a coverup:

Phoenix lights:

http://kpho.images.worldnow.com/images/17117395_BG1.JPG

Government excuse?

Flares.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-8GtXYkIbSJI/UgwkQPnkhcI/AAAAAAAAGCQ/VqFDULqckRk/s640/008flares.JPG

It is easier to disbelieve than to believe; some people will buy the flare explanation, some will not. Just like how some of you will take the "lens out of focus, optical explanation" seriously because it requires no effort to think too much into it, but seriously, I can harp on and on about how much bullsh*t that video is too.

I'm done with this thread. I can no longer argue otherwise since you now have a convenient explanation that makes absolutely no sense, but it is a form of an explanation and that is all that is needed for some of you. To each their own.

[IamRAMBO24]

Norway spiral light:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_w6uR1ccXoqc/TBJFEQPlV0I/AAAAAAAABoQ/3pLAvmRhsr8/s200/norway+spiral+light+3.jpeg

The government covers it up by saying it's a missile spinning out of control:

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/slbm/trident-2-DNSC8906614_JPG.jpg

There are so many flaws in this excuse, but they literally said missile experiments were being conducted over a huge population in Norway.

Then again, some people are always looking for the easy answers because they are more content with it.

[IamRAMBO24]

Anyways, if you haven't seen the Norway lights, watch it, it's one of the most extroardinary thing caught on film.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ra7FMnpWMhY

[dr.hee]

Anyways, if you haven't seen the Norway lights, watch it, it's one of the most extroardinary thing caught on film.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ra7FMnpWMhY

Lol, you're one simple fella :oldlol:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zx8i5EfmYU4

But still...

http://img3.rnkr-static.com/user_node_img/1551/31001528/full/ancient-aliens-tv-programs-photo-u2.jpg

[IamRAMBO24]

Lol, you're one simple fella :oldlol:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zx8i5EfmYU4

But still...

http://img3.rnkr-static.com/user_node_img/1551/31001528/full/ancient-aliens-tv-programs-photo-u2.jpg

No you are simple.

1. Why the f*ck would they do a top secret test in front of the population and so close to it? This is very uncharacteristic of a legit missile test.

2. The spiral lasts for minutes and then disappeared into a black hole like portal. Explain to me how a possible failed missile can create that dark spot and can last that long (literally minutes) when missile failed tests explode in a matter of seconds? I'm really excited with this explanation. Put your thinking caps on and tell me.

Black hole:

http://www.enterprisemission.com/Norway-torsion7.jpg

3. If it was a failed missile flailing around, then you would of seen that missile fall to the ground or explode like every f*ckin missile known to mankind, along with the trails .. you don't. It disappeared into that black spot.

4. Perfect spiral:

http://www.enterprisemission.com/Norway-torsion3-enhanced.jpg

That is a perfect spiral homeboy; there is absolutely no way a flailing missile can follow the precise path; it goes ape sh*t and explodes in a matter of seconds. This spiral has the exact mathematics of distant spiral galaxies. It is definitely not a failed missile.

Seriously, stop with your naivety. You're dumb as a rock and cannot disprove my premise. Your unwillingness to argue my points shows you are just pulling sh*t out of your a*s to call me stupid. Go lick a goat's nut loser. Like I said, you're willing to take the convenient explanation and forgo all rational thought. This is actually the definition of ignorance.

[joe]

That video has already been proven to be false. He was using whatever means to create an optical illusion with the lens in a controlled environment. He could probably replicate one object with the same shape, size, and light, but there were muliple sizes emitting different degrees of pulsation and changing speeds and some going faster than a comet (300 miles per second) based on the velocity of comets and asteroids in comparison, not to mention, not all the objects reflected the same kind of donut hole shape: some are different in structure; there are too many anamolies to take that debunking video seriously.


Good counter :P

[niko]

Anyways, if you haven't seen the Norway lights, watch it, it's one of the most extroardinary thing caught on film.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ra7FMnpWMhY
Are you saying it's an alien spaceship?

[tomSR.]

good point op, here is another proof: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ywu9RwV1b8

right on ! :eek: amazing work

[Jackass18]

Here is a thread with analysis: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread538280/pg1&mem=

[IamRAMBO24]

Here is a thread with analysis: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread538280/pg1&mem=

:facepalm

You trolls are running out of ammunition: this is fully evident by the fact you can only cite other people's opinion as your only form of rebuttal.

I thought Kevnyc was bad with this sh*t, but I guess some of you are guilty of this as well.

Anyways, take my points on; I have proven there is a deliberate coverup; I have proven that by the pics and the detailed analysis of those pics, the official explanation is a hoax; and above all I have proven you nerds will only accept the most convenient answers, hell, if the government comes out and said those were special effects straight out of a Michael Bay movie, you idiots would accept it hook, line, and sinker without a single thought. Sad. But true.

[IamRAMBO24]

Are you saying it's an alien spaceship?

No I was proving a deliberate cover up by the government by both the Russians and US when it comes to anamolies.

1. I presented a picture so you guys can analyze how stupid their explanation is, which is hands down the most powerful piece of evidence.

2. I provided a detailed analysis of why it is stupid, which are supporting arguments for that evidence.

Conclusion:

It is a fact there is a deliberate coverup; do you seriously believe a powerful entity as the Russian government and US can botch an elementary, full of sh*t, explanation of a phenomenon like that? They got some of the smartest Scientists in the world working for them, surely they can't be THAT stupid to really think those are flares or a missile.

[DonDadda59]

http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20121117164514/uncyclopedia/images/4/47/Peter_Griffin_Ding_Fries_are_Done.gif

Ding. Fries are done.

Quit the internet tomfoolery and get back to work.

[IamRAMBO24]

Only rambo would suggest dust captured on a low res 1996 camera would look like the high res micrograph from a scanning electron microscope. Then conclude that it's not dust and must be an alien aircraft because they're dissimilar.

I missed this.

This is actually NASA's assumption.

My assumption is those are anamolies unexplained, hence UFOs.

1. They cannot be seen with the naked eye.

2. The objects are 2-3 miles long, so it is bullsh*t they are trying to say those are dust particles out of focus when they are only a few microns.

3. They are saying particles shine because of reflection from other light sources, namely the sun; well this doesn't explain why it pulsates to a mathematical precision. Even in the debunking video, the guy fails to show why the object pulsates. Objects that reflect light do not pulsate.

4. They are claiming those are debris from the tether when it is clear from the video the objects didn't come from the tether but appear out of nowhere in all directions.

Details folks, details; there is simply too many anaomlies to take their explanation seriously, plus, I have proven they will lie out of their a*ses to cover this sh*t up.

[IamRAMBO24]

http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20121117164514/uncyclopedia/images/4/47/Peter_Griffin_Ding_Fries_are_Done.gif

Ding. Fries are done.

Quit the internet tomfoolery and get back to work.

Go away troll, this is where real men have real discussions.

[DonDadda59]

Go away troll, this is where real men have real discussions.

I'll have a number 2 with a Dr. Pepper, thank you.

[IamRAMBO24]

I'll have a number 2 with a Dr. Pepper, thank you.

No real discussion and pure out trolling.

I have destroyed your rep and made you out as nothing more than a troll.

[Raymone]

Rambo, just accept that you are equal parts stupid and delusional. Acquiesce already, run away with your tail between your legs and hide in shame until you feel compelled again to start your next dumb thread. You're holding up the cycle by continuing this one.

[DonDadda59]

No real discussion and pure out trolling.

I have destroyed your rep and made you out as nothing more than a troll.

:oldlol:

That fry grease is starting to cause some serious brain damage. You have been thoroughly ripped to shreds in your own misguided thread. Thinking you're proving some point using videos and ridiculous theories that were debunked during the Clinton administration.

Shit is embarrassing. Stick to what you know. Number 2, super-sized, with a Dr. Pepper. And throw in one of those dollar menu parfaits for dessert.

[IamRAMBO24]

:oldlol:

That fry grease is starting to cause some serious brain damage. You have been thoroughly ripped to shreds in your own misguided thread. Thinking you're proving some point using videos and ridiculous theories that were debunked during the Clinton administration.

Shit is embarrassing. Stick to what you know. Number 2, super-sized, with a Dr. Pepper. And throw in one of those dollar menu parfaits for dessert.

This is just a deliberate trolling attempt by both you and Ramone, last I checked, neither one of you have disprove my claims.

Like I said, if you can prove me wrong, then I will shut up. I am not here to be right, I am here to learn from your insight and be a better person as a result.

My intentions are good; you guys are trolling because these ideas challenge your belief system, which makes you fight back. How are you any different from a religious fundamentalist?

You have already established UFOs simply don't exist and no amount of reason, logic, and evidence will change this.

Seriously, who is being simple minded here?

[IamRAMBO24]

Take on the argument. This is a direct challenge; prove to me my analysis is incorrect; prove to me those are dust particles, a failed missile, and flares.

I mean if you guys are so f*ckin smart and I'm the idiot, surely you can take me straight on correct?

Trolling and derailing is nothing more than a cop out to protect your precious shallow fundamentalist belief system.

What you nerds don't realize is the reason why so many people consider Einstein to be a genius, is because he was out to disprove claims. I made a claim, so disprove it. Einstein has proven this is the best methodology to truth.

As is, you guys are adamant in your belief system and would fight tooth and nail to protect it instead of carrying out the procedure for revealing truth.

Weak.

What a bunch of betas. Take me on losers.

[DonDadda59]

I am not here to be right, I am here to learn from your insight and be a better person as a result.

No, you're here to argue ad nauseam LONG after any and all of your points have been decimated. You're still trying to convince people here that dust/ice particles from a mid 90s video are in fact highly advanced interplanetary/inter-galaxy 2-3 mile long Independence Day like space craft...

When that nonsense was debunked by Dr. Hee on PAGE 3 (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=9472135&postcount=44)

Yet here you are on page 10 just clueless as f*ck. Where's my food? :biggums:

[IamRAMBO24]

No, you're here to argue ad nauseam LONG after any and all of your points have been decimated. You're still trying to convince people here that dust/ice particles from a mid 90s video are in fact highly advanced interplanetary/inter-galaxy 2-3 mile long Independence Day like space craft...

When that nonsense was debunked by Dr. Hee on PAGE 3 (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=9472135&postcount=44)

Yet here you are on page 10 just clueless as f*ck. Where's my food? :biggums:

And I debunked his debunking with my own:


That video has already been proven to be false. He was using whatever means to create an optical illusion with the lens in a controlled environment. He could probably replicate one object with the same shape, size, and light, but there were muliple sizes emitting different degrees of pulsation and changing speeds and some going faster than a comet (300 miles per second) based on the velocity of comets and asteroids in comparison, not to mention, not all the objects reflected the same kind of donut hole shape: some are different in structure; there are too many anamolies to take that debunking video seriously.

That's how an argument works: when there is a rebuttal to a claim, you are supposed refute that as well. You don't just cop out and troll like a b*tch.

[DonDadda59]

And I debunked his debunking with my own:


Well then it looks like you won the internetz, congratulations. The guy replicates the conditions found in the original video with some crude objects bust since you, oh mighty and learned fry maker, offered a rebuttal... he has been debunked :oldlol:

Watch out Earth circa 1996. Space monsters are coming for dat ass. Your next lunch break project should be building a quantum leap time machine to warn Will Smith.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u45/gitemstevedave/Gawker/ID4/WelcomeToEarf.gif

[IamRAMBO24]

Well then it looks like you won the internetz, congratulations. The guy replicates the conditions found in the original video with some crude objects bust since you, oh mighty and learned fry maker, offered a rebuttal... he has been debunked :oldlol:

Watch out Earth circa 1996. Space monsters are coming for dat ass. Your next lunch break project should be building a quantum leap time machine to warn Will Smith.


1. It was a controlled environment.

2. If NASA was using a telephoto lens that creates a circular object with a donut in the middle, then why are there other objects with different structures?

3. If they are dust particles freely floating in space, then why do some objects shoot through the screen with the same velocity of a comet while others moving slowly?

4. If the objects are debris from the tether, then how come some of the objects appear out of nowhere, are far away from the object and gravitating towards it? If it came from the object, it's origin should be from the object and moving away, and not appear away from it and move towards it.

5. The guy uses a fishing line to do whatever he can to manufacture the illusion there is a circle in the middle. This is obviously a controlled experiment to replicate the shape of the anamollies and not really how NASA's camera actually works. You guys aren't too stupid to believe NASA's multi-million dollar cameras can't capture objects in it's full integrity correct? If they can capture distant galaxies light years away, I'm sure they can zoom up to dust particles close to the earth without being out of focus.

6. If it is reflecting light, then why does it pulsate? Light from the sun is constant, it doesn't pulsate. You can see this in a reflection of everyday objects; does the sun pulsate reflecting off of it?

[IamRAMBO24]

Anyways the above response was to this stupid video Don keeps on harping on:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ce6QUJ0idYo

You know your argument is strong when you can shut up the entire forum and take on the debunkers ..

:oldlol:

Rambo for the win.

[Mr. Jabbar]

i believe in food

[dr.hee]

Are you f*cking kidding me? I've ordered a cheeseburger and fries half an hour ago, and the fat virgin behind the counter was posting conspiracy nonsense on ISH the whole time?

1. Shut down you laptop and go back to work.
2. Turn on the frying machine.
3. GET ME MY DAMN CHEESEBURGER:mad:

Looks like I'll have a talk to your manager to tell him that Mr. Rambo24 freaking sucks...

[Jackass18]

:facepalm

You trolls are running out of ammunition: this is fully evident by the fact you can only cite other people's opinion as your only form of rebuttal.

I thought Kevnyc was bad with this sh*t, but I guess some of you are guilty of this as well.

Running out of ammunition? No, I'm just not sure I really care that much to debate with someone who has such a shitty attitude like you do. If I had no ammunition, then I wouldn't have posted that link that gives a detailed analysis of the incident. I do like to argue, and I kind of feel sorry for you, but do I want to waste my time with someone like you?

Here's a clip that has more of your UFOs:

http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/45a6c0ec1c8e.gif

Let me guess, you're going to comment about how they're not moving. There's other videos out there...


I am not here to be right, I am here to learn from your insight and be a better person as a result.

My intentions are good; you guys are trolling because these ideas challenge your belief system, which makes you fight back. How are you any different from a religious fundamentalist?

What a load of shit. If you actually wanted to learn about something like this, then you would have done it at a far more pertinent website.

[dr.hee]

Running out of ammunition? No, I'm just not sure I really care that much to debate with someone who has such a shitty attitude like you do. If I had no ammunition, then I wouldn't have posted that link that gives a detailed analysis of the incident. I do like to argue, and I kind of feel sorry for you, but do I want to waste my time with someone like you?

Here's a clip that has more of your UFOs:

http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/45a6c0ec1c8e.gif

Let me guess, you're going to comment about how they're not moving. There's other videos out there...



What a load of shit. If you actually wanted to learn about something like this, then you would have done it at a far more pertinent website.

1. This video is most likely fake.
2. In the original video, the UFOs are throbbing like nice healthy c*ck.
3. Newton was wrong, therefore your claim is invalid. Have you ever watched The Matrix? It proves that Benjamin Bloom is conditioning school kids
4 There are far too many anamolies you can't explain. For example, dust particles. Also, magnets, bitch. Tide goes in, tide goes out. Never a miscommunication.

You can't explain that.

[Jackass18]

1. This video is most likely fake.
2. In the original video, the UFOs are throbbing like nice healthy c*ck.
3. Newton was wrong, therefore your claim is invalid. Have you ever watched The Matrix? It proves that Benjamin Bloom is conditioning school kids
4 There are far too many anamolies you can't explain. For example, dust particles. Also, magnets, bitch. Tide goes in, tide goes out. Never a miscommunication.

You can't explain that.

http://www.reactiongifs.us/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/you_got_me_breaking_bad.gif

[dr.hee]

http://www.reactiongifs.us/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/you_got_me_breaking_bad.gif

http://n1ls.de/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/walter_white_you_are_god_damn_right.gif

[nathanjizzle]

Running out of ammunition? No, I'm just not sure I really care that much to debate with someone who has such a shitty attitude like you do. If I had no ammunition, then I wouldn't have posted that link that gives a detailed analysis of the incident. I do like to argue, and I kind of feel sorry for you, but do I want to waste my time with someone like you?

Here's a clip that has more of your UFOs:

http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/45a6c0ec1c8e.gif

Let me guess, you're going to comment about how they're not moving. There's other videos out there...



What a load of shit. If you actually wanted to learn about something like this, then you would have done it at a far more pertinent website.

bump. see how dumb rambo is? he spent all this time and energy trying to debate that these donuts were ufos, when any reasonably smart person could analyze them for 3 seconds and conclude they were not alien spacecraft.

[dr.hee]

bump. see how dumb rambo is? he spent all this time and energy trying to debate that these donuts were ufos, when any reasonably smart person could analyze them for 3 seconds and conclude they were not alien spacecraft.

One time, I've ordered a donut together with my usual burger menu, and dude tried to convince me they're actually alien spacecraft. Told me I can't order a "donut" because they're 2 miles long and moving too fast for him to catch. True story.

[niko]

Stop being mean, I was debating him in the other thread and he threatened to report me, asked for me to be banned, called me mean and was about to cry. So just agree with him already so he can go and be the happy winner of the interweb.

[shlver]

What would the energy requirements be for an object that is 3 miles long to move perpendicularly along the camera's flight path? Remember the NASA vehicle is moving at thousands of mph.
Is it even possible?

[D-FENS]

I drove out to Area 51 last month by myself at night. It's a freaky ass place to be driving, not due to aliens etc, but there's about 40 miles of road with free range cattle walking all over the place, and it's so hard to see, completely pitch black out there.

I also got confused driving in mph, instead of kph and was doing 110 mph.... :roll: That makes it a little scarier. Those Ford Mustangs are easy to speed in

[shlver]

I missed this.

This is actually NASA's assumption.

My assumption is those are anamolies unexplained, hence UFOs.

1. They cannot be seen with the naked eye.

2. The objects are 2-3 miles long, so it is bullsh*t they are trying to say those are dust particles out of focus when they are only a few microns.

3. They are saying particles shine because of reflection from other light sources, namely the sun; well this doesn't explain why it pulsates to a mathematical precision. Even in the debunking video, the guy fails to show why the object pulsates. Objects that reflect light do not pulsate.

4. They are claiming those are debris from the tether when it is clear from the video the objects didn't come from the tether but appear out of nowhere in all directions.

Details folks, details; there is simply too many anaomlies to take their explanation seriously, plus, I have proven they will lie out of their a*ses to cover this sh*t up.
No it is your assumption. You tried to show that the objects were not dust particles by showing micrographs of dust particles.
The debris described by the astronauts flying across their field of vision and also moving with the vehicle has a strong case for being the source of the artifacts. You're unwilling to admit this and move on to unsupported claims.
"pulsating with mathematical precision"
What does this even mean? :rolleyes:
"objects that reflect light do not pulsate"
If you are made of atoms(which is basically anything), then you have electrons and you emit photons... The physical act of capturing pulsation on camera requires emissions of photons.
"They cannot be seen by the naked eye"
Well debris were seen by the naked eye by the astronauts as per the audio.
"The objects are 2-3 miles long, so it is bullsh*t they are trying to say those are dust particles out of focus when they are only a few microns".
The video, at some points, shows a supposed 3 mile alien aircraft that disobeys physical laws of motion. Do you even understand how much energy a vehicle of that size would need to move perpendicularly with the camera's flight path? Remember the space vehicle itself is moving at thousands of mph.
"They are claiming those are debris from the tether when it is clear from the video the objects didn't come from the tether but appear out of nowhere in all directions."
Consistent with the astronauts describing debris crossing their field of vision.

[tomSR.]

Stop being mean, I was debating him in the other thread and he threatened to report me, asked for me to be banned, called me mean and was about to cry. So just agree with him already so he can go and be the happy winner of the interweb.

Plus he has a micropenis

pm

[IamRAMBO24]

Running out of ammunition? No, I'm just not sure I really care that much to debate with someone who has such a shitty attitude like you do. If I had no ammunition, then I wouldn't have posted that link that gives a detailed analysis of the incident. I do like to argue, and I kind of feel sorry for you, but do I want to waste my time with someone like you?

Here's a clip that has more of your UFOs:

http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/45a6c0ec1c8e.gif

Let me guess, you're going to comment about how they're not moving. There's other videos out there...

Jackass, now that is surely a fitting name.


Do you know dumb that video is?

1. I have proven there is a deliberate coverup.

2. Do you know how easy it is to doctor a video like that? How stupid are you to take that at face value? It doesn't prove anything; for $100 I can prob buy the same program to pull sh*t out of my a*s so a bunch of generic morons like you will just buy it.

GTFO of here .. you're embarrassing my intelligence.


Argue the points and stop pulling sh*t like this. It's pathetic.

[IamRAMBO24]

Let's say I give you the benefit of the doubt and admit that is an optical illusion, you still haven't fully refuted the rest of my arguments:

1. If it was the use of a telephoto lens to create that shape, then why are there different shapes?

3. Why do some objects move slowly (like a dust particle) and some move as fast as a comet?

4. If the objects come from the tether, then why do they appear away from the tether?

5. Why do the objects pulsate if it is merely reflecting light?

You will win and I will admit defeat if you argue those facts. Thanks.

[niko]

Let's say I give you the benefit of the doubt and admit that is an optical illusion, you still haven't fully refuted the rest of my arguments:

1. If it was the use of a telephoto lens to create that shape, then why are there different shapes?

3. Why do some objects move slowly (like a dust particle) and some move as fast as a comet?

4. If the objects come from the tether, then why do they appear away from the tether?

5. Why do the objects pulsate if it is merely reflecting light?

You will win and I will admit defeat if you argue those facts. Thanks.
How come other people need to refute you but people write arguments that you just ignore? Shouldn't it go both ways? It's like a tennis match but you always want to serve,

[IamRAMBO24]

No it is your assumption. You tried to show that the objects were not dust particles by showing micrographs of dust particles.
The debris described by the astronauts flying across their field of vision and also moving with the vehicle has a strong case for being the source of the artifacts. You're unwilling to admit this and move on to unsupported claims.
"pulsating with mathematical precision"
What does this even mean? :rolleyes:
"objects that reflect light do not pulsate"
If you are made of atoms(which is basically anything), then you have electrons and you emit photons... The physical act of capturing pulsation on camera requires emissions of photons.
"They cannot be seen by the naked eye"
Well debris were seen by the naked eye by the astronauts as per the audio.
"The objects are 2-3 miles long, so it is bullsh*t they are trying to say those are dust particles out of focus when they are only a few microns".
The video, at some points, shows a supposed 3 mile alien aircraft that disobeys physical laws of motion. Do you even understand how much energy a vehicle of that size would need to move perpendicularly with the camera's flight path? Remember the space vehicle itself is moving at thousands of mph.
"They are claiming those are debris from the tether when it is clear from the video the objects didn't come from the tether but appear out of nowhere in all directions."
Consistent with the astronauts describing debris crossing their field of vision.

1. It is 2-3 miles long; the measurement is based on the length of the tether, which is 12 miles long; the object passes near the tether, so you can clearly tell it is at least a quarter in length of the tether, thus making it 2-3 miles long.

2. The NASA astronaut also said "The debris has been following us" .. did you miss that part? The word "ufo" is banned from their language. Yes some of the debris didn't come from the tether: it came from out of nowhere and moving toward it.

3. If it is reflecting off of light, then it would not pulsate like that; a reflection of light is low in energy; a pulsation like that indicates a high energy field, similar to a star.

[IamRAMBO24]

How come other people need to refute you but people write arguments that you just ignore? Shouldn't it go both ways? It's like a tennis match but you always want to serve,

I've takened everybody on, including the so call "professional" debunkers.

An argument doesn't get more legit than this.

[niko]

I've takened everybody on, including the so call "professional" debunkers.

An argument doesn't get more legit than this.
No hate, but you really have not. There's posts you have just skipped, and posts where you ignore most of waht people say. But you want people to talk about all of your points, one by one.

Note: A person doesn't need to refute everything you say to win the argument, they just have to proof that you are wrong, and it's been done several times. You don't get to set the terms of how you are proven wrong. That's not an argument, that's fact checking.

Are you arguing a premise or want people to verify your list of facts?

[Jackass18]

Jackass, now that is surely a fitting name.


Do you know dumb that video is?

1. I have proven there is a deliberate coverup.

2. Do you know how easy it is to doctor a video like that? How stupid are you to take that at face value? It doesn't prove anything; for $100 I can prob buy the same program to pull sh*t out of my a*s so a bunch of generic morons like you will just buy it.

GTFO of here .. you're embarrassing my intelligence.


Argue the points and stop pulling sh*t like this. It's pathetic.


IamRETARD24, now that is surely a fitting name.

1. You haven't proven shit.

2. Did you post the original source video from NASA or a possibly doctored youtube video? How stupid are you to take that at face value? It doesn't prove anything; for $100 I can prob buy the same program to pull sh*t out of my a*s so a bunch of generic morons like you will just buy it.

http://images.luvimages.com/luvphotos/y/you_lose_gif-392.jpg
Take your L and go home, Skippy

[IamRAMBO24]

No hate, but you really have not. There's posts you have just skipped, and posts where you ignore most of waht people say. But you want people to talk about all of your points, one by one.

Note: A person doesn't need to refute everything you say to win the argument, they just have to proof that you are wrong, and it's been done several times. You don't get to set the terms of how you are proven wrong. That's not an argument, that's fact checking.

Are you arguing a premise or want people to verify your list of facts?

The structure of an argument works like this:

1. You come up with a premise.

2. You have supporting arguments to back up that premise.

3. From that, you arrive at a conclusion.

If you want to refute the premise, you have to argue each and every supporting argument in order to prove your conclusion.

Even the debunker conveniently left out the acceleration of the object and pulsation; his dumba*s couldn't explain even when he was in a controlled environment and using whatever means to refute it. This goes to show how powerful that video is.

[niko]

The structure of an argument works like this:

1. You come up with a premise.

2. You have supporting arguments to back up that premise.

3. From that, you arrive at a conclusion.

If you want to refute the premise, you have to argue each and every supporting argument in order to prove your conclusion.

Even the debunker conveniently left out the acceleration of the object and pulsation; his dumba*s couldn't explain even when he was in a controlled environment and using whatever means to refute it. This goes to show how powerful that video is.

No you don't. You said it's a UFO. If there is a piece of evidence which shows it's not a UFO, it's over. There is no more argument. You can't argue a premise which has been proven wrong. That's just silly.

[IamRAMBO24]

And whatever argument I missed, you can bring it up in your next post so I can refute that also. Thanks.

Unlike you guys, I'm not being a little b*tch and copping out; I know what I'm talking about and I'm pretty sure none of you can refute my points. Go ahead and keep up with the ad hocs; in the end, if you can't refute with integrity, you have lost the argument.

[IamRAMBO24]

No you don't. You said it's a UFO. If there is a piece of evidence which shows it's not a UFO, it's over. There is no more argument. You can't argue a premise which has been proven wrong. That's just silly.

:facepalm

You're so full of sh*t. How was I proven wrong?

[Raymone]

The structure of an argument works like this:

1. You come up with a premise.

2. You have supporting arguments to back up that premise.

3. From that, you arrive at a conclusion.

You left out childish name calling, excessive smilies and the random bolding and coloring of words.

[niko]

:facepalm

You're so full of sh*t. How was I proven wrong?
I'm speaking in general. Your concept of arguing is stupid. If you say the sky is pink because of A,B,C,D and the person points outside and it's blue, telling them to disprove your list is just an asinine exercise.

[Riley Martin]

You believe in unidentified flying objects? What is there to believe in?

[Bandito]

And whatever argument I missed, you can bring it up in your next post so I can refute that also. Thanks.

Unlike you guys, I'm not being a little b*tch and copping out; I know what I'm talking about and I'm pretty sure none of you can refute my points. Go ahead and keep up with the ad hocs; in the end, if you can't refute with integrity, you have lost the argument.
How can you refute something that is completely wrong?

[Psileas]

I don't really need photos to believe at least in the possibility of extremely advanced beings having noticed us ("noticed us"=not necessarily humans, but life on Earth in general). Photos, after all, aren't considered hard evidence any more. Most of them are too grainy and low-quality. If some photo were to be vastly more clear and detailed...everyone is going to call it photoshopped.

Do you consider astronauts a valid source? Because none other than Neil Armstrong had repeatedly claimed that the crew of the first lunar landing was being watched by some other spacecraft way more advanced than theirs. It's curious how he'd mentioned this more than once and yet it had always gone unnoticed to mass media.

[nathanjizzle]

this retard doesnt even understand perspective, still claiming dust particles are 2-3 miles long lol.

you cant judge the size of an object relative to another object if they are not on the same plane. it is impossible to tell from the video where the "objects" are since the field of view is in infinite space. LOL

[Jackass18]

this retard doesnt even understand perspective, still claiming dust particles are 2-3 miles long lol.

Yep. In the link I posted, the guy calculated that they were only like 9-30 meters away from the camera (they don't actually pass behind the tether).

[KevinNYC]

If you say the sky is pink because of A,B,C,D and the person points outside and it's blue, telling them to disprove your list is just an asinine exercise.

and yet, this remains the bulk of his communication with the outside world.

[Jackass18]

And whatever argument I missed, you can bring it up in your next post so I can refute that also. Thanks.

Unlike you guys, I'm not being a little b*tch and copping out; I know what I'm talking about and I'm pretty sure none of you can refute my points. Go ahead and keep up with the ad hocs; in the end, if you can't refute with integrity, you have lost the argument.

Refute the info in this link: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread538280/pg1&mem= instead of copping out like a http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/2013-09/enhanced/webdr03/27/20/anigif_enhanced-buzz-17624-1380328085-4.gif

[shlver]

1. It is 2-3 miles long; the measurement is based on the length of the tether, which is 12 miles long; the object passes near the tether, so you can clearly tell it is at least a quarter in length of the tether, thus making it 2-3 miles long.

2. The NASA astronaut also said "The debris has been following us" .. did you miss that part? The word "ufo" is banned from their language. Yes some of the debris didn't come from the tether: it came from out of nowhere and moving toward it.

3. If it is reflecting off of light, then it would not pulsate like that; a reflection of light is low in energy; a pulsation like that indicates a high energy field, similar to a star.
1. It cannot be 2-3 miles long. It is physically impossible for an object of that size to move perpendicularly to the camera's path of motion. In fact, this perpendicular movement is consistent with small particles or debris in the camera's field of vision.

2. Wait, didn't you say that these objects were invisible to the naked eye?

3. No it doesn't. A pulsation effect is captured on a camera when intensity of photons hitting the capacitor array changes. It does NOT have to be a high energy field.

[Jackass18]

Careful, they're also visiting us down on Earth: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYLHqv-foMk

More space donuts: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRij43owz0k

[IamRAMBO24]

1. It cannot be 2-3 miles long. It is physically impossible for an object of that size to move perpendicularly to the camera's path of motion. In fact, this perpendicular movement is consistent with small particles or debris in the camera's field of vision.

2. Wait, didn't you say that these objects were invisible to the naked eye?

3. No it doesn't. A pulsation effect is captured on a camera when intensity of photons hitting the capacitor array changes. It does NOT have to be a high energy field.

When you have a giant object hovering over a city and NASA shoots out flares to try to discredit it, you have to question the so call scientists they use to discredit this as well.

[IamRAMBO24]

1. If it is particles, then explain the acceleration and movement of the objects. This is very contradictory to dust particles floating freely in space.

2. Your understanding of pulsation is elementary at best; if you time the pulsation, it is at a 0.25 rate pulsating from the inner outwards, so indeed, the energy field is in its center. Light reflecting off an object won't pulsate like that; if it does show me a video of an object doing that. You can't. It doesn't exist.

3. Yes this is invisible light to the naked eye because NASA is using UV camera lens to capture invivisble, high level light such as gamma rays, hence why the tether looks higher in density than it's orginal density. The purpose of these cameras is to wash out debris and dust particles to clear up the light.

[IamRAMBO24]

More space donuts: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRij43owz0k

Thank you for that video. Finally I have something to compare NASA's so call reflection and the tether video itself.

1. You can clearly see a lack of movement; NASA can pull whatever sh*t out of their a*s to replicate the object, but one thing they have failed to do and continually ignore, is the rate of movement and pulsation.

2. Watch my video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=As-wYmFYb3I then go back to that video and compare the difference.

It is night and day if you're not a tool who's willing to accept the easiest most convenient explanation.

[IamRAMBO24]

Refute the info in this link: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread538280/pg1&mem= instead of copping out like a http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/2013-09/enhanced/webdr03/27/20/anigif_enhanced-buzz-17624-1380328085-4.gif

I read that link, and most of the guys in there are idiots and do not have the insights to question the the debunking.

The best argument for this video is what you are reading in this thread homeboy. No need to spend countless hours googling different sources, the buck stops here.

[IamRAMBO24]

:oldlol:

This video is so full of sh*t ...




More space donuts: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRij43owz0k

I like how they try to pan the camera to create movement. You idiots will believe anything.

:roll:

And you are calling me dumb? Seriously look at yourself. I am just :rolleyes: how easily you nerds can be fooled.

[IamRAMBO24]

More space donuts: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRij43owz0k

:roll:

At 1:31 they even try to CGI an eclipse sun to prove it is a reflection.

:lol

[Raymone]

Rambo, you should've gone to college.

[IamRAMBO24]

Rambo, you should've gone to college.

Shut up troll, real men are having a discussion here; go play with your little wee wee since you're not contributing anything of relevance.

[Raymone]

You're really bad at science and logic, Rambo.

[IamRAMBO24]

You're really bad at science and logic, Rambo.

I don't see an argument from you Ramone. Trolling won't get you very far in life.

[travelingman]

I don't see an argument from you Ramone. Trolling won't get you very far in life.

Case in point.

[Raymone]

My argument is that you're really bad at science and logic, Rambo, and you're simply not very bright. Truly unbeknownst to you though, which just barely saves all your posts from being completely unreadable.

[IamRAMBO24]

My argument is that you're really bad at science and logic, Rambo, and you're simply not very bright. Truly unbeknownst to you though, which just barely saves all your posts from being completely unreadable.

Then argue, period. If you think I'm dumb and you are so f*ckin smart, then take me on.

Stop your trolling and play with the big boys kid.

[Raymone]

Maybe you'd have more success at facilitating meaningful discussion if you weren't so combative with every hollow post you make. Trust me when I say that nothing of value has been discussed so far in this thread, and it's entirely your fault. It's not even the content, it really is your approach and online demeanor.

"Take me on"

[shlver]

1. If it is particles, then explain the acceleration and movepulsating he objects. its is very contradictorpulsation" particles floating freely in space.
Well no it isn't contradictory; it's exactly how dust clumps, debris, ice particles would act and behave from the astronauts perspective. If the relative velocities of the small object and the nasa vehicle are similar, then you would see objects slowly crossing over the field of vision. If there is a big difference, then the relative acceleration would be greater and you would see a fast moving object.

2. Your understanding of pulsation is elementary at best; if you time the pulsation, it is at a 0.25 rate pulsating from the inner outwards, so indeed, the energy field is in its center. Light reflecting off an object won't pulsate like that; if it does show me a video of an object doing that. You can't. It doesn't exist.
What does timing have to do with it when all you were trying to say that it was pulsating inward? What is 0.25 rate? Does this rate have a units? Saying something is at 0.25 rate is essentially meaningless. Why is this rate meaningful?

3. Yes this is invisible light to the naked eye because NASA is using UV camera lens to capture invivisble, high level light such as gamma rays, hence why the tether looks higher in density than it's orginal density. The purpose of these cameras is to wash out debris and dust particles to clear up the light.
Really? uv lens to capture gamma rays huh? Have you even studied an ounce of physics? It's intro knowledge, even high school knowledge that gamma rays and uv light are at opposite ends of.the spectrum. It is so apparent when you try to sound intelligent because you haven't studied anything.

It has been shown that ccd cameras produce the same artifacts when there are out of focus objects. The movement of the objects are consistent with how debris would behave crossing the camera's field of vision, as well as astronauts confirming debris were crossing their vision. The pulsating is easily explainable by the diffraction of light on rotating debris. Once again pulsation is just the change in intensity of photons hitting the capacitor array. I would say out of focus objects is a very probable source of the video artifacts and the video is debunked. Not to mention, a 3 mile alien aircraft disobeying physical laws of motion is obviously not a rational alternative.

This a pointless debate though because it is apparent when one side has no idea what he's talking about. Instead of wasting efforts trying to win a debate, actually try to study something.

[riseagainst]

good point op, here is another proof: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ywu9RwV1b8

:roll: :roll:

[dr.hee]

Well no it isn't contradictory; it's exactly how dust clumps, debris, ice particles would act and behave from the astronauts perspective. If the relative velocities of the small object and the nasa vehicle are similar, then you would see objects slowly crossing over the field of vision. If there is a big difference, then the relative acceleration would be greater and you would see a fast moving object.

What does timing have to do with it when all you were trying to say that it was pulsating inward? What is 0.25 rate? Does this rate have a units? Saying something is at 0.25 rate is essentially meaningless. Why is this rate meaningful?

Really? uv lens to capture gamma rays huh? Have you even studied an ounce of physics? It's intro knowledge, even high school knowledge that gamma rays and uv light are at opposite ends of.the spectrum. It is so apparent when you try to sound intelligent because you haven't studied anything.

It has been shown that ccd cameras produce the same artifacts when there are out of focus objects. The movement of the objects are consistent with how debris would behave crossing the camera's field of vision, as well as astronauts confirming debris were crossing their vision. The pulsating is easily explainable by the diffraction of light on rotating debris. Once again pulsation is just the change in intensity of photons hitting the capacitor array. I would say out of focus objects is a very probable source of the video artifacts and the video is debunked. Not to mention, a 3 mile alien aircraft disobeying physical laws of motion is obviously not a rational alternative.

This a pointless debate though because it is apparent when one side has no idea what he's talking about. Instead of wasting efforts trying to win a debate, actually try to study something.


http://gifrific.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Kevin-Garnett-Reaction-at-2013-Dunk-Contest.gif

Rambo getting ripped a new one :oldlol:

[dr.hee]

I've takened everybody on, including the so call "professional" debunkers.

An argument doesn't get more legit than this.

http://www.arounddublinblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/dublin-ca-high-school-dropout.jpg

[IamRAMBO24]

Well no it isn't contradictory; it's exactly how dust clumps, debris, ice particles would act and behave from the astronauts perspective. If the relative velocities of the small object and the nasa vehicle are similar, then you would see objects slowly crossing over the field of vision. If there is a big difference, then the relative acceleration would be greater and you would see a fast moving object.

What does timing have to do with it when all you were trying to say that it was pulsating inward? What is 0.25 rate? Does this rate have a units? Saying something is at 0.25 rate is essentially meaningless. Why is this rate meaningful?

Really? uv lens to capture gamma rays huh? Have you even studied an ounce of physics? It's intro knowledge, even high school knowledge that gamma rays and uv light are at opposite ends of.the spectrum. It is so apparent when you try to sound intelligent because you haven't studied anything.
[/B]
It has been shown that ccd cameras produce the same artifacts when there are out of focus objects. The movement of the objects are consistent with how debris would behave crossing the camera's field of vision, as well as astronauts confirming debris were crossing their vision. The pulsating is easily explainable by the diffraction of light on rotating debris. Once again pulsation is just the change in intensity of photons hitting the capacitor array. I would say out of focus objects is a very probable source of the video artifacts and the video is debunked. Not to mention, a 3 mile alien aircraft disobeying physical laws of motion is obviously not a rational alternative.

This a pointless debate though because it is apparent when one side has no idea what he's talking about. Instead of wasting efforts trying to win a debate, actually try to study something.

1. Ultraviolet line spectrum measurements are used to discern the chemical composition, densities, and temperatures of the interstellar medium, and the temperature and composition of hot young stars.

The ultraviolet Universe looks quite different from the familiar stars and galaxies seen in visible light. Most stars are actually relatively cool objects emitting much of their electromagnetic radiation in the visible or near-infrared part of the spectrum. Using this camera, NASA is able to capture unseen light in the universe.

2. NASA said the debris are close to the shuttle within 30 meters. They are saying this to try to rationalize their lens theory, but in their official website, they said this:


Since NASA keeps track of larger debris, spacecraft with crews are able to dodge it. When an object is expected to come within a few miles of the International Space Station, NASA can slightly change the station's path to avoid the object. Plus, the space station is the most heavily shielded spacecraft ever. It can survive impact with smaller pieces of debris. The debris would hit panels that serve as shields instead of vital parts of the station.

http://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/5-8/features/what-is-orbital-debris-58.html

[dr.hee]

:roll:

[IamRAMBO24]

3.
Lambertian reflectance is the property that defines an ideal diffusely reflecting surface. The apparent brightness of such a surface to an observer is the same regardless of the observer's angle of view.

At 4:02 you can start seeing the reflection of light not being congruent at all.

4. You still haven't explain why the "debris" is coming from away the tehter and not from it.

[IamRAMBO24]

Anyways, watch NASA's hoax video where they try to replicate the same images and compare it to the original. Huge difference.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRij43owz0k

Put on your glasses this time shliver.

[dr.hee]

1. It is a legit video. NASA has verified it as legit but tried to cover it up by saying the objects are dust particles. You can also see the video being shot in space and the tether itself (which is miles long), so this is really hard to duplicate.

2. NASA's official explanation is that the objects are dust particles and look like UFOs due to the camera being out of focus.

Here are some strong rebuttals to this claim:

A. The objects are clearly pulsating.

B. NASA is using UV cameras to capture light that are usually not visible, hence why the objects look transparent in the video.

C. Based on the size of the tether (around 12 miles), the objects are measured to be 2-3 miles in diameter.
http://www.soul-guidance.com/houseofthesun/media/real/backyard/tether04.jpg

D. The sphere shape with a circle in the middle and a pizza shape cut out on the side is evident in all of these shapes. Dust particles and debris in space don't come in the same geometry; some might look the same but they are not made up of the same exact symmetry.

C'mon guys, lets drop the name calling, the fallacies, and the stubbornness; either this is a dust particle (or debris) or it is not.

Before I show the video, here is what a dust particle looks like.
http://files.myopera.com/nielsol/blog/airburst_antartica.jpg

Here is the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=As-wYmFYb3I



http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/7c/7cd84a5c29e7e4050a0ac603d550e64d2f4475992b9d344f28 0655359f1c0446.jpg

[Jackass18]

I read that link, and most of the guys in there are idiots and do not have the insights to question the the debunking.

The best argument for this video is what you are reading in this thread homeboy. No need to spend countless hours googling different sources, the buck stops here.

It's cool if you continually want to make things up. Also, where is this so-called best argument at? You haven't made a great argument like you think you have. Look at your own video that you posted. The notches on the objects change in relation to where they are in the video. Look at about 4:10 in your video - the notches change as the objects move across the screen with the best one starting at 4:21. Similar anomalies that appear in this video can be seen in other videos, but you conveniently want to ignore that because as I've stated numerous times: you suffer greatly from confirmation bias. You want to call other NASA videos hoaxes for some reason. The only video that can be legit is the one you want to be. They can't all be legit or all be fake, can they? You don't want to listen to anything that goes against your lamebrain conspiracy theories and only want to cling to things that confirm what you want to believe.

Here's a guy giving the explanation:
http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=188296&st=60#entry3538708 - don't worry, there's not a whole lot to read (even if you chose to read the entire thread and not just the post I selected)

Do some decent research and if you're still not convinced, then you're better off discussing this ad nauseam on a UFO website were it's already been discussed to death and then some. But whatever, go make more posts where everything is wrong except for what you want to believe.

[IamRAMBO24]

It's cool if you continually want to make things up. Also, where is this so-called best argument at? You haven't made a great argument like you think you have. Look at your own video that you posted. The notches on the objects change in relation to where they are in the video. Look at about 4:10 in your video - the notches change as the objects move across the screen with the best one starting at 4:21. Similar anomalies that appear in this video can be seen in other videos, but you conveniently want to ignore that because as I've stated numerous times: you suffer greatly from confirmation bias. You want to call other NASA videos hoaxes for some reason. The only video that can be legit is the one you want to be. They can't all be legit or all be fake, can they? You don't want to listen to anything that goes against your lamebrain conspiracy theories and only want to cling to things that confirm what you want to believe.

Here's a guy giving the explanation:
http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=188296&st=60#entry3538708 - don't worry, there's not a whole lot to read (even if you chose to read the entire thread and not just the post I selected)

Do some decent research and if you're still not convinced, then you're better off discussing this ad nauseam on a UFO website were it's already been discussed to death and then some. But whatever, go make more posts where everything is wrong except for what you want to believe.

I've disproved the following:

1. NASA said the debris was 30 meters from the camera, but on their official website they said they scan space for these objects and made sure their shuttles were at least miles away in order to avoid a collision. This means they are lying in order to make sense and do whatever they can to make you idiots believe it is an optical illusion.

2. The debunking video is full of sh*t; it is obviously under a controlled environment; I can easily replicate a circle by putting my balls in front of the camera and then sticking my ruby red starfruit a*shole to replicate the donut hole; it doesn't matter, if I can prove the illusion seperately, you idiots would buy it hook line and sinker since it is convenient and supports your biasness; and the guy has failed to explain the pulsation of the objects and the acceleration. The fact you think the acceleration is equivalent to your hoax video where the camera tries to pan in order to create movement is sad beyond belief.

3. I have also proven there is a deliberate attempt to cover up weird sh*t like this by posting the Norway lights and flares; this is a strong argument; if the higher ups have done this before, then it goes to reason they will do it again. They have absolutely no credibility, neither do you.