--- In [email protected], nablusoss1008 <no_reply@...> wrote: > --- In [email protected], "salyavin808" <fintlewoodlewix@> wrote: ---- In [email protected], nablusoss1008 <no_reply@> wrote: > > > --- In [email protected], "salyavin808" <fintlewoodlewix@> > > > wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], nablusoss1008 <no_reply@> wrote: --- In [email protected], "salyavin808" <fintlewoodlewix@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > NASA STS-80 .... UFO Formation Over Africa . > > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mP2Nk1WwZmA > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Looks like condensation on the inside of the shuttle window > > > > > > to me, certainly moves like water. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Moving water and condensation inside the shuttle ?? Well that's > > > > > something NASA should look into immediately ! :-) > > > > > > > > Or maybe they should look into the hundred mile wide UFOs over > > > > Africa or the ten thousand mile wide UFOs hovering over the sun? > > > > None of which ever made the monthly press release even though > > > > they released the videos. Go figure. > > > > > > NASA are not as stubborn and oblivious to the facts as you. When asked > > > about it they simply answer "we don't know what it is", which is a fair > > > answer. And a far better answer than to blame non-excistent water in the > > > sattelites in space like you just did :-) > > > > "We don't know what it is" doesn't mean they go along with the > > conspiracy theory that the world is being visited by giant > > UFOs, we'd be able to tell, what with radar and eyesight and everything. > > > > But then they are probably part of the conspiracy of silence > > which is why they released the video in the first place. Try > > keeping those feet on the ground Nabby. > > > While xeno and salya keep trying to find excuses for not taking our > Spacebrothers seriously and manage to muster all kinds of "explanations" from > faulty optics to water in space (!), our brothers from space keep flying. > Here footage from 2013: > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXty2SDPFf0 > I have told you why I disbelieve what you say, and provided some measure of evidence and background why that is so. You ignored this entirely. Why should I believe you? You provide no depth to your supporting information, rather you simply post another edited video.
For example what did you think of the video from SOHO I posted? http://lasco-www.nrl.navy.mil/daily_mpg/2012_06/120605_c2.mpg What do you think about what you see here? This is an original SOHO video, not edited to show any specific interpretation. Interpret it by yourself, tell us what you think, without the aid of someone else's particular idea about it presented as fact. Create you own fact. I do not have to agree with you for you to find some degree of benefit here. You have to understand that to argue with scientist types, you cannot simply say something is so-and-so, you have to provide evidence, references to evidence, original sources for images, and a description of the technology that made those images. Scientists do this all the time with varying degrees of success, as it is difficult for we humans to bypass our built-in gullibility. Science goes against the grain of our tendency to believe, which seems to be a shortcut for gaining useful information when young, but which serves us poorly later on. If I were to see events that were, say, of the nature of images you see in the film 'Close Encounters of the Third Kind', that would be pretty convincing. If you showed me a smudge in a photograph, that on the other hand, is completely ambiguous.
