'Unknown objects', 'Over the years chased many of these things' - NASA

originally posted by: psyshow

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: psyshow

I carry that a bit further. Of all the video they have captured over the years this is the best they can do?

On national television, yep.

To debate if they have better footage else where is irrelevant to this thread, if you have some examples, please do PM me though, would love to see.

NASA doesn't release footage of what they claim is 'unknowns' though. What happens is someone sees something on some of their video then claims NASA released it. Or NASA "can't identify it". Those are on DupeTube by the bushel.

a reply to: psyshow

Hence it being a very interesting statement in the context its presented.

On TV, right.

Its file footage, undefined over contrasted, blurry and presented that way on purpose so we can't identify it. Except the pulsing gives it away...

originally posted by: psyshow
a reply to: intrptr

Now this guy I like - all though you could drop the sarcasm. This is now a known object and I am right in guessing you can point us to where NASA stated to help. Now we need to find the other incidents he's referred to 'over the years' and logged as unknown and then the records that show they stopped being unknown and discovered after this guy left in 2006 or 2007. Which must be the case because they were still unknown at the time he made the statement. Do you know of any others that can classified unknown and now have had an official explanation after? Thank you for your help!

Like I said earlier, NASA doesn't address these anomalies, this guy isn't NASA anymore, either. So look to your hearts content, what we get is a plethora of people claiming they saw something in NASA footage, that NASA hasn't or ever will comment on.

For one, if all the footage released is carefully screened beforehand to not show anything substantial (it is and it doesn't) then the weak blurry spots of pulsating light aren't evidence of anything. And two, its convenient that this ex NASA guy is calling things unknown but has nothing to show us but far away, fuzzy spots of pulsating light.

Which is actually a leap of faith considering he nor the interviewer address the actual video spot they are showing on FOX at all. So how do we know thats what he's talking about?

I recommend reviewing Jim Obergs post last page and pouring over the link he provides about how objects appear in space. He's very qualified to examine evidence, has helped me understand things brought here in various threads. I have him to thank directly for this.

a reply to: intrptr

Now this is quite the predicament isn't it! Most of what you have said is personal opinion but you earlier stated that the objects referenced were that of something else - and said so as fact. Please link where NASA stated that, i never disputed you or has that thrown you off? Now you're claiming the statement and video is fake? Which is it?

a reply to: psyshow
You missed my point. NASA doesn't make statements about 'unknown' things people see in their footage.

You could show me where they do, I'll review it.

originally posted by: intrptr

I recommend reviewing Jim Obergs post last page and pouring over the link he provides about how objects appear in space. He's very qualified to examine evidence, has helped me understand things brought here in various threads. I have him to thank directly for this.

To do that would suggest that Jim over rules everything this guy said and has records of all the incidents referred to and the evidence that NASA stated after 2006 / 2007 they were in fact something else. I haven't claimed to have seen anything in the video either or have you missed that point as well?

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: psyshow
You missed my point. NASA doesn't make statements about 'unknown' things people see in their footage.

You could show me where they do, I'll review it.

Please provide the link where NASA stated those were the objects you said they were, this would be a better start of a very interesting topic. Here is NASA saying one thing, show the link where they say it's the other or I have to ask, what position do you have to claim otherwise?

a reply to: psyshow

I didn't say that either. I have respect for his critique from threads he has worked here, explaining what it is we see sometimes initially presented as unknown.

In that we first have to rule out all other possibilities before advancing to even an unknown label.

As far as slowly drifting, blurry, over contrasted, pulsating 'objects'? What can you say with any certainty they aren't?

a reply to: psyshow

Here is NASA saying one thing, show the link where they say it's the other or I have to ask, what position do you have to claim otherwise?

You just did it again. This guy doesn't speak officially for NASA, he's EX NASA.

Try to understand the difference.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: psyshow

I didn't say that either. I have respect for his critique from threads he has worked here, explaining what it is we see sometimes initially presented as unknown.

In that we first have to rule out all other possibilities before advancing to even an unknown label.

As far as slowly drifting, blurry, over contrasted, pulsating 'objects'? What can you say with any certainty they aren't?

No offense, that does nothing to answer the question and all you keep saying is your own personal opinion of the the fuzzy footage shown. Which NASA said were unknown and you stated with absolute certainty they were something else. You are not doing your side any favors here.

a reply to: psyshow

Which NASA said were unknown and you stated with absolute certainty they were something else. You are not doing your side any favors here.

You see what you want to, thats fine by me.

intrptr out

a reply to: intrptr

OK, so you must be the official voice of NASA then? Because he is ex, that makes the original statement un-true. But he said it when in a position of NASA. Your mind must be blown at this point. So when do we listen to NASA, ex NASA astronauts - fine they're ex or though I see why the takes any credit away. Whats your secret. You clearly speak with such insight to all this.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: psyshow

Which NASA said were unknown and you stated with absolute certainty they were something else. You are not doing your side any favors here.

You see what you want to, thats fine by me.

intrptr out

You've not aimed to help at all. All you've done is put words in to NASA's mouth and act like you speak on their authority. If that wasn;t bad enough, you;ve tried to point out thing's which you don;t agree on in the footage and put words into my mouth as to that even being the reason it was posted when I didn;t attempt to describe what it was. It's all just because you;ve said so and nothing to show for it, you've done all you can to cause distraction, that's it.

originally posted by: BiffWellington
I'm guessing he's referring to unidentified space junk? Not seeing anything suggesting UFOs here.

He said some of the objects were unable to be identified. The clincher is when he said the part about visibility or publicity, which is common to NASA in how they try to keep the subject of things they can't identify as being mundane, plus his choice of words indicated NASA isn't thrilled when things like that get out into the public domain.

I have a hard time believing we've been watching the same video clip. Wayne Hale, whom I've know for almost forty years, was explaining why we try to always identify anything seen outside a spaceship as a potential clue to a malfunction, and use such sightings as an impetus to double check stuff like leaking fuel tanks and other known sources of unexpected 'stuff' floating nearby. Once and awhile it may look like a piece off the external mechanisms or thermal shielding and that initiates TV inspection of those potential areas. We never brushed it off until we determined it wasn't a vital clue we needed to complete the mission or save the crew.

Wayne and I were on the Mission Control teams for monitoring the auxiliary [OMS/RCS] engines on the shuttle for STS-1 & 2 in 1981, here are some team photos [with my beard] and a later conference where we met an AF officer who had been with us. Wayne went on to be a Flight Director, a NASA manager for shuttle operations, and other high posts. Our kids were Boy Scouts together, and now out grand kids. There was never anything about 'strange stuff' anyone encountered on missions that WASN'T discussable in public, as thousands of hours of live downlink video shows.

I saw Wayne on JSC yesterday at an alumni meeting to help the history contractors figure out what/who was appearing in many old unlabeled press photos from the 1960s and later. We'll meet again tomorrow night at a banquet for the STS-1 & 2 35th anniversary, with Crippen, Engle, and Truly and other friends and colleagues.

The idea that Wayne, or anyone else involved in flight operations [including the astronauts] were deliberately concealing specific kinds of observations to deceive the world strikes all of us as too preposterous to deserve wasting time debunking it -- but I've realized that many people are fascinated by such stories and genuinely interested in knowing why we thought it was 'routine'. That's why I've written my reports. Discussing stuff here has helped me understand HOW folks unfamiliar with the visuals of real spaceflight can really be baffled by what the videos seem to be showing.

Jim, center with beard, 1981 [Squatrito behind him]


Hale upper right, 1981


Oberg, Squatrito, Hale – 2008

Here's the thing Jim. I didn;t claim him to be hiding any evidence. He said unknown objects, they chased them. Unless I am mistaken, they'd still be unidentified now and therefore would argue that this is actually a topic of interest still. Otherwise you have evidence to say they know what it is and therefore not unidentified and not worth looking into further. Which is it?

a reply to: psyshow

Jim, I have to ask, why did you initially respond with a copy and paste answer that you posted on a youtube 3 months ago? (link: www.youtube.com...). Thats quite a poor response from a man of the stature you roam with? Then on this video (link: www.youtube.com...), that same account posted 'NASA = Nincompoops Always See Aliens'. This was the first comment on the video. What was the point you were trying to prove here, no one mentioned it on that? That sounds like a little bit of trolling if you ask me.

How about the Jim oberg on this account (link: www.youtube.com...) who stated on a sts115 video the following 'Looks like a standard satellite deploy to me' followed by 'More mind-porn for the simpletons, although the comments suggest the poster hit a much smarter audience than he aimed at. The video is an end-on view of a normal satellite deploy, looks like to me.' Surely a good thinf would have actually been to confirm if this was actually footage from the sts115 and that you could provide evidence to show what it was from that mission. But you trolled them by stating then end sentence with 'it looks like to me'. Your acting like you have all the answers here and yet you didn;t tell them anything. You told them personal opinion. Confirming the footage it's self as being from the mission would have been a better place to start. That same account also has liked videos, a few in russian of the subject title's suggesting this is unknown as to what they looked at'. Why have you not offered your views on those videos? They're in russian so it seems odd that 3 of them would not have been searched for using russian and there fore could be explained away in russian which is what you do is it not?

Can I ask you add something helpful instead a copy and paste link and then stories from yesteryear that show why you get paid for this stuff. This link would have maybe helped 'http://www.spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/sts115/060920inspections/index4.html' but then that doesn't metion you or why you are the definitive voice on the subject. Oddly enough, if you listen to what is said in the video I had originally posted, then listen to the highights video you made that comment on about 'aliens' and then tie that up with any other footage that can be confirmed was from the sts 115 incident and of the objects in question then we still seem to have a very interesting picture still.

Jim, I'll leave it up to you as what you do here but next time, put some effort in. First, is that video of the one you referenced as a satellite deploy from the sts 115 mission or not? As you are the go to guy, can you confirm if this footage is from sts 115? (link: www.youtube.com...) I aplogise for the long list of questions this has thrown up. Simply pointing me in the direction of the full video would have been easier huh?

originally posted by: psyshow
a reply to: psyshow

Jim, I have to ask, why did you initially respond with a copy and paste answer that you posted on a youtube 3 months ago? (link: www.youtube.com...). Thats quite a poor response from a man of the stature you roam with? Then on this video (link: www.youtube.com...), that same account posted 'NASA = Nincompoops Always See Aliens'. This was the first comment on the video. What was the point you were trying to prove here, no one mentioned it on that? That sounds like a little bit of trolling if you ask me.

How about the Jim oberg on this account (link: www.youtube.com...) who stated on a sts115 video the following 'Looks like a standard satellite deploy to me' followed by 'More mind-porn for the simpletons, although the comments suggest the poster hit a much smarter audience than he aimed at. The video is an end-on view of a normal satellite deploy, looks like to me.' Surely a good thinf would have actually been to confirm if this was actually footage from the sts115 and that you could provide evidence to show what it was from that mission. But you trolled them by stating then end sentence with 'it looks like to me'. Your acting like you have all the answers here and yet you didn;t tell them anything. You told them personal opinion. Confirming the footage it's self as being from the mission would have been a better place to start. That same account also has liked videos, a few in russian of the subject title's suggesting this is unknown as to what they looked at'. Why have you not offered your views on those videos? They're in russian so it seems odd that 3 of them would not have been searched for using russian and there fore could be explained away in russian which is what you do is it not?

Can I ask you add something helpful instead a copy and paste link and then stories from yesteryear that show why you get paid for this stuff. This link would have maybe helped 'http://www.spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/sts115/060920inspections/index4.html' but then that doesn't metion you or why you are the definitive voice on the subject. Oddly enough, if you listen to what is said in the video I had originally posted, then listen to the highights video you made that comment on about 'aliens' and then tie that up with any other footage that can be confirmed was from the sts 115 incident and of the objects in question then we still seem to have a very interesting picture still.

Jim, I'll leave it up to you as what you do here but next time, put some effort in. First, is that video of the one you referenced as a satellite deploy from the sts 115 mission or not? As you are the go to guy, can you confirm if this footage is from sts 115? (link: www.youtube.com...) I aplogise for the long list of questions this has thrown up. Simply pointing me in the direction of the full video would have been easier huh?

I'd be happy to follow-up questions you have on the FAQs, you really can't expect a one-on-one tutorial to questions that others have asked for years? As for specific evidence on specific events, I've focused on the most famous, like the sts48 zig-zagger, the sts80 'formation', etc, and if you are satisfied I've explained them prosaically, we can certainly discuss others.

originally posted by: psyshow
Here's the thing Jim. I didn;t claim him to be hiding any evidence. He said unknown objects, they chased them. Unless I am mistaken, they'd still be unidentified now and therefore would argue that this is actually a topic of interest still. Otherwise you have evidence to say they know what it is and therefore not unidentified and not worth looking into further. Which is it?

Did he say the objects chased the shuttle?

When stuff looks like ordinary stuff you've seen a thousand times before, and you also double-check all the systems that might be malfunctioning that can cause it [like a leaky thruster valve -- first indication usually IS a flurry of ice flakes].... precise determination of which flake is which is no longer important for the mission.