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

originally posted by: JimOberg

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.

Now come on Jim, I didn't say they chased the shuttles either. Why do you keep putting words in my mouth? I didn't say they were hiding evidence earlier and you called foul on that as well. As far as the response to the other videos, well, all that was really being looked for was their authenticity, you had commented on them so thought you actually might want to help.

originally posted by: psyshow

originally posted by: JimOberg

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.

Now come on Jim, I didn't say they chased the shuttles either. Why do you keep putting words in my mouth? I didn't say they were hiding evidence earlier and you called foul on that as well. As far as the response to the other videos, well, all that was really being looked for was their authenticity, you had commented on them so thought you actually might want to help.

You've missed the bigger picture in all of this. If you think I am waiting for you to confess of an alien life form or NASA through these revelations then you are more silly than I am. But then that doesn't mean the end result is any less useful to someone else or might actually line up with some other incident on earth. Put your hands up to the stuff you can;t explain and give that voice to someone who might.

a reply to: psyshow
I find that Oberg is an unrepentant skeptic. Since his positions are broadcasted regularly and gives his words impact that we mortals can only aspire to have, he wants credibility. He has none for me.
Somehow, we who think that NASA is NOT an honest information broker, will concede to this gent's expressions of support for that MILITARY ARM, IS NOT POSSIBLE.
Since we can not disparage one another, I shan't.
I do not question his sanity, his ethics or imply he is a shill for his former employer from which he receives his pension.

Did I do this correctly?

All of the obfuscations, misleading press releases and overarching simplicity of that agency in attempting to explain EVERY encounter with the 'strange' has a consistency of spring steel. It's just too resilient to be anything but policy.
They will lie and do so as convincingly as any amoral, sociopathic, immortal will do to protect that which it values. Information that only the TRUE ELITE will have available.
Think President Carter being told he had no 'need to know' about these Phenomena.
So now a voice box from that agency will tell YOU the truth?
I feel a phage coming on......

a reply to: largo

I'm not sure who phage is but you mention him as though I should experience a similar encounter. Let me just state, all I wanted was the start of that video. I'm not sure what the hell happened after that. People started telling me there thoughts on what it is wasn't for sure or what it is in regards to objects in the video. By own admitance, this seemed to good to be true hence why I wanted to hear the whole thing in context. It was what I could hear that I was interested in, not what I saw. That was it, just the start of the video. So what the hell happened there??

a reply to: psyshow

You and your attitude started a fight with people you know nothing about.

Just saying.

It's sad that there's so much man-made junk in space, our vehicles have to change flight plans. Is that the gist of this thread?

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. ...

Sorry. Did I misunderstand the referent of 'they' or 'them'? Who chased whom?

a reply to: JimOberg

Hi Jim, it was the part where they said 'we've chased many of these thing's over they years and....'. You have to appreciate that in the context this video was presented, it sounded like it left a lot to the imagination. It had come from NASA and like anyone would else would like, is fact's and evidence. All I wanted is where NASA stated otherwise. I hunted for the video, used the referencing Riptr made to give the benefit of the doubt and still found nothing. I had nothing else to go on which was also driving my frustration. Plenty of people telling me what they thought it was but not the NASA explanation. That's not how it works, people bring stories and claims all the time. You all want evidence, all you see is the same approach. I wanted what NASA said in relation. The document I posted later was all I could find after this. It's not the full video but it was enough for me to be satisfied that this is what NASA's official response was as documented. I can't work out when the piece was posted versus when the clip I presented was aired and the document it's self has only led me to other questions. I already got way more than I asked for here on the video so I can see this is probably not the best place to ask those questions.

I do appreciate your insight Jim and hope you can see why I was getting so frustrated with this in the end. When I saw they other comments on the youtube videos, yes, I'll admit, at that point I thought you were just trolling me as you gave me the same blanket response as I had seen on another channel and not direct link to a NASA source stating otherwise. I would like to think I tried to maintain composure through this, any incidents unfolding after were not personal attacks to anyone. I'm here for answers like anyone else. I stuck my hand up when I found the official explanation of the 115 incident, i suggest some of the earlier posters read up on that for when this come's up again in the future. The fact I didn't scream alien or state to know it's something that confirms alien threw a lot of you off, I declared nothing, I just wanted NASA's explanation. Facts remember - not your own personal thoughts, that's not how a lot you people approach this topic.

I should imagine there are a lot of people here who post their stories and a picture or too with their experiences of what a lot of you would deem impossible. Rightly so, a lot of you want evidence. That's exactly what happened here, only the other way around it seems. I think we can all take something away from this.

MOD's, please feel free to close the thread.

originally posted by: Rochester
a reply to: psyshow

You and your attitude started a fight with people you know nothing about.

Just saying.

Actually, I think you will find it reveled something else. But you have clearly not been paying attention.

Just saying.

I didn't pay adequate attention to your reasonable questions due to distractions, I will try to do better next time.

originally posted by: JimOberg
I didn't pay adequate attention to your reasonable questions due to distractions, I will try to do better next time.

If you feel you have the answers, then please do share. But I didn't ask you to, the thread was not addressed to you directly and your area is NASA. There are plenty of people who claim to have had experience and sightings, if you can declare them all liars here and now because you know for fact other wise then throw it on the table and save us all some time. But then you can't, you only know what NASA knows am I correct? They are still discovering stuff all the time which suggest they don't know everything either. I would suggest you stop being patronising to those who share there experience and say otherwise.

But if you still want to help, please do answer this. On the video you called out to be a satellite deploy which was titled something like sts-115 ufo. Did sts-115 deploy a satellite on its mission? Or shall we leave it at that?

You mean they didn’t tell us it was swamp gas or flares


I guess things are getting a little better

a reply to: psyshowJim is a part of the NASA diversion team who spin this crazy ice, debris & other such items explanation. This has put him (them) in a corner. We all are agreeing that objects are seen on the videos & the objects are surrounding the shuttle during a mission... sometimes following shuttles for days.

What we do not agree on is only what we are seeing. Like you, I have found too many examples of these objects behavior (and shape, astronauts behavior, contradictions & video showing something else)
making it impossible that they are any of Jim Oberg's guesses. Jim will never, ever change his spin...thus it is not worth taking any time at all to explain, demonstrate or prove this to him. He stands firm 'cuz to do otherwise is to say the OBJECTS ARE UNKNOWN!

originally posted by: Orionx2

originally posted by: Aliensun
a reply to: Orionx2


Are you laboring under the impression that NASA would post very definite videos of a real UFO if they had better?


I have to ask what planet you are from?

Of course they would. Their budget from the government would massively increase.

The reason why they would NOT do that is because it classified top secret. If the subject wasn't classified they might.

originally posted by: buzzEmiller
a reply to: psyshowJim is a part of the NASA diversion team who spin this crazy ice, debris & other such items explanation....

Thanks for dropping in. Many folks are interested in what your real life has been like since you left the Vancouver TV station, would you briefly summarize where you've been and what you've been doing for a living?

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: Orionx2

originally posted by: Aliensun
a reply to: Orionx2


Are you laboring under the impression that NASA would post very definite videos of a real UFO if they had better?


I have to ask what planet you are from?

Of course they would. Their budget from the government would massively increase.

The reason why they would NOT do that is because it classified top secret. If the subject wasn't classified they might.

That's easy for you to say, but how would Mission Control operate in a TOP SECRET mode? Even the SECRET level protection features were torn out in the mid-1990s with the end of DoD missions. Nobody can say what -- if anything -- is buried in bunkers on the back lot, but anybody familiar with classified operations and protections [which excludes some current presidential candidates] can tell that NASA sites don't regularly operate at those levels. Facility physical protection is pretty rigorous, otherwise a good FOIA can usually dig out any info you want -- have you ever tried?