NASA Revisited - NASA cameras "set up" for giant UFO

originally posted by: JimOberg
Mark Carlotto wrote about this clip some years ago.....

So what? Mark, like the rest of us earth-based humans have the same videos to guess from. The ice crystals, debris, water dumps, shuttle attitude movements, moon pigeons, died a quiet death. UFOs are viewed from Earth, from space, in the vicinity of the Moon and Mars. Your are not really a "sympathetic skeptic".

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
a reply to: Lathroper

This is astonishing as NASA spends most of the clip framing the camera to catch this UFO shooting up,up & away from a city at night!

up , up and away?


NO, it looks like a meteor or some debris hitting the atmosphere.

What matters is that NASA shuttle cameras are not going to explain this event as being due to ice crystals, debris, water dumps, etc.

Etc could be a space rock or some debris which certainly does point to a logical answer.

Someone in the control room had some knowledge to transmit to the shuttle crew and, specifically, the camera operator. Someone in the control room had to say: "Wait for it!

No they really didn't "have" to say anything.

The amount of things that burn up in the atmosphere on a daily basis is enormous.

Well, the object is not in outer space, it is inside the atmosphere.

It came from out of space or in orbit and once it hit the atmosphere right where the camera was pointing it light up like everything that comes into our atmosphere from out there.

I go annually to an excellent ophthalmologist/optometrist. Would you be interested in him examining your eyes?

originally posted by: Lathroper

originally posted by: JimOberg
Mark Carlotto wrote about this clip some years ago.....

So what? Mark, like the rest of us earth-based humans have the same videos to guess from.

If you just stop at guessing at videos from Martyn Stubbs, you're playing solitaire with a deck of maybe 19 cards [like Jack Kasher always did]. If you want the full context of a video like the STS-48 zig-zagger, you go for supporting telemetry logs and crew comments and operator handbooks and supporting witnesses in Mission Control.

Stuff like what's here, where ice flakes and thruster pulses etc still thrive very vigorously.
www.jamesoberg.com...

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: Lathroper

originally posted by: JimOberg
Mark Carlotto wrote about this clip some years ago.....

So what? Mark, like the rest of us earth-based humans have the same videos to guess from.

If you just stop at guessing at videos from Martyn Stubbs, you're playing solitaire with a deck of maybe 19 cards [like Jack Kasher always did]. If you want the full context of a video like the STS-48 zig-zagger, you go for supporting telemetry logs and crew comments and operator handbooks and supporting witnesses in Mission Control.

Stuff like what's here, where ice flakes and thruster pulses etc still thrive very vigorously.
www.jamesoberg.com...

Martyn Stubbs is just an enabler. The contents of his videos were not created by him and he is, like all of us, entitled to his opinion. I don't side with him, I don't quote him. I watch the videos and come to my conclusions. The STS-48 events stick in your craw because your POV runs counter to the majority of viewers. There is no way that what is seen is near the shuttle, there's too many of them traveling in different directions and at various speeds. The shuttle cameras do not seem to be zoomed in, that's evident later. There was no shuttle thruster attitude adjustment because no movement of the shuttle is discerned seen. Whether that object that sped away was reacting to what seems to be a visible trail coming at it I won't discuss but the object was NOT an ice crystal.

I always make up my mind based on what I see and deduct. The Shuttle astronauts have tracked high-speed unknowns so you know they're not zooming in on supersonic ice crystals. The Shuttle astronauts have zoomed in on distant white objects and no one in their right mind will agree that they're nearby ice crystals that would appear like fuzzy blobs, out of focus.

No, James, when you call for trajectory, day or night, up or down, etc., you're just obfuscating.

When a female astronaut is specifying where in the view the space station is located amidst all of the flashing lights and from the bottom of the screen a large slow-moving, pulsing white spheroid-shaped "object" drifts into view and the astronaut takes a pregnant pause, we're not looking at anything but an object that cannot be explained with any certainty. And it goes on, an on.

My eyes don't play tricks on me. And my brain is too well-developed to let anything or anyone attempt to fool me. I've seen real, irrefutable UFOs from ground level. They're up there also.

And remember, when Story Musgrave was shown in a documentary viewing the video segment I include (screen shot below with identifying mission), he exclaims: "Now, that is interesting!" or words to that effect. He didn't say that whatever is seen shooting out of the earth is actually entering entering from outer space nor any of the cockamamie claims here so far. It's mystifying and a space expert acknowledges it.

BTW, James, when I created this thread based on the included video footage, it was a setup on my part. The title is not mine, it's the YouTube title. I added "NASA Revisited", no harm there. My introductory comments don't say anything about a UFO. I described what anyone would agree with, a deliberate camera action which doesn't seem to have any reason behind it. And isn't it marvelous that since the camera was frozen to the spot and didn't continue panning that synchronously something did happen. Serendipity? Doesn't look like it. My adding "Wait for it" was just for fun.

originally posted by: Lathroper
There was no shuttle thruster attitude adjustment because no movement of the shuttle is discerned seen.

Did you read the link Jim posted?

Carlotto made the same claim, but it says he recanted when confronted with the thruster firing data. Have you even looked at the thruster firing data?

www.jamesoberg.com...

a deliberate camera action which doesn't seem to have any reason behind it.

So you think there's no reason to aim the camera at the only thing that's lit up in the otherwise somewhat dark field of view? It seems like a perfectly valid reason to me and I don't understand why it wouldn't seem like a good reason to anybody, including you.

a reply to: Lathroper

I go annually to an excellent ophthalmologist/optometrist. Would you be interested in him examining your eyes?

Your eye sight has nothing to do with anything, neither does mine.

In another post you say you are 79 years old.

In your 79 years, have you heard how perspective can create a false sense of distance between 2 objects?

My eyes don't lie to me and never have for 79 years. I see an object rising from earth.

Yes, I can see how anyone can make this mistake and how all one has to do to fool an observer is say it rises from earth.

However, Once you realize how both it rising and falling or skimming the atmosphere can look exactly the same then you realize that you cannot make a judgement on eye sight alone because your eyes can be easily fooled.

The object is not manmade.

agreed, God or the reptilian Anunaki made it

Actually it is, I made it , used sliced melted cheese as adhesive to hold my craft together.


Cmon man, absolute statements like its not man made whether they are opinion based or not just show close mindedness.

I've seen real, irrefutable UFOs from ground level. They're up there also.

You have seen real irrefutable things you cannot identify or are you claiming you saw alien craft?

Because what you said just prior to that

My eyes don't play tricks on me. And my brain is too well-developed to let anything or anyone attempt to fool me.

Sort of contradicts this quoted above, unless of coarse its alien craft and not UFOs you are talking about.

Which then explains why you think you know whats man made and what isn't.

a reply to: Lathroper

It'll take time to catalog all the factual howlers you delivered in your response, sadly I don't have it today. You might start by actually READING the report I posted .

Last several frames of the video if it's of any interest:

a reply to: Lathroper


Here are the telemetry readouts that show when the jet fired and how LITTLE it affected the spaceship's angles and rates, as intended.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Lathroper
There was no shuttle thruster attitude adjustment because no movement of the shuttle is discerned seen.

Did you read the link Jim posted?

Carlotto made the same claim, but it says he recanted when confronted with the thruster firing data. Have you even looked at the thruster firing data?

www.jamesoberg.com...

a deliberate camera action which doesn't seem to have any reason behind it.

So you think there's no reason to aim the camera at the only thing that's lit up in the otherwise somewhat dark field of view? It seems like a perfectly valid reason to me and I don't understand why it wouldn't seem like a good reason to anybody, including you.

When the thruster fired, as claimed, did you see a shuttle reaction on the video?

These two forces are called action and reaction forces and are the subject of Newton's third law of motion. Formally stated, Newton's third law is: For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. The statement means that in every interaction, there is a pair of forces acting on the two interacting objects.
Newton's Third Law - The Physics Classroom
www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/Lesson-4/Newton-s-Third-Law

So you are implying that highly-trained, highly-paid specialists doing nothing in a spacecraft passed the time by aiming the camera at nothing? Because, frankly, I don't see any reason for such a camera to be transmitting at all if it's not accomplishing something useful to the taxpayers. What was learned from the lit up part of earth that shows no useful details?

Another example, at 1:21:

originally posted by: Lathroper


When the thruster fired, as claimed, did you see a shuttle reaction on the video?

I hope you understand that when the thrusters fired the mass of the shuttle compared to the mass of the particles produces very different accelerations on the objects.

originally posted by: Lathroper



So you are implying that highly-trained, highly-paid specialists doing nothing in a spacecraft passed the time by aiming the camera at nothing? Because, frankly, I don't see any reason for such a camera to be transmitting at all if it's not accomplishing something useful to the taxpayers. What was learned from the lit up part of earth that shows no useful details?

I suggest that comments such as this indicate that far from simply NOT knowing the essentials of that video and what it really shows, you consciously want to NOT know anything that would shake your belief that you DO 'know' something that shows your intellectual superiority over anyone who thinks differently.

"I don't see any reason" is a perfect description of your mindset, maybe you don't see contrary stuff because you close your mind to it. What a waste of intellect. ATS can help, but you've got to WANT that.

The cameras were being operated by Houston specifically in accordance with a science project called MLE, 'mesoscale lightning experiment', run by Otha Vaughan from NASA-MSFC. if you need any help finding out more on this, just ask. Nicely.

Lathroper, I don't think Story Musgrave's REAL assessment of this stuff will make you happy.
www.jamesoberg.com...

originally posted by: Lathroper
When the thruster fired, as claimed, did you see a shuttle reaction on the video?

Did it ever occur to you that small firings of the thrusters can be used to maintain the desired attitude within a small angular range? Maybe you don't understand the information Jim posted which shows a small amount of drift and then a thruster firing stopped the drift when it reached an allowable limit, so the movement should have been near zero after that firing and it was.

Here's a video of Tom Jones explaining what the objects were in the STS-80 video, which he thinks are ice crystals and not UFOs.

Astronaut Tom Jones talks about STS-80 UFO

So you are implying that highly-trained, highly-paid specialists doing nothing in a spacecraft passed the time by aiming the camera at nothing?

You're being intentionally obtuse here. Peurto Rico is not nothing, it's lit and everything else is dark. It is in fact the only "something" I see in the darkness so your mischaracterization is exactly the opposite of reality.

Because, frankly, I don't see any reason for such a camera to be transmitting at all if it's not accomplishing something useful to the taxpayers.

What???? What would turning the camera off accomplish? That makes no sense, it's not like it would save any money. May as well leave it running and it might catch something interesting, which it did, so nothing about your suggestion to turn it off makes any sense.

originally posted by: JimOberg
The cameras were being operated by Houston specifically in accordance with a science project called MLE, 'mesoscale lightning experiment', run by Otha Vaughan from NASA-MSFC. if you need any help finding out more on this, just ask. Nicely.

I read about that in the comments on the youtube page but I didn't see any lightning at that time so I figured they were looking at the next best thing since they didn't have any lightning to observe at that time.

The thing with NASA is that it's a double edged sword. They do amazing work that can't be denied, but I'm sure they are hiding info that would shock the world.

originally posted by: Intrepidmind
The thing with NASA is that it's a double edged sword. They do amazing work that can't be denied, but I'm sure they are hiding info that would shock the world.

I'm sure you're sure. How is that supposed to persuade anyone else? Point to some verifiable evidence.