The STS-80 Formation Over Africa

In early December myself and a friend witnessed something rather peculiar in the sky. We reasoned that it must have been some sort of weather balloon, or at least something quite explainable. It has been on my mind ever since and now Im wondering whether the STS-80 formation may have anything to do with what I saw.

What I saw was a white circular object drifting at a very high altitude, far exceeding anything I have ever seen, from the west/north-west towards the east/south-east of the sky. I saw it from the town of Mafikeng in the North West Province of South Africa as indicated on the map.

" target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>

It was not making any erratic movements as have traditionally been associated with ET UFO's, instead it simply drifted at approximately (very approximately, as it was very high up) 700-1000 kph.

The first thing that formation makes me think is: How big of an antenna would I need for interstellar communication? Answer: a really big one. Are those objects forming some kind of communications array?

NC

I posted in another thread that I thought Sareda's interpretation of the object changing direction corresponds far too closely with the change in zoom of the camera in the first object scene.

But the planar array of objects in the Africa footage is far more interesting.

I had a question about the smoke-puff type objects:

Is there anyway we could get ahold of a camera similar to the ones on the shuttle (in terms of optics configuration) and then take out of focus pictures of point-source like dust-motes? If they turned out to look nothing like the smoke-puffs, then one could discount the "small debris in near-field theory" quite easily.

[edit on 21-3-2006 by Ectoterrestrial]

[edit on 21-3-2006 by Ectoterrestrial]

[edit on 21-3-2006 by Ectoterrestrial]

Hi I totally agree with you there. No way would they stay in the same position and flash like that, I watched this video on youtube thats just come out, and it has the tether and this formation besides a ufo mix at the end, I really loved it as it really showed that it was not space debris. And had an excellent song track too
Hey if you want to check it out. Heres the link to it below

uk.youtube.com...
tell us what you think

Originally posted by Hal9000

Originally posted by Musclor
I use Virtual Dub. It's a great software, free, very light and easy to install. Check it out at www.virtualdub.org...

Thanks, it works great.

Originally posted by lost_shaman
Hal9000,

From what I can tell the Video comes from Martin Stubbs.

Martin Stubbs is a former cable TV station manager from Vancouver in Canada who, over a period of five years, used his station’s satellite array to record 2,500 hours of space shuttle transmissions via NASA’s downlink.

From what I understand you can order video's straight from NASA , however when these video's were requested from NASA by other researchers NASA claimed not to have any of these.

Dang, you sure are smart,

Thanks.

So Stubbs pirated the signal, and NASA says it never happened. Typical response.

Now that I was able to do some captures, this is what I was refering to earlier about the translucent object. Right at the beginning of the video, you can see one of the objects up close. I drew an arrow in the direction it is moving.

A few seconds later, it is hard to see, but you can still follow it.

If you keep watching it, it stops.

Finally, it becomes illuminated.

IMO, this is as important as the formation, because it came very close to the shuttle. Also after watching it again, the Earth is moving, but the formation stays in a relative position in orbit with the shuttle, and not over a position relative to the Earth. I'm not sure if that means anything, just an observation. It is hard to figure out what these things are doing. This video is definitely interesting.

Translucent objects I have one on video: Very faint. All kinds of other activity:
Slow motion of the activity and close up.
video.google.ca...

Download the original video and see for yourself.
www.archive.org...

I worked with Martyn At Shaw Cable in the 80's In those days the station manager did everything. But I never knew he was capturing aliens just like me.

Why does this thread only have 2 flags? Here's another! The best footage in my opinion.

Originally posted by FlySolo
Why does this thread only have 2 flags? Here's another! The best footage in my opinion.

What do the astronauts say about the video? They were primary witnesses, weren't they?

reply to post by JimOberg


The astronauts say what NASA tells them to say.

Originally posted by gortex
reply to post by JimOberg

 

The astronauts say what NASA tells them to say.

You mean, like Ed Mitchell and Gordon Cooper?

OK, so any testimony that contradicts your preconceptions is automatically excluded. Perfect response to inconvenient facts.

Enjoy your closed mind in your imaginary universe.

reply to post by JimOberg


There are always exceptions to the rule , from what I have read Gordon Cooper was always his own man and had a tendency to speak his mind , as for Ed Mitchell , well I dont know if he is working to his own agenda or if he genuinely wants the truth to be told , either way I trust the word of Cooper over Mitchell any-day.

OK, so any testimony that contradicts your preconceptions

What are my preconceptions exactly ? , I believe ETs and UFOs are real and have been seen and filmed by Astronauts , I also believe that NASA likes to run a tight ship and keep a lid on whats really going on in space , am I wrong?

Originally posted by gortex
I believe ETs and UFOs are real and have been seen and filmed by Astronauts , I also believe that NASA likes to run a tight ship and keep a lid on whats really going on in space , am I wrong?

I think so, and I think the facts of the 'astronaut UFO stories' prove that, but i'm not interested in arguing with you.

reply to post by JimOberg

Enjoy your closed mind in your imaginary universe

Interesting statement for someone not looking for an argument.

Hi guys, first time poster on ATS, and to take the thread back to the original subject...

Has anyone ever thought these ufo's over Africa might have been pointing to, well, somewhere in Africa?

If theres some point of reference on the earth visable, (and none that I can see on the quality of the video's I came across)then surely someone has it within their power to deduce where that central craft is highlighting at the time it illuminates?

I mean I could be totally wrong, and probably am, it just seems as though they are aware of the fact they are being watched as they remain pretty central in the camera's field of view. But, as I am unable to find a longer version of the video, so im not sure wether they remain there or the camera is focused on them.

Im also aware of the fact that it wont really specify a "point" but a line due to the movement of the earth/shuttle. Perhaps its an area they are pointing out to us?

Just a thought, oh and the guy who said about this possibly being a form of communication across large distances, that also sounds like a solid theory.

Keep up the questions guys! answers will follow...

Little bumpy for this great incident. This footage still stands as some of the best ever captured on video.

Thanks for bumping this JockoFlocko. I have been using search to read through some of the incidence that I find to be compelling. This one was on my list.

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by gortex
reply to post by JimOberg

 

The astronauts say what NASA tells them to say.

You mean, like Ed Mitchell and Gordon Cooper?

OK, so any testimony that contradicts your preconceptions is automatically excluded. Perfect response to inconvenient facts.

Enjoy your closed mind in your imaginary universe.

While the response to your question seemed to be answered with sarcasm, in a way, the sarcasm is earned. Earned because you start the ball rolling by insulting our intelligence. What does it matter what the astronauts say about the footage in question, they have no answers just like you have no answer nor does anyone at NASA have an answer. Except to always call unusual aerial behavior by space unknowns space debris, ice crystals, etc. Never an honest, "You know, I don't know what the hell that was but it sure looks interesting." And this response should come after viewing all of those "ice crystals" materializing from earth's atmosphere and either moving off into deeper space or joining up with other "ice crystals." Or when a camera is trained on a fast moving object above earth but way in the distance and it is videographed for the longest time. Can you imagine if the force from the thrusters were harnessed on earth, how they could move windmills hundreds and even thousands of miles distant!

Why don't you go on record, for once in your life, and admit that there are things in space being videotaped that are unexplainable, that have nothing to do with thruster firings, water dumps, debris, ice crystals, etc.? Since you are on earth as we are then anyone's opinion has some validity, aside from the obvious ice crystals, debris., etc., that do not require the zooms, the pans, the follows.

Originally posted by The Shrike

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by gortex
reply to post by JimOberg

 

The astronauts say what NASA tells them to say.

You mean, like Ed Mitchell and Gordon Cooper?

OK, so any testimony that contradicts your preconceptions is automatically excluded. Perfect response to inconvenient facts.

Enjoy your closed mind in your imaginary universe.

While the response to your question seemed to be answered with sarcasm, in a way, the sarcasm is earned. Earned because you start the ball rolling by insulting our intelligence. What does it matter what the astronauts say about the footage in question, they have no answers just like you have no answer nor does anyone at NASA have an answer. ....

OK, let's start the investigation by deciding to disregard all eyewitness testimony.

When you put on blinders, you can stumble to any predetermined end point equally well.

Your arguments are still 'circular'. You start by assuming UFOs are real, which you claims proves that all UFO sightings are real, which you claim proves that UFOs are real.

Space is real, and space mysteries are real. Pre-labeling them is one sure way to prevent proper determination.

We just don't have any common ground on a research plan for these kinds of videos. For you, no research is needed, you 'know' what they look like and what they must be. The astronauts don't. The guys and gals in mission control don't. Just you.

Wow, you're good at deflecting I'll give you that much Jim. Since when are "UFO's" considered something solid and known? The term "Unidentified Flying Object" is fairly straightforward is it not? The fact of the matter is not you, I or anyone else on this planet completely knows what those objects are, they are unknown until proved otherwise or until better evidence is available.

They do however exhibit certain characteristics that allow us to rule out what they ARE NOT. They are NOT ice crystals as they seem to exhibit some form of self control and according to the video appear to be moving to specific destinations. They are NOT thruster gasses or debris being moved by those thruster gasses as these objects are moving on their own in a controlled fashion. They are NOT stars as they are within the earth's atmosphere.

Stop trying to twist words around when dealing with the term "UFO". Not everyone on this message board believes that ALL UFO's are instantly alien in nature. I myself believe most UFO's can be explained as black operations aircraft being tested and are the furthest thing from being alien.

reply to post by JimOberg
OK, let's start the investigation by deciding to disregard all eyewitness testimony.

When you put on blinders, you can stumble to any predetermined end point equally well.

Your arguments are still 'circular'. You start by assuming UFOs are real, which you claims proves that all UFO sightings are real, which you claim proves that UFOs are real.

Space is real, and space mysteries are real. Pre-labeling them is one sure way to prevent proper determination.

We just don't have any common ground on a research plan for these kinds of videos. For you, no research is needed, you 'know' what they look like and what they must be. The astronauts don't. The guys and gals in mission control don't. Just you.

I am not a "believer." I accept the reality that there are things in our skies that defy explanation. I am on a personal search to explain the things that I have witnessed. I freely admit I don't know how something as huge as a battleship can pause over my house and then move down my street at walking speed. I'm searching for answers.

I do not prescribe to the fringe-y stuff like the aliens are here to save our souls, planet, or whatever. Nor do I believe in the Nazi occupation of Brazil and/or hollow earth openings in Antarctica or is it the Arctic that the Nazi's are supposed to be using as a base to take over the world? I can't remember.

Yet I equate Jim Olberg's views with the same credibility as I do the opposite end of the spectrum. Anyone that can look at the NASA footage and not ask: "What the heck is that?" Is suspect to me. Couple that with other members posts, that appear to be like-minded to me like karl 12, and easynow's debunking the debunker in these threads (pay special attention to page 2 of both threads):

The Robertson Panel

The Missing UFO Evidence Thread

In summary, people that appear to be trying to earn a name for themselves as a debunker/skeptic, have as much credibility to me as the woo-woo stuff printed by people like Fulham, et al.

If these are just "ice-crystals" then they are some of the most amazingly geometrically savvy, acrobatic ice crystals I have ever seen.

Originally posted by Jocko Flocko
They do however exhibit certain characteristics that allow us to rule out what they ARE NOT. They are NOT ice crystals as they seem to exhibit some form of self control and according to the video appear to be moving to specific destinations. They are NOT thruster gasses or debris being moved by those thruster gasses as these objects are moving on their own in a controlled fashion. They are NOT stars as they are within the earth's atmosphere.

There you go again, ASSUMING at the beginning things you are trying to PROVE.

For example, "they are within the earth's atmosphere." On what basis do you conclude that? They are between the shuttle and Earth's atmosphere, based on the TV image. How do you deduce a range, from that?

Maybe you make this claim based on their illumination profile. OK. What is the basis for the illumination? I argue sunlit -- do you argue self-luminous?

If sunlit, how are the sunlit regions of the 3-D space in the camera field of view distributed? I argue there is a large shadowed zone essentially centered along the line of sight to the Earth horizon. Do you agree?