Shooting a UFO, STS mission (video)

Originally posted by JimO

You work for NASA. Your job is to "debunk" these videos in any possible way, because you get paid for it as far as I understand.

Now that I've politely answered your questions, will you politely retract your false accusations about me and my motives and my employment? And apologize for the insinuations of for-pay dishonesty that your messages implied?

Aren't you part of CSICOP whose main publication is the "Skeptical Inquirer" and you say you're not a professional debunker?

"..Oberg is also a proud, card-carrying member of CSICOP. He was part of a small maelstrom of controversy in 2004 when it was revealed NASA had contracted him to write a book that finally takes on the "moon landings were a hoax" crowd. The book was to address the hoax "proof" point by point and showing why the thesis is based on a poor understanding of basic physics.1 Oberg was to be paid $15,000 for the book. Critics felt that if NASA made it an official publication it would give credibility to the hoax theory.2 " Sound familiar?

[edit on 27-8-2006 by incunabula]

Originally posted by JimO
"here is an interesting read on rebuttals to James Oberg. "

I link to it from my home page, too -- seems to me it's a marvelous example of a pseudo-refutation that doesn't really address a SINGLE question of fact regarding the STS-48 video, but instead insists the video must be real by correspondence with OTHER videos and stories.

Can anybody find and cite any technical dispute regarding the STS-48 event that Cohen actually disputes with evidence -- as opposed to simply arguing that my analysis just can't, can't CAN'T ever ever ever be true.

Evidence? An example? Please, take your time -- it's been ten years and nobody has yet, but patience is a virtue...

Here's the rebuttals to your rebuttals of his original rebuttals,

www.cohenufo.org...

Like i said Jim. Internally is where you need to start fighting and it's only the beginning. Have fun with Mr.aldrin, be careful, i hear he's got quite the uppercut!

www.ufoevidence.org...

[edit on 27-8-2006 by incunabula]

Mr. Oberg, thanks a lot for your answers. I will provide the footage a bit later.
It's interesting you don't believe in UFO's at all.. I myself have seen a UFO with my father in August 1996 from the balcony (I was 11 years old at that moment and it was in Ukraine). A strange "cloud" slowly crossed the sky and when it was just above us, I saw this thing and remembered for the rest of my life... It looked exactly like a a type of object I was lucky to watch again 10 years later from the smoking-gun footage and Derbyshire video. A bright semi-transparent disk with a notch on its side. I saw it with my own eyes. That's why I'm so worried about this subject so much and that's why I asked your professional opinion about this.
And yes I'm sorry for what I said about your relation to all this previously. Maybe I misunderstood some info from the interviews and it lead me to wrong conclusions, but I didn't mean anything bad actually. I guess plenty of people would just love to work for NASA



[edit on 27-8-2006 by Leevi]

Originally posted by Leevi
Mr. Oberg, thanks a lot for your answers. I will provide the footage a bit later.
It's interesting you don't believe in UFO's at all.. I myself have seen a UFO with my father in August 1996 from the balcony (I was 11 years old at that moment and it was in Ukraine). A strange "cloud" slowly crossed the sky and when it was just above us, I saw this thing and remembered for the rest of my life... It looked exactly like a a type of object I was lucky to watch again 10 years later from the smoking-gun footage and Derbyshire video. A bright semi-transparent disk with a notch on its side. I saw it with my own eyes. That's why I'm so worried about this subject so much and that's why I asked your professional opinion about this.
And yes I'm sorry for what I said about your relation to all this previously. Maybe I misunderstood some info from the interviews and it lead me to wrong conclusions, but I didn't mean anything bad actually. I guess plenty of people would just love to work for NASA

[edit on 27-8-2006 by Leevi]

Leevi, why apologize he does get paid to do what he does i just posted proof for you.

Nevermind, incunabula. Let him explain what you've posted. I was partly aware of this information, but well.. one can never be sure when he doesn't know the language perfectly, right ? So I'd better be more polite

Originally posted by Leevi
Nevermind, incunabula. Let him explain what you've posted. I was partly aware of this information, but well.. one can never be sure when he doesn't know the language perfectly, right ? So I'd better be more polite

I understand leevi, and by the way i didn't mean to put words in you're mouth, so sorry about that.

Well, sucks, if he tells what is not true

"...Von Braun, Willy Ley, and others running experiments on the german missiles we brought back to the United States..." So how you can say word's that have not been quoted directly from the source is an old 'trick' used to discredit someone's personality, it doesn't work.

Corso said Key was a V-2 scientist. I claim that Corso was wrong. I took particular umbrage at this error because my personal familiarity with Ley's career informed me deeply on the price [exile and hardship and years of fear] he paid NOT to contribute to the V-2 program.

When you don't seem to want to admit that my factual assertions are accurate, you just whine about my tone. Well, take a deep breath and admit it:

Corso
was
wrong
about
Ley
and
the
V-2
program.

IMO I think you should accept that you were on a "need to know" basis (also as it relates to corona and discoverer) and maybe turn you're fight internally seeing as how Nasa personnel is whistleblowing and so is JPL, so good luck with that.

OK, so you are insisting that Discoverer DID start out as a civilian NASA program that Corso personally co-opted for the military? Fine. Present a single shred of written evidence from the history of NASA in that period, or in hindsight, or cite ANY spaceflight historian who has reached that same conclusion.

You can't, and not because NASA had wrapped it all in double-secret-probation cover. You can't because it's not true, despite Corso's claiming he was the central character in the episode.

Aren't you part of CSICOP whose main publication is the "Skeptical Inquirer" and you say you're not a professional debunker?

Indeed I am a founding Fellow of CSICOP and still an occasional contributor on topics related to my technical specialties. Since I haven't gotten a penny for it, ever, I dispute your use of the word 'professional'. Aren't you REALLY complaining that I'm too good at exposing some of the bunk you love to believe?

It's interesting you don't believe in UFO's at all.. I myself have seen a UFO with my father in August 1996 from the balcony (I was 11 years old at that moment and it was in Ukraine). A strange "cloud" slowly crossed the sky and when it was just above us, I saw this thing and remembered for the rest of my life...

I don't 'believe' that any extraordinary stimuli are required to account for the body of UFO reports, but I also certainly believe that there ARE unexplained reports.

Read my home page www.jamesoberg.com folklore section on Soviet-era UFOs -- views of cloud-like apparitions crossing the sky were very common and often had very prosaic explanations that the Soviet government did not desire to release. Maybe yours was explainable, too -- if you have data on the exact date and time and direction of motion, I can make some checks.

Leevi, why apologize he does get paid to do what he does i just posted proof for you.

Incunabula you silly flake: getting paid for a study on the 'fake moon flight myth' is hardly the makings of a 'professional debunker' of UFOs. Heck, since you, I'm sure, believe that Apollo astronauts encountered UFOs during moon missions, you MUST agree that the moon flights were NOT hoaxes, right?

judging by the vindictive nature of you're reply it's become obvious to me that you're trying to add negative 'juice' to your arguments

"Indignation is the soul's defense against the wound of doubt about its own; it reorders the cosmos to support the justice of its cause. It justifies putting Socrates to death. Recognizing indignation for what it is constitutes knowledge of the soul, and is thus an experience more philosophic than the study of mathematics."

- Allan Bloom "The Closing of The American Mind"-page 71

Just wanted to reply on this. I saw this video a few years ago, and if im correct, but im not an expert, but it looks like the thing shoots out of the atmosphere. You can see the atmosphere real good, a edge that covers earth, the thing is in it, and shoots out, after the flash of light. I dont now what that means, but thats why i dont think its ice. I do watch star trek, but im also skeptical. So i hope other ones can shed a light on this one.

Pazzz, the dot does indeed move that the portion of the field of view that has ground behind it to the portion that has space behind it. But since the cameras were aimed precisely to observe the airglow ground-space boundary during nighttime passes (at the request of Skeet Vaughan, and you can talk with him if you'd like), that's the way the scene was set up. On other sequences from similar scenes, dots move from the space area to the ground area, or move across the ground area, or move across the space area, randomly. Sometimes they are even observed to move in front of shuttle structure, which is another hint about the nature of at least some of them.

The challenge is -- what is it about such a scene that makes a 'normal' explanation unbelievable?

Originally posted by Pazzzzz
Just wanted to reply on this. I saw this video a few years ago, and if im correct, but im not an expert, but it looks like the thing shoots out of the atmosphere. You can see the atmosphere real good, a edge that covers earth, the thing is in it, and shoots out, after the flash of light. I dont now what that means, but thats why i dont think its ice. I do watch star trek, but im also skeptical. So i hope other ones can shed a light on this one.

The flash is a booster, which causes the debris to react like it does. The atmosphere or cresent edge of the earth is a lighter color then...well...space. This causes objects reflecting light to look brighter within that viewpoint. Once past that viewpoint, they diminish.

Dont forget, these videos of Nasa missions are not exactly concise. They are yet again a camera's chip trying only to convey light and dark, and everything in between. The images have alot less to do with the actual event's appearance.

jritzman, the flash is glowing effluent from an RCS thruster, to be more precise, and the flash occurs precisely in the 1-second period the thruster was triggered by the autopilot as the shuttle drifted against the boundary of the 'deadband' -- the allowable range of variation. The attitude angles are all given in one of the links I listed, above, that show why the jet fired at that particular time without human intervention.

Nearby objects get entrained in the 10,000 fps plume both directly from the nozzle and from some of it bouncing off shuttle structure within the wide cone of that plume.

All the timing, all the motion -- and changes in direction occur ONLY during that one-second thruster firing, neither before or after -- is consistent, which goes a long way to explaining why such data is either omitted, or is misrepresented, in UFO websites about this 'UFO'.

I agree wholeheartedly sir, though youre a bit more versed in it then I (expectedly so). More often then not such "anomalies" are cameras trying desperately to show as best they can what they "see". Folks often expect alot from a chip in any given camera, hence why we have people zooming into small nightime lights to have them blur into flare, and say "it's and orb!!!".

These "discs" of huge proportions people keep pointing out on NASA films are equally ridiculous. The idea that these "discs" (that resemble dropa stones...hole in middle, hatchet mark on one edge) on NASA film...always seems to be positioned to it's broadside should give a clue that it's simply an out of focus close proximity debris.

jritzmann, are the orbs on this tape also close proximity debris ? Ice particles ? Optical illusions ?

cp.people.overclockers.ru...

If so (any variant):
1) Why are they pulsating ?
2) How do they manage to close in on each other and form a triangle all together ?
3) Why does the operator zoom at these objects ? Why such a great interest ?

To me the first orb appears from the atmosphere exactly like in STS-48 video.
Convince me that it is a piece of debris.

Thank you



[edit on 29-8-2006 by Leevi]

To me the first orb appears from the atmosphere exactly like in STS-48 video. Convince me that it is a piece of debris.
[edit on 29-8-2006 by Leevi]

Seems you've been vaccinated against any fact-based explanation -- else you would have made reference to explanatory material linked in some of my earlier posts. Until you show indications you've read and tried to understand even a small portion of that, you are demanding the impossible. And your 'questions' are tricks because they presuppose facts-not-in-evidence, or even fantasies.