Shooting a UFO, STS mission (video)

JimO ,

If it was only a prosaic object , which it might have been , why hasn't NASA addressed this potential hazard or publically followed up on it yet like they've done with other "unknown objects" with prosaic explanations?

Oh, and lets not pretend that you don't know what an "unknown object" is a reference to , I could site a couple instances where you yourself have used it.

For instance here.

The Great Soviet UFO Coverup By James E. Oberg

(Excerpt)

Among the most interesting 1967 casesl is a curious multiple sighting on December 3, of an unknown object near Cape Kamennyy in the Soviet Arctic. At 3:04p.m. several crewmen and passengers of an IL-18 aircraft on a test flight for the State Scientific Institute of Civil Aviation sighted an intensely bright object approaching them in the night sky at an altitude of 2,800 feet (in this far northern latitude, night comes in midafternoon in December).

HISTORY OF UFO STATE RESEARCH
IN THE USSR Yu. V. Platov, B. A. Sokolov (Paper courtesy of James Oberg, with the permission of the author)

(Excerpt)

In the region in which the aeroplane met an "UFO" there were no habitation objects on the ground except the frontier post and meteorological station, and it was decided to start the checking with the meteorological service. From the telephone talk to the chief of the meteostation it was found out: first, the launch time of a ball-probe from this station practically coincides with the time of meeting an unknown object by the aeroplane, and second, the shell of the launched balloon has turned to be very strong and it has mounted some kilometres higher than usually. The last altitude of a probe fixed by the telemetry made 16 kms.

While you didn't write the second article , your credited as contributing the article and it also shows that "unknown object" ( неизвестный объект) is used in Russian and translated to "unknown object" in English and is thus synonymous in English and in Russian.




[edit on 13-9-2006 by lost_shaman]

"If it was only a prosaic object , which it might have been , why hasn't NASA addressed this potential hazard or publically followed up on it yet like they've done with other "unknown objects" with prosaic explanations? "

How many different possible answers do you want? Like, nobody cares what some UFO buff might misinterpret the ordinary phrase to mean? Like, you're the only one in the universe who clings to this strained, unjustified interpretation, and they simply cannot understand why it should matter to them? Or to anyone else?

Originally posted by JimO


How many different possible answers do you want? Like, nobody cares what some UFO buff might misinterpret the ordinary phrase to mean? Like, you're the only one in the universe who clings to this strained, unjustified interpretation, and they simply cannot understand why it should matter to them? Or to anyone else?

JimO,

I've misinterpreted?

I suppose that "those Russians ( CDR P. Vinogradov ) don't know what they're doing" as well.

Why don't you admit that you know good and well that "unknown object" is a reference to something outside the ISS?

sorry, i'm struck dumb.

JimO : sorry, i'm struck dumb.

Let me guess ... by the sledgehammer of reality?

Forgive me , I'm really not familiar with CSICOPian debate tactics. It may take a couple days for me to adjust.

Canadian astronaut reports on the "amazing" lights he has seen.
Be excited, be very excited..at least for a minute or two.

PM, school children talk to astronauts in space
The Canadian Press
CAPE CANAVERAL, FLA. (Sep 15, 2006)
With two solar wings extending like shiny blankets of gold bars outside, Canadian astronaut Steve MacLean spoke yesterday with Prime Minister Stephen Harper and school children about his spacewalk, the work he has done, and the "amazing" lights he has seen.


www.hamiltonspectator.com.../Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1158270615038&call_pageid=1020420665036& col=1112101662670

In examining the different interpretations of the phrase 'unknown object', it seems to me that past experience is the best guide to current interpretation. If one has no real understanding of the space program, but has been immersed in UFO lore all one's life, then one interpretation is automatically chosen. If, however, you are familiar with space operations and the way space travelers talk, another interpretation may be chosen.

As to which is closer to reality, I can offer this passage from a recent book of mine:

page 57, my 2002 book 'Star-Crossed Orbits"

Most of the top space experts are survivors of the generation that worked on Sputnik and Vostok nearly 40 years ago. Because the same group worked on project after project as the space programs developed over the decades, they are uniquely experienced and knowledgeable. But even though they are all in their sixties and seventies, they rarely document their activities for the reference of future workers. “Vital intergenerational transfers of knowledge about space industry and operations are not systematically taking place,” Twigg pointed out.

As a result, an institutional amnesia is creeping in. This is illustrated by a curious incident that occurred at Moscow's mission control center in April 1995. The cosmonauts aboard Mir had displayed several pieces of hardware over their television downlink, described the items, and asked what they were for and whether to retain or discard them. After a determined research effort, ground controllers had to tell the cosmonauts that nobody on Earth could recognize the items, much less explain their purpose. There were no written records and no surviving experts to consult. By the mid-1990s, critical archival data had been irretrievably lost. In response to a request from NASA for historical data on failures in one particular subsystem, the Russians admitted that retrieving data for the past 10 years would be “very difficult,” and that retrieving older data was simply impossible.

JimO : In examining the different interpretations of the phrase 'unknown object', it seems to me that past experience is the best guide to current interpretation.

Come on Jim, I've pointed out that you have used the phrase "unknown object" and you know it's almost exclusively used to refer to observations of external objects of undetermined origin.

Let's see how you used it in the article you wrote and I cited.

The Great Soviet UFO Coverup By James E. Oberg


Among the most interesting 1967 cases curious multiple sighting on December 3, of an unknown object near Cape Kamennyy in the Soviet Arctic. At 3:04p.m. several crewmen and passengers of an IL-18 aircraft on a test flight for the State Scientific Institute of Civil Aviation sighted an intensely bright object approaching them in the night sky at an altitude of 2,800 feet (in this far northern latitude, night comes in midafternoon in December).

Your clearly using the phrase to mean something external and independent that was seen by the crew and passengers.

Explain the difference between your use of the phrase here and CMD P. Vinogradov's usage of the phrase.

Is it not true that if CMD P. Vinogradov used your own meaning as referenced above of the phrase "unknown object" , that he would be describing something of "unknown" origin that was visible outside the ISS?







[edit on 16-9-2006 by lost_shaman]

At the risk of offending both parties, I am going to do something stupid, ergo try to play peacemaker. So feel free to aim at me instead of each
other. Mr. Oberg, I am enjoying very much your "full explanations", and such expertise will greatly improve the quality of discussions here.
But due to the nature of virtual personalities, I think EVERYONE is prone to faux pas that are interpreted and reacted to as personal slaps. On
page 8, you seem to react negatively to the signature line used by lost shaman. It is simply an arguement based upon a false premise.
Quite common in here. Think the "opposite" of science. Instead of trying to prove a hypothesis wrong, here the battle is to try and prove
their hypothesis (beliefs) correct. And the true aliens are the "scientists", who, true to form, will always try to prove them wrong.
But I think that signature line premise caused you to overlook something that has rattled lost shaman's cage a bit.

Page 8
"Vinogradov was supposed to be doing ......but could easily have looked out a window between tasks." ==JimO

Page 9
"So why did you assume that 'object' was something outside the station versus something inside?" == JimO

Page 9
"....there was nothing to indicate that he was refering to something on-board the ISS. " == lost shaman

Page 9

"Nor to one outside the ISS, either, I take it.

Well, you're free to 'see' what you want into this comment, as with so many others." == JimO
Bottom line add "You have a much broader imagination than I do, I'd say." == JimO

Looking over the time sequence, only the initial post above your Page 8 quote above was edited by lost shaman.
Nothing else he has posted indicates an assumption on his part. Nor does the post-edit. I did not see the original.
As it currently reads, the first assumption and only one present to the last quote above IS YOURS, NOT HIS.
So his reaction to this percieved slap is getting deep into the meaning of "unknown object".

Geeeez. This is the Aliens and UFO area.
EVERYBODY knows that "unknown objects" are either ET or a Russian private joke. Lets move on,
shall we. Uh, the video I believe..., or did you miss Isaac Koi's question at the bottom of page 8 ?

Did vinogradov say

u menya nevestniy obyekt
(I have an unknown object)

or
veezhu nevestniy obyekt
(I see an unknown object)

My presumption would be that if you 'have' something,
you are holding it, unless you add qualifiers such as '..in view'.
That's the way I understand Russian (which I've spoken since
college days).


Note that was also the presumption of the third party who also heard the remark and described it as (in his view) referring to something on board. Why is YOUR desired interpretation better than his?

for unknown he also could have said
neizvestniy, or neopaznanniy...

Originally posted by JimO
for unknown he also could have said
neizvestniy, or neopaznanniy...

Regardless of whether he said неизвестный (neizvestniy) or неопознанный (neopoznanniy) объект (object), he meant an outside object. I am Russian and I can guarantee that the construction "unknown object" is normally never used in conjunction with confined space. Our language is much more complicated than any language on earth and thus we usually have several variants to express the meaning of an object, which is "indoors", let alone an outside object.. Even the intonation can drastically change the meaning of the same phrase but this is not the case. Pavel Vinogradov would have said something completely different if he would have seen something inside the ISS.


[edit on 16-9-2006 by Leevi]

Thanks for the explanatory comment, Leevi. Now we can ask Vinogradov when he returns, and also we can locate the original tape and hear what he actually said, instead of what somebody thinks the interpretor said. We could be witnessing the birth of another 'space UFO' legend here, right in front of our eyes (and ears).

I must admit, this is a really good video, and I'm not a ufo beliver, it looks like something is going in one direction and all the sudden it changes direction fast , short after it looks like a beam of some sort passes the object at a small distance, it looks like it evoided the beam to me, If this is not fake it sure looks strange, one of the best UFO cases I have ever seen.


[edit on 16-9-2006 by pepsi78]

This speaker in the video says he "believe's that flashes are top secret weapons" this is simply his opinion. So with that, I believe that flashes are comming naturally from the shuttle itself, flashing lights. And why doesn't anyone think the possibility of a meteor that nearly slammed into the UFO, that's a good pilot, he saw it comming.

I truely believe in advanced races, don't get me wrong, but why is NASA's footage always crap? Unclear, pixelated crap?

Pepsi and T_Nex, please read the previous posts, they address your questions.

JimO,

Don't you think we can put the issue of the meaning of "unknown object" to rest now that another "unknown object" ( space debris outside the Shuttle ) is interfering with the same Mission?

Unknown object seen flying below Atlantis

James, can you please share any information on unknown objects from the STS-115 mission if you have it.. I believe you can freely talk to any official from NASA about it and it would be wonderful to hear your personal opinion about the latest events..

JimO,

I'd like to continue the discussion of Shuttle "Ice" and , or IMO lack there of.

I assume you watched "Live" NASA T.V. like everyone else. In which case you would have been acutely aware of the fact that no "Ice" was noticed originating from any of Shuttle Atlantis' Thrusters.

shaman: "I assume you watched "Live" NASA T.V. like everyone else. In which case you would have been acutely aware of the fact that no "Ice" was noticed originating from any of Shuttle Atlantis' Thrusters. "

I watched direct TV donlink on the big screen in the front of the MOCR on many missions for many hours -- and when off duty, on 'NASA TV' as well. Lots of ice came off the orbiters -- from thrusters, from water dump, from around the main engine bells, from the flash evaporators. Why do you keep referring to your dreams as 'facts' and insisting that I repeat them?