Famed NASA Astronaut almost, kind of, (not really) says Extraterrestrials are here!

Got a response from Tom Jones who was one of the astronauts on STS-80:

Hello, XXXXX.
We saw no UFOs of any kind on STS-80. I mean exactly that -- no sightings of anything unusual or unexplainable. The video is showing only ice or debris particles in the camera's field of view.
Best wishes,
Tom Jones


You can email him at [email protected]

Here is his site.

home.comcast.net...

"pilots are, in truth, among the poorest observers of UFOs"

The Gemini 4 UFO By James Oberg

www.igs.net...

STS-77 UFO


"you see another light going by on the ground there ...(long pause)......it could have been a star bill"


the bigger object that looks like two glowing rings is a satellite they deployed but the smaller light or object is unidentified and could be a ufo. Mario is obviously confused and has no idea what that object is

Originally posted by gsup1
Got a response from Tom Jones who was one of the astronauts on STS-80:

Hello, XXXXX.
We saw no UFOs of any kind on STS-80. I mean exactly that -- no sightings of anything unusual or unexplainable. The video is showing only ice or debris particles in the camera's field of view.
Best wishes,
Tom Jones


You can email him at [email protected]

Here is his site.

home.comcast.net...

edit on 3-11-2010 by gsup1 because: (no reason given)

Because he did not see the UFO does not mean everyone didn't either. Im not even sure that is him behind the alleged email.I believe Musgrave seen what he seen. He may have been in the right place at the right time and maybe he might be the only one that is not afraid of NASA's hush hush policy in the outcome. Perhaps Jones is upholding the status quo. Maybe he does not want to lose his job or pension?

Also is it me or does Jones appear to have some extra chromosomes? Down Syndrome
Maybe we should go back to sending monkeys in to space, then maybe we could get to the bottom of this.


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/14a098add73c.jpg[/atsimg]

He is not an astronaut anymore. What can NASA do to him?

home.comcast.net...

Dial that phone number and see who responds. I personally think the guy is real. If Jim wants to check using his sources, then that would be fine too. BTW, what's with trying to assume he has down syndrome?

You can contact Musgrave yourself and see what he says

storymusgrave.com...

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by gortex
I'm interested to know if there is any space shuttle footage you would consider anomalous Jim ? .

You've always got to keep your eyes open for such, because it can be evidence of a critical spacecraft malfunction. Mission Control is always interested in anything 'different' outside (and inside) the spacecraft under its control. I used to work there, for about twenty years.

And just because a scene looks like something you THINK is 'ordinary', you have to double check to be sure. It's a prime directive of minimizing spaceflight hazards.

As to the hundreds of scenes shown on youtube, I haven't seen one yet that looked different from what we've come to expect to see from known causes. Still doesn't mean visitors couldn't be disguised, or even invisible -- but no visible 'smoking guns' that the UFO zones and DVD/videotape salesmen want you to buy into.

Mr. Oberg, as usual your replies obfuscate (Obfuscation is the concealment of intended meaning in communication, making communication confusing, intentionally ambiguous, and more difficult to interpret. To make dark; overshadow; To deliberately make more confusing in order to conceal the truth; To alter code while preserving its behavior but conceal its structure and intent. Definitions from wikipedia)

You know darn well that in "THE SECRET NASA TRANSMISSION: THE SMOKING GUN" there is one bit of footage that you could never qualify as other than anomalous, i.e., an anomalous object is tracked from a shuttle as said anomalous object is seen hauling over the earth and it's an astronaut handling the camera as opposed to a static camera. And why should astronauts holding the cameras find it necessary to zoom in on objects you've called ice particles. The zooming indicates interest in a far away object. When a female astronaut is describing a night scene and she points out where MIR can be seen there is a pregnant pause because her mind is being blown by a large white object entering the scene and calling attention away from MIR.

Perhaps the problem with your usual b.s. explanations is that you probably have not seen the footage that is available. Perhaps you are too busy to screen it all. I tried to get your attention to explain a very anomalous scene in footage shot from a shuttle of a drifting external tank. I went through the trouble of making a ton of vidcaps which you were going to comment on. One scene showed something that could not be described as a land mass, a cloud formation, etc. It was a strange shape and solid.

I waited after you said you'd come back with an analysis and you didn't keep your word. Your opinions should not be so sought after 'cause quite a few disagree with you anyway. You see the same videos we do and your explanations are usually an insult to intelligence.

Edit: I just found at YouTube the short footage of that anomalous object hauling over the earth and videographed by an astronaut from a shuttle. The footage starts out dark but the astronaut is trying to find the anomalous object, zooms into the darkness and finds it and then tracks it. Go on watch the footage and tell us the astronaut is tracking a hauling ice particle that had to be found with extreme zoom! Very clear at :44 The gauntlet has been thrown. www.youtube.com...

I don't really see what you are pointing at in the video.....

Originally posted by The Shrike
Mr. Oberg, as usual your replies obfuscate (Obfuscation is the concealment of intended meaning in communication, making communication confusing, intentionally ambiguous, and more difficult to interpret. To make dark; overshadow; To deliberately make more confusing in order to conceal the truth; To alter code while preserving its behavior but conceal its structure and intent. Definitions from wikipedia)

This is exactly what he was attempting to do with me and some other members on this topic until I cornered him. Once he got trapped (by his own words no less) his only recourse was to attempt sarcasm at that juncture.

Thank you for pointing out this definition as it was what I was about to accuse him of doing as well until he tripped over his tie so to speak.

As it remains, this story still has not been adequately debunked. I don't think it is going to be either. The debunker kids only have subterfuge ploys to attempt at this stage. It's really all they had to begin with.

I mean how about we all email the astronauts involved in the STS 80 mission... One guys said no already. There were 4 others in that flight.

Originally posted by gsup1
Got a response from Tom Jones who was one of the astronauts on STS-80:

Hello, XXXXX.
We saw no UFOs of any kind on STS-80. I mean exactly that -- no sightings of anything unusual or unexplainable. The video is showing only ice or debris particles in the camera's field of view.
Best wishes,
Tom Jones


You can email him at [email protected]

Here is his site.

home.comcast.net...

edit on 3-11-2010 by gsup1 because: (no reason given)

Your source, dr. Tom Jones, IS NOT an reliable source.......

Snipped from his Bio....

After graduation from the Air Force Academy, Tom piloted B-52D strategic bombers, studied asteroids for NASA, engineered intelligence-gathering systems for the CIA, and as a NASA contractor, developed advanced mission concepts to explore the solar system. [/ex ]

Is He a Space Spy?

edit on 4-11-2010 by Arken because: (no reason given)

Originally posted by gsup1
I mean how about we all email the astronauts involved in the STS 80 mission... One guys said no already. There were 4 others in that flight.

Actually, two -- stop pretending Musgrave hasn't already answered. And his answer is also NO, both with regard to seeing something, and to saying what McClelland claimed he said.

The lighting conditions -- the shuttle casting a shadow at sunrise where drifting nearby objects could suddenly appear as they emerged into sunlight -- have also been described, but observers here can see the pretense by the bitter-end-believers that it all means nothing.

The gyrations and dodgings to avoid believing what the primary witnesses are saying -- just priceless. Now we see where the closed minds and constipated intellects on this subject are located.

Crew and ground are always interested in stuff outside since it could be clues to malfunctions, and they will zoom in on stuff that might be a piece of their own vehicle, or signs of leaks. How is that hard to understand? They've done it for about, oh, half a century, and never made a secret of it.

Originally posted by The Shrike
Edit: I just found at YouTube the short footage of that anomalous object hauling over the earth and videographed by an astronaut from a shuttle. The footage starts out dark but the astronaut is trying to find the anomalous object, zooms into the darkness and finds it and then tracks it. Go on watch the footage and tell us the astronaut is tracking a hauling ice particle that had to be found with extreme zoom! Very clear at :44 The gauntlet has been thrown.

This is the posting that consists mainly of STS-75 images? Just looked at it -- would be glad to check out the lighting and vehicle activity context, please provide me the day/time of the video.

Uh, you won't give it to me? You don't know it? Gee, what a tricky guy you are...

We DID have that data for the STS-80 video, as you've seen in the report, so we WERE able to reconstruct the illumination conditions. You do agree that the STS-80 context was correctly reconstructed, don't you?

If not -- why should I keep doing it again, except as a trick by you to waste my time.

Originally posted by JimOberg
We DID have that data for the STS-80 video, as you've seen in the report, so we WERE able to reconstruct the illumination conditions. You do agree that the STS-80 context was correctly reconstructed, don't you?

sorry... but what was the basis for that data? your presumptions or factual source data?

hmmmm..... reconstructed?

the camera went from east to west.... what was the range of the shadow which was being cast by the shuttle?

anyhoo.... a funny coincidence re 'december 1st' here...

www.satobs.org...

Originally posted by JimOberg
The gyrations and dodgings to avoid believing what the primary witnesses are saying -- just priceless. Now we see where the closed minds and constipated intellects on this subject are located.

the mission was extended due to re-entry delays caused by weather conditions.... could it be that they were observing the weather in us....

www.satobs.org...

Flight controllers are watching the weather at the Kennedy Space
Center in Florida as Columbia nears the end of its mission, and an
option to land on Thursday is being retained in the event the forecast
is unacceptable for a Friday or later landing. Any change in the plans
for a Friday landing will not be made before Wednesday morning at the
earliest.

science.ksc.nasa.gov...

how sure are you about your proposed date in the 'report'?

Originally posted by easynow
STS-77 UFO

The crewman speaking is Mario Runco.

Here's an email from him that calls the UFO misinterpretation "rampant idiocy".

Who do you suppose he's refering to?


From: mrunco xx verizon.net
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 12:38 AM
To: 'James Oberg'
Subject: RE: Mario, your 'UFO sighting' is on the Internet



Good grief! This was from STS-77. If you recall, we had a small Get Away Special (GAS) can satellite onboard called the Passive Aerodynamically Stabilized Magnetically Damped Satellite Test Unit (PAM-STU). STU was an experimental cylindrical satellite about the size of a medium to large trash can (about 3 feet long and 2 feet in diameter). The idea of the satellite was to see if the attitude of the satellite could be controlled without using an active attitude control system and only the natural forces available in low Earth orbit. Those forces would be the drag of the extremely rarified atmosphere and the magnetic field of the Earth. The STU's center of pressure was behind it's center of gravity and theoretically would act like a badminton birdie does in the atmosphere - it would always be forced to face one end into the direction of travel by the drag of the air, in this case with the red Stimsonite in the audio - only much more slowly because the air is of course rarified; however, in the absence of any other forces it would take an extremely long time for any oscillations that it had to stabilize, if ever. The magnetic field of the Earth was used to stabilize this oscillation. The STU also had three orthogonal bar magnets on it inside. The bar magnets would interact with the magnetic field of the Earth and damp out the oscillations thus stabilizing it. I really didn't think it would work very well but sure enough it did. We launched the STU along the nadir, radially inward toward the center of the Earth. Initially, it was flying sideways but over time the correct (red) end pointed into the velocity vector as predicted but it had a conical oscillation but even that damped out as we flew several orbits which allowed time for the magnetic dampening from the Earth's magnetic field to take effect. On the rear of the STU were corner cube reflectors. These were designed to reflect light from a laser tracker we had in the payload bay. After we deployed the STU, we maneuvered to a position about 2000 feet behind the STU to begin tracking it. We were flying unusually with the tail of Endeavour to the Earth and the payload bay and windows into the wind as it were. The laser was intended to measure its oscillations.



Well, the laser failed and we were not able to track it automatically but serendipitously I had insisted that we take some additional camera equipment with us. This equipment included one of the longer focal length Nikon lenses, an adapter to attach it to the Cannon video camera, a doubler, and most importantly an inline light intensifier for low light level video and photography. We also had the huge "mag" spotlight onboard which was intended to illuminate the STU for us on night passes so we could keep an eye on it and track it with the Hand Held Laser (HHL) to maintain our proper distance from it. It had a huge amount of candle power and became quite warm after a while. I used all of this equipment to salvage the STU's mission by tracking and recording the STU manually. I set the equipment up in the one of the two overhead windows we had in our double SpaceHab module. I had also serendipitously insisted that they install the second window in the SpaceHab which was not originally planned. Andy Thomas and I then took turns tracking the STU and recording the video continuously for several days of the mission. The light intensifier allowed us to track the satellite even on night passes. There was enough lighting from the Shuttle to provide enough illumination of the corner cubes and the Stimsonite reflectors to get an image. When we put the mag spotlight on it, the Stimsonite and the corner cubes would light up brightly. The extra window on the SpaceHab allowed either Andy or me to track the satellite with the camera equipment in one window and use the mag spotlight, HHL, and binoculars in the other window. I believe the PAM-STU Investigators were from the University of Alabama in Huntsville but I do not recall that for sure or their names. See also my story (1 of 5) on fine dining in the book, "The Space Shuttle, The First 20 Years." I forget the exact title they had used for the piece.



The You Tube video is video of our early manual tracking efforts. I rigged all of the camera equipment after we had learned the laser tracker had failed. The video shows a look at the satellite, using only the camera equipment I described above and without illuminating it with the mag spotlight, only in this case we are seeing the two ends of the satellite. There were Stimsonite reflectors around the circumference of the STU at each end. You can see these in the first few of the attached photos. One set was red and the other set was black and white. The red end was the forward (velocity vector) end. What you mostly see in the black and white video (due to the low light level enhancement) are these reflectors hence the twin set of lights. At one point the two lights disappear and seem to merge into one with bright spots within. This is when the STU in its oscillations presented an end on view of the corner cubes only and the Stimsonite reflectors were no longer visible for a short time. This is described in the exchange I had with Bill McArthur that is part of the audio for the clip. At 2000 feet away we had to have the lens zoomed in all the way to get a useable image and the field of view was quite narrow hence the appearance of the "lights" to move around in the video when in reality it was only the movement of the camera because we could not keep it steady enough. After a while, both Andy and I got better at it and the image did not move around so much. The lights moving by in the background are either isolated lights on the ground or stars, I think likely the latter though. I do not remember for sure.



At one time the post experiment technical report was available online but it doesn't seem to be there anymore.., Maybe the aliens made off with it.



Caption for the first three images attached: The Satellite Test Unit (STU), part of the Passive Aerodynamically Stabilized Magnetically Damped Satellite (PAMS) is seen moments after its ejection from the cargo bay of the Space Shuttle Endeavour.



I have one more image I can send you that shows a later, more elaborate version of the onboard camera rigging but it is on my work computer. I will get it to you later in the week.



I would hope that this would dispel this sort of rampant idiocy but alas I suspect it won't.

Mario



www.nasaimages.org...:The-Satellite-Test-Unit--STU-,-part

www.n2yo.com...

science.ksc.nasa.gov...

science.ksc.nasa.gov...

space.skyrocket.de...://www.skyrocket.de/space/doc_sdat/pams-stu.htm

www.all-acronyms.com...

www.nasaimages.org...:The-STS-77-crew-patch,-designed-by-

www.asc-csa.gc.ca...

www.planet4589.org...

www.business.com...

Originally posted by mcrom901
the camera went from east to west.... what was the range of the shadow which was being cast by the shuttle?

I don't understand your comment on the camera. The line of sight is towards the west, is that what you mean?

The range of the shadow is easy enough to calculate. Assume a 100 ft long shuttle -- it depends on how orthogonally it was aligned to the sun -- and a half degree wide sun.

One degree subtends 1 ft at a range of about 57 ft -- use '60' as an approximation to make it easy to do in your head.

So, half a degree subtends 0.5 ft at range of about 60 ft.

To subtend 100 ft would require a range of about 12,000 ft.

So the shuttle's umbra tapers to zero about two miles out.

Does that sound reasonable?

Reasonableness check -- use the Moon.

Diameter 2000 miles

Shadow tapers to zero about 240,000 miles out --
wow, by coincidence, about the distance to Earth.

This explains why the eclipse totality zone is so small and sometimes (when
moon is farthest from earth) it doesn't even reach Earth's surace. Cool.

Originally posted by mcrom901
how sure are you about your proposed date in the 'report'?