Reopening the case file: NASA UFOs

Originally posted by Jay-morris
reply to post by Jay-morris

 

This alone tells me me they are not disc shapped objects, but small objects close to the camera.

So the fact that some objects go behind the tether means nothing to you?

Originally posted by ReconX

Originally posted by Jay-morris
reply to post by Jay-morris

 

This alone tells me me they are not disc shapped objects, but small objects close to the camera.

So the fact that some objects go behind the tether means nothing to you?

edit on 15-6-2011 by ReconX because: (no reason given)

You did not answer my question.

As for the ufos going behind the tether

reply to post by Jay-morris


Seriously?.....debunk attempt by UFO Hunters! ha,ha!

If it's just an illusion that some objects pass behind the tether, why do some clearly pass in front?
Wouldn't they all appear the same?


This is by someone who really knows what he is talking about, and he proves that some objects go behind the tether........ without hocus pocus!

Originally posted by ReconX
reply to post by Jay-morris

 

This is by someone who really knows what he is talking about, and he proves that some objects go behind the tether........ without hocus pocus!

David Sereda? Isn't he the guy who in his tape "Evidence: The Case for NASA UFOs" claims to have met with Jesus Christ three times, and the Virgin Mary, once? This is a guy who knows what he's talking about?

reply to post by JimOberg



I'd sooner believe David Sereda than a debunker for NASA!

Originally posted by ReconX
reply to post by Jay-morris

 

Seriously?.....debunk attempt by UFO Hunters! ha,ha!

If it's just an illusion that some objects pass behind the tether, why do some clearly pass in front?
Wouldn't they all appear the same?


This is by someone who really knows what he is talking about, and he proves that some objects go behind the tether........ without hocus pocus!

Let me make myself very clear. I believe that some ufo's defy explanation, and i believe the subject needs to be taken seriously. But, what i don't like are people who who believe everything they come across, and have too much arrogance to hold up their hands and say, ok, i was wrong.

I, like you, once thought that the secret nasa transmissions were amazing, but the more i looked into it, the more i believed that what we were looking at were objects close to the camera.

As for the video. Its not about the credibility of ufo hunters. Its about the man who clearly showed (with evidence) how objects may look like they are appearing behind the tether.

Also, why won't you answer my question. Do you know the chances that all the objects we are seeing are at the same angle to be basically impossible. So tell ne, how comes we see the disc shaped objects at the same angle.

It seems you are just dismissing this without a thought, which is a shame

why is NASA (never a straight answer!) covering up the alien probes shown in these flims? why do they hide the truth from the people

i never trust nasa, i want their fundng cut to nothing as punihsment for hiding the alien dust probes

Originally posted by Jay-morris

Originally posted by ReconX
reply to post by Jay-morris

 

Seriously?.....debunk attempt by UFO Hunters! ha,ha!

If it's just an illusion that some objects pass behind the tether, why do some clearly pass in front?
Wouldn't they all appear the same?


This is by someone who really knows what he is talking about, and he proves that some objects go behind the tether........ without hocus pocus!

Let me make myself very clear. I believe that some ufo's defy explanation, and i believe the subject needs to be taken seriously. But, what i don't like are people who who believe everything they come across, and have too much arrogance to hold up their hands and say, ok, i was wrong.

I, like you, once thought that the secret nasa transmissions were amazing, but the more i looked into it, the more i believed that what we were looking at were objects close to the camera.

As for the video. Its not about the credibility of ufo hunters. Its about the man who clearly showed (with evidence) how objects may look like they are appearing behind the tether.

Also, why won't you answer my question. Do you know the chances that all the objects we are seeing are at the same angle to be basically impossible. So tell ne, how comes we see the disc shaped objects at the same angle.

It seems you are just dismissing this without a thought, which is a shame

Well, firstly i'm certainly not someone who believes everything, far from it!

As for the video, well David Sereda clearly shows that the objects going behind the tether cannot be an illusion!

Why don't I answer your question? How am I supposed to answer it? It's you who supposes they are flat!
Maybe they are orb's. Maybe, if they are flat as you suppose, they cannot be seen side on?
Why does the Moon appear to be a disc?
Why does the tether appear to be flat?
It's obvious there is some kind of electrically charged energy around the objects, the same goes for the tether, so maybe some are side on but all look the same due to the energy surrounding them.


I'm not claiming to know what they are, but I know they cannot be ice or dust!

Originally posted by Jay-morris

Originally posted by ReconX

Originally posted by Jay-morris
reply to post by Jay-morris

 

This alone tells me me they are not disc shapped objects, but small objects close to the camera.

So the fact that some objects go behind the tether means nothing to you?

edit on 15-6-2011 by ReconX because: (no reason given)

You did not answer my question.

As for the ufos going behind the tether

can you relate as to what is the source of the light which illuminates these 'particles' from "behind"?

and more importantly the 'source' of said "particles"?

www.abovetopsecret.com...



thank you

Originally posted by mcrom901

can you relate as to what is the source of the light which illuminates these 'particles' from "behind"?

and more importantly the 'source' of said "particles"?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Just so I'm not the gerbil squeaking on the endless treadmill, are we making any progress on similar cases that have been much more thoroughly investigated?

Specifically, my annotated briefing at Purdue in the debate with Greer in 1999 on the STS-48 particles.

Linked from my home page here --

STS-48 Data Files show prosaic nature of zig-zag space dot
www.igs.net...

Purdue Presentation (1999)
www.jamesoberg.com...


Do you agree with my conclusion that the evidence shows they are nearby shuttle-generated small light objects? Validated by direct eyewitness testimony (flight crew)?

Ditto my analysis of the notorious STS-80 'circle formation' video, Ditto the explanation as small nearby sunlit dandruff, validated by flight crew testimony (Jones, Musgrave)?

www.realufos.net...

crewmember Tom Jones blog article:
skywalking1.wordpress.com...

reply to post by JimOberg


and the correlation being that they all have "sts" mentioned?

Just to make sure all sides are getting represented, how about the views of direct eyewitnesses on the shuttle and in Mission Control?

Andy Allen statement (mission commander)

Date: Friday, April 21, 2000 10:59:51 AM
From: [email protected]
Subj: RE: RE: STS-75

Jim,

As far as the question about floating objects that we see, it is mostly debris and Orbiter induced particulates. We see a lot of dust, ice, and other debris collected in the vehicle during ground processing (it's very clean but not perfectly clean) that will dislodge or float up in zero gravity. We also see a lot of crystals and particles as remnants from water dumps, RCS firings, OMS firings, etc.
Contrary to what some folks may think, there is no direction or effort for astronauts to restrict their conversations and observations. The only exception, which no longer applies, was when we were flying classified payloads on our DOD missions and could only discuss the payload under a need to know. It is utterly impossible that all those who traveled in space from many different countries would have adhered to any restrictions.

Chuck Shaw statement (Lead Flight Director, STS-75 mission)

RE: STS-75 Question // Date: 03/03/2000 9:26:59 AM Central Standard Time
From: SHAW, CHARLES W. (CHUCK) (JSC-DA8) To: [email protected]

Hi Jim,

I was the Lead Flight Director for STS-75, and was on console for the tethered satellite deploy operations and at the time the tether broke. Operations had been nominal up to the point Jeff Hoffman called down that the tether broke, and then we saw the status in telemetry a couple of seconds later. The behavior of the satellite and the tether remnant on the satellite was exactly as we had expected for a tether break case.

In the footage of the video, etc. which was examined in GREAT detail post flight in hopes of finding SOMETHING to aid in what had caused the tether break, we never saw anything that was "unexpected". Your comments as to artifacts and small debris/dust/ice particles/lens reflections/blooming/etc., are all quite common and we have seen those things in virtually every shuttle mission's video. What was present in the video and the data that was examined post flight was all within this type of artifact and/or expected results.

Post break, we called upon tracking and imaging resources world wide to be able to establish a trajectory for the satellite and tether remnant, in order to determine the feasibility of a rendezvous and recovery, in addition to being able to command the satellite transmitter on to gain some science data from it, even though the tether was broken. At no time did any of these tracking data show anything unexpected, and we were LOOKING for unexpected things (like extra pieces of tether, or debris from the satellite and/or science booms) that could cause us to not want to fly up in the vicinity of the satellite

As it turned out, the arcing of the voltage in the tether to the deployer structure burned the tether in two. Rather ironic that the experiment worked so well to show the ability of the system to generate power, and in fact worked so well as to fatally damage the experiment!

I have always been fascinated by UFO investigations, and "personally" I hope we are not really alone in this wonderful universe.

Hope this helps, Chuck

Chuck Shaw, Flight Director
Mission Operations Directorate, NASA
Johnson Space Center, Houston Texas

Question: These statements have been circulating for more than a decade. Can folks here determine how often -- or how rarely -- they are referenced in pro-UFO discussions of this event? Is there a coverup going on here?

Originally posted by JimOberg
Just to make sure all sides are getting represented, how about the views of direct eyewitnesses on the shuttle and in Mission Control?

i just love the irony there... "eyewitnesses".... hmmmm.... what separates their infallibility from the pilots?

in your own words...

As I see it, the fundamental less-than-perfect-proof aspect of these famous pilot cases is that nobody really knows how GOOD a pilot's report of an anomalous apparition really IS -- they just make convenient assumptions of how good it MUST be because of blah blah blah...

www.unexplained-mysteries.com...

Originally posted by mcrom901

Originally posted by JimOberg
Just to make sure all sides are getting represented, how about the views of direct eyewitnesses on the shuttle and in Mission Control?

i just love the irony there... "eyewitnesses".... hmmmm.... what separates their infallibility from the pilots?

in your own words...

As I see it, the fundamental less-than-perfect-proof aspect of these famous pilot cases is that nobody really knows how GOOD a pilot's report of an anomalous apparition really IS -- they just make convenient assumptions of how good it MUST be because of blah blah blah...

www.unexplained-mysteries.com...

edit on 16/6/11 by mcrom901 because: (no reason given)

Nice dodge and weave. Good trick to ignore entirely -- rather than study and assess -- the testimony of people you don't seem to want to be heard. Aren't you being closed-minded and dogmatic about denying even the existence of evidence whose implications you appear to want to protect your target audience from?

I'm the guy digging out the new evidence. It is painful, I admit, to people who already have their minds made up.

Is there any evicence re 'space UFOs' that I've ever come up with that has ever made you modify your views in any way?

Originally posted by JimOberg
Nice dodge and weave. Good trick to ignore entirely -- rather than study and assess -- the testimony of people you don't seem to want to be heard. Aren't you being closed-minded and dogmatic about denying even the existence of evidence whose implications you appear to want to protect your target audience from?

what audience jim? you seem to be projecting reflections here....

Originally posted by JimOberg
I'm the guy digging out the new evidence. It is painful, I admit, to people who already have their minds made up.

thanks for your efforts... but re the sts-75 data... which you were apparently trying to obtain through the foia... i had already pointed it out to you through the nasa technical server database... what did you do? ignored it.... why? because it didn't reinforce you beliefs which you had already committed to d prior seeing the actual data.... and what do you do next... pull out your endless list of ad infinitum probabilities... but guess what, the onus of that burden is on you to provide those definitive details.... so linking up previous data from other sts missions is not gonna help here i'm afraid...

Originally posted by JimOberg
Is there any evicence re 'space UFOs' that I've ever come up with that has ever made you modify your views in any way?

yes... i've learned a lot and i'm very grateful for it.... cheers


and finally would the usage of terms like uap undermine the perceptions re 'pro-ufo = et-nut' scenario? idk, perhaps.... but it shouldn't encompass in it the ideology that any perceived weird stimuli should have a mundane prosaic explanation tagged to itself... 'mundane' meaning stuff which we are familiar with.... so, would a ball of light be ruled out as plasma or a craft under the guise of plasma-supercavitation in any case, you must agree that such "normal scenes" which are seen in all shuttle videos are unlike what we have witnessed in the sts-75 video... in the beginning of our discussions in that thread... i pointed out to a lot of stuff from the plasma experiments.... what i mean is, should the uap be ignored because its absurd to think that aliens are buzzing our skies?

reply to post by ReconX

As for the video, well David Sereda clearly shows that the objects going behind the tether cannot be an illusion!

And yet, the video i posted clearly shows that this can be an illusion

Why don't I answer your question? How am I supposed to answer it? It's you who supposes they are flat!

Er no. Its alot of the believers of this footage that say "huge discs around the tether" So now they are orbs with a hole in the middle, and notches on the side. Er ok That does not make any sense at all. Also, these ufo's would have been huge if they were behind the tether, and would be clearly seen on earth.

Maybe they are orb's. Maybe, if they are flat as you suppose, they cannot be seen side on?

If they were flat, then the shape of the object would change according to the angle you are looking at it from. If they were round, then that does not make sense because of the hole in the middle and the notches on the side .

Why does the Moon appear to be a disc?

Thats a very weak comparison im afraid

Why does the tether appear to be flat?

You are joking, right? Of course the tether is going to look flat lol This has nothing to do with the objects in question, which are moving very fast. I would understand we were viewing one or two objects, but there are hundreds. All at the same angle, all with holes, and all with notches

It's obvious there is some kind of electrically charged energy around the objects, the same goes for the tether, so maybe some are side on but all look the same due to the energy surrounding them.

So, this "energy" would give all the objects notches? Im sorry, i just don't buy it. But you have your opinion, and i have mine.

I'm not claiming to know what they are, but I know they cannot be ice or dust!

You are entitled to your opinion.

Originally posted by JimOberg


Nice dodge and weave. Good trick to ignore entirely -- rather than study and assess -- the testimony of people you don't seem to want to be heard. Aren't you being closed-minded and dogmatic about denying even the existence of evidence whose implications you appear to want to protect your target audience from?

You talking about yourself again?

If you take Astronauts testimony as proof, then what about all the others such as Dr. Edgar Mitchell and Gordon Cooper?

It's pointless with Oberg because his job is to be here and to TRY and debunk everything not matter what the truth is!
How can people really believe what he is saying when he has such close ties with NASA?

The second and fourth photos could possibly be the Virgin Galactic Spaceship.

www.space.com...

reply to post by ReconX


I would also like to add that it was Sereda that said that these objects were disc's, so, they does not make any sense at all.

just to remind folks of other angles on the STS-75 video.

First, lots of people saw the tether while it was orbiting free in space -- including me, from my front yard in rural Galveston county. It did not glow in the dark nor was it ever seen accompanied by large disks, which -- if the 'passing behind' interpretation is correct would have been full-moon sized as viewed from the ground. It was visible only in sunlight -- no magic plasma clowd or critters with it.

Second, a powerful argument for the notched disks being a camera artifact, which anybody can verify at home [or -- failing to verify -- can publish contrary results, although nobody ever HAS], is how the clocked position of the notch is directly correlated with the disk position in the field of view. As one disk moves and another replaces it, the new one in the old one's position assumes the same notch orientation. Check it out.

Knowing about these videos' context is always better than NOT knowing, I believe, although many posts here seem to prefer that such situation and illumination conditions [which can be verified -- take nothing on any one person's claim, mine or Sereda's or Stubbs' or whomever] actually NOT be made available to the audience.