Three UFOs Flying Around ISS. Ground Control order: 'Endeavour please pause the playback!'

reply to post by JimOberg


Thanks for your contribution, Jim, and thanks for the links.

In particular for the "DEBRIS" on a very low orbit under the shuttle.

Now:
I know that you are very skilled person on this matter, so I need to ask you something particular:

What is the exact procedure for a Shuttle Mission regarding the "debris/space junk" that it may find in its orbitand during all its mission?

More clear: BEFORE The launch, NASA detect or tracking the orbital path of the possible hazardous "debris/space junk" that may collide with the shuttle?

And if so, which is the safe distance between a possible hazardous "debris/space junk" and the shuttle?
Thanks for your reply, Jim.
Links are welcome.

It is not easy to find a lot of this material, so my discussions here have been trying to find out what I need to post on my own home page, with links, to help people get the full picture -- because I remain convinced there are important 'signals' being drowned out in the avalanche of noise. At the very least, they occasionally involve clues to vehicle malfunctions that have been life-threatening in the past. They could also be indications of other space activity, both human and -- entirely conceivable -- other origin. There's no a priori reason why NOT, and some suggestive speculation that it's where potential ET would leave indicators ('tripwires' -- AC Clarke's 'Sentinal' idea, a la '2001'). But if we're going to recognize the REAL signals we have to get a lot more rigorous about filtering out the distractions -- and the distractors.

Sadly, NASA dismisses all the public frenzy of such stories as nonsense because, frankly, most of it IS. But I think they're missing the point that lots of sincere, smart, space-interested folks -- kids, grandmothers, and in between -- are really into this interpretation but most of them would be receptive to being treated as intelligent adults and not loonies. So I kick the NASA folks in tender spots where I can, as well.

As I brag, I'm the only journalist EVER denounced BY NAME in a NASA press release for 'whacko' ideas. A badge of pride... Also, I went to Congress in 1997 to warn about a decaying NASA safety culture, but couldn't prevent it, and left soon afterwards. My ultimate validation on February 1, 2003, launched my new career in news media consulting, but I had failed to prevent that day so I take no pride in my ultimately impotent warnings.

Frodo: I wish that none of this had ever happened.

Gandalf: So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All you have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to you.

We here can decide what to DO -- since we all start by agreeing there could well be important stuff inside the mass of 'stuff'. We differ on trivial details, like what it means -- we agree it HAS meaning. That bonds us.

And we have ALL of us been in turn astonished and surprised -- and off base -- on aspects of this theme. What else should you expect when you're a scout on the very edge of human exploration?

Originally posted by JimOberg
They could also be indications of other space activity, both human and -- entirely conceivable -- other origin. There's no a priori reason why NOT, and some suggestive speculation that it's where potential ET would leave indicators ('tripwires' -- AC Clarke's 'Sentinal' idea, a la '2001'). But if we're going to recognize the REAL signals we have to get a lot more rigorous about filtering out the distractions -- and the distractors.

When I first started lurking on ATS I was initially convinced you were a NASA shill but one day while working my way through Penn & Teller's BS series I was surprised to see you actually being critical of NASA on their NASA episode.

I don't always agree with your assessments of these types of footage but I certainly respect your willingness to thoroughly research the circumstances and the critical thinking applied to those assessments.

It IS nice to hear you believe it is "conceivable".

Originally posted by observer42

Originally posted by JimOberg
They could also be indications of other space activity, both human and -- entirely conceivable -- other origin. There's no a priori reason why NOT, and some suggestive speculation that it's where potential ET would leave indicators ('tripwires' -- AC Clarke's 'Sentinal' idea, a la '2001'). But if we're going to recognize the REAL signals we have to get a lot more rigorous about filtering out the distractions -- and the distractors.

When I first started lurking on ATS I was initially convinced you were a NASA shill but one day while working my way through Penn & Teller's BS series I was surprised to see you actually being critical of NASA on their NASA episode.

I don't always agree with your assessments of these types of footage but I certainly respect your willingness to thoroughly research the circumstances and the critical thinking applied to those assessments.

It IS nice to hear you believe it is "conceivable".

More than 'conceivable'.

Worth an effort to detect and identify.

Thanks for the kind words.

Ive been here not long after or before weedwhacker and phage joined, or registered. I and i can safetly say ive never seen them take part in a thread where their sole purpose isnt to debunk the subject.

Every site like this needs an arguement for both sides, but to do it constantly?

Sorry but thats just weird.

Why do they even come here?

speaking of shills, sorta sounds like ATS's old buddy John Lear has signed up under a new name. I wonder what's next this debris will be called 'workers who transport people to the soulcatchers on the dark side of the moon'?

hehe

Lear and his soul catchers... too funny, although him and his ilk make for good entertainment, even if nasa is run by grey's

lol

Originally posted by WingedBull

Originally posted by Dastardly666
You called the video deceptive but you have provided no evidence to prove this.

He provided the actual context for the term "pause the playback", (evidence) which the uploader attempted to take out of context by cutting off the video after the request. The uploader attempted to make it appear as if NASA was requesting the video be paused; weedwacker showed how this was not the case and had nothing to do with the video feed.

Originally posted by Dastardly666
You claim the flashing object is turning or rotating debris but you provide no evidence to prove this.

Weedwacker very accurately described how a reflection object in free-fall appears when it tumbles along its axis. Can you tell us why this is not an accurate description of the objects in the video?

Originally posted by Dastardly666
If this is your opinion then fine. But don't try to pass on your opinions as fact like you and some others do all the time, without any proof or evidence.

Weedwacker provided cogent arguments and evidence. You are only telling us he is wrong but not telling us why. If you think he is wrong, provide a cogent argument. Simply stating someone is wrong is not a cogent argument.

The fact is, for anyone to say that the object is DEFINITELY this or must be something because it behaves like that, is WRONG.

As far as I'm aware, weedwacker, you or anyone else here claiming the object is something, has never been in space, meaning you are not qualified to give definitive answers.

reply to post by thesneakiod

....but to do it constantly?

Only to point out crap, when it has been polished into a shiny turd, and presented as "real".

On the other hand.....there are the (tiny x%) of cases that can be, indeed...compelling and interesting......

Originally posted by thesneakiod
Ive been here not long after or before weedwhacker and phage joined, or registered. I and i can safetly say ive never seen them take part in a thread where their sole purpose isnt to debunk the subject.

Every site like this needs an arguement for both sides, but to do it constantly?

Sorry but thats just weird.

Why do they even come here?

Interesting and valid point.

Soon you will see these members and others who support them come here and claim they believe in UFOs and aliens but want evidence! Even when evidence does naked break dance in front them, they will ignore because its not what they want to see. But to give them their due, there are not the only ones who think they know everything about everything!

reply to post by weedwhacker


Fair enough weed. Pointing out crap is all well and good, but all the time?

We've both been here a while, im just curious why thats all you do here.

Take this thread for example, its pretty obvious that its just debris, but i could almost sense that you couldnt wait to pounce to completely destroy it, and try to suck the life out of it, which you almost did.

Im just wondering why you and phage and others of your ilk visit a conspiracy website were you don't adhere to at least one of them.

reply to post by thesneakiod


Because, within any dump or landfill of detritus, a few gems may emerge, out of the muck and mire.....

Originally posted by Cito
speaking of shills, sorta sounds like ATS's old buddy John Lear has signed up under a new name. I wonder what's next this debris will be called 'workers who transport people to the soulcatchers on the dark side of the moon'?

hehe

Lear and his soul catchers... too funny, although him and his ilk make for good entertainment, even if nasa is run by grey's

lol

Funny you should mention Lear as he also appeared on a separate episode of Penn & Teller's BS. Can't say he came across as well as Oberg did though.

Originally posted by Dastardly666
The fact is, for anyone to say that the object is DEFINITELY this or must be something because it behaves like that, is WRONG.

It is not wrong, that is how science works. We draw conclusions on the best available evidence. If there is better evidence available or disconfirming evidence, then we must change our conclusions. However, in this case, there is neither.

You would do well taking a basic science course, not rely on what people with no background or familiarity with science (the majority of anti-skeptic UFO researchers) tells you about science.

Originally posted by Dastardly666
As far as I'm aware, weedwacker, you or anyone else here claiming the object is something, has never been in space, meaning you are not qualified to give definitive answers.

As you want to mystery-monger, and not having the facts to do so or disconfirming evidence to counter our arguments, you are attempting a variation of the appeal-to-authority logical fallacy, a red-herring argument, to change the discussion and distract from our points. It does not matter if any of us have been to space or not, we have the facts to support our conclusions.

Originally posted by Dastardly666
Soon you will see these members and others who support them come here and claim they believe in UFOs and aliens but want evidence!

How terrible that someone would actually want evidence, making science-based conclusions, instead of simply taking someone's word for it...

Originally posted by Dastardly666
Even when evidence does naked break dance in front them, they will ignore because its not what they want to see.

As such a thing has not happened, you cannot safely draw such a conclusion.

reply to post by thesneakiod


Funny how some members don't want to discuss facts or evidence but other members personalities. Again, they belie the weakness of their argument.

Originally posted by DunkdaMonk
reply to post by Demoncreeper

 

The first two objects are definitely junk. But the last object does change direction. It makes a slight turn towards the bottom of screen.

I always thought space junk or ice moves in a straight line.

I didnt need to hear the lady to become interested in what that object was.
If the poster of the video was watching it live and thought the same, then hears the playback to be paused. Id probably be more curious...

Afterall, I highly doubt a room full of rocket scientists wouldnt think a bit more ahead if shtf on the live space cam. you know, like a few more steps ahead of the logic the users would work. If some one sees something fishy would they say "OMG pull the plug on the feed"?
I doubt it because that would be hilarious
Nd too easy...
They probably got a code or some shtf drill if they see something.

But seriously if there WAS something that "shouldn't be there". It won't make it to your pc.
Live t.v has a delay for censorship.
Think about it.

certainly no smoking gun but it raised a browe.
Weedwhackers idea of a smoking gun is legit, and is the only way I'd beleive in ET, other than first hand exp

I didn't see it make a turn. And even if it did change direction slightly, who's to say it wasn't a positional change or adjustment of the vehicle?

But you are right, there are most likely codes to deal with anomalies if and when encountered.

But I also doubt it is truly live. I'm sure there is enough of a delay to hit the 'KILL' button if they needed to.

Originally posted by WingedBull

Originally posted by Dastardly666
Soon you will see these members and others who support them come here and claim they believe in UFOs and aliens but want evidence!

How terrible that someone would actually want evidence, making science-based conclusions, instead of simply taking someone's word for it...

Originally posted by Dastardly666
Even when evidence does naked break dance in front them, they will ignore because its not what they want to see.

As such a thing has not happened, you cannot safely draw such a conclusion.

What are science based conclusions? Are you or anyone else on ATS a scientist to give science based conclusions? You do know that the best scientists have been wrong before.

Its worrying that many on ATS are very willing to give definite answers on something when they are not 100% sure themselves.

Originally posted by WingedBull

Originally posted by Dastardly666
The fact is, for anyone to say that the object is DEFINITELY this or must be something because it behaves like that, is WRONG.

It is not wrong, that is how science works. We draw conclusions on the best available evidence. If there is better evidence available or disconfirming evidence, then we must change our conclusions. However, in this case, there is neither.

You would do well taking a basic science course, not rely on what people with no background or familiarity with science (the majority of anti-skeptic UFO researchers) tells you about science.

Originally posted by Dastardly666
As far as I'm aware, weedwacker, you or anyone else here claiming the object is something, has never been in space, meaning you are not qualified to give definitive answers.

As you want to mystery-monger, and not having the facts to do so or disconfirming evidence to counter our arguments, you are attempting a variation of the appeal-to-authority logical fallacy, a red-herring argument, to change the discussion and distract from our points. It does not matter if any of us have been to space or not, we have the facts to support our conclusions.

Are you a scientist? You do realise scientists have been wrong before? But it does matter whether you have been to space or not because you and others claim to know what everything in space is and how to act and manoeuvre.

I don't know why you are trying to come across as you know everything because you clearly do not. And this upsets you when you are confronted with this. Yes UFOs are a mystery, if they weren't we would not be having this discussion.

Just because the object looks like something in an environment we know very little about, it doesn't mean that is what the object is.

Originally posted by WingedBull
reply to post by thesneakiod

 

Funny how some members don't want to discuss facts or evidence but other members personalities. Again, they belie the weakness of their argument.

It might have something to do with the fact that other members try to come across as they know everything about UFOs and ETs when they clearly do not. And funny how its only the skeptics that do this!