NASA Disclosure

You have to be careful with disinformers here. If anyone in NASA knew what it was about and something regular, then it wouldn't be hidden and if it were top secret military fighters with technology just slightly above the known one, it wouldn't be in NASA at all. Just don't trust very much, that's all I can say to members who trust former NASA employees who talk about bunk.

my question is, why are we worried about it? were all freethinking individuals who can make up our own dang minds. why do we need the govt or nasa to finally say, yep, theyre here? basically, we have deemed the govt to be corrupt and nasa, being in affiliation, to be also. so, my logical thinking would be to not equate them into my philosophical, spiritual, and otherworldly beliefs. i dont trust em, so i dont need to count em into my opinion on the matter. there has been too much evidence throughout our history, and in some theories, (or as evidence is starting to suggest beyond our known history) to have had and will continue to have contact. so it is of my OWN opinion that we do get contacted, we are being viewed whether its malevolent or benevolent, by offworld beings. i believe there is too much hype throughout history about 2012 and i am seriously of the opinion that those two are interconnected very intimately. so, with my own opinion and analysis on the matter, theyre real. i dont need these two hokey official govt entities to validate my claim with a high official stamp of approval.

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by MarioOnTheFly
reply to post by JimOberg

 

"Space UFO is a bunk" should never be on a table as far as I'm concerned. Saying that in general terms implies you are denying any extraterrestrial visitations. Meaning, there are theories that say that all UFO's are of earthly origins. Am I understanding you correctly?

The statement can be understood to mean, 'reports of space UFOs are not evidence for any extraordinary phenomenon'. Is that less inflammatory?

Since you worked for/with NASA, can you please comment on the STS-48 video (the full length link) in my previous post? I'm just curious about your opinion. I guess you probably already commented on it in some previous threads. Maybe you can post a link to it? Thanks

Here are some links:

www.jamesoberg.com...
www.ufoseek.org...

Hm...just finished reading your paper on the STS-48 and red through the Larry king transcript. Obviously too techie for me to completely understand much of it (the analysis paper). I am but a lowly interested dumb public individual without any engineering know-how, so my opinion is probably worth nothing...but I just cant accept the explanation for the MO (main object).

If you don't mind...maybe you can answer couple of silly questions for me.

The main problem for me is determining the size of the object. If it was affected by the truster, it would need to be fairly close to the shuttle, right? What is a reach of the truster in terms of influencing objects near it?

The MO on the camera appears to be a dot, I would conclude that it is either far far away from the camera, or it is near and very very small. How far can an object be from the shuttle in order to be "pushed" by the truster?

And if it was very small, and appear as a dot on the camera, it would have to be right in front (near) of the shuttle, and firing the truster would eject it at immense speed across the view of the camera. Too great speed to be monitored for a couple of seconds flying away from the view of the camera.

In my opinion, a very small object filmed at very close range, trusted by the sudden burst from the trusters would dissapear from a stationary camera view in less than a second...? Would it not?


Thanks for your opinion
Mario

Originally posted by MarioOnTheFly
In my opinion, a very small object filmed at very close range, trusted by the sudden burst from the trusters would dissapear from a stationary camera view in less than a second...? Would it not?

This is an excellent point and helps underscore how applying valid earthside experience to outer space can be misleading. Conditions there are often surprisingly unearthly, and thruster pluming is a prime example.

This is a FAQ from my draft document, "99 FAQs About Space UFO Stories", for my home page section www.jamesoberg.com/ufo.html, under redesign:

Q: Explain “vehicle pluming”

A: Attitude control thrusters fire under manual or autopilot command, and create a 10,000 ft/sec effluent plume that packs plenty of punch. Unlike such plumes in an atmosphere, plumes in a vacuum spread to an amazing degree. Half of a shuttle’s thruster plume flow spread out at angles greater than 30 degrees off centerline, and some is still present at 90 degrees off centerline and even higher. Also, plume flow bounces off vehicle structure that it hits. This is not 'reflective' [angle out = angle in] but random. This effect is most noticeable for the shuttle’s aft down-firing jets, which seriously impinge on structure such as elevons and the ‘body flap’ [losing about 30 % of their effective thrust in this impingement].

I probably should add that in space the existence of off-centerline flow -- a phenomenon totally absent down here deep in an atmosphere that cushions and envelopes and isolates such plumes -- allows disturbing forces of all ranges of 'push', from direct hits to glancing blows, depending on how far off the centerline the impacted object is.

I also plan to include a chart of this effect, from the NASA-JSC handbook I wrote on "Flight Techniques for Proximity Operations", along with some technical papers delivered at space symposiums in the early 1980s when such effects were first being mapped out on shuttle rendezvous missions, which I supported from Mission Control.

reply to post by JimOberg


I don't think you can stress this point enough, Jim. For those of us who do not understand space-related physics. I know this is an area that I am trying to learn more about. It is amazing how ordinary physics change in low-gravity environments or in vaccumms. Heck, I still think its interesting that astronauts can't burp in space! Ha ha ha

Originally posted by Cosmic911
Heck, I still think its interesting that astronauts can't burp in space! Ha ha ha

Because lighter stuff doesn't rise [eg, air bubbles], they don't gather at the top of the stomach. Instead, all stomach gas, entrapped in fluid, is processed out the other stomach exit and then .... don't light a match, astros!!

One astronaut tried to deliberately force air bubbles to the top of his stomach by thrusting himself off a wall, and flipping in mid-air. He reported only modest success, after he cleaned up. True story.

Probably the most striking surprise, that is directly related to 'space UFO videos', is how just after sunrise the shuttle was casting an invisible shadow back towards the dark side of Earth. Even though it was sunlit and particles outside it were sunlit, SOME of them closest in, were in its shadow and so were invisible. As they drifted out of the shadow they burst into illumination and seemed to 'appear' against the background Earth.

But to folks interpreting the scene from earthside training, they sure looked like they were 'coming out from behind clouds' or other reasonable [if still on Earth] interpretations.

JimOberg is either a disinformer or biased like anyone else. Of course there are objects, sparkles, space junk, reflections and such but would someone call 'Alien Spaceship' a piece of junk? ... The guy's been approved to go to space, I can distinguish an aircraft from junk, shooting stars since they are the most misidentified objects. Maybe because I've studied Astronomy for some time and been even examined on objects, so I've never seen a UFO cause I was able to identify ISS and other satellites, yet some guy sent to space can't identify junk and calls it 'spaceship' are you serious?

Now the 'Alien Spaceship' must have definitely been some kind of aircraft, could've been human but what would the military be doing there? trolling the astronauts making them think 'evil aliens'? Come on...

Oh and if you see that astronaut speaking on the TV, he may decide to not get ridicule so he may just belittle it for his own acceptance and sanity in public and say 'oh it was nothing', Unless you can put him on a heavy lie detector or read his mind, nothing is certain you know? - I don't know if this is the case here but this thinking goes for anything and anyone speaking.

Originally posted by Imtor
JimOberg is either a disinformer or biased like anyone else. Of course there are objects, sparkles, space junk, reflections and such but would someone call 'Alien Spaceship' a piece of junk? ...

You've lost me. What astronaut is supposed to have called a piece of junk an 'alien spaceship'?

Originally posted by cloudyday
Maybe I made a math error, but the probability is astronomically small for an astronaut to see a UFO in space. If all these reported astronauts UFO encounters were true we would have a puzzle to explain why astronauts are more likely to see a UFO than a person on Earth.

Don't you think this would be correlated with where the UFOs like to "loiter"? What if there is a reason they like the low Earth orbit, and go down relatively rarely?

I frankly don't get the point of the OP. OK, let's assume that NASA is not hiding a lot from us, which I by the way believe is the case. Was that the point?

Do they have a smoking gun evidence of ET life? We still don't know for sure. They may, they may not. Existence of various flying cr@p is well known and impossible to hide, but some alien body parts are a different story.

Originally posted by JimOberg

You've lost me. What astronaut is supposed to have called a piece of junk an 'alien spaceship'?

This video

Are you doubting all the things pilots have seen which naturally would be seen in orbit or are you purposly spreading lies and disinformation? It's not belief, it is hidden info, ridiculed and made to look bunk.

Originally posted by BeforeTheHangmansNoose
reply to post by Cosmic911

 

I think disclosure is inevitable, but they have been drip feeding ideology and evidence through media and their own research and discovery.

I mean even without looking to NASA, you have millions of people around the world that have seen ufos. You have religion and antiquity telling you about how beings came down to earth, share technology and knowledge, created life, told us of WHERE in the galaxy they came from, how much more evidence is needed? You have us, we are intelligent life forms, there is more and more evidence suggesting life in our universe is ABUNDANT. Considering the size of universe... how stubborn is it to say we are the greatest and most intelligent beings to have ever been created within it, i mean seriously, it's 2012.

I would feel great, great burning shame if we were the most intelligent physical beings occupying this existence.

Star for you...great post

Makes me think of my favorite alien related quote of all time from the great Arthur C Clarke:
"There either is or is not intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe. And either thought is terrifying"

Rest in Peace Arthur!!!

-Christosterone

reply to post by JimOberg


Thanks for the additional info Jim. Not sure I got the answer I was looking for. Can you estimate the size, distance from the shuttle and the initial speed of the MO (before the thruster flash)?

From your info I was unable to determine in what way is the effect different in such conditions ? I'm not disputing a possibility of thruster having an effect, so the angle doesnt bother me. Is it possible to determine the maximum radius of thruster influence (distance from the shuttle perspective)? It would narrow down the possible sizes for the object if I'm not mistaken?

Thanks

Originally posted by Imtor
Are you doubting all the things pilots have seen which naturally would be seen in orbit or are you purposly spreading lies and disinformation? It's not belief, it is hidden info, ridiculed and made to look bunk.

Thanks for being specific, with the citation, Imtor, it allows us to track the claim back to the source and reach a resolution, which should allow this to be a 'teachable moment'. Your cooperation was crucial to this, so again, thanks.

The STS-29 comment about the 'alien spacecraft in view' was obtained by researcher Donald Ratsch, not from the air-to-ground transmissions but from a retransmission in an amateur radio band, in Greenbelt, Maryland. Ratsch ultimately determined that the voice did not belong to any shuttle crewmember, that the comment was not on the original air-to-ground recordings, and so that the comment was probably from a prankster broadcasting in the easily-accessible local radio band.

He is the original source who first publicized the recording. he is an avid pro-UFO investigator with grit and ingenuity, and more than fifteen years ago he announced that he no longer believed the tape was authentic.

Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 18:51:37 -0800
From: [email protected] (Donald Ratsch)
Subject: Re: NASA WAV file
To: [email protected] (Brian Zeiler)

Brian, yes I have the full story on that. The details was carried on
the July 1989 issue of the MUFON Journal. Briefly I recorded some of
the radio broadcast via my audio scanner from the space shuttle
Discovery through WA3NAN, the club station of the Goddard Amateur Radio
Club at Greenbelt, Md, transmitting on 147.450 MHZ. It is a
retransmission from the NASA Select original. I heard what I thought
was one of the male astronauts saying, "Houston, Discovery, we still
have the alien spacecraft under observance". Well I was pretty excited
and got in touch with Walt Andrus of MUFON and Vince Dipietro (Mars
Face Fame) who is employed at Goddard Space Flight Center who I later
handed over the tape to have a voice print analysis performed to
compare the target voice to the astronauts' voices that were aboard
during that mission. The result of the analysis showed that a few
positive hits on Astronaut Bagian (the physician on board) but not
enough hits to say he was the one who said the target words. So the
results were inconclusive. Later a check showed there was no target
voice on the original NASA Select audio.

About a year after that, I was again monitoring the audio from another NASA
mission via my scanner and I heard that voice again, saying something similar
to the target voice a year earlier. However on this mission, all the
astronauts were different compared to the other one. This led me to conclude
that unfortunately, the target voice was a hoax probably from an amateur
radio operator.

The Apollo-14 comment on ‘visitors’ is by Edgar Mitchell, who has always made it clear that he never encountered any UFO-related phenomena during his duty at NASA.

www.thelivingmoon.com...

I, nor any crew I was on, received any briefing before or after flights on UFO events, saw anything in space suggesting UFOs or structures on the moon, etc. We did it just like we said in official reports. My only claim to knowledge of these events is from the individuals, mostly of yesteryear, who were in government, intelligence, or military; were there, saw what they saw, and now believe it should be made public. But I claim no first hand knowledge, nor have any. --Edgar Mitchell

As to the explanation of the 'visitors comment, it's been available for years:
www.hq.nasa.gov...
and here: www.hq.nasa.gov... at 115:03:24


So to retrun to your original question:

Originally posted by Imtor
Are you doubting all the things pilots have seen which naturally would be seen in orbit or are you purposly spreading lies and disinformation?

The delicious irony is that it was YOU spreading hoaxes and disinformation, not me.

The crucial crossroads in your career as a UFO enthusiast is now at hand.

Do you realize you were duped, resolve to do better in the future, and move to a more reality-based fascination with this subject?

Or do you double-down in your self-delusion, defend the people who conned you, and attack me for being part of some coverup conspiracy?

I'm curious which path you choose.

Originally posted by MarioOnTheFly
reply to post by JimOberg

 

Thanks for the additional info Jim. Not sure I got the answer I was looking for. Can you estimate the size, distance from the shuttle and the initial speed of the MO (before the thruster flash)?

From your info I was unable to determine in what way is the effect different in such conditions ? I'm not disputing a possibility of thruster having an effect, so the angle doesnt bother me. Is it possible to determine the maximum radius of thruster influence (distance from the shuttle perspective)? It would narrow down the possible sizes for the object if I'm not mistaken?

Thanks

edit on 24-2-2012 by MarioOnTheFly because: (no reason given)

Pluming was observed to ripple the insulation blanket on Hubble at a range of a hundred meters, and would nudge small particles at even greater ranges -- but then they would be hard to see. My estimate is that anything bright enough to be seen would be within a few tens of meters of the cameras, well within the significant plume flow -- unless TOO close and thus in a plume shadow..

reply to post by Cosmic911


This post makes sense,

Thanks for reminding me some people on ATS still have both parts of their brain in use.

Originally posted by DJW001
The irony is that if NASA announced that they had made contact with extra-terrestrials, UFO believers will not believe them because they will be totally unlike anything the believers are expecting. They will not be big eyed Grays, beautiful Nordics or highly spiritual Light Beings from the Pleiades. Once again, NASA will be accused of hiding something.

They will probably get accused of manafacturing a false flag event, and that the FEMA camps where on their way!!

Originally posted by rodredux

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by rodredux

 

What do you want, exactly?

A complete audio recording of the entire mission. For that matter, ten minutes of audio on both sides of the alleged sighting would be nice. A two second sound bite is meaningless outside of context. Even if an astronaut actually said that, which we don't know to begin with, we cannot tell what he was referring to. They may have been joking about a bit of debris that floated free of the spacecraft. I'm not going to comment on other peoples' standards of evidence.

And what after that? And what after that? And what after that? See my point? I understand what you're implying completely, but I'm no fool. I'm not even trying to convince you. I'm discussing psychology. You're posts are a prime example of what I'm trying to point out. You can't see what the real subject is, because it is occluded by your disbelief. You are a skeptic. That is your personality. I can't change that, no matter what I do. There's nothing wrong with that. I'm not trying to prove anything to you or anyone else.

Some people are just adamantly close minded, this isnt aimed at you personally illustronic, but I know for a fact that if the president of the USA was to come on tv and say that aliens exist, we have been in contact with them for decades then some die hard skeptics would try to explain it away by saying someone slipped him some drugs in his water, or his family was being threatened so he would say that by fringe ufo fanatics trying to force disclosure. there is always an answer for everything, but then the same could be said for die hard believers as well, its a two edged sword I suppose...

reply to post by JimOberg


Ok, JimOberg, im not a fool like some who believe everything on the internet, if it is a well known fake, im fine with it because im always staying objective, so ok. What about the many pilots sightings? You cannot answer that, though im not sure which part exactly you ignore because whatever pilots see in some cases, they know what they see,. and it is sometimes these aircraft, can't be all US, seen in different parts of the planet, in the aur,

Originally posted by Imtor
reply to post by JimOberg

 

Ok, JimOberg, im not a fool like some who believe everything on the internet, if it is a well known fake, im fine with it because im always staying objective, so ok. What about the many pilots sightings? You cannot answer that, though im not sure which part exactly you ignore because whatever pilots see in some cases, they know what they see,. and it is sometimes these aircraft, can't be all US, seen in different parts of the planet, in the aur,

Good for you. Let's stay in touch. Pilot cases in general have been discussed on their own thread, join us there if you like.

The space report i'm most intrigued by is Kovalyonok's morphing cloud in 1981. Since he was flying over the top secret South African missile test range at that time, I'm trying to see what records are FOIA-able about activities there.