The Abundance of NASA's STS Mission Footage is the Most Compelling Evidence UFOs Exist

reply to post by alfa1


Pretty sure there are close-ups within unreleased documents but I can't exactly say how one bigger piece of proof never slipped through all that secrecy.

Originally posted by FearYourMind
reply to post by InhaleExhale

 

Ice particles makes sense for some of the footage but not all. Not even half. I did state however that I didn't necessarily believe the anomalies were extraterrestrial, but that they are real anomalies and unknown to us. I have looked at many different possibilities.

So have I. I asked myself, how could any water or ice survive the intense radiation from the Sun, without dissolving in minutes, if not seconds?

I sent samples of my discoveries on NASA's own live downloads to NASA HQ, & received a very nice reply. NASA HQ suggested that they saw "space debris"....not ice! They went on to describe the dangers it posed & recommended that I read a previous study they had made on this topic.

It seems that we all agree that we observe "something"...but we don't know what they are. But everyone agrees that we do observe something.

We have NASA videotape revealing unidentified objects flying above our Earth. We have eliminated shooting stars, meteors, large comets, asteroids & space debris. Space debris is the easiest to eliminate because the astronauts themselves never say or suggest that we are looking at space debris, which is their biggest danger while in the vacuum of space. Ice does not hang around in orbit as science tells us it could not survive to do so.

The deniers insistence on the ice explanation, teaches us how this community of skeptics responds to such a phenomenon...when they can't use the excuse that the footage is merely the usual farmer-in-the-field video, thus meaningless ...the NASA video is not a fake....considering the source!

So we do agree that we all see something. I am not looking for someone to agree with me. I am looking for an answer that both I, & others can understand as an intelligent & logical explanation.

As you say...it may not even be ET...
Instead the objects may be a part of a natural, yet unknown biosphere & others may be extra-dimensional.
Only you & I & non skeptics... can go there. The Oberg clan, who lurk about this post...have only one point of view. UFOs do not exist, can not exist & thus their goal is to never ever acknowledge any evidence, no matter what is presented.

reply to post by buzzEmiller


Just for arguments sake can you explain why these aren't just ice particles given that the temperature in space is roughly 3 degrees K? Which is very very cold. Im adding a disclaimer as well and saying I don't know what they are and im no expert in this field.

Originally posted by buzzEmiller

I refuse nothing!...Oberg gets more info & he needs even more...then more..pathetic technique, changing goalposts...just lazy...

And no tricks from me!!! Is this a poor attempt to say these are fakes? How stupid is that! Skeptic/denier/debunker Oberg is a one "trick" pony !

Let's peel back layer by layer.

The video posted posted on 19-5-2013 @ 11:55 AM

Is it day or night? Are the objects sunlit or self-luminous?

Without being told the date/time, how can we tell?

Originally posted by buzzEmiller
[I sent samples of my discoveries on NASA's own live downloads to NASA HQ, & received a very nice reply. NASA HQ suggested that they saw "space debris"....not ice! They went on to describe the dangers it posed & recommended that I read a previous study they had made on this topic.

Please share with us the specific examples you sent NASA and their complete -- not paraphrased -- response, so we can assess it, and not your version of it.

Originally posted by gnarkill1529
reply to post by buzzEmiller

 

Just for arguments sake can you explain why these aren't just ice particles given that the temperature in space is roughly 3 degrees K? Which is very very cold. Im adding a disclaimer as well and saying I don't know what they are and im no expert in this field.

The black body temperature in space at Earth's distance from the Sun is closer to 260 K, I recall, but still below H2O freeze point. It's complicated by being in Earth's shadow a lot, as well as bathed in IR emissions from Earth. In practice, an inert spacecraft in low Earth orbit will reach an equilibrium temp somewhere near 265K, as shown by the example of the Soviet Salyut space station in 1985 or so that suffered total power failure, chilled to the point the water tanks froze, and required a major rescue effort.

Both water and hydrazine and freon leaking from spacecraft will freeze up quickly, largely due to evaporative cooling. The ice will slowly sublime directly to vapor, but nowhere near immediately -- a hunk of wastewater ice dubbed the 'pissicle' famously clung to the dump port for days on a 1984 shuttle mission, and anothrer hunk built up as ejected water froze to the centerline of a payload bay door and eventually actually survived reentry, only to quickly melt in the Floida summer night sultriness.

Originally posted by buzzEmiller
. Ice does not hang around in orbit as science tells us it could not survive to do so.

But it does, as your own videos -- and real, not imaginary, science -- tells us. Since you base your case on delusional 'facts' like this, the conclusions are invalid.

Originally posted by FearYourMind
reply to post by InhaleExhale

 

Ice particles makes sense for some of the footage but not all. Not even half. I did state however that I didn't necessarily believe the anomalies were extraterrestrial, but that they are real anomalies and unknown to us. I have looked at many different possibilities.

Why do you insist the dots are self luminous?

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by FearYourMind
reply to post by InhaleExhale

 

Ice particles makes sense for some of the footage but not all. Not even half. I did state however that I didn't necessarily believe the anomalies were extraterrestrial, but that they are real anomalies and unknown to us. I have looked at many different possibilities.

Why do you insist the dots are self luminous?

I didn't, I don't know if they are. I suggested in one comment that the tether could have illuminated the objects. In other videos they disappear and reappear in a way that's inconsistent with tumbling debris.

Originally posted by FearYourMind

Originally posted by JimOberg
Why do you insist the dots are self luminous?

I didn't, I don't know if they are. I suggested in one comment that the tether could have illuminated the objects. In other videos they disappear and reappear in a way that's inconsistent with tumbling debris.

Doesn't "disappear" mean "stop illuminating"? And "appear" mean "begin glowing/reflecting"? Seems to me that illumination is the kety to understanding the phenomenon.

In the scenes I've studied where white dots "appear", I've discovered that the shuttle's own shadow is being cast into the space covered by the camera field-of-view. Nobody had ever realized that before. Stubbs hid that fact [for whatever reason] by withholding the date/time of the sequences.

Does the presence of the unseen shadowed zone suggest to you any prosaic cause for white dots to 'appear' or 'disappear'?

Or is it irrelevant and not worth finding out about?

ADD: Here's discussion of 'ice crystals' by people who should count as 'experts':

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by FearYourMind

Originally posted by JimOberg
Why do you insist the dots are self luminous?

I didn't, I don't know if they are. I suggested in one comment that the tether could have illuminated the objects. In other videos they disappear and reappear in a way that's inconsistent with tumbling debris.

Doesn't "disappear" mean "stop illuminating"? And "appear" mean "begin glowing/reflecting"? Seems to me that illumination is the kety to understanding the phenomenon.

In the scenes I've studied where white dots "appear", I've discovered that the shuttle's own shadow is being cast into the space covered by the camera field-of-view. Nobody had ever realized that before. Stubbs hid that fact [for whatever reason] by withholding the date/time of the sequences.

Does the presence of the unseen shadowed zone suggest to you any prosaic cause for white dots to 'appear' or 'disappear'?

Or is it irrelevant and not worth finding out about?

ADD: Here's discussion of 'ice crystals' by people who should count as 'experts':

www.abovetopsecret.com...

edit on 20-5-2013 by JimOberg because: add link

Do shadows cause these ice "particles" to reappear in a different location from the trajectory the particle was heading towards before it disappeared? These particles are supposed to be close to the shuttle, so why would one in the middle disappear while the remaining particles around it don't. If these are ice particles close to the shuttle wouldn't more than one disappear as they pass through the shadow? We're talking tiny particles of ice that have broken off of the shuttle somehow end up going different speeds in different directions and even some coming from the complete opposite direction of one another. Then somehow a tiny particle from the group that broke off passes through the large shadow all alone? I'm suppose to buy all of that?

Originally posted by FearYourMind

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by FearYourMind

Originally posted by JimOberg
Why do you insist the dots are self luminous?

I didn't, I don't know if they are. I suggested in one comment that the tether could have illuminated the objects. In other videos they disappear and reappear in a way that's inconsistent with tumbling debris.

Doesn't "disappear" mean "stop illuminating"? And "appear" mean "begin glowing/reflecting"? Seems to me that illumination is the kety to understanding the phenomenon.

In the scenes I've studied where white dots "appear", I've discovered that the shuttle's own shadow is being cast into the space covered by the camera field-of-view. Nobody had ever realized that before. Stubbs hid that fact [for whatever reason] by withholding the date/time of the sequences.

Does the presence of the unseen shadowed zone suggest to you any prosaic cause for white dots to 'appear' or 'disappear'?

Or is it irrelevant and not worth finding out about?

ADD: Here's discussion of 'ice crystals' by people who should count as 'experts':

www.abovetopsecret.com...

edit on 20-5-2013 by JimOberg because: add link

Do shadows cause these ice "particles" to reappear in a different location from the trajectory the particle was heading towards before it disappeared? These particles are supposed to be close to the shuttle, so why would one in the middle disappear while the remaining particles around it don't. If these are ice particles close to the shuttle wouldn't more than one disappear as they pass through the shadow? We're talking tiny particles of ice that have broken off of the shuttle somehow end up going different speeds in different directions and even some coming from the complete opposite direction of one another. Then somehow a tiny particle from the group that broke off passes through the large shadow all alone? I'm suppose to buy all of that?

You are supposed to 'buy' the fact that the space in the camera's field of view is three dimensional, to start with.

Will you go along with THAT?

And by the way, in considering illumination, you also are supposed to be able to know if it's day or night in these images. Do you know how to do that? Please demonstrate.

My point is that these scenes are in a weird environment for which our earthside visual interpretive wetware, tried and true over hundreds of millions of years of evolution, is no longer valid. Analysis, not instinct, is the only guide to interpreting them correctly.

Your brain is functioning normally for what it was designed to do. Nobody told it that it's not in Kansas any more.

People promoting extraordinary interpretations seem to depend on not knowing what is 'the new ordinary' in space scenes. That's one reason I wrote my "99 FAQs".

Originally posted by buzzEmiller
... Only you & I & non skeptics... can go there. The Oberg clan, who lurk about this post...have only one point of view. UFOs do not exist, can not exist & thus their goal is to never ever acknowledge any evidence, no matter what is presented.

Speaking for myself, I'd say I've presented more REAL evidence of the nature of these videos than those who withhold critical contextual data such as date/time of incident, crew air-to-ground, crew post-flight comments, and assessments by people who actually do spaceflight operations for a living. Most spectacular 'space UFO' video ever: Take a look at my STS-48 array of evidence, AND analysis, and compare it to what it usually allowed on the UFO sites:

LINK www.jamesoberg.com...

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by FearYourMind

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by FearYourMind

Originally posted by JimOberg
Why do you insist the dots are self luminous?

I didn't, I don't know if they are. I suggested in one comment that the tether could have illuminated the objects. In other videos they disappear and reappear in a way that's inconsistent with tumbling debris.

Doesn't "disappear" mean "stop illuminating"? And "appear" mean "begin glowing/reflecting"? Seems to me that illumination is the kety to understanding the phenomenon.

In the scenes I've studied where white dots "appear", I've discovered that the shuttle's own shadow is being cast into the space covered by the camera field-of-view. Nobody had ever realized that before. Stubbs hid that fact [for whatever reason] by withholding the date/time of the sequences.

Does the presence of the unseen shadowed zone suggest to you any prosaic cause for white dots to 'appear' or 'disappear'?

Or is it irrelevant and not worth finding out about?

ADD: Here's discussion of 'ice crystals' by people who should count as 'experts':

www.abovetopsecret.com...

edit on 20-5-2013 by JimOberg because: add link

Do shadows cause these ice "particles" to reappear in a different location from the trajectory the particle was heading towards before it disappeared? These particles are supposed to be close to the shuttle, so why would one in the middle disappear while the remaining particles around it don't. If these are ice particles close to the shuttle wouldn't more than one disappear as they pass through the shadow? We're talking tiny particles of ice that have broken off of the shuttle somehow end up going different speeds in different directions and even some coming from the complete opposite direction of one another. Then somehow a tiny particle from the group that broke off passes through the large shadow all alone? I'm suppose to buy all of that?

You are supposed to 'buy' the fact that the space in the camera's field of view is three dimensional, to start with.

Will you go along with THAT?

And by the way, in considering illumination, you also are supposed to be able to know if it's day or night in these images. Do you know how to do that? Please demonstrate.

My point is that these scenes are in a weird environment for which our earthside visual interpretive wetware, tried and true over hundreds of millions of years of evolution, is no longer valid. Analysis, not instinct, is the only guide to interpreting them correctly.

Your brain is functioning normally for what it was designed to do. Nobody told it that it's not in Kansas any more.

People promoting extraordinary interpretations seem to depend on not knowing what is 'the new ordinary' in space scenes. That's one reason I wrote my "99 FAQs".

When you claim the ice particles are passing through the shuttle's shadow I have to assume you're also claiming the footage was captured during sunlight hours.

Originally posted by FearYourMind
When you claim the ice particles are passing through the shuttle's shadow I have to assume you're also claiming the footage was captured during sunlight hours.

Correct although as a rule [**] sunlight doesn't last for "hours" for manned spacecraft in low Earth orbit -- that you would even use that phrase shows how earthbound and limited your appreciation of the DIFFERENCES in space views still are.

. And how can you tell if the scene is in daylight or not?

footnote ** -- for high inclination orbits such as Mir and ISS there is a period twice a year -- the Russians called it the 'white nights' -- when a combination of inclination and solar declination led to a day or so of the sun circling near the horizon. That can occur in late June and late December.

ADD: I'm not technically 'claiming' that is what we're seeing. I'm suggesting it is a possible normal situation that could account for the dots appearing or disappearing. Without knowing their exact distances, I have no way of proving it. But the UFO camp must prove it could NOT happen, and since evidently they never had any clue that it actually did happen, they thought it must never happen.

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by FearYourMind
When you claim the ice particles are passing through the shuttle's shadow I have to assume you're also claiming the footage was captured during sunlight hours.

Correct although as a rule [**] sunlight doesn't last for "hours" for manned spacecraft in low Earth orbit -- that you would even use that phrase shows how earthbound and limited your appreciation of the DIFFERENCES in space views still are.

. And how can you tell if the scene is in daylight or not?

footnote ** -- for high inclination orbits such as Mir and ISS there is a period twice a year -- the Russians called it the 'white nights' -- when a combination of inclination and solar declination led to a day or so of the sun circling near the horizon. That can occur in late June and late December.

ADD: I'm not technically 'claiming' that is what we're seeing. I'm suggesting it is a possible normal situation that could account for the dots appearing or disappearing. Without knowing their exact distances, I have no way of proving it. But the UFO camp must prove it could NOT happen, and since evidently they never had any clue that it actually did happen, they thought it must never happen.

edit on 20-5-2013 by JimOberg because: add

So in other words this has never been debunked.

reply to post by JimOberg


I'm also very aware of the differences in sunlight. Anyone can view the ISS stream and see the ISS passes in and out of the sun's light every 45 minutes. It's pretty irrelevant that I used "hours", the point remains the same. This was never debunked.

Originally posted by buzzEmiller
Ice particles makes sense for some of the footage but not all. Not even half.

How did you come to that conclusion? Surely not by objective examination, You seem bent on something paranormal being the answer.

Originally posted by buzzEmiller
The Oberg clan, who lurk about this post...have only one point of view. UFOs do not exist, can not exist & thus their goal is to never ever acknowledge any evidence, no matter what is presented.

I don't particularly know anyone here nor do I cheer or support any specific views. That said, your statement is false and utterly dumb. Most skeptics do not discount ANY possibility (Unlike yourself) but, they do not subscribe to incredulous (And less likely) theories in the absence of proof to support it. That is pretty darn sane, if you ask me.

Originally posted by buzzEmiller
Ice does not hang around in orbit as science tells us it could not survive to do so.

False. You were watching the X-Files while some of us were paying attention in science class.

Originally posted by FearYourMind
reply to post by JimOberg

 

I'm also very aware of the differences in sunlight. Anyone can view the ISS stream and see the ISS passes in and out of the sun's light every 45 minutes. It's pretty irrelevant that I used "hours", the point remains the same. This was never debunked.

How can you tell? The video linked a page back -- was that day or night?

THIS: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by FearYourMind
reply to post by JimOberg

 

I'm also very aware of the differences in sunlight. Anyone can view the ISS stream and see the ISS passes in and out of the sun's light every 45 minutes. It's pretty irrelevant that I used "hours", the point remains the same. This was never debunked.

What is "this"? If STS-48, yes, it has been explained in prosaic terms.

As for objects 'appearing' -- the claim is made that there is no prosaic explanation for seeing that, and by showing that a shuttle shadow was there, I offer that as 'debunking' the claim of extraordinariness.