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

Originally posted by signalfire
Seriously? A hunk of ejected water survived the blazingly dangerous heat of reentry and then quickly melted in the 'Floida' summer sultriness? Heat so intense they had to invent a whole new kind of insulation to deal with it, lest the nice astronaut people be turned into meteorites? How big a 'hunk'? Tens of thousands of gallons? I think not. A few gallons, at most? More likely. Survived reentry? You have to be kidding. Pictures and documentation or it didn't happen.

How's this?




Source:

Thanks for responding Jim, and I stand corrected. Now tell me why they're dumping water overboard if it causes damage to the brakes and payload doors, etc... And is this water ice or could it be something else that is surviving the heat of reentry? Maybe someone would like to take a stab at how large that ice chunk (stuck to the plane, not jettisoned completely) had to be before they re-entered?

Originally posted by signalfire
Thanks for responding Jim, and I stand corrected. Now tell me why they're dumping water overboard if it causes damage to the brakes and payload doors, etc... And is this water ice or could it be something else that is surviving the heat of reentry? Maybe someone would like to take a stab at how large that ice chunk (stuck to the plane, not jettisoned completely) had to be before they re-entered?

The central issue here is that ice formed near a shuttle can last for hours, even days, and thus account for most of the white dots seen on a million youtube 'space UFO' videos. Other stuff seen has been ... well, heck, I've already catalogued it in detail on my '99 FAQs", so please look it up there.

That's what I've been trying to say for days, and numerous folks have been claiming it can't happen, that ice would zap to vapor in seconds in the heat of the sun, etc. Nonsense. The more nonsense like that, that a person believes mistakenly, the more enthusiastic they seem to be for the 'UFO interpretation' of these videos. There seems to be a strong inverse correlation between spaceflight knowledge and UFO enthusiasm. What does that suggest?

The shuttle operational safety question is irrelevant to that. How about we start a thread on the subject on the SPACE thread?

ADD -- OK, for those who don't want to be mentally contaminated by dangerous revelations of the entire essay at www.jamesoberg.com... here are two excerpts:

34 Q: What have these ‘space UFOs’ turned out to be?
A: Some of them turn out to be the same things ‘ground UFOs’ have been, such as misperceived normal human flight activity, natural atmospheric phenomena [when looking downward towards Earth], window reflections, defects, or contamination, or on occasion, bright celestial objects such as the Moon and – yes! – Venus. On occasion, during night passes, astronauts on space walks in the dark have seen what turned out to be bright lights on Earth’s surface passing beneath them. Some are other orbiting space vehicles, but only rarely. Most are ‘stuff’ coming off the vehicle the observation is being made from, that flies along with the vehicle for a period of time. See the locations of these vents here: www.jamesoberg.com...

and

41 Q: What sorts of visible things are shed by a space vehicle?
A: The vehicle may have dropped a booster stage or structural support elements, such as the objects seen by moon-bound Apollo crews, or the Skylab crews (the station’s S-II booster). Insulation fragments had a tendency to ‘shed’ on Gemini and Apollo and Skylab [which regularly released small reddish fragments seen through the on-board solar telescope, out the wardroom window, and on space walks), and spacewalkers on occasion manually jettisoned excess equipment during hatch openings. During payload deploys, retaining straps and pyrobolt shells could be seen and imaged. On shuttles, right after reaching orbit a lot of ice associated with the cryogenic main engines [including a particularly weird-shaped ice sculpture that often formed at the interface of the shuttle and its external fuel tank feed line] came off and was clearly seen. Later on shuttle flights, small hardware items would float out of the payload bay, or become detached from mechanical structures outside. Tile fragments and strips of polyurethane ‘gap filler’ material were also noticed on a number of flights. Several deployed payloads, including inflatable structures and spherical free-flying camera pods, have been inaccurately described on ‘youtube’ as ‘unknowns’. During spacewalks, packing materials might be jettisoned, or tools come loose accidentally [and once, several golf balls swatted off into space]. But by far the largest population of sources of videotaped ‘dots’ has been effluent from inside the vehicles, such as water and propellant [hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide] ice, from more than a hundred external valves – some deliberate, such as water dumps and flash evaporator operation and hydraulic pressure pump testing, but most accidental from seeping thruster valves.

reply to post by JimOberg


I have a question regarding a msnbc clip featured in the second video posted. In this "msnbc battle of la" clip I saw your take on the event at the end of the video although in the "ufo evidence: unsolved cases" video posted here you are edited out of it. I would have to say you are a hard core skeptic just by watching this. In all fairness, and considering msnbc may have edited your statements, I would like to know what you think the object our military fired over 1800 anti-aircraft rounds at and failed to bring down was back in '42. You stated in this brief clip that many aircraft were in the air back in those days and there are no living witnesses now, but it seems it is well documented and the newspaper headlines are still around along with a military report that eventually was poorly explained as a "weather balloon". Does the military explanation for this event not raise a red flag for you? I mean...a weather balloon that refused to come down after 100's of anti-aircraft rounds were fired at it? Just thought I would give you a fair shot at this one because I know the media cuts and edits people's statements. I see a lot of people frustrated about what you said by looking at the comments on this video.

Here is the news clip. This is relevant to the post because it is featured in the second video "UFO Evidence: Unsolved Cases"

MSNBC: Battle of Los Angeles

reply to post by JimOberg


I'm sure there is a thread that you have already explained all of this (battle of la) on, but I couldn't find one so if you don't feel like going over it again just leave the link to the thread. I'm not trying to waste your time repeating yourself.

Originally posted by FearYourMind
reply to post by JimOberg

 

I'm sure there is a thread that you have already explained all of this (battle of la) on, but I couldn't find one so if you don't feel like going over it again just leave the link to the thread. I'm not trying to waste your time repeating yourself.

There are threads where other people have found out things -- such as the degree of forgery on the photos in the newspapers -- that I find well argued. Having personally been involved in a number of very exciting [i.e., pant-pooping terrifying] flight emergencies and team responses, I also apply some of what I've seen of human behaviour and perception under such conditions, to the after-action reports. It's not like taking notes at the PTA meeting on Tuesday night.

Personally, I haven't done any new work on that story, is strikes me as uninteresting, but it just could be my parochial obsession with areas I'm more familiar with.

Has spiritualarchitect replied to any of my comments at www.abovetopsecret.com...?

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by signalfire
Thanks for responding Jim, and I stand corrected. Now tell me why they're dumping water overboard if it causes damage to the brakes and payload doors, etc... And is this water ice or could it be something else that is surviving the heat of reentry? Maybe someone would like to take a stab at how large that ice chunk (stuck to the plane, not jettisoned completely) had to be before they re-entered?

....The shuttle operational safety question is irrelevant to that. How about we start a thread on the subject on the SPACE thread?

Signalfire, have we settled the question of space ice survival duration as it applies to 'unexplained' shuttle videos? I'd be happy to follow up if you are still unsatisfied.

Did MSNBC not allow you to point out the alleged forgeries? All you mention in the news clip is that it's silly and a "Capital U.F.O." whatever that means. This is rather important to me considering you are the number one denier of the sts videos here. There's always two sides to any argument, but you seem to discredit any possibility that UFOs exist and cling to ice particle explanations and act as if people are just plain ridiculous for even suggesting alternative explanation. It makes me skeptical of you because it seems you are on a mission to discredit UFOs and won't accept anything outside of the norm. You only argue the skeptics side when the other side could be argued just as easy. You can't be a one way street and expect to get to the bottom of anything. The documents were alleged as forgeries. If it were the other way around you would argue that there isn't any hard evidence of a forgery. See what I'm saying?

Originally posted by FearYourMind
Did MSNBC not allow you to point out the alleged forgeries? All you mention in the news clip is that it's silly and a "Capital U.F.O." whatever that means. This is rather important to me considering you are the number one denier of the sts videos here. There's always two sides to any argument, but you seem to discredit any possibility that UFOs exist and cling to ice particle explanations and act as if people are just plain ridiculous for even suggesting alternative explanation. It makes me skeptical of you because it seems you are on a mission to discredit UFOs and won't accept anything outside of the norm. You only argue the skeptics side when the other side could be argued just as easy. You can't be a one way street and expect to get to the bottom of anything. The documents were alleged as forgeries. If it were the other way around you would argue that there isn't any hard evidence of a forgery. See what I'm saying?

No, I'm not following. You seem over excited and have a non-functional return key to make paragraphs.

Have you read my 99 FAQs? I think they contain background facts that are needed by people trying to evaluate the 'space UFO' videos.

What i've seen is that the less a person is familiar with the actual visual backdrop of spaceflight operations, and the more nonsense they THINK is true [like the long debates over how ice would vaporize instantly in space, or that the dots are self-luminous], the more strongly they flock to the UFO explanation.

That interpretation cannot even be debated, I feel, until people have a reality-based appreciation of real spaceflight. And as I've encountered pro-UFO arguments on these videos, I've seen how they usually rest on factually flawed misinterpretations and misconceptions.

How is that idea so implausible to you?

Originally posted by FearYourMind




Did MSNBC not allow you to point out the alleged forgeries? All you mention in the news clip is that it's silly and a "Capital U.F.O." whatever that means. This is rather important to me considering you are the number one denier of the sts videos here. There's always two sides to any argument, but you seem to discredit any possibility that UFOs exist and cling to ice particle explanations and act as if people are just plain ridiculous for even suggesting alternative explanation. It makes me skeptical of you because it seems you are on a mission to discredit UFOs and won't accept anything outside of the norm. You only argue the skeptics side when the other side could be argued just as easy. You can't be a one way street and expect to get to the bottom of anything. The documents were alleged as forgeries. If it were the other way around you would argue that there isn't any hard evidence of a forgery. See what I'm saying?

edit on 25-5-2013 by FearYourMind because: (no reason given)

Even when various world media contact me when intending to make a skeptical documentary, I help them by providing & editing copies of the NASA UFOs. Why...well I want these seen by as many people as possible

& these broadcasters are willing to do that. When the video is shown...it works it's magic & NO skeptics ice theory holds! Exposure is key & the Obergs play right into my hands, as all I want is these in the public domain EVERYWHERE!

reply to post by FearYourMind
you are correct in your premise re: the abundance is the key. When I view an aquarium I don't just look at the biggest fish....I tend to view the whole fish tank! And, as you suggest, that is the best way to view the NASA UFO videos.

Another thought is that I am trying to demystify NASA & the videos certainly do that. Before my release all NASA let anyone see were very short beauty shots on the news...in documentaries & never a mistake or broken tether etc.

reply to post by FearYourMind
On June 3 2008, NY Times..." 2 years after James Hansen, the leading climate scientist at NASA & other agency employees described a pattern of distortion & suppression of climate science...the agency's inspector general has concluded that such activities occurred...including muting or withholding news releases"...

the report "found that ...NASA HQ...managed the topic...in a manner that reduced; marginalized or mischaracterized climate science made available to the general public."

Sounds very familiar..its Oberg's style! He endlessly defends the official NASA positions using NASA material that has long been proved as "spin"...

Originally posted by buzzEmiller
When the video is shown...it works it's magic & NO skeptics ice theory holds! Exposure is key & the Obergs play right into my hands, as all I want is these in the public domain EVERYWHERE!

The only reason you have it, is that it STARTED in the public domain and you recorded it off a commercial telecommunications satellite.

All the while, could it be true that you doing it on company time, with company equipment, with company videotapes, but -- let me guess -- without your TV company's knowledge or permission. Is that a reasonable supposition?

And when you pass them on, don't you usually strip off the identification information that would allow somebody to independent verify the scenes?

Originally posted by buzzEmiller
reply to post by FearYourMind

 

you are correct in your premise re: the abundance is the key. When I view an aquarium I don't just look at the biggest fish....I tend to view the whole fish tank! And, as you suggest, that is the best way to view the NASA UFO videos.

The English of which is, don't look at any particular case TOO closely, it might prove prosaic in origin. And to prevent people from making such a tactical blunder, don't even TELL them the year/date/time of the video so it's hopeless to search for mission operations context. The more ignorant the viewer, the better for your purposes?

Another thought is that I am trying to demystify NASA & the videos certainly do that. Before my release all NASA let anyone see were very short beauty shots on the news...in documentaries & never a mistake or broken tether etc.

Nonsense -- NASA let YOU see them by transmitting them live across commercial TV satellites. It was only then that the 'mystification' and 'MYTHification' process began, from you.

Originally posted by spiritualarchitect
The NASA apologist used the word sincere?
That WAS funny.

What does he say is NASA’s official position on why they were wasting time filming the space junk known as the “tether” after it was over 60 miles away?

Did NASA think it would come back?
Or was NASA filming debri/dust/ice [insert excuse here]?
Or was NASA really filming unidentified flying objects?
Or was NASA really filming flying objects they know all too well?

NASA hid (embargoed) the 1996 "tether incident" video ASAP & until I released it on the "Secret NASA Transmissions" in 2000... no one had seen any video of the tether incident & it was just another forgotten flight.


But it was a big deal at NASA!
When NASA has an "inflight anomaly", as NASA refers to out-of-the-ordinary events....a series of steps at NASA then take place re: any NASA 'in flight' video of the (catastrophic) event that has just taken place. These steps are taken DURING a mission & similar steps were taken DURING STS-107's mission, which ended with the shuttle Columbia destroyed upon re-entry.

NASA did not brush this tether video off...they studied it BIG TIME!!! Yet they will not send any one copies...even when requested by UFO skeptics. They have never discussed it on the record, using the various specific reports that were generated re the anomaly & NOW...it's 2013 & still all Oberg & NASA defenders say is 'JUST ICE"...!

...But that is merely...what they THINK they know..

The 1st thing that happens is the video is viewed by the NASA Film Review Team. This is usually a dozen or so people, sitting around a few conference tables, watching a giant screen that covers an entire wall of the room. There would also be a study by the Intercenter Photo Working Group, NASA's organization responsible for film coverage of shuttle missions.

When this point was reached during the Columbia mission & after great study of the video, flight director Steve Stich, in an E mail to Columbia's crew about the launch-day foam strike said

"experts have reviewed the high speed photography & there is no concern for RCC or tile damage. We have seen this same phenomenon on several other flights & there is absolutely no concern for entry."

The Columbia & crew burned up upon entry.

The kind of real mission data that is never discussed by the mythificationists can be seen here, regarding the 'jewel in the crown' of 'space UFOs', the STS-48 zig-zagger.

www.jamesoberg.com...

It's not easy reading, but if you grapple with it you will see the overwhelming evidence for the prosaic nature of the event -- based on facts which Martyn will never tell you.

Originally posted by buzzEmiller
NASA hid (embargoed) the 1996 "tether incident" video ASAP & until I released it on the "Secret NASA Transmissions" in 2000... no one had seen any video of the tether incident & it was just another forgotten flight.

If the embargo is true, how did YOU get it?

As for 'no one had seen any video', contemporary archival logs of observer groups such as the satobs.org teams easily show this statement is inaccurate.

reply to post by FearYourMind
It was during the Columbia disaster investigation that it was disclosed that Bob Page, an electrical engineer at NASA & member of the Film Review Team was not satisfied, & wanted to do something. He knew from previous missions (Oct. 1998 flight of Discovery... when a panel fell off the orbiter during launch) that Top Secret Military Telescopes & spy satellites were available to get pictures of the shuttle in orbit...but the pictures would be classified. Still he put in a formal request for pictures.

He was told that talk of such capabilities was "off limits". Wayne Hale, the flight director he discussed it with, then passed along Page's concerns in general, but...... by his own admission...did not pass on the request for the DOD photos! (the fear factor at NASA at work!)

With the tether incident that you mention,... am certain that some pictures of the tether break & flyaway would have been taken by the DOD (& then classified!) Dr. Nuth, working at NASA at the time, in an E mail to my team (David Sereda specifically) mentions the use of DOD cameras to check out Dr. Lou Franks claim of "house sizes comets entering the atmosphere by the thousands, every day!

What is most interesting is that the NASA Film review people only go as far with there videos as to say that
"the video was inconclusive"... They never are specific because as with Columbia, then they would be admitting that a conclusion could have been reached..& in the case of Columbia, that would mean that they could & should have concluded that the Columbia would be destroyed.

So even NASA would not conclude ice specifically from the NASA STS-75 video. The best they would do is call it an unknown anomaly, & not say ice ..or anything specific...as Oberg always does qualifying ice as NASA case closed!

As has have said before...everything NASA discovers is supposed to be available to the public & is in public domain, except "information" with becomes classified to protect national Security (space act- July 29, 1958) I am certain that UFOs would be considered a National Security Threat.

And any 'tether UFO' video evidence would be classified & suppressed by people like Jim Oberg. Does anybody not believe that?