Zorgon mentioned he's still curious about the STS-80 video. Here are the views of two of the astronauts on that mission. Why are they mistaken?
https://skywalking1.wordpress.com/2011/04/18/did-ufos-visit-sts-80-columbia/
http://www.jamesoberg.com/musgrave_ramble.pdf
Thanks Jim I will read those in detail and reply later today
Quote from: JimO on May 17, 2015, 07:09:24 PM
Why are they mistaken?
Okay sorry it took so long to get back. Have had some serious medical issues last few days.
So lets look at the replies...
But before I begin I want to be CLEAR on the cases I am referring to
1) The STS-80 footage showing the group of objects that form a circle with a single object moving into the middle and suddenly brightening up and holding position in the center of tht circle
2) The STS-80 footage of the object that moves over the thunder storm, brightens and stops and stays in place, A second one comes out of the clouds and moves off. As the earth rotates beneath the shuttle and the first object move in position the NASA operator then zooms in on it just before it moves over the horizon
THOSE are the ONLY tow cases I am interested in, and specifically the 2nd one.
So I ready your note from Story... seems he has MUFON folks all agaga Sure he loves to say he believe that life exists out there but so what? Lets JUST ONCE address the SPECIFIC question,
What does he say about those tow incidents? Well
So STS-80 was a well known one, but it depends now... when I take a video and
I'm looking at stuff and it's a hundred feet away, the video that gets out there, the
reader comes back doesn't know how far away the objects were. And a lot of that
stuff they put it a thousand miles away. Well the videos I took of stuff is 40 feet
outside and I know it came from me, if you say it's a thousand miles away you are
into a very significant phenomenon. But it's not a thousand miles away. It's right
here.
Well no one said how far away the ones in the circle are... the fact that they formed a circle is what matters and that one moved to the center and lit up. How about addressing that?
And how is the one above the clouds a thousand miles away? The Space Shuttle's orbital altitude normally ranges from 190 miles to 330 miles. So stop treating us like idiots and answer the question :P
HOW can that one object over the storm... that moves with the earth to the horizon... that the NASA camera man zooms in again on at the last minute before it goes over the horizon POSSIBLY be a speck of dust or ice near the shuttle?
Okay Tom Jones account
Much UFO speculation in the past has focused on one of my shuttle missions, STS-80, flown in late 1996. Some have maintained that video shot during this Columbia space shuttle flight provides evidence for unknown objects moving in the night sky. I have reviewed this video (for the first time in 1997), and conclude that it shows commonplace and well-known objects near the shuttle, all of them observed on every shuttle flight. These videos show low-light television camera images of ice particles or man-made debris drifting out of Columbia's cargo bay, and floating in the vicinity of the shuttle, likely within a few tens of feet of the orbiter.
Hmmmm likely within a few tens of feet of the orbiter
So he doesn't really KNOW and again I ask;
HOW can that one object over the storm... that moves with the earth to the horizon... that the NASA camera man zooms in again on at the last minute before it goes over the horizon POSSIBLY be a speck of dust or ice near the shuttle?
And he doesn't NOT address the "ice particles that form a circle"
And if as is claimed if these events such as the STS-80 object are common place or have similar characteristics (as these astronauts claim) then why can't-don't they back up that claim by showing us other video examples for comparison ?
Surely NASA must have tons of footage. Why do we need to rely on intercepted videos when we should have access to all the footage showing how common these things are?
have seen these snippets of STS-80 video many times since our flight. These video scenes were recorded by remote control, under ground command, with flight controllers in Houston's Mission Control operating our low-light TV camera in the cargo bay. As far as I remember, nobody on the crew was looking out the window at these ice crystals or debris particles. Nobody thought anything that our crew observed out the window was of "alien" origin, or something not connected to the shuttle's routine operations (e.g. a large rotating disk or any such unusual structure). Once you understand what the solar illumination conditions are (orbital twilight, with darkness below and sunlight at our altitude), it's easy to conclude that the video shows normal small ice and debris particles drifting aimlessly away from the orbiter, with some pieces becoming sunlit as they move out of the shuttle's shadow. During our science operations, robotic satellite deployments and grapples, and robot arm tests and exercises, we routinely noticed these ice particles and debris catching the brilliant sunlight outside. But these sightings were non-events for us, as we understood what we were seeing completely.
Ah so no one saw them Only the ground crew camera man. Well ice particles drifting aimlessly away from the orbiter don't form a circle and one stop in the middle. I will grant that moving into sunlight can explain the brightness (even though the rest in the circle did NOT brighten up.
Perhaps we need to ask that Ground Controller what HE thinks and WHY he zoomed in on it at the horizon. It must have been obvious to him at least that this object was NOT an ice particle near the shuttle
And I ask again;
HOW can that one object over the storm... that moves with the earth to the horizon... that the NASA camera man zooms in again on at the last minute before it goes over the horizon POSSIBLY be a speck of dust or ice near the shuttle?
I don't care whether it's Alien, Black Ops or Critter... ( yes I favor the latter :P ) It could be a phenomena of lighting like elves or sprits or something yet to be understood.
But the ones over the storm are in NO WAY ice or dust particles near the shuttle
And quite frankly the explanation has made me lose faith in the intelligence of those they stick on rockets
Just ONCE I would like to see someone actually LOOK closely and think a bit before spouting the standard answer.
The STS-80 videos are records of normal space shuttle operations and optical phenomena.
No they are not :P There is NO WAY that this object on NASA mission control screen is a small particle of ice
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/41pegasus/04images/Critter/bb261ab621b502c6.gif)
Thank you fro posting those stories but...
...they are entirely useless in addressing the key point
The video in question...
The ones in the storm start at 2:00 BTW the one that pops out of the clouds casts a shadow on the clouds too :D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0jpUPLqLhA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0jpUPLqLhA
Quote from: zorgon on May 26, 2015, 04:19:15 AM
HOW can that one object over the storm... that moves with the earth to the horizon... that the NASA camera man zooms in again on at the last minute before it goes over the horizon POSSIBLY be a speck of dust or ice near the shuttle?
The object casts a shadow on the clouds so is NOT near the Shuttle. It seems to be associated with electrical activity (storms) in the ionosphere and therefore is probably a plasma of some description. The question is do these exist outside of storms as independent "entities"?
Quote from: Pimander on May 26, 2015, 01:50:49 PM
It seems to be associated with electrical activity (storms) in the ionosphere and therefore is probably a plasma of some description.
Yes that is my contention I don't even mind if it turns out to be a natural phenomena associated with storms I am just tired of the "ice particles near the shuttle" bullsh!t to explain everything :P
Perhaps something like ball lightening but longer lived? I would expect it to discharge quicker though so who knows.
Quote from: Pimander on May 26, 2015, 06:47:13 PM
Perhaps something like ball lightening but longer lived? I would expect it to discharge quicker though so who knows.
(http://i0.wp.com/www.universetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/sts80formation.jpg?resize=352%2C288)
Hummm. :-\
I patiently await the 'official' explanantion...
Sharnt hold my breath tho, havn't completed my bucket list yet.
Quote from: zorgon on May 26, 2015, 04:19:15 AM
No they are not :P There is NO WAY that this object on NASA mission control screen is a small particle of ice
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/41pegasus/04images/Critter/bb261ab621b502c6.gif)
Why are you so sure of that?
What do you see that makes it impossible for it to be a small particle of ice (or other reflective material)?
Quote from: zorgon on May 26, 2015, 04:23:36 AM
The ones in the storm start at 2:00
That has always been my favourite. :)
QuoteBTW the one that pops out of the clouds casts a shadow on the clouds too :D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0jpUPLqLhA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0jpUPLqLhA
That doesn't look like a shadow, it looks like the result of sensor overload from the bright spots to the left of the "shadow".
Quote from: ArMaP on May 27, 2015, 09:16:50 AM
That has always been my favourite. :)
That doesn't look like a shadow, it looks like the result of sensor overload from the bright spots to the left of the "shadow".
The object also apparently moves over the horizon. Do you agree that it is likely near Earth and not the Shuttle?
Quote from: Pimander on May 27, 2015, 10:40:37 AM
The object also apparently moves over the horizon. Do you agree that it is likely near Earth and not the Shuttle?
Yes, that's what makes that object so interesting, as that's the only one that doesn't look to be a small, out of focus bright object near the shuttle. :)
Quote from: ArMaP on May 27, 2015, 05:34:20 PM
Yes, that's what makes that object so interesting, as that's the only one that doesn't look to be a small, out of focus bright object near the shuttle. :)
And the fact that the Cameraman is AWARE of that and later zooms in
THAT is why I want an answer on THIS SPECIFIC case
But they never do :P All you get is the same BS "ice particles near the shuttle" crap and they hope you will give up asking :D
I really don't need it to be an Alien space craft :P I am much more inclined to a Plasma phenomena wether critter or other
OH BTW ArMaP do you think you could find Jims post to me at ATS where he linked me the NASA file on plasma? I have it saved but as it has only a file number it will take a while to find it
As I recall it was during the discussion of STS75
Thanks for the detailed response and explanation.
Before I try to help you learn anything about how nearby particles appear in space videos, we're going to have to spend a lot of time helping you UNlearn a whole lot of stuff you vehemently believe to be true about space conditions, but aren't.
I tried to address those principles in my '99 FAQs', I'm presuming you've recently looked over that essay?
Probably the most persuasive 'close sunlight dandruff' argument is simply that the most notorious shuttle videos ALL occur in a very specific and short-lived orbital phase -- the two minutes or so after orbital sunrise before the shuttle passes over the day/night terminator line on the surface.
This remarkable fact was not discovered until somebody obtained actual video times and orbital data that determined sunrise times. Nobody had even bothered before.
If the claim is true, as I think I've shown the evidence to prove, it SUGGESTS that the weird video scenes are a consequence of unique illumination conditions centered on the shuttle, not on the vagaries of alien visitors. The details would need to be worked out but the relationship seems to have no other explanation -- could you speculate on any such reason for the remarkably unlikely 'accident' of these famous videos sharing THIS particular rare situation?
Quote from: JimO on May 28, 2015, 05:39:35 AM
If the claim is true, as I think I've shown the evidence to prove, it SUGGESTS that the weird video scenes are a consequence of unique illumination conditions centered on the shuttle, not on the vagaries of alien visitors.
Seriously? You completely ignore what we have agreed is obviously nowhere near the Shuttle and passes over the horizon? ::)
You spent more time addressing a mention of aliens aliens which has not been the focus of this discussion at all. Straw man!
The object is not near the shuttle because it passes over the horizon. So what's the deal with being afraid to discuss it?
We had a bet LOL
That he would not discuss the issue :P
He could have had an out by simply stating "I don't know what that is" :P
Quote from: JimO on May 28, 2015, 05:39:35 AM
Before I try to help you learn anything about how nearby particles appear in space videos, we're going to have to spend a lot of time helping you UNlearn a whole lot of stuff you vehemently believe to be true about space conditions, but aren't.
Don't waste your time trying to 'help' us. You have shown that you are unwilling to address the one point we want answers on. Your 'space dandruff' just doesn't cut it on the one than moves over the horizon.
I asked because I wanted to see if you would step up and at least deal with it but I guess your orders are to keep pushing that 'space dandruff' spiel. You could at least have said it was a large piece of space debris :P
But then you would have to explain how that space debris (or even 'space dandruff' ) managed to move into position, STOP and then maintain that position as the earth rotated until it was over the horizon. And WHY that NASA operator had to zoom in on it before it went over the horizon
Since you repeatedly refuse to adress this one key case... we are done here.
QuoteI tried to address those principles in my '99 FAQs', I'm presuming you've recently looked over that essay?
Not recently no... I see no point
QuoteProbably the most persuasive 'close sunlight dandruff' argument is simply that the most notorious shuttle videos ALL occur in a very specific and short-lived orbital phase
probably? LOL STUFF the 'space dandruff' crap address the issue that is the question
...and stuff pushing the Alien crap... no one here said it was aliens. Save that for GLP or ATS :P
Just address the SPECIFIC question or move on
Quote from: zorgon on May 28, 2015, 07:30:19 PM
Since you repeatedly refuse to adress this one key case... we are done here.
I'm genuinely surprised. ALmost amazed. Perhaps I shouldn't be. ???
On the other hand, fascinating reaction. LOL ::)
Quote from: zorgon on May 28, 2015, 07:30:19 PM
You could at least have said it was a large piece of space debris :P
Or a dragon egg. :P
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/41pegasus/04images/Critter/bb261ab621b502c6.gif)
:o
Asserting the object 'goes over the horizon' is a conclusion based on the behavior of its image. Why wouldn't alternative explanations look exactly the same? The same applies to objects that really DO look like they emerge from behind clouds -- why couldn't they be something drifting nearby that was in darkness and then passed into sunlight in mid screen, making it appear suddenly?
To return to my main point -- interpreting what is shown on this video requires understanding the play of sunlight and shadow in the 3D space within the camera field of view. Where do you think the sun is, in relation to the 'viewer', the camera?
Quote from: JimO on May 29, 2015, 02:56:51 AM
Asserting the object 'goes over the horizon' is a conclusion based on the behavior of its image.
Obviously, as that's the only thing we have. :)
QuoteWhy wouldn't alternative explanations look exactly the same?
Because I have never seen a case of something that looks like a small, bright, out of focus object appearing slightly change the shape of its border and to change its perspective while apparently moving away from the camera.
QuoteThe same applies to objects that really DO look like they emerge from behind clouds -- why couldn't they be something drifting nearby that was in darkness and then passed into sunlight in mid screen, making it appear suddenly?
I do think that the object that some people say "comes out of the clouds" is a small object close to shuttle that is just entering in the lighted area. It doesn't look like the other object that appears to get "squashed" against the upper atmosphere.
Quote from: ArMaP on May 29, 2015, 04:23:52 PM
....
Because I have never seen a case of something that looks like a small, bright, out of focus object appearing slightly change the shape of its border and to change its perspective while apparently moving away from the camera.
...
Follow that line of reasoning. How far away would the object have to be to go 'over the horizon' from the shuttle? Then calculate how bright it would have to have been at that range. Then estimate how bright it would have been if seen from directly below it, on Earth's surface.
You can see where this is leading. Where are the eyewitness accounts from across a thousand miles of the ground, of thousands of people seeing a blazing light overhead?
Quote from: JimO on May 29, 2015, 06:29:56 PM
You can see where this is leading. Where are the eyewitness accounts from across a thousand miles of the ground, of thousands of people seeing a blazing light overhead?
THIS is probably about the STUPIDIST excuse you have yet come up with. The objects are ABOVE a heavy storm cloud layer with multiple bright lightning flashes
What possible line of thinking would lead you to believe that thousands of people would have seen it from the ground?
Sprites and Elves have existed forever. They too are bright have color and are a site to witness but very few people ever see those either because they are ABOVE the storm
Seriously Jim Your desperation is getting downright ludicrous
::)
Quote from: zorgon on May 29, 2015, 08:05:44 PM
THIS is probably about the STUPIDIST excuse you have yet come up with.
Now.. this is an answer regarding STS-80:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBIrANSMihg
This is Martyn Stubbs unedited STS-80 UFO sequence in full. #1 with a bullet!
QuoteSeveral unexplained sightings during this mission of Space Shuttle Columbia have become some of the most celebrated in UFO circles. Video images appear to show two slow-moving disk-shaped objects; several fast-moving objects that appear to be in formation and pulsing with light; and a strange burst of light near the Earth's surface. Dr. Mark Carlotto, an image scientist who has spent his career studying anomalous phenomena, dismisses the two slow-moving objects as shuttle debris, and surmises the burst of light — which he estimated is moving 500 miles per second — may be an unknown atmospheric phenomenon witnessed for the first time from space. As for the fast-moving objects, Dr. Carlotto concluded that they were not shuttle debris or meteors. That leaves the door open for Ufologists to fill in the blanks with their own theories, including that the objects appear to exhibit a form of intelligence as they pulse with light. Ironically, one of the astronauts on that Columbia mission, Story Musgrave, has stated that he believes in the likelihood of extraterrestrial life — as do most scientists — but he doesn't believe that they've visited us in the form of UFOs. It's worth noting that other NASA astronauts, including Gordon Cooper and Edgar Mitchell, are convinced Earth has been visited by beings from another world.
http://listosaur.com/bizarre-stuff/5-famous-ufo-incidents-on-nasa-missions/ (http://listosaur.com/bizarre-stuff/5-famous-ufo-incidents-on-nasa-missions/)
(http://oi59.tinypic.com/34qsbk8.jpg)
(http://oi60.tinypic.com/2uj4mdz.jpg)
(http://oi62.tinypic.com/2wddl4j.jpg)
(http://oi61.tinypic.com/xm321z.jpg)
(http://oi58.tinypic.com/1znpzqb.jpg)
(http://oi58.tinypic.com/21x5lg.jpg)
(http://oi62.tinypic.com/2ed741k.jpg)
(http://oi57.tinypic.com/24do2o1.jpg)
(http://oi60.tinypic.com/2vmx4ly.jpg)
(http://oi58.tinypic.com/15rk4ye.jpg)
(http://oi57.tinypic.com/2ltfq0w.jpg)
(http://oi59.tinypic.com/rvyjjt.jpg)
(http://oi57.tinypic.com/301zzw4.jpg)
PDF:http://www.carlotto.us/newfrontiersinscience/Papers/v04n04a/v04n04a.pdf (http://www.carlotto.us/newfrontiersinscience/Papers/v04n04a/v04n04a.pdf)
Still in the STS-80 but with STS-48 info:
UNCUT STS-48 UFO "event"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKJg8LeFqfI
QuoteThis is for the researcher who wants to see this "legendary" clip in full. It goes from "normal" at night, to the 1st. NASA shuttle video to show a UFO! Relive the 'buildup', not expecting anything as thunderstorms are being observed. From Martyn Stubbs NASA UFO Archives
NASA UFOs:Uncut, the STS-48 "right angle turn"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3culc5vbOg
QuoteA 1991 "classic" that was the first NASA UFO event ever seen & debated worldwide. From Martyn Stubbs NASA Archive.This clip has the dramatic event, after a mundane start!
Martyn Stubbs channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCX80zx4_vJ79Fi-bHx_mbGQ (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCX80zx4_vJ79Fi-bHx_mbGQ)
STS80 and STS48 updatesQuoteFrom: Erik <Beckjord@transbay.net>
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 17:23:58 GMT
Fwd Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 12:47:40 -0500
Subject: STS80 and STS48 updates
and
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 16:17:26 GMT
To: 72326.3625@compuserve.com
From: Erik <Beckjord@transbay.net>
Subject: STS 48 SPACE SHUTTLE VIDEO SHOWS SAUCER
In the study of the STS 80 events, (space shuttle ufos)
we have given sts-48, (Discovery, 1991) a re-look, and review,
and now it appears that event 3, as per Don Ratsch, shows what
seems like a structured craft, i.e., a "flying saucer", for
five to ten seconds. Slowed down by freeze-frame, it shows a
shape-shifting object that does often look like a saucer with a dome
on it.
Given the tendency of the media and the public to demand that
ufos look like "space ships", and not fiery blobs, this should make
many excited and happy. The NASA/Gov't connection is good. Debris and
ice just don't look like saucers....and this has a firm trajectory.
Forward to Ted Koppel's producer at ABC, and all lists, Strange
Univ.,etc.
Seriously. Stills and video copies have been sent out to
the usual suspects. Donations to help pay back these costs are appreciated.
STS 80 UPDATE
(Space Shuttle UFOs)
l) Orbit, as per NASA web site, was 218 miles, which
means any fireballs seen near the shuttle were *definitely*
not in any air whatever (stops at 55miles) and thus
were anomalous objects, not meteors.
2) Jim Dilettoso has many calculations that show the largest
objects were not close to the lens, and hence not ice, nor
debris.
3) Our mystery astronaut agrees that the large objects, no 1 and
no 2, (there are 65 or more...) are not normal debris nor
known objects from his experience in space. These look like
round bright balls that change (shape-shift) to other shapes,
such as champagne corks and lemons. (shape-wise).
4) The largest fireball, we will call object no. 3 for
reference.
5) Dr. Gerald Hawkins, of Stonehenge fame, and crop circles,
says that the objects (no 3, and others like fireballs)
cannot be meteors. No air to burn in. Tails too long.
Fiery tails.
6) Dr. Maccabee and Dr Kasher are mulling the data over.
7) Jim D says that the first object is in focus. I agree.
8 ) Kasher says that the distance to the horizon is 1330 miles.
Object no. 1 seems to get there.
9) We have located a saucer image in the older STS 48 images
and we will isolate that, re-tape it, and photograph it.
10) There is also a multi-legged "space bug" in STS 48 footage.
11) All on the Ad Hoc Committee agree that the time is not ripe
this week to go public, and more analysis is needed, before
we do. All ambitious ufologists who want fame are
urged to wait until the right time, and then act in
unison. Let us not blow it.
Comments call 415-989-5005. Spend a nickel.
Ye editor.
"Not only is the universe stranger than you imagine,
the universe is stranger than you CAN imagine."
JBS Haldane
NOTICE: Museum is open . 709 Union st,North Beach,SF,CA
Ye editor
Erik Beckjord,BA,MBA
Curator - the UFO,Bigfoot& Loch Ness
Monster Museum
Box 9502 Berkeley,CA 94709
510 - 848-2233,415-974-4339 VM,415-989-5005
on site museum.
Lists: Beckjord@transbay.net
Museum: ufobfmuseum@value.net
see:
http://pwp.value.net/ufomus/
( UFO Museum)
Source:http://www.hyper.net/ufo/vs/m24-006.html (http://www.hyper.net/ufo/vs/m24-006.html)
One more about the missions... last one for today :P
I will post it full BTW... Zorgon... you snip it if you find it necessary... :)
A SCIENTIFIC ANALYSIS OF THE VIDEOTAPE TAKEN BY
SPACE SHUTTLE DISCOVERY ON SHUTTLE FLIGHT STS-48QuoteJack Rasher, Ph.D.
ABSTRACT
On September 15, 1991, Space Shuttle Discovery videotaped several anomalous, glowing objects that floated along and then sharply changed direction, apparently in response to a flash in the lower left portion of the picture. Shortly afterwards two streaks passed through the regions vacated by some of the objects. The film attracted a great deal of attention because of the possibility that the accelerating objects were spacecraft maneuvering out in space away from the Shuttle. Four NASA scientists viewed the videotape and suggested that the objects were ice particles accelerated by the Shuttle's attitude adjustor rockets. Their analysis was qualitative, and did not include any numerical calculations.
This paper is a quantitative, scientific study of the videotape. Starting with a frame-by-frame analysis of the position of the main object, the author would have been able to obtain all three of its velocity components, as well as its location, if it truly were an ice particle. In the process he has developed five separate proofs that the main object could not have been an ice particle near the Shuttle. This and other prosaic explanations can be easily dismissed. The only viable alternative that remains is that it was a spacecraft; and the other objects, since they reacted at the same time as the main one and in similar fashion, were probably spacecraft, too. This paper concludes with a discussion of the implications of these conclusions.
What follows is the main text from a report I have filed with the Fund for UFO Research, which provided partial financial support for this work. For the sake of brevity the author has omitted the appendices, even though there are several references to them in the text. The entire report can be obtained from FUFOR.
DESCRIPTION OF EVENTS
On September 15, 1991, between 20:30 and 20:45 Greenwich Mean Time, the TV camera located at the back of Space Shuttle Discovery's cargo bay was trained on the Earth's horizon while the astronauts were occupied with other tasks. A glowing object suddenly appeared just below the horizon and slowly moved from right to left and slightly upward in the picture. Several other glowing objects had been visible before this, and had been moving in various directions. Then a flash of light occurred at what seemed to be the lower left of the screen; and the main object, along with the others, changed direction and accelerated away sharply, as if in response to the flash. Shortly thereafter a streak of light moved through the region vacated by the main flash, and then another streak moved through the right of the screen, where two of the other objects had been. Roughly 65 seconds after the main flash, the TV camera rotated down, showing a fuzzy picture of the side of the cargo bay. It then refocused, turned toward the front of the cargo bay, and stopped broadcasting.
I traced the trajectories of several of the glowing objects, and of the two streaks, by placing a transparency over a 13-inch television set. The results are displayed in figure 1. The air glow is a region above the Earth's surface that ends at an elevation of about sixty miles.
Donald Ratch, a UFO researcher in Maryland, happened to be taping the sequence on NASA Select, a national cable TV channel that broadcasts NASA activities. He thought the sequence quite unusual, and wrote to his congresswoman, Ms. Helen Bentley, requesting that she look into what the glowing objects might have been. In addition, he contacted Vincent DiPietro, a NASA engineer at Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, who also found the videotape interesting enough to write to his congresswoman, Ms. Beverly Byron, asking her to research what the objects might have been.
Ms. Byron sent the tape to George E. Brown, Jr., chair of the Congressional Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, who showed it to several members of his staff. They concluded that the glowing objects were probably ice particles that had been ejected by the Shuttle, and that their sudden change in direction was caused by a blast from the Shuttle's attitude adjustor rockets (which change the orientation, or pitch angle, of the Shuttle as it floats in orbit around the Earth). This would also explain the flash in the lower left part of the picture. Ms. Bentley sent the tape to Martin P. Kress, an assistant administrator for legislative affairs at NASA. He showed it to four NASA scientists, who concurred that the objects were probably ice particles accelerated by the adjustor rockets. To the best of my knowledge, the individuals who suspected ice particles merely watched the videotape, and did no further scientific analysis. Also, it appears from the wording of the letters that these individuals did not comment specifically about the two streaks that went through the picture several seconds after the glowing objects accelerated. It is possible that they meant to include the streaks with the other objects when they spoke of ice particles. Copies of the replies from Congressman Brown and Mr. Kress are included in Appendix K.
There are several other possible explanations for the objects seen in the videotape, in addition to the ice particle theory. Some have suggested that they were tiny particles near the camera lens, instead of ice particles dozens of feet from the Shuttle. Other prosaic explanations might be that they were meteors, satellites, or space junk. Finally, and most spectacularly, they could have been some kind of spacecraft maneuvering in outer space away from the Shuttle. This is a necessary conclusion if none of the other explanations holds up, since the main object clearly accelerated and moved above the Earth's airglow in the videotape. Thus, it would have been an intelligently directed craft that was above the atmosphere; that is, it would have been a spacecraft. Let us look at each of these possibilities in greater detail.
The objects could not have been tiny particles close to the camera lens, since the camera was focused at infinity, as can be seen on the videotape when the camera turns down until the side of the cargo bay is visible. As I mentioned above, the cargo bay was obviously out of focus at first; so any tiny particles near the camera would have been indistinguishable blurs, and would not have been visible.
Also, the glowing objects clearly cannot be meteors, satellites, or space junk, since none of these can change direction. This leaves us with only two alternatives--the objects were either spacecraft maneuvering out in space away from the Shuttle, or ice particles on the order of dozens of feet from the cargo bay. I will now give five separate proofs that the main object in the videotape could not have been an ice particle; and thus must have been some kind of spacecraft. Once that has been established, I will discuss the extraordinary ramifications of these events.
RESEARCH EQUIPMENT AND SCIENTIFIC METHODOLOGY
The University of Wisconsin supports a microbiology laboratory in Milwaukee near Lake Michigan. The laboratory, headed by Dr. Rudy Strickler, has research equipment that includes computer software designed to track small living creatures that have been filmed in Lake Michigan. The software uses a 640 by 480 pixel grid that is placed over the picture, and the x and y coordinates of the creatures are obtained, frame by frame in 1/30th of a second intervals, as they swim though the water. The equipment and software are ideally suited to track the glowing objects in the shuttle videotape. Thanks to a grant from the Fund for UFO Research I was able to hire two students who work for Dr. Strickler, Guy Hussussian anf John Reimer, to track several of the objects. As a result, I ended up with 30 x-y position coordinates per second for the objects over multiple ranges around the main flash, and position coordinates at one second intervals for several seconds before the finer data. I was then able to graph the data, take numerical derivatives, and calculate nonlinear least-square curve fits to obtain the desired results. My methodology is described more thoroughly in the appendices of this report, and to some extent in the main sections as well.
FIRST PROOF THAT THE MAIN OBJECT WAS NOT AN ICE PARTICLE
Figure 2a shows the horizontal position of the main object as a function of time. In figure 2b we see a portion of the data on much smaller vertical and horizontal scales. This is the raw data, extracted frame-by-frame from the videotape taken by the Shuttle. The numbers along the vertical axis are the pixel locations of the main object, increasing from left to right on the videotape. Thus, the line will extend down and to the right as the object moves to the left, and up and to the right as the objects moves back to the right.
Notice that the line stays even at 233 pixels from about one second to 1.5 seconds. This means that the object stops and sits there during this period. We would not expect an ice particle accelerated by an attitude adjustor rocket to do this. The rocket exhaust would exert a continuous force on the ice particle, causing it to slow down, stop only at an exact instant of time (for example, at 1.2 seconds exactly), then immediately start back to the right. It is difficult to conceive of a mechanism by which a rocket exhaust could stop an ice particle and allow it to sit at its location for about half a second, then accelerate back to the right.
The objection could be raised that the "stopping" is actually a viewing angle effect, like when we stand at the edge of a highway and watch a car as it passes by us and drives off into the distance. The further away it gets, the slower it seems to be going. This objection doesn't hold up, for two reasons. First, the object would never actually appear to stop--it only would continue to appear to be going slower and slower. Second (and more significant), the location where the main object would appear to stop due to a viewing angle effect is almost 300 pixels farther to the left than the actual location of the object. This is nearly five times farther to the left of center than where the object actually was, and is actually off the TV screen (the details of the proof are given in Appendix F). The actual location of the main object at the time of the flash and the spot where it would appear to stop due to a viewing angle effect are shown in figure 3. Clearly, the object actually stops.
Another interesting bit of information, and possibly another proof that the object is not an ice particle, is the following. In Appendix E, I show that the velocity components of the main object before the flash, in the Shuttle's frame of reference and in pixels per second, are vx/r1 = -9.1, vy/r1 = 16.8 ± 1.0, and vz/ r1 = 25.1 ± 1.0, where r1 is the distance to the object as it passes through the horizontal center of the screen. The ratio vz/vy allows us to draw the vector indicating the direction the "ice particle" was moving before the flash, and is shown in the rear view of the Shuttle in figure 4. The force that stops the object would have to be directed toward the Shuttle from out in space. It is difficult to see how an attitude adjustor rocket could do this.
In my description of the events given above, I mentioned that there was a flash of light in the lower left part of the screen. Actually, two separate flashes occurred--a short preflash, and then the main flash. It is of interest to note when the two flashes occurred with respect to the flat line in figures 2a and 2b, the pre-flash started and finished just before the main object stopped, and the main flash began at or just after this time. The pre-flash lasted 150 milliseconds, and the main flash 400 milliseconds. This is another problem for the ice particle theory. The Shuttle has two kinds of attitude adjustor rockets--regular strength for stronger thrusts, and much tinier, vernier rockets for very small changes in orientation. I show in Appendix J that only one of the Shuttle's forty-four adjustor rockets could have supplied the acceleration for the main object, if it really was an ice particle. This rocket was one of the six verniers. The vernier rockets can either fire in 80 millisecond pulses, or continuously for intervals from one to 125 seconds. The durations of the flashes, 150 milliseconds and 400 milliseconds, do not match these numbers. In figure 5 we see the brightness curve for the 400 millisecond pulse, as supplied by Jeff Sainio, MUFON photo analyst. The shape of the curve strongly suggests that there was only one pulse, not a combination of pulses totaling 400 milliseconds. According to Sainio, "....assuming the gamma curve that produced this curve is fairly flat . . . I doubt that persistence distorted this curve much." Sainio made an adjustment for persistence for the curve, as calculated by using lightning previously shown in the videotape. This indicates that the curve is a true representation of the actual brightness of the flash.
A corollary to this proof, and perhaps a separate proof on its own (call it proof la), is the following. I show in Appendix I that if the main object were an ice particle, it was about 65 feet from the vernier rocket that would have done the accelerating. I also show below in section 7 that the exhaust velocity of the vernier along the line leading to the main object would have been about 8450 ft/sec. This means that the exhaust would have reached the main object, and the main object would have had to start accelerating, in a time interval of 65/8450 seconds, or less than 0.008 seconds. The object actually started accelerating nearly a full half second later, or more than sixty times longer than the 0.008 seconds. It is simply not possible for an ice particle to behave in this fashion. The pre-flash and main flash are shown in figure 6. In terms of this figure, the curve for an ice particle would have to start turning upward on the left side of the box that defines the flash, instead of where it actually does start up.
Another approach to the same idea is this. If the exhaust took half a second to reach the "ice particle," then the particle must be about 4200 feet away (roughly half of 8450 ft/sec.) It is hard to imagine that the particle could have drifted that far away, much less that it would still be visible at that range. Yet, another aspect of this idea is given below in proof number five, where the numbers are even more difficult to reconcile with the ice particle explanation.
SECOND PROOF THAT THE MAIN OBJECT WAS NOT AN ICE PARTICLE
The second proof that the main object is not an ice particle also proves that the object just below and to the left of it is not. The proof is based on the trajectories of the two objects after the main flash, and is perhaps best illustrated with an analogy.
Suppose two dandelion seeds are floating motionless in the air near my mouth. If I blow on them, they will each move away from my mouth along the lines that connect my mouth to their original positions (see figure 7). To locate my mouth, one only needs to extend these two lines backwards, and my mouth will be at the point where the two lines meet. Similarly, if two ice particles are at rest, and are then blown by an attitude adjustor rocket, we can locate the rocket by drawing lines back along the trajectories of the two particles. If the rocket did the blowing, the lines must meet, and they must meet at the location of the rocket. Recall that in Appendix J, I prove that only one rocket, a vernier, could have accelerated the objects. The two lines, when extended back, would meet at the location of this rocket.
We need to modify our analogy somewhat to fit the real situation. As I will show shortly, the second object was at rest in the horizontal direction, but was floating up vertically a tiny bit at the time of the flashes. This corresponds to the second dandelion seed having a slight upward motion when I blow on it. If we can subtract out this upward motion, what is left has been provided by my mouth. So the line must be drawn back in the direction of the final velocity with the original upward component removed.
We now need to look at the velocities of the main and second objects before and after the flashes. Notice that in the previous proof I analyzed only the horizontal velocity component of the main object as seen in the videotape. This is all that is necessary to prove the point, since a zero horizontal component means that both vx and vy were zero for a full half second. An ice particle cannot stop and sit for half a second in these two directions. We now need to establish that the third component was also zero during this time span. This can be done by analyzing the vertical position of the main object as a function of time. The curve is shown in figure 8 over a longer time span, and in close-up in figure 9. (Note that the data is somewhat noisier for this curve. This is due to the fact that the main object did not move upward in the picture very much.) The vertical position remains constant for nearly the same length of time as the horizontal position does. Since vx and vy have already been shown to be zero, the equation for vzo(see Appendix D),
vzo = -d theta/dt = -(vx/r) cos theta cos theta - (vy/r) cos theta sin theta + (vz/r) sin theta, (D5b)
collapses into vzo = vz sin theta = 0. Since theta is a nonzero constant, the only possibility is that vz is also zero. In other words, the main object is completely at rest during this time period.
We now need to establish that the second object is also at rest, or nearly so. In our analysis we do not need to prove that each of the three velocity components were zero. We only need to show that the horizontal and vertical velocities in the videotape were zero. The reason for this is that when an object is moving in a straight line with a constant velocity, it will appear to an observer to be moving in a straight line, no matter what the observer's viewing angle is. Thus, when an object moving with a constant velocity is filmed, the camera will "see" it trace out a straight line in the picture it captures, and the object will also move in a straight line when it is seen on the TV screen. So if we trace this line back on the flat screen, we will see where the object came from; or, if it started from rest, we will see where the push that accelerated it came from.
The horizontal position of the second object is shown in figure 10 , with a close-up in figure 11 . The flash and preflash are shown in the latter figure. The horizontal position clearly did not change for several seconds before the flashes.
The vertical position probably does change slightly, though, as shown in figure 12 . If the object were an ice particle, the adjustor rocket would add to this (tiny) vertical movement when it fired. The amount added, and hence the acceleration provided, can be calculated from the difference in the slopes of the vertical position curves before and after the flash. From the data these slopes were determined to be 0.95 before the flash, and 3.61 after. This means that 100% x (3.61 - 0.95)/3.61 = 74% of the vertical motion after the flash would have been provided by the adjustor rocket. Thus about one-fourth of the upward motion of the second particle needs to be taken out before we trace its trajectory back to the rocket.
In figure 13 we see the two lines we need to compare. The main object's trajectory is simply extended straight back, since it was completely at rest. The adjustor rocket must be somewhere on this line. The second object's added velocity is determined by choosing a point on the trajectory after the flash. We then draw a right triangle connecting the two points with horizontal and vertical legs. Since all of the horizontal motion and three-fourths of the vertical motion would have been added by the adjustor rocket, we draw a line from three-fourths of the way up the vertical leg back through the position at the moment of the flash. The rocket must be located somewhere on this line.
Obviously, the two lines diverge--there is no way that they will ever meet at one point. If they were ice particles accelerated by the one possible vernier rocket, the two lines must meet at one point. This proves that the two objects were not ice particles accelerated by the vernier adjustor rocket.
We can extend our discussion to include the fast and slow objects on the far right in figure 13, although the case isn't as strong, since they were both moving at the time of the main flash. If we assume that these two "ice particles" were so strongly blown by the adjustor rocket that their final trajectories coincide with the directions they were blown in, then we can draw lines straight back from their final paths, and these lines must also meet at the location of the adjustor rocket. The lines obviously diverge much more than the first two did; but our argument is weaker because of our assumption about the strength of the rocket exhaust.
THIRD PROOF THAT THE MAIN OBJECT WAS NOT AN ICE PARTICLE
In Appendix I, we see that the actual terminal speed of the "ice particle" would have been 5.5 ± 0.7 ft/sec, and that it would have been 77.7 ± 5.3 feet from the camera when it crossed the horizontal center of the screen. In Appendix B, I also show that an ice particle would have to reach a terminal velocity equal to 98% of the exhaust velocity of the vernier rocket. This velocity is about 8800 feet per second along the central axis of the exhaust. Since vy and vz for the object are 3.0 ± 0.5 and 4.1 ± 0.5 feet per second, respectively (see Appendix I), the object is at a 53.6 degree ± 7.8 degree angle in the y-z plane with this central axis. Thus, the maximum angle in the y-z plane between the object's velocity vector and the central axis of the vernier's exhaust is nearly just over 61 degrees. Figure 14 shows a velocity profile calculated for one of the main adjustor rockets. This figure was taken from a paper on plume impingement modeling delivered in October, 1990, by Don J. Pearson, either at Rockwell International or at Johnson Space Center in Houston (the paper was given to me by James Oberg). Along the central axis the exhaust velocity is 12.165 ft/sec. While at about 61 degrees it is not quite down to 11,800 ft/sec--about 96% of the velocity along the central axis. In other words, there is very little drop-off in speed as the gas expands away from the central axis. This makes sense, since the expansion is into a vacuum, and the gas cannot lose energy by colliding with atmospheric molecules.
If we assume that the vernier rocket plumes behave in a similar fashion, then the vernier's exhaust velocity at the location of the alleged ice particle is about 96% of the 8800 ft/sec along the central axis, or about 8450 ft/sec. So the ice particle should have a terminal velocity of 0.98 x 0.96 x 8800 ft/sec, or about 8300 ft/sec. Quite obviously, the 5.5 ft/sec calculated above is orders of magnitude too small, and so we must conclude for the third time that the object in the videotape could not have been an ice particle near the Shuttle.
FOURTH PROOF THAT THE MAIN OBJECT WAS NOT AN ICE PARTICLE
The fourth proof is quite brief, and much simpler than the other three. It is also a variation on the corollary given for the first proof. Recall that the main object was at rest for about half a second during the period of the main flash, and then accelerated sharply back up to the right. The time interval from the beginning of the main flash until the main object began to accelerate was about half a second. Presumably this was the time the rocket exhaust was moving through the vacuum up to the "ice particle." In Appendix I, we see that the object would have been 64.0 ± 4.3 feet from the vernier rocket--roughly 65 feet. Thus, the speed of the rocket exhaust would have been approximately v exhaust = 65 feet/0.5 seconds = 130 feet/second. This is also orders of magnitude smaller than the 8300 feet/second needed, and is the fourth proof that the main object could not have been an ice particle.
FIFTH PROOF THAT THE MAIN OBJECT WAS NOT AN ICE PARTICLE
Another and perhaps better way to locate the alleged ice particle would be the following. We already have seen in Appendix I that the object must be located between the camera and the horizon along a line from the camera through the object as seen on the screen. I have also shown above that the "ice particle" would have to reach a terminal velocity of about 8300 ft/sec. We can calculate where this would be by forming a simple ratio, using values computed in Appendix I:
(8300 ft/sec)/(5.5 ft/sec) = distance/77.7 ft.,
where 77.7 feet is the distance to the object as it passes the horizontal center of the picture. Thus the distance is 117,300 feet, or about 22.2 miles. The situation is illustrated in Figure 15 . The view is from the top, and the Shuttle's nose is pointing toward the top of the page. (The circle indicating the Shuttle is much too large. On this scale the Shuttle would be a dot about 0.01 of an inch in diameter. Similarly, even if the ice particle were as large as a foot in diameter, it would be a dot about 0.0001 inch wide.)
Two problems with the ice particle interpretation immediately surface. First, a (large) particle one foot wide would subtend an angle of less than 0.001 degrees. This is more than an order of magnitude smaller than the limit of resolution of the human eye--the particle would be a point source of reflected light. It is difficult for me to accept the possibility that it would be visible at that distance. And how could the ice particle have drifted that far from the Shuttle?
The second problem is much more serious. Recall that we know the direction the particle moves after the flash. Thus we only need to trace back along this line to locate the necessary position for the attitude adjustor rocket to accelerate the particle in this direction. From the diagram it is clear that the rocket would have to be located nearly fifteen miles below the Shuttle. This is clearly unacceptable, and is yet another proof that the object was not an ice particle.
SOME CONSIDERATIONS ABOUT THE FASTER OBJECT ON THE
FAR RIGHT OF THE VIDEOTAPE
I also studied the faster object located on the far right side of the videotape. Since it does not stop before or during the flash, its motion requires a more complicated analysis than that used on the main object. In addition, it was moving more slowly than the main object, and so the data are noisier. These two considerations make it more difficult to calculate the expected terminal velocity of the object. But it is enlightening nonetheless to consider one peculiarity about the fast object on the right.
I took numerical derivatives of the data for both the horizontal and vertical positions, with the same intervals as for the main object. Since this object did not stop during the flash, I used the same method from the beginning to the end of the data, from the initial constant velocity through the acceleration period to the final constant terminal velocity. (Once again, if we assume that the object was an ice particle, it must have had constant initial and final velocities.) This process would smear out of the acceleration period somewhat; but since the same method was used for both the horizontal and vertical positions the calculated velocities can be compared and analyzed. The horizontal and vertical velocity curves are shown in figure 16 . The accelerated parts of the curves show that the fast object behaved in a very strange fashion. It actually began decelerating in the horizontal direction about two-tenths of a second before it started accelerating upward. It is very difficult to understand how an ice particle could do this. It is similar to what a person driving a car would do when he makes a right hand turn. The individual would first put on the brakes, slowing down in the direction he is going, and then turn right. But an ice particle, unlike the car, would have to respond immediately in both directions when it is hit by a rocket exhaust. It simply cannot respond to part of the exhaust by slowing down in one direction, then respond to the rest by accelerating upward.
CONCLUSIONS AND RAMIFICATIONS
I realize that I have spent a great deal of time proving that the main object in the videotape was not a ice particle (perhaps some would think an excessive amount of time). But I think that it is absolutely necessary that I do so. As I showed above, there are only two possible explanations--that the objects were ice particles near the Shuttle, or that they were spacecraft maneuvering out in space away from the Shuttle. The ice particle theory must be shown to be completely and thoroughly out of the question, because the ramifications are truly extraordinary if the objects really were spacecraft.
First, let us examine the possible accelerations involved. I have not been able to determine from the tape just how far away from the Shuttle the main object was. Since the shuttle was about 355 miles above the Earth when the film was taken, the horizon would be slightly more than 1700 miles away. Obviously the craft was somewhere between the Shuttle and this distance. As shown in Appendix I, we can calculate the terminal velocity of the craft if its distance from the Shuttle is known. We can then make an approximation of its acceleration at this distance by using figure H4 from Appendix H to find a Av/At for the rising part of the curve. I chose At to be one second, which means that Av was nearly 0.9 of the terminal velocity. The results of these calculations for various distances are given in the following table. The accelerations are given in g's and the final velocities in miles per hour. See chart.
Except for the one-mile distance, these numbers are far beyond the capability of any known earthly craft. Even if the ship were as close as 10 miles, the 100 g acceleration would absolutely flatten a human pilot. If it was at the horizon, it was behaving more like Star Trek than Star Wars.
And what were the two streaks that passed through the regions vacated by the main object and two of the other objects on the far right? I admit that I am speculating; but one has to at least wonder whether they were some kind of missiles that were fired at the space craft, and that several of the craft changed directions to avoid being hit. Firing missiles is obviously a hostile act with frightening implications. It implies that whoever fired the missiles considered the craft to be a threat, that they had weapons systems that they felt would be capable of hitting the craft, and that spotting the craft was no surprise.
Let me speculate further. It would seem to me that firing missiles at objects only a mile away from the Shuttle would be very dangerous. If the streaks really were missiles, then I would suspect that the spacecraft were at least ten miles away from the Shuttle, and probably a lot farther. This means that they were accelerating in a manner that we would normally attribute to extraterrestrial craft, and that would be fatal for any human pilot on the Earth.
Another possible interpretation has been suggested by Richard Hoagland. He speculates that the craft were dummy targets put into space by our militar
Source:http://www.nicap.org/muj_kasher_sts48.htm (http://www.nicap.org/muj_kasher_sts48.htm)
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it" -- Upton Sinclair
::)
Quote from: zorgon on May 29, 2015, 08:05:44 PM
....
Sprites and Elves have existed forever. They too are bright have color and are a site to witness but very few people ever see those either because they are ABOVE the storm. Seriously Jim Your desperation is getting downright ludicrous
Sprites/elves weren't noticed before because they are too brief to register on the human eye, except as a flicker. And if you haven't been living in a sack all your life you'd realize there are plenty of places people can observe the phenomenon with proper instrumentation, even above clouds -- from in the hills above Denver, looking east for example.
Lastly, if you say that dot is 'over the horizon', you have no idea WHAT the cloud cover there is, the clouds in view on the TV screen are hundreds of miles from the more distant location you propose, your depth perception is delusional.
How far away IS the horizon -- afraid to do math?
" It's worth noting that other NASA astronauts, including Gordon Cooper and Edgar Mitchell, are convinced Earth has been visited by beings from another world."
It's worth noting Mitchell and Cooper stated they were aware of NO astronaut spaceflight encounters with UFOs, and Musgrave agrees. I think we can trust the real space travelers on this, and not waste anymore mass postings.
Quote from: JimO on May 29, 2015, 06:29:56 PM
Quote....
Because I have never seen a case of something that looks like a small, bright, out of focus object appearing slightly change the shape of its border and to change its perspective while apparently moving away from the camera.
...
Follow that line of reasoning. How far away would the object have to be to go 'over the horizon' from the shuttle?
What's the connection between what I wrote and that? I never said any thing about the object "going over the horizon".
QuoteYou can see where this is leading.
I can, you implying things I didn't say.
QuoteWhere are the eyewitness accounts from across a thousand miles of the ground, of thousands of people seeing a blazing light overhead?
Are the clouds under direct sunlight or are they on the night side of Earth? If they are on the night side, how can we see them so well in the video?
PS: I am trying to find more information about that video and about the camera, maybe you have that information closer at hand and can provide it? Thanks in advance in case you do. :)
Quote from: ArMaP on May 29, 2015, 11:56:31 PM
PS: I am trying to find more information about that video and about the camera, maybe you have that information closer at hand and can provide it? Thanks in advance in case you do. :)
Highly unlikely that Jim will provide this ;)
Quote from: zorgon on May 30, 2015, 12:02:02 AM
Highly unlikely that Jim will provide this ;)
That's the problem, people like Jim that don't provide that type of information when they have it and people like Martyn Stubs that for some reason doesn't provide better copies of his videos. ::)
How do I get permission to post attachments?
Quote from: ArMaP on May 29, 2015, 11:56:31 PM
....
PS: I am trying to find more information about that video and about the camera, maybe you have that information closer at hand and can provide it? Thanks in advance in case you do. :)
The Mission Control operational spec handbook section has been on my website for several years....
http://www.jamesoberg.com/INCO-CHB-CCTV1.PDF
http://www.jamesoberg.com/INCO-CHB-CCTV2.PDF
Zorgon, you're welcome to look at it too.
Another useful familiarization guide is the 'Rendezvous and Proximity Crew Flight Procedures Handbook', 1988 marked-up edition, which discusses operational features of thruster plumes and the TV views.
Handbook, table of contents
http://www.jamesoberg.com/Rendezvous_and_Proximity_Operations_Handbook-Part_1.pdf
[3-20] shape of thruster plumes
section 3.3.5, closed circuit television
3.8.1, RCS cross-coupling [3-107] rcs induced rates
http://www.jamesoberg.com/Rendezvous_and_Proximity_Operations_Handbook-Part_3.pdf
Quote from: JimO on May 30, 2015, 04:01:43 AM
Zorgon, you're welcome to look at it too.
Thanks but it is still sidestepping the question :P
Quote from: JimO on May 29, 2015, 11:24:03 PM
I think we can trust the real space travelers on this, and not waste anymore mass postings.
Says who? you? ::)
Thank you for your recommendation :D but you can keep it for yourself. :)
Quote"The eye sees only what the mind is prepared to comprehend."
Robertson Davies, Tempest-Tost
Quote from: zorgon on May 30, 2015, 05:02:24 AM
Thanks but it is still sidestepping the question :P
How can I post attachments?
Please repeat the question.
Care to respond to my question about where the sun is in the sts-80 video of interest?
Quote from: RUSSO on May 30, 2015, 05:48:37 AM
Says who? you? ::)
Well, if somebody says astronauts have reported actually seeing UFOs in space, I'd like to see some checkable evidence for it and not a million-times-mindless-re-echo on the Internet.
Quote from: zorgon on May 28, 2015, 07:30:19 PM
... Your 'space dandruff' just doesn't cut it on the one than moves over the horizon.
....
But then you would have to explain how that space debris (or even 'space dandruff' ) managed to move into position, STOP and then maintain that position as the earth rotated until it was over the horizon.
...
Just address the SPECIFIC question or move on
How far away would something 'over the horizon' be? Serious question because the preposition seems ambiguous -- is the object ABOVE the horizon as seen from the shuttle, or has it gone over the horizon and set behind it, as seen from the shuttle?
I don't see any earth rotation in the video, are you misinterpreting shuttle eastward motion as earth surface motion?
ARMAP, what other TV specs were you looking for?
Quote from: JimO on May 30, 2015, 05:52:34 AM
Well, if somebody says astronauts have reported actually seeing UFOs in space, I'd like to see some checkable evidence for it and not a million-times-mindless-re-echo on the Internet.
So you can come with your self judge veredicts from echoes of your own creations? :D
Why would I bother?
After all, are not every report on UFOs misidentifications of usual or unusual natural phenomena or then witnesses aren't telling the truth in those events where observation conditions exclude misidentification? Anyways, if they really exist, they sure would land in front of the white house, "take me to your leader", let's hold a press conference to the people of the world. right? ::)
Quote from: JimO on May 29, 2015, 06:29:56 PM
You can see where this is leading. Where are the eyewitness accounts from across a thousand miles of the ground, of thousands of people seeing a blazing light overhead?
The object was above storm clouds from a massive spectacular electrical storm. The clouds will likely have been too dense for the object to be visible. It may also not have been over a populated part of the globe.
I agree with ArMaP on this one. It is not an ice particle and is nowhere near the shuttle. That is why the camera operator had a look closer. That is obvious.
Quote from: JimO on May 30, 2015, 03:48:22 AM
How do I get permission to post attachments?
Greetings:
How may we be of assistance?
Quote from: thorfourwinds on May 30, 2015, 02:45:54 PM
Greetings:
How may we be of assistance?
I have image files at home such as
G:\temp space u pix\tv-response-0.jpg
that I want to post, I don't see the precise commands,
sorry.
One needs to upload the .jpgs to PhotoBucket (or similar) and drop the url between these:
[img ]http://place your URL here[/img ] AND DELETE THE SPACES IN THE BRACKETS
(The Mona Lisa pic in the toolbar generates the HTML)
You have great stuff, but not everything can be categorized as space debris. ;D
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Bluebird/lg50aa500a.gif)
tfw
Peace Love Light
Liberty & Equality or Revolution
Hec'el oinipikte (that we shall live)
Quote from: JimO on May 29, 2015, 11:17:56 PM
Lastly, if you say that dot is 'over the horizon', you have no idea WHAT the cloud cover there is, the clouds in view on the TV screen are hundreds of miles from the more distant location you propose, your depth perception is delusional.
The POINT is that the object in question REMAINED STATIONARY over the storm as the shuttle moved in orbit away from that point
the POINT is that the NASA operator zoomed back in on that stationary object BEFORE it was out of range "over the horizon" from our point of view
Quite frankly you are an intelligent person. or so I had thought. You KNOW perfectly well what we are talking about
People on the ground are irrelevant to this because for all we know SOMEONE did see it and likely its reported in some UFO site somewhere
I know you have an agenda to push the ice particles Does that make you a 'paid shill" Well you make a living DEBUNKING every chance you get You get on TV every time someone needs the Oberg Debunker and I am SURE you do not do that for FREE
So "if the shoe fits" that is what we call a 'paid schill" :P
But you should do an audience review and see how many people are laughing at the same old story
It is obvious that you are stuck on your opinion.
It is obvious that you love to argue
It is also obvious that we disagree with your assessment
So I will now lock this thread to remove all the offending personal attacks I think everyone has had their say and vented
Quote from: JimO on May 30, 2015, 06:18:23 AM
ARMAP, what other TV specs were you looking for?
Thanks for those links, but I was looking for the specs for the camera that made that specific video, as I have seen some references to camera(s) with a low light level mode, so I would like to know if that specific camera was one of those and if it was using that mode or not.
If what we see is the Earth's night-side then I suppose it was on low light level mode, as we are able to see the clouds without any problem and the Earth doesn't look under direct sunlight, but as I don't know the time when that video was made (and the only thing I could find was that, apparently, that video was made on day 13 of the mission) I cannot be sure.
I am unlocking this thread.
As far as I can tell all personal attack posts have been removed. If any were missed let me know
Let's play nice.... If we all agreed on everything it would be very boring here :P
I understand it can be frustrating, and yes for me too :P but that is why we have PM's :D
Quote from: JimO on May 29, 2015, 11:24:03 PM
It's worth noting Mitchell and Cooper stated they were aware of NO astronaut spaceflight encounters with UFOs, and Musgrave agrees. I think we can trust the real space travelers on this, and not waste anymore mass postings.
It is also worth noting that they made SPECIFIC points of saying not during their NASA missions :P something to do with not wishing to lose their pensions I would suspect :P
Quote from: ArMaP on May 30, 2015, 12:39:07 AM
That's the problem, people like Jim that don't provide that type of information when they have it and people like Martyn Stubs that for some reason doesn't provide better copies of his videos. ::)
Well Jim has always claimed that he knows where to find the original NASA videos with the time stamps on them. But he will never volunteer to link us to them. Last time he said we need to provide an exact time... but he knows that without having the original tapes that is impossible. All we can do is guess
Martyn's copies are intercepted transmissions using a large satellite TV receiver at a TV station. The videos he has on his channel are the best he has. Where would he get "better copies" if we can't get the NASA original? Had he not intercepted these, we would NEVER have seen them and NASA would have been happy
Though Jim would need to get a real job :P
As it was there was a big court battle over ownership of those intercepted signals... I have that posted somewhere but that was ages ago
So round and round we go. And Jim will never admit that the ONE that stays over the storm as the shuttle moves away CANNOT BY ANY CONCEIVABLE MEANS be a small particle near the shuttle
It is time to contact Story Musgrave and get a direst reply to that ONE and ONLY object.
Quote from: JimO on May 30, 2015, 03:48:22 AM
How do I get permission to post attachments?
Attachments are disabled here as a) they draw too much on the database and lock the forum and b) are too easy for someone to plant a malicious program.
If it is an image you can upload a copy to to YOUR own website and simply post a link here using the [img ][/img ] tags without that extra space or click on the picture fram icon and paste the url
If it is a file you can a) post it on your site and link the url or b)send it to me via email and I can post it
Quote from: JimO on May 30, 2015, 05:49:21 AM
How can I post attachments?
See last post :P
QuotePlease repeat the question.
See previous to last post :P
QuoteCare to respond to my question about where the sun is in the sts-80 video of interest?
The position of the Sun is IRRELEVANT to the actions of the ONE object that moves over the storm, stops and holds position as the shuttle moves away and the NASA cameraman zooms in on it before it is out of range.
THAT is the ONLY object we care about
All the rest of the stuff your presenting does NOT address this object
Quote from: zorgon on June 02, 2015, 04:51:33 AM
It is also worth noting that they made SPECIFIC points of saying not during their NASA missions :P something to do with not wishing to lose their pensions I would suspect :P
OK, once you posit that Mitchell and Cooper are actively lying about their space experiences, you've cut the cord to eyewitness reality checking and are free to believe any imaginary factoid your heart desires. But can you produce a single case of a NASA person ever losing their pension, or any other retribution, for talking about UFOs?
Quote from: zorgon on June 02, 2015, 05:06:16 AM
.....
The position of the Sun is IRRELEVANT to the actions of the ONE object that moves over the storm, stops and holds position as the shuttle moves away and the NASA cameraman zooms in on it before it is out of range.
THAT is the ONLY object we care about
Remarkable how pushy you get about context features of the event that you declare off limits to discussion. How are we going to determine the source of illumination of the object in question if we don't know where it is relative to the sunlit and shadowed zones in front of the camera?
Now, you say 'out of range'. Put a number on that distance -- 10 miles, 100, 1000, or more? Create a hypothetical scenario that we can test.
Quote from: JimO on June 02, 2015, 05:21:48 AM
OK, once you posit that Mitchell and Cooper are actively lying about their space experiences, you've cut the cord to eyewitness reality checking and are free to believe any imaginary factoid your heart desires. But can you produce a single case of a NASA person ever losing their pension, or any other retribution, for talking about UFOs?
I do not know if they are lying I just know when Ed sent me the autographed photo... during our chat he indicated as much. No I cannot quote him
I do not know how many NASA people have lost their pension I only know one that actually claims that Clark C. McClelland.. and before you say he is a loon, remember he makes similar claims to having worked at NASA as you do and you BOTH have a picture of yourselves sitting in that shuttle control seat which is a public display at JSC that anyone can get a picture inside :P
I DO know that way to many NASA scientists are dying of mysterious deaths recently. Another one just recently that I got from Dr Joe Resnick And Joe was a true NASA contractor and hold severl top secret patents
Clark C. McClelland
(http://i1.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article5417423.ece/ALTERNATES/s1227b/clark-in-the-shuttle.jpg)
Quote from: JimO on June 02, 2015, 05:26:51 AM
Now, you say 'out of range'.
yes Everyone else here has no trouble undersatnding what I mean. :P The object in question is obviously stationary over the are where it stopped and will soon be out of range of the camera as the earth rotates under the shuttle (or the shuttle moves along in orbit, and the object in its stationary position will soon be over the horizon
We do not need an hypothetical example, we do not need position of the sune nor estimated distance.
We can clearly OBSERVE where that object is LOL
No amount of word games or strawmen will change that
Slightly off topic regarding that particular object but as you mention it.
Quote from: JimO on May 29, 2015, 11:24:03 PM
It's worth noting Mitchell and Cooper stated they were aware of NO astronaut spaceflight encounters with UFOs, and Musgrave agrees. I think we can trust the real space travelers on this, and not waste anymore mass postings.
QuoteOK, once you posit that Mitchell and Cooper are actively lying about their space experiences, you've cut the cord to eyewitness reality checking and are free to believe any imaginary factoid your heart desires. But can you produce a single case of a NASA person ever losing their pension, or any other retribution, for talking about UFOs?
No. That does not make them reliable witnesses or liars though and is a bit of a straw man surely.
Cooper? Have you decided Cooper is a reliable witness now? Or will he say anything for money? It is also worth noting that he claimed to be present when a saucer was filmed landing, and also, along with a whole squadron, saw hundreds of UFOs at high altitude in 1951?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvPR8T1o3Dc
Ed Mitchell also seems to be very interested in UFOs and is adamant they are important based on information given to him by personnel he knows.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXRk1kr7dkQ
Do we think these people are liars? If so why should we believe Mitchell went to the Moon? Or believe either of them when they say they saw nothing in space? If they are not liars then what is God's name is going on? A deception operation?
Jim, I am inclined to agree with you that the majority of space material videos doing the rounds on YouTube are nothing to do with aliens. I am disinclined to agree that there is nothing significant in the videos that NASA do not fully understand, especially regarding plasma phenomena. I also believe that NORAD have monitored objects in orbit that enter the atmosphere, apparently under intelligent control, that are not ours - whatever they might be. I do not believe everything that current or former NASA employees say is gospel, as they are too easy to silence on "National Security" grounds (especially about the Apollo era but that is for another thread).
Did Mitchell and Cooper, after being psychologically assessed for their integrity by the armed forces and NASA, turn into liars or were they selected precisely for their ability to convincingly lie about Apollo and Gemini?
And can we cut the talk about shills even if you are the King here Zorgon? :P
Mitchell is not a liar and lots of personnel have told him we are not alone and case closed?
Quote from: ArMaP on May 30, 2015, 08:49:49 PM
Thanks for those links, but I was looking for the specs for the camera that made that specific video, as I have seen some references to camera(s) with a low light level mode, so I would like to know if that specific camera was one of those and if it was using that mode or not.
The Shuttle was fitted out to film near UV. That is what I read somewhere.
Is that true in this case Jim? If so then the object above the storm is a plasma in my opinion.
Col.John Alexander at the last UFO Area 51 talk at the Atomic Museum here in Vegas made a comment
"BTW we track them by satellite" referring to non ice particle UFO's :P
I suppose he to is just making it up :P
Quote from: JimO on June 02, 2015, 05:21:48 AM
But can you produce a single case of a NASA person ever losing their pension, or any other retribution, for talking about UFOs?
The Powers That Be are not concerned with taking the pension of Astronauts talking about UFOs. The PTB demonstrated the consequences of not being a team player up front and early with Gus Grissom.
Quote from: SerpUkhovian on June 02, 2015, 11:32:36 AM
The Powers That Be are not concerned with taking the pension of Astronauts talking about UFOs. The PTB demonstrated the consequences of not being a team player up front and early with Gus Grissom.
Just my personal opinion, but anybody who uses a brave man's coffin as a soapbox for their malevolent ravings is in my view acting in a reprehensible, loathsome manner. Just saying.
Quote from: Pimander on June 02, 2015, 09:43:31 AM
....
Cooper? Have you decided Cooper is a reliable witness now? Or will he say anything for money? It is also worth noting that he claimed to be present when a saucer was filmed landing, and also, along with a whole squadron, saw hundreds of UFOs at high altitude in 1951?
Cooper's testimony has weight when it's consistent with other witnesses and records, but is a lot harder to take seriously when every other witness and record runs contrary.
The Edwards case is a good example.
James McDonald investigated the Edwards story for his testimony to Congress in 1968, and found no landing gear, no landing, and no Cooper. His prepared testimony is here
http://www.ufoevidence.org/Newsite/Files/MacDonaldSubmissionUFOSymposium.pdf
and the report is "Case 41" on page 44. McDonald refers to interviewing "a third person who states that he inspected the prints in company with the two Askania operators and darkroom personnel" and some writers have interpreted this to be Cooper in disguise – but cameraman Bittick [who was at that review] is clear he didn't even know Cooper was on base, and in 1967-8 there was no chance McDonald was ever going to be allowed to interview a Mercury astronaut about some pre-NASA UFO story.
UFO investigator Brad Sparks interviewed witnesses and demolished Cooper's 'landing' claim, and his claimed connection with the Edwards case at all. NICAP report, 2009:
http://www.nicap.org/reports/570502edwardsafb_sparksaldrich.htm
Results of the SOLE investigation of the Germany story are similar. A dozen detailed responses from his fellow pilots, the unit's declassified records, the local Munich newspaper files and back issues of local UFO newsletters, Cooper's own family -- NOT a single other account corroborative of his story. Add in his wild "I was there" tales of space meteor storms and snapping views of Area-51 from Gemini-5 and seeing his own photos where you could read license plates, and you've got a guy who late in life would say anything to please his UFO-loving audiences, the last public groups interested in hosting him.
Quote from: JimO on June 02, 2015, 02:21:36 PM
Cooper's testimony has weight when it's consistent with other witnesses and records, but is a lot harder to take seriously when every other witness and record runs contrary.
Greetings Jim:
Again, you use your 'remarkable' ability with the written word to continue to dance around the issue of whether or not you think Cooper is a liar, among other things.
QuoteOK, once you posit that Mitchell and Cooper are actively lying about their space experiences, you've cut the cord to eyewitness reality checking and are free to believe any imaginary factoid your heart desires.
Please stop with the continued obfuscations and simply answer the questions put forth, as we are asking fairly simple, straight-forward questions that you refuse to answer directly.
To make it really easy for you, here is just one:
Is Cooper lying or not, in your opinion?
YES or
NOThanking you in advance for your time and consideration.
With great respect,
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Bluebird/lg50aa500a.gif)
tfw
Peace Love Light
Liberty & Equality or RevolutionHec'el oinipikte (that we shall live)
I personally would prefer to steer the conservation back to the STS- 80 UFO's in question... And would also like to know about the light spectrum the images were captured in.
I believe Cooper and some others to have an agenda of their own, but I'd rather that subject not distract from the objective.
Quote from: Sinny on June 02, 2015, 04:21:19 PM
I personally would prefer to steer the conservation back to the STS- 80 UFO's in question... And would also like to know about the light spectrum the images were captured in.
There were optional UV cameras on specific missions, but this is the spectrum response of the standard payload bay cameras during the years of interest.
(http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm167/James_Oberg/tv-response-1_zpsylsotcgr.jpg)
(http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm167/James_Oberg/tv-response-0_zps0xloaaso.jpg)
For comparison, here's the transmissivity of the crew cabin windows:
(http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm167/James_Oberg/window-range01_zpso2uuxtke.jpg)
The point I was trying to make about illumination is shown in this drawing. A typical 'space UFO' video sequence has this relative sun/shuttle/earth arrangement, with dots seen against receding horizon and some 'appearing' suddenly as they drift out of shuttle shadow.
(http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm167/James_Oberg/shuttle-shadow_zpsdrc8ri90.jpg)
The whole UFO scene has always had this problem.
People say if it is TRUE why do astronauts and pilots not report them
When a pilot or astronaut DOES step up and speak, they are treated like a lunatic
The rest see this treatment and are more resloved NOT to speak.
In the early days of UFOlogy the Air Force and the MIB's would literally come to your house to explain it to you. This was enough to scare the story out of most people
Back in those days people were killed or made to vanish for speaking up.
THIS is the climate we are dealing with.
Now in modern times the charlatans and hoaxers have taken over from the MIB goons but the effect is the same. Very few people especially professionals will rick their career by speaking plainly, never mind whether or not they took any oath of silence
Most that do want to speak up do so as they get closer to death... but the problem there is that when you get close to that your memory is failing and you may not have all your faculties. So most 'death bed confessions' are easy to debunk because the story is no longer perfect
Now take John Lear for a second.... you could go over to his house at any time and sit there talking and SOMEONE would stop by to tell of an encounter. These people were pilots and military peaople the last one I was there for was a tower controller at Nellis AFB
Now these people will tell John their story in detail with sketches, dates and time... but they will NEVER go on public record.
John has about 20 4 drawer filing cabinets in the garage full of such reports. It's all old school on paper not digital THOUSANDS of reports from reliable witnesses who will not let their name be used
So Jim you can huff and you can puff but you cannot blow the house down. Your continued attempts to stear away from any real question are a joke...
The fact that NASA won't answer straight questions from the public has built a general distrust for NASA, same as the government.
There are more people than ever today that are starting to doubt the Moon Landings... why> Because NASA forgot how they did it and are making every excuse not to go back
And those Mars Colony ideas... seriously? What a joke
And it doesn't help when NASA does stuff like THIS
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Toons/NASA_Life_01.png)
Is that a JOKE at our expense? Or are they showing us the truth in plain site?
And what about this one> These are slides presented by a top NASA scientist at a science symposium. WHY are they deliberately FAKING a fossil trilobite on Mars and an artifact that looks like a car door handle?
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Toons/NASA_Fossils_02.png)
A joke? well the joke is on them. What kind of a MORON would come up with a BS presentation like that when they KNOW how the public will react?
NASA is a Dinosaur it needs to just role over and die...
Quote from: JimO on June 02, 2015, 02:09:44 PM
Just my personal opinion, but anybody who uses a brave man's coffin as a soapbox for their malevolent ravings is in my view acting in a reprehensible, loathsome manner. Just saying.
So you are saying that if someone has had bad consequences happen as a result of not sticking to the official party line and has suffered personal loss, or death or has vanished under mysterious circumstances... we cannot point to that event and cry FOUL without being labeled "malevolent ,reprehensible, loathsome"?
You ask us for examples when provided you dissect those example by whatever means you can come up with
Ya know... these were meant for Horses so they wouldn't be frightened by something unusual :P
(https://shoutsfromtheabyss.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/wearing-blinders.jpg)
Quote from: zorgon on June 02, 2015, 07:28:20 PM
.....
The fact that NASA won't answer straight questions from the public has built a general distrust for NASA, same as the government.....
You're just torqued that NASA hasn't admitted you were right all the time.
The record is spotty but I've seen JSC prepare detailed responses to a long number of inquiries on apparent flight anomalies -- so what happens? The responses are usually just ignored [and not even shared], or the NASA investigators are called fools and liars by people who learned about spaceflight from the back of cereal boxes.
It surprises you that further questions in that line have low priority?
Zorgon, tell the truth -- have you EVER seen a NASA response to such questions that changed your mind about an event?
Quote from: zorgon on June 02, 2015, 07:28:20 PM
The whole UFO scene has always had this problem.
People say if it is TRUE why do astronauts and pilots not report them
When a pilot or astronaut DOES step up and speak, they are treated like a lunatic
The rest see this treatment and are more resloved NOT to speak.....
So which astronauts have been treated as lunatics for saying they encountered a UFO on a spaceflight?
So .... apparently,
Oberg believes space debris can just stop and hold it's position ?
;D
Quote from: JimO on June 03, 2015, 01:37:58 AM
So which astronauts have been treated as lunatics for saying they encountered a UFO on a spaceflight?
Which astronauts have admitted seeing a UFO that they say was not debris? :P
Story saw a snake... :P He didn't say a HOSE he said SNAKE
In 1963, Gordon Cooper was launched into space. On his final orbit, he reported seeing a glowing green object in front of his capsule in the distance moving towards his Spacecraft. The Muchea tracking station, in Australia, which Cooper reported the object to, picked up this Unidentified object on Radar travelling East to West.
So do you agree Cooper saw this? ( I haven't caught up in the thread yet)
Now Buzz told us he saw one... but then recanted . So which is it Buzz did you see it/ or not? Your debriefings say nothing to us if NASA won't release those debriefings
So he states publicly on youtube that they saw something and didn't report it for fear they may be recalled and then years later when someone quotes him on that he SUES him? Seriously? I guess he needs the money eh?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZsjmK5BFAqc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZsjmK5BFAqc
And in the one about the Monolith... He says he sees no reason to return to the moon. Seems he has no idea the value of HE3 but he sure tosses out the teaser on the Monolith
..so much for a "trusted servant of our government" :P
Maybe when they all stop playing mind games and start just being honest we MIGHT believe them. In the meantime NASA is the laughing stock of the World having to hitch a ride with Russians to get to the ISS
Makes one wonder what happened to Clark Mcclelland... I seem to recall he was stripped of his pension, or made claims to that effect...
seeker
Quote from: the seeker on June 03, 2015, 02:56:45 AM
Makes one wonder what happened to Clark McClelland... I seem to recall he was stripped of his pension, or made claims to that effect...
Well Clark fits the bill on an ex NASA non team player and having been ridiculed since :P
But what about BUZZ saying that the CHINESE will go back to the moon? :P
Well at least the Chinese know the significance of HE3 :P
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QDnFsNTkRM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QDnFsNTkRM
But then Buzz is in bed with the Chinese anyway Senior Science Ad visor of Gravwave LLC The company working on anti gravity and gravity waves with the Chinese
Go figure :P
Quote from: the seeker on June 03, 2015, 02:56:45 AM
Makes one wonder what happened to Clark Mcclelland... I seem to recall he was stripped of his pension, or made claims to that effect...
So rather than actually making an effort to find OUT, you're satisfied just 'wondering' about it?
That's a taunt, but the point is real. It is 'discoverable' whether or not McClelland had a NASA pension and then lost it. But nobody in the land of UFOria really seems to want to find out. Sad.
Quote from: zorgon on June 03, 2015, 02:53:44 AM
Which astronauts have admitted seeing a UFO that they say was not debris? :P
...
In 1963, Gordon Cooper was launched into space. On his final orbit, he reported seeing a glowing green object in front of his capsule in the distance moving towards his Spacecraft. The Muchea tracking station, in Australia, which Cooper reported the object to, picked up this Unidentified object on Radar travelling East to West.
So do you agree Cooper saw this? ....
Cooper made that claim? Nowhere I've ever found. I'll bet you can't find him making that claim either. Are you really such a gullible naïf, or do you just play one on the Internet to exasperate me??
Quote from: JimO on June 03, 2015, 03:26:20 AM
Cooper made that claim? Nowhere I've ever found. I'll bet you can't find him making that claim either. Are you really such a gullible naïf, or do you just play one on the Internet to exasperate me??
Major Gordon Cooper
One of the original Mercury Astronauts and the last American to fly in space alone. On May 15, 1963 he shot into space in a Mercury capsule for a 22 orbit journey around the world. During the final orbit, Major Gordon Cooper told the tracking station at Muchea (near Perth Australia) that he could see a glowing, greenish object ahead of him quickly approaching his capsule. The UFO was real and solid, because it was picked up by Muchea's tracking radar. Cooper's sighting was reported by the National Broadcast Company, which was covering the flight step by step; but when Cooper landed, reporters were told that they would not be allowed to question him about the UFO sighting.
http://www.syti.net/UFOSightings.html
I suppose people just make this stuff up right? Just to exasperate you?
Summary: This message was given to the U.N. by Astronaut Gordon L. Cooper, one of America's original seven Mercury Astronauts. Cooper orbited the Earth for a record 34 hour, 22 orbit flight in the spacecraft 'Faith 7', in May of 1963. He has been outspoken about the need for an open inquiry into UFOs - based on his own personal experience of sighting UFOs in space and the testimony of other Mercury, Gemini and Apollo Astronauts.
Astronaut Gordon Cooper's Message to the UN
"I believe that these extraterrestrial vehicles and their crews are visiting this planet from other planets, which are a little more technically advanced than we are on Earth. I feel that we need to have a top level, coordinated program to scientifically collect and analyze data from all over the Earth concerning any type of encounter, and to determine how best to interfere with these visitors in a friendly fashion.
We may first have to show them that we have learned how to resolve our problems by peaceful means rather than warfare, before we are accepted as fully qualified universal team members. Their acceptance will have tremendous possibilities of advancing our world in all areas. Certainly then it would seem that the U.N. has a vested interest in handling the subject quickly and properly.
I should point out that I am not an experienced UFO professional researcher - I have not as yet had the privilege of flying a UFO nor of meeting the crew of one. However, I do feel that I am somewhat qualified to discuss them, since I have been into the fringes of the vast areas of which they travel. Also, I did have occasion in 1951 to have two days of observation of many flights of them, of different sizes flying in fighter formation, generally from west to east over Europe. They were at a higher altitude than we could reach with our jet fighters....
If the U.N. agrees to pursue this project and lend the credibility to it, perhaps many more well qualified people will agree to step forth and provide help and information."
[Astronaut Gordon Cooper addressing a U.N. panel discussion on UFOs and ETs in New York, in 1985; Panel was chaired by then U.N. Secretary-General Kurt Waldheim.
The above message was given to the U.N. by Astronaut Gordon L. Cooper, one of America's original seven Mercury Astronauts. Cooper orbited the Earth for a record 34 hour, 22 orbit flight in the spacecraft 'Faith 7', in May of 1963. He has been outspoken about the need for an open inquiry into UFOs - based on his own personal experience of sighting UFOs in space and the testimony of other Mercury, Gemini and Apollo Astronauts.
Source: Nov. 1988 issue (Vol 1, No. 3) issue of UFO Universe magazine; Condor Books 351 West 54th St., New York, N.Y. 10019]
Quote from: JimO on June 03, 2015, 03:22:24 AM
That's a taunt, but the point is real. It is 'discoverable' whether or not McClelland had a NASA pension and then lost it. But nobody in the land of UFOria really seems to want to find out. Sad.
I take people on their word... I take YOU on your word
So now your saying Clark is LYING too? Seems everyone is lying but you Hmmm
Quote from: zorgon on June 03, 2015, 02:53:44 AM
Which astronauts have admitted seeing a UFO that they say was not debris? :P
Story saw a snake... :P He didn't say a HOSE he said SNAKE....
(http://www.jamesoberg.com/image/DSCN0101.JPG)
He saw TWO 'snakes', he loves talking about them to stretch the minds of his audiences, here's some exact quotes on his snakes
http://www.jamesoberg.com/musgrave.story_interviews.pdf
But he makes it clear it wasn't aliens:
http://www.jamesoberg.com/musgrave_ramble.pdf
In that interview, you need to watch it on youtube, Zorgon, he's talking straight to you -- on sts-80, he explains why people who think any of those pieces are 1000 miles away are mistaken. You ought to believe the on-site witness, Zorgon.
Quote from: zorgon on June 03, 2015, 03:36:11 AM
I suppose people just make this stuff up right? Just to exasperate you?
Close. They just made it up to sucker the weak-minded.
I see you admit I'd win my bet, you CAN'T find anywhere where Cooper tells this story.
Me, on the other hand, have Cooper's OWN view of that story, in a signed letter.
(http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm167/James_Oberg/coop-to-me-letter_zpsz9zqoszw.jpg)
Greetings:
Jim, what a great place to answer my ONE question, please.
Is Cooper lying or not? (http://www.thelivingmoon.com/forum/index.php?topic=8254.msg114562#msg114562)
Thanking you in advance for your attention, participation and forthcoming honest answer: YES or NO.
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Bluebird/lg50aa500a.gif)
tfw
Peace Love Light
Liberty & Equality or Revolution
Hec'el oinipikte (that we shall live)
Quote from: zorgon on June 03, 2015, 03:49:42 AM
I take people on their word... .....
I don't believe you're that foolish. But if you want to pretend you are, I'll play along.
Now, please describe your theory of the motion/range of the 'faraway dot' on the STS-80 video, which is the central issue of this thread.
How do you interpret the video's view of the dot [and why are you correct and Musgrave in error?]?
Quote from: JimO on June 03, 2015, 03:54:05 AM
He saw TWO 'snakes', he loves talking about them to stretch the minds of his audiences,
Yes that was my point earlier They play MIND GAMES He goes to UFO conventions to talk about his snakes because he KNOWS that UFO people will assume alien or space critter life forms.
So what are you two talking about in that picture? How to keep bamboozling the public? To what end? Who cares about stray hoses floating around that he wants to call snakes?
::)
Quotehere's some exact quotes on his snakes
Forget the dang snakes. Have him tell us about the specific object that is the focus of this thread
QuoteBut he makes it clear it wasn't aliens:
STUFF the Aliens... do you not get it yet? No one here is talking about aliens
QuoteIn that interview, you need to watch it on youtube, Zorgon, he's talking straight to you -- on sts-80, he explains why people who think any of those pieces are 1000 miles away are mistaken. You ought to believe the on-site witness, Zorgon.
No because he is not addressing the specific object You keep saying "those pieces" You are a stubborn Mule We are talking about ONE OBJECT Is this really so hard for you to grasp?
Ha I get it though... you have fun playing these games. ;) Otherwise you wouldn't waste your time
::)
Quote from: zorgon on June 03, 2015, 04:25:03 AM
....
No because he is not addressing the specific object You keep saying "those pieces" You are a stubborn Mule We are talking about ONE OBJECT Is this really so hard for you to grasp?
It would help us grasp it if you would provide a screen grab of the video with that object circled, and then describe how far away you think it is.
QuoteHa I get it though... you have fun playing these games. ;) Otherwise you wouldn't waste your time
I do get a kick watching you beclown yourself over hoaxes such as the Mercury-9 UFO.
My research often assesses how one person's narratives is consistent or inconsistent with other narratives and with records and with known practices/limitations on tools involved. I cannot judge a person's internal motivations or beliefs. Patterns of inconsistency can be documented, but it's a step too far to generalize to patterns of deliberate deception, which I've rarely encountered.
Gordon Cooper acted like he wanted to give his audiences a good show, and his stories evolved to match the audiences he specialized in. His stories grew more and more 'incredible' as his range of audiences dwindled to midnight radio and UFO conventions and documentaries, probably as a result of his being shunned by the aerospace community in large part for costing people who trusted his business advice millions of dollars in lost investments.
Quote from: easynow on June 03, 2015, 02:48:03 AM
So .... apparently,
Oberg believes space debris can just stop and hold it's position ?
;D
:P
Right Gordon Story Buzz all they are doing is putting on a show LOL No reality there at all so no credibility
They say they couldn't see ANY stars while on the moon yet the astronauts on ISS say the stars are awesome... The same sun is there in space as it is on the moon
So someone is making up stories :P
No I will NOT circle the object in question. You know dam well which one we are talking about and if you don't by now you really are less intelligent than I gave you credit for.
We know you will NEVER address the issue :P
OH and you asked about anyone seeing the palsma critters from the ground? LOL Hundreds of people see them all the time using night vision googles. Those people mostly call them Alien space ships or reverse engineered space ships, but they SEE THEM and they record them but people like YOU simply brush them off a nut cases
Jocylyn says: (on facebook today) Obviously you're not aware they are already flying these back-engineered ET craft. We see them often with night vision goggles.
John took me up the hill one night at the old mine... handed me his generation 3 night goggles... We could see the airplanes clearly with their blinking lights... we could see the satellites in orbit... but we could also see the CRITTERS and no not bats birds or bugs :P
I do not care if you believe me I have seen them myself and can do so on any clear night in the mountains. But you don't believe it. You say "if they were there would not thousands of people see them?" No not thousands because they are not looking :P but hundreds ARE and DO
You ask us to show evidence of what astronauts say... we do and you say it is lies or 'stories' because they want to put on a good show.
So NOTHING we will ever present will satisfy you, because you already have a long prepared pat debunk that fits your belief system.
IF there is in fact a cover up as we believe, then naturally they wouldn't be allowed to discuss it :P DOH!!! So your srawman arguements just don't work
Quote from: JimO on June 03, 2015, 04:10:15 AM
How do you interpret the video's view of the dot [and why are you correct and Musgrave in error?]?
Where is Musgraves description of the object in question? Show me that and I will once again give my description
All I read was a general description of ice particles near the shuttle as being normal I must have missed him talk about that specific one that stops
Quote from: easynow on June 03, 2015, 02:48:03 AM
So .... apparently,
Oberg believes space debris can just stop and hold it's position ?
Yes he does. He will come up with all kinds of weird explanations how an ice particle can do that despite what they teach in schools about the behaviour of objects in space not under their own propulsion
I recall all the attempts at describing the motions on STS 75 Seem to recall someone suggested gravity causing the particles to have curved trajectories
So yes
Jim believes a particle of ice or debris can move in one direction.. slow down and come to a full stop and then maintain that position relative to the earth below
Now he wants us to circle the object in question on the video. I do not have a tool that can do that but I seem to recall someone did on the net Maybe we can find that because he is obviously confused about which one we are discussing
Even though the NASA camera operrator had no difficulty finding it
::)
The object is very apparent in the video, so there's no need to circle anything.
The splitting hairs game is an old debunker trick.
Simple as that ;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vImagYkv6BM
And yeah the gravity explantion for the STS-75 object tracking, failed,
because some were going in all different directions.
:D
Just for a different perspective here's the segment from LC's video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-RPWhigpQg) ...
STS-80 objects
Link - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRtn-Pjvd3o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRtn-Pjvd3o
I think that clip is sped-up/faster for perspective reasons, but doing so gives a better look at the objects near the horizon and the strange activity.
:o
Quote from: zorgon on June 03, 2015, 03:49:42 AM
I take people on their word... I take YOU on your word
So now your saying Clark is LYING too? Seems everyone is lying but you Hmmm
How would YOU interpret this news item?
(http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/fv5415d901.jpg)
Quote from: JimO on June 03, 2015, 03:57:22 AM
Zorgon on 'Cooper Mercury-9 UFO' fairy tale: "I suppose people just make this stuff up right?"
Close. They just made it up to sucker the weak-minded.
I see you admit I'd win my bet, you CAN'T find anywhere where Cooper tells this story.
Me, on the other hand, have Cooper's OWN view of that story, in a signed letter.
Don't want to talk about it? YOU offered it as 'evidence'. Man up and retract it.
Quote from: easynow on June 03, 2015, 06:01:00 AM
So .... apparently,
Oberg believes space debris can just stop and hold it's position ?
You DO realize you're seeing a 2D representation of 3D space? How did you determine these objects 'held position' when you can't measure range?
Or do you have some secret method you could share with Mission Control?
Quote from: zorgon on June 03, 2015, 06:24:29 AM
[Jim} will come up with all kinds of weird explanations how an ice particle can do that despite what they teach in schools about the behaviour of objects in space not under their own propulsion
Uh, where do they teach in school about the motion of small nearby ice particles around shuttles, under influence of local venting, differential air drag, orbital mechanics effects, particle outgassing thrust, and unknown camera angles, the stuff we dealt with in Mission Control every day? Find me a university class in that, and I'll thank you for dispelling my confusion. Otherwise, you're just making it up.
QuoteI recall all the attempts at describing the motions on STS 75 Seem to recall someone suggested gravity causing the particles to have curved trajectories
'Seem to recall' is a phrase you use a lot for 'dunno if it's true but I enjoy thinking it, but won't check." If it wasn't me, why even mention it -- if it isn't even true, maybe you ought to rein in your imagination.
QuoteSo yes, Jim believes a particle of ice or debris can move in one direction.. slow down and come to a full stop and then maintain that position relative to the earth below
You need to work on your telepathy skills, they suck. How can you measure a 'full stop' without knowing the distance rate?
QuoteNow he wants us to circle the object in question on the video. I do not have a tool that can do that but I seem to recall someone did on the net Maybe we can find that because he is obviously confused about which one we are discussing
Even though the NASA camera operrator had no difficulty finding it
How far away do you propose the object was? Third time I've asked.
Quote from: easynow on June 03, 2015, 07:04:39 AM
The object is very apparent in the video, so there's no need to circle anything.
The splitting hairs game is an old debunker trick.
Simple as that ;)
Yeah, citing evidence that isn't bogus or delusional is so much a debunker trick. I can see why you object to it and consider it cheating. Sorry, I'm not going to stop.
Quote from: easynow on June 03, 2015, 08:02:13 AM
I think that clip is sped-up/faster for perspective reasons, but doing so gives a better look at the objects near the horizon and the strange activity.
So how far away do you think they are?
Here are the more relevant entries from my 99 FAQs essay, anybody who really wants to know my assessment of the STS-80 video [instead of just throwing punches as an imaginary straw man] should read them over --
http://www.jamesoberg.com/99faq.html
13 Q: Should people be ashamed of having fallen for these misinterpretations and misrepresentations?
A: Well, at the least, they should learn to be a lot more cautious in accepting extraordinary claims, and be less trusting of advocacy TV programs that promise 'inside information' and 'top secret' revelations. But figuring out the real causes of many of these stories and videos requires obtaining contextual information that is not always easily at hand. When it is available, or when NASA does offer well-documented explanations, they are almost impossible to locate on the Internet using traditional search engines. So the lesson might be for people to make deliberate searches for contrary explanations that already exist but are ignored by the proponents.
26Q: Why do people so badly misinterpret video scenes from space missions?
A: In discussions with people who are convinced what they are seeing can only be explained as alien vehicles or 'plasma critters' or other extraordinary stimuli, it's become clear to me that they are being misled by their eye-brain interpretation algorithms that have evolved and been fine-tuned under normal earthside conditions. They make 'reasonable' assumptions about what outer space should look like, often based on Hollywood special effects. So the genuinely unearthly visual environment, as seen on REAL imagery from space, isn't what they expect, and they apply time-tested processing fine for ordinary life to extraordinary images.
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: http://www.jamesoberg.com/orbiter-vents.PDF
40 Q: If not from existing swarms of 'space junk', where does this stuff come from?
A: I think the overwhelming majority of real 'stuff' seen by astronauts or via television or film [motion and still] is derived directly from the vehicle they happen to be aboard. I call it 'dandruff' to differentiate it from 'space junk' – which I do NOT think accounts for any of these notorious sightings..
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.
41 Q: Was the space shuttle, or the Soyuz, really so rickety that pieces were always falling off? That sounds dangerous.
A: Most of the dandruff seems to consist of non-critical materials, predominantly ice flecks formed from water dumps and propellant leaks through engine valves. But once and awhile something that really might be critical – a thermal tile, or a hinge clip, or some such – does drift by. That's exactly why NASA observes such 'bogies' so carefully.
42: Q: How could this degree of dandruff be tolerated, purely from a collision safety point of view?
A: Anything solid, coming off a space vehicle, has a very low relative speed, so it wouldn't be a threat to puncture the hull. If it comes around in orbit and does make slow recontact, it would probably bounce off harmlessly.
43 Q: What directions could such stuff be seen to fly in?
A: Because of the large size of the space shuttle and its widely distributed sources of effluent or other shedding, and the location of external cameras and windows, 'dandruff' can drift across a camera's field of view in practically any and all directions. But it doesn't change the big picture that stuff visible to a shuttle camera is orbiting very close to – and hence probably originated from – the shuttle [or station] itself.
52 Q: What are typical motions of nearby objects?
A: Three major features dictate the expected motion of small, light objects near a spacecraft such as the shuttle or the space station. They are "orbital mechanics" effects [sometimes called 'astrodynamics'], differential air drag [at the altitudes typical of shuttle and station flights], and vehicle plume/outgassing events. As a result, objects can drift backwards, reverse course, zip below the vehicle and vanish ahead within minutes or an hour or two. They can abruptly change angular rate and course. They can behave in genuinely bizarre-looking motion that is truly 'unearthly' – which is only to be expected because they are NOT on Earth [or in Kansas].
65 Q: Are these the only factors that can influence relative motion in space?
A: Probably not. Small particles of ice, for example, seem to be influenced by the sublimation of water [or fuel] molecules off their sunlit sides, that over a period of several minutes can slightly bend their drifting paths. The paths of larger objects, such as a dropped tool kit or discarded spacesuit, can be affected by escape of small amounts of gas or liquids trapped inside them. Ice particles in a swarm such as from a water dump can collide, sending them in different directions, and spinning ice particles can break apart, sending fragments off in widely different directions. It is truly weird out there, even without recourse to alien visitations.
66 Q: How can different dots appear at different times in the camera view?
A: Usually there is a short period during sunrise when many nearby objects 'fade in' simultaneously, and with the Earth horizon moving through inertial space at 4 degrees per minute [one full rotation every 90 minutes], the half-degree-wide solar disc takes 7-8 seconds to fully 'rise'. This period can be followed by the random 'fade in' of singletons, presumably as they drift aimlessly out of the shuttle's shadow [the speed at which they appear depends on how fast they cross the shadow boundary]. A good circumstantial argument that this shadow zone is the cause for the 'fade ins' is that rarely if ever does a video show a 'fade OUT' – which would require a dot to return into the shuttle's shadow. Since the observed motion of most 'dandruff' shed by the shuttle was AWAY from it, this is completely consistent with the hypothesis of small shadowed objects randomly emerging into sunlight AFTER the shuttle itself has emerged from EARTH'S shadow.
70 Q: How did the years-long NASA study of lightning sprites contribute to the body of videos of 'space UFOs'?
A: Once NASA had deployed its world-circling data relay satellite system (TDRSS) after return to flight from the 'Challenger' disaster, in the late 1980s, near-continuous TV downlink became possible. Atmospheric researchers such as Dr. Otha "Skeet" Vaughan began a special study of "Mesoscale Lightning", which involved opportunistic use of exterior shuttle TV cameras transmitting images when the comm. channels were open [mostly when the crews were asleep and nothing else was happening on board]. Following each orbital sunset, one of the cameras was pointed approximately backwards down the shuttle's orbital track and aimed centered on the Earth horizon. In near-total darkness, the camera's optics automatically maximized the 'gain' – the equivalent of opening the iris to maximum. The sought-for images were to show brief very high very bright lightning pulses, the recently discovered 'sprites'. The project collected hundreds of hours of night horizon views and was very successful at seeing such phenomena. And it saw other visual apparitions as well.
74 Q: What unusual features of sunlight illumination in space contribute to artificially creating 'space UFO' videos?
A: The best example of such unearthly and unfamiliar conditions is what I call "twilight shadowing", which can make small nearby sunlit particles appear to suddenly 'appear' or 'disappear' in the camera field of view. Normally, in daylight the shuttle is bathed in direct sunlight as well as reflected sunlight from Earth's surface, which backlights the vehicle diffusely, filling in the down-sun shadows. But in the brief periods after orbital sunrise and before sunset, the shuttle is passing over a swath of the Earth that is still in darkness – and not reflecting any 'back lighting'. This is the period when people down in those regions, whose skies are still dark, can see sunlit satellites passing hundreds of miles overhead. For several minutes at the end of Each night pass, a camera aimed in accordance with the sprite search experiment will see any nearby particles suddenly 'appear' at sunrise, and more may appear as they drift randomly out of the shuttle's invisible shadow. Here's a graphic of this effect: http://www.jamesoberg.com/sts-ufo-twilight-zone.PDF
75 Q: What does this have to do with 'space shuttle UFOs".
A: The connection is striking and the implications are profound. The BEST images of the most famous 'space UFOs' were seen during these rare, brief intervals of 'twilight shadowing'. Far from being an unbelievable sequence of freak coincidences, this correlation is clearly a reflection of 'cause and effect'. It shows that the lighting conditions most suited to observing sunlit near-shuttle small objects are exactly the conditions under which "UFOs" appear.
Quote from: JimO on June 03, 2015, 12:04:46 PM
How would YOU interpret this news item?
Same way Bob Lazar was treated :P No record of his work, no one to back up he worked their especially the guy who hired him
::)
If someone doesn't want you leaking a story, they will do anything and everything to cover it up...
And if you don't believe that you really don't have a grasp on reality :P
Is Clark fibbing? Maybe maybe not Sandy Hook was a lie too :P but that news clipping and your say so doesn't cover it. Bob had a lot worse
Quote from: JimO on June 03, 2015, 01:33:30 PM
You DO realize you're seeing a 2D representation of 3D space? How did you determine these objects 'held position' when you can't measure range?
Because I can SEE that the ONE object stopped :P
Quote from: JimO on June 03, 2015, 01:47:17 PM
Uh, where do they teach in school about the motion of small nearby ice particles around shuttles, under influence of local venting, differential air drag, orbital mechanics effects, particle outgassing thrust, and unknown camera angles,
Taking notes: JIM SAYS: "Air drag in space"
Well when I was in school they taught us that things do NOT have a curved trajectory in space when given a push :P They do not waft around like they do in an atmosphere
If your going to rewrite the books then explain where this "Air drag in space comes from"
Besides we already did STS 75 :P
Quote'Seem to recall' is a phrase you use a lot for 'dunno if it's true but I enjoy thinking it, but won't check."If it wasn't me, why even mention it -- if it isn't even true, maybe you ought to rein in your imagination.
I used that term in reference to having seen a video with the circles on the object. That context usually results in one of my team going to find it :P Seems Easynow was quick on the uptake (thanks Easynow... I should have realises it was Luna's doing :P )
So critizise my style all you want but it is water off a ducks back
beside we got your number :P
I was told I should not call you a paid shill :P But if I have the proof does that not count? Afterall its in WIKIPEDIA in black and white
Oberg was commissioned by NASA to write a rebuttal of Apollo Moon landing conspiracy theories. NASA later dropped the project; Oberg has said that he still intends to pursue it.So NASA pays you to debunk the moon hoax people then decides to drop it NOW THAT is interesting :D
Quote from: JimO on June 03, 2015, 04:35:02 AM
I do get a kick watching you beclown yourself over hoaxes such as the Mercury-9 UFO.
Astronauts :P
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9runNgtTb0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9runNgtTb0
Quote from: zorgon on June 04, 2015, 01:37:27 AM
Because I can SEE that the ONE object stopped :P
I can't see how you could see its range rate was zero.
How far AWAY do you 'see' it to be?
Quote from: zorgon on June 04, 2015, 02:43:28 AM
Astronauts :P
You still haven't explained how you could have been so gullible as to fall for the 'Cooper Mercury-9 UFO hoax", but you don't even have to because you're establishing a pattern of self-beclowning that's approaching Olympic class heights.
The video you linked to, which I'm assuming you expected us to believe, because YOU did, contains nonsense for the target audience of helpless eager-believers that swarm these kinds of programs.
1 borman bogey – borman's debunking is here
http://www.jamesoberg.com/borman.frank.pdf
and my historical write-up on the gemini-7 booster rendezvous [which he was bragging about when he was the first astronaut in history to pull it off, opening the road to the moon landings and space stations.... explained here
http://www.jamesoberg.com/gemini7.html
2 apollo-12 tagalong // letter from Conrad
http://www.jamesoberg.com/Pete_Conrad_Apollo_12.pdf
actual transcript
• 034:50:49 Conrad: We think we have the S-IVB in sight. We've - had a - an object which is in the same place all the time and appears to be tumbling. We've had it ever since yesterday, and it just seems to be tagging along with us, so I guess that's the S-IVB. It's usually out our center hatch window when our roll angle is about 35 degrees right now. Maybe that'll give you a clue, and somebody can figure out if that's what we've really looking at.
3 discovery "alien spacecraft" comment -- a prank by a radio amateur in Maryland,
http://www.realityuncovered.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=377
Donald Ratsch, who recorded and distributed the original 1989 audio, investigated and concluded the comment is a hoax by a ham radio operator, and has withdrawn his endorsement of it.
4 sts73 10-21-1995 sereda // coleman ufo joke
David Sereda? ROTFLOL!!!!!!!
One example – he quotes a NASA guy named Nuth as admitting he [Sereda] is correct about space UFO videos, but Nuth delicately explains Sereda's spinning BS.
http://www.jamesoberg.com/2000-nuth-denounces-sereda.PDF
me interviewing Coleman before her ISS mission
(http://www.jamesoberg.com/image/oberg-coleman-2011.jpg)
Quote from: zorgon on June 04, 2015, 01:48:16 AM
Taking notes: JIM SAYS: "Air drag in space"
Well when I was in school they taught us that things do NOT have a curved trajectory in space when given a push :P They do not waft around like they do in an atmosphere
If your going to rewrite the books then explain where this "Air drag in space comes from".....
No need to rewrite any space textbooks, since wherever you THINK you learned your spaceflight laws of motion, you couldn't have been paying attention.
Air drag in space comes from upper atmosphere particles. From AIR.
HOW DO YOU THINK SATELLITE ORBITS DECAY AND EVENTUALLY DROP INTO THE THICK LOWER ATMOSPHERE? Do you think the satellite runs out of gas or something?
You're correct, if this is typical of your pseudo-knowledge of spaceflight basics, you will never even understand what you are watching on the videos, your mind is so stuffed with misconceptions.
Is that why you demand an 'explanation' without offering YOUR alternate explanation while refusing to suggest the range you THINK you're seeing the dot at?
Hey Jim!
A moment off topic ( a little :P )
Can you tell me HOW the BLEEP anyone made it to the moon and back in THIS?
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/45jack_files/04images/Apollo_Fake/0a985c20.jpg)
Looks like it was in a War with some Aliens or it's a card board mock up :D
Whether Jim is or has been a paid debunker is not relevant to the facts as far as I'm concerned.
I don't expect a response to the first part of this post which is off topic.
Quote from: zorgon on June 04, 2015, 09:33:42 AM
Can you tell me HOW the BLEEP anyone made it to the moon and back in THIS?
Quote from: zorgon on June 04, 2015, 01:48:16 AM
Oberg was commissioned by NASA to write a rebuttal of Apollo Moon landing conspiracy theories. NASA later dropped the project; Oberg has said that he still intends to pursue it.
Apollo 14 might have made it. Apollo 11&12 were manned and made it is not something I have seen convincing proof of. The astronauts in question don't even know whether you can see stars in space! Quite amazing in my opinion and it confuses me that anybody is convinced by that press conference. ??? ::)
Jim,
For the sake of argument, lets say that many of the objects distance from the shuttle cannot be easily determined without stereo cameras. I'm still interested in whether you think that the object we have been discussing earlier, before all the side tracks, is near to the shuttle or near to the electrical storm? Or you don't know?
It all makes me wonder why the shuttle would not have stereo camera set-ups as standard anyway. Surely it is vital to be able to determine distance and velocity of neighbouring objects for safety reasons?
Quote from: Pimander on June 04, 2015, 12:04:27 PM
...
It all makes me wonder why the shuttle would not have stereo camera set-ups as standard anyway. Surely it is vital to be able to determine distance and velocity of neighbouring objects for safety reasons?
Good question, short answer was it did for phases it could make a difference. It used the four corner TV rigs in the payload bay.
Don't forget, for the close-in ranges Musgrave's comments dealt with -- 40 ft or so -- the shuttle also had inherent stereo ranging capability in the Mark I human double-eyeball system. When he stated the stuff outside was close, it was based on what he saw with his two eyes. What's the effective range of such depth perception anyway -- I've seen various citations running from 50 to 100 feet?
Quote from: JimO on June 04, 2015, 01:01:53 PM
What's the effective range of such depth perception anyway -- I've seen various citations running from 50 to 100 feet?
As I understand it, at more than 100 feet, the human eye is not bad at judging relative distance but is poor at judging actual distance.
So do you think the object is near the electrical storm or near the Shuttle?
Quote from: Pimander on June 04, 2015, 02:08:00 PM
As I understand it, at more than 100 feet, the human eye is not bad at judging relative distance but is poor at judging actual distance.
So do you think the object is near the electrical storm or near the Shuttle?
I see no reason to suspect it's any different from the clouds of ice flakes and other dandruff that regularly surrounded shuttles, but I'm open to fact-based arguments that demonstrate its appearance is inconsistent with proximity. But so far we only have expressions of Zorgon's sincere confidence that he KNOWS it's far away, somehow.
Another indirect measure of proximity is when these dots rise out of Earth's shadow alongside the shuttle and they enter sunlight simo with the shuttle.
Because the cameras are deliberately pointed at the receding horizon to catch sprites and elves in profile [and they did!], any nearby particle will appear at sunrise against that backdrop. Given literally hundreds of such orbital sunrises on live video, enough will occur randomly to form any easily-misinterpretable pattern if, like Martyn Stubbs, you tape and watch them ALL -- and show only the weird-looking ones.
Quote from: Pimander on June 04, 2015, 12:04:27 PM...
It all makes me wonder why the shuttle would not have stereo camera set-ups as standard anyway. Surely it is vital to be able to determine distance and velocity of neighbouring objects for safety reasons?
Again, an excellent rationale to monitor 'stuff' spotted outside.
Here's a story I wrote on it: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25147760/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25147760/)
When working at NASA, I also gave briefings on recontact hazards from objects coming off a spacecraft.
Then, during Columbia's last flight, when the broken piece of the heat shield drifted away a day after reaching orbit, NOBODY saw it -- and a chance at repair or rescue was lost, dooming the crew.
Quote from: zorgon on June 04, 2015, 01:48:16 AM
....Well when I was in school they taught us that things do NOT have a curved trajectory in space when given a push :P They do not waft around like they do in an atmosphere
You mean you were taught that if something drifts away from a spacecraft it will continue in a straight line forever? I want to be clear about this because it could reveal a major problem in your conceptualization of spaceflight motion and I may be able to do you an enormous favor.
Listen to Marcus Aurelius.
In the final decade of Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius' life he wrote a series of personal philosophies intended for himself; these would later be published as Meditations.
http://www.returnofkings.com/27793/6-powerful-passages-from-meditations-by-marcus-aurelius
"If anyone can refute me—show me I'm making a mistake or looking at things from the wrong perspective—I'll gladly change. It's the truth I'm after, and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance."
I'm sorry but..."The Pot calling...."... ;)
Quote from: JimO on June 03, 2015, 03:22:24 AM
So rather than actually making an effort to find OUT, you're satisfied just 'wondering' about it?
That's a taunt, but the point is real. It is 'discoverable' whether or not McClelland had a NASA pension and then lost it. But nobody in the land of UFOria really seems to want to find out. Sad.
Mr Oberg: unlike some individuals that spend or should i say are able to utilise a significant amount of their time on forums and engaged in inquisitive research{which happens to be one of my favorite past times} I do not have the extra time due to my presence being required full time at the company I manage;
but since you opened the door... I was in contact with Mister Mcclelland several years back and shared several emailed discussions between us here on the forum with Zorgon and the other members..
I still have those emails, in which Clark shared his experiences with us about what he saw, and what came of it; that is when we were told of him being stripped of his pension after being ridden out on a rail...
as for your taunts and immature actions, save them for the cheap seats and other sites that pander to such; you have been asked a direct question several times by a fellow administrator and have yet to provide any type of answer other than spin and mis-direction...
8)
seeker
Ok ... obviously nothing new has been presented,
so it looks like we're right back where we started,
the objects are still unidentified. (UFOs)
And just as a reminder, there's also this critter looking thing from STS-80 as well:
UFO Caught on Camera by NASA-STS-80 mission (the "Sperm Object") (L.C. nicknamed it that)
Link - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJpsADFWICs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJpsADFWICs
Quote from: the seeker on June 05, 2015, 03:06:07 AM
... I was in contact with Mister Mcclelland several years back and shared several emailed discussions between us here on the forum with Zorgon and the other members..
I still have those emails, in which Clark shared his experiences with us about what he saw, and what came of it; that is when we were told of him being stripped of his pension after being ridden out on a rail...
Thanks for contributing. Did he tell you about his flying to Kecksburg in 1965 to personally examine the Nazi time machine that had just crashed there? Did he show you any documentation that indicated he ever was a NASA employee [eligible for GS pension] rather than a contractor employee [not eligible]? He has also suggested he was the source of Keyhoe's report in 1963 about Gordon Cooper's UFO sighting aboard Mercury-9, did he elaborate with you?
It would help clear things up.
Quote from: easynow on June 05, 2015, 03:16:25 AM
Ok ... obviously nothing new has been presented,
so it looks like we're right back where we started,
the objects are still unidentified. (UFOs)
And just as a reminder, there's also this critter looking thing from STS-80 as well:
UFO Caught on Camera by NASA-STS-80 mission (the "Sperm Object") (L.C. nicknamed it that)
Wow, let me go check it out on the real flight video records. What was the time/date of the video? How close was it to sunrise?
Oooooh, Martyn refuses to tell you that? Gosh, shocker.
Quote from: easynow on June 05, 2015, 03:16:25 AM
Ok ... obviously nothing new has been presented,
so it looks like we're right back where we started,
the objects are still unidentified. (UFOs)
What's your theory about the ONE object Zorgon is fixated on, but won't offer a theorized range for? Otherwise, how is it you refuse to give any weight to the views of Jones and Musgrave, who were there?
Jim you quoted my post without the video ....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJpsADFWICs
Why didn't you include that in the quote ?
Scared someone might see it ? :P
Quote from: JimO on June 05, 2015, 04:00:54 AM
What's your theory about the ONE object Zorgon is fixated on, but won't offer a theorized range for? Otherwise, how is it you refuse to give any weight to the views of Jones and Musgrave, who were there?
Ha Ha your not too bright are you ?
They all claim they didn't see it with their own eyeballs,
so your argument is rediculous. ::)
Quote from: thorfourwinds on June 03, 2015, 03:59:09 AM
Greetings:
Jim, what a great place to answer my ONE question, please.
Is Cooper lying or not? (http://www.thelivingmoon.com/forum/index.php?topic=8254.msg114562#msg114562)
Thanking you in advance for your attention, participation and forthcoming honest answer: YES or NO.
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Bluebird/lg50aa500a.gif)
tfw
Peace Love Light
Liberty & Equality or Revolution
Hec'el oinipikte (that we shall live)
Hey Oberg.....yes or no?
Still waiting ;)
Quote from: easynow on June 05, 2015, 04:13:35 AM
They all claim they didn't see it with their own eyeballs,
That obviously is irrelevant
Quote from: Sgt.Rocknroll on June 05, 2015, 04:15:26 AM
Hey Oberg.....yes or no?
Jim works for NASA NASA = NEVER A Straight Answer. :P We see that at work here
8)
But hey cut him a little slack It's one against the rest of us and he is running out of places to bend ears ;)
If we all agreed this would be a boring place.. Don't yawl miss the old EPIC battles just a little?
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/41pegasus/04images/Critter/dfbd509bca784d12.gif)
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/41pegasus/04images/Critter/bb261ab621b502c6.gif)
I know I know but I like dueling with sharp sticks. JimO is so funny. He does realize this?... Yes that is a snowflake....bwawawa
Quote from: zorgon on June 05, 2015, 04:24:38 AM
If we all agreed this would be a boring place.. Don't yawl miss the old EPIC battles just a little?
Are you going to offer a theory of what your dot really is, how FAR away from the shuttle it is, how it moved during the sequence?
Why CAN'T they all be small sunlit nearby ice flakes, some tumbling?
Quote from: zorgon on June 05, 2015, 04:24:38 AM
That obviously is irrelevant
Yes apparently ... lol
QuoteJim works for NASA NASA = NEVER A Straight Answer. :P We see that at work here 8)
Also ex U.S. Air Force and we all know project Blue Book was a debunk operation.
Really if it's possible I'd like to see this explained but not
explained away like he's attempting to do again.
:D
Quote from: Sgt.Rocknroll on June 05, 2015, 04:15:26 AM
Hey Oberg.....yes or no? Still waiting ;)
Sorry you missed my answer yesterday. I have no reason to believe, or argue, that Cooper was knowingly presenting information he thought was false, to deceive people. I have LOTS of reasons, detailed in reports that folks hereabouts refuse to even read, that the way Cooper described MANY spaceflight and UFO events in later years was strikingly at variance with all other witnesses, documentation, and technical limitations of spaceflight. My explanation is that Cooper's memories of those events was flawed.
Examples -- McDonald and Sparks both independently determined that the 1957 Edwards cameramen never reported to Cooper, saw only an object floating past [no landing], and turned in their reports and photos to Blue Book where they have always been accessible.
Examples -- Cooper's claim to have imaged readable license plates with a window mounted camera on Gemini-5 was impossible due to the craft's groundspeed of 25,000 ft/sec, hopelessly smearing even the fastest exposure speed of the camera.
Examples -- Cooper's claim there was a design flaw in the shuttle revealed by a telepathic warning from space aliens is not matched by any documented design changes Cooper claims his warning caused.
Also -- Zorgon is squirming his way out of admitting he tried to offer a bogus 'Mercury-9 UFO encounter" by Cooper, even though that story was an old media hoax that even Cooper denounces, but Zorgon still believes. Anybody else ever get taken in by that one? Fess up.
Zorgon is apparently grossly misinformed about air drag in space and the shape of space trajectories, and defiantly proud of it.
Regarding this video:
Quote from: easynow on June 05, 2015, 04:02:49 AM
Jim you quoted my post without the video ....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJpsADFWICs
Why didn't you include that in the quote ?
Scared someone might see it ? :P
And Oberg questions below:
Quote from: JimO on June 05, 2015, 03:58:24 AM
Wow, let me go check it out on the real flight video records. What was the time/date of the video? How close was it to sunrise?
Oooooh, Martyn refuses to tell you that? Gosh, shocker.
Your questions about that event were all answered, but I think you missed the reading back to page 2 in this thread. ::)
Let me help you Jim: (click in the image to enlarge and in the mouse middle button to move the picture)
(http://oi59.tinypic.com/34qsbk8.jpg)
(http://oi60.tinypic.com/2uj4mdz.jpg)
(http://oi62.tinypic.com/2wddl4j.jpg)
(http://oi61.tinypic.com/xm321z.jpg)
You can READ the rest in the PDF below OR you can go back to PAGE 2.
PDF:http://www.carlotto.us/newfrontiersinscience/Papers/v04n04a/v04n04a.pdf (http://www.carlotto.us/newfrontiersinscience/Papers/v04n04a/v04n04a.pdf)
Intriguing that you missed this one since Mark J. Carlotto in his analysis mention your name quite some times.
Quote from: JimO on June 05, 2015, 04:42:08 AM
Why CAN'T they all be small sunlit nearby ice flakes, some tumbling?
Because they are NOT as you can see in the document. Don't be afraid to recognize you are wrong. Remember: Listen to Marcus Aurelius.
Quote from: JimO on June 04, 2015, 11:07:11 PM
In the final decade of Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius' life he wrote a series of personal philosophies intended for himself; these would later be
"If anyone can refute me—show me I'm making a mistake or looking at things from the wrong perspective—I'll gladly change. It's the truth I'm after, and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance."
Quote from: RUSSO on June 05, 2015, 05:22:27 AM
Regarding this video:
And Oberg questions below:
Your questions about that event were all answered, but I think you missed the reading back to page 2 in this thread. ::)
THANKS, I really missed that, I'll order up some data on it. I'm reading it now and don't recall ever seeing it before.
The Marcus Aurelius bounce-back was nicely done!
Quote from: JimO on June 05, 2015, 06:07:30 AM
THANKS, I really missed that, I'll order up some data on it. I'm reading it now and don't recall ever seeing it before.
The Marcus Aurelius bounce-back was nicely done!
Good hunting.
Quote from: RUSSO on June 05, 2015, 05:22:27 AM
Regarding this video:
Let me help you Jim: (click in the image to enlarge and in the mouse middle button to move the picture)
Because they are NOT as you can see in the document. Don't be afraid to recognize you are wrong. Remember: Listen to Marcus Aurelius.
Now THIS is why we have a team :D That is worth a little
GOLDNice work Russo...
Quote from: JimO on June 05, 2015, 06:07:30 AM
THANKS, I really missed that, I'll order up some data on it.
If you share that data this thread will have been worthwhile. :)
Aren't we going to discuss Zorgon's far-far-away dot in the other sequence?
Or his misjudgment in offering the Cooper Mercury-9 UFO fairy tale here as 'evidence.?
Quote from: JimO on June 06, 2015, 04:51:22 AM
Aren't we going to discuss Zorgon's far-far-away dot in the other sequence?
What other sequence? ???
Quote from: ArMaP on June 06, 2015, 12:45:24 PM
What other sequence? ???
The "form a circle" sequence.
Quote from: JimO on June 06, 2015, 01:51:18 PM
The "form a circle" sequence.
OK, I forgot about that, as I'm not interested in that one. :)
Quote from: JimO on June 06, 2015, 01:51:18 PM
The "form a circle" sequence.
So, is it normal for ice n stuff to form circles?
Quote from: JimO on June 06, 2015, 04:51:22 AM
Aren't we going to discuss Zorgon's far-far-away dot in the other sequence?
When did I say anything about distance in the circle sequence?
Nice try :P
Are you going to answer how that warped cardboard model was space worthy? :P
Quote from: Sinny on June 18, 2015, 03:46:17 AM
So, is it normal for ice n stuff to form circles?
Stars do in the sky, take a look.
Quote from: zorgon on June 18, 2015, 03:50:47 AM
When did I say anything about distance in the circle sequence?
Nice try :P
Are you going to answer how that warped cardboard model was space worthy? :P
I no longer understand your questions, can somebody interpret for me?
In the interests of clarity, I suggest discussing the space worthiness of the Apollo 11 module in a separate thread. I'm already struggling to remember what we have discussed so this must be practically incomprehensible to outside readers.
Quote from: JimO on June 21, 2015, 03:03:30 PM
Stars do in the sky, take a look.
You are comparing fixed stars in the sky to floating dust and ice particles now?
Wow
Quote from: zorgon on June 18, 2015, 03:50:47 AM
When did I say anything about distance in the circle sequence?
Are you going to answer how that warped cardboard model was space worthy? :P
Quote from: JimO on June 21, 2015, 03:04:39 PM
I no longer understand your questions, can somebody interpret for me?
Well the first one I never made ANY reference to distance of the group of objects that form the circle.. the only time I mentioned distance is in the one over the storm... and you don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure that one out.
The second one is about THIS cardboard model being space worthy
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/45jack_files/04images/Apollo_Fake/0a985c20.jpg)
Looks like they put it together from this mess
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/45jack_files/04images/Apollo_Fake/0ac86e00.jpg)
And no Pimander I don't need to make a new thread for it I have a perfectly good one already
http://www.thelivingmoon.com/forum/index.php?topic=455.msg3843#msg3843
::)
But if it confuses you too much I will move this post to that thread after Jim sees it :P Or YOU can
Quote from: zorgon on June 21, 2015, 08:54:03 PM
....
Looks like they put it together from this mess...
Everything you think you know about spaceflight is wrong, and until you get a clue about that, I can't help you.
The picture you show looks to me to be a spacecraft trainer, the boxes are TV sets creating simulated scenes for viewing from the windows -- but that's just a guess from a guy who happened to see it, but if it makes you feel better you can imagine your guess is just as good as mine.
Quote from: JimO on June 22, 2015, 03:57:10 AM
The picture you show looks to me to be a spacecraft trainer,
Jim says: "Just a trainer" :P
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/45jack_files/04images/Apollo_Fake/0a985c20.jpg)
I give up LOL
Quote from: zorgon on June 21, 2015, 08:54:03 PM
Looks like they put it together from this mess
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/45jack_files/04images/Apollo_Fake/0ac86e00.jpg)
I asked you about the FIRST picture...
But I understand why you won't answer.
::)
This thread has brought me out of lurk mode.
Where once I was surprised by others I am now very much used to them.
As I have said for many a year...... If people fear the repercussions of telling the truth, we will never have the answers to our questions, no matter how many times we ask.
Thanks for bringing me out great thread.