STS-80 UFO Circle revisited

[zorgon]

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   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  

'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   Seems Easynow was quick on the uptake  (thanks Easynow... I should have realises it was Luna's doing )

So critizise my style all you want but it is water off a ducks back 

beside we got your number

I was told I should not call you a paid shill   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

[zorgon]

I do get a kick watching you beclown yourself over hoaxes such as the Mercury-9 UFO.

Astronauts

[JimO]

Because I can SEE that the ONE object stopped 

I can't see how you could see its range rate was zero.

How far AWAY do you 'see' it to be?

[JimO]

Astronauts

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

[JimO]

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   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?

[zorgon]

Hey Jim!

A moment off topic ( a little )

Can you tell me HOW the BLEEP anyone made it to the moon and back in THIS?



Looks like it was in a War with some Aliens  or it's a card board mock up

[Pimander]

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.

Can you tell me HOW the BLEEP anyone made it to the moon and back in THIS?

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?

[JimO]

...
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?

[Pimander]

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?

[JimO]

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.

[JimO]

...
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/

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.

[JimO]

....Well when I was in school they taught us that things do NOT have a curved trajectory in space when given a push   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."

[Sgt.Rocknroll]

I'm sorry but..."The Pot calling...."...

[The Seeker]

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...



seeker

[easynow]

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 -