It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

50th Anniversary -- Gemini-IV [McDivitt] 'Space UFO' event

page: 1
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 12:29 PM
link   
The most famous space UFO sighting up to that time, still widely considered a 'classic'.

Here's a retrospective interview with McDivitt about what he concluded he had seen.


www.jamesoberg.com...



edit on 4-6-2015 by _BoneZ_ because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 12:39 PM
link   
a reply to: JimOberg

Yea, thanks for making the world a less interesting place.



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 12:48 PM
link   
a reply to: JimOberg

He thinks it might have been ice or mylar from the booster, was it tumbling or rotating when he initially spotted it?

If in focus in the last pic in your link, why weren't his two photos able to resolve it?

If 'soda can like' and the booster was venting it surely changed course and might have surprised him reappearing like that.

At first he didn't think it was the booster at first, did he? At first he thought enough of it to warm up the jets to have another look at it, even taking pics, which 'didn't come out' and should have if it was in fact the booster.



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 01:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: JimOberg
The most famous space UFO sighting up to that time, still widely considered a 'classic'.

Here's a retrospective interview with McDivitt about what he concluded he had seen.

[link removed]


Tilt…What did you pull the link for, Jim?

I'm giving a few to answer that b4 I put it up.



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 01:23 PM
link   
I'm just glad that in the 50 years since then -- with thousands of sightings and encounters, in a universe calculated by science to be crawling with intelligent life -- we were finally able to find an answer to the whole UFO / aliens question once and for all.

Good work, everybody.



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 01:35 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

I accidentally removed the link. It has been restored.





edit on 4-6-2015 by _BoneZ_ because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 02:19 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Any object set free from another object in space is going to have some motion in addition to the original motion. That motion in virtually all cases will have a rate of spin that more than likely will be noticeable in an instant or within a few seconds.

Granted, it would be possible by pure circumstance to trip the shutter a second time at the near exact same instant the object was again in the original position, but not likely.

This case sounds like that of a triangular-shaped object imaged a couple of times a few years ago from space and explained away as a piece of debris. Yet another image of the object taken near the same time showed it to still be in its original orientation. From the changed background of the earth below the scene, it was evident that at least several seconds if not minutes had passed between shots.



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 02:26 PM
link   
a reply to: JimOberg
Ah yes..."probably" a piece of ice. And how is he calculating that "probability". This guy has no idea what he saw. He's been told, as all astronauts are, to trivialize the whole thing, but by his own admission, it could have "been the size of the Empire State Building". No frame of reference he said.



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 02:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Urantia1111
a reply to: JimOberg
Ah yes..."probably" a piece of ice. And how is he calculating that "probability". This guy has no idea what he saw. He's been told, as all astronauts are, to trivialize the whole thing,.....


I know that theory makes defending your own notions easier [by disregarding inconvenient eyewitness testimony], but even Mitchell and Cooper make it clear there never any NASA directives on discussing anything they saw or any interpretations they wanted to tell anybody.



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 02:46 PM
link   
This is my 1981 report based in late 1970's research, arguing for the object being McDivitt's own Titan-II second stage. If he thinks it was a small piece off his own vehicle, I'd defer to him.

But there's a great myth in the UFO community over this, it was the first highly-publicized astronaut sighting of what really could be called a UFO.

www.jamesoberg.com...



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 02:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: Urantia1111
a reply to: JimOberg
Ah yes..."probably" a piece of ice. And how is he calculating that "probability". This guy has no idea what he saw. He's been told, as all astronauts are, to trivialize the whole thing,.....


I know that theory makes defending your own notions easier [by disregarding inconvenient eyewitness testimony], but even Mitchell and Cooper make it clear there never any NASA directives on discussing anything they saw or any interpretations they wanted to tell anybody.


Touche, Jim...they're lying about that by the way. All classified. You're once again not convincing anyone here. Especially when the "eyewitness's" best testimony states little more than a government-mandated half-hearted GUESS as to what the object was.



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 03:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Urantia1111

originally posted by: JimOberg


originally posted by: Urantia1111

a reply to: JimOberg

Ah yes..."probably" a piece of ice. And how is he calculating that "probability". This guy has no idea what he saw. He's been told, as all astronauts are, to trivialize the whole thing,.....




I know that theory makes defending your own notions easier [by disregarding inconvenient eyewitness testimony], but even Mitchell and Cooper make it clear there never any NASA directives on discussing anything they saw or any interpretations they wanted to tell anybody.




Touche, Jim...they're lying about that by the way. All classified. You're once again not convincing anyone here. Especially when the "eyewitness's" best testimony states little more than a government-mandated half-hearted GUESS as to what the object was.


What's your best guess? It is a 'classic' and is at least of interest to the study of the history of ufology.

I worked 20+ years in the heart of Mission Control, and if I tell you I never encountered, or heard rumor of, something truly anomalous ['alien'] detected on ANY space flight, is it your knee-jerk response to suggest I'm lying, too? Don't hold back.



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 03:46 PM
link   
a reply to: JimOberg

Honestly no, i wouldnt think you were lying because that would imply you were involved in one of those over-reaching impossible conspiracies that only seem reasonable on the surface if you've been drinking heavily.

I think its simpler than all that. While i agree there are reasonable explanations for some things it shouldn't be implied that all reasonable explanations are the truth and that those explanations should settle the matter.

UFOlogy, in short, has lost its sense of wonder. We dismiss as much as possible because, ironically, we don't want to get hurt by believing again. How insane is that?

We don't want to hope we are right so we convince ourselves (and anyone willing to listen) that everyone else is wrong.

Seems ass backwards doesnt it?


edit on 4-6-2015 by Thorneblood because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 03:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Urantia1111

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: Urantia1111
a reply to: JimOberg
Ah yes..."probably" a piece of ice. And how is he calculating that "probability". This guy has no idea what he saw. He's been told, as all astronauts are, to trivialize the whole thing,.....


I know that theory makes defending your own notions easier [by disregarding inconvenient eyewitness testimony], but even Mitchell and Cooper make it clear there never any NASA directives on discussing anything they saw or any interpretations they wanted to tell anybody.


Touche, Jim...they're lying about that by the way. All classified. You're once again not convincing anyone here. Especially when the "eyewitness's" best testimony states little more than a government-mandated half-hearted GUESS as to what the object was.


You're calling national heroes liars now because they don't support your personal beliefs?

Funny how their testimony is beyond indictment when they do, huh?


Looks like you can't win, Jim.



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 03:56 PM
link   
For anyone reluctant to click the link, this is what McDivitts said:


I went back and then I saw what the thing was. And really what it was, was a reflection of the bolts in the windows. The windows were made up of about three or four or five panes of glass, so that if one got broken we still had some pressure integrity. And these little things, when the Sun shined on them right, they’d multiply the images off the different panes. And I’m quite sure that that’s what this thing was. But anyway, I became a world renowned expert in UFOs. Unfortunately


The interview continues:


WARD: So, to the best of your knowledge at the time and years later, there’s nothing abnormal or
unusual

MCDIVITT: No. There’s nothing unusual about this at all. It was just — it’s sort of like John Glenn talking about the fireflies . I mean, those were just pieces of ice crystals that were falling off the spacecraft. And the same thing with this. It was just something that I’m sure came off the spacecraft.

WARD: Well, one of the things that with increasing experience in spaceflight and the extreme lighting conditions and so on that has come clear over the years is that a lot of times things that you might think are large objects far away really are, as you point out, small objects that are very close

MCDIVITT: Oh yeah. They could be right up here in front of you. They could be right on the outside of
the window.

WARD:—and, therefore, would be out of focus in any camera picture you tried to take and wouldn’t
show up.

MCDIVITT: Absolutely. Yeah...
Read the (pdf) link for more



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 04:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Thorneblood
a reply to: JimOberg


.....
I think its simpler than all that. While i agree there are reasonable explanations for some things it shouldn't be implied that all reasonable explanations are the truth and that those explanations should settle the matter.


....




Are you sitting down?

I agree with you.

The tragedy we face now is our current inability to filter out those significant special events from the overwhelming mass of non-extraordinary pseudo-UFOs.

It's worth the search and worth sharpening our filtering skills, IMHO.

It's not easy. But the payoff could be unimaginably awesome.



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 04:26 PM
link   
I don't much care either way, but if Jim McDivitt had always described it as a, "pop can, and with a little thing like maybe like a pencil" the booster fits the bill as in the picture. I see the link is restored now anyway, it was deleted when I first looked. Mmmm, how do you accidentally erase these things anyway!



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 11:13 PM
link   
Here's the video Oberg doesn't want you to see ...


Astronaut James McDivitt UFO Sighting
Link - www.youtube.com...






edit on 4-6-2015 by easynow because: Aliens



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 11:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: easynow
Here's the video Oberg doesn't want you to see ...


Astronaut James McDivitt UFO Sighting



I love it when easynow shows a video about McDivitt's Gemini-4 sighting that is illustrated by an image of an Apollo spacecraft in orbit around a different world entirely. Cosmic cluelessness on parade.



posted on Jun, 5 2015 @ 12:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: easynow
Here's the video Oberg doesn't want you to see ...


Astronaut James McDivitt UFO Sighting



I love it when easynow shows a video about McDivitt's Gemini-4 sighting that is illustrated by an image of an Apollo spacecraft in orbit around a different world entirely. Cosmic cluelessness on parade.


Mercury, Gemini paved the way for Apollo to get to the Moon.

Sorry if it's above your level of comprehension.

Apparently you had to attack me because I was correct, ...

You didn't want anyone to see the video.




top topics



 
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join