Best book or resource for UFOs in Space??

originally posted by: flamengo
a reply to: JimOberg
Since the times of the FSR magazine people were aware of your "interpretations" of the Soviet events, and the readers were laughing at you since then. People could be fooled up to recently, but they won't be fooled forever.

So you don't think the Norway spiral of Dec 2009 was a missile test, then? I'd appreciate you pointing out factual or logical flaws in my report defending that interpretation, have a go at it, please.

satobs.org...

a reply to: flamengo

The book of Enoch is rather good.

originally posted by: flamengo
a reply to: JimOberg
Since the times of the FSR magazine people were aware of your "interpretations" of the Soviet events, and the readers were laughing at you since then. People could be fooled up to recently, but they won't be fooled forever.

Since you've been round that long, you must remember the 'crescent' or 'sickle' shaped UFO wave over Russia in 1967-8, that became one of the most famous flaps in history. All the world's ufologists agreed it was unexplainable except as aliens.

My research conclusively proves IMHO these were top secret tests of illegal Soviet space-to-earth sneak-attack nuclear warhead delivery systems. Can you or anybody point to documented flaws in my argument, please?

satobs.org...

originally posted by: flamengo
a reply to: JimOberg
Your explanation for STS-114 was the most ridiculous of all. lol

What explanation was that? What do YOU suggest it was?

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: flamengo
a reply to: JimOberg
Since the times of the FSR magazine people were aware of your "interpretations" of the Soviet events, and the readers were laughing at you since then. People could be fooled up to recently, but they won't be fooled forever.

Since you've been round that long, you must remember the 'crescent' or 'sickle' shaped UFO wave over Russia in 1967-8, that became one of the most famous flaps in history. All the world's ufologists agreed it was unexplainable except as aliens.

My research conclusively proves IMHO these were top secret tests of illegal Soviet space-to-earth sneak-attack nuclear warhead delivery systems. Can you or anybody point to documented flaws in my argument, please?

satobs.org...

I am dismissing that one, but some of the others. I don't have all the files on Felix Zigel, or Vladimir Ajaja on me right now. But your explanations, at best, were assumptions on the case you thought they were rocket launches.

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: flamengo
a reply to: JimOberg
Your explanation for STS-114 was the most ridiculous of all. lol

What explanation was that? What do YOU suggest it was?

Anomalous intelligent object. Not that it matters to you, as you are blind by your own ideology, but MY HYPOTHESIS, is that these devices or beings, have a procedure while they were been filmed, they rarely do brusque movements, so they have the plausible deniability, so people like you can explain away, and people being sheep as most are, swallow your silliness. Rarely these objects do these type of movement on camera, that was one of the cases. I have eyes, I can judge. But if our vision is the way you suppose they are, we wouldn't be able to drive cars, or fly any craft at all. Some common sense must be applied, and common sense in this case tells me the object is big, and did a curve.

originally posted by: flamengo
... But your explanations, at best, were assumptions on the case you thought they were rocket launches.

I never offered 'assumptions', so if you claim I did, please provide a real example. I offered documented schedules of Soviet/Russian missiles/rockets in the sky, and in the same direction, as reported 'UFOs', under conducive sunlight illumination conditions. Take your pick here and find one you think I wrongly identified, and why, please:

www.jamesoberg.com...

Some of the older links are broken, you can use 'wayback' to see an archived copy.

Still going on.....
NEW RUSSIAN ICBM WARHEAD ANTI-ABM TEST [“KYSS-T-16”] -THE SURPRISE RESUMPTION OF ‘SPIRAL UFO’ SPECTACLES JULY 26, 2019
satobs.org...

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: flamengo

The book of Enoch is rather good.

It is rather excellent, there were so many interesting interpretations. But I must say that Enoch is quite an off topic to this discussion, as I am trying to propose a discussion on sightings above the atmosphere.

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: flamengo
... But your explanations, at best, were assumptions on the case you thought they were rocket launches.

I never offered 'assumptions', so if you claim I did, please provide a real example. I offered documented schedules of Soviet/Russian missiles/rockets in the sky, and in the same direction, as reported 'UFOs', under conducive sunlight illumination conditions. Take your pick here and find one you think I wrongly identified, and why, please:

www.jamesoberg.com...

Some of the older links are broken, you can use 'wayback' to see an archived copy.

Still going on.....
NEW RUSSIAN ICBM WARHEAD ANTI-ABM TEST [“KYSS-T-16”] -THE SURPRISE RESUMPTION OF ‘SPIRAL UFO’ SPECTACLES JULY 26, 2019
satobs.org...

That is true, they just do not correspond to reality. Blue book has several examples of that, it is not because I skyhook balloon was launched that Mantell had intercepted one, we have to disregard everything that he reported on the case, and others have reported, and then to assume that the balloon was there, which most likely it wasn't, so that was bad debunking. You follow the same logic.

a reply to: flamengo

Aye, the firmament is above the atmosphere....allegedly.

The thing about Enochs's account is the descriptions minus any understanding of science nor real physics.

It can come across as somewhat virginal/pure.

Don't know about the angelic connotations all the same but again that could be down to interpretation minus any scientific nor engineering perspective on Enochs part.

originally posted by: flamengo
.... But I must say that Enoch is quite an off topic to this discussion, as I am trying to propose a discussion on sightings above the atmosphere.

Agreed. What do you find UN-explainable about the STS-75/tether-swarm incident?

The facts about the tether/swarm have been available for twenty years [spoiler alert -- the dots WERE out-of-focus ice flakes]: www.rense.com...

The bizarre-looking tether and swarming dots video continues to fascinate viewers, particularly those who have been deliberately kept ignorant of fundamental context features of the event. The UFO community has been willfully incomplete in its internet descriptions of the event, with the apparent intent to mislead their audience. A fuller set of relevant contextual information can be found at www.jamesoberg.com...

First and most important, the swarm sequence occurred four days -- FOUR DAYS – after the breakaway [the fake impression that the edited version clearly intended to make was that the swarm showed up quickly in response to the break]. This was after the tether had fallen behind the shuttle in its orbit, and the faster shuttle pulled so FAR ahead that like a fast race car on an oval track, it 'lapped' the slower tether and overtook it from behind.

During this time, the shuttle crew started other experiments and resumed normal orbit housekeeping activities, such as routine waste water dumps. THAT is what the fraud about the length of the interval was meant to conceal.

Proof of the four-day separation can be seen in these daily video reports of the mission:
Flight Day 4 Video Highlights [Tether Deploy] www.youtube.com...
Flight Day 5 Video Highlights [Tether Break/Flyaway] www.youtube.com...
Flight Day 9 Video Highlights [Tether Fly-Under with debris] www.youtube.com...

As the shuttle overtook the tether, there were hours of observation time as they neared it and passed below [and off to the side] of it. Occasional blizzards of dots can be seen in this interval as ice flakes from that day’s water dump broke free and drifted off.

Normal behavior of these small particles, entrained by thruster plumes or other cabin gas releases, affected by the slight but still measurable air drag [when out of the shuttle’s slipstream], and possibly pushed by micro-jetting from sun-side sublimation, can be seen in this video of a routine water dump.
[Debris with curved trajectories]
youtu.be...

The crew had time on the fly-by to get really good 70-mm handheld photography of the tether, and there were some dots in the images too. These views showed the tether hair-thin, and the dots as fuzzy out-of-focus objects that must have been within a few feet of the overhead window.

The notches on the disks is another proof they are a camera artifact. First, they don’t appear at all on the much sharper 70-mm film images [another reason the UFO hucksters hope you don’t find out about them]. Second, the notch ‘clocking’ [orientation around the rim] is always the same for ALL disks passing through the same on-screen position, and shifts exactly the same way for every disk passing the same path. So it’s an internal camera optics effect.
See www.youtube.com...

Since there is no connection between the tether break and the dot swarm sequence, the obvious question would be why the dots waited to show up until the shuttle caught up with the lost tether -- because if they had been there all along and were really as big as some UFO promoters claimed, they would have been big and bright enough to have been seen in the daytime skies of Earth as they passed across hundreds of millions of witnesses.

Do the math, they would have been as big as the full moon. Nobody saw them. That's because the dots were associated with the nearby SHUTTLE, not the distant tether.

The crew saw that the dots were close [and thus small] with their own two eyes. Binocular vision is an accurate range determinator out to tens of feet, perhaps as far as a hundred – as any baseball outfielder can demonstrate every game.

Nothing went BEHIND the tether. The video cameras observing it were ruggedized external units designed for monitoring crew spacewalk activities in the payload bay, in normal visible light. Because of the enormous range of brightness that would be encountered, the pixels were designed to protect the cabin TV displays by using a ‘max out’ limit of brightness, and peg ‘high’ at light gray.

So anything bright crossing a zone that’s ALREADY ‘overbright’ isn’t going to change the pixel max level, it’s already as high as allowed.

Hence the illusion of being eclipsed by a far-fatter-than-reality tether image.

Also, in the camera itself, very bright pixels would bleed over to neighboring ones, making all bright objects [stars, satellites, cities, lightning, anything] slightly wider on screen, as seen by the artificial ‘fatness’ of the tether image [which was sunlit, NOT ‘glowing’ on its on].

The Mission Control console operating manual of this camera is shown at www.jamesoberg.com...

This information may be shocking to you. There's proof of it all. The reason it was withheld from you is obvious – to push you into an inaccurate assessment of the video. You and millions of other folks were victims of a deliberate UFO industry fraud. And it was so easy for them.

originally posted by: flamengo

...Blue book has several examples of that, it is not because I skyhook balloon was launched that Mantell had intercepted one, we have to disregard everything that he reported on the case, and others have reported, and then to assume that the balloon was there, which most likely it wasn't, so that was bad debunking. You follow the same logic.

I thought you said you were interested in sightings in outer space? Mantell and the balloon?

Show me an example of an illogical claim in my reports. Don't just hand-wave.

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: flamengo

...Blue book has several examples of that, it is not because I skyhook balloon was launched that Mantell had intercepted one, we have to disregard everything that he reported on the case, and others have reported, and then to assume that the balloon was there, which most likely it wasn't, so that was bad debunking. You follow the same logic.

I thought you said you were interested in sightings in outer space? Mantell and the balloon?

Show me an example of an illogical claim in my reports. Don't just hand-wave.

I gave this one as a similar example sir.

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: flamengo
.... But I must say that Enoch is quite an off topic to this discussion, as I am trying to propose a discussion on sightings above the atmosphere.

Agreed. What do you find UN-explainable about the STS-75/tether-swarm incident?

The facts about the tether/swarm have been available for twenty years [spoiler alert -- the dots WERE out-of-focus ice flakes]: www.rense.com...

The bizarre-looking tether and swarming dots video continues to fascinate viewers, particularly those who have been deliberately kept ignorant of fundamental context features of the event. The UFO community has been willfully incomplete in its internet descriptions of the event, with the apparent intent to mislead their audience. A fuller set of relevant contextual information can be found at www.jamesoberg.com...

First and most important, the swarm sequence occurred four days -- FOUR DAYS – after the breakaway [the fake impression that the edited version clearly intended to make was that the swarm showed up quickly in response to the break]. This was after the tether had fallen behind the shuttle in its orbit, and the faster shuttle pulled so FAR ahead that like a fast race car on an oval track, it 'lapped' the slower tether and overtook it from behind.

During this time, the shuttle crew started other experiments and resumed normal orbit housekeeping activities, such as routine waste water dumps. THAT is what the fraud about the length of the interval was meant to conceal.

Proof of the four-day separation can be seen in these daily video reports of the mission:
Flight Day 4 Video Highlights [Tether Deploy] www.youtube.com...
Flight Day 5 Video Highlights [Tether Break/Flyaway] www.youtube.com...
Flight Day 9 Video Highlights [Tether Fly-Under with debris] www.youtube.com...

As the shuttle overtook the tether, there were hours of observation time as they neared it and passed below [and off to the side] of it. Occasional blizzards of dots can be seen in this interval as ice flakes from that day’s water dump broke free and drifted off.

Normal behavior of these small particles, entrained by thruster plumes or other cabin gas releases, affected by the slight but still measurable air drag [when out of the shuttle’s slipstream], and possibly pushed by micro-jetting from sun-side sublimation, can be seen in this video of a routine water dump.
[Debris with curved trajectories]
youtu.be...

The crew had time on the fly-by to get really good 70-mm handheld photography of the tether, and there were some dots in the images too. These views showed the tether hair-thin, and the dots as fuzzy out-of-focus objects that must have been within a few feet of the overhead window.

The notches on the disks is another proof they are a camera artifact. First, they don’t appear at all on the much sharper 70-mm film images [another reason the UFO hucksters hope you don’t find out about them]. Second, the notch ‘clocking’ [orientation around the rim] is always the same for ALL disks passing through the same on-screen position, and shifts exactly the same way for every disk passing the same path. So it’s an internal camera optics effect.
See www.youtube.com...

Since there is no connection between the tether break and the dot swarm sequence, the obvious question would be why the dots waited to show up until the shuttle caught up with the lost tether -- because if they had been there all along and were really as big as some UFO promoters claimed, they would have been big and bright enough to have been seen in the daytime skies of Earth as they passed across hundreds of millions of witnesses.

Do the math, they would have been as big as the full moon. Nobody saw them. That's because the dots were associated with the nearby SHUTTLE, not the distant tether.

The crew saw that the dots were close [and thus small] with their own two eyes. Binocular vision is an accurate range determinator out to tens of feet, perhaps as far as a hundred – as any baseball outfielder can demonstrate every game.

Nothing went BEHIND the tether. The video cameras observing it were ruggedized external units designed for monitoring crew spacewalk activities in the payload bay, in normal visible light. Because of the enormous range of brightness that would be encountered, the pixels were designed to protect the cabin TV displays by using a ‘max out’ limit of brightness, and peg ‘high’ at light gray.

So anything bright crossing a zone that’s ALREADY ‘overbright’ isn’t going to change the pixel max level, it’s already as high as allowed.

Hence the illusion of being eclipsed by a far-fatter-than-reality tether image.

Also, in the camera itself, very bright pixels would bleed over to neighboring ones, making all bright objects [stars, satellites, cities, lightning, anything] slightly wider on screen, as seen by the artificial ‘fatness’ of the tether image [which was sunlit, NOT ‘glowing’ on its on].

The Mission Control console operating manual of this camera is shown at www.jamesoberg.com...

This information may be shocking to you. There's proof of it all. The reason it was withheld from you is obvious – to push you into an inaccurate assessment of the video. You and millions of other folks were victims of a deliberate UFO industry fraud. And it was so easy for them.

Editing, there was some typo and I deleted a line by mistake. Remaking again.

Not so sir, you see. you may write the biggest thesis ever but the fundamentals (of the case) are the fundamentals. So all that (you have written there) is called obfuscation and gaslighting. The fundamentals (on the tether case) are quite simple.
The Tether was from 77 to 100 miles from the Space Shuttle, and the "particles" were behind the tether, NOT IN FRONT BUT BEHIND, one cannot get away playing the very same joke forever and get away with it. The same point put forward on the Gemini XII case, no, it was not close, none of these cases, it was easy to see the 2 miles in diameter "particles" pass BEHIND THE TETHER. Sorry, I trust my eyes and my perceptions, that is too bad, you may write as much as you want, that doesn't change the FACTS, that you do have an agenda, say that is probably because of your believe system, that is not my problem, but not everyone will be foolish enough to trust on you instead of their own perception, I am not that foolish sir.
Sereda was right in this case, despite his talking about Ashtar and Jesus. That was cringe, but he tackles the whole issue in a admirable manner.

originally posted by: flamengo
…..
The Tether was from 77 to 100 miles from the Space Shuttle, and the "particles" were behind the tether, NOT IN FRONT BUT BEHIND, one cannot get away playing the very same joke forever and get away with it. The same point put forward on the Gemini XII case, no, it was not close, none of these cases, it was easy to see the 2 miles in diameter "particles" pass BEHIND THE TETHER. Sorry, I trust my eyes and my perceptions, that is too bad, you may write as much as you want, that doesn't change the FACTS, that you do have an agenda, say that is probably because of your believe system, that is not my problem, but not everyone will be foolish enough to trust on you instead of their own perception, I am not that foolish sir. ...r.

So if they were THAT big, why didn't anybody on the ground see them? They were passing through the skies over MILLIONS of people, but nobody noticed?

a reply to: JimOberg

300 miles up? I am not a specialist on optics, but I may throw some opinions based on the UFO patterns, but even if I am right they cannot be falsified.
But one of the points is that those objects or whatever they are were in the frequency range of UV, so not to be seen by the naked eye. They were probably stealth to our means of detection, as so many technologies are those days. But I cannot go to much further than that. They were probably interested in showing themselves in this way specifically. Still a fascinating sight, mind boggling. But there are many more crazy like that such as STS-80. Beautiful scene that one.

"But one of the points is that those objects or whatever they are were in the frequency range of UV, so not to be seen by the naked eye."

The famous video is from the visible-light surveillance cameras in the payload bay, do you want a link to the Mission Control "User's Guide" that specifies this? And the dots also appeared on 70-mm handheld photos made by the crew through the overhead windows, which are deliberately opaque to UV in order to prevent the astronauts being blinded.

You're just making bull# up out of your imagination as you go along, it sure looks like.

You proposed a physical size of the objects as miles across. Do the simple math. How big compared to the full moon would such an object look like from 200 miles below? You may use your hand calculator.

originally posted by: flamengo
… But there are many more crazy like that such as STS-80. Beautiful scene that one.

Tom Jones was on that mission, he has a blog for open discussion on why he thinks those dots were small nearby stuff. Here it is:
skywalking1.wordpress.com...

Story Musgrave was on STS-80 also, here's his assessment of the dots:

www.jamesoberg.com...

originally posted by: JimOberg


Tom Jones was on that mission...

Did he say it's not unusual?

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: flamengo
… But there are many more crazy like that such as STS-80. Beautiful scene that one.

Tom Jones was on that mission, he has a blog for open discussion on why he thinks those dots were small nearby stuff. Here it is:
skywalking1.wordpress.com...

Story Musgrave was on STS-80 also, here's his assessment of the dots:

www.jamesoberg.com...

At a normal situation I would pay attention to what they have to say, still as they may be under oath not to disclose sensitive information because of national security reasons, I have reasons not to trust any of their statements.