Images for Mr. Oberg to analyze

In an effort to keep a different thread from being derailed I am going to post three images from Internos that Mr. Oberg has been requested to analyze and provide his feedback.

The original post can be found here.

The three images are:

AS10-28-3988

AS10-28-3989

AS10-28-3990

I would like to add that i am extremely appreciative of Mr. Obergs offer to provide his input:

Originally posted by JimOberg

Happy to join you on a new thread... please don't give excuses for posters here to avoid the central theme we've been discussing.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan



The context for these and many other photographs can be found here:
members.aol.com...

NASA spent a great deal of effort to determine whether apparitions out the windows, or films or videos, showed anything related to spacecraft functioning or malfunctioning, that was safety-related. Crews were always encouraged to report external sightings in real time over the normal voice loops so Mission Control could be alerted to possible hazards for which sightings were clues.

Don't forget, a critical overlooked non-sighting in 2003 was the piece of the damaged shuttle wing leading edge, that drifted away on the second day of flight. Had the crew spotted it and alerted Mission Control, the seriousness of their situation might have become evident in time to try to do something about it.

reply to post by JimOberg


I will peruse your website shortly. Thank you. Please don't leave until we have ensure that all questions are vetted, if you would be so kind.

Regarding the piece of the shuttle wing....so you don't think there is any possibility of it being electric in nature? Why were all those images taken up and not shared publicly?

Jim -

I perused the link you provided. I am unsure what a "moonpigeon" is, and there was nothing that i could find that referenced a specific image (it did say that the images in question were not shown).

Let me streamline this a little so that we don't get too distracted or confused.

To begin, i would interested to hear your comments on this image, and explain what you believe the anomolous object to be:

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Regarding the piece of the shuttle wing....so you don't think there is any possibility of it being electric in nature? Why were all those images taken up and not shared publicly?

What NASA images were not shared publicly? No, I don't see any need for 'electric' phenomena in the disaster, except in misfiring nuerons in the brains of some NASA officials....

"To begin, i would interested to hear your comments on this image, and explain what you believe the anomolous object to be..."

I agree with the NASA folks who looked at the images almost four decades ago -- it's something off the exterior of the spacecraft.

Now, please help me understand, why you find images such as this one requiring extraordinary explanations, when as the 'moon pigeons' report documented, they were 'normal' in their frequency and origins. It's the kind of thingies one would expect to sporadically show up outside spacecraft on missions -- and have, since Glenn's first flight. They behave just as you'd expect stuff to behave in that environment.

What is it that leads people to suspect they are somehow unexplainable or alien in origin?

Jim -

Regarding the shuttle disaster, i will leave that to other posters as it would take awhile for me to look up info that is other others fingertips.

regarding your response to the above image....really?

Your "moonpigeons" paper is inadquate. There are no linked images for which to compare NASA's explanation to. I have no context or point of reference for what they are referring to. If you could provide that for me, i would be much obliged.

Regarding the above image, you have yet to address it specifically. Your response has amounted to "Well, NASA says that everything they see are moonpigeons, so that is what they are". I am challenging that it is NOT a "moonpigeon", and that it is blatantly obvious.

Let me share my opinion as a primer to what i hope will be an improved discourse:

To me it looks like a torn canvas. the image itself was torn at one point. This is anomolous to me, as NASA images are not kept on a canvas as far as i know. So, what was the canvas?

Is it because this is what they were taking pictures of?




Yes, it seems far fetched, but it would explain the canvas.

if you look at the image, you can see that the anomolous object referenced has a match immediately next to it that is dark. Just as if a piece of the canvas was ripped and folded back a little.

re 'electric' stories about 'Columbia', here's my view:

www.jamesoberg.com...

No need for game-playing, here's what I've found about the pictures (last year, in fact), a message from the host of the Apollo Lunar Surface journals website, Eric Jones:

From: Eric Jones [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 11:58 PM
Subject: AS10-28-3991 to 93


I think we've got the blob in 3988, 89, and 90 identified.

I won't go into the entire line of evidence, but it is almost certainly a piece of Mylar that came off during a backside maneuver at about 188 hours.

During the following front side pass, John Young told MSC,

"This morning when we were turning around, first time, we had about – I estimate - maybe a foot-and- a-half or more of Mylar with that insulation coating on the back of it. It would appear out in front of our window, and I guess it was from the top hatch which is where that insulation came from in the first place. It just sort of sat there for a while, and then quietly floated off."

They had done the maneuver to get the Command Module in position to take photos of the planned Apollo 11 landing site and it seems likely that they had a camera ready with a fresh magazine loaded and took a few pictures of the Mylar.

With thanks, as always,

Eric

However, in the image above you can see that adjacent to the white blob, you have a nearly identical black blob. The black blob has a different saturation than the space surrounding it.

[edit on 15-8-2008 by bigfatfurrytexan]

Some portion in shadow?

Here's some context that the 'UFO documentaries" and websites won't give you:

Strange Shuttle Sights: Unearthly and Mundane
By Jim Oberg, Special to SPACE.com
posted: 07:34 pm ET // 13 December 1999
www.space.com...


Why NASA watches out for true UFOs
Astronauts don’t keep mum about potentially life-threatening objects
www.msnbc.msn.com...
By James Oberg, NBC News space analyst // Special to MSNBC // June 13, 2008
HOUSTON - Friday’s brief orbital anxiety about threats from an unidentified object seen out the window of space shuttle Discovery underscore why NASA has always been interested in what can justifiably be called UFOs.

Everybody happy? Any more questions?

If you could possibly shed some more light on this image:




and




taken from this image.


I do apologize. Been kind of tied up over the past two days.


[edit on 17-8-2008 by bigfatfurrytexan]

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
If you could possibly shed some more light on this image:
[edit on 17-8-2008 by bigfatfurrytexan]

Why?

reply to post by JimOberg


i am unsure what you mean by "Why?".

There is what looks like a large walled compound. No other NASA people have offered any explanations on any images when asked, and since you had offered i thought, "Let's strike while the iron is hot".

Do you not see the large, rectilinear object?

"Why?" means to what purpose should I do your homework, when after I acquiesced to your first request, you shrugged it off and went on to what's clearly just another item on a potentially near-infinite list. When you asked that first question, had you even looked on the Apollo Lunar Surface journal -- easily findable on the web -- for context? My point: I shouldn't be made into the 'single point failure' on your inability to find satisfactory prosaic explanations. What's in it for me?



[edit on 17-8-2008 by JimOberg]

Ahhh....i suppose nothing is in it for you. Very well.

I had assumed you were here for discourse. You hold a position of authority from the perspective of most here.

Regarding the first image...i haven't shrugged it off. I have considered your statement, and am currently still looking into it. From the perspective of the whole "moonpigeon" thing.

As it stands, i am not sure i can agree with you. But i am seeking some input on a piece of this image, and if there is concurrence, i would be willing to consider it as mylar or something. Stay tuned for that...it just takes a little while.

I would also like to add that this is not my homework. I have drawn my conclusions. I seek the input of someone who is not from the "tinhat" crew.

I have already done the homework, as well as others.

OK. Any practice at elucidation is useful...