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.

 

NASA STS-114 UFO Footage - Can it be debunked?

page: 16
96
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 04:48 AM
link   
I respect Jimoberg, Nasa has told him to "jump on the grenade". Like so many probably well mannered, intellegent men before him from Nasa, he was told to put on the jester outfit and distract the masses.




posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 06:23 AM
link   
There are a lot of things that Jim O. has said on this thread that, I'm sure will be contradicted when the 8 hr.+... NASA Archive, is released in May by Martyn Stubbs. (Rumor has it that some of the new
material will be posted by him on ATS shortly, just to keep RFBurns sword sharp!)

Jim O. is always a distraction, and he likes to be one...but, he is not the "decider" on NASA video issues like he wants to be, and although he is tough and rough at times, I am surprised he was so nice & tame this time round! He certainly won't talk to me, as this thread shows!.......
but if I could, I would ask him about something many people don't know about.... I'd say,
Jim, please enlighten me with facts cuz I don't get this one!...

..Just why did NASA stop the use on the STS-75, of a brand new "tether", that was made specifically for the mission, and was the one that the astronauts trained on?

Instead, the space agency decided, at the last minute, to substitute the old "tether," from the first "failed" tether/satellite mission, (STS-46?) It does not make any sense. The resulting "break" of the tether, thus losing the 100 million dollar satellite and blowing the experiment a second time, just might have been avoided by using the newly tested tether. Why buy a stronger and better tether, prepare and train on it, and then not use it?

New trumps old in space! We do not return former failed hardware back to space after it returns to Earth...we send a newer, better, stronger and more technically advanced replacement, just as the STS-75 mission did with the Italian satellite.

But the "tether" sent to secure it to the shuttle, and be charged up with currents, and be surrounded by gas and plasma,.. was a used part!... NASA depended on a failed
older tether to secure the satellite to the shuttle Columbia.

Its as crazy as originally sending an out of focus "Hubble Space Telescope" into space only to have to send the STS-61 to fix it, a dangerous mission that cost a Billion dollars!



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 06:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by franspeakfree
"Houston this is Discovery, we still have the Alien spacecraft under observation" - Need I say more


As is known to all serious researchers, the man who first came up with this quote now agrees it was somebody spoofing on an amateur radio band, not a transmission from a space shuttle. You've got to stay current with your 'space stories'!



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 06:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by franspeakfree
"Houston this is Discovery, we still have the Alien spacecraft under observation" - Need I say more


As is known to all serious researchers, the man who first came up with this quote now agrees it was somebody spoofing on an amateur radio band, not a transmission from a space shuttle. You've got to stay current with your 'space stories'!


lol How convieniant is that, somebody spoofing of course. Thats top notch debunking i could of come up with that. Just like 'santaclaus' was the astronauts spoofing around.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 07:03 AM
link   
Ops, I did it again! I went all "expert" again. I stand corrected,... Jim O. did "comment" on my "incorrect" ice data (I've seen video of those ice buildups!), and I agree that human debris does strange stuff in space, varying directions and satellites can do amazing things too!

... not my area of 'expertise'...I'm all "eyes"...

(I forgot the golden rule..."if you cannot avoid the battle, choose the battlefield")



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 07:16 AM
link   
But the earlier info on the use of a "used tether" and my question still stands. This fact came out of a NASA press conference, just after the tether broke. A press conference to announce an embargo on all STS-75 footage. (as is usual after a major failure, we were told... along with a lock down of all data).

So what do those "other" NASA videos show. We do not know, because NASA won't release them, so we only have what was blindly downloaded and then censored on later mission highlight videos...try it, ask NASA to send you some! Even Jim O. has not seen it all.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 07:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by pazcat
lol How convieniant is that, somebody spoofing of course. Thats top notch debunking i could of come up with that. Just like 'santaclaus' was the astronauts spoofing around.


Mockery is SUCH an effective argumentation technique, on all sides of the UFO debate
. And it reflects just as badly on those who use it, wherever their minds and hearts are at.

Check directly with Donald Ratsch about his retraction, as described here:

March 1996 – Ratsch retraction
yarchive.net...

Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 18:51:37 -0800
From: sts48@ix.netcom.com (Donald Ratsch)
Subject: Re: NASA WAV file
To: Brian Zeiler

Brian, yes I have the full story on that. The details was carried on
the July 1989 issue of the MUFON Journal. Briefly I recorded some of
the radio broadcast via my audio scanner from the space shuttle
Discovery through WA3NAN, the club station of the Goddard Amateur Radio Club at Greenbelt, Md, transmitting on 147.450 MHZ. It is a
retransmission from the NASA Select original.

I heard what I thought was one of the male astronauts saying, "Houston, Discovery, we still have the alien spacecraft under observance". Well I was pretty excited and got in touch with Walt Andrus of MUFON and Vince Dipietro (Mars Face Fame) who is employed at Goddard Space Flight Center who I later handed over the tape to have a voice print analysis performed to compare the target voice to the astronauts' voices that were aboard during that mission.

The result of the analysis showed that a few positive hits on Astronaut Bagian (the physician on board) but not enough hits to say he was the one who said the target words. So the results were inconclusive. Later a check showed there was no target voice on the original NASA Select audio.

About a year after that, I was again monitoring the audio from another NASA mission via my scanner and I heard that voice again, saying something similar to the target voice a year earlier. However on this mission, all the astronauts were different compared to the other one.

This led me to conclude that unfortunately, the target voice was a hoax probably from an amateur radio operator.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 07:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by secretnasaman
There are a lot of things that Jim O. has said on this thread that, I'm sure will be contradicted when the 8 hr.+... NASA Archive, is released in May by Martyn Stubbs. (Rumor has it that some of the new
material will be posted by him on ATS shortly, just to keep RFBurns sword sharp!)


Do you regularly talk about yourself in the third person, Martyn?

Anyhow, you'll want to start another thread with off-topic questions such as this.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 07:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
Obviously this object slows down, turns gently as you put it..then moves off in the other direction..we do not see it instantly zip to the other direction, it accelerates from its turn to head off in the other direction.
Sheesh...do I really have to explain the obvious that is in this video?
I dont mind being the teacher but honestly, I kinda figured one only need to simply look at what this object is doing and does not require a play by play announcer.


The angular rate does increase, but my question is, is that rate increase due to its changing flight path relative to the line of sight, as it completes its turn and the velocity is largely perpendicular to the line of sight, or to a genuine speed increase? Is the perceived increase merely an artifact of perspective?



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 07:28 AM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


Morning Jim, i was wondering when we would be getting new footage from Shuttle missions, could you look in your handbook plzz. I asked this question because you skate around others i asked



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 07:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
If anyone were to think that the shuttle has not participated in placing satellites byond 350 miles your dreaming. ...

Dispite the age of the thing, its quite capable of doing far more than what everyone has been taught for the last 30 years. In case some have forgotten, its base design was intended to be the next ship to carry missions to the moon.

All that got scrapped and the shuttle ended up becoming a stripped down version of itself..basically nothing more than a space going delivery truck. Even with that, Never A Straight Answer always kept its capabilities well under wraps. No different from the SR-71's max capabilites kept secret, and the U-2's capabilities.

Its good to have deep inside contacts like I have managed to have over the last 30 years..unfortunately Jim..your not one of them who were deep inside. There is alot that even you were kept out of the loop from.


"In case some have forgotten, its base design was intended to be the next ship to carry missions to the moon."

Gosh, I never 'forgot' that, I just never 'knew' it. My impression had been that from the beginning, the shuttle was designed to operate in low earth orbit. Your insistence that this is NOT true tells us a lot about YOU and the degree of credibility your claims deserve.

Am I getting your intent clearly? The space shuttle is secretly capable of flying to geosynchronous orbit, 22,000 miles high, and dropping off commercial satellites there, before returning to Earth? Is that what you are actually claiming? Wow, the mind reels... Please, enlighten me.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 07:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by branty
reply to post by JimOberg
 


Morning Jim, i was wondering when we would be getting new footage from Shuttle missions, could you look in your handbook plzz. I asked this question because you skate around others i asked
Morning Jim



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 07:33 AM
link   
Come on please not to detract the thread but, I have heard different stories, one that it was a hoax, second the person in question was referring to a russian satelite, and lastly that it was an actual transmission picked up by amateur radio enthusiasts.

My guess is that it is 100% real and the person in question didn't switch over to the covert channel that he was supposed to use before blurting it out.

Also I quote:


For some time Nasa denied that the actual message was transmittted from a Shuttle mission. However Nasa spokesman James Hatfield has now stated that the tape is genuine but the incident was a hoax


Which is it?

Also why did you contact this man?



About a year after that, I was again monitoring the audio from another
NASA mission via my scanner and I heard that voice again, saying something
similar to the target voice a year earlier. However on this mission, all the
astronauts were different compared to the other one. This led me to conclude
that unfortunately, the target voice was a hoax probably from an amateur
radio operator. Jim Oberg emailed me some time ago and asked me about
that case and I told him what I just told you.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 07:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by secretnasaman
But the earlier info on the use of a "used tether" and my question still stands. This fact came out of a NASA press conference, just after the tether broke. A press conference to announce an embargo on all STS-75 footage. (as is usual after a major failure, we were told... along with a lock down of all data).


Martyn, this seems to me just another fantasy of yours for which there is no available supportive evidence, a fact you explain away as reflecting the effectiveness of the coverup of things only YOU remember. You use the LACK of hard evidence as PROOF your stories are authentic.

In Mission Control, we had a metaphor for that sort of circular reasoning -- "a self-eating watermelon."



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 07:36 AM
link   
reply to post by branty
 


morning jim



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 07:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by branty

Originally posted by branty
reply to post by JimOberg
 


Morning Jim, i was wondering when we would be getting new footage from Shuttle missions, could you look in your handbook plzz. I asked this question because you skate around others i asked
Morning Jim
Morning Jim



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 07:40 AM
link   
Getting back to the thread,

Here is a video of more "white dots" taken from space trying to spot the russian mir space station. Notice that none actually travel in one direction and then slow down and travel in the opposite direction.

Although.......Strangely enough the camera does actually pick something up (bottom left )that we weren't supposed to see (hence the black out)



What I suggest is play both videos split screen at the same time and spot the anomalies accordingly.

Surely you can see why people are sceptical of NASA?

[edit on 26-2-2009 by franspeakfree]

[edit on 26-2-2009 by franspeakfree]



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 07:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by franspeakfree
My guess is that it is 100% real and the person in question didn't switch over to the covert channel that he was supposed to use before blurting it out.


Your guess is not evidence of reality.



Also I quote:


For some time Nasa denied that the actual message was transmittted from a Shuttle mission. However Nasa spokesman James Hatfield has now stated that the tape is genuine but the incident was a hoax


Which is it?


If you are referring to James Hartsfield (never been a Hatfield, or a McCoy, at NASA PAO), as I recall the tape really was made from a rebroadcast frequency, so the 'tape' is real, but it wasn't from a direct shuttle frequency, and the extra words on the radio band were deemed a hoax even by the man who first heard and reported it. He wasn't listening to the shuttle transmission, he was listening to a ham band retransmission of it, and anybody with ham equipment could broadcast at the same frequency.



Also why did you contact this man?


Don Ratsch is a serious investigator (and a thoroughly decent human being) who, rare among UFO buffs, seeks out all opinions and advice regarding anomalies he discovers. We don't often agree on conclusions, but his methodology is mature and responsible. No wonder you never seem to have heard of him.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 07:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by franspeakfree

Surely you can see why people are sceptical of NASA?


Sure I can, especially as such videos are persistently misrepresented, and contextual information covered up, by UFO promoters. Lots of kids are getting their minds blown and brains messed with over these stories.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 07:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by franspeakfree
Getting back to the thread,

Here is a video of more white dots notice that none actually travel in one direction and then slow down and travel in the opposite direction.



Looks like pretty ordinary visual effects from a shuttle mission, all right. And if one deliberately hides the context of the video, such as the time/date it was taken, and the lighting conditions (day or night), it can be made to look like there aren't any conventional explanations.

If you read through a number of my own articles at my home page cited above, you might gain some more useful insights into what you are probably actually seeing.

But be careful -- it might ruin the magical thrill you get in imagining these are aliens!



new topics

top topics



 
96
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join