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: 17
96
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 07:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

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.

Jim, you are correct, but, I am now a coward as to "starting" threads!...and don't you know that the ID issue re: Martyn Stubbs being me was completely
"debunked" here at ATS! So I had to drop that debate, as I just could not win...so now
ATS members talk to me again!..otherwise, greetings..nice to know you are still alive and "kicking" (people)...So not to spoil this thread anymore, I will e mail you for the answer... I guess???
I was wrong to tell you to butt out!.... your opinion is very welcome, as always. It gets everyone so wound up!!!




posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 07:59 AM
link   
Mr. Jim, I am 100% correct about the used tether and have the press conference on video to prove it and you know I don;t bluff...
you my friend are wrong that they did not use the same tether. Check it out again.
Cheers



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 08:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

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.


Heres just a few names of people who are over the legal age who agree that NASA are pulling the wool over peoples eyes and indeed are in contact with E.T around our solar system.

Mike Lopez Alegria - Commander ISS science officer

Dr. Ken Johnston, former Manager of the Data and Photo Control Division at NASA's Lunar Receiving Laboratory

Richard C. Hoagland, former NASA consultant and CBS News Science Science Advisor

Donna Hare,Sergeant Karl Wolfe,John Schuessler,Clark McClelland

Heres a quote from another individual over the legal age


"I, Clark C. McClelland, former ScO [Spacecraft Operator], Space Shuttle Fleet, personally observed an 8 to 9 foot tall ET on his 27 inch video monitors while on duty in the Kennedy Space Center, Launch Control Center (LCC). The ET was standing upright in the Space Shuttle Payload Bay having a discussion with TWO tethered US NASA Astronauts! I also observed on my monitors, the spacecraft of the ET as it was in a stabilized, safe orbit to the rear of the Space Shuttle main engine pods. I observed this incident for about one minute and seven seconds. Plenty of time to memorize all that I was observing. IT WAS AN ET and Alien Star Ship!"


It is clear as day that NASA has been in contact with E.T for many years and it is becoming increasingly clear why disclosure is leaking out. The truth is time is running out for all of us.

Sometimes I am so ashamed to be human and so should you.

Sorry to others reading this thread I don't mean to detract from the original thread



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 08:37 AM
link   
Back on track, here is another video I sure that you have all seen it before.

It is taken from aboard a space shuttle, the camera is following a ufo (not necessarily an alien craft but an unidentified flying object) there is a flash and the object changes direction and accelerates away while a streak of light is seen flying from earth into space shortly afterwards. My guess HAARP or weapon beam technology.

Please take a look: could it be that what we see in this video is in fact the same source of whats in the original video I posted.



[edit on 26-2-2009 by franspeakfree]



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 10:17 AM
link   
There's been a lot of progress, after years of aimless factless mutterings, in understanding the context of this unusual dot-curve video.

The Orbiter is flying into sunrise with its right wing forward, bay to Earth, and camera B -- in the aft left corner of the payload bay -- is pointing 'Orbiter body vector left', back down track towards the night side of Earth (Earth appears upside down, horizon/airgrlow at bottom of FOV). The sun is rising, at the 'back' of the viewer, with a solar beta angle of -20 degrees.

A cloud of slow-moving steady dots fills the screen. A major water dump has been under way for about two hours, which characteristically fills the sky with dots.

The curver appears in the right edge, traverses the field of view towards the left while dimming and bending backwards towards the right. At least one other particle moves from left to right.

Information yet to be acquired is

1. a longer sequence from this camera -- if the floating dots are nearby particles, they will become sunlit near-simo with the Orbiter itself, and be invisible prior to that moment.

2. a thruster history of this time period (the assertion that all thruster firings leave visible flashes is factually without merit)

3. the Orbiter attitude, rates, and deadband values, to correlate with any thruster firings

4. the audio air-to-ground channels between crew and MCC


Without such context data, any judgment that the video cannot be explained in conventional terms is without foundation.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by franspeakfree
Please take a look: could it be that what we see in this video is in fact the same source of whats in the original video I posted.


It could indeed be the same kind of phenomenon, but probably not of the nature that you're hoping for.

Basic question on context. In this sequence (from STS-48), is the Orbiter in daylight or shadow? This is important in determining what nearby particles would look like.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by franspeakfree
 


Yes this is the video of interest. The other videos could be this or that. This one shows a lot. IMO

Can we get back to this??!!??

I am pulling out photoshop so I can do some screen caps w comments.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 



So are you saying that that the particles are near by? If that answer is no than why look at them? Its should be apparent that the object in question. The one that does the quick reverse or turn and burn is not super close to the lense...



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 10:36 AM
link   
Hi ATSers,

Here in France, the official institution that takes care of UFO&UAP is called the GEIPAN and it's part of the CNES (French NASA sort of).

In their case ranking system, they use the letter C (as PAN C) for cases where not enough data is available. Regarding the STS-114 video, this would probably be considered as a PAN C (PAN means UAP).

For all the pro-ETH in here, the burden of proof usually lies with the party making the new claim, so go for it if you can. (necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit)

Cheers,
Europa





[edit on 26-2-2009 by Europa733]



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 10:40 AM
link   
Hmmm ... debating this point is fruitless. As with many of the situations and incidents posted on here, folks are voicing opinions, not genuine scientificaly structured thought. No doubt the "answers" or "veiws " expressed in this thread so far have been INTERESTING , but it seems to me that there can only be ONE correct answer.
Show me the informed opinion of a physics proffessor!!



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 11:32 AM
link   
And for those who need scientifically structured thought, well HERE IT IS. Way too much evidence to support the NASA cover up. Check out this video of the STS 80. www.youtube.com... Then there's the David Sereta explanation of the STS videos. Extremely compelling and overwhelming evidence to ignore, or even try to debunk. The First one shows the high speed turn. Then the second one shows high speed curvature over the earths atmosphere. www.youtube.com... www.youtube.com... There's no way with all this evidence anyone can condescend to me, to the contrary. There is nothing we have that can go 900,000 mph, in earths atmosphere and survive without burning up.

[edit on 26-2-2009 by drummerroy39]

[edit on 26-2-2009 by drummerroy39]

[edit on 26-2-2009 by drummerroy39]



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by franspeakfree
Heres just a few names of people who are over the legal age who agree that NASA are pulling the wool over peoples eyes and indeed are in contact with E.T around our solar system.

Mike Lopez Alegria - Commander ISS science officer

Dr. Ken Johnston, former Manager of the Data and Photo Control Division at NASA's Lunar Receiving Laboratory

Richard C. Hoagland, former NASA consultant and CBS News Science Science Advisor

Donna Hare,Sergeant Karl Wolfe,John Schuessler,Clark McClelland

Heres a quote from another individual over the legal age


"I, Clark C. McClelland, former ScO [Spacecraft Operator], Space Shuttle Fleet, personally observed an 8 to 9 foot tall ET on his 27 inch video monitors while on duty in the Kennedy Space Center, Launch Control Center (LCC). The ET was standing upright in the Space Shuttle Payload Bay having a discussion with TWO tethered US NASA Astronauts! I also observed on my monitors, the spacecraft of the ET as it was in a stabilized, safe orbit to the rear of the Space Shuttle main engine pods. I observed this incident for about one minute and seven seconds. Plenty of time to memorize all that I was observing. IT WAS AN ET and Alien Star Ship!"




These aren't very good names for supporting the contention. Hoagland isn't considered wholly reliable and I think, although they will correct me if wrong, Zorgon and RFBurns don't cite him either. Mike Lopez Alegria hasn't said he saw 'UFOs', he described an unidentified 'floating' object during the STS-75 mission. There was no implication of it being extraterrestrial intelligence.

The Mclelland quote is sourced from an extremely dubious website and again, is viewed with suspicion by many UFO fans. Sgt Karl Wolf has sparked a lot of discussion about the accuracy of his statements and questions of his clearance.

John Schuessler's a good supporting character to use, deliberate and wholly focused on evidence, explanation, provenance etc.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kandinsky
The Mclelland quote is sourced from an extremely dubious website and again, is viewed with suspicion by many UFO fans.


Hmmm why would Clark's own website be considered "an extremely dubious website"


www.stargate-chronicles.com...

But you are correct I do not quote Hoagland



...



[edit on 26-2-2009 by zorgon]



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kandinsky
John Schuessler's a good supporting character to use, deliberate and wholly focused on evidence, explanation, provenance etc.


I worked with him in the 1980s on the shuttle program, and that's the way he seemed to me, too. So when I read about a story he once told a UFO convention about seeing a 'UFO' in a publicly-released NASA lithograph of an Apollo moonwalk, my curiosity was piqued, and I emailed him.

From: John Schuessler
To: James Oberg
Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2009 10:59 AM
Subject: Re: Peckman account of your missing Apollo UFO photo story


Jim,
[snip re Peckman]

I am not sure I can locate the photo numbers again. That dated back to 1982 and I have moved several times since then. However, at the time I did go over to see Richard Underwood at the photo lab and he wasn't able to locate the photos, but he did verify the photo numbers as probably spoiled film.
John



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
Hmmm why would Clark's own website be considered "an extremely dubious website"

[edit on 26-2-2009 by zorgon]


Maybe because even folks like Stan Friedman find him unworthy of belief:

Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: Filer's Files #16 -- 2003 - Friedman
Date: Thursday, April 17, 2003 1:23 PM



I knew Clark McClelland years ago. Within the last few years I
did some detailed checking on his claimed background, because he
had claimed that von Braun had told him he knew all about
Roswell. While von Braun may well have known about Roswell (he
was stationed at Fort Bliss in 1947 and working at White Sands),
I found no reason to believe Clark's comments. He had
substantially "enhanced" his background in both Pittsburgh and
Florida! This has, of course, happened with regard to Bob Lazar,
William Spaulding, Michael Wolf Kruvant, someone who almost
became the football coach at Notre Dame, etc, ad nauseum.. I
would place these quotes in my gray basket, at best, unless
somebody can find better sources than McClelland.


Stan Friedman



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by ranhome
reply to post by JimOberg
 



So are you saying that that the particles are near by? If that answer is no than why look at them? Its should be apparent that the object in question. The one that does the quick reverse or turn and burn is not super close to the lense...


We don't know their distance. Anybody who makes pronouncements that THEY can 'see' how far away they MUST be, is speaking from imagination, not provable reality.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by franspeakfree

Heres just a few names of people who are over the legal age who agree that NASA are pulling the wool over peoples eyes and indeed are in contact with E.T around our solar system.
....
Dr. Ken Johnston, former Manager of the Data and Photo Control Division at NASA's Lunar Receiving Laboratory



On what basis do you call Johnston as "Dr.", or assert he once had the position of "Manager of the Data and Photo Control Division" -- a division that never existed in the Lab, which concentrated on lunar samples. At that time (1971-2), Johnston was apparently a 28-year-old former Marine aircraft maintenance tech who got a job in Houston as a shipping clerk in the Lunar Lab, and was responsible for mailing out lunar samples and related photographs of them to scientists (a job he performed well). He never held any management position and never had authority to purge or alter the Apollo photo archives, just the set of pictures he used in his work room. The genuine archives were curated in an entire different organization run by real scientists.

Years later, it seems he he sent a check to a PO Box in Colorado and they sent him a "Doctor of Philosophy" certificate in 'Metaphysics' (I've talked with the man who set up that scheme). Such mail-order certificates from non-existent educational institutions are not recognized by any academic, professional, or government entities. But good enough for the world of UFOria, it seems.

Now, what did he claim to have seen about UFOs at NASA?



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by drummerroy39
And for those who need scientifically structured thought, well HERE IT IS. Way too much evidence to support the NASA cover up. .... Extremely compelling and overwhelming evidence to ignore, or even try to debunk. The First one shows the high speed turn. Then the second one shows high speed curvature over the earths atmosphere.


For the STS-80 video, if you want to see the technical context of the images that provides a prosaic explanation, see here:
www.realufos.net...

Spoiler warning: the evidence is pretty conclusive this is routine 'space stuff'. If you want to maintain the purity of your UFO faith, keep avoiding such seductive evidence. Make some excuse why you are too SMART to look at it...



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 06:35 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


Even if I give you the benefit of the doubt with respect to the STS 80 footage. There's no way you can produce a vehicle capable of 900,000 mph. 250 feet per sec, as shown and described in the David Sereta video series 1 # 5. There is no way beyond the shadow of any doubt, this footage can be debunked. The proof is irrefutable.

[edit on 26-2-2009 by drummerroy39]



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by drummerroy39
reply to There is no way beyond the shadow of any doubt, this footage can be debunked. The proof is irrefutable.


The very fact that Jim Oberg is spending his time here speaks volumes in itself...



He doesn't just attempt to debunk any anomaly... only the good ones



new topics

top topics



 
96
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join