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

I'm off to Austin to chat with Richard Garriott, then do NBC shuttle launch coverage -- I'll be busy for a few days, but y'all won't be far from my thoughts, so please forgive my temporary absence...

Originally posted by JimOberg
JM - Have you had any personal experiences with what you would
consider an unknown object?

SM - None. And no Astronaut ever has.

JM - No Astronaut?

SM - No. No Astronaut has ever had an experience with something that
has the signature of intelligent life.

Could you please tell us where can we see the whole interview?

I ask because I find it a little strange that he would answer about "something that has the signature of intelligent life" when asked about "unknown objects".

Thanks.

[edit on 10/3/2009 by ArMaP]

Before I go, a suggestion -- understanding the 114 scene would be improved by understanding how the Orbiter is aligned relative to the line of sight. So given the information I provided (nobody else ever did), go figure:

Which way is the nose? Which way is the tail?

Originally posted by JimOberg
Before I go, a suggestion -- understanding the 114 scene would be improved by understanding how the Orbiter is aligned relative to the line of sight. So given the information I provided (nobody else ever did), go figure:

Which way is the nose? Which way is the tail?

Why would the orientation matter unless there is a thruster blast, which even at that there are thrusters at both fore and aft of the ship, that may have been the cause for the object's manuver?

The camera used in that particular segment of the video isnt no hand held camera, as can be easily seen because of the nature of how the camera pans to the left later in the footage, too mechanical of movement for it to be done by hand being held by an astronaut up in zero G.

So why would the orientation matter?


Cheers!!!!

Originally posted by JimOberg

The thruster plume travels at 10,000 ft/sec, not 1000 -- oops re the typo, mea culpa.

Everyone has their flaws there Jim.

Originally posted by JimOberg
Your culpability at confusing this issue is far more grave. Since I never said what you are imagining I said, your smug disproving of an imaginary misstatement is only an indicator of wasted time.

Your obfuscation ability at cluttering the issue is even more grave and apparent as each day passes regarding this issue. The question was posed as to why no thruster blast is seen in STS 114. You stated that it only occurs during certian situations of a fuel mixture on a statement posted in a report by Lan Flemming, and linked accordingly in my reply. You also stated within this thread that the movement of the object may be due to a thruster blast, but since you are so sure that its a blast that is not seen in this particular case (odd that by chance it would not be seen for this one instance), that is the reason why the object moves as it moves. And the discussion went from there and I responded with hard evidence to the contrary that the thruster blasts ARE in fact seen by both normal visual camera modes AND UV modes, as seen in both the pictures I posted, and in a plethora of NASA STS videos plastered all over the net, including a blast seen in STS 48.

Originally posted by JimOberg
You have to try harder to understand things that all of us are saying here, before jumping to wild space goose chases over fundamental misunderstandings. Please go back and read over what I have posted. If you actually find a text from me saying that RCS thruster plumes cannot be seen, I will go to the penalty box and refrain from posting for 48 hours.

You implied as one of your explanations that the object moves because of a thruster blast. You may not have written that assertion in direct words, but you definately implied that assumption as a possible explanation. So what do you expect here? Us to just sit and bow to your every varying and often contradicting statements and ignore our ability to find our own evidence?

I think not sir. Thats the neat thing about freedom, and choice. We can find out for ourselves, or just be lumps on a log and accept every word from someone who used to sit in a control room watching others do the work. Id rather use my abilities to investigate and find information and not just be a couch potato and accept your here and there, this or that statements that are only causing far more confusion and clutter in this entire thread.

Originally posted by JimOberg
If you can't find such a statement that you allege I made, what do you suggest for your own penalty?

See reply above. Now if you want to dispute the report by Lan Flemming who clearly found your statements about the RCS system to be incorrect, and referenced an actual NASA RCS engineer for information, well then you need to bark at Lan Flemming, not me. I just linked the website containing the article based on your implication of the object in STS 114 being acted upon by a thruster blast that sometimes is not seen by camera.

Nice try to reverse the issue, but once again, your caught like a rat in a trap and now your squiggling viciously to escape from your own futile error.

Don't worry Jim, as I said before...everyone, including me, has their faults. The difference is when one admits to the error, as you did in another thread, or one who does not..as your consistantly doing here.

More contradiction, more mixed signals, more clutter, more obfuscation.

My my....that merry-go-round ride must need some oil because its squeaking at every rotation, repetitive and quite annoying.



Cheers!!!!

[edit on 10-3-2009 by RFBurns]

I dont care which of you started broadsiding and sniping, but its getting clearly beyond the realm of debate. Lets face it , you cant both be right, and factuality has already decided who won this round. Now ... calm down, smoke something maybe, and get into some fruitful discussion.

reply to post by TrueBrit


This is more than just a discussion about a ufo turning and booking, this has become a mental boxing match, us lurkers are enjoying the match and learning things about space flight and space shuttles as well, its a 2fer

Originally posted by ArMaP
Could you please tell use where can we see the whole interview?

I ask because I find it a little strange that he would answer about "something that has the signature of intelligent life" when asked about "unknown objects".

Thanks.

The link sent me to the sign-up page for Playboy

Musgrave's interview is in several parts.

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4

Jim's actual quotation appears absent from the body of the interview, although in Part 3 he explains his views on ET in the galaxy. After skimming the article, several lines are identical, but others less so...

Originally posted by TrueBrit
I dont care which of you started broadsiding and sniping, but its getting clearly beyond the realm of debate.

Ummm seems to me it is a REAL debate... by two heavy hitters... so what's your issue? Most of us think this is the best thread in a long time here

Lets face it , you cant both be right, and factuality has already decided who won this round.

Ah so your saying RF Burns is the decalred winner then KEWL

Now ... calm down, smoke something maybe, and get into some fruitful discussion.

What an absolutely silly remark. You just stated that factuality has already decided who is right, so how can there be any more fruitful discussion if you want the two main debaters to stop talking?

Perhaps we know who is smoking what hmmm?

Originally posted by TrueBrit
I dont care which of you started broadsiding and sniping, but its getting clearly beyond the realm of debate. Lets face it , you cant both be right, and factuality has already decided who won this round. Now ... calm down, smoke something maybe, and get into some fruitful discussion.

You raise a fair point, but the 'discussion' has been very entertaining in no small part due to the broadsiding and sniping. It's added to the quality. I've been reminded at times of one of my favorite comedy acts...



Great fun

reply to post by Majorion


I can not find that post now, but an object affected by a gravitational force can stop and go in the opposite direction from which it came, like when we throw something in the air in a perfect vertical.

And even if it's not a perfect vertical direction, as the object makes a parabolic curve, that curve, when seen from the side will look like the object stopped (he stopped going in the vertical) and moved back in the same direction.

Originally posted by TrueBrit
Lets face it , you cant both be right, and factuality has already decided who won this round.

But they can both be wrong, while there is only one truth, the possibilities of being wrong are probably infinite.

The bottom line on STS-114 and all other NASA footage which we "civilians" have been able to see on TV thanks to NASA and other individuals who have taken to surreptitiously recording various flights, such as Martyn Stubbs and others, resulting in products such as "THE SECRET NASA TRANSMISSIONS: THE SMOKING GUN" which show what NASA goes out of its way to deny that there are objects in space that cannot be explained. We've all seen some of the various footage and what we see has been videotaped by onboard cameras and by handheld cameras showing an obvious interest in these phenomena which are ridiculously explained by such NASA notables as Jim Oberg who doesn't want to give an inch and prefers, instead, to obfuscate by always asking "Was it day, was it night?" "Do you know which way the shuttle was facing?" "Do you know your right hand from your left hand?" A really insutling attitude.

We see in those videos objects making angled turns, slowly moving and flashing objects way behind the astronauts who when the object is pointed out to them they deny what control is talking about. Astronauts taking pregnant pauses when these objects appear in the frame. Objects at a vast distance being described as ice particles, debris, water dumps, etc., near the shuttle necessitating zooming in and out and changing the camera's angle and focus, etc.

People speaking for NASA think that if they lie long enough that we will be brain washed into agreeing with them. Well, I many not be the smartest person in the world but I'm not as stupid as those NASA spokepersons for they do not exhibit logic, common sense nor reason.

You can't have an ice article appear at a vast distance from the shuttle and the ice particle is hauling and the camera is kept on this ice particle as it covers half the earth's hemisphere. Or objects grouping and the camera zooms in on them which are also at a vast distance. And it's not just NASA but the Russians also. Their footage is impressive and their astronauts are not shy at expressing their opinions as to what's going on "out there."

To NASA and it's spokepeople: phooey!

Originally posted by TrueBrit
I dont care which of you started broadsiding and sniping, but its getting clearly beyond the realm of debate. Lets face it , you cant both be right, and factuality has already decided who won this round. Now ... calm down, smoke something maybe, and get into some fruitful discussion.

You know something...I dont care who started it either..but rest assured I am not the type to cower in a corner or just back away from a challenge. I stated quite a few pages back..I am in it for the LONG haul, and if necessary, will return fire with precision.

Its a deep debate over specifics on shuttle thrusters and their flash pulmes that may have an effect on the object in STS 114, a debate about hardware specs on cameras and other shuttle systems, a debate about how tiny ice particles and their light mass behave in zero G compared to larger objects with more mass, its a debate to try to discover what is going on in that video.

I do hope your not suggesting that I or anyone else just sit back and say nothing...because if that is what your expecting...your going to be waiting for a very, very long time.

I have stated many times for the finger pointing and derailing and defocusing of this thread be stopped and returned to the topic...only to come back and see the mud slinging continue...so I throw it right back.

When the incomming ceases, the return outgoing will also cease.


Cheers!!!!

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by TrueBrit
Lets face it , you cant both be right, and factuality has already decided who won this round.

But they can both be wrong, while there is only one truth, the possibilities of being wrong are probably infinite.

This is the basis for a great debate. Both can be wrong so the discussion continues, until the truth is eventually found.

Granted both cannot be right either, but perhaps in the eventual truth found, it may shock some that there is a piece of right here and there from both sides of the issue.


Cheers!!!!

reply to post by zorgon


His statement did give me reason to light up a cig.

Do you have more information on the missions done by NASA for the DOD where the shuttle was used to place geostationary satellites?

Thanks!


Cheers!!!!

Originally posted by Learhoag
....And it's not just NASA but the Russians also. Their footage is impressive and their astronauts are not shy at expressing their opinions as to what's going on "out there."

That is one thing that cannot be debated..the validity and credibility of the Russian space program, especially during the Soviet Union era. Those people did not "play" around and did not play the Nasty Anomaly Scene Airbrushers game.

They did not have any ego's to bruise. Just pure hardcore science and none of the foolishness that is abundant in the western world space program.



Cheers!!!!

[edit on 10-3-2009 by RFBurns]

Originally posted by RFBurns
That is one thing that cannot be debated..the validity and credibility of the Russian space program, especially during the Soviet Union era. Those people did not "play" around and did not play the Nasty Anomaly Scene Airbrushers game.

[from Austin]

Couldn't miss the chance for another ufoish in a barrel shot re trusting the Russians not to engage in airbrushing. This involves some of my own original space history research -- see results here:

'before' and 'after' soviet space forgery

and further examples here:

another dozen soviet cosmonaut forgeries

To reprise space expert RF's assertion,

Originally posted by RFBurns
That is one thing that cannot be debated..the validity and credibility of the Russian space program, especially during the Soviet Union era. Those people did not "play" around and did not play the Nasty Anomaly Scene Airbrushers game.

Originally posted by JimOberg

Couldn't miss the chance for another ufoish in a barrel shot re trusting the Russians not to engage in airbrushing. This involves some of my own original space history research

PFFT! That article is about 1 cosmonaut who liked to tip the vodka bottle after a day's work in those risky space missions. Big friggin deal. Like there isnt any present or past astronaut who has not taken a sip of whisky or a beer. From what I understand, it was quite common to see the "Right Stuff" selection at clubs and bars during the Gemini era.

A tit for tat...a little drinkie at that.

Originally posted by JimOberg
and further examples here:

Oh so now not only are you an authority on EVERYTHING NASA, but you are also a space historian too.

And you waste your time on NBC and here at ATS??

Originally posted by JimOberg
To reprise space expert RF's assertion,

"
That is one thing that cannot be debated..the validity and credibility of the Russian space program, especially during the Soviet Union era. Those people did not "play" around and did not play the Nasty Anomaly Scene Airbrushers game."

Not a single piece of "barf" you have splattered in the room this evening points to ANY alteration of space imagry or data gathered from ANY former Soviet Union probe or mission.

How about finding provable alterations of space images or mission analysis from their space program compared to NASA's instead.

Then you might have something viable to "barf" about.


Cheers!!!!


[edit on 10-3-2009 by RFBurns]

Originally posted by JimOberg
This involves some of my own original space history research -- see results here:

Interesting.

However, your research primarily focuses on images of Communists - not on the manipulation of images of objects in space or that can be attributed to a spacecraft. ;-)

Although the images and research you provided were entertaining and informative, you have yet to provide us with the photographs and proof of tampering which would substantiate your allegations of Soviet space-image tampering.