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: 65
96
<< 62  63  64    66  67  68 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlasteR
reply to post by RFBurns
 


Another great post. I find it interesting how the NASA administrator and all his science and engineering cronies love to talk about how excited they are about space and what it holds in store for us. Yet when they are asked about the possibility of aliens or UFO's they clam up and refuse to answer the question. And this is the kind of response we get from the same NASA that is responsible for capturing some of the most stunning UFO footage in existence. Do they think we are really that stupid? NASA secrecy has been going on for years and it is going to continue. Astronauts have been seeing UFO's in orbit since the dawn of manned space flight...

What ever happened to the audio recordings of NASA astronauts on shuttle missions referring to objects in orbit as UFO's and "alien spacecraft"? What about the secret comm channel on the shuttle that is supposedly only used for discussion of UFO's? And what about all the astronauts, themselves, that continue to come forward with their own stories about UFO's in orbit and/or otherwise?

-ChriS


Please read more widely, think hard about it, and be willing to realize when you've been conned by people you thought were your friends.




posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 12:15 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 12:49 AM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


Not really sure what your post was meant to tell me. But it doesn't take away from the facts. Astronauts continue to come forwad with UFO experiences, and we have a remarkable array of audio and video recordings (many examples from NASA itself) that prove something is going on that we don't understand. For some people its too big of a leap to even consider. So be it. The truth should always be able to speak for itself, and it does. We don't have all the answers despite what some people might say. If there wasn't anything going on then why all the NASA secrecy? Why all the astronauts talking about UFO's in space? Why all the well-documented accounts of UFO's reported by commercial and military pilots whom have only their jobs to lose by coming forward? The fact is the more time goes by the more witnesses, pilots, astronauts, cosmonauts, military personnell, astronomers, and police officers report seeing objects that defy all logic.

I remember seeing ultraviolet footage from an old space shuttle mission that actually showed multiple unknown objects simply appearing and disappearing at remarkable speeds in the ultraviolet spectrum from all different angles. But it must've just been a glitch right?

-ChriS



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlasteR
Not really sure what your post was meant to tell me. But it doesn't take away from the facts. Astronauts continue to come forwad with UFO experiences, ...


Their space experiences, or rumors they've heard and believed (a la Mitchell)?


...and we have a remarkable array of audio and video recordings (many examples from NASA itself) that prove something is going on that we don't understand.


Understanding is good, and contextual information and prosaic proposals may help in that regard.


For some people its too big of a leap to even consider. So be it. The truth should always be able to speak for itself, and it does.


Indeed. As you see from the posted reactions here, many folks just reject the idea of any possible prosaic explanation, out of hand.


If there wasn't anything going on then why all the NASA secrecy?


Well, isn't this circular? NASA censors the space videos to hide UFOs. The absence of UFOs in the space videos therefore proves there are UFOs in the original space videos. Uh, how can this notion be disproved? It's worded so as to be immune from any rational counter-argument.


Why all the astronauts talking about UFO's in space?

"All.."? Just who is talking about UFOs in space? Not Ed Mitchell or Gordon Cooper. Not Buzz Aldrin. Not John Glenn. Who then?


I remember seeing ultraviolet footage from an old space shuttle mission that actually showed multiple unknown objects simply appearing and disappearing at remarkable speeds in the ultraviolet spectrum from all different angles. But it must've just been a glitch right?


Somebody told you it was 'ultraviolet', but that didn't make it so. Read the posts, consider the alternative arguments with an open mind, and understand better. It's worth it, but it's often hard, once one point of view has sunk in and taken root.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 07:17 AM
link   
Jim, can I ask you what is your stance on the UFO / ET subject, after reading your replies from here and from all over the internet I am getting mixed responses?

I get the feeling you are looking for more than what you already know.

Over the last week or so I have been researching NASA and its involvement with this subject, no matter how hard you (not personally) try and bury your head its clear that NASA are hiding certain things from the general public, whether that be to hide the existence of other life forms or for self gain in order to ask for more and more money. I don't know.

In truth we can look at the STS videos until our eyes are watering, but I personally can only draw a conclusion once I know what your personal stance is. The reason I ask is that I have so many unanswered questions and the answers I do have don't add up?

Please, elighten me.


[edit on 26-3-2009 by franspeakfree]



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

Originally posted by franspeakfree
Jim, can I ask you what is your stance on the UFO / ET subject, after reading your replies from here and from all over the internet I am getting mixed responses?


I have located a letter that Oberg wrote to Steven Greer during the early years of the disclosure project (1997) that might help you with developing your opinion on Jim's previous 'stance' with regards UFO's and disclosure - it is quite interesting, to say the least:


"...I am a lifelong UFO buff, a founding fellow of CSICOP, and long time associate of Phil Klass, as well as a colleague and friend of J. A. Hynek from Northwestern days. I am fascinated with the folklore aspects of the UFO beliefs in our culture, and am a specialist in spaceflight operations, both American and Russian...

"I applaud CSETI's efforts to strip away the `government secrets prosecution' barrier to the disclosure of people's stories about UFO experiences and I fully support the call for a government declaration that all legal constraints against disclosure be dissolved. I've always felt that claims of fear of such prosecution, as an excuse by people not to `go public', was often merely a gimmick not to have to take responsibility for the authenticity of such stories. As far as I've been able to tell... nobody has ever been arrested or charged - much less convicted and sentenced - for actually doing so.

"But don't stop merely with legalizing disclosure of all - if any - government secrets about `real UFOs'. I believe there is a far more valuable body of `secrets' that will help understand the decades of UFO phenomena that the world has experienced. This deals with government-related activities which directly or indirectly led to public perceptions that UFOs might be real when they weren't. Sometimes these actions were carefully orchestrated in advance; sometimes they were localized impromptu ad hoc damage-limitation tactics. But from my own experience, they seem to have played a tremendous and widely unappreciated role in inciting and enflaming public interest in UFOs while deflecting public attention from real highly-classified government activities.

"I'm referring to situations where government representatives - officials, military officers, etc. - used `UFO' as a convenient camouflage for other official classified activities (such as retrieval of crashed aircraft or nuclear weapons or other objects), or used artificial `UFO stories' (in oral, written, photographic, film, etc. form) as `tracers' in studying the function of security safeguards and personnel psychological responses; or used `UFO' as an excuse (either intended or accidental) to cover up improper, forbidden, or diplomatically delicate activities (such as aviation incidents involving dangerous accidental or deliberate close passes or intercepts of civilian airliners; or overseas excursions of agents on intelligence missions where deflection of local perceptions was useful; or to conceal from the country of origin the possession of foreign military hardware); or played pranks and jokes on intended or accidental targets; or any other activity that the government - or any part of it - wanted to keep hidden, knowing that having it thought of as `UFO-related' would consign it to the never-never-land of myth and nuttiness, thus keeping mainstream media attention to a minimum. And it has worked!

"Please include such `UFO secrets' in your list of disclosure demands, and ask that any government personnel involved in the use (or misuse or abuse) of such practices be immune from any government prosecution for the actions which led them to take such measures. Once such immunity is verifiably granted, I have my own list of people who have privately talked to me over the years and who were involved in government activities leading to a number of well-known `UFO cases', which can be released and which can help the public understand where and how much of today's UFO mythology originated.

"This is a serious proposal deserving of serious consideration, and promises immensely fruitful results."

(source: www.martiansgohome.com...)

*It appears that Jim Oberg was particularly interested in having `immunity` included in Greer`s list of disclosure demands - which I absolutely agree with as being a necessary part of any such disclosure process, perhaps the most important.

Jim really lays it out straight in the letter - I like it. ;-)



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 08:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by franspeakfree
Over the last week or so I have been researching NASA and its involvement with this subject, no matter how hard you (not personally) try and bury your head its clear that NASA are hiding certain things from the general public, ....
Please, enlighten me.


Looks like I've already failed.

My views on the subject are clearly posted on my home page www.jamesoberg.com, and I'm sorry that your research into this debate hasn't so far included visiting there.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 08:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
Jim really lays it out straight in the letter - I like it. ;-)


I still feel that way, Exubie, but you might not like one of the angles on this recomendation -- to pull out the rug from under all the 'secret insider sources' claims from so many folks in the UFO literature, including specific individuals on this thread, who "can't provide checkable names" of people who allegedly tell them UFO-related secrets. Most of those claims, I believe, are bogus, but non-disprovable (as they are meant to be).

You see the problem. How can we discuss the STS-114 video without ever thinking it's critical to ask the first-hand witnesses? Instead, phony advance discrediting propaganda gets spread -- "They've all taken secrecy oaths", "They'll all just lie anyway,", "They've all had the 'little flashy thing' used on their brains", etc. This is a gimmick, I think, and is an attack on people whose testimony might be invonvenient to existing beliefs. Bad form, guys.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 08:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by BlasteR
reply to post by RFBurns
 


Another great post. I find it interesting how the NASA administrator and all his science and engineering cronies love to talk about how excited they are about space and what it holds in store for us. Yet when they are asked about the possibility of aliens or UFO's they clam up and refuse to answer the question. And this is the kind of response we get from the same NASA that is responsible for capturing some of the most stunning UFO footage in existence. Do they think we are really that stupid? NASA secrecy has been going on for years and it is going to continue. Astronauts have been seeing UFO's in orbit since the dawn of manned space flight...

What ever happened to the audio recordings of NASA astronauts on shuttle missions referring to objects in orbit as UFO's and "alien spacecraft"? What about the secret comm channel on the shuttle that is supposedly only used for discussion of UFO's? And what about all the astronauts, themselves, that continue to come forward with their own stories about UFO's in orbit and/or otherwise?

-ChriS


Please read more widely, think hard about it, and be willing to realize when you've been conned by people you thought were your friends.


Oh so now your saying people here are conning others???

Your trying to dictate to people how to read, how to think, and how to make conclusions. All I do is post my opinions on what I believe, as do others. We dont go around telling people to read more widely, think hard about it and then go accusing someone on this forum of them being a con and try to convince them they are not their friends.

It would take a really, really dumb person to not see who clearly is the con artist around here.





Cheers!!!!

[edit on 26-3-2009 by RFBurns]



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by franspeakfree
Jim, can I ask you what is your stance on the UFO / ET subject, after reading your replies from here and from all over the internet I am getting mixed responses?

I get the feeling you are looking for more than what you already know.

.....the answers I do have don't add up?

Please, elighten me.


IF you spotted the mixed responses..you already figured it out.

2nd line.


Cheers!!!!



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
...including specific individuals on this thread, who "can't provide checkable names" of people who allegedly tell them UFO-related secrets.


You must really hate journalists then - most won't give up important sources or put them at risk.
(ie. Sey Hersch and the torture tapes, 'deep throat', etc..)

... However it appears you also protect your sources:

"I have my own list of people who have privately talked to me over the years and who were involved in government activities leading to a number of well-known `UFO cases', which can be released and which can help the public understand where and how much of today's UFO mythology originated."
(Give us some names from that list ;-) jk

*I agree with you about immunity being one of the most important demands that must be met.

[edit on 26-3-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Where did I write what you are POSITIVE I wrote, that I was talking about launches? Nowhere? Your malfunctioning brain inserted that extra clause into a passage that did not originally contain it, and you went berserk for no rational purpose. Please, calm down and get more careful.




You dont have to write it Jim, people can see it on the tv. If NBC wac covering what the shuttle was really doing, and in real time, it would last alot longer than a few minutes.

You know, like how all 3 networks used to do back in the Apollo days. Every day, every night, and for a good hour or more.

NASA made it interesting back then. They actually talked to the people, had model demonstrations on the set, interviewed other astronauts, scientists, engineers, and the information presented was not presented in a format that made it all worthy of hitting the off button, but in the manner to make it interesting to the people, and exciting.

Watching it today, you might as well be sitting there watching a screen filled with black.


Cheers!!!!



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by Exuberant1
Jim really lays it out straight in the letter - I like it. ;-)


I still feel that way, Exubie, but you might not like one of the angles on this recomendation -- to pull out the rug from under all the 'secret insider sources' claims from so many folks in the UFO literature, including specific individuals on this thread, who "can't provide checkable names" of people who allegedly tell them UFO-related secrets. Most of those claims, I believe, are bogus, but non-disprovable (as they are meant to be).


Neither can you...as Exuberant1 said...lets see the list.

What you want here is for me to jepordize my contacts, my friends careers, and my commitment to them. Well it isnt going to happen. Some things are far more important than to appease your curiosity. Its called behing honorable and upholding your word to others. Its called being honest with them, and to myself. Something that I do not think you fully understand.



Originally posted by JimOberg
You see the problem. How can we discuss the STS-114 video without ever thinking it's critical to ask the first-hand witnesses? Instead, phony advance discrediting propaganda gets spread -- "They've all taken secrecy oaths", "They'll all just lie anyway,", "They've all had the 'little flashy thing' used on their brains", etc. This is a gimmick, I think, and is an attack on people whose testimony might be invonvenient to existing beliefs. Bad form, guys.


Well bring them forth Jim. You have thrown around the flag in here that you too have the better scoup on the inner workings at NASA, that because you sat at a console in flight control, that you are the all knowing here and insist we ask the first-hand witnesses. Well..get em in here!

Something seems quite odd about all this....is this the week to go back a few pages of this thread and bring up issues already discussed and hashed out..just to try to instigate another defocus session?

Sure seems like that to me.

Can we get back to the STS 114 issue now?

Geez..I wonder how many times I have asked for that.





Cheers!!!!



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by franspeakfree
Over the last week or so I have been researching NASA and its involvement with this subject, no matter how hard you (not personally) try and bury your head its clear that NASA are hiding certain things from the general public, ....
Please, enlighten me.


Looks like I've already failed.

My views on the subject are clearly posted on my home page www.jamesoberg.com, and I'm sorry that your research into this debate hasn't so far included visiting there.


Typical debunker tactic...saying people have not done this or that, how the heck do you know what people have or have not done Jim?

Are you tracking down IP addresses through your website so you can keep a record of who does or who does not show up at your site?

Perhaps that is how you know who has or who has not been to your site?

Are we now requred to go to your site because you like to keep telling yourself you are the only one who is right and the entire world is wrong?

Talk about self ego trips. You do need help.




Cheers!!!!



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 




a founding fellow of CSICOP, and long time associate of Phil Klass, as well as a colleague and friend of J. A. Hynek from Northwestern days.


Everything is starting to make sense now. I am getting an outline as to why Jim is here and its important to do so and relevant to this thread and indeed this site. Thanks for the post Exuberant






[edit on 26-3-2009 by franspeakfree]



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 01:56 PM
link   
Re the question of 'time delay' on NASA's live transmissioins from space missions, I suggested a few days ago that the current mission provided an opportunity to try to calibrate that. Certain specific scheduled events -- such as undocking, separation burns, etc, would be occurring at precuse times. So folks could observe the events on the downlink and compare them to the actual local time on Earth, and see what the difference was.

Various suggestions have included delays ranging up to five minutes. This was a chance to actually measure them.

Did anyone do it?



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 08:31 PM
link   
no delay... eh ?




posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 01:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by BlasteR
Why all the astronauts talking about UFO's in space?

"All.."? Just who is talking about UFOs in space? Not Ed Mitchell or Gordon Cooper. Not Buzz Aldrin. Not John Glenn. Who then?


NASA employees and astronauts are continuously coming forward with pretty remarkable stories. At least one nasa employee sais she was tasked with airbrushing out "critters" that supposedly kept showing up in their images. Her name is Donna Hare and she came forward for "The Disclosure Project".


Gary McKinnon said he hacked into government and NASA computers and sais he saw evidence of NASA image doctoring and a UFO coverup. He definately hacked something or they wouldn't have been after the guy. He was jailed, his computers confiscated, and he was forced to pay a fine (although the problem here is that there is no evidence of what he saw, since his computers were confiscated, he sais).


There are many examples I know of and many I don't. We have no idea how many people have yet to come forward either. So here are just a few decent examples of NASA UFO video footage and radio transmissions from astronauts talking about UFO's. Anyone who's done any searching for related videos on youtube or google knows there are so many its extremely difficult to sift through all of them. But there are some that are extremely interesting.









There is a high number (who knows how high?) of ex-NASA employees, ex-military radar controllers and pilots, ex-astronauts, and retirees of NASA that have come forward to claim these kinds of objects are extremely common.. These are pilots, radar operators and air traffic controllers, astronauts, cosmonauts, military officers, imaging experts and generally just people that know what they're talking about and don't necessarily have any reason to lie.


Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by BlasteRI remember seeing ultraviolet footage from an old space shuttle mission that actually showed multiple unknown objects simply appearing and disappearing at remarkable speeds in the ultraviolet spectrum from all different angles. But it must've just been a glitch right?


Somebody told you it was 'ultraviolet', but that didn't make it so. Read the posts, consider the alternative arguments with an open mind, and understand better. It's worth it, but it's often hard, once one point of view has sunk in and taken root.


Actually, one of the methods of filming UFO's in this way involves using multiple cameras all simultaneously filming the same area of sky. There are a few examples on google and youtube of objects showing up in the Infrared but not in the visible light area of the spectrum. Some NASA cameras were designed to detect ultraviolet light wavelengths for a variety of applications. One was used to film the STS-75 tether experiment video that later became famous. I saw a youtube vid a while back showing ultraviolet footage from one of the space shuttle missions showing objects simply appearing and disappearing in mid-flight, to and from all different directions. I looked for it but couldn't find it. I'll keep my eyes peeled though.

-ChriS



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 02:36 AM
link   
The top parts of the video is the body of our planet right?:S If it is, why are there stars ON it?


I'm confused:S



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 02:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by ZikhaN
The top parts of the video is the body of our planet right?:S If it is, why are there stars ON it?



Those are 'prosaic explanations' you see maneuvering in those videos. ;-)

Many are terrestrial organisms with forms and functions similar to those of the known biological sphere... just on a larger scale. This hypothesis is more 'prosaic' than Oberg's variating myriad of proffered 'prosaic' excuses - and far more logical when accounting for certain anomalies.




new topics

top topics



 
96
<< 62  63  64    66  67  68 >>

log in

join