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-63 UFO Footage Discussion

page: 12
10
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 

Hey Jim, what do you think of this news?..

Aliens in space? ISRO discovers extraterrestrial life


In a major scientific breakthrough Indian Space Research Organisation(ISRO) claims to have found three unknown species of bacteria about 40 kilometres above the earth's surface.


I'll credit this thread for the news, and this is the source;

ibnlive.in.com...

Discovery of New Microorganisms in the Stratosphere


Three new species of bacteria, which are not found on Earth and which are highly resistant to ultra-violet radiation, have been discovered in the upper stratosphere by Indian scientists.

www.isro.org...

Speaking of critters..
Now, how come NASA haven't seemingly discovered these micro-organisms in Space even after all these years of exploration?.. these things are in the upper stratosphere for heavens sake..

[edit on 17/3/09 by Majorion]




posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 04:53 PM
link   
I don't know but couldn't the 'disc shaped' object actually be Venus as seen from space?



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 08:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
....such a basic mix-up, even after being politely asked to double-check it, is a howler, and ought to be a credibility disallower.


Simple.

If that is the case, then Your own "mix-up" with regards to the Kecksburg incident ought to be a major "credibility disallower".

Even after you were informed that USAF data pointed towards a return to earth twelve hours before - you still continued to tout your questionable hypothesis:

"The Soyuz-1 impact was at about 300-400 mph but the most damage was the explosion of the soft-landing engine post-impact. A Kosmos-96 type vehicle would have impacted somewhat slower because it would have been smaller. But orbital elements released by NORAD showed that at the time of the reported impact, K-96 was not passing anywhere near Kecksburg. The only way to reconcile the tracking data is to:

1. Either assume the tracking data was generated as camouflage for the true flight path which crossed PA at the right time, or

2. Assume there were other fragments in higher orbits (quite plausible considering how the vehicle originally exploded weeks earlier) that underwent different orbital evolution before decaying at the "matching" time of day and location. (Easton)"

*With no evidence of any recovery ever being made, and with the data in-hand which indicated that the capsule could not have come down in Pennsylvania; you still persisted in pushing your rapidly deteriorating theory - Right up until 2003, when you began saying it could have been a meteor...

I won't laugh at you or call you names (like you do to us), but if RFBurns making a 'basic mix-up" on a conspiracy forum is a "credibility disallower" - then your experience with the Kecksburg incident was a 'credibility destroyer'.

Cheers!

[edit on 17-3-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 11:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Majorion
reply to post by JimOberg
 

Hey Jim, what do you think of this news?..


Wa-a-a-a-ay off topic on this thread.



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
I won't laugh at you or call you names (like you do to us), but if RFBurns making a 'basic mix-up" on a conspiracy forum is a "credibility disallower" - then your experience with the Kecksburg incident was a 'credibility destroyer'.


Funny, as new data becomes available, some people modify their views -- and some cling to them even more strongly and reject anything that threatens them. So I'm getting complaints for accepting new evidence?
Go start a new thread.

It would be nice if RF acknowledges he made a mix-up. It could happen.

The difference, as I see it, is in modifying an assessment based on improved evidence, versus presenting bogus or confused evidence. One is about an opinion, the other is supposed to be about fact.



[edit on 17-3-2009 by JimOberg]



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 11:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
Wa-a-a-a-ay off topic on this thread.



Jim, just for my information, for educational purposes if you will.. how far up is the space shuttle relative to distance from Earth's surface?.. would 40 Kilometers perhaps an accurate approximation?.. I do feel that this is somewhat relevant to any/all of these STS UFO vids.. so my apologies



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 11:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by Exuberant1
I won't laugh at you or call you names (like you do to us), but if RFBurns making a 'basic mix-up" on a conspiracy forum is a "credibility disallower" - then your experience with the Kecksburg incident was a 'credibility destroyer'.


Funny, as new data becomes available, some people modify their views -- and some cling to them even more strongly and reject anything that threatens them. So I'm getting complaints for accepting new evidence?
Go start a new thread.

It would be nice if RF acknowledges he made a mix-up. It could happen.

The difference, as I see it, is in modifying an assessment based on improved evidence, versus presenting bogus or confused evidence. One is about an opinion, the other is supposed to be about fact.



What do you care Jmmy boy. Why be so concerned about me? Do I really ruffle your feathers that much?

GOOD!!!


First however, perhaps you would like to explain why such a self proclamined, self appointed prestigious space historian who says he only works with facts, would spend so much time at a conspiracy ET belivers website.

Maybe all the MSM fans would like to know too.


Off to send some emails.



Cheers!!!!



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 11:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Majorion
 


40kilometers

25 miles

125,000 ft

definitly a sight to see



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

The difference, as I see it, is in modifying an assessment based on improved evidence, versus presenting bogus or confused evidence. One is about an opinion, the other is supposed to be about fact.



You see for yourself, not others. Once you come to realize that you are not the absolute all seeing "eye" of the entire planet, perhaps you might come back down to Earth and live in the real world instead of that high up fantasy pillar you placed yourself upon.

But hey, stay up there...that way the fall will be that much harder...on you.


Cheers!!!!



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Majorion
Jim, just for my information, for educational purposes if you will.. how far up is the space shuttle relative to distance from Earth's surface?.. would 40 Kilometers perhaps an accurate approximation?.. I do feel that this is somewhat relevant to any/all of these STS UFO vids.. so my apologies


If you can't find this out for yourself, there's no need for you to get dependent on me -- since you've made it clear you won't believe what I tell you anyway. What's your game, and what does it have to do with understanding the video space dots?



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 11:51 PM
link   
What more contextual information do we need about the STS-63 video, to help evaluate proposed prosaic explanations? How can we obtain that data in credible form?

In all the discussions to date, has anyone suggested asking a first-hand witness?



[edit on 18-3-2009 by JimOberg]



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
since you've made it clear you won't believe what I tell you anyway

Jim, you haven't told me much up till now quite frankly. If you will just answer this question instead of avoiding every question I have to ask.. or are you avoiding because the answer may prove in my favor?



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 12:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

In all the discussions to date, has anyone suggested asking a first-hand witness?



That has been suggested more than once Jim. Problem is..those first hand witnesses are not here.

And chances of them comming here to a conspiracy theory forum are slim to none.

They have reputations to protect, oaths to adhere to, and would most likely tell us that they wont waste their time.

But when they leave the program, sit on their duff's for a couple of decades, they will come around and start telling their side of the story to documentaries, radio talk show interviews, publish books and so forth.

Cheers!!!!



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 12:27 AM
link   
So you can easily reject stuff like this.

STS-48 co-pilot Reightler, when asked, told me: “We saw a lot of this on STS-48 because we had a dump nozzle that was leaking.” This same nozzle leaked on the next ‘Discovery’ mission as well and “created the same shower of ice particles – but apparently this time no one misinterpreted them as UFOs.”

Mission specialist Mark Brown added: “When illuminated by sunlight they looked like small diamonds floating in space, disturbed only when the maneuvering rockets fired – the plumes from the rockets would hit them and send them off in different directions.”

The night-time camera views of Earth’s horizon, which included the scene in question, were undertaken as part of an experiment to observe lightning storms. The ‘Principal Investigator’ of that experiment was Otha (‘Skeet’) Vaughan, who reported he frequently saw such moving dots: “They’re an ordinary part of space flight... It’s obviously just more shuttle debris.”

Senior payloads officer James Bates, a veteran of control center support for manned space missions dating back to the Gemini program, also saw these scenes in ‘real time’: “I was a Flight Integration Manager for the Shuttle Program Office during those days and was manager of the Customer Support Room where most of the payloads and other tests were managed or run. I had also worked with Vaughan to get his lightning survey implemented, and was very familiar with all of the low-light TV ‘phenomena’ we watched for hours upon end during many of the flights. During STS-48 I was in the MCC watching the ‘snow’ or ice particles. For many flights during slow times when the crew was asleep (or awake) we would watch chunks of ice float away from main engine nozzles and ice fly out of RCS thrusters. AND we would watch the small ‘snow’ get blasted by the thruster plumes. If someone saw only a piece of such videos, yes, they could think they were UFOs.”

The Monday, January 25, 1993 edition of ‘NASA Today’, a video news feed from NASA, also discussed the claims. Host Raye Borders” NASA officials want to set the record straight once and for all about the controversy that continues to swirl around certain occurrences that happened during the STS-48 mission more than a year ago. During the mission, ‘NASA Select’ recorded events which led many to believe UFO’s may actually exist. The most peculiar occurrence took place when an object traveling towards the shuttle made a sharp right turn, and flew off into space.”



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 05:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Senior payloads officer James Bates... If someone saw only a piece of such videos, yes, they could think they were UFOs.”



Strange.

Why then, does NASA only release the video in pieces?

If the video in it's entirety would dispel such ideas as we have on ATS - then why not do it?

*It is because releasing the full-length videos would only further corroborate some of the hypotheses put forth by members of this site and others.

This is why only 'select' pieces of video were released to the public. If the video - which we paid for - actually supported your claims, it would have already been released.

NASA's unwillingness to release full STS-48 and STS-63 videos, which they claim would substantiate their hypotheses is quite telling, and is indicative of ongoing deception.

NASA says we are wrong, and says they have proof in the form of full length videos.

NASA then refuses to release those full-length videos that they claim would corroborate their stories.

NASA isn't doing itself any favours by behaving in this manner.

[edit on 18-3-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 06:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
What more contextual information do we need about the STS-63 video, to help evaluate proposed prosaic explanations? How can we obtain that data in credible form?

In all the discussions to date, has anyone suggested asking a first-hand witness?



Is this the new JimOberg Obfuscation word this week from the bag-o-tricks..."prosaic".

Anyone else keeping track of all this besides me?


Ok Jim, you asked how do we obtain some credible data that we can all agree on that is valid and acceptable. Glad you asked that.

Well I believe I did make suggestion, in another thread, and several times over, that we should find a source, and someone, who is neutral to these discussions, and who has no standing interest in these issues or participates in discussions on public forums regarding these subjects.

Now, given that the only real true source for this extra data would in fact be NASA, there is not much we can do about trying to locate another first hand source. So I think we all can agree to that part. The source will be NASA. (COUGH!) Sorry had something in the throat there.


Ok, now as to "whom" we find to supply this data, that is going to be the tricky part. But not so tricky that it is impossible.

Now I have already stated that I will NOT use my contacts, or rely on those contacts to provide this data, even though they could, and have to me directly, I do not believe that in the interest of fairness to all sides concerned, that I be involved in any way, shape or form, in providing said data.

I have also suggested that you also NOT be involved in obtaining this data, for the same reasons already stated...in the best interests of fairness to all presently participating in these discussions.

Now what does that leave us with?

Not much, but not entirely nothing.

Perhaps someone who has been reading these threads, not actually taking a large participating role, could send an email, or write to NASA to find out where this information can be obtained. Point us all in the right direction, and there you go. Maybe a website link, or provides an email address for each one of us to be able to obtain this data and then each of us has the same data which can be compared to each other via u2u or here in the threads.

Where there is a will...there is a way. And as I said, for everyone's confidence and ease of suspicion, I dont believe there is any other way that could be more neutral and more trusting.

If you have any other suggestions, by all means throw em out here.


Cheers!!!!



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 06:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by JimOberg

Senior payloads officer James Bates... If someone saw only a piece of such videos, yes, they could think they were UFOs.”



Strange.

Why then, does NASA only release the video in pieces?

If the video in it's entirety would dispel such ideas as we have on ATS - then why not do it?



This is why back in the early days of the space program, NASA earned the moniker "Never A Straight Answer".

It has earned many, many more since then. Most of which I came up with in the new TEM forum, and listed them here in a few posts here and there.

Robert Williams, administrator of Common Sense Central and My Common Sense Politics, has kept track of these monikers I came up with, and a couple of other TEM members, noting who came up with which ones, and is going to publish those in a future article.

Robert Williams was the college professor who was fired back in 2001 for simply using reference to the Cydonia region on Mars in one of his lectures. He has appeared on Coast 2 Coast with Art Bell, and has written several articles, all found at his websites, about the events that led to his release from the college. Robert now enjoys retirement and is very active in watchdog activities ranging from politics, financial markets, and of course, NASA.

I have come up with a new moniker for NASA just within the last couple of days, but I wont release that one just yet...still gathering up the background data.





[edit on 18-3-2009 by RFBurns]



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
Strange. Why then, does NASA only release the video in pieces? If the video in it's entirety would dispel such ideas as we have on ATS - then why not do it?


Strange. NASA does something -- broadcasts the full length video -- and Exubie is convinced NASA never did it.

Strange -- NASA provides copies of the full-length video to anyone who asks -- and Exubie asserts never does it.

Earth to Exubie, hello, Exubie, how do you read?



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 09:12 AM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


Strange.

I assume then that you are going to totally ignore the fact that for years, the primary source of many of the UFO tapes was a man by the name of Martyn Stubbs.

It wasn't until after Stubbs began releasing footage gained from NASA's downlink that they began to release their own versions of the footage - but they also began encrypting that taxpayer funded downlink, so that us pesky citizens would never be able to do what Stubbs did ever again ;-(
(Martyn Stubbs is a member here at ATS)

*If it wasn't for the work of men like Martyn Stubbs - much of the footage we discuss here on ATS would never have been released by NASA, and the taxpayers would not know which portions of the mission videos to order, where to look, etc.
(Also; without Stubbs footage, we would be unable to determine the validity of the versions later released by NASA - who are known for their manipulation and falsification of various data.)

[edit on 18-3-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by Exuberant1
Strange. Why then, does NASA only release the video in pieces? If the video in it's entirety would dispel such ideas as we have on ATS - then why not do it?


Strange. NASA does something -- broadcasts the full length video -- and Exubie is convinced NASA never did it.

Strange -- NASA provides copies of the full-length video to anyone who asks -- and Exubie asserts never does it.

Earth to Exubie, hello, Exubie, how do you read?



Umm Jim..this is like a new thing with NASA. Exuberant1 was refering to past video, not STS 119.


Cheers!!!!



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join