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: 15
10
<< 12  13  14    16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 10:41 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 

Yes Jim, why not show us the 'complete' and 'un-edited' footage while you're at it as well?





posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
Hmm...how about you post the ENTIRE email...INCLUDING HEADERS instead of a manual typed version that ANYONE can create when they need to cover up their BS.

Lets see the REAL thing Jim...the WHOLE thing Jim.




I notice you did not demand this of Sereda, before you swallowed his claim wholesale. Different standards?

Let's swap. I'll show you the whole email message and you show us the email messages you said you were sending to my main media client, NBC News, to file a complaint.



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Let's swap. I'll show you the whole email message and you show us the email messages you said you were sending to my main media client, NBC News, to file a complaint.



I call BS.

Please post the quote from the post wherein RFBurns says that he is sending a message "to file a complaint"

*Your record - when it comes to posting emails/letters which you claim corroborates your story - is pretty poor as of late.

I am going to require you to properly cite the post containing the alleged threat, or repost it for us to see.

If you cannot even do that much, then this must be just (another) bogus claim.



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 12:12 AM
link   
04:54 PM 3/3/00 EST
Jim Oberg to Joe Nuth

Dr. Nuth, I'm trying to do some background on a UFO article in a current Brit magazine that mentions you by name. Do you recall discussing any space shuttle videos with these guys?

[Extracts from UFO Magazine March 2000]


Date: 03/03/2000 4:27:24 PM Central Standard Time
From: uljan1@lepvax.gsfc.nasa.gov (Joe Nuth)
To: JamesOberg@AOL.COM

Dear Mr. Oberg,

I have had several small email exchanges with David Sereda concerning his impressions of objects seen on Shuttle Bay Camera downloads available via NASA TV. Mr. Sereda was especially interested in material available from the Tethered Satellite mission and claimed to see a host of peculiar effects. I got a call about a week ago from a British editor who was looking into those images that he had obtained from Sereda and a Canadian TV station employee. I suggested that he might do well if he discussed the images with someone from the JSC Astronaut office who had actually flown on the Shuttle and was used to the sharp shadows and floating crud that is part of the Shuttle environment. I have heard nothing since.

My opinion, based upon very little examination of material sent to me by Mr. Sereda, is that the interplay of shadows with the free rotation of the floating debris in the shuttle bay could probably account for almost everything in the pictures. I was never asked about volatile materials such as water, propellant, etc., except in the context of comments on Lou Frank's hypothesis concerning hosts of cometesimals in near-Earth orbits. (A concern of Mr. Sereda's had initially been that the Space Station did not have the maneuvering capability to dodge these incoming cometestimals.) Certainly crystaline volatiles could easily be part of the floating debris seen in the video images Mr. Sereda sent to me. Another possibility would be debris released during deployment of the Tethered Satellite. I also mentioned that the cameras in the bay had no real perspective - close-by objects passing quickly in front of the lens could easily be mistaken for larger objects at greater distance and greatly increased velocity as well as apparent acceleration.

Judging from the snippet below [JO: Extracts from UFO Magazine March 2000], very little of what I had intended to communicate seemed to reach a recpetive audience... [JO: ellipsis in original]

Hope this helps,
Joe Nuth

This is the entirety of the first two messages we exchanged.

Before any attacks on Nuth for apostasy or succumbing to the MIB's 'little-flashy-thing' that wipes memories, don't forget that Nuth still works at Goddard and can be called to confirm this message.

You can't say the same for ANY claimed 'messages' that Sereda claims to be quoting from.


Oh, and by the way, Nuth has no old tapes of Apollo astronauts reporting UFOs on the Moon, even though NASA-Goddard was (and is still) the hub of all NASA space communications. He can be crossed off that candidate list of everybody who has to be checked before proving such tapes don't exist. Only 2,567,903 more potential candidates remaining to be contacted.



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 12:29 AM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


Thanks Jimbo.


Nuth appears to be unable to conclusively identify any of the objects in the video:

"could probably account for..."

"could easily be part of..."

"could easily be mistaken for..."

*After delivering this barrage of inconclusivities, Dr. Nuth concludes by saying; "Hope this helps, " ;-)

(What a joker!)

[edit on 24-3-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 12:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by JimOberg

Let's swap. I'll show you the whole email message and you show us the email messages you said you were sending to my main media client, NBC News, to file a complaint.



I call BS.

Please post the quote from the post wherein RFBurns says that he is sending a message "to file a complaint"

*Your record - when it comes to posting emails/letters which you claim corroborates your story - is pretty poor as of late.

I am going to require you to properly cite the post containing the alleged threat, or repost it for us to see.

If you cannot even do that much, then this must be just (another) bogus claim.




I recognize that you never require this much documentation for the pro-UFO material you repost, and the double standard is pretty common, and not worth complaining about -- you probably don't even notice it.

On the 114 board, posted on 17-3-2009 @ 11:31 PM RF posted:
"Does your gullable MSM lovers even know you spend so much time at a carzies conspiracy fourm? Do you tell people while your on NBC news that 70 percent of your time each day is spent arguing with ET believers?
"Maybe I should send NBC an email with copies of these posts. Im sure some reporter there would be interested in knowing whats up.
"Off to send some emails."

Did I misinterpret the intent of this threat?



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 12:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
Nuth ... (What a joker!)


Why am I not surprised?



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 12:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg


Did I misinterpret the intent of this threat?





Threat?

I see no complaint being threatened against you.

All I see is an ATS member speculating with other ATS members about how interesting it would be to let the MSM know Jim Oberg is also an ATS member ;-)

Jim, is there something wrong with being an ATS member?

*I think it would positively affect your career. Your presence down here on 'the front lines' could be viewed as a sign of determination, true grit - stopping the myths before they start, etc...

In any case, RFBurns did not make any threat - nor has he announced his intent to send anything to NBC.


Nice Try!



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
In any case, RFBurns did not make any threat - nor has he announced his intent to send anything to NBC.


I am so relieved. Does RFBurns concur in your apologia?



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
Does RFBurns concur in your apologia?



Reparative.

The statement you are misrepresenting was a 'reparative' one - not an 'apologia'...

No matter - Back to the topic...

...Back to the topic, in this case I would like to point out some inconsistencies in NASA's reporting of the data, with regards to STS-63:


*This is from SPACEWARN Bulletin Number 496 (1995-004A)

STS 63 was finally allowed to come close to the MIR station, within about twelve meters, as a prelude to a planned docking in the future. Initial orbital parameters were period 91 min, apogee 342 km, perigee 310 km, and inclination 51.6 deg.
(nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...)


*Then you have following statement from the astronauts logs - which contradicts the first:

"Russian engineers were "very sharp and astute and asked all the right questions." They changed the minimum separation to 400 feet, still not close enough for meaningful data."
(history.nasa.gov...)


Twelve meters would have been the practice rendezvous distance, if the shuttle was not leaking so much propellant:

"One of the thrusters on the Shuttle was leaking propellant … and the Russians didn’t know what to think of it. They were concerned about fuel contamination on their vehicle; and if we couldn’t arrest the leak, they didn’t want the Shuttle coming too close to the Mir."
- NASA Flight Director William Reeves.


*So which was it Jimbo - Was the distance 400 feet, or was it 'about twelve meters'?

[edit on 24-3-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
*So which was it Jimbo - Was the distance 400 feet, or was it 'about twelve meters'?


Exubie, you're clearly developing into a good researcher. Since it is your contention that the data is somehow unavailable, your task is to go find it -- find a way to find it, first -- and then report back how wrong you were in opening the discussion with bogus charges of coverups. Come on, you can do it.

You wouldn't trust my say-so without verification, anyway. So skip the middleman.



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
Since it is your contention that the data is somehow unavailable, your task is to go find it ...


Predictable.

The data has already been found, Jimbo - both Versions of it ;-)

*There is no 'contention' either... the data is available and is clearly not trustworthy - nor is such data viable for research purposes:

SPACEWARN: 12 meters

Astronaut's Logs: 400 feet

*You don't even know which one it is, Jimbo.... ;-P



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
...Back to the topic, in this case I would like to point out some inconsistencies in NASA's reporting of the data, with regards to STS-63:

*This is from SPACEWARN Bulletin Number 496 (1995-004A)

STS 63 was finally allowed to come close to the MIR station, within about twelve meters, as a prelude to a planned docking in the future. Initial orbital parameters were period 91 min, apogee 342 km, perigee 310 km, and inclination 51.6 deg.
(nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...)


*Then you have following statement from the astronauts logs - which contradicts the first:

"Russian engineers were "very sharp and astute and asked all the right questions." They changed the minimum separation to 400 feet, still not close enough for meaningful data."
(history.nasa.gov...)


Twelve meters would have been the practice rendezvous distance, if the shuttle was not leaking so much propellant:


*So which was it Jimbo - Was the distance 400 feet, or was it 'about twelve meters'?


I'm gonna have to retract your 'researcher attaboy' that I too generously awarded overnight, Exubie. Hand it over.

You have created a false dichotomy between 400 feet and 'about twelve meters', based on your inability to read complete articles that you link to.

The site that you cite for '400 feet' refers to that as a clearance distance approved during the approach, and what you did not continue reading to find -- at that very same link you provide -- was that as the leak diminished, the closest permitted range was reduced by mutual consent.

In the end, according to that VERY SAME link that you claim states "400 feet" for closest approach, this passage:


The Discovery crew brought the Orbiter up to within 35 feet of Mir.


The SPACEWARN site, an international agency, uses metric, not English units, and so their statement is "within about twelve meters".

So the "inconsistency" you complain of, the "contradiction", is really "35 feet" versus "twelve meters".

I'm flabbergasted that you could make such an egregious error in research. And I'm dismayed that you could base such smarmy insulting tones on an "inconsistency" and "contradiction" that in the end is entirely a figment of your own incompetence. Shame on you. You do need adult supervision on this subject.



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Did I misinterpret the intent of this threat?






Threat? NBC and others always asks for viewer comments, opinions and suggestions. IF I send NBC anything, it would be expressing my comments and opinions about something they air.

If I see a high profile news anchor from the NBC nightly news getting drunk at a bar and afterwards go driving and swerving all over the road, if I am compelled enough to write to NBC about it, I will.

Its called "Freedom of Speech". The right to express your ideas, opinions and voice your concerns.

Until the constitutional right is abolished and this country turns into a dictatorship, I will excersise my rights as an American Citizen to the fullest extent of those rights.

And, as long as NBC or ABC or CBS or FOX or any other MSM network asks for viewer comments, and they throw up their contact email address, then that is an open door invitation to express my opinions and comments.

But if it makes you feel any better Jim, I have not sent any email to NBC or any other network. It was no threat, it was nothing but letting you know that people do and can at will, take other steps to be heard besides a forum.

So wipe off the sweat off the brow, relax, have a cup of joe or whatever your tastes preferes, and move on to the next step.


Cheers!!!!



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns

Originally posted by JimOberg
But the balance is bogus, because there's plenty of reason to suspect his 'sources' are 'imaginary friends' that he cites in order to make (in the 114 thread) howler after howler of incorrect allegations about space flight, that support hisd UFO point of view.....
Stuff he wants people to believe, he attributes to these unnamed and non-verifiable 'inside sources' who supposedly tell him things inconsistent with every other known written or oral or digitized source on the planet.


Try try all you want there Jim...you think your dealing with someone who backs down or cowers to a corner...guess what...you got a long wait comming. There is no way I will jepordize my contacts, my friends, my line of communication because of you. You will just have to either accept that or go find a cup to cry in because until the time is right, their identity will remain safe.


OK, so the issue is "backing down" and "cowering in a corner" -- sounds like testosterone is getting involved in the debate. Calm down, let's stay as cerebral as possible, and address main issues. Have I skipped responding to any of your requests, in the rough-and-tumble across half a dozen threads? Please remind me of anything you want me to answer.



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
Its becasue our friend Jim there is infatuated with attacking me, and not the issue. He seems to believe that as long as he keeps posting personal level attacks at me, that he will succeed in defocusing people's attention on the subject matter. Its an old classic tactic..one I have spotted out before, and will so again here. Cheers!!!!


Your explanation and complaint would have a lot more credibility if your own signature block wasn't such a smarmy, smarty-pants snicker at me and my opinions:


Reply to JimOberg 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'.



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
Have I skipped responding to any of your requests, in the rough-and-tumble across half a dozen threads? Please remind me of anything you want me to answer.



Hardly half a dozen..anyway to remind you of what not just me, but others as well, for you to answer is this...

..why are there no full length, unaltered, unedited videos, audio recordings, documents and transcripts available directly from any NASA site?

Also, why should anyone have to jump through hoops to get what we already own as taxpaying citizens who pays for everything that NASA does?

As Bob Dean pointed out..."There is no reason why they have classified so darned much...those nitwits back there classify everything, and there is no damned reason to classify everything".

So....WHY? Why all these games? Why all this nonsense? What is so crucial to be protecting that the world be left out of when it comes to space, the other planets, and even things right here on Earth?

You see Jim, those mudane and prosaic explanations cannot answer those questions. That is why so many do not agree or believe in them.


Cheers!!!!



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by RFBurns
Its becasue our friend Jim there is infatuated with attacking me, and not the issue. He seems to believe that as long as he keeps posting personal level attacks at me, that he will succeed in defocusing people's attention on the subject matter. Its an old classic tactic..one I have spotted out before, and will so again here. Cheers!!!!


Your explanation and complaint would have a lot more credibility if your own signature block wasn't such a smarmy, smarty-pants snicker at me and my opinions:


Reply to JimOberg 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'.



My signature is simply that..a signature...it is a quote from a post made by another member.

If you are raising the "cease fire" flag then just say that and I can replace that signature with what was there before. Id much rather have my station link there.

(LaForge...prepare to lower shields...yellow alert.)


Cheers!!!!



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 05:07 PM
link   
Ladies and Gentlemen, let me take this break in the conversation to introduce a few words from our sponsors at Terms and Conditions Inc.

Debate the posts and not the posters



Thank you for your time in reading this important message



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
And I'm dismayed that you could base such smarmy insulting tones on an "inconsistency" and "contradiction" that in the end is entirely a figment...



Wrong.

Those numbers aren't a 'figment' of anything.

They are inconsistent - please don't start blaming other 'international organizations' when NASA gets caught trying to pass off two data sets as the same one...

Poor form, Jimbo.

-"Russian engineers were "very sharp and astute and asked all the right questions." They changed the minimum separation to 400 feet, still not close enough for meaningful data.""

*I'd like to get your opinion on what 'meaningful data' constitutes...

[edit on 24-3-2009 by Exuberant1]



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 12  13  14    16 >>

log in

join