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.

 

New STS-63 UFOs - The Smoking Gun?

page: 2
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 21 2009 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by JimOberg

How about something simpler. Is the scene shot in daylight or darkness?
That sure could help set the visual context of the dots.




You have a tendency to ask questions which would have been answered had you only bothered to view the data you are attacking.


So please forgive my thickheadedness and answer the simple question.

People are noticing how you are dodging it.




posted on May, 21 2009 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by sum-one

In the shadow of something? Like what?

And I think you are trying to say that UFO's must be made of reflective material? But this isn't necessarily so.


Question 2 -- No, I'm not making any assumptions of the light-reflecting properties of the dot-objects. They could be self-luminous, or sunlit, or lit by lights from the shuttle, or something else. But finding out which alternative is most plausible is a helpful investigation path.

Which I suggest is WHY the proponents of unexplainability refuse to provide contextual and origin information allowing illumination conditions to be determined. We're seeing them absolutely stonewall this issue here and on other threads.


Question 1: In the shadow of something -- aha, we're getting somewhere. What is the camera that is taking these views attached to, and where is the shadow of this object being projected into the space in the camera's field of view? And what would small nearby drifting objects look like as they moved slowly away from that object and exited the shadow?

And why is that question relevant to the most famous 'shuttle UFO videos' like 48, 80, 63, 75, etc? Why is that question relevant to the promoters' refusal to release information -- which I know Martyn has, for example -- allowing the illumination conditions to be determined?



posted on May, 21 2009 @ 11:34 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


So you still haven't been able to ascertain the identity of the object in the OP....

It is okay to admit that have you failed to debunk this one - the thread will always be here.

Perhaps you can come back later with a list of satellites and distances from SPACEWARN and say you have solved this mystery once and for all.
(And you would obviously post all the relevant links so we can verify your claims for ourselves - Obviously
)

Or perhaps you won't do this - maybe you have already checked SPACEWARN and haven't located data that would account for what we are seeing in the video from the OP....


[edit on 21-5-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on May, 21 2009 @ 11:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
So you still haven't been able to ascertain the identity of the object in the OP.... It is okay to admit that have you failed to debunk this one - the thread will always be here.


Is the scene shot in daylight or darkness? Or please explain why you think it's not important.



posted on May, 21 2009 @ 11:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by Exuberant1
However, since the shuttle's thruster is not oriented anywhere near the direction of the UFOs in this video, it cannot be used to account for their anomalous motions, nor can parallax.


Nice try, Exubie. I'll bet you have no earthly (or even unearthly) idea which direction the shuttle thrusters are oriented. So to provide pseudo-evidence, you just 'make up' this assertion about the thruster orientation to convince people who still consider you a reliable source of factual information.


OK, does this exchange indicate that Exubie just made up his fake-fact about the thruster orientation, with no evidence to back it up? Is there ANYone else reading this thread who thinks Exubie had ANY factual basis for that claim?



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 03:30 AM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


Oberg,

Do you have any external source documentation that would indicate the shuttle's thruster is oriented in the direction of the UFO in this video?

If you had managed to locate such corroborative external source documentation - You probably would have posted it already....


...But as you already know; the UFO would still exist regardless of the shuttle's orientation which cannot account for the object's existence.

Your version of the thruster argument is moot.

*That you have resorted to making use of logical fallacy in your debunking attempts is indicative of your increasingly obvious desperation to debunk this UFO.


It is also poor form.

[edit on 22-5-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 07:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
...But as you already know; the UFO would still exist regardless of the shuttle's orientation which cannot account for the object's existence. ..

Your version of the thruster argument is moot.


This may be as close as Exubie's ego allows him, to confess that his claim about the shuttle thruster alignment is bogus. He has no evidence about the real thruster alignment -- he just made it up and now dodges responsibility for the fakery.

To get real evidence, you need real time/space coordinates. By withholding those coordinates, Exubie is sabotaging any real investigation of this scene.

By demanding an investigation without the coordinates, Exubie is demanding magical miracles.

Game over.



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 07:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


Hi Ex, this video is not the smoking gun.


One thing though; it only strengthens my own reserve to the fact that:
Marty Stubbs, is :The Smoking Gun.

Nasa/JLP spin-doctors have recieved the projectile, between their eyes.



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 11:31 PM
link   
You guys do not know how to watch videos.
This footage www.youtube.com... is OBVIOUSLY of multiple UFOs, there is a lot of strange activity seen in this video. ASIDE from the space junk floating orbiting earth which is easy to differentiate between the abnormal activity.
& Because the astronaut says "We see something FLASHING .. not sure what it is.." There are objects that are moving in directions stopping and turning if you watch carefully.. you guys don't know how to analyse footage...

[edit on 4-12-2009 by orazio]



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 12:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
Here is a new STS-63 UFO which was spotted by the MIR and subject to a zoom-in.

STS-63 is the mission where a practice rendezvous was performed by the shuttle Discovery And the MIR Space station.


From Martyn Stubbs NASA UFO Archives - The NEW STS-63 UFO
[snip]
*Note: As MIR is filming both the shuttle and the UFO - We know that the object cannot be Mir or the Shuttle (which is clearly visible).

Does anyone what what the UFO could be?

[edit on 20-5-2009 by Exuberant1]


In 2000 I discovered an anomaly also on STS-63. Jim Oberg asked me to borrow the STS-63 video from NASA which I did. While viewing it I saw a rectangular object enter the frame and tumble through the frame. I wrote an article about it for the Jeff Rense Program then called SIGHTINGS. The article is still there if you're interested

www.rense.com...
SIGHTINGS
STS-63 Anomalies
By @webtv.net>
3/27/00

There's also a 9:36 minute video of "STS-63 NASA Many UFOs While looking For Mir UNCUT" at video.filestube.com...



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 01:13 AM
link   
There's no sense in trying to deal with Jim Oberg as he's stuck in some kind of warp that doesn't allow him to see anything but the results of thrusters even when they're out of commission!


The fact that there is a ton of UFOs appearing, drifting in all directions, shooting by, etc., and according to Jim they're all the result of thrusters! And, oh yeah, whether it's night or day. It seems he can't tell the difference and he needs guidance from others.



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 07:01 AM
link   
Forget Mr. Oberg, he's yesterdays man

Now back to the future...this is a clip in need of translation. What are the Russians saying? Why did they pan off the shuttle & over to this light? They zoom in & actually past it! Try slowing the zoom in & back out. I see the object in sudden focus as they zoom in & then out of focus before they stop the zoom. Then as they pull out...it focuses as they quickly zoom back. There is a blue hue coming from it.

This was the Russian camera feed as the NASA feed had a loss of signal, We hear NASA then inform the shuttle that the KU Band is back broadcasting...after this Russian sighting.

This is no planet...nor a star (light years away!) This also demonstrates that the Russian communications satellite is better & does not loose signal when NASA does. (as is the case with the Russian control room shot of Mir vs the NASA "feed" video of the same STS-63 mission)



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Shrike
There's no sense in trying to deal with Jim Oberg as he's stuck in some kind of warp that doesn't allow him to see anything but the results of thrusters even when they're out of commission!


The fact that there is a ton of UFOs appearing, drifting in all directions, shooting by, etc., and according to Jim they're all the result of thrusters! And, oh yeah, whether it's night or day. It seems he can't tell the difference and he needs guidance from others.



For those who come in late, a sure sign of non-credibility in an argument is when one party misprepresents the arguments of the other party.

I have conduucted extensive and original research of major 'space UFO videos' and report on my results on my home page www.jamesoberg.com

SOME cases involve nearby particles struck by RCS thruster plumes, and I provide the telemetry and tracking data obtained via FOIA to back up that interpretation. Other cases have no thruster involvement at all, in my theories.

As to night or day, to jokingly brush off the importance of illumination conditions in assessing possible causes of a weird video shows a lack of seriousness that can only lead to perpetual confusion and self-delusion. My report on this video, ten years ago, provided precise day/night information, so when shrike insinuates I don't know which it was, he shows he hasn't read the report, and worse, he's merely advertising his willful ignorance and pride that HE doesn't know it, and is proud not to know it.

And by the way, shrike -- this is orbital space flight under zero-G weightless conditions. You can't have a 'ton' of ANYTHING. The serious angle to this comment is that when we take earthside analogies and figures of speech and trained eye-brain systems into an alien, literally unearthly environment, then we are going to be misled by them if we're not careful.

I think that's the basis for the widespread enthusiasm for this genre of UFO videos. All of them.



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by secretnasaman
This was the Russian camera feed as the NASA feed had a loss of signal, We hear NASA then inform the shuttle that the KU Band is back broadcasting...after this Russian sighting.

...This also demonstrates that the Russian communications satellite is better & does not loose signal when NASA does. (as is the case with the Russian control room shot of Mir vs the NASA "feed" video of the same STS-63 mission)


Interested observers should note that the NASA Ku-band video link uses the same antenna as its ranging radar, so during dynamic periods of approach for rendezvous, when the radar is providing critical navigation data to the crew, one should not jump to the conclusion that the absence of live TV from aboard the shuttle is evidence of malfunction or censorship -- it's a normal feature of that mission phase.

I also wonder if the Russian TV was coming from their 'Luch' relay satellite system -- which broke down soon after the collapse of the USSR and has yet to be redeployed -- or from a ground site. As a rule we designed the early rendezvous missions to be making their closest approach during comm passes over the russian ground sites, precisely because their former relay satellite system was no longer available, nor were their worldwide web of tracking ships -- sold off for scrap. 'Luch' may still have been functional at the time of STS-63, however.

But how is the image of a dot in the sky, uncorrelated with any check of the natural sky background, provide even a hint of UFOness on this video? As is standard, and doubly so when there's a known leaky thruster, both sides would be very interested in examining and identifying candidate spacecraft-generated debris in their vicinity (it's the main reason cameras are indeed aimed at anything appearing in the view). But what really was determined in this case?



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 11:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


Why is every ball of light photographed a smoking gun?? These threads always disappoint, here I was ready to see an up close view of a UFO buzzing the space state.



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 12:26 AM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


Jim: There is no doubt that you are sometimes correct in assessing some of the white objects seen in NASA videos as being the result of thrusters, debris, ice particles, etc. I've seen thruster firings, water dumps, ice particles, debris, etc. So your explanations have a reality.

However, there is another reality for which your explanations just don't wash. That other reality is: UFOs. Real objects that defy explanation. And many NASA videos contain these objects. And trying to explain them with prosaic explanations just don't cut the mustard.

I am sure that myself and other ATS members (not all!) could show you footage for which you just could not utter a sound unless it was "Yes, you're right, that is not explanable." But, I'm sure, you've seen all of the footage released by NASA and you know darn well that if challenged in a real-time situation you'd ask not to be quoted.



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 01:08 AM
link   
Man,
I'm at a loss here. Why do some of you absolutely hate Jim Oberg's rational, intelligent and very relevant questions? He is offering to help you come up with some conclusions to your mystery here. He seems to me to be only asking for data too process. As he said, "People are starting to notice" that you guys keep dodging some of these questions. Looks bad on ya'. You guys do realize there are over 8,500 satellites in earth orbit—payloads, spent boosters, and other debris flying around up there right?



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 06:41 AM
link   
Very interesting, I believe discovery and most logical proof will come from these videos and nasa knows it as well.



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 07:48 AM
link   
VANCE.. Mr. Oberg does not need you to defend him! You don't 'get why' we don't roll over every time he posts? This is because he is not correct, & he is fair game when presenting this crazy talk about video fuzz, "normal" debris, ice is everywhere all the time, & his "when in doubt...mumble" answers that serve his real purpose..."the art of "fuzzification" !

I have posted short, medium & long versions of this STS-63 "event" on the secretnasaman You Tube Channel. you will see the "light" is originally on the left side of the shuttle as the Russian camera looks down...then moves over it & to the right, where the Russians look it over. (any translation would really help from our Russian ATS members) Then it moves to the upper right. When NASA's weaker feed, in a loss of signal period is restored, the crew is told to switch to the NASA camera looking up at Mir. Then a B & W shot appears showing in the bottom left, this same light..in the same position.

That is what we see, & I think there is enough visual context posted to see this is not a rogue star...or friendly debris...or ice inches from the camera.... In fact this is a great sequence because when the NASA camera is put on screen, we have the same UFO seen on both cameras.

This is a good thread because it asks for any help in analysis...from all ATS members. Not just Jim Oberg. He is just one member. His posts are just his guesses & really just strategy & tactics of a no-grey-area...UFO debunker.



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 08:03 AM
link   
Good thread Exuberant1 it's a pity the clip is so short but there is something there for them to zoom in on but have no clue what it is.
Is there a longer clip out there of this sorry nothing to add to your thread but i find things like this interesting keep up the good work.

THANKYOU



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join