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: 3
3
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 08:16 AM
link   
reply to post by secretnasaman
 


Not trying to take the thread off track but are you really Martyn Stubbs if so welcome i like your work on the NASA footage.

THANKYOU




posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by secretnasaman
 


I would never assume I could or would defend Jim Oberg, as you said, he doesn't need defending. I was actually asking a question as I said, you answered some of the question and I appreciate that. Like he said "some are starting to notice" I was simply one of those he mentioned - I noticed. I read the entire thread and all the points made. Then I read statements like "Forget Mr. Oberg, he's yesterdays man " that is when I am compelled to ask the question I asked. After I read you and some others ideas on the video, I read his questions and he was asking for me so it seems. I will back out now and await the answers to Jim's questions.
Thanks,
Vance



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 12:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by vance
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?


I wouldn't use such a strong word as "hate." I don't think that anyone here or in the many forums that Jim participates in actually hate him. I think it's more of a dislike because Jim never actually addresses what people would like to see him commit to which, simply, there are UFOs and NASA's videos from the earliest space efforts to the present show these UFOs but Jim doesn't want to admit it. So he busts chops with his questions that no one can answer.

But, in reality, answering his questions is immaterial because we know that he is partially right but not always right. Not all of the objects seen in the multitude of NASA videos are the result of water dumps, thruster firings, ice particles, debris, etc. Some of those objects are real UFOs. So, it doesn't matter if one can't tell whether it's day or night, or whether this or that.

Asking Jim anything, really, is a waste of time 'cause he has patented answers that do not rely on his opinion but on what NASA fed him and what he learned from various sources.

BUT, Jim has never been in space (I'm assuming) so his opinions on what one sees on the videos carries no weight (pun intended!). I'm not talking about objects that may be floating near the shuttle or other space craft. I'm talking about objects that materialize from earth's atmosphere, objects that even the densest of person can see is at a great distance yet it gets tracked for the longest time as it hauls above the earth, objects that are seen going behind other space craft that themselves are at a distance, etc.

They're out there and we don't need Jim to deny their existence with silly, "prosaic" opinions.


[edit on 7-12-2009 by The Shrike]



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 12:59 AM
link   
Nicely put Shrike. The one NASA video that took me off the fence regarding NASA's ice particle blanket explanations was the video where obvious intelligently controlled craft fly into a circular formation, increase their brightness and hold that formation for a period of time. It took my breath away and is actually one of the few video's I show people to get them interested in the UFO subject; it's something solid...



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 01:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jocko Flocko
Nicely put Shrike. The one NASA video that took me off the fence regarding NASA's ice particle blanket explanations was the video where obvious intelligently controlled craft fly into a circular formation, increase their brightness and hold that formation for a period of time. It took my breath away and is actually one of the few video's I show people to get them interested in the UFO subject; it's something solid...


THE SECRET NASA TRANSMISSIONS: THE SMOKING GUN ends with that which originally made me a little emotional as if "they" were showing the astronauts who were videotaping the sequence that they were NOT ice particles!


That video has the sequence that I mentioned where an astronaut videotapes an extremely fast moving object over the earth and it is videotaped for a l-o-o-n-g time. Jim will NEVER claim that the footage shows an ice particle, etc., for that would be an embarrassing explanation.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 08:27 AM
link   
Here's a long give-and-take over STS-63 with intelligent and persistent believer Ed Lopez, whose arguments actually help clarify the dispute.

Discussion of STS-63 video:
www.jamesoberg.com...



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 08:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jocko Flocko
Nicely put Shrike. The one NASA video that took me off the fence regarding NASA's ice particle blanket explanations was the video where obvious intelligently controlled craft fly into a circular formation, increase their brightness and hold that formation for a period of time. It took my breath away and is actually one of the few video's I show people to get them interested in the UFO subject; it's something solid...


JF, do you also get that frisson of recognition of intelligent design when you lift your eyes to the night sky and see the artwork of animals (like swans, bears, lions, etc) and human heros (hunters, queens, kings) arranged deliberately to send you messages?

Sarcasm mode -- off, with apologies.

Isn't it equally, or more, likely that out of a near-infinite sequence of random dot movement, a few would fall into recognizable patterns?
Don't forget, you're not seeing ALL of the hundreds of hours of videos -- just a few minutes of them with particularly weird-looking arrangements.

Is it necessary, do you think, to understand the illumination conditions of such sequences, in order to judge the likelihood of random, prosaic phenomena?

Is it reasonable to ask, if these were somehow intentional messages aimed at somebody, why the astronauts and the folks in Mission Control didn't seem to have noticed?



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 10:58 PM
link   
Absolutely Jim, granted there are situations where "particles" will randomly make patterns, especially around areas of charge. However, that said, the objects FLYING into a circular formation and HOLDING that formation for a period of time in the STS-80 video is far from a random formation of "ice particles".

What they ARE is beyond my knowledge and most likely NASA's.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 11:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jocko Flocko
Absolutely Jim, granted there are situations where "particles" will randomly make patterns, especially around areas of charge. However, that said, the objects FLYING into a circular formation and HOLDING that formation for a period of time in the STS-80 video is far from a random formation of "ice particles".

What they ARE is beyond my knowledge and most likely NASA's.


Do we have any evidence that NASA -- astronauts, Mission Control, the Administrator, the IG, anyone -- even noticed? They see these kinds of lights all the time, seem to assume they're normal, and continue to beam out live TV. Is that any indication anybody there really worries about, or is even interested in, the 'stuff'?



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 11:43 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


Generally no, there is no indication that they are interested in this stuff, therein lies the problem.

Specifically this thread itself shows there is some interest in this stuff.

There was a time when NASA had no interest in finding water on Mars, did that mean there wasn't any ?

It's logic Jim, but not as I know it.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 11:59 PM
link   
NASA refuses to even acknowledge the existence of the discovered "particle like" phenomena captured in their own video frames. This phenomena isn't a "UFO" of any kind at all, they are what could prove to be an undiscovered scientific "phenomenon" relating to matter and how the universe was formed.

It's alarming when an agency such as NASA even discounts such finds. Would I expect Mission Control or the agency to accept or investigate objects like the ones in STS-80? Absolutely not.

Second Phenomena

[edit on 8-12-2009 by Jocko Flocko]



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 12:11 AM
link   

Do we have any evidence that NASA -- astronauts, Mission Control, the Administrator, the IG, anyone -- even noticed?


the fact that they sent Jim O here for damage control is proof enough that they did notice it.




posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 05:20 AM
link   
reply to post by easynow
 


nice one easynow...


who.... nasa?



they dont care about such illusions....






[edit on 8/12/09 by mcrom901]



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jocko Flocko
NASA refuses to even acknowledge the existence of the discovered "particle like" phenomena captured in their own video frames. This phenomena isn't a "UFO" of any kind at all, they are what could prove to be an undiscovered scientific "phenomenon" relating to matter and how the universe was formed.

It's alarming when an agency such as NASA even discounts such finds. Would I expect Mission Control or the agency to accept or investigate objects like the ones in STS-80? Absolutely not.


So when the astronauts dismiss the videos as showing typical junk that they see all the time out their windows, you know better? To quote an earlier post on this thread, have YOU been in space like they have?



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by easynow

Do we have any evidence that NASA -- astronauts, Mission Control, the Administrator, the IG, anyone -- even noticed?


the fact that they sent Jim O here for damage control is proof enough that they did notice it.



Another "character assassination" fantasy from easynow, posing as a false "fact". I do not think that word means what you think it means.



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 09:13 AM
link   
reply to post by JUMPINGJimOberg
 



Another "character assassination"


no need for me to do that , your already well known all over the web


here's a good example , have a listen..





kinda of ironic that you complain people are engaging in "character assassination" when that's all you have been doing to Stubbs. you try to villainize him for not including some facts about his videos, meanwhile YOU HAVE , countless times made proclamations and statements and provided nothing to back up your claims. IMO that certainly is hypocritical.







[edit on 8-12-2009 by easynow]



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


Oh come on Jim, it took fellas like Gordon Cooper all these years to come forward and speak about what they have seen over the years, do you honestly expect any NASA Astronauts currently on the agencies payroll, bound by contracts and agreements who would put their careers on the line? Give your head a shake.

Instead of trying to deflect away from the topic of what you call "Ice Particles" actually may be, then steer us towards believing everything NASA tells the public, please, by all means, explain the second "phenomenon" found by Stubbs in a scientific manner.



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
kinda of ironic that you complain people are engaging in "character assassination" when that's all you have been doing to Stubbs. you try to villainize him for not including some facts about his videos, meanwhile YOU HAVE , countless times made proclamations and statements and provided nothing to back up your claims. IMO that certainly is hypocritical.


IMHO, I'm not complaining, since name-calling and motives-impugning is a sure sign of argumentative bankruptcy.

Calibrating the reliability of somebody's claims is something UFO buffs might be well advised to do more, not less, of. Demonstrating a pattern of inaccuracy of a person's claims, versus claims of OTHER witnesses and sources, goes to the question of credibility, not character. It's not my role, or right, to look into another person's heart -- but what is sorely needed in this field is more attention to assessing believability of different people.



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jocko Flocko
Oh come on Jim, it took fellas like Gordon Cooper all these years to come forward and speak about what they have seen over the years, do you honestly expect any NASA Astronauts currently on the agencies payroll, bound by contracts and agreements who would put their careers on the line? Give your head a shake.


I'd believe Gordon Cooper's stories better if any of his other 'space stories' showed even reasonable accuracy, after extensive and carefuul checking (which you haven't done). He claims he saved the space shuttle program from a fatal design flaw by relaying a telepathic warning from space aliens.

Do
you
believe
him?



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by secretnasaman
 


(any translation would really help from our Russian ATS members)


G'day secretnasaman,I've noticed a reply on one of your utube channel uploads regarding translation of STS-63 UFO seen by NASA & Russian cameras:UNCUT

by- utubin67

Translation:Russ Mission Ctrl: Do you see that light? Russ Astronauts: Yes, and I've seen it before.... My wife says all the rest of the Russian talk is NOT related to any UFO's it more like 'how are guys feeling up there" "we are feeling good" etc.. and there is talk about the 'distance of things not ufo" in "meters" etc.. I thought for sure the Russian Astronauts were talking about a ufo turns out they're having small talk, it does reveal how our imaginations can run wild..



Zelong.


[edit on 8/12/09 by Zelong]




top topics



 
3
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join