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: 4
3
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 02:23 PM
link   
where is earth in relation to the video is it directly below or it it facing away from earth riding on the dark side facing out to space?




posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 



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


it's painfully obvious to everyone that you are complaining about Stubbs since you do it in every thread. your motive is also obvious so i guess according to your logic your dead broke





Demonstrating a pattern of inaccuracy of a person's claims


trust me Jim you don't want to go there



you can type all the gobbly gook you want but the fact still remains that you make proclamations and statements and do not provide anything to back up the claims being made and that is exactly the same thing you are accusing Stubbs and (in this thread Exuberant1) of doing.


:shk:


STS-63 UFO seen by NASA & Russian cameras:UNCUT



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 



He claims he saved the space shuttle program from a fatal design flaw by relaying a telepathic warning from space aliens.


G'day JimOberg,would you have a link to these claims from Gordon Cooper as I do look further into such claims for a link that maybe there.People talk of Guardian Angles telling them things in picture form or thought/telepathic etc...

If Guardian Angles are not spirits what are they

What if Guardian's and the UFO phenomena are linked


So Gordon Cooper's statement should not be discarded as this phenomena is over looked.
Link please



Zelong.



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by easynow
 


Not only that easynow, he has a visible pattern on these forums of picking and choosing incidents, topics and evidence to debate. People ask him for a scientific explanation about something and he totally avoids the questions. Jim could in the very least regurgitate some of NASA's explanations over the years, then at least this tactic wouldn't look so blatantly obvious to everyone.



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
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...


Thanks for making the link available so that everyone can see that we've been going at it for many years with neither one being convinced that either one is correct, except in our minds.

The only way we, or at least I, could possibly get any satisfaction is to sit side by side and watch THE NASA TRANSMISSIONS tape so I can hear your explanations because we've never addressed specific footage and you might have never watched the tape for all I know.

My opinion of what is seen on the STS-48 footage may neve change as I just do not see what you see. Mind you, I've never sided with the object that speeds away as being fired upon although I can understand those who do. I do not agree that the flash that is seen came from any part of the thruster as I've seen and have on tape thruster firings. And, of course, there are other things on the footage beside the "fired-upon" object.

But, I gotta tell you, it's been fun and I hope it doesn't end. Nothing like an outstanding friendly adversary.

BTW, Jim, you nor anyone can use the term "believer" referring to me. I know about belief systems and I'm not now nor have I ever "believed". I either know or I don't. I accept or I don't. Believe? Never. I don't "believe" in UFOs or aliens. I do accept UFOs as real as I've had more than my share of solid sightings and I videotaped one photos of which can be seen on a couple of websites. As for aliens, show me one.


[edit on 8-12-2009 by The Shrike]

[edit on 8-12-2009 by The Shrike]



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zelong
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.


I don't hear the comment 'Do you see that light?', could somebody post the time hack for it. The conversation I could make out was focused on monitoring range between the two spacecraft.

1:00 'Wex' (Wetherbee, the shuttle CDR) discusses the "mask" not allowing Ku-band comm -- this is the antenna pointing zone that encompasses the Russian station, so the US antenna does not transmit towards the Mir, to avoid EMI.

2:00 discussing range to each other (“pyatdesyat metrov” [50]), and range rate

3:33 more range discussions -- “syem desyat tree…” [73]

4:37 WX asks, when we get cameras again? Capcom (Story Musgrave) : "Just about now…" [means the pointing angle to the NASA comm relay satellite is no longer too close to the Mir]

5:20 camera looks at light. Crew comments don’t mention it, as far as I can make out.

5:40 capcom: "we have Ku-band downlink.." and then the NASA view appears

7:08 light seen again, to left of orbiter, above horizon. Sunrise coming soon. Object seems too bright to be reflecting shuttle docking lights, suggests it's self-illuminated. Appears to have risen higher above horizon but that could be effect of zoom, we need to check again [if angular motion is real, this suggests celestial object; was there a bright planet preceding the sunrise on that date?]

7:46 ‘treedsyatim metra’ [30 meters]

Note also the Youtube comment:
mikas008 (5 months ago) Da eto prosto cosmicheskiy musor ....
"Yes it's simply space junk"


[edit on 8-12-2009 by JimOberg]



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Shrike
The only way we, or at least I, could possibly get any satisfaction is to sit side by side and watch THE NASA TRANSMISSIONS tape so I can hear your explanations because we've never addressed specific footage and you might have never watched the tape for all I know.


I have extensive detailed critiques of that particular tape. Is this the proper forum to post them, they are not directly STS-63 related.

That's the tape that claims Scott Carpenter is alleged to have said that NASA thought John Glenn's fireflies were living critters, isn't it?



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jocko Flocko
reply to post by easynow
 


Not only that easynow, he has a visible pattern on these forums of picking and choosing incidents, topics and evidence to debate. People ask him for a scientific explanation about something and he totally avoids the questions. Jim could in the very least regurgitate some of NASA's explanations over the years, then at least this tactic wouldn't look so blatantly obvious to everyone.


Do I give this impression by only discussing cases and classes of phenomena that I'm personally familiar with, and have personally researched -- but refrain from judgments on cases that I have no direct insight into? The ones I've researched, I've dug up unique new information and have widely posted it -- sorry if you haven't seen it, I do need to expand my home page on that subject.



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zelong
reply to post by JimOberg
 



He claims he saved the space shuttle program from a fatal design flaw by relaying a telepathic warning from space aliens.


G'day JimOberg,would you have a link to these claims from Gordon Cooper as I do look further into such claims for a link that maybe there.People talk of Guardian Angles telling them things in picture form or thought/telepathic etc...


Here's the precise account and source. I also ask again -- does anybody NOT believe this story is true?

Cooper Claims He Saved Shuttle Via Alien’s Message

This passage from the book describes how Cooper saved the shuttle program from disaster due to a design flaw, by relaying a telepathic warning from space aliens. I asked around the shuttle engineering directorate, and nobody remembered any such flaw or any such design modifications. Cooper’s book does not provide the alleged drawing. And if the aliens were sending design flaw warnings, why didn’t they mention the O-rings?

LEAP OF FAITH: An Astronaut’s Journey into the Unknown,
by Gordon Cooper, with Bruce Henderson
Harper Collins, New York, July 2000
Copyright @2000 L. Gordon Cooper and Bruce Henderson

Chapter 15 -- The Space Shuttle Transmission (pp. 227- 232)

“There could be trouble with the space shuttle”.
It was December 1978.
“What kind of trouble?” I asked her [Valerie Ransone] over the phone. Valerie was at her office in Washington; I was at mine in California.
“Technical flaws,” she said. “Something to do with the heating or cooling system. It’s pretty sketchy.”
The warning had come during one of her ‘transmissions’. She had no idea when they would arrive -- the telepathic messages she believed were from an extraterrestrial source of intelligence. . . . She made a point always to document the details as soon as possible, usually typing up the complete messages.
... Four months after mentioning the vague possibility of a problem with the space shuttle, Valerie was in Los Angeles and came to my office. She was worried about new and more detailed information she had received. She showed me a single typewritten page of notes she’d made after receiving the transmission.
This time the warning was quite specific.
In terms worthy of any graduate engineering class, “serious technical faults” were outlined in detail, specifying what could happen during reentry to the system that provided cooling to the cabin and sensitive electronics. The source of the problem seemed to be the electromagnetic effects during space flight on the iron rods used in the cooling system.
At the top of the page was a detailed drawing of a tube of some type, showing its iron-rod center and a chamber that held a liquid substance.
“Who drew this?” I asked.
“I did,” Valerie said. “What is it?”
“I don’t know.”
“What does this all mean, Gordon?”
I didn’t have the faintest idea; neither, apparently, did she.
The key was the ventilation system, according to the message. If it wasn’t at the proper temperature during reentry, the result could be a toxic release that would fill the lungs of the crew and quickly render them unconscious. No doubt was left that an urgent design change in the space shuttle was called for before another mission.
The transmission warned of the danger that premature launches of experimental components would set up in-flight difficulties that could not be handled by the crew, the result being a catastrophic event that would lose public support for the program. The source of the information professed to being concerned that the future of manned space travel not be jeopardized by such events.
I’d been around Valerie long enough to find her knowledgeable and trustworthy, and I wasn’t about to discount her transmissions. In addition, her telepathic powers had been proved time and time again. . . . I felt certain she was getting good information from -somewhere-; from where and whom I couldn’t say for sure.
And now this: a possible catastrophic design flaw in the space shuttle.
For me, this was the moment of truth.
Dare I ignore the transmission, origin unknown? On the other hand, did I march into NASA with the information in hand? Would they consider me some sort of fool -- retired from NASA for nearly a decade, coming in with detailed technical information about a spacecraft I had never flown?
Looking at the intricate drawing of the coil, I knew I had no choice.
. . . .
Placing the space shuttle transmission into my well-worn briefcase, I flew to Houston to see Bennett “Ben” James, an experienced engineer and supervisor in NASA’s Flight Operations whom I knew from Mercury and trusted like a wingman. . . .
We sat alone in his office, and I told him the “whole six yards,” as we used to say in Oklahoma, where fertilizer trucks carried six cubic yards of material.
. . . . I now told him it was possible that my business partner was in contact with “higher powers somewhere who may have better information than we do.”
Ben, a trooper in every sense of the word, didn’t flinch.
“The bottom line for me is who cares where this comes from?” I said. “If it’s valid -- if it’s accurate of the scenario is possible in any way -- well, maybe someone should do some double-checking just to make sure things are all right.”
“Say no more, Gordo. I agree.”
I volunteered to help Ben brief several NASA managers. “But I’m not sure we should tell them the source,” I smiled.
“I agree.”
NASA engineers immediately went to work examining the space shuttle’s cooling system, looking at the detailed scenario I laid out for them. They quickly identified and, within days, fixed the potential problem with the cooling system -- just as outlined in the transmission I carried in my briefcase.
I was relieved that they found and fixed the problem on the space shuttle. Was I surprised that the cooling system flaw existed? Not really. With Valerie Ransone, I had moved beyond surprise. But the experience gave me another shot of confidence that the source we were getting technological assistance from was for real.
. . . .If this vital and very detailed information hadn’t come from a source of higher intelligence that for some reason was monitoring the U.S. space program, then where did it come from?



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by The Shrike
The only way we, or at least I, could possibly get any satisfaction is to sit side by side and watch THE NASA TRANSMISSIONS tape so I can hear your explanations because we've never addressed specific footage and you might have never watched the tape for all I know.


I have extensive detailed critiques of that particular tape. Is this the proper forum to post them, they are not directly STS-63 related.

That's the tape that claims Scott Carpenter is alleged to have said that NASA thought John Glenn's fireflies were living critters, isn't it?


I don't see why you don't start a thread explaining, from your POV, the STS-63 footage. I'm sure interested ATS member would appreciate a different POV to theirs. I would.

I don't remember if that is the tape that contains Carpenter's comments so I'll have to give yet another viewing.

I don't mean to derail the thread but if the OP doesn't mind, there is one segment that I offer my opinion on. When first seen, the object that enters from the left and is seen to make an angled turn made "headlines" as it was probably such a move had been recorded by NASA. But watching that segment recently from another thread I realized that the angled "turn" is cause by the subtle camera movement! That's all I'll say for now on that. I do have a DVD that Challender sent me of a personal sighting which he videotaped and it does show the distant object making angled jumps.



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 05:44 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


Has anyone said that the object that is zoomed into could be Saturn? First the zoom in and the image is a blurry white "orb." Then when zoom out occurs and the distant object is more in focus, I see "rings" as around Saturn. When the zoom in occurs, a focusing effort is not seen as they don't quite bring the image into proper focus. Only when they zoom out is the image clearer or in better focus and that's when you see the "rings." I don't think it's a UFO with Saturn-like rings, I think it's the planet.



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 10:43 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 

Thanks JimOberg,for the book info.
These words ring true "She made a point always to document the details as soon as possible, usually typing up the complete messages".


Zelong.



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 11:02 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


Can you please explain the point of your post ?

Second line - I once saw a UFO and then lied on my tax return, does this exclude me from jury duty ?



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 11:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by chunder
reply to post by JimOberg
 


Can you please explain the point of your post ?

Second line - I once saw a UFO and then lied on my tax return, does this exclude me from jury duty ?


Re your second line: when did the IRS start including UFO sightings on their forms?


Being excluded from jury duty is every citizen's right!


[edit on 9-12-2009 by The Shrike]



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 11:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zelong
reply to post by JimOberg
 

Thanks JimOberg,for the book info.
These words ring true "She made a point always to document the details as soon as possible, usually typing up the complete messages".


That's one big problem I have with the credibility of the story. Her transcript, and her drawing, are not in Cooper's book.

The second credibility-buster is Cooper's claim that the design flaw was found and fixed within a few days, and all without any mention in the shuttle development and configuration control documentation. If a design change of that claimed magnitude occurred, in my experience it would leave a paper trail a parsec long -- but nothing...



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Shrike
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


Has anyone said that the object that is zoomed into could be Saturn? First the zoom in and the image is a blurry white "orb." Then when zoom out occurs and the distant object is more in focus, I see "rings" as around Saturn. When the zoom in occurs, a focusing effort is not seen as they don't quite bring the image into proper focus. Only when they zoom out is the image clearer or in better focus and that's when you see the "rings." I don't think it's a UFO with Saturn-like rings, I think it's the planet.


If it turns out to be moving at the proper angular rate across the sky (4 degrees per minute), it could indeed be a planet -- but not because of the ringlike image. That's a common camera artifact for point sources of any origin.

Check the date of the video -- Feb 5, 1995 -- and note that Venus was east of the Sun (rising ahead of it) and Saturn west of the Sun.

The next step is to determine the line of sight from Mir to the shuttle at the time of the video -- a date/time, you will note, that is not provided by the video poster.



[edit on 9-12-2009 by JimOberg]



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 12:23 AM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 



but not because of the ringlike image. That's a common camera artifact for point sources of any origin.


I've been a (amateur) photographer since 1955. I've never seen that effect before. I'm aware of optical effects caused by shutter mechanisms as shown on TV documentaries to explain some diamond-shaped UFOs. IMO, the image shown on the video does not suffer from that malady.

BUT, I could be wrong.



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 12:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Shrike
reply to post by JimOberg
 



but not because of the ringlike image. That's a common camera artifact for point sources of any origin.


I've been a (amateur) photographer since 1955. I've never seen that effect before. I'm aware of optical effects caused by shutter mechanisms as shown on TV documentaries to explain some diamond-shaped UFOs. IMO, the image shown on the video does not suffer from that malady.

BUT, I could be wrong.


The vidicon tubes on those 1980's vintage cameras could create pixel bleed making an image significantly larger than the original point source. Further, beyond a certain brightness value, the displayed pixels overload and gray-out -- you can see this in bright cities, big lightning pulses, and bright stars appearing as small donuts. The camera model was a robust piece of off-the-shelf hardware for monitoring external activity, not making precise scientific observations.



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 01:03 AM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


Jim, please visit my thread: Unknown "vehicle & shadow" on Moon astronaut's visor? (Pages: 1 2 ) and see if you can explain or have someone else explain why those bizarre images are seen in an astronaut's visor. You can, of course, start at the beginning but I've added additional images in my last reply so you should jump to that. I'd love to hear what you have to say and I hope it won't be the tired, ol' explanations given by others. I would like to see an intelligent reply for a change. Don't disappoint.

The title of the thread doesn't really apply and I used it because of the markings on the OP photo which are not visible but I explained what they said.


[edit on 9-12-2009 by The Shrike]




top topics



 
3
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join