NEW STS-48 Video - UFOs All Over!

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by Raider of Truth
I sometimes wonder that or are we a "gas station" in this part of the galaxy? because they hover over thunderstorms and ones below cloud cover go to isolated lakes and gather water..

The images as shown on youtube sure do involve a lot of thunderstorms.

But your guess at a causal link is backwards.

The camera is pointing at thunderstorms deliberately. Passing dots are just coincidental.

Google 'Mesoscale Lightning Experiment' to learn more about the observation program that most of these infamous 'UFO scenes' come from.

The other thing these guy's forget or don't even know there are about 1,500-1,800 thunderstorms a day on earth the shuttle orbits 16 times a day it can pass over a lot of thunderstorms!
So the ice crystals and debris pass over to.

The other 'coincidence' that space-UFO-promoters overlook -- or try to conceal -- is that the most famous videos on different missions cluster during a very brief 2-minute segment of a normal 92-94 minute orbit, with very specific illumination and camera conditions. The implication of that, is that the striking videos are consequences of those unusual conditions, not of genuine anomalies.


And they'll probably ignore this feature, mock it, attack the messanger, and stick their fingers in their ears this time around, too.

Mr. Oberg,
As an ATS member, you should not refer to all of us as "them" & "those people", as it is rude. Having a 2 way skeptic 'laugh', is exclusionary & rude. You are supposed to be a "respected" journalist, not a bully looking for your 'pack'. Presupposing our reactions will be "typical''?

I really did not think you were out to prove how mean, rude & tough you are. But I was wrong. Your "attitude" on this post is not in the 'spirit' of ATS discussions. It is rude.

As for the 'short clip' diss... There are only 10 min. on You Tube to post, & I have tried to shift to longer lead ins..& Uncut sequences...so 'blanket' accusations against ATS members & their Montages is a false flag.

ATS members know that you should prove your points about any video, by getting the nice people at NASA to give you access to the shuttle flight videos you & your kindred spirits say are faked or whatever you are claiming..post them & SHOW US where the flaws are. ATS members must be right, to say that you are not able to access NASA videos.

As to any accusations re: inside info being wrong...it is a typical ploy, my ATS friends, to get me to reveal my sources inside NASA. Not a chance.

There was a man called Phlip Klass, who is now deceased, He was a giant in the UFO skeptical world. He came to Vancouver in 1989 & contacted our little UFOBC
group..there was a meeting etc., but this man was very angry & not a 'big' person at all...He is famous for interrupting UFO meetings by shouting down the speakers...a step beyond heckling.
Jim,
You should not follow in those footsteps. This is the 21st. century. Be polite..try to
be a gentleman, & then we shall pay more attention to you...
Your way is the wrong way. You must think the membership are stupid. How wrong you are.
for ATS NASA UFO discussions

Originally posted by bloodline
Wow... This whole post is pure nonsense.

Well, he seems to be saying that no-o-o-o, he's NOT gonna reveal the origin (date.time,etc) of videos he shows, and it's all MY fault that he is FORCED to withhold that critical information.


This, from a guy who's chummy with the UFO promoters who are known to flame-throw vicious ad hominems at non-believers in their points of view.

We all could do with a thick skin on these debates -- I know I've had to develop one. No complaints, no whines from me, and no boo-hoo blaming of nasty OTHER people for me not acknowledging errors or revealing checkable, verifiable information sources.

We can make progress here -- we already have -- by casting light into dark corners of fantasy and boundless imagination. Let's push on into new ground.




[edit on 22-5-2009 by JimOberg]

Originally posted by JimOberg
We all could do with a thick skin on these debates -- I know I've had to develop one. No complaints, no whines from me, and no boo-hoo blaming of nasty OTHER people for me not acknowledging errors or revealing checkable, verifiable information sources.

Well, if you really want that contextual information from Martyn; you might consider refraining from throwing out insults Jim, like this one on the last page:

Martyn seems to have learned from being burned on these delusions by avoiding allowing any information out to enable an independent investigator to verify -- or refute -- his latest claims.

Martyn was being very polite in his response to you earlier, perhaps if you had lent him the same courtesy in return you might get the verifiable information you demand. Instead of calling the guy 'delusional'.

I'm curious Jim, and I must ask you, is there any room in your investigation for anything other than a prosaic outcome? -- Have you already made up your mind so early without giving any second thought? -- It just seems impossible to me that you'd ever consider that even one of the objects in those many videos may be a genuine unidentified. I've checked out a lot of those videos, and some of them, some of them Jim, defy any conventional explanation. Why do you always make up your mind so early on, and why does it always just HAVE to be prosaic? and as you say; you don't have the contextual information either.

Regards.

reply to post by Theprimevoyager


I remember this video! Someone once said that the UFO darted off because someone on Earth fired an advanced weapon, maybe a kind of rail gun, at it. You can see something shooting up from Earth towards the UFO at the precise moment the UFO darts away.

Originally posted by wmd_2008



Since you cant TELL anyone how big the objects are and you keep DOGING the question (we all know the reason why, NOT ufo's ) they are simply ice particles and other space debris, I cant tell you what each spec is bcause each one could be ice ,paint flecs, small particles from shuttle tiles BUT what we do know is they are not UFO'S.

I think there may be a way to tell if they are ice particles or not.

To see an ice particle it must be pretty close to the camera, right?

But the camera is shown to move, what's interesting is that if they are that close to the camera and that small, then when the camera moves, they should move at a rapid rate out of view right?

The objects in the video do not do this, they have more of a feel of a distant object right?

Just sharing thoughts.

p.s there is one part where an object goes in front of the light (sun?) and creates a silhouette of the object, can ice particles do this I wonder?

[edit on 22-5-2009 by _Phoenix_]

Originally posted by _Phoenix_

Originally posted by wmd_2008



Since you cant TELL anyone how big the objects are and you keep DOGING the question (we all know the reason why, NOT ufo's ) they are simply ice particles and other space debris, I cant tell you what each spec is bcause each one could be ice ,paint flecs, small particles from shuttle tiles BUT what we do know is they are not UFO'S.

I think there may be a way to tell if they are ice particles or not.

To see an ice particle it must be pretty close to the camera, right?

But the camera is shown to move, what's interesting is that if they are that close to the camera and that small, then when the camera moves, they should move at a rapid rate out of view right?

The objects in the video do not do this, they have more of a feel of a distant object right?

Just sharing thoughts.

p.s there is one part where an object goes in front of the light (sun?) and creates a silhouette of the object, can ice particles do this I wonder?

[edit on 22-5-2009 by _Phoenix_]

Lets see as the camera pans up one of the objects goes out of view.

How close or far do you think they are.

The thing you think is an object creating the silhouette is the sensor on the camera over loading due to the light source you can see the lens flare effects across the screen.

In all the videos of these objects they only dart away at a high speed when you see a thruster fire strange that!

Originally posted by wmd_2008


The thing you think is an object creating the silhouette is the sensor on the camera over loading due to the light source you can see the lens flare effects across the screen.

I'm talking about a moving object going in front of that light black dot thing, I know about the over loading black dot issue that happens when you point a camera at such powerful light, I'm not talking about that, is that what you meant?

Anyway check at 0.44, there is a small object that moves towards the light bit, then you can see it in front of it turning black for a moment.

It might be debris who knows.

[edit on 22-5-2009 by _Phoenix_]

Originally posted by Majorion
Martyn was being very polite in his response to you earlier, perhaps if you had lent him the same courtesy in return you might get the verifiable information you demand. Instead of calling the guy 'delusional'.

How convenient -- Martyn provides no checkable source info, and it's my fault. Spare me.

I'm curious Jim, and I must ask you, is there any room in your investigation for anything other than a prosaic outcome? -- Have you already made up your mind so early without giving any second thought? -- It just seems impossible to me that you'd ever consider that even one of the objects in those many videos may be a genuine unidentified. I've checked out a lot of those videos, and some of them, some of them Jim, defy any conventional explanation.

Defy? You have absolutely no factual grounds for asserting that as a conclusion. And you seem content to allow claimants to withhold info that might lead to a prosaic explanation.

It's BECAUSE external sightings might be MORE than 'normal' spacecraft-generated dandruff that NASA (and I) have always been interested in finding their manifold causes. Dismissing them ALL as 'junk' (or on the other hand blanket-believing they ALL represent non-earthly stimuli) can be extremely dangerous -- and the former contemptuous dismissal of a sighting possibly contributed to NASA's being blindsided by the Columbia disaster.

Why do you always make up your mind so early on, and why does it always just HAVE to be prosaic? and as you say; you don't have the contextual information either.

Are you a mind-reader now, about my 'early-on' making up my mind?
Look at the 114 thread. Who spent the time -- took the longest -- to obtain contextual information about thruster activity? The UFO eager-believers? Not hardly -- they had evidently quickly and firmly made up their minds within SECONDS of seeing the videos. A guy who wanted to do genuine investigation did that.

And why DON'T we usually have that information? Because people who DO have it refuse to provide it, and you furnish excuses for them.

Added: a recent article of mine on why analysis of exterior sightings are very important:
today.msnbc.msn.com...

[edit on 22-5-2009 by JimOberg]

reply to post by JimOberg


Instead of relying on ATS members to do your research for you, perhaps you could exert a bit more intellectual rigour and begin perform investigatory work of your own.

You cannot expect us to do your research for you - especially not after all the insults you have dealt out.

It is up to you back up your own unproven claims and perform your own investigation and analysis.

*If you cannot identify any of the objects in the video; do not be afraid to admit it. The thread will still be here; waiting for you to come back with the pertinent external-source data and links which corroborate your claims.

Originally posted by Exuberant1
Instead of relying on ATS members to do your research for you, perhaps you could exert a bit more intellectual rigour and begin perform investigatory work of your own.

Actually, I thought I had been doing innovative and original investigative work on the subject for about thirty years or so, much of it posted and linked from my home page here:
www.jamesoberg.com...

Very little of it seems to have been responded to by the 'UFO school' -- it's easier to pretend it's not there.

You cannot expect us to do your research for you - especially not after all the insults you have dealt out.

Don't you think that's a trifle hypocritical after the kinds of personal insults that are regularly heaped on me? No, I'm not complaining about them -- they graphically illustrate the mindset of some people. And I certainly don't expect you to do any research -- I have seen no indication you even know how.

My point is that when you publish material you want us to believe, you provide the backtrack sourcing to allow anyone else to verify the material you present. This, you steadfastly refuse to do -- which is a good clue about the authenticity of the material.

It is up to you back up your own unproven claims and perform your own investigation and analysis.

as I said, I think my track record shows that this is exactly what I have been doing. Go check out the 114 'debunking' thread to see some recent examples of genuine investigation results.

Here's the link:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

*If you cannot identify any of the objects in the video; do not be afraid to admit it. The thread will still be here; waiting for you to come back with the pertinent external-source data and links which corroborate your claims.

As I said, of course I cannot 'identify' images on an unknown frame of an unknown source at an unknown date and unknown time with an unknown camera by unknown (and un-interviewed) witnesses. Do you really consider this means you've "won"?



[edit on 23-5-2009 by JimOberg]

reply to post by JimOberg

Okay Jim, I give up, you got me, none of those videos show anything other than prosaic phenomena such as ice particles, space debris, lens reflections, junk, dust, blizzards, meteors, or other prosaic stuff. We just NEED that contextual information to prove it once and for all! -- God forbid we discover that even one object actually exhibits intelligent maneuvering in a zero-gravity environment.


By the way, yes we do check out jamesoberg.com, I specifically enjoyed the humor section:

In a rare example of NASA humor, the spacecraft which captured the first high-resolution images of the surface of Venus by synthetic aparture radar was originally designated the Venus Orbiting Imaging Radar, or VOIR, pronounced, roughly speaking,"voyuer". It was, after all, intended to steal a glimpse of Venus, the goddess of love, beneath her veil of clouds. Two years later the name had to be changed to Magellan when Headquarters finally got the joke.

Regards,

[edit on 23/5/09 by Majorion]

Emm, since when do ice particles have flashing lights attached to the side of them.........anyone notice this particular brand of UFO......turns up in other STS vids, its very interesting to me and hard to explain.

reply to post by JimOberg


Id have to say in most instances i agree with you and even on things i dont it usually just minor. The problem with people is they see stuff that NASA released and think wow thats strange and don't bother to look at what it might be. As ive told people in the past if it was released by NASA rest assured it has been reviewed by a committee and if they didn't think it was earth shattering information like proof of extraterrestrials why should you? Ive learned that if people hold a belief they wont let it go now if they are truly curious about whatever they perceive logic can win i noticed you have a tendencies to argue with a believer trust me there not going to change there mind no matter how much information you give them.

doc this thread is from 1985