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.
Originally posted by JimOberg
So the proof that the Sturrock report is "NASA disinformation" is that -- now, see if I'm getting this straight -- a private letter to the White House used the letters "N", "A", "S", and again "A", fiendishly disguised by other letters surrounding them.
Yes.
Originally posted by spacevisitor
So what you think then is just another view about it right, therefore, the people, and I am one of them, who claim they are convinced they see the objects clearly passing behind the tether could still be right then don’t you think?
Yes, I think the electronics were almost overloaded (or had in some instances already reached that point) because of the way the looks of the tether change (without zooming).
And what is so wrong about those cameras.
You think the camera electronics were near their limit.
Jim Oberg and some others are trying explaining it away by blaming it on camera artifacts and such.
How come, because are those cameras then not the very best one can get?
Why do you say that they are filmed in infrared? This was a common camera, not an infrared camera.
After all the information I have read and seen about it, I am convinced that it are definitely objects near the tether which have their own propulsion systems because they move clearly visible in all directions, not only in straight lines, some of their flight path has a curve and some even turn around, and because they are filmed in infrared they must produce heat or emit some sort of pulsating light energy, most likely both and probably because of their propulsion systems.
Originally posted by JimOberg
Originally posted by mcrom901
debris
. Martyn deliberately withholds that datum to sabotage any serious investigation [as he did with the STS-75 video under discussion here -- then provided false information]. It's an old trick, why do some saps keep falling for it again and again and again....?
a video without providing any means (such as date/time) for verifying it, determining the illumination conditions, or checking up on the operational context, and also deleting the sound track of what the astronauts and Mission Control are saying, and omitting what they have said later when asked about the video, won't score many points in the 'honesty' competition.
Early in my research I had several confrontations with James Oberg, a UFO skeptic, whose style of debunking is almost legendary. His tactics led me into a study of debunking to counter his dismissive and completely illogical points, which were almost baffling in their ability to convince others proof of UFOs was a total sham. I found, through years of experience that his tactics were very similar to those used by almost every UFO skeptic in the field. Anyone armed with the knowledge of how debunkers operate can see common threads in the way they argue their points and counter them.
Looks like Jumping James Oberg is, once again, stressing “unfacts” that support…Launching another carefully architected Oberg disinfo opportunity.
ufomedia.blogspot.com...
Originally posted by mcrom901
reply to post by easynow
check this classic........
www.bibleufo.com...
Early in my research I had several confrontations with James Oberg, a UFO skeptic, whose style of debunking is almost legendary. His tactics led me into a study of debunking to counter his dismissive and completely illogical points, which were almost baffling in their ability to convince others proof of UFOs was a total sham. I found, through years of experience that his tactics were very similar to those used by almost every UFO skeptic in the field. Anyone armed with the knowledge of how debunkers operate can see common threads in the way they argue their points and counter them.
Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by JimOberg
a video without providing any means (such as date/time) for verifying it, determining the illumination conditions, or checking up on the operational context, and also deleting the sound track of what the astronauts and Mission Control are saying, and omitting what they have said later when asked about the video, won't score many points in the 'honesty' competition.
how ironic
Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by mcrom901
science.msfc.nasa.gov...
that ^^^^ is NASA disinfo and you won't be getting anything but that from them.
the panel concluded. "It may be valuable to carefully evaluate UFO reports to extract information about unusual phenomena currently unknown to science." To be credible to the scientific community "such evaluations must take place with a spirit of objectivity and a willingness to evaluate rival hypotheses" that has so far been lacking, it added.
Most current UFO investigations lack the level of rigor required by the scientific community, despite the initiative and dedication of the investigators involved
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
and importantly note this:
Most current UFO investigations lack the level of rigor required by the scientific community, despite the initiative and dedication of the investigators involved
"Most scientists have never had the occasion to confront evidence concerning the UFO phenomenon. To a scientist, the main source of hard information (other than his own experiments' observations) is provided by the scientific journals. With rare exceptions, scientific journals do not publish reports of UFO observations. The decision not to publish is made by the editor acting on the advice of reviewers. This process is self-reinforcing: the apparent lack of data confirms the view that there is nothing to the UFO phenomenon, and this view (prejudice) works against the presentation of relevant data."
Peter A. Sturrock, "An Analysis of the Condon Report on the Colorado UFO Project," Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol.1, No.1, 1987
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
When videos are posted with no date time reference, with even the sound track removed, shouldn't all of us, and that means you too easynow, be asking for the facts? I'd have to agree not even getting the facts does show a lack of rigor in the investigation.
Originally posted by mcrom901
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
and importantly note this:
Most current UFO investigations lack the level of rigor required by the scientific community, despite the initiative and dedication of the investigators involved
This process is self-reinforcing: the apparent lack of data confirms the view that there is nothing to the UFO phenomenon, and this view (prejudice) works against the presentation of relevant data."
Originally posted by mcrom901
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
When videos are posted with no date time reference, with even the sound track removed, shouldn't all of us, and that means you too easynow, be asking for the facts? I'd have to agree not even getting the facts does show a lack of rigor in the investigation.
sorry... but nobody had asked for any details in this case.... .
Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by JimOberg
a video without providing any means (such as date/time) for verifying it, determining the illumination conditions, or checking up on the operational context, and also deleting the sound track of what the astronauts and Mission Control are saying, and omitting what they have said later when asked about the video, won't score many points in the 'honesty' competition.
how ironic
you on a almost daily basis continue to throw Musgrave's supposed testimony around at everyone AND NEVER MENTION that he didn't bother to look at any of those "conditions" ((which YOU CRY ABOUT ALL THE TIME)) before passing his judgment, ...
... but yet you expect everyone to accept his claims as PROOF of something.
i would say the fact that you have done this for years doesn't score any points in the honesty department and i think because of your deception and what you wrote in your reply to me, you've made it obvious to everyone that you are hypocritical . sorry but the truth hurts sometimes
he and other crewmembers enthusiastically endorsed the offered prosaic explanation.
Originally posted by JimOberg
That should give you a clue about how serious everybody has been about truly examining these videos (and risking finding the prosaic cause), rather than resorting to mindless mouth-gaping adoration of the dancing dots, and wide-open-minded (brain falling out) speculation on plasmoids and interdimensional ghosts or whatever.
Do you fully appreciate what a condemnation of the pitiful level of intellectual rigor of what passes here for 'UFO investigation', your off-handed statement really is? Phil Klass couldn't have snarled it better himself.
In over 30 years of UFO investigation I have not studied a single sighting for which I could not find a prosaic explanation. - paraphrase of a statement by Philip J. Klass
Could some UFOs actually be manifestations of Other Intelligences (OIs)or Non-Human Intelligences (NHIs) such as extraterrestrials (ETs), visiting the earth and interacting with human beings? Or all reports of such sightings simply mistakes, hoaxes or dreams of the hopeful believers? It all comes down to explanation. If there were no sightings which are richly detailed, credible and yet unexplainable the UFO subject would be based totally on theoretical expectations, as is the so-called Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI).
Originally posted by JimOberg
Reality check. Musgrave was ambushed with this video on a UFO program, and since he was not TOLD any of the context of it, he said he couldn't say what IT showed, but that in general from his experience the shuttles were often surrounded by debris that behaved in the same manner.
You see satellites. I've seen Mir go by within 28 miles; other satellites and you don't know what they are, but maybe just space debris. All kinds of debris come off space ships, especially at the back end after the main engines shut down and you open the doors: ice chips, oxygen or hydrogen, stuff dumped from the engines. On two flights I've seen and photographed what I call "the snake," like a seven-foot eel swimming out there. It may be an uncritical rubber seal from the main engines. In zero g it's totally free to maneuver, and it has its own internal waves like it's swimming. All this debris is white, reflecting sunlight, or you don't see it. Cruising along with you at your velocity, it's still got its own rotation. At zero g, things have an incredible freedom. It's an extraordinary ballet.