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.

 

Two UFOs in NASA Video of STS-128 Launch

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 01:29 PM
link   
Video from the Friday night launch of Discovery showed two interesting UFOs --

go watch STS-128 - FLIGHT DAY 1 HIGHLIGHTS
www.space-multimedia.nl.eu.org...

and make note of the bright light visible trailing the shuttle just
after the shuttle pulls up from the external fuel tank (where the
camera is mounted). These night-time ascent views are amazing,
and with only a handful of launches left they are going to be rare.

The light sure got my intention -- no joke -- and I had no
explanation at first.

Two still images were posted on a spaceflight enthusiast board:

forum.nasaspaceflight.com...

forum.nasaspaceflight.com...

It's near midnight local time, no illumination, no
external lights except the faint glow of high-speed
plasma impact at 70 miles altitude. This bogie is bright!

Note also near the end of the highlights reel, views of
a button lazily floating out of the payload bay -- or is it?




posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 



I had no explanation at first.


so if you have a explanation why are you posting this ?

trick or treat ?



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by JimOberg
 



I had no explanation at first.


so if you have a explanation why are you posting this ?

trick or treat ?


No tricks. The 'unknown' was a real puzzle.

Without knowing the date/time of the video, it would have been impossible to explain.

Just like Martyn's 'NASA UFO' videos withhold information critical to developing a prosaic explanation, with the subsequent claims that the lack of an identification means the objects are genuinely anomalous.



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
No tricks. The 'unknown' was a real puzzle.

Operative word there being "was", huh?

Can you edit the title and remove the word "UFO" please?



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Clickfoot

Originally posted by JimOberg
No tricks. The 'unknown' was a real puzzle.

Operative word there being "was", huh?

Can you edit the title and remove the word "UFO" please?


Have you seen the video? Why apply this standard to me and to nobody else on this forum?



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 




Have you seen the video? Why apply this standard to me and to nobody else on this forum?


Because you should know better, you are considered an "expert in the NASA UFO" field by many, with former ties to NASA. We must hold ourselves higher than this Jim.


You don't want to fall into the same category as the pseudobelievers now do you? Others and myself have much respect for you.


[edit on 8/31/2009 by jkrog08]

[edit on 8/31/2009 by jkrog08]



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


Has hell just frozen over, am I dreaming or has Mr Oberg actually said he saw not just one but two UFOs?

Perhaps the MK Ultra is wearing off


Thanks for the post!



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 11:36 PM
link   
The term "UFO" is just as justified for these two events as it is for all the other 'NASA shuttle UFO videos' from youtube and elsewhere. You start out with an unusual visual apparition.

If you have context of the video, you can usually find a prosaic explanation.

If that context is deliberately withheld by posters, then you usually can't.

For the bright light at the tail, I'd suggest using heaven-above.com to see what was in the direction directly astern of the shuttle at MECO.



posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 04:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
The term "UFO" is just as justified for these two events as it is for all the other 'NASA shuttle UFO videos' from youtube and elsewhere.

It isn't if you already knew what it was before you made the thread, now is it?


Originally posted by JimOberg
For the bright light at the tail, I'd suggest using heaven-above.com to see what was in the direction directly astern of the shuttle at MECO.

Or you could just tell everybody because you already know?

Or better yet you could have posted this in some other forum since it isn't a UFO?

Come on Jim, this is beneath you.



posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 06:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Clickfoot

Originally posted by JimOberg
The term "UFO" is just as justified for these two events as it is for all the other 'NASA shuttle UFO videos' from youtube and elsewhere.

It isn't if you already knew what it was before you made the thread, now is it?


Originally posted by JimOberg
For the bright light at the tail, I'd suggest using heaven-above.com to see what was in the direction directly astern of the shuttle at MECO.

Or you could just tell everybody because you already know?

Or better yet you could have posted this in some other forum since it isn't a UFO?

Come on Jim, this is beneath you.


Sorry my point isn't clear.

There's a large number of ways that unidentified dots from NASA videos can wind up on youtube as 'space UFOs'.

This torrent of UFO videos -- and the misimpressions they leave on people -- are seen all over this board.

There are also a large number of things a person can DO to try to figure out if there's a rational prosaic explanation.

This is much rarer on these boards, but is still here, in the form of some people's original research and insightful suggestions for avenues of approach.

The 'official explanation' for UFO #2 -- a "button" -- sounds like 'swamp gas' or any number of other genuine prosaic causes of some UFO sightings that are regularly mocked by posters here.

Fortunately the images were of sufficient high resolution that even the thread holes in the middle of the button could be clearly seen. It really looked like a button, and there are lots of buttons on the insulation blankets in that area. Without high quality images, however, that prosaic explanation would have remained 'probable' at best.

There was no explanation offered of UFO #1, which was genuinely weird.
It was self-luminous, because there was no sunlight within thousands of miles of the shuttle [we know that from its flight path/schedule].

Using heavens above, anyone can place the position of the observer -- the shuttle camera -- off the coast of New Jersey at an altitude of 70 miles, nine minutes after blast off, and get an 'all sky' chart.

The chart shows the Moon in exactly that direction, southwest, that the camera was facing.

It is a bizarre coincidence.

Without the precise date/time, it would only be a candidate explanation, requiring an unlikely combination of circumstances.

With the date/time, it becomes a clear 'winner'.

There have been other celestial sphere 'UFOs' posted as space shuttle UFOs at Jeff Challender's site, and elsewhere. Without date/time, they are impossible to prove.

Point to be made: WITH contextual data and hi-quality imagery, in these two cases, prosaic explanations were available. Folks who post low-quality imagery, or omit date/time, make the determination of actual prosaic explanations much more difficult if not impossible.

That may be accidental, or it may be deliberate, or a little of both from case to case.

But it's no way to justifiably establish 'proof' of extraordinary phenomena.



[edit on 1-9-2009 by JimOberg]



posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 07:46 AM
link   
The skeptic tank is using the old "Venus Fly Trap" method to deliver the usual lecture! Beware of this trickster! He really thinks we are delusional, & has always stuck to his skeptic guns. His only job is to dissect & debunk all NASA UFO videos.

It is interesting to chart changes of tone, as well as attitude in his posts. As a thread goes on, & NASA UFO support shows no sign of abating, Mr. Obergs posts become more pointed, angrier, more unsparing, but also funnier!



posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 08:01 AM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 

Great research there Jimmy.I'm hoping this thread stays alive to with hold the ramblings from other threads.
If I may quote you:

JimOberg
without context information about the video -- like, what regions are in sunlight and what are in shadow -- you can't judge the range of possible prosaic explanations for dots like these. Without knowing if there was a waste water dump, or a nearby leaky thruster, you can't tell if there ought to be such dots because of those ordinary processes.



Zelong.



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join