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.

 

Oberg: Please verify a lunar UFO, or an ice particle!

page: 1
6

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 03:41 PM
link   
As some of you are aware Luna Cognita features videos on YouTube, mostly of what he considers to be NASA UFOs as filmed and videotaped by astronauts. Also, as most you know Jim Oberg is a space journalist and historian and a major UFO skeptic, particularly of what we consider to be UFOs as filmed and videotaped by NASA astronauts. What you and I and Jim have in common is that none of us has been in space so while some objects may be as he says, i.e., space debris, ice particles, etc., we take him to task because his explanations don't always jive with our assumptions. In reality, what we sometimes see in NASA videos just violates any prosaic explanation he or anyone else can come up. IOW, real UFOs.

In the 3 vidcaps below, taken from the Luna Cognita video at YouTube (www.youtube.com...) we see what can only be called a real UFO as filmed by an Apollo astronaut during Apollo 10. The first photo is the setup. The second photo shows the UFO highlighted by a green square. The third photo shows that in the video the antenna rotates simultaneously with the passing UFO. Whatever that contraption recorded we don't know for I've never seen nor heard of what it may show either optically or with data. I'll tell you upfront that, to me, this is probably the best NASA footage of a lunar UFO and I'm really curious as to what Jim has to say about.










posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 04:47 PM
link   
I believe (Think Correctly) That the image depicts a Insectoid Reconnaissance Drone , Similar to those seen before the Allagash Four Abduction (Meeting the Holy Event)



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 10:14 PM
link   
NASA called them "moon pigeons" (I'm not making this up).

The antenna on the CSM was indeed communicating with another spacecraft. Which one do YOU think it was?

Hint: where was the film being taken FROM?

Seriously -- this was a radio antenna, not a radar antenna. Do you suggest that NASA expected UFOs to be sending S-band signals?



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 11:08 PM
link   
does NASA also call this a moon pigeon ?


history.nasa.gov...

www.thelivingmoon.com...



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 11:14 PM
link   
reply to post by easynow
 


no, those are moon icebergs that happened to float off of the moon due to gravity not being sufficient to hold down the swamp gas reflected off of venus that it is made up of...



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 12:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

NASA called them "moon pigeons" (I'm not making this up).


Well, it might be cute and all that but it's meaningless. They could have just admitted it was a UFO. That's not the first "moon pigeon" that NASA has filmed over the moon in the "early" days of lunar missions.


The antenna on the CSM was indeed communicating with another spacecraft. Which one do YOU think it was?
Hint: where was the film being taken FROM?


I don't doubt that. But the coincidence of the antenna rotating at the exact moment of the object's blatant fly-by makes it look like the object was the reason the antenna rotated. But you explain below that it was a radio antenna and not capable of recording images, which is what one would suspect given the situation. Up until the object appeared, the CSM had to be communicating and the antenna was not moving probably because it wasn't necessary for the antenna to re-orient. What was achieved, communication-wise, by rotating the antenna?


Seriously -- this was a radio antenna, not a radar antenna. Do you suggest that NASA expected UFOs to be sending S-band signals?


In that setting, I wouldn't know the difference between antennas if my life depended on it although in a different situation I might. No, I do not suggest anything as you posited. But if the object contained beings that obviously would be on a higher mental level, S-band signals might be to them what a crystal radio was to users in the early days of radio. We just don't know and because we don't know it can't be ruled out.

In your eloquence, you didn't comment on what you think the object was.



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 12:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
does NASA also call this a moon pigeon ?


history.nasa.gov...

www.thelivingmoon.com...




Last year, or 2007, Jim and I had a nice bunch of posts and replies at Unexplained Mysteries over that object. The OP there included only one photo and I found the other two. It is obviously part of one of our crafts. Just like NASA shows all kinds of real debris in space, this was as easily explained.



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 09:22 AM
link   
reply to post by The Shrike
 



It is obviously part of one of our crafts.


which craft and which part ?

kinda a large looking object (if it is an object) to be part of the Apollo craft...no ?




Just like NASA shows all kinds of real debris in space, this was as easily explained.


only at unexplained mysteries is it easily explained (away)



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 10:06 AM
link   
I guess this will clarify things up, take note of the delay in response time.




posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by The Shrike
 



It is obviously part of one of our crafts.


which craft and which part ?

kinda a large looking object (if it is an object) to be part of the Apollo craft...no ?

Part of the CM, its approx. size was one foot and a half, according to John Young, who saw it live unlike us

AS10-28-3988, AS10-28-3989, and AS10-28-3990:

Command Module Mylar outside the front window.
In preparation for a photographic pass over the planned Apollo 11 landing site, the crew re-oriented the Command Module while over the backside of the Moon. After regaining contact with Earth, John Young mentioned at 118:41:31 "This morning when we were turning around, first time, we had (means 'could see') about - I estimate maybe a foot-and-a-half or more of Mylar with that insulation coating on the back of it. It would appear out in front of our window, and I guess it was from the top hatch which is where that insulation came from in the first place. It Just sort of sat there for a while, and then quietly floated off. But my question is, will this cause us any thermal problems?" The strangely-shaped 'blob' in this image is almost certainly that piece of Mylar, possibly out-of-focus. Scan courtesy NASA Johnson.

history.nasa.gov...
history.nasa.gov...
history.nasa.gov...
history.nasa.gov...




The original video of the OP can be found here:
spaceflight.nasa.gov...
(Command Service Module "Charlie Brown" as seen from the Lunar Module "Snoopy" during the Apollo 10 Mission.
MPEG Video Format - 2.0 M)


[edit on 14/11/2009 by internos]



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 11:06 AM
link   
nm

[edit on 14-11-2009 by easynow]



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by internos
The original video of the OP can be found here:
spaceflight.nasa.gov...
(Command Service Module "Charlie Brown" as seen from the Lunar Module "Snoopy" during the Apollo 10 Mission.
MPEG Video Format - 2.0 M)


Hi internos, what is your opinion about that seemingly small object that appears at 0:00:13 at the bottom of the right corner and what the OP mentioned?
It looks to me a pretty real fast flying glowing or light emitting object?
Or could it be a meteor or such?



[edit on 14/11/09 by spacevisitor]



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 03:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by spacevisitor
Hi internos, what is your opinion about that seemingly small object that appears at 0:00:13 at the bottom of the right corner and what the OP mentioned?
It looks to me a pretty real fast flying glowing or light emitting object?
Or could it be a meteor or such?

I will try to share what i think about it.
In this video we have some values to consider:
first: X-Y-Z values
and a quick glance makes me rule out straight that it was "attached" to the lunar surface: so, i think it was an actual object crossing the field of sight of the camera.
But there are some more details to consider, one of them is the fly-path of the LM:
We have two key frames, the one in which the object comes to sight (12.343 ms.) , and the last one (15.618 ms.), before it vanishes.


All the intermediate ones show a straight fly path, but this means nothing by itself (an alien spacecraft, for example, would be free to choose its favourite fly path, especially straight ones
).
The problem is that the fly-path of the LM and the fly-path of the ufo are exactly the opposite each the other: this scenario is perfectly consistent with the one of some object being released by the LM:
this is the LM fly-path:

on the contrary, chances that some independently controlled object would choose that fly path are extremely close to zero (at least less than one on 360, but mut they're much more), the slight difference between a straight relatively vertical path and the actual one is due to the inclination of the camera.

My humble opinion is that what we see is consistent with something being released by the LM itself, but i don't know what system was in use to dump water overboard at the time, so mine is just a guess.

Ah, i don't think that S-Band antenna's movement has anything to do with the ufo.


[edit on 15/11/2009 by internos]



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 05:59 AM
link   
When I asked you about 'moon pigeons' I was referring to this specific report, which describes a common visual phenomenon that includes the Apollo-10 16-mm film, and puts it in perspective.

www.jamesoberg.com...

When this happens often enough, coincidences with other events -- such as antenna gimbelling during LM rendezvous/docking -- become pretty likely.



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 08:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by internos
My humble opinion is that what we see is consistent with something being released by the LM itself, but i don't know what system was in use to dump water overboard at the time, so mine is just a guess.

Ah, i don't think that S-Band antenna's movement has anything to do with the ufo.


Thanks for your extensive answer internos, I really appreciate it.

After reading it, I wanted to see the video again, but the link doesn’t work anymore.



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 08:44 AM
link   
reply to post by spacevisitor
 


try this...

spaceflight.nasa.gov...

and it's also on youtube..

www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...

could be ice or a foo fighter that was flying past the Apollo craft.






this video shows the footage in a opposite perspective



why would they mirror that video ?



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 11:42 PM
link   
reply to post by internos
 


While I haven't seen a or the reply by Oberg I have to say that your explanation just, well, sucks and violates logic notwithstanding your drawings. Would you give the same answer to the other white "orb" filmed possibly by Astronaut Young aboard Apollo 16 where the white object approaches a darkened large crater where a "acknowledging" flash is seen in the center of the darkened crater followed by flashes on the rim and this subject is being discussed in another thread by karl12?

Why don't you just imply admit that it's an unknown object that is way far below the filming vehicle? You really think that the filming vehicle released something that dropped quite a distance below it and then accelerated leaving everyone in the dust?


[edit on 15-11-2009 by The Shrike]



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 11:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
When I asked you about 'moon pigeons' I was referring to this specific report, which describes a common visual phenomenon that includes the Apollo-10 16-mm film, and puts it in perspective.

www.jamesoberg.com...

When this happens often enough, coincidences with other events -- such as antenna gimbelling during LM rendezvous/docking -- become pretty likely.



The term "moon pigeons" is as meaningless to me as it is to google: No definitions were found for moon pigeons.

Sure NASA cognoscenti use the term to mean something that is meaningless. If it's debris released by the various spacecraft, let's speak english and not mince words.

Are all similar objects that are usually white-looking "orbs" moon pigeons then? No other shape? No other direction? No slower speeds?

No, the usually white objects seen fleeting over the lunar surface are g__damn UFOs plain and simple. It just so happens that there are tons of them and the moon pigeons explanation is an insult to intelligence.

I thought that perhaps one of these days you, Oberg, would admit to being baffled by some of the phenomena being pointed out as UFOs because you have never taken a stand on them. But I guess you'll never commit yourself so as of this moment, I give up. I'll never ask you again.

I don't know how to delete threads but I sure would like to delete this one.



[edit on 16-11-2009 by The Shrike]



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 12:17 AM
link   
Don't sulk. We all have things to learn.

And don't act as if google were the be-all and end-all of human knowledge.

The "moon pigeons" report I linked to discussed, back in 1971 or so, the operational need to keep an eye out for indicators of spacecraft malfunction that might show up on film or live TV transmissions. That concern has never been lost in Mission Control, as numerous examples even from recent shuttle missions underscore.

So no responsible controller is going to close his eyes to 'stuff' out the window, until they are satisfied that their motion or size/shape are consistent with normal visual phenomena associated with known space operations effects.

That family of 'known effects' has grown over the years with familiarity and experience. John Glenn's fireflies started out as a worrisome mystery, that soon was resolved with the unexpected realization about the behavior of water ejected from spacecraft. The degree to which cast-off booster sections would visibly 'shadow' moon-bound Apollo vehicles was unexpected until it established itself as routine. The numerous possible sources of non-resolvable dots moving across camera FOVs were not predicted, but became understandable when enough were seen in all illumination and motion angles.

In that sense, NASA engineers wound up far ahead of public viewers of the same scenes, who had no familiarity with spacecraft-related events, illumination and motion context, and detailed crew discussions and descriptions. And, for the most part, you still don't, but that's not NASA's fault.

For something to deserve special attention, it had to look sufficiently different from familiar apparitions. That's where dots traversing a FOV failed to rise to that degree of interest.

To establish the extraordinariness of any such video, one would have to rule out any possible prosaic cause -- it's not enough to say (often inaccurately) "NASA can't explain it". You've got to show, through familiarity with what is 'ordinary', that the stimulus MUST be extraordinary.

This is worth trying because there always remains the possibility of an extraordinary stimulus -- such as a lost vital piece of a heat shield a la Columbia. Had that been seen and recognized as it drifted away, the disaster might have had an entirely different ending.

So serious sifting of video for strange stuff is a worthy effort, and is helpful to future space safety at least, and perhaps to science as well -- nothing like that can be ruled out. Keep your eyes and your mind open and keep asking these kinds of questions.



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 07:39 AM
link   
reply to post by The Shrike
 



I thought that perhaps one of these days you, Oberg, would admit to being baffled by some of the phenomena being pointed out as UFOs


you have a better chance at winning the lottery







new topics

top topics



 
6

log in

join