latest high end video footage of sts-80 ufo's

reply to post by jackphotohobby

I think the emails you published here made that go quiet

you believe in fake emails ?

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by jackphotohobby

 

I think the emails you published here made that go quiet

you believe in fake emails ?

I thought you believed in everything the astronauts said about UFOs?

My mistake -- turns out, you believe in everything anybody ever SAYS some astronauts said sometime or other somewhere, if it backs up your existing fantasies.

No youtube, no written transcripts? No problem. Must be true without evidence.

If it doesn't agree with you -- well, must be fake or, as you posted recently here, them dumbo astronauts don't know nothing after all.

reply to post by JimOberg


your scared to answer those questions i asked , aren't you

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by TruthxIsxInxThexMist
I know there have been threads regarding this incident but i don't think this latest high end footage has been posted yet as i did a search for it but if it has you can remove it....

You did check with the first-hand witnesses to get their take on the stuff, didn't you?

What did they tell you?

good idea , lets ask the Astronauts that didn't even see any of it !

they will make great witnesses !

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by ProRipp
What can't be refuted are the words of the astronauts and these are the bits that i'm interested in ! 'we've had VISITORS again' ? The word to look for here is AGAIN ! WTF !

Where are those words documented?

They are said in the video posted by easynow 'Alien's in the NASA Archive'! I'm repeating what i heard ! Thats all ! Did you not view it ?

[edit on 113131p://12America/Chicago18 by ProRipp]

[edit on 113131p://12America/Chicago18 by ProRipp]

reply to post by ProRipp


supposedly it was some inside joke about some stickers/patches the back up crew had snuck inside the Lunar Module for them to find while they were on the Moon.

115:03:24 Mitchell: Well, let's see...We've had visitors again.

115:03:28 Shepard: Yeah. Hardly worth mentioning.

115:03:33 Mitchell: Agree. (Pause)

[Jones - "I had heard that the backup crew had put greetings in lots of places on the spacecraft. Did you just find one on the MET?"]

[Mitchell - "I think what we're talking about there is one of their patches, because they put the goddamn things all over the spacecraft and, whenever we opened up something, there would be one of them. It had a Roadrunner on it and was a parody of our patch."]

[The exchange 'Visitors...hardly worth mentioning,' is, of course, a very dry, joking dismissal of the backup crew.]

www.hq.nasa.gov...


this is the part that makes it questionable...

"I think what we're talking about there"

it's probable that there were some patches but it's very possible that they used this sticker joke to explain away the statement made by Mitchel.

you decide

[edit on 18-12-2009 by easynow]

Thanks. Shocking revelation of alien reality. Jeez lou-weeez.

Originally posted by JimOberg
Thanks. Shocking revelation of alien reality. Jeez lou-weeez.

see Jim i'm not all bad

when you gonna answer those questions i asked you ?

why not just say you don't want to instead of me having to keep buggin ya ?

Us Limey's never got you Yanks sense of humour !!! Hilarious !

[edit on 113131p://12America/Chicago18 by ProRipp]

reply to post by easynow


Call me crazy, I still can't get over some of the stuff I seen or heard on that video, just amazing, lol.

Originally posted by Mr_skepticc
reply to post by easynow

 

Call me crazy, I still can't get over some of the stuff I seen or heard on that video, just amazing, lol.

Sounded funny to me too ! I can see what Jim Oberg means about the 'particles comin outa the shadow of the shuttle and just 'appearing' and how the thrusters can send the particles away from the shuttle but that does'nt explain the way some of them turn at 90 deg angles and shoot off ? I'd love to think something IS out there but i need real proof ! Some statements made by certain astronauts are intriguing though, and no-one can say they're not and it's these statement's that i am interested in more than fuzzy video and photograph's at this moment in time! This is why, the skeptic's are not happy either way, if it's fuzzy and grainy they say 'it's too grainy etc to make out what it could be etc' and if it's clear as a bell they say fake,cgi,hoax etc etc ! So no argument can be won that way ! We have astronaut's telling us that something IS out there and we should concentrate on that aspect ! Just my opinion thats all ! Merry Christmas to all the Yanks from us Limey's

reply to post by Mr_skepticc


yea that is a great video and shows alot of strange objects in those NASA photos. even IF some of them can be explained away it still leaves a percentage that are a mystery. there's no way NASA is telling us everything and if anyone doubts that then just ask NASA to see the Apollo 11 photos of the ufo that was following them and see what they say.








reply to post by ProRipp

I'd love to think something IS out there but i need real proof !

the only way you can get real proof my friend is to see it with your own eyes. the goverment and NASA included have been covering up this ufo secret for a long time and they will not ever let you see any proof of what they know until they are told to do that. releasing information about the existence of E.T. is a threat to National Security and is against the law.

are these objects in the NASA videos alien spacecraft ? it think MOST of it is just common waste products and debri but there are a few objects seen in these videos that IMO can't be easily explained as such.











reply to post by JimOberg



since you won't answer the questions i posed about Musgrave actually seeing the objects with his own eyes then i am just going to assume it's because you don't want your target audience to know that he didn't. kinda ruins your witness testimony thing huh ?

for someone who cries all the time about other people presenting all the facts when discussing this subject , i think you should be ashamed of yourself for using this deceptive tactic of presenting half truths when you need to for your damage control agenda. people deserve the truth and it's obvious to everyone you have no intention of giving it to them.


your ad hominem attacks are entertaining and second to none and since i like to give credit where credit is due , i will say bravo because you've proved to everyone that your the king of insults and are only here for one reason and that is to discredit and insult anyone that doesn't agree with you and NASA.

that further proves NASA can't be trusted , so good job !






[edit on 18-12-2009 by easynow]

I think it always helps the more you talk with direct witnesses and understand the illumination context of an event, the activities surrounding an interesting video, and the judgments of people who deal with unusual environments, about interpreting sensory input.

It's also important to assessa person's track record in candor, perception, completeness, and accuracy. Some patterns can be detected that are fairly consistent.

So I try and obtain that material and make it available.

Boy, does it get some people mad.

The striking 'ordinariness' of these shuttle videos to the hundreds of people who have experienced them on-orbit or through data links to Mission Control, and their genuine puzzlement -- and not a little amusement -- at how bizarrely the videos and their own professional context has been misunderstood and misrepresented, is also a theme that bears repeating.

Pay attention to the people screaming "Liar! Liar!" the loudest. They're usually the ones you have to pay closest attention to, it's been my experience.

Originally posted by JimOberg
I think it always helps the more you talk with direct witnesses and understand the illumination context of an event, the activities surrounding an interesting video, and the judgments of people who deal with unusual environments, about interpreting sensory input.

I do not think, or do i assume any interpretation of accounts based on second hand witnesses who obviously are influenced by people like myself as a foundation of credibility. Are we clear on this ?

It's also important to assessa person's track record in candor, perception, completeness, and accuracy. Some patterns can be detected that are fairly consistent.

Your reply does represent irregular patters similar to input signals without a reference point. Sound familiar ?

The striking 'ordinariness' of these shuttle videos to the hundreds of people who have experienced them on-orbit or through data links to Mission Control, and their genuine puzzlement -- and not a little amusement -- at how bizarrely the videos and their own professional context has been misunderstood and misrepresented, is also a theme that bears repeating.

Bizarre you say, so what is your interpretation of bizarre, is it not what your natural education has achieved what should be acceptable and what not. Do you honestly believe that your interpretation of fact or fiction is a derivative of your surroundings ?

Pay attention to the people screaming "Liar! Liar!" the loudest. They're usually the ones you have to pay closest attention to, it's been my experience.

Sorry, those who shout loose all but any credibility, this more or less to those of us who view and post show what , who, and why you are replying to in such a method. You obviously pose no such threat. let alone the ability to create a movement. Enjoy your stay within this web site and i do look forward to your future reference to if and why extraterrestrials exist.

On a reality note.

Do they exist. Yes.
Has it affected your every day life causing you to change your prime concept as an evolutionary species: No
Are you or what ever movement you gather able to change anything: No

They do not come in peace and we do not embrace peace as a species.

Red.

Originally posted by JimOberg
Here's the responses from Musgrave and Jones:
From: Thomas Jones To: James Oberg Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 12:50 PM
Subject: Re: Oberg's solution to the STS-80 'UFO' video

Dear Jim,

Your essay on explaining the "unexplained" STS-80 particle motions (thought by some video enthusiasts to be UFO sightings) is "dead on." You've taken the time to dissect a beautiful scene from Columbia in 1996 and patiently analyze what we crewmembers took for granted: that ice and exhaust particles falling along with the orbiter sometimes drift across the TV field of view, and then get propelled away by thruster pulses. Nothing exotic, but beautiful to watch from the grand windows of the space shuttle. Story Musgrave and I spent many an orbit watching the stars, the Milky Way, the air glow, meteors burning up below us, lightning, and moon-lit clouds, and were amazed at the spectacle of it all. Truly mesmerizing -- and completely explainable in every regard.

Best wishes,
Tom Jones

Interesting letter Jim, thanks for sharing.
But can you explain to me the following regarding Toms saying about ice and exhaust particles.
Please take a look to this footage first; you sorely must have seen it before.



My question is, why is it so difficult for Houston and the astronauts to pinpoint out where exactly the Russian space MIR station is?

Houston said; it would be difficult to pick Mir out from the stars as they pass behind this, but it cannot all be stars, because if I am right you cannot see stars in front of the Earth, and some of those lights are moving and flashing also.

Or could it be because of those ice and exhaust particles Tom said which falling along with the orbiter sometimes drift across the TV field of view which the crewmembers as Tom said took for granted and are nothing exotic.

But the astronauts as well as Houston doesn't mentioned anything about that phenomenon.


[edit on 19/12/09 by spacevisitor]

Originally posted by spacevisitor
My question is, why is it so difficult for Houston and the astronauts to pinpoint out where exactly the Russian space MIR station is?
Houston said; it would be difficult to pick Mir out from the stars as they pass behind this, but it cannot all be stars, because if I am right you cannot see stars in front of the Earth, and some of those lights are moving and flashing also.
Or could it be because of those ice and exhaust particles Tom said which falling along with the orbiter sometimes drift across the TV field of view which the crewmembers as Tom said took for granted and are nothing exotic.
But the astronauts as well as Houston doesn't mentioned anything about that phenomenon.

The comments describe how the Mir is 800-900 miles away, in the dark -- using apparently a strobe navigation light to aid in seeing it. It would be extremely difficult to spot with the naked eye.

Those lights are designed for close-in use -- max range a few miles, for nav purposes. I'm presuming the shuttle has its own payload bay lights on so Mir can see it if they cared to look (I can't figure out why -- shuttle has already left and isn't coming back) -- that would be the source of illumination of the small moving dots crossing the screen. Following separation from a docked phase, the shuttle performs various dumps and purges once it's clear of the contamination zone of the station -- blizzards of junk are typical.

What they were originally looking for was a rocket burn from the Mir's own engine. It was bound to be dim, and they were hoping they were watching the right location on the monitor. But it was all just sightseeing anyway, not mission critical activities.



[edit on 19-12-2009 by JimOberg]

Originally posted by JimOberg
I'm presuming the shuttle has its own payload bay lights on so Mir can see it if they cared to look (I can't figure out why -- shuttle has already left and isn't coming back) -- that would be the source of illumination of the small moving dots crossing the screen.

That is what you presuming right.
Houston said; the payload bay cameras are positioned that their looking straight back behind the orbiter, so would it not be very illogical then for keeping those bay lights on during that as it seems pretty difficult search for the MIR especially because of those therefore as you said illuminated small moving dots or/and perhaps even possible light aberrations in those cameras then?

Originally posted by JimOberg
Following separation from a docked phase, the shuttle performs various dumps and purges once it's clear of the contamination zone of the station -- blizzards of junk are typical.

Again, if those moving lights of which some are clearly pulsating [because they even confuse the astronauts and Houston] and some even pop out of nowhere really where as you said just illuminated small moving dots crossing the screen which originated due various dumps and purges, why then would those astronauts and people in Houston not have recognized that for being the case.

Because, how come that they never even mentioned that option, all that Houston said was that it are stars and the astronauts say even nothing at all about those lights?

That gives me the strong impression that some of those lights are really something else and that your so called ice particles are nothing more then the smoke screen, sorry ice particle screen to cover it up?

Originally posted by JimOberg
But it was all just sightseeing anyway, not mission critical activities.

Sightseeing to a view filled with nothing more than blizzards of junk from various dumps and purges around the shuttle, is that really so interesting for the astronauts and Houston and for their friends?
You sorely have in a way a funny sense of humor Jim.


[edit on 19/12/09 by spacevisitor]

reply to post by Signals

Why do the billion-dollar space shuttles have such crappy cameras?

And it should, they do it to make you believe this is the best we have - along with the space shuttles.

We already have craft that can do what you would not believe. More than just planet jump.

And as far as something like teleportation - you could be on Mars before I stopped writing this.

It is easier to keep people in the dark when they are not exposed or have any clue as to the actual current technology.

Like the stuff they keep coming out with like wireless charging of cell phones and the abilities of other so-called new technology on these phones - they already had this years and years ago - but from a marketing stand point - does it make sense to release it all at once.

Compared to what we really know - the space shuttle is a 62' Chevy half ton pickup and the cameras are a 70's Polaroid instant.

[edit on 20-12-2009 by arizonascott]

Stephen Scott Oswald from Bellingham Wa. (my home town),

piloted a few missions and still works for NASA as a deputy director administrator.
He has been asked a few times publicly about seeing alien spacecraft while on the shuttle and he was pretty upset about even being asked.. He is very very afraid of saying anything in the slightest that would confirm anything. I have seen him on one of those occasions and he also tried debunking all of the questions ask of him about this. The current mandate at NASA is to still deny and ridicule most everything while at the same time letting some stuff slip through it seems. There are also a few different factions within NASA all with different views about disclosure i think... based on Oswalds prior reactions I would say they are forbidden under serious threat to keep their damn mouths shut tight

Originally posted by antideceit
Stephen Scott Oswald from Bellingham Wa. (my home town),

piloted a few missions and still works for NASA as a deputy director administrator.
He has been asked a few times publicly about seeing alien spacecraft while on the shuttle and he was pretty upset about even being asked.. He is very very afraid of saying anything in the slightest that would confirm anything. I have seen him on one of those occasions and he also tried debunking all of the questions ask of him about this. The current mandate at NASA is to still deny and ridicule most everything while at the same time letting some stuff slip through it seems. There are also a few different factions within NASA all with different views about disclosure i think... based on Oswalds prior reactions I would say they are forbidden under serious threat to keep their damn mouths shut tight

Consider an alternate explanation less flattering to your self-image. Steve and his colleagues are tired of stupid questions from crackpots who like to believe the astronauts are all liars, to boost their own meagre egos.

Just another possible explanation, of course.