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.

 

NASA UFO Footage from Above Earth

page: 5
13
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 26 2010 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by greycontactee
 


This guy is mocking every op about ufos.

what are you trying to do?

I suppose that you wanted this type of things does not existed, does not you?

Its sad when things that we dont want to be true, turn out to be true...



I think that shooting stars, debris nd etc dont turn around in space, at least not this way:



and this:



or this:






Ps. Thanks for the vid op.
edit on 26-10-2010 by RUSSO because: fix vid

edit on 26-10-2010 by RUSSO because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 26 2010 @ 02:23 PM
link   


Haha, that's a good one. "intelligent space debris"




This is so funny...

MMN always fighting against the obvious...

Maybe this is just a bunch of skydivers.


tsc,tsc...



posted on Oct, 26 2010 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by RUSSO
 


Well, maybe not.....



posted on May, 8 2011 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by RUSSO
 


Exactly. Here are a few different people offering perspectives on the video above and a second NASA UFO capture that may actually be new to the thread. Not only does the above "alleged ice particle" make an extreme right turn and take off quickly, it pauses mid space for just a moment.
Nasa insisted it was "nothing" but stopped live feed after that.




posted on May, 8 2011 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by newcovenant
 


There is a war above our heads.
A strange, unconventional and unclaimed WAR!



posted on May, 8 2011 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by newcovenant
reply to post by RUSSO
 


Exactly. Here are a few different people offering perspectives on the video above and a second NASA UFO capture that may actually be new to the thread. Not only does the above "alleged ice particle" make an extreme right turn and take off quickly, it pauses mid space for just a moment.
Nasa insisted it was "nothing" but stopped live feed after that.



Well, when I checked it out, your STS-48-related statements didn't check out.

Here is some genuine investigation results, and why I am persuaded it was ordinary shuttle-generated 'junk' hit by thruster plumes. And why Jack Kasher is unworthy of belief.


The STS-48 "Zig Zag UFO" -- A Prosaic Explanation (1999)
www.jamesoberg.com...
STS-48 Data Files show prosaic nature of zig-zag space dot
www.igs.net...


Warning -- some of this stuff is 'hard' and you really have to concentrate.



posted on May, 8 2011 @ 11:09 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


Yes a scientist in the video also thought it might be debris getting jettisoned in an opposite direction from a thruster and you know as common as this might be I wonder if NASA has even one other video example of one other time this has happened like this. That ice particle or debris as you call it does travel quite far, quite fast and also it stops for almost a full second in mid air. You have to really focus to catch it. Tricky debris but then I have no degree or any NASA training, so I am probably not using my eyes properly.



posted on May, 8 2011 @ 11:16 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


You were right about "hard" that stuff is so technical. I couldn't make sense of your links.
Didn't NASA know that stopping live feeds altogether after this was going to raise some suspicion? If it was so much ado about nothing what made them do that? Eventually we'd have got used to seeing things jettison off at right angles like that and it would be hardly remarkable. We are (were) paying for the space program and outside of covert defense movements we deserve to see what our money is doing for us out there. It just doesn't figure.



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 06:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by newcovenant
reply to post by JimOberg
 


You were right about "hard" that stuff is so technical. I couldn't make sense of your links.
Didn't NASA know that stopping live feeds altogether after this was going to raise some suspicion? If it was so much ado about nothing what made them do that? Eventually we'd have got used to seeing things jettison off at right angles like that and it would be hardly remarkable. We are (were) paying for the space program and outside of covert defense movements we deserve to see what our money is doing for us out there. It just doesn't figure.


You get to see. You just don't get a personal tutor.

Try harder to understand, or you'll be locked in your delusions the rest of your life.

Unless that's the way you're more comfortable.



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 06:57 AM
link   
Jim, he will not be able to understand or piece together your reply...it will only frustrate him and devolve the thread into more and more ignorance.

Since the only option these days for anyone with half a brain is to do the thinking for those with less than half a brain....how about you spell it out loud and clear for them. Who knows...a few might actually be able to understand and help with utter twaddle like this in the future.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 09:13 AM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


Thanks for the enlightenment, the data and your personal opinions.
Much appreciated, both of you. Don't I feel like "the fool" for thinking this footage might show something significant out there?!


Edit:You still haven't answered why they stopped the feed.
Perhaps you don't know? Mentioned I will be meeting those who remain of the Apollo 11 mission for a reunion in July. Will ask that question then so no need for... egads!... another tutorial.

edit on 9-5-2011 by newcovenant because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 09:33 AM
link   
sent this to Kasher some time ago...



Date: 1995/07/23
From: James Oberg
To: Dr. Jack Kasher -- Open Letter
Re: STS-48 Visual Phenomenon
It's always been my belief that the chance -- however remote -- that claims of extraterrestrial contact may be valid oblige any curious person to pay more than a little attention to any evidence presented by serious researchers. In parallel, and even if such claims have no real validity, I am fascinated by the mental processes that can lead rational, intelligent, educated people to such claims. In recognition of that obligation and in response to that fascination, I've spent many hundreds of hours on the discussions of the STS-48 zig-zag lights and to the many extraordinary interpretations associated with them.
Since it seems clear to me, based on my experience and analysis, that these videos show nothing at all extraordinary for a space flight, and that the principal proponents of all extraordinary interpretations remain unaware of relevant information and practices associated with investigating such phenomena, I've reached the conclusion that my "duty to science" has been fully served and no further effort is warranted on my part on this case. Most of my efforts to elucidate, and assist investigators in their understanding of this phenomenon seem fruitless. I've published a few articles and one 6-page report. There's plenty of other promising research awaiting my attention.
I can and will respond conversationally -- in person, or electronically -- regarding this case, and I'm not hesitant about expressing my own assessments, but I've reached the point of diminishing returns -- in fact, no returns at all -- on any more in-depth research. So, enough!
All the objects on the screen look to me to be small, nearby sunlit debris, shuttle-generated, probably ice flakes from RCS jets, dump ports, the main engines, or elsewhere (possible other types of shuttle generated debris include payload bay flotsam, tile or spacer or liner fragments, etc.). They become visible to the wide-open camera when they become sunlit by moving out of the shuttle's shadow, shortly after sunrise when the ground below is still dark and hence does not activate the camera's auto iris to close down. Gas from an RCS jet (a vernier jet fires for one second at the time shown, and the flash is a sporadic by-product of the jet's firing) pushes them onto new paths (they only change direction during the time of the jet firing).
The main object is not in or behind the atmosphere, although it does appear close to (yet measurably BELOW) the horizon line (and, yes, I know which one is the airglow line, too). If the object had been in the atmosphere, as many have claimed, its observed path would curve at first due to atmospheric refraction. The absence of any curving is evidence for the object being between the atmosphere and the shuttle. As I said, I interpret its appearance to its becoming sunlit by moving out of the shuttle's shadow, and since this umbra extends only about 1-2000 ft down sun, the object is probably much closer yet. I believe all your geometric analyses of great range and speed (including the assumption that the object would have to have been accelerated to plume terminal velocity) are invalid. The object's motion shows three phases: pre-burn drift, burn acceleration, and post-burn drift (with perspective foreshortening at greater range), and attempts to perform a curve fit over the latter two phases with a single equation are unjustified -- so the implications are baseless.
To repeat regarding the RCS jet burn duration: your assumption that the flash coincides with the full burn, while reasonable based on earthside analogs, is actually false. The visible flash of an RCS/OMS jet burn is a result of propellant ratio mismatch and is characteristic of the early or late phases of the burn (for OMS burns, as an example, the 'flash' lasts about half a second but afterwards, even as the OMS engines continue to burn, the flame is invisible -- as videotapes and crew reports confirm). For shorter RCS burns, the thrust can continue even when the flash is absent. So your assumption of burn duration -- and your belief that other "experts" (e.g., this "Anania" who doesn't show up in any local phone directory) have performed an adequate review of the report -- is erroneous, as are all deductions based on it.
Since you asked, let me tell you briefly how I see the "live TV" issue. The video from a shuttle goes to a TDRSS link, then down to NASA's White Sands station (sometimes it can go direct to one of a handful of ground sites -- Goldstone, Merritt Island, and I think Bermuda), over what is called the "FM Downlink". This frequency channel is used during launch for engine data, and in orbit is used either for TV or for data recorder dumps. Meanwhile, normal VOICE signals are digitized on the standard telemetry data stream and are unreadable to amateurs (however, during EVA and during launch/landing, easily monitored UHF frequencies are used "in the clear"). The voice signals are peeled off the telemetry at White Sands, and together with the video are then bounced to Goddard via another communications satellite. At Goddard the "NASA Select" program is assembled, which involves decoding the video/voice, adding in feeds from JSC or MSFC, displaying announcements, etc. That "NASA Select" video is the one retransmitted -- I think in less than ten seconds -- via the open transponder, for worldwide viewing and videotaping.
The White Sands to Goddard satellite link is the source of the controversy over scrambling. It often used to be in the clear, but apparently for the reasons Jenks described (medical, privacy, DoD experiments) it would be flipped back and forth to encoded. Last I heard, they decided just to keep it encoded and save the time and effort to flip back and forth, since the non-encoded stuff was to be reprocessed and rebroadcast almost immediately on 'NASA Select'.
Now, the image of some NASA official sitting with his/her hand over a red button in case UFOs swim into view is, in my personal view, pretty ridiculous. There is such a button, but if you ask the press folks, as far as anyone can recall it's never been used to cut off views of naked frolicking astronauts, or slipped curses, or body parts tumbling through wreckage, or of anything else. You certainly can pursue this idea with the people involved -- but it's probably more convenient to cling to the conjured image of a "UFO patrol" lookout with grim-lipped determination to hide the truth from the taxpayers. I slip over into sarcasm. . . . After all, they slipped up on STS-61??
And the claim that somebody heard the crew say, "What IS that?" also fails: it's not on the video, and nobody has ever provided actual time or the frequency channel of the alleged reception. It's a myth. I know your Nebraska MUFON associate insists he mailed that info to me long ago, but I have his letters and it's not in them. Where IS it? Meanwhile, if you want quotable NASA technical data on STS-48 including telemetry records of the actual jet firing, you'll have to go in the front door and persuade them it's worth their trouble. Since STS-48 UFO buffs have branded them as hiders and falsifiers, I'm sure they'd be delighted to bend over again and be helpful to you.
Anyhow, I've used up my allowance of free advice on this subject and you'll just have to get along without me (and I also refer to Beckjord's enthusiasms, and to Hoagland's video report of 1992, and to Carlotto's in the Journal of Scientific Exploration, too -- you didn't monopolize my time, far from it). As I've said tongue in cheek, you and I perhaps cooked up this report together as an "intelligence test" for world ufologists to see if they could be taken in by some invalid technical-sounding argumentation. I am not impressed with the level of physics knowledge of the players on the extraordinary side of this issue. Your comments on "laminar flow" at the May 1, '93 Omaha con were very illuminating regarding the limits to your familiarity with these admittedly highly specialized topics -- but since I'm not in the one-on-one free tutoring business, look for technical help elsewhere!




posted on May, 9 2011 @ 09:35 AM
link   
When I was a consultant to ABC, I posted this on their website. Since then [2003] I've been a consultant to NBC.



STS-48 - Science Battles Wishful Thinking
By Jim Oberg
Special to ABCNEWS.com
2-20-99
As humans explore space, it's reasonable to imagine that other beings in the universe are doing the same. Encountering explorers from other planets have been a staple of science fiction for decades.
Videotapes from space shuttle missions have persuaded some folks that NASA astronauts have already encountered alien visitors.
On the space shuttle mission STS-48 in September 1991, a TV onboard Discovery spotted moving white dots suddenly changing direction when a flash of light appeared. Although nearby debris frequently appears on shuttle videos, the combination of flares, streaks and changing directions grabbed imaginations.
Answering a congressional query the following month on behalf of a curious constituent, NASA had four Houston experts - including one astronaut, astronomer Karl Henize - examine the videos.
"The objects seen are [Discovery]-generated debris, illuminated by the sun," they reported. "The flicker of light is the result of firing of the attitude thrusters on [Discovery], and the abrupt motions of the particles result from the impact of gas from the thrusters."
That didn't wash for some viewers, who believed they were seeing alien visitors or Star Wars-like battles.
[*Nearby drifting debris has been hit by jet pulses on other shuttle flights. Here's an example from STS-63 in February 1995. (RealVideo)]
Popular Interpretation
Enthusiasm for the UFO interpretation of space pictures isn't restricted to a narrow band of crackpots, as any Web search demonstrates. Mainstream writers and major TV networks also promulgate these misinterpretations.
Aside from enhancing the public's paranoia about government cover-ups, it can have a poisonous effect on public support for space exploration if a substantial portion of voters becomes convinced by such theories that space experts, astronauts and scientists are lying to them.
Such space tapes are no surprise to NASA; the agency shrugs them off as just one more phenomenon of space flight.
The STS-48 images were being collected as part of an ongoing NASA study of unusual lightning.
The project was coordinated by NASA scientist Otha "Skeet" Vaughan, in Huntsville, Ala. He has collected and analyzed about 500 hours of tapes over two decades of shuttle flights, probably watching more space video than anyone else.
Just Debris
Vaughan, who retired from NASA last month, said such dots appear frequently. "They're an ordinary part of space flight," he says. "It's obviously just more shuttle debris."
Astronauts aboard the STS-48 mission agree.
Mission specialist Mark Brown says ice formed on the shuttle's main engine bells after the remaining fuel was dumped in space.
"These crystals would break free of the engines and float around the shuttle," he says. "When illuminated by sunlight they looked like small diamonds floating in space, disturbed only when the maneuvering rockets fired - the plumes from the rockets would hit them and send them off in different directions."
Shuttle co-pilot Ken Reightler says: "We saw a lot of this on STS-48 because we had a dump nozzle that was leaking." The same nozzle leaked on the shuttle's next mission and "created the same shower of ice particles - but this time apparently no one misinterpreted them as UFOs."
[*Space shuttles are often surrounded by clouds of small ice particles from dumped water or leaking jet thrusters. (RealVideo)]
'Fireflies'
Small particles flaking off manned spacecraft have been around since John Glenn saw "fireflies" outside his capsule in 1962. Apollo astronauts saw them so often they were nicknamed "moon pigeons." A NASA study in 1971 traced them to propellant leaks, water dumps, pyrotechnic separation and other ordinary events.
Yet claims for an extraordinary interpretation of the STS-48 images persist, coming from respectable and seemingly rational people. Jack Kasher, a physicist from Nebraska, has published an exhaustive analysis showing why they cannot be debris. "The only feasible explanation," he concludes, "is that they actually were spacecraft out in space away from the shuttle."
Mark Carlotto, an imaging specialist in Massachusetts, published a 1995 report in the Journal of Scientific Exploration, claiming that "beyond a reasonable doubt" the objects could not be explained as known phenomena.
Shedding Light
Two factors - sunlight and the steering-jet pulses - explain the videotape.
The shuttle TV cameras observed lightning on the night side of Earth. But as the shuttle circled toward the day side, it rose into sunlight even while the camera remained fixed on the still-dark horizon behind it. So objects near the shuttle suddenly become illuminated - and it's precisely at sunrise that the most famous "shuttle UFO videos" show the appearance of these dots.
The autopilot normally fires the shuttle's steering jets to keep the craft on course. Telemetry readouts from STS-48 show exactly such a jet firing at the time of the mystery pulse.
Space junk and thruster gas are a lot less exciting than alien visitors and space battles, so the popularity of UFO explanations for such videotapes will persist. But if recent studies prove anything, it is that the less one knows about space flight, the more likely one is to swallow the idea of space shuttles spotting UFOs.



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 09:51 AM
link   
Note of Interest
James Oberg
Debunking Dr. Kasher’s So-called “Proofs” The STS-48 Objects Cannot be Nearby Ice

Reference:
“A Scientific Analysis of the Videotape Taken by Space Shuttle Discovery on Shuttle Flight STS-48 Showing Sharply Accelerating Objects”. Jack Kasher, PhD, U of Nebraska at Omaha, June 30, 1994 (supported in part by a grant from the Fund for UFO Research).
MUFON 1994 International UFO Symposium Proceedings, pages 108-136
www.nicap.org...


Kasher: “I realize that I have spent a great deal of time proving that the main object in the videotape was not a ice particle (perhaps some would think an excessive amount of time). But I think that it is absolutely necessary that I do so. As I showed above, there are only two possible explanations--that the objects were ice particles near the Shuttle, or that they were spacecraft maneuvering out in space away from the Shuttle. The ice particle theory must be shown to be completely and thoroughly out of the question, because the ramifications are truly extraordinary if the objects really were spacecraft.”

In my own analysis, first presented at Purdue University in 1999, I describe how every one of the proposed “five proofs” fail, and therefore why the observed objects could indeed be small nearby particles, likely ice flakes.



Proof 1: Kasher plotted the motion of the main zig-zag object, and observed: “During the approximately one second interval when the object’s horizontal motion is changing from leftwards to rightwards, it stops for a few tenths of a second before resuming the change in motion. It is 2 or 3 pixels off from where a smooth curve would have moved it. This must be deliberate and cannot be natural.”

Disproof 1A: By “horizontal” motion Kasher means movement along the horizontal axis of the TV monitor. To go ‘flat’ in this brief interval would require the object’s controller to know WHICH of the six external shuttle cameras was being used by the crew and what the pan/tilt setting of that camera was at that moment, while also knowing that nobody inside the cabin was recording with a handheld camera that would have a different ‘horizontal’ orientation. The amount of ad hoc assumptions required to make this ‘flat’ interval deliberate is daunting.

Disproof 1B: The actual plot of screen position (horizontal/vertical coordinates shows some ‘jitter’ (or ‘noise’) in position consistent with variation of the angular position of the brightest point on a rotating ice flake and with simple measurement scatter. This ‘noise’ requires that the positions be plotted with an ERROR BAR of a few pixels, with the presumed trajectory passing through all the bars but not necessarily through the center of each bar. Kasher did not use error bars, and as far as the report indicates, used only his own estimates of position, not another person’s estimates. Once a proper error bar is added, the trajectory is entirely consistent with a drifting object that undergoes an acceleration and smooth curve during and only during the recorded interval of the thruster firing.

Disproof 1C: “It is 2 or 3 pixels off from where a smooth curve would have moved it. This must be deliberate and cannot be natural.” In real life, smooth curves only exist through error bars on real observations, and when proper data reduction is performed, the motion does not diverge from such a smooth curve. The proof fails.

Proof 2: “The two fast-moving particles must have been traveling directly away from the RCS thruster. Appendix J proves that only the aft left-firing vernier (L5L) could possibly affect the motion of the particles above the shuttle (“This is crucial when we examine the trajectories of the objects more carefully”). Their motion is linear (“If a rocket did the firing, the lines MUST meet”). Since the lines and the line of the main object do not trace back to a single point, they cannot be ice particles accelerated by a thruster.”

Disproof 2A: The “must have been traveling directly away” is an oversimplification of vector motion. Particles whose motion is changed by an outside force will enter a new path determined both by that force’s direction AND by the direction they had originally been moving prior to being affected, a factor that Kasher does address. Since some of the particles which are observed prior to the thrusting interval clearly have significant original velocity, their reversed motions would NOT converge.

Disproof 2B: “Only the aft left-firing vernier (L5L) could possibly affect the motion of the particles above the shuttle”. Factually false. The interplay of thruster plumes and shuttle structure can be complex, and in this case, the majority of plume flow above the shuttle left wing would consist of bounce-back of the L5D thruster, the down-firing thruster whose plume significantly impinges on shuttle structure such as the inboard elevon and aft-mounted body flap. The existence of this bounce-back is demonstrated by RCS thruster data tables showing that aft downfiring jets are significantly less effective per second of firing time than side-firing or up-firing jets (which do not have structural impingement issues) in inducing rotation of the shuttle. This source of the plume flow passing through the region of the particles also thus is diffuse and not point source.

Disproof 2C: “Since the lines and the line of the main object do not trace back to a single point, they cannot be ice particles accelerated by a thruster”. The conclusion is invalid based on Kasher’s misunderstanding of vector sum motion and on his inadequate technical knowledge of the shuttle thruster plume flow realities. This proof fails.

Proof 3: “Any particle in the thruster plume would be accelerated nearly to plume velocity…. The acceleration is independent of the mass or drag coefficient of the particle. The main object clearly wasn’t accelerated to this speed by the thruster firing, which lasted 0.4 seconds (as measured by the duration of the pulse). So it couldn’t have been a particle.

Disproof 3A: “The thruster firing… lasted 0.4 seconds as measured by the duration of the pulse.” This is false due to Kasher’s lack of technical familiarity with the appearance of thruster firings in space. The visible ‘pulse’ is NOT a reliable indicator of thruster firing, and plumes with these propellant mixes are often in large part invisible. The thruster fired for an interval of 1 full second as measured by telemetry, far more reliable than naïve eyeballing.

Disproof 3B: “The acceleration is independent of the mass or drag coefficient of the particle”. This is a mind-boggling statement. It means that ANY object of any mass ANYWHERE near a thruster plume will immediately accelerate directly away from the thruster at the plume velocity (about 10,000 ft/sec). While the source of the error appears to be a simple math flub, the fact that a professional professor of physics could actually believe it was even theoretically reasonable is dismaying. Acceleration of any object in a flow field is indisputably a function of flow field relative velocity and of the object’s mass and drag characteristics (i.e., ‘streamlining’). Not to realize this leads to erroneous conclusions.

Disproof 3C: “The main object clearly wasn’t accelerated to this speed by the thruster firing… so it couldn’t have been a particle.” Shuttle thrusters have fired hundreds of thousands of times in space, with objects ranging in size from ice flakes to space stations in the plume fields. Never once has any of these objects been observed to accelerate to plume velocity. They behave just like the SEVERAL objects observed on this video – they change motion during and ONLY during the interval of a thruster firing. This proof fails.

Proof 4: “The main object remained at rest for about half a second during the period of the main flash (following a shorter pre-flash earlier), and then accelerated sharply. Presumably this was the time the rocket exhaust was moving through vacuum up to the “ice particle”. If it were ice, it would have been about 4200 ft away from the thruster. That half second delay is too long for the fast-moving exhaust, so it couldn’t have been ice.”

Disproof 4A: The existence of ANY lag rests on Kasher’s uninformed misinterpretation of the visual flash as comprising the entirety of the thrusting interval. Even here, he must conjure up a new concept, a ‘pre-flash’ which unlike the imaginary thrust-inducing flash does NOT itself induce thrust. As close as can be measured on the time tag of the video, and as confirmed in Kasher’s OWN chart of the time history of the course change, it occurs during and ONLY during the full thruster firing documented in telemetry records.

Disproof 4B: “That half second delay is too long for the fast-moving exhaust, so it couldn’t have been ice.” Since there is no half-second delay, as Kasher mistakenly assumes, this proof fails.

Proof 5: “Since any particle hit by a thruster exhaust would have to reach a speed of 8300 ft/sec, it would be too far away at the end of the thruster firing to be visible.”

Disproof 5: This “since” is based on the original misunderstanding in ‘Proof 3’ that anything hit by a thruster plume instantaneously assumes approx the velocity of that plume, an amazing physical impossibility. Several objects are observed to change velocity during (and only during) the thruster firing, and none of them winds up thousands of feet away in half a second. They behave exactly as small nearby sunlit particles have been observed to behave throughout the fifty year history of human space flight. The proof fails.



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by predator0187
 


It's just debris man. There is a cloud of **** floating around our planet these days. Note they all move in the same direction in orbit and show no real signs of intelligence or agenda.

Locked in orbit, still great footage though



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Titor86
reply to post by predator0187
 


It's just debris man. There is a cloud of **** floating around our planet these days. Note they all move in the same direction in orbit and show no real signs of intelligence or agenda.

Locked in orbit, still great footage though


The stuff in the shuttle videos is almost all of it shuttle-derived 'stuff' -- the existing cloud of 'space debris' we see scary computer graphics of, are too far away, too fast, and mostly too small to ever be visible to eye or camera on the shuttle or space station. At the shuttle and station altitutdes, air drag is persistent enough to pull lighter, smaller stuff out of orbit within a few days or weeks -- it drops the station's orbit about 200 feet per day and it 'weighs' (actually, 'masses') a million pounds.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 08:51 AM
link   
I'd appreciate any critiques and suggestions on my disproofs of the notorious 'five proofs' from Dr. Kasher. I'd also appreciate any insight about how a guy who was a college perfesser can make such schoolboy howler algebraic errors.

..AND how twenty years of review by 'top ufologists' could have failed to notice ANY of them.
edit on 10-5-2011 by JimOberg because: add



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
I'd appreciate any critiques and suggestions on my disproofs of the notorious 'five proofs' from Dr. Kasher. I'd also appreciate any insight about how a guy who was a college perfesser can make such schoolboy howler algebraic errors.

..AND how twenty years of review by 'top ufologists' could have failed to notice ANY of them.
edit on 10-5-2011 by JimOberg because: add


Are you Jim Oberg or are you Jim Obergs son?

You still got a lot of fire there for as old as you should be.

I just saw you in a video from 20 years ago and...well to be honest...

Say that's beside the point except
I like to know if I am talking to the famous Russian Space Scientist, or somebody else.

So here is my real question:
Do you, Jim Oberg, know of any credible reports of ET related UFO activity?



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 09:18 AM
link   
reply to post by predator0187
 


Nice find dude!

It's my belief that there really is huge fleet of UFO all around us. It's my belief our world is about to change, for the best. Not everyone is ready for this or is willing to believe it but it's what I believe.

Here are a few videos that go along with our invasion. Invasion is such a negative word




Here are a coupl of my threads about alien disclosure and UFO activity in Mexico with lots of videos
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by newcovenant
So here is my real question:
Do you, Jim Oberg, know of any credible reports of ET related UFO activity?


I'm the one and only 'Jim Oberg', but sometimes my persona seems a caricature...[ grin]

I don't know what 'ET activity' would look like, or even if it would look like anything at all.

I think there are phenomena of genuine, legitimate interest cloaked -- by accident or
on purpose -- in the avalanche of ordinary misperceptions and hopes that comprise
the vast majority of the social phenomenon. This makes it imperative to look sharply.

The most interesting 'proofs' of ET contact, in my guess, are informational in nature -- stuff
we learn from 'them' we had no way to find out on our own, like the dogon tales or 'star maps'.

On space flights, I know that on occasion 'stuff' seen outside the windows (or external TV) has been
a critical clue to space vehicle malfunction and so deserves ferocious real-time attention -- but not
polluting the perception with premature 'UFO' interpretations, which only turns off serious
space safety operators.

The 'Columbia' crew could be alive today if somebody had noticed and drawn attention to the
fragment of the smashed-in wing leading edge thermal panel, that floated away on the second
day of the orbital mission -- but wasn't detected until post-disaster analysis of radar tracks.




top topics



 
13
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join