It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Why shouldn't we?
These video scenes were recorded by remote control, under ground command
nobody on the crew was looking out the window
Experienced UFO investigators realize that pilots, who instinctively and quite properly interpret visual phenomena in the most hazardous terms, are not dispassionate observers. Allen Hynek wrote: "Surprisingly, commercial and military pilots appear to make relatively poor witnesses..." The quote is from "The Hynek UFO Report", page 261 (Barnes and Noble reprint). (271 in original Dell, Dec 1977) He found that the best class of witnesses had a 50% misperception rate, but that pilots had a much higher rate: 88% for military pilots, 89% for commercial pilots, the worst of all categories listed. Pilots could be counted on to perceive familiar objects -- aircraft and ground structures -- very well, Hynek continued, but added a caveat: "Thus it might surprise us that a pilot had trouble identifying other aircraft, but it should come as no surprise that the majority of pilot misidentifications were of astronomical objects." Dell page 271
The objects seen in the STS-80 videos are ordinary debris particles or ice crystals
Originally posted by EarthwormJim
OK OK so those are now IFOs but what about every other shuttle mission where other astronauts saw UFOs?Are they lying?
Originally posted by observer42
The whole article reeks to me of someone towing the company line.
Originally posted by smurfy
Sorry Jim, I don't see the point of this after all this time. Why STS 80? why not STS 75 by one of those astronauts. STS 80 is not a pointer to STS75.
Appendix 1 Andy Allen statement (mission commander)
Date: Friday, April 21, 2000 10:59:51 AM
Subj: RE: RE: STS-75
As far as the question about floating objects that we see, it is mostly debris and Orbiter induced particulates. We see a lot of dust, ice, and other debris collected in the vehicle during ground processing (it's very clean but not perfectly clean) that will dislodge or float up in zero gravity. We also see a lot of crystals and particles as remnants from water dumps, RCS firings, OMS firings, etc.
Contrary to what some folks may think, there is no direction or effort for astronauts to restrict their conversations and observations. The only exception, which no longer applies, was when we were flying classified payloads on our DOD missions and could only discuss the payload under a need to know. It is utterly impossible that all those who traveled in space from many different countries would have adhered to any restrictions.
Appendix 2 // Chuck Shaw statement (Lead Flight Director, STS-75 mission)
RE: STS-75 Question // Date: 03/03/2000 9:26:59 AM Central Standard Time
From: SHAW, CHARLES W. (CHUCK) (JSC-DA8) To: JamesOberg@aol.com
I was the Lead Flight Director for STS-75, and was on console for the tethered satellite deploy operations and at the time the tether broke. Operations had been nominal up to the point Jeff Hoffman called down that the tether broke, and then we saw the status in telemetry a couple of seconds later. The behavior of the satellite and the tether remnant on the satellite was exactly as we had expected for a tether break case.
In the footage of the video, etc. which was examined in GREAT detail post flight in hopes of finding SOMETHING to aid in what had caused the tether break, we never saw anything that was "unexpected". Your comments as to artifacts and small debris/dust/ice particles/lens reflections/blooming/etc., are all quite common and we have seen those things in virtually every shuttle mission's video. What was present in the video and the data that was examined post flight was all within this type of artifact and/or expected results.
Post break, we called upon tracking and imaging resources world wide to be able to establish a trajectory for the satellite and tether remnant, in order to determine the feasibility of a rendezvous and recovery, in addition to being able to command the satellite transmitter on to gain some science data from it, even though the tether was broken. At no time did any of these tracking data show anything unexpected, and we were LOOKING for unexpected things (like extra pieces of tether, or debris from the satellite and/or science booms) that could cause us to not want to fly up in the vicinity of the satellite
As it turned out, the arcing of the voltage in the tether to the deployer structure burned the tether in two. Rather ironic that the experiment worked so well to show the ability of the system to generate power, and in fact worked so well as to fatally damage the experiment!
I have always been fascinated by UFO investigations, and "personally" I hope we are not really alone in this wonderful universe.
Hope this helps, Chuck
Chuck Shaw, Flight Director
Mission Operations Directorate, NASA
Johnson Space Center, Houston Texas
Originally posted by Frith
If witness testimony meant anything in this subject we would already be living in a world where extraterrestrial visitation is an accepted reality.
Videotaped evidence isn't even considered evidence. So I don't know why this guy felt the need to discuss this subject nearly 20 years later. I can only imagine he really does have something to hide by talking about it now even if its to deny it.edit on 18-4-2011 by Frith because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by smurfy
Have you fell out of your tree? you are now showing me me something I have not seen before, so forgive me for not paying attention to something I have not seen...before. Anyway, is there anything that Allen did not make an imformed comment on, that others have brought up in threads about STS75, or is that it?
Those still arguing about non-existent UFOs seen by space shuttle crews are wasting their time. Tom Jones, PhD Planetary Scientist Astronaut on STS-59, -68, -80, and -98.
Van: Explorer1x 6 apr 2010
NASA Space Shuttle Astronaut Catherine Coleman Openly States she seen a UFO