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.

 

Reopening the case file: NASA UFOs

page: 15
110
<< 12  13  14    16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
just to remind folks of other angles on the STS-75 video.

First, lots of people saw the tether while it was orbiting free in space -- including me, from my front yard in rural Galveston county. It did not glow in the dark nor was it ever seen accompanied by large disks, which -- if the 'passing behind' interpretation is correct would have been full-moon sized as viewed from the ground. It was visible only in sunlight -- no magic plasma clowd or critters with it.


since you did not respond to my post and thought you could bundle it up with other 'wacky' claims... i'll only address the portion which i find relevant to my concerns....

"It did not glow in the dark"

well... check the actual data re the scientific experiments......

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Originally posted by JimOberg
Second, a powerful argument for the notched disks being a camera artifact, which anybody can verify at home [or -- failing to verify -- can publish contrary results, although nobody ever HAS], is how the clocked position of the notch is directly correlated with the disk position in the field of view. As one disk moves and another replaces it, the new one in the old one's position assumes the same notch orientation. Check it out.


just to remind you of our previous discussions.....


In photography, bokeh (play /ˈboʊkə/ boh-kə,[1] Japanese: [boke]) is the blur,[2][3] or the aesthetic quality of the blur,[4][5][6] in out-of-focus areas of an image, or "the way the lens renders out-of-focus points of light."


en.wikipedia.org...


Originally posted by JimOberg
Knowing about these videos' context is always better than NOT knowing, I believe, although many posts here seem to prefer that such situation and illumination conditions [which can be verified -- take nothing on any one person's claim, mine or Sereda's or Stubbs' or whomever] actually NOT be made available to the audience.


(/soapbox)




posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
It was visible only in sunlight -- no magic plasma clowd or critters with it.


btw... i had forgotten to ask as to how you had managed to get this bit pulled down earlier....


There are also reports of one other satellite being visible
after having entered the Earth's shadow. According to Paul
Maley, the TSS-1R (a tether satellite, basically a long thin
cable) performed such a remarkable feat. This was presumably
due to some kind of luminescence.


www.abovetopsecret.com...

here's the correspondence which you had quoted earlier....

www.abovetopsecret.com...

"the source of illumination" is mentioned in my a/m post...


edit on 17/6/11 by mcrom901 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
It's always useful to have imaginative and creative people such as Dr. Mitchell working at or beyond the fringes of 'known science', because they can champion very far-out ideas that more traditional thinkers don't see any merit to. After decades of confidence that he and his team would be able to document and reproduce psi effects, Dr. Mitchell has inadvertently demonstrated that the problem is far knottier than he originally thought. His Apollo ESP experiemt paper showed random results -- one reason perhaps the raw data has never been published on the Internet. And that's a useful result, even if it's so disappointing to him. It is the fate of >99% of the 'fringe science' denizens, but when it occasionally pays off (e.g., Wegener), the sacrifices of the others are worth it.


i think this might interest you.....

sites.google.com...

en.wikipedia.org...



edit on 17/6/11 by mcrom901 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
For example, Aldrin's teasing stories about his crew watching a parallel course tumbling object. These were even seen in telescope images taken from Earth on later missions -- all of them on and only on the outbound leg. Aldrin has never made any secret of what prosaic object he was sure he was looking at.


and what on earth is a 'prosaic object'?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

any plans in editing your reports....

www.abovetopsecret.com...




posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by mcrom901
since you did not respond to my post and thought you could bundle it up with other 'wacky' claims... i'll only address the portion which i find relevant to my concerns...."It did not glow in the dark"

well... check the actual data re the scientific experiments......
www.abovetopsecret.com...



In that link you will find the insightful comment by Phage:

Ok. You are just throwing stuff out without understanding any of it.


You cite the scientific paper saying


Exposure of the TSS-1 thermal control coating, RM400, to high energy electrons causes the coating to luminesce


…without addressing the basic question I raised,


Jimo posted on 15-12-2009 @ 07:49 AM
Hmm, when you provide a quote about emissions being 'observed', are you suggesting that the 'observation' was made in visible light, or in the more scientific usage as 'detected'? Are we arguing over misinterpretations of words?


…and the issue that the effect on the coating was tested in a ground lab in the dark so that the luminescing could be observed – but on the actual mission, the effect, if it occurred at all, was in daylight when the tether was already fully illuminated by sunlight and any additional luminescing would have no impact on its visibility.

When it was in darkness – shielded from the Sun’s emissions – any luminescence would be very minor, and has never been reported by any observer in orbit or from the ground.



Originally posted by mcrom901
btw... i had forgotten to ask as to how you had managed to get this bit pulled down earlier....


This is reference to a passage you claimed you found at
www.satobs.org...
in which Paul Maley is quoted as saying he saw the tether in shadow.

As you recall, in a Maley email dated Monday, December 14, 2009 6:14 PM, he repudiated that claim. Either he then also complained to the satobs.com site, or
The claimed text never existed at all. Either way – imaginary or erroneous and corrected – the claimed evidence you want to support your point of view is spurious.



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jay-morris
reply to post by ReconX
 


I would also like to add that it was Sereda that said that these objects were disc's, so, they does not make any sense at all.


The term disc is used because that's what they look like, (like a compact disc).
It does not mean they actually are discs!



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
just to remind folks of other angles on the STS-75 video.

First, lots of people saw the tether while it was orbiting free in space -- including me, from my front yard in rural Galveston county. It did not glow in the dark nor was it ever seen accompanied by large disks, which -- if the 'passing behind' interpretation is correct would have been full-moon sized as viewed from the ground. It was visible only in sunlight -- no magic plasma clowd or critters with it.







The tether footage was filmed in the ultra-violet spectrum, and the objects were allegedly not visable with the naked eye to the astronauts on board.


edit on 17-6-2011 by ReconX because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by ReconX

Originally posted by Jay-morris
reply to post by ReconX
 


I would also like to add that it was Sereda that said that these objects were disc's, so, they does not make any sense at all.


The term disc is used because that's what they look like, (like a compact disc).
It does not mean they actually are discs!


Sorry, your not making sense. So, these objects are not disc's, but could be in fact round (orbs) So, if this is the case, why do we see the notches at the same angle? I mean, he talks about the drogba stones, and he mentions the notches, but if this is the case, just like the disc theory, then we should see them from different angles, why don't we?

The sad thing is, no matter what evidence is thrown at you, your belief will not let you change your mind, and thats a shame, and one of the reasons why this subject has turned into a bit of a joke



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 05:50 PM
link   
Mr.Oberg has commented before that NASA have no interest in these objects because they know they are just ice or debris.
So why is it Houston comment on them in the tether footage saying, "we see a couple of star like things"?
Why call them 'things', or even comment on them, if they see them all the time and know what they are?

Also there is plenty of footage where the camera follows the objects, zooming in and out on them.
Why bother if they know what they are?

They seem Very interested in these objects contray to what James Oberg says!



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jay-morris

Originally posted by ReconX

Originally posted by Jay-morris
reply to post by ReconX
 


I would also like to add that it was Sereda that said that these objects were disc's, so, they does not make any sense at all.


The term disc is used because that's what they look like, (like a compact disc).
It does not mean they actually are discs!


Sorry, your not making sense. So, these objects are not disc's, but could be in fact round (orbs) So, if this is the case, why do we see the notches at the same angle? I mean, he talks about the drogba stones, and he mentions the notches, but if this is the case, just like the disc theory, then we should see them from different angles, why don't we?

The sad thing is, no matter what evidence is thrown at you, your belief will not let you change your mind, and thats a shame, and one of the reasons why this subject has turned into a bit of a joke




Evidence?

Have i anywhere in this thread said what they are?
All i have said is what they cannot be!



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
just to remind folks of other angles on the STS-75 video.

First, lots of people saw the tether while it was orbiting free in space -- including me, from my front yard in rural Galveston county. It did not glow in the dark nor was it ever seen accompanied by large disks, which -- if the 'passing behind' interpretation is correct would have been full-moon sized as viewed from the ground. It was visible only in sunlight -- no magic plasma clowd or critters with it.







You didnt see anything because the objects and tether were filmed in the near ultra-violet spectrum.
The objects were allegedly not visable with the naked eye even to the astronauts on board.



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg


Originally posted by mcrom901
since you did not respond to my post and thought you could bundle it up with other 'wacky' claims... i'll only address the portion which i find relevant to my concerns...."It did not glow in the dark"

well... check the actual data re the scientific experiments......
www.abovetopsecret.com...


You cite the scientific paper saying


Exposure of the TSS-1 thermal control coating, RM400, to high energy electrons causes the coating to luminesce


…without addressing the basic question I raised,


Jimo posted on 15-12-2009 @ 07:49 AM
Hmm, when you provide a quote about emissions being 'observed', are you suggesting that the 'observation' was made in visible light, or in the more scientific usage as 'detected'? Are we arguing over misinterpretations of words?



did you miss it?

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Originally posted by JimOberg
…and the issue that the effect on the coating was tested in a ground lab in the dark so that the luminescing could be observed – but on the actual mission, the effect, if it occurred at all, was in daylight when the tether was already fully illuminated by sunlight and any additional luminescing would have no impact on its visibility.

When it was in darkness – shielded from the Sun’s emissions – any luminescence would be very minor, and has never been reported by any observer in orbit or from the ground.


Originally posted by mcrom901
btw... i had forgotten to ask as to how you had managed to get this bit pulled down earlier....


This is reference to a passage you claimed you found at
www.satobs.org...
in which Paul Maley is quoted as saying he saw the tether in shadow.

As you recall, in a Maley email dated Monday, December 14, 2009 6:14 PM, he repudiated that claim. Either he then also complained to the satobs.com site, or
The claimed text never existed at all. Either way – imaginary or erroneous and corrected – the claimed evidence you want to support your point of view is spurious.


i'm glad that you at least mention about its possibility.... but lets not forget that the claimed text DID EXIST.. that's why i had quoted it.... it was not imaginary and you very well know it.... i didn't make up those comments & it was a direct quote from satobs.... some folks must have reported about the luminescence, that's why it got mentioned in the first place.... meh

but in any case... since i have your attention.... your comments re the following.... please...

www.abovetopsecret.com...





the flash evaporator system water dump (scheduled: met day 7 - 11:45) was initiated the next day @ 062:08:04 gmt i.e. 08:11:46 MET



whereas the video had been captured the day before @ met 7/08:53 - 7/09:23 (gmt 061:05:11 - 061:05:41)





Originally posted by mcrom901
furthermore... in regards to the chaotic trajectory deviations of sub objects, it is generally believed that said flightpath changes are simply due to plumes from the thruster firings....

according to the flight plan, the maneuver activity was scheduled @ 7/2:25

whereas... the footage was captured around met 7/8:53

vector aftereffects from +6 hrs






the flight maneuver activity (thruster firings) which had been scheduled @ met 7/2:25 according to the flight plan, had actually been executed earlier 'prcs 4' @ met 7/00:25 - 06:20:43 gmt i.e. +8 hours prior the tether footage...






ntrs.nasa.gov...


On the other hand, emission of electrons would require an extremely efficient secondary emitter or the presence of a high density gas cloud—such as would be created by thruster operations. However, according to the Orbiter data, no thrusters or other gas or water releases were in progress at that time. Unfortunately, the TSS data set may not be sufficient to resolve this question.


see.msfc.nasa.gov...



edit on 17/6/11 by mcrom901 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jay-morris



The sad thing is, no matter what evidence is thrown at you, your belief will not let you change your mind, and thats a shame, and one of the reasons why this subject has turned into a bit of a joke





You don't know me or my beliefs friend!


These objects are obviously in some way intelligent......but let's imagine you or anyone could give me proof that these objects are ice crystals, i would hold my hands up, admit i was wrong, and buy you a beer.
But i'm certainly not going to take what Oberg and NASA say as the truth!

Nor should you, even if you believe they don't go behind the tether, you know there is more to this than ice crystals! Think.....

edit on 17-6-2011 by ReconX because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by ReconX

Originally posted by JimOberg
just to remind folks of other angles on the STS-75 video.

First, lots of people saw the tether while it was orbiting free in space -- including me, from my front yard in rural Galveston county. It did not glow in the dark nor was it ever seen accompanied by large disks, which -- if the 'passing behind' interpretation is correct would have been full-moon sized as viewed from the ground. It was visible only in sunlight -- no magic plasma clowd or critters with it.


The tether footage was filmed in the ultra-violet spectrum, and the objects were allegedly not visable with the naked eye to the astronauts on board.


That's one of the central fantasies of the anti-reality school of interpretation of these scenes.

The camera used, as explicitly documented on the NASA downlink TV logs [and discussed on the air-to-ground with the flight crew re 'focus'], were payload bay normal-light cameras. This can be verified independently by any interested investigator.

The UV camera on the flight to observe glowing plasma around the tether, as clearly stated in the links provided by the claimants, is operated only in the dark since the Sun's UV would overwhelm any much smaller UV from any plasma -- and the famous 'swarm' videos, as proven by their time tags and crew comments, were taken in full sunlight. The UV camera also included significant telemetry parameters displayed in digital overwrite on the screen, none of which is seen in ANY of the 'swarm' videos.

Just because an object emits UV does not mean that it is invisible in normal light. You can see the stars in the UV camera images taken by Apollo-16 and they are also visible-light stars, although of differing relative brightness, in 'visible' light. This claim is simply an appeal to 'magic' to ad hoc explain an awkward lack of any other eyewitness detection of the postulated miles-wide disks.



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by ReconX
Mr.Oberg has commented before that NASA have no interest in these objects because they know they are just ice or debris.
So why is it Houston comment on them in the tether footage saying, "we see a couple of star like things"?
Why call them 'things', or even comment on them, if they see them all the time and know what they are?

Also there is plenty of footage where the camera follows the objects, zooming in and out on them.
Why bother if they know what they are?

They seem Very interested in these objects contray to what James Oberg says!


Recon, you really are hopelessly self-deceived and this absolutely false misrepresentation of what I 'say' is a perfect example. I have consistently written that Mission Control is always interested in stuff seen outside windows or on TV because of the possibility they could be clues to spacecraft malfunction [among other good reasons]. The fact that you don't know this -- and that you make up false allegations that I believe things exactly opposite to what I've repeatedly claimed -- just shows you are clueless in figuring out these intriguing scenes.



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 11:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by ReconX

Originally posted by JimOberg
just to remind folks of other angles on the STS-75 video.

First, lots of people saw the tether while it was orbiting free in space -- including me, from my front yard in rural Galveston county. It did not glow in the dark nor was it ever seen accompanied by large disks, which -- if the 'passing behind' interpretation is correct would have been full-moon sized as viewed from the ground. It was visible only in sunlight -- no magic plasma clowd or critters with it.




You didnt see anything because the objects and tether were filmed in the near ultra-violet spectrum.
The objects were allegedly not visable with the naked eye even to the astronauts on board.


If the crew couldn't see them, what then were they talking about with Mission Control?



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 05:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by ReconX

Originally posted by Jay-morris



The sad thing is, no matter what evidence is thrown at you, your belief will not let you change your mind, and thats a shame, and one of the reasons why this subject has turned into a bit of a joke





You don't know me or my beliefs friend!


These objects are obviously in some way intelligent......but let's imagine you or anyone could give me proof that these objects are ice crystals, i would hold my hands up, admit i was wrong, and buy you a beer.
But i'm certainly not going to take what Oberg and NASA say as the truth!

Nor should you, even if you believe they don't go behind the tether, you know there is more to this than ice crystals! Think.....

edit on 17-6-2011 by ReconX because: (no reason given)


Its nothing about believing what nasa says. Its about using your common sense. And for the record, its not just nasa that has said that these objects are close to the camera. You will find many experts who have come to the same conclusion. So, i don't think you will ever hold your hands up and say your were wrong, which is a shame because there are some great ufo cases out there that deserve more attention..

As for "the objects were only visible in uv" That has pretty much been proven wrong, so, these objects would have been seen by the naked eye if they were as big as sereda said they were.



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 12:56 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 08:42 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 





I don't know about the others, but this one is obvious.

That is Batman.



posted on Sep, 13 2014 @ 06:22 PM
link   
Nasa videos and images seem to be chalk full of ufo activity in space. STS088 reminds me of the 'Black Knight' satellite stories. No big surprise NASA caught a bunch of flak for removing the HD images of this case.

IMO, the object in the image appears to have some definitive structure. It's difficult to be certain about the origin because there is so many man made objects up there. The main thing I get hung up on is not that this image shows a ufo, but what the origin of it may be.

Some other videos like the STS 75 "Tether Incident" look undoubtedly alien to my eye. The way they move, basically making cornered turns in a 0 G environment is astounding. At some points they also appear to be slowing down to inspect the tether. There's a lot more that we don't know regarding whats in space, than what we do.




edit on 13-9-2014 by AnonyMason because: sp



new topics

top topics



 
110
<< 12  13  14    16 >>

log in

join