Soyuz launch today -- three objects swoop past on way to space

Originally posted by LiveToSpendIt
I have no idea nor does anyone else and I have to wonder why it's necessary, Jim, to start another one of these useless "lookee here" threads.

Because Jim is bored and is sitting their laughing at all the wild guesses people make about the booster rockets falling away... even when the video states booster rockets are separating at the point in time he shows

I think to be fair Herr Oberg should be dumped in the deliberate hoax bin and post banned I mean fair is fair right mods?

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by LiveToSpendIt
I have no idea nor does anyone else and I have to wonder why it's necessary, Jim, to start another one of these useless "lookee here" threads.

Because Jim is bored and is sitting their laughing at all the wild guesses people make about the booster rockets falling away... even when the video states booster rockets are separating at the point in time he shows

I think to be fair Herr Oberg should be dumped in the deliberate hoax bin and post banned

I mean fair is fair right mods?

Zog, your amateur mind-reading skills are fair less accurate than you seem to think -- and maybe your visual recognition processing could use some tweaks too.

There's no laughter here -- people are using their common sense and experience base to interpret videos, and would be doing so accurately if such videos were from circumstances that we are day-to-day familiar with. Our visual decoding algorithms are both hardwired from hundreds of millions of years of trial and error, and lifetimes of experience, and they serve as well -- within the boundaries of visual stimuli we are familiar with.

How is that a subject for mockery or criticism?

NOT recognizing these limits has led to decades, even generations of habitual misunderstanding of SOME types of visual inputs, is my argument. Surely you can't look around us at the current state of ufo research and assert, 'Yep, we're on the right track, just a few more cases/leaks/whistle-blowers and we'll have it NAILED" ??

Come on, Become part of the solution, not a defiant part of the problem.

Originally posted by JimOberg There's no laughter here -- people are using their common sense and experience base to interpret videos, and would be doing so accurately if such videos were from circumstances that we are day-to-day familiar with. Our visual decoding algorithms are both hardwired from hundreds of millions of years of trial and error, and lifetimes of experience, and they serve as well -- within the boundaries of visual stimuli we are familiar with.

The videos aren't, the video you put up isn't and its a complete waste of time trying to pull out details from watching a YouTube video shot with the precision of a monkey.

NOT recognizing these limits has led to decades, even generations of habitual misunderstanding of SOME types of visual inputs, is my argument. Surely you can't look around us at the current state of ufo research and assert, 'Yep, we're on the right track, just a few more cases/leaks/whistle-blowers and we'll have it NAILED" ??

You might but for someone who doesn't believe in UFOs as spacecraft, WTH difference does it make to you anyway?

Come on, Become part of the solution, not a defiant part of the problem.

Go find another schlock video to throw up on ATS, it's full of half-asses schlockers waiting to point out they see birds or Chinese lanterns or their sister's labias.

Originally posted by LiveToSpendIt
.... for someone who doesn't believe in UFOs as spacecraft, WTH difference does it make to you anyway?

I believe UFO reports are a puzzle worth engaging, with the potential for amazing revelations.

They are not 'all nonsense', and NO proposed explanation for ANY subset of them can be a priori eliminated, or disproved.

Some reports are indeed spacecraft -- our own, misperceived. You may not LIKE that discovery, but that's only your preferred answer being deflated. Isn't it better to know rather than NOT know?

Some, I suspect, are far more important, and worth the effort to winnow out the chaff. I am frustrated by the inability of 'modern ufology' to accomplish this despite, for many, the best intentions and most impressive skill sets.

Some reports, I grant, MAY involve activities whose agencies -- presumably but not necessarily, human -- are satisfied that the public at large misperceives and misbelieves in camouflage 'solutions'. I am not satisfied with that status quo.

Well, it takes all kinds.

Originally posted by JimOberg

I believe UFO reports are a puzzle worth engaging, with the potential for amazing revelations.

They are not 'all nonsense', and NO proposed explanation for ANY subset of them can be a priori eliminated, or disproved.

Some reports are indeed spacecraft -- our own, misperceived. You may not LIKE that discovery, but that's only your preferred answer being deflated. Isn't it better to know rather than NOT know?

Some, I suspect, are far more important, and worth the effort to winnow out the chaff. I am frustrated by the inability of 'modern ufology' to accomplish this despite, for many, the best intentions and most impressive skill sets.

Some reports, I grant, MAY involve activities whose agencies -- presumably but not necessarily, human -- are satisfied that the public at large misperceives and misbelieves in camouflage 'solutions'. I am not satisfied with that status quo.

Completely contradicts your own website why do you think I posted that you don't believe in UFOs as spacecraft?

Opinion polls now indicate that most Americans believe "something strange is going on" regarding UFO reports. Oberg explains why he is not convinced of this, but attributes the social phenomenon to cultural patterns, eyewitness limitations, some clever hoaxes, and a news media degenerating into entertainment rather than information and insight.

Oberg Burps Over UFOs

Originally posted by JimOberg

Some reports are indeed spacecraft -- our own, misperceived. You may not LIKE that discovery, but that's only your preferred answer being deflated. Isn't it better to know rather than NOT know?

Here's what I know. I know you don't know whether all, some, part or none of military reported UFO encounters are terrestrial, extraterrestrial or testicularly based.

At least I know they aren't from testicles, YMMV.

Some more youtube Soyuz launch UFO links:


Ufo Ovni in New Launch TPC Soyuz to ISS 21 Dec.2011
Uploaded by kimdragon3 on Dec 21, 2011
www.youtube.com...


UFO Fleet Flyby Soyuz TMA-03M spacecraft 21-12-2011
Uploaded by kingwilly200 on Dec 21, 2011
www.youtube.com...
“satellites dont fly in formations like these objects do,and satellites dont pulsate !”
kingwilly200


Ufo at New Launch TPC Soyuz to ISS, 21 Dec.2011
www.youtube.com...
Uploaded by GlobalUFOs on Dec 21, 2011
Watch 2:55 minute


To stress again this principle: it is important to keep a look at space videos, launches, on-board, whatever, because on occasion they can provide visual clues of critically important malfunctions or status changes of the vehicle -- or could be genuinely unknown phenomena. If we don't prepare our minds to be surprised, why bother exploring?

It makes it all the more important to know how to filter out the noise so as to recognize the signal, when it appears, in a timely way.

Regular folks can help perform this task, supplementing NASA. When in doubt, report. Make waves.

I don't mean to seem to criticize anybody posting these kinds of claims.

Getting fixated on a 'preferred explanation' can interfere with full and level-headed reportage, is all.

Maybe some folks like this field because it makes them think they know an awful lot MORE than everybody else. I like this field because it reminds me, and I need reminding, that I know a lot LESS than I may think i know, and that a legion of like-minded enthusiasts across a thousand or more professions, can share with me.

Debunking junk cases is good. Take out the garbage. But, for example, how would one debunk observations by the General Mills people while tracking their Skyhook balloons, where they saw things moving in ways aircraft couldn't at a time before the U.S space program was still on the drawing board? They weren't pilots in the air subject to disorientation, cockpit reflections, superior mirages, distant rocket launches, etc. Meteors? Hm. In one case an astronomer was out in the field with a General Mills tracker team and shared a sighting with them, after which he wrote a paper on the incident.

Or the Stephanville, Texas case, with witness sighting angles measured and plotted then radar data also plotted and corroborating witness reports. Some say that must have been a secret U.S. craft. Maybe it was. But its sudden movements that would have required speeds of around Mach 0.7 to get from one hovering position to another (according to the radar data) make that questionable. If U.S. craft can do that, why aren't they used in military encounters?

Originally posted by JimOberg
Come on, Become part of the solution, not a defiant part of the problem.

Well a while back I posted some photos of hot air balloons that were built to look like UFO's. They were naturally reported as such until the truth came out.

The title of my thread was "UFO over Amsterdam? You Decide"

So what happened was that all the usual people pounce on the thread screaming fake, photoshoppe or hoax... without even looking up the references in the OP.

Yes I admit it was a trap to show people that no one here is doing more than just stating what they THINK it is without the slightest second spent looking it up, which would have given the answer right away...

The point of the thread was to show people UFO balloons for reference...

Well what happened was the thread was deleted and I got post banned for 60 days... so it seems only fair to me that your thread here deserves the same treatment, as its exactly in the same style with the same people just making wild guesses

Fair is fair... even Phage got busted for a similar 'offense' We wouldn't want people to think some people get special treatment now would we?



The second photo I posted in that thread I thought was really cool, and I said I liked it so much I paid for a copy in print for the wall...

THAT comment got me a whole lot of people laughing at me for being a fool and wasting my money. Here is that pic...



Neat huh? And the copy I bought has Richard Branson's autograph on it... as it was his April Fool's joke on London when he flew that thing around.

www.airshipandballoon.com...

So you see... people at ATS just look at the OP and decide what they think it is and post, and never research or actually read past the OP. The 5 threads on the UFO on a truck are ample proof of that.

ATS needs an ENEMA

Happy Holiday anyway

reply to post by zorgon


Well, what is fair is fair

Originally posted by zorgon

Well a while back I posted some photos of hot air balloons that were built to look like UFO's. They were naturally reported as such until the truth came out.

The title of my thread was "UFO over Amsterdam? You Decide"

So what happened was that all the usual people pounce on the thread screaming fake, photoshoppe or hoax... without even looking up the references in the OP.

Yes I admit it was a trap to show people that no one here is doing more than just stating what they THINK it is without the slightest second spent looking it up, which would have given the answer right away...

The point of the thread was to show people UFO balloons for reference...

Well what happened was the thread was deleted and I got post banned for 60 days..

I now insert the mandatory second line. Please do not ban me.

Originally posted by xpoq47
If U.S. craft can do that, why aren't they used in military encounters?

Once you expose this kind of technology, you open the cheap/free energy doors, the "where the hell has that been and how long has it been a secret" door and a host of other classified, deeply classified stuff.

Ain't happening just like voluntary disclosure on UFOs ain't happening.

reply to post by JimOberg


I think there were six engines because the Russians are weak and the US uses
one big engine cause we got the best German rocket engineers.

At 4:08 tiny lights had gone upward one on the left and then on the right.
Russian free energy machines because they have them and use them like
we do. Or have we stopped so the Russians are trying to show us up again.

Originally posted by JimOberg
Check out www.youtube.com...

... and watch the white dots rising past the ascending rocket at 2 min 40 [on left],
at 3 min 50 sec [on left], and at 4 min 00 sec [on rt].

We've seen these kinds of scenes before. What could they be?

I am confused. You posted this in the UFO forum, and you knew that it was most probably the boosters separating? What is the purpose of the thread? What would you call this other then a deliberate HOAX?.

Originally posted by VeniVidi

Originally posted by JimOberg
Check out www.youtube.com...

... and watch the white dots rising past the ascending rocket at 2 min 40 [on left],
at 3 min 50 sec [on left], and at 4 min 00 sec [on rt].

We've seen these kinds of scenes before. What could they be?

I am confused. You posted this in the UFO forum, and you knew that it was most probably the boosters separating? What is the purpose of the thread? What would you call this other then a deliberate HOAX?.

I did NOT know it was "most probably the boosters separating" -- you've got to be more careful in your reading for comprehension. I suspect the three up-moving dots are stars, as did a number of other posters.

For those who did NOT believe that, it's what they DID know that really wasn't SO, that confused them -- they KNEW the camera was pointed at a human spaceship and they figured the rising dots had to be rising into space FASTER than the human vehicle, hence it was a craft with greater power.

But the camera itself was panning DOWN to track the spaceship heading for the horizon, and thus background objects that were motionless -- such as stars -- would APPEAR to move 'UP' because of the unrecognized camera line-of-sight motion.

This is a COMMON visual misinterpretation, because ordinary everyday perceptual processes aren't accustomed to it, and make unwarrented assumptions when dealing with unfamiliar viewing environments.

reply to post by JimOberg


Hi, Jims, really good to see all of you back on ATS. Is this Jim #1, Jim #2 or Jim #3?

Nevermind, since I know all of you are busy, busy, busy little bees, I am sure you jumped right over the top of my post, and its question, as to why it is that you're guys are hypo0crites.

The Post Where I Ask The Jims Why They Are Hypocrites

Take your times, anyone of you can answer.

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by LiveToSpendIt
I have no idea nor does anyone else and I have to wonder why it's necessary, Jim, to start another one of these useless "lookee here" threads.

Because Jim is bored and is sitting their laughing at all the wild guesses people make about the booster rockets falling away... even when the video states booster rockets are separating at the point in time he shows

I think to be fair Herr Oberg should be dumped in the deliberate hoax bin and post banned

I mean fair is fair right mods?

Nobody likes a tattletale.

Originally posted by VeniVidi
I am confused. You posted this in the UFO forum, and you knew that it was most probably the boosters separating? What is the purpose of the thread? What would you call this other then a deliberate HOAX?.

They are NOT the boosters separating (at least not at the times Jim indicated in the OP). They are probably bright stars. The stars appear to be moving because the CAMERA is moving (the camera is following a rocket).

I mean, they objects all appear to be moving in the opposite direction that the camera is panning to follow the launch vehicle. So, it seems to me they are stars.

Thanks for the chuckle, Jim.

I don't know if that's normal but in that video the Rocket sways from right to left (1:12 - 1:15), making it look like a toy..

Here is a video of the April 4th 2011 Soyuz launch - and there is a UFO - or something - heading upwards in it again - at 2:27 - and it is much clearer in this one. It appears to be a globe.

www.youtube.com...