Astronaut Story Musgrave's Views on Extraterrestrials

Originally posted by The Shrike
NOTE: I'm reposting this thread because my original thread was sent to the trash bin due to my mentioning another forum!

Apart from the topic this made me curious as well. You were not allowed to mention another forum?

Here's the report that I prepared about a dozen years ago and have posted around the Internet. Musgrave and Jones, mission crewmembers, have explicitly endoresd it as accurate:

The STS-80 scenes seem to me to be identical in origin to the infamous STS-48 scenes and to numerous others throughout the shuttle flight program: low-light sensitive B&W cameras are trained on the receding horizon during night passes, to observe serendipitous lightning events for an experiment called Mesoscale Lightning Experiment, managed out of NASA-MSFC in Huntsville. You can see the dark horizon, the glowing 'air glow' layer, moving stars, moving city lights below, lightning flashes, and under moonlit conditions, dim clouds.
By the way, these low-light B&W cameras are pretty old and are being replaced mission by mission -- the suite of cameras carried by a shuttle (one in each corner of the payload bay, two on the RMS, others perhaps mounted on the keel looking upwards at target spacecraft, plus a few handheld units inside the cabin) can be adjusted as needed, and a new color CCD camera is much higher quality (it doesn't 'bloom' in overbright reflections, and can't be damaged by sun exposure), but it's not as sensitive in low light, so there are fewer opportunities to see such views every year.
When sunrise occurs (due to the Orbiter's motion along its orbit), even though the Orbiter is now bathed in sunlight, the camera is still trained on the dark side of Earth. But now the floating particles which routinely accompany every shuttle flight (often ice particles, sometimes junk from the payload bay, pieces of insulation blankets, a dozen or more distinctly different sources) can become visible in the sunlight, sometimes even moving into sunlight from the umbra of the Orbiter (and thus "appearing suddenly"). These are close to the camera, sometimes a few feet, at most a few hundred feet. Sometimes they are hit by pulses of gas from the RCS jets as they automatically fire to gently nudge the spaceship back towards a pre-set orientation. Because of the sensitivity of the camera, moving particles leave streaks -- even stars can be seen to do this when the camera is being panned (usually by command from a controller in the Mission Control Center). Tumbling particles tend to flash. Bright particles overload the optics and appear as "rings" or "do-nuts" with darker centers.
There's nothing else to it, as far as I can tell. Everyone in the control center knows about this visual phenomenon, everyone has seen it numerous times, and they laugh at notions these are anomalous, while they grimace at yet more silly stories by people who don't seem to understand much (or do seem to misunderstand a lot) about "ordinary" space flight.
As far as I was able to determine, these STS-80 scenes were recorded beginning about 11:55 PM PST on December 1, 1996. That's 07:55 GMT on December 2. Since the shuttle was launched on Nov 19, that is 324/19:55:47, this makes it about 12 days 11 hours 59 minutes "Mission Elapsed Time", or MET. This was on rev 197, crossing Venezuela, then the West Indies. The Orbiter attitude was bottom forward, with the vehicle yawed somewhat so the nose was off to one side.
According to the activity plan sent up that morning, the crew was doing some evaluation of an EVA tool associated with their airlock problems, and the two pilots were scheduled to begin a review of landing procedures. Lunch was to follow. When I asked crewman Story Musgrave, who is not shy about talking about anomalies of any kind, he assured me he saw nothing unusual on the flight, at this point or at any other.
The camera, "B" located at the rear of the payload bay, was in a pre-set position which was later changed by ground commands. Judging from the star motion at the horizon, it was looking southwest, not precisely backwards (since then the stars would have been setting straight down across the horizon). I don't have the exact numbers on the camera's pan/tilt and it's too much trouble to get them.
According to a computer reconstruction of the trajectory, sunrise occurred at GMT 07:57. That's precisely when the picture shows a slight foggy periphery, and when the first objects appear. They keep showing up until about 08:01, when sunlit clouds come into the camera's field of view and the iris automatically stops way down so that the tiny objects (and stars too) are no longer visible. The camera view continues in daylight for long after that.
[part 2 next]

Part 2 of report


The crew's "Earth Obs Exposures" daily plan listed ground targets which confirm this flight path:
12/11:54:05 Caracas
12/11:55:58 Montserrat
and then
12/12:19:34 Lake Nasser
12/12:21:13 Jiddah, Saudi Arabia
12/12:21:23 Mecca
These are "opportunities" only, not assignments, and apparently nobody was free to take the shots over Caracas and Montserrat.
Here is some trajectory data from which you can reconstruct the flight path and lighting conditions at the interval of interest, if you have the commonly- available software.
M50 State Vector
GMT 337:00:54:47.00
MET 012:04:59:00
Position (ft)
X 7272023.0
Y -20753260.5
Z -2137127.9
Velocity (ft/sec)
VX 20614.669694
VY 8420.434295
VZ -11894.207423

At MET 12/11:55:47 for example, position is lat 15.07N, Lon 62.06W, alt 185.4nm, inertial velocity 25245.6034 ft/sec, the orbital range is 183.8361 to 193.8737 nm, period 91:23.435, beta angle -34 degrees (the sun is off to the right of the orbital plane by this angle),
The video that I saw over in the Public Affairs Office was tape #612710. If you want to specify it to buy your own copies, give the MET or GMT times, and order ten minutes before and after the interval, so you can see the typical phenomena of stars leaving trails, and auto iris control functioning, and at one point the constellation Orion going by, and at the end a view around the Orbiter's sunlit payload bay. All very ordinary, unspectacular, normal space views, in my opinion.
I don't know where the impression came from that this was a rebroadcast of daily highlights, since these programs are invariably short (10-15 minutes), with short clips jumping from scene to scene, usually involving views of astronauts. This sequence, on the other hand, was continuous for at least 20 minutes from the same camera, and the geography and lighting are consistent with the real time orbital motion. I looked at the "Flight Day Highlights" summary for three days around this date and that's what they consisted of, with no replay of any of these "dancing dots" scenes (why should there have been?).
I don't expect that this will change many minds and I don't intend to go on television to face some wild accusations that I'm a paid liar for the grand conspiracy, and basically I don't take anyone seriously who takes these stories seriously. Life's too short for me to care what some people want to believe these scenes show. I've already spent too much time, but I figured somebody had to make a rational response, whether it was understood and believed, or not.
James Oberg // www.jamesoberg.com....

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by JimOberg

 

What shuttle astronauts reported such encounters? And I'm not counting Cady Coleman and her clumsy joke. Who else -- seriously? Names, please.

Story Musgrave

Cool we can check this out. What's the date/time of the video, and the mission number?

Oh, not gonna tell us? Golly, why NOT?

reply to post by JimOberg


Why don't you ask Musgrave ?

He's the one reporting to the whole world

that He saw a ufo "on two different occasions"

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by JimOberg

 

Why don't you ask Musgrave ?

He's the one reporting to the whole world

that He saw a ufo "on two different occasions"

Come now, did HE say he saw 'a UFO', or are you putting words into his mouth?

Is your claim based on correct quoting, or on your own imagination?

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by JimOberg

 

Why don't you ask Musgrave ?

He's the one reporting to the whole world

You are the one making the claim the 'snakes' represent something inexplicable, so YOU provide the evidence.

Because Musgrave says HE doesn't believe the 'snakes' are anything extraordinary or extraterrestrial.

Or, like Shrike, will you claim that Musgrave is being forced to lie?

reply to post by JimOberg

You are the one making the claim the 'snakes' represent something inexplicable, so YOU provide the evidence.

Please quote me where I said that or made that claim

Bet you can't ; )




FYI - The term UFO applies to anything that remains unidentified

Unidentified flying object

An unidentified flying object, often abbreviated UFO or U.F.O., is an unusual apparent anomaly in the sky that is not readily identifiable to the observer as any known object

Link - en.wikipedia.org...

Any real Ufologist would already know this ... so .. what's your excuse ?

Originally posted by easynow
FYI - The term UFO applies to anything that remains unidentified
Any real Ufologist would already know this ... so .. what's your excuse ?

Since you clearly have no real evidence to offer, you play puerile word games.

Read what Musgrave has really said, not how you want to twist his words.

Nothing he has seen, or heard of any other astronaut seeing, strikes him as indicating any alien activities near Earth.

Nothing.

If you can't live with that, enjoy your fantasies, but stop pretending you have any facts to back up your argument.

If I have misinterpreted your belief that the snakes represent some genuinely anomalous stimulus, instead of debris originating from the space shuttle [which I conclude they are], please take this opportunity to correct my mistake.

We all notice that you keep pretending there is no researched, published prosaic explanation of the STS-80 video, endorsed by two of the astronauts on the mission,

Keep pretending. It's the only way to maintain your beliefs.

reply to post by JimOberg

We all notice that you keep pretending there is no researched, published prosaic explanation of the STS-80 video, endorsed by two of the astronauts on the mission,

I've read all the so called "research"

The real questions are ...

1- Why is the research your touting --> flawed ?

2- Why do you want to keep vital information about the case a secret ?

3- What exactly is it ... that you don't want your target audience to find out ?

Lack of evidence is proof of a cover up.

When it comes to opinions regarding what one sees on various NASA shuttle videos while in orbit, there will always be 2 schools. One school, voicing the NASA official explanations with support from a certain percentage of the populace that what is seen is simply ice crystals, water dumps, shuttle debris, and other prosaic explanations. The other school going against the NASA grain and voicing what they see as alien objects behaving in opposition to the NASA explanations; IOW, UFOs. You'd think that the NASA explanations would be de rigueur since they are the experts and are supported by all astronauts. This does not include the lunar astronauts, just the shuttle astronauts but the Americans, since the Russians may have a different POV.

Below, I have captured 12 screen grabs from the STS-80 footage normally seen as there may be more. Up front I'll tell you, unqualifiedly, that ice crystals, etc., do not emerge or materialize from the atmosphere and haul off at tremendous speed. They do not emerge or materialize, bloom into a brighter shape and drift off eventually coming to a stop and de-blooming. They do not hang motionless in space since they were put into motion and have to continue. But you see a lot of these white "orb"-like objects hanging around individually, some drift off, and some come together in groups. There is no reason why a shuttle camera should zoom in on a group since ice crystals are around the shuttle or when they move they do not behave as these "orbs" do and what is the purpose of zooming into a group of "ice crystals". You can tell that the camera zooms in and out because a nearby object (the edge of the shuttle's loading bay) goes from out of focus to focus.

Think what you will and support who you will according to the way you think. But, to me, the video(s) do not show ice crystals, water dumps, shuttle debris. They show 100% UFOs and no NASA explanation convinces me. Look at the screen grabs and come to your own conclusion.

In the actual video there's a lot more activity that cannot be presented in screen grabs. There are a lot of fast moving objects entering the atmosphere, over the atmosphere and not all of them are meteroids. A frame-by-frame assessment would be necessary to show everything.

I tried to keep errors to a minimum but a few may have escaped notice. Sorry.

1. Object materializes hauling from the atmosphere.


2. Multiple objects either moving very slowly or just "parked".


3. An object about to materialize, bloom, and drift.


4. The above object materializes, blooms, and drifts.


5. Main white object "bloomed" and drifting plus other similar smaller objects.


5. Main white object "de-bloomed" and "parking" itself plus other similar smaller objects.


7. A meteoroid/bolide.


8. A grouping of objects to which the camera will zoom into.


9. Grouping zoomed into.


10. After zooming into group, the camera zooms out and shows the edge of the shuttle's loading bay out of focus.


11. The shuttle's loading bay edge coming into focus.


12. The shuttle's loading bay edge coming in full focus.

Originally posted by Rafe_

Originally posted by The Shrike
NOTE: I'm reposting this thread because my original thread was sent to the trash bin due to my mentioning another forum!

Apart from the topic this made me curious as well. You were not allowed to mention another forum?

The removed thread contained the forum's name since I was a member of the mentioned forum where I included a description of the TV documentary in 2006.

Then, when I went to see what replies had been added to the removed I couldn't find the thread and in a private message greeneyedleo (or whatever), a Mod, said he had sent my thread to the trash bin because I had the nerve to mention another forum here. You'd think these Mods would have more class and simply edit the offending words and leave the thread intact. So I reposted this thread and left out mention of the other forum just to keep peace in the family.

A few weeks ago I had another successful thread catching fire and ArMaP removed it because he said it had nothing to do with Aliens and UFOs and the thread WAS about lunar aliens and alleged alien structures! IMO, a Mod should not have such power, that a Mod should present his views to the ATS PTB and let THEM make the decision. Of course, as with coop boards that have unchallenged powers, the ATS PTB might just support their Mods so it's a lost cause.

Originally posted by JimOberg
Here's the report that I prepared about a dozen years ago and have posted around the Internet. Musgrave and Jones, mission crewmembers, have explicitly endoresd it as accurate:
snip
The STS-80 scenes seem to me to be identical in origin to the infamous STS-48 scenes

This has been a sore point since day one back in the early '90s when most of the various UFO forums railed against Oberg's allegedly prosaic explanations. Only a few bought the ice crystals explanation while the rest of us plus luminaries (cool pun!) such as Dr. Jack Kasher, and others analyzed the movement of the objects and found that the footage could not depict ice particles.

Dr. Jack Kasher is no slacker, he is professor of physics and astronomy at the University of Nebraska. Prosaic explanations defy logic, common sense and reason and indicate that many of us have really poor eyesight! I now enjoy a lens transplant and my vision is 20/20, and I'm 74!

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by JimOberg

 

Why don't you ask Musgrave ?

He's the one reporting to the whole world

that He saw a ufo "on two different occasions"

Asking Musgrave is at best a waste of time. He is very clear about his views but he still has the nerve as does Mitchell that "they" exist, lots of 'em! and, unfortunately, all we get is personal opinion unsupported by the evidence that could turn the tables.

People in certain, respected, positions have this need to espouse unsupported beliefs. Drake does it with his meaningless equation, astronauts do it with religious fervor, I mean how could any thinking person take these people seriously? I certainly don't. I am my only authority and it doesn't matter who says what it's what is in my mind that counts. I haven't lost it yet.

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by JimOberg

 

Why don't you ask Musgrave ?

He's the one reporting to the whole world

that He saw a ufo "on two different occasions"

Come now, did HE say he saw 'a UFO', or are you putting words into his mouth?

Is your claim based on correct quoting, or on your own imagination?

What's worse, calling space anomalous objects ice crystals, "eels", or UFOs? So Musgrave may not have used the term UFO but to say that he saw something he describes as an "eel" and not ice crystal, shuttle debris, water dumps, etc., adds another category to the game. His "eel" was an anomalous object that doesn't look recognizable by our "standards". Besides, I've shown on this forum photos of shapes that cannot be described prosaicly.

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by JimOberg

 

Why don't you ask Musgrave ?

He's the one reporting to the whole world

You are the one making the claim the 'snakes' represent something inexplicable, so YOU provide the evidence.

Because Musgrave says HE doesn't believe the 'snakes' are anything extraordinary or extraterrestrial.

Or, like Shrike, will you claim that Musgrave is being forced to lie?

Wait a minit! Please copy and paste in a reply wher I said that Musgrave was forced to lie. I won't expand until you do. BTW, who else can you say have I mentioned as being forced to lie. Let's put the cards on the table.

Originally posted by The Shrike

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by JimOberg

 

Why don't you ask Musgrave ?

He's the one reporting to the whole world

that He saw a ufo "on two different occasions"

Asking Musgrave is at best a waste of time. ....People in certain, respected, positions have this need to espouse unsupported beliefs. ///, astronauts do it with religious fervor, I mean how could any thinking person take these people seriously? I certainly don't. I am my only authority and it doesn't matter who says what it's what is in my mind that counts. I haven't lost it yet.

Shrike, thanks for making your view so clear. Astronauts if they disagree with what you want to believe, are lying.

You have constructed the perfect defense against eyewitness testimony.

Sweet.

Originally posted by The Shrike

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by JimOberg

 

Why don't you ask Musgrave ?

He's the one reporting to the whole world

that He saw a ufo "on two different occasions"

Come now, did HE say he saw 'a UFO', or are you putting words into his mouth?

Is your claim based on correct quoting, or on your own imagination?

What's worse, calling space anomalous objects ice crystals, "eels", or UFOs? So Musgrave may not have used the term UFO but ......

"May not"??

MAY NOT????

You've just admitted he DID not -- and now you're making excuses for your faking of his words.

Badly played, Shrike.

Originally posted by The Shrike

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by JimOberg

 

Why don't you ask Musgrave ?

He's the one reporting to the whole world

You are the one making the claim the 'snakes' represent something inexplicable, so YOU provide the evidence.

Because Musgrave says HE doesn't believe the 'snakes' are anything extraordinary or extraterrestrial.

Or, like Shrike, will you claim that Musgrave is being forced to lie?

Wait a minit! Please copy and paste in a reply wher I said that Musgrave was forced to lie. I won't expand until you do. BTW, who else can you say have I mentioned as being forced to lie. Let's put the cards on the table.

8:26 PM:

People in certain, respected, positions have this need to espouse unsupported beliefs.