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.

 

Astronaut Story Musgrave's Views on Extraterrestrials

page: 3
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 06:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Shrike
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, ...


Sure they do, frequently -- just after sunrise, because of the down-sun shadow zone in which nearby 'stuff' is invisible until it crosses the umbra boundary -- which because of the angular size of the sun, can take a second or more.



You don't seem to recognize the significance of my study's results, showing that this STS-80 scene occurred in precisely this portion of the shuttle's orbital path. Dtto the STS-48 zig-zagger. Ditto the STS-63 'Mir' views. Ditto so many other famous 'shuttle UFOs'...The mysterious "appearing" is a normal consequence of unique orbital lighting.

Now, you can argue that it didn't happen this time, or that time -- but do you at least concede that the 'dawn shadowing' visual phenomenon is genuine?

Here's another graphical representation of this geometry:

www.jamesoberg.com...


edit on 14-3-2012 by JimOberg because: add image




posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 07:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Shrike

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!


OK, let's look more closely at this, but elsewhere:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Shrike
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.


"There is no reason" is just shrike-speech for "I don't KNOW the reason so it can't exist".

This, from my "99 FAQs on Space UFOs", in final preparation:




15 Q: Does NASA view these reports seriously?

A: For safety reasons, at the very least, NASA flight controllers do indeed pay attention, and have been doing so for decades. John Glenn’s report of ‘fireflies’ was closely examined as an indicator of how the cooling system – an externally-mounted ‘flash evaporator’ that used water to cool the capsule – may have been malfunctioning. On Apollo-13, observations of ice particles out the window helped quickly characterize the severity of the cryogenic tank explosion. During Apollo missions, reports and images of what came to be humorously called ‘moon pigeons’ provided clues to the status of critical external components such as heat shields and thermal blankets. A Skylab mission was nearly aborted with a rescue flight when ‘snow’ showed that a thruster was leaking precious fuel. A critical international space rendezvous in 1995 was nearly cancelled because of excessive fuel leaks, observed as ice swarms outside the STS-63 window. Structural pieces of shuttle missions have been observed and closely examined by camera zoom, but the most serious shuttle space failure, the ‘Columbia’ disaster, missed a chance to be forewarned when a hunk of the vital heat shield drifted away but was NOT observed by eyeball or camera. For reasons such as these, strange-looking outside stuff gets the immediate attention of Mission Control – and all in public.

See my 1994 briefing: “Mitigation of Hazards of Shuttle-Generated Debris”,
www.jamesoberg.com...

and this Apollo-era NASA study of anomalous external objects
www.jamesoberg.com...

Here’s how a report of a ‘UFO’ might have saved the lives of the Columbia crew during their doomed January 2003 mission: www.msnbc.msn.com...

…and here’s why reports of ‘stuff’ were always made rapidly and openly:
MSNBC // June 13, 2008 // Why NASA watches out for true UFOs
today.msnbc.msn.com...




posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Shrike
... 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...


I don't think so, Shrike, because you seem to be mistaking the automatic gain control with the focus.

Many people have made this mistake, basing their interpretation of unearthly space videos on invalid analogies with earthside seeing.

The best way to avoid this trap is to learn how the shuttle cameras actually work. I've reproduced the console operating manual here:


www.jamesoberg.com...
www.jamesoberg.com...


Please try making judgments from verifiable knowledge, rather than blind guessing. You'll have a lot more success at being closer to reality.



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 09:58 AM
link   
The "bottom line" last part is two sentences, and they are a total contradiction.



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

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.


Eyewitness testimony? Mitchel is an eyewitness? Musgrave is an eyewitness? We're talking about UFOs and aliens and bothof those ex-astronauts make unsupported claims. They both say they believe that ETs exist although neither can provide evidence, just their belief.

BTW, you cannot use the word "believe" as applying to me as I do NOT have a belief system. I don't "believe", I either know or don't know.

I happen to be an eyewitness and after I got through describing what I saw there would be no doubt that what I've seen is NOT associated with humans. But not all eyewitness know how to describe accurately and therein lies the rub.



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Shrike
I happen to be an eyewitness and after I got through describing what I saw there would be no doubt that what I've seen is NOT associated with humans. But not all eyewitness know how to describe accurately and therein lies the rub.


No. "Accurate description" has nothing to do with the 'noise' factor.

The 'rub', Shrike, is that > 95% [how much greater is THE object of debate] of sincere, intelligent eyewitnesses ARE mistaken -- that figure is hardly in dispute after all these decades.

...and practically EVERY one of the ">95%" is absolutely convinced that THEY are NOT in the ">95%", just those OTHER guys.

But not THEM!!

So forgive me for being a little less confident than you, in assuming that accuracy is measurable by sincerity and certainty levels.

Let's discuss the facts that can be checked, that stand on their own.




.



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 
Jim, you are such a typical type of die hard skeptic of UFOs.. the old 'prove a negative' guy....If you do not know something, or If you have not heard of someone,
.... it must not have happened & they must not be important.

And you are not being truthful when you continually fib to me ( & zorgon) about having your own NASA mastered copy of this amazing STS-80 clip.



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by buzzEmiller
reply to post by JimOberg
 
Jim, you are such a typical type of die hard skeptic of UFOs.. the old 'prove a negative' guy....If you do not know something, or If you have not heard of someone,
.... it must not have happened & they must not be important.

And you are not being truthful when you continually fib to me ( & zorgon) about having your own NASA mastered copy of this amazing STS-80 clip.


Buzz, it's no satisfaction to me that my critics can only make believe they are scoring points by misrepresenting my views and whacking the counterfeits. And what's this 'fib' about STS-80 video? Another lame excuse, in a long line of dodges, to avoid discussing any of the analysis and results in my twelve year old report? You know that report -- the one endorsed by STS-80 astronauts Musgrave and Jones? But still you keep eyes and mind closed, and mouth open.



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 
Jim..I have watched the entire mission (archived video) from the STS-63 mission & the so called 'swarm' of leaking liquid to ice I see... is not the same as you say. ( & nothing like STS-80)

Thus I know you have never seen this STS-63.. minute by minute, day by day, shuttle live video.....you are just repeating what you read or were told by NASA public relations!



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 
Jim,
I am just saying that I have seen all the 'official' NASA video that they have posted to the web re: each flight & that is all you get,

just a satellite launch or capture.. various crew goofing around & a few beauty shots! You base so much of what you say re: NASA videos like the STS -80..on info & not any raw unedited video from NASA ...just what someone else said...



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by buzzEmiller
reply to post by JimOberg
 
Jim,
I am just saying that I have seen all the 'official' NASA video that they have posted to the web re: each flight & that is all you get,

just a satellite launch or capture.. various crew goofing around & a few beauty shots! You base so much of what you say re: NASA videos like the STS -80..on info & not any raw unedited video from NASA ...just what someone else said...



Buzz, you DO know that I watched a lot of that video [like STS-37, STS-48, etc] live in Mission Control, don't you? And that all the later missions were on the NASA TV channel which I also monitored?

If you have some specific STS-63 video you find inexplicable, please post it in a new thread. But before you demand I do a wild goose chase for your pleasure, admit to me that you'll never believe any explanation I ever offer so it's a waste of my time -- or that you find some explanation I've offered for some strange-looking shuttle video, actually persuasive. Which is it?



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 
Jim, your huge analysis of the STS 80 was a piece of work that was very interesting & thanks for that. But I can not buy it beyond the basic technical teaching moments.

I did not sit in a NASA pr office and watch a tiny bit of tape like you did. ( 20 mins. ) I watched hr. after hr & day by day from every STS 80 flight day unedited video. What I see is a mission that every day gives amazing UFO video (both day & night video)...

& your pal S.Mus. is all over these STS-80 UFO clips.

..he is a stealth whistleblower. (and you know it) He & J.Glenn are the same ...one day they say one thing to you & when asked by CNN the next day..........

they are "not sure"!! (as J. Glenn now says re: his 'fireflies' & S.Mus. says re 'stuff' he has seen out the shuttle window & during spacewalks.!)

NASA is all about secrets..like the automatic secret X spacecraft (NASA won't say what it has been doing is space month after month)
..some say to spy on China..which is building another space station that is shrouded in more secrecy!



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 
It is more than a fluke that Story turns up on a majority of the NASA UFO video clips on the you tube secretnasaman channel which has 200 plus videos of NASA UFOs !! That is a lot.
and they show that
Story is either in NASA control talking to the astronauts or he is one of the astronauts talking away to the ground. In both cases he talks about technical mission details or whatever, thus keeping the video download onscreen & prolonging many of these UFO clips that are quite lengthy in their raw stages.



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by buzzEmiller
reply to post by JimOberg
 
Jim, your huge analysis of the STS 80 was a piece of work that was very interesting & thanks for that. But I can not buy it beyond the basic technical teaching moments.

I did not sit in a NASA pr office and watch a tiny bit of tape like you did. ( 20 mins. ) I watched hr. after hr & day by day from every STS 80 flight day unedited video. What I see is a mission that every day gives amazing UFO video (both day & night video)........

NASA is all about secrets..like the automatic secret X spacecraft (NASA won't say what it has been doing is space month after month) ..some say to spy on China..which is building another space station that is shrouded in more secrecy!


I'm not getting through to you, Buzz, am I? You keep writing as if I were some media flack visiting the NASA press office and getting fed the official pablum. But you, you've actually WATCHED all the video [as you somehow assume I have not].

You do realize that I worked in the Mission Control Center, up to and including a front row console -- the Rendezvous Guidance and Procedures Officer -- studied all the systems, learned the jargon, practiced practiced practiced, trained and passed exams and labs and drills to get certified, worked day and night preparing flight checklists and training the crews, designed and implemented the data displays for our console and documented the in-flight use of them, thrashed out the 'Flight Rules' for a hundred different contingencies, lost sleep over the 101st, then ran the mission and responded to anomalies, watching the data screens and the video downlink, then collected and analyzed the post-flight reports ....

You, you've had to settle with watching from afar, letting your imagination run wild [like, what is it that you insinuate NASA has at all to do with the current X-37B missions?], swallowing the wildest conspiracy theories with no foundation in real spaceflight familiarity to give you guidance [like the story X-37 was 'spying' on the Chinese space station -- a howler of a juvenile fantasy, that story, because of the incompatibility of the two orbits].... and sniffing your nose in the air over my STS-80 report.

What is it about the postsunrise shadow zone that you don't get, in its role in creating the illusion of 'appearing' dots?

What is it about thruster firings diverting the motion of nearby particles don't you get?

What is it about erecting castles in the aerospace, based on literally just 'junk', and then defending them against all logic and reality?

Yeah, I'm talking to YOU.



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 06:46 PM
link   

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?


Jim, you're nitpicking. Musgrave didn't use the term "UFO" but his description of the "eel", for one, is a description of an unidentified object. Unless they're speaking specifically, using terms about what they may recognize such as "ice crystals", then they're UFOs: Unidentified Flying Objects!

If you don't agree then enlighten us about where on the shuttle Musgrave's "eel" comes from.



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 07:36 PM
link   

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?


Here is the transcript of the video:

"Statistically, to a certainty they (or there) are hugely advanced, civilations, intelligences, life forms out there. I believe they're so advanced that they're even doing interstellar travel. I believe it's possible they came here. Nothing that I have seen, personaly, has the signature, has those characteristics which you would attribute to other forms of intelligence or other kinds of craft. Twice I saw what I call my eel, which I don't know the size of it because I don't know how far away it was but it was like a rubber piece of hose which had internal motions in it. Maybe it's eight feet maybe it's ten, I'm not sure. When you can't tell how far away you can't get the size so I'm missing both of those things, size and how far away. But there's no question it had internal motion".


So here we have the words of a higher-than-normal intelligent person who has achieved what some of us dream we could do. Analyzing his words we see that he doesn't sound as intelligent as he should because he is espousing beliefs and you'd think that Musgrave would be above espousing beliefs which are empty statements. He doesn't speak as someone who is 100% sure of what he is saying. To state as "fact" that there are other intelligences besides humans is ridiculous. He is not speaking with sure knowledge, he is mere speculating such as Mitchell speculates, Drake speculates, IOW, nothing to take to the bank because at the bank you have to supply money with the deposit slip! You just can't hand the teller the deposit slip as the teller will just wait for you to hand over the money. Musgrave, et al, use deposit slips and they hope that the money will magically appear.

He believes they're doing interstellar travel and that they came here (not still visiting as alien believers they're still doing). But he hasn't seen any evidence to support his beliefs! Is Musgrave coming or going? And if these intelligence are traveling around the cosmos, how are they getting around? Why doesn't Musgrave include his beliefs about UFOs along with his views on extraterrestrials as being experienced all over earth? You can't have extraterrestrials without UFOs!

Then he goes on about his "eel". First, the object doesn't resemble an eel, so he's using a misnomer. As I said, many moons ago, his "eel" looks like a TE-KA floor lamp! Although the photo below shows a different brand.

First an eel:


Then the lamp


So, looking at the video does his "eel" really look like an eel or a floor lamp, and why can't Musgrave tell the difference?

And Musgrave is doing something which Oberg doesn't seem capable of doing; estimating size. So how can anyone that has not been in space try to convince us that the white objects that we call "orbs" are really ice crystals near the shuttle, especially in light of that the ice crystals which have been shown in documentaries on TV do not behave anything like the white orbs which are at a great distance and behave unlike ice crystals.

What's going on here with these "out-of-this-world" explanations. We can't all be lunatics and faulty vision.



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

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.


Well, you can finally say I blew it. I was speaking in a non-accusatory way but I should have been forthright and said he did not use the term UFO. But let's be realistic, he was the one mincing words.



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

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.


And what do you find wrong with my analysis? It has nothing to do with "forced to lie", those are your words. I simply said that Mitchell and Musgrave, et al, have a need to make ridiculous belief comments. Anyone of their caliber that utters nonsense is not being forced to lie but their words come from a certain need to espouse silliness. I would never, EVER, say that there is any other life in creation outside of humans. I have reason, common sense, and logic behind my words. Until proven otherwise, we are it regardless of Mitchell's and Musgrave's desire to believe otherwise. My life does not depend on beliefs. It depends on what I experience daily from the time I get out bed until I go back to it.



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by The Shrike
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.


"There is no reason" is just shrike-speech for "I don't KNOW the reason so it can't exist".

This, from my "99 FAQs on Space UFOs", in final preparation:


Shrike-speak is saying that Oberg-speak is full of fantasy and doesn't deal with reality. We could argue about this until our last breath and I will never accept your explanation as fitting in view of the world and what I've seen and learned in 74 years. You are just trying to sanitize what is unsanitizable. You may have convinced yourself that what is shown in NASA videos is simple and explainable but your explanations suffer from common sense.

I'm not a professional photographer but I started using a 35 film camera in 1955. I know the basics about depth of field and shutter speeds. I know when an object is at distance and requires a telephoto to bring it in. Ditto for wide angle. Small objects near the camera will not be in focus depending on the lens used. Every single white "orb" in the videos has been at distance, they're not small, they don't continue to move away from the shuttle as footage of ice crystals show...

No, Jim, I'm not in your camp. If life was as you describe it, optically speaking, then I might as well close my eyes and never open them again for by doing so I know that they're going to deceive me and that cliff edge is closer than I think!




top topics



 
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join