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.

 

"NASA's Unexplained Files" Premieres Tuesday, March 27 at 10PM E/P

page: 3
6
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 10:29 AM
link   
Jim ..please see the other thread of yours re STS 48 for A FULL answer re this stupid id/avatar business..I am not going to repeat it all over this thread so check...

& you are wrong re buzzE miller..I do not understand why you feel it is even a he & not a she..or maybe family???...a very close friend.. his wife or..maybe someone using his wireless..

just because the name martyn is used by me, for instance.. that does not make me him! That is how dumb your dissing is.. I am trying to make a point ..you should not be using your name..( see your current thread on the STS-48)




posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Shrike
The tether incident: Franklin Chang Diaz, Mission Specialist. Closeups of the tether deploying show a crystal clear scene with no ice crystals, debris of any kind. But one scene as the tether is seen drifting away a couple of white objects flash by in opposite directions! Marc D'Antonio (MUFON Photo & Video Analyst) says they zoomed in, they zoomed out. Voiceover says: "... and a lot of things swimming in the foreground." Ice crystals wouldn't swim in the foreground 'cause if they were they would be out of focus and they are in focus with the tether which is many miles away. Ice crystals don't swim, once they've been put in motion they continue that motion. D'Antonio's simulation fails because it does not for one minute resemble the real footage. He may have convinced himself of its success but it's a failure to me. His blobs do not look anything like the swarm which have a dark center and when a large one goes behind the tether the dark center disappears until the object emerges and the swarm looks pretty sharp compared to D'Antonio's formless blobs.


thanks for the summary... i missed the show... just a quick question though, were there any additional clips from the sts-75 scenes? hmmm... perhaps obtained via foia... or was it just the old stuff from martyn stubbs



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Shrike

Oberg says "People see things at the limits of their vision and fill in the rest of the details from their imaginations and their fears." What does that mean? ... What fears? Why should watching a plain, ol' video trigger fears? It may make Oberg think esoterically but in reality it sounds meaningless mumbo jumbo.


Sorry, I can't help, I left my NASA Shill Encyclopedia Of Meaningless Babble in my junior high school locker.


Originally posted by The Shrike Oberg on the STS-48: .......


Who cares, I don't but thanks for the info.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by mcrom901
 
I missed the show also...but it did not have so called new footage because Martyn Stubbs was the source of the video & was not asked for any more by the producers.

NASA will not deliver anything new..even for Jim!



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by martynNASAman
reply to post by mcrom901
 
I missed the show also...but it did not have so called new footage because Martyn Stubbs was the source of the video & was not asked for any more by the producers.

NASA will not deliver anything new..even for Jim!



NASA can roll out Oberg types as quickly as they want. He's nothing special.



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by mcrom901

Originally posted by The Shrike
The tether incident: Franklin Chang Diaz, Mission Specialist. Closeups of the tether deploying show a crystal clear scene with no ice crystals, debris of any kind. But one scene as the tether is seen drifting away a couple of white objects flash by in opposite directions! Marc D'Antonio (MUFON Photo & Video Analyst) says they zoomed in, they zoomed out. Voiceover says: "... and a lot of things swimming in the foreground." Ice crystals wouldn't swim in the foreground 'cause if they were they would be out of focus and they are in focus with the tether which is many miles away. Ice crystals don't swim, once they've been put in motion they continue that motion. D'Antonio's simulation fails because it does not for one minute resemble the real footage. He may have convinced himself of its success but it's a failure to me. His blobs do not look anything like the swarm which have a dark center and when a large one goes behind the tether the dark center disappears until the object emerges and the swarm looks pretty sharp compared to D'Antonio's formless blobs.


thanks for the summary... i missed the show... just a quick question though, were there any additional clips from the sts-75 scenes? hmmm... perhaps obtained via foia... or was it just the old stuff from martyn stubbs



The STS-75 footage was an abbreviated version of what Stubbs recorded, as were most of the other various footage.



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 09:34 PM
link   
My reply containing a hurried review as I was typing while watching the show left a lot out but it was nothing worth including as this presentation was, imo, piss-poor. It was misnamed as the show was not really about NASA's unexplained files because I don't think that NASA has compiled such files. What we see are some individuals who repeat what has been shown over and over and some individuals who spoke about nothing connected to NASA such as Nick Pope, Seth Shostak, Nick Redfern.

If NASA really wanted to get involved they would have selected Martyn Stubbs' footage as seen in "THE SECRET NASA TRANSMISSIONS: THE SMOKING GUN" and gotten NASA personnel to discuss the contents. But that'll never happen so we have to be (un)satisfied with what we get from other sources such as this poor man's "revelation".

No other astronaut is asked his or her opinion so we get stuck with Musgrave and his conflicting views. He has told us that he has seen unusual things in space which he doesn't describe and all he does carry on about his his "snake"/"eel". We don't hear from other astronauts about this object but we have to accept the authorities that space is full of ice crystals and shuttle debris. Why couldn't this "snake"/"eel" be such? "Billions of planetary creatures".

John Glenn sees "fireflies" when we all know that it is the first instance of seeing ice crystals but no one discusses it and all we get is a reconstruction (lots of them!) and even Oberg fails to tell us that all that Glenn saw were ice particles. Musgrave had to tell us this!

The McDivitt sighting also depends on a reconstruction. Where is the NASA footage? Oberg says that it might have been a secret satellite but NASA says there were no secret satellites in the area. When McDivitt returned and his film was taken by NASA and processed McDivitt says that what NASA shows is not what he saw so where are McDivitt's film and photographs and what do they really show? Certainly not ice crystals! Oberg does say that he saw the film and that it doesn't contain what McDivitt claims he saw. "A real mystery".

Lovell's sighting is not of a booster because he says "We have several - looks like... actual sighting". An astronaut telling NASA that he is seeing a real UFO and the booster!

The Gemini XI photos of an unknown that NASA says was a Russian satellite (Proton 3) 280 miles away was pooh-poohed by Bruce Maccabee who says it was 3,000 miles away! What's NASA doing giving astronauts wrong and dangerous information? These and other examples prove that NASA is engaging in nefarious activities.

Alan Bean and the red light. Photographs show the object's bizarre shape. Our own Oberg has the nerve to say that the resulting strange shape is due, more likely, to a camera aberration, exposure-setting error, and we don't hear from those who handled the astronauts' cameras to tell us that mighty NASA supplies faulty equipment and, once again, Maccabee counters Oberg's opinion! Oberg then backpedals by stating that there are no red satellites!

STS-48 - Oberg starts it off by saying: "The STS-48 video is probably the classic space-shuttle UFO case because of dots appearing on the screen, some changing course, zipping around and some passing close to each other as if by intent". The voice-over says "Oberg believes the object is a small piece of ice". Oberg is not heard discussing ice particle but he says: "The way stuff outside the shuttle moves around is completely unearthly as you expect because they're off the planet. And if a thruster fires or something else leaks out it can blown to a different course". Kasher is heard disagreeing with Oberg.

Near the end is where the surprise of the program appears with Oberg contradicting himself with the following comments, about the white orbs we call Space UFOs and which form a "circle". "Objects appear. White dots suddenly show up. Maybe from behind the earth, from behind a cloud".

What? Since when does the outspoken Oberg who tries to convince the world that what we constantly discuss as Space UFOs are ice crystals, shuttle debris, etc., now all of a sudden is quoted as saying that these ice cystals, shuttle debris, etc., instead of loosening from the shuttle and flying off in all directions and once set in motion do not change their course, come to a stop, reverse direction, drift slowly while others shoot off at high speed OR are seen at high speeds from all directions, "appear" ... "suddenly show up" ... "Maybe from behind the earth, from behind a cloud". How do these ice crystals, etc. change their behavior to conform to this new view? Why weren't videos used to illustrate, first, Oberg's ice crystals and, then, how they "appear", etc? Now, THAT would have been a revelation.

At this point, based on what I've heard from Oberg, his ice crystals, shuttle debris, etc., are no longer valid IMO.



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 09:52 PM
link   
Nick Pope needed to back off a few steps and take it down a few notches. Pretty sure I felt his spit on my face as he was talking.



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 10:53 PM
link   
Shrike is right, the comments of mine that were used were confusing if not misleading considering what I told the interviewers, but wasn't used. All the comments Shrike expected to hear me say WERE said on tape -- and got edited out.



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 11:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by buzzEmiller
reply to post by JimOberg
 
Jim...I just received an E reply from Martyn Stubbs re: this NASA UFO show!

He says that he worked on it with Nick Patterson, producer...providing the footage to be examined...all from his NASA UFO archives.

I asked why & he says that it is balanced & the 'show' itself does not debunk the NASA UFO clips. You, Jim, are on the show to play that role, he says... you debunked Stubbs NASA videos with your usual points, (somebody had to do it (!)... Stubbs says,) & the show ends with no conclusions..deliberately I am told...to let viewers consider the evidence for themselves. I am sure it will start an ATS debate the next day!

It's great that YOU, Jim are actually promoting this!!! Stubbs says that was the plan.

That's all I was able to discover, so far.




That's a lot -- first, that Martyn is still alive, which had been in doubt.

Good work!





G'day Gentleman,
I haven't logged in for a year plus one even. I've always have wondered what Jim and Martyn are up to. Great to see you both still brawling. Still can be Good sources. When not at odds.
Hey, the 'Odd Couple' comes to mind.

Thanks Carry on,
regards
Zelong.



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
Shrike is right, the comments of mine that were used were confusing if not misleading considering what I told the interviewers, but wasn't used. All the comments Shrike expected to hear me say WERE said on tape -- and got edited out.



Maybe the UFO Hunters said it in 2008:



Interesting that you were edited because seeing you spew inconclusive short-sighted redundancy is less painful than reading it.
edit on 30-3-2012 by OlafMiacov because: consulted the "video embedding for idiots" manual



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 12:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
Shrike is right, the comments of mine that were used were confusing if not misleading considering what I told the interviewers, but wasn't used. All the comments Shrike expected to hear me say WERE said on tape -- and got edited out.


I believe you, JimO, I believe you.

NASA didn't call you and tell you that they cut your input after you came here to promote the video. I am sure it's because they didn't want to hurt your feelings.

To hell with credibility, feelings are what counts. Yessir. Yessiree.



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 01:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by TwoEggz

Originally posted by JimOberg
Shrike is right, the comments of mine that were used were confusing if not misleading considering what I told the interviewers, but wasn't used. All the comments Shrike expected to hear me say WERE said on tape -- and got edited out.


I believe you, JimO, I believe you.

NASA didn't call you and tell you that they cut your input after you came here to promote the video. I am sure it's because they didn't want to hurt your feelings.

To hell with credibility, feelings are what counts. Yessir. Yessiree.


Jim should have told the ATS members that this was not a NASA production therefore NASA didn't edit Jim's comments. At the end of the "documentary" the credits say "Produced by WAG TV for Science".

From Wikipedia:
en.wikipedia.org...(TV_channel)

Science is a United States cable, satellite and IPTV Television Network produced by Discovery Communications. Science features programming in the fields of space, technology, prehistory and animals.


When you do a search in the above Wiki page for "NASA", the search returns "No matches found".



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Shrike

Originally posted by TwoEggz

Originally posted by JimOberg
Shrike is right, the comments of mine that were used were confusing if not misleading considering what I told the interviewers, but wasn't used. All the comments Shrike expected to hear me say WERE said on tape -- and got edited out.


I believe you, JimO, I believe you.

NASA didn't call you and tell you that they cut your input after you came here to promote the video. I am sure it's because they didn't want to hurt your feelings.

To hell with credibility, feelings are what counts. Yessir. Yessiree.


Jim should have told the ATS members that this was not a NASA production therefore NASA didn't edit Jim's comments. At the end of the "documentary" the credits say "Produced by WAG TV for Science".


So Oberg lied or conveniently mismembered. Ok, I'm down with those explanations.

And WAG cut him out. And told him and he mismembered to tell ATS or was WAG concerned with his feelings too and simply left him to look the fool here.

Ok, I'm down with those explanations.



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by TwoEggz

Originally posted by The Shrike

Originally posted by TwoEggz

Originally posted by JimOberg
Shrike is right, the comments of mine that were used were confusing if not misleading considering what I told the interviewers, but wasn't used. All the comments Shrike expected to hear me say WERE said on tape -- and got edited out.


I believe you, JimO, I believe you.

NASA didn't call you and tell you that they cut your input after you came here to promote the video. I am sure it's because they didn't want to hurt your feelings.

To hell with credibility, feelings are what counts. Yessir. Yessiree.


Jim should have told the ATS members that this was not a NASA production therefore NASA didn't edit Jim's comments. At the end of the "documentary" the credits say "Produced by WAG TV for Science".


So Oberg lied or conveniently mismembered. Ok, I'm down with those explanations.

And WAG cut him out. And told him and he mismembered to tell ATS or was WAG concerned with his feelings too and simply left him to look the fool here.

Ok, I'm down with those explanations.



We've seen in front of our eyes the genesis of a new nonsense-UFO myth, created from the carelessness and mental sloppiness of eager-believers who merely IMAGINE somebody said such-and-such, or did so-and-so, and -- voici la! -- it's as true as scripture.

Nothing that eggs has conjured up in her/his mind has any connection to the reality of the TV show, regarding what I allegedly 'said' or lied about. I never alleged NASA had any-XXXX-ing thing to do with the production, for starters.

Now It's true the portrayel by the show of my conclusions on several cases is inaccurate, as anyone visiting my home page can verify from 35 years of published studies and arguments:

www.jamesoberg.com/ufo.html

but that's hardly my fault.


edit on 31-3-2012 by JimOberg because: misspellings



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 02:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
Shrike is right, the comments of mine that were used were confusing if not misleading considering what I told the interviewers, but wasn't used. All the comments Shrike expected to hear me say WERE said on tape -- and got edited out.


Ok. But you got paid and you knew beforehand that if they interviewed you for three hours you were still only going to get a few minutes at best of time in the final one hour product. So why back pedal? You were great in the show! It seems like you want to imply the producers did something wrong.
edit on 1-4-2012 by lost_shaman because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Now It's true the portrayel by the show of my conclusions on several cases is inaccurate...


Why didn't you answer Shrike when he pointed out...

"Near the end is where the surprise of the program appears with Oberg contradicting himself with the following comments, about the white orbs we call Space UFOs and which form a "circle". "Objects appear. White dots suddenly show up. Maybe from behind the earth, from behind a cloud".

That's Oberg portraying Oberg.

No matter. You did the right thing, gave the money they paid you back.

Oh, wait, you didn't.



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by TwoEggz

Originally posted by JimOberg

Now It's true the portrayel by the show of my conclusions on several cases is inaccurate...


Why didn't you answer Shrike when he pointed out...

"Near the end is where the surprise of the program appears with Oberg contradicting himself with the following comments, about the white orbs we call Space UFOs and which form a "circle". "Objects appear. White dots suddenly show up. Maybe from behind the earth, from behind a cloud".

That's Oberg portraying Oberg.

No matter. You did the right thing, gave the money they paid you back.

Oh, wait, you didn't.


Please try to maintain concentration on the factual debates at the heart of the controversy, not petty fantasy-based ad hominems.



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Charizard
Oh wow, I can't wait to see this.

"NASA's top ten unexplained encounters using footage and interviews with astronauts and scientists."

Should be very interesting. The Science Channel has been doing alien shows all month long for some reason, with a lot of new shows and alien-based episodes. Thanks for bringing this to our attention, I totally would have missed it.


c'mon...every producer and director knows that 2012 is the year to make money off of aliens. this is just the warm up, by december, everybody and their cousin will be saying...'PLEASE COME AND ABDUCT ME, I CAN'T STAND TO LISTEN TO THIS ANYMORE"



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 07:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by TwoEggz

Originally posted by JimOberg

Now It's true the portrayel by the show of my conclusions on several cases is inaccurate...


Why didn't you answer Shrike when he pointed out...

"Near the end is where the surprise of the program appears with Oberg contradicting himself with the following comments, about the white orbs we call Space UFOs and which form a "circle". "Objects appear. White dots suddenly show up. Maybe from behind the earth, from behind a cloud".

That's Oberg portraying Oberg.

No matter. You did the right thing, gave the money they paid you back.

Oh, wait, you didn't?


Please try to maintain concentration on the factual debates at the heart of the controversy, not petty fantasy-based ad hominems.


Thanks so much, Jim, I had the Moderators review your post and mine and, apparently, as truth resides, there are no ad hominem attacks for you to be concerned.

However, you did jump right over the two questions proposed to you with your baseless misdirection, I would appreciate if you could address them.

Thanks in advance.

Your pupil in learning,

Two Eggz


edit on 3-4-2012 by TwoEggz because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join