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

page: 2
26
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 12:56 AM
link   
Not biting on this post as NASA does not release secure documents EVER
2ND LINE




posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 01:07 AM
link   
Well that's it..no need to look any further into this alien nonsense. Thank goodness. Now I wish the government would just tell me that the economy is going to be fine, better than ever...so I can get on with my life ...the endless cycle of going to work so I can buy unnecessary things to occupy my brain.

Peace



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 01:34 AM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


Just got finished watching this, and great job on the show Jim!

Though I have seen many of the cases before they were presented quite well. Ok, now for my rebuttal...I have to say that I truly disagree with the shows explanation for the sts-48 footage. I have watched this footage many times slowed down, enhanced, and various resolutions, and still believe it to be footage captured of some form of directed energy weapon firing upon a spaceship. The real question is who's spaceship was it and why was it fired upon?

Also I must disagree with the weak explanation and attempted "debunking" of the sts-75 footage, also known as the "tether incident". Marc D'Antonio tries to give us the old "out of focus" ice particles or dust theory, which seems plausible at first but...yep there's a but....if you pause it at exactly the right moment there's clearly two "particles" that are traveling parallel to each other as if in perfect formation and they both have exactly the same shape. Now, how many ice or dust particles look exactly the same....or behave and travel in such movements? I can honestly say I've never seen such a thing.

Great show though and I definitely recommend watching it for sure!



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 05:17 AM
link   
Seems that you are the "unofficial" speaker of the worst NASA office.
And seems that your duty is to shovel mud on rogue Astronauts....



Why Did ‘Gordo’ Tell UFO Stories?
Jim Oberg // June 6, 2008 (Gordon Cooper)

A plausible hypothesis might be that he enjoyed visiting UFO conventions
and talk shows, and liked the reception his stories got. He didn't have
many other people who wanted to see him, by then -- he'd burned all his
bridges to NASA and to the space community after naively campaigning on
behalf of a number of aviation industry scams that cost people more than
two million dollars. He lost his own money, too -- he wasn't one of the
fakers, just their tool -- and victim, too


www.jamesoberg.com...

Put "down your hat" in front of Gordon Cooper before to advance similar strictly personal hypotheses.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 06:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by pez1975
reply to post by JimOberg
 

What is ur opinion on sts 75 the tether incident






While UFOs are 1) most definitely real, 2) a phenomenon that stretches back at least 40,000 years, and 3) they ain't exactly human, this particular incident you're referring to was rather conclusively debunked (in my opinion) by a photography expert who re-created the phenomenon using tiny, extreme out of focus objects at very close range.

It's a wild video, and they appear to go behind the tether. But that effect is also re-created - it's a combination of being out of focus, as well as tricking the camera with strongly contrasting colors. I'll try to find a link to that video. It was on Youtube, like everything else these days.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 07:16 AM
link   
Fluffed up by empty handwaving about intelligence life in the Universe and first person space travel impressions of a number of astronauts, the show treaded old, very old ground with a number of cases. My comments were often used to introduce the cases with 'what some people think' expositions but only once or twice did viewers get to be shown what I myself thought about the cases based on real investigations. This often left inaccurate impressions, in some cases with factually false assertions by the narrator.
Gemini-4 McDivitt beercan, with dramatized re-reading of air-to-ground by an actor [and honestly labeled 'reconstruction'], implied nobody had ever explained it. See www.jamesoberg.com...
Gemini-7 "bogie" [which narrator explained was "a way of describing an enemy aircraft", but that term is "bandit" -- "bogie" is just an unknown], uses air-to-ground of initial report, mentions that Borman disagreed with the popular 'UFO' version, but argued that the original air-to-ground should trump the testimony of the witness -- thus again PROVING that "Borman's Law of Space UFOs" [no astronaut testimony EXPLAINING any sighting report is to be considered credible] remains in force. See www.jamesoberg.com... and for "Borman's Law", www.jamesoberg.com...
Gemini-11 blob: Describes incident as "bright object that seemed to change shape before their eyes", which is a false description -- the crew reported a piece of tumbling hardware, and only the photographs were 'blobby' because of great range. Falsely alleged that NASA officials "claimed that the nearest object is a Russian satellite orbiting 280 miles away," and then adds that Bruce Maccabee analyzed tracking data [with what expertise is not explained as he was promoted correctly as an optical physicist] to reveal that the satellite [Proton-3] was actually 3000 miles away. While the two satellites did criss-cross a lot closer, I'm now satisfied it was only a coincidence and am partial to the explanation of Brad Sparks, Maccabee's colleague on the Skylab-3 case [below], that it could have been exactly what the astronauts suggested right at the time -- their spacewalk equipment package that had been thrown out the hatch a few hours earlier. Yet Maccabee's quote ends this section: "What they did see is up for grabs."
Apollo-11, the flashing light on the way to the moon "remains unexplained", after focusing on the crew asking about the S4B [and quoting me about how far away it was thought to be], while never mentioning the far likelier candidates, the SLA panels that were also following it to the moon.
Skylab-3, allows Maccabee to describe his [and Sparks's] assessment of the squiggle photo, and interviews Bean who describes it as the brightest red dot the crew had ever observed. Admits 3 photos showed only a dot, but then claims "the fourth captured the object's bizarre shape." Maccabee dismissed the idea that the squiggle [discordant from the 3 other photos and all three astronaut testimonies] could have been a camera artifact by proclaiming -- with NO evidence at all -- that the camera exposure setting was "probably set at 1/250 second" -- when other settings, and aperture stickings, are known to have occurred at other times. It quotes ME as saying that it was unlikely to have been another satellite but then omits my conclusion [www.debunker.com...] that it could have been a piece of Skylab insulation drifting 100-200 feet outside. Maccabee states that Garriott timed the object's disappearance "into Earth's shadow" without any acknowledgement that it equally easily could have 'gone out' by drifting into Skylab's own shadow. "It remains a mystery", the program concludes.
STS-48. This was "Dr Jack Kasher -- The Return" all over again. same old arguments, same dodge of 20 years of contrary investigations [See 'Debunking Kasher's Five Proofs It Can't Be Ice', www.jamesoberg.com...], longer report here: www.jamesoberg.com... Program concludes, nature of the zig-zag dots "remains unresolved."
STS-75. Mark D'Antonio of MUFON debunks
STS-80: www.realufos.net...
www.jamesoberg.com...
STS-115, shows post-ET separation video of the weird-looking 'interface ice' that often comes off the connector between the shuttle belly fuel lines and the separating drop tank' [several missions have shown this], and allows Kasher and Nick Pope to speculate it is a triangle UFO when any NASA spox could quickly have sent them more videos of the same prosaic phenomenon. D'Antonio tries to explain it away as window reflection, so he strikes out too.
"No one knows what NASA has encountered on many of its space missions", the program concludes -- and if they rely on this show for knowledge, that's true.
edit on 28-3-2012 by JimOberg because: edit



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 07:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arken
Seems that you are the "unofficial" speaker of the worst NASA office.
And seems that your duty is to shovel mud on rogue Astronauts....



Why Did ‘Gordo’ Tell UFO Stories?
Jim Oberg // June 6, 2008 (Gordon Cooper)


www.jamesoberg.com...

Put "down your hat" in front of Gordon Cooper before to advance similar strictly personal hypotheses.



I didn't see Cooper mentioned in this program. Is your attention deficit disorder medication letting you down again?



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 07:27 AM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 



"No one knows what NASA has encountered on many of its space missions", the program concludes -- and if they rely on this show for knowledge, that statement is c


But other than that, how did you really feel about the show?
You knew from the beginning that they were going to sensationalize things as much as possible. People forget that television is first and foremost an entertainment medium. Cable networks stay afloat by pandering to "ancient astronaut" believers, ghost hunters and other quasi-religious belief systems. At least you got to participate in a project that actually affirms that space travel is real. They also gave lip service to people like yourself who have the experience to understand what actually goes on in space.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by Arken
Seems that you are the "unofficial" speaker of the worst NASA office.
And seems that your duty is to shovel mud on rogue Astronauts....



Why Did ‘Gordo’ Tell UFO Stories?
Jim Oberg // June 6, 2008 (Gordon Cooper)


www.jamesoberg.com...

Put "down your hat" in front of Gordon Cooper before to advance similar strictly personal hypotheses.


I didn't see Cooper mentioned in this program. Is your attention deficit disorder medication letting you down again?


Your "Gordon Cooper comment" is only an example on your reliability.... and.....You are not reliable at all.


YOUR deficit disorder is very high.... and you can call it: excessive self-esteem!


The worst "presumed" researcher.

And again: Put "down your hat" in front of a hero like Gordon Cooper before to advance similar strictly personal hypotheses......
Researcher... .



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arken
And again: Put "down your hat" in front of a hero like Gordon Cooper before to advance similar strictly personal hypotheses......
Researcher... .


You're a real sucker for the NASA propaganda machine's hero-worship meme, aren't you? Ever try to apply a little skepticism to how NASA is trying to brainwash you?



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 08:56 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


Caught the show and had to add that apparently Mr. O has a Dorian Grey-esque artwork in the attic or was the footage of you archival?

Debunking must be good for the skin.



posted on Sep, 6 2014 @ 05:51 PM
link   
I just posted this retrospective assessment of the Season-1 show's use of my quotations here:
www.jamesoberg.com...

Perhaps I've mellowed a bit with the passage of time. Season-2 was not bad, and last week i spent a long day doing sound bites for the upcoming Season-3.



posted on Sep, 7 2014 @ 01:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: LucidDreamer85

Originally posted by Willease


AS12-47-6890
eol.jsc.nasa.gov...
Is there a different thread I should post this on?


Good motion pic sequence.

thought I saw 2 moons, until I realized duh it's from the moon so that is the earth and the sun? both cresent...???

The bright crescent is Earth. Given how very dim the other crescent is, it can only be an image artifact. If it were a real object in space, it would look much brighter as it's under direct sunlight (like the Earth and the Moon are).
www.hq.nasa.gov...

~~~

Watching the documentary now, will comment later.
edit on 7-9-2014 by wildespace because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2014 @ 01:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: rtyfx
reply to post by JimOberg
 

How do you explain that tether being swarmed? How do you explain a light that moves at right angles?

Debris particles around the Shuttle. The brief firing of the Shuttle's maneuvering thrusters can jolt a particle in a different direction.

STS-48 - "Abrupt Turn" - 5 X normal speed: www.youtube.com...

Watch the objects floating into the frame from the lower right. At the moment of the flash (which is in fact the Shuttle's maneuvering thruster firing), they also change direction. The thruster's exhaust pushed them away.


The gov should wake up. We're not all profoundly retarded.

It's not the government's problem that people can't grasp (or won't accept) the basic explanation.

~~~

P.S. A lot of people who watch these "UFO" videos seem to forget that all objects in the Earth's orbit have to be in an orbit themselves. This means they have a certain velocity (speed + direction) and that changing that velocity even a little would require a delta-v change, i.e. firing its rocket thrusters. Now, while it's possible to use thrusters to gain or lose altitude (by speeding up or slowing down), the change in lateral direction is practically impossible. An object in low-earth orbit is moving at about 7.8 km/s (17,448 mph) in the direction of its orbit. That is enormous kinetic energy. Unlike the Star Wars X-wing fighters, real objects in orbit can't turn and change their direction. Even if they somehow did, the speed with which they do so in those Shuttle videos would lead to their disintegration (if they were spacecraft or another structure of some kind.

So the only reasonable explanation, given all the physical constraints, is that they are small particles floating near the Shuttle, with their apparent motion being relative to the Shuttle and the camera.
edit on 7-9-2014 by wildespace because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2014 @ 03:06 AM
link   
The funniest thing with debunking is seeing those without a top secret clearance speak with authority and knowledge about the very things they have no knowledge of. There will always be mundane events, but there will also be some unexplained events. The debunkers number one priority these days is to absolutely rule out aliens as the cause or source of any of it. That speaks volumes by itself, especially when they have no clearance or need to know officially.

And it is so important that there is a need to come to ATS and set everyone straight. I know, it's your commitment to socio-philanthropy..



posted on Sep, 7 2014 @ 04:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
The funniest thing with debunking is seeing those without a top secret clearance speak with authority and knowledge about the very things they have no knowledge of. There will always be mundane events, but there will also be some unexplained events. The debunkers number one priority these days is to absolutely rule out aliens as the cause or source of any of it. That speaks volumes by itself, especially when they have no clearance or need to know officially.

And it is so important that there is a need to come to ATS and set everyone straight. I know, it's your commitment to socio-philanthropy..


Are you claiming to have a "top secret" clearance, or are you just making stuff up?



posted on Sep, 7 2014 @ 05:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
The debunkers number one priority these days is to absolutely rule out aliens as the cause or source of any of it.

No, our priority number one is to apply critical thinking and scientific knowledge to what we're debunking. See my post above about why a spacecraft can't just stop or change direction in Earth's orbit like it seems to happen with the UFOs in these Shuttle videos.

Now, if it were apparent from the footage that we're looking at something large and far away from the Shuttle, and something that obeys the mechanics of orbital motion, then we can include the possibility of an alien spacecraft.



posted on Sep, 7 2014 @ 07:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: wildespace

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
The debunkers number one priority these days is to absolutely rule out aliens as the cause or source of any of it.

No, our priority number one is to apply critical thinking and scientific knowledge to what we're debunking. See my post above about why a spacecraft can't just stop or change direction in Earth's orbit like it seems to happen with the UFOs in these Shuttle videos.

Now, if it were apparent from the footage that we're looking at something large and far away from the Shuttle, and something that obeys the mechanics of orbital motion, then we can include the possibility of an alien spacecraft.


Critical thinking and scientific knowledge would be refreshing to see for once. Too bad we never see it when debunkers chime in and "edit" the facts to suit their pre held convictions. Or they mention a few facts but don't include other facts that are pertinent, because including "all" of the facts quashes their trumped up explanations.

The pattern of very carefully picking through the facts and ignoring other ones is done to support that nothing unexplainable happened. This is what I am referring to, and if this doesn't apply to you, then no need for you to worry about it.



posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 01:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
Critical thinking and scientific knowledge would be refreshing to see for once. Too bad we never see it when debunkers chime in and "edit" the facts to suit their pre held convictions.

What preheld convictions are you talking about? I'm not aware of any, and neither have I seen debunkers editing the facts. To the contrary, I see UFO believers using their imagination and speculation to fill in the blanks and to invent things all the time, while brushing off legitimate explanations. I'm sure many debunkers believe in extraterrestrial life, and are eagerly waiting any solid and genuine dicovery of its existence.


Or they mention a few facts but don't include other facts that are pertinent, because including "all" of the facts quashes their trumped up explanations.

Again, examples please? I have never seen debunkers cherry-picking data or deliberately hiding something.


The pattern of very carefully picking through the facts and ignoring other ones is done to support that nothing unexplainable happened.

But debunkers and scientists aren't insisting that nothing unexplainable happens. They admit that there is plenty of mysterious, unexplainable stuff. Difference is, rather than jump straight to the conclusions that "aliens did it", they examine evidence from rational and scientific point of view, like I mentioned.
edit on 8-9-2014 by wildespace because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 12:10 PM
link   
With the space videos it's not a matter of 'top secret' stuff that's unknown, it's basic principles of spaceflight operations that aren't widely known to the public. That's why I wrote my "99 FAQs" on my home page, to bring everybody who wants to check out these stories up to speed. It can really help folks avoid looking foolishly ignorant. Please try it.

PS I worked in Mission Control for two decades and had all the appropriate clearances.



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join