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 secret files

page: 4
13
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


Jim, you did work for NASA, right? As a contract engineer?




posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 06:12 PM
link   
Also...since I missed the beginning of the show...maybe Phage or Jim or somebody can say a few words about:


at about 2:10. Please explain that.


Watch the footage carefully just before 2:10 but rather than focus on the two objects, pay attention to Earth. You will notice the camera rotates quickly and stops. This is what causes the two objects to appear to suddenly decelerate and make a course change.
No UFO here, easily explainable. :-)



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 06:17 PM
link   
And the circular formation? Debris does that? Or you are saying I'm seeing circular 'cos I want to?

Proven to be ice particles which when viewed as they were did weird things to the lens perspectives and optics.



Let's say that accounts for the change of direction...how about the change in speed?

It's the camera movement.



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by MarioOnTheFly
 




so they're explanations are SO much more likely to be true



If you play poker...you will notice these things. Low or high probability is only our way of trying to predict an event which in it's self is not tied to the probability.
What is a probability of a deep space asteroid hitting the earth? very very low...yet it happens. It has happened.

One thing I DO have a grip on is poker. What I am missing is how this equates. If I understand the analogy correctly, since that there is some probability that some of these things could be extraterrestrial, that this will turn up true is inevitable.

If that is what you meant, do you want to play cards sometime?
edit on 10-6-2012 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 08:15 PM
link   
reply to post by MarioOnTheFly
 


It's probably debris .. there's SO much junk orbiting the earth ..



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 09:34 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpearMint
Not true at all.

You seem to be convinced they're hiding something, you need to consider the other possibilities.

a) They simply don't know the answer so they shrug it off as a glitch or whatever so they don't appear to not know what they're doing.

b) They're telling the truth, there's no proof that they're lying.

There is so much that NASA do not know about the universe.

There's also usually a completely plausible explanation for a lot of things in NASA videos that people claim to be aliens/UFOs, such as ice crystals and space junk.


NASA is UNQUESTIONABLY hiding something. Their history of secrecy intertwined with the NSA goes back to day one. There is a completely hidden "secret" space program operating alongside the civilian space program. Some of their own engineers and employees have gone on the record confirming that there are a LOT of things that NASA is keeping from the public. I'm sorry friend, but if you truly believe that NASA is truthful about what they do and do not know with the public, you should do some research and soul-searching.



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 12:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by MollyMN
Be neat if we could do another thether experiment?
Be quite interesting.
I know we dont need more space junk out there.

I myself thought it was pretty weird.
For such a simple explanation it took NASA this long?
Whats there explanation for all the crappy photos they give us with there advanced million+ dollar cameras?



Molly, I tried to provide a lot of background for exactly those kinds of questions with my "99 FAQs About 'Space UFOs'", on my home page, so please google it and check it out and see if it answers your questions,



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 12:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by texasgirl
reply to post by JimOberg
 


Jim, you did work for NASA, right? As a contract engineer?


Do you have trouble linking to my CV on my home page?



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 01:58 AM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 



Yes I would like to see their testimony...I'm not sure if I'll like it.

I'm not claiming these videos are aliens...I did state that in one of my first posts on this thread, but it was to prove a point...that you can't prove they arent, as much as I can't prove that they aren't ice debris.


You are avoiding answering a direct question Jim...

Why are so many people coming out (credible people) in disclosure project and claiming government cover up ? Are they all crazy? Imagining? Your take on it ?

In my country there is a law...you can not slander anyone, accuse somebody of wrong doing if you don't have proof, this person will sue you and get compensated. So if people are saying that government is withholding information about alien visitations, I would think that they would want to answer that accusation ?
I'm not sure how things work in US...


You haven't answered my hypotethetical situation? Would the government admit or would they keep it hush?



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 02:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by reclaimed
[SNIP]


With the way he flat-out calls others "fools" and "ignorant" and just a "trollish' attitude altogether, it's amazing the guy hasn't been banned. He treats anyone who doesn't take what he says as truth as if they're beneath him.

He was in debunking mode in one thread one time that involved some YouTube videos. He xleary didn't even watch them before he made his debunk post. One video was 20 minutes long and he posted within 6 minutes (I believe) of the thread being made and based his entire debunk on just the preview image of the YouTube player alone. The video contained more about what the preview image showed and he clearly didn't know that because he never mentioned anything other that what the small preview image showed. I do take that as a huge red flag though.
edit on 11-6-2012 by Gemwolf because: Removed quoted post



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 02:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
"Glanced over"... gives you only a 'glancing blow' wsith reality. Your current opinons could survive that.

The questions you have raised have been thoroughly discussed and debated in earlier threads at
ATS. You don't deserve a one-on-one remedial tutorial. Read up -- don't "glace over" -- those high-quality discussions, and get back to us.

All you've done so far is advertise your ignorance of discussions that have already occurred about exactly the issues you are excited about.

Re the images on the STS-75 scene: the point has been made that the orientation of the notch in each circle is a direct function of WHERE on the field-of-view the circle is. This so obviously proves it is a camera-associated artifact that your mind has so far been unable to grasp the significance of it. Concentrate on that. Epiphany awaits.

The "circle of objects" scene is from STS-80. What do you say about the direct testimony from astronaut crewmen about that scene? Are you even aware of that testimony?


Your arrogance and patronization of people who have legitimate opinions differing from your own is detestable, and completely indicative of a debunker. I don't care if you were the head of NASA and hold 36 PhDs. The fact is that a multitude of highly credible and respected individuals from all areas of science and the government have come forward with sworn testimony, documentation, and other evidence that is contradictory to your position. While there is not yet definitive publicly-accessible "proof" that some of these objects are interplanetary in origin, the evidence that is available by way of testimony, documentation, and audio/video is exponentially more compelling than the seemingly-authoritative insistence to the contrary by persons such as yourself.

You are not the only scientific professional in this forum. While maybe you can bully the people who are not educated scientists, the condescending and dismissive attitude you exhibit clearly illustrates your agenda to people who are educated scientific professionals.
edit on 6/11/2012 by draco49 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 02:35 AM
link   
I want to clarify some things.

I posted links to already "debunked" videos. I am aware of that. I don't claim those are aliens...
And yes...I have been warned about camera zooming in on one of the videos...that explains the change in direction and speed. I accept that.

Perhaps my thread starter was poorly chosen. The point I was trying to make is that...I feel we are being lied to. Any specific video I could point to is already "debunked". And it's always the same thing...and when something new happens, than they invent some kinda new effect that fits the video...like Bokeh


The thing is...much of it is guesswork. How do I know that...? It's in the words...

for instance...let me just trow a couple for Jims 99 FAQs:

jamesoberg.com...





01 Q: You’ve called the stories of astronaut UFO encounters “one of the greatest myths of the Space Age” and “probably the most fascinating and frustrating theme of modern folklore”. What do you find so unbelievable, or so unreliable, about all of these stories, photographs, videos, sound bites, documentaries, and other evidence?

A: From hundreds and hundreds of such stories and videos that I’ve studied, they all look to me to be ‘ordinary’ visual effects of human space missions, understandable public misunderstandings of normal space conversations, and predictable exaggerations, confabulations, and even fabrications of people who enjoy – or profit from – telling wild tales. I’ve seen no compelling indication of anything beyond the realm of modern science – nothing.


they all look to me to be ‘ordinary’ - says Jim...they look to him....very scientific. But anyone reading that...having in mind Jims authority in space flight accepts that as the dogma. It is ordinary...cos it "looks like it"





03 Q: For millions of people around the world, the ‘astronaut UFO cases’ are the ‘jewel in the crown’ of ‘Ufology’, which is the study of UFO reports and the argument that such reports constitute evidence for extraordinary events that might even include visitations by non-human space travelers. If they are all wrong, why should you care?

A: If they’re all wrong, as I think they are, the social implications are significant beyond this limited subject matter. We should be asking how it could happen in this case that popular culture is so far off base -- how it might be happening in other areas of public beliefs.


If they’re all wrong, as I think they are... - Jim thinks they are.





77 Q: How can you dare to disbelieve a true American hero such as Gordon Cooper. A: I’ve researched his stories deeply, and found that his tales tend to get more dramatic with the years – a typical narrative effect. I’ve found many independent witnesses to both his pre-NASA stories [Germany and Edwards AFB] who all describe much less spectacular occurrences [writers who claim the stories have never been explained are ignorant of these research activities]. In other cases where Cooper recounted documented spaceflight experiences, he often added unreal dramatic details, possibly for audience satisfaction. Some fantastic stories can only be explained as designed to generously please his audiences – best example is his autobiography account of how he saved the space shuttle from a lethal design flaw by relaying a telepathic warning from space aliens. Links TBD 78

Q:
How can you dare to disbelieve a true American hero such as Edgar Mitchell? A: I’m happy to accept Mitchell’s personal opinions on other stories he’s heard, but he has nothing to contribute to the ‘space UFO’ subject. I’m glad that there are some intelligent people trying to map the limits of human knowledge – and beyond – as he has done since his space career. When I analyze his published works, such as the report of his private ESP experiment on Apollo-14, I get the impression of a man so excited by the concepts that he may not bring sufficient skepticism and rigor to his criteria for credibility. His report on his ESP experiment, for example, strikes me as ‘ad hoc’ modification to the ‘success’ scoring criteria after the fact, to make essentially random results look significant by changing the rules after the game. I’m glad he had the boldness to conduct the experiment, but I’m not alone in concluding that a proper assessment of the results show nothing significant.


Here's Jim debunking Cooper and Mitchell. Apparently they are crazy, and overly excited, not scientific enough for him.

Here is more of Jim guessing:





85 Q: How many of the stories are outright hoaxes?

A: Not many, but a few. The oft-repeated ‘we still have the alien spaceship in view” comment looks like a prank by a radio amateur transmitting over a radio band where the actual air-to-ground was being re-transmitted for local listeners in Greenbelt, Maryland.



...looks like a prank to Jim....



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 02:45 AM
link   
Now dont get me wrong Jim...This is not a critique of you...

I just feel that much of that is stated as fact based on authority is merely guesswork...and as such, I'm not willing to just take your word for it because you're an expert. Experts make mistakes. It happens. Mostly due to their arrogance, which you also dont lack.

Your stance in general on this issue is what alarms me. You seem to leave absolutely no room for any of the sightings to be real. You seem to be to firm in such statements, as if you know for a fact...yet you can't know for a fact. On many things, as much as you have seen, you must speculate.

Even when you say ice debris, you are speculating, because...you can not be sure from the video...all that is seen is the dot. You have no way of determining the distance and the real size of this debris...yet...you claim debris...because it is more likely...that's guessing.



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 02:49 AM
link   
reply to post by miniatus
 


could be debris...but let's call it as it is....not a fact, but a best guess from our point of view.



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 03:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by MarioOnTheFly
Perhaps my thread starter was poorly chosen. The point I was trying to make is that...I feel we are being lied to. Any specific video I could point to is already "debunked". And it's always the same thing...and when something new happens, than they invent some kinda new effect that fits the video...like Bokeh


The thing is...much of it is guesswork. How do I know that...?


You shouldn't feel the need to apologize to anyone for your thread. Your questions and curiosity are completely valid, and there is nothing wrong with exploring the topic with an open mind. There is a major difference between being a "skeptic" and being a "debunker". Skepticism is an essential quality in any scientific research, as we must always be vigilant in examining and re-affirming evidence in an objective manner without an agenda. That is to say, we must be careful not to reach conclusions that cannot be reconsidered in light of future evidence. In my opinion, objective skepticism is the mark of a true scientist.

A "debunker", on the other hand, starts with an agenda and conclusion before examination of the evidence takes place. These people, like James Oberg, are glued to a model that cannot, under any circumstances, be challenged. All evidence must be interpreted in a manner consistent with that model, and anything that does not conform to that model must be a misinterpretation or fabrication. These people are NOT scientists. They are more akin to fanatical preachers. In the history of science, there has never been a breakthrough that didn't involve the violation of models that were, at their time, considered "fact". That is what science is all about; objectively analyzing data without allegiance to the currently accepted model. Regardless of your personal opinion about the UFO phenomenon, be on the lookout for anyone who displays the types of behavior Mr. Oberg does such as arrogance, condescension, self-importance, and belligerence towards people who would dare have a differing opinion.
edit on 6/11/2012 by draco49 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 03:08 AM
link   
reply to post by ZetaRediculian
 


It equates to our human thinking, we accept things that are "more likely" or "probable", based on our understanding of the variables involved.

But being probable or more likely from our point of view is by no means a sure truth.

I mentioned poker as an example of things happening or being, when probability is extremely low. This further equates to us seeing debris, seeing ice or light reflections, as more probable or as Jim would like to call it...a "mundane explanation". But we are far from being sure about it. Even Jim isnt.

I would like for NASA to change their moto to :

Not As Sure As we would like you to believe it.


Since I'm pretty certain, and Jim has avoided answering that question, that any government would keep, discovery of an advanced civilization, a secret, because of myriad of reasons. Starting from religious, economic, technological ones...having in mind a potential impact on our society...makes perfect sense they would hide it.

This is why...I'm not trusting NASA or any government official. Not your government, not mine. You must be pretty naive these days to think, governments are working for the people.



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 03:19 AM
link   
reply to post by draco49
 





In the history of science, there has never been a breakthrough that didn't involve the violation of models that were, at their time, considered "fact".



Aint that the truth. A fact is merely a todays accepted opinion. And because we have a benefit of looking back to our past and see how has arrogance cost us, I'm amazed at these "todays" scientist that cling to their dear theories as dogma. The truth is...we know so little. We are space infants, just beginning to open our eyes...we must be humble.



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 05:50 AM
link   
Um, somebody doesn't know what a glitch is. NASA never, ever called those "camera glitches."

They explained (flawlessly) how cameras of that type work, and how objects appear in them. If they are alien spaceships then why in the world is every single one of them in that video shaped *just like* the internal aperture of the camera being used? Helluva coincidence that the notches are all located in the same corner of every "disc" within the field of view, don't you think?

I don't think it is a matter of them not providing suitable explanations, but rather UFO enthusiasts having a hard time paying attention to them or understanding them. Perhaps these shows really need to slow it down and be way more thorough for the sake of the layman.

Then again there is ironically closed-minded type who refuse to take any explanation that isn't aliens. Therefore, before the explanation even begins they have made up their mind. "Lies! Conspiracy!" You know -- just like they do with the skeptics that they allege refer to everything as "swamp gas" and "Venus." Same dumb side of the same dumb coin.



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 07:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by MarioOnTheFly
reply to post by ZetaRediculian
 


It equates to our human thinking, we accept things that are "more likely" or "probable", based on our understanding of the variables involved.

But being probable or more likely from our point of view is by no means a sure truth.

This would account for everthing we encounter every second and every day of our lives. Its like saying "how do i know my car is not a transformer?" we can never be certain now can we?

JIM! is my car a Transformer?

I am sure he will avoid the question but that is my guess because he seems to avoid really silly questions.

If they look like ice crystals and act liike ice crystals then the probabability is that they are ice crystals....i dont study ice crystals in space.....because i like to do more exciting things...So someone who knows how ice crystals in space look and act, will be able to answer that better.

Here is the problem with your analagy, I may never draw a Royal Staight Flush ever no matter what the probability is.

It seems like you think you have a hand with those videos and putting Jim on the bluff....I think Jim is just being honest and saying you dont have a hand at all




top topics



 
13
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join