STS-80 Astronaut Jones: "No Aliens Encountered on that Flight"

Klassless sounds a lot more rational than Stubbs. And more methodical, and a worthy contributor to the debate. Welcome.

A lot of your random guessing and hypothesizing could have been avoided if you'd study my '99 FAQa on space UFO videos' at

www.jamesoberg.com...

it’s not intelligence that I’ve realized is the major barrier to public authentic assessment of these scenes – it’s lack of effective awareness of really how visually unearthly, alien, and counter-intuitive counter-instinctual the new space environment really is. That’s why I wrote my essay several years ago.

originally posted by: JimOberg
Klassless sounds a lot more rational than Stubbs. And more methodical, and a worthy contributor to the debate. Welcome.

A lot of your random guessing and hypothesizing could have been avoided if you'd study my '99 FAQa on space UFO videos' at

www.jamesoberg.com...

it’s not intelligence that I’ve realized is the major barrier to public authentic assessment of these scenes – it’s lack of effective awareness of really how visually unearthly, alien, and counter-intuitive counter-instinctual the new space environment really is. That’s why I wrote my essay several years ago.

Thank you for your kind words about me. The only method I know is to be sure that what I say can be taken to the bank and be open to constructive criticism.

I did read your "99 FAQa (sic) on space UFO videos" and, unfortunately, while it is a masterful job I do not agree with all of your views. You view a video and come to certain conclusions based on your world knowledge database. I view the same video and I come to a different conclusion based on my world knowledge database. You have the advantage of being close to the source of the video(s) but we share one thing: neither of us has been in space so you don't have an advantage over me even with the testimony of the participants coloring your common sense.

There is something wrong at NASA where highly-intelligent people, both astronauts and ground support, are blind to reality and parrot a "party line". While it is agreed that the shuttles and other human space objects do shed debris and water dumps create storms of ice particles as the water freezes immediately upon forcefully hitting the frozen vacuum of space, said ice particles have been ejected at force and they tend to continue on their path and don't hang around vehicles seemingly suspended in space, join other ice particles, appear out of earth's atmosphere and travel either fast or slow, come into the cameras' view from various directions, are seen traveling at high speeds and low speeds above, under, and through earth's atmosphere, etc.

The link you provided for astronaut Tom Jones website is a waste because no one in their right mind and who have had experience viewing other videos, not just STS-80, will agree with whatever astronauts spew. And there is nothing better to reading than hearing it from the source.

While in your eyes people such as myself that are outspoken about what we accept as non-human objects videotaped in space may seem deluded because the explanations you put forth agreeing with NASA's personnel are not accepted, you have to keep in mind that millions of people ON earth videotape the same kind of phenomena, typical and bizarre.

The screen captures that I provided could never be mistaken for ice particles, debris, etc. They are of unknown phenomena.

You, Mr Jones and all the others who allude that we of a different opinion are the deluded ones should get to know us and see what makes us tick differently than you otherwise never the twain shall meet.

I do respect you highly and I'm glad you allow for differing opinions, the only way it can be.

originally posted by: carewemust
Is it worth starting a thread to ask what the space shuttle and ISS have done to advance our lives, from a technology perspective? I don't want to disrespect the O.P. by taking this thread off-subject.

Not enough to warrant the expenditure of trillions of taxpayers' money which could have been used to construct schools, hospitals, education, etc. Nothing bothers me more than reading about satellites that were lost, destroyed, etc. NASA is a bottomle$$ hole.

If we really captured UFOs and back-engineered we would not continue with slowly evolving technology connected with space exploration. Wings and motors, that's all we got, that's all we've ever had.

a reply to: klassless

I'm not saying you're deluded, just relying on visual interpretation cues irrelevant under unearthly conditions.

Example: "ice particles ... don't hang around vehicles seemingly suspended in space, join other ice particles, appear out of earth's atmosphere and travel either fast or slow, come into the cameras' view from various directions, are seen traveling at high speeds and low speeds above, under, and through earth's atmosphere, etc. "

Stuff hangs around, especially when it's out of the air flow, in the wind shadow of the shuttle.

Your INTERPRETATION that stuff can "appear out of atmosphere" requires you to not know that stuff in the shuttle's shadow can become sunlit when they drift out of that shadow.

The shuttle is so large that stuff coming out of various valves and other sources can appear from any angle in a TV field of view, and depending on range, can move at any rate.

There is nothing in a TV view that can give you unambiguous evidence that something is IN Earth's atmosphere instead of merely in FRONT of it.

The crew can directly observe the closeness of outside stuff by stereo two-eyeball instinct.

originally posted by: klassless

I did read your "99 FAQa (sic) on space UFO videos" and, unfortunately, while it is a masterful job I do not agree with all of your views. You view a video and come to certain conclusions based on your world knowledge database. I view the same video and I come to a different conclusion based on my world knowledge database. You have the advantage of being close to the source of the video(s) but we share one thing: neither of us has been in space so you don't have an advantage over me even with the testimony of the participants coloring your common sense.

The astronauts have though, and their testimony isn't based on common sense and interpretation it's based on actual experience.

There is something wrong at NASA where highly-intelligent people, both astronauts and ground support, are blind to reality and parrot a "party line".

That's your opinion on what they are doing, colouring your common sense. These highly intelligent people might just know what they're talking about.

While it is agreed that the shuttles and other human space objects do shed debris and water dumps create storms of ice particles as the water freezes immediately upon forcefully hitting the frozen vacuum of space, said ice particles have been ejected at force and they tend to continue on their path and don't hang around vehicles seemingly suspended in space, join other ice particles, appear out of earth's atmosphere and travel either fast or slow, come into the cameras' view from various directions, are seen traveling at high speeds and low speeds above, under, and through earth's atmosphere, etc.

Your problem there is that you are viewing two dimensional images and trying to impose a three dimensional reality on it based on what you have decided is there. The people who saw it in three dimensions don't share your view.

The link you provided for astronaut Tom Jones website is a waste because no one in their right mind and who have had experience viewing other videos, not just STS-80, will agree with whatever astronauts spew. And there is nothing better to reading than hearing it from the source.

There is nothing better than hearing it from the source unless it's NASA or the people who witnessed it directly? Only people who interpret information in the way you do are in their right mind?

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

Realistically, even if this was an "unearthly" phenomenon, perhaps intelligent...would it make sense for the astros and NASA to admit to it ?

To me it doesnt.

Imagine the pep talk before the next mission...

"Anyway guys...just wanted to warn you...that we have unknown intelligence out there...flying around us, of which we know nothing about......so good luck in your mission...any volunteers ?"

This is the sole reason I'm always skeptical about astro's testimonies or NASA's for that matter. It really wouldnt make sense that they would disclose information about potential "aliens". I'm not saying they have any...but if they do...they wouldnt tell us about it just the same.

Now, microbial lifeforms on some dust ball (errr...flat panel)...that's another matter.

a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

Realistically, if such 'unearthly' phenomena exist and NASA (not to mention all the other space agencies that everyone conveniently forgets exist) was fully aware of them, would you expect them to have live TV broadcasts of the shuttle and ISS activities? Publish countless photographs? Allow endless uploads of videos?

You can't just decide in advance for no good reason that a major source of data cannot be trusted and use absence of evidence as proof. You can't state that you want eyewitness testimoney and then ignore the most important eyewitnesses.

If you want eyewitness testimony, ask one - don't dismiss them. Astronauts are not difficult people to get to see in person, I've met several. It's not like they are hidden away. Likewise NASA personnel. Go ask them in person.

There are many good reasons to dismiss evidence for or against something. "I don't like the source" isn't one of them.

originally posted by: [post=20944331]...
This is the sole reason I'm always skeptical about astro's testimonies or NASA's for that matter. It really wouldnt make sense that they would disclose information about potential "aliens"......

May I gently suggest the time has come for you to reacquaint yourself with the concept of 'confirmation bias' and see if it applies close to home?

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

Realistically, if such 'unearthly' phenomena exist and NASA (not to mention all the other space agencies that everyone conveniently forgets exist) was fully aware of them, would you expect them to have live TV broadcasts of the shuttle and ISS activities? Publish countless photographs? Allow endless uploads of videos?

Hah...actually I would. You know why ? Because the community has already created many blanket statements to cover all these potential "sightings"...

1. ice, dust, garbage...the usual...and in 99 % undebunkable. Unless there is sudden change in direction...and even then...
2. it's up close to the camera and therefore tiny (since there is no way of verifying these claims...you must take their word on it)
3. there are many feed cuts reported almost daily...(not that that's anything too alarming...but it does provide an opportunity to cut when needed)

so in essence...they would allow it since they got it covered, and they have to allow it...otherwise there would be too many awkward questions . And I'm not saying they are aware of the supposed existence of the unearthly...but they might be aware that something is up. Something which they dont know what it is. And NASA cant afford to say that.

If there is alien life out there...NASA has to be the first to find it, recognize it...otherwise...the budget is wasted. And they would look foolish.

You can't just decide in advance for no good reason that a major source of data cannot be trusted and use absence of evidence as proof. You can't state that you want eyewitness testimoney and then ignore the most important eyewitnesses.

I know...its funky to a degree. But the years have made me cynical and skeptical...well...not towards science...but towards men. When there is structure...when there is money involved...when there are livelihoods at stake, academic careers, potential world wide panic and anarchy...there will be corruption and lies. If I were the head of NASA...I would be very careful about any potential paradigm shift discovery and publication. It is a big "if" whether this civilization can survive it en masse.

As far as any astro's eyewitness testimony goes...they would be very easy to influence or threaten. Every human alive has something to lose. If I had US gov power...I could easily influence/persuade any man alive.

Everything should be taken with caution...no matter the side you're on.

Likewise NASA personnel. Go ask them in person.

As much as I would like to...I'm too far away to do that.

But in any case...refer to my previous paragraph...I could never be truly certain...are they truthful...or influenced..because there is a huge incentive to do so.

Alternatively...if I were to trust him...on his word...what did he say anyway ? he stated his opinion based on his experience. I'm sure he can not be 100 % certain that it's nothing...like many many other weird phenomenon in space.

I always try to keep in mind that we're space infants. We have just begun to build our space muscles...trying to take the first step. The vastness of space makes me so humble...makes me feel like a bacteria in front of God himself. And I honestly admire these men...that dare to step out our kingdom...the view alone gives me nausea just when watching the ISS feed. I would be scared #less if I were up there. And that is nothing compared to the enormous void staring back at us.

But doesnt make me worship them blindly. They are still flesh and blood. As faulty as the next guy. Bad vision, bad judgement, personal bias, fear, pride...despite knowledge and experience...otherwise...they would be godlike. They all have it. Jim has it. I have it. You have it.

There are many good reasons to dismiss evidence for or against something. "I don't like the source" isn't one of them.

I merely stated, not in so many words...he gave no solid evidence of anything...only his opinion of something which was "gorgeous and spectacular" by his own account yet it was something ordinary like junk or falling tools. Value it for what you wish. But if you are truly a scientific minded person...is this evidence of anything ? Are you convinced by that account or by something else ?

The phenomenon exhibited weird behaviour as far as I can determine. We dont need to call it aliens...we just need to admit that it's weird and unidentified. What bothers me about these, and it gets back to my remark about space infancy, is that we try real hard to put things into folders even when they dont fit.

All excellent tricks to disregard any evidence contrary to your existing beliefs.

The reason I'm skeptical that your self-confidence is justified is your unwillingness to set up tests of your accuracy.

I'd propose something you could do at home, without travel.

Define the illumination conditions required to create the 'sudden appearance' effect seen on space UFO videos.

Discuss, and reach consensus.

Then estimate the chances of all the factors occurring together.

Next, pick the top shuttle UFO videos where this is observed.

Then assess their congruence with the required rare conditions.

Explain the results by either statistically impossible, or cause-and-effect, or something else.

Shall we?

SPOILER ALERT
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
You will find the 'appearance' events occur as a consequence of prosaic [if rare] illumination conditions, not aliens.

Try it. Illumination awaits.

originally posted by: JimOberg
All excellent tricks to disregard any evidence contrary to your existing beliefs.

Beliefs have nothing to do with viewing space videos and coming to conclusions based on your knowledge database. Especially if you have high intelligence and have developed logic, common sense and reason. Logic dictates that your's and NASA personnel's explanations violate common sense and reason. One doesn't need to be an engineer or a space expert to understand space optics basics. One can understand and see that the cameras are working just fine showing one's eyes what they see. One can see if the cameras are showing a wide field or are zoomed in. One can tell when the earth is lit and not in darkness or in shadow. If one sees the earth and the scene includes many storm explosions in the form lightning and something emerges from the cloud cover then one knows that it's distant and not an ice particle surrounding the shuttle. Ice particles as shown in water dumps don't behave like what one sees in the videos. You may be blind to your narrow thinking. You need to sit with someone such as myself so that your views can be brought down to earth.

Try it. Illumination awaits.

Your ought to take your own advice. We are illuminated.

a reply to: klassless

One can also use one's knowledge, logical thinking, practical experience and scientific training to tell that they are absolutely not UFOs.

You don't use logic to prove the illogical.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: klassless

One can also use one's knowledge, logical thinking, practical experience and scientific training to tell that they are absolutely not UFOs.

You don't use logic to prove the illogical.

You have no way to prove your allegations. The videos do not show you special views, you see the same objects we do. You are free to state your opinion but yours is not the last word. YOU are being illogical because all you do is criticize but you don't offer the details that would give your opinion any weight.

Oberg thought I was doing something right:
"Klassless sounds a lot more rational than Stubbs. And more methodical, and a worthy contributor to the debate."

There will be no aliens encountered on this flight! Said the head pilot of the Titanaera, sipping a strained tea of hot soupy airport-grade cuppa.

TEN MINUTES LATER...

Aliens attack this flight, and by attack we mean spook the heebies out of. They steer a course for alienless sky-waters but they are quickly blocked by darting plasmaic space machines from either the future, the effective ancient past, both, and/or cosmic cross-dimensional horizons.

FORTY MINUTES of tedious "now you see me, now you don't see me" aerial manoeuvers with identifiably silly bogies LATER...

Okay men, so we were in "space" you are all astronauts and me? Well technically I'm a computer operated at a NASA mission control center, so don't refer to me as your "pilot", in fact it would be better if you just left my name out of it. We will slow down the footage, don't worry, we can pass it off as space dust, ice. It's being degraded to grainy black and white half frames, nobody will suspect anything - and if they do we can just say, "Aliens? Well what's more likely, ice, dust in the lens, radiation snow, or aliens from outer space? Don't be ludicrous, space doesn't exist."

a reply to: JimObergThere are UFOs of different sizes that are seen from the shuttle & appear on the STS-80 flight day videos. These can be seen on all the STS missions flight videos I have recorded. There are the expected giant sized UFOs that are seen zooming under the horizon, which is approx. 200 miles away. These are not common & are as hard to find on video as a giant squid is!

The regular UFOs that always are just off the shuttle a bit, tumble catching the light..thus appearing to pulsate. They are 6 to 10 feet & have a transparency to them. they are mostly, well ...like a door...but are slightly curved, thus the light rolls over the UFO. The propulsion is not due to the tumbling, as many UFOs moving at the same speed on the videos show. The UFOs moving at the same speed are tumbling differently...some slow & some really fast as you can see. The UFOs use a wave motion for propulsion.

Then there are the small UFOs. Jim you are right about these golf ball..palm sized UFOs. They are very close & are the only UFOs to enter the cargo bay & move over & under the shuttle. Some videos show both the 6 ft. UFOs orbiting just off the shuttle while the TINY UFOs do their thing moving about the shuttle! These near field UFOs are small versions of the 6 ft. UFOs...

There's a lot more to tell about each kind but I just wanted to do a quick post to answer the irrational Stubbs comment!

& Jim I have close ups off these now moving around the cargo bay & a bombshell re a NASA payload experiment (bet you do not know about it nor the mission) to chart these UFOs with a special measurement camera. ..just a tease of what is coming Jim so keep up the ice & debris talk for comic relief!

Good to see you, give me a few hours!

originally posted by: buzzEmiller
a reply to: JimObergThere are UFOs of different sizes that are seen from the shuttle & appear on the STS-80 flight day videos.

What is a 'flight day video'? "Flight day" usually refers to the sequence number of a crew's workshift in orbit with a numeric designator, such as 'FD 1" for launch day. What were you trying to indicate by the phrase?

These can be seen on all the STS missions flight videos I have recorded. There are the expected giant sized UFOs that are seen zooming under the horizon, which is approx. 200 miles away.

I presume that's a typo for '2000', right?

The regular UFOs that always are just off the shuttle a bit, tumble catching the light..thus appearing to pulsate. They are 6 to 10 feet & have a transparency to them....

Uh, 6 to 10 feet what? Away? In size? Apart? Sorry, the thought looks incomplete. Next graf indicates 'size' -- if so, how are you judging distance to establish that?

Then there are the small UFOs. Jim you are right about these golf ball..palm sized UFOs. They are very close & are the only UFOs to enter the cargo bay & move over & under the shuttle. Some videos show both the 6 ft. UFOs orbiting just off the shuttle while the TINY UFOs do their thing moving about the shuttle! These near field UFOs are small versions of the 6 ft. UFOs...
There's a lot more to tell about each kind but I just wanted to do a quick post to answer the irrational Stubbs comment!

Thanks for making the effort, I await comments of others on the level of success.

& Jim I have close ups off these now moving around the cargo bay & a bombshell re a NASA payload experiment (bet you do not know about it nor the mission) to chart these UFOs with a special measurement camera. ..just a tease of what is coming Jim so keep up the ice & debris talk for comic relief!

I look forward to this bombshell. Please be sure to specify date/time so the video can be verified, and leave the audio track in.

a reply to: JimObergANY PAYLOAD EXPERIMENT, COMPLETE WITH A DEDICATED CAMERA THAT STUDIES DISTANCE & MEASURES MOVEMENT, would not be studying ice particles & the crew never mentions ice...nor debris when explaining the experiment. They call them "objects" that are around the shuttle. This is a budgeted experiment.

If they know what these are, then why do this a decade after the shuttle program started? Why study distance & movement? And after this was brought down to Earth, then why do you & THE ASTRONAUTS keep calling it ice or debris & other such items. I can not even find this study now!...& no one seems to have mentioned it to you. So I will continue to find out what happened to it..& then I will release it ...after all I have this video sowing the camera used , complete with a crew explanation, the official name it got etc...so stay tuned.

a reply to: JimObergAlso...I am amused at your doubting me..once again! I believe that when I am ready to post the Close Up of this remarkable object for all to see it will be a shock to all...but it is a smoking Gun..so I will pick the moment. There is more work to be done..the UFO community expects nothing less... before any disclosure of this magnitude takes place!

You underestimated me in 2000..& you are doing it again! If you want to talk more then contact me via the ATS private messaging.I will answer. I am done making public statements about this.

originally posted by: buzzEmiller
....
If they know what these are, then why do this a decade after the shuttle program started? ...

It's called the MLE, or Mesoscale Lightning Experiment, and as fully described all over the Internet, it was inaugurated once a full formation of TDRS relay satellites were deployed allowing near-continuous comm with shuttles -- and that began to appear in [drum role] 1989-1990. After that, under the leadership of Otha 'Skeet' Vaughan at NASA Marshall, the payload bay cameras when not otherwise in use] were pointed [from Houston] towards the horizon for night searches for sprites and elves and other unusual phenomena. They were looking for 'anomalous' light events.