STS-80 Astronaut Comments on Claims His Crew Observed UFOs

Tom Jones just posted this blog entry.

I believe him. Why shouldn't we? He was there.


Did UFOs Visit STS-80 Columbia? April 18, 2011

skywalking1.wordpress.com...

OK OK so those are now IFOs but what about every other shuttle mission where other astronauts saw UFOs?Are they lying?

reply to post by JimOberg


HAARP obviously got to him.

Kidding. But this is a good example of how video evidence is a big problem, despite once being the holy grail of evidence. We have to contend with artifacts and other issues like possible distortion of the commonplace, like in this example, and with photoshop and other video editing software, pretty much anything can be faked fairly convincingly at this point.

And this all leads me back to my belief that the wisest thing any man can say is that he knows nothing at all [[Citation needed as I'm sure I'm paraphrasing that line from someone famous]].

Well this one is most likely true it's gotta be and I bet aliens visit the space station all the time you know play some poker and shoot the #

So, Tom Jones said 'It's not Unusual' to see these ice particles n stuff coming fro the cargo bay !
Just afterwards he reported back to mission control that he could see
'The Green Green Grass of Home'
Alledgedly !

Sorry !
Bit of fun !!!!

Peace

reply to post by JimOberg

Why shouldn't we?

He admits he didn't see any of the objects and wasn't operating the camera

so what exactly is there to believe ?

These video scenes were recorded by remote control, under ground command

nobody on the crew was looking out the window

skywalking1.wordpress.com...

Q- What does his opinion of the video clips really prove ? A- Not much




Pilots ... according to some UFO researchers

have trouble correctly interpreting certain events and visual phenomena

Experienced UFO investigators realize that pilots, who instinctively and quite properly interpret visual phenomena in the most hazardous terms, are not dispassionate observers. Allen Hynek wrote: "Surprisingly, commercial and military pilots appear to make relatively poor witnesses..." The quote is from "The Hynek UFO Report", page 261 (Barnes and Noble reprint). (271 in original Dell, Dec 1977) He found that the best class of witnesses had a 50% misperception rate, but that pilots had a much higher rate: 88% for military pilots, 89% for commercial pilots, the worst of all categories listed. Pilots could be counted on to perceive familiar objects -- aircraft and ground structures -- very well, Hynek continued, but added a caveat: "Thus it might surprise us that a pilot had trouble identifying other aircraft, but it should come as no surprise that the majority of pilot misidentifications were of astronomical objects." Dell page 271

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Is there any evidence that supports his opinions ?

The objects seen in the STS-80 videos are ordinary debris particles or ice crystals

Q- If they are such ordinary events then why can't anyone produce another video that shows similar events ?

A- Because they can't which may indicate the events are not ordinary as claimed.




So Jim the questions are,

what exactly is there to believe ?

and where is your skepticism ?

Originally posted by EarthwormJim
OK OK so those are now IFOs but what about every other shuttle mission where other astronauts saw UFOs?Are they lying?

You've lost me. Aside from Cady Coleman's stupid joke about Mike LA's butt, what other astronauts have reported seeing UFOs in space? Names and dates, please.

The whole article reeks to me of someone towing the company line. Nothing new here just the same old arguments you've been using for years, Jim. Honestly it's almost as if he's quoting you verbatim. Personally I don't think the ice particle affected by the thruster argument holds up on all examples. It's plausible for some of the footage but doesn't explain all of it.

I find this statement to be extremely suspect "astronauts have no classification regulations or rules preventing anyone from discussing anything they’ve seen or experienced on space flights. No secret non-disclosure signatures, no secret threats, no secret brainwashing–we communicate openly with the public. What we get, you get. What we see that’s unusual, we tell you about."

You know, Jim, I think you're more obsessed with this footage then Stubbs himself.

Why say this now? 15 years after the fact? That alone seems suspicious.

And it's not because he just got the blog, he's had the blog since 2009.

Originally posted by observer42
The whole article reeks to me of someone towing the company line.

I guess you've had your monthly anti-reality vaccination, it sure looks effective.

Eyewitness testimony? We don't need no steenking eyewitness testimony -- we already have our verdict!

BTW, I believe the figure of speech is 'toeing the line', but I understand that so many people have been getting it wrong, that the error is now 'accepted usage'. Another case of 'defining deviancy down'.... Sigh.

Jones says he's seen particles looking like these out the window often, that there's nothing in the video that makes him think he's not seeing what he knows is a regular visual phenomenon on shuttle flights.

And yes, easynow, I don't mind believing this pilot's interpretation since it's one he's been able to double check and compare in hindsight, and do context analysis. I've never expressed any doubts about the reliability of that sort of mental process. It's why i also believe the NTSB's Flight 800 internal explosion explanation -- it fits the known facts in hindsight, just not all the sudden visual impressions.

very unusual looking mission insignia for STS-80 showing what looks like a flying saucer. If it means nothing, then it's an interesting coincidence given the UFO activity.

upload.wikimedia.org...

edit: I think it is supposed to be the Wake Shield Facility.

Sorry Jim, I don't see the point of this after all this time. Why STS 80? why not STS 75 by one of those astronauts. STS 80 is not a pointer to STS75. At the end of it all Tom Jones was in the office and did not see any more than what we see, albeit more clearly. After all, it's mostly points of light or something suddenly illuminated by light. I am also not that naive to believe that all communication is open-ended on these missions as TJ implies. This whole scenario feels contrived, it would have been better left alone. Why the chagrin-esque attack on observer42? his post was balanced, your reply was not, again, what is the point of this thread when your mind is made up anyway, as you say, you don't need us!

Originally posted by smurfy
Sorry Jim, I don't see the point of this after all this time. Why STS 80? why not STS 75 by one of those astronauts. STS 80 is not a pointer to STS75.

You obviously weren't paying attention.

Appendix 1 Andy Allen statement (mission commander)
Date: Friday, April 21, 2000 10:59:51 AM
From: [email protected]
Subj: RE: RE: STS-75

Jim,

As far as the question about floating objects that we see, it is mostly debris and Orbiter induced particulates. We see a lot of dust, ice, and other debris collected in the vehicle during ground processing (it's very clean but not perfectly clean) that will dislodge or float up in zero gravity. We also see a lot of crystals and particles as remnants from water dumps, RCS firings, OMS firings, etc.
Contrary to what some folks may think, there is no direction or effort for astronauts to restrict their conversations and observations. The only exception, which no longer applies, was when we were flying classified payloads on our DOD missions and could only discuss the payload under a need to know. It is utterly impossible that all those who traveled in space from many different countries would have adhered to any restrictions.


Appendix 2 // Chuck Shaw statement (Lead Flight Director, STS-75 mission)

RE: STS-75 Question // Date: 03/03/2000 9:26:59 AM Central Standard Time
From: SHAW, CHARLES W. (CHUCK) (JSC-DA8) To: [email protected]

Hi Jim,

I was the Lead Flight Director for STS-75, and was on console for the tethered satellite deploy operations and at the time the tether broke. Operations had been nominal up to the point Jeff Hoffman called down that the tether broke, and then we saw the status in telemetry a couple of seconds later. The behavior of the satellite and the tether remnant on the satellite was exactly as we had expected for a tether break case.

In the footage of the video, etc. which was examined in GREAT detail post flight in hopes of finding SOMETHING to aid in what had caused the tether break, we never saw anything that was "unexpected". Your comments as to artifacts and small debris/dust/ice particles/lens reflections/blooming/etc., are all quite common and we have seen those things in virtually every shuttle mission's video. What was present in the video and the data that was examined post flight was all within this type of artifact and/or expected results.

Post break, we called upon tracking and imaging resources world wide to be able to establish a trajectory for the satellite and tether remnant, in order to determine the feasibility of a rendezvous and recovery, in addition to being able to command the satellite transmitter on to gain some science data from it, even though the tether was broken. At no time did any of these tracking data show anything unexpected, and we were LOOKING for unexpected things (like extra pieces of tether, or debris from the satellite and/or science booms) that could cause us to not want to fly up in the vicinity of the satellite

As it turned out, the arcing of the voltage in the tether to the deployer structure burned the tether in two. Rather ironic that the experiment worked so well to show the ability of the system to generate power, and in fact worked so well as to fatally damage the experiment!

I have always been fascinated by UFO investigations, and "personally" I hope we are not really alone in this wonderful universe.

Hope this helps, Chuck

Chuck Shaw, Flight Director
Mission Operations Directorate, NASA
Johnson Space Center, Houston Texas

Jim,
Have you fell out of your tree? you are now showing me me something I have not seen before, so forgive me for not paying attention to something I have not seen...before. Anyway, is there anything that Allen did not make an imformed comment on, that others have brought up in threads about STS75, or is that it?

BTW, the flight 800 NTSB report is cited as "probable cause" in the case of explosion, and "Most likely" in the case of arcing wiring, and as you seem to imply, eyewitness reports in the realm of missile were discounted. So everybody happy then for that scenario.

reply to post by JimOberg
I'll give you a hint.They were the first crew on the moon.

If witness testimony meant anything in this subject we would already be living in a world where extraterrestrial visitation is an accepted reality.

Videotaped evidence isn't even considered evidence. So I don't know why this guy felt the need to discuss this subject nearly 20 years later. I can only imagine he really does have something to hide by talking about it now even if its to deny it.

Originally posted by Frith
If witness testimony meant anything in this subject we would already be living in a world where extraterrestrial visitation is an accepted reality.

Videotaped evidence isn't even considered evidence. So I don't know why this guy felt the need to discuss this subject nearly 20 years later. I can only imagine he really does have something to hide by talking about it now even if its to deny it.

edit on 18-4-2011 by Frith because: (no reason given)

Another possibility is that since he is an inhabitant of the real world he was unaware of the degree to which these wild misinterpretations and misrepresentations are sending kids off on intellectual dead-ended wild UFO goose chases, and felt he should go on the record.

Wouldn't you complain if he 'kept silent'?

Originally posted by smurfy
Jim,
Have you fell out of your tree? you are now showing me me something I have not seen before, so forgive me for not paying attention to something I have not seen...before. Anyway, is there anything that Allen did not make an imformed comment on, that others have brought up in threads about STS75, or is that it?

Smurfy, are you still stuck up a tree? You made a comment about lack of STS-75 crew comments without apparently making any attempt to locate such comments with an internet search. You seem to have simply made the assumption that since YOU had never heard of such statements, they must not exist.

The better deduction is that the statements DID exist and were published -- including right here on ATS -- years ago, but that the sources you choose to rely on had deliberately covered them up and refused to acknowledge them, so that their target audience -- people like you -- would stay ignorant of inconvenient facts and testimony.

If you take this lesson alone away with you, it's been a good day.

Well, because of what he said here, I simply do not believe him.

Those still arguing about non-existent UFOs seen by space shuttle crews are wasting their time. Tom Jones, PhD Planetary Scientist Astronaut on STS-59, -68, -80, and -98.

skywalking1.wordpress.com...

What would Tom Jones think then what Catherine Coleman did saw on the NASA STS 73 flight, its clearly not one of those ice crystals or debris particles in my opinion.

Van: Explorer1x 6 apr 2010
NASA Space Shuttle Astronaut Catherine Coleman Openly States she seen a UFO

reply to post by JimOberg


The University of Michigan had a team working on the tether project. Nobody I know who worked on the project thinks the objects filmed on the infrared cameras were 'debris'. Nobody.