The Abundance of NASA's STS Mission Footage is the Most Compelling Evidence UFOs Exist

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by FearYourMind
reply to post by JimOberg

 

I'm also very aware of the differences in sunlight. Anyone can view the ISS stream and see the ISS passes in and out of the sun's light every 45 minutes. It's pretty irrelevant that I used "hours", the point remains the same. This was never debunked.

What is "this"? If STS-48, yes, it has been explained in prosaic terms.

As for objects 'appearing' -- the claim is made that there is no prosaic explanation for seeing that, and by showing that a shuttle shadow was there, I offer that as 'debunking' the claim of extraordinariness.

Fair enough. My only argument was I wasn't convinced ice particles accounted for a lot. Many people have this illusion that the videos were debunked long ago. That simply isn't true.

reply to post by buzzEmiller


I can't leave here without saying thank you for all of the work you've put in over the years. These videos are without a doubt the best evidence in my opinion.

Originally posted by FearYourMind

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by FearYourMind
reply to post by JimOberg

 

I'm also very aware of the differences in sunlight. Anyone can view the ISS stream and see the ISS passes in and out of the sun's light every 45 minutes. It's pretty irrelevant that I used "hours", the point remains the same. This was never debunked.

What is "this"? If STS-48, yes, it has been explained in prosaic terms.

As for objects 'appearing' -- the claim is made that there is no prosaic explanation for seeing that, and by showing that a shuttle shadow was there, I offer that as 'debunking' the claim of extraordinariness.

Fair enough. My only argument was I wasn't convinced ice particles accounted for a lot. Many people have this illusion that the videos were debunked long ago. That simply isn't true.

What is it in which cases do you continue to insist are unexplainable in prosaic terms?

My challenge about telling day from night wasn't pointless, it was meant to show that without knowledge of the source of illumination of the dots, nothing unusual could be claimed about them. I suggest they were small nearby sunlit stuff shed/leaked by the shuttle. Wny can't they be?

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by gnarkill1529
reply to post by buzzEmiller

 

Just for arguments sake can you explain why these aren't just ice particles given that the temperature in space is roughly 3 degrees K? Which is very very cold. Im adding a disclaimer as well and saying I don't know what they are and im no expert in this field.

Both water and hydrazine and freon leaking from spacecraft will freeze up quickly, largely due to evaporative cooling. The ice will slowly sublime directly to vapor, but nowhere near immediately -- a hunk of wastewater ice dubbed the 'pissicle' famously clung to the dump port for days on a 1984 shuttle mission, and anothrer hunk built up as ejected water froze to the centerline of a payload bay door and eventually actually survived reentry, only to quickly melt in the Floida summer night sultriness.

Seriously? A hunk of ejected water survived the blazingly dangerous heat of reentry and then quickly melted in the 'Floida' summer sultriness? Heat so intense they had to invent a whole new kind of insulation to deal with it, lest the nice astronaut people be turned into meteorites? How big a 'hunk'? Tens of thousands of gallons? I think not. A few gallons, at most? More likely. Survived reentry? You have to be kidding. Pictures and documentation or it didn't happen.

This defies logic more than presuming that the little Pacman pulsating lights are ET visitors rather than 'tumbling' ice crystals/seriously dangerous debris you'd think they'd be incredibly concerned about/whatever...

All in all, the Pacman things are a darn fun mystery and all this discussion about them from NASA spokespeople starts sounding an awful lot like 'me thinks thou doth protest too much.'

Originally posted by signalfire

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by gnarkill1529
reply to post by buzzEmiller

 

Just for arguments sake can you explain why these aren't just ice particles given that the temperature in space is roughly 3 degrees K? Which is very very cold. Im adding a disclaimer as well and saying I don't know what they are and im no expert in this field.

Both water and hydrazine and freon leaking from spacecraft will freeze up quickly, largely due to evaporative cooling. The ice will slowly sublime directly to vapor, but nowhere near immediately -- a hunk of wastewater ice dubbed the 'pissicle' famously clung to the dump port for days on a 1984 shuttle mission, and anothrer hunk built up as ejected water froze to the centerline of a payload bay door and eventually actually survived reentry, only to quickly melt in the Floida summer night sultriness.

Seriously? A hunk of ejected water survived the blazingly dangerous heat of reentry and then quickly melted in the 'Floida' summer sultriness? Heat so intense they had to invent a whole new kind of insulation to deal with it, lest the nice astronaut people be turned into meteorites? How big a 'hunk'? Tens of thousands of gallons? I think not. A few gallons, at most? More likely. Survived reentry? You have to be kidding. Pictures and documentation or it didn't happen.

This defies logic more than presuming that the little Pacman pulsating lights are ET visitors rather than 'tumbling' ice crystals/seriously dangerous debris you'd think they'd be incredibly concerned about/whatever...

All in all, the Pacman things are a darn fun mystery and all this discussion about them from NASA spokespeople starts sounding an awful lot like 'me thinks thou doth protest too much.'

Reminder the quote from Will Rogers, it ain't what you don't know what makes you look foolish, it's what you do know what ain't so.

Your comment is helpful in identifying the kinds of mis-knowledge that many smart people incorrectly apply to reject prosaic explanations for space videos. Basically, the less you know about real spaceflight, the more open your are to 'UFO explanations' for space videos.

The ice -- a hunk perhaps watermelon size -- formed on the outer centerline boundary of the port payload bay door, because when it's opened in orbit, it folds over the side and lies directly in front of the water dump port.

The ice buildup was noted during the mission but it wasn't going to interfere with the landing so it was left alone.

Once the doors had closed, the ice was atop the shuttle, in the lee -- trailing -- side. That's the part of the shuttle that does NOT have the high-temp thermal insulation because it is NOT subjected to the high heat loads that the leading edges are. Heck, over the OMS pods, they don't have any tiles at all, they just staple some thermal blankets over the fuel tanks.

Does that modify your idea about the thermal stresses on different parts of the shuttle during entry?

Anyhow, with the doors closed, there wasn't any view of the top. So it wasn't until an hour later, during touchdown and rollout, that human eyes could inspect the area. Sure enough, at wheels stop, as the cameras zoomed in, there was a hunk of something still clinging to the centerline just aft of the crew cabin. It wasn't watermelon-sized any more, maybe grapefruit sized, and within ten minutes it was gone, just a stain on the outer door surface.

I saw it on the TV monitor. Why is it that you think it would be physically impossible? Perhaps your understanding of the entry thermal environment might not be as accurate as you'd like to believe? This is an opportunity to learn better -- let me help.

Originally posted by deloprator20000
One of the better Shuttle mission footage UFO documentaries are the following:

[snip]

What makes these objects anomalous are the following:

1. They appear to be self luminous (there are objects that have no light shining on them), most space debris is not self-luminous. Furthermore, they appear to be self luminous far longer than meteorites. In some videos the objects begin to flash light.
.....

As I asked before, on what basis do you conclude the objects are not in sunlight or in range of the shuttle payload bay floods? On what basis, please, do you conclude the scene in question is not sunlit?

This is a critical point, and I can see how somebody not understanding the sunlight illumination conditions, or being mistaken about them, could easily and sincerely misinterpret the entire nature of the dots.

So please explain to me what other evidence you might consider that the objects shown on your link are really in sunlight?

I enjoyed the video. I just take videos from the STS with a large grain of salt because there are a lot of anomalies/stipulations you have to take into consideration because they are rarely in the same environment compared to videos of UFOs taken from Earth. Interesting nonetheless.

reply to post by stirling


"live in a world of denial in order to justify the avoidance of their presence"

Well put, Stirling.

The NASA apologist used the word sincere?
That WAS funny.

What does he say is NASA’s official position on why they were wasting time filming the space junk known as the “tether” after it was over 60 miles away?

Did NASA think it would come back?
Or was NASA filming debri/dust/ice [insert excuse here]?
Or was NASA really filming unidentified flying objects?
Or was NASA really filming flying objects they know all too well?

Originally posted by spiritualarchitect
The NASA apologist used the word sincere?
That WAS funny.

What does he say is NASA’s official position on why they were wasting time filming the space junk known as the “tether” after it was over 60 miles away?

Did NASA think it would come back?
Or was NASA filming debri/dust/ice [insert excuse here]?
Or was NASA really filming unidentified flying objects?
Or was NASA really filming flying objects they know all too well?

Or was SA really substituting provocative questions for facts?

"Sure enough, at wheels stop, as the cameras zoomed in, there was a hunk of something still clinging to the centerline just aft of the crew cabin."

Sounds like a good story. Something to tell the kids. You will be providing us with this video proof within the hour, correct?

Originally posted by spiritualarchitect
1, The NASA apologist used the word sincere?
That WAS funny.

2. What does he say is NASA’s official position on why they were wasting time filming the space junk known as the “tether” after it was over 60 miles away?

3. Did NASA think it would come back?
4. Or was NASA filming debri/dust/ice [insert excuse here]?
5. Or was NASA really filming unidentified flying objects?
6. Or was NASA really filming flying objects they know all too well?

1. Stop flaunting your malevolent ignorance with lame ad hominems. I'm the only genuine 'NASA whistle blower' you're ever likely to meet -- gave up my day job in the shuttle program to testify before Congress about NASA's decaying safety culture that later led to the Columbia disaster.

2. "Wasting time" is a "have-you-stopped-beating-your-wife" deceptive question. Ask it again honestly.

3. NASA knew it wasn't coming back.

4. NASA was observing it to determine the tether configuration after having not seen it for some time.

5. NASA always watches out for and immediately openly discusses unexpected stuff outside, for obvious safety reasons. That recent space station emergency repair spacewalk was sparked due to seeing passing snowflakes on an external TV camera.

6. No.

These are baffling questions since they seem to underscore how little you know about the incident. In my investigations I've come to realize that knowing as little as possible about real spaceflight is a 'Good Thing' from the point of view of UFO believers. Facts have an awkward way of getting in the way of pleasant fairy tales.

How about basic facts. Was this STS-75 sequence caught during day or night. What do you think the illumination conditions were -- or why do you think it's not important to know?

How about basic facts: where did this sequence fit into the post-separation timeline? Was it part of a continuous sequence beginning at tether break, or was it a rare, brief sighting opportunity days later? How do you understand its place on the timeline?

My point is that not knowing such fundamental facts -- or 'knowing' things that are imaginary and untrue -- would naturally prevent any investigator from reaching reliable conclusions about the event.

Originally posted by spiritualarchitect
"Sure enough, at wheels stop, as the cameras zoomed in, there was a hunk of something still clinging to the centerline just aft of the crew cabin."

Sounds like a good story. Something to tell the kids. You will be providing us with this video proof within the hour, correct?

And you will be providing us with lame excuses for not believing it within five minutes, right?

I've provided detailed studies and imagery for famous space UFOs from STS-48 to STS-80 to Skylab-3 and many others. Is there ANY of those prosaic solutions that you accept?

reply to post by buzzEmiller


Martyn Stubbs, I watched your entire interview for the second time last night and I was wondering if you have gotten any good answers to what your Phenomenon 3 could be?

If it is appearing between the hatch and the camera it must be very small. As strange as it sounds, these seem like some kind of space firefly. A space insect should not be out of the realm of possibilities, however odd it may seem to us Earth dwellers. Perhaps one day they will call them “Stubbs” in your honor. I wonder what they eat, space bacteria known as Vacuum?

If we take the life element out of it, could we be talking electrical discharges?

Please check your messages concerning your video of Pacman.

Lame excuses… since when has that stopped you.
"People see what they expect to see"
You have given us lame excuses for years.

So you no longer provide proof because of ridicule?
Or because someone may question you on it?

Originally posted by spiritualarchitect

So you no longer provide proof because of ridicule?
Or because someone may question you on it?

From a veteran colleague:

From: Michael G-----s
To: James Oberg
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 4:46 PM
Subject: Re: shuttle entry with ice hunk on external PLB centerline?
I remember reading about it in the MMACS console handbook. If I remember correctly, the water dump nozzle was offset slightly from where it was supposed to be, that's why it sprayed on the door edge. It was actually a morning landing at EDW, not a night landing.

From the JSC photo archives:

From: Gentry, G M. (JSC-AD94)[DB Consulting Group, Inc.]
To: James Oberg
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 8:57 AM
Subject: RE: shuttle entry with ice hunk on external PLB centerline?

Day landing of STS-66 at Dryden appears to qualify otherwise.

The post landing press conference came from JSC. Nothing is mentioned about the clump of ice until the questions came from KSC and one of the Florida-based reporters asked about the ice.

I don’t know if any stills were shot or for certain if any video was shot. I’ve copied Jody and, though she’s covered up to her armpits, she may be able to check the post flight material to see if it exists.

More details followed:

Jim, we have a DVD of the STS-66 ice chunk in space (see highlighted scene nos. below)
Also scene 95 shows the orbiter during its landing and slow roll.

I'll have to go into the office to view that scene and take stills off it.

Here's the scene list with the ice mentioned:

Production #: JSC1447

Title: STS-66 POST FLIGHT PRESENTATION

Format: Beta SP or DVD

Length: 00:40:30

Description: NASA LOGO

1 Crew Patch - animated

2 MS Commander Don McMonagle suiting

3 MS Pilot Curt Brown

4 MLS Payload Commander Ellen Ochoa

5 MS Mission Specialist (MS) Joe Tanner

6 MCU MS Jean-Francois Clervoy

7 MCU MS Scott Parazynski

8 MS Crew egressing O & C building (KSC); Pull back to LS

9 LS Shuttle on launch pad - engine sequence starts

10 CU Orbiter main engine start and shuttle starts to lift off

11 CU Shuttle flyby

[snip]

63 MS Clervoy playing with CD

64 MS Ochoa with thermal impulse printer system read out (G338)

65 MLS Blue team opening bunk doors

66 CU Water dump - icicle forms

67 LS PLB door with icicle formed on it

68 MLS Tanner helping McMonagle and Brown during flight control system (FCS) check out (G338)

69 MS McMonagle during FCS check out (G338)

70 MS Brown during FCS check out (G338)

71 ELS CRISTA-SPAS in orbit during rendezvous

[snip]

So the ice was there on the door. Now for the second half -- checking the rollout video to see if I remembered it correctly. Thanks for making it worth my while to dig out the whole story and document it.

I repeat my question: you have demanded an explanation that will satisfy YOU, as the sole judge and jury.

I think it's fair to ask, have you accepted ANY of my previous explanations for ANY 'space UFO' story?

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by spiritualarchitect
"Sure enough, at wheels stop, as the cameras zoomed in, there was a hunk of something still clinging to the centerline just aft of the crew cabin."

Sounds like a good story. Something to tell the kids. You will be providing us with this video proof within the hour, correct?

[snip]
I've provided detailed studies and imagery for famous space UFOs from STS-48 to STS-80 to Skylab-3 and many others. Is there ANY of those prosaic solutions that you accept?

I see I am getting to you.

Nothing you said after #6 has any relevance to my questions. And there should be nothing baffling to you about my questions. They are very simple and you should have already been asked them before.

#1 I never said you were not a whistle blower, but you are defiantly always coming to NASA’s defense.

#2 You are the one who brought up wife beating. I merely mentioned that it seems a waste of time to be filming something that is gone and over with. Time is money and space time is a lot of money. Or are you saying that those space flights are cheap and they have money and or time to burn?

#4 To see if it was straight or bent? Really? They already knew its atitude when it was next to the shuttle.

#5 Safety reasons? Really? The thing was 100 miles away and they were still filming it.

Like you admitted, they did not think it was coming back.

Lucky for you, I might not be coming back either.

Originally posted by spiritualarchitect

#1 I never said you were not a whistle blower, but you are defiantly always coming to NASA’s defense.

Not hardly. Aside from my whistle-blowing over NASA management malfeasance on flight safety, I wrote a prize-winning magazine report of top level stupidity on their Mars fleet debacle, and became the only journalist ever to be denounced by name in a NASA press release for a 'loony' claim that turned out closer to the truth than NASA's official lines. You really need to get out of the UFO-ghetto more often.

#2 You are the one who brought up wife beating. I merely mentioned that it seems a waste of time to be filming something that is gone and over with. Time is money and space time is a lot of money. Or are you saying that those space flights are cheap and they have money and or time to burn?

After a major anomaly it makes sense to get all the observations possible about the consequences of that anomaly. Sorry you didn't know that.

#4 To see if it was straight or bent? Really? They already knew its atitude when it was next to the shuttle.

Yes, to see the shape of the dangling tether. Do you think you know it, without looking? Do tell.

#5 Safety reasons? Really? The thing was 100 miles away and they were still filming it.

"Still"? Do you think they videotaped it continuously from its breakaway until it reached 100 miles? Answer, please.
Safety: You always need to know the status of objects in potentially recontact paths, especially a long tether that has already snapped at one point and, if it snapped again somewhere along its length, potentially could have sent a long segment right back into the shuttle. Too bad NASA didn't have you avasilable at the time to assure them this was impossible and didn't need to be watched out for.

Like you admitted, they did not think it was coming back.

You don't stay safe in space by just 'thinking' something will be conveniently true. You continuously verify that it is remaining true until it can no longer threaten you. When NASA officials have forgotten that, people have died.

Lucky for you, I might not be coming back either.

You vastly overrate your efficacy in refuting fact-based arguments by using imaginary 'factoids'.

Originally posted by JimOberg
So the ice was there on the door. Now for the second half -- checking the rollout video to see if I remembered it correctly.

Just got an email from the flight controller in charge of that system, who was on console for the landing:

From: Charles D----s
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 3:47 PM
Subject: Re: shuttle entry with ice hunk on external PLB centerline?

I remember that event and I was on console for landing, so I looked for it. And, as Phil remembered, there was a lump of ice on the payload bay door. I didn't measure the time it took to melt, but it definitely was there.

Charlie

So i'm not imagining things. That's a relief. To me, at least -- maybe not to some others [grin].