1528 replies to this topic

[TheMacGuffin]

JimOberg, on 16 November 2012 - 12:26 PM, said:

Question remains unresponded to. Is it fair to presume
the reason is, no such evidence for an 'official'
explanation exists, it was just a rhetorical device?

That was always your job, wasn't it? LOL

[TheMacGuffin]

Hazzard, on 16 November 2012 - 09:27 AM, said:

On the topic of DEBUNKED green UFOs in the atmosphere,... II remember back in the days, when that fanatic believer Ra was posting the red UFO in the atmosphere report,  tracked by radar engaged and shot down, as proof of ET visitation.

They were first reported in the late-1940s, and Dr. Lincoln LaPaz, the meteorite expert, always insisted that they were NOT meteorites.

[JimOberg]

TheMacGuffin, on 16 November 2012 - 06:00 PM, said:

They were first reported in the late-1940s, and Dr. Lincoln LaPaz, the meteorite expert, always insisted that they were NOT meteorites.

We're talking about green streaks on some Apollo-7 images. Please stay on target. What evidence is there that these images are anything but photo  processing flaws?

Was the actual Apollo-7 eyewitness's statement clarifying, or do you prefer to continue acting as if it doesn't exist?

[TheMacGuffin]

JimOberg, on 16 November 2012 - 06:03 PM, said:

We're talking about green streaks on some Apollo-7 images. Please stay on target. What evidence is there that these images are anything but photo  processing flaws?

Was the actual Apollo-7 eyewitness's statement clarifying, or do you prefer to continue acting as if it doesn't exist?

I merely raised the question of whether the green "artifacts" appeared in every picture from that mission of just a few of them.

I never found any actual witness statement about the green UFOs or even that they were noticed at all until those pictures were developed.

Edited by TheMacGuffin, 16 November 2012 - 06:10 PM.

[TheMacGuffin]

For many years, though, there were other UFO pictures from Apollo 7, like the famous "boomerangs":, but the green fireballs were only discussed in recent times--so far as I can tell.

[TheMacGuffin]

And then there were the Apollo 7 UFOs on the moon.

[JimOberg]

TheMacGuffin, on 16 November 2012 - 06:09 PM, said:

I merely raised the question of whether the green "artifacts" appeared in every picture from that mission of just a few of them.

I never found any actual witness statement about the green UFOs or even that they were noticed at all until those pictures were developed.

Where did you read that the 'green UFOs' were noticed 'when the pictures were developed'?

I think that the most you can say is that they were noticed when later generation prints were posted on some websites.

NOT when 'they were developed'.

There's a big difference, and carelessly sloppy descriptions can get in the way of properly understanding the question.

In fact, according to the man who personally TOOK the photographs, the images are NOT in the first-generation prints that he personally possesses in his home.

Did you notice that, or are you making believe it's only 'hearsay', like Bee seems to be doing?

[bee]

@Jim Oberg


perhaps...if you are friends with Walt Cunningham...you could ask him to send a scan of  his copy of AS07-05-1613

just a thought

[JimOberg]

TheMacGuffin, on 16 November 2012 - 06:16 PM, said:

And then there were the Apollo 7 UFOs on the moon.

What alternate reality do you inhabit where Apollo-7 was ever on the Moon?

Jeez, McG, you're a hands-down winner of the poster child prize
for showing how the less you know about real space flight, and
the more wrong ideas you believe about spaceflight, the more
fanatic you are about misinterpreting stuff as UFOs.

[JimOberg]

bee, on 16 November 2012 - 08:39 PM, said:

perhaps...if you are friends with Walt Cunningham...you could ask him to send a scan of  his copy of AS07-05-1613

just a thought  

What possible use would that be? You probably have your get-out-of-reality cards already out on your desk to present another excuse not to believe it, or to mcguffinly ignore it.

[TheMacGuffin]

JimOberg, on 16 November 2012 - 08:46 PM, said:

What alternate reality do you inhabit where Apollo-7 was ever on the Moon?

Jeez, McG, you're a hands-down winner of the poster child prize
for showing how the less you know about real space flight, and
the more wrong ideas you believe about spaceflight, the more
fanatic you are about misinterpreting stuff as UFOs.

They probably meant to say Apollo 8 in that video.

[TheMacGuffin]

JimOberg, on 16 November 2012 - 08:27 PM, said:

Where did you read that the 'green UFOs' were noticed 'when the pictures were developed'?

I think that the most you can say is that they were noticed when later generation prints were posted on some websites.

NOT when 'they were developed'.

There's a big difference, and carelessly sloppy descriptions can get in the way of properly understanding the question.

In fact, according to the man who personally TOOK the photographs, the images are NOT in the first-generation prints that he personally possesses in his home.

Did you notice that, or are you making believe it's only 'hearsay', like Bee seems to be doing?

I read where he said that they weren't being followed by little green men, but I never suggested that they had been.  There are little creatures on some of those UFOs, but I never heard that they were green.

[JimOberg]

TheMacGuffin, on 16 November 2012 - 08:59 PM, said:

They probably meant to say Apollo 8 in that video.

When will you ever take responsibility for the nonsense you post that you read somewhere on the Internet?

When will you begin to wonder if you should do simple fact-checks on that garbage before you inundate these threads with it?

[TheMacGuffin]

JimOberg, on 16 November 2012 - 09:13 PM, said:

When will you ever take responsibility for the nonsense you post that you read somewhere on the Internet?

When will you begin to wonder if you should do simple fact-checks on that garbage before you inundate these threads with it?

Okay, I said I wasn't going to engage in any more discussions like these and I meant it.

[JimOberg]

Anybody seriously interested in understanding what might be causing the hundreds of youtube space dots really, in my view, needs to try to get a better understanding of what spaceflight conditions do for prosaic visual apparitions, before running off and assuming something they don't understand, is fundamentally NON-understandable. In the overwhelming majority of cases I've looked at, the 'unidentified' label is applied by people who have no clues HOW to identify things seen visually or on camera in space. And it's not just their not knowing what is 'normal' -- the absence of real knowlege is compounded by the substitution of bad guesses, unjustified analogies, imaginary 'factoids', that all contribute to a barrier to effectively assessing the imagery.

For my own part, I've prepared my "99 FAQs" that discuss essential characterisitcs of spaceflight operations that affect visual phenomena. But you don't have to believe me alone. Look around the real world outside the UFO ghetto. Reading about the SATOBS group ['SeeSat'] or following the real-time postings on the forums at www.nasaspaceflight.com [NOT an official NASA site at all] can develop, over time, a better appreciation of how normal, human-caused space events can LOOK really, really weird and -- dare I say? -- 'unearthly'.

Without that background, demanding 'explanations' when one is patently too uninformed to even understand the reasonably likely explanations [and like it that way] is a losing strategy for all involved. Time, effort, typing time, and brainpower are wasted.

If people fascinated with really 'finding out' want to get better insights, I can only hope that they pay attention to what is probably my major discovery about the 'shuttle UFO videos' -- the most famous of them occur, when measured on their orbital paths, in the brief post-sunrise period when a TV camera is pointed backwards along the flight path, and the shuttle's own shadow is invisibly case across the field of view. It's the perfect environment for small nearby shuttle-derived 'stuff' to 'materialize', drift, flash, curve under thruster or other plumes, and perform ALL the 'classic' effects of famous 'UFO videos'.

My suggestion is simple: this correlation is not random coincidence, but is cause-and-effect. The conditions are perfect to create the appearance of 'unexplainable' apparitions.  This coincidence is the most powerful argument, aside from going out and grabbing one such particle by hand, that we are seeing normal sunlit shuttle-generated stuff.

'UFO' explanations -- alien spaceships -- do NOT explain the correlation.

The correlation is only detectable if one knows the actual date/times and orbital context of each video.

Which may also explain why so many youtube posters withhold -- or even falsify -- this critical information.

But the correlation CAN be proven, or tested. It will pass or fail, factually. But not on any pro-UFO zone.

Now THAT seems to me to be a topic worth arguing over for serious students.