19 replies to this topic

[the L]

EBE Award Winner! Best Film - International UFO Congress Film Festival. This program presents the history of UFO sightings by NASA Astronauts and the facts around a secret independent study to monitor the digital video cameras on all NASA Space Shuttle missions. Martyn Stubbs recorded over 2,500 hours of live NASA video transmissions over a period of five years. Some of this footage shows what appears to be intelligently controlled UFOs caught on NASA's own video cameras. This "historic" video footage and the story that lay behind its discovery can now be revealed.

This film was originally released in 2001 and revolutionized UFO research with NASA Space Shuttle cameras. This film remains today an important source of UFO research.

[mcrom901]

without the actual time stamp data, it's really difficult to trace out any context...  

[DBunker]

Cant watch that clip from where I am..... Is it anything new, or just the same ol same.

Space debris and ice?

[bouncer]

DBunker, on 22 October 2011 - 08:47 AM, said:

Cant watch that clip from where I am..... Is it anything new, or just the same ol same.

Space debris and ice?

Nothing new no, and a very old movie too

Edited by bouncer, 22 October 2011 - 10:42 AM.

[mcrom901]

[DBunker]

bouncer, on 22 October 2011 - 10:41 AM, said:

Nothing new no, and a very old movie too

Of course.     


Thanks, bouncer.

Edited by DBunker, 22 October 2011 - 11:17 AM.

[Chrlzs]

Martyn Stubbs?  Cough, ahem...  And yes, this is very old and long debunked stuff.  If any part of it is particularly compelling to anyone, please elaborate in detail.

I suggest a little googling might be in order.  Try the words:
Martyn Stubbs
Secretnasaman  (=Martyn's alias at forums like ATS, where he is now banned)
David Sereda
Jose Escamilla

Edited by Chrlzs, 22 October 2011 - 11:23 AM.

[DBunker]

Chrlzs, on 22 October 2011 - 11:23 AM, said:

Martyn Stubbs?  Cough, ahem...  And yes, this is very old and long debunked stuff.  If any part of it is particularly compelling to anyone, please elaborate in detail.

I suggest a little googling might be in order.  Try the words:
Martyn Stubbs
Secretnasaman  (=Martyn's alias at forums like ATS, where he is now banned)
David Sereda
Jose Escamilla

THE END.  

[Chrlzs]

mcrom901, on 22 October 2011 - 10:49 AM, said:

{{1 HOUR 26 MINUTE video link snipped..}}

????  mcrom901, in the spirit of a discussion forum (which I believe this is..) how's about you pick your very favorite moment from that and then offer your comments, to commence said discussion?

[mcrom901]

Chrlzs, on 22 October 2011 - 11:46 AM, said:

????  mcrom901, in the spirit of a discussion forum (which I believe this is..) how's about you pick your very favorite moment from that and then offer your comments, to commence said discussion?

just posted that documentary for those who might be interested (regarding questioning anomalies instead of pushing explanations) jeff challender was behind it, in the sense that there are others as well who have spent a lot of time in capturing footage off nasa's live feeds...

its not my intention to engage in dissecting any of the said commentary... but if you're interested, jeff's pov might offer a thought provoking perspective from a different angle...

i also noticed your mentioning...

Chrlzs, on 22 October 2011 - 11:23 AM, said:

Martyn Stubbs?  Cough, ahem...  And yes, this is very old and long debunked stuff.  If any part of it is particularly compelling to anyone, please elaborate in detail.

which i would like to ask, by debunked, whether you are referring to the claims of sereda et al abiut what the 'ufos' might have been... or, positively identified with referential data what the actual nature of these anomalies could be i.e. evidence for said prosaic conclusions?

i'm quite familiar with the details of the sts-75 case & it would be interesting to know whether you had access to any definitive details about the nature of said prosaic explanations...

Edited by mcrom901, 22 October 2011 - 01:00 PM.

[Chrlzs]

mcrom901, on 22 October 2011 - 12:57 PM, said:

which i would like to ask, by debunked, whether you are referring to the claims of sereda et al abiut what the 'ufos' might have been... or, positively identified with referential data what the actual nature of these anomalies could be i.e. evidence for said prosaic conclusions?

i'm quite familiar with the details of the sts-75 case & it would be interesting to know whether you had access to any definitive details about the nature of said prosaic explanations...

Doing my best to unravel that circumlocution...   I'll just say this..
No, I don't have any access to any special hitherto unrevealed explanations.  But I've looked at the discussions (and sometimes participated) in significant detail.  From those discussions:

There is always a significant amount of debris (not just ice) around craft like the shuttle and ISS.
The debris may or may not be lit in 'interesting' ways.
The debris may or may not be in focus and its size and sharpness may be thus affected (also by aperture settings).
The debris may travel (relative to the camera) in paths that may look 'strange' to someone unfamiliar with orbital mechanics, typical spacecraft maneuvers, the effects of thrusters and the various discharges from said spacecraft (amongst others).

And finally, I have seen NO example of 'ufos' in NASA footage (secret* or otherwise) that showed something that was unexplainable by the above information (and a few other explanations, like the 'sprites' seen in some footage), and indeed almost all are very obviously and easily explainable.

Which is why I asked - is there anything that anyone thinks is UNexplainable, or at least is the most worthy of serious discussion?  If so, which one..?


*These 'transmissions' are Secret?  That's a Martyn Stubbs 'in-joke', I understand.

[mcrom901]

Chrlzs, on 22 October 2011 - 02:13 PM, said:

Doing my best to unravel that circumlocution...   I'll just say this..
No, I don't have any access to any special hitherto unrevealed explanations.  But I've looked at the discussions (and sometimes participated) in significant detail.  From those discussions:

There is always a significant amount of debris (not just ice) around craft like the shuttle and ISS.
The debris may or may not be lit in 'interesting' ways.
The debris may or may not be in focus and its size and sharpness may be thus affected (also by aperture settings).
The debris may travel (relative to the camera) in paths that may look 'strange' to someone unfamiliar with orbital mechanics, typical spacecraft maneuvers, the effects of thrusters and the various discharges from said spacecraft (amongst others).

And finally, I have seen NO example of 'ufos' in NASA footage (secret* or otherwise) that showed something that was unexplainable by the above information (and a few other explanations, like the 'sprites' seen in some footage), and indeed almost all are very obviously and easily explainable.

Which is why I asked - is there anything that anyone thinks is UNexplainable, or at least is the most worthy of serious discussion?  If so, which one..?

thanks, appreciated... but don't you think that that list contains a lot of 'maybes' and if one was without any actual referential data set, the very process of elimination would be nearly impossible and more importantly one might even miss out on the possibility of encountering any real anomalies which might be worthy of further investigations? there has been a lot of discussions in regards to the 'interesting' captures, but nothing conclusive has come off any of them i'm afraid...

Edited by mcrom901, 23 October 2011 - 05:04 AM.

[lost_shaman]

mcrom901, on 23 October 2011 - 05:03 AM, said:

thanks, appreciated... but don't you think that that list contains a lot of 'maybes' and if one was without any actual referential data set, the very process of elimination would be nearly impossible and more importantly one might even miss out on the possibility of encountering any real anomalies which might be worthy of further investigations? there has been a lot of discussions in regards to the 'interesting' captures, but nothing conclusive has come off any of them i'm afraid...

Hey mcrom,

I like Jeff Challender and his videos. I even talked to Jeff a bit before he died via e-mail. That said this video of his just shows orbital dynamics. That is a small particle traveling at the same speed as the STS moving into a lower altitude. At first as it moves lower it's track around the Earth is smaller so it seems to outpace the STS, but because it is small in Mass the resistance from the thin atmosphere begins to reduce it's speed at which point it seems to fall away from the STS. Thus it looks like it's moving in a controlled manner but really it is just subject to orbital mechanics.


ETA: Just noticed you edited and removed the Jeff Challender video. Just wanted to point that out so people don't think I'm nuts talking about things that are not even brought up.

ETA: Here is the full video.

Edited by lost_shaman, 23 October 2011 - 05:40 AM.

[Chrlzs]

mcrom901, on 23 October 2011 - 05:03 AM, said:

thanks, appreciated... but don't you think that that list contains a lot of 'maybes' and if one was without any actual referential data set, the very process of elimination would be nearly impossible and more importantly one might even miss out on the possibility of encountering any real anomalies which might be worthy of further investigations? there has been a lot of discussions in regards to the 'interesting' captures, but nothing conclusive has come off any of them i'm afraid...

I mostly agree, but then is it a major problem that we don't have all the answers and can't positively identify everything?  F'rinstance, if a strangely shaped bit of foil insulation came off some obscure satellite while in orbit, perhaps years ago, and was drifting around in orbit, passed by the ISS and got captured by one of the many cameras up there just as it was deflected by a small outgassing of some relief valve somewhere (phew).. then how could we possibly positively identify it? (and why would we bother, unless it was likely to be a threat by hitting or tangling something?).  We *do* have a lot of referential data, but it is in no way complete and never will be, so all we can do is offer educated guesses.

Oh, and I doubt if any footage might be missed by all the eager observers who delight in pointing out anomalies!

The fact is that there is lots of stuff up there, it's a very strange environment with lots of effects that no-ordinary-Joe down here is familiar with.  So, if something odd passes by, and doesn't shoot a death ray at us, signal us, has an alien head pop out of it, (attempt to) communicate with us or perform a completely inexplicable maneuver that is beyond the known contributors up there, then...  I don't think there is any issue.  And sometimes, like with the 'sprites', we learn new stuff and add to that data..

I'll be happy to address any particular observation, but I think I've seen all the most 'strange'.  Some are indeed a bit strange but when you look at all the factors, the strangeness is explainable.  And that's good enough for me..

I find the process of identifying what happens quite interesting (and it fits nicely into my interests in astronomy/space travel and photography/optics).  I find those who leap to an alien visitation conclusion also .. 'interesting'.. but in no way convincing!

[lost_shaman]

Chrlzs, on 23 October 2011 - 05:56 AM, said:

I mostly agree, but then is it a major problem that we don't have all the answers and can't positively identify everything? F'rinstance, if a strangely shaped bit of foil insulation came off some obscure satellite while in orbit, perhaps years ago, and was drifting around in orbit, passed by the ISS and got captured by one of the many cameras up there just as it was deflected by a small outgassing of some relief valve somewhere (phew).. then how could we possibly positively identify it? (and why would we bother, unless it was likely to be a threat by hitting or tangling something?).

Hey Chrlzs,

I do disagree with you on this point. UFO's are not simply something you can't positively identify. To be a UFO, not only must it be 'unidentifiable' but must also exhibit some charactoristic(s) that exclude known prosaic explanations. i.e. A random piece of 'foil' in orbit may be 'unidentified' but wouln't make it into the UFO definition.