Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * - - 4 votes

More NASA UFO's?

ufo nasa

  • Please log in to reply
1528 replies to this topic

Poll: Are these UFO's? (51 member(s) have cast votes)

Do these videos contain images of UFO's?

  1. Yes (22 votes [43.14%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 43.14%

  2. No (29 votes [56.86%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 56.86%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#556    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 30,223 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 31 October 2012 - 06:01 AM

View PostbooNyzarC, on 31 October 2012 - 05:17 AM, said:

You have got to be joking.  Why would NASA try to hide that kind of obvious photographic artifact?  The very notion of it is ridiculous.

Just looking at the stupid thing should be enough for anyone to realize that it isn't a physical object.  The only reason to remove it from an image is to make the rest of the image more pleasant to look at.

I can't believe we are even discussing this particular picture considering how obvious it is that there is nothing actually physically there.  Next we'll be discussing the demon possessed because of the red eye effects that sometimes come out in photographs.  It's just silly.

Don't you have better and more compelling UFO related subjects to focus on by now McG?


Looking at that picture, if that was genuine, and such a large thing was in space so close to the earth, we would see it with out visual aid. No way NASA would be hiding that without a lot of people and a lot of blindfolds.

Either the perspective is an illusion and it is a small thing, or it's a processing artifact. But it does not even have a definite shape. I do not see how it possibly can be a solid object of substantial size. That just does not make sense.

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo 'If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.' - Sir Isaac Newton. "Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit." Ed Stewart. Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs. Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Sir Wearer of Hats.


#557    TheMacGuffin

TheMacGuffin

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,159 posts
  • Joined:30 Jun 2012

Posted 31 October 2012 - 06:02 AM

I mean it, Boon, you're on here talking like I wrote Oberg's book.

Do you think I have ever believed any of his 'explanations"?  I think just about every one of them is a lie.


#558    Admiral Rhubarb

Admiral Rhubarb

    Often Unsatisfactory

  • Member
  • 23,740 posts
  • Joined:09 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hammerfest

  • Vampires are people too.

Posted 31 October 2012 - 07:46 AM

View PostTheMacGuffin, on 30 October 2012 - 11:38 PM, said:

No, I don't know what this Apollo 11 picture was and it never gets discussed very much. They realized it was very big, though, had to be, if it was a genuine picture of a real UFO taken from that great distance.

Posted Image
Heavens, if we're supposed to be discussing proof for UFOs, as in Extraterrestrrial spacecraft, how can anyone think that that might qualify? Surely that could be no kind of spacecraft ever designed by ayone. If it's proof of anything, it'd be space amoebas, or amoebae.

Life is a hideous business, and from the background behind what we know of it peer daemoniacal hints of truth which make it sometimes a thousandfold more hideous.

H. P. Lovecraft.


Posted Image


#559    TheMacGuffin

TheMacGuffin

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,159 posts
  • Joined:30 Jun 2012

Posted 31 October 2012 - 08:12 AM

View Post747400, on 31 October 2012 - 07:46 AM, said:

Heavens, if we're supposed to be discussing proof for UFOs, as in Extraterrestrrial spacecraft, how can anyone think that that might qualify? Surely that could be no kind of spacecraft ever designed by ayone. If it's proof of anything, it'd be space amoebas, or amoebae.


Maybe so, but how do we really know what an alien spacecraft would look like or an alien for that matter.

I mean, is this an alien spacecraft or something like that?

Posted Image

Actually, I think it is.

Edited by TheMacGuffin, 31 October 2012 - 08:36 AM.


#560    bee

bee

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,124 posts
  • Joined:24 Jan 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:England

Posted 31 October 2012 - 08:24 AM

.


I watched the whole of this interview last night and it is very interesting...highly recommended (by me :))  for anyone interested in the Tether Incident

and  similar 'anomalies'....there is a  bit somewhere in it (can't remember exactly where now) where they are trying to identify the MIR

Space Station amidst numerous  spherical light anomalies....the Tether Incident is just the tip of the iceberg...and thanks to Martyn Stubbs

we get to see it..








Oberg gets a mention at the beginning of the second part...what it is to be famous...lol


for other parts go to the YouTube site...

:tu:


#561    zoser

zoser

    Sapphire

  • Member
  • 10,009 posts
  • Joined:19 Aug 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London UK

  • It is later than you think.

Posted 31 October 2012 - 08:36 AM

View PostTheMacGuffin, on 31 October 2012 - 08:12 AM, said:

Maybe so, but how do we really know what an alien spacecraft would look like or an alien for that matter.

I mean, is this an alien spacecraft or something like that?

Posted Image

That's an excellent shot MacG.  I've seen it before but it takes some explaining.  Nice shot. :tu:

Posted Image


#562    zoser

zoser

    Sapphire

  • Member
  • 10,009 posts
  • Joined:19 Aug 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London UK

  • It is later than you think.

Posted 31 October 2012 - 08:37 AM

View Postbee, on 31 October 2012 - 08:24 AM, said:

.


I watched the whole of this interview last night and it is very interesting...highly recommended (by me :))  for anyone interested in the Tether Incident


for other parts go to the YouTube site...

:tu:

Excellent stuff; I'm half way through it now.

Posted Image


#563    TheMacGuffin

TheMacGuffin

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,159 posts
  • Joined:30 Jun 2012

Posted 31 October 2012 - 08:38 AM

View Postzoser, on 31 October 2012 - 08:36 AM, said:

That's an excellent shot MacG.  I've seen it before but it takes some explaining.  Nice shot. :tu:

Skylab UFO-1973


#564    JimOberg

JimOberg

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,802 posts
  • Joined:03 Sep 2007

Posted 31 October 2012 - 08:50 AM

View PostTheMacGuffin, on 30 October 2012 - 11:02 PM, said:

Gemini 12.  Don't know what that one was.  It never gets discussed very much, but NASA said it was trash floating outside the spacecraft.  Well...maybe or maybe not.

The reasopn one might suggest something floating outside the s;acecraft is that if you look in the lower right corner you SEE the OPEN HATCH of the spacecraft.

But it's reasonable to assume that you failed to recognize that hardware, seeing how little familiarity you have with the subjeci, and confirming a general princple of 'space UFOs' -- the less real knowledge, the stronger the imagination and fantasy.


#565    JimOberg

JimOberg

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,802 posts
  • Joined:03 Sep 2007

Posted 31 October 2012 - 09:05 AM

View Postzoser, on 31 October 2012 - 08:36 AM, said:

That's an excellent shot MacG.  I've seen it before but it takes some explaining.  Nice shot. :tu:

Four shots were taken, what do the others look like?

All three crewmen saw it --Bean, Garriott, and Lousma. How do they describe it?

Suppose the first shot -- this one -- was made with a different shutter speed, say for low light such as the ones preceding it on the roll?


#566    JimOberg

JimOberg

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,802 posts
  • Joined:03 Sep 2007

Posted 31 October 2012 - 09:07 AM

Still waiting for responses re Chatelain, Afanasyev, and others. Evidence, please. Not a metaphorical masking snowstorm of other stories. Defend the stories YOU first posred or implicitly concede there IS no evidence and you're just dodging and distracting.


#567    zoser

zoser

    Sapphire

  • Member
  • 10,009 posts
  • Joined:19 Aug 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London UK

  • It is later than you think.

Posted 31 October 2012 - 09:10 AM

View Postpsyche101, on 31 October 2012 - 12:32 AM, said:

Jim worked at Johnson Space Center on the Space Shuttle program. He worked in the Mission Control Center for several Space Shuttle missions from STS-1 on, specialising in orbital rendezvous techniques. This culminated in planning the orbit for the mission, the first International Space Station assembly flight.

In 1970 Stanton Friedman left full time employment as a physicist to pursue UFOLogy.

Whilst what you say above is untrue and incorrect, I understand why you lean that way. I am guessing that you do not see these as UFO's but alien craft. In that aspect you ascribe a UFOlogist, which is well putting the cart before the horse by any standard.

But now that you have made the claim, would you mind explaining how a retired physicist is more capable of explaining the intricacies of spaceflight than an expert in spaceflight? Alternatively, proving these are alien spacecraft, that every amateur astronomer happened to miss would also suffice.

Hello psyche.

I've seen Jim albeit briefly on documentaries and I have seen reference to his name on many websites.  Rocket science isn't one of my interests, but I fully appreciate the technical and scientific ability needed to pursue a career in this field.  It must be considerable.

Jim's credentials are not in doubt, at least to me.

The problem on this thread as far as I can see that has led to the arousing of passions from all sides is that the NASA UFO issue seems to be being treated as a closed case solved and dispensed with years ago.  There is amazement being expressed by some as to why others even dare to still pursue the matter when studies exist (on another website) proving the entire phenomena to be nothing more that misquotations, ice, equipment anomalies, or space fragments.

Others feel that there is evidence to the contrary and a large number of video clips, photographs, written and verbal testimonies have been posted here to make the point that the case for unexplained objects in space is actually far from closed.

Sky Scanner was I believe correct in his assessment that we have a 'never the twain shall meet' syndrome going on here.  Who is right and who is wrong?  Forwards and backwards it goes as SS said this has been going on for a decade now.  I am sure he is correct.

So what is the answer?  Maybe both camps need to walk towards the other's?  Your point is correct about Jim being closer to the matter when it was all happening than any of us.  Which is why I and presumably others cannot understand why there there is so much denial coming from him.  To at least have a nod from him that strange things have happened in the history of the Gemini, Apollo and Shuttle missions would be nice to hear.

In return maybe people whose views are polarised differently could play their part in understanding where Jim is coming from?  I just don't know.

Just two more points before I close this post.  One is that that the 'believers' that are posting here are not mindless ET fanatics as far as I can see.  I for one am not shouting anything outlandish about The Tether Incident.  People that say this is ET to me is pure nonsense.  So all I see is from Bee and MacG and others is a level headedness backed by a lot of testimonies and evidence.

The gulf therefore between people's views about all this maybe much narrower than we think.

By the same token, the skeptics make a number of good points; small dots on screens moving however fast and changing trajectory also is not proof of ET (I would still love to know what they are though).  Even the best photos and clips are not really clear enough to draw that conclusion.

The final point I would make is to re-iterate the point I made to Sky Scanner.  What is needed is new information.  The debate is a little bit stuck where it is for this reason.  I'm not saying there is nothing new to be won, but the chances of any revelations occurring either way are limited until we have new disclosure or information to play with.

Sorry for the long post but at least I hope you can see where I am coming from.

Posted Image


#568    JimOberg

JimOberg

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,802 posts
  • Joined:03 Sep 2007

Posted 31 October 2012 - 09:11 AM

The Apollo-11 'Hawaiian war chief' image was one of a series,taken during the phase after separation when a lot of stuff was still coming ff the just-undocked vehicle. AFAIK it was not commented on by the crew in real time or ever after. They recognized what nearby spacecraft-generated debris was, and disregarded anything looking normal.

It falls into the 'moon pigeon' category -- you have read that NASA 1971 report posted on my home page, haven't you?

Edited by JimOberg, 31 October 2012 - 09:21 AM.


#569    JimOberg

JimOberg

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,802 posts
  • Joined:03 Sep 2007

Posted 31 October 2012 - 09:20 AM

View Postzoser, on 31 October 2012 - 09:10 AM, said:


The problem on this thread as far as I can see that has led to the arousing of passions from all sides is that the NASA UFO issue seems to be being treated as a closed case solved and dispensed with years ago.  There is amazement being expressed by some as to why others even dare to still pursue the matter when studies exist (on another website) proving the entire phenomena to be nothing more that misquotations, ice, equipment anomalies, or space fragments.

I appreciate the tone and intent of this message, Zoser. The problem remains, you continue to avoid learning about this subject, or my views on it, and instead substitute your own imaginative guesses and intuitive 'must-bes' for reality.

The subject of unidentifiable visual phenomena outside a spacecraft has always been recognized as one of critical importance in Mission Control. Identifying and characterizing true anomalies can be -- and has been -- a critical mission success and crew safety issue. Not doing so in the past has led to undesirable consequences including loss of vehicle and crew.

Consequently, anything 'strange; needs to be spotted and identified quickly.

I'm sorry such a view, so different from the one you think I hold, should be surprising to you. Please read more carefully.

And please tell me why anybody should give ANY credence to claims by Maurice Chatelain. You brought him to the party, you own him.


#570    JimOberg

JimOberg

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,802 posts
  • Joined:03 Sep 2007

Posted 31 October 2012 - 09:26 AM

View Postzoser, on 31 October 2012 - 09:10 AM, said:

By the same token, the skeptics make a number of good points; small dots on screens moving however fast and changing trajectory also is not proof of ET (I would still love to know what they are though).  Even the best photos and clips are not really clear enough to draw that conclusion.

Excuse me, but if that were true, wouldn't you be reading and studying detailed prosaic explanations offered by people who actuially do/did spaceflight for a living. I'd recommend starting with my own '99 FAQs' but you can also look up astronaut Tom Jones' home page, or Story Musgrave's true views on the video anomalies of STS-80, rather than Clark McClelland's delusional ravings, for example.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users