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

#571    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 - 09:47 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

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:

Wow.  This is a terrific interview and represents the most complete and up to date analysis of the spherical phenomena so far.  I won't try and summarise it completely.

He describes how he has identified two distinct phenomena if I understood him correctly; the larger single materialisations, and the closer multiple spherical objects.

From the hours of footage he has analysed he states that these are self-illuminated.  he has showed the material to several experts; it appears to be a totally unknown phenomena.

I recommend holding any conclusions regarding the phenomena until this documentary has been studied.  Very exciting.  Off to watch the other parts now.

Posted Image


#572    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 - 10:25 AM

Just watched parts 3-5.  

Stubbs makes reference to Professor Weinburg who is taking the phenomena very seriously.  

The Tether Incident is analysed on this Part 3 of the interview.  Stubbs believes that the phenomena first appeared on film as early as 1962.  In the early days they were referred to as 'Fire Flies'.  Stubbs isn't making any conclusion on the objects.

He is convinced that JO and the others skeptics have not had the opportunity to study the phenomena as he has because of the shear amount of material at his disposal.  He has spent hours reviewing this material collected over years ; the others have not.

He is stating that there does not appear to be a cover up at NASA but there is indifference to the phenomena.  Stubbs has seen the phenomena on both the old tube cameras and the more modern CCD cameras.

Part 5 contains some interesting testimony from Gennadi Strekalov, and shows interesting impressive footage of anomalous objects close to the MIR space station.

Just paste these into the youtube search bar.:

Martyn Stubbs VS NASA 3

Martyn Stubbs VS NASA 4

Martyn Stubbs VS NASA 5

Posted Image


#573    JimOberg

JimOberg

    Psychic Spy

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

Posted 31 October 2012 - 10:42 AM

View Postzoser, on 31 October 2012 - 10:25 AM, said:

Just watched parts 3-5.  

Stubbs makes reference to Professor Weinburg who is taking the phenomena very seriously

Not according to Dr. Weinberg.

If you ask him directly -- what an astonishing idea!! -- he will tell you that Stubbs' account of their encounters is imaginary.

Imagine that!

That's what he told me.

Try it youself.

Surprise us. Check up on a 'fact' claimed by a UFOlogist.

There's got to be a first time, Zoser.

We're all rooting for you.


#574    JimOberg

JimOberg

    Psychic Spy

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

Posted 31 October 2012 - 10:46 AM

I like the Strekalov story, and an even more impressive one by Kovalyonok as he passed over the South African missile test range. Definitely worth digging more deeply into. They both saw large semi-transparent moving and changing shapes below them, against the Earth. What on Earth -- or above the Earth -- could they possibly have been? Seriously, I consider these reports 'high interest'.

But what about Maurice Chatelain, "former head of NASA communications", Zoser?


#575    JimOberg

JimOberg

    Psychic Spy

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

Posted 31 October 2012 - 10:50 AM

View Postzoser, on 31 October 2012 - 09:47 AM, said:

From the hours of footage he has analysed he states that these are self-illuminated.  he has showed the material to several experts; it appears to be a totally unknown phenomena.  

This is an important feature and does deserve further attention.

To determine the source of illumination of something in space you need to know where the Sun is and where other objects are relative to the camera's line-of-sight and field of view.

For the STS-48 zig-zag or the STS-75 'swarm', what are the basic illumination conditions, Zoser? Is it day time or night time in space when the videos were made?

BASIC stuff. Can anybody answer?


#576    bee

bee

    Forum Divinity

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

Posted 31 October 2012 - 11:42 AM

View PostChrlzs, on 30 October 2012 - 08:59 PM, said:

First up, I'm working FT at the moment and we are very busy - I just don't have time to delve deeply right now - maybe later.  But I'll just say that there are a number of things happening, only a small part of which is the 'bokehed' out-of-focus shapes, and the full answers depend not only on what bit of footage you are looking at, but also each individual 'thing'.  Apart from basic orbital mechanics (this is a very complex and sometimes counter-intuitive subject in itself), the previously mentioned water dumps, thruster exhaust, outgassing, interactions/collision between the particles themselves, and the fact that both the particles and the Shuttle (or ISS) not only are orbiting but also often maneuvering/turning/rotating (in 3 dimensions) all mean that fully analysing even a single speck is a non-trivial task.  Then there's reflectivity and light/shadow considerations...



You claimed that the disc shaped 'anomalies' (the moving notched pulsating blobs) on the Tether Incident footage were lens flare...

Chrlzs...

Quote

Note how the 'shapes' change as the lens aperture is altered. The shapes are NOT real objects, or real shapes (of objects in front of the camera)!!!! They cannot possibly be used - especially with randomly chosen additive/destructive filters - to reveal detail. They are optical artefacts and have no relevance to the real world whatsoever. Anyone with a passing knowledge of photography should know that - the term 'lens flare' is only laughed at by those completely ignorant of cameras and lenses.


you want to see lens flare on Tether footage......here you go

notice how completely different the lens flare is to the moving anomalies on the footage when the tether has broken...

but you knew that didn't you Chrlzs....fess up.... :D

I'm thinking that this bit of footage was NOT filmed in the Ultra Violet spectrum...?






footage from Martyn Stubbs...aka...secretnasaman


http://www.youtube.c...tnasaman/videos


#577    JimOberg

JimOberg

    Psychic Spy

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

Posted 31 October 2012 - 12:42 PM

View Postbee, on 31 October 2012 - 11:42 AM, said:

You claimed that the disc shaped 'anomalies' (the moving notched pulsating blobs) on the Tether Incident footage were lens flare...

I don't claim that. The dots are real -- I think small nearby objects.

The images are distorted by the camera optics.

For example, the notch is proof of that -- the clocking of the notch around the rim is precisely determined by where on the field of view the dot is. As the dots move, the notch 'rotates' -- but repeats with any other dot passing through the same position.Verify this yourself. That proves it is associated with the camera and is not a 'real' feature.

These kinds of camera characteristics are discussed in the console procedures handbook of the operator responsible for the camera, the 'INCO'. I've posted that document on my home page if you'd carfe to look it over to verify this.

These were off-the-shelf visible light cameras [not IR or UV] for monitoring payload bay activities, not making scientific observations. At low light levels -- what they weren't designed for -- their features aren't optimal. Over the years they were upgraded and modernized.


#578    JimOberg

JimOberg

    Psychic Spy

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

Posted 31 October 2012 - 12:44 PM

View Postbee, on 31 October 2012 - 11:42 AM, said:


footage from Martyn Stubbs...aka...secretnasaman


Have you ever seen the testimony from the astronauts on that mission?

It's generally ignored or suppressed on the UFO websites, so they might have succeeded in hiding it from you.


#579    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 - 01:40 PM

I like the phrase "spherical phenomena". Seems very appropriate somehow.
:)

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


#580    TheMacGuffin

TheMacGuffin

    Government Agent

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

Posted 31 October 2012 - 02:03 PM

View PostJimOberg, on 31 October 2012 - 09:11 AM, said:

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?


At least Boon now has his answer to that question about how Oberg explains the Apollo 11 picture.  As I said, it was in his book.

No, I have never looked at his home page, though.  Oberg seems to be running a very long advertisement for his website here.


#581    TheMacGuffin

TheMacGuffin

    Government Agent

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

Posted 31 October 2012 - 02:05 PM

View Postpsyche101, on 31 October 2012 - 06:01 AM, said:

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.

Oberg has given you his answer, which as I said was in his book--debris or space junk.


#582    Hazzard

Hazzard

    Stellar Black Hole

  • Member
  • 11,757 posts
  • Joined:25 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Inside Voyager 1.

  • Being skeptical of the paranormal is a good thing.

Posted 31 October 2012 - 02:07 PM

Its always refreshing reading your posts, Jim, I learn something new every time you do. Pearls to the Sus scrofa domesticus maybe, but I sure do appreciate it.

Thank you for taking the time.

I still await the compelling Exhibit A.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. -Edmund Burke

#583    Hazzard

Hazzard

    Stellar Black Hole

  • Member
  • 11,757 posts
  • Joined:25 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Inside Voyager 1.

  • Being skeptical of the paranormal is a good thing.

Posted 31 October 2012 - 02:09 PM

View PostTheMacGuffin, on 31 October 2012 - 02:03 PM, said:

At least Boon now has his answer to that question about how Oberg explains the Apollo 11 picture.  As I said, it was in his book.

No, I have never looked at his home page, though.  Oberg seems to be running a very long advertisement for his website here.


My guess is that he also wants people to learn science - Real science - and not just the science fiction nonsense you guys seem to enjoy.

I still await the compelling Exhibit A.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. -Edmund Burke

#584    bee

bee

    Forum Divinity

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

Posted 31 October 2012 - 02:11 PM

View PostJimOberg, on 31 October 2012 - 12:42 PM, said:


These were off-the-shelf visible light cameras [not IR or UV] for monitoring payload bay activities, not making scientific observations. At low light levels -- what they weren't designed for -- their features aren't optimal. Over the years they were upgraded and modernized.


really?............ :no:



NASA UFOs on STS-75 UV "TOP" camera  





Quote

This STS-75 special UV camera shows UFOs approaching Earth. They are NOT STARS! From Martyn Stubbs NASA UFO Archive.



#585    TheMacGuffin

TheMacGuffin

    Government Agent

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

Posted 31 October 2012 - 02:20 PM

View PostJimOberg, on 31 October 2012 - 09:05 AM, said:

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?


It has been discussed many times and at this late date I can't think of anything new to say about it.  Did any of them seriously believe it was a "satellite"?  I doubt it, at least not any satellite that was known to us at the time.  I mean, had someone else launched another big Skylab without anyone noticing?

There was a discussion about it here at this website, one of many that has kept going over the same ground again and again.

http://www.google.co...ved=1t:429,i:90





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users