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

#541    TheMacGuffin

TheMacGuffin

    Government Agent

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

Posted 31 October 2012 - 03:34 AM

View Postpsyche101, on 31 October 2012 - 03:24 AM, said:

But, what did they do in this case? They host the picture themselves on the Apollo archives?

That's a good question.  What did they do and why did the alter the picture?  That has happened quite a bit.

Of course I don't believe the NASA-Oberg "explanations" for all these things, but you know my background.  I have my reasons to think that many of those are hooey, and I have cast reasonable doubt on a number of them.

Of course, I haven't been very trusting of institutions since the days of Vietnam and Watergate--and all the stuff that has come out since then.  You guys down in Australia probably don't know what all that was like, at least not from the inside the way we do.

Edited by TheMacGuffin, 31 October 2012 - 04:32 AM.


#542    psyche101

psyche101

    The Customer.

  • Member
  • 38,300 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 31 October 2012 - 03:47 AM

View PostTheMacGuffin, on 31 October 2012 - 03:34 AM, said:

That's a good question.  What did they do and why did the alter the picture?  That has happened quite a bit.

Of course i don't believe the NASA-Oberg "explanations" for all these things, but you know my background.  I have my reasons to think that many of those are hooey, and I have cast reasonable doubt on a number of them.

Of course, I haven't been very trusting of institutions since the days of Vietnam and Watergate--and all the stuff that has come out since then.  You guys down in Australia probably don't know what all that was like, at least not from the inside the way we do.

But the picture remains on site unaltered to this day? That is where I am getting lost. It has not gone missing, it is still there.

I grabbed that link this morning. It is not airbrushed, it is publicly available in the Apollo Archives for all to see.  If a version was altered, it could be for advertising, sale to a magazine, anything, but the original version has not been removed to this day. I too will be interested to James explanation, I have to echo boon, it looks like a processing artifact to be perfectly honest. Nothing nefarious.

That is more than fair enough, our Government is nowhere near the size of yours, and do not seem to have much of an interest in ET other than that which is thrust upon them. If you knew our PM, I suspect you would feel that any UFO presence or such in Australia would have been removed with the Nixon administration. The last party was on the ball, but this lot. Crikey Moses, bunch of children. All they do is schoolyard bicker. An embarrassment to the nation I feel.
For sure you would have a far better understanding of the watergate years than we, but in school we do get out fair share of American Culture. I learned about the Pinta, Nina and Santa Maria before I learned about the Endeavour, and I knew who sat on an American dollar before I knew the faces on the Australian ones. Pretty ordinary I always thought. Seems better these days though.

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. - Dr Who

#543    S2F

S2F

    Bloodstained Hurricane

  • Member
  • 7,321 posts
  • Joined:22 May 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Right behind you!

  • I know someday
    you'll have a beautiful life
    I know you'll be a sun
    In somebody else's sky
    But why can't it be mine? -Pearl Jam

Posted 31 October 2012 - 05:05 AM

View Postmcrom901, on 31 October 2012 - 02:11 AM, said:


the bokeh are out of focus points of lights; which could be reflections from various things... in case of sts-75 it hasn't been established definitely that they were all ice particles... could there have been ice-particles out there? definitely.... but at what sizes, distances & at what sublimation rates? what about other options? did all the  particles behave in a similar fashion? did they all react to the rcs synchronously? were all of them close to the camera, or, were there other objects near the tether as well? has any plasma phenomenon been definitely ruled out? i dunno... leave alone paint chips

Hey mcrom, you are right of course, there likely was other debris in the field of view other than just ice crystals. In fact I think in the audio from the event someone stated that they were seeing debris from the broken tether if I'm not mistaken. Even though we can't positively identify each individual particle, I think that the prosaic 'ice/debris' conclusion is still the best contender. Could there be other things going on as well, like plasmas or some such? I don't know enough to say yea or nay but I think it is possible. The level of scrutiny to determine everything that was going on in the tether video with regards to the behavior of individual particles/'lights' would be a fairly time consuming endeavor but to what end? I think there are other mysteries more deserving of such investigation than this one. :tu:

"You want to discuss plausibility then you have to accept reality." -Mattshark

"Don't argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level then beat you with experience." -Obviousman

You know... the plural of ``anecdote'' is not ``data''. Similarly, the plural of ``random fact'' is not ``mystical symbolism''. -sepulchrave


#544    psyche101

psyche101

    The Customer.

  • Member
  • 38,300 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 31 October 2012 - 05:12 AM

View Postmcrom901, on 31 October 2012 - 02:11 AM, said:


the bokeh are out of focus points of lights; which could be reflections from various things... in case of sts-75 it hasn't been established definitely that they were all ice particles... could there have been ice-particles out there? definitely.... but at what sizes, distances & at what sublimation rates? what about other options? did all the  particles behave in a similar fashion? did they all react to the rcs synchronously? were all of them close to the camera, or, were there other objects near the tether as well? has any plasma phenomenon been definitely ruled out? i dunno... leave alone paint chips

Is there any record of UAP appearing in such large numbers previously?

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. - Dr Who

#545    booNyzarC

booNyzarC

    Forum Divinity

  • Closed
  • 13,536 posts
  • Joined:18 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 31 October 2012 - 05:17 AM

View PostTheMacGuffin, on 31 October 2012 - 03:22 AM, said:

Are you really such a trusting soul?  LOL  It's hard to believe, such faith in institutions.

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?


#546    S2F

S2F

    Bloodstained Hurricane

  • Member
  • 7,321 posts
  • Joined:22 May 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Right behind you!

  • I know someday
    you'll have a beautiful life
    I know you'll be a sun
    In somebody else's sky
    But why can't it be mine? -Pearl Jam

Posted 31 October 2012 - 05:20 AM

View Postpsyche101, on 31 October 2012 - 05:12 AM, said:

Is there any record of UAP appearing in such large numbers previously?

Speaking of plasmas, would a large number of plasmas in relatively close proximity attract or repulse one another? Would they coalesce or scatter or meander about aimlessly? Not sure if you would know the answer to that psyche, you were just the unfortunate individual I chose to ask. :whistle: :tu:

"You want to discuss plausibility then you have to accept reality." -Mattshark

"Don't argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level then beat you with experience." -Obviousman

You know... the plural of ``anecdote'' is not ``data''. Similarly, the plural of ``random fact'' is not ``mystical symbolism''. -sepulchrave


#547    booNyzarC

booNyzarC

    Forum Divinity

  • Closed
  • 13,536 posts
  • Joined:18 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 31 October 2012 - 05:29 AM

View PostSlave2Fate, on 31 October 2012 - 05:20 AM, said:

Speaking of plasmas, would a large number of plasmas in relatively close proximity attract or repulse one another? Would they coalesce or scatter or meander about aimlessly? Not sure if you would know the answer to that psyche, you were just the unfortunate individual I chose to ask. :whistle: :tu:

If I may venture a guess...  all of the above are possible, but none of the above seem an appropriate explanation for the tether video and others like it.  It seems very clear to me that these bokeh are just various and sundry particulates, some may be ice particles, some may be other small objects relatively close to the lens, but they all seem to exhibit the same general visual qualities.  As Jim has referred to them recently, they are just various forms of 'dandruff' related to normal operations in space, but with the tether incident in particular, how much extra 'fluff' would have been floating about as a result of the disaster itself?  More than normal I'd think.

I'm really not sure why MCROM presses this UAP point, and I'm not sure if he has ever really explained his reasoning, but I'd be curious to see if he is willing to elucidate about what he is thinking and why he is thinking it.


#548    psyche101

psyche101

    The Customer.

  • Member
  • 38,300 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 31 October 2012 - 05:40 AM

View PostbooNyzarC, on 31 October 2012 - 05:29 AM, said:

If I may venture a guess...  all of the above are possible, but none of the above seem an appropriate explanation for the tether video and others like it.  It seems very clear to me that these bokeh are just various and sundry particulates, some may be ice particles, some may be other small objects relatively close to the lens, but they all seem to exhibit the same general visual qualities.  As Jim has referred to them recently, they are just various forms of 'dandruff' related to normal operations in space, but with the tether incident in particular, how much extra 'fluff' would have been floating about as a result of the disaster itself?  More than normal I'd think.

I'm really not sure why MCROM presses this UAP point, and I'm not sure if he has ever really explained his reasoning, but I'd be curious to see if he is willing to elucidate about what he is thinking and why he is thinking it.

I can see where Mcrom is coming from. Violent sudden bursts of heat in a near vacuum might (and I do mean might :) ) have an odd effect in space. There is stil traces of atmosphere a long way out, it seems plausible that some gases might coalese in such conditions and the effect of igniting such pockets in an unfamiliar environment might produce an effect not seen before. The temp difference would be quite extreme and very sudden I imagine.

But I do not know why that would be a more valid explanation than ice particles. But mcrom is an "out of the box" sorta guy IMHO. (that's meant as a compliment mcrom :D )

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. - Dr Who

#549    S2F

S2F

    Bloodstained Hurricane

  • Member
  • 7,321 posts
  • Joined:22 May 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Right behind you!

  • I know someday
    you'll have a beautiful life
    I know you'll be a sun
    In somebody else's sky
    But why can't it be mine? -Pearl Jam

Posted 31 October 2012 - 05:42 AM

View PostbooNyzarC, on 31 October 2012 - 05:29 AM, said:

If I may venture a guess...  all of the above are possible, but none of the above seem an appropriate explanation for the tether video and others like it.  It seems very clear to me that these bokeh are just various and sundry particulates, some may be ice particles, some may be other small objects relatively close to the lens, but they all seem to exhibit the same general visual qualities.  As Jim has referred to them recently, they are just various forms of 'dandruff' related to normal operations in space, but with the tether incident in particular, how much extra 'fluff' would have been floating about as a result of the disaster itself?  More than normal I'd think.

I'm really not sure why MCROM presses this UAP point, and I'm not sure if he has ever really explained his reasoning, but I'd be curious to see if he is willing to elucidate about what he is thinking and why he is thinking it.

No problem booN, I was merely offering a line of inquiry. I'm not sure about plasmas being present in the tether video however the premise is interesting and at least possible, from my limited understanding of the phenomena at any rate. :tu: .

"You want to discuss plausibility then you have to accept reality." -Mattshark

"Don't argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level then beat you with experience." -Obviousman

You know... the plural of ``anecdote'' is not ``data''. Similarly, the plural of ``random fact'' is not ``mystical symbolism''. -sepulchrave


#550    psyche101

psyche101

    The Customer.

  • Member
  • 38,300 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 31 October 2012 - 05:48 AM

View PostSlave2Fate, on 31 October 2012 - 05:20 AM, said:

Speaking of plasmas, would a large number of plasmas in relatively close proximity attract or repulse one another? Would they coalesce or scatter or meander about aimlessly? Not sure if you would know the answer to that psyche, you were just the unfortunate individual I chose to ask. :whistle: :tu:

I know of plasmas that have coalesced in proximity to each other, but I am not sure about such great numbers. But yes, plasmas do coalesce. They will be able to repel too, as they hold a magnetic charge. Micro-particles affect the level of electricity (I am pretty sure!) so it would be dependant on the complexity of the plasma itself I would imagine. Charged nuclei inside of a plasma will repel each other, but the binding force of the plasma does not allow this. I figure this would have something to do with minimum size, but I am not sure what that size would be.
Given that, I figure the reactions would be random, as seen in the STS captures. I will rely on Bade to clarify, and point out any mistakes I may have made, but what we see is what a plasma would also show I think. I do not think what mcrom is proposing is out of the question, but I have not seen data to support that conclusion.

Except maybe the thruster flash in the 48 clip. Never seen plasma cause a thruster to fire :D

Edited by psyche101, 31 October 2012 - 05:52 AM.

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. - Dr Who

#551    TheMacGuffin

TheMacGuffin

    Government Agent

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

Posted 31 October 2012 - 05:50 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?


I've posted a bunch of them on here that got no comments at all, but I'm used to that.  Not even Oberg deigned to comment on them and this is supposed to be his "specialty".  I said openly that a number of the "explanations" he has given just turned out to be untrue, and people have known that for years.

In that Apollo 11 picture even Oberg and NASA said it was some kind of physical object, just not a UFO in the classical sense.  You should probably take that up with him rather than me.

I don't know what that one is, but I don't believe the NASA "explanation".

Edited by TheMacGuffin, 31 October 2012 - 05:50 AM.


#552    TheMacGuffin

TheMacGuffin

    Government Agent

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

Posted 31 October 2012 - 05:55 AM

And I didn't even post the Skylab UFO pictures again because that case has already been discussed on here many times before.  I have never believed that those were anything but some kind of ET thing--not from earth--and my mind was made up about that long ago.

Oberg can say that no UFOs were ever reported in space or that he can explain them all, but that's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard.  It's just plain false, and I have shown that many times, including on this thread.

I think that Gemini 11 UFO was nothing from earth either, and there have been others.

Edited by TheMacGuffin, 31 October 2012 - 05:57 AM.


#553    booNyzarC

booNyzarC

    Forum Divinity

  • Closed
  • 13,536 posts
  • Joined:18 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 31 October 2012 - 05:56 AM

View PostTheMacGuffin, on 31 October 2012 - 05:50 AM, said:

I've posted a bunch of them on here that got no comments at all, but I'm used to that.  Not even Oberg deigned to comment on them and this is supposed to be his "specialty".  

If they are similar to the sea monkey picture, I'm not surprised.  That's about as obvious as the nose on my face.


View PostTheMacGuffin, on 31 October 2012 - 05:50 AM, said:

I said openly that a number of the "explanations" he has given just turned out to be untrue, and people have known that for years.

Saying something and proving it are two very different things.  You can keep slinging mud all you want, but unless you have the cementing requirements of proof, it will all wash away with the next good rain.


View PostTheMacGuffin, on 31 October 2012 - 05:50 AM, said:

In that Apollo 11 picture even Oberg and NASA said it was some kind of physical object, just not a UFO in the classical sense.  You should probably take that up with him rather than me.

So you say, but again you have yet to substantiate the claim.  I've already asked Jim to clarify whether or not any of the comments you've attributed to this photo actually rightfully belong to this photo, and I guess we'll find out if he has the time to respond.



View PostTheMacGuffin, on 31 October 2012 - 05:50 AM, said:

I don't know what that one is, but I don't believe the NASA "explanation".

If the NASA explanation is actually what you claim it to be, I wouldn't believe it either.  But that's the way that strawman arguments so often end up isn't it?


#554    S2F

S2F

    Bloodstained Hurricane

  • Member
  • 7,321 posts
  • Joined:22 May 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Right behind you!

  • I know someday
    you'll have a beautiful life
    I know you'll be a sun
    In somebody else's sky
    But why can't it be mine? -Pearl Jam

Posted 31 October 2012 - 05:58 AM

View Postpsyche101, on 31 October 2012 - 05:48 AM, said:

I know of plasmas that have coalesced in proximity to each other, but I am not sure about such great numbers. But yes, plasmas do coalesce. They will be able to repel too, as they hold a magnetic charge. Micro-particles affect the level of electricity (I am pretty sure!) so it would be dependant on the complexity of the plasma itself I would imagine. Charged nuclei inside of a plasma will repel each other, but the binding force of the plasma does not allow this. I figure this would have something to do with minimum size, but I am not sure what that size would be.
Given that, I figure the reactions would be random, as seen in the STS captures. I will rely on Bade to clarify, and point out any mistakes I may have made, but what we see is what a plasma would also show I think. I do not think what mcrom is proposing is out of the question, but I have not seen data to support that conclusion.

Except maybe the thruster flash in the 48 clip. Never seen plasma cause a thruster to fire :D

Thanks psyche. The more I hear of plasmas the more fascinated I become. I really should dedicate myself to learning more about them but time is a commodity in short supply these days. I'll have to put it on the proverbial 'list'. ^_^ :tu:

"You want to discuss plausibility then you have to accept reality." -Mattshark

"Don't argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level then beat you with experience." -Obviousman

You know... the plural of ``anecdote'' is not ``data''. Similarly, the plural of ``random fact'' is not ``mystical symbolism''. -sepulchrave


#555    TheMacGuffin

TheMacGuffin

    Government Agent

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

Posted 31 October 2012 - 06:00 AM

View PostbooNyzarC, on 31 October 2012 - 05:56 AM, said:

If they are similar to the sea monkey picture, I'm not surprised.  That's about as obvious as the nose on my face.

If the NASA explanation is actually what you claim it to be, I wouldn't believe it either.  But that's the way that strawman arguments so often end up isn't it?


Go right ahead and look at them and then talk to me.  You're the only one who has been talking about sea monkeys and all that.

I see no reason why you should criticize ME for something Oberg said in his own book!  That's ridiculous too.  You keep turning it back on me as if I was the one who wrote it.

Boon, I don't believe one word that Oberg says, so don't blame me for what's in his book.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users