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

#586    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 - 02:23 PM

View PostHazzard, on 31 October 2012 - 02:07 PM, said:

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

Far better if we take evidence and view points from a variety of sources rather than putting ones ova all in one's alveus.  We can trade latin phrases some other time if you wish Haz.

However much better to spend your time I would suggest watching the interview with Martyn Stubbs.  He has analysed the phenomena more than anyone else because he has virtually all the footage to do so.

Posted Image


#587    TheMacGuffin

TheMacGuffin

    Government Agent

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

Posted 31 October 2012 - 02:23 PM

Here are the famous Skylab pictures--one more time.  An oldie but a goody, a strange red object that was not supposed to be there.  Very likely it will never be identified.  How could it be?

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image


#588    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 - 02:26 PM

View PostTheMacGuffin, on 31 October 2012 - 02:23 PM, said:

Here are the famous Skylab pictures--one more time.  An oldie but a goody, a strange red object that was not supposed to be there.  Very likely it will never be identified.  How could it be?



Very nice.  Extremely curious shape and almost impossible to explain away I would have thought.

Posted Image


#589    TheMacGuffin

TheMacGuffin

    Government Agent

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

Posted 31 October 2012 - 02:27 PM

View PostHazzard, on 31 October 2012 - 02:07 PM, said:

Pearls to the Sus scrofa domesticus maybe.

Same to you, buddy.


#590    booNyzarC

booNyzarC

    Forum Divinity

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

Posted 31 October 2012 - 02:40 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?

Hi James.  Can you clear up a question for us?

MacGuffin seems to be under the impression that you have commented regarding photo AS11-36-5319, saying that it is space junk.  If you would be so kind as to clarify whether or not this is the case, I'd appreciate it.



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.

View PostTheMacGuffin, on 31 October 2012 - 02:05 PM, said:

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

Apologies for doubting you McG, but the last time you said something was in a book it turned out not to be true.  I'd rather ask the man himself if you don't mind.

Would you care to cite the specific pages of his book which you say have this explanation for the photo which I've called the giant sea monkey in space; AS11-36-5319?


#591    TheMacGuffin

TheMacGuffin

    Government Agent

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

Posted 31 October 2012 - 02:40 PM

View PostHazzard, on 31 October 2012 - 02:07 PM, said:

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.


Oh Jim, Jim, Jim, every time you show up here it just makes me talk like I'm in a soap opera.



Edited by TheMacGuffin, 31 October 2012 - 02:41 PM.


#592    TheMacGuffin

TheMacGuffin

    Government Agent

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

Posted 31 October 2012 - 02:47 PM

View PostbooNyzarC, on 31 October 2012 - 02:40 PM, said:

Hi James.  Can you clear up a question for us?

Apologies for doubting you McG, but the last time you said something was in a book it turned out not to be true.  I'd rather ask the man himself if you don't mind.

Would you care to cite the specific pages of his book which you say have this explanation for the photo which I've called the giant sea monkey in space; AS11-36-5319?



My biggest fan has spoken again. I had no idea he was collecting all my past posts.  Why not just let Oberg explain what's in his book, since you won't believe me even when I post passages quoted from it.

Edited by TheMacGuffin, 31 October 2012 - 02:49 PM.


#593    booNyzarC

booNyzarC

    Forum Divinity

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

Posted 31 October 2012 - 03:10 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.

I agree psyche.  Hopefully Jim will take the time to clear this up.


#594    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 - 03:12 PM

Just doing a search for more recent material by Martyn Stubbs and I can across this awesome footage.  



Posted Image


#595    JimOberg

JimOberg

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,832 posts
  • Joined:03 Sep 2007

Posted 31 October 2012 - 03:17 PM

View PostHazzard, on 31 October 2012 - 02:09 PM, said:

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.

What I want to learn here -- aside from some nice friendships I've made -- is how to more clearly explain some of these genuinely unearthly and counter-intuitive features of spaceflight. Seeing how my explanations fall short, or can be misunderstood or misinterpreted, is of significant help in future explanatory efforts.

Just talking to the choir, or to echo chambers, or fans -- like Bill Nye and his buddies do -- is a petrified and constipated approach to subjects that are NOT cut-and-dried but still contain potentials for surprise and revelation. IMHO.

It's part of an over-arching principal I've learned about communications. It's not a broadcast process -- throwing stuff out into the air for anyone to pick up -- but a transmission process, which requires two ends, a sender and receiver. To send efficiently, you really have to have some idea about the receiver and their background, things they know, don't know, and most importantly, mis-know.

So I deeply appreciate the energies and creativity put into critical responses to my existing writings and my comments -- it is a continuous process of discovery and [I hope] self-improvement. And frequently it significantly sharpens my thinking on prosaic explanations -- the last-June Israeli/mideast pseudo-UFO for example. My initial hypothesis, while true in generalities, was sloppy in its particulars, and I was forced to sharpen it. Result -- better arguments all around.

Thanks, everyone. And I do mean EVERY one.


#596    JimOberg

JimOberg

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,832 posts
  • Joined:03 Sep 2007

Posted 31 October 2012 - 03:23 PM

View Postbee, on 31 October 2012 - 02:11 PM, said:

really?............

Really. There was also, for the tether experiment, a UV camera hard mounted pointed up the +Z axis [directly up out of the payload bay], for tether observations. Some of its images were downlinked real time but most were recorded.

You can recognize which camera it is by the digital data fields superimposed on the image. If there aren't any such fields, or if the image pans/tilts, it's a 'regular' payload bay camera -- as I recall my INCO friends telling me.

I can double-check this if you'd like. Or ask Andy, Franklin, or Claude, some of my buddies who were ON the mission.

In that regard -- HAVE you ever seen the statements guys like mission commander Andy Allen have made about the video?

Or do you just frequent websites where such explanatory evidence is excluded?


#597    synchronomy

synchronomy

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,124 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ontario Canada

  • Facinating

Posted 31 October 2012 - 03:24 PM

View Postzoser, on 31 October 2012 - 03:12 PM, said:

Just doing a search for more recent material by Martyn Stubbs and I can across this awesome footage.  


That's very interesting footage, but...
We need more info. What mission was it? Date and time?
There's no commentary on it either. Maybe it's a legitimate satellite?
Probably the best piece of video I have seen from him, I would have thought at least he would be providing some comments.
Anyone have more on this?

At the heart of science is an essential balance between two seemingly contradictory attitudes--an openness to new ideas, no matter how bizarre or counterintuitive they may be, and the most ruthless skeptical scrutiny of all ideas, old and new.
This is how deep truths are winnowed from deep nonsense. -- Carl Sagan

#598    JimOberg

JimOberg

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,832 posts
  • Joined:03 Sep 2007

Posted 31 October 2012 - 03:28 PM

View PostTheMacGuffin, on 31 October 2012 - 02:20 PM, said:

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?

I've known and worked with all three of those men since the late 1970s, and a few years ago specifically discussed this image when it unexpectedly rose again from the dead. Not one of them ever seriously believed it was anything BUT another satellite. The only different thing about it, always just a point of light to their eyeballs, was it seemed brighter than other satellites they occasionally saw.

But the distance is the unknown key. It could easily be that bright if it were a small insulation blanket fragment floating only a few hundred feet away. They had no visual or instrumental means of determining its range.


#599    JimOberg

JimOberg

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,832 posts
  • Joined:03 Sep 2007

Posted 31 October 2012 - 03:31 PM

View Postzoser, on 31 October 2012 - 02:26 PM, said:

Very nice.  Extremely curious shape and almost impossible to explain away I would have thought.

The mystery is why is ONE of the four images [a later one, not the first one] different from both the other three and the visual perceptions of all three witnesses? What they saw, and photographed 3 out of 4 times, was a point of light. What might be the cause of the 4th image looking like a squiggle?


#600    Sweetpumper

Sweetpumper

    Heatseeker

  • Member
  • 10,637 posts
  • Joined:19 Dec 2003
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Avengers Tower

Posted 31 October 2012 - 03:32 PM

View Postsynchronomy, on 31 October 2012 - 03:24 PM, said:

.
Anyone have more on this?

That looks like our flying grocery bag again, even has handles.  There is a lot of debris up there.

"At it's most basic level, science is supposed to represent the investigation of the unexplained, not the explanation of the uninvestigated." - Hunt for the Skinwalker

"The ultimate irony of the Disclosure movement is that it deeply distrusts officialdom, while simultaneously looking to officialdom for the truth." - Robbie Graham Silver Screen Saucers




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users