Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 7
Alisdair.MacDonald

More NASA UFO's?

Are these UFO's?   51 members have voted

  1. 1. Do these videos contain images of UFO's?


Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

1,529 posts in this topic

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

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.

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Image11%20-%20apollo11.jpg

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.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

skylab.jpg

Actually, I think it is.

Edited by TheMacGuffin
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

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..

[media=]

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:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

skylab.jpg

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Skylab UFO-1973

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 7

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.