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

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...

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...?

[media=]

[/media]

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

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

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

:)

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?

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.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.com/imgres?num=10&hl=en&biw=1280&bih=685&tbm=isch&tbnid=RZJnKtbIcZqE6M:&imgrefurl=http://www.disclose.tv/forum/the-gigantic-skylab-3-mothership-incident-in-1973-t4555.html&docid=gxY-MUOeVWCq2M&imgurl=http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_OhaHEeWqYU0/STalc8kWWLI/AAAAAAAAC0w/5PWl3vnP_ME/s400/skylabthreeufo1.png&w=400&h=322&ei=2DCRUPW0HI_Y8gSxqYDACA&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=446&vpy=309&dur=3595&hovh=201&hovw=250&tx=137&ty=98&sig=114704889851551226570&page=1&tbnh=148&tbnw=219&start=0&ndsp=20&ved=1t:429,i:90

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

5Gfib.jpg?1

zsfRs.jpg?1

PQOiT.png?1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pearls to the Sus scrofa domesticus maybe.

Same to you, buddy.

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?

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.

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.

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?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 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.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

[media=]

[/media]

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?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.

Anyone have more on this?

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

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.