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

Can you prove that the channel wasn't accessible by the public, because if you can't isn't it a leap of faith to say he is a problem for the authorities because the footage was secret,

One could only prove that it WAS accessible to the public....not that it WASN'T.....and frankly JO couldn't do that

and he is in a better position to prove that than me....

I tried to find stuff about NASA TV and what public access there was back then.....but it's not exactly easy to find the info...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One could only prove that it WAS accessible to the public....not that it WASN'T.....and frankly JO couldn't do that

and he is in a better position to prove that than me....

I tried to find stuff about NASA TV and what public access there was back then.....but it's not exactly easy to find the info...

I had a quick look too myself the other day when you was talking about, I too drew a blank, although I didn't look for long tbh.

your guess is as good as mine....I expect they didn't want to draw attention to it all.

Keep it all within the 'UFO community'....and avoid it bursting into Main Stream Media...perhaps.

If the images are travelling through the air (or whatever)....could this be classed as hacking?

NASA is funded by the public...although Stubbs was in Canada....it could be argued that the footage belonged to the public (and was therefore not illegal?)

But it was Stubbs who brought it to the public's notice....

.

Well I think it would have been easy to shut Stubbs down in 2000, it was a different ball game back then, and nowhere near the amount of internet interest as there is now. I'm sure we'll see it differently though, and that's cool :) One things for sure though, you've taken my mind back to a time in this subject that I really enjoyed, got fond memories of back then.....the whole subject was more light hearted and enjoyable, and you could let your imagination run a bit wild as it was just a bit of fun then. And I still remember looking forward to ufo mag coming out so I could see what mail order vids were available.....thanks for the trip down memory lane :tu:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zoser - but now that you understand a little bit about lens reflections, will you please try to be a little more selective?

If you buy me a drink I'll think about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which science? Whose science? The institutional science or common sense science. The two are not necessarily the same.

So now you are making up terms as well?

Institutional science and common sense science?

Hang on, that's

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Good God Zoser. Do you enjoy doing this to yourself?

I can tell you that one thing I do know is that sense is not so common these days!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

talking about being selective..... :)

Let's be absolutely clear about this - are you *seriously* saying that you don't think that the image that Boony played with and that I reposted, is a lens reflection (aka 'lens flare')? My post was VERY specific - I was NOT referring to anything but that image.

I think you must have missed my post where I showed you ACTUAL lens reflection on the STS 75 tether footage...(before it broke)

I am on a slow connection - so I'm not watching it. What does that footage have to do with the specific image I was referring to???

note how utterly different to the Tether Incident Footage it is.

Say what? Even taking into account I'm not looking at whatever it is that you are making a point about, do you expect every lens reflection/flare to be identical? As a very simple example, in the case of the one shown in the image I referred to, it is the type of refraction/reflection caused by a flat piece of glass/plexiglass/whatever between the sensor and the object (could be a thick window/porthole, a filter in front of the lens, a filter within the camera..) Try shooting a night scene through a couple of thick panes of glass at an angle and see what I mean.

That type of 'lens flare' is quite different in appearance from the type that is caused by internal lens elements (CURVED ones), where the object is both displaced and heavily distorted and/or 'recolored'.

If you look here you will see an example of both types in the one image:

http://www.flickr.co...ter/2898075138/

Note that all the lights have been displaced up and to the left - that's the FIRST type of 'flare' - the one I was talking about.

But look at the rightmost 'flared' light - see the odd parasol shape - that's a distortion caused by curved internal elements - it is often accompanied by many more, like this:

http://www.flickr.co...den/4346671675/

All of these effects are often bundled together and labeled as 'lens flares' - it's a catch-all phrase to cover all 'unreal' artefacts caused by reflections and refractions.

basically you don't have a leg to stand on regarding lens reflection being the cause of the famous thether incident footage...

Really..? Where *exactly* have I made erroneous claims about that footage?

Please consider that a formal question - either point out my 'error/s' or withdraw the comment and apologise, thanks in advance...

even Oberg disagrees with you about this....

As above - CITE what I said and where Oberg disagrees with it. Or withdraw it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you buy me a drink I'll think about it.

Funnily enough, I'd be delighted, if you're ever down under! You sound like quite a character - we may not see eye to eye on much of what is being said on the maligned topic of ufology, but I see you are willing to listen and engage in at least some debate, you don't pretend to be in-the-know and I've actually seen you admit errors and accept (some) mundane earthly explanations..

All that sets you apart from one or two folks here, and I tips me 'at to yer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funnily enough, I'd be delighted, if you're ever down under! You sound like quite a character - we may not see eye to eye on much of what is being said on the maligned topic of ufology, but I see you are willing to listen and engage in at least some debate, you don't pretend to be in-the-know and I've actually seen you admit errors and accept (some) mundane earthly explanations..

All that sets you apart from one or two folks here, and I tips me 'at to yer.

Anyone who stays up all hours researching light in the sky has to be quirky by nature; yes I am one of those. I think I'm in good company here. :yes:

Thanks for the offer; maybe I'll take you up on that one day.

See you later Chris

Edited by zoser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's be absolutely clear about this - are you *seriously* saying that you don't think that the image that Boony played with and that I reposted, is a lens reflection (aka 'lens flare')? My post was VERY specific - I was NOT referring to anything but that image.

I wasn't talking about booN's image...and that was clear from what I said next....

I am on a slow connection - so I'm not watching it.

how convenient....

Really..? Where *exactly* have I made erroneous claims about that footage?

Please consider that a formal question - either point out my 'error/s' or withdraw the comment and apologise, thanks in advance...

As above - CITE what I said and where Oberg disagrees with it. Or withdraw it.

Go to this link/page... http://www.unexplain...c=232810&st=570

posts 576 and 577

but if you are refusing to look at the video.... :hmm:

:sleepy:

:D

.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't talking about booN's image...and that was clear from what I said next....

But you were replying to post I made that contained Boon's image. That 'anomaly' IS lens flare (or more precisely a reflection/refraction).

how convenient....

Gee, thanks for the sympathy. All you would have to do is post a still image showing exactly what you are talking about...

posts 576 and 577

You mean where you quoted me explaining ALL the different things that might be happening? Where I explained how lots of optical anomalies (eg the bokeh effect (not technically lens flare) which is applicable to the notched disks) are often lumped together as 'lens flares' by the ignorant, so I simply go with the flow? Where I also elaborated on the numerous issues that could cause the ice/debris particles to move in 'odd' ways?

So what particular effect are you referring to? Geez, at least give me a video timing. I'll be happy to explain in lengthy detail about ALL the effects that might cause a PARTICULAR anomaly. I'm sure you'd rather just keep it 'simple', and then accuse me (falsely) of mislabelling some particular effect of your choosing. But these things aren't simple. What explains one anomaly may not be applicable to another and they may be combinations of numerous factors. I'm not wading through some video and trying to explain every dam thing with one liners, just so you can point score by changing the goalposts.

NOMINATE the actual still frames or the video timings and I'll be happy to elaborate at great length. And be very specific, QUOTE the parts where you claim I contradicted Oberg. If it was the 'notched disks', both Oberg and I know exactly what they are and we agree. See what i did there? - I nominated the exact thing I was talking about. Just like I showed the exact image I was talking about, above..

Please try that approach sometime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

forget it Chrlzs...I've said all I want to say about it for now (sorry :))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Slightly off topic musical interlude...

We're Sgt. DB's Lonely Cohorts Band! We hope you will enjoy the show!

We're Sgt. DB's Lonely Cohorts Band! Sit back and let the evening go!

Sgt. DB's Lonely...

Sgt. DB's Lonely...

Sgt. DB's Lonely...

Cohorts Band!

:w00t:

:innocent::whistle:

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thread cleaned

Please avoid making derogatory personal observations about other thread participants.

Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apollo 7. October 1968. This "Green Fireball" was heading up from the earth rather than going down. LOL

Green%20Fire%20Ball%202b.jpg

Green%20Fireball%203%20%20Apollo%207.jpg

Anomalous%2BGreen%2BFireball%2BFilmed%2BFrom%2BSpace%2B%2528Enlrd%2BEdt%2529.jpg

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way the start out dim and get brighter, is what some satelites do as they reflect sunglight, but it is odd that there's 2 right beside eachother.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apollo 7. October 1968. This "Green Fireball" was heading up from the earth rather than going down. LOL

http://www.treurniet.ca/bigpic/orbtech.htm

:rolleyes:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why the ejected ball is always green-colored? Ejection of small green light ball from HL is due to radiation pressure produced by the interaction between very low frequency electromagnetic waves (VLF) and atmospheric ions (present in the central white-colored ball) through ion-acoustic waves (IAW).[12]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hessdalen_light

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why the ejected ball is always green-colored? Ejection of small green light ball from HL is due to radiation pressure produced by the interaction between very low frequency electromagnetic waves (VLF) and atmospheric ions (present in the central white-colored ball) through ion-acoustic waves (IAW).[12]

http://en.wikipedia....Hessdalen_light

Sounds like a very complicated game of snooker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apollo 7. October 1968. This "Green Fireball" was heading up from the earth rather than going down. LOL

Basic stuff:

Time/date of image?

Eyewitness reports -- what did the crew say?

Assessment of alternate possibilities such as film emulsion flaw?

Printer problem in later-generation copies?

And yes, before we get distracted, do we all agree that the Afanasyev story

as reported on the TV documentary is a fraud? And that Clark McClelland,

cited as a credible expert, believes Hitler escaped to a secret Antarctic base

where his Nazis built UFOs that later buzzed Washington, DC?

Edited by JimOberg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like a very complicated game of snooker.

sounds like a theoretical model of a complicated game of snooker....:)

from mcrom's link....

The theoretical model shows that the velocity of ejected light balls by HL cluster is of about 10,000 m s−1 in a good agreement with the observed velocity of some ejected light balls, which is estimated as 20,000 m s−1.[11] Why the ejected ball is always green-colored? Ejection of small green light ball from HL is due to radiation pressure produced by the interaction between very low frequency electromagnetic waves (VLF) and atmospheric ions (present in the central white-colored ball) through ion-acoustic waves (IAW)

and that section of the wiki page begins...

In spite of on-going research there is no convincing explanation to the origin of these lights. However, there are numerous working hypotheses.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sounds like a theoretical model of a complicated game of snooker....

.

Before you go voyaging off on expeditions of wild conjecture, wouldn't it be sensible to verify that the original story is worth it?

Seems to me that any reality-based agenda would take that step first, or risk getting hopelessly and uselessly lost. Again.

But that's just me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before you go voyaging off on expeditions of wild conjecture, wouldn't it be sensible to verify that the original story is worth it?

Seems to me that any reality-based agenda would take that step first, or risk getting hopelessly and uselessly lost. Again.

But that's just me.

well I have tried a bit...but it looks like it could be difficult (as you probably already know?)

http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/02files/Moon_Images_A22.html

but when you go to that thread on ATS...they had a major problem with disappearing links and images....

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread226113/pg9#pid3984135

then there is this....

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/catalog/70mm/magazine/?05

but the colours look weird and wrong on some of those images...like the AS07-05-1613 one

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS07-05-1613

never mind...probably a cover up, eh Jim?....... ;)

^_^

.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apollo 7. October 1968. This "Green Fireball" was heading up from the earth rather than going down. LOL

Asking again -- is there any evidence these are anything but ink splatter on some 4th generation reprint?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

never mind...probably a cover up, eh Jim?.......

That's not the first, or even the 101st, explanation that comes to mind.

How about yet another silly wild goose film emulsion chase, for the peanut gallery to thrill over.

As Hynek warned, no photo is of any evidential use without testimony of the person who took it and saw the anomaly himself.

Why should these be any exception?

What's the eyewitness testimony regarding these photos? Where can I find it?

Where did you find it?

You didn't?

How pathetic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not the first, or even the 101st, explanation that comes to mind.

How about yet another silly wild goose film emulsion chase, for the peanut gallery to thrill over.

As Hynek warned, no photo is of any evidential use without testimony of the person who took it and saw the anomaly himself.

Why should these be any exception?

What's the eyewitness testimony regarding these photos? Where can I find it?

Where did you find it?

You didn't?

How pathetic.

jeeeeezus I'm new to the image...it looks interesting, probably a bit of a mystery by the looks of it.

I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition....

:no:

.

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.