PDA

View Full Version : Discovery UFO in 1991



Jairo
2010-Feb-02, 04:43 PM
In an STS mission in 1991, there is a footage of a dot abruptly accelerating in the sky, to avoid a "beamshot" from the Earth.

Has is been debunked before?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCUTtgj8ZnM

Thanks.

Argos
2010-Feb-02, 05:03 PM
Aldrinīs analysis on the video says it all.

Bobbar
2010-Feb-02, 06:21 PM
Hello. Long time lurker, first time poster here.

I'd like to post my thoughts on what's going on in this video.

As Buzz said, there is lots of stuff moving around in the video, and it is also well known that there are many small objects floating around in LEO; Paint flecks, ice, bits of metal and fabric, etc. (As mentioned in the video) Most likely all we are seeing is one of these objects, possibly originating from the shuttle its self, moving right along side with the ship. (Also mentioned in the video) Now, the shuttle also has an Orbital Maneuvering System, OMS, which uses small rocket motors to push the shuttle to change its orientation while in orbit. The 'flashes' we see in the video are likely from one of these thrusters firing to make a small adjustment to the crafts position. This in-turn makes the small piece of debris appear to move and change direction. The shuttle is moving in relation to the small dot. As for the 'beam' that crosses the screen shortly afterwards, see the first sentence in this paragraph. :)

-Bobby

LaurelHS
2010-Feb-02, 06:31 PM
Welcome to BAUT, Bobbar. :)

slang
2010-Feb-02, 08:59 PM
Has [th]is been debunked before?

I didn't watch the entire video but I think this is from mission STS-48 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS-48). If you search this forum for that mission name you'll find several threads that deal with it. Or read NASA STS-48 "UFO" VIDEO (http://www.debunker.com/texts/sts48_ufo.html) by James Oberg.

manxman
2010-Feb-08, 12:46 PM
to mod.

could you delete the pending posts ive edited my first post into this second one thanks.



the footage is worthless as the probability of thruster burn is to great the only way to know for sure is to know the precise time the footage was shot and have that days execute package.
dont just take jims word that he has done it.



and you people probably rate obergs opinion.

without any proofing of his sources he makes claim after unfounded claim.
he constructs his words well and gives very plausible sounding prosaic explanations on anomalous events which keep you at a glance intellectuals happy to carry on trumpeting his words without taking one minute to check any of his claims.

I first noticed this after googling his name and re-alising just how many forums he visits to argue and disrupt and distract away from some very good research by others in threads on shuttle footage.

And jim claims anything in discussions that suit his side as the convo flows, completely reversing his stance on differing facts as the pages pass by, never once have i seen him post a crucial link to data that he bases his theories on.


Jim reckons that ice crystals from a waste water dump were responsible for sts 75 tether footage shot more than an hour later what he doesn’t say as was proven to him beyond doubt was that they could only be there for 10 mins max in anything like the volume in the footage and that took up about 5 pages before jim started using the 10 mins accurate example.

The whole thing was mute anyway as jim had lied all those years ago he had the execute package and thats why i said he lied, he said he was using that as his data source .. i also have the package for that day this is what mine says the waste water dumps were deleted not cancelled and not added but deleted from the schedule so as to be used by the fes through the switcher valve and line to direct/take waste water straight to the fes this line was only carried upto then twice on flights 73 and 75.

There were several reasons why the waste water dump was cancelled and they were to do with the disruption to the time frames of experiments onboard plus potable water tank 4/D had frozen lines so they used a switcher line installed for that flight and flight 73 to aid with the fes experiments and they also had to keep the shuttle as smooth a flight as possible at that time so a waste water dump has a propulsive effect on the shuttle which needs corrected.

He went on to argue the other sources of ice so i checked deeper and longer and eliminated all as the shuttle environment needed to be pristine for the afore mentioned experiments the steam released by the fes was part of 2 separate experiments to see how it reacted and it form to their surprise a perfect doughnut.

Its been awhile since i debated this with Oberg and i had no vested interest as i don’t think hundreds of alien ships surrounded that tether.

I also can without doubt shred any ice or particle theory.

not to mention his precision in the shuttles orientation at the time etc. .. only thing is jim as he had to admit later had used the wrong days footage to base it on.
not to mention his claim that in that orientation the shuttle was filming down towards the stricken tether as the ice particles decended away from the rear of the shuttle.
debris falls down and infront of the shuttle not behind and just carries on going lower and more distant out infront as its still doing the same speed near enough in a shorter orbit and the tether was actually 50 miles higher than the shuttle .. he just says anything thats plausible in between factiods.

I personally think it was an optical effect from filming energy sources .. the tether is the perfect example its size is distorted by the energy its giving off my guess is its effecting its environment in some way yet to be established abit like dust attracts moisture until a rain cloud appears in our atmosphere but in space some kind of arcing is taking place.



The main thing is either do abit of research on jim Oberg or don’t expect to quote him and sound credible to anyone who has spent a few hours doing so.
The man is a book and article salesman and thats it never stops spamming his site on the forums he visits.

Swift
2010-Feb-08, 02:53 PM
to mod.

could you delete the pending posts ive edited my first post into this second one thanks.

You've got it.

In the future, the best way to get a mods attention is to click on the Report Post button http://www.bautforum.com/picture.php?albumid=150&pictureid=1101 in the upper right corner of every post.

Swift
2010-Feb-08, 04:52 PM
The main thing is either do abit of research on jim Oberg or don’t expect to quote him and sound credible to anyone who has spent a few hours doing so.
The man is a book and article salesman and thats it never stops spamming his site on the forums he visits.
manxman,

Some friendly moderator advice to a new member.

We try to focus on the ideas and the evidence (or lack thereof) that is presented, and not on the person. Our debates/attacks should be aimed at those and not who the person is.

You might want to look over the the rules for this board (http://www.bautforum.com/forum-rules-faqs-information/32864-rules-posting-board.html#post564845) and some particular ones for the Conspiracy theory section (http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/86593-advice-conspiracy-theory-supporters.html). One of our primary rules is to always keep it civil.

Thanks for your participation.

JayUtah
2010-Feb-08, 08:00 PM
...

Okay, I'll bite.

...which keep you at a glance intellectuals happy to carry on trumpeting his words...

Without commenting on what "his words" may refer to specifically, I will say that it is unwise to assume your audience and/or critics are unqualified or uninformed. BAUT participants are diverse, and include people who are professionally qualified and experienced in spacecraft design and operations. Dismissing criticism a priori as "at-a-glance intellectualism" doesn't bode well for any discussion that might follow your points.

And jim claims anything in discussions that suit his side as the convo flows...

The bulk of your post here refers vaguely to discussions that apparently occurred elsewhere. If that discussion is going to form the basis of your claims here, then it would be wise to identify that discussion and let the readers here form their own opinions rather than to trust your summary. We are not bound to agree that what Oberg has criticized is "good research" nor that his participation amounts to "disruption."

He went on to argue the other sources of ice so i checked deeper and longer and eliminated all as the shuttle environment needed to be pristine for the afore mentioned experiments...

You claim to have eliminated all sources of intentional ice/particle release. Did you consider unintentional, happenstance sources?

I also can without doubt shred any ice or particle theory.

Including theories you have not yet heard and whose merits you don't know? This statement does not make you sound like the dispassionate commentator you seem to say you are.

I personally think it was an optical effect from filming energy sources...

And your evidence is ... ?

...my guess is its effecting its environment in some way yet to be established.

Sounds like your explanation is purely speculative at this point. That makes it seem disingenuous for you to take Jim Oberg to task for unsupported claims while at the same time proposing a "guess."

The main thing is either do abit of research on jim Oberg...

I'm not sure whether "research on Jim Oberg" is intended as an ad hominem rebuttal. Are you suggesting we research his career and practices, or research his specific claims? Oberg is known to many of us here, has an account on this site, and has participated from time to time in various discussions. Please do not assume that our treatment of his work is done in ignorance.

The man is a book and article salesman and thats it never stops spamming his site on the forums he visits.

He is indeed a professional journalist, historian, and author. Many of the people he engages in debate and criticism are also authors hoping to gain recognition and income from their work. If you'll be more specific, we can judge for ourselves whether pecuniary motives apply in either direction to the discussions in which he has participated.

manxman
2010-Feb-10, 02:33 PM
point 1

the reason i joined baut was for more educated views on differing subject matter.
until then i only lurked the site.

plus your not biting here, your casting for a bite, all you really see here is an opportunity to show me what a clever wordsmith you are and in your next reply you will probably donate 80% of it to this first reply alone.

point 2 jim.
do your own checking simply google jim or james oberg plus forum.
i stated my simple findings.

point 3 see point 2


point 4
is just a play on words from you, i have no idea whats in the video as i previously stated .. i only went on to hazzard a guess and add it to a blizzard of previous guesses from others , and thats all they are theories. jims included, only many more theories have been much better researched.
only thing i have done is a proccess of elimination to know what we are not seeing personally i dont care if it turns out to be some kind of energy or something exotic like space plankton i dont really care, what interested me originally was the delibrate and immediate disinfo peddled about martins footage.

point 5 see above point 4

point 6
did i try to claim any different see point 4.

point 7
another wordsmithian reply as my intent is quite clear.

point 8
as stated i was refuting the validity of using his material as source material when making recommendations to those seeking advice.
you should be able to trust your source in a debate not have to research his findings only to find out he was wrong.


as for the man himself i have never met him nor do i suppose i will.
i have no personal axe to grind against or with him.
basically jim can spin his material far and wide as far as i am concerned and good luck.

what i am saying the quality of said material is very dubious in the areas i have delved into, and i will make it qite clear i do mean only the areas ive delved.

Swift
2010-Feb-10, 03:07 PM
Manxman,

Since you ignored my advice, you have been given an infraction. Calling what other members legitimately post "wordsmithing" and telling them to just go google things is not acceptable. You need to directly address what they bring up, and not dismiss them out of hand. The rule here is to attack the idea, not the person, and you are attacking the person.

Two other points. I strongly suggest you learn the quote function, or find some other way to indicate exactly which post and which part of a post you are addressing. I had a lot of trouble following what you were saying in this post.

Second, I'm not really sure what point you are making. Do you think there is a UFO/ET here? Are you debunking it? Or are you just against Jim Oberg? Please clearly state your point.

manxman
2010-Feb-10, 04:36 PM
swift i thought i had made myself clear i have seen james aberg cited several times by people here as factual.

i think it is important that his shuttle phenomena explanations are taken as only theories, and not fact as the ones i have examined are littered with inacuracy.

i have no idea what was happening around sts 75 more than a guess however i do know lots of things that were not happening but i would not of dreamed of expanding any further on the post i made had it not been for the reply.

i understand this thread is about 91 and from previous jay utah posts in other subjects i fully re-alise how subtly confrontational his posting style is hence my pre-emptive defensive post.

i dont go much for bully the newbie no matter how subtle.

however i have somethings/questions i feel i will get answered properly after my initial newbie baiting period is over.

PetersCreek
2010-Feb-10, 04:52 PM
i understand this thread is about 91 and from previous jay utah posts in other subjects i fully re-alise how subtly confrontational his posting style is hence my pre-emptive defensive post.

i dont go much for bully the newbie no matter how subtle.

however i have somethings/questions i feel i will get answered properly after my initial newbie baiting period is over.


The distinction to be made here is that the confontation is not personal. Directly confronting assertions is not bullying, whether one is a newbie or an old hand.

With that said, if you disagree with a moderator's action, don't do so in-thread. Take it to PM or report the post.

JayUtah
2010-Feb-10, 05:22 PM
...

plus your not biting here, your casting for a bite...

I disagree. I interpreted your post as "calling out" the participants in this thread. It seemed to provoke a response. After several days of silence, I decided to see whether the provocation was real.

...all you really see here is an opportunity to show me what a clever wordsmith you are

A detailed examination often comes across as pedantic to those who are unaccustomed to it. However it is often the duty of a reviewer to identify the hidden assumptions in another's argument, or to point out missed opportunities. Real researchers actively seek such things out.

do your own checking simply google jim or james oberg plus forum.

Unacceptable. You are clearly referring to specific conversations that apparently exist on the Internet. Please kindly provide a reference or link. I will not play guessing games with you.

I am formally requesting that you provide a hyperlink to the forum in question.

i stated my simple findings.

Regarding Jim Oberg you simply made allegations about what he had done elsewhere. You provided no basis for us to judge for ourselves whether your opinion of his arguments was accurate.

Regarding the potential for ice or debris to explain this video, you simply claimed to have eliminated a few intentional sources for the release of such material and then boldly claimed that you could refute any such argument that would come along. Since the description of your process was not congruent with such a claim, I asked for more information.

i have no idea whats in the video as i previously stated .. i only went on to hazzard a guess...

The problem is that by taking Oberg to task for what you allege to be a lack of proper support and argumentation, you establish what you believe to be the acceptable standards for such proposals and subsequent investigation. Your unwillingness to apply those same standards to you own proposals suggests a double standard, which is evidence of bias. Without the ability to judge for ourselves the propriety of Oberg's remarks, we cannot take your likely biased assessment of them at face value.

only thing i have done is a proccess of elimination to know what we are not seeing...

But there is no reason to supposed that the process of elimination here is complete or valuable. I asked you questions to determine the extent of your study, and you dismissed it as "wordsmithing."

as stated i was refuting the validity of using his material as source material when making recommendations to those seeking advice.

No, you have made unfounded allegations as an attempt to support what is essentially an ad hominem case against Jim Oberg.

i have no personal axe to grind against or with him.

If you say so, but it appears that you do.

what i am saying the quality of said material is very dubious in the areas i have delved into, and i will make it qite clear i do mean only the areas ive delved.

But we have no way of knowing whether you have accurately characterized Oberg's claims. You seem uninterested in examining the methods by which you have dismissed his work as "dubious." You have established no connection between what you claim is "dubious" and what has been incorporated here by reference. You have applied a double standard to his claims and yours.

JayUtah
2010-Feb-10, 05:33 PM
...

... i thought i had made myself clear i have seen james aberg cited several times by people here as factual.

Jim Oberg is cited here as a reasonably well informed, properly qualified authority on several subjects this forum treats.

i think it is important that his shuttle phenomena explanations are taken as only theories, and not fact...

What is your evidence that they are being presented here as fact (i.e., above contention)?

...from previous jay utah posts in other subjects i fully re-alise how subtly confrontational his posting style is...

It is not subtely confrontational; it is overtly confrontational. Our rules clearly say that ideas presented here will be challenged, often with vigor. You may not excuse yourself from the obligation to undergo an examination of your claims. Calling your audience wannabe-intellectuals is not a very sound moral high ground from which to cast doubt on the nature of this debate.

You alleged that Oberg acted inappropriately. I would like to see firsthand the evidence of that behavior, since it appears to be publicly available.

You allege that you have eliminated ice and particles as an explanation for the STS video, and that such a refutation stands against all theories categorically. I propose to challenge your refutation, and by posting here you agree to participate in that challenge.

In judging Oberg's theory and his presentation of it, you have established what you believe to be the appropriate criteria for an explanatory theory and its supporting documentation. I propose to discover whether you have held your own theories to the same standard; and if not, whether you have judged Oberg's findings according to a bias.

You have suggested that Oberg is accepted here simply because we don't know any better. I propose to discover whether you have taken appropriate steps to discover whether that's the reason for his general acceptance.

Yes, I am confronting your claims. That's what this forum is for.

manxman
2010-Feb-10, 05:38 PM
what does all the above have to do with discovery in 91 jay utah.

if you want a list of forums he visits and want to wade through page after page of back and forth sillyisms on abovetopsecret.com etc etc thats upto you.
his motives for doing what he does more intrigue me about him more than his factual weaknesses, i dont understand what he could possibly get out of trading insults with kids the amount of time he spends doing it most days.

however even that site provides some nugget links now and then and reading both the footage holder martin stubbs and jim oberg both going at it there made for an interesting little read.
not a site i would ever join as its all combat posting and reptilian masters etc. .. but jim does day after day after day.

Swift
2010-Feb-10, 06:23 PM
OK. I don't care what Jim Oberg does or does not do on any other forum or website. I don't want to see some third-hand debate on what he does or doesn't do elsewhere - it just leads to pointless debates (such as is going on here).

If someone wants to propose something about the 1991 Discovery UFO, then do so. Make clear what you are proposing did or didn't happen and expect to back it up if the claims involve anything out of the mainstream.

Anything else, take it elsewhere. And if anything that doesn't follow these guidelines gets posted, I'm closing this thread and infracting the individual.

JayUtah
2010-Feb-10, 09:02 PM
...

what does all the above have to do with discovery in 91 jay utah.

You're proposing to discount the pertinent findings of a noted investigator on an ad hominem basis. The ad hominem discussion is now disallowed, but that's all you referred to in this post. It's therefore disingenuous of you to accuse me of going off-topic.

I've asked you question regarding your treatment of the Discovery sighting. Will you answer those questions?

Weltraum
2010-Feb-10, 11:20 PM
I see something to lend credence to the explanation that the objects are small particles near a thruster. Namely, in addition to the "spacecraft" which moves away at a rapid pace following the flashing, there is a second particle appearing nearer the source of the flash (that is, lower and to the left; watch for it moving away at the same instant) which also moves away in the same direction, albeit more slowly.

I would easily conclude that both are small particles which were affected by the thruster, only in differing amounts based on where exactly they had been located in relation to the thruster.

JayUtah
2010-Feb-10, 11:25 PM
That's a reasonable suggestion. If I understand manxman I believe he dismisses all explanations having to do with ice or particles because he believes he has systematically eliminated all sources of such material. In any case, he claims he can refute all such theories, but he isn't specific about how.

J Riff
2010-Feb-11, 03:27 AM
These space eggs are interesting, but it occurs to me that if they are so interested in hanging around and watching us... floating over Chicago, or watching thunderstorms and so forth, then would they not also be attracted to the shuttle, fly over and have a good look at it ?
I'm also curious whether anyone knows what the astronauts themselves are instructed to do in the event an 'alien craft' should appear.

PetersCreek
2010-Feb-11, 04:35 AM
I'm also curious whether anyone knows what the astronauts themselves are instructed to do in the event an 'alien craft' should appear.

That is not the topic of this thread, so please do not pusue it here.

manxman
2010-Feb-11, 11:13 AM
That's a reasonable suggestion. If I understand manxman I believe he dismisses all explanations having to do with ice or particles because he believes he has systematically eliminated all sources of such material. In any case, he claims he can refute all such theories, but he isn't specific about how.

i have already said in my first post to this thread that i think the discovery footage is in all probability thruster effect on debris.

there is only one way to know for sure and thats to has been explained.
footage time tags and daily execute package.

my only interest in shuttle footage alledging ice is to do with sts 75 and not to be confused again or used as a full spectrum conclusion again jayutah thank you.

JayUtah
2010-Feb-11, 03:17 PM
...

i have already said in my first post to this thread that i think the discovery footage is in all probability thruster effect on debris.

You said a lot of things in your first post. Are you saying that this is what you meant when you wrote

the footage is worthless as the probability of thruster burn is to great the only way to know for sure is to know the precise time the footage was shot and have that days execute package.

I concede that saying "the probability of thruster burn is to[o] great..." may establish that point, but then you appear to go on to refute the debris claim by questioning the analysis of the execute package (i.e., daily mission plan).

there is only one way to know for sure and thats to has been explained. footage time tags and daily execute package.

But that doesn't tell us everything for sure. If some planned vent or purge can be found at that place on the daily timeline, then it would be considered documentary evidence establishing the likely presence of debris. However, the absence or deletion of any such item does not preclude debris -- that is what you appear to have been arguing when you wrote

i also have the package for that day this is what mine says the waste water dumps were deleted not cancelled and not added but deleted from the schedule...
You appear to be saying that because waste dumps were deleted from the execute package, no such dumps occurred and therefore there was no plausible reason to suppose ice particles could appear outside the orbiter.

When you say

I also can without doubt shred any ice or particle theory.
it suggests you don't believe the ice/particle theory and are confident you can "shred" it. I assume by "shred" you mean to refute it. That is what I pointed out to Weltraum and tentatively interpreted. Please explain precisely what you mean when you say you can "without doubt shred any ice or particle theory."

You then proposed
I personally think it was an optical effect from filming energy sources .. the tether is the perfect example its size is distorted by the energy its giving off my guess is its effecting its environment in some way yet to be established abit like dust attracts moisture until a rain cloud appears in our atmosphere but in space some kind of arcing is taking place.
It certainly seems like you're proposing an alternative explanation. You've subsequently labeled it only speculation -- a guess. But regardless of its nature I can't help but question how you expect anyone to read your post and not conclude that you are refuting the ice/particle theory and proposing an alternative.

Please clarify your position.