Martyn Stubbs and the NASA Transmissions

[Martyn Stubbs]

These comments are actually showing progress, since Martyn seems to acknowledge that the swarm sequence really was FOUR DAYS after the tether break, contrary to the impression EVERYBODY who watched Martyn's originally-distributed video gave, that the swarm showed up very quickly after the break, as a consequence of the break.

I am puzzled about just what you are getting at Jim? Slowing progress on what? And impression of what exactly?

 

[Martyn Stubbs]

I am puzzled about what exactly could enter the air lock (after an astronaut enters) & is as big as a sports card with markings on it? Jim...anybody?

 

[Tyger]

I am puzzled about just what you are getting at Jim? Slowing progress on what? And impression of what exactly?

To be helpful: Jim actually says the word 'showing progress', not 'slowing progress' - and I think he believes you have shifted a perspective on the timeline of the tether 'swarm'. He feels that is 'showing progress'. Is he correct, Martyn?

He is saying that you seem to be agreeing that the swarm sequence happened 4 days after the tether broke - rather than the impression he believes viewers of the originally-distributed video received: that the swarm showed up very quickly after the break, as a consequence of the break. Is he correct, Martyn?

Hope this helps.

 

[Tyger]

I am puzzled about what exactly could enter the air lock (after an astronaut enters) & is as big as a sports card with markings on it? Jim...anybody?

Can you supply the footage for a better basis for an opinion?

 

[Jim Oberg]

My whole focus re the Tether swarm video is now on the near field objects. Jim Oberg has insisted that the video shows near field objects & that they are ice & debris.

This is the view of the on-site witnesses, who could tell the objects were close because of depth perception They were accustomed to seeing leftover ice from waste water dumps -- which is why realizing there was a FOUR DAY GAP between the tether break and the swarm sequence is so critical to assessing competing explanations.

Even the astronauts are fuzzy about what we are seeing when asked.

Nonsense. They are consistent in explaining videos of dots as the occasionally normal visual environmental consequences of prosaic shuttle functions. The only way out of disregarding their direct observations and interpretations is the 'special pleading' gimmick of accusing them of lying, every one of them, civilian and military, US and international partners and Russians, civil servants and private 'space tourists' -- they're ALL liars. It's far simple to postulate you are the one who may be reality-deficient.

Notice that the camera even seems to be focused on the tether & not the far stars. So that is why we see these objects so well.

You need to read the console handbook for TV operations including descriptions of functions such as 'focus'. The 'focus' setting on something tens of miles away is not any different than the setting for stars, how could it be?

Note how many are "tumbling".

Ice flakes tend to be flat, and tumble.

The tether looks like it does cuz it has leaking gas all around it...

This is preposterous, no polite way to say it. The teflon tether has no gas to leak, especially FOUR DAYS after being deployed and breaking.

... & UFO shapes are misleading as light is playing it's game with the camera.

I have no clue what this even means. What kind of light are you talking about -- do you concede the tether is visible because it is reflecting sunlight [as everybody on board and in Mission Control believed], or do you have some other theory?

The tether Sat. is generating voltage & NASA is blindsided when the swarm appears..so they had to show it.

As I understand it, a generator produces amperage when it contains a complete circuit, which the TSS produced with an ion gun in the subsatellite 'grounding' into the ionosphere. A simple wire does not generate current. One of us has no clue about fundamentals of electricity. As for 'blindsided', I think your imagination has once again trumped your facts, since the fantastic image of a NASA controller fouling up and letting real UFO images 'slip through' the fictional censorship protocol wears thin after a quarter century of the same slip happening again and again and again -- and wasn't the 'swarm' sequence downlinked as a playback anyway, not live?

To say that all the UFOs we see are normal space junk is crazy & note all the changes in direction.

Where has anybody called the STS-75 'space junk'? Since the shuttle had resumed normal waste water dumps [a situation that was disguised by the false impression the swarm's appearance was a nearly immediate consequence of the break, which apparently ALL viewers fell for], and since dots were seen on the videos in the hours before and after the 'swarm' scene [videos never released by Martyn but freely available on request from NASA], 'space ice' [or my preferred term, 'space dandruff', implying small material flaking off the spacecraft itself] is much more likely. As for changes in direction, why can't light fluffy ice flakes be affected by atmospheric drag and other forces?

I was contacted by a famous US Military leader (retired) who walked me through the video pointing out all kinds of interesting issues.& telling me what to look for. He is a friend of Steven Greers & his knowledge is extensive.He was one of many insiders who have shared notes with me. I only use them as research guides & protect their privacy by leaving them out of the narratives...although my team & friends know who they are.

I have no reason to believe this person exists, or if somebody did call you claiming to be such a person, you have any evidence for the claimed background -- or that you even properly understood and repeated what he said, if the example of your misunderstanding and misrepresenting my own opinions on this and similar events is any guide. Let that person speak for themselves, please.

 

[Jim Oberg]

I am puzzled about what exactly could enter the air lock (after an astronaut enters) & is as big as a sports card with markings on it? Jim...anybody?

You want an explanation for video you refuse to show us -- including date/time it was downlinked?

Any video you show while refusing to provide context information allowing validation of it's provenance is worthless, and has been for decades.

 

[Tyger]

These are my questions - to @Martyn Stubbs and @Jim Oberg

- Martyn, have you shifted your view on the tether timeline? Rather than the swarm appearing at once as a consequence of the break, it happened four days later?

- Martyn, is there a reason the video you describe that shows an object entering an air lock (with an astronaut) cannot be supplied for viewing?

- The point being made about 'leaking gas' around the tether: Martyn, you state there is leaking gas - Oberg states there is no gas for a tether to leak - could either of you clear this point up?

- Martyn, is there an answer to Oberg's question: "wasn't the 'swarm' sequence downlinked as a playback anyway, not live?" Was it a playback and not live?

So happy if these questions could be answered.

 

[Tyger]

@Martyn Stubbs @Jim Oberg I am wondering about the NASA videos that show the astronauts in the air lock and we see the 3rd phenomenon - little 'lights' moving where the astronauts are working, both in the air lock and outside the airlock in space. Both astronauts are exclaiming about them. Any changes regarding interpretation there? What was it @Jim Oberg according to your view?

@Jim Oberg Is the 3rd phenomenon ever legitimate as an unexplained event in your view? If not, why not?

 

[Tyger]

As for 'blindsided', I think your imagination has once again trumped your facts, since the fantastic image of a NASA controller fouling up and letting real UFO images 'slip through' the fictional censorship protocol wears thin after a quarter century of the same slip happening again and again and again -- and wasn't the 'swarm' sequence downlinked as a playback anyway, not live?

Interesting point. A lot of incompetency afoot if so - but possible, of course. Still, good point.

Where has anybody called the STS-75 'space junk'? Since the shuttle had resumed normal waste water dumps [a situation that was disguised by the false impression the swarm's appearance was a nearly immediate consequence of the break, which apparently ALL viewers fell for],

This is true - and it is more than an 'impression' - I recall it being directly stated that the swarm showed up at the moment of the break, because the hypothesis being put forward was that the 3rd phenomenon shows up whenever there is activity in space - as though these 'little critters' come around whenever there is human activity in space of a certain kind. The videos appeared to be showing evidence of this - which is what makes this all fascinating and draws so much interest.

@Martyn Stubbs Such questions come to every researcher. Questions are not an 'attack'. Mr Oberg may use strong words - like 'preposterous' - but I have heard worse between (male) scientists debating pet theories. It's the way men debate 'their stuff' - not so? Please stay in the game and respond. I guarantee I will be on Mr Oberg like white-on-rice if he gets ornery or unpleasant - but I am very keen to have the conversation. It's important, I think.

and since dots were seen on the videos in the hours before and after the 'swarm' scene [videos never released by Martyn but freely available on request from NASA], 'space ice' [or my preferred term, 'space dandruff', implying small material flaking off the spacecraft itself] is much more likely. As for changes in direction, why can't light fluffy ice flakes be affected by atmospheric drag and other forces?

Sounds reasonable. 'Space dandruff' - very cute.

@Jim Oberg Is there anyone else doing the kind of analysis you are doing with the Stubbs videos? especially the 3rd phenomenon?

I have no reason to believe this person exists, or if somebody did call you claiming to be such a person, you have any evidence for the claimed background -- or that you even properly understood and repeated what he said, if the example of your misunderstanding and misrepresenting my own opinions on this and similar events is any guide. Let that person speak for themselves, please.

I fear this is accurate at this point - but can easily be erased with more conversation. Occurring once - here - can be a fluke.

But more to the point - supplying 'evidence' or 'back-up' that is basically a case of 'trust me' doesn't work in these situations.

 

[Jim Oberg]

@Martyn Stubbs @Jim Oberg I am wondering about the NASA videos that show the astronauts in the air lock and we see the 3rd phenomenon - little 'lights' moving where the astronauts are working, both in the air lock and outside the airlock in space. Both astronauts are exclaiming about them. Any changes regarding interpretation there? What was it @Jim Oberg according to your view?

@Jim Oberg Is the 3rd phenomenon ever legitimate as an unexplained event in your view? If not, why not?

Please remind me of the youtube link and the date/time of the video so I can check it out.

 

[Jim Oberg]

I am puzzled about what exactly could enter the air lock (after an astronaut enters) & is as big as a sports card with markings on it? Jim...anybody?

Show me, with date/time of the video.

 

[Tyger]

This is old news, but new to me. This is a video I've linked to before, that has a conversation in the comments that seems relevant. I've linked to this video conversation earlier in the thread - and copied some of the dialog in the comments. It was actually with this video that I identified the name of Jim Oberg.

A pretty interesting claim has been made regarding 1st, 2nd, 3rd phenomenon. I have been keen to understand it - and this is the first I am coming across serious analysis/rebuttal of the claims. Meaning, an hypothesis has been put forward and a counter explanation has been offered to explain the event that is very persuasive.

Significantly, Oberg offers: "[T]here’s been a marked change in the visual nature of 'space UFO videos' since the shuttle stopped flying. Gone are the fleets of UFOs, the criss-cross drifting and zig-zagging of multiple objects seen on camera views. This change has occurred since the ISS, unlike the shuttle, doesn't dump waste water, and rarely uses thrusters for attitude control. This fundamental qualitative shift of the appearance of 'space UFOs' that coincides with a fundamental technological change of spacecraft routine operations seems to me to a powerful argument that the videos are CAUSED by the technological features of whichever spacecraft was carrying the cameras. If the videos were caused by factors external to the spacecraft [such as alien vehicles], why have they visually changed so dramatically?"

UFO TUMBLES TOWARD SHUTTLE CARGO BAY

TEXT: "Published on Dec 4, 2016: An amazing look at a UFO. This is not ice nor debris as you can clearly see. It moves over the Cargo Bay at 17,500 MPH reflecting light & carefully avoiding hitting the shuttle.(from Stubbs NASA UFO Discoveries Archive)"

Jim Oberg: "You can see the flashing whatsit drift in FRONT of the cargo element in front of the back end of the payload bay, so it's nearby [20 or 30 ft], small, and moving maybe 2 cr 3 feet per second, or maybe TWO miles per hour relative to the shuttle. NOT '17,500 MPH'. And notice the robot arm cradle is empty -- it was deployed doing something with a payload, perhaps, that could be shedding stuff."

Poster: "Martyn, now ISS is broadcasting live are you getting lots of type 3s ?"

[Martyn does not respond]

Jim Oberg: "You raise an interesting point.

"Although the common explanation of shuttle UFO videos, as ice flakes, is subject to a lot of mockery nowadays, we should all realize there’s been a marked change in the visual nature of 'space UFO videos' since the shuttle stopped flying. Gone are the fleets of UFOs, the criss-cross drifting and zig-zagging of multiple objects seen on camera views.

"This change has occurred since the ISS, unlike the shuttle, doesn't dump waste water, and rarely uses thrusters for attitude control. So naturally, pseudo-UFOs created by such prosaic factors on shuttle missions have ALSO stopped -- replaced by distinctive new features of the new optical systems providing continuous external views.

"This fundamental qualitative shift of the appearance of 'space UFOs' that coincides with a fundamental technological change of spacecraft routine operations seems to me to a powerful argument that the videos are CAUSED by the technological features of whichever spacecraft was carrying the cameras.

"If the videos were caused by factors external to the spacecraft [such as alien vehicles], why have they visually changed so dramatically?"

Poster: "Agreed regarding type 2s but that don't explain type 3s hidden within video frames? If type 3s exist they should be there all the time and seen on space walks. They won't have anything to do with shuttles or various craft?"

Jim Oberg: "As I recall from my Mission Control days, the comm console folks [INCO] wrote them off as gamma-ray hits on the camera circuit or other some such 'noise'. We always were 'leaning forward' to detect and diagnose ANY anomalies, which could always be clues to malfunctions that threatened the mission, the vehicle, or the crew."

Poster: "Do you believe there's something other than us up there ?"

Jim Oberg: "I believe it's prudent to always consider the possibility -- hence my passion to slice through innocent garble and deliberate obfuscation on all potential evidence. I have found that truly interesting and significant observations occasionally wind up in the 'UFO bin' and remain unappreciated."

 

[Tyger]

Without open dialog, the one who responds gains the higher ground. I am coming to think that the Stubbs videos - as fascinating as they are - are potentially artifacts of old space technology as Oberg is claiming. His question stands: ""If the videos were caused by factors external to the spacecraft [such as alien vehicles], why have they visually changed so dramatically?"

 

[Tyger]

I came across this comment on one of the Stubbs video: "I almost forgot I subscribed to your channel, Mr. Stubbs. I'm an enthusiast from Germany. Your contribution to the field can not be overestimated in my opinion. I'm not sure why it isn't higher regarded by the community overall, since I can't seem to find anyone in the field complaining about your main material being a hoax. Not even on the Paracast forums it seems to be worth further mentioning. I keep referring to your recordings as the best in existence."

I want to draw attention to the fact that I joined the Paracast in July 2013 and my first threads - this one among several - were about Martyn Stubbs work. The threads never got any attention - and even now many people of long-standing in the UFO genre declare they know nothing about Stubbs. In fact I posted this thread in July 2013 and a response only came two years later in 2015 - and then another two years passed - 2017 - before this conversation began in earnest.

However, this I have begun to notice - and I've been around the UFO 'stuff' since the 1950's - UFOs have begun to be 'filmed' that are mere small 'lights'. Reminiscent of the Stubbs 3rd phenom. Thus does the UFO 'legend' morph and get re-woven - in front of our eyes. Just some thoughts.

 

[Tyger]

Please remind me of the youtube link and the date/time of the video so I can check it out.

Trying to find it. I have a feeling it's buried. No time right now to go digging, so at some point later.....

 

[Tyger]

@Jim Oberg Is what Martyn is describing here in the below video what you are suggesting is "gamma-ray hits on the camera circuit or other some such 'noise'." ?

Explaining the 2nd NASA UFO phenomena

TEXT: "Uploaded on Oct 7, 2009: How these shaped, multicolored UFOs we discovered. From Martyn Stubbs NASA UFO Archives."

 

[Jim Oberg]

@Jim Oberg Is what Martyn is describing here in the below video what you are suggesting is "gamma-ray hits on the camera circuit or other some such 'noise'." ?

Explaining the 2nd NASA UFO phenomena

TEXT: "Uploaded on Oct 7, 2009: How these shaped, multicolored UFOs we discovered. From Martyn Stubbs NASA UFO Archives."

Unknown people at unknown times with supposed videos made on unknown dates and times, with only Martyn's version of everything that happened -- please call me when you have a single datum that is independently verifiable. So far it's a total waste of time with a guy whose public record of reality-recognition is shaky at best. Like his comments here about the STS-75 tether being surrounded by leaked gas -- totally delusional, especially when compared with the crew's hand-held 70-mm out-the-window hi-res photos, which Martyn steadfastly pretends do not exist.

 

[Tyger]

Unknown people at unknown times with supposed videos made on unknown dates and times, with only Martyn's version of everything that happened -- please call me when you have a single datum that is independently verifiable. So far it's a total waste of time with a guy whose public record of reality-recognition is shaky at best. Like his comments here about the STS-75 tether being surrounded by leaked gas -- totally delusional, especially when compared with the crew's hand-held 70-mm out-the-window hi-res photos, which Martyn steadfastly pretends do not exist.

Well, do they exist? Can you supply them? With equal context and back-up?

 

[Jim Oberg]

Well, do they exist? Can you supply them? With equal context and back-up?

They've been available on request from NASA for two decades, and on my own website for several years, as I have posted on youtube videos about this mission -- www.jamesoberg.com/ufo.html, the STS-75 folder. From the point of the 'UFO industry', it's better if the public doesn't know about them, they are TOO clear. Martyn has pretended they don't exist, persistently -- and I told him about them years ago.

 

[Jim Oberg]

I also have posted links to the videos of the tether fly-under observations, HOURS of the video around the few minutes that Martyn showed. They are also on youtube, and my link has the NASA post-mission 'scene list' document that catalogs EVERY scene, time/date, camera selected, summary of contents, for those hours. Anybody truly interested in determining what the tether video shows would have obtained, studied, and publicized those context documents. NOBODY did. My conclusion is that Martyn and the other promoters wanted their target audience to NOT know the true context of the video in order to force the preferred 'UFO explanation' that was contrary to other available evidence, that they suppressed.