• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Martyn Stubbs and the NASA Transmissions

Forums New posts

Free episodes:

Ah - did some reading a bit of my own posts in the old threads and came across this dialog quoted from the ATS thread - so it looks like an issue you (Mr Oberg) stated on this thread that you still had with Mr Stubbs actually was cleared up some considerable years back. That's a puzzle. Why continue to mention something that has been cleared up? Wondering....

Secretnasaman/Martyn Stubbs: Regarding Oberg saying: "The most hilarious example continues to be your insistence that in one case Mission Control is relaying an order to astronauts to 'stay vector'"
- Martyn Stubbs: "Totally wrong..'continues to be your insistence that'... is lying like a sidewalk! In 2001, I dropped any Vector talk...after your debate with the U.K. UFO magazine. And same with that 'astronaut replaced' stuff. I dropped it as it deviates from the NASA UFO videos...

"Jim its not about me, or what I once said 8 years ago. ..Move on..please, cuz it just is not true I 'continue'. Every time you throw this stay vector out at me, it's you that 'continues" to insist...not me!'

Jim Oberg: "Thanks for clearing it up, and glad to hear it. Sorry that I didn't find some why to learn this earlier, but I couldn't manage to until you just told me. Good."​
 
Last edited:
Tyger said:
NASA STS-75 "Tether UFO" Video - Explained And Replicated
TEXT: "Published on Jul 16, 2009: A team from History Channel 'UFO Hunters' explain and demonstrate how small particles such as ice debris which float in front of the camera lens can appear to look like the 'UFOs' seen on NASA STS-75 'tether' video. The team replicates 'UFOs' seen on NASA tape almost exactly using a fishing line by placing it out of focus and in front of over-exposing camera."
Click to expand...

Using the payload bay monitoring cameras for imaging the tether and dots has always been the methodology of UFO writer [as well as Martyn's insisting they are UV or IR or whatever special lenses, a totally imaginary description], but I wonder how they explain ignoring -- or suppressing -- the much sharper images taken by the crew with hand-held 70-mm cameras through the shuttle's windows. Is it innocent ignorance, or some deliberate coverup of exculpatory evidence? There WAS one special camera looking up the tether in UV to detect plasma, but none of the famous scenes were taken by it.
 
Tyger said:
Ah - did some reading a bit of my own posts in the old threads and came across this dialog quoted from the ATS thread - so it looks like an issue you (Mr Oberg) stated on this thread that you still had with Mr Stubbs actually was cleared up some considerable years back. That's a puzzle. Why continue to mention something that has been cleared up. Wondering....----
Click to expand...

He stopped talking about it, left it on all his earlier video links [easily updated or amended], and never AFAIK admitted it was erroneous. Can you find where he did?
 
Jim Oberg said:
Using the payload bay monitoring cameras for imaging the tether and dots has always been the methodology of UFO writer [as well as Martyn's insisting they are UV or IR or whatever special lenses, a totally imaginary description], but I wonder how they explain ignoring -- or suppressing -- the much sharper images taken by the crew with hand-held 70-mm cameras through the shuttle's windows. Is it innocent ignorance, or some deliberate coverup of exculpatory evidence? There WAS one special camera looking up the tether in UV to detect plasma, but none of the famous scenes were taken by it.
Click to expand...
Hopefully someone will step in to have the dialog. I am not the one. Not my area of expertise, though certainly of interest. I had high hopes of reading a back-and-forth between you and Mr Stubbs. Guess it won't be happening.
 
Tyger said:
I dunno - would it? Your call.

I think I understand that you won't be commenting unless you have that information. Fair. I don't have the info. So.
Click to expand...

The point I make here is that Martyn DOES have that information [if he labeled his tapes, or kept a log], but declines to provide it. Thus frustrating any serious validation of the video clip.
 
Jim Oberg said:
Please suggest a more civil way to express disagreement with Martyn's claims . . . .
Click to expand...

If you can't think of any you might still benefit from some basic coursework in English composition and thesis writing, tone and style, denotation and connotation, and especially concerning skillful practices in argument and persuasion.

Or his insistence that the video he mailed out twenty years ago from the STS-75 mission, showing the tether break followed by a scene of swarms of dots around it, is 'uncut', when the two scenes actually occurred FOUR DAYS apart [which you concede?] and their juxtaposition led to all viewers mistakenly thinking the swarm was a rapid [a matter of minutes] response to the break, indicting intent? Isn't that how YOU saw the sequence?

Help me out on this.
Click to expand...

I don't remember any discussions with you concerning these matters in the past, and I'm not about to start engaging in any discussions with you now.
 
Constance said:
If you can't think of any you might still benefit from some basic coursework in English composition and thesis writing, tone and style, denotation and connotation, and especially concerning skillful practices in argument and persuasion.
Click to expand...
Constance, this is a huge diss but without the words you dislike (I guess). It's patronizing, and you know that. No one is going to 'call' you on it. A moderator isn't going to 'discipline' you, etc. So you have free reign to do this when your 'standards' are not being met (someone isn't arguing the point the way you want them to). It happens - and a few times I have been the object of your ire. I don't respond well to the admonishments and disapproval - do you when it happens to you? who does? Your horse is very high.

If you can say this to Mr Oberg, it can be said to Mr Stubbs, as well. Why haven't you admonished Mr Stubbs on his posting style?
Constance said:
I don't remember any discussions with you concerning these matters in the past, and I'm not about to start engaging in any discussions with you now.
Click to expand...
Okay, you already have a 'side' and you've never conversed with Mr Oberg before. That makes sense. Animus from the get-go.

Oberg's points stand (IMO) about the four days and the creation of an impression that it was uncut. It's a simple query to you - and maybe your answer is that you never saw the Stubbs videos so have no memory of being led to believe that. Or not. Simple.

As best as I can make out Oberg believes Stubbs has mislead people (hence my question to Oberg that you disapprove of) - perhaps done innocently, but he finds that upsetting. That's his choice. I find the news interesting and important - I'd like to hear what Stubbs says about that - because I was someone who was enthralled with his videos (it's why I joined the Paracast Forums, for conversation about them). However, because he won't respond - and responds the way he does (never answering the questions, and always with a complaint about something this Forum has no history of engaging in or did not occur in a post he misunderstood) you can understand that Mr Stubbs' claims start to look shaky - for someone like me not in any way versed with space physics, etc. Starts looking like an ego trip, unfortunately. He should know that. He is not doing his views justice the way he is handling himself here (IMO).
 
Last edited:
Jim Oberg said:
The point I make here is that Martyn DOES have that information [if he labeled his tapes, or kept a log], but declines to provide it. Thus frustrating any serious validation of the video clip.
Click to expand...
Understood. I have also seen others request the information so it seems to be an on-going issue (for some) with his video clips.
 
Tyger said:
Understood. I have also seen others request the information so it seems to be an on-going issue (for some) with his video clips.
Click to expand...

The reason it's an issue for me is shown in my STS-48 report, where I had to determine the shuttle's orientation at the specific time, to define its direction of sunbeams and shadow and thus why some nearby objects would 'appear' [or disappear] by exiting or entering its shadow. Which way was it pointing, and the camera pan/tilt, and which way was forward, to understand the air flow across the field of view. I needed to get the telemetry records of the attitude control system and the autopilot reaction to slow drifting between attitude deadbands which triggered thruster pulses, and when exactly they had happened relative to the discontinuous video downlink, live and playback. I needed the Crew Activity Plan and the daily updated plans, to see what the crew was doing, what they loaded into the autopilot, and what direction the shuttle was turned. The result is at http://www.jamesoberg.com/99purdue-48-speech.pdf and for STS-48 it all fell together into a package of causes-and-effects. Otherwise it's just speculations and guesses.
 
Jim Oberg said:
The reason it's an issue for me is shown in my STS-48 report, where I had to determine the shuttle's orientation at the specific time, to define its direction of sunbeams and shadow and thus why some nearby objects would 'appear' [or disappear] by exiting or entering its shadow. Which way was it pointing, and the camera pan/tilt, and which way was forward, to understand the air flow across the field of view. I needed to get the telemetry records of the attitude control system and the autopilot reaction to slow drifting between attitude deadbands which triggered thruster pulses, and when exactly they had happened relative to the discontinuous video downlink, live and playback. I needed the Crew Activity Plan and the daily updated plans, to see what the crew was doing, what they loaded into the autopilot, and what direction the shuttle was turned. The result is at http://www.jamesoberg.com/99purdue-48-speech.pdf and for STS-48 it all fell together into a package of causes-and-effects. Otherwise it's just speculations and guesses.
Click to expand...
Thank you. As stated, I cannot dispute you. It all sounds kosher. :cool:

Particularly struck by your comment : "Space flight very different from air flight." Key point I would think.

BTW did you read the below text copied from an ATS thread?

Secretnasaman/Martyn Stubbs: Regarding Oberg saying: "The most hilarious example continues to be your insistence that in one case Mission Control is relaying an order to astronauts to 'stay vector'"
- Martyn Stubbs: "Totally wrong..'continues to be your insistence that'... is lying like a sidewalk! In 2001, I dropped any Vector talk...after your debate with the U.K. UFO magazine. And same with that 'astronaut replaced' stuff. I dropped it as it deviates from the NASA UFO videos...

"Jim its not about me, or what I once said 8 years ago. ..Move on..please, cuz it just is not true I 'continue'. Every time you throw this stay vector out at me, it's you that 'continues" to insist...not me!'

Jim Oberg: "Thanks for clearing it up, and glad to hear it. Sorry that I didn't find some why to learn this earlier, but I couldn't manage to until you just told me. Good."​
 
Jim has done his best to fuzzify this topic with the usual mumbo jumbo! Take his strange obsession with 'Stay Vector' instead of "State Vector". The astronauts are spacewalking & one is told that "there is an OBJECT right in front of you"...then after more words another says "am I missing something"...then another says a LENS FILTER has come off & is moving away, & then NASA ground control says.."we are sending you an ORDER to state Vector". Now NASA has never ever ORDERED space walkers to do anything. Suggested..yes but NEVER ORDERED! I have viewed hundreds of hours of footage & they NEVER ORDER them!! Also the astronaut that said it was a lens filter had no idea at that point just what we were seeing. So he had assumed we saw the object & picked something THE SAME SIZE to say what it was & chose a lens filter! There was no filter that came off. The cameras are sealed & no part of a lens filter can come off. If anything like that happens it is reported ASAP & the camera would no longer function.None of that happened! BUT..what the astronaut did do for us is CONFIRM THR OBJECTS SIZE!!! NASA flips out & sends an ORDER to get back to work. This is an amazing sequence.
 
Martyn Stubbs said:
Jim has done his best to fuzzify this topic with the usual mumbo jumbo! Take his strange obsession with 'Stay Vector' instead of "State Vector". The astronauts are spacewalking & one is told that "there is an OBJECT right in front of you"...then after more words another says "am I missing something"...then another says a LENS FILTER has come off & is moving away, & then NASA ground control says.."we are sending you an ORDER to state Vector". Now NASA has never ever ORDERED space walkers to do anything. Suggested..yes but NEVER ORDERED! I have viewed hundreds of hours of footage & they NEVER ORDER them!! Also the astronaut that said it was a lens filter had no idea at that point just what we were seeing. So he had assumed we saw the object & picked something THE SAME SIZE to say what it was & chose a lens filter! There was no filter that came off. The cameras are sealed & no part of a lens filter can come off. If anything like that happens it is reported ASAP & the camera would no longer function.None of that happened! BUT..what the astronaut did do for us is CONFIRM THR OBJECTS SIZE!!! NASA flips out & sends an ORDER to get back to work. This is an amazing sequence.
Click to expand...

The CAPCOM is Story Musgrave and he was advising the crew that ground navigation had just uplinked a new ORBITER STATE VECTOR, a routine navigation procedure.
 
OK, but all the post says is note the conversation re lens 'filter', object spotted & CAPCOM's topic change as well as the video showing an object moving past them.
 
Martyn Stubbs said:
OK, but all the post says is note the conversation re lens 'filter', object spotted & CAPCOM's topic change as well as the video showing an object moving past them.
Click to expand...

So you concur it was a normal, routine advisory? That Musgrave said 'Orbiter', NOT 'order to'??Why do you suspect it was a deliberate 'change of subject', why should CAPCOM have to only talk about one subject?
 
I am pointing out that an object was reported seen in front of an astronaut & he is informed.."there is an object right in front of you"..& we see it too on the video! There is no NASA report of a camera being 'down' with an detached & escaping 'Lens Filter' in real time (we see it used later on in the spacewalk) or in post flight reports. The conversation is totally strange as well! They do not say it is ice nor do they say debris.."right in front of you."... That's what this is all about.
 
Back
Top