U.F.O. poll

[Tyger]

well actually i am interested in the canadian teachers 3rd space phenomena, at least i think thats what he called it, ive always meant to check it out, wasnt it every 20th frame or so, the same phenomena showed up in ALL nasa footage, anyone could check it out, cant even remember the guys name, just remember oberg wouldnt go near it.

Why not? Who's Oberg?

I started a thread on the man - not a teacher - a cable channel manager. I got absolutely no bites. No one posted. Unfortunately, the video link is now defunct.

Martyn Stubbs and the NASA Transmissions
LINK: Martyn Stubbs and the NASA Transmissions | The Paracast Community Forums

If you do a search on this site using his name you will see other threads where Martyn Stubbs is mentioned. There is even a guest request from 2007.

He has a YouTube account with three uploads from 4 years ago: Martyn Stubbs - YouTube

Another thread where he is mentioned: UFOS: the Research, the Evidence. | Page 5 | The Paracast Community Forums

 

[Tyger]

Well actually I am interested in the Canadian teacher's 3rd space phenomena, at least I think that's what he called it. I've always meant to check it out, wasn't it every 20th frame or so, the same phenomena showed up in ALL nasa footage, anyone could check it out. Can't even remember the guy's name, just remember Oberg wouldnt go near it.

It was fascinating to watch the footage - you could even do do the stop-action with one's computer and see the phenomenon. It was one of the reasons I came on this chat site and was disappointed that no one answered my thread.

P.S. Type in 'Martyn Stubbs vs NASA' and the relevant videos will pop up.

 

[manxman]

thats him martin stubbs, i didnt know he was dead, jeez i was talking to him and oberg, on/in a sts75 thread over at abovetopsecret, not that i lasted long there, with my gob.

2 of the most interesting people in UFO research, dead in short order, graham birdsall and martin, sheesh.

 

[Tyger]

thats him martin stubbs, i didnt know he was dead, jeez i was talking to him and oberg, on/in a sts75 thread over at abovetopsecret, not that i lasted long there, with my gob.

Talk! Tell what you know - heard. What happened with him? Why isn't his work more spoken about?

 

[trainedobserver]

Personally, I've only been able to identify one. I think many other people have identified them as well..

Do tell.

 

[Randall]

Do tell.

I think I've got my personal sighting posted here someplace. But for your convenience, here it is again. Please note that I don't make any claim that I can prove what I saw, only that based on what I saw, I can think of no better and reasonable explanation than an alien craft, probably some kind of unmanned probe.

1975 - Glowing Orb

"During June of 1975, I was with my girlfriend Karen at her parent's ranch on the west side of Lake Windermere in British Columbia Canada. Her parents were gone and I was staying overnight with her and another younger friend of hers. The three of us were sitting together on the couch in the dark looking out the picture window and listening to Led Zeppelin Two. Just after midnight a glowing blue-white orb sprung up from behind the mountain range across the lake and bounced down the side of the mountain in three big arcs. We were all stunned and didn't know what to say. Finally Karen said, "did you see that?" we were already nodding.

The sphere itself was about as wide as a Volkswagen beetle as seen from the side, and it had a plasma like glow surrounding it, but at our distance ( about 3 kilometers ), we couldn't make out any surface details. When it landed it went dark and stayed on the ground until about 2:00AM. Then it lit up, ascended straight up to about 300 meters, stopped instantly for about two seconds, then traced a graceful infinity symbol about 300 meters wide at a 30 degree angle to the right ( south ) of its starting point. It traced the symbol precisely in the same place four times in about 7 seconds, leaving a glowing trail of light behind, not unlike the effect of waving a glow-stick in a dark room. Then it stopped instantly and settled back into the forest in exactly the same spot it had taken off from and went dark again. ​

After that I was determined to stay awake all night so that in the morning I could get a fix on where it went down. The second time it came up it was around 4:00AM and by then both of the girls had nodded off. The orb repeated the same maneuver as it had the first time, then settled back into the forest and went dark. Around 6:00AM the light of dawn began to illuminate the valley well enough to make out where the orb had landed. So I went outside to get a better look, and just as I stepped out onto the landing, the orb came up again. ​

It rose vertically to about 300 meters and stopped instantly. Only instead of repeating the infinity symbol maneuver, it turned bright white and instantly accelerated north up the valley as far as I could see. Quite literally, from where I was standing it traveled over 25 kilometers in about 1 second ... from a dead stop. No human technology has anything that comes close to that kind of performance. Given the precise repetitive maneuvers that it had performed, there is also no way that it was a random natural phenomenon. I am convinced that it was intelligently controlled."
​

There are many other sightings much more dramatic than mine, but my sighting includes a number of elements that together formed for me personally, a very compelling case. Mainly that for part of the incident there were multiple simultaneous witnesses, multiple sightings of the object including night and daylight, and the distances could be established with a reasonable degree of certainty.

 

[trainedobserver]

It rose vertically to about 300 meters and stopped instantly. Only instead of repeating the infinity symbol maneuver, it turned bright white and instantly accelerated north up the valley as far as I could see. Quite literally, from where I was standing it traveled over 25 kilometers in about 1 second ... from a dead stop. No human technology has anything that comes close to that kind of performance.

I don't think that qualifies as a positive identification of an alien craft. You saw something you have been unable to identify. You saw an Unidentified Flying Object which you assume is an alien craft based on your unsupportable belief that "no human technology has anything that comes close."

 

[trainedobserver]

Talk! Tell what you know - heard. What happened with him? Why isn't his work more spoken about?

Stubbs claimed to be seeing things move between scans in live NASA video transmissions from space. I think one reason nothing really came of it is because, like the infamous "tether footage" it is most likely a video anomaly, but who knows for sure? Stubbs said he had 1000s of hours of this type of footage. If he is dead, I wonder where all that footage is now?

 

[Randall]

I don't think that qualifies as a positive identification of an alien craft. You saw something you have been unable to identify. You saw an Unidentified Flying Object which you assume is an alien craft based on your unsupportable belief that "no human technology has anything that comes close."

You didn't ask if I could support my sighting to anyone else. I admit that I can't. But it was "positively identified" by me as a UFO ( alien craft ) by its appearance and its performance, neither of which conform to any natural or manmade flying object ( craft ), and it was identified as "positively" as an airplane or a car or a motorcycle or a train or a boat can be "positively identified". Whether or not one can identify the make and model or any other details isn't relevant to identifying the class of object we're trying to identify.

However, if you think you can come up with another explanation, by all means post it up. Tell me what else it was, or for that matter if you assume that the information is reasonably accurate, what else it could possibly have been. If you can't, then the only remaining reasonable possibility is an alien craft. Just give me a good enough reason to doubt my analysis. That's all I ask. Until then, while it's reasonable for you to doubt my story is true, it's not reasonable to doubt that assuming it is true, that it wasn't an alien craft.

 

[Tyger]

Stubbs claimed to be seeing things move between scans in live NASA video transmissions from space. I think one reason nothing really came of it is because, like the infamous "tether footage" it is most likely a video anomaly, but who knows for sure? Stubbs said he had 1000s of hours of this type of footage. If he is dead, I wonder where all that footage is now?

I know about the scans - and it was more than just that footage - he had astronaut footage showing the astronauts commenting on the flickers. I thought he had an interesting idea that he never actually fully framed - that this might be a new kind of phenomenon particular to space.

"like the infamous "tether footage" it is most likely a video anomaly"

What is 'infamous' about the tether footage? This is new to me.

Who is Oberg who wanted nothing to do with Stubbs?

Look at his YouTube account to see the uploads there. The link is above in my post above.

 

[Muadib]

I know about the scans - and it was more than just that footage - he had astronaut footage showing the astronauts commenting on the flickers. I thought he had an interesting idea that he never actually fully framed - that this might be a new kind of phenomenon particular to space.

"like the infamous "tether footage" it is most likely a video anomaly"

What is 'infamous' about the tether footage? This is new to me.

Who is Oberg who wanted nothing to do with Stubbs?

Look at his YouTube account to see the uploads there. The link is above in my post above.

James Oberg is a famous, or infamous, skeptic who was formerly employed by NASA. James Oberg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As for the tether footage, it has been replicated and debunked often and thoroughly, even the UFO Hunters were forced to admit, after viewing the replication done live for them in the video I'm going to post, that there was nothing there besides some anomalies caused by the kind of camera NASA was using, which is the case for almost all, if not all, of the so called NASA footage that I'm aware of.

Hope that helps clear up your questions.

 

[Tyger]

James Oberg is a famous, or infamous, skeptic who was formerly employed by NASA. James Oberg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As for the tether footage, it has been replicated and debunked often and thoroughly, even the UFO Hunters were forced to admit, after viewing the replication done live for them in the video I'm going to post, that there was nothing there besides some anomalies caused by the kind of camera NASA was using, which is the case for almost all, if not all, of the so called NASA footage that I'm aware of.

How about the dual video, showing a 'ufo' - a light - apparently flying around the space station - from the Russian vantage point - and then the US feed of the same event. That is compelling to me.

Muadib - is there an explanation for that?

 

[Muadib]

How about the dual video, showing a 'ufo' - a light - apparently flying around the space station - from the Russian vantage point - and then the US feed of the same event. That is compelling to me.

Muadib - is there an explanation for that?

I'm not familiar with the incident you speak of, care to post the video? Both the Russian and US vantage points, if possible. Don't get me wrong, I'm skeptical of a lot of the NASA footage that I've seen personally that are claimed to be UFO's, but it's not my position that UFO's don't exist.

I've been looking for some photos that I believe were taken by one of the astronauts on the ISS or possibly one of the shuttle missions that were extremely compelling, but I can't seem to find them. I don't claim that they're alien, but they are interesting, if memory serves me I originally saw them in one of James Fox's documentaries, they were one of the few compelling pieces of photo or video evidence in the film. I'll have to keep looking.

 

[Burnt State]

Getting back to the acronym, I want to steal some points from @Jeff Davis ' post over at the Heaven's gate cult thread:

...no, we cannot just assume that is the case, that we share this environment with intelligent beings that pilot UFOs, but because of so much of our own environment being "not available" due to our own physiological limitations, they could be right here the whole time as there are so many places that are either yet fully explored, (the oceans) as well as those that you point to that are beyond our senses.

I'm happy to leave U.F.O. as simply an unidentified object, but this alone does not account for what drives Randall's passionate opposition to this, nor does it take into consideration other possibilities such as what Jeff is outlining. Other factors to include are Keel's thoughts as Goggs pointed out which highlights a more local, ultraterrestrial option, and then there is the entire manufacturing of meaning on a sociological scale through pop culture and mass media and what we have collectively willed into being.

I believe the majority of what is 'unidentified' are either advanced human craft, delusions and fabrications or misidentified natural visual events. However, if we can agree that many 'non-delusional' people are witnessing objects and occupants that are beyond human in construction and nature, then the U.F.O. acronym is worthy of carrying other weighty meanings and should be taken more seriously as the implications are vast.

Either we are being visited by countless species from across our galactic cluster and beyond, as suggested by the great variance in reports by everyday, upright folk, or there is a special smoke and mirrors Oz show being put on repeatedly for our benefit at the edges of our senses. Jeff's post reminds us that our sensory 'organs' have their own physiological limitations attached to them, so we may not always be getting the full, or most accurate experience during these very profound experiences where reality seems to break or distort. In these cases the U.F.O. is perhaps more than alien craft, but perhaps part of a local, earthly reality, that we have yet to be fully awakened to. And if this is the case then maybe Randall's insistence that the acronym should mean more to all of us (not just the ETH IMHO), instead of just shrugging our shoulders at it is a point well taken. Because it does concern our species' container and what's just beyond our senses; perhaps it's right alongside of us. If we are someone else's 'property,' then surely we should be investigating this on a much more serious level than to just leave it at 'unidentified'.

 

[trainedobserver]

You didn't ask if I could support my sighting to anyone else. I admit that I can't. But it was "positively identified" by me as a UFO ( alien craft ) by its appearance and its performance, neither of which conform to any natural or manmade flying object ( craft ), and it was identified as "positively" as an airplane or a car or a motorcycle or a train or a boat can be "positively identified". Whether or not one can identify the make and model or any other details isn't relevant to identifying the class of object we're trying to identify.

However, if you think you can come up with another explanation, by all means post it up. Tell me what else it was, or for that matter if you assume that the information is reasonably accurate, what else it could possibly have been. If you can't, then the only remaining reasonable possibility is an alien craft. Just give me a good enough reason to doubt my analysis. That's all I ask. Until then, while it's reasonable for you to doubt my story is true, it's not reasonable to doubt that assuming it is true, that it wasn't an alien craft.

I am not doubting you saw something. And you are wrong, it is very reasonable for me to doubt your claim that what you saw was an "alien craft."

You are committing the fallacy of "argument from ignorance" (argumentum ad ignorantiam), when you say you don't know what else it could be, therefore it must be aliens. To present a positive claim, positive evidence for the claim must be presented. Many creationists use an argument from ignorance to explain the necessity for a creator.

Also, it is not beholding to anyone other than the claimant to present evidence in his argument or claim. It isn't up to me to provide you with an alternative. '

Almost every paranormal and UFO witness (who has made such a claim) that I have spoken with has used an argument from ignorance to back up an assertion that they saw a ghost, ET, or alien craft rather than to say they don't know what they saw. I have talked to folks with varied educational backgrounds and life experiences. It doesn't seem to matter. A person sees one of these things in the right setting or proximity and they become a "true believer" that they are seeing something from another world, another civilization, another reality, gods, spirits, or an alien craft. A lot has been written about his aspect of UFO sightings. Vallee certainly has a lot to say about the mind altering nature of the phenomenon.

I can't help but think of the cargo cults of the south Pacific. They saw the mystical flying machines of the gods where we would have seen a cargo plane made by Boeing. You saw "an alien craft" someone else might have seen the X-94 surveillance drone or something.

 

[Randall]

I am not doubting you saw something. And you are wrong, it is very reasonable for me to doubt your claim that what you saw was an "alien craft."

What I actually said was: "Until then, while it's reasonable for you to doubt my story is true, it's not reasonable to doubt that assuming it is true, that it wasn't an alien craft." So you're missing the part about assuming that the story was true, which would then require that in order to have reasonable doubt, you are able to provide a reasonable explanation for the observations made that exclude an alien craft.

You are committing the fallacy of "argument from ignorance" (argumentum ad ignorantiam), when you say you don't know what else it could be, therefore it must be aliens. To present a positive claim, positive evidence for the claim must be presented. Many creationists use an argument from ignorance to explain the necessity for a creator.

That is a good try, but your invoking of argumentum ad ignorantiam to this instance is not applicable and there is more than one reason why. The first is that once again, I've made no claim that I can prove what I saw to anyone else. Therefore, I don't have to present "positive evidence" to you, I only needed to have had "positive evidence" provided to me, which if you assume my story is true, consisted of multiple observations and corroboration by other observers. To be more clear, argumentum ad ignorantiam applies to situations where there is no evidence for or against a particular claim, yet the proponent asserts that because it cannot be disproven ( e.g. you can't prove there are no aliens therefore there must be aliens ), that the claim must be true. However, that is not what happened in this case. Multiple observations of an alien craft constitutes "positive evidence" of an alien craft to the observer.

The next reason that argumentum ad ignorantiam doesn't apply is because deductive reasoning is applicable to the process. In other words, I'm not saying, "You can't prove it wasn't alien, therefore it must have been alien." I'm saying that assuming my story is true, there is enough evidence to run a valid comparison of the object against the class of known objects, and becuase no match can be found, the logical conclusion is alien, and to be clear about what I mean by "alien" ( in case you haven't been following that either ) the word alien in this context doesn't necessitate ET or any specific origin other than someplace beyond the boundaries and constructs of our known global civilization. To cinch this point, because the classes of known objects to run the comparison against is finite, the comparison is not open ended and therefore exclusion or inclusion of the observed object from the class of known objects is possible. This means we can positively conclude either A. The object is something known. or B. The object is something alien. There is no argumentum ad ignorantiam in this process.

Also, it is not beholding to anyone other than the claimant to present evidence in his argument or claim. It isn't up to me to provide you with an alternative. '

Almost every paranormal and UFO witness (who has made such a claim) that I have spoken with has used an argument from ignorance to back up an assertion that they saw a ghost, ET, or alien craft rather than to say they don't know what they saw. I have talked to folks with varied educational backgrounds and life experiences. It doesn't seem to matter. A person sees one of these things in the right setting or proximity and they become a "true believer" that they are seeing something from another world, another civilization, another reality, gods, spirits, or an alien craft. A lot has been written about his aspect of UFO sightings. Vallee certainly has a lot to say about the mind altering nature of the phenomenon.

I'll grant that someone's inability or unwillingness to provide an alternative explanation doesn't automatically mean that a claimant's position is true, and I wasn't making such a claim. I was making the claim that if you assume my story is true, and you don't have another explanation, then neither of us have a reason for claiming my present analysis of the experience is incoherent or inaccurate.

I can't help but think of the cargo cults of the south Pacific. They saw the mystical flying machines of the gods where we would have seen a cargo plane made by Boeing. You saw "an alien craft" someone else might have seen the X-94 surveillance drone or something.

Your reasoning above is fair, but it's also far from complete. Neither you nor I are cargo cultists. We have the ability to apply critical thinking to a situation and arrive at a logical conclusion rather than making unfounded assumptions based on superstition. In this case, assuming you wanted to bother, it doesn't take long to do that. First we run a the comparison of the object against known classes of objects. In other words, we don't have to compare it against every known object in the universe to be able to eliminate everything the object could not have been.

For example it's obvious it wasn't candy or furniture. It was a flying object, so that rules out things that don't fly. It's maneuvers indicated propulsion, so that rules out non-living ( static ) flying objects such as comets, meteors, falling satellites and other space junk. It moved faster than any natural life form on the planet, which rules out natural living flying things like birds or insects. Propulsion also requires a means of propulsion and directional control, which means it had to be some sort of craft. This leaves the only remaining possibility as something manmade. However it accelerated faster within the atmosphere than any technology created by man.

Other factors include it's bright spherical shape and no discernible sound. Together these things rule out all natural or manmade objects that are part of our known global civilization. The only remaining challenge to this might be that there existed in 1975 some secret manmade technology that looked like and could perform like the object observed. However, an extensive and ongoing review of known aviation and aerospace technology from then until now, including hypothetical technology within our grasp reveals nothing that fits the description or performance of the object observed. These factors combined make it completely unreasonable to believe that humans made the craft.

Now if you're claiming humans did have such technology in 1975, but we have no way to verify it, then you are the one who is now making a claim, and therefore it's up to you to substantiate it. Not me. Nevertheless as you can see, I've still taken on the task to the best of my ability given my resources and have still come up empty handed, and I submit that this effort also nullifies the validity of any claim of argumentum ad ignorantiam. For instance in the Wikipedia article the example of rain is used, to quote:

"... absence of evidence that it rained ( i.e. water is the evidence ) may be considered as positive evidence that it did not rain. Again, in science, such inferences are always made to some limited ( sometimes extremely high ) degree of probability and in this case absence of evidence is evidence of absence when the positive evidence should have been there but is not."​

So having looked for examples of matching human technology, including clues that such technology could reasonably be claimed to be manmade for over 35 years, and finding no substantial evidence that humans had or even could have had such technology, may in fact be considered as positive evidence that humans had no such technology. For that matter there is no reasonable evidence to suggest we have such technology even now.

All these things combined are more than sufficient counterpoint to your argument, but at least it's a well intended argument without personal attack. It's probably good for me to re-evaluate my position now and if you or anyone else can add something to our list of known objects that fits, then it can be taken into account during the deductive reasoning process.

 

[Han]

RE Martyn Stubbs:

 

[trainedobserver]

True believers who believe they have witnessed alien visitation seldom if ever grasp the fact that their personal knowledge of human technology is too limited to eliminate that possibility with any degree of certainty.

You believe that you saw an alien craft based on the fact you have no other explanation. That is a logical fallacy whether you want to recognize it as such or not.

Randal, I'm done talking to you about it and really couldn't care less what you think or have to say further in that regard. This has gone on for far too long and I'm not interested in continuing it.

 

[Randall]

True believers who believe they have witnessed alien visitation seldom if ever grasp the fact that their personal knowledge of human technology is too limited to eliminate that possibility with any degree of certainty.

You believe that you saw an alien craft based on the fact you have no other explanation. That is a logical fallacy whether you want to recognize it as such or not.

Randal, I'm done talking to you about it and really couldn't care less what you think or have to say further in that regard. This has gone on for far too long and I'm not interested in continuing it.

In that case, your weak rationale is only surpassed by your proclamations and denial. But have it your way.

 

[Tyger]

I'm not familiar with the incident you speak of, care to post the video? Both the Russian and US vantage points, if possible. Don't get me wrong, I'm skeptical of a lot of the NASA footage that I've seen personally that are claimed to be UFO's, but it's not my position that UFO's don't exist.

Will do, Muadib.

Probably on the weekend.