Martyn Stubbs and the NASA Transmissions

[Jim Oberg]

WS, I presume by your reply that you don't want to read the explication on ALSJ of what the crew was talking about?

 

[Jim Oberg]

"On a space flight" is evidently the operative term, because, as I recall, Mitchell also said that he knew people, and I think he said astronauts in one clip, that had had sightings or anomalous encounters. In any case, Mitchell became pretty involved in what he called noetic science. Mitchell seemed to think consciousness goes down to a quantum level of matter. That, to my mind, left the question of "visitors" open in regard to what he was referring. And to be honest, the "Beep beep" explanation seems weak to me, even if possibl
.......
I looked around your site and maybe I missed it, but I haven't found any reference to your association with CSICOP, yet at CSI we find:

[Oberg] is a founding Fellow of CSICOP and a Skeptical Inquirer consulting editor.
​

Okay, that's your business. But presumably you find that ideology compelling, and it seems strange that you wouldn't make your association with CSICOP clearer at your site.
No?

Cooper's stories of his 1950s encounters are well known, but as you know, any independent investigations of them are not reported in the UFO media [and I find no reasons at all to pay any attention to the story of an encounter on his Mercury-9 space flight in 1963]. Slayton later recalled an encounter which puzzled him, which he admitted might have been a weather balloon. In the area of my professional and avocational focus, space flight, ALL those stories turn out to be non-extraordinary.

My website IS poorly organized, here's what you overlooked.
James Oberg's Pioneering Space

 

[Martyn Stubbs]

Everything Jim Oberg says means nothing to me. It's the same old BS he repeats everywhere! He even mixes my investigation with others such as David Sereda. He is clearly nervous about my new team & new evidence, including the film project. I hope everyone enjoys his endless lectures. I will move on. No conversation can take place anymore as he will hog all the oxygen, kill all exchanges between me & everyone else & kill this site of free exchange.I think that is his purpose.He has done this at ATS which is now just a huge skeptic tank full of mean spirited posts, personal attacks & lies. Why is he still all over this NASA video if it is false & meaningless? Why does it matter to him? Why not just leave us alone to wallow in our crazy fantasies of UFOs? That's all folks!

 

[Tyger]

@Martyn Stubbs - It was I who contacted Jim Oberg when I became aware that he was a member of the Paracast Forum (and has been for several years). I asked him to interact on the threads so that we could experience a dialog regarding your findings and his views - it's what makes the Paracst Forums so stimulating. I even suggested to Gene that having both of you on the Paracast would be a really stimulating experience.

In no way do I experience Jim as 'nervous' about you - quite the reverse, he has demurred from entering into comment in an area he seems to feel is yours.

I don't think he is the one who is 'all over' this NASA video - which is very old news, I agree. It's myself who is interested because I have never been able to find a real analysis done of your claims and I think your work should have an open hearing. That your name does not elicit recognition on the Paracast Forums tells you how little known your work is. I have not been a frequenter of ATS - I know nothing of any conversations anywhere else except what I have found in a google search recently done and quoted here.

This is the second time - once with me - and now with Jim Oberg's one post - that you are folding up your tent and stealing away. Do you not welcome vigorous discussion of your ideas? There are some very smart folks here that would give good feedback and response not only to you but to Jim Oberg. Your hustling off at the merest hint of having your ideas questioned and openly discussed - rather than just accepted as factual - suggests your ideas cannot stand up to scrutiny. You do yourself a disservice. (If you have been trolled on other sites - that is a shame - but Gene and the Moderators here do a fairly good job of keeping trolling in check here on these Forums).

I must say, I am disappointed. I discovered your videos in 2013 and the prospect of having a full discussion about your ideas was a prospect I was looking forward to with some genuine anticipation. However, you cut-and-run too quickly. Why is that? Pretty banal questions on my part - like asking you to elucidate 'etheric biosphere' is met with testiness. I fear your reactions suggest you may be a crank - and I think that is unfortunate if you have something valuable to contribute. You lose credibility by your refusal to engage at the merest whisper of questioning.

 

[William Strathmann]

WS, I presume by your reply that you don't want to read the explication on ALSJ of what the crew was talking about?

I already read it. The explanation is possible, and I understand Pete Conrad and Alan Bean had similar surprises on the moon. But in the vid below, starting around the 7.00 minute mark, Mitchell uses "visitors" for entities other than the backup crew. Let me make it clear that I'm skeptical of what Mitchell describes, but I accept the fact that Mitchell was convinced. It seems to me that he probably had experiences beyond his "epiphany" to bolster his views.

So, I am not able to determine what Mitchell meant by "visitors" while on the moon. It seems a bit cryptic without a direct explanation by Mitchell. That's why I asked about it. Thanks for the input in any case.

 

[William Strathmann]

You may wait awhile for a response, because Martyn was the original source of the initial mistaken impression almost everybody gets, that the swarm showed up very soon after the tether snapped. He actually took footage from two scenes FOUR DAYS apart, and edited them together and called it 'uncut' and mailed copies all around.

Jim, IMHO, it is not appropriate for you as an adversary to speak out of turn about someone else's ability to respond to a question. In fact, Martyn had already responded to my question before you posted this, so your adversarial reply would make me wonder if you actually take the time to read these posts.

Also, the term "uncut" can mean various things, and it surprises me that you, Dr. Oberg, stoop to a petty bantering tactic of assuming one meaning for "uncut" when Martyn clearly means "uncensored." In the video it is clear to anyone who listens to the audio that time elapsed.

So, Jim, I have to admit that none of the NASA footage is particularly earth-shattering for me, however intriguing a few clips seem. But I would like to hope that adversarial posting tactics can cease.

I would also like to know your opinion of McGaha and Nickell's CSI article about Exeter.

 

[Tyger]

I already read it. The explanation is possible, and I understand Pete Conrad and Alan Bean had similar surprises on the moon. But in the vid below, starting around the 7.00 minute mark, Mitchell uses "visitors" for entities other than the backup crew. Let me make it clear that I'm skeptical of what Mitchell describes, but I accept the fact that Mitchell was convinced. It seems to me that he probably had experiences beyond his "epiphany" to bolster his views.

So, I am not able to determine what Mitchell meant by "visitors" while on the moon. It seems a bit cryptic without a direct explanation by Mitchell. That's why I asked about it. Thanks for the input in any case.

This is not persuasive. He claims he was briefed - then doubles back on that and calls it brief-like - because he worked with others who were - or claim to have been - briefed. Oh dear. And Roswell? He lost all credibility with me when he invoked Roswell.

Bottom line, if UFOs were 'real' and major governments knew they were so, what a perfect scenario to take dictatorial control without all this stuff-'n-nonsense to do with elections and what all. Yes, my bias is showing - after decades of reading this stuff it has all become less - rather than more - credible, though as a proposition, it seems reasonable that life elsewhere does exist.

 

[Jim Oberg]

So, I am not able to determine what Mitchell meant by "visitors" while on the moon. It seems a bit cryptic without a direct explanation by Mitchell. That's why I asked about it. Thanks for the input in any case.

I'm ready to take Mitchell at his word when he stated that he and the other astronauts did it -- the moon missions -- exactly as they described it, and without hiding any discoveries there. How ambiguous does that sound to you? Gordon Cooper agreed.

 

[Jim Oberg]

......Also, the term "uncut" can mean various things, and it surprises me that you, Dr. Oberg, stoop to a petty bantering tactic of assuming one meaning for "uncut" when Martyn clearly means "uncensored." In the video it is clear to anyone who listens to the audio that time elapsed.....

I would also like to know your opinion of McGaha and Nickell's CSI article about Exeter.

Time elapsed... but FOUR DAYS of it? In discussions I've had on youtube, nobody had ever imagined it was more than a few minutes, an hour at most.

The swarm sequence was one of four intervals during the 4-day-later shuttle/tether fly-under where imagery was made. We can assume Martyn taped the entire sequence. The other video footages where there were no swarms of dots, never seems to have been used. Why not?

I have no opinion on Exeter.

 

[William Strathmann]

I'm ready to take Mitchell at his word when he stated that he and the other astronauts did it -- the moon missions -- exactly as they described it, and without hiding any discoveries there. How ambiguous does that sound to you? Gordon Cooper agreed.

If, after the flight, Mitchell stated that his remark on the moon about "visitors" referred to an Easter egg planted by the backup crew, then so be it. The terminology seemed worth inquiring about, especially since he later used the term "visitors" to refer directly to his understanding of e.t.

However, strictly speaking, unidentified objects have been seen in space by space crew. As Apollo 11 approached the moon the crew asked Houston the distance of the S-IVB. Houston replied that it was 6,000 miles away, (out of visual range). So, the object the crew was looking at that piqued their curiosity (not the S-IVB) was unidentified. Was it a panel? Perhaps. But no one got out of the spacecraft to check the serial number. So, no one knows and I certainly do not either. I'm not making any claim about what it was, other than something not positively identified. And let's be clear here. You, Jim, did not start working as a contractor at NASA until 1975. So, whatever happened on Apollo 11 was not on your watch. That incident does demonstrate that astronauts refrained from mentioning a legitimate unidentified object that may well have been mundane.

In reading through some of your material, Jim, you say yourself that NASA actually hid or downplayed mundane, though extremely serious, problems with fire in space. If NASA swept such things under the rug, then, IMHO, that leaves the door open quite widely for other information that you were never cleared for. So, for me, Martyn Stubbs review of the NASA tapes is worth considering. I think his phen. 3 is interesting. Yet, if he has deliberately misrepresented footage then let him be scourged. I'm not that familiar with it, but I don't get the impression that he intended to falsify footage by manipulative splicing. Certainly not by use of the word "uncut."

I have no opinion on Exeter.

Jim, I didn't ask your opinion of Exeter. I asked your opinion of McGaha's and Nickell's article about it at CSI, in that they claim it is solved by a KC-97, which was refuted by Martin Shough. Should one assume that McGaha's and Nickell's article is unconvincing to you, since you have no opinion?

 

[Jim Oberg]

There's lots of background on stuff seen outbound to the moon -- the best argument it ALL was booster/spacecraft debris is that nothing was spotted on the way BACK from the moon when all the launch hardware was long gone. Did you know that the S4B and the SLA panels were sometimes even observed through Earth telescopes?

http://www.jamesoberg.com/apollo-11-ufo-3.pdf

You may assume what you like, I'm not obligated by any of your imaginative assumptions.

 

[marduk]

There's lots of background on stuff seen outbound to the moon -- the best argument it ALL was booster/spacecraft debris is that nothing was spotted on the way BACK from the moon when all the launch hardware was long gone. Did you know that the S4B and the SLA panels were sometimes even observed through Earth telescopes?

http://www.jamesoberg.com/apollo-11-ufo-3.pdf

You may assume what you like, I'm not obligated by any of your imaginative assumptions.

Totally agree.

I mean, duh. What's this bright shiny thing that just happens to be on our same orbital trajectory? Could it be this bright shiny thing we ejected a while back?

Nah.

Gotta be those damn Zeta Reticulans again. Keeping us from our god given right to bring democracy to the moon.

 

[William Strathmann]

You may assume what you like, I'm not obligated by any of your imaginative assumptions.

Well, Jim, this thread is titled Martyn Stubbs, and my original two questions above were directed to Martyn. Actually, I have never been too impressed with NASA footage, and the first time I saw the tether footage I suspected camera registration artifacts, long-range focus and particles around the shuttle were the cause of the "swarm." On a different clip, I was surprised that Jack Kasher would make astonishing claims based on questionable assumptions. But I wanted to know Martyn's current thoughts, and I also asked him about Mitchell's "visitor" remark. Personally, you're welcome if you want to jump in, and thanks for the info on backup crew pranks.

IMHO there is a big picture issue that impacts humans, including astronauts, and that involves anomalous reports that are not easily answered by mundane factors. The Exeter incident is a rather well-known example of one of the anomalous reports. If Exeter cannot be well-explained, then reality, including space, may be more complicated than is typically perceived. When CSI members make evidently deceptive attempts to explain the Exeter report, it makes me question the integrity of CSI. Since you are a founding CSI member, I would think that the material published at CSI would be of great concern to you.

Personally, I suspect the Apollo 11 sighting was debris of some sort. I posted this a few weeks ago, here at this forum. But the fact remains that the Apollo 11 astronauts were very cautious about reporting their sighting. That suggests to me that astronauts, and NASA itself, may downplay unexplained anomalous reports, and that is why I was interested in Mitchell's "visitor" remark. One wonders about Story Musgrave's "snake" in space. IMHO, a contractor whose highest rank was, evidently, O-3, probably is not going to pry out everything from O-6 and O-7 astronauts, or from NASA management. That doesn't mean I think NASA is hiding a grand conspiracy of actual alien contact and treaties, etc. But they might not forthrightly make known all the anomalous information they have accumulated. That's all.

 

[Martyn Stubbs]

Jim always says he is an expert on the Tether Sat. Mission but until I released the 'footage' he wrote David Sereda & I emails (see David Sereda's book Evidence..free on Google Books) trying to obtain the UFO sequence! He had never seen it. He also called me delusional when I told him that a used 'tether' was deployed instead of a new one. The used tether was from the previous tether mission & it broke too! So now he is in full denial, saying he was totally up on the entire mission. Yet it took my additional posting of the press conference in which NASA admitted that they just shorteded the old one, for him to belioeve it. It took him years to get his own copy of the UFO swarm. Does this sound like an expert to you?

 

[Martyn Stubbs]

@Martyn Stubbs - It was I who contacted Jim Oberg when I became aware that he was a member of the Paracast Forum (and has been for several years). I asked him to interact on the threads so that we could experience a dialog regarding your findings and his views - it's what makes the Paracst Forums so stimulating. I even suggested to Gene that having both of you on the Paracast would be a really stimulating experience.

In no way do I experience Jim as 'nervous' about you - quite the reverse, he has demurred from entering into comment in an area he seems to feel is yours.

I don't think he is the one who is 'all over' this NASA video - which is very old news, I agree. It's myself who is interested because I have never been able to find a real analysis done of your claims and I think your work should have an open hearing. That your name does not elicit recognition on the Paracast Forums tells you how little known your work is. I have not been a frequenter of ATS - I know nothing of any conversations anywhere else except what I have found in a google search recently done and quoted here.

This is the second time - once with me - and now with Jim Oberg's one post - that you are folding up your tent and stealing away. Do you not welcome vigorous discussion of your ideas? There are some very smart folks here that would give good feedback and response not only to you but to Jim Oberg. Your hustling off at the merest hint of having your ideas questioned and openly discussed - rather than just accepted as factual - suggests your ideas cannot stand up to scrutiny. You do yourself a disservice. (If you have been trolled on other sites - that is a shame - but Gene and the Moderators here do a fairly good job of keeping trolling in check here on these Forums).

I must say, I am disappointed. I discovered your videos in 2013 and the prospect of having a full discussion about your ideas was a prospect I was looking forward to with some genuine anticipation. However, you cut-and-run too quickly. Why is that? Pretty banal questions on my part - like asking you to elucidate 'etheric biosphere' is met with testiness. I fear your reactions suggest you may be a crank - and I think that is unfortunate if you have something valuable to contribute. You lose credibility by your refusal to engage at the merest whisper of questioning.

Do not worry..I never quit..I appreciate your efforts, of course. I am just exhausted answering the same questions from him over & over. As far as everybody else is concerned I am open to any questions. I do not hate him. He is the only one willing to mix it up with NASA UFO researchers. I was always hoping that Jim would have some kind of open mind but he has not shown anything to me other than die hard denier. I have been going back & forth with Jim for over 15 years now & he keeps this same tether spin when so much more has come out etc.
You are right .....Jim welcome back to this site & you know I would love you to comment on this new dig at your expertise etc. re used tether on my other posting.! Tyger, I was wrong to say Jim means nothing..JIM is important & I really do have this new footage of a UFO entering the Air Lock hatch. ...so to JIM..It does matter what you think! I meant it when I said that you could ask a friend who lives in my city to view it & tell me just what is entering. My first contact 15 years ago was the NASA contractor Dr. Weinberg & he saw things & you could then chat with him. So who is today's Dr. Weinberg? Or do you want me to contact the local Skeptic's society? Tyger..Jim has a kind side believe it or not! Contacting him was the right thing to do. He had the decency to answer after all. I just did not want to go off on a tangent with him & leave everyone else behind. I was wrong.

 

[Martyn Stubbs]

Time elapsed... but FOUR DAYS of it? In discussions I've had on youtube, nobody had ever imagined it was more than a few minutes, an hour at most.

The swarm sequence was one of four intervals during the 4-day-later shuttle/tether fly-under where imagery was made. We can assume Martyn taped the entire sequence. The other video footages where there were no swarms of dots, never seems to have been used. Why not?

I have no opinion on Exeter.

Jim I have not hidden anything? I have released tether footage without UFOs... What about the full search clip? The other clips did have UFOs. Just not as many! Do you want me to repost them? I have everything as you know!

 

[Martyn Stubbs]

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. Even the astronauts are fuzzy about what we are seeing when asked. 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. Note how many are "tumbling" The tether looks like it does cuz it has leaking gas all around it & UFO shapes are misleading as light is playing it's game with the camera. The tether Sat. is generating voltage & NASA is blindsided when the swarm appears..so they had to show it. To say that all the UFOs we see are normal space junk is crazy & note all the changes in direction.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.

 

[William Strathmann]

Thanks Martyn, very much, for taking another stab here at this forum!

I really do have this new footage of a UFO entering the Air Lock hatch.

As I've said, most of the footage doesn't make a big impression on me. But I have to say that the phen 3 seems intriguing. Moreover, I thought I'd seen, years ago, such a video as you describe here Martyn. If I remember correctly (maybe not), the astronauts were positioned near a closed hatch when a lighted ball, maybe about baseball sized, seemed to come through the closed hatch. The astronauts were stunned by the light and made comments about it. That's what I recall about the clip I have in mind. Is that the situation in the clip you have? Whatever your clip is, I will be very interested to see it.

As far as reporting of anomalous objects goes, I've known a fighter pilot for the duration of his twenty-some years of service, which included flights over the sandbox. After he retired, I asked if he'd ever had an x-file variety experience. He told me that one zero-dark-thirty morning, stateside, while driving to base where he was scheduled to be the first flight of the day, he saw a brilliant light over the base, at some height over the runway threshold. It was not moving. As he continued to observe the light, it suddenly shot off horizontally across his field of view at incredible speed, and disappeared. To be clear, when he told me about it a few years ago, he did not deduce that it was a human manufactured craft, or that it was an interstellar spacecraft. He did not know what it was—other than extremely bright and able to accelerate from zero to mind-bogglingly-fast in an instant. After he told me these details, and even though I knew the answer, I asked the perfunctory question, "Did you report it?" to which he dryly responded, "No." I understand. Why risk getting grounded. Yet he has no question that he observed something extraordinary. So, in my mind, even more so would an astronaut avoid getting sidelined by publicly reporting anomalous events.

That, Jim, among other evidence, is why I don't think it is wise for you to simply ignore reports like Exeter. If there is an actual non-prosaic phenomena on earth, then it could possibly be experienced in space as well, and that's why Martyn's labor over these long years is worth careful consideration.

 

[Jim Oberg]

Does this sound like an expert to you?

This is the section on 'Tethered Space Operations' that I wrote for my 1986 NASA book "Rendezvous and Proximity Operations Flight Crew Procedures & Rationale" [in the first paragraph I referred to the possibility of a tether break!], it explains a lot about what happened to TSS-1R after it did break loose ten years later.

http://www.jamesoberg.com/fph-Tethered_ops.PDF

Has Martyn read it, much less, has he understood anything in it?

 

[Jim Oberg]

Do not worry..I never quit..I appreciate your efforts, of course. I am just exhausted answering the same questions from him over & over. As far as everybody else is concerned I am open to any questions. I do not hate him. He is the only one willing to mix it up with NASA UFO researchers. I was always hoping that Jim would have some kind of open mind but he has not shown anything to me other than die hard denier. I have been going back & forth with Jim for over 15 years now & he keeps this same tether spin when so much more has come out etc.....

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.