• 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
I can't see into his soul. He seems sincerely devoted to his assumed role of the lone voice of truth beset by legions of dark forces conspiring against him. Under such a mind-set, one could easily justify presenting supportive evidence conjured from one's imagination while suppressing 'exculpatory evidence' that might cast doubt. His comments about spaceflight principles and hardware are defiantly counter-factual and ignorant of reality. And yet he seems to have a dedicated band of enthusiastic fans, which could encourage him indefinitely. If it were a simple cynical scam he'd probably be a lot wealthier, but AFAIK nobody knows how he's made a living the last twenty years, or even where.
 
Thank you, Jim. My sense of him - up to now - was that he was sincere in what he believes he saw in those videos recorded years ago - and his videos have been always 'right there' for me as unanswered. But now I am not so sure what is afoot. Given some posts and looking back with a different lens, I could see this being an unfortunate conjuring - or an 'on the spectrum' kind of thing. Consider the scale of obsession/meticulousness it would have taken - the sheer time 'after hours' to go through all that footage. It's puzzling.

Your analysis - your suggested alternative explanations - seem legitimate. Occam's Razor. I cannot argue any of it with you - or Martyn, for that matter - but given what I have just experienced on this thread, I am a whole lot more skeptical of the whole of it - and so another hope hits the dust. :rolleyes: I am always leery when real questioning is dodged and belief/acceptance is 'required'. Red Flag.
 
Last edited:
We don't have to agree on destinations on this journey, just on good techniques of making progress. My focus is on the topics I'm most familiar with but I hope some of the research -- such as how often a bright fireball swarm at night is perceived and reported as a large structured object with mounted lights -- is more helpful to general studies, from Phoenix to Hudson River and beyond....



http://www.jamesoberg.com/1963_kiev-fireball-swarm-rev-B.pdf
 
Jim Oberg said:
We don't have to agree on destinations on this journey, just on good techniques of making progress.
Click to expand...
Just so. :)

I like this: "We don't have to agree on destinations on this journey," what is your destination? Do you have an underlying hunch that fires your persistence? I have some - and one is that there is 'life out there' - but of a kind we cannot imagine - yet. For me the 'memory' is long and languid - a perfume sometimes caught and bottled in particularly brilliant science fiction stories (or art work) - but only hinted at, ever. That's the fun stuff.
 
I am not on the secret space gravy train & do not do the rubber chicken UFO conferences. No one ever asks for me to guest on anything. So many use my discoveries & pretend to know things about them. I worked with WAG TV, gave them whatever they wanted from my archives & they produced NASA's UNEXPLAINED FILES, which then never bothered to interview me..just Oberg! (for a fee) and yet I get abuse like ..scamming? I open myself up on this forum & get dissed for it? Now I say what I think I have found on video & it must be crazy cuz it is UNEXPLAINED. What, me worry? The STS-70 Window experiment (WINDEX) dedicated a camera to study the particles that Oberg goes on about being debris & ice. It measured them & their movement as well as getting close ups. So why does Jim Oberg not just SHOW the video & end this debate? Cuz he can not or he would have done it already. I am on to a story that others do not want to follow. That's natural for a mystery that remains unsolved. I don't expect others to believe me & am quite happy being part of this important discussion..just not a target..
 
Martyn Stubbs said:
... . So many use my discoveries & pretend to know things about them. ..
Click to expand...

It's hard to determine the nature of most of the videos you post because you regularly omit fundamental context features such as date/time of the video, which you must have logged on the tapes you made or in your records or which can be detected on the tapes before or after the sequence shown. Only after determining such data, and researching the context such as illumination conditions, vehicle/camera orientation, airflow direction, center of Earth direction, crew activities [and comments], and vehicle actions such as [yes!] water dumps or thruster firings, can any serious assessment be made [such as my report on STS-48's zig-zagger]. Preventing such assessments seems a purposeful policy to keep the events shrouded in uncertainty.
 
Tyger said:
@Jim Oberg Do you out-and-out believe that Stubbs has been scamming people?
Click to expand...

Objection. Is this thread a trial, Tyger, and are you the lead prosecutor, so keen for conviction that you're driven to such bald slander? It's interesting that Oberg -- even Oberg!!! -- won't follow you quite that far. He favors a persistent battering of those he opposes.

The general tenor of this thread is an embarrassment to the Paracast Forums, and I'm surprised that no moderator has stepped in to advise moderation in the attacks being made on Martyn Stubbs. Of course no one can persuade Oberg to moderate his rhetoric or refrain from character assassination. But I think that you as a regular contributor here need to walk it back, Tyger, and also to apologize to Mr. Stubbs.

I probably won't have persuaded you in this regard either, but I couldn't not respond to the uncivil behavior I've seen in this thread.
 
Constance said:
Objection. Is this thread a trial, Tyger, and are you the lead prosecutor, so keen for conviction that you're driven to such bald slander? ...
Click to expand...

Concentrating on what Stubbs has said on tape, or written, is it fair to conclude that he is claiming people on the NASA team, astronauts and Mission Control workers and scientists, are LIARS about what he believes HE sees in the videos? Or does he merely think they are just naive morons when they reach different assessments than he does?
 
Martyn Stubbs said:
...The STS-70 Window experiment (WINDEX) dedicated a camera to study the particles that Oberg goes on about being debris & ice. It measured them & their movement as well as getting close ups...
Click to expand...

Can you kindly direct us to links that support this interpretation of that activity?
 
Constance said:
..Of course no one can persuade Oberg to moderate his rhetoric or refrain from character assassination.
...
Click to expand...

Please suggest a more civil way to express disagreement with Martyn's claims, such as his insistence that an astronaut team was given "an order to stay vector" [which he claims is jargon for not changing activities in response to a UFO encounter], when people with experience with real space operations think the CAPCOM was voicing up a routine ""We're sending you an Orbiter state vector" advisory?

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.
 
:rolleyes:

Constance said:
Objection. Is this thread a trial, Tyger, and are you the lead prosecutor, so keen for conviction that you're driven to such bald slander?
Click to expand...
No, I am not 'lead prosecutor'. I am asking a direct question of Mr Oberg - I was asking what his views were. I was trying to nail down his views on the matter. That's it. No slander involved whatsoever.
Constance said:
It's interesting that Oberg -- even Oberg!!! -- won't follow you quite that far.
Click to expand...
If you read my response to his response I concur that I believe Mr Stubbs was honest in his views many years ago - but I am questioning what is afoot given how he has posted here. Particularly how he does not really engage. He does his views no benefit with the posting behavior he has exhibited here. JMO - and I have said so.
Constance said:
[Oberg] favors a persistent battering of those he opposes.
Click to expand...
I have not seen a consistent 'battering'. At least not here. Maybe that has occurred elsewhere but I know nothing except what I see here - and what I see is a request to engage in dialog.
Constance said:
The general tenor of this thread is an embarrassment to the Paracast Forums
Click to expand...
Not in the least. I have had to personally endure far more 'battering' on the Climate Change threads (as have most people of a particular view by others of the opposite view). Those threads were an embarrassment. I had my persona savagaed - and in fact there remains an artifact of those smears in someone's 'signature'. No amount of requests from me for redress has ever effected erasure of the smears. To post on the Paracast Forums one must be of 'sterner stuff' I have found.
Constance said:
and I'm surprised that no moderator has stepped in to advise moderation in the attacks being made on Martyn Stubbs.
Click to expand...
No reason to 'step in' to 'protect' Mr Stubbs - because no attacks have taken place.

In fact, were moderators to step in to protect Mr Stubbs from my posting - I would call 'foul'! Because it starts to looks very suspicious regarding exactly 'who' is 'protected' from 'abuse' and who is not. That would (and will) reflect badly on the Paracast Forums! (Sexism).
Constance said:
Of course no one can persuade Oberg to moderate his rhetoric or refrain from character assassination.
Click to expand...
I don't see what in Mr Oberg's rhetoric needs to be moderated. Questions are questions - be they easy or uncomfortable. I would very much like Mr Stubbs to make his case - but he does not seem so inclined.
Constance said:
But I think that you as a regular contributor here need to walk it back, Tyger, and also to apologize to Mr. Stubbs.
Click to expand...
Nothing whatever to apologize for. I have asked questions - none of which have been answered except with complaints and inaccurate interpretations. How about he acknowledges that he misunderstood a post - that I tried to (politely) point out? No response, except to complain.

Constance, I think you are enabling avoidance behavior. Many of us have had a high regard of the Stubbs video work from decades ago. There was a a good chance of having a good conversation regarding the work until 'someone' started convincing Mr Stubbs otherwise methinks. That's a loss because there were several of us looking forward to the dialog - and I was particularly lobbying to have Mr Stubbs and Mr Oberg be guests on the Paracast together. But if Mr Stubbs cannot answer questions in written format that doesn't leave much hope for an interview on the Paracast itself.
Constance said:
I probably won't have persuaded you in this regard either, but I couldn't not respond to the uncivil behavior I've seen in this thread.
Click to expand...
You haven't persuaded me that there has been uncivil behavior on this thread. If you want a look at uncivil behavior take a gander at the Climate Change threads - that'll curl your hair. Plus, look at what greets any poster who expresses doubts regarding aliens, etc. I can vouch for the fact that you yourself get pretty peeved at anyone who questions. The result? Starts to look like a party line.
 
Last edited:
Jim Oberg said:
Please suggest a more civil way to express disagreement with Martyn's claims, such as his insistence that an astronaut team was given "an order to stay vector" [which he claims is jargon for not changing activities in response to a UFO encounter], when people with experience with real space operations think the CAPCOM was voicing up a routine ""We're sending you an Orbiter state vector" advisory?
Click to expand...
But Mr Stubbs had conversations with people who would know these distinctions, or at least so stated. Astronauts have seen his work, not so? And there has been no correction to what Mr Stubbs claims, has there?

I continue to be puzzled why there is not more substantial analysis of the Stubbs claims out there. More people do not know of him than do, in my experience, and that puzzles me.
 
Tyger said:
... Astronauts have seen his work, not so? And there has been no correction to what Mr Stubbs claims, has there? I continue to be puzzled why there is not more substantial analysis of the Stubbs claims out there. ....
Click to expand...

This may help explain. Look at

Astronaut Tom Jones was aboard the STS-80 mission where the famous 'UFO circle" video was caught by Stubbs and others. Jones set up a page on his 'skywalking' blog to discuss why he and his shipmates and all the other astronauts believe the video showed small sunlit stuff floating near the shuttle. Years have gone by, nobody has discussed the evidence, but spend ten minutes scanning through the youtube comments for the most unrelenting torrent of ad hominem filth [none of it AFAIK sparking any protest from Constance] directed at Jones.
 
Jim Oberg said:
Years have gone by, nobody has discussed the evidence, but spend ten minutes scanning through the youtube comments for the most unrelenting torrent of ad hominem filth [none of it AFAIK sparking any protest from Constance] directed at Jones.
Click to expand...
That I don't get. In fact, I was impressed with his matter-of-fact answers, and noted that he made clear anything unidentified gets reported and discussed. That goes counter to the prevailing belief regarding being muzzled, I am aware, so a 'believer' would not be happy with that I am guessing.
 
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."
 
I am linking here to another thread that had discussion (in 2011) of the Martin Stubbs videos - before my time on the Paracast Forums. I think you may find some good discussion there - [EDIT: Just went back in the linked thread and you will find you (Mr Oberg) are substantially quoted and your views discussed - if you care - might be too far back.]

UFOS: the Research, the Evidence.

This video posted by Rramjet in post#102 on the above thread - what's your 'take' on the below?

UFOs buzz MIR Space station-pt.1,UNCUT
TEXT: "Uploaded on Sep 14, 2009: By ATS request (NASA vs Russian), pt.1 of the Mir-UFO sequence, unedited. UFOs throughout video, as NASA signal quality varies. From Martyn Stubbs NASA UFO Archives."
 
Last edited:
Back
Top