UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1999 > Jan > Jan 21

Re: R.A.M.S. - A Parting Shot?

From: Dave Ledger <dledger@cableinet.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 22:36:07 +0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 11:05:40 -0500
Subject: Re: R.A.M.S. - A Parting Shot?

>Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 03:27:49 -0600
>From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: R.A.M.S. - A Parting Shot?

>>Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 17:32:35 +0000
>>From: Robert A. M. Stephens <sti3818@montana.com>
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>Subject: Re: R.A.M.S. - A Parting Shot?

>>>Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 08:17:09 -0600
>>>From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com>
>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: R.A.M.S. - A Parting Shot?


>>>Perhaps (?) -- but I would find your arguments more compellingly
>>>convincing if you would refrain from your encopric and
>>>unsettling digressions, for a moment, and answer those questions
>>>a few of us had regarding STS-48. <g>.

>>I did.

>No sir -- you did not. You trotted out the old, and very
>competently discredited, NASA excuse.

>>On four radio shows and in 9 email posts-detailed dissertations.
>>STS-48,  STS-80,  = frozen ejecta from on orbit vehicles.

>. . . And Dr. Haines, Dr. Kasher, and (I believe) Stanton
>Friedman reduced your "frozen ejecta" to bull ejecta. Moreover,
>your "9 email posts-detailed dissertations" detailed bupkus. Who
>are you, really?


Dear Errol,Alfred, R.A.M.S and listmembers,

I have to agree with Alfred Lehmberg in the fact that Mr
Stephens did not and has not, answered all of the earlier
relevent questions relating to the anomalies in the STS shuttle

With Errols kind permission, I would like to repost some earlier
questions posed to Mr Stephens in the hope that we may get a
suitable detailed answer this time and not the usual predictable
answers we have all heard before. It seems to me after reading
Stephens's numerous posts to the List, that he seems
pre-occupied with retaliating to the likes of Richard Hoagland
and Art Bell etc. Why not address the serious issues worthy of
further research instead and cut out this pointless cat and
mouse game you seem to be playing with the List?

I would appreciate any response you may be able to provide Mr
Stephens, seeing as you are the one who claims to have all of
the inside knowledge etc. There are still too many questions
left unanswered relating to the Shuttle missions but you expect
us all to swallow your less than believable "frozen ejecta from
on orbit vehicles" explanation without any decent information to
back up these facts.

My previous questions posed to you follow below and I would
appreciate a little feedback this time if possible, or are you
simply more concerned with playing childish games with the likes
of Art Bell and Hoagland etc which will do nothing to further
any serious interest in the subject.

>Robert A. M. Stephens <sti3818@montana.com>wrote:

>6.  STS-48 and STS-80: That the questions posed regarding these
>two mission profiles is, in fact, ejecta from the orbiter
>spacecraft-(space shuttle), not UFOs hovering in the vicinity.

Mr Stephens, After reading your response to the above questions
regarding STS-48 and STS-80 missions. I find your explanation
very hard to agree with and it seems to fall far short of a
rational explanation.I am certainly no expert in this matter
which must be said but I have a few problems with your casual
dismissal of the Shuttle mission films which I will try to

First and foremost, I fail to see how you can possibly put all
of the anomalous objects, clearly seen in the STS-80 footage,
down to waste ejections from the shuttle and such-like. This is
absurd!   One of the objects in the footage seems to be very
large (main object) and does not behave in a manner consistent
with space junk or Ice. This large object appears to be under
some kind of intelligent control at least from what I can see.At
one point it seems that there are two additional objects which
seem to be on intercept/rendezvous type courses toward the large
main anomaly.(Space Junk?)  Also if it is indeed space junk and
ejected waste etc, why do all the objects seem to move at
different speeds?  Are they all caught in different thruster
blasts of different strengths? from different directions?
Perhaps you can clarify this point for me.

>That, in full view, RCS motor firing for 1.2 seconds
>(approximately) on the side of the orbiter is the apparent,
>misinterpreted observation of something, a ray, being fired from
>Earth's surface.

Ok, I take it this is the STS-48 mission we are talking about
here. My problem with this is that the alleged RCS motor
firing,(flash in bottom left corner of screen on clip) fires at
a particular angle,(say towards 1 o'clock) if that is what is in
the clip as you say. If this is indeed the case, then why does
the anomalous object leave the shot at a totally different angle
than that of the alleged thruster blast? (approximately 2-3
o'clock)  Surely if it was the thrust moving the ice/junk
whatever, the anomaly would have been blown in a similar path to
the alleged jet blast from the shuttle.The direction that the
anomaly leaves the shot from, suggests some kind of resistance
to the alleged thruster blast direction.Can space junk and Ice
do this?

Secondly, the anomalous object was also observed to change its
track again a second time, further out from Earth, which seems
to kick the RCS motor explanation into touch as far as I can
determine anyway.

Thirdly, when you touched upon the Shuttle missions in your
post, you did not even acknowledge the fact that there was more
than one anomalous episode connected to the STS-48 shuttle
mission.About 6 was it?

Also what was the anomalous object recorded on film,leaving
Earth at a high velocity on the STS-80 mission?  Too many
relevent questions left unanswered I think. What I can tell you
without being an expert in this field is that this particular
incident was definately NOT Ice or Ejecta', so what was it?

Well, thats it for now. I hope that you may respond so that we
may possibly put the anomalous Shuttle mission footage to rest
once and for all. I am sure that I am not alone when I say we
would love to hear more about the anomalous NASA shuttle footage
in question.

Thanks for your time Mr Stephens, That is if you care to respond
this time!

All the best to the list,


Dave Ledger (UFO Scotland)

If you see someone without a smile.....give them one of yours :)
Posted by: Dave Ledger  (mailto:UFOSCOT@cableinet.co.uk)
UFO Scotland.
ICQ pager      http://wwp.mirabilis.com/4851425

"The sands of time are trickling away from our dear mother Earth
and yet we continue to fight amongst ourselves and destroy our
natural enviroment,leaving all the mess for our children and
their children's children to inherit when we're gone."

[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp

Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com