From: Dave Ledger <email@example.com> 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 <firstname.lastname@example.org> >Subject: Re: R.A.M.S. - A Parting Shot? >>Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 17:32:35 +0000 >>From: Robert A. M. Stephens <email@example.com> >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <firstname.lastname@example.org> >>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 <email@example.com> >>>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: R.A.M.S. - A Parting Shot? >><snip> >>>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? >Lehmberg@snowhill.com 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 missions. 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 <firstname.lastname@example.org>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 explain. 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, Sincerely 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) VISIT "UFO SCOTLAND" AT: http://wkweb5.cableinet.co.uk/dledger/index.htm UFO Scotland. ICQ pager http://wwp.mirabilis.com/4851425 **************************************************************** THE TRUTH IS JUST AROUND THE CORNER!................BUT HOW FAR? ================================================================ "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 - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp