Pegasus Research Consortium

Because spaceflight is so unfamiliar and bizarre -- literally unearthly -- I've seen most people trying to interpret videos making wrong guesses about fundamental features of what was being shown. Recently I drafted a guide to what I've learned about the space environment related to anomalous images, from my two decades in Mission Control and my lifelong fascination with UFO reports.

I'd appreciate any suggestions on what needs to be better explained, documented, or added.

See http://www.jamesoberg.com/99faq.html

Because things seen outside spacecraft CAN be critically important, at the very least for safety reasons and quite possibly for 'new' discoveries, I encourage people to keep an out-of-step eye on video feeds and all other sources of reports. It would be helpful if they could familiarize themselves with the 'normal' versus 'abnormal' apparitions in spaceflight terms, to reduce the noise level.

Logging the exact date/time of events is critically important to getting contextual information regarding orbital position, attitude, vehicle activities, crew activities, air/ground conversations, etc.

My general home page section on UFOs is at www.jamesoberg.com/ufo.html, but the focus of my experience is on astronaut-related stories.

Welcome to pegasus Jim.

Just a warning ahead of time.if your not on the level with the members here.we tend to destroy peoples lives and careers .
So I'm giving you an out.
Once the great spotlight is shined.we see all.

Otherwise  enjoy the site and I look forward to heated debates.

I look forward to browsing your work, thanks Jim.

Welcome to Pegasus, Jim. :)

I posted this on the other thread, but, as you asked specifically for suggestions for your 99 questions list, you have three repeated numbers on your list, 24, 41 and 70.

Nothing to add, at least for now. :)

Quote from: robomont on April 20, 2014, 06:29:55 AM
Just a warning ahead of time.if your not on the level with the members here.we tend to destroy peoples lives and careers .

I would like to suggest just two corrections:

1. Instead of "if your not on the level with the members here" it should read "if your not on the level with some of the members here think they have";
2. Instead of "we tend to destroy peoples lives and careers" it should read "we dream that we have the capability to destroy peoples lives and careers".

With those two corrections I think your post would be closer to the truth.  :)

I do realize I need accounting advice! I also intend to insert a lot more links to scattered articles, to provide detailed evidence.

But also keep in mind this is a thematically focused arrangement. I'm tired of arguments of the type, "Cooper's stories must be true because they're similar to everybody else's."

Quote from: robomont on April 20, 2014, 06:29:55 AM
Welcome to pegasus Jim.

Just a warning ahead of time.if your not on the level with the members here.we tend to destroy peoples lives and careers .
So I'm giving you an out.
Once the great spotlight is shined.we see all.

Otherwise  enjoy the site and I look forward to heated debates.

Well that's a nice welcome...I think we should be more respectful of people WE ask to visit....at least to begin with....Just saying... ;)

Well Jim, i'm really glad to see you here, I think it show alot of professionalism between people of a different state of mind to invite you here. I'l be looking forward seeing you debate and visa versa.

The living moon is really expanding, slowly but expanding!

Thank you armap.yes my vocabulary has been a bit dry and sharp lately.

Hello Jim O and welcome to Pegasus, I am Deuem and I do a lot of work on still Photos. I have designed my own unique process to look at photos in the Deuem way. Take a peek into Deuems area if you have a chance. Looking forward to debating some results with you.

I saw on your site triangles vs triplets. Ok, thats a good one. I have been working that one for several year now. By the way where I am currently I can not get into Youtube/facebook/twitter/blogs and other social media but I can download anything you can post here. I maybe as wrong as I think I am right but I would like to go over any questionable shots you might have locked up and see what my program thinks of them. Even if it is just for fun.

Then, we also have several other members that have their own styles. For myself I process energy waves that effect the gradients in photos. So your question of day or night on a shuttle mission should show up for me rather well. Deuem loves sunlight. Deuem is me and the programs name. How original huh!

When you're ready fire away. One at a time. Please.....

I am also an invited member that stuck around.

Deuem

Quote from: robomont on April 20, 2014, 06:29:55 AM

Just a warning ahead of time.if your not on the level with the members here.we tend to destroy peoples lives and careers .

we/you, don't destroy peoples lives. to make the "on the level" comment,  typically calling for people to be on the level, also requires that YOU are on the level.  are you ?   i don't think so, robo, i really don't.  what's up with you, anyway?

Greetings, Jim.  I remember You from...the other place.  [smile]

What kind of accounting advice do You need?  I am a Foundational Economist with a very good understanding of the system of money (the accounting for meaningful energy expended) and its accounting practices.  You may want to check out My section here under Special Guests.

Also:  as far as I have seen, We have destroyed no lives here.

Greetings Jim and welcome to Pegasus.

We have been looking forward to your participation and especially how some of your most-treasured photos will process in the DEUEM.   :)

As you are well-accustomed to superflous chatter, I see that you recognize that which is obviously pretentious bait by a (perhaps) disgruntled bystander (or someone totally ignorant of who you are) and therefore not worthy of recognition, and you, as usual, took the high road. Thank you.

Welcome aboard...we're pretty sure the Captain will be by shortly.    ;)



@Robo: Down boy! This is a friendly!    :P

Quote from: robomont on April 20, 2014, 05:32:33 PM
Thank you armap.yes my vocabulary has been a bit dry and sharp lately.

Seems like :D

But since you recognize that lets leave it at that :D

Quote from: JimO on April 20, 2014, 02:53:59 PM
I also intend to insert a lot more links to scattered articles, to provide detailed evidence.

Despite you being on the wrong side of the fence :P I would not object to giving you a section to collect your thoughts.

As far as skeptics go... your at least fun to engage :D

Welcome to our asylum. Glad you stopped in despite being hopelessly outnumbered :D

I know you can handle the punches, but our mods will work to keep it civil :D

Zorg, you've seen me post this before, but since my view is that this is a fascinating phenomenon with high potential for concealing extremely important 'stuff' disguised in all the noise [and I've given specific examples, albeit none so far, extraterrestrial], while realizing that contemporary approaches to the puzzle have gotten nowhere despite decades of expecting disclosure 'next year' -- I kind of think most of us here share that view. I'm probably more optimisitic in finding better ways of enhancing our understanding of the perceptual process. Where we differ most from most others is in the models we think may best explain it. I consider that a trivial difference scaled against the fundamental agreement.

I appreciate the enumeration advisories about 'TBS' and duplicative FAQ numbers and really will get to that editing issue one of these days. I was rather more hopeful for suggestions on the meat of the essay, the specific kinds of misconceptions that people carry with them about observing conditions in space that often lead to misinterpretations of youtube "space UFO" videos.

The most fundamental one, as I see it, is an unawareness of illumination conditions in these notorious videos, with something as simple as day-or-night not really that obvious. Add in the situation where the camera is on a massive object -- say, a shuttle orbiter -- casting a shadow away from the sun but looking 'down' that shadow, and what that makes small nearby objects appear to do when they drift from shadow into sunlight. They 'materialize'. They 'pop out from behind a cloud'. They 'come over the horizon'. Well, maybe NOT.

Without understanding such fundamentals -- worse, WITH a MISunderstanding of such SPACE-fundamentals -- it's no wonder that folks using time-tested earthside recognition processes will jump to dramatic misinterpretations of what they are seeing.

Has anybody tried to explain this before? How can it be done better?

Quote from: JimO on April 22, 2014, 08:59:36 PM
I was rather more hopeful for suggestions on the meat of the essay, the specific kinds of misconceptions that people carry with them about observing conditions in space that often lead to misinterpretations of youtube "space UFO" videos.

That's harder to do and takes much longer. :)

Unfortunately, I don't have as much free time as I would like (or need). :(

QuoteThe most fundamental one, as I see it, is an unawareness of illumination conditions in these notorious videos, with something as simple as day-or-night not really that obvious. Add in the situation where the camera is on a massive object -- say, a shuttle orbiter -- casting a shadow away from the sun but looking 'down' that shadow, and what that makes small nearby objects appear to do when they drift from shadow into sunlight. They 'materialize'. They 'pop out from behind a cloud'. They 'come over the horizon'. Well, maybe NOT.

One thing I have noticed is that most people think of white objects in photos and videos as being lights, which may or may not be the case. Many people have problems understanding light and perspective, and in space light may appear in situations that are not common on Earth and perspective is difficult to get because of the lack of references.

QuoteHas anybody tried to explain this before? How can it be done better?

I don't know how it can be explained better, but I think that too much explaining may have a negative effect, as if that's the only thing that matters.

Quote from: ArMaP on April 22, 2014, 09:07:55 PM
One thing I have noticed is that most people think of white objects in photos and videos as being lights, which may or may not be the case. Many people have problems understanding light and perspective, and in space light may appear in situations that are not common on Earth and perspective is difficult to get because of the lack of references.

I agree. It's 'obvious' since stars are out that its night, so the lights must be slef-luminous. But that's a mistake. The shuttle could have passed out of Earth's shadow but the ground beneath it is still dark for a few minutes. Nearby objects 'appear' at sunrise but otherwise that event is NOT noticeable since there is no 'sky' to brighten up.

Quote
I don't know how it can be explained better, but I think that too much explaining may have a negative effect, as if that's the only thing that matters.

Well, the current situation -- too LITTLE explanation -- can't be considered a better one, I hope you agree.

Nobody is smart enough to figure out the differences ahead of time -- I know I sure wasn't. The images looked weird until with hours of watching over many missions my brain re-trained to see the depth in front of the camera and to realize some of the 3D space could be full of sunlight while other parts were in the shuttle's own shadow.

And that shadow zone was 'total' only for a few minutes after 'sunrise'. After that, as the shuttle passed over sunlit regions of Earth's surface, bounceback sunlight 'filled in' the umbra and objects in it all became visible. UFOs stopped materializing out of nowhere. Until the NEXT sunrise.

That's when I noticed that this brief period -- a few minutes every 90-minute orbit -- was the particular condition in which ALL the most famous 'shuttle UFO videos' occurred. That particular type of partial illumination was not a coincidence, it was the cause-and-effect context that created the weird-looking scenes out of near-shuttle small stuff floating around.

That's a detail that the UFO proponents of these videos were happier not knowing, so as far as I can tell, they have resolutely gone on NOT knowing it, as best they can. And trying to make their target audience NOT know it either.

Welcome indeed, i hope i will get the time for some healthy debate, i guess you need sceptics for balance :D Your reputation precedes you, sir. But welcome to the looney bin anyway :)

To understand the Phenomena in its true context, the human species needs to come to re-establish
these few facts.

1.      WHERE the Universe is within ALL ? (Still unknown today)
2.      HOW is the Universe being produced ?
3.      WHAT (NOT Who) is producing this little Universe ?

The fact that we experience both a species and Environment, suggests there is a "Process"
by which this experience is being generated.

Just because we experience what we BELIEVE to be Physical, (consisting mainly of space) and we have
discovered what we believe to be Energy etc. does NOT demand WHAT (NOT Who) has in fact the same content
or makeup as the RESULT (universe).


A bit like your pictures on a TV or Computer, look Nothing Like the Processes producing the Pictures.

The process may take pace within the Environment we experience but that does NOT demand
in fact that such a "Process" involves directly the Components of such a Universe.


Take for example WHAT is being discovered today regarding a "HOLOGRAPHIC Universe".

Well worth watching IMHO







Just One of a series of 5 videos.


It may be that we are all from and in a Non-Dimensional Environment ,merely experiencing
like a "Multiplayer 1st Person Computer Game" produced by Mind ?


After all, the images you see, are inside the environment of the brain involving Mind...


Just because we see these images INSIDE our brain, does NOT dictate that WHAT
is generating these experiences, is in fact the same.

WHAT may be generating all this, is our Collective Mind ! (NOT the so called "Physical" or of the "Brain")


The images we see in our brain a very, very small, but we assume in ignorance, that what we are seeing,
is a huge universe.


When one understands the Computer world and Gaming Software, we soon come to realise WHAT
we are experiencing, believing to be a Human body (a gaming Avatar) interacting with
a Universe, (Gaming Environment) generated through Complex "Processes", much like that
of a "Multiplayer 1st Person Video game".

Sort of like that of, Matrix Trilogy but instead of the source being human, actually involves
a Non-Dimensional Environment and a "Processing System" of the Conceptual type,
causing our Real Entity (LIFE NOT the human species or any other) to believe
we are experiencing a so called Physical and dimensional environment, structured on strict rules
involving "Communication". (A "Processing language" based on Geometric form)


Another video worth watching ....

Easynow: "I have one of those things called a job and doesn't leave me much spare time?".

Fair enough. We can use a bit more methodical reading, analysis, responses on this subject rather than both-side knee-jerk tweets. Take your time, it took me more than twenty years to fully appreciate what I 've tried to condense in the 99 FAQs. I'll be around.

Quote from: JimO on April 24, 2014, 04:46:50 PM
Easynow: "I have one of those things called a job and doesn't leave me much spare time?".

Here's the video where Oberg quoted from ...
Link - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQEuq6khOiQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQEuq6khOiQ



And for anyone interested here's the link to the originial discussion ...

When Oberg Attacks
Link - http://www.thelivingmoon.com/forum/index.php?topic=6636.msg92437#msg92437

QuoteFair enough. We can use a bit more methodical reading, analysis, responses on this subject rather than both-side knee-jerk tweets. Take your time, it took me more than twenty years to fully appreciate what I 've tried to condense in the 99 FAQs. I'll be around.

Yeah I'm very busy lately so I can't always post.

I've read your article and instead of picking it apart piece by piece ( I could if I wanted to), all I really need to say about is, it's nothing but a bunch of questions with opinionated answers and proves absolutely nothing.

Nothing in the "99 opinions" article explains the STS-75 video.



If Oberg can't (or won't) explain where the objects in the STS-75 video came from or originated then imo discussing this topic with him is a waste of time.



Questions for Jim Oberg:

Have you ever seen a real UFO ?

If not, why should we believe your opinions ?


And when are you going to share with everyone,

your copy of the STS-75 video ?

You know, ... the NASA copy you publicly admitted you have ?

:D

An FYI for all NASA UFO Hunters :D

NASA created UFO like Orb? Bokeh? Alien Spacecraft? (http://www.thelivingmoon.com/forum/index.php?topic=261.msg2110#msg2110)

Re: Jim's Copy of NASA STS-75 tether

Either

1) he doesn't have a copy... otherwise he would have posted it years ago to make his point

or

2) he has a copy but won't show it because it proves ours :D

Quote from: JimO on April 22, 2014, 10:09:52 PM
I agree. It's 'obvious' since stars are out that its night, so the lights must be slef-luminous. But that's a mistake. The shuttle could have passed out of Earth's shadow but the ground beneath it is still dark for a few minutes. Nearby objects 'appear' at sunrise but otherwise that event is NOT noticeable since there is no 'sky' to brighten up.

Only problem with you hypothesis is that they change brightness like in the STS 80 storm cloud Critters. That is the one that has ArMaP stumped too so we should focus on that one. Since the NASA camera man zooms in on the one after its moved off  we know that a) they are aware of it and b) its NOT dust or debris and c) its not a small object near the camera

Since we really only need ONE to be a good one... I say we focus on that one.


As for STS-75 there is no way that any Jim Oberg explanation can account for all the mixed trajectories and curved trajectories of the critters...

So give it up :P

This is the first part... STS 80 formation...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJyuQVIFdKo


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJyuQVIFdKo

This is the Storm section and the one I consider best case for "Critters"

I put them in here for those members who haven't seen them yet.

The one 'object' moves into view... suddenly brightens and STOPS over the storm.  A second one pops up out of the clouds and moves off. Then the camera man zooms in on the first one that has now moved off screen with the rotation, still 'parked' where it had stopped

These are no small dust or ice particles. They are obviously not close to the spacecraft so they have to be large.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNYLWImYGNM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNYLWImYGNM

And for those who haven't seen it yet  here is Luna Cognita's full length motion study tracking all the various motions of the critters :D

NASA STS-75 "Tether Incident" - UFO flightpath tracking/stabilization (Extended Version)

So how do you get CURVED trajectories of dust particles? According to what I was taught above movements in a vacuum there is nothing that allows for objects not under their own power to make curved flight paths in a vacuum:D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2DVeil21gc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2DVeil21gc

To me  this motion tracking is the most important aspect. For some reason most skeptics tend to avoid that and keep going back to Bokeh's

(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/41pegasus/04images/Critter/dfbd509bca784d12.gif)

(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/41pegasus/04images/Critter/Tether1.gif)

And how do you explain NASA watching this critter on their big screen?  You really expect anyone to believe that is a dust speck? Really?

(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/41pegasus/04images/Critter/NASA_Control_001.png)

ArMaP made the animation of several frames from the NASA control room..

(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/41pegasus/04images/Critter/bb261ab621b502c6.gif)

Bokeh/dust/ice my ass :P

"glowed like a fluorescent tube"

]And in all the fuss over the critters flocking to the plasma charged tether like moths to a flame..

...has anyone (besides me) taken time to figure out WHY and HOW the tether "glowed like a fluorescent tube" after in broke?

8)

I would think that people who were studying alternative energy would be very interested in the 'potential'

::)

One thing I have learned while I was in the Airforce is not to believe anything the military or government agency tells to the general public. Their interests completely differ from ours. In the Royal Dutch Airforce,
you:

- do not tell anything to anyone unless you have explicit permission.
- may tell something but never tell the full truth.
- keep your mouth shut about things that you are not allowed to know (yourself).
- do not ask any questions about things that are not of your business.
- must learn that UFO do not exist, so reporting them will not bring you anything except problems.

Being part of the above-mentioned  system, I do not trust anyone that has been or still is part of the system. I only trust my own observations and there are too many anomalies which NASA cannot simply explain with light reflections. Especially those filmed in IR, NEAR - and FAR UV and in total darkness.

Just my two cents,

Cheers,

Sander
 

Gold for you there Sander ;)

As much as I respect Jim's opinion and experience, it's always nice to hear another side to the story from a Mil Perspective!  :)

Quote from: zorgon on April 24, 2014, 08:08:16 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNYLWImYGNM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNYLWImYGNM

Yes, that's the one I was referring to, thanks for posting it. :)

Quote from: 1967sander on April 24, 2014, 08:28:46 PM
One thing I have learned while I was in the Airforce is not to believe anything the military or government agency tells to the general public. Their interests completely differ from ours. In the Royal Dutch Airforce,
you:

- do not tell anything to anyone unless you have explicit permission.
- may tell something but never tell the full truth.
- keep your mouth shut about things that you are not allowed to know (yourself).
- do not ask any questions about things that are not of your business.
- must learn that UFO do not exist, so reporting them will not bring you anything except problems.

Being part of the above-mentioned  system, I do not trust anyone that has been or still is part of the system. I only trust my own observations and there are too many anomalies which NASA cannot simply explain with light reflections. Especially those filmed in IR, NEAR - and FAR UV and in total darkness.

Just my two cents,

Cheers,

Sander

More Gold for you sander, from TMT ...

Quote from: zorgon on April 24, 2014, 08:24:48 PM
.....
...has anyone (besides me) taken time to figure out WHY and HOW the tether "glowed like a fluorescent tube" after in broke?

Just to back up to a starting point where we can agree on facts, Zorg, how long after the tether break does the video show the tether 'glowing'?

Referring to the luminosity of the tether, under what solar illumination conditions was this video taken? Day or night?

You are aware that numerous ground observers saw the tether over the following few weeks [me among them]. Have you ever read any of their reports or talked to any of them?

Quote from: zorgon on April 24, 2014, 08:08:16 PM
....
The one 'object' moves into view... suddenly brightens and STOPS over the storm.  A second one pops up out of the clouds and moves off. Then the camera man zooms in on the first one that has now moved off screen with the rotation, still 'parked' where it had stopped.

These are no small dust or ice particles. They are obviously not close to the spacecraft so they have to be large.

Back to basics -- is it day or night when the video was taken?

[quote author=1967sander link=topic=6642.msg92813#msg92813 ...
Being part of the above-mentioned  system, I do not trust anyone that has been or still is part of the system. I only trust my own observations and there are too many anomalies which NASA cannot simply explain with light reflections. Especially those filmed in IR, NEAR - and FAR UV and in total darkness.
[/quote]

For later discussion I'd like to see a few examples observed in total darkness. Any links?

Quote from: JimO on April 25, 2014, 04:25:37 AM
You are aware that numerous ground observers saw the tether over the following few weeks [me among them]. Have you ever read any of their reports or talked to any of them?

Talked to them no  read the reports  yes :D I also have a video of the tether taken from the ground

Skeptics try to say that the 'glow' was merely reflected sunlight on that very thin wire...

... yet the full NASA report after the fact says otherwise :D

Most people don't even know what a tether is and how much electricity it actually can collect...

The glow is NOT reflected sunlight... it was a sustained plasma arc, the circuit completed by the gases generated by the cable shielding that creates a small 'atmosphere' along the tether allowing the arc to continue

The most famous sustained arc event of all led to the breakage of the TSS-1R electrodynamic tether, and the loss of the attached satellite. Figure 8 shows the burned, frayed and broken tether end still attached to the Shuttle after the break. Incidentally, the tether continued arcing long after it and its satellite were drifting free, until finally it went into night conditions where the electron density was insufficient to sustain the arc. - Page 27

NASA could have prevented this from breaking had they installed a CIRCUIT BREAKER for a few hundred dollars... but the all knowing NASA scientists figured it couldn't generate enough energy to be an issue... so no circuit breaker :D  Result? Lose a $100 million satellite instead :P

Feb. 25 after the 12 mile tether began producing electricity an unexpected overload in electrical energy fluctuating between 2 and 10 times that which predicted due to inaccurate estimates in the electrical charge in the earths magnetic field, ionosphere, and possibly space radiation fried the tethers conductor cable and it broke severing it from the space shuttle..."

EARLY FINDINGS FROM TETHERED SATELLITE MISSION
POINT TO REVAMPING OF SPACE PHYSICS THEORIES
RELEASE: 96-43

Numerous space physics and plasma theories are being revised or overturned by data gathered during the Tethered Satellite System Reflight (TSS-1R) experiments on Space Shuttle Columbia's STS-75 mission last March.

Models, accepted by scientists for more than 30 years, are incorrect and must be rewritten. This assessment follows analysis by a joint U.S.-Italian Tethered Satellite investigating team of the information gathered during the mission.

Source: Marshal  Marshall Space Flight Center, Press Release

Using a hand-held camera system with image intensifiers and special filters, the TOP investigation will provide visual data that may allow scientists to answer a variety of questions concerning tether dynamics and optical effects generated by TSS-1R. In particular, this experiment will examine the high-voltage plasma sheath surrounding the satellite...

In one mode of operation, the current developed in the Tethered Satellite System is closed by using electron accelerators to return electrons to the plasma surrounding the orbiter. The interaction between these electron beams and the plasma is not well understood...

Associate Investigator: Stephen Mende, Lockheed Martin

On 8 meter plasma balls :D

(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/41pegasus/04images/Tether/Text_007.png)


I also have all the data on the NAVY TETHER that flew AT THE SAME TIME and was up there for two + years. They fired lasers at it from Hawaii and Kirtland as a proff of concept for power transmission (power collected from the tether)

Report: Direct from NASA

The electric conductor of the tether was a copper braid wound around a nylon string. It was encased in teflon-like insulation, with an outer cover of kevlar, a tough plastic also used in bullet-proof vests, all this inside a nylon sheath. The culprit turned out to be the innermost core, made of a porous material which, during its manufacture, trapped many bubbles of air, at atmospheric pressure.

Later vacuum-chamber experiments suggested that the unwinding of the reel uncovered pinholes in the insulation. That in itself would not have caused a major problem, because the ionosphere around the tether, under normal circumstance, was too rarefied to divert much of the current. However, the air trapped in the insulation changed that. As it bubbled out of the pinholes, the high voltage ("electric pressure") of the nearby tether, about 3500 volts, converted it into a plasma (in a way similar to the ignition of a fluorescent tube), a relatively dense one and therefore a much better conductor of electricity.

    The instruments aboard the tether satelite showed that this plasma diverted through the pinhole about 1 ampere, a current comparable to that of a 100-watt bulb (but at 3500 volts!), to the metal of the shuttle and from there to the ionospheric return circuit. That current was enough to melt the cable.

As the broken end whipped away from the shuttle, the plasma established electric contact with the ionosphere directly. The satellite on the distant end monitored the current: after about half a minute it stopped, then it reignited and flowed again for about another half minute, stopping for good when (presumably) all the trapped air was gone.

http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/wtether.html

So NOT reflected sunlight but fluorescent tube effect of a 100 watt bulb with 3500 volts

Direct from NASA

8)

The STS-48 zigzagger is the most famous 'shuttle UFO video" and my thorough documentation of the prosaic nature of the event is here: http://www.jamesoberg.com/99purdue-48-speech.pdf

That's what any full-fledged investigation of other events would be modeled after.

If that's not going to be adequate, we ought to say so now and save a lot of wasted effort.

So -- going into the sts-80 and sts-75 cases, is everybody satisfied that my sts-48 report contains adequate documentation to establish the prosaic nature of that video?

Quote from: zorgon on April 25, 2014, 05:33:26 AM

So NOT reflected sunlight but fluorescent tube effect of a 100 watt bulb with 3500 volts

Second request: Was this video taken in day time or night time, and how long after the tether break?

Of all of the ground observers of the tether, how many saw it while it was in Earth's shadow? Zero?

Tether viewed from Earth Australia

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_XjFGUO28M

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_XjFGUO28M


NAVY tether  22 August 1997
TiPS tether survival: 1 year, 63 days and counting!

(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/41pegasus/04images/Tether2/deploy11.gif)
The images were gathered using a 1.5 meter telescope at the Air Force's Starfire Optical Range at the Air Force Research Laboratory's Directed Energy Directorate, Kirtland AFB.  The images were gathered starting one minute after the separation of the two end bodies on day 172, 10:34 GMT. These observations corroborated the deployment length vs. time measurements made on board TiPS.

I received permission from the NAVY to repost the entire data set as they since deleted most of the old files


::)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F11GEIBb87g

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F11GEIBb87g

All the NAVY data is here, including the laser firing clip

http://www.thelivingmoon.com/41pegasus/02files/Electrodynamic_01.html

The two LASER stations involved...

(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/45jack_files/04images/Bases/AMOS_header.jpg)
Air Force Maui Optical Station (AMOS)

(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/45jack_files/04images/Kirtland/Starfire/DirectedEnergyDirectorate.jpg)(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/45jack_files/04images/Kirtland/Starfire/NavBarGraphic.jpg)
Starfire Optical Range, Directed Energy Directorate, Kirtland AFB


...yeah yeah I know  DEW's don't exist :P

(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/45jack_files/04images/Kirtland/Starfire/610px-Starfire_Optical_Range_-_three_lasers_into_space.jpg)
Courtesy of Directed Energy Directorate, US Air Force
Starfire Optical Range Firing Lasers, Kirtland AFB

(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/45jack_files/04images/AEOS/SWAT_Laserlg.jpg)
Courtesy of Directed Energy Directorate, US Air Force
Air Force Maui Optical Station (AMOS)
© 1996, Naval Research Laboratory

Quote from: zorgon on April 25, 2014, 05:30:27 AM
...The glow is NOT reflected sunlight... it was a sustained plasma arc, the circuit completed by the gases generated by the cable shielding that creates a small 'atmosphere' along the tether allowing the arc to continue

.... the tether continued arcing long after it and its satellite were drifting free, until finally it went into night conditions where the electron density was insufficient to sustain the arc. - Page 27

Instruments detected the presence of the plasma sheath, but even the source you cite states the plasma sheath vanished once the tether went into shadow. So HOW do you interpret as proving the luminosity of the tether was glowing plasma and not simply sunlight, if nobody ever reported seeing it WITHOUT sunlight on it?

Quote from: JimO on April 25, 2014, 05:53:06 AM
Of all of the ground observers of the tether, how many saw it while it was in Earth's shadow? Zero?

I have no idea how many saw it from the ground I would imagine many seeing as it was glowing :D

Since the NASA report says that once it moved out of the sunlight the charge dropped so the sustained plasma  arc stopped...

That would make your question moot...

Quote from: zorgon on April 25, 2014, 05:57:17 AM
Tether viewed from Earth Australia

Good link, but you neglected to address the OP's commentary about nuts claiming the glow was due to plasma.

[ex]
Countless people make absurd claims that an electrical cable 2.54mm in diameter should not be visible from Earth, or 100 nautical miles from an image intensified Space Shuttle camera. All kinds of exotic pseudo-scientific theories exist, but they all focus on just one dimension - the diameter (not surprisingly, because it is the smallest). They never take into account the length, and hence the SURFACE AREA. It doesn't take a genius to calculate the 'visible' surface area of the Tether, look up the Solar Constant in space, estimate the albedo of the white nomex jacket, and calculate how many kW of light this object reflected. Anyone who does so will find there is no mystery whatsoever.

For those who refuse to see sense, then consider the YES2 Tether, which holds the record for the largest man-made orbiting structure visible from Earth. This Tether was not even electrically conductive, and so was incapable of emitting light by any means other than reflection. Furthermore, it was even thinner than the STS-75 tether!

There is no need for ridiculous theories about free energy, or gross misunderstandings concerning 'plasma sheaths' when proof exists of a simple plastic Tether being visible from Earth. Look it up, do the math and put the nonsense to bed once and for all please.
[/ex]

Quote from: JimO on April 25, 2014, 05:58:38 AM
Instruments detected the presence of the plasma sheath, but even the source you cite states the plasma sheath vanished once the tether went into shadow. So HOW do you interpret as proving the luminosity of the tether was glowing plasma and not simply sunlight, if nobody ever reported seeing it WITHOUT sunlight on it?

I will go with what NASA says :D

"However, the air trapped in the insulation changed that. As it bubbled out of the pinholes, the high voltage ("electric pressure") of the nearby tether, about 3500 volts, converted it into a plasma (in a way similar to the ignition of a fluorescent tube), a relatively dense one and therefore a much better conductor of electricity."

And from my old CB days of running a 1000 watt linear amplifier in the rally car (shhhh don't tell the FAA :P ) I used to take a fluorescent tube out to see my way around :D


Kinda like THIS  Voila!  Tether effect :P

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSYj2lEaxhY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSYj2lEaxhY

Quote from: zorgon on April 25, 2014, 06:00:11 AM
I have no idea how many saw it from the ground I would imagine many seeing as it was glowing ..... 

"Imagine" might be the operative word here. Suppose instead they saw it when it was reflecting sunlight? How does that prove the existence of the plasma glow instead of sunlight?

Quote from: JimO on April 25, 2014, 06:04:21 AM
Good link, but you neglected to address the OP's commentary about nuts claiming the glow was due to plasma.

LOL he is welcome to his opinion, however wrong he is. Maybe that was even you?

I could counter with  "Any nut that thinks such a small wire would reflect THAT much sunlight when even NASA says it was plasma glow and that the insulation burned off is the fool :D"

We have many inventors here that dabble with high voltage... can't fool them :D

But nice try flogging that old horse :D

Quote from: JimO on April 25, 2014, 06:07:31 AM
"Imagine" might be the operative word here. Suppose instead they saw it when it was reflecting sunlight? How does that prove the existence of the plasma glow instead of sunlight?

I do not need to imagine or suppose... I have the NASA reports that state it was plasma arcing :P  That report is 480 pages long  Seems that plasma arcing is quite a problem in LEO 

Wasn't reflected sunlight that does this

(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/41pegasus/04images/Electric_Universe/ESA_Terra.png)

(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/41pegasus/04images/Electric_Universe/Arcing02.jpg)

And here is one of those Plasma Balls :P

(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/41pegasus/04images/Tether/Arc_002.png)

All direct data from NASA... you cannot refute that :D

Quote from: zorgon on April 25, 2014, 06:04:47 AM
I will go with what NASA says :D

"However, the air trapped in the insulation changed that. As it bubbled out of the pinholes, the high voltage ("electric pressure") of the nearby tether, about 3500 volts, converted it into a plasma (in a way similar to the ignition of a fluorescent tube), a relatively dense one and therefore a much better conductor of electricity."

And from my old CB days of running a 1000 watt linear amplifier in the rally car (shhhh don't tell the FAA :P ) I used to take a fluorescent tube out to see my way around :D

I don't see where the NASA report says the plasma emitted any light at all, much less more than the light from reflected sunlight.

You seem to concede that the tether was only visible during sunlight, so the video in question was also made in sunlight. And this is important in considering the nature of the dots.

Now to what shuttle-specific activities might have engendered them, WHEN was the video taken? Do you agree that despite frequent internet claims that the UFO swarm enveloped the tether as it drifted away shortly after breaking, the actual video was taken DAYS after the break, right? Can we all agree on that?

Quote from: zorgon on April 25, 2014, 06:12:53 AM
I do not need to imagine or suppose... I have the NASA reports that state it was plasma arcing :P  That report is 480 pages long  Seems that plasma arcing is quite a problem in LEO 
....

The report states that plasma arcing occurred but I don't see any assertion that the observed glow was caused by the arcing and not sunlight. Where did I miss that?

The observed brightness of the sunlit tether surprised a lot of folks but tether experts had predicted it ahead of time, with exactly the logic that the man who posted the video YOU linked to, laid out.

If you're going to argue against contrary opinions of experts in the field of observational astronomy by just saying you're smarter than they are, I may have to quote Han Solo steering away from the Death Star: "This is going to be a real short flight."

Can you cite anybody in the satellite observation fraternity -- as in the entries in the SeeSat group at satobs.org, -- who agrees with you that sunlight alone was inadequate to account for observed brightness? Or is it just another it-just-stands-to-reason hand waving?

Quote from: JimO on April 25, 2014, 06:15:51 AM
You seem to concede that the tether was only visible during sunlight, so the video in question was also made in sunlight. And this is important in considering the nature of the dots.

Well that is odd that you cannot see it as its highlighted in PINK in the part you quoted and the last photo I posted shows a BRIGHT plasma arc in progress...

I really am at a loss to understand why you have selective blindness...

The FACT that any PLASMA ARC gives of bright light is not in question... it really doesn't need to be stated that a sustained plasma arg GLOWS brighter than reflected sunlight :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhzjRzqh4Hg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhzjRzqh4Hg

Quote from: zorgon on April 25, 2014, 06:36:30 AM
....The FACT that any PLASMA ARC gives of bright light is not in question... it really doesn't need to be stated that a sustained plasma arg GLOWS brighter than reflected sunlight. 

It DOES need to be proven, and you STATING it doesn't do that.

WHY do you reject the explanation that reflected sunlight is inadequate to explain the observed brightness?

Along with others, I observed the tether visually including it rising out of Earth's shadow, and observed the same illumination conditions as with any 'rising' satellite -- an initial rosiness followed quickly by brighter white light. It sure looked like it was moving across the thicker [reddened] lower atmosphere into full sunlight. Why would plasma glow mimic that normal attenuation effect?

If the tether is a "Round Section", check out the reflective optics involved !

You will find very little reflected light would be seen on earth as the light is spread not Focused ...  :)

Quote from: JimO on April 25, 2014, 06:54:11 AM
It DOES need to be proven, and you STATING it doesn't do that.

WHY do you reject the explanation that reflected sunlight is inadequate to explain the observed brightness?

midnight mistyping. ADEQUATE

Quote from: The Matrix Traveller on April 25, 2014, 01:25:03 PM
If the tether is a "Round Section", check out the reflective optics involved !

You will find very little reflected light would be seen on earth as the light is spread not Focused ...  :)

The surface is not specular reflective, but diffuse reflective, since it's Kevlar, not a mirror.

Quote from: JimO on April 25, 2014, 05:46:35 AM
So -- going into the sts-80 and sts-75 cases, is everybody satisfied that my sts-48 report contains adequate documentation to establish the prosaic nature of that video?

I haven't read your documentation about the sts-48 video, but I agree that a prosaic explanation is the most likely for that video.

But I don't see any relation between what that video shows and what the sts-80 video I was/am talking about shows.

Quote from: ArMaP on April 25, 2014, 01:53:01 PM
I haven't read your documentation about the sts-48 video, but I agree that a prosaic explanation is the most likely for that video.

But I don't see any relation between what that video shows and what the sts-80 video I was/am talking about shows.

Thanks. The report shows the range of available documentation that is available, none of which appears -- in the other cases -- to have been obtained by any ufo investigators in the other cases. They thus remain essentially UNinvestigated. T am curious about the apparent unanimous absence of curiosity about these resources?

How long AFTER the tether break was the famous video taken?

QuoteThe surface is not specular reflective, but diffuse reflective, since it's Kevlar, not a mirror.

Thank you JimO ...

So this is interesting; It helps us to understand what the Light source may have been,
(involving either diffused reflective or Generated) allowing us to see the tether from the ground.

Quote from: JimO on April 25, 2014, 06:54:11 AM
It DOES need to be proven, and you STATING it doesn't do that.

I did more than state it I showed you it in action.

QuoteWHY do you reject the explanation that reflected sunlight is inadequate to explain the observed brightness?

QuoteThe surface is not specular reflective, but diffuse reflective, since it's Kevlar, not a mirror.

Seems you answered your own question  ::)

QuoteIt sure looked like it was moving across the thicker [reddened] lower atmosphere into full sunlight. Why would plasma glow mimic that normal attenuation effect?

Just because it 'looked like it" to you doesn't make it so. Time stamps? You know we don't have accurate info on that because Martyn's intercepted copy does not have them. You keep claiming NASA has the original with that information, but neither you or NASA has ever released it so it is likely they lost it along with all the other stuff they loose like the Apollo 11 tapes and the Lunar Orbiter tapes (which fortunately Mark Nelson(Dr X) had saved in his garage rather than destroy them)

Now if we look back at the NASA report I mentioned where they state that the plasma arc stopped after it was out of sunlight because of electron density...  since the wire is STILL moving at orbital speed, it is not hard to extrapolate that when the tether once again emerged into the sunlight, and electron density once more was re-established, that the arc would once again 'ignite" as it were.  And just like the plasma experiment I showed you, it would start out a dull glow until the plasma got 'hot' enough

So I have no difficulty seeing how plasma could easily explain the situation you described.

And by your own words  "it looked like".  Well 'looked like' is not good enough :D

Simply dragging a copper wire that long through earths magnetosphere at that speed will produce a lot of electron volts... the purpose of the tether after all.  The AMOUNT it collects was greatly underestimated by NASA 'scientists' and that is what caused the failure in the first place.  All that electricity collected has to go somewhere :D

Incidently the spaceships moving through space also collect such electricity... NASA says, in that same report, that it is enough to kill an astronaut if he were free floating and not properly grounded.  And imagine the shuttle approaching the ISS

can we say ZAPPP!!

(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/41pegasus/04images/Tether/Text_003.png)

(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/41pegasus/04images/Tether/Text_004.png)

(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/41pegasus/04images/Tether/Text_005.png)

The ruling of the board?  Should have installed an arc detection circuit to shut it down in case :D

(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/41pegasus/04images/Tether/Text_006.png)

All about Plasma :P

QuoteAbstract

Plasma contactors have been baselined for the Space Station (SS) to control the electrical potentials of surfaces to eliminate/mitigate damaging interactions with the space environment. The system represents a dual-use technology which is a direct outgrowth of the NASA electric propulsion program and, in particular, the technology development effort on ion thrustor systems. The plasma contactor subsystems include the plasma contactor unit, a power electronics unit, and an expellant management unit. Under this pre-flight development program these will all be brought to breadboard or engineering model status. Development efforts for the plasma contactor include optimizing the design and configuration of the contactor, validating its required lifetime, and characterizing the contactor plume and electromagnetic interference. The plasma contactor unit design selected for the SS is an enclosed keeper, xenon hollow cathode plasma source. This paper discusses the test results and development status of the plasma contactor unit subsystem for the SS.

SAO/NASA ADS Physics Abstract Service
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993iep..confQ..13P

Any high scholl kid that has ever played with electricity can tell you plasma arcs wheter sustained of momentary GLOW ie give off light :P  Usually VERY bright

You can even create a glowing plasma ball by putting a grape in a microwave

Now watch this vedeo

See how it starts off a deep REDDISH glow then gets brighter and goes to BLUE WHITE?  I would say THAT describes perfectly what you said you saw as the Tether reignited :P

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYusDh0Sw3U

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYusDh0Sw3U

simple question.

Quote from: JimO on April 25, 2014, 02:51:58 PM
How long AFTER the tether break was the famous video taken?

There was a lot of speculation as to ionization as source of some tether brightness
http://www.satobs.org/seesat/Aug-2002/0015.html
http://www.eclipsetours.com/paul-maley/artificial-satellite-observations/tethered-satellites/
http://www.satobs.org/tss.html

One significant data point against the plasma explanation is that other tethers that were NOT conducting NEVERTHELESS were just as bright. Sort of blows the requirement for plasma dominating reflected light, right out of orbit.

log entries of actual sts-75observations
http://www.satobs.org/seesat/Mar-1996/index.html

The fundamental objection to Zorgon's 'glowing plasma' is that the sunlit tether alone was plenty bright enough on its own.

Also, if the induced current created the 'glowing plasma', a la Zorgon, why did going into darkness stop it? The motion through the magnetic field was unabated, so would the induced current have been. But many observers saw the tether become invisible at sunset and vice versa.

Quote from: JimO on April 26, 2014, 04:37:34 AM
Also, if the induced current created the 'glowing plasma', a la Zorgon, why did going into darkness stop it? The motion through the magnetic field was unabated, so would the induced current have been. But many observers saw the tether become invisible at sunset and vice versa.

NASA report says the electron density in the shadow of earth is less... says so right in their report.

I guess that would be like expecting solar panels to produce at night :P

One flaw with your reflecred sunlight theory :D

There are hundreds of thousands of pieces of space debris out there. Many of those pieces are both larget and more reflective that the tether...

So why do we not see all these pieces as they reflect sunlight?

Can't have it both ways :D

Quote from: JimO on April 26, 2014, 04:37:34 AM
There was a lot of speculation as to ionization as source of some tether brightness
http://www.satobs.org/seesat/Aug-2002/0015.html
http://www.eclipsetours.com/paul-maley/artificial-satellite-observations/tethered-satellites/
http://www.satobs.org/tss.html

LOL this is funny... I am using NASA official reports and you are using "Eclipse Tours" as a source.  Opinions don't count :D

And yout\r satobs link says this "Others have commented on the surprising brightness of the tether - one report placed it at about mag. +3, though brightness estimates of such an unusual (in effect one dimensional) object are hard to make. It seems to compare favorably with the SEDS tether of recent years despite it being much narrower; only 2.54 mm. "

Seems to compare hmmmm yup that sure is proof :P

QuoteOne significant data point against the plasma explanation is that other tethers that were NOT conducting NEVERTHELESS were just as bright. Sort of blows the requirement for plasma dominating reflected light, right out of orbit.

What other tethers? The NAVY one glowed and was zapped by lasers :D  What other tethers do we have to compare with?

QuoteThe fundamental objection to Zorgon's 'glowing plasma' is that the sunlit tether alone was plenty bright enough on its own.

Anything on record regarding the Level of light recorded from the tether ?

To take out any guess work, what was the data recorded regarding light intensity of the tether,
both from orbit and the ground ?

If nothing on record the above statement (Quote) is purely guess work.

The math will tell you whether the source of light at any stage, was Generated within/about the tether,
or diffuse reflective light from the sun.

I tend to think that the light was probably produced by the plasma.

Quote from: zorgon on April 26, 2014, 04:45:40 AM
,,,,

One flaw with your reflecred sunlight theory :D

There are hundreds of thousands of pieces of space debris out there. Many of those pieces are both larget and more reflective that the tether...

So why do we not see all these pieces as they reflect sunlight?

Can't have it both ways :D

You can't have been paying attention to the satobs.org message boards. They visually observe space debris all the time. How about you list me, say, four or five of these debris objects bigger and more reflective than the tether that we still don't see?

While we're at it, how about you demonstrate you even know how big the tether was -- what was its visual area, its total reflecting surface, as viewed from the ground?

Quote from: zorgon on April 26, 2014, 04:55:14 AM
LOL this is funny... I am using NASA official reports and you are using "Eclipse Tours" as a source.  Opinions don't count :D

Thanks for giving me the chance to  supplement your incomplete knowledge and needle you for over-the-top arrogance. Paul Maley is the world's leading satellite visual observer with decades of pioneering imaging and descriptions of space objects both in orbit and reentering, some involving world wide travel. He pioneered asteroid occultation campaigns in the 1980s that collected the first indications of asteroid satellites, later confirmed by Hubble and by fly-by probes.  He observed and imaged several tether satellites including STS=75.

The fact that you would mock his status and closed-mindedly dismiss his observations as worthless 'opinion' suggests to me an inadequate flexibility in recognizing your own ignorance. I'm rather disappointed. Am I wasting my  time here?

Quote from: The Matrix Traveller on April 26, 2014, 04:57:27 AM
Anything on record regarding the Level of light recorded from the tether ?

To take out any guess work, what was the data recorded regarding light intensity of the tether, both from orbit and the ground ?

If nothing on record the above statement (Quote) is purely guess work.

The math will tell you whether the source of light at any stage, was Generated within/about the tether, or diffuse reflective light from the sun.

I tend to think that the light was probably produced by the plasma.

This is a good question, and it is discussed at length on the satobs,org links I provided. Hold off on your tendency to reach a judgment without familiarizing yourself with the actual observations.

Quote from: zorgon on April 26, 2014, 04:45:40 AM
NASA report says the electron density in the shadow of earth is less... says so right in their report.

I guess that would be like expecting solar panels to produce at night :P

Are you expecting electrons and photons to behave the same regarding Earth's shadow? Think again. HINT: What is the charge on a photon and why does the electron's charge make a difference?

Jeez, loooo-WEEZ, Zorgon, get it together, please.

Quote from: zorgon on April 25, 2014, 11:10:54 PM
...
Incidently the spaceships moving through space also collect such electricity... NASA says, in that same report, that it is enough to kill an astronaut if he were free floating and not properly grounded.  And imagine the shuttle approaching the ISS

can we say ZAPPP!!

So what? I wrote about this fifteen years ago for 'Spectrum', professional journal of the institute of electrical and electronics engineers. There never was any indication these plasmas were visible.  The fact that they WEREN'T was the major safety worry.


http://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/space-flight/nasas-big-push-for-the-space-station

Quote from: JimO on April 26, 2014, 06:26:44 AM
There never was any indication these plasmas were visible.

That seems unlikely  ::)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGIiD4lOthU

Quote from: zorgon on April 24, 2014, 07:51:24 PM
An FYI for all NASA UFO Hunters :D

NASA created UFO like Orb? Bokeh? Alien Spacecraft? (http://www.thelivingmoon.com/forum/index.php?topic=261.msg2110#msg2110)

Re: Jim's Copy of NASA STS-75 tether

Either

1) he doesn't have a copy... otherwise he would have posted it years ago to make his point

or

2) he has a copy but won't show it because it proves ours :D

I'll take door number 2 please  ;)

Quote from: JimO on April 26, 2014, 06:22:07 AM
Are you expecting electrons and photons to behave the same regarding Earth's shadow? Think again. HINT: What is the charge on a photon and why does the electron's charge make a difference?

On the left... spacecraft in shadow...  on the right spacecraft in sunlight

(http://holbert.faculty.asu.edu/eee560/SurfaceCharging.gif)

Expanding plasma discharge

(http://sess.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/images/ImpactPlasmaExpansion.png)

Spacecraft charging...

(https://www.spenvis.oma.be/help/background/charging/sintambp.gif)
https://www.spenvis.oma.be/help/background/charging/sintambp.gif

Flight data and laboratory simulations indicate that portions of the surface of the spacecraft not only charge to MANY kV (negative) but also suffer discharges (ars and coronas)

Like the corona discharge on the clove in Easynow's clip :D

Just like a lightning bolt you will get that corona effect before the big bolt that lights up the sky with a plasma arc :D

(http://link.springer.com/static-content/lookinside/527/chp%253A10.1007%252F978-94-010-2647-5_17/000.png)

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bc/Corona_discharge_1.JPG/800px-Corona_discharge_1.JPG)

Quote from: The Matrix Traveller on April 26, 2014, 04:57:27 AM
Anything on record regarding the Level of light recorded from the tether ?

To take out any guess work, what was the data recorded regarding light intensity of the tether,
both from orbit and the ground ?

from last post;   one report placed it at about mag. +3,

From Jim's source... this is the size of the tether and the surface. You can see the quarter is shiny but the cable is dull, not highly reflective

(http://www.eclipsetours.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/tether1.jpg)

Explanation on that source as follows:

The next one shows a magnified view of the inner and outer layers of the material. One idea is that the reason the tether can be seen with the unaided eye even though it is of millimeter thickness is possibly due to 'sandblasting' of the outer layer after exposure to the environment of space.

(http://www.eclipsetours.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/tether2.jpg)

Seriously?  "possibly"?  sand blasting?  Gee that is amazing considering it broke off minutes after deployment. How the heck did it have time to get sand blasted? And sandblasting Kevlar would polish it?


Seems these debunkers are grasping at any straw and hoping something sticks   LOL

QuoteOne significant data point against the plasma explanation is that other tethers that were NOT conducting NEVERTHELESS were just as bright. Sort of blows the requirement for plasma dominating reflected light, right out of orbit.

This tether was different, an experimental one, it generated far more energy than they thought.

QuoteAlso, if the induced current created the 'glowing plasma', a la Zorgon, why did going into darkness stop it? The motion through the magnetic field was unabated, so would the induced current have been. But many observers saw the tether become invisible at sunset and vice versa.

For it to be visible from earth, as reflected light, it would have to be 50 feet thick.

Yes it would continue to charge while in shadow, once it is in 'sunlight' i gets bombarded by high energy particles, cosmic rays etc. Then it would have sufficient energy to 'ignite'.
Once ignited, such a plasma is electrically VERY conductive, many thousands of amps can flow.

O my so much to read, still catching up, LOL
What strikes me is that the 'debris' all had the same 'pac-man' shape, or at least their plasma fields did.
O sorry i forgot that was a 'lens' effect from the camera, as was the 'effect' that some of this 'debris' went behind the tether. i know it's a pretty poor video, only the beginning is sharp, then some goon at NASA puts it out of focus & sets the contrast first to zero, then to full, in an attempt to obfuscate what was a very clear picture to begin with. ::)
Still reading.....

Also from Jim's source  regarding the other tether (the navy one)

TIPS
A high altitude tether was placed into space where it remains today. Not visible to the naked eye, this is a low light level video image. The TiPS has two small end masses connected by a tether.

Seems you CANNOT see that one with reflected sunlight...

... yet their tether cable is much more reflective...

(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/41pegasus/04images/Tether2/cord.gif)
Credit: US Navy

Quote from: PlaysWithMachines on April 26, 2014, 10:29:08 AM
What strikes me is that the 'debris' all had the same 'pac-man' shape, or at least their plasma fields did.
O sorry i forgot that was a 'lens' effect from the camera, as was the 'effect' that some of this 'debris' went behind the tether.

No that is the whole point of the bokeh argument...

A bokeh is a camera lens effect that can show a notch however since a camera has only ONE lens the bokeh blur in any one frame would have them all the same...

Anyone who dabbles with cameras can tell you that since a camera has only ONE lens that any bokeh produced by off focus would all be the SAME.  See below for examples of bokeh.  Yet the 'critters' change  sometimes the notch is at the top, sometimes at the bottom, sometimes more than one notch and the notches are in different positions on different critters in the same frame...

hexagonal bokeh  notice the angle is the same no mater where they aree in the image

(http://fc05.deviantart.net/fs71/i/2010/236/9/1/Bokeh_Brush_set_2_by_tinimissvn.png)

Here is one done with a heart shape...

Again they are all oriented the same direction...

(http://www.aribrownest.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/heart-bokeh.jpg)


Here is the one that goes behind the tether... watch the notches morph from two to one (and the shadow of the tether :P )

(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/41pegasus/04images/Critter/Tether1.gif)

In this image there are several critters  each with the notch at a different angle in the same frame. Notice the big one  it has the notch at the TOP

(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/41pegasus/04images/Tether/Image18c.jpg)

yet even though the camera doesn't change, a few frames later the notch is now at the bottom

(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/41pegasus/04images/Tether/Image18d.jpg)

A few more frames  showing multiple notches at random locations

(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/41pegasus/04images/Tether/Image07.jpg)

(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/41pegasus/04images/Tether/Image06.jpg)

(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/41pegasus/04images/Tether/Image05.jpg)

(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/41pegasus/04images/Tether/Image11.jpg)

Pulsating critter

(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/41pegasus/04images/Critter/dfbd509bca784d12.gif)


Huge one on NASA mission control screen

(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/41pegasus/04images/Critter/bb261ab621b502c6.gif)

Quote from: JimO on April 25, 2014, 02:51:58 PM
How long AFTER the tether break was the famous video taken?

I think it was on the second time the shuttle passed by the tether after the breaking.

Quote from: easynow on April 26, 2014, 09:25:40 AM
That seems unlikely  ::)

So.....  your 'evidence' consists of Hollywood SFX?  Wow, are you sure you want us to believe THAT?  Where is Dick Gordon's visual description documented in the world of reality? It could be, I'd like to believe it, but criminy. A TV show?

Quote from: PlaysWithMachines on April 26, 2014, 10:29:08 AM
... For it to be visible from earth, as reflected light, it would have to be 50 feet thick.
...Still reading.....

Thanks for diving in, it is a genuinely unearthly realm and weird-looking stuff is the 'new normal. So many 'obvious' intuitive guesses -- like the 50 ft thickness -- are based on earthside experience. Much of that no longer applies.

On the video of the tether breaking we can see that it returned to a coil-shape, does anyone know if what we are seeing in any of the images of the free tether show the tether extended or in a coil? A coil would be much wider than just the tether.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEPp5-lac6o

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEPp5-lac6o&list=UUzBF4dT28lh5kyO3o_F9fBQ

Quote from: ArMaP on April 26, 2014, 01:54:27 PM
I think it was on the second time the shuttle passed by the tether after the breaking.

How many days later was that? The reason it's important is that the passage of that much time means the shuttle had resumed normal orbital operations, including stuff like water dumps.

The mythical timeline has the tether being swarmed by UFOs soon after first breaking, as it is still drifting away. Anybody out there still have that misimpression?

Preserving that misimpression may be why other posters here have refused to answer the repeated question.

Quote from: ArMaP on April 26, 2014, 02:26:57 PM
On the video of the tether breaking we can see that it returned to a coil-shape, does anyone know if what we are seeing in any of the images of the free tether show the tether extended or in a coil? A coil would be much wider than just the tether.

The tangle at the lower end of the tether was extensively speculated about in the satobs.org log entries for the weeks of the tether free flight. But tangled or straight, the reflective area of the tether -- a tenth of an inch wide times 12 miles -- was unchanged. Do the math.

Quote from: zorgon on April 26, 2014, 10:31:32 AM
Also from Jim's source  regarding the other tether (the navy one)

TIPS
A high altitude tether was placed into space where it remains today. Not visible to the naked eye, this is a low light level video image. The TiPS has two small end masses connected by a tether.

Seems you CANNOT see that one with reflected sunlight...

... yet their tether cable is much more reflective...

Seems you've forgotten what's already on this site  -- many images of that tether seen by reflected sunlight. Too dim merely for naked-eye detection mainly due to being a lot farther away and a lot shorter that TSS-1R, but sunlit nevertheless.

http://www.thelivingmoon.com/41pegasus/02files/Electrodynamic_01.html

Quote from: ArMaP on April 26, 2014, 02:26:57 PM
On the video of the tether breaking we can see that it returned to a coil-shape, does anyone know if what we are seeing in any of the images of the free tether show the tether extended or in a coil? A coil would be much wider than just the tether.

Now that would maybe become visible from earth, yes.
A coil 100 feet wide, and glowing like crazy :D

ETA:

QuoteHow many days later was that? The reason it's important is that the passage of that much time means the shuttle had resumed normal orbital operations, including stuff like water dumps.

Shuttle orbit was about 9 hours if i'm not mistaken, so if the tether broke when out of sight, it must have been no less than 5-6 hours before.
i would not think it wise to start dumping water (dont they recycle every drop?) when approaching a 14 mile charged tether, that would be irresponsible at best.
But hey, this is NASA we're talking about :)

QuoteThe mythical timeline has the tether being swarmed by UFOs soon after first breaking, as it is still drifting away. Anybody out there still have that misimpression?

Yes.
Hell if i was out there in my electrical craft & some fool dumped all that free energy, i would go in & scoop it up as well...
They were probably taking snapshots for the peeps at home.

"What, the Humans are in space? Pictures or it didn't happen"

Quote from: JimO on April 26, 2014, 02:36:53 PM
The tangle at the lower end of the tether was extensively speculated about in the satobs.org log entries for the weeks of the tether free flight.

We can see that the whole tether is turning into a coil, not just the lower end.

QuoteBut tangled or straight, the reflective area of the tether -- a tenth of an inch wide times 12 miles -- was unchanged. Do the math.

In fact, a coiled (not tangled) tether would show a slightly smaller area, as some of the area would not be visible from any side at any time, but isn't a 10 x 10 metres object easier seen than a 10000 x 0.01 one?

Quote from: PlaysWithMachines on April 26, 2014, 03:31:33 PM
......i would not think it wise to start dumping water (dont they recycle every drop?) when approaching a 14 mile charged tether, that would be irresponsible at best.
But hey, this is NASA we're talking about :)
.....

I wrote the 99 FAQs for you. So much of what we correctly take for granted on Earth no longer apply -- and even counter-apply -- under space conditions that applying time-tested earthside intuitions and criteria wind up misleading people, often badly.

Sometimes it even leads to embarrassing displays of planetary chauvinism regarding how good old common sense makes one's ideas superior to smarty-pants rocket scientists, as in your good-natured ribbing. Learn better. Read the 99 FAQs. You need it.

Your comment on water recycling was a good stab, if a miss. Water was always surplus on shuttles since it was a 'waste product' of the fuel cells used for electrical power. On space stations, using solar power, water is expended so needs to be conserved and recycled. So ISS rarely dumps water, while shuttles did frequently.

From the fence: As far as I remember there were at least 2 vids or shots of the teather. The one shown here when it broke and another when they met up with it later and showed it more from the side. By that time the 12 miles looked more like 6 or less. With most of the coiling or spring at the broken end.

Anyways, there is no way any one could see that tiny wire from earth unless it was glowing like Fukashima. If a 747 at 35k feet was trailing this wire could we see it. To just see the wire, not glowing or reflecting would be impossible with the eyes.Even the ISS is just a little dot in the sky.

But I do wish you guys would figure this out! But I might ask, If such a simple dull object can produce a sunlight reflection that can be see from earth then the ISS must be able to be seen from mars. Also when an object curls up at all and the sun light hits it, the reflected light always bounces more in one direction not 360 degrees. At every curl there would also be a break in the reflection also unless there were many suns out that day.

Most of the critters I've seen look to me to be in the very high end of visible light an UV A, then moving past the camera into UV B an above. If the video camera could catch UV A with no problem then they could film critters also. It does not look like any of them are injesting the power from the teather. Just looked to me that they all got excited and dropped over for a look at the new toy.

Can I get a list of exactly what you all think these things are, so I can do some testing against other standards? If that is possible?

Quote from: PlaysWithMachines on April 26, 2014, 03:31:33 PM
...
Shuttle orbit was about 9 hours if i'm not mistaken, so if the tether broke when out of sight, it must have been no less than 5-6 hours before.
...

Player, you've got to ask, who out there likes to exploit your mistaken guesses by promoting UFO versions, and who wants to help you recognize and avoid consequences of these mistakes?

The tether did not break while 'out of sight', it was live on camera from the shuttle. And the shuttle orbit, which doesn't need guessing since the info is all over the Internet, is about 90 minutes per circuit of Earth.

This environment is so new and unearthly that extreme care is needed not to let guesses and convenient assumptions slip into our thought processes. When it happens to NASA officials, as it has from time to time, bad decisions lead to disaster and death.

Quote from: ArMaP on April 26, 2014, 03:57:03 PM
We can see that the whole tether is turning into a coil, not just the lower end.

Sorry, I can't see that. Nor would I expect it, the vertical length of the tether would induce enough pull to keep most of it pretty straight.

Quote
In fact, a coiled (not tangled) tether would show a slightly smaller area, as some of the area would not be visible from any side at any time, but isn't a 10 x 10 metres object easier seen than a 10000 x 0.01 one?

Some small area would be lost because of eclipsing of one line segment by the line in front of it, but essentially the same number of photons would be reflected in similar directions. Please read the satobs.org discussion posts on the trickiness of estimating magnitude of an extended versus point source.

This is a new type of 'celestial object' for observation and even those with direct experience with observing them are still working out standards. I consider the TSS-1R tether observations I made to be among the fingers-on-one hand most awesomely neck-hair-raising observations in my life.

People who have never seen them yet rely on 'common sense' to proclaim what they OUGHT to look like are even more clueless. The display on such sincere and defiant cluelessness hereabouts has been disappointing but not all that surprising.

As the in-your-face teacher's T-shirt says, "I can explain it for you but I can't understand it for you." But that's unfair. A really GOOD explainer could overcome the student's resolute clinging to obsolete models of reality.

Help me develop the more effective path to achieving this.

You mean they just dump water?
The best fuel there is, and they dump it?
My, how primitive, it's a good thing they retired it, i hear they have something faster ;)

QuoteThe tether did not break while 'out of sight', it was live on camera from the shuttle

Yes that's what i thought, i saw the films years ago, my memory is mostly good..
So what's the problem with the timeline? Was 'live' not live?

And my memory tlls me we went over this several times right here, somewhere, Z knows where :)

QuoteThis environment is so new and unearthly that extreme care is needed not to let guesses and convenient assumptions slip into our thought processes.When it happens to NASA officials, as it has from time to time, bad decisions lead to disaster and death.

Exactly :) And any engineer worth his pay knows that a 100 dollar circuit breaker could have saved a 12 billion tether & satellite. Shame they were all 'learned' scientists and they forgot that fact.
Like they forgot to renew & check the seals on the challenger, THAT cost 7 lives.

I have seen millions go into useless projects, and when i opened my mouth i was told to shut up or leave.
If the pay is good, i shut up, if the company loses milions as a result of not listening, i normally have to leave anyway because they can no longer afford to pay me.
THAT's the way it works.

NASA does NOT need this chemical rocket and ISS tomfoolery, maybe they should ask the military for some tips.

Quote from: zorgon on April 26, 2014, 10:56:16 AM
A few more frames  showing multiple notches at random locations
.....

Random? Hardly.

The clocking of the notches appears to be a direct function of the object's position in the field of view, indicating quite clearly that it is an artifact of the camera system.

Check it out. Every object crossing the field of view, when passing through the same segment of the screen, will have the same notch-clocking.

You can do this at home.

How can it be explained OTHER than a camera-related artifact?

Quote from: easynow on April 26, 2014, 09:34:32 AM

I'll take door number 2 please  ;)

Not to give the impression I'm dodging this question, but I'm concentrating on questions of FACT related to the event.

This is the what I could find about the timeline of the events.

QuoteOn Sunday, February 25, 1996, 9:30 p.m. CST, STS-75 MCC Status Report # 08 reports:
The tether on the Italian Tethered Satellite broke about 7:30 p.m. CST Sunday as the satellite was nearing the full extent of its deployment from the Shuttle. The satellite, which was nearing the end of its planned 12.8 mile distance, immediately began accelerating away from Columbia at a rapid rate as a result of normal orbital forces. TSS is separating from Columbia at a rate of 420 miles each 90 minute orbit.

Source (http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/missions/sts-75/sts-75-day-04-highlights.html)

QuoteOn Friday, March 1, 1996, 8 a.m. CST, STS-75 MCC Status Report # 17 reports:
Columbia's astronauts had a clear view of the Tethered Satellite as the two spacecraft passed within about 46 nautical miles overnight. The closest approach occurred at 11:17 central time last night (approximately 7/08:59 MET), and was captured on videotape as the satellite and its 12-mile tether came into view.

Source (http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/missions/sts-75/sts-75-day-09-highlights.html)

QuoteOn Tuesday, March 5, 1996, 4 p.m. CST, STS-75 MCC Status Report # 24 reports:
Columbia's astronauts had one last look at the Tethered Satellite late this morning telling flight controllers they could see both the satellite and the tether hanging beneath it.
Lighting precluded a viewing opportunity during the point of closest approach between the two spacecraft, but one orbit later the crew saw and filmed TSS from a distance of about 450 nautical miles. The videotape was played back for flight controllers on the ground this afternoon. Today's pass of the satellite marks the final viewing opportunity for the seven astronauts on board Columbia.

Source (http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/missions/sts-75/sts-75-day-13-highlights.html)

From the above, it looks like the famous video was made on the first occasion, not on the second, if those two were the only occasions Columbia's and TSS' orbits brought them closer to each other.

Quote from: ArMaP on April 26, 2014, 04:49:55 PM
This is the what I could find about the timeline of the events.
...
From the above, it looks like the famous video was made on the first occasion, not on the second, if those two were the only occasions Columbia's and TSS' orbits brought them closer to each other.

Great, thanks. Math shows the sighting and video occurred four days plus several hours after the break. By that time the shuttle was back to normal on-orbit operations, including periodic water dumps. This is relevant to the question of the source of the thingies.

The relative motions were due  to the different altitudes of the shuttle and tether, caused when it broke and was flung into a higher slower orbit. During that four days the shuttle pulled ahead farther and farther until it 'lapped' the tether and approached it from behind. It gained the required 25,000 miles or so in 100 hours so the relative rate was 250 mph, which is equivalent to an altitude difference about 40 miles. 

Note that the next 'lapping' occurred after a slightly longer period, 4 days and maybe 10 hours -- the longer period consistent with the tether's rapid decay into a lower orbit [it would decay completely in three weeks] that diminished the relative speed with the shuttle so took longer to complete one full 'lap'.

The math let's you get a realistic grasp on when/how the tether was observed and videoed from the shuttle.

Quote from: PlaysWithMachines on April 26, 2014, 04:38:45 PM
You mean they just dump water?
The best fuel there is, and they dump it?
My, how primitive, it's a good thing they retired it, i hear they have something faster ;)

What you THINK you know is getting in the way of what you NEED to know to accurately evaluate this event. Please take advantage of somebody professionally involved in this bizarre new arena of human activity, to clear your mind of obsolete [in space, at least] mental images, however comforting and smug they make you feel. In space, I've seen that all-too-human reflex wind up killing people, including some friends of mine. 

In 1988, while serving in the rendezvous office in Mission Control, I wrote the book on "Flight Crew Procedures" for rendezvous, and one chapter described upcoming tether operations. It provides a lot of valuable background in understanding what happened on STS-75. 

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

Quote from: JimO on April 26, 2014, 05:16:38 PM
What you THINK you know is getting in the way of what you NEED to know to accurately evaluate this event. Please take advantage of somebody professionally involved in this bizarre new arena of human activity, to clear your mind of obsolete [in space, at least] mental images, however comforting and smug they make you feel. In space, I've seen that all-too-human reflex wind up killing people, including some friends of mine.

no, what i know is, my work involves taking other peoples ideas & making them reality. I am a Master Machine Builder by trade.
I have worked in the most extreme & dangerous environments you can think of (on earth at least) and there are plenty. That's why i have to carry my VCA logbook with me at all times.
You're saying that false assumptions cost lives? Of course it does, but those assumptions are ALWAYS made by the higher-ups, not the guys in the field.
Now i'm not an astronomer, mathematician, or any other of what you would call a 'real' scientist. I am one of the poor souls who actually has to get it to work.

And while we are on the subject, can we discuss radiation here, like beyond the van allen belt, and closer to earth maybe?

I have no 'mental images' of space, only the ones NASA supplies........

Quote from: JimO on April 26, 2014, 02:19:28 PM
So.....  your 'evidence' consists of Hollywood SFX?  Wow, are you sure you want us to believe THAT?  Where is Dick Gordon's visual description documented in the world of reality? It could be, I'd like to believe it, but criminy. A TV show?

Don't be silly Jim...  since we don't have NASA footage showing the discharge, a Hollywood version is acceptable to ILLUSTRATE a point. People get a better idea of what is being said when you have an image.

Just just grasping at straws here. NASA itself uses Hollywood to illustrate a point. Disney made the Mars Rover IMAX film

so stop being so silly... your not fooling anyone here

Quote from: PlaysWithMachines on April 26, 2014, 05:36:47 PM
....I have no 'mental images' of space, only the ones NASA supplies........

We are all surrounded by such images, from Hollywood and video games and NASA publicity flacks and by analogies with earthside experience, where our perceptual processes have been finely honed.

Don't go into reflexive ego defense. You obviously know how to learn new systems and their functioning and malfunctioning. I'm suggesting that you, just like me, entered the consideration of spaceflight issues with a mental framework unsuitable to the unearthly environment.

I'm trying to share what I learned the hard way. Please don't feel insulted.


[ex] You mean they just dump water?
The best fuel there is, and they dump it? [/ex]

Yes, on shuttle flights, and properly so. We're not in Kansas any more.

Quote from: JimO on April 26, 2014, 02:30:10 PM
Preserving that misimpression may be why other posters here have refused to answer the repeated question.

I seem to recall answering that many times... that we don't have that data.

As to people avoiding stuff, it is the same as you avoiding explaining how your water droplets achieve all those different (including curved) trajectories.

If there was air out there you could make a case for debris fluttering about like moths to a light... but it is supposed to be a vacuum, so earth based motions do not work out there :P

Quote from: zorgon on April 26, 2014, 06:12:43 PM
I seem to recall answering that many times... that we don't have that data.

As to people avoiding stuff, it is the same as you avoiding explaining how your water droplets achieve all those different (including curved) trajectories.

If there was air out there you could make a case for debris fluttering about like moths to a light... but it is supposed to be a vacuum, so earth based motions do not work out there :P

Jim, can you not just address the above?
Zorgon answered your question, now can you answer his?

QuoteWe are all surrounded by such images, from Hollywood and video games and NASA publicity flacks and by analogies with earthside experience, where our perceptual processes have been finely honed.

yours, maybe. To me a hollywood flick is just that, even if they do tend to disguise the truth, it makes it even more ironic when you know what they are really up to, hollywood is behind the times, mate ;)

QuoteDon't go into reflexive ego defense. You obviously know how to learn new systems and their functioning and malfunctioning. I'm suggesting that you, just like me, entered the consideration of spaceflight issues with a mental framework unsuitable to the unearthly environment.

i will try, i do tend to react to people doubting my intelligence.
now about this unearthly environment.
How many of us here have been into space? I want a hands count.........

Maybe we have some lurkers, and maybe 1 REAL astronaut, but they will not be commenting in this thread.
They just read & laugh, is my guess ::)

The correct mental environment for any unknown is; Always expect the unexpected, Never assume ANYTHING, especially if it has to do with assuming others have done their job properly, to be able to switch off emotionally & concentrte 200% on the job in question. Failiure to do so leads to catastrophe.

QuoteI'm trying to share what I learned the hard way. Please don't feel insulted.

Read the first line of my signature, i'm not insulted, maybe just tired.....

QuoteYes, on shuttle flights, and properly so. We're not in Kansas any more.

Well that's just plain silly, how are they planning to go to Mars without a tried & tested recycling system?

Besides, water has many many uses, like electrochemical, plasma & even dynamic properties.
All 3 methods will ensure transport & survival.
What about using water as radiation shielding or as a steam powered rocket for use in emergencies?

oh yes, you also need it to survive........oh what the heck let's blow it out the airlock :D

Quote from: JimO on April 26, 2014, 04:33:59 PM
Help me develop the more effective path to achieving this.

That is hard to do  because you reject all known effects of plasma, including NASA's own data.

Plasma arcs GLOW even in a vacuum... this is not something that needs proving as there are thousands of experimenters all over the world showing that  even high school kids on YT

So if you are refusing to accept this basic FACT of plasma science, there is little point wasting anymore time on this

I do however agree that the tether was mostly straight... in fact I have one report from NASA that says it did straighten out after the initial snap recoil. ( I will find it)  So on that we do agree :D

But why are you so stubborn to produce the original NASA version of Martyn's copy? Makes no sense to keep waving your arms saying it exists, but you can't produce it

Silly Lemming :P

Quote from: deuem on April 26, 2014, 04:13:18 PM
Can I get a list of exactly what you all think these things are, so I can do some testing against other standards? If that is possible?

This is WHY I want to focus on STS 80  ArMaP has even said that this is the one that stumps him...  Jim keeps pointing to his explanation of STS48   and yes THAT one can be explained away easily

But the ones in STS80 CANNOT

All we need is ONE ... and that one is the best, as there is no way those are dust or water dump ice particles :D

QuotePlasma arcs GLOW even in a vacuum... this is not something that needs proving as there are thousands of experimenters all over the world showing that  even high school kids on YT

So if you are refusing to accept this basic FACT of plasma science, there is little point wasting anymore time on this

Agreed {sigh}

QuoteI do however agree that the tether was mostly straight... in fact I have one report from NASA that says it did straighten out after the initial snap recoil. ( I will find it)  So on that we do agree

Oh sure, it's a basic oscillatory system: Spring, weight, etc.....i would expect it to coil up & expand several times in fact ::)

OK i'm out of here, work to do, and no amount of procrastinating will get the baby washed, as my mum would say :D
Later!

Quote from: zorgon on April 26, 2014, 06:12:43 PM
I seem to recall answering that many times... that we don't have that data.

Armap found it easily enough and we've already discussed it. A bit more than four days. Do you accept that?

Quote
As to people avoiding stuff, it is the same as you avoiding explaining how your water droplets achieve all those different (including curved) trajectories. 

What water droplets?

QuoteIf there was air out there you could make a case for debris fluttering about like moths to a light... but it is supposed to be a vacuum, so earth based motions do not work out there

Now that we know that the scene was NOT immediately after the break, we know that the shuttle was back to normal ops -- belching, farting, pissing away into the space around it. So -- what perfect vacuum were YOU talking about?

Ah, is this the sts-80 that shows the nonexistent particle beam weapons firing on the nonexistent UFO's?
You know, those 'ice particles' which suddenly reversed direction?

And don't start on gas blowoffs / course correction ignition sequences, i've heard ALL of it.
hell i'm not the NAZA expert here, i think the Zorgmeister is, LOL

Quote from: zorgon on April 26, 2014, 06:12:43 PM
I seem to recall answering that many times... that we don't have that data.

Seems ArMaP came through on that one :D  Gold for that :D

Quote from: PlaysWithMachines on April 26, 2014, 07:15:42 PM
Ah, is this the sts-80 that shows the nonexistent particle beam weapons firing on the nonexistent UFO's?

No STS 80 is the one where the big one moves in over the thunderstorm... suddenly brightens and stops. A second one comes up out of the clouds and moves off. The first one remains parked over the storm and as the earth rotates away the object is still seen in the same spot. Near the end the NASA camera man has not forgotten it and zooms in on it in the distance now almost over the horizon.

STS 80 also has the ring formation but I want to focus on the storm sequence. I posted the video in this thread. I can post it again if you need it

Lets see.. the original wide screen shot (not the cropped one) clearly shows 2 objects coming into field of view, followed by 2 flashes of light (different timing & angle, these were the so-called ignition bursts) followed by 2 'beams' streaking towards the 2 objects, which rapidly changed direction (160 degrees, no less) and reversed curse at an (estimated) speed of mach 15.
They changed course just in time, because any physicist knows that a particle beam although immensely fast & powerful, travels at only a fraction of the speed of light.

The initial plasma fusion reaction that is the ignition sequence for a PB weapon is of course, a blinding flash of light like you would get from a small h-bomb ignition, which it essentially is.

This flash of light travels at the speed of, well, light.

And a sufficiently advanced automated system will recognise that flash for what it is, and reverse thrusters, warp 10 and don't spare the Joules.....

Oh, THAT one.
Like i said, free energy is well, free.
Lightning storms are a great source.

OK last post for today,
A few simple comments.
Have i ever seen an alien or a UFO?
No.

Do i believe aliens exist?
Of course, it's a mathematical & a logical certainty, it is even logical from an anthropologist's viewpoint that 99% of all alien lifeforms are bipedal humanids.

Do UFO's exist?
Of course they do, from an engineering point of view, there are even several models, like ours, theirs, and hybrids and that is merely from observation of the physical phenomena & eyewitness reports, or even longer lasting evidence like the severe radiation burns sometimes experienced by 'close encounters' etc.

Hey i am building a special UFO detector based on the (very well known) principles of how this all works, want to buy one?

ETA: Cheaper for members, of course ;)

Quote from: PlaysWithMachines on April 26, 2014, 06:43:51 PM
Maybe we have some lurkers, and maybe 1 REAL astronaut, but they will not be commenting in this thread.
They just read & laugh, is my guess ::)

Well funny you mention that :D  YES NASA people are always lurking here... sometimes they even comment :D  (FYI LSWONE works at Drysden :P   you know  the black ninja suit?)  he tells me NASA people really like our website

I have had NASA people tell us that our full moon image is the BEST they have ever seen... and use their NASA email address in the letter

I have had NASA people purchase the John Lear Bob Lazar story... and use their NASA email address in the order

I even have NASA paid advertizing on the Livingmoon pages  guess where? on my "Atmosphere on the Moon pages" :P

here is one;
NASA title...  17) Water in Atmosphere?
Paid link... http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2009/23oct_ladee/

here is the other;

NASA title...  21) Water Filtration Systems - Lessons Learned for Space
Paid link... http://www.nasa.gov/offices/education/programs/national/summer/education_resources/engineering_grades7-9/E_water-filtration.html#.U1v7e1VdW8E

Oddly enough in the second link NASA is asking STUDENTS to come up with a water filtration system  :D

::)

So yeah despite Jim's efforts  we are in good with NASA :D

Don't forget we were deliberately leaked the Color Clementine data in 2006, for which I still have the USGS thankyou letter for helping them kick off the Map-a-Planet site to instant success (back at ATS)

Don't forget we were deliberately leaked the McDonald's Missing Lunar Orbiter tapes incident with Dennis Wingo at NASA AMES

(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/47john_lear/04images/Pirate/2873888043_6cfbcfb0d7_b.jpg)

The military also lurks here, especially the NAVY  and they too have paid links :D  Guess where? On the Air Force Stargate Wormhole page :D  Go figure :P

QuoteWell that's just plain silly, how are they planning to go to Mars without a tried & tested recycling system?

Well maybe the students will come up with an answer :D  Or maybe we come up with one :P

Kewl :D

QuoteI have had NASA people tell us that our full moon image is the BEST they have ever seen... and use their NASA email address in the letter

...Just don't mention Richard Hoagland or they will shun you ;D

Quote from: zorgon on April 26, 2014, 07:05:27 PM
Plasma arcs GLOW even in a vacuum... this is not something that needs proving as there are thousands of experimenters all over the world showing that  even high school kids on YT
.....

I'm focussed on the tether video. Let me stipulate that plasmas can glow. No need to get that far off target.

The illumination of the tether was from reflected sunlight, that is my main point.

People's inability to imagine that or believe it is not evidence for it not being true.

Understanding the nature of the illumination in this video is a critical step towards understanding its cause.

Quote from: zorgon on April 26, 2014, 07:07:00 PM
But why are you so stubborn to produce the original NASA version of Martyn's copy? Makes no sense to keep waving your arms saying it exists, but you can't produce it

Remind me when the last time I waved my arms, and what did I claim it proved? Why was I dissatisfied with Martyn's version?

Quote from: zorgon on April 26, 2014, 07:12:25 PM
This is WHY I want to focus on STS 80  ArMaP has even said that this is the one that stumps him...  Jim keeps pointing to his explanation of STS48   and yes THAT one can be explained away easily

I appreciate the agreement and wonder, NOW you say it? Now, after two decades of bitter arguments across the length and breadth of the UFOric internet and cable documentaries?  And it was 'easy'?? Who else ever even tried? Gimme a little credit here....

Quote
But the ones in STS80 CANNOT

All we need is ONE ... and that one is the best, as there is no way those are dust or water dump ice particles :D

I suppose then that you disagree with the assessment by two crewmembers, Jones and Musgrave, about it? But let's find a stopping point with 75 first.

Quote from: PlaysWithMachines on April 26, 2014, 07:25:54 PM
Lets see.. the original wide screen shot (not the cropped one) clearly shows 2 objects coming into field of view, followed by 2 flashes of light (different timing & angle, these were the so-called ignition bursts) followed by 2 'beams' streaking towards the 2 objects, which rapidly changed direction (160 degrees, no less) and reversed curse at an (estimated) speed of mach 15.
They changed course just in time, because any physicist knows that a particle beam although immensely fast & powerful, travels at only a fraction of the speed of light.....

The 48-parade has already passed on, Zorgon has agreed with my "easy" explanation of this as nearby particles entrained with thruster plume. We're moving back to 75 on our way to 80.

Quote from: JimO on April 26, 2014, 08:03:21 PM
People's inability to imagine that or believe it is not evidence for it not being true.
Understanding the nature of the illumination in this video is a critical step towards understanding its cause.

So why then does this theory of yours (reflected sunlight) not apply to the tons of space debris out there? Much of that is far bigger in surface area than the thin non reflective tether wire

IF your version of reality was true, we should be seeing swarms of bright objects streaming over head... yet we don't... and even some big satellites are hard to see

Quote from: zorgon on April 26, 2014, 07:05:27 PM
I do however agree that the tether was mostly straight... in fact I have one report from NASA that says it did straighten out after the initial snap recoil. ( I will find it)  So on that we do agree :D

Now I think that was the case, as I found somewhere (sorry, no source, I have to look for it again :( ) that the accelerometers on the satellite were giving the expected values for the full tether.

OK, apparently there are two opinions about why the tether was visible:
1 - It was getting light from the Sun;
2 - It was emitting its own light, either because of plasma or other reasons.

Can't we have versions of the discussion, one for each possibility, and then analyse which one is the most likely, instead of being stuck on the "it was possibility 1/it was possibility 2" argument that never ends?  :)

Quote from: JimO on April 26, 2014, 08:11:47 PM
The 48-parade has already passed on, Zorgon has agreed with my "easy" explanation of this as nearby particles entrained with thruster plume. We're moving back to 75 on our way to 80.

Sorry to interrupt the wishful momentum and I know you want to move forward but I think it needs to be stated that some parts of the STS-48 video still remain unexplained.

One example is an object seen in the footage after?before? the famous but allegedly explained segment which some folks speculate might be some type of craft ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODQVZZ5mgRo


And here is the relevant clip from secretnasaman ...

NASA UFOs: STS-48, after the event.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MViYOo6gRg

Notice, right after the object appears, the camera moves and the object gets washed-out or lost in the bright sun-glare.

Might have been done on purpose. idunno

Maybe this particular segment can be revisited or discussed at a later time.

Just saying  :)

Quote from: JimO on April 26, 2014, 08:08:38 PM

I appreciate the agreement and wonder, NOW you say it? Now, after two decades of bitter arguments across the length and breadth of the UFOric internet and cable documentaries?  And it was 'easy'?? Who else ever even tried? Gimme a little credit here....

I said COULD be explained by your method  not that there were no other possibilities :D  It has long been the mission of skeptics to focus and flog the items that can be possibly explained by mundane methods, while ignoring or directing the focus away from those that cannot.

It's like a Vegas Magician... "Look over here... see? This is what I want you to focus on... don't look over here behind the curtain!

QuoteI suppose then that you disagree with the assessment by two crewmembers, Jones and Musgrave, about it? But let's find a stopping point with 75 first.

Well I have heard Musgraves snake story too... He recently did another video on that one... seems he too believes that there might be 'critters' out in LEO :D

Yeah it was a few days ago on NASA Unexplained :D  Can't find the clip on YT right now  I think the clip is on THIS one but not viewable in the US  Dutch version :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpIRWrfxguA

But eveyrtime I see those episodes I see this Jim Oberg guy busy debunking  Heck he even tries to debunk the astronauts themselves

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkvUHfE22Qc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkvUHfE22Qc

I LOVE this one...

... it has PAINT on it :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkvUHfE22Qc

Also I see they did some mentioning of the Black Night Satellites... that is still the top search on our site. I guess I need to revive that :D

Quote from: ArMaP on April 26, 2014, 08:37:47 PM
Can't we have versions of the discussion, one for each possibility, and then analyse which one is the most likely, instead of being stuck on the "it was possibility 1/it was possibility 2" argument that never ends?  :)

Can't we forget the tether and get to the UFO's?
Or did I miss that bit?

Quote from: ArMaP on April 26, 2014, 08:37:47 PM
Can't we have versions of the discussion, one for each possibility, and then analyse which one is the most likely,

We could :P but for me it ends here...
I will go with what NASA says :D

"Tether Optical Phenomena Experiment (TOP)
Using a hand-held camera system with image intensifiers and special filters, the TOP investigation will provide visual data that may allow scientists to answer a variety of questions concerning tether dynamics and optical effects generated by TSS-1R. In particular, this experiment will examine the high-voltage plasma sheath surrounding the satellite..."

"Incidentally, the tether continued arcing long after it and its satellite were drifting free, until finally it went into night conditions where the electron density was insufficient to sustain the arc."

"However, the air trapped in the insulation changed that. As it bubbled out of the pinholes, the high voltage ("electric pressure") of the nearby tether, about 3500 volts, converted it into a plasma (in a way similar to the ignition of a fluorescent tube), a relatively dense one and therefore a much better conductor of electricity."

Those excerpts are direct from NASATo me there is no further point of discussion after reading the NASA 367 page LEO Charging Guidelines report

Source
NASA/TP—2003-21228
Low Earth Orbit Spacecraft Charging Design Guidelines


There is also THIS report
RELEASE: 96-46
TETHERED SATELLITE INVESTIGATION REPORT IS RELEASED

Stating that most of the Kevlar insulation was burned off (as in the above report the burning insulation provided the 'gas' to sustain the arc :P )

"This arcing produced significant burning of most of the tether material in the area of the arc," the board found.  The tether was designed to carry up to 15,000 volts DC and handle tensile forces of up to 400 pounds (1780 newtons). It used super-strong strands of Kevlar as a strength-providing member, wound around the copper and insulation.  However, postflight inspection of the tether end which remained aboard Columbia showed it to be charred.  The board concluded that after arcing had burned through most of the Kevlar, the few remaining strands were not enough to withstand forces being exerted by satellite deployment.
http://www.thelivingmoon.com/41pegasus/02documents/Tether_Report_96_046.html


There is also THIS report
RELEASE: 96-43
EARLY FINDINGS FROM TETHERED SATELLITE MISSION
POINT TO REVAMPING OF SPACE PHYSICS THEORIES

Numerous space physics and plasma theories are being revised or overturned by data gathered during the Tethered Satellite System Reflight (TSS-1R) experiments on Space Shuttle Columbia's STS-75 mission last March.

Models, accepted by scientists for more than 30 years, are incorrect and must be rewritten. This assessment follows analysis by a joint U.S.-Italian Tethered Satellite investigating team of the information gathered during the mission.
http://www.thelivingmoon.com/41pegasus/02documents/Tether_Report_96_043.html

WHY everyone is ignoring the ACTUAL NASA DATA REPORTS that clearly state PLASMA is puzzling to me :D

But as far as I am concerned  Cased Closed :P

Quote from: Sinny on April 26, 2014, 09:20:11 PM
Can't we forget the tether and get to the UFO's?
Or did I miss that bit?

I think that all this is because the visibility of the tether is related to the visibility of the "UFOs". :)

Quote from: zorgon on April 26, 2014, 09:21:39 PM
"Tether Optical Phenomena Experiment (TOP)
Using a hand-held camera system with image intensifiers and special filters, the TOP investigation will provide visual data that may allow scientists to answer a variety of questions concerning tether dynamics and optical effects generated by TSS-1R. In particular, this experiment will examine the high-voltage plasma sheath surrounding the satellite..."

I think that was a different camera, not the one used to make the famous video.

Quote from: zorgon on April 26, 2014, 08:53:14 PM
.....It has long been the mission of skeptics to focus and flog the items that can be possibly explained by mundane methods, while ignoring or directing the focus away from those that cannot.....

You understand in principle that this assewrtion is a formula for NEVER actually examining ANY individual UFO case. since it is by definition taking attention away from the case next door.

And that's the knee-jerk eager-believer eyes-mind-closed-shut avoidance mantra for ANY explanation for Case-1: "Well, it doesn't explain Case-2!!"

It's not a case of throwing a hundred lousy cases up in the air and assuming that the MORE of them that are explained, the MORE likely there are A FEW LEFTOVERS THAT can't BE EXPLAINED.

You offer evidence you claim has already been vetted by the best ufology has to offer. and case after case, I show you that's self-delusion.

After awhile, the presumption is

NOT that this proves the NEXT case is PERFECT

BUT

that the odds are all the next cases are just as bad as the first 'best' ones.

Quote from: easynow on April 26, 2014, 08:52:54 PM
Sorry to interrupt the wishful momentum and I know you want to move forward but I think it needs to be stated that some parts of the STS-48 video still remain unexplained.....

Agreed.

Quote from: Sinny on April 26, 2014, 09:20:11 PM
Can't we forget the tether and get to the UFO's?
Or did I miss that bit?

No, we can't, because the nature of the illumination field is crucial to the nature of the dots as well.

And I think we are coming to the agreement that the tether is glowing when it was in sunlight, with a disputed portion of the glow due to sun light and plasma glow, which I'm willing to leave at the under-discussion point.

So the DOTS are possibly sunlit objects as well.

Interesting video addresses the issue of the notch-clocking on the images, how they are dependent on where in the field of view the dot is. See if you agree with that assertion:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvGdWfQiHXs

Quote from: ArMaP on April 26, 2014, 09:30:44 PM
I think that all this is because the visibility of the tether is related to the visibility of the "UFOs". :)

But surely the UFO's are large (?)

I was under the impression reflection is only a minor angle regarding this footage. (?)

(Learning, impatiently  :P )

ETA: Just read Jims post. Light reflecting, or light emitting, what are you stating the UFO's are?

Quote from: Sinny on April 26, 2014, 09:58:48 PM
But surely the UFO's are large (?)
....

If the UFOs were as large as they LOOK -- passing behind a 12-mile tether almost a hundred miles away -- four days AFTER the initial break, the fair question is raised -- such objects would be immense in angular size [ full moon size or larger] and extremely bright as seen from Earth's surface.

But there's no apparent record of anyone on the ground anywhere reporting them. How could they have been missed by everyone on the planet?

That's why the time from break to video was important to determine, and the nature of the illumination.

What is the 'large-objects' theory that accounts for the swarm to NOT be visible from Earth itself? Presumably for days and days and days when millions of people around the world were going outside at dawn and dusk per NASA observation schedules to deliberately LOOK for the shuttle passing overhead?    And billions more were glancing at the sky randomly?

And if NOT for a long period -- say, only a very brief one during this video -- WHY then is THAT period the precise same small segment of the shuttle orbit [post sunrise pre terminator crossing] defined in my STS-48 report as the lighting conditions MOST likely to create bogus 'UFOs' from small nearby stuff, as on STS-48, 63, 80, 115, others -- all of whose 'UFOs' occurred in that SPECIAL illumination phase, only.

Oh, so that's what this is all about.
Quite frankly Jim, UFO's and UAP's have a detailed history of only being mostly visible only via a recording device. How are 'spirit' orbs caught on camera whilst invisible to the human eye?
I'm no photographer either, but a series of logical questions will at least result in a logical explanation.
What does that camera pick up that the eye cannot?
How do we know our human perception isn't deliberately blocked?
Your previous explanation fails to unify all the other unnamed variables.
Therefore I believe you are incorrect it trying to state that you do know what these are, whereas the logical thing for you  to do would be to admit your speculations are inconclusive, in which case, this particular video, does in fact feature a swarm of UFO's. In order to determine further what these UFO's might be, I feel your eye's need to be willing to be opened to a larger historical context of this phenomena.

Presuming you want to explore this phenomena...

Quote from: JimO on April 26, 2014, 10:27:37 PM
But there's no apparent record of anyone on the ground anywhere reporting them. How could they have been missed by everyone on the planet?

Jim says:  "no APPARENT record..."

Trevor James Constable first coined the term "CRITTERS" to describe these objects  And we are NOT talking about Jose Escamilla's rods... let's be glear on that point (Though I suppose Story's "Sanke" could be called a 'rod' :P

Trevor James Constable is a world-reknowned author and historian, who has produced 10 non-fiction books, many well known to afficionados of famous fighter aces. He also served 31 years at sea, 26 of them as a radio officer in the U.S. Merchant Marines.

His first book, "They Live In The Sky" in 1958, in which he advanced the shocking theory that UFOs were mainly invisible. He held also that our atmosphere was the home of huge, invisible living creatures, and that these were mutually confused with spacecraft when they became visible.

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/319Bx98qqeL._BO1,204,203,200_.jpg)
"They Live In The Sky" in 1958, Trevor James Constable (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000NP7M6M/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=211189&creative=373489&creativeASIN=B000NP7M6M&link_code=as3&tag=pegasreseacon-20)

Sky Critters

(http://www.tarrdaniel.com/documents/Ufology/images/skycritters/Bravo3.jpg)
UFOs are not at all extraterrestrial spacecraft but animals comparable to giant amoeba or "critters" that "are built of matter of the etheric plane" or "plasmatic" and live in the skies of our planets. This was first proposed as a mere possibility by Charles Fort, but Constable went further by claiming that he had photographed these "sky animals" - flying among the "usual" flying saucers - using infrared film, exposed between dawn and sunrise in high, in "dry locales" that "will frequently objectify invisible objects of various kinds living in and passing through the atmosphere."

(http://www.tarrdaniel.com/documents/Ufology/images/skycritters/amoeba1_thumb.jpg)
This particular photo taken by Constable's daughter near a "cloud buster" orgone energy transmitter is an excellent example of the photographed "bioform" - or "sky fish" as Trevor calls them.

(http://www.tarrdaniel.com/documents/Ufology/images/skycritters/AmoebaCritter3-1.jpg)
Original print from Trevor J. Constable's collection scanned at 200 pixels per inch. Labeled as "Alpha #3"

(http://www.tarrdaniel.com/documents/Ufology/images/skycritters/AmoebaCritter3contrast.jpg)
Same Photo adjusted for zero color and contrast enhanced

(http://www.tarrdaniel.com/documents/Ufology/images/skycritters/amoeba2.jpg)
Another Trevor James Constable photo taken at Giant Rock, CA in 1958 while George Van Tassell was lecturing on UFOs and channeling space beings. Notice the dark center and translucent mass. The UFO was not visible at time of photography.

Intewresting that it looks just like the one on NASA's screen :P 

(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/41pegasus/04images/Critter/NASA_Control_007.png)

So while YOU may try to claim  "no APPARENT record..."  the internet has had the photos and stories since the 50's

QuotePlasma UFO Over Burlington
Trevor James Constable
This UFO ShapeShifts!  Could it be Plasmic in Nature ..or...a 'Space Creature'?

SPACE CREATURE???

Trevor James Constable, noted military historian and engineer wrote a book titled ' Sky Creatures: Living UFOs.'  He claims that some..not all...are  giant aerospace organisms -

Wilhelm Reich, believed UFOs to be bio-energetic in nature.

Constable believed them to be as, "...amoebae like life forms existing in the plasma state. They are not solid, liquid, or gas. Rather. they exist in the fourth state of matter - plasma - as living heat-substance at the upper border of physical nature. They consist of calcium and fluids, the metal and the fluids both being in the plasmatic state.

...Normally hidden from us because they are in the infrared range of the electromagnetic spectrum, critters occasionally emerge into the visible portion of the spectrum... At such times they are invariably identified as UFOs - which they are, of course, although they are not constructed craft. They are living creatures. Failure to recognize this, and to distinguish creature from craft... has deeply confused UFO research.

As living organisms, critters appear to be an elemental branch of evolution probably older than most life on earth, dating from the time when the planet was more gaseous and plasmatic than solid. They are part of what occultists term 'elementals.' They live invisibly like fish in the ocean of atmosphere. Like fish, I estimate them to be of low intelligence. They will probably one day be better classified as belonging to the general field of macrobiology or even macrobacteria inhabiting the aerial ocean we call the sky."

Fortean investigators like Ivan T. Sanderson found the theory credible. Among other things, Constable believes these creatures are responsible for cattle mutilations and provides some case histories to support this. Researcher Larry Arnold believes that these plasmamoeboids--whom he dubs in gratitude to Mr. Constable with the scientific name Amoebae constablea-- emit energies that may be a cause of Spontaneous Human Combustion if they are in close proximity to a human being.

They apparently can be photographed even if invisible, through color movie or camera film used in conjunction with a Wratten 18A ultraviolet filter. Visible color photographs result despite the fact that the filter is nearly opaque, due to a "reverse spectrum" process whose explanation still escapes me.

Infrared film can also ferret them out and I must confess that one picture I took at night yielded a faint image of what seemed to be paramecium-like object over my neighborhood! Using this method, detecting critters is usually most successful at dusk and dawn.

A 1980 issue of FATE had a helpful article on this approach. For psychotronic film buffs, the documentary Overlords of the UFO contains footage of them hopping like jumping beans near power cables.

Source: Burlington News


Wilhelm Reich, believed UFOs to be bio-energetic in nature. feeding of what he called Orgone Energy

Emails from:
Denise M. Stoner
Chief Investigator, Florida
Mufon State Section Director
6/8/2009 5:58 AM
Ron,

You are perfectly welcome.  I don't believe in game playing.  At one point in my UFO "hunting" career I was given some information and asked to protect the individual because that person had worked for Area 51 for several years.  At the time they provided proof, stories matched, and Govt. workers kept appearing at the home to "check" up on the individual making sure he wasn't ready to disclose the wrong information.  I saw that for myself.  These folks just dropped by to chat like old co-workers but had an agenda.  It was obvious these people with badges were not there to have a friendly visit with a retired employee.

<Snipped not relevant portion>

Yes, I do believe at least 50% or greater of these recent sightings (past 15 yrs perhaps) are life forms of some kind.  I wish I could recall the paperwork on a case I had that involved an abduction where the individual never saw an entity such as the "Grays".  He felt the whole works of the craft was a living, breathing entity in itself.  Sightings now include so many balls of light that appear to be glass like on the outside with some sort of swirling living being on the inside.  This "Shape Shifting" going on is perhaps the workings of the plasma or whatever these beings are made up of as they enter our earth.

I have a fascinating photo - original- of a beam of light coming down from the sky to some ranch land.  Within the beam you can see a form that looks like an entity in fetal position waiting to step out of the light.  I am waiting to meet with a photo analyst who can enhance this so we can have a better look at what's going on.  Everyone who has been shown this picture sees the thing immediately.  I will share that with you at some point, if you are interested.  There are so many things going on.

Warm Wishes,  Denise Stoner


6/8/2009 9:57 PM
Ron: 

You may quote me on the statement regarding my thoughts on the plasma, critters, etc.  These are my thoughts and not those of MUFON.  One of the three questions MUFON asks as criteria to determine whether or not we have a Category 1 (Fly By), Cat. 2 (Landing), Cat. 3 (Entities involved) is: Did the Witness experience poltergeist, ghost or haunting activity, out of body experience or religious transformation.  It must tie in directly with a craft landing.  So, we are mixing these experiences with the angelic forces, plasma-like beings, and so forth.  Along the line someone - and I don't know who - has  discovered there are reasons to believe this is all related to the UFO phenomenon.  Or at the very least, it needs to be explored.

Thanks so much for sharing the info. on the critter birth.  I will take a look.

<Snipped not relevant portion>

Warm Wishes,  Denise Stoner

I can not call the Tether Incident..."case closed"...but am not yet up to speed to get into my "living critters" attracted to the Tether's escaping energy, nor the 'vacuum domain' theory, nor the living plasma..bla, bla..

The Z's STS-80 eg. is a killer alright & The search for MIR seg. is totally strange...& on & on..

So I am here to float some ideas & listen to all as the new guy who is not sure who thinks what & what others think re past discussions.

Quote from: JimO on April 26, 2014, 09:33:39 PM
And that's the knee-jerk eager-believer eyes-mind-closed-shut avoidance mantra for ANY explanation for Case-1: "Well, it doesn't explain Case-2!!"

No it's not. We all know that 95%ish of UFO reports are usually something explanable... so that leaves us the 5% of those that are NOT explained.  By focusing attention on cases that fall into the 95% range and ignoring those that fall it the 5% range... you are skewing the results

Skeptic tactics have always leaned towards focusing on the cases that they can easily debunk.... hoping no one calls them on the other ones...

Even ArMap is interested in the STS 80 critters :D

QuoteA FEW LEFTOVERS THAT can't BE EXPLAINED.

Come on Jim... it is those unexplained ones that all UFO hunters go after.  Allk we need is ONE to be a UFO :D

So lets get back to the STS80 storm CRITTERS

The confusion resulting in argument, involving Unidentified Arial Phenomena, being sometimes
of an alien origin or not is because, the technology involving such anomalies being observed,
is nothing at all like that, of human expectations, imagination or based on anything like primitive
human technology.

The human Primate is like a monkey in a zoo, trying to imagine what technology lays behind
the presentation of the experience experienced as though a huge universe.  LOL.



Hell the human species doesn't even know, the location of what he believes to be this universe,
or even where his conscious state is even viewing it from, and yet he is in complete denial
of the realisation, that the human primate is NOT the only Species playing within this little Universe.

The technology in some cases, is billions and billions of years ahead of the human species.

And they are not interested in the human species at all.

The human species suffers from attention disorders...

Hence the so called UFO dilemma, the need for religion, belief and the like etc. LOL.

To argue that the human species is the only intelligent species in the universe, is sheer Insanity.


The human Primate needs to get over itself !

Or more accurately get the human condition in its true context !

The Experience (Universe) is NOT based on, or founded on primitive human technology.

The experience of the off earth environment may be a little different (To be expected) but hell
the human primate doesn't even understand how its earth environment is being presented,
from/within the non dimensional environment Consciousness' is observing from.

Critters
Saucers Over Tulsa, Oklahoma
July 12, 1947

(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/41pegasus/04images/Critter/1947_000.png)
Photo of flying saucers over Tulsa, OK, July 12, 1947 originally Tulsa Daily World, July 13, 1947; photographer Enlo Gilmore (private photographer, deceased)

Photo accompanying original newspaper article
Low resolution microfilm image of newspaper photo
Historical photo used only for informational purposes to illustrate theme of article
Unique; not replaceable with other comparable photo of period

Critters is a Fact !

Now we need to discover more about them and this environment !

Jack Arenson - Pegasus Member

Jack has caught some on video and they are available in AVI format. Below are some enhancements using various colors to highlight what he caught

Last night wasn't ideal conditions for viewing the Moon in my area but I captured a couple of dozen of these things in 33 different thirty-second clips. I'm compiling them into short AVI's for best results.Here's the first. I've included a few enhanced blow-ups from 3 different frames.

Some facts on the objects:

Some are captured in the daytime but most at night. They would have to be at a very high altitude to reflect the sunlight at night or be even higher and outside the atmosphere. On a few of the clips, I captured 2 and 3 of them in the same clip going in different directions. Winds are from the NW which is from right to left in the videos. Most are heading into the wind, some across the wind, assuming they are in the atmosphere. Out of all these captured last night, none are traveling with the winds direction. All of them seem to have the same general shape, almost boomerang like. None of these seem to have anything trailing behind them.

A friend was standing next to the scope with binoculars looking at the same time and I would signal him when I saw one on the screen. He never saw anything with or without the binoculars. We wanted to eliminate fluff in the air, pollen spores and any other low altitude flyers that can be seen with and without binoculars. And I can say we did that.

In this video like this first one, I cropped the time out that wasn't necessary and didn't add text or transitions to keep the file size down. And did three repeats of each segment.

(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/45jack_files/04images/Wisps/ww_006_invert.jpg)

(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/45jack_files/04images/Wisps/ww_006_brtcon.jpg)

(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/45jack_files/04images/Wisps/autovariations.jpg)

THE CASE FOR THE CRITTERS
By Sander of  the Linden 

In the early morning of 25 augusts 1957 two men drew, provide with camera's, the Mohavewoestijn at loose Angelos in. Their aim was UFO's observe and these to film and photographs. One of the men, Trevor Howard Constable, a respected author of aviation books had been confessed and for its biography of Erich Hartmann, wereldberoemde pilot from WO I. Constable had touched interested in the work of scientist will helmet Reich and his discoveries in the field of bioenergy, by Reich 'orgone' energy called. According to Reich this energy is responsible for living on our planet and can with certain equipment be manipulated.

Reich discovered also that during proefnemingen with these equipment in free nature he did not stipulate earlier observed phenomena attracted, which he kept responsible for the ufo perceptions. According to Reich these phenomena life forms earlier not discovered were which lived in the higher layers of our atmosphere. Reich became among other things these statements and researches in the field of the orgone energy as a scientist no longer have been seriously taken. Later he touched in diskrediet and died eventually in the prison. Constable want gladly foto's make of these UFO's and the men stalks their equipment on.

Constable carried out a certain exercise, which aimed at joining energy on one spot the orgone and thereby UFO's to attract. After a couple Constable an enormous entity in the atmosphere perceived minutes above him, which he could however only feel. There was see nothing. To be comrade made rapidly a number of infraroodfoto's. After development of the film proved to be there in ventilates itself above Constable a giant being to be, which seemed most still on an enormous amoeba, completely with nucleï and vacuolen (to see foto's). In the first place were two disappointed because they had thought real flying of photographing dishes. After still what desert sessions appeared however that they were also able these fix dishes, with the traditional klokvorm, on infra-red film. With the naked eye however continued there, outside a vague rimpeling in the atmosphere, observe nothing. Constable thought long and hard after concerning its discoveries and did report of its perceptions in the book 'They live in the sky' (1958).

In this book Constable note that the entities live, biological beings are, which able are their eliminate presence in for our visible the part of the spectrum at discretion to or. Moreover they are able already pulsating with enormous speeds move itself. The fact that she comes be, however, on IR film visible because they radiate heat. Constable call them 'critters', which is to translate rather with 'beestjes'. The traditional dishes (by Constable 'etherships' called) are of another order. These use of a sophisticated propulsion system, which she puts able to accelerate with enormous speed and dealings to carry out. These etherships do not come belong from the universum but, just like the critters to our own planet, however from another dimension, which Constable 'Etheria' calls.

What they exact are not, can also to Constable answer. He states that they exist in their own levensfeer in a separate dimension. This dimension is everywhere present, also for our gone, but for human perception invisibly. Etheria the source and future of people are.

Of course a vast excursion made Constable American scientists, armed with its sharpest foto's and films. But beginning years '60 did not prove be there much basis for onontdekte biological entities in the atmosphere. Everyone had been aroused curiosity to the real flying dishes, such as Kenneth Arnold which had observed in '47 at Mount Reinier. Constable were laughed away, were ignored or were ridiculous made plain. This became a black period in its life. Later he notes down this in 'The Cosmic pulse or Life' (1976) with as subtitel 'The revolutionary biological power behind ufos'. In this book he looks back ietwat disconcerted on this time.

At this moment Trevor Howard Constable active is as a engineer, where he is using the orgone energy able influence it, and rain can let appear on spots where that necessary is (* Internet site).

To the critters. After the discovery of Constable it has been long quiet around these life forms. Much attention went out to UFO's as vehicles for intelligences originating from other planets, such as the Greys van Zeta Reticuli. Abductions, cattle injuries and close Encounters or the Third child have dominated the ufonieuws of the previous decades. Until American Tv-technicus from pure interest the livebeelden which was sent from the Spaceshuttle missions were sent. Using what special satellite dishes are these observe livebeelden for everyone. This technician touched curiously to these pictures because it was not whispered there in space travel rings concerning closer to call perceptions by American, and to what late appeared also Russian crew. Our technician filled tape after tape, and its impatience was shortly rewarded, because after thorough study of the liveopnamen, particularly of space walks, and attempts from the Spaceshuttle repair c.q launch satellites, became clear that there were two phenomena present around the Spaceshuttle, the Russian MIR, and in and around the atmosphere of the ground.

The first phenomenon is to a being that with regard to description strong seems on the critters of Constable. Luminous, pulsative and itself with enormous speed moving phenomena, which appeared moreover able for 'onmogelijke' dealings to carry out, such as haakse turnings and sudden invisibility. On some film pictures seems the space around the Spaceshuttle litteral forgive of swarming, all sides on moving lichtbollen, which gives clear proof of their presence, such as fish curiously descend on diepzeeduiker. Also there are the enormous amoebeachtige beings visible on some scenes, which by the outer edges of the atmosphere 'zwemmen'. The comment of the nasa during the retransmissions is that there 'veel ijsdeeltjes and space detritus (spacedebris)' being to see. Correctly yes. (To see: SECRET nasa TRANSMISSIONS: THE GRANT SMOKING)

The second phenomenon is a sudden, coloured lichtflits, which itself both outside the capsules as well as within the spacecrafts manifests itself. This lichtflits is hardly with the naked eye visible, but was clearly noticed astronauts, who it during the retransmissions nice concerning their 'companion' have. Ergo conclusio: there is much to the hand above our accounts.

To the critters. There are after Constable experiences have been confessed made much ufo perceptions which have in my opinion nothing to do with visitors of other planets, but all belong in the biological category done. In 1961, an Italian photographer made this photograph, on which bizar object with min-of-meer symmetrical projections. Being? Vehicle? See also the next photograph, on which is a flying dragon to see. And then next that a type sees flying jellyfish late, among beautiful cloud parties.

Itself possesses I an unique small film from the years '60, on which are from a plane filmed being to see. It seems still most on an enormous tortoise, with four legs/vinnen. however after a number of seconden there something happens strange: the legs seem join tightly itself to a type membrane, the being turns and within 2 up to 3 video frames from the visibility has totally disappeared. Also on the nasa films is high above the atmosphere flying 'kwallen' to see that appears suddenly and also suddenly disappears, or with inconceivable speed from picture accelerate.

Itself is I, after study of Constable's work (be first book 'They live in the sky' is unfortunately from the trade, 2e hands does copies zo'n € 500, -), the work of will helmet Reich and a large number of films and foto's reached the conclusion that he has it at the straight end. Constable still say themselves concerning its perceptions against ongelovige scientists: 'bind an infra-red camera under a plane and makes prerecordings in ochtenduren'. And 'iedereen is possible waarnemen' them;. In my optiek the work of Constable deserves a thorough realignment, where could open mind contribute livewaarnemingen and enormously to the knowledge of our own planet, its flora and fauna, but above all to the nevertheless this way uncomfortable problem of Ufo-waarnemingen.

* Internet site: http://www.ethericrainengineering.info

e-mail author: slinden@planet.nl

THE CASE FOR THE CRITTERS

TRANSLATED FROM

http://www.ufowijzer.nl/tekstpagina/TheCaseForTheCritters.html

Plasma Life Forms in Space

(http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/images/newsitems/plasma.jpg)

An international scientific team has discovered that under the right conditions, particles of inorganic dust can become organized into helical structures which can interact with each other in ways that are usually associated with organic life. Using a computer model of molecular dynamics, V N Tsytovich and his colleagues of the Russian Academy of Science showed that particles in plasma can undergo self-organization as electric charges become separated and the plasma becomes polarized in their paper entitled From Plasma Crystals and Helical Structures towards Inorganic Living Matter, published in the New Journal of Physics in August 2007.

Past studies, subject to Earth's gravity, have shown that if enough particles are injected into a low-temperature plasma, they will spontaneously organize into crystal-like structures or "plasma crystals". Tsytovich's computer simulations suggest that in the gravity-free environment of space, the plasma particles will bead together to form string-like filaments which will then twist into helical strands resembling DNA that are electrically charged and are attracted to each other.

The helical structures undergo changes that are normally associated with biological molecules, such as DNA and proteins, say the researchers. They can, for instance, divide to form copies of the original structure; which then interact to induce changes in their neighbors that evolve into other new structures. The less stable structures break down over time leaving behind only the structures that are most adapted to the environment. "These complex, self-organized plasma structures exhibit all the necessary properties to qualify them as candidates for inorganic living matter", says Tsytovich, "they are autonomous, they reproduce and they evolve".

He adds that the ionized conditions needed to form these helical structures are common in outer space. If that is so, then it will mean that plasma life forms are the most common life form in the universe, given that plasma makes up more than 99% of our universe which is almost everywhere ionized. This is in stark contrast to carbon-based life forms, which according to the Rare Earth hypothesis proposed by Peter Ward and Donald Brownlee, would be rare in the universe due to a number of factors – including the need for an acceptable range of temperatures to survive.

Plasma, on the other hand, is associated with high temperatures. Plasma life forms would be much more adapted to environments which would be considered hostile to carbon-based life forms. It is possible that plasma life forms were already present in the gas and materials that formed the Earth 4.6 billion years ago. Carbon-based biomolecular life forms only appeared 1 billion years later. Tsytovich and other scientists (including Lozneanu and Sanduloviciu, discussed below) have proposed that plasma life forms, in fact, spurred development of organic carbon-based life on Earth.

In this connection, Tsytovich pointed out that plasma life forms can develop under more down to Earth conditions such as at the point of a lightning strike. The researchers hint that perhaps a plasma form of life emerged on the primordial Earth which had a highly ionized atmosphere, which then acted as the template for the more familiar organic molecules we know today. A plasma bubble could form at the end of a lightning strike and act as a mould for chemicals to conform with to form a primitive biological cell.

Plasma life forms
http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/column.php?id=111062

Hold on Jim..starting at the beginning of the astronauts frenzied search for the tether as ground control demands they find it,

the camera appears to show stationary stars... when suddenly an astronaut shouts we have the tether..etc.,& the camera jolts down a bit & there is the broken tether & swarming UFOs..critters & organic craft (in my opinion)

These moving objects only appeared as the camera panned to the tether, nearly 100 miles away.

None of this was supposed to happen. It was a short experiment that had the camera shots pre determined...until it BROKE! Otherwise NASA would never have let the video be seen, but they now had no 'eyes' on it so they went video hunting & we got to see UFOs.

I read all the NASA releases re earlier checks to see how plasma would react etc... & so what! On my tapes they cut away when these tests are supposed to be happening.

From my discovery of this video in 1996 until 1999 even Jim had not seen the video & NASA was mum until I posted it on March 11 2000.

Jim..it's all documented in Sereda's book "Evidence: the case for NASA UFOs."

Then we get back to escaping energy & what it attracted 100 miles away.

Quote from: Sinny on April 26, 2014, 09:58:48 PM
But surely the UFO's are large (?)

Dang  just had a long answer and lost it :(  Yes they would be large...  but let's forget the STS75 for a minute and look at the STS 80 ones. Since the one comes out of the clouds we can gauge an approximate size. I don't have the math but I am sure someone here can do that  :D We know it is not a small ice particle because of the distance from the camera (ie just above the clouds)  As I recall someone estimated it as 1.5 mile diameter but I would have to check

QuoteETA: Just read Jims post. Light reflecting, or light emitting, what are you stating the UFO's are?

Yeah I just saw that too :D  Interesting slip

Re: "No apparent reports"

Trevor was the firts to mention Plasma Critters as a possibility in the 50's but anyone that knows how to do a google search can see today how this idea is catching on not only in the UFO circles (slowly) but in main stream scientific circles as well (very quickly)

Do a google search for

PLASMA LIFE FORMS  and PLASMA LIFE FORMS IN SPACE

Here are just a few headlines...

Physicists Discover Inorganic Dust With Lifelike Qualities
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070814150630.htm

Hot Gas in Space Mimics Life
http://www.space.com/4219-hot-gas-space-mimics-life.html

Airborne Anomalies: Rethinking Atmospheric Lifeforms ...
http://mysteriousuniverse.org/2011/02/airborne-anomalies-rethinking-atmospheric-lifeforms/

Cosmic Dust Clouds Point to Non-Carbon Life Forms
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2011/11/inorganic-cosmic-dust-points-to-non-carbon-life-forms.html

For you Brits :P

Boffins simulate plasma-eating dusty 'life-forms' • The Register
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/08/13/dusty_life_forms/

A Paper - PDF
Dark Plasma Life Forms - Scientific Journals International
http://www.scientificjournals.org/Journals2011/articles/1502.pdf

Plasma based life - Electromagnetic Life| WeirdSciences
http://bruceleeeowe.wordpress.com/tag/plasma-based-life/

Could alien life exist in the form of DNA-shaped dust?
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12466-could-alien-life-exist-in-the-form-of-dnashaped-dust.html

Even on ATS
Plasma-based Lifeform/Intelligence possible?
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread458268/pg1


Not hard to find reports on Plasma life forms :D

Quote from: zorgon on April 26, 2014, 11:14:31 PM
Jim says:  "no APPARENT record..."

He does, but I think he was talking about that specific case, pointing to many different cases doesn't help solve this one.  :)

NASA is going PLASMA HUNTING :P

Critters?  Well not yet :P  Just high speed energetic plasma particles

The Electric Atmosphere: Plasma Is Next NASA Science Target

(http://lunarscience.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/RBSP-orig_full.jpg)

QuotePlasmas seethe with complex movement. They generally flow along a skeletal structure made of invisible magnetic field lines, while simultaneously creating more magnetic fields as they move. Teasing out the rules that govern such a foreign environment – one that can only be studied from afar – lies at the heart of understanding a range of events that make up space weather, from giant explosions on the sun to potentially damaging high energy particles in near-Earth environs.

To distinguish between a host of theories developed over the years on plasma movement in those near-Earth environs, RBSP scientists have designed a suite of instruments to answer three broad questions. Where do the extra energy and particles come from? Where do they disappear to, and what sends them on their way? How do these changes affect the rest of Earth's magnetic environment, the magnetosphere? In addition to its broad range of instruments, the RBSP mission will make use of two spacecraft in order to better map out the full spatial dimensions of a particular event and how it changes over time.

Scientists want to understand not only the origins of electrified particles – possibly from the solar wind constantly streaming off the sun; possibly from an area of Earth's own outer atmosphere, the ionosphere – but also what mechanisms gives the particles their extreme speed and energy.

http://sservi.nasa.gov/articles/the-electric-atmosphere-plasma-is-next-nasa-science-target/

The wording is interesting and the timing is awesome :P

Lets see what they 'discover'  8)

Quote from: ArMaP on April 27, 2014, 12:29:53 AM
He does, but I think he was talking about that specific case, pointing to many different cases doesn't help solve this one.  :)

Why not? He uses many 'explained' (in his mind) cases  to try to explain away this one :P

I am making a case for CRITTERS :D

I am still trying to find that file I had (from Jim :P) on the Plasma phenomena plaguing NASA space craft from the 60's. That would be very relevant.

Maybe you could find the post on ATS?  I think it was in the New look at STS75 thread

Quote from: zorgon on April 27, 2014, 12:37:57 AM
Why not? He uses many 'explained' (in his mind) cases  to try to explain away this one :P

Why not? Because bringing more variables to a problem doesn't help solve it, to solve a problem we should get more data for the same variables or split the problem in smaller, more manageable problems, not bring more data with their own variables and/or more problems that may not even be related to the one we are trying to solve.

Also, making the discussion more confusing on the basis that "the other side" does the same doesn't help either.

Quote from: Martyn Stubbs on April 26, 2014, 11:51:16 PM
Hold on Jim..starting at the beginning of the astronauts frenzied search for the tether as ground control demands they find it,...

In your reconstructed timeline, Martyn, how long was it between the tether break and this video sequence? And was the video made in day or night conditions?

Quote from: zorgon on April 27, 2014, 12:24:14 AM
Dang  just had a long answer and lost it :(  Yes they would be large...  but let's forget the STS75 for a minute and look at the STS 80 ones. Since the one comes out of the clouds we can gauge an approximate size. ....

On what basis do you deduce the one comes out of the clouds?

What do imagine are the illumination conditions in the camera field of view. Is there sunshine anywhere, or somewhere, or nowhere, or what?

What do you suggest is the source of the object's illumination? External sunlight? Internal something?

As we discuss TV images from sts-75, -80, etc., it's important to aware of the operating specs of that equipment and how it performs under extreme conditions. I've placed the Mission Control console handbook for INCO position on my home page, it has information vital to interpreting these videos. Trying to do so without this information is a recipe for misinterpretation and garble.

http://www.jamesoberg.com/INCO-CHB-CCTV1.PDF
http://www.jamesoberg.com/INCO-CHB-CCTV2.PDF

Every time we get these objects, the conditions are an accident, or they are seen during an important spacewalk which had to hold it's shot.

Jim..The STS-80 was a fluke as the camera was being moved around with no particular scientific purpose..when these strange events start taking place.

The MIR search was just a rash act that went terribly wrong when the participants started calling UFOs "meteors"! It deteriorated as objects that pulsed were called the MIR & then we are told they are not..so what are they?

When a rescue operation is being demonstrated, the 2 spacewalkers suddenly point out a strange object, in front of them...which draws our attention & then a pulsating object does visually appear!

Every lighting condition is demonstrated. Every UFO appearance is not predictable.

Quote from: Martyn Stubbs on April 27, 2014, 01:38:29 AM
Every time we get these objects, the conditions are an accident, or they are seen during an important spacewalk which had to hold it's shot......

You were describing the sts-75 tether swarm video with 'frenzied' astronauts. How soon was that after the break? And was the sun up, or down?

Quote from: Martyn Stubbs on April 27, 2014, 01:38:29 AM
.....Jim..The STS-80 was a fluke as the camera was being moved around with no particular scientific purpose..when these strange events start taking place. .....

I thought the camera was set up for a Mesoscale Lightning Experiment run. Why do you think it was being moved around purposelessly? What do you base that on?

You did recognize the standard Mesoscale Lightning Experiment camera orientation, right?

QuoteBecause spaceflight is so unfamiliar and bizarre -- literally unearthly -- I've seen most people trying to interpret videos making wrong guesses about fundamental features of what was being shown. Recently I drafted a guide to what I've learned about the space environment related to anomalous images, from my two decades in Mission Control and my lifelong fascination with UFO reports.

I'd appreciate any suggestions on what needs to be better explained, documented, or added.

Then this dictates; To really know what is taking place in this little universe, One 1st needs to know
and Understand the Environment this experience (Universe) is being presented in/through.

When Scientifically investigating anything, it is prudent to take into account the Environment,
which involves HOW your Universe is being presented to you.

In other words the Process's by which the experience (Universe) is being presented/displayed
and from WHERE !

It is incomplete to ignore this, and only adds confusion to ones interpretation of this little Universe.

zorgon...When I released the Tether footage, Trever James Constable reached out to me & called (to my surprise!) We have since spoken about his work many times & we collaborated  with TJC commenting on the Tether Incident in "The Greatest Story.." by Jose E. as well as putting a photo sequence in his new printing of "Cosmic Pulse of Life" of the Tether UFOs.

He believes some show "Living Critters"...so do I.

I see that you are very schooled on all this & that is so welcome.

This phenomenon & a detailed review of hrs. of these tapes has allowed me to see what less experienced  viewers  have missed... just think of how many people look at an unusual object & explain it away as a trick of light. (like Jim O!)

The idea of organisms consuming pure energy is not unscientific. A broken Tether 100 miles from the shuttle, bleeding Energy which is being consumed by organic UFOs. Critters, unicellular with a body composed of Plasma. TJC says his Critters range as large as miles!

Seldom seen as they usually reflect infra-red light, they sometimes are visible when they reflect visible light. TJC's Critters expand & contract as they speed through the sky. When they are luminous, some glow continually while others flash on & off.

All of TJCs words sound the same as the NASA videos continually demonstrate.

Quote from: JimO on April 27, 2014, 01:47:37 AM
I thought the camera was set up for a Mesoscale Lightning Experiment run. Why do you think it was being moved around purposelessly? What do you base that on?

You did recognize the standard Mesoscale Lightning Experiment camera orientation, right?

The FULL segment does in fact happen as I said...they are searching & then suddenly find it.

Check the video YOU SAY NASA gave you & you will see this..so many tether posts are missing the minute before they "find" the tether.

Quote from: JimO on April 27, 2014, 01:43:11 AM
You were describing the sts-75 tether swarm video with 'frenzied' astronauts. How soon was that after the break? And was the sun up, or down?

The video was a long time after the breaK (you know this) Check your NASA copy in real time.

Quote from: Martyn Stubbs on April 27, 2014, 02:21:32 AM
....This phenomenon & a detailed review of hrs. of these tapes has allowed me to see what less experienced  viewers  have missed... just think of how many people look at an unusual object & explain it away as a trick of light. (like Jim O!)
....

I expect this is an awesome unique opportunity for a high-octane disputation over some fascinating phenomena, so how about we act seriously about our responsibility to the future, and avoid flip fabrications about other people's opinions, starting tonight, OK?

OK?

Quote from: Martyn Stubbs on April 27, 2014, 02:28:37 AM
The video was a long time after the breaK (you know this) Check your NASA copy in real time.

Martyn, "long time" can mean many hours, many days, many weeks. Indulge me, what's your impression - a lunch hour length, a theatre performance, an overnight shift, a weekend,  a raft trip down the Thames, how long. "Long time" is hardly a useful answer.

WHY in the anomalous interpretation did the swarm wait for 'a long time'?

Quote from: JimO on April 27, 2014, 03:22:29 AM
WHY in the anomalous interpretation did the swarm wait for 'a long time'?

Wasn't feeding time yet :D

Quote from: JimO on April 27, 2014, 03:22:29 AM
Martyn, "long time" can mean many hours, many days, many weeks. Indulge me, what's your impression - a lunch hour length, a theatre performance, an overnight shift, a weekend,  a raft trip down the Thames, how long. "Long time" is hardly a useful answer.

WHY in the anomalous interpretation did the swarm wait for 'a long time'?

Round and round the merry go round...
How about you feed us some answers rather than keep repeating the same question?

Quote from: Sinny on April 27, 2014, 02:48:01 PM
Round and round the merry go round...
How about you feed us some answers rather than keep repeating the same question?

Armap already posted them. I want Martyn to acknowledge the time gap so as to explain his claim the astronauts were 'frantic'.

Understanding the orbital dynamics that created the tether fly-past four days after the break is critical to assessing various theories for the swarm observed at that same time. Understanding the solar illumination conditions, too.

Who else cares about such context?

Quote from: zorgon on April 27, 2014, 09:06:06 AM
Wasn't feeding time yet :D

Why would any such schedule driver CARE where the shuttle was? A day before it had been six thousand miles away, a day later, the same.

Why would the swarm event just happen to coincide with the shuttle close fly-by?

My theory explains that. Yours is just explain-anything magic.

Please don't forget to assess the significance of the sts75 disk edge notch clocking as evidence they are artifacts of the optical system, not 'real'.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sg4e_e72fiU

Zorgon, if you're fixated on STS-80, why haven't you ever asked astronaut Jones [who was there] on his website where he offers to discuss that very incident?
http://skywalking1.wordpress.com/2011/04/18/did-ufos-visit-sts-80-columbia/

Quote from: JimO on April 27, 2014, 04:42:38 PM
Zorgon, if you're fixated on STS-80, why haven't you ever asked astronaut Jones [who was there] on his website where he offers to discuss that very incident?
http://skywalking1.wordpress.com/2011/04/18/did-ufos-visit-sts-80-columbia/

That's not the incident I am interested in and I think zorgon is talking about the same "incident" as I am. :)

Quote from: ArMaP on April 27, 2014, 05:11:43 PM
That's not the incident I am interested in and I think zorgon is talking about the same "incident" as I am. :)

Should be easy enough to figure out. What's the date/time of the incident you ARE interested in? Was it day or night? Who are the witnesses?

Simple stuff.

Quote from: JimO on April 27, 2014, 05:44:05 PM
Should be easy enough to figure out. What's the date/time of the incident you ARE interested in? Was it day or night? Who are the witnesses?

Simple stuff.

I don't have that information, only the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNYLWImYGNM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNYLWImYGNM

I have to do my homework. ;D

Quote from: ArMaP on April 27, 2014, 05:57:29 PM
I have to do my homework.

Somebody ought to. Wouldn't you think, if this video were as important as Zorgon wants us to believe, SOMEBODY would already have determined that?

It's almost as if the video's UFO-champions WANTED it to remain immune from examination and contextualization.

It's appearance is 'classic' sunlit shuttle dandruff. 

Viewing angle backwards towards receding Earth horizon, as part of Mesoscale Lightning Experiment [principal investigator Otha 'Skeet' Vaughan of NASA Marshall Space Center, Alabama], opportunistically observing Earth lightning activity to capture sprites.

Just came into sunrise, evidenced by glare on left just out of camera FOV.

Typical near-Orbiter materials ranging from thruster ice, water dump ice, payload bay detritus, a hundred different potential sources.

Object randomly emerges from Orbiter shadow and 'appears'.

Some motions exhibit may hint at gentle curving AWAY from direction of motion, possible aero drag effects [correct direction for that] or sunlight-induced evaporative emission of molecules on sunward side.

No indication of brief propulsive events, not this time.

Within a minute or two, Orbiter passes across terminator and then ground-reflected sunlight drives camera's Automatic Gain Control to 'dim down' the scene. [you gotta read the console handbook for the camera system to understand that process]

Seeing a 'mystery' in this scene is just advertising your unfamiliarity with orbital observation effects. Please read my "99 FAQs", the title of this thread.

Woah,woah, woah, this footage is interesting of it's own accord, not because of Z.

And I don't see random movements of particles, I see intelligent movement.

Jims deluded on this one, can we move on?

Quote from: Sinny on April 27, 2014, 06:58:32 PM
Woah,woah, woah, this footage is interesting of it's own accord, not because of Z.

And I don't see random movements of particles, I see intelligent movement.

Jims deluded on this one, can we move on?

So -- you don't even know the time, date, place, provenance, witnesses, context, illumination conditions, even the identity of the youtube poster -- and you're ready to reach a conclusion about 'intelligent motion' already?

You didn't even read a single of the '99 FAQs', did you?

You're right, I'm wasting my time here.

What has illumination or context got to do with what I can see? (On this occasion)
You're yet to provide the answers to any of your posed questions.

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck..

That's like saying your not really looking at your own PC screen, but rather random system of Universal events occurred that just makes you think your looking at your PC screen.

Prove us wrong for once

Quote from: JimO on April 27, 2014, 06:46:06 PM
Somebody ought to. Wouldn't you think, if this video were as important as Zorgon wants us to believe, SOMEBODY would already have determined that?

Maybe someone did, my ignorance of it doesn't mean that it didn't happen. :)

QuoteIt's appearance is 'classic' sunlit shuttle dandruff. 

True, but that doesn't mean it's "classic sunlit shuttle dandruff", only that it looks like it.

QuoteJust came into sunrise, evidenced by glare on left just out of camera FOV.

I think that's also true.

QuoteSome motions exhibit may hint at gentle curving AWAY from direction of motion, possible aero drag effects [correct direction for that] or sunlight-induced evaporative emission of molecules on sunward side.

I wouldn't call a change of (apparent) direction of 160º "gentle curving".

QuoteSeeing a 'mystery' in this scene is just advertising your unfamiliarity with orbital observation effects. Please read my "99 FAQs", the title of this thread.

I know that I am not that familiar with orbital observation effects, but you haven't presented any thing that explains the slowing down, change in apparent size and an apparent change of direction of 160º. You haven't explained either if it's a just a coincidence that makes the bright object appear to follow the Earth's curvature, both in motion and apparent change of size.

And yes, I already read your "99 FAQs" (that are not really 99 :P ), please remember that the next time you tell me to read them. ;)

Quote from: Sinny on April 27, 2014, 06:58:32 PM
And I don't see random movements of particles, I see intelligent movement.

I wouldn't call a change of direction intelligent movement, a magnet can do that and it's not intelligent. :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSig_F6le9M
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSig_F6le9M&list=UUzBF4dT28lh5kyO3o_F9fBQ

Quote from: ArMaP on April 27, 2014, 07:20:21 PM
I wouldn't call a change of (apparent) direction of 160º "gentle curving".
I know that I am not that familiar with orbital observation effects, but you haven't presented any thing that explains the slowing down, change in apparent size and an apparent change of direction of 160º. You haven't explained either if it's a just a coincidence that makes the bright object appear to follow the Earth's curvature, both in motion and apparent change of size.

Seconded.

Quote from: JimO on April 27, 2014, 04:42:38 PM
Zorgon, if you're fixated on STS-80, why haven't you ever asked astronaut Jones [who was there] on his website where he offers to discuss that very incident?

Well...I did not see that page until now so thanks for the link

Hmmm reading the comments  same old "ice particles coming out of the shuttle bay" and Jim Oberg hogging the posts with STS48 debunking :D

Yeah I will go post the STS 80 segment we are interested in... hopefully you will let HIM answer :P

It will be a couple days and I want to read what he has said so far first

Quote from: Sinny on April 27, 2014, 06:58:32 PM
Jims deluded on this one, can we move on?

Jim says:

Quote from: JimO on April 27, 2014, 06:46:06 PM
It's appearance is 'classic' sunlit shuttle dandruff. 

Guess your right Sinny :D

Not that we anticipated changing his mind :)

So  is this where I add the shapeshifting critter giving birth video?

:o

::)

I was teasing Sinny, not you, Armap.

By 'gentle' I mean slowly, as opposed to abruptly as on STS-48.

You're right, 'looks like' is all we have to go on here, and we have no obvious  defense against deliberate masquerading by intelligent targets.

What do you think of the coming-out-of-shadow effect making something 'look like' it dematerializes or emerges from a surface object?

And I want to stress again the statistically unusual [and hence suggestive] feature of this kind of behavior seen to be predominently occurring during a very brief orbital segment of unusual illumination conditions:

just after orbit sunrise [space around Orbiter bathed in invisible sunlight]

camera viewing receding still-dark horizon [for MLE observations]

Orbiter casting its own shadow right down the middle of the field of view

Ground still dark so no reflected sunlight 'filling in' the Orbiter's umbra.

Dots 'appear' in midscreen [note they never seem to 'disappear' -- that's consistent with small nearby stuff drifting away from the spacecraft].

Now you can argue that this is all coincidence, but that beggers the odds as the most famous 'shuttle UFO videos' seem to fall in THIS set of circumstances.

And by not bothering to even CONSIDER illumination conditions [unimportant, I guess], previous investigators have overlooked this odd circumstance.

I am arguing that it is cause-and-effect, that this special set of circumstances CREATES the illumination conditions to generate the most bizarre-looking 'shuttle UFO videos'.

This is the view of the people who spend time actually watching stuff under these conditions -- Mission Control Center operators, for the most part, and astronauts.

Particle motion is influenced by both episodic Orbiter releases -- thrusters, water dumps, flash evaporator sprays, main engine purging, etc -- and long-term environmental effects -- air drag and ice sublimation,  inter alia --and spinning-particle breakup.

Once you've watched this all for hundreds of hours, it's true it becomes the way you understand the normalcy of these kinds of effects. The idea that some entity would mimic the effects to camouflage itself really hadn't occurred to us. The thing is, if it could do that, why not just stay out of the camera's FOV? Or stay invisible? Or just not come so close.

We don't see any 'intelligence' in any of these motions. Maybe that makes us narrow-minded, if it makes you feel better, go for it.

Quote from: zorgon on April 27, 2014, 07:32:20 PM
So  is this where I add the shapeshifting critter giving birth video?

Probably.

What you ought to be adding is your rational responses to posts such as the STS-75 disk notch clocking being clearly a camera artifact.

You can give it up to the 'explained' column. After all, you only need 'just one', so admitting a few others as being bogus costs you nothing.

How about your interpretation of your video showing an object coming 'out from behind a cloud' when I suggest it is merely coming out into sunlight? Is that a plausible alternative explanation, or is 'changing your mind' only what your adversaries are supposed to do? [grin]

Quote from: zorgon on April 27, 2014, 07:32:20 PM
So  is this where I add the shapeshifting critter giving birth video?

:o

::)

If you're talking about the video I am thinking about, then I don't think it would be a good idea, as it was a completely different situation.

Quote from: JimO on April 27, 2014, 07:39:18 PM
By 'gentle' I mean slowly, as opposed to abruptly as on STS-48.

OK, I understand it now, thanks. :)

Quote from: JimO on April 27, 2014, 07:39:18 PM
We don't see any 'intelligence' in any of these motions. Maybe that makes us narrow-minded, if it makes you feel better...

Does..

From the op.

QuoteBecause spaceflight is so unfamiliar and bizarre -- literally unearthly -- I've seen
most people trying to interpret videos making wrong guesses about fundamental features
of what was being shown. Recently I drafted a guide to what I've learned about the space environment
related to anomalous images, from my two decades in Mission Control and my lifelong fascination
with UFO reports.

I'd appreciate any suggestions on what needs to be better explained, documented, or added.

Comment:
Then this dictates;Re Unidentified Aerial Phenomena. To really know what is taking place in this little universe,
One 1st needs to know and Understand the Environment this experience (Universe) is being presented in/through.

When Scientifically investigating anything, it is prudent to take into account the Environment,
which involves HOW your Universe is being presented to you.

In other words the Process's by which the experience (Universe) is being presented/displayed,
and from WHERE !

It is incomplete to ignore this, and only adds confusion to ones interpretation of this little Universe.

Quote from: ArMaP on April 27, 2014, 08:08:43 PM
If you're talking about the video I am thinking about, then I don't think it would be a good idea, as it was a completely different situation.

I probably am :P  so okay don't want to add any more mud :P

Quote from: JimO on April 27, 2014, 06:46:06 PM
It's appearance is 'classic' sunlit shuttle dandruff. 

THIS...

no matter what is shown, no matter who contradicts it... you are fixated on this one explanation.

" 'classic' sunlit shuttle dandruff."

So really there is very little point going over and over it... other than to show newbies what is going on :D

Must be lonely in your world of "shuttle dandruff"  I almost feel sorry for you how the media uses you as a token skeptic in almost any documentary on anomalies :D 

I say almost because I am sure they pay you for those appearance.

If you really consider those STS80 critters to be " 'classic' sunlit shuttle dandruff." then we are truly done with this

::)

So we're never going to even learn the date/time/context of the video you consider your best evidence? Explain to me again that such trivial details are unimportant.

Quote from: JimO on April 27, 2014, 07:44:28 PM
What you ought to be adding is your rational responses to posts such as the STS-75 disk notch clocking being clearly a camera artifact.

Well Jim... look  I know we are all getting older... but seriously I covered that IN DETAIL several times with PICTURES to show my case. Seems everyone else can see my posts  seems you have selective reading issues :p

No I do NOT see them as clearly being a camera artifact. Please go back and see my post. I covered the same thing back at ATS over several pages with DepthOfFeild.  The best the debunkers could produce where notched artifacts that were the same no matter where on the image...






You can give it up to the 'explained' column. After all, you only need 'just one', so admitting a few others as being bogus costs you nothing.

How about your interpretation of your video showing an object coming 'out from behind a cloud' when I suggest it is merely coming out into sunlight? Is that a plausible alternative explanation, or is 'changing your mind' only what your adversaries are supposed to do? [grin]
[/quote]

Okay posted my three questions on Tom Jones UFO on STS 80 page  lets see if he responds or if Jim buries it :D

Might be a while because last update was April 18, 2011

:o

::)

http://skywalking1.wordpress.com/2011/04/18/did-ufos-visit-sts-80-columbia/#comment-1140

Zorgon, just to make it crystal clear I'm not offering a formal explanation of your video, I'm merely suggesting what I think it LOOKS like. Without the documentation you are not providing, a proper investigation is made impossible -- was that your intent all along?

What documentation? I have none, just the image. Can you give NASA a call and have them send me the documentation?

Okay so it "LOOKS LIKE" shuttle dandruff to you, LOOKS LIKE 'plasma critters to me and LOOKS LIKE alien UFO's to many others

I guess we will have to wait to get a commercial ship up there to look around ourselves.  Odd that the Russians wouldn't let space tourist Tito take a camera :D

Thing is many people have seen these phenomena on earth, photographed them and reported them... so you shuttle dandruff has limited value

Now if anyone can find that NASA Unexplained clip of Story Musgrave and his snake I would be obliged

I have the older one, but need the recent one

Quotea proper investigation is made impossible

If One has no understanding of the Environment, your little Universe is being displayed through....
HOW can your interpretation be accurate ?

JimO you say we should understand the Environment of Space, but do you understand the "Processing Environment" your Little Universe is being Displayed in or through ?

More understanding is required regarding WHAT this universe really is,
WHERE it is being displayed,
HOW it is being Displayed,
and WHAT is observing it and WHY !

Quote from: Martyn Stubbs on April 27, 2014, 02:21:32 AM
He believes some show "Living Critters"...so do I.

yeah we went through all this at ATS before you got the axe.  Problem with Jose is that many of his 'rods' can be dismissed and reproduced as bugs  so I tend to steer away from mentioning the rods.

QuoteI see that you are very schooled on all this & that is so welcome.

Oddly enough I ran into TJC's ideas long before and NASA UFO's Way back in high school I was looking at effects and appearances of UFO's and was already thinking along the critter lines when I came across TJC's article. Since then more and more main stream scientists and ufologists are coming to the same conclusion...

QuoteThis phenomenon & a detailed review of hrs. of these tapes has allowed me to see what less experienced  viewers  have missed... just think of how many people look at an unusual object & explain it away as a trick of light. (like Jim O!)

Sometimes these people just do NOT see what we see... we went through that with the moon anomalies... some really do just see blurry rocks :D  That is why the Air Force has hired people that DO see the details to analyse aerial photos :D  Jim I think just doesn't want to see... yet he is still here :D

QuoteThe idea of organisms consuming pure energy is not unscientific. A broken Tether 100 miles from the shuttle, bleeding Energy which is being consumed by organic UFOs. Critters, unicellular with a body composed of Plasma. TJC says his Critters range as large as miles!

Oddly enough, Star Trek did a 'critter' episode  a many mile wide energy eating space Amoeba. That was in the 60's  LONG befoe NASA tether UFOs...

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/archive/e/e7/20130804191010!STImmunity_Synd.jpg)

Did they get that from Trevor? :D  But yes when I started posting on critters it was in the realm of fantasy, at best science fiction. Today main stream scientists are on it, even creating experiments in the labs... and this only over less than 10 years

Okay so your right, it's NOT "case closed" :P  We may need to capture one first. Maybe NASA can send up a mission to obtain a sample of those highly energetic plasma particles that keep annoying them :D

QuoteSeldom seen as they usually reflect infra-red light, they sometimes are visible when they reflect visible light. TJC's Critters expand & contract as they speed through the sky. When they are luminous, some glow continually while others flash on & off.

Forgetting the NASA ones for a minute... UFO reports near power sources, nuclear sites and thunderstorms will yiled a plethora of reports that fit into the 'critter' category. Same thing there they are reported as being almost invisible then suddenly flre up... almost like they are feeding off the power lines or storms.

There are MANY videos showing what people call orbs doing this. I believe the sightings that shut down that nuclear missile site in the 60's was simply a critter feeding and in those days the electronic equipment was vulnerble to their EM field  and that triggered the shut down failsafe

In fact it was these UFO reports in the 60's that made me consider life forms as opposed to alien craft.  Denise Stoner, ex govermnet investigator and MUFON head in Florida says 50% of sightings fall into critters where as I am closer to 80% (with 15% our black ops and 5% true visitors)  But MUFON filters are not as fine as mine :D

QuoteAll of TJCs words sound the same as the NASA videos continually demonstrate.

NASA reports talk of plama effects of the tether yet they are brushed aside. Several astonauts speak of UFO's but others say they never heard of any astronaut saying it. Yet even public TV is now interviewing these astronauts...

Seems a lot of conflicting reports  yet more and more is coming to light in the public sector

Why is NASA afraid of CRITTERS?  LOL  They haven't hurt anyone yet as far as I know

Unfortunately, I that the only information I can find is related to the part of the STS-80 video that I'm not interested in. :(

On this page (http://www.science-bbs.com/184-skeptic/5a9c0ec8a1c5bad7.htm) I found this, written by a "James Ober":

QuoteAs far as I was able to determine, these STS-80 scenes were recorded beginning about 11:55 PM PST on December 1, 1996. That's 07:55 GMT on December 2. Since the shuttle was launched on Nov 19, that is 324/19:55:47, this makes it about 12 days 11 hours 59 minutes "Mission Elapsed Time", or MET. This was on rev 197, crossing Venezuela, then the West Indies. The Orbiter attitude was bottom forward, with the vehicle yawed somewhat so the nose was off to one side.

On this PDF (http://www.carlotto.us/newfrontiersinscience/Papers/v04n04a/v04n04a.pdf), I found this:

QuoteOn December 2, at about 7:57 GMT, the video camera in the payload bay recorded a number of disk-like objects near the shuttle.

I had to do a Google search to find out who's thread this is but for some reason I already knew.

'It just happens'.

Nice find, ArMaP!

GOLD!

For those who might question why our esteemed Member Jim Oberg would not use his full name is this post, here it is.



The Issue With "Space Shuttle UFO Videos"
Author: James Ober
Message #1 / 38

The Issue With "Space Shuttle UFO Videos"

Teasing aside (sorry, Eddie and Wolfie!), the key issue in understanding what you are seeing on these notorious NASA video scenes of space dots is to understanding the lighting conditions during the scenes.

Otherwise, you are faced with not knowing if the dots are sunlit, self-luminous, camera lens artifacts, or whatever.

What I have found most interesting is that the most famous of these scenes -- from STS-48, 63, 75, 80, and others -- all occur in a very particular set of conditions.

The dots appear at orbital sunrise in camera views that are looking back at the dark earth and the starfield, during the few minutes before the shuttle passes over sunlit portions of Earth whose reflected light illuminates the darkened side of the shuttle.

We can verify this by taking tracking data and running it through standard satellite observation software available widely on the Internet. Also the crew sometimes makes comments on 'sunrise'.

We also need to know the direction the camera line-of-sight is pointed relative to the shuttle's shadow in space, because objects close in will still be dark while those farther out -- a few meters more -- will be sunlit, and objects drifting from the shuttle's shadow into sunlight will mysteriously 'appear' -- mysterious indeed, only IF those who present these videos are careful NOT to tell their viewers that the shuttle is in sunlight.

Now, this 'coincidence' -- or what I interpret as a causal relationship -- is carefully concealed by the UFO promoters, who do NOT want their public target audience to suspect any such correleation. So they do NOT provide this information, assuming (correctly) that most viewers will think these are anytime scenes, even night-time scenes.

Why do you suppose such information is covered up? Who is doing the deception here? And why don't people really interested in understanding these visually impressive scenes ever realize they need more information than that which they are being spoon-fed by their manipulators?
JimO
www.jamesoberg.com

Quote from: ArMaP on April 28, 2014, 12:58:12 AM
On this PDF (http://www.carlotto.us/newfrontiersinscience/Papers/v04n04a/v04n04a.pdf), I found this:

"On December 2, at about 7:57 GMT, the video camera in the payload bay recorded a number of disk-like objects near the shuttle."

Interesting choice of words in that article... :D

Gold for that one :D

Gold for you ArMap from TMT too ....  :D

What say Ye JimO to ArMap's quote ?

Herr Zorgon...

You be stealing our thunder...again   :P

We wuz setting the stage for the killshot... ;D

I don't like to use the terms 'space junk' or 'space debris' because they already have a specific designated class of objects, pieces of OTHER satellites in other orbits that can be tracked for collision hazards. Since my research indicates that the vast majority of objects spotted and imaged from shuttle flights were small items shed or ejected from the shuttle itself, into very parallel orbits with very low relative velocities, and with very short lifetimes due to volatile composition and/or high drag coefficients so they are rarely if ever around long enough to be observed from Earth, I've coined the new term 'shuttle dandruff' to refer to that distinct class of objects. 

It is a category of 'space junk' that operators in Mission Control are very familiar with. Nobody here seems to dispute that such objects exist -- the argument is that they cannot account for all the videos.

That's where the question of illumination source comes in -- it is a differential to separate out items of 'space dandruff' from potentially other kinds of bogies.

It strikes me as disappointing that proponents of 'other' explanations absolutely refuse to seriously grapple with the issue of illumination sources, and have no problem staying unaware of the solar illumination context of supposedly 'top videos'. A neutral observer might suspect they want to NOT know how to differentiate types of bogies.

The absolutely transparent three-dimensionality of the field of view of these external cameras also has awesome consequences for assessing visual behavior of nearby items moving through this space, in particular moving from inside the spacecraft's umbra out into full sunlight, a process that takes a finite amount of time due to the sun's own angular size [not a point source]. It is disappointing to see the reaction to my discussion of this genuine shadow-exit effect elicit the kind of nervous tittering you expect from third graders when they spot the teacher's zipper down.

Armap appears to be the only one here remotely interested in thrashing out a fuller understanding of the implications of space conditions on accurate interpretations of visual phenomena in these cases.  Have I missed anyone else?

hey Jim

i hope you don't confine yourself to only a few topics here...branch out..lots of stuff that you may find worth your time to read and participate in..

wavin at cha

;D

Quote from: The Matrix Traveller on April 28, 2014, 02:51:30 AM
Gold for you ArMap from TMT too ....  :D

What say Ye JimO to ArMap's quote ?

(If I may quote you T4W ?)

"...'classic' sunlit shuttle dandruff..."

(http://www.easyfreesmileys.com/smileys/lol-045.gif)

With great respect,

-----


you are resorting to mockery because you lost your argument.

Matrix knows things that are best left unsaid... ;)
-PWM-

Quote from: PlaysWithMachines on April 28, 2014, 10:54:26 PM
Matrix knows things that are best left unsaid... ;)
-PWM-

Indeed ...   :)   Others reactions do it for me/us ....   :)

Quote from: DarkSide on April 28, 2014, 09:59:11 PM
you are resorting to mockery because you lost your argument.

No, he's laughing because 'we' won our argument with 'flying colours'...rather than 'flying dandruff'..

Tell me, how far away is the shuttle from the tether? How large does this 'dandruff' have to be to be seen glowing behind the tether?

Does anyone have a response to the PDF provided? The context of the sighting alone is enough to defend our argument.

The video clearly shows the 'objects' going behind the tether, and that also means they were fairly large.
Coupled with earlier reports of 'critters' this was a positive step.
Even more positive was the fact that NAZA had the biggest 'object' in full view at mission control....
If it wuz just dandruff (ice particles) why so much interest from mission control?
The obvious conclusion is (of course) the best in the long run, rarely have i had to retrace my steps & say sorry i was wrong....
Later!

Quote from: Sinny on April 28, 2014, 11:10:03 PM
....
Tell me, how far away is the shuttle from the tether? How large does this 'dandruff' have to be to be seen glowing behind the tether?
....

My argument -- actually, the view of everybody who actually understands the hardware involved -- is that the objects are not passing behind the tether, the appearance of it is due to features of the pixel processing software.

The first step to understanding this is to learn something about the camera. To that end, I posted the camera user's manual on my home page and linked to it.

What's your excuse for refusing to look at it?

If the objects really were that big, why didn't anybody on Earth see them? They'd have been moon sized and ten times brighter.

And why did they pick the moment of shuttle fly-past four days after the break to suddenly swarm the tether?

Oh, I forgot -- the objects themselves decide who can see them and who can't. That explains everything.

Quote from: JimO on April 28, 2014, 11:22:56 PM
the objects are not passing behind the tether, the appearance of it is due to features of the pixel processing software.

Yea, and I'm the Queen of England!

QuoteWhat's your excuse for refusing to look at it?

I will if I feel intellectually challenged, but surprisingly I don't. aha.

QuoteIf the objects really were that big, why didn't anybody on Earth see them?

The people of Earth can't see many a thing.

QuoteAnd why did they pick the moment of shuttle fly-past four days after the break to suddenly swarm the tether?

I dunno, why do I like coffee & chocolate but hate coffee chocolate?

QuoteOh, I forgot -- the objects themselves decide who can see them and who can't. That explains everything.

Well, that happens frequently..
http://www.thelivingmoon.com/forum/index.php?topic=3137.0

Quote from: Sinny on April 28, 2014, 11:10:03 PM
No, he's laughing because 'we' won our argument with 'flying colours'...rather than 'flying dandruff'..

Well, to me, nobody has won any thing yet. :)

Quote from: PlaysWithMachines on April 28, 2014, 11:19:25 PM
The video clearly shows the 'objects' going behind the tether, and that also means they were fairly large.

What makes you think that the 'objects' pass behind the tether?

QuoteCoupled with earlier reports of 'critters' this was a positive step.

Earlier reports in the same conditions?

QuoteEven more positive was the fact that NAZA had the biggest 'object' in full view at mission control....

It's "NASA", I hate it when people don't use the real names.  :(

In that scene, can we see the whole screen?

QuoteThe obvious conclusion is (of course) the best in the long run, rarely have i had to retrace my steps & say sorry i was wrong....

That can be interpreted in more than one way, you know? ;)

Quote from: ArMaP on April 29, 2014, 12:04:33 AM
What makes you think that the 'objects' pass behind the tether?

We SEE them go behind the tether.  ::)

QuoteIt's "NASA", I hate it when people don't use the real names.  :(

It's certainly a more appropriate name..

Quote from: Sinny on April 29, 2014, 12:29:02 AM
We SEE them go behind the tether.  ::)

It's a 2D scene, we don't really see them go behind the tether.
Can't you analyse your own senses and tell what do you see that makes you think that they go behind the tether?

QuoteIt's certainly a more appropriate name..

But it's not the real name, and, to me, things are what they are, not what we want them to be. Giving things other names just makes people look silly, as if they can change them by giving them a different name.

Quote from: Sinny on April 29, 2014, 12:29:02 AM
We SEE them go behind the tether.  ::)

Indeed it looks that way on the television monitor.

But notice also as the camera zooms in and out, a curious feature of the tether image.

As it lengthens and shortens depending on the zoom, the thickness remains constant.

Measure this on your monitor. Verify you are seeing the image of the tether maintain constant thickness even as the length increases and decreases.

This is a clue about the behavior of the pixel field, that is described in the user's manual that you are afraid to read, probably because you'd have to admit you don't have the smarts to understand it.

As for you SEEING the objects pass behind the tether, you speak as a child of the boobtube culture, believing that what you see on screen is a faithful reproduction of what was happening outside. Your mind is so acculturated you can't even recognize any other reality model.

The astronauts looking out their overhead windows SAW the dots and the distant tether. And since human-eye binocular ranging is effective out to 40-50 ft, they could TELL the dots were small and close. They had MORE information from two eyes than YOU had from the flat screen, so THEIR view was superior, and more accurate.

While we're in instructional mode, look up 'puerile' and consider why it's a good description of your recent posts.   

Jeez louise Jim! Take a chill pill.

You've been doing pretty well up to now and making some good points in a civilized manner.

Now all of a sudden you come unglued and start blasting insults.

Is that your real agenda, is that what your after?


Actually, your post withOUT the personal insults does pretty well at moving the discussion forward -

Quote from: JimO on April 29, 2014, 12:57:44 AM
Indeed it looks that way on the television monitor.

But notice also as the camera zooms in and out, a curious feature of the tether image.

As it lengthens and shortens depending on the zoom, the thickness remains constant.

Measure this on your monitor. Verify you are seeing the image of the tether maintain constant thickness even as the length increases and decreases.

This is a clue about the behavior of the pixel field, that is described in the user's manual.


(snip)that you are afraid to read, probably because you'd have to admit you don't have the smarts to understand it.

As for you SEEING the objects pass behind the tether,

you speak as a child of the boobtube culture,

believing that what you see on screen is a faithful reproduction of what was happening outside.

Your mind is so acculturated you can't even recognize any other reality model.

The astronauts looking out their overhead windows SAW the dots and the distant tether. And since human-eye binocular ranging is effective out to 40-50 ft, they could TELL the dots were small and close. They had MORE information from two eyes than YOU had from the flat screen, so THEIR view was superior, and more accurate.

While we're in instructional mode, look up 'puerile' and consider why it's a good description of your recent posts.   

So withOUT the remarks in yellow, I read some interesting points I am going to explore including measuring my monitor for size changes as you suggested.

We don't mind sarcasm here at peggy, but try to keep it funny instead of mean.


That way you don't lose points for every one you make.

Quote from: A51Watcher on April 29, 2014, 01:21:15 AM
///We don't mind sarcasm here at peggy, but try to keep it funny instead of mean. That way you don't lose points for every one you make. 

I stand rebuked, but somewhat defiantly, feel at least partially provoked.  Where were you and your GOOD advice, a few hours earlier? Oh, never mind, point taken. Excelsior!

I was just fiendishly setting the guy up to dismiss the STS-75's crewmembers' testimony as useless because they were NAZIS, with the ambush rejoinder that actually, Umberto is a Commie. Really -- he's a member of the Italian Communist Party, currently a delegate to the European Parliament.

It's a good defense against the standard attack on astronaut descriptions that run COUNTER to desired pro-UFO spins, that they're all militaristic Stepford-spaceman liars, sworn to deceive the planet.

STS-75 is about the least likely gaggle of galactic get-arounds you could ever imagine, a guy with a Chinese name from Costa Rica, two Italians, a Swiss astronomer, a Jewish astronomer, etc.,  I mean, who is it that's supposed to be able to make these guys unable to reveal exactly what they saw and thought during this episode?

Or this guy:

RE: STS-75 Question
Date:   03/03/2000 9:26:59 AM Central Standard Time
From:   charles.w.shaw1@jsc.nasa.gov (SHAW, CHARLES W. (CHUCK) (JSC-DA8))
To: JamesOberg@aol.com

Hi Jim,

I was the Lead Flight Director for STS-75, and was on console for the
tethered satellite deploy operations and at the time the tether broke.
Operations had been nominal up to the point Jeff Hoffman called down that the tether broke, and then we saw the status in telemetry a couple of seconds later.  The behavior of the satellite and the tether remnant on the satellite was exactly as we had expected for a tether break case.

In the footage of the video, etc. which was examined in GREAT detail post flight in hopes of finding SOMETHING to aid in what had caused the tether break, we never saw anything that was "unexpected".  Your comments as to artifacts and small debris/dust/ice particles/lens
reflections/blooming/etc., are all quite common and we have seen those things in virtually every shuttle mission's video.  What was present in the video and the data that was examined post flight was all within this type of artifact and/or expected results.

Post break, we called upon tracking and imaging resources world wide to be able to establish a trajectory for the satellite and tether remnant, in order to determine the feasibility of a rendezvous and recovery, in addition to being able to command the satellite transmitter on to gain some science data from it, even though the tether was broken.  At no time did any of these tracking data show anything unexpected, and we were LOOKING for unexpected things (like extra pieces of tether, or debris from the satellite and/or science booms) that could cause us to not want to fly up in the vicinity of the satellite

As it turned out, the arcing of the voltage in the tether to the deployer
structure burned the tether in two.  Rather ironic that the experiment
worked so well to show the ability of the system to generate power, and in fact worked so well as to fatally damage the experiment!

I have always been fascinated by UFO investigations, and "personally" I hope we are not really alone in this wonderful universe.

Hope this helps,

Chuck

Chuck Shaw
Flight Director
Mission Operations Directorate, NASA
Johnson Space Center, Houston Texas
   

Quotejust after orbit sunrise [space around Orbiter bathed in invisible sunlight]

Quote

can someone get me a frame of this, I would like to see if it is invisible to me.

QuoteSECTION 16CLOSED CIRCUIT TELEVISION

Jim, is this the article on the cameras you're talking about. I could only get up to page 4.

deuem, I'm not following you.

Quote from: JimO on April 29, 2014, 12:57:44 AM
The astronauts looking out their overhead windows SAW the dots and the distant tether. And since human-eye binocular ranging is effective out to 40-50 ft, they could TELL the dots were small and close. They had MORE information from two eyes than YOU had from the flat screen, so THEIR view was superior, and more accurate.

Still sounds like 'opinion' to me, rather than fact.

Less of the 'puerile', thank you.. We've patiently sat through you repetative questions.

just after orbit sunrise [space around Orbiter bathed in invisible sunlight]This was from one of your posts, Yes the craft should be in sunlight before the ground below it. The question is rather the sunlight is invisible or not to the camera. If someone can get me a video frame or snapshot of this, I would like to see if it is invisible to me. ( my process )


The second question I have is the camera used to film the tether breaking video. I did go to you homepage and could only find a reference to the standard cameras on-board. In your section 16. Sorry but I could only look as far as page 4 from here. ( at least today )

I'm sure you can clear up any questions on the exact camera used. All I have is third hand info. That info mentioned a very special camera that filmed in the UV. If this is true then that is the camera I want to know more apart. If any of the cameras do film in UV, are they UV A, UV B, UV C, UV V or a mix or the entire spectrum of UV?

Thanks

Quote from: deuem on April 29, 2014, 01:05:04 PM
I'm sure you can clear up any questions on the exact camera used. All I have is third hand info. That info mentioned a very special camera that filmed in the UV. If this is true then that is the camera I want to know more apart. If any of the cameras do film in UV, are they UV A, UV B, UV C, UV V or a mix or the entire spectrum of UV?

I know Jim will probably point to the original data, but from what I remember the video was made with a common camera, not the special camera they had for the experiment that could catch UV light, as that camera had a special lens (glass blocks part of the UV spectrum).

But I may be wrong. :)

Quote from: deuem on April 29, 2014, 01:05:04 PM
just after orbit sunrise [space around Orbiter bathed in invisible sunlight]This was from one of your posts, Yes the craft should be in sunlight before the ground below it. The question is rather the sunlight is invisible or not to the camera. If someone can get me a video frame or snapshot of this, I would like to see if it is invisible to me. ( my process )

The presence of a hard vacuum in the field of view eliminates the cue of haziness that sun-drenched air conveys, while the presence of stars against a black sky is a false cue of 'night'. Because the camera is deliberately aimed at the receding horizon to detect lightning sprites, it also is aimed to avoid having any spacecraft structure in the FOV, because when that structure gets sunlit, the camera's Auto Gain Control [AGC] dials down the sensitivity and dims out the scene, especially small objects.  Sometimes after sunrise you can detect an FOV edge glow from structure that is receiving forward-scattered sunlight, and when it gets too bright, you can see the AGC kick in. Or it can happen as the spacecraft passes out over sunlit clouds and earth surface below, also flooding the FOV with brightness.

I'm glad you're interested in this issue because it is the key to understanding the nature of these white dots -- sts 48, 63, 75, 80, 115, etc... -- that have become the notorious 'shuttle UFOs' of lore and legend. They appear in this particular condition, a brief interval on each orbit, because these conditions are conducive to small nearby objects shining brightly against the Earth and starry sky background. As some particles drift out of the spacecraft's shadow into sunlight, they seem to materialize against the Earth surface in the background, leading many people to misinterpret them as 'coming out from behind a cloud'.   

Quote from: ArMaP on April 29, 2014, 01:58:09 PM
I know Jim will probably point to the original data, but from what I remember the video was made with a common camera, not the special camera they had for the experiment that could catch UV light, as that camera had a special lens (glass blocks part of the UV spectrum).

Armap is correct. The STS-75 UV camera [with special digital data displays that make it clear which camera was in use] was mounted in the payload bay to look up the tether. The shuttle cockpit windows are specially shielded NOT to pass UV light so as to protect crew eyes [and can post the exact trasmissivity ranges]. 'Columbia' had a UV-transparent flat window in the middeck door for special observations, it was usually covered with a UV-protective added layer. 

Quote from: JimO on April 29, 2014, 02:24:38 PM
Armap is correct. The STS-75 UV camera [with special digital data displays that make it clear which camera was in use] was mounted in the payload bay to look up the tether. The shuttle cockpit windows are specially shielded NOT to pass UV light so as to protect crew eyes [and can post the exact trasmissivity ranges]. 'Columbia' had a UV-transparent flat window in the middeck door for special observations, it was usually covered with a UV-protective added layer.

Ok, can we get into this camera a lot more. If it is a UV camera then is it the entire UV spectrum or just A,B,C or V. From what I understand most cameras will film into UV-A a bit and then stop. I would also like to process the 4 ranges all by themselves if that is possible. So knowing what this camera films would help. Getting standards in the 4 wave lengths would help also. Thats one project.

The other is the space light question of it being invisible. My program loves sunlight the best. Where you see a dark sky with invisible light I might see something different. Sometimes the entire photo will light up with gradients where all you see is a black sky. I also get black skies and also get a mix when they film towards the day/night areas.

I would also guess with a lot of work and time, date studies, one could pin point the shuttle in space, the rotation of the Earth and the suns location. Then add in where the light rays would be at that moment. I did a lot of that work on the moon photos to study shadows. If we had real math on your questions then the real situation should prevail. No? We can calculate the absence of Light cone behind the Earth and place the shuttle in orbit and figure out in which way they are filming. Once totaly inside the Dark cone all photos are very different. With a 90 minute orbit, this does not last very long.

If you can help on specs, I can help on making a Cad drawing and Trig calculations. Add to this the focal distance of the camera and the lens we get a circle of view we can add to the equasions. Then we all can look and see where things should be. With Math as the backup. Is that OK?

You posted that the craft coming in and out of the clouds is coming in and out of light. Lets see how that stacks up. Can we get the specs on that and I'm sure ArMaP will be checking all the data.

I am going into this neutral and will let the results speak for themselves no matter what we find.

Deuem

Sounds like an interesting concept. What kind of double-blind calibration have you done on the process?

Quote from: JimO on April 27, 2014, 04:11:45 PM
Why would any such schedule driver CARE where the shuttle was? A day before it had been six thousand miles away, a day later, the same.

Why would the swarm event just happen to coincide with the shuttle close fly-by?

My theory explains that. Yours is just explain-anything magic.

The Ground knew when the Tether would be closest & thus instructed the astronauts to look for it. The download feed is put up & Ground Control  watched live as the camera searched. Then Ground Control got anxious as all they could see was a clear picture of the stars. The camera looked left..then right..then down & then the astronauts got excited & said we have it ..Before the camera actually sees it...

The camera then jerks left & downward & suddenly everyone SEES the escaping tether swarming with objects

I posted the only tether incident footage in the world & everyone else has copied from that release.
What I did not...(& thus nobody has it)  was release the footage prior to the tether swarm. AND that is where the answer lies.

Their are no near field object swarming the camera! Never during the panning until the  (75 N. miles away) tether is spotted is there any activity. So are you saying the swarm lay in wait for the camera to pan
to the tether before attacking the camera?
Now that, your new  "space bee" theory... really is science fiction!

Quote from: Martyn Stubbs on April 30, 2014, 08:51:53 PM
What I did not...(& thus nobody has it)  was release the footage prior to the tether swarm. AND that is where the answer lies.

Then can you post it, please? :)

And if you were receiving the feed then you know (or knew) the date and time, could you give us any help with that?

Quote from: JimO on April 30, 2014, 05:36:04 PM
Sounds like an interesting concept. What kind of double-blind calibration have you done on the process?

Can you just post up all the spec's so Deuem and Armap can get to work?

One step at a time. Worry about the double-blind calibration super duper sponge bob sweaty pants stuff later on.

Quote from: ArMaP on April 30, 2014, 09:26:04 PM
Then can you post it, please? :)

And if you were receiving the feed then you know (or knew) the date and time, could you give us any help with that?

SO.....You want me to upload to my You Tube channel the pre tether material...sorry re: that way as an ASAP... I want to let Jim O post his NASA copy as he insists he has this footage. My position is that Jim's word is good enough for me, & zorgon has taken the position that Jim's claim is bogus.  Jim can do the heavy lifting & post it.

This is how I wish to proceed.

As to the time..Jim O knows it well...he is playing a game here. There were multiple tether sightings & they were all downlinked. Jim is following the written NASA flight (CSI like) report that clearly ID's the sightings. That's his turf. So why is he asking me this? Is he suggesting I don't have the video  ?? This Jim O strategy is called "the art of fuzzification!

I have nothing to prove as you all know I have these recordings. The whole point here is...Does Jim O. have them. If not then his pemise is a house of straw.

Quote from: Martyn Stubbs on April 30, 2014, 11:59:12 PM
SO.....You want me to upload to my You Tube channel the pre tether material...

I would prefer something better than YouTube, but that would be enough, if wanted to do it.

QuoteI have nothing to prove as you all know I have these recordings.

I don't know that, I only know that you are supposed to be the person that recorded those videos.

QuoteThe whole point here is...Does Jim O. have them. If not then his pemise is a house of straw.

I thought that the whole point was to get to the truth, but I guess I was wrong and truth, once more, takes second stage in a battle of egos...

Typical. :(

Quote from: JimO on April 30, 2014, 05:36:04 PM
Sounds like an interesting concept. What kind of double-blind calibration have you done on the process?

My process does not use a constant calibration as of yet. But I could reset it to black or white if needed. But if I do that i lose a lot in the change, so I just let it run as is. It is now fixed based on color choice of past and the 4 diferent program choices. 4 programs give me 4 diferent palets. It delivers a picture to look at, based on the original photo. To take it to the next step and run math off the waves is what I and others have been working on for awhile now. Very tough to do with out using a calibrated camera set the same for every shot. I have to deal with what ever I get. So far it seems to show me what I went after. So lay an invisible light photo out here to take a peek at.

On the second project, the time of day vs camera. Waiting on you. If you say it comes and goes because of sunlight, lets see if that holds water. At least 3 of us here can run the math. Flux, Sarge and myself.

Deuem

Quote from: Martyn Stubbs on April 30, 2014, 08:51:53 PM
.....
The camera then jerks left & downward & suddenly everyone SEES the escaping tether swarming with objects

.....

Thanks for hanging in for the conversation.

Why do you say the tether was 'escaping'? Wasn't the shuttle actually approaching the tether?

Quote from: Flux on April 30, 2014, 09:39:25 PM
One step at a time. Worry about the double-blind calibration super duper sponge bob sweaty pants stuff later on. 

So we just plug the images into a magic box and out comes an answer that nobody knows how, and that nobody ever verified with a test video developed to make the process reproduce the input test image? How is that any more reliable than the old magic window eight-ball answer globe I had in High School?

What's wrong with verifying a discriminator test actually discriminates blind samples?

There is life out there Jim but not as we know it.
Post all available information you have as requested.
Stop stalling with questions please.

Quote from: JimO on May 01, 2014, 02:30:13 AM
So we just plug the images into a magic box and out comes an answer that nobody knows how, and that nobody ever verified with a test video developed to make the process reproduce the input test image? How is that any more reliable than the old magic window eight-ball answer globe I had in High School?

What's wrong with verifying a discriminator test actually discriminates blind samples?

Yes Sir, I consider every single print I run a blind test. I have been douple blind tested many times. I will also wear a blindfold if you wish. lol Jim, if you had looked at my Deuem research thead, all 80 plus pages you would get my drift by now. I reall don't want to explain the process again and again and again. It is a process that looks for patterns in a print with energy fields showing up the best. The results are a new photo one can look at.

If you can arrange several hundred million to spend on Deuem, I am sure I can get any day you wish but I had to pay for it myself and I don't have NASAs budget. It will show you a picture of what ever energy patterns there are in the print. It is pretty cool, ( I think ) It has a way of opening a new door for dead prints and starting new conversations. Once you get used to it I wonder what you will see.

If a camera caught any light or fields I should show it and sunlight works the best. So I await for a simple photo of what you call invisible light.

I also wait for a date, time and any info we can work on in respect to the UFO in and out of what you say is sun rise or set.

I am getting older by the day, These 2 questions should be very easy for you, No? If you don't have time for either, just let me know and I'll go back to watering the flowers.

Deuem

I owe some answers but am riight now chasing down a Russian space trampoline, will return!

Quote from: JimO on May 01, 2014, 06:01:50 PM
I owe some answers but am riight now chasing down a Russian space trampoline, will return!

Is that a polite way of saying you got better things to do?

Back to believe it or not, the US has been using Rusian built rocket motors to get some payloads into space and no one at NASA or the Space agencies know how to build one anymore. Putin made a Joke and said he would stop sales to the states and for all he cares we can use a trampoline to get there. Did you take this to heart? Walmarts is now sold out! Is there a secrete black Op launch system called "trampoline" where we can bounce things into orbit? I gota get my kid one of those.

Maybe I will return after I feed the fish.

I'm new here so I am thinking aloud...passing on info that only I can for further thought, sharing some research with a VIP site that is populated with a membership that I admire.(& zorgon you are amazing!) I have to be the turtle re: Jim O's 99 FAQs...

sticking to what the tapes show & the true narrative (the yellow brick road) will lead us eventually to the current state of space dominance by the military, how it's mystery mini automated shuttles are operating in the radiation above 300N.miles...why the Russians (also military) & China (military of course) are doing what they are doing, & what they are all up to together. It starts with the tether incident & what we learned & how that fits into the current (yet invisible) dominance of space by the U.S. military.

I believe part of the massive attempt to debunk the tether footage as well as keeping NASA's footage, which includes tapes brought down by hand, yet never released......is not only about the UFOs! It's about the tether & satellite as well. The entire tether incident video was due to a disaster. The loss of the 100 million $ sat. The video exposed the tether's vast potential in uncontrolled ways!


The tether incident video should be viewed without any thoughts of a dust/ice/debris/pee-pee manifestation  that is swarming in front of the shuttle camera for 20 minutes plus.

My full video of the entire hr. before the incident & the video of that same camera minutes before the tether sighting show no swarm. (heck..in real time the astronauts never speak of any ice or debris that is a problem in the tether search, nor during or right after the tether incident.)

I have been checking these 99FAQs & the premise for so many points made is flawed.

I then went to my collection of hrs & hrs of night video segments, that are on disc as gifts for my stargazing friends to study.. Friends who love to see these 20+ minute continuing videos that DO NOT show UFOs..just killer star systems, great night shots from space which as I said are very rare & scarce.

Each shuttle mission lasted 10 days or more & that yielded endless night video passes downlinked & for us all to see. Sometimes by misc. ground control persons who would take control of the cameras merely to scan the stars, zooming all over the place & giving anyone watching quite a show. This usually happened while the astronauts slept.

There were other times when night sequences were downlinked from the shuttle with zreo explanation.

So the bottom line is that I found no other night (B&W) video with a tether like swarm on any flight, nor  during any event such as water dumps, nor Sat. searches, nor any night pass type of lighting...not even on any camera..from super duper cameras like STS-75's TOPS, to cheap in-cabin HIGH 8!!

nothing even resembling the tether SWARM! If this near field insect like ice-dust manifestation theory in the 99FAQs is common or even sometimes..well I can not find it on any other night passes. I even zeroed in on the Columbia flights & there is nothing..ever.

There is nothing that is seen orbiting..in sync...with a shuttle on any night pass from hundreds of hrs.
A shuttle moving at 17,000 MPH. As i said all debris or other identifiable things move away & are out of sync. There is no example of "feeder fish" like anything.

Quote from: deuem on May 01, 2014, 06:21:40 PM

Is that a polite way of saying you got better things to do?

Back to believe it or not, the US has been using Rusian built rocket motors to get some payloads into space and no one at NASA or the Space agencies know how to build one anymore. Putin made a Joke and said he would stop sales to the states and for all he cares we can use a trampoline to get there. Did you take this to heart? Walmarts is now sold out! Is there a secrete black Op launch system called "trampoline" where we can bounce things into orbit? I gota get my kid one of those.

Maybe I will return after I feed the fish.

Interesting info/data Martyn.

Just giving you an option Deuem and anyone else before you buy one.
Here is a SpringFree trampoline designed with safety in mind but still a lot of fun. Ideal for the kid.
(http://i1125.photobucket.com/albums/l595/FluxNz/newtramp_zpsb808b579.jpg)

Plan on launching my Luna rover off it soon.
(http://i1125.photobucket.com/albums/l595/FluxNz/DSC01947_zps8f7cadae.jpg)

Quote from: JimO on April 28, 2014, 04:57:44 PM

The astronauts looking out their overhead windows SAW the dots and the distant tether. And since human-eye binocular ranging is effective out to 40-50 ft, they could TELL the dots were small and close. They had MORE information from two eyes than YOU had from the flat screen, so THEIR view was superior, and more accurate.

Quote from: Sinny on April 29, 2014, 12:39:35 PM
Still sounds like 'opinion' to me, rather than fact.

It's an eyewitness account. Their 'opinion' is that they can tell the stuff was close, because that's how binocular vision works. On what grounds do you choose to disregard it?

Beyond 30-40 feet, range estimates come from assumptions about object size and air transmissivity -- that's where it gets tricky. But within binocular range, it's pretty clearcut. I think. That's my opinion.

Quote from: deuem on April 30, 2014, 09:03:42 AM

Ok, can we get into this camera a lot more. If it is a UV camera then is it the entire UV spectrum or just A,B,C or V. From what I understand most cameras will film into UV-A a bit and then stop. I would also like to process the 4 ranges all by themselves if that is possible. So knowing what this camera films would help. Getting standards in the 4 wave lengths would help also. Thats one project.

The only video I've ever seen from this camera were pre-break, and I don't have copies. Were you interested in pre-break observations? The scientists who ran this experiment are documented, they're the ones to ask for hi-quality copies.

Quote from: deuem on April 30, 2014, 09:03:42 AM

.....
I would also guess with a lot of work and time, date studies, one could pin point the shuttle in space, the rotation of the Earth and the suns location. Then add in where the light rays would be at that moment. I did a lot of that work on the moon photos to study shadows. If we had real math on your questions then the real situation should prevail. No? We can calculate the absence of Light cone behind the Earth and place the shuttle in orbit and figure out in which way they are filming. Once totaly inside the Dark cone all photos are very different. With a 90 minute orbit, this does not last very long....

That's what you want to find out, but I don't know how to deduce this solely from inspecting the video. The mission documentation -- the kind of stuff I showed examples of in the STS-48 report -- will provide it, since the exact time of the break is known. The orbiter and the tether are out of Earth's shadow by that point. So what unique situational insight would you expect your process deliver?

Quote from: deuem on April 30, 2014, 09:03:42 AM

....You posted that the craft coming in and out of the clouds is coming in and out of light. Lets see how that stacks up. ......

I certainly never intended to post that -- can you find the message where you thought I did?

I recall posting about STS-80 video that objects that suddenly appear with earth surface in the background, which might be explained by them coming out from behind clouds, can also be explained by close objects emerging from the spacecraft shadow -- which we KNOW from the geometry, must be lying out into the center of the FOV.

I never meant to refer to anything going back behind clouds. Did I by mistake?

Quote from: Martyn Stubbs on May 01, 2014, 09:22:56 PM
....I then went to my collection of hrs & hrs of night video segments, that are on disc as gifts for my stargazing friends to study.. Friends who love to see these 20+ minute continuing videos that DO NOT show UFOs..just killer star systems, great night shots from space which as I said are very rare & scarce.....

Why should they show any 'UFOs' in the dark if the famous videos are what I [and the on site witnesses] identify as sunlit small nearby dandruff? The notorious youtube UFOs show up after sunrise, such as this sts-75 sequence.

Martyn, if you think it's still in orbital darkness, how can you prove that. This may explain a LOT of the dispute over these videos. Day or night? Simple question.

Quote from: Martyn Stubbs on May 01, 2014, 09:22:56 PM
....nothing even resembling the tether SWARM! If this near field insect like ice-dust manifestation theory in the 99FAQs is common or even sometimes..well I can not find it on any other night passes. I even zeroed in on the Columbia flights & there is nothing..ever.
....

Easy to explain. The famous STS75 video was a DAY pass.

Ok, lets start with an easy question then.

I will dirrect it to Martyn.

How many diferent films are there of the teather?. Just the teather and what camera filmed the event. Is there a time stamp start and finish for each tape?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Back to Jim.

Quote
And since human-eye binocular ranging is effective out to 40-50 ft, they could TELL the dots were small and close.

Dear Sir, can you please back this statement up with some medical facts. The distance you qoute is very short about 15 meters. If my eye sight was that bad I could never drive a car faster that 20 mph. This vision is the focal range of my eyes. with it I can judge distance and size. I know if you close one eye, you lose this type of vision and the brain has to guess but 15 meters? I did a quick check on this and it is not an easy find. I depends on your eyes and the distance between them.

If the eye was to focus on some dandruf floating anound the craft then the far distance stuff would be out of focus. same for any camera. Maybe you should add how large the dandruf is that chases them. If it is like 10 feet in diameter or the size of a dime.

If I am out in a snowstorm I focus right past the flakes and see the road as far as they will let me. Everything closer to my eyes gets out of focus and blured out to nothing. Same with a camera. With a photo camera you can hold the frame on long exposure and grab a lot more light but with video going at speed the camera focus range is subject to a setting for the frame length.

It seems to me that if they ( astronauts ) only had focused vision of 15 meters then they could not even see the other end of the Shuttle with out assistance. This may need a re-think?

NASA has been telling us for 50 years that the Astronauts have a problem telling distance because of the lack of things to judge it by. Like no trees on the moon. Radar works better. Are there any radar tracks of the teather event? they must use this for closing in on it. Even the ground NASA guys knew exactly where it was. Is there any dandruf on those tapes?

Quote from: deuem on May 03, 2014, 02:42:59 AM
......
NASA has been telling us for 50 years that the Astronauts have a problem telling distance because of the lack of things to judge it by. Like no trees on the moon. Radar works better. Are there any radar tracks of the teather event? they must use this for closing in on it. Even the ground NASA guys knew exactly where it was. Is there any dandruf on those tapes?

Thanks for explaining your reasoning behind assumptions. It'll help me improve the contents of the 99 FAQs, and there should be a specific one on radar.

No, there no radar tracks on the tether or any dandruff, nor could there be. The passive ['skin track'] radar uses the steerable Ku-band antenna that is slung out over the right sill of the payload bay once the doors are opened. In the comm mode the dish is pointed at a relay satellite and allows uninterrupted TV downlink. In the radar mode, it is used to track reasonably-sized targets from a range of about 10-12 miles down to about 100-150 ft where it loses track and optical systems take over. It would be unable to detect objects on the inch-fraction scale that is typical of shuttle-shed debris.

The position and relative position of the tether during the video was already known from the four days of tracking of the satellite in the time it was flung into the higher, slower orbit. No navigation was needed from the shuttle, nor were any maneuvers required to make the fly-under after the shuttle 'lapped' the tether and approached it from below and behind, passing below it at a relative rate of about 250 mph.

The shuttle lapped the tether one more time in about 4 and a half days more, and made TV observations of that pass as well. But it was much farther away when the optimal sun illumination conditions happened to occur.

Aside from the images made immediately after the tether break, it is physically impossible for there to have been any other tether observations than around the two full-lap passes at four days four hours after break and then about four and a half days after that. Since every circuit of Earth moved the shuttle about 400 miles farther ahead of the tether, it's possible there were more than one sighting opportunities close to those points, but I don't recall what the documented 'scene list' recorded.

For most of the rest of the time the shuttle remained in orbit, the tether was too far away for it even to have been 'above the horizon' of the shuttle and its cameras. Seeing it ws blocked by the bulk of the planet.  I have no clue what Martyn could be referring to in his claim there were many other observations of the tether from the shuttle. 

The tether was only expected to be visible during daylight, and particularly the first few minutes of daylight before bright reflections off Earth's surface inundated the cameras and 'narrowed the iris' [technically, triggered the auto gain control circuits to lower sensitivity per pixel -- see the INCO console handbook I linked to earlier] which made dim small objects harder or impossible to detect.   

Quote from: deuem on May 03, 2014, 02:42:59 AM

Dear Sir, can you please back this statement up with some medical facts. The distance you qoute is very short about 15 meters. If my eye sight was that bad I could never drive a car faster that 20 mph. This vision is the focal range of my eyes. with it I can judge distance and size. I know if you close one eye, you lose this type of vision and the brain has to guess but 15 meters? I did a quick check on this and it is not an easy find. I depends on your eyes and the distance between them......

Thanks for raising this issue, you're right, there is no standardized 'max range for accurate stereopsis' that pops up for Internet searches. I came across fig 10 in http://jp.physoc.org/content/211/3/599.full.pdf but even that depends on factors such as whether the object is viewed against a varying background where relative displacement is obvious,  to viewing against featureless background where raw eyeball muscular feedback deltas must be accurately sensed.

Since one-eyed people are allowed to drive cars and can learn to effectively estimate ranges in a familiar-object environment, your objection to a range of 15 meters is invalid. Zero stereopsis is still allowed.

For purely binocular range judgment, there is a hazy boundary of effectiveness and it would be nice to better document the medical consensus. Any help? 

I also think you are unjustified in referring to 'focus' as a criterion with which to assess range of objects on space videos. The process which I've seen often referred to as focusing/defocussing effects is much more likely to be simply AGC cycling, which is described in the TV HW description in the cited console handbooks, to which I refer you. 

Sorry Charlie but the "Nearby debri" theory is very unlikely  ::)


STS 75 UFO Depth
Link - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COnv6N6JW7Y

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COnv6N6JW7Y

Just for some reference, The You see print is about 1/2 way through the process so you can begin to see the gradients.

(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/OriginalGrab.jpg) (http://s1198.photobucket.com/user/deuem/media/OriginalGrab.jpg.html)

(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/GifYouI.gif) (http://s1198.photobucket.com/user/deuem/media/GifYouI.gif.html)

(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/Isee-1.jpg) (http://s1198.photobucket.com/user/deuem/media/Isee-1.jpg.html)

Visual reference material processed through "deuem mid-range process"

I would think with out something to judge againt, just looking out a window would be very difficult to determine how large something is in space. The simple example below covers 2 questions. How large is this ball? Is it the size of a dime one foot away or 1 mile in diameter 10 miles away. Or is it an atom under an electon microscope. 

(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/1ftor1mile.png) (http://s1198.photobucket.com/user/deuem/media/1ftor1mile.png.html)

The second part of this example is part of a Deuem test. See that nice print above, well within that print are 4 more circles that are almost impossible to see unless you do some fancy work or have cat eyes. The print below is the same print after being processed. Invisible light?

(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/UseeIC.png) (http://s1198.photobucket.com/user/deuem/media/UseeIC.png.html)

So what we seem to have here and also in reality is that what you see and what is really there is not always the same. Can you see the 4 extra dots in the black print? They are there. For SURE!

Quote from: easynow on May 03, 2014, 07:51:08 AM
Sorry Charlie but the "Nearby debri" theory is very unlikely  ::)

Sorry, East, but any correspondence between David Sereda's ravings and reality is HIGHLY unlikely. What happened to BASIC validation techniques such as asking people if they REALLY said what Sereda CLAIMS they said?

See http://www.jamesoberg.com/2000-nuth-denounces-sereda.PDF

There's no 'zooming' going on -- no focus manual adjustment -- in this video, the effects seem related to cycling of the optical system's Auto Gain Control, which is explained in the INCO MCC Console Handbook  which I placed on my website, which you have not apparently read. Several experienced INCO controllers, with whom I flew shuttle missions, were interested enough in the claims of anomalies, that I asked their opinions of, and that's what their technical expertise advised, as well -- Chris Counts, Joe Fanelli, Harry Black, those guys.

Nuth was a physicist at Goddard who Sereda somehow decided was the expert in systems and procedures that were always the specialty of men at the Johnson Space Center more than a thousand miles away. He told me he kept telling Sereda he needed to talk with the real experts. Like I did. And I have shown you the documents that prove it.

But Sereda kept claiming Nuth had told him stuff Nuth tells me he doesn't even know, much less stuff he actually said.

And YOU believe Sereda. Carelessly so, I suggest. Badly played. Easily debunked.

Blush.

Quote from: deuem on May 03, 2014, 10:28:04 AM
Just for some reference, The You see print is about 1/2 way through the process so you can begin to see the gradients......
Visual reference material processed through "deuem mid-range process"

Since the TSS-1R payload was of known physical size and range at the moment of the video, you can computer its angular size. There was galactic darkness behind it.

How does your process add in the gradient spread? What is the angular size of the blob?

How real is it?

When have you tested it against an image of a space object of similar angular size, say the Hubble Telescope or Mir observed from the ground, and can your process produce REAL images of that object?

Have you ever tested it in that manner?

I haven't played a VHS tape in my home for years, all the VCRs were off-line and most were broken anyway. I've just hooked up my last working one to review some 1992-era STS-48 lectures by Jack Kasher to verify some quotations I plan to use. I'll keep my eye out for my STS-75 tape, I've forgotten what it was supposed to prove or not, can somebody remind me of the issue related to it?

Quote from: JimO on May 03, 2014, 12:04:36 PM
Since the TSS-1R payload was of known physical size and range at the moment of the video, you can computer its angular size. There was galactic darkness behind it. Are you saying something like it would be nice to see the sat overlayed on the object in real size? I need is one object in the original photo that I can use a scale then I can scale the print and overlay the sat into the photo. Easy to do with one standard. Will look into it to see if 1 object is measurable.

How does your process add in the gradient spread? My program does not add in the gradient spread. It just uses the spread in the picture and alters the gradients to show them better. What you see is more what the camera saw. The colors are mine and mean nothing exciting.

What is the angular size of the blob? Don't know unless I do the first part of this reply!
How real is it? Good question. Based on thousands of prints done including many Earth bound standards. I would guess that it is pretty close to right on. Maybe 90% or more. A temperture test would need to be done in a lab with a calibrated camera and the exact same setting on the program every time to get a scientific answer for you. Meaning turn on a light bulb and move a sensor in towards the bulb until it changes from room temp, then move it in again in incraments that might equal a distance or temp change. Continue till you hit the bulb and compare it against the results.
I have to see if the heat changes result in gragient changes. It would need to be very sensitive equipment.

When have you tested it against an image of a space object of similar angular size, say the Hubble Telescope or Mir observed from the ground, That I can remember I have never done either from the ground, I have done many of the ISS in space, Hubble never. Most of my work has been Earth bound with some ISS, Debri and moon work mixed in. Oh and a lot of work on NASA photos that one of our members Will Ease had posted on another site.   and can your process produce REAL images of that object? No!, for that you would need to work with Sanders. His method might be able to clear up a photo. My method is to look for patterns in energy caught by the camera that we can't see on the photo. These patterns are hidden within the gradients of the original.

Have you ever tested it in that manner? No, never had the reason too. Plus it was not designed to do that. From my point of view it pushes the photo in the opposite direction.

Jim, just to let you know, I had stopped after I fished the 4 programs. A lot of work was done to attempt to measure things and get Math numbers out of the product. Then the variables crept in. Thousands of consumer cameras and videos all at different setting, film speed, atmospheric conditions, shaking and the list goes on. And worst of all, I could never get this info from anyone. But we are working on trying to measure standards and use the Inverse Square laws.

Quote from: JimO on May 03, 2014, 11:56:46 AM
There's no 'zooming' going on

HaHA! lol ... with that statement, you just debunked yourself and proves you have no clue what your talking about.

QuoteI'll keep my eye out for my STS-75 tape

We already know you have no intention of ever posting it.  :P

Quote from: deuem on May 03, 2014, 02:42:59 AM
If I am out in a snowstorm I focus right past the flakes and see the road as far as they will let me. Everything closer to my eyes gets out of focus and blured out to nothing. Same with a camera. With a photo camera you can hold the frame on long exposure and grab a lot more light but with video going at speed the camera focus range is subject to a setting for the frame length.

I agree with everything you said except the above, as there's one difference between our vision and a camera's "vision", our brains remove from the "scene" things that it considers not relevant to what we are doing at the time, so not only are the snowflakes out of focus, out brains ignore them, so although they are still there and out of focus we treat them as invisible.

That's what happens with people that use glasses, we get used to seeing the glasses' structure as if it wasn't there. That's also why there are so many cases of photos with things people didn't see at the time the photo was taken.

Quote from: easynow on May 03, 2014, 02:30:14 PM
HaHA! lol ... with that statement, you just debunked yourself and proves you have no clue what your talking about.

You got me -- seems there is some remote-control zooming, but no manual focus adjustment. My bad.

The brain f4rt is worse since I had recently used the zoom/unzoom actions to try to make a point about the distortion of the tether image.  Even as the length of the screen image expands or contracts due to the zooming, note that the image's WIDTH remains constant. This indicates that the screen image involves considerable bleed-over of bright pixels to neighboring pixels. And that the size/shape of the images may be significantly based on this camera artifact and not on actual size/shape. Ditto the notches -- Zorgon may bluster, but it remains observable and repeatable to see how the clocking of the notches is a direct function of where on the field-of-view the circle is located. As it moves, the clocking changes, and as new circles move into the old one's positions, they ape the same clocking. Seems a pretty clear-cut indicator of a camera-related artifact.

Quote
We already know you have no intention of ever posting it.  :P

Since I've never posted any videos anywhere, my good intentions need me to purchase conversion software -- the first set I actually did buy, I couldn't get to work, and it dropped on my priority list.

What is it that 'my' video is supposed to reveal and why would I decide NOT to post it? Please fill me on on my supposed secret inner motivations.

Here are a few more messages I exchanged with Sereda about fifteen years ago. He was clueless then and has remained so.

Example: the idea that Franklin Chang used the 'plasma phenomenon' that he supposed observed on STS-75 as inspiration for his own plasma-drive space engine is idiotic and merely reflects Sereda's ignorance-based reality-defiant fantasies. Proof? Chang developed his theories twenty years earlier, was well known for his engineering research when selected as an  astronaut in 1980, and I wrote about his plasma drive design in a 1982 book, 'UFOs and Outer Space mysteries'. No precognition here -- just Sereda's sillinesses..

Quote from: deuem...Jim, just to let you know, I had stopped after I fished the 4 programs. A lot of work was done to attempt to measure things and get Math numbers out of the product. Then the variables crept in. Thousands of consumer cameras and videos all at different setting, film speed, atmospheric conditions, shaking and the list goes on. And worst of all, I could never get this info from anyone. But we are working on trying to measure standards and use the Inverse Square laws.

It's going to take me some time to respond because I really don't at first have a clue what you're talking about. Let me ponder it. Tell me again what results would impact the assessment of what we are really seeing in the STS-75 video, please.

Quote from: JimO on May 03, 2014, 03:47:43 PM
You got me -- seems there is some remote-control zooming, but no manual focus adjustment. My bad.

The brain f4rt is worse since I had recently used the zoom/unzoom actions to try to make a point about the distortion of the tether image.  Even as the length of the screen image expands or contracts due to the zooming, note that the image's WIDTH remains constant. This indicates that the screen image involves considerable bleed-over of bright pixels to neighboring pixels. And that the size/shape of the images may be significantly based on this camera artifact and not on actual size/shape. Ditto the notches -- Zorgon may bluster, but it remains observable and repeatable to see how the clocking of the notches is a direct function of where on the field-of-view the circle is located. As it moves, the clocking changes, and as new circles move into the old one's positions, they ape the same clocking. Seems a pretty clear-cut indicator of a camera-related artifact.

No ... you got yourself, I just pointed out the obvious.

I'm undecided on the reason for the notches but I think it may be important to point out that the notch effect can also be created when filming objects that are far away ... so using that to claim the objects are close-by is an argument that's invalid.

just saying.

QuoteSince I've never posted any videos anywhere, my good intentions need me to purchase conversion software -- the first set I actually did buy, I couldn't get to work, and it dropped on my priority list.

What is it that 'my' video is supposed to reveal and why would I decide NOT to post it? Please fill me on on my supposed secret inner motivations.

Well obviously your the famous MSNBC "space expert" seen in all the made-for-Tv-ufo-programs so we want to see the copy you have for scientific comparisons.

Why wouldn't you want to share it with everyone ?



But really lets cut the crap already, there's a few folks here on this forum that are upset because this topic has taken over and everything posted in this thread has already been discussed over at ATS , so basically we're just covering the same old ground again and learning nothing new.

I propose you upload your copy and also help in some way to provide the video time-stamps so we can get the original NASA data like Zorgon has suggested multiple times.

Quote from: zorgon on April 25, 2014, 11:10:54 PM
Time stamps? You know we don't have accurate info on that because Martyn's intercepted copy does not have them. You keep claiming NASA has the original with that information, but neither you or NASA has ever released it so it is likely they lost it along with all the other stuff they loose like the Apollo 11 tapes and the Lunar Orbiter tapes (which fortunately Mark Nelson(Dr X) had saved in his garage rather than destroy them)

Until we see the original NASA data and also pin-point where the objects really originated from, your attempts to explain away or debunk this video will continue to fail.



The question is,

Do you think the original data is needed to move this old-discussion forward and that should be the focus of the conversation ?

Or ...

Would you rather continue bumping this thread with talking-points already covered ?

:D

OK, I think it's time to get some direct answers, so here's one direct question to Jim Oberg:

Do you have in your possession, regardless of format and support, any videos of the tether that are not copies of those available on the Internet?
If you have, could you tell us where did you get them?

Here are excerpts from the NASA log of all downlink video and on-board 8-mm camera films, where post-break tether sightings are recorded. I'm not sure the format will be that readable, i can email it to somebody to post in the local archive, it's a pdf file.



   STS-75 VIDEOTAPE SCENELIST


GMT Day 061   MET Day 7

04:31:13   08:13:13   CMC   AOS TDRW VIDEO.  Orbit 118.  BEGIN VTR PLAYBACK.  LS/ Track TSS-1R at 150 nautical miles from Columbia.
04:32:48   08:14:48   CMC   CAM repositions.
04:33:36   08:15:36   CMC   LS/ Track TSS-1R at 150 nautical miles from Columbia.
04:36:57   08:18:57   CMC   CAM repositions.
04:37:33   08:19:33   CMC   LS/ Track TSS-1R at 150 nautical miles from Columbia.
04:39:46   08:21:46      LOS TDRW VIDEO.  END VTR PLAYBACK.
04:43:34   08:25:34   CMC   AOS TDRW VIDEO.  BEGIN VTR PLAYBACK.  LS/ Track TSS-1R at 150 nautical miles out. 
04:45:07   08:27:07   CMC   CAM repositions.
04:45:49   08:27:49   CMC   LS/ Track TSS-1R at 150 nautical miles from Columbia.
04:46:29   08:28:29      END VTR PLAYBACK. 


....   

05:11:29   08:53:29    MGBX   TAPE START.  TDRE.  Orbit 118.  CU/ FFFT test module. 
05:11:50   08:53:50   D   WS/ Night pass starfield view.
05:12:40   08:54:40   C   WS/ Night pass starfield view.  View switches between CAMs D and C giving WS/ Starfield views as the Crew looks for the TSS-1R satellite. 
05:22:41   09:04:41   C   Orbit 119.  WS/ Night pass starfield view.  View continues to switch between CAMs D and C. 
05:30:05   09:12:05   C   CAM repositions.  LS/ TSS-1R, with tether extended, visible at 113 nautical miles away from Columbia.  Debris visible. 
05:31:35   09:13:35   D   Glare.
05:31:38   09:13:38   C   LS/ TSS-1R.  Tether and debris visible.  Sunlight illuminates view.
05:32:59   09:14:59   C   Zoom in/out.  LS/ TSS-1R.  Debris visible.  Glare develops.  Iris down to dark FOV.
05:35:55   09:17:55   D   Glare.
05:36:01   09:18:01   C   LS/ TSS-1R barely visible in the center of the screen.  Glare. 
05:38:19   09:20:19      CAM turned off.  Black. 
05:39:16   09:21:16   A   Dark FOV.  Port side wing, sunglint and Earth limb visible in the lower FOV. 

...

07:01:40   10:43:40   D   Orbit 120.  WS/ Earth limb as sunrise begins.  Glare obscures view. 
07:02:06   10:44:06   C   WS/ Dark Earth limb.  LS/ TSS-1R faintly visible.
07:03:46   10:45:46   D   LS/ TSS-1R.  Glare obscure view.  Video levels change. 
07:20:09   11:02:09   A   WS/ Earth limb.  Visible in lower FOV.  FWD BKHD visible in the upper FOV. 


....

08:34:03   12:16:03   D   LS/ TSS-1R, 719 nautical miles away from Columbia.  Glare obscures view. 
08:37:09   12:19:09   D   High video levels.  View is washed out.  TSS-1R no longer visible. 
08:37:57   12:19:57      CAM turned off.

....
GMT Day 65    MET Day 11
19:52:10   23:34:10      VTR PLAYBACK BEGINS.  LS/ TSS-1R with tether extended visible in the upper left FOV. 
19:53:27   23:35:27      Glare develops and obscures view.
19:53:29   23:35:29      VTR PLAYBACK ENDS.


STS-75 H-8mm Onboard ID # 095
         SLATE: ID # 095  MET 1N 11/09:40  TEAC 2  TSS SIGHTING  MET 11/23/00
11:59:06      B   START ONBOARD.  WS/ Earth limb.  Moon in view.  CAM zooms in on the Moon. 
12:00:58      B   WS/ Earth limb.  Moonset.  CAM repositions. 
12:10:33         CAM turned off. 
12:10:41      D   CAM comes on-line.  WS/ Earth limb.  TSS-1R sighting.  TSS-1R drops below the horizon and out of sight. 

Quote from: ArMaP on May 03, 2014, 05:26:28 PM
OK, I think it's time to get some direct answers, so here's one direct question to Jim Oberg:

Do you have in your possession, regardless of format and support, any videos of the tether that are not copies of those available on the Internet? If you have, could you tell us where did you get them?

Frankly, I'll have to go look. I haven't paid attention to them for years since I didn't see any issues of fact regarding the event that depended on additional taped scenes. I've been concentrating on obtaining mission documentation such as the Scene List and flight plan updates, crew and MCC personnel direct interviews,  stuff like that -- stuff that to the best of my knowledge, nobody around here ever showed any interest in.

I have never uploaded a video to the Internet in my life. I've always intended to someday learn how and obtain the proper software.

Why is that suddenly a bottleneck to a technical discussion of the event, such as the most basic of contextual facts, was it DAY or was it NIGHT?

The 'Scene List' and flight plan provide all the documentation anybody should need to answer THAT.

Is there anybody who wants to argue for Martyn's insistence the scene occurred at night? On what basis?

easynow, The points that are being re-cycled are Jim Os...Based on his own premises. But he & maybe even NASA do not have the whole 'tale of the tapes' !

And that is where the debunking has failed. Jim O knows this too. The 99FAQs are without foundation without the  video record. Just as a police officer might stop & chat with a person..or pick up something they need for dinner..this is not put in there daily report. That is the same as the astronauts. They (as the public written records show) record the official business but not the true moment by moment happenings. This was the case with the STS-63 Mir search..a disaster when UFOs appeared & everyone started calling them meteors!!!

These FAQs trying to debunk NASA video evidence of UFOs are even ignoring the science of photography!
This complete video record I have besides having an aesthetic appeal, is also important to the history of scientific photography & the science of our time.

The difference between Science & Art is intent. Visual scientists seek to alter their collective understanding by finding patterns that reveal the way nature works, using photographs, film & video as permanent records of their observations.

The NASA Images are a visual treasure!

This all began in 1839 at a meeting of the Academy of Sciences & "Art Science" was coined by astronomer Francois Arago. And scientists immediately used photography to see the invisible. They attached cameras to telescopes & microscopes, using magnification to reveal what was very far away or very small.  In fact the MOON was the 1st. celestial object to get photo attention . Harvard Observatory gained scientific acclaim in 1851 for its photographic scientific study.

Jim says a NASA UFO video study don't matter. In space the video record of these shuttle flights make their cameras view...' the true retina of the space scientist'. Their images allow the eye to distinguish objects & their behavior in the vacuum of space for the first time & open to the scrutiny of all.

The shuttle cameras have changed the way we all look at space at 200 miles up. We no longer see with our eyes alone, because we have absorbed the camera's frame perspective & sense of time into our consciousness.
(I like to call it Tele-science!)

So reports & interviews are not enough for any true "case closed" declarations by OCD like skeptic's FAQs .

To log  every second that NASA  put out..24/7 in these analogue days took an enormous amount of videotape. So I as manager went to our VCR "Bone Yard" & retrieved  perfectly good machines that were scraped by our technical dept. as proceedure demanded... after a set amount of tape passes.

The SVHS videotapes were also scraped after a set amount of use. So by putting together a vast wall of machines in my office I could program days ahead, & then let the VCRs do there thing. I just refilled tapes. The high quality versions we used held 6 hrs. each & a flight on average was a good 2 weeks or more.

I also had a spare giant dish amoung the cable co.s roof full of  'in use' dishes. (lucky me!)
I gathered up each days or weekends tapes & viewed them when I got home. And it was fun, amazing & for me, who directed hundreds of show..bringing in feeds & looking at 5 camers + live cut ins...well this was the chance of a lifetime to watch NASA handle these dynamics!

The UFOs were all a bonus!!! So from the STS-61 'save the HS Telescope'  mission.. through to the STS-80 fight.  I got every second of every space shuttle mission in between &
It took years, & every mission got better. Topography mapping downlinked live. Every  launch I could watch complete from every camera they used. Science experiments & on & on it went. So after the STS-8o mission I began to merely cherry pick sections...

& thus enter  the late Jeff Challender, & ..a contact I'll not name other than he was a DR.! Some out there will know who I mean. He said he would do further taping in my place & I asked him to send it to Jeff Challender who would view them. So Jeff started his Project Prove & we consulted on a regular basis.

Jeff was a pitbull & he clashed with me sometimes but just before he passed , he sent me all his tapes on every type of format ...including his entire website.   Jeff wanted his turn at this  topic & he wanted to debate Jim O on the newer evidence.And that he did!

The 99FAQs & the enormous debunking effort by Jim O (& many others) has failed over the last 14 years because of  so many videos getting released  & re-posted (Kudos to LunaCognita at You Tube)... with my OK to copy & repost, + the many yearly documentaries showing the tapes, including my own 'Secret NASA Transmissions' & Sereda's 'Evidence' at the very start (2000-2001). And ..big time.. right now in 2014,   it's due to  the  the real UFO community.. which includes this site as well as others.

In fact the only people who ignore me, Jim O & others posting on these sites are the "so called" UFO celebrities who populate the non free conferences & conventions around the world..the 'UFO Industry'

They are, to me, the same as those 'Tribute Bands' who play other peoples music...And they are storytellers weaving tales of NAZIs running a sinister space agency.  As Sheffield's Arctic Monkeys sang...
they are telling 'fake tales of San Francisco'!

Was the video under discussion, the STS-75 tether swarm, made at night or in daytime? I'm arguing it was daytime. Martyn has said it was a 'night pass'. Can we approach this technical question head on? It's critical to determining and contrasting the possible explanations for the brightness of the tether and the dots.

Thanks for the most detailed account of your video recording efforts I've ever seen, Martyn. That's a narrative for the record.

So Jim, with due respect, how are you liking Peggy? My god we've got you and Stubbs! On the tether!
Respect.
Elvis.

Quote from: Elvis Hendrix on May 03, 2014, 09:39:51 PM
So Jim, with due respect, how are you liking Peggy? My god we've got you and Stubbs! On the tether!
Respect.
Elvis.

Anytime Martyn comes and posts, it's helpful in understanding the source of his point of view, and vice versa. He has provided a lot of new insights in recent days.

I still think it's important to determine whether the video under discussion was made in daylight or darkness. But apparently that view is not universal.

Quote from: JimO on May 03, 2014, 08:32:18 PM
I have never uploaded a video to the Internet in my life. I've always intended to someday learn how and obtain the proper software.

And probably some hardware too, if you don't have digital copies.

QuoteWhy is that suddenly a bottleneck to a technical discussion of the event, such as the most basic of contextual facts, was it DAY or was it NIGHT?

It's not, but I like to organize things. :)
If we are talking about one (or several) videos and one of the persons that is known to have (Martyn) doesn't want to post them I wanted to know if there are other versions not converted from the ones posted on the Internet.

And I wanted to know because, truth be told, most YouTube videos have a very low quality and resolution, even when compared with old video cameras, so if we can look at better versions why waste time discussing worse versions?

QuoteThe 'Scene List' and flight plan provide all the documentation anybody should need to answer THAT.

The "Scene List" and the flight plan, although obviously related to the video, mean nothing if we don't have the video, as they do not replace the video, and even with the information from that documentation, the better the videos we have the better equipped we are to watch and try to understand what we see, with the help of that documentation.

zorgon...the bottom line may very well be that the tapes are showing us a new life form that lives in our skies ,unknown, yet it has always been there. This would make the videos the only way to study this. No reports would say this but the visual record would. And according to Trevor James Constable, that is exactly what some videos show.

I know that you are leaning this way.

An invisible biosphere, inhabited by a natural, organic lifeform. One that would lead us to a new source of energy. Jim O can not think outside the 'skeptical' box. It's a room he can't get out of.

The critters, or whatever we want to call them, are outside of  Jim O's box!! Outside is the borderlands, where we need to be..The tapes do matter.

 There is something going on in space that NASA doesn't want us to know about. I appreciate Jim Os intelligence & willingness to interact on this topic. He is a genuine American celebrity as the #1 space reporter & #1 skeptic. I first saw him on CNN in 1991 on Larry King Live debating the then editor/investigator for the U.S. UFO magazine.  Jim was the man & he triumphed. he was the toppermost!

And here he is, still on top. But I still don't agree with the skeptical premise, that UFOs do not exist. That spacecraft from other worlds do not exist. That organic space creatures do not exist...and therefor whatever the NASA videos show it is never a critter or craft. (no matter what). That is a locked box. So we can never debate with those restrictions. So this is not really a debate at all & we can all relax & have fun. This is supposed to be fun! Myself, I will consider all possibilities.

I do understand that Jim has made it clear that he is  someone we may be able to bounce ideas to here, on an informal basis, in order to check for obvious flaws. He does not challenge our integrity or intelligence due to our beliefs, & but  he will never share them. I get it!

Quote from: Martyn Stubbs on May 03, 2014, 11:48:10 PM
And here he is, still on top. But I still don't agree with the skeptical premise, that UFOs do not exist. That spacecraft from other worlds do not exist. That organic space creatures do not exist...and therefor whatever the NASA videos show it is never a critter or craft. (no matter what). That is a locked box. So we can never debate with those restrictions. So this is not really a debate at all & we can all relax & have fun. This is supposed to be fun! Myself, I will consider all possibilities.

Well, I am a sceptic myself, and a sceptical position never denies any possibility, so yes, I know that UFOs exist (based on the definition of UFO, as there are many unidentified things seen in the sky), I think that spacecraft from other worlds may exist and I think that organic space creatures may be one explanation for some UFO cases, but I just don't accept things because someone says so, so I like to get as much evidence as possible.

Also, pointing to some esoteric explanation and ignoring other possibilities because they are not "outside the box" (an expression I never liked) is not an intelligent position, it's a close-minded position that it's just inside a different box, painted with "cooler" colours to make it look like a better position.

I like facts and data, that's why I want to know what videos exist, who has them and if they can be shared, what other data exists, who has it and if it can be shared.

I got 3 frames off 2 videos I have that are very low res and difficult to work with but I bet Jim coul supply them in a very clear format.. I will atempt to see if they are day light or night shots from the garbage I have. This is work in process and I will hold off my final say untill I have 3 perfect shots to work with besides multi generation video tapes from Utube. I think both of them cam from Martyn and put on line by Dave.

Deployment:  In full Sunlight

(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/1-2.jpg) (http://s1198.photobucket.com/user/deuem/media/1-2.jpg.html)

(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/1dt.jpg) (http://s1198.photobucket.com/user/deuem/media/1dt.jpg.html)

Breaking: In night with a possible hint of sun rise on the left. 90%+ light from teather and looks to be leaving a trail.

(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/2.jpg) (http://s1198.photobucket.com/user/deuem/media/2.jpg.html)


(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/2dt.jpg) (http://s1198.photobucket.com/user/deuem/media/2dt.jpg.html)

Swarm: In sunlight from the left. The tether looks to be casting a shadow also in space.

(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/3.jpg) (http://s1198.photobucket.com/user/deuem/media/3.jpg.html)

(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/3dt.jpg) (http://s1198.photobucket.com/user/deuem/media/3dt.jpg.html)

Nothing in any of the photos proves anything about the critters as of yet. It only looks like at this distance they are far away or very small nearby. If you look at pixel counts, they are very close to the tether counts. In conclusive at this point with these garbage photos.  Can one of you, hopefuly Jim pass on at least these 3 photos in a clear format photo?

Here's some data on the timing of the first fly-under, and what was going on.
http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/missions/sts-75/sts-75-day-09-highlights.html

Columbia's astronauts had a clear view of the Tethered Satellite as the two spacecraft passed within about 46 nautical miles overnight. The closest approach occurred at 11:17 central time last night (approximately 7/08:59 MET), and was captured on videotape as the satellite and its 12-mile tether came into view.

Tethered Satellite System (TSS) "science of opportunity," during Columbia's final approach to within 46 nautical miles of the satellite, included firing the electron accelerators in Columbia's cargo bay. The electron guns' effects on the charged particles, electrical waves and magnetic fields around the satellite were detected by the Research on Electrodynamic Tether Effects, Research on Orbital Plasma Electrodynamics and Magnetic Field Experiment for TSS Mission's instruments mounted on the satellite. All three instrument teams reported receiving good quality data from the satellite, data which are now being analyzed by the experiment investigators.

STS-75 SPACE SHUTTLE MISSION REPORT
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19970001413.pdf

[snip]

The supply water and waste management systems performed nominally throughout the
mission. Supply water was managed through the use of the FES and overboard dump
systems. A total of 27 supply water dumps (four simultaneous with waste water dumps)
was performed nominally at an average dump rate of 1.54 percent/minute (2.54 Ib/min).
The line heater maintained the supply water dump line temperature within satisfactory
limits throughout the mission.

Waste water was gathered at approximately the predicted rate. Seven waste water
dumps (four simultaneous with supply water) were performed at an average rate of
1.96 percent/minute (3.23 Ib/min). All line and nozzle temperatures were maintained
within satisfactory limits throughout the mission.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-qvdor2Hm4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-qvdor2Hm4


LunaCognita NASA STS-75 "Tether Incident"
Very interesting from the 4:00 mark.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2DVeil21gc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_537620&feature=iv&src_vid=G4Xx66ba36o&v=Q2DVeil21gc

I did some work on the photo planes and based on very lose ideas this is what I get. If I could get real data, I could give better data. So all of this is just an idea.

If I start with the tether 46 nm away in the full frame below. It will give me a picture window at 25 feet from the shuttle of about 33 feet.
(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/scaled.png) (http://s1198.photobucket.com/user/deuem/media/scaled.png.html)

This is pretty much wide angle at about 66 degrees. When I look at the print I can count 13 round objects that are not in focus at all but could be within that 33 foot window at 25 foot distance.
If there are ice crystals in the photo then the 13 are ice.
Now looking at the next photo from the same photo cropped to size, within that box I can see maybe 1 ball.

(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/Full12mile.png) (http://s1198.photobucket.com/user/deuem/media/Full12mile.png.html)

This photo is sized across the frame at 12 miles. I see no balls yet. Only after doing a zoom away from the large frame do the critters begin to show up. At the 12 mile make above the frame size at 25 feet off the suttle would be about 6-1/2 feet wide.

If I was to add up all the critters in the films and place them in the close film plane they would be everywhere. I would think the shuttle would be incased like a snowball.

If the astronauts see crystals at 25 feet, Ok say that is ok but the camera then zooms right past them and finds new items, most call critters. And what looks like many of them, up to 100 or more, hard to count.

What I am getting to is that it is very posible to have both. The crystals in the window they see and the critters the camera sees at 46 nm. Without the camera there would be no way their eyes could see that far and make out details. They would just see about what was in the first photo. Actually a bit less on a stare. More if moving the eyes back and fourth.

So if you were to ask them what they see they would say we see the standard dandruff that follows us and the tether out in space 46nm away. Looking at a monitor one would see the critters and think it is the ice outside and just blow it off unless one knew better about the camera.

This senerio can account for both sides of the coin. I would need very good details to make it Deuem proof but I think you get the idea.

Also at 160nm orbit altitude the shuttle should be in the Earths shadow for 145 degrees or 36.25 minutes per orbit. They can see a diameter of the Earth of 3,750km if they look down. So they can never see very much of the Earth at one time from that low.

The actual time it spends in total darknes is unknow by me as of yet. To many variables including the moon and surface light.

Quote from: deuem on May 04, 2014, 02:32:50 AM
Swarm: In sunlight from the left. The tether looks to be casting a shadow also in space.

(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/3.jpg) (http://s1198.photobucket.com/user/deuem/media/3.jpg.html)

(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/3dt.jpg) (http://s1198.photobucket.com/user/deuem/media/3dt.jpg.html)

Nothing in any of the photos proves anything about the critters as of yet. It only looks like at this distance they are far away or very small nearby. If you look at pixel counts, they are very close to the tether counts. In conclusive at this point with these garbage photos.  Can one of you, hopefuly Jim pass on at least these 3 photos in a clear format photo?

I think that "shadow" of the tether is a good sign that what we are seeing is a camera effect, as I don't see any other explanation for the presence of that "shadow". As I'm not used to old video cameras I cannot really know if that type of "artefact" was common or not. :)

A little larger pic that shows more of the shadow or solar winds working on the tether

(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/SolarWind.jpg) (http://s1198.photobucket.com/user/deuem/media/SolarWind.jpg.html)

And while I was there I did a family portrait for NASA...

(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/Collection.jpg) (http://s1198.photobucket.com/user/deuem/media/Collection.jpg.html)

If I had better masters the finals would get better.

An important feature of the payload bay cameras was a pixel overbright protect that would 'gray-out' pixels that had too high brightness levels, sort of an overload reliever. You could see it in dazzling reflections off shuttle structure, off bright city lights at night, off lightning-lit cloud banks, even with defocussed star images that became 'donuts' [I recall a great pan across 'Orion' composed of such donuts]. There was one startling scene of dots drifting across a city passing below and they appeared to vanish behind the city, underground [I wish I had logged that so I could replay it].

What was happening was that when the brightness from the foreground dots was added to the already overbright pixel, it stayed grayed-out. It 'vanished behind it' to normal visual interpretation processes.

Quote from: Martyn Stubbs on May 03, 2014, 09:19:12 PM
....
Jim says a NASA UFO video study don't matter. In space the video record of these shuttle flights make their cameras view...' the true retina of the space scientist'. Their images allow the eye to distinguish objects & their behavior in the vacuum of space for the first time & open to the scrutiny of all.....

Once again, Martyn says I say something I never did. I believe a study of space videos requires contextual information not solely derivable from the video alone. Other information such as camera direction, shuttle orbital position, shuttle activities, crew and MCC reports, must be assessed as well.

I don't know what Martyn thinks, but he writes as if he doesn't even care if the scenes are in daylight or darkness and seems to prefer that others don't know either.

Unless I've missed it, he still insists the sts 75 swarm video was made in darkness with self-luminous dots and tether. Have I missed anything?

Jim, I'm not sure at the moment with the prints I have to work with but if the camera had an overload gray spot pixel protection unit then I would expect it to eliminate very white hot centers as you stated. I need to think this over and more testing but I would first think that in the wide pan as I processed above if the crystals were close to the ship then they would all be in overload mode. The wide pan should have a shorter focus field.

If you wish to consider the centers of the objects the bright spots then why is there no gray dot? gray area? they seem to go black or empty. Say it pushes the pixel black then this only happens on the zoom where the camera gets closer to the objects focus. Even the tether shows a hole of pixels where there should be some. Does that gray dot eliminate that pixel? Looks that way.

Jim, if the shuttle was in constant swarm of ice or piss crystals, then there must be hundreds of photos of these through the years. Including space walks. Do you or Martyn have any nice photos of these I can test to see how they process. If the camera can catch 13 to a hundred of these in a 33 foot window then there has to be thousands of them surrounding the craft. Again this should be like a halo around the craft at times until they do a burn and move away.

Can you supply any better photos? or do I have to scrounge the net? I would prefer if it was your picture(s) that way I can't be told I changed it or made it up.

Deuem, here are several videos of water dumps that may be illuminating.

STS-130 Waste Water Dump Flight day 3
Ronsmytheiii
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azDRBm8d7bA
daytime dump, many scattered hunks crossing screen in all directions


water dumps
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huGY8KNj0_w

STS-125 Atlantis Shuttle Water Dump
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yee9mdjLejo


Strange Liquid In The Space UFO
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WyjI6iFP16c


NASA STS-132 ufo's flying around during orbital sunset water dump
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzQmJpOrEPw
Note the shadow of the extended robot arm, onto the particle stream! Then after dump ends, scattered ice flakes tumble by. This shows that after a water dump of snow streaming away, some particle-particle collisions throw some particles back towards shuttle vicinity.


NASA STS-75 ROUTINE WATER DUMP/JETTISON SHORTLY BEFORE UFO SWARM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEoRLGCfuRQ
Exactly how soon before, poster does not say.


sts 39
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3oiY-nyNJY

sts 80
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xnm_d5l2cik
Shows 'overbright protect' feature with lightning bursts with blacked-out centers

Jim, as you may not know, The country I am currently staying in bans YouTube 100%. We have some ways of getting around it but it is very painful at times. If you could  add a tool like "Snapshot set in png mode and grabbed the best frame you could while watching UT, that would help. I could grab that photo off the forum and run it. Let me see what I can do.

Before I forget. What about that UV Camera, did you post it and I missed it? Is this the camera you are talking about the gray pixel counts or just the out-board Hi-8 cameras?

As you might have noticed on the tether pan view I processed, is this the invisible light you're talking about. I know Martyn is saying night time. With the shuttle doing 90 minute laps, and spending 36 minutes in the shade every lap, we would need to understand how long the swarm video is and where in the orbit it started at. If the video is over 54 minutes they hit shade. But I don't know if they found it in the light of day or dark of night. We need times.

Also I need to understand more about the tethers orbit height. In your NASA notes, day 8? they set it at 46nm from the shuttle and I have heard as much as 80+nm. Does anyone want to fill in this blank. If it is 46nm as on the data sheet and the shuttle at 160nm orbit then the tether  is at 160 + 46 or 206nm high?

If so then I need to calculate the day night ratio for the tether. Out another 46nm will give it a shorter night. I have to look at my math again but I did see a point where there is no more night, where the sunlight cone of darkness comes to a point. Way out there........

Sadly there is no 'one size fits all' answer for 'how high?' the tether was above the shuttle. When the tether broke the TSS-1R satellite was already 20 km above the orbiter, and the break threw it into a higher orbit [while the shuttle lost a proportionately very small altitude]. This orbit was elliptical, higher at one end then at the other.

The shuttle was moving faster in its lower orbit, and over many orbits it got far enough 'ahead' of the original relative position that it was actually overtaking the tether from behind -- it had 'lapped' the tether like a race car on a circular track. NASA calls this overtaking process "phasing".

The first time the shuttle passed beneath the tether was about 4 days and 4 hours after the break. And since the altitude of the tether varied by tens of miles every single pass around Earth, the absolute height difference could vary depending on at what point the fly-under happened to occur.

Even that does not tell you the range in the video, because visibility depends on orbital lighting conditions and if it was in Earth's shadow you wouldn't be able to see it, and in full daylight it would be difficult to observe because of glare from Earth's surface. So the best time to look with hope of success was near dawn and dusk. And since the relative speed was something like 250 mph [as I recall], even ten or twenty minutes from the fly-under point would be a significantly different range.

I expect that the ranges announced at the time were calculated ones and pretty accurate. But there is no easy layman's way of deriving that value.

You can derive a timeline from the scene list I posted yesterday, and see a series of sighting opportunities at different ranges at the 4 day 4 hr point, and then another series about four and half days after THAT when the shuttle 'lapped' the tether a second time.

I made a big issue of the timeline because the more common internet version of the event is to claim that the tether swarm video followed immediately after the break -- within minutes or hours. You can see from Martyn's response that he himself had no clue how long it was but didn't want to admit it.

But without a reliable timeline of position and lighting, it's my view that any attempt to reconstruct and assess alternate theories of the root cause, will be useless. That view, however, does not appear to be universally shared, and for some it seems the LESS one knows about the context of the video, the BETTER it is for conjuring up imaginative explanations. That's just not the process I'm familiar with.

I have enhanced screenshots of the Tether using optical deblur techniques and what I discovered is that some these so-called "ice-particles" have attached themselves to the Tether. Tonight I will perform the same enhancement on the STS-75 video. This video has been run through super resolution software in order to get a clearer picture.
If these are indeed particles, as Jim claims, moving in front of the Tether than during the film sequence we should see them floating around and not attached to the tether. So if we can prove that these particles are not moving away from the Tether in any form but are stuck to the Tether we have our prove that these are not ice-particles.

Sander, first you would have to prove that your super-doper software wasn't enhancing noise and blur of an artifact-generated pixel field. You have familiarized yourself with the technical and operational characteristics of this camera as laid out in the Mission Control team's "Console Handbook", which I linked to, haven't you?

The issue of 'ultra violet' images seems to keep coming up -- there was such a camera in the payload bay [it wouldn't work if operated inside the shuttle since for crew eyeball protection the windows are opaque to UV] and all of its scenes are listed in the 'Scene List' document I've obtained. I can email that if anyone needs it. As I recall, none of the scenes involved the broken tether phase as far as I can tell but I can check again.

Not super duper, just high end forensic software your own "agencies" use. Watch my other videos where I expose the Area 51 - UFO program. This is just the beginning.  8)

Quote[it wouldn't work if operated inside the shuttle since for crew eyeball protection the windows are opaque to UV]

Jim, did'nt you mention to me that there was one window inside that they had a shade they could retract and go el-natural? I understand that the rest of the windows had protection. After you mentioned that I guesed they could use it to star gase while in the Earths shadow..

Quote from: deuem on May 05, 2014, 05:38:21 PM

Jim, did'nt you mention to me that there was one window inside that they had a shade they could retract and go el-natural? I understand that the rest of the windows had protection. After you mentioned that I guesed they could use it to star gase while in the Earths shadow..

The Columbia [OV-102] had an optical flat UV transparent window mounted in the exit hatch on the middeck, designed for making high-quality celestial imagery with cameras attached to the inside of the door. The line of sight was -Y axis, straight out the port wing direction. The digital autopilot had a pointing option where you could specify any body-relative vector and point it at any celestial or earth surface or orbiting satellite direction, and it would hold that pointing vector to whatever accuracy you specified. The window normally had a UV-protective filter over it and without it, naked sunlight reflected off the walls would have induced eye damage in any crew in that deck within 30 minutes -- big no-no.

The hatch window had a fairly narrow field of view so it wasn't much good for sight-seeing. The overhead windows were much wider and they had cloth baffles if needed to put your head and camera into and block out all ambient cabin light.

Columbia was the only orbiter in the fleet with the special hatch window.

Hey Jim, just saw you on "NASA's Unexplained Files".  I like how that show tries to find reasonable explanations, but is also willing to say "we just don't know" to some of the events.

Comments on the previous video's I posted? The negative footage shows objects traveling behind the tether the other video LunaCognit video shows the objects changing direction after the 4:00 mark?

People following this thread should have a look at those video's.

Quote from: 1967sander on May 05, 2014, 05:33:08 PM
Not super duper, just high end forensic software your own "agencies" use. Watch my other videos where I expose the Area 51 - UFO program. This is just the beginning.  8)

I noted your additional promise before you edited it out, and you might be surprised to learn I'm not offended at all. In my own life I took it upon myself to testify before Congress in 1997 about the decay of the safety culture inside NASA, left my job at the Johnson Space Center soon thereafter, and was from the outside a gadfly critic of NASA culture decay that led to failure after failure while officials blamed it on superficial and peripheral excuses like confusion over units of measurement, etc. It got to the point where I was honored by an official NASA press release denouncing my views as 'whacko'. Then they killed the 'Columbia' crew by poor leadership choices, and suddenly I became the gold standard for honest criticism of NASA. So it can happen to you, too, if you have the technical background to penetrate and explain deceptions. By all means, have a go at it.

Thank you kindly and Columbia just by chance was on this mission.

So the UV camera was mounted in the payload ares on a swivel mount operated from inside or mission control or both? I still can't find the UV specs on this camera. UV-A, B, C, V  or all. Can you help me? With so many cameras on board it is hard to tell which one did the filming.

I also saw on the ATS thread that someone mentioned 2 stars. I will find them for myself and I can lock onto them for measurements also.

Quote from: WarToad on May 05, 2014, 06:19:46 PM
Hey Jim, just saw you on "NASA's Unexplained Files".  I like how that show tries to find reasonable explanations, but is also willing to say "we just don't know" to some of the events.

Yeah, we did a special last year and then a follow-up season 2 with about 6 or 8 episodes, I haven't seen them all. We don't have to see eye-to-eye, just agree it's important to keep an eye out for the unusual and differentiate it from ordinary background phenomena. I wrote about this for NBC a few years ago -- reacting to 'stuff' seen outside a spacecraft can be a matter of life and death -- or of scientific breakthrough. 

Quote from: deuem on May 05, 2014, 06:25:56 PM
....With so many cameras on board it is hard to tell which one did the filming.

Precisely. That's why the mission-specific 'Scene List" document is so crucial, and no real understanding of what is seen is possible without it. So it continues to puzzle me why so many investigators of these kinds of videos just don't want to be bothered by it, or think it's worth attaining and studying.

Quote from: Martyn Stubbs on May 03, 2014, 11:48:10 PM
There is something going on in space that NASA doesn't want us to know about....
And here [Jim] is, still on top. But I still don't agree with the skeptical premise, that UFOs do not exist. That spacecraft from other worlds do not exist. That organic space creatures do not exist...and therefor whatever the NASA videos show it is never a critter or craft. (no matter what). That is a locked box. ....

Martyn's garble of my position is preposterous and extremely unhelpful to a constructive exchange. My argument is that most of this body of reports is consistent with ordinary spaceflight operations, some are critically important involving vehicle safety, a few are indeed interesting, and that all reports are worthy of immediate attention and rapid assessment.

Here are a few examples where I have explained this, but Martyn didn't get the word:

NASA watching out for true UFOs
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/25147760/

07/23/1993 - Oberg NASA briefing: Mitigation of Hazards of Spacecraft-Generated Debris
http://www.jamesoberg.com/9307xx-sc-generated-debris.PDF

It would be foolish to claim to have DISproved any number of proposed explanations -- nor do I.  I can't prove they are NOT angels or time travelers either.

EDIT -- MODIFY 'NOTS' IN CONFUSION.

What I try to demonstrate is that extraordinary explanations, beyond the scope of 'known science', are -- NOT -- the ONLY possible explanations, and thus are not proved to required by elimination. I think my arguments are stronger than Martyn's because he clearly remains significantly unaware of many key features of spaceflight and his dismissive attitude toward the 99 FAQs indicates to me he is defiantly resistant to learning any of this real stuff. His continued insistence that the tether swarm video was on a 'night pass' is also dismaying.

END EDIT

There are open questions and curious features unexplained. Kovalyonok's impressive sighting is intriguing, especially considering the geographic location. Gentle curving of some particle motion -- including particles known from observed  point of origin to be small ice flakes -- begs to be explained. It's unearthly out there.

Quote from: Flux on May 05, 2014, 06:22:49 PM
Comments on the previous video's I posted? The negative footage shows objects traveling behind the tether the other video LunaCognit video shows the objects changing direction after the 4:00 mark?

People following this thread should have a look at those video's.

Please repeat the links, I could not find the citation.

Quote from: Flux on May 05, 2014, 06:22:49 PM
Comments on the previous video's I posted?

Why? There's nothing new in it.

QuoteThe negative footage shows objects traveling behind the tether the other video LunaCognit video shows the objects changing direction after the 4:00 mark?

The negative footage shows exactly the same thing as the positive footage, obviously, and nobody has ever presented a clear answer to my question "what makes you think that the objects go behind the tether?", I only got answers like "that's what I see".  :(

As for the changes of direction, how many change from a descending direction to an ascending direction?

QuotePeople following this thread should have a look at those video's.

Or not, I don't have any reason to see them again. :)

Page 19 it's the last post Jim.

Armap I didn't see the change in direction in the other video's as it wasn't as noticeable before the contrast was altered so for others out there following the thread I gather this would be something new to them.

Same for the negative video just more noticeable than the original.

Can you put something together with an example of how we are being fooled that the objects are in front of the tether? Video/imagines help.

Cheers.

Quote from: Flux on May 05, 2014, 09:00:32 PM
Armap I didn't see the change in direction in the other video's as it wasn't as noticeable before the contrast was altered so for others out there following the thread I gather this would be something new to them.

Same for the negative video just more noticeable than the original.

You're right, but as all this is old news to me I forgot that it may not be to many people.
Thanks for reminding me. :)

QuoteCan you put something together with an example of how we are being fooled that the objects are in front of the tether? Video/imagines help.

I could, but I don't want to influence any hypothetical answers. :)

A different video of the tether, this one with less "UFOs". :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCzsu6sj988
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCzsu6sj988

Quote from: ArMaP on May 05, 2014, 10:30:36 PM
A different video of the tether, this one with less "UFOs". :)

Very good, ArMap, as the crew reports the tether is now far behind Columbia as it pulls ahead in its lower, faster orbit.

If you study the time tags in the 'Scene List' excerpts I posted, you see four sequential sunrise sightings at which the tether is briefly visible, as Columbia approaches from below and behind at about 250 mph, passes below, and pulls ahead.

During this first pass since the break four days earlier, over a period of 4.5 hours the shuttle moves about 1100 miles forward relative to the tether in its orbit ranging somewhere between 20 and 150 miles higher than the shuttle.

Over a period of four and a half hours, almost exactly every hour and a half [the orbital period of the satellites], at each sunrise the Columbia gets several minutes of visibility of the tether [and other nearby sunlit objects].

First sighting -- Approximately GMT 61/07:55  first pass begins [shuttle LOS]
                61/08:13 contact restored. Playback begins
                         Total playback length 7m40s  No mention of debris

Second sighting -- TSS/debris spotted, 61/09:12 approx. 8 minutes of video

Third  sighting  -- Sunrise, faint tether, no debris    61/10:43   several minutes long

Fourth  sighting  -- 61/12:16, faint tether, glare, a few minutes


So the famous swarm is either sighting 1 or 2, and this additional sighting is either 3 or 4.

Martyn, do your logbooks cast any light on this?

Note how the scene list is explicit: the sightings of the tether occur every sunrise consecutively, NOT ever during a night pass. Never.  Can we agree on that?

The statement below is of my opinion only and subject to change as data enters calculations:

All I can figure out now with the tether orbit is that at low orbit it should be in the shade about 35+ minutes and at high orbit less, maybe 34+ minutes. Then a deduction of several minutes/2 for twilight change over.

Saying there is not a black white wall at the terminator in space. Still looking for a nice shot of any shuttle surrounded by dandruff. Any one got one?

Question, how long does this stuff tag along with the Shuttle, moments or days? In daylight would it heat up and do funky things as parts of a crystal melted while other parts stayed frozen?

So what happens when ice hits sunlight? For at any one time only half of it would be heated, the other half would be in its own shadow no different than the shuttle. Would they start to jet and change direction like an asteroid leaves a trail as it boils off. They are moving pretty fast and instantly put in a furnace. Something has to happen! I am thinking this might be a key.

Say a star fish is the crystal and the sun hit one of the legs and it heated up back to water and blew off the body. Would the body then jet in a direction away from the blown off leg? Would it start to tumble and push other legs into the furnace and so on till it is completly destroyed? Anything here?
Deuem

Quote from: deuem on May 06, 2014, 03:21:05 PM
....
All I can figure out now with the tether orbit is that at low orbit it should be in the shade about 35+ minutes and at high orbit less, maybe 34+ minutes. Then a deduction of several minutes/2 for twilight change over.

Saying there is not a black white wall at the terminator in space. ....

Without knowing the orbital inclination and RAAN [right ascension of ascending node -- the orientation of the orbital plane relative to the earth-sun line], on what basis do you claim capability to determine shadowed duration? As those features vary, shadowed percent can vary from somewhat below 50% all the way down to 0 %, as occurs about twice a year for a few days on ISS.

There IS no 'terminator' in space. It is the boundary line on the surface of a celestial body, between sunlit and not sunlit.

Sunrise in Earth orbit occurs quickly. The celestial sphere is 'rotating' about 4 degrees per minute, and the Sun's angular diameter is about half a degree. An object in space can go from shadow into full sunlight in as little as 8 seconds if its motion is perpendicular to the horizon. Longer if the motion has significant off-angle.

Outer space is not a blast furnace. At Earth's distance from the Sun the 'black body' equilibrium temperature of a passive object is around minus 5 to 8 degrees C . Recall how cold the unpowered Apollo-13 got, and a power-failed Soviet space station once froze up entirely and a repair crew had to thaw the water and fuel tanks.  A frozen lump of waste water clung to an early shuttle flight and had to be knocked loose with the robot arm; another hunk of ice that formed on the payload bay door edge actually survived reentry and a large portion was still in place on landing at the Cape.

Sublimation does occur to free-floating ice and I agree it ought to have some influence on the small object's path, I just don't know how to calculate how much.

But making reasonable assumptions based on ground experiences is a recipe for confusion in outer space. This fundamental error seems to lie behind most of the enthusiastic 'ufo theories' and critterology of video misinterpretation.

Zorgon, I'm thinking of you, fondly and hopefully.

Quote from: JimO on May 06, 2014, 04:12:41 PM
But making reasonable assumptions based on ground experiences is a recipe for confusion in outer space.

Well, reasonable assumptions are better than unreasonable ones, and assumptions are one of the few things we can do. :)

But if we are supplied with data to correct (or abandon) those assumptions I'm sure we will get closer and closer to the truth, whatever it may be.

Quote from: ArMaP on May 06, 2014, 06:49:15 PM
Well, reasonable assumptions are better than unreasonable ones, and assumptions are one of the few things we can do. :)

But if we are supplied with data to correct (or abandon) those assumptions I'm sure we will get closer and closer to the truth, whatever it may be.

That is my entire motivation for writing the '99 FAQs' and in asking for help in identifying inadequacies, incompleteness, NASA tech talk, and other failings.

Assumptions are only 'reasonable' in the environment for which they have been verified. The degree to which space is DIFFERENT is still only dimly clear to earthlings, and for good reason. NASA makes it look boring, newspapers make it look daring, TV space experts like to show off arcane knowledge not available to the masses, and most folks shrug and assume it's "rocket science" and they never would understand anyway.

Quite a burden to overcome, eh?

Just conceptualizing the invisible shadow zone in front of a camera in these famous 'UFO videos', and how it makes small nearby objects appear when they drift from the shuttle's shadow out into full sunlight, is a mind-stretcher that is aided by using models and a light bulb at home. Play around with it. Satisfy yourself that one possible prosaic explanation for a white dot to 'pop up' in the middle of the screen is that there is an unseen shadow there that it drifts out of. This is really 'counter-obvious'. Play with it.

BTW I'm making progress on the videos and am currently struggling with "Filezilla" ftp protocol.

Quote from: JimO on May 06, 2014, 08:39:51 PM
Assumptions are only 'reasonable' in the environment for which they have been verified.

True.

QuoteThe degree to which space is DIFFERENT is still only dimly clear to earthlings, and for good reason. NASA makes it look boring, newspapers make it look daring, TV space experts like to show off arcane knowledge not available to the masses, and most folks shrug and assume it's "rocket science" and they never would understand anyway.

Just curious, do you see yourself in any of the above mentioned categories? :)

QuoteQuite a burden to overcome, eh?

Yes, but possible. :)

QuoteJust conceptualizing the invisible shadow zone in front of a camera in these famous 'UFO videos', and how it makes small nearby objects appear when they drift from the shuttle's shadow out into full sunlight, is a mind-stretcher that is aided by using models and a light bulb at home.

Most people don't even understand basic perspective. :(

QuotePlay around with it. Satisfy yourself that one possible prosaic explanation for a white dot to 'pop up' in the middle of the screen is that there is an unseen shadow there that it drifts out of. This is really 'counter-obvious'. Play with it.

No need for that, not only because it's not counter-obvious to me but because I don't see any problem in considering that explanation the best to explain the "popping up" of the white dots. :)

Quote from: JimO on May 06, 2014, 08:41:48 PM
BTW I'm making progress on the videos and am currently struggling with "Filezilla" ftp protocol.

I never had any problems with Filezilla, can you tell us what kind of problems are you having?

Quote from: ArMaP on May 06, 2014, 09:08:02 PM
...Just curious, do you see yourself in any of the above mentioned categories? :)
....

Under various avatars, every ONE of them, and more. Alas.

Well Jim I started a Math Model and used the Orbit of the Earth and looking at the longest possible Day night. I guess if the orbit path was north to south pole you would be in sunlight all the time. So it should go from 100% to something? That max something is around 36+ minutes of dark down to zero on a N/S orbit. I would think. An orbit perpendicular to the sun.

If you are saying that the ice never melts even in direct sun then does every discharge of water and waste just stay there forever? So water hits space. It stays that way forever and it stays near the shuttle. Some of it even coming home. I guess if they did any kind of a burn the ice would stay in theier orbit and the shuttle would pull away. So are they massive amount of ice crystals left up there from each shuttle and they now have to fly around them? Or just ram them whenever. No space walks for Deuem if this is the case.

Quote from: deuem on May 07, 2014, 01:29:20 AM
Well Jim I started a Math Model and used the Orbit of the Earth and looking at the longest possible Day night. I guess if the orbit path was north to south pole you would be in sunlight all the time. So it should go from 100% to something? That max something is around 36+ minutes of dark down to zero on a N/S orbit. I would think. An orbit perpendicular to the sun.

Uh, only if the Earth's axial tilt were zero. Mir and ISS are in orbital inclinations of 52 degrees, and combined with actual axial tilt of 23 degrees, can seasonally wind up in orbits tilted 75 degrees edge-up. And since at their altitude the sun 'peeks over' the horizon, added to about a degree of atmospheric refraction, and you can get several days of 100% sunlight every orbit.

Figuring the solar illumination is straightforward but the influencing factors aren't obvious. So it's not surprising that nobody in the UFO community noticed the remarkable 'coincidence' that the most spectacular 'space UFO' videos were just happening to occur in the very narrow orbital segment just following sunrise.

It's not an accident. It's the short interval during which small nearby sunlit objects are easiest to see on the TV cameras. And -- voila!! -- there are the UFOs.

Nobody has addressed this highly inconvenient truth about these videos, because they never wanted to know enough about spaceflight to earn the right to an opinion instead of wild-a$$ guessing.

It's why I wrote the 99 FAQs. As to why that intention has apparently failed to make any difference at all, that's a more profound question.

Quote from: deuem on May 07, 2014, 01:29:20 AM
....
If you are saying that the ice never melts even in direct sun then does every discharge of water and waste just stay there forever?

If you saw me say that, then that is what I said, but if you didn't see me say that, then I didn't.

I thought I mentioned sublimation, water transitioning from solid to gas directly, and it will do so slowly in space, of course. A small snowflake might vanish in a day or less, a thicker hunk of ice, much longer.

Quote

So water hits space. It stays that way forever and it stays near the shuttle.

Stuff flying along with the shuttle is affected by air drag to a much more severe degree because its density is so much less. So it drops into lower faster orbits and quickly departs the vicinity except in cases the particles briefly occupy a region of 'wind shadow' [like inside the bay or main engine compartment] and linger there a few hours. 

QuoteSome of it even coming home. I guess if they did any kind of a burn the ice would stay in theier orbit and the shuttle would pull away. So are they massive amount of ice crystals left up there from each shuttle and they now have to fly around them? Or just ram them whenever. No space walks for Deuem if this is the case.

Jim there is at least 3 common planes. Th standard su to Earth orbital plane which has got nothing to do wit anything except the sun ( I used this one ) then we have an Equader plane and a magnetic plane. The tilt can be added to any of them. Which plane do the orbits follow?

And I don't know if ice can go from Ice to gas and miss water. Never heard of that before. Maybe the water in the crystal would boil so fast it would just pop as gas instantly. A change of several hundred degrees might be needed but you said no furnace up there. Either way if part of it went to gas then would it not Jet off in another direction?

Jim, I am trying to work out an idea on why the Ice/critters are dancing all over space. If you say they are ice and up close then what is the reason for the movement in many directions. I could see if they all went the same way but they don't. they seem to go where ever they want to go, changinging direction as they please. So if it is Ice and they are not imploding sections and re-directing themselves then what is going on? If NASA does not know they we are left to speculate.

Quote from: deuem on May 07, 2014, 05:31:23 AM
Jim there is at least 3 common planes. Th standard su to Earth orbital plane which has got nothing to do wit anything except the sun ( I used this one ) then we have an Equader plane and a magnetic plane. The tilt can be added to any of them. Which plane do the orbits follow?

And I don't know if ice can go from Ice to gas and miss water. Never heard of that before. Maybe the water in the crystal would boil so fast it would just pop as gas instantly. A change of several hundred degrees might be needed but you said no furnace up there. Either way if part of it went to gas then would it not Jet off in another direction?

Jim, I am trying to work out an idea on why the Ice/critters are dancing all over space. If you say they are ice and up close then what is the reason for the movement in many directions. I could see if they all went the same way but they don't. they seem to go where ever they want to go, changinging direction as they please. So if it is Ice and they are not imploding sections and re-directing themselves then what is going on? If NASA does not know they we are left to speculate.

Re. the behaviour of water in space.....

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2009/06/29/water-in-space-what-happens/

Quote

(http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/files/2009/06/space1.jpg)

This radiation, known as the Cosmic Microwave Background, bathes the entire Universe in a temperature
of only 2.7 Kelvin.
That's less than 3 degrees above absolute zero, or -455 degrees Fahrenheit! But there's also — literally —
no pressure in space. So, what happens? Who wins? Does the water freeze or boil?

Oddly enough, the answer is first one, and then the other! It turns out that having a pressure vacuum
will cause the water to boil almost instantly. In other words, the effect of boiling is much, much faster
than the effect of freezing.

But the story doesn't end there. Once the water has boiled, we now have some isolated water molecules
in a gaseous state, but a very, very cold environment! These tiny water vapor droplets now immediately freeze
(or, technically, desublimate), and become ice crystals.

(http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/files/2009/06/ice-crystal2.jpg)

We've observed this before. According to astronaut observations, where they've observed their urine
get expelled from the ship:


When the astronauts take a leak while on a mission and expel the result into space, it boils violently.
The vapor then passes immediately into the solid state (a process known as desublimation),
and you end up with a cloud of very fine crystals of frozen urine.

I have read once that water and ice cannot exist in space. One reason would be that fluids cannot exist without gravity as gravity binds molecules. They used the Moon as an example. The Moon only has 1/6 of the gravitational force of Earth and according to some scientists therefore the Moon does not have a molecular / gasseous atmosphere as we do. This also means that there is no moisture overhead the moon surface. They also claim that because of the extreme radiation level in space, molecules (also watermolecules) heat up  to a level that these molecules get too much exited to bind. In direct sunlight therefore water evaporates. Based on this information gravity being essential to bind molecules may we not conclude that in space and outside earth gravity, gravitational force is too little to bind molecules again? Therefore water that once evaporated in space never will become water or ice again?

Jim, while the shuttle is in space in the Sun is there any difference in the temp from sun side to shade side or is it all -455f. If you know the temp, please present it.

This task is fast outreaching my original estimates of merely listing some characteristics of 'how things work' in space. But actually it has been successful in sharing the realization that things really are different in space compared to Earth.

So the goal -- better define what needs to be explained in the 99 FAQs or maybe the new "199" FAQs -- is being met. Let me think on this and respond constructively to EVERY question, and I am deeply appreciative of this development, and grateful to you all, and I owe a visible acknowledgement of that, to you.

Greetings esteemed Member JimO:

And GOLD for you, kind Sir, for your eloquent statement.

We sincerely appreciate your time, consideration and most importantly, your participation.

We have all grown in respect of your vast knowledge on these subjects.

Thank you.

thorfourwinds

Aw shucks...  and I was holding off pulling the rabbit out of the hat until this weekend, in concert with armap. We finally have all the sts75 tether videos and are trying to arrange universal access.

Jim, will this be the real stuff or internet films? I hope they have time date stamps. That would be cool. I'm in waiting for the good stuff mode....

Quote from: deuem on May 07, 2014, 06:17:25 PM
Jim, will this be the real stuff or internet films? I hope they have time date stamps. That would be cool. I'm in waiting for the good stuff mode....

Here's the three files we have, they are BIG:

STS-75 Downlink TV during Orbit 118,119 (GMT 61 05.11 - 61 06.54) 2-29-1996
1.46 GB   run time 1h 32m 22s        gmt time 1 h 43m

STS-75 Downlink TV during Orbit 119,120,021 (GMT 61 06.53 - 61 08.59) 3-1-1996
1.00 GB    1 h 32m  27s                   gmt time      2h 06m

STS-75 Downlink TV during Orbits 116,117,118 (GMT 61 02.07 - 61 05.12) 2-29-1996
984 MB   1h 17m 40s                      gmt time  3h 05 m


There is a time-tag label but on my player it seems garbled, that's one issue I'm chasing. As a fall-back, we can identify the scene sequence against the 'Scene List' document and take the clock times off THAT source.

A lot of the scenes are downlink of experiment activities, but there is a lot of discussion of the upcoming visibility opportunities. I want to get this out in front of a dozen sets of eyes as soon as we can work out file transfer protocol.

In other words, I procrastinated long enough on the VCR format that it became obsolete!

Why do I have this strange feeling that we will not see the footage that really matters?  Like the tether sequence?

Quote from: 1967sander on May 07, 2014, 11:42:55 PM
Why do I have this strange feeling that we will not see the footage that really matters?  Like the tether sequence?

You mean the ones Martyn Stubbs hopes you don't get to see, since HE has refused to post them anywhere?

The one you DID see, the 'swarm' -- do you agree with Martyn that it was at night, or with me, that it was just post sunrise? What's your feeling about that fact?

Jim, speaking for myself: I would like to see the swarm in a nice clean format and then run frames through the vid to find out for sure if there is sunlight. The one frame I did post had light in it. But I don't know if it was sun set or rise. There is not enough data at the moment. For me, since I don't sit here and draw in the sunlight, it will either be there or not. Then we can try and move on from there. When we talk processing programs like Sanders and I do, there are no sides, there are just results. The results depend a lot on the film quality and how one reads them.

If it is truley night then there should be zero sunrays. daytime will fill the back ground with rays or arcs of light. If you are in the dark and point at the light zone the film will recond a patch of black until it hits the light and then ray out. Actual sun light has so much power it is hard to hide. It even shows up as patterns on the moons surface.

Quote from: deuem on May 08, 2014, 01:26:54 AM
....
If it is truley night then there should be zero sunrays. daytime will fill the back ground with rays or arcs of light. If you are in the dark and point at the light zone the film will recond a patch of black until it hits the light and then ray out. Actual sun light has so much power it is hard to hide. It even shows up as patterns on the moons surface.

How do you detect a sunbeam in a vacuum?

It is not actualy me, it is the camera. If it picks it up as a change in the film then I can present it although you can't see it. Sunlight seems to have an effect on all cameras as they pick up the heat difference, what little there is. Or I'm all wet and seeing things! The testing will show one way or another. The sun light might be hitting small dust particles and it is just enough to stop a few rays in there tracks and show up. If there is zero sunlight I get a very dark sky and then hut for stars. So either my program is crazy or NASA does know everything yet. Time will tell. You may present any photo you wish for testing. Double blind testing I think you called it. Then we can teach Deuem or teach NASA a new trick. But for some reason the program loves sunlight. Lots of power.

Quote from: deuem on May 08, 2014, 04:02:47 AM
It is not actualy me, it is the camera. If it picks it up as a change in the film then I can present it although you can't see it. Sunlight seems to have an effect on all cameras as they pick up the heat difference, what little there is. Or I'm all wet and seeing things! The testing will show one way or another. The sun light might be hitting small dust particles and it is just enough to stop a few rays in there tracks and show up. If there is zero sunlight I get a very dark sky and then hut for stars. So either my program is crazy or NASA does know everything yet. Time will tell. You may present any photo you wish for testing. Double blind testing I think you called it. Then we can teach Deuem or teach NASA a new trick. But for some reason the program loves sunlight. Lots of power.

Invisible sunbeams? Why would 'dust' create reflections so selectively narrow in wavelength?

Does detecting the 'heat difference' require an IR camera? Then we're out of luck here. The cameras used in these sequences were standard visible light units, as explained in the operating instructions in the console handbook I once again advise you to study.

I don't have any film or photograph to test, just digitized images. But you can find such images of objects in space all over the internet. What 'invisible sunbeams' does your process 'see' in them?

Jim, most cameras will film slightly into both ends of both UV an IR and the entire color spectrum. And it is not like there is just one sun beam hitting one particle of dust. It's countless sunbeams coming from this side of the sun. Yes, Looking for the digitized photos or frames off a video. Must be in digital format to process. Everything I did before might be irrelavent to your films so I can start fresh with yours. I have done hundreds of space shots, some showing light, some not.

Quote from: Flux on May 04, 2014, 08:57:30 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-qvdor2Hm4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-qvdor2Hm4


LunaCognita NASA STS-75 "Tether Incident"
Very interesting from the 4:00 mark.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2DVeil21gc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_537620&feature=iv&src_vid=G4Xx66ba36o&v=Q2DVeil21gc

Gee that first video vanished from YouTube for some reason?

Here's another one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipopRUNoL3U
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipopRUNoL3U

Quote from: JimO on May 08, 2014, 12:06:13 AM
You mean the ones Martyn Stubbs hopes you don't get to see, since HE has refused to post them anywhere?

The one you DID see, the 'swarm' -- do you agree with Martyn that it was at night, or with me, that it was just post sunrise? What's your feeling about that fact?

No I mean the entire sequence and not just a few seconds. I want to see how the camera zooms in on the object so I can reverse the zoom effect and refocus on the swarm. And yes technically this can be done these days ;-)

If it was day or night is not important to me either. I have recordings showing "objects" in pitch darkness.

Quote from: deuem on May 08, 2014, 04:02:47 AM
Sunlight seems to have an effect on all cameras as they pick up the heat difference, what little there is.

Only thermal cameras show heat, normal cameras show visible light, with a little UV and/or IR (but not in the thermal wavelengths), depending on what type of sensor they use.

I know that digital cameras catch the IR wavelengths used by remote controls, for example, I don't know what wavelengths the cameras used on the shuttle were able to catch, but that's probably in the technical information about those cameras.

Quote from: 1967sander on May 08, 2014, 06:07:36 AM
.....If it was day or night is not important to me either. I have recordings showing "objects" in pitch darkness.

How illuminating. Whether the objects are merely sunlit, or self-luminous, is of no interest to you?

More important, whether the most famous 'shuttle UFO videos' ALL seem to occur under specific rare lighting conditions, or randomly under any/all conditions, signifies nothing to you regarding their origin?

'Darkness' seems to me is your preferred state, factually and metaphorically.

Quote from: deuem on May 08, 2014, 05:49:12 AM
Jim, most cameras will film slightly into both ends of both UV an IR and the entire color spectrum. .....

So that's good enough -- a general statement on 'most' cameras but no apparent curiosity about the specs of the cameras actually used in this actual incident? Isn't that approach just a trifle, uh --- sloppy?

Quote from: ArMaP on May 08, 2014, 09:23:30 AM
.....I know that digital cameras catch the IR wavelengths used by remote controls, for example, I don't know what wavelengths the cameras used on the shuttle were able to catch, but that's probably in the technical information about those cameras.

Good point -- you can spot such remore control beams on the video sensors of many [but not all] mobile phone cameras. Not long ago, US troops in Afghanistan realized that in darkness the same devices would detect the IR spotting beams of US guns, and Taliban forces were using them to locate US troops in darkness preparing to shoot. Oops.

Quote from: JimO on May 08, 2014, 11:08:02 AM
So that's good enough -- a general statement on 'most' cameras but no apparent curiosity about the specs of the cameras actually used in this actual incident? Isn't that approach just a trifle, uh --- sloppy?

No, Not at all, it was a simple answer based on your question. And yes I read your camera specs. And a lot of other things you have writen over the years. If you want to get into wave lengths we can go there too but without a known camera shot, a specific camera to film shot, then it is worthless for now. I really don't want to waist your time or mine talking about just a camera when we have nothing possitive to go with it. I have no idea as of yet which camera took the pictures on the web. There is no data I can find.

Believe me this site has done cameras to death. Apollo ones for sure. My guess is that you designed the shuttle cameras? If not then we need to find the person who did and ask them exactly what they do. Go to the manufacture for details.

How do I know you were not, Uh, sloppy and got it wrong.

I guess I have special vision because My Guess is that the NASA camera did pick up heat in this shot and it shows rather well in the Deuem process.

NASA results

(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/11-1.jpg) (http://s1198.photobucket.com/user/deuem/media/11-1.jpg.html)

Deuem Results on NASA results

(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/11MidRange.jpg) (http://s1198.photobucket.com/user/deuem/media/11MidRange.jpg.html)

If that is not heat radiating off the flame and down into the candle, then what is it?
And NASA only posted the photo with no camera specs.

Quote from: deuem on May 08, 2014, 03:31:29 PM
I guess I have special vision because My Guess is that the NASA camera did pick up heat in this shot and it shows rather well in the Deuem process.

No, just wrong guesses. ;)

QuoteIf that is not heat radiating off the flame and down into the candle, then what is it?

Light, the only thing the camera catches, that's why you didn't catch anything special on my photos of the hot and cold rock.

On Earth, the flame from a candle makes that known shape because of gravity and the different density of the several gasses produced by the burning of the wick, and, because of gravity, the hot air rises, so if your process shows the heat it should show more above the flame than just that wisp of (probably) smoke. On the other hand, light is mostly produced by the yellow part of the flame, so that's were we are seeing more of the light detected by your process.

On the micro-gravity photo, I think the area highlighted by your process is darker than the rest, so what it shows is less light under the "cleaner" (blue) part of the flame.

But this is just my interpretation, obviously. :)

If there is no heat produced in the candle shot then it must be a fake candle. The color above it went to black ? Need a larger photo to see it all. The heat in your rock was not enough to change to visible light for the camera to pick up, yet lava does. Is not Sunlight caused in the furnace of that big white thing we call the Sun? It sure gets warm when I step into it. It's not like I have ever shown Ice cubes producing light waves. So I still say that heat, if hot enough or concentrated will produce light which is then picked up by the camera and shown. Answer me this If it is not, then what is it?

I will bow out of this thread now. Thank you for the inspiring thoughts.

Quote from: deuem on May 09, 2014, 02:21:25 AM
I will bow out of this thread now. Thank you for the inspiring thoughts.

No Deuem you're hanging around thanks.

So how do I snoop around for the camera spec of the cameras used on the STS-75?

Quote from: Flux on May 09, 2014, 04:26:06 AM
So how do I snoop around for the camera spec of the cameras used on the STS-75?

They're on my home page, look in the 'technical specs' section. Let me get a better link.

Quote from: deuem on May 09, 2014, 02:21:25 AM
If there is no heat produced in the candle shot then it must be a fake candle.

Did I say that there's no heat produced in the candle?

QuoteThe color above it went to black ? Need a larger photo to see it all.

No, the area below it, but as you deleted the images I cannot point to it.

QuoteThe heat in your rock was not enough to change to visible light for the camera to pick up, yet lava does.

Lava also emits light.

QuoteSo I still say that heat, if hot enough or concentrated will produce light which is then picked up by the camera and shown.

Now you are saying something slightly different, that heat produces light that is captured by the camera, what you have said all this time is that your process captures the heat (besides other types of energy). Sure, if there's light the camera will show it, and your process will process it, but if there's only heat and if it's a photo from a normal (not thermal) camera the photo will show it.

QuoteAnswer me this If it is not, then what is it?

The cameras catch only light, your process, like any process that works with digital images, works with the light that was captured by the camera and presented in the photo.

Answer me this, please: if you process a computer generated image, what is your process showing? Light? Heat? Electromagnetic fields? Anything else?

I bowed out of this thread ArMaP. You know as well as I do the answers to all of the above questions. You also know how the process works. I have now retired it again and will not bother you or Pegasus with it. It is on vacation. Yes I removed my photos so you can pick on someone elses work. Deuem is over!
Sorry Jim.

We've now gotten the gigabit video files from NASA covering the six hours or so of the first tether fly-under, and I'm writing a transcript of all crew conversations and observations and we're figuring out which relevant operations -- including ice flake generation activities, of which there are some -- can be extracted for posting. It'll take awhile, any additional questions and suggestions will be appreciated.

This seems to be the right forum to instigate the deepest investigation ever and see what we see. Armap, thanks for the inspiration, perspiration, and pestering.

Quote from: thorfourwinds on May 09, 2014, 02:52:32 PM

(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10005/deuem_process_understood_ArMaP~1.png)

Obviously not...:P


(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Bluebird/lg50aa500a.gif)

I understand how it works, that's how I made one image looking exactly like one (very simple) processed by Deuem.

Nice all this discussion about the videos but I have not seen an answer to my question. Maybe it got snowed under so here is it again. It is such a simple question that it does not require much knowledge of space physics and I am sure that Jim knows the answer.

I have read once that water and ice cannot exist in space. One reason would be that fluids cannot exist without gravity as gravity binds molecules. They used the Moon as an example. The Moon only has 1/6 of the gravitational force of Earth and according to some scientists therefore the Moon does not have a molecular / gasseous atmosphere as we do. This also means that there is no moisture overhead the moon surface. They also claim that because of the extreme radiation level in space, molecules (also watermolecules) heat up  to a level that these molecules get too much exited to bind. In direct sunlight therefore water evaporates. Based on this information gravity being essential to bind molecules may we not conclude that in space and outside earth gravity, gravitational force is too little to bind molecules again? Therefore water that once evaporated in space never will become water or ice again?

Quote from: 1967sander on May 09, 2014, 07:32:26 PM
I have read once that water and ice cannot exist in space. One reason would be that fluids cannot exist without gravity as gravity binds molecules.

From what I understand of it, it's not gravity, it's pressure, that's why they can have water on the ISS.

QuoteThey used the Moon as an example. The Moon only has 1/6 of the gravitational force of Earth and according to some scientists therefore the Moon does not have a molecular / gasseous atmosphere as we do.

That's true, a lower gravitational force means a lower escape velocity, so if the gas molecules move faster than the escape velocity they will leave that planet (if moving in the right direction, obviously).

QuoteThis also means that there is no moisture overhead the moon surface.

Probably.

QuoteThey also claim that because of the extreme radiation level in space, molecules (also watermolecules) heat up  to a level that these molecules get too much exited to bind. In direct sunlight therefore water evaporates.

I don't think radiation is that strong, but I know very little about this. :)

QuoteTherefore water that once evaporated in space never will become water or ice again?

I think that once evaporated it will never return to water because it doesn't have the conditions to condensate.

I know that I'm probably not the best person to clear your doubt, but I hope that helps. :)

After staring at the STS-75 footage for hours on a row, I finally saw it. The possibe evidence that the "ice crystals" are enormous in size and very close to the Tether and not as Jim claims near the window of the shuttle and just out of focus ice crystals.  I am now processing the video and the images. Upload will be soon.

Re. the behaviour of water in space .....

QuoteThis radiation, known as the Cosmic Microwave Background, bathes the entire Universe in a temperature
of only 2.7 Kelvin.
That's less than 3 degrees above absolute zero, or -455 degrees Fahrenheit! But there's also — literally —
no pressure in space. So, what happens? Who wins? Does the water freeze or boil?

Oddly enough, the answer is first one, and then the other! It turns out that having a pressure vacuum
will cause the water to boil almost instantly. In other words, the effect of boiling is much, much faster
than the effect of freezing.

But the story doesn't end there. Once the water has boiled, we now have some isolated water molecules
in a gaseous state, but a very, very cold environment! These tiny water vapor droplets now immediately freeze
(or, technically, desublimate), and become ice crystals.

QuoteWe've observed this before. According to astronaut observations, where they've observed their urine
get expelled from the ship:

When the astronauts take a leak while on a mission and expel the result into space, it boils violently.
The vapor then passes immediately into the solid state (a process known as desublimation),
and you end up with a cloud of very fine crystals of frozen urine.

Quote from: JimO on May 09, 2014, 04:44:27 PM
We've now gotten the gigabit video files from NASA covering the six hours or so of the first tether fly-under, and I'm writing a transcript of all crew conversations and observations and we're figuring out which relevant operations -- including ice flake generation activities, of which there are some -- can be extracted for posting. It'll take awhile, any additional questions and suggestions will be appreciated.

This seems to be the right forum to instigate the deepest investigation ever and see what we see. Armap, thanks for the inspiration, perspiration, and pestering.

That's great news indeed and the effort is much appreciated but I have to ask ...

Are You or ArMaP going to post a link to the full-video-file in this thread  ?

Or ...

Is it better to send me the link in a private message ?



You are going to share the full video file with everyone .... right ??

Just wondering  :D

The three files are up to 1900 mbits, run time several hours each. They can be posted along with supporting documentation:
1. sts75 Flight Plan
2. sts75 flight day 8 'execute package' [plan updates]
3. sts75 video 'Scene List'
4. sts75 post-flight report
other technical data as needed [thruster firings, water dump times]

Quote from: JimO on May 10, 2014, 04:36:10 AM
The three files are up to 1900 mbits, run time several hours each. They can be posted along with supporting documentation:
1. sts75 Flight Plan
2. sts75 flight day 8 'execute package' [plan updates]
3. sts75 video 'Scene List'
4. sts75 post-flight report
other technical data as needed [thruster firings, water dump times]

Ok that would be excellent indeed.

How is the file(s) being hosted ?

A torrent file ? or what ?

And what kind of interface software is needed to unscramble it ?

Thanks  :)

Yes I have seen this explanation before and strangely enough not every scientist believes this. I know a few people, among them aerospace dynamics innovation specialists (who do not like to be named) who totally disagree with NASA's explanation. In direct sunlight radiation is tremens, about 3.5 - 5 krad and fluids boil instant. They evaporate at "molecular level". This means that they literally vanish it would be impossible to see them with normal camera's. The video show the sun coming up so temperature in space immediately increases and the fluids / ice evaporates. Can someone explain why we can still see icecrystals although they are lit by the sun?

Quote from: 1967sander on May 10, 2014, 08:00:41 AM
Yes I have seen this explanation before and strangely enough not every scientist believes this. I know a few people, among them aerospace dynamics innovation specialists (who do not like to be named) who totally disagree with NASA's explanation. In direct sunlight radiation is tremens, about 3.5 - 5 krad and fluids boil instant. They evaporate at "molecular level". This means that they literally vanish it would be impossible to see them with normal camera's. The video show the sun coming up so temperature in space immediately increases and the fluids / ice evaporates. Can someone explain why we can still see icecrystals although they are lit by the sun?

That's easy. your unnamed [perhaps imaginary] "aerospace dynamics innovation" experts [a professional specialization I've never encountered before and 'dynamics' has been MY professional specialization for forty years, hence my grain-of-salt incredulity] are still [like 99.9999% of other humans] mentally stuck on down-to-Earth physical concepts. The few hundred who have BEEN there and the few thousand who helped them operate there have had their minds blown open by unexpected and unearthly things that are NORMAL there but that no earthling had seen or imagined before our generation.

Ice [both water and hydrazine] lingers for appreciable durations, whatever the equations of your friends 'prove'. It congeals from spray into small hunks, crystalline and/or amorphous, or freezes onto nozzle rims and then chips off, which orbit nearby; it accumulates in shadowed portions of the shuttle structure [and there are many], and one famous football-sized hunk that was attached to the outer centerline of a payload bay door actually partially remained through reentry and landing in Florida [where, heated by the tropical air, it quickly melted]. This surprised people who were watching.

The motion of small light ice chips floating near spaceships are also affected by air drag [more intense because they are 'fluffier' and less dense than metal spaceships], and apparently also by propulsive forces of molecules popping off into vacuum -- because that does happen, just not explosively and instantaneously. Nobody expected this in advance -- we were ALL earthbound in our mental models. 

Then they came to know better, they had an advantage, they weren't guessing using obsolete models, they were actually watching. Please, learn from their experience. I tried to share in the 99 FAQs -- how can they be improved? 

You are fake Mr. O Berg. A typical disinfo agent. Your remark about imaginary friends I consider as a personal attack and so I make you a promise: I will expose you. Trust me I will.

Quote from: 1967sander on May 10, 2014, 03:50:08 PM
You are fake Mr. O Berg. A typical disinfo agent. Your remark about imaginary friends I consider as a personal attack and so I make you a promise: I will expose you. Trust me I will.

I can take it. Just don't expose YOURSELF here.

Come to think of it, you probably already have.

ADD

Look, you may get away with spreading techo-sounding gibberish as magical incantations in your regular company, but please be more precise here.

I googled "aerospace dynamics innovation specialists", the field of study of your  nameless experts, and here's what I got:

No results found for "aerospace dynamics innovation specialists".

Heck, how much automatic credulity do you demand for your version of what nameless experts in non-existent fields have supposedly told you, when you're nameless and credential-less yourself. You really ought to muster better, checkable factual backing. 

Hold me to those same standards.

Speaks Russian, dealt with space warfare ... Mr. Oberg? Once an agent, always an agent.

Quote from: easynow on May 10, 2014, 04:45:11 AM
Ok that would be excellent indeed.

How is the file(s) being hosted ?

A torrent file ? or what ?

And what kind of interface software is needed to unscramble it ?

Thanks  :)

So oooo....

How bout them files ?

Having any luck yet ?

Maybe see them soon ??

Can we get a progress update ?

Something ?

Anything ?

lol

:D



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LukIJrUDY0

Quote from: easynow on May 10, 2014, 04:22:37 PM
So oooo....

How bout them files ?

Any practical suggestions would be welcome. I had to use a free ftp site that allows five transfers a month before a paid subscription, and I expended three just sharing the originals. I'm also looking them over and correlating with the time tags on the scene lists. We ought to have it out by the 20th anniversary.

We're making progress. Why don't you pester Martyn about HIS copies? Then we can see whose are authentic and whose may have been altered.

Quote from: JimO on May 10, 2014, 05:08:35 PM
Any practical suggestions would be welcome. I had to use a free ftp site that allows five transfers a month before a paid subscription, and I expended three just sharing the originals. I'm also looking them over and correlating with the time tags on the scene lists. We ought to have it out by the 20th anniversary.

So basically your saying ,

Instead of just releasing the raw video to everyone where it can be analized by an objective collective at the same time, your gonna cherry-pick what you want and release the data already pre-debunked.

How nice  ::)

QuoteWe're making progress. Why don't you pester Martyn about HIS copies? Then we can see whose are authentic and whose may have been altered.

Is this an official accusation ?

or are you just playing games again ?  :P

Why does not NASA make these videos available from their website? The videos made by NASA is property of the citizens of the United States so everyone in the US has tthe right to see this footage. Apparantly NASA never was interested in showing it in the first place. It is because of "material uploaded by others" that we know of the existence of this material.

Quote from: JimO on May 10, 2014, 05:08:35 PM
Any practical suggestions would be welcome. I had to use a free ftp site that allows five transfers a month before a paid subscription, and I expended three just sharing the originals.

My suggestion is, share with me the contact info ( exact email address & the person you spoke to) and the exact date/time information you used to get the data file.... so I can contact them and get the same results.

This way I can get my own copy from NASA and that lets you off the hook.

Whatcha think ?  :D

Quote from: 1967sander on May 10, 2014, 07:20:16 PM
Why does not NASA make these videos available from their website? The videos made by NASA is property of the citizens of the United States so everyone in the US has tthe right to see this footage. Apparantly NASA never was interested in showing it in the first place. It is because of "material uploaded by others" that we know of the existence of this material.

When did you ever ask for a copy of a video that they wouldn't send you? Is this all mere fantasy, or did you actually get refused something?  Be specific.

Or is it only hearsay and internet myth?

Quote from: 1967sander on May 10, 2014, 07:20:16 PM
....The videos made by NASA is property of the citizens of the United States so everyone in the US has tthe right to see this footage. Apparantly NASA never was interested in showing it in the first place. It is because of "material uploaded by others" that we know of the existence of this material. 

That's not the way I remember it. Martyn, like many others, watched on public broadcasts over commercial satellites. Everybody had access to those transmissions -- calling them 'secret' is a marketing ploy to thrill the gullible target audience.

NASA also  posts highlights and summaries on its website and I'll go way out on a limb and bet you you've never even looked and have no idea what the link is. Prove me wrong?

Quote from: easynow on May 10, 2014, 07:10:34 PM

So basically your saying ,

Instead of just releasing the raw video to everyone where it can be analized by an objective collective at the same time, your gonna cherry-pick what you want and release the data already pre-debunked.

How nice 

Is this an official accusation ?

or are you just playing games again ?

Calm down, calm down. I'm saying I've never posted a video on youtube in my life. I was serious about asking for suggestions.

Not long ago you asked for -- and got -- dispensation for distractions from real life. Come on, give the same allowances.

Quote from: JimO on May 10, 2014, 08:25:53 PM
Calm down, calm down. I'm saying I've never posted a video on youtube in my life. I was serious about asking for suggestions.

Not long ago you asked for -- and got -- dispensation for distractions from real life. Come on, give the same allowances.

I am very calm and have the patience of a Saint  ;)

Uploading a video to Youtube is easy, just click on the "upload button"

Really it's that simple.

However ... we don't want a Youtube video,

If there's gonna be any real scientific study of the video,

We must have the raw file data, clean, unedited and original and as close to the first generation as possible.

Without all that, it would be another waste of time.  :o





What about my other post, with my suggestion to make things easier for you ?
...

QuoteMy suggestion is, share with me the contact info ( exact email address & the person you spoke to) and the exact date/time information you used to get the data file.... so I can contact them and get the same results.

This way I can get my own copy from NASA and that lets you off the hook.

Whatcha think ?

Why not post that info in the thread so eveyone has the oppurtunity to contact NASA and get the data themselves ?

Why would you be against doing that ?


FYI - If you don't want to do that,

some people might think your trying to hide something ;)

Quote from: easynow on May 10, 2014, 09:01:14 PM
Uploading a video to Youtube is easy, just click on the "upload button"

Really it's that simple.

It's not that simple when you have 3 videos with 796 MB, 835 MB and 1.40 GB (after converted to FLV from the original 984 MB, 1.00 GB and 1.46 GB MPEG files, respectively) and a slow (1.5 Mbps) upload speed. :)

Fortunately, at work I have a 30 Mbps upload speed (and I live some 50 metres from work), so I am uploading the videos from there. ;D

Quote from: ArMaP on May 10, 2014, 09:34:23 PM
It's not that simple when you have 3 videos with 796 MB, 835 MB and 1.40 GB (after converted to FLV from the original 984 MB, 1.00 GB and 1.46 GB MPEG files, respectively) and a slow (1.5 Mbps) upload speed. :)

Fortunately, at work I have a 30 Mbps upload speed (and I live some 50 metres from work), so I am uploading the videos from there. ;D

Yeah if you have a slow connection,
then it just takes longer, but it's still easy  :)

Why would you convert the file to flv ?

Isn't MP4 better quality for HD ?

Also , If there's gonna be any kind of real scientific study of the video, It can't be done with a Youtube video.

We must have the raw data, not uploaded to youtube, or altered in any way.

Just saying.  :)

Quote from: easynow on May 10, 2014, 09:46:44 PM
Yeah if you have a slow connection,
then it just takes longer, but it's still easy  :)

Well, it wasn't that easy for me because I had to burn the files to a DVD, go to my workplace, copy the files to a server, get back to home, connect to my computer back at work and upload the files from the server to YouTube (YouTube is still processing the first one, the upload was much faster than the processing). Otherwise it would have taken more than 3 hours for each video.  :(

QuoteWhy would you convert the file to flv ?

Isn't MP4 better quality for HD ?

Yes, but YouTube converts the videos to FLV, and does it with too much compression, so I convert them myself to FLV with the best quality I can (they still look worse than the original) and upload them to YouTube after.

QuoteAlso , If there's gonna be any kind of real scientific study of the video, It can't be done with a Youtube video.

We must have the raw data, not uploaded to youtube, or altered in any way.

True, but it's easier to watch the video in YouTube, where you don't have to download it all to be able to watch it. :)

Quote from: easynow on May 10, 2014, 09:01:14 PM
FYI - If you don't want to do that,
some people might think your trying to hide something ;) 

Despite the undisputed fact that I'm the guy who has provided the most REAL data about these bizarre-looking videos, people already think that way, and you've been a cheerleader for them. Martyn won't even tell the date/time of his videos, and play the full audio, and you're full of excuses. I swear, you act like you want people to NOT know the operational context of the videos, maybe so as to make it easy to misinterpret them.

Case in point: is the tether swarm video in daylight or darkness? You act as if you don't want people to know -- correct me if I've misunderstood you.

Quote from: easynow on May 10, 2014, 09:46:44 PM
Yeah if you have a slow connection,
then it just takes longer, but it's still easy  :)

Armap has the files, he's free to send them to anyone. You've never told me your email address.

Ok, my vacation was cut short due to a pee break.

Quote
Case in point: is the tether swarm video in daylight or darkness? You act as if you don't want people to know -- correct me if I've misunderstood you.

I don't know about anyone else but I think I clearly showed that the small clip of the swarm was in the daylight. Exact time is un-known. But even on the one NASA tape I have they said they were comming into daylight.

As far as an FLV file goes, most of the time they are trash to work with no matter how well it is made up front. MP4 or AVI is better if we can get them. What format is the original in?

Ok, Im busy now looking into Pee.

Quote from: deuem on May 11, 2014, 02:08:22 AM
As far as an FLV file goes, most of the time they are trash to work with no matter how well it is made up front. MP4 or AVI is better if we can get them. What format is the original in?

The files I got are MPEG.

I've got two free silver bullets left on my dropzone trial subscription -- first two email addresses messaged to me get video-1.

Quote from: ArMaP on May 10, 2014, 10:12:53 PM
Well, it wasn't that easy for me because I had to burn the files to a DVD, go to my workplace, copy the files to a server, get back to home, connect to my computer back at work and upload the files from the server to YouTube (YouTube is still processing the first one, the upload was much faster than the processing). Otherwise it would have taken more than 3 hours for each video.  :(
Yes, but YouTube converts the videos to FLV, and does it with too much compression, so I convert them myself to FLV with the best quality I can (they still look worse than the original) and upload them to YouTube after.
True, but it's easier to watch the video in YouTube, where you don't have to download it all to be able to watch it. :)

I don't want to stray to far off topic so I'm just going to say thanks ArMaP for doing all that work and I look forward to seeing how your videos turn out.

Please post them when possible.  :)

Quote from: JimO on May 10, 2014, 11:04:20 PM
Despite the undisputed fact that I'm the guy who has provided the most REAL data about these bizarre-looking videos, people already think that way, and you've been a cheerleader for them. Martyn won't even tell the date/time of his videos, and play the full audio, and you're full of excuses. I swear, you act like you want people to NOT know the operational context of the videos, maybe so as to make it easy to misinterpret them.

Case in point: is the tether swarm video in daylight or darkness? You act as if you don't want people to know -- correct me if I've misunderstood you.

So much for your legendary personal attacks being "mythical"  ::)


I wasn't there onboard the shuttle so I can't say for sure what the lighting conditions actually were and I certainly wouldn't want to parrott something from a government website and state it as a fact so I'll let you do that.  ;)

Quote from: JimO on May 10, 2014, 11:06:17 PM
Armap has the files, he's free to send them to anyone. You've never told me your email address.

Check your Pm's  :D

How Does the Shuttle External TV Camera Actually Work? part 1 (http://www.thelivingmoon.com/forum/INCO-CHB-CCTV1.PDF), part 2 (http://www.thelivingmoon.com/forum/INCO-CHB-CCTV2.PDF)

part 2 says it is broke

Quote from: deuem on May 11, 2014, 05:56:24 AM
How Does the Shuttle External TV Camera Actually Work? 
part 2 says it is broke

Oops, I'm on it.

Kudos to you for being the first in this discussion who actually LOOKED.

Please repost the camera links when it is finished, they are buried way back.

From the NASA STS-75 files:
Scientists report that they can measure a sunlight-induced electrical charge on the satellite as it moves through the daylight and night portions of its orbit around the Earth.

Here are the three videos, converted to FLV (to avoid YouTube's automatic conversion) and uploaded to YouTube:

Orbits 116, 117 and 118.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKz5t47psKA

Orbits 118 and 119.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORhxYwrDz3w

Orbits 119, 120 and 121.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qbyiHSeaMU

The scene lists:
Scene list for orbits 116, 117 and 118 (http://content.screencast.com/users/ArMaP/folders/Default/media/4ecfeb1b-ee87-4d61-ba5f-e64ffecbac01/STS-75%20Downlink%20TV%20during%20Orbit%20116,117,118%20(GMT%2061%2002.07%20-%2061%2005.12)%202-29-1996.pdf?downloadOnly=true)

Scene list for orbits 118 and 119 (http://content.screencast.com/users/ArMaP/folders/Default/media/753b8eb5-2726-40b7-9001-a543eddd9fc2/STS-75%20Downlink%20TV%20during%20Orbit%20118,119%20(GMT%2061%2005.11%20-%2061%2006.54)%202-29-1996.pdf?downloadOnly=true)

Scene list for orbits 119, 120 and 121 (http://content.screencast.com/users/ArMaP/folders/Default/media/e1c127f0-b629-47c3-9400-2cd588e7d50f/STS-75%20Downlink%20TV%20during%20Orbit%20119,120,021%20(GMT%2061%2006.53%20-%2061%2008.59)%203-1-1996.pdf?downloadOnly=true)

Two more documents:
Flight plan (http://content.screencast.com/users/ArMaP/folders/Default/media/5bfe1a2f-c5ed-477d-bd37-fe475801f73b/FLIGHT%20PLAN%20STS-75%20FINAL.pdf?downloadOnly=true)

Flight day 8 execute package (http://content.screencast.com/users/ArMaP/folders/Default/media/7b439247-77ba-4ae6-8825-a82ec00c42f0/STS75_FD8.PDF?downloadOnly=true)

I hope it works. :)

PS: the more famous sequence is on the second video, starting at 19:30.

Thanks for uploading. Currently running super resolution conversion of the first video. Takes about 48 hours to finish the process but than I will re-upload the higher resolution versions.

I was comparing the YouTube video with the original and it's worse than I expected. :(

I will see what I can do about it.

In the meantime we can log the events of interest by time tag and compare them to the scene lists. Also, we can use transcripts and time tags of all commentary on the tether.

Jim, excuse me for saying this but this has to be one of the worst quality tapes I have seen in years. Is this a VCR tape in the 8 hour mode? The films on You Tube have a better quality by far.

Question: Is this NASA quality? or Jim quality because of transfer?

I would think that it should be crystal clear. Whats Up?

Quote from: ArMaP on May 11, 2014, 06:21:21 PM
PS: the more famous sequence is on the second video, starting at 19:30.

Note that in the first video about 00:40 to 00:50 is the FIRST sighting of the tether. Nothing else appears near it or in the field of view. No critters, UFOs, or snowflakes.

Also, note at 00:23 - :24 there is a sunrise scene where a number of particles are drifting across the field of view.

The question is -- what 'dandruff generating events' were going on aboard the shuttle in the same time frame?

Quote from: deuem on May 12, 2014, 08:53:17 AM
Jim, excuse me for saying this but this has to be one of the worst quality tapes I have seen in years. ...

The original hi-def files from NASA now are in the possession of me, Armap, and Easynow, and I agree, watching some nighttime cloud cover scenes, there seems to be a lot of distortion. I think that's an issue with conversion to youtube-acceptible formats.

While running through video 1 we can be reminded why the TV image is NOT what was actually out the window. Here's my presentation charts on the issue.


(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10015/gray-centers_lightning.jpg)

(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10015/grayed-out_unchange.jpg)

I am currently processing 27 minutes of video from video 2 with military grade super resolution software.
This is a timeconsuming process and the final result will be a huge video file. Approx. 90 Mb for only 1 minute of video. So the end result will be a big ... very big file. I will try to upload this high resolution version in parts. Only problem is that max. 20 people can download it after which I will have to re-upload.

Quote from: 1967sander on May 12, 2014, 10:57:01 PM
I am currently processing 27 minutes of video from video 2 with military grade super resolution software.
This is a timeconsuming process and the final result will be a huge video file. Approx. 90 Mb for only 1 minute of video. So the end result will be a big ... very big file. I will try to upload this high resolution version in parts. Only problem is that max. 20 people can download it after which I will have to re-upload.

Nice.

What exactly is "military grade super resolution software" and how do you happen to possess it?

What examples can you show us where such a process has yielded verfiable results in any other image application?

What do you expect the process to produce relevant to the origin of the sts-75 video?

Is there a single human being on Earth with a real name and verifiable expertise who can vouch for, or corroborate, the processing results?

Just asking....

Quote from: 1967sander on May 12, 2014, 10:57:01 PM
I am currently processing 27 minutes of video from video 2 with military grade super resolution software.
This is a timeconsuming process and the final result will be a huge video file. Approx. 90 Mb for only 1 minute of video.

What's the frame size of that video? ???

QuoteSo the end result will be a big ... very big file. I will try to upload this high resolution version in parts. Only problem is that max. 20 people can download it after which I will have to re-upload.

A free ADrive account allows 50 GB, but limited to 2 GB files, and the sharing of the files lasts only 14 days, but we can share them again without limits, only a different link.

[quote author=JimO link=topic=6642.msg94429#msg94429 date=1399932645

Is there a single human being on Earth with a real name and verifiable expertise who can vouch for, or corroborate, the processing results?

Just asking....
[/quote]

There are vey few people (at this forum) that really know who I am what I did, what I do and the kind of software I (still) have access to.  I am bound to non disclosure and not allowed to reveal my sources that provide me with certain applications. That is all I can tell.

Quote from: ArMaP on May 12, 2014, 11:47:02 PM
What's the frame size of that video? ???
A free ADrive account allows 50 GB, but limited to 2 GB files, and the sharing of the files lasts only 14 days, but we can share them again without limits, only a different link.

Frame size is 1280x872 but can be increased even more
interpolated lanczos 4.

Quote from: JimO on May 12, 2014, 09:41:00 PM
The original hi-def files from NASA now are in the possession of me, Armap, and Easynow, and I agree, watching some nighttime cloud cover scenes, there seems to be a lot of distortion. I think that's an issue with conversion to youtube-acceptible formats.

ArMaP, Do I have the same file Jim is talking about that is Hi def? I seem to have a very low def version.

Quote from: deuem on May 13, 2014, 12:45:55 AM

ArMaP, Do I have the same file Jim is talking about that is Hi def? I seem to have a very low def version.

The original files I got from Jim are 352 x 240 MPEG files, I don't think that's hi def. If those are the ones you got from my ADrive links then you do have the same ones I have.

Thanks, I guess NASA Hi-Def is not what we call Hi-Def. These are nothing more than "thumbnail vids". The little copies they post all over their site.

Jim 352 x 240 is not Hi-Def in anyones book. Is that all they gave you, the knocked down versions of the real thing. If you were to put this up on the Huston viewing board you could not even see it.

Is there a single human being on Earth with a real name and verifiable expertise who can vouch for, or corroborate, the real videos?  ::)

And I think, Unless you are qualified in forensics annalist video work you should not be picking so much on Sanders. Sander and I test each other all the time to try and keep it real. We attack the problem from two different views and if we come up with the same conclusions we have a bingo. Let him see what he comes up with. He is fair and objective and understands NASA very well. Maybe better than yourself. We will see.

Why would Ice Crystals pulse?

Why did they do a dump right before the tether launch and pee all over the cargo bay. They pissed all over the lenses and everything else back there. At least they could put the shuttle in reverse and the spay would then follow the nose. Once out use a jet or 2 and get some distance. If I was in charge, they better have a very good reason for doing this otherwise they would be looking for a new job and I would have cancelled the tether and brought it home to be cleaned and reloaded. Heads would roll for sure. I'm sorry to say this but it sounds like one of the largest screwups on this mission. It reads like a Beavis and Butt head adventure.

Can you do better with these questions?

Quote from: JimO on May 12, 2014, 11:10:45 PM

What exactly is "military grade super resolution software" and how do you happen to possess it?

What examples can you show us where such a process has yielded verfiable results in any other image application?

What do you expect the process to produce relevant to the origin of the sts-75 video?

Is there a single human being on Earth with a real name and verifiable expertise who can vouch for, or corroborate, the processing results?

Quote from: deuem on May 13, 2014, 01:58:11 AM
Thanks, I guess NASA Hi-Def is not what we call Hi-Def. These are nothing more than "thumbnail vids". The little copies they post all over their site.

Maybe I should ask for higher-res versions by mailed DVD. What description should I be asking for?

It might also help if we settled on a subset of these videos with special potential significance, and aim directly at them. Let's produce a list of segments of greatest interest.

Quote
Why would Ice Crystals pulse?

Ice flakes flash as they rotate, depending on axis of rotation and rate. This was routinely observed.

QuoteWhy did they do a dump right before the tether launch and pee all over the cargo bay. They pissed all over the lenses and everything else back there.

Why are you so mistaken about the time between deploy/break and the time of the swarm sighting? How long have I tried to tell you it really was? If you realize that, you'll realize your question is hopelessly confused.

Time from break until swarm observation -- how many hours? Please pay attention to these basics.

QuoteAt least they could put the shuttle in reverse and the spay would then follow the nose. Once out use a jet or 2 and get some distance. If I was in charge, they better have a very good reason for doing this otherwise they would be looking for a new job and I would have cancelled the tether and brought it home to be cleaned and reloaded. Heads would roll for sure. I'm sorry to say this but it sounds like one of the largest screwups on this mission. It reads like a Beavis and Butt head adventure.

That's because you seem to take defiant pride in your bad guesses about how spaceships OUGHT to [in your imagination] maneuver in the real world. You really need to pay attention to the operating principles that I tried to explain in '99 FAQs'. Otherwise your arrogant pontificating just makes you look silly to anyone actually familiar with space flight. It's not that they're smarter than you, just better informed. Take this opportunity, please.

Just an observation here: you guys DO know this guy is dilbrately wasting your time? I figured you do cause we have a bunch of really smart guys here.

Oh I get it now, lol.. Have fun  ;D

Sarge, do you see yourself as part of the solution, part of the problem, or irrelevant? What can each of us do to improve understanding of the mysteries?

Have you looked over my '99 FAQs'??

Quote from: JimO on May 13, 2014, 04:08:52 AM
Maybe I should ask for higher-res versions by mailed DVD. What description should I be asking for?

It might also help if we settled on a subset of these videos with special potential significance, and aim directly at them. Let's produce a list of segments of greatest interest.

After all these years of you pushing you 'ice crystal' theory and  pretending that you have,  or have access to a, better video, you would think you would give it up.

IF you had such a video you would have produced it a long time ago to prove your point. So it is fairly obvious that you DON'T have such proof and rely on skeptic view points to puff your chest.

No one is buying it... but do knock yourself out :D

QuoteIce flakes flash as they rotate, depending on axis of rotation and rate. This was routinely observed.

We are not talking about flashing... we are talking about throbbing..  like this HUGE 'ice crystal' on NASA's own mission control screen  Odlly enough... NASA is watching thi 'tiny ice crystal' that seemd to fill their entire screen... and IT is throbbing ( or pulsing) like we are talking about

There is NO WAY that they are watching an 'ice crystal' here. This one opens and closes a center hole, right on mission control screen.  Still want to claim its just a tiny speck of ice? Really? Must be an awesome camera

(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/41pegasus/04images/Critter/NASA_Control_005.png)

(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/41pegasus/04images/Critter/NASA_Control_006.png)

(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/41pegasus/04images/Critter/NASA_Control_007.png)

(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/41pegasus/04images/Critter/NASA_Control_008.png)

Here it is in animation... flashing ice particle indeed

(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/41pegasus/04images/Critter/bb261ab621b502c6.gif)


Nor is this a bokeh  your other favorite

(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/41pegasus/04images/Critter/pulsingUfo.jpg)

Why are you so mistaken about the time between deploy/break and the time of the swarm sighting? How long have I tried to tell you it really was? If you realize that, you'll realize your question is hopelessly confused.

Time from break until swarm observation -- how many hours? Please pay attention to these basics.

QuoteOtherwise your arrogant pontificating just makes you look silly to anyone actually familiar with space flight. It's not that they're smarter than you, just better informed. Take this opportunity, please.

Well the flight paths of the swarm do not conform to currently taught laws of space movement. How come skeptics always turn away from that?

QuoteMaybe I should ask for higher-res versions by mailed DVD. What description should I be asking for?

For this question we have to go back in time and see what was available back then. A lot has been changed in what they called Hi-def and what we call it now. We need that history lesson. Best would be A51 or ArMaP to look into that and get back here. But I do know it was higher than the thumbnails we got. So yes another try is well worth the effort to get the best of that day.

QuoteIt might also help if we settled on a subset of these videos with special potential significance, and aim directly at them. Let's produce a list of segments of greatest interest.

This will be best left to debate but from what this thread is about. Any space shots prior and after the tether. Including launch which I did not see nor did I see the break. Did I miss that?

QuoteIce flakes flash as they rotate, depending on axis of rotation and rate. This was routinely observed.

Yes, I have proven at least to myself that there are some Ice Crystals floating around and maybe even one/some to the lens. There are also at least 3 to 4 different objects in the frames that I see. One at a time to be worked on. Lets say at this moment I have not made up my mind pending better quality videos.

QuoteWhy are you so mistaken about the time between deploy/break and the time of the swarm sighting? How long have I tried to tell you it really was? If you realize that, you'll realize your question is hopelessly confused.

I am not confused and you are placing words in my mouth.The swarm sighting was days later when they came up on it from behind at the closest point 46nm. Is there something I wrote that is confusing?

QuoteTime from break until swarm observation -- how many hours? Please pay attention to these basics.

Yes dear, Days not moments. But waiting to see the break video. The one photo I worked on showed it was producing power well before the break. I emailed to the Doctor that designed it and waiting for him to answer.

QuoteThat's because you seem to take defiant pride in your bad guesses about how spaceships OUGHT to [in your imagination] maneuver in the real world. You really need to pay attention to the operating principles that I tried to explain in '99 FAQs'. Otherwise your arrogant pontificating just makes you look silly to anyone actually familiar with space flight. It's not that they're smarter than you, just better informed. Take this opportunity, please.

Well since you are not the Design engineer nor the flight director I think you talking for them is a waste of time. I need to speak to the person who made that decision to wet the bed. Can you present that information and I will ask them directly why they did it. Why they did a water dump all over a brand new clean room packed 100 million dollar toy. Sorry to say Jim but I think this is very irresponsible thing to do, no matter what you tell me. I want to hear that one from the horses mouth. Who do I need to ask?

I could write 99 FAQ also, it does not mean they are 100% right. There are always exceptions.

As far as my arrogant pontification, thanks for the compliment. Instead of telling me why, what I said could not be done, you decide to insult me with a compliment. And yea, they spun that ship around all the time. Why not spin it to butt first and dump out the nose and leave a trail behind you instead of peeing all over the deck. Better yet, why not just wait till after the release. How do we know that the tether was not covered in ice, the small microscopic particles are almost impossible to see on white. I would agree that they are much better informed, they are in the trenches after all. But that does not mean they made the right choice. People of all levels do make mistakes. At this time I think this was a mistake. I need some type of good science to prove to me that wetting down the deck was the best thing to do.

Silly deuem

JimO, do you see yourself as part of the solution, part of the problem, or irrelevant? What can each of us do to improve understanding of the mysteries?

Mysteries? Space Plasma Critters?

Don't see any mystery at all.

::)

Ice Crystals !!



(http://i1284.photobucket.com/albums/a572/paparumbo/FirstText_zpscbf433d6.gif)

Quote from: zorgon on May 13, 2014, 07:30:20 AM
After all these years of you pushing you 'ice crystal' theory and  pretending that you have,  or have access to a, better video, you would think you would give it up.

IF you had such a video you would have produced it a long time ago to prove your point. So it is fairly obvious that you DON'T have such proof and rely on skeptic view points to puff your chest.

The video Armap posted on youtube is the version I talked about, the time tags along the top were both unreadable. I had a VHS tape of it, viewed and studied it, but wasn't able to convert and upload a digital version. When Armap invited me to discuss the case here, I contacted JSC-PAO and they posted the gigabit files on the NASA server with a guest password, and I 'filezilla'ed' them down, as did Armap and another researcher. I later also passed video 1 to easynow. 

I'd be happy to continue studying the full video along with the Flight Plan and updates I also obtained and shared. In them we see the four observation periods, at four successive sunrises, as the shuttle passed below the TSS-1R and the dangling tether. The 2nd observation was closest, and is the most famous.

The video and documents contribute to identifying sources of particle generation by the shuttle that might be responsible for the 'swarm'. Note in particular the references to the Flash Evaporator System, or FES, which was being used on this flight for water dumps. That's very significant since the FES nozzles are back near the tail, right next to payload bay cameras B & C.

So I see a lot of potential for a clearer understanding of context factors for this case. You, on the other hand, seem to fear the new access to a deeper understanding of the event.

QuoteNo one is buying it... but do knock yourself out :D

As you can tell from my classic sts-48 case study, I do use the real data to establish reasonable 'ordinary' causes of such videos. For those who are selling the ufo/plasma versions, more data is anathema. And for good reason.

Quote
We are not talking about flashing... we are talking about throbbing..  like this HUGE 'ice crystal' on NASA's own mission control screen  Odlly enough... NASA is watching thi 'tiny ice crystal' that seemd to fill their entire screen... and IT is throbbing ( or pulsing) like we are talking about

There is NO WAY that they are watching an 'ice crystal' here. This one opens and closes a center hole, right on mission control screen.  Still want to claim its just a tiny speck of ice? Really? Must be an awesome camera

I know you are bored by this question, but what's the date/time of that video so we can examine the operational context -- like is it day or night?

Quote
Well the flight paths of the swarm do not conform to currently taught laws of space movement. How come skeptics always turn away from that?

Here's a clue -- what YOU think the 'laws' dictate about movement has little relationship to the motions routinely observed by flight crews and mission controllers. You are basing your argument upon a carefully-preserved set of misconceptions about how stuff OUGHT to behave. Is there anybody with direct experience, who knows what they're talking about, who agrees with you -- or do YOU know better than all of THEM?

Quote from: deuem on May 13, 2014, 07:32:41 AM

....This will be best left to debate but from what this thread is about. Any space shots prior and after the tether. Including launch which I did not see nor did I see the break. Did I miss that?

These videos, on Flight Day 8, cover about six hours. Since I keep trying to tell you the break was four DAYS earlier, why are you puzzled to not see it on these tapes?

Quote...

Well since you are not the Design engineer nor the flight director I think you talking for them is a waste of time.

Did you read what the Flight Director wrote about the video? Would you believe him?

QuoteI need to speak to the person who made that decision to wet the bed. Can you present that information and I will ask them directly why they did it. Why they did a water dump all over a brand new clean room packed 100 million dollar toy. Sorry to say Jim but I think this is very irresponsible thing to do, no matter what you tell me. I want to hear that one from the horses mouth. Who do I need to ask?

Shuttles dump water dozens of times during a typical mission, and instrument operations are always coordinated to avoid any chance of contamination. The stuff never even shows up on the shuttle windows, you seem to have a highly distorted image of what is involved and how it transpires. Please familiarize yourself better. You still don't seem to appreciate how MUCH we're not in Kansas any more.

This has been very helpful since it identifies the basis of your logical conclusions as being non-facts that need correction. Progress, if painful.

QuoteI could write 99 FAQ also, it does not mean they are 100% right. There are always exceptions.

Mine are based on experience and study, not on imaginary miracles. If you have ANY factual challenges to mine, please provide them. You do notice that NOBODY has made a single such objection up to now. Zilch. Be the first.

QuoteAs far as my arrogant pontification, thanks for the compliment. Instead of telling me why, what I said could not be done, you decide to insult me with a compliment. And yea, they spun that ship around all the time. Why not spin it to butt first and dump out the nose and leave a trail behind you instead of peeing all over the deck.

Nobody has peed all over the deck, or themselves, except maybe you. But that can be cleaned up.

QuoteBetter yet, why not just wait till after the release. How do we know that the tether was not covered in ice, the small microscopic particles are almost impossible to see on white. I would agree that they are much better informed, they are in the trenches after all. But that does not mean they made the right choice. People of all levels do make mistakes. At this time I think this was a mistake. I need some type of good science to prove to me that wetting down the deck was the best thing to do.

The deck was never all wet. Just your imaginary scenario.

From day 4.

Quote
Another investigation of Columbia's surroundings made use of the orbiter's Flash Evaporator System (FES). To accomplish this experiment, the crew participated in activating and deactivating the orbiter's water release systems and manually operating the Shuttle's attitude control system jets. This provided a controlled means of studying the distribution of neutral and charged particles in the vicinity of the payload bay during Shuttle water dumps.

As far as I can tell the water dump is done at mid deck up front and the FES unit handles cooling, maybe in the rear. Still looking for its details! As soon as the cargo bays open they usually shut it off. From what I read they turned it on plus the pee/water dump and did their best to wet the bay. How else can anyone read that? They did it on purpose! No? I can find no link to the FES being used to discharge the waste water. It is for cooling. So maybe they turned on both. It does look as if they were doing their best to get a lot of water near or in the bay so they could run tests. While all the time a 100 million dollar toy is waiting to launch in a few hours. Unless someone can link this to a must have for the tether, it seems silly to do at that time.

Quote
The deck was never all wet. Just your imaginary scenario.

Not so imaginary if you read what NASA wrote. There is water everywhere, even on the lenses in you videos. I say they wet the deck, OK NASA likes big words, "This provided a controlled means of studying the distribution of neutral and charged particles in the vicinity of the payload bay during Shuttle water dumps."

Just your imaginary scenario? Guess not unless they can tell the water exactly where to go and not to go.

Did I not write about 5 times now that I know it was launched late day 4 or into 5 and the swarm was 3 to 4 days later. I would have exact times but the videos are garbled.

QuoteDid you read what the Flight Director wrote about the video? Would you believe him?

No I did not read it yet, just finished the daily logs. You have given me a lot to read in a limited amount of free time in the past few days. I have it and will read it and Yes I would believe him. Unless there is a problem and then I will let you know and we can ask him.

QuoteThis has been very helpful since it identifies the basis of your logical conclusions as being non-facts that need correction. Progress, if painful.

Nice left hook, felt that one hit dear ole Deuem, You wrote "Shuttles dump water dozens of times during a typical mission" So far on the mission report I can only find 3. Maybe there were another 21 or 33 dumps that are unaccounted for. You do know we can run the Math on that one? Are you sure you want to say dozens in the STS-75 mission?

Quote
Nobody has peed all over the deck, or themselves, except maybe you. But that can be cleaned up.

A Bob Hope or Robin Williams your not but nice try on the Joke.And how many years have you been doing this mission over and over. I need time to come up to speed. On that I will agree.

Ok, Just found it, from NASA.

Quote
The supply and waste water (http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/technology/sts-newsref/sts-eclss-wcl.html#sts-eclss-water) systems provide water for the flash evaporator, crew consumption and hygiene.