Jim Oberg's "99 FAQs About Space UFO Videos"

[JimO]

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.

[JimO]

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?

[JimO]

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....

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

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.

[JimO]

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.

[zorgon]

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

[ArMaP]

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

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.

[ArMaP]

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? 

[easynow]

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 ?




And here is the relevant clip from secretnasaman ...

NASA UFOs: STS-48, after the event.


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 

[zorgon]

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   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!

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.

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

Yeah it was a few days ago on NASA Unexplained   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



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

[zorgon]

I LOVE this one...

... it has PAINT on it



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

[Sinny]

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?

[zorgon]

Can't we have versions of the discussion, one for each possibility, and then analyse which one is the most likely,

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

"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 )

"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

But as far as I am concerned  Cased Closed

[ArMaP]

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".

[ArMaP]

"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.

[JimO]

.....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.