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

[ArMaP]

Here are the three videos, converted to FLV (to avoid YouTube's automatic conversion) and uploaded to YouTube:

Orbits 116, 117 and 118.


Orbits 118 and 119.


Orbits 119, 120 and 121.


The scene lists:
Scene list for orbits 116, 117 and 118

Scene list for orbits 118 and 119

Scene list for orbits 119, 120 and 121

Two more documents:
Flight plan

Flight day 8 execute package

I hope it works.

PS: the more famous sequence is on the second video, starting at 19:30.

[1967sander]

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.

[ArMaP]

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.

[JimO]

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.

[deuem]

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?

[JimO]

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?

[JimO]

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.

[JimO]

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.

[1967sander]

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.

[JimO]

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....

[ArMaP]

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?

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.

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.

[1967sander]

[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.

[1967sander]

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.

[deuem]

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.

[ArMaP]

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.