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

[1967sander]

Do you have any evidence that it's the "real footage" or do you have to take your word for it?
And irrelevant for this discussion.

Not entirely irrelevant. The UFO in my example was totally out of focus. It appeared larger than it was in reality. I performed the same technique on the tether and guess what. The so-called ice crystals hardly changed size compared to the tether. I also saw that some ice crystals moved over the tether while others passed underneath the tether. Do I have evidence that the footage is genuine? We'll, the resolution is about 4 times higher. So in my view this material is more original than anything I have seen sofar.

[ArMaP]

Not entirely irrelevant. The UFO in my example was totally out of focus. It appeared larger than it was in reality.

As you probably know, an out of focus object far away doesn't appear exactly in the same way as an out of focus object that is close to the camera, but I don't know what difference that may make on your processing.

The so-called ice crystals hardly changed size compared to the tether. I also saw that some ice crystals moved over the tether while others passed underneath the tether.

I hope you explain it better when you post the video.

Do I have evidence that the footage is genuine? We'll, the resolution is about 4 times higher. So in my view this material is more original than anything I have seen sofar.

If it doesn't have any signs of having been resized, then it means that, as far as size, is closer to the original.

[deuem]

Without going into detail at the moment. This statement by Sanders,  "I also saw that some ice crystals moved over the tether while others passed underneath the tether." Seems to be correct for now. But I will not go there 100% until more Math is done.

I still need to know which cameras had which lenses. But I am glad that I am not talking to an empty board.  Jim seems to be doing a lot of homework that needs time. We can wait.

[JimO]

Regarding interpretation versus misinterpretation of TV images, I found two important sequences at the very end of tape 2 -- showing grayed-out bright dots appearing strangely crossing other bright areas. It's consistent with the behavior I've been trying to explain here, that's just being ignored for private magic mystery processes. Try them here:

01:23:59  PLB camera view of ORION constellation, stars show elongation, Sirius [far left] is even bigger and shows center dimming. Camera pans [rotates field of view], Sirius shows distinct large shape, shading.

1:31:07     Night horizon view ;  bright star setting, elongated shape with dark center. Appears to pass  in FRONT of horizon because its darkened center blocks out light of horizon line. .Star then twinkles, sets, and its little occulting circle vanishes, horizon again fully visible.

Tape ends

[JimO]

some new transcriptions, somebody please check.

57:58     "Columbia, Houston, on TSS we got some great data from the science aboard the satellite during the close approach and we just finished a Guam pass and get even better data there from the satellite.
   Jeff: "Wonderful, well, you know sometimes serendipity makes things roll in science, so let's hope something will turn up that nobody was expecting.

"We think it's due to the extremely long antenna."

01:08:48  Columbia, Houston, for claude on triple-F-T, we'd like the air circulation taken back up to five,,, [snip]

01:09:00   "Understand. And for Columbia, Orbit-1 is signing off, being replaced by Orbit-3, got Bob Castle and Bill McArthur here for you,  We had an enjoyable shift with you with the viewing of TSS, the good science data, our hats are off to the pointers who gave you that good steer to see the satellite, Steve Ramko in particular, and his gang did a great job. FDO tracked it for us all the way in as well. We'll see yah tomorrow.
    Chang:  Thanks a lot, Tom, that was great, excellent information, and the satellite was right exactly where you guys said it was gonna be, so my hat off to the pointers and trackers as well.  "
     "Much obliged."


1:11:50    Franklin: "Hey, Tom and Bill, , We just got another sighting, but very very low on the horizon  just a little bit to the [one?] side of Venus, it's just  very faint, and  the [garble] coming across the atmosphere. "

          CAPCOM: "Thanks, Franklin, we copy."

[JimO]

...... I performed the same technique on the tether and guess what. The so-called ice crystals hardly changed size compared to the tether. I also saw that some ice crystals moved over the tether while others passed underneath the tether. .....

This is another ""technique" whose nature you won't reveal, that has never been validated independently, that only you have ever used, but -- it's supposed to convince people that your original assessments of the tether video are correct? That's kind of a tough sell to some people, so please show why anyone ought to find its results persuasive.

[JimO]

Without going into detail at the moment. This statement by Sanders,  "I also saw that some ice crystals moved over the tether while others passed underneath the tether." Seems to be correct for now. But I will not go there 100% until more Math is done....

Commendable caution. I look forward to math details, including fundamental issues such as who else has ever used your math method, who validated it independently, what is the mathematically basis of it, and where you learned the math used in it. Absent that, how does its credibility differ in any measurable way from a Ouija board?

If you applied the method to the two short starfield segments at the very end of Tape 2, could you prove that the star Sirius was fifty billion miles in diameter based on the image size on the TV monitor?

Or that the setting star passed in FRONT of the visible horizon line because it 'obviously' eclipsed a segment of that line and hence MUST have been in FRONT of it.

Look at the video.

My point is that smeared/stretched images of point-source stars, on the shuttle TV, ought to establish that such an analysis cannot tell us anything reliable about the actual object.

[JimO]

Help needed on tape 1 transcript, where precise camera specs are being discussed:

39:56          Small white blur bouncing in center screen, gray background
                      Hoffman: "OK, when I first picked it up this is the Camden [?] 15-mm eeyoff  [phonetic] lens . This is handheld so it's jumping around a lot. But like I say we haven't edited it yet. Later on we'll get it in the p—[drop out]-   I think we'll get some better pictures..
40:12 MCC "OK, we're getting a good downlink, thank you.


Also, a later useful comment:

51:46    Hoffman: "OK, that's it for this pass, we got some 250mm and 35mm photography, we'll try a bigger lens next time."
51: 58    MCC:  "Copy that, Jeff."

52:10    Hoffman: "Be sure to pass on to Chuck Shaw how bright this looks, and it's a lot further than 21 kilometers away. "

and later

1:17:22 Just for your information, I've got cameras charlie and Delta powered up, and pointed straight up, ninety degrees. And angle information enabled, so, uh, we'll be able to find our way around quickly.
            "Outstanding, copy Charlie and delta."

[JimO]

And on tape 2, after the swarm video on the second post-sunrise observation, these comments:

2856    Hoffman: "Houston, Columbia, I was using both the 20 power binoculars and the 400 power Nikon lens under the body bag, uh, and it only disappeared in the glare of the sun about 30 seconds ago.  The tether looked completely straight. I did not see any bright spots along the tether. except at the very bottom where there was a bright spot which was unresolvable. for me. 
I did not see anything above the satellite.

and later

31:08  Hoffman: "And Tom, as far as the size of the tether, you can get some of the photo/TV people working on this, but it extended..uh,  about the diagonal length of the 400mm lens as seen in the Nikon viewfinder. Seen straight across, it was actually bigger than the horizontal distance but was about equal to the diameter.

much later,

57:58     "Columbia, Houston, on TSS we got some great data from the science aboard the satellite during the close approach and we just finished a Guam pass and get even better data there from the satellite.
   Jeff: "Wonderful, well, you know sometimes serendipity makes things roll [??] in science, so let's hope something will turn up that nobody was expecting.

and near the end of the tape

01:09:00   "Understand. And for Columbia, Orbit-1 is signing off, being replaced by Orbit-3, got Bob Castle and Bill McArthur here for you,  We had an enjoyable shift with you with the viewing of TSS, the good science data, our hats are off to the pointers who gave you that good steer to see the satellite, Steve Ramko in particular, and his gang did a great job. FDO tracked it for us all the way in as well. We'll see yah tomorrow.
    Chang:  Thanks a lot, Tom, that was great, excellent information, and the satellite was right exactly where you guys said it was gonna be, so my hat off to the pointers and trackers as well.  "

Just at that point the third post-sunrise sighting occurred, this was all that I heard being said:

1:11:50    Franklin: "Hey, Tom and Bill, , We just got another sighting, but very very low on the horizon  just a little bit to the [one?] side of Venus, it's just  very faint, and  the [garble] coming across the atmosphere. "

I could use some help with somebody's audio processing gear to clean up this preliminary transcription.

[JimO]

Um icecrystals huh ...

The whole ice crystal theory is crap and I will prove it. Already working on the footage. The real footage and not the poor VHS transfers. Yes, I have my sources too.

Not crap, but pee.

And now for something completely different: 

Let Jimbo explain this icecrystal for a change. Or anyone!

youtube

What ice crystal? Where did I -- or any other person -- call that image an ice crystal? If you're just going to throw up a smokescreen of phantasmagorical falsehoods like that, it's all the more reason not to believe anything on your say-so alone, but to demand verifiable backup. So far, not very encouraging in that regard, IMHO.

[JimO]

....In vid 1 there is a section where there are a lot of objects going right to left. They appear to be leaving Earth after a night out on the town and returning to space. This section needs to be looked at in detail. (reminder to self)

"Appear" is the correct word here. Since the image is from a moving platform in an unknown orientation, against an earth horizon platform, the actual motion of the dots relative to Earth can't be determined without guessing at unknown factors.

Making such guesses to lead to pre-desired interpretations is a self-fulfilling prophecy, not a proof the objects are actually leaving Earth.

Even your assumption that it is "night" when the video is taken shows you've got a long way to go to slough off obsolete groundside perceptual algorithms. That video was actually taken after sunrise. Can you accept that?

If you can't, further speculation on sources of tether/dot illumination is pointless.

[JimO]

Jim, with everything moving at such high speeds and them over taking the tether I would like to use a very good standard frame to start with where the tether is in full frame and NASA calls out the distance. In the close ups afterwards we lose the tail and sizing and the length becomes impossible to measure. If you wish to pick a point, please let us know. I would prefer no zoom. Just a nice full frame shot with a known distance....

Reasonable request. Next week I've gotten clearance to inspect all STS-75 handheld flight images on a light table at the photo lab, that's the sort of image we both are looking for.

Armap has one such hand-held image I sent him, can he please post it here?

[deuem]

One thing I can say about measuring stars this way is that I can pin point the exact centers and then give distances on the print and angles to each other that would be correct. On the print distances only, not true light year distances unless I figured out exactly how large a star was and used that as a starting point. But then the other stars would have to be the same size or on the same viewing plane to measure them. It gets very complicated. Telling how large they are is almost impossible. They are more or less a nice white blur in the photo that could never be in focus like we do our own sun. But the angular relation to everything in the photo is accurate. That is simple trig.

Stars are so far away that no matter how you focus or zoom they will just sit there being stars. They will not zoom. You just loose your view of them as the Earth turns. So they should be a constant in the film(s) They don't move around, they just set with Earths rotation. Knowing this it should be easy, no matter how the cameras blurred them to remove all stars from the tether question.

My only interest in the vid are the things that move and change on zoom/focus. Of which there are many.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
JIM:

Making such guesses to lead to pre-desired interpretations is a self-fulfilling prophecy, not a proof the objects are actually leaving Earth.

I don't know why you wish to toss more insults at me over this statement. How would you describe what you are seeing?

I simply wrote

ME:

there are a lot of objects going right to left. They appear to be leaving Earth after a night out on the town and returning to space.

Can't you understand a joke!  Lets see, we have the blue marble on the right and hundreds of white objects appearing in just the right instance to make an optical illusion of a night out on the town coming to an end. And yes a night out on the town means it is now morning. Don't get out much? Yes I know it is sunrise. You never asked, just went right to the insult. I guess the joke went over your head. Sorry, I will try to refrain from using them.

The funny thing is, this section might support what you are saying but you decided to use it against me. So that just makes it more tasty for us. Meaning we need to explore it even more carefully.

[1967sander]

I leave this clown to you guys. I am not interested in reading anymore of this crap ... um pee. 

[JimO]

I leave this clown to you guys. I am not interested in reading anymore of this crap ... um pee. 

This is your response to being asked to provide checkable evidence for your claims? It's more eloquent than you may have intended!