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

[JimO]

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.

[JimO]

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?

[ArMaP]

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).

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.

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.

Has 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.

[JimO]

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.

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.

[PLAYSWITHMACHINES]

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

[The Matrix Traveller]

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 ....

[JimO]

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.

[easynow]

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 -





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

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.

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 ?

[zorgon]

An FYI for all NASA UFO Hunters

NASA created UFO like Orb? Bokeh? Alien Spacecraft?

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

[zorgon]

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

[zorgon]

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

[zorgon]

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.

[zorgon]

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

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

[zorgon]

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





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?



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



Bokeh/dust/ice my ass

[zorgon]

"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?



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