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

[zorgon]

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

"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 ) I used to take a fluorescent tube out to see my way around


Kinda like THIS  Voila!  Tether effect

[JimO]

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?

[zorgon]

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 "

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

But nice try flogging that old horse

[zorgon]

"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   That report is 480 pages long  Seems that plasma arcing is quite a problem in LEO 

Wasn't reflected sunlight that does this





And here is one of those Plasma Balls



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

[JimO]

I will go with what NASA says

"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 ) I used to take a fluorescent tube out to see my way around

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?

[JimO]

I do not need to imagine or suppose... I have the NASA reports that state it was plasma arcing   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?

[zorgon]

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

[JimO]

....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?

[The Matrix Traveller]

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 ... 

[JimO]

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

[JimO]

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.

[ArMaP]

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.

[JimO]

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?

[JimO]

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

[The Matrix Traveller]

The 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.