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

[Sinny]

What has illumination or context got to do with what I can see? (On this occasion)
You're yet to provide the answers to any of your posed questions.

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck..

That's like saying your not really looking at your own PC screen, but rather random system of Universal events occurred that just makes you think your looking at your PC screen.

Prove us wrong for once

[ArMaP]

Somebody ought to. Wouldn't you think, if this video were as important as Zorgon wants us to believe, SOMEBODY would already have determined that?

Maybe someone did, my ignorance of it doesn't mean that it didn't happen.

It's appearance is 'classic' sunlit shuttle dandruff. 

True, but that doesn't mean it's "classic sunlit shuttle dandruff", only that it looks like it.

Just came into sunrise, evidenced by glare on left just out of camera FOV.

I think that's also true.

Some motions exhibit may hint at gentle curving AWAY from direction of motion, possible aero drag effects [correct direction for that] or sunlight-induced evaporative emission of molecules on sunward side.

I wouldn't call a change of (apparent) direction of 160º "gentle curving".

Seeing a 'mystery' in this scene is just advertising your unfamiliarity with orbital observation effects. Please read my "99 FAQs", the title of this thread.

I know that I am not that familiar with orbital observation effects, but you haven't presented any thing that explains the slowing down, change in apparent size and an apparent change of direction of 160º. You haven't explained either if it's a just a coincidence that makes the bright object appear to follow the Earth's curvature, both in motion and apparent change of size.

And yes, I already read your "99 FAQs" (that are not really 99 ), please remember that the next time you tell me to read them.

[ArMaP]

And I don't see random movements of particles, I see intelligent movement.

I wouldn't call a change of direction intelligent movement, a magnet can do that and it's not intelligent.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSig_F6le9M&list=UUzBF4dT28lh5kyO3o_F9fBQ

[Sinny]

I wouldn't call a change of (apparent) direction of 160º "gentle curving".
I know that I am not that familiar with orbital observation effects, but you haven't presented any thing that explains the slowing down, change in apparent size and an apparent change of direction of 160º. You haven't explained either if it's a just a coincidence that makes the bright object appear to follow the Earth's curvature, both in motion and apparent change of size.

Seconded.

[zorgon]

Zorgon, if you're fixated on STS-80, why haven't you ever asked astronaut Jones [who was there] on his website where he offers to discuss that very incident?

Well...I did not see that page until now so thanks for the link

Hmmm reading the comments  same old "ice particles coming out of the shuttle bay" and Jim Oberg hogging the posts with STS48 debunking

Yeah I will go post the STS 80 segment we are interested in... hopefully you will let HIM answer

It will be a couple days and I want to read what he has said so far first

[zorgon]

Jims deluded on this one, can we move on?

Jim says:

It's appearance is 'classic' sunlit shuttle dandruff. 

Guess your right Sinny

Not that we anticipated changing his mind

[zorgon]

So  is this where I add the shapeshifting critter giving birth video?

[JimO]

I was teasing Sinny, not you, Armap.

By 'gentle' I mean slowly, as opposed to abruptly as on STS-48.

You're right, 'looks like' is all we have to go on here, and we have no obvious  defense against deliberate masquerading by intelligent targets.

What do you think of the coming-out-of-shadow effect making something 'look like' it dematerializes or emerges from a surface object?

And I want to stress again the statistically unusual [and hence suggestive] feature of this kind of behavior seen to be predominently occurring during a very brief orbital segment of unusual illumination conditions:

just after orbit sunrise [space around Orbiter bathed in invisible sunlight]

camera viewing receding still-dark horizon [for MLE observations]

Orbiter casting its own shadow right down the middle of the field of view

Ground still dark so no reflected sunlight 'filling in' the Orbiter's umbra.

Dots 'appear' in midscreen [note they never seem to 'disappear' -- that's consistent with small nearby stuff drifting away from the spacecraft].

Now you can argue that this is all coincidence, but that beggers the odds as the most famous 'shuttle UFO videos' seem to fall in THIS set of circumstances.

And by not bothering to even CONSIDER illumination conditions [unimportant, I guess], previous investigators have overlooked this odd circumstance.

I am arguing that it is cause-and-effect, that this special set of circumstances CREATES the illumination conditions to generate the most bizarre-looking 'shuttle UFO videos'.

This is the view of the people who spend time actually watching stuff under these conditions -- Mission Control Center operators, for the most part, and astronauts.

Particle motion is influenced by both episodic Orbiter releases -- thrusters, water dumps, flash evaporator sprays, main engine purging, etc -- and long-term environmental effects -- air drag and ice sublimation,  inter alia --and spinning-particle breakup.

Once you've watched this all for hundreds of hours, it's true it becomes the way you understand the normalcy of these kinds of effects. The idea that some entity would mimic the effects to camouflage itself really hadn't occurred to us. The thing is, if it could do that, why not just stay out of the camera's FOV? Or stay invisible? Or just not come so close.

We don't see any 'intelligence' in any of these motions. Maybe that makes us narrow-minded, if it makes you feel better, go for it.

[JimO]

So  is this where I add the shapeshifting critter giving birth video?

Probably.

What you ought to be adding is your rational responses to posts such as the STS-75 disk notch clocking being clearly a camera artifact.

You can give it up to the 'explained' column. After all, you only need 'just one', so admitting a few others as being bogus costs you nothing.

How about your interpretation of your video showing an object coming 'out from behind a cloud' when I suggest it is merely coming out into sunlight? Is that a plausible alternative explanation, or is 'changing your mind' only what your adversaries are supposed to do? [grin]

[ArMaP]

So  is this where I add the shapeshifting critter giving birth video?

If you're talking about the video I am thinking about, then I don't think it would be a good idea, as it was a completely different situation.

[ArMaP]

By 'gentle' I mean slowly, as opposed to abruptly as on STS-48.

OK, I understand it now, thanks.

[Sinny]

We don't see any 'intelligence' in any of these motions. Maybe that makes us narrow-minded, if it makes you feel better...

Does..

[The Matrix Traveller]

From the op.

Because spaceflight is so unfamiliar and bizarre -- literally unearthly -- I've seen
most people trying to interpret videos making wrong guesses about fundamental features
of what was being shown. Recently I drafted a guide to what I've learned about the space environment
related to anomalous images, from my two decades in Mission Control and my lifelong fascination
with UFO reports.

I'd appreciate any suggestions on what needs to be better explained, documented, or added.

Comment:
Then this dictates;Re Unidentified Aerial Phenomena. To really know what is taking place in this little universe,
One 1st needs to know and Understand the Environment this experience (Universe) is being presented in/through.

When Scientifically investigating anything, it is prudent to take into account the Environment,
which involves HOW your Universe is being presented to you.

In other words the Process's by which the experience (Universe) is being presented/displayed,
and from WHERE !

It is incomplete to ignore this, and only adds confusion to ones interpretation of this little Universe.

[zorgon]

If you're talking about the video I am thinking about, then I don't think it would be a good idea, as it was a completely different situation.

I probably am   so okay don't want to add any more mud

[zorgon]

It's appearance is 'classic' sunlit shuttle dandruff. 

THIS...

no matter what is shown, no matter who contradicts it... you are fixated on this one explanation.

" 'classic' sunlit shuttle dandruff."

So really there is very little point going over and over it... other than to show newbies what is going on

Must be lonely in your world of "shuttle dandruff"  I almost feel sorry for you how the media uses you as a token skeptic in almost any documentary on anomalies  

I say almost because I am sure they pay you for those appearance.

If you really consider those STS80 critters to be " 'classic' sunlit shuttle dandruff." then we are truly done with this