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

[sky otter]

hey Jim

i hope you don't confine yourself to only a few topics here...branch out..lots of stuff that you may find worth your time to read and participate in..

wavin at cha

[DarkSide]

Gold for you ArMap from TMT too .... 

What say Ye JimO to ArMap's quote ?

(If I may quote you T4W ?)

"...'classic' sunlit shuttle dandruff..."

With great respect,

-----


you are resorting to mockery because you lost your argument.

[PLAYSWITHMACHINES]

Matrix knows things that are best left unsaid...
-PWM-

[The Matrix Traveller]

Matrix knows things that are best left unsaid...
-PWM-

Indeed ...      Others reactions do it for me/us ....   

[Sinny]

you are resorting to mockery because you lost your argument.

No, he's laughing because 'we' won our argument with 'flying colours'...rather than 'flying dandruff'..

Tell me, how far away is the shuttle from the tether? How large does this 'dandruff' have to be to be seen glowing behind the tether?

Does anyone have a response to the PDF provided? The context of the sighting alone is enough to defend our argument.

[PLAYSWITHMACHINES]

The video clearly shows the 'objects' going behind the tether, and that also means they were fairly large.
Coupled with earlier reports of 'critters' this was a positive step.
Even more positive was the fact that NAZA had the biggest 'object' in full view at mission control....
If it wuz just dandruff (ice particles) why so much interest from mission control?
The obvious conclusion is (of course) the best in the long run, rarely have i had to retrace my steps & say sorry i was wrong....
Later!

[JimO]

....
Tell me, how far away is the shuttle from the tether? How large does this 'dandruff' have to be to be seen glowing behind the tether?
....

My argument -- actually, the view of everybody who actually understands the hardware involved -- is that the objects are not passing behind the tether, the appearance of it is due to features of the pixel processing software.

The first step to understanding this is to learn something about the camera. To that end, I posted the camera user's manual on my home page and linked to it.

What's your excuse for refusing to look at it?

If the objects really were that big, why didn't anybody on Earth see them? They'd have been moon sized and ten times brighter.

And why did they pick the moment of shuttle fly-past four days after the break to suddenly swarm the tether?

Oh, I forgot -- the objects themselves decide who can see them and who can't. That explains everything.

[Sinny]

the objects are not passing behind the tether, the appearance of it is due to features of the pixel processing software.

Yea, and I'm the Queen of England!

What's your excuse for refusing to look at it?

I will if I feel intellectually challenged, but surprisingly I don't. aha.

If the objects really were that big, why didn't anybody on Earth see them?

The people of Earth can't see many a thing.

And why did they pick the moment of shuttle fly-past four days after the break to suddenly swarm the tether?

I dunno, why do I like coffee & chocolate but hate coffee chocolate?

Oh, I forgot -- the objects themselves decide who can see them and who can't. That explains everything.

Well, that happens frequently..
http://www.thelivingmoon.com/forum/index.php?topic=3137.0

[ArMaP]

No, he's laughing because 'we' won our argument with 'flying colours'...rather than 'flying dandruff'..

Well, to me, nobody has won any thing yet.

[ArMaP]

The video clearly shows the 'objects' going behind the tether, and that also means they were fairly large.

What makes you think that the 'objects' pass behind the tether?

Coupled with earlier reports of 'critters' this was a positive step.

Earlier reports in the same conditions?

Even more positive was the fact that NAZA had the biggest 'object' in full view at mission control....

It's "NASA", I hate it when people don't use the real names. 

In that scene, can we see the whole screen?

The obvious conclusion is (of course) the best in the long run, rarely have i had to retrace my steps & say sorry i was wrong....

That can be interpreted in more than one way, you know?

[Sinny]

What makes you think that the 'objects' pass behind the tether?

We SEE them go behind the tether. 

It's "NASA", I hate it when people don't use the real names. 

It's certainly a more appropriate name..

[ArMaP]

We SEE them go behind the tether. 

It's a 2D scene, we don't really see them go behind the tether.
Can't you analyse your own senses and tell what do you see that makes you think that they go behind the tether?

It's certainly a more appropriate name..

But it's not the real name, and, to me, things are what they are, not what we want them to be. Giving things other names just makes people look silly, as if they can change them by giving them a different name.

[JimO]

We SEE them go behind the tether. 

Indeed it looks that way on the television monitor.

But notice also as the camera zooms in and out, a curious feature of the tether image.

As it lengthens and shortens depending on the zoom, the thickness remains constant.

Measure this on your monitor. Verify you are seeing the image of the tether maintain constant thickness even as the length increases and decreases.

This is a clue about the behavior of the pixel field, that is described in the user's manual that you are afraid to read, probably because you'd have to admit you don't have the smarts to understand it.

As for you SEEING the objects pass behind the tether, you speak as a child of the boobtube culture, believing that what you see on screen is a faithful reproduction of what was happening outside. Your mind is so acculturated you can't even recognize any other reality model.

The astronauts looking out their overhead windows SAW the dots and the distant tether. And since human-eye binocular ranging is effective out to 40-50 ft, they could TELL the dots were small and close. They had MORE information from two eyes than YOU had from the flat screen, so THEIR view was superior, and more accurate.

While we're in instructional mode, look up 'puerile' and consider why it's a good description of your recent posts.   

[A51Watcher]

Jeez louise Jim! Take a chill pill.

You've been doing pretty well up to now and making some good points in a civilized manner.

Now all of a sudden you come unglued and start blasting insults.

Is that your real agenda, is that what your after?


Actually, your post withOUT the personal insults does pretty well at moving the discussion forward -

Indeed it looks that way on the television monitor.

But notice also as the camera zooms in and out, a curious feature of the tether image.

As it lengthens and shortens depending on the zoom, the thickness remains constant.

Measure this on your monitor. Verify you are seeing the image of the tether maintain constant thickness even as the length increases and decreases.

This is a clue about the behavior of the pixel field, that is described in the user's manual.


(snip)that you are afraid to read, probably because you'd have to admit you don't have the smarts to understand it.

As for you SEEING the objects pass behind the tether,

you speak as a child of the boobtube culture,

believing that what you see on screen is a faithful reproduction of what was happening outside.

Your mind is so acculturated you can't even recognize any other reality model.

The astronauts looking out their overhead windows SAW the dots and the distant tether. And since human-eye binocular ranging is effective out to 40-50 ft, they could TELL the dots were small and close. They had MORE information from two eyes than YOU had from the flat screen, so THEIR view was superior, and more accurate.

While we're in instructional mode, look up 'puerile' and consider why it's a good description of your recent posts.   

So withOUT the remarks in yellow, I read some interesting points I am going to explore including measuring my monitor for size changes as you suggested.

We don't mind sarcasm here at peggy, but try to keep it funny instead of mean.


That way you don't lose points for every one you make.

[JimO]

///We don't mind sarcasm here at peggy, but try to keep it funny instead of mean. That way you don't lose points for every one you make. 

I stand rebuked, but somewhat defiantly, feel at least partially provoked.  Where were you and your GOOD advice, a few hours earlier? Oh, never mind, point taken. Excelsior!

I was just fiendishly setting the guy up to dismiss the STS-75's crewmembers' testimony as useless because they were NAZIS, with the ambush rejoinder that actually, Umberto is a Commie. Really -- he's a member of the Italian Communist Party, currently a delegate to the European Parliament.

It's a good defense against the standard attack on astronaut descriptions that run COUNTER to desired pro-UFO spins, that they're all militaristic Stepford-spaceman liars, sworn to deceive the planet.

STS-75 is about the least likely gaggle of galactic get-arounds you could ever imagine, a guy with a Chinese name from Costa Rica, two Italians, a Swiss astronomer, a Jewish astronomer, etc.,  I mean, who is it that's supposed to be able to make these guys unable to reveal exactly what they saw and thought during this episode?

Or this guy:

RE: STS-75 Question
Date:   03/03/2000 9:26:59 AM Central Standard Time
From:   charles.w.shaw1@jsc.nasa.gov (SHAW, CHARLES W. (CHUCK) (JSC-DA8))
To: JamesOberg@aol.com

Hi Jim,

I was the Lead Flight Director for STS-75, and was on console for the
tethered satellite deploy operations and at the time the tether broke.
Operations had been nominal up to the point Jeff Hoffman called down that the tether broke, and then we saw the status in telemetry a couple of seconds later.  The behavior of the satellite and the tether remnant on the satellite was exactly as we had expected for a tether break case.

In the footage of the video, etc. which was examined in GREAT detail post flight in hopes of finding SOMETHING to aid in what had caused the tether break, we never saw anything that was "unexpected".  Your comments as to artifacts and small debris/dust/ice particles/lens
reflections/blooming/etc., are all quite common and we have seen those things in virtually every shuttle mission's video.  What was present in the video and the data that was examined post flight was all within this type of artifact and/or expected results.

Post break, we called upon tracking and imaging resources world wide to be able to establish a trajectory for the satellite and tether remnant, in order to determine the feasibility of a rendezvous and recovery, in addition to being able to command the satellite transmitter on to gain some science data from it, even though the tether was broken.  At no time did any of these tracking data show anything unexpected, and we were LOOKING for unexpected things (like extra pieces of tether, or debris from the satellite and/or science booms) that could cause us to not want to fly up in the vicinity of the satellite

As it turned out, the arcing of the voltage in the tether to the deployer
structure burned the tether in two.  Rather ironic that the experiment
worked so well to show the ability of the system to generate power, and in fact worked so well as to fatally damage the experiment!

I have always been fascinated by UFO investigations, and "personally" I hope we are not really alone in this wonderful universe.

Hope this helps,

Chuck

Chuck Shaw
Flight Director
Mission Operations Directorate, NASA
Johnson Space Center, Houston Texas