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

[Flux]

Comments on the previous video's I posted? The negative footage shows objects traveling behind the tether the other video LunaCognit video shows the objects changing direction after the 4:00 mark?

People following this thread should have a look at those video's.

[JimO]

Not super duper, just high end forensic software your own "agencies" use. Watch my other videos where I expose the Area 51 - UFO program. This is just the beginning. 

I noted your additional promise before you edited it out, and you might be surprised to learn I'm not offended at all. In my own life I took it upon myself to testify before Congress in 1997 about the decay of the safety culture inside NASA, left my job at the Johnson Space Center soon thereafter, and was from the outside a gadfly critic of NASA culture decay that led to failure after failure while officials blamed it on superficial and peripheral excuses like confusion over units of measurement, etc. It got to the point where I was honored by an official NASA press release denouncing my views as 'whacko'. Then they killed the 'Columbia' crew by poor leadership choices, and suddenly I became the gold standard for honest criticism of NASA. So it can happen to you, too, if you have the technical background to penetrate and explain deceptions. By all means, have a go at it.

[deuem]

Thank you kindly and Columbia just by chance was on this mission.

So the UV camera was mounted in the payload ares on a swivel mount operated from inside or mission control or both? I still can't find the UV specs on this camera. UV-A, B, C, V  or all. Can you help me? With so many cameras on board it is hard to tell which one did the filming.

I also saw on the ATS thread that someone mentioned 2 stars. I will find them for myself and I can lock onto them for measurements also.

[JimO]

Hey Jim, just saw you on "NASA's Unexplained Files".  I like how that show tries to find reasonable explanations, but is also willing to say "we just don't know" to some of the events.

Yeah, we did a special last year and then a follow-up season 2 with about 6 or 8 episodes, I haven't seen them all. We don't have to see eye-to-eye, just agree it's important to keep an eye out for the unusual and differentiate it from ordinary background phenomena. I wrote about this for NBC a few years ago -- reacting to 'stuff' seen outside a spacecraft can be a matter of life and death -- or of scientific breakthrough. 

[JimO]

....With so many cameras on board it is hard to tell which one did the filming.

Precisely. That's why the mission-specific 'Scene List" document is so crucial, and no real understanding of what is seen is possible without it. So it continues to puzzle me why so many investigators of these kinds of videos just don't want to be bothered by it, or think it's worth attaining and studying.

[JimO]

There is something going on in space that NASA doesn't want us to know about....
And here [Jim] is, still on top. But I still don't agree with the skeptical premise, that UFOs do not exist. That spacecraft from other worlds do not exist. That organic space creatures do not exist...and therefor whatever the NASA videos show it is never a critter or craft. (no matter what). That is a locked box. ....

Martyn's garble of my position is preposterous and extremely unhelpful to a constructive exchange. My argument is that most of this body of reports is consistent with ordinary spaceflight operations, some are critically important involving vehicle safety, a few are indeed interesting, and that all reports are worthy of immediate attention and rapid assessment.

Here are a few examples where I have explained this, but Martyn didn't get the word:

NASA watching out for true UFOs
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/25147760/

07/23/1993 - Oberg NASA briefing: Mitigation of Hazards of Spacecraft-Generated Debris
http://www.jamesoberg.com/9307xx-sc-generated-debris.PDF

It would be foolish to claim to have DISproved any number of proposed explanations -- nor do I.  I can't prove they are NOT angels or time travelers either.

EDIT -- MODIFY 'NOTS' IN CONFUSION.

What I try to demonstrate is that extraordinary explanations, beyond the scope of 'known science', are -- NOT -- the ONLY possible explanations, and thus are not proved to required by elimination. I think my arguments are stronger than Martyn's because he clearly remains significantly unaware of many key features of spaceflight and his dismissive attitude toward the 99 FAQs indicates to me he is defiantly resistant to learning any of this real stuff. His continued insistence that the tether swarm video was on a 'night pass' is also dismaying.

END EDIT

There are open questions and curious features unexplained. Kovalyonok's impressive sighting is intriguing, especially considering the geographic location. Gentle curving of some particle motion -- including particles known from observed  point of origin to be small ice flakes -- begs to be explained. It's unearthly out there.

[JimO]

Comments on the previous video's I posted? The negative footage shows objects traveling behind the tether the other video LunaCognit video shows the objects changing direction after the 4:00 mark?

People following this thread should have a look at those video's.

Please repeat the links, I could not find the citation.

[ArMaP]

Comments on the previous video's I posted?

Why? There's nothing new in it.

The negative footage shows objects traveling behind the tether the other video LunaCognit video shows the objects changing direction after the 4:00 mark?

The negative footage shows exactly the same thing as the positive footage, obviously, and nobody has ever presented a clear answer to my question "what makes you think that the objects go behind the tether?", I only got answers like "that's what I see". 

As for the changes of direction, how many change from a descending direction to an ascending direction?

People following this thread should have a look at those video's.

Or not, I don't have any reason to see them again.

[Flux]

Page 19 it's the last post Jim.

Armap I didn't see the change in direction in the other video's as it wasn't as noticeable before the contrast was altered so for others out there following the thread I gather this would be something new to them.

Same for the negative video just more noticeable than the original.

Can you put something together with an example of how we are being fooled that the objects are in front of the tether? Video/imagines help.

Cheers.

[ArMaP]

Armap I didn't see the change in direction in the other video's as it wasn't as noticeable before the contrast was altered so for others out there following the thread I gather this would be something new to them.

Same for the negative video just more noticeable than the original.

You're right, but as all this is old news to me I forgot that it may not be to many people.
Thanks for reminding me.

Can you put something together with an example of how we are being fooled that the objects are in front of the tether? Video/imagines help.

I could, but I don't want to influence any hypothetical answers.

[ArMaP]

A different video of the tether, this one with less "UFOs".

[JimO]

A different video of the tether, this one with less "UFOs".

Very good, ArMap, as the crew reports the tether is now far behind Columbia as it pulls ahead in its lower, faster orbit.

If you study the time tags in the 'Scene List' excerpts I posted, you see four sequential sunrise sightings at which the tether is briefly visible, as Columbia approaches from below and behind at about 250 mph, passes below, and pulls ahead.

During this first pass since the break four days earlier, over a period of 4.5 hours the shuttle moves about 1100 miles forward relative to the tether in its orbit ranging somewhere between 20 and 150 miles higher than the shuttle.

Over a period of four and a half hours, almost exactly every hour and a half [the orbital period of the satellites], at each sunrise the Columbia gets several minutes of visibility of the tether [and other nearby sunlit objects].

First sighting -- Approximately GMT 61/07:55  first pass begins [shuttle LOS]
                61/08:13 contact restored. Playback begins
                         Total playback length 7m40s  No mention of debris

Second sighting -- TSS/debris spotted, 61/09:12 approx. 8 minutes of video

Third  sighting  -- Sunrise, faint tether, no debris    61/10:43   several minutes long

Fourth  sighting  -- 61/12:16, faint tether, glare, a few minutes


So the famous swarm is either sighting 1 or 2, and this additional sighting is either 3 or 4.

Martyn, do your logbooks cast any light on this?

Note how the scene list is explicit: the sightings of the tether occur every sunrise consecutively, NOT ever during a night pass. Never.  Can we agree on that?

[deuem]

The statement below is of my opinion only and subject to change as data enters calculations:

All I can figure out now with the tether orbit is that at low orbit it should be in the shade about 35+ minutes and at high orbit less, maybe 34+ minutes. Then a deduction of several minutes/2 for twilight change over.

Saying there is not a black white wall at the terminator in space. Still looking for a nice shot of any shuttle surrounded by dandruff. Any one got one?

Question, how long does this stuff tag along with the Shuttle, moments or days? In daylight would it heat up and do funky things as parts of a crystal melted while other parts stayed frozen?

So what happens when ice hits sunlight? For at any one time only half of it would be heated, the other half would be in its own shadow no different than the shuttle. Would they start to jet and change direction like an asteroid leaves a trail as it boils off. They are moving pretty fast and instantly put in a furnace. Something has to happen! I am thinking this might be a key.

Say a star fish is the crystal and the sun hit one of the legs and it heated up back to water and blew off the body. Would the body then jet in a direction away from the blown off leg? Would it start to tumble and push other legs into the furnace and so on till it is completly destroyed? Anything here?
Deuem

[JimO]

....
All I can figure out now with the tether orbit is that at low orbit it should be in the shade about 35+ minutes and at high orbit less, maybe 34+ minutes. Then a deduction of several minutes/2 for twilight change over.

Saying there is not a black white wall at the terminator in space. ....

Without knowing the orbital inclination and RAAN [right ascension of ascending node -- the orientation of the orbital plane relative to the earth-sun line], on what basis do you claim capability to determine shadowed duration? As those features vary, shadowed percent can vary from somewhat below 50% all the way down to 0 %, as occurs about twice a year for a few days on ISS.

There IS no 'terminator' in space. It is the boundary line on the surface of a celestial body, between sunlit and not sunlit.

Sunrise in Earth orbit occurs quickly. The celestial sphere is 'rotating' about 4 degrees per minute, and the Sun's angular diameter is about half a degree. An object in space can go from shadow into full sunlight in as little as 8 seconds if its motion is perpendicular to the horizon. Longer if the motion has significant off-angle.

Outer space is not a blast furnace. At Earth's distance from the Sun the 'black body' equilibrium temperature of a passive object is around minus 5 to 8 degrees C . Recall how cold the unpowered Apollo-13 got, and a power-failed Soviet space station once froze up entirely and a repair crew had to thaw the water and fuel tanks.  A frozen lump of waste water clung to an early shuttle flight and had to be knocked loose with the robot arm; another hunk of ice that formed on the payload bay door edge actually survived reentry and a large portion was still in place on landing at the Cape.

Sublimation does occur to free-floating ice and I agree it ought to have some influence on the small object's path, I just don't know how to calculate how much.

But making reasonable assumptions based on ground experiences is a recipe for confusion in outer space. This fundamental error seems to lie behind most of the enthusiastic 'ufo theories' and critterology of video misinterpretation.

Zorgon, I'm thinking of you, fondly and hopefully.

[ArMaP]

But making reasonable assumptions based on ground experiences is a recipe for confusion in outer space.

Well, reasonable assumptions are better than unreasonable ones, and assumptions are one of the few things we can do.

But if we are supplied with data to correct (or abandon) those assumptions I'm sure we will get closer and closer to the truth, whatever it may be.