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

[deuem]

Jim, will this be the real stuff or internet films? I hope they have time date stamps. That would be cool. I'm in waiting for the good stuff mode....

[JimO]

Jim, will this be the real stuff or internet films? I hope they have time date stamps. That would be cool. I'm in waiting for the good stuff mode....

Here's the three files we have, they are BIG:

STS-75 Downlink TV during Orbit 118,119 (GMT 61 05.11 - 61 06.54) 2-29-1996
1.46 GB   run time 1h 32m 22s        gmt time 1 h 43m

STS-75 Downlink TV during Orbit 119,120,021 (GMT 61 06.53 - 61 08.59) 3-1-1996
1.00 GB    1 h 32m  27s                   gmt time      2h 06m

STS-75 Downlink TV during Orbits 116,117,118 (GMT 61 02.07 - 61 05.12) 2-29-1996
984 MB   1h 17m 40s                      gmt time  3h 05 m


There is a time-tag label but on my player it seems garbled, that's one issue I'm chasing. As a fall-back, we can identify the scene sequence against the 'Scene List' document and take the clock times off THAT source.

A lot of the scenes are downlink of experiment activities, but there is a lot of discussion of the upcoming visibility opportunities. I want to get this out in front of a dozen sets of eyes as soon as we can work out file transfer protocol.

In other words, I procrastinated long enough on the VCR format that it became obsolete!

[1967sander]

Why do I have this strange feeling that we will not see the footage that really matters?  Like the tether sequence?

[JimO]

Why do I have this strange feeling that we will not see the footage that really matters?  Like the tether sequence?

You mean the ones Martyn Stubbs hopes you don't get to see, since HE has refused to post them anywhere?

The one you DID see, the 'swarm' -- do you agree with Martyn that it was at night, or with me, that it was just post sunrise? What's your feeling about that fact?

[deuem]

Jim, speaking for myself: I would like to see the swarm in a nice clean format and then run frames through the vid to find out for sure if there is sunlight. The one frame I did post had light in it. But I don't know if it was sun set or rise. There is not enough data at the moment. For me, since I don't sit here and draw in the sunlight, it will either be there or not. Then we can try and move on from there. When we talk processing programs like Sanders and I do, there are no sides, there are just results. The results depend a lot on the film quality and how one reads them.

If it is truley night then there should be zero sunrays. daytime will fill the back ground with rays or arcs of light. If you are in the dark and point at the light zone the film will recond a patch of black until it hits the light and then ray out. Actual sun light has so much power it is hard to hide. It even shows up as patterns on the moons surface.

[JimO]

....
If it is truley night then there should be zero sunrays. daytime will fill the back ground with rays or arcs of light. If you are in the dark and point at the light zone the film will recond a patch of black until it hits the light and then ray out. Actual sun light has so much power it is hard to hide. It even shows up as patterns on the moons surface.

How do you detect a sunbeam in a vacuum?

[deuem]

It is not actualy me, it is the camera. If it picks it up as a change in the film then I can present it although you can't see it. Sunlight seems to have an effect on all cameras as they pick up the heat difference, what little there is. Or I'm all wet and seeing things! The testing will show one way or another. The sun light might be hitting small dust particles and it is just enough to stop a few rays in there tracks and show up. If there is zero sunlight I get a very dark sky and then hut for stars. So either my program is crazy or NASA does know everything yet. Time will tell. You may present any photo you wish for testing. Double blind testing I think you called it. Then we can teach Deuem or teach NASA a new trick. But for some reason the program loves sunlight. Lots of power.

[JimO]

It is not actualy me, it is the camera. If it picks it up as a change in the film then I can present it although you can't see it. Sunlight seems to have an effect on all cameras as they pick up the heat difference, what little there is. Or I'm all wet and seeing things! The testing will show one way or another. The sun light might be hitting small dust particles and it is just enough to stop a few rays in there tracks and show up. If there is zero sunlight I get a very dark sky and then hut for stars. So either my program is crazy or NASA does know everything yet. Time will tell. You may present any photo you wish for testing. Double blind testing I think you called it. Then we can teach Deuem or teach NASA a new trick. But for some reason the program loves sunlight. Lots of power.

Invisible sunbeams? Why would 'dust' create reflections so selectively narrow in wavelength?

Does detecting the 'heat difference' require an IR camera? Then we're out of luck here. The cameras used in these sequences were standard visible light units, as explained in the operating instructions in the console handbook I once again advise you to study.

I don't have any film or photograph to test, just digitized images. But you can find such images of objects in space all over the internet. What 'invisible sunbeams' does your process 'see' in them?

[deuem]

Jim, most cameras will film slightly into both ends of both UV an IR and the entire color spectrum. And it is not like there is just one sun beam hitting one particle of dust. It's countless sunbeams coming from this side of the sun. Yes, Looking for the digitized photos or frames off a video. Must be in digital format to process. Everything I did before might be irrelavent to your films so I can start fresh with yours. I have done hundreds of space shots, some showing light, some not.

[Flux]

LunaCognita NASA STS-75 "Tether Incident"
Very interesting from the 4:00 mark.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_537620&feature=iv&src_vid=G4Xx66ba36o&v=Q2DVeil21gc

Gee that first video vanished from YouTube for some reason?

Here's another one:

[1967sander]

You mean the ones Martyn Stubbs hopes you don't get to see, since HE has refused to post them anywhere?

The one you DID see, the 'swarm' -- do you agree with Martyn that it was at night, or with me, that it was just post sunrise? What's your feeling about that fact?

No I mean the entire sequence and not just a few seconds. I want to see how the camera zooms in on the object so I can reverse the zoom effect and refocus on the swarm. And yes technically this can be done these days ;-)

If it was day or night is not important to me either. I have recordings showing "objects" in pitch darkness.

[ArMaP]

Sunlight seems to have an effect on all cameras as they pick up the heat difference, what little there is.

Only thermal cameras show heat, normal cameras show visible light, with a little UV and/or IR (but not in the thermal wavelengths), depending on what type of sensor they use.

I know that digital cameras catch the IR wavelengths used by remote controls, for example, I don't know what wavelengths the cameras used on the shuttle were able to catch, but that's probably in the technical information about those cameras.

[JimO]

.....If it was day or night is not important to me either. I have recordings showing "objects" in pitch darkness.

How illuminating. Whether the objects are merely sunlit, or self-luminous, is of no interest to you?

More important, whether the most famous 'shuttle UFO videos' ALL seem to occur under specific rare lighting conditions, or randomly under any/all conditions, signifies nothing to you regarding their origin?

'Darkness' seems to me is your preferred state, factually and metaphorically.

[JimO]

Jim, most cameras will film slightly into both ends of both UV an IR and the entire color spectrum. .....

So that's good enough -- a general statement on 'most' cameras but no apparent curiosity about the specs of the cameras actually used in this actual incident? Isn't that approach just a trifle, uh --- sloppy?

[JimO]

.....I know that digital cameras catch the IR wavelengths used by remote controls, for example, I don't know what wavelengths the cameras used on the shuttle were able to catch, but that's probably in the technical information about those cameras.

Good point -- you can spot such remore control beams on the video sensors of many [but not all] mobile phone cameras. Not long ago, US troops in Afghanistan realized that in darkness the same devices would detect the IR spotting beams of US guns, and Taliban forces were using them to locate US troops in darkness preparing to shoot. Oops.