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

[deuem]

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?

No, Not at all, it was a simple answer based on your question. And yes I read your camera specs. And a lot of other things you have writen over the years. If you want to get into wave lengths we can go there too but without a known camera shot, a specific camera to film shot, then it is worthless for now. I really don't want to waist your time or mine talking about just a camera when we have nothing possitive to go with it. I have no idea as of yet which camera took the pictures on the web. There is no data I can find.

Believe me this site has done cameras to death. Apollo ones for sure. My guess is that you designed the shuttle cameras? If not then we need to find the person who did and ask them exactly what they do. Go to the manufacture for details.

How do I know you were not, Uh, sloppy and got it wrong.

[deuem]

I guess I have special vision because My Guess is that the NASA camera did pick up heat in this shot and it shows rather well in the Deuem process.

NASA results



Deuem Results on NASA results



If that is not heat radiating off the flame and down into the candle, then what is it?
And NASA only posted the photo with no camera specs.

[ArMaP]

I guess I have special vision because My Guess is that the NASA camera did pick up heat in this shot and it shows rather well in the Deuem process.

No, just wrong guesses.

If that is not heat radiating off the flame and down into the candle, then what is it?

Light, the only thing the camera catches, that's why you didn't catch anything special on my photos of the hot and cold rock.

On Earth, the flame from a candle makes that known shape because of gravity and the different density of the several gasses produced by the burning of the wick, and, because of gravity, the hot air rises, so if your process shows the heat it should show more above the flame than just that wisp of (probably) smoke. On the other hand, light is mostly produced by the yellow part of the flame, so that's were we are seeing more of the light detected by your process.

On the micro-gravity photo, I think the area highlighted by your process is darker than the rest, so what it shows is less light under the "cleaner" (blue) part of the flame.

But this is just my interpretation, obviously.

[deuem]

If there is no heat produced in the candle shot then it must be a fake candle. The color above it went to black ? Need a larger photo to see it all. The heat in your rock was not enough to change to visible light for the camera to pick up, yet lava does. Is not Sunlight caused in the furnace of that big white thing we call the Sun? It sure gets warm when I step into it. It's not like I have ever shown Ice cubes producing light waves. So I still say that heat, if hot enough or concentrated will produce light which is then picked up by the camera and shown. Answer me this If it is not, then what is it?

I will bow out of this thread now. Thank you for the inspiring thoughts.

[Flux]

I will bow out of this thread now. Thank you for the inspiring thoughts.

No Deuem you're hanging around thanks.

So how do I snoop around for the camera spec of the cameras used on the STS-75?

[JimO]

So how do I snoop around for the camera spec of the cameras used on the STS-75?

They're on my home page, look in the 'technical specs' section. Let me get a better link.

[ArMaP]

If there is no heat produced in the candle shot then it must be a fake candle.

Did I say that there's no heat produced in the candle?

The color above it went to black ? Need a larger photo to see it all.

No, the area below it, but as you deleted the images I cannot point to it.

The heat in your rock was not enough to change to visible light for the camera to pick up, yet lava does.

Lava also emits light.

So I still say that heat, if hot enough or concentrated will produce light which is then picked up by the camera and shown.

Now you are saying something slightly different, that heat produces light that is captured by the camera, what you have said all this time is that your process captures the heat (besides other types of energy). Sure, if there's light the camera will show it, and your process will process it, but if there's only heat and if it's a photo from a normal (not thermal) camera the photo will show it.

Answer me this If it is not, then what is it?

The cameras catch only light, your process, like any process that works with digital images, works with the light that was captured by the camera and presented in the photo.

Answer me this, please: if you process a computer generated image, what is your process showing? Light? Heat? Electromagnetic fields? Anything else?

[deuem]

I bowed out of this thread ArMaP. You know as well as I do the answers to all of the above questions. You also know how the process works. I have now retired it again and will not bother you or Pegasus with it. It is on vacation. Yes I removed my photos so you can pick on someone elses work. Deuem is over!
Sorry Jim.

[thorfourwinds]

Obviously not...

[JimO]

We've now gotten the gigabit video files from NASA covering the six hours or so of the first tether fly-under, and I'm writing a transcript of all crew conversations and observations and we're figuring out which relevant operations -- including ice flake generation activities, of which there are some -- can be extracted for posting. It'll take awhile, any additional questions and suggestions will be appreciated.

This seems to be the right forum to instigate the deepest investigation ever and see what we see. Armap, thanks for the inspiration, perspiration, and pestering.

[ArMaP]

Obviously not...

I understand how it works, that's how I made one image looking exactly like one (very simple) processed by Deuem.

[1967sander]

Nice all this discussion about the videos but I have not seen an answer to my question. Maybe it got snowed under so here is it again. It is such a simple question that it does not require much knowledge of space physics and I am sure that Jim knows the answer.

I have read once that water and ice cannot exist in space. One reason would be that fluids cannot exist without gravity as gravity binds molecules. They used the Moon as an example. The Moon only has 1/6 of the gravitational force of Earth and according to some scientists therefore the Moon does not have a molecular / gasseous atmosphere as we do. This also means that there is no moisture overhead the moon surface. They also claim that because of the extreme radiation level in space, molecules (also watermolecules) heat up  to a level that these molecules get too much exited to bind. In direct sunlight therefore water evaporates. Based on this information gravity being essential to bind molecules may we not conclude that in space and outside earth gravity, gravitational force is too little to bind molecules again? Therefore water that once evaporated in space never will become water or ice again?

[ArMaP]

I have read once that water and ice cannot exist in space. One reason would be that fluids cannot exist without gravity as gravity binds molecules.

From what I understand of it, it's not gravity, it's pressure, that's why they can have water on the ISS.

They used the Moon as an example. The Moon only has 1/6 of the gravitational force of Earth and according to some scientists therefore the Moon does not have a molecular / gasseous atmosphere as we do.

That's true, a lower gravitational force means a lower escape velocity, so if the gas molecules move faster than the escape velocity they will leave that planet (if moving in the right direction, obviously).

This also means that there is no moisture overhead the moon surface.

Probably.

They also claim that because of the extreme radiation level in space, molecules (also watermolecules) heat up  to a level that these molecules get too much exited to bind. In direct sunlight therefore water evaporates.

I don't think radiation is that strong, but I know very little about this.

Therefore water that once evaporated in space never will become water or ice again?

I think that once evaporated it will never return to water because it doesn't have the conditions to condensate.

I know that I'm probably not the best person to clear your doubt, but I hope that helps.

[1967sander]

After staring at the STS-75 footage for hours on a row, I finally saw it. The possibe evidence that the "ice crystals" are enormous in size and very close to the Tether and not as Jim claims near the window of the shuttle and just out of focus ice crystals.  I am now processing the video and the images. Upload will be soon.

[The Matrix Traveller]

Re. the behaviour of water in space .....

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2009/06/29/water-in-space-what-happens/

This radiation, known as the Cosmic Microwave Background, bathes the entire Universe in a temperature
of only 2.7 Kelvin.
That's less than 3 degrees above absolute zero, or -455 degrees Fahrenheit! But there's also — literally —
no pressure in space. So, what happens? Who wins? Does the water freeze or boil?

Oddly enough, the answer is first one, and then the other! It turns out that having a pressure vacuum
will cause the water to boil almost instantly. In other words, the effect of boiling is much, much faster
than the effect of freezing.

But the story doesn't end there. Once the water has boiled, we now have some isolated water molecules
in a gaseous state, but a very, very cold environment! These tiny water vapor droplets now immediately freeze
(or, technically, desublimate), and become ice crystals.

We've observed this before. According to astronaut observations, where they've observed their urine
get expelled from the ship:

When the astronauts take a leak while on a mission and expel the result into space, it boils violently.
The vapor then passes immediately into the solid state (a process known as desublimation),
and you end up with a cloud of very fine crystals of frozen urine.