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

[The Matrix Traveller]

ArMap Quote;

Front, because I think those are small, out of focus objects closer to the camera than the tether. And when I mean closer I mean maybe 10 or 20 metres (or maybe more), not just 1 or 2, as the camera would show them different if they were that close.

OK....

You wrote quote;

"Think", "Maybe" ?

Like yourself ArMap, I am interested in FACTS ....   

[deuem]

ArMaP I wat to know how large a Ice ball should look at 10 meters to 20 meter or maybe more on film.

How big are these crystals.

[JimO]

ArMaP I wat to know how large a Ice ball should look at 10 meters to 20 meter or maybe more on film.

How big are these crystals.

But they're not on 'FILM', and you continue to ignore the implications of the camera optical/electronic features in creating the apparent screen image that is strikingly different from the true visual appearance. You're playing with techno-illusions, which explains why you've not just gotten NOWHERE, with your analysis, you've gotten hopelessly lost.

All your tether 'thickness' estimates are baloney. You've got a secret computer program only you can use and interpret, that seems to keep belching forth with 'conclusions' that you already went into the process holding. How can anybody be expected to put any credence in such results?

[JimO]

I currently have several queries out for more data, including exact times of the water dumps on FD08. Also, I want to track down the console operators involved. Furthermore, I'm continuing to transcribe crew comments re the tether for the entire period [anybody else is welcome to help], and reconciling video times with Scene List times in the log. Lastly, I've been surprised to realize that our reliance on video may be incomplete -- the crew did make reference to hand-held photography, which I'm trying to track down.

Meanwhile, the question of UV observations with the TOPS camera remains open -- can somebody else track down the scientists involved and get in touch with them, to see what insights they may add. I've already gotten back in touch with Otha Vaughan, now 85, the principal investigator of the Mesoscale Lightning Experiment project that collected nighttime horizon views in search of sprits, and often -- at sunrise -- serendipitously recorded small nearby stuff floating outside which became all the most infamous 'space shuttle UFO videos" of fame and fortune.

This has been the time to push the limits of what we can find out about this interesting event. Thanks to Armap for instigating it and gently pestering me effectively. Easynow, too, played a constructive role, if somewhat less gentle, nevertheless constructive -- and appreciated.

[deuem]

But they're not on 'FILM', and you continue to ignore the implications of the camera optical/electronic features in creating the apparent screen image that is strikingly different from the true visual appearance. You're playing with techno-illusions, which explains why you've not just gotten NOWHERE, with your analysis, you've gotten hopelessly lost.

All your tether 'thickness' estimates are baloney. You've got a secret computer program only you can use and interpret, that seems to keep belching forth with 'conclusions' that you already went into the process holding. How can anybody be expected to put any credence in such results?

Wow Jim, did you wake up on the wrong side of the bed today?

OK Video CD. Is that better. I am still old scholl when I write. You have nothing better to do today than to pick on a word. "Bad word". Glad I did not say film stock. But I do consider and use the word film when I see a movie of any type that has been recorded. Should I get sent to the gallows? I will slap my fingers, yea, they did it. Bad fingers.

AND, Did I say that I used my secrete deluxe complicated misunderstood program to get the tether size. Can you not read now? I wrote I used CAD and your 12 mile rule and would shorten if you gave ma a different number because of the angle. CAD is 3 letter abbreviation for Computer aided drafting or design.  NASA must some computer based drawing programs. Or are they still all on boards, stuck in the 50ties

Seems that when ever I do something that makes sense, you side step it and attack me. WHY? I am not lost. I know where I am. Trying to do a math model with such little data is better than your ranting at me. At least it is on the constructive side. I see nothing from you yet!

Why you calling my thickness estimates baloney? If you size what you see then the size for the width what you see is from .29 miles to 1.03 miles on the larger glow. I did post the picture right out of CAD for all to see and for some to try. See what they get.

Did I miss something about my secrete computer program. I am not using it anymore here. I switched over to something you should understand. MATH! Fight me on the blackboard and not with insults.

Peggy challenge.  Take any tether shot you can get with it in full view. enlarge it on your computer just to help out. Now take a ruler out. Yea that simple thing you have in the desk draw and measure the length of the tether from end to end. What ever the number is write it down.

I got 290 mm. Now divide that by 12. I got 24.16
Now measure the tether thickness at a nice spot. I got 5mm at the satellite.
Divide that by 24.16. 5/24.16 gives me 0.2 miles

I did the above on the night time tether and it is in a ratio or 24.16
On the one that is glowing like Fukushima I would get even a higher number. Over a mile!

I guess that my ruler is broke. No fancy secrete computer program, No CAD, just a dollar ruler will get you there.

Sorry Jim but unless my ruler is broken, then that tether is at least a quarter mile wide at night and more in the sun. Unless you want to agree with me that it just might be coiled up to several hundred meters. Then it would make more visual and math sense.

If you want I can send you a ruler and instructions on how to use it. And in case you missed it I pulled all of my super duper fancy deuem processed photos off of this thread so we can do this on equal terms that all can do along with us.

If I made a mistake in the Math then I am sure you will be bragging and boasting i am stupid. But in the end we will see. You see if I am wrong, I will admit it and say oops or sorry, will you? I could care less how thick the tether is at this moment as long as you can prove it. Then we move on. Can you? I am waiting on the fence again.


Still waiting for part B to be fixed and on line from your web site. The camera specs.

I also notice that you are an expert at avoiding any real talk when it does not fit your spiel. Like how large are the crystals?

For a person to discredit me for using a wrong word that could be used and then chomping on my leg about my Deuem program that I did not use here, he must be very worried that I am on the right track. On the ATS thread I did not see anyone go into this unless I missed it. So maybe, just maybe this is the first time. If you read Jim's bio, you will see that he did study math in school. It is possible that he already knows the numbers and he is fighting me not to go there for some reason.

[deuem]

Wow, spirits are Ok but critters are not. This I just gotta read. Another distraction but a good one.And I remember being flogged when I mentioned an inside camera yet you post it like it is your idea. That's cool. Is the tether filmed from the hand held or the C camera? Parts of the tether FILM look hand held and others look like they are from an outboard camera.. All I care about is the swarm. Unless half of it is outside and the other half from the inside. There are some sections where they could have done a cut from camera to camera. Some sections look square and others rectangular. hard to tell if this is done by others just to make vids or a switch in cameras.

[ArMaP]

What ever it is, the red dot seems rather flat with it being brighter in the center. Like it is a reflection of sorts. it is not emitting energy. The red is not a CGI gradient pattern.

The red was the LED of my PocketPC, held close to the camera.

But when entering the red area the Red is being displaced and not the line so i would think by this print the line is behind the red. I would think if the line was in front of the red, the red would displace the line and the line is not bothered until it starts to get overwhelmed by the red towards the center.

You're right, the red was close to the camera, the string in the back, illuminated with a flash-light.

I will try to find the video from where I took this image.

[ArMaP]

Elvis, the real question here is if you can see through ice which is water and cause no distortion.

You can see through out of focus things, regardless of those things being transparent, translucent or opaque.

Look at this photo.

We can see the lamp post behind the white "orb", but that's because it's out of focus, focusing on that object (and with more light) we can see that it was completely opaque (it's a metal pin).

Remember that although they say infinity on the camera setting it is not infinity.

Saying that the camea is focused on infinity (I suppose that's what you're talking about) means that from a distance that is specific to that camera and lens to to infinity the camera works in the same way, without any noticeable difference.

[ArMaP]

This is a hear say answer.

No, it's what I think.

You need to take the next step and prove your idea. It's Ok , we will wait..

Look at my previous post.

Math costs time.

And we need to know how to use it.
Unfortunately, I don't have much time and I don't know what math I could use to prove my point.

You are a master at taking other peoples questions apart and turning them to your advantage. How about doing some of this yourself and stop tearing others apart for your enjoyment.

I do not do it for my enjoyment.

make believe you are the only one posting. How can you prove what you are saying.

Look above.

I know you can do it, I remember you figuring out how high the cliff on Mars was.

I had more data on that case.

If you can do that it would be impressive.

Then I suppose nobody will be impressed, as I don't have any math to try to prove that I am right.

[ArMaP]

Like yourself ArMap, I am interested in FACTS ....   

Look at the photo of the our of focus pin I posted above. That is a fact, and anyone with a camera can try it.

[Amaterasu]

It does help, thanks for answering, but I don't understand what you mean by "delineation", could you explain it, please?
Thanks in advance.

The edge of the tether, the line that shows Us where the edge of the tether is.  The line delineates the tether.  It would shift, ripple or vanish if something was passing in front.

[The Matrix Traveller]

Look at the photo of the our of focus pin I posted above. That is a fact, and anyone with a camera can try it.

Indeed this is true, but are you Assuming this is the same Phenomena we see, regards the op ?

[ArMaP]

Indeed this is true, but are you Assuming this is the same Phenomena we see, regards the op ?

No, I am not assuming it's the same phenomena, I interpret (and always have) what I see in the tether video as out of focus objects.

[ArMaP]

According to the PDF posted on Jim's site, the Shuttle cameras were compatible with standard RS-170, which means the video should have 485 lines, with a variable number of points per line, so now we know that the videos should be, at least 485 pixels high, anything smaller is a result of some conversion.

[The Matrix Traveller]

According to the PDF posted on Jim's site, the Shuttle cameras were compatible with standard RS-170, which means the video should have 485 lines, with a variable number of points per line, so now we know that the videos should be, at least 485 pixels high, anything smaller is a result of some conversion.

Well this is out of my area so I can only take your words for it, thanks for the info.

Just a point of interest I see you take this info from Quote;

According to the PDF posted on Jim's site.

Why do you write "According to" ...... Do you have some reservations ?


ArMap Is there anyway you/we can get our hands on an original copies of the flight logs or recordings ?

If NOT, then I hate to say it, we are dealing with hearsay.

With respect TMT.