STS-80 UFO Circle revisited

[easynow]

So .... apparently,

Oberg believes space debris can just stop and hold it's position ?

[zorgon]

Right Gordon Story Buzz  all they are doing is putting on a show  LOL  No reality there at all so no credibility

They say they couldn't see ANY stars while on the moon yet the astronauts on ISS say the stars are awesome... The same sun is there in space as it is on the moon

So someone is making up stories

No I will NOT circle the object in question. You know dam well which one we are talking about  and if you don't by now you really are less intelligent than I gave you credit for.

We know you will NEVER address the issue 

OH and you asked about anyone seeing the palsma critters from the ground?  LOL Hundreds of people see them all the time using night vision googles.  Those people mostly call them Alien space ships or reverse engineered space ships, but they SEE THEM and they record them  but people like YOU simply brush them off a nut cases

Jocylyn says: (on facebook today) Obviously you're not aware they are already flying these back-engineered ET craft. We see them often with night vision goggles.

John took me up the hill one night at the old mine... handed me his generation 3 night goggles...  We could see the airplanes clearly with their blinking lights... we could see the satellites in orbit... but we could also see the CRITTERS  and no not bats birds or bugs  

I do not care if you believe me  I have seen them myself  and can do so on any clear night in the mountains.  But you don't believe it. You say "if they were there would not thousands of people see them?"  No not thousands because they are not looking but hundreds ARE and DO

You ask us to show evidence of what astronauts say... we do  and you say it is lies or 'stories' because they want to put on a good show.

So NOTHING we will ever present will satisfy you, because you already have a long prepared pat debunk that fits your belief system. 

IF there is in fact a cover up as we believe, then naturally they wouldn't be allowed to discuss it DOH!!!  So your srawman arguements just don't work

[zorgon]

How do you interpret the video's view of the dot [and why are you correct and Musgrave in error?]?

Where is Musgraves description of the object in question? Show me that and I will once again give my description

All I read was a general description of ice particles near the shuttle as being normal  I must have missed him talk about that specific one that stops

[zorgon]

So .... apparently,
Oberg believes space debris can just stop and hold it's position ?

Yes he does.  He will come up with all kinds of weird explanations how an ice particle can do that despite what they teach in schools about the behaviour of objects in space not under their own propulsion

I recall all the attempts at describing the motions on STS 75  Seem to recall someone suggested gravity causing the particles to have curved trajectories


So yes

Jim believes a particle of ice or debris can move in one direction.. slow down and come to a full stop  and then maintain that position relative to the earth below

Now he wants us to circle the object in question on the video. I do not have a tool that can do that but I seem to recall someone did on the net  Maybe we can find that because he is obviously confused about which one we are discussing

Even though the NASA camera operrator had no difficulty finding it

[easynow]

The object is very apparent in the video, so there's no need to circle anything.

The splitting hairs game is an old debunker trick.

Simple as that 






And yeah the gravity explantion for the STS-75 object tracking, failed,
because some were going in all different directions.

[easynow]

Just for a different perspective here's the segment from ...



STS-80 objects
Link -





I think that clip is sped-up/faster for perspective reasons, but doing so gives a better look at the objects near the horizon and the strange activity.

[JimO]

I take people on their word... I take YOU on your word

So now your saying Clark is LYING too?   Seems everyone is lying but you  Hmmm

How would YOU interpret this news item?

[JimO]

Zorgon on 'Cooper Mercury-9 UFO' fairy tale: "I suppose people just make this stuff up right?"

Close. They just made it up to sucker the weak-minded.

I see you admit I'd win my bet, you CAN'T find anywhere where Cooper tells this story.

Me, on the other hand, have Cooper's OWN view of that story, in a signed letter.

Don't want to talk about it? YOU offered it as 'evidence'. Man up and retract it. 

[JimO]

So .... apparently,

Oberg believes space debris can just stop and hold it's position ?

You DO realize you're seeing a 2D representation of 3D space? How did you determine these objects 'held position' when you can't measure range?

Or do you have some secret method you could share with Mission Control? 

[JimO]

[Jim}  will come up with all kinds of weird explanations how an ice particle can do that despite what they teach in schools about the behaviour of objects in space not under their own propulsion

Uh, where do they teach in school about the motion of small nearby ice particles around shuttles, under influence of local venting, differential air drag, orbital mechanics effects, particle outgassing thrust, and unknown camera angles, the stuff we dealt with in Mission Control every day? Find me a university class in that, and I'll thank you for dispelling my confusion.  Otherwise, you're just making it up.

I recall all the attempts at describing the motions on STS 75  Seem to recall someone suggested gravity causing the particles to have curved trajectories

'Seem to recall' is a phrase you use a lot for 'dunno if it's true but I enjoy thinking it, but won't check." If it wasn't me, why even mention it -- if it isn't even true, maybe you ought to rein in your imagination.

So yes, Jim believes a particle of ice or debris can move in one direction.. slow down and come to a full stop  and then maintain that position relative to the earth below

You need to work on your telepathy skills, they suck. How can you measure a 'full stop' without knowing the distance rate?

Now he wants us to circle the object in question on the video. I do not have a tool that can do that but I seem to recall someone did on the net  Maybe we can find that because he is obviously confused about which one we are discussing

Even though the NASA camera operrator had no difficulty finding it

How far away do you propose the object was? Third time I've asked.

[JimO]

The object is very apparent in the video, so there's no need to circle anything.

The splitting hairs game is an old debunker trick.

Simple as that 

Yeah, citing evidence that isn't bogus or delusional  is so much a debunker trick. I can see why you object to it and consider it cheating.  Sorry, I'm not going to stop. 

[JimO]

I think that clip is sped-up/faster for perspective reasons, but doing so gives a better look at the objects near the horizon and the strange activity.

So how far away do you think they are? 

[JimO]

Here are the more relevant entries from my 99 FAQs essay, anybody who really wants to know my assessment of the STS-80 video [instead of just throwing punches as an imaginary straw man] should read them over -- 

http://www.jamesoberg.com/99faq.html

13 Q: Should people be ashamed of having fallen for these misinterpretations and misrepresentations?
A: Well, at the least, they should learn to be a lot more cautious in accepting extraordinary claims, and be less trusting of advocacy TV programs that promise 'inside information' and 'top secret' revelations. But figuring out the real causes of many of these stories and videos requires obtaining contextual information that is not always easily at hand. When it is available, or when NASA does offer well-documented explanations, they are almost impossible to locate on the Internet using traditional search engines. So the lesson might be for people to make deliberate searches for contrary explanations that already exist but are ignored by the proponents.

26Q: Why do people so badly misinterpret video scenes from space missions?
A: In discussions with people who are convinced what they are seeing can only be explained as alien vehicles or 'plasma critters' or other extraordinary stimuli, it's become clear to me that they are being misled by their eye-brain interpretation algorithms that have evolved and been fine-tuned under normal earthside conditions. They make 'reasonable' assumptions about what outer space should look like, often based on Hollywood special effects. So the genuinely unearthly visual environment, as seen on REAL imagery from space, isn't what they expect, and they apply time-tested processing fine for ordinary life to extraordinary images.

34 Q: What have these 'space UFOs' turned out to be?
A: Some of them turn out to be the same things 'ground UFOs' have been, such as misperceived normal human flight activity, natural atmospheric phenomena [when looking downward towards Earth], window reflections, defects, or contamination, or on occasion, bright celestial objects such as the Moon and – yes! – Venus. On occasion, during night passes, astronauts on space walks in the dark have seen what turned out to be bright lights on Earth's surface passing beneath them. Some are other orbiting space vehicles, but only rarely. Most are 'stuff' coming off the vehicle the observation is being made from, that flies along with the vehicle for a period of time. See the locations of these vents here: http://www.jamesoberg.com/orbiter-vents.PDF

40 Q: If not from existing swarms of 'space junk', where does this stuff come from?
A: I think the overwhelming majority of real 'stuff' seen by astronauts or via television or film [motion and still] is derived directly from the vehicle they happen to be aboard. I call it 'dandruff' to differentiate it from 'space junk' – which I do NOT think accounts for any of these notorious sightings..


41 Q: What sorts of visible things are shed by a space vehicle?
A: The vehicle may have dropped a booster stage or structural support elements, such as the objects seen by moon-bound Apollo crews, or the Skylab crews (the station's S-II booster). Insulation fragments had a tendency to 'shed' on Gemini and Apollo and Skylab {which regularly released small reddish fragments seen through the on-board solar telescope, out the wardroom window, and on space walks), and spacewalkers on occasion manually jettisoned excess equipment during hatch openings. During payload deploys, retaining straps and pyrobolt shells could be seen and imaged. On shuttles, right after reaching orbit a lot of ice associated with the cryogenic main engines [including a particularly weird-shaped ice sculpture that often formed at the interface of the shuttle and its external fuel tank feed line] came off and was clearly seen. Later on shuttle flights, small hardware items would float out of the payload bay, or become detached from mechanical structures outside. Tile fragments and strips of polyurethane 'gap filler' material were also noticed on a number of flights. Several deployed payloads, including inflatable structures and spherical free-flying camera pods, have been inaccurately described on 'youtube' as 'unknowns'. During spacewalks, packing materials might be jettisoned, or tools come loose accidentally [and once, several golf balls swatted off into space]. But by far the largest population of sources of videotaped 'dots' has been effluent from inside the vehicles, such as water and propellant [hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide] ice, from more than a hundred external valves – some deliberate, such as water dumps and flash evaporator operation and hydraulic pressure pump testing, but most accidental from seeping thruster valves.

41 Q: Was the space shuttle, or the Soyuz, really so rickety that pieces were always falling off? That sounds dangerous.
A: Most of the dandruff seems to consist of non-critical materials, predominantly ice flecks formed from water dumps and propellant leaks through engine valves. But once and awhile something that really might be critical – a thermal tile, or a hinge clip, or some such – does drift by. That's exactly why NASA observes such 'bogies' so carefully.

42: Q: How could this degree of dandruff be tolerated, purely from a collision safety point of view?
A: Anything solid, coming off a space vehicle, has a very low relative speed, so it wouldn't be a threat to puncture the hull. If it comes around in orbit and does make slow recontact, it would probably bounce off harmlessly.

43 Q: What directions could such stuff be seen to fly in?
A: Because of the large size of the space shuttle and its widely distributed sources of effluent or other shedding, and the location of external cameras and windows, 'dandruff' can drift across a camera's field of view in practically any and all directions. But it doesn't change the big picture that stuff visible to a shuttle camera is orbiting very close to – and hence probably originated from – the shuttle [or station] itself.

52 Q: What are typical motions of nearby objects?
A: Three major features dictate the expected motion of small, light objects near a spacecraft such as the shuttle or the space station. They are "orbital mechanics" effects [sometimes called 'astrodynamics'], differential air drag [at the altitudes typical of shuttle and station flights], and vehicle plume/outgassing events. As a result, objects can drift backwards, reverse course, zip below the vehicle and vanish ahead within minutes or an hour or two. They can abruptly change angular rate and course. They can behave in genuinely bizarre-looking motion that is truly 'unearthly' – which is only to be expected because they are NOT on Earth [or in Kansas].

65 Q: Are these the only factors that can influence relative motion in space?
A: Probably not. Small particles of ice, for example, seem to be influenced by the sublimation of water [or fuel] molecules off their sunlit sides, that over a period of several minutes can slightly bend their drifting paths. The paths of larger objects, such as a dropped tool kit or discarded spacesuit, can be affected by escape of small amounts of gas or liquids trapped inside them. Ice particles in a swarm such as from a water dump can collide, sending them in different directions, and spinning ice particles can break apart, sending fragments off in widely different directions. It is truly weird out there, even without recourse to alien visitations.


66 Q: How can different dots appear at different times in the camera view?
A: Usually there is a short period during sunrise when many nearby objects 'fade in' simultaneously, and with the Earth horizon moving through inertial space at 4 degrees per minute [one full rotation every 90 minutes], the half-degree-wide solar disc takes 7-8 seconds to fully 'rise'. This period can be followed by the random 'fade in' of singletons, presumably as they drift aimlessly out of the shuttle's shadow [the speed at which they appear depends on how fast they cross the shadow boundary]. A good circumstantial argument that this shadow zone is the cause for the 'fade ins' is that rarely if ever does a video show a 'fade OUT' – which would require a dot to return into the shuttle's shadow. Since the observed motion of most 'dandruff' shed by the shuttle was AWAY from it, this is completely consistent with the hypothesis of small shadowed objects randomly emerging into sunlight AFTER the shuttle itself has emerged from EARTH'S shadow.


70 Q: How did the years-long NASA study of lightning sprites contribute to the body of videos of 'space UFOs'?
A: Once NASA had deployed its world-circling data relay satellite system (TDRSS) after return to flight from the 'Challenger' disaster, in the late 1980s, near-continuous TV downlink became possible. Atmospheric researchers such as Dr. Otha "Skeet" Vaughan began a special study of "Mesoscale Lightning", which involved opportunistic use of exterior shuttle TV cameras transmitting images when the comm. channels were open [mostly when the crews were asleep and nothing else was happening on board]. Following each orbital sunset, one of the cameras was pointed approximately backwards down the shuttle's orbital track and aimed centered on the Earth horizon. In near-total darkness, the camera's optics automatically maximized the 'gain' – the equivalent of opening the iris to maximum. The sought-for images were to show brief very high very bright lightning pulses, the recently discovered 'sprites'. The project collected hundreds of hours of night horizon views and was very successful at seeing such phenomena. And it saw other visual apparitions as well.

74 Q: What unusual features of sunlight illumination in space contribute to artificially creating 'space UFO' videos?
A: The best example of such unearthly and unfamiliar conditions is what I call "twilight shadowing", which can make small nearby sunlit particles appear to suddenly 'appear' or 'disappear' in the camera field of view. Normally, in daylight the shuttle is bathed in direct sunlight as well as reflected sunlight from Earth's surface, which backlights the vehicle diffusely, filling in the down-sun shadows. But in the brief periods after orbital sunrise and before sunset, the shuttle is passing over a swath of the Earth that is still in darkness – and not reflecting any 'back lighting'. This is the period when people down in those regions, whose skies are still dark, can see sunlit satellites passing hundreds of miles overhead. For several minutes at the end of Each night pass, a camera aimed in accordance with the sprite search experiment will see any nearby particles suddenly 'appear' at sunrise, and more may appear as they drift randomly out of the shuttle's invisible shadow. Here's a graphic of this effect: http://www.jamesoberg.com/sts-ufo-twilight-zone.PDF

75 Q: What does this have to do with 'space shuttle UFOs".
A: The connection is striking and the implications are profound. The BEST images of the most famous 'space UFOs' were seen during these rare, brief intervals of 'twilight shadowing'. Far from being an unbelievable sequence of freak coincidences, this correlation is clearly a reflection of 'cause and effect'. It shows that the lighting conditions most suited to observing sunlit near-shuttle small objects are exactly the conditions under which "UFOs" appear.

[zorgon]

How would YOU interpret this news item?

Same way Bob Lazar was treated   No record of his work, no one to back up he worked their especially the guy who hired him



If someone doesn't want you leaking a story, they will do anything and everything to cover it up...

And if you don't believe that you really don't have a grasp on reality

Is Clark fibbing? Maybe  maybe not  Sandy Hook was a lie too   but that news clipping and your say so doesn't cover it. Bob had a lot worse 

[zorgon]

You DO realize you're seeing a 2D representation of 3D space? How did you determine these objects 'held position' when you can't measure range?

Because I can SEE that the ONE object stopped