Yes! I debunked .... MYSELF!

a reply to: The Shrike


Wikipedia
"It remained in orbit for a number of weeks and was easily visible from the ground, appearing something like a small but surprisingly bright fluorescent light traveling through the sky."

Shrike: "Jim, did you look up and see the display? To Forum members: Did any of you look up and see the display? "


Yep, I saw it two days in a row just pre-sunrise from rural Galveston county where I live. It was clearly sunlit, not self-luminous [I watched it emerge from shadow into sunlight]. One of the most amazing space objects I've ever observed, up there with shuttle reentry fireball trails and shuttle water dumps.


How do you interpret the Wikipedia description? The only light was reflected sunlight. The wording doesn't make that clear.


I'm sorry that you like most other enthusiasts were tricked by Martyn Stubbs when he sent out his first videos of the sequence and deceptively called it 'uncut', instead of accurately describing the exact times of each clip to show how far apart they were and that they all occurred in daylight.

And of course the UFO promoters who highlighted the Stubbs product and hyped its 'unexplainability' wouldn't show you the much clearer 70-mm photos, those views clearly indicated the crisp thinness of the tether, not the fat swollen image that the video optics created. That would have cast their desired interpretation in the minds of viewers, into some doubt at least.


Pondering the nature of this unquestionably bizarre-looking event without those [and other] facts is like playing solitaire with key cards missing. That's what a generation of open-minded enthusiasts have been doing, and most are still doing it. WHY the key facts were denied them by the UFO-topic media they trusted could be a mixture of mere incompetence and some deliberate misdirection, I can't tell.

The water dump port is on the port side of the fuselage near the main middeck entry hatch. Although active dumping does create a blizzard of fast-departing particles, other flakes of water freeze to the nozzle and over hours afterwards break off in sunlight and drift away, often tumbling. During active tether operations, to avoid contamination of the payload at the end of the tether, these dumps were suspended, that's what makes the four day delay so critical in realizing the likely source of them.


Statements by key crewmembers and Mission Control workers, plus the 70-mm photos and the 'scene list' video logs for that period, are in the STS-75 folder at www.jamesoberg.com/ufo.html and have been for most of this century. Anybody can request their own copies of the documents by FOIA from NASA-JSC.

a reply to: The Shrike


"Jim: Here's a little treat. In the first photo we see the cable and a white circular light on its right. In the second photo taken a few seconds after the first, 2 additional circular light (above the cable and on its left) "materialize" and the 3 lights start to drift up. The one on the right was stationary until the other 2 "showed up""

Why did you say 'materialize" when the only thing you can observe is the light APPEARS? Which is what small drifting nearby objects slowly moving away look like when they emerge from the shuttle's own shadow. You also see that effect in the famous STS-48 and STS-80 'UFO' videos.

Determining WHERE that shadow zone is, in the camera's field of view. can be done but only if the exact clock time of the video is given so its position in orbit relative to the sun [and its orientation] can be determined. By refusing to provide such basic critical information, Stubbs guaranteed that the explanation could never be tested and verified.

originally posted by: The Shrike
a reply to: StillWaitingForGodot

It's silly for armap to say they're ice crystals near the shuttle. A telephoto lens wouldn't even see them. And the disks did not behave like real ice crystals which don't have force of travel unless they emanated from a water dump.

So YOU must have the specification of the camera and lens to know it's depth of field so why don't you show us those specs I am sure all of us into photography on here would like to know.

a reply to: wmd_2008


You can get the camera specs at my home page here....
www.jamesoberg.com...

originally posted by: wmd_2008

originally posted by: The Shrike
a reply to: StillWaitingForGodot

It's silly for armap to say they're ice crystals near the shuttle. A telephoto lens wouldn't even see them. And the disks did not behave like real ice crystals which don't have force of travel unless they emanated from a water dump.

So YOU must have the specification of the camera and lens to know it's depth of field so why don't you show us those specs I am sure all of us into photography on here would like to know.

You don't need any esoteric knowledge to understand the basics of photography. You reply gives the assumed impression that you don't. But here's a primer. Focusing on a nearby object will throw the background out of focus unless you use a special lens such as some architecture photographers use. It's been a while but I think that the lens can be moved. Whatever. But using a "normal" lens my explanation is true. If you focus past the nearby object to a distant object, the nearby object will become transparent with no definite edges. If you use a telephoto lens for a distant object and the nearby object is in the way, it will not be seen by the telephoto lens. If the shuttle astronauts shoot inside the cargo bay at nearby objects the lens might see nearby ice crystals or debris. But distance will be affected and thrown out of focus.

The tether was at a vast distance so a normal lens would have been useless. They either bring out a long telephoto lens or they use a super zoom lens. That means that only the distant object will be in focus and everything in its vicinity. Those "airy disks" or bright circles will be included because they are out there with the tether, NOT near the shuttle. Those are NOT ice crystals or debris as the astronaut said. The circular objects are all kinds of sizes, they are traveling at various speeds from slow to fast, they are traveling on different courses, some slow down and stop. Ice crystals, debris? My ass!

STS-128, Shuttle Discovery waste water dump trail, and ISS. Missouri Skywatch: 09-09-09 2038 CDT.
Look at the bright flashing light enter at 0:31. Rogue ice crystal? Debris? How about the one at 1:10 above and below the main object and all of the other flahsers which are not near the shooting camera? And then the ISS comes into view at 1:59.


STS-125 - Waste Water Dump from Payload Bay Cameras
Do you see any "airy disks" or circled objects flying in all directions, slow and fast, slowing down and coming to a stop or encircling the shuttle? No, the water is being ejected AWAY from the shuttle!

a reply to: The Shrike"STS-128, Shuttle Discovery waste water dump trail, and ISS. Missouri Skywatch: 09-09-09 2038 CDT.
Look at the bright flashing light enter at 0:31. Rogue ice crystal? Debris? How about the one at 1:10 above and below the main object and all of the other flahsers which are not near the shooting camera? And then the ISS comes into view at 1:59."


Nice video, from hundreds of miles away. The 0:31 flasher is obviously a local a/c, and the later dots you refer to look like stars.

a reply to: The Shrike

"STS-125 - Waste Water Dump from Payload Bay Cameras
Do you see any "airy disks" or circled objects flying in all directions, slow and fast, slowing down and coming to a stop or encircling the shuttle? No, the water is being ejected AWAY from the shuttle! "


Why do you try so hard to prove to us it's a waste of time to try to explain things to you
?

There was no waste water dump going on in the interval the tether videos were made.


An earlier dump left water frozen to the exit nozzle which -- as frequently happened -- chips dislodged over the following hours depending on when sunlight fell on the nozzle. These could be seen drifting by windows and the crew was familiar with the phenomenon, and could use binocular vision -- like a baseball batter or outfielder -- to gauge the closeness. They've talked about it a lot. They get called liars a lot by [deleted], too.


You have seen the 70-mm handhelds, right? With the out-of-focus nearby stuff against the sharply-focused tether, right?

originally posted by: The Shrike
…..

The tether was at a vast distance so a normal lens would have been useless. They either bring out a long telephoto lens or they use a super zoom lens. That means that only the distant object will be in focus and everything in its vicinity. …..

I'm having difficulty figuring out how you can be so confident in your knowledge of the tech specs of the shuttle cameras. Did you look over the exterior CCTV operating manual I posted a link to, yet?

a reply to: JimOberg

Jim, let's call a Mexican Standoff for we will go to our graves always disagreeing. I'm gonna beat you! I see a video whether it's STS-48 or STS-75 and I see scenes that I accept but you see the same scenes and you have a different opinion which is opposite mine. You have your supporters and I have mine.

I should have known better than to get involved. I have no concept of what is seen around the tether but I'll never accept your explanation nor those given by astronauts who suffer from pregnant pauses.

originally posted by: The Shrike
a reply to: JimOberg

I should have known better than to get involved. I have no concept of what is seen around the tether but I'll never accept your explanation nor those given by astronauts who suffer from pregnant pauses.

Once one side pulls the get-out-of-reality-free card by hinting that any contrary testimony is falsified, you're right, further discussion is useless.

Just out of curiosity, did you ever look at the 70mm photos or the external camera operating manual, or are you satisfied you already know all you need to know about outer space phenomena?

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: The Shrike
a reply to: JimOberg

I should have known better than to get involved. I have no concept of what is seen around the tether but I'll never accept your explanation nor those given by astronauts who suffer from pregnant pauses.

Once one side pulls the get-out-of-reality-free card by hinting that any contrary testimony is falsified, you're right, further discussion is useless.

Just out of curiosity, did you ever look at the 70mm photos or the external camera operating manual, or are you satisfied you already know all you need to know about outer space phenomena?

I visited your website and didn't see any mention of 70mm photos. I did see this: HAND-HELD PHOTOGRAPHY OF TETHER DURING FLY-BY and clicked on it. The page that follows shows 6 clickable photos that are not only small but do not reveal anything about the tether and the circular objects. The rest of the small photos, contact sets, are a waste for not only do they not show usable images but they are not clickable.

Your videos: COMPLETE VIDEO & SCENE LIST OF TETHER ENCOUJNTER (sic) also do not offer anything that Martyn Stubbs shows: tether and objects.

Your TRAJECTORY OF THE FOUR-DAYS-LATER LOOSE TETHER FLY-BY is beyond my ken, for techs only.

According to a video I just viewed the tether is 81 miles away. There is no way that the mass of objects are anything near the shuttle nor in the vicinity. The video of the water dump shows the water being ejected at a constant velocity AWAY from shuttle whether towards the back or from the side. Once matter is moving in a certain direction it will keep going in that direction if there are no obstacles to change the objects' direction. Look at the tether footage yet again. Do those objects look like they're moving en masse in the same direction? NO! They're coming in and moving away in all directions at all speeds and some are larger than others, some slow down, some stop and some angle away.

I'm 80, my lens implant brought my eyesight to at least 20-20 or better. I have a fabulously developed brain, genius quality. I've been respecting you since the '90s and I will continue to do so. But there is nothing wrong with me or the way I perceive. While you never said I was brilliant your positive comments indicated you thought I am. I am!

Ice crystals? Debris? Camera artifacts? Catadioptric lens effects? Bah! Humbug!

And those were not ice crystals or debris in the STS-80 video which contains a hell of a lot more than the "fired upon" "airy disk"!

I'm a lost cause, but happy with myself and all of those who share my opinion. We're legion!

BTW, did you notice the (sic) above?

Thanks for the constructive response, don't be a stranger. People like us should live forever.

originally posted by: JimOberg
Thanks for the constructive response, don't be a stranger. People like us should live forever.

I have a feeling your reply was made while I was typing mine. Read mine again.

originally posted by: The Shrike

originally posted by: JimOberg
Thanks for the constructive response, don't be a stranger. People like us should live forever.

I have a feeling your reply was made while I was typing mine. Read mine again.

As usual, your feelings led your intellect astray. I treasure the existence of people of sharply opposing views.

a reply to: The Shrike

Hi I have been a keen hobby photographer for almost 40 years bought my first SLR just before my 17th birthday. Jim linked to a document re the camera. First the lens name you were after re architectural photography is a tilt shift lens it is to ensure parallel sides to buildings when pointing the camera up. Depth of field depends on focus distance aperture and focal length. So unless you have ALL the info you cant assume as the focal length of the cameras was NOT huge at the telephoto end and the cameras appear to have a SMALL ccd sensor the depth of field would be greater than you assume. Also as the focus was done manually if you get to the hylerfocal distance for the lens everything from a few feet to infinity would look in focus so small objects closer than that may still show as out of focus highlights.

a reply to: The Shrike

Lets have a little look shall we lets see if you spot the obvious here is a video



Now at 0:55 in the video do you think the tether is in focus, the tether is around 2 mm yes 2 mm in dia.
Do YOU honestly think it's correctly focused on a 2mm wide object.

Also as for the interaction of ice crystals what do to think the mass of the shuttle about 165,000 lbs when empty would have on objects nearby weighing a few grams. Have you not also considered these objects will collied and interact with each other.

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: The Shrike

Hi I have been a keen hobby photographer for almost 40 years bought my first SLR just before my 17th birthday. Jim linked to a document re the camera. First the lens name you were after re architectural photography is a tilt shift lens it is to ensure parallel sides to buildings when pointing the camera up. Depth of field depends on focus distance aperture and focal length. So unless you have ALL the info you cant assume as the focal length of the cameras was NOT huge at the telephoto end and the cameras appear to have a SMALL ccd sensor the depth of field would be greater than you assume. Also as the focus was done manually if you get to the hylerfocal distance for the lens everything from a few feet to infinity would look in focus so small objects closer than that may still show as out of focus highlights.

Hi: I appreciate your explanation but it doesn't help my opinion. I still say that even though I don't know what those circles (airy disks) are or where they originated from I will never accept the "official" NASA explanation that they are ice crystals or debris "that flies along with the shuttle" as one astronaut said and the pregnant pauses when they do a closeup and the mass of circles becomes visible on a larger scale. There was another pregnant pause by a female astronaut when she started to say where a spacecraft (ISS?) could be seen and a nice, bright "orb" drifted into the and all we heard was silence 'cause she sounded shocked.

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: The Shrike

Lets have a little look shall we lets see if you spot the obvious here is a video
snip
Now at 0:55 in the video do you think the tether is in focus, the tether is around 2 mm yes 2 mm in dia.
Do YOU honestly think it's correctly focused on a 2mm wide object.

Also as for the interaction of ice crystals what do to think the mass of the shuttle about 165,000 lbs when empty would have on objects nearby weighing a few grams. Have you not also considered these objects will collied and interact with each other.

Again, I appreciate your efforts. But I have not yet seen an explanation for the appearance of the circles which are going in all directions at varying speeds, some slowing down, some stop, etc. Ice crystals/debris do not behave that way. I can't tell you how they behave but the waste water dumps show a mass of water being ejected from the shuttle and once ejected at an unknown speed, they keep going in their "straight" trajectory and are not attracted back and surround the shuttle. And those ice crystals that are "shaken" off the ejecting opening cannot be seen 80-some miles away flying irregularly.

And since the shuttle's orbit speed is approx. 17,500 mph and the waste water dump is at a certain speed being ejected away from the shuttle while the shuttle is moving away, on the return to the same or approx. location of the dump does the shuttle encounter the dump that is also spreading outward and does the shuttle fly through the mass of by-now ice crystals and do the crews react to going thru the dump that in reality is still on its ejected trajectory, et., ad infinitum... Doesn't make sense.

Thanks.

Perhaps you ought to view Martyn Stubbs video "THE SECRET NASA TRANSMISSIONS: THE SMOKING GUN - VHS - 2000 QUEST PUBLICATIONS" which show a lot of "ice crystals" behaving intelligently. Coming together and the pausing, seemingly appearing from earth's atmosphere and or entering it, hovering, one making a right angle even though the others continue on their way and one hauling thousands of miles an hour while it's being tracked by the camera, or forming a circular pattern, not being shown en mass, and so on. The ice crystals/debris explanation is insulting.

a reply to: The Shrike


Shrike, you seem to be more clueless than I could have imagined. Do you really think water ejected from the shuttle just hangs around in space until the shuttle orbits around the Earth again?

originally posted by: JimOberg
a reply to: The Shrike


Shrike, you seem to be more clueless than I could have imagined. Do you really think water ejected from the shuttle just hangs around in space until the shuttle orbits around the Earth again?

Jim: you didn't properly read my comments as I asked a question: "...does the shuttle encounter the dump that is also spreading outward and does the shuttle fly through the mass of by-now ice crystals...? You see in order for the shuttle camera focused on the tether to show all of the "airy disks", the shuttle has to fly through the field created by the shuttle dump and that's an impossibility since the "airy disks" are not behaving as the water dump is shown on the video. The water dump is not shown behaving individually but as a mass which will continue on the ejected path probably spreading out exponentially while the "airy disks" are not.

I don't understand why it's so difficult for you and your supporters see what seems to me to be common sense. How can you convince yourself that what is seen with the tether has anything to do with nearby ice crystals and debris.