The STS-80 Formation Over Africa

If these are just "ice-crystals" then they are some of the most amazingly geometrically savvy, acrobatic ice crystals I have ever seen.

Perhaps it's as simple as this -- when you have hundreds of hours of video of drifting space dandruff to select from, you'll always be able to find some that seem to make patterns.

Case in point: the stars.

Would you argue that the constellations are proof some intelligence arranged the stars in predetermined patterns?

For example, "they are within the earth's atmosphere." On what basis do you conclude that? They are between the shuttle and Earth's atmosphere, based on the TV image. How do you deduce a range, from that?

Agreed, I was leaning towards that but it didn't come out right. They are between the earth's atmosphere and the shuttle.

Maybe you make this claim based on their illumination profile. OK. What is the basis for the illumination? I argue sunlit -- do you argue self-luminous?

Based on the analysis done by a member previous in this discussion, they appear to be illuminated at one point and at another they are not. Based on how the objects move into position and then increase their illumination I would have to say they are self luminous.

How do you explain the types of movement exhibited in that video? Where objects are obviously moving on their own? This is what I am trying to get out of you, not if they are illuminated by the sun or if they are self illuminated Jim. The movement and formation of these objects is what's important here.

Originally posted by Jocko Flocko
How do you explain the types of movement exhibited in that video? Where objects are obviously moving on their own? This is what I am trying to get out of you, not if they are illuminated by the sun or if they are self illuminated Jim. The movement and formation of these objects is what's important here.

If these are nearby small particles as I argue, there is a hidden dimension -- depth, or distance -- to their positions. The camera was mounted in the shuttle's payload bay, near the hinge of one of the doors. It was
observing a three dimensional field where particles could drift.

So particles in its field of view could be a few feet away, bouncing around the payload bay, or just outside the shuttle's bay (a few feet), subject to effluent releases and thruster plumes (which fill most of the space on their side of the shuttle with expanding gas, usually invisible), or farther away (10s to a few 100s ft), subject to differential atmospheric drag that much more severely retards light fluffy stuff than heavy metal stuff.

Examples of all such different motions -- and changes in motion, slow or fast -- can be seen in raw shuttle camera downlink. Only the most exciting ones -- or the ones that at random seem to take up particular relative formations -- get tagged as UFOs and posted on youtube. So you're seeing a pre-selected subset of the entire video archives.

My point about formations of STARS proving a deliberate placement of it still stands -- randomness, over enough trials, can occasionally fall into unlikely patterns.

Life's like that. Don't over-interpret it, in other areas of life that mistake can lead to very poor judgment.

If these are nearby small particles as I argue, there is a hidden dimension -- depth, or distance -- to their positions. The camera was mounted in the shuttle's payload bay, near the hinge of one of the doors. It was observing a three dimensional field where particles could drift.

Interesting, are you alluding to the second and third "phenomenon" Martin Stubbs discovered in the shuttle video's? Do you think that these particle like "phenomenon" could be responsible for the activity we see displayed in this video? When all is said and done and all avenues are exhausted, we could be dealing with some new type of particle phenomenon that is not fully understood yet.

I understand what you are saying in terms of finding patterns in nature, many parts of the natural world exhibit patterns. However, I find it hard to believe that these "objects or "particles" would form at random the way they do in that video, it's just too organized to be a random pattern. I have to call this "unknown" Jim, saying that this phenomenon is just random particles forming a circle just doesn't fit.

I personally believe they have been, and are a part of, a new type of scientific phenomenon that is not yet fully understood; perhaps a new type of particle that only occurs in space. If they are of intelligent origin is still the big question.

Originally posted by Jocko Flocko
I have to call this "unknown" Jim, saying that this phenomenon is just random particles forming a circle just doesn't fit.

You have no right to claim it formed a 'circle', since you don't know the range to each of the dots. On an
approximate and temporary basis you might call it an 'image of a sorta circle', projected onto a 2D TV screen. That's all. Just like with stars and constellations -- stars close together on the celestial sphere may not be at all close together in the galaxy in 3D.

So the 'circle' of dots might not -- almost certainly would not -- look like a circle viewed from any other angle, even perhaps from any other TV camera. So how could it have been planned as a deliberate demonstration?

The human 'pattern-finding' instinct is very strong in you, even as your intellect acknowledges in fairness that random distributions can occasionally create non-random patterns. Trust your intellect.

But I argue that finding a pattern to be significant post hoc is like shooting the arrow into the barn and then walking up and painting the bull's eye around it post hoc.

The observable fact that people do this A LOT should be a warning to all of us to resist doing it thoughtlessly.

Originally posted by Jocko Flocko
Based on the analysis done by a member previous in this discussion, they appear to be illuminated at one point and at another they are not. Based on how the objects move into position and then increase their illumination I would have to say they are self luminous.

So why aren't they also sunlit? Did you read my report on the orbital lighting conditions -- which you can duplicate to verify?

You're still trying to play solitaire with half a deck here -- no, not in your head (it seems fine) but in your hand. You are disregarding the demonstrable solar illumination conditions, and resulting shadow zones, of this particular scene.

Don't you think it's important to know where in the field of view objects are sunlit, and where, in shadow?

Here's the link again:

www.realufos.net...

By the way, my investigation found the shuttle was over Venezuela at the time of these scenes.

How did the 'over Africa' story get started?

does anybody know the name of the song in the second video

Flying debris randomly forming a circular shape, objects/stars not actually aligned in the z-dimension but seen as a circle looking from an x-y perspective...

Well trying to fit this event into such explanations doesn't work out well. It just doesn't. Some people just push and push but the nature of the event just doesn't fit the fabricated explanation.

Sometimes the answer is as simple as it seems. This case is one of them.

Space is complicated, cameras are complicated, space imagery is complicated... Well, I see the Earth in perspective, I see the objects in perspective. They are closing in together. Moving and coming to a stop. Start shining. "I know" what they are.

Unfortunately disinformation works like that. When you turn a simple argument into a quarrel, the plain fact gets smothered (like in pages of forum discussion , people lose interest and it gets impossible for the obvious to shine itself through.

I'm sure if E.T actually landed on the middle of the field during the Champions League final game the disinfo agents could get away with an explanation like "DIY project of MIT graduates for a David Copperfield stunt".

Originally posted by bilb_o
. "I know" what they are.

So on what basis do you disregard the knowledge of the astronauts who were witnesses?

Cautionary advice from Will Rogers: "It ain't what you don't know what makes you look like a fool, it's what you DO know what ain't so."

You and every other earthling are looking at these videos with a time-tested eye-brain algorithm developed and optimized for accurate functioning on Earth, in veiling atmosphere, under a gravity field.

You are then applying it to a truly unearthly environment where the underlying assumptions no longer hold. This is the first really new environment for earth-sprung life in maybe half a billion years. You are in that fortunate human generation that is present at the revolution.

So don't get cocky. Or worse -- don't let your perceptual process stay earthbound when your consciousness is freed to rise above.

Seriously, think a little harder about issues such as the shape of the sunlit zone within the field of view of the camera. Where in the depth in front of the viewer would small objects be sunlit, and where, in shadow, and what would that look like as they move from one zone to another?

Here's that report again:

www.realufos.net...

Is it the art or science of disinformation what makes one a great agent?

Second line.

reply to post by bilb_o


I find it amusing how Mr. james oberg ( former mission specialist for NASA ) has the need to comment on this phenomenon every place possible.
I also find it funny how we should believe this is random according to the "we cant see the depth or Z" theory ,because if we go by X and Y alone ,there are more chances for this to happen randomly than if we add the depth dimension.

if Mr. Martyn would not have recorded these feeds ,we would never know.
now that we do know ,we are lead to believe in random. and that this "happens all the time".

Sir ,I do not know your motives. but you clearly have some.
There is no other explanation other than the "its all random" theory that would sound anywhere close to logical statistically ,and voila ... this is what you use.

I guess we should believe you. because it's either that or space craft with a clocking device , right ?

also ,let's not forget that the strange Cometmeteor at the horizon before they show up is also random.

Shimi8787
reply to post by bilb_o

 

I find it amusing how Mr. james oberg ( former mission specialist for NASA ) has the need to comment on this phenomenon every place possible......

Where did you get the idea I was a 'mission specialist'? The sloppier you are with spaceflight, the easier you can fall for the wildest misconceptions.

Try my '99 FAQs on space UFO videos' for more reliable background and context.

www.jamesoberg.com/ufo.html

JimOberg

If these are just "ice-crystals" then they are some of the most amazingly geometrically savvy, acrobatic ice crystals I have ever seen.

Perhaps it's as simple as this -- when you have hundreds of hours of video of drifting space dandruff to select from, you'll always be able to find some that seem to make patterns.

Case in point: the stars.

Would you argue that the constellations are proof some intelligence arranged the stars in predetermined patterns?

Great point Jim. I think that's one of the things that drives me a little crazy. Some people see three points of light and suddenly its a "triangular craft".

The constellation comparison was a good one because a lot of people don't understand that the constellations consist of stars that have -nothing- to do with each other and are separated in most cases by vast distances. They only form these "patterns" from the perspective of Earth.

As such, they serve little purpose today other than to say what part of the earth's sky an object is in.

Amazing that we've organized the sky around primitive people's pareidolia.

I made this short video to demonstrate this:

Shimi8787
reply to post by bilb_o

 

I find it amusing how Mr. james oberg ( former mission specialist for NASA ) has the need to comment on this phenomenon every place possible.
I also find it funny how we should believe this is random according to the "we cant see the depth or Z" theory ,because if we go by X and Y alone ,there are more chances for this to happen randomly than if we add the depth dimension.

if Mr. Martyn would not have recorded these feeds ,we would never know.
now that we do know ,we are lead to believe in random. and that this "happens all the time".

Sir ,I do not know your motives. but you clearly have some.
There is no other explanation other than the "its all random" theory that would sound anywhere close to logical statistically ,and voila ... this is what you use.

I guess we should believe you. because it's either that or space craft with a clocking device , right ?

also ,let's not forget that the strange Cometmeteor at the horizon before they show up is also random.

edit on 17-11-2013 by Shimi8787 because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-11-2013 by Shimi8787 because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-11-2013 by Shimi8787 because: (no reason given)

Well, if the objects were luminous and visible from the shuttle, then they would have also been apparent to the amatuer satelite watchers who would have eagerly followed the shuttle mission from their backyards. The absence of ground reports is pretty telling.

1ofthe9
Well, if the objects were luminous and visible from the shuttle, then they would have also been apparent to the amatuer satelite watchers who would have eagerly followed the shuttle mission from their backyards. The absence of ground reports is pretty telling.

[note -- this reply was due to my misreading the post and badly misunderstanding it -- my oops]

Not hardly. If the objects were small, nearby, and sunlit -- as crewmen Tom Jones and Story Musgrave have explicitly asserted -- there's no way anybody on the ground could see them. If you check out the satobs.org archives -- please do so and report back -- you would also note that satellites are only visible from the ground during local dusk and dawn.

On what expertise or research do you assert otherwise?

[what I should have said follows]

Ground observers only get sporadic brief intervals of visibility, so the absence of sightings at those times can't be generalized to other times. But it's a good step to think about such possible contextual corroboration.

JimOberg

1ofthe9
Well, if the objects were luminous and visible from the shuttle, then they would have also been apparent to the amatuer satelite watchers who would have eagerly followed the shuttle mission from their backyards. The absence of ground reports is pretty telling.

Not hardly. If the objects were small, nearby, and sunlit -- as crewmen Tom Jones and Story Musgrave have explicitly asserted -- there's no way anybody on the ground could see them. If you check out the satobs.org archives -- please do so and report back -- you would also note that satellites are only visible from the ground during local dusk and dawn.

On what expertise or research do you assert otherwise?

I don't. I actually agree with you.

My intent was to argue against the STS-80 footage showing something anomalous. I apologize if I wasn't clear - I meant that the absence of ground reports pointed to nothing strange going on. Tiny ice flakes wouldn't be visible from the ground.

1ofthe9

Shimi8787
reply to post by bilb_o

 

I find it amusing how Mr. james oberg ( former mission specialist for NASA ) has the need to comment on this phenomenon every place possible.
I also find it funny how we should believe this is random according to the "we cant see the depth or Z" theory ,because if we go by X and Y alone ,there are more chances for this to happen randomly than if we add the depth dimension.

if Mr. Martyn would not have recorded these feeds ,we would never know.
now that we do know ,we are lead to believe in random. and that this "happens all the time".

Sir ,I do not know your motives. but you clearly have some.
There is no other explanation other than the "its all random" theory that would sound anywhere close to logical statistically ,and voila ... this is what you use.

I guess we should believe you. because it's either that or space craft with a clocking device , right ?

also ,let's not forget that the strange Cometmeteor at the horizon before they show up is also random.

edit on 17-11-2013 by Shimi8787 because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-11-2013 by Shimi8787 because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-11-2013 by Shimi8787 because: (no reason given)

Well, if the objects were luminous and visible from the shuttle, then they would have also been apparent to the amatuer satelite watchers who would have eagerly followed the shuttle mission from their backyards. The absence of ground reports is pretty telling.

The footage is in ultraviolet ,you cant see ultraviolet with just any telescope from your backyard.

Shimi8787
The footage is in ultraviolet ,you cant see ultraviolet with just any telescope from your backyard.

Huh? The footage is from the shuttle external cameras which operate in the visible light band, I've scanned and posted the Mission Control Center console procedures handbook section on their operating characteristics, on my home page. Check it out.

Besides, even if the camera WERE recording in UV, how does that prevent the objects from also radiating visible light?

I think you've been taken in by somebody's wild imagination. There's a lot of that going around.

1ofthe9

I don't. I actually agree with you.

My intent was to argue against the STS-80 footage showing something anomalous. I apologize if I wasn't clear - I meant that the absence of ground reports pointed to nothing strange going on. Tiny ice flakes wouldn't be visible from the ground.

Jim is correct. If the objects were something small and close by then they would have been seen from the shuttle but almost certainly not seen on the ground without a huge amount of magnification.

The satellite viewing window is correct with one caveat. He should have said "most satellites in low earth orbit".

JadeStar

1ofthe9

I don't. I actually agree with you.

My intent was to argue against the STS-80 footage showing something anomalous. I apologize if I wasn't clear - I meant that the absence of ground reports pointed to nothing strange going on. Tiny ice flakes wouldn't be visible from the ground.

Jim is correct. If the objects were something small and close by then they would have been seen from the shuttle but almost certainly not seen on the ground without a huge amount of magnification.

The satellite viewing window is correct with one caveat. He should have said "most satellites in low earth orbit".

edit on 18-11-2013 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)

Yeah. I jumped in before considering that. My apologies folks.