Originally posted by mikesingh
First, for your information, The Tether Optical Phenomena experiment, by Dr. Stephen Mende of Lockheed Martin's Palo Alto Research Laboratory, CA, used a hand-held low-light- level television camera operated by the crew, to help scientists answer questions about tether dynamics and optical effects generated by the Tethered Satellite. LLLTV, or Low Light Level Television, as you are aware,...

And nowhere is there any evidence that these images were being downlinked in real time for broadcast over NASA TV, which was the source of the infamous views. The mission documentation confirms what the camera angles indicate -- imagery from the corner-mounter payload bay cameras. Visible light cameras. If you want to dig out imagery from the separate, non-real-time UV-sensitive cameras and post them here, we would all be indebted to you.

Besides, if the camera you cite was 'hand-held', that means it was inside the cabin. And all the forward, overhead and aft windows of the crew cabin are coated with UV blocking layers for the eyeball safety of the crew.

Secondly, you said the tether itself looks bizarre, because it's only as thick as a phone cord, maybe an eighth of an inch. But because the image intensifier is turned all the way up, what we see is a phantom thickness that's not real.

Again you’re clutching at straws to suit your arguments! There was no image intensifier aboard whose principles of operation are far different from the LLLTVs that were used aboard the Shuttles. The effects of the tether were created by its speeding through the magnetized ionospheric plasma at almost five miles per second. The Tethered Satellite created a variety of plasma-electrodynamic phenomena, generating high voltages (around 5,000 volts) across the tether producing a plasma sheath, a layer of charged particles created around the satellite and tether. This is what produced the effect of brightness along the tether that caused it to appear thick.

This suggestion, that the tether is bright because of a visible-light plasma sheath, can be assessed by seeing what happens when it enters of exits Earth's shadow. On on-board video, and from eyeball observations from the ground, the tether dims or brightens as a sunlit object, even (as I observed personally) passing through a brief ruddy phase between dark and fully lit.

The currents were generated when the tether was 'grounded' into the ionosphere by an ion gun in the deployed payload, and one in the payload bay. That closed the circuit, and current flowed. Once the tether snapped, there was no circuit, and flow disappeared.

And here’s what David Sereda says and you have obviously read it as the letter was addressed to you:

With regards to NASA's video cameras peering into the invisible? NASA knows all this and they have video cameras aboard the Space Shuttles and aboard satellites that can see into invisible spectra of light, such as the infrared and the near ultraviolet. I confirmed the wavelengths of the shuttles video cameras with NASA scientists back in 1998, Dr. Joseph Nuth, III, Head of Astrochemistry at the Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, MD.

The letter appears to be speculative ("I would be amazed..."), but the subject matter is open to further verification. Why would an astrochemist at a NASA site that has no engineering connection with the space shuttle be chosen as an expert on the camera? Why not contact systems specialists on the camera itself, in Houston? Why AVOID such directly-involved and fully informed experts? We don't know that Sereda did NOT contact them, didn't like the answer he got, and 'shopped around' until he found a guy willing to guess along the lines Sereda originally was looking for.

Having seen the deployed tether with my own eyes, from the ground, I have some ideas about its visibility characteristics. Several other tethers have been in orbit, observed by amateurs around the world. Nobody reports on any 'plasma glow'. Sunlight alone is adequate to explain the visibility features of the payload bay camera views.

Now -- go and get some samples of that specific UV camera you mention (with images taken from behind a UV-protected crew cabin window, to be sure), and bring the images back here. That would be a worthy contribution.

[edit on 24-3-2009 by JimOberg]

Notes on the STS-80 UFOs" -- James Oberg January 1997

The STS-80 scenes seem to me to be identical in origin to the
infamous STS-48 scenes and to numerous others throughout the
shuttle flight program: low-light sensitive B&W cameras are
trained on the receding horizon during night passes, to observe
serendipitous lightning events for an experiment called
Mesoscale Lightning Experiment, managed out of NASA-MSFC in
Huntsville. You can see the dark horizon, the glowing 'air glow'
layer, moving stars, moving city lights below, lightning
flashes, and under moonlit conditions, dim clouds.

By the way, these low-light B&W cameras are pretty old and are
being replaced mission by mission -- the suite of cameras
carried by a shuttle (one in each corner of the payload bay, two
on the RMS, others perhaps mounted on the keel looking upwards
at target spacecraft, plus a few handheld units inside the
cabin) can be adjusted as needed, and a new color CCD camera is
much higher quality (it doesn't 'bloom' in overbright
reflections, and can't be damaged by sun exposure), but it's not
as sensitive in low light, so there are fewer opportunities to
see such views every year.

When sunrise occurs (due to the Orbiter's motion along its
orbit), even though the Orbiter is now bathed in sunlight, the
camera is still trained on the dark side of Earth. But now the
floating particles which routinely accompany every shuttle
flight (often ice particles, sometimes junk from the payload
bay, pieces of insulation blankets, a dozen or more distinctly
different sources) can become visible in the sunlight, sometimes
even moving into sunlight from the umbra of the Orbiter (and
thus "appearing suddenly"). These are close to the camera,
sometimes a few feet, at most a few hundred feet. Sometimes they
are hit by pulses of gas from the RCS jets as they automatically
fire to gently nudge the spaceship back towards a pre-set
orientation. Because of the sensitivity of the camera, moving
particles leave streaks -- even stars can be seen to do this
when the camera is being panned (usually by command from a
controller in the Mission Control Center). Tumbling particles
tend to flash. Bright particles overload the optics and appear
as "rings" or "do-nuts" with darker centers.

There's nothing else to it, as far as I can tell. Everyone in
the control center knows about this visual phenomenon, everyone
has seen it numerous times, and they laugh at notions these are
anomalous, while they grimace at yet more silly stories by
people who don't seem to understand much (or do seem to
misunderstand a lot) about "ordinary" space flight.

As far as I was able to determine, these STS-80 scenes were
recorded beginning about 11:55 PM PST on December 1, 1996.
That's 07:55 GMT on December 2. Since the shuttle was launched
on Nov 19, that is 324/19:55:47, this makes it about 12 days 11
hours 59 minutes "Mission Elapsed Time", or MET. This was on rev
197, crossing Venezuela, then the West Indies. The Orbiter
attitude was bottom forward, with the vehicle yawed somewhat so
the nose was off to one side.

According to the activity plan sent up that morning, the crew
was doing some evaluation of an EVA tool associated with their
airlock problems, and the two pilots were scheduled to begin a
review of landing procedures. Lunch was to follow. When I asked
crewman Story Musgrave, who is not shy about talking about
anomalies of any kind, he assured me he saw nothing unusual on
the flight, at this point or at any other.

The camera, "B" located at the rear of the payload bay, was in a
pre-set position which was later changed by ground commands.
Judging from the star motion at the horizon, it was looking
southwest, not precisely backwards (since then the stars would
have been setting straight down across the horizon). I don't
have the exact numbers on the camera's pan/tilt and it's too
much trouble to get them.

According to a computer reconstruction of the trajectory,
sunrise occurred at GMT 07:57. That's precisely when the picture
shows a slight foggy periphery, and when the first objects
appear. They keep showing up until about 08:01, when sunlit
clouds come into the camer's field of view and the iris
automatically stops way down so that the tiny objects (and stars
too) are no longer visible. The camera view continues in
daylight for long after that.

I'm sorry I posted in the wrong thread. My mistake.

Originally posted by RFBurns

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by RFBurns
Cheers!!!!

You've brought plenty of strange claims about insider knowledge -- such as the space shuttle being able to climb out to 24,000 miles on its own, dropping off satellites -- or the shuttle making a secret stop at a non-disclosed location in space to drop off cargo on its three-day trip to the International Space Station (a trip that, to other watchers, seems to take only two days). By all means, let's encourage readers to doublecheck on everyone's factual claims, and then debate the interpretations based on reality. On that basis, where does the STS-80 video stand?

Heh, Im not the only one who has made strange claims about insider knowledge. But thats either here nor there.

Weak dodge. Now you're not defending this nonsense you've posted, you're just pretending 'everybody says it'?

Do you, or do you not, believe the things about the shuttle that you posted? Perfectly reasonable calibration question for your claims of 'inside contacts' in the space program, a claim I've found no convincing evidence to deem credible. And since you base your arguments against prosaic explanations firmly on 'facts' you post about space terchnology, the level of credibility of that expertise is legitimate to try to assess.

Originally posted by easynow
.... I asked you first and you didn't answer the question. have you ever seen a ufo ?

Yep, a goodly number. I saw my first in 1957, I was 12; I solved my first about 30 minutes later. I've watched the skies and seen the shows for decades, fireballs and flashers, jet chases, zig-zags, fade-ins and fade-outs, hoverers and shadow-casters, I've carried polarized filters in my pocket date book while aboard aircraft, made a habit of noting within moments of witnessing, things such as motion, precise timing, angular size, of aerial apparitions [and was amazed, in reading the notes after only a few days, to see how different they were from the way I later 'remembered' it]. While not a direct witness, I was first-on-scene for a number of wonderful 'meteor sounds' perceptions, the real-time hissing noise people have reported for centuries during passage of a bright fireball -- only this time, it was as the descending shuttle blazed across Texas skies on its way to a Florida landing, and the testimony I helped capture fresh contributed to the ultimate answer to the physics of that long-pooh-poohed phenomenon. Oh, yes, I've keep my eyes on the skies and drunk in its splendorous harvest.... and still keep hoping for more.

I don't want this challenge to slip away into the lost pages of yesterday's threads -- I think it's an opportunity to contend with the critical issue of this and similar arguments.

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by RFBurns
Sure we can discuss it. And sure its possible that the umbra of the shuttle is aligned in such a way so that drifting, small, nearby particles might emerge from it while just so happening to be in the camera's FOV to suddenly appear.

Anything is possible. I never said that anything was not possible. What I do keep saying is that it is highly unlikely that these precisely timed coincidences and alignments and shadows and umbras just so happen to be in the right place at the right time in every single video where there is an unusual anomaly seen.

Doesnt mean I dismiss the other possibiilties, it only means that I find them unlikely to be repetitive across several different videos of several different missions in different circumstances to all be caused by 1 coincidental, and perfectly timed set of situations of shadows, angles, etc etc.

This is the single most important comment on this thread so far, as it directly addresses the theory of a cause-and-effect between a unique lighting orientation, and 'famous space UFO videos'.

It is clear, on target, and tightly focused. Well done, RF.

RF treats the two conditions -- the unique illumination orientation, and the appearance of UFOs -- as independent phenomena. If so, naturally their apparent coincidence in time looks extremely unlikely.

And the coincidence in time is real -- whether or not RF finds them 'unlikely' to repeat across different missions. STS-63 followed sunrise (it's mentioned on the A/G), so did STS-80, so did STS-75's tether buzzers, so did STS-114's curver. That coincidence is proven from the flight plan records that are available, as well.

RF remains convinced this is very, VERY unlikely. But since it actually did happen -- the records show this -- maybe there's another explanation than just a freaky statistical fluke.

I suggest there is. I suggest that the unique illumination condition, together with the presence of drifting nearby particles, CAUSE most of the images that are widely misinterpreted as spectacular UFOs. The most famous youtube videos, which are culled from hundreds of hours of work by relentless watchers such as Martyn and others, do indeed cluster in these intervals --because they are ENABLED by these special conditions.

There are some other types -- lit in full-dark by shuttle lighting, or big enough to be visible in the stopped-down optics in full daylight -- but the preponderance of 'famous shuttle UFO' scenes with this specific short lighting situation is a natural consequence, not a freak coincidence.

The only other explanation that RF has offered is an utterly improbable string of coincidences. I think a cause-and-effect correlation makes more sense.

RF's message -- read it again -- shows a man nibbling at the edges of this realization, and then hastily backing away from it. But you don't all have to follow his retreat from reality.

Originally posted by RFBurns
Something tells me in your entire reply up there that your whole goal here is to try to get me to believe in something different than that I already have come to a conclusion and belief with.

Oh, no, RF, I have absolutely no expectation that you will ever, ever change your mind, no matter what the new evidence, once you've solidified an opinion. It'll never happen, I'm confident.

Do you consider that a virtue?

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by RFBurns
Something tells me in your entire reply up there that your whole goal here is to try to get me to believe in something different than that I already have come to a conclusion and belief with.

Oh, no, RF, I have absolutely no expectation that you will ever, ever change your mind, no matter what the new evidence, once you've solidified an opinion. It'll never happen, I'm confident.

Do you consider that a virtue?

Sure. Now that you have publicly stated your goal is not targeting a specific member..ie "RF"...meaning me. And your correct, nothing will change my point of view or belief until "new" evidence is presented.

Ok...so what "new" evidence has been presented? So far, what I have seen, is simply re-arranged, re-built, re-structured "OLD" evidence. It is brought forth in the manner to which it will look and sound like new evidence to those who have not examined these anomalies but for only the last couple of years..if even that. Obviously, if it has not been seen before, it will be thought of as "new" to those who see it for the first time.

That is the thing to remember, that some participants here at ATS, have been around the forum blocks for years before this one was ever in existance. Naturally it is not a regular routine for every member to post how long they have participated in forums of this nature, but it is rather silly to think that all of them are "newbies" to the issues.

It is not that the other side's evidence is simply being ignored, it is that the evidence has been seen before in just about every possible angle in its delivery and arrangement. Thus that evidence which was given a new facelift still has underneath it, the old skeleton.

I would be happy to consider some actual new evidence. But trust me, examining these anomalies for years now, it is very easy to see the difference between the same retrofited evidence versus actual new evidence. Its something that one tends to develop a knack for after spending years examining anomalies and going through thousands of discussions about them.



Cheers!!!!

Is there any checkable evidence that any of the images of 'space UFOs' on youtube or anywhere else were taken in UV? Saying they really LOOK like 'UV images' just doesn't hack it for me. Nor does quoting somebody else quoting somebody about a rumor they were told by a cousing's brother-in-law. Nor does saying there was a handheld UV camera in the middeck locker during the mission, so it must have been the one used for all photos ever shown from that mission [especially since the shuttle windows are coated for safety to block UV rays].

Just simple, verifiable evidence, please.

This issue is too important to die in silence -- if it's not discussed here, it should be, somewhere else.

Originally posted by JimOberg
I don't want this challenge to slip away into the lost pages of yesterday's threads -- I think it's an opportunity to contend with the critical issue of this and similar arguments.

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by RFBurns
Sure we can discuss it. And sure its possible that the umbra of the shuttle is aligned in such a way so that drifting, small, nearby particles might emerge from it while just so happening to be in the camera's FOV to suddenly appear.

Anything is possible. I never said that anything was not possible. What I do keep saying is that it is highly unlikely that these precisely timed coincidences and alignments and shadows and umbras just so happen to be in the right place at the right time in every single video where there is an unusual anomaly seen.

Doesnt mean I dismiss the other possibiilties, it only means that I find them unlikely to be repetitive across several different videos of several different missions in different circumstances to all be caused by 1 coincidental, and perfectly timed set of situations of shadows, angles, etc etc.

This is the single most important comment on this thread so far, as it directly addresses the theory of a cause-and-effect between a unique lighting orientation, and 'famous space UFO videos'.

It is clear, on target, and tightly focused. Well done, RF.

RF treats the two conditions -- the unique illumination orientation, and the appearance of UFOs -- as independent phenomena. If so, naturally their apparent coincidence in time looks extremely unlikely.

And the coincidence in time is real -- whether or not RF finds them 'unlikely' to repeat across different missions. STS-63 followed sunrise (it's mentioned on the A/G), so did STS-80, so did STS-75's tether buzzers, so did STS-114's curver. That coincidence is proven from the flight plan records that are available, as well.

RF remains convinced this is very, VERY unlikely. But since it actually did happen -- the records show this -- maybe there's another explanation than just a freaky statistical fluke.

I suggest there is. I suggest that the unique illumination condition, together with the presence of drifting nearby particles, CAUSE most of the images that are widely misinterpreted as spectacular UFOs. The most famous youtube videos, which are culled from hundreds of hours of work by relentless watchers such as Martyn and others, do indeed cluster in these intervals --because they are ENABLED by these special conditions.

There are some other types -- lit in full-dark by shuttle lighting, or big enough to be visible in the stopped-down optics in full daylight -- but the preponderance of 'famous shuttle UFO' scenes with this specific short lighting situation is a natural consequence, not a freak coincidence.

The only other explanation that RF has offered is an utterly improbable string of coincidences. I think a cause-and-effect correlation makes more sense.

RF's message -- read it again -- shows a man nibbling at the edges of this realization, and then hastily backing away from it. But you don't all have to follow his retreat from reality.

Does anyone want to comment on Musgrave's new message on his assessment of the STS-80 video and all other 'astronaut UFO' videos?

Here's a note from a second STS-80 crewman:

From: Thomas Jones
To: James Oberg
Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 12:50 PM
Subject: Re: Oberg's solution to the STS-80 'UFO' video


Dear Jim,

Your essay on explaining the "unexplained" STS-80 night-time particle motions (thought by some video enthusiasts to be UFO sightings) is "dead on."

You've taken the time to dissect a beautiful night scene from Columbia in 1996 and patiently analyze what we crewmembers took for granted: that ice and exhaust particles falling along with the orbiter sometimes drift across the TV field of view, and then get propelled away by thruster pulses.

Nothing exotic, but beautiful to watch from the grand windows of the space shuttle.

Story Musgrave and I spent many an orbit watching the stars, the Milky Way, the air glow, meteors burning up below us, lightning, and moon-lit clouds, and were amazed at the spectacle of it all. Truly mesmerizing -- and completely explainable in every regard.

Best wishes,
Tom Jones