It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Kasher’s Five Proofs
Kasher’s 1994 paper presented five “proofs” that the video could not be showing small close objects. Each one of the proofs can be shown to be erroneous.
Proof 1: During the approximately one second interval when the object’s horizontal motion is changing from leftwards to rightwards, it stops for a few tenths of a second before resuming the change in motion. It is two or three pixels off from where a smooth curve would have moved it. This, Kasher argues, must be deliberate and cannot be natural.
Disproof: Setting aside Kasher’s presumption that the object was able to deliberately align its stopping in precisely the vertical axis of the Orbiter TV camera’s field of view, the measurements of vertical screen position elsewhere on the chart show a random scatter of several pixels. By placing a properly-sized error bar on each raw reading, a smooth curve would easily pass through the sequence of points with no zero-motion except instantaneously. The ‘stopping’ is an illusion of over-accurate data points.
Sainio: “The data shown are very noisy.... The expected curve for an accelerated ice particle would be a parabolic path. The initial part of a parabola is quite flat, and the data are not shown to be significantly different than the expected parabola.”
Kasher claims he corrected for the camera orientation by solving.... (quote TBS). But Sainio (footnote TBS) wrotes: "Unfounded math is used to come to this conclusion. Two equations in one variable reduces to another equation, not a unique solution.”
Proof 2: The two fast-moving particles must have been traveling directly away from the RCS thruster. Their motion is linear – “If a rocket did the firing, the lines MUST meet” – and Kasher claims they don’t. Kasher’s ‘Appendix J’ asserted that only the left-firing left pod vernier jet (L5L) could possible affect the particle motion – “This is crucial when we examine the trajectories of the objects more carefully.”
Disproof: Even theoretically, the lines would only meet IF all the objects were originally at rest. Kasher tacitly ASSUMES this must be the case even though video shows all nearby objects are actually in motion. Any post-plume velocity will be the vector sum of plume impulse AND previous motion, which Kasher incorrectly assumes was zero.
Kasher also incorrectly ASSUMES that all thruster plume force is linearly directed away from the thruster. But he misidentified the thruster responsible for the plume puff – it was actually L5D, the down-firing vernier jet, as shown by telemetry records. He was also unaware of the propensity of aft-mounted down-firing thrusters to generate plume flows which significantly impinged on Orbiter structure and thus bounced off in new directions, including into areas previously out of direct ;sight’ of the thruster – such as the region the particles presumably were drifting.
Proof 3: Any particle in the thruster plume would be accelerated nearly to plume velocity, at least 96%. Kasher’s ‘Appendix B’ (see below) proves this, and since the main object was NOT accelerated to this speed by the thruster firing (which Kasher claims lasted 0.4 seconds, as measured by the duration of the pulse), it could not have been a particle.
Disproof: I’ll deal in detail with Kasher’s ‘Appendix B’ shortly, but in general the velocity induced on drifting particles depends on how far off the plume centerline they are, and how long the thruster fires. Since the low limit for particle acceleration is clearly zero (as seen by several particles in the video), there must be a range of from zero up to full plume velocity, dependent on factors not measured by Kasher.
In an email to Kasher , Sainio made this observation: “Although you don’t state it directly, you appear to base your argument on the correctness of the exhaust-acceleration theory. But this contradicts your conclusion that ‘they were spacecraft out in space away from the shuttle'’ and obviously not accelerated by a mere thruster. This appears to be an inadvertent reductio ad absurdum argument. If it is exhaust-acceleration, your conclusion is wrong. If not, then the arguments leading up to your conclusion are wrong, and your conclusion is unsupported. No conclusion can be inconsistent with the arguments leading up to it.” In other words, Kasher claimed to prove that the motion could not be caused by thruster exhaust, but the proof required assuming that it WAS caused by thruster exhaust.
Proof 4: The main object remained at rest for about half a second during the period of the main flash (following a shorter pre-flash earlier), and then accelerated sharply. “Presumably this was the time the rocket exhaust was moving through vacuum up to the ‘ice particle’”. If it were ice, it would have been a lot closer to the thruster, so the half second delay is too long for the fast-moving exhaust, and it must have been much farther away.
Disproof: This argument is based on Kasher’s misunderstanding of the nature of the flash, which he assumed was the entire thruster firing. Actually, the flashes were brief interludes within the full thruster firing of about 1.2 seconds when throat-clearing or brief propellant ratio mismatch led to a visible flow in the normally invisible plume.
Sainio agrees: “Presumptions are dangerous to proofs. As the flash is known not to correspond to the thruster firing, this proof fails.”
Proof 5: Since any particle hit by a thruster exhaust would have to reach a speed of 8300 ft/sec, it would be too far away at the end of the thruster firing to be visible.
Disproof: This depends on ‘Appendix B’, where Kasher attempts to prove that a particle entrained in a thruster plume will be accelerated to nearly the full plume velocity. He uses mathematics to show that this is exactly what happened with the main object in the video.
Kasher seems to have made a math error in which the acceleration is independent of the mass of the particle and the density of the plume [which varies with the angle off centerline] – a grade-school howler so obviously at variance with reality that no real physics expert would even imagine it could be true..
Sainio: “The 1.7 second acceleration time is flatly contradicted by the raw data it is based on.... [It] is not shown to be anything more than an artifact of the heavy smoothing used in the curve-fit, and is not shown to be a better fit than a simple 1-second linear acceleration due to a 1-second vernier firing which occurred at the time of the event. Practically any curve-fit of a sloped line connected to a flat line will ‘round out’ the end of the slope and make the slope resemble an exponential curve.”
Originally posted by NeoVain
Why waste resources to come up with disproof like this?
Originally posted by NeoVain
"...legerdemain, slyly constructed by someone with an agenda...."
Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets
So, on this NASA stuff... I must admit that a year or two ago I'd probably be inclined to trust Jim's views the most. But now... well, see the above paragraph. Jim may very well be right here on this particular issue. It's just that I can barely read his words without wondering if I'm being misled and what the motivations behind them are.
Originally posted by The Shrike
reply to post by JimOberg
Would you agree that if the shuttle thruster did fire, as alleged and produced the flash one sees, that the attitude of the shuttle would have changed as a result and this change would have been visible in the video by a change in the video image, up/down, right/left? According to Newton's laws of motion - "To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction."
67 Q: If the dots change motion due to thruster firing, how come the background earth/stars don’t shift as the shuttle’s orientation responds to the rotational impulse? Many observers confidently claim that the absence of any perceived motion is proof positive that no thruster could have fired.
A: This is a very common argument but it fails because nobody has actually ‘run the numbers’ on how MUCH the scene should shift due to a thruster firing. While it’s true that the shuttle can turn on its thrusters to achieve a rotation rate of up to two degrees per second or even more, in order to make major changes to its orientation, the far most common thruster firing is merely to trim its orientation against slow drift out of the allowable ‘deadband’ – usually several degrees wide. And such firings impart rotation rates far too gentle to be noticeable on the camera’s field of view.
Flight data shows how gentle such firings are. See www.jamesoberg.com... for the actual orientation angles of the shuttle during the famous STS-48 zig-zag video. The thruster firing that occurred at precisely the time of the lower-left screen ‘flash’ was triggered by the autopilot sensing a pitch error exceeding the allowable range and pulsing the jet to correct it. The imparted rotation rate change was about one one hundredth of a degree per second [about half a degree per minute], which is so miniscule it obviously wouldn’t register on the field of view. This data has been posted on the Internet for many years but apparently people who still cling to the ‘angle-would-change-too-much’ excuse haven’t read it or understood it.
That tiny angular rate can be verified arithmetically. Just get the thrust of a vernier jet, assume a one-second pulse, place it the proper distance from the center of mass of the shuttle, assume uniform mass density for convenience, and use simple physics to determine the imparted angular rate. It will be reasonably close to the value readable off the telemetry stripcharts.
Originally posted by The Shrike
Additionally, the "fired upon" "object" materialized out of the atmosphere while the other similar looking objects were visible and slow drifitng.
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by The Shrike
Finally, I do not accept the flash as the result of shuttle thruster firing particularly since no movement is visible via the recording camera.
Originally posted by buzzEmiller
reply to post by TeaAndStrumpets
You are so right about Jim cherry picking his case studies..he won't address many NASA UFO clips I have seen on You Tube's massive NASA UFO site.. the secretnasaman channel....
Originally posted by buzzEmiller
reply to post by TeaAndStrumpets
You are so right about Jim cherry picking his case studies..he won't address many NASA UFO clips I have seen on You Tube's massive NASA UFO site.. the secretnasaman channel...
such as the super fast, so called 2nd space phenomena... that dash across NASA screens via every mission's CCD camera. Freezing them at 1/60th of a second (a single scan or 'field frame') is the only way to see them.
I respect Oberg's super technical blab re STS-48 but it is a tough slog...been there & done that, & "blinding us with science" does not leave any room for additional conversation.
Originally by The Shrike
Finally, I do not accept the flash as the result of shuttle thruster firing particularly since no movement is visible via the recording camera.
Originally by JimOberg
I have tried to explain to you that your unspoken assumption -- "the shuttle MUST turn noticeably IF any thruster is fired" -- is the basis for your incorrect conclusion. The actual turn rates in such firings is less than a degree per minute -- totally undetectable to the eye, but clearly visible on telemetry records of the actual thruster firing.
What further proof can I show you -- or tell you how to find on your own -- to get you to correct this erroneous assumption which you dreamed up out of space vacuum?
Originally posted by depthoffield
Studying more those strange "maneuveurs", i propose one animation taken from one stable sequence of LunarCognita.
I've marked on the sequence, 5 moments in time when there are discernable those misterious maneuvers.
These moments, called by me "changes", are marked by me with colors and numbers, in order:
CHANGE1 red
CHANGE2 green
CHANGE3 blue
[color=Gray]CHANGE4 gray
CHANGE5 yellow
Also, when one namely change appears, i'll marked on the frame the position of all objects of which i can detect some changes in motion, using the corresponding colour of that namely change.
Here is the animation:
What we see here?
That it happens that all the "misterious" maneuvers of the objects are taking place in the same time, the moment of the "change"!
More, we can see that different objects with the same speed and appearance, appear to do exactly the same kind of motion/speed change (maneuver), for example those 3 bright objects in the bottom left corner.
What does this means?
It means two posibilities:
a) the objects make real maneuvers, in sincron, so they show inteligence and connections between them
b) the maneuvers of the objects are not real, but the camera together with the shuttle itself make small maneuvers, because of the Reaction control system of the shuttle in action (en.wikipedia.org...), when finely and with precission make small adjustements in the shuttle attitude or motion vector as part of it's flight in orbit.
If we look with attention, we can see clearly that even the stars themselves, those apparently imobile bright or dimmer points of light, appear to do some kind of small maneuveurs, exactly at the precise moments ("changes") marked by me! Clear evidence for shuttle maneuvers!!!
This really rules out the "inteligence" factor needed to explain the "misterious maneuvers of the objects!
Originally posted by depthoffield
We have identified the part of the sky where the tether is seen: constelation Centaurus.
First, a brief identification when we see the tether in an unzoomed situation, naming some stars and using the stacking method to better isolate the stars between moving "ufo's", also overlaying the image onto a Stellarium chart:
Second, absolutely the same thing, but using another sky-chart software, an older one, Skymap, which have the advantage that we could make ANGLE MEASUREMENTS:
Originally posted by JimOberg
Shrike, can we approach this dispute in small steps?
Are you satisifed that there is, indeed, a dawn shadow zone down-sun of spacecraft, inside of which any small spacecraft-generated dandruff would be invisible until it drifts out of the shadow and into sunlight?
Is such a concept within the range of your belief system?
Proof 2: The two fast-moving particles must have been traveling directly away from the RCS thruster. Their motion is linear – “If a rocket did the firing, the lines MUST meet” – and Kasher claims they don’t. Kasher’s ‘Appendix J’ asserted that only the left-firing left pod vernier jet (L5L) could possible affect the particle motion – “This is crucial when we examine the trajectories of the objects more carefully.”
He wrote: “If they were ice particles accelerated by the one possible vernier rocket, the two lines must meet at one point. This proves that the two objects were not ice particles accelerated by the vernier adjustor rocket.”
Disproof: Kasher incorrectly ASSUMES that all thruster plume force is linearly directed away from the thruster. But he misidentified the thruster responsible for the plume puff – it was actually L5D, the down-firing vernier jet, as shown by telemetry records. He was also unaware of the propensity of aft-mounted down-firing thrusters to generate plume flows which significantly impinged on Orbiter structure and thus bounced off in new directions, including into areas previously out of direct ;sight’ of the thruster – such as the region the particles presumably were drifting.