NASA STS - 80 Undeniable Proof That They Know More

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by RFBurns
The heat is on and we are fixing to have us a BBQ...ATS style!

Be careful what you bite into.

All you've shown so far is indigestion, dyspepsia, and flatulence.

You know something Jim...I have brought much more to the table than you care to acknowledge. I do not need to point it out to you, because you did not see it in the begining. But others have, and unfortunately for you, the scales are weighed in our favor.

At the very least, I have brought new insight, new challenges..mostly to you, and the courage for those who used to crawl away from your ludicrous attacks just because you threw around that worn out NASA worker patch.

I told you from the onset, that you got yourself involved with a whole new generation of independant thinkers, people who are no longer intimidated by fancy words, fancy dress and fancy rhetoric.

You have only brought into this and primarily the STS 114 discussion, the same old tired and worn out, already debunked debunking scripts you use across the interent. Many have asked you to provide that missing data, video, document, everything so vital to conclude what is taking place in these videos or audio recordings or transcripts. And every time, you either danced around the request with attacks, or completely ignored the requests.

No one will shame you for simply saying "I have tried to get that before with no success". And the reason why no one would hold anything against you for that is because we already know that NASA doesnt give away the gold key to the vault of evidence. But instead, you decided to protect a deflated ego and dropped these threads down to personal attacks and obfuscated run-around statements.

It is the same old tactics you used across dozens of forums spread out over a 10 year period. It is amazing what you can find in webarchive.org and in forum archives still available at many of these forums you tried to play your game in.

It would be nice to see one day, come into one of these STS video threads and actually see you posting some useful information, information that is not as old as dirt, information that gives a new insight to these anomalies, and new information that helps everyone get to the bottom of these mysteries.

There is hope for that..at least I like to think there is. But so far, as each day has passed over the course of 4 weeks now, I am not sure if I should continue to hold the faith that one day will ever happen.

But then again there is that old saying...you can't teach an old dog new tricks. I was never really a believer in that old saying, but sometimes, it does fit the circumstances.


Cheers!!!!

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?

And what additional research can we conduct to add to the context of the video. One unresolved issue seems to be whether the cameras transmitting these scenes have significant capabilities outside the visible -- into UV and maybe IR. You insist they do, and I doubt it. How can we resolve this, to the benefit of future discussions?

Another deals with the orientation of the shuttle's umbra during these scenes -- is it aligned so that drifting small nearby particles might emerge from it while in the camera's FOV and suddenly 'appear'. Is that phenomenon plausible? Can we discuss this?

Your input?

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by RFBurns
The heat is on and we are fixing to have us a BBQ...ATS style!

Be careful what you bite into.
All you've shown so far is indigestion, dyspepsia, and flatulence.

And you said in a previous post...

Originally posted by JimOberg
I guess when all rational argumentation fails, a resort to mockery is the last ditch defense of unsupportable interpretations.

Why don't you practice what you preach, JO? You seem to be inebriated with exuberance of your verbosity and bombast! Needless to say your interpretations are kiddish and pretty outrageous! Your straw-man arguments are getting to be tiring! And your sarcasm is getting to be legendary!

Or are you trying to score brownie points with that envious display of your command of the English language? ( I concede it's top-of-the-rung! )

Having said that, let's stop this oneupmanship and get to trying to solve these seemingly intractable issues in a gentlemanly manner and not berating others by telling them that they suffer from indigestion, dyspepsia, and flatulence as their arguments don't match yours.

Cheers!


[edit on 23-3-2009 by mikesingh]

Originally posted by JimOberg
And what additional research can we conduct to add to the context of the video. One unresolved issue seems to be whether the cameras transmitting these scenes have significant capabilities outside the visible -- into UV and maybe IR. You insist they do, and I doubt it. How can we resolve this, to the benefit of future discussions?

The far UV cameras experiments (NRL-803) which were part of the AFP-675 payload flew aboard the Space Shuttle in May 1991 (STS-39 and beyond). These experiments gathered data about sources of far UV light in near Earth space. Two types of calibration were performed too, using far UV cameras as photodiodes pre-flight and also using them to record images on film during flight.

Cheers!

Originally posted by mikesingh
The far UV cameras experiments (NRL-803) which were part of the AFP-675 payload flew aboard the Space Shuttle in May 1991 (STS-39 and beyond). These experiments gathered data about sources of far UV light in near Earth space. Two types of calibration were performed too, using far UV cameras as photodiodes pre-flight and also using them to record images on film during flight.

And what did those images have to do with UFOs? Is there any evidence that UFOs were imaged, or are you just fishing? All these famous 'space UFO videos' on youtube come almost entirely from the exterior cameras, a few from in-cabin hand-held cameras (behind glass that was built to block UV). I'm unaware of any UFOs seen by the NRL-803 camera, please explain.

Originally posted by mikesingh
Having said that, let's stop this oneupmanship and get to trying to solve these seemingly intractable issues in a gentlemanly manner and not berating others by telling them that they suffer from indigestion, dyspepsia, and flatulence as their arguments don't match yours.

Good advice, Mike. I note you gave it only to me. Didn't you think anyone else deserved it? Hypocrisy is not a good platform for preaching good manners.

OK! PEACE!

Originally posted by JimOberg
And what did those images have to do with UFOs? Is there any evidence that UFOs were imaged, or are you just fishing? All these famous 'space UFO videos' on youtube come almost entirely from the exterior cameras, a few from in-cabin hand-held cameras (behind glass that was built to block UV). I'm unaware of any UFOs seen by the NRL-803 camera, please explain.

Those objects in the Tether vid which are a bone of contention, were captured in the UV spectrum. I thought you knew that?

[edit on 23-3-2009 by mikesingh]

Originally posted by mikesingh
Those objects in the Tether vid which are a bone of contention, were captured in the UV spectrum. I thought you knew that?

No, I didn't -- and I still don't. According to the mission 'Scene List' and the standard practice of the flight, they were observed by external PLB (payload bay) cameras. The ones that see in the visible spectrum, according to their user manuals [which RF has implied are faked -- while a secret underground set of REAL controllers with REAL manuals operate the cameras without the knowledge of the folks in Mission Control, in Houston?].

I'm referring to the handbook SHUTTLE OPS // INCO/COMM/JSC-18611, edition of 9/15/87. BASIC REV D, Section 16, by Roberto Moolchan.

16.1 Closed Circuit Television Overview

The closed circuit televsion (CCTV) system is a general purpose circuit TV system which meets U.S. broadcast standards (RS170)...

16.2 Television Camera

All television cameras (TVC's) are identical and interchangeable. Each functions as a basic monochrome television system utilizing a silicon intensified target (SIT) tube....

Figure 16-3 (page 16-9) shows CCTV locations. The four permanent bay cameras are A (forward port), B (aft port), C (aft starboard), and D (forward starboard). Cameras are also usually installed on the RMS wrist and elbow. Additional cameras on a mission specific basis can be installed along the keel, in the docking unit, and one sill location near the Ku-band antenna.

ADD: And I called up two old buddies I'd flown missions with in the MCC, who worked INCO. They both were positive -- the payload bay cameras were strictly visible light. Who else you gonna call?

[edit on 23-3-2009 by JimOberg]

Originally posted by secretnasaman
Martyn Stubbs is the cable guy who recorded and released all the NASA video, currently on the web.(mission STS-48 to STS-80) He provided us with the video we all have seen in The Secret NASA transmissions and Evidence, both made in in 2000. He is me.

Reprint below with author's (Billy Cox) permission:

June 2, 2000
Florida Today // Do new NASA tapes show UFOs? // by Billy Cox

The authenticity of videos showing unidentified flying objects has been challenged since the advent of camcorders. But a new debate is unfolding over UFO images generated by NASA and marketed commercially in a video _ "The Secret NASA Transmissions: The Smoking Gun."

It includes space-shuttle footage recorded above western North Africa on Feb. 26, 1996, that appears to show huge, distant spherical UFOs shadowing Columbia during mission STS-75.

This peculiar sequence is just a portion of the "Smoking Gun" tape, produced and edited by Quest Publications, a British outfit that publishes UFO Magazine. Viewers who buy the $27.50 mail-order videotape also will see a number of other anomalous goings-on recorded by NASA cameras from various missions in the 1990s.

For UFO skeptic Jim Oberg, the "Smoking Gun" furor is a classic example of the misinterpretations that occur when human perception expands into the unknown. He likens it to the 15th-century Age of Exploration, when Old World mariners mapped uncharted oceans and returned with tales of sea serpents and mermaids. As Earthlings secure their foothold in space, Oberg predicts there'll be more fog to come.

"When you're on the edge of the new frontier," said the former NASA mission control specialist, "your imagination fills in the details."

For the Canadian largely responsible for bringing the NASA images into the public domain, the possibilities are exhilarating.

"It's all out there," said Martyn Stubbs of Vancouver, "and I think NASA is challenging us to find it."

The STS-75 incident: In the winter of '96, Columbia was testing the $100 million Italian Tethered Satellite System, a ball-shaped device linked to a rod-and-reel deployment spool by a cable stretching 12 miles at maximum extension. The experiment was designed to see how well tethers could generate electricity in space. But it ended abruptly when the cable snapped.

During shuttle video acquisition of the broken tether, the black void around the dismembered hardware began swarming with particles and beads of light, resembling an organic soup beneath a microscope. The tether appeared surrounded by the objects.

And everyone was paying attention, as the communications chatter indicated:

"I've tried to adjust the focus but I can't get better than that."

"OK, Claude, thank you. Beautiful."

"This view is showing,

uhh . . . " Eight second pause. Some of the objects, many of them spheres with a single dot in the center, appear to pass behind the tether. " . . . the satellite, just moving into sunrise."

"Eighty-one nautical miles now from Columbia."

Thirty-three second pause. The objects gather in force.

"You guys getting the image?"

"Franklin, we see a long line, a couple of starlike things, and a lot of things swimming in the foreground. Can you describe what you're seeing?"

"Well, the long line is a tether. Um, there's a little bit of debris that, uh, kinda flies with us and, uh, it's illuminated by the sun at such low angles. There's a lotta stray light and it's getting washed out quickly, but Claude is doing a good job trying to adjust the camera."

Then a manager of community- access cable stations in British Columbia, Stubbs decided to record every minute of every manned mission via live downlink feeds in the mid-1990s, following the famous STS-48 controversy.

In October 1991, STS-48 beamed back images that wound up in national debates, largely on tabloid TV shows. While passing over western Australia, one of shuttle Discovery's cameras recorded white blips that appeared to stop and change direction when a pulse of light raced toward them.

Informally, NASA consultants agreed the camera had photo graphed ice crystals repulsed during a thruster jet firing, which accounted for the light flash. The only formal analysis of the footage was written by University of Nebraska- Omaha physics professor Dr. Jack Kasher. Using geometry and physics, Kasher eliminated near-foreground ice crystals and thruster-jet explanations, then concluded STS-48 had captured independently operated spacecraft.

"The Journal for UFO Studies is a refereed, academic journal," says Kasher on the magazine that published his conclusions. "I keep hoping for an official response from NASA, but of course that hasn't happened."

Stubbs is waiting for NASA to weigh in on the STS-75 footage the video wasn't made public until March. He discounts ice crystals and other forms of near-foreground "shuttle dandruff."

"These objects, particularly the spheres, are clearly going behind the tether," he insists. "And the tether is what, 70, 80 miles away? I've heard the argument that, well, surely if things that big could be seen from that far away, they should be visible here on Earth as well. But how can we know what an unknown phenomenon in space looks like from our perspective here on the ground?"

*********************************

But that's exactly what you could expect to see, argues Dr. Joseph Nuth, head of the Astrochemistry Branch Lab for Extraterrestrial Physics at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md.

"If you've got mile-wide flying saucers _ which they'd probably have to be, to be seen at that distance from the shuttle _ and six or eight of 'em at least, according to (Stubbs' interpretation), I can't imagine somebody on the ground not seeing it," said Nuth, who watched the "Smoking Gun" video.

Furthermore, Nuth said space isn't a pristine environment.

"When you're in a vacuum, things just de-gas and pop out," he said. "All the stuff comes out of little cracks and it does it the entire time it's up there, because the shuttle basically carries an atmosphere with it. Personally, I think Oberg's explanation is perfectly reasonable."

Oberg, a 20-year veteran of mission-control operations at Johnson Space Center, said some of the images are, in fact, near- foreground objects exaggerated by the shuttle's camera system.

(more)

(conclusion)

Oberg, a 20-year veteran of mission-control operations at Johnson Space Center, said some of the images are, in fact, near- foreground objects exaggerated by the shuttle's camera system.

"If you look at enough video, you see this as a standard out-of- focus effect," he said. "This particular camera system isn't designed for low light levels, and it's being pushed beyond its specifications in order to zoom in on the tether. Under these conditions, 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.

"So, in addition to recording all the debris floating around, we see all these discs out there, too. Big circles with dots in the middle and all of them notched at about 7 o'clock. These notched discs are a feature of the camera."

Consequently, Oberg said the discs passing behind the tether are an illusion blooming in an extreme environment. As for the sudden light flashes and streaks that Stubbs said are visible at some point on every mission, Oberg is less certain. "It's very interesting," he said. "Streaks probably occur when you're out there in the radiation belts."

*********************************

As he reviewed the voluminous mission tapes, Stubbs kept seeing orange streaking action, captured by payload bay cameras and interior cams as well. Freezing the images took some effort Stubbs said they flashed at one-thirtieth of a second.

On one "Smoking Gun" sequence, shuttle astronauts preparing to leave the orbiter for a spacewalk are clearly perplexed. The streaking is visible on tape:

"What was that flash?"

"What, Max?"

"I saw a light flash past me just here. Did you see it?"

"I thought it must've been me." Chuckle.

"What?"

"I thought it was my imagination."

"I saw it, too, so it's not. There (were) two of them. There's another one. What are they?"

"I thought I saw the lights flickering in here. Who'd be taking pictures?"

"What is this? It's just gone past in front of us."

Stubbs said he didn't mean for the video title _ "The Secret NASA Transmissions" _ to imply a coverup, or that the mission downlinks were surreptitiously channeled.

"The images were all readily available," he said. "But I think they have a double or hidden meaning. You don't see it unless (you) make time to look at literally everything, like I've done. And then patterns emerge. It's like the O.J. trials, reasonable doubt versus a perponderance of evidence. To me, there's a perponderance of evidence that something very strange is going on."

*********************************

One of his many challenges on tape is to debate former astronaut Story Musgrave, a veteran of six shuttle missions. In the "Smoking Gun" video, Musgrave is heard saying, "That's really interesting" during the appearance of an ostensible plasma blob that emerges against an Earth background during STS-80 in December 1996.

"I believe Story's playing both sides of the fence," Stubbs said. "He's always talking about life out there, and he's taped some unusual things. I think he knows more than he's saying."

Now living in Kissimmee, Musgrave insists the astronaut corps he flew with before retiring in 1996 has no evidence of extraterrestrial activity.

Objects in space, particularly near-foreground objects, do weird things, he said. They are ubiquitous. They break apart. They move independently. They bump into each other and make right- angle maneuvers. They change velocity.

"I've seen what looks like a little snake swimming along on its own internal motions. I've got it on videotape," he said. "I come back to KSC and I ask the guys on the ground, are you missing something, a sealed rubber hose? They say no, there are no post-flight anomalies. I go up again and there it is, swimming along in the sunlight, internal motion. Yeah, they're curious about it, but OK, so what?

"Since you know there are billions upon billions of intelligent civilizations out there somewhere, must we now, as a part of our Copernican evolution, make this great leap? The fact that I don't understand something doesn't mean that I should apply loose thinking, noncritical thinking, to the process. It does a disservice to the cause of exploration."

Jack Kasher hasn't reviewed the entire "Smoking Gun" video _ only a snippet featured in a recent Fox TV special. Without knowing the camera's capabilities, Kasher said Oberg's explanation sounds valid. But a prosaic solution to the STS-75 images doesn't alter his contention that STS-48 photographed spacecraft making evasive maneuvers.

"I worked a summer at Marshall Space Flight Center in 1991, and there are a lot of really smart people there," Kasher said. "But they're not at all interested in UFOs and it never comes up. I wish they would seize an opportunity like this and put all possible explanations on the table for discussion. Because this is an area of tremendous public interest."

Oberg agrees that NASA should consider being more proactive in addressing issues with extraterrestrial undertones, given the subject's visibility level.

"These are definitely striking images," Oberg said. "I think it's a legitimate subject in our popular culture."

reply to post by secretnasaman

He is me. I was was attacked by Jimo. right away in 2000(!)... who demanded a copy of the STS-75 footage from me. I said no, you go get it from NASA!...and he could not get any

thanks secretnasaman,

why would Jim Oberg want or demand a copy of any NASA footage from You when he has himself claimed that it can be obtained from them with some effort and it just has to be "earned" ?

why would he tell us the footage can be acquired but in actuality it can't ?

hmmm...

I think we can finally put this to bed now. In this unedited video we see the before and after filming of the previous one I posted in my first post.

I can't tell if at 526 the camera operator zooms out or if the shuttle is going away from the UFO'S.

I can tell though at 551 we have a display of objects and another one that pops up in the exact middle of this formation. which just so happens to be brighter than any of the others.

Is it possible to get an idea of the size of these objects? do we know how far they are away from the shuttle?

Originally posted by easynow
why would Jim Oberg want or demand a copy of any NASA footage from You when he has himself claimed that it can be obtained from them with some effort and it just has to be "earned" ?

why would he tell us the footage can be acquired but in actuality it can't ?

hmmm...

Why would you believe that I didn't get my own copy? Because Martyn said so? Sigh. You have a lot to learn about Martyn's stories.

STS-80.

Has anyone decided to try to get their own copy of the video, improved -- longer sequence, and time tagged, for starters. You gotta ask for that feature.


The question isn't what I have gotten or can get -- it's what any interested citizen can get, and how to do it. And then how to make maximum use of the new in formation to think about what is really being shown.

reply to post by JimOberg

Why would you believe that I didn't get my own copy?

umm.....lack of proof ?

i could say i have a copy also, does that make it true ?

why not prove you have a copy ? why not get the 114 extended version ?

why not go for the Big win and hit a home run instead of just shouting theory's from the dugout ?

why why why

Originally posted by JimOberg
Why would you believe that I didn't get my own copy? Because Martyn said so? Sigh. You have a lot to learn about Martyn's stories.

What can we learn from you about Martyns stories? why should we believe you instead of Martyn. This is not a have a pop post. I am asking the question.

I have been reading your posts and you seem to attack without actually proving anything?

I for one would like to see more unedited NASA tapes on this site. Maybe on this thread even.

Myself and easynow are giving you the chance to show us that you do actually still have some kind of control in NASA and that you can excercise.

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.

Where does the STS 80 vid stand?...Hmm, kind of difficult to check that since apparently no one is immune to NASA's firm grip on the originals.

Originally posted by JimOberg
And what additional research can we conduct to add to the context of the video. One unresolved issue seems to be whether the cameras transmitting these scenes have significant capabilities outside the visible -- into UV and maybe IR. You insist they do, and I doubt it. How can we resolve this, to the benefit of future discussions?

NASA giving us the un-edited, full length, no strings attached original. Its a pretty simple solution to a complex problem that at this point, seems to have an even more complex answer to solve it.

Originally posted by JimOberg
Another deals with the orientation of the shuttle's umbra during these scenes -- is it aligned so that drifting small nearby particles might emerge from it while in the camera's FOV and suddenly 'appear'. Is that phenomenon plausible? Can we discuss this?

Your input?

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.


Cheers!!!!

[edit on 23-3-2009 by RFBurns]

Something is not right here take a look at this
secretnasaman talks about Martyn Stubbs in thread

Take a look at the date of the post 17/6/2008.

Now take a look at the points ATS466 and BTS 3. Notice no change? something is not right here at all. Why talk about Martin Stubbs in the 3rd person?

Is this the biggest wind up in ATS or something else?

Anybody?





[edit on 23-3-2009 by franspeakfree]

Originally posted by franspeakfree
Something is not right here take a look at this
secretnasaman talks about Martyn Stubbs in thread

Take a look at the date of the post 17/6/2008.

Now take a look at the points ATS466 and BTS 3. Notice no change? something is not right here at all. Why talk about Martin Stubbs in the 3rd person?

Is this the biggest wind up in ATS or something else?

Anybody?

hey franspeakfree,

i think what happened with secretnasaman and Martyn Stubbs is nobody would believe that it was actually Martyn and they gave him such a hard time over it he had to change his screen name(i don't blame him one bit for doing that) so he just brought up Martyn Stubbs in the conversation as somebody else.

secretnasaman is Martyn Stubbs imo, i have talked with him at other places.

as far as the points go...not sure what your getting at really.... the points will show the current amount even in a old thread or post. you can check that with your own threads.

hope that helps









[edit on 23-3-2009 by easynow]

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.

Jim, here’s what you had mentioned in that extract you posted above:

"If you look at enough video, you see this as a standard out-of- focus effect. This particular camera system isn't designed for low light levels, and it's being pushed beyond its specifications in order to zoom in on the tether.

Under these conditions, 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.”

You’ve made two points here: The first is that the cameras aboard STS 75 weren’t designed for low light levels and were pushed beyond their specifications – whatever that means! You couldn’t be farther from the facts.

And then you insist:

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by mikesingh
Those objects in the Tether vid which are a bone of contention, were captured in the UV spectrum. I thought you knew that?

No, I didn't -- and I still don't. According to the mission 'Scene List' and the standard practice of the flight, they were observed by external PLB (payload bay) cameras. The ones that see in the visible spectrum, according to their user manuals [which RF has implied are faked -- while a secret underground set of REAL controllers with REAL manuals operate the cameras without the knowledge of the folks in Mission Control, in Houston?].

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, is:

… a type of electronic sensing device, usually a CCD camera with a frequency detection range extending above the normal "visible" (0.4 to 0.7 micrometre) wavelengths, and into the short-wave Infrared - usually to about 1.0 to 1.1 micrometres. This allows viewing of objects in extremely low light levels, where they would not be seen by the naked eye.

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.

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. He said that the shuttle’s video cameras could see near UV photons in a letter to me dated April 3, 2000: “Although the camera itself may respond to x-rays and gamma rays (usually as noise), the optics do not serve to focus on anything but visible and near-UV photons. I would be amazed if the optics were not quartz so that the UV cut-off wavelength would be ~ 180 nm. If sapphire the cut-off drops to 160 nm and for CaF2 the cut-off is ~ 135 nm.” UV is divided into near, far and extreme. The near UV is higher in wavelengths frequency than the color violet. It is also invisible to the human eye and spans almost as wide as the visible light spectrum in wavelengths. Many of NASAs video cameras see well into the invisible Infra-red also. Infrared is lower in wavelength frequency than the color red. Infrared is even easier than UV detection.

By definition, what Dr. Nuth is saying that the video cameras can see not only Near UV wavelengths of invisible light, but also Far UV defined here: Ultraviolet (UV) light is electromagnetic radiation with a wavelength shorter than that of visible light, but longer than soft X-rays. It can be subdivided into near UV (380–200 nm wavelength), far or vacuum UV (200–10 nm; abbrev. FUV or VUV), and extreme UV (1–31 nm; abbrev. EUV or XUV). It appears he made a mistake 135 - 180 Nano-meters is into the Far UV, even deeper into this invisible spectra than previously thought.

I have confirmed by letter that the above letter from NASA is true and documented. Later, James Oberg tried to say that the video cameras on the shuttle were ordinary video cameras. He was uninformed or lying to protect his UFO debunking theories. He was also firstly an employee at NASA working under John F. Schuessler, whom is today the head of MUFON. John F. Schuessler keeps accurate files of astronaut encounters of UFOs and is a believer while Oberg is a debunker. Can you figure this one out now?

David Sereda

Your move.

Cheers!

en.wikipedia.org...




[edit on 24-3-2009 by mikesingh]