1528 replies to this topic

[booNyzarC]

JimOberg, on 31 October 2012 - 03:31 PM, said:

The mystery is why is ONE of the four images [a later one, not the first one] different from both the other three and the visual perceptions of all three witnesses? What they saw, and photographed 3 out of 4 times, was a point of light. What might be the cause of the 4th image looking like a squiggle?

Slow shutter speed and movement of the camera perhaps?

[JimOberg]

booNyzarC, on 31 October 2012 - 02:40 PM, said:

Hi James.  Can you clear up a question for us?

MacGuffin seems to be under the impression that you have commented regarding photo AS11-36-5319, saying that it is space junk.  If you would be so kind as to clarify whether or not this is the case, I'd appreciate it.

You're right, it's an occasion worth recognizing and celebrating. McG has read, understood, and accurately relayed something he read by me. Let's not get too excited about this anomaly.

I think the shot captured some of the 'stuff' coming off the vehicle, of what nature it's impossible to tell because there so much of it from varied sources.

I call it 'spacecraft dandruff', to explicitly differentiate it from 'space junk' in its traditional sense of pieces of OTHER spacecraft tracked in different orbits that may criss-cross one's own path. 'Space dandruff' is rarely tracked on radar, it's too small and so light it usually drops out of orbit and burns up in days or weeks at most.

It's slowly dawned on me that traditional 'space junk' is extremely infrequently seen by astronauts or their external cameras. It's moving too fast, and it's usually too small, to ever be detectable.

Other vehicles flying parallel paths, for rendezvous, brief free-flight episodes, or after separation, often appear on youtube as UFOs. Skylab crews saw their own massive S-2 Saturn launch vehicle upper stage occasionally as it 'lapped' them in orbit every few days.

Some astronauts [eg Don Pettit] ran special observation programs for Iridium flares, successfully. And there are a very few images that might be fortuitous detections of large mid-distance other satellites, such as a NOSS triplet. But 'space junk' -- hardly ever at all, I've come to believe.

'Space dandruff'? Almost every day and twice on Sundays.

[JimOberg]

zoser, on 31 October 2012 - 03:12 PM, said:

Just doing a search for more recent material by Martyn Stubbs and I can across this awesome footage.  

How about you address dodged questions about the stuff you've already posted, such as whether or not the STS-48 or STS-75 sequences were daytime or nighttime? Or why it's not important to know.

Maurice Chatelain?
Maurice Chatelain?
Maurice Chatelain?

[booNyzarC]

JimOberg, on 31 October 2012 - 03:40 PM, said:

You're right, it's an occasion worth recognizing and celebrating. McG has read, understood, and accurately relayed something he read by me. Let's not get too excited about this anomaly.

I think the shot captured some of the 'stuff' coming off the vehicle, of what nature it's impossible to tell because there so much of it from varied sources.

I call it 'spacecraft dandruff', to explicitly differentiate it from 'space junk' in its traditional sense of pieces of OTHER spacecraft tracked in different orbits that may criss-cross one's own path. 'Space dandruff' is rarely tracked on radar, it's too small and so light it usually drops out of orbit and burns up in days or weeks at most.

It's slowly dawned on me that traditional 'space junk' is extremely infrequently seen by astronauts or their external cameras. It's moving too fast, and it's usually too small, to ever be detectable.

Other vehicles flying parallel paths, for rendezvous, brief free-flight episodes, or after separation, often appear on youtube as UFOs. Skylab crews saw their own massive S-2 Saturn launch vehicle upper stage occasionally as it 'lapped' them in orbit every few days.

Some astronauts [eg Don Pettit] ran special observation programs for Iridium flares, successfully. And there are a very few images that might be fortuitous detections of large mid-distance other satellites, such as a NOSS triplet. But 'space junk' -- hardly ever at all, I've come to believe.

'Space dandruff'? Almost every day and twice on Sundays.

Thank you for clearing that up Jim.

It still looks like a processing artifact to me though.  

[TheMacGuffin]

JimOberg, on 31 October 2012 - 03:28 PM, said:

But the distance is the unknown key. It could easily be that bright if it were a small insulation blanket fragment floating only a few hundred feet away. They had no visual or instrumental means of determining its range.

I don't know how you can post things like that and keep a straight face.  I really don't.

[TheMacGuffin]

JimOberg, on 31 October 2012 - 03:40 PM, said:

You're right, it's an occasion worth recognizing and celebrating. McG has read, understood, and accurately relayed something he read by me. Let's not get too excited about this anomaly.

Now you see why I can't stand these people.  I mean just personally.

booNyzarC, on 31 October 2012 - 03:45 PM, said:

Thank you for clearing that up Jim.

It still looks like a processing artifact to me though.  

Well, you two have a good time, since I don't believe anything you say in any case.

[JimOberg]

booNyzarC, on 31 October 2012 - 03:36 PM, said:

Slow shutter speed and movement of the camera perhaps?

Good idea. That's the one that comes first into my mind, too.

Also, I've taken star photos that looked just like the squiggle if I bump the mount.

And I took a series of pre-dawn images of Venus rising from behind a Greek mountain, last week, and a few of the hand-held shots have nearly-identical squiggles, although most don't.

[Hazzard]

TheMacGuffin, on 31 October 2012 - 02:40 PM, said:

Oh Jim, Jim, Jim, every time you show up here it just makes me talk like I'm in a soap opera.

He is one of those guys that brings out the best in people, dont you think,...

[JimOberg]

TheMacGuffin, on 31 October 2012 - 03:46 PM, said:

I don't know how you can post things like that and keep a straight face.  I really don't.

Are you going to fall into the staked pit trap, or not?

Bets, anybody?

[quillius]

JimOberg, on 31 October 2012 - 03:54 PM, said:

Are you going to fall into the staked pit trap, or not?

Bets, anybody?

talking of staked pit traps

JimOberg, on 31 October 2012 - 03:43 PM, said:

How about you address dodged questions about the stuff you've already posted, such as whether or not the STS-48 or STS-75 sequences were daytime or nighttime? Or why it's not important to know.

Maurice Chatelain?
Maurice Chatelain?
Maurice Chatelain?

[booNyzarC]

TheMacGuffin, on 31 October 2012 - 03:48 PM, said:

Now you see why I can't stand these people.  I mean just personally.




Well, you two have a good time, since I don't believe anything you say in any case.

Your objectivity leaves much to be desired MacGuffin.

[TheMacGuffin]

quillius, on 31 October 2012 - 03:58 PM, said:

talking of staked pit traps

I already talked about Chatelain a long time ago, saying I could never find any proof that he worked for NASA at all.

Of course, Mr. Oberg and friends might just have airbrushed him out of the picture.  I wouldn't put it past them.

[quillius]

Hazzard, on 31 October 2012 - 02:09 PM, said:

My guess is that he also wants people to learn science - Real science - and not just the science fiction nonsense you guys seem to enjoy.

and theres me thinking you usually say that 'you wish it was all true' or 'that you enjoy science fiction as much as the next person'........

its either 'science' or 'fiction' not sure if it can be 'science fiction nonsense'

[TheMacGuffin]

booNyzarC, on 31 October 2012 - 03:59 PM, said:

Your objectivity leaves much to be desired MacGuffin.

[zoser]

synchronomy, on 31 October 2012 - 03:24 PM, said:

That's very interesting footage, but...
We need more info. What mission was it? Date and time?
There's no commentary on it either. Maybe it's a legitimate satellite?
Probably the best piece of video I have seen from him, I would have thought at least he would be providing some comments.
Anyone have more on this?

Agreed Synch; the only comment I found on youtube wasn't helpful.  If this one piece could be validated, that would be a smoking gun.  It's the best clip I've seen so far.  Someone must know where it came from?

How about emailing Martyn Stubbs himself?

I'll start with the uploader.  Leave it to me; I'm on it now.  If I get a response I will let you know.