This may add to the discussion a few months ago with peri****hian and others over this image:
JimO notes: This letter was sent by NASA to reply to an inquiry from Donald Ratsch about the “STS-37 blob” UFO, and Mr. Ratsch has graciously shared it with all who asked.
August 16, 1993
Letter SN5-93-42
Dear Mr. Ratsch:
Congresswoman Helen Delich Bentley has requested that NASA respond to your letter of May 3, 1993, regarding the unusual events that you observed during the airing of ‘Today in space’ on January 29, 1992.
A team of scientists in the flight Science Branch reviewed your video tape of the show ‘Today in space’. They found your description of the events to be accurate, but do not agree with your interpretation that the events represent UFOs.
The scenes in question were identified as coming from the STS-37 mission when the Orbiter was approaching the west coast of South America. The original source of the imagery was determined to be an astronaut-acquired 16 mm Arriflex motion picture film. The object in question was analyzed and was determined to be a water drop on the window. After the analysis was complete, we spoke with the STS-37 crew. The crew said that they remembered the droplet hitting the window, and added that the source of the drop was from liquid which one of the crew members was drinking.
<snip>
2. The object is a water drop on the inner pane of one of the overhead windows on the Orbiter flight deck.
3. The object grows larger because the camera position is moved.
4. The change in shape of the object may be an optical illusion, due to the water droplet surfaces magnifying and focusing the Earth’s limb and the deep space background. However, droplets attached to a surface, through surface tension, can change shape as a function of air flow in the crew cabin and/or accelerations of the Orbiter.
5. The object appears to move because the camera was moved by the astronauts.
6. The object does not cast a shadow on the Earth. The dark region below the object is a piece of dirt on the window. In the higher resolution film (enclosed), many similar objects can be seen as well. The apparent motion of the droplet and the dirt on the window are highly synchronized, due to the motion of the camera. Note, there are three panes in the window and it isn’t known on which window surface the dirt is residing.
7. The video was collected on STS-37 using an Arriflex 16 mm motion picture camera (magazine number 140). The source used on ‘Today in Space’ was a film-to-video conversion, which was sampled each sixth frame. STS-37 was launched on April 5, 1991, and landed on April 11, 1991. The exact time and date of the photography are unknown.
Sincerely,
David E. Pitts
Chief, Flight Science Branch
NASA
Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center
Houston, TX 77058
Enclosure – Detailed summary
<snip>
Methodology
From the screening of the film, the analysts performed an experiment to determine if the anomalous object was inside the flight deck or outside the window. Fortunately multiple pieces of debris were noted on the Orbiter windows which were tracked during the time period of interest. If the object were inside the Orbiter, then any camera motion would make the anomalous object appear to move a greater image distance than an object on the window. If the anomalous object were outside of the Orbiter, then the object on the window would appear to move a greater distance.
Two independent pieces of debris on the window, two points on the limb of the Earth and the anomalous object were tracked. Tracking consisted of taking the spatial position of these points for each frame over the time period of interest (approximately 100 frames). The digitizing was performed on high quality film to video conversion of the film so that the brightness values could be obtained to ensure that the exact same point was taken frame by frame.
Full Version: STS-37 'blob UFO' -- WAS "We have an unident
Unexplained Mysteries Discussion Forums > Unexplained Mysteries > Extraterrestrial Life & The UFO Phenomenon
Thanks for that verification, Jim. And by the way, welcome to the forum!
Regards,
Pericynthion
Regards,
Pericynthion
QUOTE(JimOberg @ Sep 4 2007, 04:38 PM) 
This may add to the discussion a few months ago with peri****hian and others over this image:
JimO notes: This letter was sent by NASA to reply to an inquiry from Donald Ratsch about the “STS-37 blob” UFO, and Mr. Ratsch has graciously shared it with all who asked.
August 16, 1993
Letter SN5-93-42
Dear Mr. Ratsch:
Congresswoman Helen Delich Bentley has requested that NASA respond to your letter of May 3, 1993, regarding the unusual events that you observed during the airing of ‘Today in space’ on January 29, 1992.
A team of scientists in the flight Science Branch reviewed your video tape of the show ‘Today in space’. They found your description of the events to be accurate, but do not agree with your interpretation that the events represent UFOs.
The scenes in question were identified as coming from the STS-37 mission when the Orbiter was approaching the west coast of South America. The original source of the imagery was determined to be an astronaut-acquired 16 mm Arriflex motion picture film. The object in question was analyzed and was determined to be a water drop on the window. After the analysis was complete, we spoke with the STS-37 crew. The crew said that they remembered the droplet hitting the window, and added that the source of the drop was from liquid which one of the crew members was drinking.
<snip>
2. The object is a water drop on the inner pane of one of the overhead windows on the Orbiter flight deck.
3. The object grows larger because the camera position is moved.
4. The change in shape of the object may be an optical illusion, due to the water droplet surfaces magnifying and focusing the Earth’s limb and the deep space background. However, droplets attached to a surface, through surface tension, can change shape as a function of air flow in the crew cabin and/or accelerations of the Orbiter.
5. The object appears to move because the camera was moved by the astronauts.
6. The object does not cast a shadow on the Earth. The dark region below the object is a piece of dirt on the window. In the higher resolution film (enclosed), many similar objects can be seen as well. The apparent motion of the droplet and the dirt on the window are highly synchronized, due to the motion of the camera. Note, there are three panes in the window and it isn’t known on which window surface the dirt is residing.
7. The video was collected on STS-37 using an Arriflex 16 mm motion picture camera (magazine number 140). The source used on ‘Today in Space’ was a film-to-video conversion, which was sampled each sixth frame. STS-37 was launched on April 5, 1991, and landed on April 11, 1991. The exact time and date of the photography are unknown.
Sincerely,
David E. Pitts
Chief, Flight Science Branch
NASA
Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center
Houston, TX 77058
Enclosure – Detailed summary
<snip>
Methodology
From the screening of the film, the analysts performed an experiment to determine if the anomalous object was inside the flight deck or outside the window. Fortunately multiple pieces of debris were noted on the Orbiter windows which were tracked during the time period of interest. If the object were inside the Orbiter, then any camera motion would make the anomalous object appear to move a greater image distance than an object on the window. If the anomalous object were outside of the Orbiter, then the object on the window would appear to move a greater distance.
Two independent pieces of debris on the window, two points on the limb of the Earth and the anomalous object were tracked. Tracking consisted of taking the spatial position of these points for each frame over the time period of interest (approximately 100 frames). The digitizing was performed on high quality film to video conversion of the film so that the brightness values could be obtained to ensure that the exact same point was taken frame by frame.
JimO notes: This letter was sent by NASA to reply to an inquiry from Donald Ratsch about the “STS-37 blob” UFO, and Mr. Ratsch has graciously shared it with all who asked.
August 16, 1993
Letter SN5-93-42
Dear Mr. Ratsch:
Congresswoman Helen Delich Bentley has requested that NASA respond to your letter of May 3, 1993, regarding the unusual events that you observed during the airing of ‘Today in space’ on January 29, 1992.
A team of scientists in the flight Science Branch reviewed your video tape of the show ‘Today in space’. They found your description of the events to be accurate, but do not agree with your interpretation that the events represent UFOs.
The scenes in question were identified as coming from the STS-37 mission when the Orbiter was approaching the west coast of South America. The original source of the imagery was determined to be an astronaut-acquired 16 mm Arriflex motion picture film. The object in question was analyzed and was determined to be a water drop on the window. After the analysis was complete, we spoke with the STS-37 crew. The crew said that they remembered the droplet hitting the window, and added that the source of the drop was from liquid which one of the crew members was drinking.
<snip>
2. The object is a water drop on the inner pane of one of the overhead windows on the Orbiter flight deck.
3. The object grows larger because the camera position is moved.
4. The change in shape of the object may be an optical illusion, due to the water droplet surfaces magnifying and focusing the Earth’s limb and the deep space background. However, droplets attached to a surface, through surface tension, can change shape as a function of air flow in the crew cabin and/or accelerations of the Orbiter.
5. The object appears to move because the camera was moved by the astronauts.
6. The object does not cast a shadow on the Earth. The dark region below the object is a piece of dirt on the window. In the higher resolution film (enclosed), many similar objects can be seen as well. The apparent motion of the droplet and the dirt on the window are highly synchronized, due to the motion of the camera. Note, there are three panes in the window and it isn’t known on which window surface the dirt is residing.
7. The video was collected on STS-37 using an Arriflex 16 mm motion picture camera (magazine number 140). The source used on ‘Today in Space’ was a film-to-video conversion, which was sampled each sixth frame. STS-37 was launched on April 5, 1991, and landed on April 11, 1991. The exact time and date of the photography are unknown.
Sincerely,
David E. Pitts
Chief, Flight Science Branch
NASA
Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center
Houston, TX 77058
Enclosure – Detailed summary
<snip>
Methodology
From the screening of the film, the analysts performed an experiment to determine if the anomalous object was inside the flight deck or outside the window. Fortunately multiple pieces of debris were noted on the Orbiter windows which were tracked during the time period of interest. If the object were inside the Orbiter, then any camera motion would make the anomalous object appear to move a greater image distance than an object on the window. If the anomalous object were outside of the Orbiter, then the object on the window would appear to move a greater distance.
Two independent pieces of debris on the window, two points on the limb of the Earth and the anomalous object were tracked. Tracking consisted of taking the spatial position of these points for each frame over the time period of interest (approximately 100 frames). The digitizing was performed on high quality film to video conversion of the film so that the brightness values could be obtained to ensure that the exact same point was taken frame by frame.
I don't buy it anymore than when it was suggested that aircraft avionics fix themselves with a simple turn in heading by the affected aircraft. That, in regards to the Iranian UFO incident of 1976. Do you remember that? If so, then you know me by another screen name.
There's this thing I have about those who pull the "wool over the eyes" of people, and I know it from firsthand experience as a retired member of the U.S. Air Force, since I was part of a military cover-up, but that incident had nothing to do with UFOs.
QUOTE(skyeagle409 @ Sep 4 2007, 05:40 PM)
I don't buy it anymore than when it was suggested that aircraft avionics fix themselves with a simple turn in heading by the affected aircraft. That, in regards to the Iranian UFO incident of 1976. Do you remember that? If so, then you know me by another screen name.
There's this thing I have about those who pull the "wool over the eyes" of people, and I know it from firsthand experience as a retired member of the U.S. Air Force, since I was part of a military cover-up, but that incident had nothing to do with UFOs.
There's this thing I have about those who pull the "wool over the eyes" of people, and I know it from firsthand experience as a retired member of the U.S. Air Force, since I was part of a military cover-up, but that incident had nothing to do with UFOs.
may i ask what it was about?
im actually curious
QUOTE(Agent. Mulder @ Sep 4 2007, 06:46 PM)
may i ask what it was about?
im actually curious
im actually curious
It involved the incident of Korean Airlines, Flight 007, which was shot down by the Soviets, and we became involved in flying recovery equipment from Cubi Point, Philippines to Japan aboard our C-5 Galaxy.
QUOTE(skyeagle409 @ Sep 4 2007, 06:59 PM)
It involved the incident of Korean Airlines, Flight 007, which was shot down by the Soviets, and we became involved in flying recovery equipment from Cubi Point, Philippines to Japan aboard our C-5 Galaxy.
Wow, a neat experience. I've researched that catastrophe a lot, too. What did you find out about the cause of the intrusion, and later, about the recovery of any objects (including bodies)? The John Birch Society still insists the plane was forced down on Sakhalin and the passengers imprisoned, as part of a plot to get Congressman Larry McDonald, their chairman, who was on board.
QUOTE(JimOberg @ Sep 4 2007, 07:26 PM)
Wow, a neat experience. I've researched that catastrophe a lot, too. What did you find out about the cause of the intrusion, and later, about the recovery of any objects (including bodies)? The John Birch Society still insists the plane was forced down on Sakhalin and the passengers imprisoned, as part of a plot to get Congressman Larry McDonald, their chairman, who was on board.
There is this thing I have with the John Birch Society as well, but that is another story. The Korean pilots have done it before and it doesn't take much to punch in a mistake on the aircraft's FMC or other systems for that matter, and end up where you least expect it. Do you remember when another Korean Airliner was forced down? The Soviets are "trigger-happy" cowboys in many respects and the Air Force has lost aircraft over the years to the Soviets as well.
http://heninen.net/flight-902/english.htm
In addition to other Air Force aircraft, here's another.
http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheet...eet.asp?id=1881
I might add that a similar RB-47 reported an encounter with UFOs.
http://www.ufocasebook.com/rb47.html
What is the cover-up regarding KAL007 that you referred to?
That's the reason you raised this theme, and whetted our interests!
That's the reason you raised this theme, and whetted our interests!
QUOTE(JimOberg @ Sep 4 2007, 08:24 PM)
What is the cover-up regarding KAL007 that you referred to?
That's the reason you raised this theme, and whetted our interests!
That's the reason you raised this theme, and whetted our interests!
We were not to reveal certain information in regards to the ongoing operational efforts to the press nor anyone. The center of interest during operations were the black boxes and the Soviet Union's efforts in the area, and we knew the Soviets knew how to read and understand english.
QUOTE(skyeagle409 @ Sep 4 2007, 09:34 PM)
We were not to reveal certain information in regards to the ongoing operational efforts to the press nor anyone. The center of interest during operations were the black boxes and the Soviet Union's efforts in the area, and we knew the Soviets knew how to read and understand english.
That sounds like standard OPSEC. Your use of the word "coverup" implies there were aspects to the disaster that were very different from the public (Western) perception of tragedy.
The way it seemed to work out in the end was sorta
1. The crew made a navigation error, and never realized it.
2. They departed US-controlled airspace close enough to intended track to avoid any US mil or civ radar suspicions
3. They flew fat, dumb, and happy across the Kamchatka peninsula and never knew Soviet jets had tried to catch them.
4. Soviet radars picked them up, and while they were puzzled they were not flying a pattern typical of US elint missions, they were determined to stop stop any intruder.
5. Japanese radars and listening posts heard russian air-to-air chatter and figured a night-intercept exercise was under way.
6. Some russian radar operators suggested it was 'comair' (commercial air) but the bigwigs had standing orders.
7. When the Soviet interceptor pilot finally caught up, over Sakhalin, he saw a 747 (he knew it wasn't a 707/135 silhouette) flying with lights on
(later, he was told to lie about it, to make the jet appear to be trying to sneak through)
8. There was some last-minute hesitation on the ground, and 007 passed out of Soviet airspace and into the Sea of Japan.
9. Ground ordered the plane destroyed.
10. The pilot fired two missiles. At least one hit.
11. The 007 crew had no clue what had happened, except for cabin depress and engines failing.
12. They descended, and along the way, exceeded structural loads, and the plane began shedding pieces
13. It hit the water at a steep angle off moneron island, inside the 12-mile limit around that speck.
14. At that speed and angle, all contents were essentially osterized.
15. Subsequent underwater searches, as well as misleading maneuvers and false pingers, were used by the soviet Navy as opsec to get their teams to the wreck and recover any and all electronics they needed, to determine the 'espionage mission' of the aircraft. The divers saw body parts but ignored them.
16. Moscow bewgan its campaign to insist the plane was a spy and they had every right to defend themselves.
17. the rest is sad history. The USSR collapsed, the black boxes the soviets had recovered (and decoded -- proving the flight was innocent) were turned over to France by Yeltsin.
18. families and strangers mourned
Where are you suggesting that something deeper and darker and deceptive, involving your unit, occurred?
QUOTE(JimOberg @ Sep 4 2007, 09:47 PM)
That sounds like standard OPSEC. Your use of the word "coverup" implies there were aspects to the disaster that were very different from the public (Western) perception of tragedy.
The way it seemed to work out in the end was sorta
1. The crew made a navigation error, and never realized it.
The way it seemed to work out in the end was sorta
1. The crew made a navigation error, and never realized it.
Yes, I knew that!
QUOTE
2. They departed US-controlled airspace close enough to intended track to avoid any US mil or civ radar suspicions
3. They flew fat, dumb, and happy across the Kamchatka peninsula and never knew Soviet jets had tried to catch them.
4. Soviet radars picked them up, and while they were puzzled they were not flying a pattern typical of US elint missions, they were determined to stop stop any intruder.
5. Japanese radars and listening posts heard russian air-to-air chatter and figured a night-intercept exercise was under way.
6. Some russian radar operators suggested it was 'comair' (commercial air) but the bigwigs had standing orders.
7. When the Soviet interceptor pilot finally caught up, over Sakhalin, he saw a 747 (he knew it wasn't a 707/135 silhouette) flying with lights on
(later, he was told to lie about it, to make the jet appear to be trying to sneak through)
8. There was some last-minute hesitation on the ground, and 007 passed out of Soviet airspace and into the Sea of Japan.
9. Ground ordered the plane destroyed.
10. The pilot fired two missiles. At least one hit.
11. The 007 crew had no clue what had happened, except for cabin depress and engines failing.
12. They descended, and along the way, exceeded structural loads, and the plane began shedding pieces
13. It hit the water at a steep angle off moneron island, inside the 12-mile limit around that speck.
14. At that speed and angle, all contents were essentially osterized.
15. Subsequent underwater searches, as well as misleading maneuvers and false pingers, were used by the soviet Navy as opsec to get their teams to the wreck and recover any and all electronics they needed, to determine the 'espionage mission' of the aircraft. The divers saw body parts but ignored them.
16. Moscow bewgan its campaign to insist the plane was a spy and they had every right to defend themselves.
17. the rest is sad history. The USSR collapsed, the black boxes the soviets had recovered (and decoded -- proving the flight was innocent) were turned over to France by Yeltsin.
18. families and strangers mourned
Where are you suggesting that something deeper and darker and deceptive, involving your unit, occurred?
3. They flew fat, dumb, and happy across the Kamchatka peninsula and never knew Soviet jets had tried to catch them.
4. Soviet radars picked them up, and while they were puzzled they were not flying a pattern typical of US elint missions, they were determined to stop stop any intruder.
5. Japanese radars and listening posts heard russian air-to-air chatter and figured a night-intercept exercise was under way.
6. Some russian radar operators suggested it was 'comair' (commercial air) but the bigwigs had standing orders.
7. When the Soviet interceptor pilot finally caught up, over Sakhalin, he saw a 747 (he knew it wasn't a 707/135 silhouette) flying with lights on
(later, he was told to lie about it, to make the jet appear to be trying to sneak through)
8. There was some last-minute hesitation on the ground, and 007 passed out of Soviet airspace and into the Sea of Japan.
9. Ground ordered the plane destroyed.
10. The pilot fired two missiles. At least one hit.
11. The 007 crew had no clue what had happened, except for cabin depress and engines failing.
12. They descended, and along the way, exceeded structural loads, and the plane began shedding pieces
13. It hit the water at a steep angle off moneron island, inside the 12-mile limit around that speck.
14. At that speed and angle, all contents were essentially osterized.
15. Subsequent underwater searches, as well as misleading maneuvers and false pingers, were used by the soviet Navy as opsec to get their teams to the wreck and recover any and all electronics they needed, to determine the 'espionage mission' of the aircraft. The divers saw body parts but ignored them.
16. Moscow bewgan its campaign to insist the plane was a spy and they had every right to defend themselves.
17. the rest is sad history. The USSR collapsed, the black boxes the soviets had recovered (and decoded -- proving the flight was innocent) were turned over to France by Yeltsin.
18. families and strangers mourned
Where are you suggesting that something deeper and darker and deceptive, involving your unit, occurred?
It's no longer a secret now, but during the recovery efforts, things were of a different color before the black boxes were located.
QUOTE(skyeagle409 @ Sep 4 2007, 10:10 PM)
Yes, I knew that!
It's no longer a secret now, but during the recovery efforts, things were of a different color before the black boxes were located.
It's no longer a secret now, but during the recovery efforts, things were of a different color before the black boxes were located.
Well, what a fizzle. What kind of 'coverup' were you bragging about being a part of? Turns out, zilch. Sigh.
QUOTE(JimOberg @ Sep 5 2007, 02:39 PM)
Well, what a fizzle. What kind of 'coverup' were you bragging about being a part of? Turns out, zilch. Sigh.
You have to be careful, Jim, not to use your brand of psychology here. All I said was that I was part of a military cover-up, but had nothing to do with UFOs.
Anyway, it is just a matter of not letting the other guy know what we knew, or didn't know, and if authorized, hand the press a false story, if not, then avoid any questions from the press and point them toward the direction of the public relations officer. What the Intel' folks had briefed us during recovery effort updates, was not what was published in the newspapers, and rightly so!
No more sinister than hiding the true facts surrounding the Glomar Explorer!
QUOTE(skyeagle409 @ Sep 5 2007, 03:01 PM)
No more sinister than hiding the true facts surrounding the Glomar Explorer!
You seemed to be using it as an excuse never to believe any prosaic explanation for any UFO story you enjoyed.
Seems like a pretty self-indulgent rationalization -- but not very logical.
Suit yourself.
Is there any other reason you don't want to believe the NASA letter on STS-37, such as, maybe,
you or somebody you know tried to reproduce their reported analysis and got different results.
That would be worth discussing.
But your apparent view that you don't think it's worth bothering to verify the results -- just close your mind to them --
pretend they don't exist -- assume they are lies -- gosh, that's hardly a compelling argument.
Don't you find it disturbing that such prosaic explanations do exist, and have been offered by NASA inter alia, and the pro-UFO buffs withhold them from their target audience? Isn't THAT a r-e-a-l coverup?
QUOTE(JimOberg @ Sep 5 2007, 03:45 PM)
You seemed to be using it as an excuse never to believe any prosaic explanation for any UFO story you enjoyed.
Wrong assumption on your part!
QUOTE
Is there any other reason you don't want to believe the NASA letter on STS-37, such as, maybe,
you or somebody you know tried to reproduce their reported analysis and got different results.
you or somebody you know tried to reproduce their reported analysis and got different results.
Well, let me pose some questions for you?
* Are uncontrolled water droplets floating around inside the space shuttle, acceptable by NASA?
* If not, what means are used to control such unwanted droplets in order keep them from entering places where they can cause problems?
* What would happen if water droplets were to enter sensitive areas within the shuttle's cabin?
QUOTE(skyeagle409 @ Sep 5 2007, 04:02 PM)
Wrong assumption on your part!
Well, let me pose some questions for you?
* Are uncontrolled water droplets floating around inside the space shuttle, acceptable by NASA?
* If not, what means are used to control such unwanted droplets in order keep them from entering places where they can cause problems?
* What would happen if water droplets were to enter sensitive areas within the shuttle's cabin?
Well, let me pose some questions for you?
* Are uncontrolled water droplets floating around inside the space shuttle, acceptable by NASA?
* If not, what means are used to control such unwanted droplets in order keep them from entering places where they can cause problems?
* What would happen if water droplets were to enter sensitive areas within the shuttle's cabin?
You don't like water droplets inside the cabin. But they happen.
Water more often comes from condensation on cold hardware -- that can get very, very serious.
A water droplet on a window is nothing to worry about -- that sort of stuff eventually evaporates anyway.
The explanation seems reasonable to me.
QUOTE(JimOberg @ Sep 5 2007, 04:20 PM)
You don't like water droplets inside the cabin. But they happen.
Water more often comes from condensation on cold hardware -- that can get very, very serious.
A water droplet on a window is nothing to worry about -- that sort of stuff eventually evaporates anyway.
The explanation seems reasonable to me.
Water more often comes from condensation on cold hardware -- that can get very, very serious.
A water droplet on a window is nothing to worry about -- that sort of stuff eventually evaporates anyway.
The explanation seems reasonable to me.
Speaking of windows,
* What special properties are unique to the windows of the space shuttle, and why?
* Are the windows designed to prevent unwanted moisture from forming?
* What happens to a drop of water when it strikes a solid surface in space?
QUOTE(skyeagle409 @ Sep 5 2007, 04:28 PM)
Speaking of windows,
* What special properties are unique to the windows of the space shuttle, and why?
* Are the windows designed to prevent unwanted moisture from forming?
* What happens to a drop of water when it strikes a solid surface in space?
* What special properties are unique to the windows of the space shuttle, and why?
* Are the windows designed to prevent unwanted moisture from forming?
* What happens to a drop of water when it strikes a solid surface in space?
Windows are usually UV-opaque, and triple-paned.
They could well have anti-condensation surface treatment.
When a drop of water touches a flat surface in zero-G, it's about
the same as in 1-G since surface tension forces dominate gravity at that
scale. That's why the ground simulations of optical effects of water drops
on windows look so strikingly similar to the shots in space.
Now, to the bigger issue -- why do you suppose the NASA explanation
for the STS-37 blob has been covered up by the UFO propaganda machine?
QUOTE(JimOberg @ Sep 5 2007, 05:32 PM)
Windows are usually UV-opaque, and triple-paned.
They could well have anti-condensation surface treatment.
They could well have anti-condensation surface treatment.
Perhaps, you can provide a phone number of the manufacturer to where I can have them confirm the properties and anti-condensation treatment of the shuttle's windows and ask them further questions in regards to the possibilty of moisture forming on their windows.
Just help a poor man out who wants to do his homework.
QUOTE(skyeagle409 @ Sep 5 2007, 05:48 PM)
Perhaps, you can provide a phone number of the manufacturer to where I can have them confirm the properties and anti-condensation treatment of the shuttle's windows and ask them further questions in regards to the possibilty of moisture forming on their windows.
Just help a poor man out who wants to do his homework.
Just help a poor man out who wants to do his homework.
All of sudden, you want to do your homework? *grin*
And you want ME to do it FOR you?
We all understand the real reason for this pathetically transparent dodge-dance.
I don't think we're singing from the same page after all.
QUOTE(JimOberg @ Sep 5 2007, 06:10 PM)
All of sudden, you want to do your homework? *grin*
And you want ME to do it FOR you?
And you want ME to do it FOR you?
Just supply the phone number to where I can confirm the anti-condensation and electo-conductive properties of the shuttle's window, to where I can post their reply for all to see and compare their reply with your notes.
On another note, I know much more than what I am revealing, you understand, but because of your former employment position and past record in regards to your position on UFO enigma, it makes it easier for me to gauge where you are coming from and where you intend to go. I have used unorthodox methods in the past to make a point, most notably, the history of the gorilla in an argument over UFOs to point out fallacies of closed-minded skepticism and the art of debunkng.
QUOTE(skyeagle409 @ Sep 5 2007, 06:29 PM)
On another note, I know much more than what I am revealing, you understand, but because of your former employment position and past record in regards to your position on UFO enigma, it makes it easier for me to gauge where you are coming from and where you intend to go. I have used unorthodox methods in the past to make a point, most notably, the history of the gorilla in an argument over UFOs to point out fallacies of closed-minded skepticism and the art of debunkng.
gawd, i sure HOPE you know more than you have revealed so far -- about ANYTHING.
QUOTE(JimOberg @ Sep 5 2007, 06:35 PM)
gawd, i sure HOPE you know more than you have revealed so far -- about ANYTHING.
TRUST ME!!!
QUOTE(skyeagle409 @ Sep 5 2007, 01:35 PM)
TRUST ME!!!
It doesn't look like he wants to supply the number Skyeagle...LOL I wonder what he is afraid of. I don't think he realizes who he's dealing with here.
Sniff sniff...you smell something??? LOL
Oh well, you have got to realize that he gets his income from doing what he's doing, and therefore his opinions are skewed and slanted. That's okay, there are enough researchers here who have no other agenda then knowing the truth...whatever it may be.
QUOTE(outlooker @ Sep 5 2007, 08:16 PM)
Oh well, you have got to realize that he gets his income from doing what he's doing, and therefore his opinions are skewed and slanted.
Somehow i've misplaced the address to send my invoices for gummint debunking services, would you let me know who is paying for these services and where I should send the bill -- i'll give you a 10% finders fee when I get my first check.
Some years ago somebody (was it you?) filed a snitch-claim with the IRS office in Austin that I had been not reporting the six million dollars a year I was being paid to debunk UFOs, and owed back taxes -- the guy wanted his catch-the-cheater commission. The IRS guy did telephone me, apologetically, to ask what I might know about such an accusation. I explained why some freaks actually felt that way, and pointed him to some of my published stuff, and he laughed and said he was satisifed it was another looney. "I should have noticed the first clue," he added, "the letter was written in crayon."
Was it you?
QUOTE(outlooker @ Sep 5 2007, 08:16 PM)
It doesn't look like he wants to supply the number Skyeagle...LOL I wonder what he is afraid of. I don't think he realizes who he's dealing with here.
Sniff sniff...you smell something??? LOL
Oh well, you have got to realize that he gets his income from doing what he's doing, and therefore his opinions are skewed and slanted. That's okay, there are enough researchers here who have no other agenda then knowing the truth...whatever it may be.
Sniff sniff...you smell something??? LOL
Oh well, you have got to realize that he gets his income from doing what he's doing, and therefore his opinions are skewed and slanted. That's okay, there are enough researchers here who have no other agenda then knowing the truth...whatever it may be.
I want to make him work for his money so I can do my homework.
QUOTE(skyeagle409 @ Sep 5 2007, 09:48 PM)
I want to make him work for his money so I can do my homework.
I am having trouble with Sky's English.
Can anyone help me understand what this sentence means?
QUOTE(JimOberg @ Sep 6 2007, 03:27 AM)
I am having trouble with Sky's English. Can anyone help me understand what this sentence means?
Simple!
Supply the information I requested, for the manufacturer of the Space Shuttle's windows so I can get detailed information straight from the "horses mouth" in regards to certain properties of those windows and other information regarding them. Since skeptics have occasionally attacked me for my sources, (internet) I decided to let you do the initial work for me.
QUOTE(JimOberg @ Sep 4 2007, 04:38 PM)
This may add to the discussion a few months ago with peri****hian and others over this image:
JimO notes: This letter was sent by NASA to reply to an inquiry from Donald Ratsch about the “STS-37 blob” UFO, and Mr. Ratsch has graciously shared it with all who asked.
August 16, 1993
Letter SN5-93-42
Dear Mr. Ratsch:
Congresswoman Helen Delich Bentley has requested that NASA respond to your letter of May 3, 1993, regarding the unusual events that you observed during the airing of ‘Today in space’ on January 29, 1992.
A team of scientists in the flight Science Branch reviewed your video tape of the show ‘Today in space’. They found your description of the events to be accurate, but do not agree with your interpretation that the events represent UFOs.
The scenes in question were identified as coming from the STS-37 mission when the Orbiter was approaching the west coast of South America. The original source of the imagery was determined to be an astronaut-acquired 16 mm Arriflex motion picture film. The object in question was analyzed and was determined to be a water drop on the window. After the analysis was complete, we spoke with the STS-37 crew. The crew said that they remembered the droplet hitting the window, and added that the source of the drop was from liquid which one of the crew members was drinking.
<snip>
2. The object is a water drop on the inner pane of one of the overhead windows on the Orbiter flight deck.
3. The object grows larger because the camera position is moved.
4. The change in shape of the object may be an optical illusion, due to the water droplet surfaces magnifying and focusing the Earth’s limb and the deep space background. However, droplets attached to a surface, through surface tension, can change shape as a function of air flow in the crew cabin and/or accelerations of the Orbiter.
5. The object appears to move because the camera was moved by the astronauts.
6. The object does not cast a shadow on the Earth. The dark region below the object is a piece of dirt on the window. In the higher resolution film (enclosed), many similar objects can be seen as well. The apparent motion of the droplet and the dirt on the window are highly synchronized, due to the motion of the camera. Note, there are three panes in the window and it isn’t known on which window surface the dirt is residing.
7. The video was collected on STS-37 using an Arriflex 16 mm motion picture camera (magazine number 140). The source used on ‘Today in Space’ was a film-to-video conversion, which was sampled each sixth frame. STS-37 was launched on April 5, 1991, and landed on April 11, 1991. The exact time and date of the photography are unknown.
Sincerely,
David E. Pitts
Chief, Flight Science Branch
NASA
Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center
Houston, TX 77058
Enclosure – Detailed summary
<snip>
Methodology
From the screening of the film, the analysts performed an experiment to determine if the anomalous object was inside the flight deck or outside the window. Fortunately multiple pieces of debris were noted on the Orbiter windows which were tracked during the time period of interest. If the object were inside the Orbiter, then any camera motion would make the anomalous object appear to move a greater image distance than an object on the window. If the anomalous object were outside of the Orbiter, then the object on the window would appear to move a greater distance.
Two independent pieces of debris on the window, two points on the limb of the Earth and the anomalous object were tracked. Tracking consisted of taking the spatial position of these points for each frame over the time period of interest (approximately 100 frames). The digitizing was performed on high quality film to video conversion of the film so that the brightness values could be obtained to ensure that the exact same point was taken frame by frame.
JimO notes: This letter was sent by NASA to reply to an inquiry from Donald Ratsch about the “STS-37 blob” UFO, and Mr. Ratsch has graciously shared it with all who asked.
August 16, 1993
Letter SN5-93-42
Dear Mr. Ratsch:
Congresswoman Helen Delich Bentley has requested that NASA respond to your letter of May 3, 1993, regarding the unusual events that you observed during the airing of ‘Today in space’ on January 29, 1992.
A team of scientists in the flight Science Branch reviewed your video tape of the show ‘Today in space’. They found your description of the events to be accurate, but do not agree with your interpretation that the events represent UFOs.
The scenes in question were identified as coming from the STS-37 mission when the Orbiter was approaching the west coast of South America. The original source of the imagery was determined to be an astronaut-acquired 16 mm Arriflex motion picture film. The object in question was analyzed and was determined to be a water drop on the window. After the analysis was complete, we spoke with the STS-37 crew. The crew said that they remembered the droplet hitting the window, and added that the source of the drop was from liquid which one of the crew members was drinking.
<snip>
2. The object is a water drop on the inner pane of one of the overhead windows on the Orbiter flight deck.
3. The object grows larger because the camera position is moved.
4. The change in shape of the object may be an optical illusion, due to the water droplet surfaces magnifying and focusing the Earth’s limb and the deep space background. However, droplets attached to a surface, through surface tension, can change shape as a function of air flow in the crew cabin and/or accelerations of the Orbiter.
5. The object appears to move because the camera was moved by the astronauts.
6. The object does not cast a shadow on the Earth. The dark region below the object is a piece of dirt on the window. In the higher resolution film (enclosed), many similar objects can be seen as well. The apparent motion of the droplet and the dirt on the window are highly synchronized, due to the motion of the camera. Note, there are three panes in the window and it isn’t known on which window surface the dirt is residing.
7. The video was collected on STS-37 using an Arriflex 16 mm motion picture camera (magazine number 140). The source used on ‘Today in Space’ was a film-to-video conversion, which was sampled each sixth frame. STS-37 was launched on April 5, 1991, and landed on April 11, 1991. The exact time and date of the photography are unknown.
Sincerely,
David E. Pitts
Chief, Flight Science Branch
NASA
Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center
Houston, TX 77058
Enclosure – Detailed summary
<snip>
Methodology
From the screening of the film, the analysts performed an experiment to determine if the anomalous object was inside the flight deck or outside the window. Fortunately multiple pieces of debris were noted on the Orbiter windows which were tracked during the time period of interest. If the object were inside the Orbiter, then any camera motion would make the anomalous object appear to move a greater image distance than an object on the window. If the anomalous object were outside of the Orbiter, then the object on the window would appear to move a greater distance.
Two independent pieces of debris on the window, two points on the limb of the Earth and the anomalous object were tracked. Tracking consisted of taking the spatial position of these points for each frame over the time period of interest (approximately 100 frames). The digitizing was performed on high quality film to video conversion of the film so that the brightness values could be obtained to ensure that the exact same point was taken frame by frame.
Thanks for posting that Mr Oberg.
As always there seems to be a logical explanation for everything unidentified, it just takes time to "dig it out". But until explained, they are alien spaceships to the believer, and sometimes even after.
QUOTE(hazzard @ Sep 6 2007, 06:55 AM)
As always there seems to be a logical explanation for everything unidentified, it just takes time to "dig it out".
I'm under the strong impression that EVERYTHING has a logical explanation.
Also --- Mr. Oberg... Jim...James...whatever you prefer: It's nice to see you here.
QUOTE(skyeagle409 @ Sep 5 2007, 11:08 PM)
Simple!
Supply the information I requested, for the manufacturer of the Space Shuttle's windows so I can get detailed information straight from the "horses mouth" in regards to certain properties of those windows and other information regarding them. Since skeptics have occasionally attacked me for my sources, (internet) I decided to let you do the initial work for me.
Supply the information I requested, for the manufacturer of the Space Shuttle's windows so I can get detailed information straight from the "horses mouth" in regards to certain properties of those windows and other information regarding them. Since skeptics have occasionally attacked me for my sources, (internet) I decided to let you do the initial work for me.
You have got to be kidding me...
You get attacked because your sources are cut and paste articles from blatantly pro-UFO websites, and include NO individual or original material or ideas.
QUOTE(skyeagle409 @ Sep 6 2007, 04:08 AM)
Since skeptics have occasionally attacked me for my sources, (internet) I decided to let you do the initial work for me.
Where do I send the invoice for my doing work for you?
QUOTE(eqgumby @ Sep 6 2007, 12:40 PM)
You have got to be kidding me...
You get attacked because your sources are cut and paste articles from blatantly pro-UFO websites, and include NO individual or original material or ideas.
That is where knowledge came on the scene because what I was posting, was also available under the Freedom Of Information Act and were of events that were already well documented by government agencies and firmly established as fact.
QUOTE(hazzard @ Sep 6 2007, 10:55 AM)
Thanks for posting that Mr Oberg.
As always there seems to be a logical explanation for everything unidentified, it just takes time to "dig it out". But until explained, they are alien spaceships to the believer, and sometimes even after.
As always there seems to be a logical explanation for everything unidentified, it just takes time to "dig it out". But until explained, they are alien spaceships to the believer, and sometimes even after.
Some of those UFOs have been identified as flying saucers and capable of hypersonic velocities, something we do not have, so naturally, that is why many believe they are not ours. If you disagree, then show us any aircraft of mankind that fits the description noted.
QUOTE(JimOberg @ Sep 6 2007, 01:24 PM)
Where do I send the invoice for my doing work for you?
BayArea Skeptics
1218 Milvia Street
Berkeley, CA 94709-1933
QUOTE(skyeagle409 @ Sep 6 2007, 02:39 PM)
Some of those UFOs have been identified as flying saucers and capable of hypersonic velocities, something we do not have, so naturally, that is why many believe they are not ours. If you disagree, then show us any aircraft of mankind that fits the description noted.
Some of the UFOs in space shuttle images?
Please tell us, where, and by whom, and (sorry to beat the same drum again),
how do WE locate those reports so we can have other than your own version
of them?
QUOTE(JimOberg @ Sep 6 2007, 04:32 PM)
Some of the UFOs in space shuttle images?
Well, they are not B-747s!
QUOTE
Please tell us, where, and by whom, and (sorry to beat the same drum again),
how do WE locate those reports so we can have other than your own version
of them?
how do WE locate those reports so we can have other than your own version
of them?
I am going to be a bit tricky here, but here you go. Sometimes, I like to reserve certain information in case the debunking starts.
http://tokyo.cool.ne.jp/dateiwao/sts109ufo11.htm
QUOTE(skyeagle409 @ Sep 6 2007, 04:40 PM)
I am going to be a bit tricky here, but here you go.
Nope, I don't do tricks. Respond like an adult.
QUOTE(skyeagle409 @ Sep 5 2007, 11:08 PM)
Simple!
Supply the information I requested, for the manufacturer of the Space Shuttle's windows so I can get detailed information straight from the "horses mouth" in regards to certain properties of those windows and other information regarding them. Since skeptics have occasionally attacked me for my sources, (internet) I decided to let you do the initial work for me.
Supply the information I requested, for the manufacturer of the Space Shuttle's windows so I can get detailed information straight from the "horses mouth" in regards to certain properties of those windows and other information regarding them. Since skeptics have occasionally attacked me for my sources, (internet) I decided to let you do the initial work for me.
This a real question for you. You might have stated it before, but what part of UFO phenomon do you not buy? Examples: abduction, alien moon bases,face on mars, etc. Or do you beleive it all. Thanks, just curious.
QUOTE(JimOberg @ Sep 6 2007, 05:39 PM)
Nope, I don't do tricks. Respond like an adult.
Are you kidding me!!
I have followed you for a very long time and much of you post are full of tricks!
QUOTE(Eric Raven The Skeptic @ Sep 6 2007, 05:55 PM)
This a real question for you. You might have stated it before, but what part of UFO phenomon do you not buy? Examples: abduction, alien moon bases,face on mars, etc. Or do you beleive it all. Thanks, just curious.
I don't buy the mental incapacity to talk specifics about any one particular case, but instead to worship ALL cases as 'unsolvable', since no one case is ever actually treated as a topic for serious investigation.
In other words, exactly the pseudo-thinking exhibited on this thread recently.
QUOTE(skyeagle409 @ Sep 6 2007, 07:56 PM)
Are you kidding me!!
I have followed you for a very long time and much of you post are full of tricks!
I have followed you for a very long time and much of you post are full of tricks!
Oh yeah he is a magician, better than David Copperfield even.
QUOTE(Eric Raven The Skeptic @ Sep 6 2007, 05:55 PM)
This a real question for you. You might have stated it before, but what part of UFO phenomon do you not buy? Examples: abduction, alien moon bases,face on mars, etc. Or do you beleive it all. Thanks, just curious.
Abductions are difficult, but, I do not discount them out of hand, and I find the Betty and Barney Hill case interesting. The Face on Mars, is interesting as well and there seem to be symmetry in that structure, so I wonder why NASA hasn't sent probes to that particular location for a closer look, particularly, in that general area. I would like to pose a question for NASA;
When are you going to send probes to the Cydonia area of Mars?
As far as the moon is concerned, I can remember when astronauts reported lights on the far side of the moon and astronomers reported UFOs in the vicinity of the moon as well, so it is not inconceivable that the moon could be a waypoint for ET on TDY. It would be very easy to NASA to cover-up certain things and events on the moon, after all, who else is going to go there and check out its stories?
QUOTE(JimOberg @ Sep 6 2007, 04:32 PM)
Some of the UFOs in space shuttle images?
Please tell us, where, and by whom, and (sorry to beat the same drum again),
how do WE locate those reports so we can have other than your own version
of them?
Please tell us, where, and by whom, and (sorry to beat the same drum again),
how do WE locate those reports so we can have other than your own version
of them?
Hold on,I need some popcorn for this!!
QUOTE(DEBUNKER @ Sep 6 2007, 06:32 PM)
Hold on,I need some popcorn for this!!
Don't forget the beer!
QUOTE(JimOberg @ Sep 6 2007, 01:39 PM)
Nope, I don't do tricks. Respond like an adult.
Don't feel bad his brain slithered out of his head along time ago.
You notice he has yet to address
QUOTE
Don't you find it disturbing that such prosaic explanations do exist, and have been offered by NASA inter alia, and the pro-UFO buffs withhold them from their target audience? Isn't THAT a r-e-a-l coverup?
Are you going to address half the things he has posted Sky or just pick and choose which points to address so you can skirt around any real responsible conversation. (just like you do with "evidence").
Anyway be sure to get back to us when you find that gray thing roughly 1300 c.c.'s large (though in your case I am willing to believe its on the order of 5-600?).
QUOTE(camlax @ Sep 6 2007, 06:47 PM)
Don't feel bad his brain slithered out of his head along time ago.
You notice he has yet to address
Are you going to address half the things he has posted Sky or just pick and choose which points to address so you can skirt around any real responsible conversation. (just like you do with "evidence").
You notice he has yet to address
Are you going to address half the things he has posted Sky or just pick and choose which points to address so you can skirt around any real responsible conversation. (just like you do with "evidence").
Most of what he's posted are evasions and detours. I had this notion that specific threads were set up to discuss specific topics in depth, and I provided loads and loads of specific investigation results to contribute to those discussions.
I'm still willing. Start over, please.
QUOTE(JimOberg @ Sep 6 2007, 02:58 PM)
Most of what he's posted are evasions and detours. I had this notion that specific threads were set up to discuss specific topics in depth, and I provided loads and loads of specific investigation results to contribute to those discussions.
I'm still willing. Start over, please.
I'm still willing. Start over, please.
I got 5 dollars that says his next post starts off "Well some skeptics...."
He will change directions to point of nausea. Good luck getting anything solid out of this snake Jim, other then broken irrational logic and links "believersunite.com".
QUOTE(camlax @ Sep 6 2007, 07:01 PM)
I got 5 dollars that says his next post starts off "Well some skeptics...."
You've just lost the bet.
QUOTE(skyeagle409 @ Sep 6 2007, 03:06 PM)
You've just lost the bet.
Ha, very good. Now, how about addressing all of his points brought up?
(See sky, despite what they say about you can use your brain on occasion, thank you for not proving me right there)
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.