Another fleet of STS pseudo-UFOs shot down
james oberg
Through the courtesy of Oren Swearingen I was able to view his second
generation video tape of the five "UFO" scenes from the recent Hubble
Servicing Mission posted on rense.com, which have attracted so much interest
and speculation.
Clip-1,2,3 scenes (STS-109) from payload bay door opening. Clips-2 and –3
apparently show white objects moving out from behind the shuttle’s tail,
emanating directly from the main engine bells and moving off in straight
lines. This is about as routine an image of a post-MECO prop purge aftermath
that I could imagine. Clip-1 shows a white dot clearly popping out from the
insulation blanket around the pre-deploy Ku-Band antenna at the far left,
moves along in front of the antenna before emerging against the black sky
background. That makes it a few tenths of an inch across at most.
Clip-4, the ‘edited’ image claim. Both scenes are indeed played, one in real
time and one for a later playback. To see what changes if any were made in
the playback I had to have a same-time-to-same-time comparison marker. Using
the astronaut’s call on A/G-1 about being a few feet out from the MPLM as
the time hack, I measured the disappearance of the white light as occurring
55 seconds earlier (it appeared to flicker and go out in a typical
atmospheric extinction manner, leading me to guess it was a celestial
object). I then measured the duration of the ‘highlights’ replay of the same
scene, and measured it beginning about 30 seconds prior to the same
conversation. Since 55 is greater than 30, it’s clear to me that the scene
including the light was never part of the playback – it had ended before the
playback sequence began. Didn’t this simple check occur to anybody else,
like James Neff? Or has the internet-posted version of both scenes been
‘cropped’ to not include the entire sequence (more likely)?
Clip-5, white image after sunset. This white dot does swoop in diagonally
in a mysterious manner. It then is relatively still until the camera pans
across to center it (the jerky motion of the pan/tilt platform shows the
motion is camera-centered). It then moves to the horizon line, flickers in
the typical manner of atmospheric extinction, and goes out. I measured the
time between sunset and the disappearance of the white image, and got about
3 minutes. Then I checked the sky chart that I had produced from the
tracking software, and noted that Venus was 12 degrees from the Sun. At an
orbital rate of 4 degrees per minute, the horizon line would have moved
about 12 degrees in 3 minutes. This is strikingly consistent. I don’t know
what caused the original brief diagonal motion at the edge of the camera
FOV. But the rest of the light’s behavior, its flicker-die-out, and its
position 12 degrees east of the Sun (identical with that of Venus) make a
persuasive case for me that it was indeed Venus.
Filer’s Files March 20; “During the release of Hubble back into it's orbit,
a strobing object was seen moving from 7 o'clock toward 2 o'clock. The
camera operator tried several times to move the camera in order to eliminate
the object from the field of view, to no avail. It continued to enter the
screen. At this point, the feed was cut. Some time later, the tapes made by
the crew from inside Columbia of the HST release were replayed in their
entirety. The same strobing object was in the area of Hubble, but from a
different angle.”
I was able to watch this scene too, and all of Filer’s descriptions about
the camera operation are completely off base. The camera – probably PLB Cam
B in the aft right corner of the payload bay – is tilted way up to have the
HST in view as the RMS pulls away. The separation burn occurs. The HST
drifts up and to the left slightly. The camera is tilted up to keep the HST
in view. The flickering light moves across the field of view as the HST
continues to move up and to the left, since the shuttle is not departing
from it. The camera then tilts up again to center the HST again. There is no
‘elimination’, dodging, avoidance, or any other imaginary reactions to the
quite ordinary post-RCS-firing fragment release. The camera is following the
HST. Nobody cared about the snowflake.
I wonder if any of this will be mentioned by those who hype the
unsolvability of these scenes, for fun, ego, profit, or whatever.
jonathan duval
as scientific in their pursuit of the truth.
"james oberg" <job...@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Bvsm8.42304$Dv6.1...@typhoon.austin.rr.com...
> Reference link: http://www.rense.com/general21/nasas.htm
>
> Through the courtesy of Oren Swearingen I was able to view his second
> generation video tape of the five "UFO" scenes from the recent Hubble
> Servicing Mission posted on rense.com, which have attracted so much
interest
> and speculation.
>
> apparently show white objects moving out from behind the shuttle's tail,
> emanating directly from the main engine bells and moving off in straight
> lines. This is about as routine an image of a post-MECO prop purge
aftermath
> that I could imagine. Clip-1 shows a white dot clearly popping out from
the
> insulation blanket around the pre-deploy Ku-Band antenna at the far left,
> moves along in front of the antenna before emerging against the black sky
> background. That makes it a few tenths of an inch across at most.
>
> Clip-4, the 'edited' image claim. Both scenes are indeed played, one in
real
> time and one for a later playback. To see what changes if any were made in
> the playback I had to have a same-time-to-same-time comparison marker.
Using
> the astronaut's call on A/G-1 about being a few feet out from the MPLM as
> the time hack, I measured the disappearance of the white light as
occurring
> 55 seconds earlier (it appeared to flicker and go out in a typical
> atmospheric extinction manner, leading me to guess it was a celestial
> object). I then measured the duration of the 'highlights' replay of the
same
> scene, and measured it beginning about 30 seconds prior to the same
> conversation. Since 55 is greater than 30, it's clear to me that the scene
Cam
> B in the aft right corner of the payload bay - is tilted way up to have
NO_2675
Russian lost it (who debunked that typo?). The 109 shit is lame,
nothing spectacular about it at all to me. If anything, looks like
sub-standard video equipment is 'still' being used (or 'NASA-TV'
transmission data is purposely degraded, to make everything look like
a fucking grey haze).
But then, I noticed you wanted to 'take me out' on Friday at 1pm (at
some shit location in hell/Texas), with your gun (you got that
conceiled weapon permit too, I presume?). And here I thought it might
be a lunch date, pretty-boy. ;)
Well, if that's your home address, than you might even get lucky in
hicks-ville Texas, and be able to shoot me as *property* self-defense.
Texas is one fucked up backwards state, but then Dumbya can tell you
that better than me. How many executions do *you* expect this coming
year in Texas - amazing, you fucks seem so addicted to killing, that
it's your only justification for the 'next day'.
Jackass - I stated facts, and you act as if I attacked you by simply
using a hidden alias. This is the *same* alias I've had for a LONG
time, you are the *same* liar, and your credibility suffers extremely
when you hyper-actively debunk based upon a typo (when the original
transcript states that it is *NOT* accurate). It's just the typical
from Borg-boy - the only original thought this guy has, is when he
posts a new thread about his *showtime* on Rense.
And, I must also state, you really do suck on Rense - but then, Rense
really blows for the most part anyways (has he *ever* gotten a good
guest)...
Brian Heil
>Reference link: http://www.rense.com/general21/nasas.htm
>Clip-5, white image after sunset. This white dot does swoop in diagonally
>in a mysterious manner.
<snip>
> I don’t know what caused the original brief diagonal motion at the edge of the camera
>FOV. But the rest of the light’s behavior, its flicker-die-out, and its
>position 12 degrees east of the Sun (identical with that of Venus) make a
>persuasive case for me that it was indeed Venus.
Looks to me like it was the camera zooming out from a closer view of the
horizon. The first motion is pretty linear, and I would expect the camera zoom
could produce this kind of motion.
-
Brian Heil (319) 335-0675 | Stay Alert! | Computing Services
Senior Programmer Analyst | Trust No One! | The University of Iowa
brian...@uiowa.edu | Keep Your Laser Handy! | College of Business
Fred Garvin
> Your observations are insightful! I wish that all UFO enthusiasts would be
> as scientific in their pursuit of the truth.
Keep wishing and you'll be wasting your time.
--
If people from Poland are called Poles, why
aren't people from Holland called Holes?
- George Carlin