UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[RoboTimbo]

That’s merely your opinion. An unfounded assertion. Haven’t the UFO debunkers learnt by now that merely stating unfounded assertions does not make then true?

You'll have to back up your opinion that the responses aren't reasonable with some evidence. You have failed in the entirety of this thread to do so.

Oh yes indeed. Your “majority” pay lip service to the idea, but when it comes down to the actual evidence and arguments, they are strenuously against it. They say many things, but in practice it is a different story.

Your opinion again. You have yet to show evidence for "aliens".

My definition of UFO? Unidentified Flying Object perchance?

Nope, the one where you bait and switch Unidentified "Aliens" Flying Object. Unidentified Flying Object is the one everyone else but you has been using. Again, go back and review the entire thread for confirmation.

On no, I believe you that they have stated that they “believe” in UFOs. But they don’t really… they actually believe in UFMOs (Unidentified Flying Mundane Objects). At least that is what all of them have been arguing the case for…

Your opinion again. Nope, no need to "believe" in UFO's, they exist by definition. You haven't made a case for your UFAO's yet.

Gratified that we can agree on something at least.

Excellent, you're coming right along!

Again I agree. It is NOT evidence for aliens (meaning ET or “aliens in spaceships from another world” – as circumstantially compelling as that case may be – there is still not enough direct evidence to support the contention).

Fantastic! You are almost there!

As for “aliens”, well, that is a definitional term: Some UFOs are “alien” because they have characteristics that defy our concepts of the natural and technological world (gee, another way to say it .

OOPS! You fell off the wagon and are back to using made up definitions for unevidenced aliens again! You should know that merely stating unfounded assertions does not make them true.

…again… mydefinition? A UFO is a UFO is a UFO…

Except when you bait and switch to sneak in your "aliens".

Well, that is a mere unfounded assertion. A matter of opinion. And the mere stating of it does not make it true.

I am glad you are convinced. You obviously have dropped your contention that they are “gods” of some sort or other. I commend you on this step.

Well, that is a mere unfounded assertion. A matter of opinion. And the mere stating of it does not make it true.

Show your work where you have eliminated god(s) along with your work showing how you have eliminated all mundane explanations. Otherwise, you will have to admit that you have equal evidence for either. (hint: that isn't good news for the UFO creduloid crowd.)

Oh, not me alone. Scientific research has been undertaken and the “unidentified” conclusion has been reached many times (for example: http://www.ufocasebook.com/specialreport14.pdf).

Absolutely, as has been acknowledged many times in this thread. I suggest you start here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5198776#post5198776

 

[wollery]

Apart from the fact that stars are spheres - and thus concluding from the shading patterns after “zooming in” that they are spheres would be a correct interpretation - I asked if you could demonstrate anything other than a sphere could cause the shading patterns we observe on the object. Clearly you have yet to do so.

Yes, stars are spherical, but actually, almost all stars are so far away that they are not resolvable as discs, they are actually point sources. The apparent roundness is caused by smearing of the light, not by any physical shape that the star has.

The "shading pattern" is an artefact of the data collection technique and the detector.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Big snip on Rramjet's latest since it is a repeat of the same argument over and over. In a nutshell, you claim the object is spherical based on nothing more than your personal opinion. Your entire evidence are frames you grabbed and highly enlarged to make your case. However, everybody else (and I think I am speaking for everyone present in this forum) seems to have observed that the objects are impossible to resolve into spheres and they could be just about any shape (including a square). If anyone else in this forum agrees with Rramjet that these blobs are definitely spheres, I would love to hear it. The FACT that there are varying shapes and none of them consistently agree indicates they are "indistinct" and impossible to resolve, which is my argument.

Are you still arguing that it is a sphere? If so, I will ask you again to demonstrate which frame is the best sphere and how you determine it to be a sphere by producing actual data (i.e. numbers and factual information) from these images to establish this. Your refusal to do so demonstrates you have nothing more than these indistinct blobs that could be any shape and not necessarily a sphere. Until you can present real data, it is nothing more than an indistinct dot that could be any size or shape. It is your subjective opinion and nothing more. Suggesting otherwise is not being scientific.

BW, I consider DATA to be values obtained from these images that can be measured and reproduced by others making measurements the same way. I actually attempted this for you and you called it pseudoscience. I may have not have collected the data accurately but I certainly attempted to use data to support my position that the object was varying in brightness and size. The data seemed to support the argument that there was a fluctuation in brightness and the object was moving parallel to the camera's lens. You have since created an argument that contradicts your position about "sphericity". That being the frame rates and resolution prevent these kinds of measurement being accurate. It is too poor to measure size and intensity, how is it good enough to establish "sphericity"?

 

[Astrophotographer]

I have presented the data and have proposed an explanation for that data – a spherical object. This explanation fits the data. What “other potential explanations” are you proposing that I “handwave” away? You keep making unfounded assertion but merely stating unfounded assertions does not make them true.

You have not presented actual "data" like you claim. I can't believe a scientist would be confused about the word "data". Show us the measurements (i.e. data) you have made that indicate "Sphericity". Without values, your "data" is your subjective opinion. Claiming it is something else is not being scientific.

 

[Jocce]

But clearly the object is not a “point source” … and clearly you have not thought through the implications of what those “Abberations” (sic) of yours must mean.

Clearly, you fail to understand the point I am making. A point source can look like a sphere.

Yet again a UFO debunker has made some generalised, unfounded assertions without ever being able to be specific. What aberrations? Where is the evidence for these aberrations? Why don’t they affect anything else in the video?

It affects everthing of course.

Apart from the fact that stars are spheres - and thus concluding from the shading patterns after “zooming in” that they are spheres would be a correct interpretation

Yet again you show your ignorance on a subject. You can't "zoom in" on a star to see its shape. They are too far away and that's why they are considered point sources. Any sphericity you see in a star image is a function of light scattering in the optical system (or for earth based photo, the atmosphere). My point here is that a light emitting/reflecting object that is too small for a shape to be discerned can/will look like a sphere on a photograph. So there is another explanation for your percieved sphericity.

- I asked if you could demonstrate anything other than a sphere could cause the shading patterns we observe on the object. Clearly you have yet to do so.

Clearly, I did so by providing a photo of point sources that look like they have area/volume.

 

[Rramjet]

Anyone with real and good scientific formation would understand why the camera and lens models are important. It is about methodology. It is about data QA/QC. It is about setting a divide between science and pseudoscience. If you do not take in to account the effects of exposure and aperture on pictures while measuring images of objects you are at the risk of making big mistakes.

If I present a paper on mineral chemistry and used a microprobe to track, say, the variation of a certain element along a crystal, I must state who made the equipment and its model, as well as other specs such as detection limits and operational conditions. A perfect track of sample preparation and collection, needless to say, are crucial issues. If you can’t understand the analogy and the reasons, you need to go back to basics.

I asked you to specify HOW knowing the specific model of the Nikon camera (or lens) or the specific f-stop figure would add to our knowledge of the case. You have written many fine words, but have utterly failed to answer that question.

I must note that it is a fact that the cameras were relied upon to produce clear images at long range of low power (brightness), directed laser beacons from an earth base (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19760009330_1976009330.pdf). These images would be later analysed as to whether the lasers were able to be utilised as visual, earth based navigation beacons. The photos were intended to show quantitatively the relative brightness of these beacons at different powers. The quality of the cameras, lens’ and films would have been at least sufficient - and the quality of the image processing at least sufficient – so that the engineers analysing the photos could be confident that no “possible distortions” were upsetting their observations. Camera shake would of course have been one of the things specifically guarded against. It is notable also that the analysts saw no barriers to producing “enlarged” sections taken from the photos to represent what they were talking about.

The UFO debunkers have been spouting a lot of theoretical ideas, but have not been able to describe how that theoretical perspective would be put into practice in the specific situations under discussion. Unfortunately for them, unless they can be specific about how their ideas actually matter in the circumstances, then all the fine words in the world will make no difference to the ultimate conclusions in the cases I have been presenting.

That’s one more evidence that the article was written following poor methodology, since these information pieces should have been present at the text. Example- the authors said they later learned there were five cameras aboard. How they learned that? From a report? Which one? From verbal communication? From who and when?

Okay…lets say there was only the single camera on board - the Nikon with a 300mm lens – now where are we? The bottom line is that the Nikon camera produced the photo. It is entirely reasonable to assume it was the 300mm lens that did the job, however if we are not allowed that assumption and it was in fact the 55mm lens, then the calculated size of the object would have been larger! This is the bottom line here. A simple fact that the UFO debunkers cannot (or will not) acknowledge.

Not to mention the information you claim to have obtained is far from being detailed enough.

What “detail” are you missing that substantially (rather than theoretically) affects the case? You should begin your reply “The detail missing is (insert required detail) and this affects the calculations/conclusions of the case (in the following specific way)…” Until you can do this you are merely making unfounded assertions that have no demonstrated bearing on the case whatsoever.

Merely stating it does not make it true. This is not post modern philosophy. Any good scientific work will detail the methods used to probe these possible distortions and eventually dealing with them.

Then what is stopping you? You must list your “possible distortions” and how they directly bear on the case under discussion. Until you can, you have nothing that affects the calculations or conclusions in any way.

Heck, not even the copy process is detailed. Where and when was it made? What was copied? A negative, which was later developed?

Is it likely that the guardians of the NASA film archive would produce “distorted” images and then hand them out to researchers for study? I hardly think so. Stranger things have happened, but it is merely grasping at straws to suppose the image to be distorted during the copying process.

Rramjet, you attempt to appeal to authority by posting part of MacCabee’s CV was noted and as you should have understood by now, it is not what one would expect from someone with scientific formation. A work must be able to stand by itself by its methodological rigor, accuracy, etc., regardless of who were its writers. And this is obvious not the case of the text you linked to. If it were good, you would not need to write long texts (with logical fallacies included) while attempting to defend it.

Obviously then you completely misunderstand how science works. If I merely stated a contention without expert support, then you could legitimately question if I had the relevant expertise to comment. However, if I can cite the relevant expert in the field who can support that contention it is then their expertise that supplies the contention with credibility. For example in constructing scientific papers for publication the introduction to such a paper is usually full of such citiations. It is part and parcel of the accepted methodology. No single scientist can possibly be across every single aspect of every single piece of research in their own and related disciplines. That is also why expert testimony is sought and introduced in court cases. The lawyers themselves know that their mere stating of the facts amounts to nothing unless they can provide the relevant support from experts in the field. Thus your comments above are “ not what one would expect from someone with scientific formation”.

Now, moving on, your statements about the long exposures can be easily demonstrated to be wrong.

They cannot be “wrong”, I produced the photos as evidence in support. The photos show precisely what I was contending. I might not have the full story, but I am, on the evidence , not “wrong”.

Here are blown-ups of pictures I took last year from my apartment’s window, as a Chinese lantern flew above it (yes, I can provide the full image to show the object was at the center of the image and yes, the objective was to reproduce claimed exotic paths recorded on film). The camera I used was a DSLR Canon EOS50D which happened to be with my 300mm Canon EFS zoom objective. Further details can be gathered at the pictures’ EXIF files, which can also be made available or found with the original pictures.
As you can see, in shaky long exposure shots where images are concentrated at the centre of the frame, you can indeed have blobs and there may be zero, one, two or more “ends of the line”. It all depends on how the camera motion conditions the trajectory of the beam of photons originated by the point light over the film (or CCD in the case of the above pictures).
Thus, the numbers produced by measurements (which have very poor error margin estimates and quite possibly a great variance) over the fourth picture are meaningless, since it can (and most likely) show nothing but the product of the long exposure of a point light instead of a solid object with three lights.
Thus, the actual bottom line is that your statements are flawed.

This is all very well and good except for one critical difference between your photos and the “UFO” photo in question. That is to be found in the KEY phrase indicating your applied methodology – and that is “long exposure shots”. Let me cite from the author’s article:

“these beacon photos were taken on September 4 with a hand-held Nikon camera set at f/4.5 to f8 and with a shutter time of 1/500 to 1/250 of a second. (http://brumac.8k.com/Skylab3/SL3.html)​

These are definitely NOT “long exposure shots”.

It is worth reiterating that physics is not one of Rramjet’s strong points. What’s harder to stop once it starts moving- a small or a big objective lens?

(I should be flattered that you attempt to use my own language and concepts against me, but) okay… if the lens is moving then it would be difficult to deviate that movement to produce the photo seen. Either way inertia mitigates against the production of the photo as we see it. That is simple physics Correa Neto, something you might not have considered.

Again, please learn how to express properly the error margin. You’ll see that 5 to 10 seconds or 5 to 6 seconds is not equal to say, 5+0.08s to 6+0.008s. AS anyone with real scientific formation would realize.

Oh, but you have realised precisely my intended meaning, so what’s your point?

This is nothing but an assumption, and an assumption based on methodological errors, since the size estimates are flawed.

How is the assumption that it was the 300mm lens used “based on methodological errors”? I have already described how, if it was the 55mm lens, then the final calculated size would be larger than for the 300mm lens. So the authors calculated using the assumption of the 300mm lens as the most conservative method available to them. It was either the 300mm OR the 55mm lens…choose your poison.

This is not how error margins are exposed and dealt with, that was not a proper and truly scientific analysis.

I have asked, if you dispute the authors calculations, to SHOW how it was not “a proper and truly scientific analysis.” You have been unable to do this so far and I don’t hold much hope that you will be able to do so in the future. Merely stating the unfounded assertion does not make it true.

Smoke and mirrors attempting to hide the fact that the estimates are also flawed because there was no way to properly establish if the light was actually following a course parallel to Skylab and how far it was from Skylab.

But there is no data that would (or could possibly) satisfy you in this regard. If I cited radar data, you would claim anomalies in that data and point to AP effects in radar observations. Quite simply, no possible data exists that could possibly satisfy you on this point. In all scientific investigation, assumptions are made. The argument then revolves around whether those assumptions are reasonable. I simply claim that the astronauts had the expertise and training to estimate the object’s orbit and relative speed of the object in relation to their own and that it is reasonable to assume they would not have been unduly mistaken in such estimates.

So, I take from this that they can not exclude the possibility of a mundane explanation, right? Especially when the methodological flaws are taken in to account, right?

What “methodological flaws”?

And I can also then take from it that this article then can not be used to back claims about the presence of “aliens beyond the borders of what we call nature”, right?

The phrase is specifically yours and I have already informed you that I do not understand what you mean by it in the context and have asked you to explain what you DO mean by it. I have also informed you specifically and on many occasions that the ETH hypothesis is one that I cannot see any direct evidential support for (circumstantial yes, direct no – but circumstantial in this case is not good enough).

It can not also be used to back the presence of tulpas, unknown earthly civilizations, beings from other universes, secret man-made crafts, etc., right?

If those are the things you are contending, then show me the evidence to support such claims. I draw no such conclusions from the evidence at hand. Show me anyone of direct relevance here that has.

So tell me, why you brought this article forward at this thread?

Because we have trained astronauts observing and taking photographic evidence of a red object (and this fact in itself is startling) of a size larger than anything anybody had up there at the time. But even discounting the size – the fact that an unknown red object followed Skylab so closely is itself a startling phenomenon and raises questions concerning the nature of that object.

 

[Rramjet]

We seem to be going around in circles here regarding the two latest cases I have presented. Which were:

Apollo 10 (Launch 18 May 1969)
(http://history.nasa.gov/ap10fj/index.htm)
(http://www.nasm.si.edu/collections/imagery/apollo/as10/a10crew.htm)
Incident: Spherical UFO flyby (22 May 1969)
Command Service Module "Charlie Brown" as seen from the Lunar Module "Snoopy" during the Apollo 10 Mission.:
(http://spaceflight1.nasa.gov/gallery/video/apollo/apollo10/html/lunar_activities.html)
Higher resolution extended version: (http://history.nasa.gov/ap10fj/as10-video-library.htm - Magazine K)

Skylab 3 (Launch 28 Jul 1973)
(http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/skylab/missions/skylab_manned.html)
Incident: Followed by mysterious red “satellite”(20 Sep 1973)
Discussion and analysis
(http://www.nicap.org/skylabIIIdir.htm)
(http://brumac.8k.com/Skylab3/SL3.html)
NASA photo listing (listed as “Satellite, unmanned” on p41 and as “Blank” on p245):
(http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19740007948_1974007948.pdf)
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sL1v5fGWUM0)
Interesting web discussion here: (http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread416549/pg1)

It seems the argument about the Apollo 10 UFO has come down to whether the object can be characterised as a sphere or not. If it is a sphere, then the UFO debunkers have a hard time explaining how a spherical object could be out there. If it is not a sphere, then of course any old debri may do - and there was debri from the mission – for example the insulation on the hatch between the CSM and the LM had ‘disintergrated” and was floating about everywhere – initially causing blockage of pressurisation valves - and probably escaping into space as well. However it is interesting that we see no evidence of that debri an any other video of the mission.

This then is a borderline case. Yes it is a UFO (in that we don’t really know what it was), but at the same time there seems to be insufficient information to positively rule out a known mundane cause. Depending on your perspective it therefore crosses the boundary between a classification of “Unidentified” and a classification of “Insufficient information”. Being conservative one would therefore have to classify this case in the latter category.

Regarding the Skylab 3 object, the argument there has basically come down to whether or not we can consider the photo (2141) of the object to be an accurate representation of the object (thus enabling measurements to be taken from it to determine size and that calculated size then being used to argue that nothing of that size was up there at the time). This is obviously a contentious point.

However, we must note that the astronauts themselves observed the object for a period of approximately 10 minutes. They observed that it was red and also that it was following them in a similar orbit and at a similar orbital speed.

The bottom line here is that no-one had anything red in such an orbit and travelling at such a speed close to Skylab. One can argue about the photos and one can argue about the error margins inherent in the calculations derived from the photos – but one cannot deny the observed facts of the case. Something red was ‘following” Skylab 3 when nothing red following Skylab 3 should have been there at all. Simply its colour and position defy mundane explanation. This is a case then when we DO have sufficient information to classify the object as “Unidentified” – a genuine UFO in other words.

Now, if people will remember what kicked off this whole discussion about “NASA” related UFOs, it began with the “composite” video here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlLN_Jcg1pc). In that video there were (about) 35 different “clips” of NASA derived footage of alleged UFOs. During the course of this discussion we have been able to rule that quite a number of those clips actually (mis-)represented mundane objects (or were outright fraudulent claims – ie; Clips #20 and #23 below).

That is, I have been able to complete an initial analysis of all 35 clips in the compilation with the following results:

(Note: The cases of interest/unresolved are indicated in bold typeface)

Clip #1:
Apollo 10 (Launch 18 May 1969)
(discussed above)

Clip #2:
STS-115 Atlantis (Launch 9 Sep 2006)
(http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/shuttlemissions/archives/sts-115.html)
Incident: A strangely shaped object floats by…”
(http://spaceflight1.nasa.gov/gallery/video/shuttle/sts-115/html/fd1.html) “Crew handheld video of External Tank”
(http://spaceflight1.nasa.gov/gallery/video/shuttle/sts-115/qtime/sts115_fd01_03.mov)
This clip has not been discussed so far…

Clip #3: Apollo 16 - has been explained as the EVA “floodlight boom” (http://www.nasa.gov/vision/space/travelinginspace/no_ufo.html).

Clip #4: ZOND-3 (1965) “Tower of Babel”:
Is probably an artefact because we cannot seem to observe such a “tower” in the (purported) original images here: (http://www.mentallandscape.com/C_CatalogMoon.htm)

Clip #5: (ISS-007-E06886 (12 June 2003) is probably exactly what NASA claims it to be. “After the ISS attitude transition on 6/12, the crew noticed a small, shiny, free-floating metallic object about 30 m (100 ft) from the Lab nadir window, moving very slowly away from the ISS. The leading theory was that the object is a cable label. [A photo of a cable label, uplinked from the ground, was later examined by Ed Lu. He confirmed the possibility that the object he saw indeed could have been a cable label. Further identification of the object by ground teams is still underway. Limited tracking data the object on 6/12 showed it below the ISS and 1.7 km in front. Preliminary predictions indicated it was slowly separating, and the specialists did/do not believe it poses a re-contact hazard to the station.” (http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/station/images/ISS007E06886.jpg)

Clip #6: ISS013-E-69634 (20 Aug. 2006): The Aurora Borealis, also known as "northern lights", is featured in this photograph taken by an Expedition 13 crew member on the International Space Station.” (http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/station/crew-13/html/iss013e69634.html). This is probably some sort of lens flare: Discussion of “lens flare” in similar photo here (http://news.discovery.com/space/aurora-mystery-solved.html)
Similar here (bottom of page):
(http://www.astropix.com/HTML/G_SUN/AURORAS.HTM)

Clip #7: Obviously Skylab but no source attribution on the video and it merely shows a “flashing” object passing behind Skylab… could plausibly be some sort of”debri”.

Clip #8:
This clip is of the ISS and has a picture ID attached. However the picture is not in the NASA archives (at least a search on the ID does not return a result). It is nevertheless an interesting photo. I would like to have an explanation for it. I am of the opinion that it represents some sort of debri – but what sort is the mystery here.

Clip #9:
STS-51A Discovery (Launch 8 Nov 1984)
(http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/shuttlemissions/archives/sts-51A.html)
Incident: Spherical UFO appears during WESTAR 6 satellite retrieval
Extended video here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTy0dQidPGM)
UFO can be seen appearing at 10:37. Notice the motion of the UFO as it appears.
Particularly note the motion between 10:38 and 10:39…

Discussion of it as a “water droplet” here:
(http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/85807-STS-51A-Debunked)

On the following mission a remarkably similar object is filmed.

STS-37 Atlantis (Launch 5 Apr 1991)
(http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/shuttlemissions/archives/sts-37.html)
Incident: Mysterious spherical UFO appears
(http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=4596316621098045120#)
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmnukfsB5-U)

These clips have been discussed but no definite conclusion to that discussion has been reached.

Clip #10:
STS-114 Discovery (Launch 26 Jul 2005)
(http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/shuttlemissions/archives/sts-114.html)
Incident: Unidentified object reverses its motion
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoeZ4ceAZes)
This clip is sped up (real time here - (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyquGdCEJNg), but it does indicate the objects motion. Not only that, the object slows down and pauses before reversing its motion. This case has not been discussed in any detail. (See also comment about Clip #29 below in relation to the “clouds” seen in this clip).

Clip #11: STS-96 Discovery (Launch 27 May 1999)
(http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/shuttlemissions/list_1999.html)
Incident: A “flashing” object passes by the ISS
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJGGzdruHso)
This could plausibly be any old piece of debri floating by.

Clip #12:
STS-71 Atlantis (Launch 27 Jun 1995)
(http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/shuttlemissions/archives/sts-71.html)
Incident: Where is the Mir Space Station?
This is itself a “compilation” clip and draws for inspiration on the well known “where is Mir” footage (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTjk7uuSScI)

There is so much “debri” in this latter footage that Mir is unable to be located by either the astronauts or by Mission control. It is not surprising then the author of the compilation video had many resources to draw on to construct his own sub-compilation. However, there is not a great deal of interest in the actual compilation video here. More bits of debri floating by…so what?

The interest is actually in the “Where is Mir” footage rather than the compilation clip. There is a great deal that needs explanation in that footage – and perhaps we can get around to discussing it at some point.

Clip #13: STS-110-E5912 (April 2002) (http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/station/assembly/html/s110e5912.html)
The compilation pic has obviously undergone some “enhancement” but it is entirely plausible that this is merely a reflection in the Shuttle’s window.

Clip #14: STS-116-E05364:
(http://spaceflight1.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-116/html/s116e05364.html)
Again it is plausible that these are merely reflections in the Shuttle’s window.

Clip #15: STS-100-E5220:
(http://spaceflight1.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-100/html/s100e5220.html)
Again it is plausible that these are merely reflections in the Shuttle’s window OR has something to do with what the following image shows: (http://spaceflight1.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-100/html/sts100-342-010.html). Either way, a mundane explanation is plausible.

Clip #16: (ISS-01-376-004)
This picture cannot be found in the NASA archives. I am willing to write it off as “lens flare” (or something along those lines. Anyone with a better idea?

Clip #17: Voiceover interview with Edgar Mitchell: No doubt the real deal talking about the fact that he believes aliens are real and that cover-ups exist. He’s not the only former astronaut to speak out similarly but in the end one man’s opinion… Google “Edgar Mitchell aliens” to find plenty more of his opinions on the subject. He is entitled to his opinions I guess.

Clip #18:
Apollo 15 (Launch 26 Jul 1971)
(http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/apollo/apo15.html)
Incident: “Mysterious shadow is filmed by the crew as it tracks across the lunar surface below.” (TV footage)
The “shadow” executes some interesting manoeuvres – I just don’t know about this one. I am not convinced that it IS actually a shadow on the surface of the moon… it seems to me more like something “internal”, but why does it disappear in the glare… this needs some clarifying discussion.

Clip # 19: ASTP (1975) Soviet ‘Soyuz’ filmed from Apollo.
This seems to me to be plausibly a reflection on a window.

Clip # 20: (AS17-135-20680) Apollo 17: Claimed by the author of the compilation to be “lunar surface (sunstruck/overexposed)” Original here: (http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-135-20680HR.jpg) (from index site here: http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/images17.html#MagH)
Other photos in the sequence are actually all of the LRV! So there is no reason to suppose they suddenly took a photo of the lunar surface (as claimed) then went back to the LRV… this most definitely is not the “lunar surface”… it is an overexposed picture of the LRV (in other words a manmade angle on the LRV)!

Clip #21:
Skylab 3 (Launch 28 Jul 1973)
(http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/skylab/missions/skylab_manned.html)
Incident: Followed by mysterious red “satellite” (20 Sep 1973)
(http://brumac.8k.com/Skylab3/SL3.html)
(Discussed above)

Clip #22: A repeat of the photo from above incident.

Clip #23: STS-29 Discovery (Launch 13 Mar 1989)
(http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/shuttlemissions/archives/sts-29.html)
Incident: Radio transmission: “Houston, (from) Discovery, we still have the alien spacecraft under observance.”
This is undoubtedly a “Ham radio” hoax broadcast.
(http://www.theblackvault.com/encyclopedia/documents/MUFON/Journals/1989/July_1989.pdf p.11) (http://www.ufoseek.org/nasaufo.htm)

Clip #24:
STS-115 Atlantis (Launch 9 Sep 2006)
(http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/shuttlemissions/archives/sts-115.html)
Incident: (S115-E-07201)
“This picture of unidentified possible small debris was recorded with a digital still camera by astronaut Daniel Burbank onboard the Space Shuttle Atlantis around 11 a.m. (CDT) today. Engineers do not believe this to be the same object seen in video taken by shuttle TV cameras earlier in the day.” (http://spaceflight1.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-115/html/s115e07201.html)

What the…? Someone lost a lunch bag while taking a break? This photo deserves some discussion if only because NASA cannot identify it.

Clip #25: Shuttle mission STS-123 – ‘Mission Control Houston (MCC-H), Internal Camera Feed’ Wide room shot, front screen shows black except white dot lower center, then full screen on dot moving left to right.

Yeah …but so what? …just another image of a piece of “debri” – and they are a dime a dozen are they not? However, there may be some interest because the astronauts (or whoever had control over the camera) actually chose to focus in on the object. Why would they do that if it was merely “more space junk”?

Clip # 26: According to the author of the compilation this is a “View of Endeavour port wing from aft camera, view of EE work platform with linear object drifting away. I think this is a “relection” in the camera lens/Shuttle window. It tracks the movement of the other obvious reflections (to the right in the first clip and to the extreme lower right in the second clip) precisely - and fades in and out just as reflections would do.

Clip #27: Story Musgrave speaking, (The) “public is ready to know…” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yguS0-WzEeI) Well, again, another astronaut speaking out - and he is entitled to his opinion. However, this is not “evidence” of anything except his own beliefs.

Clip #28: According to the author of the compilation video this is “Gemini 4, UFO filmed during re-entry”. Sure, no reason to believe it is not… but what does it show? Another piece of “debri”? Certainly cannot go past a mundane explanation here.

Clip #29: Shuttle mission STS-123 video frame is full of moving dots. Sure, but they are doing nothing unusual…

There is one thing about this video though. The “clouds” in the scene are an obvious artefact – bright light and focal length being the probable combined cause. This suggests that the “clouds” seen in Clip # 10 above might be of the same origin?

Another note is that there are many, many NASA videos showing “debri fields”. This is all well and good, but there is no interest unless the “debri” does something unusual. For example here:

STS-74 Atlantis (Launch 12 Nov 1995)
(http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/shuttlemissions/archives/sts-74.html)
Incident: Unusual trajectories
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZ7EgRiU5Zo&feature=related)
Lots of “UFOs” but the one that appears at 6:17 at the lower right goes diagonally up to the left – slowing down all the while - then curves down, up, and then down again… At 8:13 there is a flashing UFO that appears bottom centre. It slowly moves up… then at 8:38 suddenly accelerates, passes behind MIR, accelerates again and disappears.

Clip #30:
STS-75 Columbia (Launch 22 Feb 1996)
(http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/shuttlemissions/archives/sts-75.html)
Incident: The Tether Incident (25 Feb 1997)
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=As-wYmFYb3I)
(http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread470704/pg1)
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4Xx66ba36o&feature=related)

There has been some comment about this in the thread, but no conclusive discussion. The startling thing that needs to be explained are the curved trajectories of some of these objects. How DOES one explain that?

Clip #31:
STS-48 Discovery (Launch 15 Sep 1991)
(http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/shuttlemissions/archives/sts-48.html)
Incident: “Star Wars”
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1FR_1MKbGY&NR=1)
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IiDvkB_rG-Q)
(http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_09_1_carlotto.pdf)

Clip #32: Shuttle Mission STS-119 [bright disk crossing docking sight]
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRtuQNsnQpk)
Crosses between the “sight” and the camera … a speck of dust is the most likely plausible explanation here.

Clip #33:
STS-48 Discovery (Launch 15 Sep 1991)
(http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/shuttlemissions/archives/sts-48.html)
Incident: The “Shape Shifter”
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Z-lHVB6Yuo&feature=related)

What IS this thing? The astronauts are obviously very interested in it – they attempt to focus in on it and to track it with the camera…

Clip #34:
According to the author of the compilation this is “(April 29, 2007 Unidentified Object transiting the lunar disc is tracked by telescope. Location: Busto Arsizio, Italy (45.600N.8.852E – Elevation 214m Time: 10:52pm local (beginning of transit)

Okay… so what IS it then?

Clip #35:
STS-80 Columbia (Launch 19 Nov 1996)
(http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/shuttlemissions/archives/sts-80.html)
Incident: UFOs in formation (1 Dec 1996)
1. (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2450169839526113062&hl=en#)
2. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJyuQVIFdKo)

So, there are 20 of the 35 that CAN be explained in mundane terms. That should warm the heart of the UFO debunkers!

However, that leaves 15 that need an explanation. We have discussed (to death) Clip #1 (Apollo 10 – insufficient information) and Clip #21 (Skylab 3 – genuine UFO), so I propose we move on. I propose we do this in an orderly fashion and simply move down the list, meaning that the following is next in line:

Clip #2:
STS-115 Atlantis (Launch 9 Sep 2006)
(http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/shuttlemissions/archives/sts-115.html)
Incident: A strangely shaped object floats by…”
(http://spaceflight1.nasa.gov/gallery/video/shuttle/sts-115/html/fd1.html) “Crew handheld video of External Tank”
(http://spaceflight1.nasa.gov/gallery/video/shuttle/sts-115/qtime/sts115_fd01_03.mov)

What Is this thing?

 

[Frying Dutchmen]

I asked you to specify HOW knowing the specific model of the Nikon camera (or lens) or the specific f-stop figure would add to our knowledge of the case. You have written many fine words, but have utterly failed to answer that question.

It adds an extra dimension to the unknown, we don't know what f-stop or shutter speed or the ISO speed of the film, Sure we can look up the ISO of the film but the people doing the research should of done that. Also removing the wide margin of error with the F-stop would of helped.

I must note that it is a fact that the cameras were relied upon to produce clear images at long range of low power (brightness), directed laser beacons from an earth base (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19760009330_1976009330.pdf). These images would be later analysed as to whether the lasers were able to be utilised as visual, earth based navigation beacons. The photos were intended to show quantitatively the relative brightness of these beacons at different powers. The quality of the cameras, lens’ and films would have been at least sufficient - and the quality of the image processing at least sufficient – so that the engineers analysing the photos could be confident that no “possible distortions” were upsetting their observations. Camera shake would of course have been one of the things specifically guarded against. It is notable also that the analysts saw no barriers to producing “enlarged” sections taken from the photos to represent what they were talking about.

Oh wow a 102 page document... Oh I like page 20, I like how the description of the camera is exactly the same as Macca's camera description.

The UFO debunkers have been spouting a lot of theoretical ideas, but have not been able to describe how that theoretical perspective would be put into practice in the specific situations under discussion. Unfortunately for them, unless they can be specific about how their ideas actually matter in the circumstances, then all the fine words in the world will make no difference to the ultimate conclusions in the cases I have been presenting.

That there's nothing "Alien" about them?

Okay…lets say there was only the single camera on board - the Nikon with a 300mm lens – now where are we? The bottom line is that the Nikon camera produced the photo. It is entirely reasonable to assume it was the 300mm lens that did the job, however if we are not allowed that assumption and it was in fact the 55mm lens, then the calculated size of the object would have been larger! This is the bottom line here. A simple fact that the UFO debunkers cannot (or will not) acknowledge.

Lets not because of what I have read it was the only lens they had for the camera. Also you haven't explained why the UFAO would have been large if the lens was 55mm, this is the bottom line here. A simple fact that you cannot (or will not) share with us UFO debunkers

What “detail” are you missing that substantially (rather than theoretically) affects the case? You should begin your reply “The detail missing is (insert required detail) and this affects the calculations/conclusions of the case (in the following specific way)…” Until you can do this you are merely making unfounded assertions that have no demonstrated bearing on the case whatsoever.

I still haven't read why having unknowns in your data doesn't effect the case.

Then what is stopping you? You must list your “possible distortions” and how they directly bear on the case under discussion. Until you can, you have nothing that affects the calculations or conclusions in any way.

The lack of detail on the camera used and oh yeah I'm pretty sure the other UFO debunkers pointed them out to you.

Is it likely that the guardians of the NASA film archive would produce “distorted” images and then hand them out to researchers for study? I hardly think so. Stranger things have happened, but it is merely grasping at straws to suppose the image to be distorted during the copying process.

Yeah it does seem like you are grasping at straws, did you say before that NASA would delete UFO images or something?

Obviously then you completely misunderstand how science works. If I merely stated a contention without expert support, then you could legitimately question if I had the relevant expertise to comment. However, if I can cite the relevant expert in the field who can support that contention it is then their expertise that supplies the contention with credibility. For example in constructing scientific papers for publication the introduction to such a paper is usually full of such citiations. It is part and parcel of the accepted methodology. No single scientist can possibly be across every single aspect of every single piece of research in their own and related disciplines. That is also why expert testimony is sought and introduced in court cases. The lawyers themselves know that their mere stating of the facts amounts to nothing unless they can provide the relevant support from experts in the field. Thus your comments above are “ not what one would expect from someone with scientific formation”.

Says the guy who digitally zoomed into jpegs That's was very sciencey

They cannot be “wrong”, I produced the photos as evidence in support. The photos show precisely what I was contending. I might not have the full story, but I am, on the evidence , not “wrong”.

The thing is you are wrong, those photos are of a red dot we don't know what it is you don't know what is well you do since you say it's a UFO and in your meaning that means it's an IFO.

This is all very well and good except for one critical difference between your photos and the “UFO” photo in question. That is to be found in the KEY phrase indicating your applied methodology – and that is “long exposure shots”. Let me cite from the author’s article:

“these beacon photos were taken on September 4 with a hand-held Nikon camera set at f/4.5 to f8 and with a shutter time of 1/500 to 1/250 of a second. (http://brumac.8k.com/Skylab3/SL3.html)​

These are definitely NOT “long exposure shots”.

NO and You mean "let me cite the author's citation of that NASA document you linked for us to read" Not to mention there was no focal point on the photos and that 4.5 would have less depth in the focus of the camera and photo compared to f8.

(I should be flattered that you attempt to use my own language and concepts against me, but) okay… if the lens is moving then it would be difficult to deviate that movement to produce the photo seen. Either way inertia mitigates against the production of the photo as we see it. That is simple physics Correa Neto, something you might not have considered.

Are you saying a hand held camera wouldn't move? Seriously?

Oh, but you have realised precisely my intended meaning, so what’s your point?

you have lots of different meanings to a lot of words people use.

How is the assumption that it was the 300mm lens used “based on methodological errors”? I have already described how, if it was the 55mm lens, then the final calculated size would be larger than for the 300mm lens. So the authors calculated using the assumption of the 300mm lens as the most conservative method available to them. It was either the 300mm OR the 55mm lens…choose your poison.

Rubbish I'll cite that document you threw at us to slow our replies to your point scoring I mean evidence. The Nikon Lens was 300 mm there was no conservative method since you can pick from 300 mm or 300 mm.

I have asked, if you dispute the authors calculations, to SHOW how it was not “a proper and truly scientific analysis.” You have been unable to do this so far and I don’t hold much hope that you will be able to do so in the future. Merely stating the unfounded assertion does not make it true.

I have been reading this thread for awhile the only unfounded assertions I have read have come your posts. Why is the "object" evidence of a UFO?

But there is no data that would (or could possibly) satisfy you in this regard. If I cited radar data, you would claim anomalies in that data and point to AP effects in radar observations. Quite simply, no possible data exists that could possibly satisfy you on this point. In all scientific investigation, assumptions are made. The argument then revolves around whether those assumptions are reasonable. I simply claim that the astronauts had the expertise and training to estimate the object’s orbit and relative speed of the object in relation to their own and that it is reasonable to assume they would not have been unduly mistaken in such estimates.

You ignore the detail the skeptics put into this thread but I shouldn't be surprised with that since it clashes with your belief system.

What “methodological flaws”?

Copying and pasting, Calculations.

The phrase is specifically yours and I have already informed you that I do not understand what you mean by it in the context and have asked you to explain what you DO mean by it. I have also informed you specifically and on many occasions that the ETH hypothesis is one that I cannot see any direct evidential support for (circumstantial yes, direct no – but circumstantial in this case is not good enough).

We have informed you specifically and on many occasions that we are not UFO debunkers since UFOs are just unidentified flying objects and yet you continually calls us UFO debunkers for what reason I don't know.

If those are the things you are contending, then show me the evidence to support such claims. I draw no such conclusions from the evidence at hand. Show me anyone of direct relevance here that has.

Then why use this case then? Is it because you just want to score points against the mean old skeptics? Because that's the vibe I'm getting reading your posts.

Because we have trained astronauts observing and taking photographic evidence of a red object (and this fact in itself is startling) of a size larger than anything anybody had up there at the time. But even discounting the size – the fact that an unknown red object followed Skylab so closely is itself a startling phenomenon and raises questions concerning the nature of that object.

It's not a fact. Also so it's a large object now? I thought since it was a 300 mm lens it wouldn't of been that large.

 

[Jocce]

I propose we move on. I propose we do this in an orderly fashion and simply move down the list, meaning that the following is next in line:

Clip #2:
STS-115 Atlantis (Launch 9 Sep 2006)
(http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/shuttlemissions/archives/sts-115.html)
Incident: A strangely shaped object floats by…”
(http://spaceflight1.nasa.gov/gallery/video/shuttle/sts-115/html/fd1.html) “Crew handheld video of External Tank”
(http://spaceflight1.nasa.gov/gallery/video/shuttle/sts-115/qtime/sts115_fd01_03.mov)

What Is this thing?

Maybe we could start by you telling us where in this video you see something that seems to defy mundane explanations. It would also be great if you could detail which mundane explanations you have thought of and detail your processes of elimination. Thank you.

 

[Astrophotographer]

This is all very well and good except for one critical difference between your photos and the “UFO” photo in question. That is to be found in the KEY phrase indicating your applied methodology – and that is “long exposure shots”. Let me cite from the author’s article:

“these beacon photos were taken on September 4 with a hand-held Nikon camera set at f/4.5 to f8 and with a shutter time of 1/500 to 1/250 of a second. (http://brumac.8k.com/Skylab3/SL3.html)​

These are definitely NOT “long exposure shots”.

Why are you comparing the shots of the laser with the shots taken of another object? Are you stating that the astronauts are going to be stupid and leave the shutter setting the same for photographing what appeared to be a stellar point source? The settings of the camera would be adjusted by the photographer to attempt to record the object. 1/500 or 1/250 will not record much in a point source. Try photographing a star with exposure times of this value. Even Venus is difficult to record at these exposure times.

The truth is, we don't know what the shutter speed was for the exposure but Correo makes a valid point that if the shutter speed were set at something like 1/30th second or longer, hand held vibrations would be induced by simply depressing the shutter. A 300 mm lens would magnify such vibrations. Anybody with any experience in photography would understand this. Other than quoting DR. M.'s article, can you provide us with your own expertise in photography that makes you an expert on the subject? In my 30 plus years of amateur photogaphy (astronomical and daylight), I find the argument that the effects are from potential camera vibrations is very valid. Since you are now apparently arguing that this is not possible, feel free to present evidence of shutter speed for these photographs of the UFO, actual focal length used, and f-stop setting. Citing a completely different experiment at a different time is not a valid argument and is definitely not scientific no matter what you claim.

 

[Correa Neto]

I asked you to specify HOW knowing the specific model of the Nikon camera (or lens) or the specific f-stop figure would add to our knowledge of the case. You have written many fine words, but have utterly failed to answer that question.

I can take you did not understood the comparison I made with a mineralogy paper - equipments used must always be stated in details. Here's one of the relevant reasons for the article in question- What if the specific model or batch is prone to vibrations on the mirror? I am sure anyone with a basic understanding of photography can think of other relevant issues.

I must note that it is a fact that the cameras were relied upon to produce clear images at long range of low power (brightness), directed laser beacons from an earth base (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19760009330_1976009330.pdf). These images would be later analysed as to whether the lasers were able to be utilised as visual, earth based navigation beacons. The photos were intended to show quantitatively the relative brightness of these beacons at different powers. The quality of the cameras, lens’ and films would have been at least sufficient - and the quality of the image processing at least sufficient – so that the engineers analysing the photos could be confident that no “possible distortions” were upsetting their observations. Camera shake would of course have been one of the things specifically guarded against. It is notable also that the analysts saw no barriers to producing “enlarged” sections taken from the photos to represent what they were talking about.

Lots of assumptions over there! Answer, without assumptions: How can you completely avoid camera vibrations? How can you demonstrate the equipment was actually optimized for low-light conditions? How bright was the red light? Brighter or dimmer than what, according to you, the cameras should picture? In respect to Skylab, the red light was “above”, “below” or at the same “level”?

The laser beacon pictures, was Earth supposed to be at the background? Any parts of Skylab or other devices were supposed to appear at those pictures? The cameras were supposed to be used only at the laser beacon experiments?

You know what is required for taking pictures at low-light conditions? ISO (ASA back then, I guess) settings x shutter speed and aperture settings?

All the above questions are relevant to the case in question and have not been properly answered by you; their answers can not also be found at the article.

Okay…lets say there was only the single camera on board - the Nikon with a 300mm lens – now where are we? The bottom line is that the Nikon camera produced the photo. It is entirely reasonable to assume it was the 300mm lens that did the job, however if we are not allowed that assumption and it was in fact the 55mm lens, then the calculated size of the object would have been larger! This is the bottom line here. A simple fact that the UFO debunkers cannot (or will not) acknowledge.

Aren’t you really able to realize the major flaw within your argument? Size estimates were used to assume which lens was used, but since the size estimates are not reliable, the assumption is completely useless.
UFOlogic pseudoscience at its best!

What “detail” are you missing that substantially (rather than theoretically) affects the case? You should begin your reply “The detail missing is (insert required detail) and this affects the calculations/conclusions of the case (in the following specific way)…” Until you can do this you are merely making unfounded assertions that have no demonstrated bearing on the case whatsoever.

Go back to my first post on this subject and read it, as well as the links I posted. You can also find at this very post some tips a few lines below.

Is it likely that the guardians of the NASA film archive would produce “distorted” images and then hand them out to researchers for study? I hardly think so. Stranger things have happened, but it is merely grasping at straws to suppose the image to be distorted during the copying process.

You can not defend that article without resorting to assumptions, can you? Who copied the pictures used to build the article? Was this made by "guardians of the NASA film archive", by the article’s authors or by a third party? Where is the process documented? What were the safeguards taken to deal with possible distortions? What was the micrometer used to measure the images? Exactly how was the image measured? A single measure or a series of measures? What was the precision margin of the measurements? How was it found? Least count? ILE? Repeated measurements plus average, average or standard deviation? And the focal length? How was it obtained? Specs taken straight out of the manual? What’s the error margin? And the list of unknowns can go on and on…

You can not find these answers at the article! And your attempts to defend it using nothing but assumptions are and will be useless, again.

Obviously then you completely misunderstand how science works. If I merely stated a contention without expert support, then you could legitimately question if I had the relevant expertise to comment. However, if I can cite the relevant expert in the field who can support that contention it is then their expertise that supplies the contention with credibility. For example in constructing scientific papers for publication the introduction to such a paper is usually full of such citiations. It is part and parcel of the accepted methodology. No single scientist can possibly be across every single aspect of every single piece of research in their own and related disciplines. That is also why expert testimony is sought and introduced in court cases. The lawyers themselves know that their mere stating of the facts amounts to nothing unless they can provide the relevant support from experts in the field. Thus your comments above are “ not what one would expect from someone with scientific formation”.

You have not made a proper citation; you tried to use the CV of one of the articles’ authors to defend it. A proper citation would be something like “Doe (1999) reached a certain conclusion using this method based on these pieces of evidence”.

They cannot be “wrong”, I produced the photos as evidence in support. The photos show precisely what I was contending. I might not have the full story, but I am, on the evidence , not “wrong”.

Your statements above are not real and the pictures I showed clearly show your comments regarding the shapes of shaky pictures of point lights are wrong.

Now, regarding the Skylab pictures, you merely showed pictures taken with a Nikon of unknown model with unknown lenses using unknown aperture and exposure settings (see below).

This is all very well and good except for one critical difference between your photos and the “UFO” photo in question. That is to be found in the KEY phrase indicating your applied methodology – and that is “long exposure shots”. Let me cite from the author’s article:

“these beacon photos were taken on September 4 with a hand-held Nikon camera set at f/4.5 to f8 and with a shutter time of 1/500 to 1/250 of a second. (http://brumac.8k.com/Skylab3/SL3.html)​

These are definitely NOT “long exposure shots”.

You mean you actually think they would not have changed exposure times and F-stop setting to take the pictures of the red light? Just grab a camera, point and shoot? No need to adjust exposure and aperture?

(I should be flattered that you attempt to use my own language and concepts against me, but) okay… if the lens is moving then it would be difficult to deviate that movement to produce the photo seen. Either way inertia mitigates against the production of the photo as we see it. That is simple physics Correa Neto, something you might not have considered.

Yes, simple physics indeed. Now, grab some high school physics material, check a formula for momentum and see what the "m" and the "v" stand for. Now tell me, based on this, what would be harder to stabilize while tracking a moving object: a camera with a 300mm or one with a 55mm objective?

Oh, but you have realised precisely my intended meaning, so what’s your point?

Again: 5 to 10 seconds or 5 to 6 seconds is not equal to say, 5+0.08s to 6+0.008s or to 7+2.5s. “5 to 10 seconds” is not a proper scientific notation and can be interpreted in multiple ways, with different error margins and thus different effects on error propagation calculations.

How is the assumption that it was the 300mm lens used “based on methodological errors”? I have already described how, if it was the 55mm lens, then the final calculated size would be larger than for the 300mm lens. So the authors calculated using the assumption of the 300mm lens as the most conservative method available to them. It was either the 300mm OR the 55mm lens…choose your poison.

Again- the method used to estimate the object’s size is flawed; the “object” used to calculate the size seems (and most likely is) nothing but the shaky image of a point light, the trail of a point light and not a single object with three lights. Thus, using this to determine the lens used is a major flaw.

I have asked, if you dispute the authors calculations, to SHOW how it was not “a proper and truly scientific analysis.” You have been unable to do this so far and I don’t hold much hope that you will be able to do so in the future. Merely stating the unfounded assertion does not make it true.

As anyone can easily take from wrote before, I do not dispute just the error calculations. I dispute the whole methodology. The reasons were pretty well exposed at my posts. Reasons you have not managed to counter adequately and judging from the content of your recent answers, will also not be in the nearby future.

Science is not postmodern philosophy where you can write whatever crap you want and pretend to be doing something good.

But there is no data that would (or could possibly) satisfy you in this regard. If I cited radar data, you would claim anomalies in that data and point to AP effects in radar observations. Quite simply, no possible data exists that could possibly satisfy you on this point. In all scientific investigation, assumptions are made. The argument then revolves around whether those assumptions are reasonable. I simply claim that the astronauts had the expertise and training to estimate the object’s orbit and relative speed of the object in relation to their own and that it is reasonable to assume they would not have been unduly mistaken in such estimates.

Rubbish. A proper radar track (not one claimed to exist and never shown) would help settling lots of issues.

Now, can you prove or back your claims that the astronauts would be able “to estimate the object’s orbit and relative speed of the object in relation to their own and that it is reasonable to assume they would not have been unduly mistaken in such estimates”? Remember- it was a point light with no references other than space. And what would be the margin of error of such estimates and their impacts on the size estimates?

What “methodological flaws”?

OK, that was a funny joke. You may have a bright future in comedy.

The phrase is specifically yours and I have already informed you that I do not understand what you mean by it in the context and have asked you to explain what you DO mean by it. I have also informed you specifically and on many occasions that the ETH hypothesis is one that I cannot see any direct evidential support for (circumstantial yes, direct no – but circumstantial in this case is not good enough).

Oh, is this so? So tell me, what do you favor? Aliens from other universes? From other “dimensions”? Unknown civilizations from our own planet? Space Nazis? Secret terrestrial craft? Manifestations of Jungian archetypes? Not yet known natural phenomena? Space amoebas? A combination of misidentifications and hoaxes?

Because we have trained astronauts observing and taking photographic evidence of a red object (and this fact in itself is startling) of a size larger than anything anybody had up there at the time. But even discounting the size – the fact that an unknown red object followed Skylab so closely is itself a startling phenomenon and raises questions concerning the nature of that object.

Nope. We only have pictures of a red light whose size and distance from Skylab estimates made at that article are not reliable. The only unknown issue is the red color. Strange? Yes. Can I explain it? Right now, no. Does it makes the red light something beyond the borders of what we call nature? No. Are the pictures reliable or compelling evidence for aliens from beyond the borders of what we call nature? No.

 

[Rramjet]

Maybe we could start by you telling us where in this video you see something that seems to defy mundane explanations. It would also be great if you could detail which mundane explanations you have thought of and detail your processes of elimination. Thank you.

At the 28 sec mark at the right of frame an object appears and crosses the lower corner of the frame.

My problem seems to be in overestimating the capabilities of respondents in this thread. I have previously outlined in detail the process of elimination from a scientific perspective, but perhaps I can make it even simpler.

In my part of the world, all kids learn in school a game called “Twenty Questions”. You know the one – it is where you have to guess what objective “thing” someone is thinking of and you have to do it within twenty questions - with the replies to any question restricted to either a “yes” or a “no” answer. The first questions were obviously “Is it an animal”? “Is it a mineral”? “Is it a vegetable”?. It was interesting to note within twenty questions, using only a yes or no answer as a guide, very few objects remained undiscovered (of course there were always the bright sparks who were thinking of “fire” or “outer space” in an attempt to trip proceedings up… but they could only get away with that once).

The point being that within twenty questions just about any mundane object’s characteristics could be pinned down well enough to discover what it was. The UFO debunkers in this thread seem to be implying by their repeated questioning along the lines of what mundane explanations have you thought of and eliminated?, that that the process is somehow indeterminate - perhaps thinking (erroneously) that there are so many mundane objects that a conclusive end to that line of questioning and analysis can never be reached. However, as the children’s game of “Twenty Questions” clearly demonstrates, the UFO debunkers are simply incorrect.

Now, regarding the video in question (found at: http://spaceflight1.nasa.gov/gallery/video/shuttle/sts-115/html/fd1.html -
Master# 722561 01:03:54 - 01:04:22 Crew handheld video of External Tank). One can apply the “Twenty Question” methodology (ie; a process of elimination).

Obviously the object in the video is hardly likely to be animal or vegetable… so mineral then… (yes, yes, but it is not “fire” – and highly unlikely to be a plasma of another variety - nor is it “outer space”…so “mineral” it is).

Is it a manufactured flying object (eg; plane, rocket, satellite, etc)? Well obviously not.

Could it be a chunk of ice? Perhaps… But what a very strange shape… how could a “chunk of ice” form into such a shape? It would seem implausible – highly improbable… and where did it come from? “We” have obviously caught up to it… so it was originally ahead of the Shuttle and the ejected booster tank – so it could not have come from either of those… So the difficulty we have here is that we don’t have a plausible source for the object.

Moreover, NASA put the video up on its site so it would be fully aware that the object is there – but strangely there is no “explanatory note” to go with the video. Are they playing a practical joke on us? I am sure they would deny any such thing, so perhaps they really don’t know what the object is/was?

I am not contending that there is NO mundane source for the object (or that it is NOT a mundane object), just that it is very “peculiar” (all round). However, at 31 seconds one can note a very small “chunk” to the left of the object (from our POV) directly below the booster tank - and that “chunk” is travelling at the same speed as the object itself. This of course does suggest a mundane solution! Nevertheless, because we have no source and the object is “unidentified” it therefore qualifies as a UFO.

Of course the UFO debunkers, so intent on shifting the burden of proof, have simply failed to analyse the video at all. Clearly in this case Jocce has failed to note even the object itself - but it is notable that if he had actually analysed the video, he would have noted, not only the object itself, but also this extra “chunk” and the ramifications of its presence thereof. This starkly highlights the fact that the UFO debunkers conduct no analysis of the evidence before them – instead they seem to be content to merely sit back and throw generic objections at it. My contention that the UFO debunkers simply ignore the evidence is thus amply demonstrated in this little exercise.

Like the Apollo 10 video, we might suspect the object is mundane but we simply do not have the evidence to conclude that it is mundane. It IS (strictly speaking) a UFO. At this point I am sure that many UFO debunkers will loudly proclaim that the circumstantial evidence does suggest it is mundane – but they cannot have it both ways – much circumstantial evidence also suggests other UFOs might be of alien (meaning extraterrestrial) origin.

 

[Rramjet]

Why are you comparing the shots of the laser with the shots taken of another object? Are you stating that the astronauts are going to be stupid and leave the shutter setting the same for photographing what appeared to be a stellar point source? The settings of the camera would be adjusted by the photographer to attempt to record the object. 1/500 or 1/250 will not record much in a point source. Try photographing a star with exposure times of this value. Even Venus is difficult to record at these exposure times.

The truth is, we don't know what the shutter speed was for the exposure but Correo makes a valid point that if the shutter speed were set at something like 1/30th second or longer, hand held vibrations would be induced by simply depressing the shutter. A 300 mm lens would magnify such vibrations. Anybody with any experience in photography would understand this. Other than quoting DR. M.'s article, can you provide us with your own expertise in photography that makes you an expert on the subject? In my 30 plus years of amateur photogaphy (astronomical and daylight), I find the argument that the effects are from potential camera vibrations is very valid. Since you are now apparently arguing that this is not possible, feel free to present evidence of shutter speed for these photographs of the UFO, actual focal length used, and f-stop setting. Citing a completely different experiment at a different time is not a valid argument and is definitely not scientific no matter what you claim.

You are totally missing the point. Sure, we could argue back and forth inconclusively about the photos, but THIS is the point:

“LOUSMA: "Did you tell him about that satellite we saw?
BEAN: Yes, we saw a great satellite. We didn't know if we told you about it.
LOUSMA: The closest and brightest one we've seen.
BEAN: Huge one.
LOUSMA: We've seen several. It was a red one.” (http://brumac.8k.com/Skylab3/SL3.html)​

And…

“GARRIOTT: OK. About a week or 10 days before recovery and we were still waiting for information to be supplied to us about the identification. Jack first notices this rather large red star out the wardroom window. Upon close examination, it was much brighter than Jupiter or any of the other planets. It had a reddish hue to it, even though it was well above the horizon. The light from the Sun was not passing close to the Earth's limb at the time. We observed it for about 10 minutes prior to sunset. It was slowly rotating because it had a variation in brightness with a 10-seconds period. As I was saying, we observed it for about 10 minutes, until we went into darkness, and it also followed us into darkness about 5-seconds later. From the 5 to 10 second delay in it's disappearance we surmised that it was not more than 30 to 50 nautical miles [35 to 58 statute miles or 56 to 93 km] from our location. From its original position in the wardroom window, it did not move more than 10 or 20 degrees over the 10 minutes or so that we watched it. Its orbit was very close to that of our own. We never saw it on any earlier or succeeding orbits and we'd be quite interested in having its identification established. It's all debriefed in terms of time on channel A, so the precise timing and location can be picked up from there." (http://brumac.8k.com/Skylab3/SL3.html)​

Since there were no satellites at that time and location (and especially there were no red satellites full stop), then what was it? The photos provide an extra dimension to the sighting, but they are not necessary to conclude something very unusual was following Skylab. No identification was ever established. That is the bottom line here Astrophotographer.

 

[Astrophotographer]

You are totally missing the point. Sure, we could argue back and forth inconclusively about the photos, but THIS is the point:

So, it is your claim that there was absolutely nothing manmade in orbit at the time that could possible account for this? Have you bothered to look into this matter or is it you are simply parrotting the Dr. M. paper?

I have no idea how old you are but the skylab launch was a near disaster for the entire project. Various parts came off after launch (I believe this was all caused by the micrometeorite shield) and put on quite a show for skywatchers in the weeks after the event. Not only could you see skylab but other parts as well trek across the sky. Now who is to say that the object they saw wasn't simply one of these fragments (or any other bit of debris) that happened to be nearby reflecting the sun just right? What proof do we have that it was a satellite at all? What about some foil from the solar shield they had installed on their first EVA? It had a reddish (organish-yellowish) color to it. There are a great number of possibilities and you need to rule them out before you jump on the bandwagon that there was "nothing of ours" present that can account for this point of light in the photographs. That is the REAL point here. Is it something unidentified? Yes. Is it something unusual? Not really since it did not change its trajectory or indicate motion other than being in orbit with the space station.

This is simply an unanswerable mystery (and not much of one at that) where insufficient data is available to draw a conclusion. However, there is no evidence that it represents something out of the ordinary.

 

[Astrophotographer]

At this point I am sure that many UFO debunkers will loudly proclaim that the circumstantial evidence does suggest it is mundane – but they cannot have it both ways – much circumstantial evidence also suggests other UFOs might be of alien (meaning extraterrestrial) origin.

You are wrong again. Mundane objects exist and that is a fact. Suggesting that the probability of it being alien ("Much circumstantial evidence?") is the same as being mundane is just not scientific.There is absolutely no evidence that Extraterrestrials exist. Therefore, it is more likely that the object is mundane than "alien" until you can demonstrate otherwise.

 

[Rramjet]

So, it is your claim that there was absolutely nothing manmade in orbit at the time that could possible account for this? Have you bothered to look into this matter or is it you are simply parrotting the Dr. M. paper?

I think the term you are looking for here is ”quoting from” Astrophotographer. The UFO debunkers often complain about (and accuse) me of “not being scientific” enough in my approach and exploration of the UFO subject. Yet it seems they are not above using distinctly unscientific methodology to try and make their own points - as witnessed here by use of the term “parroting” – which is of course an emotional appeal (rather than a scientific appeal to the “facts”) and thus an attempt to bias reader’s perceptions – and this is most definitely unscientific.

I have no idea how old you are but the skylab launch was a near disaster for the entire project.

Of course my age has nothing whatsoever to do with anything under discussion, but by mentioning it here the Astrophotographer attempts to cast a doubt into the reader’s mind about my abilities to comprehend the “true” situation based on a mere possibility concerning a speculation about my age – and that also unscientific.

Not only that, but the opinion that “the skylab launch was a near disaster for the entire project” is just that – an opinion. It is used here to unscientifically inflate the reader’s negative expectations about the incidents that are to be described in the following sentences from Astrophotographer. According to NASA:

“The program was successful in all respects despite early mechanical difficulties.” (http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/skylab/index.html)

And this:

“There was a certain small amount of sadness when we left, realizing we were going to be the last crew to inhabit the spacecraft," Carr said. "It had hung together beautifully for us, and we kind of hated to leave it. But, of course, we were also looking forward to going home." (http://www.nasa.gov/missions/shuttle/f_skylab1.html)

A “near disaster for the entire project”? Hardly.

Various parts came off after launch (I believe this was all caused by the micrometeorite shield) and put on quite a show for skywatchers in the weeks after the event.

This is extremely vague (“various parts”?). Compare Astrophotographer’s statements with the following for example:

“As successful as the program was, the first two crews had to overcome some unexpected challenges. During the station's launch, airflow caused a meteoroid shield to come off, tearing off one of two solar panels and preventing the other from deploying. The damage resulted in reduced power for the station. When the first crew arrived 11 days later, their first task was to repair the damage. Once repairs were complete, full power was restored.” (http://www.nasa.gov/missions/shuttle/f_skylab1.html)

...and I think you will find your "weeks after the event" is a gross overstatement. (...and even if it were accurate ...which I doubt ...it still does not equate to observations months after the event).

Not only could you see skylab but other parts as well trek across the sky.

“Other parts”? There were two (according to NASA); the meteoroid shield and one of the solar panels – and neither were very large (in fact not all of the MS had separated). A complete description of the incident can be found here (http://history.nasa.gov/skylabrep/SRch7.htm#Ch7). Also indicated is that these objects (and any associated debri) did not “follow” Skylab into orbit at all, but would have almost immediately fallen back to earth (eg: “The most probable cause of the failure of the meteoroid shield was internal pressurization of its auxiliary tunnel. This internal pressurization acted to force the forward end of the tunnel and meteoroid shield away from the OWS and into the supersonic air stream. The resulting forces tore the meteoroid shield from the OWS.” - http://history.nasa.gov/skylabrep/SRch10.htm). The critical phrase here is of course “into the supersonic airstream” – meaning once the MS, SAS-2 (and associated debri) had separated from the OWS, they would have quickly been left behind (and this is also indicated in the “airflow caused…” statement in the previous quote above). The critical point being that none of this debri would have made it into orbit to be later be observed (months later) by Garriott et al. “following” Skylab in orbit. One must also note the comment by Garriott that:

“Its orbit was very close to that of our own. We never saw it on any earlier or succeeding orbits…” (http://brumac.8k.com/Skylab3/SL3.html)

So Astrophotographer’s statement that one could “see skylab but other parts as well trek across the sky” begs the question: “Yes, but for how long after the launch was this phenomenon visible and where did the debri end up?” (certainly not in orbit following Skylab is at least the partial answer).

Now who is to say that the object they saw wasn't simply one of these fragments (or any other bit of debris) that happened to be nearby reflecting the sun just right?

Well, it seems that if none of the “debri” made it into orbit, then the answer - based on the evidence I provided above – is clearly the evidence "says".

What proof do we have that it was a satellite at all?

None, obviously.

“NASA signed an agreement with NORAD for NORAD to provide NASA with continually updated computer projections warning of potentially dangerous close approaches of any and all space objects during a manned space mission. These projections are generated with a NORAD/USAF computer program called COMBO (Computation for Miss Between Orbits). The COMBO program does not require that the satellites be directly in view of NORAD radars and other sensors at the moment of close approach -- the projections are made to any point in the satellite orbits anywhere in the world using the principle that manmade satellites follow predictable flight paths.

As of 1973, according to NORAD/ADC, "NASA has not had to maneuver a manned spacecraft to avoid a collision with another satellite" based on the COMBO warnings. See article by Major Samuel C. Beamer, Commander, Det 8, 14th Missile Warning Squadron, ADC, Laredo, Texas, "Nerve Center for Space Defense," Air University Review, September-October 1973 (online at http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1973/sep-oct/beamer.html)

The point of the above calculations and discussion is this: had it been another satellite in an elliptical orbit that was only a few kilometers or so from Skylab at its closest point, then it should have been known to the organizations that keep track of all satellites. It probably would have been within a few tens of kilometers of Skylab when Skylab went through the areas of the world where there were NASA and NORAD radars and sensors operating. There was no report that NASA or NORAD detected any object near Skylab, and a near-miss of only a few kilometer would have been an extremely dangerous situation as tracking radars often have errors of that magnitude (meaning it could have been a 0-distance, i.e., a direct and fatal collision).” (http://brumac.8k.com/Skylab3/SL3.html)​

What about some foil from the solar shield they had installed on their first EVA? It had a reddish (organish-yellowish) color to it.

Perhaps then you missed this in my previous post:

“LOUSMA: "Did you tell him about that satellite we saw?
BEAN: Yes, we saw a great satellite. We didn't know if we told you about it.
LOUSMA: The closest and brightest one we've seen.
BEAN: Huge one.
LOUSMA: We've seen several. It was a red one.” (http://brumac.8k.com/Skylab3/SL3.html)

(Bolding mine. Rr)

There are a great number of possibilities and you need to rule them out before you jump on the bandwagon that there was "nothing of ours" present that can account for this point of light in the photographs.

Actually there are (according to you) only two: First the MS/SAS-2/associated debri hypothesis and second the “foil from the solar shield” hypothesis. On the evidence these are both implausible sources for the observed object. And so…

That is the REAL point here.

Is it something unidentified? Yes. Is it something unusual? Not really since it did not change its trajectory or indicate motion other than being in orbit with the space station.

…but nothing should have been there… and I can only repeat:

“Its orbit was very close to that of our own. We never saw it on any earlier or succeeding orbits…” (http://brumac.8k.com/Skylab3/SL3.html)

So something changed between orbits…

This is simply an unanswerable mystery (and not much of one at that)…

Nothing “simple” about it (obviously) and if you think it is “not much” of a mystery, then what does the word “mystery” actually mean to you?

…where insufficient data is available to draw a conclusion. However, there is no evidence that it represents something out of the ordinary.

There definitely IS sufficient data to show that it was unlikely to have been anything “we” had put up there… and even if it was a mundane object, it most certainly WAS “something out of the ordinary”.

 

[Rramjet]

You are wrong again. Mundane objects exist and that is a fact. Suggesting that the probability of it being alien ("Much circumstantial evidence?") is the same as being mundane is just not scientific.There is absolutely no evidence that Extraterrestrials exist. Therefore, it is more likely that the object is mundane than "alien" until you can demonstrate otherwise.

I will leave it to others to judge the relative scientific merits of our respective positions on the matter of UFOs. But you seem to have missed my point:

There is a great deal of circumstantial evidence that “extraterrestrials exist”. However, UFO debunkers claim long and loudly that such circumstantial evidence is not good enough to draw a positive conclusion in this regard – and I tend to agree with them.

However, when we talk about specific cases (such as the STS-115 Atlantis (Launch 9 Sep 2006) (http://spaceflight1.nasa.gov/gallery...15_fd01_03.mov) case that my comments you quote reference here), then there is only circumstantial evidence that the object IS mundane. As much as you want to believe it is mundane, that does not make it mundane.

 

[Jocce]

Obviously the object in the video is hardly likely to be animal or vegetable… so mineral then… (yes, yes, but it is not “fire” – and highly unlikely to be a plasma of another variety - nor is it “outer space”…so “mineral” it is).

Is it a manufactured flying object (eg; plane, rocket, satellite, etc)? Well obviously not.

Could it be a chunk of ice? Perhaps… But what a very strange shape… how could a “chunk of ice” form into such a shape? It would seem implausible – highly improbable… and where did it come from? “We” have obviously caught up to it… so it was originally ahead of the Shuttle and the ejected booster tank – so it could not have come from either of those… So the difficulty we have here is that we don’t have a plausible source for the object.

Moreover, NASA put the video up on its site so it would be fully aware that the object is there – but strangely there is no “explanatory note” to go with the video. Are they playing a practical joke on us? I am sure they would deny any such thing, so perhaps they really don’t know what the object is/was?

Have you pondered the possibility that it might be a reflection of light in the lense or window?

 

[Jocce]

Re Skylab 3:

There definitely IS sufficient data to show that it was unlikely to have been anything “we” had put up there… and even if it was a mundane object, it most certainly WAS “something out of the ordinary”.

It has been shown that there is a possibility that it could simply be an unsteady camera trying to follow a point source.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

At the 28 sec mark at the right of frame an object appears and crosses the lower corner of the frame.

My problem seems to be in overestimating the capabilities of respondents in this thread. I have previously outlined in detail the process of elimination from a scientific perspective, but perhaps I can make it even simpler.

In my part of the world, all kids learn in school a game called “Twenty Questions”. You know the one...

Yes - that's a game which depends on the person being questioned already knowing in advance what the object is, and being aware of all its properties. (If you've ever played it with children, you would know that the game falls apart when they give wrong or uncertain answers. )

I'm sorry if I missed some of this discussion, but how exactly have you been able to firmly rule out the possibility that this bright object is just a reflection in the cabin window? That's rather what it looks like to me, so I'm curious to know why you're confident it isn't.