The only ufo footage I've ever taken seriously

[TheGuyThat]

Take a look at this link, it shows an incident with many "UFO's" flying around a nasa experiment. The experiment has gone wrong, and there is footage of the 12 mile long tether being swarmed by what at first seems to be just blurry images, camera or focus errors etc. I personally, was being very harsh on the footage, until I saw one of the images go behind the 12 mile long tether, it just kind of instantly dismissed the posibility of the images being a focal error or space debris, as there is no space debri out there that is roughly 4 miles in diametre. That in itself is astounding enough, but then all of a sudden one of the images begins to pulsate quite strangely, confirming my uneasiness even further. I would like to hear what you guys think this is. I'm not going to say these are ufo's or anything, I just think it is amazing in that it is soo hard to disprove without being deluded to whats happening.
So what do you think?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_rj4yxTygk&search=tether

[Lonewulf]

It could honestly just be space debris reflecting a helluva lot of sunlight in the direction of the camera. They seem kinda like glares of light on the camera lens to me... but I could be wrong.

[TheBoyPaj]

How do we know it's real footage of this tether?

[Hellbound]

First, where's their evidence that this is the NASA video?

The second half of that video is not a standard visible light image (unless the quality is very low), it does not match the earlier footage. To me, it appears that someone has taken video from a microscope slide and inserted it at the end.

Also, I question the alignment of the "tether" in the second video, it also doesn't match earlier footage in either angle or characteristics.

I'm not only going to say it doesn't show UFOs, I'll go further and say the video is fake. Unless there's some sort of verification that this is the actual, unaltered video...sorry.

[Bikewer]

The "objects" move with the camera; most likely dust, focal artifacts, etc. You can see some expand and contract with the camera focusing.

[Psi Baba]

Amazing how good some people seem to be at estimating the size and position of the objects from that blurry video. Also the "pulsing" is simply tumbling, as space debris has a tendency to do.

[SphereGuy]

First of all, notice how they all "pulsate" in unison. Obviously a video artifact. Notice how they all seem to pass behind the tether. On my orb page I showed how this effect takes place. Show me one of these things that passes in FRONT of the tether. It's just frozen particles floating around the space craft being filmed out of focus and reflecting light.

Also notice how the guy running the camera isn't saying, "Oh, my god! This is incredible! UFO's everwhere! Forget the tether, let's follow those guys and get good shots of them!" Instead he's concerned with playing with the focus and contrast to get RID of them because they are messing up the shot of the tether.

[TheBoyPaj]

First, where's their evidence that this is the NASA video?

The second half of that video is not a standard visible light image (unless the quality is very low), it does not match the earlier footage. To me, it appears that someone has taken video from a microscope slide and inserted it at the end.

Also, I question the alignment of the "tether" in the second video, it also doesn't match earlier footage in either angle or characteristics.

My thoughts exactly. When we see the tether close-up, it's a twisted cord drifting off. The next time we see it, it seems straight as an arrow and thicker.

[Thomas]

It seems to be normal when the shuttles move into the sunlight. Here's what CSICOP and Oberg has to say about it:


Sometimes the B&W cameras aren't properly focused, and the dots -- along with background stars -- look like horizontal smears, or even -- if very bright -- as donuts with the bright centers grayed-out (the same camera behavior can be seen in lightning bursts and when passing over bright cities).
Fast-moving dots -- and even background stars, when the camera is pan/tilting rapidly -- leave streaks on the image due to latency on the optical sensors. Flakes of ice which slowly tumble will flash regularly.

Read more... (http://www.csicop.org/list/listarchive/msg00018.html)

[Hellbound]

Thanks, Thomas.

Good thing I never claimed to be a video expert, huh? :D

So, it apparantly is an actual NASA video. I had thought dust initially, but I didn't expect it to show up as it did. The "behind the tether" thing I know about though, and that sort of illusion happens when you have a bright (compared to background) pinpoint source. 99% of the "object" is the blur..which blends into the blur of the tether itself.

Makes sense, though, especially if the movement of the objects correlates to the shuttle jets firing.

[TheGuyThat]

First of all, notice how they all "pulsate" in unison. Obviously a video artifact. Notice how they all seem to pass behind the tether. On my orb page I showed how this effect takes place. Show me one of these things that passes in FRONT of the tether. It's just frozen particles floating around the space craft being filmed out of focus and reflecting light.

Also notice how the guy running the camera isn't saying, "Oh, my god! This is incredible! UFO's everwhere! Forget the tether, let's follow those guys and get good shots of them!" Instead he's concerned with playing with the focus and contrast to get RID of them because they are messing up the shot of the tether.

Ooh sweet, so there is that, cool. I too noticed that none went infront. I wouldn't mind seeing that explaination.
This is real footage shot in 1996 by Nasa on a UV infa red camera. Theres plenty of other footage like it. I personally don't have proof that it is, but I am sure that if you want to look for it you will find it, as it is a real experiment they did in 1996 and there was footage shot by nasa, i don't see why it wouldnt be up to par.
To respond to your last bit, I don't think very many people would do that. As first off they look pretty lame, not like amazing sausers, they all seem to be 2D objects, either that or spheres. I mean logically, if they were you'd expect that they would have some on there sides etc. I first off thought stupid camera focus just a chill went down my spine when I saw one go behind as I totally wasn't expecting that, but if you have a good explaination do tell.

[Asm]

So, it apparantly is an actual NASA video. I had thought dust initially, but I didn't expect it to show up as it did. The "behind the tether" thing I know about though, and that sort of illusion happens when you have a bright (compared to background) pinpoint source. 99% of the "object" is the blur..which blends into the blur of the tether itself.

Makes sense, though, especially if the movement of the objects correlates to the shuttle jets firing.

Notice also how every UFO changes it appearance as it travels across the screen. In the lower left part it has two bumps pointing downwards, upper and middle part one bump pointing upward, far left it loses mass on its left side and so on.

[Katana]

Frankly, I thought that a lot of them looked like sperm swimming across a slide as seen through a microscope. The round ones looked like noodles that were in a soup I ate as a child.

Still could be UFOs, though.

[Thomas]

Still could be UFOs, though.
Yes, that mystically only appears everytime the cameras are out of focus and the shuttle moves into the sunlight.

"Hey, what are you doing in our sunlight! All our base are belong to us!"..

It makes sense, Bigfoot, ghosts, ETs and alike, also have a clear tendency to show up when the lense is out of focus. It's paranormal :)

[Asm]

I first off thought stupid camera focus just a chill went down my spine when I saw one go behind as I totally wasn't expecting that, but if you have a good explaination do tell.

Notice how thick the tether appears. In reality the tether is just a very thin, bright line. Same goes for the debris, as far as the optics can tell they are just pinpoints of light.

99% of what you see are optical and digital artifacts - their appearance as well as they way they seem to behave (like one object floating behind another, i guess the shape and intensity of the light source would play a role).

[Thomas]

I found some more NASA sources on the STS-75 flight artifacts / etc.


Letter to James Oberg:

...

In the footage of the video, etc. which was examined in GREAT
detail post flight in hopes of finding SOMETHING to aid in what
had caused the tether break, we never saw anything that was
"unexpected". Your comments as to artifacts and small
debris/dust /ice particles/lens reflections/blooming/etc., are
all quite common and we have seen those things in virtually
every shuttle mission's video. What was present in the video
and the data that was examined post flight was all within this
type of artifact and/or expected results.

Read more... (http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2000/may/m01-017.shtml)


And here's a more thorough report on the STS-75 artifacts, from Oberg / NASA - again.

http://groups.google.com/group/uk.rec.ufo/msg/fbdedeae27443d59?q=oberg+STS+UFO&start=60&hl=en&safe=off&rnum=68

[ReFLeX]

...that's it? Even the first guy's monologue sounded more impressed than me.

[Trantor]

This is a pretty interesting video. It does look like something similar to what you see in a microscope. I'm not an expert on UFO behavior, but those UFO's seem more akin to fireflys, than to anything remotely intelligent. In fact, I think fireflys display a much greater degree of intelligence by the fact that in their swarming behavior, at least they stop and change direction from time to time.

Maybe the UFO's planned it that way so we would continue to be mystified by their existence. Now that I think of it, that seems likely. I will have to give ole Art Bell a call at Coast to Coast to be sure.:D

[EHocking]

This is a pretty interesting video. It does look like something similar to what you see in a microscope. I'm not an expert on UFO behavior, but those UFO's seem more akin to fireflys, than to anything remotely intelligent. In fact, I think fireflys display a much greater degree of intelligence by the fact that in their swarming behavior, at least they stop and change direction from time to time. After the 2 minute mark on that video, I immediately thought "microscope". Video of water-borne organisms under a microscope. The focus shift, the camera shift, the backlight flare all points (for me) to a doctored video.

Odd that this controversial part of the clip is not available at NASA (or I can't find it).

Maybe the UFO's planned it that way so we would continue to be mystified by their existence. Now that I think of it, that seems likely. I will have to give ole Art Bell a call at Coast to Coast to be sure.:D
Prosaic approach? According to the Rense (RENSE?!) site, there was a timed water dump (apparently) just before the "swarm" video was "taken".

I won't be convinced that the video is real, let alone the artifacts, until I see a NASA sourced "swarm" video.

[Thomas]

I won't be convinced that the video is real, let alone the artifacts, until I see a NASA sourced "swarm" video.
The swarm has already been explained by NASA themselves, and yes, the reason for those particular artifacts are supposedly a water drop from the shuttle, so I don't think you need to worry too much about the videos authenticity.

Read my links in my last post for details.

[EHocking]

The swarm has already been explained by NASA themselves, and yes, the reason for those particular artifacts are supposedly a water drop from the shuttle, so I don't think you need to worry too much about the videos authenticity.Odd that it's not hosted by NASA though....

Read my links in my last post for details.
I did, but, still - the source is usenet, not NASA. And as much as I respect the work he does, James Oberg is not infallible. I just want to convince myself that he is actually viewing the same footage (ie after the 2min mark) and is sure that it is indeed NASA footage.

[wipeout]

I was wondering if the camera is suffering some kind of "burn" from the brightness of the tether?

A bit like when the human eye looks at the sun and you see after-image spots for some time after.

I'm guessing the after-image of the tether is so strong that the particles passing by disappear due to the after-image.

Hence, the dust seems to be passing behind the tether when it's really the after-image of the part of the tether the dust passes in front of is too strong for the dust to leave any impression of its own at that point.

Is this what they mean by "artifact"?

[Thomas]

Odd that it's not hosted by NASA though....

Afaik, NASA very rarely have an interest in debunking specific speculations on their site, as there are so many that they would have to hire an entire crack team. Instead they have an (ex?)consultant and rocket scientist running around with 22-years of experience in mission controls; Oberg, who's debunking here and there on various ufology hot spots in close consultation with NASA.

I did, but, still - the source is usenet, not NASA. And as much as I respect the work he does, James Oberg is not infallible. I just want to convince myself that he is actually viewing the same footage (ie after the 2min mark) and is sure that it is indeed NASA footage.
I doubt that he's watching another video with swarming dots, "floating" notched circles and an "abnormally" thick tether that breaks.

[Thomas]

I'm guessing the after-image of the tether is so strong that the particles passing by disappear due to the after-image.
...

Is this what they mean by "artifact"?
Well, since the NASA people never really go in detail with this specific phenomenon, I could suspect that the ufologists haven't made an issue out of this. I'm pretty sure it's just a non-strange optical effect under the given circumstances, and what you say might be a part of it or perhaps all of it. At least, the Lead Flight Director said that there were nothing unexpected in the video.

[Loss Leader]

Does the O in UFO always have to stand for "frozen urine reflecting in the sunlight against no point of reference captured by out-of-focus over-exposed camera attempting to film an image way, way out of its reliable range"? Can't it just once stand for "thousands of spaceships which, for some unknown reason, completely fail to impress the astronauts who, I'm assuming, became astronauts specifically so they could go up in space and give it to hot green babes and android girls and Iman and that native american girl when Kirk lost his memory"?

[Lonewulf]

Does the O in UFO always have to stand for "frozen urine reflecting in the sunlight against no point of reference captured by out-of-focus over-exposed camera attempting to film an image way, way out of its reliable range"? Can't it just once stand for "thousands of spaceships which, for some unknown reason, completely fail to impress the astronauts who, I'm assuming, became astronauts specifically so they could go up in space and give it to hot green babes and android girls and Iman and that native american girl when Kirk lost his memory"?

This is by far the funniest quote I've ever heard in my life. I'm saving this for later usage. I'll probably frame it one day.

[SRW]

Having nothing more to go on first I would have to say that is something pretty eerie, and would still think that if there were no audio. I have not training in looking at things floating around a tether in space. However with the sound, and the total lack to "wow, yippee ki yo kia yae, zounds" then I would have to say that it is 1. really flying saucers and this is the European space agency (its uncool to get excited), or 2. its NASA and nothing really out of the ordinary is going on. As much as I would like # 1 I have to go with number 2.

[thesyntaxera]

If you liked that video you should watch this:

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=nasa+ufo%27s

The above video discusses the tether video, as well as many other "orb" video's. It also points to a third anomaly in the video feeds from nasa. At the very end of the video there is a section of raw footage if you don't feel like watching the whole thing. There is a lot of explanation provided regarding Mir and several other russian "encouters"...even some astronauts plainly saying "we have a UFO right over there"...

Why isn't anyone mentioning "john glenn's fireflies"?

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/glenn_human40_020220-1.html
...and he spotted mysterious glowing particles that he nicknamed fireflies hovering near thespacecraft as he emerged from darkness into sunlight...

http://www.answers.com/topic/mercury-atlas-6
The spacecraft moved across Australia and across the Pacific to Canton Island. Glenn experienced a short 45 minute night and prepared the periscope for viewing his first sunrise in orbit. As the sun rose over Canton Island, he saw thousands of "little specks, brilliant specks, floating around outside the capsule." Glenn had the impression that the spacecraft was tumbling or that he was looking into a star field. A quick hard look out of the spacecraft window corrected this momentary illusion. He definitely thought the "fireflies," as he called the small objects, were streaming past his spacecraft from ahead. They seemed to flow by slowly but did not seem to be coming from any part of the spacecraft. As Friendship 7 moved into brighter sunlight, the "fireflies" disappeared. They were probably small ice crystals venting from onboard spacecraft systems.

[thesyntaxera]

If they are ice crystals or whatever..why do they move behind the tether in the video? Are they 3 mile wide ice crystals?

[TheGuyThat]

Yeah I watched that whole google video thing. Alot of it made alot of sense, such as apparent shooting stars, which infact were escaping the earth not going into it. Also, footage of those same types of images stopping and changing direction, then flying off at high speeds. Also, footage of one of them down near the clouds, following the earths horizon and dissapearing over it going at something like an estimated 800 000 miles and hour or something. Also, some of them forming a circle one entering the centre and lighting up. Also, those ancient people, the dogon or whatever having artifacts that look exactly like the things you see in the video. And I mean exactly, and they say they come from the stars, and remember they said that some star system was actually a system with 3 stars, and a large planet close to the sun, which was later confirmed. Add all these things together and it starts looking pretty damn out of the ordinary if you ask me.
Also astronauts saying they see them etc, makes it a little harder to believe that it is camera distortions. I looked into what one of you said with the discrepancies of the images and how in one portion of the sceen they uniformly did this and in one part they did that, they do kind of do that its true, but still, it seems to me that could be caused by the camera on real objects aswell.

[thesyntaxera]

yeah who knows right?

The tether video is pretty infamous though. I also watched an interesting video called: Dan Ackroyd unlugged on ufo's

It was pretty out there. They mostly focused on similar video's featuring orbs that appear out of no where and mexican infared video of previously invisible craft flying in formation.

It's a good one to rent maybe or purchase if you get the chance. Nothing new however.

[Thomas]

...and mexican infared video of previously invisible craft flying in formation.
That was oilflares from the Cantarell oil field in the Mexican gulf. Wipeout and Franz proposed the oilflare idea independently of each other, and I collected, encoded and published the full video from Dr. Maccabee and SEDENA/Maussan for analysis (and wrote a 70+ page report on it).

Here's the theorem I proposed in the end: http://www.progression-labs.com/images/fig1.jpg

And here's a (satellite) overview of the of the rigs in question, which I analyzed: http://www.progression-labs.com/images/fig2.jpg

Wikipedia gives Captain Franz the honor of the solution, as he was the first one to propose the idea with some evidence, but it was actually an aerospace engineer called Smith who brought in the conclusive evidence, i.e. the satellite images of the oil field.

ETA: I also had the chief engineer behind the FLIR camera design analyze the data, and he basically said: "UFOs? Yes, Unceasingly Flaming Objects".

[thesyntaxera]

That was oilflares from the Cantarell oil field in the Mexican gulf. Wipeout and Franz proposed the oilflare idea independently of each other, and I collected, encoded and published the full video from Dr. Maccabee and SEDENA/Maussan for analysis (and wrote a 70+ page report on it).

Here's the theorem I proposed in the end: http://www.progression-labs.com/images/fig1.jpg

And here's a (satellite) overview of the of the rigs in question, which I analyzed: http://www.progression-labs.com/images/fig2.jpg

Wikipedia gives Captain Franz the honor of the solution, as he was the first one to propose the idea with some evidence, but it was actually an aerospace engineer called Smith who brought in the conclusive evidence, i.e. the satellite images of the oil field.


I'm not sure were talking about the same thing...unless we are.

The video that was released by the mexican government was filmed while they were flying recon searches for late night smuggler traffic. The 6 or so objects are flying in the air, invisible to the naked eye only showing up on infared, with no radar confirmation.

[thesyntaxera]

I guess what I am saying is that if it was burn off it would have been readily visible to the naked eye, and would have been accounted for by the original source.

I looked at the link...we are talking about the same thing.

[Thomas]

I'm not sure were talking about the same thing...unless we are.

The video that was released by the mexican government was filmed while they were flying recon searches for late night smuggler traffic. The 6 or so objects are flying in the air, invisible to the naked eye only showing up on infared, with no radar confirmation.
Yep, that's the case. But there are far more radiation sources in the complete video. And yes, it was filmed by the Mexican government while looking for drug traffic (SEDENA as I said).

[Thomas]

I guess what I am saying is that if it was burn off it would have been readily visible to the naked eye, and would have been accounted for by the original source.
No it wouldn't, the rigs were 180+ kilometers away (IIRC), at almost the distance to the horizon from the given altitude, but such radiation is not invisible to a state-of-the-art military level FLIR camera on extreme zoom levels.

[thesyntaxera]

Yep, that's the case. But there are far more radiation sources in the complete video. And yes, it was filmed by the Mexican government while looking for drug traffic (SEDENA as I said).

So...as I just said...how is it there and not? How did they not know it was burn off? Or, how does burn off not appear to the naked eye, but show up on infared...?

CAn you link the complete video?

[thesyntaxera]

No it wouldn't, the rigs were 180+ kilometers away (IIRC), at almost the distance to the horizon from the given altitude, but such radiation is not invisible to a state-of-the-art military level FLIR camera on extreme zoom levels.

No it wouldn't? Why wouldn't it? Why wouldn't the flares light the surrounding rig? Why only just a ball of light?

In my hometown we have a chemical plant that does a burn off every night, the light from it is visible up to 50 miles away on a clear night with no city light or obstructions to confuse you.

Have you ever crossed mobile bay, or been in the gulf of mexico at night on a boat? You can see nothing but the lights of oil rigs for miles around, so far off in fact that it's hard to distinguish where the stars end and oil rig lights begin.

Also, if it is a rig, how is it that there are no other lights present on it?

[Thomas]

So...as I just said...how is it there and not? How did they not know it was burn off? Or, how does burn off not appear to the naked eye, but show up on infared...?

The video was recorded in daylight, and the pilots were looking in the wrong direction, as they thought the camera was looking straight ahead, but had forgotten to account for the fact that the airplane was tilted slightly, making the observation elevation data from the camera incomplete by a few degrees (and a few is a lot on that distance). I account for this and other factors in the theorem above.


CAn you link the complete video?
I gave it to a couple of the posters here, I encoded a high-quality version of the DVD for analysis, and a low-quality version for people who were just curious. The latter was the most popular so I suspect that you can find it on the net somewhere. But if you can't and are truly curious, then I can encode it again as I still have the original DVD the Mexicans send me.


No it wouldn't? Why wouldn't it? Why wouldn't the flares light the surrounding rig? Why only just a ball of light?

The zoom levels on the STAR Safire II FLIR are extreme. They pick up IR radiation (heat radiation) which isn't the visible to a human eye. They would probably have noticed the rig flames with the visible eye if they hadn't been 180+ kilometers away in bright daylight.


In my hometown we have a chemical plant that does a burn off every night, the light from it is visible up to 50 miles away on a clear night with no city light or obstructions to confuse you.

Again, this was recorded in daylight with extreme zoom.

Have you ever crossed mobile bay, or been in the gulf of mexico at night on a boat? You can see nothing but the lights of oil rigs for miles around, so far off in fact that it's hard to distinguish where the stars end and oil rig lights begin.

Again, IR cameras pick up heat, not visible light, and besides, this was filmed in daylight. You're comparing oranges and apples.


Also, if it is a rig, how is it that there are no other lights present on it?
Because IR picks up heat radiation. And the rig pattern is a perfect match of what you see in the video, and so is the direction in which the camera is pointing (the Cantarell oil field).

[thesyntaxera]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Xg2s3LfqjAo&mode=related&search=

there is clip of it.



The zoom levels on the STAR Safire II FLIR are extreme. They pick up IR radiation (heat radiation) which isn't the visible to a human eye. They would probably have noticed the rig flames with the visible eye if they hadn't been 180+ kilometers away in bright daylight.

So why are they using IR viewing equipment during the day in mexico...? Seems kind redundant to me...shouldn't the whole image be pretty much white? And whats your source for the 180 k distance and the bright daylight?
It seems like the things you mention would have occured to those that released the video before hand...but who knows....you do make a good case...

There is supposed to be 11 anomalies, so what about the other 2? How do account for the apparent motion of the objects that seem to race ahead of the planes postion?

[thesyntaxera]

Also:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3707057.stm

The video, filmed by pilots using an infrared camera, shows 11 bright objects moving rapidly in the sky.

The objects were reported to be invisible to the eye - the pilots turned on the infrared camera to track them after three of them were picked up by the radar.

"There was a moment when... the screens showed they were behind us, to the left and in front of us. It was at that point that I felt a bit tense."


So how does burn off turn up on radar? Why didn't the mexican military figure this one out initially before they went to the press? What is the miltary position on this now that an analysis such as yours is available?

[Loss Leader]

As Friendship 7 moved into brighter sunlight, the "fireflies" disappeared. They were probably small ice crystals venting from onboard spacecraft systems.

The best thing about that whole story is that they named Glenn's spaceship "Friendship." Who did they think he was going to meet?

[thesyntaxera]

The best thing about that whole story is that they named Glenn's spaceship "Friendship." Who did they think he was going to meet?


dude!

little green men, who else?

[Thomas]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Xg2s3LfqjAo&mode=related&search=

there is clip of it.





So why are they using IR viewing equipment during the day in mexico...? Seems kind redundant to me...shouldn't the whole image be pretty much white?
IR picks up heat signatures, not visible light. Check the electromagnetic spectrum for measure. So no, it wouldn't be all white, but you can see IR radiation reflections from the sun several times in video (on lakes etc.).

And whats your source for the 180 k distance and the bright daylight?

The GPS data provided in the video, and the GPS data from the oil rigs. And the timestamps. They also switch mode to visible light a couple of times where you can see it's bright daylight.

It seems like the things you mention would have occured to those that released the video before hand...but who knows....you do make a good case...

I should mention here, that Tim Wescott from FLIR Systems who designed the Star SAFIRE II, told me that I should contact the Danish navy if I wanted to see how the camera is supposed to be used. And that's the same guy who told me that the radiation detections seemed to be: Unceasingly Flaming Objects (UFOs, i.e. oilflares).

There is supposed to be 11 anomalies, so what about the other 2? How do account for the apparent motion of the objects that seem to race ahead of the planes postion?
The famous 11 radiation sources was actually 14 to begin with, but overall you can count 25 radiation sources in the full video.
But the ufologists were only interested in the 11 sources because of the formation they appear in, and while I'm not quite sure which particular radiation source you're talking about, then I suspect it to be the one we called "the Dancer". Several of us did a number of parallax calculations on this radiation source, and it was estimated to be a truck on a highway.

Nothing follows or race ahead of the airplane at all. It's not consistent with the data at hand.

[soulhill]

I don't even know where to begin with this. The make-up of those "UFO's" are obviously optical artifacts. The most prominent of them, which appears to pulsate, clearly changes shape in exactly the fashion of a lens blur with a small amount of edge distortion. All of them do, but that one is the most clear.

In addition, all of these "invisable to the naked-eye" UFO's all are travelng in straight lines. That is not swarming behavior. That is the random behavior I would expect from space crap.

[TheGuyThat]

I don't even know where to begin with this. The make-up of those "UFO's" are obviously optical artifacts. The most prominent of them, which appears to pulsate, clearly changes shape in exactly the fashion of a lens blur with a small amount of edge distortion. All of them do, but that one is the most clear.

In addition, all of these "invisable to the naked-eye" UFO's all are travelng in straight lines. That is not swarming behavior. That is the random behavior I would expect from space crap.

Actually they dont move in straight lines, some slow and speed up. Most actually take small curves. I investigated your claim but after tracing the ones that went behind the tether it was quite clear that they actually curved quite drastically.

[Thomas]

So how does burn off turn up on radar? Why didn't the mexican military figure this one out initially before they went to the press? What is the miltary position on this now that an analysis such as yours is available?
I missed this one before, but the radar data is not consistent with the FLIR recording. This was most notably concluded by Dr. Bruce Maccabee, a researcher from the American navy I corresponded a lot with during this case.

ETA: I made a number of radar data diagrams (based on transcripts) to support this.

[wipeout]

That was oilflares from the Cantarell oil field in the Mexican gulf.

Wipeout and Franz proposed the oilflare idea independently of each other, and I collected, encoded and published the full video from Dr. Maccabee and SEDENA/Maussan for analysis (and wrote a 70+ page report on it).

.................

Wikipedia gives Captain Franz the honor of the solution, as he was the first one to propose the idea with some evidence, but it was actually an aerospace engineer called Smith who brought in the conclusive evidence, i.e. the satellite images of the oil field.

I wish we'd had Google Maps back then as it showed the oil-platforms for a while. We could have confirmed for ourselves what Mummymonkey had suggested about it being oil-platforms. We had everything but a map/satellite picture to confirm what seemed plausible once I worked out the direction and found out about the blazing oil-flares both on land and at sea in that area, that the pilots had actually said there was no radar return on the objects filmed and so on.

My point is that it annoys me when I can't find something. :D

[Thomas]

I wish we'd had Google Maps back then as it showed the oil-platforms for a while. We could have confirmed for ourselves what Mummymonkey had suggested about it being oil-platforms. We had everything but a map/satellite picture to confirm what seemed plausible once I worked out the direction and found out about the blazing oil-flares both on land and at sea in that area, that the pilots had actually said there was no radar return on the objects filmed and so on.

My point is that it annoys me when I can't find something. :D
I don't know if you remember, but I actually spammed 10+ geo-satellites for IR maps of the Cantarell oilfield (in the end they cut me off for spam) but I couldn't find any solid images without paying for it. Smith's advantage was probably his connection to NASA where he could obtain those images for free.

Trust me, I was annoyed too :)

[wipeout]

I missed this one before, but the radar data is not consistent with the FLIR recording. This was most notably concluded by Dr. Bruce Maccabee, a researcher from the American navy I corresponded a lot with during this case.

ETA: I made a number of radar data diagrams (based on transcripts) to support this.

I'll add that the pilots themselves said there were no radar returns either. :)

I pointed out at the time that the transcript of the pilots' interview revealed if read carefully that there were no radar returns from the filmed heat sources and the pilots and media had linked unrelated heat sources and radar returns in their minds without any basis on which to do so, hence one of the major stumbling blocks for our oil-flare idea was gone and had never actually even existed.

It's one of those classic features we all know about here with mysteries of people getting spooked/excited/etc. and then starting to link unrelated phenomena together.

[wipeout]

I don't know if you remember, but I actually spammed 10+ geo-satellites for IR maps of the Cantarell oilfield (in the end they cut me off for spam) but I couldn't find any solid images without paying for it. Smith's advantage was probably his connection to NASA where he could obtain those images for free.

Trust me, I was annoyed too :)

Yeah, I remember you did an impressive amount of research in contacting people and getting information and, of course, the full length film. Me, I just Googled a lot to see what I could find online.

And not just a lack of maps or satellite images, I remember now not speaking Spanish wasn't a help either. :D

[Thomas]

Yeah, I remember you did an impressive amount of research in contacting people and getting information and, of course, the full length film. Me, I just Googled a lot to see what I could find online.

And not just a lack of maps or satellite images, I remember now not speaking Spanish wasn't a help either. :D
Que? Patricio's transcript was excellent (let's not forget that), and so was the one Captain Franz made with his brother :)

[wipeout]

Oh yeah, I remember their excellent transcripts. I meant I couldn't Google in Spanish as well as a fluent speaker would be able to. ;)

Actually, I don't even remember trying many searches in Spanish. Hmmm, I should have done.

[Thomas]

Oh yeah, I remember their excellent transcripts. I meant I couldn't Google in Spanish as well as a fluent speaker would be able to. ;)
Aaah, yes.. I would never have been in contact with Dr. Herrera and the UNAM people if Patricio hadn't searched them out for me in Spanish. It was quite amusing that Patricio translated my initial letter to Spanish when the reply I recieved from Herrera was in fluent English :D

[wipeout]

That's funny. :D I can't remember if I knew that.

[Luke T.]

Actually they dont move in straight lines, some slow and speed up. Most actually take small curves. I investigated your claim but after tracing the ones that went behind the tether it was quite clear that they actually curved quite drastically.

You must be watching a different video than me. I don't see any of them travel in anything but a straight line.

Do you have a time marker in the video where they curve?

[Rcintron]

They look like galactic plankton to me :)

[wipeout]

Galactic plankton? Hmmm, sounds familiar... ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Immunity_Syndrome_(TOS_episode)

[TheGuyThat]

You must be watching a different video than me. I don't see any of them travel in anything but a straight line.

Do you have a time marker in the video where they curve?

Ya, I'll tell ya when

at 4 13 a big one comes flashing from the left as it enters it goes straight then curves up around the tether then back down again as it passes it. I deviates about 1.5 - 2 centimetres on my screen from the lowest point to the highest point. Thats one clear example, get a whiteboard marker and mark the middle of the image. You will notice now camera change happens in this sequence. Even drawing a perfectly straight line on where it enters and where it finishes will show you that the image comes off the line by more than its diametre.

I'll try to find some more quality ones

At 2 50 one coming from the bottom left fast make a 30 degree turn just after the tether turning in about 1/4 of the screen. See...drastic turn. Its very obvious it turns after passing the tether, cant miss it.

[TheGuyThat]

You must be watching a different video than me. I don't see any of them travel in anything but a straight line.

Do you have a time marker in the video where they curve?

Ya, I'll tell ya when

at 4 13 a big one comes flashing from the left as it enters it goes straight then curves up around the tether then back down again as it passes it. I deviates about 1.5 - 2 centimetres on my screen from the lowest point to the highest point. Thats one clear example, get a whiteboard marker and mark the middle of the image. You will notice now camera change happens in this sequence. Even drawing a perfectly straight line on where it enters and where it finishes will show you that the image comes off the line by more than its diametre.

I'll try to find some more quality ones

At 2 50 from the bottom left of the screen there is an image that move towards the right top corner but as it reaches the tether it makes a 30 degree turn quickly to the right. Take a real good look at that one, not straight at all. It just adds even more interest to the video, that these things tend to react to the tether, moving away after it or moving there path to go around it.

I'll try to find some more

At 3 12 an image from the bottom left comes and near the tether it make a swooping turn of about 40 degree to run almost perpendicular to the tether. You lose the image once it goes into the dense light but if you look closely you will see it actually moving perpendicular to the tether.

There you go three examples straight up, with no camera shifting in there sequences...I hope you appreciate this cuz it took me like 15 mins of arranging and writing and tracing the stupid images.

[Patricio Elicer]

Yeah, I remember you did an impressive amount of research in contacting people and getting information and, of course, the full length film. Me, I just Googled a lot to see what I could find online.

And not just a lack of maps or satellite images, I remember now not speaking Spanish wasn't a help either. :D

Que? Patricio's transcript was excellent (let's not forget that), and so was the one Captain Franz made with his brother :)Hello wipeout and Thomas!, it's good to remember old and glorious times :p

[Patricio Elicer]

Here's another analysis by James Oberg on the "Tether case":

http://www.rense.com/general/stsd.htm

By the way, I had seen that video before, but the one on the opening post is a different one, of much better video quality. There's no reason to doubt the astronaut word that the "orbs" are actually debris floating nearby Columbia, but yet, some of them appear to pass behind the Tether, thus implying that they are more than 80 nautical miles away from the camera :rolleyes: :rolleyes: .

[soulhill]

Actually they dont move in straight lines, some slow and speed up. Most actually take small curves. I investigated your claim but after tracing the ones that went behind the tether it was quite clear that they actually curved quite drastically.

The small curves are not drastic. They are consistant with the barrel distortion common to zoom lenses.

[TheGuyThat]

The small curves are not drastic. They are consistant with the barrel distortion common to zoom lenses.

Forty degrees of turn is pretty angular. The first example shows a two directional turn first it comes up then comes down in a parabolic style curve, don't see how that is consistant with the barrel distortion common to zoom lenses. Also some are turning right near the tether why does it not distort, nor the image for that matter. Barrel distortion is not consistant with the presented evidence, as the turns certainly do not represent that kind of conclusion. Have you actually looked at the examples, or are you just guessing. My suspicsion is that you have looked at the first example only with your nake eye and have come to this conclusion, take a look at the other two, and mark there path with a whiteboard marker, you will be surprised at how the naked eye fools you, the turns are more pronounced than they appear.
Take another look

[TheGuyThat]

Here's another analysis by James Oberg on the "Tether case":

http://www.rense.com/general/stsd.htm

By the way, I had seen that video before, but the one on the opening post is a different one, of much better video quality. There's no reason to doubt the astronaut word that the "orbs" are actually debris floating nearby Columbia, but yet, some of them appear to pass behind the Tether, thus implying that they are more than 80 nautical miles away from the camera :rolleyes: :rolleyes: .

Bravo, bravo, you sir have put something interesting forth here. Now this is the kind of thing I was looking for, beautiful. Thanks for the info, very interesting and relieving :relieved:

The only thing in my mind to figure out now is what caused the turns...I mean, its space, I would only expect particles to be affected like that in air, not a vacuum.

[Thomas]

Here's another analysis by James Oberg on the "Tether case":

http://www.rense.com/general/stsd.htm


Bravo, bravo, you sir have put something interesting forth here. Now this is the kind of thing I was looking for, beautiful. Thanks for the info, very interesting and relieving :relieved:

Why thank you, because I already posted that Oberg analysis in this thread, in this post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1863249#post1863249) :)

I realize that a lot of people missed it for some reason. Maybe I should just use bigger fonts! ;)

[TheGuyThat]

Why thank you, because I already posted that Oberg analysis in this thread, in this post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1863249#post1863249) :)

I realize that a lot of people missed it for some reason. Maybe I should just use bigger fonts! ;)


Awwww, feeling like you missed out are you...*patronisingly* well thankyou too

;) lol, didnt pay attention to your stuff cuz you were going on about some other thing and I couldn't be bothered

[Thomas]

Awwww, feeling like you missed out are you...*patronisingly* well thankyou too

;) lol, didnt pay attention to your stuff cuz you were going on about some other thing and I couldn't be bothered
Only after I considered the tether case a non-issue (due to those reports), and well, the truth is out there you know. All you have to do is pay attention or search, but I realize that can be sort of hard when all you want to see is ETs ;)

[TheGuyThat]

Only after I considered the tether case a non-issue (due to those reports), and well, the truth is out there you know. All you have to do is pay attention or search, but I realize that can be sort of hard when all you want to see is ETs ;)

Hell yeah, you have no Idea ;)

What do you think about the bending though, the changing of path so to speak. Its a little strange.

Personally I wouldn't even care if it was true or not, it matters very little to me, if there were aliens they would be here for there own stupid reasons and I'm sure if I saw them I'd run away screaming or hit them with a big stick with a nail in it. So there was no chance of me ever doing thorough research, so I left it up to you guys to show something good. Kinda delivered

What do you rekon about the whole alien phenomenon, some truth, no truth or whole truth. Whats going on with these guys?
Personally I know full well how to have a fake experience, myself having a bad dream followed by a fit upon awakening later followed by an awake dream hallucination. All fake but it added up to being pretty freaky. How do I know its fake because I've also had the same experience waking up to one of those wobble head dogs that people put in there cars, he was just sitting there bobbing his head and i couldnt stop seeing him. My brothers also had a weird thing like that, he woke up one night and went to the toilet, upon returning to his bed he saw a mean assed goblin standing in the doorway, looking ass real as anything, he flickered the lights and it went away. My unkle also had an episode where when he was ten he saw the easter bunny, he woke up on the eve of easter (easter being the next day) and screamed his head off as a big creature with huge black eyes and big ears stood beside his bed, it quickly spat in his eyes, hissing, and he had a scream and a tear and his family ran to his aid. He still swears it was real too this day.
I can understand that because the images you see in this state are just so real, looking like you see anything any day. Its crazy but you also feel things in this state too (like when I had a freaky dream involving a thin tall blue alien with sculpted features, showering me with love, I couldnt look away from the love filled eyes until I was putt into some sort of fit feeling like electricity under my right armpit, I woke up in a crazy spasm and looked for the likely culprit, a cockroach). I'm sure alot of stupid dreams and abductions come down to that.

[Thomas]

Hell yeah, you have no Idea ;)

What do you think about the bending though, the changing of path so to speak. Its a little strange.
With absolutely no experience in Space Mission Control or alike, I'll leave the word to Chuck Shaw, Lead Flight Director on STS-75:

"In the footage of the video, etc. which was examined in GREAT detail post flight in hopes of finding SOMETHING to aid in what had caused the tether break, we never saw anything that was "unexpected". Your comments as to artifacts and small debris/dust /ice particles/lens reflections/blooming/etc., are all quite common and we have seen those things in virtually every shuttle mission's video. What was present in the video and the data that was examined post flight was all within this type of artifact and/or expected results."

Read more... (http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2000/may/m01-017.shtml)


Personally I wouldn't even care if it was true or not, it matters very little to me, if there were aliens they would be here for there own stupid reasons and I'm sure if I saw them I'd run away screaming or hit them with a big stick with a nail in it. So there was no chance of me ever doing thorough research, so I left it up to you guys to show something good. Kinda delivered

What do you rekon about the whole alien phenomenon, some truth, no truth or whole truth. Whats going on with these guys?

I'm an agnostic when it comes to ETs, I don't dismiss it. In fact, it seems unlikely that we should be the only kind of intelligent and productive life in this massive universe, but all the (flawed) evidence I have seen so far, and the status quo laws of nature (that we're aware of now), doesn't give the "ET-are-here" believers a strong case, imo.


Personally I know full well how to have a fake experience, myself having a bad dream followed by a fit upon awakening later followed by an awake dream hallucination. All fake but it added up to being pretty freaky. How do I know its fake because I've also had the same experience waking up to one of those wobble head dogs that people put in there cars, he was just sitting there bobbing his head and i couldnt stop seeing him. My brothers also had a weird thing like that, he woke up one night and went to the toilet, upon returning to his bed he saw a mean assed goblin standing in the doorway, looking ass real as anything, he flickered the lights and it went away. My unkle also had an episode where when he was ten he saw the easter bunny, he woke up on the eve of easter (easter being the next day) and screamed his head off as a big creature with huge black eyes and big ears stood beside his bed, it quickly spat in his eyes, hissing, and he had a scream and a tear and his family ran to his aid. He still swears it was real too this day.
I can understand that because the images you see in this state are just so real, looking like you see anything any day. Its crazy but you also feel things in this state too (like when I had a freaky dream involving a thin tall blue alien with sculpted features, showering me with love, I couldnt look away from the love filled eyes until I was putt into some sort of fit feeling like electricity under my right armpit, I woke up in a crazy spasm and looked for the likely culprit, a cockroach). I'm sure alot of stupid dreams and abductions come down to that.
That's far from unlikely, yes.

[Loss Leader]

What do you think about the bending though, the changing of path so to speak. Its a little strange.


I don't think the artifacts are miles and miles away with the tether. I think it's dust and urine swarming around the shuttle just after the planned waste dump. If there is a change in path, it's because of the shuttle manuvering, stabilizing jets, colisions, etc.

[Thomas]

I don't think the artifacts are miles and miles away with the tether. I think it's dust and urine swarming around the shuttle just after the planned waste dump. If there is a change in path, it's because of the shuttle manuvering, stabilizing jets, colisions, etc.
It was actually just a water dump, satellites don't drop urine, to my best knowledge :D

[Luke T.]

Ya, I'll tell ya when

at 4 13 a big one comes flashing from the left as it enters it goes straight then curves up around the tether then back down again as it passes it. I deviates about 1.5 - 2 centimetres on my screen from the lowest point to the highest point. Thats one clear example, get a whiteboard marker and mark the middle of the image. You will notice now camera change happens in this sequence. Even drawing a perfectly straight line on where it enters and where it finishes will show you that the image comes off the line by more than its diametre.

I cannot tell which blob you are talking about.

ETA: I think I see which one you mean. It is the only one moving primarily in a horizontal direction at the time of the camera change. And that's the key; the camera change.

There is another blob that passes the very tip of the tether at 4:09. If you watch that blob at 4:13, it makes the exact same kind of "turn" that yours does. And so does the tip of the tether. It's all from the camera change. The effect is not as noticable on vertically travelling blobs.



At 2 50 one coming from the bottom left fast make a 30 degree turn just after the tether turning in about 1/4 of the screen. See...drastic turn. Its very obvious it turns after passing the tether, cant miss it.

With this one it is immediately obvious what happened if you look at any other blob besides the one you think is turning. There's a nice big one around the middle of the tether you could try looking at. As your blob is moving across the screen during its initial appearance, you can see the camera operator zooming in on the tether. And at the precise moment you think the fast one is making a turn, you will see all the other blobs change in and out of focus. The camera operator was making another change to the lens, zooming back out and then in very quickly. And since the one you were concentrating on is at the very edge of the lens at that moment, it looks like it turns.

[Patricio Elicer]

Why thank you, because I already posted that Oberg analysis in this thread, in this post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1863249#post1863249) :)Well, then thank you Thomas! :p

realize that a lot of people missed it for some reason. Maybe I should just use bigger fonts! ;)No, I think many people miss those links because of the dumb, boring, unattractive web design.

[Thomas]

No, I think many people miss those links because of the dumb, boring, unattractive web design.
That's ufology for ya! :)

[Loss Leader]

Luke T. seems to have this thing nailed. I honestly don't understand how this video could support any argument for UFOs anymore. Everything has been explained.

And the astronauts weren't excited by it - the astronauts. How do you explain the astronauts taking pictures of aliens and not making a single comment like, "NASA, I'm having trouble getting a clear shot of the tether because of all these damn aliens."?

Why don't you ask them? The crew of STS-75 were Commander Andrew M. Allen, Pilot Scott J. Horowitz, Payload Commander Franklin R. Chang-Diaz, Mission Specialists Maurizio Cheli, Jeffrey A. Hoffman, Claude Nicollier and Umberto Guidoni.

Contact Andy Allen at Honeywell Industries in Houston, Texas, within US: 1-800-601-3099; outside US: 1-602-365-3099.

Commander Scott Horowitz can be reached at (703) 338-7009 or scott.j.horowitz@nasa.gov or by mail at: Exploration Systems Mission Directorate, NASA Headquarters, 300 E ST SW, Washington DC 20546-0001.

Or is it just more fun to pretend to see UFOs than to make a simple phone call?

[Thomas]

Good call (pun intended :))

I wonder if someone in this thread still doubt the official explanations we have so far. Then that would be an open opportunity of course :thumbsup:

[Patricio Elicer]

And the astronauts weren't excited by it - the astronauts. How do you explain the astronauts taking pictures of aliens and not making a single comment like, "NASA, I'm having trouble getting a clear shot of the tether because of all these damn aliens."?[UFO Woo]Easy!, astronauts are specifically trained by NASA not to show any sign of excitement when seeing UFO's. That's part of a whole UFO cover-up plan led by the White House[/UFO Woo] :D :D

Seriously, that's not far from reality. I've been extensively discussing UFO's on a pro-UFO forum, and every time I come up with a NASA anti-UFO pronouncement, people will choose to say that "NASA lies" :bwall .

[Hellbound]

[UFO Woo]Easy!, astronauts are specifically trained by NASA not to show any sign of excitement when seeing UFO's. That's part of a whole UFO cover-up plan led by the White House[/UFO Woo] :D :D

Seriously, that's not far from reality. I've been extensively discussing UFO's on a pro-UFO forum, and every time I come up with a NASA anti-UFO pronouncement, people will choose to say that "NASA lies" :bwall .

Of course they lie, why wouldn't they?

I mean, if they discovered aliens and let everyone knwo that, then interest in space would suddenly jump! NASA's budget might grow to rival that of national defense! NASA might grow to be the major player in U.S. politics!

Erm, wait, why are they lying again?

[Patricio Elicer]

I mean, if they discovered aliens and let everyone knwo that, then interest in space would suddenly jump! NASA's budget might grow to rival that of national defense! NASA might grow to be the major player in U.S. politics!The only thing I can say about it, is that what sounds rational and sensible to you and me, does not for an aweful lot of people out there. That's part of what makes our world interesting, isn't it?.

[Thomas]

Erm, wait, why are they lying again?
Because the Greys/Reptoids/Cassiopaeans/Son' of Light are secretly controlling the world out of love/hate/fear/anger/etc. :alien:

ETA: Or, it's because the governments worldwide wants to keep the alien technology for themselves, and they have several aliens secretly installed in various lab-prisons all over the planet, or else they are just trading secretly with them. It's hard to know.

[Loss Leader]

[UFO Woo]Easy!, astronauts are specifically trained by NASA not to show any sign of excitement when seeing UFO's. That's part of a whole UFO cover-up plan led by the White House[/UFO Woo] :D :D

Well, then, we're in luck. In the case of STS-75, we don't have to worry about NASA's influence at all. Three of the crew members were from the European Space Agency. They're not Americans, they're not in the US and they have nothing to fear from the evil overlords at NASA. Find Maurizio Cheli, Claude Nicollier and Umberto Guidoni and ask them.

Or do I actually have to provide phone numbers for them, too?

[Patricio Elicer]

It's hard to know.Obvious!, because it is top secret. Only a few privilages will know the truth, forever and ever! :D

[Patricio Elicer]

Well, then, we're in luck. In the case of STS-75, we don't have to worry about NASA's influence at all. Three of the crew members were from the European Space Agency. They're not Americans, they're not in the US and they have nothing to fear from the evil overlords at NASA. Find Maurizio Cheli, Claude Nicollier and Umberto Guidoni and ask them.

Or do I actually have to provide phone numbers for them, too?Don't be so naive, there's a secret pact between NASA and ESA for covering-up any UFO related finding. You know, it's a matter of convenience, all nations involved in the cover-up are benefitting from the "reverse engineering" of alien technology, to the detriment of all the other poor nations that are out of the pact :D .

[thesyntaxera]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9080369676973948865&q=nasa+ufo%27s

I would encourage a view of the whole video, but the raw footage is available at the end of the film to view seperately.

I noticed some discussion of the tether video, and the analysis was very interesting. In the video above you will see a lot of unexplained astro-phenomenon that could use a look or two. There is footage from russian space missions as well as more of these orb video's.

Some of the highlights include orbs appearing out of thin air, and astronauts plainly announcing visual contact with some type of ufo, and objects that really do appear to change course mid flight...not too mention a third phenomena that I'm sure will garner some laughs.