DISCLOSURE: Why doesnt Robert Bigelow launch his own Satellites to capture UFOs on film?

originally posted by: Waterglass
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Hay no problem and if you don't believe that's your opine.

I don't know how you figure "All I see are some lights and it's hard to tell what it is" translates to I don't believe you in your mind. It means exactly what it says, I see lights and I heard the engine noise too but I can't identify it, though maybe I could if you were able to get better video showing more detail.

There are some ATS members who post in the aviation forum who are good at identifying aircraft, probably better at it than I am but I think they would still have trouble identifying aircraft if nothing is visible but lights.

Just because some lights form a triangle doesn't mean that's the shape of the aircraft. Any three lights will form a triangle, the only exception being if they are all in a straight line, so that means an aircraft with any three lights not in a straight line will have lights forming a triangle even if the shape of the aircraft isn't anything like a triangle. Maybe the aircraft is shaped like a triangle, but I can't deduce that just from seeing lights. I can't tell what shape the aircraft has.

yes I am pursuing a low light camera

If you do get a low light camera and get better video, I'd be very interested in seeing it, I'll keep an eye out for it.

originally posted by: zatara
..... That is why he is prbably not sending sattelites into space to snap UFO pictures. And who knows..maybe he already done that..

Catch up. He HAS launched his own satellites. He HAS put external TV cameras on them. His control center in Nevada DID monitor downlink video for months. Is that news to you?

What did you expect they ought to have seen?

a reply to: JimOberg

Jim you know that the US requires a lot of paperwork for advanced optics looking down on earth before they can be launched.

the permit is gotten via an office im drawing a blank on but im sure you can help me with that.

i don't know what kind of cameras or E.O or SAR(if any) he has put on his many good works but i doubt they are of any significant quality.

also i wonder if he would hide or be made to hide secret US platforms or craft in space.

what is your conclusions on the black triangles? not the outlandish 'miles wide' ones but the fighter sized one. i saw one about the size of a F-16 very very close.

clearly they are US secret aircraft but i would love to know what you think about them

a reply to: JimOberg

Jim you never got back to me and did not answer my question as follows:

2. Do the formulation of ice crystals as videoed from ISS follow the properties of the fibonacci sequence as they do on earth? I always wondered why they would cut the live feed unless that was a hoax. Please advise

Honestly, can you imagine a giant private venture that puts satellites within line of sight to create a massive "viewing apparatus" all over the earth, similar to the GPS orbits, for us all to log onto and take a look at the earth and space from a 360 perspective all around the globe in real time.

That would be cool.

originally posted by: Arnie123
Honestly, can you imagine a giant private venture that puts satellites within line of sight to create a massive "viewing apparatus" all over the earth, similar to the GPS orbits, for us all to log onto and take a look at the earth and space from a 360 perspective all around the globe in real time.

That would be cool.

Earthcast wanted to do it and it went bad. I think they still offer commercial acces not sure if it's real time and curious if someone didn't stop them.

originally posted by: Waterglass
a reply to: JimOberg

Jim you never got back to me and did not answer my question as follows:

2. Do the formulation of ice crystals as videoed from ISS follow the properties of the fibonacci sequence as they do on earth? I always wondered why they would cut the live feed unless that was a hoax. Please advise

I didn't see a question, I saw a string of implicit assumptions without any basis in verifiable fact.

originally posted by: Waterglass
2. Do the formulation of ice crystals as videoed from ISS follow the properties of the fibonacci sequence as they do on earth? I always wondered why they would cut the live feed unless that was a hoax.

I know exactly what Fibonacci sequence is but this is the first time I've heard it has something to do with ice crystals, do you want to explain what you're talking about?

originally posted by: JimOberg
I didn't see a question, I saw a string of implicit assumptions without any basis in verifiable fact.

I see what you mean, it's phrased sort of like the question "Do you still beat your wife?" where there's no suitable answer if you never beat your wife. Even answering "no" to that question gives a tacit acceptance of the false premise that you used to beat your wife.

I really don't see why people get so excited about most of the NASA "UFO"videos. I suppose it's because they are seeing lighting conditions and low-G situations that are unearthly and therefore unfamiliar. There are two NASA videos though that made me scratch my head a bit. One of them is this STS-80 video where the narrator says Jim Oberg wants you to believe they are ice crystals, but yet they form a rough circle, and then one lights up in the middle of the circle. It's an interesting video, but the way I look at it is, if you conduct enough missions and run cameras long enough, sooner or later you will see things which appear to be patterns appear even from random variations, and even the video narrator admits the circle is "rough".

STS-80 UFO - Best high quality version


Waterglass, if you don't want to take Jim Oberg's word for it (Actually I don't recall what if anything he specifically said about this STS-80 video), here's an article by the astronaut who was there. He had duties to perform during the mission so his nose wasn't stuck to the monitor or window constantly, but he did see quite a bit of it when he had a chance to look out the window.

Did UFOs visit STS-80 Columbia?

I have reviewed this video (for the first time in 1997) and conclude that it shows commonplace and well-known objects near the shuttle, all of them observed on every shuttle flight. These videos show low-light television camera images of ice particles or man-made debris drifting out of Columbia’s cargo bay, and floating in the vicinity of the shuttle, likely within a few tens of feet of the orbiter...

Aside from details of specific Defense Department payloads and their deployments, astronauts have no classification regulations or rules preventing anyone from discussing anything they’ve seen or experienced on space flights. No secret non-disclosure signatures, no secret threats, no secret brainwashing – we communicate openly with the public. What we get, you get. What we see that’s unusual, we tell you about...

It is regrettable that so many spaceflight-minded young people have their enthusiasms exploited by misinterpretations of such shuttle videos. These inaccurate theories about what the videos show – some naive, some possibly deliberately misleading – waste a great deal of productive energy. Insisting that astronauts have seen alien vehicles is incorrect: a deliberate falsehood.

a reply to: JimOberg

Right. I will reach out to you on your personal web site.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

So why so defensive? Were supposed to DENY ignorance here.

Ice Crystals and Snowflakes

A generalization of the Fibonacci word fractal and the Fibonacci snowflake

originally posted by: Waterglass
Here's a link to the cost of a Satellite and cost to launch. He could even go for the spy grade option.

The problem may not be the cost but the technological difficulties.

Using radar and IR to detect and track UFOs from thousands of miles up away is next to impossible with stealthy UFOs

Using optical equipment on the other hand to capture on image extremely mobile targets, would require a ridiculously high resolution imaging equipment.

Even if using latest technology in optics and digital imaging, the equipment would still be quite large and heavy to capture these UFO's. It would certainly use interferometer system of imaging equipment or several large cameras deployed as interferometers.

Such satellite package would actually be much more expensive than a spy satellite and a lot heavier too. Not surprising if the cost climbs into billion or more.

originally posted by: Waterglass
a reply to: Arbitrageur

So why so defensive? Were supposed to DENY ignorance here.

Ice Crystals and Snowflakes

A generalization of the Fibonacci word fractal and the Fibonacci snowflake

That's what I'm trying to do, deny ignorance.

I searched that article for ice and it only showed up as part of a larger word so it doesn't even mention ice.
It has diagrams of "mathematical snowflakes" that are not real snowflakes. The mathematical snowflakes are not hexagonal:



Real snowflakes tend to be hexagonal like this, see the difference?


There is a vague resemblance between the mathematical "snowflake" and a real snowflake which is probably why it's called that, but it's not about real snowflakes, or ice, as you seem to suggest.

Why don’t you spend thousands of dollars to get complete videos of squirrels in your back yard. The same reason, you know about those squirrels, that they exist etc. you don’t really need to know a lot more about these squirrels.


a reply to: Waterglass

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

There is a vague resemblance between the mathematical "snowflake" and a real snowflake which is probably why it's called that, but it's not about real snowflakes, or ice, as you seem to suggest.

I don't know which NASA commentator first said 'snow flake' [if anyone ever actually did], but the physical description of the stuff causing most shuttle videos of mystery dots is 'ice flake', usually formed as water or hydrazine freeze on the insides of dump ports [or leaking thrusters, or thermal-control 'flash evaporators, or prelaunch humidity on cryogenic fuel lines] and flake off as thermal conditions change -- alternately, liquid water droplets ejected during waste water dumps go through sudden evaporative cooling and some of the water flash freezes into ice specks, but I see no reason why any of these processes should cause anything physically resembling the symmetric jewels of 'snow flakes' forming slowly in an atmosphere.

The STS-80 dots are also thoroughly debunked by another crewman on that mission, Story Musgrave. Astronauts could tell such dots were close [and hence small] by several mutually-supporting methods, first because they had two-eye binocular vision good out to about 100 ft, second because the objects became sunlit simo with the orbiter rising out of Earth's shadow, showing they were very close. Also some would drift across in front of orbiter structure such as the robot arm or the tail.

a reply to: Jackfish28

Nah I shoot them. My count since 2012 using a GAMO Whisper spring loaded .177 pellet rifle is over 300. I was told to shoot them per my "off the record" conversation with an Animal Control Officer.

But thank you for confirming what I have always thought as I got my $$$ worth in this thread.

Discover

“Is it true that no two snowflakes are alike?” This question comes from the host’s teenage daughter. It is true. Imagine, he says, the complexity of a snowflake (and enthusiasm italicizes his word “complexity”). Every snowflake has a basic six-sided structure, but its spiraling descent through the air sculpts each hexagon in a unique way: the minutest variations in air temperature or moisture can — and do — make all the difference. Like mathematicians who categorize every whole number into prime numbers or Fibonacci numbers or triangle numbers or square numbers (and so on) according to its properties, so researchers subdivide snowflakes into various groupings according to type.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Squirrel urine:

Forbes

But when you put liquid water in space — where it can no longer remain as a liquid — which one of these two things happens? Does it freeze or boil? The surprising answer is it does both: first it boils and then it freezes! We know this because this is what used to happen when astronauts felt the call of nature while in space. According to the astronauts who’ve seen it for themselves: When the astronauts take a leak while on a mission and expel the result into space, it boils violently. The vapor then passes immediately into the solid state (a process known as desublimation), and you end up with a cloud of very fine crystals of frozen urine.

a reply to: Jackfish28

So do Fish jack? How bout explaining

What Is the Airspeed Velocity of an Unladen Swallow?

THE NOBEL PRIZE IN CHEMISTRY 2011

The mathematical constant τ is described by a sequence of numbers that the 13th-century Italian mathematician Fibonacci worked out from a hypothetical experiment dealing with rabbit reproduction. In this well-known sequence, each number is the sum of the two preceding numbers: 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144, etc. If you divide one of the higher numbers in the Fibonacci sequence with the preceding number – for instance, 144/89 – you get a number that is close to the golden ratio. Both the Fibonacci sequence and the golden ratio are important to scientists when they want to use a diffraction pattern to describe quasicrystals at the atomic level. The Fibonacci sequence can also explain how the discovery awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2011 has altered chemists’ conception of regularity in crystals.

Most shuttle-dumped water was from the electricity-producing fuel cells, or wash water, and urine was a very minor component.

a reply to: Waterglass

You just need a owl for the tree rat problem. (Unless you just like shooting them. I prefer blow gun personally but sounds like you have tree rat infestation.)