STS-48 UFO video oldie but goodie

I served in Mission Control 20+ years [including for sts-48], and for a debate with Steven Greer at Purdue in 1999, prepared a presentation on this weird video with the overwhelming evidence that it shows ice flakes hit by an autopilot-triggered thruster plume, just after sunrise. I also debated it with Don Ecker on Larry King's CNN show.
www.jamesoberg.com...

originally posted by: penroc3
the video was stabilized and framed to take the rotation feeling out of the video and get a clearer view of what was going on.

If that was the case, is there another version without the stabilising?

originally posted by: penroc3
the video was stabilized and framed to take the rotation feeling out of the video and get a clearer view of what was going on.

originally posted by: ArMaP
If that was the case, is there another version without the stabilising?

Unless penroc can back that up somehow, it sounds like complete fiction to me.
It was the shuttle itself that was being stabilized via operation of the attitude control thrusters, so the camera was along for the ride and I'm not aware of editing of the video by NASA to take rotation out of the video.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

the man(martyn stubbs) who recorded it said he did it, its in his video 'the secret NASA transmissions' around the 12ish min mark.


i dont think we can post whole videos here

I don’t remember that video. Pretty cool looking.

Wouldn’t surprise me if the gov tries to shoot them down

originally posted by: penroc3
a reply to: Arbitrageur

the man(martyn stubbs) who recorded it said he did it, its in his video 'the secret NASA transmissions' around the 12ish min mark.


i dont think we can post whole videos here

You can post youtube videos, here is a youtube video by that name which I watched from 11m to 32 minutes, and I heard Martyn stubbs start to speak around 17 minutes but no mention of what you say from 17-32 minutes.

Anyway Martyn Stubbs is pretty clueless and I wouldn't believe much that he says. He has been debunked by Jim Oberg numerous times, and he did callJim Oberg "NASA's debunker" in the part I watched, and talked about Jim Oberg explaining to the NASA people that the videos showed little ice crystals. Stubbs also mentions another phenomenon he sees on video, which look like cosmic ray strikes to me (They are very short-lived images of dots or sometimes streaks, nothing like the ice crystals), but Stubbs seems to know nothing about cosmic rays.

The Secret NASA Transmissions

Stubbs also said a Professor Weinberg validated some of his research, so Jim Oberg called up Professor Weinberg to get details and Weinberg said he didn't know Stubbs, so who do you believe? Oberg has a lot more credibility and seems to know what he's talking about, while Stubbs seems to have absolutely no idea.

STS-75, UFO Magazine UK & JimO

From: James Oberg'
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 17:12:21 -0600
...
Graham W. Birdsall: "The same James Oberg ....who was proven wrong in claiming that Professor Weinberg of Vancouver's Simon Fraser University had never met with Martyn Stubbs;

[JimO: I was merely quoting Dr. Weinburg, who told me he's never met with Stubbs, and whom I assumed was the authority in specifying whom he had met, and hadn't met.']

Oberg also clarifies Stubbs misrepresentation of the source of his recordings in that link, and so on, so I would take anything Stubbs says with a gigantic grain of salt meaning he's at best an unreliable source and at worst is entirely misrepresenting some things.

Also if what you are saying is true, it makes all the people claiming that the thruster firing should have caused some rotation in the video sound like complete idiots if the video has really been edited to remove such rotation, but that's a moot point anyway given that the change in the rotation rate from the thruster firing would only be about 9.6 degrees per minute, not something that would be easily seen on the video even without editing the rotation.

Anyway, how do you edit out the rotation on a rectangular video? If you stabilized a rotating video in a rectangular format, you would be necessarily missing some imagery in the corners, right? So isn't that proof that what you say is completely false, whether or not Stubbs made any such claim or not which I didn't confirm at 12 minutes in the video? I don't see any missing imagery in the corners of the STS-48 video, as would be seen if the rotation was edited out of a rotating image to stabilize it.

A lot of the reasonable questions raised initially on this thread are specifically addressed in my 1999 presentation at Purdue where I debated this case. Linked above.

a reply to: Arbitrageur


how do you make a video stabilized?

well you can zoom in on the area and just frame the objects in question in the center.


the big flash in the start of the video is the thruster firing and you can watch the original video that was downlinkled and you will see it for yourself. I dont have exact time stamps because i researched it years ago.


as far as he said she said situations, i wasnt there and i dont know any of the people involved. Granted Jim has posted here but why do you put so much stock in what he says? what proof does he offer? as far as I can tell Jim seems like an honest person so its nothing personal.

we have an official NASA video that has been edited by and for the UFO crowd but no one looks at the original NASA video.

originally posted by: penroc3
a reply to: Arbitrageur


how do you make a video stabilized?

well you can zoom in on the area and just frame the objects in question in the center.

Possibly but I see no evidence that's what happened and you can't seem to back up your claim since Martyn Stubbs didn't say what you claimed at the 12 minute point nor anywhere near that in the video you mentioned. So I looked up what Martyn Stubbs posted as the "Uncut" version of the STS-video. He doesn't say anything about editing, stabilizing, or any of the nonsense you claim he says he did but he didn't say where you said he said it.

This is the uncut video Martyn Stubbs posted to youtube. The thruster firing is around 8:54:

This is for the researcher who wants to see this "legendary" clip in full. It goes from "normal" at night, to the 1st. NASA shuttle video to show a UFO! Relive the 'buildup', not expecting anything as thunderstorms are being observed. From Martyn Stubbs NASA UFO Archives.

-Martyn Stubbs

Didn't you also say something about filming in UV and you can't back that up either, right?

originally posted by: penroc3
a reply to: carewemust

its shot it UV, very esoteric for the time.

originally posted by: Phage
Citation required.

I never saw you back up that claim either, so from my perspective you're making numerous posts in this thread with odd claims that you can't back up. If Martyn Stubbs was zooming in and editing the rotation then his calling the video posted in this thread "UNCUT" would be a misrepresentation, but I don't see any evidence of that or that the "uncut" version is substantially different than what is in the OP except the boring part where not much happens has been edited out in the OP version and some pointers have been added by someone. There is a very tiny amount of cropping of the left edge of the video in the OP version to remove the band of noise seen in the version Martyn Stubbs posted, but it's not really significant and it's not enough cropping to enable rotation editing, as you suggested when you said "the video was stabilized and framed to take the rotation feeling out of the video" and I see no evidence of that nor of "zoom in on the area and just frame the objects in question in the center". The uncut version looks pretty much the same except for the slight exceptions I noted like the band of noise on the left edge that hasn't been removed.

Stubbs also claimed: "It goes from "normal" at night, to the 1st. NASA shuttle video to show a UFO! "

That was his first and greatest mistake. The scene is NOT at night. The dots appear exactly when nearby stuff becomes visible AT SUNRISE. And since the camera was pointing 'down sun' at the lightning, there is a shadowed zone in front of the camera where drifting stuff becomes sunlit only when they get far enough away from the shuttle. My report has a 3-D representation of where the shadow zone was [it only lasted a few minutes until the shuttle got over sunlit ground, whose reflected sunlight 'filled in' the shadow zone so the camera sensitivity automatically scaled back, making small stuff less observable]. During this brief, rare illumination condition was when almost all of Stubbs's years and years of spectacular 'shuttle UFO videos' were captured. Coincidence? More likely, cause and effect.

Stubbs =IS= accidentally correct by linking the "first NASA video to show UFO" with "thunderstorms are being observed". These kinds of views were part of the just-introduced "Mesoscale Lightning Experiment" [MLE -- google it] directed by Otha Vaughan at NASA-Huntsville, to exploit the just-recently-deployed full-orbit comsat relay coverage enabled by the delivery of three TDRS satellites into 24-hour orbits, to search for sprites and other lightning storm phenomena hard to observe from the ground. Vaughn talked the shuttle program into leaving an external camera on while the crew was sleeping and having Mission Control point it at the horizon to get the lightning storms in profile. The program was a spectacular scientific success... with a totally unexpected secondary UFOric harvest.

link:
arc.aiaa.org...

a reply to: Arbitrageur

ask Jim if im right or not.

im not trying to pull the wool over your eyes.

the mission page on wiki says what cameras were used

why do you think you can see the atmosphere/lightning so well?(lightning gives off alot of far and extreme UV and the atmosphere also lights up from the same effect) and as Jim said the video was taken as the sun was coming up. That means that they had to use a camera that could see into other spectrum other wise the shot would be black until sunrise.

and we know the shuttle adjusted its position relative to the earth so why doesnt the video rotate when the camera attached to the shuttle rotates as well? because the video was edited to focus on the "ufo"

These are two pages from my 1999 report:

attitudes -- shows the roll/pitch/yaw of the orbiter over time, indicating when/why the autopilot fired the thruster, and the resulting angular rates on the orbiter




and the 'scene list' document of ALL video downlinks with the exact camera identified [ABCD are the four visible-light monitoring cams in the four corners of the payload bay].

originally posted by: penroc3
a reply to: Arbitrageur

ask Jim if im right or not.

As far as I can tell his report from 1999 already showed you're wrong about everything I mentioned.

im not trying to pull the wool over your eyes.

Let's say you have a lot of misunderstandings and are making incorrect posts as a result, whether you're trying to do that or not.

the mission page on wiki says what cameras were used.

why do you think you can see the atmosphere/lightning so well?(lightning gives off alot of far and extreme UV and the atmosphere also lights up from the same effect) and as Jim said the video was taken as the sun was coming up.

Lightning gives off visible light too and if I'm reading Jim's post correctly, it shows visible light camera C in use around the time of the event.

originally posted by: JimOberg
These are two pages from my 1999 report:

and the 'scene list' document of ALL video downlinks with the exact camera identified [ABCD are the four visible-light monitoring cams in the four corners of the payload bay].

originally posted by: penroc3
and we know the shuttle adjusted its position relative to the earth so why doesnt the video rotate when the camera attached to the shuttle rotates as well? because the video was edited to focus on the "ufo"

Jim's report shows the rate of the shuttle's rotation was changed by about 0.6 degrees per minute by the thruster firing. I think you and all the people who ask the same question either haven't read Jim's report or don't understand what a small change in rotation 0.6 degrees per minute is. It's not 0.6 degrees per second which you might see, it's a change of 0.6 degrees per minute (shows 0.01 deg/sec on the image here):

originally posted by: JimOberg
attitudes -- shows the roll/pitch/yaw of the orbiter over time, indicating when/why the autopilot fired the thruster, and the resulting angular rates on the orbiter

What that shows is there was some rotation happening before the thruster firing, and the thruster firing stopped the rotation, look at the rotation rate after the thruster firing, it's zero (on the 0.000 line), while before the thruster firing the rotation rate is not zero.