NASA STS-75 UFO Rebuttal

Courtesy National Space Society. Space Shuttle Flight 75 (STS-75), narrated by the astronauts. Launch: February 22, 1996. Crew: Andrew M. Allen, Scott J. Horowitz, Jeffrey A. Hoffman, Maurizio Cheli, Claude Nicollier, Franklin R. Chang-Diaz, Umberto Guidoni.

Here's a NASA video from space shuttle mission STS-75. This video was recorded on a space shuttle mission that launched 22 February 1996, which carried an experiment called the Tethered Satellite System.

NASA STS-75@1:58 Tethered Satellite System in shuttle bayHere is the experiment in the shuttle payload bay. The sun is setting, and the underside of the shuttle faces Earth below.

NASA STS-75@2:48 TSS boom deploymentA boom extends away from the shuttle, and the protrusions on the satellite are pressurized gas thrusters.

NASA STS-75@3:15 TSS boom deployed above Earth An insulated wire, or tether, attaches the satellite to the shuttle. Cold gas jets from the thrusters propelled the satellite away from the shuttle. The purpose of the experiment was to generate power, which it managed to do for a while.

NASA STS-75@6:14 Wayward satellite and tetherThe tether was extended almost twelve miles when a power surge broke the tether and the satellite and tether floated away.

NASA STS-75@6:36 Tether and boom in cargo bayThe tether broke within the shuttle payload bay.

NASA STS-75@6:47 Boom retractedSo the boom was retracted and stowed away.

NASA STS-75@7:08 Loose TSS as seen from EarthThe wayward experiment was caught on video from Earth’s surface. The points of light in the background are stars, and a meteor passed by.

So where are the interstellar tourists? It turns out, their existence is disputed by NASA officials, but I haven’t shown you the controversial video yet, which was recorded by astronaut Claude Nicollier, when the wayward experiment was seventy-seven to one hundred nautical miles away, during another orbit of the shuttle three days later. The case put forward by NASA officials is that the objects you are about to see are debris floating near the space shuttle. Let’s refer to the NASA position as the defense in our mock trial.


The controversial video appears on a DVD entitled ‘Evidence: The Case of NASA UFOs’ in which ufologist David Sereda analyzes space shuttle video that was recorded by Martin Stubbs, the program manager at a cable TV station, as it was transmitted live during space shuttle missions. Let’s refer to his position as the prosecution in our mock trial. You be the jury and judge for yourselves. The case for the prosecution rests on the evidence of a number of observations.


NASA STS-75 TSS “swarmed” by “debris”First: the objects travel at different speeds and directions, even changing direction, which defies gravity.


NASA STS-75 Object passing by TSSSecond: the objects clearly pass behind the tether indicating that they are farther away than the tether.

Third: using the tether length of twelve miles the relative size of these objects can be calculated at between two and three miles.

NASA STS-75 Overlapping objects are transparentAnd fourth: the objects appear transparent or translucent when they overlap or pass in front of stars. Therefore, the reason we don’t observe “Independence Day” size craft is because the video camera employed by NASA sees into the near ultraviolet which is outside the visible spectrum. The implication being that UFOs are hiding outside the range of plain sight as ‘energy with structure,’ or as ‘mass vibrating at a very high frequency.’

The case for the defense rests upon expert testimony. The objects are debris floating near the space shuttle... That’s it. As far as NASA is concerned it’s the word of authority against the word of pseudoscience. The defense rests its case on that basis, but isn’t there a more compelling explanation? In fact there is. So at this point we’re going to declare a mistrial and appeal to a higher court, where peer review science operates. But the question remains, why doesn’t NASA present a more compelling case for their position? This question strikes at the heart of science. Science can only explain things that it knows how to explain. This statement is trivial, but true. So let’s consider what it takes to make a compelling argument for the cause of this phenomenon.

First and foremost human vision differs from images recorded by a video camera. Any technical explanation needs to address how a video camera works. In this case a nineteen seventies vintage, black and white video tube camera with a zoom lens.

Now how many astrophysicists at NASA possess that kind of expertise? I don’t know for sure, but I’m willing to guess. Few to none. So it’s no wonder NASA can’t explain what we’re seeing, since obsolete technology is the missing link. Let’s reexamine the evidence in light of this expertise. From the start, when do the objects actually appear?

NASA STS-75 Camera zoom
As the video camera zooms in, the ‘debris’ looms larger, until many particles resemble fuzzy disks with a hole in the center, but not all the bright spots act alike. For instance, the spot at the top center of the image stays a fixed size, which indicates that it’s a star. Notice that the tether doesn’t grow any more fuzzy either. So does the fact that the objects grow fuzzier as the camera zooms in mean that the objects are closer than the tether or farther away? This is a crucial question, because as it happens, the objects’ appearance exhibits the optical characteristics of out of focus objects in the foreground. Any other explanation needs to explain this affect. A known camera artifact that fits the description of these fuzzy objects is an Airy disk.

Notice also that the glow in the lower right hand corner is overexposure from sunlight reflected off the moon. Objects passing through that corner appear to be going behind something, but nothing is there. Here’s another curious observation. If the objects are spheres, then why is the black hole in the center? But if the objects are disks, then why are all the disks oriented flat toward the camera? Wouldn’t some appear at different angles, even edge on? If the objects are out of focus sources of light in the foreground, then the blurry translucent appearance explains itself.

The prosecution's size estimate of two to three miles is based upon the tether length given by NASA. But the apparent width of the tether doesn’t jive with this estimate. For a CD to pass behind a twelve inch ruler, a ruler width of one inch is a mile! The prosecution's mathematical skills are suspect. If we use the width of the satellite at the top end to estimate the diameter of the fuzzy objects, we come up with a far smaller estimate. The hole in the center of the fuzzy disk that passes by the end of the tether is about the size of the satellite at the tip of the tether. About three hole diameters fit between the hole and the edge of the fuzzy disk. From images of the shuttle payload bay, the size of the satellite is closer to five feet than ten feet in diameter. Therefore, seven hole diameters is closer to thirty-five feet than seventy feet. Fifty feet is roughly a hundredth of a mile, nowhere near two to three miles.

The only way the prosecution can estimate a size of two to three miles is by assuming the tether is straight. Wrong assumption. When the tether broke free it coiled like a slinky. Fifty feet is impressive. Two to three miles is an exaggeration. Here’s another critical question. Would a twelve mile long slinky appear opaque at a hundred mile distance through a telephoto lens? Could it block out a semi truck and trailer on the other side? Hard to imagine. What are we seeing then? Let’s make a closer inspection of a fuzzy object crossing the tether.


NASA STS-75 Focused object crossing tether
Here’s a series of still frames of a fuzzy object crossing the area of the tether as the astronaut adjusts the camera focus. From frame one to frame two the fuzzy objects get smaller and less translucent, which is consistent with out of focus Airy disks. At the same time the tether gets crisper. The combination of the two objects produces an apparent bulge on the leading side of the tether in frame three. On the trailing edge the intensity of both objects are the same in frames five through seven. In frame eight a dark edge appears that was not in the three previous frames. That dark edge is a video tube artifact known as a ‘dark halo’, an artificial dark edge around bright objects that gives the false impression of a crisp edge to objects.

NASA STS-75 Lens flair artifact
NASA STS-75 Gas glow and tether dark halo artifactHere are two close up images exhibiting the same video tube artifact. The tether in both images forms a bright line with dark halo edges. Lens flair is evident in the first image, and the glow in the second image is an important piece of information. Why doesn’t the tether appear like a slinky at a hundred miles? The reason is that gas from the thrusters is glowing in the moonlight. So at a hundred miles we are not seeing an opaque tether, but an area of glowing gas surrounding the tether. When the tether broke the thrusters fired to maintain tension, only to exhaust the fuel supply. The negative electric charge on the tether kept the gas from dissipating. So we’re seeing an intensely bright region on a black and white video tube, not an opaque object.

NASA STS-75 TSS dark center, right handed coronasBright objects overlapping an area of high intensity disappear giving the illusion of passing behind the tether. So what we’re seeing is an optical illusion, which should come as no surprise since the tether is simply too thin to appear opaque to objects behind it. Zoomed out the tether saturates the video tube and appears black surrounded by white. Another artifact is a glow to the right of objects that look like bright coronas around dark centers. This is the direction of the electron beam scanning the video tube after passing through intense areas of saturation and exhibiting the video tube lightening artifact seen in other space shuttle video. So what is the debris?

Debris

NASA STS-75@1:09 Main engine ice crystalsThe space shuttle has two sources that form ice crystals. The first is the main engines that burn liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen as rocket fuel. Hydrogen and oxygen combine to form water, which turns to ice at temperatures in space.

NASA STS-75@13:27 Venting shuttle water tanksThe second source of ice crystals is water formed as a byproduct of fuel cells that combine hydrogen and oxygen to generate power. Water from the fuel cells is collected on board in tanks, which are vented into space when they become too full.

NASA STS-75@13:57 Ice crystals sparkling in moonlightIce crystals form, which sparkle in the moonlight, and micro gravity allows the ice crystals to drift about on the solar wind, like dust motes in a sunbeam, following the space shuttle in orbit. In microgravity the electrostatic force is the dominant interaction between particles. Cosmic rays and sunlight are ionizing radiation, and the shuttle casts a shadow allowing particles passing in and out of moonlight to appear and disappear to the video camera.

Notch Artifact

The notches on the fuzzy objects are inconsistent with the direction the object is traveling, but the notches are consistent with location on the image, which indicates another camera lens artifact. Here an overlay on the image indicates at what position on an analog clock the notches appear.


Here is a CCTV video exhibiting the same artifact, not in space, but on Earth. Click the image a second time to view the video at YouTube. Also click (more info) for a complete description of the artifact and links to other sources.

Based upon the evidence alone, suggestions that these objects are anything other than out of focus particles swarming in micro gravity in the foreground are unwarranted. The appearance of passing behind the tether defies common sense. Do we believe our eyes, which we know can be fooled, or do we trust our better judgment? That is the crucial question. The prosecution has misconstrued and misrepresented intensity for opacity, and old technology for advanced technology.

Verdict

To advance scientific knowledge, an explanation must withstand scrutiny. So it’s time to render our verdict in the case of NASA space shuttle mission STS-75. You are the jury. Vote on the three positions. How many agree that the prosecution provided incontrovertible evidence that interstellar tourists exist beyond a reasonable doubt? How many agree with NASA by expert testimony alone that the objects in the video are debris near the space shuttle? And finally how many agree with the defense that cross examination of the evidence indicates that reasonable doubt exist against the proposition that the objects are interstellar tourists?

So why is NASA reluctant to rigorously defend its position? For one thing, a camera fails to capture something that as human observers we take for granted. Distance. With stereoscopic vision, we are able to make clear distinctions between near objects and far objects. So the astronauts could tell the difference, if there was any. Whether you trust them or not is another matter. The goal of pseudoscience is trust. Does NASA deserve our trust? Science doesn’t have all the answers. Perhaps Lincoln said it best...

Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt. — Abraham Lincoln