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.
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 Object passing by TSS
Third: using the tether length of twelve miles the relative size of these objects can be calculated at between two and three miles.
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.
Debris
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
1 comment:
Brilliant, good debunking of poor critical thinking, but there are still things to this video that survive intense scrutiny. Many initial arguments issued by the more paranoid among us are easy to refute, but a handful of objects in the footage have very peculiar and complex movement patterns, besides those of the simple parabolic paths of some other debris and others that move basically in a straight line. Flight path tracking is needed to make these things obvious, and there aren't many of them.
Clearly, the shape is a camera artifact. Clearly, the physical thickness of the cable can't obscure objects. In fact, the large focal size of the "object that slides behind the tether" implies it is very out of focus, as opposed to the tether, indicating it's closeness. The objects which are relatively bright and the same size as the tether is wide are roughly at the same distance. Only slight distance information is available from this poor-quality footage, but focal size is a big clue.
Some objects that can't be dismissed as ice or debris are clearly pictured, and from the small amount of relative distance information afforded by the apparent extent to which it is out of focus one can safely imply that there is something else going on in this video.
It is sad that this important footage is still brushed off as garbage or dismissed outright in many forum postings I've seen and other articles discussing the event. These articles focus on the clearly camera-related "object shape"; pulsation as an artifact of a spinning irregular piece of debris or the like; the fact that the cable can't obscure anything as it is too thin; even a little deeper that the obvious parabolic path of many of these particles is caused by the atmospheric friction felt differentially on smaller particles; all these miss the point. There are at least three very noticeable objects which move in complex paths unrelated to known physical applications of force. This is an observation of evidence. Something very different is going on here. The evidence is in the flight paths of a few objects.
If this can be dismissed by some factually adequate explanation, I shall lay my inquiry to rest.
Post a Comment