From: Mike Farrell <mikefarr@midcoast.com.au>
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 01:19:13 +1100
Fwd Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 00:52:58 -0500
Subject: Re: STS-48 UFO Debunked?


Hello UpDates List,

Here's a reply from James Oberg to remarks made by Gary Hart who
supported the analysis of Dr. Kasher on the STS-48 footage. Any
further rebuttal?

_________________________________


From: JamesOberg@aol.com
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 08:40:46 EST
To: mikefarr@midcoast.com.au, CSICOP-ANNOUNCE@LISTSERV.AOL.COM
Subject: Re: STS-48 UFO Debunked? YES!


Objections from Hart:

>The fact that several moving objects STOPPED for several frames
>before the "shot from the ground", then reversed direction and
>zipped away in directions and speeds inconsistent with the
>thrust plume from the thruster IS relevant.>>

Kasher has been informed (I have copies of my letters) for at
least five years that the visible pulse is only PART of the full
thruster firing, which is generally invisible to the TV image
except during brief moments of propellant mixture mismatch. This
can be confirmed by watching any number of OMS or RCS jet firing
videos and comparing with telemetry records -- records which
Kasher failed to seek out, but were easily sent to Dr. Irwin
Wieder when he reviewed Carlotto's paper for JSE. Therefore
Kasher's assumption that object motion changed PRIOR to the
pulse runs contrary to reality -- the telemetry clearly shows
the thruster firing coinciding with the particle motion changing
-- and contrary to information in his possession.

As to plume direction, the expanding combustion products not
only stream out of the nozzle, they also bounce out of the
stream at large angles even far downstream, and they bounce off
shuttle structure such as wings and pods and come back at you
from unexpected directions -- predicting jet plume effects on
nearby satellites was in fact part of my technical specialty for
NASA and although I did my best to educate Kasher on what we had
discovered -- and how we use computer models to accurately
predict these effects so as to avoid knocking small objects
around too badly -- I see little evidence he understood what I
was trying to tell him.

BTW, there is no evidence any objects 'reversed direction'.
Although the projection of the line of sight motion onto the TV
screen's two dimensions shows a sharp angle, the sharpness could
easily be the result of viewing the object as it moved away from
the camera while the course change was only 10 or 20 degrees --
this was discussed on the site that you found unconvincing, so
it suggests you need to re-read it.

>All anomalous object angles, sizes and speeds inconsistent with
>characteristics of objects that would be close to the shuttle.
>Accelerations for anomalous objects calculated and inconsistent
>with time thruster fired and energy emitted. Need I go on?

Kasher's mathematical mumbo-jumbo is useless as evidence because
the test criteria have never been validated in a double-blind
(or any other kind) experiment where Kasher is shown other
videos including both near and far objects, and he has proved
his ability to tell them apart. He has never done this -- so the
equations are snares of the innumerate. Particle acceleration
occurs during the course of the thruster firings and at no other
times -- just as you would expect from nearby objects hit by
plumes. And since Kasher's calculations use erroneous jet firing
times -- against the advice of experts -- naturally their
results will be astounding.


>Any further  comments? Get Dr. Kasher's video and decide for
>yourself. His calculations  tell me more than Oberg's blather. I
>agree with Dr. Kasher's conclusions.

Mr. Hart, how many other videos of drifting objects hit by jet
plumes would it take to persuade you that it was a normal space
flight occurrence?