From: Mike Farrell <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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: email@example.com, 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?
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp