You gotta love Jim oberg his arguements are so flexible, heres a perfect example from a thread at ATS.
Some background.
About 4 years ago i was real set on finding out what i was seeing in the sts75 tether footage, so i set about the net to try and find an educated answer, i had a healthy interest in the space program anyway being a moon landing kid.
So ifound a thread well under way on ATS where martin stubbs and oberg were going head to head, jim with his out of focus ice crystal theory, he was then claiming that the ice was from a scheduled waste water dump 6 hours prior.
Also that the ice had risen behind the shuttle, so as to get inbetween the camera and tether which was 100 miles away behind and 50 miles higher, so he was beating the atmospheric drag drum.
I knew he was wrong i joined and produced several nasa reports for him that showed quite categorically he was wrong, however he has the nick-name over there as #Jim i will get back to you later on that Oberg# and steadfastedly held his stance, assessing me as some ufo nut.
Anyway i can be quite abrupt when flanneled or gently waved aside, and very persistent in getting a reply on point, to the point of being rude, this process of breaking his argument piece by piece with nasa acquired documentation, was literally like pulling teeth and can be spread over many pages, i presented our discussion time-line wise in a ever expanding quote, but only the bits of any replies on point, with this method over about 6 weeks, our conversation was distinguishable from the background noise the kids over there make, i broke him, he had to admit that any ice would of sublimated in 10 to 15 mins after the flush, however there was no flush, as it was only scheduled, the FEZ had frozen, and so the flush canceled, i even had to tell him about the extra piping and switcher valve fitted on flight 73 and 75 for the waste water to be switched to the Fez for the FEZ experiments, so he went for other sources of ice from the shuttle, and each time had to admit that the pattern or amount could not have defied physics and risen up above and behind the shuttle, but he is a very very stubborn man, only really accepted the other nasa scientists papers, and other documentation after he knew that my explanation debunked the swarm of UFOs.
My research led me to the conclusion that the out of focus debris was the result of a micro meteor strike of a heating/insulation tile, the propulsive force, shot/scattered the debris above the shuttle, there were 109 micro strikes on that mission, i then lost interest and left.
this is jim 2 years ago, only this time he needs the ice to be infront of the shuttle, this is from a thread i am link mining at ATS, you know the old dog maybe learnt something, the thread is about sts114.
....................
quote.
Your awareness of this issue is commendable. 'Differential drag' effects can be striking over a period of hours, but I don't recall seeing them act as quickly as this video suggests in this case. Typically, ice from a water dump is so much more 'draggy' than the metal Orbiter that it is slowed more by air drag, drops into a lower orbit that is faster (and actually shorter in terms of miles per circuit), and thus begins pulling ahead of -- and below -- the Orbiter. Within an hour the twinkling ice cloud can often be seen preceding the Orbiter into sunset -- I really need to post video of that on youtube sometime.
So the effect is real, and profound, although the time scale doesn't seem to quite fit if we are seeing a real-time video.
This video, by the way, doesn't need 'debunking', it needs 'explaining'. Even for 'space junk' sequences -- and I've seen plenty -- this one is pretty unusual. It's not 'bunk'.
................
Still has to stretch the truth about drag, which is virtually non existent at orbital height, and no mention of the real culprit gravity, also exaggerates the lifespan wih #upto an hour# because his tentitive theory at this juncture in the thread requires it.
Jim i will get back to you later Oberg, the nasa expert, Never A Straight Answer
I will carry on reading the thread and see where he is going with it..
................
I am another 9 pages in and jim has shown his hand now, the sts114 footage is ICE CRYSTALS, every speck of light in the whole footage are ice crystals, he was getting real for awhile as this reply shows.
Quote
Aside from the object going through a gentle turn as it recedes (based on its growing dimness), what evidence do you have that it accelerates -- in terms of increasing true speed? Sure, it could, due to effluent entrainment, but I don't see any marked increase in true velocity. Please explain.
end quote
He then reveals his stance.
Quote
Since my interpretation labels those dots as ice particles from the on-going water dump, we have a major chasm here in interpretation, worth examining in greater detail. How do you determine the distance to that cloud of dots? You say they are 'nowhere near' the shuttle. On what basis?
end quote
So all the light sources in the sts114 footage are ice crystals below the shuttle from an ongoing 2 hour long waste water dump which is still taking place at the time the footage is being shot ,not earth cities lights or stars, and the fast moving UFO/light is also a rogue piece of the same ice field only much closer to the camera.
See how he has just dropped in this little beaut, #How do you determine the distance to that cloud of dots?# and #Sure, it could, due to effluent entrainment,#
No-one has mentioned effluent entrainment so far,jim just dropped it in there as if its part of that discussion at that time, same as the cloud of dots , for the city and star lights.
Makes me want to explode when i see this kind of manipulation.
.
Some background.
About 4 years ago i was real set on finding out what i was seeing in the sts75 tether footage, so i set about the net to try and find an educated answer, i had a healthy interest in the space program anyway being a moon landing kid.
So ifound a thread well under way on ATS where martin stubbs and oberg were going head to head, jim with his out of focus ice crystal theory, he was then claiming that the ice was from a scheduled waste water dump 6 hours prior.
Also that the ice had risen behind the shuttle, so as to get inbetween the camera and tether which was 100 miles away behind and 50 miles higher, so he was beating the atmospheric drag drum.
I knew he was wrong i joined and produced several nasa reports for him that showed quite categorically he was wrong, however he has the nick-name over there as #Jim i will get back to you later on that Oberg# and steadfastedly held his stance, assessing me as some ufo nut.
Anyway i can be quite abrupt when flanneled or gently waved aside, and very persistent in getting a reply on point, to the point of being rude, this process of breaking his argument piece by piece with nasa acquired documentation, was literally like pulling teeth and can be spread over many pages, i presented our discussion time-line wise in a ever expanding quote, but only the bits of any replies on point, with this method over about 6 weeks, our conversation was distinguishable from the background noise the kids over there make, i broke him, he had to admit that any ice would of sublimated in 10 to 15 mins after the flush, however there was no flush, as it was only scheduled, the FEZ had frozen, and so the flush canceled, i even had to tell him about the extra piping and switcher valve fitted on flight 73 and 75 for the waste water to be switched to the Fez for the FEZ experiments, so he went for other sources of ice from the shuttle, and each time had to admit that the pattern or amount could not have defied physics and risen up above and behind the shuttle, but he is a very very stubborn man, only really accepted the other nasa scientists papers, and other documentation after he knew that my explanation debunked the swarm of UFOs.
My research led me to the conclusion that the out of focus debris was the result of a micro meteor strike of a heating/insulation tile, the propulsive force, shot/scattered the debris above the shuttle, there were 109 micro strikes on that mission, i then lost interest and left.
this is jim 2 years ago, only this time he needs the ice to be infront of the shuttle, this is from a thread i am link mining at ATS, you know the old dog maybe learnt something, the thread is about sts114.
....................
quote.
Your awareness of this issue is commendable. 'Differential drag' effects can be striking over a period of hours, but I don't recall seeing them act as quickly as this video suggests in this case. Typically, ice from a water dump is so much more 'draggy' than the metal Orbiter that it is slowed more by air drag, drops into a lower orbit that is faster (and actually shorter in terms of miles per circuit), and thus begins pulling ahead of -- and below -- the Orbiter. Within an hour the twinkling ice cloud can often be seen preceding the Orbiter into sunset -- I really need to post video of that on youtube sometime.
So the effect is real, and profound, although the time scale doesn't seem to quite fit if we are seeing a real-time video.
This video, by the way, doesn't need 'debunking', it needs 'explaining'. Even for 'space junk' sequences -- and I've seen plenty -- this one is pretty unusual. It's not 'bunk'.
................
Still has to stretch the truth about drag, which is virtually non existent at orbital height, and no mention of the real culprit gravity, also exaggerates the lifespan wih #upto an hour# because his tentitive theory at this juncture in the thread requires it.
Jim i will get back to you later Oberg, the nasa expert, Never A Straight Answer
I will carry on reading the thread and see where he is going with it..
................
I am another 9 pages in and jim has shown his hand now, the sts114 footage is ICE CRYSTALS, every speck of light in the whole footage are ice crystals, he was getting real for awhile as this reply shows.
Quote
Aside from the object going through a gentle turn as it recedes (based on its growing dimness), what evidence do you have that it accelerates -- in terms of increasing true speed? Sure, it could, due to effluent entrainment, but I don't see any marked increase in true velocity. Please explain.
end quote
He then reveals his stance.
Quote
Since my interpretation labels those dots as ice particles from the on-going water dump, we have a major chasm here in interpretation, worth examining in greater detail. How do you determine the distance to that cloud of dots? You say they are 'nowhere near' the shuttle. On what basis?
end quote
So all the light sources in the sts114 footage are ice crystals below the shuttle from an ongoing 2 hour long waste water dump which is still taking place at the time the footage is being shot ,not earth cities lights or stars, and the fast moving UFO/light is also a rogue piece of the same ice field only much closer to the camera.
See how he has just dropped in this little beaut, #How do you determine the distance to that cloud of dots?# and #Sure, it could, due to effluent entrainment,#
No-one has mentioned effluent entrainment so far,jim just dropped it in there as if its part of that discussion at that time, same as the cloud of dots , for the city and star lights.
Makes me want to explode when i see this kind of manipulation.
.
