Response To James Oberg's
Analysis Of STS-75 Footage
From Russel Callaghan <>
I see the James Oberg evaluation of the STS-75 footage we featured in The Secret NASA Transmissions 'smoking gun' video was posted on your site recently. We at UFO magazine along with thousands of other researchers and UFO enthusiasts might not agree with all the James says but we respect his views. I would be extremely grateful if you could post the attachment from Lexx Systemes.
Some of the critics/debunkers/sceptics who have seen the video have responded to the 'Second Space Phenomena' has described by Martyn Stubbs have come up with 'Cosmic Rays' having been responsible for the images on the video. Well this was refuted by several leading researchers but endorsed by Mr Oberg and Ms Williams. Thanks to an alert enthusiast working around CCD technology he was able to get a response from the manufacturer of theses electronic sensors. Their reaction to the claims that 'Cosmic Rays' are the culprits will make interesting reading to those following the NASA debate on our website
Space Phenomena Two "cannot be attributed to a CCD being affected by 'cosmic rays' or anything else."
During our filmed interview with Martyn Stubbs, the former Cable TV station manager who for a period of some five years recorded over 2,500 hours of space shuttle footage from NASA's own downlink, he makes it clear that while the 'First Space Phenomena' (anomalous spheres, such as those seen in and around STS-75, STS-48, STS-80 and STS-84) are "absolutely unimpeachable, in a preponderance sense", it is the 'Second Space Phenomena' that "intrigues me much more".
On 27 April 2000, America's FOX TV included a brief segment from the controversial STS-75 'Tether' sequence in a nationwide broadcast titled < The Best Evidence Ever (Caught on Tape) #2. The footage, supplied by a one-time colleague of Martyn Stubbs, David Sereda, was among a couple of dozen or so UFO clips hastily assembled by the producers.
The programme, while serving to heighten interest in the STS-75 sequence, failed to make so much as a passing reference to the 'Second Space Phenomena'.
And while sceptics and debunkers continue to try and explain away all anomalous sphere-like activity captured on countless space shuttle missions (stretching back to 1991) as merely 'ice crystals', space debris', 'satellites', 'stars', 'Airy disks' and 'optical illusions', the movement of the aptly named 'Swarm' from mission STS-75 has yet to be definitely explained.
But while the debate still rages on this, and countless further examples of 'Space Phenomena One', the point of emphasis must now turn to 'Space Phenomena Two'.
This phenomena, captured on only one of two split fields through use of an SVHS machine (30 frames per second-60 scan fields per second ) has been dismissed as 'cosmic rays', caught on the CCD (Charged Coupled Device) of the on-board shuttle cameras.
That claim, raised by Clare Williams, manager and head astronomer at the Canberra (Australia) Space Dome & Planetarium, was dismissed as "bunk" by Flt. Lt. (RAAF Ret.) John Auchettl, Director of Phenomena Research Australia (PRA). Mr. Auchettl expanded on his reasoning by citing several NASA web sites. Despite Mr. Auchettl's intervention, Clare and others were not persuaded to concur. Hence, the 'cosmic rays' theory has been allowed to fester - until now.
The following correspondence (on a letter-headed transmission) was received by Mike Murray, of the UK-based Polaris Group. Mr. Murray had independently approached Lexx Systemes sa based in Belgium, to analyse 'Space Phenomena Two'.
Lexx Systemes sa are CCD manufacturers and suppliers to the Polaris Group. _____
Dated: 2 May 2000
Dear Mike,
Further to our telecon this morning, Jan and myself have accessed the footage on the web and I can confirm to you that in our opinion this (the 'Second Space Phenomena') cannot be attributed to a CCD being affected by 'cosmic rays' or anything else for the following reasons.
Although we are no experts in 'Cosmic Rays', I hope you agree we do know our stuff when it comes to charge coupled devices. So we feel absolutely sure that the objects are not (their emphasis) caused by any interference with the camera CCDs.
Any magnetic or similar electronic field introduced in the vicinity would cause an effect similar to inserting a sheet of glass between the object being scanned or filmed and then projecting a weak non-specific image onto it.
This gives an effect of a weak series of coloured beams of light running vertically down the image.
These colours would be RGB (red, green and blue) as the CCDs converted the light into an electrical signal suitable for a scanner or camera.
There is obviously a lot more to it than that, but basically that's it.
We then considered whether any known possible CCD defect could cause the observed effects and all six (our emphasis) of us agreed this could not be the case.
If the CCD array were defective in any way it would exhibit the following faults: First the CCD element or elements that were faulty would not transmit the light to the converting sensor and the image therefore would exhibit black dots or lines, which would remain stationary in relation to the camera or scanner frame.
The result would be the same as you saw on the faulty RT5 scanner heads Boston sent you last year.
The objects seen on the video move independently within the frame so this is not a CCD fault.
In short, what is on the image frame was actually there (our emphasis).
What they are of course is another question.
Also, none of the objects could have been 'created' by a faulty CCD as they appear as white or luminous - not black, as they would be with any type of array failure.
In short, whatever is on the video tape was therefore not manufactured by the CCD system (our emphasis). _____
Some years ago, Martyn Stubbs was told by scientists at his local university that if the 'Second Space Phenomena' turns out to be either 'cosmic rays' or 'gamma rays' then he would be in line for a Nobel Prize.
Yes, the 'cosmic rays' theory was first touted years ago and summarily dismissed by scientists in the know.
Our problem has been twofold:
1. To persuade these and other scientists to publicly reiterate their views
2. To persuade scientists in general to take a long hard look at the 'Second Space Phenomena' (not withstanding the merits of the 'First Space Phenomena').
However, the expert comment and analysis conducted by six leading CCD experts at Lexx Systemes sa cannot be ignored.
They have completely buried the 'cosmic rays' argument cited by Clare Williams and others in respect of the 'Second Space Phenomena'.
When Professor Weinberg and other scientists at Simon Fraser University first saw the 'Second Space Phenomena' it "blew their minds".
Professor Weinberg also said: "It had to be there, doing exactly what it was..."
Compare that profound statement, uttered several years ago with that made by Jon Loeb of Lexx Systemes sa on 2 May 2000: "In short, what is on the image frame was actually there...."
We are extremely indebted to Mike Murray of the Polaris Group (UK) and Jon Loeb and his team at Lexx Systemes sa (Belgium) for taking time out to analyse the footage and make public their comprehensive findings.
This is a major step towards encouraging others in the scientific community to look seriously at what is contained within the footage.
For captured within his statement, Jon Loeb has uttered the precise words which we and others have been expressing all along:
"What they are of course is another question."
Please feel free to post this as widely as possible. _____
I have included the text within this e-mail and not as an attachment. We have had a problem with the KAK virus and it's a nasty little bugger to say the least but lovebug missed us and our system is clean after 4 days of serious re installing and formatting.
Best regards and thanks to all,
Russel Callaghan UFO Magazine UK.


This Site Served by TheHostPros