Brief

Mark C. Carlotto

The claims the writer was given for Mark C. Carlotto, in the order they were given.

1. 1

   At 07:54:04 Greenwich Mean Time (GMT) on 1996-12-02 the Space Shuttle Columbia was located at about 19.02 degrees north, 53.6 degrees west, which is east of Antigua.

   “At 7:54:04 GMT the shuttle was located at about 19.02 N, 53.6 W, which is east of Antigua⁹.”

   Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:10060-10142 measurement

2. 2

   At an altitude of 345 kilometres, the distance from the sub-spacecraft point of the Space Shuttle Columbia to the horizon is about 2042 kilometres.

   “At an altitude of 345 km, the distance from the sub-spacecraft point to the horizon is about 2042 km (Appendix A).”

   Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:10152-10263 measurement first hand

3. 3

   Measuring the apparent direction of motion of the stars in the STS-80 video gave a camera look direction of 49.6 degrees with respect to the shuttle's direction of motion, which gives an azimuth of about 289 degrees.

   “We obtained a value of 49.6° which gives an azimuth of about 289°.”

   Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:10459-10520 measurement first hand

4. 4

   At the time of STS-80 event F1 the shuttle's camera was looking roughly west toward Puerto Rico, 1328 kilometres away.

   “the shuttle's camera was looking roughly west toward Puerto Rico, 1328 km away.”

   Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:10545-10619 measurement first hand

5. 5

   In the STS-80 video a rapidly moving burst of light appears near the earth's surface off the east coast of Puerto Rico.

   “Perhaps the most interesting observation is a rapidly moving burst of light that appears near the earth's surface off the east coast of Puerto Rico.”

   Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:1057-1200 observation first hand

6. 6

   Neither the object in STS-80 event F1 nor the shuttle were in sunlight at the time of the event, so the object's appearance cannot be a result of it moving out of the sun's shadow cast by the orbiter.

   “Neither the object nor the shuttle are in sunlight at this time. Therefore, the appearance of the object cannot be a result of it moving out of the sun's shadow cast by the orbiter”

   Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:11099-11272 measurement first hand

7. 7

   At the time of STS-80 event F1 the moon was roughly behind the shuttle, at azimuth 121.5 degrees, elevation 71 degrees, and phase 58 per cent.

   “The moon was roughly behind the shuttle (azimuth 121.5°, elevation 71°, and phase 58%).”

   Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:11350-11432 measurement first hand

8. 8

   Mark J. Carlotto considers it possible that the object in STS-80 event F1 was emerging from the moon's shadow, but notes it is considerably brighter than the moonlit clouds and appears comparable in brightness to the lights on the ground.

   “That the object might be emerging from the moon's shadow is a possibility. However it is considerably brighter than the moonlit clouds, appearing to be comparable in brightness to the lights on the ground.”

   Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:11438-11636 opinion first hand

9. 9

   In the STS-80 video frame just before event F1, the cluster of surface lights is foreshortened by a factor of 0.14 in the horizontal direction and must be stretched by a factor of 7.2 to correct for foreshortening.

   “Fig. 4b is the cluster of lights stretched in range (horizontal direction) by 1/f = 7.2 (720%) to correct for foreshortening.”

   Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:11765-11875 measurement first hand

10. 10

    A map of Puerto Rico matches the shape of the foreshortening-corrected pattern of lights in the STS-80 video, establishing the location of event F1 just off the east coast of Puerto Rico, near Vieques.

    “A map of Puerto Rico (Fig. 4c) matches the shape of the corrected pattern of lights (Appendix C), establishing the location of the event just off the east coast of Puerto Rico, near Vieques.”

    Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:11891-12073 measurement first hand

11. 11

    The burst of light designated event F1 in the STS-80 video occurred well before sunrise and away from thunderstorm activity.

    “Occurring well before sunrise, away from thunderstorm activity”

    Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:1206-1260 observation first hand

12. 12

    The island of Puerto Rico is about 53 by 161 kilometres in size.

    “The island of Puerto Rico is about 33 x 100 miles in size.”

    Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:12671-12724 measurement

13. 13

    The burst of light designated event F1 in the STS-80 video moved at an estimated speed of over approximately 800 kilometres per second.

    “moving at an estimated speed of over 500 miles/sec.”

    Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:1274-1321 measurement first hand

14. 14

    The object in STS-80 event F1 first appears just off the eastern coast of Puerto Rico, south of Vieques island.

    “The object first appears just off the eastern coast of Puerto Rico (Fig. 5a).”

    Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:13022-13095 observation first hand

15. 15

    Mark J. Carlotto considers event F1 in the STS-80 video one of the most unusual phenomena observed to date by the space shuttle.

    “this is one of the most unusual phenomena observed to date by the shuttle”

    Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:1327-1393 opinion first hand

16. 16

    Mark J. Carlotto conjectures that the object in STS-80 event F1 is either emerging from a cloud bank or rising up out of the water.

    “It is conjectured that the object is either emerging from a cloud bank or rising up out of the water.”

    Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:13317-13412 opinion first hand

17. 17

    A tail forms behind the object in STS-80 event F1 as it moves in the direction of the shuttle.

    “A tail forms behind the object as it moves in the direction of the shuttle (Fig. 5b).”

    Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:13419-13500 observation first hand

18. 18

    The object in STS-80 event F1 increases in size as it moves toward the camera and begins to wiggle back and forth, leaving a faint vapour-like trail.

    “The object increases in size as it moves toward the camera and begins to wiggle back and forth leaving a faint vapor-like trail (Fig. 5c).”

    Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:13505-13639 observation first hand

19. 19

    A careful examination of the STS-80 video shows no sign of the event F1 object after it passes under the time code field and disappears.

    “A careful examination of the video shows no sign of the object after it disappears.”

    Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:13818-13890 observation first hand

20. 20

    Mark J. Carlotto suggests that event F1 in the STS-80 video, because of its similarity to certain ground-based sightings, might represent the first observation from space of a new kind of atmospheric phenomenon.

    “Its similarity to certain ground-based sightings suggests that it might represent the first observation of a new kind of atmospheric phenomenon from space.”

    Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:1402-1551 opinion first hand

21. 21

    The object in STS-80 event F1 appears to be moving at a relatively constant speed.

    “The object appears to be moving at a relatively constant speed.”

    Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:14739-14796 observation first hand

22. 22

    Assuming the object in STS-80 event F1 originates at or near the surface and moves parallel to it, the object travels about 320 kilometres in 0.4 seconds, giving a speed of approximately 800 kilometres per second.

    “the object travels about 200 miles (320 km) in 0.4 seconds, which yields a speed of 500 miles/sec (assuming that it is moving parallel to the surface)”

    Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:14850-14992 measurement first hand

23. 23

    Because of the clamping effect of the camera's automatic gain control, it is not possible to measure the change in luminosity of the STS-80 event F1 object as it moves in the direction of the shuttle.

    “Due to the clamping effect of the camera's automatic gain control, it is not possible to measure the change in luminosity of the object as it moves in the direction of the shuttle.”

    Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:15002-15174 observation first hand

24. 24

    Mark J. Carlotto considers the shape and motion of the object in STS-80 event F1 not consistent with typical orbiting debris.

    “it's shape and motion are not consistent with typical orbiting debris.”

    Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:15295-15358 opinion first hand

25. 25

    On 1996-11-19 the Space Shuttle Columbia began the STS-80 mission, a 17-day mission to deploy and retrieve two satellites and conduct two space walks.

    “On November 19, 1996, the space shuttle Columbia (STS-80) began a 17-day mission to deploy and retrieve two satellites and conduct two space walks.”

    Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:1579-1720 administrative

26. 26

    Bright objects near the space shuttle often leave streaks in the video.

    “It has been noted that bright objects near the shuttle often leave streaks.”

    Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:15888-15955 observation

27. 27

    Mark J. Carlotto shows that at least one, and possibly two, of the streaks in the STS-80 video are probably far from the shuttle and moving at high speed.

    “We show that at least one, and possibly two of the streaks are probably far from the shuttle, moving at high speed.”

    Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:15964-16073 measurement first hand

28. 28

    Three of the fast-moving streak objects in the STS-80 video, S4 to S6, are analysed in detail by Mark J. Carlotto.

    “Three of the objects (S4-S6) are analyzed in detail.”

    Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:16080-16125 administrative first hand

29. 29

    Streak S5 in the STS-80 video moves across the full width of the video frame in about 1.2 seconds.

    “S5 moves across the full width of the video frame in about 1.2 seconds.”

    Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:16608-16671 measurement first hand

30. 30

    Streak S4 in the STS-80 video disappears as it approaches the centre of the camera's field of view.

    “S4 disappears as it approaches the center of the field of view of the camera.”

    Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:16838-16908 observation first hand

31. 31

    Analysis of video from Space Shuttle mission STS-80, recorded by a camera aboard the Space Shuttle Columbia in 1996, examines three different phenomena: two slow-moving circular objects, a number of fast-moving objects in space near the shuttle, and a luminous apparition near the earth's surface.

    “Analysis of video from Space Shuttle mission STS-80 provides new insight into a number of unusual events captured by a camera aboard the space shuttle Columbia in 1996. Three different phenomena are analyzed: 1) two slow moving circular objects, 2) a number of fast moving objects in space near the shuttle, and 3) a strange luminous apparition near the earth's surface.”

    Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:169-531 observation first hand

32. 32

    At 07:58:17 during the STS-80 video sequence the shuttle's ground track had moved to about 25 degrees north, 24 degrees west, where the azimuth and elevation of the sun were about 113 degrees and 22 degrees respectively.

    “Estimating the shuttle's ground track has moved to about 25° N, 24° W at 7:58:17, the azimuth and elevation of the sun are about 113° and 22°, respectively.”

    Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:16976-17119 measurement first hand

33. 33

    At the time of streaks S4 and S5 in the STS-80 video the camera's look direction was 289 degrees with a depression angle of about 70 degrees, an elevation angle of minus 20 degrees.

    “The camera's look direction is 289° and depression angle is about 70° (elevation angle –20°) as shown in Appendices B and C.”

    Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:17133-17255 measurement first hand

34. 34

    At the time of streaks S4 and S5 in the STS-80 video the sun was almost directly behind the shuttle, anti-parallel to the direction of view, so the shuttle's shadow was cast in the middle of the camera's field of view.

    “This means that the sun is almost directly behind the shuttle, anti-parallel to the direction of view (Fig. 8). The shuttle's shadow is thus cast in the middle of the field of view.”

    Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:17258-17434 measurement first hand

35. 35

    On 1996-12-02 at about 07:57 Greenwich Mean Time (GMT), the video camera in the payload bay of the Space Shuttle Columbia recorded a number of disk-like objects near the shuttle.

    “On December 2, at about 7:57 GMT, the video camera in the payload bay recorded a number of disk-like objects near the shuttle.”

    Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:1727-1845 observation

36. 36

    Because the sun has a non-zero angular extent of about 0.009 radian, the Space Shuttle Columbia's shadow has a finite depth of 2.4 kilometres, calculated using a value of about 21 metres for the spacecraft's wingspan.

    “But since it has non-zero angular extent (δ ≈ 0.009 radian), the shadow has a finite depth. Using a value of 70 feet for the spacecraft's wingspan, the depth of the shadow is 2.4 km.”

    Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:17509-17688 measurement first hand

37. 37

    Objects closer than 2.4 kilometres to the Space Shuttle Columbia may be shadowed by the shuttle depending on where they are in the field of view, while those farther than 2.4 kilometres will never be shadowed.

    “This means that objects closer than 2.4 km may be shadowed by the shuttle (depending on where they are in the field of view), while those farther than 2.4 km will never be shadowed.”

    Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:17692-17864 measurement first hand

38. 38

    Mark J. Carlotto conjectures that streak S4 in the STS-80 video disappears into the shuttle's shadow, and that streak S5, appearing half a second later, must be at least 2.4 kilometres from the observer because it is not shadowed as it crosses the centre of the video frame.

    “It is conjectured that S4 disappears into the shadow, and that S5, which appears 1/2-second later, must be at least 2.4 km away from the observer since it is not shadowed as it crosses through the center of the video frame.”

    Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:17874-18091 opinion first hand

39. 39

    If streak S5 in the STS-80 video is at least 2.4 kilometres away when it first appears at the edge of the frame, its estimated speed as it moves across the camera's field of view is at least 4 kilometres per second.

    “If the object is at least 2.4 km away when it first appears at the edge, its estimated speed as it moves across the camera's field of view is at least 4 km/sec (Appendix D).”

    Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:18333-18503 measurement first hand

40. 40

    Streak S6 in the STS-80 video occurs 24 seconds after streak S5, so the shadow-casting geometry for the two is essentially the same.

    “Occurring only 24 seconds after S5, the shadow-casting geometry is essentially the same.”

    Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:18967-19050 measurement first hand

41. 41

    As an object moves away from an observer at constant speed, its angular motion or apparent speed decreases as the object moves toward the vanishing point.

    “As an object moves away from the observer at constant speed, its angular motion (apparent speed) decreases as the object moves toward the vanishing point.”

    Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:19056-19204 observation

42. 42

    If streak S6 in the STS-80 video has an initial range of 2.4 kilometres when it appears at the edge of the video frame, its range on the opposite side is 5.16 kilometres.

    “If its initial range when it appears at the edge of the video frame is 2.4 km, its range on the opposite side is 5.16 km.”

    Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:19292-19410 measurement first hand

43. 43

    Streak object S6 in the STS-80 video travelled about 3 kilometres in 0.25 seconds.

    “the distance traveled in 0.25 sec is about 3 km”

    Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:19414-19459 measurement first hand

44. 44

    Streak S6 in the STS-80 video travels about 3 kilometres in 0.25 seconds, which yields a speed of about 12 kilometres per second.

    “The distance traveled in 0.25 sec is about 3 km which yields a speed of about 12 km/sec.”

    Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:19414-19498 measurement first hand

45. 45

    Streak object S6 in the STS-80 video had an estimated speed of about 12 kilometres per second.

    “which yields a speed of about 12 km/sec”

    Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:19462-19498 measurement first hand

46. 46

    The actual speeds of streaks S4 and S6 in the STS-80 video may be more similar than the estimates suggest, depending on how far each really is from the camera.

    “The actual speeds of S4 and S6 may be more similar, depending on how far each really is from the camera.”

    Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:19503-19600 opinion first hand

47. 47

    In the STS-80 mission video of 1996-12-02, two disk-like objects designated U1 and U2 generated considerable popular interest because of their disk-like shape.

    “Two objects have generated a great of popular interest due to their disk-like shape.”

    Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:20799-20877 observation first hand

48. 48

    In the STS-80 mission video, the second disk-like object (U2) attracted significant interest and speculation because of the way it suddenly appears in the video.

    “U2 has generated significant interest and speculation in the way it suddenly appears in the video.”

    Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:21029-21121 observation first hand

49. 49

    In the STS-80 mission video, the centre of the camera's field of view is in shadow at 07:58:17 with the sun behind the shuttle.

    “we determined that the center of field of view is in shadow at 7:58:17 with the sun behind the shuttle”

    Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:21152-21247 measurement first hand

50. 50

    In the STS-80 mission video, the second disk-like object (U2) appears about 30 seconds after 07:58:17, by which time the sun's position has shifted only about 2 degrees.

    “When U2 appears about 30 seconds later, the sun's position has shifted only about 2°.”

    Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:21256-21338 measurement first hand

51. 51

    In the STS-80 mission video, the streak object designated S4 disappears into the shadowed region at 07:58:17.

    “the streak S4 disappears into the shadowed region at 7:58:17”

    Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:21370-21428 observation first hand

52. 52

    A small particle floating very close to a video camera would be out of focus and appear as a blurred circle.

    “If the object were a small particle floating very close to the camera, it would be out of focus and appear as a blurred circle.”

    Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:21630-21750 observation

53. 53

    Mark J. Carlotto proposes that the second disk-like object (U2) in the STS-80 mission video is initially in the shuttle's shadow, becomes gradually illuminated as it moves through the penumbra, and reaches full brightness on leaving the shadow.

    “The proposed explanation is that U2 is initially in shadow (Fig. 11a), becomes gradually illuminated as it moves through the penumbra (Fig. 11b), and reaches full brightness upon existing the shadow (Fig. 11c).”

    Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:21758-21963 opinion first hand

54. 54

    In the STS-80 mission video, the two disk-like objects U1 and U2 become smaller as they move away from the shuttle.

    “As seen in Fig 10, U1 and U2 become smaller as they move away from the shuttle.”

    Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:23124-23195 observation first hand

55. 55

    The shape of the trajectories of the disk-like objects U1 and U2 and many other objects in the STS-80 mission video indicates that they are slowly receding from the spacecraft.

    “The shape of their trajectories indicate that U1, U2, as well as many of the other objects are slowly receding from the spacecraft.”

    Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:23204-23324 observation first hand

56. 56

    Mark J. Carlotto conjectures that drag forces act on the objects seen in the STS-80 mission video, slowing them down and causing them to move away from the shuttle.

    “It is conjectured that drag forces are acting on these objects, slowing them down, and thus causing them to move away from shuttle¹⁰.”

    Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:23336-23459 opinion first hand

57. 57

    For data collected during the STS-3 mission at an altitude of 241 kilometres, the ambient pressure can vary by two orders of magnitude depending on the attitude of the shuttle relative to the velocity vector.

    “For data collected during the STS-3 mission at an altitude of 241 km, the ambient pressure can vary by 2 orders of magnitude depending on the attitude of the shuttle relative to the velocity vector¹¹.”

    Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:23470-23661 measurement second hand

58. 58

    Mark J. Carlotto considers the most likely explanation for the disk-like objects U1 and U2 in the STS-80 mission video to be ice particles or other relatively small objects in close proximity to the orbiter.

    “The most likely explanation is that U1 and U2 are ice particles or other relatively small objects in close proximity to the orbiter.”

    Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:23671-23795 opinion first hand

59. 59

    In September 1991, cameras aboard space shuttle mission STS-48 captured live video showing as many as a dozen objects moving in unusual trajectories.

    “In September 1991, live video showing as many as a dozen objects moving in unusual trajectories was captured by cameras aboard shuttle mission STS-48.”

    Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:2381-2528 observation

60. 60

    Mark J. Carlotto argues that, assuming the streak object S5 in the STS-80 mission video is not self-luminous and that the shuttle's cast shadow explains the sudden appearance of the disk-like object U2, S5 must be several kilometres away because it passes through the same shadow zone without being affected.

    “Assuming that S5 is not self-luminous, if one accepts that the presence of a cast shadow from the shuttle is responsible for the sudden appearance of U2 as it moves out of the shadow zone, then S5 must be several km away since is passes through the same zone without being affected.”

    Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:23823-24096 opinion first hand

61. 61

    Mark J. Carlotto assesses the streak object S5 in the STS-80 mission video to be of considerable size and moving at high speed with respect to the shuttle, which implies it is not a piece of shuttle debris.

    “S5 would seem to be of considerable size, moving at high speed with respect to the shuttle. This implies that S5 is not a piece of shuttle debris.”

    Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:24106-24245 opinion first hand

62. 62

    Of the ten streak objects S1 to S10 analysed in the STS-80 mission video, all except S7 and S9 are moving generally in a north-westerly direction within plus or minus 45 degrees.

    “With the exception of S7 and S9, all of the other objects are moving generally in a northwest direction (± 45°).”

    Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:24643-24750 measurement first hand

63. 63

    Artificial satellites typically have orbital inclinations in the range 0 to 90 degrees.

    “Typically, artificial satellites have orbital inclinations in the range 0-90°.”

    Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:24756-24830 observation

64. 64

    Mark J. Carlotto argues that if the streak objects S1 to S10 in the STS-80 mission video were satellites they would have to be in retrograde orbits, which would be highly unlikely.

    “If we suppose that these objects are satellites, they are in retrograde orbits, which would be highly unlikely.”

    Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:24835-24937 opinion first hand

65. 65

    The Geminid meteor shower occurs from 6 to 19 December.

    “The Geminid shower occurs from December 6-19.”

    Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:24989-25031 observation

66. 66

    At the time of the STS-80 mission video of 1996-12-02, the constellation Gemini is to the west, about 62 degrees above the horizon.

    “At the time of the video, the constellation Gemini is to the west, about 62° above the horizon.”

    Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:25035-25122 measurement first hand

67. 67

    The streak objects in the STS-80 mission video cannot be Geminid meteors because they are moving in the wrong direction.

    “The streaks cannot be Geminid meteors because they are moving in the wrong direction.”

    Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:25131-25206 opinion first hand

68. 68

    During the period when the ten streak objects S1 to S10 were observed in the STS-80 mission video, lightning flashes could be seen below as the shuttle travelled over the eastern Caribbean.

    “During the period of time S1-S10 were observed, lighting flashes could be seen below as the shuttle traveled over the eastern Caribbean.”

    Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:25218-25344 observation first hand

69. 69

    In the STS-48 video one of the objects appears at a point near the horizon and moves in a path that seems to follow the horizon.

    “One of the objects appears at a point near the horizon and moves in a path that seems to follow the horizon.”

    Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:2532-2632 observation

70. 70

    High-altitude flashes above thunderstorms typically emanate up to about 45 kilometres from thunder clouds at speeds around 100 kilometres per second.

    “The flashes typically emanate up to about 45 km from thunder clouds at speeds around 100 km/sec.”

    Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:25472-25564 measurement second hand

71. 71

    One reported case a few months earlier in 1996 involved a mysterious glowing ball, possibly ball lightning, at 80 kilometres altitude moving upward at about 3000 kilometres per second.

    “One reported case¹³ involved a mysterious glowing ball (ball lightning?) 80 km in altitude moving up at about 3000 km/sec observed a few months earlier in 1996.”

    Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:25569-25775 observation second hand

72. 72

    Where sprites and blue jets move upwards, the streak objects in the STS-80 mission video appear to be moving parallel to the earth's surface.

    “Where spites and jets move upwards (Fig. 14), the streaks in the shuttle video appear to be moving parallel to the earth's surface.”

    Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:25781-25904 observation first hand

73. 73

    The streak objects in the STS-80 mission video are at a much higher altitude than thunderstorm-related electrical activity.

    “They are also much higher in altitude than thunderstorm-related electrical activity.”

    Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:25913-25988 observation first hand

74. 74

    In the STS-48 video, after a flash the object moving along the horizon abruptly changes direction and speed.

    “After a flash, the object abruptly changes direction and speed.”

    Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:2641-2698 observation

75. 75

    The STS-80 video event F1 of 1996-12-02 is difficult to explain in terms of its sudden appearance and disappearance and its speed.

    “F1 is difficult to explain in terms of its sudden appearance and disappearance, and its speed.”

    Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:26420-26508 opinion first hand

76. 76

    The object in the STS-80 video event F1 of 1996-12-02 appears to originate south of the island of Vieques, off the east coast of Puerto Rico.

    “The object appears to originate south of the island of Vieques ... off the east coast of Puerto Rico (Fig. 5).”

    Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:26515-26656 observation first hand

77. 77

    Mark J. Carlotto expects that if a phenomenon like the STS-80 video event F1 occurred over a populated area, there would likely be corroborating ground-based sightings.

    “If such a phenomenon occurred over a populated area, it is likely that there would be corroborating ground-based sightings.”

    Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:26692-26805 opinion first hand

78. 78

    No known ground-based reports of the STS-80 video event F1 sighting of 1996-12-02 have been found, although strange phenomena have since been reported in the area off the east coast of Puerto Rico.

    “No known reports of the sighting have been found, although strange phenomena have since been reported in the area¹⁵.”

    Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:26816-26925 observation first hand

79. 79

    In the STS-48 video, a few seconds after the object changes direction a streak moves rapidly across the field of view and crosses the path of the object.

    “This is followed a few seconds later by a streak that moves rapidly across the field of view and crosses the path of the object.”

    Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:2705-2826 observation

80. 80

    An observer in a report made to the Australian UFO Research Network in September 2002 saw a red light appear in the sky in front of the vehicle, followed by a bright blue flash that vanished like a light bulb being switched off, leaving a crooked trail of smoke in the sky for some time; the observation before the smoke lasted a couple of seconds and no sound was heard above the noise of the vehicle.

    “"...saw a red light appear in the sky to the front of the vehicle, and then there was a bright blue flash. The blue flash vanished just like a light bulb being switched off. A crooked trail of "smoke" was left in the sky for some time. The pre-smoke observations' duration was a "couple of seconds." No sound was heard above the noise of the vehicle."”

    Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:27111-27449 testimony third hand

81. 81

    In November 1995, the crew of Lufthansa flight 405 reported a big bright white light on the front and a greenish tail coming out of the back, moving several hundred metres above their aircraft.

    “In November 1995, Lufthansa flight 405 reported "a big bright white light on the front, and a greenish tail coming out the back" moving several thousand feet above them.”

    Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:27460-27624 testimony second hand

82. 82

    The November 1995 Lufthansa flight 405 light sighting was confirmed by another aircraft in the area.

    “The sighting was confirmed by another aircraft in the area.”

    Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:27630-27684 testimony second hand

83. 83

    The November 1995 Lufthansa flight 405 sighting and other similar sightings occurred in the same area where TWA Flight 800 came down, which has led to speculation that the objects might be surface-to-air missiles.

    “This and other similar sightings in this area, the same area TWA flight 800 came down, has lead to speculation that the objects might be surface to air missiles.”

    Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:27690-27842 observation

84. 84

    A surface-to-air missile accelerates at launch to its maximum speed at burnout.

    “A surface-to-air missile accelerates at launch to its maximum speed toward burnout.”

    Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:27904-27979 observation

85. 85

    The object in the STS-80 video event F1 of 1996-12-02 cannot be a missile because it moves at constant speed from the point it is first seen, off the east coast of Puerto Rico, to the point it disappears.

    “F1 cannot be a missile because it is moving at a constant speed from the point it is first seen, off the east coast of Puerto Rico, to the point it disappears.”

    Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:27988-28136 opinion first hand

86. 86

    The object in the STS-80 video event F1 of 1996-12-02 is moving much too fast to be a surface-to-air missile, with an estimated speed within the range of blue jets, sprites, ball lightning and other previously documented phenomena.

    “It is also moving much too fast – its estimated speed is within the range of jets, sprites, ball lightning, and other previously documented phenomena.”

    Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:28148-28288 opinion first hand

87. 87

    The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) assessed that the objects in the STS-48 video were orbiter-generated debris illuminated by the sun, that the flash of light was a thruster firing, and that the change in motion of the particles resulted from the impact of gas jets from the thrusters.

    “NASA's assessment was that the objects were orbiter-generated debris illuminated by the sun, the flash of light was a thruster firing, and the change in motion of the particles resulted from the impact of gas jets from the thrusters².”

    Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:2834-3057 testimony second hand

88. 88

    On 1492-10-11, several hours before their landing in the New World, Christopher Columbus and his men saw a light, perceived once or twice, appearing like the light of a wax candle moving up and down, which some thought an indication of land.

    “October 11, 1492 several hours before their historic landing in the New World, Columbus and his men saw "a light, ... perceived it once or twice, appearing like the light of a wax candle moving up and down, which some thought an indication of land¹⁷."”

    Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:28368-28611 testimony third hand

89. 89

    Christopher Columbus made landfall in the Bahamas, not far from Puerto Rico.

    “Columbus made landfall in the Bahamas not far from Puerto Rico.”

    Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:28620-28678 observation

90. 90

    Mark J. Carlotto wonders whether the flashes and streaks in the STS-80 mission video are not UFOs in the usual sense, nor surface-to-air missiles, but something completely different.

    “one has to wonder if these flashes and streaks are not UFOs (in the usual sense), not surface-to-air missiles, but something completely different.”

    Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:28732-28868 opinion first hand

91. 91

    There is no mention of the STS-80 video event F1 of 1996-12-02 in the mission record.

    “Why is there no mention of this event in the mission?”

    Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:29067-29112 observation first hand

92. 92

    Mark J. Carlotto hopes that if future shuttle sightings can be quickly detected and a search made for corroborating ground-based and aircraft reports, a better understanding of these phenomena can be achieved.

    “Hopefully, if future shuttle sightings can be quickly detected and a search for corroborating ground-based and aircraft reports made, a better understanding of these phenomena can be achieved.”

    Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:29156-29339 opinion first hand

93. 93

    For the shuttle's altitude of 345 kilometres during STS-80, the distance to the horizon is 2115 kilometres.

    “For the shuttle's altitude h = 345 km., this distance d₀ = 2115 km.”

    Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:29559-29623 measurement first hand

94. 94

    The angle between the horizon and the spacecraft during STS-80 is about 18.4 degrees.

    “is about 18.4°.”

    Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:29715-29727 measurement first hand

95. 95

    The distance from the horizon to the sub-spacecraft point directly below the shuttle during STS-80 is 2045 kilometres.

    “The distance from the horizon to the sub-spacecraft point (the point on the surface directly below the shuttle) is α₀d₀ = 2045 km.”

    Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:29731-29858 measurement first hand

96. 96

    For an orbital inclination of 28.5 degrees, the STS-80 flight path azimuth at a latitude of 19.02 degrees is 68.2 degrees.

    “For an orbital inclination of i = 28.5°, the flight path azimuth at a latitude¹⁸ L₀ = 19.02 is β₀ = sin⁻¹(cos i / cos L₀) = 68.2°”

    Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:30295-30423 measurement first hand

97. 97

    In a time exposure just before the shuttle camera zooms in to observe the STS-80 video event F1, stars are setting at an angle of about 49.6 degrees relative to the horizon.

    “Fig. B-1a is a time exposure just before the camera zooms in to observe event F1. Stars are setting at an angle of about 49.6° relative to the horizon.”

    Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:30433-30576 measurement first hand

98. 98

    The view azimuth of the shuttle camera just before the STS-80 video event F1 is 289 degrees.

    “The view azimuth is 68.2 + 180 + (90 – 49.6) = 289°.”

    Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:30585-30632 measurement first hand

99. 99

    Using image measurements of 677 and 664 pixels, the field of view of the STS-80 shuttle camera is calculated as 19.7 degrees.

    “For A = 677 and C = 664, θ = 19.7°.”

    Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:31004-31036 measurement first hand

100. 100

     The arc length along the horizon in the STS-80 video frame is 703 kilometres, yielding a resolution of 1.04 kilometres per pixel along the horizon.

     “The length of the arc is A = d₀θ = 703 km, which yields a resolution of 703 km/677 pixels = 1.04 km/pixel along the horizon.”

     Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:31040-31156 measurement first hand

101. 101

     The instantaneous field of view of the STS-80 shuttle camera is 0.03 degrees per pixel.

     “The instantaneous field of view (IFOV) is 19.7°/677 pixels = 0.03°/pixel”

     Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:31165-31232 measurement first hand

102. 102

     Jack Kasher produced five proofs that the objects seen in the STS-48 video could not be ice particles disturbed by a thruster firing.

     “Jack Kasher produced five proofs that the objects seen in the video could not be ice particles disturbed by a thruster firing³.”

     Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:3142-3261 testimony second hand

103. 103

     The predicted sky view for the STS-80 camera at 07:52:00 Greenwich Mean Time has an azimuth of 313 degrees and a field of view of 20 degrees.

     “a) Predicted view at 7:52:00 GMT (Az. = 313°, FOV = 20°).”

     Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:32684-32736 measurement first hand

104. 104

     Mark J. Carlotto found that a number of the objects in the STS-48 video travel in circular arcs rather than following linear paths, which implies the objects were far from the shuttle and moving at a high rate of speed.

     “Carlotto found that instead of following linear paths, a number of the objects travel in circular arcs, which implies the objects were far from the shuttle and moving at a high rate of speed⁴.”

     Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:3270-3455 measurement first hand

105. 105

     At 07:52:00 Greenwich Mean Time the STS-80 shuttle camera is aimed north of the location of the STS-80 video event F1.

     “b) Actual view. At this point the camera is aimed north of the event F1 location.”

     Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:32742-32814 observation first hand

106. 106

     The predicted sky view just before the STS-80 video event F1, at 07:53:20 Greenwich Mean Time, has an azimuth of 283 degrees and a field of view of 18 degrees.

     “c) Predicted view just before F1 at 7:53:20 GMT (Az. = 283°, FOV = 18°)”

     Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:32824-32891 measurement first hand

107. 107

     At 07:53:20 Greenwich Mean Time the STS-80 shuttle camera is aimed slightly south of the cluster of lights seen in the STS-80 video event F1.

     “d) Actual view. At this point the camera is aimed slightly south of the cluster of lights seen in the event F1.”

     Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:32896-33004 observation first hand

108. 108

     Mark J. Carlotto used the astronomy program Expert Astronomer to generate predicted views of the sky as seen by the shuttle at times corresponding to the STS-80 video, in order to verify his direction and field-of-view estimates.

     “To verify the direction and field of view estimates, the program Expert Astronomer was used to generate predicted views of the sky as seen by the shuttle at the corresponding times.”

     Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:33080-33255 administrative first hand

109. 109

     The width of the cluster of lights in the STS-80 video in the cross-range direction is about 51 pixels, corresponding to a physical dimension of about 53 kilometres, which is about the width of the island of Puerto Rico.

     “The width of the cluster of lights (Fig. B-2d) in the cross-range direction is about 51 pixels. This corresponds to a physical dimension of 53 km or about 33 miles, which is about the width of the island of Puerto Rico.”

     Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:33480-33694 measurement first hand

110. 110

     The long dimension of the island of Puerto Rico is about 160 kilometres and is viewed along the range direction in the STS-80 video.

     “The long dimension of the island, which is about 100 miles, is viewed along the range direction.”

     Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:33852-33938 measurement first hand

111. 111

     Foreshortening is the effect whereby the size of a resolution cell changes as a function of range because the earth's surface slopes away from the observer, causing an object to appear shorter than it really is.

     “The size of a resolution cell is changes as a function of range because the earth's surface slopes away from the observer. This effect, which is known as foreshortening, causes an object to appear shorter than it really is.”

     Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:33949-34220 observation

112. 112

     Directly below the shuttle the look angle is zero, the tangent angle is 90 degrees and the foreshortening factor is 1.0, so the object's shape is not distorted.

     “For example, directly below the shuttle, the look angle is zero, the tangent angle is 90°, and the foreshortening factor is 1.0 (i.e., the object's shape is not distorted).”

     Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:34395-34556 measurement

113. 113

     Moving towards the limb, the foreshortening factor decreases towards zero and the object appears increasingly compressed in the range direction.

     “As we move towards the limb, the foreshortening factor decreases toward zero, and the object appears increasingly compressed in the range direction.”

     Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:34568-34706 observation

114. 114

     The estimated speed of one of the objects in the STS-48 video is about 35 kilometres per second.

     “The estimated speed of one of these objects, about 35 km/sec”

     Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:3463-3520 measurement first hand

115. 115

     The estimated speed of about 35 kilometres per second for one object in the STS-48 video is approximately the same as that of a fast-moving object tracked by the North American Air Defense Command (NORAD) in 1984.

     “is approximately the same as that of a "fastwalker" tracked by the North American Air Defense Command in 1984⁵.”

     Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:3525-3630 measurement

116. 116

     James Oberg claimed that the flash in the STS-48 video was from a thruster firing.

     “Oberg⁶ claimed that the flash in the STS-48 video was from a thruster firing.”

     Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:3637-3707 opinion second hand

117. 117

     The angle between the sub-spacecraft point and Puerto Rico relative to the centre of the earth is 11.9 degrees, from an arc distance of 1328 kilometres and an earth radius of 6370 kilometres.

     “α = a/R = 1328/6370 = 11.9° (C-6) which is the value between the sub-spacecraft point and Puerto Rico.”

     Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:36466-36560 measurement first hand

118. 118

     The foreshortening factor for Puerto Rico as viewed from the shuttle during STS-80 is 0.14.

     “f = sin(90° − α − β) = sin(90 − 12 − 70) = sin(8°) = 0.14 (C-7)”

     Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:36645-36706 measurement first hand

119. 119

     Mark J. Carlotto stretched a portion of the STS-80 imagery by a factor of 7.2, or 720 per cent, in the horizontal range direction to correct for foreshortening.

     “Fig. C-2a shows a map of Puerto Rico and a portion of the STS-80 imagery (Fig. C-2b) stretched by 1/0.14=7.2 (720%).”

     Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:36710-36820 administrative first hand

120. 120

     Mark J. Carlotto compared the STS-80 imagery with registered Earth light data from the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP).

     “Also shown is a map of the area (Fig. C-2c) and registered Earth light data (Fig. C-2d) from the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP).”

     Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:36827-36966 administrative first hand

121. 121

     The cluster of lights in the STS-80 mission video is the island of Puerto Rico, based on its size, shape and distance from other bright clusters of lights in the region.

     “The cluster of lights is clearly Puerto Rico based on it size, shape, and distance from other bright clusters of lights in the regions.”

     Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:36973-37100 observation first hand

122. 122

     Lan Fleming has argued that telemetry data does not support the claim that the flash in the STS-48 video was from a thruster firing.

     “However, Lan Fleming⁷ has argued that telemetry data does not support this claim.”

     Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:3715-3790 opinion second hand

123. 123

     The dark blotch at the top middle of the stretched STS-80 video frame is an artefact of the video camera, and is the bright lights in and around San Juan.

     “The dark blotch (top middle), an artifact of the video camera, is bright lights in and around San Juan.”

     Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:37610-37708 observation first hand

124. 124

     The Earth light data derived from Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP) imagery registered to a map of the Caribbean region is consistent with the STS-80 shuttle video showing an isolated cluster of lights.

     “d) Earth light data derived from DMSP imagery registered to map. This is consistent with the shuttle video showing an isolated cluster of lights.”

     Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:37735-37873 observation first hand

125. 125

     A similarity between the STS-48 and STS-80 events is that objects in space near the shuttle appear at sunrise.

     “A similarity between the STS-48 and STS-80 events mention above is that objects in space near the shuttle "appear" at sunrise.”

     Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:3798-3916 observation first hand

126. 126

     By the inverse-square law of radiation, intensity is inversely proportional to the square of the distance.

     “From the inverse-square radiation law, intensity is inversely proportional to the square of the distance,”

     Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:38123-38219 observation

127. 127

     The brightness of the streak object S5 in the STS-80 mission video falls from about 164 to about 28, implying its range increases by a factor of 2.4 over 1.2 seconds.

     “R2/R1 = √(I1/I2) = √(164/28) = 2.4 (D-1) Thus if the initial range is R, the range after 1.2 seconds is 2.4R.”

     Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:38230-38337 measurement first hand

128. 128

     The minimum distance travelled by the streak object S5 in the STS-80 mission video is about 4.8 kilometres, giving a minimum speed of 4 kilometres per second.

     “Thus the minimum distance traveled is about 4.8 km, and the minimum speed is 4.8/1.2 = 4 km/sec.”

     Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:38873-38965 measurement first hand

129. 129

     The streak object S6 in the STS-80 mission video moves faster across the camera's field of view than the streak object S5, requiring a different approach to determine its motion away from the observer.

     “Streak S6 is moving faster across the camera's field of view and so a different approach is used to determine its motion away from the observer.”

     Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:39134-39269 observation first hand

130. 130

     In the analysis of the streak object S6 in the STS-80 mission video, as the object's displacement tends to infinity the object appears to slow down as it approaches the vanishing point, with the observed angular coordinate approaching the direction of motion asymptotically.

     “In the limit as d(t) → ∞, the object appears to slow down as it approaches the vanishing point ... As d(t) → ∞, θ(t) → α asymptotically.”

     Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:39731-39853 observation first hand

131. 131

     In the geometrical analysis of streak object S6 in the STS-80 video, the velocity component v lies in the view plane and the component u is orthogonal to it, directed away from the observer.

     “S6 geometry. v is in the view plane and u is orthogonal (away from the observer).”

     Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:40238-40309 administrative first hand

132. 132

     In the STS-80 video analysis, the instantaneous field of view (IFOV) used to measure the motion of streak object S6, one of ten fast-moving streak objects analysed in the STS-80 video, is 0.04 degrees per pixel.

     “Fig. D-4a plots measurements of S6's motion in the video frame (IFOV = 0.04°/pixel).”

     Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:40472-40549 measurement first hand

133. 133

     Assuming an initial range of 2.4 kilometres when streak object S6 of the STS-80 video appears at the left of the frame, the law of sines gives a range of 5.16 kilometres as it approaches the right side of the frame.

     “Using the law of sines, if the initial range when the object appears on the left is 2.4 km, the range as it approaches the right side of the video frame is 5.16 km”

     Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:40627-40788 measurement first hand

134. 134

     If streak object S5 in the STS-80 video is farther away than assumed and streak object S6 is closer, the estimated speeds of the two objects might be more similar.

     “If S5 is farther away than we have assumed and S6 is closer, the speeds of the two objects might be more similar.”

     Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:41014-41119 opinion first hand

135. 135

     In the geometry derived for streak object S6 of the STS-80 video, the initial range is at least 2.4 kilometres, the later range at least 5.16 kilometres, and the distance travelled at least 3 kilometres, with angles of 15.3, 19.3 and 25 degrees.

     “Geometry diagram showing lines diverging from two points, labeled R1 ≥ 2.4 km, R2 ≥ 5.16, d ≥ 3, and angles 15.3°, 19.3°, and 25°.”

     Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:41254-41380 measurement first hand

136. 136

     A curve fit to the angular measurements of streak object S6 in the STS-80 video gives an estimated asymptote of about 25 degrees.

     “S6 measurements. Curve fit gives estimated asymptote of about 25°.”

     Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:41390-41452 measurement first hand

137. 137

     An extended version of the STS-80 video shows a number of other unusual events over the period of time leading up to the appearance of the disk-like objects.

     “In reviewing an extended version of the STS-80 video, a number of other unusual events can be seen over the period of time leading up to the appearance of the disk-like objects.”

     Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:4705-4874 observation first hand

138. 138

     Mark J. Carlotto shows that at least some of the fast-moving streak objects in the STS-80 video are probably not shuttle debris or meteors, after establishing a lower bound on their distance from the camera.

     “After establishing a lower bound on their distance from the camera, it is shown that at least some of the objects are probably not shuttle debris, or meteors.”

     Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:5418-5568 measurement first hand

139. 139

     In the STS-80 video, one of the two disk-like objects seems to appear out of a cloud layer and the other moves into the camera's field of view.

     “One seems to appear out of a cloud layer, the other moves into the camera's field of view.”

     Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:655-740 observation first hand

140. 140

     The STS-80 video sequence analysed by Mark J. Carlotto starts at 07:52:08 Greenwich Mean Time (GMT) on day 337 of 1996.

     “The video sequence considered here starts at 7:52:08 GMT (Day 337).”

     Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:6874-6936 administrative first hand

141. 141

     At the start of the analysed STS-80 video sequence the Space Shuttle Columbia was at an altitude of about 342 kilometres.

     “The shuttle was at an altitude of about 218 miles (342 km)”

     Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:6942-6997 measurement

142. 142

     During STS-80 the Space Shuttle Columbia was in an orbit inclined 28.45 degrees.

     “in an orbit inclined 28.45°”

     Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:7001-7025 measurement

143. 143

     At the start of the analysed STS-80 video sequence the shuttle camera was zoomed out looking back at the earth's limb, showing clouds illuminated by moonlight before zooming in on a cluster of lights on the surface.

     “Its camera was zoomed out looking back at the earth's limb (Fig. 1a). We see clouds illuminated by moonlight as the camera zooms in on a cluster of lights on the surface (Fig. 1b).”

     Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:7030-7206 observation first hand

144. 144

     In the STS-80 video a fast-moving object designated event F1 appears, moves rapidly across the camera's field of view and disappears, after which the camera zooms back as if the operator were looking for the object.

     “a fast moving object (Fig. 1c) appears, moves rapidly across the field of view of the camera, and disappears. We designate this as event F1. The camera zooms back as if the operator were looking for the object”

     Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:7231-7484 observation first hand

145. 145

     Mark J. Carlotto argues that both disk-like objects in the STS-80 video are likely to be pieces of shuttle debris emerging from the spacecraft's shadow and slowly moving away from the shuttle.

     “It is argued that both are likely to be pieces of shuttle debris emerging from the spacecraft's shadow.”

     Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:746-842 opinion first hand

146. 146

     In the STS-80 video, two and a half minutes after event F1 the shuttle enters sunlight and a large slow-moving object designated U1 enters from the upper right and moves into the centre of the field of view.

     “Next, as the shuttle enters sunlight 2-1/2 minutes later (Fig. 1e), a large slow moving object enters from the upper right and moves into the center of the field of view (Fig. 1f). This object is designated U1.”

     Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:7502-7709 observation first hand

147. 147

     Ten fast-moving streaks in the STS-80 video, designated S1 to S10, were selected for study by Mark J. Carlotto.

     “Ten streaks designated S1-S10 were selected for study.”

     Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:7827-7875 administrative first hand

148. 148

     In the STS-80 video a second large slowly moving object designated U2 suddenly appears in the middle of the field of view and slowly moves away from the shuttle.

     “A second large slowly moving object (U2) suddenly appears in the middle of the field of view and slowly moves away from the shuttle (Fig. 1h).”

     Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:7882-8020 observation first hand

149. 149

     Toward the end of the analysed STS-80 video sequence, activity near the earth's limb similar to that seen in the STS-48 video is observed.

     “Toward the end of the video sequence activity similar to that seen in STS-48 near the limb is observed (Fig. 1i).”

     Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:8025-8134 observation first hand

150. 150

     The analysed sequence of events in the STS-80 video has a total elapsed time of about 5 minutes.

     “The total elapsed time is about 5 minutes.”

     Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:8139-8173 measurement first hand

151. 151

     The heading angles reported for the STS-80 streak objects are clockwise relative to north and were determined from measured angles in the video imagery and the estimated direction of view of the camera.

     “Heading angles are clockwise relative to north, and were determined from measured angles in the video imagery and the estimated direction of view of the camera.”

     Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:8308-8461 administrative first hand

152. 152

     The fast-moving objects in space near the shuttle in the STS-80 video appear as bright streaks moving rapidly across the video frame.

     “The fast moving objects in space near the shuttle appear as bright streaks moving rapidly across the video frame.”

     Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:850-957 observation first hand

153. 153

     In the STS-80 video, event F1 occurs at time code 07:54:04 while the shuttle is in darkness, at geodetic location 19.02 degrees north, 53.09 degrees west.

     “| 7:54:04 | Shuttle in darkness, event F1 occurs (geodetic location 19.02 N, 53.09 W) |”

     Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:8506-8587 measurement first hand

154. 154

     In the STS-80 video the sun rises on the shuttle at time code 07:56:49 while the Earth below is in darkness.

     “| 7:56:49 | Sun rises on shuttle (Earth below is in darkness) |”

     Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:8594-8644 measurement first hand

155. 155

     In the STS-80 video the first disk-like object U1 moves into the field of view from the upper right at time code 07:57:25.

     “| 7:57:25 | Object U1 moves into field of view from the upper right |”

     Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:8658-8718 measurement first hand

156. 156

     In the STS-80 video streak S1 appears at time code 07:57:42 on a heading of 322 degrees clockwise relative to north.

     “| 7:57:42 | Streak S1 appears (heading 322°) |”

     Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:8728-8765 measurement first hand

157. 157

     In the STS-80 video two streaks appear at time code 07:58:04: S2 on a heading of 292 degrees and S3 on a heading of 357 degrees.

     “| 7:58:04 | Two streaks S2 (heading 292°) and S3 (heading 357°) appear |”

     Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:8775-8837 measurement first hand

158. 158

     In the STS-80 video streak S4 appears at time code 07:58:17.25 on the left and disappears near the centre of the field of view, on a heading of 317 degrees.

     “| 7:58:17.25 | Streak S4 appears on left and disappears near center of FOV (heading 317°) |”

     Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:8848-8930 measurement first hand

159. 159

     In the STS-80 video streak S5 appears at time code 07:58:17.69 on a heading of 337 degrees.

     “| 7:58:17.69 | Streak S5 appears (heading 337°) |”

     Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:8940-8980 measurement first hand

160. 160

     In the STS-80 video streak S6 appears at time code 07:58:30 on a heading of 307 degrees.

     “| 7:58:30 | Streak S6 appears (heading 307°) |”

     Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:8990-9027 measurement first hand

161. 161

     In the STS-80 video streak S7 appears at time code 07:58:38 on a heading of 92 degrees.

     “| 7:58:38 | Streak S7 appears (heading 92°) |”

     Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:9037-9074 measurement first hand

162. 162

     In the STS-80 video streak S8 appears at time code 07:58:40.12 on a heading of 297 degrees.

     “| 7:58:40.12 | Streak S8 appears (heading 297°) |”

     Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:9083-9123 measurement first hand

163. 163

     In the STS-80 video streak S9 appears at time code 07:58:40.63 on a heading of 122 degrees.

     “| 7:58:40.63 | Streak S9 appears (heading 122°) |”

     Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:9133-9173 measurement first hand

164. 164

     In the STS-80 video streak S10 moves through the centre of the field of view at time code 07:58:43 on a heading of 332 degrees.

     “| 7:58:43 | Streak S10 moves through center of FOV (heading 332°) |”

     Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:9183-9241 measurement first hand

165. 165

     In the STS-80 video the second disk-like object U2 appears near the centre of the field of view at time code 07:58:46.

     “| 7:58:46 | Object U2 appears near center of FOV |”

     Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:9251-9294 measurement first hand

166. 166

     The object in STS-80 video event F1 appears at 07:54:04.4, grows in size as it moves across the camera's field of view, and disappears under the time code field in the video at 07:54:05.1.

     “The object in event F1 appears at 7:54:04.4, grows in size as it moves across the camera's field of view and disappears under the time code field in the video at 7:54:05.1.”

     Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:9317-9487 observation first hand

167. 167

     The clamping effect of the STS-80 camera's automatic gain control causes bright lights to appear grey in the video.

     “The clamping effect of the camera's automatic gain control causes bright lights to appear gray.”

     Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:9555-9645 observation first hand

168. 168

     Analysis of the speeds and directions of the fast-moving streak objects in the STS-80 video implies that they are not shuttle debris or meteors.

     “Analysis of their speeds and directions implies that they are not shuttle debris or meteors.”

     Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video 2005 char:964-1048 measurement first hand

169. 169

     The press conference at the National Press Club was attended by Mark Carlotto, Tom Van Flandern, David Webb and architect Robert Fiertek, among the principals involved in the independent Mars investigation.

     “would be attended by many of the principals involved in the independent investigation, including Dr. Mark Carlotto, Dr. Tom Van Flandern, Dr. David Webb and architect Robert Fiertek.”

     Dark Mission 2010-07-22 ch10:38397-38571 administrative

170. 170

     Lynn Bondurant knew obscure details of almost a decade of research on Cydonia carried out by Vince Dipietro, Greg Molenaar, Mark Carlotto and Erol Torun.

     “He knew the details—some of them quite obscure—of almost a decade of research on Cydonia carried out by DiPietro, Molenaar, Carlotto and Torun.”

     Dark Mission 2010-07-22 ch10:5767-5904 observation first hand

171. 171

     The 1997-11 meeting between Society for Planetary SETI Research (SPSR) and Carl Pilcher was attended by Stanley V. McDaniel, Mark Carlotto, and John Brandenberg among others.

     “At the meeting, which was attended by McDaniel, Carlotto and Brandenberg among others, Pilcher feigned interest and promised that Cydonia would be imaged at every opportunity during the “science mapping phase” of the mission.”

     Dark Mission 2010-07-22 ch13:2394-2611 observation

172. 172

     At a Brazilian UFO expo, Mark Carlotto reported that National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) told the 1997-11 SPSR meeting there are two groups within NASA regarding the Cydonia objects: one wanting to prove UFO researchers wrong, and a small but growing group believing NASA has interesting data worth a closer look.

     ““Moreover, they said that they are in fact very interested in these objects, for two reasons. There are two groups in NASA. One group believes that [UFO researchers] are all wrong, and they want to prove it. So they want to take these pictures to prove that you’re wrong, so you’ll go away. The other group—and our sense is that it’s a small but growing group within NASA—believes that we have some interesting data, and they want to take a closer look at it.””

     Dark Mission 2010-07-22 ch13:2838-3293 testimony first hand

173. 173

     Mark Carlotto produced an ortho-rectification of the second Cydonia Face image that was better than the NASA version, and other independent researchers produced still better versions.

     “Carlotto produced a better ortho-rectification than the NASA version, and still others produced even better versions.”

     Dark Mission 2010-07-22 ch13:31216-31324 observation

174. 174

     Mark Carlotto contended that the Face on Mars might be artificial but, if so, was in a highly eroded state.

     “Carlotto contended that the Face might be artificial, but that if it was, it was in a “highly eroded” state.”

     Dark Mission 2010-07-22 ch13:33833-33935 opinion first hand

175. 175

     Richard C. Hoagland considers the appointment of Scott Hubbard as evidence of a possible power struggle between NASA Headquarters and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) over control of the Mars programme.

     “we began to wonder if we were seeing the playing out of the scenario that Mark Carlotto had referred to after the initial SPSR meeting with Carl Pilcher in November 1998. Was there a growing friction between those at the agency that wanted the ground truth of Mars revealed (NASA headquarters) and those that still wanted to hold onto the idea of a cold, dead Mars (JPL)?”

     Dark Mission 2010-07-22 ch14:20766-21132 opinion first hand

176. 176

     Mark Carlotto referred to a scenario following the initial Society for Planetary SETI Research (SPSR) meeting with Carl Pilcher in November 1998.

     “the scenario that Mark Carlotto had referred to after the initial SPSR meeting with Carl Pilcher in November 1998”

     Dark Mission 2010-07-22 ch14:20822-20931 testimony second hand

177. 177

     Mark Carlotto continued to refer to the Face on Mars as "highly eroded" in the Society for Planetary SETI Research report despite Richard C. Hoagland's view that it is remarkably well preserved, more so than the Great Sphinx of Egypt.

     “Mark Carlotto continued to refer to the Face as “highly eroded” when it is in fact quite remarkably well preserved (far more so than our own earthly Sphinx, for instance)”

     Dark Mission 2010-07-22 ch14:3111-3272 opinion first hand

178. 178

     Mark Carlotto was unwilling to acknowledge the spherical pupil in the western eye socket of the Face on Mars, despite its presence in three confirming images across three separate missions.

     “he was even unwilling to acknowledge the spherical pupil in the western eye socket, despite its presence in three confirming images over three separate missions”

     Dark Mission 2010-07-22 ch14:3286-3438 opinion first hand

179. 179

     Mark Carlotto's earlier three-dimensional shape-from-shading analysis of the D&M Pyramid indicated that the feature near the crater might be a horizontal entrance point, either from a projectile or as an architectural entrance.

     “it seems to substantiate earlier 3D shape-from-shading work done by Mark Carlotto that indicated it might actually be a horizontal “entrance point,” either from a projectile or as an actual architectural entrance.”

     Dark Mission 2010-07-22 ch16:53343-53548 opinion second hand

180. 180

     Keith Laney produced a version of Thermal Emission Imaging System infrared data of Cydonia enhanced only by contrast stretch, for comparison against Mark Carlotto's analysis in 'The Martian Enigmas: A Closer Look'.

     “Fig. 10-3 - From "The Martian Enigmas: A Closer Look" by Dr. Mark Carlotto (left); and from Keith Laney's "real" version of THEMIS IR data. Laney image enhanced by contrast stretch only.”

     Dark Mission 2010-07-22 ch17:101903-102084 observation

181. 181

     On 2002-08-29, Mark Carlotto of the Society for Planetary SETI Research (SPSR) published his own analysis of the THEMIS Cydonia multispectral image.

     “Shortly before we published our revelation of the existence of two THEMIS Cydonia IR images, on August 29, 2002, SPSR’s Dr. Mark Carlotto put out his own analysis of the Cydonia multispectral image.”

     Dark Mission 2010-07-22 ch17:53730-53922 administrative first hand

182. 182

     Mark Carlotto's analysis of the THEMIS Cydonia multispectral image incorrectly referred to the infrared image file by the wrong file name, "E0201847.gif," rather than the correct name "20020724A".

     “the IR image is referred to as “E0201847.gif,” which is the wrong file name for the multispectral Cydonia image, “20020724A””

     Dark Mission 2010-07-22 ch17:54067-54204 observation first hand

183. 183

     Richard C. Hoagland considered Mark Carlotto's THEMIS Cydonia analysis to contain numerous misspellings and other mistakes, giving the project an air of haste and sloppiness compared to Carlotto's usual standards.

     “there were numerous misspellings and other obvious mistakes—which gave the whole project an air of haste and sloppiness. It did not seem to be up to Carlotto’s usual thorough standards”

     Dark Mission 2010-07-22 ch17:54230-54405 opinion first hand

184. 184

     Mark Carlotto compared the Mars Odyssey THEMIS data to terrestrial Landsat images, which Richard C. Hoagland considers a very inaccurate comparison.

     “Carlotto started out by comparing the Odyssey Martian THEMIS data to terrestrial Landsat images, a very inaccurate comparison to say the least.”

     Dark Mission 2010-07-22 ch17:54587-54724 opinion first hand

185. 185

     Mark Carlotto concluded in his analysis that various clays make up the composition of the region surrounding the Face on Mars.

     “He proceeded to conclude that there were various clays making up the composition of the region surrounding the Face.”

     Dark Mission 2010-07-22 ch17:55381-55492 opinion second hand

186. 186

     Richard C. Hoagland argues that Mark Carlotto could not validly conclude the composition of the region around the Face on Mars because calibration data for either version of the Cydonia infrared data had not yet been released.

     “Carlotto surely must have known that he could make no such conclusions, since the calibration data for either the official version or the “real” version of the Cydonia IR data had yet to be released.”

     Dark Mission 2010-07-22 ch17:55507-55697 opinion first hand

187. 187

     Mark Carlotto failed to perform a decorrelation-stretch on the Cydonia data, a step Richard C. Hoagland considers crucial for separating thermal data from composition information.

     “He also failed to perform a decorrelation-stretch, a step that is crucial for separating the thermal data from the composition information in the image.”

     Dark Mission 2010-07-22 ch17:55707-55853 opinion first hand

188. 188

     Mark Carlotto declared that the "real" version of the THEMIS Cydonia data obtained by Keith Laney was a degraded version of the "official" one.

     “Carlotto declared that clearly the “real” version we had posted was a degraded version of the “official” one.”

     Dark Mission 2010-07-22 ch17:56498-56603 opinion second hand

189. 189

     Mark Carlotto's comparison of the "real" and "official" THEMIS Cydonia datasets used only a single unnamed band from each, without a full composite, colour ratios, or decorrelation-stretch enhancement.

     “Carlotto had taken only a single unnamed band from the “real” data, and compared it to a single unnamed band from the “official” version. He had not done a full composite of the “real” image bands, not done any color ratios, nor performed a decorrelation-stretch”

     Dark Mission 2010-07-22 ch17:56694-56949 opinion first hand

190. 190

     Mark Carlotto is a world-class imaging expert and Department of Defense (DOD) contractor on classified imaging analyses.

     “Dr. Carlotto, a world-class imaging expert, and DOD contractor on a host of classified imaging analyses”

     Dark Mission 2010-07-22 ch17:59043-59138 administrative first hand

191. 191

     On the night of 2002-09-03, the authors and Keith Laney discussed Mark Carlotto's THEMIS Cydonia analysis article and concluded that Carlotto had erred badly.

     “The authors and Keith Laney conferenced about Carlotto’s article on the night of September 3. The general consensus was that Carlotto had effectively “polished a turd””

     Dark Mission 2010-07-22 ch17:59503-59665 opinion first hand

192. 192

     Richard C. Hoagland refused to accept that Mark Carlotto was as incompetent as his THEMIS Cydonia analysis made him seem, and defended Carlotto's skills and professionalism.

     “Hoagland, however, refused to buy into the notion that Carlotto was as incompetent as his analysis made it seem. He staunchly defended Carlotto’s skills and professionalism”

     Dark Mission 2010-07-22 ch17:59804-59961 opinion first hand

193. 193

     Mark Carlotto is a member of the Society for Planetary SETI Research (SPSR).

     “Considering Carlotto’s membership in SPSR”

     Dark Mission 2010-07-22 ch17:60082-60119 administrative

194. 194

     Mike Bara e-mailed Mark Carlotto informing him he had made several errors in his article and advising him to withdraw it until Hoagland and Bara published their own analysis.

     “Bara subsequently e-mailed Carlotto, informing him he’d made several errors in his article, and advising him to pull it, at least until we published our own analysis.”

     Dark Mission 2010-07-22 ch17:60456-60613 testimony first hand

195. 195

     Mark Carlotto's paper on the THEMIS Cydonia image was peer reviewed by Horace Crater, a statistical analyst with no known working experience in thermal infrared imaging.

     “that his paper had been peer reviewed (by Dr. Horace Crater, a statistical analyst who has no working experience we are aware of with thermal IR)”

     Dark Mission 2010-07-22 ch17:60784-60926 opinion first hand

196. 196

     On 2002-09-04, Mark Carlotto and Richard C. Hoagland had a telephone conversation after Carlotto obtained Hoagland's phone number from Mike Bara.

     “Carlotto e-mailed Bara back, got Hoagland’s phone number, and the two men had a chat on September 4.”

     Dark Mission 2010-07-22 ch17:61062-61160 administrative

197. 197

     During the 2002-09-04 conversation, Mark Carlotto was concerned that his previously published paper would be made obsolete by Hoagland and Bara's article.

     “According to Hoagland, what Carlotto seemed most concerned about was that his previously published paper would be made obsolete by our article.”

     Dark Mission 2010-07-22 ch17:61164-61299 testimony first hand

198. 198

     Mark Carlotto stated he had written his own decorrelation-stretch algorithm.

     “which included Carlotto pointing out that he’d written his own decorrelation-stretch algorithm”

     Dark Mission 2010-07-22 ch17:61341-61426 testimony second hand

199. 199

     Mark Carlotto agreed to take the 'real' Cydonia THEMIS image and perform the composite, colour-ratio and decorrelation-stretch steps on it, and report the results to Richard C. Hoagland by phone or e-mail.

     “Carlotto agreed to take the “real” image, perform all of the proper steps (composite, color ratios and decorrelation-stretch) on it, and either call or e-mail Hoagland with his results.”

     Dark Mission 2010-07-22 ch17:61437-61615 testimony first hand

200. 200

     Mark Carlotto never reported back the analysis results he had agreed to perform on the 'real' Cydonia THEMIS image.

     “That never happened.”

     Dark Mission 2010-07-22 ch17:61624-61635 testimony first hand

201. 201

     Instead of the agreed multispectral analysis, Mark Carlotto subjected the official ASU version of the Cydonia THEMIS image to a series of contrast and blur filters in an attempt to show that the Laney image was a degraded version of the official one.

     “Carlotto decided instead to take the “official” version of the Cydonia THEMIS image and subject it to a series of contrast and blur filters in an apparent attempt to “prove” that the Laney image was generated by degrading the official one.”

     Dark Mission 2010-07-22 ch17:61999-62234 opinion first hand

202. 202

     Mark Carlotto used only a single band image, not a composite, for his comparison test of the Cydonia THEMIS data.

     “He did this by taking only a single band image, not a composite”

     Dark Mission 2010-07-22 ch17:62239-62293 opinion first hand

203. 203

     Mark Carlotto concluded that the similarity of the Laney image to the 'real' top-left image strongly suggested that the Enterprise Mission image was an altered version of the Arizona State University image.

     “This led him to conclude “its similarity to the top left [“real”] image strongly suggests that the Enterprise image is an altered version of the ASU image.””

     Dark Mission 2010-07-22 ch17:62411-62560 opinion second hand

204. 204

     Mark Carlotto claimed that because the Laney image changes from band to band in the unratioed grayscale it is a distorted version of the official Arizona State University release.

     “He then goes on to claim that because the Laney image changes from band to band in the unratioed grayscale it is a “distorted” version of the “official” ASU release.”

     Dark Mission 2010-07-22 ch17:62569-62726 opinion second hand

205. 205

     Keith Laney successfully corrected the minute geometric shifts between Thermal Emission Imaging System (THEMIS) bands, which Mark Carlotto failed to do.

     “Of course, had he simply read the camera specs, he would have known this, and physically corrected (as Laney has successfully) for the minute geometric shifts.”

     Dark Mission 2010-07-22 ch17:63675-63827 opinion first hand

206. 206

     At Richard C. Hoagland's and Mike Bara's request, Keith Laney produced an image similar to the section Mark Carlotto had analysed, but with the various bands properly aligned geometrically, taking about five minutes to do so.

     “Keith Laney, at our request, produced an image similar to the section that Carlotto had done, only with the various bands properly aligned geometrically. It took him all of five minutes.”

     Dark Mission 2010-07-22 ch17:64041-64220 testimony first hand

207. 207

     Mark Carlotto had initially declared that the Laney image was the degraded one.

     “his initial declaration “that the Laney image is the degraded one” is flat out wrong”

     Dark Mission 2010-07-22 ch17:65091-65170 opinion second hand

208. 208

     Mark Carlotto parroted the position of Philip Christensen of Arizona State University in declaring that the Laney Cydonia data was degraded.

     “In effect, Carlotto had simply parroted the position of Dr. Phillip Christensen of ASU by declaring that the Laney data is “degraded,””

     Dark Mission 2010-07-22 ch17:66727-66852 opinion first hand

209. 209

     A reader named Wil Faust suggested comparing Mark Carlotto's own fractal analysis of the Cydonia region from Viking data against Hoagland and Bara's infrared results.

     “A reader, Wil Faust, made a truly inspired suggestion to us. Why not compare, he said, Carlotto’s own seminal work—his *fractal* analysis of the Cydonia region from the Viking data—to our own IR results?”

     Dark Mission 2010-07-22 ch17:67360-67555 testimony second hand

210. 210

     Using Mark Carlotto's own fractal-analysis methodology on a single band of Keith Laney's 'real' infrared image strip compared against Carlotto's fractal analysis of Viking frames 35A72 and 70A13 revealed that the Thermal Emission Imaging System (THEMIS) blocks Carlotto now attributed to enhancement or filtering artifacts were visible in his own twelve-year-old work and matched the blocks on the Laney image one for one.

     “Not only are the THEMIS blocks—which Carlotto now flatly claims are “enhancement” or “filtering” artifacts—clearly visible on *his own work* from twelve years ago, but they match up very precisely with the blocks on the Laney image, *literarily one for one*”

     Dark Mission 2010-07-22 ch17:67844-68097 observation first hand

211. 211

     Hoagland and Bara challenged Mark Carlotto, as they had in 2002, to produce and publish the composite, colour-ratio and decorrelation-stretch results from the multispectral analysis he had promised Richard C. Hoagland he would perform on the leaked Thermal Emission Imaging System (THEMIS) image.

     “We simply challenge him again in this volume—as we did in 2002—to produce and *publish* the composites, color ratios and decorrelation-stretch results from the appropriate multi-spectral analysis he promised Richard Hoagland he would do on the “leaked” THEMIS image.”

     Dark Mission 2010-07-22 ch17:69205-69466 testimony first hand

212. 212

     Mark Carlotto's enhancements revealed that the D&M Pyramid appeared to be a five-sided pentagonal object rather than a four-sided one as Vince Dipietro had originally argued.

     “Enhancements by Carlotto revealed that the “D&M” seemed to be a *five-sided pentagonal* object, rather than four-sided, as Dipietro had argued”

     Dark Mission 2010-07-22 ch8:11745-11881 observation second hand

213. 213

     Mark Carlotto developed a fractal analysis technique to discern which objects in an image were least consistent with the natural background, applied to the Cydonia images.

     “Dr. Carlotto moved the research in a new direction when he developed a fractal analysis technique, to discern which objects in an image were the least consistent with the “natural” background, to be used on the Cydonia images.”

     Dark Mission 2010-07-22 ch8:15429-15648 administrative

214. 214

     After an initial study of about 3,000 square kilometres around the Face on Mars, Mark Carlotto and Michael C. Stein determined that the Face and the Fortress were the two most non-fractal objects in that terrain.

     “After an initial study of about 3,000 square kilometers around the Face, Carlotto and his partner, Michael C. Stein, determined that the Face and the Fortress were the two most “non-fractal” objects in that terrain.”

     Dark Mission 2010-07-22 ch8:15656-15863 measurement second hand

215. 215

     Mark Carlotto and Michael C. Stein extended their fractal analysis to cover approximately 15,000 square kilometres around the Face on Mars, and the results were consistent with the earlier, smaller study, with the Face remaining by far the most non-natural object in the surveyed terrain.

     “Pressed to go even further, they eventually used the program on images covering some 15,000 square kilometers around the Face. The results were consistent with the earlier run-through. The Face was by far the most non-natural object in the surveyed terrain.”

     Dark Mission 2010-07-22 ch8:15872-16121 measurement second hand

216. 216

     Michael Malin, responding for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), argued that Mark Carlotto's fractal analysis had only shown that the Face on Mars was different rather than artificial, and suggested that applying the technique to a broader area would smooth out the curve and show the Face was not unusual.

     “NASA responded through Dr. Malin to the effect that Carlotto had not measured anything other than the fact that the Face was different, rather than artificial, and suggested that if he applied the technique to a broader area, he would find that the curve would smooth out, and that the Face was not all that unusual.”

     Dark Mission 2010-07-22 ch8:16130-16438 opinion second hand

217. 217

     Mark Carlotto had already expanded his fractal survey of the Face on Mars from 3,000 to 15,000 square kilometres, and contrary to Michael Malin's assertion, the Face's uniqueness became even more pronounced at the larger scale.

     “This response ignored the fact that Carlotto had already done just that by expanding the survey from 3,000 square kilometers to 15,000 and that, contrary to Malin’s assertions, the Face’s uniqueness was even more pronounced.”

     Dark Mission 2010-07-22 ch8:16448-16661 measurement second hand

218. 218

     Lacking funds to expand his fractal-analysis research further, Mark Carlotto offered to turn the program over to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) so the agency could continue the survey over the entire Martian surface, but NASA declined.

     “Lacking the funds to expand the research even further, Carlotto offered to turn the program over to NASA so that the agency could continue the survey over the entire Martian surface. NASA’s response was a polite “thanks, but no thanks.””

     Dark Mission 2010-07-22 ch8:16673-16901 administrative second hand

219. 219

     Under enhancements by Mark Carlotto, the 70A13 image of the Face on Mars revealed what appeared to be teeth in the mouth, bilaterally crossed lines on the forehead, and lateral striping on the western half.

     “This image also eventually revealed (under enhancements by Dr. Mark Carlotto) what appeared to be teeth in the mouth, bilaterally crossed lines on the forehead and lateral striping on the western half.”

     Dark Mission 2010-07-22 ch8:8275-8471 observation second hand

220. 220

     Mark Carlotto joined the second Mars research group organised by Richard C. Hoagland, the Mars Investigation Group, in 1985.

     “Dr. Mark Carlotto had been brought in to the second Mars research group organized by Hoagland, the Mars Investigation Group, in 1985.”

     Dark Mission 2010-07-22 ch8:9107-9235 administrative

221. 221

     Mark Carlotto used new imaging techniques that brought out more detail from the two Viking images of the Face on Mars than Vince Dipietro and Greg Molenaar's earlier method had.

     “He used new imaging techniques to bring out more detail than Dipietro and Molenaar’s earlier method had from the two Viking images.”

     Dark Mission 2010-07-22 ch8:9241-9365 observation

222. 222

     Mark Carlotto is a colleague of Maaneli "Max" Derakhshani at the Society for Planetary SETI Research.

     “Dr. Carlotto is a colleague of mine at the Society for Planetary SETI Research.”

     What Did Apollo Astronauts Really See on the Moon? | Reality Check with Ross Coulthart 2026-08-10 00:20:03.9-00:20:08.5 administrative first hand

223. 223

     Mark Carlotto has done extensive work on lunar and Mars anomalies over the decades.

     “He's also done a lot of work on lunar and Mars anomalies over the decades.”

     What Did Apollo Astronauts Really See on the Moon? | Reality Check with Ross Coulthart 2026-08-10 00:20:09.3-00:20:13.6 administrative first hand

224. 224

     National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has never officially addressed the questions raised about the STS-48 UAP incident by Mark Carlotto, Maaneli "Max" Derakhshani, or other commentators.

     “NASA's never really addressed, though, the questions that have been raised by Dr. Mark Colotto, yourself or other commentators, have they? Not officially.”

     What Did Apollo Astronauts Really See on the Moon? | Reality Check with Ross Coulthart 2026-08-10 00:31:46.4-00:31:56.9 testimony first hand

225. 225

     James Oberg of National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has had back-and-forth exchanges with Mark Carlotto and Jack Kasher regarding the STS-48 UAP incident, but did not do so officially on behalf of NASA.

     “There is one person from NASA, James Oberg, who has had some back and forth with Dr. Carlotto, as well as my colleague, Jack Kasher, who also wrote this really extensive study of the STS-48 video. But he seemed to do this basically on his own. not necessarily officially on behalf of NASA.”

     What Did Apollo Astronauts Really See on the Moon? | Reality Check with Ross Coulthart 2026-08-10 00:32:50.5-00:33:12.7 testimony first hand

226. 226

     Jack Kasher, Mark Carlotto, Mike Barra, and Richard Hoagland have raised anomalies or problems with National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)'s ice-debris explanation for the STS-48 UAP incident that Maaneli "Max" Derakhshani has never seen satisfactorily explained by NASA or any NASA scientists or engineers.

     “there are anomalies or problems with that explanation that have been made very clear by Dr. Kasher, Dr. Carlotto, Mike Barra, Richard Hoagland. in various places that I've never seen any satisfactory explanation for from NASA or any NASA scientists or engineers.”

     What Did Apollo Astronauts Really See on the Moon? | Reality Check with Ross Coulthart 2026-08-10 00:33:28.6-00:33:46.1 opinion first hand

227. 227

     Maaneli "Max" Derakhshani argues that Mark Carlotto, Jack Kasher, and Richard Hoagland have provided ample evidence that the main unidentified aerial phenomenon (UAP) of interest in the STS-48 UAP incident was at least 160 kilometres or further from Space Shuttle Discovery (STS-48).

     “If you can answer that question and you can show that it's at 100 miles or further away from the shuttle, which I would argue that you can. And I think Carlotto, Kasher and Hoagland and others have provided ample evidence to that conclusion.”

     What Did Apollo Astronauts Really See on the Moon? | Reality Check with Ross Coulthart 2026-08-10 00:37:07.1-00:37:20.1 opinion first hand

228. 228

     Mark Carlotto states in his research paper on the STS-48 UAP incident that there is some correlation between Defense Support Program (DSP) satellite data at the time over that region of Earth and what was observed in the STS-48 UAP incident, with Carlotto providing a reference for this in his paper.

     “Carlotto himself does say that there is some sort of correlation between the DSP satellite data at the time over that region of the Earth and what was seen in STS-48 and he actually gives a reference for this in his research paper on the topic.”

     What Did Apollo Astronauts Really See on the Moon? | Reality Check with Ross Coulthart 2026-08-10 00:44:10.6-00:44:29.2 testimony second hand

229. 229

     Mark Carlotto determined that the city lights visible in the STS-80 UAP incident footage are probably Puerto Rico.

     “I believe Carlotto determines that this is probably Puerto Rico.”

     What Did Apollo Astronauts Really See on the Moon? | Reality Check with Ross Coulthart 2026-08-10 00:45:55.4-00:45:58.9 testimony second hand

230. 230

     Mark Carlotto speculates that the object seen in the STS-80 UAP incident footage could originate either from the clouds or from the ocean surface, though this is uncertain.

     “Carlotto himself speculates that it could be either coming up from the clouds or from the ocean itself, so the surface itself, but It's hard to say.”

     What Did Apollo Astronauts Really See on the Moon? | Reality Check with Ross Coulthart 2026-08-10 00:47:17.1-00:47:34.5 testimony second hand

231. 231

     Dr. Mark Carlotto's 2005 STS-80 analysis paper analysed the propulsive capabilities of the object referred to as F1 in the STS-80 UAP incident footage, using a time-lapse sequence of photographs.

     “Dr. Carlotto has analyzed this footage in this paper from 2005, I believe it was published. And he actually calculates that this object is moving at, he calls it F1, and he has a time lapse sequence photographs for this object of interest.”

     What Did Apollo Astronauts Really See on the Moon? | Reality Check with Ross Coulthart 2026-08-10 00:48:42.3-00:49:10.2 testimony second hand

232. 232

     Dr. Mark Carlotto's 2005 STS-80 analysis paper calculated the speed of the F1 object in the STS-80 UAP incident footage at approximately 800 kilometres per second.

     “500 miles a second”

     What Did Apollo Astronauts Really See on the Moon? | Reality Check with Ross Coulthart 2026-08-10 00:49:51.8-00:49:52.6 measurement second hand

233. 233

     Maaneli "Max" Derakhshani believes Tom Jones's ice-and-debris explanation does not fit the STS-80 footage, citing Mark Carlotto's analysis as showing the explanation does not fit at all.

     “on further analysis, I think, for example, Carlotto's analysis shows clearly that it doesn't fit that explanation at all.”

     What Did Apollo Astronauts Really See on the Moon? | Reality Check with Ross Coulthart 2026-08-10 00:55:34.2-00:55:41.0 opinion second hand

234. 234

     According to James Oberg as quoted by Mark Carlotto, when Oberg asked Story Musgrave, who is not shy about discussing anomalies, Musgrave assured Oberg that he saw nothing unusual during the STS-80 flight.

     “According to James Ober, quote, when I asked crewman Story Musgrave, who is not shy about talking about anomalies of any kind, he assured me he saw nothing unusual on the flight STS-80.”

     What Did Apollo Astronauts Really See on the Moon? | Reality Check with Ross Coulthart 2026-08-10 00:57:11.8-00:57:21.6 testimony third hand