After doing quite a bit of reading, research and thinking, I hope I can offer some science that may back the video evidence gathered by the shuttle
missions of STS-75 and 80.
Firstly, here is the raw STS-75 footage:
Look at some of the objects, all very similar in appearance. For a start, some seem to phase in and out of the visible spectrum*(the use of the phrase
"visible spectrum" is a loosely based theory in this case). The word dimension could also be used..
Now to the STS-80 footage. The same phenomena seems to occur (similar shaped/reactive objects), however there are notably less objects/anomalies on
this occasion. In this case it seems the lightning storms ocuring below draw the objects in. Or perhaps, the lightning is some type of side effect of
the objects interactive with the upper atmosphere?
I have also added still images (below) taken from the videos to demonstrate the similarity of the objects from both missions.
STS-75 Still Images
STS-80 Still Images
After tracking this object for several minutes, the camera operator notices more objects/anomalies moving in formation:
In regard to STS-75 incident consider that the tether was approx 12 miles in length. Some of the objects that pass behind the tether appear to be very
large (using the tether as reference)
The experiment during the mission (STS-75) used an "electro-conducive" space tether.
The electrons are traveling at approximately 188 km/s throughout LEO. This means that the orbiting body is traveling faster than the ions and slower
than the electrons, or at a mesosonic speed. This results in a unique phenomenon whereby the orbiting body 'rams' through the surrounding ions in the
plasma creating a beam like effect in the reference frame of the orbiting body.
There are three active electron emission technologies usually considered for EDT applications: hollow cathode plasma contactors (HCPCs), thermionic
cathodes (TCs), and field emitter arrays (FEAs). System level configurations will be presented for each device, as well as the relative costs,
benefits, and validation.
Electronic polarization: This resonant process occurs in a neutral atom when the electric field displaces the electron density relative to the nucleus
This displacement occurs due to the equilibrium between restoration and electric forces. Electronic polarization may be understood by assuming an atom
as a point nucleus surrounded by spherical electron cloud of uniform charge density.
Dispersion may be caused either by geometric boundary conditions (waveguides, shallow water) or by interaction of the waves with the transmitting
medium. Elementary particles, considered as matter waves, have a nontrivial dispersion relation even in the absence of geometric constraints and other
Quantum theory tells us that every particle exhibits wave properties. In particular, massive particles can interfere and therefore diffract.
Diffraction of electrons and neutrons stood as one of the powerful arguments in favor of quantum mechanics. The wavelength associated with a particle
is the de Broglie De Broglie equation wavelength.
Ionization is the process by which an atom or a molecule acquires a negative or positive charge by gaining or losing electrons to form ions, often in
conjunction with other chemical changes. Ionization can result from the loss of an electron after collisions with sub atomic particles, collisions
with other atoms, molecules and ions, or through the interaction with light.
In plasma physics, an electromagnetic electron wave is a wave in a plasma which has a magnetic field component and in which primarily the electrons
In an unmagnetized plasma, an electromagnetic electron wave is simply a light wave modified by the plasma. In a magnetized plasma, there are two modes
perpendicular to the field, the O and X modes, and two modes parallel to the field, the R and L waves.
A plasma consists of fluid of positive and negative charged particles, generally created by heating or photo-ionizing (direct / tunneling /
multi-photon / barrier-suppression) a dilute gas. Under normal conditions the plasma will be macroscopically neutral (or quasi-neutral), an equal mix
of electrons and ions in equilibrium. However, if a strong enough external electric or electromagnetic field is applied, the plasma electrons, which
are very light in comparison to the background ions (at least by a factor of 1836), will separate spatially from the massive ions creating a charge
imbalance in the perturbed region. A particle injected into such a plasma would be accelerated by the charge separation field, but since the magnitude
of this separation is generally similar to that of the external field, apparently nothing is gained in comparison to a conventional system that simply
applies the field directly to the particle. But, the plasma medium acts as the most efficient transformer (currently known) of the transverse field of
an electromagnetic wave into longitudinal fields of a plasma wave.
Not debunking or anything, I find this stuff interesting, however, people are always using the length of the tether to gauge the size of the objects
near to it.
The tether as shown is not twelve miles long. When it broke it coiled up, its much more likely to be about three miles long.
The way they officially use "debris" to answer the "what is that" questions so often, one would think that with every piece of hardware they
transport into orbit, they also carry 20 pounds of metal shavings, saw ends, and extra smaller hardware they can toss out into space alongside every
space walking mission
I'm sorry but what are we meant to be looking at here? Giant objects behind the tether? All I can see is lots of very out of focus particles very
close to the lens. You can tell that they are very close to the camera because of the huge change in appearance when the camera focus changes. They
are so blurred that trying to identify them is pretty pointless.
So am I understanding that the conductive wire is generating/attracting plasma? It's really fascinating...
I cant help thinking it appears like either sea life or microscopic organism, but in space. And considering plankton might be able to survive in
space... is it possible sea life evolved some sort of plasma form? Or is it just electricity 'acting' like life? Or is it like viewing the origins
of electricity being a part of every living system (neurotransmitters and all)! I thirst for answers
I'm afraid you wasted a lot of posting time and research over what is essentially dust and debris produced by the Shuttle.
Shuttle orbiters did produce debris during their orbital operations. Shuttle astronaut Tom Jones says:
On every mission you see lots of debris that is released from the shuttle’s payload bay, or frozen propellant from the main engines or the
thrusters that drifts along with you, in some cases for several days after you arrive in orbit. And so that little cloud of particles gets captured by
the low light TV cameras on the space shuttle that are used by the ground controllers at night, and when those wind up on video, and if you don’t
know the context for when those pictures were taken, those little particles might seem to you like distant stars or moving objects in space. The video
I have seen in STS-80 is just that. It’s the low light TV camera capturing those ice particles in the very near field, only 10 or 20 feet away, and
in the camera view they look like they are flashing, in fact they are just tumbling little ice flakes.
There are more than 50 sources of ice on the shuttle, plus a steady source of debris such as insulation flakes from inside the payload bay. This
includes 38 primary RCS jets and 6 vernier jets (which burn the hypergolic [self-igniting] propellants of nitrogen tetroxide and hydrazine), an air
dump line, a waste water dump line, a supply water dump line, two fuel cell purge lines (the hydrogen one is always leaking water), two flash
evaporators, a water spray boiler, and so forth. No surprise, then, that floating debris near the shuttle is a common sight. The particles usually
(not always) spin, and depending on the axis of spin they may or may not flash, and depending on the speed of spin their flicker may or may not be
picked up by the camera CCD scanner.
I havent wasted any time... The more you can grasp the science of what is happening in these clips, the clearer it becomes.
Does this make it clear enough?
There are your "notched translucent UFOs..." but oh dear, it's just lights and bright spots on Mir that are out of focus. The shapes in the tether
videos indicate that the particles involved are out of focus "circles of confusion" revealing the shape of the optics, not having anything to do
with the true shape of the light source involved. They are also translucent, so the much brighter tether will be seen through it and overwhelm the
detector, making it appear to be "in front of" the circle of confusion.
That is no explanation at all. Using a blinking light on that object to explain all of those things?
You don't even know all of the answers, but are jumping on the bandwagon of acceptability. That social niche that gives the thumbs up to those towing
the "accepted" line/...
This is always obvious when those like you leave out lots of unanswered details. This doesn't mean that I think they are living or aliens, it means
the unanswered part is not being fully explained. This behavior is quite transparent to a lot of people.
edit on 25-8-2014 by NoCorruptionAllowed because: (no reason given)
I think the bit about those things being Shuttle-produced debris has been explained well. Instead of attacking those who provide answers, why not
examine those answers and, if you don't agree with them, provide valid refuation?
Are people who jump on the UFO bandwagon any better than people who jump on the mainstream bandwagon?
Look at the supposed "Donut UFO" photos towards the bottom of the first post in that thread. If you can't see that they are out-of-focus light sources
hugely distorted by a lens then I've got a few dozen UFO photos to sell you myself ;-)
edit on 25-8-2014 by Rob48 because: (no reason
That is no explanation at all. Using a blinking light on that object to explain all of those things?
You're missing the point; the shape itself proves that the objects were small, close in to the camera and out of focus. They change in brightness
because they're tumbling (or in this case because they literally are blinking lights on a fixed space station but that's to demonstrate this effect
for you on a known object you can't claim is anomalous) and variably bright, but the overall shape doesn't change because they're out of focus and the
circle of confusion is showing the shape of the optics, not the objects. This is the basic misunderstanding that exists about these videos which the
Mir footage above proves.
You don't even know all of the answers,
I never claimed to "know all the answers." That's a cop out cliche canard, but I know this answer, especially from doing a lot of photography using
an optic that has a central obstruction like that creating donut shapes in out of focus objects.
edit on 25-8-2014 by ngchunter because: (no
The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.
All content copyright 2016, The Above Network, LLC.