It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Twentith anniversary STS-75 Tether Break

page: 2
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 02:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: jimmyx
I still say the video of "space" (?), shows the movement of objects that look like they are floating in water, not "space"....my 2 cents.


Many people get that impression, but these videos are authentic and are from the spaceflight in question. If you try to keep forcing outer space visual perceptions into the framework that evolved down on Earth, and in each person's brain is trained down on Earth, you will consistently misinterpret the visual cues. You're not alone by any means.




posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 02:48 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


originally posted by: NobodiesNormal
incorrect, if its ufo's none of your other questions exist, they all are easily understood,
if its ice then why do they have that shape?

Because of the way the camera lens was made.


why do they pulsate?

Probably because they are not perfectly symmetrical and are rotating.


why are they such a great distance away?

They aren't.


why are they such a great size?

If they are not a great distance away then they are not of a great size.

PS: although I think those were ice crystals or similar objects, I also think that not everything is explained about the movements, but saying that they were "UFOs" explains even less, as it's the same thing as saying "it was something".

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



edit on 25/2/2016 by ArMaP because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 04:25 PM
link   
a reply to: ArMaP

the questions were rhetorical guess i shoulda put a disclaimer, the point was that his theory creates more questions then it answers,

i could waste more time furthering this argument, but seeing how easy it is for people to completely ignore the flight paths, how difficult it seems to be for people to comprehend those flight paths, i feel this is going nowhere. no one can present a comprehensible explanation of how ice particles could behave the way those flight paths demonstrate they are behaving, so instead you posters are attacking every other argument to distract from that point, this just shows your intentions are not truth but instead bias. and arguing against bias is no better then beating your head against a wall.


if those craft are intelligently controlled then that easily explains the peculiar flight paths, the other questions would also be much much easier to answer then they are with that bull# ice particle theory.



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 06:46 PM
link   
a reply to: NobodiesNormal


I made some effort to address exactly the points you mention, wouldn't it be reasonable to respond to those comments?

For example, the four day delay between break and swarm -- one might suspect you don't want to talk about it because it doesn't fit the hypothesis you favor?



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 07:07 PM
link   
Twenty year old UFO.
That was the same year Star Trek: First Contact came out..
Vintage Steppenwolf?



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 08:24 PM
link   
i do think this is a futile and stupid argument you all are participating in, its old news get over it theres plenty new things in this world to focus on
edit on 2/25/16 by pryingopen3rdeye because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 03:19 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


originally posted by: NobodiesNormal
a reply to: ArMaP
i could waste more time furthering this argument, but seeing how easy it is for people to completely ignore the flight paths, how difficult it seems to be for people to comprehend those flight paths, i feel this is going nowhere.

I didn't ignore the flight paths, I even specifically talked about them.

I'm not sure about it (I didn't watch the video this time, only when LunaCognita posted it originally), but I think that all changes in direction of the flight paths are from a generally moving up to a generally moving down direction, without any change from down to up, and that, to me, doesn't show a sign of intelligent control, it shows more the result of an external force acting on those objects.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 10:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: ArMaP
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


originally posted by: NobodiesNormal
a reply to: ArMaP
i could waste more time furthering this argument, but seeing how easy it is for people to completely ignore the flight paths, how difficult it seems to be for people to comprehend those flight paths, i feel this is going nowhere.

I didn't ignore the flight paths, I even specifically talked about them.

I'm not sure about it (I didn't watch the video this time, only when LunaCognita posted it originally), but I think that all changes in direction of the flight paths are from a generally moving up to a generally moving down direction, without any change from down to up, and that, to me, doesn't show a sign of intelligent control, it shows more the result of an external force acting on those objects.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.


you have me making more effort to invalidate your point then you are making to validate your own, this is why i will not participate in this any further then this last post. it is a waste of my time.

with your assertion in mind i rewatched the video specifically looking this time for any flight paths that turn from downward to upward, with 1 watch with such assertion in mind i easily spotted 2 such examples.

at 7:24 you see one on the right side of the screen turn from an upward trajectory to a downward trajectory and then turn around again heading back upward,

at 8:35 you see one on the right edge of the screen come in from off screen with a downward trajectory it turns upwards and continues its path. you can see it again at 8:55

also on this point, whether the majority turns from up to down is completely irrelevant, it proves nothing, if what we are seeing was ice particles being hit by a thruster causing their change in course ALL the particles would change into the SAME course and they would do so abruptly. instead we see particles turning to the left of the screen, the right of the screen, the top of the screen, the bottom of the screen, all 4 corners of the screen, some continuing straight along without alteration at all, and even a few that make single little corkscrew rotations in their path before continuing right along the same trajectory, and they all do so gently with arching curves, not what we would expect at all from light little ice particles being hit by a thruster.

and you say you havent watched the video since it was first posted which was in Jun 29, 2009...........
this just exemplifies what im saying, your so set in your belief you wouldnt even spend the time to watch the video once more before making your statements to verify they were accurate.

why should i bother debating something with someone who makes so little effort to even verify their own statements before making them, i see this same behavior from the entire "ice particle" crowd here. which is why i regret even bothering to post in this thread, waste of time..

there is nothing on this earth that can be typed in this thread which will alter the opinions of any of its participants, i know no more valid a definition of a waste of time.



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 02:18 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


originally posted by: NobodiesNormal
at 7:24 you see one on the right side of the screen turn from an upward trajectory to a downward trajectory and then turn around again heading back upward,

at 8:35 you see one on the right edge of the screen come in from off screen with a downward trajectory it turns upwards and continues its path. you can see it again at 8:55

Thanks for the information, I will watch those two situations.



also on this point, whether the majority turns from up to down is completely irrelevant, it proves nothing, if what we are seeing was ice particles being hit by a thruster causing their change in course ALL the particles would change into the SAME course and they would do so abruptly.

That's why I don't think the movements are the result of the thrusters, as the movements are different from those in other occasions that do look like the result of the thrusters being activated.


and you say you havent watched the video since it was first posted which was in Jun 29, 2009...........
this just exemplifies what im saying, your so set in your belief you wouldnt even spend the time to watch the video once more before making your statements to verify they were accurate.

It's not a question of being set on my beliefs, it's a question of lack of time.
If you show me evidence of those being alien craft or plasma creatures or whatever I will add that to the list of possible explanations (the way I classify the ice crystals explanation).
Just saying "UFOs" because we can't explain the movements of what (to me) looks like small objects out of focus doesn't work for me.


why should i bother debating something with someone who makes so little effort to even verify their own statements before making them, i see this same behavior from the entire "ice particle" crowd here. which is why i regret even bothering to post in this thread, waste of time..

Maybe for the same reason I spend my time doing it (when I have it), so other people can read and maybe learn something from my opinion.


there is nothing on this earth that can be typed in this thread which will alter the opinions of any of its participants, i know no more valid a definition of a waste of time.

That's because you have made up your mind about how I am and assume there's nothing that can change my mind.

You are wrong.


Edited to add that I don't see the object at 7:24 returning to an upward motion, but I see the other one and I remember it.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



edit on 26/2/2016 by ArMaP because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 05:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: NobodiesNormal...
, if what we are seeing was ice particles being hit by a thruster causing their change in course ALL the particles would change into the SAME course and they would do so abruptly. .....


Thanks for verifying that your mind is totally earthbound and has no clue why motion [and illumination] are fundamentally different in the space environment. It explains why you are unable to even understand, much less properly assess, other explanations for these videos aside from the 'magical' proclamation that 'a miracle occurs'.

It's why I started this thread on the spaceflight forum and not on the UFO forum, because folks hereabouts are interested in space-related subjects with the goal of understanding them, not of defiantly MISunderstanding them.

The typical cloud of small nearby stuff generated by spacecraft floats along in orbit with it, at various ranges and directions. A large, complicated-shaped vehicle like the shuttle, when firing thrusters, sends a wide plume off in certain directions where it can be blocked by structures, creating zones where some flakes are sheltered from impact while others, farther away along the line of sigh [in the 3rd dimension], are well within the plume. Other localized mass-flow effects [such as air venting from the airlock, or water vapor from the flash evaporator] will impact particles near them but not others farther away.

ADD - As already mentioned, particles change relative motion from other effects, such as air drag, solar heating induced outgassing, orbital mechanics effect [even a vertical difference as small as 100 meters will displace objects by as much as 10 meters per minute], and others familiar to experienced spaceflight operators.
edit on 26-2-2016 by JimOberg because: add



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 06:12 PM
link   
My home page has numerous data files and images and documents and video links on the tether break and 'UFO swarm' period, mostly information long-ago released by NASA but actively suppressed by the UFO media.

www.jamesoberg.com...

For those interested in original research on this admittedly weird-looking video sequence, here's a task that would contribute to scholarship -- take the 'scene list' documents of all downlink video over the several hours of activity during the tether fly-past, and index them ['reconcile' them] to the clock time in the full original videos currently on youtube -- but not reachable from pro-UFO sites where site owners delete all attempts to post links to those videos there.

It's also important to correlate images with the shuttle's orientation and the windows through which the astronauts took photos.

This is all genuine spaceflight history that has never been done yet, that 'amateur' space history enthusiasts can make significantly helpful contributions to.



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 06:21 PM
link   
Just want to add this for those who think they see UFO's around the tether.


NASA STS-75 TETHER UFO HOUSTON/ASTRONAUT DIALOGUE DEBRIS FLYING IN CAMERA VIEW





posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 05:15 AM
link   
FOUR DAYS after the tether broke and drifted out of sight, the shuttle's orbit carries the astronauts back past the tether. They video the view.

www.youtube.com...

Days earlier, the shuttle had resume normal operations including regular water dumps.
edit on 27-2-2016 by JimOberg because: typo



posted on Mar, 3 2016 @ 09:49 AM
link   
I'm curious about how the misconception arose that the 'UFO swarm' showed up directly after the tether broke and drifted away, instead of four days later after the shuttle had resumed normal orbital operations [including routine water dumps]. I'd appreciate hearing from folks who were under that misimpression to tell me how they had been led to believe it was an immediate reaction to the break.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join