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.

 

STS-75 Tether Incident - Mystery solved! Breaking News!

page: 5
12
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 18 2008 @ 02:15 PM
link   


Your examples do not even slightly resemble what we see in the STS 75 footage.


Because they are not out of focus. You asked me to show you space debris so I did.



But I'll let other members make their own decisions regarding your complete disregarding of the physics involved in this situation, and of the experiment itself, and the resulting tether snap accident.


Yes....I've been completely ignoring that.....obviously you didn't read all of my posts. Try again.




If you aren't even going to acknowledge that the footage is simply a segment of a longer portion, and that mission control and the astronauts are referring to debris from the tether, it really isn't worth my time to continue here. I'm sorry, but you've debunked nothing.


I acknowledged it! That's why I asked YOU to show me the entire footage including the segment where they are talking about debris from the tether and not the normal debris that's around them.

Yet you failed to show me that footage.

I believe you're kind of p**ed because I proved my point and disproved almost everything you said


But y'know what? It doesn't matter because there's always going to be someone like you..




posted on Mar, 18 2008 @ 02:36 PM
link   
Just thought I would add to the discussion by posting a link to a thread I started a while ago, which followed one of the objects in question.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The odds that one of the objects can appear from nowhere move up across the tether, collide with another object which causes it to SLOW and eventually come to a FULL STOP, then moments later it is hit by another object that sends it back in exactly the same direction it came from must be huge and dont seem to work out in my head when I think about it!

Also the explanation of dust/debris doesnt really work when you examine the formation over africa footage as I think someone as already pointed out!



posted on Mar, 18 2008 @ 02:37 PM
link   
All this proves is that the camera couldn't focus on the points of light and we see an artifact of the lens aperture (the ring with the slice out of it) it DOES NOT prove or solve why the objects change direction and speed (not bouncing of each other!) sorry this is FAR FROM SOLVED



posted on Mar, 18 2008 @ 02:42 PM
link   
The tether that you're looking at is (somebody check my numbers?) half a centimeter wide, and twelve miles long. It's also 77 miles from the camera.

Why are we able to see it?

This is infrared footage we're looking at. We're not seeing the tether at all. We're seeing IR radiation it is emitting. Consequently, the other things we're seeing are also not "things" but IR radiation being emiited from things.

If the half-a-centimeter wide tether appears to be about half a mile wide, then it seems very possible that the other things in the footage that appear to be two to three miles across may only be a couple centimeters wide.

I think these are very small objects with large IR signatures.

[edit on 18-3-2008 by LordBucket]



posted on Mar, 18 2008 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by LordBucket
 


The video is not IR it's UV.

[edit on 18-3-2008 by redshirt0202]



posted on Mar, 18 2008 @ 03:26 PM
link   
If anyone is interested, I've taken a screen cap of another NASA mission in which you can see two objects which look a lot like the tether 'UFOs' . But this time they're not moving, they are really something on the lens that is out of focus.

Picture



posted on Mar, 18 2008 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by redshirt0202
Because they are not out of focus. You asked me to show you space debris so I did.


Yes you did. Let me state for the record, I'm not claiming there is no debris in space, I'm claiming there isn't that much debris in any one area of space, and if there is, do you have any sort of rational explanation (besides fragments from the tether) how it got there and/or what it is?

I'm guessing you don't, which in YOUR view makes it an 'Unidentified' and 'Flying' 'Object'.

Also for the record, I asked you to show me space debris that resembles the STS 75 footage, from ANY NASA mission. You have not done so, not even close.



Yes....I've been completely ignoring that.....obviously you didn't read all of my posts. Try again.


Read them all and replied to them all, using physics, math, and rational analysis.



I acknowledged it! That's why I asked YOU to show me the entire footage including the segment where they are talking about debris from the tether and not the normal debris that's around them.

Yet you failed to show me that footage.


So now I'm responsible for you not doing your homework before claiming to have debunked something? Hilarious!


I have no need to source footage. What do you think that clip was taken from? Really man, anyone reading this thread knows that NASA is constantly broadcasting. You might as well have asked me to source you a link to NASA's satellite TV feed. They are widely available on the internet, from several credible sources. Each shuttle mission is broadcast from beginning to end (unless NASA edits something out). None start in the middle LOL.

What do YOU think they are talking about in this conversation?
Do you think that the NASA shuttle program began with this conversation?
That nothing happened before it?

I laid out a very clear example for you of how 'implication' works in a conversation, but to no avail, your head is clearly in the sand.

Yes, truly 'mysterious debris' 'following' the shuttle would be even more of a mystery!

What you've done in this thread is read somewhere where someone else said it was debris, but neglected to read the part about where the debris supposedly came from. Ridiculous, and just about as non-scientific as it gets. This must surely be obvious to anyone reading the thread by now.



I believe you're kind of p**ed because I proved my point and disproved almost everything you said


But y'know what? It doesn't matter because there's always going to be someone like you..


I hope there is always someone like me, or Oleg, or Balez, or any of the countless others who have actually reviewed the data, the experiment, and the physics of the footage.

But no, I'm not pissed, just disappointed. I like to debunk things to, and came here to get your 'take' on why the STS 75 footage is 'bunk'.

I'm sadly disappointed to see you dancing around the evidence without a single solid fact to stand on. Posts like yours (ignoring evidence in favor of a pre-established mindset) make ATS look foolish.

Thank goodness there will always be people like me who actually examine the data, and make rational determinations as a result of our findings.

This board is valid, the conversations that happen here (most of the time) are valid. I'm sorry you've come here to cast blanket statements of dismissal on everything, but that just isn't the way that ATS, or science works. Your theory has failed on several counts. That's enough for the scientific method, and that's enough for me.

This case is still wide open, and justifiably categorized as unidentified flying objects.

But I guess I have learned something, I won't bother reading your threads anymore. Talking to a brick wall gets you nowhere.



posted on Mar, 18 2008 @ 03:43 PM
link   
I don't see how the STS artifacts could be "out of focus dust particles" as many of you claim. The fact remains that the artifacts move behind the Tether. Out of focus or not, this is apparent.

Also the artifacts appear to change direction. As we all know, the laws of physics still apply to the rest of the universe, as well as Earth.

An object in motion will remain in motion until acted upon by an outside force.

This means that unless a cosmic "wind" picked up and started blowing these particles in different directions, there's no apparent explanation for their directional change.

Also, remember that the camera filming the Tether Incident was an IR (Infrared) camera and was able to pick up objects that cannot be seen by the naked eye. It was not the type of camera used in the YouTube video referenced in the OP.

I think the official explanation for the artifacts was that they were ice particles. Does anyone even know if ice shows up on the IR spectrum?

[edit on 18-3-2008 by tyranny22]



posted on Mar, 18 2008 @ 04:04 PM
link   
Here is the longer version from google video. There are 2 objects that seem to appear out of nowhere. It looks like one of them flies up and over the tether and then underneath.


Google Video Link


(not sure if I posted that correctly, for some reason a slash ends up after the last character in the link id)

If video doesnt work, click here

First, if the video is set to "original size" the quality is better. Go to 3:34 of the video and focus just below the tether about 1/4 inch and you'll see a small object appear/illuminate and then a larger one appears just to the left of it. This larger illuminated object moves over top of the tether and then appears to go back under before the camera pans out. You can see it better if you use the slider to fast forward and rewind and focus on that object and it appears to have a paricular flight path.


[edit on 18-3-2008 by dreb13]

[edit on 18-3-2008 by dreb13]



posted on Mar, 18 2008 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by redshirt0202
If anyone is interested, I've taken a screen cap of another NASA mission in which you can see two objects which look a lot like the tether 'UFOs' . But this time they're not moving, they are really something on the lens that is out of focus.

Picture


Is that from the sts-80?

Just wondering....
Since well, sts-80 is also quite famous for it's footage...



posted on Mar, 18 2008 @ 04:25 PM
link   
Here is some of these other interesting 'things' from space, debris???



For being debris they look very well controlled in my opinion, or if they are dust on the lens, they must be magic since they move..... And they make a formation.

Yes i know it is kind of OT to post something from the STS-80 mission...
But i thought it was relevant to the discussion.


EDIT: To add video (crap! forgot it )


[edit on 18-3-2008 by Balez]



posted on Mar, 18 2008 @ 04:29 PM
link   
So much debris in a such small part of space ? At that speed?
So why this junk never hit astonauts during their missions?



posted on Mar, 18 2008 @ 04:29 PM
link   
In the spirit of playing "Name that Object in the NASA video".

I submit footage from STS-80

Airy disks, with holes in the middle. Clearly not debris.

1 video, 2 different incidents.



EDIT TO ADD: Balez beat me to it. Cheers!

[edit on 18-3-2008 by 11one11]



posted on Mar, 18 2008 @ 05:11 PM
link   
Originally posted by redshirt0202
reply to post by WitnessFromAfar
 





My fault, I meant around earth (sorry for this one). And it's not 100 000 pieces it's 400 000. Read here



Please get your facts straight. It is not 400,000 at all it is in fact 100,000.

To keep astronauts safe, scientists keep track of all the debris in orbit. They sort them by their size. The diameter of the piece is how scientists classify it. There are about 11,000 known objects that are bigger than 10 centimeters. Scientists believe that there are more than 100,000 pieces of orbital debris between 1 cm and 10 cm

Official Nasa Source:
NASA

/rich



[edit on 18-3-2008 by olegkvasha]

[edit on 18-3-2008 by olegkvasha]

[edit on 18-3-2008 by olegkvasha]



posted on Mar, 18 2008 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by cams
 


good point! in around 3:30ish you'll see a "dust particle" move BEHIND the rod! so it can not be a particle, the object is sized to be a mile long based on comparative analysis with the rod!



posted on Mar, 18 2008 @ 05:37 PM
link   
the opposition I have is that the camera artifact in the picture is stationary...
it moves when the camera moves.

we know that during the tether incident, the camera was not moving because the tether remained at the same location while the UFOs were moving around it.

just my 2 cents.

I dont think this is a debunk of that incident.
perhaps a few others though...



posted on Mar, 18 2008 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Leviatano
 


Thanks for pointing people to my posts on that thread!

As I said on that thread, an out of focus object may look like it's behind another object when in fact it is in front, because of the way the camera gets the light from both sources.

On the video I made this is visible, the light from my PocketPC, which is rectangular, looks like a transparent circle, and sometimes it looks like it goes behind the string that was more than 50cm away.

On the STS-75 video, those things may be debris from the tether that did not move away from the shuttle, and those debris are not dangerous to the shuttle because they have the same speed (both in value and direction), so they behave like they are stationary. Jules Verne wrote about it on his book "From the Earth to the Moon" (I think).

But my video, the video from the OP and all the other videos we can find that may look like this can not really prove that those things on the STS-75 video were debris or ice crystals, they show only that they could have been debris or ice crystals, but the only way of us knowing what they really were was to have one captured and analysed.

So, between possible debris or ice crystals that I know that may look like that and alien life forms that I do not know or alien crafts that I do not know I think that the most probable explanation is that they were debris or ice crystals.



posted on Mar, 18 2008 @ 06:31 PM
link   
Since the laws of physics must figure somewhere in the arguments, I think we should consider the image of the tether and what that tells us. Whether this 'stick-like' object is fluorescing in the ultra violet I couldn't guess, but it's physical shape is quite fascinating. Remember this is a 12 mile length of wire and is very flexible (note the initial coiling as the tether breaks - maybe this is shown elsewhere). Anyway, we have a long line with a large mass attached at one end. When this line assumes a free orbital situation, I'm told by those who know about such things, it quickly became aligned 'vertically' with the Earth's gravitational field. So, what we see in the famous tether video is a greatly forshortened view of the wire stretched taught by gravity. It's actually pointing vertically down to the Earth. That then puts some fresh perspectives on David Sereda's UFOs - (I call them Sereda's since he's doing much of the shouting and presumably making the a similar proportion of the money). Anyway, if anyone would care to plug these data into their physics calculators, it becomes apparent that Dave has severely over-estimated the diameter of his pulsating ships. What were reckoned to be a mile or more in diameter must surely be much smaller. Maybe that alone makes them more credible?

WG3
Continued below....



posted on Mar, 18 2008 @ 06:35 PM
link   
I'm personally of the opinion that these blobs are optical effects of the sun's brilliant illumination of small particles. I don't think they are necessarily close to the camera lens. I think they originate from the Shuttle and are orbiting with the Shuttle. They present little danger to the crew since they are all travelling at the same speed (17,000mph), give or take a few centimeters a second of relative motion. The spontaneous appearance of some of these particles is probably the result of shadowing from the Shuttle. Anything in space shadow is totally invisible. The apparent pulsation of the disks is undoubtedly due to their rotation. Their central 'hole' and notched edge is merely due to lens construction. I suspect this camera used a mirror lens, much like the Schmidt- Cassegrain telescopes. The directional changes seen could be explained by the influence of the Shuttle's thrusters, which are firing off almost constantly. These optical disks have been labelled 'Airy' disks, but they are not. Airy disks are the innermost, disc-like area of light representing the most precise point source focus possible in a lens or mirror system. It is due to the wave nature of light. Airy discs are invariably surrounded by several concentric diffraction rings. There are no such diffraction patterns here, because these are not Airy rings. They are malfocussed brightly illuminated point-like objects.

As to the apparent motion of the discs 'behind' the tether, that also is an illusion. The relative brightness of the tether and the particles determines which appears to be 'on top'. This illusion has been used to argue for the passage of UFOs behind the Moon. For example, satellites in Earth orbit often transit the Moon's disk. People sometimes video these events unexpectedly and convince themselves they have captured a UFO passing behind the moon. This seems so because the object 'disappears' as it crosses the disk. The illusion is created by a combination of the Moon's brightness, a small satellite, small diameter optics and focus effects. I have produced a video to demonstrate this illusion if anyone would like to see it.

WG3



posted on Mar, 18 2008 @ 09:41 PM
link   
Armap and Waveguide3, thank you both very much for bringing some much needed clarity to this argument.

In general, I tend to agree with you both, on every point made.
(This may surprise some, as it may have seemed like I was taking the 'it's for certain an alien spaceship' side of this issue. A closer look will reveal that I was merely arguing against the 'debunking' of the original poster.)

Here are the points I find to be the most persuasive:
"On the STS-75 video, those things may be debris from the tether that did not move away from the shuttle, and those debris are not dangerous to the shuttle because they have the same speed (both in value and direction), so they behave like they are stationary."-Armap

Exactly, and boy did I try really hard to steer the the original poster to this point. IF these 'objects' are debris from the tether snap, (and it's highly possible that they are) then any debris remaining with the shuttle after the snapped tether has drifted would be moving at a velocity relative to the shuttle itself, eliminating the danger of a high velocity collision and hull penetration.

However, IF as the original poster postulated, this is just 'debris' for example space junk, we're talking about a high velocity hull piercing collision, even if the 'debris' is approximately 1cm in diameter.

I'm truly astounded that the poster couldn't grasp this, even after Leviatano politely linked your (much better) analysis of this footage.
Incidentally, 'videod' is a word that is spoken, but I'm not sure how to spell it!
LOL

Armap went on to say:
"But my video, the video from the OP and all the other videos we can find that may look like this can not really prove that those things on the STS-75 video were debris or ice crystals, they show only that they could have been debris or ice crystals, but the only way of us knowing what they really were was to have one captured and analysed."

With which I agree for the most part. There are still some determining factors that could rule out the 'debris' or 'ice crystal' theories, the primary factor being the apparent change in direction of several of these 'objects'. One appears to make a right angle turn, and one appears to circle the tether.

Now, to my eye, IF we are looking at debris or ice crystals (the astronaut in the clip thinks it's debris) then it is close to the camera, very in fact. So close that should this apparent change in direction be caused by collision with other debris, we should see it. In fact, this brings me to another point I found persuasive, this one from Waveguide3:

"The spontaneous appearance of some of these particles is probably the result of shadowing from the Shuttle. Anything in space shadow is totally invisible."

Completely true, and it helps to illustrate that if we can see one object (regardless of whether or not it is close or far from the camera, and regardless of whether or not it's debris, ice crystals, or alien spaceships) than we should be able to see the impacting object(s) also. The object that changes direction to apparently 'circle' the tether, is in light and out of space shadow during it's entire circuit. We should see not just one, but 3 impacting objects, if that particular theory were to stand scrutiny (it appears to change direction 3 times).

There is a VERY SMALL chance (like a snowball in hell) that this object was impacted by 3 objects that were so thin that they did not reflect light from the side facing the camera. I'll allow for the slight possibility, but we're talking about odds here that are so astronomical that the math isn't even worth doing.

Waveguide3, I personally like your theory here:
"The directional changes seen could be explained by the influence of the Shuttle's thrusters, which are firing off almost constantly."

However, this would not explain the object that appears to change direction 3 times, in 3 different directions. But I like the way you're thinking, and we may well now be headed down the proper track.

I suppose it IS possible that the camera is facing directly behind the shuttle, and the thrusters are pushing the objects in a sort of 'whirlwind pattern', but if that were the case we should expect to see many more of these objects changing direction, and in the same general fashion, all at once. (Not uniform, but generally in the same pattern, as they would all be affected by the same thruster, or in Newton's terms, 'external force'.)

Also, if this particular object were (another theory I've heard) in fact 4 different objects, each travelling in a straight line and giving the illusion of being one circling object, then we should expect to see at least 2 of these 'straight line travelling' objects emerge from the circuit, as it can't be masked in space shadow on every side of the tether at once.

One thing that does strike me as both factual and obvious to the trained eye, is this point by Waveguide3:
"Their central 'hole' and notched edge is merely due to lens construction. I suspect this camera used a mirror lens, much like the Schmidt- Cassegrain telescopes."

As an owner/operator of a Schmidt-Cassegrain Scope, I can say with certainty that there is a striking similarity. Any object in the sky (mostly stars because the scope can't resolve on them anyway) will look like this with the right focusing. It does indicate to me that these objects are points of light (especially when combined with the fact that we're watching footage from a UV camera) that the camera can't resolve. This to my eye, also suggests that the 'objects' are far from the lens, although it is possible that they are close to the lens, and the camera isn't resolving on them due to it's attempt to resolve the much farther away tether.

In my opinion they are far, this comes from viewing stars that look remarkably similar at full zoom in my scope.

But we're still faced with the directional change issue.
It's especially apparent with the object that changes direction 3 times.
And the problem is compounded by the fact that many of these objects are clearly moving in different directions, and turning in different directions.

Once again, thank you both for bringing physics, math, and science into this conversation. I look forward to reading your thoughts on the points I've raised.

-WFA

A star for each of you!
(Edited to add starsfor Armap and Waveguide3)

[edit on 18-3-2008 by WitnessFromAfar]




top topics



 
12
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join