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: 7
12
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Balez
- - - that means that they have to be affected by some kind of force that we are not seeing in this footage.


I think this is all part of the problem. We are dealing with an alien environment (space) and people are trying to rationalise everything using their everyday experience. It's quite probable that sunlight itself is a very potent force for driving weightless particles with very small inertias. Consider the Crookes Radiometer, for example. If you don't know what that is, here's the Wikipedia reference:Crookes Radiometer

Imagine the effect of unfiltered sunlight on particles which float in and out of shadows. They could get 'jolted' in various directions, for example first accelerated by sunlight, then deflected by a thruster exhaust. The problem is, all those arguing about what can or can't happen in space have absolutely no comprehension of what is actually going on. I think it's the same with the optical phenomena. We try to either rationalise in terms of our earthly experience or do as Mr Serada does and invoke ever more exotic explanations.

WG3




posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by waveguide3
 


Ok i understand that and all.
However i dont see it explained to me that they are going in all angles, like, up and down in the picture.
The sun particles should be comming from one direction, yes?
The thrusters can be fired from four points from the shuttle (or they more?)

The debris (dust particles?) going down on the picture shown, and at the same time getting hit by solar particles should have a more curved trajectory?

And what was the speed of the shuttle when this was occuring?

Just wondering again



posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 05:05 PM
link   
The fact the objects pass behind the tether is one good case. Then, there are the irratic flight patterns. They are all moving in different directions - at various high rates of speed... and pulsing.

Sorry Buddy, your earth bound example DOES NOT have the same characteristics. No pulsing and no movement.... Like a previous post, whether in focus or not, my conclusion is they are still UFO's.



posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Balez
 


I don't think I can explain why the particles go in different directions, but nor can anyone else. We can see that they do, but we don't understand why. I don't think that is a good enough reason to apply exotic rationale like ET or mile wide spaceships. We should search for reasons we can prove, not for reasons we can't.
As for the way the disks move, all motion in space is in straight lines. There are no curved trajectories as we see on Earth. They are due to the effect of gravity, which doesn't really apply in this situation.
Another possiblity is the some of the floaters are actually inside the shuttle. Maybe they move in strange ways whever the cameraman breathes out?

WG3



posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 06:03 PM
link   
I don't see where the particles change directions. Can someone point me to a time mark on the video?
Also, the shuttle requires a velocity to stay in orbit of approximately 17000 mph. It would seem everything in view of the camera would need to have some relation to the shuttle to remain in view.



posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by finnegan
 


Everything in view has a relationship with the shuttle. The tether was travelling with the shuttle when they parted company. The particles originate from the shuttle and have the same orbital velocity, gave or take a few cms/sec of relative motion. The tether then drifted away in its own sub-orbit, eventually re-entering the atmosphere. I can't account for particles changing direction. I personally don't think the effect is worth that much consideration, but the whole 'Tether Phenomenon' seems to hinge on it.

WG3



posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by finnegan
 


Here is a link for page two directed at the video that shows this
Link



posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by waveguide3
 


I agree. If the particles did not originate from the shuttle, they would probably be moving much faster.

ArMap, excellent camera experiment, I can see how the lense reflection can appear to be an object.



posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Balez
 


Ok, I see the direction change now, right before the camera refocuses. Wierd



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 08:41 AM
link   
Much has been made of the strange appearance of the tether in the camera image. Mr Serada insists that this is due to some form of invisible fluorescence only visible to the 'Ultra Violet Camera' used for taking this video. In fact the camera used was a standard SIT (Silicon Intensified Target) television camera using a vidicom (cathode ray) type tube. These were the precursors of the now common CCD systems. These cameras do have extra violet end sensitivity, but to assert that the video was taken in the ultra violet is a complete distortion. Another example of Mr Sereda's flim flam approach to science.

The visual appearance of the tether was that of a brightly illuminated thin line. The image we see is not what the astronauts saw by eye. Photographs of the tether were taken from Earth as it orbited over Australia, such was the brightness. The guy who took the photos said no other objects (i.e. the 3 mile UFOs) were visible. That these discs are in close proximity to the camera (relative to the tether) is proven by parallax effects noted when the camera shifts position. The fact that the discs movemore than the tether confirms their relative closeness.

The notched edges of the discs are optical effects withing the 6:1 zoom lens fitted to the vidicon camera. The zoom mountings produce this effect on the edge of a mal-focussed point source. The position of the notch depends on the angle the incident light subtends with the lens axis. Notice how the notch on many of Sereda's ufos moves from one point on the edge to the opposing point on the diameter of the disc as the particle traverses the field. No mention of this phenomenon is made and in some instances clear editing of the video has been made to prevent such phenomena being seen.

An observation that's also needs an explaination is why do the 'UFOs' take much more zoom than the tether? When we see the long shots, we see the thickened tether image with point-like objects moving around. As the camera zooms in, these points become large discs, but the tether hardly alters its appearance. The logical reason is the discs are objects much closer to the camera and therefore grossly enlarge through the defocussing mechanism.
I guess the Tether Incident will get argued about till the cows come home, much to Dave's delight. After all, he's the one making all the cash.

WG3



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 09:36 AM
link   
Check out these two emails. Could this be connected with what was being witnessed on the live feed?


satobs.org...

satobs.org...



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by waveguide3
 


Waveguide3! Wow, thank you for that excellent analysis.
I'm not saying that I don't believe you, BUT would you mind providing the source information for your data on the camera?

I've scoured the internet over the last week trying to find the actual camera data, and I even posted about the lack of available intel in an earlier post to this thread.

I'd like to be able to confirm your findings (and have others be able to independently verify this information for themselves too).

I even have a theory as to why the 'objects' are moving in different directions, IF they are indeed debris from the tether snap. I'm not sure if you've ever witnessed an explosion in space? There are some pretty accurate scenes in some movies, at least from what I've read. In an explosion in zero g, there should be two initial impluses (or forces) acting on the debris, first the explosion itself, and then the implosion aftereffect.

Due to difference in size and in initial velocity (determined usually by the distance of each partical to the 'break point' or 'center of the explosion') each particle would necessarily be moving at a slightly different rate of speed. Impact of these particles with other debris particles could cause the directional differences.

But even that theory (which takes into account many factors that contribute to literal chaos) does not account for the ones that slow down (no gravity or friction to slow them, as you mentioned) and stop. Nor can this theory account for the ones that change direction. Nor can the theory account for the right angle turn, or the one that loops around the tether.

Also, we must keep in mind that if we can see one of the 'objects' then that means it is not in shadow. This translates to it's immediate area also. To be perfectly honest, to my eye it doesn't look like there is 'space shadow' affecting the local area where these 'objects' appear. In fact, the area is pretty clearly lit by the reflection of the sun's light off of the Earth.

Anyway, I would really love to have a look at the specs for that camera.
I also very much appreciate your thoughts in this thread. It's great when two researchers (actually way more than 2 in this thread!) with opposing views on a case can come together with open minds and discuss the evidence available in a rational manner.


-WFA



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 10:37 AM
link   
The Notches Phenomenon

This also references the video camera evidence.

More Notches - Not STS-75

This should settle it for most agnostics.

Comments from ArseWater1/MoronAntidote indicate he has intimate knowledge of NASA's systems or has spent his life studying them.

Tether Seen from Australia

See any 3 mile wide UFOs?

WG3



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by GeneralLee
 


Nice find General Lee!

I'm afraid though that satellites just can't account for these sightings. In the second email, this part is very accurate:

"From the perspective of someone in orbit, you
would suddenly see a line of geosats flare in the
nightime side of the sky - perhaps sequentially - from
east to west and then they would all disappear again.
The declination of these objects would decrease
slightly as you go through an ascending node pass and
increase slightly in declination as you would go
through a descending pass. And there would be two
separate groups of flaring geosats - those west of the
earth's shadow (the first set to be seen flaring) and
then those east of the earth's shadow. And you could
easily see what would appear to be 5 to 10 flaring
geosats in the few minutes you have to see this effect
from an orbiting spacecraft."

Sequentially is the key word there, in my view, but the other points are also valid. You'd see uniform (or nearly uniform) behavior from a satellite set, and they would all follow the same (general) path of orbit.

But while we're on the subject, I usually try to watch the Iridium Flares, and I see satellites from my balcony every single night. Even though they are clearly man-made satellites, they are still one of the most beautiful things to watch that happen on a daily basis.

Also, from where I'm at (in California) you can usually get a pretty good view of the ISS moving across the sky, until it reaches Earth Shadow and the Sun's light no longer reaches it. It's pretty darn cool!

-WFA



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 10:56 AM
link   
reply to post by waveguide3
 


Hello Waveguide3! I'm sorry to be picky, but do you have reference information on the specs for the camera. It sounded from your earlier post like you did...

Specifically I was looking for a NASA Spec sheet, that describes the Camera, filters, CCD, etc. (And it would be great to know where on the shuttle the camera is physically placed!). I can't seem to find this info from NASA sites, and it sounded from your analysis like you've got the source. Am I correct?

Perhaps that info is mentioned in these Youtube vids? I'm at work today and can't watch them yet, but I'll check them out tonight. Thanks!

-WFA



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar
reply to post by GeneralLee
 


Nice find General Lee!

I'm afraid though that satellites just can't account for these sightings. In the second email, this part is very accurate:

"From the perspective of someone in orbit, you
would suddenly see a line of geosats flare in the
nightime side of the sky - perhaps sequentially - from
east to west and then they would all disappear again.
The declination of these objects would decrease
slightly as you go through an ascending node pass and
increase slightly in declination as you would go
through a descending pass. And there would be two
separate groups of flaring geosats - those west of the
earth's shadow (the first set to be seen flaring) and
then those east of the earth's shadow. And you could
easily see what would appear to be 5 to 10 flaring
geosats in the few minutes you have to see this effect
from an orbiting spacecraft."

Sequentially is the key word there, in my view, but the other points are also valid. You'd see uniform (or nearly uniform) behavior from a satellite set, and they would all follow the same (general) path of orbit.

But while we're on the subject, I usually try to watch the Iridium Flares, and I see satellites from my balcony every single night. Even though they are clearly man-made satellites, they are still one of the most beautiful things to watch that happen on a daily basis.

Also, from where I'm at (in California) you can usually get a pretty good view of the ISS moving across the sky, until it reaches Earth Shadow and the Sun's light no longer reaches it. It's pretty darn cool!

-WFA


Of course, WFA you are correct. I have simply put this in the wrong thread! DUH! If you notice the heading of the email it was written about the most recent shuttle launch. I was refering to the "Live Feed Thread" as it seem to offer a possibility for what they are discussing over there. Once again, my bad! I hate it when that happens! I'll try and repost over there!



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by WitnessFromAfar
 


Same here WFA, NASA site is bad, i've been trying to find all sorts of things, but they just ain't there, as you i was trying to find the specs of the camera, and also of the shuttle itself.
I found some specs on the shuttle, i know of two thrusters and their placement, but not the rest.

I dont even find a detailed mission reports of STS-75...
Lots of things are missing to be able to form any kind of scientific explanation for this....

w3
That vid clip you showed, in what spectrum was that recorded?




posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Balez

w3
That vid clip you showed, in what spectrum was that recorded?


Since nothing unusual is noted, they were presumably filmed normally.

WG3



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by waveguide3

Originally posted by Balez

w3
That vid clip you showed, in what spectrum was that recorded?


Since nothing unusual is noted, they were presumably filmed normally.

WG3


Could be why nothing is visible....

Anyways, it's too bad that there is not any more information, nothing more than what NASA has given out so far, and that is not much, an explanation but nothing to backitup with anything.



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 10:16 PM
link   
Here is the video turned negative. Watch closely at around 7 or 8 seconds, you can clearly see one of the object pass in FRONT of the tether. I wanted to point this out because many people claim they only go behind it.

www.youtube.com...





top topics



 
12
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join