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.

 

NASA STS-114 UFO Footage - Can it be debunked?

page: 19
96
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by ziggystar60

Is there anywhere on the net we can find detailed technical information about the cameras used on the space shuttles? The question about what kind of lens they have has come up in regards to other STS-videos, so it would be very useful to have access to accurate knowledge about the cameras.


Hiya Ziggy, is this Sony-Space Shuttle info any use to you? Sony XC-999. Example content...


Long-range trackers featured cameras with a 400-inch focal length and 100-feetper- second capability to provide more data points and better tracking of debris. The onboard imaging systems, dubbed ELVIS, or the Enhanced Launch Vehicle Imaging System, used several new and modified cameras located on the Space Shuttle’s solid rockets, external fuel tank and on Discovery. These cameras helped monitor the thermal protection system and the redesigned portions of the external tank. In fact, it was one of these cameras, the Sony XC-999, that was attached to the external tank in its spacehardened housing, that captured the debris event.


I downloaded a NASA pdf that focused on the details of the cargo bay cameras during the week. Can't find it and I've been looking for 20 minutes. It's out there somewhere but I can't seem to repeat the magic keyword combination that found it



Edit whoops, forgot this link to the STS-88 Payload-IMAX Cargo cameras

[edit on 27-2-2009 by Kandinsky]

I should have added this too, it's the mission log PDF that Jim sourced his information from


[edit on 27-2-2009 by Kandinsky]




posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 12:32 PM
link   
Silly Lemmings


The ONLY camera that is of importance in this discussion is the handheld INFRARED cameras which they are using to record these 'ice particles'

On the STS75 Tether video it was a special camera called TOPS whose specifc purpose was to record the plasma sheath(glow) they EXPECTED to see on the tether...

NASA TM-107097



ABSTRACT:
In 1994, Inframetrics introduced the InfraCAM, a high resolution hand-held thermal imager. As the world's smallest, lightest and lowest power PtSi based infrared camera, the InfraCAM is ideal for a wise range of industrial, non destructive testing, surveillance and scientific applications. In addition to numerous commercial applications, the light weight and low power consumption of the InfraCAM make it extremely valuable for adaptation to space borne applications. Consequently, the InfraCAM has been selected by NASA Lewis Research Center (LeRC) in Cleveland, Ohio, for use as part of the DARTFire (Diffusive and Radiative Transport in Fires) space borne experiment. In this experiment, a solid fuel is ignited in a low gravity environment. The combustion period is recorded by both visible and infrared cameras. The infrared camera measures the emission from polymethyl methacrylate, (PMMA) and combustion products in six distinct narrow spectral bands. Four cameras successfully completed all qualification tests at Inframetrics and at NASA Lewis. They are presently being used for ground based testing in preparation for space flight in the fall of 1995.


This report is NOT available via the web... you need to order it from NASA... like most of the GOOD stuff


gltrs.grc.nasa.gov...

PDF NOT AVAILABLE VIA WEB:
Reports not available in PDF can be purchased from the Center for AeroSpace Information at:
www.sti.nasa.gov... select Order Information

The TOPS camera for STS 75 I already posted in the latest STS75 thread


Originally posted by zorgon
The GLOWING TETHER



The most famous sustained arc event of all led to the breakage of the TSS-1R electrodynamic tether, and the loss of the attached satellite. The image below shows the burned, frayed and broken tether end still attached to the Shuttle after the break. Incidentally, the tether continued arcing long after it and its satellite were drifting free, until finally it went into night conditions where the electron density was insufficient to sustain the arc. Noel Sargent (2002) has investigated whether the TSS-1R arc was seen to disrupt Shuttle communications. Although he has found no record of disturbed communications during the event, for most of the time the arc was shielded by metallic structures from the communications antennas, and when the tether broke, the arc was many meters from the receiving antennas. It remains to be seen whether sustained arcs produce radio noise severe enough to be a communications problem.


Source

The camera in question...
Tether Optical Phenomena Experiment (TOP)



Using a hand-held camera system with image intensifiers and special filters, the TOP investigation will provide visual data that may allow scientists to answer a variety of questions concerning tether dynamics and optical effects generated by TSS-1R. In particular, this experiment will examine the high-voltage plasma sheath surrounding the satellite...

In one mode of operation, the current developed in the Tethered Satellite System is closed by using electron accelerators to return electrons to the plasma surrounding the orbiter. The interaction between these electron beams and the plasma is not well understood...

Associate Investigator: Stephen Mende, Lockheed Martin


Source




Later vacuum-chamber experiments suggested that the unwinding of the reel uncovered pinholes in the insulation. That in itself would not have caused a major problem, because the ionosphere around the tether, under normal circumstance, was too rarefied to divert much of the current. However, the air trapped in the insulation changed that. As it bubbled out of the pinholes, the high voltage ("electric pressure") of the nearby tether, about 3500 volts, converted it into a plasma ( in a way similar to the ignition of a fluorescent tube), a relatively dense one and therefore a much better conductor of electricity.


www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov...

The plasma sheath that was EXPECTED is why the tether is glowing and appears as wide as it does



www.abovetopsecret.com...

So if we are going to discuss cameras, lenses and other such stuff... lets at least talk about the RELEVANT cameras and not the other equipment on board like IMAX and full color imagers...

The videos are clips from the HANDHELD IR CAMERAS That is why they look the way they do... THERMAL Imaging not photographic...

Last I heard IR shots hot spots as BRIGHTER... the hotter... the more white the object is..

Ice particles in space last I checked do not generate a lot of 'thermal units'





..








[edit on 27-2-2009 by zorgon]



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 


JEDI (Joint Execute package Development and Integration)
Or
THIS DOCUMENT is an Old Jedi mind trick...
Sorry I just couldn't resist lol Not very cryptic



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky

So which department of NASA do you work for Kandinsky? I forgot what you said on that before...



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
reply to post by Kandinsky

So which department of NASA do you work for Kandinsky? I forgot what you said on that before...


Heehee
That made me smile. Thanks. Does NASA have a department in Switzerland? I'm neutral and well-mannered



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by drummerroy39
thread, scroll down till you hit my name. You will see three videos I posted. The second and third contain the quote. This is David Sereta corresponding with Dr Nuth, a physicist with NASA.

The first part of the written quote says this:




It simply means that we are still looking for a suitable explanation. Frank's comet hypothesis has not yielded any predictions that could be verified by observations that have been shown to be correct and has many observable consequences that are demonstrably false.

Sereda leaves out the word "comet" when he reads the quote. This is an important omission. The quote has nothing to do with any of the shuttle videos. It is part Nuth's argument against Louis Frank's small-comet hypothesis. Frank hypothesized that small spots which appeared in images made by the satellite Dynamics Explorer I in 1981 were not caused by electronic noise but were evidence of thousands of cometary fragments entering the atmosphere on a daily basis. The hypothesis created a controversy but it had nothing to do with UFO's. Nuth was not alone in his criticism of Frank's hypothesis.
geology.about.com...
impact.arc.nasa.gov...

Sereda has taken the statement by Nuth completely out of context. There is no admission by NASA about any unexplainable anomalies in shuttle videos.


[edit on 2/27/2009 by Phage]



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

The videos are clips from the HANDHELD IR CAMERAS That is why they look the way they do... THERMAL Imaging not photographic...

Last I heard IR shots hot spots as BRIGHTER... the hotter... the more white the object is..


This depends on the IR wavelength you are talking about. Far IR is thermal imaging, near IR is not.

Do you have the specs available for the IR bands they were using?



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by drummerroy39
Its very credible because its sceintific data being relaid through Dr Nuth, a physicist from NASA. It doesen't get any more credible that that.
[edit on 27-2-2009 by drummerroy39]


Thanks for having the patience with me to explain the basis for your opinions, because it helps us all out. If Sereda's own statements are such nonsense, how can you trust that what HE says that Nuth told him, isn't nonsense as well? That's what Nuth himself, still at NASA Goddard in Greenbelt, Maryland, tells anyone who asks him. He answered several of Sereda's emailed and patiently explained to him that his theories were nonsense, and Sereda wrote in his new articles that Nuth's views supported his own. Sereda figured nobody would bother to check, I guess.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by ziggystar60
Is there anywhere on the net we can find detailed technical information about the cameras used on the space shuttles? The question about what kind of lens they have has come up in regards to other STS-videos, so it would be very useful to have access to accurate knowledge about the cameras.


NASA's website is very poorly organized from the point of view of a user of such information. If you email me in care of my home page www dot jamesoberg dot com I'll send you the textual material I have, and we can figure a place to post it where people can use it. Or I can fax the pages and we can create a pdf file for posting.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by zmoron
blather


Zorgon:
You gonna retract that slimy lie you posted about me?
JimO



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by drummerroy39
Yes, go to page 17 of this thread, scroll down till you hit my name. You will see three videos I posted. The second and third contain the quote. This is David Sereta corresponding with Dr Nuth, a physicist with NASA.


This isn't NASA confirming it, it's David Sereda (note the spelling -- not Sereta) claiming that NASA's Guth confirmed it, and Guth has declared he never did. You can contact Guth at the NASA Goddard Space Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, to confirm his real view, not the counterfeit view that Sereda falsely attributes to him.

You could do that, if you didn't enjoy being deceived.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
A side note off topic...

Progress craft assembly line... now WHY do you suppose they need so many?


Nope, not 'Progress' vehicles....

Warning to readers: I've yet to find a factual assertion by Zorgon on this thread that remotely resembles reality. At least, be cautious and seek verification -- and of my stuff, too, of course.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

NASA's website is very poorly organized from the point of view of a user of such information. If you email me in care of my home page www dot jamesoberg dot com I'll send you the textual material I have, and we can figure a place to post it where people can use it. Or I can fax the pages and we can create a pdf file for posting.


Thanks for helping out. The question about the camera lens came up in a thread called "Alien Donuts" In Space! Too Much Of A Coincidence To Be Debunked?, created by MikeSingh.

The spesific topic related to the camera lens is a video from STS-75 with the teather incident, where we can see ice particles out of focus - or are they alien critters taking a look at the teather..?


It would be great if you could post any info directly in the thread, here is the link to it:

www.abovetopsecret.com...'

[edit on 27/2/09 by ziggystar60]



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


There's a photo of the business end of a Progress here:

KTDU-80 propulsion system used on the Progress cargo ship. Copyright © 2001 Anatoly Zak

www.russianspaceweb.com...

Unless they've radically redesigned it, it seems to be a single engine job.

Zorgon's photo appears it could be parts for a couple of Soyuz vehicles. No telling what the payloads are.


[edit on 2/27/2009 by Phage]

[edit on 2/27/2009 by Phage]



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
Zorgon's photo appears it could be parts for a couple of Soyuz vehicles.


My impression as well. Zorgon doesn't know the a$s end of a Soyuz booster from the appetite end of a 'Progress' freighter. Why should he? He's gotten through life so far making stuff up as he goes along, and has found a congenial audience that doesn't realize it.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Gosh, I never 'forgot' that, I just never 'knew' it. My impression had been that from the beginning, the shuttle was designed to operate in low earth orbit. Your insistence that this is NOT true tells us a lot about YOU and the degree of credibility your claims deserve.


You never knew it becasue you were not prevy to know it. When did you start working for NASA btw....late 70's was it?....hmm...well I suppose that would explain why you did not know about it because the shuttle's initial design planning began in 69.

And as far as credibility is concerned, you should concentrate on your own. You show up out of nowhere and park here in this one thread after being in the cracks of the abyss for who knows how long, and expect everone to bow to your word. Well everyone has a fan...even those who just pop out of nowhere after months of silence, and fill up a thread with alot of fancy talk and winded explanations that would make a cow reading a dictonary look impressed.


Originally posted by JimOberg
Am I getting your intent clearly? The space shuttle is secretly capable of flying to geosynchronous orbit, 22,000 miles high, and dropping off commercial satellites there, before returning to Earth? Is that what you are actually claiming? Wow, the mind reels... Please, enlighten me.



If you were in the need to know, you would not need to ask about it.

Obviously...you were not in the need to know. As I told another member, find out for yourself. I am sure with your previous NASA employment and "inside" information, you should be able to come up with something.

Back to topic of the thread....

So...after all this..has there been any effort made to explain how the object manuvers as it does in the OP's video yet?

Doesnt look like it.

Well when the playing around is done and the drama curtian has fallen, maybe there will be an answer to that ever elusive question so many here seem to keep avoiding.


Cheers!!!!

[edit on 27-2-2009 by RFBurns]



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 



OT I know, but in the interest of accuracy, here's a smaller but wider angled version of the Samara assembly plant. One payload is visible but it doesn't appear to be a Progress ship.

Samara

Looks like the commercial launching biz has been good.

[edit on 2/27/2009 by Phage]



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by franspeakfree
 


great video thanks for posting it !

since nobody can debunk this...at the end of the day it will still be a UFO !

star and flag



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns

Originally posted by JimOberg
Am I getting your intent clearly? The space shuttle is secretly capable of flying to geosynchronous orbit, 22,000 miles high, and dropping off commercial satellites there, before returning to Earth? Is that what you are actually claiming? Wow, the mind reels... Please, enlighten me.


If you were in the need to know, you would not need to ask about it.


Time for a quote from 'Back to the Future':

"Chick-ENNN....!"


So far it's all bluff and make-believe, with little hope it'll change.

Stuff I tell you about what I know about spaceflight, I tell you how to verify.

Stuff you claim to know, there's no checkable source.

Ho hum.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by RFBurns
 



So...after all this..has there been any effort made to explain how the object manuvers as it does in the OP's video yet?

Doesnt look like it.


Nope

it cannot be debunked

it will be a UFO forever !



new topics

top topics



 
96
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join