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.

 

New Analysis Video of the STS-75 Tether Incident

page: 10
77
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 08:43 PM
link   
reply to post by JScytale
 



the original does nothing of the sort, the heavy wobble is so severe it leads me to believe it was poorly edited, or the enhancement program used was having a lot of trouble tracking the light.


the original does show something of the "sort" if you watch it close enough.

i will stand by my previous statement that they are exactly the same.




posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by JScytale
your refusal to use the original footage after myself and otehrs have shown doubt that the traced footage is even accurate severely hampers your credibility. watch the original.


The original footage has been used over and over on this site and as easynow posted the two were overlaid to prove they were the same. The thread is about a NEW way to look at this old footage and it seems it is certainly rocking the boat. Poor Jim is working overtime on this one

At this point you are merely trolling

To Jim

I will not argue the point any longer but what you say about the TOPS and the 'Glow' do not match what I have in official NASA documents which I have also linked and quoted several times.


EARLY FINDINGS FROM TETHERED SATELLITE MISSION
POINT TO REVAMPING OF SPACE PHYSICS THEORIES

Numerous space physics and plasma theories are being revised or overturned by data gathered during the Tethered Satellite System Reflight (TSS-1R) experiments on Space Shuttle Columbia’s STS-75 mission last March.

Models, accepted by scientists for more than 30 years, are incorrect and must be rewritten.



Also, for the first time ever, the high-voltage plasma sheath and wake of a high-voltage satellite moving rapidly in the ionosphere was measured. "This is virtually impossible to study in a laboratory and is difficult to model mathematically," Stone said.


NASA Press release
May 23, 1996
Marshall Space Flight Center
Huntsville, Ala.
RELEASE: 96-43

www.msfc.nasa.gov...


Low Earth Orbit Spacecraft Charging Design Guidelines
NASA/TP—2003-212287

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. Figure 8 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. - Page 27


This is just one of many documents from your 'boss' NASA that contradicts everything you are saying.

As to the tether footage itself... you are all forgetting one important thing...

NASA DID NOT RELEASE THIS TO THE PUBLIC

If this statement is untrue then link me to the ORIGINAL film from NASA itself.

The video we are discussing was captured by a PRIVATE satellite receiver in Canada by Martyn Stubbs, who is a member here under secretnasaman

There IS NO OFFICIAL NASA version of this available to the public. This was intercepted. There was even a long court battle over this film years ago that is all but forgotten to decide ownership.

If NASA has now decided to release their copy of this film, please link me to it as I must have missed it.

To JScytale

So since there is no 'Official" NASA version, your cry to use the original is moot... and silly. Just shows your ignorance of all the facts in the case

I bet NASA just wishes this film would go away. It almost did once, while it was in court... but its back and Martyn released the full version now...


Martyn Stubbs is secretnasaman & these are videos produced, directed, edited or shot by me, Martyn Stubbs. All UFO clips are from my NASA UFO Archives, containing all downloaded video from mission STS-48 to STS-80, where I "discovered" all the NASA UFO video, including the STS-75 "tether" footage.

I discovered all the NASA UFOs by video recording every NASA mission from STS-48 to STS-80. I had no idea I was the only person doing this! The STS-75 "tether breaks" video was first released by me on March 11, 2000. I streamed it to the world via a UK web sight. No 'You Tube' back then to do it!
Country: Canada


www.youtube.com...

Here is the TOP camera WITH the NASA description and the TOP data in the image and mention of the 'glow data phenomena' This is fact proof that the TOP camera was used in the tether filming

NASA UFOs on STS-75 UV "TOP" camera



As for your demand for the ORIGINAL footage? Well here it is uncut

Thanks Martyn


NASA UFOs: More STS-75 broken "tether" footage! Uncut.



Now you and Jim get together and go get some drinks... and figure out a new strategy... because your arguments are not making it



OH and one last thing...

If the notches are lens artifacts, why to they changes shape, change direction and sometimes disappear?





[edit on 9-6-2009 by zorgon]



posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 09:57 PM
link   
how hard is it to understand that whether or not there was a plasma sheath changes nothing in this debate?

how hard is it to understand that no matter what spectrum of radiation the film was sensitive to, the tether would still be completely bathed in sunlight?



The spectrum of electromagnetic radiation striking the Earth's atmosphere is 100 to 106 nanometers (nm). This can be divided into five regions in increasing order of wavelengths:[8]

* Ultraviolet C or (UVC) range, which spans a range of 100 to 280 nm. The term ultraviolet refers to the fact that the radiation is at higher frequency than violet light (and, hence also invisible to the human eye). Owing to absorption by the atmosphere very little reaches the Earth's surface (Lithosphere). This spectrum of radiation has germicidal properties, and is used in germicidal lamps.
* Ultraviolet B or (UVB) range spans 280 to 315 nm. It is also greatly absorbed by the atmosphere, and along with UVC is responsible for the photochemical reaction leading to the production of the Ozone layer.
* Ultraviolet A or (UVA) spans 315 to 400 nm. It has been traditionally held as less damaging to the DNA, and hence used in tanning and PUVA therapy for psoriasis.
* Visible range or light spans 400 to 700 nm. As the name suggests, it is this range that is visible to the naked eye.
* Infrared range that spans 700 nm to 106 nm [1 (mm)]. It is largely responsible for the warmth or heat that the sunlight carries. It is also divided into three types on the basis of wavelength:
o Infrared-A: 700 nm to 1,400 nm
o Infrared-B: 1,400 nm to 3,000 nm
o Infrared-C: 3,000 nm to 1 mm.


en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 9-6-2009 by JScytale]



posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by JScytale
how hard is it to understand that whether or not there was a plasma sheath changes nothing in this debate?


Sure it does... it refutes Jim Obergs 'testimony' goes to credibility as you are so fond of saying



how hard is it to understand that no matter what spectrum of radiation the film was sensitive to, the tether would still be completely bathed in sunlight?



How hard is it for you to understand that the tether is a very thin wire about the thickness of a match stick. Explain how something that thin will reflect that much sunlight from 100 nautical miles. And its insulated so its not all that reflective.

You keep skirting the important issues


The attached tether, with a diameter of 0.1 inches (2.5 millimeters) is made of Nomex and Kevlar. This super- strong and thin strand, also contains a tin-coated, insulated copper wire bundle that makes it electrically conductive.


www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov...



[edit on 9-6-2009 by zorgon]



posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by JScytale
how hard is it to understand that whether or not there was a plasma sheath changes nothing in this debate?


Sure it does... it refutes Jim Obergs 'testimony' goes to credibility as you are so fond of saying



how hard is it to understand that no matter what spectrum of radiation the film was sensitive to, the tether would still be completely bathed in sunlight?



How hard is it for you to understand that the tether is a very thin wire about the thickness of a match stick. Explain how something that thin will reflect that much sunlight from 100 nautical miles. And its insulated so its not all that reflective.

You keep skirting the important issues


The attached tether, with a diameter of 0.1 inches (2.5 millimeters) is made of Nomex and Kevlar. This super- strong and thin strand, also contains a tin-coated, insulated copper wire bundle that makes it electrically conductive.


www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov...



[edit on 9-6-2009 by zorgon]


you do realize that reflective surfaces outside the atmosphere are *extremely* bright, right? its why space suits have reflective visors. so astronauts dont go completely blind. its why the tether is extremely overexposed. its why the earth's light completely blots out the lower right half of the tether footage without even being present in the shot.

also, insulated in space does not mean nonreflective. in fact it usually means quite the opposite. in order to insulate something from extreme electromagnetic radiation, you make it *as reflective as possible* so it doesn't absorb said radiation.


notice the foil? its not there to look pretty. its there to keep the astronauts from cooking alive.

[edit on 9-6-2009 by JScytale]



posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

If the notches are lens artifacts, why to they changes shape, change direction and sometimes disappear?


[edit on 9-6-2009 by zorgon]


because they are lens artifacts... film something completely out of focus and watch the blurry image.



posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

You keep skirting the important issues


The attached tether, with a diameter of 0.1 inches (2.5 millimeters) is made of Nomex and Kevlar. This super- strong and thin strand, also contains a tin-coated, insulated copper wire bundle that makes it electrically conductive.


www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov...



[edit on 9-6-2009 by zorgon]


allow me to quote previous posts, so we don't have to deal with your tendency to skim things.


Originally posted by JScytale
reply to post by SharkBait
 


eh, the tether looks so thick because it is extremely overexposed. which is exactly the same reason objects appear to move "behind" it. like i said, sunlight is extremely bright in space.

page 1.


Originally posted by JScytale

Originally posted by toltecnightmare
...hasn't this thing been debunked to death by everyone? they all have different theories too, on how it could be space junk and debris. nothing more. it's obvious, then, that the crap would be all over the place out there.

on topic with many of the replies here: the one reason I don't take any interest in UFO HUNTERS, regardless of my interest in unexplained phenomenon, is because they are paid by the mainstream media, and we all know how accurate they want things to be. It's solely entertainment.

if it is space junk, I want to hear how none of it is colliding with the instrument, or the window for that matter. The tether is definitely sizable, to say the least. and you mean to tell me that we can't see a trajectory line from a single piece bouncing off of the tether?
go back to sleep, the msm concluded that it's all an illusion....


well, first off space junk IS everywhere in earth orbit, is a major problem when planning satellite orbits, and is a constant threat to any space mission. second of all, this took place after a satellite had a part (the tether) break off, so of course there is going to be a very large amount of debris / space junk / whatever you want to call it nearby.

secondly, i dont think that criticizing your second paragraph as a wee bit paranoid would be prudent considering where i am (no offense to anyone here), but you should be able to tell how i feel about it without me going into detail.

third, it is *much* smaller than it looks, and we only see a tiny peice of footage. the tether is only a few inches wide and extremely long, and is very far from the camera here. it *looks* much wider than it is due to overexposure of the film because of the amount of sunlight its exposed to, but it is in reality a very very very thin object. actually seeing anything collide with it in this tiny bit of film would be like pointing a camera up at a flock of birds and having one poop dead center on the lens. a very small probability.

page 2.


Originally posted by JScytale

Originally posted by SharkBait
Over exposed Tether. Lets put this into Perspective. A 6-12inch Rope next to Jumbo 747. Then over expose the Tether and you saying it will arrear the same size as the aircraft.Without increasing the Aircraft size.



[edit on 7-6-2009 by SharkBait]


where is the 747 in the image?
all i see is an over-exposed tether and out of focus particles reflecting off of the telephoto-lens's mirror.


that is an overexposed image of a firework explosion. I'm sure you know fireworks look like thousands of tiny points of light in reality, not a giant blob.

[edit on 7-6-2009 by JScytale]

page 2.


Originally posted by JScytale

oh, i did. his argument was almost entirely that the tether was self-illuminated - which was not relevant to the discussion at hand. what was being discussed at the time was whether or not the apparent shape of the tether in the footage was its actual shape, or if it was oversaturating the image.

page 3.

[edit on 9-6-2009 by JScytale]



posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
You keep skirting the important issues



Originally posted by JScytale

alright. lets ignore all the times i called you out previous to this - explain why the "critters" bloom out from points of light in the video i linked previously. explain to me why they are smaller in width than the tether, and later wider after the zoom.

please also explain to me why they are all oriented exactly towards the camera so that their "donut holes" face us, and we see no objects of similar width from the side.

don't ignore this post. if your argument holds an ounce of water you should be able to explain this easily and scientifically.

[edit on 8-6-2009 by JScytale]


i have yet to get a satisfactory response to this from you, mr accusing others of dodging issues.

you should also note that, unlike you, when evidence shows me to be incorrect, i am perfectly capable of acknowledging that and adapting my views.


Originally posted by JScytale

Originally posted by badw0lf
I wish this topic would involve a range of conclusions beyond "Ice debris" and "Intelligently controlled craft".

In the deepest oceans are forms of life adapted to existing in an extreme environment.

Why not the upper atmosphere or lower orbit? As someone else pointed out in another thread, if a Mosquito can survive in space, why not something that evolved to that very same harsh environment?

It wasn't till we looked at thermal lava vents in the deepest oceans that we discovered thriving colonies of life adapted to exist there and there alone.

Why does anything up there require it to be intelligently controlled?

Just wondering why the debate seems to continue the mutually explicit outcome of Ice debris or Spaceman ponderings...



[edit on 7/6/2009 by badw0lf]


interesting ideas, but a mosquito can't survive in space, they breathe. you may have read a study stating they can survive in zero-g. i may be mistaken but they are not anaerobic life forms.

the reason its very, very unlikely is that there is no source of energy besides the sun, and no source of mass with which to grow like plants use minerals in the earth. life on asteroids is a different story.

edit: i eat my words, i found the study where a mosquito survived on the outer hull of a spaceship - but the mosquito wasn't alive, it was essentially dead or hibernating in space, and managed to get reanimated when back on earth. i wouldn't say ice fish "live" in ice, after all.

[edit on 7-6-2009 by JScytale]

page 2.

[edit on 9-6-2009 by JScytale]



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 12:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by JScytale
explain to me why they are smaller in width than the tether, and later wider after the zoom.


Originally posted by Raybo58
It has to do with focal length. Consider the example of a relatively thin lamp post about 25 yards away from you and a very thick tree another 75 yards behind it. If you shoot it with a short focal length the tree will appear to be narrower than the lamp post, but as you zoom in the tree will grow wider than the post.

The question is, why would particles be visible at all after a zoom? Especially a tight zoom on an object a 100 miles away.


Originally posted by JScytale
the problem i see here is at all points the lamp will look like a lamp.


Well, not really. I'm sure you know this, but it's the difference between focal length and the field of focus. If you have a short focal length and adjust the lamp post to be in the center of the field of focus the tree will be just be an undefined blur in the background. Conversely, if you zoom in and adjust the tree to be in the center of the field of focus, the lamp will appear as little more than a distortion in the center of the tree, if it's even visible at all. Particles close to the lens at this point would be virtually invisible.


Originally posted by JScytale
the point is, these objects are originally clear, small points of light that are well defined, and upon zooming they turn into semi-transparent blobs of identical shape. the exact same shape demonstrated to be caused by a telephoto lens filming something small and illuminated when out of focus.


Although unlikely to happen, it would be nice if someone went to the trouble of setting up a localized, high density, mega-high frequency field against a black background and shot it from a distance with an accompanying zoom. My guess would be we'd see exactly what you've described. I just spent a good deal of time looking for such a thing, with no luck.


Originally posted by JScytale
i'm aware of sereda's beliefs. my problem with him is he makes a lot of assumptions and jumps to a lot of conclusions, and occasionally wanders into the realm of blatant pseudoscience.


Agreed. I would be much happier if he were to place loud and clear disclaimers before some of his more *ahem* speculative theories. However, it is pretty crazy how much these things resemble those Dropa Stones. Especially when considered with the stories that surround them.



Originally posted by JScytale
regarding the astronauts - in the same sereda lecture you described he talked about sending the tether footage to an astronaut who was vocal and supportive of UFOs. the astronaut returned it saying this is debris. he sent it again pointing things out, and this UFO supporting astronaut sent it back telling him to stop wasting his time.


Mitchell's primary hang-up appeared to be a lack of "well defined edges" in any of the observed objects. He says "On first glance" they appear to be particles. Perhaps he's more used to seeing the larger, up-close, metalic kinds of crafts we've seen in other videos. His last missions were back in the 70's, before CCD cameras capable of showing the UV spectrums were invented and when field driven propulsion systems were still in the realm of science fiction. I don't blame him for wanting to narrow his scope to things that show up in much cleaner relief.

And please don't shoot me for throwing another can of paint into the tie-dye spinner, but if we want to keep it within the realm of particles and motion vectors: no one has mentioned the possibility of nano-machines yet...

When are they going to put stereo-optical cameras up there so we can get some sense of distance?



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 12:36 AM
link   
reply to post by JScytale
 


Im going to post a question to you since you believe these oject were over 81 miles out beyond the tether explain to me why when the camera oscillates on it's pan/tilt unit following remote aim adjustment. If the so-called UFOs were really behind the tether, then why was their displacement considerably greater than that of the tether during the oscillation? The only plausible explanation is that the so-called UFOs were actually in the foreground. This basic principle (motion parallax) can be appreciated by anyone with a pair of eyes! Where are the photographers i know this playing with my digital camera come on.


Read it realized you may have no camera experience at all so decided to simplify. When camera tilts obects close to you will show much further travel in the videothan a distant object.There that should help got worried id loose you.


[edit on 6/10/09 by dragonridr]



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 12:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Raybo58

Well, not really. I'm sure you know this, but it's the difference between focal length and the field of focus. If you have a short focal length and adjust the lamp post to be in the center of the field of focus the tree will be just be an undefined blur in the background. Conversely, if you zoom in and adjust the tree to be in the center of the field of focus, the lamp will appear as little more than a distortion in the center of the tree, if it's even visible at all. Particles close to the lens at this point would be virtually invisible.


good point, i hadn't though about that when i posted.



Although unlikely to happen, it would be nice if someone went to the trouble of setting up a localized, high density, mega-high frequency field against a black background and shot it from a distance with an accompanying zoom. My guess would be we'd see exactly what you've described. I just spent a good deal of time looking for such a thing, with no luck.


it would be nice =/



And please don't shoot me for throwing another can of paint into the tie-dye spinner, but if we want to keep it within the realm of particles and motion vectors: no one has mentioned the possibility of nano-machines yet...

When are they going to put stereo-optical cameras up there so we can get some sense of distance?


not at all. starred for a very well-thought out post, even if you're "throwing another can of paint into the tie-dye spinner"


and i know, stereo-optical cameras would make this sort of analysis SO much easier because you could figure out pretty much the exact distance of every single object in every frame. It would benefit nasa too if they were studying multiple objects, but I think they usually just have one goal in mind (like approaching a satellite before starting repairs), where the money spent on a laser rangefinder is just as effective as spending more money on a full compliment of dual cameras units.



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 12:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by dragonridr
reply to post by JScytale
 


Im going to post a question to you since you believe these oject were over 81 miles out beyond the tether explain to me why when the camera oscillates on it's pan/tilt unit following remote aim adjustment. If the so-called UFOs were really behind the tether, then why was their displacement considerably greater than that of the tether during the oscillation? The only plausible explanation is that the so-called UFOs were actually in the foreground. This basic principle (motion parallax) can be appreciated by anyone with a pair of eyes! Where are the photographers i know this playing with my digital camera come on.


Read it realized you may have no camera experience at all so decided to simplify. When camera tilts obects close to you will show much further travel in the videothan a distant object.There that should help got worried id loose you.


[edit on 6/10/09 by dragonridr]


GOOD catch. this hadn't even crossed my mind.

i think i should make this clear - i am no expert with cameras, but i have used them enough to know what an object out of focus looks like. my camera arguments are primarily based upon the study i linked in the first reply and research.

also, if this was directed at me, i believe the "critters" are small particles very close to the camera - they are the particles close enough to go out of focus on the zoom and display the characteristics of out of focus particles in this kind of camera. just for clarity. the reply is linked to my post but seems to be aimed at another. when i was talking about size, i meant apparent size, not actual.

[edit on 10-6-2009 by JScytale]



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 01:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by JScytale
reply to post by afgang
 


a couple of them are curious, thats true, but considering they are almost conclusively proven to all be nearly on top of the shuttle window by the video I linked, its very likely that they may even be colliding with the shuttle window. as for the parabolic arc trajectories, this is all taking place inside the earth's very strong gravitational field. In my eyes, 99% of these objects are pretty much conclusively micrometeorites and debris.




IT is like in a cell when we look under a microscope.....We represent the below and above of the Above and so below................When we look at cells and # they are just like space and atoms are planets and suns...


There are beings who's toes are bigger than our universe and whole universes that are smaller than a freckle on your skin........

Everything is connected ....There is no living or dying.....just seperate existing experiences .....



Everything is living ......If we are living and we are made up of the same stuff that everything in the Universe is......then we and everything in it are a living thing and come from a living source......


Thing about it clearly and it all makes sense....People just refuse to believe..



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 01:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by LucidDreamer85

Originally posted by JScytale
reply to post by afgang
 


a couple of them are curious, thats true, but considering they are almost conclusively proven to all be nearly on top of the shuttle window by the video I linked, its very likely that they may even be colliding with the shuttle window. as for the parabolic arc trajectories, this is all taking place inside the earth's very strong gravitational field. In my eyes, 99% of these objects are pretty much conclusively micrometeorites and debris.




IT is like in a cell when we look under a microscope.....We represent the below and above of the Above and so below................When we look at cells and # they are just like space and atoms are planets and suns...


There are beings who's toes are bigger than our universe and whole universes that are smaller than a freckle on your skin........

Everything is connected ....There is no living or dying.....just seperate existing experiences .....



Everything is living ......If we are living and we are made up of the same stuff that everything in the Universe is......then we and everything in it are a living thing and come from a living source......


Thing about it clearly and it all makes sense....People just refuse to believe..


i actually touched upon that earlier in.... less... mystic... tones...
sorry, couldn't resist.
you might find my thoughts interesting.


Originally posted by JScytale

Originally posted by dragonridr

Originally posted by JScytale


that means there is more evidence in the footage yet to be put under this analysis and i am having a hard time believing that the shuttle thrusters are continuously firing during all these scenes.

not likely in my opinion


you know what else is unlikely? that something pretty much conclusively proven to be extremely close to the camera, and therefore as small as a pin., is intelligently controlled.

there is much, much better evidence out there.


Don't rule out the fact there could be micro aliens flying in micro craft maybe this is why we haven't made contact were just to darn big. If you look closely i think i even saw a couple hitting the window. And as they say in space no one can hear you scream. Sorry i couldn't resist i tried i really did!


i loled


you know, i really have thought about that before. whether the physical scale of the aliens is so vastly different from ours that they are too small for us to detect without instruments, or so large we wouldnt recognize them as beings. or what if their metabolism was so fast that they moved, thought, lived and died in the blink of a human eye - or so slow that we might land on their homeworld, not recognize them, and build cities on them mistaking them for geological formations in the distant future?


this is all, of course, pure speculation and imagination on my part.



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 01:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by dragonridr
If the so-called UFOs were really behind the tether, then why was their displacement considerably greater than that of the tether during the oscillation?


Damn, now you made me have to go back and study the original video, again.

I have no training in this field, but I believe I grasp what you're saying. After studying the original video several more times, I tend to reach the opposite conclusion. Any chance you could demonstrate the displacement variance you're talking about?

When I look at the objects in relation to the tether during tilts, pans and zooms, I see them remaining in the exact relative positions I would expect them to if they were in fact in the near vicinity of the tether.

Notably more so in the zoomed sections, as the camera jiggles and bobs around with the tether in the center, I would expect to observe little to no displacement from objects close to the camera, because the camera has only moved a tiny amount in respect to a very distant object. The close objects, in our view, should remain relatively stationary.

Yet what I see are the objects that appear to be close to the tether bobbing around as wildly as the tether itself and maintaining their relationship to it.



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 01:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by JScytale
notice the foil? its not there to look pretty. its there to keep the astronauts from cooking alive.


What has that got to do with the 0.1 inch THIN tether wire? Your just rambling now, no idea what your talking about, grasping at straws

I asked you to explain to me how a 0.1 inch wire can reflect that much sunlight to cause the effect we see.

Do try to focus on the question

Thanks



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 01:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by JScytale
notice the foil? its not there to look pretty. its there to keep the astronauts from cooking alive.


What has that got to do with the 0.1 inch THIN tether wire? Your just rambling now, no idea what your talking about, grasping at straws

I asked you to explain to me how a 0.1 inch wire can reflect that much sunlight to cause the effect we see.

Do try to focus on the question

Thanks



Originally posted by zorgon

How hard is it for you to understand that the tether is a very thin wire about the thickness of a match stick. Explain how something that thin will reflect that much sunlight from 100 nautical miles. And its insulated so its not all that reflective.



you do realize that reflective surfaces outside the atmosphere are *extremely* bright, right? its why space suits have reflective visors. so astronauts dont go completely blind. its why the tether is extremely overexposed. its why the earth's light completely blots out the lower right half of the tether footage without even being present in the shot.

also, insulated in space does not mean nonreflective. in fact it usually means quite the opposite. in order to insulate something from extreme electromagnetic radiation, you make it *as reflective as possible* so it doesn't absorb said radiation.


notice the foil? its not there to look pretty. its there to keep the astronauts from cooking alive.

[edit on 9-6-2009 by JScytale]


i must say, though, I *am* flattered my accusation of your original post being off-topic got to you enough for you to continually accuse me of the same.



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 01:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by JScytale
this is all, of course, pure speculation and imagination on my part.


First thing you have said that makes sense...


Now maybe you can cut back a tad on the excessive re quoting of quotes within quotes? Kinda frowned upon by staff...



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 01:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by JScytale
this is all, of course, pure speculation and imagination on my part.


First thing you have said that makes sense...


Now maybe you can cut back a tad on the excessive re quoting of quotes within quotes? Kinda frowned upon by staff...


i wonder if you read what i had quoted myself as saying.

and your inability to read what i type has forced me to repeat it over and over.



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 01:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by JScytale
i must say, though, I *am* flattered my accusation of your original post being off-topic got to you enough for you to continually accuse me of the same.


I will ask one more time...

Show me how a 0.1 diameter wire can reflect enough sunlight to over power a camera 100 nautical miles away

You can't can you


TTFN




top topics



 
77
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join