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: 105
77
<< 102  103  104    106  107  108 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
some say reality is perception , but is your perception accurate ?
Some say that, but I don't.


And I don't have any real way of knowing just by myself if my perception is accurate, that's why I like to listen (or read) to other people's opinions, giving them my own opinions in the process, because if two people share the same knowledge then they have more probabilities of getting to the truth than when one only has their own perception.


so you think the famous object in the STS80 video is a UFO ?
If you are talking about the object that looks like it's attracted to the lightning storm and then follows the Earth's rotation then that is the object I am talking about.

As I haven't seen any identification of it and I think that its movements can be understood as flying, I consider it an UFO, and the closest to a plasma object that I have ever seen.


i think it's possible that these UFO's are dimensional and you have no way of really knowing if the ionosphere would be a problem.
What do you mean by "are dimensional"?


open your mind and think outside the box , being overly skeptical is not healthy
My mind is open, but obviously I can only consider things that I know, so, not having any knowledge of what a soul may look like or be, I cannot really think about that possibility, although I consider it as a possibility.



Above Top Secret info that i cannot discuss , sorry
Well, we are in Above Top Secret, that's the best place to discuss it.



some of those visions were witnessed by thousands of people so there is more than strong evidence to support that something is visiting this planet and has the capabilities to intermix in different dimensions.
The fact that they were seen by thousands of people does not mean that they are "visiting this planet", that expression implies that they are not from this planet, so it's already limiting the possibilities even before we can start talking about it.


i see you ignored what i said here...why ?

the fact that Oberg has been working on this for over ten years and this thread is over 100 pages proves my point.


there is no conclusion after all these years , doesn't that mean something ?
It means something, but there are several "somethings" it can mean, the most probable, for my "mundane" and boring way of seeing things, is that there isn't enough data to reach a conclusion, that happens many times with everyday things; we just move on and wait for more data to try to reach a conclusion or we look for more data (like understanding how cameras work
) to help us reach a conclusion.

Obviously, a more conspiracy-oriented version would say that we don't have the data because it's been withheld, but as we don't have any way of knowing it I prefer not to follow that path.




posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 10:55 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 



Some say that, but I don't.


you should because imo it's the truth


If you are talking about the object that looks like it's attracted to the lightning storm


yes that's the one


As I haven't seen any identification of it and I think that its movements can be understood as flying, I consider it an UFO, and the closest to a plasma object that I have ever seen


are you sure it's plasma ? there really is no way of knowing the composition of any of these objects and just because there is plasma in space does not mean any of them are pure plasma or even partially.



What do you mean by "are dimensional"?


i wasn't implying the STS75 UFO's were dimensional objects (just wanted to make that clear even though it's possible) what i meant was that some UFO's could be from a different dimension and are able to manifest into our dimensional reality.


Professor of Physics , Dr. Horace Crater has put forth a theory about transient magnetic anomalies and how these anomalous properties could be Alien related.


Magnetic and geologic surveys of many areas throughout the world have revealed magnetic anomalies that could not be produced by any natural or known phenomena. These transient magnetic anomalies have been recorded, indicating synchronous aerial magnetic anomalies have a multidimensional para physical place of origin, in terms of a different level of reality, where stability and solidity are being fuelled by a ceaseless process of subatomic particles, constantly dissolving into an implicit order, and then re-crystallizing within our space. Extraterrestrial biological entities may be using technologies and aspects of the physical universe that are beyond our current understanding to conceal their behavior, culture, appearance, and occasionally revealing their presence in our measurable space-time by making frequency shifts that leave traces of field flux, in certain energy spectra, allowing us to witness their presence.



Organizations (Project Phoenix and the BETA 2 Group) on earth have confirmed signals, using narrow band spectral analyzers, privately stating that the signals received, exhibited enough source information to determine and confirm an intelligent agent created them. The signals show language like structures, proofing "alien" intelligence to human life. The government has decided to suppress this information from the general public due to the widespread consequences, affecting all groups of society. Governments are scared of what this extraterrestrial contact information would mean to the different cultures on earth. They fear a breakdown in social order, a 'complete' breakdown in conventional religion. They even fear loss of control over the masses.


www.alienmania.org...
www.utsi.edu...
www.ufostoday.com...



It means something, but there are several "somethings" it can mean


several ? not according to Oberg...








posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 05:18 AM
link   
After over 100 pages we may still not know exactly what they are, but we do know what they aren't. We know they aren't the 3 mile wide objects claimed to be passing behind the tether in that video just posted.



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 07:03 AM
link   
reply to post by depthoffield
 


I notice that you didn't rush in to explain this.

When will you wake up to the fact that the concept of infinite depth of field is based on sales brochure nonsense based on a 10 X 12 sized photograph. When you throw that same picture up on a large monitor, it becomes obvious that the claim of infinite depth of field is pure nonsense. If you have a camera that allows you to adjust beyond infinity it becomes blatantly obvious.



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 07:09 AM
link   
reply to post by depthoffield
 


At least I understood the relationship between pressure and temperature in their role in condensation, evaporation, sublimation, and vaporization. It was clear from your comments and the rest of you on that side of the discussion that you didn't understand this relationship, or the basic physics.

I always keep in mind that my opinion could be wrong, unlike you, and it seems everyone on your side of the debate, who simply ignore all evidence that proves you wrong, like the fact that we now know these spheres, from examples provided, are most likely in focus at the distance of the tether, the object of focus in the tether video.



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 07:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Um, as has already been explained, lighting is plasma, and it can be photographed, and has been numerous times.

Have you ever heard of the aurora borealis?

Look up into the sky during the day time, there is this bright orb called the sun, it is plasma.

The fact that you can't grasp the reality of these well observed objects of of nature puts your opinion on plasma into perspective.



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 07:23 AM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


Do you realize that you offer absolutely no reason or logic for your opinions on these being ice particles near the shuttle?

Do you realize the huge difference between stating your opinion, and explaining it?

Could it be that you don't offer any evidence to back up your opinion is because all the evidence points to the fact that you are wrong, and you simply refuse to admit that you are wrong?



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 07:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 






[edit on 2-12-2009 by easynow]



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 07:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


We have a 105 pages on this thread that show that no matter what evidence is put in front of some people, they will refuse to believe what they do not want to believe.

They won't even consider the possibility that what they could be wrong.

They just aren't going to get out of the box.



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 07:44 AM
link   
reply to post by easynow
 


From the earliest days of aviation and space flight we have reports of the foo fighters.

It is amazing that so many people still refuse to even consider the possibility that numerous people have witnessing a life form that shares our world which is of a completely different physical nature than our own.

We have scientific evidence, first observed and recorded by David Bohm fifty years ago that plasma forms in ways similar to living cells. I think it is very strange that we don't see more reports of research being conducted to investigate this phenomenon of nature.



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 08:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
Do you realize that you offer absolutely no reason or logic for your opinions on these being ice particles near the shuttle?
Yes, I do, and that's because I do not have any clear evidence that they are ice particles (or other small objects) near the shuttle.


Do you realize the huge difference between stating your opinion, and explaining it?
Yes, I do.


Could it be that you don't offer any evidence to back up your opinion is because all the evidence points to the fact that you are wrong, and you simply refuse to admit that you are wrong?
No, it's because my interpretation of what has been presented does not show anything that points to those things not being close to the shuttle.

As we have different interpretations of what the camera is showing (out of focus or not out of focus), even if we both consider the possibility of being wrong (which I think we both do), we will keep on seeing each other as being wrong.

That's why I would like to clear this doubt of the out of focus/not out of focus situation, but that makes easynow uneasy.



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 08:16 AM
link   
Surely there are youtube videos that indisputably show objects close to the shuttle camera -- that you both could apply your standards to, to see if they successfully discriminate close from far objects?



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 08:28 AM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


not only foo's but ufo's have been reported for centuries and the debunkers and non believers that we are discussing this subject with will never ever admit that. is it a waste of time to discuss this subject with someone that will never consider anything else but what the goverement has programmed them with ?


i agree there is some evidence to make a case of life forms that have not been identified. i believe the reason that mainstream science will not touch this subject is because their not allowed to.



here's a good story about a science discovery being suppressed

www.youtube.com...



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 08:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
I think that those things are small objects near the shuttle.


Hi ArMaP , first let me say that I respect your opinion about it all, but allow me this question.

Quickly after the film below starts until 0:00: 34, the only things you can see are the tether in the distance and some stars on the background and at the same moment nothing else, even not close by the shuttle.

www.space-video.info...

Then after they zoomed in at 0:00: 51 you see again the bigger tether but also many objects/things moving in all directions.
Is it not so then that if the objects/things where indeed close to the shuttle you must have seen them more likely just from the start and not after they have zoomed in, because normally when you zoom in, objects close by are disappearing from view and become therefore in a way not visible anymore instead of appearing and become more and more visible.

Then, after again zooming in the objects/things becomes even better visible and now you can see even more details, such as a hole in the center, some sort of indentation at the edge and some sort of pulsating movement around the objects.

Then another fact, one can clearly see that some objects/things change direction, which is not possible in space without some internal propulsion system in my opinion.

I even forgot to mention, that I personally see very clearly some of the objects/things passing behind the tether, of which I know that many here will disagree with.

So what is wrong here?


[edit on 2/12/09 by spacevisitor]

[edit on 2/12/09 by spacevisitor]

[edit on 2/12/09 by spacevisitor]

[edit on 2/12/09 by spacevisitor]



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 10:11 AM
link   
reply to post by easynow
 


Yeah, I participated in a thread on orgone energy. The fact that they put the guy in jail, and destroyed his machines makes things look very suspicious. If it wasn't for Bohm's academic credentials and personal connections, they might have put him in jail as well. It is all very strange indeed.



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by spacevisitor
Is it not so then that if the objects/things where indeed close to the shuttle you must have seen them more likely just from the start and not after they have zoomed in, because normally when you zoom in, objects close by are disappearing from view instead of appearing and become therefore in a way not visible anymore.

Then, after again zooming in the objects/things becomes even better visible and now you can see even more details, such as a hole in the center, some sort of indentation at the edge and some sort of pulsating movement around the objects.

Then another fact, one can clearly see that some objects/things change direction, which is not possible in space without some internal propulsion system in my opinion.

So what is wrong here?




To demand that nearby particles be visible from the beginning of the video sequence you must posit that they are distributed uniformly around the shuttle -- an assumption without any basis. You also have to posit that everything in the camera's field of view, at any range, was sunlit -- when the actual illumination conditions, including the shuttle's own shadow, are unknown (and Poet asserts he doesn't care, that info is meaningless).

That's why it's important to know when sunrise occurred at the shuttle. Poet claims he knows this based on appearance of a glow in the edge of the FOV -- which is indeed often a legitimate indicator. We will shortly get the control center planning document for that day's flight, that gives the exact time of sunrise, and I've asked Poet to tell us what time HE thinks the sun rose, so we can compare it to the NASA document -- but he won't do that.

The appearances of the 'disks' has been pretty well attributed to camera artifacts -- even stars out of focus have 'holes' in the center, and the notches are aligned around the rims consistently based on where in the FOV the disk is seen, pretty clearly assigning that notchiness to a camera artifact.

Some of the dots do change motion, which does not require on-board propulsion. They can be disturbed by thruster firings -- telemetry records would be needed to correlate thruster firings and motion changes (as they precisely match on the infamous STS-48 zig-zag UFO video). Different dots would react differently (or not even react at all) depending on how far they are from the shuttle, or even close enough to be in its plume shadow. It's also been suggested that small ice flakes could shift motion as the water molecules are ejected, under certain stable conditions -- but I haven't run the numbers on this.



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


We have looked at utube videos of stuff around the shuttle, and none of it looks like this tether video. If you can come up with a video that looks like what we see in this tether incident, that is particles near the shuttle, please do.

There is the other video of another STS sighting of similar looking spheres, I think it is STS-85, where these spherical globes come up out of a large storm, that looks so realistic, I thought someone was trying to pull a fast one, and pass a hollywood created video off as an actual NASA video.

Those spherical orbs clearly were not particles near the shuttle.



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


I didn't insert that I don't care, I posted a quote from the NASA scene list from the mission that states that particles were visible from a water dump while the shuttle was behind the Earth's shadow, which means if these particles were near the shuttle, we should have seen them from the beginning.

The appearance of the solid spheres has NOT been attributed to camera artifacts in any shape of form. What research has shown is that these spherical orbs are probably in focus and near the tether, and the links that demonstrate this are in the last few pages. Only the hollow spheres might be near the shuttle, but they could also be very far away from the shuttle, depending a great deal upon the camera's settings.

I haven't provided a time for when I would estimate sunrise, because I don't see how it is relevant. From the video, about one minute thirty seconds after the start of the video. You get the control center planning document for that day's flight and give us a decent link to it, and I will estimate a shuttle sunrise time from the scene list. Sound like a deal?

And I still say Plasma critters, and I have provided the evidence from my reasoning to come to this conclusion.

So there



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 



That's why I would like to clear this doubt of the out of focus/not out of focus situation, but that makes easynow uneasy.


nice one !

no really i asked you three times if someone should start a separate thread about cameras and you keep refusing to answer , why ?

why is it such a crazy idea ? i think someone should start a thread about it so this thread can continue to be on topic and not be sidetracked by all the camera experts and their opinions about photography. lessens learned from all you cameras nuts discussing it with each other in another thread would be good and interesting and you wouldn't have to be worried about being off topic. why is that such a scary idea ?


[edit on 2-12-2009 by easynow]



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
you must posit that they are distributed uniformly around the shuttle.


Well, if it is as you said here, I assume that that is a common happening right, that they are distributed uniformly around the shuttle, but if it is so common, why then didn’t Houston recognized that immediately as the explanation for it?

Because they must ask Franklin to describe what he thinks it is.




Houston.
This view showing eh, ...pause ... the satellite, .. again eh just moving in the sunrise, 81 nautical miles now from Columbia, .....pause............

Franklin.
Guys getting the image?

Houston.
Franklin we see a long line, couple of starlight things and a lot of things swimming in the foreground, can you describe what you seeing?



Originally posted by JimOberg
everything in the camera's field of view, at any range, was sunlit –


I suggest you look again and more closely from 0:00:12, because then you see that what you claim here is not true, because you can clearly see the tether and some stars there but definitly no moving objects/things.


Originally posted by JimOberg
The appearances of the 'disks' has been pretty well attributed to camera artifacts


If that is so, then the 'disks' must have been regularly filmed during every other shuttle expedition right, so can you show me the proof of that?


Originally posted by JimOberg
even stars out of focus have 'holes' in the center, and the notches are aligned around the rims consistently based on where in the FOV the disk is seen, pretty clearly assigning that notchiness to a camera artifact.


If that is so, you must be capable of showing me a lot of pictures or videos with stars with the same looks and behavior.
Bye the way, I really did not know that stars could be flying around in all directions.


Originally posted by JimOberg
Some of the dots do change motion, which does not require on-board propulsion. They can be disturbed by thruster firings -- telemetry records would be needed to correlate thruster firings and motion changes (as they precisely match on the infamous STS-48 zig-zag UFO video).


Thanks for mentioning the infamous STS-48 zig-zag UFO video, because here are some insights from an expert about that.


Space Shuttle Thrusters, Light Flashes, and Ice Particles
Some Insights from an Expert

Lan Fleming

www.vgl.org...

Summary

In a discussion with a NASA aerospace engineer familiar with the space shuttle reaction control system, I learned that the thrusters never generate any light while operating, but they always emit a small cloud of unburned propellant just before the thruster fires and a much larger cloud immediately after the thruster shuts down. The post-burn cloud may be visible, but only when reflecting sunlight. The pre-burn cloud is never visible to the human eye but might be detected by a light-sensitive camera. Any light flashes seen in space shuttle videos cannot be from a thruster unless they coincide with the beginning or end of a rocket burn. The consequences of this information in regard to two videos of apparently anomalous objects taken by shuttle video cameras are described.

Introduction

As described in previous articles here and elsewhere, several objects in the STS-48 video of Sept. 15, 1991 seem to react to a flash of light by changing course. According to James Oberg and others associated with NASA, the flash of light was caused by the firing of a small reaction control system (RCS) thruster on the space shuttle. Oberg has asserted that:

The RCS jets usually fire in 80-millisecond pulses to keep the shuttle pointed in a desired direction, under autopilot control (usually once every few minutes). These jets may flash when they ignite if the mixture ratio is not quite right. Propellant also tends to seep out the feed lines into the nozzle, where it accumulates, freezes through evaporative cooling, and flakes off during the next firing. The ejected burn byproducts travel at about 1000 ft/sec. One pulse usually emits about a quarter pound of propellant in a fan-shaped plume. [1]


For the whole article.

www.vgl.org...


Originally posted by JimOberg
Different dots would react differently (or not even react at all) depending on how far they are from the shuttle, or even close enough to be in its plume shadow.


If it were small ice or dust particles and so close to those thruster firings, I would accept that, but even you are not shore that it were indeed close by ice or dust particles, because look what you said here.


even stars out of focus have 'holes' in the center, and the notches are aligned around the rims consistently based on where in the FOV the disk is seen, pretty clearly assigning that notchiness to a camera artifact.



Originally posted by JimOberg
It's also been suggested that small ice flakes could shift motion as the water molecules are ejected, under certain stable conditions -- but I haven't run the numbers on this.


Right.




[edit on 2/12/09 by spacevisitor]

[edit on 2/12/09 by spacevisitor]



new topics

top topics



 
77
<< 102  103  104    106  107  108 >>

log in

join