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: 110
77
<< 107  108  109    111  112  113 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
So the proof that the Sturrock report is "NASA disinformation" is that -- now, see if I'm getting this straight -- a private letter to the White House used the letters "N", "A", "S", and again "A", fiendishly disguised by other letters surrounding them.


i don't get what you mean......


however those 'C' 'A' 'P' 'S' reminded me of this......







posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by spacevisitor
So what you think then is just another view about it right, therefore, the people, and I am one of them, who claim they are convinced they see the objects clearly passing behind the tether could still be right then don’t you think?
Yes.

As I always admit the possibility of being wrong, that means that all other points of view may be right (obviously some more than others), my opinion is just that, an opinion.


And what is so wrong about those cameras.
You think the camera electronics were near their limit.
Jim Oberg and some others are trying explaining it away by blaming it on camera artifacts and such.
How come, because are those cameras then not the very best one can get?
Yes, I think the electronics were almost overloaded (or had in some instances already reached that point) because of the way the looks of the tether change (without zooming).

I also think that the shape of the moving objects is the result of them being out of focus, but that doesn't mean that the cameras were not good, it means only that the camera was being used in a situation for which it was not made but that it was good enough to let the operator adjust the image even in those extreme conditions.

The out of focus look will always happen with far away and close objects, regardless of the quality of the lens.

(I hope easynow doesn't noticed that we are talking about cameras
)


After all the information I have read and seen about it, I am convinced that it are definitely objects near the tether which have their own propulsion systems because they move clearly visible in all directions, not only in straight lines, some of their flight path has a curve and some even turn around, and because they are filmed in infrared they must produce heat or emit some sort of pulsating light energy, most likely both and probably because of their propulsion systems.
Why do you say that they are filmed in infrared? This was a common camera, not an infrared camera.

And even if it was, an infrared camera shows only the infrared closest to the visible spectrum, while heat is only visible with special thermal sensors that lack the definition of a common camera.



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by mcrom901
debris

. Martyn deliberately withholds that datum to sabotage any serious investigation [as he did with the STS-75 video under discussion here -- then provided false information]. It's an old trick, why do some saps keep falling for it again and again and again....?

what a load of hogwash...& calling curious ATS members "saps"...is typical of your true nature, Mr. Oberg, sir.



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 



a video without providing any means (such as date/time) for verifying it, determining the illumination conditions, or checking up on the operational context, and also deleting the sound track of what the astronauts and Mission Control are saying, and omitting what they have said later when asked about the video, won't score many points in the 'honesty' competition.


how ironic

you on a almost daily basis continue to throw Musgrave's supposed testimony around at everyone AND NEVER MENTION that he didn't bother to look at any of those "conditions" ((which YOU CRY ABOUT ALL THE TIME)) before passing his judgment, but yet you expect everyone to accept his claims as PROOF of something. i would say the fact that you have done this for years doesn't score any points in the honesty department and i think because of your deception and what you wrote in your reply to me, you've made it obvious to everyone that you are hypocritical . sorry but the truth hurts sometimes


[edit on 3-12-2009 by easynow]



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by easynow
 


check this classic........


www.bibleufo.com...


Early in my research I had several confrontations with James Oberg, a UFO skeptic, whose style of debunking is almost legendary. His tactics led me into a study of debunking to counter his dismissive and completely illogical points, which were almost baffling in their ability to convince others proof of UFOs was a total sham. I found, through years of experience that his tactics were very similar to those used by almost every UFO skeptic in the field. Anyone armed with the knowledge of how debunkers operate can see common threads in the way they argue their points and counter them.



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by mcrom901
 


good one thanks ,

i'm building a collection so that will get added to the story for sure





Looks like Jumping James Oberg is, once again, stressing “unfacts” that support…Launching another carefully architected Oberg disinfo opportunity.
ufomedia.blogspot.com...


Jumping James Oberg !






Jim when are you going to admit it's been ten years and you still can't debunk the STS-75 video ? are you just to embarrassed to admit it ?



[edit on 3-12-2009 by easynow]



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by mcrom901
reply to post by easynow
 


check this classic........


www.bibleufo.com...


Early in my research I had several confrontations with James Oberg, a UFO skeptic, whose style of debunking is almost legendary. His tactics led me into a study of debunking to counter his dismissive and completely illogical points, which were almost baffling in their ability to convince others proof of UFOs was a total sham. I found, through years of experience that his tactics were very similar to those used by almost every UFO skeptic in the field. Anyone armed with the knowledge of how debunkers operate can see common threads in the way they argue their points and counter them.


So let's see what the legendary debunking tactic is, could it be, say, asking for facts?


Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by JimOberg
 



a video without providing any means (such as date/time) for verifying it, determining the illumination conditions, or checking up on the operational context, and also deleting the sound track of what the astronauts and Mission Control are saying, and omitting what they have said later when asked about the video, won't score many points in the 'honesty' competition.


how ironic



So, where are the facts? what was the date/time? And any serious analysis of that video would include the soundtrack which may include anything the astronaut doing the photography is saying about what he's doing and why he's doing it.

When we try to solve cases with facts, we actually give some credibility to the field of UFO research which should be the goal of serious researchers.

Do you wonder why disparaging comments are made about the field of UFO research from the Sturrock review easynow pointed us to:


Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by mcrom901
 


science.msfc.nasa.gov...

that ^^^^ is NASA disinfo and you won't be getting anything but that from them.



the panel concluded. "It may be valuable to carefully evaluate UFO reports to extract information about unusual phenomena currently unknown to science." To be credible to the scientific community "such evaluations must take place with a spirit of objectivity and a willingness to evaluate rival hypotheses" that has so far been lacking, it added.


OK so first of all is there anything wrong with being objective?

and importantly note this:


Most current UFO investigations lack the level of rigor required by the scientific community, despite the initiative and dedication of the investigators involved


When videos are posted with no date time reference, with even the sound track removed, shouldn't all of us, and that means you too easynow, be asking for the facts? I'd have to agree not even getting the facts does show a lack of rigor in the investigation.

Once we all have at least the facts, then we can do as Mark Twain suggested (from someone's ATS signature):

Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please.
-Mark Twain

But let's all at least start with the facts. Then if we reach different opinions based on those facts we can have some good meaningful debate on that basis.



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 07:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


go to youtube

watch videos about the STS-80

check NASA webpage

get your own facts.

i am not here to prove anything to you



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 11:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Once we all have at least the facts, then we can do as Mark Twain suggested


and you're expecting the astronauts or nasa to deliver those facts?

what a joke.....






posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
and importantly note this:


Most current UFO investigations lack the level of rigor required by the scientific community, despite the initiative and dedication of the investigators involved



scientific community...... yeah right....



"Most scientists have never had the occasion to confront evidence concerning the UFO phenomenon. To a scientist, the main source of hard information (other than his own experiments' observations) is provided by the scientific journals. With rare exceptions, scientific journals do not publish reports of UFO observations. The decision not to publish is made by the editor acting on the advice of reviewers. This process is self-reinforcing: the apparent lack of data confirms the view that there is nothing to the UFO phenomenon, and this view (prejudice) works against the presentation of relevant data."

Peter A. Sturrock, "An Analysis of the Condon Report on the Colorado UFO Project," Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol.1, No.1, 1987


www.abovetopsecret.com...

and what about these...

www.abovetopsecret.com...




posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
When videos are posted with no date time reference, with even the sound track removed, shouldn't all of us, and that means you too easynow, be asking for the facts? I'd have to agree not even getting the facts does show a lack of rigor in the investigation.


sorry... but nobody had asked for any details in this case....


i suppose any serious researcher should have recognized those legendary clips....

unless people are chasing a different agenda.....



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by mcrom901

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
and importantly note this:


Most current UFO investigations lack the level of rigor required by the scientific community, despite the initiative and dedication of the investigators involved







[edit on 3/12/09 by mcrom901]



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 11:54 PM
link   
reply to post by mcrom901
 



excellent posts my friend




This process is self-reinforcing: the apparent lack of data confirms the view that there is nothing to the UFO phenomenon, and this view (prejudice) works against the presentation of relevant data."


out of sight out of mind and when it is in sight it seems to unreal to consider.

the illuminati programming is on the verge of collapse , ufo information is starting to spread to everyone and people are waking up. if the "view" changes and becomes that there is something to this phenomena then when some relevant data does get presented people will take it more seriously and then that process will take over and keep reinforcing itself. obviouslly that's why they (TPTB) want to shut down the internet or at least restrict your access to quell the reversal of the old Paradigm.



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 12:09 AM
link   
I've scanned and posted in temp on-line storage a number of documents directly related to furthering investigation into the causes of the STS-75 video.

This one-page chart shows the numerous shuttle vents that expel fluids and effluent deliberately. It does not include all of the RCS thrusters, which also can (and do) leak effluent, nor other potential sources of solid debris.
Space Shuttle Orbiter vent ports
orbiter-vents.PDF
www.quickfilepost.com...


This paper, developed for a college debate, might serve as an example of the level of contextual information needed for an 'unexplained video' so as to discover the most plausible prosaic explanation for it. Data for STS-75 has not yet reached this level of detail.
Prosaic Explanation for STS-48 Video -- Speech at Purdue U, 1999.
99purdue-48-speech.PDF
www.quickfilepost.com...


This is one of the books I wrote for the Mission Control Center team while working at NASA JSC 1975-1997; this particular chapter focuses on tethered operations with the space shuttle.
NASA JSC Rendezvous and Proximity Operations Flight Procedures Handbook, 1987, by James Oberg. Chapter on tethered satellite operations.
fph-Tethered_ops.PDF
www.quickfilepost.com...


This report I made to a NASA safety panel highlighted my personal concern over the need to monitor the environment of the shuttle and the station for situational awareness of spacecraft-generated debris and the potential safety implications of their presence.
Controlling Hazards from Spacecraft-Generated Debris, report for NASA-JSC, James Oberg, 1993.
9307xx-sc-generated-debris.PDF
www.quickfilepost.com...



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 12:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by mcrom901

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
When videos are posted with no date time reference, with even the sound track removed, shouldn't all of us, and that means you too easynow, be asking for the facts? I'd have to agree not even getting the facts does show a lack of rigor in the investigation.


sorry... but nobody had asked for any details in this case....
.


That should give you a clue about how serious everybody has been about truly examining these videos (and risking finding the prosaic cause), rather than resorting to mindless mouth-gaping adoration of the dancing dots, and wide-open-minded (brain falling out) speculation on plasmoids and interdimensional ghosts or whatever.

Do you fully appreciate what a condemnation of the pitiful level of intellectual rigor of what passes here for 'UFO investigation', your off-handed statement really is? Phil Klass couldn't have snarled it better himself.



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 12:13 AM
link   
reply to post by JUMPINGJimOberg


got any reports that consider other explanations like UFO's ?

just wondering if you did in case you didn't want to look or appear biased to everyone











[edit on 4-12-2009 by easynow]



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 12:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by JimOberg
 



a video without providing any means (such as date/time) for verifying it, determining the illumination conditions, or checking up on the operational context, and also deleting the sound track of what the astronauts and Mission Control are saying, and omitting what they have said later when asked about the video, won't score many points in the 'honesty' competition.


how ironic

you on a almost daily basis continue to throw Musgrave's supposed testimony around at everyone AND NEVER MENTION that he didn't bother to look at any of those "conditions" ((which YOU CRY ABOUT ALL THE TIME)) before passing his judgment, ...


Reality check. Musgrave was ambushed with this video on a UFO program, and since he was not TOLD any of the context of it, he said he couldn't say what IT showed, but that in general from his experience the shuttles were often surrounded by debris that behaved in the same manner.


... but yet you expect everyone to accept his claims as PROOF of something.


His 'claims' when ambushed cold with the video were that he didn't know what the scene showed. How could he have been more clear, or more candid? Obviously, he wasn't clear enough to avoid confusing YOU.

LATER, when shown my detailed report of the illumination and operational context of the video, he and other crewmembers enthusiastically endorsed the offered prosaic explanation. But that was only AFTER they had seen all the contextual data and research.

Since I had worked professionally with Musgrave since STS-6 days, and had had an office down the hall from him in Bldg 4, he knew and trusted my professional expertise. And I, his.



i would say the fact that you have done this for years doesn't score any points in the honesty department and i think because of your deception and what you wrote in your reply to me, you've made it obvious to everyone that you are hypocritical . sorry but the truth hurts sometimes



This is just sad.



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 12:35 AM
link   
reply to post by JUMPINGJimOberg
 




he and other crewmembers enthusiastically endorsed the offered prosaic explanation.


oh i'm sure they did



and we believe your story with no proof of course





















[edit on 4-12-2009 by easynow]



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 01:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
That should give you a clue about how serious everybody has been about truly examining these videos (and risking finding the prosaic cause), rather than resorting to mindless mouth-gaping adoration of the dancing dots, and wide-open-minded (brain falling out) speculation on plasmoids and interdimensional ghosts or whatever.

Do you fully appreciate what a condemnation of the pitiful level of intellectual rigor of what passes here for 'UFO investigation', your off-handed statement really is? Phil Klass couldn't have snarled it better himself.


what a joke...... who is everybody..... how do you define seriousness..... you're cartooning the situation.... to give credibility to your own mind numbing claims..... i'm sorry.... but even if you think that you're managing to make some of the people believe that you are proving them wrong or whatever.... that, still does not validate your so called 'prosaic' bla blas.......

The Failure Of UFO Skeptics - Prosaic Explanations


In over 30 years of UFO investigation I have not studied a single sighting for which I could not find a prosaic explanation. - paraphrase of a statement by Philip J. Klass

Could some UFOs actually be manifestations of Other Intelligences (OIs)or Non-Human Intelligences (NHIs) such as extraterrestrials (ETs), visiting the earth and interacting with human beings? Or all reports of such sightings simply mistakes, hoaxes or dreams of the hopeful believers? It all comes down to explanation. If there were no sightings which are richly detailed, credible and yet unexplainable the UFO subject would be based totally on theoretical expectations, as is the so-called Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI).





posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 01:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
Reality check. Musgrave was ambushed with this video on a UFO program, and since he was not TOLD any of the context of it, he said he couldn't say what IT showed, but that in general from his experience the shuttles were often surrounded by debris that behaved in the same manner.


here is a quote from musgrave about 'the snake'....


You see satellites. I've seen Mir go by within 28 miles; other satellites and you don't know what they are, but maybe just space debris. All kinds of debris come off space ships, especially at the back end after the main engines shut down and you open the doors: ice chips, oxygen or hydrogen, stuff dumped from the engines. On two flights I've seen and photographed what I call "the snake," like a seven-foot eel swimming out there. It may be an uncritical rubber seal from the main engines. In zero g it's totally free to maneuver, and it has its own internal waves like it's swimming. All this debris is white, reflecting sunlight, or you don't see it. Cruising along with you at your velocity, it's still got its own rotation. At zero g, things have an incredible freedom. It's an extraordinary ballet.


www.spacestory.com...





top topics



 
77
<< 107  108  109    111  112  113 >>

log in

join