New Analysis Video of the STS-75 Tether Incident

Speaking of 'NASA secrets', here's a case where I figure the NASA folks involved have a lot to hide, and are illegally resisting disclosure -- so go for it!!

hotair.com...

Originally posted by JimOberg
Want to try that -- while waiting for the STS-75 Execute Package data [which I hassled PAO over again, this week]?

i'd suggest we burn the videos on different medias.... and then treat them with chemicals.... to determine their pH factors.....

"I have frequently been asked why a person of my background 'a former Chief of the Defence Staff, a former Chairman of the NATO Military Committee' why I think there is a cover-up (of) the facts about UFOs. I believe governments fear that if they did disclose those facts, people would panic. I don't believe that at all. There is a serious possibility that we are being visited by people from outer space. It behoves us to find out who they are, where they come from, and what they want."
Lord Admiral Hill-Norton (GCB), Chief of Defense Staff, Ministry of Defense, Britain; Chairman, Military Committee of NATO; Admiral of the Fleet; Member of House of Lords.

Originally posted by JimOberg
Speaking of 'NASA secrets', here's a case where I figure the NASA folks involved have a lot to hide, and are illegally resisting disclosure -- so go for it!!

no worries.... there are some good (award winning) guys out there....

reply to post by JimOberg

Bosh. Even Ed Mitchell and Gordo Cooper, UFO believers both, debunked the myth that there's an astronaut 'gag order' regarding UFOs. There have been foreign nationals, including Russians, and private citizens aboard shuttle flights -- none bound by mythical 'gag orders'. And if there IS such a 'gag order', it's got to be the leakiest vessel since 'Titanic' considering all the alleged quotations and photographs and videos crowding the internet and cable documentaries.

all lies & dis info

i see no proof of your proclamations and the two people you mentioned were in the space program 40 + years ago.

what a weak azz counter argument @ u

reading this topic lately, i have a strange feeling... like Zorgon is back.

Mcrom901 you have a style exactly like Zorgon. This is a compliment i think.




[edit on 4/12/09 by depthoffield]

I really want to believe, but this video just doesn't do it for me. There's got to be better evidence than this...it just looks like crap floating around in space...the only "intelligent life forms" in that video are humans...sorry.

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by JimOberg

 

Bosh. Even Ed Mitchell and Gordo Cooper, UFO believers both, debunked the myth that there's an astronaut 'gag order' regarding UFOs. There have been foreign nationals, including Russians, and private citizens aboard shuttle flights -- none bound by mythical 'gag orders'. And if there IS such a 'gag order', it's got to be the leakiest vessel since 'Titanic' considering all the alleged quotations and photographs and videos crowding the internet and cable documentaries.

all lies & dis info

i see no proof of your proclamations and the two people you mentioned were in the space program 40 + years ago.

UFO hunters interviewed a NASA insider, John Schuessler:
www.realufos.net...

John Schuessler is a Denver area resident and retired aerospace engineer from Lockheed Martin. He worked at NASA on nearly every manned U.S. space flight since its inception.

The interview is in the episode which can be seen online here:

aliencasebook.blogspot.com...

In part 1 of 5 a little after 4 minutes, Schuessler says he never saw a written policy about UFOs at NASA. But the unwritten policy was: "Don't go there".

If by that he means that jumping to the conclusion in the STS-75 video that an out of focus ice particle (appearing to pass behind the tether but really doesn't) is a 3 mile diameter UFO or possible "alien spacecraft", could be a career-limiting move at NASA, then yes I agree with him it's probably best not to go there.

Scheussler had a top secret clearance so if there had been a gag order he might have been a position to know it. And if there was a secret gag order then I'd perhaps expect him to say he can't answer the question, or something to that effect. But he clearly says NASA has no written policy, and then infers he's done a search to see if he can find any written policy about NASA's policy on UFOs.

So is that interview "proof"? I should say not, it's only evidence and like any other evidence it must be weighted for credibility. I don't know if I believe everything he says, but when he says he could find no official NASA written policy on UFOs (gag order or otherwise), I believe him about that at least.

One aspect of a NASA "coverup" that sounds like it could be credible to me is the theory proposed at the beginning of part 2 of 5 in that episode, that if a secret defense satellite is accidentally photographed, such photographs might be classified and not released to the public for reasons which should be obvious. In that case, since it's identified as a secret satellite, it's not unidentified so a gag order about that wouldn't be a UFO gag order. I would expect that such accidental photography would be a rare event however.

[edit on 4-12-2009 by Arbitrageur]

reply to post by JimOberg


Aren't you certified?

Why don't you give us some of your analysis of these videos. What do you see, and why do you come to your conclusions.

What does your experience tell you, so that we might learn what it is that see so wrong in the analysis of other's opinions?

In other words, instead of your usual goal of baffling us with male cow manure, you try dazzling us with brilliance for a change.

I think these three videos recently posted, thanks to the contributors.

mcrom901

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.youtube.com...

and Easynow

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.youtube.com...#

and mcrom901 again

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.youtube.com...

I think each of these videos give considerable clues as to what we are seeing in the tether video as far as what close up debri looks like, as opposed to what more distant objects look like.

One clear comparison that I see is the way they move.

I am looking for opinions based on logic and reason, not just statements that say this is this and that is that, but the reasons behind coming to your conclusions.

Re: gag order...As NASA's Space Act, signed on July 29, 1958. section 102 (c) (a) reads: "Information obtained or developed by the Administrator in the performance of his functions under this act shall be available for public inspection EXCEPT: a) information authorized or required by Federal statute to be withheld, and b) information classified to protect the nation security."

This amounts to the same thing as a gag order. Various documents were classified & video embargoed about STS-75 & I believe this is the reason. I also put up on my secretnasaman You Tube channel an Air Force press conference in which it is stated that the Air Force will not investigate UFO claims, nor discuss them...I think many astronauts are Air Force, as all astronauts are military.

reply to post by JimOberg


I'm not sure we could apply algorithms to these videos without know the camera settings, focus, aperture, and zoom.

If we are going to apply strategic analysis techniques, then we need to do some things like identifying certain shapes that seem to appear regularly. I think factors I have observed include: movement, type of movement, movement in consideration of fixed objects in the background, clarity of the background, amount of stray light that seems to be present, stability of the shape of objects as they change during the videos, rate of change of shape, rate of change of the background of the video. These points observed should include the time in the video during which they occur, and we should try to use specific language that we all agree on to identify these variables.

A great deal of information has been presented recently, and I have been too busy to go through it yet, but I will try soon.

Are we having fun yet?

reply to post by secretnasaman


I have yet to experience a large organization like NASA that doesn't keep a great many secrets, many of which are unwritten. The punishments for the violation of such unwritten rules can be meted out in disguise for other supposed transgressions. This seems to be a normal characteristic of all institutions.

Originally posted by secretnasaman
... I think many astronauts are Air Force, as all astronauts are military.

If you believed Martyn has any clue to the reality of astronauts, this should correct your misimpression. It's almost as good as his fable about a Candian astronaut yanked off a space shuttle flight right before launch over some security transgression -- a totally imaginary story too good to ever retract.

And as far as I can tell he's still not posting date/time of the videos on youtube...

Now back to the discussions between people working to be part of the solution, and not part of the problem, of ufology.

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by secretnasaman

 

I have yet to experience a large organization like NASA that doesn't keep a great many secrets, many of which are unwritten. The punishments for the violation of such unwritten rules can be meted out in disguise for other supposed transgressions. This seems to be a normal characteristic of all institutions.

So --- the final retreat. "I have no real evidence, but it's true of all organizations so it must be true of NASA."

Let's focus on facts we can verify and analyze -- and yes, argue over the implications of. So far it's been pretty constructive.

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by JimOberg

 

Aren't you certified?

Why don't you give us some of your analysis of these videos. What do you see, and why do you come to your conclusions.

What does your experience tell you, so that we might learn what it is that see so wrong in the analysis of other's opinions?

In other words, instead of your usual goal of baffling us with male cow manure, you try dazzling us with brilliance for a change.

...

I am looking for opinions based on logic and reason, not just statements that say this is this and that is that, but the reasons behind coming to your conclusions.

I offered several specific citations back in www.abovetopsecret.com...
and this one (my debate with Stephen Greer ) should meet your request.

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...

Originally posted by poet1b

I think these three videos recently posted, thanks to the contributors.

mcrom901

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.youtube.com...

and Easynow

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.youtube.com...#

and mcrom901 again

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.youtube.com...

I think each of these videos give considerable clues as to what we are seeing in the tether video as far as what close up debri looks like, as opposed to what more distant objects look like.

One clear comparison that I see is the way they move.

I think you are in big confusion for some of them....

For example:

Originally posted by poet1b
mcrom901

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.youtube.com...

The "door-like UFO" is mostly a small piece of debris from the shuttle bay... it goes away from the bay, and it is seen CLOSER than the back part of the shuttle, just meters away, exactly at the begining of the sequence:



and here is just a frame obtained fom stacking entire youtube sequence, to obtain a better signal/noise ratio, to see better the shuttle parts:



don't tell me that the shuttle is made from glass, transparent :-D .

FAR you say?!? No, clear CLOSER in this link!





----

Originally posted by poet1b
and mcrom901 again

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.youtube.com...

this one shows a very bright star, i bet on Sirius (brightest star on the sky) or even planet Venus.

There was a topic here on ATS (www.abovetopsecret.com...), which discussed the "Giant UFOs are not the sun, the moom or stars!" video of Secretnasaman ( www.youtube.com... ), with the same type of bright "UFO", horizontally stretched (camera artifact on bright point objects), which was debunked with a sky chart by Zerotensor ( www.abovetopsecret.com...) as being simply Sirius (and even exuberant1 accepted this) (by the way, guess what...the Secretnasaman's youtube video still promotes this CONFUSION...and he obtained 50 ratings allready - who says something about ENTERTAINMENT purposes?)

reply to post by depthoffield


Big confusion about what? I haven't even given my opinion on the video.

There is a great deal going on in this video, most of it appears to be debri of some kind near the shuttle. The big think that comes into the view of the camera for a short time could be anything, large and bright enough to have that affect.

Originally posted by poet1b
There is a great deal going on in this video, most of it appears to be debri of some kind near the shuttle. The big think that comes into the view of the camera for a short time could be anything, large and bright enough to have that affect.

Except the "door-like UFO", which is a small debris from the bay..

Show me other debris here, about you say "most of it appears to be debri of some kind near the shuttle"

I see only stars in and near the Orion Constellation.

Here is a stack with stars, overlayed and matched on a Stellarium sky chart:



No debris here! You confuse the stars with debris.


p.s. notice the brighter stars, like Rigel or the three stars making Orion's belt, how appear horizontally streched, tipically for the low light bay camera.





[edit on 5/12/09 by depthoffield]

reply to post by depthoffield


You got a link to this picture in the background you are flashing?

Cause it does look a bit like Orions belt, but that is the most flat I have ever seen Orions Belt, and the other stars don't match up that well either.

Of course there are the two large orbs, they aren't very bright, but definitely one on each side of what you claim is Orion's belt, as well as the rectangle thing that spins through the scene. Of course, there is the constant blooming in the center that does seem to be a purely lens created effect.

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by depthoffield

 

You got a link to this picture in the background you are flashing?

I used Stellarium, a free sky-chart software. You can use any other sky-chart i think. I gave you some coordonates, like Rigel star, or Orion belt. You could verify for yourself.

As for the "orbs"...you talk about lens flares from the moon i think, since you didn't mark them.

As for exact matching... you are clutching at straws .

Kinda looks like a bunch of little insects to me, but that pulsing disk is what gets me really out of the whole thing.