New Analysis Video of the STS-75 Tether Incident

reply to post by JimOberg


Here is the quote

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Ice flakes from propellant leaks are indeed visible only in sunlight, but the flares that occur DURING burn start and stop are thermal consequences of excess propellant in the hot plume flow. Both primary and vernier thruster firings are readily apparent optically in scenes observed by external shuttle cameras. They are so routinely seen, especially at night when the camera’s gain has been maximized for low light level operations, that I am astonished that any engineer familiar with thruster operation could ever say they were NEVER visible at night.

and for emphasis.

They are so routinely seen, especially at night when the camera’s gain has been maximized for low light level operations, that I am astonished that any engineer familiar with thruster operation could ever say they were NEVER visible at night.

No doubt you will claim you meant something else, or just ignore the point all together.

You have yet to provided a clear example of this extremely common occurrence, with these particles hanging around for several minutes as we see in STS-75.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Really, you guys should open a manure factory, as you produce a great deal of it.

You claim thrusters create particles that are captured by the camera. Here we have a video similar to the tether video, obvious thruster firings, even in a direction that puts the expulsion of particles directly in front of the camera, and we see nothing.

Er, one particle breaks free, which looks absolutely nothing like what we see in the tether video.

In addition, notice how much light the thruster firing produces. It seems like some kind of light flash would accompany any thruster firing.

Do you have any evidence of a thruster firing producing particles that look like what we see in the tether video to back your claims?

Or are your claims just more wild speculation.

By the way, stop trying to claim you can read my mind, by claiming you know what I am thinking. Your understanding of things can't get you past a sales brochure, which makes your claims of superior understanding highly amusing.

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by JimOberg

 

Here is the quote

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Ice flakes from propellant leaks are indeed visible only in sunlight, but the flares that occur DURING burn start and stop are thermal consequences of excess propellant in the hot plume flow. Both primary and vernier thruster firings are readily apparent optically in scenes observed by external shuttle cameras. They are so routinely seen, especially at night when the camera’s gain has been maximized for low light level operations, that I am astonished that any engineer familiar with thruster operation could ever say they were NEVER visible at night.

and for emphasis.

They are so routinely seen, especially at night when the camera’s gain has been maximized for low light level operations, that I am astonished that any engineer familiar with thruster operation could ever say they were NEVER visible at night.

No doubt you will claim you meant something else, or just ignore the point all together.

Is it conceivable to you that your imagination has found a creative way to misinterpret what I thought was a clear statement referring to the thermal flares of thruster firings, which are indeed visible in the dark (contrary to the expert allegedly quoted by Fleming, who supposedly said they were sunlit-illuminated ice dribbling out at the end of the burn -- which I dispute). You have confused the routine flares of the actual bursts with the occasional non-thrusting dribble of ice from leaking thrusters, a much rarer occurrence.

Did anyone else out there also get confused?

(damned egg nog)


[edit on 12/5/2009 by Phage]

Originally posted by poet1b
In addition, notice how much light the thruster firing produces. It seems like some kind of light flash would accompany any thruster firing.

If a camera is pointed directly at a thruster plume, and especially if it's a primary thruster, I would agree that a flare would be seen. There are dozens of thrusters pointing in various directions, and half a dozen cameras pointing in various directions -- would you agree that some thruster plumes would not be directly in the field of view of some cameras? In fact, by geometrical considerations alone, wouldn't that be the USUAL situation -- the thruster plume falling outside the camera FOV?

Originally posted by JimOberg
Did anyone else out there also get confused?

Your post was clear, and it was obvious to me that poet misread it, but poet misinterpreted my post also, so I'm thinking the problem is on the receiving end and not the sending end.

Originally posted by poet1b
Do you have any evidence of a thruster firing producing particles that look like what we see in the tether video to back your claims?

Or are your claims just more wild speculation.

The only claim I made about the particles in the STS-75 video is that you are wrong about the objects being close to the tether, and that they are instead closer to the shuttle, less than 1000 meters away and probably much less. I listed some possible sources for particles close to the shuttle such as water dumps, insulation, paint chips, thruster leakage, etc but I'm still waiting to see what the documentation Jim Oberg requested says about water dumps etc before I draw any conclusions about a likely source of the particles. Even if that documentation shows a water dump occurred prior to the video, that's still no guarantee that every particle seen is from the water dump (though that's possible).

off-topic

Originally posted by poet1b
Really, you guys should open a manure factory, as you produce a great deal of it.

If i ever open a manure factory, i will employ you as a seller/marketing agent, paying you any amount of money, because i learned from you about your skills, that you could sell/promote anything, even manure as food.

By the way, i just obtained yesterday an applause from the staff for the work done here in this topic lately, i understand because the "manure" i produced, according to you, Mr. Poet1b. I don't said this for making pride of it, but because my "manure" was appreciated even by the staff.

Of course, you are free declaring anything as manure, but this speaks for your character.

/end off-topic



[edit on 6/12/09 by depthoffield]

Originally posted by Phage


(damned egg nog)


[edit on 12/5/2009 by Phage]

Now your post made me spill my coffee over the keyboard..thanks a million, i was truly looking for an excuse to change it.

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by spacevisitor

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by spacevisitor
.... what is your opinion of the statements of these astronaut’s?

DR. BRIAN O'LEARY

O'Leary was never an Apollo astronaut. He washed out as a trainee.

Well, despite you say that in my opinion on a pretty knee jerking way, he must have some pretty impressive qualities don’t you think, because why could he otherwise become selected for being an Apollo astronaut trainee in the first place?

Indeed he was impressive on paper, at the age of 26. Deke Slayton, the chief of the astronauts and chairman of the selection panel, later called O'Leary his "worst ever mistake".

Thanks for admitting, implicitly, that your original post was in error. what have you learned from that experience?

Well, this is what I learned from that experience.

I did a check at NASA for some more information about DR. BRIAN O'LEARY, and look what I found.

His name (in black) is still listed there at the Biographical Data list “Former astronauts are those who have left NASA after a career in the Astronaut Corps, including those who are deceased”,

www11.jsc.nasa.gov...

But to my amazement, it looks as if NASA erased him completely, because I can open the link to the Biographical Data of all the other Former astronauts, except his link.

So that proofs to me at least how easy and thoroughly NASA can let disappear certain data, and when they can do that, it is very possible indeed that they do that with other certain data also.

Originally posted by spacevisitor
Well, this is what I learned from that experience.

I did a check at NASA for some more information about DR. BRIAN O'LEARY, and look what I found.

His name (in black) is still listed there at the Biographical Data list “Former astronauts are those who have left NASA after a career in the Astronaut Corps, including those who are deceased”,

www11.jsc.nasa.gov...

But to my amazement, it looks as if NASA erased him completely, because I can open the link to the Biographical Data of all the other Former astronauts, except his link.

So that proofs to me at least how easy and thoroughly NASA can let disappear certain data, and when they can do that, it is very possible indeed that they do that with other certain data also.

surprise surprise.....

reply to post by JimOberg


Um, Jim, if you were some kid posting, then you suggesting that some primary thruster was firing could be over looked, but being the NASA expert, as you continuously remind us, your talk about some primary thruster firing is just pure male cow manure. How long ago was it that you attacked me for using the term vector thruster?

Your constant repeated dogma that it is all too complicated, and only an expert like you could possible interpret what is going on here has gotten pathetically old, and is starting to sound more and more like whimsical fantasy. You have yet to demonstrate that any of your claims are anywhere near being an accurate description of things that are happening in the tether video.

All the NASA studies we have found have in fact gone against your claims.

All the videos we have seen demonstrate that you are wrong.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


You got a little brown all over your nose. You might want to wipe it off.

So, your opinion is based completely on whimsical fantasy? You have no reason to think things are the way they are, except your faith that nothing exists outside of what you were told things exist?

So what if the water dump occurred six hours earlier?

Being as that means the shuttle has orbited the Earth several times since the last water dump, that puts the odds that anything we are seeing in this video is from the water dump pretty close to nil.

This statement by Jim really puts the whole debunker side of the debate into the realm of complete garbage.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

They are so routinely seen, especially at night when the camera’s gain has been maximized for low light level operations,...

especially at night

Well then, why aren't we seeing these particles you all claim to be there, in the first minute and a half of the tether video? The camera angle changes only slightly.

One would not assume that particles around the shuttle would be evenly distributed, but randomly distributed. These particles we see around the tether are in much, MUCH higher numbers than anything else we have ever seen in any other video, and are clustered into a small area outside of the shuttle.

What are the odds of that?

Edit to add

I didn't mean to say, "why aren't we seeing these particles...in the first minute and a half", I meant, why aren't we seeing the flame from a thruster firing in the first minute and a half. Where is the sign of a thruster firing to produce particles? If it is on the opposite side of the shuttle, away from where the video camera is pointing, how would you get this large number of particles all the way around the shuttle?

Something else to add, in the STS-61 video, that rectangular thing tumbling off into space is most likely your small fuel leak produced when the thruster valve leaks a bit after closing. It looks nothing like what we see in the tether video.



[edit on 6-12-2009 by poet1b]

Tether is about 80 miles away from the camera, the pulsating disk are clearley behind the tether. By using the tether which is 12 miles long as a measuring tool, some of those disk are 1-3 miles wide. I believe this is another one of those smoking gun videos nasa is putting out to wake up people. Its right in front of our face, this is just obvious that it's not normal things floating around, hell them disk are moving fast, and in purpose movement.

[edit on 6-12-2009 by xAZIMUTHpx]

reply to post by depthoffield


You got applause?

What for, believing that your camera with a 35mm lens has infinite focal capability?

There is a recent planet discovered that is the size of Jupiter, but far more dense, and revolves around it's star once every 4 days. Why don't you do us a favor and take your camera with infinite focal capability and snap a few good pictures of this planet. It is within our galaxy, so a camera with infinite focal ability should be able to easily take focused pictures of this amazing planet.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Your claims about camera anomalies proved to be completely wrong. I found articles showing that these spheres around the tether are most likely in focus. We see spherical aberrations that put these spheres on both sides of the tether.

To be a good lawyer, you have to be able to ignore all evidence that proves you wrong, and learn to stop caring about honesty. That would fit your particular skill set far better than mine.

Is there any evidence at all that supports the claim that what we are seeing in the STS-75 tether video is particles near the shuttle?

The amount of evidence gathered that disproves the particles near the shuttle theory has gotten to be pretty substantial.

At what point do you people start to admit you might be wrong?

reply to post by spacevisitor


Good find. It is all too easy to slander someone because you don't like their opinion.

The technique of attacking the messenger is always good evidence that the person doing the attacking is not interested in finding the truth about the matter.

Originally posted by poet1b
Well then, why aren't we seeing these particles you all claim to be there, in the first minute and a half of the tether video? The camera angle changes only slightly.

One would not assume that particles around the shuttle would be evenly distributed, but randomly distributed. .

Why would you assume the particles would be randomly distributed? I would assume nothing of the sort. In fact how many times do I have to repost this photo for you until it sinks in for you that the particle distribution shown from this water dump is NOT random but highly directional?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c8483a0a0a11.jpg[/atsimg]

When you figure out the particles can appear in certain directions then you'll understand why moving the camera could bring the particles into view.

Originally posted by spacevisitor
But to my amazement, it looks as if NASA erased him completely, because I can open the link to the Biographical Data of all the other Former astronauts, except his link.

So that proofs to me at least how easy and thoroughly NASA can let disappear certain data, and when they can do that, it is very possible indeed that they do that with other certain data also.

Slayton's revenge, fer shoor!!

Good catch, since even guys like Duane Graveline, who resigned before even reporting for duty, have bios, but Brian doesn't.

Let's find out how/why this happened. It sure was a clumsy
attempt at erasing him, though, leaving his name on the master list!

Curious, all the same. Attaboy. Original research -- well done!!

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Most of the particles from a water dump are shot out and away from the shuttle, and apparently in a direction to keep any of the dump from coming back across the path of the shuttle orbit to minimalize possible contamination. They move in a directed manner.

The theory for why we see particles floating near the shuttle, as best as I interpret it, is that the particles shot out in the dump bump into each other, which winds up sending some spray back up in the direction of the shuttle, which is why we see a small number of particles from a dump traveling with the shuttle after a water dump. These particles that bounced back up around the shuttle would be randomly distributed around the shuttle.

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by JimOberg

 

Um, Jim, if you were some kid posting, then you suggesting that some primary thruster was firing could be over looked, but being the NASA expert, as you continuously remind us, your talk about some primary thruster firing is just pure male cow manure. How long ago was it that you attacked me for using the term vector thruster?

I'm not following you. What's wrong with the term "primary thruster"?

I criticized the use of the garbled phrase 'vector thruster'. That you consider criticism of something you say, as an 'attack' on yourself, really exposes how you think about differing opinions. It indicates an intolerance and hyper-sensitivity that clearly is interfering with your ability to interact constructively on this forum.

Originally posted by JimOberg
I have no problems with Mitchell's personal opinions about other people's UFO stories. He's made it clear he was never familiar with any UFO experiences involving NASA.

I've studied his claimed success at his private space ESP test (an imaginative and bold experiment that I've praised him for conducting),

and found that his statistical manipulations to make the results look good by rewriting the rules ex post facto in order to indicate when he really wants to believe something, he'll find a way to make any data look supportive -- a very common human trait.

That last remark is quite an heavy accusation in my opinion, so if it really is as you claim here, I assume you can proof that here without a doubt.

Originally posted by JimOberg
As for Cooper, he's told many far-out stories over the years.

But that doesn’t mean that his far-out stories can’t be true.

Originally posted by JimOberg
My favorite is that he saved the space shuttle program from a fatal design flaw by personally relaying a telepathic warning from space aliens that led to a fix that was never documented in the program history.

Do you believe that?

For what I know now, I would say, that it is not impossible.

Originally posted by JimOberg
I prefer to believe that he enjoyed telling audiences the kinds of stories he knew they would enjoy (and wouldn't ever check).

You are free to believe what you want of course.

Originally posted by JimOberg
Cooper also had a track record regarding advising people who trusted his judgment and reputation to invest money in various aerospace breakthrough engineering schemes. He wasn't scamming -- he sunk his own money in the projects, too. More than two million dollars of other people's money was lost -- not a single project ever worked out. That's a track record that reflects on his judgment, wouldn't you say?

Because he sunk his own money in the projects, too, he obviously really believed in them. But is it not quite unfair and unrealistic to only blame him for the fact that not a single project ever worked out?

And besides that, it reflects only on his judgment regarding these failed various aerospace breakthrough engineering schemes don’t you think?

Did you never made a mistake or a wrong decision then?

So, if you cannot believe peoples judgments at all anymore because they made a mistake or a wrong decision in their lives here and there, then you cannot believe anybody anymore, because nobody is perfect and everybody makes a mistake or a wrong decision in their lives here and there.



[edit on 6/12/09 by spacevisitor]