New Analysis Video of the STS-75 Tether Incident

reply to post by JimOberg


Clearly no one is talking about primary thrusters firing.

Like you are such a fine example of how to get along well with others.

Attacking the intelligence of others seems to be about the only thing you and everyone on your side of the debate seem to be good at, but when someone retaliates, you play the victim role to the hilt.

You all have done a good job of jumping on anything I say that might be wrong, or that you can misconstrue, but when it comes to finding any evidence to back up your own theories, you have not managed to produce a thing.

I wonder if that demonstrates that you recognize that your particles near the shuttle claim has effectively been proven to be without merit. Even if you produce the list of mission events, it seems you already know that a water dump did not occur within the necessary time frame to explain this video.

Is it starting to dawn on you that what we see in this tether video can not be explained by ordinary circumstances?

Originally posted by spacevisitor
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.

its an old tool from the debunking kit.... 'character assassination'....

Originally posted by mcrom901
surprise surprise.....

Thanks for sharing this very interesting video mcrom901,
I watched it all, despite I am already aware of many of the things said in there, but definitely not everything, so I really enjoyed watching it.

Originally posted by poet1b
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.

The rect thing appears to be coming out of the payload bay. I really was unaware of any thrusters in the payload bay. Can you better inform me?

Originally posted by mcrom901

Originally posted by spacevisitor
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.

its an old tool from the debunking kit.... 'character assassination'....

Nonsense. We are trying to evaluate the utility of comments made by STS-75 astronauts and Mission Control personnel, including Chuck Shaw, the Flight Director.

The consensus of the pro-UFO side of the argument is that all these men are liars. Not because they have been shown to lie, or have been known to be required to lie, or have any record of lying -- no, merely because their testimony is inconvenient to the existing beliefs of UFO buffs.

So they are branded as liars.

This, however, is not character assassination.

When testimony is offered in support of a pro-UFO opinion, the credibility of that testimony must be accepted as perfect, because it is useful in enhancing existing pro-UFO beliefs. If specific examples of similar claims made be these same people is brought up, with conflicting accounts from other witnesses and from engineering and scientific fundamentals, so as to raise the possibility that these claims too are less than fully credible -- now THAT's "character assassination."

Note too the artful dodge re Cooper. When he wrote that he saved the space shuttle program from a fatal design flaw by relaying to NASA a telepathic warning from space aliens, I asked if any of the people who INSIST we believe every story Gordon Cooper ever told any UFO conference and late-night radio talk show -- if THEY believed the telepathic space alien story,.. silence...

..Silence, except, to call THAT question "character assassination", too.

Let's concentrate on what we can find out, which also includes what people closest to the event told us, and not trash it (and knee-jerkedly trash the tellers, too) because it conflicts with what we want to believe.

Originally posted by spacevisitor
Thanks for sharing this very interesting video mcrom901,

I watched it all, despite I am already aware of many of the things said in there, but definitely not everything, so I really enjoyed watching it.

Would you please summarize the relevance of the material to the STS-75 video controversy?

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by JimOberg

 

Clearly no one is talking about primary thrusters firing.

Now I'm confused. Weren't we discussing a photo of several thrusters firing, showing their plumes, and you were claiming we said that ice must also appear at that moment, or we were proved wrong?

reply to post by JimOberg


Why do you think it comes out of the shuttle bay?

Can you tell us what that structure is on the left of the screen?

This rec thing appears on the side where the thrusters were firing 35 seconds after the last thruster firing burst ended. This makes it look like it is coming from the direction where the thrusters were fired.

And your second comment, I thought we were talking about STS-61 thruster firing, or thruster debri/ice crystals in general.

Also, those barely visible orbs move around the screen, they do not stay in the same place, so how could they be camera lens anomalies?

They appear to be something floating very close to the camera.

dont look like i have seen onhere but helpyou sleep at night bi##

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by JimOberg

 

Why do you think it comes out of the shuttle bay?

I traced its linear motion back down the the left, where it was passing in front of the OMS pod, and the line leads into the bay. Stuff floating out of the bay, often shaken loose after significant periods of thrusting, are an occasional event seen on other videos. There's a blanket button lazily tumbling upwards on an IMAX film about Shuttle-Mir that is particularly humorous -- a real 'flying saucer', but with four holes for the thread!

Can you tell us what that structure is on the left of the screen?

Looks to me like the tail and an OMS pod. The structure higher up at far left looks like a window reflection.

This rec thing appears on the side where the thrusters were firing 35 seconds after the last thruster firing burst ended. This makes it look like it is coming from the direction where the thrusters were fired.

You're confusing the set of "thrusters firing" and the set of "thrusters SEEN to be firing". They don't have to be the identical set. You seem to insist here and elsewhere that if something is not seen by you, it couldn't have happened.

And your second comment, I thought we were talking about STS-61 thruster firing, or thruster debri/ice crystals in general.

Before rampaging off with some name-calling next time, ask yourself if YOU have misread or misunderstood a comment that you're too eager to criticize. It'll help keep the room temp more comfortable.

Also, those barely visible orbs move around the screen, they do not stay in the same place, so how could they be camera lens anomalies?

It's the movement of the ghostly circles that provides that clue. As they move, the rim clocked position of the notches changes. But for different circles, when they pass through the same region in the FOV, they exhibit the same pattern of notch locations. Are these the 'orbs' you refer to?

They appear to be something floating very close to the camera.

Are we in agreement on that? Progress!

Originally posted by maya2929
dont look like i have seen onhere but helpyou sleep at night bi##

All I can think of saying is to repost Chuck Shaw's note:

RE: STS-75 Question
Date: 03/03/2000 9:26:59 AM Central Standard Time
From: [email protected] (SHAW, CHARLES W. (CHUCK) (JSC-DA8))

Hi Jim,

I was the Lead Flight Director for STS-75, and was on console for the
tethered satellite deploy operations and at the time the tether broke.
Operations had been nominal up to the point Jeff Hoffman called down that
the tether broke, and then we saw the status in telemetry a couple of
seconds later. The behavior of the satellite and the tether remnant on the
satellite was exactly as we had expected for a tether break case.

In the footage of the video, etc. which was examined in GREAT detail post
flight in hopes of finding SOMETHING to aid in what had caused the tether
break, we never saw anything that was "unexpected". Your comments as to artifacts and small debris/dust/ice particles/lens
reflections/blooming/etc., are all quite common and we have seen those things in virtually every shuttle mission's video. What was present in the video and the data that was examined post flight was all within this type of artifact and/or expected results.

Post break, we called upon tracking and imaging resources world wide to be able to establish a trajectory for the satellite and tether remnant, in
order to determine the feasibility of a rendezvous and recovery, in addition
to being able to command the satellite transmitter on to gain some science
data from it, even though the tether was broken. At no time did any of
these tracking data show anything unexpected, and we were LOOKING for
unexpected things (like extra pieces of tether, or debris from the satellite
and/or science booms) that could cause us to not want to fly up in the
vicinity of the satellite.

As it turned out, the arcing of the voltage in the tether to the deployer
structure burned the tether in two. Rather ironic that the experiment
worked so well to show the ability of the system to generate power, and in
fact worked so well as to fatally damage the experiment!

I have always been fascinated by UFO investigations, and "personally" I hope we are not really alone in this wonderful universe.

Hope this helps,

Chuck

Chuck Shaw
Flight Director
Mission Operations Directorate, NASA
Johnson Space Center, Houston Texas

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by spacevisitor
Thanks for sharing this very interesting video mcrom901,

I watched it all, despite I am already aware of many of the things said in there, but definitely not everything, so I really enjoyed watching it.

Would you please summarize the relevance of the material to the STS-75 video controversy?

The only relevance regarding the material to the STS-75 video controversy is one of the speakers in that video.

Former astronaut Dr. Brian O'Leary from which only his name is still listed on NASA’s Biographical Data list “Former astronauts are those who have left NASA after a career in the Astronaut Corps, including those who are deceased” and of which you and I have spoken of several times in this thread.

Jim, You keep posting this same letter over & over...thus I assume it is your "Smoking Gun" ! It reads like it should,...by the book. Just like sports. For instance ....A hockey game interview goes like this...Q-what do you have to do to win...
A- score some goals & work hard. !! He is not going to say " we can not score & they are better than us"...now is he? Why...because they would cut him...just like they would an astronaut who did not follow the script.

Originally posted by JimOberg
Nonsense. We are trying to evaluate the utility of comments made by STS-75 astronauts and Mission Control personnel, including Chuck Shaw, the Flight Director.

which is like asking for the impossible.......

Originally posted by secretnasaman
Why...because they would cut him...just like they would an astronaut who did not follow the script.

You keep insisting on this fig leaf to save your opinions from being influenced by the actual primary witnesses and the actual professionals who deal with such events. But I've never seen any evidence it's ever happened, and plenty of evidence to the contrary.

I guess it's easier to maintain one's preferred ideas if you can just dismiss [without any evidence or logic] any contrary testimony as lies. But to me that's the sign of a closed, frightened mind unwilling to confront inconvenient reality.

And to protect your target audience from such data, and from proper investigation of the context of the videos you post, you continue to withhold the key date/time information that would allow somebody to do independent verification. Can't have THAT, fer shoor.



[edit on 7-12-2009 by JimOberg]

Originally posted by spacevisitor

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by spacevisitor
Thanks for sharing this very interesting video mcrom901,

I watched it all, despite I am already aware of many of the things said in there, but definitely not everything, so I really enjoyed watching it.

Would you please summarize the relevance of the material to the STS-75 video controversy?

The only relevance regarding the material to the STS-75 video controversy is one of the speakers in that video.

OK, zero relevance. Just checking.

reply to post by JimOberg

I traced its linear motion back down the the left, where it was passing in front of the OMS pod, and the line leads into the bay.

Not very observational, I track it to the middle left edge of the video. What ever it is, it appears to be coming closer to the camera. When things move in space, they are moving through three dimensions, not two.

I don't know what you are talking about "thrusters firing and thrusters seen to be firing". We see thrusters firing twice, the second time it looks like two thrusters firing.

I do not insist anything, what wacko logic makes you come to conclusions like this? You always come off with these insinuations about how others think, as if you have a clue.

If the two orbs we see are due to something on the lens, or in the lens, then their position in the video should not change, the x,y coordinates should remain the same, unless the camera focus or zoom is changed. If they are small particles near the lens, distorted by their closeness to the lens, then when the move, it makes sense that the rim clock position of any observable notches would move.

The one blob looking thing actually comes down from the upper edge of the video when it first shows up on screen.

The orb and the blob, IMO, are what particles close to the camera lens look like, which is very different than what we see in the tether video.

Trying to discuss details with you seems to be a waste of time. For some one who is supposed to be an expert, your observational skills seem to be very limited. You don't make observations, you see what you want to see, jump to the conclusion you made before ever looking at things, and refuse to acknowledge anything that proves you wrong. You could do much better.

By the way, I am not rampaging, I am making fun of you, ribbing you. In the groups I hang out with, we take shots at each other for fun.

Lighten up, try to have some fun, you might work through some of the issues you seem to be having.

reply to post by JimOberg


Um, does he have any comments about the video we see taken long after the tether break?

Seems to be that he is talking about "the video" of the tether break.

Even if he is talking about both videos, or all videos of the tether during the mission, this claim that nothing unusual was seen is clearly not correct, because there are no other videos, at least none yet to be seen, that look anything like the tether video with the seeming swarm of plasma flies around it.

Secretnasaman makes a good point, sounds like a post game interview to me.

Originally posted by poet1b
Lighten up, try to have some fun, you might work through some of the issues you seem to be having.

I like this new poet's tone. Let's press on.

reply to post by JimOberg


Thanks Jim, It seems that we can all continue to learn new things as we try to figure out what we are seeing. Clearly we all are interested in trying to figure out what we are seeing with the clues provided. I like this better than playing simulated games. I find reality far more interesting.