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: 116
77
<< 113  114  115    117  118  119 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 11:09 AM
link   

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.


Or it could be that you have completely misinterpreted that interesting item you came up with, to feed your fantasies.

Which is it? Like I said, I went and checked [and as usual, apparently, nobody else ever took the trouble]. I got a very interesting response from the website curator:

From: JSC-HSF-Web-Mail
To: James Oberg
Sent: Monday, December 07, 2009 10:43 AM
Subject: RE: Brian O'Leary missing link

Mr. Oberg:

Thank you for your query regarding Brian O'Leary. We can provide the following information about him:

Brian O'Leary was selected by NASA in August 1967 as part of Group 6. He reported to the Johnson Space Center and was here only briefly, from September 1967 to April 1968, when he left for personal reasons. Brian O'Leary was born in Boston, Massachusetts, and had a Ph.D. in Astronomy from University of California-Berkeley.

He left NASA before an official biography was put together for his concurrence and signature on a NASA Privacy Act Form giving NASA permission to make his biography available to the public. Therefore, a biography was never posted online for him.

Thanks,

The JSC PAO Web Team


original message
From: James Oberg
Sent: Sunday, December 06, 2009 8:30 AM
To: JSC-HSF-Web-Mail
Subject: Brian O'Leary missing link

On www11.jsc.nasa.gov...
Brian O'Leary is listed, but he's the only name with
no link to more bio info. What happened?




posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 12:39 PM
link   
the illuminati elite who own and control the military industrial complex also control NASA.

NASA was forced to employ NAZI war criminals who murdered thousands of people. most of these NAZI NASA employees worship Satan. do birds of the same feather flock together ?








watch and see who will defend the illuminati and Satan........





[edit on 7-12-2009 by easynow]



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
the illuminati elite who own and control the military industrial complex also control NASA.

NASA was forced to employ Ex-NAZI war criminals who murdered thousands of people. most of these NAZI NASA employees worship Satan. do birds of the same feather flock together ?



Wow. Satan worshippers, who woulda thunk it?

Historians of WW2 who have studied the V2 program have suggested it shortened the war by 6 to 12 months, saving millions of lives.

Without for a moment overlooking the several thousand people who were killed directly by the V weapons (and the thousands who died in the slave factories), each missile cost more than a long-range bomber (but was only used once), and each launch used precision guidance systems and extremely expensive fuels that, if diverted to more effective killing machines (such as the Me-262), could have staved off defeat for a long time, allowing many more to die in Europe (including in atomic bombings of German cities), and millions more (likely, tens of millions) to die in China and Japan mostly of starvation. Horrible as that war transpired, there were plausible paths that could have been much, much worse.

In the inhumanly cold-blooded calculus of casualties, the V-2 team -- without meaning to -- might have been the best saboteurs in the Third Reich's military machine that we ever had.

Either way, the subject is horribly hazy, without the luxury of decades of hindsight and Monday-morning quarterbacking. Preachy armchair pontificating comes easy to the superficially simple-minded.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 01:43 PM
link   
In some replies the name Chuck Shaw who was the lead Flight Director for STS-75 came up.
Today I stumbled during looking for more info regarding the material to the STS-75 video controversy on this info where under this interesting interview.



STS Lead Flight Director Replies To Cosmic Conspiracies! EXPLANATIONS

This letter also appeared in the March/April edition of UFO Magazine(UK)
From: Dave Cosnette Cosmic Conspiracies
www.ufos-aliens.co.uk...
UFORCE International Director (UK)

I was fortunate to come across a letter from Chuck Shaw who was the lead Flight Director for STS-75 on the web, which addressed issues raised by James Oberg concerning anomalous images that appeared on the STS-75 footage. As luck would have it the letter also had Mr. Shaw's e-mail, so I decided to put a few questions to him.

Here are his replies to my questions, which arrived on 4 January, 2001. It's funny don't you think, how Mr. Shaw refers to UFOs, when I did not even mention the term in my original letter!


Here it starts.


DAVE: The main question that has foxed me all this time is: if these 'disc-shaped objects' were indeed ice crystals close to the camera lens, how would the camera have picked them up if it was focusing on an object (the tether) which was reported by the film commentator to be 70+ miles away? Surely they would have been focused out, as would water drips on a window if you focused on a far away object? Or are NASA saying that these ice crystal are several miles in width?

CHUCK: It is not unusual for light reflections off ice crystals to cause sun glints back into the cameras. The sun glints are not sensitive to distance (within reason). In addition, any moisture in the camera lense (and there is always some there), aggravates any glints and causes internal reflections inside the lenses. It would be nice to have state of the art camera on the Shuttle, since they are getting old and suffer a lot from optical and mechanical aggravations. However budget pressure makes you concentrate on more important issues and we learn to live with things like this.

DAVE: We are told that the footage is taken three days after the Tether broke away and that the 'phenomena' that we see is a 'toilet flush' that had been carried out a few hours before filming commenced. Anyone can apply simple mathematics and work out that the Tether must be moving away from the Shuttle at approximately one mile an hour (72 hours and 70+ miles away). If this is so, we can calculate that the 'toilet flush' should therefore be approximately two miles away, not right in front of the camera.

CHUCK: You are neglecting the effects of orbital dynamics, which is the dominant effect. When the Tether separated, the satellite and Tether did, in effect, a 100 ft/sec posigrade manouvre due to differences in altitude of the two masses (which had been constrained to be in the same orbit, and that same effect was what was providing the tension in the Tether), which moved the satellite and Tether up and behind the orbiter. After three days we lapped the satellite (i.e. we had moved approximately 25,000 miles ahead of it and were coming up on it from below and behind). The 'toilet flush' you mentioned was actually a supply of waste water dump that we periodically have to do. The fuel cell and waste water are stored in tanks, and when those tanks get full they get dumped through the nozzles overboard. The water freezes as it is dumped and makes a huge cloud of 'snow'. We typically dump the retrograde to allow orbital dynamics to help dissipate the cloud away from the orbiter, but there is always a portion that stays with us since the cloud expands very rapidly in all directions when it hits a vacuum. It is not unusual to have a cloud of ice crystals around the orbiter at a variety of distances for several days after dumps.
As much as I would like to think some type of UFO was around, the fact is there was not anything up there that we did not understand .


Quite an interesting remark isn’t it?



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by spacevisitor
Quite an interesting remark isn’t it?


What's interesting is how patient Chuck is, in answering questions that severely strain (if not smash to bits) the old saw that "there are no stupid questions."

Chuck's retirement party is tomorrow afternoon down here in Clear Lake, y'all come and ask him face-to-face.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by spacevisitor
In some replies the name Chuck Shaw who was the lead Flight Director for STS-75 came up.
Today I stumbled during looking for more info regarding the material to the STS-75 video controversy on this info where under this interesting interview.



STS Lead Flight Director Replies To Cosmic Conspiracies! EXPLANATIONS

This letter also appeared in the March/April edition of UFO Magazine(UK)
From: Dave Cosnette Cosmic Conspiracies
www.ufos-aliens.co.uk...
UFORCE International Director (UK)

I was fortunate to come across a letter from Chuck Shaw who was the lead Flight Director for STS-75 on the web, which addressed issues raised by James Oberg concerning anomalous images that appeared on the STS-75 footage. As luck would have it the letter also had Mr. Shaw's e-mail, so I decided to put a few questions to him.

Here are his replies to my questions, which arrived on 4 January, 2001. It's funny don't you think, how Mr. Shaw refers to UFOs, when I did not even mention the term in my original letter!



By no means. Chuck -- and most other flight controllers -- are aware of the 'UFO folklore' associated with to-them ordinary shuttle videos, and derive much amusement and perplexity from it. I'd asked him about this precise video myself, prior to Cosnette's interview.

(edit add)
See my entry a few hours ago here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

where the date of Shaw's email to me is given as
03/03/2000 9:26:59 AM Central Standard Time

which by my reckoning, precedes the date of Cosnette's exchange.

So how COULD this Shaw guy have known that some UFO buffs were associating that video with a UFO claim? Maybe it's a mystery to some people, but not those who know how to use a calendar.





Here it starts.


DAVE: We are told ...

CHUCK: ...The 'toilet flush' you mentioned was actually a supply of waste water dump that we periodically have to do. The fuel cell and waste water are stored in tanks, and when those tanks get full they get dumped through the nozzles overboard. The water freezes as it is dumped and makes a huge cloud of 'snow'. We typically dump the retrograde to allow orbital dynamics to help dissipate the cloud away from the orbiter, but there is always a portion that stays with us since the cloud expands very rapidly in all directions when it hits a vacuum. It is not unusual to have a cloud of ice crystals around the orbiter at a variety of distances for several days after dumps.


Quite an interesting remark isn’t it?


What's interesting is how Poet may now have to demand Shaw be fired for incompetence and ignorance, since Shaw has a different opinion then Poet on the persistence of water dump residue. How did such an obvious idiot get to become a Flight Director in Mission Control? Must be part of a coverup.



[edit on 7-12-2009 by JimOberg]



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 02:05 PM
link   
It's well known in the NASA community that what you see are called "space critters" Astronauts and Nasa have been seeing them for years. They are not aliens, frankly noone knows what it is, or they are, however, we do know their not alien life forms. They are kinda like the little insects and such we don't know much about at the bottom of the deepest oceans. Rest assure they have been known about for years, and well theres not much to them or what they do.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 02:31 PM
link   
Interesting note in today's ISS Status Report:

www.nasa.gov...

ISS On-Orbit Status 12/07/09 -- All ISS systems continue to function nominally, except those noted previously or below. Underway: Week 2 of Increment 22. [snip]
For tonight’s 5R PAO Module undocking, ISS attitude control authority will be handed over to RS MCS (Motion Control System) at 6:25pm EST. It will be returned to US CMG MM (momentum management) at 8:15pm. The CDR has closed the protective shutters of the Lab & Kibo JPM (JEM Pressurized Module) science windows, to remain closed until two orbits after the handover back to US MM (to allow thruster effluents to disperse in space).


So it's standard practice on ISS, even with effluent that norminally ejects at 3000 meters/sec, to keep protective covers over windows located 10 to 20 meters away, for three hours. So on shuttle missions, much slower effluent (like,



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
What's interesting is how patient Chuck is, in answering questions that severely strain (if not smash to bits) the old saw that "there are no stupid questions."


What's interesting is is that Chuck was the only one bringing it up, and because the way he did it, he could have meant more by it then you think, because reed it again.

As much as I would like to think some type of UFO was around, the fact is there was not anything up there that we did not understand .

Perhaps he also was in a way revering to the truth's protective layers" of which Neil Armstrong spoke on the White House during a ceremony commemorating the Apollo 11 mission on July the 20th of 1994.

ufowatcher.blogspot.com...

So he could mean by that saying, that they already understand also what UFO’s are, you know the ones of where also those astronauts speak of.

So perhaps you do not know him as good as you think you do.


Originally posted by JimOberg
Chuck's retirement party is tomorrow afternoon down here in Clear Lake, y'all come and ask him face-to-face.


Perhaps you did not noticed it, but I live in The Netherlands [look to my avatar] so that would be impossible to get there on time don’t you think.


[edit on 7/12/09 by spacevisitor]



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


Sounds like Chuck is a good company man repeating the official NASA line on water dumps. We should ignore the NASA studies that say that Chuck's unofficial letters and emails are wrong? We should ignore the complete lack of other videos that show these clouds hanging around the shuttle? Sorry, but no,. I don't buy it. Sounds like Chuck deserves his retirement. Maybe he will hit the circuit as a debunker following in your footsteps.



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 02:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
By no means. Chuck -- and most other flight controllers -- are aware of the 'UFO folklore' associated with to-them ordinary shuttle videos, and derive much amusement and perplexity from it.


I derive much amusement and perplexity when hearing again and again the ice particle explanation.


Originally posted by JimOberg


DAVE: We are told ...

CHUCK: ...The 'toilet flush' you mentioned was actually a supply of waste water dump that we periodically have to do. The fuel cell and waste water are stored in tanks, and when those tanks get full they get dumped through the nozzles overboard. The water freezes as it is dumped and makes a huge cloud of 'snow'. We typically dump the retrograde to allow orbital dynamics to help dissipate the cloud away from the orbiter, but there is always a portion that stays with us since the cloud expands very rapidly in all directions when it hits a vacuum. It is not unusual to have a cloud of ice crystals around the orbiter at a variety of distances for several days after dumps.


Quite an interesting remark isn’t it?


Which remark do you mean?
Perhaps this one?


It is not unusual to have a cloud of ice crystals around the orbiter at a variety of distances for several days after dumps.


Because if that is so, there must be much more other shuttle films available which showed the same kind of "objects" flying around in all directions don’t you think?

But then, look what you said about that.


Other video scenes , known to be in the possession of some researchers but not included in the released productions, show these notched circles independent of the tether. One sequence shows a pattern of notched circles crossing the FOV, then a camera refocus activity that results in -- a star field.


www.rense.com...

That is a pity for us then, because I would gladly have seen those.


Originally posted by JimOberg
What's interesting is how Poet may now have to demand Shaw be fired for incompetence and ignorance, since Shaw has a different opinion then Poet on the persistence of water dump residue. How did such an obvious idiot get to become a Flight Director in Mission Control? Must be part of a coverup.


So if one has a different opinion then another he must be fired for incompetence and ignorance.
Well, if that really would work that way, we would all be unemployed by now don’t you think?

Shaw even tried to blame it all on the condition of the cameras, funny isn’t it?


CHUCK: In addition, any moisture in the camera lense (and there is always some there), aggravates any glints and causes internal reflections inside the lenses. It would be nice to have state of the art camera on the Shuttle, since they are getting old and suffer a lot from optical and mechanical aggravations. However budget pressure makes you concentrate on more important issues and we learn to live with things like this.






[edit on 8/12/09 by spacevisitor]



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 05:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
Sounds like Chuck is a good company man repeating the official NASA line on water dumps.


loool.... i'm wondering why the anomalies are not yellow in colour


as the dumps are supposed to be urine too....



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 07:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

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.


Like I said, I went and checked [and as usual, apparently, nobody else ever took the trouble]. I got a very interesting response from the website curator:

original message
From: James Oberg
Sent: Sunday, December 06, 2009 8:30 AM
To: JSC-HSF-Web-Mail
Subject: Brian O'Leary missing link

On www11.jsc.nasa.gov...
Brian O'Leary is listed, but he's the only name with
no link to more bio info. What happened?


Thanks for this action and info, I send yesterday a mail to Brian O'Leary and asked him for his side of the story in this.

He mailed me back by saying that he did not has the time for it yet because he is already overwhelmed with work.

Just to let you know.



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 08:01 AM
link   
reply to post by spacevisitor
 
"As much as I would like to think some type of UFO was around, the fact is that there was not anything up there that we did not understand"... sure is a very interesting thing to say...in light of his 'real time' statement...

UPI-Feb.1996.."Satellite Signals a Puzzle"
CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla.- NASA found a few surprises when it restored contact with a wayward spacecraft, officials said yesterday. The $100 million-US Italian atmospheric probe inadvertently became a free-flyer Sunday night when its 20.7 kilometer (12 miles) tether to the shuttle Columbia snapped.

U.S. NASA engineers were able contact the satellite Monday & turn on its science instruments, designed to collect information on Earth's electromagnetic fields & electrically charged particles in the atmosphere.

First radio signals from the satellite caused engineers some surprise: The configuration of several systems had changed from when NASA lost contact with the craft on Sunday.

For example, the spacecraft's nitrogen fuel tank was empty & its steering-thruster valves were opened. In addition, a gyroscope that had left on was powered off, while two other gyroscopes remained on.

"There has been an event on the shuttle THAT WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND YET,"
astronaut David Wolf told the Columbia crew.



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 08:16 AM
link   
reply to post by spacevisitor
 
If "David Wolf" tells the space shuttle Columbia crew, "there has been an event on the satellite that we do not understand yet," then it could not be an obvious possible computer malfunction. The nitrogen fuel tank that was emptied was not controllable by computer. So how did the phenomenon occur?

And what kind of force could have taken control of the satellite (spacecraft) & manipulated all of it's control systems without the astronaut's (David Wolf) knowing?



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 08:36 AM
link   
reply to post by spacevisitor
 
Your point is well taken. If not asked, then why did "David Wolf" volunteer...or even mention UFOs post flight?

I can only say that 'in the moment', he thought they were UFOs! As UPI reports...he was not understanding what he was seeing...& his "yet"...indicates his need to figure something out to report post flight that would "scrub" his expressed true feelings, that UPI first reported.



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 08:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by secretnasaman
reply to post by spacevisitor
 
"As much as I would like to think some type of UFO was around, the fact is that there was not anything up there that we did not understand"... sure is a very interesting thing to say...in light of his 'real time' statement..


So are you distinguishing between events they didn't understand, versus objects they didn't understand?

My interpretation of "there was not anything up there that we did not understand" refers to objects they saw.

The other quote says they didn't understand some of the events, could that be the difference?



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 08:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by secretnasaman
reply to post by spacevisitor
 
If "David Wolf" tells the space shuttle Columbia crew, "there has been an event on the satellite that we do not understand yet," then it could not be an obvious possible computer malfunction. The nitrogen fuel tank that was emptied was not controllable by computer. So how did the phenomenon occur?

And what kind of force could have taken control of the satellite (spacecraft) & manipulated all of it's control systems without the astronaut's (David Wolf) knowing?



It must be pleasant in life to be able to so easily imagine false facts that just happen to reenforce your own beliefs.

"The nitrogen fuel tank that was emptied was not controllable by computer."

What DID control the tank valves, if NOT a computer? The same kind of elf that turns your refridgerator light on and off when you open the door?

Based on track records and long experience in comparing your statements on things to the statements of other people, personally I choose not to believe them unless documented, or independently verified.

Surely you can find descriptions of the satellite's post-separation events based on analysis in the days, months, years after the event, rather than a few hours later -- that MIGHT be more complete, insightful, and reliable.
Maybe you have already, and just won't share them.



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by secretnasaman
reply to post by spacevisitor
 
Your point is well taken. If not asked, then why did "David Wolf" volunteer...or even mention UFOs post flight?

I can only say that 'in the moment', he thought they were UFOs! As UPI reports...he was not understanding what he was seeing...& his "yet"...indicates his need to figure something out to report post flight that would "scrub" his expressed true feelings, that UPI first reported.



Do you have difficulty with basic reading comprehension? I can't see anywhere that Dave Wolf mentioned UFOs post flight. Is it your imagination running away with your judgment, again?



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by mcrom901

Originally posted by poet1b
Sounds like Chuck is a good company man repeating the official NASA line on water dumps.


loool.... i'm wondering why the anomalies are not yellow in colour


as the dumps are supposed to be urine too....


Two basic facts:

1. The video in question was B&W

2. The overwhelming mass of water dumped is from the fuel cells, and not from the toilet.

Does that make the source of your confusion clearer, that you fundamentally misunderstood the situation from the start? Feel better now?



new topics




 
77
<< 113  114  115    117  118  119 >>

log in

join