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: 12
77
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 08:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by JimOberg

... which his own evidence now proves could NOT have been the source of the famous 'tether/swarm' views, because the TOPS-generated data lines are absent.


Please specifically cite and link to this evidence from Zorgon's posts and then provide reasoning for why you think that specific link or source corroborates your claims.

If you don't do that; then you've just made another unsubstantiated claim....




Zorgon posted downlink video from the TOPS camera.

The video contained top and bottom lines of data, generated by the TOPS camera and place on the frame.

The videos showing the tether/swarm do not contain these data lines.

So those videos cannot have been generated by the TOPS camera.

QED

In addition, those same videos are listed in the JSC 'scene list' as coming from payload bay cameras. Flight controllers were pan/tiliting the payload bay cameras from their consoles, and the scenes pan/tilted. TOPS does not have a pan/tilt feature, does it?




posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 08:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by JimOberg

... which his own evidence now proves could NOT have been the source of the famous 'tether/swarm' views, because the TOPS-generated data lines are absent.


Please specifically cite and link to this evidence from Zorgon's posts and then provide reasoning for why you think that specific link or source corroborates your claims.

If you don't do that; then you've just made another unsubstantiated claim....







pot, meet kettle.



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 08:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg


Zorgon posted downlink video from the TOPS camera.

The video contained top and bottom lines of data, generated by the TOPS camera and place on the frame.

The videos showing the tether/swarm do not contain these data lines.

So those videos cannot have been generated by the TOPS camera.

QED

In addition, those same videos are listed in the JSC 'scene list' as coming from payload bay cameras. Flight controllers were pan/tiliting the payload bay cameras from their consoles, and the scenes pan/tilted. TOPS does not have a pan/tilt feature, does it?


nice detective work.

i wonder if zorgon and his mindless lackey are picking up on the fact tat as new people enter the thread they are all seeming to turn against them because they aren't showing much reason in their posts...

by the way Jim, are you the same Jim Oberg, space journalist, widely regarded as an expert on the russian space program? if so, good to see a bright mind in these dregs.

[edit on 10-6-2009 by JScytale]



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 08:37 AM
link   
THis quote is from jscytale....page 7 i think


fact is, these objects are ranging in distance from anywhere from 1 millimeter outside the shuttle's window to thousands of kilometers away. there is no depth of field in this image. therefore, they will appear to move at different speeds.


There is plenty depth of field as well as reference points.
Aside from all of your arithmetic and arcs, this very statement that you have made is 100% false and is proven false in this very thread-or video. I am not out to get you or anything, but simple common sense proves your statement wrong.

I just wanted to say that the tether itself can and is being used for a reference point. And the evidence of the footage CLEARLY SHOWS these "objects" passing behind the tether. If using the tether for point of reference, then these objects are a lot larger than millimeters. And Clearly not just a couple millimeters away from the window.

You can also use the cameras focal point that focuses on the tether as well as the objects at the same time, if they varied in distance then the tether and the objects would NOT be able to be focused at the same time.-which they have.

I do not need newtons laws or any other to show this is happening.
I also believe that some one stated electrostatic field(from tether) may play a part in all this, which makes a very good argument to me, as this was a very ramped up electricity experiment.


All I am saying is people are so quick to explain things away without ever actually just using common sense. I am not saying that I know what these things are, but what I am saying is your theories are not compatible, with the evidence at hand.



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 08:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by i_want_the_truth
THis quote is from jscytale....page 7 i think


fact is, these objects are ranging in distance from anywhere from 1 millimeter outside the shuttle's window to thousands of kilometers away. there is no depth of field in this image. therefore, they will appear to move at different speeds.


There is plenty depth of field as well as reference points.
Aside from all of your arithmetic and arcs, this very statement that you have made is 100% false and is proven false in this very thread-or video. I am not out to get you or anything, but simple common sense proves your statement wrong.

I just wanted to say that the tether itself can and is being used for a reference point. And the evidence of the footage CLEARLY SHOWS these "objects" passing behind the tether. If using the tether for point of reference, then these objects are a lot larger than millimeters. And Clearly not just a couple millimeters away from the window.

You can also use the cameras focal point that focuses on the tether as well as the objects at the same time, if they varied in distance then the tether and the objects would NOT be able to be focused at the same time.-which they have.

I do not need newtons laws or any other to show this is happening.
I also believe that some one stated electrostatic field(from tether) may play a part in all this, which makes a very good argument to me, as this was a very ramped up electricity experiment.


All I am saying is people are so quick to explain things away without ever actually just using common sense. I am not saying that I know what these things are, but what I am saying is your theories are not compatible, with the evidence at hand.


en.wikipedia.org...
true depth of field is impossible without it.



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by JScytale
by the way Jim, are you the same Jim Oberg, space journalist, widely regarded as an expert on the russian space program? if so, good to see a bright mind in these dregs.


He's my angelic twin brother and alter ego... I have enough ego for two, fer shoor.

*SNIP*

Mod Edit: Terms & Conditions Of Use – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 10/6/2009 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by i_want_the_truth
You can also use the cameras focal point that focuses on the tether as well as the objects at the same time, if they varied in distance then the tether and the objects would NOT be able to be focused at the same time.-which they have.


There is no focusing going on in these scenes, just automatic gain control variations. Check out the camera's specs.



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 08:48 AM
link   
Thanks Jim for that info, I will dig that up.

But I still wonder with reference to the tether, the objects are "behind" it. Wouldn't this be an accurate point to guesstimate the size or position?



[edit on 10-6-2009 by i_want_the_truth]

These are the best states on the camera I could find, maybe you can do better www.ufodigest.com...

The CCD video camera onboard the Columbia is a multimillion dollar camera capable of viewing objects in multi light spectrums and providing the highest quality images of a UFO to date. The CCD video camera a high-efficiency, high-frame-rate ultraviolet (ITS charge-coupled device (CCD) camera that is especially well suited for biological and defense applications was developed. This is the first high-frame rate camera using delta-doped CCDs, which is suitable for biological imaging having high speed, high and stable UV quantum efficiency and insensitivity to visible light. The camera is built around a back-surface illuminated, thinned, delta-doped CCD with antireflection coating and a visible-light-blocking filter. [Issues pertaining to the principle of operation, design, and fabrication of delta-doped CCDs have been discussed in a number of prior NASA Tech Briefs articles, the one most relevant to the present development being "Back-Illuminated CCDs With Integral Ultraviolet-Pass Filters" (NPO-21007), NASA Tech Briefs, Vol. 25, No. 7 (July 2001), page 20a.] Back-illuminated delta-- doped CCDs have been found to operate at quantum efficiency of 40 to 60 percent in the 300- to 400-nm region of interest. With addition of antireflection coatings, quantum efficiency can be increased to between 80 to 100 percent. Moreover, the high quantum efficiency of delta-doped CCDs has been shown to be stable for years. Because CCDs are also sensitive to visible light, filters must be included to block the light at wavelengths greater than 400 nm. The camera has been demonstrated to operate at a rate of 2 to 10 frames per second with digital output and digital control of the camera parameters and in acquiring images of biological significance in a wavelength band centered at 300 run (see figure). At the time of reporting, the camera is operating a delta-doped, 1024-- by-1024-pixel, 12-(mu)m-pixel-pitch CCD. Camera electronics are capable of operating at a rate of 30 frames per second and subsequent development is required for design and fabrication of video-rate CCDs for use in this camera. The camera is also compact and transportable and is suitable for field observations as well as laboratory measurements.



[edit on 10-6-2009 by i_want_the_truth]

Take a look at the video again, There is clearly zooming going on as well as focusing.

Gain control does not make an object be small and then take up the whole screen. sorry

[edit on 10-6-2009 by i_want_the_truth]



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by i_want_the_truth
Thanks Jim for that info, I will dig that up.

But I still wonder with reference to the tether, the objects are "behind" it. Wouldn't this be an accurate point to guesstimate the size or position?

[edit on 10-6-2009 by i_want_the_truth]


There's a feature of the pixels on these cameras that you can observe on other non-UFO sequences, such as watching bright cities pass by, or bright thunderheads flaring. Once they reach max saturation, they 'gray out' -- some sort of overbright protect' feature to save the display screens -- and are not displayed as pure white.

What happens then is that any other white object crossing the field of view and coinciding with the position of an already over-bright pixel -- at any distance from the camera -- simply adds brightness to the already overbright pixel, which remains 'grayed out' on the display. The white object looks for all the world to be occulted by the gray object -- except that they 'gray object' is a camera artifact of a too-bright white object.

There are even scenes of drifting dots passing across a bright city beneath, and they show the same effect -- they appear to be passing 'under' the city. I need to locate those links and put them on my home page -- it would help establish the effect, and prevent it from misleading viewers in the future. Anybody else remember any such scenes?



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by i_want_the_truth
Thanks Jim for that info, I will dig that up.

But I still wonder with reference to the tether, the objects are "behind" it. Wouldn't this be an accurate point to guesstimate the size or position?


the UFO hunters video did demonstrate that a tiny object close to the camera and illuminated would cause a camera artifact virtually identical to the "critters" in the footage. and appear to pass behind the well illuminated tether when in fact passing extremely close to the lens.

it's linked in the first reply on the first page if you're interested in seeing it.

as for items that are extremely well defined appearing to pass behind the tether - that is a little more conclusive but it is still a slippery slope as everything in the footage is very overexposed.



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by i_want_the_truth
Thanks Jim for that info, I will dig that up.

But I still wonder with reference to the tether, the objects are "behind" it. Wouldn't this be an accurate point to guesstimate the size or position?

[edit on 10-6-2009 by i_want_the_truth]


There's a feature of the pixels on these cameras that you can observe on other non-UFO sequences, such as watching bright cities pass by, or bright thunderheads flaring. Once they reach max saturation, they 'gray out' -- some sort of overbright protect' feature to save the display screens -- and are not displayed as pure white.

What happens then is that any other white object crossing the field of view and coinciding with the position of an already over-bright pixel -- at any distance from the camera -- simply adds brightness to the already overbright pixel, which remains 'grayed out' on the display. The white object looks for all the world to be occulted by the gray object -- except that they 'gray object' is a camera artifact of a too-bright white object.

There are even scenes of drifting dots passing across a bright city beneath, and they show the same effect -- they appear to be passing 'under' the city. I need to locate those links and put them on my home page -- it would help establish the effect, and prevent it from misleading viewers in the future. Anybody else remember any such scenes?





i guess "overexposed" is a poor choice of words on my part, even if the end result is nearly the same.

thanks for clearing that up.



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by i_want_the_truth

These are the best states on the camera I could find, maybe you can do better www.ufodigest.com...



The records Ifound indicated STS-75 still had the vintage cameras...

From: Herring, Kyle J. (JSC-AP311)
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 5:26 AM
Subject: FW: space shuttle visual ranges

Shuttle CCTV payload bay cameras



l STS-1 vintage cameras - these flew thru STS-88. This camera has a intensified vacuum-tube image sensor (called a SIT – silicon intensified target – tube) that is basically black-and-white. Color was achieved by rotating a color filter wheel at the 60 Hz field rate in front of the image sensor. The resulting filtered video was reconstructed on the ground by a field-sequential color converter. The wavelength sensitivity of the SIT tube is shown in the curve in the attached file “TVC”. Also included are the curves for the red, blue and green filters in the color filter wheel.

[NOTE:] we are flying one with an MLA (monochrome lens assembly) on STS-125 mounted on the Hubble FSS (Flight Support Station) to view a target that is on the Hubble Telescope to assist in berthing and unberthing. As a matter of interest, the camera we are flying on STS-125 also flew as one of the cabin cameras on STS-1.

l CTVC – Color solid-state TV camera – this is the current NTSC color camera which began to fly on STS-61. It has three CCD (charge coupled device) image sensors, one each for the red, blue and green video channels. The CTVC spectral response is required to exhibit a response approximating the human eye’s response such that both IR and UV illuminated objects do not appear as “false brightness levels” on a display. A curve of the eye’s response is included in the attached file “ITVC”.



l ITVC – Intensified Black-and-white solid state TV camera – this is the current low-light-level B&W camera which began to fly on STS-78. It has an intensifier fiber-optically coupled to the same CCD that the CTVC employs which makes the camera low-light level sensitive. The wavelength sensitivity of the ITVC is shown in the curve in the attached file “ITVC”. You will notice that it is quite sensitive in the near IR range making the LDRI (Laser Dynamic Range Imager) laser used on the OBSS (Orbiter Boom Sensor System) which operates in the near IR range a good illuminator for the ITVC when used as part of the OBSS Sensor Package 1.



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 09:20 AM
link   
I see what you saying.....But these objects are not being greyed out or whatever. The controller even states the clear contrast on the video. If these objects where similar in color I would agree with you, but this is not the case



There is no focusing going on in these scenes, just automatic gain control variations. Check out the camera's specs.

ALSO JIM...The astronaut clearly says" I can't get the focus right" in the video
www.ufodigest.com...
TIME 4:00 in to it

This proves there is focus and zoom capabilities, Please have factual basis for your arguments.
take a look at the video again www.ufodigest.com... Time 2:12 in to it

Tis clearly shows ZOOM and FOcus, You are telling me that a multimillion dollar camera with all theses capabilities does not have zoom.

Please back up your statements with facts as I have done instead of making claims that mislead peolpe

Messup up the times... 4'00 in to the vid Listen to the astronaunt say" zoom and focus"

2'12 shows object CLEARLY PASSING BEHIND TETHER

[edit on 10-6-2009 by i_want_the_truth]



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 09:42 AM
link   
I would like to ask all people not to turn this thread in another fight between members.

The idea is not to have two sides fight each other, each one saying that the other can not provide evidences of what they say, and sometimes even ignoring what was posted.

Also, this is not supposed to be a popularity contest, we are not here to elect the most or least popular ATS member, either pro or against anything.

So, if any one wants some kind of information about something, just ask for it. If you see any information posted, read it and follow the links provided (if any). Try to see the other poster's point of view instead of instantly ignore it just because he/she is saying something with which you do not agree.

And remember, if your data is as good as you think it is, there is no need to attack the other person, good data speaks for itself.

Sorry for this off-topic post, back on topic, please.



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by i_want_the_truth
I see what you saying.....But these objects are not being greyed out or whatever. The controller even states the clear contrast on the video. If these objects where similar in color I would agree with you, but this is not the case



There is no focusing going on in these scenes, just automatic gain control variations. Check out the camera's specs.

ALSO JIM...The astronaut clearly says" I can't get the focus right" in the video
www.ufodigest.com...
TIME 4:00 in to it

This proves there is focus and zoom capabilities, Please have factual basis for your arguments.
take a look at the video again www.ufodigest.com... Time 2:12 in to it

Tis clearly shows ZOOM and FOcus, You are telling me that a multimillion dollar camera with all theses capabilities does not have zoom.

Please back up your statements with facts as I have done instead of making claims that mislead peolpe

Messup up the times... 4'00 in to the vid Listen to the astronaunt say" zoom and focus"

2'12 shows object CLEARLY PASSING BEHIND TETHER

[edit on 10-6-2009 by i_want_the_truth]



The cameras do have zoom and focus controls, they are just not automatic. If Franklin were working on the 'focus' and talked about it, then he obviously was trying to get close-in objects to look clearer. For distant objects, you go to max out focus and don't have to make fine adjustments.



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 


I tried to find more information about what happens to water in space, but there were always too many links talking about numerous other topics on the subject, that it was hard to find a link that describes what happens to water in outerspace. Here is the link with the best explanation I could find.

www.madsci.org...


I believe that your question really is -- If liquid water is suddenly
put into outer space, will it boil or freeze? The most correct answer is:
Both! If you check the scientific definitions of freezing and of boiling
you will find that what occurs can be interpreted as both. The
observations of the water released from the space shuttle show that it
both evaporates and freezes and that the resulting ice then quickly
sublimates (converts directly from the solid to the gas phase).


What this illustrates is that these ice crystals are very tiny. They are not droplet sized, they are molecular sized, and they form clouds. Most the space shuttles fuel is water, and every time it fires thrusters, it produces water vapor ice clouds, but those are being forced away from the shuttle. The water, dirt, and debri that was on the surface of the shuttle when it entered space is pulled away from the shuttle by the vacuum of space that wants to evenly distribute the molecules. This travels along with the shuttle for awhile, but as the shuttle accelerates to maintain orbit, and makes course corrections, this stuff falls away, and gets pulled back into the Earths gravity well. This means that after a few trips around the planet not much of this stuff is left, which is why you don't see it on the videos from the shuttle.

Thus, the water vapor crystal explanation really isn't valid at all.



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
Now then can you apply that statement to these two consecutive screen shots?

Considering that there are some six seconds between them, I wouldn't call those two images "consecutive", but that is not important.


According to the "lens artifact theory", the shape of the object should be related to the position on the screen.

I could not find any other object passing so close to the left edge of the screen, but I got some other objects in some areas of the screen.

Object 1, in three different areas.

Top, more or less to the left.


Bottom of the top third, left of middle.


Middle, left of middle.


As you can see, when the object is closer to the top of the screen it shows a "dent" on the bottom, and as it moves closer to the middle of the screen the "dent" first shifts to the top and then it turns into two "dents".

Object 2, in three different areas.

Top, middle of the screen.


Middle of the screen.


Closer to the bottom, middle of the screen.


The same thing happens with this object; it starts with a "dent" at the bottom that turns into a "dent" at the top and then into two "dents" at the top, in more or less the areas of the screen where these changes happened to the first object.

Object 3, the one you posted.

Top left of the screen.


Close to the top, neared the middle of the screen.


As I could not find any other object on the left of the screen I can only compare it with the other two objects in that area just above the middle of the screen, and a little to the left.

Like the other objects on the top third of the screen, it shows a "dent" at the bottom, and if we just consider that vertical position, then, when near the middle of the screen, it also shows the "dent" at the bottom, like the other objects.

This is probably not enough to be considered as evidence that what we see is just a lens artifact (I don't think I would be convinced just by these arguments
), but it's the best I can get, at least for now.

PS: did you noticed that the "uncut" video you posted does not have this footage?

PPS: here you have a bigger version (made with the bigger images) of the animated GIF of the object.




posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by dragonridr
 


I tried to find more information about what happens to water in space, but there were always too many links talking about numerous other topics on the subject, that it was hard to find a link that describes what happens to water in outerspace. Here is the link with the best explanation I could find.

www.madsci.org...


I believe that your question really is -- If liquid water is suddenly
put into outer space, will it boil or freeze? The most correct answer is:
Both! If you check the scientific definitions of freezing and of boiling
you will find that what occurs can be interpreted as both. The
observations of the water released from the space shuttle show that it
both evaporates and freezes and that the resulting ice then quickly
sublimates (converts directly from the solid to the gas phase).


What this illustrates is that these ice crystals are very tiny. They are not droplet sized, they are molecular sized, and they form clouds. Most the space shuttles fuel is water, and every time it fires thrusters, it produces water vapor ice clouds, but those are being forced away from the shuttle. The water, dirt, and debri that was on the surface of the shuttle when it entered space is pulled away from the shuttle by the vacuum of space that wants to evenly distribute the molecules. This travels along with the shuttle for awhile, but as the shuttle accelerates to maintain orbit, and makes course corrections, this stuff falls away, and gets pulled back into the Earths gravity well. This means that after a few trips around the planet not much of this stuff is left, which is why you don't see it on the videos from the shuttle.

Thus, the water vapor crystal explanation really isn't valid at all.


Thanks for your independent research, that's the way to approach these puzzles. Kudos.

You have correctly noted that small particles of any size will drift away from the shuttle over a matter of minutes or tens of minutes. It has less to do with the shuttle firing its thrusters -- although that does happen and will cause the effect you suggest -- but with air drag. Tiny objects are more susceptible to drag and drop into lower, faster orbits very quickly -- like, tens of minutes.

Why the source says that only molecule-sized ice particles form is amystery to me. Videos of water dumps show snowflake-sized or even large sized pieces.

What you have overlooked is the episodic but continuous nature of fluid ejections from the shuttle, throughout its mission. This results in surges and dropoff of densities in its environment.

Also, it's not just water -- it also can be hydrazine, from rocket thruster leaks -- it freezes under conditions similar to H20.

It's also why it's important to know the timing of the 'NASA UFO' videos, to compare the event to potentially causitive activities that create higher-than-average particle feeds.

Note that posters of 'NASA UFO videos' almost NEVER provide the date/time of the source of the video. They thus make it next to impossible to develop prosaic explanations -- perhaps their intent in withholding this information.



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 10:51 AM
link   
I see way too many quotes, followed by one liners that explain nothing, and only succeed in muddying up the discussion and throwing the thread off. People should either take the time to write a paragraph explaining what they mean, or not post. Especially where a paragraph is quoted, followed by a one liner that states something like, "you really don't understand the situation". They should forget the quote, and concentrate on explaining how their opinion differs by writing out an describing their take on the situation.

Also, when you have a quote withing a quote within a quote, followed by short comments that explain nothing, it is just pile of random trash. Come on guys, complete a thought and take the time to write it down, act, don't react.

There is a reason the site discourages long quotes.



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
I see way too many quotes, followed by one liners that explain nothing, and only succeed in muddying up the discussion and throwing the thread off. People should either take the time to write a paragraph explaining what they mean, or not post. Especially where a paragraph is quoted, followed by a one liner that states something like, "you really don't understand the situation". They should forget the quote, and concentrate on explaining how their opinion differs by writing out an describing their take on the situation.

Also, when you have a quote withing a quote within a quote, followed by short comments that explain nothing, it is just pile of random trash. Come on guys, complete a thought and take the time to write it down, act, don't react.

There is a reason the site discourages long quotes.


if you are referring to my posts a couple pages back, i was illustrating (while very frustrated) to zorgon that the things he was accusing me of not understanding were things i had said on the very first page and that he was asking questions i had already answered.

experience has shown he doesn't respond to paragraphs. he skims and looks for bytes, or at least seems to.

[edit on 10-6-2009 by JScytale]




top topics



 
77
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join