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: 122
77
<< 119  120  121    123  124  125 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by depthoffield
 



if i use my brain


no evidence of that yet LOL



NASA camera C somehow is TOTALLY IGNORING the visible light from the tether


can you only see plasma in the visible spectrum ?

does camera C prove there was no plasma field associated with the tether ?

Nope it does not



If these observations can't be accepted as basic starting facts, well, it seems you have a problem with logic.


there not basic facts and its obvious that you only want to believe your logic which is by the way ignorant and laughable




I want original NASA video. Everybody wants more or less.


why do you want it DOF ? tell us why you think it's important to have NASA's copy of the video ?





Also, i want any better copy than these Secretnasaman's copies. (You don't want them).


there you go posting lies again !

quote me where i say i do not want to see a better copy than secretnasaman's video

if you can't then admit your making up lies and posting them






I thought this issue was clarified before. Do you like to mock the people?



not according to Arbitrageur , she/he thinks we don't need to see NASA's copy of the video and also made up lies about me and posted them just like you are doing..

both of you are liars and your opinion credibility rating is now at a all time high of -> 0

do you enjoy posting lies ?




[edit on 13-12-2009 by easynow]




posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by depthoffield
If these observations can't be accepted as basic starting facts, well, it seems you have a problem with logic.


its obvious you are ignoring everything concerning 'plasma' here.... WHY?




posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by depthoffield
 



After that they reorient the camera C and film the tether (and debris, wich also are seen by the astronauts with their naked eyes).


How do you know they saw the tether with their naked eyes?

Are there windows located in a position to have allowed them to view this?

Once again it seems you are presenting speculation as fact.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


Thanks for providing this Jim.

It seems on page 3 we might have the clue that puts to rest the claim that the debris is from a water dump.

The information is pretty ambiguous, but there is a report of a water dump at 6/19:35 and 6/20:45 with the action delete. Why the delete action I don't know, and no clue is given. Perhaps the dump did not occur at that time, or perhaps it was not seen on camera, and therefore the log entry was no longer needed. I suspect the latter, as there is no added entry for a water dump at a different time.

This is most likely our missing water dump between day five, and the tether video.

The video was started on Day 7 8:53, which would be about 12 hours after the last water dump, far too much time would have elapsed for debris from that water dump to still be hanging around. If this is the time of the last water dump before the video, then it would not be reasonable to believe that the debris we see in the tether video comes from a water dump.

I suspect that you provided this knowing full well what it means. If that is true, then I salute you.

From all data reviewed, it is clear there is no ordinary explanation available for the amount of debris we see in this tether video.

We have provided considerable evidence to demonstrate that plasma does exist in space in Earths near orbit. Recently mcrom901 provided us with a link that shows that what has been reported for years as UFOs that look like flying orbs is most likely plasma.

At this point I think it is very reasonable to conclude that it is most likely plasma that we are seeing around the tether in this video.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by easynow

Also, i want any better copy than these Secretnasaman's copies. (You don't want them).


there you go posting lies again !

quote me where i say i do not want to see a better copy than secretnasaman's video

if you can't then admit your making up lies and posting them


I thought this issue was clarified before. Do you like to mock the people?


not according to Arbitrageur , she/he thinks we don't need to see NASA's copy of the video and also made up lies about me and posted them just like you are doing..

both of you are liars and your opinion credibility rating is now at a all time high of -> 0

do you enjoy posting lies ?


What I said was this:


Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by easynow
to verify the footage matches theirs and to have a better copy for a better examination. until i see NASA's copy of the video i can not make any judgment calls about any comparison.
Hmmm I thought before a better quality version from secretnasaman would have satisfied you but now it's only the NASA copy?


Is that why you're saying I posted a lie?

First of all, if I "thought" you wanted something, it can be an incorrect thought, but I don't see how it can be a lie. Why would I think that? Could it be because you have posted things which suggest you think NASA may be hiding something? Implying maybe you don't trust NASA? And can I think because of this that you might even actually think secretnasaman is less likely to edit out the alien spacecraft from his copy of the video than NASA is? Well maybe my thought is correct or incorrect, but it's not a lie either way. You can accuse me of having an incorrect thought if you want. And I won't be offended because it's really hard to follow the logic of someone who says we can't trust NASA one minute and the next minute says NASA is the only source they will accept.

And while we are on the topic, answer this question, would you be satisfied with a better copy from secretnasaman or not? If secretnasaman shares his better, not you-tube compressed video with us, would you accept any analysis from that or would you still be whining that's not good enough, and the only version you would accept would be NASA's version?



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by depthoffield
The source of light is the tether illuminated by the sunlight. Direct witnesses said that.


read the reports....


Meanwhile, science teams for the Tethered Satellite System demonstrated their own brand of telescience throughout the night, commanding and receiving data from their reactivated instruments on the satellite. The Marshall Space Flight Center's Research on Orbital Plasma Electrodynamics (ROPE), the Italian Space Agency's Research on Electrodynamic Tether Effects (RETE) and the Second University of Rome's Magnetic Field (TEMAG) experiments continue to collect what TSS Mission Scientist Dr. Nobie Stone called "very good data" about the satellite's interaction with its surrounding region of charged particles and magnetic fields.

Scientists report that they can measure a sunlight-induced electrical charge on the satellite as it moves through the daylight and night portions of its orbit around the Earth. Later today, the satellite's ROPE and RETE instruments will measure the effects of electron gun firings from the Shuttle Electrodynamic Tether System (SETS) on the satellite and its environment.


science.ksc.nasa.gov...


One of the TSS primary mission objective may be met in spite of the overall situation. Dr. Marino Dobrowolny, the Italian Space Agency TSS mission scientist, noted that a main goal was to characterize the relationship between current collected and voltage across the tether. During tether deployment, current and voltage levels were observed under conditions that cannot be duplicated in the laboratory. He said "we have shed light on plasma physics questions raised in the 1920s that have never before been understood and are too difficult to duplicate in the laboratories or model with computers."

Data gathered while the satellite was deployed is better than scientists anticipated. There are cases where twice as much current was collected than was predicted by the best computer models available. This may indicate some degree of ionization around the satellite even during the period when the satellite thrusters were not on when no enhanced gas cloud was present. In fact, when satellite thruster operations were performed, the current went even higher, up to 580 milliamps, compared to the 270 milliamps predicted by the models.

In addition, after commanding current to flow in the tether, energetic electrons were observed on the satellite with energies ranging up to 10 kiloelectronvolts -- ten times the energy of the electron beams that were emitted. This provides valuable clues into the physical processes by which electrons become energized.



During the post-break, free-flight phase, the Research on Orbital Plasma Electrodynamics (ROPE) equipment, located on one of the satellite's booms, is collecting information about the plasma sheath created by applying a voltage to the boom tip. Understanding this effect that may be significant to geosynchronous satellites, such as those that transmit television and telephone signals, where differential charging occurs on the order of kilovolts.


science.ksc.nasa.gov...


Tethered Satellite System (TSS) "science of opportunity," during Columbia's final approach to within 46 nautical miles of the satellite, included firing the electron accelerators in Columbia's cargo bay. The electron guns' effects on the charged particles, electrical waves and magnetic fields around the satellite were detected by the Research on Electrodynamic Tether Effects, Research on Orbital Plasma Electrodynamics and Magnetic Field Experiment for TSS Mission's instruments mounted on the satellite. All three instrument teams reported receiving good quality data from the satellite, data which are now being analyzed by the experiment investigators.


science.ksc.nasa.gov...




posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by mcrom901
 

Can you point out anything about visible effects? I can't seem to find it.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


you posted this...


Hmmm I thought before a better quality version from secretnasaman would have satisfied you but now it's only the NASA copy?


you made it up or you made a mistake , which is it ?

obviously it's one or the other because you couldn't find anything to quote me where i said any of that.

so which is it , a lie or a mistake ?

i asked you many times to explain yourself and if you are willing to admit that you just made a mistake then i will accept that.


answer my questions first and then i will answer your other questions



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
obviously it's one or the other because you couldn't find anything to quote me where i said any of that.

so which is it , a lie or a mistake ?


It's a thought which may be correct or incorrect. It's neither a lie nor a mistake. I'm not going to dig though a hundred pages to find all your quotes but you said something on this page that makes me think that, so it may be just a misunderstanding:


Originally posted by easynow

Also, i want any better copy than these Secretnasaman's copies. (You don't want them).


there you go posting lies again !

quote me where i say i do not want to see a better copy than secretnasaman's video


So by "these secretnasaman copies" my interpretation is the youtube compressed versions that we now have available. So a secretnasaman uncompressed version would be a better version than these youtube compressed versions right? And when I read that comment of yours "there you go posting lies again" is an implicit denial of the accusation that you don't want just any better copy. What is meant by "any better copy" may be the source of the confusion. Apparently DOF and I are interpreting that to mean any better copy including a better copy from secretnasaman or from NASA or from anywhere else, and you are interpreting any better copy to mean ONLY the NASA copy, could that be the source of the misunderstanding?

[edit on 13-12-2009 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 



It's a thought which may be correct or incorrect. It's neither a lie nor a mistake. I'm not going to dig though a hundred pages to find all your quotes but you said something on this page that makes me think that, so it may be just a misunderstanding:


if you can't quote me and can't be bothered to look for where i said anything in which you are implying then you are making up things with no real basis and posting them

you are making up lies and posting them

i never said anywhere in this thread that a better copy of the video from secretnasaman would be sufficient and somehow you got lost in fantasy world and assumed i did.

either post a quote from me which shows that i said any of that or i will keep calling you a liar



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 



The ionosphere is the outermost layer of the Earth's atmosphere where solar ultraviolet light knocks electrons off of atoms of oxygen and nitrogen. This effectively turns the ionosphere into a mirror of varying shape and reflectivity in parts of the radio spectrum. This is why radio reception changes at night, and why some stations can be heard far outside their normal broadcast areas, even halfway around the world.

Another part of the PEST experiment will be checking out an oddity noted during the second Tethered Satellite System flight. "We noticed something strange in the characteristics of the RM400 conducting thermal coating used on the tethered satellite," Stone explained. "The data suggested tremendous emissions of secondary electrons due to particle bombardment or solar ultraviolet or both. We had no reason to suppose that the RM400 coating would behave in this way before the TSS mission."


science.nasa.gov...



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by mcrom901
 

Interesting. Electrons were emitted. Was the data gathered in the visible spectrum? I don't see that it was.

In order to produce light free electrons have to be flowing in an electric current and have to first be absorbed by an atom, they can't do it on their own.

[edit on 12/13/2009 by Phage]



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
Was the data gathered in the visible spectrum? I don't see that it was.


then what are the basis or your conclusions in regards to the observed tether?



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by mcrom901
 

It's reflecting sunlight, just like the particles are.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


and the reason for the thickness?



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
I suspect that you provided this knowing full well what it means. If that is true, then I salute you.


I was serious -- I hadn't had time to assess it but it was so long in coming (and waiting) I wanted it out as soon as possible.

What do you think of the FES activity as a debris source?



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by mcrom901
 

It's called "blooming", caused by oversaturation, and it has been discussed many times.


[edit on 12/13/2009 by Phage]



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


i had a different opinion about the level of your critical thought..... duh.... it seems you're another sad case.... or being deliberately intellectually dishonest... sorry for sounding so direct... but thanks for the clarification...



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by mcrom901

it seems you did not comprehend what was mentioned earlier.... "VISIBLE LIGHT RADIATED BY PLASMA"


I agree there could be a faint visible light because of plasma. Faint. incomparable to sunlight.
But, if this visible light it is there in the great amount like you suggest, then why astronauts didn't see the tether until orbital sunrise ocurred?

ANSWER: because this light from the plasma is very faint. Much fainter than the light reflected from the sun. Argument: imediately after the tether break, when already was fully deployed, we see in video the tether, a simple wire, and we see it because is sunlit, not because some faint plasma brightness.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by depthoffield
 


dude are you following the line of argument here?

i dont think so.... cause you are just mixing things up.... seriously.... what... you're assuming that a layer of plasma is covering the tether in this case?

your post makes no sense.....


[edit on 13/12/09 by mcrom901]



new topics

top topics



 
77
<< 119  120  121    123  124  125 >>

log in

join