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: 13
77
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 11:49 AM
link   
Hi All

Someone mentioned earlier that if very small object were close to the camera and the camera was zoomed and focused on the tether miles away small particles of dust or ice would be so out of focus they would not be seen.

I made a quick video looking out from a room window in my house small paint spot on window (decorating
) can be seen on the video as a small dark smudge under a cloud it briefly pops into focus in the video, anyway camera about 3ft from glass, street light about 40ft from camera, house roof zoomed in on about 250ft, trees in background 350-400ft from camera clouds at least 2 miles the small paint fleck about 1.5-2mm across can still be seen.

So all the white dots etc COULD be only a few feet from the camera !!!

video link

View My Video

[edit on 10-6-2009 by wmd_2008]




posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


You claimed that you saw it with your "Naked Eye", which means directly, without something in front of your eye, thus the term "NAKED", when you saw it through a telescope, which means not with your naked eye.


The tether was bright when it was in sunlight and it was dark when it was in shadow. Everybody who saw it with their naked eyes -- including me -- observed that feature.


Just exposing you for the charlatan you appear to be.

If you understood anything about deep vacuum you would know that it pulls things apart. Any ice crystals that are not ice vapor, quickly turn to ice vapor. Do you understand the term vapor? This can be observed on videos from space missions. There is a reason why most NASA videos do not show ice particles everywhere.

The ice crystal theory simply does not hold water.


Let me recap.

Ice crystals that form around the shuttle quickly turn into molecular sized ice vapor, and do not stay with the shuttle for long as they are pulled away from the shuttle by gravity.

The ice vapor that water becomes in space is too small to form the floating UFOs we see in the famous tether video.

NASA videos do not show these ice crystals in their videos. Most often space looks like space, empty of floating plasma looking creatures that we see in the famous tether video. This is what makes the tether video famous. Those who claim the ice crystal distortion explanation have yet to provide other examples, which should be common if these supposed ice crystals around the space shuttle were in fact normal phenomenon.

Other posters have already provided shuttle videos which show these plasma creature looking UFOs floating in clear black space, all by their lonesome, unaccompanied by numerous other ice crystals what would be the normal situation when ice vapor or crystals were caught on camera. Observation of a single ice crystal would be extremely rare, and there would be numerous videos of ice crystals clouds if they were as common as claimed, so the odds of a single ice crystal being observed is astronomically small. Also video footage of a ice crystal should show space pulling the crystal apart, as it happens quickly.



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
Always the digs about 'my boss' -- I'll bet they wish they had had more control over me when I blew the whistle on their sick safety culture before Congress in 1997, when I contradicted what THEY were saying...


Yes that is why its in quotes 'boss' I mean face it, you do have the reputation that makes people believe you work for them.
I do believe that they would prefer to have you under tighter reins...

But you and I know you secretly want to 'hop the fence'. Seems more people are noticing that.

Next time your in Vegas let me know... we will sit in John's den and have a coffee ( or brandy if you prefer) and no recorders


The document I quoted I gave the NASA id I do not have it online, just a hard copy. I suppose a search might find a copy on the net, it didn't last time, or I would have included it. I will look later and see if I can find it.

Now on the Tether Video... have not yet read all the back posts... did you find us a link from NASA to their copy? I mean its not that I do not believe that Martyn Stubbs recorded the transmissions... their existence is proof of that and as far as I know NASA has never denied its the real footage

But why does NASA not have this in their video archive?



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


Oops, meant to reply to a different post, sorry.

[edit on 10-6-2009 by poet1b]



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by JScytale
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...


And which "mindless lackey" would that be? Seems once you have lost your case you fall back on the same tactics most 'debunkers' do personal attacks.

Not allowed here and will lose you any credibility

Seem to turn against me? I see a different angle. I see the same old debunkers that hound every thread make appearances to toss in their two cents worth repeating the same old rhetoric...
I would feel ignored if they didn't make an appearance


As to 'public opinion' I will leave that to the stars and U2U's from the 'silent watchers'





by the way Jim, are you the same Jim Oberg, space journalist, widely regarded as an expert on the russian space program?


great detective work
you just figured that out?


With that buttery post maybe you are a lackey?




posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by JScytale
 


This post I am replying to is a good example of using long quotes followed by short, incomplete responses.

Recreating the image shown in the tether video using a pin, or a child's toy as in the junk video you provided at the beginning of the thread, proves nothing. It certainly doesn't demonstrate that these space creature looking UFOs are a reflection of a method of a camera lens that might not have even been used in the video footage. Nobody has yet to provide evidence of what camera was used.

Amoebas on Earth might constantly shape shift, but plasma creature space amoebas might retain a rather constant shape, if they exist. They might be spherical, and look basically the same from all angles.

We have video footage that suggests such a creature may exist, and a space agency that for some reason prefers to keep mum on the subject, so our knowledge is limited.

Here is a link about the possibility of plasma life forms.

www.unexplained-mysteries.com...


Jay Alfred: Life-Like Qualities of Plasma: Bohm, a leading expert in twentieth century plasma physics, observed in amazement that once electrons were in plasma, they stopped behaving like individuals and started behaving as if they were a part of a larger and interconnected whole. Although the individual movements of each electron appeared to be random, vast numbers of electrons were able to produce collective effects that were surprisingly well organized and appeared to behave like a life form. The plasma constantly regenerated itself and enclosed impurities in a wall in the same way that a biological organism, like the unicellular amoeba, might encase a foreign substance in a cyst. So amazed was Bohm by these life-like qualities that he later remarked that he frequently had the impression that the electron sea was "alive" and that plasma possessed some of the traits of living things. The debate on the existence of plasma-based life forms has been going on for more than 20 years ever since some models showed that plasma can mimic the functions of a primitive cell.


The op has done a good job of returning to a subject that is worth further discussion. His tracing of the UFO direction changes has been very sold.



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by JimOberg
 


You claimed that you saw it with your "Naked Eye", which means directly, without something in front of your eye, thus the term "NAKED", when you saw it through a telescope, which means not with your naked eye.


The tether was bright when it was in sunlight and it was dark when it was in shadow. Everybody who saw it with their naked eyes -- including me -- observed that feature.


Just exposing you for the charlatan you appear to be.


I did exactly what I said I did -- I saw it with my naked eyes. So did many others, including Paul Maley, whose reports and images I posted.

Why do you fantasize that I saw it through a telescope, and then flame me for using optical aids (that I never claimed) and allege it proves i'm a bad person?



If you understood anything about deep vacuum you would know that it pulls things apart. Any ice crystals that are not ice vapor, quickly turn to ice vapor. Do you understand the term vapor? This can be observed on videos from space missions. There is a reason why most NASA videos do not show ice particles everywhere.

The ice crystal theory simply does not hold water.



By no means. You are using a 'conclusion' (ice disappears quickly) to prove what you should prove from evidence. Small pieces of ice last for hours near the shuttle, and large pieces -- say, stuck on a cold water dump port -- have lasted for days. That's just the facts. Your internet searches prove nothing.

Once you temper your passion with reality-based knowledge, you'll be a powerful arguer. Right now you're just spouting nonsense, like denouncing me for using a non-existent telescope to watch the sunlit tether and see something you want to close your eyes to, by covering up the inconvenient testimony with fantasies.



[edit on 10-6-2009 by JimOberg]



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


You saw it with your naked eye From the Ground? Ok, in the right conditions that would be possible, but your observation would have been seriously limited, and most likely you used a telescope to verify you were looking at the right thing. Which did you rely on more, your naked eye? or the telescope?

Maybe you can pretend that your failure to include that you saw it with your naked eye 'from the ground' isn't leaving out an important part of the claim, but you aren't fooling anyone. Maybe you posted that you observed this from the ground on some earlier post, but not on this one, so what else was I to think?

I didn't see your response to my pointing out that the videos you posted show particles in space behaving just like I described. Do you concede on this point? or did you just overlook my response? It was right below the post you replied to first.



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


Forgot

Sure, larger amounts of water forming larger crystals would take longer to vaporize, like you say, some even up to a few hours. How many and what percentage? What effect does direct sunlight have on this life span of these larger crystals? Crystals on a pump port dump are getting fed by more water in order to maintain their existence. I think you are clutching at straws with this one.

Come on, you really didn't use a telescope to confirm that your weren't looking at the correct little dot of light way up in the sky? It was that easy to see?

If so, cool, I underestimated.



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


The Shuttle does routine water dumps what happens to that when exposed to the cold vacuum of space.



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008

The Shuttle does routine water dumps what happens to that when exposed to the cold vacuum of space.


Sublimation usually




I bet there is more than just water in those dumps though

Silly humans dumping waste where ever they go







[edit on 10-6-2009 by zorgon]



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
Sure, larger amounts of water forming larger crystals would take longer to vaporize, like you say, some even up to a few hours.


A few hours...

But as Jim was kind enough to point out this film was several DAYS later...

Can we get some real data on the length of time these ice crystals would survive?



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Hard to say, I couldn't find any good information on this. Chances are it trails the shuttle. It doesn't seem to show up in video footage that I have seen, except launches from the shuttle bay, and it tends to follow the launch vehicle from what I have observed. It also doesn't seem to hang around for very long.



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
You saw it with your naked eye From the Ground? Ok, in the right conditions that would be possible,


Still waiting for an explanation of how a 0.1 diameter wire can reflect enough sunlight to be visible from the ground to the naked eye


What I find interesting is on Paul Maley's page the actual tether cable is not very reflective compared to the coin beside it



But I will grant you can see them from the ground with a scope...







[edit on 10-6-2009 by zorgon]



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by wmd_2008

The Shuttle does routine water dumps what happens to that when exposed to the cold vacuum of space.


Sublimation usually




I bet there is more than just water in those dumps though

Silly humans dumping waste where ever they go







[edit on 10-6-2009 by zorgon]



Yes would not want to be hit by a 17,000mph frozen t**d



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 02:59 PM
link   
Hi All


Count all the UFO's in this


www.youtube.com...



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by JScytale
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...


And which "mindless lackey" would that be? Seems once you have lost your case you fall back on the same tactics most 'debunkers' do personal attacks.

Not allowed here and will lose you any credibility

Seem to turn against me? I see a different angle. I see the same old debunkers that hound every thread make appearances to toss in their two cents worth repeating the same old rhetoric...
I would feel ignored if they didn't make an appearance


As to 'public opinion' I will leave that to the stars and U2U's from the 'silent watchers'





by the way Jim, are you the same Jim Oberg, space journalist, widely regarded as an expert on the russian space program?


great detective work
you just figured that out?


With that buttery post maybe you are a lackey?



/chuckle

i'm new on these forums, started posting just a few days ago. and you'd probably feel a little bad if you saw my U2Us this thread had generated.



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by JimOberg
 


You saw it with your naked eye From the Ground? Ok, in the right conditions that would be possible, but your observation would have been seriously limited, and most likely you used a telescope to verify you were looking at the right thing. Which did you rely on more, your naked eye? or the telescope?


Do you know anybody who has EVER used a telescope to observe a low-orbit satellite? Do you have the slightest CLUE why that fabricated fact you cling too, sprung entirely from your own imagination, exposes your own lack of familiarity with the subject matter you are posing as a competent judge of?




Maybe you can pretend that your failure to include that you saw it with your naked eye 'from the ground' isn't leaving out an important part of the claim, but you aren't fooling anyone. Maybe you posted that you observed this from the ground on some earlier post, but not on this one, so what else was I to think?


This is too much fun for decent people to delight in. You're doing everything you can to deflect attention from your own imaginary statement and the verdict that naturally follows -- you need to learn a lot more caution and careful reading skills before anything you ever post here attains any level of credibility.

But this is the place for it, and people -- all of us, no exceptions -- benefit from the clash of claims and counterclaims. Welcome to the process.

If these comments are judged too off-topic and personal, I accept that verdict -- with the proviso that the original fabricated accusation also be deleted by the moderator.

It is indeed amazing that something as thin as a telephone cord would appear as a fine thin line in the night sky from hundreds of miles away. Dr. Joe Carroll, one of the world's leading experts on tethered space systems, had predicted it exactly, on these grounds: he took the relative brightnesses of sunlight and moonlight, and then balanced that with the relative distances (square of distance, to be precise) of a test run of tether in his background, lit only by moonlight. He found that there were indeed enough photons to see the stretch of the tether.

Actually, you can do this too. It is a simple, safe experiment you can do at home. Use a white electrical power cord. The moon is past full, but still would suffice for a test tonight. Tell us your results.



I didn't see your response to my pointing out that the videos you posted show particles in space behaving just like I described. Do you concede on this point? or did you just overlook my response? It was right below the post you replied to first.


I haven't gotten to it yet, because I figured you didn't deserve more than one corrective answer at a time. When we get through this one, we can proceed.

But also, why am I the bottleneck? Why don't you look over the youtube videos until you find the effect you're saying you want to see?



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
clouds at least 2 miles the small paint fleck about 1.5-2mm across can still be seen.



Again, the issue here is focal length vs. field of focus. The only times your speck was distinguishable as a speck was when the focal plane was very near to you. You never did bring the cloud into sharp focus and the times you got close the speck was little more than a blur.

If the speck had a notch in it that was still *clearly* visible, and the cloud was another 78 miles away, your debunking would carry more weight.

video.google.com...

Notice the second bit here, in the plane. You can clearly see chunks of dirt on the window when the focal plane is adjusted near. When he zooms out and brings the clouds near to him into *sharp* focus, the dirt chunks disappear completely.



[edit on 10-6-2009 by Raybo58]



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 06:01 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


Never claimed to be an expert on satellite observation, and do not know anyone who has such a hobby. However a quick search on the internet shows that people do look at satellites with telescopes.

Also, a quick search on looking at satellites with the naked eye reveals there is not much to see, and requires special conditions, and you aren't going to see much more than a dot in the sky moving faster than the stars, and not blinking out like a falling star. You're ability to observe is very limited to time and place, more so than viewing with a telescope, or at least a good set of binoculars. Why would anyone go to the effort of getting to the right location without at least a good set of binoculars.

I am not trying to dodge anything, I admitted that I wasn't aware you could see such things with the naked eye, and still question how limited your viewing of such events are. You failed to admit in the statement I referred to that your view was from the ground, which was deceptive IMO, and which clearly is very limited. That is what I called you on.

Personally I think your knowledge of flight control systems and spacecraft instrumentation is more limited than mine, in fact considerably, and if you want to turn this into a spitting contest I will be glad to point out some of the mistakes in your claims. I don't think it is worth the time.

So maybe you might want to just stick to the topic at hand, and the likely hood of numerous crystals, and answer the response about how objects move in space, or show some decent characteristics that you might be wrong on some point.






top topics



 
77
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join