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: 14
77
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
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.






Jim Oberg is regarded as an *expert* on spaceflight, especially the Russian space program. He has been hired by NASA before for contracted work. As opposed to you, who is probably a layman with a hobby.




posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 07:02 PM
link   
can any of the "experts" explain why some of these ufo's are making 160-180 degree turns in direction ?

the parabolic arc explanation ain't gonna cut the mustard on this one.

the ufo's are going in all different directions and some DO NOT appear to be affected by gravity and being drawn towards the Earth.

also videos of the water dumps that have been posted prove nothing

Giant quotes with a one liner under neath it....and discussing other members is frowned upon and a waste of space. thanks



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
the ufo's are going in all different directions and some DO NOT appear to be affected by gravity and being drawn towards the Earth.

That is one of the reasons why I am not sure if the force affecting the object's trajectory is gravity.

Another is the speed at which they react to the force, almost as if they were not in orbit.

Also, as not all objects are affected, gravity does not explain it, or if it does then it creates a new mystery, why not all objects are affected.

But I still think that is also strange that all changes in trajectory are to the bottom of the screen, almost as if there was something there attracting those objects.



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by JScytale
Jim Oberg is regarded as an *expert* on spaceflight, especially the Russian space program. He has been hired by NASA before for contracted work. As opposed to you, who is probably a layman with a hobby.


AH so you are his agent. And thanks for the confirmation that NASA is his 'boss'






posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by JScytale
Jim Oberg is regarded as an *expert* on spaceflight, especially the Russian space program. He has been hired by NASA before for contracted work. As opposed to you, who is probably a layman with a hobby.


AH so you are his agent. And thanks for the confirmation that NASA is his 'boss'





i find it hilarious you think I am his 'agent'. I know of his reputation and just met him yesterday on this forum. The simple fact he HAS a reputation outside ATS should speak mounds to his credibility.

and working for NASA in the past adds to his credibility - it doesn't detract from it. you may distrust NASA, but if you think they hire anything but the best and brightest, then my friend you are delusional. Not to mention he has spoken out against them in the past.



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 08:03 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 



thanks ArMaP

i agree , the speed factor is puzzling and some objects react differently. good eye, i had not thought about that before. your also correct that not all objects seem to be affected so i am in agreement with you that the gravity explanation doesn't seem to be the answer.





this one does a u turn





this one does also




these objects don't seem to move but have somewhat of a pulsating appearance ? weird
















[edit on 11-6-2009 by easynow]



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
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.


Alright Jim I will drop this for now to get back to the motion study, which even I am guilty of wandering away from. Thanks for a straight answer on that one



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 08:12 PM
link   
reply to post by easynow
 


I thought ArMap meant that when they objects change course - regardless of where they are on screen - the course change is always towards the bottom of the screen, rather than some suddenly heading for the top, some to either side etc. That's what I thought he meant. Although I don't know if it's true. I'm off to look at the video again to see if that's the case.



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

Originally posted by easynow
these objects don't seem to move but have somewhat of a pulsating appearance ? weird





Yes I have notice that before. It may be that they are at a completely different location than the moving ones, but the pulsating is noticable



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 08:28 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 



i added this one to the above post...



just to show that when they all are lit up they all look similar in size and brightness. weird


i think there might be a few more that don't move, i was just pointing those out. there are so many things going on in this video it's hard to watch everything at one time and notice what each object is doing.

some are going straight up and do not arc or change speed, some do





[edit on 10-6-2009 by easynow]



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 08:44 PM
link   
That is why I am cutting it up with LunaCognita so we can look at it in sections

Okay here is an animation of one area of the video...

BTW ArMaP Thanks for the critter animation
I now loaded up software to do them myself.

This may be to big for the thread so I will edit in a minute if it doesn't work...

Yup it is... so I will make a smaller version later...

Just

CLICK THIS LINK


Smaller









[edit on 10-6-2009 by zorgon]



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by JScytale
 


You don't have very good reading skills, do you?

Been there, done that, and I am not impressed.



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 12:09 AM
link   
Here is a link off of a google video search, which is at least set up different than utube. This is the video I first remember seeing.

video.google.com...#

I see objects chancing direction in all four ways.

edit add

You can go to full screen mode when you go to the link. At around 2:00 minutes into the video when these UFOs start showing up, they seem to come from all directions towards the tether. How can they be space debri around the shuttle when they come from all directions. Also, the sky is clear up until shortly after the tether breaks away, and then these things seem to swarm towards the tether.

Most of them move in erratic ways, and change speeds often. I see directional changes towards all sides of the screen. Some of them seem to be swimming through space. They really do not move like an inanimate objects on a direct smooth trajectory, at a constant speed.

I have yet to see a debunk that begins to explain any of this.



[edit on 11-6-2009 by poet1b]



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 12:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
Here is a link off of a google video search, which is at least set up different than utube. This is the video I first remember seeing.

video.google.com...#

I see objects chancing direction in all four ways.

edit add

You can go to full screen mode when you go to the link. At around 2:00 minutes into the video when these UFOs start showing up, they seem to come from all directions towards the tether. How can they be space debri around the shuttle when they come from all directions. Also, the sky is clear up until shortly after the tether breaks away, and then these things seem to swarm towards the tether.

Most of them move in erratic ways, and change speeds often. I see directional changes towards all sides of the screen. Some of them seem to be swimming through space. They really do not move like an inanimate objects on a direct smooth trajectory, at a constant speed.

I have yet to see a debunk that begins to explain any of this.



[edit on 11-6-2009 by poet1b]


Well since you have NO idea of the size of these objects and they could be very very small indeed and close to the ship and camera a very very small force may be all thats required to change direction/speed etc.
Like I have shown in this video these objects could be just feet away from camera or shuttle and be very small indeed.

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 !!!

tinypic.com...

[edit on 11-6-2009 by wmd_2008]



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 12:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008a very very small force may be all thats required to change direction/speed etc.


Yes but unless you wish to challenge the laws of physics, you need to explain why the objects move in curved trajectories. In space where there is no air drag, objects move in a vector when force is applied so they would make angular turns

In order for them to exhibit the curving maneuvers we see they would need a constant force applied. And considering the multitude of directions, you need to account for a lot of force vectors

Here on Earth dust may flit around like we see, but not in space.

But if you wish to rewrite Newton I am all ears.

Otherwise your argument is a lot of hot air


[edit on 11-6-2009 by zorgon]



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 02:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
Yes but unless you wish to challenge the laws of physics, you need to explain why the objects move in curved trajectories. In space where there is no air drag, objects move in a vector when force is applied so they would make angular turns

In order for them to exhibit the curving maneuvers we see they would need a constant force applied. And considering the multitude of directions, you need to account for a lot of force vectors



i honestly give up.



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 03:33 AM
link   
reply to post by JScytale


Hmmm well just for you

ONE WAY TICKET



Sorry twas the demon Rum made me do it



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 06:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
reply to post by JScytale


Hmmm well just for you

ONE WAY TICKET



Sorry twas the demon Rum made me do it






i wonder if you realize i was laughing at how childish your assumptions on physics were

i would recommend against immediately discarding anything i say like you do right now - because a lot of it is basic physics, which you don't understand or refuse to acknowledge because i had referenced it and you see it as a "skeptic's argument"

or are US high schools really that bad?



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 06:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

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...


During which MORE water dumps occurred...

Zorgon, your reasoning process eludes me. WHY did it seem true to you that the dots on the video HAD to have originated when the tether originally broke? You use that assumption to try to cast doubt on an ice explanation for them. Frankly, I have not the slightest idea why you think that's logical, so please explain further.



[edit on 11-6-2009 by JimOberg]



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 06:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
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.


I'm seeing a pattern here, where misinterpretations of the causes of these dots is based on wild, way off target guesses about how stuff SHOULD look, or act, in space, based on personal experiences under Earth conditions. This shows a sad inability for these posters to appreciate what DIFFERENT conditions in space might do to their assumptions.

You've got to work harder to understand the new realities of this new arena of human activity. Otherwise all your pondering and typing, like the thousands of hours already represented on these threads, will be equally wasted.

Small shuttle-derived particles quickly drop into lower orbits and pull ahead of the shuttle. Clouds of particles from a water dump can be seen on videos preceding the shuttle into darkness (that's when they show up best). This is the way 'stuff' behaves in orbit -- it's not a 'logical' extrapolation of what you see stuff doing on Earth.



new topics

top topics



 
77
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join