New Analysis Video of the STS-75 Tether Incident

reply to post by Raybo58


Excellent post and analysis Raybo. Thanks

Also, as has been mentioned by others, if the changes in movement were created by vector adjustments, or attitude adjustments of the shuttle, then we should see all of the particles move in the same direction, and if they were near the camera, this would be especially evident.

Clearly we see the camera being moved, so as you point out, if the objects were close to the camera, then they should all move in the same direction relative to the tether. This doesn't happen, so that shows that these UFOs are near the tether.

That video you posted from Little Hutton 1993, around 6:02:40 the shape of this UFO, which does look just like the UFOs in the tether incident when zoomed in on, does change, the little notch on the bottom fades away, while the notches on the top remain the same.

Yeah, none of this is conclusive, as the saying goes, believe nothing you hear, and only half of what you see.

Originally posted by Raybo58
So back to the drawing board. After studying the Stubbs video again I noticed something strange. Several objects appear to pass through the plasma sheath.

That is one of two (or the two together) things, the result of the electronics not being able to handle the level of light from the translucent small objects in front of the tether (as they are translucent, the light level is added to that of the tether) and/or the common effect of an out of focus object when seen in front of another object, as you can see (although not as good as I wanted it to be) in this video.


(I hope it does not show that stupid ad before the video starts. If it shows it's not my fault, blame it on Skeptic Overlord )

Late to the party...I always thought the "Tether Incident" was shuttle debris, however seeing those arcing trajectories has changed my mind.

Nice one easynow.

In space, you just can't hang a right or pull a 180. If you tried that without stopping first you'd just carry on forwards at a different trajectory from the one you were on at the point of change and if trying to do a 180 end up going forwards backside first.

To turn a 180 like that you need to slow to a stop with force being applied to the front, apply force to the left and keep repeating that until you were on your new heading. Front and left being relative to your current trajectory.

Either that or drop a gravity well out the right of your ship and hang a 180 'round that.

And I only see one piece of debris doing it, a not a synchronised flow.

I'm also happy with an arced trajectory 'round a planet, but this tight a turn is something you only normally see on Star Trek or in an atmosphere due to resistance

Definitely

reply to post by JimOberg


Link to hobbyists who watch satellites with telescopes.

www.satobs.org...

For a guy who supposedly writes a lot of books, you don't read very well. I have not only seen a satellite, I have crawled around inside of a few. An object that is 12 miles long observed at a distance of 300 miles would look like a line on a piece of paper with a very fine pencil or pen, .12 inches in length, when viewed from a distance of 30 inches. That is about an 1/8 of an inch, It would look very tiny. Your point of view would be extremely limited.

Why anyone would bother to take the time to find out where such a mission was taking place so they could identify the location in the sky where this test was being conducted, and then get up before dawn to watch, would not bother to at least use a set of binoculars so that the 1/8th of an inch looking object now looks like 2.5 inches at arms length is beyond me, Not very smart. A real enthusiast would have a tracking telescope and look at the test from a far superior perspective. What? did you gamble away all your money in Vegas so that you can't afford a pair of binoculars, and now have to work for NASA debunking conspiracy theory forums?

I called you a charlatan because of the way you have responded to people, claiming superior knowledge without ever demonstrating such superior knowledge. This is a conspiracy site, anyone could choose any name, so how do we know you are who you say your are. It is an ATS policy that posters are not supposed to provide personal identities, so if you are the real Jim Oberg, you are in violation of ATS rules.

Does ATS have a celebrity guest policy?

If you claim so, and you are not, you are setting yourself up for a lawsuit.

Tell me, what is a Mate Log? If you did work in Aerospace, or have connections in Aerospace, you should know this and be able to answer quickly.

Isn't a camera classified as an instrument, maybe my memory fails me on this. I wonder if you can look up milspec standards online. Anything that goes up into space on a NASA mission is NASA certified according to milspec standards.

I remember most people seeing safety as an important part of the job in Aerospace, it was the over documentation that most people found to be far in excess. Too much time was concentrated on paperwork, and not enough on the job at hand, which is what is needed to be done to conduct missions safely.


ADDED in EDIT

So, if these ice crystals (as opposed to ice mist) are common floating around to shuttle looking like floating space critters moving in all directions, then where are the numerous videos of this stuff. That would make this Tether video fairly ordinary, rather than famous.

A great many of us grew up watching the Apollo mission, and video clips of other missions, and now with the internet, many of us, especially people on ATS have spent considerable time looking at NASA videos. When you post something that demonstrates superior knowledge, then I will acknowledge it, until then, you are just another debunker claiming superior knowledge.





[edit on 11-6-2009 by poet1b]

Originally posted by poet1b
It is an ATS policy that posters are not supposed to provide personal identities, so if you are the real Jim Oberg, you are in violation of ATS rules.

No, if he is the real Jim Oberg (and I think he is) then he is not in violation of any ATS rule, there is nothing about the members saying who they are, that is even a thread with photos of some ATS members, what is asked is to avoid to post personal information that can be used by someone else, like e-mail or home addresses.

Does ATS have a celebrity guest policy?

No.

So, if these ice crystals (as opposed to ice mist) are common floating around to shuttle looking like floating space critters moving in all directions, then where are the numerous videos of this stuff. That would make this Tether video fairly ordinary, rather than famous.

In other videos where the camera is focused to a far away object, yes, but if the camera is focused on a closer object then it cannot look the same.

Also, if the camera used was the TOP camera (I haven't seen any real reference to what camera was used) then it's even more difficult, as far as I know that camera was only used twice on Shuttle missions.

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by JimOberg

 

Link to hobbyists who watch satellites with telescopes.

www.satobs.org...

I know them well. The only guy who uses a telescope for low-Earth orbit satellites -- the ones I specifically asked about -- is John Locker, and he has had to hook up a humongous computer controlled pointing system to track an object moving across the sky at about a degree per second.

You still didn't provide the answer to my question, so we'll move on.

For such fast movers, most observers us (as I do) hand-held binoculars.

Of course, for brighter objects, naked eye will do. Like the tethered satellite.

The rest of these observers use various optical aids, including telescopes, to track slow-moving satellites at much higher altitudes. It is an entirely different order of magnitude of tracking rate.

For a guy who supposedly writes a lot of books, you don't read very well.

I love you, too.

I have not only seen a satellite, I have crawled around inside of a few. An object that is 12 miles long observed at a distance of 300 miles would look like a line on a piece of paper with a very fine pencil or pen, .12 inches in length, when viewed from a distance of 30 inches. That is about an 1/8 of an inch, It would look very tiny. Your point of view would be extremely limited.

You keep insisting on this because you are convinced of your own theoretical expertise in the absence of real experience. The angular size of a bright -- or high contrast -- observational target bercomes irrelevant if its brightness (or contrast) is high enough.

By your logic, looking at a star would be the same as looking at a water molecule at a range of ten feet -- the same angular size. Or, i.e., in your theory, stars would be invisible.

Why anyone would bother to take the time to find out where such a mission was taking place so they could identify the location in the sky where this test was being conducted, and then get up before dawn to watch, would not bother to at least use a set of binoculars so that the 1/8th of an inch looking object now looks like 2.5 inches at arms length is beyond me, Not very smart.

I love you too.

A real enthusiast would have a tracking telescope and look at the test from a far superior perspective. What? did you gamble away all your money in Vegas so that you can't afford a pair of binoculars, and now have to work for NASA debunking conspiracy theory forums?

Who said I didn't have a set of binoculars? I said, truthfully, that I saw the tether with my naked eyes. I did not say that I only saw it with naked eyes. Why are you so quick to jump to unsupported, pejorative misinterpretations? And you say I'm the one with a 'reading for comprehension' problem?

I called you a charlatan because of the way you have responded to people, claiming superior knowledge without ever demonstrating such superior knowledge.

I love you too.

This is a conspiracy site, anyone could choose any name, so how do we know you are who you say your are. It is an ATS policy that posters are not supposed to provide personal identities, so if you are the real Jim Oberg, you are in violation of ATS rules.

File a complaint. I'm really 'that' James Oberg. Does that mean you want me banned from ATS?

If you claim so, and you are not, you are setting yourself up for a lawsuit.

Oh, your expertise extends to the law, too? There are hundreds of 'James Obergs' in the United States. How can any of them sue any other for using their names?

Tell me, what is a Mate Log? If you did work in Aerospace, or have connections in Aerospace, you should know this and be able to answer quickly.

Sorry, you don't test me. Nobody knows who you are.

Isn't a camera classified as an instrument, maybe my memory fails me on this. I wonder if you can look up milspec standards online. Anything that goes up into space on a NASA mission is NASA certified according to milspec standards.

If you want the specs on the cameras, I have already posted them on the 114 discussion, and can post them again here if you ask nicely.

I remember most people seeing safety as an important part of the job in Aerospace, it was the over documentation that most people found to be far in excess. Too much time was concentrated on paperwork, and not enough on the job at hand, which is what is needed to be done to conduct missions safely.

'Safety' is just not a topic I take lectures about from snot-nosed strangers. I went to Congress about NASA's lax safety culture in 1997, and ended my JSC career for it.

So, if these ice crystals (as opposed to ice mist) are common floating around to shuttle looking like floating space critters moving in all directions, then where are the numerous videos of this stuff. That would make this Tether video fairly ordinary, rather than famous.

The simple answer is, Martyn and the other UFO promoters have them too, but they won't show you, because they select only the most eerie and weird-looking scenes. I'm gathering a collection of such typical scenes to link from my home page -- but the problem always is going to be that somebody will insist they are ALL UFOs.

A great many of us grew up watching the Apollo mission, and video clips of other missions, and now with the internet, many of us, especially people on ATS have spent considerable time looking at NASA videos. When you post something that demonstrates superior knowledge, then I will acknowledge it, until then, you are just another debunker claiming superior knowledge.

I love you too.

I'm angry that i didn't have time anymore to follow ATS discussions, because is pretty addictive.

I have many thoughts to say to this topic (and others), but no time to do it.

As i just finished to read this topic, i just want to give one explanation.

Especially for Zorgon, who asked many times (as putting this as an "argument" for mistery) how the 12 miles long but only 0.25 cm (if i remember) thick tether could be seen from 100 miles...with the naked eye or a (low light) camera.

The answer is pretty easy in my opinion. Is about collecting photons in area unit.

You know, the image is recorded by camera senzor, in little units of receiving. In cameras we call them pixels. Which are the smallest units. There is no "half pixel". The image is reconstructed after with those pixels of images, as smallest building blocks.

Now, a pixel, is a unit which receives photons. If enough photons arrive at that pixel, that pixel will record a signal.

Now returning to the tether...

The tether has 12 miles. But is at 100 miles distance from the camera.
Anyway...someone can make precise calculations...

I'll go here in brute aproximations, but you'll get the idea

Let's say that the line reprezenting tether has ..i don't know..maybe a lengh of 50 pixels in one particular image.

So, it means that one pixel in camera senzor reprezents

12 miles / 50 = 0.24 miles, or (as i'm not familiar with english standard), let's say about 400 meters.

It doen't matter the best precision of these aproximations, we are enough close in the area of the phenomenon.

So, 400 meters of 0.25 cm thick tether is ALL recorded in just one pixel.

What surface is this?
Well, it is 400 x 0.0025 = 1m2 (or a square of 1 meter side)

1 square meters! of surface, generating photons which ALL came to a single pixel in the camera. And those photons are from the powerfull sunlight! (daylight situation)

Imagine a square with 1 meter of its sides, in daylight sunlit surface, but on a black bacground.

Don't you think there are plenty enough photons to get that single pixel a signal?

Yes, they are in my opinion. Further calculations of how light such surface emits, for those who actually can do it, can be done using as starting point for example this link:

stjarnhimlen.se...


that's why that tether is visible to camera's and even naked eye, from just the solar light hitting it.

Because the amount of sunlit surface which goes just to only one pixel is enough to make the signal.

My 2 cents on this issue.



[edit on 11/6/09 by depthoffield]

reply to post by JimOberg


Yeah, I know, I missed placed the decimal. It should appear about 1.2 inches at approximately 30 inches from the eye, not so small. It would have been much bigger with a pair of binoculars.


I love you too, NS.

When these UFO's show up, they seem to converge on the tether from all sides. If they are ice crystals being created by attitude thrusters, then only if the camera was in the front looking straight forward, or straight up from somewhere near the center of the craft would it make sense that they converge from both sides. Still, I would think that ice crystals forming from thruster blasts would be atomized, and so they would form ice vapor right away, not ice crystals.

There are other videos that show little dots moving around, come to think about it. Some do appear to move independently, I have seen them posted here on the this site, but never as many as in this video.

Theory and reality rarely match up perfectly. The answer then would be to compare other videos that show these dots moving around.

Here is another video from another ATS thread.

uk.news.yahoo.com...

Here is one of a water dump from another video from the same thread.

www.youtube.com...

All from this thread.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Here is another video, there is the main object that the camera is concentrating on, and then the regular floating dot or two come by.

io9.com...

From this thread.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by JimOberg
But notice that the video posters refuse to provide the dates and times of the scenes they show, making the identification of the time interval -- and the ordering of data on thruster firings during it -- next to impossible.

It is impossible because all we have is Martyn Stubbs downloaded satellite capture of the original NASA transmission.

Though I have asked repeatedly in this and many similar threads, NO ONE has yet produced the original NASA version, and I have not been able to find an original NASA video file on this footage.

Does NASA have this footage on file now? Is it available to the public? In the court battle years ago between Martyn, NASA and the British UFO site where it was first released (before youtube existed) the film was removed for copy right issues

So the ONLY version we have seen so far is the ones Martyn down linked from his satellite dish

www.youtube.com...

Since that did not come with time and date stamps from NASA, it is impossible to meet the demand... and of course you know this.


If NASA has since put their copy online somewhere, or even if I can order it for a fee (its going to cost me $84.00 to get an 11x14 digital scan of that triangle ) please let me know, because I cannot find it anywhere

www.youtube.com...



[edit on 11-6-2009 by zorgon]

Originally posted by JimOberg
Zorgon, you're a likeable guy, so it pains me to see you making mistakes in such a consistent manner.

Yup that post is proof that you should stop posting after the third rum and go get some sleep. It did not convey what I meant.

I will correct that later with some charts and notes to express what I meant better.

Originally posted by JimOberg
Boy, it sure would be nice if we could compare these exact scenes with the exact list of shuttle activities during the same period.

But we can't. And you know why -- the coverup. The youtube posters refuse to provide the information needed to determine WHICH intervals to examine.

How convenient for the UFO theories.

Well to repeat...

Show us the original NASA footage and we can bring this up again.
How convenient that we cannot find it from NASA, but of course there is no cover up, just a lack of cooperation to provide the data needed.

Originally posted by JimOberg
You are saying this is a fair solution?

Hmmm I see your point... fair enough then, I will make an effort to track down the time this was shot..But seriously I would think that NASA with those expensive tax payer paid for computers, and having all those years since 1996, could tell us what time the tether broke.

Does that not sound reasonable?

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by Raybo58

 

But I think you are wrong in using a 3D program to see how a things happen when a camera pans or zooms in or out, that experiment should be done with a real camera, not a 3D program, the behaviour may not be exactly the same (and I have a subjective feeling that it's not).

Unless you're suggesting light is being acutely bent over a short distance, it cannot be otherwise.

Another motion parallax example

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by JimOberg
What's this "plasma sheath" sheat?

The dots and the tether are sunlit, they go dark when the sun sets, and they light up when the sun rises.

Now come on Jim, I have shown many documents from NASA that explain the plasma sheath being referred to... so many time in fact some got annoyed with my repetition.

In several papers it is describes 'as a fluorescent tube'. It even says that it stops glowing once out of the sun because the electron density is less in the night.

Also, for the first time ever, the high-voltage plasma sheath and wake of a high-voltage satellite moving rapidly in the ionosphere was measured. "This is virtually impossible to study in a laboratory and is difficult to model mathematically," Stone said.

www.thelivingmoon.com...

The most famous sustained arc event of all led to the breakage of the TSS-1R electrodynamic tether, and the loss of the attached satellite. Figure 8 shows the burned, frayed and broken tether end still attached to the Shuttle after the break. Incidentally, the tether continued arcing long after it and its satellite were drifting free, until finally it went into night conditions where the electron density was insufficient to sustain the arc. - Page 27

Tether Report - LEO Charging Guidelines v1.3.1 - ZIP File
www.thelivingmoon.com...

The arc was sustained because after the break the return circuit was he plasma sheath around the tether wire that glowed like a fluorescent tube

Tether Optical Phenomena Experiment (TOP)

Using a hand-held camera system with image intensifiers and special filters, the TOP investigation will provide visual data that may allow scientists to answer a variety of questions concerning tether dynamics and optical effects generated by TSS-1R. In particular, this experiment will examine the high-voltage plasma sheath surrounding the satellite...

In one mode of operation, the current developed in the Tethered Satellite System is closed by using electron accelerators to return electrons to the plasma surrounding the orbiter. The interaction between these electron beams and the plasma is not well understood...

Associate Investigator: Stephen Mende, Lockheed Martin

SOURCE
www.nasa.gov...

Seems NASA has moved this file yet again. Perhaps Jim you could ask them where they put it?


Now why with all those NASA papers would you deny the plasma sheath existed and caused the glow? You still expect me to believe that a 0.1 inch wire can reflect that much sunlight that it is visible to the naked eye on earth?

You test of holding a white electrical cord in the moonlight I doubt would hold up to seeing it from several hundred miles away

Surely you are not stating that NASA is lying about all this plasma sheath documentation?

And if indeed the tether is glowing like a fluorescent tube, is this not an important detail in understanding what is happening>

I mean I am surprised no skeptic jumped on the chance to use the electrostatic effects of such a plasma sheath... like pieces of paper jump to a piece of static charged amber

Later vacuum-chamber experiments suggested that the unwinding of the reel uncovered pinholes in the insulation. That in itself would not have caused a major problem, because the ionosphere around the tether, under normal circumstance, was too rarefied to divert much of the current. However, the air trapped in the insulation changed that. As it bubbled out of the pinholes, the high voltage ("electric pressure") of the nearby tether, about 3500 volts, converted it into a plasma (in a way similar to the ignition of a fluorescent tube), a relatively dense one and therefore a much better conductor of electricity.

www.iki.rssi.ru...
So even the Russians know its a glowing plasma sheath like a fluorescent tube.

But I won't repeat this again

You may wish to ignore this but I didn't think that was your style. The other tether reports from successful all speak of this plasma sheath... and wait till I start on the laser power transmission to satellites... but I promise I won't drag that in here, even though it is directly related to the other tether from that year, it has nothing to do with the critters

Originally posted by nomadros
In space, you just can't hang a right or pull a 180. If you tried that without stopping first you'd just carry on forwards at a different trajectory from the one you were on at the point of change and if trying to do a 180 end up going forwards backside first.

To turn a 180 like that you need to slow to a stop with force being applied to the front, apply force to the left and keep repeating that until you were on your new heading. Front and left being relative to your current trajectory.

Either that or drop a gravity well out the right of your ship and hang a 180 'round that.

And I only see one piece of debris doing it, a not a synchronised flow.

I'm also happy with an arced trajectory 'round a planet, but this tight a turn is something you only normally see on Star Trek or in an atmosphere due to resistance

What he said Put a little better than mine last night

Originally posted by poet1b
So, if these ice crystals (as opposed to ice mist) are common floating around to shuttle looking like floating space critters moving in all directions, then where are the numerous videos of this stuff. That would make this Tether video fairly ordinary, rather than famous.

They are in the thousands of feet of footage that Jim says NASA would have to sort through to find the footage we are looking at that is not available on line for us to find it ourselves...

Well that is where I assume they would be, if they existed.

[edit on 11-6-2009 by zorgon]

Originally posted by depthoffield
that's why that tether is visible to camera's and even naked eye, from just the solar light hitting it.

Nice story, but that is not what the scientific papers and NASA reports state... they say its plasma glow

reply to post by Raybo58


OK, I understand it now, but if you are talking about what happens when the camera moves (pans) perpendicularly to the direction to which it is pointing, you should know that this does not happen (as far as I know) on that STS-75 video, the camera could only zoom in and out and rotate.

As the camera can only rotate, the "feeling" I was talking about was related to the rotation parallax (but I wrongly referred to pan, I was thinking about one thing and talking about another), that happens when the rotation is not made around an axis that passes through the entrance pupil of the lens.

In the following image you can see that the grid has "moved" just because the camera was rotated over the wrong axis, while in the second image this was corrected.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/9bf6e12b8bcc7b26.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/4acf46458898855d.jpg[/atsimg]

(both images were taken from a PDF file from this site)

So, if the camera moves enough and it's not on the correct axis, it it would show the difference between the distance to the objects, but I don't think it rotates enough for that, the tether is very far away and is almost always in the same place.

Originally posted by JScytale

I WISH I could find it, but an ATS member recreated the exact experiment in a video I saw a few days ago on these boards using the head of a pin that was illuminated. the object only has to be small and out of focus. Maybe someone else would have more luck digging for it?

Yes, little but out of focus objects near the camera can be visible in the image as "disks" with sharp edges....which seems to be transparent, so from there the illusion of "behind the distant tether". It is called "transparent BOKEH"

here is the result of digging, it was easy





[edit on 11/6/09 by depthoffield]

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by depthoffield
that's why that tether is visible to camera's and even naked eye, from just the solar light hitting it.

Nice story, but that is not what the scientific papers and NASA reports state... they say its plasma glow

Ok, this can be well true that there is some faint plasma glow adding to the tether brightness.

But, you know the images taken exactly when the tether was broken, and slowly drifting away from the shuttle, tens of meters away, when NASA operators said "the tether is broken, the thether is broken!", and its end became to make spires....

In those moments, the tether is almost fully deployed, had that 12 miles or whatever, and of course has the orbital velocity through the higher very rarefiated atmosphere, doing its job of producing power.

Where is your "plasma" glow in those images to make the tether appearing so "thick" in the 100 miles away famous videos? I see there just a sunlit tether.

Don't tell me that the NASA famous "critters" received by M Stubbs, were surely shot using special TOP camera..because, like J Oberg said before, and you, Zorgon showed us, the TOP camera is a handheld camera which produced images with some bands of text informations on the image... but in the NASA 75 famous video here we clearly see the remote mechanical controlling of the camera, and NO bands of text.

[edit on 11/6/09 by depthoffield]

[edit on 11/6/09 by depthoffield]

[edit on 11/6/09 by depthoffield]