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: 17
77
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 11:50 PM
link   
reply to post by depthoffield
 


Don't worry they will find a way to discount this video as well apparently people who think this is UFOs don't own a digital video camera with digital zoom.Ive seen this happen to me outside at a picnic with insects flying thought the air producing almost identical disks on my camera all though slightly different on both of my cameras. Probably due to different aperture shapes.




posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 11:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

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?


Nope, you're showing signs of further neural decay. The time the tether broke has nothing to do with the time the swarm was recorded, days later.

I'm figuring Martyn logged his recordings -- don't all broadcast professionals do that? The log would have the time he recorded it.



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
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?


No, I don't expect you to believe it. It's true, and I saw it, and Paul Maley saw it, and the crew on 'Columbia' saw it go dark when it went into shadow (and reported it by radio in real time), but I can see that you just are not capable of believing things that run counter to your existing guesses.



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 12:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
It's true, and I saw it, and Paul Maley saw it, and the crew on 'Columbia' saw it go dark when it went into shadow (and reported it by radio in real time),


I don't doubt you saw it, and I have Paul's images, what I doubt is you saw reflected sunlight




but I can see that you just are not capable of believing things that run counter to your existing guesses.


As I can see you are not capable of addressing the glowing plasma explanation in the NASA reports



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 12:38 AM
link   
How about this testimony?

satobs.org...

Anglo-Australian Observatory: “TSS was very nice. About 1 deg long, just visible to the naked-eye in the twilight at 8 deg elevation due north.”

Australia: “The satellite was picked up naked eye around 9:35 UT and was lost about one min later as it passed into the earth's shadow.”

Loomberah NSW Australia: “The tether was easily visible naked eye despite the Full Moon, and seems to be following a bending routine similar to the SEDS tether of 1994, which also developed a kink forwards on the lower end.”

“Seen tonite(local time) or 1039UT March 8 . As it happens was same star background as previous evening. Caught it going into shadow, its the first time I have seen the edge of the Earth's shadow painted on a
satellite!! A fellow member of Astro. Soc of SA, Kym Thalassoudis ,took 2 minutes video of pass on march 7, including shadow entry, so one might get a quantitative measure.”

Northern Florida: “To the naked eye it appeared to be an extended object with about the width to length ratio of an unsharpened pencil. The color was white with a texture similar to a chalk mark or a vapor trail. It was perfectly straight. As it passed, the change in perspective was striking.”

San Antonio: “I have been an astronomer for 40 years and a satellite observer for 36. In all the years since, I have not seen a satellite pass to compare with this morning's TSS pass over San Antonio, Texas. It was stunning! I am still amazed after thinking about it for four hours. … TSS popped out of the shadow at 5:53 AM, local time and lit up like a neon sign. It was fully three degrees long with the TSS itself easily visible as a 3 to 3.5 mag point of light at the upper end of the bluish-gray tether... With my attention rivetted to the sight in my 7X35 binoculars, I only took one quick glance at the thing with my naked eye. In spite of the nearby gibbous moon, the TSS and tether was very visible from my location deep within urvan city limits. I would estimate the magnitude of the tether along any "point souce" location of its extended length as 4.5 to 5 mag. The cumulative magnitude of the entire strand, the TSS, and the knot at the free end probably combined to magnitude zero or brighter. I am a poor magnitude guesser and tend to err on the side of too bright when I make closer comparisons to star cahrts. But still, the thing was a whopper to the naked eye. Couldn't miss it. It was like a flying knitting needle….”

Texas: “I had just about given up and had stepped up onto the back steps of my house and turned around to look for just a few seconds longer. BAM!!! TSS burst into view from behind the corner eaves of my house. I almost fell backwards off the steps. It was very cold outside but the shivers I got was definitely from the view of TSS.
It looked almost like a ghostly spectre drifting eerily across the night sky. The waning gibbous moon was nearby but it didn't seem to diminish the view. Even in all my excitement I remembered to check the details that all you good people have described. I could easily see (with binoculars) TSS at the top of the tether. The tether was at least a couple of moon widths long.”

“I had feared the twilight would make it hard to see, but not so. I caught it naked eye low in the west.”

South Carolina: “I saw TSS this morning: it was amazing. It was scheduled to come out of shadow at 5:39am and pass directly south at 5:40 am with max elevation 26.6 deg from our location at 34N 81W. Thank you Mike McCants for the elements. A friend, Bob, from our astronomy club and I went out to see it, despite the cold and wind. It was right on schedule for us. With the naked eye, it looked like it couldn't have been more than five miles away, but its speed as it passed behind clouds told me it was much further. It reminded me of the rope that a hot-air balloon has hanging down from the basket, only this balloon was invisible.”



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 12:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
As I can see you are not capable of addressing the glowing plasma explanation in the NASA reports


Also check this ten-year-old article out:

STS-75 Shuttle 'Tether'
www.rense.com...

Note my demonstration that the width of the tether image was a camera artifact. Sadly, that sort of prosaic explanation, even posted on UFO-type websites, is all to easy to ignore -- as this was.

[edit on 12-6-2009 by JimOberg]



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 12:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimObergThe time the tether broke has nothing to do with the time the swarm was recorded, days later.


True enough, but it gives a starting point in those thousand of missing feet of film where to look... and where exactly did the 'day later' info come from? Because if that is correct you would have your time frame reference point narrowed down



I'm figuring Martyn logged his recordings -- don't all broadcast professionals do that? The log would have the time he recorded it.


I will ask him... and I am sure he is lurkin around on this thread.......

nope last time here was Last Visit: May 24, 2009

Okay I will go ask him

But with all your resources, and 'in' with NASA, would it not behoove you to help us find the actual clip? Or would that cause you trouble within your circle?

And if I do find the right time frame, can you guarantee that NASA will pull that section for me to view?



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 03:12 AM
link   
reply to post by easynow
 




Plenty of videos have been posted here showing a THRUSTER flash then sudden change in direction of the objects.
The classic one is of whats supposed to be a weapon fired from the ground at a UFO
and it changes direction the thruster flash is seen a second before that occurs

www.youtube.com...

Thruster flash at about 11 secs!

[edit on 12-6-2009 by wmd_2008]



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 03:20 AM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Greetings,

Please provide us with the thruster logs that corroborate your hypothesis.

*It is the least you could do.

Thanks Friend



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 06:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
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.


I guess we need to clarify our terms.

A pan is when the camera is rotated horizontally on a vertical axis. A tilt is when it is rotated vertically on a horizontal axis. Rotation is obviously when the camera is turned around the viewing axis. All of these terms assume the camera is stationary. A tracking shot is when the camera itself is moving to follow, approach or recede from a subject.

The first link in my previous post, the little flash animation with moving trees, was a mistake on my part. It demonstrates a tracking shot, not a pan. Which I think is what Dragonmir was referring to when he brought up motion parallax in the first place.

So you were right the first time when you refer to the scenes in the video where the subjects move horizontally as pans. When you say "the camera moves (pans) perpendicularly to the direction to which it is pointing", the only way that would be possible would be if it were hand held by an astronaut with a very steady hand while he walked or floated sideways to the target or else the camera would have to be on wheels and mounted to rails upon which it could travel.

I think I can safely assume that the camera in the Stubbs tape is mounted in a dual axis gimbal and that the whole assembly is mounted to a fixed point on the shuttle. So it is, in effect, stationary relative to the shuttle.

There are a few seconds here and there in the tape where the entire camera assembly does seem to wobble a bit due to, I would guess, some flexibility in what I presume would be the boom that connects the camera assembly to the shuttle. You could refer to this wobble as a slight tracking movement. But the duration and severity of these events are small and mostly irrelevant.

I think we can agree that there are several places where significant panning takes place in the Stubbs tape. The video I created was designed to show us what we should see during those scenes when objects are near and far from us move in relation to a more distant subject, given the information I've already presented.

The 3D program I used is the best one on the market, with impeccable physics modeling. But don't take my word for it. Take any camera with any lens you choose, even a fish eye lens, and mount it on a tripod. Place a target some distance away and something else between you and it. A pan will always result in the object nearer to you traveling less distance in the frame than the farther one.







[edit on 12-6-2009 by Raybo58]

[edit on 12-6-2009 by Raybo58]



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 06:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by depthoffield

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]


thanks


[edit on 12-6-2009 by JScytale]



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 06:43 AM
link   
And Zargon...

Originally posted by zorgon
Or would that cause you trouble within your circle?


Could you please give this a rest? Unless you have proof, constantly making accusations like "You know you want to jump the fence" and such are unproductive and just become tiresome after awhile.

The man has already stated that he's not a denier, that he has seen what he believes to be UFO's and he has gone out of his way to publicly shame NASA in the past. Complaining about his "Ins" begin to sound more like jealousy after awhile. Like any good scientist, he knows he's obligated to attempt to *disprove* a theory before accepting any implied conclusions. You can't arrive at truth based on syllogisms.

Smug insinuations do nothing to help your arguments and contribute to an impression that you're not very mature.

A well built evidentiary case will speak for itself. Baseless character assassination more often comes from people who know their arguments are weak.



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 06:46 AM
link   
reply to post by JScytale
 


zorgon, im seriously curious here.
what is with your insistence on the plasma argument?

lets assume you somehow conclusively proved that the source of the tether's illumination was entirely the plasma sheath and that it was somehow not reflecting any sunlight after having moved out of the earth's shadow.

how does that change the discussion at hand?

it doesn't provide any evidence whatsoever for the extraterrestrial craft hypothesis, which is based on the assumption the visible objects are under intelligent control.

it doesn't provide any evidence towards the critter hypothesis, which really has no argument besides the shapes look kinda funny.

what would you gain? is this an ego thing? you presented it and you simply cannot be shown to be wrong in your own eyes? is it forum reputation? is it closed-mindedness? is it ignorance? WHAT is your motivation for this nonsensical argument?



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 06:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Raybo58

Could you please give this a rest? Unless you have proof, constantly making accusations like "You know you want to jump the fence" and such are unproductive and just become tiresome after awhile.

The man has already stated that he's not a denier, that he has seen what he believes to be UFO's and he has gone out of his way to publicly shame NASA in the past. Complaining about his "Ins" begin to sound more like jealousy after awhile. Like any good scientist, he knows he's obligated to attempt to *disprove* a theory before accepting any implied conclusions. You can't arrive at truth based on syllogisms.

Smug insinuations do nothing to help your arguments and contribute to an impression that you're not very mature.

A well built evidentiary case will speak for itself. Baseless character assassination more often comes from people who know their arguments are weak.



his own signature is very apt at describing his own behavior.
its appropriate in such a delightfully ironic way.

though i must add, his black and white perspective is tiresome. i am a firm believer in UFOs. I wasn't aware that Jim Oberg has had his own sightings, but apparently he has. BOTH of us are "on his side of the fence", except we don't accept claims until they have damn convincing evidence and no assumptions tied in.

the world is very grey. if you put yourself into a category and do the same with others, you're closing your mind.

[edit on 12-6-2009 by JScytale]



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 07:32 AM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 



Plenty of videos have been posted here showing a THRUSTER flash then sudden change in direction of the objects.
The classic one is of whats supposed to be a weapon fired from the ground at a UFO and it changes direction the thruster flash is seen a second before that occurs



what does that have to do with the STS-75 video ? no thruster firing is visible in the tether video and to say that thruster firings are continuously occurring is absurd. if you could prove the objects are close to the shuttle(DOF video examples do not prove that is the case in this video) and had the thruster firing records then the "invisible thruster plume" might be a possibility, but even then it would be a stretch to conclusivly say that explains everything going on in the video.

your also going to need the copy of the video from NASA to determine the accuracy of the dates and times of everything involved.

thanks for your input and i respect your opinions but...your gonna need more than that to convince me ,






[edit on 12-6-2009 by easynow]



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 07:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by i_want_the_truth
I am so looking forward to the day when an outside source( NOT GOV ) will be able to provide us with some real information.


Sorry for the topic bump, but...

Virgin Galactic

Soon.... Soon.... Come on Richard, get the lead out.


Galactic Suite space resort opening 2012

First Space Resort



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 08:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Greetings,

Please provide us with the thruster logs that corroborate your hypothesis.
*It is the least you could do.


I already did that on the STS-114 'debunk' thread. You remember, it was the link that you defiantly announced you would NOT read.



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 08:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by wmd_2008
 



Plenty of videos have been posted here showing a THRUSTER flash then sudden change in direction of the objects.
The classic one is of whats supposed to be a weapon fired from the ground at a UFO and it changes direction the thruster flash is seen a second before that occurs


what does that have to do with the STS-75 video ? no thruster firing is visible in the tether video and to say that thruster firings are continuously occurring is absurd. if you could prove the objects are close to the shuttle(DOF video examples do not prove that is the case in this video) and had the thruster firing records then the "invisible thruster plume" might be a possibility, but even then it would be a stretch to conclusivly say that explains everything going on in the video.


Thruster firings don't have to be visible, especially in the far-off-centerline regions of thin plume flow.

Thruster firings can occur in groups lasting several seconds, but you're correct that much longer periods are unusual -- not non-existent, but unusual -- for thrusters. However, other effluent releases can last for many minutes -- eg, water dumps, APU exhaust, flash evaporator operation, airlock depressurization.

The thruster records for the 'swarm' period have not been examined, I believe, because the posters of the video have withheld the date/time the scene was recorded.

It is not required to 'conclusively' identify the scene as showing nearby objects responding to exhaust flow. To make the scene evidence for something unusual, somebody must conclusively show that there's no way there were any nearby particles and shuttle-derived gas releases.

I'm waiting.



thanks for your input and i respect your opinions but...your gonna need more than that to convince me , thanks



What was that phrase the Red Queen told Alice? "First the verdict, THEN the trial"? Was she your soul mate?



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 08:54 AM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 



Thruster firings don't have to be visible, especially in the far-off-centerline regions of thin plume flow.


i knew that







Thruster firings can occur in groups lasting several seconds, but you're correct that much longer periods are unusual -- not non-existent, but unusual -- for thrusters. However, other effluent releases can last for many minutes -- eg, water dumps, APU exhaust, flash evaporator operation, airlock depressurization.


can't argue that. the question i have right this minute is...

where exactly was the camera located that captured this ? verses where would APU exhaust ect. , be in relation to the FOV ?





The thruster records for the 'swarm' period have not been examined, I believe, because the posters of the video have withheld the date/time the scene was recorded.


i am willing to bet they have been examined by NASA, but yes as far as i know, nobody else has as of yet.


It is not required to 'conclusively' identify the scene as showing nearby objects responding to exhaust flow. To make the scene evidence for something unusual, somebody must conclusively show that there's no way there were any nearby particles and shuttle-derived gas releases.



umm, yes it is required by me



no stone will be left unturned if you want to put this to rest once and for all Jim. don't go for a single or a double when you need a home run. anything less will leave runners on base and you know that will come back to haunt you





I'm waiting.


me too






What was that phrase the Red Queen told Alice? "First the verdict, THEN the trial"? Was she your soul mate?



where have i proclaimed a verdict ? and have you been watching Alice in wonderland again Jim ?... aren't you a little too old for that ?



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
where exactly was the camera located that captured this ? verses where would APU exhaust ect. , be in relation to the FOV ?


An excellent question. How long has it taken for anyone around here to ask that question -- 10 years? Twelve?

The best place to go for this info would be the mission 'Scene List', a post-mission log of all downloaded video by time, description, camera selection, and other parameters.

What date/time should we look up on that list?




top topics



 
77
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join