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: 25
77
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


The link at the end of this thread didn't work for me. The link on the page your link takes me to, does work, but when I read it, I don't see anything new. However, your comments at the end of this thread are very revealing.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


I suggest there is. I suggest that the unique illumination condition, together with the presence of drifting nearby particles, CAUSE most of the images that are widely misinterpreted as spectacular UFOs.


What unique illumination condition? Are you admitting that the tether creates its own illumination? Seems you have spent a good part of this thread denying this.

If the tether is illuminating objects around it, then those objects must be close to the tether, not just outside of the shuttle.

The plot thickens.




posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


There is a "W" missing at the start of the link, try this link.



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


Yeah, that is what I read with another link, and there is nothing new to it. All of this has been gone over and disproved.

Clearly this comment about the tether illuminating Objects around it shows that it is known that there is something there, and the disinfo campaign seems to be in action.

I could think of a number of reasons why we are not getting a full straight story from NASA on these things, and mostly they have to do with dealing with large institutions.



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
Clearly this comment about the tether illuminating Objects around it shows that it is known that there is something there, and the disinfo campaign seems to be in action.

I could think of a number of reasons why we are not getting a full straight story from NASA on these things, and mostly they have to do with dealing with large institutions.


Poet, I underestimated your ability to misunderstand something that I thought I had written clearly. Your misapprehension about my "admission" that the tether is illuminating objects around it is baseless.

The specific lighting conditions that I referred to are the same ones that I have been writing about for more than a decade in discussions of the shuttle 'UFO' videos.

The most notorious 'UFO' scenes -- STS-48, 63, 75, 80, 114, etc etc all occur, when you check, during a brief few minutes after sunrise when the camera is pointed back towards the dark earth and the shuttle is casting a shadow in the same general direction. This is a short, specific portion of the full 92-3 minute full orbit of Earth that shuttles follow.

As far as I can tell, no other investigator has ever noticed this 'coincidence' -- and its implications -- because nobody [or very very few] else writing in the subject has bothered to determine the date/time and illumination conditions of the videos.

Once we can establish this relationship between orbital lighting and 'shuttle UFO images', it is possible to postulate a cause-and-effect relationship that goes a long way towards making the case for a specific prosaic cause of the dots. No other theory of their origin, to my knowledge, accounts for this observed feature of their timing.



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 12:59 AM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 



No other theory of their origin, to my knowledge, accounts for this observed feature of their timing.



i got one for ya


maybe these supposed ufo critters are like some bugs that don't like the direct sunlight or total darkness. many species from what i have personally witnesses seem to prefer only the dusk and dawn time of the day. some during the day will only be found flying in the shadows of tree's.

imo that would be a similar situation with a supposed critter hanging around the terminator.

where else would a space critter be most comfortable ?




interesting bug factoids....


Some species are able to control this light generation to produce flashes. The function varies with some species using them to attract mates, while others use them to lure prey.



Most insects except some species of cave dwelling crickets are able to perceive light and dark.



Many species are able to detect light in the infrared, ultraviolet as well as the visible light wavelengths.


en.wikipedia.org...

you might say ...proposturious ! there's no proof of any kind of creature like that. well guess what...non of us have been up and really know and since Astronauts are sworn to secrecy, i would not expect them to be talking.



interesting little tether here


The cable interacts with ionospheric plasma and the Earth's magnetic field; this produces a current along the tether which causes a net drag on the spacecraft, lowering its orbit until it burns up in the Earth's atmosphere.



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 05:39 AM
link   
Critters...bugs... in space.

The problem with this is:

You know, shuttle is going in orbit with 8 km / sec.

Tell me, this critters follow the shuttle with the same velocity and the same path? Because, when seeing these "misterious" videos, surely that's the conclusion: the "objects" follow the shuttle, since their size is fixed or very slowly change.

Think at this comparation: you are in a flight supersonic plain, flying with 1 MACH (speed of sound), at low altitude, let's say just 100 meters up, above the trees. How many bugs or birds the pilot will see or may film, appearing constantly or slowly changing the size depending of the perspective, even minutes long? Maybe none? because none bug/bird has the capability to follow the jet in flight with the speed and path (in formation). And then, you know, the shuttle is flying not with 1 MAC, but 25 MACH, 25 times faster!. Can anyone here proposing "critter" or "bug" theory to really judge the reality of the enormous speed that the shuttle is flying? 8 kilometers / sec! How the critters are able to folllow the shuttle? Let's say you are a critter in space, having a certain trajectory, and soon this trajectory will intersect the shuttle trajectory. With 3 seconds before the intersection, the shuttle is 24 km away. You didn't see it (only maybe as a bright point of light, if you know where to look, and don't know its trajectopry and speed. Then after these 3 seconds, the shuttle is near you, with a speed many times beyound MACH (and you have some MACH-s too, since you are in orbit). Then you, decide to follow the shuttle, which you didn't have time to recognize and understand what it is (in those 3 seconds) (have any of you seen a bullet in flight flying near you? You think it is posible to see it, and more, to understand it?

And, as a critter/space bug whatever, how changing so rapiddly the trajectory and speed, to follow the shuttle? (accelerating, decelerating and changing orbital path)

So, small critters near the shuttle are imposible in this respect (just implies some very strange flight capabilities, seeing power and speed of judgement....which if we strech our imagination, of course anything is possible - or maybe those "orbs" are death people souls...the same streching :-D of judgement: anything is posible! really anything is possible?). But, as any extraordinary claim: extraordinary arguments and proofs are required!

Yes, you will say then that those critters are NOT following the shuttle, but the tether, which is 100 miles away. Therefore, the same principle aplies: the critter must follow the tether since they remains almost fixed in size relative to the shuttle and the tether (which follow more or less the shuttle (tether it has orbital velocity too, those 20+ MACHs). Therefore, at some time, the critter decided to see the tether (this is easier due to it's size), and then follow it ("curiosity" maybe), having the same advanced flight capabilities). But here it implies more: that those critters are really huge, miles in diameters (which proponents are gladly to say). At these sizes, it exists that slow orbital AIR DRAG (or sollar wind pressure) have bigger effect, (remember solar sails) especcially if their mass is very low (rarefiated). If the mass is big, then we have the problem of energy required to change orbit and speed (F = M x A) . And, at this big sizes, the microimpacts with micrometeorits became statistically more important.
A lot of stretchings are necessary to accept the critter theory. We must think at great-to-imposible flight and acceleration capabilities, great speed of (rational) judgement, great sizes, great density (since maybe hundreds of them are seen in STS-75 images for example). Or let's think at 4-dimensional capabilities, any wild idea, whatever required to explain the so called "unexplained -by science- things caught on tape". Yet, many of those which are very easy and free to strech anything to fit their belief (Sereda included with his bogus key experiment showing great depth of field), doesn't understand basics...like bokeh, how optics works, how technical cameras ussually works, focus, relativ velocity, orbital paths and perspectives, 3D space reality recorded in a 2D aproximative representation on a screen affected by all kinds of artifacts, what and how about water dumps, or generated debris etcetera.

It looks like a debris swarm near the shuttle..following the shuttle. And debris around the shuttle are COMMON product of shuttle activities. It produce effects just like bokeh, "donuts", just like catadioptric lens will do. Moreover the shapes (notches) are strictly obedient to NASA cameras. It appears in "special" ilumination conditions, when the sun is shining at shuttle altitude, yet the camera see to the dark (night) side of the earth, therefore iris and electronics are forced to adapt to low light settings (whatever these means: aperture, senzitivity, blooming etc). There are direct indications that they are small and near the shuttle (i will post this days this proof, it was posted before). Yet, the proponents says that they are NOT debris, which is a "BS" theory", because people - which not easy understand even basics in optics, physisc, or required field- are easy "able" to conclude that the human knowledge is at the end, therefore what they see is tottally unexplained.
There are some subtle effects, like parabolic trajectories seen in a small interval of time, or pulsing, but this is NOT the limit of human knowledge, but just limit of personal knowledge. Any effect there i'm sure it can be reproduced. Many of them were already reproduced. There are those subtle effects that not easy can be reproduced by amateurs in their back-yard, but, you know, science is NOT at the back-yard level. Some conditions can't be reproduced at an amateur level, but, then the judgement and deep understanding must develop before easy jumping into the "it is unexplained and therefore, allien, secret, beyond human(ity) knowledge".





[edit on 22/6/09 by depthoffield]



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 06:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by depthoffield
Critters...bugs... in space.

The problem with this is:

You know, shuttle is going in orbit with 8 km / sec.

Tell me, this critters follow the shuttle with the same velocity and the same path? Because, when seeing these "misterious" videos, surely that's the conclusion: the "objects" follow the shuttle, since their size is fixed or very slowly change.


Interesting...

Let us replace some words from your last post - with words from your hypothesis and another put forth by a famous debunker:


"Debris...ice particles... effluence... BOKEH.

The problem with this is:

You know, shuttle is going in orbit with 8 km / sec.

Tell me, this debris/particles/now BOKEH follow the shuttle with the same velocity and the same path? Because, when seeing these "misterious" videos, surely that's the conclusion: the "objects" follow the tether, since their size is fixed or very slowly change."


Anyhow...



*Perhaps these critters are attracted to the tether;

Maybe they are attracted to electrical or plasma energy. They are often filmed over thunderstorms - this can be seen in these videos from STS-80 where the critters even appear to be flying in formation:









posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 06:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1

"Debris...ice particles... effluence... BOKEH.

The problem with this is:

You know, shuttle is going in orbit with 8 km / sec.

Tell me, this debris/particles/now BOKEH follow the shuttle with the same velocity and the same path? Because, when seeing these "misterious" videos, surely that's the conclusion: the "objects" follow the tether, since their size is fixed or very slowly change."



Yes, debris/particles, follow shuttle because it is it's product (just like if you know the Columbia shuttle disaster videos, when shuttle is breaking apart, but all the debris maintain the same major speed and path - almost, since there is differential air drag, therefore diiferent sizes and masses particles are more or less affected), so slowly the debris cloud began to disperse.
And bokeh, since is made inside the NASA camera, by near particles following the shuttle in close proximity, of course it follows to shuttle


And you know, tether is following the shuttle ..in 4 minutes is drifting away from 77 to 100 miles, so it RELATIVELY goes away just about 30% (23/77), therefore anything in image will appear to follow the shuttle or tether (this system: shuttle, tether, nearby particles can be seen as a kind of formation in the FIELD OF VIEW OF THE CAMERA)



And, as i said, the closer debris solution doesn't strech any scientifical principle (but only the personal limit of knowledge of physics, optics etc), yet critter/allien ship theory strech the science beyound the level of what jumanity knows for sure, therefore it implies wild "solutions" - like 4 dimensional, above light speed, advanced curious but dumb allien ships, etcetera. Extraordinary claim.




[edit on 22/6/09 by depthoffield]



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 06:39 AM
link   
reply to post by depthoffield
 


You still have not done those three things which were requested of you - and which may have even helped you to corroborate your hypothesis had you taken the time to do them.

In case you forgot what was requested of you:

A) Produce the camera data
B) Demonstrate how THAT camera's lens can create the movement we see
C) duplicate the artifact's pulsating undulating motion

*You have yet do any of these things - you must not be able to...


The videos you have submitted for comparative analysis do not duplicate the undulating, pulsating motions and shifting multiple orientations of the multiplicity of objects seen in the STS-75 tether UFO Footage.







posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 06:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1

The videos you have submitted for comparative analysis do not duplicate the undulating, pulsating motions and shifting multiple orientations of the multiplicity of objects seen in the STS-75 tether UFO Footage.




My videos duplicate the BOKEH visibility, size and "behind the tether" effects. And my videos replicate the cat-eye effect. I exemplified sequences of ice debris near the shuttle (for those wich deny this common fact). I showed parabolic (curved) trajectories.

As i said, in STS-75 there are more subtle effects showinf together, not all of them doable in back-yard amateurs back-yards.

many of these replicated effects are denied before by people not knowing some facts. You see, they could be wrong in their deniability.

Moreover, how any critter/allien ship can explain the SHAPE DEPENDANCE FROM THE POSITION IN THE FRAME OF VIEW?
It can't be explained. You, believers, didn't care to explaine this observation. For you it may be total mistery (the notches, shape)
Yet BOKEH explain it.

I have to show you another 2 differrent examples of bokeh with notches, clearly bokeh, no doubt of it, you will see, taken with ordinary payload camera. Just a little time to have it.

And if it acts like bokeh, in multiple parts of what bokeh implies, it means it is bokeh, therefore they are small particles near the camera.


If all you want is EXACTLY an experiment with all the effects in the same movie. i'll have to fly in space, and because this is not posible for me, your closed minded. or deniabilty choice (as not capable to add various effect and understand the whole complexity of the scene) is protected.

[edit on 22/6/09 by depthoffield]

[edit on 22/6/09 by depthoffield]



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 06:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by easynow

you might say ...proposturious ! there's no proof of any kind of creature like that. well guess what...non of us have been up and really know and since Astronauts are sworn to secrecy, i would not expect them to be talking.


Yup, except there's nothing to distinguish this assertion from any other made-up factoid to explain away inconvenient testimony from the primary witnesses -- 'Oh, we KNOW they're lying!!'. Except that even Ed Mitchell and Gordon Cooper have repeatedly stated that there never was any such oath or cover-up among themselves and all other astronauts they knew.






interesting little tether here


The cable interacts with ionospheric plasma and the Earth's magnetic field; this produces a current along the tether which causes a net drag on the spacecraft, lowering its orbit until it burns up in the Earth's atmosphere.


This applies only when a current is flowing, and is the classical 'motor' effect of a current moving in a conductor suspended in a magnetic field. But to flow a current through a conducting tether requires an electron gun working at one end to eject electrons. No gun, no electron migration, no current.

Tethers also have notoriously high atmospheric drag.



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 06:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
Maybe they are attracted to electrical or plasma energy. They are often filmed over thunderstorms - this can be seen in these videos from STS-80 where the critters even appear to be flying in formation:


Did you miss Story Musgrave's latest message on his assessment of my prosaic explanation for the STS-80 dots?



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 07:01 AM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


Hi, in this post (2 posts up at the time of posting) you say that Edcar Mitchel says there was no cover up. Yet he now goes on to say that there are aliens and that NASA knows all about them. They've visited earth ect. So, whatr's to say that he wasn't lying at the time of saying what you've quoted him as saying, and now he's come forward for what ever reason?



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 07:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Acidtastic
reply to post by JimOberg
 


Hi, in this post (2 posts up at the time of posting) you say that Edcar Mitchel says there was no cover up. Yet he now goes on to say that there are aliens and that NASA knows all about them. They've visited earth ect. So, whatr's to say that he wasn't lying at the time of saying what you've quoted him as saying, and now he's come forward for what ever reason?


Please read more carefully what is actually written, and do not read-into a factual statement a wider implication. Mitchell has refered, this one time, to facts he personally has observed: to NASA policies regarding UFO sightings at NASA. That was, after all, the subject of the thread.

Your alacrity at dismissing apparently inconvenient testimony with automatic 'liar' accusations is dismaying, but hardly surprising.



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 08:32 AM
link   
I haven't dissmissed anything with "liar" accusations, if it came accross like that, it wasn't my inention. I just wondered where the line is drawn with testemonies. With one man saying one thing, then saying another. (Ed Mitchal)

Isn't it possible that he did once, go with the NASA cover up, whilst he worked fo them (only way to keep your job there probably) and then have a change of heart later in life?

Again, I'm not stating anything as any sort of fact, just thinking out loud.



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Acidtastic
I haven't dissmissed anything with "liar" accusations, if it came accross like that, it wasn't my inention. I just wondered where the line is drawn with testemonies. With one man saying one thing, then saying another. (Ed Mitchal)

Isn't it possible that he did once, go with the NASA cover up, whilst he worked fo them (only way to keep your job there probably) and then have a change of heart later in life?

Again, I'm not stating anything as any sort of fact, just thinking out loud.


Well, your thinking out loud reveals that you have already 'assumed' the thing you are trying to prove [secrecy oath], is actually true, and then using these assumptions to speculate on whether it is proven to be actually true, once you've assumed it's true.

It's easiest to assume that Mitchell is all of the time telling the truth.

For conditions of his NASA astronaut duty, he is a source of original and valuable information. This is evidence.

For other UFO stories, he is repeating what people he believes to be accurate and reliable, told him -- which is not evidence. He has reported as credible a number of other, checkable assertions that might raise doubt about the quality of his judgment [concerning Uri Geller's supposed powers, for example], but that's not evidence either.

He had also written, decades ago, a fascinating report on his ESP experiments on Apollo-14. Sadly, that report is not available on the Internet. I have obtained a copy and do not think highly of its scientific rigor, but other people should also assess it and report on it, because it 'goes to credibility and competence', as the trial lawyers would say.



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 



Yes, I know, I am such a simpleton. Could you explain this better, without a link to a link I have to follow?

First of all, when you write -


during a brief few minutes after sunrise when the camera is pointed back towards the dark earth


I can only guess that you mean that the shuttle is emerging from the Earths shadow in its orbit around the Earth, and if the camera is pointing back towards the dark Earth, then you mean back into the Earth's shadow? Is the tether in the Earth's shadow at this time? The Video doesn't really make this information clear. It seems that they are approaching the tether, which means that at first the tether is ahead of them, in full sunlight, in the direction of the sun. The camera is pointing that way, why don't we see these UFOs right away if they are stuff floating around the shuttle created by the angle of the sun?

When you look at the uncut video, up until 1:40, the camera is just looking out into space, and there are no moving UFOs. Then the camera adjusts down to bring the tether onto the screen, and suddenly, there are all these Unidentified Flying Objects. Camera focus or brightness doesn't seem to change, only the the direction in which it is looking. If this is an optical illusion created by the angle of the sun, then why didn't we see these UFOs before the camera angle was adjusted to bring the tether on the screen? If these UFOs are near the shuttle and not the tether, they should have been visible before the small movement of the camera down to bring the tether on the screen.

Then, at 5:50 into the Video, the tether fades out of the shot. As the tether fades out of the shot, the UFO's disappear. If the UFOs are close to the shuttle, why did they fade out with the tether? There does seem to be an adjustment made to the camera. If anything, you would think that close up objects would become more visible, not less.

Then at 7:18, the tether is once again located on the screen, and it appears to be further away. There are clear distortions in the image, as the camera seems to be at the extent of its range. In the center there is a cloudy area with little particles that move rapidly, it seems that this is obviously camera distortion, the particles twinkle. Still, there are the one or two white dots moving around, that look very different. You also see another dot blink in and out. A few dots pass through the screen, two seem to hang around. Another larger dot does blink in and out.

The best shots seem to be between 4:50 and 5:15, when camera adjustments are made again, for some reason, and the video footage again appears washed out. I don't understand why adjustments were made at that time. This 25 seconds of the video appears to look like normal video of space, without distortions, except, there are all the UFOs.

If these UFOs are a result of the angle of the sun, why don't we see them start to appear before the camera makes a small angle adjustment to bring the tether onto the screen. Before and after the tether is not on the screen, no UFOs, only while the camera is on the tether do we see these UFOs, doesn't make sense that if these particles are close to the shuttle, we are seeing them while the camera is not on the tether.

www.youtube.com...

They seem overly obsessed with the UFOs in the picture, although this is not mentioned. The camera changes don't seem to improve a picture of the tether, it seems to be best visible when the UFOs are best visible, and the tether is the mission objective. The adjustments only seem be aimed at eliminating the UFOs. Why? If these are just ice particles outside of the window, why not ignore them and concentrate on the tether?

Also, if these UFOs are near the tether, then it makes sense that when the tether is in the best adjustment, these UFOs would be in the best adjustment, as appears to be the case in the video. With all their efforts, they don't seem to be able to separate adjusting on the tether and adjusting on the UFOs. If these UFOs were tiny objects near the shuttle, this should not be the situation.

I'm not seeing how the angle of the sun is coming into play here.



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by depthoffield
 


Who knows what speed space plasma in space is capable of traveling. Solar wind does move at the the speed of light, now doesn't it. They might be capable of moving very fast if they exist.



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by depthoffield
 


Who knows what speed space plasma in space is capable of traveling. Solar wind does move at the the speed of light, now doesn't it. They might be capable of moving very fast if they exist.


Nope. The solar wind, and even flares, consist of physical material that is very fast, but not light speed. As a rule, a flare will begin impacting Earth's magnetosphere a few days after it is seen optically. You can confirm this via an internet search.



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


Thanks. I think I might have read this at one time or another, but forgot. Positively charged ions sounds about right.



new topics

top topics



 
77
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join