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: 26
77
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
STS-46... the only actual image I have in my collection


I have forgotten to answer this post, but better late than never.

Here you have a ZIP file with 34 photos of the tether, including the one you posted and this, that I find the most "photogenic".





posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 05:16 PM
link   
What's the point re the STS-46 tether image?

I lost track of the thread, sorry.



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 06:17 PM
link   
Its to my understanding there was 4 other cameras on board. So umm...where's the other footage at? Thats kinda weird that this big experiment is going on and they only have 1 camera focused on it. If there was another camera it would take alot out of all this speculation I believe.


IMO



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
What's the point re the STS-46 tether image?


No point ArMaP just sending me info I didn't have.


But this is to the point...

Sometimes NASA has a curious way of wording things...

Thanks to Jim Oberg for linking me to this document. It is from STS-61c but I found the following exerpt very 'illuminating'

THE PARTICULATE ENVIRONMENT SURROUNDING THE SPACE STATION:
ESTIMATES FROM THE PACS DATA
Byron David Green



Because several of these particles had clear disks they were not on the camera lens but rather quite remote, >10 m. Based on drag calculations they must have been quite large (larger than cm diameters) in order to persist with negligible motion in the field-of-view, We can offer no better explanation at this time.

Particles were often observed with rapidly oscillating radiance levels as
if they were presenting different geometric aspects to the camera. We believe
they were non-spherical particles rotating. One particle exhibited 47
periodic oscillations during a 2.5 s exposure. We are unable to postulate a
source mechanism which would give rise to such rapidly rotating particles.

Drag would tend to damp these rotations



ntrs.nasa.gov...



Soooo they are not lens artifacts...

NASA says...

"clear discs"
"they were not on the camera lens but rather quite remote, >10 m"
"We can offer no better explanation at this time"
"rapidly oscillating radiance levels"
"We are unable to postulate a source mechanism"


Hmmm sound slike they have seen 'critters' before




posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


As far as I can tell, none.

See it as a family photo.



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
Soooo they are not lens artifacts...

NASA says...

"clear discs"
"they were not on the camera lens but rather quite remote, >10 m"
"We can offer no better explanation at this time"
"rapidly oscillating radiance levels"
"We are unable to postulate a source mechanism"

It may be because I am not a "natural" English speaker, but I understood it as something like "because they looked like clear disks they were not very close to the lens, but at a distance of 10 m or more, and we have no explanation for the way they rotate"

And I suppose you read the paragraph before the one you posted.


The other mission event that dramatically increased the detectible particles was the TV satellite deployment at 0/9:32 MET. This satellite was located in the rear of the bay in a retractable clamshell container. Starting with the opening of the container, particles were observed moving across the camera field-of-view away from the rear of the bay. As the satellite was spun up to its 50 rpm rotation period, copious particles were continuously observed. They first moved rapidly, then more slowly as if the particles were released early in the spin-up but with a distribution of velocities. Thus, the fast moving particles reached the field-of-view first , followed by the slower moving portion of the distribution. For all particles the direction of motion was mainly away from the rear of the bay. During the 15 min prior to satellite launch, the optical environment was the worst for the entire mission.


They are talking about particles, defined at the start of the document as:


A discernible particle is a particle with diameter of 5 pm within a range of 10 km.



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 

It does not say they are not optical artifacts is says the particles in question were not physically on the camera lens.

It does not say the particles were disk shaped. It says they had clear discs. Through a telescope, Jupiter is a disk disc (clearly).

They cannot offer a better explanation for the particles staying in the field of view for a long time, than the particles being larger than a centimeter. Thus greater than 30 feet away. Thus not moving rapidly across the field of view.

Yes, the particles sparkle because they are rotating. We figured that out all by ourselves.

Some of the particles are rotating very fast for some reason. They don't know why but they know they were particles.

Did you notice this, BTW?


The objectives of the PACS experiment were to: 1)quantify the particulate and trajectories so as to identify source locations; (2) determine the severity of events such as dumps, purges, maneuvers, and various operations to measure their decay (clearing) times.
In other words, the observations were made during these periods. They knew exactly what they were looking at.

[edit on 6/22/2009 by Phage]



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 09:13 AM
link   
It does eliminate the theory that these particles are floating within a meter of so of the camera lens.

It also shows that NASA does not know what these floating things are.

Space plasma critter would explain this. Science shows that plasma does act like a living life form. Outerspace would be an ideal environment for a plasma life form. There does seem to be a lot of this type of phenomenon in NASA videos

I wonder if NASA will start to take a look at this phenomenon, or is taking a serious look at it?

It would probably be hard to justify as an expenditure. Most of the general public would balk at spending money on exploring such a possibility, but maybe not if there were NASA scientists who supported the possibility.



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 



Poet, stop reading stuff with the filter set to "Confirms-My-Biases-ONLY".

Look at the date of the report and realize how much more experience -- especially with long periods of external downlink TV made possible by the deployment of the TDRSS net in 1988-9. There are so many sources of debris -- more than even this report feared -- that eliminating them all as candidates (which you must do if you expect the critter theory to rise above the level of a wild surmise) is even harder.

Regarding your question about my phrase, 'special illumination conditions, let me elaborate:

The most notorious 'shuttle UFO videos' can all be identified as occirring in a very specific interval of the 92-odd-minute orbit -- the minute or two immediately after sunrise. Further, the cameras are usually set up to observe the down-sun (dark) horizon, looking for sprites (the MLE program). This allows the automatic gain control to max out, detecting the dimmest, smallest nearby objects.

We can surmise they are nearby because they become illuminated at sunrise simo with the shuttle. Even more convincing -- some are observed to drift out of the shuttle's own shadow (which only extends a few hundred feet downsun), 'appearing' suddenly against the backdrop picked for the MLE search -- Earth's horizon.

As the shuttle orbits eastwards it soon passes above sunlit surface, and the additional brightness drives the AGC down, fading out all but the largest and closest dots.

These conditions are PERFECT, in terms of camera function, illumination, background, and real-time downlink, to CREATE 'psuedo-UFOs' from prosaic spaceflight phenomena known to exist. No extraordinary theory that I've become aware of has any explanation for this preponderence of events in this very specific interval -- as far as I can tell, none of the pro-UFO presenters on youtube or anywhere else are even AWARE of this remarkable situation. By refusing to provide precise date/time for the videos they post, these folks seem to be doing their best to PREVENT other people from noticing such characteristics -- but that could be plain careless records-keeping rather than deceptive intent.

As thruster firings occur -- and time records can be obtained via FOIA, as I showed on the 114 thread although NOBODY wanted to read what I posted and linked to there -- the expanding effluent exhaust entrains some particles but not others, depending on the 'shadow' of shuttle structure relative to the thruster firing. Particles change direction of motion during (and on STS-48, for example, ONLY during) the period of thruster firing. There are other sources of longer-lasting elluent flow, as well, including water dumps, flash evaporator firings, APU engine test runs, airlock depress, and more.

To show that a particle's change of motion is UNexplainable without an extraordinary cause, you are the one -- your side -- who has to show there are NO other possible prosaic causes. Since none of you seem to know how to even do this, the debate disintegrates into contests of sincerity and proclamations of pure faith.

Poet, you've got to come to grips with the daunting fact that most of your guesses about what reality of operations and environment in space are, and should look like, are wrong. So any judgments you make based on assuming these guesses are true will be unjustified.

There is a simple -- but not easy -- solution. Learn more about real spaceflight. You'll find the goal is worth it, but you may not like what you have to give up -- a lot of misjudgments that you have been sincerely preaching to your family, friends, and co-workers about. Most people can't stand the embarrassment, and cling to their earliest (and worst) conclusions. Be brave. Learn.



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 12:53 PM
link   
source


James Oberg was losing the debate clearly. NASA was at a standstill. They had to come up with something to make their theory hold and prevent public embarrassment. Oberg insisted on the Art Bell show that all of the apparitions of UFOs were caused by the CCD in the camera, a fact that Sereda could not agree to. There were too many problems with it. If Sereda could win the debate, NASA would be left unable to explain the phenomenon, and the UFO theory would clearly preside with the evidence. But to defend the Agency, Oberg retracted his CCD theory,


Oberg had to eliminate his CCD theory because he knew it was incorrect. He was spinning in his mind to try and find a new plausible theory for the public’s perception of NASA



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
I wonder if NASA will start to take a look at this phenomenon, or is taking a serious look at it?


Oh but they have...

I admit I pulled those exact words for a reason... but I did say I found the WORDING interesting


The author.. Jack Barengoltz

One of Pegasus's members pointed to this...



Jack Barengoltz was a name I recognized immediately, as he has been at NASA since Apollo/Voyager and has written some interesting stuff over the years.

The electric field in the vicinity of a photo-emitting plate in a plasma (1973)
Knowledge of the electric field in the vicinity of a spacecraft provides necessary corrections to measurements of ambient fields and charged particle fluxes and a required parameter to understand the motion of dust particles and grains around the spacecraft. The complex problem of the entire electric field, needed for grain transport calculations, is treated for the one-dimensional case. By approximations to the analysis of a photo-emitting plate immersed in a dilute plasma, explicit expressions for the potential and the electric field were derived. The two classes of implicit solutions for the potential reported by them are shown to yield essentially identical results for the conditions in our solar system. The values were obtained following assumptions of a later paper by Guernsey and Fu, in which the emitted photoelectron distribution is taken as Maxwellian. These results are compared with a simple model due to Grand and Tunaley, wherein the effect of the dilute plasma is neglected entirely.



This fellow has a list of papers dealing with plasma phenomena in and around space craft with papers dating to the 70's. I doubt I will find 'critters' in there but they are 'taking a look'

On a small side note I had this for some time...

A NASA contractor final report on electromagnetic shielding for spacecraft..

Dated 1964
So that is where Gene Roddenberry got his ideas



ACTIVE SHIELDING CONCEPTS FOR THE IONIZING RADIATION IN SPACE
prepared for
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
R.C. GOOD, S.P. SHEN, AND N.F. DOW
Contract NASw-502
Final R e p o r t
Rev. 31 Jan. 1964

Space Sciences Laboratory
Missile and Space Division
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
Philadelphi, PA

ntrs.nasa.gov...

1964?



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Overload


Now THAT is pure Gold


Thanks for that



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 01:12 PM
link   
source

While James Oberg detests the idea that the objects were passing “behind” the 12-mile long tethered satellite, calling it an “Optical illusion produced in the CCD of the digital video camera, “Sereda, with over 20 years experience working semi-professionally with cameras, and a former Defense Contractor, claimed, “A field-reversal effect like this cannot happen, and is something that would be impossible regards to light. It is plain and clearly obvious that these UFOs are passing behind the tether, eliminating the possibility for NASA arguments that what we are seeing is “debris” rotating past the near-field focus of the camera, producing a round “Airy Disc” of fuzzy light and optical illusions as to size relative to the 12-mile long tether. But of the evidence could prove the UFOs were going “behind” the 12-mile tether, the UFO theory would win the debate.


Oberg furiously debated the CCD imaging chip theory on the Art Bell show as the answer to the apparitions in the lens of the video camera. The basic theory was that as debris floated near the lens, it went out of focus and produced a disc of fuzzy light that looks like a UFO. Being near the camera, they could not be measured against a 12-mile long tether 77-100 miles away. But it was so clear that the UFOs were passing “Behind” the tether confirming the UFOs were at least that distance away from the shuttle and cameras. Oberg’s theory of out-of-focus debris would not explain how the UFOs could reverse positions with the tethered satellite now 77-100 nautical miles away from the shuttle and its cameras. It would be impossible for debris or dust to do this, Sereda argued.


[edit on 23-6-2009 by Overload]



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg as I showed on the 114 thread although NOBODY wanted to read what I posted and linked to there --


Not true I read everything you post and link to... (well when I fins it there are a lot of threads
)

I just don't necessarily agree with your data


But I do thank you for insisting I read that document... even though it was a pain getting that long link to work. I finally found it using the document title and still had to go through google cache as some of the NTRS links sent me astray...

But as an FYI, you can just link straight to the PDF like this...
ntrs.nasa.gov...

Saves messing with those long links that contain all those search parameters, and saves time


But then... you knew that yes?

One question though, seriously..

Considering the amount of time and effort you have spent all these years debating and attempting to debunk this... I would really like to know why this is so important to you personally. You can answer U2U if you like, but it does puzzle me

Thanks



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 01:51 PM
link   
I'm trying to figure out the most effective ways of communicating the full story to a lot of people who are really 'space nuts' and love many of the same subjects I do -- but who have gotten side-tracked into dead-ended intellectual detours that will lead nowhere. They represent too much brainpower -- and enthusiasm -- to waste.



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Overload






Excellent find Overload
thanks


Ha Ha....NASA is Busted for sure.



Suddenly, in the middle of the Art Bell show radio broadcast to over 5 million listeners world-wide, the satellite used to broadcast the show and the live internet broadcast (not connected to the satellite) were obscured by a powerful ultra-high energy signal and shut down. For 18 minutes, technicians at Art Bell’s Premiere Radio Networks were trying to get the show back on with a back-up, ground-based system. Eighteen minutes of the show was snipped from the airwaves, and mysteriously, the satellite and internet turned back on just as the show ended.

The next evening, March 13, 2001, Art Bell had his technicians go live to reveal that they could not find a mechanical reason for the failure, deducted that solar flares could not have effected the satellite due to its position on the dark side of the Earth, and that the strength of the signal capable of blacking out both the satellite and the internet broadcast would have to be of a magnitude so great, only military installations could be suspect. Was this proof of ‘Big Brother” intervention imposing National Security to shut down a sensitive broadcast show?


wakeupusa.netfirms.com...



link name : wake up u.s.a.


[edit on 23-6-2009 by easynow]



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by easynow
 


You know...I try to be very objectionable with my thinking. I try to not make assumptions, and jump to conclusions.

But as you posted in the ex content, when does coincidence stop and common sense take over?

I am not saying this is a smoking gun or anything, but its just one more needle on the camels back.

Things like this happen all the time and yet we just write it off as coincidence. How many coincidences does it take before its not a coincidence any more???

Sorry if I got a off topic,,,




posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b

It does eliminate the theory that these particles are floating within a meter of so of the camera lens.

Yes, but that is why I said some posts back:


That, according to the "ice crystals explanation", should mean that the small reflective objects are closer to the shuttle but not as close as "just outside the window", but I do not have any way of knowing it.

And ...


One thing I would like to point (because I think that is a cause of confusion) is that to be out of focus when the camera is focused to infinity the objects may be very close to the camera or not, it depends on the lens, every lens has its limits, and that is another reason the camera specifications are so important (and apparently invisible
).


It does not eliminate the theory that the objects were much closer than the tether, and considering that the tether was more than 77 nautical miles from the camera, even 100 metres is much closer (but that does not mean that I think the objects were at a distance of 100 metres, I don't have any way of knowing that.

In the video I posted some posts back the camera was focused on an object 60 metres away and the out of focus object (although not as out of focus as I wanted) was at a distance of 3.2 metres, and it was still out of focus.



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg They represent too much brainpower -- and enthusiasm -- to waste.


Well this topic is as dear to me as it is to you... and yet you have devoted a lot more brainpower and enthusiasm to your side all these years.

I do not consider it a waste... If I could hitch a ride on the shuttle and see for myself that there are no critters I will admit I was wrong... but I don't see either happening any time soon

Circumstantial evidence has put many in jail for life
Eye witness testimony can get you the gas chamber

Yet in this field none of it is good enough?

Funny how that works



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
Yes, but that is why I said some posts back:


That, according to the "ice crystals explanation", should mean that the small reflective objects are closer to the shuttle but not as close as "just outside the window", but I do not have any way of knowing it.


Yes ArMap, but it carries so much more weight coming from NASA
, not that your opinion is not of value



new topics

top topics



 
77
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join