New Analysis Video of the STS-75 Tether Incident

reply to post by depthoffield


I still do not see any flash. Also, the dimmer object changes direction before the bright object in the middle of the screen. In addition, the dimmer object not only changes direction just before the brighter object, its direction is different, it moves at multiple speeds , and it changes direction and speeds several times. When you watch the original video, it can be seen changing directions and speeds almost constantly, while it is visible.

Boy, the shuttle seems to make a whole lot of attitude corrections, although this was not mentioned in the NASA study on objects seen in videos. In fact, it has been noted that the shuttle does not need to make that many course corrections, and so these types of interferences could be easily avoided.

In addition, a object that is not round, when rotated, does not look like a ball. Rotate a rectangular shape object, and its shape various depending on the view of the object. Once again, the statement from NASA study states that this type of rotation would not be expected. These objects should not be rotating in such a manner, and there is nothing to explain why they would be experiencing this rotation.

ntrs.nasa.gov...

Let's look at some statements from this article.

From the inception of the Shuttle program, environmental optical quality
goals were set by a NASA panel.

The particles surrounding Shuttle observed on-orbit are believed to arise primarily from ground-based processing.

Several significant events occurred during the 6-day mission. A
12,000 l b RCA TV satellite was launched a t 0/9:32 MET (the f i r s t day of the mission a t 9 hr 32 min). There were five water dumps, and a variety of attitudes were used including passive thermal control and several different inertial attitudes for comet Halley and astronomical missions.

Although particles were observed very often during the f i r s t day on-orbit, there appears to be a marked decrease in their occurrence with time on-orbit. By the end of the 6 day mission less than 25% of the terminator crossings have any detectable particles in any frame.

Again there appears to be a decrease in particles with t i m e on-orbit.

Particles were often observed with rapidly o s c i l l a t i n g radiance levels as
if they were presenting d i f f e r e n t geometric aspects to the camera. We believe they were non-spherical p a r t i c l e s rotating. One particle exhibited 47 periodic o s c i l l a t i o n s during a 2.5 s exposure. We are unable t o postulate a source mechanism which would give rise to such rapidly rotating particles. Drag would tend to damp these rotations,

The Earth is in the field-of-view so that the s u n l i t Earth overexposes the film. The best viewing conditions are when the Shuttle bottom is illuminated and the Earth is s t i l l dark as occurred from 2/05:10 to 05-:18. Here again a flurry of particles is observed just after orbital sunrise.

This indicates that the particles were nearly always beyond 2 m from the cameras. It also appears that particles are often very asymmetric offering different geometrical areas to the cameras at an angular rate of up to 20 per second. Particles with t r a j e c t o r i e s from every direction were observed.

The PACS data in conjunction with other orbital data bases have been used to create the framework model of the Shuttle environment. Excluding orbiter activities (dumps, thruster f i r i n g s ) the clearing t i m e for the environment appears to have characteristic clearing times (e-fold) of 5 hr in a solar inertial attitude , and of 11 days for a variable attitude mission.

Cutting and pasting exerts from this article is difficult,, and have to be cleaned up, but this provides the information needed. The article discusses effluent dumps and shuttle operations, and provides charts for how long after these operations it takes for these particulates to clear up, and it only takes minutes for particles to clear up after such events. Apparently, the shuttle is not so high in space that there is not atmospheric drag. What atmospheric drag there is quickly pulls particles away after these activities. Most of the particles are believe to be created by exposure to the sun, shaking loose particles on the outside of the shuttle.

This article essentially destroys the claim that these are small particles less then a meter away from the camera.

This indicates that the particles were nearly always beyond 2 m from the cameras.

Either the debunkers have not bothered to read this NASA article, or they just don't care about the truth.

reply to post by JimOberg


I think you are right about the observation of the tether thickness. It seems that there is quite a bit of distortion with the camera, and the viewing window with the dark Earth while in sunlight clearly has a large effect. Still, this is a long ways from explaining everything.

On the water dump situation, I find it hard to believe that these water dumps are not conducted on a planned schedule to prevent observation problems. If there is one thing NASA does, that is develop detailed procedures, which means that water dumps are planned, and not carried out in the middle of observation events. YOU know this.

It makes sense that water crystals ejecting parts would change direction, but there are several problems with this explanation. First, water crystals look like water crystals, most notably, they twinkle. Second, at least some of these ejections would be visible. We would see the plume, looking somewhat like a thruster firing. Lastly, where are all these ice crystals be coming from. From the NASA study, they should not be there.

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by JimOberg

 

I think you are right about the observation of the tether thickness. It seems that there is quite a bit of distortion with the camera, and the viewing window with the dark Earth while in sunlight clearly has a large effect. Still, this is a long ways from explaining everything.

On the water dump situation, I find it hard to believe that these water dumps are not conducted on a planned schedule to prevent observation problems. If there is one thing NASA does, that is develop detailed procedures, which means that water dumps are planned, and not carried out in the middle of observation events. YOU know this.

It makes sense that water crystals ejecting parts would change direction, but there are several problems with this explanation. First, water crystals look like water crystals, most notably, they twinkle. Second, at least some of these ejections would be visible. We would see the plume, looking somewhat like a thruster firing. Lastly, where are all these ice crystals be coming from. From the NASA study, they should not be there.

Poet, I admit I'm totally unable to protect you from your own imagination creating facts, or misinterpreting text, to support your previous conclusions. I'll try to be as clear as humanly possible in my website section, but I'll have to realize that some people will just remain immune.

Originally posted by poet1b
I still do not see any flash.

You didn't see the swf animation? here again: img44.imageshack.us...

It is not obviously,but it is there. A suddenly and almost all frame brief ilumination, but more to the right of the frame, just a brief, EXACTLY at the point when the brightest object O1 change its trajectory (also the other objects too, exactly at that moment).
If you can't see it, then...i really can't help you anymore, it is wasted time.

Originally posted by poet1b
Also, the dimmer object changes direction before the bright object in the middle of the screen. In addition, the dimmer object not only changes direction just before the brighter object, its direction is different, it moves at multiple speeds , and it changes direction and speeds several times. When you watch the original video, it can be seen changing directions and speeds almost constantly, while it is visible.

What are you talking? Please be more specific, show what object does this. I showed to you three objects, labeled, and marks of time, to understand what i'm reffering. You should do the same, in order to argument your specific words.

Originally posted by poet1b
Boy, the shuttle seems to make a whole lot of attitude corrections, although this was not mentioned in the NASA study on objects seen in videos. In fact, it has been noted that the shuttle does not need to make that many course corrections, and so these types of interferences could be easily avoided.

What NASA study in the STS-75 mission? Don't mix separate things. That study of which you are reffering, is from another mission, with another situation.
Also, i understand that these STS-75 videos in discusion, are taken several days after tether broke, when shuttle NORMAL activities were already started. So, they are not in scientifical observational campaign to watch the tether, and to be carefull at maneuveurs and dumps, so what are you talking is a false suposition. There can be very well attitude corections and dumps, you don't know they are not.

Originally posted by poet1b
This article essentially destroys the claim that these are small particles less then a meter away from the camera.
This indicates that the particles were nearly always beyond 2 m from the cameras.
Either the debunkers have not bothered to read this NASA article, or they just don't care about the truth.

Who's talking that particles MUST BE ONLY 1 meter of the camera? Do you know about depth of field in optics and photography? How about hyperfocal distance? You know maybe, that when zoom is used, the depth of field is smaller, and hyperfocal distance is greater? Do you know that, that, depending on lens characteristics, and senzor resolution, and zoom setting, particles even at 10 meters away will appear out of focus when lens is set to infinite? (as tether is)
one example of depth of field, extracted from your cited study:

In order to detect small p articles , ASA2000 negative film was used and the cameras were focused at 25 m rather than infinity. This distance represents a compromise between enhanced near field sensitivity to particles and loss of the far field stars which allowed for orientiation and in-flight calibration . (For the 25 m focal distance, stars were observed as small, well-defined circles).

So even 25 meters away is not the same as the infinite.


About that study you refer....man, you hear yourself of what are you talking?
yes i read that study.
and i read again some pages.
More, what i suspected, now, is your attitude to obfuscating things, or, at least to not have enough understanding skills of what, where and how..sorry to say this.
Again, that study is from other missions, essentially conclusions from STS2,3,4, Skylab, and then describing PACS experiment from STS-61C.
That study speaks about general observations, but also describe PARTICULAR , CERTAIN SPECIFIC PECULIAR observations from STS 61 C mission together with the specific conditions, shuttle activities, attitudes, timings etc in order to gather data.

That study refers to particles, ice particles, debris generated as observed by the specific PACS experiment:

Summary of PACS Data and Particle Model

The PACS camera successfully gathered data on the orbital particulate contamination environment during mission STS-61C. The film data clearly indicate that the solar illumination angle is the key parameter. We suspect particles were often present but we were able to observe them only under proper illumination conditions. At terminator crossings (when illumination conditions were reasonably good) particles were observed about one-third of the time within the 17' x 24' field-of-view of the PACS cameras. Particles were observed: when all activity was suppressed, after maneuvering, after payload bay door operations, during the preparations for a satellite launch, during and after water dumps, and after sunrise. During active events such as dumps and the satellite launch, the particle trajectories observed extrapolated back to the vicinity of the source. Atmospheric drag accelerations only slightly perturb the trajectories of detected particles during these events. Only a few particles were detected by the strobe-illumination. This indicates that the particles were nearly always beyond 2 m from the cameras. It also appears that particles are often very asymmetric offering different geometrical areas to the cameras at an angular rate of up to 20 per second. Particles with trajectories from every direction were observed.

Facts from the study:

- debris is common
- can appear in images
- can have every direction
- are much easier to see in special conditions of ilumination and angles, especially at crossing terminator, the boundary of night-day, as J Oberg said multiple times
- atmospheric drag it is one force acting there on particles
- not only water dumps are factors in generated particles, but also other sources, one of them is thermal stress: "In addition there are clearly
more particles per frame at sunrise than later in the orbital day. Again we feel this is a result of thermal stresses generated at sunrise.

[edit on 28/6/09 by depthoffield]

[edit on 28/6/09 by depthoffield]

reply to post by depthoffield


There are only two objects in the center of the screen in the period of the video which we are addressing. If you can't tell which is the bright one and which is the dim one, well, that explains a lot.

If you want me to use the numbers you came up with, dim #2, bright #1. #2 changes directions before #1, #2 accelerates and then slows down and continues to change directions while number one stops, changes directions, and then continues moving in that direction. It is easy to see. Once again, no flash, it is only your imagination.

What shuttle mission this study was conducted on does not matter. This study is about objects observed in video footage taken from the shuttle, and what effects are observed, and what steps should be put in place to reduce this interference. The fact that you want to dismiss the facts brought out in this article once again shows that you are not here to analyze anything, only to distort and attempt to derail.

They were still studying this tether event, on the video footage they talk about downloading valuable information. Just another dodge on your part.

You make some good observations now and then, but you also throw out some some real BS. It seems I am wasting my time responding to you. I should have concentrated on Zorgon's article on plasma shielding.

By the way, in order to create plasma, you need a vacuum. That is where plasma thrives.

Brief Intermission

Back in 1947 when Kenneth Arnold saw the first 'flying saucers' Ray Palmer who had effectively 'invented' them and since Mar 1945 placed disc shaped space vehicles on the cover of Amazing Stories, putting this shape fresh in peoples mind...

He left Amazing Stories and started Fate magazine. His first article was the Kenneth Arnold story for here was the reality of what he had written as pulp fiction for two years

What is curious and relevant to this thread is the shape described of the disks (with one being a flying wing)

Here on the cover we see this shape




Must be 'lens artifacts'

Originally posted by zorgon

Must be 'lens artifacts'

No, it is pareidolia!

By the way, you failed to understand the direct relation from shape (notches) and position in the frame, and furthermore, you expect every "flying saucer with a hole" to be seen always perpendicular on it's plane? Where is your logic?

reply to post by zorgon


Some things really look like other things, even without pareidolia.

Do you know where we could read the original description instead of an "artist interpretation"? It would be better. Thanks.

Originally posted by depthoffield
No, it is pareidolia!

Now that is just silly...

First I said 'Intermission' So stop being so serious all the time, your going to explode. Surely by now you understand you can't convince me of the 'lens artifact' angle?

But how is this Fate magazine 'pareidolia' ? Considering that was the first time anyone saw them and reported their shape? Now does THAT make any sense to you? No one heard of the STS 75 "UFO's back in 1947

And the Dropa Stones were not even heard about till 1962...

the disks were closely examined by Dr. Tsum Um Nui of Beijing around 1958... Dr. Tsum's report supposedly appeared in a professional journal in 1962

www.crystalinks.com...



So please explain the logic of you saying pareidolia to an artists sketch based on the only and first live witness report of this shape?

Personally IMO you may be suffering from Prosopagnosia Works both ways

Originally posted by ArMaP
Do you know where we could read the original description instead of an "artist interpretation"? It would be better. Thanks.

I will find it Had the same thought. Something had to make Ray Palmer come up with that shape. I find it curious to say the least. I never saw that before, nor did I know that Ray Palmer was involved.

Last time I looked at this was over 30 years ago. Just shows you have to look at old stuff from time to time to see the updates

[edit on 29-6-2009 by zorgon]

Originally posted by zorgon

First I said 'Intermission' So stop being so serious all the time, your going to explode. Surely by now you understand you can't convince me of the 'lens artifact' angle?

Aha, you are here to make fun to people?

And, surely, i understant you don't want to accept the lens artifact solution. You love the hypotetical and physics-contravened "critters".

Originally posted by zorgon

But how is this Fate magazine 'pareidolia' ? Considering that was the first time anyone saw them and reported their shape? Now does THAT make any sense to you? No one heard of the STS 75 "UFO's back in 1947

And the Dropa Stones were not even heard about till 1962...

............

So please explain the logic of you saying pareidolia to an artists sketch based on the only and first live witness report of this shape?

No, not the artist who made the sketch "suffers" from pareidolia. You, because you make the connection. And, by the way, pareidolia is not an illness, is a normal way how brains works...recognising shapes in his database.

In the cover magazine, the biggest SPACE SHIP has indeed some kind of notch, what the artist believes shoud be the propulsion system (the thrust ejected material, ionized plasma or whatever he imagined the propulsion may be). And the second notched saucer, it is not really notched, but the notch is because part of the saucer is entered inside the cloud.
And i don't remember (but i didn't know very well, too) that Arnold described notched saucers. He described only saucers.

As for the dropa stones.... no kidding, it is only PURE pareidolia. As you see, there is a variety of notches in STS-75 videos, one, two, up and down etc. Similar shapes in totally different conjuncture is just what coincidence is about.

[edit on 30/6/09 by depthoffield]

Originally posted by depthoffield

And, surely, i understant you don't want to accept the lens artifact solution.

Indeed.

You have yet to corroborate your 'artifact solution' with facts or relevant evidence. It is not cogent and requires much more substantiation than you have provided thus far.

If you were able to do the following three things; perhaps we would be able to accept your hypothesis as being valid:

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

*Thus far you have been unable to do these three things - they could have have corroborated your artifact hypothesis... but you didn't bother to do the research.

my question about this incidence is why are all the "UFO's" facing all the same direction in 3d space..why not even one is slightly rotated than th eothers?

Originally posted by heineken
my question about this incidence is why are all the "UFO's" facing all the same direction in 3d space..why not even one is slightly rotated than th eothers?

because their shape as we see on the movie, is not their real shape, is a lens effect. It is called bokeh, appearing at out of focus punctual objects.

If they are critters, or alien ships, they insult many logical aspects. But who cares?

[edit on 30/6/09 by depthoffield]

Originally posted by heineken
my question about this incidence is why are all the "UFO's" facing all the same direction in 3d space..why not even one is slightly rotated than th eothers?

Good point.

Perhaps they are orienting themselves in relation to the tether....

Or perhaps they are oriented in such a way that they most efficiently gather additional energy by passing through the magnetic fields - just like how the tether effect gathers energy.



Another interesting thing about these critters is how they can seem to appear out of nowhere - this is much more apparent in this version of the footage:






[edit on 30-6-2009 by Exuberant1]

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by heineken
my question about this incidence is why are all the "UFO's" facing all the same direction in 3d space..why not even one is slightly rotated than th eothers?

Good point.

Perhaps they are orienting themselves in relation to the tether....

Or perhaps they are oriented in such a way that they most efficiently gather additional energy by passing through the magnetic fields - just like how the tether effect gathers energy.



Another interesting thing about these critters is how they can seem to appear out of nowhere - this is much more apparent in this version of the footage:

[edit on 30-6-2009 by Exuberant1]

very nice movie it reminds me of that thing appearing on the thunderstorms seen form space..


if these "UFO's" are so intelligent and more advanced than us why all this hassle about that tether??..what was the need for all to fly by like hungry fish in a tank..wouldn'y they do that to hubble for example i think its more interesting...i dont know what to think...to me they appear UFO's you know..appear from nothing..pulsating...disc liked objects...but these 2 factors : why the hassle about the tether..and that they all face the same direction make me skeptic again

Originally posted by heineken

but these 2 factors : why the hassle about the tether..and that they all face the same direction make me skeptic again

Why would the fact that they have similiar orientations make you a "skeptic again"?

The slits are in constantly shifting and in different positions on the critters and they pulsate at different rates - Perhaps this is simply the best way to position themselves, or it could have something to do with the tether.

I do not believe these are alien craft.

These things exhibit behaviours and properties more commonly associated with those organisms of our own biological sphere. They appear to be attracted to the tether, perhaps for the same reasons they are attracted to the thunderstorms over which they have been repeatedly filmed.

[edit on 30-6-2009 by Exuberant1]

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by heineken

but these 2 factors : why the hassle about the tether..and that they all face the same direction make me skeptic again

Why would the fact that they have similiar orientations make you a "skeptic again"?

The slits are in constantly shifting and in different positions on the critters and they pulsate at different rates - Perhaps this is simply the best way to position themselves, or it could have something to do with the tether.

I do not believe these are alien craft.

These things exhibit behaviours and properties more commonly associated with those organisms of our own biological sphere. They appear to be attracted to the tether, perhaps for the same reasons they are attracted to the thunderstorms over which they have been repeatedly filmed.

@Exuberant1
About slits, how you explain that different separate "critters" have the same SHAPE (position and number of the notches) if they are in the same position on the frame, if you pay attention to this post, (and especially to those "external images"): www.abovetopsecret.com...
Your expllanation please.


And second question, how big you think those critters are?
centimeter in size?
meters in size?
kilometers in size?

Thanks

[edit on 30/6/09 by depthoffield]

[edit on 30/6/09 by depthoffield]

They look a lot like the objects I filmed in Infrared...

Originally posted by KAKUSA
They look a lot like the objects I filmed in Infrared...

they are similar but dont you think they are insects?..there are no insects in space...also we must not forget the pulsating stuff