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: 31
77
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 01:44 PM
link   
I don't think these UFOs we are seeing in this STS-75 shuttle mission could be spaceships either. I think plasma space critters is a possible explanation, and there are numerous reasons why.

When we see the large fuzzy toroids or spheres, I do think camera distortion is a part of what we are seeing, but I also think that the shape we are seeing is a distorted view of the true shape of what we are looking at. This explains the cat eye effect, and the moving gaps along the edges. The article Zorgon linked about plasma shielding of spacecraft might explain why this is the shape observed.

ntrs.nasa.gov...

The hole in the middle apparently solves problems with magnetic polar balance, and might explain why this is a natural shape for any type of fully formed plasma type creature, and possibly the living cells that make up our own bodies.

Here is a good article on Plasma life forms to start with.

ezinearticles.com...,-Blobs,-Orbs-and-Subtle-Bodies&id=783224


Bohm, a leading expert in twentieth century plasma physics, observed in amazement that once electrons were in plasma, they stopped behaving like individuals and started behaving as if they were a part of a larger and interconnected whole. Although the individual movements of each electron appeared to be random, vast numbers of electrons were able to produce collective effects that were surprisingly well organized and appeared to behave like a life form. The plasma constantly regenerated itself and enclosed impurities in a wall in the same way that a biological organism, like the unicellular amoeba, might encase a foreign substance in a cyst. So amazed was Bohm by these life-like qualities that he later remarked that he frequently had the impression that the electron sea was "alive" and that plasma possessed some of the traits of living things. The debate on the existence of plasma-based life forms has been going on for more than 20 years ever since some models showed that plasma can mimic the functions of a primitive cell.

They can, for instance, divide to form copies of the original structure; which then interact to induce changes in their neighbors that evolve into other new structures. The less stable structures break down over time leaving behind only the structures that are most adapted to the environment. "These complex, self-organized plasma structures exhibit all the necessary properties to qualify them as candidates for inorganic living matter", says Tsytovich, "they are autonomous, they reproduce and they evolve".

He adds that the ionized conditions needed to form these helical structures are common in outer space. If that is so, then it will mean that plasma life forms are the most common life form in the universe, given that plasma makes up more than 99% of our visible universe which is almost everywhere ionized. This is in stark contrast to carbon-based life forms, which according to the Rare Earth hypothesis proposed by Peter Ward and Donald Brownlee, would be rare in the universe due to a number of factors - including the need for an acceptable range of temperatures to survive. Complex carbon based life may be as rare as solid rocky bodies like the Earth in the universe.




posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
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

A) As far as I understand it, everybody should try to first get data that really shows what camera was used and then get that camera specification.

If we are all interested in knowing what these things are, we should not ignore only the parts we do not like and investigate the ones we like, we should look for information about all things involved, sometimes someone that is looking from "the other side" sees things differently, and if he/she really wants to know the truth then he/she should present the data found, even if it goes against what he/she has been promoting as the explanation.

I am still looking for more data about this whole mission.

B) I don't remember if anyone said that the movement is a result of a camera artifact, I know that I have not said that because I don't think it is, the movement of the objects, in my opinion, has nothing to do with the lens effect on the objects.

C) This depends on A), without the first we cannot know if C) can be explained like that or not.

PS: nice avatar, this one is even better than the previous.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 04:06 PM
link   
One thing I remembered on Sunday but forgot to post:

We know the length of tether when it broke, so we know that at maximum we are looking at an almost 20km long tether.

I have some doubts about the length and width of the tether because of the coiling movement we see when it broke, but I do not have any way of knowing if it uncoiled or if it coiled for the full length, making it shorter and wider.

But what I remembered was that we most probably are not seeing it parallel with the focal plane of the camera, meaning that we are seeing it in perspective, making it shorter.

As I said before, my knowledge of orbit dynamics is almost null, so does anyone know what would be the natural position of the free orbiting tether and satellite? Would it be the satellite on a higher orbit and the tether bellow? Would it be the other way? Would it be the tether trailing the satellite or the tether in front?

Any answers?



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 08:55 PM
link   
Tulsa Oklahoma July 12 1947 Critters

This is probably the first photo of UFO's ever taken not counting the 'Foo Fighters' in RAF shots...

This was shortly after Kenneth Arnold's sighting









en.wikipedia.org...




[edit on 30-6-2009 by zorgon]



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 09:18 PM
link   
Here it is.....PART 2 !








posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 09:37 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 

Look similar to these taken from within a crop circle last week...


These may be just lanterns although it is in the middle of nowhere.

Edit - Good video easy


I dont see how these can still be edescribed as ice particles or debrit or lens flare for that matter but i suppose some folks are never going to be convinced til they experience it first hand which is understandable i suppose.

I suppose im lucky to have had all the proof i need first hand a few times over.


[edit on 30/6/09 by cropmuncher]



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 10:54 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


The satellite is attached on the leading end of the tether. When it is deployed, the satellite is deployed first.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
I do think camera distortion is a part of what we are seeing, but I also think that the shape we are seeing is a distorted view of the true shape of what we are looking at. This explains the cat eye effect, and the moving gaps along the edges.


Highlighted (bold) your statement. Indeed, the shape wee see, is NOT the real shape of the "objects"

Elaborate a bit, who, or which phenomen is the cause for the shape?
You said camera distorsion is a part. Which part and how? And then, who else is the cause for the distorsion of the shape? How?


As for beeing critters...I asked Exuberant1 some questions, to explain me some properties of those "critters". Silence by now, but i still wait, beeing too soon. If he believes they are critters, i'm sure he has answers to my questions.
I ask you, Poet1b..
If they are "critters"... please tell me, how big do you think they are? (in STS-75 images). Give a rough estimation: centimeter in size, meter in size, kilometer in size, etc.
Thanks.

[edit on 30/6/09 by depthoffield]



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 07:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
Tulsa Oklahoma July 12 1947 Critters

This is probably the first photo of UFO's ever taken not counting the 'Foo Fighters' in RAF shots...

This was shortly after Kenneth Arnold's sighting



en.wikipedia.org...



Thanks Zorgon


that's interesting, i never seen those before. they do look like Foo's of some sort. that brings up an interesting discussion.

you would think if there where critters flying around they would be interested in Airplanes. that makes sense to me and it also explains some of the Foo reports that claim the UFO's seemed "playful" at times. i will have to see what i can find on that.


















reposting this just for recognition....




[edit on 1-7-2009 by easynow]



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by easynow
 


Nice Video Easynow, did you make this from the original footage?

This video was shot, if my memory is correct, day 9 in the mission, which means that most of the particles that shake loose from the shuttle during the mission are gone by now, according to the NASA study on this type of problem they have to deal with when shooting video footage. Yet, here are all of these white dots floating around the tether, with no explanation of for where they came from.

Effluent dumps would be scheduled by established procedures not to interfere with operations, and look nothing like this, and thruster firings can also be handled in mission procedures as well, and once again, look nothing like this. Neither of these operational procedures, nor debri shaking loose from the shuttle explain these UFOs.

What could these little white UFOs be?



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by depthoffield
 



Indeed, the shape wee see, is NOT the real shape of the "objects"


On what evidence do you make this claim? All the home made videos posted here, and my own personal experiments with my camera show that objects that get distorted in a video retain their shape. I recommend that people take their own cameras and experiment for themselves. Armap managed to turn a star into a circle, very briefly, but couldn't sustain it, as it blinked on and off the screen, sometimes looking like a star, sometimes like a circle, but mainly like there were a lot of adjustments being made to create an illusion.


You said camera distorsion is a part. Which part and how? And then, who else is the cause for the distorsion of the shape? How?


Hey, you are the camera distorting theorist, I was just agreeing with you that it looks like there is some camera distortion. How much or why, I do not claim to know, but being that the tether looks so thick and the lower right hand corner of the screen is white washed out, throughout the video, clearly there are some problems with distortion, and the NASA crew talks about problems getting a good picture.

You are the one who claims that this distortion is creating things to look in a particular way, you are the one who has to prove this.

Why are you waiting on Exuberant1 for information on plasma critters? Zorgon and I have already posted a couple of links on the subject.

How large do I think these plasma critter could be if they exist? I guess they would vary in size from micro to enormous. Space is huge. We have whales over a hundred tons, and over a hundred feet in length, who knows how large a plasma life form could grow in space, if they exist? It is also very likely that they might only be visible in certain lighting situations.

In this video the tether thickness is clearly disproportionately large in comparison to its length, so any guesses about the size of these UFOs we are seeing would be hard to make. I doubt if they would be as illuminated as the tether with its high voltage charge and reflective surfaces, so they would be larger than a few centimeters in order to be visible. I would guess that these in this video could be anywhere from one or two meters in diameter, to possibly as large as a 100 meters or more, if they are only visible during certain lighting conditions, and or have a very low level of visibility.



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by easynow
 


Nice Video Easynow, did you make this from the original footage?

This video was shot, if my memory is correct, day 9 in the mission, which means that most of the particles that shake loose from the shuttle during the mission are gone by now, according to the NASA study on this type of problem they have to deal with when shooting video footage. Yet, here are all of these white dots floating around the tether, with no explanation of for where they came from.

Effluent dumps would be scheduled by established procedures not to interfere with operations, and look nothing like this, and thruster firings can also be handled in mission procedures as well, and once again, look nothing like this. Neither of these operational procedures, nor debri shaking loose from the shuttle explain these UFOs.

What could these little white UFOs be?


Since you feel free to fantasize the pseudo-facts to pre-fit the faux-mysteries that amuse you, those UFOs are exactly what you've been creating on this thread for days: figments of your imagination.

There was a water dump an hour or two before these scenes were taped. Obviously, the shuttle Flight Controllers are not as smart as you think you are. You really ought to come down to Houston to educate them.



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
Armap managed to turn a star into a circle, very briefly, but couldn't sustain it, as it blinked on and off the screen, sometimes looking like a star, sometimes like a circle, but mainly like there were a lot of adjustments being made to create an illusion.

It was not a matter of not being able to sustain the shape, the idea was mainly to try to see if the out-of-focus object, because of its movement, would reproduce in any way the pulsating effect, and it was a complete faillure.


There were no adjustments made during the video, only at the end to put the star on focus.

I will say it again, an out-of-focus object looses its shape, the shape seen is only the result of the camera.

I don't know if I have the time to do it today, but I will make a video to show that regardless of its real shape, an out of focus object will always look round with this camera. Maybe I will make a second video to show that a different camera makes slightly different shapes.



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


Thanks, I know how it was when deployed, what I want to know is if it kept its attitude, with the satellite in a higher orbit, because if that was the case then we are seeing the tether from bellow, making it look much shorter then it really was.



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
There was a water dump an hour or two before these scenes were taped.

Does that mean that you have narrowed the time of the filming to a one or two hour window?

If yes, can you tell us at what time it was filmed, even with that error margin?

Thanks in advance.



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


Thanks, I know how it was when deployed, what I want to know is if it kept its attitude, with the satellite in a higher orbit, because if that was the case then we are seeing the tether from bellow, making it look much shorter then it really was.


The deployed tether 'hung' down from the small Italian satellite, nearly vertical with respect to local horizontal. Over the days that followed, the end of it tended to swing back and forth, sometimes looking like an umbrella handle, or a lower-case "j", or sometimes just a slightly bent bottom section. Air drag probably was the major influence in that shape.

It was observed, imaged, and described by a worldwide group of amateur observers, of which I'm proud to have been a part. If you're a serious skywatcher looking for seriously strange sights, I urge you to get involved.



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


Thanks, I know how it was when deployed, what I want to know is if it kept its attitude, with the satellite in a higher orbit, because if that was the case then we are seeing the tether from below, making it look much shorter then it really was.


The amount of foreshortening isn't that obvious, but you're correct that there should have been some. Its orbital altitude ranged from that of the shuttle itself to a lot higher, and it was picking up an out-of-plane component too, as its orbital plane precessed at a different rate than the shuttle's.

Getting thrown into the higher, slower orbit at the moment of breaking, the tether quickly fell behind the shuttle in its own lower, faster orbit. After several days, the shuttle 'lapped' the tether and came up on it from below and behind. That's why the two video periods are so far apart in time.

Getting the 'best' view of the tether required aiming the camera at the tether when it was sunlit, preferably down sun of the shuttle, and no other shuttle structure was in the FOV so the auto gain control would have maxed out in sensitivity.

It's the same condition that 'creates' pseudo-UFOs at sunrise when the camera is performing MLE observations -- hence the STS-48, 63, 80, 114, etc most famous 'shuttle UFOs', all being observed in the brief periods of special illumination to bring out tiny dim objects nearby the shuttle. This isn't a coincidence -- it's cause and effect, and the prosaic hypothesis (small nearby sunlit stuff) is the only non-miraculous ("plasma creatures HAVE to act THAT way too!") theory that accounts for this timing feature.

As far as I can tell, none of the decade-long discussions of these videos here or anywhere has noticed this special illumination condition.



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by JimOberg
There was a water dump an hour or two before these scenes were taped.

Does that mean that you have narrowed the time of the filming to a one or two hour window?


Yes, I've had it for years.


If yes, can you tell us at what time it was filmed, even with that error margin?


I can, but I shouldn't be the monopolistic gatekeeper to reality here. Anyone serious about speculating in a fact-based manner on the video needs to have their own credible sources for this information. I am not anybody's excuse for THEM not knowing how to obtain it.


Thanks in advance.


Thanks for offering this 'teachable moment' that can improve the level of discussion and speculation on these undeniably unearthly and weird scenes.



[edit on 1-7-2009 by JimOberg]



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


According to the NASA study, particles from these dumps disappear quickly. You yourself admitted that at most they hang around for a couple of hours.

We are seeing a whole lot of particles that hung around for two hours.

I'll bet that dump was made on schedule as per procedures, as established by the study.

Jim, are you one of those guys who has a degree in engineering, but is dangerous with a tool in your hand?



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
I'll bet that dump was made on schedule as per procedures, as established by the study.
Jim, are you one of those guys who has a degree in engineering, but is dangerous with a tool in your hand?


I'll take that bet. What are the stakes, the odds, and who judges?

As for my degree and degree of hazard, your fantasizing again.




top topics



 
77
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join