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: 42
77
<< 39  40  41    43  44  45 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 05:11 PM
link   
I can't believe people are still clinging to the myth of camera lens anomalies. They have yet to produce one shred of evidence that any of the white dot like UFOs around the tether are anything close to being a result of distortion. The only video that has any realistic appearance, similar to the distorted looking toroids around the tether, look like water particles frozen on the lens, they don't move, and are taken just after the shuttle door was open to allow astronauts to exit, which makes this weak evidence at best.

People claiming these distortion and lens anomalies have yet to produce an article or study from a legitimate source that discusses what they are describing, unless I missed it. I have looked myself, I find no evidence that backs what they have claimed.

I have done experiments with my own camera. Stuff that is too close to be in focus still retains its basic outline shape, just like stuff that is too far away to be in focus still retains its shape. They look the same except they are fuzzy, and begin to appear translucent when enough out of focus.

The NASA study basically puts to bed any claims that they are result of camera or lens anomalies. Clearly stating that there are things on their study beyond 10 meters that they can not explain. If it was due to camera distortion or lens anomalies, they would have stated that opinion. This proves that there is stuff out there that is Unidentified Flying Objects.

There is evidence that plasma life forms could exist, I have provided a link to an article that backs up this theory. There are other articles that people can find if they choose to look. Space is where these plasma life forms would best be enabled to exist. This is a viable theory that could explain a great many things.



[edit on 4-7-2009 by poet1b]




posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 05:22 PM
link   
Originally posted by zorgon


You ARE aware that NASA did not put this video on public display, aren't you? If NASA had their wish it would never have been on the internet, There was even a major court battle over ownership in 2000.


Nope I wasn't aware of that. But I can surely understand their reasons for wanting to hide it after seeing the amount of Mulders we have running around on this website.

Don't get me wrong, I believe NASA has hidden actual UFO footage. I don't think this is any of it though.



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by gallifreyan medic

Originally posted by JScytale
like i said, NASA is a source of highly credible insight.




Thats up there with Neville Chamberlain that one.


the word of the group of people who *put the shuttle and the satellite in question into space in the first place* and were present during all of the events as the unfolded...

VERSUS

the word of a person with preconceived notions and at best an amateur interest in the subject.

who is a rational person going to assign more weight to?



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 05:27 PM
link   
Originally posted by poet1b



I have done experiments with my own camera. Stuff that is too close to be in focus still retains its basic outline shape, just like stuff that is too far away to be in focus still retains its shape. They look the same except they are fuzzy, and begin to appear translucent when enough out of focus.


Yes and so did David Sereda. He didn't do it right either.

Edit: Forget mocking the object up. I've finally discovered what it's called. The reflective surface behind the camera which causes the artifacts is called a light baffle. Your camera doesn't have one, so you're doing the experiment wrong.

[edit on 4-7-2009 by Lazyninja]



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lazyninja
Don't get me wrong, I believe NASA has hidden actual UFO footage. I don't think this is any of it though.


I find it highly unlikely a group of scientists willfully held back knowledge of the magnitude of strong evidence in support of intelligent extraterrestrial life.

as for the military deeming it a matter of national security to keep things under wraps in hopes of diminishing worldwide interest in the subject so it could be studied for potential military advantages - i would fully expect them to do so.

if anyone is holding back info its the military, not NASA. if NASA ever got its hands on strong evidence, it would be taken out of there ASAP and the one or two people who saw it would be sworn to secrecy and kept under tabs. NASA as an agency hiding that kind of knowledge sounds preposterous to me. Its actually counterproductive for their funding.



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 05:34 PM
link   

I can't believe people are still clinging to the myth of camera lens anomalies. They have yet to produce one shred of evidence that any of the white dot like UFOs around the tether are anything close to being a result of distortion. The only video that has any realistic appearance, similar to the distorted looking toroids around the tether, look like water particles frozen on the lens, they don't move, and are taken just after the shuttle door was open to allow astronauts to exit, which makes this weak evidence at best.

People claiming these distortion and lens anomalies have yet to produce an article or study from a legitimate source that discusses what they are describing, unless I missed it. I have looked myself, I find no evidence that backs what they have claimed.

I have done experiments with my own camera. Stuff that is too close to be in focus still retains its basic outline shape, just like stuff that is too far away to be in focus still retains its shape. They look the same except they are fuzzy, and begin to appear translucent when enough out of focus.

The NASA study basically puts to bed any claims that they are result of camera or lens anomalies. Clearly stating that there are things on their study beyond 10 meters that they can not explain. If it was due to camera distortion or lens anomalies, they would have stated that opinion. This proves that there is stuff out there that is Unidentified Flying Objects.

There is evidence that plasma life forms could exist, I have provided a link to an article that backs up this theory. There are other articles that people can find if they choose to look. Space is where these plasma life forms would best be enabled to exist. This is a viable theory that could explain a great many things.


so are you willfully ignorant, or just ignorant?
the sheer amount of demonstrated optical principles and characteristics shown in the STS 75 footage is absolutely staggering evidence in favor of the optical distortion hypothesis. your best bet to maintain your need to see the unexplainable is to argue that the objects are out of focus spacecraft preforming maneuvers that hint towards intelligent control.

"There is evidence that free will is merely an illusion, and that the brain will begin to act on a decision before the conscious mind even debates the best course of action. There are plenty of scientific articles that elaborately describe this phenomenon if anyone cares to look. This is a viable theory that explains why people don't ever make any sense."

[edit on 4-7-2009 by JScytale]



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by JScytale
who is a rational person going to assign more weight to?


That all depends...

In my search for a copy of the original transcript of the Apollo 11 LM conversation (see thread on it) I asked for someone to get me an original copy from NASA

Now at the NASA site.. Mission Transcripts
www.jsc.nasa.gov...

You can get the transcripts from four sources for each mission
1) Onboard Voice Transcription-Command Module,
2) Onboard Voice Transcription-Lunar Module
3) PAO Mission Commentary Transcript
4) Technical Air-to-Ground Voice Transcription

HOWEVER you CANNOT get the transcript nor the audio for the Apollo 11 Lunar Module

Now ArMaP provided us with this link
history.nasa.gov...

You will notice that it is clearly marked CORRECTED version at the top and is simply written out on a webpage

What I want is the one that looks like THIS (though one has to wonder why a supposedly publicly broadcast transmission transcript would need to be 'confidential' in the first place The date stamp says it was cleared 2/3/1976 :wow




www.jsc.nasa.gov...

So when a 'public' agency goes to such lengths to obscure things, why wold I trust everything they say? And since I seriously doubt you ever wrote NASA to get a direct answer to a question, I would say your not qualified either


I on the other hand routinely get data, photos etc from NASA and several emails as well. Funny how I keep running into contradictions... even found some in Jim Obergs work as was pointed to in this thread



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by JScytale
if anyone is holding back info its the military, not NASA. if NASA ever got its hands on strong evidence, it would be taken out of there ASAP and the one or two people who saw it would be sworn to secrecy and kept under tabs. NASA as an agency hiding that kind of knowledge sounds preposterous to me. Its actually counterproductive for their funding.


Yep I agree. Forgive my lazy shorthand way of typing. I'm fully aware of the restrictions NASA is under because of national security.



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
So when a 'public' agency goes to such lengths to obscure things, why wold I trust everything they say? And since I seriously doubt you ever wrote NASA to get a direct answer to a question, I would say your not qualified either


I on the other hand routinely get data, photos etc from NASA and several emails as well. Funny how I keep running into contradictions... even found some in Jim Obergs work as was pointed to in this thread


You're talking about a high-priority national project during the cold war. Things will be hidden, that's a given. In all probability, it was sensitive issues / sensitive technology that the US did not want to fall into Russian hands.

Regarding NASA "inconsistencies", thats because NASA is a large group of independent human beings with different opinions and different levels of understanding on various topics. NASA is not a single super-organism.



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 05:49 PM
link   
So ummm waht part of THIS on the cover of that NASA report do you not understand?



That is on the front cover of a public transmission transcript... and you think they will tell you anything important?




Have you ever looked at NASA's OFFICIAL information release policy? You are aware that they fall under the DoD and have for some time? Google is your friend I already posted this in many threads

You might want to read this...


Preventing release of classified information to the media.

(a) Release of classified information in any form (e.g., documents, through interviews, audio/visual, etc.) to the news media is prohibited. The disclosure of classified information to unauthorized individuals may be cause for prosecution and/or disciplinary action against the NASA employee involved. Ignorance of NASA policy and procedures regarding classified information does not release a NASA employee from responsibility for preventing any unauthorized release. See NPR 1600.1, Chapter 5, Section 5.23 for internal NASA guidance on management of classified information. For further guidance that applies to all agencies, see Executive Order 12958, as amended, "Classified National Security Information" and its implementing directive at 32 CFR Parts 2001 and 2004.

(b) Any attempt by news media representatives to obtain classified information will be reported through the Headquarters Office of Public Affairs or Installation Public Affairs Office to the Installation Security Office and Office of Security and Program Protection.

(c) For classified operations and/or programs managed under the auspices of a DD Form 254, "Contract Security Classification Specification," all inquiries concerning this activity will be responded to by the appropriate PAO official designated in Item 12 on the DD Form 254.

(d) For classified operations and/or information owned by other Government agencies (e.g., DOD, DOE, etc.), all inquiries will be referred to the appropriate Agency public affairs officer as established in written agreements.


www.nasa.gov...


Even for just 'sensitive' information...



Preventing unauthorized release of sensitive but unclassified (SBU) information/material to the news media.

(a) All NASA SBU information requires accountability and approval for release. Release of SBU information to unauthorized personnel is prohibited. Unauthorized release of SBU information may result in prosecution and/or disciplinary action. Ignorance of NASA policy and procedures regarding SBU information does not release a NASA employee from responsibility for unauthorized release. See NPR 1600.1, Chapter 5, Section 5.24 for guidance on identification, marking, accountability and release of NASA SBU information.

(b) Examples of SBU information include: proprietary information of others provided to NASA under nondisclosure or confidentiality agreement; source selection and bid and proposal information; information subject to export control under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) or the Export Administration Regulations (EAR); information subject to the Privacy Act of 1974; predecisional materials such as national space policy not yet publicly released; pending reorganization plans or sensitive travel itineraries; and information that could constitute an indicator of U.S. government intentions, capabilities, operations, or activities or otherwise threaten operations security.

(c) Upon request for access to information/material deemed SBU, coordination must be made with the information/material owner to determine if the information/material may be released. Other organizations that play a part in SBU information identification, accountability and release (e.g., General Counsel, External Relations, Procurement, etc.) must be consulted for assistance and/or concurrence prior to release.

(d) Requests for SBU information from other Government agencies must be referred to the respective Agency public affairs officer.


Sorry to burst your little bubble but NASA has no obligation to tell you anything if someone labels it 'classified' or 'sensitive'

[edit on 4-7-2009 by zorgon]

[edit on 4-7-2009 by zorgon]



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
So ummm waht part of THIS on the cover of that NASA report do you not understand?



That is on the front cover of a public transmission transcript... and you think they will tell you anything important?


Have you ever looked at NASA's OFFICIAL information release policy? You are aware that they fall under the DoD and have for some time? Google is your friend I already posted this in many threads

You might want to read this...


Preventing release of classified information to the media.

(a) Release of classified information in any form (e.g., documents, through interviews, audio/visual, etc.) to the news media is prohibited. The disclosure of classified information to unauthorized individuals may be cause for prosecution and/or disciplinary action against the NASA employee involved. Ignorance of NASA policy and procedures regarding classified information does not release a NASA employee from responsibility for preventing any unauthorized release. See NPR 1600.1, Chapter 5, Section 5.23 for internal NASA guidance on management of classified information. For further guidance that applies to all agencies, see Executive Order 12958, as amended, "Classified National Security Information" and its implementing directive at 32 CFR Parts 2001 and 2004.

(b) Any attempt by news media representatives to obtain classified information will be reported through the Headquarters Office of Public Affairs or Installation Public Affairs Office to the Installation Security Office and Office of Security and Program Protection.

(c) For classified operations and/or programs managed under the auspices of a DD Form 254, "Contract Security Classification Specification," all inquiries concerning this activity will be responded to by the appropriate PAO official designated in Item 12 on the DD Form 254.

(d) For classified operations and/or information owned by other Government agencies (e.g., DOD, DOE, etc.), all inquiries will be referred to the appropriate Agency public affairs officer as established in written agreements.


www.nasa.gov...


Even for just 'sensitive' information...



Preventing unauthorized release of sensitive but unclassified (SBU) information/material to the news media.

(a) All NASA SBU information requires accountability and approval for release. Release of SBU information to unauthorized personnel is prohibited. Unauthorized release of SBU information may result in prosecution and/or disciplinary action. Ignorance of NASA policy and procedures regarding SBU information does not release a NASA employee from responsibility for unauthorized release. See NPR 1600.1, Chapter 5, Section 5.24 for guidance on identification, marking, accountability and release of NASA SBU information.

(b) Examples of SBU information include: proprietary information of others provided to NASA under nondisclosure or confidentiality agreement; source selection and bid and proposal information; information subject to export control under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) or the Export Administration Regulations (EAR); information subject to the Privacy Act of 1974; predecisional materials such as national space policy not yet publicly released; pending reorganization plans or sensitive travel itineraries; and information that could constitute an indicator of U.S. government intentions, capabilities, operations, or activities or otherwise threaten operations security.

(c) Upon request for access to information/material deemed SBU, coordination must be made with the information/material owner to determine if the information/material may be released. Other organizations that play a part in SBU information identification, accountability and release (e.g., General Counsel, External Relations, Procurement, etc.) must be consulted for assistance and/or concurrence prior to release.

(d) Requests for SBU information from other Government agencies must be referred to the respective Agency public affairs officer.


Sorry to burst your little bubble but NASA has no obligation to tell you anything if someone labels it 'classified' or 'sensitive'

[edit on 4-7-2009 by zorgon]


my effing father has top secret clearance and works with classified and sensitive material on a daily basis. he is a commercial attache for a US Embassy. Classified and Sensitive do not mean OMFG MILITARY SECRETS. 99% of the time its information you don't want leaving the office. Like lists of clients, official directives, intel on what a local company is doing, specs on the shiny new camera NASA got to fit on a satellite that was developed during the cold war for spy satellites, NASA happening to detect a navy ballistic missile test, etc.

hell, I had secret clearance when i got a summer job in the embassy mail room. without it i wouldn't have been allowed to handle diplomatic mail. guess whats in them 99% of the time? magazines and bills.



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by JScytale 99% of the time its information you don't want leaving the office.


Yeah things like aliens watching every Apollo mission. I can see how letting that out would cause issues




hell, I had secret clearance when i got a summer job in the embassy mail room. without it i wouldn't have been allowed to handle diplomatic mail. guess whats in them 99% of the time? magazines and bills.


Its what's in that 1% that we are interested in
Everyone knows government redundancy...

And you Navy missile example... what if NASA spotted one of those NAVY run secret spacecraft or a Russian covert space station... wouldn't that be considered 'confidential'?

Now seriously telling me you were a mail clerk with 'secret' clearance doesn't impress me a lot... but I really must ask..

How did you KNOW what was in those 99% of letters you handled?




[edit on 4-7-2009 by zorgon]



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by JScytale
if anyone is holding back info its the military, not NASA.


OH and on that... I can get straight answers from the Military no problem. They were very kind to give me all the OTHER tether satellite data, the one they shot lasers at to test proof of concept to transmit power to space via laser. It flew one month after STS75 and I have all the data.

But that is for another thread


But NASA won't even send me a little clip of 'dust particles'




[edit on 4-7-2009 by zorgon]



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by JScytale 99% of the time its information you don't want leaving the office.


Yeah things like aliens watching every Apollo mission. I can see how letting that out would cause issues




hell, I had secret clearance when i got a summer job in the embassy mail room. without it i wouldn't have been allowed to handle diplomatic mail. guess whats in them 99% of the time? magazines and bills.


Its what's in that 1% that we are interested in
Everyone knows government redundancy...

And you Navy missile example... what if NASA spotted one of those NAVY run secret spacecraft or a Russian covert space station... wouldn't that be considered 'confidential'?

Now seriously telling me you were a mail clerk with 'secret' clearance doesn't impress me a lot... but I really must ask..

How did you KNOW what was in those 99% of letters you handled?




[edit on 4-7-2009 by zorgon]


diplomatic pouches come in two varieties, at least the the US system. brown bags, which are standard pouches, and orange bags, which are military and can only be handled by military personnel. they come in on the same planes. orange bags are relatively rare.

diplomatic pouches cannot be opened or transported unless you have clearance to do so. i worked in the mail room (its a very mundane job, it was not meant to impress at *all*) - of course I had clearance to do so. you open em up, sort through the piles of addressed magazines and envelopes from banks to diplomats, and get them ready for people who come by to pick em up. some mail is official and you call the office in question and they come pick it up. you don't open the envelopes, you open the bags.

my point with all this is that "confidential" and "sensitive" are exceedingly mundane terms. its a significantly lower level of secrecy than the freaking coca cola formula.

[edit on 4-7-2009 by JScytale]



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by JScytale
if anyone is holding back info its the military, not NASA.


OH and on that... I can get straight answers from the Military no problem. They were very kind to give me all the OTHER tether satellite data, the one they shot lasers at to test proof of concept to transmit power to space via laser. It flew one month after STS75 and I have all the data.

But that is for another thread





That will be a fun thread.

It will turn alot of heads.



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
But NASA won't even send me a little clip of 'dust particles'



i would imagine theyre sick of being requested the same information over and over by pseudoscientists and people with transparent, non constructive motives.



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by JScytale
 


the word of the group of people who *put the shuttle and the satellite in question into space in the first place* and were present during all of the events as the unfolded...

VERSUS

the word of a person with preconceived notions and at best an amateur interest in the subject.

who is a rational person going to assign more weight to?


You mean

Tunnel vision

Verses

360 thinking.

Rational thinking is what people are using to see through the NASA charade that has and is still going on.

The time is not that far away when things will be there for all to see.



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by gallifreyan medic
You mean

Tunnel vision

Verses

360 thinking.

Rational thinking is what people are using to see through the NASA charade that has and is still going on.

The time is not that far away when things will be there for all to see.


you mean science and an open mind versus preconceived notions and circular logic?



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by JScytale
i would imagine theyre sick of being requested the same information over and over by pseudoscientists and people with transparent, non constructive motives.

The problem appears when the information is requested by someone that presents himself not as a scientist or a pseudo-scientist but as someone from the common public, even from a different country, asks for something that he thinks is not classified or secret (what was the camera used to make the STS-75 video, for example) and he does not even get an answer from the person that appears on an official NASA page as the person to be contacted for "any questions regarding this mission".

Yes, it happens, just try it, it's easier to get an answer from a top scientist in NASA than from the public relations or "front-office" (for the lack of a better name, sometimes I don't know what to call some things, it would be easier if you all spoke Portuguese
), it also happened to me.



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by JScytale
i would imagine theyre sick of being requested the same information over and over by pseudoscientists and people with transparent, non constructive motives.

The problem appears when the information is requested by someone that presents himself not as a scientist or a pseudo-scientist but as someone from the common public, even from a different country, asks for something that he thinks is not classified or secret (what was the camera used to make the STS-75 video, for example) and he does not even get an answer from the person that appears on an official NASA page as the person to be contacted for "any questions regarding this mission".

Yes, it happens, just try it, it's easier to get an answer from a top scientist in NASA than from the public relations or "front-office" (for the lack of a better name, sometimes I don't know what to call some things, it would be easier if you all spoke Portuguese
), it also happened to me.


i'm sure that's true - front offices are notoriously impersonal, but display genuine curiosity to a scientist who takes passion in his field of study and I guarantee you he will answer your question to the best of his ability.



new topics

top topics



 
77
<< 39  40  41    43  44  45 >>

log in

join