New Analysis Video of the STS-75 Tether Incident

Originally posted by secretnasaman
And instead of smearing the researchers, skeptics should at least acknowledge the possibility that these are space craft we are seeing on the STS-75 video.

Sceptics admit that possibility, they (we) are only sceptic about it, they are not denying it.

And, unfortunately, "ad hominem" attacks happen from both sides of this discussion.

Originally posted by poet1b
As far as it being debri floating just outside of the shuttle, nine days into the mission, it simply wouldn't be there, and especially not in that quantity. We have a NASA study that describes this. Effluent dumps and vector thrust firings shoot out and way from the shuttle and quickly fall back to the Earth. The debri that can be seen floating outside of the shuttle comes from particulates and moisture that settled into the cracks of the shuttle while it was on the ground, that work there way out of the cracks as the shuttle orbits the Earth. Nine days into the mission, the are all pretty much gone, you might see one stray particle, but not the number in this video.

Poet, the shuttle generates new bursts of particles with every water dump, with every firing of its flash evaporator and APUs, and from leaking thrusters. The report you read -- the one I posted and provided the link to -- does not contradict this. Some particles have very small separation rates, as videos show.

What I find most curious is how the most notorious 'shuttle UFO' videos seem to occur most often during a very short, unique illumination phase -- just after shuttle sunrise, camera looking backwards towards dark earth, AGC fully hifted to maximum sensitivity.

This is uncommon in terms of typical shuttle orbital conditions. These special conditions are perfect for the maximum visibility of small nearby objects drifting away from the shuttle, out of its shadow into sunlight (where they can suddenly appear).

The provable fact that this particular situation is responsible for the majority of famous 'shuttle UFO scenes' has never been explained in any other logical way than a direct cause-and-effect, which supports the interpretation of the dots as small, near, shuttle-derived particles.

reply to post by JimOberg


Jim Jim Jim, I addressed the dumps and thruster particles in my last post and several others.

You provided a link to a link to a link, ad homenin, which enabled Zorgan to track down the original NASA article. While the NASA article explains the advantages of greater visibility as the shuttle emerges into the sunlight, looking back into Earths shadow, which allows things to become more visible, which is what you claim as the explanation for this unusual video. The NASA study, however does not back your claim that things seen in the camera at this time are all explained as particles outside of the shuttle, but admits that there are objects of significant size greater than 10 meters away from the shuttle which they can not explain.

How dare we consider other possibilities.

Originally posted by poet1b
The NASA study, however does not back your claim that things seen in the camera at this time are all explained as particles outside of the shuttle, but admits that there are objects of significant size greater than 10 meters away from the shuttle which they can not explain.

I thought that they said that they could not explain their movement, not what they were.

Could you please post that part of the study? Thanks in advance.

Originally posted by ArMaP
Could you please post that part of the study? Thanks in advance.

pardon me, it happens i have this at hand

"At several times during the mission, groups of particles were observed within the field-of-view for several sets of exposures.Groups of ~75 particles were observed to be in the same relative positions in frames taken 2 min apart. One particle took 8 min to traverse the field-of-view. These nearly immobile particles were observed in several different attitudes including the velocity vector across the bay (so that the entire column in the field-of-view was subjected to atmospheric drag) and even when the bay was in ram. 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."

Page 7 in pdf file, page 85 in original document

source: ntrs.nasa.gov...

This is a paragraph from the NASA study of DEBRIS (not anything else, but debris) surrounding the shuttle.

reply to post by depthoffield


OK, thanks.

What I find most curious is how the most notorious 'shuttle UFO' videos seem to occur most often during a very short, unique illumination phase

yea i also find that most curious. maybe it is some type of phenomena like what we see in this video ?...hmmm






maybe the Earth is acting as the blocker ?










[edit on 9-8-2009 by easynow]

reply to post by ArMaP


So, NO, the study states that that they can not explain these objects observed except to state that they observed some characteristics of these particles.

We can offer no better explanation at this time."

Which means that the NASA study observed what sounds like something similar to what we see in this video, except with less movement, that they can not explain as typical particles coming from the space shuttle.

By the way, the coordination of these two post looks very much like a very lame attempt at working together.

Originally posted by poet1b
Which means that the NASA study observed what sounds like something similar to what we see in this video, except with less movement, that they can not explain as typical particles coming from the space shuttle.

Yes, it looks like they saw "larger than cm diameter" objects at distances greater than 10 metres, so it's highly probable that they saw the same things we can see in this video.

By the way, the coordination of these two post looks very much like a very lame attempt at working together.

What two posts?

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by poet1b
By the way, the coordination of these two post looks very much like a very lame attempt at working together.

What two posts?

I think he is reffering to me (and you?) or me and Jim Oberg giving the coincidence of our last posts, or (you and Jim Oberg?), are making a "lame" team together working on maybe "hiding the truth" or something regarding these S&S-75 movies. A little conspiration here...

whoever is not a member of the skeptic society

please raise your hand


debunker friends



easynow raises his hand--->




small particles ?

reply to post by easynow


I am not a member of the "skeptic society" but I was a member of the "fair skeptics" while it last (some weeks ).

And yes, small particles.

Originally posted by secretnasaman
...Some of the posts are what lawyers call an "ad hominem" argument. It means that, instead of addressing the substance of a person's argument, you bash them personally.
It is invariably the weakest kind of argument. But often it's the easiest. Which is why so often it is used by the likes of NASA UFO skeptic Jim Oberg in preaching the virtues of NASA, one of the least trustworthy sources of information about any shuttle anomalies on NASA videos. Anybody who disagrees with him is invariably an evil person.

Is this a good example of an 'ad hominem' attack posing as pre-emptive defense against ad hominem attacks? [grin]

I'm puzzled by the complaint, since the dynamic I've usually seen is:

Martyn: [makes some extraordinary claim]

Reply: Can you provide some evidence for that that we can check?

Martyn: You calling me a liar? AD HOMINEM ATTACK!!!!!!
WA-A-A-A-A-AAAAH...

An example is Martyn's claim that a Canadian astronaut was yanked off a shuttle mission days before launched and replaced by somebody more obedient to the UFO secret keepers. No other evidence on Earth this happened.

Or that NASA, when it finally caught on that Martyn was recording its mission video, moved its communications satellite across half the sky to make it harder for Martyn to receive signals. No other evidence on Earth this ever happened.

Or -- was this Martyn's original claim? -- that an astronaut in Mission Control ordered spacewalkers to ignore a nearby UFO by telling them, "We're sending you an order to 'stay vector'" -- interpreted to mean, maintain current activities (instead of what the astronaut really said, "We're sending you an orbiter state vector", a routine navigation update). Did Martyn create this interpretation, or merely repeat it from some other source?

When the only evidence for some extraordinary claims is one person's opinion, the process by which that opinion originated becomes the only investigatable evidence.

Originally posted by JimOberg


When the only evidence for some extraordinary claims is one person's opinion, the process by which that opinion originated becomes the only investigatable evidence.

Jimbo,

In this thread we are analyzing video of the STS-75 tether incident. If you would like to discuss a person, namely Martyn Stubbs; you should start a thread to that end.

Your continued off-topic dalliance and penchant for ad hominem attack - whilst entertaining - does not contribute anything to our ongoing analysis.

Alas.

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by depthoffield

 

you have NOT proved.....

that all the objects in the entire video are close to the camera !

[edit on 4-8-2009 by easynow]

I have to say it Easynow, that animation is some of the clearest evidence of particles I've seen. That 'critter' in the bottom left quarter is obviously a particle spinning on it's axis. You can make out it's general shape and it's revolving forwards like a spinning stone would do in the air.

reply to post by Kandinsky


What about the object that plunges through and clearly perturbs the plasma-sheath which surrounds the tether?

I hope you aren't referring to that object...

reply to post by Kandinsky


wow i see your an expert on determining exactly what a particle in space looks like when in fact you have never even been there yourself


you seem to have left out other characteristics of the object. i wonder why ? maybe because you are unable to see it ? too bad me thinks

reply to post by easynow
Hey, I gotta call it as I see it Easy

wow i see your an expert on determining exactly what a particle in space looks like when in fact you have never even been there yourself

If I didn't have a lot of respect for your posts and threads elsewhere...I'd say that's the dumbest statement. Maybe we should close all the STS threads because nobody's been to space?

you seem to have left out other characteristics of the object. i wonder why ? maybe because you are unable to see it ? too bad me thinks

Which characteristics? These one dimensional/single plane donut critters have just been shown in 3 dimensions by the animation you link. As a 3-dimensional object tumbling forwards on it's own axis...it conflicts entirely with the 'donut' claims. Do you claim that it DOESN'T look like a tumbling object?

I gave up on these STS Tether threads because there's never consensus. The 2nd time I saw the footage, I didn't think they were aliens. DoF and Armap made enough of a case last year and early this year for them being particles. It was great fun...pity RFBurns is absent.

Beyond DoF and Armap, your animation has added more to the particle argument IMHO than anything since. If that one item in your animation is so clearly a tumbling particle...how many more will be? Shall we revise the description from 'donut critters' to 'tumbling object critters?'

Originally posted by Kandinsky
reply to post by easynow

 

Hey, I gotta call it as I see it Easy

wow i see your an expert on determining exactly what a particle in space looks like when in fact you have never even been there yourself

If I didn't have a lot of respect for your posts and threads elsewhere...I'd say that's the dumbest statement. Maybe we should close all the STS threads because nobody's been to space?

Note also that when comments by people who HAVE been in space are posted (eg, Andy Allen re STS-75; Musgrave and Jones re STS-80; Creighton and Brown re STS-48; Borman re GT-7 'bogey'), easynow's response is they're all liars.

Pretty foolproof defense for foolishness, I have to admit.

[edit on 10-8-2009 by JimOberg]

reply to post by Kandinsky

If I didn't have a lot of respect for your posts and threads elsewhere...I'd say that's the dumbest statement. Maybe we should close all the STS threads because nobody's been to space?

well don't be shy my friend if you think it's a dumb statement just say so, i can handle that and more . why should we close a STS thread ? because your opinion is the only valid conclusion ? Hahhh !

Which characteristics?

thanks for proving my point you missed some things. and no i am not going to point them out to you or anyone else so all you peeps waiting to pounce on that opportunity can just forget it.

I gave up on these STS Tether threads because there's never consensus.

well i agree that is a problem but imo not an unfixable problem. perhaps that's for another discussion ? not sure

Do you claim that it DOESN'T look like a tumbling object?

i am not claiming what it is or what it isn't , and if you want to do that then cool , i appreciate your opinion on this but, i am not going to make a decision based on someones opinion only.

if it's just space debri then why do i see signs of obfuscation in the video and why after all these years hasn't this footage been made available on the internet by NASA for everyone to see that is in fact just particles of debri ?

some may say NASA doesn't care, well i say B.S. to that. the constant parade of debunkers attacking anything to do with NASA ufo's is absolute proof that they do care.

so i am happy for you if your done with this , that's cool and all but don't come up in here and try to make me look bad because myself and others still have questions about this. if ATS that owns this thread wants to close it, then so be it. i will continue my inquiry either way.

peace , i'm outta here





[edit on 10-8-2009 by easynow]