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: 54
77
<< 51  52  53    55  56  57 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 10:01 AM
link   

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.


Wrong interpretation.
The study is about

THE PARTICULATE ENVIRONMENT SURROUNDING THE SPACE STATION (and the SHUTTLE)

They talk ONLY about particles.
Smaller and greater. (micrometers in size, centimeter in size). Closer and a bit further away (remeber they focus PACS camera to 25 meters, not to infinity, in order to STUDY closer particle environment, letting the stars a bit unfocused).
They talk about who is generating this PARTICLES, and different kind of them, moments when they are polluating optical environment more intense.
They estimate duration of time until optical environment will be clear after a contamination.
They analysed particles which are more stable during more minutes, so they are >cm in size in order to not be affected visible in short time by the atmospheric drag.
They talk only about particles.
They make studies about particles.
Nothing else. No critter, no alien ship, no bigger and faster than speed of light ships (Sereda talks). And i don't think that study is a public one in order to obfuscate the naive reader and hide the truth that there is something unknown to mankind. They are particles, and given the circumstances, they gave different solutions to different particles (those >10 meter having clear disc, which you sau they cannot explain, in fact they explained with bigger particles able due to their increased mass, to witstand more time to the air drag pressure, making calculations on them, this beeing their best explanation ("no other better").

Also, i will respond shortly to the OP movie regarding sts-75 particles trajectories.



[edit on 10/8/09 by depthoffield]

[edit on 10/8/09 by depthoffield]




posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by easynow
 
I wasn't making anyone look bad...just making an observation on a discussion board


When you wrote this...


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 implied I don't have enough experience in space to be writing any opinions. I said it was a 'dumb statement.'


Maybe we should close all the STS threads because nobody's been to space?


Nobody has 'experience in space' so the logic dictates that without experience nobody can comment? If that was true...none of us can comment in here.

If you see obfuscation in the video (bearing in mind where it came from...not NASA directly) hang it out on the thread. It was a live hook up...not much opportunity for tampering. Let guys have a look into it....

Don't go throwing around 'debunker' at a guy for pointing out an obvious conflict between intent of that animation and the effect. The point stands that it looks exactly like a 3D object spinning in almost zero-G.

I agree that NASA should release the STS footage, but it's gonna be the exact same as Stubbs picked up isn't it? Direct NASA feed etc. No hard feelings EN, just making a point...



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
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.


Let's make sure we get this clear. You are saying that the presence here of people who disagree with you is a plot by NASA?



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by depthoffield
 


And the articles clearly states that there are objects observed by the camera further than 10M away and larger that 1 cm which they can not explain.

Obfuscate all you want, the study clearly states this, which means all these claim that they must be particles from the shuttle a few meters or less away is clearly wrong.



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 



I wasn't making anyone look bad...just making an observation on a discussion board


well to be totally honest here, you said this...



I have to say it Easynow, that animation is some of the clearest evidence of particles I've seen.


which to me implies that i could be perceived as a dummy for not seeing what you see in this. in my opinion the way you phrased it could be seen as somewhat insulting. of course we can debate that all day long but what good would it do ?



Nobody has 'experience in space' so the logic dictates that without experience nobody can comment? If that was true...none of us can comment in here.


i never said nobody can make comments but for someone to post evidence like depthoffield is doing and expecting this whole matter to be debunked and everyone accept it..is highly laughable. the video is from youtube and has compression artifacts and god knows what else and making any conclusions without the raw footage from NASA is an insult to my intelligence.

simply put...no conclusions can be drawn from a youtube video, period and the fact does remain that nobody here has been in space to see this with there own eyes yet i am supposed to believe this video can be debunked and we should all just forget about it ? Hahhhh !



It was a live hook up...not much opportunity for tampering


i believe you might be wrong about that but that is just my opinion




yes that video only provides evidence that there can be a delay but if you think Stubbs intercepted the Shuttle to ground transmissions i would say you are naive and easily fooled. i hope that is not the case.



I agree that NASA should release the STS footage, but it's gonna be the exact same as Stubbs picked up isn't it?


that's the question many of us would like to know the answer to my friend



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
And the articles clearly states that there are objects observed by the camera further than 10M away and larger that 1 cm which they can not explain.

Obfuscate all you want, the study clearly states this, which means all these claim that they must be particles from the shuttle a few meters or less away is clearly wrong.


Everybody can read that article is here. They talk about particles. I think you are the one obfuscating things, twisting what NASA said in that study about PARTICLES.

Also:
Who says that those particles MUST BE or ARE ONLY a few meters or less?
They could be anywhere surrounding the shuttle, maybe even 100 meters away. So what?
The out-of focus particles near the camera solution, is the one which have the particles appearing as donuts (out of focus) when those particles ARE CLOSER than the near limit of the lenses's depth of field. It explains the donuts-effect of all particles having that. I posted many links about what depth of field is a few pages back.

You don't understant or in fact pretend (?) you don't understand.
Optics rules:
If the particle is small enough and closer than the nearer limit of the lens's depth of field interval, will appear unfocused as a donut.
If the particle is small enough, a bit further, already within the depth of field interval, will appear as a point of light. FOCUSED.
If a particle is small enough, but very distant, it won't appear in the image anymore.
If the particle is bigger, and closer than the nearer limit of the lens's depth of field interval, will appear unfocused as a donut or as an orb, but more fuzzy. We don't have exactly this situation here i see.
If the particle is bigger, a bit further, already within the depth of field interval, will appear FOCUSED, and may appear as a "clear disc", not just as a point of light, because it's size beeing resolved by the lens.
If the particle is bigger, but very distant, it will appear in image as a dimm point of light, or won't appear in the image anymore, depending of it's size, brightness and distance.

NASA study talks about milimeter or centimeter in size PARTICLES. Nothing more. The NASA study doesn't refer to "very big very distant objects". Also, they offer the better explanation they can do to those >10 meter bigger >cm in size PARTICLES. And do you know why the limit of 10 meter? Have they any measurement system? if i remember, they have a stereo camera, but one of them malfunctioned. Then, how they defined this 10 meter limit? Because, i feel that this is the near limit of the depth of field of the PACS lens. Closer than that, and object will appear unfocused. So, to have "CLEAR DISCS" (focused), those particular objects have to be within the depth of field, so, starting of 10 meter, but not to infinity, since the lens is focused in 25 meter position. Think of it.



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
the video is from youtube and has compression artifacts and god knows what else and making any conclusions without the raw footage from NASA is an insult to my intelligence.
That reminded me of something.

While we do not have the original NASA footage, we have on this thread the second best source, Martyn himself, so if he could post a better version (and preferably not to YouTube or the ATS media portal) it would be better.

It would be also a good idea posting the complete video, I have seen several different versions presented as the "complete" version, but some start with the tether, some start with a different view and a change of scene to the one showing the tether, etc.

So, secretnasaman, can you please give to your ATS fellow members a better, complete version of the video?

I am sure everybody would like that.

Thanks in advance.



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 11:45 AM
link   
I'm still interested in the argument that such other videos exist. Where's the evidence, or line of reasoning to assume they exist, Martyn?


Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by secretnasaman
They do this without any use of all the non-downloaded video NASA also shoots & brings back to Earth, on videotapes & multiple types of film. We need more than words. We need to see the still "embargoed" video of the tether 100 miles away. If there were not UFOs, then show these other videos taken after the tether breaks.


When would they have been taken? In the period between the tether break and the famous video of the swarms, a few days later, was the tether even observable from the shuttle?




posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 12:54 PM
link   
Here are some comments by direct eyewitnesses. But, heck, what do THEY know?

Andy Allen statement (mission commander)
Date: Friday, April 21, 2000 10:59:51 AM
From: Andrew.M.Allen@xxx.com
Subj: RE: RE: STS-75

Jim,

As far as the question about floating objects that we see, it is mostly debris and Orbiter induced particulates. We see a lot of dust, ice, and other debris collected in the vehicle during ground processing (it's very clean but not perfectly clean) that will dislodge or float up in zero gravity. We also see a lot of crystals and particles as remnants from water dumps, RCS firings, OMS firings, etc.
Contrary to what some folks may think, there is no direction or effort for astronauts to restrict their conversations and observations. The only exception, which no longer applies, was when we were flying classified payloads on our DOD missions and could only discuss the payload under a need to know. It is utterly impossible that all those who traveled in space from many different countries would have adhered to any restrictions.



Chuck Shaw statement (Lead Flight Director, STS-75 mission)

Date: 03/03/2000 9:26:59 AM Central Standard Time
From: SHAW, CHARLES W. (CHUCK) (JSC-DA8)
To: JamesOberg@xx.com

Hi Jim,

I was the Lead Flight Director for STS-75, and was on console for the tethered satellite deploy operations and at the time the tether broke. Operations had been nominal up to the point Jeff Hoffman called down that the tether broke, and then we saw the status in telemetry a couple of seconds later. The behavior of the satellite and the tether remnant on the satellite was exactly as we had expected for a tether break case.

In the footage of the video, etc. which was examined in GREAT detail post flight in hopes of finding SOMETHING to aid in what had caused the tether break, we never saw anything that was "unexpected". Your comments as to artifacts and small debris/dust/ice particles/lens reflections/blooming/etc., are all quite common and we have seen those things in virtually every shuttle mission's video. What was present in the video and the data that was examined post flight was all within this type of artifact and/or expected results.

Post break, we called upon tracking and imaging resources world wide to be able to establish a trajectory for the satellite and tether remnant, in order to determine the feasibility of a rendezvous and recovery, in addition to being able to command the satellite transmitter on to gain some science data from it, even though the tether was broken. At no time did any of these tracking data show anything unexpected, and we were LOOKING for unexpected things (like extra pieces of tether, or debris from the satellite and/or science booms) that could cause us to not want to fly up in the vicinity of the satellite

As it turned out, the arcing of the voltage in the tether to the deployer structure burned the tether in two. Rather ironic that the experiment worked so well to show the ability of the system to generate power, and in fact worked so well as to fatally damage the experiment!

I have always been fascinated by UFO investigations, and "personally" I hope we are not really alone in this wonderful universe.

Hope this helps, Chuck

Chuck Shaw, Flight Director
Mission Operations Directorate, NASA
Johnson Space Center, Houston Texas


[edit on 10-8-2009 by JimOberg]



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


if there was something seen while they were in orbit and it was a national security risk, would he tell you or us ?

no he wouldn't

in my opinion the REAL copy of the video from NASA is the only way this debate can ever have a chance of being settled.



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
in my opinion the REAL copy of the video from NASA is the only way this debate can ever have a chance of being settled.
Maybe.

If it shows the same thing we can see in this bad copy of the video (can we please get a better version, secretnasaman?) we will be left with the same knowledge we have now about it, we cannot know what those things are just by looking at the video. Or people will say that NASA altered the video to hide the "secret stuff".

If the video looks different people will say (as usual) that NASA altered the video and the YouTube version is the "original".

But I would like to see the original footage (or a better copy
).



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 02:40 PM
link   
does Jim cherry pick his arguments ?

no he wouldn't do that .........right ?


[edit on 10-8-2009 by easynow]



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
if there was something seen while they were in orbit and it was a national security risk, would he tell you or us ? no he wouldn't


As I said, when a real firsthand witness steps forward with testimony contrary to your desires, you call him a liar. Convenient.



[edit on 10-8-2009 by JimOberg]



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
if your happy and satisfied with just another copy from secretnasaman then cool. i personally will not be satisfied until i see the NASA version. in my opinion nobody should settle for less than that.


But you're actually not going to DO anything about it, is that your story? Other people have to do your research for you?

And if NASA sent you a tape, and it didn't show what you wanted, what then?

Obviously, they are liars too.



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
And if NASA sent you a tape, and it didn't show what you wanted, what then?
Obviously, they are liars too.


Get me the original from NASA and I promise you I will be fair.

But right now I don't have the time to track it down. In this case since you have been on this for 10 years or so I would think its in YOUR best interest as well to help us get it, and you are in a better position to do so IMO

Or at least point me to where it is... I will get it from them even if need be pay their exorbitant reproduction fees


($110.00 for a single image is highway robbery
)

[edit on 10-8-2009 by zorgon]



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
check out this new video that LunaCognita has made about the tether incident. this new analysis shows the objects are clearly changing direction. is there an invisible force present causing debri particles to act like this or are they controlled objects ?






What we see here is that many of those objects have curved trajectories. I showed before that debris in space could show curved trajectories. This is a real posibility for inanimate particles in orbit. Remember what we see there is not exactly their curved trajectory in 3D, but only a projection in 2D of the trajectories relative to the point of view, as seen by the camera. If a curved trajectory is seen almost in its plane, it could appear that the object decelerate, stop, and then accelerate in oposite direction. Spatial perspective if you can handle it.


Also, as this good analysis shows, some of them change their curved or straight trajectories in a subtle but strange manner, apparently imposible for some inanimate particles of debris, suggesting "intelligent control of their motion"


Studying more those strange "maneuveurs", i propose one animation taken from one stable sequence of LunarCognita.


I've marked on the sequence, 5 moments in time when there are discernable those misterious maneuvers.
These moments, called by me "changes", are marked by me with colors and numbers, in order:

CHANGE1 red
CHANGE2 green
CHANGE3 blue
[color=Gray]CHANGE4 gray
CHANGE5 yellow


Also, when one namely change appears, i'll marked on the frame the position of all objects of which i can detect some changes in motion, using the corresponding colour of that namely change.

Here is the animation:





What we see here?

That it happens that all the "misterious" maneuvers of the objects are taking place in the same time, the moment of the "change"!
More, we can see that different objects with the same speed and appearance, appear to do exactly the same kind of motion/speed change (maneuver), for example those 3 bright objects in the bottom left corner.


What does this means?

It means two posibilities:

a) the objects make real maneuvers, in sincron, so they show inteligence and connections between them

b) the maneuvers of the objects are not real, but the camera together with the shuttle itself make maneuvers, because of the Reaction control system of the shuttle in action (en.wikipedia.org...), when finely and with precission make small adjustements in the shuttle attitude or motion vector as part of it's flight in orbit.

If we look with attention, we can see clearly that even the stars themselves, those apparently imobile bright or dimmer points of light, appear to do some kind of small maneuveurs, exactly at the precise moments ("changes") marked by me!

This really rules out the "inteligence" factor needed to explain the "misterious maneuvers of the objects!

And, you know, debris in space can appear to (or really) have curved trajectories!
one example:



I hope i answered a bit to OP questions regarding movements of the sts-75 objects, particles of debris, maybe he will read it, no matter my answer became later, after he chosed to leave this topic.

Also, i didn't agree with Easynow, every better copy of the movie, it can show something new to the quest. Better than nothing.

[edit on 10/8/09 by depthoffield]



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by depthoffield
 


And the articles clearly states that there are objects observed by the camera further than 10M away and larger that 1 cm which they can not explain.

Obfuscate all you want, the study clearly states this, which means all these claim that they must be particles from the shuttle a few meters or less away is clearly wrong.



Just because they cant expalin DOESN'T mean they are critters or alien craft does IT?

Funny how these critters/ufo'S look like the out of focus workings of the lens of the cameras WHATS THE CHANCES OF THAT!



posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 02:50 PM
link   
Dang! It's worse than halitosis. Ask a simple, respectful question about evidence, and some people just head for the hills. End of discussion.


Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by secretnasaman
They do this without any use of all the non-downloaded video NASA also shoots & brings back to Earth, on videotapes & multiple types of film. We need more than words. We need to see the still "embargoed" video of the tether 100 miles away. If there were not UFOs, then show these other videos taken after the tether breaks.


I'd be interested in the argument that such other videos exist. When would they have been taken? In the period between the tether break and the famous video of the swarms, a few days later, was the tether even observable from the shuttle?




posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Didn't claim that it means they must be critters or aliens.

What it does mean is that claims that these must be objects within a few meters of the shuttle simply isn't true. There are things out there that can not be explained, and don't look or act like meteorites. This tether video does seem to capture some of these objects. What we are seeing here in these videos looks like nothing that has been shown so far as lens distortions or meteorites. I have pointed out why numerous times in the thread, go back and review if you like.

Clearly many people see what they want to see.

Plasma does seem to be the most likely explanation, being that plasma is the most abundant form of matter in the universe, or so it is currently theorized.



posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
What it does mean is that claims that these must be objects within a few meters of the shuttle simply isn't true.
That depends on the definition of "a few metres", I never thought these things were closer than, for example, 5 metres, because I know they would be completely too much out of focus and invisible.




top topics



 
77
<< 51  52  53    55  56  57 >>

log in

join