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: 58
77
<< 55  56  57    59  60  61 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 05:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by waveguide3
 


We can never convince someone that does not want to be convinced,- - -


That's exactly what I said. And of course it works both ways. There are unremitting believers and unremitting sceptics. When you have a meeting of both (as in this thread for example) it simply becomes a matter of who can argue longer. The facts are generally ignored.

I can illustrate this point by several scientific explantions posted by the likes of depthoffield (and myself) which are completely ignored by those following the alternate path. It's a futile excercise most of the time. When a thread continues to ramble along as this one does, there will never be a concensus on what's actually going on. I say leave 'em to it. The same situation exits with the Mexican so-called 'Intelligent Spheres' thread. It's all about the argumenting but not much about science.

WG3

[edit on 15-8-2009 by waveguide3]




posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 07:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by waveguide3
I can illustrate this point by several scientific explantions posted by the likes of depthoffield (and myself) which are completely ignored by those following the alternate path. It's a futile excercise most of the time.

If they are ignored, yes, it may be a futile exercise, but if they are opposed then it means that they were not ignored, and if you have shown that there is another possibility to that person, even if he/she does not recognise it as such, then your participation was not futile, it added more information to the other person's information, so even if you are left in the same situation, the other person's know may have increased and maybe it got him/her closer to the truth.


The same situation exits with the Mexican so-called 'Intelligent Spheres' thread. It's all about the argumenting but not much about science.
That's true, but that is one of the reasons I do not leave those threads, and most probably because I am very stubborn.



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by depthoffield
 


The video in this link provided by Easynow proves you wrong.

www.youtube.com...

This video clearly shows that tiny close up objects in the camera's aperture disappear when the camera zooms out and focuses on distant object, and this is clearly shown in this video. While Serda's claims may not be right about what we see in the tether video, he proves your theory wrong in this video.



WRONG he set it up to show that
is the camera the same ,lens focal length, lens aperture and are the objects the same distance from the lens as the dime WHEN you can say YES to all , then whats stated in his video might be true until then it means NOTHING!



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


AND ONCE AGAIN, the videos you people claim as proof of your close up particles theory are even more poorly and deceptively made, with only the desire of show what is wanted to be shown. When you see the Serada video, you are looking at yourself in the mirror.

WG3, this discussion has already moved on, except for some spammers like yourself who live in the land of denial. Build a bridge and get over it.



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 01:32 PM
link   
More about plasma

www.britannica.com...


The dominant ion in the upper atmosphere is atomic oxygen, while below about 200 kilometres molecular oxygen and nitric oxide are most prevalent. Meteor showers also provide large numbers of metallic atoms of elements such as iron, silicon, and magnesium, which become ionized in sunlight and last for long periods of time. These form vast ion clouds, which are responsible for much of the fading in and out of radio stations at night.


So there is a great deal of plasma around our planet, which mostly exists in frequencies outside of our visual frequency spectrum.

If I am not mistaken, this plasma also helps to protect the Earth from asteroid strikes, capable of pushing away most asteroids that are not coming in towards the Earth at a steep angle.

Looking out into space and sending probes is great stuff, but we should also be putting considerable effort into studying the plasma around our own planet, and the sun. Figuring out these UFOs that can not be explained would also be a very good idea.



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by depthoffield
 


Please stop spamming those images - they are not relevant to the discussion.

Thus far you been unable to produce video with bokeh moving in multiple directions, and at varying speeds.

You appear to be stuck in a loop. You consistently resort to spamming debunked arguments. You are going in circles.

*Please go back to the first post wherein you made this argument, and read the posts immediately thereafter.




G'day Ex1.......

I've had a very busy past several days & I've finally found some time to get back to some ATS reading!

......& BTW....I am very appreciative of your info
.

Now, I still think you are being a little tough on DOF.

I truly believe he offers a lot of useful info & discussion to ATS.

You really are a hard case!

Kind regards
Sam60



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
If I am not mistaken, this plasma also helps to protect the Earth from asteroid strikes, capable of pushing away most asteroids that are not coming in towards the Earth at a steep angle.


As we've found to usually be the case, Poet, you are mistaken here too.



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by depthoffield
 


The video in this link provided by Easynow proves you wrong.

www.youtube.com...

This video clearly shows that tiny close up objects in the camera's aperture disappear when the camera zooms out and focuses on distant object, and this is clearly shown in this video. While Serda's claims may not be right about what we see in the tether video, he proves your theory wrong in this video.


Not really. Easynow did not claim to use a telephoto lens of a type similar to the one NASA used. I have a reflector telephoto lens but unfortunately it's for my still camera and won't fit my video camera or I'd try to get you a better demonstration. You need to use a more similar lens, and lighting conditions.

Also, contrary to what easynow claims, UFOhunters demonstrated that objects which appear to pass behind the tether may actually be passing in front of it. See these videos. The tether explanation gets cutoff in the first video, but the 2nd video completes it.




Originally posted by poet1b
So there is a great deal of plasma around our planet, which mostly exists in frequencies outside of our visual frequency spectrum.

If I am not mistaken, this plasma also helps to protect the Earth from asteroid strikes, capable of pushing away most asteroids that are not coming in towards the Earth at a steep angle.

Looking out into space and sending probes is great stuff, but we should also be putting considerable effort into studying the plasma around our own planet, and the sun. Figuring out these UFOs that can not be explained would also be a very good idea.

If you consider the plasma molecules part of the earth's extended atmosphere, then yes you could say the plasma molecules have about the same effect as other molecules of the earth's atmosphere in creating friction with and deflecting objects that enter the atmosphere at a shallow angle, or heating up smaller rocks from space which enter at steeper angles, so they "burn up" in the atmosphere. The fact that the molecules happen to be ionized into plasma have little bearing on the deflection effect you are talking about, though feel free to quote a source to support your point of view for review if you have evidence otherwise.

As you pointed out, much of the plasma in the earth's extended atmosphere is not visible so I don't think it accounts for any UFOs, unless you're talking about electrical charge phenomena like sprites, those are visible but I don't think they are mistaken for UFOs. Sprite video:



The sprites are cool and way more fascinating to me than ice and debris. It would be way more fun to try to explain what is going on in that sprite video than in the ice and debris video.

On the protection provided, to the earth, you may be thinking of the protection the earth's magnetic field provides to shield the earth from some of the sun's cosmic radiation, and it's believed that the lack of such protection on Mars partly explains it's thin atmosphere. But it's not protection from asteroids.


Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by waveguide3
I can illustrate this point by several scientific explantions posted by the likes of depthoffield (and myself) which are completely ignored by those following the alternate path. It's a futile excercise most of the time.

If they are ignored, yes, it may be a futile exercise, but if they are opposed then it means that they were not ignored, and if you have shown that there is another possibility to that person, even if he/she does not recognise it as such, then your participation was not futile, it added more information to the other person's information, so even if you are left in the same situation, the other person's know may have increased and maybe it got him/her closer to the truth.

That's a good way to look at it.



The same situation exits with the Mexican so-called 'Intelligent Spheres' thread. It's all about the argumenting but not much about science.
That's true, but that is one of the reasons I do not leave those threads, and most probably because I am very stubborn.

Thank goodness you haven't left, without the rational observations of you and a few others like depthoffield, I think I'd have to leave, all the fantasies get to me after a while.



[edit on 15-8-2009 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 10:25 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


I seem to remember something about anything that enters the Earths atmosphere must enter at a sharp enough angle or else it bounces off. Are you saying that this isn't true?



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
The sprites are cool and way more fascinating to me than ice and debris. It would be way more fun to try to explain what is going on in that sprite video than in the ice and debris video.



"Critters" being born
that's why they call em SPRITES



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by JimOberg
 


I seem to remember something about anything that enters the Earths atmosphere must enter at a sharp enough angle or else it bounces off. Are you saying that this isn't true?



I don't think that's a plasma-oriented effect.

I think it's simply an atmospheric effect.




posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 11:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sam60

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by JimOberg
 


I seem to remember something about anything that enters the Earths atmosphere must enter at a sharp enough angle or else it bounces off. Are you saying that this isn't true?



I don't think that's a plasma-oriented effect.

I think it's simply an atmospheric effect.



You're both right, shallow angled entries bounce off the atmosphere. Yes there happens to be plasma in the upper atmosphere but the bounce doesn't happen because it's plasma.



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 11:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Your first two links didn't work. Although I don't think it really matters. Yes, objects distorted in a video can appear to be passing behind an object when it is passing in front, and we do see some of this, I think, in the tether video. However, close examination allows you to still see that the object is passing in front, and not all of these objects look like they are passing in front of the tether, even when looking at the distortion effect.

Yes, I am thinking about how our atmosphere deflects objects coming in at a shallow angle. You say this is caused by friction, and how certain of this are you? Are you sure that this isn't a result of highly charged plasma shielding our atmosphere?

www.scitechantiques.com...


Plasma is strongly influenced by both magnetic and electric forces, and in turn, plasma particles affect the distribution of magnetic and electric fields. Beyond the magnetopause, energetic plasma from the Sun (the solar wind) rushes past Earth at speeds ranging from 300 to 1,000 kilometers per second. While most of this solar wind is deflected around Earth, some of it penetrates the magnetosphere. The interaction between the solar wind and the magnetosphere plasma acts like an electric generator [called the magnetosphere Magneto Hydrodynamic (MHD) generator], creating electric fields deep inside the magnetopause. These fields create a general circulation of the plasma (a current system) and accelerate some electrons and ions to higher energies.


Here is an article on the subject.

www.geocities.com...


As we can see, plasma effects can play a large role in meteor phenomena. Especially important are the effects in the case of unstable conditions of ionospheric plasma. In the latter case resulting phenomena are difficult to foresee. Currently, our knowledge of plasma processes is not good enough for such predictions. Nevertheless, the author hopes that this work will attract attention of experts in meteors, and in plasma physics, and will help foster cooperation between them.


Here is an article on the space shuttle disaster that discusses sprites and other plasma forms.

www.superforce.com...


The family of "transient" electrical effects occupy this part of the sky, including sprites, which leap from the ionosphere to the tops of thunderheads, and blue jets, which leap from thunderhead anvils to the ionosphere. In 1989, an upper- atmospheric electrical strike "shot down" a high-altitude NASA balloon 129,000 feet over Dallas. Originally, it was thought that the electrical charges in the thin atmosphere 50 miles above Earth were too dispersed to create infrasound. But Los Alamos National Laboratories physicist Mark Stanley said that, on closer inspection, "we've seen very strong ionization in sprites" indicating that there were enough air molecules ionized to cause heating and an accompanying pulse -- a celestial thunderclap, as it were.

Scientists have observed interaction between a blue jet and a meteor. And in December 1999, Los Alamos National Laboratories researcher David Suszcynsky and colleagues, including Lyons, published an account of a meteor that apparently triggered a sprite.

"It was a singular observation that had us all scratching our heads," said Lyons. In the strange world of sprite and elf research, scientists have documented one event in which some sort of high atmospheric event "shot down" a high-altitude balloon over Dallas.

On June 5, 1989, before the first sprite was ever photographed, a NASA balloon carrying a heavy pack of instruments suffered "an uncommanded payload release" at 129,000 feet, according to Lyons. It landed in an angry Dallas resident's front yard.

Investigators found scorch marks on the debris and considered it one of the first bits of solid evidence that sprites exist. As a result of the accident, NASA no longer flies balloons over thunderstorms.



And this statement about current flowing from space from the same article.


In 1973 the navy satellite Triad flew through the auroral zone region in a low-altitude orbit, its magnetometer indeed detected the signatures of two large sheets of electric current, one coming down on the morning side of the auroral zone, one going up on the evening side, as expected. Because Kristian Birkeland had proposed long before currents which linked Earth and space in this fashion, they were named Birkeland currents (by Schield, Dessler and Freeman, in a 1969 article predicting some of the features observed by Triad). Typically, each sheet carries a million amperes or more.

But that wasn't all. Equatorward of each current sheet, Triad noted a parallel sheet almost as intense, flowing in the opposite direction: those field lines were no longer open, but closed inside the magnetosphere. It thus seemed that most of the electric current coming down from space (about 80%) did not choose to close through the ionosphere across the magnetic poles. Rather, it found an alternate way: it flowed in the ionosphere a few hundred miles equatorward and then headed out again to space, where the currents (presumably) found an easier path.


How much do we honestly know about this subject? I think people who talk about this stuff in absolute certainly while they put down those they disagree with are pretty funny in the way they make fools of themselves.

Maybe these are just hobbits we see in the tether video?

"In the strange world of sprite and elf research"



posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 12:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Sam60

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by JimOberg
 


I seem to remember something about anything that enters the Earths atmosphere must enter at a sharp enough angle or else it bounces off. Are you saying that this isn't true?



I don't think that's a plasma-oriented effect.

I think it's simply an atmospheric effect.



You're both right, shallow angled entries bounce off the atmosphere. Yes there happens to be plasma in the upper atmosphere but the bounce doesn't happen because it's plasma.


Well, that's right....


I should have expressed myself more clearly.

What I was trying to say was the plasma would have little or no resistive effect as compared with gaseous atmosphere, not that it would have no effect.




posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 12:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by JimOberg
 


I seem to remember something about anything that enters the Earths atmosphere must enter at a sharp enough angle or else it bounces off. Are you saying that this isn't true?



That's what I'm saying. So many of your conclusions are based on schoolboy howler misunderstandings of physics that it's really sad -- get a better grounding, and you'll contribute much more valuable comments.



posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 12:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
You're both right, shallow angled entries bounce off the atmosphere. Yes there happens to be plasma in the upper atmosphere but the bounce doesn't happen because it's plasma.


No way. No 'bounce'.

This old myth probably traces back to press reports that returning Apollo capsules would 'bounce off' the atmosphere if their entry angles were too shallow. This apparent effect could occur because the capsules had aerodynamic lift due to their shape and controlled orientation (meteors don't -- rarely, aerodynamic effects are observed but they are random and highly variable). If they were not slowed enough they could graze the upper atmosphere but continue back into space, like the famous Rocky Mountain meteor did back in the 1970s.

This wasn't a 'bounce', it was a special marginal case of atmospheric braking where the object ran out of atmosphere before it was braked enough. As it slowed, a meteor's path would be turned downwards -- NOT upwards -- but in rare marginal cases, not downwards enough to dig deeply enough into the upper atmosphere, before it barreled onwards and passed back into near-vacuum. Since it had an initial velocity MUCH greater than escape velocity, losing a portion of that velocity did not prevent it from passing onwards out of Earth's gravity field.

For Apollo, two factors complicated this: its return speed was just barely 'escape velocity' so any dimunition of that speed via incomplete braking would have created a path that would later -- hours or days at most -- return to Earth's atmosphere. The problem was, since the Apollo had jettisoned its Service Module just prior to entry, the command module would have run out of power and air after only a few hours, and the crew would die, even if their tombcraft did later fall back to Earth.

The 'bounce' story was careless reporter-talk trying to describe an unearthly phenomenon in familiar earthside terms. As often as not, it confused rather than enlightened -- and this is an example.

Tracking Apollo spacecraft entering the atmosphere was the responsibility of two Mission Control consoles -- "FiDO" and "RETRO". These positions were in the frontmost, lowermost row of consoles, which became known as 'The Trench'. My console, Rendezvous Guidance and Procedures Officer, or "R-GPO", lay right alongside these consoles and we worked closely together, cross-training as much as time permitted.



posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 12:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
Here is an article on the space shuttle disaster that discusses sprites and other plasma forms. www........


I hope this site isn't one of those still insisting 'Columbia' was hit by a plasma lightning bolt....

Meteors (and entering shuttles) do create plasma in their wakes, from simple thermal excitation effects. That plasma, it turns out, is the source of the centuries-old mystery of the 'electrophonic sound', 'meteor noise' that witnesses often claimed would hiss in real time with passing fireballs. This really was happening, and it has only been solved in recent years. Cool stuff, and a reminder to keep open minds and open eyes on the skies.



posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 01:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
You're both right, shallow angled entries bounce off the atmosphere. Yes there happens to be plasma in the upper atmosphere but the bounce doesn't happen because it's plasma.


No way. No 'bounce'.
.....
This wasn't a 'bounce', it was a special marginal case of atmospheric braking where the object ran out of atmosphere before it was braked enough. As it slowed, a meteor's path would be turned downwards -- NOT upwards -- but in rare marginal cases, not downwards enough to dig deeply enough into the upper atmosphere, before it barreled onwards and passed back into near-vacuum. Since it had an initial velocity MUCH greater than escape velocity, losing a portion of that velocity did not prevent it from passing onwards out of Earth's gravity field.
...
The 'bounce' story was careless reporter-talk trying to describe an unearthly phenomenon in familiar earthside terms. As often as not, it confused rather than enlightened -- and this is an example.


Thanks for the clarification Jim, that's precisely what I assumed was happening when I referred to a bounce but I stand corrected that a "bounce" is probably not an accurate way to describe what is really just "grazing" the atmosphere. And the reporter you mentioned popularizing the word bounce probably didn't help. Even the PhD who wrote this paper used the word "bounce" in the first sentence on the last page:


Defence Science Journal, Vol 48, No 4, October 1998, pp. 337-342 - Optimization Problem of Entry into Earth's Atmosphere


Similarly, a very high value of l = 4000km may not be realisable as very low re-entry angle is required and in that case of shallow entry, the vehicle may simply bounce back in deep space.


[edit on 16-8-2009 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 02:09 AM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


Good post, I'll have to think of something sarcastic to say later. The history channel has me absorbed by its attempt to sell me the big bang theory.

Are we having fun yet?



posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
So there is a great deal of plasma around our planet, which mostly exists in frequencies outside of our visual frequency spectrum.

I wouldn't say "a great deal" - it is utterly dwarfed by the amount of gases present in our upper atmosphere. I'm also not really sure what you mean by "exists in a frequency outside of our visible spectrum". Plasma is not energy. It is a form of matter. You don't see matter, you see the light reflected off of it (or lack thereof). Whether or not a plasma reflects (or absorbs / refracts) light in our visible spectrum is a matter of what element(s) it is composed of. There is no such thing as a bar of metal that "exists in a frequency outside our visible spectrum" for example, but there could easily be metal that doesn't reflect visible light. It would look black.



If I am not mistaken, this plasma also helps to protect the Earth from asteroid strikes, capable of pushing away most asteroids that are not coming in towards the Earth at a steep angle.

You are mistaken. Plasma does nothing special of the sort. It, along with all of the non-ionized gases in our upper atmosphere, do however work as a buffer that will burn up or shallowly deflect small meteorites. A lot like skipping stones on water. That doesn't really protect the earth though, anything large enough to do real damage to life on earth (or god forbid the earth itself O_O) will hit the earth period if its path takes it on a collision course.



Looking out into space and sending probes is great stuff, but we should also be putting considerable effort into studying the plasma around our own planet, and the sun. Figuring out these UFOs that can not be explained would also be a very good idea.


Umm, we do study the ionosphere. We have a pretty solid understanding of it. We also study the sun in *extraordinary* depth. Besides the moon it is probably the single most studied celestial object in human history. Last i checked, no evidence of space butterflies.



new topics

top topics



 
77
<< 55  56  57    59  60  61 >>

log in

join