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: 59
77
<< 56  57  58    60  61  62 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by JimOberg
 

The history channel has me absorbed by its attempt to sell me the big bang theory.



you don't recognize the mountains of evidence supporting the big bang theory? pray tell, how do you explain the fact that the universe is expanding and that the heat remaining from the big bang is not only still present but easily measurable?

what's next? do you scoff when people tell you the earth rotates around the sun?




posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by JScytale
 


Plasma is a state of matter that exists at a certain state of energy. Plasma does often emit light, you know, like the Sun, fire, lighting, those sorts of things. The Aurora Borealis is always there, but we can not always see it.

Our magnetosphere is huge, and contains a great deal of plasma. Read the articles on the subject. I would say the Aurora Borealis alone constitutes a great deal. I didn't claim that plasma made up the majority of the upper atmosphere, but it is a very significant amount, especially when you consider how big the magnetosphere is.

Most of what we know about the ionosphere we have learned in the last few decades, and there is still a great deal more to learn.



posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 07:01 PM
link   
reply to post by JScytale
 


No there are not any mountains of evidence supporting the THEORY of the Big Bang. Still haven't learned to tell the difference between theory and laws, and principles.

I certainly don't believe in the Static Universe theory that your friend Einstein believed in.

Our amount of time looking at the universe, and our perspective of it is so minuscule to the size and breadth of the universe, for us to think we have a grasp on its origin is a joke.

I think it the whole idea of everything, all matter in the universe, originally being together in one single atom is pretty far fetched, and the evidence to support this is indeed very, very thin.

Chances are better in my opinion that the galaxy's float around like the continents, and occasionally form up and create a super galaxy that then becomes unstable, and blows apart. That makes more sense to me. Except, that the universe is far, far greater in size than the Earth, so all of the galaxies never come together, not even close.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 04:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by JScytale
 


No there are not any mountains of evidence supporting the THEORY of the Big Bang. Still haven't learned to tell the difference between theory and laws, and principles.


YOU need to learn that a scientific theory is not the same thing as a theory. a scientific theory is something that has been demonstrated true repeatedly, makes predictions that can be (and are) tested and demonstrated true repeatedly, and stood up to the entire scientific community trying to find holes in it. you do realize that the Theory of Gravity is, in fact, a theory right? Nothing is absolute in science - but because it can be demonstrated reliably, is observed, and makes correct predictions, you can safely say it is right. For example, look at Newton's theories. All of them were right, even if he didn't fully understand the intricacies. Everything was based on real data. Its predictions held true and still do on the human scale. Newton was right even if his understanding was wrong.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 04:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by JScytale
 

Our magnetosphere is huge, and contains a great deal of plasma. Read the articles on the subject. I would say the Aurora Borealis alone constitutes a great deal. I didn't claim that plasma made up the majority of the upper atmosphere, but it is a very significant amount, especially when you consider how big the magnetosphere is.


If you understood gases / plasmas at near vacuum you would not attempt to say the magnetosphere "contains a great deal of plasma" followed by "when you consider how big the magnetosphere is". If it is necessary to explain why then you're a lost cause. Maybe if i put it in numbers it will be easier to understand. In the magnetosphere, there is approx. 1,000,000 electron-ion pairs per cubic centimeter. Inside our atmosphere, there are approx. 10,000,000,000 atoms per cubic centimeter. The atmosphere is 10,000 times denser than the magnetosphere. Guess where the vast majority of the mass is?

Oh, and we've been studying the magnetosphere for 50 years, and the ionosphere for nearly 100. Why don't you compare that to how long we've been able to control fission and how well we understand it.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 11:32 AM
link   
reply to post by JScytale
 


First of, it is Newton's LAW of Gravity, not Theory.

Theories are not accepted as fact because there is not enough evidence to prove them to be true. The scientific community treats them like facts because they have observed evidence that supports the theory, but there is also evidence that shows that the theory may be false, but not enough evidence to prove that the theory is false.

Scientific theories are followed because they tie together numerous observed and measured characteristic of our world around us, for which the theory offers a somewhat reasonable explanation. How reasonable depends upon who is conducting the debate. However, there are always flaws which indicate that something is missing, that the theory is not quite correct, or possibly not even close. Of course, a great deal of politics is wrapped up in making these decisions.

It seems that when it comes to the beginning of the universe, we are stuck with two polar extremes, a Static universe that is unchanging, and Creationism, a universe that was created by a Big Bang. These are polar extremes, and like everything else, most likely the real explanation is somewhere inbetween. How much of this is determined purely by politics is something that should be highly considered.

If everything is moving away from us, then why is the Sagittarius Dwarf Elliptical Galaxy moving towards us? Shouldn't it also be accelerating away?

www.solstation.com...

The only thing we really know is that radiation indicates that there was a big explosion in our KNOWN universe at some distant time in the past. The conformity of the universe however, doesn't fit in with the big bang theory, so the concept of Inflation was created, which buts up against Einsteins theory of a constant speed of light. The Inflation would have required an initial expansion of the universe that exceeded the speed of light.

Of course all this leads to dark matter, if we are to assume that we live in a finite universe. Exactly where is the evidence that the universe is finite? Dark Matter? We had a flat Earth, and now we have a flat universe.

It is far more intelligent to admit that we don't know everything, and in fact know very little about the nature of the universe. We know enough to be dangerous at this point in time. We accept theories because they make things workable, but they are still just guesses. Go ahead, keep clinging to your absolute world.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by JScytale
 


Plasma might now have a great deal of mass, that doesn't make it less observable, and that is what we are talking about here.

There is a great deal of plasma to be observed in our upper atmosphere.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 12:15 PM
link   
This plasma discussion is very interesting, but I think that it should go to its own thread, we are getting too far away from the original topic, that was, for those that do not remember it any more, the new analysis of the movement of the objects seen on the STS-75 video.

So I suggest that we try to bring it back on topic, we can even talk about plasma and be on topic.

Thanks in advance.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 07:46 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


I guess you are right, I should start a thread asking if these are plasma in the tether video.

I think it is a very interesting subject, and will be a huge source of scientific development over the next several decades.



posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 12:52 AM
link   
reply to post by easynow
 


I love this video. especially @ 44 seconds into it, a triangular ship (looks like from the game asteroids) materializes at the bottom right of the tether and then slowly rises along the tether and then stops at the top...

There is also a faint light before the 'ship' appears. I've noticed this faint light in other videos where 'ships' suddenly appear out of no where...


very cool. thx for the updated video.



posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 05:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by ByteChanger
There is also a faint light before the 'ship' appears. I've noticed this faint light in other videos where 'ships' suddenly appear out of no where...


Good eyes. That's the way it seems it looks when the shuttle moves into sunrise, and stuff floating in its shadow drift out into the sunlight and suddenly 'appears'.

The key is to actually know when sunrise occurs, and that requires knowing the date/time of many of these 'ufo videos'. That may explain why the promoters refuse to provide this data. Without it, a plausible prosaic hypothesis is next to impossible, so they rig the game by covering up critical information.

And their target audience, for the most part, goes along with the trick.



posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 08:59 AM
link   
reply to post by ByteChanger
 


thanks for the reply ByteChanger,

we all know there are some strange things seen in the STS75 video, and i can't personally say what objects are truly unidentified and which ones are not. i think it's best to just keep an open mind about it and don't let anyone make any decisions for you. there are forces at work who want to control your thoughts on subjects like this. the funny part and something to remember is ,the people trying to influence you and debunk this video have never seen a ufo.

some of these people will try and get you to believe that just because the Sunlight is a factor along with common waste products from the shuttle, there is no possibility of a ufo being present in the video because of these conditions.

many of us know better


thanks again for the reply



posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
there are forces at work who want to control your thoughts on subjects like this.

You are right, every side, the "debunkers" and the "believe-in-ufo promoters" want to "control" your thoughts... presenting their views.



posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by ByteChanger
I love this video. especially @ 44 seconds into it, a triangular ship (looks like from the game asteroids) materializes at the bottom right of the tether and then slowly rises along the tether and then stops at the top...

The shape you call it "triangular", but better said "horizontally streched", is nothing more than just a camera artifact! I saw this in other videos from NASA shuttle bay camera. And in STS 75 there are many similar. All the brightest than a value and punctiform light sources are streched horizontally ( i guess as scan lines are acting inside the senzor or electronics of those cameras).
Yelow arrow, your "triangular ship", red arrow, other similar "triangles":



Below, credit to Secretnasaman, is an example how Sirius, which is the brightest star, appear in NASA videos horizontally elongated:



If you pay attention, you will see no matter the camera orientation (look for 7:09 for rotation!), the "streching" is always horizontally...proof for camera artifact!



And no, not at all, in Secretnasaman's video there are not any "Giant UFOs are not the sun, the moom or stars!" (sic)

They are just stars, and the brightest is Sirius, as this post demonstrates:
www.abovetopsecret.com... credit to Zerotensor!


Regarding sudden appearance or dissapearance of some objects...easy explainable as accompanying debris is going from or going into the shadow of the shuttle, so being/not being sunlit.



[edit on 27/9/09 by depthoffield]



[edit on 27/9/09 by depthoffield]



posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 06:55 PM
link   
reply to post by depthoffield
 


I dont think these are stars...

Footage filmed during NASA Space Shuttle STS-80 Mission.

One of the best sts mission videos out there in my view.
The second half shows what could be 2 large ships or maybe mother ships.
One thing thats interesting is that as the shuttle moves away the camera operator trys to keep both "ships" in view then he zooms to the first one as it goes out of view.

www.youtube.com...



posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by ByteChanger
There is also a faint light before the 'ship' appears. I've noticed this faint light in other videos where 'ships' suddenly appear out of no where...


Good eyes. That's the way it seems it looks when the shuttle moves into sunrise, and stuff floating in its shadow drift out into the sunlight and suddenly 'appears'.

The key is to actually know when sunrise occurs, and that requires knowing the date/time of many of these 'ufo videos'. That may explain why the promoters refuse to provide this data. Without it, a plausible prosaic hypothesis is next to impossible, so they rig the game by covering up critical information.

And their target audience, for the most part, goes along with the trick.




Thank you Jim...

Another strange fact is that the 'faint light' remains there... as the new bright light moves up the tether...

I don't think you see it in the updated video posted here, but that bright light stops at the top of the tether. Then NASA really obliterates the picture w flare up's and stuff...



posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reevster
I dont think these are stars...

Footage filmed during NASA Space Shuttle STS-80 Mission.

One of the best sts mission videos out there in my view.


"Thinking" doesn't make it so, or not so.

Tell me, what do the direct witnesses -- the astronauts on STS-80 and the Mission Control team watching the TV, think these dots are?

Wouldn't that be important to find out?



posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by Reevster
I dont think these are stars...

Footage filmed during NASA Space Shuttle STS-80 Mission.

One of the best sts mission videos out there in my view.


"Thinking" doesn't make it so, or not so.

Tell me, what do the direct witnesses -- the astronauts on STS-80 and the Mission Control team watching the TV, think these dots are?

Wouldn't that be important to find out?



True enough..... but do you think that if the astronauts did see crafts that they would be allowed to tell the public what they have seen ...I think not, not only would it be a career killer it could be just plain a killer........ so and so astronaut had an accident or was suicided etc .



posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by depthoffield
 



First off, I probably should have called it a 'shape' not a ship. I looked back at my post and slapped my forehead... I think I had a dyslexic moment with ships & shapes... lol



The shape you call it "triangular", but better said "horizontally streched",


Wouldn't that be a rectangle or square? Yes, there are other very cool looking triangular shapes all over. I especially liked the shape you pointed out in the upper right. Much nicer detail/structure...

I realize that we are only seeing the camera's best interpretation of the objects. however distorted or technically flawed they may be. But thank you for the explanation for the triangular shape.

The point of my post was more the objects appearance and movement, not so much its shape. Triangular or horizontally stretched.... either way. It behaves differently.

I just like the part where it suddenly shows up and then moves along the tether and then stops at the top of the tether... unlike the other objects.

And I find the faint light at that exact location suspicious also. Its there, this shape appears, the shape moves off, and the faint light is still there...



posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by easynow
 


Hey no problem. Love the post. It was nice to see so many trajectories laid out... You can only follow so many points of light manually... (I tried...:lol



new topics

top topics



 
77
<< 56  57  58    60  61  62 >>

log in

join