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: 6
77
share:

posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 03:02 PM
reply to post by JScytale

You got a star from me for that youtube link. If people still wanna waste their time on the tether incident, I guess it's their problem. The rest of us can concentrate on more important things now

posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 03:02 PM
reply to post by dragonridr

and 'fly' to a spot near the tether and remain at a .5 sec stand still and THEN launch from a standstill in space and in the opposite direction....as the EC stated.. in a delta-V direction...

posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 03:04 PM
Also...I do understand what a parabolic arc is, but if that is what is effecting these objects, then wouldn't it stand true that the effect(earth's gravity) would "pull" on these objects in a uniform fashion?

How are some of these objects being pulled toward earth as some are being pulled away. The parabolic effect would only stand true if ALL objects where being effected the same way. Which they are not!

AS your picture of a rocket launching depicts, they curve. If I launched 20 rockets, they would all vary in their curve BUT would all be in the same relative direction. This is not true for this video

posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 03:12 PM

Originally posted by i_want_the_truth

how many videos of satellites literally breaking apart are there? oh right, just this one. there is a lot of debris. if you want to understand gravity, parabolic arcs and line of sight read my previous posts, but i don't expect you to.

and if you want to see debris, watch any undocking in space.

Those videos show rockets losing there lower stages and ect. This is not any kind of proof that ice and ect. can change there trajectory. How does showing some rockets compare to this threads discussions?

Once an object is in motion, it will follow that motion until acted upon, i.e. earth's gravity. If this is the case, then ALL objects would react in a similar way. Granted, there may be some variance but in general, they will all be moving in the same general direction. We are talking about an about face 180 degree turn around, as well as velocity changes. This is not a matter of perspective, or parabolic arcs. The tether is only 20 miles out you dummy.
Gravity, parabolic arcs and line of sight do not react the same way this thread's video depicts.

Why don't you just say it was some swamp gas.

You need to look at the threads opening video, How does your video of rockets have anything to do with this at all....

I asked for proof of debris or anything that reacts the same way the video depicts, which you have not done.

if you watch the debris, its moving *all* over the place and particles change directions frequently by colliding with other particles in the 1:45 mark of the first one. It compares to the thread's discussion because it demonstrates how much debris is thrown into space in a very short period of time during a *controlled* separation, let alone an uncontrolled one, and shows how debris can behave in space, and also that it is clearly influenced by thrusters.

we both know swamp gas is an idiotic statement. bringing it up here tells me either you are ignoring my statements because i fit a stereotype to you and therefore my arguments are invalid, or that you think that i am here to invalidate all UFO evidence at any cost. I am here to hold intelligent discussion regarding UFO evidence. If you are here for the same, refrain from biasing yourself please.

There is *one* particle that I am interested in the STS-75 footage. *one*. the vast majority move in straight lines or slight parabolic arcs. absolutely nothing leads me to believe they are anything extraordinary.

the particle i find intriguing is the one focused on at 1:40 in the original poster's footage. i have yet to see the behavior shown in the original footage however. if someone could show me this particle in the unaltered footage I'd appreciate it, but i don't see it behaving like that.

at 1:56, the video shows nothing of interest. straight lines and obvious parabolic arcs.

posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 03:15 PM

Originally posted by Komodo

'fly' to a spot near the tether and remain at a .5 sec stand still and THEN shoot from a standstill in space and launch in the opposite direction....as the EC stated.. in a delta-V direction...

AGAIN.

Originally posted by JScytale
reply to post by Exuberant1

attempting to demonstrate a parabolic arc from a near-head on angle.

notice the trajectory. now imagine a particle following it exactly - it appears to move in one direction, slow down, and make a complete U-turn.

now imagine yourself positioned *exactly* in line with the direction of its motion. it will appear to move, slow down, come to a complete stop for a moment, and reverse its course 180 degrees exactly.

thank you for *perfectly describing the situation i described twice in this thread so far.*

posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 03:16 PM
“Tether”? “Overexposed”? “Glowing from the plasma”? “ice particles”? “micrometeorites”? “ice debris”? "Intelligently controlled craft"? But of coursely, hehe.

Want-a-debunk? ---> Once upon a time there was a NASA tether, but there never was a “tether incident”. The alleged “tether incident” is just a microscopic take of particles (probably protozoa) moving around a small rod inside of a drop of water. A hoax/joke by NASA/the government to ridicule and discredit the ufo truth community.

(source: www.flickr.com...
"Tripanosomum and red blood cells - Protozoa (100x; slide)")

In the original "tether incident" clip we can see the particles/water wobble all together when the glass slide/water is centered under the microscope, for instance at 2:09, 2:16, 2:25, 2:33.

[edit on 8-6-2009 by CoolBlackHole]

posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 06:06 PM

Originally posted by i_want_the_truth
How are some of these objects being pulled toward earth as some are being pulled away. The parabolic effect would only stand true if ALL objects where being effected the same way. Which they are not!

Bingo
Thanks for noticing that. Seems some people do still think

Also the "earth gravity pulling them down" has one other SERIOUS flaw...

TIME

There is no way that the gravity of the Earth would effect a small particle (as claimed) in such a short observable time frame. If that was true then there would be no problem with orbiting debris as it all would fall down in a matter of minutes (the time span of the observed movement in the clip)

As we all know this is not the case as even heavier objects stay in orbit a very long time, especially at the height of the Shuttle orbit.

To even suggest that the Earth's gravity is pulling these in a parabolic trajectory back to earth is ludicrous. Glad someone sees through the attempted obfuscation.

And as you say the effect would be EQUAL on all the objects, not be random in several directions

Starred

[edit on 8-6-2009 by zorgon]

posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 06:13 PM

Originally posted by i_want_the_truth
How are some of these objects being pulled toward earth as some are being pulled away. The parabolic effect would only stand true if ALL objects where being effected the same way.

I don't know, and I don't even know if they are being pulled toward Earth, what I see is that all objects that change direction change it to that direction, to the bottom of the screen.

Also, I don't know if what is affecting those objects is gravity, but any constant force would create a parabolic trajectory.

posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 06:24 PM

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by i_want_the_truth
How are some of these objects being pulled toward earth as some are being pulled away. The parabolic effect would only stand true if ALL objects where being effected the same way. Which they are not!

Bingo
Thanks for noticing that. Seems some people do still think

Also the "earth gravity pulling them down" has one other SERIOUS flaw...

TIME

There is no way that the gravity of the Earth would effect a small particle (as claimed) in such a short observable time frame. If that was true then there would be no problem with orbiting debris as it all would fall down in a matter of minutes (the time span of the observed movement in the clip)

As we all know this is not the case as even heavier objects stay in orbit a very long time, especially at the height of the Shuttle orbit.

To even suggest that the Earth's gravity is pulling these in a parabolic trajectory back to earth is ludicrous. Glad someone sees through the attempted obfuscation.

And as you say the effect would be EQUAL on all the objects, not be random in several directions

Starred

[edit on 8-6-2009 by zorgon]

you again show a severe misunderstanding of basic science.

show me evidence of parabolic arcs in different directions. i saw several arcs all being "pulled" towards the general direction of the bottom right side of the frame. they are at different distances, speeds and angles, so the arcs look different - but they all move in that direction.

as for your thought that "There is no way that the gravity of the Earth would effect a small particle (as claimed) in such a short observable time frame. If that was true then there would be no problem with orbiting debris as it all would fall down in a matter of minutes"...

the force of gravity is effecting *everything* in the earth's gravitational field, at ALL times (there is no wait and then hey gravity grabbed me). both the satellite and the shuttle were previously in orbit with the earth, which means their trajectory and velocity exactly match the earth's curvature, so the earth pulls them "down" at the same rate the earth is "falling away" as they shoot into space.

see spaceplace.nasa.gov...

anything that breaks off of the shuttle or satellite shares its momentum. as there is no atmosphere in the earth's orbit, there are no forces slowing it down so it moves alongside the shuttle / satellite, with slightly different directions resulting from the forces that broke it off of the object it was a part of. SLOWLY, these little bits of difference in trajectory decay or change their orbits until they are so far away they can no longer be seen, or they fall into the atmosphere. they also collide with each other and the shuttle, drastically changing their direction of movement.

here's an experiment that should demonstrate momentum very simply and effectively.

grab a small ball, such as a baseball. hold it in your hand facing downwards and jump, and while you are rising into the air let go (but do not put any force into this, just "drop" it). it should move with you perfectly, staying in contact with your palm until your feet hit the ground and it continues along its path to the ground.

now do the same with an *extremely* soft nudge away from you. notice how it still follows your exact up and down motion, but it also drifts off to the side while falling.

[edit on 8-6-2009 by JScytale]

posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 06:35 PM
reply to post by CoolBlackHole

Thanks for clearing that up for us CBH.I never thought we would ever see the bottom of this topic.I have often wondered about the sudden 'jolt' in the picture,I always thought it was the camera adjusting for focus as the shuttle moved away.

As always,without concrete evidence we are back to square one.

Thanks for another excellent thread Easynow and all the dedicated work you give to the subject.

Going back to sts-75 incident,what i find strange is the objects that appear and remain motionless throughout the footage.Unless they were stuck to the window of course.

Piece.
Lewtra

posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 06:51 PM

Originally posted by JScytale
you again show a severe misunderstanding of basic science.

So you keep saying yes...

But why don't you show me the math on how Earth's gravity can be responsible for the movements as you claim?

It's easy to say "you don't understand science" but until you can show me the scientific data that backs your ludicrous claim, you have little to stand on save your opinion

Show us the facts and figures of other particles in space being acted on by the Earth's gravity over such a short time frame

So far I have yet to see you supply one byte of proof for any of your speculations

posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 06:54 PM

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by JScytale
you again show a severe misunderstanding of basic science.

So you keep saying yes...

But why don't you show me the math on how Earth's gravity can be responsible for the movements as you claim?

It's easy to say "you don't understand science" but until you can show me the scientific data that backs your ludicrous claim, you have little to stand on save your opinion

Show us the facts and figures of other particles in space being acted on by the Earth's gravity over such a short time frame

So far I have yet to see you supply one byte of proof for any of your speculations

my god, you're hopeless.
did you even try the experiment I suggested, or visit the website that illustrates one of newton's examples of how orbit works in a manner directed toward children and thus extremely simple and easy to understand?

I *VERY* strongly recommend taking a high-school level physics course.

[edit on 8-6-2009 by JScytale]

posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 07:02 PM

Originally posted by JScytale

the force of gravity is effecting *everything* in the earth's gravitational field, at ALL times (there is no wait and then hey gravity grabbed me). both the satellite and the shuttle were previously in orbit with the earth, which means their trajectory and velocity exactly match the earth's curvature, so the earth pulls them "down" at the same rate the earth is "falling away" as they shoot into space.

see spaceplace.nasa.gov...

anything that breaks off of the shuttle or satellite shares its momentum. as there is no atmosphere in the earth's orbit, there are no forces slowing it down so it moves alongside the shuttle / satellite, with slightly different directions resulting from the forces that broke it off of the object it was a part of. SLOWLY, these little bits of difference in trajectory decay or change their orbits until they are so far away they can no longer be seen, or they fall into the atmosphere. they also collide with each other and the shuttle, drastically changing their direction of movement.

here's an experiment that should demonstrate momentum very simply and effectively.

grab a small ball, such as a baseball. hold it in your hand facing downwards and jump, and while you are rising into the air let go (but do not put any force into this, just "drop" it). it should move with you perfectly, staying in contact with your palm until your feet hit the ground and it continues along its path to the ground.

now do the same with an *extremely* soft nudge away from you. notice how it still follows your exact up and down motion, but it also drifts off to the side while falling.

[edit on 8-6-2009 by JScytale]

PLEASE tell me what part of this is "ludicrous" to you. PLEASE.

posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 07:14 PM
reply to post by JScytale

JSC, the drift toward ad hominem is making your case look weaker. He has a point. You need to demonstrate that gravity would exert the force necessary in such a short time to account for the movements shown. It seems rather far fetched to me.

[edit on 8-6-2009 by Malcram]

posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 07:19 PM
reply to post by Malcram

i really can't help it. his refusal to understand so simple a concept is quite staggering to me.

i thought most people understood how gravity worked (the basics, not going into the curvature of space). believing that gravity will affect one large object more than another is identical to believing that a baseball and a bowling ball dropped from the leaning tower would strike the earth at different times. that should be painfully obvious. what should also be very obvious is that the earth's gravity is extremely strong. unless there are people here who think they can fly, or that the moon orbits the earth because it wants to, or that the tides are just the ocean deciding to get higher.

i truly hope, however, that he points at something in my quoted post and says that couldn't possible be true. then i just have to look for 5 minutes to bring centuries of scientific knowledge square onto his head.

[edit on 8-6-2009 by JScytale]

posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 07:22 PM
reply to post by JScytale

OK, but can you demonstrate that gravity could account for that degree of movement in that time frame on any object, regardless of size?

posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 07:32 PM

Originally posted by Malcram
reply to post by JScytale

OK, but can you demonstrate that gravity could account for that degree of movement in that time frame on any object, regardless of size?

sure.

the force of gravity, on the surface of the earth, causes any object to accelerate towards the earth's center of mass at the rate of 9.8m/s^2, or 32ft/s^2.

this means that every second, the object is moving 32 feet every second faster towards the earth. 32 feet per second faster than the previous second. so from a stationary position, after the first second its moving at a speed of 32 feet per second, after the second second 64 feet per second, etc. with no atmosphere, there is no "cap" to the speed it will reach until it hits the atmosphere.

low earth orbit is approximately 150 km above the earth. at this altitude, the earth's gravity does the same thing, at the rate of acceleration of 9.361 meters per second faster every second. thats hardly much difference from 9.8 m/s^2, so the incredible rate of acceleration is almost identical.

to further illustrate just how incredibly stron gravity is, bear in mind that the tides are literally the moon's gravity pulling the oceans off of the earth's surface.

the moon is 363,104 - 405,696 km away from the earth (depending on what point of its orbit it is at), and its gravity only accelerates objects at the rate of 1.6 m/s^2 on its surface.

[edit on 8-6-2009 by JScytale]

posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 07:47 PM
reply to post by JScytale

OK, thanks for going to that effort, I appreciate it. However, what accounts for that force appearing to suddenly kick in on these "objects" (whatever they are). The force of gravity would be operating on them all the time, right? So why do they appear to move in one direction and then suddenly, abruptly change direction? And why do only some do so and not others? Why do we not see a general drift on all "objects" in frame, all in the same direction, constantly, in accord with a constant force? And this may be a silly question, but why doesn't the tether do the same thing along with them, if it's due to the same constant force in operation on all objects in frame?

[edit on 8-6-2009 by Malcram]

posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 07:52 PM

Originally posted by JScytale
low earth orbit is approximately 150 km above the earth. at this altitude, the earth's gravity does the same thing, at the rate of acceleration of 9.361 meters per second faster every second. thats hardly much difference from 9.8 m/s^2, so the incredible rate of acceleration is almost identical.

Then, why doesn't the shuttle fall?

PS: sorry everybody for the short post.

[edit on 8/6/2009 by ArMaP]

posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 07:54 PM

Originally posted by Malcram
reply to post by JScytale

OK, thanks for going to that effort. However, what accounts for that force appearing to suddenly kick in on these "objects" (whatever they are). The force of gravity would be operating on them all the time, right? So why do they appear to move in one direction and then suddenly, abruptly change direction? And why do only some do so and not others? Why do we not see a general drift on all "objects" in frame, all in the same direction, constantly, in accord with a constant force?

[edit on 8-6-2009 by Malcram]

because they have previous velocities. if something is moving directly away from the earth's surface, it is *decelerating* at the rate of 32 feet per second every second, because the force is pulling it in that direction at that rate. it would continuously slow down, until seeming to come to a stop (the instant where the forces are balanced), and then fall towards the earth.

any objects that broke off of something already in orbit share its trajectory. because they are already in orbit, that means they are moving forward at a rate of roughly 27,400 *kilometers* every second. at this speed, the rate at which they fall matches the rate at which they are moving away from the earth because their trajectory is a tangent.

in this situation, gravity pulls their trajectory towards it at the same rate its escaping, so it ends up in a nice perfect orbit. this accounts for the particles that seem to just float aimlessly along with the shuttle.

the particles that "shoot" through the frame in apparent straight lines are objects (such as meteorites) moving at *tremendous* speed, so by the time they have left the frame the effect gravity has had on their trajectory is hardly noticeable. because of the distances they can be at and the fact you have no depth of field in this image, the exact velocity can be difficult to figure out.

top topics

77