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: 60
77
<< 57  58  59    61  62  63 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 01:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Reevster

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 .


So, Reevster, you have set yourself up to be immune to any contrary evidence, a priori.

I call this 'drinking the UFO Kool Aid."

You are safe from any arguments I can make.




posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 01:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by JScytale
 


thanks but i have already seen that video from the ufo hunters. they did demonstrate that these objects that appear to be passing behind the tether and the strange critter shape they have could be an illusion.

what the video in the Op shows is...no matter if these objects went behind the tether or not, they are making delta V shaped maneuvers and at one point in the video you will see one of the objects stop ! and then do a 180 degree turn in direction.

that is what needs to be explained



I'm a skeptic but not a close-minded skeptic and I'm unsure about what is happening with the tether. What is not mentioned more in the skeptics' criticism is that the tether is approx. 75 miles away from the camera (correct me on distance if I'm wrong) and all of those "things" could not be ice particles or shuttle debris or any other simple "NASA" explanation that what we are seeing are close to the camera or is an eletronic effect in the camera, etc.



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 01:22 AM
link   

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


You bet
I would point out to them that it rotates on its axis, with a wobble and it orbits around the sun...

The Big Bang is a joke



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 01:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by JScytale

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?


It's a romantic theory only because, simply, something cannot come from nothing. Since the universe seems to be expanding, then there had to be a place where everything started from. But what was there to begin with? Where did all of this matter come from. The big bang theory doesn't deal with possible reality and the reality really is that scientists have no clue as to where it all originated.



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 01:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Reevster
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 .


Buzz Aldrin's been talking about the UFO he saw for years, and he's still talking about it, and they haven't bumped him off yet. In his latest stories he only leaves a 0.001% chance that it was something other than what he thinks it is, but in earlier versions of the story he told, I don't think he was that specific.



My guess is that they didn't know what they were looking at when it happened, but at some point after the mission was over, they came up with a theory as to what it might be.



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 01:40 AM
link   
night(!)

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.



It's amazing, year in, year out you continue with this explanation as if every phenomenom occurs only in the dark. UFOs have been videotaped in daylight also, Jim! Tons of videos. How about the one where some shuttle videographer tracks a hauling UFO above the earth for the longest time? You can see it in that embarrassing video "THE SECRET NASA TRANSMISSIONS: THE SMOKING GUN". You know that one, it's full of ice particles, debris, water dumps, etc., all of the goodies NASA and some "spokepersons" trout out because they don't want to admit they're stumped!

Can you imagine, back in the early 1980s while lying on a pool-side lounge at night(!) looking up at the heavens I saw 3 ice particles/debris/water dumps disguised as "stars" and the "stars" went from dead still to hauling. How did the ice particles/debris/water dump form into 3 stars and then haul away? Did the shuttle on the other side of the planet fire its thrusters? Did I mention it was at night? How could I see the ice particles if the sun hadn't risen? Oh, the mystery of it all!



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 07:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skeptical Ed
night(!)
It's amazing, year in, year out you continue with this explanation as if every phenomenom occurs only in the dark. UFOs have been videotaped in daylight also, Jim! Tons of videos. How about the one where some shuttle videographer tracks a hauling UFO above the earth for the longest time? You can see it in that embarrassing video "THE SECRET NASA TRANSMISSIONS: THE SMOKING GUN". You know that one, it's full of ice particles, debris, water dumps, etc., all of the goodies NASA and some "spokepersons" trout out because they don't want to admit they're stumped!


Ed, the only think in the dark about these videos is you. The dots appear because, in almost every case, they are in sunlight (once and awhile during a docking phase they are lit by shuttle payload bay lights). It's because the lighting conditions are so consistent and predictable that a nearby particle prosaic theory is so strong.



Can you imagine, back in the early 1980s while lying on a pool-side lounge at night(!) looking up at the heavens I saw 3 ice particles/debris/water dumps disguised as "stars" and the "stars" went from dead still to hauling. How did the ice particles/debris/water dump form into 3 stars and then haul away? Did the shuttle on the other side of the planet fire its thrusters? Did I mention it was at night? How could I see the ice particles if the sun hadn't risen? Oh, the mystery of it all!


Ed, that's "Debunking UFO Debunking 101" phony argument #6 -- "An explanation cannot be true for any UFO report if at the same time it is not true for all other UFO reports."



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 07:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skeptical Ed
What is not mentioned more in the skeptics' criticism is that the tether is approx. 75 miles away from the camera (correct me on distance if I'm wrong) and all of those "things" could not be ice particles or shuttle debris or any other simple "NASA" explanation that what we are seeing are close to the camera or is an eletronic effect in the camera, etc.
Could you please explain why all of those "things" could not be ice particles or shuttle debris? As far as I know they could, the problem is knowing if they were or not.



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by Skeptical Ed
What is not mentioned more in the skeptics' criticism is that the tether is approx. 75 miles away from the camera (correct me on distance if I'm wrong) and all of those "things" could not be ice particles or shuttle debris or any other simple "NASA" explanation that what we are seeing are close to the camera or is an eletronic effect in the camera, etc.
Could you please explain why all of those "things" could not be ice particles or shuttle debris? As far as I know they could, the problem is knowing if they were or not.


If I understand Ed's argument correctly, he thinks that since the objects appear to pass behind the tether, they must be further away than the claim that they are "particles" would infer.

However, this episode of UFO hunters demonstrates why we can't assume the particles passed behind the tether, just because it looks like they did:





[edit on 28-9-2009 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 12:56 PM
link   
Hmm, the debunkers seem to be on a loop with these constant videos offering very weak, doctored evidence.

We have Astronauts saying there are Unidentified Flying Objects.

We have a NASA study that states there are Unidentified Flying Objects in NASA space videos, and yet people still refuse to believe that they exist.

I find it hard to believe that most of these sighting are space ships. Why would there be so many spaceships hanging around Earth. I would think that they would have already invaded by now. I could see a few research vehicle with scientists in the field grabbing and tagging a few people now and then, but why so many out in space just kind of wondering around?

I think plasma life forms makes the most sense, so I have started a thread on the subject in case anyone is interested.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
Hmm, the debunkers seem to be on a loop with these constant videos offering very weak, doctored evidence.

We have Astronauts saying there are Unidentified Flying Objects.

We have a NASA study that states there are Unidentified Flying Objects in NASA space videos, and yet people still refuse to believe that they exist.

I find it hard to believe that most of these sighting are space ships. Why would there be so many spaceships hanging around Earth. I would think that they would have already invaded by now. I could see a few research vehicle with scientists in the field grabbing and tagging a few people now and then, but why so many out in space just kind of wondering around?

I think plasma life forms makes the most sense, so I have started a thread on the subject in case anyone is interested.

www.abovetopsecret.com...




Plasma life forms I rather believe the ufo theory (which I DONT!) ice and debris just deal with it!.



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 06:36 PM
link   
I agree that "Plasma" in space is very interesting & necessary to discuss, especially as it pertains to the amazing tether/UFO swarming that this thread is all about!...

Yes, NASA did hold hearings to discuss what happened during the tether event. A report from the NASA website that David Sereda found, gives possible causes for the break in the tether cable. They discuss the "optical effects" they filmed. I along with David... (a super E mail/web researcher)...have expressed our belief that the "optical effects", as NASA calls the UFO event...

...is the same "phenomenon" seen on the amazing NASA STS-75 tether/UFO videotape, that I had grabbed from space with an '80s house sized satellite dish in 1996...(from live, down-linked, uncompressed & unscrambled analogue NASA space video transmissions)

So the NASA STS-75 "report" states that the "optical effects" were caused by leaks in the $100 million satellite... allowing gas to escape & become ionized like a plasma.
A news article from United Press International at the time of the tether break ("Satellite Signals a Puzzle")...stated that the...

..."first radio signals from the satellite caused engineers some surprise. The configuration of several systems had changed from when NASA lost contact with the craft, Sunday. For example, the spacecraft nitrogen fuel tank was empty, & it's steering thruster valves were opened." (UPI)

According to this UPI news item, the escaped gas was nitrogen. This places the "optical effects" as being around & near the tether & satellite...not 100 miles away, back at the shuttle Columbia...let alone continuously swarming a specific camera! The huge number & size of these "optical effects" (the tether is 12 miles long, a Cosmic Ruler as Trevor Constable calls it), allows us to see that the largest UFOs are at least 2 to 3 miles in diameter.

The amount of gas in the satellite was much too small to fill the size & space of these objects & no gas can form any shape other than a cloud...unless the gas is contained in a glass tube (think neon lights or florescent lights as glass tubes containing gases). There has never been any scientist able to contain a plasma into any shape, other than the shape of its container or strong magnetic field.

So... in this report NASA is saying that these UFOs are "plasma" balls that became exited by the planets ionosphere or the energy moving through the tether. We are told these "plasma" balls then hold a perfectly observable shape, (circular), without being held in any kind of a container. As well...the gases appear to have architecture!... No gas, ionized or not... has ever had architecture without containment. Like clouds, gases are amorphous blobs with no particular shape.

So these objects are not ionized gases! What if NASA was at least right in calling the UFOs plasma! Besides the UFOs being the expected constructed crafts, surrounded by a protective coating of plasma... I further hypothesize that there are living beings, (Trevor Constable & I have talked to each other many times about this possibility of "Critters")... that are space fauna, & are also using a plasma coating, thus they also appear & resemble the constructed UFOs, on the tether video.

On a Ted Turner TV special yrs. ago, Scott Carpenter said that NASA thought there might be living critters in outer space...due to he & John Glenn seeing "fireflies", during their flights. Even today he maintains that the fireflies remain a mystery in need of an answer. John never had a pee, nor let out a water dump during this historic & short, first U.S. orbital flight.

What if...some of
these plasma 'contained'(& protected) living beings, & which are full of energy & electrical power which they use to propel through distances in space as well as in our skies, usually invisible, or mistaken for the constructed UFOs people report sighting a lot, & which use the same operating principals for propulsion. (& have a plasma coating surrounding them too.) If this is the case...then I believe NASA was on the verge of a huge discovery. One that would allow them to also utilize this "free" energy source...a plasma of energy!



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by secretnasaman
 


Hmm, very interesting post. Any links to back up this stuffs? Is this what NASA decided?

I started a thread on the plasma life forms because it was suggested on this thread that this is what should be done.

We are stuck in a loop with those claiming it is up close debri, constantly repeating the same stuff over and over again, even though it has been clearly shown that this far into the mission, there would not be such a large number of ice particles, which is backed up by a NASA article, and footage of effluent dumps and thruster firings show clearly that this is not what we are seeing here.



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by Skeptical Ed
What is not mentioned more in the skeptics' criticism is that the tether is approx. 75 miles away from the camera (correct me on distance if I'm wrong) and all of those "things" could not be ice particles or shuttle debris or any other simple "NASA" explanation that what we are seeing are close to the camera or is an eletronic effect in the camera, etc.
Could you please explain why all of those "things" could not be ice particles or shuttle debris? As far as I know they could, the problem is knowing if they were or not.


If I understand Ed's argument correctly, he thinks that since the objects appear to pass behind the tether, they must be further away than the claim that they are "particles" would infer.

However, this episode of UFO hunters demonstrates why we can't assume the particles passed behind the tether, just because it looks like they did:





[edit on 28-9-2009 by Arbitrageur]


No. While I appreciate your version of what you think I meant, I didn't say anything about the objects appearing to pass behind the tether, others have done that and much better than I could. What I said was that the camera(s) was/were trained on an object - the tether - that was known to be x-amount of miles away. Therefore, in order to videotape it, the astronaut(s) had to use a telephoto lens usable only for distant objects. So, in videotaping the far-off tether, the view included unknown objects. These unknown objects could not have been close to the shuttle or they would never have shown up with such clarity.

I have never ventured an opinion as to what they could be, they are a mystery. But they sure as hell are not ice particles, space debris, water dumps, night vs. day, thruster firings, etc., all of the convenient but unacceptable (to me) explanations given by NASA spokepersons and pseudo-spokeperson.

And a last comment. While explanations such as the "Hunters" may explain an earth-bound example, we have the original and the original stands on its own and is, really, unexplainable.


[edit on 28-9-2009 by Skeptical Ed]

[edit on 28-9-2009 by Skeptical Ed]



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by JScytale
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.
...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.


I'm still reading this thread, but I had to comment here. (page 5)

jScytale, your internal logic is entirely inconsistent. LEO gravity and Earth surface gravity are VERY different things.

And gravity acts evenly upon all objects at once.

My goodness you should at the very least make sure that your arguments are internally consistent!

Further, an object moving in a certain direction requires a force to change that direction, especially in space (LEO qualifies, as this video well demonstrates):
www.livevideo.com...

-WFA

Edited to add Page 5 to where I had to comment...


[edit on 28-9-2009 by WitnessFromAfar]



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by JimOberg



Is this the only time they have ever used this particular camera in the UV spectrum


The 'UV camera' stories are nonsense -- the shuttle's external cameras, the ones that downlinked these images, are simple visible-light systems for physical monitoring of activities in the payload bay -- not scientific astronomiical instruments.



No it is NOT nonsense at all. THESE STS75 images are taken with the TOP camera, as I have already documented several times and in fact are in UV. I do not understand why YOU of all people continue to use that argument.


Probably because I, of all people posting here, am most familiar with MCC operations.

The widely-posted STS-75 videos are from the visible-light payload bay cameras, as all records -- and the logs of the flight control team -- establish. The rest is unconstrained imagination.

The TOPS photos were not downlinked live. Call up the chief scientist and ask him.

The tether was bright when it was in sunlight and it was dark when it was in shadow. Everybody who saw it with their naked eyes -- including me -- observed that feature.





This is HILARIOUS!

So how then Jim exactly do we even see the tether at all in a non UV image? at 12 miles away, with a CCD Camera???

Hi- Freakin - Larious!!!

This thread is the best I've read in quite some time...

-WFA



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 09:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by JScytale

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by JScytale
 


they look exactly the same to me.

perhaps you might need to make some screen shots that overlay to get your point across because as of right now, i don't see what your trying to show me.


if someone could id appreciate it. i dont have screen capture software that won't create artifacts.


Now that's just simple BS. Everybody has ctrl printscreen, which is going to give you EXACTLY pixel for pixel what you are visually seeing with your eyes on the screen.

Wow you just flat out lie with your teeth bared, don't you?

Incredulous!

-WFA



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
NASA DID NOT RELEASE THIS TO THE PUBLIC

If this statement is untrue then link me to the ORIGINAL film from NASA itself.

The video we are discussing was captured by a PRIVATE satellite receiver in Canada by Martyn Stubbs, who is a member here under secretnasaman

There IS NO OFFICIAL NASA version of this available to the public. This was intercepted. There was even a long court battle over this film years ago that is all but forgotten to decide ownership.

If NASA has now decided to release their copy of this film, please link me to it as I must have missed it.



Jim has a tendency to ignore inconvenient facts Zorgon, hadn't you noticed?

-WFA



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by JScytale
how hard is it to understand that whether or not there was a plasma sheath changes nothing in this debate?


Wow! JScytal you defeat yourself within your own arguments. You realize you are talking about an object that is 12 miles away, and REALLY skinny...

if it wasn't UV, it wouldn't show up on camera!

-WFA



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 09:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar

Originally posted by JScytale
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.
...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.


jScytale, your internal logic is entirely inconsistent. LEO gravity and Earth surface gravity are VERY different things.


This drawing may help illustrate the point

See how the radius doesn't change much in low earth orbit?

The radius increases from 6371 km at the surface to 6521 km at 150km orbit, which isn't a big change in the radius in the gravity equation.

If you think jScytale's number is wrong, please calculate what the correct number should be for the gravitational force at 150 km orbit. (meaning substitute 6521km for 6371 km for "r" in the equation shown here):

en.wikipedia.org...

Edit to add- here's a better equation to use:

Estimating g from the law of universal gravitation

Scroll about 2/3 of the way down to see "Estimating g from the law of universal gravitation"

[edit on 28-9-2009 by Arbitrageur]



new topics

top topics



 
77
<< 57  58  59    61  62  63 >>

log in

join