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: 61
77
<< 58  59  60    62  63  64 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 09:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 



The PROBLEM with his 'gravity' theory is very simple... IF the gravity of the Earth was effecting the 'critters', it would do so EQUALLY on all the particles, pulling them all back to Earth

They would not move independently in multiple directions from a force that is constant and pulling in one direction namely 'down' to Earth


NO ONE has yet explained what FORCES cause all the various directions of travel and the various speeds, no matter WHAT the objects are.

Which... after all is said and done... it the intent in the OP of this thread IE The MOTION STUDY




posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 10:07 PM
link   
reply to post by WitnessFromAfar
 

I'm not sure it would be more visible in UV but the tether was viewable from the ground with the naked eye, much greater distance, no UV required.


TSS was very nice. About 1 deg long, just visible to the naked-eye in the
twilight at 8 deg elevation due north. In binocs there was a mag 6 point
at the top end. The (un)tether was only very slightly curved, but I
can't be sure which way. I think it was concave forward. In a dark sky
with good phase angle, this will be awesome. It was pretty bloody
impressive in 10x50Bs low in the twilight at over 1000 km!
www.satobs.org...


Just had a viewable pass of TSS from the Tampa Bay Florida area. It was seen
at 20 deg high around 6:22 AM EST/1122 UTC. Sunrise was only 30 min away so
few stars/planets were viewable. It was only observed with binoculars and was
about 1 deg in length at that range (which I don't have handy at the moment).
It seemed to be complete in length and orriented roughly top to bottom.
remarably, I couldn't really see the satellite itself although I think I
got a glimpse of it near the top. To me the tether seemed brighter than the
satellite. To roughly estimate the brightness, I'd say it was about as
bright as Jupitor's moons. It was wild to see a line moving sideways
through the sky. I can't wait for dark skys!
www.satobs.org...


This morning Honolulu had a great view of the untethered satellite as it passed about 42 degrees up in our sky. It was very obvious and lots of ohh's and ahhh's were heard from the group of early risers who braved the cold winds that made us "Hawaii weather wimps" shiver! One TV crew was even able to catch it on video! The tether was about 3 moon diameters across with a brighter point at one end (like a pinhead). Although Hawai'i seems to be much favored compared with most of the US, however, if it does enter your sky, don't miss it - it's spectacular! Also, make sure that you are using the latest elements since they are changing daily. This satellite has about 600X's more drag than most other satellites!
www.satobs.org...


[edit on 9/28/2009 by Phage]



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 11:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar
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!!!


Yes, people that reports that tether was visible with naked eye down to the ground, were all liars.... is that you say and laugh??
See Phage post above.

Well..are you still laughing?



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 12:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
The PROBLEM with his 'gravity' theory is very simple... IF the gravity of the Earth was effecting the 'critters', it would do so EQUALLY on all the particles, pulling them all back to Earth

They would not move independently in multiple directions from a force that is constant and pulling in one direction namely 'down' to Earth


NO ONE has yet explained what FORCES cause all the various directions of travel and the various speeds, no matter WHAT the objects are.


Hey I admit I tackled a simple math problem since it was easier to get the right answer than explaining all those motions.

You're right, not all of the objects arc downward. But all the objects that DO arc, behave as if there's force on them in the downward direction.

jScytale explained this numerous times, but I might be able to think of a possibly clearer explanation.

OK we all understand that it is the Shuttle's orbital velocity that keeps it from falling toward the earth so it maintains altitude right? (Or as jScytale puts it, it's "falling" from it's straight line tangential trajectory, such that it maintains a constant altitude of 150 km or whatever the exact altitude is).

Now, what will happen if the shuttle velocity slows down? It will no longer maintain the 150 km altitude as it's velocity is insufficient to keep it from falling toward earth. the slower the velocity, the faster the fall.

Conversely if the shuttle were to speed up it would gain altitude. Are you with me so far?

Now think about this...what if the objects shown in the video are all moving in different directions? Now assuming that's true, what if some of them are moving in a direction such that their orbital velocity is slower than the shuttle, they will fall just like the shuttle would if the shuttle were to slow down. Objects moving such that their orbital velocity is greater than the shuttle will not fall (at least not right away, in the video. They will eventually due to drag etc.) And objects moving neither faster nor slower than the shuttle's velocity in the orbital direction may appear to simply move across the field of view in a level motion. (could be moving at a right angle to the direction of the shuttle's orbital trajectory for example).

I think this could explain the arcing motions as a result of a combination of gravity and the fact that some could have orbital velocities faster or slower than the shuttle if they are all moving in different directions. In other words, what if the particles that have the parabolic arc movement toward the earth do so because they have slower orbital velocities than the other objects. It seems possible.

I can't guarantee that's the explanation but it seems like a possibility for the parabolic arc movements and might explain why we see the parabolic arcing in some but not all objects.


[edit on 29-9-2009 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 01:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


you are right, this is the explanation. not all debris particles act in UNISON, with the same direction and speed. Some of them are moving a bit faster, some of them a bit slower, some of them with exactly the same speed as the shuttle. Also, some of them have exactly the same trajectory direction like the shuttle, some of them have a right component of movement, some of them have a left component of movement relative to shuttle own trajectory. And when talking about "different" direction or speed, we see and we are aware only of the relative differencies, which are small, in order of meters/second or something. But all of them, together with the shuttle, have an absolute orbital velocity (relative to Earth) at about tremenduos 8 km /sec or so. I want to make a further analogy: remember those parachutists, jumping together. They all are falling down with the same major speed relative to earth, the free falling speed (a few hundred kilometers/hour) but also, they move each one relative to the other with small amounts of speed (due to atmospheric drag and their maneuvers). But they fall together as a formation. The same with the shuttle: the shuttle together with the particles cloud of debris generated by itself, goes in orbit in unison (in formation if you want) with the big absolute orbital velocity at ~8km/sec. But because the particles themselves are free, they have and develop their own differences relative to the shuttle trajectory. And this is recorded, but only in a bi-dimensional way: the relative differencies.

many people which see the sts75 videos have difficulties in understanding the reality behind the recorded image. They think with strong confidence that the image itself shows absolute things, absolute trajectories, absolute velocities. No. Not at all. What they saw is bi-dimensional representation of a tri-dimensional reality. The third dimension, the depth, is not recorded, not seen. The third dimension, together with it's important information, is simply LOST. There is NO sense of depth. But, the depth of the reality is HUGE. Which is simply discarded. What remains to be seen, are motion projections. The image didn't show at all that tether is something 12 miles big and 100 miles distant, and some particles are tiny and at a couple of meters or tens of meters away. The image didn't show that the tethter itself ALSO have a tremendouos orbital speed at 8 km/second (or 100 km in only 12 seconds). But we see only a slow drift in many minutes. If any particle of debris is floating in the field of view of the camera just meters or tens of meters away, will appear in image, and, despite it having a small relative velocity relative to the shuttle, like a bug, or a leaf or a bird, it will appear in the image going relative faster than the tether acrosss the frame. Which together with the 100 miles distance landmark, make people to wrongly assume as fact that those white dots are very distant, very big and very fast.

Here is my own example of image with no sense of depth:


those white dots are poplar seeds taken by the wind. The image is at full 12 x zoom. The plane is at maybe 10 km distance, but the poplar seeds are much closer, tens of meters away maybe. But, nobody can see in this image the huge depth discrepancies of those 2 group of objects, the plane and the seeds. Like in STS75, the "white dots" appear to swarm around the plane and it's contrail. But this is a illusion.
Too bad that i didn't film those seeds...surely many of them would appear to have higher velocity than the plane. And surely there were people swallowing the illusion: "those dots are faster than the plane, and swarming around it"

And, as i said and posted before, particles of debris having apparent curved trajectories (as seen by the camera) is entirely possible, the examples were posted in this thread. Also, i've explained in detail the glitches in trajectories, the OP subject in this thread: the shuttle itself make small adjustements in attitude and position, which change slighthy the point of view of the camera, that's why sudden changes in trajectories happens simultaneously at different particles. Just another illusion.








[edit on 29/9/09 by depthoffield]



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 01:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by depthoffield
Yes, people that reports that tether was visible with naked eye down to the ground,


Sure... "because it was glowing like a fluorescent tube"

At least that is what NASA says



Later vacuum-chamber experiments suggested that the unwinding of the reel uncovered pinholes in the insulation. That in itself would not have caused a major problem, because the ionosphere around the tether, under normal circumstance, was too rarefied to divert much of the current. However, the air trapped in the insulation changed that. As it bubbled out of the pinholes, the high voltage ("electric pressure") of the nearby tether, about 3500 volts, converted it into a plasma (in a way similar to the ignition of a fluorescent tube), a relatively dense one and therefore a much better conductor of electricity.


www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov...

But go ahead... you know better than NASA, don't let reality stop you




posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 02:01 AM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


I answered to WitnessFromAfar which laughed at the idea that tethter was visible with naked eye.


But, Zorgon, where NASA says exactly this expression:

"glowing like a fluorescent tube" ??

at NASA link you proposed, it talks about ionisation and transformation in plasma of the air trapped inside the insulation but leaked through pinholes, and therefore current leaks.

Where it is said that tether is "glowing like a tube"? Why you said this?!

As J Oberg and others witnesses from the ground said, the tethter is seen with naked eye when sunlit, and invisible when in Earth shadow.
Are they liars?

Also, i've proposed one image taken from Sereda's documentary, before and exactly when the tether just brokens. There is not any glowing, but only a sunlit wire.

But you like to mix the things...




[edit on 29/9/09 by depthoffield]



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 04:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


The radius doesn't change much because it is constantly corrected by vector thrusters to maintain orbit.

You know, one of those reason debunkers give to explain what we see in the video.

But hey, why don't you walk us through the numbers, since you seem to understand them so well.



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 05:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by depthoffield

But, Zorgon, where NASA says exactly this expression:

"glowing like a fluorescent tube" ??

at NASA link you proposed, it talks about ionisation and transformation in plasma of the air trapped inside the insulation but leaked through pinholes, and therefore current leaks.

Where it is said that tether is "glowing like a tube"? Why you said this?!



Now you are just forcing him to repeat himself for the fun of it.

Zorgon has posted the quote and links you are asking about - and has done so several times thus far.

*Look at the tabs at the bottom of Zorgon's posts and click the 'thread' option (this will bring up all of his posts in this thread).

Now you can find it for yourself, instead of having Zorgon do it for you.









[edit on 29-9-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 06:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
Sure... "because it was glowing like a fluorescent tube"
A fluorescent tube glows because the fluorescent surface turns the ultra-violet light into visible light, a fluorescent tube without the white (or other colour) coating gives a very faint violet light.



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 06:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
Zorgon has posted the quote and links you are asking about - and has done so several times thus far.

i saw the quote, and the link Zorgon provided. There is no talking about tether "glowing like a fluorescent tube".
there it is said about air leaked through some pinholes, going to be plasma because high voltage there, just like in the process of ignition a fluorescent tube.
Also, the process was in a matter of minutes only:

As the broken end whipped away from the shuttle, the plasma established electric contact with the ionosphere directly. The satellite on the distant end monitored the current: after about half a minute it stopped, then it reignited and flowed again for about another half minute, stopping for good when (presumably) all the trapped air was gone.



Ignition of a fluorescent tube is the short process of high voltage making plasma just at the start of the process. Making plasma is not the same with plasma glowing. Again, there are witnesses which said about tether seen with naked eye when sunlit, and not visible when not sunlit. Where is the glow? Are this witnesses liars?

fact is that any glow, which indeed exist as high velocity objects passing through the very thin atmosphere, or ionosphere there, that this glow is very very faint. But people can't think at this being similar to "glowing like a fluorescent tube". The level matters.And in STS 75 we are not seeing a flying giant glowing tether, but a sunlit one.

[edit on 29/9/09 by depthoffield]



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by depthoffield
Yes, people that reports that tether was visible with naked eye down to the ground,


Sure... "because it was glowing like a fluorescent tube"

At least that is what NASA says


People on the ground -- me included -- saw the tether lit by the sun. We saw it become visible as it passed out of Earth's shadow. There was no reason to imagine any 'fluorescence'. It was bright when in sunlight, and dark when in shadow.

what's so hard about understanding that?



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 07:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


The radius doesn't change much because it is constantly corrected by vector thrusters to maintain orbit.

You know, one of those reason debunkers give to explain what we see in the video.

But hey, why don't you walk us through the numbers, since you seem to understand them so well.


Poet, you are falling for your own delusions-of-expertise. As a consequence, your opinions become self-reenforcing, and reality-disconnected.

Thrusters (there are no such things as 'vector thrusters', you made that part up) fire to maintain the shuttle's pointing direction. They do not fire to maintain its altitude or, as you dreamed up, to keep its radius constant.

Once every month or two, the space station does fire thrusters to boost its altitude. That's not what shows up on UFO videos.

Making fun of 'debunkers' based on your own imaginary 'faux-factoids' is merely a sad self-embarassment that I'd hoped you were smart enough to grow out of. There's still time.



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 07:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by secretnasaman

NASA did hold hearings to discuss what happened during the tether event. A report from the NASA website gives possible causes for the break in the tether cable. They discuss the "optical effects" they filmed.
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.
United Press International ("Satellite Signals a Puzzle")...stated
..."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...

... 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.

HELLO...some facts ...NASA says the tether is NOT SUNLIGHT & no photo has ever been posted of the escaped tether from the ground...so people here "storytelling" are lying like a sidewalk!...



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 08:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by secretnasaman
HELLO...some facts ...NASA says the tether is NOT SUNLIGHT & no photo has ever been posted of the escaped tether from the ground...so people here "storytelling" are lying like a sidewalk!...


see this:


Robert H. McNaught, Anglo-Australian Observatory
Fri, 1 Mar 1996 23:12:11 +1030

TSS was very nice. About 1 deg long, just visible to the naked-eye in the twilight at 8 deg elevation due north.


or this:


Date: Mon, 4 Mar 1996 13:24:57 -0500 (EST)
From: Peter Michaud
[]
One TV crew was even able to catch it on video! []


source: see Phage's post above.



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 08:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


The radius doesn't change much because it is constantly corrected by vector thrusters to maintain orbit.

You know, one of those reason debunkers give to explain what we see in the video.

But hey, why don't you walk us through the numbers, since you seem to understand them so well.


What is it you want explained? Why gravity is almost as strong in orbit at 150km as it is at the Earth's surface? Estimating that is is junior high school math.

Simple estimate of Earth's gravity
(Maybe not accurate enough for NASA calculations but accurate enough for purposes of discussion here)

Gravitational acceleration g= G * m/(r*r)

Where G is the gravitational constant
m is the mass of the Earth
r is the radius, or distance from the center of the Earth to the object.

jScytale gave his answers that WFA didn't want to believe here:


Originally posted by Arbitrageur

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.


(snip)

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):

...

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]


So I'm still waiting for WFA, you, or anyone else to give better answers than jScytale if you think his are wrong. The gravitational constant and the mass of the Earth appear in that link.

I came up with a slightly different number (9.375 meters per second per second at 150 km) than jScytale but since these are just ballpark estimates anyway jScytale's estimate is close enough to mine to show that acceleration due to the Earth's gravity is still very strong at 150km altitude. NASA's calculations would be much more complex because they wouldn't ignore gravity from the moon and sun, and other factors, that's why it's only an estimate, but a good enough estimate to explain what we are seeing in the OP video.

By the way here's some more math to put it in perspective:
The Earth's gravity at 150km is about 95% as strong as it is at the Earth's surface.



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by secretnasaman - - - no photo has ever been posted of the escaped tether from the ground...so people here "storytelling" are lying like a sidewalk!...


See: This Video of the Tether as seen from the Ground

WG3



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 08:24 AM
link   
In 1999, Dr. Joseph Nuth was head of the Astrochemistry Branch at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center. He wrote this re: STS-75....

..."a 2nd. line of investigation would be to obtain more evidence of the original sighting.(E.G....additional shuttle camera tapes- there are at least 4 mounted in the bay) to see if the same objects were seen on these.
If these objects were large, then the same object should appear on 2 or more cameras & these can be used to triangulate the distance from the shuttle to these objects." (...by E mail)

...It sounds so simple & yet it has been pointed out by so many of us at ATS, NASA will not release ANY of them. I agree with NASAs own scientist, Dr. Nuth...show us the videos & we can move on. NASA says no, & states they are under embargo! WHY????? Its 2009, Not 1996.

I believe it is because we are witness to a true UFO event from an unimpeachable source.



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 08:41 AM
link   
reply to post by secretnasaman
 



What about the video waveguide just posted in response to your assertion that anyone claiming to have witnessed the tether from the ground is "lying like a sidewalk"?



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 08:55 AM
link   
reply to post by waveguide3
 


Good find! I stand corrected...it shows a very bright tether 200 miles up...just as some of the space video shows it at over 500 miles from the shuttle! That is the whole point. Why so bright. Why so straight. Why only a "farmer in the field "video, but nothing from NASA... other than the intercepted "tether/UFO" video this thread is all about?..So many questions ignored! ...So this huge thread is a reflection of the consequences of NASAs post-tether SILENCE......

Just as they kept the switching of a new, alternative tether for STS-75... with a 5 year old "clunker"...totally quiet until I posted a '96 NASA press conference with this admission.
Today the tether experiment is recast as a success... So did the use of an old tether, from the 1st. tethered satellite mission, (STS-46) help facilitate the break? Was this the plan all along? Why else "fuzzify" the evidence , embargo the videos & continually send their attack dog , Jim Oberg out to bark?



new topics

top topics



 
77
<< 58  59  60    62  63  64 >>

log in

join