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: 73
77
<< 70  71  72    74  75  76 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


the point is we don't really know what it is we are seeing in the picture you posted because we don't know what exactly it was they were dumping. which makes it weak evidence and you would be using circular logic to claim it as proof of anything in regards to sublimation.

simple as that.

[edit on 30-10-2009 by easynow]


OK let me see if I understand this.

The shuttle schedule calls for a water dump. The water dump is usually a mixture of water and human waste. They do a water dump. There are sightings and photographs taken right after that water dump of what looks like a water dump (with or without urine mixed in the water, I don't know the exact composition).

And you don't think that what they photographed soon after the water dump that looks like a water dump was a water dump?

Or you think because a water dump also contains human waste it shouldn't be called a water dump?

I still have no idea what your point is.

My point is that it is evidence that a water dump of some composition coming from the shuttle, shows a pattern of not immediately sublimating, which would suggest to me that other water dumps of some composition also coming from the shuttle, might also show a pattern of not immediately sublimating, perhaps as in the OP video. I don't see anything in your statements or logic to contradict that assertion.

[edit on 30-10-2009 by Arbitrageur]




posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


prove what it is they were supposedly dumping in that picture and then you might have somekind of evidence to compare to other water dumps.

without knowing what is in the dump how can you claim it is proof of something ? until you can put it in it's proper context and perspective ,there are too many unknowns and it's just junk evidence. nothing more.

if you still can't comprehend that then i don't know what to tell you.



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by depthoffield
 


What you provide is video evidence that clearly shows you are wrong.

Um, these ice crystals aren't hanging around, they are falling back to Earth. Just as is described in the NASA study linked to on this thread.

Also, once again, they twinkle, and look nothing like what we see around the tether.

If the video you posted was longer, we would all see them disappear after only a few minutes.



Poet, pay attention a minute. You are again making up pseudo-facts out of thin air. You are proclaiming what the dots in the video would have done -- if your interpretations were true. But the video doesn't do that. Those particles do their own thing -- not what you proclaim they SHOULD do.

Evidence first, NOT theories first -- it's the only way to reliable conclusions, and you haven't learned this yet.



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


prove what it is they were supposedly dumping in that picture and then you might have somekind of evidence to compare to other water dumps.


According to this source:

www.space.com...


The water dump was a scheduled task for STS-128 pilot Kevin Ford, who poured out urine and waste water stored aboard the shuttle


So it was composed urine and waste water, like most water dumps.



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by secretnasaman
...The skeptics want everyone to have one "single bullet" theory...the skeptics are for ice or camera distortions (like Jim Oberg)..Umbrella explanations! It is their recurring theme, post after post. They are merely proving who is the tallest dwarf.


Absolutely false, Martyn (however, skeptics as a rule DO know the date of the last day of February, even in a leap year). Your imagination has run ahead of your facts, again.

'Skeptics' (and real spaceflight experts) realize there are a wide variety of spaceflight visual stimuli for dots in the camera views. By far the largest contributor is indeed water ice from water/urine dumps, flash evaporator functions, and hydrazine ice from APU exhaust and (mostly) leaking RCS thrusters. There's also water ice (and even O2 ice) coming off the main engines early in flights. Add to this the material debris shaken loose in the payload bay, and pieces of the shuttle thermal protection system -- tiles, blankets, RCC panel pieces, gap filler, etc -- and pieces of pyro devices from payload deployments, and lots of other 'stuff'.

The small dots can and do look like stars when the camera zoom/focus is set the same -- there's a great view of recognizable Orion with all the stars looking like donuts because of the camera setting, and they streak when the camera pans -- just like fast-moving particles streak.

Dots come into and out of sight usually as they exit and enter the shuttle's shadow, which in the most famous 'UFO videos' is splayed across the camera field-of-view, invisibly except when objects drift through it.

These are all authentic features of the visual reality of spaceflight that you seem, in your hundreds of hours of watching them, never to have understood... or wanted to understand.



[edit on 30-10-2009 by JimOberg]



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


good find ,

unfortunately the other site you posted said this...


Some reports indicated it was "pristine" water (the shuttle fuel cells' by-product is water) and other reports said it was "waste water and urine"


how do we know which is the correct one ? did space.com just use the urine report because it was convenient and never considered the other possibility's ?

where is the NASA data that might be more specific ?


then you would need to find out about the supposed water dump that Jim is claiming and then maybe there could then be a comparison of the two ? isn't that what this is all about ?


it's important to note that on the STS75 mission they were suppose to conduct water plasma experiments outside of the spacecraft while the tether was extended (lots of unknowns there). just letting you know so you can factor that in as well.

science.ksc.nasa.gov...




[edit on 30-10-2009 by easynow]



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by easynow
 


Jim said he would post more information about the water dump in the OP when he has time and I can wait for that. We can all look at that when it's available, unless someone else finds it first.

As for the exact composition or water to urine ratio, I think you're making a bigger deal out of that than it really is, since urine is mostly water anyway. I suspect the biggest factor in how long an individual particle lasts in the sunlight is particle size (and possibly shape).



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 



Jim said he would post more information about the water dump in the OP when he has time and I can wait for that.


OP means opening post which is the first post of a thread.



We can all look at that when it's available, unless someone else finds it first.


i agree we can see what he presents and go from there but i will say that info is not online so i doubt anyone else will be able to post it. if someone did i would be very surprised.



As for the exact composition or water to urine ratio, I think you're making a bigger deal out of that than it really is, since urine is mostly water anyway. I suspect the biggest factor in how long an individual particle lasts in the sunlight is particle size (and possibly shape).


i don't think i am making a bigger deal about it. i believe it is important to know exactly what is in the dump because comparing the sublimation process of pure water verses water mixed with something else could possibly reveal a difference in the "how long"

can anyone tell us if the water was mixed with urine and the water turned into a gas would any of the urine compounds be left over and not disappear with it ? and just what are the Astronauts drinking ? Tang ?





[edit on 30-10-2009 by easynow]



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 



By far the largest contributor is indeed water ice from water/urine dumps, flash evaporator functions, and hydrazine ice from APU exhaust and (mostly) leaking RCS thrusters. There's also water ice (and even O2 ice) coming off the main engines early in flights. Add to this the material debris shaken loose in the payload bay, and pieces of the shuttle thermal protection system -- tiles, blankets, RCC panel pieces, gap filler, etc -- and pieces of pyro devices from payload deployments, and lots of other 'stuff'.




that's a good rendition of all the possibility's of waste products and proves the point i was trying to make in the other thread that no matter if a real ufo or some real anomaly was in one of these videos, the skeptics will always have some excuse to dismiss it.


how convenient




[edit on 30-10-2009 by easynow]



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
that's a good rendition of all the possibility's of waste products and proves the point i was trying to make in the other thread that no matter if a real ufo or some real anomaly was in one of these videos, the skeptics will always have some excuse to dismiss it.

how convenient



Or more accurately, the competent researchers can usually find a credible prosaic explanation for visual phenomena that the know-nothing eager-believers want to jump to the conclusion are UFOs...

But the bigger issue is NASA's approach -- they know that there's always a chance that important events are leaving traces that look 'just like' (or 'almost like') ordinary shuttle dandruff, and it's important to try to differentiate the ordinary from the potentially extraordinary. It's why cameras zoom in on interesting stuff.

Example: bracket off the tail rudder. [seen, identified]

Example: fragment of wing leading edge heat shield busted off by ascent debris impact. [not seen, so unwarned shuttle was doomed]

Example: potential re-contact objects [avoidance maneuver may be necessary]

Far from 'explaining away' everything, a rational approach to these videos is to develop approrpiate recognition tools to filter out the wheat from the chaff.

There always remains the possibility something really weird -- but authentic -- could be seen. If so, you want more than just the 'usual suspects' on ATF championing it.



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 

Jim...his is not a level playing field...you merely quote some of the players being politically correct, saying just what they are supposed to say. The conscious activities of perception & evaluation, are not the exclusive domain of those who say what they must, to get them another spaceflight & not be put out to pasture.

... When Scott Carpenter, following John Glenn's flight... got carried away with his own "firefly" sighting & went on & on about what was outside his spacecraft... he was shelved. He made a point of telling the press that reports of a "tired & confused astronaut" were wrong, & he was trying to understand the "feeling" of spaceflight & not just the Mechanics of the flight. He said NASA just wanted an evaluation of the craft when his interests were elsewhere! Like John Glenns fireflies..

...In my 12 plus years of studying this STS-75 flight, I have had just as many other players...off the record...tell me something different than what I read on your post & yet they are not willing to be quoted out of fear. (of what?)

...Jim, you do understand, as a journalist, that we don't reveal our sources if we will hurt them &/or they request we keep things confidential! With something as big as the STS-75 NASA video, this is always their position. They will turn on you if you go public...as little innocent me found out, when I mentioned some names in 2000 ...so no more "he said-she said" from this researcher ...thus I have to take your CW statements as PR with no debate possible.

....I have had so many government people (active & retired), scientists & "spooks" ...e-mailing, phoning, writing, sending evidence & meeting me about this NASA video.. & ...ALL of whom say this is really showing exactly what NASA has not wanted anyone to see.

This amazing NASA video of UFOs swarming the broken tether & satellite was downloaded 'after the fact', as the shuttle was in a loss of signal period when it happened, & thus NASA had no idea what they were about to see from the shuttle video download! You can guess the rest,...NASA did not use this video for their flight day highlights & it was never seen again until I streamed it on the Web on March 11,2000. This was unexpected by NASA & Jim pounced right away with his Ice Theory.

A letter & much NASA video of phenomena spotted, was sent NASA HQ in 1976. They actually wrote back that they had viewed the video & were concerned as to the danger this "debris"(!) could cause. But I held back the STS-75 UFO swarm until I had investigated it for myself, with help from my local scientific community, astrophysicists, UFO researchers, image experts, the Canadian Space Agency, NASA employees who would talk to me, RCMP National Security & some former "spooks" my
fellow researchers recommended. This huge debate did not start with this thread...thus the "new" analysis label.

As General Al Haig once said before a talk..."if you could know everything I know, you'd believe everything I am about to say"



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 03:39 PM
link   
So, what do have after 73 pages of posts on various theories?

We dont have anything that is a fact of what it is we are seeing.
UFO's? Ice debris? Tether debris? Shuttle debris?

What have we proved then?

1. Water dumps are left behind by the shuttle.

As seen in this picture.

2. Ice will subliminate in direct sunlight, depending on size = time.

3. ......? Nope nothing on that yet.




posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 03:47 PM
link   
Because of the irresponsible attitude of the skeptics re: the STS-75 video, ATS members must now do all the seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, thinking & decision making for the entire scientific community!

The NASA UFO skeptics receive from their masters only the feedback that is consistent with their own preconceived notions! Thus nobody knows anything anymore...& those few who do... hide the fact.



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 



Or more accurately, the competent researchers can usually find a credible prosaic explanation for visual phenomena that the know-nothing eager-believers want to jump to the conclusion are UFOs...

And even more accurately, with out the fact needed to disprove or prove.
That's prosaic for ya.


Evidence first, NOT theories first -- it's the only way to reliable conclusions, and you haven't learned this yet.

Yes, please show us the Evidence first Jim....



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by depthoffield
 



So, below, those ICE CRYSTALS hanging around in cluster in front of the camera are an illusion according to you?


No they are not illusions....
They are there.

But let's do a consistency check here:
1. These are moving with the shuttle as close to constant with the shuttle they can get.
2. There is no sunlight to sublimate these ice particles.
3. They are moving towards earth's atmosphere and disappearing.

The tether video:
1. 'ice-particles' are moving around all over the camera's view field, not following or being close to constant with the shuttle.
2. There is sunlight to sublimate the ice-particles.
3. Not applicable.

Nice video of the spray though! Thanks



[edit on 30-10-2009 by Balez]



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by secretnasaman
Why does this (so-called) 'ice', (the non melting kind!) claimed by skeptics as being around the shuttle camera... look like stars (light years away


They look like stars because they are well focused (when they are!) which it means they are in the depth of field interval of the lens (photography basics!) and are small enough to be seen just as points...points of light (illuminated by the sun/moon/shuttle lights)



Originally posted by secretnasaman
& how can anyone really watch the tether video & decide which are stars for sure...if any?


I've watched the tether video and i can say which are stars and which are not. Maybe next post i'll provide the sky location and recognisable stars.




Originally posted by secretnasaman
When the camera zooms in or out...so do the tether & its UFOs...


On the contrary, actually i've just proved here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

that the zooming-in and out- process shows discrepancies in the size of the "object", which, again, bokeh from a close/small particle explains very well the phenomenon (the disc shape is not real, but camera effect = bokeh)

Mmm, what the hell, i'll copy/paste that argumentation to piss off the ignorers of FACTS:


Well, i found just another direct argument from those famous STS-75 videos, that the discs we see are just a camera effect created by out of focus small objects. Named bokeh. The source objects MUST BE therefore little closer particles swarming nearby, and this is characteristic of particles of debris generated by the shuttle activities itself.

One problem with those discs was their shape, tottally dependent by the position in the camera's frame. Which logically means that the shape is not real, but a camera effect. I posted arguments regarding this, just look for the links in my post on bottom of the previous page (64) for example.

Now i discovered that even the SIZES of the discs are INCONSISTENT with the zoom state, which further demonstrates that the disc shape is not real, but a camera effect.

Here is the rellevant sequence, selected for analysis, with an object shot during the zoom action:





and here is only the zoom action:




What i've done next, is to isolate three frames with the object, but at different zoom settings. Normally, no matter the zoom, the objects in image should maintain their REAL size relative to other fixed marks in the image. So, within those three frames, i tried to measure the size of the disc, using 2 stars in image as a ruler.

These are the two stars selected as reference (fixed measurement unit):




And now, the measurements (you may need to scroll the big images to the right, to see the disc-object also):

First frame, with biggest zoom:



as you see, here, the length between those two stars is just 3 times the size of the disc.



The second frame, with a little smaller zoom:



You see, already, the object shrinks more than it should normally do, so, now, the length between those two stars is about 3.5 times the size of the disc!!


And the third frame, with the zoom yet smaller:



Now, the objects shrinks more, again more than it should normally do, so, now, the length between those two stars is about 4 times the size of the disc!!


And, next, those three frames overlayed and scaled together, in order to eliminate the zoom factor, to see how the object is shrinking (change it's size during the zoom operation):




Normally, if the size of the disc was a real property of the objects, it should maintain that 3 times ratio relative to that two-stars-distance, no matter the zoom, this is how zoom works.

But, we have a size variation not linear to zoom, but shrinking faster.
Why? Because the disc shape (and size) is not a REAL property of the object, but a camera effect, bokeh here. Bokeh size depend on zoom state, but also is a function of the depth of field of the lens..and depth of field is variable together with the aperture of the lens, and the focal/distance ratio.... if you want the technical explanation.

So, because the discs is in reality bokeh, it respects its characteristics.
And, because is bokeh, then it means the inevitable...those objects appearing as discs, are small and close to the lens, in order to produce bokeh in a lens focused on infinite. So, NO WAY that those discs are near the 100 miles distant tether. NO WAY.



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
i'm still waiting for you to prove those are stars.
did you forget about it for some reason ?


Here are the stars:




The constelation is Centaur.

The stars for easy orientation:

First:
Name: Menkent (Tetha Cen)
HP 68933
Magnitude: 2.05 B-V

second:
Name: 3 Cen
HP 67669 A
Magnitude: 4.50 B-V

Third:
h Cen
HP 67786 A
Magnitude: 4.70 B-V

(source: Stellarium)



And here the tether frame (unzoomed) across the Stellarium sky chart:



(the curved interupted lines are "ufo's " trajectories, i used Registax to stack the sequence in order to increase the signal to noise ratio and to see fainter stars...and they are interupted because some frames were dismissed by Registax.)
By the way, Easynow, those 2 stars (3 cen and h Cen) doesn't dissapear when unzoom-ed, like you said, but became fainter on the recorded image...i've explained why)


The FOV when unzoomed is about 35..40 degree, like i estimated before, so, Armap, the tether is seen close to perpendicular, we see it's 20 km length, not a shortened projection.





[edit on 30/10/09 by depthoffield]



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Balez
1. Water dumps are left behind by the shuttle.

As seen in this picture.
How do we know what is "behind" and what is in "front" (or to any side) on that photo?



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by secretnasaman
 

Could you help by posting a better, full version of that video?
Or is it impossible to do that?

Thanks in advance.

PS: let's see if I am lucky in the third time I ask this and get an answer.



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by depthoffield
 



Here are the stars:


proof that is not sorry

could be a coincidence



new topics

top topics



 
77
<< 70  71  72    74  75  76 >>

log in

join