New Analysis Video of the STS-75 Tether Incident

Originally posted by easynow
could be a coincidence

For sure it isn't.

I gave you the name of the stars. You can download and use Stellarium, is free. You have maybe the tether video. Do the homework.




[edit on 30/10/09 by depthoffield]

reply to post by ArMaP

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

The spray pattern from the nozzle.
Starts thin and spreads out wider the longer the particles have travelled.

reply to post by depthoffield

For sure it isn't.

I gave you the name of the stars. You can download and use Stellarium, is free. You have maybe the tether video. Do the homework.

sorry but it's not my job to prove your claim.

i will say that it's interesting but not what i was expecting from you. if you can present the locations of where the Earth and shuttle was in relation to that star pattern and the time and which direction the camera was pointing , then i would say you have some better evidence.
( i said that coincidence thing hoping you would pick up on that , but no you didn't )

stellarium crashes my computer i had to delete that program 3 times so that's a big no no....i won't use it. so in other words, finish YOUR OWN homework



[edit on 31-10-2009 by easynow]

Originally posted by Balez
The spray pattern from the nozzle.
Starts thin and spreads out wider the longer the particles have travelled.

That only shows in which direction the spray was directed, it does not show if that the direction of the shuttle's movement, the opposite direction or any other direction.

If the way the stars look on that photo is indicative of the movement of the camera during the taking of the photo, then the spraying was not "left behind by the shuttle", that was what I meant.

if those are stars ^^^ as DOF claims then this object that i have circled that comes in from the top of the FOV ...is NOT close to the camera because it COMPLETELY disappears with the stars when the camera zooms back in.






look for the object coming from the top and moves downward towards the center of the screen




[edit on 30-10-2009 by easynow]

Hi all,

See all the thread interest and that's cool, thanks OP. But the teather incident really stands on it's own from the get-go.
All else re making a new thing from a monumental thing, seems to me -- really is smoke and mirrors.

Decoy

Originally posted by secretnasaman
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. ...

Just to make it crystal clear -- it is your position that testimony contrary to your interpretation consists of lies. The primary witnesses are all lying. Do I interpret your words correctly?

reply to post by ArMaP

That only shows in which direction the spray was directed, it does not show if that the direction of the shuttle's movement, the opposite direction or any other direction.

Wrong.
It does show exactly that.
Ofcourse it could be sideways one way or the other.
But the particles are left behind by the shuttle.

Let's consider a few things here:
1. The spray goes one way and the shuttle the other way.
2. We get this plume 'like' tail (remind you of something perhaps?)
3. We also know what direction the shuttle is going because of the spray pattern. Why? Because the spray starts as thick and thins out and spreads out the further the shuttle has travelled from the beginning of the dump.
4. You would not get a tail like feature if the shuttle was not travelling in the opposite direction.
-

If the way the stars look on that photo is indicative of the movement of the camera during the taking of the photo, then the spraying was not "left behind by the shuttle", that was what I meant.

Camera shake.
Now also look at the full photo of the event, you see the ISS making a streak in the sky.
Or do you think the exposure time is set for several minutes?

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by secretnasaman
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. ...

Just to make it crystal clear -- it is your position that testimony contrary to your interpretation consists of lies. The primary witnesses are all lying. Do I interpret your words correctly?

Jim...No they are not lying. They are stating what they know, not what they think they know. Omission of speculation. On the record! The live comments in the moment are guesses say NASA...by hard working astronauts, who suddenly are responsible for explaining away things outside the shuttle. But the reports never include those.

One astronaut, in a 'what if' interview said that although his crew once though they did see an unknown object, only some saw it...it was not there again & thus there is no way he would report a guess... because...

... CW told him it could not have been there due to the hostile conditions etc... So he saw no reason to say anything officially as he had no other proof, only an astronauts "guess" that something...might have been there.

So he would leave those type of personal observations out of any after flight reports...He said there was no point mentioning it, or he would be questioned on his ability to lead! That is an astronauts biggest fear...not to be designated OK to fly again!

Originally posted by Balez
4. You would not get a tail like feature if the shuttle was not travelling in the opposite direction.

Then why that photo shows two "tail like features", one in each direction?

If an astronaut throws something from the shuttle in one direction, doesn't that something move, relatively to the shuttle, as if the shuttle was stationary, because the air drag is very much reduced?

Now also look at the full photo of the event, you see the ISS making a streak in the sky.
Or do you think the exposure time is set for several minutes?

You're right, I had not seen the full photo, only the cropped version.

Looking at the full photo I see that the shape of stars cannot be caused by following the shuttle and was most likely camera shake.

reply to post by ArMaP

Then why that photo shows two "tail like features", one in each direction?

That could be the shuttle doing a course correction (this water dump was executed just because of that the shuttle was going to land).

If an astronaut throws something from the shuttle in one direction, doesn't that something move, relatively to the shuttle, as if the shuttle was stationary, because the air drag is very much reduced?

You have one 'force' affecting the ball. Not two.

Originally posted by Balez
You have one 'force' affecting the ball. Not two.

So, if the water is sprayed on a direction that is perpendicular to the one the shuttle is going, what is that one force that you talk about?

Originally posted by secretnasaman
One astronaut, in a 'what if' interview said that although his crew once though they did see an unknown object, only some saw it...it was not there again & thus there is no way he would report a guess... because...
... CW told him it could not have been there due to the hostile conditions etc... So he saw no reason to say anything officially as he had no other proof, only an astronauts "guess" that something...might have been there.
So he would leave those type of personal observations out of any after flight reports...He said there was no point mentioning it, or he would be questioned on his ability to lead! That is an astronauts biggest fear...not to be designated OK to fly again!

Would it be tacky of me to ask the name of this astronaut and a link where somebody else could read what he said, not just what you think you remember he said?

Tacky or not, here I go. Please provide checkable documentation for this claim.

As for the other comments -- the ones I cited were all in hindsight, providing professional assesmsents of what they were seeing. Nothing on the 'spur of the moment'. I'm not sure how you thought they ever were.

When you get around to it, providing dates and times of the STS-75 videos would also be appreciated. As you said, the stuff you provided in your first answer was all garbled (and yes, I did tease you unmercifully, shame on me). Please try again.

Originally posted by Balez
reply to post by ArMaP

 

That only shows in which direction the spray was directed, it does not show if that the direction of the shuttle's movement, the opposite direction or any other direction.

Wrong.
It does show exactly that.
Ofcourse it could be sideways one way or the other.
But the particles are left behind by the shuttle.

Let's consider a few things here:
1. The spray goes one way and the shuttle the other way.
2. We get this plume 'like' tail (remind you of something perhaps?)
3. We also know what direction the shuttle is going because of the spray pattern. Why? Because the spray starts as thick and thins out and spreads out the further the shuttle has travelled from the beginning of the dump.
4. You would not get a tail like feature if the shuttle was not travelling in the opposite direction.

Balez, sure you would, and you often do.

You really think you know a lot more about spaceflight than it turns out you do. Please back off and learn a little more. You'll see how wrong your comments above really are.

Do you think the trails from comets show the direction they are going? Of course not. And the spray from a shuttle will be in the direction the nozzle is pointed, independent of the direction the shuttle is moving.

Once you have understood the misimpressions and errors that you have 'assumed' mistakenly, you'll be able to reach more cogent and justified conclusions and make a positive contribution here. But if you cling to your delusions, your conclusions will remain nonsensical.



[edit on 31-10-2009 by JimOberg]

reply to post by ArMaP

So, if the water is sprayed on a direction that is perpendicular to the one the shuttle is going, what is that one force that you talk about?

Well this is my opinion... I dont think orthogonal lines is a very good way to establish a course in space from one object to another (the shuttle is not travelling in a straight line).

But the force i am speaking of is the one that gives the particles momentum.
Is it the shuttle that does that? No.
It's the force used to dump the water with preasure and controlled by valves and a nozzle that creates that force, independent of the shuttle moving or not.
If that spray is directed away from the shuttle the spray will direct the particles away from the shuttle with the force gained from the release of the valves.

Originally posted by Balez
reply to post by ArMaP

 

So, if the water is sprayed on a direction that is perpendicular to the one the shuttle is going, what is that one force that you talk about?

Well this is my opinion... I dont think orthogonal lines is a very good way to establish a course in space from one object to another (the shuttle is not travelling in a straight line).

But the force i am speaking of is the one that gives the particles momentum.
Is it the shuttle that does that? No.
It's the force used to dump the water with preasure and controlled by valves and a nozzle that creates that force, independent of the shuttle moving or not.
If that spray is directed away from the shuttle the spray will direct the particles away from the shuttle with the force gained from the release of the valves.

Now follow this valid reasoning farther, to its end. The particles have the motion from the ejection AND the original orbital motion of the shuttle. So the plume can expand in any direction from the shuttle and move, sideways or otherwise, across the sky just like the shuttle does. And in a still image the direction of the plume provides no clue as to the direction of the shuttle.

You're almost there.

It DOES look bizarre, to see a comet-like form crossing the sky sideways. It violates all that out eye-brain combo have learned over millions of years.

That's why the motions of many things in space shuttle videos look bizarre -- and are SO very easy to misinterpret. We subconsciously, instinctively use earthside assumptions and analogies -- and in the new unfamilar environment of space, they betray us.

We need to be cerebral, not instinctive, in assessing what we are really seeing. That requires context such as illumination conditions, direction of motion relative to camera line of sight, and other factors rarely provided by youtube 'space UFO video' posters.

We need precise date and time. And as we've seen here, even such simple data is not available -- Martyn tried to be helpful by providing what he thought was valid data, and I give him credit for the intent. But he blew it -- the data he provided was garbled. It was useless, and without it, no prosaic explanation can be developed.


Idly speculating without such context is frustrating and usually useless.

reply to post by JimOberg

You really think you know a lot more about spaceflight than it turns out you do. Please back off and learn a little more. You'll see how wrong your comments above really are.

Perhaps.... And perhaps not.

Do you think the trails from comets show the direction they are going? Of course not. And the spray from a shuttle will be in the direction the nozzle is pointed, independent of the direction the shuttle is moving.

About comets.
A comet has two tails. One dust and one consisting with gas (Ion).
The dust tail will follow the comets path, but with a curvature.
The gas tail will be directed away from the sun, independently of the path of the comet.
The gas tail is more affected by solarwinds then the dust tail, therefore the tail will be pointing away from the sun.
Now this will mean that in a parallax viewing from earth the tails _can_ point in different directions.
My point being, the tail is following the comet.
-

Once you have understood the misimpressions and errors that you have 'assumed' mistakenly, you'll be able to reach more cogent and justified conclusions and make a positive contribution here. But if you cling to your delusions, your conclusions will remain nonsensical.

When will you understand that it is pointless to attack me personally?
It's a classic debunking tactic used by cowards who rather not confess to their own erroneous ways of scientific research.

reply to post by JimOberg

Now follow this valid reasoning farther, to its end. The particles have the motion from the ejection AND the original orbital motion of the shuttle. So the plume can expand in any direction from the shuttle and move, sideways or otherwise, across the sky just like the shuttle does. And in a still image the direction of the plume provides no clue as to the direction of the shuttle.

My point was with that post to explain that the waste water that is being dumped is 'left' behind by the shuttle.
And no matter how you try to explain it away, the shuttle is going in a opposite direction from the plume.


Look at the plume.
We can even see another plume to start forming (probably because of a course correction the shuttle did during dumping process).
Now, follow the plume from that white "dot", that is the shuttle.
What happens with the plume?
From being thick close to the shuttle it expands and thins out over a greater area (that is the effect from the working force of the spray, independent of the shuttles movement) the further the ice has travelled away from the shuttle, and the further away the shuttle has travelled from the start of the dumping.

Now i really doubt that the good NASA people would direct the nozzle at the travellpath of the shuttle.
But if you can find information on that and how the nozzle is directed i'll go by that Jim.

It DOES look bizarre, to see a comet-like form crossing the sky sideways. It violates all that out eye-brain combo have learned over millions of years.

Yepp and it's fun also....
It's also proves how badly we understand multidimensional spaces
Multidimensional or not.... The ice is left behind by the shuttle. Independently of the shuttles movement.

Idly speculating without such context is frustrating and usually useless.

Such as your statements also i presume? Or are you excluded from this statement?

reply to post by Balez

My point being, the tail is following the comet.

Only when the comet is "inbound". On the outbound part of its orbit, the comet follows its tail.

reply to post by Phage

Only when the comet is "inbound". On the outbound part of its orbit, the comet follows its tail.

And Re:
Now this will mean that in a parallax viewing from earth the tails _can_ point in different directions.

Didn't explain that one very well, did i?

reply to post by Balez

It means the direction of the tail relative to the comet (or the shuttle) has no relationship to the the direction of travel of the comet (or the shuttle).

Parallax is irrelevant.