New Analysis Video of the STS-75 Tether Incident

Originally posted by secretnasaman
Jim Oberg says: (my edit)...
Ejected objects from one satellite can indeed return to impact that object. It's why dropped tools, for example, are such a big deal, and why on occasion the space station has had to fire a rocket engine to change course after such an accident during a space walk (Exp-2, Jim Voss, for example).

Jim...hold on... if what you say is true, why was this not the case during the now legendary 'Vector' "rescue demonstration" spacewalk,......... you know this case very well!

During the spacewalk, we see & hear this discussion...

- "Looks like you've got an object RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU"...
- "I don't know what you're talking about"
- "Never mind"
- "Are we missing something?..."
- "Yea, we think the camera filter came off..."
-"Don't worry about it"
(again)-"Don't worry about it"
-"O.K."

WHAT!!!...No "big deal" to NASA on this one!... (?)...an escaped "camera filter" is no big deal?...

Jim, this is in contradiction to your "spin" ...???

Dunno about your camera, Martyn, but on mine the filters weigh about 0.05 ounces. Compare that to a 12-pound powered wrench, you might see the difference.

Tell you what. I'll let you drop a camera filter on my head from the roof, and you let me drop a wrench on your head from the same height.

I don't think you understand that EVA demonstration at all, as a matter of fact. Didn't you claim that the astronaut couldn't stop spinning when he tried?


[edit on 2-11-2009 by JimOberg]

depthoffield
sorry but you will have to trawl the postings yourself as zorgon provided a mountian of data and links.

i am not mistaken the shuttle logs do not lie and neither do i.
i have not stated any opinion on the footage as i am not going to allow myself to get emeshed in the pettiness.
but now i am here i will correct misquotes until we are finally left with very few options.

so you cannot put the onus on me to provide you again with information already provided to this thread im sorry i havent the time.

someone else with more time will no doubt steer you in the right
direction for the docs you ask about.




well done jim another post just above devoid of anything useful to the conversation takes us another page further away from the most useful discussions on this thread.

you gonna answer any of my statements in the other 2 posts i made to you and the thread.

come on jim ive always wanted to ask you about that zig zagging panel out in front of the capsule on its way to the moon how long did it zig zag along for jim 3 days 2 days ?? its that long ago i cant remember.



[edit on 2-11-2009 by spacefan]

Originally posted by depthoffield
To me, it looks posible (fifty-fifty if you want) that there were just and only an opportunity to see the tether while in a brief distant rendezvous with it in different orbits, days after the break, and i don't see any scientifical approach there (unless to confirm the position and trajectory of the tehter in order to estimate the drag and motion of a free orbiting tether). I find plausible that this rendezvous was not so important to change the other sheduled events (including neccessary dumps) on the shuttle board/team, except some filmings and aknowledging "here it is, we see it".

DoF is quite correct that the videotaping a few days later was 'target of opportunity' and did not interfere with other shuttle operations.

When the tether broke the Italian payload and attached line were thrown into a higher, slower orbit that quickly fell behind the shuttle. As far as I can tell, once the initial departure of the slack tether was videotaped, the crew didn't observe it again that day.

In the shuttle's lower, fast orbit, it 'lapped' the tether over the following days, and came up on it from behind, still orbiting below it. There was no real 'rendezvous' -- a matching of position and speed -- but a relatively high speed pass. The video was taken at a visually convenient opportunity with the sun behind the shuttle and the tether visible against a dark background.

After that pass, the tether was never seen again from the shuttle -- it was too far away. But during this phase it was being widely observed visually from the ground, by many dedicated amatuer satellite watchers, including me.

It is this 'once-around-and-overtake' relative motion that seems to have been totally overlooked and ignored by all proponents of the video, Martyn included. He has stated unequivocably that the tether was under continuous observation from the time it broke to when it got out to a range of 60 to 80 miles. As often happens, what he sincerely stated as being true, was a misunderstanding.

It helps explain why, when earlier asked here for the times of the break and of the video, he still claimed thay all occurred on the same day. He still doesn't get even the most basic dynamical and illumination context of these videos.

Hence the confusion.

Originally posted by spacefan
nasa fighting tooth and nail to get possesion of the footage you [Martryn] had thru the courts so as to bury it is all the knowledge thats needed to realise that there is more happening in the footage than they Ever intended for us to see. Maybe jim would explain to us why after nasa were finally beaten in court on the time delayed footage they were showing as live on nasa tv they stopped showing live footage. Could it be that after they were ordered down from a 20 second delay to just 4 seconds by the court that they ceased live broadcasts because they no longer had 20 secs in which to kill or obscure the footage during anomalous events .. no not nasa perish the thought.

NASA in court over the STS 'UFO videos'? Sorry, I totally missed that. Can you provide any evidence why anybody should believe this claim?

Originally posted by spacefan
jims conclusion for his american audience was it was a panel from the module seperation several days earlier that was just simply zig zagging along infront of the capsule as is a regular occurance ladies and gentlemen and this sort of debris accounts for virtually all annommolous activity reported by the astronauts so there it is jim solves all annomolous activity with a few words and a knowing derisory smirk for anyone who thought different.
so stay with me here while i zig zag my way to right a few misconceeptions james and his rent-a-gob crew/aliases have managed to sow here on this thread now i am here i may aswell.
also remember jim at ATS you are not just dealing with americans some of us are not programmed to just accept a pronounced experts opinion.

You are free to contact a brave and intelligent countryman of yours, Dumitru Prunariu, to verify that out of plane orbital motion does produce a back-and-forth relative motion trail. Also, he can verify that even at orbital altitude, there is enough atmosphere to slightly impede a satellite's motion. The International Space Station loses between 40 and 100 meters per day in altitude because of this, and smaller lighter objects drop even fast.

Once Prunariu opens your eyes and mind, your enthusiasm can be much more productive to advancing the debate. As of now, you're just advertising what you think you know, that isn't so.

reply to post by JimOberg



NASA in court over the STS 'UFO videos'? Sorry, I totally missed that. Can you provide any evidence why anybody should believe this claim?


im sure martin has already explained that fully to you only a couple of pages agojames please try to keep up theres a good chap.

why dont you give me somemore background on the reasons why nasa stopped live footage after they were ordered to cut the delay from 20 seconds to 4 secs in order to be allowed to describe it as live.

and i want more than the nasa excuse of astronauts using profanitys and or understress comments.


james oberg
it got out to a range of 60 to 80 miles.

james the filming starts at over 90nm and proceeds to atleast 112nms please try and get the very basic data correct nasa own commentator gives the distance at regular intervals.

now what about the live broadcast lie you told this forum a retraction is required as we were never going to be shown that footage were we.

so james retract your blatant lie or prove my accusation false and i will dissapear gone.



[edit on 2-11-2009 by spacefan]

[edit on 2-11-2009 by spacefan]

If you go back in the thread you will find a link to a NASA study that proves that everything the debunkers claim is just a whole lot of repeated nonsense.

Effluent dumps look nothing like what we see in this tether video. They twinkle like the crystals that they are in sunlight, are shot out and away from the shuttle, and quickly dissipate in the sunlight, and those who hang out for more than a few minutes quickly fall back to Earth, as the gravity is still very strong at the altitude at which the shuttle is orbiting.

Note how the astronaut talking on the video dodges the question when asked about what is on the video around the tether. This was broadcast so that anyone paying attention could copy and see it, and luckily someone was there for the moment. NASA tried to get this video evidence pulled out of the public domain in a law suit. Now why would they do that if there was nothing to be seen here.

What we see here on this video is clear evidence that there is something up in space that science does not want to try and explain to the general public.

Personally, what I think we are seeing is plasma life forms that exist in space, in the large Jupiter sized plasma sphere that surrounds Earth. A ghosts in space kind of concept that sort of changes everything. There is considerable scientific evidence that plasma life forms exist, but for some reason mainstream scientists want to avoid the topic.

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by spacefan
jims conclusion for his american audience was it was a panel from the module seperation several days earlier that was just simply zig zagging along infront of the capsule as is a regular occurance ladies and gentlemen and this sort of debris accounts for virtually all annommolous activity reported by the astronauts so there it is jim solves all annomolous activity with a few words and a knowing derisory smirk for anyone who thought different.
so stay with me here while i zig zag my way to right a few misconceeptions james and his rent-a-gob crew/aliases have managed to sow here on this thread now i am here i may aswell.
also remember jim at ATS you are not just dealing with americans some of us are not programmed to just accept a pronounced experts opinion.

You are free to contact a brave and intelligent countryman of yours, Dumitru Prunariu, to verify that out of plane orbital motion does produce a back-and-forth relative motion trail. Also, he can verify that even at orbital altitude, there is enough atmosphere to slightly impede a satellite's motion. The International Space Station loses between 40 and 100 meters per day in altitude because of this, and smaller lighter objects drop even fast.

Once Prunariu opens your eyes and mind, your enthusiasm can be much more productive to advancing the debate. As of now, you're just advertising what you think you know, that isn't so.

yes i know thats why they have boosters.

and is dof really right jim as you say.

DoF is quite correct that the videotaping a few days later was 'target of opportunity' and did not interfere with other shuttle operations.

would you mind proofing the schedule logs for us jim or any proof as it happens will do that it was window of opportunity.
please bare in mind i havent asked for another unsubstantiated
jiminism just a link.


now please explain why you obscured the apollo answer about a zig zagging panel out infront of the apollo capsule for several days on its way to the moon with a shuttle and space station reply.

[edit on 2-11-2009 by spacefan]

[edit on 2-11-2009 by spacefan]

Originally posted by poet1b
NASA tried to get this video evidence pulled out of the public domain in a law suit. Now why would they do that if there was nothing to be seen here.

I am genuinely baffled by this sensational claim.

Where can I read evidence for such a legal process?

Originally posted by spacefan
now please explain why you obscured the apollo answer about a zig zagging panel out infront of the apollo capsule for several days on its way to the moon with a shuttle and space station reply.

Mostly because the thread is called "STS-75" and not
"One-on-one remedial tutorial for spacefan".

Why should objects pacing the Apollo CSM on the way to the moon zig-zag?

Who ever said they would? Or did?

You really are determined to remain clueless about orbital motion, and be proud of it, aren't you?



[edit on 2-11-2009 by JimOberg]

Note how the astronaut talking on the video dodges the question when asked about what is on the video around the tether. This was broadcast so that anyone paying attention could copy and see it, and luckily someone was there for the moment. NASA tried to get this video evidence pulled out of the public domain in a law suit. Now why would they do that if there was nothing to be seen here.

your wrong poet it was not shown on nasa tv.
you have incorporated jims disinfo into your thought proccesses a perfect example of the reason jim is here.

but ofcourse jim can always dispute my stance on the footage never being aired by nasa with proof but he wont because it was just another lie on long list of lies and or distortion and or quasi factiod by reason of ommission.[selective partial quotes]

martin was the only person outside of nasa and associated agencies to ever view that footage until martin sent it viral.

martin may or may not care to repeat himself to clarify the position i have just stated or he may direct you to his posting but you really should have read back it was only a 2 or 3 pages back.



[edit on 2-11-2009 by spacefan]

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by spacefan
now please explain why you obscured the apollo answer about a zig zagging panel out infront of the apollo capsule for several days on its way to the moon with a shuttle and space station reply.

Mostly because the thread is called "STS-75" and not
"One-on-onew remedial turotial for spacefan".

Why should objects pacing the Apollo CSM on the way to the moon zig-zag?

Who ever said they would? Or did?

You really are determined to remain clueless about orbital motion, and be proud of it, aren't you?

you did jim you said it.

would you like me to root out the video of the show so we can all appreciate your expert opinion sitting there in your purple shirt and green tie giving an answer that made me squirm with embarrassment for you at the time until i realised what you are all about.

it was the apollo 12 mission wasnt it jim.

i may be wrong as it was a goodly time ago .. gemini maybe..??

speaking of gemini and apollo.
www.youtube.com...

i post the link above to maybe jog your memory not to be used as a distraction topic because your tie might not of been green or something as dull as i will bet my house on it that you were wearing a purple shirt such was the impression of you i was left with
it was on a par with the iraqi guy on a news cast telling us all how they were driving the infidel out of iraq while the american tanks were rolling into view behind him as he spoke..

see where this is leading jim re-spin and mistruths.

i am not just going to sit back and wade thru your disinfo and assumption anymore if you say something as fact your going to be asked to proof it otherwise it can only be taken in the same context as your zig zagging apollo theory also stated as fact.



considering you are supposed to be an oft written author i find it strange that you cannot produce for us a short synopsis of your thoughts on the footage in question as you probably could just copy and paste something you already had.

can you supply us with a short synopsis of your version of events jim.
see jim i am having trouble reconciling your motive for actually spending the amount of time here that you do.







martin

any chance we can see or read the expert opinion on the footage that you refered to earlier please.

who were the experts please and what is their field of expertise.

thanking you in advance.






[edit on 2-11-2009 by spacefan]

this place gets more far fetched by the day it seems people like JimOberg, depthoffield,Armap,Phage ie people like myself have to prove everything from time of pics videos,water dump time and NOW composition
while you guys can post any old ***T and if you lot agree with each other its gospel!

Well videos on here HAVE proved ice can last long enough to be pictured,links and videos have been posted which show how this BOKEH effect happpens due to lens construction and focus.

We even see these out of focus shapes come into focus in the video but some of you guys JUST ignore that FACT!!!!

If any OBJECT looks out of focus and appears to be behind the tether its not behind the tether and thats a FACT OF LIGHT AND OPTICS!

The reason why, when focused at such a great distance ie on the tether the lens is focused on infinity and as such anything from the first focus point to infinity will be in focus this is shown in the depth of field tables for ALL LENSES! yes ALL!

The first focus point will be a x number feet/mtrs in front of the lens, x depending on focal length etc of the lens.

So as these objects are out of focus they they must be closer that the first focus point.
As we see them pop into focus we do KNOW they are out of focus to start with!

So with regards to the shape of these things are we supposed to assume that just by chance if these things were.

a) Plasma critters they just happen to evolve in a shape looking like an out of focus object a lens would produce. that would be so convenient for you guys

b) Or that MOG from ZOG designed his spaceship looking like an out of focus object a lens would produce. again that would be so convenient for you guys

Thats what you guys are claiming!

It would be great to see real proof of alien/ufo activity but YOU have to prove without a doubt that NO physical property or effect could cause what you see NOT the other way as you claim.

If these objects DID NOT LOOK like typical Bokeh effects then that would be different you may have had something.

To dismiss them because it counters your belief is wrong thats what you guys dont realise most of the skeptics YOU GANG UP ON would love to see real proof but it has to be REAL!

reply to post by JimOberg


Zorgon provided this evidence long ago on this thread. If you want to see the evidence again, go back an look for it.

It's not like you ever provide links to back up your claims.

reply to post by spacefan


I'm not claiming that this was ever shown on NASA TV, but that it was recorded by someone monitoring the mission on the ground, when then sent the video out on the web.

At least that is the story as I have learned it.

wmd 2008

the only things in your whole posting that could be remotely instructive to the footage depend on there being debris.

the last water dump was 2 days minimum before the footage was shot taking jims account as correct.

thats 2 whole days of flight adjustments that the ice had to remain in the shadow provided by the shuttle defying gravity as it did so.

its a general consensus that gravity is effecting the motion of the alledged debris in the footage so why did gravity decide to only effect the debris as the camera pans in are you really alledging that the shuttle did a water dump a minute or 2 before they intended to film the tether with the equipment specially made for that exact purpose.

knowing the last effluent dump was 2 days prior makes a mockery of debris out of focus etc lines of enquiry and any resulting conclusions.
but you are simply trying desperately with your long quote in quote your laughing emoticons and insults to bully and disrupt you have no genuine interest at establishing anything here.

[edit on 2-11-2009 by spacefan]

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by spacefan

 

I'm not claiming that this was ever shown on NASA TV, but that it was recorded by someone monitoring the mission on the ground, when then sent the video out on the web.

At least that is the story as I have learned it.

Thanks for the disclaimer at the end, it is progress.

The NASA TV was sent out live from NASA during shuttle missions, over some commercial satellite transponders so that news media folks could watch, or cable channel companies could use it, or anybody else who wanted to could see it live.

Some people did indeed tape it at the time. For those who didn't, they can order clean copies from NASA-JSC on tape or DVD.

The web had nothing to do with it.

It would be nice if NASA put those videos in bite-sized portions up on the web now. They might even get around to it one of these days, if encouraged. But the quality would be degraded from the versions available by mail.

can you name any of the stations that screened the footage live jim.



i would like to believe you but i know different and i feel that statement is just another jiminism i will be glad if for once you can proof a statement you make.

and you mean they would degrade it even more than they did on the downlink jim would hardly be worth buying.

and i think you will find martin is the sole recordist and the only one nasa felt it nescasary to sue for possesion.

jim i repeat my statement that only nasa and associated agencies ever got to view that footage until martin aired it.

we were never going to be able to see it if a] martin didnt record it or b] NASA won the case for possesion.

now prove me wrong or move on and stop using this thread to spread deciet.



[edit on 2-11-2009 by spacefan]

[edit on 2-11-2009 by spacefan]

While I'm still digging out the mission timeline with the water dump, here's the account of Chuck Shaw, the lead flight director in Mission Control, confirming exactly such a dump prior to the video sequence.

www.angelfire.com...

Originally posted by spacefan
can you name any of the stations that screened the footage live jim.

Well, I know that my cable service in the Houston area always carries the NASA TV feed, and so do most cable services in the big cities.

and you mean they would degrade it even more than they did on the downlink jim would hardly be worth buying.

Any version with resolution low enough for internet streaming will be degraded from the original, just for bandwidth reasons.

and i think you will find martin is the sole recordist and the only one nasa felt it nescasary to sue for possesion.

What is this repeated delusion that Martyn was ever sued by NASA? Where's the slightest shred of proof of that?

jim i repeat my statement that only nasa and associated agencies ever got to view that footage until martin aired it.

Keep repeating it. It doesn't make it any truer.

now prove me wrong or move on and stop using this thread to spread deciet.

You are very close to a ToS violation here.