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: 78
77
<< 75  76  77    79  80  81 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by spacefan
also jim you are omitting the fact that the shuttle flew at 3 differing altitudes during that time because of the crystal experiment they were carrying out.

In AADSF, three lead-tin-telluride crystals grown while orbiter flown at three different attitudes to determine effect on crystal growth. Also collected data on crystal’s freezing point. Lead-tin-telluride used in infrared detectors and lasers.
Could you please explain what you meant, altitude or attitude? Thanks.

PS: if you post a link to the source you don't need to (and you shouldn't) post so much text from that source. Also, you should use the [ex] and [/ex] tags to post text from external sources.


It's attitude, not altitude.

www.nasa.gov...


In AADSF, three lead-tin-telluride crystals grown while orbiter flown at three different attitudes to determine effect on crystal growth.




posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by secretnasaman

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by secretnasaman
The STS-75 Tether Break was at 7:30 PM, C.T., on the last day in Feb.1996. ....


I'm confused.

Visual observations of satellites are reported here:
satobs.org...

Regarding the tether break, message satobs.org... reports that the tether broke at approx Feb26/0130 GMT

That would indeed by 7:30 PM Feb 25, Central Time in the US and Canada.

NASA’s press release, also dated Feb 26, is here:
www.nasa.gov...

Was February 25 "the last day in February 1996" in Canada?

Clarification, please.

Re: the date Jim...I guess I got it wrong...part of the problem is that I was too fast to post, without checking...I still have not checked, as I believe you.
Watching a clip of the video for a quick answer, the sighting times
NASA states differ...as well as whether they are downloaded times, or live.. ,,,sorry, but I was hoping to answer the question too fast to try to keep up here on ATS,, & should have gone to the NASA Web sight for those type of known knowns!.


I went to the NASA website and read the mission highlights. Regarding the last day in February, is that when the OP video was made? Because NASA talks about a Feb 29th video here:

science.ksc.nasa.gov...


Columbia's astronauts had a clear view of the Tethered Satellite as the two spacecraft passed within about 46 nautical miles overnight. The closest approach occurred at 11:17 central time last night (approximately 7/08:59 MET), and was captured on videotape as the satellite and its 12-mile tether came into view.


I believe the time for the closest approach they are referring to is 11:17pm central time on February 29th, 1996, and they do mention the event being captured on video. Could that be the same video as the one in the OP?

I can find detailed water dump schedules for the current mission but not for archived missions like STS-75 and I guess a water dump isn't important enough to make it into the highlights, though a water dump on Feb 25 (same day as the tether break on central time) did make it into the highlights because they were doing experiments on the water dump:

science.ksc.nasa.gov...


These activities included observations of electrically charged, or "ionized," gas in Columbia's environment and its interactions with electron beams and orbiter water dumps.

Another investigation of Columbia's surroundings made use of the orbiter's Flash Evaporator System (FES). To accomplish this experiment, the crew participated in activating and deactivating the orbiter's water release systems and manually operating the Shuttle's attitude control system jets. This provided a controlled means of studying the distribution of neutral and charged particles in the vicinity of the payload bay during Shuttle water dumps.

Meanwhile, science teams at the Marshall Space Flight Center used the SETS experiment's instruments to give measurements which related to the ionized gas as it interacted with the water cloud. The water molecules in this cloud exchanged electrical charges with the surrounding ionized oxygen and formed a ring shape which could be easily distinguished from the ionized gas background around Columbia. This gave scientists and crew members an idea of how the Shuttle's environment might react to water dumps released while the tethered satellite is deployed.


I wonder if there is Feb 25th video of the ionized gas interacting with the water (ice) cloud, that might produce some interesting effects. If the video in the OP is from closer to the time the tether broke some of that water dump ice might still be around. But I'm guessing the video in the OP is from Feb 29th instead, is that right?

[edit: corrected link]

[edit on 2-11-2009 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 12:48 AM
link   
reply to post by spacefan
 


Well how the HELL do the debris come into focus IT must have been out of focus to start with and look at the properties I have STATED FOR ALL LENES and if you back on my post you will see a depth of field table which will have the same properties for all Lenses at infinity if you check any other.
Provide a link to dump 2 days before because I have a copy of mission log which was on line!
Havent't read all the pages re dumps yet on that.



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 03:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


why did you feel the need to repeat everything i posted directly before you from the same links.

from here.

science.ksc.nasa.gov...

and the shuttle logs with the dump times ARE AVALIABLE as i have read them from earlier in this thread as ALREADY stated do you think i am lying...??



[edit on 3-11-2009 by spacefan]



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 03:57 AM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 



if you did have dump data you would post it.

you havent have you or if you have you cannot post it without destroying the debris theory.

it is quite simple prove there was ice/debris and the footage is arguable.

no proof of waste dumps or worse proof of waste dumps that could not possibly coincide with footage timing as has already been available on or thru links provided to this thread already, and there are no quasi theorys.

get it no debris no theories.

a true annamolly.



[edit on 3-11-2009 by spacefan]



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 06:24 AM
link   
reply to post by spacefan
 
I wanted to make a couple of points about the two times I saw when a video such as the one in the OP could have been made, so I excerpted the relevant parts of the highlights and commented on those. Sorry if there's some overlap with your post, but yours wasn't formatted correctly with external source tags or I might have replied to the content in your post with my points and questions.

Also I wonder about your attitude, when all I said was that I was not able to find the dump times myself, and then you somehow twist that innocent statement around to form a question asking me if I'm calling you a liar? I didn't say anything about you. If you have information on the water dump times, can you please post it or links to it here? Thanks.

[edit on 3-11-2009 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 06:39 AM
link   
if i could find them again they would be up.

but jim has them or so he says.

but jim says an awful lot he doesnt feel any compulsion to verify.

example.

Since the STS-75 flight records show that the famous "swarm/tether" scene was made three days after the tether break (and not immediately afterwards, as many viewers were led to misconstrue), then it is possible that the shuttle crew had returned to normal shuttle operations. And indeed they had. A check (by me) of shuttle crew activities show that the "swarm/tether" scene was proceded a few hours earlier by a routine water dump, a process that is known to create clouds of debris particles, many of which linger around the shuttle for several hours before drifting off.

www.rense.com...

now i give a snowman in hades more chance of survival than of jim producing those records.

also.


But even without technical analysis of these features, the video itself contains internal features which can help assess what is actually "seen" on it. Also, there are video scenes NOT broadcast, but known to be in the possession of producers of these shows, that also can cast a truer light on the events.


here he puts the onus on martin to produce more footage or the inference is he is being selective.

he infers martin is the only one to have the footage whilst only a few posts ago his claims were that the footage is/was widely used for live broadcast without being able to name one broadcaster,
all deciet and inuendo.

the truth is nasa had the footage and the truth is also that jim didnt need to produce a zillion articles on this subject as he could have just shown the first five mins of footage from the 3 times they filmed it [having as he admits in the article access to the nasa footage] on his site.


now as jim will probably know russian astros flush their waste once a week.

including the weekly collection of the toilet flush (SP) water supply & KBO solid waste containers and replacement of EDV-SV waste water and EDV-U urine containers.]

day 2

they have dump tests.

produced by activities such as thruster firings and water dumps to see how these vibrations are read by the satellite's sensors.

day 4 more dump tests.

This
provided a controlled means of studying the distribution of
neutral and charged particles in the vicinity of the payload
bay during Shuttle water dumps.

and day 9

a regular maintainence flush.

The FES core flush procedure was identical to one carried out on the
last Shuttle flight to melt ice and recover use of the subsystem which
is designed as a subtle method for dumping excess water overboard
without disrupting the experiments on board.

a system that was left frozen from day 4 maybe until required again as similar to the russians waste only gets dumped periodically.

however theres no denying that once you read alittle about their waste disposal you quickly realise how important it is to nasa that the activity causes minimal disturbance and is carried out at scheduled times so as to not interfer.

i have no axe to grind here i know what i read all those weeks ago.

and i not entrenched in any camp if there is proven ice it loses it mystery for me and i wont to know for sure as jims jiminisms just dont hack it for me about the ice being.

in this link on page 11 theres the total listed waste dumps on sts 61 this is what i am trying t locate for sts75 and help is needed.

www.scribd.com...

it is under the title.
SUMMARY OF MAJOR ACTIVITIES









[edit on 3-11-2009 by spacefan]



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 09:03 AM
link   
again here sts51 is the perfect example of whats required here about sts 75.

page 13.

www.shuttlepresskit.com...

unfortunately this is what you get for sts 75.

www.scribd.com...




jim you wrote this piece for people the likes of whome read these pages.

In investigating any claims of genuinely anomalous sightings on space missions, the first and most obvious step is to interview the primary witnesses -- the astronaut crew and their Mission Control support teams. They are under no legal or professional constraints on these subjects, and can be expected to provide crucial supportive testimony in understanding what actually was seen.

Next, an investigator must understand the physical parameters of the sighting, such as which way the camera was facing and where the local illumination was coming from. These questions require knowledge of which camera or window was involved, where it was facing and where the shuttle was in its orbit relative to the sun. Again, this information is readily available if sought.

Last, technical details of the timing of the sighting need to be correlated with other spacecraft activities. The crew's work activities, as spelled out in a time line (new ones are faxed up before every working day and are handed out in the NASA press center in Houston), can be compared to the "anomalous" events, while telemetry records reveal thruster firings and other debris-generating shuttle activities.

www.space.com...


so again i ask can you provide us with the data that you based your conclusion on please.

[edit on 3-11-2009 by spacefan]



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by spacefan
again here sts51 is the perfect example of whats required here about sts 75.

page 13.

www.shuttlepresskit.com...


Nope.

That ideal schedule was written months before the mission.

What is needed is the as-flown timeline, or almost as good, the specific daily 'Execute Packages' that are sent to the crew overnight before each working day, with detailed planned timelines.

Here's an example: www.nasa.gov...

What is also going to be helpful is the post-mission Scene List of all video downlink for the times in question.

And yes, it would be nice if NASA had these documents accessible on line.


[edit on 3-11-2009 by JimOberg]



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 09:48 AM
link   
so how about showing us the data that you came to your conclusions with jim..??



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
What is needed is the as-flown timeline, or almost as good, the specific daily 'Update Packages' that are sent to the crew overnight before each working day, with detailed planned timelines.

What is also going to be helpful is the post-mission Scene List of all video downlink for the times in question.

And yes, it would be nice if NASA had these documents accessible on line.


By update packages, are you referring to the "execute packages" (see link below)? Or is the update package something else? I noticed the STS-75 mission changed somewhat probably from even the overnight update on the day the tether broke due to the unexpected break but the highlights said they then returned to the planned schedule at some point.

The execute packages online go back as far as STS-115, but don't seem to be there for earlier missions, here's the earliest link I found for execute packages:

www.nasa.gov...



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 10:23 AM
link   
anyone of you quasi camera/picture experts will love this easy 10 grand.

Some people will have a hard time believing the photo's are real in this article so I am offering $10,000 to anyone who can prove the photo's are not real, that goes for NASA, Scientists or Governments. This is not to disprove the photo's but it is a way to prove they are real by offering a Challenge to all comers, this challenge has been made public for over four months now with no takers. The link below is to our Alien's Exist $10,000

www.ufodigest.com...


should be an easy 10k jimbo you just have to ring up and tell him they are ice crystals and where to mail the cheque..


 

MOD Edit to fix post.

[edit on November 4th 2009 by greeneyedleo]



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
The execute packages online go back as far as STS-115, but don't seem to be there for earlier missions, ....


Yeah. To get earlier ones you have to by-name request them from PAO, and since they don't keep back copies, they have to relay the request the originating console in Mission Control, the FAO [flight activities officer).



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by spacefan
should be an easy 10k jimbo you just have to ring up and tell him they are ice crystals and where to mail the cheque..


Would be worth a shot with a jury -- but it's your money, and you set yourself up as sole judge, so it's obvious it's a stupid trick.



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by spacefan
 

Prove what isn't real? Grossly oversaturated and zoomed pixels? Sure their real. What isn't real is the idea that you can pull hidden "detail" out of an image by doing that.
Have a look at these real alien creatures:


www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by spacefan
Some people will have a hard time believing the photo's are real in this article so I am offering $10,000 to anyone who can prove the photo's are not real, that goes for NASA, Scientists or Governments.


In my opinion, depthoffield has shown conclusively, numerous times, that the bokeh is an out of focus object and not a 2.5 mile diameter craft. So if that's what you're offering the $10,000 for, I nominate depthoffield to receive it.

Plus there seems to be some disagreement as to whether the bokeh are actually giant spacecraft or plasma critters, if they could be either maybe they are neither and are actually out of focus ice particles or debris.

This post was on page 52 but it's just as relevant now as it was then:

Originally posted by depthoffield
Simply said: there is not enough information from the movie to identify all and every light there. Yet the closer out of focus bits of debris explains all what we have there as manifestations, but when accepting "all" we really have to learn a lot about physics, optics, orbital motion, shuttle activities, 2D projection of motion etc etc etc.

But, the reality is that debris particles is a common fact happening in missions. very common. A little less common (but yet it happens) is to catch them in right conditions of illumination, angle, zoom, camera setting etceterra.

Can we identify every or just one point there as beeing debris? or Ice? or a little flake of insulation? or part of the constelation "Urine-on? (
). No. But we have a big probability of those beeing just like that.


Even if Jim Oberg posts a water dump schedule showing there was a water dump prior to this video, that still won't prove every particle seen is from the water dump. But is there anything unusual about the particles? Maybe the lighting is more overexposed than usual, causing some slightly different effects than we might see when exposure might be more normal, such as the illusion that a closer object (the bokeh) appears to pass behind a more distant object (The tether) when in reality it's passing in front of the tether. And if it really did pass behind the tether as some people have suggested, wouldn't the object have to be huge, like the top right image below (or the 2.5 mile wide dimensions mentioned in your link)? And wouldn't someone from Earth who was watching the tether have been able to see that? After all that's considerably bigger than the international space station and amateur observers from Earth can see that.


Are they, or some of them alien ships, military or critterrs?


I made myself a UFO identification guide to help me tell bokeh and ice particles apart from alien ships:



If they are spacecraft some appearance of structure might convince me I'm not looking at bokeh or ice particles (whether the ships are of earthly or alien origin], and the structure wouldn't necessarily have to match the images on the right, but I would expect to see SOME kind of structure to conclude I'm looking at any ships of some kind.

As for plasma lifeforms, I put them in the same classification as Leprechauns. Just because I've never seen a leprechaun or a plasma lifeform doesn't mean they don't exist, but both seem pretty unlikely to me. And what is seen in the STS-75 video is explainable without invoking any Leprechaun or Plasma life form theories.

And as wmd_2008 so intelligently stated:


Originally posted by wmd_2008

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!


I agree completely that it strains credulity too far to think that either the alien space ship or the plasma critter would happen to look identical to just what the bokeh happens to look like. And depthoffield has already proven many times the bokeh is not the real appearance of the objects anyway.

So while some of you are eagerly awaiting Jim's posting of the water dump information, I have to say it still won't prove beyond any doubt what each of the particles actually is. But it really doesn't have to. I'm going to continue to rely on probabilities and my UFO identification guide to help me determine the nature of the objects in the video.



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by spacefan
should be an easy 10k jimbo you just have to ring up and tell him they are ice crystals and where to mail the cheque..


Would be worth a shot with a jury -- but it's your money, and you set yourself up as sole judge, so it's obvious it's a stupid trick.



nothing to do with me jimbo i was googling keywords and tripped over it.
never give any credence to sites like that or more importantly more than a second glance.


[edit on 3-11-2009 by spacefan]



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by spacefan
 

Prove what isn't real? Grossly oversaturated and zoomed pixels? Sure their real. What isn't real is the idea that you can pull hidden "detail" out of an image by doing that.
Have a look at these real alien creatures:


www.abovetopsecret.com...


see my reply tp jim.



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


again at the risk of repeating myself see my answer above to mr oberg.

and the rest of your post depends on the phenomona being ice or debris.

otherwise you are down to only zorgons plasma life form or nuts and bolt machines there is no other options without ice or debris.



[edit on 3-11-2009 by spacefan]



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by spacefan
nothing to do with me jimbo i was googling keywords and tripped over it.


.and you're the Romanian space enthusiast, right -- or am I confusing you with another poster?




top topics



 
77
<< 75  76  77    79  80  81 >>

log in

join