New Analysis Video of the STS-75 Tether Incident

reply to post by JScytale


guess i cut your thread short with my last post.
sorry, easynow.

lesson learned: forcing someone to address the obvious fundamental flaws in their argument when said person shows he refuses to listen to conflicting data results in him simply leaving.

[edit on 9-6-2009 by JScytale]

Originally posted by JScytale
reply to post by JScytale

 

guess i cut your thread short with my last post.
sorry, easynow.

huh ?

cut my thread short ? nahhh...


you and Zorgon both make a good case for both sides of the discussion but....

since none of us have been in space and witnessed this kinda stuff first hand, all we can do is speculate and try to form some opinions. making proclamations and expecting people to take them as fact when we don't really know all the info involved is in my opinion....not a good idea.

Originally posted by easynow

Originally posted by JScytale
reply to post by JScytale

 

guess i cut your thread short with my last post.
sorry, easynow.

huh ?

cut my thread short ? nahhh...


you and Zorgon both make a good case for both sides of the discussion but....

since none of us have been in space and witnessed this kinda stuff first hand, all we can do is speculate and try to form some opinions. making proclamations and expecting people to take them as fact when we don't really know all the info involved is in my opinion....not a good idea.

fair enough. i have however laid out a good deal of scientific "common knowledge" - how it applies to my argument is my interpretation of the events shown in the video, but zorgon has even attempted to refute some of it. in my eyes that isn't very good for his credibility. if he is going to show my argument to be wrong, he should attack my assumptions and my presented evidence, not the way gravity affects objects in space.

[edit on 9-6-2009 by JScytale]

reply to post by JScytale

fair enough. i have however laid out a good deal of scientific "common knowledge" - how it applies to my argument is my interpretation of the events shown in the video, but zorgon has even attempted to refute some of it. in my eyes that isn't very good for his credibility.

yes you have and i appreciate all the information you have supplied us with and your interpretation might be the correct one. there's just no way for me to come to a final conclusion on this without knowing all the facts.

i think Zorgon's credibility is strengthened because he is offering an alternative side to the discussion and has some really excellent insight on topics like this. just because he might disagree with something certainly does not impair his credibility with me at all. in fact i look forward to what he has to say and his thinking outside the box has always been an inspiration to me.

it would be a fairly dull conversation if we all had the same opinions

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by JScytale

 

fair enough. i have however laid out a good deal of scientific "common knowledge" - how it applies to my argument is my interpretation of the events shown in the video, but zorgon has even attempted to refute some of it. in my eyes that isn't very good for his credibility.

yes you have and i appreciate all the information you have supplied us with and your interpretation might be the correct one. there's just no way for me to come to a final conclusion on this without knowing all the facts.

i think Zorgon's credibility is strengthened because he is offering an alternative side to the discussion and has some really excellent insight on topics like this. just because he might disagree with something certainly does not impair his credibility with me at all. in fact i look forward to what he has to say and his thinking outside the box has always been an inspiration to me.

it would be a fairly dull conversation if we all had the same opinions

i agree with you there.
i have acknowledged zorgon's talent for research but he kept swinging at me and ignoring the universally accepted basic scientific facts, it got to the point that he was most certainly on my nerves. of course i am biased against him. i love thinking outside the box, but when it flies in the face of logic i put my guard up until strong evidence proves my previous opinions wrong.

Originally posted by easynow
since none of us have been in space and witnessed this kinda stuff first hand, all we can do is speculate and try to form some opinions. making proclamations and expecting people to take them as fact when we don't really know all the info involved is in my opinion....not a good idea.

When I earlier posted assessments of the imagery from people who HAD been in space, on that very mission, the moderator deleted them as off-topic. Sad.

Originally posted by zorgon
IF it was a lens artifact that creates the 'notch' effect, then in any given frame you pick the notch would be in the SAME direction as all 'points of light' would show the same effect.

No, the camera artifact should change with the position of the bright object on the screen.

If this is really the result of a lens artifact, the notch should be, for example, on the top left when the object is on the top left of the screen, on the top centre when on the top centre of the screen and it the top right when the object is on the top right of the screen.

The artifact's position depends on the position of the object to the centre of the lens (or mirror, I think this problem happens with lens assemblies that use mirrors, like it happens with telescopes).

To ArMaP

Can you make an animation of those frames? I have no way to clip it from the video. If so I can email you the six frames

Done.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/9338a97ead6e92c4.gif[/atsimg]

explain to me why they are smaller in width than the tether, and later wider after the zoom.

Not too difficult. It has to do with focal length. Consider the example of a relatively thin lamp post about 25 yards away from you and a very thick tree another 75 yards behind it. If you shoot it with a short focal length the tree will appear to be narrower than the lamp post, but as you zoom in the tree will grow wider than the post.

The question is, why would particles be visible at all after a zoom? Especially a tight zoom on an object a 100 miles away.

video.google.com...

You will notice that the objects that behave as you describe are only the ones that appear to be moving behind the tether. We have no idea how far behind.

please also explain to me why they are all oriented exactly towards the camera so that their "donut holes" face us, and we see no objects of similar width from the side.

This one's a little tougher and remains, technically, theoretical. But as such, we are not actually seeing the shape of the object itself, but the coronal field surrounding a quantumized object.

So there is indeed an illusion in effect here. The simplest example I can think of would be this: We've all seen images of metal being heated to the point where it gets white hot. Keep raising the temperature and, if it doesn't melt first, the material can become translucent. Meaning you can see below the surface of the material (the surface of the field in this case). Now imagine the metal is in the shape of a sphere and somehow you can drop an ice cube into the center of it. As the matter in the center is cooled, it becomes dark and opaque again surrounded by a translucent skin. And it will appear this way, regardless of the angle you view it from. This illustrates the *illusion*, but I'm not suggesting these are the specific principles involved in the video.

You'll notice, however, that the dark "holes" in the center remain dark, even when they pass over lighter objects. Meaning that they are not in fact holes, but differences in field density.

In reality, it's more like the Manhattan Project, where the objective was to render ships invisible using high energy fields. First hand accounts have sited that those experiments succeeded, with the less than desirable side effects of objects and people fusing with decks and bulkheads. I'm also not suggesting that the purpose of these fields is to render the objects semi-transparent, but rather this is a side effect of the propulsion systems involved.

The best theory I've seen of the possible forces observed is David Sereda's Galaxy Clock ....

www.youtube.com...

And as they apply to the objects seen in the video ...

www.youtube.com...

And if you don't believe that an object's mass can be reduced without modifying it's weight, have a look here ...

video.google.com...

David also informs us that Dr. Lewis Frank in conjunction with NASA has detected that these objects are made mostly of water ...

www.youtube.com...

If you still believe life must be rare in the universe ....

www.expertvillage.com...

Finally, if all these doctors and geeks remain whack jobs in your opinion, why not listen to the guys that have actually been there?

www.youtube.com...

Remember, these astronauts were all heavily screened, highly trained, personally and politically motivated individuals with "The Right Stuff". And now they risk their careers, their legacies and perhaps even their lives to come forward and speak what they believe to be the truth.

If you're still a denier, well .... seems like the very definition of hubris.

Originally posted by Raybo58
David also informs us that Dr. Lewis Frank in conjunction with NASA has detected that these objects are made mostly of water ...

www.youtube.com...

Sadly, I've found that nobody whom Sereda has quoted as telling him this or that will, when asked, agree that such was what they said -- usually they get indignant and insist they told him the opposite, or never even brought the subject up.

It's worth checking. Either everybody in the world EXCEPT Sereda is a liar, or....

I didn't have time to read the whole thread, but I found this video, in which someone has done a lot of work. I don't know if anyone else has posted this, sorry if it is a repeat.

At the end, this video show sightings of similar amoeba type UFOs here on Earth from different cameras. They can't all be using the same kind of reflective lens.

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by JScytale


It seems to me that the only thing that this guy proves with this fishing line he is using to reproduce the image of what we see in the tether film footage, is that if the debri in space looks like the backlit end of a fishing line, then that is what we are seeing. Let's see this guy reproduce this illusion with an ice crystal, or a small rock that looks like a micro-asteroid. Then maybe you have a point, but using the end of a fishing line, which looks like the UFOs in the tether incident only proves that with something similar, the images can appear similar, or be reproduced. Hollywood has been doing the same thing for decades.

The thing is, the space shuttle isn't stationary, it is flying through space at a high speed, so any debri left behind by the tether breaking away, should be a considerable distance away from the space shuttle in a trail following the direction of the tether, not floating in front of the camera. The same thing goes with ice breaking away, when it breaks away from the shuttle, it should continue on a straight path away from the space shuttle, not float around like it was being carried by a gentle summer breeze, as the objects in this footage seem to show. If it is moving in space with the shuttle, in approximately the same direction when it broke off, minus course corrections, then it should look stationary to the shuttle, not like it is moving in relation to the space shuttle. Any course corrections should be very minor, and changes in direction would be almost imperceptible, not strikingly obvious.

Anything bouncing off the lens should look like it is coming towards the lens, as in getting larger, and there should a noticeable change when the ice crystal or small rock hits the camera lens, or protective window. This would look very different than what we are seeing here. I can't buy this explanation at all.

Also, if this debri is commonly seen around the space shuttle, then why doesn't this show up in more video footage from the space shuttle? Why is it only this particular video that shows this high level of activity. Is this the only time they have ever used this particular camera in the UV spectrum? Any decent debunk should include other shuttle footage that shows the same phenomenon if this is a reasonable explanation.

Lastly, none of these UFO's look like debri from man made formed objects with unique shapes. They all look like round little space amoeba.

However, this video you claim proves that these things on camera are all illusions, does explain one thing. These plasma looking space creatures that appear to be incredibly large if they were passing behind the tether, might in fact be passing in front of the tether, so they are much closer, and so appear much larger than they actually are.

Originally posted by poet1b

It seems to me ....

The thing is, the space shuttle isn't stationary, it is flying through space at a high speed, so any debri left behind by the tether breaking away, should be a considerable distance away from the space shuttle in a trail following the direction of the tether, not floating in front of the camera. The same thing goes with ice breaking away, when it breaks away from the shuttle, it should continue on a straight path away from the space shuttle, not float around like it was being carried by a gentle summer breeze, as the objects in this footage seem to show. If it is moving in space with the shuttle, in approximately the same direction when it broke off, minus course corrections, then it should look stationary to the shuttle, not like it is moving in relation to the space shuttle. Any course corrections should be very minor, and changes in direction would be almost imperceptible, not strikingly obvious.

You're trying to work out how YOU think shuttle-released debris SHOULD behave in an environment alien to human experience. You're assuming you're smart enough to guess the way nature should go, without actually watching nature at work -- or shuttle debris at work. And it's led you far astray. Open your mind to learn about how small particles near shuttles actually behave -- watch the youtube videos of stuff that are obviously particles, including ones hit by thruster plumes -- and then work your way back to detecting stuff that STILL can't be explained.

Also, if this debri is commonly seen around the space shuttle, then why doesn't this show up in more video footage from the space shuttle? Why is it only this particular video that shows this high level of activity.

You are falsely assuming that you are being presented with a typical random sampling of shuttle video. Instead, you are being shown selected scenes that ONLY have eerie dots in them. You are unjustified in assuming that the presenters will give you a fair and balanced sampling of 'ordinary' camera views. The scenes that are most commonly shown, are ones taken during a very unique illumination condition -- just after sunrise -- when particles are most visible. The CONDITION causes the prepondernece of videos during these rare intervals -- and the selection of them by UFO proponents is biased in facor of weird-looking stuff.

Is this the only time they have ever used this particular camera in the UV spectrum

The 'UV camera' stories are nonsense -- the shuttle's external cameras, the ones that downlinked these images, are simple visible-light systems for physical monitoring of activities in the payload bay -- not scientific astronomiical instruments.

Originally posted by poet1b
I didn't have time to read the whole thread, but I found this video, in which someone has done a lot of work. I don't know if anyone else has posted this, sorry if it is a repeat.

At the end, this video show sightings of similar amoeba type UFOs here on Earth from different cameras. They can't all be using the same kind of reflective lens.

www.youtube.com...

just gave you a star for this video, I watched the entire 10mins...not sure if anyone else saw what did .. but..


did anyone besides me see the UFO/Orb/creature's notch ACTUALLY change direction practically 180*~!

I'm telling you... just from my amateur experience/knowledge of science/engineering...THAT is moving under intelligence either from within the orb itself or remotely!..

has to be !!!! Can I plz get an AMEN on this LOL..

Originally posted by JScytale However, that does not change the fact that what it is explaining and illustrating is 100% accurate. If you don't believe it, please explain to me in *great* detail how you think orbit works.

What it is explaining is perfectly accurate, but not relevant to the objects in the video... nor do I have time or inclination to explain anything to you 'in *great* detail'

I have shown mounds of data. If you think the tether is excluded from the gravity of the earth, please explain why, in great detail. Regarding mass - Mass influences the FORCE with which gravity acts, but the ACCELERATION remains constant.

What 'mounds of data' would that be save your opinion and a wikipedia link? You are still ignoring the TIME that would be required for the Earth's gravity to have said effect. It would not show visible changes of that proportion as we see in the motion study over a 20 sec interval (the duration of the study) Now if you can find me a physics professor or orbital mechanic that can show me otherwise...

it is always falling towards the earth. in orbit, the shuttle is essentially falling eternally. ask an astronaut what zero-g feels like, and he will tell you it feels exactly like falling - because that is what it is in orbit.

Really? You mean to tell me that the shuttle will not maintain orbit? Funny I thought for sure the orbital speed of the shuttle was such that it counteracted the 'fall' I understand from NASA that it would stay in orbit a very long time if the return engines failed. I am sure Jim Oberg could address that

So again it does not fit your theory... nice try though

From this article:
floridatoday.com...

The shuttle has enough power-producing capability to remain in orbit until at least Sunday.

The grim forecast prompted the astronauts to power down all but essential systems on Wednesday, and the conservation efforts might yield enough capability to remain in orbit until Monday in a worst case.

Shuttle Endeavour and a crew of four astronauts will remain on call for a potential rescue mission until Atlantis heads home.

eventually it will REACH the earth - but it is always falling.

While they may not have enough power for life support, the shuttle would stay in orbit a very long time before it 'fell' And so would any 'space debris' that is moving at orbital velocity. That is afterall why they call it 'orbital velocity' the speed required to STOP it from 'falling'

I have no time to give you *greater* detail... you can do your own homework

considering a satellite broke, the vast majority of the debris in this situation is probably metal shards, chipped paint, etc. unless you think the tether just moved off without any fuss.

Well see there again you are WRONG The satellite did not 'break' The thin wire of the tether cable experience sustained arcing because it collected a LOT more power than the scientists expected and NASA forgot to include a simple circuit breaker, a point that was duly noted in the 480 page document after the incident. So there is no debris from the satellite

Here is the actual break of the tether



Here is what it looked like moments after separation



The whole satellite and tether then moved off as a unit, the cable later straightened and CONTINUED collecting electricity, the circuit completed by the plasma envelop that developed around the cable, which causes the glow.

Now you seem to wish to continue to refocus the thread in directions AWAY from the motion study. Please keep to that. I will answer your other question on the shape of the 'critters' in the other STS75 thread.

BTW making constant demands for my reply to fit your time frame via post, U2U and even in my profile is neither cool nor likely to get my attention. Just because it shows I am online does not mean I have time to respond. I usually leave ATS on all the time in the background and do have other work to do. I will answer when it is convenient for me.

Unlike you my replies do require time to answer properly so I can collect the images and data to state my case

In which case you should watch a controlled separation and notice the amount of debris still present in that kind of situation.

Another straw man of misdirection. Again not relevant to this study

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by easynow
since none of us have been in space and witnessed this kinda stuff first hand, all we can do is speculate and try to form some opinions. making proclamations and expecting people to take them as fact when we don't really know all the info involved is in my opinion....not a good idea.

When I earlier posted assessments of the imagery from people who HAD been in space, on that very mission, the moderator deleted them as off-topic. Sad.

that's mind boggling.
the mods would delete first-hand accounts as being off topic, yet let zorgon post a mile long post talking about plasma sheathing when it had absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand?

reply to post by poet1b


I think i finally understand why people have a problem with ice particles. First do you realize the shuttle while in orbit is in constant free fall. The zero gravity the shuttle experiences is not caused by a lack of gravity the earths gravity still effects objects because the shuttle is well within its gravitational field,If the shuttle had no orbital velocity it would simply fall straight back to Earth instead of fall in an arc. Now if these space debris are traveling as fast they stick with the shuttle like glue. Best analogy is skydiving you have 2 people jump out of a plane there is no separation they will fall together assuming one does not create more drag then the other.

What this means is something that breaks off the shuttle will follow it along because at that altitude drag has no effect.Ice particles pieces of the shuttle whatever gets loose will bounce off each other causing changes in direction but only very slight velocity changes, But all and all there still traveling at the same speed as the shuttle because they are in free fall. The objects are not going to shoot away from the shuttle are not suddenly going to go racing off in a different direction.If this was the case to launch a satellite it wouldn't need a rocket they would literally just release it but that doesn't work does it.They can unclamp somthing in the shuttle bay and it will stay in the shuttle bay!

Originally posted by Raybo58

explain to me why they are smaller in width than the tether, and later wider after the zoom.

Not too difficult. It has to do with focal length. Consider the example of a relatively thin lamp post about 25 yards away from you and a very thick tree another 75 yards behind it. If you shoot it with a short focal length the tree will appear to be narrower than the lamp post, but as you zoom in the tree will grow wider than the post.

The question is, why would particles be visible at all after a zoom? Especially a tight zoom on an object a 100 miles away.

video.google.com...

You will notice that the objects that behave as you describe are only the ones that appear to be moving behind the tether. We have no idea how far behind.

the problem i see here is at all points the lamp will look like a lamp. the point is, these objects are originally clear, small points of light that are well defined, and upon zooming they turn into semi-transparent blobs of identical shape. the exact same shape demonstrated to be caused by a telephoto lens filming something small and illuminated when out of focus. it is FAR more likely these are camera artifacts.

This one's a little tougher and remains, technically, theoretical. But as such, we are not actually seeing the shape of the object itself, but the coronal field surrounding a quantumized object.

So there is indeed an illusion in effect here. The simplest example I can think of would be this: We've all seen images of metal being heated to the point where it gets white hot. Keep raising the temperature and, if it doesn't melt first, the material can become translucent. Meaning you can see below the surface of the material (the surface of the field in this case). Now imagine the metal is in the shape of a sphere and somehow you can drop an ice cube into the center of it. As the matter in the center is cooled, it becomes dark and opaque again surrounded by a translucent skin. And it will appear this way, regardless of the angle you view it from. This illustrates the *illusion*, but I'm not suggesting these are the specific principles involved in the video.

You'll notice, however, that the dark "holes" in the center remain dark, even when they pass over lighter objects. Meaning that they are not in fact holes, but differences in field density.

In reality, it's more like the Manhattan Project, where the objective was to render ships invisible using high energy fields. First hand accounts have sited that those experiments succeeded, with the less than desirable side effects of objects and people fusing with decks and bulkheads. I'm also not suggesting that the purpose of these fields is to render the objects semi-transparent, but rather this is a side effect of the propulsion systems involved.

i'm aware of sereda's beliefs. my problem with him is he makes a lot of assumptions and jumps to a lot of conclusions, and occasionally wanders into the realm of blatant pseudoscience. with time i could post about this in more detail but its not very relevant to the topic at hand.

regarding the objects being made mostly of water, yes, that's what ice is last i checked, so it supports several different hypotheses at once.

regarding the astronauts - in the same sereda lecture you described he talked about sending the tether footage to an astronaut who was vocal and supportive of UFOs. the astronaut returned it saying this is debris. he sent it again pointing things out, and this UFO supporting astronaut sent it back telling him to stop wasting his time. in fact i believe that was the opening of this very lecture, but i could be mistaken.

will be continued next post.

regarding the theory that it the donut holes are solid - interesting, i'll give you that, but i watched the footage closely and they do in fact get brighter when passing into the illuminated parts of the frame, as does one "critter" actually contract and expand when passing in front of the tether shortly after the zoom, as a camera artifact would be expected to when the object creating it passes into overwhelmingly bright light. if it was solid and semi-transparent, i would expect it to retain its shape.

nonetheless, good post. you did your homework, star from me.

also, please don't call me a denier. im a firm believer in UFOs, I have seen one myself. I just refuse to use wishful thinking.

[edit on 9-6-2009 by JScytale]

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by JScytale

 

It seems to me that the only thing that this guy proves with this fishing line he is using to reproduce the image of what we see in the tether film footage, is that if the debri in space looks like the backlit end of a fishing line, then that is what we are seeing. Let's see this guy reproduce this illusion with an ice crystal, or a small rock that looks like a micro-asteroid. Then maybe you have a point, but using the end of a fishing line, which looks like the UFOs in the tether incident only proves that with something similar, the images can appear similar, or be reproduced. Hollywood has been doing the same thing for decades.

I WISH I could find it, but an ATS member recreated the exact experiment in a video I saw a few days ago on these boards using the head of a pin that was illuminated. the object only has to be small and out of focus. Maybe someone else would have more luck digging for it?

The thing is, the space shuttle isn't stationary, it is flying through space at a high speed, so any debri left behind by the tether breaking away, should be a considerable distance away from the space shuttle in a trail following the direction of the tether, not floating in front of the camera. The same thing goes with ice breaking away, when it breaks away from the shuttle, it should continue on a straight path away from the space shuttle, not float around like it was being carried by a gentle summer breeze, as the objects in this footage seem to show. If it is moving in space with the shuttle, in approximately the same direction when it broke off, minus course corrections, then it should look stationary to the shuttle, not like it is moving in relation to the space shuttle. Any course corrections should be very minor, and changes in direction would be almost imperceptible, not strikingly obvious.

Anything bouncing off the lens should look like it is coming towards the lens, as in getting larger, and there should a noticeable change when the ice crystal or small rock hits the camera lens, or protective window. This would look very different than what we are seeing here. I can't buy this explanation at all.

Also, if this debri is commonly seen around the space shuttle, then why doesn't this show up in more video footage from the space shuttle? Why is it only this particular video that shows this high level of activity. Is this the only time they have ever used this particular camera in the UV spectrum? Any decent debunk should include other shuttle footage that shows the same phenomenon if this is a reasonable explanation.

I encourage you to read up on the information I have posted in the last couple pages - it explains how objects behave in low earth orbit scientifically. If you do not believe any of the data look it up yourself, it is basic physics.

Lastly, none of these UFO's look like debri from man made formed objects with unique shapes. They all look like round little space amoeba.

However, this video you claim proves that these things on camera are all illusions, does explain one thing. These plasma looking space creatures that appear to be incredibly large if they were passing behind the tether, might in fact be passing in front of the tether, so they are much closer, and so appear much larger than they actually are.

As would be expected from a camera artifact. Amoebas also rarely maintain a cohesive shape, they change shape *drastically*, not little fluctuations. If these are amoebas, the odds of all of them maintaining a roughly circular shape throughout the entire period they can be seen are monumentally small.

Okay then on with the Motion Study

I am going to pick out two objects that show very odd tracks. You can see them zoomed in on the video at 1:41. The action takes place between 1:41 and 1:48 a mere 7 seconds and in that time these two objects make several course changes.







At this point they appear to collide or at least come in close proximity



Both change direction of travel



















Now at 1:46 Object #2 that was moving UP the screen, stops and reverses direction

Neither of these object show a parabolic curve and the direction reversal of only one object is unique in the sequence.

So no more misdirection and obfuscation... lets address the motion of these two object



I will ask Luna if he can clip out just this highlight into a loop