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: 85
77
<< 82  83  84    86  87  88 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 07:55 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


I beg to differ.

There is evidence of plasma life forms, just no proof.

In addition, just because there are water dumps, there still is no evidence that this is what we are seeing here.

Considering that the NASA study confirms that there are particles at the very least larger than 1cm in diameter, greater than 10m away from the shuttle, that is evidence of the possibility of plasma, which does exist in space.

What else could these objects be which clearly are too large to be called particles, mentioned in the NASA study. Objects which seem to move of their own volition.




posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


No, the shuttle enters the sunlight before the tether, as the astronauts state early in the video. You can see the screen start to brighten before the tether appears. This is when objects close to the shuttle should be seen, but they are not. Only after the tether comes into sunlight do we see all the spheres.


I watched the video again and made some notes of what happens when:

1m15s orientation of camera changes, looks like a zoom also

1m24s visible lights have changed, new camera view

1m45s camera is re-aimed lower, the tether and particles come into view at the same time

Therefore there are actually 2 reasons why we don't see the particles sooner, not only is there a lack of sunlight, but the camera isn't pointed in the direction of the tether/particles until the tether comes into view.

There is nothing in the video that suggests to me that the particles weren't there prior to 1m 45s because the camera wasn't pointed in the right direction to see the particles prior to that. Therefore we can't even see the time at which the sunlight first strikes the particles, it appears to have happened before the camera swings the particles and tether into view.



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 12:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Yes, which means that the objects can not be close to the shuttle, or we would have been seeing them all the time, or as soon as the shuttle entered sunlight, as the direction the camera points changes very little. We would have been seeing particle the whole time.

You can see the glow of daylight in the lower right hand corner before the camera direction changed.



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 01:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


www.abovetopsecret.com...

my comments on the video...
www.abovetopsecret.com...


[edit on 8-11-2009 by easynow]



easynow the first 1:30 secs they were not even pointing the camera in the correct direction!
The tether moves into view the camera is NOT zoomed in on the tether we see nice white dots and guess what when the camera zooms in we get the BOKEH shape because this dots are now out of focus!
Thats for posting the link it backs up what we are claiming


[edit on 9-11-2009 by wmd_2008]



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 03:33 AM
link   
all the objects which transforms in discs when zoomed on, are BOKEH from smaller and closer particles. This was argumented, taking in consideration their properties. End of story. But this has to be denied/ignored, it is an inconvenient subject)

Now, it doesn't matter there was a water dump, a waste dump, or even thermal stress due sunrise making debris (see the study!). All, or any of this, if confirmed, could identify the composition of the particles seen as discs.

But the bokeh discs are direct confirmation that there were small and near particles, making together part of the environment of the shuttle. This (bokeh) is a fact derived from observational data and how optics works. Simple and clear.

No disc is huge and behind the tether. Sereda & Co loses this argument even from the start, but they will lose more of their credibility if ever they will accept this. They choosed to go on the pareidolia-side (look, it goes behind the tether), to be convincing in the eyes of their target audience. Therefore, they will do anything to obfuscate and dismiss this simple solution which comes from people which are NOT their target audience. Remember their dismissals accross the time:

-small and close can't be seen using a telephoto-lens (yes, right..)
-water dump particles dissapear instantaneously or very fast (partially true when addressing very small particles , but wrong because it dismisses the greater ones)
-there was no water dump possible at that time because of some experiments (yet, the reports said that during the time of this filmings, 29 feb, the senzitive experiments where delayed: www.abovetopsecret.com... )
- the objects where invisible, because were filmed with a special camera named TOP in ultraviolet. (wrong, all the signs and behaviour, says that was filmed by an ordinary low-light shuttle bay camera remote operated)
- water dump solution is a ridiculous solution (no kidding?)
- the movements of the objects are very strange, curved, changing direction (in orbital terms, they are not strange..more you know about orbital environment, more the strangeness dissapears)
- people which propose and argument debris solution are "Jim Obergs' puppets", spammers, talking non-sense whatever. Make allusions to this people as closed minded etc.
- NASA is lying, therefore what astronauts (even direct participants) or reports says, is doctored, were lies. For example here, astronaut says "there is a bit of debris flying with us, illuminated by the sun".. he tells lies therefore, there where not any debris lit by the sun, but only big UFO's
etc.







[edit on 9/11/09 by depthoffield]



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 03:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Yes, which means that the objects can not be close to the shuttle, or we would have been seeing them all the time, or as soon as the shuttle entered sunlight, as the direction the camera points changes very little. We would have been seeing particle the whole time.

You can see the glow of daylight in the lower right hand corner before the camera direction changed.



I don't understand your logic in saying "Yes, which means that the objects can not be close to the shuttle" What makes you draw that conclusion? I don't.

I also don't know what you mean by "close to the shuttle". Let's look at a photo of a water dump:

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
www.universetoday.com...



Pictured is space shuttle Discovery executing a water dump. The shuttle needed to get rid of excess waste water before landing the next day, and jettisoned it overboard via the waste water dump line, creating a spectacular visual effect as sunlight hit the spraying water.


Now which particles are close to the shuttle? That depends on what you mean by close, but there are lots of particles and some are closer and some are further away. But also note the following:

-The water dump dispersion pattern does NOT form a spherical cloud, it is somewhat directional
- Note also that the camera's zoom telephoto lens has a relatively narrow field of view

Given these two observations, it's possible for the particles to be in a certain general direction as in the photo (such as in the same direction as the tether), and still be varying distances from the from the shuttle, so I see no reason to conclude that none of them are "close", some are closer and some are further away.

If there is a dispersion pattern in the tether video that is also not spherical, then it is reasonable that if you point the camera in any other direction besides where the particles are dispersed, you may not see the particles.

But I also don't know if the camera was originally pointed in a direction of space which was shaded from the sun by the shuttle even after the shuttle enters the sunlight. You said you could see sunlight in the lower right before 1m45s, but where does the shade start and end? We can't really tell, the way the camera is moved so quickly at 1m45s, it's not a smooth pan. So another possibility is that there were particles in the field of view of the camera even before it was moved to point at the tether, but that those particles were shaded by the shuttle itself even though the shuttle was in the sunlight. Then when the camera moved down the particles there were no longer shaded, I'm not sure, but that's a possibility also. depthoffield may be able to tell what the original direction is from a star map but I haven't looked at that. I know he figured out the final direction from a star map.

So in either of those two scenarios, the particles can still be relatively close to the shuttle and still appear just like they do at 1m45s.



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 05:27 AM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


it only proves what your claiming in between your ears and nowhere else.

:shk:



try this:

mount a RC camera on a bee hive , get a stick and smack the bee hive , run like hell , start recording with the camera and see if you can get a shot with out bees in it.



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 07:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by easynow


mount a RC camera on a bee hive , get a stick and smack the bee hive , run like hell , start recording with the camera and see if you can get a shot with out bees in it.




Or "Rods".



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 10:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


So when did this supposed water dump occur, and why aren't we seeing particles from the very beginning of the video?

In the NASA study on what we see in the camera, they don't need sunrise to see the results of a water dump, SO if there was a water dump, we would have been seeing it from the very beginning.

The adjustment of the direction in which the camera was pointing was very slight. You can see the stars that show how slight the movement was.

No particles from the beginning means no particles close to the shuttle.



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


it only proves what your claiming in between your ears and nowhere else.

:shk:



try this:

mount a RC camera on a bee hive , get a stick and smack the bee hive , run like hell , start recording with the camera and see if you can get a shot with out bees in it.





You KNOW absolutely nothing about optics mate and how depth of field works with camera lenses go and read up on it!
Then it may sink in on the hard of learning

Plenty of links on previous posts check it out it explains EVERYTHING that happens with these objects plain and simple! but maybe not simple enough for you to grasp!



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


yep your right i don't know anything about optics and i also don't know how the objects that are buzzing around everwhere are intelligent enough to know how to avoid being seen in that part of the FOV when all you debunkers have been claiming all along that the objects are CLOSE to the camera.

get your story straight



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 

OK, rephrasing it, like they say on the movies.


What do we can consider as known?

Can we consider that is a known fact that they do water dumps during shuttle missions? I think the answer would be "yes".

Can we consider it as a known fact that the water dumps create ice particles that can be "seen" with the cameras? I think that's another "yes".

Can we consider it as a known fact that there are plasma creatures just outside the Earth's atmosphere? I have to say "no", although I consider it a strong possibility, we cannot really consider it as a known fact.

Considering the above, I have to give a stronger probability to the small particles explanation than to the plasma creatures explanation, although the second would be much more interesting.

And I think that saying that "these objects be which clearly are too large to be called particles" is exaggerating a little, they call them particles in the report



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


hey ArMaP , me thinks you forgot one,

Can we consider that is a known fact that there are no other videos of water dumps that resemble this one ?

just saying



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
Can we consider that is a known fact that there are no other videos of water dumps that resemble this one ?
I don't think so, for that we would need to know all the videos that were made.



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 07:45 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 



I don't think so, for that we would need to know all the videos that were made.


true that

so i guess since we don't know of all the videos then we can't just assume the STS-75 video is video of a normal water dump until we see them all ...right ?

as of right now there are no videos that i have seen that look like the video in question. what can that mean ?



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 07:49 PM
link   
reply to post by easynow
 


It can mean many things, and one of those is that this video was made in a special situation that was not repeated in other videos, ie the camera was looking for the tether at a great distance and with its gain to its maximum or close to it.

The closest to this video that I remember is the one in which they are looking for Mir and cannot find it among all the small bright dots that appear on the screen.

Edit: this video.


[edit on 9/11/2009 by ArMaP]



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 10:10 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


well thanks for the video and i have seen that one many times and i have also seen the unedited version of that video and there is some similarities with some of the objects but that's as far as it goes for a comparison.

i think the STS-75 vid is a special situation because of the experiments that were being conducted with water and plasma outside of the spacecraft and sometimes i get the feeling when watching the video NASA has brought to life some kind of Frankenstein type of critters and i can picture the NASA mad scientists saying , there alive,.. there alive !




of course i'm just joking around.



[edit on 10-11-2009 by easynow]



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 11:48 PM
link   
The plausible reason for why this sts-75 movie is special, and appear to be unique (there are no other movies similar), is the following:

ussually they don't film through water dump or when optical environment is severely degraded, because it is ilogical to make important research when optical environment is bad (or to spoil optical environment with a dump scheduled right of those moments)

Again, this film in 29 feb, 3 days after tether break and was lost, is just an opportunity to see it again in orbit. They didn't make some exceptional experiment within this randez-vous, only a confirmation of position and appearance of the erratic tether, also a bit of "science of opportunity", emmiting electrons from the shuttle which were detected by the still functioning tether sattelite (batteries were not dead yet):



TSS-1R/USMP-3 Public Affairs Status Report #14
6:00 a.m. CST, March 1, 1996
7/15:42 MET
Spacelab Mission Operations Control
Marshall Space Flight Center

[]
Tethered Satellite System (TSS) "science of opportunity," during
Columbia's final approach to within 46 nautical miles of the
satellite, included firing the electron accelerators in Columbia's
cargo bay. The electron guns' effects on the charged particles,
electrical waves and magnetic fields around the satellite were
detected by the Research on Electrodynamic Tether Effects, Research on
Orbital Plasma Electrodynamics and Magnetic Field Experiment for TSS
Mission's instruments mounted on the satellite. All three instrument
teams reported receiving good quality data from the satellite, data
which are now being analyzed by the experiment investigators.


In imaging distant tehter, the shuttle was obligated to do attitude maneuvers, in order to maintain the attitude fixed to the patch of sky where tether was seen (Centaur constellation). The effects of this RCS maneuvers for stabilisation are seen in the OP LunaCognita video, and was explained by me before. Because doing RCS maneuvers, senzitive experiments requiring "micro gravity" were delayed:


Yesterday, [29feb] the Advanced Automated Directional Solidification Furnace (AADSF) team members adjusted their timeline, delaying the first crystal processing run until later today[1 march], to ensure that conditions are right for their solidification techniques. AADSF team members can tell that solidification has begun in their furnace when a "seed" or solid core forms in the molten lead-tin-telluride, a sample of
semiconductor material. In ground-based solidification, this seed
formation would normally show up as a "spike," or sharp rise and fall,
in the temperature data the team receives from the experiment.

When the seed formed more slowly than expected Thursday (29feb], appearing as a "hump" instead of a spike in the data plot, due to the low-gravity environment, the team re-melted their sample to again verify the exact time of seed formation. Having accomplished this, they decided to wait for the next period of reduced crew activity, scheduled for this evening (1 march], in order to take maximum advantage of the relatively
undisturbed microgravity environment
. Such "quiescent periods" are
necessary to allow each of three crystal samples to develop in the
best possible growth conditions.




But those actions(seeing it and emmitting electrons in ionosphere to see if sattelitte feel them), regarding this rendez-vous happening in a more free (not busy - microgravity period) day, when micro-gravity was not required (was delayed), wasn't so important to stop a very neccessary and logical water dump (after a previous period when micro-gravity was maintained, therefore water dumps or maneuvers were prohibited]. That's why, they must be scheduled the water dump on this day (29 feb], not giving a damn of the degrading optical environment, because this was not important for the rest of the scientific program (paused on 29 feb)

But, they filmed the tether no matter the optical environment was bad. That's why we have this rare movie, because they filmed in a bad optical environment (which ussually is illogical to do). Other example, they again filmed in bad optical environment, again, in that example with MIR posted by Armap. But ussually and logical they don't film when they spoil the optical environment with dumps. Here in STS-75 they make an exception. And the movie is an exception.

This is logical.




[edit on 10/11/09 by depthoffield]



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 05:19 AM
link   
i said 40 pages ago that it's possible they flooded the field on purpose to hide some objects that might be near the tether and i still have that under consideration.

i also find it strange as secretnasaman pointed out that Oberg wants to drag the conversation over to his place. that is weird to say the least.



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 06:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
i said 40 pages ago that it's possible they flooded the field on purpose to hide some objects that might be near the tether and i still have that under consideration.



let me understand clear what you say:

so, you say, that most of this "objects", are because of a water dump or similar, in order to obfuscate some real objects. So, i have to understand from you that you believe that most of the objects seen are little small close particles? Is this what you say in above quoted statement?

Also, what are the discs in your opinnion:
a) huge (miles in size) and distant unknown phenomenon (alien/military/critter) going behind the tether.
b) smaller but still big, and still distant unknown phenomenon (alien/military/critter) going in front of the tether, but illusory appearing behind because some kind of unknown distorsion
c) bokeh from smaller particles (known distorsion)
d) any other thing which explains all what we see (what thing?)

Please select the one you feel most appropiately, thanks. If you want.




Originally posted by easynow
i also find it strange as secretnasaman pointed out that Oberg wants to drag the conversation over to his place. that is weird to say the least.

maybe Oberg only wants some traffic and activity on his site, exactly like Zorgon want for his Pegasus research site. Apropos, Zorgon is quite absent for some time, unussually...What happens to him?



new topics

top topics



 
77
<< 82  83  84    86  87  88 >>

log in

join