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: 86
77
<< 83  84  85    87  88  89 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 09:08 AM
link   

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.


Try harder to understand. I'm going to post a lot of detailed technical data at my site, most of which shows up piecemeal in threads here but is this hard to see as a big picture. Also, I'll centralize and host some of the fine explanatory work being contributed by others, with their permissions.

I have NO discussions at my place and never did, as you would realize, if you ever visited it.

I'm happy to conduct discussions here.




posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by depthoffield
 


So when did this water dump that you claim happened occur?

Why doesn't this look like video footage of water dumps, or what is described in the article.

Once again, there is no evidence what so ever that this is from a water dump. Water dumps can be seen in normal video taping, so we would have seen the particles from the beginning, but we don't. We also don't see a large ejection of a bunch of water particles, so no water dump.



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by depthoffield
 


So when did this water dump that you claim happened occur?

Why doesn't this look like video footage of water dumps, or what is described in the article.

Once again, there is no evidence what so ever that this is from a water dump. Water dumps can be seen in normal video taping, so we would have seen the particles from the beginning, but we don't. We also don't see a large ejection of a bunch of water particles, so no water dump.


Not so, poet. You have again well exceeded the boundary of your understanding of normal spaceflight operations and are now pontificating from pure imagination.

First, both Flight Director Chuck Shaw's note, and my 10-year-old memo, refer to a scheduled water dump shortly before this scene was taped. I have promised to obtain the NASA planning documentation which showed that activity -- I just haven't dug it out of my files yet. I have a lot of files and ten years ago is pretty deep in the pile.

If you are impatient, you can request it yourself from NASA JSC PAO -- it's called the 'Execute Package' for that day. There's also a post-mission document that summarizes all water dumps by time and amount -- why not ask for that, too, and report back what you find in them?

Another bogus factoid in your declaration: Water dumps are by no means visible from all, or even most, exterior cameras in all orientations, under all conditions of illumination (or non-illumination). Your over-simplistic assumptions that they must be, are baseless.

Dumps also progress through several stages, of which the primary plume is often the most visually spectacular but by no means the only manifestation. Even in the thick primary plume you can see particles bouncing out of the plume in random directions from inter-particle collisions.

Many of those particles bounce back into the area of the shuttle such as the payload bay and come loose in the hours that follow.

The degree to which some of them persist was an unpleasant surprise to many of the scientists -- such as in the 'visual environment' document you often cite, that I showed where to find -- hoping for a cleaner optical environment for their instruments.

By the way, the freezing of dumped water has practically nothing to do with the 'temperature of space'. It's a phase-change effect involving something called, I believe, the 'heat of vaporization', the heat absorbed by water transitioning from liquid to gas under any air pressure. That transition is speeded up by the low (zero-ish) pressure in the space environment, resulting in liquid water adjacent to the water evaporating being driven down in temperature until some reaches the freezing point.

On Earth we call this process 'evaporative cooling' -- it's why sweaty skin feels cool even in a warm, dry wind -- and it was the mechanism of many air conditioners in the SW, the so-called 'swamp coolers'. It's the same mechanism used to cool spacesuits during spacewalks, or the shuttle when the doors are closed and the normal radiator collers aren't working. It's the device that also accidentally created John Glenn's famous "fireflies" about fifty years ago -- time enough for you to catch on to the effect.

In space, this can be tricky because these devices (not just deliberate water dumps) often (as with MA-6) overcool the effluent and create ice particles. And those particles often overheat the imaginations of viewers who know a lot less than they think about normal processes in outer space.



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 11:39 AM
link   
what i find funny with all these 'ice particle' theories is that..... on every occasion they are different 'visually'....


is it a standard rule for all observed anomalies in space or is it claimed so; due to occam's razor as far as the prosaic explanations are concerned?




posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
By the way, the freezing of dumped water has practically nothing to do with the 'temperature of space'. It's a phase-change effect involving something called, I believe, the 'heat of vaporization'

Oh come on Jim. Don't tell me you're here putting so much effort in every NASA thread to debunk 'water dumps'. You can't be serious, because if you were, you'd deem the opposition far too deluded for any debate at all and be a complete waste of time.

You know something Jim, when I first saw this STS 75 video, I was never convinced of anything like UFOs or critters or whatever. But your and others' debunking efforts have been so tireless, so eye catching, it truly makes me wonder.



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


cherio jim.... the below article is quite interesting..... thanks..... looool... i mean just the beginning......




STS-75 Shuttle 'Tether'
Video Analysis
By James Oberg
Whispers
(a UFO releated discussion board)
www.junjun.com...
5-10-00

The STS-75 tether videos are remarkable scenes and convey a powerful impression of large, distant circular unknowns. The video is visually striking.

What possible prosaic explanations are there?


www.rense.com...



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by mcrom901
reply to post by JimOberg
 


cherio jim.... the below article is quite interesting..... thanks..... looool... i mean just the beginning......




STS-75 Shuttle 'Tether'
Video Analysis
By James Oberg
Whispers
(a UFO releated discussion board)
www.junjun.com...
5-10-00

The STS-75 tether videos are remarkable scenes and convey a powerful impression of large, distant circular unknowns. The video is visually striking.
www.rense.com...


They do create the impression of distance when they appear to pass behind the tether, I think we all agree on that. What separates the cognitively proficient from the cognitively limited is the ability to look at more evidence in the video than just that one observation, combined with a knowledge of optics to determine the true distance of the objects as being closer than the tether. And while I find Jim's explanation in that rense article a bit technical as to why it's not really passing behind the tether, the UFO Hunters demonstration that the passing behind the tether was an illusion was very dramatic, and even non-technical people should have no difficulty following that. But some people choose to disregard that and the videos DepthOfField has made which reveal the objects are not further than the tether.

But yes to an untrained eye it might appear distant. What people are trying to do is provide some training to help the untrained eyes become better trained eyes, but it seems some of the training is falling on deaf ears.



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


does the out of context experiment the ufo hunters did prove there are no objects going behind the tether ?

no it does not.



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
But yes to an untrained eye it might appear distant. What people are trying to do is provide some training to help the untrained eyes become better trained eyes, but it seems some of the training is falling on deaf ears.


i suppose......

"in the land of the blind..... the 'one eyed' is god"

or as UG would say......

"Man is just a memory. You understand things around you by the help of the knowledge that was put in you. You perhaps need the artist to explain his modern art, but you don't need anybody's help to understand a flower. You can deal with anything, you can do anything if you do not waste your energy trying to achieve imaginary goals"




posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 04:56 PM
link   
you guys are making nasa sound so innocent.... i'm speechless... sorry you can dream as much as you can snore in their fantasy land.....

at least i'm not buying any of those bunk teachings.....

dont want to go off-topic here..... but what about the b/m suppressed sighting ex gemini 4 (thanks to lunacognita for the gemini vtr transcripts)





now.... where are those pix????????????

oh.... btw..... where did the tether footage come from??????????

i'm sorry.... but i gotta refer the skeptics in this case to SCEPCOP......



There are organized group of scoffers masquerading under the term "skeptics" who deny, ridicule and suppress anything progressive that challenges the static views of the establishment. They are debunkers who tend to distort, dismiss and obfuscate any phenomenon that challenges a conventional materialistic view of reality. In truth, they are not true skeptics engaging in open inquiry, but selective debunkers with an agenda to defend the establishment. That's why we call them "pseudo-skeptics". A "true skeptic" engages in open inquiry and doubt toward all views and belief systems, including their own and those of the establishment. But these "pseudo-skeptics" never question the views of the establishment, materialistic science or anything presented as "official".

Common Fallacies of Pseudo-Skeptics:

Double Standards, Contradictions and Lies
Denial of Evidence
Dismissing testimonies and experiences as invalid
Cherry picking of evidence
Selective Skepticism
Straw man arguments
Santa Claus gambit
Occam's Razor
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence


www.debunkingskeptics.com...




posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


does the out of context experiment the ufo hunters did prove there are no objects going behind the tether ?

no it does not.


Please read the post in context and note the sentence which follows that one:


Originally posted by Arbitrageur
the UFO Hunters demonstration that the passing behind the tether was an illusion was very dramatic, and even non-technical people should have no difficulty following that. But some people choose to disregard that and the videos DepthOfField has made which reveal the objects are not further than the tether.


DepthofField's videos show the bokeh is not distant, so all you need the UFOhunters film for is to see how it's possible the objects which he has demonstrated are close, can appear to pass behind the tether when they don't pass behind the tether.

I specifically mentioned both pieces of evidence as proof and you furthered my argument of limited cognition by disregarding one of the 2 pieces of evidence I cited.

[edit on 10-11-2009 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 08:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


thanks i appreciate your comments but DOF is using a youtube video that is compressed and distorted and trying to make claims of what is and is not close to the camera and what is and what is not out of focus.

no offense to DOF or secretnasaman but the video in the condition we have is not worthy of scientific analysis in that perspective. motion tracking is even questionable so your argument that DOF has proven anything is ridiculous. you already know what i said about the ufo hunters video.

until we see the original raw video from NASA no final conclusions can be drawn. i have said this so many times in this thread it's getting old.

if you choose to believe that the video is good enough to make final conclusions than great i am happy for you but it is not good enough for me and nobody should accept anything less than the raw footage to study. then we can have a real discussion about this.

i plan on moving forward with that after Jim Oberg posts his supposed water dump info...if he ever will remains to be seen.



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 09:02 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 



Another bogus factoid in your declaration: Water dumps are by no means visible from all, or even most, exterior cameras in all orientations, under all conditions of illumination (or non-illumination). Your over-simplistic assumptions that they must be, are baseless.


I suggest you go back and read my statement again. I did not say "water dumps are visible from all, or even most, exterior cameras". I didn't say anything remotely close to this.

However, thanks for providing this information. This explains why we do not see any evidence of a water dump in the first minute and a half, and therefore throughout the video, even if there was a water dumps some time earlier.

Good work.



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 04:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


thanks i appreciate your comments but DOF is using a youtube video that is compressed and distorted and trying to make claims of what is and is not close to the camera and what is and what is not out of focus.

no offense to DOF or secretnasaman but the video in the condition we have is not worthy of scientific analysis in that perspective. motion tracking is even questionable so your argument that DOF has proven anything is ridiculous. you already know what i said about the ufo hunters video.

until we see the original raw video from NASA no final conclusions can be drawn. i have said this so many times in this thread it's getting old.

if you choose to believe that the video is good enough to make final conclusions than great i am happy for you but it is not good enough for me and nobody should accept anything less than the raw footage to study. then we can have a real discussion about this.



well, if those compressed and copy of copy videos are good only for nothing, and ONLY original RAW data is good, then tell us, WHY you, secretnasaman and everyone which posts this kind of videos, bother to post them? What all of you really want to suggest? i thought that aliens/critters/nasa cover-up stuff was your suggestions....But instead...."here, dear audience, we have a video/picture, which is compressed, and is not good for any analisys, but, look, doesn't look cool and make you wonder? then, look and wonder!"

If they are no good to show some scientific evidence, then, for what are they good? To mesmerize the target audience?
If they are not good for anything, then WHY you or others bother to put yours "evidence", for example you posting a zoomed/stabilized version of an object appearing to "interract" with the tether? You contradict yourself, and, if you really are serious in saying above statement, that, it make you look like playing games here.

It really looks like you didn't agree with the "DENY IGNORANCE" motto, but instead you don't want critical thinkink to take place, and promote the "believe but don't study" side. It looks that you are happy with the current status of those videos, the primary appearance, which is cool and misterious, and don't want any clarification to take place.








[edit on 11/11/09 by depthoffield]



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 06:55 AM
link   
reply to post by depthoffield
 



and don't want any clarification to take place.


so me asking to see the raw video footage indicates to you that i "don't want any clarification to take place" ?

i think the fact that you don't agree with me proves that you like to embrace ignorance
enjoy it



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 06:57 AM
link   
Another independent argument that the notched disks are not 'real' but are camera artifacts can be found in pericynthian's post on another site about two years ago here:

www.unexplained-mysteries.com...

He argued that the location of the notch(s) along the circle's rims was dependent entirely on the position of the notch in the field of view. If true, this strikes me as overwhelming indication that the notches are the result of camera internal features, not external reality.



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 07:32 AM
link   
look at the above post from Jim ^^ and tell me he isn't trying to take the conversation somewhere else

[edit on 11-11-2009 by easynow]



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 08:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
so me asking to see the raw video footage indicates to you that i "don't want any clarification to take place" ?


not exactly, instead, you asking about the raw footage and in the same time denying existing copies to be adequate for some analysis, but yet using them to promoting your ideas, means logically you want to DELAY (and deny) critical thinking and any analysis until NASA gives you raw data, which may never could happen, so, you to have this cool and good-looking subject (and similar many others) at your disposal to promote to them (or why?) . Also, you may feel that losing some of your credibility if accepting something which times and again you may promoted wrong as something else, which also is a reason for denying and delaying. You are a human, after all.

Nobody can refuse and declare as beeing nothing, any little piece of relevant information which can be extracted using critical thinkink from any low quality copy, and to proclame "only original raw data is worth, anything else is irrelevant ("but look how cool those UFO's appear" or "what NASA hide").





Originally posted by easynow
i think the fact that you don't agree with me proves that you like to embrace ignorance
enjoy it


No, you are the one which don't agree with me, because i've proposed a solution done with analysis.

Why me to agree with you? You propossed UFOs/critters, but with which analysis? (aaa, you don't rely on analysis, because you only accept original RAW data.... by the way..why you opened this topic, named " New Analysis Video of the STS-75 Tether Incident " if you don't put basis on analysis on copies or stabilization techniques?



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 08:12 AM
link   
reply to post by depthoffield
 


yea i agree it's fun to study the crappy youtube version of the video and we can use that for some possible preliminary examinations but ultimately the raw video footage from NASA is needed to have the final say.

won't it be nice to see the raw data and find out if you have been correct with your theory's ?



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
won't it be nice to see the raw data and find out if you have been correct with your theory's ?


It would be even nicer if I were dating a supermodel but that ain't gonna happen either
You've been waiting for this higher quality video for how long now? Don't hold your breath.

Bringing this back to the UFO hunters and DOF analysis of the crappy video, here's the point that needs to be made:

For analyzing the distance of the "bokeh", meaning the "donut-shaped" artifacts, a higher quality video does not have even the remotest possibility of changing the interpretation of the distance of those objects. The fact is they are clear enough in the crappy youtube video to make a determination that they aren't far enough away to be behind the tether.

So by suggesting that a higher quality video is needed to make a determination the bokeh are not distant enough to pass behind the tether, I believe you are indeed promoting ignorance instead of denying it, as other posters have suggested, since the low quality video is good enough for that determination.

Would I like to see a higher quality video?

To be honest, I can think of at least 10 other UFO cases I would like to see higher quality photographs and video of right now that are much better cases. I find this case more interesting from its psychological aspects than from any expectation I'm going to see a real UFO when I see a higher quality version of the video.

So I have to say that, no, a desire to see a higher quality copy of this video isn't on my list of priorities, though if it's ever provided I would surely watch it (maybe while I'm on a date with a supermodel
)

And it might give us some more details about certain things we see in the video, but it's not going to change an interpretation about the distance of the bokeh.




top topics



 
77
<< 83  84  85    87  88  89 >>

log in

join