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: 89
77
<< 86  87  88    90  91  92 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 09:45 PM
link   


[edit on 12-11-2009 by easynow]




posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 09:59 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 



Here it is, on the Media AboveTopSecret portal, in PDF version.


hey ArMaP what do you think about that document ? i'm finding that it's missing so much info it's almost worthless.

[edit on 13-11-2009 by easynow]



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 08:53 AM
link   
i disagree with you Easynow, that the document is worthless... why you say this?



I think i found the exact timing of our misterious movies.

pag 75



TAPE NUMBER: 611854 TITLE: STS-75 Orbit 118, 119 (Downlink Reel # 061)
CAPTION: Night pass starfield views and TSS-1R visible from the orbiter. A/G audio.



or better a capture of it, scroll to the right!:




there is said:

Day 61 (1 march 1996, GMT time)

05:11:50 Camera D WS/ Night pass starfield view.
05:12:40 Camera C WS/ Night pass starfield view. View switches between CAMs D and C giving WS/ Starfield views as the Crew looks for the TSS-1R satellite.
05:22:41 Camera C Orbit 119. WS/ Night pass starfield view. View continues to switch between CAMs D and C.
05:30:05 Camera C CAM repositions. LS/ TSS-1R, with tether extended, visible at 113 nautical miles away from Columbia. Debris visible.
05:31:35 Camera D Glare.
05:31:38 Camera C LS/ TSS-1R. Tether and debris visible. Sunlight illuminates view.
05:32:59 Camera C Zoom in/out. LS/ TSS-1R. Debris visible. Glare develops. Iris down to dark FOV.
05:35:55 Camera D Glare.
05:36:01 Camera C LS/ TSS-1R barely visible in the center of the screen. Glare.
05:38:19 CAM turned off. Black.
05:39:16 Camera A Dark FOV. Port side wing, sunglint and Earth limb visible in the lower FOV.




So, the images are taken with camera C.

which is:



STS-75 ORBITER VIDEO CAMERA IDENTIFICATION AND LOCATION

1) Closed Circuit TV Payload Bay Cameras
A - PORT FWD Corner, Wide Angle Color Lens
B - PORT Aft Corner, Wide Angle Color Lens
C - STBD Aft Corner, B & W Lens
D - STBD FWD Corner, B&W Lens




We have the times, we have the cameras used, we have description of exactly what we see in the videos: tether and DEBRIS.


I find this extremely relevant...










[edit on 13/11/09 by depthoffield]



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
hey ArMaP what do you think about that document ? i'm finding that it's missing so much info it's almost worthless.


Yep. If it doesn't come out and say in capital letters,
EASYNOW IS RIGHT, it must be another NASA coverup.

'Worthless' it may be, for proving the videos are anomalous. Useful it is, for understanding the reality of them better.



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 09:08 AM
link   
reply to post by depthoffield
 


you might be right , good find

question is

who is gonna risk hundreds of dollars to find out if that's the right video selection ?

will you ?



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by depthoffield
 


So nothing about water dump ice. Sp are you now willing to admit this is not ice from a water dump?

If there had been a water dump, you would think that they wouldn't identify that as debri.



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


good point poet1b,

i was just about to reply to DOF and say the same thing and in that document that Oberg posted it does indicate when water dumps were observed but in the page DOF posted it does not say anything about a water dump.

looks like it's back to the drawing board for the debunkers



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by depthoffield
 


So nothing about water dump ice. Sp are you now willing to admit this is not ice from a water dump?

If there had been a water dump, you would think that they wouldn't identify that as debri.


I always said that BOKEH we see is a result of small and close particles near the shuttle. I argumented this. You or others denied this or find this imposible. I also said that no matter what the particles are, they are small and close, because of the optical and properties shown on videos. Many times i reffered of them as debris particles, and this is a generic term. I said, no matter is from water dump (this is posible), ice from engines (this is posible), debris from insulation (this is posible) etc, i called them "debris". I always said again and again that debris near the shuttle is something common. (Again, debris as generic term).


Originally posted by depthoffield
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.



For your question: i have no reason to admit they are NOT from a water dump. It couldn;t be, or it could be. It seems very posible to be from a water dump. Or from a waste dump. Or from solar induced thermal stress on the insulation. Or ice from the engines. Or something else as a shuttle's environment. I expect another relevant data regarding water dumps schedulles from NASA, just like this NASA STS-75 scene list.


But you, Poet1b, you can admit that what we see in the videos ,are just some debris, like nasa says, astronaut says, and properties derived from optics (bokeh and focusing distance) also confirm? Yes or no. Or , continue te be evasive. Your choice.





[edit on 13/11/09 by depthoffield]



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by depthoffield
 


you might be right , good find


So you were in a very big rush when proclaiming "the document is worthless". I wonder why... (in fact ..mmm...no, i don't wonder anymore)





[edit on 13/11/09 by depthoffield]



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by depthoffield
 


i said almost didn't i ?

and it does not say anything about a water dump and debri is a word for we don't know what it is or we would have said what it was



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by depthoffield
 



I also said that no matter what the particles are, they are small and close


they can't be close to the camera because if they were we would see the "debri" in the beginning of the video and guess what ?...

we don't see any in the beginning of the video.



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by poet1b
 


good point poet1b,

i was just about to reply to DOF and say the same thing and in that document that Oberg posted it does indicate when water dumps were observed but in the page DOF posted it does not say anything about a water dump.

looks like it's back to the drawing board for the debunkers


It's the activity timeline that would mention a planned water dump, not the TV scene list. And the post-mission summary of dumps as actually performed.

You already know the times of water dumps in earlier days. Why don't you go back and see if the scene list had any mention of them (and under the right conditions, it might for some of them).

Instead of just idly imagining how stuff SHOULD have happened, why not make use of the new resources you were incapable of obtaining yourselves, to see how things really DID happen?

Why do the grownups around here always have to show you the way to clearer understanding?



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by depthoffield
 



I also said that no matter what the particles are, they are small and close


they can't be close to the camera because if they were we would see the "debri" in the beginning of the video and guess what ?...

we don't see any in the beginning of the video.


What we need to determine is the angle the camera is pointing during these scenes relative to both orbital motion and to the shuttle body, along with sunrise/sunset times and the shadowed regions in the camera FOV (if any). Only then will we be able to properly determine what should and should not be visible when and where.

Trying to pontificate on that issue without proper contextual information is quite literally groping around blind. But it seems a preferable technique to some around here because it allows such wonderful fantasies that cannot be disproven since the basis for potential disproof is deliberately avoided.

Open.
Your.
Eyes.



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


Even when there's no water dump, it we sometimes see other stray particles floating around (though not that many), which can also be called debris. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if one or more particles that we see in the video ISN"T from the water dump but from some other source. That's why I said earlier that even if we see the water dump record that won't prove every particle we see is from a water dump, so calling it debris seems appropriate to me.

If it's an ice particle that fell off the outside of the oriter, or an ice particle that was ejected by a water dump, either one could be called debris, right? Why can't "debris" include debris from a water dump?

And if you're trying to identify the particles by how the video log describes them, also note it doesn't say "plasma critters" or "giant alien donut shaped spacecraft"


@easynow, hey you're the one who said you wanted to see the original, right? So whether you're willing to pay for it all depends on how badly you want to see it. As I said if it's posted I'll watch it, but I have no desire to spend money to buy a copy. I'm researching UFOs in other cases where I might spend money to get something, but here I'm researching the psychology of how people can continue to deny the truth in the face of overwhelming evidence presented to them.



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 11:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


there is no overwhelming evidence here for either side

don't ever forget that , thanks



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 11:38 AM
link   
Here is a report of a water dump, page 55


Page 18

C MS/ STBD TSS-1R and FWD BKHD. View is gradually illuminated as Columbia enters daylight.

16:57:11 20:39:11 B WS/ Waste water dump. False color. Earth view becomes visible as Columbia crosses terminator.

17:03:01 20:45:01 B WS/ Earth limb over the Pacific with port longeron in lower right FOV. Waste water dump concludes.

Page 55

15:32:51 19:14:51 D WS/ PLB. CAM continues to reposition.
15:33:16 19:15:16 D Earth views with starfield, city lights, airglow and MLE visible. CAM continues to reposition.

15:52:57 19:34:57 D WS/ Ice particles visible during waste water dump. Glare develops. CAM irises up/down. Orbital
sunrise occurs. CAM repositions to Earth view over Pacific Ocean, then repositions to aft PLB.

15:54:16 19:36:16 D MWS/ Aft PLB in/out of FOV. Glare from the sun illuminates the vertical stabilizer. Earth view in
background. CAM repositions continuously along aft PLB, TSS-1R Support Structure and SRPA


Page 20, Jet firings recorded and identified


20:53:37 00:35:37 TOP AOS TDRE VIDEO. TOP experiment video. Orbit 033. MS/ OMS pods with RCS jet firings.


Jet firings are recorded, no mention of debri.

The waste dumps are recorded in this report, and there is no mention of "debri" Ice particles clearly identified as Ice particles, not debri.

This recording of a waste water dump occurs on day five, and there is no report of another waste dump between that day and the recording of the tether which we have all looked so many times.

We have 89 pages of this thread with people claiming that what we see in this video is the result of a waste water dump. NOW, finally we have a document on the mission which clearly identifies water dumps and jet findings, and does not identify what we are seeing in this tether video as water dump ice crystals or jet firings.

Clearly we now know that we are not seeing particles from a waste water dump or a jet firing.

Does anyone who has used the water dump and jet firing claim as the explanation have the cahonies to now admit that this stuff identified as debri, by this NASA report, is not the result of a water dump or jet firings?



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 11:57 AM
link   
Page 30 is where the tether deployment is started.

There is no mention of debri being seen when the tether breaks.

How is it that we didn't see this debri when the tether broke, and I assume we have all seen video footage of that, and yet when we look at the tether a hundred miles away, suddenly start to see debri.



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 



but here I'm researching the psychology of how people can continue to deny the truth in the face of overwhelming evidence presented to them.


I suggest you seek professional help, because you are the one with the psychological problem of refusing to face reality when overwhelming evidence is presented to you.

We now have TWO NASA documents which clearly show how and why the claims of you debunkers, about this being close up particles, jet firings and water dumps, are completely without merit.

That you continue to claim you are right shows just how immune your fantasies are to reality.



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 01:02 PM
link   
I wonder if this is the precise NASA definition for 'debris'.

ntrs.nasa.gov...

Page 7


Because several of these particles had clear disks they were not on the camera lens but rather quite remote, >10 m. Based on drag calculations they must have been quite large (larger than cm diameters) in order to persist with negligible motion in the field-of-view, We can offer no better explanation at this time.


Or maybe we should shorten the definition to "We can offer no better explanation at this time".


Particles larger than cm diamters,

Dainty little things.

We can offer no better explanation at this time.

>10 meters distance

Based on drag calculations

in order to persist with negligible motion in the field-of-view,

We can offer no better explanation at this time.



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 03:27 PM
link   
There was no water dump...listened to lots of ..hrs. of "control room" (only) video as well as all the pretty picture sections...no water dump, before, during or after, so the ..."Tether Incident" does not show ice!"...



new topics

top topics



 
77
<< 86  87  88    90  91  92 >>

log in

join