It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

Help ATS via PayPal:

# New Analysis Video of the STS-75 Tether Incident

page: 9
77
share:

posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 04:06 PM

Originally posted by zorgon

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'

if it is accurate it is relevant to anything inside the earth's gravitational field. i wasn't aware this all took place billions of kilometers from the earth?

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...

32 feet per second acceleration every second is extremely high acceleration. it is also constant acceleration. in 20 seconds, they will be moving 640 feet per *second* faster towards the earth than at the moment filming began. you don't have to be a physics professor to understand physics 101. you can read up on this with a simple google search.

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

the shuttle's orbit is not perfect. it is very hard to create a perfect orbit - that is why the shuttle has thrusters. to correct its orbit when drift is detected. with no fuel, it will slowly decay because of human error.

posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 04:08 PM

Originally posted by zorgon
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.

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

already addressed in a far earlier post. i watched those two objects in the original footage, and they moved as would be expected.

if you get someone to make a clip of them, don't use the 'enhanced' footage, use the *ORIGINAL*.

[edit on 9-6-2009 by JScytale]

posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 04:38 PM

Originally posted by ArMaP
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).

Very well stated

Now then can you apply that statement to these two consecutive screen shots?

posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 04:39 PM

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by ArMaP
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).

Very well stated

Now then can you apply that statement to these two consecutive screen shots?

its moot when you realize they bloom out from defined points of light as they go out of focus.

posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 04:50 PM

Originally posted by Raybo58
The question is, why would particles be visible at all after a zoom? Especially a tight zoom on an object a 100 miles away.

Well they would IF the 'particles' are at the same distance as the tether... but then they would have to be large to show up from that distance.

Also the fact that when they zoom back out the 'particles' zoom out at about the same rate as the tether... which to me at least is strong indication that they are not small 'particles' outside the window

Nice point Starred

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.

I will address this point shortly... need some more clips first
But LUNCH first

posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 04:52 PM

Originally posted by JScytale
its moot when you realize they bloom out from defined points of light as they go out of focus.

No it's not moot... it goes directly to the debunking of the 'lens artifact' story
Nice try though

posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 04:54 PM

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by JScytale
its moot when you realize they bloom out from defined points of light as they go out of focus.

No it's not moot... it goes directly to the debunking of the 'lens artifact' story
Nice try though

not really. you worked towards debunking an assumption.

posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 05:15 PM

Originally posted by JimOberg

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.

No it is NOT nonsense at all. THESE STS75 images are taken with the TOP camera, as I have already documented several times and in fact are in UV. I do not understand why YOU of all people continue to use that argument.

An overview of plasma science in the first Tethered-Satellite ...
Finally, the TOP (Tether Optical Phenomena) experiment, provided by S. Mende. (Lockheed Corporation), will use the hand-held camera system on board the ...

There are several good science papers on the TOP(Tether Optical Phenomena Experiment (TOP) )system and how it was used.

So by trying to turn people away from the documented truth is that not deliberate disinformation? I mean NASA itself documents this camera for this event so why are you still pushing the UV is a lie angle?

posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 05:21 PM

Originally posted by JScytale
if you get someone to make a clip of them, don't use the 'enhanced' footage, use the *ORIGINAL*.

Okay I am done with you. Luna Cognita is the person who made the video that this thread is about...

It is about the motion study that you claim is 'as expected' to fit your 'theory' yet clearly they do not behave as you describe. I must therefor assume your sole purpose is to continue the distraction.

The clip WILL be from the enhanced version that this thread is about, otherwise it would be pointless as a demo.

posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 05:35 PM

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by JimOberg

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.

No it is NOT nonsense at all. THESE STS75 images are taken with the TOP camera, as I have already documented several times and in fact are in UV. I do not understand why YOU of all people continue to use that argument.

Probably because I, of all people posting here, am most familiar with MCC operations.

The widely-posted STS-75 videos are from the visible-light payload bay cameras, as all records -- and the logs of the flight control team -- establish. The rest is unconstrained imagination.

The TOPS photos were not downlinked live. Call up the chief scientist and ask him.

The tether was bright when it was in sunlight and it was dark when it was in shadow. Everybody who saw it with their naked eyes -- including me -- observed that feature.

posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 05:38 PM

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by Raybo58
The question is, why would particles be visible at all after a zoom? Especially a tight zoom on an object a 100 miles away.

Well they would IF the 'particles' are at the same distance as the tether... but then they would have to be large to show up from that distance.

Also the fact that when they zoom back out the 'particles' zoom out at about the same rate as the tether... which to me at least is strong indication that they are not small 'particles' outside the window

Nice point Starred

Nobody is zooming anywhere. There is no auto focus on those cameras, and all viewing was at infinitiy. The image brightness/appearance changes are due to automatic gain control (AGC) cycling -- as the INCO officers at their console would confirm, if you ever talked with any of them, as I have.

Why don't you FOIA the manning roster for the mission and get their names? Call them and talk with them.

posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 05:43 PM

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by JScytale
if you get someone to make a clip of them, don't use the 'enhanced' footage, use the *ORIGINAL*.

Okay I am done with you. Luna Cognita is the person who made the video that this thread is about...

It is about the motion study that you claim is 'as expected' to fit your 'theory' yet clearly they do not behave as you describe. I must therefor assume your sole purpose is to continue the distraction.

The clip WILL be from the enhanced version that this thread is about, otherwise it would be pointless as a demo.

your refusal to use the original footage after myself and otehrs have shown doubt that the traced footage is even accurate severely hampers your credibility. watch the original.

posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 05:44 PM

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by JimOberg

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.

No it is NOT nonsense at all. THESE STS75 images are taken with the TOP camera, as I have already documented several times and in fact are in UV. I do not understand why YOU of all people continue to use that argument.

Probably because I, of all people posting here, am most familiar with MCC operations.

The widely-posted STS-75 videos are from the visible-light payload bay cameras, as all records -- and the logs of the flight control team -- establish. The rest is unconstrained imagination.

The TOPS photos were not downlinked live. Call up the chief scientist and ask him.

The tether was bright when it was in sunlight and it was dark when it was in shadow. Everybody who saw it with their naked eyes -- including me -- observed that feature.

and as I have explained, whether or not it was taken in the UV spectrum makes no difference anyway - because sunlight contains tremendous amounts of UV light.

posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 06:25 PM

So you were there in space and saw this event with your own eyes, not just on a film?

You are one of the astronauts conducting this test?

If this is true, I certainly can't dispute your direct experience, so please state that this is a fact.

If you were there, then you should be able to explain exactly what we are seeing.

posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 06:38 PM

your refusal to use the original footage after myself and otehrs have shown doubt that the traced footage is even accurate severely hampers your credibility. watch the original.

have shown doubt ? please direct me to where you have "shown" this because i may have missed it.

also maybe you didn't see this post....

www.abovetopsecret.com...

posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 07:04 PM

Having more than a few years experience working in Aerospace on telemetry, controls systems and instrumentation, I know a little about the subject.

The videos on the satellite launch show particles behaving just the way I described them, so please explain where I am wrong. Your assumption of my lack of knowledge and your own superior knowledge only succeed in undermining your credibility.

It really makes no difference in my opinion, if these cameras were UV. Do you have any examples of other videos of the shuttle bay cameras recording similar phenomenon? If these were just ordinary shuttle cameras, there should be numerous similar videos available of such phenomenon, if what you claim is correct.

posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 08:07 PM

at 1:45 in the original video, the event in question happens. watch in a straight line to the right of the top point of the tether, its where the two objects pass each other. for good side-by-side viewing, pause the first video at 0:12 and the second at 1:51.

notice how it looks like a particle moving along a parabolic arc away from the camera drawn towards the bottom right of the frame, with smooth movement? in the "enhanced" footage, it is far more dramatic. i encourage you to watch both side by side.

the enhanced trajectory makes a *sharp* turn towards the top left, then wobbles severely as it moves towards the bottom right. the original does nothing of the sort, the heavy wobble is so severe it leads me to believe it was poorly edited, or the enhancement program used was having a lot of trouble tracking the light.

for clarification:

notice the trajectory. now imagine a particle following it exactly - it appears to move in one direction, slow down, and make a complete U-turn.

now imagine yourself positioned *exactly* in line with the direction of its motion. it will appear to move, slow down, come to a complete stop for a moment, and reverse its course 180 degrees exactly.

[edit on 9-6-2009 by JScytale]

posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 08:21 PM

Originally posted by JimOberg
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....

Or these people were under the impression that they were speaking to him in confidence. In which case, shame on you David for being a jerk and revealing possibly the most important and relevant news of our time. ...Or should I say "thank you".

Or they flat out told him it was off the record and they'd deny it if asked.

Or they began with good intentions and later came under some kind of pressure or decided they'd prefer not to spend the rest of their careers fielding questions from the unwashed masses.

[edit on 9-6-2009 by Raybo58]

posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 08:22 PM

they look exactly the same to me.

perhaps you might need to make some screen shots that overlay to get your point across because as of right now, i don't see what your trying to show me.

posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 08:30 PM

Originally posted by easynow

they look exactly the same to me.

perhaps you might need to make some screen shots that overlay to get your point across because as of right now, i don't see what your trying to show me.

if someone could id appreciate it. i dont have screen capture software that won't create artifacts.

new topics

top topics

77