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: 90
77
<< 87  88  89    91  92  93 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 03:40 PM
link   
Even after the "break", all "tether experiments" (that could be) were continued (the STS-75 was called a success!)...& all dumps stopped during this detached deployment period (that NASA could still communicate & read Data etc.... except the one dump made...at the last minute...during the extra day of pre-deployment (as stated on NASA Website)




posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by easynow
 


I had not the time to read it, I just had time to convert and upload it.



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 04:43 PM
link   
Very cool video, thanks! S&F



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
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?


We use brains, not cahonies, to do our thinking, so we have the advantage in terms of reality.

Do you conclude that because SOME water dumps are observed, ALL of them are? Do the observed water dumps have some specific characteristic that makes them different from all possible dumps?

If the Flight Activities Officer said there had been a water dump several hours before the first TSS video, would you call him a liar? His name is Bob, I have his message. What now?

You are extremely prone to make sweeping generalizations and conclusions based upon limited data and even more limited experience and understanding. You have to recalibrate your confidence level with what it really deserves to be -- a little more tentative.



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by secretnasaman
Even after the "break", all "tether experiments" (that could be) were continued (the STS-75 was called a success!)...& all dumps stopped during this detached deployment period (that NASA could still communicate & read Data etc.... except the one dump made...at the last minute...during the extra day of pre-deployment (as stated on NASA Website)


Martyn, I really have to ask, on what basis do you make this sweeping assertion -- or is it just something you WISH were true and that's good enough for your rules of evidence? Aren't you relying on your interpretation of second and third hand superficial press reports and releases? How about original documentation (harder to get, as we all are realizing)?



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 06:05 PM
link   
In a letter from Dr. Joseph Nuth III, NASA's (then) head of Astrochemistry at the Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland... to our research group via E mail on, Feb. 22, 1999...He suggests "...a second line of investigation would be to obtain more evidence of the original sightings (e.g. additional shuttle camera tapes- there are at least 4 mounted in the bay) to see if the same objects were seen on these...

So I'm confused, Jim, did you ever get any footage from NASA?...or see any?, as Dr. Nuth suggests for a proper investigation.

It all started with a 'confident' Jim Oberg indicating these tapes were available from NASA, when we informed him that there had been an "incident" on the STS-75, after the tethered satellite had broken away (this was in 1999). Jim had not known or heard of any "phenomenon" incident on this 1996 mission. NASA had never mentioned it in any report, just as they never mentioned the tether "switch"... to a used "clunker" tether from the previous failed STS-46 (1st) tether mission 4 years earlier...so Jim was unaware & uninformed.

Our research team member David Sereda describes him this way (from his book, "Evidence: a case for NASA UFOs")
..." Jim Oberg is NASA's acclaimed critic that convinced the news media (worldwide) that when astronaut John Glenn saw glowing balls of light ("fireflies") outside his Gemini lunar module that he, Glenn wasn't seeing a new form of life in space ("living critters" as S. Carpenter later called them)...rather he was seeing his own urine that was dumped outside of his capsule.

As if John Glenn would admire his own urine floating in space & mistake it for some kind of phenomenon. What the public did not know was that back then, there was no room for astronauts to flush their waste in a deep space toilet in such a small spacecraft. In fact, because these missions were so short, there was no need to share such facilities. While the public remained ignorant of the mechanical facts of the Gemini spacecraft, most of them bought James Oberg's stories."

So here we are in 2009...with Jim's "ice from dumps" theory, used again! But based only on NASA "reports"!... Not any video he got from NASA...all these years later he still demands others get it for him...if they can!

This video "embargo" by NASA makes it impossible, yet Jim did not know originally of any "embargo"...even though NASA had stated so in 1996, during a very public (what went wrong) press conference. Why all the secrecy still? There has to be some reason for this to be covered up.

NASA's Space Act, signed on July 29, 1958, section 102 (c) (a) states "...Information obtained or developed by the Administrator in the performance of his functions under this act shall be AVAILABLE for public inspection EXCEPT information authorized or required by Federal statute to be withheld, and (b) information classified to protect NATIONAL SECURITY."...was there something caught on NASA's STS-75 tape that revealed a threat to National Security?

Jim wrote Sereda on Nov. 4 1999 after being informed of this "Tether Incident", saying... "I'd be happy to see your video of the STS-75 mission...I can order my own copies from NASA."... David continues... "Jim could not get his his own copy of the STS-75 from NASA. There was a block on the mission."...& later..."I wrote him & asked him if he got a copy of the video from NASA. He wrote back on Dec.3, 1999:
"NO, it's way down on my priority list. I don't expect to get it for some time."

(not a priority, yet)..."James Oberg kept writing me & asking for the video. We never sent it to him. He would have to be patient & wait."

...well Jim, people here, on this thread, with your blessing, have gone on & on about the "new" need for a NASA provided "RAW" original video (mine is no good anymore!) or else nothing can ever be really studied by you & other debunkers!

So Jim... you must go & get it...as well as all the other still camera shots, film & video, (TOP infrared too) that astronauts do not download, instead, they bring it down for NASA study post flight. ...prove all this stuff you go on about accessing via "scrubbed" NASA reports & no video support...because Jim, if you can not get it, no one can. You are their go to skeptic after all!



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 06:18 PM
link   
OK, if we now have the tape ID (apprently), what's needed to have the tape?

Who should we contact to get the video, the Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center?



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by depthoffield
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.







Below, i've tried to do the best match, inserting on the video, the mark times resulted from STS 75 Scene list, quoted above.

All the movie was filmed with camera C, but here were two moments, when the image is switched to camera D for a few seconds, and the image is described as "glare":


05:31:35 camera D Glare.
and
05:35:55 camera D Glare.

there was an EXACT match on the description and what we have, therefore i was able to TIME-MARK the sequence, you can verify for yourself the timings and duration when camera D was used.


Here it is:




Now i'm sure for the moments when the movie was taken.




[edit on 13/11/09 by depthoffield]



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 07:43 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 



OK, if we now have the tape ID (apprently)


do we ?

i distinctly remember Jim saying he had proof that there was a water dump and he was going to post that info (no Jim i'm not pressuring you to do anything, take your sweet time) so how can this scene list be accurate if it does not indicate a water dump but Jim say's there was ? shouldn't we clear that up first before assuming we have the correct data ?

and what's up with the scene list document missing all that info ? (the entire document is missing info not just that scene) is that normal ? should we be questioning it because it's incomplete ?

now i know ArMaP that you don't have the answers to those questions (i think)(and Jim will think i'm complaining by saying this) but they are questions that imo need clarity before i could even think about picking up the phone and calling somewhere to see if the tape is even available. just saying


[edit on 13-11-2009 by easynow]



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 08:14 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


Like the typical bureaucrat, if brains were dynamite, you wouldn't have enough to blow your nose.

Let me tell you who I am Jim, cause I bet you know some one like me. When you have a technical problem you can't figure out, after wasting all other options, you go to me to get the answer. You don't want to go to me, because you don't understand how I think, how I get stuff done, and all too many times you completely disagreed with, and were proven wrong by me.

What I think is that only water dumps seen in the videos are noted. IF a water dump takes place, and it is not picked up on camera, it only makes sense that they would not put the water dump event on the Video Tape Scene List. DUH


Even if there was a water dump several hours before this video that does not show up on the Scene List, ten minutes after the water dump, there would only be a particle of two still hanging around, as per the other NASA document we have on this thread.

Hey, thanks though, for providing this document. I suspect you knew it was going to work against you, and that demonstrates integrity.



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 08:28 PM
link   
reply to post by depthoffield
 


You do know that the word "debris" describes anything, right?

According to many scientists, everything in the universe is debris, From the big bang.

Having considered this, I decided that this could only be one kind of debri.

It has to be "Cosmik Debris".

edit to add link

www.youtube.com...

Glad to see your attention being caught by Camera D, I was wondering if you would look at that.


[edit on 13-11-2009 by poet1b]



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by secretnasaman
In a letter from Dr. Joseph Nuth III, NASA's (then) head of Astrochemistry at the Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland... to our research group via E mail on, Feb. 22, 1999...He suggests "...a second line of investigation would be to obtain more evidence of the original sightings (e.g. additional shuttle camera tapes- there are at least 4 mounted in the bay) to see if the same objects were seen on these...

So I'm confused, Jim, did you ever get any footage from NASA?...or see any?, as Dr. Nuth suggests for a proper investigation.


I'm puzzled why Sereda and Martyn went to a chemist at NASA Goddard, which does not deal with space shuttle systems, who made helpful suggestions that reveal he knows little (as would be expected based on his professional specialty) about the shuttle. All external cameras are not all downlinked simo -- the crew (or MCC) can choose one (or mux two on a split screen) -- for downlink or recording (Spacelab cameras have their own data handling).

Nuth's main contribution has been to lament how badly Sereda has misquoted and misused his attempt at helping... a pattern emerges here.


It all started with a 'confident' Jim Oberg indicating these tapes were available from NASA, when we informed him that there had been an "incident" on the STS-75, after the tethered satellite had broken away (this was in 1999). Jim had not known or heard of any "phenomenon" incident on this 1996 mission. NASA had never mentioned it in any report,


That's right, nothing we saw on the tether break mission made anybody I knew at NASA think UFO -- until that angle began making the world of UFOria rounds...


.. just as they never mentioned the tether "switch"... to a used "clunker" tether from the previous failed STS-46 (1st) tether mission 4 years earlier...so Jim was unaware & uninformed.


This baffles me. NASA had a tether that had only unreeled 1000 ft on STS-46, but which was fully flight qualified. They cut off the unreeled part, and remanifested it rather go through the expense of qualifying an entirely new piece of hardware. How is that supposed to have been stupid, or my fault?


Our research team member David Sereda describes him this way (from his book, "Evidence: a case for NASA UFOs")
..." Jim Oberg is NASA's acclaimed critic that convinced the news media (worldwide) that when astronaut John Glenn saw glowing balls of light ("fireflies") outside his Gemini lunar module that he, Glenn wasn't seeing a new form of life in space ("living critters" as S. Carpenter later called them)...rather he was seeing his own urine that was dumped outside of his capsule.


This is absolutely priceless. This passes, in Martyn's concept, for verified, reliable information.

He shows no evidence that he even knows that:

John Glenn was on a Mercury flight, not a Gemini flight.

Gemini never had 'lunar modules' -- only Apollo (and Apollo never had John Glenn).

To the best of my memory, and a survey of my publications on the subject, I never suggested that Glenn was seeing urine. Sereda seems to have dreamed this up and that was good enough for Stubbs. Of course, my claim is subject to falsification of either of them can cite a statement of mine to that effect.

Carpenter never referred to Glenn's 'fireflies' as 'living critters'. This is another made-up myth. Even the quotation pointed to by some ufologists as 'proof' that he did, when read with any elementary school level of comprehension, clearly does not.


As if John Glenn would admire his own urine floating in space & mistake it for some kind of phenomenon. What the public did not know was that back then, there was no room for astronauts to flush their waste in a deep space toilet in such a small spacecraft. In fact, because these missions were so short, there was no need to share such facilities. While the public remained ignorant of the mechanical facts of the Gemini spacecraft, most of them bought James Oberg's stories."


Non-existent stories about a non-existent (and unnecessary) theory, since it quickly became clear that Glenn was seeing ice fragments off his capsule's flash evaporator -- just as Carpenter did on his orbital flight a few months later. Rapping on the side of the capsule where the unit was mounted created a blizzard of new particles. Ice. Dunno if they were 'crystals, they might have been amorphous -- but the unit sprayed water to cool the capsule, and water made ice.


So here we are in 2009...with Jim's "ice from dumps" theory, used again! But based only on NASA "reports"!... Not any video he got from NASA...all these years later he still demands others get it for him...if they can!


The tapes I got from NASA were quite handy. Anybody else can order them. What's the point?


This video "embargo" by NASA makes it impossible, yet Jim did not know originally of any "embargo"...even though NASA had stated so in 1996, during a very public (what went wrong) press conference. Why all the secrecy still? There has to be some reason for this to be covered up.


What embargo?


NASA's Space Act, signed on July 29, 1958, section 102 (c) (a) states "...Information obtained or developed by the Administrator in the performance of his functions under this act shall be AVAILABLE for public inspection EXCEPT information authorized or required by Federal statute to be withheld, and (b) information classified to protect NATIONAL SECURITY."...was there something caught on NASA's STS-75 tape that revealed a threat to National Security?


Doubt it.


...well Jim, people here, on this thread, with your blessing, have gone on & on about the "new" need for a NASA provided "RAW" original video (mine is no good anymore!) or else nothing can ever be really studied by you & other debunkers!


Anything I got would be -- and regularly is -- dismissed by the eager believers as rigged or falsified, so it's far more effective to let other people follow in the same footsteps. Plus it teaches self reliance.



So Jim... you must go & get it...as well as all the other still camera shots, film & video, (TOP infrared too) that astronauts do not download, instead, they bring it down for NASA study post flight.


Isn't 'TOP' a UV camera? Do you know the difference?


...Jim, if you can not get it, no one can. You are their go to skeptic after all!


Not the 'go to' guy, the 'run away from' guy around here. But no reason people can't do their own homework.



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
i distinctly remember Jim saying he had proof that there was a water dump and he was going to post that info (no Jim i'm not pressuring you to do anything, take your sweet time) so how can this scene list be accurate if it does not indicate a water dump but Jim say's there was ? shouldn't we clear that up first before assuming we have the correct data ?


How about -- the external cameras are not watching everything outside all the time, in all lighting conditions. As you pointed out, there are major swaths of time that are not logged in the Scene List (and this is typical of Scene Lists from other missions). In your fantasy world, maybe that's evidence for a coverup rather than merely an operational system that doesn't need constant external surveillance.

Have you ever talked with a flight controller who handled these cameras and asked them about their routine use?



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 10:23 PM
link   
Because the subject came up, I'd better post this memo I prepared some years ago in discussing the British video 'Smoking Gun':



Misrepresentation of Astronaut Carpenter Quotation

ITEM: Mistreatment of Carpenter words and opinions regarding John Glenn's "fireflies"

1. Narrator (~6 minutes into tape) refers to "curious anomalous objects in orbit around earth", continues: "John Glenn likened them to fireflies, and for a time, NASA actually believed they had stumbled across living critters, according to one of its retired astronauts, Scott Carpenter."

2. Stubbs on same tape at 44:30: "We have an astronaut making the comment, on the 25th anniversary of the moon flight. He says, it's hard to believe, but he says it's a FACT that we thought that John's fireflies -- again, Glenn's fireflies -- were living critters. Now at no time -- I've read everything -- at no time have I ever heard that before, that NASA concluded originally that the fireflies were alive."

3. Magazine article, March-April 2000, p. 8, account of Stubbs's comments: "And we have an astronaut making a comment on the 25th anniversary of the Moon flight where he says, 'It's hard to believe, but it's a fact, that we thought that John's fireflies were living critters'." [[JimO: Note quotation marks]

4. Oberg's original note (March 20): refers to 'preposterous' allegation that astronaut Scott Carpenter 'admitted' that NASA for a long time thought that the 'fireflies' that Glenn reported were 'living things'. I called it "a silly idea – that Carpenter would say such a thing", and asked for documentation outside of somebody's vivid imagination.

5. Reply from Callaghan, March 21: we will "respond with the video documentation that is absolutely proof positive that what we claimed was said is the truth, and nothing but the truth."

6. Carpenter's actual quotation, as subsequently posted at ufomag website: "It's hard to realize this now, there were so many unknowns in the early days, and this is a fact of the matter, we were really not sure, after John flew, whether or not there were critters, living critters up there somewhere."

7. Oberg responded that "the tape segment allegedly proving this is pitifully ambiguous, doesn't even mention the fireflies, so I suggest it was misinterpreted."

8. UFOMAG's reply: "[Oberg] challenged that we couldn't produce any evidence to support our quotation of Scott Carpenter. We did, and [Oberg] conceded the fact. Suggest [he] put that one to bed."

9. Not hardly! To repeat, Carpenter's posted quote in paragraph 3 (note that the transcript is not posted on the site, just the WAV file for playing, which is a lot harder for most visitors) does not mention 'fireflies' at all, and states NOT that people 'thought', 'believed', or 'concluded' anything, but that they were not sure one way or the other about life in space somewhere. The alleged quotation (paragraph 3) as printed in the magazine inside quotation marks is clearly fraudulent and UFOMAG's stubborn misrepresentation of it is indefensible on rational grounds.

10. As for the big picture, aside from any genuine perplexity about the phenomenon at the time it occurred, NASA very quickly realized that the dots were ice particles coming from the spacecraft's water spray boiler, which discarded waste heat from the avionics (the space shuttle has a similar unit, called a 'Flash Evaporator', mounted at the base of the tail). Carpenter himself confirmed this a few months later when on his flight he was able to create swarms of 'fireflies' by banging on the side of his capsule, where the water spray boiler was located. The observed motion of the particles, falling below and pulling ahead of the spacecraft, was exactly what is expected from high-drag low-mass ice crystals. Today there is absolutely no basis in reality to honestly portray the phenomenon as in any way mysterious.



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 10:26 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 



The tapes I got from NASA were quite handy. Anybody else can order them. What's the point?


exactly , what's the point in me spending hundreds of dollars on the tapes when you've had them the whole time ?

knowing you have the tape has just made my effort to get it come to a screaching hault so go ahead and upload the video and let's see what's up

or are you a chicken ?



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by JimOberg
 



The tapes I got from NASA were quite handy. Anybody else can order them. What's the point?


exactly , what's the point in me spending hundreds of dollars on the tapes when you've had them the whole time ?

knowing you have the tape has just made my effort to get it come to a screaching hault so go ahead and upload the video and let's see what's up

or are you a chicken ?


We have come a long, long way in describing the kinds of contextual reports and documentation that are available (not easily, it's true) to get an adequate understanding of the context of any space video that has the potential of being truly anomalous -- as the Mission Control Center, at least, has always realized could be so. Until such documentation is at hand and studied, no scene -- no matter what images it conjures up in our earth-trained eye-brain link -- can deserve to be labeled a 'genuine UFO'.

And what factor is the greatest constraint on this process? NASA may be slow, but they eventually deliver. No, the promoters who refuse (and for STS-75, refused until this very thread) to provide accurate date/time of anomalous videos, so as to PREVENT the request of the contextual documentation, have been the primary saboteurs of thorough investigations. That, and those who are quick to blame other people's refusal to do their work for them, for not ever doing the work themselves.

Anyone who is happy to use UFO perceptions as camouflage for their genuine aerial activities is, no doubt, delighted by the inescapable confusion that this causes. And the delicious irony is that those who proclaim most loudly their determination to pierce 'the coverup', are by their unhelpful attitudes to solid, thorough research, the coverup's most useful stooges.



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 10:51 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 



is that your way of saying no ?

come on Jim,

if you upload the video i promise i will buy strawberry ice cream for everyone


[edit on 13-11-2009 by easynow]



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 03:16 AM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 



Until such documentation is at hand and studied, no scene -- no matter what images it conjures up in our earth-trained eye-brain link -- can deserve to be labeled a 'genuine UFO'.


If you substitute "UFO", as in Unidentified Flying Object, with a phrase something like "phenomenon that must be some form of plasma life or ET space craft" then I would agree with you on this statement.

I don't see anything that can be labeled as a genuine phenomenon that must be some form of plasma life or ET space craft. All I see is some things that can not be explained that have been cited by numerous sources that should be more seriously investigated.

There is a long history of encounters with these foo fighter type forms. What they are is still a major mystery.



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 03:21 AM
link   
take into account that the government monitors every thing on the internet if this was of any importance it would be removed then i again i havent watched it so i dont know what its about, but you tube videos to prove aliens ... well to each his own enjoy



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 06:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by easynow

OK, if we now have the tape ID (apprently)


do we ?
As I said (although misspelled
), we apparently do, and that is half of what we need to be closer to an answer.

So, if we really have the right tape ID and we can get it from NASA, we will have:

1. A better version than the YouTube versions (although, theoretically, the person that uploaded the video to YouTube could have provided a less compressed, probably with a better resolution video a long time ago, but it looks like there's an embargo from that side
).

2. The complete sequence. As have already seen in this thread there are several "full version" videos, so we cannot really know which is the real one.

3. The confirmation of the time this sequence was filmed, making it possible to compare with a water dump timetable, when we get one.


and what's up with the scene list document missing all that info ? (the entire document is missing info not just that scene) is that normal ? should we be questioning it because it's incomplete ?
I suppose something called "scene list" will list the scenes, independently from other activities. I think a scene list would show the mission from the camera's point of view, in the same way someone you work with has a different understanding of events in your whole day.



new topics

top topics



 
77
<< 87  88  89    91  92  93 >>

log in

join