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.
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?
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)
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.
OK, if we now have the tape ID (apprently)
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.
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?
...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.
...Jim, if you can not get it, no one can. You are their go to skeptic after all!
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 ?
The tapes I got from NASA were quite handy. Anybody else can order them. What's the point?
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 ?
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'.
As I said (although misspelled ), we apparently do, and that is half of what we need to be closer to an answer.
Originally posted by easynow
OK, if we now have the tape ID (apprently)
do we ?
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.
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 ?