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: 91
77
<< 88  89  90    92  93  94 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 06:31 AM
link   
Enough of the personnel comments and insults; discuss the topic not each other. Thanks.




posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 10:44 PM
link   
I'm wondering how long it will be before the ice off the STS-129 ET/Orbiter interface disconnect, drifting by after the tank was jettisoned this afternoon, shows up on youtube as another UFO. Let's wait and see...

I've tracked down a source of some early confusion in 2000 when I wrote about the tether video occurrig three days after the break -- I was basing that on the draft scene list. The correct scene list, which I've only now read in detail, shows it to be four days -- the same value we had recently derived in our ground-breaking discussions on this thread. And that means I had asked the Flight Activities Officer about the wrong mission day regarding water dumps. So let's get it right this time.


gl2

posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 11:00 PM
link   
I've got Martyn Stubbs video of the tether case, but I agree with Jim Oberg. Much as I'd like to think those faint, seemingly large floating images could be big, advanced alien craft of a new sort, the images aren't much to go on. If the images are ice crystals, they could still be transparent enough that the tether would seem to be far in front of them. And the images have an almost drifting, non-intelligent motion. They all drift off in straight lines; they don't turn or reverse course. Remember, out in space ice crystals would drift right alongside the shuttle. And if a liquid were jettisoned (some liquids ARE dumped) crystals could seem to be very far away, yet drifting along with the shuttle.

Again, the straight line motions is the best evidence. An alien ship would move much differently.



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 11:11 PM
link   
There have been speculations that small thin ice chips might, under the right conditions (say, in a stable flat spin), sublime in a preferential direction and create a small but noticeable thrust that led to a slight curving of a long path. I've never been able to quantify the physics of it -- it would need knowledge of the molecule loss rate, the average separation velocity, and the distribution of possible departure vectors. It's a nagging, open question worthy of serious investigation.



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 01:04 AM
link   
Ah, the mysterious ice crystals now might have formed in some strange new way. It is amazing how people will cling to hope, even though all evidence points to the contrary.

The crew who observed several water dumps in space, and identified them as crystals, some how didn't identify what we see in the tether video as ice crystals, but debris. Got any reason for not believing the people in space who directly observed things?

Amazing that people cling to these levels of denial.



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 02:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
Ah, the mysterious ice crystals now might have formed in some strange new way. It is amazing how people will cling to hope, even though all evidence points to the contrary.


What strange new way? and what evidence showing that those small/close particels ARE or ARE NOT from water ice?





Originally posted by poet1b
The crew who observed several water dumps in space, and identified them as crystals, some how didn't identify what we see in the tether video as ice crystals, but debris.

well, why they didn't identified THESE particles as beeing EXACTLY ice crystals or EXACTLY other kind of particles? well is simple: the shuttle and it's surrounding particles was in darkness, therefore small particles were invisible. Suddenly, the sun rise on the shuttle, and the particles became visible also. This is a common condition when particles became visible (and spoil the optical environment). Now, the astronaut, trying to see tether, and, instead seeing also some particles lit by the sun, what shoud he say?
Simply: He recognise the phenomenon as small particles flying with the shuttle, and then describes what he see: particles floating in vicinity. ""we have some debris flying with us, lit by the sun"". When saying "debris" he reffers on general terms. He was with attention on tether, and recognised the common phenomenon of particles floating around the shuttle, therefore he aknowledged what they are (small particles floating around the shuttle, something common in orbit) and didn't take care of them, as a result of identification (small particles floating around) of what any and all the particles are made (water/waste/insulation/paint flakes whatever).

According to you, poet1b, the astronauts shoud say something like this:
"we see the tether, but we also see objects. These objects are:
-object no 1, 3,4,5 and 10,13,14,15,16 are ice particles from water dump produced 32 minutes before.
- object no 2,6 are flakes of paint, from the xxxx part of the shuttle
- object no 7,8,9,11,12 are particles of insulation from the shuttle because of thermal stress due sun rising.
- objects 17,18 are from etc etc
"
If astronaut saying this, maybe you should ask for demonstration that those objects are really what astronaut says...

You see, is simple: the astronaut aknowledged that the particles are small, close and bright because lit by the sun, something common in orbit and favorable illumination conditions, and simply says: "we have some debris which flying with us, lit by the sun".



Originally posted by poet1b
Got any reason for not believing the people in space who directly observed things?


there are two reasons for not believing people in space who directly observed things:
1) there are strong indications that what he describes is wrong
2) you don't want to believe what he says because you have something to tell or sell and therefore, what astronaut says is NOT convenable to you




Originally posted by poet1b
Amazing that people cling to these levels of denial.

have you look yourself in the mirror?
there are undoubtedly evidences derived from measuring, appearance and basic optics laws (bokeh, depth of field, focusing), that those are small and close particles, but you are one of those which continues to deny and deny this WITHOUT REAL ARGUMENTS.

indeed, amazing.



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 03:16 AM
link   
reply to post by depthoffield
 


All of your claims are nothing but stuff you have made up. Now according to you the astronauts in space can't be trusted, and only your superior observations.

We now have two NASA studies that disagree with you, and you still insist you are right, what nonsense.



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 03:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
All of your claims are nothing but stuff you have made up.

Just talking about your denying...




Originally posted by poet1b
Now according to you the astronauts in space can't be trusted



who says i didn't trust astronauts? I didn't said that.
I trust them here when saying:
"there is some debris which flying with us, lit by the sun", when he describe the image seen when ground control ask him. I quoted this astronaut sentence a few times before.

When i said in my above post, about two reasons to not believe what direct witness says, i said it to those which denies what astronauts says in general. Also, i misunderstood your phrase as beeing ironical. Well, thanks for clarification, i have your statement that you also trust what direct wittness (astronaut) says. So we both trust what astronaut says:
"we have some debris which flying with us, lit by the sun"




Originally posted by poet1b
and [trust] only your superior observations.


my observations are not superior to their, and didn't contradict astronaut observations, but backup it: small, close particles lit by the sun in vicinity of the shuttle "flying with us". Why you invent such paradigm?




Originally posted by poet1b
We now have two NASA studies that disagree with you, and you still insist you are right, what nonsense.


What studies denies small and close particles existing near the shuttle? let me guess....NONE.

In fact, those studies confirm the observation: small and close particles in vicinity of the shuttle, as part of it's generated environment, spoiling the optical environment in appropiate conditions.




[edit on 17/11/09 by depthoffield]

[edit on 17/11/09 by depthoffield]



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 07:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b

The crew who observed several water dumps in space, and identified them as crystals, some how didn't identify what we see in the tether video as ice crystals, but debris. Got any reason for not believing the people in space who directly observed things?

Amazing that people cling to these levels of denial.


I've never had any problem relying on first-hand eyewitness testimony, the flight crew and the team in Mission Control. And they've never given any indication other than the dots on the video were small, close objects. What did I miss?



[edit on 17-11-2009 by JimOberg]



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 11:09 AM
link   
reply to post by depthoffield
 


Right here in the post above my last post.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


there are two reasons for not believing people in space who directly observed things:
1) there are strong indications that what he describes is wrong


Clearly you are saying here that the people in space, the astronauts, are not able to accurately report what they are seeing.

I am quoting the reports to back up my claims, the only thing you base your opinion on is your supposed superior knowledge and understanding which has been proven completely wrong be the NASA study and List of Camera Scenes.

And your second supposed reason.


2) you don't want to believe what he says because you have something to tell or sell and therefore, what astronaut says is NOT convenable to you


Exactly where do I post anything about wanting to sell anything?

And exactly who do I not want to believe. My version of events completely agrees with the assessments of the astronauts, you are the one wanting to claim different.

You have absolutely no leg to stand on in this debate, and yet you still insist you are right.



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
You have absolutely no leg to stand on in this debate, and yet you still insist you are right.


Funny, I can imagine you throwing this accusation at your bathroom mirror. All we've seen from you is assertions of personal certitude and misunderstood quotations from other people's reports. DoF has provided a long sequence of original investigative and analysis work that has contributed to a better understanding of this video.


And more new stuff to come....



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


and what have you contributed ?

a ten year old rense article full of proclamations

a broken promise of proof of a water dump

a document that is missing information and could be fake

a supposed letter from a astronot that could be dis info ?




what Dof has presented does not prove anything until you post the original NASA copy of the video (you admitted that you have it) and compare the youtube copy to it.

until that happens ....

files.abovetopsecret.com...




[edit on 17-11-2009 by easynow]



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 02:13 PM
link   
Hi all,

I haven't read all the posts--lol, but read the last few pages where the tether incident is discussed..

Video, Astronauts or more of Mr Oberg, seems to me if you weren't there, and didn't touch and bring home a sample of the so-called ice particles behind the tether and it was not scientifically analysed and confirmed extremely foreign material and/or technology, then I'd suppose we are all guess'n.

My guess is that the pulsating 2 mile wide items video'd passing behind the tether (estimated to be "100 miles" away from the shuttle-shot), are intelligently controlled.

Decoy



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 07:58 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 




Every bit of evidence you have provided has backed up everything I have pointed out from the beginning.

Water dumps start out with large numbers of particles, and after ten minutes only one particle may be left. An hour after the dump there is nothing left.

Other particles that work their way out of the cracks of the shuttle are reduced to one or two particles after a few days into the mission.

Water dumps are visible even before sunset, when they are seen with the camera.

Ice crystals in the video are identified by the astronauts as ice crystals.

What we see in the tether video is identified by the astronauts as debris, not as ice crystals from a water dump.


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 75

05:22:41 09:04:41 C Orbit 119. WS/ Night pass starfield view. View continues to switch between CAMs D and C.
05:30:05 09:12:05 C CAM repositions. LS/ TSS-1R, with tether extended, visible at 113 nautical miles away from
Columbia. Debris visible.
05:31:35 09:13:35 D Glare.
05:31:38 09:13:38 C LS/ TSS-1R. Tether and debris visible. Sunlight illuminates view.
05:32:59 09:14:59 C Zoom in/out. LS/ TSS-1R. Debris visible. Glare develops. Iris down to dark FOV.


It doesn't take any interpretation to see that ice particles and debris have been clearly identified as being different things by the astronauts, and your insistence on their incompetence is down right childish. These reports are highly scrutinized, these clear points of difference were not made lightly.

Your stubbornness in refusing to admit that you have been completely proven wrong with the water dump ice crystals theory only works to make you look bad, very bad.



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
It doesn't take any interpretation to see that ice particles and debris have been clearly identified as being different things by the astronauts, and your insistence on their incompetence is down right childish.


I haven't seen anyone claim incompetence by the astronauts, except when you took a quote from depthoffield out of context and misinterpreted it. It seemed to me like DOF presented a hypothetical, only to answer your question. His hypothetical was, IF we see evidence the astronauts have described something wrong, then we would have a reason to question their description based on the evidence, but I read it as an "IF", and I didn't see any examples of that cited.

And yes they have distinguished at times between debris and ice particles. However the fact that they have done so several times doesn't automatically infer that they will make such a distinction every single time.

But DOF hasn't, nor have I claimed that every particle we see is an ice particle, some might not be, so debris might be a good description. What we have claimed is that the particles are close (say less than a kilometer, probably way less) and not tens of kilometers away like the tether.


Originally posted by poet1b
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.

I was encouraged to read your post that you're not convinced they're giant alien spacecraft or plasma critters, that's a good sign, that we're not as far apart on this as I thought.



Originally posted by depthoffield

Originally posted by poet1b
It is amazing how people will cling to hope, even though all evidence points to the contrary.

(snip)
According to you, poet1b, the astronauts shoud say something like this:
"we see the tether, but we also see objects. These objects are:
-object no 1, 3,4,5 and 10,13,14,15,16 are ice particles from water dump produced 32 minutes before.
- object no 2,6 are flakes of paint, from the xxxx part of the shuttle
- object no 7,8,9,11,12 are particles of insulation from the shuttle because of thermal stress due sun rising.
- objects 17,18 are from etc etc
"
If astronaut saying this, maybe you should ask for demonstration that those objects are really what astronaut says...


I agree that expecting astronauts to provide this level of detail in a description of debris would be an unreasonable expectation. Even if we see evidence of a prior water dump, that won't confirm every particle seen is from the water dump.

What really drew me to this thread was the interpretation by some that they see signs of intelligent control in the particle motion. If we're in agreement there is no sign of intelligent control, that at least narrows down the list of what the particles could be!
Now if we could come to an agreement that they're relatively close compared to the tether (I'd estimate the particles are closer than a kilometer to the shuttle, and probably much closer), then we'd have even more progress.



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Now if we could come to an agreement that they're relatively close compared to the tether


i don't know about anyone else but i certainly will not agree to ANYTHING until NASA's copy of the video is examined and in my opinion nobody else should either.

just saying



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 12:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by easynow

Now if we could come to an agreement that they're relatively close compared to the tether


i don't know about anyone else but i certainly will not agree to ANYTHING until NASA's copy of the video is examined and in my opinion nobody else should either.

just saying


Until, and after? You've already seen two NASA documents that you basically allege could be lies, so what difference would another one, or a video, make? Once your mind is made up, any contrary evidence or testimony can easily be dismissed as 'lies'.

Especially if it comes from me -- so to frustrate you from accusing me of falsifying evidence, you have to obtain the video directly, without my fingerprints on it. It's a prudent precaution.

If the nearby small particles shown on the original video need to be called 'debris', so be it -- we all seem to agree that this is what the direct witnesses called it. It would be nice to know the source on the shuttle of the debris -- but there are so many potential sources, water dumps and leaking thrusters and shook-loose flotsam and jetsam, that might never be possible. The records from the Flight Activities Officer [who now has the correct Flight Day] and data on water jumps and thruster leaks may cast better light on that question of origin... obtaining all that is in work.

... but it remains persuasively argued here that small nearby randomly drifting space dandruff [of ANY material composition] will look on the TV monitors indistinguishable from what is seen in the OP video, down to the illusion of passing behind the distant tether, and the notches, and all other visual features in the visible light (NOT 'UV') images taken by the payload bay cameras.

Did we also discuss radar tracking from the ground? Even the breadbasket-sized hunk of RCC panel (leading edge heat shielding) that broke loose from Columbia was seen on ground-based tracking radars as it drifted away. But no indication that any miles-wide UFOs were tracked...

[edit on 18-11-2009 by JimOberg]



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 02:52 AM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


just for the record, i am not accusing you of knowingly posting a document that could be a fake.




Until, and after?


if there's any "after" agreement it won't be because of anyone else , i have my own mind and can think for myself. i'm not going to let you or anyone else persuade me into some half azzed conclusion without seeing NASA's copy of the video. after viewing it then i will go from there and decide what i want to do.




you have to obtain the video directly


wrong !

i don't have to do anything because your the one trying to debunk this video for the last , how many years ? so you put up the video and do what you set out to do. if i see the copy of the video you have and think there is something wrong with it then i will maybe attempt to get my own but until you post NASA's copy of the video (which you admit you have) this STS-75 UFO video aint getting debunked in this thread.

if you want to debunk the video without providing NASA's copy of the video then go find a different thread to do it in because like i said...it aint happening in this one.









[edit on 18-11-2009 by easynow]



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 07:53 AM
link   
The way I understand the burden of proof in situations of claims of extraordinary phenomena, the claimant needs to prove the phenomenon can have NO prosaic explanation. That requires genuine investigation to determine candidate explanations, and why they don't fit the facts.

Starting out by assumung the phenomenon is extraordinary, and then demanding a skeptic prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that a prosaic explanation is the true cause, is like demanding a criminal defendant PROVE their innocence.

That's bad law, bad science, and bad sense.

Prosaic explanations can be developed and demonstrated to be reasonable alternative theories, with evidence to support them -- and that may still leave the ultimate question undecided, but it debunks the claim that there is no possible explanation except 'true UFO' (whatever THAT really means).

The tapes I have look no different from the ones on the internet, I'm baffled by any suggestion they would provide new information.

The new information that's much more critical is the lighting/viewing context of the scenes and the shuttle activities environment. All of that material is forthcoming. Until this discussion, I don't see any indication that anybody who sided with the 'UFO' view ever even wanted THAT information -- usually they DON'T want such hard data because of its threat to their preferred preconceptions.



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 08:28 AM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 



is like demanding a criminal defendant PROVE their innocence.


seems unfair doesn't it but it happens everyday in the court systems.

i'd say you have charged Stubbs with the crime of promoting this video showing UFO's and it's the prosecutions job to prove their accusations by presenting all of the evidence to the jury and letting them decide.

if you leave out NASA's copy of the video from your evidence list then i'm sorry to tell you but the jury is going to let the defendant walk.




and that may still leave the ultimate question undecided, but it debunks the claim that there is no possible explanation except 'true UFO'


that's a fallacy and everyone already knows there are plenty of alternative explanations but just like you admit it leaves the ultimate question unanswered and that is a problem , don't you agree ?





The tapes I have look no different from the ones on the internet, I'm baffled by any suggestion they would provide new information.


ok then it should be no problem for you to upload it and show everyone right ? why is that something you refuse to do ? (that seems suspicious) and i am baffled that you don't understand why it's an important piece of the evidence.





I don't see any indication that anybody who sided with the 'UFO' view ever even wanted THAT information -- usually they DON'T want such hard data because of its threat to their preferred preconceptions.


please stop painting everyone with that broad brush stroke , you know that's not the truth but you keep repeating it.

you can keep spinning this until the cows come home but you will never get past the hurdle of showing NASA's copy of the video if you want to debunk this. you might take my posts in a negative way but the truth is i am only trying to help by saying these things so no unanswered questions will continue to fester.

i rest my case and i have nothing further to say until someone presents NASA's copy of the video. but don't forget i will be watching from the sidelines and any half baked conclusions will not debunk this video.



new topics




 
77
<< 88  89  90    92  93  94 >>

log in

join