New Analysis Video of the STS-75 Tether Incident

Originally posted by easynow
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.

You're going to force a confession from this old fogey that I have VHS tapes and don't know HOW to upload them to youtube. Have you ever seen me EVER upload ANY video? There, now I am made to feel like a useless neanderthal....

Originally posted by easynow
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.

Not surprising you'd say that, but you have a very flexible definition of the word 'crime'. It does allow you to flip the burden of proof however... and that's a fundamentally phony argument.

The burden is still on you as the claimant that 'ordinariness' fails, as supposedly proven by this video. You are the prosecutor, and 'conventional wisdom' is the defendant.

As for my claims that what Stubbs posts cannot be believed solely by virtue of HIS claiming it, but requires links to supportive documentation, I think I've presented plenty of evidence for that -- but it doesn't make him a criminal.

I have made no arguments based on the 'original NASA tape'. You have demanded it be provided to you, for purposes of your own arguments. That makes it your responsibility.

Come on, it's only another evasive dodge anyway -- we all know it wouldn't make any difference at all in your preconceived interpretation of the cause, prosaic or non-prosaic, of the video anyway.

More solid context information is on its way, rising the level of available evidence for evaluating this undeniably spectacular case. This discussion has shaken out a one day error in the duration of break-to-video that I absorbed into my Rense report nine years ago ('three days' should have been FOUR days, as we now know) based on preliminary (and erroneous) NASA scene list pages -- so there's actual benefits already.

...and more to come, whether you care to particpate or not.

reply to post by JimOberg

I have VHS tapes and don't know HOW to upload them to youtube

nothing to be embarrassed about , i don't know the exact process to do that either. i am quite sure Stubbs knows how and if you ask people like ArMaP or some of the other experts that dwell here on ATS i am sure that they would be happy to help. (even though some will curse me for asking you to do it)

one thing i need to clear up is , the point of having the raw data was not to upload it to youtube (the data needs to be in a downloadable file) because the argument i was making was the youtube version is compressed and distorted and Dof is trying to prove focal evidence with a youtube copy (sorry for the confusion , i should have been more clear about that). the data needs to be in it's rawest form to be worthy of forensic examination. the question i have is, if someone ordered the data from NASA today would it show up in VHS or would it show up on a digital CD ? i don't know the answer to that question.

if you did find out how to convert the VHS tapes you have to a digital format and uploaded it to youtube or wherever then that will/might only prove that the scenes are the same , but that's all.

i'm going back to my stealth mode now , good luck with it.





[edit on 18-11-2009 by easynow]

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by JimOberg

 

I have VHS tapes and don't know HOW to upload them to youtube

one thing i need to clear up is , the point of having the raw data was not to upload it to youtube (the data needs to be in a downloadable file) because the argument i was making was the youtube version is compressed

I can provide a little technical help on sharing higher quality videos.

You can convert a VHS to digital form (such as a DVD or a file on a hard drive) using this procedure: dvr.about.com... (use the MPEG-2 option for the highest quality recording but also the largest file size, as the other options probably involve more loss and compression compared to MPEG-2).

Once you have the DVD sized file it could be uploaded to 4shared, if you have enough upload bandwidth.

www.4shared.com...

Is there any limit to the number of files and their size that may be uploaded per user?
You may upload as many files as you like, but they should fit your virtual drive space. The space limit is 10 GB per account.

Currently 4shared sets a 200 MB size limitation per file. Your files must not exceed the limit as, otherwise, they will be rejected. If the size of the file is more than 200 MB, you can split the file into smaller parts and upload them separately using the multi-upload feature.

So if the file is larger than 200MB you can use a program called "Winrar" to split it to 100MB parts and upload those to 4shared, then the downloaders can rejoin it with the same program, that part is actually pretty easy, you just doubleclick the first part and the program automatically rejoins the parts.

www.rarlab.com...

You can try WinRAR before buy, its trial version is available in downloads.

It's free to use the trial version, and once the trial expires I think it still works but you get a nag screen to pay for it. This splitter/rejoiner is completely free:

hjsplit.en.softonic.com...

but it's not as user friendly and doesn't have the automatic error checking Winrar does so I like Winrar better.

But I can't say I expect to see anything more revealing in a higher quality version of this video, though the dots may be slightly less fuzzy, I still expect to see fuzzy dots in the original version, so how exactly does seeing a fuzzy dot is slightly less fuzzy help me? I have no idea. However I would like to see original quality video of another UFO sighting, where it would actually help, but this isn't a case where I think it will help.

[edit on 18-11-2009 by Arbitrageur]

reply to post by Arbitrageur


I didn't take anything out of context, what a gross distortion on your part. Depth of Field clearly states that "there are strong reasons for not believing people in space".

The fact that you debunkers continue to cling to the notion that these are water dumps or thruster firing is ridiculous, and you continue to look more ridiculous by not owning up to the truth.

If there had been a water dump within the time window during which water dump particles are visible on screen the astronaut would have stated we were seeing a water dump, therefore no water dump, and 0 particles from a water dump, and the same goes for thruster firings. In addition, we would have seen the particles of the water dump from the beginning, as they are visible in the camera before, during, and after sunrise, as the evidence I have already provided from the Scene List states.

How far away is this debris? Most likely greater than 10M, most likely near the tether, as they did not become visible until the tether came into view.

Pilots and Astrunauts have been seeing these foo fighter things for over a half a century now, with wide spread reporting. No, we don't have solid proof, but that is the most likely explanation for what we are seeing here. My biggest question is, Why isn't NASA looking into what creates this phenomenon?

Plasma life forms have been scientifically demonstrated to be a very realistic possibility. It seems this concept should be investigated, and these objects greater than cm diameters further than 10m from the shuttle should be looked into.

Originally posted by poet1b
How far away is this debris? Most likely greater than 10M, most likely near the tether, as they did not become visible until the tether came into view.

The fact that the particles and the tether come into view at the same time says something about the direction of the particles, but it says nothing about their distance.

Pilots and Astrunauts have been seeing these foo fighter things for over a half a century now, with wide spread reporting. No, we don't have solid proof, but that is the most likely explanation for what we are seeing here.

I agree that these objects may have something in common with "Foo fighters". Someone sees something that they don't understand, so they call it a "foo fighter" often thought to be mechanical devices with fantastic maneuvering capabilities. Well at least that was attributed to some of the Foo fighters in WWII, but I thought we already agreed these showed no signs of intelligent control? Anyway, I have a strong suspicion that some WWII foo fighters have prosaic explanations such as thermal inversions, and mirages that pilots don't understand and usually have no training in, especially many of the WWII pilots. But as there are almost no known photographs of "foo fighters" it's almost impossible to say with certainty what they were, but when they fly in the same direction and speed as the pilot's aircraft, then a mirage could be a possibility because mirages of distant objects do exactly that.

But what these STS-75 objects may have in common with the WWII foo fighters is that these too may have a prosaic explanation, so I think you may be right about them having something in common.

I believe that our Jim has been caught in a fuzzy truth situation...HELLO!...All this time Jim Oberg NOW tells us that there is no more embargo on the NASA tapes ...AND he has them...& he is admitting this as true, BUT can not figure out how to post & besides why is it up to him to post it Blah..blah..blah...

Checkmate Jim ...everyone is from the "show-me-state" here at ATS Jim, so lets see your proof of claim...& not just that you have more supportive documentation than me..."scrubbed info" on an after flight report is not the same as your copies FROM NASA of all this...we are waiting to see these with baited breath as nobody...no one at all believes NASA gave you the "tether Incident"...give the video to a kid next door, & he or she can upload any video...Jim has copies...NOT!

Good posts poet1b RE: Jim & his water, fuzzy ice or whatever he is stuck on... & Jim's claim of even MORE "solid context info" is on its way...which will rise the level of this debate that is so important etc...means more paperwork...we "read" his paperwork ...yet Jim does not see any need to have us "see" any NASA original footage...too hard..very un JFK.."we choose to go to the moon because it is hard" was his word...hard work is good Jim! Try it re: video you now won't post??

Am I confused? You are a very hard worker, so why this sudden block..& the fake excuse that you can not upload video...??? and....did someone actually post that seeing NASA versions of this "tether incident", would be of no use?...think again!

Originally posted by secretnasaman
I believe that our Jim has been caught in a fuzzy truth situation......

It's not clear what the issue is you're raising, Martyn. Considering all the phony non-facts you've been posting here recently, throwing diversionary accusations isn't a very productive policy. We're digging out original, never before published materials on the incident -- such as the Scene List -- and posting them as soon as I get them, to everyone's benefit. And we've been advised by our hosts that such an approach is what passes for good manners here, on the forum that they kindly provide.

Jim,..You are correct that we should move this forward & you are moving to provide a scene list. O.K.....sounds exciting, NOT...

... for EASYNOW...I have actually found a way to enhance my master video of the "tether incident". Unlike Jim, I have taken this step forward in the actual viewing end of this STS-75 analysis. No lists, just images!

I have sent the disc to Ron Nussbeck who works with scientist Ron Stewart...a man who has created a 'Solution' to image enlargement & enhancement, including patented light filters. The 'Solution' increases DPI by up to 1000%, using a binding process which allows compression of DPI...a new image is created using lens calibrations & filtering.

Ron told me that a 1st. generation copy of the "tether incident" will produce images that..."will be 50% clearer than the 4th. generational" copy he did a test on. I have the results & that was enough for me to send him a 1st. generation copy.

I will receive "a copy of the original"...when his work is done & I will make this available for all of us to see, & we will all learn more this way. So don't give up EASYNOW, as more amazing images are on the way..no scene lists(!)...just visual evidence...Ron's "test", shows, (his words to me)..."you will see script along with pictographs of Aliens on the Hull."

The "test" truly is amazing, & does show "something" very clear & it is exciting ...but I will have to save my "take" for the "final version" I was promised, which will be mine & which I can post here at ATS so we can all SEE IT, & have a good go at it!.

Originally posted by secretnasaman
...Unlike Jim, I have taken this step forward in the actual viewing end of this STS-75 analysis. No lists, just images!...

Naturally, we'll expect also to see a double-blind verification that the process does extract formerly undetectable details in the video, and doesn't just add processing artifacts. It's easy enough -- make several videos of dummy scene details, degrade them, and send them to your expert -- see if the original details can be extracted. The process is legit, in general -- it was used on nearsighted Hubble images before it got its eyeglasses installed -- and in those cases the results were validated.

"Images are us" ["We don't need no steenking documentation"] might indeed be a good motto for your work, Martyn, because any and all contextual background -- when, where, what was going on -- you omit, or worse, you release inaccurate information [as you did for STS-75, on this thread].

By doing so, as I've said before, you pre-sabotage any attempts at prosaic explanations, and then crow that the absence of credible prosaic explanations is proof of ... well, proof of whatever you want to claim.

It is proof of something, the way you cover up helpful contextual information [and make preposterously false allegations about people who disagree with you, again as documented on this thread]-- but I leave that line of thought to readers.



[edit on 19-11-2009 by JimOberg]

Originally posted by secretnasaman

I have sent the disc to Ron Nussbeck who works with scientist Ron Stewart...a man who has created a 'Solution' to image enlargement & enhancement, including patented light filters. The 'Solution' increases DPI by up to 1000%, using a binding process which allows compression of DPI...a new image is created using lens calibrations & filtering.

[]

The "test" truly is amazing, & does show "something" very clear & it is exciting ...but I will have to save my "take" for the "final version" I was promised, which will be mine & which I can post here at ATS so we can all SEE IT, & have a good go at it!.

Well, Secretnasaman, seems clearly that you want to discredit yourself...

You really didn't know how these "specialists" Ron Nussbeck/Ron Stewart are able to sell non-sense?

Yourself associatting with them is a mistake.

their site:

www.ufoimaging.com...


what they sell: www.bas-research.com...

" RUSSIAN DISK CRASH 1968 "

ON SALE NOW!!

New data , evidence, and photos never seen before presented for the first

time involving this UFO crash over 40 years ago. What exactly happened..?

You won't know until you buy the book on sale now! ONLY-$3.95

Order now click here- www.bas-research.com...

" UFO -OVER CHINA-OCTOBER ,2009 "

ON SALE NOW!!



As a a 200 m.p.h. commuter train is on it way to Shanghai China a mysterious unknown flying object lowers itself down out of the clouds.The bottom displays mysterious and ominous light that glisten and illuminate in yellow, red, and green varying lighter and then intense colors. An excited passenger inside the train sees it out his train window as it seems to effortlessly float by the train's side up in the air. He final gets his video phone and proceeds to take a most historical picture. What does the video reveal is it a plane, helicopter, or a UFO..? If a UFO what makes this one so special..? This book is full of exciting new images of what was up in the sky on that fateful night in October, 2009. You won't know until you buy the e book. Order it now!!

ORDER THIS E BOOK NOW! ONLY- : $3.95 by clicking the URL here----> www.bas-research.com...


" UFO-2009" ; WHAT IS IT..?

ON SALE NOW!!


A mysterious UFO hovers overs over a bay area behind some cargo on a dock

a man is recording the mysterious ship on video on his cell phone. You cannot guess what happens next! ONLY$4.95



" UFO-FRANCE-1912-A.D."


RELEASE-DATE-NOVEMBER 11TH,2009



The world was in a state of terror, and at the brink of the outbreak of WWI. Fear had gripped the masses of people in all of Europe because they were under constant fear of airships dropping bombs of upon the cities' masses, with no where to hide or run and to face only death.

But, something added to that fear. What could it be? Is it possible we could get a look into the past and see this fear literally on people's faces in this e book as never seen before..? You will only find out if you buy and read this e book!

PRE-ORDER THIS BOOK NOW! ONLY : $ 4.95

ORDER NOW, CLICK HERE----> www.bas-research.com...

enough with so much advertisement from me!




It is all about upsizing and interpolating the images, adding inexistent information, and finding.. "ALIENS" in some pixels.



Some examples i remember was discussed here on ATS..about puppet/muppets-like aliens reconstructed from some pixels.

WHAT A JOKE.

Surelly, it goes for the gullible.


I don't care if anyone sells anything, but i surelly i will not advise anyone to buy invented stuff (with interpolation beyound reasonable limits is). Anyway, for entertainment purposes, everyone of course is free to buy and feel thrilled anyhow he wants.







[edit on 19/11/09 by depthoffield]

reply to post by secretnasaman

Ah yes, scientist Ron Stewart. PPP. The amazing image enhancement process.

As one of the persons who is involved with PPP let me explain how the process works in the simple terms. Imagine you take a photo of an object and your photo is 4x6 than that photo contains about 600 digital pixels. What we did with Christine's photo was enlarge the photo to nearly 45,000 digital pixels which made the photo the size of a outdoor movie screen 50feetx50feet, with our special equipment. No as you can imagine we can see ever little detail like it was taken from a plane at 500ft. looking down on a row of buildings. After finding the data we are looking for all of the data is crammed into a 4x6 photo, that's a lot of data but everything that was in the 50x50 foot photo is now in the 4x6 inch photo. This process takes up to 12 hours as we enlarge the photo thousands of times, in other words a 4x6 becomes a 5x9 inch photo so we do not change the image. Once all the data is back into the 4x6 we use a patented process to begin enlarging the part of the photo we want to see. This is an over simplification of the process but it is a good example. I would be gald to answer so questions about the photo or the process. I am the Scientist assitant. Ronnieufo

What a joke. Recovery of data which was never in the data in the first place.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 11/19/2009 by Phage]

reply to post by secretnasaman


hey secretnasaman , what's up my friend ?

no i haven't given up on anything bro , i'm just taking a needed break from the knife twisters in this thread. it's getting old having to keep restating my viewpoints over and over, so figured i would let the kids play for a while and they can argue all they like.

that's interesting stuff that guy is doing with those pictures and most people do agree that the supposed aliens are just image artifacts so i will be honest with you , i am willing to look at what he does but don't paint me a some blind believer that is going to believe everything he produces. i am sure you already know that but i thought it was important for me to say it.

i would be interested in seeing some enhancements of the video like you were saying and some enhancements of the objects even if it's just plain crazy stuff , thanks

[edit on 19-11-2009 by easynow]

Jim:

You can get VHS transferred to digital at numerous "camera shops" or they can at least point you to a place that can do it. The issue is VHS is very low quality (not much data) but it is what it is and it's better than nothing.

Once you get them transferred to digital I would strongly suggest you let us upload them to our media portal as the quality will be MUCH better than YouTube.

We can control the compression on this end and that will be a huge difference in how they look.

Springer...

If you have analog data, it can most certainly be enhanced. If secretnasaman captured the original analog signal from NASA then it just depends on how good his recording device was.

If you have digital data, it just depends on how good the digital data is. A picture recorded digitally is an array of hexadecimal numbers. This array has to be interpreted by what ever program is displaying the video or the picture. By looking at the individual numbers that comprise the picture, additional details can be brought out of the data.

As far as slamming the people doing this work, seems to me they have identified their market and are working it. What is wrong with that? Attacking the source only succeeds in destroying your own credibility.

Originally posted by secretnasaman
I have sent the disc to Ron Nussbeck who works with scientist Ron Stewart...a man who has created a 'Solution' to image enlargement & enhancement, including patented light filters. The 'Solution' increases DPI by up to 1000%, using a binding process which allows compression of DPI...a new image is created using lens calibrations & filtering.

You will probably ignore my post like you ignored all my previous posts, but I would like to ask you to avoid putting much faith in the work of those scientists, from what I have seen, their method is as fake as can be, there is no way of creating data where there is none.

I suggest you use a "backup scientist" (or at least another source, preferably a commercial one, to avoid "amazing new ways of enhancing the video") to compare the results and use those "normal" results as the real source.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

The fact that the particles and the tether come into view at the same time says something about the direction of the particles, but it says nothing about their distance.

The fact that we had a clear view of space for the first minute and a half, which would have revealed any particles close to the shuttle in the vicinity of the camera lens, especially as we see the glow of sunrise during this time, tells us that what we see once the tether comes into view is not near the shuttle. This point is something that you debunkers have yet to come close to providing any type of explanation.

Being that all these little floating dots come into view after the direction of the camera is adjusted slightly, AND the tether comes into view, as the tether emerges into sunlight, or sunrise, provides a great deal of evidence that these little white dots are near the tether, as they appear with the tether.

If the little white dots are not in the video until the tether arrives, then the only reasonable explanation is that what ever creates these little white dots in the video emerged into sunlight with the tether, which means that they are close to the tether.

I never made any comment on whether or not I think these dots in the video are intelligently controlled. They look a lot like moths flying around a candle. This would indicate some level of intelligence if this observation was correct. This would also explain their curiosity towards aircraft and spacecraft.

Most of the stories of foo fighters that I have read describe them as moving independently, following the aircraft for periods, and then performing amazing maneuvers around the aircraft. Which means they are not mirages echoing the craft.

Has there ever been any serious effort in finding a way to establish scientific proof of the existence of these foo fighters or explanation of the numerous observations?

It seems that since the earliest manned space flights we have been getting reports of seeing stuff that no one expected. Water dumps and particles working their way out of the nooks and crannies only offer so much explanation, and they certainly do not explain particles greater than cm diameters further than 10m from the shuttle for which no more explanation can be offered at this time.

This tether video is the best evidence I have seen so far.

Originally posted by Springer
You can get VHS transferred to digital at numerous "camera shops" or they can at least point you to a place that can do it. The issue is VHS is very low quality (not much data) but it is what it is and it's better than nothing.

Thanks, I have gotten the software and a VHS player to hook up to my laptop, to start converting my family VHS tapes, and I expect to be up and running this month. It's a capability I was overdue in acquiring since I once helped invent the Internet -- well, actually, ran early security tests on the Arpanet (1974-5)... [grin to algore].

Originally posted by poet1b
The fact that we had a clear view of space for the first minute and a half, which would have revealed any particles close to the shuttle in the vicinity of the camera lens, especially as we see the glow of sunrise during this time, tells us that what we see once the tether comes into view is not near the shuttle. This point is something that you debunkers have yet to come close to providing any type of explanation.

Poet, that is not a fact, it is YOUR interpretation of the screen contents based on a studious avoidance of the actual shuttle situation. You keep presenting your INTERPRETATIONS as 'facts' and since you don't seem to be able to tell them apart, you are less and less interesting (or worthwhile) listening to. But there's hope for change.

To make the hypothesis a fact you would need to know the exact time of sunrise at the shuttle, and the direction the shuttle was pointing in orbit, and the pan/tilt of the camera being used, so as to determine the possible range of shadowed zones. Much of that information can be obtained from daily Execute Packages.

So this can be done. But I've seen no indication you've done it, or even have any interest in doing it. Instead, "fact by proclamation' appears to be your standard approach.

The real puzzles out there deserve (and need) better. They deserve -- and warrant -- your passion. They need more careful analysis. It can happen, since as time passes we have the opportunity to learn.

Originally posted by poet1b
... If the little white dots are not in the video until the tether arrives, then the only reasonable explanation is that what ever creates these little white dots in the video emerged into sunlight with the tether, which means that they are close to the tether.

This is a logical presentation of the argument. Determining if the two apparitions appeared simo, or if there were other factors determining their visibility, is a useful line of inquiry and I hope to have relevant information to report on it.

There's also the question about whether the dots really are distant, and large -- what did they look like from Earth? What would people on the ground have thought to see a flock of moon-sized spheres crossing the sky? And what would they have looked like on radar, and what would have been the response to seeing them there?

It seems that since the earliest manned space flights we have been getting reports of seeing stuff that no one expected. Water dumps and particles working their way out of the nooks and crannies only offer so much explanation,..

Are you suggesting that a valid explanation has some sort of expiration date or number of times it can be used? When the explanation makes sense and is consistent with repeated observations, the explanation gains, not loses, credibility for future occurrences. And you were far too limited in your list of potential stimuli for strange visuals out the window or on external TVs -- you could list a dozen other known causes if you tried, so limiting it to only two is unfair.

...and they certainly do not explain particles greater than cm diameters further than 10m from the shuttle for which no more explanation can be offered at this time. This tether video is the best evidence I have seen so far.

The crux of the question -- and one that is subject to additional research which, you realize, UFO proponents (including yourself) have declined to perform for more than a decade. Was it because they didn't know how, didn't think it was necessary, or were afraid of the possible results?