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: 94
77
<< 91  92  93    95  96  97 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 12:09 PM
link   
The analysis of this footage by David Serreda is what made me start to seriously consider the existance of ufos in the first place. This makes it even more compelling. Amazing!




posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
i understood why Poet1 said what he said and why he did, but really,

what good is all this he said she said stuff and what's it going to do to help this investigation ? this constant back and forth "i am going to out due you" mentality stuff is why i don't even want to post in this thread anymore.


Well, knowing you already, Easynow, i don't wonder anymore that you "understood why Poet1 said what he said and why he did,".

But you know what? I also understand why Poet1 said what he said and why he did...






well, obviously is not so good this re-copying of what was said... plus was time and energy consuming...


But, when some people, Poet1b here, began to switch his statements in order to mock the interlocutor....

"I don't believe in what NASa witness says! "
later
"I believe in what NASA witness says"

"Those are not debris"
later
"those are debris"



I think is good to expose some mockery tactics here, in order to minimize their usings....



Simple and direct question for Poet1b: show us some debris in STS-75 videos here in discussion...








[edit on 20/11/09 by depthoffield]



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by secretnasaman
You have proved my point that when I do give a name of somebody who is willing to try something, like this guy is...you ATTACK him!!!

I've never met him, but do you want me to refuse any help...& bury this?

& Jim...the gents name re: the "embargo" on all tether materials, Data & Video...is Space Shuttle Program Manager Tommy Holloway...ask him!
(I trust you won't attack this mans credibility?...!)


As I recall, there usually is a temporary embargo on interviews with witnesses while an aerospace incident is under investigation, until the final report is issued. But how could NASA 'embargo' a videotape that they had already broadcast in real time? I just don't see this as a valid excuse.



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


Binary, hexadecimal, they are both systems for representing numbers. However, if you work with pictures and video with today's current computer format, you would be working with hexadecimal numbers, NOT binary, because the computer looks at hexadecimal chunks to assign things like placement of pixels, color, brightness and contrast, the things that make up a picture.



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by depthoffield
 


Depthoffield, if you are going to quote me, then at least extend the courtesy of providing links to the posts I made, which are buried in this long thread, so that anyone who might be interested could go back and look at the conversation that was taking place.

Yes, I have stated many times that what you get from anyone working for NASA, or the government, or essentially any big organization, whether it is a government, corporation, or other form of an institution, is an "Official Version".

You seem to fail to grasp the nature of an "official version". An official version isn't wrong, it is simply watered down, obtuse, open to a broad array of interpretation. They use words like "debris" because literally anything could be called debris.

When I say I don't believe the "official version", I am saying that the truth is being hidden, and distorted, not that it is wrong.

When an astronaut says he sees ice crystals from a water dump, that is a fairly precise description of what he is seeing, and there is no reason to doubt that description. However, when an astronaut says he sees debris, which could very well be floating several miles away, in a video with a lot of glare, he is not being precise. Can you grasp the difference?

There is a great deal of difference between me stating that I don't believe the official version, which means that I think information is intentionally being withheld from us, an YOU stating that;

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
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


You are straight up stating that the astronaut is wrong, and that you are better able to describe what the astronaut is seeing than the astronaut himself. If you are not stating this, then you should explain this statement. How is "what he describes" wrong?

What I am stating that the astronaut is prevented from giving his honest opinion, so he has to use words like "debris".

HUGE DIFFERENCE!

You don't want to be mocked, then stop accusing me of trying to sell things, and stop posting like you think you are the only one with any understanding of cameras or science and technology, because it comes off as egotistical, and seriously destroys your credibility.

Let's quote the conversation you are referring to.


Franklin, we see a long line, a couple of star like things, and a lot of things swimming in the foreground, can you describe what you are seeing.

"The long line is the tether, and there is a little bit of debris that flies with us that is illuminated by the sun at such low angles, and there is a lot of stray light and is getting washed out quickly, and Claude is trying to do a good job of adjusting the cameras."


The description, "a little bit of debris that flies with us" is clearly an understatement, we are seeing a lot more than a little bit of debris.

What the astronauts says is not technically wrong, it is just lacking in all detail, so that nothing can be used against the astronaut, or NASA.

This is a classic example of giving out an official version. If you had ever worked for a large institution, and gone through inspections or audits, or been a part of something that was newsworthy for which you might be approached by the press, then you would understand the concept of the "Official Version".

By the way, some of the things you claim to be my opinion are taken directly from NASA reports. Being that you failed to provide links to the quotes from me you posted, I am not going to bother to dig up all the links myself, but you did do just that.

Edit to Add

I think a little mocking now and then keeps things interesting, as long at it doesn't get too serious, and starts to derail the thread. No harm meant to be given, and none taken.

Clearly you did a considerable amount of digging to pull up those quotes. Honestly, I feel complimented. Thanks



[edit on 20-11-2009 by poet1b]

Oh yeah, edit to add

It is all debri, and it is all brokah.


[edit on 20-11-2009 by poet1b]



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


I think demanding trigonometric functions of shuttle attitude and camera angle in relation to the Earth and the Sun for any reasonable observation is demanding a bit too much. Besides, if I was to blast the rust off of my trig skills, find, and present the data, you wouldn't understand it anyway, without doing the same, and to be honest I highly doubt the information is actually available, at least not in global xyz coordinates. That would be a lot of math. Honestly, I don't think my old brain has that kind of capability anymore.

You do have a good point about looking at the mission itself a little more closely. Here is a link I found that I haven't seen on the subject before.

science.ksc.nasa.gov...


Tethered Satellite System (TSS) "science of opportunity," during Columbia's final approach to within 46 nautical miles of the satellite, included firing the electron accelerators in Columbia's cargo bay. The electron guns' effects on the charged particles, electrical waves and magnetic fields around the satellite were detected by the Research on Electrodynamic Tether Effects, Research on Orbital Plasma Electrodynamics and Magnetic Field Experiment for TSS Mission's instruments mounted on the satellite. All three instrument teams reported receiving good quality data from the satellite, data which are now being analyzed by the experiment investigators.


On Friday, March 1, 1996, 8 a.m. CST, STS-75 MCC Status Report # 17 reports:

Columbia's astronauts had a clear view of the Tethered Satellite as the two spacecraft passed within about 46 nautical miles overnight. The closest approach occurred at 11:17 central time last night (approximately 7/08:59 MET), and was captured on videotape as the satellite and its 12-mile tether came into view.

Meanwhile, flight controllers monitored the Tethered Satellite through ground stations as its batteries drained, but not before holding in for last night's fly-by.

About 6 a.m. today, weak signals from the satellite, indicating its battery life was waning, were observed through the Merritt Island tracking station and the Bermuda tracking station. During a second pass across the southern United States about 7:30 a.m. today (7/17:12 mission elapsed time), ground controllers confirmed there was no acquisition of signal from the satellite, effectively ending its mission.


Columbia continues to perform in near flawless fashion as it sails 180 statute miles above the Earth, circling the globe every 90 minutes.


Hmm, so there were tests being performed on Plasma. For emphasis:


firing the electron accelerators in Columbia's cargo bay. The electron guns' effects on the charged particles, electrical waves and magnetic fields around the satellite were detected by the Research on Electrodynamic Tether Effects, Research on Orbital Plasma Electrodynamics and Magnetic Field Experiment


Thoughts anyone?



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by JimOberg
 


I think demanding trigonometric functions of shuttle attitude and camera angle in relation to the Earth and the Sun for any reasonable observation is demanding a bit too much. Besides, if I was to blast the rust off of my trig skills, find, and present the data, you wouldn't understand it anyway, without doing the same, and to be honest I highly doubt the information is actually available, at least not in global xyz coordinates. That would be a lot of math. Honestly, I don't think my old brain has that kind of capability anymore.


It's not that hard, and the value is you realize where (if at all) are the shadowed zones in front of the camera FOV. That's why in some of the most notorious 'space UFO' scenes (like STS-48, 63, 80, etc), stuff seems to 'appear' in mid-screen as it drifts out of the shadow.

Of course, there's also the danger that knowing this sort of information could provide plausible prosaic explanations for favorite videos. But it's a risk an honest investigator has to take.

The most impressive realization, when you do this digging, is that most of these 'best' space UFO videos occurred in very special -- and rare -- illumination conditions, not randomly throughout any orbit. This is highly suggestive of a cause-and-effect sequence, that applies to small nearby shuttle-derived stuff. There's no reason I can think of that the specific illumination conditions should influence the occurrence of sightings of distant, big stuff. So it's a powerful argument for the 'small near stuff' explanation.



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by depthoffield
 


Depthoffield, if you are going to quote me, then at least extend the courtesy of providing links to the posts I made, which are buried in this long thread, so that anyone who might be interested could go back and look at the conversation that was taking place.


Ok, i've done this..i edited my posts to add links to the sources from where i extracted the quotes. Half an hour took me more, but, what the hell...it was my initial mistake to not provide links.





Originally posted by poet1b
Let's quote the conversation you are referring to.


Franklin, we see a long line, a couple of star like things, and a lot of things swimming in the foreground, can you describe what you are seeing.

"The long line is the tether, and there is a little bit of debris that flies with us that is illuminated by the sun at such low angles, and there is a lot of stray light and is getting washed out quickly, and Claude is trying to do a good job of adjusting the cameras."


The description, "a little bit of debris that flies with us" is clearly an understatement, we are seeing a lot more than a little bit of debris.

What the astronauts says is not technically wrong, it is just lacking in all detail, so that nothing can be used against the astronaut, or NASA.


First thing you struggle to ignore: the astronaut says "debris that flies with us".

Second thing which you try, is to strech the observation when saying
"The description, "a little bit of debris that flies with us" is clearly an understatement, we are seeing a lot more than a little bit of debris"

How do you describe the following bunch of dust particles obtained by me just shaking a pullover in the room, near the windows where the sun was present?
huge, medium or small bit of dust ? (you can try yourself the experiment)

Here the dust particles:





Since you accepted their explanation, i ask you again, show us some of those debris appearing in images, flying together with the shuttle, and recorded on the Scene list on page 75:


Originally posted by depthoffield

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.




source: www.abovetopsecret.com...




edited to add some relevant information

[edit on 20/11/09 by depthoffield]



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


I do work with images (I am making a search engine that analyses images and looks for images that look more or less the same), and I know how things work, from the point of view of someone working with an image in Photoshop (where we can use hexadecimal or decimal values from 0 to 255 or percentage values for the colours) down to the point of view of someone creating the processor that works with those values.

The fact that the most used colour representation is in hexadecimal format is a result of the popularity of the Internet, it's harder to say that the background colour is 16,776,960 or 1111 1111 1111 1111 0000 0000 than to say that it's FFFF00 (all those values represent yellow in RGB), but that does not change the fact that the programs working with that data work with binary data only, even what we see as FFFF00 is used inside the processor as 1111 1111 1111 1111 0000 0000.

PS: a correction to my previous post, FF is not 256, it's 255. Sorry.



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


I was going to clarify this too but you did a better job than I would have ArMaP. The only thing I have to add is that the PC hardware CAN'T deal with any values besides 0 or 1, anything represented otherwise is a construct to help us manage what the computer is doing.



Originally posted by depthoffield
How do you describe the following bunch of dust particles obtained by me just shaking a pullover in the room, near the windows where the sun was present?
huge, medium or small bit of dust ? (you can try yourself the experiment)

Here the dust particles:

How do you know those are dust particles? Some of them may not be dust particles but could be dust mites (which look like aliens to me), right? Or maybe they're UFO's (tongue in cheek)? Just kidding.

Seriously though it's a good example. The other thing that occurs to me, is that if particles are dispersed at various distances away from the shuttle, say tens of meters perhaps, the particles could be dispersed relatively far apart but the depth of field of the telephoto lens could make the particles at various distances all appear in the same image. Or to put it another way, if we saw 50 particles, and they spanned 50 meters depth of field, that's only 1 particle per meter, so seeing a lot of particles doesn't automatically imply a very high concentration of particles per unit volume, it only shows per unit area of the camera's field of view.



Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by JimOberg
 

science.ksc.nasa.gov...

The electron guns' effects on the charged particles, electrical waves and magnetic fields around the satellite were detected

Thoughts anyone?

poet1b, good find on the firing of the electron gun about the time this STS-75 video was made.

The first thing that comes to mind is the experiment where you rub a balloon on some wool and some electrons are stripped from the wool onto the rubber so the rubber gets a net negative charge. I'm not sure what all these particles are but if they are able to accumulate a negative charge like the balloon does, then if the particles all have a net negative charge and they come in proximity with each other, they would experience a repulsive force, wouldn't they? (opposite charges attract, like charges repel) But I don't know if the particles can accumulate excess electrons or not like the rubber does in that experiment, or if the electron gun was fired in the direction of the particles.

[edit on 20-11-2009 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 06:57 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


The fact that most digital information is in hexadecimal is because it is much easier to work with than binary. Do you realize Hex is used because four bits give you sixteen numbers? If I had said decimal, then maybe you would have a reason to point this out.

Why would I bring up hexadecimal if I didn't for some strange reason understand that computers are binary? What exactly is your point in questioning what you have already recognized as being a reality, that most people used hexadecimal when manipulating video at the most basic level. Not only do the numbers represent color, but also row and column, and intensity needed for each pixel.

Do you recognize that digital succeeds by slicing up an analog signal and converting it to digital? Odds are good that a analog recording could indeed be greatly improved upon its digital format, which is how we received Utube videos. In fact, depending on the medium on which the this original tether video was recorded, it could be far superior than anything we could get from VHS tape.

Are you just trying to get on my nerves? Is that what it is?




posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by depthoffield
 


Thanks for going to the effort.

I have no struggle addressing the comments about describing debri around the shuttle, I even went through the effort of transcribing the exact part of the conversation onto the thread.


How long do you intend to ignore the NASA study that describes what happens to the debri that surrounds the shuttle?

That NASA study explains just how debri around the shuttle acts, and if you bother to read and acknowledge that study, they you would understand exactly what to expect when you shake a pullover in your living room. Seriously, didn't you ever notice this stuff in your entire life, like starting from the time you were a child?

As long as you continue to ignore the NASA study on particles seen in the camera, this whole discussion is a waste of time.

Not to mention you continue to ignore the fact that the NASA scene list of the mission clearly demonstrates that when the astronauts see ice particles from a water dump, they identify them as ice particles form a water dump, not as debris. This proves that we are not looking at ice particles as you have claimed from the beginning.

We are looking at debri, which could be anything.



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
The fact that most digital information is in hexadecimal is because it is much easier to work with than binary.
No, the digital information is not in hexadecimal, its mostly in binary. CDs and DVDs, for example, have only the equivalent to 0s and 1s.


Do you realize Hex is used because four bits give you sixteen numbers?
Yes, I know that for many years. That's also why sometimes octal is used, because 3 bits give you 8 numbers.


If I had said decimal, then maybe you would have a reason to point this out.
That would be the same thing, there is only one way of storing the number "12" in a digital medium, regardless of its meaning (twelve or eighteen, for example), and that way is in binary.


What exactly is your point in questioning what you have already recognized as being a reality, that most people used hexadecimal when manipulating video at the most basic level.
My point is that what you originally said ("A picture recorded digitally is an array of hexadecimal numbers.") is not true, a digitally recorded picture is an array (or more correctly, a sequence) of numbers, regardless of the numeric system used. What people use is irrelevant.


Do you recognize that digital succeeds by slicing up an analog signal and converting it to digital?
Sure, I have made some analog to digital converters (and vice-versa) myself.


Odds are good that a analog recording could indeed be greatly improved upon its digital format, which is how we received Utube videos. In fact, depending on the medium on which the this original tether video was recorded, it could be far superior than anything we could get from VHS tape.
The original analog medium will always look better than a digital copy, but some digital treatment can make it look better than the original, although it does not make any CSI-like miracles.


And anything is better than a YouTube video, they are too aggressively compressed, that's why I convert my videos to FLV before uploading them, if they are in FLV YouTube does not recompress them.


Are you just trying to get on my nerves? Is that what it is?
No, just trying to show that computers are binary systems, not hexadecimal, so your original statement that "A picture recorded digitally is an array of hexadecimal numbers." is not correct, but it would have been if you had omitted the "hexadecimal" part.

PS: don't get mad with silly things like these, it's not worth it, specially on a Friday.



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
Not to mention you continue to ignore the fact that the NASA scene list of the mission clearly demonstrates that when the astronauts see ice particles from a water dump, they identify them as ice particles form a water dump, not as debris.
Now that you brought back that scene list, I would like to ask everybody (but specially to Jim Oberg) one thing: if that is a NASA scene list, why does the document properties list the author as "TSSC Contractor" and the company as "SOARING HAWK PRODUCTIONS, INC"?

Does anyone know what this means?

Thanks in advance.



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 07:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


ACTUALLY, if you want to get technical, the computer does not see ones and zeros at all, it sees voltages between 0 & 5Vdc which is then converted to a one or a zero, then a binary number, which is then converted to a hexadecimal number. Computers do not recognize 1 and 0 they only know high or low voltage values in the range between 0 & 5 Vdc, all determined by a clock switching back and forth at an extremely high frequency.

The thing about space is that it is extremely non-conductive. Thus you get high voltages without current flow. The article I linked to talks about plasma forming around the tether, so there was a great deal of plasma generation.

Does NASA find it acceptable to describe plasma as debris?



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


Yes that puts the binary and hexadecimal a little more in context than your earlier description.

As for use of the term "debris", if it's something that is cluttering up the camera's view and they don't have anything more specific to describe it with, why not call it "debris"?

And yes there is a lot of plasma in space. The one incident I remember reading about an astronaut observe plasma in space was when his gloves were glowing. I think that glow was due to plasma:

www.bautforum.com...

Here's a description from How NASA Learned To Fly In Space - An Exciting Account Of The Gemini Missions (Apogee Books Space Series) (Paperback) by David M. Harland:

By the time they reached Tananrive they were in darkness again and Aldrin was working methodically through the list of stars. To his surprise, repeatedly holding the cable release for the two-minute exposures made his fingers ache. "When I rub my gloves together," he noted in fascination, there is static electricity between them." Once his eyes had fully adapted to the darkness, he had noticed that his gloves glowed. Experimenting, he found that rubbing his thumb against his index finger induced an electrostatic effect, evidently resulting from passing through the ionosphere - in effect, he was flying though a sea of electrons.


However, plasma is an ionized gas, so if an astronaut sees plasma in space, I think it will be described in a manner similar to the gas "glowing" (think fluorescent tube which glows due to plasma inside the tube). But the gas molecules even if ionized into plasma will only glow and I am not aware of how plasma could form into discrete particles that could be described as debris and still meet the definition of being plasma, unless you try to stretch the definition of plasma from ionized gas to ionized solids and I'm not sure you can do that, because if it's a solid instead of a gas, it's just an electrically charged solid, and no longer plasma.

I don't think it's likely astronauts would confuse debris (which is solid particles), with an ionized gas.

Edit to add external source

[edit on 20-11-2009 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 09:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Well, I am not always precise in my descriptions. Maybe I should get more disciplined.

Yeah, I think the word debris is the code word for we don't know what we are looking at. Which is natural for everyone.

Physicist Dr David Bohm discovered that plasma forms like a living cell, with a membrane and even a nucleus, around sixty years ago. The sun is supposed to be plasma, and the aurora borealis is plasma. Clearly Plasma can form into cohesive bodies, an emit light. Fire is plasma, as is lighting. Plasma is a state of matter of which we know extremely little.



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 10:05 PM
link   
reply to post by JScytale
 


Are you aware that space junk is moving dozens of thousands MPH, and space junk does not change directions in its path, neither does it slow down and accelerate, change shape or even float along with the space shuttle - unless the space shuttle dropped some debris. But come on, check out the other tether footage too theres a lot of evidence it is NOT debris...


on the note of plasma, yes we know very little about it.. as we do a lot of things. Or rather, the truth about things have been hidden from us (obviously)
There is no REAL mystery. We already have the know-how and the clues to know it all, you guys realise that to me and most of the people I live and talk with (in a commune/ community of spiritually awakened people, who are focused on healing the earth, humanity, and co-creating and sharing the ascension process on Earth we are now experiencing).. there is no question of other life visiting us, however the subject is deep and there are many many types of life here. Some of which have left for good (such as the negative/hostile groups)
The important thing to remember is that we as humans of earth are not vulnerable to alien invasions or the like.. if there would be anything of the sort. a hostile attack from so-called aliens. REMEMBER that it is false, a lie, and may be in fact our own shadow-govt in disguise. There are no groups of ET who are here to eat us, kill us, or even exploit humanity. This hasn't always been true however it is true in our present moment and the ascension of Earth and all sentient life is awakening.

[edit on 20-11-2009 by orazio]



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by orazio
reply to post by JScytale
 

Are you aware that space junk is moving dozens of thousands MPH, and space junk does not change directions in its path, neither does it slow down and accelerate,
All space junk orbiting the Earth is slowing down, right? The lower the orbital altitude the more friction it encounters so the faster it slows down. And it is all accelerating toward the earth as it may see 90% of the gravity we have on the earth's surface. The high velocity you mentioned is what keeps it from falling straight down due to this acceleration.


change shape or even float along with the space shuttle - unless the space shuttle dropped some debris.
Well that has been the discussion of this thread, did the shuttle drop some debris and if so what is it? We are hoping to see some evidence posted showing it might be ice particles from a water dump.


But come on, check out the other tether footage too theres a lot of evidence it is NOT debris...

Perhaps you'd like to enlighten us as to what that evidence is?

Presenting evidence goes a lot further than saying there's evidence and not presenting it, and would be more relevant to the thread than the good alien/bad alien dialog.


[edit on 20-11-2009 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 01:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 

www.youtube.com...
This is the same UFO activity.. Don't you agree? In this video, they 'dont know whats going on'.


www.youtube.com...

Do you notice that this part of the video is black and white, low quality? While the earlier video feed, was color and more visible?

www.youtube.com...

OKAY please watch at 2:29 in the above tether video, at the -Top-Center- of the video you willl see a white 'blob' appear - watch it closely and replay that part a few times. You will see something incredible. Also, it appears, then suddenly moves downward..

also for instance.. at 3:34 you can see that there are some particles very close to the camera, however there are also different objects (the ones with the dots and strange shape) in the distance. At this moment you can see the objects are going BEHIND the tether...


also...

The man commenting suddenly stops in the middle of his sentence, followed by a long silence, for all we know it could be the audio has been altered, and/or when the conversation continues and he mentions the debris floating around and the sun gleaning off the debris and all he could be explaining this to cover up what they are really seeing..
Earlier in the video, we saw no debris

[edit on 21-11-2009 by orazio]



new topics

top topics



 
77
<< 91  92  93    95  96  97 >>

log in

join