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: 95
77
<< 92  93  94    96  97  98 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 04:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by orazio
You will see something incredible. Also, it appears, then suddenly moves downward..
I've watched this video maybe 50 times but I watched it again and I didn't see anything incredible at 2:29.


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...


I'm impressed you recognize some of the objects are close to the camera! Good observation.

Have you ever heard of "Rods" recorded by video cameras, and did you know they are optical effects of the camera and rods don't really exist? So seeing is not believing and you can't trust your eyes or the camera without doing a lot of research into photography and photographic technology, to understand how we can be fooled by what the camera records. Yes I see the objects passing behind the tether but I'm not fooled by that illusion and if you study this a bit more you also will learn how not to be fooled. This thread is 94 pages long and I'm guessing 30 or more of those pages have explanations about why the objects appearing to go behind the tether is just an illusion.




posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 05:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 



So seeing is not believing and you can't trust your eyes or the camera without doing a lot of research into photography and photographic technology, to understand how we can be fooled by what the camera records.


And once you have done that research, you realize that most people get it right the first time. Your whole opinion of what we are seeing here is base on obfuscation of what we see on the video. Your opinion is in direct contrast to what is reported by NASA.

Let me put this into perspective, your ability to interpret photo or digital data is completely dependent on your ability to calculate mathematical equations on a instinctual level. Thus you can fix the technical problems that nobody else is able to grasp.

Or else I have had too much wine tonight.



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 07:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
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.


The study isn't about this camera and this video, it was early in the shuttle program and was an attempt to forecast instrumentation interference from shuttle-generated stuff, of any type and any origin.

Observers would call the stuff various names, ice or debris or whatever, and often these were just guesses. As has been explained, there are a good dozen different potential sources of such stuff, some concentrated early in the flight, some episodic based on repeated deliberate events, some random from unplanned events.

The phenemona are typical, ordinary, and 'everyday' in space.

The characteristics of the illumination conditions and the particles reaction to said conditions can provide insight into their range, motion, and origin -- hence my bringing up the subject, whose importance you still haven't realized.



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 07:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
They use words like "debris" because literally anything could be called 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:
So, according to you, if "anything" could be called debris, then you are entitled to dream to your critters...or me too i'm entitled to think those "debris" are souls of the deads in form of the orbs. Could we agree on this first point?

Second:
If the term debris, is lacking in detail, and you expected more precise description, i think you expected from the astronaut to 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, than he must be talking very much and very fast
, simply because the tether encounter was expected to last not many minutes.....and, in this variance i expect from you, as already i know your "style", to ask astronaut for demonstration that those objects are really what astronaut says...

Don't you feel the ridiculous when stretching things beyound laughable limits? Oh, man...







Originally posted by poet1b
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.


From where you extract the expression "debris, which could very well be floating several miles away"? From your imagination?

The astronaut says "debris that flies with us".... which means in proximity.
Also, what kind of debris are those floating several miles away, which astronaut could see with his naked eyes? give me examples of this kind of debris, which, at this distance, could be easy seen by a human, and, then, propose a cause for this debris to be there, several miles away.

Again, you stretch and diform things like saying white is black and black is white..... tipically. oh, boy...








[edit on 21/11/09 by depthoffield]



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 07:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

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.


Soaring Hawk Productions is my company, I can only presume since I received it in email, opened it as an attachment, and then saved it to my hard drive, my registered software left its fingerprint.

As for TSSC, I dunno what it stands for, but the NASA audiovisual services are a commercial contractor located in a building by the JSC back gate. A lot of the specific technical services are contracted out.



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

I never encountered any embargo on STS-75 video. Does Martyn have any evidence that NASA ever embargoed it, aside from his remembered version? Any real, checkable evidence?


Jim... well here it is...uploaded to ATS media as "NASA Embargo on tether UFO video"...

Fellow ATS members.. HELP!...could you go to ATS media & under secretnasaman, find it & post a link here, for me...for this thread. I keep failing in my attempts?

....but I did find, edit, convert & upload Jim Obergs demand for "proof of claim", just to show all ATS members how the skeptic superstar himself is always bluffing, & to follow ATS rules!!!

 

Mod edit: correct quote tags and added the video.


(click to open player in new window)


[edit on 21/11/2009 by ArMaP]



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by secretnasaman
 

The press conference, which was given shortly after the separation of the tether, makes it clear that the embargo concerned data up to the time of the separation. Such embargoes are not unusual (e.g. the methane plumes on Mars) and they are temporary. They allow NASA (and others) to fully analyze the data before releasing it and their conclusions to the public.

The video under discussion was made days after the separation. As Oberg says, how could this video have been embargoed? You recorded from the NASA Channel, did you not?



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by depthoffield
 


This is gotten completely ridiculous.

There are no particles that hang around 32 minutes after an Ice Dump, maybe possibly one, but that would be a rarity. THIS NASA STUDY CONFIRMS THIS.

ntrs.nasa.gov...

For the first minute and a half of the video there is nothing floating around the screen. We see sunrise by the glow in the lower right hand corner, still no particles floating in the video. No one needs to calculate trig for this observation.

The Tether comes out of the Earth's shadow, the camera angle is adjusted slightly so that we can see tether, and large numbers of floating objects or debri, or what ever you want to call them, arrive with the Tether.

If there would have been particles from a water dump, the astronaut would have noted them on the scene list they have been doing throughout the mission.

files.abovetopsecret.com...


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.


THERE WAS NO WATER DUMP AND NO PARTICLES FROM A WATER DUMP.

and no particles left from a missed report of a water dump from a half hour ago, or several hours ago, as Jim insisted had occurred.



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
If there would have been particles from a water dump, the astronaut would have noted them on the scene list they have been doing throughout the mission.


The scene list only shows the scenes the camera is pointed at right? In other words, if something is happening out of the camera's view, it won't be on the scene list.

As you've already pointed out the particles were initially out of the camera's view and probably not too visible even if the camera was pointed at them while the orbiter was in the shade, so the scene list only reflects either the direction of the camera and the lighting conditions perhaps, but I don't see how you can infer the presence or absence of a water dump, or any other particles not seen by the camera, from the scene list.

Personally I'm still being patient with Jim Oberg to share the daily execute update or whatever logs he finds related to any water dumps.

IF there was a water dump 30 minutes prior, wouldn't that have been shaded from the sun almost the entire time? Just doing a little back of the envelope guesswork here, an orbit takes what, 90 minutes or so? and the orbiter is in the Earth's shadow less than half of that, I don't know how much less but I'm guessing perhaps 35 or 40 minutes? If so, then a water dump 32 minutes prior would be getting hit by sunlight for the first time as the orbiter comes out of the Earth's shadow,so it would have had no reason to sublimate any sooner in the shade.

And no I haven't done any trig yet either to determine the angle the camera was pointing at, but I think we would need to do that to make claims that a camera couldn't see a prior water dump as you apparently seem to be doing.



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


The scene list describes what the camera sees, as far as I can tell. When water dumps are scene by the camera they are noted as water dumps, as the quotes I posted show.

The quote I give from the scene list shows that the water dumps are visible while the shuttle is in the Earths shadow.

Sublimation is due to vacuum, not sunlight. Sunlight might speed up the process, but it is the effect of the vacuum that pulls the ice crystals apart. In addition, the water dumps fall away mainly due to atmospheric drag. The study says nothing about ice dump particles hanging around longer if the dump occurred in the shadow of the Earth. Do you have any evidence that ice particles will hang around the shuttle until the shuttle re-enters sunlight? If not, then there is no reason to come to this conclusion.

In addition, I never claimed the camera couldn't see a water dump. Quite the contrary, my opinion is that if there had been a water dump and it was recorded by the camera, the scene list would show this. No recording of a water dump, no water dump recorded by the camera.



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 06:09 PM
link   
Camera artifacts.



Here is a stationary star. Anything that reflects or refracts light can possibly give off this same shape.

Read through the entire thread. There's more than enough evidence given to support this, while "critters" has zero evidence. These might be UFO's as in we don't know for sure if they are ice crystals or whatever, but they certainly have not been proven to be alive.



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by bloodline
 


Yeah, you can create video distortion, but lets see you do that with numerous white dots, with some being distorted and others not.

Most of the little white dots in this video are not being turned into large distorted circles with notches.

The only thing this video proves is that you can create distortion, big deal. It does nothing to explain what we are seeing in the tether video.



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
Sublimation is due to vacuum, not sunlight. Sunlight might speed up the process, but it is the effect of the vacuum that pulls the ice crystals apart.


This was back on page 83 so I'll cut you some slack if you missed it, but are you saying the temperature in space at the altitude of the shuttle's orbit is over 200 degrees K in the shade? Because that appears to be about the temperature for a phase change from water into water vapor at the near vacuum pressures we are talking about, right?

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Originally posted by Arbitrageur
look at a phase diagram of water showing the relationship of phase to temperature and pressure:

www1.lsbu.ac.uk...



Actually you're right to an extent but here's a good analogy. Put a pot of water on the stove but leave the burner off and see how long it takes to change to water vapor when the temperature is at room temperature. It evaporates eventually but it takes a long time. Now turn up the heat and boil the water at 100 degrees C, then changes phase rapidly right (though it still takes time to all boil away). That's analogous to sunlight hitting ice if it raises the ice temperature to over 200k, those are the critical temperatures at which the phase change occurs rapidly. Below those critical temperatures, the phase change can occur but it happens very slowly, both in the space example of ice, as well as the kitchen example of water.



In addition, the water dumps fall away mainly due to atmospheric drag.


Yes I agree, and the smaller the particle size the greater the effect of drag due to the higher surface area to mass ratio. So let me ask you, how far do you expect a 1 cm particle to fall behind the shuttle due to drag in 30 minutes? Less than 1 kilometer? or over 100 kilometers?



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by bloodline
 


Yeah, you can create video distortion, but lets see you do that with numerous white dots, with some being distorted and others not.

Most of the little white dots in this video are not being turned into large distorted circles with notches.

The only thing this video proves is that you can create distortion, big deal. It does nothing to explain what we are seeing in the tether video.



On the contrary, it explains everything.



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 06:58 PM
link   
Reminds me of anti bodies surrounding an invading foreign object.



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Expose a pot of water to 10^-12 millitorre which is the pressure which it would be seeing in space and see how quickly it boils away. Pretty much instantaneously.



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by bloodline
 


Everything being used as an expression of nothing, then you are right.

Considering how much zoom was needed for distortion, the only thing you have proved is that what we see around the tether is at considerable varying distances from the shuttle, which means not close up to the shuttle.



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 
Actually that's not what would happen. The water would boil until enough heat was removed to turn the remaining H2O into ice, then it would stop boiling.

In fact, isn't that exactly how the water turns into ice when the water dump is executed? If what you said were true, the ice particles would never form from the water dump, and obviously they do form.



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by bloodline
Here is a stationary star. Anything that reflects or refracts light can possibly give off this same shape.
I knew stars were plasma but I didn't know they were "plasma critters", as some posters to this thread called the STS-75 pulsating donuts!


Good video, the star (or whatever it is, the youtube description says "unknown light source") when defocused into the donut shape even pulsates like the STS-75 donuts do though perhaps not as pronounced.

That's a good video, thanks for sharing it, as I hadn't seen it before, but why did you embed it when embedding is disabled? Or maybe you didn't know that? Anyway it's a nice contribution, thanks again.



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
If there would have been particles from a water dump, the astronaut would have noted them on the scene list they have been doing throughout the mission.


Astronauts don't do scene lists. I don't doubt you are super super sure they do, but that's not evidence for it. Or am I misunderstanding your claim?



new topics

top topics



 
77
<< 92  93  94    96  97  98 >>

log in

join