New Analysis of the STS-75 Tether Incident -2010 (my research)

Originally posted by nablator

Originally posted by depthoffield
horizontal_senzor_size = 2 x focal_length x tan (fov_horizontal/2)
or
horizontal_senzor_size = 2 x 108 x tan (6.6/2) = 12.45 mm

[]

The typical sensor width is 5.76 mm on a 1/2.5" sensor, not 12.5 mm.

[]

Well, no..

In the NASA camera, i didn't find the value of the horizontal size of the senzor based on direct specification.

Instead, as the formulas shows, i calculated based on focal length and the angle.

Therefore, the value of 12.5 mm for it, it is accurate (not from some standards or conventions)

So, the 21 meters, and all the other calculations for NASA camera, is still corect.



Related to the difference of 1.5 related to standards for the inch system.. this could apply for my Canon S2 IS camera, since i took the value of diagonal as what was published.... but if the 1.5x factor it is correct, why my calculus related to my kitchen experiment goes still corect? Or maybe it is still inside the error margin....Well, i could simply measure the real size of diagonal, measuring the angle of the frame and knowing the focal length (like i've done in NASA camera). I may do this sometime, for curiosity.






[edit on 10/2/10 by depthoffield]

wrong post

[edit on 10/2/10 by depthoffield]

You are right ! My mistake. The 1/2.5" sensor size that confused me is for your Canon camera, not the C camera of the shuttle. Sorry !

I have never found the proper way to compute sensor width and height without experimenting. There are parameters in EXIF (focal plane resolution) that give a value, not too far from the actual one, but it is not accurate enough. Maybe there is a mysterious additional crop factor that needs to be taken into account. Exiftool, the software by Phil Harvey computes a closer value than what I could manage, but the way it's done is not documented AFAIK.

Originally posted by mcrom901


in the meantime.... i find it strange nothing was mentioned about these 'debris' in the actual technical reports.......

ntrs.nasa.gov...

well, that report it looks to me, that it deals only with debris with destructive potential, like what happens on launch, separation, re-entry, landing, various chemical contaminants, tile hits etc..and doesn't deal with normal inofensive particles of debris made by water/waste/various nominal dumps unless having hazard potential.


But the scene list, along with astronauts in the movie (described at 5:32:55 GMT: "there is a bit of debris flying with us, illuminated by the sun" ) describe exactly the debris:

Originally posted by depthoffield
But the scene list, along with astronauts in the movie (described at 5:32:55 GMT: "there is a bit of debris flying with us, illuminated by the sun" ) describe exactly the debris:

oooolala...... i BELIEVE your approach was very "scientific" there......

Originally posted by JimOberg
I'm more interested in the TOPPING FES STARTUP item, and at what time it actually occurred. That's what I'm trying to wring out of PAO -- but he needs access to the FAO logs.

Originally posted by mcrom901
reply to post by JimOberg

 

good news for you........

ntrs.nasa.gov...

Hi all,

At some point the majority of us have to admit the obvious. It's just a wee-bit sad the rest of us want to see these ships as something other than what's right in front of our eyes.

Decoy

Originally posted by mcrom901
reply to post by JimOberg

 

good news for you........

ntrs.nasa.gov...

well, what you show us in that report (by the way, don't you feel also like a sheep, believing in NASA reports?) is related to the times described, which is:

062:08:04 GMT to 062:09:52 GMT (which is 2 Mars 1996) or
065:09:13 and later (which is 5 Mars 1996)



while the tether video with the debris is from 061:05:30 GMT, meaning 1 mars 1996, one day (at least) BEFORE your related problems with FES, according to STS75 scene list:




sorry, you missed a bit the timings ... i think J Oberg asked himself about FES activity in the 1 Mars day, when the tether video with debris was filmed, being rellevant.




[edit on 15/2/10 by depthoffield]

reply to post by depthoffield


what are you talking about....... mars chocolates????

read again......

ITS DUST!! notice that the orbs don't show up until the same second the sun comes over the horizon. it's dust

While in the first posts i measured the distance to some representative objects, discovering they are very close (meters/tens of meters away, but NOT near the tether!) using bokeh characteristics and mathematics, i want to reiterate an older and who-knows-where post, showing WHY the discs are just BOKEH, defocused images of little particles floating near the camera and brightly illuminated by the sun, close enough to be outside the depth of field of the lens and therefore acting as bokeh.


The notches we see at bigger discs, are consistent with the position in the frame. This demonstrates the relationship between the shape of the orbs and their position in the frame.


Look here, a zone in the frame named "A", with yellow border. In this zone, different disks have the same notches, two notches in the upper part of the disk. Look different objects numbered as 1,2,3,4,6,7,8.



seconds later:


a second later:


again, seconds later:


another seconds later:


seconds later again:










Again, same closer look, but here we concentrate in another zone, called "B", with green border. The objects which are also obedient here, are numbered as 9,4,10,7,11. Now, they have just one notch, in their below part.




seconds later:


seconds later:


again seconds later:










Now, let's study another zone, called "C", with blue border. The objects are 6 and 11 in this zone, and have one notch down and one notch up:




seconds later:




It is clear that the shape (notches) of different alleged "UFO's" are obedient to their position in the frame. It really looks like the NASA camera is the master of alien ships, ordering them to change the shape accordingly!


So the notches "argument" in sustaining UFO origin of those disks is WRONG. They are only camera induced artifacts.

In fact, the shape of the disks, because they really are just defocused images of tiny close particles made by lens, bokeh, imitate more or less the shape of iris mechanism of the lens. (This phenomenon i tried to experiment here:
www.youtube.com... and here: www.youtube.com... of course, these are tottally different cameras, having different bokeh characteristics)




Look, another camera with notches similar like NASA videos, in its defocused airy discs:












Another conclusive little analysys of the same principle, look for the following 3 minutes video extracted from STS-75 :



It may be neccessary to watch several times the movie, concentrating to every area selected.

So, i have delimited 4 area in the frame, with different colors. The shape of every different big disc (small discs cannot be seen well due to low quality of the video) when it is in that area is unique to that zone:



If notches are details from actual alien ship there (or critter), then why the notches are not consistent in all the frame, but it is specific, in fact unique to certain areas? Can be UFO's aware for their position in the image captured by some NASA camera, and morphing accordingly? And why do they do this?
If any big disc is in the red rectangle area, it will have the shape of a disc with two notches in the upper part of the disc.
If any big disc is in the blue rectangle area, then it will have the shape of a disc with one notch upper and one notch bottom of the disc.
If any big disc is in the green rectangle area, then it will have the shape of a disc with one notch in the bottom of the disc.
If any big disc is in the yellow rectangle area, then it will have the shape of a more squashed oblique disc with one notch in the bottom of the disc (not exactly disc anymore).

And there is NO exception, the notches are obedient to the NASA camera.

This is logical an argument that the notches are NOT details from the UFO's, but are only camera effects. Bokeh (out of focus images of out of depth of field objects), has this property, taking the shape induced by the lens or constructive inside elements (iris, mechanisms inside)




But there is more evidence related to bokeh: the "cat-eye" effect related to bokeh shape:


CAT EYE EFFECT

toothwalker.org...

The defocused points of light, the BOKEH, can be affected by the viggnetting of the lens. And the circles may became truncated, or squashed.

Look this example:



or a bigger version: img21.imageshack.us...




or maybe this, from an 5 year old photo taken with a film camera - image is scanned) (i have to remove people from the image ):


or a bigger version: img15.imageshack.us...



Another experiment of mine, regarding vignetting:



You see, if you understand optics beyond some (superficial) level, you should know that BOKEH tend to be squashed in direction to the center of the frame...this is CAT-EYE effect!


Now look in this extract from STS-75 NASA alleged UFOs:




In fact, not only that those disk has cat-eye obedience, but every one which goes further away from the center of the frame. Another obedience to the shape of the alleged UFOs related to the lens? Why? Because THEY ARE BOKEH !!


And because they are bokeh, that's why we could do mathematics and discover the distance to the particles generating the bokeh-discs...which was the basis for the opening posts of this thread.


The "UFO's seen in STS-75 videos, are NOT big distant alien ships or critters, but determined to be something close to the shuttle (meters/tens of meters away) and following it... DEBRIS generated by the shuttle ussually do this, and DEBRIS are described by the astronauts and by NASA Scene list.

Originally posted by depthoffield
In fact, not only that those disk has cat-eye obedience, but every one which goes further away from the center of the frame. Another obedience to the shape of the alleged UFOs related to the lens? Why? Because THEY ARE BOKEH !!

well.... it seems you are still stuck in the circle of confusion of your bokehs....

hello... BOKEH IS A BLURRED SOURCE OF LIGHT i.e. NOT = DEBRIS...

And because they are bokeh, that's why we could do mathematics and discover the distance to the particles generating the bokeh-discs...which was the basis for the opening posts of this thread.

sorry.... but all those assumptions + details from your canon camera do not have any basis in reality as far as sub footage is concerned.....

One thing that this calculator demonstrates, and it's a point that people often fail to realize, is that depth of field and background blur are not the same thing and indeed may not even be closely related. People think that a lens setting with a small depth of field will blur the background more, but that isn't necessarily true. The math is quite different in the two cases. Depth of field will give you an estimate of local blurring about a subject in focus, i.e. how blurred the image will be just outside the traditional "depth of field" limits. However that doesn't correlate with how blurred the image will be of objects at a significant distance behind the subject in focus.

www.bobatkins.com...



so..... do you have ALL the EXACT values?

The "UFO's seen in STS-75 videos, are NOT big distant alien ships or critters, but determined to be something close to the shuttle (meters/tens of meters away) and following it... DEBRIS generated by the shuttle usually do this, and DEBRIS are described by the astronauts and by NASA Scene list.

"debris" as described by the astronauts in that scene list.... is very much on the basis of what we have already heard a gazillion times in sub footage i.e. the astronaut made this claim whilst commentating and observing said clip.... nothing more.... there isn't a single shred of evidence to back it.....

or is there?



ntrs.nasa.gov...




moreover...... it seems you just ignored my 'mars chocolate' post....

just to reiterate......








[edit on 24/2/10 by mcrom901]

reply to post by depthoffield


i know you will again be away for sometime.... preparing godknows how many more of those gifs..... well.... came across this nice package which has this rather funny name... thought it might interest you.....

www.alienskin.com...

Originally posted by mcrom901

hello... BOKEH IS A BLURRED SOURCE OF LIGHT i.e. NOT = DEBRIS...

Yes, indeed, bokeh is a blured image of a source of light. Bokeh is not a reflection, a lens flare or something not related to the objects, but it is the direct image of the objects, albeit a distorted one. If the object moves, so do its image. If the object appears or dissapear, so do the image. Bokeh is an image of a source object, like any other image, but a distorted one, and have some unique properties. These properties are seen in the NASA sts-75 images, which allowed us to measure the distance to the objects...which is meters or tens of meters away. These objects are NOT at great distances, NOT near/behind or following the tether, as Sereda and critter theorists want us to blindly believe just looking of the beauty of the images. These objects are close, and therefore small, and they are following the shuttle with the same major orbital velocity in order to stay quite stable in the image despite tremenduous speed of the shuttle in orbit. Self generated debris (by the shuttle) do exactly that. Of course, these objects somehow could be NOT quite debris, but many small alien ships, or many small critters/life forms, or dead souls orbs, or whatever, but they are close and near the shuttle and share it's orbital velocity. Sereda and followers are simply wrong when saying about big and far and/or near the tether...which is of course something bad for their credibility. (therefore the need for dismissing the mundane posibility in any way, by the way, say hello to Zorgon :-p )


Debris as ice particles from water/waste dump? It is a posible source, as we don't know yet that there was NOT any dump, and we wait any new report with exact time intervals near the filming, from NASA, via Jim Oberg requests.

Debris from a recontact from an earlier dump? It could be also posible, despite they ussually dump the water in a way in order to minimise the recontact probabilities (yet the STS-75 mission, with its demandind microgravity conditions requested, is a special case).


Debris from rising sun creating thermall stress of the various insulation materials? Even this could be a source, while i don't give it a big factor in our equation here.


Other kind of debris generated by the shuttle? Could be. One thing for sure: the objects are close, small, numerous, following the shuttle in its major orbital speed, which is exactly what shuttle-generated debris does.




But any not-a-beginner in space shuttle activities, knows that debris generated by the shuttle in orbit is something common and could spoil the optical environment. Uncommon is the filming through them, because usually there is no need to film through cloud of debris, because they wait until optical environment is clean when doing important scientific research where seeing is important.

sorry.... but all those assumptions + details from your canon camera do not have any basis in reality as far as sub footage is concerned.....

One thing that this calculator demonstrates, and it's a point that people often fail to realize, is that depth of field and background blur are not the same thing and indeed may not even be closely related. People think that a lens setting with a small depth of field will blur the background more, but that isn't necessarily true. The math is quite different in the two cases. Depth of field will give you an estimate of local blurring about a subject in focus, i.e. how blurred the image will be just outside the traditional "depth of field" limits. However that doesn't correlate with how blurred the image will be of objects at a significant distance behind the subject in focus.

www.bobatkins.com...



so..... do you have ALL the EXACT values?

Sorry, but my Canon camera estimations checks very well with matematics, as everybody can see in opening posts. You, trying to search and extract some related content, or that quote, in order to suggest that i am wrong, is just a "clutching at straws" action..these reminds me by your nice blooper "satellite orbs" instead "satellite obs" = observations.



Infact, on the contrary, the "blur calculator" you posted, is a good one, i remember now i encountered it some time ago, but forget about it....the program follow the blur of foreground or background objects placed outside the depth of field interval...and check very well the matematics of blur.





A short check with this program, CONFIRMS my calculations:



I put the distance to the minimum focus (subject) distance of NASA camera during focus maneuver, as the one calculated by me,

20.8 meters ( www.abovetopsecret.com... )

other values:
focal length =108 mm
aperture = 1.6
circle of confusion 0.07 mm, as determined by me

distance from subject distance to background position = 10 000 meters, equal maximum alowed by the program, equal infinite.

and guess what are the values calculated by the program:

hyperfocal distance = 104.14 meters (instead 105 by my online depth of field calculator (oDOF) used)
near point in focus = 17.35 m (instead 17.5 by oDOF )
far point in focus = 25.96 m (instead 26.2 by oDOF)

and the most relevant the size of the blur made by very distant (infinite) objects:
infinity blur = 0.352 mm which, guess what, is exactly the size of the blur made by the HIP67819A star as measured by me (0.35 mm)

of course, in my calculations, i took the oposite direction, i measured the bokeh made by the star, and then i found the distance where the focus was briefly set, at 20.8 meters, which shows many objects with reduced blur, or even in focus.

This was check no 1.






Next check, related to object "9" which i founded to be at 11 meters away (www.abovetopsecret.com... )





I used the following values:

subject distance = 10000 meters (=focus distance, equal maximum alowed by the program, equal to infinite = lens focused at infinite)

distance from subject to foreground position i tried to select the best value, here 9988.494, (the steps alowed are not so small) in order to be closer to the value of 11 meters where i calculated that object "9" it was....obtaining a close value of:
foreground distance = 11.506 m

Having this input values, guess what were the result:

Foreground blur = 0.633 mm very close to my 0.66 mm measured value (of course there is a error due to 11 to 11.506 m difference)

This was check no 2.





As you can see, the piece of software you found it, which calculates the size of the blur (bokeh), ALSO MATCH WELL with my calculations and with the matematics of bokeh.

Which further (if any need) strenghten the bokeh explanation regarding the discs seen in STS-75 videos!
They are BOKEH, defocused images from small and close particles near the shuttle! Debris is a very likely explanation, which match NASA scene list report or astronaut description

Thanks for providing this piece of software.

reply to post by depthoffield


it seems you did not comprehend as to what i meant by saying "ALL the EXACT values"......

Originally posted by depthoffield
A short check with this program, CONFIRMS my calculations:

*snip*

I put the distance to the minimum focus (subject) distance of NASA camera during focus maneuver, as the one calculated by me,

20.8 meters ( www.abovetopsecret.com... )

other values:
focal length =108 mm
aperture = 1.6
circle of confusion 0.07 mm, as determined by me

and how were those values DETERMINED........

Originally posted by depthoffield
Next, what is the resolution of the NASA camera? Well, this is not clearly described, but this camera produce a TV signal.
While the resolution of the TV signal could be 768 x 576 (interlaced frames), what we have here, the youtube versions, are only 320 x 240 pixels.

[edit on 27/2/10 by mcrom901]

Originally posted by mcrom901

it seems you did not comprehend as to what i meant by saying "ALL the EXACT values"......

You are the one which have a problem with the values... doesn't fit with your teories (debunks them). Therefore you are in position to "clutch at the straws".

It is said in my posts about the values. Try to understand. More, ask a skilled photographer, it is not a shame.

Originally posted by mcrom901
and how were those values DETERMINED........

it is said in my posts. And these values checks with the matematics of bokeh...including the blur calculator you posted.


Regarding the resolution of the NASA camera...i talked about the resolution of the recording we have (youtube versions), which CAN BE MEASURED.
This measured resolution, permit the estimation of the circle of confusion of these youtube versions. This circle of confusion is a subjective value, which determine other subjective values: hiperfocal distance and depth of field..which alowed us to estimate the depth of field of the RESULTED YOUTUBE version. You, as a guy which understand (or don't want?) the bokeh and optic matematics, should be aware about this: better the original resolution of the NASA camera compared to the youtube versions estimations, means a smaller value of hiperfocal distance (less than 105 meters = and this is one limit beyound the "alien/critters" discs can't be), also a smaller depth of field... BUT THE SIZE OF THE BLUR (BOKEH) DOESN'T DEPEND BY THE CIRCLE OF CONFUSION SUBJECTIVE VALUE, or by the depth of field, BUT ONLY ABOUT THE OPTICS:
focal length: 108 mm
aperture: 1.6
and these values are real enough (remember, it is NASA camera C, and we have the data of it)


Go to blur calculator..

Try other values of the circle of confusion, not the 0.070 mm value which i subjectively determined from the youtube version, but any value..

and you will see that the infinity blur:




or the object "9" blur (= foreground blur):




doesn't change!

Of course doesn't change, because the formulas of the blur (bokeh) are:

Originally posted by depthoffield

i'll use the formulas from here: en.wikipedia.org...
someone must read carrefully the explanations and figures to understand better.

And for the blur of an object at infinity when the focus distance is finite:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7fcd6c6efeb4.jpg[/atsimg]

where

c = diameter of the blured disc (bokeh) on the senzor
f = focal length of the lens (NASA camera = 108 mm)
N = f-number of the lens (NASA camera = 1.6 )
S1 = distance where the lens is focused (our unknown we want to be determined)

Originally posted by depthoffield

i'll use the proper formulas from here: en.wikipedia.org...

For infinite focus distance:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a27a01e8dbed.jpg[/atsimg]

where

c = diameter of the blured disc (bokeh) on the senzor
f = focal length of the lens (NASA camera = 108 mm)
N = f-number of the lens (NASA camera = 1.6 )
S2 = distance to the object (our unknown we want to be determined)

You see..the bokeh size depend only about optics values (focal length, aperture -and we have these values), and the distance of focus. Therefore, knowing the size of the blur, (as a fraction from senzor size -which we also know from camera C values) we found the distance. Simple as that.

Everything related to the values it is explained in my opening posts, and checks with the matematics.
Also, i will post soon one more property of the bokeh, which fit with NASA video... those discs are bokeh from smaller and closer objects, and verify all the laws of bokeh .. (that's why they are bokeh and not distant and big objects)





[edit on 4/3/10 by depthoffield]

[edit on 4/3/10 by depthoffield]

reply to post by depthoffield


yo.... amigo..... just because i mentioned 'determined'..... i was not only addressing the coc..... but more importantly the subject distances... do you understand as to what i mean now, by quoting you earlier about the youtube 320x240 pixel resolutions?

The precise time of the debris (oh, "UFO's) can be seen here:



It is MET day 07 about 9:12 ....or in GMT style, it is day 061 about 5:30.

now..

Originally posted by mcrom901
just to reiterate......

as you can see, those deleted supply/waste water dumps, were from
day 6 MET style at 19:35 and 20:45 time, more than 12 hours BEFORE our "UFO" videos..and those are just "CHANGES TO THE FLIGHT PLAN", meaning doens't say a bit about NOT CHANGED actions planned before. Therefore, it doesn't say a bit about some FIRSTS PLANNED water/waste dump made in 07 MET day..it says just about some last CHANGES to the flight plan.

Originally posted by mcrom901

The TOP/FES actions described here, related to some PROBLEMS, are from a day or more LATER than our debris (aaa "UFO's" movies), aka 062 GMT day.
Again, that also doesn't say anything about some water/waste/evaporation action made or not made in MET day 07 (061 GMT) when our "UFO's" were filmed.

Those two water actions selected by you, doesn't rule out a bit the posibility of a water/waste dump/evaporation action made around the time were our debris (oopps "UFO's) were filmed.

We still wait some more data from NASA via Jim Oberg requests.








[edit on 6/3/10 by depthoffield]

Originally posted by depthoffield
The precise time of the debris (oh, "UFO's) can be seen here:

*snip*

It is MET day 07 about 9:12 ....or in GMT style, it is day 061 about 5:30.

oh really..... OMG...... i thought there were 80 days in mars.....

hallelujah

Originally posted by depthoffield
as you can see, those deleted supply/waste water dumps, were from
day 6 MET style at 19:35 and 20:45 time, more than 12 hours BEFORE our "UFO" videos

hmmmm interesting.... cause i thought according to you they were irrelevant the other way around.... i.e. were from "DAY 8"


www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by depthoffield

Originally posted by JimOberg
Just got the response from NASA PAO with the Execute Package for the day of the tether video.

I've loaded it here:

www.quickfilepost.com...

Well, this is the "execute package for flight day 8".

But we need for flight day 7.

As you may know, from the ST-75 Scene list, we identified the EXACT MOMENT of the tether video with "ufos", or what astronausts describes as "debris which flight with us":

*snip*
(page 75 of the document)

As you can see, these happened on Fligh day 7 (MET style), orbit 118-119, after ~8:54:40, when the "crew is looking for the TSS-1R sattelite", and the camera is looking in Centaur constellation where they estimated the tether should be, but they see the tether only after the orbital sunrise.

In this "execute package for flight day 8" which you posted here, we even have a reference for the previous day with the tether encounter:

MSG091A - FD08 page 1 of 2


So, have you the Execute package for flight day 7 ?

so i guess the reason behind all your broken record rantings being coherent to the bokeh principles is the very fact that your coc is way off dude....

Originally posted by depthoffield
..and those are just "CHANGES TO THE FLIGHT PLAN", meaning doens't say a bit about NOT CHANGED actions planned before. Therefore, it doesn't say a bit about some FIRSTS PLANNED water/waste dump made in 07 MET day..it says just about some last CHANGES to the flight plan.

oh.... how nice.... just like how it was mentioned "DEBRIS WITH DESTRUCTIVE POTENTIAL" in the following report.....

Originally posted by depthoffield

Originally posted by mcrom901

in the meantime.... i find it strange nothing was mentioned about these 'debris' in the actual technical reports.......

ntrs.nasa.gov...

well, that report it looks to me, that it deals only with debris with destructive potential, like what happens on launch, separation, re-entry, landing, various chemical contaminants, tile hits etc..and doesn't deal with normal inofensive particles of debris made by water/waste/various nominal dumps unless having hazard potential.

Originally posted by depthoffield
The TOP/FES actions described here, related to some PROBLEMS, are from a day or more LATER than our debris (aaa "UFO's" movies), aka 062 GMT day.
Again, that also doesn't say anything about some water/waste/evaporation action made or not made in MET day 07 (061 GMT) when our "UFO's" were filmed.

translation = "i don't know the meaning of the word INITIATED"


www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by mcrom901
and what does your understanding say in regards to these phrases....

I'm more interested in the TOPPING FES STARTUP item, and at what time it actually occurred. That's what I'm trying to wring out of PAO -- but he needs access to the FAO logs.

Originally posted by mcrom901

Originally posted by JimOberg
I'm more interested in the TOPPING FES STARTUP item, and at what time it actually occurred. That's what I'm trying to wring out of PAO -- but he needs access to the FAO logs.

and what happens next..... if it will be confirmed to have actually occurred around the mentioned MET D07/11:45

Originally posted by depthoffield

We still wait some more data from NASA via Jim Oberg requests.

sweet dreams........

Originally posted by JimOberg
I'm still getting the brush-off from my JSC PAO contact, and it
looks like i'm going to have to use the FOIA option.

I suspect the lack of interest to be based on simple contempt
for the subject matter and for the people who remain curious.

But I'm aware there are other potential interpretations of motives,
and frankly, I'm fed up with defending NASA against such suspicions.

FOIA...............

Originally posted by mcrom901
reply to post by JimOberg

 

good news for you........

ntrs.nasa.gov...

ce o pierdere de timp..........

reply to post by JimOberg

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by mcrom901
and what does your understanding say in regards to these phrases....

I'm more interested in the TOPPING FES STARTUP item, and at what time it actually occurred. That's what I'm trying to wring out of PAO -- but he needs access to the FAO logs.

jim, any news?

Originally posted by mcrom901
jim, any news?

I've gotten blown off by the PAO -- will need to unlimber the FOIA guns.