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.

 

Same kind of "Tether Event" during GEMINI mission... 40 years before!?

page: 3
29
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 30 2013 @ 07:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by CavTrooper0430
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


You do realize that because something is referred to as a satellite, does not mean they are talking about what you are normally used to being called a satellite. A satellite by definition is an object orbiting another larger object. The moon is in fact a satellite as well. You cannot imply they are referring to something man-made simply because they use the term satellite, they could have used the same term for something alien or unidentified just because they acknowledged it was in a polar orbit.

I'm not saying also that I believe they are referring to something alien, only that one cannot draw any conclusion from their use of the term.


You do realize they gave the NAME of the suspected satellite DOH!!!




posted on Jul, 30 2013 @ 07:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by CavTrooper0430
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


You do realize that because something is referred to as a satellite, does not mean they are talking about what you are normally used to being called a satellite. A satellite by definition is an object orbiting another larger object. The moon is in fact a satellite as well. You cannot imply they are referring to something man-made simply because they use the term satellite, they could have used the same term for something alien or unidentified just because they acknowledged it was in a polar orbit.

I'm not saying also that I believe they are referring to something alien, only that one cannot draw any conclusion from their use of the term.


You do realize they gave the NAME of the suspected satellite DOH!!!


They were guessing. Nobody had any experience really identifying other objects seen out the window. The Gemini-4 was the first real opportunity for 'sight-seeing' in orbit.

My own investigations back in the late 1970s persuaded me that it was probably the Titan-2 second stage, which was nearby but not being tracked precisely. But McDivitt doesn't agree. It's a curious case of 'space identity' but its relevance to UFO studies is tenuous.



posted on Jul, 30 2013 @ 08:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by sealing
Interesting. Does anyone want to take a guess as to
how many satellites in 1966 were "in a polar orbit" ?
Personally I say (maybe)2 satellites with a polar orbit, were up in 1966.


But what do the experts say? Check out the satellite catalogs at Jonathan McDowell's home page and you'll see DOZENS of polar orbit satellites beginning in 1959.

And there's no evidence these objects were in anything close to 'polar orbit'. Judging from their very slow fly=past of the Gemini they had to be in paths very nearly aligned with the Gemini.



So what are the chances NASA would put a Gemini mission 3-4 miles
from a satellite? Especially with almost zero space junk at that time?
Any defensive driving instructor would take exception to following
something that close at 17 thousand miles an hour.


Good point -- also supports the theory they are objects or materials coming off the Gemini or itsd booster -- which was observed and filmed to be venting excess propellant.



Anyway, It's a very low number and somewhat debated because of the Black Knight Satellite.
Don't take my word for it ask NOAA


Well, if you insist the NOAA was the only US agency launching polar orbit satellites, then for sure we shouldn't take your word for it that there were two or less. Google 'Discoverer' program.



posted on Jul, 30 2013 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by GeneralChaos

Originally posted by InhaleExhale


Please show where anyone other than the religious followers has attempted to deny the existence of Objects spotted in the sky that cannot be identified at the time of sighting.


Are you serious?
I am assuming you are joking or drunk,lol.



You assume too much.

Who denies the existence of objects witnessed in the sky that cannot be identified other than religious fanatics that say they are demons in disguise?

Whats debated is not whether UFOs exist from the available information but the interpretation that the conclusion from the available info is its extraterrestrials visiting Earth.



posted on Jul, 30 2013 @ 09:42 AM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


Mr. Oberg,

Please correct me if I am wrong... the tether, at its furthest deployment was about 11-12 miles in length.

The image below taken from official footage, shows roughly 2/3 the tether length or about (approx) 8 miles... and yes, no doubt, at an oblique. But even so, the object that passes behind the tether (outlined) and when taken in reference to the tether's length, even at an oblique, says that there is something worth more than a passing glance.





The problem with people expressing their absolute certainty over its nature, while having few clues about what real spaceflight is like, has concerned me mainly from the wasted brainpower and wild goose hostilities that have been engendered uselessly.


Certainty? The problem with media types is that they express their views in an elitist, lick-my-boots fashion. Yes, it is true... I am just a nobody from a nowhere state in a small nothing town and I am sure you have a millennia of educational experience but... engendered wild goose hostilities? Come on!

Give the world a break. The tether incident begs... nay, DEMANDS more than that simple boot lick of acceptance.

As far as expressing certainties over nature? Well, it is indeed vast and we, the human race, really haven't done that much or gone that far to have anyone so arrogant as to presume another so much less.
But... of course, that just another peon opinion, lol.

Thanks for the reply. Have a nice day



posted on Jul, 30 2013 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by sealing
Interesting. Does anyone want to take a guess as to
how many satellites in 1966 were "in a polar orbit" ?
Personally I say (maybe)2 satellites with a polar orbit, were up in 1966.


But what do the experts say? Check out the satellite catalogs at Jonathan McDowell's home page and you'll see DOZENS of polar orbit satellites beginning in 1959.

And there's no evidence these objects were in anything close to 'polar orbit'. Judging from their very slow fly=past of the Gemini they had to be in paths very nearly aligned with the Gemini.



So what are the chances NASA would put a Gemini mission 3-4 miles
from a satellite? Especially with almost zero space junk at that time?
Any defensive driving instructor would take exception to following
something that close at 17 thousand miles an hour.


Good point -- also supports the theory they are objects or materials coming off the Gemini or itsd booster -- which was observed and filmed to be venting excess propellant.



Anyway, It's a very low number and somewhat debated because of the Black Knight Satellite.
Don't take my word for it ask NOAA


Well, if you insist the NOAA was the only US agency launching polar orbit satellites, then for sure we shouldn't take your word for it that there were two or less. Google 'Discoverer' program.


Well if I'm gonna debate, let it be with the most knowledgeable man we have
on the subject. And heck, really, for the record, I'm just thrilled you said I had a "good point" .
And I mean that with sincerity.



posted on Jul, 30 2013 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by redoubt
Give the world a break. The tether incident begs... nay, DEMANDS more than that simple boot lick of acceptance.


We are in complete agreement. The space videos are gobsmackingly eerie and unearthly, and NASA owes the public more detailed explanations of what they really are, and WHY -- and not just "because I say so".

That's why, as a retired rocket scientist with a fascination for folklore and the cultural impact of spaceflight, have written widely about such angles, and collected them roughly at my home page www.jamesoberg.com/ufo.html, towards which I urge you to cast an eye.

Especially spend a few hours -- it will be worth it -- on the '99 FAQs'.



posted on Jul, 30 2013 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by sealing
Well if I'm gonna debate, let it be with the most knowledgeable man we have
on the subject. And heck, really, for the record, I'm just thrilled you said I had a "good point" .
And I mean that with sincerity.


We're not even debating. We're helping each other see the same thing from different angles and with different eyes and different 'wetware' [brain programming].

One reason i've had such success with the news media -- like, a sweetly paying association with major TV News organizations -- is that I've practiced explaining 'rocket science' to my mom, and my Boy Scouts, and to my magazine editors for many years. It didn't start out easy.

Once you get too tied up in a cultural/professional ghetto, your very language -- jargonized -- becomes a barrier to communicating across the walls. And spaceflight is even worse, in that it really IS 'unearthly', and most folks get their misimpressions from aviation analogies, or Hollywood SFX, or video games.

But WOW! when I find a way -- with your help -- of communicating what things really look like, and people actually GET it [yes, it happens a lot, with patience on both sides], THAT'S a thrill worth working for.

SEEING the STS-75 tether pass overhead pre-dawn, during the few weeks it remaining 'lost in space', was the eeriest hair-stand-on-back-of-neck moment in my skywatching lifetime. The thin line marched across the sky, nearing zenith it seemed to 'retract' and shorten, until - DANG! -- I realized it was getting foreshortened because it was hanging DOWN towards me. The 3-D-ness of space slapped me in the face with an epiphany of new awareness. Then as it passed I watched it lengthen again. I could FEEL the distance between us. I've never seen such an effect in space again.

Thanks for letting me practice sharing....



posted on Jul, 30 2013 @ 11:09 AM
link   
reply to post by redoubt
 


It has been shown on here before many times due to contrast and exposure (colour bleed) an object that appears to be behind another may not be, a prime example the crosses (fiducial) on the reseau of the Hasselblad cameras.



That OBJECT didn't pass behind the tether and was an out of focus object closer to the camera.



posted on Jul, 30 2013 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by redoubt
 


It has been shown on here before many times due to contrast and exposure (colour bleed) an object that appears to be behind another may not be, a prime example the crosses (fiducial) on the reseau of the Hasselblad cameras.



That OBJECT didn't pass behind the tether and was an out of focus object closer to the camera.


The main cause of this camera illusion is that the external cameras have an 'overbright protect' feature to prevent burning out pixels with the sun or sun glint. Once energy onto any pixel exceeds a threshhold, the pixel 'grays-out' to protect itself.

You can see that effect on bight lightning bursts, or bright cities being passed over at night. The center of the bright mass darkens, looks hollow. Sometimes if bright stars are out of focus, a black dot seems to appear in their centers.

I've posted the console operating manuals of those cameras on my home page for anybody wanting technical details.

The length of the tether, as seen on the external camera, is already fully exposed, and artificially 'fattened' out, much wider than the actual cord [no thicker than a telephone cord]. The bright core is grayed out, as you can see.

When anything bright passes across that image, its own scattered brightness does indeed ADD to the existing brightness from the tether reflection. But those pixels are ALREADY too bright from the tether alone and have ALREADY triggered the 'overbright protect' gray-out response. Adding brightness from the passing dot won't show up, because the pixel's already grayed-out.

this creates a perfect illusion of the brighter dot or disk being 'occulted' by the thick gray tether. But it's an artifact of the camera optics, not a genuine geometrical consequence.

Think of the actual size of the thin tether and its essentially ZERO angular width at those ranges. Whatever is passing across the tether -- in front or in back -- isn't going to have its own real eyeball appearance affected at all. The TV image -- that's another question, and it is a function of the electronics inside the box, not the geometry outsode.



posted on Jul, 30 2013 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Arken
 


This is really old topic the whole tether thing.

NASA claims bogus Ice Crystals, to me it seems like they wanted the attention of objects in order to tape them

God only knows



posted on Jul, 30 2013 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 




Think of the actual size of the thin tether and its essentially ZERO angular width at those ranges. Whatever is passing across the tether -- in front or in back -- isn't going to have its own real eyeball appearance affected at all.


The thing here is that the same effect works in both directions. Yes, the tether is not as 'thick' as it appears but when you reduce it, you reduce the background image as well so the result is the same. In other words, depth is not changed... only perceived distance.

I watched a video a while back (which I wish I had snagged now) demonstrating the effect using a piece of brightly colored rope and an illuminated ball. The scene was shot from various distances to see how the illuminated object from behind would come out passing behind the rope. In each distance shot, there was no mistaking the depth. The same test was tried with the lighted object passing in front of the rope and again, there was only what it was.

Afterwards when testing the video results, with each reduction in light intensity, both the line/rope and the object responded similarly. As one reduced or gained, the other matched it.

Of course, this was a miniature test and not in space... but the concept was sound.

I'm gonna dig around and see if I can find it... it was a worthy effort by people with some background in how lighting and video works.



posted on Jul, 30 2013 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 

That was fantastic.
Thanks again Jim.



posted on Jul, 30 2013 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by redoubt
 


Here is a video re this tether disc object problem.




There have been plenty of discussions on here re this anyone with an understanding of the property of lenses ie the photographers amongst us know about depth of field.

The camera had a mirror lens it was a telephoto lens , a characteristic of mirror lenses is the shape of out of focus highlights which look like small donuts .

For example this image here



Was that a fleet of ufo's NO, was it a swarm of space plasma creatures (yes that's what some members claim) NO , is it out of focus highlights from the water spray between the camera and the timber YES!!!!

When focused at such a great distance like the tether was those out of focus objects had to be closer to the camera its a property of optics plain and simple!!!



posted on Jul, 30 2013 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Snaffers
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO


Why are you messing around with this "Tether Incident" stuff Arken?

Stop That


You are our --- MASTER OF ROCK ---




PS: Give me a fine mars rover thread Arken, like in them good ol' days



posted on Jul, 30 2013 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arken
Coming soon (if possible when I finish with my job)

Stars for the laugh!


Good laugh at your chronological calculations between Gemini-11 and STS-75 as 'forty years', too. We'll write it off as a typo.

What do you think of the discussion?



posted on Jul, 30 2013 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by Arken
 


Sorry Arken but you really need to LOOK at these things and not believe what this youtube idiot tries to claim from his video



3rd line down

"could you give us an estimate as to how far that SATELLITE was yesterday.

Funny how he didn't highlight that from the page


That's at 4:02 on the video


edit on 29-7-2013 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-7-2013 by wmd_2008 because: line added



Wow.. Obviously they use code names when describing objects in their observational view - so the listeners and public do not think anything ET or non-man-origin.

Thats jsut a given. Funny how you didnt highlight that. Maybe your first "astronaut to Houston" conversation?



posted on Jul, 30 2013 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by CavTrooper0430
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


You do realize that because something is referred to as a satellite, does not mean they are talking about what you are normally used to being called a satellite. A satellite by definition is an object orbiting another larger object. The moon is in fact a satellite as well. You cannot imply they are referring to something man-made simply because they use the term satellite, they could have used the same term for something alien or unidentified just because they acknowledged it was in a polar orbit.

I'm not saying also that I believe they are referring to something alien, only that one cannot draw any conclusion from their use of the term.


I think our posts were ignored. People don't read what they don't want to hear. As a skeptic, I have to say that some of my fellow "skeptics" out there do a really lazy job.


edit on 30-7-2013 by HairlessApe because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 03:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
Sorry Arken but you really need to LOOK at these things and not believe what this youtube idiot tries to claim from his video

3rd line down

"could you give us an estimate as to how far that SATELLITE was yesterday.

Funny how he didn't highlight that from the page


Well you're a veritable genius now, aren't you?

So tell me, how many satellites were in space in 1964?



posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 09:37 AM
link   
Either they are alien space ships or more likely craft from the top secret military space program that is at least 50 years ahead of its time.

“And apparently, NASA must be used to convince the public
that our current technology, such as with our very old and decrepit
Space Shuttle program, is the best we have, while our military
conducts space missions with technology that we can only
fantasize about while watching Star Trek.” - USAF Medic, 1980s


Linda Moulton Howe mentions that Richard Sauder told her that over the years, he got many indications from a variety of sources that the U. S. military has its own UFOs and this is just another data point from her pointing in the direction of a decades-long military program of deep deceit and thorough lies about the true involvement of U. S. military agencies in secret UFO and space technology and projects.

"It’s highly likely that there are multiple, secret, classified, tightly compartmentalized UFO and space programs – not just a single space program but programS, plural, the U. S. military has its own UFOs and this is just another data point from her pointing in the direction of a decades-long military program of deep deceit and thorough lies about the true involvement of U. S. military agencies in secret UFO and space technology and projects.

"It’s highly likely that there are multiple, secret, classified, tightly compartmentalized UFO and space programs – not just a single space program but programS, plural, and that the U. S. military and NASA have been lying through their teeth to the American people about all of this since at least the World War II era, if not before."



And how much do we know about the secret astronaut corps and parallel space programs of both the Soviet Union and the US of A? Hardly. But take a peek here...

www.pbs.org...

The Top Secret US Military Space Program. Is The Future Already Here?






edit on 31-7-2013 by OrionHunterX because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join