New Analysis Video of the STS-75 Tether Incident

Originally posted by Overload
I am not saying this is a smoking gun or anything, but its just one more needle on the camels back.

Wow, now that's what I call a HYPER-mixed Metaphor...

So a self-promoting audience-teasing talk show host would never stage any stunt to thrill his listeners and get news media attention? Show me such a host, my friend, and I'll show you a bankrupt ex-radio-talk-show personality.

reply to post by JimOberg


Jim...How many guys that wanted to talk about the UFO phenomenon ended up missing or ended up dead because they wanted to talk. Publicly humiliated or discredited or harassed by people just like you that wouldn't know the truth if it smacked you in the face.

So you are saying that that this old washed up radio guy deliberately
stopped broadcasting of the highest ratings he's probably ever seen to get even more attention?

Thats like stopping the superbowl broadcast to get more people interested. Are you hearing yourself talk???

[edit on 23-6-2009 by Overload]

Originally posted by Overload
reply to post by JimOberg

 

Jim...How many guys that wanted to talk about the UFO phenomenon ended up missing or ended up dead because they wanted to talk. ...

At OMNI magazine we spent significant effort in the early 1990's to track down these rumors. We couldn't produce a single verifiable name.

If you've done better, please enlighten our team -- I'll pass on your list.

Sadly, OMNI's been in stasis for more than a decade -- but could rise again!

reply to post by JimOberg


How about Phil Schneider for one.....How did OMNI's investigation go for that one?

Found dead, strangled to death by a wire from his own piano. Right after he disclosed the presents of extraterrestrials.

O wait, thats coincidence right. My bad


Edit: I've heard conflicting reports that it was either a piano wire or a cathader tube.


[edit on 23-6-2009 by Overload]

reply to post by JimOberg


Ning Li. There is 1 name. If you could find out where she is, or if she is even alive, i would be pretty darned happy.

She worked for NASA, under Ron Koczor. Then, shortly before she was to begin working with ARL she just seems to have vanished. Any idea on her?

Also, i would be VERY interested to hear what your take on the Pat Price death is. No, not NASA related, but rumored to have been "offed" by TPTB.

So, there are 2 names. 1 of a person who has vanished, and 1 who is dead.

BTW, you can tell OMNI that my prices are very reasonable.

[edit on 23-6-2009 by bigfatfurrytexan]

Originally posted by Overload
reply to post by JimOberg

 

How about Phil Schneider for one.....How did OMNI's investigation go for that one?

Found dead, strangled to death by a wire from his own piano. Right after he disclosed the presents of extraterrestrials.

O wait, thats coincidence right. My bad


Edit: I've heard conflicting reports that it was either a piano wire or a cathader tube.


[edit on 23-6-2009 by Overload]

So please tell me where this story is documented, aside from your own memory. Who has already checked it out -- if anyone, wouldn't want to waste time following old leads. Come on, you can come up with an infinite list of random leads -- where's the existing literature on their UFO connections?

Stuff such as this?

aliencases.conforums.com...


Or on Ning Li, here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

By the way, I presume you believe the original Popuular Mechanics article on here -- why don't you believe the latest Popular Mechanics article on why 'shuttle UFO videos' are bunk? Same source -- why not the same credibility?





[edit on 23-6-2009 by JimOberg]

reply to post by JimOberg




I bow to your mastery of the art of BS, the dodge, and the water down technique.

"Confirms-My-Biases-ONLY" WHAT

What part of Because several of these particles had clear disks they were not on the camera lens but rather quite remote, >10 m. from Zorgon's post don't you get. Maybe my math is off, but I am pretty sure >10 means >1.

Thanks for explaining your theory better, it helps, but honestly, I got that.

Things that are not addressed is how far away are these glowing UFOs? What are these glowing UFOs? Are you still claiming that they are ice crystals? If so, how? These UFOs certainly do not look like ice crystals, even as seen in effluent dumps, and other videos. Once again, they do not twinkle, and they disappear quickly, as can be seen on videos provided. These observed UFOs look absolutely nothing like any of the ice crystals we have seen so far. Ice vapor, remember?

you are the one -- your side -- who has to show there are NO other possible prosaic causes.

By what logic? I suspect you were more of a manager than a scientist. Ever hear of the scientific method, develop a theory based on your best guess, then develop a test method that might be able to prove or disprove the theory, and then draw conclusions on the results of the testing. Repeat as often as necessary.

My guesses about "what reality of operations and environment in space are, and should look like" have been spot on. Your bravado aside, you know this as well as I do,or at least you should. Maybe you would like to try backing up this claim with quotes from the thread. Yeah, I forgot that the solar wind travels considerably slower than the speed of light, but is still travels around 250 miles per second, and that is a lot faster than the space shuttle.

Like I said, I have already learned about the realities of space flight, and some of the things I worked on are still up there. And I still consider my understanding of these things to be better than yours. I don't care what you did at NASA. My opinions have been given considerable respect from people who actually worked the science. I could have done anything I wanted to, but I was, and still am, thoroughly disgusted with the system.

AS it currently stands, as far as we know, these UFOs are still UFOs, of undetermined distance from the space shuttle. The plasma theory is the best I have heard so far. If NASA wanted to stop all the internet conspiracy people, all they would have to do is spot one of these UFOs so evident in many videos, and then concentrate the camera on it, to show what it is, in focus.

Instead, what we get are what appear to be intentional attempts to manipulate the camera to eliminate these UFOs from video footage.

This only serves to increase suspicion. Is this idea of putting out some good video footage of these UFOs all that hard for the boys as NASA to come up with? If it is nothing but ice crystals, it should be clearly evident.

Originally posted by poet1b
Instead, what we get are what appear to be intentional attempts to manipulate the camera to eliminate these UFOs from video footage.

If you were trying to show an object behind (or surrounded by, it does not matter for this question) other objects, wouldn't you try to get the best picture of your target and try to make the other objects less noticeable?

reply to post by ArMaP


Not if it meant sacrificing your ability to focus on the target. These small UFOs that seemed to be flying in the vicinity of the tether didn't create much of an obstacle to the view of the tether, yet it appears that they sacrificed almost their entire window of opportunity trying to tune out the UFOs that were not blocking their view of the tether. WHY? Considering all the cost of such a test, you would think that they would take advantage of every opportunity to gather all the data possible.

Originally posted by poet1b
Not if it meant sacrificing your ability to focus on the target.

But the only way of knowing was by changing the settings (at least zoom and gain).

And that is another thing I never understood about this video, why do they think that the tether is focused? With so much gain everything in the image has sharp edges, so how could they know it?

PS: how many "uncut" versions are there of this video? This is the second that I have seen, and is somewhat longer than the other "uncut" version.

Yeah, it is so difficult to focus a camera, NOT.

Come on, you are clutching at straws.

reply to post by poet1b


I don't know how hard it is to focus that camera, neither do anyone of us (unless someone is hiding something), and they also had to adjust the gain, one of the worst things that can happen in photography (and video) is light entering the lens from the side, it spoils the image, and that is what we can see on that video, when we see the large white area surrounding the tether.

But I am not here to convince you (or anyone else), I just thought it was something worth thinking about.

And I still think that saying that they are hypothetical life forms is far from explaining it, we do not have any real idea of those things even exist.

reply to post by JimOberg


Jim-O...i authored that thread on Ning Li. I am more than familiar with each and every angle in there. If you want "leads", you can see a rather exaustive trail of research into what happened to her there.

So, there you have it...now it is your (or OMNI's) turn.

And, like i said, Pat Price...what happened to Pat Price? Why did he seem to fear for his life? He was a former police chief that was obviously less than naive. Yet, after a few weeks working with the CIA he starts to fear for his life.

You know why? Because he was able to identify several underground bases inhabited by various alien groups using proven methods of remote viewing that were developed by Dr. Hal Puthoff. This is what got the CIA's attention in the first place (and caused him to work with them directly, instead of working through SRI, which was unheard of at that point).

Now, you can try to discredit the remote viewing program. But remember, not only did the government invest quite a bit of time and money into it...but there is still that pesky Magnetometer Experiment that Ingo Swann pulled off brilliantly at Stanford University.

It would seem that your recent return has not only made you far less polite and civil, but you have been taken over by the spirit of Patches O'Houlihan: "Dodge, Duck, Dip, Dive, Dodge".

[edit on 23-6-2009 by bigfatfurrytexan]

Just from skimming the current disagreement I think there are some valid points made by Big Furry and Overload...points I actually look forward to hearing a responce for,
Just my two cents but...anyone who thinks OMNI can wrest deffinitive answers about murders made possible by TPTB for informational security and maitenance seems a bit too naive to even be a valid voice to weigh in on the subject. Not trying to be rude but what kind of a investigation do you think OMNI is capable of....and on the government no less? oh sure theyr'e just going to open up all their black ops and ufo files that are classified like whoa because OMNI is doing an investigation....can you blame me for snickering really?

reply to post by Averysmallfoxx


Although that is an interesting subject I don't think it should be discussed in this thread, after all, this one is about the new analysis presented in the opening post.

Originally posted by poet1b
By what logic? I suspect you were more of a manager than a scientist. Ever hear of the scientific method, develop a theory based on your best guess, then develop a test method that might be able to prove or disprove the theory, and then draw conclusions on the results of the testing. Repeat as often as necessary.

My guesses about "what reality of operations and environment in space are, and should look like" have been spot on. Your bravado aside, you know this as well as I do,or at least you should.

Poet, your own self-serving 'assumptions of reality' [all erroneous] are seriously interfering with your ability to grapple with this serious mystery.
Your main stumbling block is inside your own head, and only you can remove it. Please try harder -- and get back to me when you've made progress. It's worth the effort and the mystery deserves serious, grown-up attention, in my opinion.

Originally posted by poet1b
The plasma theory is the best I have heard so far.

....which doesn't explain the changing shape exactly in respect with the position in the frame, have you read this thread? Are this "plasma shapes" slaves of NASA cameras
This FACT doen't appear from various words here or there, from don't-know which colateral study, or breaking Einstein laws. This FACT appear just looking with some attention on the frames from the movie itself.

reply to post by depthoffield


The fact that for most of the video the camera is constantly being adjusted in a manner which appears to be aimed at getting rid of the UFOs in the frame, it is understandable that during parts of the video there were distortions of these UFOs. I have already pointed this out. There are clear periods of this video where there are no distortions, and the UFOs are clearly there, and they are not crystals close to the camera lens.

Why do you continue to ignore the vast amount of evidence that these UFOs were not as a result of distortions of the camera.

After Zorgon linked us to this NASA statement on page 26 of the thread.

ntrs.nasa.gov...

On page 7 of this document it states.

Because several of these particles had clear disks they were not on the camera lens but rather quite remote, >10 m. Based on drag calculations they must have been quite large (larger than cm diameters) in order to persist with negligible motion in the field-of-view, We can offer no better explanation at this time.

NASA is clearly stating here that these things exist, and that they are larger than 1 cm, and further than 10 meters from the shuttle. After this evidence is revealed, why do you cling to the fantasy that these must be a result of camera distortion. All of the evidence so far has proven you wrong, time to move on.

When you read this NASA article it is clear that they have studied the effects of particles outside of the space shuttle to improve their ability to collect data with cameras. They know what actions increase particles outside of the shuttle, what attitudes increase the numbers of particles, and what time they are most likely present. That being said, it seems clear that they use this information to minimize particle presence in the camera viewing area when getting crucial footage. This was the purpose of this study.

They are several days into the mission, particles generated by the launch have mainly slipped away. Being that this is a critical part of the mission, they would have placed the shuttle in the best attitude for clear observation of the tether. Effluent dumps would have been avoided prior to the crucial observation window, attitude and course corrects would be kept at a minimum.

The shuttle approaches the tether, the camera is filming open space, there are no, or maybe one or two particles that cross the screen, can't remember for sure, for the first minute and 40 seconds. Then the direction which the camera is pointing towards is changed slightly to bring the tether on the screen. No other adjustments seem to have been made, nothing changes in the appearance of space to indicate some critical line was crossed. All appears normal, except that now there are all of these UFOs around the tether flying in different directions, and appearing to change direction and speed.

Why are they only around the tether?

Why weren't we observing these UFOs for the first 1:40 of the video footage?

Why so many in a concentrated area, far in excess of what there should be?

During the short period when the camera was not being played with, we had a good view of the tether and the UFOs, and they did not look like crystals, or something close to the camera, why would anyone then assume that they must be objects near the camera?

Some of these UFOs look like they are moving behind the tether, how could this be? Your attempts to demonstrate how this is possible showed no such thing.

You debunker's consistently ignore these points that prove your claims to be entirely wrong. Do you even bother to read anything that is contrary to your opinion?

Did you read the article on NASA's study of these particles to minimize their interference in video footage?

None of the debunkers have even bothered to address these points that clearly destroy their arguments that these must be near objects causing distortion on the video. Even after we have a report from NASA that states that these UFOs, these unexplained flying objects, that can not be explained, exist, debunkers refuse to recognize this.

Isn't it about time we moved on in this conversation to discuss what these UFOs might be?

reply to post by poet1b


a good explanation of why we cannot move on is explained very well by Ingo Swann. I have read a few thousand pages of text, so nailing down which mention of "Consensus Reality" bring up the best arguement is impossible for me. However, this should suffice:

www.bibliotecapleyades.net...

In short....if the "skeptic" gives an inch and admits the phenomenon is real, it creates a vacuum in their "Mental Information Processing Grid". At all costs, their personal reality must be maintained until such time comes that they are either forced to re-examine, or find another processing grid that will fit within the confines of their mindset.

So, what we have here at ATS are three categories, i think: believers, skeptics, and those who just want to find the truth. The first two have ulterior motives (propping up their mental information processing grids. disinformation, entertainment, etc). That latter 1 is the one that is wanting to flesh out answers via investigation.

Originally posted by poet1b
...
They are several days into the mission, particles generated by the launch have mainly slipped away. Being that this is a critical part of the mission, they would have placed the shuttle in the best attitude for clear observation of the tether. Effluent dumps would have been avoided prior to the crucial observation window, attitude and course corrects would be kept at a minimum. ...

Poet, there you go again. You are imagining things that OUGHT to be true if your pre-existing interpretations are true, and then assuming they are true, which to you, proves your pre-existing opinions are valid. They aren't true -- there's no evidence for their truth except your sincere hope they might be true...

In Mission Control, Chuck Shaw, Flight Director for STS-75 and many other missions, called this kind of illogical thought a 'self-eating watermelon'.