New Analysis Video of the STS-75 Tether Incident

reply to post by secretnasaman


And to think I had been staying away from this thread because it had gotten so boring and repetitive, and here you post these great observations.

Thanks.

I think the reality of what we are seeing in this tether video is a complete game changer.

Physicist David Bohm observed the phenomenon decades ago, and in this video, we see it live, in a manner that is hard to deny. Strangely, mainstream science has never given him much credit for his numerous amazing observations.

The phenomenon of the foo fighters observed by so many pilots in WW II has finally presented itself in space.

We do not know for sure what we are seeing in this video, but clearly it is not some water dump. NASA's response to this video only seems to be aimed at clouding the issue, and has seriously lead to a deterioration of their reputation.

Of all the evidence considered on this thread, I think the NASA study on objects observed in video footage of NASA shuttle missions is key. The study describes exactly what most of us observe in our recognition that we are not seeing debri floating just outside of the shuttle in this video.

If these are plasma life forms, and they exist so abundantly withing our own planets plasma-sphere, then how many of them are out there in the universe. How many of them could exist in the plasma-sphere of our sun?

God and science take on a whole new meaning. Is the spark of our very own lives a plasma entity?

Originally posted by poet1b
The study describes exactly what most of us observe in our recognition that we are not seeing debri floating just outside of the shuttle in this video.

I don't understand it, could you please explain it better?

Thanks.

reply to post by ArMaP


Did you read the NASA study on objects observed in shuttle videos?

I don't know how many pages back you would have to go to find the last link to this article, but it is on the thread somewhere.

It describes the effluent dumps essentially the same way most of us, who support that these are legitimate UFOs around the tether, have been describing.

The evidence is clear in my mind, these are not effluent dumps. There is a great deal of camera distortion due to over exposure, but all evidence points to UFOs floating in the vicinity of the tether. There is no logical explanation for that many particle moving in such diverse directions clustered around the tether, or between the tether and the camera.

reply to post by poet1b


I read it (and I think I even downloaded it), but what I don't understand is why do you think it shows that these could not be the result of water dumping.

Edit: is it this report?

[edit on 8/11/2009 by ArMaP]

reply to post by ArMaP


The article gives a chart that shows that the particles from a dump essentially disappear in about ten minutes, with about 5 particles in the frame after ten minutes, and at that time they aren't moving around. After twenty minutes only one or two particles were in the frame.

In the first minute and a half of the tether video, there are no particles. We don't see a discharge of particles appear, that then slowly decay, as with a water dump. If a dump had occurred after the first minute and a half, we would see a large discharge of several hundred particles, we don't see that.

We also don't see the vacuum of space pulling these particles apart.

Originally posted by poet1b
In the first minute and a half of the tether video, there are no particles.

Can you please provide a link to the video that shows no particles in the first minute and a half? The one in the OP and the longer video that links to both show particles in the first minute and a half so I assume you're not referring to either one of those?

reply to post by Arbitrageur


www.abovetopsecret.com...

my comments on the video...
www.abovetopsecret.com...


[edit on 8-11-2009 by easynow]

reply to post by easynow


Thanks easynow.

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by ArMaP

 

In the first minute and a half of the tether video, there are no particles. We don't see a discharge of particles appear, that then slowly decay, as with a water dump. If a dump had occurred after the first minute and a half, we would see a large discharge of several hundred particles, we don't see that.

I see what you mean now that easynow posted that link to the video, is that the one you're talking about?

If so, does it really show there are no particles?

What it shows to me, is that there's no sunlight, as confirmed by the audio. Therefore, how do you know the particles aren't there, and just not illuminated by the sunlight? We know the tether is there and it's not illuminated by the sunlight, right?

This also seems to confirm that the sun hasn't been beating down on these particles very long as some people have suggested, the sunlight is just starting to hit them when they appear, as the shuttle, particles, and tether all enter the sunlight.

Therefore I believe the correct interpretation of the first minute and a half of that video is NOT that the particles aren't there, but simply that we can't see them because they are not yet illuminated by the sun. Of course I can't say for sure they ARE there without seeing them, however I CAN say that about the tether, so if the tether shows up in the sun, why not the particles?

[edit on 8-11-2009 by Arbitrageur]

reply to post by Arbitrageur

What it shows to me, is that there's no sunlight, as confirmed by the audio.

wouldn't that mean either the objects are self illuminated or the video has been spliced or edited ?

Originally posted by poet1b
The article gives a chart that shows that the particles from a dump essentially disappear in about ten minutes, with about 5 particles in the frame after ten minutes, and at that time they aren't moving around. After twenty minutes only one or two particles were in the frame.

I guess that means that's the right report, and this must be the chart you are talking about.

In the first minute and a half of the tether video, there are no particles. We don't see a discharge of particles appear, that then slowly decay, as with a water dump. If a dump had occurred after the first minute and a half, we would see a large discharge of several hundred particles, we don't see that.

They also say in that report that the position of the shuttle changed the way the particles would appear on screen, and that the water dump for that chart was made from the opposite side of the shuttle.

But the biggest difference is that those experiments talked about in the report used photo cameras, they did not use the same camera they used to make this video, so conditions are different.

They also say that what they think were larger, more far away particles were released when they started the spin-up of a TV satellite they were going to deploy, saying:

During the 15 min prior to satellite launch, the optical environment was the worst for the entire mission.

and that one particle took 8 minutes to cross the field-of-view, so some particles can last longer.

And they also have this chart and the following text.

In Figure 3 there are two clear periods when particles were observed: just after the manouvering was completed and just after orbital sunrise. Note there is no corresponding feature at sunset. The illumination conditions are quite constant so that the fluctuations in the particle counts after sunrise should be real. Several very different trajectories were observed. (A nose-to-tail direction of motion should have been favored due to drag.) Because the bay was not illuminated during this period (shadowed by cabin), the observed particles may have arisen from very different parts of the orbiter.

So, as I do not know what happened before the video was made (changes in attitude of the shuttle, water dumps, etc.) I cannot really consider that report as indicative that a water dump can not be the responsible for what we see on the video.

Originally posted by easynow
wouldn't that mean either the objects are self illuminated or the video has been spliced or edited ?

I have thought about that, and the fact that there are several "versions" of the video does not help, one of those even looks like it has a fade out/fade in from one scene to the other, and that was one of the reasons I asked for a new, complete version of the video, but secretnasaman must have me on a digital or on a psychological ignore and haven't answered even one of my posts.

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by easynow
wouldn't that mean either the objects are self illuminated or the video has been spliced or edited ?

I have thought about that, and the fact that there are several "versions" of the video does not help, one of those even looks like it has a fade out/fade in from one scene to the other, and that was one of the reasons I asked for a new, complete version of the video,

I agree, even the one that easynow just posted the link to looks as though there might have been a splice in it.

However I don't see why that raises the question of self illumination.

The first part of the video describes the shuttle and tether in the Earth's shadow and says the shuttle will enter sunlight first, followed soon after by the tether. Then we see the tether and particles appear when they come into the sunlight. So the question about self-illumination completely escapes me.

reply to post by ArMaP


What ever the attitutde of the shuttle in the chart where the particles were observed, you still have hundreds of particles that then dropped to less than ten in a matter of minutes. We do not see this in the tether video. We see zero particles, and then we see numerous particles that do not go away.

We see nothing in this video that matches what is described as having occurred during a water dump.

Also note that in the second chart, there are zero particles observed at sunset and sunrise.

In addition, the shuttle isn't making any maneuvers in the video.

This video footage was taken three days after the satellite launch, so that eliminates particles from the actual launch being directly around the shuttle.

I don't see the logic on continuing to insist that we are seeing something which does not look like anything reported in this NASA study except for one thing.

A t several times during the mission, groups of particles were observed within the field-of-view for several sets of exposures. Groups of -75 particles were observed to be in the same relative positions in frames taken 2 min apart. One particle took 8 min t o traverse the field-of-view. These nearly immobile particles were observed in several different attitudes including the velocity vector across the bay (so that the entire column in the field-of-view
was subjected to atmospheric drag) and even when the bay was in ram. 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 a t this
time.

So they are seeing stuff up there they can't explain.

Larger than cm diameters leaves the size concept fairly vague. I am not sure if they mean that these particles are larger than 1 cm, or large enough that they would be measured in meters, not cm. It seems that the latter is what is being alluded to. If we are talking about particles large enough to be measured in meters, and this study does leave the concept open, then clearly this is not debris from the shuttle.

Are we talking foo fighters in space?

Originally posted by poet1b
We see zero particles, and then we see numerous particles that do not go away.

So we see zero particles in the shade, then the shuttle and tether enter the sun and we see particles. Is that because the particles popped into existence coincidentally at the same time they entered the sunlight, or were they there all along and we just couldn't see them until the sunlight hit them? I suspect the latter.

Larger than cm diameters leaves the size concept fairly vague. I am not sure if they mean that these particles are larger than 1 cm, or large enough that they would be measured in meters, not cm. It seems that the latter is what is being alluded to.

What makes it seem like the latter is being alluded to? It seems the former is being alluded to.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


No, the shuttle enters the sunlight before the tether, as the astronauts state early in the video. You can see the screen start to brighten before the tether appears. This is when objects close to the shuttle should be seen, but they are not. Only after the tether comes into sunlight do we see all the spheres.

The article states

quite large (larger than cm diameters)

Not larger than a cm, or 1 cm, and he uses the world diameters. What would be larger than cm diameters, I would say meter diameters. You would say 25 cm, but not 500 cm, you would go to meters and say 5 meters.

Originally posted by poet1b
What ever the attitutde of the shuttle in the chart where the particles were observed, you still have hundreds of particles that then dropped to less than ten in a matter of minutes. We do not see this in the tether video. We see zero particles, and then we see numerous particles that do not go away.

Yes, but we see that the camera is moved, zoomed in, etc. Also, we cannot compare a photo camera focused to a distance of 25 metres with a video camera focused (or at least they were supposedly trying to focus) at a distance of around 70 nautical miles or more and with the gain to its maximum.

We see nothing in this video that matches what is described as having occurred during a water dump.

Nobody is saying that this was filmed during a water dump but after a water dump, and without real data instead of vague allusions we cannot really be sure of anything.

Also note that in the second chart, there are zero particles observed at sunset and sunrise.

And what they say doesn't matter?

In Figure 3 there are two clear periods when particles were observed: just after the maneuvering was completed and just after orbital sunrise.

In addition, the shuttle isn't making any maneuvers in the video.

Nobody is saying that the shuttle is making any manoeuvres either. As the report says that the particles were seen "just after the maneuvering", if the video starts "just after maneuvering" there could be particles left over from that action, but as we do not have the whole video we cannot know it.

This video footage was taken three days after the satellite launch, so that eliminates particles from the actual launch being directly around the shuttle.

Yes, but not particles released by other activities. From the same report:

It has long been known that activities such as water dumps generate copious ice particles, but in this paper we report that a whole range of events such as crew activities and engine firings can shake loose or produce particles detectible to sensitive astronomical instruments.

And

The PACS data in conjunction with other orbital data bases have been used to create the framework model of the Shuttle environment. Excluding orbiter activities (dumps, thruster firings) the clearing time for the environment appears to have characteristic clearing times (e-fold) of 5 hr in a solar inertial attitude, and of 11 days for a variable attitude mission. The solar induced particle cloud produces 100 particles sr-1 during a 10-min period. The clearing time (e-fold) following a water dump is 2 to 10 min depending on attitude .On average there were 8 particles sr-1 s-1 larger than 40 um surrounding the Shuttle during the middle of mission.

I may be interpreting this in the wrong way, specially because this is a subject that I do not really know, but it looks to me that in a normal mission they are never free from particles around them.

I don't see the logic on continuing to insist that we are seeing something which does not look like anything reported in this NASA study except for one thing.

The NASA report does not explain how the particles looked, but they probably looked like any other small object under a strong light, as a small white dot, if inside the depth of field. They also say that in the camera focused to 25 metres the stars appeared as well defined discs, like any out of focus bright point should look.

A t several times during the mission, groups of particles were observed within the field-of-view for several sets of exposures. Groups of -75 particles were observed to be in the same relative positions in frames taken 2 min apart. One particle took 8 min to traverse the field-of-view. These nearly immobile particles were observed in several different attitudes including the velocity vector across the bay (so that the entire column in the field-of-view was subjected to atmospheric drag) and even when the bay was in ram. 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.

So they are seeing stuff up there they can't explain.

Yes, but as the camera was focused to 25 metres things would look different from a camera focused on infinity, like the one on STS-75 video (supposedly), and once more they say that they looked like clear disks because they were out of focus but not too close to the camera to make them transparent.

Larger than cm diameters leaves the size concept fairly vague. I am not sure if they mean that these particles are larger than 1 cm, or large enough that they would be measured in meters, not cm. It seems that the latter is what is being alluded to. If we are talking about particles large enough to be measured in meters, and this study does leave the concept open, then clearly this is not debris from the shuttle.

I don't think so, they usually say in cases like that (and there's a reference to that in the report itself) that it would be an order of magnitude bigger, meaning 10 cm, so if they do not say it what I supposed should be considered is that they are talking about of objects bigger than 1 cm but smaller than 10 cm.

reply to post by ArMaP


Yeah, you can compare particles seen in a camera focused to 25 meters opposed to a camera focused to infinity, with good results. Both tell you that there are particles there, the one focused closer should see them better.

You keep trying to avoid looking at the evidence. I have pointed out several times now, that if the dump took place before the video, we should be seeing the particles from the beginning of the video, which we don't, so there is no evidence of a water dump whatsoever. To keep claiming it was a water dump when there is no evidence of such a water dump is ignoring the evidence.

A 10 cm measure is in cm. The author of the article uses micro m, mm, cm, m and km. I see no special classification of 10cm as being distinct from cm diameters.

Originally posted by poet1b
To keep claiming it was a water dump when there is no evidence of such a water dump is ignoring the evidence.

I am not claiming that it was a water dump, I am only saying that we should not disregard that possibility without any real data about those actions, specially considering that there is a relatively small time frame in which the ice from a water dump would be present in large numbers.

Without a precise time for the video and for the shuttle activities we cannot be sure of anything, that's what I have been saying.

A 10 cm measure is in cm. The author of the article uses micro m, mm, cm, m and km. I see no special classification of 10cm as being distinct from cm diameters.

He only uses centimetres in that occasion and when saying that some particles were estimated as being in the mm-cm radius size range, so I guess that is what he really was talking about, less than 10 cm particles. And I wouldn't call something with 10 cm a particle, that is big enough to be called an object, at least in my unscientific point of view.

Also, 10 cm is a decimetre, as anyone that uses the decimal system knows, all from different orders of magnitude from millimetre to kilometre have specific names that are really used (but those between metre and kilometre, decametre and hectometre, are rarely used), but if he was talking about tens of centimetres he would probably say

reply to post by ArMaP


BUT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER OF A WATER DUMP

So why consider it. The only reason I could think of is that the water dump theory is the last thread to cling to before admitting that these are UFOs floating around the tether, or at least can't be explained as particles close to the shuttle.

Are you making fun of my American lack of usage of the metric system?

Just kidding.

Decimeters are rarely used from my observation. Also, it seems that mm's are often used up to about 30, then cm is used. CM is used most often up to about 50cm, then meters tend to kick in.

You might want to consider, also, this is an American using the metric system in this study.


Oops, also, I think anything over a cm in diameter is no longer a particle.


[edit on 8-11-2009 by poet1b]

[edit on 8-11-2009 by poet1b]

Originally posted by poet1b
BUT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER OF A WATER DUMP

There's less evidence for the existence of living plasma creatures, and I also consider it, I try to consider all possibilities.

We know that they do water dumps, we don't know when they did it in this mission, so we cannot know for sure if they did one just before this video.

But if you have any real data about water dumps times and the exact time this video was made (or any real data showing that the video was made in a particular time frame and that there was no water dump prior to that time frame) I will give a smaller probability to the water dump explanation.

The only reason I could think of is that the water dump theory is the last thread to cling to before admitting that these are UFOs floating around the tether, or at least can't be explained as particles close to the shuttle.

No, because they look exactly like small objects closer to the camera, so even if they are not ice crystals or other debris from the shuttle and they are real UFOs or plasma creatures, I can only see signs that they are small and close to the camera.

Are you making fun of my American lack of usage of the metric system?

Almost.

You might want to consider, also, this is an American using the metric system in this study.

Yes, I thought of that, but I hope they know what they are talking about, after they are supposed to be scientists.