STS-75 Tether Incident - Mystery solved! Breaking News!

a reply to: buzzEmiller

I have saw what probably was the same video and I am 100% certain it was debris the apparent difference in colour is due to how reflective it is .

a reply to: wmd_2008
I will try to post a still shot. Debris on shuttle flights is deadly if the debris is big enough to even be seen. A bit of debris half the size of a grain of salt has caused "pitting" in the windows. The ISS has orbital debris shields (about 70) mounted all over. They are made of aluminum & they can only stop this micro sized debris. Shuttles have also mounted "orbital debris catchers"!
These are the size of a small suitcase & unfold. They catch any samples of this that are smaller than a grain of salt. Larger objects are tracked. I have this all on video. Forget debris as common or visible.

originally posted by: JimOberg
Since you've struck out on every swing over the last twenty years I'm not holding my breath on this one. But I'm glad you reminded us that "you know I delivered the Tether footage as advertised" -- the reason that viewers of that video think that the swarm showed up right after the tether break, as a consequence, is that YOU took two clips four days apart, spliced them, called them 'uncut', and mailed them out. And you're still proud of it.

If you remember..we offered the tether 2 you before we released it & you blew it by underestimating me & taking this same attitude. You are on this thread 20 yrs. later & I am still standing! If I had not released the tether video none of this would be happening.

I have not struck out? It has taken me this long to find this level of evidence...unimpeachable. I seriously reached out to you with this NEW evidence..in public..& you have rejected it. Thus you are now part of the narrative & I move on.

a reply to: buzzEmiller

Bull & indeed 5h1t if the object is very small being out of focus can make it look larger than it is also YOU said it was travelling slowly so it wasn't a threat was it

For god's sake this is incorrect..Do the test yourself...they are not particles of dust or a camera artifact. Get a video of the footage, take a transparency over the image. Find one of the objects that "appears" to NOT be travelling in a straight line. Put the transparency over the video. Mark where the object is every 1 second on the transparency. When I did this I found objects speeding up, slowing down, veering left and right and one actually slowed down, made a right hand turn and went the opposite direction it initially traversed. Newton's law of motion states that an object in motion remains in motion(one direction) unless being OPPOSED by an outside force. If dust particles like NASA said they would all be moving in ONE direction, not slowing down, speeding up making left and right hand turns, not to mention oscillating as in the video...

originally posted by: Johnnyz383
For god's sake this is incorrect..Do the test yourself...they are not particles of dust or a camera artifact. Get a video of the footage, take a transparency over the image. Find one of the objects that "appears" to NOT be travelling in a straight line. Put the transparency over the video. Mark where the object is every 1 second on the transparency. When I did this I found objects speeding up, slowing down, veering left and right and one actually slowed down, made a right hand turn and went the opposite direction it initially traversed. Newton's law of motion states that an object in motion remains in motion(one direction) unless being OPPOSED by an outside force. If dust particles like NASA said they would all be moving in ONE direction, not slowing down, speeding up making left and right hand turns, not to mention oscillating as in the video...

I agree the particles aren't all moving in straight, constant directions.

Do YOU agree the video of the particles was made FOUR DAYS after the tether snapped and drifted away?

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: Johnnyz383
For god's sake this is incorrect..Do the test yourself...they are not particles of dust or a camera artifact. Get a video of the footage, take a transparency over the image. Find one of the objects that "appears" to NOT be travelling in a straight line. Put the transparency over the video. Mark where the object is every 1 second on the transparency. When I did this I found objects speeding up, slowing down, veering left and right and one actually slowed down, made a right hand turn and went the opposite direction it initially traversed. Newton's law of motion states that an object in motion remains in motion(one direction) unless being OPPOSED by an outside force. If dust particles like NASA said they would all be moving in ONE direction, not slowing down, speeding up making left and right hand turns, not to mention oscillating as in the video...

I agree the particles aren't all moving in straight, constant directions.

Do YOU agree the video of the particles was made FOUR DAYS after the tether snapped and drifted away?

Jim, what can cause some of the particles to move in different directions, also slow down? I was under the impression that if these were particles, then if something made them change direction, then they would all change direction. Same goes for the speeding up and slowing down.

Is there an explanation for this?

originally posted by: Jay-morris
Jim, what can cause some of the particles to move in different directions, also slow down? I was under the impression that if these were particles, then if something made them change direction, then they would all change direction. Same goes for the speeding up and slowing down. Is there an explanation for this?

Fair question, and the answer rests on the line from 'Wrath of Khan' when Spock describes the flaws in Khan's space combat tactics -- he only thinks in two dimensions [as most humans do from a lifetime of training].

When the screen is full of dots, as here [four days after the tether broke, after the the shuttle had resumed waste water dumps], they are scattered in all three dimensions, two that you see and the third you have to intuit. Forces that affect their motion, such as thruster pulses or air drag, vary in strength and direction depending on how the shuttle itself [the unseen object in all these scenes] alters localized conditions by blocking or even bouncing some of those effects. Some close-in objects might get caught in a thruster puff that closer ones aren't because of vehicle shadowing. Depending on flight direction versus camera line-of-sight, some will be 'dragged' by the near-but-not-perfect-vacuum Mach 25 flow, others will be protected on the lee side of the shuttle. Differences in distance from Earth also induce gradual 'creep' at larger [tens of meters] ranges [rule of thumb is that two objects will creep apart every orbit by ten times their CG height difference -- at 100 feet that's about a foot per minute and the shuttle's CG is already 50 feet behind the crew cabin]

The dots in such a camera view will be at different distances from the shuttle, and thus should react differently to known candidate forces.

Lastly there is thermal-induced mini-thrusting caused by 'popcorning' of ice sublimating off the sunlit side of tiny flakes, in a direction determined by the flake's shape and spin axis, which are essentially random. When spinning flakes break apart the fragments also move off on new separate paths.

These effects are impossible to calculate without knowing more than we ever can about the positions and compositions and structure of each piece. So while these slow swerves are 'normal' for space ice flakes, there's no way to prove they are not being mimicked as a camouflage trick by aliens [grin].

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: Jay-morris
Jim, what can cause some of the particles to move in different directions, also slow down? I was under the impression that if these were particles, then if something made them change direction, then they would all change direction. Same goes for the speeding up and slowing down. Is there an explanation for this?

Fair question, and the answer rests on the line from 'Wrath of Khan' when Spock describes the flaws in Khan's space combat tactics -- he only thinks in two dimensions [as most humans do from a lifetime of training].

When the screen is full of dots, as here [four days after the tether broke, after the the shuttle had resumed waste water dumps], they are scattered in all three dimensions, two that you see and the third you have to intuit. Forces that affect their motion, such as thruster pulses or air drag, vary in strength and direction depending on how the shuttle itself [the unseen object in all these scenes] alters localized conditions by blocking or even bouncing some of those effects. Some close-in objects might get caught in a thruster puff that closer ones aren't because of vehicle shadowing. Depending on flight direction versus camera line-of-sight, some will be 'dragged' by the near-but-not-perfect-vacuum Mach 25 flow, others will be protected on the lee side of the shuttle. Differences in distance from Earth also induce gradual 'creep' at larger [tens of meters] ranges [rule of thumb is that two objects will creep apart every orbit by ten times their CG height difference -- at 100 feet that's about a foot per minute and the shuttle's CG is already 50 feet behind the crew cabin]

The dots in such a camera view will be at different distances from the shuttle, and thus should react differently to known candidate forces.

Lastly there is thermal-induced mini-thrusting caused by 'popcorning' of ice sublimating off the sunlit side of tiny flakes, in a direction determined by the flake's shape and spin axis, which are essentially random. When spinning flakes break apart the fragments also move off on new separate paths.

These effects are impossible to calculate without knowing more than we ever can about the positions and compositions and structure of each piece. So while these slow swerves are 'normal' for space ice flakes, there's no way to prove they are not being mimicked as a camouflage trick by aliens [grin].

Thanks for that jim

a reply to: Jay-morris

It doesn't prove that's what they WERE, just what they COULD have been.

More importantly, Mission Control was ALWAYS 'leaning into' detecting anomalies in flight -- telemetry, video, eyeball, any human or mechanical sensory device -- for clues to vehicle malfunction. 'Funny stuff' outside was a top candidate of 'could-be-BAD' cautionary indicators. What had to be proven was that the whatsits were NOT dangerous, with the going-in assumption always that they MIGHT be.

originally posted by: JimOberg
a reply to: Jay-morris

It doesn't prove that's what they WERE, just what they COULD have been.

More importantly, Mission Control was ALWAYS 'leaning into' detecting anomalies in flight -- telemetry, video, eyeball, any human or mechanical sensory device -- for clues to vehicle malfunction. 'Funny stuff' outside was a top candidate of 'could-be-BAD' cautionary indicators. What had to be proven was that the whatsits were NOT dangerous, with the going-in assumption always that they MIGHT be.

You can not just generalize. "The stuff is everywhere" says an astronaut during a space walk. Another calls to another to look at the stuff as "you have to see this with your own eyes"..."this is really bad so lets take a break".

NASA puts a suitcase size 'debris catcher' on the MIR space station. The gel catches micro debris the size of less than half a grain of salt. The 'stuff' somehow avoids it. The 'stuff' also avoids the '3 inch thick aluminum shields' mounted on the shuttle & space station.

A mission (you have to know about this mission & this experiment) that clarifies what you are talking about. A mission where the 'stuff' is studied. If it is something you do not have the details too, then NASA is hiding it from you! It is so VIP that not to know even the name of this experiment, means you are out of the loop!

I found it & you should too. I have access to no more resources than you do. Do the work Jim! ...and then tell everyone what it says. I bet you will fail. ...then ask for my help...you know I always come through.

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: buzzEmiller

Bull & indeed 5h1t if the object is very small being out of focus can make it look larger than it is also YOU said it was travelling slowly so it wasn't a threat was it

I am always referencing video from my own archive. I have the objects close up & IN FOCUS. I am certain that what I am looking at is not ice nor debris. My new UFO discoveries are able to eliminate Jim Oberg & the crazy ICE & DEBRIS theory forever!
Everyone will see it this year. I brought the tether footage to the world. I did not bluff then & I am not bluffing now.

You mentioned danger. The most interesting part, is that these particles DO NOT threaten the astronauts. NASA does not feel they are a danger. The objects always avoid the shuttle, space station & astronauts! There is purpose involved with these strange UFOs. Individually they are NOT a threat. It only bothers the astronauts when the 'stuff' swarms. I mentioned that to Jim in my last post. An astronaut says that "these are really bad..lets take a break" For something that is everywhere, they are not dangerous. Explain that?... (You can not explain the unexplainable)

originally posted by: buzzEmiller
.... An astronaut says that "these are really bad..lets take a break" For something that is everywhere, they are not dangerous. Explain that?... (You can not explain the unexplainable)

I'm willing to try, if you tell me the mission/date/time of the comment.

a reply to: buzzEmiller

Well get the info out but I still think your one deluded individual and what you ckaim is proof will bite you in the ass .

originally posted by: buzzEmiller

originally posted by: JimOberg
Since you've struck out on every swing over the last twenty years I'm not holding my breath on this one. But I'm glad you reminded us that "you know I delivered the Tether footage as advertised" -- the reason that viewers of that video think that the swarm showed up right after the tether break, as a consequence, is that YOU took two clips four days apart, spliced them, called them 'uncut', and mailed them out. And you're still proud of it.

If you remember..we offered the tether 2 you before we released it & you blew it by underestimating me & taking this same attitude. You are on this thread 20 yrs. later & I am still standing! If I had not released the tether video none of this would be happening.

I have not struck out? It has taken me this long to find this level of evidence...unimpeachable. I seriously reached out to you with this NEW evidence..in public..& you have rejected it. Thus you are now part of the narrative & I move on.

Hello martyn. Do you belive this new evidence that you are talking about will be smokin gun evidence? Have you released any of this evidence yet?

Martyn, if this isn't out of line, I'd like to ask a question many folks around here have been wondering. How are you?

What is your life like? People have been worried about rumors about your health. People are curious what and where you've been up to the last twenty years. Can you share a few autobiographical descriptions?