New NASA STS-75 video-UFOs over Mexico

reply to post by ddacunha


nice nice are you sure you dont want to run that 60 yr weather balloon story out again on this one i dont think it was a tamale truck it went from el paso to acapulco in about 9 seconds maybe it was a temperature inversion theyve tried to use that a few times on me i dont think it was DC 3 i dont think it was sputnik and if your telling me its space dust then our astronauts need to be carrying some lemon pledge with them the next time they go up yes i believe but thats just me

reply to post by Exuberant1

Kriskali, what do you think of the 1:14 UFO from the OP's video?

Hi Ex, I think: Why Not!
I've seen many satellites in my time, but from this altitude (shuttle) I cant convincingly say; but, for a sitellite it does seem to be moving at incredible speed!
Not a plane: the lights dont blink!
So, I feel more comfortable with saying that its more likely a UFO, than a Satellite, anyways; with the work Marty Stubbs has done, only a serial denialist can refuse
Say, If your interested, I've got a factual account of what I saw the night the space shuttle ( I think it was the Enterprise), passed over our latitude here in sydney Australia, early 1980's. They plotted its orbit and corresponding terrestrial latitudes, along with maps, times etc; so that people could view its passing from suburban Sydney- as printed in Newspapers!

I am so happy to see Jim Oberg just had to jump in & try to explain this "used" tether being recycled 4 yrs. later!...and that is because he denied this FACT on all ATS threads where I challenged him about it, until now. NASA finally let their "go-to skeptic" know this truth!

JimO said it was pure storytelling, a FANTASY, & a 'perfect example' of me getting my NASA facts wrong!!!!...

The only person wrong was their own great NASA UFO skeptic. This was either kept a secret from Jim Oberg, or he is not the "expert" he shouts at us he is. What else have NASA kept from him, & how credible are his other NASA comments, as he did not know this fact, nor could he get NASA to show him the video!

...but, it is a perfect example of how this man operates...in the dark. He has been sent out to challenge all the actual video with only words! NASA gives him no video of his own, no full disclosure about the missions & he attacks ATS posts with nothing
but his 'storytelling'!
This is a good thread & was going so well that NASA had to get JimO involved! An entertaining rant at everyone & I sense a little anger too!

Don't worry Mr. Oberg ...ATS will keep you informed. There are a lot more videos to post & more surprise facts to come.........

reply to post by JimOberg


Jim-

Nice to see you again. Your presence here has certainly been missed.

My only questions are:

1. Are you saying that NASA used a brand new tether, one that wasn't known to have defects? Considering the multi-million dollar cost of the satellite/launch, as well as the risk to our astronauts, i believe this is a fair question for the citizens of the US to ask. It would seem that NASA allowed this mission to "fail" for a reason.

2. Can you account for WHY the tether broke, and why it emitted so much light?

To me, it seems that there WAS a secret with STS-75, and the UFO thing is more of a diversion. Tether dynamics is a burgeoning field.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by JimOberg

 

Jim-
Nice to see you again. Your presence here has certainly been missed.

...And disappear so soon!! Jim, the master debunker has chickened out, what? I had just about put on by sparring gloves and he disappears! Oh woe!

Cheers!

reply to post by mikesingh


Yeah, and as entertaining a spectical that would be; wouldn't be much of a spar though!

reply to post by Phage


If the shuttle was orbiting at 160 miles then that object is far below that altitude, i know its hard to calculate distance and speed with no real reference but i would rule out satellite.

reply to post by mikesingh


Hmmm....you seem to be correct.

Jim, you can ignore the above questions, if you would like. I only have 1 question that I am interested in your take on, if you would so indulge:

Why did NASA declare the mission a success after they lost a multi-million dollar satellite? Would they not be better served testing their tethers with something OTHER than such an expensive piece of equipment? Why was it called a "success"?

I DO realize that you are not here to be an "answer machine" (as you have stated before, in so many words), however your presence and the fact of who you are should give you an expectation that folks are going to ask you questions.

[edit on 19-5-2009 by bigfatfurrytexan]

reply to post by reugen


yes im thinking with you on this 160 miles up im thinking its down there at about 20 to 30 miles up range hard to say but what ever you said or thought has shut down this forum i think were back to pretending again all the non believers always say we need video proof now heres the video and then they go back into the silent treatment mode seen this many times before dont you want to run that 60yr old weather balloon theory out there again its has to be a balloon it goes from el paso to acapulco in about 9 seconds at 200,000 ft i just dont want to pretend anymore signing off from texas

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by JimOberg

 

Jim-

Nice to see you again. Your presence here has certainly been missed.

My only questions are:

1. Are you saying that NASA used a brand new tether, one that wasn't known to have defects? Considering the multi-million dollar cost of the satellite/launch, as well as the risk to our astronauts, i believe this is a fair question for the citizens of the US to ask. It would seem that NASA allowed this mission to "fail" for a reason.

2. Can you account for WHY the tether broke, and why it emitted so much light?

To me, it seems that there WAS a secret with STS-75, and the UFO thing is more of a diversion. Tether dynamics is a burgeoning field.

The press conference shows that they reused the tether from the first mission, since only the first 1000 ft got deployed that time (that 1000 ft was lopped off). I think I always believed they used the same tether the second time -- as the press conference confirms. I'm confused by what Martyn says I said about this... but what Martyn says about what anybody says, when I check with the people he claims said it, usually confuses me.

The tether broke because of a spark that passed through the kapton insulation sheath to the deployer tower, that provided enough momentary heating to weaken the wire enough so that it pulled apart -- it broke.

The tether was only bright from sunlight. There was no 'glow' or 'aura' around it. In the weeks after it broke free, it was observed by amateur skywatchers around the Earth, including myself -- the most amazing orbiting object I ever saw, due to its angular size and sense of 'depth' as it approached, passed overhead, and departed -- you could 'see' it was hanging down towards Earth. I watched it come out of Earth's shadow one morning -- dark, then ruddy red, and then full white, entirely illuminated only by sunlight. Gobsmacking jaw-gaping wondrous sight.

On shuttle TV the image smears, as overloaded pixels leak onto adjacent pixels -- you can see this whenever a bright piece of a satellite, or a bright city passing at night, is shown. It's a feature of the camera optics, not of the viewed object. The brightest centers of such smeared images often gray out to avoid optical system damage -- the infamous 'donuts', another typical camera feature, not a feature of the observed item.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by mikesingh

 

Hmmm....you seem to be correct.

Jim, you can ignore the above questions, if you would like. I only have 1 question that I am interested in your take on, if you would so indulge:

Why did NASA declare the mission a success after they lost a multi-million dollar satellite? Would they not be better served testing their tethers with something OTHER than such an expensive piece of equipment? Why was it called a "success"?

I DO realize that you are not here to be an "answer machine" (as you have stated before, in so many words), however your presence and the fact of who you are should give you an expectation that folks are going to ask you questions.

[edit on 19-5-2009 by bigfatfurrytexan]

Tethers are among my most favorite space structures and I've long had a problem with NASA's casual and desultory testing program. Let me check my home page to see if I've posted any stuff i've written on the theme over the years.

The STS-75 test got out to nearly-full deployment length before it broke, and the Italian-built instrument package on the end measured the flux all the way out. It even then measured more data after breaking loose.

NASA had never planned to fly it again, so losing it didn't really cost anything except embarrassment.

But the detailed verified data on electrostatic charging in space confirmed the designs on the space station for 'grounding' into the ionosphere using an ion gun during space walks, so the crew wouldn't act as 'lightning rods' for discharges from the hull of the station into the ionosphere, discharges that if there was a worn gap in spacesuit interior insulation could well have induced fatal electrical jolts into a spacewalker's body.

An unfulfilled promise of space tethers is using them to 'fling' payloads higher or lower (such as a recent student experiment on a Russian satellite where a tethered capsule was flung back down into the atmosphere to demonstrate non-thrusting de-orbit). The STS-75 mission actually unexpectedly demonstrate this hitherto theoretical momentum transfer effect by flinging the payload and tether into a much higher orbit.

I hope future technology demos on this technique will come, even if not from NASA. If they do, y'all be sure to make every effort to get outside at dawn or dusk and watch the object come over. Even with only the thickness of a telephone cord, the STS-75 tether was clearly visible as a thin line to the naked eye hundreds of miles below. To overuse the word, 'amazing'.

I do not have any problem with Jim Oberg saying whatever he says, because that is what we do at ATS! I say the NASA videos show unknown objects. Jim does not believe this & usually puts up a heck of an argument. We come from different media backgrounds. I am a former TV station manager & he is a respected journalist. So it is only natural that I believe in what I see more than a technical explanation..... that's all! Nothing personal.

Originally posted by secretnasaman
We come from different media backgrounds. I am a former TV station manager & he is a respected journalist. So it is only natural that I believe in what I see more than a technical explanation..... that's all! Nothing personal.

The more relevant difference is that I worked more than two decades in NASA's Mission Control in Houston, so I'm professionally familiar with the technologies, procedures, and people involved there, and can easily detect how confused and imagination-driven these stories from Martyn and others are.

reply to post by JimOberg



It appears those two decades at NASA haven't helped you ascertain the identity of any of the Objects in the video from the OP...

I guess that would make them UFOs - even to you

Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by JimOberg

 

It appears those two decades at NASA haven't helped you ascertain the identity of any of the Objects in the video from the OP...

I guess that would make them UFOs - even to you

By no means. Since the first step of any serious ufologist when shown an anomalous image is to determine the circumstances of the image and talk to the primary witnesses, and examine the nature of the imaging apparatus, only those who do NOT want serious investigation will deliberately withhold contextual information that would permit such an investigation. What are you afraid of?

I think we are all beginning to suspect your motivations in covering up this information.

Originally posted by JimOberg

I think we are all beginning to suspect your motivations in covering up this information.

You speak for all of ATS now - interesting.
(You should make a thread to inform the membership )

Is this the tactic you normally utilize when you have failed to debunk something?

*If you are interested in gathering additional data about the video file; the OP's name is ddacunha. I'm sure he will be glad to tell you all that he knows about the File he posted on his thread.

[edit on 22-5-2009 by Exuberant1]

Originally posted by Exuberant1
*If you are interested in gathering additional data about the video file; the OP's name is ddacunha. I'm sure he will be glad to tell you all that he knows about the File he posted on his thread.

Thank you. So I've asked:

"you've seen the discussion re sts-63 and sts-48 and STS-75 videos. Can you provide date/time of the sequences shown so they can be verified and their context defined?"

Since you're "sure", that makes it true in your mind? We'll see if he replies, and 'all that he knows" about their provenance may turn out, as with you, to be nothing.

ok the tether story is very contested but i want to know what everyone thinks about this object its got to be doing mach 15 or 20 atleast it goes from el paso to acapulco in about 9 seconds dont you want to tell me its a weather balloon a flock of birds a temp inversion a reflection of sunlight off the shuttle the naysayers just arent marching their same old conclusions out on this one let me hear from some of the believers out there while the naysayers try to regroup and save face i think we have the floor

reply to post by robatmj12


Rob, the 'naysayers' seem to be saying, give us a chance to examine the evidence independently. Provide time coordinates of the scene. How do you find that to be inappropriate?

reply to post by JimOberg


i guess im saying that i dont find fault with wanting to examine the evidence independently inappropriate but what i do consider inappropriate are the explanations after they are examined a flock of birds or a weather balloon a temp inversion tricks of light doing mach 20 you have to meet me halfway on this your far left im far right ill agree to that but just 10 12 yrs ago scientists were sure there was a black hole out there somewhere now they have examined the evidence and found that every galaxy has one and there are millions of galaxies do you think they all stay home on saturday night and dont go anywhere im just tired of pretending theres nothing else out there and were the only ones that exist in the whole entire universe it would be a lot of wasted space