100% proof of U.F.O.S in space - You cannot debunk this one

Originally posted by JimOberg... does NOT immediately follow the break, as generally claimed, but was taken DAYS later?

Care to explain why the tether two days later was still glowing?

Why do you guys shut your eyes to the obvious? Something will increasingly be in our skies. There seem to already be smaller ships. One only needs say 20 minutes of observation to know.

Originally posted by HolgerTheDane
Just about as reliable as a link to Disney, Lucas Film and TrekkieHeaven.

Well since that link is in the words of the actual witness, how is it not 'reliable'?

You may not believe his words, but that is irrelevant. And last time I checked those three sites you mention are also reliable in the context of what they present.

And considering that Disney collaborated with Wernher von Braun on a Moon base cover up and Disney collaborated with Lockheed Martin on the MARS animation I would say Disney is right in the thick of it...







But its okay... we don't expect you to believe anything

Just explain to me why the Tether was glowing, why that was important enough to take along a SPECIAL camera to record this EXPECTED phenomena (the TOP camera) and why ice particles would still be around several days later AND be picked up by the special camera that was there to record the plasma energy surrounding the tether?

Seems in every thread on STS 75... everyone wants to skirt the issue and direct focus away from the fact that the sequence was filmed with a camera designed to record plasma glows... like the sheath around the tether... like the CRITTERS

And BTW there was a SECOND tether flown by the REAL space program, the US NAVY a month after STS 75 and that WAS successful and flew for two years...

They fired lasers at it from two Earth stations as a proof of concept testing power transmission

But then... that never made the evening news either... just like it seems to get ignored here as well



[edit on 7-6-2009 by zorgon]

reply to post by HolgerTheDane


I have just logged on and I can't stop laughing. Yourself and doomsdayrex have just made me smile by reading your posts and I mean that in a nice way, not snide or chide.

First of all your post made me laugh because I thought to myself that I could post any link with any cedible source and no matter how credible it is you would still say it isn't therefore, its a bit of a tricky one for me. Nevertheless you did cheer me up.

The disney comment cheered me up aswell but I can't remember if that was your post.

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex
Fran, in an earlier post, I presented two videos, each from a different source, demonstrating how the tether incident is an optical illusion created by the camera.

Yet you dismiss these without explanation. Could you please tell us why you dismiss them?

No no I am not dismissing anything I glossed over it because the tether incident has been discussed to death and assumed (naughty me) that people didn't want to discuss it and I thought the comments might fly. But if you want to discuss it le:

The thether incident:

To be perfectly honest I have to ask the question first of all why would a media programme shown around the world want to try and debunk it. I forget the name of the programme but that in itself rings bells to me. Second of all I believe this programme did the flag on the moon experiment aswell sounds stange.

Without looking at the 100% raw data its hard to make a factual case either way. Because I have personally seen a flying saucer I know they exist and indeed are real. Therefore, going on experience it is logical to think that what we see in the tether video are indeed ufos's checking out a piece of human technology.

To say that the ufos are ice crystals or dust on the lens just doesn't wash with me. The fact that the camera zooms in when the ufos arrive is again something that flags up for me.

I will look at the video again because its been a while since I studied the footage and we can go from there.

On a seperate note you did make me laugh earlier when I read your post, you do use the word fallacy quite a bit its funny how everyone has their style of writing, I use indeed quite a bit.

Keep up the good work.

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex
And that is the problem, Fran. Oberg, and others, have been asking you what process you went through to determine these prove "100%" that NASA has filmed aliens. Oberg even asked at what time in the second video a certain event happens, but to my knowledge you haven't even answered that.

You take things far to seriously DoomsdayRex,

You missed out the fact how Jim didn't answer my question. Posed on 3 seperate pages of this thread but do you see me shouting from the rooftops.

You instead rely on the base assertion fallacy, the negative proof fallacy and an argument from personal belief. You even rely on an appeal to popularity fallacy at one point. You seem to have a steadfast refusal to tell us the how and why behind your claim. You are short on reasoning and evidence and long on logical fallacies.

I am sorry but I had to I am not steadfastly refusing anything and you know that, your looking for an argument where you can can twist my words and then raise your hands in the air and declare victory. I don't play these games and I do not write threads for popularity thats for sure. I write whats in my heart and head I am not trying to win friends if thats what you think.

Ok lets talk about evidence in video 1 tell me Rex can I call you rex (its shorter and easier to type) what is the purpose of the top camera on the shuttle and why? why at that precise moment was the camera rolling, why would a shuttle want to video a water dump? why does the camera follow the ice particle?

Edit: What a coincedence I have just read zorgons post about the camers above. If zorgon says it aswell then we must be on the right wavelength. No such thing as coincedences.

Not just in this video but many others the camera of the shuttle seems to always be focusing on 'ice particles' at the precise moment an anomaly pops up.

Can I ask you a question rex, Do you believe that all the white dots in all the videos can be explained,labelled or defined?

You even go so far as to chide us for not accepting the possibility these may be aliens, when we can tell you the how and why we came to our conclusions, yet you cannot or will not.

I thought you would have know by now, there isn't an ounce of negativity or nasty streak in me that I would project towards you or any other member on this site, I apologise if it has created any bad feelings.


[edit on 7-6-2009 by franspeakfree]

[edit on 7-6-2009 by franspeakfree]

Originally posted by Exuberant1
I see you also have failed to produce an image-set for comparative analysis.

Perhaps you refrain from doing this because the hypothesis which you support does not account for what is seen in the STS-75 tether UFO footage and is not replicated by DoomDaysRex's video...

You are continuing to make your red-herring argument, mating it with an argument-from-silence fallacy. A side-by-side comparison is irrelevant to the evidence provided. It is not less valid because there is no side-by-side comparison.

You continue to make declarative statements that it is not explain it; could you tell us why it does not explain it?

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by JimOberg... does NOT immediately follow the break, as generally claimed, but was taken DAYS later?

Care to explain why the tether two days later was still glowing?

seriously?
sunlight, dude.
the sun is *extremely* bright in space, with no atmosphere to filter it.
the tether was never *glowing*, it was just illuminated by the sun.
the whole tether incident has also been debunked virtually beyond any reasonable doubt. the videos have already been linked in this thread, where people recreate objects in the foreground seeming to pass behind a distant object, and even *the exact shape* of the so called "UFOs" by utilizing the same kind of camera that was used to shoot the video.

Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by DoomsdayRex

 

You claim the STS-75 UFO`s are attributable to camera artifacts - the other debunkers claim they are ice crystals and particles....

It appears further investigation is required; the STS-75 objects have yet to be conclusively identified or accounted for.

even UFO hunters, a show dedicated to finding the truth, debunked the tether incident very quickly and conclusively.

they are both of the things you said. they are ice particles in the foreground distorted via camera artifacts due to the nature of the shot. the camera used creates said artifacts whenever focused on something in the extreme distance and something passes in the foreground.

Originally posted by JScytale the camera used creates said artifacts whenever focused on something in the extreme distance and something passes in the foreground.

And which camera was this that created these artifacts that are ice crystals?

Originally posted by JScytale
seriously?
sunlight, dude.
the sun is *extremely* bright in space, with no atmosphere to filter it.
the tether was never *glowing*,.

Yes seriously and I suggest you do your homework and read some NASA documents about the plasma glow that was recorded, expected and the special camera used to record it. I could link you to those documents but I doubt you would even look.

The wire is only a few centimeters in dia. Its over 80 nautical miles away. Sunlight reflecting on such a thin wire? you really don't have any idea about this do you?

Originally posted by franspeakfree
your looking for an argument where you can can twist my words

observation

when a persons arguments are shown to be flawed or fallacious

it inevitably becomes labeled as "twisting my words"

If zorgon says it aswell then we must be on the right wavelength.

KING ZORGON HAS SPOKEN

HENCEFORTH IT IS TRUE

Originally posted by zorgon
but I doubt you would even look.

self fulfilling that dismissal is

and if you dont link them

he for sure cannot read them

Originally posted by cranberrydork
and if you dont link them
he for sure cannot read them

Quite right But since I have posted them many times in many threads and they are available on my site... I decided to be lazy today.

Sometimes its just not worth the time After all that is why God created Google...

Be surprised what you find with a simple search for "NASA tether plasma sheath"



High voltage plasma sheath analysis related to TSS-1
adsabs.harvard.edu...

TSS-1 is the STS 75 tether designation in case you didn't know

From NASA STS-75 mission repoert

The specific TSS1-R mission objectives are: characterize the current-voltage response of the TSS-orbiter system, characterize the satellites high-voltage sheath structure and current collection process, demonstrate electric power generation, verify tether control laws and basic tether dynamics, demonstrate the effect of neutral gas on the plasma sheath and current collection, characterize the TSS radio frequency and plasma wave emissions and characterize the TSS dynamic-electrodynamic coupling.

science.ksc.nasa.gov...

Transient plasma sheath model for thin conductors excited bynegative high voltages with application to electrodynamic tethers
ieeexplore.ieee.org...

For one, is the nature of the interaction of a very high-voltage tether structure with the tenuous plasma present at the altitudes where the system would operate?

A plasma sheath could develop around the tether. If that occurs, the range of the high-voltage tether would be impacted. That same sheath might also affect how much power is necessary to pump into the tether, keeping it at high voltage, Hoyt said.

www.space.com...

TETHERED SATELLITE SYSTEM INTERACTIONS WITH THE IONOSPHERIC PLASMA
see.msfc.nasa.gov...

The tether current produces a closed, azimuthal magnetic field around the tether. As a result, the region immediately surrounding the tether is disconnected from the open magnetic field region farther out (a magnetic separatrix exists). Therefore in order to be collected, charged particles must intersect the boundary surface (separatrix) between the regions of closed and open magnetic fields configurations. If the plasma sheath is inside the region of closed magnetic surfaces, the particle can be collected only due to the thermal motion, i.e. finite Larmour radius. To the extend that charged particles are unable to move across these surfaces, collected current will be reduced. This magnetic insulation breaks down if the boundary surface is
inside the region of strong electric field, i.e. inside the plasma sheath.

hsd.gsfc.nasa.gov...

Okay so it GLOWS

As to the TOP Camera...

Tether Optical Phenomena Experiment (TOP)

Using a hand-held camera system with image intensifiers and special filters, the TOP investigation will provide visual data that may allow scientists to answer a variety of questions concerning tether dynamics and optical effects generated by TSS-1R. In particular, this experiment will examine the high-voltage plasma sheath surrounding the satellite...

In one mode of operation, the current developed in the Tethered Satellite System is closed by using electron accelerators to return electrons to the plasma surrounding the orbiter. The interaction between these electron beams and the plasma is not well understood...

Associate Investigator: Stephen Mende, Lockheed Martin

liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov...

in order to obtain 2D images in the EUV-FUV ((400÷1300) Å) of the optical phenomena occurring in the neighborhood of the TSS satellite. These peculiar phenomena, not detectable during the first TSS mission, are primarily due to the interaction of a high-potential conductive body with the surrounding ionospheric plasma.

This paper was submitted 14 July 1992 four years before the 2nd mission so they KNEW what to look for and it was in UV...

Astronomical observations: ultraviolet (100÷3000) Å

www.springerlink.com...

Heck even the RUSSIANS know about it...

Later vacuum-chamber experiments suggested that the unwinding of the reel uncovered pinholes in the insulation. That in itself would not have caused a major problem, because the ionosphere around the tether, under normal circumstance, was too rarefied to divert much of the current. However, the air trapped in the insulation changed that. As it bubbled out of the pinholes, the high voltage ("electric pressure") of the nearby tether, about 3500 volts, converted it into a plasma (in a way similar to the ignition of a fluorescent tube), a relatively dense one and therefore a much better conductor of electricity.

www.iki.rssi.ru...

So get over it... the tether was GLOWING from the plasma around it, hence why it looked so wide and like a fluorescent tube.

The TOP camera was a camera specifically designed to film this phenomena and caught the CRITTERS as well and the STS 75 footage we all love so much WAS in UV

These are a FEW of the available papers... some are even more technical like the 480 page report after the fact that you can order from NASA that goes into the sustained arcing that caused the break... but that is enough to make my point...

Do some research... know the facts before you 'shoot from the hips' Will make one appear less ignorant

Here is a pic of the damage a sustained arc does on spacecraft...





This one shows it actually occurring



There ya go tons of links to real data...

I only felt generous because this search netted me a few new documents I didn't have yet

reply to post by franspeakfree


Again, what isn't being considered by everyone is whether or not these are artifacts. Thus, if you use the broken tether to calculate relative size of these objects compared to the tether, all you're doing is calculating the overall size of the artifact itself. Does that really tell us anything?
I'm just not convinced.

People say that these objects moved behind the tether and so we can calclulate a general minimum size of the objects based on this distance from the camera.

But where is the proof that this thing even went "behind" the tether?

I've seen this very bit of information debated and discussed in other ATS threads but it never really gets resolved because it's hard to tell. It appears to me that the artifacts all overlap the tether in the video (which would make complete sense).

-ChriS

[edit on 7-6-2009 by BlasteR]

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by JScytale
seriously?
sunlight, dude.
the sun is *extremely* bright in space, with no atmosphere to filter it.
the tether was never *glowing*,.

Yes seriously and I suggest you do your homework and read some NASA documents about the plasma glow that was recorded, expected and the special camera used to record it. I could link you to those documents but I doubt you would even look.

The wire is only a few centimeters in dia. Its over 80 nautical miles away. Sunlight reflecting on such a thin wire?

you really don't have any idea about this do you?

actually, i do have quite a good idea about this. do you know what overexposure is?

do you know what a firework looks like?

notice how it "blobs" due to the extremely bright light emitted, as opposed to looking like thousands of tiny sparks (which is how it looks in reality)?

that's what we call "overexposure".

Originally posted by JScytale
that's what we call "overexposure".

Like I said you didn't read one of those links did you? Nor did you notice that the sequence is not taken with an ordinary camera.

Silly Lemming

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by JScytale
that's what we call "overexposure".

Like I said you didn't read one of those links did you? Nor did you notice that the sequence is not taken with an ordinary camera.

Silly Lemming

i'm very aware it wasn't taken by an ordinary camera. in fact in another thread regarding this exact footage, i explained how the telephoto lens used was responsible for the shape of the most frequently shown object passing "behind" the tether.

[edit on 8-6-2009 by JScytale]

Originally posted by cranberrydork
observation

when a persons arguments are shown to be flawed or fallacious

it inevitably becomes labeled as "twisting my words"

Theres the crux of it right there, I am not looking for an argument I am looking to debate this in a civilised manor. Notice how the questions I ask don't get answered, therefore, the assumptions begin.

The problem is without not answering the question the thread is steered by criticisms and mockery and in the end everyone gets bored and moves on to the next one. This seems to be a growing trend on this site.

If you would like to step up in to Jims place and have a civilised discussion I'm all ears.

cranberrydork do you personally believe that all the white dots in the first 2 videos can be categorised,labelled and defined

cranberrydork are you aware of newtons FIRST LAW? ifso please can you tell me what will happen to 2 balls if I let go of them at the same time in space (they are the same size and weight and made of the same material)

Is it possible for an object to change SHARP direction OUTSIDE of earths orbit in space, i.e it is not effected by an outside force, in this case earth.

(I use capitals to emphasise my point - I am not using them to shout)











[edit on 8-6-2009 by franspeakfree]

Originally posted by BlasteR
Again, what isn't being considered by everyone is whether or not these are artifacts. Thus, if you use the broken tether to calculate relative size of these objects compared to the tether, all you're doing is calculating the overall size of the artifact itself. Does that really tell us anything?
I'm just not convinced.

Sorry Blaster its late here can you explain what you mean when you say artifacts? I mean to say that when you say artifacts I automatically think of a physical object or structure?

People say that these objects moved behind the tether and so we can calclulate a general minimum size of the objects based on this distance from the camera.

Is it not possible to calculate the size of the objects by using the distance from the tether to the shuttle and the size of the tether.

But where is the proof that this thing even went "behind" the tether?

I've seen this very bit of information debated and discussed in other ATS threads but it never really gets resolved because it's hard to tell. It appears to me that the artifacts all overlap the tether in the video (which would make complete sense).

Again when you say artifacts?

Your right though unfortunately unless new footage comes about we won't be able to settle this.