New Analysis Video of the STS-75 Tether Incident

I agree there could be a faint visible light because of plasma. Faint. incomparable to sunlight.
But, if this visible light it is there in the great amount like you suggest, then why astronauts didn't see the tether until orbital sunrise ocurred?

ANSWER: because this light from the plasma is very faint. Much fainter than the light reflected from the sun. Argument: imediately after the tether break, when already was fully deployed, we see in video the tether, a simple wire, and we see it because is sunlit, not because some faint plasma brightness.

yep more opinions and proclamations masquerading as facts

at least DOF admits to the possibility of a plasma field around the tether.

there is hope after all



[edit on 13-12-2009 by easynow]

Originally posted by mcrom901
reply to post by Phage

 

and the reason for the thickness?

This really has been discussed thoroughly before, please do your homework before demanding a one-on-one remedial tutorial.

The camera effect of blooming, where bright pixels leak over onto nearby ones, is a bane of the simple cameras in use in the payload bay in those years.

You can tell the thickness is an artifact when, even as the camera is zoomed in and out, and the length expands and contracts, the thickness remains the same -- an artifact, not a real visual characteristic.

The tether did not look that thick to the naked eye, either -- another indication the thickness is a camera artifact, not a genuine visual feature.

Originally posted by depthoffield

Originally posted by mcrom901

it seems you did not comprehend what was mentioned earlier.... "VISIBLE LIGHT RADIATED BY PLASMA"

I agree there could be a faint visible light because of plasma. Faint. incomparable to sunlight.
But, if this visible light it is there in the great amount like you suggest, then why astronauts didn't see the tether until orbital sunrise ocurred?

ANSWER: because this light from the plasma is very faint. Much fainter than the light reflected from the sun. Argument: imediately after the tether break, when already was fully deployed, we see in video the tether, a simple wire, and we see it because is sunlit, not because some faint plasma brightness.

Good point, and supported by further observational evidence.

Ground observers did not see the tether in Earth's shadow, but only as it was emerging from that shadow and afterwards.

Originally posted by JimOberg
This really has been discussed thoroughly before, please do your homework before demanding a one-on-one remedial tutorial.

you should do your homework.....

as already demonstrated.....

a) recoiled thether

b) secondary emission of photons

The camera effect of blooming, where bright pixels leak over onto nearby ones, is a bane of the simple cameras in use in the payload bay in those years.

any camera anomaly cannot rule out the above mentioned facts

You can tell the thickness is an artifact when, even as the camera is zoomed in and out, and the length expands and contracts, the thickness remains the same -- an artifact, not a real visual characteristic.

wrong again

The tether did not look that thick to the naked eye, either -- another indication the thickness is a camera artifact, not a genuine visual feature.

wrong again

The tether did not look that thick to the naked eye, either -- another indication the thickness is a camera artifact, not a genuine visual feature.

is there also camera blooming in this video ?





just wondering

Originally posted by JimOberg
Ground observers did not see the tether in Earth's shadow, but only as it was emerging from that shadow and afterwards.

nobody ruled out the sun as for not causing luminosity...... scroll back

Originally posted by easynow

The tether did not look that thick to the naked eye, either -- another indication the thickness is a camera artifact, not a genuine visual feature.

is there also camera blooming in this video ?

I don't see as much blooming in that video but remember the shuttle camera used a vacuum tube image sensor which is unusual, most cameras don't use vacuum tube image sensors but instead use some other technology like CCD image sensors.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


i guess you will never admit that you had no real basis to say what you did about me in regards to what my opinion is about getting a better copy of the video from secretnasaman and it being sufficient.

i'm going to say that you just made a mistake (unless you can find a quote to post) and let it go. consider it a Christmas present if you want. please for future discussions , do me a favor and quote me and link to the post if your going to say something about my viewpoints. it would help to avoid any misconceptions.

as far as the blooming you see in the tether spotted from Earth , how far away do you think the person that got it on video was from it and is it totally impossible that there is less blooming because of the distance verses the video from the shuttle ?


[edit on 13-12-2009 by easynow]

reply to post by mcrom901

Originally posted by mcrom901
reply to post by Phage

and the reason for the thickness?

This really has been discussed thoroughly before, please do your homework before demanding a one-on-one remedial tutorial.

yes mcrom901 how dare you ask questions about things that nobody has proven anything

keep asking questions my friend and don't ever stop !!!

when somebody say's what Oberg said and tries to stop you , then you know something is wrong. it's the same thing when people say we don't need to see NASA's copy of the video.

if they don't want you to question anything other than what they want you to then that IMO is cause for alarm !

reply to post by easynow


Thanks for that, maybe I did make a mistake but if so it was a misunderstanding.

Regarding the distance, and blooming, I'm looking at the length to width ratio, so in comparing 2 different videos, if you make the length comparable in each of them (such as by taking screenshots of each and putting them side by side and stretching one until the length is the same), that should normalize the effects of distance and zoom, etc for the most part. Then I'd say the video that shows a wider width demonstrated more blooming.

Originally posted by easynow
does camera C prove there was no plasma field associated with the tether ?

Nope it does not

Also camera C does not prove a lot of other things, whatever wild ideas we may have (like superman is not there, for example)

does camera C prove there was plasma field which we see in the tether images?

Nope. Camera C shows a distant wire, which is invisible to the naked eye when in shadow of the Earth, but visible to the naked eye when in sunlight.
Does this means a sufficient amount of plasma light (visible spectrum) is there VISIBLE and RECORDED in the movie? Nope. Does this means tether is obviously visible simply because of sunlight? Yes.

Originally posted by easynow
its obvious that you only want to believe your logic which is by the way ignorant and laughable

My ignorant and laughable logic was good enough to discover and show to Poet1b that particles of ice in space could survive much longer than a few minutes.... to show to Poet1b constelation Orion where he confused a lot of stars as being debris....to make the connection from the Scene List to Secretnasaman's video and pinpoint the exact timing of the video, also which was the camera which filmed the movie (camera C)..to pinpoint the sky chart where the tether is seen (Centaur constellation) ...to show Mikesingh that some shadows on the moon are not spires or something like he claimed, but simple shadows (he gave me applauses on that). Seems my logic is a little better than laughable, just enough to receive applauses. But you find it laughable. Well, you have very high standards..too bad you apply them only on the skeptics ...
Well, being a critical thinker which have some potential to discover that some UFO's are not quite UFO's, everything on me have to be wrong, ignorant, laughable etcetera.

Allow me to quote one phrase from Zorgon's signature:

""The louder the opposition protests, the more I know I am on the right track"

Originally posted by easynow

Also, i want any better copy than these Secretnasaman's copies. (You don't want them).

there you go posting lies again !

quote me where i say i do not want to see a better copy than secretnasaman's video

if you can't then admit your making up lies and posting them

Well, read from here the dialog between us: www.abovetopsecret.com...

You said
" nobody should accept anything less than the raw footage to study. then we can have a real discussion about this"

Also, from that dialog, it seems that your opinion (like a law or something?) is that everything is posted in order to clarify some aspects, based on what copies we have, is good only for nothing:

You said:

"no offense to DOF or secretnasaman but the video in the condition we have is not worthy of scientific analysis in that perspective. motion tracking is even questionable so your argument that DOF has proven anything is ridiculous. you already know what i said about the ufo hunters video. "

In the mean time, i discovered the star chart (Centaurus), we making progress in distinguish between stars and objects, we can make measurement (like how long is the tether, or how big are the discs (angular units), all on that crappy copy. But seems you want to ignore all this judgements and posibilities.
Are you afraid from what we can discover?

reply to post by depthoffield

Are you afraid from what we can discover?

no i am not afraid of anything

like i already said , everything you have worked on is very good work but until i see NASA's copy of the video i am not going to reach any conclusions.

if you or anyone else wants to come to some conclusions with the youtube video then i think that is great but not very wise. that is my opinion and i am not changing it no matter how many times you scream "direct proof" at me.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

Thanks for that, maybe I did make a mistake but if so it was a misunderstanding.

ok fair enough and we will leave it at that

Regarding the distance, and blooming, I'm looking at the length to width ratio, so in comparing 2 different videos, if you make the length comparable in each of them (such as by taking screenshots of each and putting them side by side and stretching one until the length is the same), that should normalize the effects of distance and zoom, etc for the most part. Then I'd say the video that shows a wider width demonstrated more blooming.

that's not what i was getting at

IMO you can't just take screen shots and compare them without factoring in the distance each picture was taken from. maybe you can but i can't come to any real conclusions about blooming with a youtube video. i think there is a possibility that the distance could be a reason for less blooming and not just because the shuttle camera uses vacuum tube image sensors.

i don't really know and it's just something i was thinking about so please nobody attack me for just speculating. if we had a copy of NASA's version then maybe we could get a better look at the tether in the picture. too bad Oberg won't upload the video file even though he has a copy of it.

Originally posted by mcrom901

Originally posted by JimOberg
You can tell the thickness is an artifact when, even as the camera is zoomed in and out, and the length expands and contracts, the thickness remains the same -- an artifact, not a real visual characteristic.

wrong again

No Mcrom901, YOU are wrong on that.



As Arbitrageur explained just before...

As myself or Jim Oberg explained a few times before...

As others explained, i didn't remember now...

As simple attention watching the movie can verify this...



But, somebody MUST lose his time in order to show even simple facts...


Here it is the zooming process:




Here ONLY the first (zoomed) and last (unzoomed) frames:




And here the direct comparation, including the zoom ratio:



Almost the same... while there should be a 5 x difference in thickness!

Which is the real thickness? What we are seeing here?

Camera artifact. (overexposure and bleeding to adiacent pixels.)



[edit on 13/12/09 by depthoffield]

reply to post by depthoffield

Allow me to quote one phrase from Zorgon's signature:

""The louder the opposition protests, the more I know I am on the right track"

you miss Zorgon don't you

Originally posted by easynow
its obvious that you only want to believe your logic which is by the way ignorant and laughable

Originally posted by easynow
like i already said , everything you have worked on is very good work

"The program encountered an illegal instruction and will be terminated."

My logic is terminated on those above contradictory statements. Shutting down.






[edit on 13/12/09 by depthoffield]

reply to post by depthoffield

"The program encountered an illegal instruction and will be terminated."

My logic is terminated on this contradictory statements. Shutting down.

i was trying to be nice but i see you just like to argue so...

yea your logic is laughable in the sense that you think you have proved anything

Nasa STS-75 UFOs Over Mexico ?

Originally posted by depthoffield

Originally posted by mcrom901

Originally posted by JimOberg
You can tell the thickness is an artifact when, even as the camera is zoomed in and out, and the length expands and contracts, the thickness remains the same -- an artifact, not a real visual characteristic.

wrong again

No Mcrom901, YOU are wrong on that.

As Arbitrageur explained just before...

As myself or Jim Oberg explained a few times before...

As others explained, i didn't remember now...

As simple attention watching the movie can verify this...

how about other observations.......

I asked pretty much the same question on 16 Oct. '98. How could the
2.4 to 2.6 mm tether could be seen at 200 km without magnification? My
answer covered about fifteen or so posts, but none were satisfatory. I then
did the math and found that the tether, 19 km long, would represent about
50 sq. meters or about 540 sq. ft. if it was run back and forth to form a
solid partition. Still, the tether was very slim and it was a long way away,
it didn't seem possible that it could be seen at 200 km without strong
magnification.

Then on 4 Nov. '99, NASA posted some information about TiPS, the
RM400 conductive coating had "tremendous emissions of secondary
electrons," from "solar particle bombardment or ultraviolet light or
both." This would act just like reflected light, that is, when the tether and
satellites entered the sunlight and could become visible, the tether would
be bombarded with particles and ultraviolet light at the same time, so it
may not be posssible for amature observers to determine if the tether was
seen because of reflected sunlight or electron emissions surrounding the
tether in a visible sheath from the electrons.

My question is, would the the electron sheath produce a visible glow
that could account for a 2.6 mm tether being seen from great distances?
Several persons have noticed that the tether has become dimmer with time.

Read the NASA posting at:

science.nasa.gov...

The information you want to read is IN THE LAST THREE PARAGRAPHS.

www.satobs.org...

also scroll back and read the comments from the guy with 40 years of experience in astronomy.....

www.abovetopsecret.com...



[edit on 13/12/09 by mcrom901]

reply to post by mcrom901

so it may not be posssible for amature observers to determine if the tether was
seen because of reflected sunlight or electron emissions surrounding the
tether in a visible sheath from the electrons.

excellent find mcrom901

i don't think there is any proof that the only reason the tether looks as big as does in the video is because of camera bloom. beware of the peeps that want to force their beliefs on you and keep you quiet (Oberg) and others