New Analysis Video of the STS-75 Tether Incident

Originally posted by easynow
hope that explains it for you

Yes it does, thanks for the explanation.

Originally posted by easynow
there are plenty of other STS75 threads in the ufo forum that you can work in
STS-75 Threads on ATS

You mean all I had to do was post "I agree" in this thread?:

STS-75 Tether Incident - Mystery solved!

Wow that would have saved some time but I would have received a warning for a one line post.

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by mcrom901

 

buzz's gloves....

check it out...

Yes that's the glowing effect I was referring to, an electroluminescence that occurred in the darkness. Nice little special effect in that clip, thanks for posting it, I like it! If the tether was doing something like that I can understand why it couldn't be seen at a distance in the darkness.

reply to post by poet1b


interesting thoughts there..... thanks

i'll tell you this much..... we know jack $#!%.......

and for people to claim arrogantly that they have all the answers is at the least..... like the ones who target those who venture outside the box, with their so called 'academic facts'..... as if they are the brain police of the cosmos....

anyhow.... i guess these will interest you.....

Antimatter Lightning! We're going to do our best, but nothing we could possibly write will be as awesome as the fact that's real and on Earth. In fact, nothing you ever read for the rest of your life will be as awesome as that, and it's only the way human memory degrades with time that'll let you ever get excited about anything ever again.

Like all the most discoveries, it was unexpected. The Fermi Gamma-Ray Space Telescope was launched to examine the universe for the stupendously powerful processes that produce gamma ray bursts, from black hole jets to the effects of dark matter itself, only to find blasts coming from behind it. From Earth.

www.dailygalaxy.com...

here is a bit for those who think the universe is ONLY made of atoms.....



and the argument scientists use to differentiate dark & anti matter....

Could the Dark Matter be Antimatter? It is conceivable that the dark matter (or at least part of it) could be antimatter, but there are very strong experimental reasons to doubt this. For example, if the dark matter out there were antimatter, we would expect it to annihilate with matter whenever it meets up with it, releasing bursts of energy primarily in the form of light. We see no evidence in careful observations for that, which leads most scientists to believe that whatever the dark matter is, it is not antimatter.

csep10.phys.utk.edu...

moreover our understanding which revolves around hydrogen frequencies is a joke too......



science is more like religion nowadays..... serving the interest of those who finance the studies..... i dont want to get into the whole black ops rant.... but seriously do all these discoveries change anything i mean for the benefit of mankind..... like free energy..... cold fusion which was ridiculed ever since its discovery...... was labeled as pseudoscience..... however it was confirmed by the navy scientists early this year.... so?

cherio


[edit on 16/12/09 by mcrom901]

reply to post by ArMaP


Your professors did not point out to you the fuzzy logic of science. This is one of the problems I have always had with mainstream academia. Everything is presented in this exact manner, when in fact it is all relevant.

Hydrogen is quite the unique character. The smallest atom on the atomic scale, it is a gas, but hangs out on the west side of the periodic table, while all the other gases live in the east end, with the noble, or inert gases, taking up the east side. Hydrogen prefers to hang out with the metals, and is the only gas that is typically considered to have a positive charge.

In the classification of atoms, it is the number of protons that we consider to be most crucial in determining atomic number and atomic weight. Protons are positive charges, and electrons are negative charged. Any specific element always has a specific number of protons, both the number of neutrons and electrons can vary. When the number of neutrons vary, you talk about atoms as isotopes. Hydrogen has isotopes, in that the atom can have neutrons, which turns it radioactive, and this is how we get heavy water. When science talks about atoms when considering electrical charge it talks about ions.

You identify an atoms typical charge by the column in which it is located. Hydrogen is located on the far west, or left side, of the periodic table, in the class 1A category, with the very highly reactive Alkali metals, and like all the other elements in this class it typically has a charge of positive one, which means it is a proton without a electron of atomic weight of 1.008, which means no neutron as well. All elements in column one, class 1A typically have one less electron than the number of protons, as their natural state, the charge at which they seem to be most stable. Elements in column 2, class IIA typicall have two less electrons than protons, and so a charge of 2+, and Column three, class IIIA typically have a charge of 3+.

On the other side of the table in class VIIIA, or 8A, we have the noble gases with their 8 electrons in the outermost orbit, valence shell, which makes them inert, or not reactive. They typically do not mix well with others. One row in from the inerts is class VIIA, or 7A, which typically has a charge of 1- with fluorine at the top of the list. Then you have VIA, or 6A, with a typical charge of 2-, where oxygen is at the top of the list, and then left of that column is the class VA with a typical charge of 3- and Nitrogen at the top of the column. Element which have a negative charge have more electrons than protons.

Hydrogen is one wild cat, with a whole institute of scientific fans in pursuit, wowed by hydrogen bonding and the whole acid/base thing it has going. Who knows what the crazy mofo has going on up in space with the plasma gig. If any element could create a species of life form which dominates the universe, the smart money would be on hydrogen.

A round of plasma for everyone.

reply to post by mcrom901


Thanks, I thought you would like that.

Personally, I don't see the world as having a beginning or end in either distance or time.

I do not get why academic physicists are so obsessed with the need for a finite world.

I guess they get lost in the bokeh of the circle of confusion.

reply to post by easynow


Why did you request that this thread be moved to skunkworks?

With all the time I have spent on this thread, and all the great stuff people have contributed on the subject, it makes no sense that you would just throw the thread into the trash.

Why would anyone spend time on a thread that is in skunkworks?

reply to post by poet1b


i already said why , go back a page and see

does the title of a forum somehow change the evidence ?

if so let me know how

reply to post by Arbitrageur

You mean all I had to do was post "I agree" in this thread?:

you said that in this thread

why you kept posting is more of a mystery then what's in the Op video

I asked myself the same question as poet1b did here below.

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by easynow

 

Why did you request that this thread be moved to skunkworks?

With all the time I have spent on this thread, and all the great stuff people have contributed on the subject, it makes no sense that you would just throw the thread into the trash.

Why would anyone spend time on a thread that is in skunkworks?

Because look again to that magnificent video in your OP easynow, that is in my opinion where the real proof is, that vid proofs crystal clear to me that despite the ongoing attempts of some here who are so desperately trying to prove that the objects are nothing more than some camera artifacts or shortcomings or some close by out of focus ice particles which were blown away due some thrusters a few hours earlier, and of which there is strangly enoufgh no other comparable NASA footage available??? despite it is as they and NASA claims a sooo common event.

And if that is indeed a sooo common event for them, how come then that the astronauts themselves and even Houston did not recognize it immediately as being close by to the shuttle moving ice particles?

Therefore, look again how the objects in your posted vid crystal clear shows their continuing changing of their really dramatic movements, their even suddenly appearances and their really extraordinary physical looks and pulsations.

Then the fact, that far out most of them are clearly visible moving behind the tether and not in front of it.

Does that really look as if it were close by due thruster firing influenced moving out of focus ice particles or some camera artifacts or shortcomings ?

Of course not, that explanation reminds me of those really stupid swamp gas explanations for some ET crafts sightings decades ago.

They are crystal clear objects with their own manner of propulsion, whether it are so called critters or ET crafts is impossible to proof, but they aren’t ice particles of camera artifacts.

Too bad indeed.

Just my two euro cents.


[edit on 16/12/09 by spacevisitor]

[edit on 16/12/09 by spacevisitor]

[edit on 16/12/09 by spacevisitor]

reply to post by spacevisitor


my request to have this thread moved is not because of any of the evidence in this thread. my viewpoint has not changed about this.

go back a page and read why i asked for it to be moved. thanks

The designation "skunk works", or "skunkworks", is widely used in business, engineering, and technical fields to describe a group within an organization given a high degree of autonomy and unhampered by bureaucracy, tasked with working on advanced or secret projects.
en.wikipedia.org...

see skunkworks is actually a respected term

do any of you think lockheed skunkworks is a trash bin ?

reply to post by easynow
I think the context matters in that I have a lot of respect for Lockheed skunkworks but ATS skunkworks is more a source of entertainment than anything serious like Lockheed skunkworks. Let's face it if anybody can make any claim with no proof whatsoever in ATS skunkworks, it's inevitable there will be a lot that can't be taken seriously.

But regardless of one's interpretation of this video, the video is evidence (and there is other evidence) which can be taken seriously, so that's why it doesn't seem like a good fit for skunkworks to me.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


ok so if you wanted the thread moved to somewhere other than the ufo forum where would you move it to ?

you know there is a button in the ufo forum that say's "new thread" and anyone one of you can click on it

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

ok so if you wanted the thread moved to somewhere other than the ufo forum where would you move it to ?

I looked through the forum topics to see.

Given the OP says:

Originally posted by easynow
are they controlled objects ?

I can understand why it was put in the aliens and UFOs section, and I'm not really seeing a good fit anywhere else.

Since the donut shaped orbs are photographic bokeh, maybe putting it in the same place you were thinking of when you suggested we start a photography thread might make sense, but I'm not 100% sure where that would go. The video is a good demonstration of the bokeh effect and some other interesting photographic effects (and some other things too).

reply to post by Arbitrageur


there's nothing wrong with the skunkworks forum


i like it and i have even started a couple serious threads in it and might start some more !

here's one ...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by easynow


loool.... i think jim would need to smoke some skunk.... prior commencing here....

thanks to imagir.....

reply to post by mcrom901



i don't know what he's smoking but isn't it a little strange that just because this thread got moved, Jim, dof and maybe poet1b don't want to post anymore ?

something skunky about that

www.postthisinc.com...

reply to post by mcrom901


that Hessdalen video is cool !

i seen it a few day's ago and wow those first ufo's they show in that clip are amazing.

this camera was a live picture , not sure what happened to it.

www.hessdalen.org...






this might be the same phenomena ?

Plasma UFO's~ Greifswald, East Germany Date:August 24, 1990

Originally posted by mcrom901
thanks to imagir.....

Interesting vid mcrom901 and imagir, thanks for this one.

Originally posted by easynow
this might be the same phenomena ?
Plasma UFO's~ Greifswald, East Germany Date:August 24, 1990

Thanks for posting this one easynow, I saw this footage for the first time quite some years back now, and if I remember it correctly, despite I can’t find the info about it I thought that back then was said that some army unit did shot at it.


[edit on 17/12/09 by spacevisitor]

reply to post by easynow


Ok, I sorta get it. Skunkworks isn't the trash bin, but more the guys left alone by the bureaucrats. That sounds like where I have been working most of my life.

It sounds like something you thought about for awhile.

I did some screen captures and created some images in Openoffice draw, which shows how focus was changed just before the tether was brought into view, which clearly shows that the camera was not adjusted to infinite during the first minute of the video when the foo fighters floating around the tether were in the best focus.

Being that the camera was not adjusted to infinity during the first minute of the time the tether is in the video, the DoF of the camera would have been considerably more shallow, and yet the orbs are in their best focus, which demonstrates that these ufo orbs/foo fighters are near the tether. This is the best part of the video where you see that one foo fighters actually circle the tether. I think this is the portion where the video at the beginning used, if I remember right.

I will have to find a tool to convert my .drw file to a .jpg. so I can post it here.

I should also do a screen capture of the other video which shows what debri near the camera actually looks like.

However I am busy with other stuff right now.