New Analysis Video of the STS-75 Tether Incident

regarding your first post, which has some good research, i don't see the point fo your argument. exactly *what* is illuminating the tether has no bearing in the current argument - what is being argued is whether the tether is illuminated and overexposing the film, or if that is the size of the object itself (which can be proven to be wrong simply by looking up the dimensions of the tether). whether or not plasma or sunlight were the source of the illumination is a moot point, and in reality it is a mixture of both unless the tether was within the earth's shadow - which is unlikely considering how everything else visible in the image is clearly illuminated. also, its not a good idea to speculate or provide unbased information at the end of good research like that comment about laser tests.

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by JScytale 99% of these objects are pretty much conclusively micrometeorites and debris.

Well some claim they are conclusively ice particles.

Seems you skeptics can't even get your story straight. Micrometeorites? Seriously? And how did you come to this conclusion exactly?

And the 1% you can't explain... what are those?

ice particles around space ships *are* debris. the ice particles seen around them come from two main sources - water and other liquids ejected into space, and ice formed on the outside of the shuttle / spacecraft breaking off due to forces such as thrusters firing. that is debris, and arguing against that is arguing semantics, not facts, and is simply a waste of time.

regarding micrometeorites - if you were familiar with them (you apparently arent) you would know that there are thousands upon thousands of micrometeorites and bits of 'space junk' in orbit around the earth and they enter the atmosphere at the rate of many thousands per day. that should help you get a grasp on just how common they are in low earth orbit. the small objects moving at tremendous speed that frequently enter and exit the frame moving in straight lines and parabolic arcs are micrometeorites or space debris virtually beyond any shadow of a doubt - there is no evidence to suggest anything else, and they are so frequently filmed that there is really nothing special about them.

as for the "1% i cant explain", i was referring to the fact that virtually every single object in the footage does nothing that would make a person question its identity, with a few exceptions. the "space critter" you seem so fond of was shown to be an easily reproducible artifact of the telephoto lens used, and is unlikely anything spectacular. a few objects travel in odd paths - they could be particles traveling in parabolic arcs viewed from near the direction of movement, they could be something else. whatever they are, they are interesting but jumping to conclusions is a big folly.

Originally posted by JScytaleresearch like that comment about laser tests.

I don't speculate on things like that without having the research at my disposal.

The POINT of the plasma glow IS relevant as you and others are attempting to use over exposure and completely ignore the UV aspect of the video

However I have no time right now to argue that point again. Been over it to many times in other similar threads

Originally posted by zorgon

We have... in the other threads...

Plasma life forms...

Even ArMaP chimes in with a possible maybe on that one. Do a google search on that term, be surprised how many mainstream scientists are working on the possiblilty

Don't forget that what you may consider a harsh environment in human terms, may not be so for other life forms. Since space is full of plasma energy, it may be the ideal habitat for a creature that is made of and exists on plasma energy.

Because the Alien believers need it to be so

But from my study of sightings over 30 years... the ones I classify as possible critters show erratic behavior... flitting about the skies seemingly aimlessly, or as in the tether 'moths to a flame'. They exhibit shape shifting capabilities which would make sense for an amoeba like life form, but not for a metallic spacecraft.

They would not experience inertia in high speed maneuvers in the same way a lightning bolt (also plasma) would feel no inertia.

In the day time they would appear fuzzy, translucent.. at night they would be glowing

They do appear to show a curiosity towards us so are at least aware of us in some way.

Because the believers need them to be Aliens and the skeptics have a need to prove they are only ice particles, but there is hope... the CRITTER movement is gaining momentum

Nothing nefarious or conspiratorial about the CRITTERS at all... they are merely minding their own business and doing what they have always done.

And both NASA and the Military can state truthfully that there is no threat to National Security

Though I can only imagine what would happen if they told everyone that space and the atmosphere was filled with giant space amoebas

What I find really amusing is that religious people and new agers talk all the time of ascension into a being of pure energy and light. In fact some go so far as to state that is the eventual evolution of mankind...

I have even heard it mentioned in some circles that the CRITTERS are actually watchers... but I know how you dislike way out there conclusions

[edit on 8-6-2009 by zorgon]

living creatures in space is a definite possibility - in certain environments like the surface of an asteroid. life is, basically, a self-replicating, extremely complex chemical reaction. ignoring the requirements for earth-based life, like oxygen, water etc, and keeping an open mind to life being able to form with almost any source of energy and almost any base, life still needs two things - a source of external energy, and a source of fuel for maintaining the reaction. this is simplifying things a great deal, but it holds true. in space, the source of energy is obvious - stars and other sources of radiation are more than adequate, and are in fact the earth's primary source of energy.

now as for fuel... life is active. it uses fuel and excretes waste. something that doesn't do this is inanimate - things like thought require energy. where would a space creature get its fuel? physical life simply couldn't sustain itself because there are no sources of mass common enough for it to "grow" in free space - only on asteroids, planets etc. energy-based life, while an interesting idea, would be very difficult to explain. what exactly keeps it consistent enough to be a lifeform in the presence of extremely strong solar radiation? a collection of independent plasma energy wouldn't last long as an entity without something holding it together, like the earth's magnetic field, which is *extraordinarily* powerful - and if it existed inside the earth's magnetic field, what would separate it from the radiation belts and make it an "entity"?

[edit on 8-6-2009 by JScytale]

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by JScytaleresearch like that comment about laser tests.

I don't speculate on things like that without having the research at my disposal.

The POINT of the plasma glow IS relevant as you and others are attempting to use over exposure and completely ignore the UV aspect of the video

However I have no time right now to argue that point again. Been over it to many times in other similar threads

again, the argument had nothing, i repeat nothing to do with the *cause* of the overexposure. or do you think sunlight doesn't include ultraviolet light, and saying it was filmed in the UV spectrum negates the sunlight overexposure argument?

what you posted is interesting. im not denying that. it was also completely irrelevant.

[edit on 8-6-2009 by JScytale]

Originally posted by JScytaleit was also completely irrelevant.

Only to you The people it was intended for 'got the message'

What I find fascinating is that when one debunker leaves a new one takes his place repeating the same old stuff... almost like clones...

I have seen a lot come and go over the years, but its curious the timing. Wonder if anyone else noticed this?



[edit on 8-6-2009 by zorgon]

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by JScytaleit was also completely irrelevant.

Only to you

The people it was intended for 'got the message'

What I find fascinating is that when one debunker leaves a new one takes his place repeating the same old stuff... almost like clones...

I have seen a lot come and go over the years, but its curious the timing. Wonder if anyone else noticed this?



[edit on 8-6-2009 by zorgon]

whats more curious to me is your insistence to call me a debunker, as if it was a black and white classification.

I am a believer in UFOs. I have seen one with my own eyes and I have zero doubts on what it was.

I also believe in applying logic and common sense when addressing potential evidence. There is plenty of convincing evidence out there, but STS-75 is not an example of it in my opinion.

do you know why you see the same explanations raised when doubt is expressed? because those are the explanations logic and common sense lead to.

[edit on 8-6-2009 by JScytale]

did the ufo hunter reconstruction take into consideration the actual size of the tether and distance. and if everything is to scale, why did they use the same camera ?

Originally posted by afgang
did the ufo hunter reconstruction take into consideration the actual size of the tether and distance. and if everything is to scale, why did they use the same camera ?

considering they were demonstrating two things, size was actually unimportant. all that was needed was the mirror known to cause this sort of artifact that was part of the camera, an object to illuminate, and something well lit to move it in front of in order to demonstrate the effect. actually recreating the tether was only to make it easier to understand and compare to the footage.

Originally posted by JScytale

that means there is more evidence in the footage yet to be put under this analysis and i am having a hard time believing that the shuttle thrusters are continuously firing during all these scenes.

not likely in my opinion

you know what else is unlikely? that something pretty much conclusively proven to be extremely close to the camera, and therefore as small as a pinhead, is intelligently controlled.

there is much, much better evidence out there.

Don't rule out the fact there could be micro aliens flying in micro craft maybe this is why we haven't made contact were just to darn big. If you look closely i think i even saw a couple hitting the window. And as they say in space no one can hear you scream. Sorry i couldn't resist i tried i really did!

Originally posted by dragonridr

Originally posted by JScytale

that means there is more evidence in the footage yet to be put under this analysis and i am having a hard time believing that the shuttle thrusters are continuously firing during all these scenes.

not likely in my opinion

you know what else is unlikely? that something pretty much conclusively proven to be extremely close to the camera, and therefore as small as a pinhead, is intelligently controlled.

there is much, much better evidence out there.

Don't rule out the fact there could be micro aliens flying in micro craft maybe this is why we haven't made contact were just to darn big. If you look closely i think i even saw a couple hitting the window. And as they say in space no one can hear you scream. Sorry i couldn't resist i tried i really did!

i loled

you know, i really have thought about that before. whether the physical scale of the aliens is so vastly different from ours that they are too small for us to detect without instruments, or so large we wouldnt recognize them as beings. or what if their metabolism was so fast that they moved, thought, lived and died in the blink of a human eye - or so slow that we might land on their homeworld, not recognize them, and build cities on them mistaking them for geological formations in the distant future?

Originally posted by JScytale

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by JScytale

 

thanks but i have already seen that video from the ufo hunters. they did demonstrate that these objects that appear to be passing behind the tether and the strange critter shape they have could be an illusion.

considering they replicate the *exact* shape, i don't think this is a matter of "could be an illusion."

Exactly, and to be slightly more accurate, in case of a video recording, we should speak of an effect creating an illusion. Never "could be an illusion".
When it is an effect, you can preciseley state what it is. Is is there or not. As far as I can see, that is not done in this case.

Originally posted by Pjotr

Originally posted by JScytale

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by JScytale

 

thanks but i have already seen that video from the ufo hunters. they did demonstrate that these objects that appear to be passing behind the tether and the strange critter shape they have could be an illusion.

considering they replicate the *exact* shape, i don't think this is a matter of "could be an illusion."

Exactly, and to be slightly more accurate, in case of a video recording, we should speak of an effect creating an illusion. Never "could be an illusion".
When it is an effect, you can preciseley state what it is. Is is there or not. As far as I can see, that is not done in this case.

i'm not sure i fully understand what you are saying. the effect they are demonstrating in the UFO Hunters example is that a small, illuminated object filmed out of focus by a telephoto lens creates the precise shape that the "critter" in the STS-75 footage has. they also demonstrated that when the same out of focus particle passes in front of the distant, oversaturated image, it appears to pass behind it because the brightness of said object overwrites it on the film. it's like trying to take a picture of a mosquito flying directly between the camera and the sun.

-double post sorry

[edit on 8-6-2009 by lozenge]

Just a quick thought.

Why don't we figure out what large flying saucers would look like from the camera on the shuttle if they were at the distance of the tether... i'm very curious.

[edit on 8-6-2009 by lozenge]

sorry, double post.

[edit on 8-6-2009 by JScytale]

im at work so i cant read the whole thread....

did any 1 mention they are pulsating...do debris or crystals pulsate?

Originally posted by lozenge
Just a quick thought.

Why don't we figure out what large flying saucers would look like from the camera on the shuttle if they were at the distance of the tether... i'm very curious.

[edit on 8-6-2009 by lozenge]

at the distance of the tether, im fairly certain they would look exactly as they would to the naked eye, assuming no strange effects from the craft were distorting them. the camera is focused on the tether, so at the same distance they would be in focus as well. they would be well defined and probably very bright too, just like the tether. because of the amount of light, determining their EXACT shape might be tricky, and you probably couldn't see any details on them.

Originally posted by heineken
im at work so i cant read the whole thread....

did any 1 mention they are pulsating...do debris or crystals pulsate?

yes, they do. when objects in space that have one dark and one bright side spin (like almost everything in space does - the spinning, that is) then they will appear to flash or pulsate. if its paint chipped off the satellite that broke, it would certainly have one bright and one dark side - its also out of focus, so it could look like it was shimmering.

Originally posted by JScytale

I also believe in applying logic and common sense when addressing potential evidence.

You should also try clicking links and reading the material they lead you to.

At the very least you should do this before you dismiss them as being irrelevant.


*Thanks for the excellent links Zorgon - Not only where they relevant, but they have raised some interesting questions about that second tether.

I'll tell you what I mean over u2u - I wouldn't want to be accused of posting irrelevancies; which would seal my fate once and for all and would no doubt be a life-ruining event.

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by JScytale

I also believe in applying logic and common sense when addressing potential evidence.

You should also try clicking links and reading the material they lead you to.

At the very least you should do this before you dismiss them as being irrelevant.


*Thanks for the excellent links Zorgon - Not only where they relevant, but they have raised some interesting questions about that second tether.

I'll tell you what I mean over u2u - I wouldn't want to be accused of posting irrelevancies; which would seal my fate once and for all and would no doubt be a life-ruining event.

oh, i did. his argument was almost entirely that the tether was self-illuminated - which was not relevant to the discussion at hand. what was being discussed at the time was whether or not the apparent shape of the tether in the footage was its actual shape, or if it was oversaturating the image.