New Analysis of the STS-75 Tether Incident -2010 (my research)

hey! and in your animation.. the one disproving alien life. and all that stuff.. particles with curved trajectory.. ok I will accept that because of all the math, and still wait for answer with the lights. but why does one of the particles literally change direction going back the way it came?

reply to post by depthoffield


Ah!
Most excellent.
When I have some more free time, I will re-watch those videos a bit more closely.
I'm very interested in what people have to say about this.

Since you, Easynow, edited your previous posts, adding or modifying them, i have to adress some of your new comments:

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by depthoffield

 

your wasting everyone's time if you don't have NASA's copy of the video !

Going to your "logic", you do the same, wasting everyone's time, if you present this STS-75 videos to the audience.

Originally posted by easynow

i wonder if the STS80 UFO's are the same as the STS75 objects ?

Well, it could be the same closer smaller particles of debris near the shuttle. I have clues to think of this. I don't have any clue to dismiss this. We have some examples of bokeh there ("donuts"), which follow obediently the rules of bokeh, maybe i will show this. But this in another thread, dedicated to that movie. Here we are in the STS-75 video analysis.

Originally posted by easynow

Originally posted by depthoffield
wow, how fast you read this detailed analysis. 6 minutes. wow.
We all know your oficial opinion regarding the movement of that thread.
[edit on 26/1/10 by depthoffield]

i see no reason to read it AGAIN because it's the same exact biased presentation you have already posted 100 times !!

Not quite, i have new original research , which shows how some representative objects are only at 9 to 30 meters away, and even more not posted yet, but since you didn't read it, no wonder you are very subjective.

Originally posted by easynow
How Many Times Do You Expect All Of Us To Read The Same Thing Over And Over ??

If you or others don't want to read it, don't read it. And, again, is not the same thing. There is something new. Which i feel appropiate to show to the public. I have this right.

Originally posted by easynow
you keep forgetting that until you have NASA's copy of the video EVERYTHING you posted is all just guesses and conjecture based opinions and offers us NO REAL facts !

well, based on this copy of video we have, we managed to find some good findings:
- the camera used
- the stars (Centaur constellation)
- time marks of the movies
- the trajectories of objects
- shape
etcetera.

But you can ignore them, if this is your approach.

Originally posted by easynow
easier to just ignore that isn't it ?

well, you can do this, of course:

your choice.

Originally posted by easynow

whenever someone posts a picture of a ufo in this forum the first thing everyone screams for is the original raw data but when it comes to NASA videos that thinking seems to be quickly forgotten !

No, we need original NASA data. I want it. Don't built fantasies. But we don't give up when having only what we have. And if not original, every other better copy. Armap requested several times the best copies from Secretnasaman (Stubbs), but talked at the walls. By the way, in your logic, then, don't post anymore the LunaCognita videos, since is NOT original raw data...if you are so against the analysis on the copies we have. See how biased and subjective you are?

Originally posted by easynow
3-another reason is Zorgon has supposedly discovered that there was another tether up there at the same time so how do we know for sure which one we are looking at in the youtube video ?

Well, the Secretnasaman's video, showing one tether, is matching perfectly with NASA documents, scene lists of STS-75 mission, (you must missed this, since you seems to ignore the research) and it have the length of about at least 17 miles, (i will demonstrate this, so clear), so, it must be the TSS-1R and not other tether.

reply to post by depthoffield


it's against my better judgement , but i will post one last time ...

No, we need original NASA data. I want it. Don't built fantasies.

get your facts straight , you didn't agree with me on that right away in my thread and i had to ridicule you before you finally came to your senses.

i see you need another round of that ?

if not original, every other better copy.

you just don't get it do you ?

get the RAW NASA file or your wasting everyone's time !

don't post anymore the LunaCognita videos, since is NOT original raw data

i am not trying to prove anything BUT YOU ARE, so i will post whatever i want. your trying to debunk the raw data that you don't even have yet, with a compressed distorted glossy youtube video

WTG Sherlock Holmes !

do everyone a favor and don't post any more videos to debunk anything unless you have the raw data.

you are so against the analysis on the copies we have

why would i like junk evidence ?

See how biased and subjective you are

see how ignorant you are ?

why do you want to keep wasting everyone's time by using junk evidence ?
when will you wake up and realize this case is dead in the water until YOU or Oberg get the raw video file ?

Oberg admitted he has a NASA copy of the video and if it's raw data, why don't you get it from him and share it with everyone if you really want to debunk this ?




good luck with it and if you DON'T get NASA's copy, have fun using your junk evidence to convince yourself and each other there's nothing to see here

[edit on 27-1-2010 by easynow]

Originally posted by depthoffield
Well, it could be the same closer smaller particles of debris near the shuttle. I have clues to think of this.

good morning........

Originally posted by mcrom901

On the other hand, emission of electrons would require an extremely efficient secondary emitter or the presence of a high density gas cloud—such as would be created by thruster operations. However, according to the Orbiter data, no thrusters or other gas or water releases were in progress at that time. Unfortunately, the TSS data set may not be sufficient to resolve this question.

see.msfc.nasa.gov...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by depthoffield
But we can see also, in the same time, that many "orbs" there, actually shrinks down and raise their brightness and many of them became extremely sharp, points of light, well focused bright points of light.

did you miss this......

Originally posted by mcrom901

Originally posted by depthoffield

there is no easy way of getting around the problem of a star being effectively 0-dimensional and the tether 1-dimensional.... this is made most apparent by imagining what happens when you defocus the sky (2-dimensional).... it stays the same surface brightness..... the tether will thus still be intermediate between the 0-D and 2-D cases..... disappearing more gradually than a star as you defocus.......

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by depthoffield
Now, to the point...

Do you want to know how distant were some of this objects? Clear values?

For example all of these objects, orbs, discs:

this might interest you......

However there IS a way to get around this by making the tether as 0-dimensional as possible. With the tether having an intensity per unit length (actual length, not angular) one must somehow measure the total light. It is perhaps possible to condense the image of the tether to a nearly stellar point using a strongly curved convex mirror or hub-cap or reversing your binoculars. This is the same technique as used in estimating the magnitude of the eclipsed Moon. If the tether were still resolved in reversed binoculars, defocusing WOULD work, as you are then spreading the TOTAL light, not just a segment. There are several such technique used by comet observers and with some care this could produce quite reasonable results.

There is one other complication in analysing the brightness. As I assume the tether can be likened to a cylinder, it is thus capable of producing specular reflections with the right geometry. However such a geometry cannot occur at night if the tether is vertical. With knowledge of the surface roughness, this effect could be predicted. It is thus necessary to use the angle of the Sun relative to the specular condition in addition to the phase angle.

www.satobs.org...

Originally posted by mcrom901
"However, according to the Orbiter data, no thrusters or other gas or water releases were in progress at that time"

How does the phrase "that time" relate to the video in question of the distant tether and the swarm? Are you trying to say that the report you cited was referring to the time of that video?




[edit on 28-1-2010 by JimOberg]

Originally posted by JimOberg
How does the phrase "that time" relate to the video in question of the distant tether and the swarm? Are you trying to say that the report you cited was referring to the time of that video?

yes indeed......

oh... and not to forget where you left off last.......

Originally posted by JimOberg
Just got the response from NASA PAO with the Execute Package for the day of the tether video.

I've loaded it here:

www.quickfilepost.com...

Can somebody save it to a more permant URL?

I've been preoccupied with the Norway UFO flap, but I didn't want to delay getting this report out for any reason. I'll be analyzing it in detail in a few days, but you're all welcome to get a head start.

Originally posted by mcrom901

Originally posted by JimOberg
Just got the response from NASA PAO with the Execute Package for the day of the tether video.

what a load of bullcrap..... what has all that got to do with anything important

where is the more relevant msg no# 101 - fd08 tss science update

it goes from msg 100 to 102.... com'on jim.... did you remove that?

who wants to listen to home messages broadcasting cnn or whatever...

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by mcrom901
where is the more relevant msg no# 101 - fd08 tss science update

it goes from msg 100 to 102....

It is interesting that the TSS update MSG 101A is missing, pages 24-26

Even if it's an innocent mistake it's enough to make one wonder.

Originally posted by mcrom901

Originally posted by mcrom901

Originally posted by JimOberg
Just got the response from NASA PAO with the Execute Package for the day of the tether video.

where is the more relevant msg no# 101 - fd08 tss science update

if in case you're inquiring about the missing data....

also kindly ask about the following......

liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov...
www.nasa.gov...

it seems gone.....

www.abovetopsecret.com...




[edit on 28/1/10 by mcrom901]

Originally posted by depthoffield
At 19 sec mark on the youtube sequence (www.youtube.com...), the operators of the camera, somehow feel that the camera is not well focused, because judging the thickness of the tether on the image they see on the monitors (actually the thickness is a image artefact of the senzor or recording device used, not a property of the tether itself), so they decide to check the focus, maybe they can aquire a better focus..this is a natural action when using a lens (amateurs may not feel this need, since ussually they have automatic focusing camera and don't care a bit about technical stuff...but in the land of manual adjusting, this checking of focus is just natural). So the operators, briefly adjust the focus. They move the focus plane closer (can't move further than infinite, since infinite is the limit) to the camera for a few moments.

wow.... how do you know all that..... were you in the shuttle......

well it seems you forgot the actual diameter of the tether & the reasons why it was being observed in such a way......

here ya go again.....

Originally posted by mcrom901

Originally posted by mcrom901
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/953377b2ec24.jpg[/atsimg]

recoiling after breaking free.....

(click to open player in new window)

i.e. the observed diameter not being henceforth the 'virgin' 2.54 mm....

came across some interesting comments which are quite contradictory to your earlier comments....

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by mcrom901

Originally posted by JimOberg
It also fails because the tether was visually observed, both by the crew and by ground observers, to be long, thin, and straight, except a few days later the bottom few miles slightly curved (due to air drag). There was no corkscrew-curlicuing seen, and the human eye is a much more precise angular and detail resolution instrument.

your comments make no sense..... what do you mean by 'thin'.... how thin?

'Thin' meant no observed thickness at all -- a linear equivalent of a point source. It had been debated how visible the line, with the thickness of a telephone cord, would be from a range of several hundred miles. Because of the maximum contrast -- bright white against black background -- there were sufficient photons from the thin line to register unambiguously both on eyeballs and optics.

check these.....

I have been an astronomer for 40 years and a satellite observer for 36. I really got into satellite observing while under the wing of fellow San Antonio resident, Paul Maley, while we were both still in high school here in Texas in 1961. In all the years since, I have not seen a satellite pass to compare with this morning's TSS pass over San Antonio, Texas. It was stunning! I am still amazed after thinking about it for four hours.

TSS popped out of the shadow at 5:53 AM, local time and lit up like a neon sign. It was fully three degrees long with the TSS itself easily visible as a 3 to 3.5 mag point of light at the upper end of the bluish-gray tether. The tether was angled at a position angle (to local vertical) of about 220 degrees and at the lower (snapped-off) end was a noticable condensation of light. It was obviously coiled slightly at the free end.

I am assuming that for the tether to be so visible, it must be coiled like a telephone cord and have more "width" than just the 2.5 mm thickness of the cord.

www.satobs.org...

Originally posted by mcrom901

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...

cntd....

Originally posted by mcrom901

Originally posted by JimOberg
How was the tether being illuminated?

you should check the data......

Originally posted by mcrom901
reply to post by Phage

 

The ionosphere is the outermost layer of the Earth's atmosphere where solar ultraviolet light knocks electrons off of atoms of oxygen and nitrogen. This effectively turns the ionosphere into a mirror of varying shape and reflectivity in parts of the radio spectrum. This is why radio reception changes at night, and why some stations can be heard far outside their normal broadcast areas, even halfway around the world.

Another part of the PEST experiment will be checking out an oddity noted during the second Tethered Satellite System flight. "We noticed something strange in the characteristics of the RM400 conducting thermal coating used on the tethered satellite," Stone explained. "The data suggested tremendous emissions of secondary electrons due to particle bombardment or solar ultraviolet or both. We had no reason to suppose that the RM400 coating would behave in this way before the TSS mission."

science.nasa.gov...

i hope now you will not be showing emails denying these......

Originally posted by mcrom901

The principal surprise in these results was that the broken end of the tether could support such high currents with only a few short strands of copper wire biased negative to attract ions. Theoretical analysis of possible current enhancement mechanisms based on an assumption of steady state current continuity reveals that only a gas enhanced electrical discharge, providing an electron emission source, was plausible. Ground plasma chamber tests are reported which confirm this analysis and thoroughly demonstrate the initial failure. The TSS-1R results thus represent the highest electron current emission from a neutral plasma source yet demonstrated into a space plasma.

TSS-1R Large Current Response Using a Neutral Gas Discharge Electron Emission Source

Originally posted by mcrom901
the full context makes it more comprehensible..... specially about the light being visible to the naked eye.....

Exposure of the TSS-1 thermal control coating, RM400, to high energy electrons causes the coating to luminesce and if maintained for long periods of time will cause the coating to darken. The luminescence of RM400 was found to be a function of electron energy with light first being visible to the naked eye at 300- to 400-V bias on the sphere. The intensity of the luminescence was measured with three different size grounding screens, which changed the current density to the sphere, with no perceptible change observed. The RM400 paint turned noticeably dark when exposed to 500- and 1,000-eV electrons at a fluence of 1018 electrons/cm2. At nominal mission electron fluences, there is minimal effect, additionally, the darkened surface is cleaned when exposed to AO. Depending on the AO and electron exposure, it is possible that the darkening caused by the electron exposure and the cleaning by the AO would not cause any noticeable change in any surface exposed to AO. Surfaces not exposed to AO will still be subjected to possible darkening caused by high electron fluences. Both AO and electron fluences at high energies should be reassessed for the TSS-1 reflight mission.

trs.nis.nasa.gov...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by mcrom901

Here we go. Seems like deja vu all over again.

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.

That question about the electron sheath increasing the visibility of the tether seems to have been answered in the negative by those observers you were talking about.

> 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.
>
The original/maximum brightness corresponds well with the computed
brightness. So, the main speculation is that the electrical(?)
processes have made the surface darker.

www.satobs.org...

It also helped to find this:

>Question #2: How is it that we have been able to see something only
>0.1 inch wide at ranges in the hundreds of miles?

The resolution of the unaided eye is about 3 arcmin. Imagine two light
sources of the same total intensity, say Jupiter and a bright star. At the
naked-eye level, neither is resolved, both being smaller than 3' diameter,
but in a telescope, Jupiter IS resolved. So in other words, an object is seen
because it emits or reflects light, independent of whether it is of sufficient
angular diameter to be resolved.

www.satobs.org...

Of course, this is talking about using a telescope and/or the naked eye. When that object is bright and recorded by a light sensitive vidicon tube its apparent width will be increased by saturation of the sensor. The brighter it is the larger it will appear. For example; do you think that Venus is really the same apparent diameter as the sun?




The tether was lit by sunlight.

[edit on 1/28/2010 by Phage]

reply to post by Phage


check the pictures....

www.sendspace.com...

reply to post by mcrom901

Nice moonset.
BTW, all of the mission photographs are available here:
eol.jsc.nasa.gov...

Some 5,000 or so.

[edit on 1/29/2010 by Phage]

reply to post by Phage


they are from that very site..... you can double check their authenticity

the frame numbers & angles will help you spot out the moon...

reply to post by mcrom901

I guess I'm missing your point.
Can you explain exactly what the significance of these images is?

reply to post by Phage


i was trying to use your expertise to figure out whether those objects are the moon and its reflections or just ice particles....

Originally posted by Phage
The brighter it is the larger it will appear. For example; do you think that Venus is really the same apparent diameter as the sun?

whether its resolved or not is not the question...... your comparison is flawed..... we are talking about a 2.6 mm 'neon' tether which is being observed hundreds of miles out... my comments just prior to your post clarifies this....

reply to post by depthoffield


G'day depthoffield

Kandinsky sums up my feelings quite well.

I too used to think the tether videos might show UFO's.

However, rational explanation such as yours has helped me to understand it is all just camera effect.

So....... a Star & a Flag & a Digg & a for your thread!

This is the sort of analysis that keeps me on ATS.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

[edit on 29-1-2010 by Maybe...maybe not]

reply to post by easynow


G'day easynow

I'm disappointed to see the nature of your posts in this thread.

I think you are doing yourself a disservice.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not