NASA STS-75 Objects Pass in Front and Behind

[CCZimmerman92]

What it's proving is in the title, which is that these objects are passing both in front and behind the tether. The only way this video is proof is in a visual sense, and it shows that some visually pass in front and some visually pass behind the tether. Why are you saying because of this you have ADD and an imagination and that you are growing more paranoid with theories?

[MoronAntidote]

This video and your interpretation is not proving anything of the sort. It is only proving that you (and countless others judging by the responses) do not recognise or understand the technical features of the camera in question. Without understanding the influence of the camera's circuitry, you have no right to make assumptions based on what you would expect to see with human eyes. Vidicon cameras and their circuitry produce anomalies which defy human sight based reasoning. Research please!

[geogenerated]

I'm confused, this is under water?

[geogenerated]

I'm confused, this is under water?

[ArseWater1]

I didn't make the request in order to make a point. I thought you would find it interesting and thought provoking. If there was a point, it might be that given the limited amount of information provided by such a poor video and NASA sources, you might never 'prove' anything. You may have to settle for 'most likely explanations' instead. Regards.

[ArseWater1]

CCZimmerman92 please google the phrase "science does not deal in proof".

[CCZimmerman92]

What's your point?

[antoanto123456]

good siteweb... interesting

[sputnick21]

That is the only proof we have about intelligent think out our planet....It's clear the objet are solid and huge we must start to study this kind of think no take joke about

[ArseWater1]

How is it clear that the object is solid exactly?

[ArseWater]

Just suppose that Oberg slipped up in his statement regarding the timing and that he should have said 4 days after the tether break. Then consider the discontinuity of the footage and the significance of the remark "Columbia and the satellite are now just passing over the west coast of Northern Africa. The two spacecraft are now 90 nautical miles apart. Controllers for the satellite did have communications with it during the CLOSE PASS BETWEEN COLUMBIA AND THE SATELLITE." Close pass?

[ArseWater]

This implies that the tether had not just broken, but that it was probably Day 8 of the mission, soon after 11:17PM CST when Columbia passed within 46nm of the satellite. At 11:17PM CST it would have been about 5:17AM in Dakar, making the sun visible at a 180 statute mile orbital altitude.

[ArseWater]

The tether was not self illuminating, since current ceased flowing through it less than 2 minutes after the break, thus precluding the flow of current through the plasma return path and preventing light emission. It and the other objects were simply illuminated by the sun, as stated by the crew.

[CCZimmerman92]

I'm glad you found that because I hadn't seen it. It seems to fit well with the close pass comment. So I will agree with you that this is footage of 4 days after.

[ArseWater]

Well i'm glad you like my theory :) It appears to stack up but as usual it's just another possible piece of the jigsaw.

[CCZimmerman92]

It's great, I looked through NASA's mission logs and it all added up. Great work, I changed my site accordingly and I will change it more if I need to. All I want is to figure out what this is and to prove it without a doubt.

[ArseWater]

I read your research prior to my original post. Just what exactly did you find offensive? Since you are 19 years old, you do not have the scientific credentials, technical knowledge and experience required. This is a statement of fact. Your research is insufficient and makes too many assumptions. I would like to argue with you, but the 500 character limit makes it practically impossible, and even if i were the world's authority on this subject, you still wouldn't listen.

[CCZimmerman92]

I'm a 19 year old college student studying aerospace engineering on a full scholarship at a major college and was ranked a sophomore when I was a freshman. I understand that it's difficult to make arguments because of the limit, that's why I have an e-mail address on my site. I made very few assumptions in my research, and when I did, I made it blatantly clear that it was an assumption. Everything else, especially with STS-75, was done using physics and NASA's own information.

[ArseWater]

Well fair play to you, but this really only means that you might someday attain credibility. Until then you might like to consider the impact of websites such as yours on your future. The scientific establishment does not view the ramblings of the lunatic fringe favourably afterall. Food for thought ;)

[CCZimmerman92]

True, but all I am trying to do is prove one way or the other what the videos show. That is what science is... and no one goes to my website anyway.

[ArseWater]

I believe there is life throughout the universe, and i want to see it too, but i see nothing here that strikes me as unusual. Sorry, but ET was definitely at home on this occasion, probably having a beer and laughing at the shite people post on YouTube :P

[CCZimmerman92]

You could have posted this on just about any other UFO related video and it would probably have been somewhat accurate, but this time, you should have done your research first, which you insulted me for not doing. So if you are going to argue that I am incredulous and unscientific, don't write three paragraphs of sole opinion.

[ArseWater]

Actually i did plenty of research, which included reading the so-called research you are most likely basing your conclusions on. The point is, that none of you have done ENOUGH research to allow you to draw accurate conclusions.

[CCZimmerman92]

You did not read my research, unless you read it in that timespan between our conversation. All you did was insult me, as though that would prove me wrong. I'm open for argument, but if it's done solely with opinion and ad hominems, then I'm not going to waste my time.

[ArseWater]

You are all so desperate to see what you want to see, that instead of doing research to find a logical explanation first, you focus on the things you can't explain or understand and jump to the most unlikely conclusion of all. Doubt and ignorance will never proove anything.

[ArseWater]

The problem with all you NASA tether conspiracy nutters, is that you expect the rest of us to nod in agreement simply because there is something going on that YOU don't understand. Just because YOU, with YOUR obvious lack of scientific credentials, technical knowledge and experience don't understand something, you don't have the right to question NASA's statements and expect the rest of us to find you credible.

[CCZimmerman92]

If NASA explained this, reference this to me. To my knowledge, the only NASA affiliate to have explained this was James Oberg, and his explanation was lacking. He was wrong at least about the camera used, the difference between the tether's and objects' brightness, and the timing of the incident - three very important pieces of the situation, yet he asserted that he could not be denied because he used NASA's own mission logs. I did too.

[CCZimmerman92]

NASA deals in science, and science demands proof (to some degree). NASA does not need to prove anything in this case because it cannot. Unless the debris or commonalities were manipulated to deceive, it would not be difficult to prove that this is something that simple.

[vege22o]

so you believe everything nasa tells you, what if i where to tell you nasa is just a fake program to hide what is realy going on in space. also space particles for one are not that large the teather in the video was 12 miles away from the shuttle, and 2 they dont pulse

[CCZimmerman92]

So they need no explanation? If all this was were some sort of debris, it should not be that difficult for a NASA official to prove.

[CCZimmerman92]

Show me this. And what did they have to enforce that?

[CCZimmerman92]

Do you have something to enforce that opinion?