Yes, it did block the light, but the big red circle that we see on the video is not real, it's the result of the way the camera works when filming an out of focus light.

The light becomes much larger than it really should be and it appears to cover a big area, when in fact it is just a small light.

In the photo I posted that was not easily perceptible, but if you see the video, here, you can see that the upper part of the string is covered by something that is not visible. That is the PocketPC.

In the end of the video you can see that I really had the PocketPC in front of the string.

No, I am trying to explain to the people that do not understand how an out of focus light appears on a video how that happens.

If at least one person learns something with it then it was worth it, even if those that are too lazy or that are afraid to prove themselves wrong by doing an experiment think that I am misleading them.

Okay I have a few questions...

Before I go into the STS 75 footage I want you all to look at THIS ONE

YouTube Link

Observe the first one that comes in from the right... As it gets over the Thunderstorm it suddenly BRIGHTENS.... then it STOPS and remains stationary above the storm...


The NASA infrared camera is watching it....
Then a second one APPEARS out of the storm, also suddenly bright....

Meanwhile the first one is STILL stationary above the storm, and stays with the storms as the Earth rotates away from the shuttle....

The NASA camera man has not forgotten the first one and at the end of the clip zooms in on the first one STILL over the storm.... but near the horizon now...

So Please answer me this...

How does a 'speck of dust' suddenly get brighter?
How does a 'speck of dust' STOP in space?
How does a 'speck of dust' suddenly appear from a cloud bank and move away?
Why does the NASA photographer zoom in on a 'speck of dust'

Now then before I comment on some really interesting observations in the Tether Incident I want you to watch THIS version... (don't know how many have seen this higher quality complete version )

Google Video Link

Okay now then...
at exactly 4:22 into the video a very large, bright and clear object enters from the left, moving in an arch across the top of the screen...

Again NASA photographer is following it... as it moves of the screen on the right, he zooms out to keep it in the screen...

Now explain to me HOW does this 'speck of dust' CHANGE DIRECTION?

When we first see it it is moving across the screen in an arc from left to right... as he zooms out the object now moves DOWN the screen

DUST AND DEBRIS CANNOT CHANGE DIRECTION NOR COME TO A STOP

And as was mentioned...

STS- 80 Formation over Africa

Google Video Link

I too would like an explanation of this one...






[edit on 29-3-2008 by zorgon]

About that video, not related to the tether incident, I only have one thing to ask, did NASA said they were debris or specks of dust?

To me, those things are not the same we can see on the tether video, the tether video objects really look like out of focus bright objects close to the camera, while those from the video you posted are clearly large objects that apparently were attracted to the thunderstorm but did not entered the atmosphere.


If you read the last two or three pages on this thread then you should know that this is precisely what is being discussed now.

Edit: Sorry, I got the threads mixed, that is what happens when we have two threads with almost the same name and when we do not pay attention.

I was talking about this thread

They can, as any other inanimate object, but we still need an explanation about why they did it.


That is the same video as the previous one.

[edit on 29/3/2008 by ArMaP]

The STS 75 incident has one major flaw. Viewing the footage years ago, one has yet to encounter discussion regarding the lack of dimension. Sizes, distances, direction, does not explain why, in space, every object showing only a top view. Not one displaying even the slightest variation in angle. Therfore skeptism still exists here.
A Contact fan

The Documentary is called "The Case for NASA UFOs" and comes in two parts. I don't know if it is on Youtube or not.. The introduction for it is done by Dan Akroyd who is an avid believer in the unknown, or at least "not fully known"

Also his name isnt Serada, it's Sereda
David Sereda

That two part documentary is very good, he uses strong science and interpolation to show his proof, and he also goes on to explain his correspondences with people at NASA.

[edit on 31-1-2009 by Davood]

No, i've come to conclusion that David Sereda is a con-man. Nothing more. And his documentary is just a really forced theory..with many flaws, i think those are well pointed here or in another topics.

And I understand that Space debris theory is a solution which respond to all the anomalies seen in the movie. (defocused airy discs, "behind the tether", changing trajectory, appearing/dissapearing etc etc). All of them.

About David Sereda...at some time, he "demonstrates" with a cd-disc and a ruler, that somebody has to be "MORON" to believe that what we see in video is something IN FRONT of the tether. It is behind the tether, he says. So, only MORONS can believe that what we see in the video is an illusion, actually the discs beeing behind the tether.

So, i'm a "moron", showing to David Sereda (quantum physicist or whatever) how defocused discs IN FRONT of the distant tether may actually appear as it is BEHIND the tether, but this beeing a illusion, just what little floating debris particles can do to the camera.

Look here:

YouTube Link

I think is a shame to Sereda, beeing "discoverer" of quantum physics or whatever he believes, to use this words "look, somebody have to be moron to not see the "behind the tether" fact". In fact he only is charismatic, and just say this to believers. He sells cool ideas to the crowd.

My conclusion about him and his claims (not only from this youtube illusion, but from studying his claims and arguments).


[edit on 1/2/09 by depthoffield]

Hi there. I've read, in a few places that I won't quote, "ahem", that some ships are actually "light ships" and not made of any type of substance that we are familiar with, so these could be organic.

Interesting discussion here, for the most part - then there's the people who don't have time to watch a video but can post dozens of times. Good stuff

I also believe Mr Sereda is a showman selling flim-flam. His theories are flavoured with applications of 'quantum physics', so you'd suppose he was at least a graduate in the field. Apparently, he spent the first decade of his career planting trees when, on his own admission, he had lots of time to think about stuff like this.

Anyway, without getting into floating ice particles and controversial things, there's one feature of his 'quantum craft' which isn't arguable and really does need an explanation. It concerns the 'notch', that square shaped bit cut from the edge of his flying saucers. They all have one and he acknowledges this and actually draws the notch on his blackboard demonstration.

When we watch the STS-75 tether videos, we see lots of Sereda ships with notches. But there's an intriguing facet that David really ought to address. The notch can be top/left, top/right, bottom/left or bottom/right or they can be some position in between these. But they are always located according to the ship's location in the movie frame. That's irrefutable and clear enough for anyone to see.

The notches are always in the same position on ships located upper left. They're in a different place for ships seen upper right, or lower left or lower right. And all ships follow the rule. What's more, a notch will migrate from one position to another as a ship crosses the frame. You can watch the notch.

The reason for this phenomenon is optics and lens design. The notch is the result of internal construction of the zoom lens. And it's been demonstrated by experiment. A zoom lens of certain construction will create a notch on the edge of the light disc created from a defocussed point source (such as a bright star, Venus, etc).

It's all on YouTube for anybody interested enough to investigate.

So the notches have a simple optical explanation. The 'behind the tether' argument has a simple optical explantion. So what is there left of Mr Sereda's ships to believe in?

WG3

similar kind of notch, with explanations in the info of the movie:

YouTube Link

direct link: www.youtube.com...


And, as Waveguide3 said, the notches are just a lens effect, an image artifact depending on the position of the defocused disk in the frame, i mean look here:

www.freewebs.com... ,

dismiss the language but see the pictures, when different disks with notches have exactly the same notches when in the same area on the frame. I exemplified with three zones named A, B, C then I numbered different disks, and see how the notchces are "obedient" when in the same zone.

3 miles alien spacecrafts? No, little particles of space-debris floating around.
And Sereda as a con-man.



Maybe his charisma ?





[edit on 1/2/09 by depthoffield]

i think some of the critters do go behind the tether

i also don't believe ice particles pulsate like what is seen in the tether video

As I stated in the other thread...these are not camera lens anomalies causing notches to morph. If that was the case, then why do these objects have DIFFERENT notch patterns at DIFFERENT points in the frame and at DIFFERENT times in the frame on DIFFERENT objects???

The lens cannot magically change its impurities from one point in itself to another in the frame.

Why dont we see this notch morphing on the tether, especially when the scene is zoomed out and then zooms in???

Try again man.



Cheers!!!!

[edit on 8-2-2009 by RFBurns]

take a look at this post: www.abovetopsecret.com...
in fact it demostrates exactly the oposite as what to say: the notches are the same when different orbs are in the same area of the frame.
Don't be ignorant of this.

Debating the STS 75 NASA video is a waste of time, because of other corroborating footage showing the exact same type of craft. Include with that the Dropa Stone, an ancient artifact dating back to biblical times, that's an exact replica of these craft. There's no argument with re-guard to this subject. It is what it is, except the total overwhelming evidence and lets move on.

Ahh, the dropa-stones.

Well, the hoomans back in that time prolly new we gonna have discs of glas that would sit on a tube that is attached to a device that take pictures. I bet they also could forsee that these lenses would have anomolies looking like a disc with holes and nudges in it.

So they made replicas of them just for fun.

They prolly used them as christmas tree decorations.

Serisouly though.

We now have 3 threads atleast about these "dust particles".
And all we do is to have a Monty Python argument session here.

It's a UFO!!
No it isn't!!
Yes it is!!
No it's a dust particle that is unfocused!
No it isn't!!!
Yes it is!!!!

DING!!

Thank you, NEXT!

Well, we will never get to a solution on the STS-75 and probably not on the others either.

We can only stay with our own beliefs.
I believe they are NOT an lens effect, some of them might be but not all.
Them being unfocused does not explain why they make a 180 turn and continue the same way they came.

But most interesting are the video where they fly into the picture and then remain stationary in a formation over Earth.
Later on in the mocie you can actually see them hanging in the atmosphere on the horizon.
Great clip imo.

reply to post by easynow

---

The objects were not lit by a constant source of light. If they were small objects such as dust they would likely have an irregular surface which would cause variations in the light as the object moves and/or the light source changes. The variations in the light would present themselves as pulsating bokeh. It would be the same with any video camera with a catadioptric lens, in any wavelengths of light, set on an object in infinity (a tether, for instance) with dust being lit close to the lens. Anywhere in the universe. Possibly in other universes too.

You mean the same repetitive few frames back and forth proves the lens theory?

Sheesh...now you skepts are getting desperate arent you?!!!

Its not being ignorant...its being aware of what is byond your little box of padded walls so the world outside of it wont hurt you.

No worries, every single bit of your examples were shot down 9 years ago by a NASA/JPL engineer on another forum. This issue with sts75 began the very day it was seen on NASA TV. Long...LONG before ATS, long before any of this recent debating. It has not been proven either way, to be UFO/Life Forms or your favorite dust particles.

But the evidence to date seriously outweighs your dust by about a factor of 20.



Cheers!!!!

reply to post by jackphotohobby

---

yes that is certainly a possibility no doubt but

if these are critters producing their own glow and they were in fact pulsating the same look would be in the video.

the real question here is if these are not ufo's or critters...

why does NASA not let us see the rest of the footage if there is nothing to hide ?

is this really a national security threat or not ?

reply to post by easynow

---

If NASA was to allow us to see the entire footage, that would ruin NASA's reputation of decades of "nothing to see move along" point of view they have pounded into everyone.

Plus they still believe in Brookings, that we cannot handle the truth.

Well...that might be true...to a point..especially for the skeptics. They cant handle the truth. It ruins the status quo and their paradyme, changing their tiny world and turning it inside out.

Its the "oh dear cats live with dogs" syndrome.

Shame.



Cheers!!!!

reply to post by RFBurns

---

yes they are hoping we all just move along but there are some people like me that won't !

i really cannot understand the reasoning behind NASA not letting this type of footage out for the public to see. there is no logic in that unless there is something to hide...simple as that.

if Obama wants to make the Goverment more transparent then a good place to start would be with NASA imo.

we are paying for all this and we are not allowed to see the real stuff.

sad

I completely agree. The thing with NASA, or some within NASA, and the government is that when you got a neat toy or knowledge, you want to keep that all for yourself and leave others out...being stingy basically.

I think Obama's transparent government could definately begin with NASA. Its time that all this cowering behind lame dame excuses and poof dirt dust and ice particles comes to an end.

If the ancients could handle these things in the skies and write about them and document them with paintings in caves and glyphs on stone walls, and in none of those does it say their society went nuts and broke down, then we today can handle the truth too.



Cheers!!!!