It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

STS-75 Tether Incident - Mystery solved! Breaking News!

page: 19
12
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 10:54 AM
link   
Dust particles dont change direction unless they have their own thrusters. And I wasn't aware the shuttle fired its ones during this event either.

MYSTERY NOT SOLVED




posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 11:04 AM
link   
these pictures to me indicate the UFO did pass behind the tether and i understand there is no background but the facts are the facts.





interesting structure ?




posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 12:05 PM
link   
Yes, it's true that when you point your lens at a street lamp or a star you can create this "notched" effect. That isn't the point.

The bright light emitting from the lamp or star appears as a dark circle in the center of this notched illusion. The lamp and the star are both physical objects emitting light. It's the dark round objects in the center of this light that you should be concerned with.

So then.... just what are those moving objects that appear to emit light in the Teather video? Ice bits moving under their own power in various directions? Dust bunnies of the Gods? Really, what are they?



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by easynow
 


Could you please explain why do you consider that the tether is in front of the "UFO"?

Thanks.



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


hmmm.. i think some of the objects pass behind the tether or they are actually rubbing up against it to possibly feed off the energy or to maybe bump into it because the critter might be wanting to see if it is one of their own or it might be an act of defense in some way.. speculation yes

but why i believe some of the critters pass behind is because i have watched the video many times and looking at the pictures i posted at the top of the page...it's just obvious to me


the problem here is that nobody can prove it either way and until NASA shows the rest of the footage this debate will continue and it's just personal opinions going back and forth.

hope that answers your question my friend



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by easynow
 


Well, it answers partially, but maybe other people are not like myself, I usually analyse my own reactions to try to understand why I reacted that way, that is why after a first glance that may look like the "UFOs" pass behind the tether I understood (or so I think) that the reason why I was thinking that was that false shadow on the right of the objects, so I tried to ignore that "shadow" and I came to the conclusion that the "shadow" was the only thing that made think that.

But thanks anyway.



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 11:07 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 
The UFO's are not out of focus -they are out of time- the charged tether makes one large HV field and the shuttle has another electric field through which the camera is filming like 2 lenses in a telescope. Tesla's claims regarding solidification of the ether using HV field is slightly bending light in the temporal axis and over a distance to different focal points into the future onto the "lens" field surrounding the shuttle and forming a temporal window much like astrophysicsts use a distant star to gravitationally lens light to detect distant objects behind the star. this may be why ufo's are so often filmed near transmission lines and chase planes
lose track of UFO's when they fly past the viewing window unable to turn into the tempoal axis to give chase. Maybe ufo hunters should take a portable ionizer for nearfield and aim through transmission lines in the farfield to increase their odds :_)



posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 03:57 PM
link   
Look here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

for an explanation for the "BEHIND THE TETHER ILLUSION"

It involves transparent BOKEH and sharpening technical principles.



posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 04:39 PM
link   
Armap, Depth of Field et al have offered enough convincing evidence for me, at least, to accept that there are no critters or alien craft in this footage. It's become a circular argument based on faith in ET rather than seeking answers. One last point before retiring from the thread...

The commentary on the footage indicates no unusual pitch in voice, no suggestion of surprise or mystification. The voices are well-modulated. NASA and the crew are under no impression that a multitude of extraterrestrial life-forms are teeming before their eyes. It reinforces the prosaic explanations that have been reiterated throughout the thread.

Undoubtedly, some people will take that as *evidence* of NASA's knowledge that these critters are abundant and already accepted. The two threads on STS-75 and the donuts have left me disappointed. The willful dismissal of ordinary explanations for extraordinary claims does some intelligent detractors a disservice.



posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 08:32 PM
link   
Hi all,
This, in my opinion, is the most definite video proof there is available to this point, that their here.
I just can't see any other orbital argument to the contrary after this tether incident. It's simply the real deal.
Decoy



posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 08:09 AM
link   
I will admit that I haven't read this ENTIRE thread, so I'm hoping I'm not rehashing something here.

But having read the first 5, the last 5 and a few in the middle, the debate still seems to center around this "ice crystal/debris" theory.

I've seen the experiments where they are able to re-create the SHAPE of the objects and demonstrate how overexposure can account for something appearing to be behind the tether can actually be in front of it, but nothing has come close to explaining how particles close to the camera can survive a long zoom....

video.google.com...

Any takers?



posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 08:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kandinsky
The two threads on STS-75 and the donuts have left me disappointed. The willful dismissal of ordinary explanations for extraordinary claims does some intelligent detractors a disservice.


Kandinsky, I highly recommend a detailed examination of this NASA paper on the 'particulate environment of the space shuttle', especially in the early years before it turned out to be even worse. It is directly on point regarding documentation of frequent detection of shuttle-generated debris.

"THE PARTICULATE ENVIRONMENT SURROUNDING THE SPACE
STATION:ESTIMATES FROM THE PACS DATA"


ntrs.nasa.gov... de%2Bmatchall%26Ns%3DHarvestDate%257c1%26N%3D0

and

hdl.handle.net...



posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Raybo58

I've seen the experiments where they are able to re-create the SHAPE of the objects and demonstrate how overexposure can account for something appearing to be behind the tether can actually be in front of it, but nothing has come close to explaining how particles close to the camera can survive a long zoom....


There's no zoom -- no focus adjustment -- going on. The changes in appearance are due to automatic gain control self-adjustment of detector sensitivity, which in low light conditions plays havoc with the image.



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 06:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
There's no zoom -- no focus adjustment -- going on. The changes in appearance are due to automatic gain control self-adjustment of detector sensitivity, which in low light conditions plays havoc with the image.


Seems like most of the activity moved over to the motion study thread. Just checked back here randomly.

But Jim, there most certainly is zoom occurring in the Stubbs video...



At 2:50. Whether it's optical or digital, it's still clearly qualifies as a zoom. In fact it *has* to be an optical zoom, because the tether actually gets narrower as they zoom in. A digital zoom would make it appear fatter at the end of the zoom. And yes, I understand that the overexposure does indeed affect the perceived size of the object, but you can see as those adjustments are made that it fattens up and then thins out as they achieve optimal clarity. A digital zoom would make all of those actions even more exaggerated.


In any case, it's not as relevant as what we see during the pans. When the camera pans, it provides proof positive, as demonstrated in my Parallax Motion experiment, that the objects are in the near vicinity of the tether. At least 80km away.




[edit on 7-7-2009 by Raybo58]



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 06:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Raybo58

Originally posted by JimOberg
There's no zoom -- no focus adjustment -- going on. The changes in appearance are due to automatic gain control self-adjustment of detector sensitivity, which in low light conditions plays havoc with the image.


Seems like most of the activity moved over to the motion study thread. Just checked back here randomly.

But Jim, there most certainly is zoom occurring in the Stubbs video...


I stand corrected. Somehow I generalized the lack of focus control with no commanded zoom -- it certainly exists here, it's a standard capability, and my statement was wrong. Oops.



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 02:08 PM
link   
why do people keep tryin to debunk sts75 ? It is what it is, nasa proof were not alone in the universe. Keep trying , i love to read everyone's thread on what they think it is. Any one with a brain can clearly see what is happening on the video. Ill keep readin n laughin , watchin people try to debunk.



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 04:29 PM
link   
Is this seriously the best you monkeys in intelligence can do!?!

Try to actually make it make it move in relation to fixed objects next time, give it a convincing pulse and then add in about 30 more of them all moving in different directions.

I'm just saying . . .

Our tax dollars pay your salaries; at least try to put out a decent piece of disinformation every once in a while!! Lol



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 04:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by civilian49
Is this seriously the best you monkeys in intelligence can do!?!

Try to actually make it make it move in relation to fixed objects next time, give it a convincing pulse and then add in about 30 more of them all moving in different directions.

I'm just saying . . .

Our tax dollars pay your salaries; at least try to put out a decent piece of disinformation every once in a while!! Lol


huh?

I'm assuming you're talking to NASA ? if so, mention NASA.. if not, who are you talking to on the board?

As far as the video is concerned.
Depthoffield: nice work but it doesn't match the vid. I do see some similar effects. I believe there is some ghosting of the objects on the window and in the lens but the facts that get me are
1: there is a definite zoom and all objects scale the same.
2: the pulsating and notch areas scale as well which eliminates the oof issue
3: I haven't seen any other portions of the sts mission that also has a bunch of dust particles floating around in everyones vision.

I appreciate the attempts to debunk though..

b



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by depthoffield
Look here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

for an explanation for the "BEHIND THE TETHER ILLUSION"

It involves transparent BOKEH and sharpening technical principles.



Hi,

I'm sorry, but its just not the same. I even didn't think for a second, that the first plant was behind the second one after zoom. Really. On the other hand, in case of Tether incident, there was no doubt in my mind at all
. It's so clear.

Btw. To all: Greetings from Europe!!



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 02:45 PM
link   
Im sorry but I still feel the objects that formed over Africa are still unexplained objects that are intelligently controlled... its just the way they fly in and fall into a pattern...??


I admit the tether incident is most likely not to be ufo's but im not 100% sure either way even with watching your video, haha maybe that the fleet commander would not let them fly infront of the tether?? ha!



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join