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.

 

New Analysis Video of the STS-75 Tether Incident

page: 101
77
<< 98  99  100    102  103  104 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by depthoffield
 


So let's get back to the topic at hand.


so, when i select infinity, i get clear focus of the bird 300 meters away, or of the plane 8 km away, or of the mountain/landscape 30 km away, or of the moon 380000km away, or of the Pleiades constellation hundred of light years away.


So why can't this NASA camera get a good focus on the tether a hundred miles away, considering that the tether is 12 miles long? NASA's video camera needs calibration? Their camera is not as good quality as yours?

The white dots around the tether are in as good of focus as the tether. The links I have provided show this is what would be expected for SA that is near the focal point, which means near the tether.

None of you have yet to provide any credible evidence that the SA we see in the tether video must be close to the shuttle, while I have provided evidence that shows they are probably near the tether.




posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


I'm referring to the donut shaped bokeh either before or after they focused or defocused, that are close to the shuttle and not the tether.

The stars are further than the tether but they are in focus when the tether is in focus at infinity for the reasons we've explained.

And you're confusing SA with focus, they are different issues. The donut shaped bokeh is not an effect of SA it's an effect of focus.

As for why the tether appears wider than it should, I'm familiar with CCD and film photography, but I've never done any photography with vacuum tubes which is apparently what this camera's sensor used:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by JimOberg

The records I found indicated STS-75 still had the vintage cameras...

From: Herring, Kyle J. (JSC-AP311)
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 5:26 AM
Subject: FW: space shuttle visual ranges

Shuttle CCTV payload bay cameras

l STS-1 vintage cameras - these flew thru STS-88. This camera has a intensified vacuum-tube image sensor (called a SIT – silicon intensified target – tube) that is basically black-and-white. Color was achieved by rotating a color filter wheel at the 60 Hz field rate in front of the image sensor. The resulting filtered video was reconstructed on the ground by a field-sequential color converter. The wavelength sensitivity of the SIT tube is shown in the curve in the attached file “TVC”. Also included are the curves for the red, blue and green filters in the color filter wheel.


I suspect the blooming of the tether width has at least as much to do with the way that sensor operates as it does with the optics, but vacuum tube image sensor performance is beyond my area of experience and expertise.

[edit on 29-11-2009 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


What about the rest of what we are seeing in this video?

You are ignoring most of the spheres moving around the tether, and that is what I am talking about, and they do match the spherical aberrations in the link I provided that show that they are near the focal point.

You, and all of you on your side of the debate, continue to ignore the largest part of the evidence.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by depthoffield
 


No, my camera is a pocket camera which simply doesn't have the range to take a picture of the moon and get any kind of detail, so it blurs everything.



Aaah, you put here at work a crappy cheap camera which have bad lens and make interpolated image (more megapixels than the lens is capable), as "proof" that when you set it at infinity and talking you get "bokeh" ? Your picture is not showing bokeh, but a slighty out of focus moon.
And you tell us marketing-like words like "seeing is believing"? Do you like to promote pareidolia?




Originally posted by poet1b
You only think you get clear focus. Take a picture of the same landscape with a far better camera, then download both pictures onto your computer, and zoom in on a small detail. You will see that the better camera has better resolution.

When i said i obtain pictures set on infinity having good focus, is not what i think, or believe, or dream, but exactly what it is: images in good focus.



Of course a "better" camera, with bigger resolution, will get smaller details, but no matter the camera, or the "better" attribute, infinity is infinity starting from one point (hyperfocal distance if you want), to infinity. What's the relation between what optical rules regarding depth of field and infinite dictate, and less or more resolution, apart from the numbers themselves ? Seems you are very good to address one issue with another (true) issue, but avoiding the first issue itself (only criticizing it). Have you ever thought to became a attorney (lawyer), because you are good in obfuscating some rules with other rules and making a big boring stuff?




You are also probably talking about good lighting conditions. Try taking a picture of that bird into almost direct sunlight, with the sun in the frame or just out of the frame and see what you get.


I talked about rules of optics. When you take pictures in bad conditions, your image will be spoiled not because depth of field/infinity rules, but because lens flares, contamination with light inside the lens or/and inside the senzor itself, electronics going out from the linear portion of transfer function etc, which are entire different things.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


OK, which of these (if any) do you think the STS-75 video shows?




posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


You are ignoring most of the spheres moving around the tether, and that is what I am talking about, and they do match the spherical aberrations in the link I provided that show that they are near the focal point.

You, and all of you on your side of the debate, continue to ignore the largest part of the evidence.


Let's look at the GIF file DepthOfField posted:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by depthoffield


I see one dot that's in focus when the tether is in focus and I drew a yellow arrow to it here:



I disagree that they are the "largest part of the evidence" as you suggest since there's only one, and I don't notice any motion so it could be a star for all I know.

If there are dots in focus when the tether is, how far away are the sharper dots? Based on the calculation I posted earlier, if my assumption is correct the lens is zoomed to the maximum value of 108 mm, then when focused at infinity, if the f-stop is set to:

f 1.6, in focus objects are probably at least 1000 meters away
f 16, in focus objects are at least 10 meters away

(using the COC approach) If the zoom is at less than maximum, the objects can be closer than that and still be in focus.

Note: saying they are at least 10 meters away or at least 1000 meters away doesn't confirm they are near the tether, nor does it rule out that possibility. But most of those particles are NOT in focus at infinity contrary to your claim, rather we can see most of them become sharper when the focus is adjusted away from infinity!

We haven't confirmed yet if the STS-75 particles could be from a water dump. But if that's confirmed, let's look at the distribution of particles in this water dump photo.



Note all the particles are at different distances, as they are spread out.

Could some of them be over 50 miles away like the tether is? I can't rule that out for the objects that are in focus when the tether is in focus, however it seems more likely that since the out of focus objects are closer, the other in focus objects may be part of the same group of objects with a similar source, but that's a little speculative. If we get evidence of a water dump I think it will be less speculative.

[edit on 29-11-2009 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by depthoffield
 


So let's get back to the topic at hand.


so, when i select infinity, i get clear focus of the bird 300 meters away, or of the plane 8 km away, or of the mountain/landscape 30 km away, or of the moon 380000km away, or of the Pleiades constellation hundred of light years away.


So why can't this NASA camera get a good focus on the tether a hundred miles away, considering that the tether is 12 miles long? NASA's video camera needs calibration? Their camera is not as good quality as yours?




Tether is in good focus. We can understand this when we see stars. (and i will provide a new star chart). But the exposure is wrong, the tether is way too much overexposed. This overexposing is at the senzor/electronics level, too much difussed light (or maybe electric-charges generated) goes to adjacent pixels, making false signals to those adjacent pixels, finally producing a wider image of the tether. Also, when the level of the light is beyound a limit, the senzor goes to blooming, an illogical darkening of ultraexposed pixels. This is not true optics anymore, but other physical processes inside the senzor/electronics ...

Again, tether is in good focus because is at infinite distance relative to the camera focused to infinity. You don't see the tether as being in good focus, because it is spoiled by the other non-optics related flaws, but, you, as an experienced photographer, when you see stars in good focus, and you know that the tether is at infinite relative to the camera (100 miles is way beyoud the hyperfocal property of the lens), therefore you should logically understand that the tether is in good OPTICAL focus, despite it doesn't look so (because the other non-optical flaws). Also, NASA cameras provide information of the focus setting, so they know what are doing.


But go to the end of the tether uncut version, when tether barely is seen.... At that time, the iris and gain was reduced, the non-optical flaws (especially the overexposure of the tether) are reduced, and guess what: you see the tether not more so wide, but thin.

In terms of resolution, my camera is better that the NASA's named C camera. In terms of blooming, also mine is better. In terms of overexposure itself, any camera could be crappy. But in terms of manual control, NASA's cameras are much better. Also, in terms of low light capabilities, NASA's cameras are very good...




Originally posted by poet1b
The white dots around the tether are in as good of focus as the tether. The links I have provided show this is what would be expected for SA that is near the focal point, which means near the tether.

poet1b, spherical abberation is not seen when image is in focus, unless the lens are very crappy. Can you understand this?

from your own link:toothwalker.org...



The influence of spherical aberration on in-focus parts of the image can be difficult to recognize or tell apart from other image degrading factors such as a slight misfocus. In contrast, SA may leave a marked fingerprint on out-of-focus image parts



Concluding remarks
Of course, the illustration in Fig. 1 is a gross exaggeration. The amount of residual spherical aberration in photographic lenses is small. The effects are mitigated by the combination of lens elements with opposite amounts of SA, the use of high-index glasses, clever shaping of elements, and the use of aspherical elements


Those big discs with notches are NOT spherical abberation, they are not only overexposure artifacts..they are BOKEH. BOKEH appear when a small point of light is out of focus...




Originally posted by poet1b
None of you have yet to provide any credible evidence that the SA we see in the tether video must be close to the shuttle, while I have provided evidence that shows they are probably near the tether.


We don't see any spherical abberation...but bokeh.
Please take in consideration that you could be a very good attorney....









[edit on 29/11/09 by depthoffield]



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 05:00 PM
link   
Rule of optics: For every lens corectly focussed on infinite:

Any object situated beyound the hyperfocal distance, will appear in focus.

This means: the lens is incapable (in terms of focus) to make out anymore of what distances are the objects (to make differences related to distance).....like in my example related to my camera: a bird 300 meters away, or a plane 10 km away, or the moon 380000 km away, or stars on the sky at thousand light-years away, all of them are equally considered infinite by the lens.

This is a true and verifiable rule, known by all the photographs or optics specialists, but Poet1b want to make it false....






[edit on 29/11/09 by depthoffield]



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by depthoffield
 



Any object situated beyound the hyperfocal distance, will appear in focus.


don't you mean any known objects ?

how would a dimensional UFO with changing gravity waves appear ?



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by depthoffield
 



Any object situated beyound the hyperfocal distance, will appear in focus.


don't you mean any known objects ?

how would a dimensional UFO with changing gravity waves appear ?


I don't know...i also don't know how dead souls orbs could appear, or even superman with his energetic power field also.
. Of course, we can SPECULATE of any of this until our imagination will finish (if ever...)

[edit on 29/11/09 by depthoffield]



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by depthoffield
 


good answer !



I don't know...i also don't know


at least your honest about it




here's proof you can't prove anything with a youtube video





[edit on 29-11-2009 by easynow]



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Let's look at the GIF file DepthOfField posted:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by depthoffield


I see one dot that's in focus when the tether is in focus and I drew a yellow arrow to it here:



I disagree that they are the "largest part of the evidence" as you suggest since there's only one, and I don't notice any motion so it could be a star for all I know.


Yes, that white dot you marked with the yellow arrow, is a star.

It's name:

y Cen - HIP 67819 A
Magnitude 6.2
Distance 163.32 light years (wow)

info from Stellarium


And it is in good focus.


But loose it's focus when the focusing maneuver is produced, while some discs on the contrary goes in focus.

BOKEH. Direct evidence.


But the attorneys will ever say the contrary.... (they MUST defend the client)



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by depthoffield
 



But the attorneys will ever say the contrary.... (they MUST defend the client


that's a two way street


most people that have not seen a ufo, like yourself, will always defend the mundane side of the discussion , am i correct ?





The Logical Trickery of the UFO Skeptic
By Brian Zeiler
Skeptics in the scientific community resist the evidence for extraterrestrial visitation because of
the implications it raises and because of the questions it begs. But should the integrity of the
determination rely on the implications of a positive classification? Or should the classification of
true or false be assessed in isolation of the implications? Which is worse -- a false positive,
meaning ruling in favor of the UFO as a unique phenomenon when in fact it does not exist, or a
false negative, meaning ruling against it and missing out on its true existence?

The answer, of course, lies in the incentive structure of the analyst. An equally intelligent
non-scientist has no incentive nor predisposition to favor one type of error over the other, but
scientists do. For scientists, it would open a whole new confounding problem domain, and it
would make them look incompetent in the public's eyes for missing out on this fact for 50 years.
That's why the incentive structure of contemporary scientists is such that they will not accept
alien visitation unless they must, which would be when they get irrefutable physical proof. Their
incentive structure prohibits them from making any such inference unless it is unavoidable, and
they will strain the boundaries of logic and reason to no end to dismiss all evidence other than
physical proof, no matter how powerful it may be. This scientific predisposition toward disbelief,
rooted not in science and logic but rather in dogma and paradigm, brings us to the logical
trickery of the scientific UFO debunker.
www.nicap.org...


[edit on 29-11-2009 by easynow]



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by easynow


The Logical Trickery of the UFO Skeptic
Skeptics in the scientific community resist the evidence for extraterrestrial visitation because of the implications it raises and because of the questions it begs.



Bokeh is NOT evidence for extraterrestrial visitation.


Also, i said this before, you remember for sure, i believe in extraterrestrial life, the universe is too big and complex for us to be alone, also i accept some form of visitation as being posible.




[edit on 29/11/09 by depthoffield]



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 06:25 PM
link   
reply to post by depthoffield
 


Bokeh is a camera artifact and does not represent the true shape of the object so no offense but the point your trying to make is ridiculous.

why won't you answer this question ?


most people that have not seen a ufo, like yourself, will always defend the mundane side of the discussion , am i correct ?


scared to answer ?



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by depthoffield
 


Bokeh is a camera artifact and does not represent the true shape of the object so no offense but the point your trying to make is ridiculous.

why won't you answer this question ?


most people that have not seen a ufo, like yourself, will always defend the mundane side of the discussion , am i correct ?


scared to answer ?


Easynow, your juvenile taunts are degenerating into infantile whines.

Predicating valid 'UFO beliefs' on personal 'UFO experience' -- which all serious researchers agree is misleading >90% of the time -- is just plain silly.

Any serious person leans towards the 'mundane' until the case is examined from opposing points of view, and then the evidence and argumentation is overwhelming that mundane stimuli cannot produce such an apparition as reported, even under ordinary (or even extreme) levels of witness misperception and memory drift. That's where the burden of proof lies -- not on those skeptics whom you demand PROVE a specific explanation without which you will claim trumphant vindication of the reality of UFOs.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 08:31 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


Oberg your ad hominem attacks are entertaining and provide your target audience with the much needed grounding to keep their thinking inside the box. i am sure they appreciate it even though they unknowingly can't see your doing them a disservice.


That's why the incentive structure of contemporary scientists is such that they will not accept
alien visitation unless they must, which would be when they get irrefutable physical proof. Their
incentive structure prohibits them from making any such inference unless it is unavoidable, and
they will strain the boundaries of logic and reason to no end to dismiss all evidence other than
physical proof, no matter how powerful it may be. This scientific predisposition toward disbelief,
rooted not in science and logic but rather in dogma and paradigm, brings us to the logical
trickery of the scientific UFO debunker.


www.nicap.org...

[edit on 29-11-2009 by easynow]



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 08:43 PM
link   
anyone else notice this question brought Oberg out of hiding ?



]most people that have not seen a ufo, like yourself, will always defend the mundane side of the discussion , am i correct ?



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
anyone else notice this question brought Oberg out of hiding ?



]most people that have not seen a ufo, like yourself, will always defend the mundane side of the discussion , am i correct ?


I don't know for sure what the bokeh are other than they are close and out of focus. If they did something like exhibit intelligently controlled movements, I'd be willing to consider alternate explanations besides mundane, but when the movements don't appear to be intelligently controlled, I see no reason to jump to extraordinary conclusions from out of focus objects drifting in space.

And nobody who has suggested the objects are extraordinary has met the burden of proof. Secretnasaman claimed the laws of physics were being violated by these objects, but when I asked which laws, he never replied, and that's probably just as well because I get the impression physics is not his area of expertise. That some people would jump to extraordinary conclusions says more about their analytical approach lacking rigor than it says about the objects.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 09:13 PM
link   
UFO Footage Filmed by Tom Sabourin Gulf Breeze Florida




[edit on 29-11-2009 by easynow]



new topics

top topics



 
77
<< 98  99  100    102  103  104 >>

log in

join