It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 102
<< 99  100  101    103  104  105 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 09:14 PM
i wonder if there are any "agents' that try to influence discussions about NASA UFO's ? it's not a impossible idea is it ?

posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 04:15 AM
reply to post by easynow

Could be, I've seen a few posters on this site that I wondered if they were on a government payroll based on the nature of their posts, not so much in the UFO section but in other sections.

But now you got me wondering about this thread after seeing in that video that one if their strategies is to post false conspiracy theories.

Could this entire thread could be a false conspiracy theory that it shows plasma critters or giant alien spacecraft and that NASA is conspiring to keep the truth from us by calling it "debris"?
That might be a good way to keep us distracted by a bunch of ice particles so we won't spend too much time researching and exposing the REAL UFOs they don't want us to talk about?

I don't know about that but as I've said before, there are much better UFO cases to look at than this one. In fact I think this case should be called UDPs or unidentified drifting particles:
Drifting because they appear to be drifting rather than flying and particles because most of us know they are close to the shuttle they are the size of particles and not spaceships. And if a prior water dump is discovered then they might not even be unidentified, eliminating the last of the 3 letters in "UFO" from this case.

[edit on 30-11-2009 by Arbitrageur]

posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 04:41 AM

Originally posted by easynow
i wonder if there are any "agents' that try to influence discussions about NASA UFO's ? it's not a impossible idea is it ?

yes, i agree that here are some agents that try to influence discussions about NASA UFO's... simply because they want to promote their documentaries or stories.... business.

For example.... just one example.
LunaCognita make an analysis here about sts videos, also for moon anomalies on other topics...
But LunaCognita is also a contributor for the "moon rising" movie produced by Jose Escamilla (the guy who selled before the "rods" bogus thing )

Now, go to "moon rising the movie" web site..

See there the "Pay per view" section.... pay the money and see the documentary.

How to make money:
- produce the material
- promote it
- sell it to clients

- where to promote?
Well, in places where are people who have interests in this (target audience). For example forums. Such of this.
- How to promote it? make controvercies, present the thing as being obfuscated by some closed minded sceptics or government lies, and raise the sex-appeal of the thing in any way posibble.

I've just explained MY CONSPIRATION THEORY version.

that's why i consider that here are some good marketing agents doing well their job.

sometimes even BOKEH is for sell... if you know how to present it!

p.s. 1) i'm an government agent, and my job is to lie the people.

p.s. 2) i've said p.s. 1 above, just to hide myself as being a real government agent

[edit on 30/11/09 by depthoffield]

posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 06:13 AM
sorry to disappoint you...but this is not a disinformation thread, although there are always going to be disinformation posts! To even suggest that Luna C., or Jose E. are working together to spread 'fake' info for their own secret plot against UFO just plain wrong...shame on you all...

These NASA videos are from me...I worked on "UFO: the Greatest Story Ever Denied", & we gave it away free on the Web...we still are doing this. Millions of free downloads later, Jose & his friends are still accused of fakes? (worse still...Capitalists!!!) That is crazy...

I called Jose when the "UFO" movie went "free" & he said .."Why Not" drop that crazy Luna-Jose plot! I also am very proud that "Mr. Critters"...Trevor James Constable hosted the NASA "tether incident"...& don't tell me he is a conspirator too! I have never even met Luna C., but he is only trying to help & I for one thank him.

Come on, do you conspiracy accusers really believe we are all out to do UFOLOGY in? This is a great thread, started with a great video & is solid gold for its amazing range of posts. Go back & read the earlier ones & you will see that this is not a lousy UFO video to everybody else...

There are many disinformation folks here at ATS. I know one...Jim Oberg. Sorry to see he has won you over at last. No wonder he is posting happily & continually for you guys...the focus excuses, attacks on people (me)...& now he has you going on with this new spin! This is his goal.

I was actually enjoying the camera focus etc. discussion ...but it morphed to attacking people? I do not think Trevor Constable's ideas or participation in a "tether incident" movie segment for Jose & I was staged....nor did he profit from it.

posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 07:03 AM

Originally posted by depthoffield
How to make money:
- produce the material
- promote it
- sell it to clients

well i don't think somebody ripped 'moon rising' and uploaded on youtube.... against the likes & 'business' ethics of the producers.....

if you cared enough whilst making those comments.... at least you could have just googled.....

well check jose escamilla's youtube channel here....

you might notice that what you have stated there..... is simply (insert adjective).....

its a fact that pseudo-skeptics deny, ridicule and suppress anything progressive that challenges the static views of the establishment....

posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 07:11 AM

Originally posted by secretnasaman
There are many disinformation folks here at ATS. I know one...Jim Oberg. Sorry to see he has won you over at last. No wonder he is posting happily & continually for you guys...the focus excuses, attacks on people (me)...& now he has you going on with this new spin! This is his goal.

thank you for everything......

referring to what you mentioned... check this classic......

posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 07:34 AM

Originally posted by secretnasaman
There are many disinformation folks here at ATS. I know one...Jim Oberg. Sorry to see he has won you over at last. No wonder he is posting happily & continually for you guys...the focus excuses, attacks on people (me)...& now he has you going on with this new spin! This is his goal.

Who benefits from confusion and gullibilty, or from false anger and kneejerk distrust? To think it's all arranged by 'dark powers' is an ultimate crazy conspiracy theory, but to think it's all a random accident might be to miss a subtle pattern that provides productive insight and useful methods.

People involved with activities that create UFO misperceptions in popular culture could easily benefit from the convenient camouflage over their activities. It serves their purposes of avoiding attention by deflecting and discrediting it. Actually, this was the key concern of the Robertson Panel, and I discussed that at length with Thornton Page (a long time friend here in Houston prior to his death in 1997) and Fred Durant (a spaceflight colleague for almost forty years, from his NASM days in DC to his current retirement days in North Carolina). Long ago I even discussed that with Allen Hynek, whom I knew at Northwestern, on a private plane flight to a symposium in Michigan.

People who do make money from selling things to UFO buffs (not the trivial home-printed videos that sell by the tens and twenties per year, if that) know how useful certain types of TV shows are for selling ad space to vendors of any sort (health stuff, training classes, baldness cures, dating schemes, even charities -- make a list of who is advertising on such programs and what this implies they think of the audience's intelligence and judgment) who prefer the easily-persuaded audiences who will believe anything -- the sort of people who so often flock to the UFO shows.

But Martyn's accusations against me personally are the ultimate in desperation, perhaps a tribute to the improvement in community understanding of the astronaut UFO cases and how to treat them. Maybe it's his latest excuse why he steadfastly refuses to provide date/time information for the videos he posts -- he now knows too well the trouble that would cause when real investigators track down the context and conditions of the weird-looking stuff.

Some of us think that there could well be genuine stimuli of profound importance to science, to medicine, to national security, to law enforcement, to theology, to folklore studies, even to journalism, buried among the flood of UFO perceptions. But we are dismayed by the self-induced difficulties in filtering such wheat from the overwhelming chaff.

Other people seem to like the current confused state, and thrive in this confusion. A better, clearer understanding of the phenomenon is the last thing on their minds. Ye shall know them by their fruits.

posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 10:08 AM
how can anyone like myself who is willing to consider all sides of this discussion be influenced into some conclusion by people who are only willing to be on one side or the other ?

is having a neutral or open minded viewpoint the best approach to this investigation ?

[edit on 30-11-2009 by easynow]

posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 10:31 AM
reply to post by depthoffield

Why am I not surprised that when provided with the evidence that proves you wrong, you deny deny deny without ever providing anything to back you up but your opinion. You have completely ignored the NASA studies, why would you choose to recognize any other evidence that proves you wrong.

It isn't all that crappy of a camera, it is a pretty darn good pocket camera. The image hasn't been increased all that much in size, and certainly not beyond the memory capability. It takes excellent pictures as long as they are in the range of its lens capability.

When you make a statement like this

Your picture is not showing bokeh, but a slighty out of focus moon.

It clearly shows you don't have a clue what bokeh is, or care about looking at things subjectively.

First of all, brokeh is defined as

Bokeh describes the rendition of out-of-focus points of light. Differing amounts of spherical aberration alter how lenses render out-of-focus points of light, and thus their bokeh.

Then there is the term focus, which is this case we would be considering camera focus. The fact of the matter is that the term focus is very subjective concept, determined by terms such as depth of field and circle of confusion.

Are you going to tell me that if you take a pocket camera, a 35mm camera, and a 70mm camera, and set them all at infinity and take a picture of a person 1km away, that all three cameras will give you equal detail of the person's face? Or is it more likely that the face is a big blur in the photo taken with the pocket camera, maybe you can make out the features with the 35mm camera, but the face will still be blurred, and the 70mm with by far give the best focused picture of the persons face.

If you want to claim that all three cameras when set to infinity are focused on the persons face 1km away then you are only playing stupid semantic games, and this conversation is a waste of time. As usual, you failed to provide any evidence to back up your claims and interpretations, and you pitch far fetched nonsense as fact.

Sorry, but the infinity setting is not some magical miracle of technology that allows a camera with any good quality lens to take clear focused pictures of anything irregardless of the distance, and the fact that you people make this argument proves how far you are off the deep end.

You want to see pictures of alien school kids going to school on the planet 10B light years away? Yeah, I took pictures of them with my pocket camera, that infinity focus is pretty good. They look so cute in their uniforms.

posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 10:40 AM
reply to post by poet1b

Here's another definition to consider:

point source n (Physics / General Physics) Optics a source of light or other radiation that can be considered to have negligible dimensions

Can you see the disc of the moon? The angular size of the moon is about 30' (1/2º). The moon is not a point source of light.

Your photo isn't bokeh.

[edit on 11/30/2009 by Phage]

posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 10:48 AM
reply to post by ArMaP

I don't understand how you can not tell this on your own. It seems to be that the only purpose of your last several posts is complete obfuscation.

First of all, why didn't you use the picture in the link I provided as an example of SA bokeh? And why don't you provide a link to where you got this picture from?

Maybe I am wrong, but all your effort seems to be aimed at derailing the facts that I am presenting.

In your picture, there are several spheres in the video that look like what your picture describes as perfect lens ideal focus. However, this picture gives a better understanding. It doesn't use such idealistic terms that some people seem to be unable to distinguish from reality.

What we see is that the hollow bokeh is on one side of the video, the consistent filled white sphere is considered in focus, and the faint white sphere is on the other side of focus. In the tether video we see all three of these types of bokeh, which means we have UFOs in front of focus, near focus, and behind focus.

[edit on 30-11-2009 by poet1b]

posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 11:16 AM
reply to post by Arbitrageur

Seriously, you only see one white dot in that picture? Is "embrace ignorance" your motto?

There are 16 white spheres in the still picture you posted, and that is not a good shot from the video. There are literally dozens of white spheres that the links I have provided identify as near the focal point SA. Most of these are moving in various directions, and quite a few change direction. Some even fade, making them look like they are moving away from the shuttle, which would mean further out into space.

Investigation into the nature of bokeh has proved just the opposite of what you have claimed. These white spheres are near the focal point, which should be the tether in this video.

See my above post.

posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 11:33 AM

Originally posted by poet1b
... You have completely ignored the NASA studies, why would you choose to recognize any other evidence that proves you wrong.

By no means. He -- and I -- don't accept YOUR interpretation of how the NASA reports really say that 'Poet has been right all along'.

Poet, please rein in your rhetoric. All it's accomplishing now is to show how stupid you think anyone is who dares to disagree with your theories.

[edit on 30-11-2009 by JimOberg]

posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 11:37 AM
reply to post by Phage

More semantic nonsense that has nothing to do with the topic. Why don't you look up the definition of a point in physics? A point has no length, width, or thickness, it only exists as a mathematical concept. You can't photograph a point, as defined by physics.

Ah, but when you are surveying or navigating, a fixed point can be fairly large, like the sun for example.

posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 12:09 PM
reply to post by poet1b

Phage said point source not "point", and he even linked you to the definition.

Stars (excluding our Sun) are good examples of "point sources", and please don't tell us you can't photograph them.

What is a "70mm camera" anyway? Did you mean "medium format"?

posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 12:17 PM
reply to post by Arbitrageur

there are much better UFO cases to look at than this one

every time i see someone say that ^ my suspicion level about them goes up

just thought you would like to know that

posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 12:23 PM
reply to post by JimOberg

Um, my effort has been to prove that the claims we are seeing close up particles near the shuttle in this tether video are without basis, and so far, I have done a pretty good job. In fact, I would say at this point of the thread, the claims that these are up close bokeh has no legs to stand on, that all evidence points to these spheres being near the tether.

We have a NASA study on particles near the shuttle which explains that when the shuttle first enters orbit, there are numerous particles around the shuttle in orbit, but they fall away quickly, and after a few days on orbit, there are very few of these particles occasionally working their way out of the nooks and crannies of the exterior of the shuttle.

In the same NASA study it also explains that ice particles from water dumps that are seen in the camera for the most part quickly disappear in a matter of minutes, with a few stray particles, as in one or two, stay longer.

Edit to add, In this video we see several dozen white spheres, far more than could be reasonably expect to hang around from a water dump or particles from the shuttle surface this far into the mission.

We have another NASA study which explains that when water dumps are made in the right direction, there is essentially no chance of re-contact, and that re-contact is something they want to avoid, to minimize possible contamination.

We have a scene list from the mission which clearly identifies water dumps, ice crystals, and thruster firings, and makes no mention of these things when describing what we see around the tether when this video was made, in which the scene list describes these white spheres as "debris". If the person paid by NASA to describe these scenes in NASA videos thought these were particles from a water dump, why would that person not describe them as ice crystals from a water dump. It only makes sense that the person paid by NASA to analyze videos might be competent at their job.

The use of the term debris leaves open an extremely wide range of possibilities of what we might be seeing, but because water dumps have been identified specifically, it leaves this out as a possible explanation.

Edit to add, In addition, if these particles were from any water dump still hanging around we should have seen them from the very beginning of the video, as the scene list includes particles seen from a dump even when the shuttle was in the shadow of the Earth. We have a clear video, without particles, looking out into space for the first minute and a half of this famous tether video, and this point alone pretty much conclusively proves that what we see as the tether comes into view came with the tether, and could not be particles near the shuttle. End edit addition.

Research on Spherical Aberration, which would be the best description for what we are seeing in this video shows that these solid white spheres are most likely near the focal point, which should be the tether in this video.

The white spheres around the tether in the video are no more blurred than the tether itself, with the tether thickness so completely exaggerated that it's thickness is approximately equal to the diameter of most of the white spheres we see in this video.

All you need to do is provide an analysis of the points I have made and explain why you think I am wrong, which should also include the evidence to back your claims.

If there can be no known possible explanation for these white spheres in this video, then we should explore alternative theories.

[edit on 30-11-2009 by poet1b]

[edit on 30-11-2009 by poet1b]

posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 12:43 PM
reply to post by C.H.U.D.

Which is bigger in the sky, the sun or the moon?

How can one be a point source but not the other.

Thanks for proving my point.

posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 01:15 PM
reply to post by poet1b

He said the Sun is not a point source of light. He's right. It's about the same angular size as the Moon.

posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 01:32 PM
reply to post by Phage

Oops, I am sorry, Excluding out sun, shows how much attention I paid.

It still has absolutely nothing to do with bokeh or the subject of this thread.

new topics

top topics

<< 99  100  101    103  104  105 >>

log in