New Analysis Video of the STS-75 Tether Incident

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.


toothwalker.org...






[edit on 30-11-2009 by poet1b]

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.

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]

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.

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"?

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

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.

ntrs.nasa.gov...

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.

www.dtic.mil...

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.

files.abovetopsecret.com...

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.

toothwalker.org...

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]

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.

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.

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.