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.
Originally posted by JimOberg
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.
Originally posted by easynow
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
Originally posted by poet1b
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.
Originally posted by poet1b
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 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.
Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by JimOberg
And your fantasy seems to be that anything that doesn't match your theories and your view of the fact means that who ever was involved is incompetent. Apparently in your mind, nobody knows what they are doing except you.
Originally posted by badw0lf
I wish this topic would involve a range of conclusions beyond "Ice debris" and "Intelligently controlled craft".
In the deepest oceans are forms of life adapted to existing in an extreme environment.
Why not the upper atmosphere or lower orbit? As someone else pointed out in another thread, if a Mosquito can survive in space, why not something that evolved to that very same harsh environment?
It wasn't till we looked at thermal lava vents in the deepest oceans that we discovered thriving colonies of life adapted to exist there and there alone.
Why does anything up there require it to be intelligently controlled?
Just wondering why the debate seems to continue the mutually explicit outcome of Ice debris or Spaceman ponderings...
[edit on 7/6/2009 by badw0lf]
I can, I just wanted to know your opinion about it.
Originally posted by poet1b
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.
Because the image I posted has all the possibilities, and I wanted to know what is your opinion about them when compared with the video.
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?
You are wrong and right at the same time.
Maybe I am wrong, but all your effort seems to be aimed at derailing the facts that I am presenting.
That's why I posted "my" image, because it shows that the out of focus point of light (or more correctly, the small bright object) has that surrounding halo even in a theoretically perfect lens with no spheric aberration.
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.