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: 103
<< 100  101  102    104  105  106 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 02:08 PM

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.

Indeed, i think you are right, the most important aspect is CULTIVATING AUDIENCE and from here could obtain most of the money, indirectly by selling ad space, having percents from TV/shows/conferences earnings, copyright payments etcetera.

Produce the material, give it maximum shining sex-appeal, promote it, find target audience and feed it's interest. Cultive the audience and you will have it. If you do all of this with care, taking in account all aspects and do well your job, you will earn money/benefit.

It's about show-business.

posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 02:17 PM

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

Maybe my humor is a little too subtle for some folks here but when I put a laughing out loud emoticon after my QUESTION asking if this thread could be not genuine but instead a false conspiracy theory, that emoticon is supposed to indicate I'm not serious about it.

The fact that Easynow made comments to cast dispersions on Jim Oberg and then posted that video I didn't really take as a joke, but my point wasn't that this thread is a conspiracy, but rather my point was that if you want to start hurling unfounded accusations of disinfo without any proof, they can can be hurled in any direction.

And just to be not so subtle since subtlety didn't work last time, I don't think this thread is a false conspiracy theory, nor do I think Jim Oberg is a disinfo agent. I don't think I've seen any of the stuff the video easynow posted going on in this thread (though some threads outside the UFO section I have some real questions about the possibility of paid staffers writing some of the posts).

Regarding there being other better UFO cases, as I said in my last post, I don't even consider what's seen in this STS-75 video to be UFOs but rather UDPs. But this case is interesting for psychological reasons. When someone familiar with photography (like depthoffield) explains something about photography to people not familiar with photography, there are fascinating insights into the human mind about the way this information is processed by different participants in this thread.


Back to the bokeh topic, it is correct to say the moon isn't a point source of light (nor is our sun) but other stars besides our sun can be considered point sources. Therefore the picture of the moon posted by poet doesn't meet the definition of bokeh.

Nothing in photography is really a true point, nor is any distance of a photographic light source truly infinite. These terms of "point" and "infinity" are practical approximations used for photographic purposes and therefore do not have the same rigorous definitions they do in math and physics.

Well in the case of infinity focus it might have the same definition, because true infinity focus is for parallel light rays. But since no source is infinitely distant, the source rays may be considered practically parallel instead of truly parallel which is close enough for the lens to work well when set to focus parallel rays at an infinity setting.

posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 02:21 PM
here come the posts from the non believers who have never seen a ufo

the agents are easy to spot

posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 02:31 PM
another examination video of the STS75 incident

[edit on 30-11-2009 by easynow]

posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 02:32 PM

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.

Poet, I can't find a single assertion you make claiming that it's based on a NASA report, that indicates you really understood the NASA report from the beginning. I can't even see a productive way to begin refuting your self-serving misinterpretation-based claims. This is a real challenge.

Do you believe there's ANYBODY out there who understands the behavior of shuttle-generated debris better than YOU think YOU do? Who, maybe? somebody who's actually worked in the field, maybe?

posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 02:47 PM
Well, a partial attempt...

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.

Shuttle-generated debris can be created by a long list of post-launch events, ranging from water dumps, trapped ice release, payload deploys, thruster firings and prop valve leaks, water dumps, airlock depressurization, insulation blanket/tile/gapfiller detachment, other mechanism detachment (EG, rudder hinge cover), flash evaporator operation, APU tests, EVA operations, mechanical gimbel/hinge motion, MMOD impacts, to list a few. These occur throughout missions and flurries of debris, or ones and twos, are seen throughout missions.

They are NOT all catalogued on Scene Lists, which uses one-liner descriptions from a/g crew comments to affix memory-jogging terms to each scene.

...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.

You, of course, define 'reasonable' as 'agreeing with MY interpretation'

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.

And we have videos showing this is not entirely true -- that even in a dump stream, especially near its end, many many particles are seen ricocheting back towards the shuttle.

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.

This really is YOUR problem -- you fantasize the mental processes of people you have never even MET. And on that fantasy, you make the claim for evidence. Do you even know the name of anybody doing this work, or do you imagine that you are telepathically capable of divining the internal workings of their job performance? Or for YOU to judge their -- or anyone's at NASA -- competence?

posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 02:50 PM
reply to post by Arbitrageur

Bokeh has nothing to do with the physics definition of point source of light, and the sad fact that you guys somehow think that it does continuous to prove how little you understand.

Bokeh is an ARTISTIC term photographers use to describe the out of focus elements in their pictures. When a site on photography talks about "out-of-focus points of light" it has nothing to do with physics. The fact that you and those on your side of the debate are trying to mix art with science make you no different than than all the clowns who preach these alternative theories as reality. You continuously throw these snide remarks out as if you are saying something intelligent, and you only make yourselves look bad.

While you and Dof might be into photography, this discussion has illustrated that you don't understand the technology behind it, nor apparently the artistic concepts. If you knew what you were talking about, then you would have been able to link to sites that back up your claims, something which you failed at miserably.

You have yet to say one thing that refutes the evidence I have laid out with the accompanied links that back up the points I have made which essentially prove that these are not particles close to the shuttle that we are seeing in the tether video.

posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 03:05 PM
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.

What are you trying to tell us, the guy writing the scene descriptions doesn't have anything else to go off, like logs of mission activities and all that? Maybe somebodies relative was hired to write these scene lists because they are a joke, just a waste of taxpayer money?

They were concerned about shuttle attitude for the crystal experiments, so they weren't launching any deep space probes at the time of the video.

Besides throwing out a list of possibles, do you have any reasonable belief that something was happening that could have created some sort of burst of particles that appear to be moving around the tether as in the video?

Do you even understand the concept of reason?

posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 03:17 PM

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.

You're play acting at telepathic insights again, pretending you're reading my mind to generate faux-evidence, again. Time for all of us to cool off and grapple with facts again.

Here's a way.

Let me go get the MCC console procedures book from the INCO console that describes CCTV operations and operating characteristics and post it for wider reading.

posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 04:11 PM
There are many things that could be said about paid agents, and many things that could be said about who is making money with what (I had a complaint on YouTube from the "copyright holder" of the video of the tether moving away after breaking...), but this is not the place for it, right?

It's not the place to attack each other's way of thinking or any possible motives behind each one's actions, we are supposed to be discussing the STS-75 video.

So, back on topic, OK? Thanks.

posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 04:37 PM
reply to post by JimOberg

Telepathy, I'm way past that. I'm like Capt Piccard on X-men, I make you write foolish posts for my amusement.

Yeah, let's review MCC console procedures, and to think I used to get paid for stuff like that.

posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 05:19 PM

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]

Good reply!

If you go to You Tube and search for 'Deep Sea' or 'Jellyfish', you can watch some darn good video's about deep sea creatures.

Some Jellyfish even move like the 'round objects' filmed around the Tether.

I am convinced that there is LIFE in Space, just everywhere in Space but that it's not all intelligent life as we know it. There can be organisms of just a few cells moving around there.

Somehow, in my view on things, it's not more then logic that what is down here on Earth, is 'up there' in Space too. Maybe slightly different and in a shape we haven't seen yet.

The Universe is like Earth: it's crowed with Life

Anyway thats what I believe.........

posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 05:44 PM

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.
I can, I just wanted to know your opinion about it.

And you can be sure that my purpose is never obfuscation, on the contrary, I always try (as in this case) to make as much people see things for themselves, but, naturally, if I see someone on the wrong track I try to show it to that person.

My methods may not be the best (I never thought of myself as a good teacher), but when I see that I cannot explain my point of view in a comprehensible way I try to change the way I talk to other people.

I think I know how you could understand what I want to say, but I haven't found any site that explains it that way (and before someone turns this into something it is not, that is not meant to mean that you are not able to understand it, just that I think that I understand now the type of data presentation with which you are more comfortable. Sorry if that explanation was not good either).

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?
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.

I got that image from one of the pages you posted, this one.

Maybe I am wrong, but all your effort seems to be aimed at derailing the facts that I am presenting.
You are wrong and right at the same time.

You are wrong because I do not want to derail the facts that you are presenting, but you are right because I think you are wrong with what you present; not the data itself but your interpretation of what it means.

And I only want you to understand how things really work. If I learn something during the process, even better.

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.

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.

One thing I don't understand (as you can see I have no problems in showing my ignorance, I am always looking for ways to reduce it) is what they mean by "inside" and "outside" focus on the image I posted and by "when the film is 5 mm in front of the best focus" on the page from where you got the image you posted. Does it mean that they are talking about out of focus inside the camera, like the example in another site, where they used a piece of film to change the distance to the lens, meaning a bad camera/lens assembly/construction?

Maybe someone could explain it here? Thanks in advance.

posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 07:26 PM
is this thread about cameras ?

just wondering

posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 07:29 PM
reply to post by easynow

As far as I understand it, it's about the STS-75 video.

Considering that the video is a direct result of the camera and the scene "seen" by the camera, I think both the scene and the camera are part of the topic.

posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 07:33 PM
reply to post by ArMaP

so the conversation should be about the shuttle camera ?

i don't see why anyone elses camera is important here

posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 07:37 PM
reply to post by easynow

A specific camera may be important if similar to the one used or if used to try to reproduce what we see.

Generic information about how cameras work is also relevant, after all, the result of that is what we are basing our opinions on.

PS: both this and my previous post are just my personal opinion.

posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 07:39 PM
reply to post by ArMaP

so then the conversation is about cameras and not the STS75 video ?

posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 07:45 PM
The conversation can also be about how cameras create what we see, to help us to understand what we are seeing in the video.

Don't you agree that knowing if we are looking at objects near the shuttle or near the tether is important?

Knowing how things near the shuttle and things far away look could helps us getting nearer to an understanding of the whole situation.

posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 07:50 PM
reply to post by ArMaP

Sorry if I misjudged your intent, it just seems that some posters want to grab onto some little side issue, and claim if I misrepresented something slightly off that is adequate to derail the whole point, when usually it is not critical at all, or even pertinent.

I also find it extremely frustrating that you, and everyone on your side of the debate continue to ignore the evidence presented in the NASA reports. No one as yet has came up with any logical reason why we would be seeing ice particles from a waste water dump when it simply does not hang around, and should have been visible from the beginning of the video. To pretend that these facts, and they are facts within a reasonable degree of uncertainty, why isn't anyone on your side of the debate willing to give any level of acknowledgment of this. Jim seems to be the only one on your side willing to hint at some level of recognition that the the whole water dump theory is dead. Maybe if Jim comes up with a report of a water dump withing a half an hour, or some other mission activity that could have generated particles, the close up particles could be considered a realistic possibility, but only then.

I thought I recognized that image you posted, but there have been a lot of links posted, and I shouldn't have to go hunting for the link, when you had to have the link in order to post the image.

If you think I am wrong about my interpretation of the information available, then you should at least make an attempt to to explain why you think I am wrong using logic and reason, instead of asking me for more explanation of why I have came to my opinion, considering that I have laid out the logic and reason for my opinion over and over.

I have presented my theory. What is yours?

If you can't explain the reason for your opinion, then you need to start considering that you are wrong.

<< 100  101  102    104  105  106 >>

log in