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: 104
77
<< 101  102  103    105  106  107 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
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.


My interpretation can be related to the 2nd illustration in this diagram:



By "inside" I understood them to be referring to a point to the right of the left focal point (outside the camera).

But that's a good question as there is another focal point inside the camera too as that diagram shows to the right of the lens, so "inside" is a bit ambiguous and I can understand why you asked. So it wasn't crystal clear to me either exactly what they meant.

But I took "inside" to mean inside the external focal point, not inside the camera.

[edit on 30-11-2009 by Arbitrageur]




posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


If you have a theory, or hypothesis as to how the camera could be creating these spheres, then what is it? Without a plausible theory for this, there is no reason to think the camera is creating the illusion of these spheres.



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 08:00 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 



The conversation can also be about how cameras


it's straying to far off the main topic of the thread. imo any discussion about any camera other than the shuttle camera is irrelevant. it has done nothing to help so far.

maybe someone could start their own thread about cameras ?



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
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.
No problem.



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.
I am not ignoring it.

I don't know if you remember it, but some months ago I even said that there was no way for us to be sure of what those small bright objects are, ice crystals, debris, even plasma life forms; the video only will never clear that doubt.


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.
Sorry, I forgot it. Even knowing that I had found that image in one of your posts I had some trouble finding it again.



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 was trying to use my questions to see if your answers would make you see things from my point of view, sometimes it works.


If you can't explain the reason for your opinion, then you need to start considering that you are wrong.
That's the problem, I think that I have explained it in the best way I can, but words were never my strongest point, even in Portuguese.

That's why I suggested that you talk to a photographer, because I think I do not know how to explain to you what I mean, I'm out of ideas.

And I am always open to the possibility that I may be wrong (being a programmer I am constantly confronted with situations in which I am wrong, and we cannot argue with a computer, it just does what we tell it to do, so it's always our fault
), but I have seen this type of thing for so many years in my sister's work and in recent years in my own tests, that I find it difficult for it be a misunderstanding on my part.



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by easynow
 

The way lens work is the same, regardless of the camera, that's why I consider it part of the topic.



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 08:15 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


it would be ok to mention something briefly but now everyone is posting gigantic illustrations and posts about cameras and that is not the topic of this thread.

should someone start a thread about cameras ?



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Melyanna Tengwesta
The Universe is like Earth: it's crowed with Life

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


cherio.... check page 96.... i had made a post concerning plasma life forms....




posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 01:10 AM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


It seems to me that you have made up your mind that the spheres we see are particles close to the shuttle, so when you say that several months ago that there is no way to be sure, and yet you continue to support the claim that they are particles near the space shuttle, seems to be in conflict.

If you have ever stated your explanation for what you believe, please restate it, because I must have missed it.



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 01:56 AM
link   
reply to post by mcrom901
 


In my opinion, all explanations that what we see is debris from the shuttle has essentially been eliminated. Until someone comes up with a plausible explanation otherwise, the issue is pretty much dead.


This leaves plasma as the prime possibility in my opinion. The Earth is surrounded by a plasma sphere, it makes sense that the things seen in the videos that no further explanation has yet to be offered are most likely plasma. There is scientific evidence that plasma forms in manners that are similar to cellular life forms as we know them.



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 05:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


originally posted by Armap

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.


I meant to get back to you on this.

All lenses have two focal points, the one in front, which is the subject the lens focuses on, and the one behind, where the image of the subject is focused on the sensor or film.

For most camera lenses the front focal point is a long ways away, say a 100 meters, the information on this was fairly vague, but the idea is that you can focus on things a considerable distance away from the camera lens.

The focal point in the rear is very close, and very critical. A 35mm camera lens is design to focus approximately 35mm to the rear. When the focus is set to infinity, that is where the rear focus of the lens is concentrated. This is also the range of the greatest field of depth, because this is the distance the lens was designed to focus.

The thing is, that the camera is also focusing on a single point in front of the lens, and that is where the absolute best, sharpest focus is obtained. The further you go from that focal point in every direction the less sharp your picture is, and the less in focus things are, but this sharpness declines very slightly, so technically you are in focus until definition or resolution of the images on your film or sensor reaches the edge of the depth of field, and enters the circle of confusion, where the focus has degraded to a point where it is no longer acceptably focused.

This explains why you do not simply set your focus to infinity and shoot away, because while technically you are in focus at the infinity setting for most shots, when the subject you are photographing is much closer than the optimum front focal point, you can get a much sharper, more in focus, picture by moving the lens closer to the film or sensor to obtain the optimum focus for the distance of subject of the photo. Remember the ratios are much different. The desired Focus point in front of the lens might be half the distance from the optimal front focus point, but only slightly in front of the optimal rear point of focus.

This adjustment of focus for closer shots narrows the depth of field, because it is not the focal distance to the film or sensor that the lens was designed for. This is why when you adjust the focus to less than infinity you see a lot more areas of the photo distinguishably out of focus.

Hope this helps.



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by ArMaP
 



The conversation can also be about how cameras


it's straying to far off the main topic of the thread. imo any discussion about any camera other than the shuttle camera is irrelevant. it has done nothing to help so far.


I also agree with Armap... talking about camera, NASA camera, or other cameras, optics, principles involved is extremely relevant to understand an image produced by a camera based on some optical and physical principles.

You may forget that you don't see reality here, but only an image produced by an equipment which obey to optical and physical principles.
Of course, this image is a good or less good representation of reality, but also a representation of other factors involved in producing an image, like depth of field, exposure, blooming, contrast, perspective, noise in image, and of course your foe: "the bokeh".

We talk about cameras, just like there was discussion about the tether physics involved or water sublimation in space etcetera.
It is an analysis of all the mundane aspects which put or can put their marks on what we finally see and understand. You should never ignore this aspects, unless you are subjective.

This is called critical thinking.




[edit on 1/12/09 by depthoffield]



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
In my opinion, all explanations that what we see is debris from the shuttle has essentially been eliminated. Until someone comes up with a plausible explanation otherwise, the issue is pretty much dead.


Your opinion could be wrong. Exactly like sublimation of ice in space opinion. Or exactly like your opinion about Spherical Abberation which you say it is seen on a well focused image. Or many others..

But you are stuck in denying and twisting almost everything which don't fit in your theories. I told you, you could be a very good lawyer. It is a compliment this.





[edit on 1/12/09 by depthoffield]



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


Thanks, poet1b and Arbitrageur I think I understand now what they mean.



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by mcrom901
 

This leaves plasma as the prime possibility in my opinion. The Earth is surrounded by a plasma sphere, it makes sense that the things seen in the videos that no further explanation has yet to be offered are most likely plasma.


Yes there is plasma in Earth orbit. But plasma is ionized gas, not a solid, and the video appears to show solid objects.

Without any solid objects to be attracted to (like ice particles, or insulation debris etc), can that plasma independently form objects which can be photographed? Is there any evidence for this (photographic or otherwise?)

My opinion on why it is highly unlikely plasma can congregate to form orbs in Earth orbit which can be photographed is based on the electrical charge of plasma. There are one or more electrons missing from the atoms of the ionized gas called plasma. The missing electrons means that the remaining atomic nuclei have a net positive charge. Remember that opposite charges attract and like charges repel? So if plasma atoms start trying to move together, what happens to them? Their like, positive charges should repel them from each other, and force them apart, right?

The only thing I'm aware of that would hold positively charged ions together into orb shapes in Earth orbit would be a solid object. Put a negatively charged object in space and if it can keep its excess electrons, it would attract positively charged ions. But what we would be photographing in that case would be a solid object surrounded by plasma, and not a pure plasma object.

The Sun is a ball of plasma but it requires large amounts of mass to make a strong enough gravitational force to overcome the electrical repulsion of the ionized gas. So we can see plasma in large balls like stars only when there is lots of mass present.

But electrical forces are many times more powerful than gravitational forces as electric universe theory proponents fondly and correctly state, so you won't have gravitational forces overpowering electrical forces on the plasma in Earth orbit to form the plasma into orbs.

I don't know what other forces would accumulate the plasma into orbs like we see in the STS-75 video. I see plasma funneled into bands in the ionosphere by the Earth's magnetic field, but there we have a known force capable of moving the ions closer together in bands. Is there any known force that can overcome the positively charged ions' electrical repulsion from each other to move them closer together into orbs in Earth orbit, aside from attraction to an oppositely charged solid object?

If so what is the nature of that force? Gravity isn't strong enough unless you already have a large mass like a star, and electromagnetic forces would do the exact opposite of what you suggest, they will keep plasma ions apart rather than pulling them together. The only other two known forces are subatomic and don't apply above the subatomic scale. (Actually we now think there are only 3 known forces instead of 4 but that revelation doesn't change this argument).

Or are you suggesting that plasma forming onto orbs is caused by an unknown force?



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


This last post of yours ( www.abovetopsecret.com... ), describing infinite, depth of field, is almost correct. But you make a bad confusion. I hope, was only a simply mistake from you because of some rush.


Now what is wrong:


Originally posted by poet1b

This explains why you do not simply set your focus to infinity and shoot away, because while technically you are in focus at the infinity setting for most shots, when the subject you are photographing is much closer than the optimum front focal point, you can get a much sharper, more in focus, picture by moving the lens closer to [further from] the film or sensor to obtain the optimum focus for the distance of subject of the photo. Remember the ratios are much different. The desired Focus point in front of the lens might be half the distance from the optimal front focus point, but only slightly in front of[behind] the optimal rear point of focus.


Above:
With RED are your WRONG original statements.

With BLUE are the corrections needed.




Anyway, reading your post, i understand that you agree how depth of field works. So you agree, that when you set the lens to infinity, and it happens to have objects closer than hyperfocal distance, therefore outside of the depth of field (closer than near limit) in this setting, so these close objects will be out of focus. Therefore, if you may want to make focus on this closer objects, you may lose the sharpness of the infinite objects (objects on infinite going out of focus). Also, if many objects are closer, but not all of them at the same distance from the camera, and you try to focus on them, some of them could be inside the depth of field, therefore appearing sharp, but others still outside, therefore still out of focus (more or less).
The degree of the out of focus appearance speaks how your focus is more or less near those objects.






[edit on 1/12/09 by depthoffield]



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by depthoffield
 



I also agree with Armap... talking about camera,


this thread is not about cameras and you only agree with ArMaP because you like photography. this thread is about the STS75 video and ufo's if you want t to keep making huge posts about cameras then please start your own thread about cameras



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 

I think that those things are small objects near the shuttle, and I also think that we do not have any way of knowing what they were; ice crystals, real debris, plasma creatures, small crafts, whatever. There is no conflict between those two opinions.


I think it may be a good time to recap what I think about this video:
 

1. I think those objects are out of focus small, bright (reflective) objects relatively near the shuttle.

2. I think the most probable explanation for those objects is that they are ice crystals.

3. I think that we will never really know what those objects were, it's impossible to identify them just by the way they look, specially if they really were out of focus.

4. Although most objects move in the same way, I don't have any explanation for the changes in direction, either the more common ones (moving towards the bottom of the screen) or the smaller changes (some even zigzagging) that I didn't noticed at first.

PS: I think I talked about everything, if I missed something just say and I will add it.



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


that's alot of "i think's" there ArMaP

i think we are no closer to the truth then when this thread started and i also believe we will never know what those objects are. the fact that Oberg has been working on this for over ten years and this thread is over 100 pages proves my point. there is probably somekind of plasma type ufo that is in outerspace and enters our atmosphere. i have seen it with my own eyes. there are too many ufo reports about ships made of "light" to ignore.





ufocasebook.com...



[edit on 1-12-2009 by easynow]



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
that's alot of "i think's" there ArMaP
Well, my thoughts are the only thing I can be sure about (almost).



there is probably somekind of plasma type ufo that is in outerspace and enters our atmosphere.
I don't know, the one seen on the STS-80 (I think) does not look like it enters the atmosphere, I don't think if the ionosphere would "agree" with plasma objects crossing it.


i have seen it with my own eyes.
Are sure it was plasma?


there are too many ufo reports about ships made of "light" to ignore.
Yes, but there are also visions of saints, the Virgin Mary, etc., so although I think that there is a strong evidence for some unknown I don't have any theory about it.



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 



Well, my thoughts are the only thing I can be sure about (almost).


some say reality is perception , but is your perception accurate ?



I don't know, the one seen on the STS-80 (I think) does not look like it enters the atmosphere, I don't think if the ionosphere would "agree" with plasma objects crossing it.


so you think the famous object in the STS80 video is a UFO ? i think it's possible that these UFO's are dimensional and you have no way of really knowing if the ionosphere would be a problem. open your mind and think outside the box , being overly skeptical is not healthy




Are sure it was plasma?


Above Top Secret info that i cannot discuss , sorry




Yes, but there are also visions of saints, the Virgin Mary, etc., so although I think that there is a strong evidence for some unknown I don't have any theory about it.


some of those visions were witnessed by thousands of people so there is more than strong evidence to support that something is visiting this planet and has the capabilities to intermix in different dimensions.

i see you ignored what i said here...why ?

the fact that Oberg has been working on this for over ten years and this thread is over 100 pages proves my point.


there is no conclusion after all these years , doesn't that mean something ?



new topics

top topics



 
77
<< 101  102  103    105  106  107 >>

log in

join