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 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.
The conversation can also be about how cameras
No problem.
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.
I am not ignoring it.
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.
Sorry, I forgot it. Even knowing that I had found that image in one of your posts I had some trouble finding it again.
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.
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 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.
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.
If you can't explain the reason for your opinion, then you need to start considering that you are wrong.
Originally posted by Melyanna Tengwesta
The Universe is like Earth: it's crowed with Life
Anyway thats what I believe.........
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I also agree with Armap... talking about camera,
Well, my thoughts are the only thing I can be sure about (almost).
Originally posted by easynow
that's alot of "i think's" there ArMaP
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.
there is probably somekind of plasma type ufo that is in outerspace and enters our atmosphere.
Are sure it was plasma?
i have seen it with my own eyes.
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.
there are too many ufo reports about ships made of "light" to ignore.
Well, my thoughts are the only thing I can be sure about (almost).
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.
Are sure it was plasma?
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.
the fact that Oberg has been working on this for over ten years and this thread is over 100 pages proves my point.