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: 106
77
<< 103  104  105    107  108  109 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
i think someone should start a thread about it so this thread can continue to be on topic and not be sidetracked by all the camera experts and their opinions about photography.


I don't think photography discussions are any more off topic here than the phase diagrams for water which were discussed to determine that ice particles can exist in space without sublimating so we can't rule them out as a possibility for the objects we see.

Given that photography is the means by which we see these images, and the thread is about what these images show us, it seems to me like photography is extremely ON TOPIC as long as it relates somehow to what the video is showing us.

Now I agree if someone wants to talk about unrelated issues on their 35mm film camera, that could be off topic, and for that reason I didn't even correct poet when he incorrectly stated that 35mm is the distance to the focal plane, it's not, that's the width of the film. So we don't need to be discussing what the 35mm means since this video didn't use a 35mm camera. Discussions like that are off-topic.

But the questions about this video include:
-What are the objects?
-How far are they?
-How big are they?
-Are they in focus?
-Why do some have a donut shape?

To suggest we can resolve those questions without discussing photography is not logical, since photography is at the very core of the last 4 out of those 5 questions, so we can't understand the video without understanding photography (or should I say videography?).




posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


ok i'm gonna make this as simple as i can,

this thread is not photography class 101

if you want to discuss the shuttle camera then that's ok but everything else is off topic and a separate thread should be started for those of you that want to discuss all that. i already said that if something off topic was mentioned Briefly then that would be ok but to make giant posts about Joe Shmoe's 35mm camera or how Joe's camera works or takes pictures is OFF topic.

simple as that and no more arguing about it , thanks


[edit on 2-12-2009 by easynow]



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 03:11 PM
link   
Easynow, it is clear that you don't want analysis to be done (you said it!).
It is clear that you are not objective and fair (open minded) to anything else which is contrary to your opinion about this sts-75 movies, instead you want only this: "dear audience, this movie shows UFO's, don't try to judge the images, don't use your minds, only look of the beauty and mistery of this movie". It seems you are an adept of: "believe but don't scrutinize it".

If you are unhappy about talking about photography/optics principles directly related to this NASA movie, and think they are off-topic, then you could ask moderators or even site owners for this issue, maybe they can understand you. But until then, you should stop spamming this topic with this closed minded attitude/phobia regarding analysis directly related with this sts recordings that shouldn't be done.




[edit on 2/12/09 by depthoffield]



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
are you sure it's plasma ? there really is no way of knowing the composition of any of these objects and just because there is plasma in space does not mean any of them are pure plasma or even partially.
No, I am not sure, that's why I said that it is "the closest to a plasma object that I have ever seen" and not "it was/is a plasma object".

One of the reasons is that it looks to be attracted by the lightning storm and keeps "glued" to that area while the shuttle moves away. So, even if it was not plasma, it behaves in the same way I would expect for an electrically charged object to behave near the upper side of lightning storm.



i wasn't implying the STS75 UFO's were dimensional objects (just wanted to make that clear even though it's possible) what i meant was that some UFO's could be from a different dimension and are able to manifest into our dimensional reality.
I thought it could be something like that.

I am completely ignorant about that subject, so while I think, from what I have read and heard, that it's a possibility, I do not know enough to even comment it.


several ? not according to Oberg...
Without any disrespect to Jim Oberg, who cares? That's his opinion, not mine.
 

no really i asked you three times if someone should start a separate thread about cameras and you keep refusing to answer, why ?
Because I didn't understood it as a question expecting for an answer, sorry.


why is it such a crazy idea ? i think someone should start a thread about it so this thread can continue to be on topic and not be sidetracked by all the camera experts and their opinions about photography. lessens learned from all you cameras nuts discussing it with each other in another thread would be good and interesting and you wouldn't have to be worried about being off topic. why is that such a scary idea ?
The only problem I see with a thread like that is that it could be ignored by people that are interested in this case and in other cases in which the way images are created is important.

From what I have seen that thread would appear as interesting only to the "cameras nuts" and would have much less probability of being useful than an in-thread explanation, although I agree it could be used as reference in threads like this, but only to supplement the information posted, like those links poet1b posted.



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by depthoffield
 


depthoffield, it's clear that your making up fantasies and lies. your juvenile theatrics and delusions of grandeur appear to be quite embarrassing. how long have you had THIS PROBLEM ?











looky here...

this thread is not photography class 101

if you are not discussing the shuttle camera then you have no point


why are you so against starting your own thread about cameras ?



[edit on 3-12-2009 by easynow]



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by spacevisitor
Then after they zoomed in at 0:00: 51 you see again the bigger tether but also many objects/things moving in all directions.
Is it not so then that if the objects/things where indeed close to the shuttle you must have seen them more likely just from the start and not after they have zoomed in, because normally when you zoom in, objects close by are disappearing from view and become therefore in a way not visible anymore instead of appearing and become more and more visible.
Things close to the shuttle may not be visible without the zoom, close in this case is relative to the tether, so something even 100 metres away would be relatively close to the shuttle when compared with 80 nautical miles.

I don't have any idea of real numbers, but I think that it would be normal for things not seen with a smaller zoom could be seen after zooming in.


Then, after again zooming in the objects/things becomes even better visible and now you can see even more details, such as a hole in the center, some sort of indentation at the edge and some sort of pulsating movement around the objects.
You can also see that the tether, without getting bigger, gets wider, making me think that they increased the gain in the camera to make things more visible, so that could explain the fact that more objects are seen.


Then another fact, one can clearly see that some objects/things change direction, which is not possible in space without some internal propulsion system in my opinion.
It's possible, the only thing needed is a force, and that can be internal or external. For something to change direction with external forces it would be needed more than one force, one making it move to the left and the other to the right, for example.


I even forgot to mention, that I personally see very clearly some of the objects/things passing behind the tether, of which I know that many here will disagree with.
Yes, I am one of those that disagree.


I have asked some of the people that say that the objects pass behind why they think that, and the answer is usually "because that's what I see" or something like that. What I think is happening is that the camera electronics were near their limit and the resulting image was not as it should be under normal conditions.

I saw once, during a TV transmission of a MotoGP race, something strange and related to this effect; just before the start of the race, when the pilots are sitting on their bikes with someone by their side holding an umbrella, there was a moment in which the camera showed one red umbrella in front of the other red umbrella from the same team. The resulting superimposition of both bright red umbrellas was an unexpected bright green.



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


Thanks for your answer, I really appreciate it.



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 04:37 PM
link   
Here's the scan of the 'Console Handbook' for the space shuttle
INCO (Instrumentation and Communications Officer) position, that
describes the operating characteristics of the payload bay cameras
used in the late 1980s and most of the 1990s. There were various other cameras on board for specific experiments but these are the cameras that made the most famous 'space shuttle UFO' videos.

As before, would somebody please save these from the temporary storage location onto a site that has some longevity? Thanks!

Space Shuttle CCTV specs pt 1
www.quickfilepost.com...

Space Shuttle CCTV specs pt 2
www.quickfilepost.com...



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 04:39 PM
link   
spacevisitor, did any of these responses help you?


Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by spacevisitor
Is it not so then that if the objects/things where indeed close to the shuttle you must have seen them more likely just from the start and not after they have zoomed in, because normally when you zoom in, objects close by are disappearing from view instead of appearing and become therefore in a way not visible anymore.

Then, after again zooming in the objects/things becomes even better visible and now you can see even more details, such as a hole in the center, some sort of indentation at the edge and some sort of pulsating movement around the objects.

Then another fact, one can clearly see that some objects/things change direction, which is not possible in space without some internal propulsion system in my opinion.

So what is wrong here?




To demand that nearby particles be visible from the beginning of the video sequence you must posit that they are distributed uniformly around the shuttle -- an assumption without any basis. You also have to posit that everything in the camera's field of view, at any range, was sunlit -- when the actual illumination conditions, including the shuttle's own shadow, are unknown (and Poet asserts he doesn't care, that info is meaningless).

That's why it's important to know when sunrise occurred at the shuttle. Poet claims he knows this based on appearance of a glow in the edge of the FOV -- which is indeed often a legitimate indicator. We will shortly get the control center planning document for that day's flight, that gives the exact time of sunrise, and I've asked Poet to tell us what time HE thinks the sun rose, so we can compare it to the NASA document -- but he won't do that.

The appearances of the 'disks' has been pretty well attributed to camera artifacts -- even stars out of focus have 'holes' in the center, and the notches are aligned around the rims consistently based on where in the FOV the disk is seen, pretty clearly assigning that notchiness to a camera artifact.

Some of the dots do change motion, which does not require on-board propulsion. They can be disturbed by thruster firings -- telemetry records would be needed to correlate thruster firings and motion changes (as they precisely match on the infamous STS-48 zig-zag UFO video). Different dots would react differently (or not even react at all) depending on how far they are from the shuttle, or even close enough to be in its plume shadow. It's also been suggested that small ice flakes could shift motion as the water molecules are ejected, under certain stable conditions -- but I haven't run the numbers on this.



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 




nobody thinks these ufo's look like the ones in the video ?



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by easynow

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 




nobody thinks these ufo's look like the ones in the video ?


My first thought in seeing that photo was lights reflected off an inversion layer. Apparently I'm not the only one who had that thought because the photographer was asked if it could be a reflection and he said it could be:

www.slate.com...


"These people interviewed me till I was going out of my head," Alpert recalled. They asked him if what he saw could have been a reflection of some sort. "Sure could," he answered. Inevitably, the press got wind of the hysteria, and Seaman Alpert issued a statement saying, "I cannot in all honesty say that I saw objects or aircraft, merely some manner of lights."


So the eyewitness/photographer described them as "some manner of lights". That appears to be an accurate description if the photograph is a good indication.

I don't think what is seen in the STS-75 video can be described as "some manner of lights", rather, they appear to be solid objects with sunlight reflecting off of them. What some people have called "materializing and dematerializing" of the objects, I think may be the result of the objects entering or leaving the shadow cast by the shuttle, further evidence they are not light sources but rather just solid objects reflecting sunlight.



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 07:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


good find but even he is not sure so they could be ufo's

how about this one from Colares , Brazil ?

www.abovetopsecret.com...








[edit on 2-12-2009 by easynow]



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 02:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
how about this one from Colares , Brazil ?


That's an interesting case, but there are clues it's not a pure plasma craft if that's what you are inferring by asking if it's similar to the STS-75 objects which you think might be plasma..

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Kandinsky



Question — Did you, as did the captain Uyrange Hollanda, the investigation commander, see beings from space?

Wellaide — Yes I did. It was 5 pm in the afternoon at Colares. There was a ship at 50 meters of altitude, above the city's main street. Inside of this ship there was a being, 1.20 or 1.30 meter high.
extract from DOCTOR WEILLADE CECIM SPEAKS OUT


The author of the thread posts this picture suggesting at least the personality of the UFO occupant if not the physical appearance. Two people died and others were injured so apparently it was believed to be unfriendly.



I don't think any beings were observed in the STS-75 orbs so I'd have to say this case doesn't appear to be similar either. The mention of a "being" occupant would also seem to rule out a pure plasma craft or creature.



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 03:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
spacevisitor, did any of these responses help you?


Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by spacevisitor
Is it not so then that if the objects/things where indeed close to the shuttle you must have seen them more likely just from the start and not after they have zoomed in, because normally when you zoom in, objects close by are disappearing from view instead of appearing and become therefore in a way not visible anymore.

Then, after again zooming in the objects/things becomes even better visible and now you can see even more details, such as a hole in the center, some sort of indentation at the edge and some sort of pulsating movement around the objects.

Then another fact, one can clearly see that some objects/things change direction, which is not possible in space without some internal propulsion system in my opinion.

So what is wrong here?




To demand that nearby particles be visible from the beginning of the video sequence you must posit that they are distributed uniformly around the shuttle -- an assumption without any basis. You also have to posit that everything in the camera's field of view, at any range, was sunlit -- when the actual illumination conditions, including the shuttle's own shadow, are unknown (and Poet asserts he doesn't care, that info is meaningless).

That's why it's important to know when sunrise occurred at the shuttle. Poet claims he knows this based on appearance of a glow in the edge of the FOV -- which is indeed often a legitimate indicator. We will shortly get the control center planning document for that day's flight, that gives the exact time of sunrise, and I've asked Poet to tell us what time HE thinks the sun rose, so we can compare it to the NASA document -- but he won't do that.

The appearances of the 'disks' has been pretty well attributed to camera artifacts -- even stars out of focus have 'holes' in the center, and the notches are aligned around the rims consistently based on where in the FOV the disk is seen, pretty clearly assigning that notchiness to a camera artifact.

Some of the dots do change motion, which does not require on-board propulsion. They can be disturbed by thruster firings -- telemetry records would be needed to correlate thruster firings and motion changes (as they precisely match on the infamous STS-48 zig-zag UFO video). Different dots would react differently (or not even react at all) depending on how far they are from the shuttle, or even close enough to be in its plume shadow. It's also been suggested that small ice flakes could shift motion as the water molecules are ejected, under certain stable conditions -- but I haven't run the numbers on this.


Jim, you obviously missed my reaction about your post here.

reply to post by spacevisitor
 



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 03:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 



That's an interesting case, but there are clues it's not a pure plasma craft if that's what you are inferring by asking if it's similar to the STS-75 objects which you think might be plasma..


bro don't put words in my keypad ...lol

i don't claim anything and everything is possible since neither you or i have a piece of any ufo to examine. you making judgments and coming to unfounded conclusions is entertaining and no offense but your post made me laugh


i gotta go , microsoft is trying to take over my computer yikes !





[edit on 3-12-2009 by easynow]



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 03:25 AM
link   
what are the objects that zip by in a straight line? sometimes it looks like pairs of them.

up, down, left, right? how can some forces from the shuttle

affect all the "particles" at the same time in such different ways?



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 03:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I don't think any beings were observed in the STS-75 orbs so I'd have to say this case doesn't appear to be similar either. The mention of a "being" occupant would also seem to rule out a pure plasma craft or creature.


what about the possibility of surface plasmon ?




posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 05:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by mcrom901

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I don't think any beings were observed in the STS-75 orbs so I'd have to say this case doesn't appear to be similar either. The mention of a "being" occupant would also seem to rule out a pure plasma craft or creature.


what about the possibility of surface plasmon ?

Yes as I said in an earlier post, it could be possible for solid objects, (such as particles of insulation debris etc.) if negatively charged, to attract positively charged ions creating a surface plasma effect. That article says surface plasmons can exist at the dielectric interface of 2 materials like metal and air. Would you still call it a surface plasmon if you evacuate the air and have a near vacuum instead, like in the STS-75 video? Because then you no longer have 2 materials as that article defines a surface plasmon. And none of the 8 references in that article apply to any vacuum type applications that I noticed.

In any case the point stands that you could only have plasma orbs form around solid objects and that would apply to surface plasmons too right? (such as in the Earth's atmosphere). Otherwise if there's no solid object I'm not sure how you can have a surface.

However I still don't think the STS-75 orbs are self luminous because the evidence would seem to suggest that they go dark in the shadow of the Earth or the Shuttle. So even if they do attract a little plasma it's apparently not enough to light them up, or not very brightly.

When Buzz Aldrin saw his gloves glowing, apparently it wasn't too brightly because he didn't notice it until his eyes got adjusted to the darkness.

Here's a description from How NASA Learned To Fly In Space - An Exciting Account Of The Gemini Missions (Apogee Books Space Series) (Paperback) by David M. Harland:


By the time they reached Tananrive they were in darkness again and Aldrin was working methodically through the list of stars. To his surprise, repeatedly holding the cable release for the two-minute exposures made his fingers ache. "When I rub my gloves together," he noted in fascination, there is static electricity between them." Once his eyes had fully adapted to the darkness, he had noticed that his gloves glowed. Experimenting, he found that rubbing his thumb against his index finger induced an electrostatic effect, evidently resulting from passing through the ionosphere - in effect, he was flying though a sea of electrons.


www.bautforum.com...

So my expectation is that if there's any ion or plasma glow at all on the STS-75 orbs, and I'm not sure there is, it's too dim to see with the given lighting conditions compared to the much brighter surfaces illuminated by sunlight, even when the orbs move into the shadow of the shuttle and become "invisible" or what some have called "dematerialize". If they were glowing brightly from self illumination they wouldn't go dark like that when they enter the shade.



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 06:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by spacevisitor

I even forgot to mention, that I personally see very clearly some of the objects/things passing behind the tether, of which I know that many here will disagree with.
Yes, I am one of those that disagree.


I have asked some of the people that say that the objects pass behind why they think that, and the answer is usually "because that's what I see" or something like that.

What I think is happening is that the camera electronics were near their limit and the resulting image was not as it should be under normal conditions.


So what you think then is just another view about it right, therefore, the people, and I am one of them, who claim they are convinced they see the objects clearly passing behind the tether could still be right then don’t you think?
And what is so wrong about those cameras.
You think the camera electronics were near their limit.
Jim Oberg and some others are trying explaining it away by blaming it on camera artifacts and such.
How come, because are those cameras then not the very best one can get?

I find zorgon’s posts about this all very compelling, and absolutely worth a read.

www.abovetopsecret.com...&mem=zorgon

After all the information I have read and seen about it, I am convinced that it are definitely objects near the tether which have their own propulsion systems because they move clearly visible in all directions, not only in straight lines, some of their flight path has a curve and some even turn around, and because they are filmed in infrared they must produce heat or emit some sort of pulsating light energy, most likely both and probably because of their propulsion systems.

However, Zorgon’s conclusion is that the objects are what he calls gritters, some sort of 'plasma jelly fish', and I sorely respect his opinion.

My conclusion is that it are ET crafts.


Just my two Euro cents.


[edit on 3/12/09 by spacevisitor]



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 08:29 AM
link   
reply to post by reugen
 



There is another scientist who said if there were thrusters involved then the satellite would have moved...It did not...So...that is a hard sell for me.
I do not believe those were ice particles, but that is just my opinion.

I have made a compilation of the UFO's Shuttle Missions with very intriguing footage. I did not however include the Tether Incident since I thought it too bizzare with all of those whatever they were flying around. Far too ambigious for me. And too there were camera(lens) issues as well

Ironically zooming in causes whatever object is there to take on the distortion of the lens. You can see that in many UFO videos. The person is zooming in and the sphere is considered some kind of UFO when in fact the orbish effect is caused by the zooming distorting the light.

I also did a video on Space Debris and they are tracking every piece of it. Pretty polluted out there.



new topics

top topics



 
77
<< 103  104  105    107  108  109 >>

log in

join