It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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: 118
77
share:

posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 08:50 PM

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by poet1b

If the nitrogen tank operates like the light in your refrigerator, then who opened the door?

The tether break.

wow.... bingo.... now i understand why the door of my refrigerator always opens up when the lights go out......

rawstory.com...

[edit on 10/12/09 by mcrom901]

posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 11:40 PM

Sorry, but you cearly do not understand the concept of infinity either. Your insistence on clinging to this sales brochure terminology is really making you both look bad.

The circle of confusion is what determines the end of the depth of field, and the size of the photo determines where the circle of confusion begins, and therefore where the depth of field ends.

You want to use the term practical infinity, go ahead, but it still means the same thing, as good as the lens is capable of focusing, which is not into infinity.

From what I have seen of NASA videos, the stars in this tether video are not nearly was well in focus as they could have been. The stars look more in focus in the first minute and a half of the video than they do throughout the time the tether is on the video, which indicates that the focus is not near infinity.

posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 01:00 AM

Originally posted by poet1b
Clearly you don't understand the concept of infinity.

Yeah right......you make the confusion that (infinite) focus setting is the same with (infinite) resolving power of the camera.

Originally posted by poet1b
You have been taken in by a sales brochure.

No.

Originally posted by poet1b
Just because there is an infinity symbol on the camera doesn't mean that the camera can focus into infinity.

Wrong. It means exactly that. Ask a photographer.

Originally posted by poet1b
Distant objects appear too small to be in focus

They appear too small only because of the focal length of the lens, which determine the magnification value, and also to the resolution of the sensor which define how many pixels reproduce that distant small object. Ask a photographer.

Originally posted by poet1b
None of the stars in this video appear to be in focus.

Tell this to a photographer.

Originally posted by poet1b
Here is a link to numerous stars to show what focus to a distant star looks more like, and none of them are truly in focus.

www.galacticimages.com...

They are in focus. Ask a photographer.

Originally posted by poet1b
Objects whose focus do not change as you describe, you did not label.

Please make the effort and label YOU what you think is rellevant.
And explain ALL the others which i labeled, why they come more or less into focus when the lens is doing the focusing maneuver.

Originally posted by poet1b
For the example you provided, which is probably your best example, the one you label 8 changes in direct relationship to the tether.

wrong. It does the same: near frame 15, it is smallest (sign for best focus), while at the beginning and the end of the focusing maneuver is a little big and fuzzy.

Originally posted by poet1b
I am not even sure what you claim to be a result of focus isn't actually a result of aperture adjustment.

Originally posted by poet1b
He mentions adjusting focus, but says nothing about having to focus to infinity. It sounds like the focus adjustment is considerably less than infinity.

The focusing maneuver happens before any reference to adjusting camera. (~min 2:23 in the secretnasaman's "uncut version"). So "he" doesn't mention anything related to this focusing maneuver. (why to do it?)
It doesn't sounds like you said it sounds. Don't invent words not spoken at the relevant moment.

Originally posted by poet1b
You grab a few snap shots with no time frame reference really doesn't mean much.

yeah, right.... Again i received applause just for something which doesn't mean much according do you. Well, you always could ask a photographer if you have trouble understanding.

[edit on 11/12/09 by depthoffield]

posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 01:06 AM

Originally posted by easynow
is this photography class 101 ?

We talk about NASA cameras and analise what we see in these videos, and try to understand principles of optics which make the things to appear as we seen.

But we already know that you don't any analysis to be done, so, you reject any clarifications.

posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 01:14 AM

Originally posted by mcrom901

thanks for all your hard work..... but what is the point

QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter by Richard Feynman

Light waves incident on a material induce small oscillations of polarisation in the individual atoms, causing each atom to radiate a weak secondary wave (in all directions like a dipole antenna). All of these waves add up to specular reflection (following Hero's equi-angular reflection law) and refraction. Light–matter interaction in terms of photons is a topic of quantum electrodynamics, and is described in detail by Richard Feynman in his popular book QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter.

en.wikipedia.org...

Hello, zorgon.....aaa, escuse me, hello Mcrom901 (seems like you are twins, and this make me to confuse you)

while that study on even Einstein or modern science failure to understand what the light or matter really is, that doesn't mean at all that your camera, your binocular, your telescope (which have optical and physical principles behind them and are made using calculations limited to our current knowledge) don't work or can't be understanded.

By.

posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 01:21 AM

stop posting lies and your sadly mistaken if you think i need clarification from you about anything. doesn't it bother you to know that everything you have posted proves nothing ? wanna know why ?

watching the detectives

[edit on 11-12-2009 by easynow]

posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 01:49 AM

Originally posted by poet1b
You want to use the term practical infinity, go ahead, but it still means the same thing, as good as the lens is capable of focusing, which is not into infinity.

Practical infinity doesn't refer to the lens. The lens is capable of focusing at true infinity, like all lenses with the infinity symbol on the focus ring. This means parallel light rays will be focused to the best of the ability of that lens when it's set to infinity.

How far does a light source need to be to have parallel light rays? Infinitely distant. So even though the lens can focus at "true infinity", there are no objects at a distance of "true infinity".

So "practical infinity" doesn't refer to the lens as you suggest, but instead refers to very distant objects like the tether and the stars in this thread. The light coming from them isn't in perfectly parallel light rays but they are so close to parallel that using the lens setting for parallel light rays (infinity) will still give an in-focus result.

We can see from their attempt to adjust the focus in the tether video that the stars are focused as well as they can be. Thus you have to admit the out of focus objects are closer to the camera, less than 1000 meters away and probably much less.

I think some topics are debatable like "what are the objects in this video" as that has yet to be proven. But the distance of the fuzzy objects being less than 1000 meters away from the camera is not subject to debate, it has been proven and you either refuse to accept, or fail to comprehend, the proof.

[edit on 11-12-2009 by Arbitrageur]

posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 01:51 AM
Bokeh Critter ! LOL

[edit on 11-12-2009 by easynow]

[edit on December 11th 2009 by greeneyedleo]

posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 02:35 AM

it has been proven

wrong !

nothing has been proven

until NASA's copy of the video is examined, no final conclusions can be drawn.

why can't you understand that ? to much maybe ?

[edit on 11-12-2009 by easynow]

posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 03:13 AM

Originally posted by depthoffield
while that study on even Einstein or modern science failure to understand what the light or matter really is, that doesn't mean at all that your camera, your binocular, your telescope (which have optical and physical principles behind them and are made using calculations limited to our current knowledge) don't work or can't be understanded.

oh.... hello photographic 101 detective....

i guess this will explain a few things to you regarding cameras.....

posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 03:30 AM

#2

[edit on 11/12/09 by mcrom901]

[edit on 12/11/2009 by semperfortis]

sorry semperfortis about that.... i was under a different impression i.e. clip links are not part of a large quote....

anyways.... easynow... thanks for that clip which you posted.... my response was to that.....

[edit on 11/12/09 by mcrom901]

posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 04:28 AM

Thanks for sharing this very interesting video mcrom901,

It reminds me of what Hamlet once said to Horatio.

“There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy”.

I really hope Jim will not jump in by asking me again if I please would summarize the relevance of the material to the STS-75 video controversy?

I have take notice of the too large quote intervention semperfortis, you are right and I have no excuse but I sorely pay more attention to it the next time.

[edit on 11/12/09 by spacevisitor]

posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 06:09 AM

I guess that explains it, what we see is the result of the quantum mental interference of someone near the camera.

I suppose you gave debunkers a new tool, now they can say that any unexplained thing on an image is a result of that.

posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 06:20 AM

loool... check the clip easynow just posted.... the 'critter' seems to disappear once near the fov of the astronaut......

posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 06:33 AM
I'll say it one more time, Nasa and astronauts all have seen and witness what is on the sts videos. They are called space critters, not aliens, however, they are intresting, and nasa has tried for many years to come up with a way to catch them. Until that day comes we will not know what exactly they are, but we do know they are a real mystery at this moment in our time.

posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 06:48 AM

Or when the background is brighter than the 'critter', and that would be the expected behaviour of an out of focus small object closer to the camera.

posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 06:50 AM

You can say it any number of times, but if you can provide any evidence that what you say is true then I guess people would start giving more attention to what you say.

posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 06:57 AM

but we don't see any change in focus.........

maybe you're right.... it has something to do with the astronaut's aura....

[edit on 11/12/09 by mcrom901]

posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 07:15 AM

Originally posted by mcrom901
but we don't see any change in focus.........

Sshh, don't talk so loud about focus, easynow may notice it.

There is no need for a change in focus for something to be out of focus.

posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 07:25 AM

looool.... i guess its back to the bokeh dogma..... when will the skeptics smell the coffee in regards to these 'critters'......

[edit on 11/12/09 by mcrom901]

new topics

top topics

77