New Analysis Video of the STS-75 Tether Incident

reply to post by ArMaP

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

what do you mean "may" ?

i notice everything and you should never forget that.

[edit on 11-12-2009 by easynow]

depthoffield and Arbitrageur

A photographer is an artist, and we aren't talking about art here, we are talking about the camera as an instrument, and no instrument measures into infinity. It is a marketing concept to fool amateurs such as yourselves.

When you buy a camera and lens for instrumentation purposes, you buy one with the range so that you will not be using the infinity adjustment, because you always use an instrument where you are taking values near the mid range.

You have no evidence whatsoever to back up your claims that the camera used for this tether video was focused on infinity at any time. Your claims that the stars were in focus at 2:23 into the original video posted by secretnasaman is ridiculous, that is a period in the film when the picture is the worst.

As I pointed out, the stars appear to be the most in focus during the first 1:30 of the video before the tether is even on the screen, which makes your claims that the camera is adjusted to infinity in this fuzzy portion of the video to be very improbable speculation on your part.

Both of you think you know something about photography, but clearly you don't. The term bokeh is an art term, yet neither of you seem to get that. Spherical bokeh is the most common kind, and that is what we are seeing here, if we are seeing bokeh. As the image I put up earlier clearly shows, if we are seeing camera distortion, we are seeing distortions/bokeh that is both before and after the focal point. AS the information I have already posted shows, even at infinity, the camera is focused on one focal point, the further you get from that focal point, the less sharp, and therefore the more out of focus the image is. This is fine and dandy for an artist putting out 8x10 pictures and talking about circles of confusion, but from an instrumentation point of view, it is not adequate at all.

Easynow is right, this isn't a discussion on the art of photography.

You can take your applause, and with $2.89 in your pocket, go get yourself a cup of coffee.

reply to post by ArMaP

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.

You need to apply that principle to your own conclusions, because your side has yet to come up with any evidence to back your stories, except for some photoshopped stills mixed with your own speculations dressed up as actual information.

Clinging to ignorance, as your side is doing, is not denying ignorance.

Secretnasaman, I can't screen capture anything from your video.

Could you post up a still of 1:15 into the video and 2:32 into the video, which will clearly show that we have a better focused view of the starts at 1:15 as opposed to 2:32 where DoF claims the focus is at infinity.

Originally posted by poet1b
You need to apply that principle to your own conclusions, because your side has yet to come up with any evidence to back your stories,

I can only speak for myself, and I stopped talking about it because it was getting off-topic and I wasn't able to explain myself better.

except for some photoshopped stills mixed with your own speculations dressed up as actual information.

When I present my speculations I present them as that, not as information; when I present information I present it as that. I have even been accused of using "in my opinion" too much, but if anyone thinks that I am doing that just tell me the moment you notice it, so I can correct my fault.

I don't know what "photoshopped stills" you are talking about, so I cannot comment on that.

Clinging to ignorance, as your side is doing, is not denying ignorance.

It's not a question of sides, and if I am "clinging to ignorance", as you say, just point it to me (preferable outside the thread) and explain to me where am I being ignorant and I will do my best to correct it.

Almost everything I learned was because I wanted to, I am never afraid of denying my ignorance (I always get a dictionary when I see a word that I don't know, for example, in any language) and learning is the only thing we can do through all our lives, at any moment, as long as our brain is working as it should.

reply to post by poet1b

If you point me to the video I can do it, if you don't mind a photoshopped still.

PS: I don't use Photoshop for grabbing video frames, I do that inside the video program.

Originally posted by poet1b
depthoffield and Arbitrageur

A photographer is an artist, and we aren't talking about art here, we are talking about the camera as an instrument, and no instrument measures into infinity. It is a marketing concept to fool amateurs such as yourselves.

When you buy a camera and lens for instrumentation purposes, you buy one with the range so that you will not be using the infinity adjustment, because you always use an instrument where you are taking values near the mid range.

You have no evidence whatsoever to back up your claims that the camera used for this tether video was focused on infinity at any time. Your claims that the stars were in focus at 2:23 into the original video posted by secretnasaman is ridiculous, that is a period in the film when the picture is the worst.

As I pointed out, the stars appear to be the most in focus during the first 1:30 of the video before the tether is even on the screen, which makes your claims that the camera is adjusted to infinity in this fuzzy portion of the video to be very improbable speculation on your part.

Both of you think you know something about photography, but clearly you don't. The term bokeh is an art term, yet neither of you seem to get that. Spherical bokeh is the most common kind, and that is what we are seeing here, if we are seeing bokeh. As the image I put up earlier clearly shows, if we are seeing camera distortion, we are seeing distortions/bokeh that is both before and after the focal point. AS the information I have already posted shows, even at infinity, the camera is focused on one focal point, the further you get from that focal point, the less sharp, and therefore the more out of focus the image is. This is fine and dandy for an artist putting out 8x10 pictures and talking about circles of confusion, but from an instrumentation point of view, it is not adequate at all.

Easynow is right, this isn't a discussion on the art of photography.

You can take your applause, and with $2.89 in your pocket, go get yourself a cup of coffee.

Your the one thats wrong once focused past a certain point as far as the lens is concerned its focused at infinity thats what depth of field tables are about.
The term bokeh was from Japan it was used on another thread to give a name to these out of focus points we see on the videos THATS all.
Photography has MANY repeat MANY different forms some art some documentary or scientific to name a few so what you say is BS its not all art!!!.
What you see and call the tether is the static glow around it and not the tether itself.
We have seen the out of focus points of light pop in and out of focus on these videos as the focus changed YOU CANT DENY THAT!
So to try and deny the VARIOUS video/photographic evidence on here which expalins and shows HOW all the things you claim are eveidence for
a) ufo's
or
b) plasma critters
Is a Joke!!
To which I have said before and will say again its funny how
a) MOG from ZOG's UFO looks like an out of focus point of light created by the type of lens used on this camera.
or
b) that Plasma critters evolved to looks like an out of focus point of light created by the type of lens used on this camera.
Both of which are so convenient for YOU!!!
Just because YOU cant understand the concept involved in depth of field of lenses dosen't mean others dont!



[edit on 11-12-2009 by wmd_2008]

sorry everyone for this off-topic.

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by depthoffield

 

stop posting lies

as well as a capture for comments on my profile from Easynow:


(which i will don't delete maybe)

First:
where are my lies? show me or sit down in your corner eating your words!

Second:
I quote our missed(?) fellow Zorgon signature:

"The louder the opposition protests, the more I know I am on the right track"

First i was a spammer, now i am a liar. And i get aplauses for that.
Something is wrong with this forum....or not with it?

Originally posted by easynow
and your sadly mistaken if you think i need clarification from you about anything.

Sorry, i have yet to learn you don't want any clarifications or analysis to be done.






[edit on 11/12/09 by depthoffield]

reply to post by depthoffield

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

right there ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

that is a lie

stop posting lies




thanks.....i like this pic and will save it for later



[edit on 11-12-2009 by easynow]

this pic reminded of you so i posted it on your page





[edit on 11-12-2009 by easynow]

reply to post by wmd_2008

once focused past a certain point as far as the lens is concerned its focused at infinity

Yeah, as far as the LENS IS CONCERNED it is focused at infinity, but as far as reality is concerned, it is not focused into infinity, because that is impossible.

Further more, this is a waste of time because this subject has gone completely off topic.

You all believe what you want to believe, I am through wasting my time on the subject.

Let me get this right, your opinion is that because there are such things as out of focus points of light, anything that you see in a camera that isn't obviously identified must be an out of focus point of light?

That is empirical nonsense.

They don't look like out of focus points of light, they look like glowing orbs. Out of focus points of light look quite different. Sorry you can't tell the difference.

When no other explanation is reasonable, as in the case with this tether video, and the other video of orbs coming up out of storm clouds, then it is time to look for possibilities beyond the what we now know for certain.

We have going on a hundred years of sightings of these orbs, long known as foo fighters, and now we have photographic evidence as well as scientific evidence.

sms.msfc.nasa.gov...

What is Space Plasma Physics?
Our principal objective is to develop an understanding of the physical processes that control the geospace plasma environment and its interaction with both natural and man-made bodies in space. Our unique emphases are on the plasma that originates in the ionosphere, and its heating in auroral-light displays. The heating causes plasma to escape from Earth's gravity, producing a plasma fountain, which in turn has been found to supply plasma to the acceleration regions that generate disruptive space plasma storms. The basic physics of moving plasmas, and their interactions with bodies in space, provide the fundamental basis for our research.

Even NASA acknowledges moving plasmas and their interactions with bodies in space.

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by depthoffield

 

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

right there ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

that is a lie

stop posting lies

that's not a lie, but a conclusion from your behavior.

You reject discussion about NASA camera and principles involved which make the images to be as we see them.

You reject any analysis (well, not any, only those which don't fit your believings or limits) done to this "crappy youtube movie", and want to delay any study until we get the original NASA raw data:

original posted by easynow:
nobody should accept anything less than the raw footage to study

www.abovetopsecret.com...


well, learn to accept any study on what we know related to what we see on video (what copy we have), no matter is against your believings, and i will not conclude anymore that you are against any directly related analysis.





[edit on 11/12/09 by depthoffield]

Originally posted by depthoffield
You reject any analysis

maybe the use of other relevant terms like 'suggestions' 'opinions' 'personal beliefs' 'estimations' guesstimates' (insert your choice) instead of "ANALYSIS" would be more appropriate here....

reply to post by depthoffield


my god your hopeless

i have looked at everything you have posted and it's all very nice work but you seem to want to ignore that what you are using for your analysis is a low quality , compressed , distorted video. (sorry secretnasaman no offense)

you want me to just accept what you have posted proves something. i'm sorry to tell you that IMO what you have done so far is only preliminary evidence.

for me there is no proof in anything you have posted and if you want to confirm your theory's with me then you will need NASA's copy of the video for two reasons...

to verify the footage matches theirs and to have a better copy for a better examination. until i see NASA's copy of the video i can not make any judgment calls about any comparison.

if you feel that you have proved something with what you posted then great ! congratulations you have convinced yourself and a few others. i unfortunately am not satisfied with the current evidence. yes that means it's not good enough for me to say ok that's the unquestionable answer and case closed. why can't you respect my opinion ? you have known what my opinion is for a long time but you still come up in here and post some fantastical lies about me just because i don't agree with you and i want more ?

does the world revolve around you and your opinions ?

Originally posted by depthoffield
Sorry, i have yet to learn you don't want any clarifications or analysis to be done.

looool..... the certitude is killing me......

here is another suggestion......

www.ericberne.com...

Originally posted by wmd_2008
b) that Plasma critters evolved to looks like an out of focus point of light created by the type of lens used on this camera.

what do you mean

like in the sense this christmas tree has evolved into water vapours.....

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3e4a3c80cb71.jpg[/atsimg]



[edit on 11/12/09 by mcrom901]

reply to post by depthoffield

well, learn to accept any study on what we know related to what we see on video (what copy we have), no matter is against your believings, and i will not conclude anymore that you are against any directly related analysis.

LOL

dof that is hilarious !


you are wanting to force me and everyone else to "accept any study" and your opinions and if we don't then you make up lies like what you wrote here...

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

how nice



sorry but some people are not going to accept your weak evidence and FYI i don't have any "believings" ( LOL ) and i don't know what is in this video and neither do you and you trying to FORCE us all into agreeing with you is a sure sign that your closed minded and not willing to even consider anyone else's opinions.

you think you have all the answers don't you ?...LOL.... i'm happy for you and now that you have proven to yourself and a few others what you want to believe then i guess there is no need for you to post in this thread anymore. right ?




[edit on 11-12-2009 by easynow]

reply to post by poet1b


i know it's not easy trying to discuss this topic with skeptics and it can get very frustrating at times. everyone has their own ideas and opinions about this and arguing with the skeptics can be fun at times but ultimately as you already know it's a waste of time.








reply to post by mcrom901


and you too mcrom901 , thank you for all your help and great posts my friend, i sincerely appreciate everything you have contributed to the discussion





[edit on 12-12-2009 by easynow]

Originally posted by easynow
to verify the footage matches theirs and to have a better copy for a better examination. until i see NASA's copy of the video i can not make any judgment calls about any comparison.

Hmmm I thought before a better quality version from secretnasaman would have satisfied you but now it's only the NASA copy?

Here's what's wrong with that approach in my opinion.

We know what a higher quality copy will show and what it won't show. for example, it will potentially show more detail in some of the objects seen. In this case since the objects of interest are mostly out of focus, that's not going to help us a lot.

And what won't the higher quality video show? It won't take a small dot and make it larger and fuzzier while taking large and fuzzy dots and make them smaller and appear to be focused. That's impossible, but that's what it would take to contradict the findings about the focus and distance of the objects of interest being close to the shuttle.

So there is absolutely no reason or logic in saying the analysis doesn't prove the distance of the objects until we get a higher quality video, it does and a higher quality video won't change that.

The ONLY possible logic I can see for doubting depthoffield's analysis based on secretnasaman's video is if you suspect that secretnasaman made some kind of hoax or forgery to alter the images, and I have no reason to believe there has been any alteration of the images aside from standard recording methods and youtube compression.

So, unless you can give a logical explanation of how a higher quality video can make sharper dots fuzzier while at the same time making fuzzier dots sharper, I think you are clinging to false aspirations that a higher quality video will prove anything different about the distance of the objects.

reply to post by Arbitrageur




dude i don't have to prove anything to you

if your satisfied with DOF's evidence then GREAT !

i am happy for you and i can't see any reason you need to post in this thread anymore since you feel it's been explained..... right ?


there are so many things wrong with what you wrote i wouldn't even know where to begin. go back and read the thread and you will see you are making mistakes about what i said. i am not going to keep correcting you everytime you post a bunch of baloney.



[edit on 11-12-2009 by easynow]