New Analysis Video of the STS-75 Tether Incident

Originally posted by poet1b
It is clearly obvious to me that when focused on the stick in the background of the head of the pin, that the head of the pin passes in front of the stick. I can clearly see the distortions of the color of the stick as the head of the pin passes over it. These distortions of the color are not easy to see, as the head of the pin appears almost translucent, but they are visible to any careful observer.

It may be clearly for you because you know it's going in front, and all the experiment tells that. And it may be clear because that's what you want to be.
Regardind "distorsions":

1) NASA images in STS-75 are NOT in color.
2) NASA images have the whites blown way up, beyond linear curve of the image gradation, going to the domain of superexposure
3) you may see distorsions in my movie because of youtube heavy compression or my camera mpeg compression, or a sum of them.
4) My camera is not NASA camera

I'm talking about BASIC PRINCIPLE involved here

Originally posted by poet1b

The proposed discrepancies in the distance of any ice crystal in proportion to the distance of the tether, and any reasonable possible size of these ice crystals, means that when focusing in on an object a short distance away like 5 meters, the tiny object a meter in front of your camera almost disappears.

............

TRANSLATION - No way could these UFOs be tiny ice crystals or meteorites a few meters in front of the camera. The focus of the camera on the tether, 160 to 180 KM away according to a recently posted link, means that tiny ice crystals of meteorites would not be visible,

Seems you are unaware of what DEPTH OF FIELD in optics is. (or hyperfocal distance is). No big deal not knowing those tiny principles generally speaking, but it becomes painful when supporting your thoughts on incorrect assumptions.

The fact that my ropes are 5 meters away doesn't change the BASIC PRINCIPLE. You want me to recreate the experiment with some "infinite" distant objects, just to convince you that INDEED LITTLE OBJECTS NEAR THE LENS CAN APPEAR IN IMAGE (ussualy greatly defocused).

To Zorgon:

You pushed very hard that the tether is glowing primary because of some plasma generated effect, and because of this, it is very thick in NASA STS-75 famous UFO sequences.


I personnally don't deny that a glowing exist there because of ionised plasma generated by the long tether speeding through very rarefiated and ionised high atmosphere, and magnetic and electic field of the Earth or solar wind, because, like you showed, for example, some scientific studies, that plasma effect is there, detected by the scientists.

Just, in my opinion, this glowing is a very faint one.
The main reason why tether is visible is just because is lit by the sun. Nothing more.

I asked you before, seems you didn't notice my question here www.abovetopsecret.com...


Ok, i will be more precise:

Below are sequences of tether when broke, presented by astronauts in the missions archives here: www.nss.org... (go for STS-75 to see the full brief of the mission)

Here are the sequences:



Notice an example where tether is seen by ground amateurs.



Now, tell me WHERE IS YOUR PLASMA GLOW?

All i see is a thin tether lit by the sun. Nothing more. But the tether already has 20 km, and is flying already with it's orbital velocity.
Where is the plasma glow? You see, is not visible there. Because is too faint.

Don't tell me that the M. Stubbs videos are taken with that TOP special camera, because is not, there are various indices showing that is an ordinary low light remote controlled camera bay. Yourself showed sequences taken by that TOP special camera, which presented some bands of text with marks and variuos details. And if i remember that camera is a hand-held one.


Anyway, plasma glow or not, it doesn't matter for those "UFOs".



[edit on 14/6/09 by depthoffield]

reply to post by poet1b




SEEING as you seem to completely ignore this video another link for you.

Blurry spec of paint which I make pop into focus brielfy is about 3ft from camera lens its also about 1.5-2mm across.
Now IF YOU BOTHER to watch the video although its 2mm or less across and 3 ft away when camera focused on outside view the clouds are at least 2 miles away when can still see the tiny 2mm out of focus spec on the window. SO THAT PROVES all thoses white objects could easily be within a few feet of the camera and be tiny specs of dust or ice crystals and still show
Look up depth of field and find out how its related to lens aperture ,focal length and point of focus.

tinypic.com...

[edit on 14-6-2009 by wmd_2008]

Originally posted by depthoffield


Now, tell me WHERE IS YOUR PLASMA GLOW?

That footage in your last post was not filmed with the Tether Optical Phenomena Experiment camera system.

The STS-75 Tether UFO footage and the footage you just offered for comparison are shot with different imaging systems.

You should know this....

[edit on 14-6-2009 by Exuberant1]

Originally posted by poet1b
Conspiracy theorist are people who figured out that the official version, and what really happened are often very different things, and are therefore suspicious of the government, and all institutions in general.

No, they are people that think that they figured out that the official version, and what really happened are often very different things, that is why there is the word "theorist".

reply to post by Exuberant1


The only problem I have you that is that I haven't seen any reference to what camera was used.

Can anyone point me to some real evidence of that?

Thanks.

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by depthoffield


Now, tell me WHERE IS YOUR PLASMA GLOW?

That footage in your last post was not filmed with the Tether Optical Phenomena Experiment camera system.

The STS-75 Tether UFO footage and the footage you just offered for comparison are shot with different imaging systems.

You should know this....

[edit on 14-6-2009 by Exuberant1]

neah, there are enough clues that M Stubbs video is NOT filmed with that special TOP camera, as i said twice before (about clues). It is one of shuttle camera, probably a shuttle bay camera. It has the characteristics of shuttle ordinary camera, like the iris mechanism (guessed from some lens flares from sun light at low angle), and blooming effect when superexposed see the middle of the tether in many sequences (J Oberg explained before this "blooming" effect, and i will post another sample with this effect from another STS-mission (when time will permit).

Anyway, it is simple... if in my last video, there was an ordinary camera shooting mostly in visible spectrum, and the tether is visible as just a sunlit tether and nothing more in that visible spectrum, so the relevant brightness is only in visible spectrum, and since ground amateur observers saw the tether in orbit with naked eye (in the same visible spectrum), it results that in visible spectrum the tetther is seen as only what it is: a sunlit thin tether, nothing more. Why not a shuttle camera, which have some good low light capabilities to not see the tether?
There is no reason despite some claims here.

And what is the clue in image that the M. Stubbs's videos shows the plasma tether and not just sunlit tether? No clue?





[edit on 14/6/09 by depthoffield]

[edit on 14/6/09 by depthoffield]

reply to post by Akezzon


Good post, nice to know that there are plenty of people out there who like to keep an open mind.

Looks like we can't carry out these discussions without a fair amount of jumping up and down, beating on our chests, and flexing our frontal lobes. Sad, but seems to be the nature of man and woman for that matter. When it gets to be back and forth constantly is when it gets to be boring.

reply to post by depthoffield



It may NOT be clear for you because you want to see the optical illusion. And it may NOT be clear because that's what you want it to be.

Then again maybe I do know what depth of field is, and you are not as smart as you think you are, and I am not as dumb as you want to pretend me to be.

I did my own experiment with my own camera. I just feel no need to post a video to support your theory.

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by depthoffield

 

It may NOT be clear for you because you want to see the optical illusion. And it may NOT be clear because that's what you want it to be.

Then again maybe I do know what depth of field is, and you are not as smart as you think you are, and I am not as dumb as you want to pretend me to be.

I did my own experiment with my own camera. I just feel no need to post a video to support your theory.

Thats like a drink driver who wont take a breath test as it would prove what we already KNOW!

[edit on 14-6-2009 by wmd_2008]

reply to post by wmd_2008


I'm sorry, but I try not to ignore any videos that might be relevant. What video have I supposedly ignored?

From this video, it seems to me that you left your cam's auto focus on, and the cam doesn't know whether or not to try and focus on the cloud or the spec, which is why everything seems to be going in and out of focus. I assume that you know is a difference between zoom an focus, but that seems to be an affect here. Also, it seems that the clouds are beyond your camera's range, and that creates another problem with focus issues.

What I wonder about even more is how do you suspend this paint fleck? Are we looking through a glass plane? It almost looks like your paint speck is flapping its wings. Also, I notice it blinks in and out as you adjust zoom, sometimes becoming a square pixel, and even disappears at least once. In addition, it seems to be black, not at all the color of an ice crystal, which would make it far more evident.

I did my own experiment, and the results were very different. Maybe if I get the time, I will set up an experiment giving all the detail about how it is conducted, and showing my test set up. I think this is a good idea.

One thing I am noticing, is that objects out of focus retain their shape. Are ice crystals in space round and spherical? They certainly are not here on Earth. It takes a special patented apparatus to make round ice crystals here on our planets surface.

Originally posted by Akezzon
WHY THE HECK DO YOU TRY TO OUTSMART ONE ANOTHER ALL THE TIME?!?!?

I don't see it as outsmarting each other. I see it as a passionate exchange. It is obvious that all sides of this issue are passionate about their side of it and are working over time to present their case..

It is also obvious that no one yet has all the answers... if one did this would be closed as solved.

It is also obvious that this incidence strikes a nerve with NASA et al considering how much time Jim has put into this.

Usually these threads have the poster presenting evidence and then the believers popping in to say "cool thread right on" and the debunkers calling "BS"

But in this thread all parties are working hard to present their case, and there are great points made on all sides

Besides as Jim put it... its fun

reply to post by ArMaP


Yeah, and the people who buy the official version Think they are being told the truth. As the saying goes, believe only half of what you see, and none of what you hear. The only people know for sure that the official version is correct are the people who witnessed the event, and even they aren't sure of what they saw.

When you have numerous witnesses, and film that says things happened far differently than the official version, it only makes sense to question the official version. If you still choose not to question the official version when everything points to a deception, you might also choose to believe that everyone who questions the official version is delusional, rather than face the possibility that you are the one who is delusional. Not that I am accusing you of this, just replying since you brought it up.

I think the camera point is very valid. Equipment used in space tends to lag technological advances, because anything that goes into space must be space hardened and space certified, pass all the environmental acceptance tests before even being considered. These environmental requirements are very expensive, and take mounds of paperwork. Thus, technology is slow to be brought to use, due to the costs in our modern day state of space exploration. This sounds backwards, but this is the way things are. Taking this into consideration, a NASA camera from 1997 could be very, very limited in its digital technology.

reply to post by wmd_2008


Or like one drunk accusing another drunk of being drunk, and a third drunk butting in. If you are still feeling he effects of Saturday night's indulgences this late on a Sunday morning, you might want to cut back.

Originally posted by depthoffield

Just, in my opinion, this glowing is a very faint one.
The main reason why tether is visible is just because is lit by the sun. Nothing more.

You are entitled to your opinion... but there is one other factor.

In the original video when Mission control asks "what are we seeing" they state that the tether is WIDER THAN EXPECTED...

Now I would think that these guys would be familiar with sunlight reflecting of a thin wire


WIDER THAN EXPECTED


And here is another point...

There is a LOT of space junk out there, much of it is much larger than the diameter of the tether (0.1 inch) Much of it is more reflective than the thin wire of the tether...

So why do we not see all these pieces of junque with the naked eye? If it was ONLY sun reflection the skies would be FULL of moving bright pieces of debris, flashing as they rotate, but all we see is a few bigger pieces

On January 11 2007 China killed a satellite

Here is a sequence


Screen shot from AGI Viewer file of Chinese ASAT scenario (five minutes post-attack)



View of ISS Orbit (green) and Debris Ring (red) from Chinese ASAT Test



View of LEO Satellites (green) and Debris Ring (red) from Chinese ASAT Test

EVERY Green and Red dot on this image is a satellite or space debris


View of All Satellites including Debris Ring from Chinese ASAT Test Readily Visible

www.thelivingmoon.com...

Lobbed into space atop a ballistic missile, the ASAT destroyed the weather-watching satellite that had been orbiting Earth since May 10, 1999 [image]. The result was littering Earth orbit with hundreds upon hundreds of various sizes of shrapnel.

Most prolific and serious fragmentation

Johnson said that the debris cloud extends from less than 125 miles (200 kilometers) to more than 2,292 miles (3,850 kilometers), encompassing all of low Earth orbit. The majority of the debris have mean altitudes of 528 miles (850 kilometers) or greater, "which means most will be very long-lived," he said.

The number of smaller orbital debris from this breakup is much higher than the 900-plus being tracked. NASA estimates that the number of debris larger than 1 centimeter is greater than 35,000 bits of riff-raff.

www.space.com...

So explain to me how it is logical that we can see this thin wire yet all those other pieces of debris are not visible?



[edit on 14-6-2009 by zorgon]

reply to post by poet1b




In focus or out of focus the paint spec is always there! You can see I zoom in and out it was done to prove a point that objects withing a few feet can be visible even when a camera is focused on a point a great distance away.The black dot as you put is shown against the lighter sky because video was shot quickly while reading the thread.
Although exactly the same can be done with a light object and dark background.
The objects on the NASA video are small so we cannot tell if they are perfectly round, square etc, but we can say is that when an object is in focus and is very small or out of focus and looks larger its difficult to prove its exact shape on these videos.
Re the tether video the disc shaped object that is supposed to pass behind it looks round but is most likely an out of focus object very close to the camera if we knew the exact spec for the camera lens etc we would have a chance to confirm everything!
You have to remember some of thes oblects could be just past the end of the shuttle which is still a few tens of feet from the lens and not the 3ft in my example!
I have no doubt that these objects are the usual flotsom & jetsom that we see in these videos.
I dont think anyone claimed the ice crystal, particles, lumps whatever you want to call them where round just that these white object are most likely dust or ice and not alive or have zog from planet mog at the controls!

[edit on 14-6-2009 by wmd_2008]

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by Akezzon
WHY THE HECK DO YOU TRY TO OUTSMART ONE ANOTHER ALL THE TIME?!?!?

I don't see it as outsmarting each other. I see it as a passionate exchange. It is obvious that all sides of this issue are passionate about their side of it and are working over time to present their case..

It is also obvious that no one yet has all the answers... if one did this would be closed as solved.

It is also obvious that this incidence strikes a nerve with NASA et al considering how much time Jim has put into this.

Usually these threads have the poster presenting evidence and then the believers popping in to say "cool thread right on" and the debunkers calling "BS"

But in this thread all parties are working hard to present their case, and there are great points made on all sides

Besides as Jim put it... its fun

Glad you feel it that way, however...it sure looks like an outsmart contest. =)

I was mostly referring to the comments like "I've been in this business for this and that long, so I think I know more than you..", kinda.
And sometimes people seem to be more mean to eachother than nevessary.

Originally posted by poet1b
I have also heard other terms have been used by astronauts, such as space critters, or bugs, and other references that there are things seen in space that are never explained.

Sounds like another thread A collection of all the 'odd' things the astronauts have said in reports, in audio recordings and in person. Might take a while to dig but we all heard the "Santa Claus" from Apollo 8

I think I will start searching

Originally posted by poet1b
Of course this latest charge, pseudo science? no such thing as free energy? Is Jim now working for the oil companies? Has he never seen a thunder storm in West Texas?

The problem here is one of definition. I believe Jim was thinking about the term as it is used by those seeking 'over unity' not in terms of cost. But you are right we don't pay for energy.. Coal, Oil, Electricity... all available free from nature... just lying around for the taking. I picked up a truck load of coal for my wood stove on a rock collecting trip to Price Utah. The stuff is all over the place in small seams...

What we pay for is someone to deliver it to us.

This tether works in a far different way, where the rotation of the Earth creates the energy.

And last I checked, unless Jim knows something we don't, there is no power meter on the rotation of the Earth, or the flux of the Solar wind... That must really give the oil boys night mares

reply to post by wmd_2008


No, at one point in your video the block thing in the sky turns into a square, and then disappears. I performed a similar experiment with my own video camera, which eliminates any distortions created by uploading the video, and my results were very different. Everything seems to be going in and out of focus in your camera.

One thing that has remained consistent is that what ever in is the foreground retains it's shape, and consistently looks translucent, while most of these moving little white UFO's in the tether video look opaque. Only a few look translucent when the camera focus or zoom was changed in the tether video.

What we have demonstrated more than anything is that people tend to see what they want to see.

Originally posted by poet1b
Yeah, and the people who buy the official version Think they are being told the truth.

But there are also some people, like me, for which is not a case of "buying" any version, it's just a case of seeing things in this way, to me those things look like out of focus small bright objects, just that, and I even made some tests with borrowed cameras (I don't own a camera).

When you have numerous witnesses, and film that says things happened far differently than the official version, it only makes sense to question the official version.

And that is the problem with this video.

We have the video and we have an eyewitness that says during the video that those things are "debris, that kind of flies with us", in this case is the unofficial version that ignores the witness.