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: 20
77
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 14 2009 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
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?

I always thought (and still do) that the width of the tether may not be what most people think it is.

In the video of the tether breaking we can see that the tether returned to its original shape before being deployed, so I think that what we see may be a coil made by the tether, reducing it's length and enlarging its width.

It would be much more reflective and I don't know what effect a coil would have, electrically speaking, in that environment.




posted on Jun, 14 2009 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


We have an eye witness that works for the government, and has to agree to certain levels of discrepancy when making statements about what they see in space. The witness you are referring to is the person giving the official version.

You keep implying that people who see things differently than the official reason are less entitled to their opinions than the people who agree with the official version. If you THINK the official explanation is right, then you are buying into the official explanation. There have been many times when the official explanation has disagreed with the witnesses and the facts. Thus it is very valid to question the official explanation/version of things.

Do you believe everything that the government tells you?

If not, why do you imply that those of us to question what our government tells us are simply seeing things the way we want to see them, as opposed to giving our honest opinion.



posted on Jun, 14 2009 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
You keep implying that people who see things differently than the official reason are less entitled to their opinions than the people who agree with the official version.

Do I?

Sorry, that was never my intention, could you please tell me what did I wrote that made you think that?

Thanks.


If you THINK the official explanation is right, then you are buying into the official explanation.

No, I think that the official explanation, at the moment, is the most likely to be correct, I don't think this case is closed, far from it.



There have been many times when the official explanation has disagreed with the witnesses and the facts. Thus it is very valid to question the official explanation/version of things.

Yes, there have been many occasions like that, but that does not mean that everything the government or the people directly under their orders say is always a lie, and in this case I do not see anything that disagrees with the witness (although we may consider him an unreliable witness) or the facts.

What do you think is more probable to be true, that those things that look like out of focus bright objects are small out of focus bright objects or that they are an unknown life form or space ships from an unknown origin?

In the first possibility all other things are know (we know that there are small, bright objects, we know that small, bright objects, when out of focus, may look like that), in the other two possibilities we have an unknown for each (the life form and the origin of the space ships).

If we think about it we can possibly find even more possible explanations (lost souls, a 3D representation of objects with more dimensions that we usually do not see, etc.), but I think that the official explanation is the most probable, not because it came from the government agency but because it agrees with my own opinion, not the other way around.



Do you believe everything that the government tells you?

No.



If not, why do you imply that those of us to question what our government tells us are simply seeing things the way we want to see them, as opposed to giving our honest opinion.

I never said that, as I said above, please point it to me where I did, it was not my intention.

What I think is that we should not disregard all possibilities, and that is something that we see too often here; not only some supposed sceptics act as if it is impossible for the official opinion to be wrong, some "believers" (for lack of a better word) act as if it is impossible that a simple, non-esoteric, explanation to be the real one.

Things are not what we want them to be, things are what they are, we just have to try to understand it, and we should never forget that not only do we not know all, we do not even know how much do we not know, it's like reading a book for which we do not have a page count, we have to read until the end to know it all.



posted on Jun, 14 2009 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

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



i just dont get you...
if you worked for mcdonalds once before, then led a protest that got your boss pissed before moving onto other work, all say 5 years ago, would it make any sense whatsoever for me to assume you represent mcdonalds as do all your views, opinions and motivations?

jim olberg's opinion is jim olberg's, not nasa's.



posted on Jun, 14 2009 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

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




No, the guy which states this is the guy from the ground, and obviously he describes what he sees, which is...THE IMAGE ON THE SCREEN, which indeed is wider than expected... THE IMAGE!




Originally posted by zorgon

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

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

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?


Hey, Zorgon, i explained this to you, just a few pages back, here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Your response was a hint of some ignorance to my post: "Nice story"


I'll repeat: the tether is visible because every pixel in the camera receive ilumination from a 1 square meter of sunlit surface (equivalent), as i explained in that post. This is not the same as getting ilumination from a small particle of debris let's say 3 mm across from big distances...
That's why tether is visible, but millions of debris in orbit no.






[edit on 14/6/09 by depthoffield]



posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 12:52 AM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


I don't know how else to interpret your comments on the matter. You don't seem to recognize that others come to a different conclusion because they interpret what they are seeing differently than you. You statements make it clear that you don't think those who disagree with the official version stated in the video are looking at the facts of the situation.

It seems that you are either incapable or unwilling to look at the information available in any different light than what you want to believe. You may not have bought the de-bunker/offical position, but you are in the process of buying it.

You further prove this by these statements in this post.


What do you think is more probable to be true, that those things that look like out of focus bright objects are small out of focus bright objects or that they are an unknown life form or space ships from an unknown origin?


I have posted many times on the thread that I do not believe that these particles look at all like ice crystals just out of the window, and all videos attempting to prove that these are ice crystals succeed in doing just the opposite, and proving that they can not be ice crystals.

Let us recap.

There are not any other videos that anyone has found that shows numerous of these white dot looking UFOs in NASA film footage. IF these ice crystals are so common, than there should be plenty of videos of this type.

The tiny white dots moving around the tether look for the most part like opaque white little dots, and only a few become large translucent images with a hole in the center when the camera setting are changed making everything much more white.

Even a black round head of a pin that is completely opaque, one meter in front of a camera, in the video while the camera is focused on a stick 5 meters from the camera looks completely translucent. Considering this, how could an ice crystal close to the camera that is already translucent look like an opaque white dot when the camera is focused on the distant tether.

My own personal experimentation with a camera shows that this is not possible, that tiny things like the head of a pin essentially disappear when focusing on much further distant objects.

The other video which attempts to focus on a cloud, where the focus changes constantly also clearly shows that a small object just in front of the camera retains its approximate shape as it blurs from changes in focus. Ice crystals do not from into round little dots, they are crystals.

When the camera moves while concentrating on a distant object, anything near the lens moves a great distance on the screen, while the distant object barely moves, which is not what we see in the tether video, we see these UFOs moving in relation to the tether as if the tether and the UFO's were about the same distance from the camera.

The op who started this thread clearly shows these UFO's moving independently by changing direction in several different directions, and by changing speeds.

Why anyone continues to insist these are ice crystals considering the evaluate evidence is beyond me.

To stick to the ice crystal theory when under examination it is shown not to be possible is just blind faith in my opinion.



posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 01:58 AM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 

They don't look like ice crystals because we are not seeing ice crystals, we are seeing out of focus point sources of light. To produce this appearance an object does not have to be close to the camera. As long as it is producing or reflecting light it can produce this effect. An ice crystal in sunlight is a highly reflective point source of light. Any bright object which is not within the focal field of view (including highly reflective ice particles) will produce the effect. If the focus is distant, near objects will show the effect. If the focus is near, distant objects will show the effect.

The exact character of the effect depends on the equipment used. Here is an earthly video demonstrating what happens when a point light source goes out of focus. The equipment used is apparently quite similar to that used on the tether video. Notice the similarity with the STS-75 video.




posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 02:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by depthoffield
Your response was a hint of some ignorance to my post: "Nice story"


Well I suppose we will have to agree to disagree

Since we are now on round three going over it all again, I will slip out to some other threads for a bit.

When I hear from Martyn with the data I will pop in. Meanwhile I will spend some time with NASA and see if I can dig it up...



posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 02:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Your example is not applicable.

There is only one artifact on display and it's orientation is constant...






*Note the presence of multiple objects, their different directions of travel and varying orientations...



posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 03:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by Phage
 


Your example is not applicable.

There is only one artifact on display and it's orientation is constant...






*Note the presence of multiple objects, their different directions of travel and varying orientations...



How is Phage's example not applicable WHAT he was trying to show was what an out of focus point of light looked like the objects on the video.
If the small prticles are moving and are an out of focus point of light they would look similar wouldn't they we all know your not as stupid as you make out, you just ALWAYS TRY TO MISLEAD everyone when someone counters your distorted view on things!



posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
I don't know how else to interpret your comments on the matter. You don't seem to recognize that others come to a different conclusion because they interpret what they are seeing differently than you. You statements make it clear that you don't think those who disagree with the official version stated in the video are looking at the facts of the situation.

OK, I guess I have to change the way I write to make things clearer.

I have no problem in accepting that other people can reach different conclusions based on the same data, and I have no problem in accepting different interpretations of that data.

Also, I have never said or implied (unless I was not aware that what I wrote could be interpreted that way) that I think that other people are "seeing things the way they wanted, as opposed to giving our honest opinion", anyone's opinion is just that, their opinion, and mine is in the same category, just another opinion from a common guy.


It seems that you are either incapable or unwilling to look at the information available in any different light than what you want to believe. You may not have bought the de-bunker/offical position, but you are in the process of buying it.

It's not a question of "wanting to believe", I don't want to believe in anything, I want to know, that is why I never dismiss any opinion, even the most far-fetched ones.


There are not any other videos that anyone has found that shows numerous of these white dot looking UFOs in NASA film footage. IF these ice crystals are so common, than there should be plenty of videos of this type.

In the same conditions, yes.

If we can get a video of a camera, preferably the same type, focused on a sunlit far away object, and with the gain to its maximum or close to it, then we should see at least some of those objects.

(As a kind of PS, I usually write "ice crystals" because I think it is easier than always write "small reflective objects", I do not have any way of knowing what those objects are)


The tiny white dots moving around the tether look for the most part like opaque white little dots, and only a few become large translucent images with a hole in the center when the camera setting are changed making everything much more white.

Do you mean when they zoom in?

That, according to the "ice crystals explanation", should mean that the small reflective objects are closer to the shuttle but not as close as "just outside the window", but I do not have any way of knowing it.


Considering this, how could an ice crystal close to the camera that is already translucent look like an opaque white dot when the camera is focused on the distant tether.

Overexposure, or, what I think happened in this case, the sensor's limit was reached (I never remember the right word for it).


My own personal experimentation with a camera shows that this is not possible, that tiny things like the head of a pin essentially disappear when focusing on much further distant objects.

Considering that I haven't seen your experiment I can not make any comments about it, I can only talk about my own experiments, and I can say that I have never tried to reach the limits of the sensor, I will try to make an experiment like that.

My opinion about these being out of focus small reflective objects is based on my own experiments.


The other video which attempts to focus on a cloud, where the focus changes constantly also clearly shows that a small object just in front of the camera retains its approximate shape as it blurs from changes in focus. Ice crystals do not from into round little dots, they are crystals.

A small, bright, out of focus object will always look round, even if it's not, try it.


When the camera moves while concentrating on a distant object, anything near the lens moves a great distance on the screen, while the distant object barely moves, which is not what we see in the tether video, we see these UFOs moving in relation to the tether as if the tether and the UFO's were about the same distance from the camera.

I haven't tried it for myself, but from what I have seen, if the rotation (I suppose you are talking about rotation) is made on the right axis there will be no movement.

I haven't measure any possible movement on the video.


The op who started this thread clearly shows these UFO's moving independently by changing direction in several different directions, and by changing speeds.

Yes, and I have said that I do not have any explanation for that.


Why anyone continues to insist these are ice crystals considering the evaluate evidence is beyond me.

Probably because we do not think that the evidence changes the data in which we have based our opinions or because we think that there is something wrong with the evidence, basically, the same reason why other people think these are not ice crystals.


To stick to the ice crystal theory when under examination it is shown not to be possible is just blind faith in my opinion.

Yes, but I do not think that it was shown not to be possible, just that.



posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 09:04 AM
link   
Again, it mystifies me why people are still debating about how and why it's possible we can see the tether. It's like looking at a picture of Bigfoot and debating about how we can also see something that might be a tree in the image. Who cares about the tree unless it provides perspective to distinguishing Bigfoot? Is anyone postulating that what we are seeing in the Stubbs video is NOT the tether?

So if we can agree that it IS the tether, how does this help us arrive at any conclusions?

Maybe if we break it down into what we do and don't know, what we can and can't prove.

Assuming the largest feature in the frame is the tether and that NASA and the astronauts are not misguided or lying about the shuttle's distance from it, we know...

1. The tether is 12 miles long and somewhere between 72 and 80 nautical miles away from the shuttle. (the astronaut reports "81 nautical miles" in the video).

2. There are several dozen objects besides the tether moving in the frame that are reflecting or emitting light (or both).

3. The trajectories of the moving objects preclude them all being influenced by a single source, because there's obviously little or no unity in direction.

That's pretty much all we know.

Even if the moving objects ARE living entities or intelligently controlled spacecraft, we still want to know these things....

1. How big are they?

2. Are the objects solid, liquid, gas or plasma? Or some combination?

3. If solid, do the images provide enough information to distinguish shape and surface detail?

I have my own corollary to Ockham's Razor, "If in doubt, throw it out". So that's my yardstick as I go forward.

The only evidence of intelligent control are the motion studies. I was of the opinion that they *could* all be explained by parabolic arcs or nudges from other objects too small to be seen. But I looked at the video this thread is based on again and I noticed something rather striking...

www.youtube.com...

It's best viewed at full screen. LunaCognita does some artificial zooms to bring our attention to some interesting stuff, but seems to miss the most dramatic one. At 1:18, in the far lower left, there is a bright object that goes through no less than 5 distinct course changes. I almost missed it because, at full screen, the video progress bar is in the way unless you pre-roll enough to let it auto-hide. I find this *very* interesting. *BUT*, it is possible it's being bounced around by very small objects. So, being in doubt, I have to throw it out.

To know the answers to questions 2 and 3 we MUST know what kind of camera is being used, what the exact properties of the lens are and if it is adjusted for optimal focus on the moving objects.

We hear the astronaut saying that he has the camera focused as best he can and we can see that tether/sheath has relatively distinct edges in some parts. So we can surmise that we are at least in the ballpark concerning focus on that particular object at certain times.

The official theory is particles/crystals close to the camera.

There is debate over whether a camera focused on an object 70+ miles away with well defined edges would permit us to even see particles less than half a mile out.

This video shows chunks of dirt completely disappearing when the camera zooms in to, and focuses clearly on, some distant clouds....

video.google.com...

This one by wmd_2008 appears to refute the exclusion of nearby objects being visible...

tinypic.com...

There is now doubt, so I'm throwing it out. We have to assume it's possible to see close objects, albeit not clearly.



posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 09:05 AM
link   
The shape and surface details of the moving objects has been replicated many times through ordinary means, most often mimicking lens/mirror reflections. More doubt, so being thrown out.

You can't begin to answer question 2 until you can answer "Yes" to question 3. So in my view,questions 2 and 3 are unanswerable using the Stubbs video.

That only leaves question 1, "How big are they"?

To make a guess at that, the first thing we need to know is how far away they are.

poet1b is technically correct when he states...


Originally posted by poet1b
When the camera moves while concentrating on a distant object, anything near the lens moves a great distance on the screen,


But I think he's confusing camera *movement* with camera panning. With panning the camera is stationary relative to the Shuttle. And with Panning, the opposite is true: Near objects will travel less in contrast to distant ones. My own study proves, to my satisfaction, that most of the objects we're seeing are near to, or even farther away than, the tether.

If we concede that the shapes we're seeing may be lens artifacts then we can't really use the perimeters of the visible shapes as a metric. They only have to transmit enough light to trigger an artifact. If we rule out that the objects are generating light themselves and are simply reflecting it, I think it may now be possible to roughly calculate their size.

Assuming the best possible conditions, that the surface of the objects are polished to a mirror like finish, how big would an object have to be to be discernible at all by a camera on the shuttle?

To solve this equation we need to know...

1. How much luminous energy the sun can deliver on average to this particular area in space.

2. How big the focusing mirror is in the camera, or the biggest it possibly could be.

If we could determine these two things, it should be possible to calculate how large a surface would have to be to deliver enough reflected lumens to the optics of an object 81 miles away, as to be discernible at all.

There are several stars visible in the video. If they could be identified, they would also serve as references.

I say *someone* should be able to do it. That person not being me, because my math skills are less than stellar.


[edit on 15-6-2009 by Raybo58]



posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


No, ice crystals are not very reflective, they are translucent, and are crystal in shape, which means a varied surface. It is only the impurities in ice that makes it look white, which makes impure ice crystals mildly reflective. The video you link to is already on the thread, and I don't think it demonstrates what you claim.



posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 12:00 PM
link   
Actually, I believe everything is out of focus. And that is why the tether has the witdh and the "critters" has their shape.

But I also believe that the out of focus also magnify everything a bit, so the shape on the "critters" might not be so misleading as we may think.
Perhaps they look like that, but that the out of focus make them a bit larger.

But just because they are out of focus doesn't mean they are particles or anything. Cause I still have a hard time belieiving them to be just particles and space dust.

The visual shape might be false, but the pulsating ( from the center and out ), movement and their trajectory tells me that it's not just ordinary debri or particles...

[edit on 15-6-2009 by Akezzon]



posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Akezzon
But I also believe that the out of focus also magnify everything a bit, so the shape on the "critters" might not be so misleading as we may think.
Perhaps they look like that, but that the out of focus make them a bit larger.



In the image below... this is a closeup...

Now what would his look like if we backed away with the zoom?, say even a few hundred feet?




posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


I guess it is all part of the learning curve. Personally, when I reach the point where the evidence I see tells me that an individual or an institution is intentionally distorting the truth, I no longer trust that person or organization, and there after, I doubt everything I here from that organization. What is being distorted is a critical factor in this decision process, but that is another discussion.

Long ago I figured out that you can not trust anything you hear from the government, or any corporation, or institutional at all from my experience. I hope and suspect this is a cyclic trend. Thus, I am a conspiracy theorist in this day and age. With this understanding in mind, every bit of information you get has already been subject to interpretation, which brings me to my next point. What do we really know about this video?

To be honest, when I go back over this video, I wonder if the whole thing is a hoax. The video that shows up in the youtube search that is most popular starts out looking like authentic NASA footage, they even have a date and time display. Then at 2:03 the video displays the message, "The Tether and Satellite are swarmed by UFO's". Then you have the NASA commentary, but the video looks completely different from then on. The tether does not look right. All these threads, and maybe everyone is fooled, except CoolBlackHole was the only one who had it right. Maybe we are just looking into a petri dish? Although I don't think a petri dish explains it either.

When you look at the original video, it sure looks like a poorly made video of space, but it doesn't look like typical NASA footage. Maybe all of this is due to the camera being used and the distance. Has there been a serious discussion on ATS about whether this video might just be a hoax?



posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


That's kinda my point Zorgon. You sure you didn't missunderstand me now??

I mean that, I believe you are right in what you are saying. But I also believe that everything is out of focus, and therefore the width of the tether looks wider than it is. It can still be the plasma sheate.

And also the dooonuts. I still believe them to be critters of some sort.
But I also believe that the shape we see in the video might not be the true shape. They can still be round/sphearical and have the nodges...



posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Akezzon
That's kinda my point Zorgon. You sure you didn't missunderstand me now??


No I got ya... just was in your reply when I stuck that in. Working on some details on one of the 'critters' with Luna... will get back when its done



posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 

In other threads some people have said that it looks like the bottom of the see, some that it looks like something seen through a microscope, but I don't remember seeing any thread about the possibility if the video being a hoax.



new topics

top topics



 
77
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join