New Analysis Video of the STS-75 Tether Incident

Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by Komodo

 

Thanks for the Screencaps komodo!

I'd like to see the debunkers try to explain those away...

don't you read the topic? it was explained. Please read my posts for example as i know what i've done lately.

Originally posted by Komodo
I took a couple of screenies of the tether ...why do the 'ice crystals' change??

No, ice crystals do not change. But their defocused image in the lens, can change. Their defocused image is called BOKEH.

BOKEH size is variable in respect to position in the frame. Bokeh have the tendency to not maintain the original shape of the objects, but to become more rouinded, translucent, and to copy the internal shape of the iris/lens aperture. Armap showed right here in this thread an experiment, when a little star, when defocused, loose the "corners" and became rounded.

The notches are NOT properties of the objects, but LENS ARTIFACTS. I will prepare a material from NASA (other mission) to finally show that notches are from camera lens (and, plus, no TOP camera is used in this famous tether incident - M. Stubbs movies). I need some time to prepare the materials.

BOKEH respect the "cat-eye" effect of the lens. I talked another time about this issue (The topic was "Alien donuts" or something like that.


There is a lot of optical physical effects in tether images, and for those which aren't aware of them, they became big misteries (even alien).

Originally posted by Phage
As DepthofField has pointed out several times, the shape of the bokeh discs are dependent upon their position in the frame. The appearance of the out of focus objects changes due to the characteristics of the the camera used. All of the objects in the same sector of the frame have the same appearance.

Thanks Phage suporting the idea

Originally posted by zorgon
You can clearly see .. the notch change shape from above then to two and then to the bottom. This change occurs while it is still in the same area of the screen.

No Zorgon, it is NOT in the same area of the screen. I know very well the sequence. The object passed from ore area to another area (you know, my colored areas in one previous youtube movie of mine), and during this movement it has the gradually changing in size. Look closer.

Don't mislead people with this. Look original video and see you are wrong in this afirmation ("same area of the screen").


[edit on 18/6/09 by depthoffield]

Originally posted by depthoffield
Don't mislead people with this. Look original video and see you are wrong in this afirmation ("same area of the screen").

First provide camera data of the camera used. I am sure you can get that from NASA no problem.

I am not misleading anyone. You continously avoid the motion issue of the prime object

Those that have eyes can see the movement. Show me just ONE other lens artifact that exhibits the same characteristics or we are done. There is no point flogging the horse until you can;

A) Produce the camera data
B) Demonstrate how THAT camera's lens can create the movement we see
C) duplicate the artifact's pulsating undulating motion

Call me when you have that info






[edit on 18-6-2009 by zorgon]

Originally posted by zorgon

Now first of all its time you 'lens artifact' proponents produce the exact camera data that was used in this sequence so we can see if indeed that camera COULD produce such effects. Comparing it to other cameras is not valid.

No, is VALID, Zorgon. Physics, optics is VALID. Don't deny it.
Of course different camera produce different quantitative and qualitative effects or artifacts. Some of them have good depth of field. Some of them haven't. It depends on aperture, focal length and senzor resolution. The physical construction of the objective (mirrors, lens, number of lens, cilindrical body, sizes, positions and shapes of the lens and supports etc affect how BOKEH will appear. Some camera make round bokeh. Other make hexagons. Others make rhombus (the famous rhombus "diamant" orbs making people to dream away). Some have greater distorsions of the field of view linearity regarding bokeh (cat-eye effect) or even focused images. There are cases and cases.

Here is the point: you can't deny the BASIC PRINCIPLE: depth of field, focus, un-focus, bokeh, spherical abberation and field distortion (cat-eye effect). These are basics. The amount of an effect, artifact etc can be more or less, depending of particular camera and particular condition.
But they CAN BE. These effects are VALID as principles. Hypothesys for further research, as science/knowledge already knows very well different basical aspects of one issue or other, have to be checked, not DENIED.
Denying valid possible aspects is not a good way to clarify things. I don't want to think that the main reason is to mistify more and more one or other aspect.

Originally posted by zorgon

You can clearly [] see the notch change shape from above then to two and then to the bottom. This change occurs while it is still in the same area of the screen.

[]

As i said, you are WRONG in your statement: "This change occurs while it is still in the same area of the screen."

No, the change didn't occur in the same area of the screen. Even in your draft, it is clear that it is a zooming and tracking of the object done with a video editor, but clearly the "object" moves from the left of the original M.Stubbs video, to the right, traversing entire frame.

The movement of your object ACROSS DIIFERENT AREAS OF THE FRAME, can be seen here:




Your object move ACROSS THE ENTIRE FRAME from 1:56 to 2:15.

What do you said?
""This change occurs while it is still in the same area of the screen."

WRONG, as everybody can see.



Now, looking again at this adnotated sequence





Everybody can see that when in one particular colored area, all bigger objects take the SAME SHAPE in THAT AREA (the smaller ones are too small to see any shape).

Moreover, your "drafted" object, when arrive in yellow area, at 2:11 in my movie, or at about 0:19 in your draft video, you see, it happens that another object came near it, having together the SAME SHAPE.

Damn those "critters" or "alien ships", how obedient are they to the position in the frame. (Thus NASA cameras controll their shape) :-D

Now this is OBVIOUSLY.

And Zorgon, when talking about one particular ISSUE, don't obfuscate it with another issues. We can discuss all of them step by step, one after other if time permits.

The issue raised by me was: the changing in shape was NOT HAPPENED IN THE SAME AREA, like you said, but when object came across different areas of the frame image captured by the camera.

As for nothces, pulsing, trajectories etc, these are other issues which were discussed and will be discused further. But i hope that the "changing shape in the same area" issue was clarified. Moreover, the shape of any object (disc) is directly infuenced by the position in the frame, so, the shape is controlled by the camera (the real shape of the real object may differ from what we see in recorded images - this is a logical conclusion)







[edit on 18/6/09 by depthoffield]

[edit on 18/6/09 by depthoffield]

[edit on 18/6/09 by depthoffield]

reply to post by depthoffield


Predictable.

Zorgon asked you to do three things - which you have not done and which may even have corroborated your hypothesis had you bothered to do them....

Again; Please do the following:

A) Produce the camera data
B) Demonstrate how THAT camera's lens can create the movement we see
C) duplicate the artifact's pulsating undulating motion



...You know you won't

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Predictable.

Zorgon asked you to do three things - which you have not done and which may even have corroborated your hypothesis had you bothered to do them....

Again; Please do the following:

A) Produce the camera data
B) Demonstrate how THAT camera's lens can create the movement we see
C) duplicate the artifact's pulsating undulating motion



...You know you won't

I know what he asked, but i first criticised one of his wrongly statement. Now he tries to obfuscate that wrong styatement (changing shape in the same area) "attacking" me with harder arguments which i must argument to him, because he won't listen me until i have all the requested data.

You second him. Are you his secretary? (joking)

Of course those questions have to be clarified as beeing primary and undeniable informations needed.
But because is very hard or imposible to obtain that data, should every logical thinking and clarifying little errors to be squashed and closed down? I don't think so. Think about.





[edit on 18/6/09 by depthoffield]

Originally posted by depthoffield

beautiful.

i agree with Sereda....a "airy disc" would not have the clear defined lines like the "critters" have when they pass near the tether. if these objects were close to the camera as the skeptibunks want you to believe then they would in my opinion look just like the airy discs.

Sereda also mentions he discussed this with Edgar Mitchel (Apollo 14 Astronaut) and Mithcell said he was not sure what they are.

i believe Astronauts sign a agreement to secrecy and will never never go on record admitting the possibility that NASA has captured a ufo on video. just like when the Astronauts on the David Letterman show were asked about UFO's they did not answer. you could hear a pin drop in the studio while everyone waited to see what they would say. i wish i had that video clip.









[edit on 18-6-2009 by easynow]

None of us comes up with any explanation at all.
What I read here is what all of you personally think and that you also claim your believings to be the truth. And that is ok. We are all entitled to believe what we think we see. But I don't think length of experience or camera skills will help us any more here.

Personally I think we all focus to much on the shape.
I would rather want to know what is behind the "out of focus" objects.
All of us can be right you know. They can be out of focus, the nodge can be a lens effect. and so on.

Even if you are right with the nodge vs area of the lens if will not explain what they are.
To me it is clear as ice that they go behind the tether. Yes I know about the out of focus effect that makes it look like they go behind stuff. But still have a hard time believing this is the case. You can clearly see some of them go behind and not "blend" with the tether.

The reason why I believe everything to be out of focus even when they have zoomed out is because at one point the original clip you can see the lens adjusting for a second. When it does that the flying dots gets snaller to then go back to the shape we see.

So to make it clear. I definitly believe these to be either critters or crafts.
But hey, this is MY point of view of it all.

[edit on 18-6-2009 by Akezzon]

[edit on 18-6-2009 by Akezzon]

It it really pathetic that the debunkers keep clinging to this claim that these are objects near the shuttle. It has clearly been shown that these are not ice crystals or anything near the shuttle. Objects near a camera, as been shown in videos produced by the debunkers themselves, do not look anything like the UFOs in the tether video. While at one extreme of the camera adjustments, many of the UFOs look like large fuzzy balls, through most of the video, the look like tiny white, opaque dots. Take you own camera out and do some experimenting. Even doing their best to distort things to look the way they want them to look in these obvious set up videos produced by the debunkers, they fail miserably to prove their point. Wild zooming and focusing efforts, and object blinking in and out of the picture look like nothing we are seeing in the tether video.

Once again, the massive holes in the close objects theory that debunkers continue to ignore.

Objects a few feet away from a camera focused on a distant object look completely different than what we see in the tether video, they look like large translucent distortions, almost invisible.

Water dumps out of the shuttle are shot out the back, and quickly vaporize. I have already provided the links that explain how vacuum acts on water. You can go back through the thread and find the links if you do not want to believe me.

Ice crystals that do manage to hang around for a short time TWINKLE, due to their crystal shape, which can clearly be seen on provided videos. None of these UFOs in the tether video are twinkling.

If these kinds of camera distortions are normal, then where all the other videos with similar swarms of UFOs. No one has yet to provide such a thing.

Lastly, and most incontestable, is the original video footage posted on page two or three or so of this thread. When the original video starts, it shows the camera searching through space to find the tether. As the camera searches through space there are no swarms of UFOs, space looks like the normal space we see commonly in numerous videos. Then, when the camera finds the tether, that is when we see the swarm of UFOs. If they were small particles near the camera, then we should have seen them consistently as the camera searched for the tether. The odds that there are a bunch of little particles floating around outside of the shuttle only in a tiny cluster between the shuttle and the tether, while none are floating a few inches away, outside of the aperture of the shuttle cameras orientation towards the tether, is preposterous, no way, no how.

That you debunkers continue to cling to this near object theory that has been proven so completely unlikely is beginning to border on being delusional.

Originally posted by zorgon
[Show me just ONE other lens artifact that exhibits the same characteristics or we are done.

Lens Artifact

About 1:30 in. The pulsing is more faint than in the stubs video, but nevertheless present. What it lacks in pulsing is made up for in clarity. If it walks like a duck...

On the other hand, some of the motion stuff is still intriguing....

reply to post by easynow


Nice videos. It seems that my camera doesn't have the chip that allows close up objects to remain in focus while focusing on distant objects. I like that he confirmed my observation on how close up objects can disappear on cameras without these chips when focusing on distant objects.

I think he also makes a couple of other really good observations. I notice how someone mentions an unusual amount of space debri, and then the conversation goes silent. It makes sense that they switched to a coded channel to continue with the conversation. Where is the discussion as they make changes to the camera? It also looks like they are trying to distort the picture by playing with adjustments to avoid a good look at the UFOs.

If the astronauts have any kind or secret clearance, then they are sworn to secrecy.

Originally posted by Raybo58

Originally posted by zorgon
[Show me just ONE other lens artifact that exhibits the same characteristics or we are done.

Lens Artifact

About 1:30 in. The pulsing is more faint than in the stubs video, but nevertheless present. What it lacks in pulsing is made up for in clarity. If it walks like a duck...

that video is a horrible attempt to compare the pulsing of the STS-75 objects.

not even close. also there is no way to determine if there is an atmospheric distortion factor involved with that video.

until you identify what camera was used and the internal parts of the iris and specs of the camera, that video can not be used as an example of the notched effect either.

sometimes a duck ain't a duck

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/bce8cc081995.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by poet1b


thanks, i agree those videos are interesting and give us some information that might not be obvious, such as the extra, unknown to us , parts, that NASA has installed in their camera.

i am not a camera expert but from what i understand, without some modifications or a special camera, upclose objects will either disappear or appear as an "airy disc"...that makes sense. i would think different cameras would produce different results ???? ....i don't know

the people posting video examples will have to prove what type of camera was used on the shuttle and what type of camera they are using to make these examples before i can take any of that seriously. that's fair play in my opinion.


and yes it's certainly not out of the realm of possibility's that they did switch to the coded secret channel. it wouldn't surprize me at all.

i personally can't confirm that Astronauts are sworn to secrecy.... but from what i have read and seen , there's not much doubt in my mind about that. i know of a (alleged) ufo incident that occurred on the Apollo 17 mission and Edgar Mitchell , from what i know, has always denied seeing any while on the Moon.

i find it hard to believe that Mitchel is a leading proponent of UFO disclosure because of some second hand information some of his friends have told him about. there is more to that story if you ask me.



[edit on 18-6-2009 by easynow]

Originally posted by depthoffield
No, is VALID, Zorgon. Physics, optics is VALID. Don't deny it.

Einstein was wrong... you are wrong Old Laws of Physics are already falling in the new light of Quantum Mechanics

Challenging Einstein
Time Lord…. Louis Essen D.Sc., F.R.S


Challenging Einstein and Newton
Gravitational Force of the Sun by Pari Spolter
New concepts in the study of gravitation. A new equation for the gravitational force is introduced, which is the correct interpretation of Kepler's third law and which has been verified experimentally to very high precision.

Challenging Einstein
Einstein the Hoaxer by John Lear

Was Einstein Wrong?: A Quantum Threat to Special Relativity ...
www.scientificamerican.com...

Why Einstein was wrong about relativity - physics-math - 29 ...
www.newscientist.com...

NASA - Was Einstein Wrong About Space Travel?
science.nasa.gov...

Its about tine you get with the program. Better take some time to catch up with reality

"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a persistent one" - Albert Einstein

Originally posted by Raybo58
About 1:30 in. The pulsing is more faint than in the stubs video, but nevertheless present. What it lacks in pulsing is made up for in clarity. If it walks like a duck...

The pulsating in that object is created by atmosphere effects which you can easily see when you look at Venus

But the notches on that disk and the edges do not show any change what so every. It is a very clear circle with distinct notches... No change no movement, no undulation of the edge.

In my opinion this video proves my point...

Now just because I may have missed it in his long thread... is there a video recreation with a different camera posted that shows:

A) different position of the notch in ONE frame in different areas of that frame ie muliple light sources taken in one picture that I can see if DoF's postulation is correct? (I may have missed it)

B) that shows lens artifacts with two notches in the same photos as ones with one notch

Nice try though

So let me get this straight Zorgon, you're actually contending that the Stubbs video is revealing the undistorted shape of the objects and that they are in reasonably clear focus?

And DOF's color coded video gives you no pause? You believe the objects are transmogrifying in unison as they enter different sectors of the image?

Because throughout the thread, you just come across as a contrairian. Someone who picks the opposing view and demands evidence that no one present can possibly deliver.

Even if someone could produce the camera specs you demand I suspect you would enlarge your request to include examples shot with that equipment.



[edit on 18-6-2009 by Raybo58]

Originally posted by Raybo58
So let me get this straight Zorgon, you're actually contending that the Stubbs video is revealing the undistorted shape of the objects and that they are in reasonably clear focus?

Yes, would have thought that was obvious by now. I believe that the main object IS in focus. I have seen one just like it shown on NASA's mission control screen it too exhibits the pulsing and central hole effect. It was in this thread but here it is again. This is on NASA's screen and has no notches. This does NOT look like any ice particle to me and it does seem to be of great interet at NASA.



I also believe this clip shows the other hypothesis is incorrect that this is BEHIND the tether



Forgot to add this one from another mission Will have to look up which one later

And DOF's color coded video gives you no pause? You believe the objects are transmogrifying in unison as they enter different sectors of the image?

I see from DoF a really desperate attempt at proving his point by comparing apples to oranges... and working hard to ignore direct questions.

Because throughout the thread, you just come across as a contrairian. Someone who picks the opposing view and demands evidence that no one present can possibly deliver.

Bull Pucky... I am someone who is presenting my side and representing many who agree with me... Demand evidence? Well gee how hilarious is that comment? Every thread I have ever posted the skeptics are very quick and very demanding that I back up every thing I present in triplicate. Yet when the shoe is on the other foot all of a sudden I am 'a contrairian' Surely you jest..

that no one present can possibly deliver.

And why not? I thought NASA never hid anything? So how hard can it be for you guys to call up NASA and get the data? File an FOIA... its not hard I have done it many times and am on most agencies lists. Can't deliver? Why? Because the requested data is 'NOT AVAILABLE" ? You mean to tell me that NASA would not know EXACTLY where this footage is? And Jim Oberg... with all his NASA contacts, you think he would not know where to look and who to ask, even if he can't or won't? Remember he said we just need the time and date and we could pull it from the thousand of feet of film...

Even if someone could produce the camera specs you demand I suspect you would enlarge your request to include examples shot with that equipment.

That is yet another straw man... you do not know me at all. Produce those three items and we can continue. Otherwise at this point, until I get further new information, I rest my case.

There are other matters to deal with that rquire my time

Like the NSA release of their UFO files on their OFFICIAL HOME PAGE

Disclosure NSA Style
www.abovetopsecret.com...


Like this bill passed by Congress

The worst bill EVER! This is horrible, wake up America!




I picked out a few key words

At 0.54 he say "Flesh eating"

At 1.08 he says "their enormous size and other worldly strength"

At 1.15 after "should events occur in urban areas" he pauses and excalims "Jesus..."

At 1.34 he says Underground [classified] protected birthing facilities

WTF???





So continue if you wish... as far as I am concerned they are CRITTERS









[edit on 18-6-2009 by zorgon]

Originally posted by zorgon

Now just because I may have missed it in his long thread... is there a video recreation with a different camera posted that shows:

A) different position of the notch in ONE frame in different areas of that frame ie muliple light sources taken in one picture that I can see if DoF's postulation is correct? (I may have missed it)

Here is one principle of shape dictated by the lens, in direct relation with the position of the BOKEH (airy disc) in the frame.


This is an experiment of mine, with the same pin 1 meter away from the camera, and focus set to infinit:



It shows spherical BOKEH.
But it suffers too from the "cat-eye" effect, although my camera produce a different shape of the bokeh when it moves toward the corners of the frame.

Let me repeat: here i only demonstrated a type of cat-eye effect (toothwalker.org...) produced by my camera, which have the same characteristic of changing shape acording to the position in the frame. And just this issue. BOKEH as a function of position in the frame.

[edit on 18/6/09 by depthoffield]

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by depthoffield
No, is VALID, Zorgon. Physics, optics is VALID. Don't deny it.

Einstein was wrong... you are wrong

Old Laws of Physics are already falling in the new light of Quantum Mechanics

Challenging Einstein
..........

It doesn't matter if Einstein is right or wrong.
Your camera lens, your telescope, your binocular etc can be calculated, produced and used despite Einstein is wrong. Because basic physics and optics, what you call to be "NOT VALID", is VALID enough.