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: 24
77
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 18 2009 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by depthoffield
Let me repeat:....


No let ME repeat one last time...

show me a video with MULTIPLE OBJECTS (light sources that you call BOKEH) that exhibit different notches, some one, some two in the same video. Your cats eye effect is not exhibited on the tether film. You claim the notches are a function of the lens, you claim the notches appear on different sides of the object depending on location in the image

FOCUS on that experiment... show me the effect reproduced..

Call me when its ready... Time to jump in my pool




posted on Jun, 18 2009 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
i agree with Sereda....a "airy disc" would not have the clear defined lines like the "critters" have when they pass near the tether.


could you be more specific of what "clear defined lines" you refer? maybe an adnotated capture or something?

[edit on 18/6/09 by depthoffield]



posted on Jun, 18 2009 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
Your cats eye effect is not exhibited on the tether film.


WRONG, it is. You never think of it, or maybe, you don't want to see it. I don't know which way. Either way, you are in process of just denying without argument. And you try to push me to the "einstein is wrong", "show me NASA specifications" whatever.

Here it is one example of cat-eye effect:



You see, the squash-ing of the disc have one axis of simetry toward the center of the frame. This is a good clue. If you want to dismiss it...go to your pool.



Originally posted by zorgon

You claim the notches are a function of the lens, you claim the notches appear on different sides of the object depending on location in the image



It is not only a claim, it's an argumented observation. Have you seen it? What's wrong in that issue? That i haven't NASA data? Should we SWALLOW that M.Stubbs famous NASA movie without judging every bit of information that we can get? Should we focus only on "we don't have data, it looks strange, therefore it is unexplainable". This is not rational thinking (dismissing when having some little information from the movie, what we see if we look beyound superficiality, and using some human knowledge in some particular fields appilcable here - optics -).





Originally posted by zorgon

show me a video with MULTIPLE OBJECTS (light sources that you call BOKEH) that exhibit different notches, some one, some two in the same video.


I don't have exactly this (and this is not my guild don't blame and push on me).

I have something very near of what you ask.

This movie:

www.youtube.com...


I think you know it.


There are not many objects. It is only one. But it has notches. And is just an airy disc, a bokeh effect.


That airy disc moves across different areas of the frame.
And guess what?

It has dark center (as bokeh from catadioptric lens always have dark center - the "donut" effect) it has variable notches, depending on what position it has on the frame.

Some shots:


no notch:






one 6'o clock notch:




2 twelve o'clock notches:




You see? morphing bokeh as a function from position in the frame.


If there happened to be multiple airy discs, then you would see diiferent disks with different nothes in the same image.





Originally posted by zorgon

Call me when its ready... Time to jump in my pool


The effort to understand these little concepts it's on you! But if you want to deny them, you should argument your opinion right on the particular issue...not just telling me that Einstein is wrong, basic principles of optics are not valid, rational thinking and efforts to extract more information on carefull examination should be futile etc

Enjoy your pool!





[edit on 18/6/09 by depthoffield]



posted on Jun, 18 2009 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b

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.


What chip are you talking?!? There is not existing this kind of chip capable to extend the depth of filed of an optical lens. It is denying principles of optics.

Sereda's camera has great depth of field in his key experiment because:
- it has a small senzor. Smaller the senzor, smaller the lens, greater the depth of field.
- it shoots on sunny day, where there is plenty of light. When plenty of light, the iris mechanism of the lens shrinks down the aperture (the diameter of the hole traversed by the light). Smaller the aperture, greater the depth of field. If he would film the key in low light situation, be sure the iris will open to the maximum, and maximum iris means smaller depth of field (And you know, NASA tether movie is shot in a low light situation)
- he doesn't use zoom. greater the zoom, smaller the depth of field. In NASA movies, those discs appear only when zoom is used.

So, you see, Sereda deliberately mislead people which don't know how camera optics operate.




[edit on 18/6/09 by depthoffield]



posted on Jun, 18 2009 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by depthoffield
 





i addressed this video on the last page depthoffield, maybe you missed it ?

quoting myself....

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.










could you be more specific of what "clear defined lines" you refer? maybe an adnotated capture or something?



there is no need for me to screen capture a picture when you know darn good and well what Sereda is talking about. if for some reason you don't , then watch the video and he will show you








posted on Jun, 18 2009 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by easynow

i addressed this video on the last page depthoffield, maybe you missed it ?

quoting myself....

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.


yes, i saw it. i knew it before.

And this example is for Zorgon, answering him how notches on an Airy disc changes as a function of position in the frame.




Originally posted by easynow
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.


No, you are wrong, it can be used as it EXPLAIN THE PRINCIPLE. And principles can't be just denied just because someone wants to. They can be excluded ONLY with good arguments. Demanding real NASA camera specification is not an argument, is only a request. And this request can't replace or deny the posibility of a principle applicable in that situation.




Originally posted by easynow

could you be more specific of what "clear defined lines" you refer? maybe an adnotated capture or something?


there is no need for me to screen capture a picture when you know darn good and well what Sereda is talking about. if for some reason you don't , then watch the video and he will show you



no, this time i don't know of what you are reffering, and i ask you again. If you want to show me, if not, no problem, i can except your statement with "clear defined lines" because i didn't understand it.

thanks.









posted on Jun, 18 2009 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by depthoffield
 



No, you are wrong, it can be used as it EXPLAIN THE PRINCIPLE


i am sorry but a anonymous random video where we all have no idea what camera is being used or if it has some damage or other possible problems with it is..

Weak Evidence




no, this time i don't know of what you are reffering, and i ask you again. If you want to show me, if not, no problem, i can except your statement with "clear defined lines" because i didn't understand it.


if you watched the video then you would know what Sereda is saying and what i am agreeing with. if you continue to refuse the discussion then that's your ignorance , not mine



thanks.


Ditto


[edit on 18-6-2009 by easynow]



posted on Jun, 18 2009 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by easynow


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.


all you need to make the images puls is have the out of focus objects rotate without a uniform surface. voila, pulsing. in focus it looks like flashing.



posted on Jun, 18 2009 @ 07:40 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


Jebus, don't blame ya. Worst bill ever wins. That's some chewy Dr. Strangelove stuff there. Or some excellent satire.


As for the disks, they're whatever shape you want them to be.


Per you quantum mechanics reference earlier, nothing exists anyway until someone focuses their attention on it.


Since the ocean is less than a block away, I'm going to go jump in it.



[edit on 18-6-2009 by Raybo58]



posted on Jun, 18 2009 @ 10:11 PM
link   
Hi all,

Went through the first five pages so please forgive I need'nt bother going through all.
What a bunch of horse#. By NASA's own account the tether was at a minimum of 100 miles away after break-off when the tether-illuminated discs were being taped. Some of which were behind the tether.

They were not "BALLOONS", Weather BALLOONS or particles/Ice crystals (at 100+ feet across)?
Gosh darn, some of us better wake-up. Word's out France decided not to announce their (EBE) existence, why?, President Obama's requested more time to adjust Americans to the reality -- non of us are alone -- Here !!

Seems to me, what it's all about now is:
1) Why are we being abducted (I have my own thoughts as to whay); and
2) Why have some EBE races downed our aircraft and in doing so, killing innocent HUman Beings?

Seems to me, anyone thinking about debunking this stuff needs psychological assessment.
Decoy



posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 07:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
I also believe this clip shows the other hypothesis is incorrect that this is BEHIND the tether


I don't understand it, do you mean that the clip shows that the object is behind the tether or not?

If you mean that the object really passes behind the tether, why do you think it shows that?



posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by depthoffield
 


I am not a camera buff, I have no idea if this chip exists that allows close up objects and distant objects to be focused on at the same time. I suspect that with digital filtering it is possible, but it certainly wouldn't apply to this 97 video shot on the Space Shuttle, and maybe I should have made note of that. However, this ability to dual focus may very well apply to home cameras used to provide evidence of what we are seeing on the video.

The thing about equipment that goes into space is that it always lags current technology by several years, because anything that is taken into space must be first space hardened, then environmentally tested to prove that it can be relied upon in space. We are talking major involvement of bureaucracy, and all the demons of inefficiency they bring. Chances are the cameras used to shoot these videos are eighties or even seventies technology. Now, in many ways they are top level equipment, especially when it comes to durability, but even all of their components must have been space approved before they were designed, so there is a big technology lag. Chances are good that the camera which made this film is purely analog, and any digitization came later in the process. That being said, analog does offer some advantages over digital, even more so earlier digital technology.

However, I think you made a good point with your video on the cat eye effect. Is this an official term? I think it is reasonable to assume that the large fluffy looking UFOs are distortions created by the way they were playing with camera adjustment in this video. This still doesn't mean that even these fluffy UFO distortions prove that they were small objects close to the camera, being that they only appear at the extremes of camera focus. Could this same cat eye effect be created when trying to focus on distant objects, or merely from poor camera adjustments? It is also possible that this how they look when focused on.

While the big fluffy UFOs look like they could be created by camera distortions, the small white dots do not, and definitely do not look like small particles close to the camera.

On another note, it seems to me that they had good focus on the tether, why did they then start playing with the camera adjustments, as it did not seem to do anything to improve their view of the tether. It looks like their attention was directed towards the UFOs, once these UFOs were found swarming around the tether. If they went crypto with the voice signal, chances are they went crypto with the camera feed shortly afterward, and that there is considerably more video footage of this event that we are not aware of, and will probably never get to see.



posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 11:55 AM
link   
In my absence there's been progress in detailed discussions of the implications of these videos, that are helpful in defining the needs of information on the web page I'm preparing on my site.

Fundamentally, I've got to provide really basic principles and characteristics of space video equipment and visual environment. All the sincere true-believers' claims and voiced hatreds and pooh-poohing of prosaic explanations are based on self-serving bad guesses, honest misperceptions, and faulty understandings of the realities of space imagery.

Add to that a firmly closed mind to opposing views -- look how ten years after my original debunking was published, posters here still show off their deliberate refusal to even read it and its still valid refutation of the bogus 'width of the plasma sheath' of the tether -- and you have a recipe for ego-feeding self-delusion that is hard to undo.

But for those genuinely curious readers, I hope my new web page will collect all the technical data and records and context of these kinds of videos. Thanks to all for defining the scope of the contents that must be provided there. Further suggestions will be very helpful.

It'll take awhile.



posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


Jim, do you have a link to your earlier analysis of the tether video showing that it is not as people think? I was unaware of this, and have only participated in two or three forums on the subject.

I apologize for the charlatan remark, it was meant as a squaring up remark of macho bravado, meant as more of a jest, and not any kind of remark on your person. I tend to come off as a bit too gruff, a personality flaw on my part that I need to soften.

If any of my evaluations of this tether incident is causing you to dig deeper into your research, I take this as a compliment. I hope you enjoy engaging in further research on the subject.



posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 02:32 PM
link   
The story was posted on May 10, 2000, here:

www.rense.com...

I think if you google 'STS-75' and 'Oberg' it shows up, and other stuff too.

Such as..
csicop.org...
and
www.ufos-aliens.co.uk...

[edit on 19-6-2009 by JimOberg]



posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
I am not a camera buff, I have no idea if this chip exists that allows close up objects and distant objects to be focused on at the same time. I suspect that with digital filtering it is possible, but it certainly wouldn't apply to this 97 video shot on the Space Shuttle, and maybe I should have made note of that. However, this ability to dual focus may very well apply to home cameras used to provide evidence of what we are seeing on the video.
As far as I know, there is no way having an infinite depth of field (what makes things being on focus or our of focus), unless we use a special pin-hole camera, but I think that even in theory a pin-hole camera cannot give a perfect image (although everything is in focus).

Digital manipulation of images can compensate this problem, by using "focus stacking" software that uses several images and, selecting the most on focus parts of each creates a composite that looks perfectly on focus. Those programs are mostly used on macro photography (very close up photos), because the ability to focus very close to the camera implies a small depth of field.

Although theoretically possible to do with a special chip inside a photo camera, to do that in video there would be needed several images for each frame, increasing the real frame rate, and a lot of processing power.


That being said, analog does offer some advantages over digital, even more so earlier digital technology.

Yes, digital photography, like video, are limited by the pixel size and the sensitivity of the sensor, and while technology has been evolving rapidly, things are far from perfect, a good film camera (with a good film) is much better than the best digital camera.


While the big fluffy UFOs look like they could be created by camera distortions, the small white dots do not, and definitely do not look like small particles close to the camera.

One thing I would like to point (because I think that is a cause of confusion) is that to be out of focus when the camera is focused to infinity the objects the objects may be very close to the camera or not, it depends on the lens, every lens has its limits, and that is another reason the camera specifications are so important (and apparently invisible
).


If they went crypto with the voice signal, chances are they went crypto with the camera feed shortly afterward, and that there is considerably more video footage of this event that we are not aware of, and will probably never get to see.

In that case Martyn Stubbs should be able to answer that, he supposedly taped it all.



posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


Oh ArMaP, forever the skeptic, lol.

Admittedly I'm far more impressed with the STS-80 footage, as for the tether one, still holding out.

Isnt there anything with the 75 that you find hard to explain?



posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Majorion
Oh ArMaP, forever the skeptic, lol.

Always.



Admittedly I'm far more impressed with the STS-80 footage, as for the tether one, still holding out.

So am I, but maybe not the same thing that you are thinking about.


Isnt there anything with the 75 that you find hard to explain?

Yes, several.

The movement of the objects is number one on my list, I don't have the slightest idea of how that can be explained, even disregarding that object that looks like it moves in several directions, why some have what looks like a sharp parabolic trajectory and others rectilinear (or almost) trajectories?

Another thing for which I can not find a real explanation is "pulsing". Although I think that is the result of blinking while out of focus and overexposed, I haven't been able to reproduce that effect or see it in any other occasion.

For last, what are those objects? Although I think the ice crystals, or, more correctly, the small, bright, out of focus objects explanation is the most likely to be the real one, I don't really have any way of knowing.

(Edited to correct the quotes)

[edit on 19/6/2009 by ArMaP]



posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Majorion
Admittedly I'm far more impressed with the STS-80 footage, as for the tether one, still holding out.


Too bad Story Musgrave, who was there, wasn't impressed.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

See my recent communication directly from Dr. Musgrave on the last page of the thread.



[edit on 19-6-2009 by JimOberg]



posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


That is why I said that I am also more impressed with the STS-80 video but "maybe not the same thing that you are thinking about", I was not thinking about that video with your explanation posted below it, to which you linked in that thread, I was thinking about the other video, the less talked about that shows a circular object that looks like it gets "squashed" against the upper atmosphere just above a thunderstorm.

And if you want us to see your last post in that thread why do you post a link to the middle of the thread instead of a link to the right post?



new topics

top topics



 
77
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join