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: 29
77
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 08:49 PM
link   
reply to post by easynow
 

Great idea. The only people qualified to comment whether something may be a UFO are those who have seen UFOs. That'll keep it nice and cozy, won't it?

BTW, plasma is ionized gas. Any ideas about what sort of container would keep these bundles of gas so nicely bundled when surrounded by vacuum?




posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 09:08 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg


Cool. So you have ruled out any shuttle-based effluent events? How nice. Care to share your methodology, or was it divine revelation?



"no apparent reason" means there is nothing in the video that would indicate an obvious explanation. that does not mean i have ruled out any possibility's

your spin zone on this one is either just for defamation of character or you are just blind and can't read between the lines. which is it ?




lets have a look again at this....



James Oberg was losing the debate clearly. NASA was at a standstill. They had to come up with something to make their theory hold and prevent public embarrassment. Oberg insisted on the Art Bell show that all of the apparitions of UFOs were caused by the CCD in the camera, a fact that Sereda could not agree to. There were too many problems with it. If Sereda could win the debate, NASA would be left unable to explain the phenomenon, and the UFO theory would clearly preside with the evidence. But to defend the Agency, Oberg retracted his CCD theory,
Oberg had to eliminate his CCD theory because he knew it was incorrect. He was spinning in his mind to try and find a new plausible theory for the public’s perception of NASA

wakeupusa.netfirms.com...


care to explain this Jim ?, why the retraction ?

or are you too embarrassed to talk about it ?












reply to post by Phage




Great idea.


thanks


you left out the part about people that are unwilling to explore different theory's and only cling to what fits inside their own personal biased parameters.




Any ideas about what sort of container would keep these bundles of gas so nicely bundled when surrounded by vacuum?




yup, maybe one of these...









[edit on 26-6-2009 by easynow]



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 10:20 PM
link   
Alright... I have some questions..

WHAT is this on NASA's mission control screen?



Closeup of three consecutive screen shots








Animation



Questions

1) Why is NASA tracking this?
2) Why is it so big on the Screen?
3) What is the source of the image?
4) Why is this one also pulsating with the clearly defined hole 'beating' regularly?



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
BTW, plasma is ionized gas. Any ideas about what sort of container would keep these bundles of gas so nicely bundled when surrounded by vacuum?


Well Gene Roddenberry had a good explanation... His critter had an energy field around it that was hard to penetrate January 19, 1968 Immunity Syndrome Giant energy sucking space amoeba



And since Gene got his ideas from NASA, like the shields around he space craft from NASA papers like this one;

Active Shielding Concepts for the Ionizing Radiations in Space
Contractor FINAL Report 1964
ntrs.nasa.gov...

... I think he knew something back then


Of course I could be wrong





[edit on 26-6-2009 by zorgon]



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 11:11 PM
link   
I'll risk stating my position on this STS-75 tether incident, amongst all the heavyweights presently in here........

Quite some time ago I was quite sure I was seeing extraterrestrial craft in these videos.

After spending a huge number of hours reading many articles, watching many videos, reading ATS threads, etc... I now think I am seeing the results of camera oriented anamolies.

I must say the detailed & reasoned arguments & explanations put forward by many ATS members in these NASA threads continue to be fascinating & commendable reading.



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 12:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
UFO @ 8:07 !

object changes direction for no apparent reason. camera is steady, FOV appears to be steady, tether (just above yellow line) does not move.






Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by JimOberg


Cool. So you have ruled out any shuttle-based effluent events? How nice. Care to share your methodology, or was it divine revelation?



"no apparent reason" means there is nothing in the video that would indicate an obvious explanation. that does not mean i have ruled out any possibility's




No Easynow, you are wrong asumming there is no indication of why the 8:07 objects change it's trajectory.

Look closer the sequence.

Exactly at that moment, before or just when we detect the movement, there is a short flash filling the whole frame, but more evident to the right of the frame.
Strong indication of shuttle engines or thrusters adjusting the trajectory or position or attitude of the shuttle. Something common. And there are multiple "objects" at that moment changing suddenly the trajectory. But the tether doen'n do it. Because tether is very far away, but the "objects" are near, so paralax effect can be observed. Make some little forward/rewind around that moment 8:07 to see exactly what FACTS can be observed there.

Thanks for the clues.


[edit on 27/6/09 by depthoffield]



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 03:39 AM
link   
reply to post by depthoffield
 



it might be but you will have show the data for the thrusters to prove it. you will also need the original video from NASA to match the time

and your theory will also prove these other objects changing direction is because of a thruster ?
















[edit on 27-6-2009 by easynow]



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


If you are talking about the video where depthoffield demonstrated the cat's eye effect, yes I did, and in fact I complimented him on the evidence. I have addressed this issue. Maybe you should go back and take a look at those posts.



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by depthoffield
 


I don't see a flash, but the video does kind of blink about at that moment. The video does this numerous times throughout the whole footage. At this point the camera seems to be adjusted to its maximum point of observation, and everything appears washed out. I see two objects changing direction, but not at the same time. The bright object appears, like it has came into the range of the camera, then a dimmer objects seems to emerge from it. This dimmer object seems to make several course corrections, and it does change direction, BUT just before the brighter object changes direction, Yet they do change direction in the same direction. The dimmer object seems to accelerated at this time. There isn't any other reference to observe at this time, but these two objects and the tether.

If these changes where due to the shuttle moving, I think we would have seen the whole screen appear to adjust, as when the camera has been moved in other times during the video.



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by depthoffield

So no comments on THIS post?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Funny how that is brushed over



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 

Seriously, I am having a very hard time trying to understand your answers, so, to avoid further misunderstandings, I think I will only answer posts from you that are directed to me.

PS: you didn't answered the second question, do you see something that looks like a fade-out and a fade-in with the tether?



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
WHAT is this on NASA's mission control screen?

It looks like the same type of thing, probably a higly out-of-focus small, bright object, seen with too much gain.


1) Why is NASA tracking this?

It's on a corner of the screen, why do you say that NASA is tracking it?

Is there a bigger picture in which we can see the rest of the screen, instead of this small crop? Thanks.


2) Why is it so big on the Screen?

Because it's closer or because it's bigger than the other objects.

As we do not have any way of know its size or the distance from the camera, we can not know it for sure.


3) What is the source of the image?

Good question, but why should we answer that? Shouldn't you be the one with that information? I have no idea where did you got that, although it says "UFO Greatest Story Ever Denied - NASA Space Secrets", so I suppose that movie may have the answer.


4) Why is this one also pulsating with the clearly defined hole 'beating' regularly?

Probably by the same reason, it an object that is rotating and that does not reflect the light in the same way in all directions. The hole in the middle is an effect of the lens.

All the questions may be answered in the same way of those regarding the tether video, whatever it is it looks the same.



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
reply to post by depthoffield

So no comments on THIS post?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Funny how that is brushed over




Hi

Do you have an answer to this post yet

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Funny how that is brushed over



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by JimOberg


Cool. So you have ruled out any shuttle-based effluent events? How nice. Care to share your methodology, or was it divine revelation?



"no apparent reason" means there is nothing in the video that would indicate an obvious explanation. that does not mean i have ruled out any possibility's

your spin zone on this one is either just for defamation of character or you are just blind and can't read between the lines. which is it ?




lets have a look again at this....



James Oberg was losing the debate clearly. NASA was at a standstill. They had to come up with something to make their theory hold and prevent public embarrassment. Oberg insisted on the Art Bell show that all of the apparitions of UFOs were caused by the CCD in the camera, a fact that Sereda could not agree to. There were too many problems with it. If Sereda could win the debate, NASA would be left unable to explain the phenomenon, and the UFO theory would clearly preside with the evidence. But to defend the Agency, Oberg retracted his CCD theory,
Oberg had to eliminate his CCD theory because he knew it was incorrect. He was spinning in his mind to try and find a new plausible theory for the public’s perception of NASA

wakeupusa.netfirms.com...


care to explain this Jim ?, why the retraction ?

or are you too embarrassed to talk about it ?




You should be embarrassed to be caught believing it.

When life teaches you better baloney-filtering, get back in touch.



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
Alright... I have some questions..

WHAT is this on NASA's mission control screen?...

Questions

1) Why is NASA tracking this?
2) Why is it so big on the Screen?
3) What is the source of the image?
4) Why is this one also pulsating with the clearly defined hole 'beating' regularly?



Fair questions.

Here's another one:

What's the time/date of the video so the entire sequence, and the context shuttle activities, can be determined?

This answer must come first.



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon



Animation



Questions

1) Why is NASA tracking this?
2) Why is it so big on the Screen?
3) What is the source of the image?
4) Why is this one also pulsating with the clearly defined hole 'beating' regularly?



That looks like the STS-119 UFO.

That thing really gets around.





posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 08:33 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg


Well played Jim considering the availability of that film from NASA. I shall continue to track down dates and times... but seeing as you have worked on this so many years, I am sure you are aware we will most likely never see them

But I have few people I can still ask



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 08:46 PM
link   
Re this link

wakeupusa.netfirms.com...

It claims David Sereda did a test he focused on a tree a 100ft away and some keys 4 inches from the lens were still in focus.
This he claims means all the white objects are in focus.
Depth of field is related to APERTURE,FOCAL LENGTH and DISTANCE FOCUSED on so unless everything was the same as the NASA footage camera,aperture,focal length and point of focus it doesn't count.
In fact I posted a video with my digital video camera focused a few hundred feet from the lens and a spec of paint on the window 2-3 ft away was out of focus , the spec should have been in focus all the time if what David Sereda said was correct!
Now what would really be interesting did Sereda ever post his video evidence?! Do you know Jim?



posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 03:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
Alright... I have some questions..

WHAT is this on NASA's mission control screen?



Closeup of three consecutive screen shots








Animation



Questions

1) Why is NASA tracking this?
2) Why is it so big on the Screen?
3) What is the source of the image?
4) Why is this one also pulsating with the clearly defined hole 'beating' regularly?


As Armap answered, but if you ask me, i will answer:

WHAT is this on NASA's mission control screen?
BOKEH, a out of focus image (an Airy discs) of a particle/object out of the depth of field of the camera and since the stars in the image are seen focused, the only posibility is that the out of focus object is small and closer to the camera. Also notice that the shape is TYPICAL of bokeh created by catadioptric lens (hole in the center), and also note the cat-eye effect.
Also, it can be just a simple lens-flare inside the lens, which also can produce bokeh with the characteristhic shape of bokeh produced by catadioptric lens, but because of regurlalry pulsating, i exclude the "lens-flare" solution, and accept the smaller little particle out of focus,


1) Why is NASA tracking this?
Answer: it didn't tracking, as object is not in the center of the screen, not beeing the point of interest.

2) Why is it so big on the Screen?
Because the screen is big, and BOKEH can be big. I will exemplify to you later another "bokeh" with exactly the same shape.

3) What is the source of the image?
As ia said a smaller closer particle. Some kind of debris usually floating with the shuttle as it is its product.

4) Why is this one also pulsating with the clearly defined hole 'beating' regularly?
The precise and constant pulsating is due to its precise constant rotation (as o free inertial moving object does). Because of constant rotation, it regurlalry change the distribution of light reflected by its body. Bokeh shape is senzitive of size of the object..bigger out of focus objects just appear fuzzy, smaller as a theoretical point objects, and out of focus, copy exactly the shape of the internal pupil lens or other internal protuberances, and a little bigger than a point object, copy the shape of internal pupil lens but can also change more or less the shape of it's produced bokeh...and because the spinning, the size of the object as seen from the camera change periodically (since is not a sphere, but irregular), so the bokeh shape change periodicaly (the hole). This is detailed optics, you know...






[edit on 28/6/09 by depthoffield] - typos -


[edit on 28/6/09 by depthoffield]



posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 06:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by depthoffield
 



it might be but you will have show the data for the thrusters to prove it. you will also need the original video from NASA to match the time



Yours "it might be" means a acceptance of this mundane posibility, suggested by the sequence. Beeing mundane, beeing common, and beeing perfectly possible, why not? Maybe YOU should prove it is NOT a consequence of the thrusters in order to raise the level to "unknown/misterious phenomenon"


Anyway, I extracted the moment in discussion.
First, there are 3 objects:



All of this 3 objects, suddenly and simultaneously change their trajectory, exactly ot the moment of the flash.


Below is an animated sequence (external link, since ATS media doesn't accept swf), showing about 2 seconds BEFORE the flash and about 2 seconds AFTER the flash, and then rewinded the whole sequence, begining with the



new topics

top topics



 
77
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join