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: 34
77
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 03:48 AM
link   
reply to post by depthoffield
 




why are you repeating the same nonsense ?
@ You




www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...


that video cannot be used as evidence for anything













watching the detectives






www.youtube.com...







[edit on 2-7-2009 by easynow]




posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 07:48 AM
link   
reply to post by easynow
 


Although I don't think of myself as a debunker, I can tell you why I haven't commented that new video, it was because it shows nothing new when compared with the one that was the reason for this thread, the (very good) stabilisation does not add anything because it was not the lack of stabilisation that was keeping us from reaching a conclusion based on what we see.



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon


Seems to be a lot of confusion at NASA you know... like these guys trying to figure out what went wrong on the Rover when its wheel jammed

I can understand how they would be confused about when the shuttle would be in sunlight



Zorgon, you still need to be more careful accusing others of confusion, and then posting 'evidence' that shows YOU'RE the one confused. The photo you posted supposedly showing NASA controllers confused over the Mars rover's stuck wheel includes Dan Goldin, who was NASA head in the 1990's, who was replaced BEFORE either Mars Rover ever landed on Mars.

If I had to guess, I'd say it was a view of the JPL team in 1999 when the Mars Climate Orbiter disappeared behind the planet and never came out. I won national magazine awards soon afterwards for breaking the story of why that debacle happened.

Again, your exuberant mockery outstrips your reality-basing, rebounding only to make you a far more fitting target of sneering derision.

And that's too bad, since you really know better, but can't help yourself.

You asked for some original research, I provided it, and your response was a detour into phony mockery that made you look like a hero to yourself and other UFO buffs, and a fool to real space experts. Next time you ask me for some original research, just remember how you reward it.



[edit on 2-7-2009 by JimOberg]



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 



Although I don't think of myself as a debunker, I can tell you why I haven't commented that new video, it was because it shows nothing new when compared with the one that was the reason for this thread, the (very good) stabilisation does not add anything because it was not the lack of stabilisation that was keeping us from reaching a conclusion based on what we see.



wow, i am disappointed with your statement here ArMaP


i would have thought you of all people would have noticed the new evidence this latest video brings to attention.

there is at least three portions of the video that show anomalous activity that was not shown in the video in the Op.

i am not going to lead you to it because that would be what they call leading the witness


i suggest you re-watch the latest video and look for what you have missed.



and who is "us"



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by depthoffield
 



No, it shows the PRINCIPLE, which you maybe learned now.


What principle? Can you state this principle you are talking about? Provide any links to said principle? Any scientific evidence that backs up your claims, because all I see are a bunch of cheap parlor tricks so far.

Your cheap parlour tricks verses a NASA study on the subject, which mentions nothing about lens anomalies. Hmm, who are we going to believe?

Sarcasm following, not necessarily directed at you depthoffield.

I guess its Aliens verses Predators III or something like that, hey Hollywood? I hope there is intelligent life out there, because there doesn't seem to be any here on Earth.



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
Your cheap parlour tricks verses a NASA study on the subject, which mentions nothing about lens anomalies. Hmm, who are we going to believe?


The report mentions nothing about continental drift, either -- so we should assume it doesn't exist?

Poet, your Plasticmanesque proclivity at twisting everything you read into further proof you've been right all the time continues to amuse many readers.

The report was an early-on assessment of the debris environment of the shuttle as it could affect observational instrumentation results.

Why it should even -- as you assume -- concern itself with camera characteristics and anomalies escapes me.


But what-the-hey you've already decreed that I must be a management-type non-techie bureaucrat who knows nothing useful about spaceflight operations. Gotta be true if you believe it so sincerely.

Maybe you oughta write NASA and have them revoke my console operator specialist certifications. Clearly, they were obtained fraudulently.






[edit on 2-7-2009 by JimOberg]



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
Maybe you oughta write NASA and have them revoke my console operator specialist certifications. Clearly, they were obtained fraudulently.


I'll see what I can do
Wouldn't want people having the wrong impressions




posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


JHC this is pathetic.

Yes, it is an article about the effects of space debri on OPTICAL instrumentation, not about continental drift. Do you know anything at all about instrumentation?


The object of the PACs experiment were to: (1) Quantify the particulate sizes and trajectories so as to identify source locations; (2) determine
the severity of events such as dumps, purges, maneuvers, and various
operations and measure t h e i r decay (clearing) times. The experiment design and performance have been presented elsewhere (Green et al., 1987) and will be only briefly summarized here.


Do you understand the concept of experimental design? Optical anomalies should have been taken into consideration, and probably were, as they would have had an effect on particulate size, and yet no mention of such anomalies are mentioned here. If depthoffield wants to prove these are a result of optical anomalies, then he should look up the experiments design. This article does address the Key Unknowns, and yet it doesn't mention lens anomalies? If they were a critical factor, you would think they would be given a mention.

More and more you seem like an example of everything that is wrong about NASA.



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 12:29 PM
link   
Call me an over imaginative fool spinning fantasies if you want, but don' insult my intelligence.

There are specific methods to be followed when setting up instrumentation. Without a grasp of this, it is all nonsense. Like I said, Hollywood.



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by depthoffield
 

why are you repeating the same nonsense ?
@ You

that video cannot be used as evidence for anything





That evidence he presented is pretty flawless. What is the problem with it and why can it not be used as evidence of anything? From my perspective, they are obviously camera artifacts and the video he shows is the nail in the coffin. Did you see my lens picture... that shows the notches?

A guy has done a youtube video to show the effect.


I wouldn't be surprised if the staff here as well as the majority of the community comes out and realizes these are not UFO's. The evidence here is overwhelming IMO. These are not UFO's in space during the STS-75.

Well done depthoffield.

[edit on 2-7-2009 by bloodline]



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by bloodline
 


read the links you left out of your quote and you will know why i feel that video he posted is weak evidence to prove a point.

the video you are posting is a different one.

got any pictures of the inside of the lens that was used on the shuttle mission ? that might help that part of the discussion ?






edit to add.....

i am not defending a position of the appearance of the objects. as a matter of fact i am not defending any position on any of this. i have already stated on page 1 that the appearance of these objects could be an illusion.






i would like to see a logical explanation for the strange v shaped maneuvers some of the objects are making.

that is what the Op of this thread is about not the shape of the object.









[edit on 2-7-2009 by easynow]



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
If I had to guess, I'd say it was a view of the JPL team in 1999 when the Mars Climate Orbiter disappeared behind the planet and never came out. I won national magazine awards soon afterwards for breaking the story of why that debacle happened.


Hmmm seems I need to update that info... so the confused look was not over the rover but the climate orbiter Gotcha... Will send that info to the source I got that from


But the looks are still priceless ...



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by depthoffield
 


why are you repeating the same nonsense ?
@ You
that video cannot be used as evidence for anything



Well, it ashows evidence for morping BOKEH. Have your read this thread?



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by depthoffield
Well, it ashows evidence for morping BOKEH. Have your read this thread?


No it doesn't There is no 'morphing' involved in your video the three notches do not MORPH, nor is there the rippling pulsating effect... I will give you a star for persistence though
As Easynow says... Hollywood

Compare them side by side... If you cannot see the difference, there is little more to say







posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by bloodline
From my perspective, they are obviously camera artifacts and the video he shows is the nail in the coffin. Did you see my lens picture... that shows the notches?

A guy has done a youtube video to show the effect.


I wouldn't be surprised if the staff here as well as the majority of the community comes out and realizes these are not UFO's. The evidence here is overwhelming IMO. These are not UFO's in space during the STS-75.


Excelent examples showing the same characteristics of BOKEH: (not retaining the original shape of the object, and morphing shape (notches) and cat-eye effect also in the youtube video.

But you know what they say? this is non-sense. Do you know why? because you didn't show something to let us dream to the "critters".






[edit on 2/7/09 by depthoffield]



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by depthoffield
 



Well, it ashows evidence for morping BOKEH. Have your read this thread?


maybe in your world it is evidence


not in my world



maybe the camera used in that video YOU posted has been compromised ?









i'm done with the discussion about the shape of the object. i did not initiate that discussion so you all can have at it.


when someone shows something worth looking at that explains the V shaped trajectories some of these objects are making (which is the point of the Op) let me know, thanks



























[edit on 2-7-2009 by easynow]



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by depthoffield
Well, it ashows evidence for morping BOKEH. Have your read this thread?


No it doesn't There is no 'morphing' involved in your video the three notches do not MORPH, nor is there the rippling pulsating effect... I will give you a star for persistence though
As Easynow says... Hollywood

Compare them side by side... If you cannot see the difference, there is little more to say




thanks for the star. You and others merit hundred of stars for your persitence.

But youtube video, with those 3 notches, shows morphing notches. They are longer or shorter depending on the position in the frame...look closer.


And again, you are acting childish, asking for :show me the same, show me the same"..not beeing able to separate different properties in one image and judge them as what they are: independent properties.

Shape is one issue. Pulsating is another issue. Trajectory is another issue. Etcetera. Every one can have an explanation. The shape is NOT an object property. This is about.



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by depthoffield
But youtube video, with those 3 notches, shows morphing notches. They are longer or shorter depending on the position in the frame...look closer.


The problem here is your definition of morphing... yours get longer and shorter as they move up and down in the field of vision, or as they move off camera as it were... they do not 'morph'

The tether object actually changes shape.

While yours are crisp rectangular notches as are all bokeh, the 'critter' notches show fluid changes, rippling edges and morph while in the same general location... not as it moves off screen

Sorry if you skeptics cannot see how different that is... but as Easynow said the focus of the OP was the MOTION and we have beaten this shape horse into pulp







[edit on 2-7-2009 by zorgon]



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 02:50 PM
link   
All that those who claim they have proved something with these video have done is prove that with camera effects, they can reproduce the image, which anyone can do.

Reproducing an image doesn't show that this is what happened in another video, and to propose such is just nonsense, especially when you have to put something in front of the lens.



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by JimOberg
If I had to guess, I'd say it was a view of the JPL team in 1999 when the Mars Climate Orbiter disappeared behind the planet and never came out. I won national magazine awards soon afterwards for breaking the story of why that debacle happened.


Hmmm seems I need to update that info... so the confused look was not over the rover but the climate orbiter Gotcha... Will send that info to the source I got that from


But the looks are still priceless ...



Well said, Z.

Sadly, the looks cost us about $400,000,000 down the space drain for a program leadership flaw that Goldin himself set in motion...



new topics

top topics



 
77
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join