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: 36
77
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 10:03 AM
link   
reply to post by JScytale
 


That is because all of the video evidence I have seen so far is nothing but amateuristic garbage. Anyone can use camera tricks to reproduce an image, and it proves nothing.

This video provided by bloodline is just another example of pure garbage. What is with the color of the sky? Is this from some 1920ties cowboy movie? Clearly the image is created, not a natural artifact of video footage. Not only is it clear that some special effect is being used that creates a filtering effect, it doesn't look like it is moving, and it is not pulsating.

Where is some legitimate evidence? All I see is camera tricks and simulations.

At least I have provided legitimate links that describe how plasma has been observed developing characteristics of living organisms. Once again, the debunkers have yet to provide anything that looks legitimate to back their explanation.

edit added

Not only have those who claim this to be camera anomalies failed to provide legitimate evidence, Zorgon provided a link to a NASA study on debri floating outside the shuttle that clearly states that some of what is seen can not be explained. If it was camera lens anomalies, you would think that the NASA study would have pointed this out, or at least mentioned this problem. The NASA study estimates the size of the debri, how can they do that if they have these supposed anomalies?

NASA study verses amateur videos, who ya gonna believe?

end edit

There is no evidence that these plasma creatures would be bright enough to be observed from the surface of the Earth. In fact it would make sense that they are only visible under special lighting circumstances. If they survive by feeding on sunlight, then they wouldn't be hanging out in the Earth's shadow, so they wouldn't be in our night sky, except in regions outside of the Earths shadow, and probably outside of regions of our magnetosphere.

I don't claim that the plasma creature idea is a definite, only a reasonable theory.


[edit on 3-7-2009 by poet1b]




posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
John Lenard Walson has gotten some interesting photo's of some objects. Some are in deep space, some have been deemed to be just beyond our moon.


Funny that nobody else watching the skies has ever seen them.

I figure they're not in space, or near the moon -- my guess is, they're in his garage.



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1

What do you think it is proof of?

That artifact does not move, change orientation and there is just one of it.



jesus christ - the simple fact that there are MULTIPLE objects that all have the same shape and orientation, and change shape in the same areas of the film, makes his explanation *even more* valid.

what seems more likely to you?

a swarm of gigantic space ships plainly visible to the camera but completely invisible to ground based observers all orbiting the tether in seemingly random directions but all having the exact same surface facing the shuttle at all times....

...or a swarm of mundane space debris floating along with the shuttle and tether being filmed out of focus, all displaying the same effect because *they're all out of focus with the same lens*.

[edit on 3-7-2009 by JScytale]



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by JScytale
 


That is because all of the video evidence I have seen so far is nothing but amateuristic garbage. Anyone can use camera tricks to reproduce an image, and it proves nothing.

This video provided by bloodline is just another example of pure garbage. What is with the color of the sky? Is this from some 1920ties cowboy movie? Clearly the image is created, not a natural artifact of video footage. Not only is it clear that some special effect is being used that creates a filtering effect, it doesn't look like it is moving, and it is not pulsating.

Where is some legitimate evidence? All I see is camera tricks and simulations.

At least I have provided legitimate links that describe how plasma has been observed developing characteristics of living organisms. Once again, the debunkers have yet to provide anything that looks legitimate to back their explanation.

edit added

Not only have those who claim this to be camera anomalies failed to provide legitimate evidence, Zorgon provided a link to a NASA study on debri floating outside the shuttle that clearly states that some of what is seen can not be explained. If it was camera lens anomalies, you would think that the NASA study would have pointed this out, or at least mentioned this problem. The NASA study estimates the size of the debri, how can they do that if they have these supposed anomalies?

NASA study verses amateur videos, who ya gonna believe?

end edit

There is no evidence that these plasma creatures would be bright enough to be observed from the surface of the Earth. In fact it would make sense that they are only visible under special lighting circumstances. If they survive by feeding on sunlight, then they wouldn't be hanging out in the Earth's shadow, so they wouldn't be in our night sky, except in regions outside of the Earths shadow, and probably outside of regions of our magnetosphere.

I don't claim that the plasma creature idea is a definite, only a reasonable theory.


[edit on 3-7-2009 by poet1b]


you are a perfect example of the willfully ignorant.
there are really only two possibilities. either you are blocking out the principles he is illustrating and attacking the videos because they weren't made professionally, in your mind discrediting them completely because of said fact so you don't have to consider the point he is clearly illustrating - or you don't even have the mental capacity to understand what is being displayed in his videos, and decided to brush them aside because they "look cheap".

and no, plasma creatures are not a "reasonable theory". they are a fantasy. there is absolutely zero evidence that would lead a person to that conclusion. all i can really think of is they "kinda look alive" because of the pulsing and transparency (which happens to be a sign of something being out of focus, gasp).

im really hoping that you stop, think this case through, and come to a realization that this really is not good UFO evidence, and go off looking for stronger cases. there are *plenty* of them out there. Even if you don't though, you are doing these forums a service by illustrating to newcomers who decide to read through this threadnaught what a person who refuses to give up his beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence looks like, so that they know what to avoid in the future.

[edit on 3-7-2009 by JScytale]



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by JScytale
 



im really hoping that you stop, think this case through, and come to a realization that this really is not good UFO evidence, and go off looking for stronger cases. there are *plenty* of them out there.


when ever i see somebody say that, i immediately know they are a boogyman because they are trying to persuade others into looking the other way while the real evidence is at hand.

i suggest you re-watch the videos(the raw footage) and avoid thinking about the out of focus notch discussion and see what you come up with then.

if you don't see anything after that method then you are either hopeless or straight up dis info.

which will it be ? ...time will tell


















[edit on 3-7-2009 by easynow]



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


I seem to recall a reference from 2007 that states the opposite. I will dig that up if i can and share.



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 04:02 PM
link   
Remember BOKEH which takes the shape of internal lens and its protuberances?

I showed examples of BOKEH from internet, or from my own experiments. Every photographer with some experience, will understand what bokeh is, depth of field, out of focus etcetera.

Now a little step further....

How about BOKEH with nothces produced by the shuttle cameras themself?

I found two examples a couple of weeks or even months ago, but not having time to extract the data, while viewing shuttle mission archives spoken by the astronauts themselves. The shuttle mission archives are here: www.nss.org...



==============

1) FIRST EXAMPLE:

This is taken from STS-18 (STS 51G).
During the mission, there was an experiment, when a laser on the ground managed to track and point the shuttle during the orbital flight. The images are taken by one of the payload camera of the shuttle.

Here is the entire sequence, narrated by the astronauts:




What we see, aside from the ground laser, are smaller or bigger internal lens flares, light bouncings between surfaces of the lenses/mirrors/protected glass. Essentially lens flares are distorted and out of focus images of the object which created them (in this example a distant bright point on the ground, the laser). And out of focus images, are at basis , BOKEH, which can have known characteristics, one of them it is the copying the shape of internal lens body or protuberances.

Here is a more slow motion sequence:




And here are two frames:



and





Now, why the notches there at six or seven o'clock? They are signs from internal constructive shape on the lens, (iris mechanism, supports for lens/mirrors etc whatever may be there). And here we talking about NASA shuttle cameras, a payload camera.




==============

but wait for my next example, for the second more conclusive example...

==============





2) SECOND EXAMPLE:

This is taken from STS-6.
During the mission, astronauts are going outside on an EVA. The sequence is filmed, as astronauts themselves said, with the "AFT TV camera" (maybe someone can give details about it).

Here is the entire sequence narrated by the astronauts:





And here is just the slowed down sequence, showing how iris mechanism of the camera is closing down:




What we see...astronauts trying to get outside, and camera focused on them, on the background of the image. But there is some part of the shuttle or it's structures, can't say for sure what, and this structure is closer to the camera, partially blocking the view. And because is closer, much closer that the near limit of the depth of field interval of the lens, it appears very unfocused, very blurred. On the same time, there are some edges, or snags of that closer structure, which reflects loccally the light (i didn't think the sun light, but some artifical light from the illumination system of the shuttle, i guess). Those reflexions are punctual. But beeing very out of focus, BOKEH acts here. (and remember those cameras have catadioptric lens, so that's why the dark center of the bokeh)


And as you see, there are BOKEH WITH NOTCHES, produced BY NASA SHUTTLE CAMERAS from CLOSER and OUT OF FOCUS points of light !


Maybe you want to see them better, here is one frame:




or maybe even better:




More, we see here the cat-eye effect too!


So what we have here?!

A NASA shuttle camera, showing out of focus closer smaller points of light, as BOKEH, with notches and cat-eye effect.

Or maybe they are "critters" standing still wathcing the astronauts?
And then, transforming all together in smaller donuts? No way.


What I argumented here is the principle of smaller, closer, out of focus objects, this time taken by NASA shuttle cameras.


Stay here, as soon this days i will show DIRECT evidence from STS-75 (famous) videos that those "objects" are INDEED CLOSER TO THE CAMERA, so they are OUT OF FOCUS. Therefore, what we see as shapes is just BOKEH (Airy Disc). Just to finish the material.



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by JScytale
 


It is really pathetic that you don't dare to address the logic behind my opinion, which I clearly state, and instead resort to personal attacks.

From my previous post.


This video provided by bloodline is just another example of pure garbage. What is with the color of the sky? Is this from some 1920ties cowboy movie? Clearly the image is created, not a natural artifact of video footage. Not only is it clear that some special effect is being used that creates a filtering effect, it doesn't look like it is moving, and it is not pulsating.


The problem isn't that they are homemade, the problem is that they all use special devices to get the image they want to create, which proves nothing. Let's see something without the special effects, and clear attempts to duplicate the images.

Also, these UFO's flying around the tether do NOT have the same shape. Only some of the images.

Then you make this statement, completely ignoring the links that I have posted here on the thread showing the evidence that Plasma demonstrates life like characteristics.


and no, plasma creatures are not a "reasonable theory". they are a fantasy. there is absolutely zero evidence that would lead a person to that conclusion.


BASED ON WHAT?

There is no such things as plasma?

or

There is no evidence that plasma demonstrates life like characteristic?

Or

Plasma does not exist in space?

Do you have any logic or reason on which you are basing your opinion?

Of course you people absolutely refuse to address the NASA article that destroys your lens anomaly theory.



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 04:46 PM
link   
How can anyone argue with what depthoffield is showing here? Case closed. Now they have the 'critters' inside the shuttle?

Look at the videos!



Well done MAN! WELL DONE! Bravo.



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by depthoffield
 


While the first video is the result of a laser being pointed at the camera, it really doesn't prove anything.

The second video does show four things in the video, along with a smear, that does look like the distorted looking UFOs that appear to be floating around the tether. This is something legitimate that occurred naturally. However, they look to me like tiny water droplets that have frozen on the camera lens. Notice they do not move at all. Water does tend to freeze on surfaces on surfaces in this circular pattern, but not in air, doubtfully in space.

And, this does nothing to explain all the little UFOs that don't look like they are being created by distortion.



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by depthoffield
 




Stay here, as soon this days i will show DIRECT evidence from STS-75 (famous) videos that those "objects" are INDEED CLOSER TO THE CAMERA, so they are OUT OF FOCUS.



how does your examples prove the objects are close to the camera when YOU have posted this video which shows a light far away from the camera and produces the same notched effect ?




you have been posting this video as evidence not me.

does this mean the notched effect can come from an object that is far away from the camera and can also be from an object close to the camera ?













[edit on 3-7-2009 by easynow]



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 06:06 PM
link   
reply to post by easynow
 


To clear things about out of focus objects, an out of focus object will look like, well, an out of focus object regardless of the reason for it to be out of focus.

Explaining it better, an object close to the camera when the camera is focused on a far away object will look the same as a far away object when the camera is focused on an object close to the camera.

Below is a small "amateuristic garbage" with no camera tricks that shows the two LEDs on a small, wind-up flashlight at a distance of some 80cm and the lights of a bridge some 1700 metres away.


(click to open player in new window)


Edited to correct the distance, it was 1700 metres away, it's better not to use decimal points or commas, that way I don't get confused between the American and the Portuguese way.

Sorry for that.

[edit on 4/7/2009 by ArMaP]



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 



thanks for the video ArMaP,


so this means that even though the objects in the STS 75 video could be out of focus,,,, them being blurry does not prove they are close to the camera ?

am i correct ?



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by easynow
 


Yes, if the camera was focused to a close distance, then it would be the far away objects that would look out of focus.

As you can see in my video, while I was changing focus between the bridge and the flashlight, there was a time when both the bridge lights and the LEDs from the flashlight were out of focus.

And that is one of the reasons I think the objects in the STS-75 video are (relatively) close to the camera and out of focus, because the camera is supposed to be focused on the very far away tether.



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


ok thanks, that makes sense but ,

could the objects be, say...five miles from the shuttle and that still happen ?

where is the cut off point ? a few feet ? a few miles ? 10 miles ?




assuming this anonymous video...

www.youtube.com...

is legitimate and has not been tampered with...

that looks to be a far away object and yet it is out of focus also.






[edit on 3-7-2009 by easynow]



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 06:41 PM
link   
reply to post by easynow
 


I think that, once more, it depends on the lens.

For example, I was not expecting that the camera I used (a Canon MV730i) could show the small flashlight so close to the camera almost focused while having its zoom set at something like 20x.

Although the principles behind it are very simple, lens construction is a complex thing.

Photography is a very interesting subject, and being almost 190 years old it is known to a great extent by several people, you might even know some amateur photographer that could explain these things better than me.



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
assuming this anonymous video...

www.youtube.com...

is legitimate and has not been tampered with...

that looks to be a far away object and yet it is out of focus also.

Yes, it looks like an out of focus light (or bright object) far away, because the camera was focused for a close distance, as we can see at the beginning, and it does not look like there was a change of focus, only the zoom, exactly the opposite of what I did in my video, in which I changed the focus while keeping the zoom constant.



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 



I think that, once more, it depends on the lens.


thanks, i believe i remember in some of the other STS75 threads this was the point where nobody could determine anything conclusive because everyone did not know what type of lens was used on that camera on that mission ?

i personally do not think the objects are very close to the camera because of the way they eventually become or look out of focus halfway into the Zoom............... i could be wrong

thanks again for your help



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
thanks, i believe i remember in some of the other STS75 threads this was the point where nobody could determine anything conclusive because everyone did not know what type of lens was used on that camera on that mission ?

Yes, I remember that discussion also, too bad this quest for the camera data has been so difficult.


thanks again for your help

No problem.


 

Edit: here is another video in which I do not change the focus, only the zoom, and you can see that while the camera was focused on the house across the street (maybe some 15 metres away), zooming in on the bridge lights 1700 metres away show that they are out of focus.

It is also interesting that the digital zoom changes the out of focus looks of the lights when it enters into action, digital zoom just resizes the image inside the camera, and apparently it does not like diffuse objects.


(click to open player in new window)


[edit on 3/7/2009 by ArMaP]
 

Edited to correct the distance, it was 1700 metres away, it's better not to use decimal points or commas, that way I don't get confused between the American and the Portuguese way.

Sorry for that.

[edit on 4/7/2009 by ArMaP]



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 07:42 PM
link   
reply to post by depthoffield
 

That is well put together.

It covers the issue off very nicely.



new topics

top topics



 
77
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join