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: 37
77
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by depthoffield







how can you even argue against this?
the evidence against the UFO hypothesis is overwhelming. I have yet to see convincing evidence presented for their side of the argument.




posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 07:52 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


thanks, another interesting video


was that on Maximum Zoom when you focused on the objects 1700 meters away ?


the first video you posted showing the objects can appear out of focus when zoomed either way is very good but you can tell when you zoom on the farther away objects, the objects close to the camera ...are close to the camera
even though they become somewhat clearer.


this screen capture is when the camera is zoomed in on the tether and this object i have circled in green and showed the direction with arrows, is not, in my opinion out of focus and not close to the camera.





again....this one also does not in my opinion appear to be out of focus. the one circled in blue might be somewhat out of focus because (maybe) it is closer to the shuttle.




you never get to see that one circled in green cross the tether because they cut off the video just before it gets there



hmmm.. wonder why ?


disclaimer: i am not saying the objects i have circled are critters or alien spacecraft. just using those as examples of depth of field.
















[edit on 3-7-2009 by easynow]



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 09:40 PM
link   
Why oh why can't they use search?

Absolute, undeniable, indisuptable proof of UFOs
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Gotta love the title eh?

But there is one good post there I just had to quote and I hope he will pop in here



Originally posted by skiered
Just my 2 cents....
As an aerospace and mechanical engineer with a degree in physics....

Basic Newtonian Law..."An object in motion tends to stay in motion", I.E.,
" Unless an known force is acted upon an object to deflect it's path, I.E.,
being hit or gravitational forces, It will forever travel a straight line". Einstein calculated the curvature of space and stated "If you threw a ball in space, in and in infinite time it will come back to the exact place it was thrown from".

That being silly in this case and because none of the objects intersect on any level, all the objects should only ever travel perfect straight lines. PERIOD!

I have analyzed the raw video an also added the trails of the objects just like the last video did.

Conclusion:
The objects in the last video that absolutely have direction change ARE controlled objects. No object that is uncontrolled can ever create an arc shaped turn without guidance. This is against the laws of physics. Especially turning exactly 160 degrees like 2 of the objects clearly did with proof in the video. If an object in space is deflected by another object it will sharply change direction and travel in another straight line. These objects on the other hand are not big enough to be influenced by earths gravity from the abrupt direction changes. REMEMBER FOLKS, everything at that altitude is traveling at just under escape velocity. Any change in direction could not be noticed by the human eye. Gravitational forces would bring them into an ever degrading orbit until atmospheric entry unless the approach angle is greater than the tangent angle of orbit by more that about 10 degrees.
Some of the objects are definitely meteorites and the earth recieves about 14 tons of stellar dirt in one day but these are clearly on a direct path into the atmosphere passing in a straight line like a bullet.

The shuttle can:

Alter it's forward course

Change altitude in it's forward course

Roll over in it's forward course.

Turn 180 degrees in rotation in it's forward course. (travel backwards)

Or any combination in it's forward course.

The shuttle or OUR technology could never reverse direction of orbit without catastrophic consequences. PERIOD.

Just my 2 cents as someone who knows something......



Ah yes the voice of a reasoned expert... gotta love it




[edit on 3-7-2009 by zorgon]



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 10:16 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 

Fine and dandy. And wrong.

Remember this little video of a water dump? Quite a bit of curving going on here. Oh, they aren't "reversing" their orbit either. They are changing their trajectory relative to the shuttle. It would be pretty difficult to reverse 18,000 mph. Not so difficult to reverse a few fps.
Water dump

[edit on 7/3/2009 by Phage]



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 10:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage


Well I shall wait and see if he returns to play. You can save the baseball bat for him. After all its his first post so go easy on him


At least he is addressing the OP the Motion



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 10:36 PM
link   
In that other thread STS-75 thread mentioned by Zorgon, Lazy Ninja posted that UFO Hunters' video that looks into the tether video & explains:
- The bokeh effect
- How an object that is closer to the camera can appear to pass behind an object that is further away from the camera

www.youtube.com...

Have a look at about 6 minutes to 8 minutes of the video. The explanations are easy to follow.

[edit on 3-7-2009 by Sam60]



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 10:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 

I recall a clear explanation of the pulsating of "Zorgon's" object being caused by a video effect. The explanation described how the pulsating & the moving concentric rings moving from the inner to outer parts of the "object" were caused by the video scan lines combined with the bokeh effect distorting a reflective, irregularly shaped object.

I am of the impression I am recalling one of your explanations from another STS-75 thread. Does that sound like your work?



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 10:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Sam60
 


Nice video. The evidence mounts!

[edit on 3-7-2009 by bloodline]



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 10:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Sam60
 


It sounds more like DepthofField. He's a killer on technical detail.


[edit on 7/3/2009 by Phage]



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 11:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 

I'm certain it was someone else's work in a thread that was running well before we first saw DOF.

Anyway, I've mentioned it a few times now so perhaps somebody will notice it & be able to offer more information.

If I manage to find the explanation in the thousand's of posts out there about ATS-75, I'll link to it.

Perhaps DOF might even offer a comment, if he knows about the video aspects of the appearance of the object.



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by skiered
Just my 2 cents....
As an aerospace and mechanical engineer with a degree in physics....

Basic Newtonian Law..."An object in motion tends to stay in motion", I.E.,
" Unless an known force is acted upon an object to deflect it's path, I.E.,
being hit or gravitational forces, It will forever travel a straight line". Einstein calculated the curvature of space and stated "If you threw a ball in space, in and in infinite time it will come back to the exact place it was thrown from".

That being silly in this case and because none of the objects intersect on any level, all the objects should only ever travel perfect straight lines. PERIOD!

I have analyzed the raw video an also added the trails of the objects just like the last video did.

Conclusion:
The objects in the last video that absolutely have direction change ARE controlled objects. No object that is uncontrolled can ever create an arc shaped turn without guidance. This is against the laws of physics. Especially turning exactly 160 degrees like 2 of the objects clearly did with proof in the video. If an object in space is deflected by another object it will sharply change direction and travel in another straight line. These objects on the other hand are not big enough to be influenced by earths gravity from the abrupt direction changes. REMEMBER FOLKS, everything at that altitude is traveling at just under escape velocity. Any change in direction could not be noticed by the human eye. Gravitational forces would bring them into an ever degrading orbit until atmospheric entry unless the approach angle is greater than the tangent angle of orbit by more that about 10 degrees.
Some of the objects are definitely meteorites and the earth recieves about 14 tons of stellar dirt in one day but these are clearly on a direct path into the atmosphere passing in a straight line like a bullet.

The shuttle can:

Alter it's forward course

Change altitude in it's forward course

Roll over in it's forward course.

Turn 180 degrees in rotation in it's forward course. (travel backwards)

Or any combination in it's forward course.

The shuttle or OUR technology could never reverse direction of orbit without catastrophic consequences. PERIOD.

Just my 2 cents as someone who knows something......




claiming to be an expert does not make you an expert. he is either a liar or a terrible engineer to claim that:


That being silly in this case and because none of the objects intersect on any level, all the objects should only ever travel perfect straight lines. PERIOD!

I have analyzed the raw video an also added the trails of the objects just like the last video did.

Conclusion:
The objects in the last video that absolutely have direction change ARE controlled objects. No object that is uncontrolled can ever create an arc shaped turn without guidance. This is against the laws of physics.


either he is operating under the assumption that this took place significantly farther away from the earth than the moon is (lol) or he has no idea what he is talking about.



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 11:27 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by skiered
PHAGE.
Some basic 4th year physics and 3rd grade math need to be learned.
Phage... please finish 9th grade before you say you know anything.
I have already forgotten more than YOU will ever know in life!
Try to finish school if you can


what are you even addressing with your pointless post?
so far the most ignoring of basic physics i have seen came from zorgon.

[edit on 3-7-2009 by JScytale]



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 11:32 PM
link   
reply to post by skiered
 


Okey dokey.



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 11:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by skiered
PHAGE.
Some basic 4th year physics and 3rd grade math need to be learned.
Phage... please finish 9th grade before you say you know anything.
I have already forgotten more than YOU will ever know in life!
Try to finish school if you can




Funniest post ever.



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 11:38 PM
link   
reply to post by JScytale
 



You OBVIOUSLY work in a McDonalds, I make over 250,000 a year working in the aerospace industry, namely on the design of the F-22.
I have seen stuff you won't hear about for 20 years in aerospace. But when you do...it will be 20 year old tech. Good luck with the burger gig..


[edit on 3-7-2009 by skiered]



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 11:40 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


Nice catch!



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 11:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by skiered
reply to post by JScytale
 



You OBVIOUSLY work in a McDonalds, I make over 250,000 a year working in the aerospace industry, namely on the design of the F-22.
I have seen stuff you won't hear about for 20 years in aerospace. But when you do...it will be 20 year old tech. Good luck with the burger gig..


[edit on 3-7-2009 by skiered]


prove it, because if you had even a high school education in physics you would understand the principles i described earlier in this thread. and you aren't working on the design of the F-22, because not only is that a finished product, but extra orders were canceled in the last military budget review.

you are yet another example of a person claiming to be an expert but showing no understanding of the field in question. either the world is full of retards or you are a liar. i think the latter is far more likely.

in order to claim that objects will move in a straight line for all eternity before falling into buzzwords like curvature of space, and use it as an example of self-propulsion or external forces in the STS-75 footage, you would need to have a severe misunderstanding of how gravity behaves. every single object inside the earth's noticeable gravitational well (its technically infinite, but the forces are only noteworthy for a finite distance) is being affected by the earth's gravity and is accelerating at a constant (mostly) rate towards the earth's center of mass. this means everything is curving towards the earth regardless of its direction of motion, period. even objects traveling well beyond escape velocity in a straight line away from the earth are "curving" back by decelerating.

because of this, everything traveling in a "straight" line in the earth's gravitational field will be traveling in a parabolic arc in reality. it may be too small to notice (like the curvature of the earth) if the speed is high enough, but *everything* behaves in this way. depending on the speeds involved and the angle with which you are viewing an object moving away from the earth and falling back down, it's trajectory can appear as anything from a classic arc, to a sharp U turn (near head on to direction of horizontal movement), to a straight line slowing down, stopping, and reversing 180 degrees (head on to horizontal direction of movement).

this took place in low-earth-orbit i assume, which is where the shuttle almost always operates - but there may be special circumstances. I'm not sure. The shuttle usually operates in the 100km-200km altitude range. Gravity is only 4-6% weaker there than on the earth's surface, not 100% weaker.


These objects on the other hand are not big enough to be influenced by earths gravity from the abrupt direction changes.

i imagine you believe a bowling ball falls faster than a feather in a vacuum? aerospace engineer my ass, you moron.

[edit on 4-7-2009 by JScytale]



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 12:06 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 12:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by skiered
reply to post by JScytale
 

Jscytale
You need to finish school also. My guess is you are about 13 and spend way too many hours on the net. My guess is you will never graduate anything. BurgerKing for you!

If I am wrong..Join me at MENSA,org...



i'm actually 23 and attending college. nice try though? please display an ounce of scientific knowledge before i am supposed to believe a word you say with your poor grammar, ad hominem arguments, and ridiculous claims.



new topics

top topics



 
77
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join