New Analysis Video of the STS-75 Tether Incident

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by JScytale
movement is a separate matter.

You are wrong.

You want it to be separate matter - but it is not.

Bokeh artifacts all move simultaneously at exactly the same rate and remain in a fixed position relative to each other - this is clearly not the case with the STS-75 objects that are the subject of our analysis on this thread. The objects in the animation from my last post are not 'bokeh'.

Anyone who continues to use the bokeh hypothesis to account for these objects is being deceptive.

bokeh artifacts move exactly how the object creating them moves. this is not lens flare.

en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 5-7-2009 by JScytale]

Originally posted by JScytale

bokeh artifacts move exactly how the object creating them moves.

Indeed.

Do believe that the objects in this animation can be accounted for by the 'bokeh hypothesis'?

Originally posted by Exuberant1
Indeed.

Do believe that the objects in this animation can be accounted for by the 'bokeh hypothesis'?

are you reading?

[edit on 5-7-2009 by JScytale]

Originally posted by JScytale
my point with all this is that "confidential" and "sensitive" are exceedingly mundane terms. its a significantly lower level of secrecy than the freaking coca cola formula.
[edit on 4-7-2009 by JScytale]

Indeed. A documentary I recently viewed stated that there are at least 47 levels of secrecy above top secret. The highest among them being "Cosmic Clearance" which apparently fewer than 20 people in the world have. It also stated that the POTUS isn't allow clearance above something above 10 levels over Top Secret. It was stated that Harry Truman didn't even know about the Manhattan Project until after they had begun above ground testing.



[edit on 5-7-2009 by Raybo58]

Originally posted by JScytale

Originally posted by Exuberant1
Indeed.

Do believe that the objects in this animation can be accounted for by the 'bokeh hypothesis'?

are you reading?

[edit on 5-7-2009 by JScytale]

Please answer the question.

It is in the quote at the top of this post if you need to read it again.

reply to post by Exuberant1

Honestly Exubie, you've got that WAY wrong.

JScytale is correct. If the object moves, the object moves, whether it is distorted into a bokeh effect or not.

Surely you are only arguing in this way, in order to extend the debate?

Originally posted by Sam60
If the object moves, the object moves, whether it is distorted into a bokeh effect or not.

Note the differing direction on the notches and different direction of travel. Their shapes are similar but not the same;






In this earlier analysis, the objects were shown to just 'pop' into the frame and begin moving in multiple directions relative to each other. These things posses unique properties.

Perhaps their density is so minimized that they are relatively invisible until; they begin emitting light in an observable portion of the spectrum:




[edit on 5-7-2009 by Exuberant1]

Originally posted by Exuberant1
Note the differing direction on the notches and different direction of travel. Their shapes are similar but not the same;

why are you arguing in circles and not making points? surely you're just trying to distract people, or doing it for giggles? I really hope this isn't your brain going full steam ahead!

Originally posted by depthoffield

reply to post by Exuberant1

Come on... you know the answers to this.

The position of the notch & the shape of the bokeh (or airy disk) is contingent on the position of the object within the picture.

The circular lines are a function of the video scan lines being distorted.

The pulsing is caused by the brightness of the object changing because it is an irregularly shaped, rotating object.

What more can I say?


[edit on 5-7-2009 by Sam60]

[edit on 5-7-2009 by Sam60]

Originally posted by Sam60
reply to post by Exuberant1

 

Come on... you know the answers to this.

The position of the notch & the shape of the bokeh (or airy disk) is contingent on the position of the object within the picture.

The circular lines are a function of the video scan lines being distorted.

The pulsing is caused by the brightness of the object changing because it is an irregularly shaped, rotating object.

What more can I say?

not much, and i doubt this will help. not only have all the above points been mentioned before in extreme detail, but they have been quoted and brought up again and again in the past when exhuberant and the likes seem to intentionally forget they were ever mentioned, or state "that got disproven" when no sort of thing happened because in every case, it was jumped over and omitted from their replies.

Originally posted by Exuberant1
Do believe that the objects in this animation can be accounted for by the 'bokeh hypothesis'?

Before I answer this question you need to answer to me why you believe that the way an object looks due to the camera used and the focus has anything at all to do with its motion. Then maybe you can understand why this question is not only a bad one, but one that offers insight to your mind and it doesn't look pretty.

the bokeh hypothesis is rather simple. it states that the "critter" objects look the way they do because of optical phenomenon clearly illustrated in dozens of videos, links, explanations, etc.

they are small and out of focus, and thus probably rather close to the camera.

now, lets use a hypothetical model. regardless of whether or not bokeh is present in the STS 75 footage, it exists. Lets imagine a small object near a camera and out fo focus so it displays bokeh. if you move this object in circles, the bokey does exactly that. if you zig zag it, the bokeh does exactly that. the only thing influenced is the way the object looks.

now, people use the almost certain fact that bokeh is responsible for these objects' appearances to deduce that they are likely much closer than they appear to be. this would imply they are much smaller than a lot of claims. this limits what they could potentially be.

reply to post by JScytale

You know...

Several pages ago I said that I couldn't understand how people like Exubie, etc... can just dismiss such oft-stated & compelling evidence, when they appear to be very intelligent & have the ability to analyse, discuss & debate complex issues.

I got blasted for that comment!

But that's what they do. They ignore all of it.

Oh well... maybe it's more about debating & arguing than it is about arriving at the correct conclusions.

For them, it's not the destination that counts, its the journey!

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by Lazyninja

 

Don't tell me, you are relying on information from a video where they use a toy to fake the image in the tether incident? Oh, real solid evidence.

So where is your evidence of this?

Cameras and telescopes use light baffles to get clear images (or at least attempt to) They are not toys, or figments of the imagination, nor are they something that ufo hunters made up a joke.

Movable partition used in broadcast and film that is constructed of materials that absorb sound and light. A baffle will prevent reverberation of sound and undesirable light reflection.

I can say that this thing has definitely baffled a few people here :/ It is the single object responsible for explaining the entire tether incident, yet people are arguing semantics over and over, because they are unable to change their opinion about a perceived truth.

[edit on 5-7-2009 by Lazyninja]

reply to post by JScytale


Where are these forty plus pages of high quality evidence that supports your theories? They certainly aren't on this thread. Once again, those videos you refer to are mostly pure garbage, and you don't have a clue how to tell the difference.

You can't even state what a theory is, and yet you claim that you understand science? What a joke.

Once again, what is the standard for determining instrumentation accuracy? If you don't know, just admit it, and get it over with, because it is important to this discussion.

I have provided a link that give scientific evidence that plasma life forms exist, a couple of times now that you continue to ignore, just like you ignore all the other evidence that proves you wrong, like the NASA study.

Here is more evidence, there is quite a bit of evidence to support this theory that plasma life forms exist.

www.newscientist.com...

Could alien life exist in the form of dancing specks of dust? According to a new simulation, electrically charged dust can organise itself into DNA-like double helixes that behave in many ways like living organisms, reproducing and passing on information to one another.

www.indiadaily.com...

It’s a mystery star - bloated but strangely cold. The researchers from the Max-Planck Institute for Radio Astronomy are using the Europe's Very Large Telescope to observe it unfold in front their own eyes.

Some scientists now say it is dominated by strange extraterrestrial life forms. Star based life forms are theoretically impossible. But this star is cold and perfect for ion-based life forms.

Plasma physics confirms the possibility of the existence of these ion-based life forms in stars. The life forms are intelligent and slightly more advanced than that of ours.

www.dapla.org...

Bohm, a leading expert in twentieth century plasma physics, observed in amazement that once electrons were in plasma, they stopped behaving like individuals and started behaving as if they were a part of a larger and interconnected whole. Although the individual movements of each electron appeared to be random, vast numbers of electrons were able to produce collective effects that were surprisingly well organized and appeared to behave like a life form. The plasma constantly regenerated itself and enclosed impurities in a wall in the same way that a biological organism, like the unicellular amoeba, might encase a foreign substance in a cyst. So amazed was Bohm by these life-like qualities that he later remarked that he frequently had the impression that the electron sea was "alive" and that plasma possessed some of the traits of living things. The debate on the existence of plasma-based life forms has been going on for more than 20 years ever since some models showed that plasma can mimic the functions of a primitive cell.

Plasma cosmologist, Donald Scott, notes that "...a [plasma] double layer can act much like a membrane that divides a biological cell". A model of plasma double layers (a structure commonly found in complex plasmas) has been used to investigate ion transport across biological cell membranes by researchers (See American Journal of Physics, May 2000, Volume 68, Issue 5, pp. 450-455). Researchers noted that "Concepts like charge neutrality, Debye length, and double layer [used in plasma physics] are very useful to explain the electrical properties of a cellular membrane".

Plasma physicist Hannes Alfvén also noted the association of double layers with cellular structure, as had Irving Langmuir before him, who coined the term "plasma" after its resemblance to living blood cells.

David Brin's Sundiver also speculated on plasma life forms. This science fiction proposed a form of life existing within the plasma atmosphere of a star using complex self-sustaining magnetic fields. Similar types of plasmoid life have been proposed to exist in other places, such as planetary ionospheres or interstellar space. Gregory Benford had a form of plasma-based life exist in the accretion disk of a primordial black hole in his novel Eater.

One more, I don't want to post too many quotes.

www.plasmacosmology.net...

Magnetic forces are of little importance in our everyday lives and require a sensitive instrument like a compass needle to be detected. This is because most of the materials we encounter, from the ground we walk on to the air we breathe, are electrically neutral.

At 60 miles or more above the surface of the Earth, however, the situation is very different. The fringes of the atmosphere at these heights are dominated by plasmas which react with the earths magnetic field, steering and trapping the energised particles.

The intense activity in these regions is sometimes described as one of the first surprises of the space age, and the sheer scale of the magnetospheres of other planets has also taken many by surprise, consistent though they are with Plasma models.

reply to post by Lazyninja


Camera lens filters are typically used specifically to create distortion for special effects. Why in the world would NASA be using such filters in typical operations? This is a ludicrous theory.

But hey, do you have any proof that such a lens filter is used on NASA cameras?

If lens filters were being used regularly, you would think there would be a NASA study on their effects, and the reasons for using them. There is no mention of them in the NASA study on objects observed in cameras recording space events that we have a link to, so no reason to believe they are being used.

Originally posted by poet1b
You can't even state what a theory is, and yet you claim that you understand science? What a joke.

Once again, what is the standard for determining instrumentation accuracy? If you don't know, just admit it, and get it over with, because it is important to this discussion.

Where did I display misconceptions on what a theory is? read over my replies. And regarding how we determine accuracy in science - clarify. Are you asking for accuracy of a method or instrument, or precision? If you're asking for accuracy, are you asking how we represent it? You mean true positives plus true negatives over all results?

I have provided a link that give scientific evidence that plasma life forms exist, a couple of times now that you continue to ignore, just like you ignore all the other evidence that proves you wrong, like the NASA study.

I don't see how the possibility of plasma life existing proves me wrong. The possibility of it existing hardly proves that it *does* exist, that it exists in low earth orbit, and that it exists in this footage.

www.newscientist.com...

That was a good, interesting read.

www.indiadaily.com...

I was almost laughing at this article. It is chock full of baseless conclusions, speculation, and has all of zero sources cited.

www.dapla.org...

Not only is this an article written by a man who already believes plasma life forms exist without a shadow of a doubt, but it is completely filled to the brim with information taken out of context and assumptions. Its like listening to Sereda.

www.plasmacosmology.net...

does absolutely nothing to support your argument. why link this? anyone with an interest in the subject should already know about everything on this page at least in passing.

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by Lazyninja

 

Camera lens filters are typically used specifically to create distortion for special effects. Why in the world would NASA be using such filters in typical operations? This is a ludicrous theory.

But hey, do you have any proof that such a lens filter is used on NASA cameras?

If lens filters were being used regularly, you would think there would be a NASA study on their effects, and the reasons for using them. There is no mention of them in the NASA study on objects observed in cameras recording space events that we have a link to, so no reason to believe they are being used.

cameras used in space for scientific purposes don't just have filters on them, they tend to have a myriad of filters that can be interchanged manually or automatically. The reasons for this is it is ideal to be able to see in specific electromagnetic ranges, and not all at once, to study something in detail. Even just to film visible light when not in the earth's shadow, you need a filter or the image would be horrendously overexposed. Much like space suits need one-way reflective surfaces on their visors to filter solar radiation.

just an example of a camera used in space:
www2.jpl.nasa.gov...
this is one of galileo's cameras. older tech. it uses 8 filters.

not to mention he specifically refers to a light baffle. here is an example of one.
www.patentstorm.us...
notice what they are used for?

[edit on 5-7-2009 by JScytale]

reply to post by Sam60


I have addressed these videos and provided my reasons for dismissing them, which the people who post them completely ignore. It is a joke how poorly your side supports your theories, grossly exaggerating their credibility.

All the while you completely ignore the evidence that has far more credibility. The evidence has been provided that has essentially shown that the lens distortion/anomaly/filter effects theories, that you continue to change to fit your argument as your evidence is destroyed, are completely without merit, and yet you continue on, ignoring the evidence that proves you wrong. Originally they were small ice crystals or meteorites within meter of the camera lens. Once we had a NASA article that clearly stated this was not the case, you re-inventing your theories. Talk about refusal to face the facts.

reply to post by JScytale




Gawd that is funny. You provide a link to a very special camera used on a deep space probe and try to claim that it is typical.

Then you provide a link to a patent claim for a device filed AFTER the tether video was taken.



Sorry, had to say it.

Originally posted by poet1b
Gawd that is funny. You provide a link to a very special camera used on a deep space probe and try to claim that it is typical.

Then you provide a link to a patent claim for a device filed AFTER the tether video was taken.

Sorry, had to say it.

this is the selective reading i'm talkign about.
did i state that was the same baffle used? no, i clearly stated "here's an example of a light baffle" because I found a very clear one. All baffles have the same purpose.

Again, the galileo camera is an example. When you are studying objects in space, you rarely if ever take pictures in the visible light spectrum. In fact, almost every single NASA photograph is a false-color image to make it easier to understand.

example of venus studied using non-visible light as the medium.

visible light is very limited in value when you want data and not pretty pictures to hang up on a wall.

[edit on 5-7-2009 by JScytale]